Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83
  1. #21  
    Tell me what the teabag express is.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    The Teabag Express seems to disagree with you.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    The Teabag Express seems to disagree with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Tell me what the teabag express is.
    It is an offensive name you come up with when you want to insult and you have nothing to back your claim...

    Urban Dictionary: Tea-Bag
    Tea-Bag - 9 definitions - Dipping your testicles into the open mouth of another person. Kind of like dipping a tea bag in and out of a cup of water.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Christian Science Monitor is not neutral...
    Please support this.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    the head of ABC News did not know about ACORN. Goodness gracious. ACORN has been all over the place except main stream media. Listen to Fox.
    That would be odd since I watched the ridiculous Acorn story on ABC news last week.
  5. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #25  
    Here is my attempt to actually follow the OP's request and discuss today's or the last week's shows. This is a transcript (I assume partial) of the September 18 show. My "discussion" of the issues is bolded with a nominal amount of name calling:

    GLENN BECK, HOST: I have to tell you, America. I mean, I agonized over this thing last night, because it is so complex. It is so much. We're going to explain it and break it down piece by piece. But please, please, share this with your friends, because this — these are the radicals. This is why it matters.

    I've said for a while now, the paradigm is changing. There is — there is no place now for the media that we currently have. ACORN, Van Jones — the mainstream media has not asked the tough questions. How can this many radical people be this involved with what's happening in our country? Is the mainstream media, as we know it, over?

    This seems to frame the issue for this segment of the show but instead of stating it as an issue for discussion he states a conclusion - not “did the media fall down on the job”, but instead “the media fell down on the job and there is no place for them anymore.”

    Tobe Berkovitz, he is a communications professor at Boston University.

    Tobe, first of all, did you see the last segment? Could you watch it up there in Boston?

    TOBE BERKOVITZ, BOSTON UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: Yes, I saw you using the chalkboard as a deadly weapon.

    BECK: Right.

    So, you know, this show has broken all conventional wisdom. I mean, nobody would — nobody would say we could do a 20-minute monologue — we do it almost every night. And nobody would say use a chalkboard and yet that's exactly how we make our points.

    What is — what is happening here? Can — I've never treated my audience as a bunch of boobs. I believe they're intelligent human beings that really want to learn and know what's going on in the country. I try to figure it out myself and bring it. Why aren't the other media outlets doing this?

    Back .. pat ... back ... pat ... back .... pat

    BERKOVITZ: Well, what works for you, Glenn, doesn't necessarily work for other newscasters or other programs.

    I think what you have is a way that you want to try to communicate with your viewers using the chalkboards, giving them lots of detail. Because it works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for other people.

    It's your style and very successful.

    BECK: Right. But I don't mean — Tobe, I don't mean necessarily that, you know, Charlie Gibson should have the chalkboard out. But why are they not covering — I mean, when you look at this, is it not pretty obvious that maybe there should be some questions asked and looked into all this? I mean, it's just as riddled with corruption. Why are they not doing that?

    The entire discussion at this point is based entirely on the assumption/conclusion that the mainstream media either didn’t cover the recent ACORN story (at least not with a chalkboard) or didn’t do their job in being the ones to uncover the ACORN story. The first assumption is blatantly false - pretty much every “news” outlet covered the recent issue with ACORN.

    As for past investigative analysis of ACORN that certainly seems to be an issue that deserves discussion. But to have a productive and rational discussion you would need to know things like how large is ACORN, how many offices and employees, do these recent videos represent a large percentage or were they isolated incidents, how many attempts made to get ACORN employees to do something unethical failed and how many were successful, how does this compare to corruption in other areas of our society like ENRON as a past example.

    The problem is that the rest of the show, at least the part represented by this transcript, doesn’t discuss the issue. This to me is the primary problem with these shows - they don’t discuss and analyze, they state conclusions and opinions, pat themselves on the back about how smart and unbiased they are and then provide nothing more of substance.


    BERKOVITZ: One could say that it perhaps is too complex for a simplistic way to present the news and when you have traditional newscasts that are 23 minutes long, you don't really have time for complexity, or you could be more conspiratorial and say that the media just doesn't want to really probe into certain aspects of the Obama administration.

