Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SilverMark
I watch both Georgie "the Boy Wonder" Stephanopolus and Brokaw(soon to be replaced) and for the most part they don't agitate too many guests. Always thought a little Mike Wallace "Gotcha' journalism" as it is now called, would be good but, rarely see much challenge in the interviews. When you do see it, it seems it is only from agenda based shows like O'Rielly or Matthews and then whoever it is they go after complains about the left or right biased media. I couldn't imagine many pols wanting to be on Meet the Press if they knew someone was going to challenge them much unless it was someone who relished the confrontation and Lord knows there aren't that many pols willing to take the chance.
You want the future of Network news? Look no further than these two stories: quote:
NEW YORK (AP) - Media conglomerate Tribune Co. filed for bankruptcy protection Monday, as the owner of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Cubs and other properties tries to deal with $13 billion in debt Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94UNNQG3&show_article=1
quote:
The New York Times Company plans to borrow up to $225 million against its mid-Manhattan headquarters building, to ease a potential cash flow squeeze as the company grapples with tighter credit and shrinking profits. Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/08/business/08times.php
Beside the obvious 'Air America' liberal bias of the news reported from these entities; the other thing in common with these soon to be failures, is that they have disenfranchised themselves from their audience. They aren't reporting the news they are creating news and putting it though a lens which produces an opinion in line with their agenda. They've been caught too many times and now there is little difference in the Times, Tribune, and the National Enquirer. In many situations, I'd trust the Enquirer before the other two.
In an era where 'yellow journalism' can't be forced down the throats of readership due to too many neutral or equally 'right' biased sources. Of course, you can go with the conspiracy theory and say that the the Times and Tribune are only trying to reserve their spot in the government handout for failure entitlement line.
PA Hunk said it best, the news has become entertainment. Pity - when in these times we need the hard questions asked by a modern day Edward R. Murrow.
Consider the attention given to Brokaw and his "tough questions" for the PE. PE Obama answered one comparing the economy in need for a transfusion; nice analogy. Am I more intelligent than Brokaw by thinking that the next question, using the PE's example, would be "what is the source of the healthy blood?" In the example, the government 'doctor' wants to inject healthy 'blood' from a healthy part of the 'body' and give it to the 'sick' one. In practice that doesn't work. You can't treat a gangrenous leg by taking blood from the healthy leg. Doing so, the patient dies. You have to cut off the leg to cure the problem. But Brokaw just gave a 'head-bob' while glancing in awe, avoiding direct eye contact, at the PE.
My 'conspiracy theory' is that if the questions I posed were asked of both sides of the 'right' 'left' labeled talking heads; people would realize that the current batch is answering fundamentally the same regardless of the label. Their focus is on not changing the status quo.
Don't take my word for it. This article points to concern from the other side: quote:
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss. Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html
Why is it that the 'right' is far less worried than they were right after the election and the 'left' is more worried? I doubt some of these appointees would have been considered under a PE McCain.
It points to the only solution being the elimination any incumbent from consideration for reelection.
Fortunately for the standard bearers and party politic apologists the standardized answers have been distributed to the faithful. Over the coming months and years, you can be sure that one of these will be the common response for the Obama Administration:
- Nothing can be done overnight
- It's Bush's fault.
- There is no 'super majority' or filibuster-proof majority in Congress
- It's Bush's fault
- This (whatever) could not have been foreseen.
- It's Bush's fault
- The old Congress approved the first bailout and set precedent to be followed
- It's Bush's fault
- We have a long way to go
- It's Bush's fault
- It's complicated
- It's Bush's fault
BTW one last question for the intelligentsia. What's the difference between mandatory 'Government Oversight' as has been floating around as a condition for the auto industry bailout and 'Nationalization' of the auto industry? Since we're considering a head bob to that word manipulation why not have that same, as suggested, Cabinet level government bureaucracy 'oversee' your choice of vehicles and mandate that each US citizen only buy/drive a US car? Or will that be part of the 2nd Obama administration's auto industry recovery plan Part II?
|
Questions Not Asked By Any Sunday Morning Talking Head - 
Profile
RE: Questions Not Asked By Any Sunday Morning Talking Head - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread