Full Version: Why can't we get a fair shake from the media?
Media ignores significance of democrats taking house and senate.
Analyzing Pelosi's wardrobe and making sexist comments while ignoring the issues.
Time magazine's "moving to the center" ignoring democratic gains.
Questions for debate:
1.)What is to account for the almost hostile reaction to democrats and the most recent democratic advancement on election day on the part of the media?
2.)How is it that Hastert, Bush, and Foley could fly under the radar for the most part while Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, and other democratic leaders are bashed for anything and everything?
3.)Time said the nation was moving to the center. The democrats failed to lose one seat to republicans. On what criteria would Time say the nation is movingto the left?
QUOTE
Even though Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate without losing a single seat -- an electoral feat last accomplished in 1938 -- the media have not highlighted this achievement in the two weeks after Election Day. But when Republicans gained seats in both the House and Senate in the 2002 midterm elections, the first time since 1934 a president's party had done so during its first midterm election, news outlets praised it as "remarkable" and "historic."
Analyzing Pelosi's wardrobe and making sexist comments while ignoring the issues.
QUOTE
Since the Democratic Party won control of both the House and the Senate, the media have focused on such issues as Pelosi's choice of attire and whether being female will affect her ability to lead. MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer wondered if Pelosi's "personal feelings [were] getting in the way of effective leadership" -- a problem she suggested would not surface in "men-run leadership posts" -- and whether men were "more capable of taking personality clashes."
Time magazine's "moving to the center" ignoring democratic gains.
Questions for debate:
1.)What is to account for the almost hostile reaction to democrats and the most recent democratic advancement on election day on the part of the media?
2.)How is it that Hastert, Bush, and Foley could fly under the radar for the most part while Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, and other democratic leaders are bashed for anything and everything?
3.)Time said the nation was moving to the center. The democrats failed to lose one seat to republicans. On what criteria would Time say the nation is movingto the left?
1.)What is to account for the almost hostile reaction to democrats and the most recent democratic advancement on election day on the part of the media?
I'm not sure. By all accounts there has been a lot of bitterness since the 2000 election on the part of both major parties. Perhaps the media feel that if they make too much positive noise about the change, conservatives are going to say "See, we told you that the news media are a bunch of lefties." Sticks and stones...
2.)How is it that Hastert, Bush, and Foley could fly under the radar for the most part while Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, and other democratic leaders are bashed for anything and everything?
I disagree that Hastert, Bush and Foley are flying under the radar, at least not lately. You see that Hastert did not run for minority leader, or whip, or whatever they want to call that position. He has incurred a lot of heat in light of the Foley scandal. Of course, Foley is out. He retreated to rehab to escape the fallout, and now he's mourning the death of his father.
As far as Bush goes, he is criticized on a regular basis. But there appears to be a line that, if crossed, means that a journalist or news organization becomes persona non grata to the White House. This White House is still influential even in the midst of widespread criticism.
3.)Time said the nation was moving to the center. The democrats failed to lose one seat to republicans. On what criteria would Time say the nation is moving to the left?
I would attribute that to sensationalism. Pelosi is supposed to be the female version of the Bogeyman, second only to the mighty and terrible Hillary Clinton in the minds of Republican pundits. I don't know why certain folks consider strong political women to be harpies when they are behaving in largely the same manner as their male counterparts in the Congress.
The meaning of the terms "left" and "center" depend largely upon where you are on the continuum, but it's pretty clear that the "family values" folks were to the right of just about everybody else. If Time Magazine feels that the Democratic victory constitutes a return to what the American majority would consider normalcy or a moderate stance, fine.
I'm not sure. By all accounts there has been a lot of bitterness since the 2000 election on the part of both major parties. Perhaps the media feel that if they make too much positive noise about the change, conservatives are going to say "See, we told you that the news media are a bunch of lefties." Sticks and stones...
2.)How is it that Hastert, Bush, and Foley could fly under the radar for the most part while Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, and other democratic leaders are bashed for anything and everything?
I disagree that Hastert, Bush and Foley are flying under the radar, at least not lately. You see that Hastert did not run for minority leader, or whip, or whatever they want to call that position. He has incurred a lot of heat in light of the Foley scandal. Of course, Foley is out. He retreated to rehab to escape the fallout, and now he's mourning the death of his father.
As far as Bush goes, he is criticized on a regular basis. But there appears to be a line that, if crossed, means that a journalist or news organization becomes persona non grata to the White House. This White House is still influential even in the midst of widespread criticism.
3.)Time said the nation was moving to the center. The democrats failed to lose one seat to republicans. On what criteria would Time say the nation is moving to the left?
I would attribute that to sensationalism. Pelosi is supposed to be the female version of the Bogeyman, second only to the mighty and terrible Hillary Clinton in the minds of Republican pundits. I don't know why certain folks consider strong political women to be harpies when they are behaving in largely the same manner as their male counterparts in the Congress.
The meaning of the terms "left" and "center" depend largely upon where you are on the continuum, but it's pretty clear that the "family values" folks were to the right of just about everybody else. If Time Magazine feels that the Democratic victory constitutes a return to what the American majority would consider normalcy or a moderate stance, fine.
First of all, I wonder if it is a mark of the relative insignificance of MSNBC that such a ridiculous comment could go by relatively unaddressed. Perhaps it is because a woman said it. But that was pure 1959-ish stone age stuff there.
1.)What is to account for the almost hostile reaction to democrats and the most recent democratic advancement on election day on the part of the media?
Um, I think the media tend to bash so that both sides see them as anti-them. I bet there are some conservatives and republicans on this site that feel that the media have done nothing but trumpet the triumphant rise of the democratic party.
2.)How is it that Hastert, Bush, and Foley could fly under the radar for the most part while Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, and other democratic leaders are bashed for anything and everything?
Er, um, while I think Hastert got a bit of a pass in the same way that officers got a pass at Abu Ghraib, I also think that their deeds and misdeeds have gotten plenty of attention. Looking at the ashes of the last few years there are plenty of Republicans that have been in the frying pan and the fire. President Bush's approval ratings, Ashcroft, Delay, Abramoff, Foley (not in office anymore) etc. Under the radar is not how I would describe them.
Reid and Pelosi have a lot to prove. Most Americans feel they will fall short of effective leadership either by effective partisan fighting (gridlock) or inability to chose the right directions to move.
3.)Time said the nation was moving to the center. The democrats failed to lose one seat to republicans. On what criteria would Time say the nation is moving to the left?
See, while a democratic victory is one for the middle left, for the far left it does little to appease. (Ask Wertz
) While the Republican electoral victory played to the base and rallied votes from the right instead of moving to the center, the recent Democratic victory was a victory from the center. Republican swing votes and cetrist independents won the day.
Put another way, the Democrats crafted a message that won over middle America in large numbers in 2006. Their last president, Clinton, also crafted a policy that moved to the center but started off his presidency by playing to the democratic leftist base with national healthcare and gays in the military.
Hopefully, this generation of dems will start on the easy victories such as government waste and raising the minimum wage.
I am thrilled that the Democrats are perceived to have moved to the center. If the Dems can win and hold the center then they can rule. It is good old fashioned big tent politics.
The problem I see here is that most of the votes were likely votes against Bush than lifetime converted votes for the Democrats. I also think the Democrats selected a good base of candidates.
What we should do as democrats is call out hypocrisy when we see it from our leaders and call it out loud and early. The power structure in Congress makes the party leadership prone to reward people for the wrong reasons (holding office for a long time and raising money for their peers). When the wrong people or posted to the wrong positions (read an impeached judge being handed a key leadership position. (Alcee Hastings) link
1.)What is to account for the almost hostile reaction to democrats and the most recent democratic advancement on election day on the part of the media?
Um, I think the media tend to bash so that both sides see them as anti-them. I bet there are some conservatives and republicans on this site that feel that the media have done nothing but trumpet the triumphant rise of the democratic party.
2.)How is it that Hastert, Bush, and Foley could fly under the radar for the most part while Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, and other democratic leaders are bashed for anything and everything?
Er, um, while I think Hastert got a bit of a pass in the same way that officers got a pass at Abu Ghraib, I also think that their deeds and misdeeds have gotten plenty of attention. Looking at the ashes of the last few years there are plenty of Republicans that have been in the frying pan and the fire. President Bush's approval ratings, Ashcroft, Delay, Abramoff, Foley (not in office anymore) etc. Under the radar is not how I would describe them.
Reid and Pelosi have a lot to prove. Most Americans feel they will fall short of effective leadership either by effective partisan fighting (gridlock) or inability to chose the right directions to move.
3.)Time said the nation was moving to the center. The democrats failed to lose one seat to republicans. On what criteria would Time say the nation is moving to the left?
See, while a democratic victory is one for the middle left, for the far left it does little to appease. (Ask Wertz
) While the Republican electoral victory played to the base and rallied votes from the right instead of moving to the center, the recent Democratic victory was a victory from the center. Republican swing votes and cetrist independents won the day. Put another way, the Democrats crafted a message that won over middle America in large numbers in 2006. Their last president, Clinton, also crafted a policy that moved to the center but started off his presidency by playing to the democratic leftist base with national healthcare and gays in the military.
Hopefully, this generation of dems will start on the easy victories such as government waste and raising the minimum wage.
I am thrilled that the Democrats are perceived to have moved to the center. If the Dems can win and hold the center then they can rule. It is good old fashioned big tent politics.
The problem I see here is that most of the votes were likely votes against Bush than lifetime converted votes for the Democrats. I also think the Democrats selected a good base of candidates.
What we should do as democrats is call out hypocrisy when we see it from our leaders and call it out loud and early. The power structure in Congress makes the party leadership prone to reward people for the wrong reasons (holding office for a long time and raising money for their peers). When the wrong people or posted to the wrong positions (read an impeached judge being handed a key leadership position. (Alcee Hastings) link
QUOTE
I bet there are some conservatives and republicans on this site that feel that the media have done nothing but trumpet the triumphant rise of the democratic party.
Yeah, must be hell to have that ultra liberal Glenn Beck on CNN.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.