Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Googling MSM doesn't bring up a single article about the media...

Cycloptichorn

And the first article generated by Google that uses MSM referencing the media is from your pals at dailykos.com (page 2 of the search).

But I'm still not sure what KW's point was ... other than to just grouse about someone's use of an acronym ... which seems beyond silly to me.

0 Replies

An acronym, unless it is used widely in advertising such as IBM, etc., is generally only known to those attuned to or involved in the product or field indicated. To those people, the acronym is widely known and widely used. Cyclop for instance ran across the MSM dietary supplement. He had previously been unfamiliar with it. I have used the product for years, however, and it is the first thing that comes to my mind when I see "MSM".

But even back in the 1980's when dealing with large scale media campaigns, the memos we sent around the country frequently referenced MSM plus various other acronyms well known to most of us and none of us felt any need to define them. Occasionally a novice would ask for a definition and it was provided.

When using acroynms other than those that are universally recognized (IBM, CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, FBI, CIA) etc. etc. etc.), we were taught as journalists to explain any acronyms that might not be universally recognized even when they were commonly used industry terms. That such acronym is spelled out is thus much more likely to be a policy matter rather than 'proof' that the term is not well known or used in various circles.

0 Replies

Shrug. I'm not trying to argue about an acronym here. I think that it is a particularly useful acronym that I myself have adopted and honestly, if it was the Righties who came up with the idea, kudos to them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I know that you have a difficult time posting with any sort of intelligence, and don't hold you responsible for your lack of ability to do so, but is it really neccessary to be such a jerk, JW?

No, yet you delight in it anyways. Telling.

Cycloptichorn

Certain members may want to peruse this thread.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=58150#58150

Pay particular attention to:

Quote:

As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here.

0 Replies

KW - I'm not going to apologize for using 'MSM' in a post dealing with the MSM. I'm sorry you could not address the subject in the post, namely that the MSM have sunk to an all-time low in the eyes of most Americans.

Instead, you made over a dozen posts, attacking not only me, but Lash, Fishin', and Foxfyre over some perceived slight that I have yet to figure out.

How something so minor and petty would elicit such frequent and lengthy posts (one even had graphics LOL), is beyond me.

Very curious.

0 Replies

That's my whole quarrel with the extreme left, JW. They ignore WHAT is posted and instead devote excessive time and energy to quibble over the source of the information, the word used, who said it, the tone or inflection, or launch into some diatribe about sins of some conservative or Republican or unrelated history.

A reasonable person who doesn't recognize an acronym asks what it is, says thank you upon being informed, and is grateful for having new information. I didn't know what SCOTUS was before I asked, but now I know,

Perhaps we need a word list here that everybody has to stick to? I can think of a couple of folks on A2K who would be extremely frustrated by that. Smile

But anyhow, JW, I wouldn't apologize either. Smile

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

fishin' wrote:

Keltic's comment which I replies to is that the term ONLY appears in right-wing blogs and, as he's repeated several times, that HAD to have been where she [Lash] picked it up from......

....anyone redaing these other sources could just as easily picked up the term from them.

Not likely, fishin'. Lash enthusiastically proclaimed that everyone uses that term , that it is widely understood.[/quote

Not likely - but possible. Whereas YOU proclaimed that it was ONLY used on right-wing blogs which has been proven to be false.

[quote] The fact that Lash maintains that the word is in universal use means that a large part of her reading and ifo is in fact gathered from the Blogworld.

If you want to believe that you are more than welcome to. You might be even correct. My only issue was with your comments which you presented in absolute terms and were far from air-tight. Wink

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Slate Magazine: Online magazine of news, politics, and culture

(Sorry for the misspelling!)

Lol - thanks Walter - how come you know everything?

0 Replies

keltic--

MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM

I don't read blogs. I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs I don't read blogs

But, I think I will now. I must be missing some fabulous, innovative information.

(I think you should probably start reading them now, too, seeing as how you get so upset when you're the last to know something.)

But, I'm still not telling you about their new, exciting acronyms. I can see it is too much drama for your delicate constitution.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Whereas YOU proclaimed that it was ONLY used on right-wing blogs which has been proven to be false.

