President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 14, 2009 06:35 AM UTC
110 Comments
Some really great points.
It is so obvious that Stewart’s attacks on Rick Santelli and James Cramer were planted by the White House.
His attacks had the feel of a hard left war room run by Obama’s defenders.
Even then, Stewart didn’t know what he was talking about. He doesn’t know finance, and he doesn’t know journalism.
He’s saying CNBC should have caught the fraudsters that no regulators caught? He’s saying that CNBC, which has only two reporters who pretend to dig for news, should have spotted the bubble burst that even Warren Buffett missed?
His attacks on Santelli and Cramer were all about style, not substance nor content. He didn’t discuss real economic or stock market issues.
Like Cramer, he entertained, and Cramer actually handled himself pretty well, keeping Stewart from escalating his attacks any more.
Is CNBC blameless? No. I watch it all of the time, and it has it’s good and bad moments.
95% of its viewers are in on the joke and profit from it.
Clueless beginners catch on pretty quickly. Even rookies know phonies when they see them. And anybody who takes the time to watch CNBC probably is reading stock blogs and financial sites at the same time. Not everyone spends their days texting and sexting.
So Stewart played the take down guy for Obama and the hard left. Big deal. He made some good points, got the conversation going and dropped the subject as most will in a day or so.
The real question is, how will CNBC react? Cramer began his Friday show with a segment, “Cramer vs. Stewart.” He was making pies with Martha. His only other reference to the silliness came when he asked if he could use one of his comical buttons.
I don’t know how CNBC might change as a result of this uproar. I hope it gets away from its continuing efforts to promote a bull market in the face of Obama’s disastrous economic policies. But I doubt it will.
You might impress yourself with your various pretensions of unique and unparalleled knowledge, your bizarre and completely arbitrary conspiracy theories, your constant indictments of the almost unlimited supply of people who run intellectual circles around you, but everyone else just sees and hears a total whack job. You know, if you have to j***-off, and yell out the fantasies that are inspiring you as you do it no less, at least have the decency to do it in private. It’s just embarrassing to the rest of us to have to watch it.
who’s determined to shut down debate.
… he posted his bio around here somewhere in the past week or two. 49 years old, world traveler, perpetual student (ok you nailed him on that one), military vet, etc.
Sorry AS, he’s pegged you pretty well merely by reading your own words.
to post your often insane opinions somewhere other than the very first post on the thread, assuring that you will stir up controversy.
If you want to have a conversation (I don’t think you do, but I’m throwing you a bone) then please, for the sake of having a reasonable discourse, post your contrary, intentionally stupid reparte at the bottom of the post. Either that, or post earlier.
Take this opportunity to be a reasonable human being and stop thread-jacking. It’s beyond annoying. I don’t care what you post, but follow the normal flow of the topic.
Here’s your opportunity to act like an adult.
a thoughtful response. I have often said that I think this should be a thoughtful forum where ideas are discussed with tolerance and without personal attacks. But I am completely serious when I say that I suspect that AS might well be clinically schizophrenic: He suffers delusions of grandeur, imagines highly improbable conspiracies, is belligerent toward a world of perceived inferiors, is impervious to all externally provided information or reasoning, and is oblivious to how others see him.
But this may not be obvious to all casual readers at a glance, and, in fact, this forum is a form of publication. What is contained within it matters. Ideally, I would correct AS’s constant flow of misinformation with carefully constructed, empirically supported, well-reasoned debate, as I often have done. But he is such a noise-factory that the demand on my time and energy to do so is simply too great.
On the one hand, I don’t want to invest the time necessary to dismantle each and every one of his posts in order to nullify his production of misinformation, but on the other hand I don’t want to let his flow of misinformation stand unchallenged. So I treat it as it deserves to be treated, as the ramblings of a nut-case who, like most schizophrenics, can appear to a casual observer to be perfectly normal, and so perfectly credible. Schizophrenics are very dangerous for just that reason, which is why I don’t just shake my head and move on when I see one of AS’s posts.
And, as an aside, one small clarification of harrydoby’s essentially correct recap of my bio: I also taught at both the college and high school levels, and have worked (briefly, to be sure) in factories, on farms and in orchards, in offices and “in the field,” and with both small children and the elderly (in a nursing home), so, aside from my 13 years of post-BA education and my 8 years of adult life working, living, and traveling abroad on three continents, I have managed to experience a pretty substantial range of “normal” life experience as well.
So, AS, you may be right in this case that I’m “determined to shut down debate,” but, as harrydoby said, 25 and clueless I’m not.
As some around here have learned over the years, I can back up anything I say with links and citations. That’s why so few really challenge me anymore.
I happen to have a lot of experience in a lot of fields and a lot of opinions that I do not hold back, much to the dismay of those who’ve never considered that anyone would ever dispute their bubblized views of the world.
Steve appears to be one of those folks who’ve traveled the world with blinders on. He probably thinks I do the same, and to a certain degree, we all do.
What I see on this and other forums are narrow minded people who refuse to consider the views of others and are angered when their views are challenged politely and otherwise.
This board also is populated by people who obviously believe the best way to advance their agendas is to shut down debate by calling people names and mocking them. Such tactics work on a lot of people who just decide to hell with it and go away.
Thus, the disappearance of most thinking people from this site.
I happen to enjoy the give and take and use character assassinations as an opportunity to expose the tactics of the brown shirts.
Lefties have a real advantage, because few conservatives bother to post on lefty boards just as few lefties post on righty boards. I happen to do both and irritate people at times on both kinds of boards because I don’t always agree with the consensus.
I think for myself, and that disturbs some people.
Yes, character assassination is ugly. The real way to solve it is to yell something nastier back.
That’s not thinking for yourself, that’s taking a page from my mean, older sister… when she was eight.
is because you are clearly schizophrenic, exhibiting severe paranoia as well as a God-complex and a complete inability to see yourself as others see you. Most of us have realized that rational debate with you is simply not possible, any more than rational debate with a man screaming at passersby on a Denver street corner is possible.
Occasionally we point this fact out to anyone who still cares, but for the most part it’s just gotten boring.
AS, while I thought Steve’s remote diagnosis of you as schizophrenic was a bit over the top, I also see his point:
In reading his entire body of work on this site, it is very plain to see Steve does his research with dilligence and integrity.
But it could be a full-time job turning this site into the http://www.snopes.com focused merely on you 😉
So as you say:
So here’s your chance — I’ll start with an easy one for you to prove to us as fact:
Start with this thread.
You’ll see that some serious people are concerned about Progressive Media and Unity 09.
http://www.plnewsforum.com/ind…
Politico.com reports on Progressive Media:
http://dyn.politico.com/member…
And on Unity 09:
http://dyn.politico.com/member…
Search the web for “Progressive Media.” It was created by Media Matters, etc. and its supporters overlap with Unity 09.
Now you may not think this is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that it’s obvious that the Obama folks and their supporters are behind Stewart’s attacks on Santelli and Cramer.
I do. If you disagree, that’s ok. We can wait for more info. People will brag, and books will be written.
The correct answer is: Jon Stewart is nobody’s errand boy, he thinks for himself.
As hard as I tried following your links above, which while raving about the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, none seemed to mention Jon Stewart or the Puppetmasters inhabiting the Obama White House.
That was the challenge I gave you (actually you gave yourself — now you can give yourself a failing grade).
I noticed below in your reply to Steve that it only took you 8 words to totally confirm for all to see, that what he and SXP said about you is true.
But then, some people don’t connect the dots.
you would have said, “and so, with syllogistic precision, I have proven my point, which can only be attacked by disproving these facts which were demonstrated in such-and-such convincing manner, or disproving a correctly constructed syllogism, which can’t be done,” rather than:
“Now you may not think this is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that it’s obvious that the Obama folks and their supporters are behind Stewart’s attacks on Santelli and Cramer. I do. If you disagree, that’s ok. We can wait for more info.”
Once again, you don’t really understand what the application of sound logic to solid evidence looks like. Or, as the above suggests, maybe you do, but would rather do your bizarre contortions than face the fact that sound logic applied to solid evidence rarely if ever leads to the conclusions that you are so unshakably committed to arbitrarily believing….
But mostly it’s the latter.
Steve, you still don’t get how silly you look.
LOL.
Where is your imagined abundance of knowledge and mastery of reason? That’s the best you can do?
It’s a bit like Shit saying to Foot, “Ha Ha! You stepped in me, and now don’t YOU smell bad!” But Foot can always just take off Shoe and be good as new, while Shit’s going to go right on being Shit.
You know, unless Shit has an epiphany, or gets some help, or something.
If that is “traveling the world with blinders on,” then you have a very idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of the words you use.
There is no credbility gained by linking to irrelevant sites that either list facts that don’t support your conclusions, or list your favored conclusions unsupported by any facts. Credibility is built by combining well-documented and painstakingly derived facts, on the one had, with precise and compelling logic on the other. You have never come close to doing any such thing on this site. The fact that you keep telling us that that is what you do does not make it reality. It only makes it your incessant refrain.
You are an ideological broken record completely divorced from reality, as understood by those who do combine logic and evidence to draw conclusions. You constantly pronounce yourself superior, and constant demonstrate the opposite, with an utterly oblivioius attitude toward the discrepency.
You ooze belligerance constantly, and then are beside yourself with indignation when others fail to treat you with the respect you have done absolutely nothing to earn.
You tell us that you are smart, experienced, knowledgeable, while demonstrating that you are none of those things. Which should we believe, your self-proclaimed attributes, or your clearly demonstrated ones?
Interesting.
I would think you could rise above me, and respond with a clear, cool, empirically supported, and logically compelling refutation or alternative representation. Yet, over and over again, what we get are your empty announcements: Your announcement that you are well-informed and highly experienced, your announcement that you have a superior understanding of how markets work, your announcement that you are rational and all who disagree with you are not. You do not ever actually support these announcements with, well, rational argumentation or presentation.
Yes, I insulted you. Yes, I stated, with complete sincerety, that I suspect that you might suffer from schizophrenia (though of course that is only a remote suspicion, as another poster rightly pointed out). Yes, I called you a fraud. But I did so through a thorough and reasoned argument, mobilizing the evidence of how you present yourself and what you write.
And so you, quite reasonably, felt justified to insult me in turn. But it’s just an insult, what you replied with. There is no other content to back it up. It is as arbitrary as everything else you assert here. It is empty, meaningless, devoid of force, devoid of credibility. And the amazing thing is that you are completely oblivious to the distinction!
You have no idea how revealing that is. To you, an empty insult unsupported by any argument (what you have aimed at me) is identical to an insulting analysis of another person’s qualities as a thinker and poster (what I aimed at you). Don’t you get it? That is the difference between us! We are both, at least at times, impolite and offensive. But only one of is also rational and analytical. And you just can’t help but continue to demonstrate your own irrationality, your lack of content to back up all of your proclaimations about yourself and about the world beyond you. It is what flows from you, as naturally and comically as air from a inflated balloon let loose to shoot across the room in a burst of ridiculous self-importance.
You read the banter here, and you know banter is different than debates about the issues.
Although I post diaries on serious issues, I also banter and trade insults.
Problem is I can take it and some tender souls can’t.
Steve, I’m not going to waste my time replying to people with closed minds. This board has as many closed minds as I’ve seen on boards and lists in my decades of posting online.
So my purpose here is to show that not everyone agrees with the Obama line, not to change minds that can’t be changed.
I hope people who read my posts learn something even if they won’t admit it, and if they don’t, that’s their loss, not mine.
Face it. For most readers, it’s in one ear and out the other. Entertaining while it lasts but hardly memorable.
That’s why we shouldn’t take ourselves so seriously.
Now, i know you don’t appreciate clear, authoritative writing, but that’s my style. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. Many don’t, and that’s ok with me.
So, if you can’t handle banter, don’t start it. If you want an intelligent response, ask intelligent questions. If you want credibility, post where everyone agrees with you.
If you want to learn something, join a serious message board, not a string of comments on a blog.
you’re absolutely right. You are an authoritative voice in a sea of folly. You, and you alone, are open-minded enough to know that your extremely narrow truth is the only reasonable one. The rest of us are simply too closed minded to find our way to that precise location, and are locked instead into a broad range of thought foolishly to the left of your extreme, but brilliantly accurate, wisdom.
And your banter! Oh, my, how we laugh and laugh at your dry wit! Of course, your good nature, your love of mankind, your willingness to hear what others have to say and consider it respectfully, while the rest of us, benighted souls that we are, simply cannot rise to such heights of gracious wisdom, which just shines through our ignorance as the morning sun cuts through the torpid fog.
It takes a very special person indeed to remain so committed to a self-perception so far removed from reality, and so consistently refuted by all others (only because we are all on the evil Left, of course. But, wait, I have yet to hear from Libertad, or Robert Jorden, or Barron X, or cologeek, rising to your defense, asserting that yes, indeed, AS is really as brilliant and superior as he believes…. Hmmmm. They must be in on the conspiracy as well).
You have solved the dilemma, AS. I no longer have to choose between wasting my time dismantling your delusions and running the risk that some hapless one-time reader might mistake it for reason. I will simply hyperlink to this thread from now on, when the need arises, with a very short introduction as to its relevance.
Thanks, old chum. And, please, don’t ever deprive the world of your wonderful “banter”!!!! Man, you just crack me up!!!!!
Man, you are full of yourself. And it’s no surprise to see you projecting your sins on others, especially those least guilty of them.
Once you have something to teach, then others will have something to learn. Try living up to your own hype, eh?
I put together a few of AS’s greatest hits (from this thread alone), along with a bit of color commentary:
“I can back up anything I say with links and citations.” (when he does, it is to other people identical to him, who don’t back up their ravings either. Why not just always post on two different sites, and back each up by hyperlinking to the other? It’s the same thing).
“Steve, you still don’t get it[.]
You read the banter here, and you know banter is different than debates about the issues.” (so, now that AS is just making things up and can’t demonstrate otherwise, it’s no longer the case that he can back everything he says up, as if it were “a debate on the issues,” but rather the case that it’s all just banter and I shouldn’t expect him to be able to back anything up. It’s only a debate that he can win until someone challenges him, and then, abracadabra! it’s just banter! Marvelous!).
“So, if you can’t handle banter, don’t start it” and “So you can only reply with character assassination.” (which is it? Are we supposed to “take the banter or get out of the kitchen,” or “not subject each other to character assassination”? Oh! I get it! Everyone else should take your “banter,” but no one should subject you to any! Of course, how silly of me!).
“His attacks had the feel of a hard left war room run by Obama’s defenders” (how, exactly, is this something that can be “backed up,” as AS claims above he can always do, rather than the arbitrary opinion it announces itself to be with the word “feel”?)
“What I see on this and other forums are narrow minded people who refuse to consider the views of others.” (this is the most remarkable of all, and hardly needs commentary, coming from someone who says the exact same thing, over and over again, without the slightest variation or refinement through interaction).
“He didn’t discuss real economic or stock market issues.” (without any indication of what about his discussion wasn’t real, or what a real discussion would look like. As someone actually trained in economics, I continue to marvel at AS’s chutzpa claiming to have any economic expertise at all. Where’s the play-by-play on Stewart’s fallacies and errors, citing legitimate economic theory? Doesn’t exist, anywhere. Stewart was right on target).
“If you want to learn something, join a serious message board, not a string of comments on a blog.” (meaning, oddly enough, that you realize that we don’t have anything to learn from you after all. But, have no fear, I learn much from the sane people here).
“I’m not a 25-year-old, clueless law student who’s determined to shut down debate.” (referring to me, who isn’t 25 either. Let’s not even get into the whole issue of who is and isn’t “clueless,” and who does and does not consistently try to shut down debate).
“Thus, the disappearance of most thinking people from this site.” (definition of “thinking people” for AS: People who think exactly like him, and have not thoughts that diverge from his).
“Lefties have a real advantage” (I always heard the opposite: It’s a world made for right-handed people).
“because I don’t always agree with the consensus.” (no, you only agree with yourself. You and Rosy Palm, together, forever…).
“I think for myself, and that disturbs some people” (actually what disturbs people is that you think by yourself, and then subject the rest of us to it).
“Now, i know you don’t appreciate clear, authoritative writing, but that’s my style” (it’s a good thing you told us, because otherwise we never would have guessed. Most of us are under the mistaken impression that it’s just a bunch of unsupported, self-serving, delusional rambling, claimed to be subject to proof until proof is requested, at which point it was really just banter after all).
You know, AS, some people put their foot in their mouth from time to time, but you, fortunatly, never do, because your mouth, along with the rest of your head, is lodged in a place that the foot just can’t get to.
It does no good and it annoys the mule. When A.S. posts some brain-dead screed, just ignore him.
but the mule isn’t my audience.
It does me good. It restores the proper flow of chi energy through the disrupted meridians of our incorporeal collective body.
It hones my faculties of persuasion in the same way that isometrics builds muscles: Since it’s impossible to persuade a mule, the incessant attempt to do so is the best of all exercise.
It generates emotive-intellectual energy that I then convert into electricity in order to run my electric pencil sharpener so that I can continue to write my priceless barbs of witty repartee on this site.
It lowers my blood pressure and clears my sinuses.
These are just a few of the ways that it does me good. Don’t be such a kill-joy.
AS will not change his mind. I doubt that many (any?) people on this thread take him seriously. Your lengthy replies just raise your heart rate and shorten your life. Steve, please, for the sake of your health, when you see that the thread is written by AS (which you can tell within the first 3-5 words), just scroll down to the next comment. AS is getting fat fat fat with all the troll food you’re giving him.
But see above. You want me to have clogged sinuses, or what?
This is why I voted for you in both elections. Maybe next time…
Welcome back.
I appreciate it. 🙂
I thought you brought some credibility so, I return with cap in hand.
All I was asking is that you reply somewhere downthread as your comment in reply to the very first comment was threadjacking and it’s rude.
I couldn’t possibly care less what you post, but do us a favor and do it downthread so it doesn’t cause 35 comments to appear at the top of the page and take away from a really good discussion.
I’m not expecting you’ll oblige, but it would be really nice.
.
When I read posts that purport to psychoanalyze others, I am reminded of Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo from her blog postings.
Everybody sees through me. I don’t bother with pretensions because I can’t pull them off.
One reason I participate here is to witness to folks here the love of Jesus Christ. I’m not really qualified to do that. I’m not especially good at it, either. But folks here are smart enough to figure out what I’m trying to say, regardless of how poorly I say it.
So now I’m responding to the dogpile on Another Skeptic. I’m not feeling love, or respect, coming out of these exchanges.
I know something about him (her) that some of you may have temporarily forgotten: he was created by God out of love, and is precious in His sight.
In more secular language, he deserves the dignity owed to every human being.
Should he be embarrassed by some of the things he has said ? Not for me to say.
But the idea that he is schizoid ? That’s not a diagnosis. It’s an attempt to inflict a deeply hurtful wound. I ask that we keep the personal attacks to “snotface,” “stinkypoo” and the like.
I had two personal friends when I was in college who suffered that mental disorder. Their lives were extremely painful. From the outside, I’d say it was worse than terminal cancer or AIDS or Old Testament leprosy. Almost everyone spurned them.
We are decent folks here. If we really thought someone posting here was schizo, we would all be moved to tears. No way would we expose them.
So how about we tone down the ugliness ?
.
I have known many schzophrenics in my life, because twice I have lived in university towns near recently “de-institutionalized” mental facilities where they formed an entire sub-culture. I befriended several, in both places, and engaged in the often disjointed conversations, or normal conversations with an alternate reality as the referrent, that are common manifestations of the illness. My statement about AS was a statement of sincere belief, and said for a purpose that I consider valid and “in the public interest.”
Schizophrenia isn’t just a disease that’s suffered in private. It also has serious “negative externalities.” I would venture to guess that a large portion of historical human suffering had someone who
was suffering from that disorder at or close to its center.
AS posts angrily couched falsehoods that do a disservice to public discourse and a disservice to the fostering of an understanding of the world we live in. He does so with a repeated, and apparently sincere, belief in his own superiority constantly repeated throughout, which, on open forums, is an attempt to signal “credentials” which support his falsehoods. I will respond with every perception and deduction I have at my disposal to shed a bright light on the falsity both of the claimed superiority and of the theories that is communicated in its name. If I think that his claims to superiority, based on what I think is clearly a delusional relationship to reality, has the potential to mislead and reduce the sum total of “knowledge” in the world, I will point out why I believe that to be the case.
You are at your best when you take from your religion the lessons of humility and tolerance. You are at your worst when you take from it the lessons of self-righteous indignation that others choose not to be you.
You can ask what you like. I will post according to my judgment, not yours.
You have made an impassioned, religion-reinforced, apparantly neutral and humanitarian complaint about the “belligerence” being directing against the most, and most consistently, belligerent poster on this site. Even if we remove from the calculation any supposition that one side in this exchange is more justified than the other (which I think would favor the side you chose to direct your complaint toward), by what criterion have you selected toward whom to direct your criticism? Is it possible that the fact that it is directed toward the side toward which you are in ideological disagreement is something other than pure coincidence? Have you considered that that might not be a mere oversight?
AS almost never makes a post that isn’t intended to incite others and insult everyone who disagrees with him. Yet you are offended only by the response to this incitement, and not by the incitement itself. Maybe, Barron, you need to examine the purity of your own heart, before so quickly and conveniently attributing impurity to others.
which states exactly how I reacted to your post, Barron, except that my supposition is that you’re sticking up for AS because he is all alone, rather than Steve’s supposition that it’s due to you being more aligned ideologically with AS. I was raised Catholic; it’s the sort of thing Jesus would have done and I can see that being your motive.
But, I have to reinforce the answer – do you really want to start a defense of one of this site’s most truly obnoxious posters with the phrase, “This site is a place for respectful exchange”? AS is the antithesis of the respectful poster, the first one to fling mud at anyone who disagrees with him, the one who will post something dismissive and contemptuous about a topic he doesn’t like. You know this. You’ve read him for years like I have.
Respect, for most of us, is a two way street, and you have to give it in order to receive it. AS doesn’t give it. That is his choice. The fact that he continually comes back for this indicates that he gets a charge out of it. If that’s not why, maybe someone else can posit a good reason.
I respect you, Barron. If you’re doing your Christian duty by standing up for AS, more power to you. But be aware that your defense is not too credible.
attribution of “noble” motives to him is correct, but he has also sometimes given me the impression that he uses his sanctimony as a rhetorical and strategic tool. I don’t know which is more the case, but his last post inclines me toward the latter.
A few days ago, I went to great length to argue the point with Yokel (on the stem cell thread) that to apply the proscription against murder to the protection of an early-stage embryo requires the use of religious mysticism in some form or another, because the taxonomical and semantic arguments do not address the question of “is this a human being for the purposes of the proscription against murder“? Barron has expressed his displeasure to me before in similar instances.
I’m not convinced that there is no connection. Barron’s choice of language does not, to me, appear designed to promote good will, but rather to redistibute the balance of credibility.
.
Go ahead and make your judgments about Another Skeptic and his (her) arguments, but keep in mind his humanity.
I wouldn’t try to defend the post about the Obama White House directing John Stewart’s scriptwriting because I find it hard to believe. I don’t see any ideological alignment of my views with his on this issue, but we very often agree on others.
When I scanned through the back-and-forth, I concluded that AS has an emotional investment in establishing credibility here.
While I think that’s a tough row to hoe, and while I may not know as much about human nature as some of the more learned posters here,
I’m something of an expert on failure and its fallout.
I think his target audience on this site is the more conservative posters like me, and he spats with you in order to influence me more than to influence you.
I’m asking for attenuation of meanspiritedness. AS can be just as ugly as anyone, but he was standing alone, against several who disputed his views. I thought the purported medical diagnosis was too much.
…….
Regarding the purity of my heart, Ari and others raised Catholic can tell you that a fundamental tenet of the paradigm is the individual’s suffocating guilt. I think the teaching is that I got my “original sin” when I got my humanity, at conception, and they might even be two different aspects of the same thing: sinfulness as an essential constituent of being human.
“Sanctimony” is my other middle name.
.
I find your sanctimony to be something more, or less, than what you claim it to be. In fact, sanctimony usually is more, or less, than what it claims to be.
I did not, in fact, “diagnose” AS: I stated a simple fact, that I suspect that he may be schizophrenic. I would place the odds at about 25% or 30%. And, as I said, the purpose of my post was to discredit him quickly (though what ensued defeated that purpose), because he is a massive generator of misinformation, and I am disinclined both to let misinformation stand unchallenged, and to invest all the time necessary to dismantle one poster’s relentless barrage of misinformation through logic and evidence (though I have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to do so).
I believe that you, in turn, have set out to discredit me, by choosing your definition of the situation, and your language in how to frame it and promote it. That’s fine, but I’m not inclined to accede to your rhetorical maneuver. You may or may not recognize it as such (my guess is the latter), but that doesn’t change what it is. One difference between you using a “short cut” to discredit me, and my using a “short cut” to discredit AS is that I could have accomplished it the long way, but merely wanted to save time and effort.
If you want your sanctimony to be credible as the noble sentiment that you claim it to be, then mobilize it in defense of those you generally and deeply disagree with, rather than reserving it to support those who generally are more aligned with you against those who generally are more disaligned with you. Otherwise, it certainly would appear to be an attempt to win a debate by wearing a snap-on halo rather than by mobilizing the most compelling arguments.
Less you seem the whitened scapular…
spare me the emphathy for names on a screen.
BTW…what have you done to ease the pain of the children, families destroyed by the priests of your church?
You’re absolutely right, Stewart has done a great job (in particular lately, but for a long time), and is doing the work some other journalists aren’t.
It’s also true that we have a long tradition of comedians and commentators speaking truth to power, often more coherently and incisively than the toughest journos.
One key thing Stewart does, though, is ask the hard questions, refuse to take politicians’ words at face value, and maintains a constant skepticism. Anyone who does that, whether new media or, as you put it, “real reporters,” serves a vital function in our democracy. People who don’t, whether they’re bloggers or MSM stenographers, don’t.
John Stewart is simply carrying on a tradition handed to him by the likes of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and thousands more before them.
I am a big fan of Mr. Stewart and find it hideously funny that AS believes he is getting his direction from the Obama administration. That’s just crazy.
Proving once again that what I write in my long flowery posts can be reduced to just three little words!
Am I the only one here who thought of Chris “Chills up my leg” Matthews and the fawning coverage of MSNBC during the election?
and their military analysts that made the case for war after extensive debriefing by the Pentagon. These analysts profited off the war too – another tidbit Fox News conveniently left out of their coverage.
there are a million examples on both the left and the right. And most of the rest are coasting.
devolving into one great big perky TV version of US News combined with Parade Magazine. But the blogosphere is no substitute for the rigorous traditional journalistic standards exemplified by the best newspapers. If we let them and their standards for fact checking and the whole mind set behind those standards and the brand of reporter who lives by those standards go entirely it will be a tragic, irreparable loss.
Those are talk shows for debate and discussion….they make no pretense of being straight reporting.
Some of what is on FOX parades as “news”…but the rest are mirror reverse of Olberman, etc.
Matthews is a many colored coat….he is all over the board depending on where the ethnic irish catholic position might be at any time…
Wasn’t the chills up my leg for McCain??
I thought the question at hand here was “media,” not just news. After all, Stewart was known for skewering the CNN equivalent talk show. I’m not sure how not being “news” clears Matthews and Olbermann in this case.
Heck, I could argue that most of CNBC isn’t direct news, but rather a handful of folks BSing about a specific variety of news.
Also, Erin Burnett is about the hottest infobabe on the planet. She gets a permanent pass from all criticism. Though Molly Henneburg is a close second.
Also, that was a comment clearly about how wonderful the candidate Obama was making everyone feel.
Catherine Kravtsova is the hottest infobabe on the planet.
Although I agree that Erin Burnett is ultrasexy not only becasue of her looks but because she is so damn smart.
Because she’s so smart, she’s got personality and can actually let it show rather than just reading news.
Did I say I’m smitten?
I’ll look into Catherine Kravtsova.
Media is too broad a term to be useful in this discussion. “The medium is the message” was a statement by a Marshall
McCullhan (sp?_ back in the sixties…powerfully illuminating that the medium shapes the message to such a degree that it becomes the message…he was basically talking about the power of television…
However, moving back to Yokel. The right wing lumps all the various forms of media communication into one for the purpose of promoting its propaganda and confusing the issue. For our purposes here we should divide the media into two broad groups and then subdivide them.
1) Broadcast media – media which uses the public airwaves, includes both radio and tv and is subject to government licensing and regulation. A finite resource.
2) Everything else – media which includes, but is not limited to, cable, satellite radio (although David raises some questions about how this should also be regulated.) print and Internet. Not regulated or licensed by the government and absolutely protected under the First Amendment. Unlimited resource.
Within the two categories, are the same subgrousp:
“News” – the reporting of events according to journalistic standards of objectivity…
Analysis – factually based review of above
Advertising – material designed to persuade
Opinion – Everything else
While we’re arguing over definitions, “journalistic standards” and “objectivity” have never been as close as those who follow said standards claim. What is often reported as “news” is really more an analysis of what the author/speaker has made of their observations of the events. But even then, “analysis” itself is rarely truly factual, as we all see an analyze things through our own biases.
In fact, I’d argue that an honest admission of a given bias on the part of a news analyst is more important, and more honest, than any claim of objectivity.
Finally, wouldn’t your definition of “advertising” work for “opinion” as well? And isn’t implicit in any analysis the attempt to persuade the receiver of the information to agree with the analysis, and therefore at least tacitly agree with the initial assumptions?
On topic, one thing I’ve found I like about CNBC – besides the aforementioned Erin Burnett – is the fact that they’re never evasive about their interest in their ownership. While they’re imperfect as well, the rest of the “news” channels could probably take some notes.
Your above quote is very interesting. I think that an argument can be made that republican talk radio is not about free marketplace of ideas and revenue and ratings determining what is on the air; but, rather that it is advertising designed to :”sell” the Republican party.
Usually, however, advertising is paid for and a disclaimer is somewhere with the text, informing of that.
Here are my examples of what I am talking about:
News: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh criticized RNC Chairman Robert Steel.
Analysis – The Republican party is struggling to redefine itself after huge losses in the last election cycle. Limbaugh wants to control that debate and is using his radio show to marshal Republicans who agree with him, and punish those who don’t.
Advertising – Catch the next installment of Limbaugh on KOA, …
Opinion: I think that Rush Limbaugh is a jerk and it is one thing for this Missouri educated good ole boy to see a black man in the White House, but he cannot tolerate the idea that a black, Catholic is RNC chair…he will either prevail or explode
.
here’s the future of news:
Specialty syndicates will report on their area of expertise, such as wars, diseases, fashion, the upcoming release from the Jonas Brothers, etc. But they will charge mad outrageous subscription fees, in order to make a profit and stay in business.
Then aggregators like CNN or Washington Post or HuffPost will pay those fees and retail the news out, accompanied by product placements, banner ads and hacks embedded in their downloads.
Somehow they have to get people who consume news to pay for its gathering, and right now I’m not paying.
Just two years ago, AP, UPI, AFP and Reuters denied ordinary readers access to their trove of reports, sending people away to read their news at the site of a newspaper that paid for them. Then the syndicates started to crumble, and thus gave their product away in order to … I never figured that one out.
The new syndicates have learned a lesson from that.
I predict that most of us, even if we didn’t subscribe to a dead-tree newspaper, will pay fees in the future for news. We won’t even notice, because it will be part of our phone bill, which none of us understand now anyway.
.
The best single reporter on the war in Iraq & Afghanistan is Michael Yon – supported 100% through donations.
One of the best in Washington is TPM – supported 100% by click ads and doing their own original reporting.
Both are free and direct.
I think we’ll have paid too, both direct and indirect as you said above. But I don’t think there will be any single model.
Newspapers are being rapidly redirected and restructured in an effort to make them profitable in a new economic environment.
If you think local car dealers, Realtors, super markets and the Park Meadows of the world are going away, you can assume that papers, shoppers, and other ad supported media will disappear, too.
The fact is that the net doesn’t look like it will ever do the job for King Soopers or American Furniture. Yes, they’ll advertise on the web as they already do, but the web is just another segment of the media, and not a very profitable one at that for most web sites.
What has already disappeared is real journalism. Read the Post and weep. It is so much weaker than the Rocky was when it comes to reporting on just about anything.
The Post’s kind of journalism can be done by interns and volunteers who know how to rewrite press releases. And it soon will be. The economics won’t let papers pay reporters $50k to $100k a year, or whatever they get these days.
Will blogs take over? There’s not a must read blog in this state as far as I can tell. They are no better able to afford real reporting than the Post, and they won’t be.
Could a reporter live off covering the Arapahoe county government with a blog supported by ads sold by Google?
Don’t think so.
Would Dave Krieger draw enough readers to make money selling ads on a blog or web site? Don’t think so?
How many ads to you see on Coloradopols, Face the State, etc.? Not enough to pay for their servers as far as I can see.
Who cares enough about Mike Mays, Josh Penry or gov. Ritter to either cover them or go to a web site to see what they had for breakfast?
Today, local government gets little coverage even by the suburban weeklies, much less by the Post. So the idea that the Post will survive by covering mostly local news may be based on some false assumptions.
People are playing with alternatives to papers and local TV, but so far no one has come up with a really good business model, yet.
You actually made sense. I hate it when I agree with you, just on principle. But willing to admit when it happens.
I don’t think the declining quality of reporting/stenographing has much to do with the decline of print media. The average Peter Public doesn’t know the difference. The ones that do, we Polsters aside, are dead or cramming for finals.
I remember floppy armed Mrs. Hemlepp in junior high, the school newspaper teacher. I’ve never forgotten “The Five W’s”: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. It seems that this basic of reporting is no longer taught in college, to say nothing of junior high.
Don’t denigrate those who report as a hobby. A lot of astronomy, the real science being accomplished, is done by ameteurs. Software programs like Napster were written by people creating it as a hobby in their spare time.
For news there is a website in South Korea that is contributed to much like Pols that is now one of the most respected and read newspapers in the country. If Pols gets a couple of posters that will do investigative reporting as a hobby, then we could see this site (or another like it) be a significant news source in the state.
I can almost forgive you for being Boulder bound….
But, for the critical discussion on the “future of news”…There are two classic movies from the 50s, by great directors, Billy Wilder and Elia Kazan, which describe the hypocrisy and danger inherent in a free press. They ought to be part of the knowledge base of all of us. Ace in the Hole and Face in the Crowd.
http://www.amazon.com/Ace-Hole…
http://www.amazon.com/Face-Cro…
News: Correction: The new RNC Chairman’s first name is Michael, not Robert.
Analysis: Is this a simple error, or was there confusion because “black” politicans are expected to have unusual names, and the error was due to some deep seated prejudices?
Advertising:
Opinion: This particular blogger makes a lot of spelling, grammatical, and sometimes minor factual errors and trys to excuse the sloppiness on the basis of age. IMHO, this kind of sympathy pleas sucks.
Your best ever, David. I hope that every Libertarian who posts here decrying regulation and claiming, absurdly, that the market’s current woes are primarily Obama’s fault watches this and soaks up the entirety of its message.
I think the shake up in journalism, what form it takes, and what its orientation should be, is, by and large, a healthy thing with the potential to facilitate a very positive paradigm shift.
It also, however, is fraught with risk. Daly was right-on in his critiques, but neither do we want to return to the era of yellow journalism, where the impossible ideal of objectivity is completely thrown overboard. We want to seek a new equilibrium of deeper and more empassioned “objectivity,” the kind that actively seeks truth rather than passively lets it be defined by those with the most power to do so.
.
I was genuinely surprised to see your name at the bottom of this post.
.
Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Cramer was brilliant. But will it change the way Cramer conducts his Mad Money show? I really don’t see Jon Stewart as the face of New Journalism any more than Geraldo Rivera tried to be 20 or 30 years ago. That’s not intended as a slight to Stewart, BTW.
David, I agree with your conclusion, but I have a different take on how we’ll get there:
Fundamentally, there are two major forces at the root of the New Media vs. Old Media battle, and standing at the intersection (almost incidentally) happens to be Objectivity vs. Advocacy.
Force number one is the Media Bust. Just as with the Internet Bust, the Real Estate Bust, and now the Credit Bust, every one agrees the business model is completely broken, and not just for newspapers, but all Media (Entertainment, News, Sports franchises – anything with mega salaries). Many would agree that, like Humpty, it’s not going to get put back together.
The media consolidation that has been going on for the past couple of decades, financed through highly-leveraged buyouts are the single most likely cause for the broken finances. I believe that the financial risks taken in the ’80’s, ’90’s and ’00’s by the media conglomerates account for much of it’s lapdog behavior. They needed to maintain the favor of the lenders and government to protect their investments.
Now, like other markets, assets are getting repriced radically downward, and cash flows are insufficient to service the debt, leaving both the mortgagees and the mortgagors looking nervously at each other, wondering who’s going to take the bigger lumps.
Force number two: Smaller families, with overly-attentive parents leading to perhaps the most self-involved, narcissistic generation to date. Businesses have become highly successful at applying marketing techniques to study customers desires which has led corporate America, including the MSM, to cater to our narcissism.
Corporations are followers, not leaders. Only singular geniuses like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Steven Jobs or Fred Smith (Fed-Ex) are true risk-takers. The rest simply follow their customers where ever it leads because like politicians, businessmen learned that leadership is often punished, not rewarded.
As I titled this missive, progress happens one funeral at a time. As one mainstream newspaper after another folds, the incentive to do something different increases. So combining the fact that most dead-tree publications are, or will go broke, and that we have graduated to the “I”-generation (far beyond Al Franken’s “Me” generation), I believe the iMedia will figure out that technology will soon allow them to project all content — news, entertainment, etc. tailored specifically to the individual, in real-time, at the volume and velocity demanded by their customers.
Will it be objective news or advocacy news? Will the customer know or care? That’s a discussion for another time.
Interesting thoughts.
in his celebration of John Stewart’s adversarial take-down of Jim Cramer, is that David’s own fawning interviews of the powerful — which he suggests are part of an acceptable alternative to “old media” — do exactly the same thing as Cramer’s non-skeptical swallowing of Bear Sterns and Lehman’s spin. In the scenario David presents, he’s Jim Cramer, not John Stewart.
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald (a “real reporter,” as David might patronizingly phrase it) makes the point:
Yep, my interviews are much more Jim Cramer than Woodward & Bernstein. And as many of you said above, the death of “real reporting” will be a loss.
I agree.
But first off, the fact that it will be a loss is irrelevant. If it does not make economic sense, it is going away – just like house calls by doctors.
Second, while we have seen a lot of superb reporting, we have also seen even more cases of phonin it in or going with the flow. Bob Woodward is a great example where he doesn’t report anything that will threaten his access and holds much of the best for his books.
We are presently harmed as people assume that no stories about potential prolems means no problems. The present system for the MSM totally failed on the run-up to the financial crisis and mostly failed in the run-up to the Iraqi war.
We also have been greatly harmed with the existing journalistic requirement for “balance.” What this does is allow one side (or both) to state blatant falsehoods and those are reported as the opposing view. When the public would be much better served by a statement in the article that the opposing viewpoint is a pack of lies.
And the key point is we are not going to see a replacement with a new monolithic system. What we will see instead is a very diverse set of feeds, under a multiple set of economic models, journalistic approach, content providers, etc.
And I think this new system will be much better as it shakes out. It will also be much more decentralized as well as much more diverse in the approaches to reporting.
I’ll leave it with this thought, for the past 18 months what would have been a better source of news for the pig picture on our financial health, the MSM with it’s many very good & qualified reporters – or a monthly post by Michael Lewis?
Please repeat after me: Balance is not the same as Objectivity.
If editors or reporters feel that in order to “balance” a piece, they must accept blatant lies at face value, then they are soft-in-the-noggin, lazy, or cynical purveyors of half-truths.
Objective reporting means that you are skeptical about what your source is saying and you have the intellect, experience and courage (and editorial/management support) to challenge those assertions. That is not the same as inserting your opinions into the reportage.
The lapdog effect is precisely the issue at hand — MSM being entertainers and stenographers and not reporters at the behest of the business office.
Objective reporting isn’t what it used to be.
In my opinion, retractions of bad information don’t come very often or are perhaps less notable than newspapars burying the retractions deep inside the paper. I don’t think that in today’s environment that Watergate would have gone very far.