    First clause of the run on sentence I agree with completely but then he goes off into la la land without facts or analysis. I love it when people say “you could say” and then act like they not trying to convey an idea. “Ya could say” Glenn Beck was born in Kenya . . . I’m not saying he was, but “ya could say.”

    Sort of dealer's choice and you can pick which of those is the reason that stories like these aren't being covered.

    BECK: I think that the media doesn't understand at all that this is a
    — this is a, I think, a media revolution and I don't even mean me, I mean the people, Internet, et cetera, et cetera — Twitter, that's what caused — that's what's happening in Iran — yes, Iran right now is Twitter is taking hold; Facebook, et cetera, et cetera.

    Wow ... stutter much?

    Is the way we get our news — is the looking up to these giant corporations to get the news — is that a thing of the past? Is there a point — is there a tipping point — where people are just like, "OK, they're not even telling me the truth or what I'm even interested in" and it just implodes?

    This is a great point worthy of discussion, but the problem is that each person’s definition of “media” or “mainstream media” seems to be different. I don’t consider Beck, O’Reilly, Olberman or Madow to be news or the media; they are opinion. The news is “HB 3200 is being considered by congress to reform health care by doing X, Y, and Z” whereas “the world is coming to an end!!, everyone run for your lives!!, congress is destroying America!, the socialists are taking over!! all because they are considering HB 3200" is not news.

    Actual news shows do report the news still, and do a pretty good job. The difference now is anyone with an internet connection can do much more self-verification. A person today can very easily download the health care bills and read it whereas 20 years ago you had to rely on the news to tell you what was in a bill or before congress.


    BERKOVITZ: Well, the paradigm shift is the end of scarcity. It used to be that you could watch one of three networks, you could read one or two newspapers — that has gone by the boards.

    And now, really, the consumer is king and queen. They get to decide what kind of information they want, how they want to get it. Do they want a long in-depth report? Do they want a 140-character tweet? It's their choice. These are all options.

    What we really are starting to get is a marketplace. And it's much tougher for the old interests to control it. It is really sort of gone crazy and everyone gets to pick what they want.

    You're in charge with your clicker, with your mouse. You're your own programmer. You're your own news director.

    The majority of people will always gravitate to shows available in the marketplace that reinforce views they already hold. People don’t want to work all day then come home and think hard thoughts. It seems for many coming home and watching someone tell them how their opinions and feelings are right is more satisfying that watching the news, thinking about it, and forming rational thoughts based on critical analysis. Unfortunately it does seem that the days of Walter Cronkite are over.

    BECK: All right. Tobe, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

    I will tell you, America, you are in charge. You are in charge.

    And Tobe is exactly right. They don't like it. It takes them out of control. That's why I think Mark Lloyd is now the diversity czar of the FCC. Look him up.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  6. rothoof's Avatar
    Posts
    510 Posts
    Global Posts
    514 Global Posts
    #26  
    This is a Palm Pre website!
    Last edited by daThomas; 09/22/2009 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Rude
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by rothoof View Post
    This is a Palm Pre website!
    This is an "Off Topic" forum. Did you read the disclaimer that anyone participating in off topic forums is supposed to read?...although Topics can get heated, we know we don't agree with each other, but there is supposed to be no name calling.
    Last edited by groovy; 09/22/2009 at 10:59 PM. Reason: removed said name calling
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    The majority of people will always gravitate to shows available in the marketplace that reinforce views they already hold. People don’t want to work all day then come home and think hard thoughts. It seems for many coming home and watching someone tell them how their opinions and feelings are right is more satisfying that watching the news, thinking about it, and forming rational thoughts based on critical analysis.
    Yes, I do prefer to watch shows that are similar to my views, but I also like educated discussions with those with opposing ideas that open my mind to other views. That was the reason for this thread.

    I know your discussion was from reading the transcript. But it did miss a lot of the actual story. He was using the chalkboard to show how all the different organizations (Acorn/SICU etc) are inter-related. We should know who is writing our Legislative Bills. Congress should be, but a lot of them won't even read them!

    Sure Glenn Beck does have a way of jumping around and being emotional and comic, he admits that...Look at the cover of his books. But, he also has a way of making sometimes dry political discussions entertaining. News show? No. not in the traditional sense. Important Issues Show? Yes. Entertaining? Yes.
  9. larnapp's Avatar
    Posts
    171 Posts
    Global Posts
    181 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Ok, when has he been wrong though? ACORN? Van Jones? There are many issues he has discussed. Tell us. You are most aware that the mainsteam media ignored the Van Jones controversy. You are most aware that the mainstream media ignored ACORN until they were shamed to report on it. You are most aware that Barry does not do Fox because he will be asked hard questions and not have a teleprompter.
    I don't hate Beck. Heck, I don't even dislike him. I was just commenting that, since he changed his style over the past few years, I don't enjoy his shows any more, and I've found it helpful to give him a smaller role in my life as he has gotten more excited/extreme.

    There's no question he has hit the nail on the head with all kinds of issues. I'm glad he's not blindly toting any party line and I've seen him take down Bush with no compunction. I appreciate what he has done to uncover Obama administration actions ignored by the mainstream media as well.

    I guess my post was simply pointing out that, whether or not you think he's right all the time, he loses some credibility by assuming the role of the hyper-excited right-winger yelling armageddon or crying to make a point. Sitting in with Fox and Friends he called Obama a racist, and minutes later in the same discussion, he says, "I never said he's a racist."

    I've seen Beck have his ultra-serious, talk-in-low-tones-and-lean-toward-the-camera-to-make-a-very-meaningful-point kind of moments on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, China, Clinton, Obama, terrorism, 9/11, the ACLU, and his botched hemorrhoid surgery. Credibility gets diminished when everything's a crisis.

    Did Beck out the Acorn folks? Yep! And long before Obama was president, I considered Acorn's actions to be questionable at best. I'm glad he finally outed them and I'm glad they got what's coming to them.

    Actually, I hope this starts a whole new trend in TRUE investigative journalism and that there are LOTS more real undercover journalists investigating everything from the ACLU to the RNC, DNC, heck, how about an investigative journalist infiltrating the offices of ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox news? (There just has to be a 'gentlemen's agreement' that they won't investigate each other, so I'm hoping some young, hot-shot independent would!!) Wouldn't it be cool if DOZENS of self-appointed journalists with hidden cameras did stings on government agencies and politicians? That would be a fun series to watch! Fortunately for Beck, there's no shortage of despicable folks in high offices and a HUGE shortage of mainstream media coverage. Everybody's just regurgitating the AP newswire.

    I guess my other problem is that I used to get all caught up in all these issues and let them take over a large part of my mindshare. I'd listen to talk radio and tune in to all the evening news and weekend politico shows, and all I ever got, was mad. I personally was no better off and I personally have no power to do more than just vote the jerks out of office when it's election time.

    These days I tune in occasionally across the board. I skim several web sites. I stay informed. But I DON'T get all spun-up into an outrage any more.

    I liked Beck more when he used to present issues (and genuine insights) with various funny production bits on his radio show. He took the edge off the daily crap. These days he's just too much of a fatalist and extreme communicator for me to enjoy tuning in regularly. He doesn't take the edge off while pointing out absurdities... he IS the edge now.

    There is a value to Beck. He has a place in my consumption of news. It's just smaller since he got so extreme.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by rothoof View Post
    This is a Palm Pre website!
    Where's the ban hammer when we need it?
    Last edited by groovy; 09/22/2009 at 11:00 PM.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    That would be odd since I watched the ridiculous Acorn story on ABC news last week.
    There's your problem. You're watching ABC news! j/k

    Actually, I wanted to ask you if you can your support the assertion that CSM is fair and balanced? Sure, mediamatters and many democratic blogs say that they are, but what do you use as an objective resource when determining which media outlet is "fair and balanced"? This isn't a taunt. I'd seriously like to know, and will start using them as a resource. I'm not Christian, so I was turned off by the name, figuring they'd be biased against Darwin, Judaism, Islam, etc.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #32  
    I doubt if any of Acorn supporters use Pre. I myself am a second hand user of Palm and Sony Clie devices. Acorn is more grass roots than other groups in my opinion.

    In Chinatown LA we have a developer that refuses to make any concessions for Affordable Housing and so that is how I witnessed Acorn in Action. Pretty much against a private developer a voice of the People is pretty useless. Nonetheless Acorn volunteered to help us protest the developer's stubborn resistance (even though to no effect).

    I'd rather encourage groups to have a voice than to silence them. Glen Beck, et al think that Acorn has been silenced, ha. It is a publicity stunt, we will still have gangsters that control prostitution and other frauds, and you won't hear the last of Acorn.
    If Glen Beck pats his own back and stops trying to stop unscruplious behavior that would be bad. People should demand all media to try to stop unscrupulous behavior, or is Glen Beck all Bread and Circus? He takes credit but doesn't do much investigative journalism.

    Oh wait the real Job of Glen Beck is to be a cheerleader? OK I guess I will be cheerleading Michael Moore, he seems to be a partial journalist or commentator that I admire as opposed to Glen Beck who basically jumps where the conservative bandwagon is going.
  13. #33  
    da Thomas you forgot to mention that Christian Science Monitor has been winning a lot of Pulizer (sp?) prizes for journalism. An award awarded to journalists by journalists.

    Anyway I thought that might help to defend your point about CSM being worthy to be called prestigious.
  14. #34  
    Glenn who ???
  15. #35  
    From Webster:
    "Ignorance - The condition of being ignorant; the lack of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed."

    So by that definition does that mean that those that make a decision with the exclusion of both sides is uneducated, thus ignorant or posting in forum threads ignorance in itself?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    There's your problem. You're watching ABC news! j/k

    Actually, I wanted to ask you if you can your support the assertion that CSM is fair and balanced? Sure, mediamatters and many democratic blogs say that they are, but what do you use as an objective resource when determining which media outlet is "fair and balanced"? This isn't a taunt. I'd seriously like to know, and will start using them as a resource. I'm not Christian, so I was turned off by the name, figuring they'd be biased against Darwin, Judaism, Islam, etc.
    Besides the already mentioned Pulitzer and other awards, the lack of corporate ownership and support are key factors to choosing a neutral yet effective source of news.

    As I type this I am watching the News Hour after watching the more commonly viewed 15 minutes of ABC news, and the 15 minutes of drug manufacturer commercials. Interestingly omitted was a story about The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid sending a letter to insurance companies to stop sending propaganda letters to their customers regarding medicare.

    Pretty telling.
  17. #37  
    [Originally Posted by Technologic 2] View Post
    How about the recent movements to Socialism, while it has been slowly coming a long time, Bush sped it up and[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Ok, I'll bite. How did the Bush admin move this Nation towards Socialism?

    And if you want to DVR something worthwhile, try the News Hour every evening on PBS.
    Still wondering about this....?
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Besides the already mentioned Pulitzer and other awards, the lack of corporate ownership and support are key factors to choosing a neutral yet effective source of news.

    As I type this I am watching the News Hour after watching the more commonly viewed 15 minutes of ABC news, and the 15 minutes of drug manufacturer commercials. Interestingly omitted was a story about The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid sending a letter to insurance companies to stop sending propaganda letters to their customers regarding medicare.

    Pretty telling.
    Yes, I'd say they have a stake in this, wouldn't you? BTW, insurance companies are made up of normal everyday folks who pay their taxes, their insurance premiums, copays, drug bills, just like everyone else. They don't get special good old boy deals like the jokers in the federal government.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Besides the already mentioned Pulitzer ....
    Oh and thanks for the heads up. I'll check out CSM and give it a fair trial.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Yes, I'd say they have a stake in this, wouldn't you? BTW, insurance companies are made up of normal everyday folks who pay their taxes, their insurance premiums, copays, drug bills, just like everyone else. They don't get special good old boy deals like the jokers in the federal government.
    EXACTLY! I've seen stories presented about high ranking insurance company management employees that have been diagnosed with a catastrophic illness and DENIED coverage by their OWN company! And STILL worked for the insurance company!

    Those stories brought an ache to my heart that I cannot describe.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions