A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

None of you Republicans has the ability to be honest about the nature of your political mouthpieces. I've never heard a good explanation as to why these people enjoy such a popular status amongst Republicans, and are given comfortable and cushy lives by Republicans - on the backs of vitriol, constant vitriol.

Cycloptichorn

I'm a Republican and I've never contributed to the "cushy lives" of any of the "political mouthpieces" to whom you apparently refer. Moreover they don't speak for me.

I haven't accused you of supporting the cushy lives of the now defunct Al Franken or any of the other - equivalent - media voices of the left. Nor have I suggested they speak for you or other Democrats - or anyone but themselves..

I note the inconsistency implicit in your sweeping - and vitriolic -denunciations ... "None of you Republicans has the ability to be honest...", and wonder just what it is that motivates it.

Al Franken is a comedian and I'm proud to call him a fellow Democrat. And he makes his living attacking the right-wing media, not Conservatives themselves, unlike Rush and Coulter and their ilk on talk radio. He isn't a corollary to them and truly, if he is the best example you can come up with, you don't have a good argument that any corollary exists.

And there's not even a question of equivalence. The money involved isn't even close.

Snood is right. While you personally may not be a purveyor of the vitriol - and I do believe you when you say that - the Republican party most certainly is. And it doesn't reflect well that this is true.

Cycloptichorn

Al Franken is a comedian and I'm proud to call him a fellow Democrat. And he makes his living attacking the right-wing media, not Conservatives themselves, unlike Rush and Coulter and their ilk on talk radio. He isn't a corollary to them and truly, if he is the best example you can come up with, you don't have a good argument that any corollary exists.

And while I never listened to Air America (is it still broadcasting?), I understand much of their programming is pretty vitriolic (Randi Rhodes, et al.).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Al Franken is a comedian and I'm proud to call him a fellow Democrat. And he makes his living attacking the right-wing media, not Conservatives themselves, unlike Rush and Coulter and their ilk on talk radio. He isn't a corollary to them and truly, if he is the best example you can come up with, you don't have a good argument that any corollary exists.

But Al Franken annoys me, Cyclops. I mean, he really, really annoys me. Ann Coulter annoys you ... Al Franken annoys me.

And Coulter's a comedienne too. You don't like her comedy, but you can't hide behind "Al Franken's a comedian" on this one.

And while I never listened to Air America (is it still broadcasting?), I understand much of their programming is pretty vitriolic (Randi Rhodes, et al.).

I'm not annoyed by Coulter, but disgusted and dismayed that so many people identify with her vitriol.

The failure of Air America sort of proves my point - Liberals aren't going to pay money to support vitriol. Thanks for the support of my position!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not annoyed by Coulter, but disgusted and dismayed that so many people identify with her vitriol.

She annoys you. Why do you struggle to admit it?

Quote:

The failure of Air America sort of proves my point - Liberals aren't going to pay money to support vitriol. Thanks for the support of my position!

I'm sure there are many reasons for the failure of Air America. I am not as sure the blame can be placed squarely on any generally superior motivations of leftists in America.

My guess is most liberals would rather watch Jerry Springer during their working hours, than listen to talk radio.

Oh but I do george. I'm very acutely aware of how little you attend to media and how little of that little is done with any rigor at all. You assume you know and this prevents not only any study on your part but it also prevents any possibility of learning. You've comfortably removed all possibility of finding yourself in serious error.

In a conversation long ago with the poet laureate of Canada, he noted that everyone believed that they could write. "I'm not just sure why this is so" he said, "but it seems to be simply because we all use the language." You've turned on TVs and you've read newspapers. You apparently assume this constitutes expertise in media studies or media bias. It doesn't.

None of you Republicans has the ability to be honest about the nature of your political mouthpieces. I've never heard a good explanation as to why these people enjoy such a popular status amongst Republicans, and are given comfortable and cushy lives by Republicans - on the backs of vitriol, constant vitriol.

george

There are many subject areas where I do not argue with you because your knowledge is much superior to my own.

However, as relates to this immediate topic, the situation is reversed. One cannot speak knowledgeably about Fox News or the NY Times or Ann Coulter, for example, where one doesn't attend to them. I do not presume to make claims about The Economist or Guns and Ammo.

You often use some term like "the chattering classes" as a broad brush generalization. That's a serious intellectual cop-out. All you are doing is pretending a homogeneity in order to justify your lack of information and resultant inability to make discernments.

I made no assertion of homogeneity at all - except to note that they involve commentary, opinion, and analysis of contemporary events instead of simply reporting them.

Aside from the dig at liberals, nothing written here really has any substance at all.

You have altered the terms of the discussion. I referred to commentary: you now refer to commentary/reportage.

I don't know what difference you imply here. Much of what is labelled as "reportage" involves assertions about the inner motives and intent of the actors on the stage - things that are not subject to verification until long after the fact (if ever). They are not reportage at all. I treat it all as commentary and don't assign any value (good or bad) to it at all except as it may relate to my own conclusions based on the available facts in particular instances.

I'm sure there are many things to be said about various commentators (though little of it is very important - at least to me) and that my knowledge of them is very limited. For example, I know little of Bill Maher, but I have seen enough to know that he is a committed prosleytizer of a left wing or progressive viewpoint. Whether his mockery of right wing figures and ideas is in any sense better or more valuable than (say) that of Anne Coulter's mockery of others on the left, is something that is, in my view, both unknowable and uninteresting.

For the other, ostensibly more serious, commentators in the print media, I believe the situation is similar. One would have to await the verdict of history - long after the tempest has subsided - to know whose viewpoint & analysis proved more accurate. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is a good deal of subjectivity (and occasionally willful distortion) in the analysis of even the most esteemed reporters. (Recall the New York Times figure who won a Pulitzer prize for his reporting during the 1930s from Russia, describing the joy and delight of the Ukranian peasants as they happily embraced the benefits and instant prosperity of collective farming.) From Kristol (he of the uplifted chin) to Freidman ( - the one who looks like the Pillsbury dough boy), or Krugman (the little ratty looking one) - they all offer intriguing commentary, but I (and you) have no way of really knowing if they are right or are merely propagandizing.