Obama '08?

Oh good grief.



Yes, nimh and blatham, I think there is some of each, and that they amplify and encourage each other; people aren't interested in the "dry" stuff, and that journalists aren't nearly critical/ deep enough in their journalism. The latter probably has less to do with individual journalists and their own personal preferences but what they are told to do by their superiors. There have been a few articles in the New Yorker about the whole bottom line method of journalism, and ramifications thereof.

I did not mean to double post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the Expert on Europe is highly confused. Professor Nimh wrote:

Course the US political system doesnt help. When elections loom in Holland, or Hungary, or pretty much any European country (and thats including Britain), the parties will draft and present an election program, that is the basis of their campaign. This is what we stand for. This is what we want to do when we get into power. Vote for us if you want this. Whereas a couple times, I must admit, I went on doomed errants when a conservative here demanded, "so, what does the Democratic party stand for?" To my surprise, it is very hard to find a simple straight-up list of the party's program points, its promises and proposals. But then its no different for the Republican Party.


I ask the professor these questions:

l. if( in) Pretty much any European Country, the parties will draft and present an election program" and if this is supposed to be SUPERIOR to the US model, why has the politics of Italy been akin to a Three Stooges comedy?

How many governments has Italy had since 1945.

2. Did the German program points promise a reduction in Unemployment figures? If they did, they lied.

3. What good is an "election Program" if it is just sheer bull hockey? The Germans are laboring under an 11% Unemployment.


IT IS CLEAR THAT PROFESSOR NIMH KNOWS N O T H I N G ABOUT US POLITICS AND US CAMPAIGNS. He apparently knows nothing about the Contract for America produced by the Republicans in 1994 which was the instrument which helped the Republicans take over the House and Senate since then.

Professor Nimh should do more reading on the US elections, It is clear he does not know what he is talking about. But that is to be expected from Europeans who do not live in the USA.

Then why DID you?

Your post is already at the bottom of last page. (And was what elicited my "Oh good grief." Make whatever points you want to make, but your mock-haughty tone and attempts at button-pushing are both quite tiresome.)

Quite right, you're correct - the Contract for America was a notable case where one of the parties did present an explicit, and ideologically rather ambitious program. I'd say that was an exception to the rule, but in the sense that the party at least committed itself to a unified, clearly recognizable program it was, I think, a valuable one. I'd be pleased if the Democrats would gather the unity and courage to do something similar now.

Boy, that produced an explosion of laughter here. I'll get back to you later tonight. Smart, thoughtful post as always, nimh.

Oddly enough, and in stark contrast with other recent run-ins, I am not in the least bothered by Bernard, myself. It has made for a useful desensitation exercise. Though I admit much depends on its predictability.

Must be getting awfully tiresome to the rest of you though...


Hehheh. Yeah, I totally forgot where I was going with that... but that made for a pleasant change from my usual insistent point-making ;-)

Yes, any party has this in their programs - from Marxists-Leninists over the Social Democratic Party and Christion Social Union to the National Democratic Party and other right wingers.

Why should that be a lie? It's a program.

Same answer to your second post with same content ...


... which you didn't want to post:

Yes, any party has this in their programs - from Marxists-Leninists over the Social Democratic Party and Christion Social Union to the National Democratic Party and other right wingers.

Why should that be a lie? It's a program.

nimh wrote:
I'd be pleased if the Democrats would gather the unity and courage to do something similar now.


I second that, but I don't give it much hope!

From today's Chicago Tribune (comment, page 11)/ online version

nimh

I think it is not surprising that you lost your train of though on that earlier post. It seems a complicated question with a multiplicity of factors in the works, and it is difficult to weigh them out.

You point to several observable tendencies: elections as horse race (rather than much analysis as to platforms), the possibility that such horse race coverage is what the public prefers, the he said/she said version of 'objectivity' driven by (perhaps) some fear of appearing biased.

I'd like to argue that each of these tendencies might well stem from exactly the same forces which I see behind the reporter-as-stenographer failing. I've yakked about this before, but what the heck, I've got fresh coffee and no one is coming in the store this morning...

Increasingly, media (and news divisions within) have fallen under the control of large corporate interests. These are business interests who have a real or perceived need to minimize "offensiveness" so that advertisers don't pull out income sources, so that allied corporate holdings don't get a black eye (say, on pollution), and so that profits up and down the line are not negatively effected by boycotts (say, on policies related to hiring gays). The more milk-toast the product, the safer.

A second factor related to this increasing corporatization of media can be seen with a media empire owner like Conrad Black who bragged that his newspaper operations needed 10 advertising staff but only 1 reporter. The recent KnightRidder sale was a consequence of corporate executives pushing for higher profit margins even while the margin in the operation was relatively (relative to business norms) quite high. They just wanted more and thought they could get it. If one was to compose a "mission statement" for such an operation, "informing the public per our traditional responsibilities within the community" would fall very very far below "profit for shareholders and thus bigger cheques for us" if it made any appearance at all. The reduction of costly investigative reporting staff (and foreign bureaus, etc) is commonly remarked upon by the earlier generation of reporters.

Running coverage in the manner you point to - election as horse race, he said/she said - can be done on the cheap. It really just requires a constant flow of cliches delivered by someone who looks attractive. And, once again, if appearance of bias is avoided through both those means, then there is that added benefit of causing minimal offense thus minimal threat to profit.

But another important force pushing news coverage towards the bland and non-specific can be seen in the present attacks and bullying of independent press by the Bush administration and others in the modern conservative machine. My signature line points to the rationale behind this strategy...if you want to control public opinion, you control/manipulate the media.

It is difficult to evaluate whether the public desires coverage of the sort we see now. It seems the same problem as trying to evaluate whether the public wishes as much crappy TV as is presently filling the airwaves. How much of this is acclimatization to lousy quality?

Mr. Nimh wrote: in reply to my post.


Quite right, you're correct - the Contract for America was a notable case where one of the parties did present an explicit, and ideologically rather ambitious program. I'd say that was an exception to the rule, but in the sense that the party at least committed itself to a unified, clearly recognizable program it was, I think, a valuable one. I'd be pleased if the Democrats would gather the unity and courage to do something similar now.
end of quote--
Well, thank you, Mr. Nimh. I didn't think you had the courtesy and/or insight to make such an admission to someone you had termed "the village idiot" in a past post. I am sure you regret that and wish it had not occurred. I think we can converse in civilized terms. I can do so but when I read posts by people like Mr. Blatham who link my post with a piece of excrement, I have a tendency not to turn the other cheek.


I am certain, Mr. Nimh that you know that theTwo major parties are struggling to get votes for the November Election. The Democrats, in my opinion, cannot, as you wrote,"gather the unity and courage" to do something similar to the Contract with America. If you would like to continue this discussion, sir, I can provide you with a great deal of evidence to show just why they cannot do so.

It is a given that any legislator or person aiming for higher office in the USA has focus group information done frequently. Unfortunately, it would appear that even a left wing Liberal such as Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided NOT to urge an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. She does not have the "UNITY AND COURAGE" you cite is needed because her focus groups say that, at this time, she would lose too many votes by going into that direction.

Sad but true!!

Incidentally, Mr. Nimh, Your praise of European Politics was met by me with a much needed deniogration of the idiotic political framework extant in Italy. I did note that they turn over a government almost every year and have done so since the end of World War II. I dare say again that the US political system is far superior to that kind of chaos.

Thank you, again, sir, for a civilized reponse!!!

The word aroung town is that Possum R FartBubble gives great head, I am looking forward to meeting Possum.

Oh goodness dys...I'd have a really tough time counting up all the explosions of laughter you've stimulated over here.

dyslexia, do you ever bring any facts or any evidence to any debate? Just wondering. I would suggest you try it sometime.

blatham, you must have a weird sense of humor.

I am very much afraid.Okie, that Mr.Dyslexia either cannot contribute evidence because he cannot or that he chooses not to do so. Either way, his contributions are minimal!!!

And,Okie, note carefully when Mr. Blatham posts and I respond to his posts. When I soundly defeated him in the past he went into a snit and then when my posts appeared he responded with all kinds of violations of the TOS once likening me to a piece of excrement. It was then,Okie, that I knew that he was totally defeated.

Dear me, pompous responses require a little levity, which Dys is known so well for. Blatham, I couldn't help but roar either! Lighten up, guys.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very much afraid.Okie, that Mr.Dyslexia either cannot contribute evidence because he cannot or that he chooses not to do so. Either way, his contributions are minimal!!!

And,Okie, note carefully when Mr. Blatham posts and I respond to his posts. When I soundly defeated him in the past he went into a snit and then when my posts appeared he responded with all kinds of violations of the TOS once likening me to a piece of excrement. It was then,Okie, that I knew that he was totally defeated.

Of course not, when I read the posts of peeps like you or Possum i find it very difficult to respond with any degree of thought. It would be paradoxical.

dear Possum you are quite right, i do not and will not contribute evidence of substance for the likes of total idiots as yourself as it would be pissin in the ear of someone whose brain is on fire, a waste of the yellow stream as it were.