Bring It On!

The MSM, AWOL: Reason # 2,347

August 5th, 2008 | by Jet Netwal |

Isn’t the problem — well, one of the many, many problems — with our awful president the fact that he never changes his mind about anything no matter how strong the evidence? Isn’t one of the problems with the new John McCain the fact that he keeps changing his mind over and over without explaining the reason or even admitting the change? Obama is changing and offering his reasoning. That means it can be judged on the quality of his judgment. Well? Or is substance so irrelevant to our MSM’s coverage that they can’t even be bothered to notice when a candidate makes an actual argument about solving what is, for many Americans, the single biggest problem they face? - Altercation

Dr. Alterman is right, of course. But the real perpetrator here is the profit margin. Nobody in this country, well damn few anyways, can achieve the journalistic ideal. The prostitutionalization of the industry is nearly complete. It’s nice to remember what used to pass for standard. It’s a whole other kettle of fish to think about what’s to come.

I read a comment on a blog today that the Republican message is fear, and that the Obama message is courage. I agree. We need to muster the courage to face, discuss, and act on change, the courage to embrace rational thinking over emotional messaging and the courage to be visionary rather than reactionary. Not just at the top, at street level.

To do that, we need to stop listening to profit based opinions previously cleared by some high level doofus. Hard questions need to be asked, and we have the technology available to make them loud.

The question is, do we have the courage?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 7 Responses to “The MSM, AWOL: Reason # 2,347”

  2. By Cranky Liberal on Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

    Said beautifully. There is a difference between making a concession to achieve most of what you want and making a concession to pander to the voters (or the money). It’s called leadership. It’s the way we USED to do things in this country until Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay etc decided they didn’t need to work with the opposition.

    Big fat fucking liar Senator John McCain has switched more positions that a hooker in Vegas during the Super Bowl without offering any explanation. Obama changes his mind, and for better or worse it always seems to come as part of a compromise or new information. I do not like some of his changes (FISA) but at least he talks about them candidly.

  3. By manapp99 on Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

    So when Obama said he would get us out of NAFTA then said some things are said in the heat of the campaign and he didn’t really mean it you believed that this was making a concession and not pandering to the left to get the nomination then turning on a dime to get the center?

    Obama may not be big or fat but he sure is a fucking liar.

  4. By Jet Netwal on Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

    Impartial link, please.

  5. By manapp99 on Aug 7, 2008 | Reply

    Jet here you go:

    “For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama’s sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee “candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign” but reassured Rioux that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Three weeks later, Canada’s CTV News reported that a “senior member” of Obama’s campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to “not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/

    “Last week, both Obama and his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, threatened to pull the United States out of the 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico unless it’s renegotiated.

    CTV reported last week that an Obama aide told Canadian officials he wasn’t serious considering disrupting the continental trade deal.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/03/obama-canada.html?ref=rss

    “In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

    “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

    Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.”

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815

    In other words, politicians are always guilty of lying, and Obama doesn’t exempt himself.

    Change you can believe in? No we can’t.

  6. By manapp99 on Aug 7, 2008 | Reply

    Jet here you go:

    “For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama’s sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee “candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign” but reassured Rioux that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Three weeks later, Canada’s CTV News reported that a “senior member” of Obama’s campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to “not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/

  7. By manapp99 on Aug 7, 2008 | Reply

    “In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

    “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

    Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.”

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815

  8. By manapp99 on Aug 7, 2008 | Reply

    “In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

    “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

    Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.”

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815

    In other words, politicians are always guilty of lying, and Obama doesn’t exempt himself.

    Change you can believe in? No we can’t.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel