After Tucson, will media tone it down?

1. 59

   Stump Parrishposted 13 years ago

   After Tucson, will media tone it down? By Roland S. Martin, CNN Political Contributor
   
   http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/15/m … Stories%29
   
   One paragraph in this report caught my eye.
   
   //If we are to embrace the notion of civility and humility in our discourse, that means not falling into our old habits. I was impressed that Roger Ailes, head of Fox News Channel, relayed to Russell Simmons' GlobalGrind.com what he told his staff after the Tucson shootings: "I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don't have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that."//
   
   I'm still trying to figure out what Mr. Ailes meant when he hoped the "other side" would tone it down. I was under the impression that Fox News Channel was in the business of reporting the news in a "truthful" manner.
   
   I was unaware that there are different sides to "truth".  This statement doesn't do a whole lot to support the claim of fair and unbiased does it?
   
   I dont believe truth should be treated like a divorce case. Mr. Ailes in my opinion feels that the side that hires the best lawyers and presents the most entertaining version of the truth, gets to have their opinions/claims published as the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Amen.

   replyreport
2. 60

   shynslyposted 13 years ago

   You seem to be implying that Fox news is biased towards one party or the other... to which I agree, which is precisely why it's the only channel I watch, now.
   
   In much the same way as CNN was the only channel I watched the entire time Bush was in office. I don't want the "roses and lollipops" version of what's going on from either side. Both have their agenda to push, and both agendas have potentially fatal consequences.
   
   While both sides may be guilty of spin and propaganda, I like to think I'm intelligent enough to sort out what's b.s. from what the actual truth is. Which is why I prefer to hear the pessimistic view, while the "pros" of a particular plan or idea may be obvious, in most cases, the "cons" are not so much... especially if you only ever listen to the side pushing that plan or idea.
   
   In terms of your stated question (will the media tone it down?)... I doubt it. Maybe for a short time, but sooner than later this will blow over and both "machines" will be back up and running full-tilt.
   
   Keep in mind, political propanda and rhetoric is not exactly a new concept, it's been around since the very beginning of our nation. If fact, by previous standards, such as the bashing President Lincoln took over his desire to abolish slavery, the rhetoric of today is actually quite civil and intelligent, for the most part.
   
   I think the reason it gets blamed for so much chaos or treated like it's such a "new" phenomenon is that it's now combined with instant communications technologies such as the internet and television, so the "messege" gets pushed to millions of Americans who never before would have heard it (or cared to).
   
   Whether this is a "good" thing or a "bad" thing is purely subjective.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Shy, I would have to say that your monogamous relationship with Fox News is not in your best interests. I recomend that you start cheating with the 6 oclock news broadcasts tonight. I understand that you are intelligent enough to sort out the news from the BS. Would you say that the majority in ths country are equipped to do the same? I would venture to say that most who watch Fox are more interested in hearing their beliefs supported regardless of the truthfulness of the reports. Most are asking to be lied to. I fail to understand how so many people in this country can be willingly led around by their nose. How does Fox News rate the same level of faith that so many have in the bible? No matter how many times they are shown the lies and inconsistancies in either, they continue to feed the collection plate every time it passes. People defend their beliefs in fox with the same level of rediculousness they defend the words of 2000 year old sheep herders. What doesn't suprise me is that it is the very same group of people. As dick Cavett said, As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it.
      
      //I think the reason it gets blamed for so much chaos or treated like it's such a "new" phenomenon is that it's now combined with instant communications technologies such as the internet and television, so the "messege" gets pushed to millions of Americans who never before would have heard it (or cared).// When you couple this with the reduced capacity for common sense this country is hell bent on developing, you get the mess we are in today. Too many people in this country actually prefer being lied to for us to stand a realistic chance of improving this country. They prefer the lie they are comfortable with to th truth. Ignorance will be the cause of the destruction of what was once the smartest county in the world. Please note that I said once was. The same people who prefer lies are actually striving to have these lies taught as truth in oiur schools. Do you think the best way to improve the general intelligence of future generations is to teach them lies and half truths? The fact that so many fear the truith is not a justifiable rreason to teach these lies to the masses. Only those who have devoted their lives to defending the undefendable could see this as a step in "Right" direction. It is beginning to look as if those on the right have developed the mindset that since they are on the "right" they are infact always right. Of course most have no idea that the "right" is used to denote a location and that no laws have been passed that mandates those on the "right" always are.
      