That has already been explained with the example of the Lammanites. When somebody says that a certain terminology is exclusive to a certain group, it goes without saying that it would be used in any studies or articles specifically about that group.

The point is, again, that Lash claimed that EVERYONE used the term, which means that she sees it very, very often. If she restricted her reading to articles about blogs, while never actually going there, those few articles would not be enough to make anyone think that the term was universal.

For a sense of universality to become possible, Lash simply has to be reading blogs. There are not enough sources outside of blogs for anyone to get the erroneous idea that MSM is widely recognized as meaning Mainstream Media. For Blogworld and the few meager articles about Blogworld are the only place where the term is used.

As has been proven here, not least of which by your own references.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

An acronym, unless it is used widely in advertising such as IBM, etc., is generally only known to those attuned to or involved in the product or field indicated.

Not true. ICBM is well known to people and I have never seen a commercial for ICBMs on TV. Not even once.

Foxfyre wrote:

But even back in the 1980's when dealing with large scale media campaigns, the memos we sent around the country frequently referenced MSM....

First I've heard of it, and I am fairly familiar with such things as demographics, etc. Moreover, if a term was commonly used as late as the eighties, don't you think you would come across it using a Google search? I saw no evidence of it being used that way before the blogs came along-and no evidence at all that it is widely accepted as an acronym now, either. Before this MSM baloney, there was "the media", (with much debate about that), and before that, "the nets", for networks. No MSM showed it's head anywhere.

With all the books written and general debate about "the media" over the past twenty years, don't you think MSM=Mainstream Media would be known outside Blogworld, if it ever was an accepted term back in the eighties?

Foxfyre wrote:

When using acroynms other than those that are universally recognized (IBM, CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, FBI, CIA) etc. etc. etc.), we were taught as journalists to explain any acronyms that might not be universally recognized even when they were commonly used industry terms.

That's just the point. Lash, Just Wonders and others have been arguing that MSM=Mainstream Media already IS universally recognized. And it isn't, as any Google seach will show. If you do a Google search for IBM, all you see are references to International Business Machines. If you do a Google search for FBI, all you see is references to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Same as for all the others you mentioned.

Do a Google search for MSM and what do you see? The first reference to the Mainstream Media is number 7-after such well known acronyms as the Morehouse School of Medicine and the Maastricht (nl) School of Management. The next media reference is number 19!

If someone started posting on Able2Know about things going on at MSM, and assumed everyone knew he meant the Maastricht School of Management, you'd think he was an idiot. Yet Just Wonders posts about the "MSM" and acts like everyone is supposed to accept that it can only mean something even LESS commonly used-the Mainstream Media-and all the conservatives line up to defend him.

What's with you people?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

keltic--
I don't read blogs.

Then why do you claim that "everyone" uses a term which our discussion here has shown is used only on blogs and articles about blogs?

And there are not enough articles about blogs to create the impression that "everyone" uses the term.

So that leaves blogs as your only possible source of the erroneoous impression that "everyone" uses the acronym MSM for Mainstream Media.

Sorry, Lash, but you tipped your hand. About the only good thing for you about this matter is that the internet is electronic, so you don't have to have the blogs shipped to you in a plain brown wrapper.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

But I'm still not sure what KW's point was ... other than to just grouse about someone's use of an acronym ...

There are several reasons, I'll give you just a couple.

A) It's always annoying when someone quotes a term that is not accepted generally and tries to pretend it is. Case in point: People who apply Rush Limbaugh's term "feminazi" to women who have the nerve to differ with Limbaugh, especially on choice. Feminazi is not an accepted word, but these people quote it as if it is, thereby revealing that Limbaugh does the thinking for these people.

This is similar to the case here. Just Wonders is implying that since the blogs have decided MSM is a standard acronym, that is some sort of new standard eveyone must get used to. Well, we won't. Not without some evidence that someone outside of Blogworld actually accepts that term.

B) Using an acronym for something implies a deep familiarity with it, as if the person is so used to studying the topic that he had to resort to acronyms to save time. It implies superior knowledge. So far, I would say the only thing Just Wonders has demonstrated is not superior knowledge, but a familiarity with Blogspeak.

