He is still human. Does he not still bleed? Does he not feel the thorns of life? And verily, has he no sense of humor?
Because it is goddamned funny how MSNB has said "to hell with it, we're getting behind Obama the rest of the way, though we promise to be clumsy about it often, to the inadvertent detriment of the candidate we are supporting. Even Buchanan and Scarborough are going to come off, the rest of the way, as friendly old curmudgeons who just need more time around Rachel and Keith, and they might see the light yet." Etc.
Meanwhile FOX says, "whatever, duuuuude. You knew where we'd be the whole time."
Compare all this with the putridness of CNN as they continue to raise the brow and pretend to an above-it-all objecticity and journalistic integrity. But in reality, CNN runs mre fluff pieces, more human interest stories (heh), than the other two, and by a country mile.
FOX and MSNBC therefore win in terms of entertainment value. Flipping back and forth between them lately has been a real treat.
:-)
7 comments:
Does this mean one M&M is different? Maybe a peanut M&M?
Maybe. Just maybe at present we could call MSNBC the peanut M&M to FOX's Green M&M.
But by God, they're both M&Ms.
But the consistency of the M&M is different when peanuts are involved. The taste is different to the point where they are not the same...
Let's remember nuance..
But CNN may be a reese's pieces.
"ET phone home."
On a serious note, Solon, Harrogate asks ye to remember that however so different the peanut M&M and the green M&M may be from a Rhetorical Perspective, one Divine Truth Overrides Both:
The people making them are tied to the same central beast, the shareholders are the same, and in the end, the Interests guiding them are the same.
It is, as they say, not change. It is indeed more of the same.
While that is true, I do not believe in the unquestioned power of the media. TL is filled with that BS. It seems like just because it is on TV people will believe it.
This is a very negative view of the people. Further, it is not empirical. For example, and this is just an example, PUMA cries out against the sexism in the media and implies it is one reason why Clinton lost the primary. Yet, they do not provide any evidence of how sexism translate to votes. In fact, Clinton did better in the polls after the charges wee made though this too may be correlation rather than causation.
You may be able to discuss how views are included or excluded but research suggests that this is all the media can do. human agency interferes after this point.
Well, the idea of a healthy national press representing multiple viewpoints AND bringing vital information to the public is interwoven into how many patriots see the country.
Just because for one cycle some people identify offensive refrains in the media, does not mean that the source of the problem--Media Consolodation--has even been recognized. Name a single important Democrat who even speaks to this issue.
When television and print media is owned by a small handful of entities, as it is today, the flow of information gets controlled. In terms of dangerous consequences, such problems as sexism and racism are dwarfed by--or more accurately--enfolded within, this larger problem.
To the extent that human agency depends on the flow of information, America's in bad shape today. To say the least. If they threw a party for the First Amendment today, HArrogate probably wouldn't even RSVP.
Post a Comment