      
      Thanks for stoppin by.

      replyreport
3. 67

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   Where will Obama go from Tucson?
   
   
   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41175
   
   and another
   
   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41178
   
   
   I am always looking for the common higher ground...but that won't happen until everyone looks for it and admits they haven't been looking for it.
   
   another point is that people think differently...and whose to say who is right and who is wrong...rather ego manic don't you think?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is the first time I have come across this site and my first impression is luke warm.
      
      1st story
      
      While I did appreciate the kind words towards Obama, what I missed was any acknowledgement that the same language shown to be coming from the left is also coming from the right. For example he states "I doubt that the political left will tone down its bellicose rhetoric -- its clear effort to blame the shootings on right-wing thinking and expression."
      
      This seems to indicate that he feels the "bellicose rhetoric" coming from the right is acceptable and desired.
      
      bel·li·cose (bel′i kōs′) adjective
      of a quarrelsome or hostile nature; eager to fight or quarrel; warlike.
      
      I don't think that you can honestly say that the right isn't just as guilty as the left is of this. (please note that as a concession to civility, I didn't say more guilty than the left) My appologies for being unable to resist saying it in an indirect way.
      
      Even as he pretends to appreciate the efforts of Obama he still finds a way to show his preferred level of civility with an attack on the left.
      
      
      ci·vil·i·ty noun \sə-ˈvi-lə-tē\
      plural ci·vil·i·ties
      Definition of CIVILITY
      1archaic : training in the humanities
      2a : civilized conduct; especially : courtesy, politeness b : a polite act or expression
      
      //No less a prominent figure on the left than MSNBC's Chris Matthews just suggested -- again -- that talk radio played a role in the shootings. More disturbingly, he said, "We can assume innocence in terms of Palin's role or anything Glenn Beck said or anybody else, but you can't exonerate them until we know the truth here."//
      
      He states on one hand that rhetoric was and is a problem and then impplies that those on the right are not only innocent until proven guilty, they are to be sheilded from even being accused of anything.
      
      //Exonerate them? They should never have been accused in the first place. So it's outrageous for Matthews to lend further credence to the slanderous allegations by saying we can't exonerate them until we know the truth.//
      
      Violent rhetoric is a problem when it is directed at the right only, is based on what principle of logic? Do as I say and not as I do?
      
      //I don't know that Obama, the avowed Saul Alinskyite, is capable of switching gears and trying to govern in some other way than by targeting, isolating and demonizing his opponents.//
      
      Saul David Alinski is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing and has been compared in Playboy magazine to Thomas Paine as being "one of the great American leaders of the nonsocialist left. How does the right claim that Obama is a socialist on one hand and then note he is an avowed nonsocialist?  If he is saying that community action accomplishes nothing but targeting, isolating, and demonizing it's opponents, what does this say about the tea Party? I do believe this is only one of many community organizations that strive to move this country towards the ideals of the right.
      
      He asks "Will he truly distance himself from his leftist base's conspiratorial scheme to silence voices on the right by attempting to link their speech to violence?" I can only assume that he is indicating his belief that the use of voilent rhetoric by the right is not an issue as he totally avoids allowing his loyal readers to consider the possibility. I got as much out of what he avoided saying as I got from what he chose to say.
      All in all I suppose I can say that it is a start in the correct direction however,it still looks an awful lot like the tried and true...it's us against them mentality.
      
      2nd story
      
      Blame Righty: A Condensed History
      by Michelle Malkin
      
      //I agree with President Obama. When it comes to politicizing random violence, he and his supporters have been "far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than" they do. Recognition is the first step toward reconciliation. It's time to recognize the poisonous pervasiveness of the Blame Righty meme.
         
      For the past two years, Democratic officials, liberal activists and journalists have jumped to libelous conclusions about individual shooting sprees committed by mentally unstable loners with incoherent delusions all over the ideological map. The White House now pledges to swear off "pointing fingers or assigning blame." Alas, the Obama administration's political and media foot soldiers have proved themselves incapable of such restraint.//
      
      
      The rest of the story seems to be a continuation of this attempt to distance the right's violent rhetoric from even being ackowledged as existing. This is doing the very same thing the left has been doing and it's simply another day on the right isn't it? I am familiar with Michele's line of reasoning as her column appears regularly here in the republican controlled Bible belt. This is nothing more than an attack on the left at the same time the right accuses the left of unfairly attacking them in retalliation for the attacks on the right by the left, right?
      
      Pick any news service from the right and one from the left. sup...rise, sup...rise Sargent Carter, both a running the same story line.  you know the storyline I mean, the one that blames the other side for all problems while washing their hands of any part they willingly played in creating it. Now how does either side deserve the label of news service when they both broadcast lies? Both sides state that only if the other side tones down the the rhetoric, all will be well.
      
      The first story appeared to be an attempt to make the right look good while slaming the left for being just like the right. The author did include a couple of nice words that should make the readers feel good about retaining the hate that their leaders are counting on. 
      
      The second story ended like this...President Obama wisely counseled the nation this week at the Tucson massacre memorial that "bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath." But as the progressive left's smear-stained recent history shows, criminalizing conservatism is a hard habit to break.
      
      Convincing conservatives that they are not above criminal behavior based on their conservative beliefs is going to take a lot more time to correct than it will to make those who can still see straight, call a spade a spade. Simple explanations are what the majority of this country are looking for. Simple explanations that simply reaffirm the last lie they decided to believe is what most simple conservatives desire, IMO.

      replyreport
4. 60

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   From the OP:
   "I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don't have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that."//
   
   I'm still trying to figure out what Mr. Ailes meant when he hoped the "other side" would tone it down. I was under the impression that Fox News Channel was in the business of reporting the news in a "truthful" manner.
   -----------------------------------
   That doesn't sound like what was said at all. Don't you think he was saying he hopes the other side will try to make THEIR point bombastically while his does it intellectually?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I trook it to mean that they needed to tone down the violent rhetoric in the news stories they covered. When he stated that he hoped  his side, and the other side, would begin to use intellect to make their arguements, I had to wonder when the news became subject to party opinions of what it should be. Our News services have nothing to do with broascasting the news anymore. They have reduced news reporting to argueing about who's version of the truth is in fact truthful. Sure we see the occasional story where someone screws up and simply reports the facts but the majority of these stories never make it thru the party controlled editing room.
      
      "I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don't have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that."
      
      I saw that as he was hoping the other side would do as he had ordered his people to do. I do see how it could be taken the way you did and have to say, hmmmm.
      
      Please dont tell me we are going to figure this out without the use of  violent rhetoric. That;s just not the American way.

      replyreport
5. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   I actually think the media is going to ratchet it up.
   
   There is something sick going on here, beyond normal.
   
   The job-KILLING healthcare appeal starts.....they are starting the investigations into Obama, and Now they have this whole Tuscon tragedy to add to the drama.
   All those people who try to be kinder and gentler will just have their heads handed to them by the deranged cabal.
   
   Psychopaths are running the show.
   
   It will get much meaner and venomous before it gets better.
   Just don't mistake poison for honey--they are good at that. "But I love you", they say, as they twist the knife.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your efforts to tone down the violent rhetoric, lol. I am assuming that you posted this a a joke, right? Why else would you be telling people who are considering being a little more civil that they will get their heads handed to them.
      
      What makes any one cabal more deranged than the next one?
      
      Is the cabal you have sworn alliegence to a deranged one?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I hold no allegiance to it, but I think it's a cult.
         Just TODAY, Martin-Luther-King day, the right has an e-mail going around with Obama on it, calling this Tuscon tragedy his BLOOD-lust for political gain. (it is on one of these threads...can't remember which one)
         
         That is like a poison snake. If you think the likes of Beck are going to be civil, I think you are mistaken....and to your detriment!
         
         They may pretend to be, but the purpose will be to turn you around to their way of thinking.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nothing from the right suprises me anymore. Let me retract that statement for a moment, The speed with which the right is reducing the mental capacity of it's members is rather staggering. They have reduced a large portion of this country into mindless morons. They will scream at the top of their lungs that they are being vilified for spreading the hate at the same moment they forward an e-mail like the one you described. They have shown a willingness and eagerness to ignore facts and reality.  You have righties that spend their time denouncing the healthcare bill based on the republican line of bull. Or is that the real reason she wants everything to remain as it is. It turns out that she is employed as a medical supplies salesperson and stands to lose some income and that means also losing perks. It is in her best interests if the current type of rhetoric continues at the same pace and even better if she can increase it. This particular person has shown the willingness to tell outright lies in an effort to protect her job and this makes her a prime canidate for Republican membership.

            replyreport
6. 91

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I like calm, thoughtful media spokespersons - those who don't use anger or melodrama like Beck and Olbermann. I'd much rather watch MSNBC's Rachel, FOX's Greta and Huckabee, and CNN's Crowley and King.
   
   But some people thrive on the vitriol, so as long as the ratings are good, I don't see it being toned down any time soon.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      When ratings surpassed truthfulness as a requirement in writting the days news stories, they intentionally began denying the majority of Americans access to the truth. Too many out there refuse to even consider the possibility that their favorite talking head is capable of telling a fib. This person is a human being working at a for profit corporation and there is no way they can lie is there? What is this blind obedience that most need to survive, based upon?

      replyreport
      1. 91

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I have no idea. I think some people just enjoy getting "worked up." I enjoy it at a football game, but not in the political or news arena.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Why stop now? We're already at the edge of chaos. That's where the greatest change occurs...one more push oughtta do it.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Your correct Druid, we are at the edge and both sides are more concerned with determining whose to blame than they are with allowing  us to take a step back. The change we are going to end up with is a change in the name of this country. There must be a number of countries out there hoping America will continue down this path to self-destruction. Let's not disappoint them is becoming the new battle cry. Death before thinking is a sure fire way to the martydumess so many desire.

               replyreport
         2. 59

            Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Getting worked up has become an acceptable substitute for thinking in America, the land of the brain dead, and home of the Gumps.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I know that I pick on the Faux News Network alot and this is probably due to the fact that attacking their fair and unbalanced pack of lies is a sure fire way to piss off the conservative christians out there. Attacking fox allows them the chance to experience the very same level of anger they they caused back when burning a cross on a black man's property was consider sportin' fun for white christians. They can dish it out but don't seem to be able to recieve it with the same amount of grace and holier than thouness do they?

               replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   True leadership from media as with from government will one day have to be re-instilled from the people on up . We can and will one day sway the media away from sensationalism and politically motivated  agendas , If we stop listening and craving idiousy in the media . It will have to change. And our government will have to reclaimed by the will of the people. Untill then same ole same ole.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought the will of the people elected Obama....or did I miss something?

      replyreport
8. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   From a just release Washington Post report on a new poll.
   
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 1011702561
   
   I don't know who is sending around that evil email about Obama and blood lust. It does not reflect any majority view (duh) unless it is Tea Partiers not Republicans.
   
   Here's an excerpt from the article:
   
   "Evaluations of President Obama's handling of the Jan. 8 tragedy are highly positive across the political spectrum, with nearly eight in 10 giving him high marks for his response to the incident. Even 71 percent of Republicans say they approve of his leadership following the shootings.
   
   After calls from political leaders in both major parties to temper the rhetoric following the massacre, Americans are optimistic that Obama and Republicans in Congress will be able to work together this year on important issues. In the poll, 55 percent said they are optimistic that the two sides will do so, up seven percentage points from an ABC News-Yahoo! News survey taken just before the shootings."
   
   If the media continues the hate-mongering they are doing so against the express wishes of the President, Congress and the people (at least rational people). Enough. Time to move on.

   replyreport
9. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   This is how they do it: This is Byron Williams, the guy who went out to "get" the Tides Foundation after listening to Beck:
   
   "It's not that Beck is directly advocating violence (he might be in Santa Rita himself if he did that) but he's giving voice and legitimacy to the violent fringe.
   
   "Beck is going to deny everything about violent approach, deny everything about conspiracies," Williams told the freelance journalist John Hamilton, who did the interview to be published by Media Matters. "But he'll give you every reason to believe it. He's protecting himself, and you can't blame him for that. So, but I understand what he's doing."
   
   Plausible deniability. Just like torture...."we'll have lawyers write something up that makes it legal."
   
   Well, that is being challenged by some in Spain, who had a citizen subject to torture during Iraq "war".
   
   And just today, I see Cheney is out there again...."Obama will be a one-term president".....is there some news-worthy reason for this? Or is it just to fan the flames.
   
   You can't trust these people as far as you can throw them. If we haven't learned that yet,we are a sorry bunch, IMO.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Our government has decided it is now legal to torture American citizens with out the benefit of a trial. They didn't get enough kicks torturing 14 year old boys they claimed were terrorists in Iraq and have decided to find victims closer to home.
      
      Cheney's remarks are probably a smoke screen covering the fact that he bought Halliburton another deep water oil well, cement job contract.
      
      I wonder why they didn't offer large contributors a chance to shoot an assault weapon with Cheney during the elections?

      replyreport