Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

Alex · 03-28-2006, 01:43 PM

Apparently not because you keep saying "such and such a story is being ignored by the news" and they are almost all stories that I have seen covered on the news.

I saw the Sandra Day O'Connor quotes on Fox News, CNN, The News Hour and in both the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. So I don't know what you require that this have been covered in the news. I only mentioned Fox News because if there was any media outlet that would have most stereotypically ignored the story about Sandra Day O'Connor's comments it would have been that.

The very reasons for why you don't consider Fox News to be credible is the reason that even them talking about it shows that this story was covered.

Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.

Gemini Cricket · 03-28-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.

Calling Bush's Administration the beginnings of a dictatorship warrants the level of 'Cheney shooting someone in the face' coverage.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 02:19 PM

Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this."

You find people who think the Bush administration can do no wrong make you angry. I almost find people who think the Bush administration is actively seeking to do evil make me angry. Instead they just make me giggle a little bit.

wendybeth · 03-28-2006, 02:46 PM

I think they are ignorantly doing evil and that makes me angry. Actively pursuing evil implies at least some sort of intelligent thought application, whereas ignorance is indefensible.

I often search out Faux News just to see if and how they treat a story. Sometimes, they surprise me with a relatively balanced item. It annoys the hell out of me when CNN and MSNBC put obvious spins on a story. I think to get the best picture you have to seek out all possible news sources (within reason- I won't go near Al Jazeera or any extreme right outlets) and sort out the chafe as best you can.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 02:53 PM

Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with.

Scott Adams (yes the Dilbert guy; he has an interesting blog) said recently that he thinks President Bush is probably smarter than 90% of the population but that most politicians are smarter than 99% and so the difference is striking.

I don't buy the idea that Bush is stupid. I do buy into the idea that he isn't as smart as we should expect.

wendybeth · 03-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Al Jazeera is perceived as a mouthpiece for the Islamic extremists and as such everything they put out is tainted by that perception. It's an accurate perception, imho.

Gemini Cricket · 03-28-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with.

In the documentary 'The Control Room' Al Jazeera said the pulling down of the Saddam statue was staged and the participants weren't even from the area. They were shipped in. The press did not cover that aspect of the whole incident enough for me when you compare it to the repeated footage of the statue coming down on CNN, MSNBC, Fox...

Gemini Cricket · 03-28-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this."

Oh, so I didn't make myself crystal clear so therefore what I'm actually trying to say can be tossed out the window. I'm talking about the press giving Bush and friends a free ride and you want to discuss what kind of car they rode in.

I'm thinking one can giggle if they don't understand how angry someone else feels. I say if you're giggling then you're not paying attention.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 03:17 PM

If not being clear means saying something that was not true, then yes, you were unclear.

Personally, I don't find O'Cononr's statements all that interesting. You can find dozens of complaints every day that if X continues to it logical conclusion than totalitarianism is the result. I agree that politicalization of judicial opinion is wrong but I also don't think the gestapo is in our future.

I agree that Bush has made poor policy decisions. But I also think he has made some good ones. I don't think he is seeking to turn our government into a religious dictatorship.

If you want to see evil in everything he does, then fine. We can disagree. But if I giggle it is not because I am not paying attention as I find the histrionics silly.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 03:19 PM

Yes, Al Jazeera is not objective. I just don't think that is reason to discount it entirely.

As opposed to the idea that non-objective sources should only be discarded when you disagree with them.

03-28-2006, 01:43 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Apparently not because you keep saying "such and such a story is being ignored by the news" and they are almost all stories that I have seen covered on the news. I saw the Sandra Day O'Connor quotes on Fox News, CNN, The News Hour and in both the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. So I don't know what you require that this have been covered in the news. I only mentioned Fox News because if there was any media outlet that would have most stereotypically ignored the story about Sandra Day O'Connor's comments it would have been that. The very reasons for why you don't consider Fox News to be credible is the reason that even them talking about it shows that this story was covered. Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 02:19 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this." You find people who think the Bush administration can do no wrong make you angry. I almost find people who think the Bush administration is actively seeking to do evil make me angry. Instead they just make me giggle a little bit.
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 02:46 PM	#4
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I think they are ignorantly doing evil and that makes me angry. Actively pursuing evil implies at least some sort of intelligent thought application, whereas ignorance is indefensible. I often search out Faux News just to see if and how they treat a story. Sometimes, they surprise me with a relatively balanced item. It annoys the hell out of me when CNN and MSNBC put obvious spins on a story. I think to get the best picture you have to seek out all possible news sources (within reason- I won't go near Al Jazeera or any extreme right outlets) and sort out the chafe as best you can. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 02:53 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with. Scott Adams (yes the Dilbert guy; he has an interesting blog) said recently that he thinks President Bush is probably smarter than 90% of the population but that most politicians are smarter than 99% and so the difference is striking. I don't buy the idea that Bush is stupid. I do buy into the idea that he isn't as smart as we should expect.
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 03:05 PM	#6
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Al Jazeera is perceived as a mouthpiece for the Islamic extremists and as such everything they put out is tainted by that perception. It's an accurate perception, imho. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 03:17 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If not being clear means saying something that was not true, then yes, you were unclear. Personally, I don't find O'Cononr's statements all that interesting. You can find dozens of complaints every day that if X continues to it logical conclusion than totalitarianism is the result. I agree that politicalization of judicial opinion is wrong but I also don't think the gestapo is in our future. I agree that Bush has made poor policy decisions. But I also think he has made some good ones. I don't think he is seeking to turn our government into a religious dictatorship. If you want to see evil in everything he does, then fine. We can disagree. But if I giggle it is not because I am not paying attention as I find the histrionics silly.
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 03:19 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, Al Jazeera is not objective. I just don't think that is reason to discount it entirely. As opposed to the idea that non-objective sources should only be discarded when you disagree with them.
	Submit to Quotes