I have nothing personal against the guy, he seems to be polite and decent in his presentation here, but I just don't bow to Just Wonders' assumption that if a term is used on the blogs, everyone should know what it means.

0 Replies

I didn't do a Google search. I used another multi-search-engine program and came up with numerous references, several of which I posted.

For that matter, I'm not sure a lot of younger Americans know what ICBM is an acronym for; however, I probably wouldn't spell it out if I used it in an article.

I immediately recognized MSM when it was used and I certainly did not learn the term from Blogs. I don't always immediately compute other acronyms used on A2K and elsewhere and have to think about it or ask. I think MSM as Lash and JW used it is probably not frequently used purely because MSM is an acronym for so many different things; but I think it is widely enough used and understood that neither should have been criticized for using it.

As you are usually not one given to wild or irrational rantings, KW, I accept that you think it was inappropriate. I trust we can agree to disagree about this one?

0 Replies

Back to the subject of the MSM hitting an all time low, this article explains much. It starts out:

If you wanted to see the perfect example of the ethical and moral collapse of the Mainstream Media, you could not do better than a long article in the New Yorker of May 23, 2005.

And continues:

In this article, which I would guess to be about 8,000 words or more, there is not one hint, not one whisper, of sympathy for the American soldiers who fought and died or were maimed in Vietnam. Not one sliver of anger at a man who took American money and helped kill Americans. Not a word about the mass murder of civilians during Tet.

And this paragraph, I think, says it all:

If the New Yorker is one of the flagships of the Mainstream Media fleet, they are sailing in maddeningly disloyal, contemptuous waters and obviously have been for a while. Small wonder the media gloried in Mark Felt and Watergate last week. In those days, Americans actually trusted the Mainstream Media. The New Yorker piece by Prof. Bass makes it clear how wrong we were. He's a fine writer but a man whose piece lacks any moral compass at all. And what of the fellow journalists in Saigon cheering him on? Now we know a bit more about why the war turned out as it did.

http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=8276

0 Replies

Right on JW. And here's more from everybody's favorite, Neal Boortz. (Also posted over on the big thread as some there don't quite get it either.)

MORE GITMO UPROAR

Here we go again. Fresh off Newsweek's fairy tale about a Koran being flushed down the toilet, Time magazine is reporting about the goings-on inside the Islamic terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It's causing quite the uproar. So what's it all about?

Evidently they're reporting the details of a logbook tracing the treatment of a prisoner who was supposed to take part in the 9/11 attacks. Somebody named Mohammed al-Qahtani. Again, this is somebody who was supposed to be one of the 9/11 hijackers. Many in Congress are up in arms over the treatment outlined in the report. So why do they have their panties in a knot?

The 84-page logbook, which the Pentagon says was never supposed to have been made public, details interrogations over a 3 month period. In order to make this Islamic terrorist talk, a number of tactics were used, including:

Daily interviews that sometimes began at 4 a.m. and continued until midnight. Long day. Poor baby. Should of thought about that before you attacked America.

He was asked to bark like a dog. Oh, the humanity!
He was shown pictures of the 9/11 attacks. How could we be so cruel?
He was asked to write letters of apology to the families of 9/11 victims. Write? He can write?

Refusal of bathroom breaks, resulting in al-Qahtani peeing his pants. Wahh.

Interrogators woke this character up with Christina Aguilera music at midnight to start the questioning. A little harsh, but it could be worse. He could have been shown Paris Hilton's sex video, but that should only be a last resort.

A female interrogator violated his personal space! Oh my God, not that!
Other assorted methods included standing for prolonged periods, isolation for up to 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair and hanging pictures of half-naked women around his neck. Awww.

This is a terrorist who was going to be one of the hijackers....whose sole purpose in life is to kill Americans. He is part of Al-Qaeda. He has information on future attacks and we need him to talk. There is nothing contained in the Time report that will cause this prisoner any permanent damage. Furthermore, the interrogations of al-Qahtani yielded information about Al-Qaeda. So it worked.

We are engaged in a war on terror for the survival of the United States. American lives are at stake and all the media and the left can do is carp about how uncomfortable we make a few Islamic terrorists at a prison camp.

You do understand why there is so much news about Guantanamo, don't you? Since the liberation of Iraq no story has done more to embarrass the United States and to bring us down in the eyes of the world than the story of so-called abuse at Abu Ghraib. Since Abu Ghraib there have been free elections in Iraq and a new government has been established. Despite the best efforts of Syrian-trained and supported insurgents, freedom and democracy are gaining strength in Iraq. The United States simply cannot be allowed to take credit for this incredible achievement. So, since there was so much success with the Abu Ghraib story, why not gin up another prison abuse scandal? What better place than Guantanamo?

Hey .. whatever works .. and this is working.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200506/06132005.html#gitmo

0 Replies

I read that Times article, Foxy. It amazes me that the author left out the fact that giving the detainees MRIs to eat would be considered toture, so they get hot, freshly prepared meals while our soldiers make do with the MRIs.

If we really wanted to torture these weasels, we'd send them to Parris Island ... they wouldn't last a day. Smile

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
But I'm still not sure what KW's point was ... other than to just grouse about someone's use of an acronym ...

There are several reasons, I'll give you just a couple.

A) It's always annoying when someone quotes a term that is not accepted generally and tries to pretend it is. Case in point: People who apply Rush Limbaugh's term "feminazi" to women who have the nerve to differ with Limbaugh, especially on choice. Feminazi is not an accepted word, but these people quote it as if it is, thereby revealing that Limbaugh does the thinking for these people.

Perhaps it just means they either listen to Limbaugh or they have heard the term before. I don't take issue with your being annoyed -- by all means, feel free to be annoyed -- but do think your conclusion that "Limbaugh does the thinking for these people" is absurd.

Quote:

This is similar to the case here. Just Wonders is implying that since the blogs have decided MSM is a standard acronym, that is some sort of new standard eveyone must get used to. Well, we won't. Not without some evidence that someone outside of Blogworld actually accepts that term.

Then you should refuse to use the term, and instead should type out the words. The rest of us -- those who wish to adapt and use the new acronym -- will do so.

Quote:

B) Using an acronym for something implies a deep familiarity with it, as if the person is so used to studying the topic that he had to resort to acronyms to save time. It implies superior knowledge. So far, I would say the only thing Just Wonders has demonstrated is not superior knowledge, but a familiarity with Blogspeak.

I have nothing personal against the guy, he seems to be polite and decent in his presentation here, but I just don't bow to Just Wonders' assumption that if a term is used on the blogs, everyone should know what it means.

If you have "nothing personal" against JW, you might just keep to yourself what you believe about her knowledge, rather than claim that right-wing bloggers are doing all of her thinking. I have used the MSM acronym occasionally here, as have a lot of folks. Do you think everyone who has done so is incapable of thinking independently of "right-wing bloggers."

Bear in mind that the second instance of "MSM" in google.com is from dailykos.com (#20 right now), definitely NOT a right-wing blog. So, while your point about "MSM" originating in the blogosphere might be accurate, the use of the term certainly doesn't identify the user as only reading conservative blogs ... and you only sound foolish when you make such a claim.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Then you should refuse to use the term, and instead should type out the words. The rest of us -- those who wish to adapt and use the new acronym -- will do so.

All this (in my eyes a bit stupid) discussion gave me the change to look through dozens of various blogs.

It seems that many are aware of the fact that "MSM" means to most on the internet, "Men who have sex with other men," as in, again, "MSM" ("Male+Sex+Male") ("M4M" is another term).

And in my opinion some blogger's idea that the stupid "MSM" thing that some people have taken to use to represent (inaccurately) "mainstream media" should be "MM". :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Then you should refuse to use the term, and instead should type out the words. The rest of us -- those who wish to adapt and use the new acronym -- will do so.

All this (in my eyes a bit stupid) discussion gave me the chance to look through dozens of various blogs.

And now you have looked through more blogs than I have. :wink:

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know