I find Cramer barely credible. He’s been suspected of tipping hedge fund managers of his show’s content before airing. HIs advice is often bad. I don’t think that this qualifies as inside information as he isn’t an insider in the stocks he pumps or trashes. He told the public last year that the bottom was in during the Bear Stearns transition. The net result is that retail investors are at a disadvantage.
If your interviews with elected officials included hard hitting questions, would you still have access, the second time around? Or with a different politican, who read your previous interview?
In college I tried to do some pretty serious reporting for the student newspaper. Looking for ethics violations and that sort of thing. At first people thought it was cute, and then eventually as it started to seem troublesome, leads just dried up.
The adversarial relationship works in reporting as long as both sides agree it’s all a game. David Gregory could build up a reputation as a “tough” reporter as long as he danced with Karl Rove at parties. When one side starts to actually believe in what it’s doing, it all falls apart, and the person is ostracized.
The only exceptions are people like Stewart and Olbermann who get into it accidentally while doing goofy comedy shows.
Reporters are supposed to be adversarial in gathering objective information. Since most people understandibly like their privacy and mistakes or misdeeds kept quiet, getting to the truth usually involves research and access to multiple sources for confirmation.
As David implied, the Bob Woodward school of tired, cynical journalism has gotten the upper hand, to our nation’s detriment.
even when it applies. A government agency can be cooperative and helpful or obstructionist, and there are many provisions of a FOIA that an uncooperative agency can use against you (e.g., giving you way more records than you want, which are only tangentially related to your request, and trying to charge you for copying fees on all of them was probably the most clever one I saw).
In my experience, there were three great ways of getting information:
1) talking to an official who dislikes another official
2) FOIA requests
3) Google or other basic research tools
Most reporters use the first one, since it makes things much easier. But then the only thing you’re ever reporting on is what people in power think. That’s occasionally interesting when they disagree, but even when they do, the disagreements often are not substantive. This is how you become a “star reporter.” See Bob Woodward or Judy Miller.
Your points are fine, but let’s get some context here. There’s nothing new about these arguments — they stretch back many, many decades. Bob Woodward has been doing the same thing for more than 30 years and has been met with similar complaints the entire time. There isn’t some Great Golden Age of adversarial reporting we’ve somehow fallen from — it’s always been thus. Remember, Woodward & Bernstein live on in our imagination because they were the exceptions (amplified by their own self-mythologizing and a Major Motion Picture, which can have that effect).
Recently (and only very recently) an old model of newspaper journalism has become economically unsustainable — but keep in mind, until only a couple years ago, metro dailies were among the most profitable properties in the economy, and had been for decades. Are things reshuffling and new players emerging? Sure — it’s a constant tension between insiders with access and upstarts willing to dig (and get crosswise with sources). One scathing interview by a comedian might bring this constant tension to light, but let’s stop acting like Stewart is breaking new ground rather then treading well trod ground.
RedGreen — you are of course, mostly correct in your assessment of how the world really works. But you’re sounding a little weary yourself 😉
It is important to hold to some ideals and standards by which we measure ourselves and others. And while not always attainable, it helps us to know how well we’re doing.
This is where competition in and for news is a really good thing. Which I believe is David’s point as well.
As for Stewart, I think the fact that he exceeded even his own high standard for puncturing the the over-inflated egos of the high and mighty is what we are applauding.
Bernstein did the real legwork of reporting, while Woodward had everything fed to him by disgruntled administration officials.
If I spent the interview tearing the interviewee a new one then that would almost certainly be my last interview. Would you walk into a situation like that?
On the flip side, press is life for politicians and I’ve had a couple tell me that I’m pretty much it for in-depth interviews in this state. So I can push to a certain degree and continue to get the interviews.
For what I’m doing I’m not that worried because I’m asking them about what they are doing, and then digging for details on that. So it’s not a discussion on an issue they want to avoid.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Because come election time, then the interviews are follow-ups of “ok, you said you were going to do X – how did you do?”
And don’t forget that the interviews as I presently do them are already considered too rough by Mark Udall, although that may just be his generic hide from everyone response.
I don’t get why the huff post world is still batting around the NYT for “cheerleading” the lead up to the Iraq war. It’s such a blatant red herring and such a willing cherry picking of what the NYT wrote about between W’s inauguration and the start of the war. They wrote dozens of articles covering the strong feelings of the UN watchdog groups that Iraq did not have a WMD program, and that invading Iraq for that reason was a smokescreen. They also wrote articles covering the W administration’s POVs. Watching this whole spectacle boggles my mind. The NYT screwed some things up, but also got a lot of things right. They’re certainly not the reason we invaded Iraq, which I think is being subtly implied by the NYT criticism. The reason we invaded is that the American public was too drowsy and apathetic to see what was right in front of them.
The New York Times has admitted it served as a cheerleader for the war, and has apologized.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05…
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09…
The editorial page, as opposed to the news dept., was strongly against invading Iraq.
It joined our enemies in opposing the invasion.
At least the enemies had good reasons for opposing the invasion.
Iraq was bribing them from the top on down.
The Times was just plain anti-Bush and dumb.
are our enemies?
Even the right-wing nuts in Congress have dropped that Freedom Fries crap. It’s good to know, though, that Colorado still harbors revisionists who somehow believe opposition to the invasion of Iraq was dumb.
It turns out every claim and promise made by the Bush administration while urging us toward an invasion was either a calculated lie, an incompetent misstatement of the facts or a mistaken conclusion based on wishful thinking and the misinformation campaign of an Iranian spy.
The Times was “just plain anti-Bush and dumb,” yet they were right and the supporters who swallowed the “Iraqi threat” line were wrong.
I think it was the supporters who were dumb.
from the HuffPo
What’s also very interesting in this case is the times is owned by a local family focused on keeping it alive and does not have a bunch of debt. If it doesn’t work for them then the model is in a lot of trouble.
I’ll keep my mouth shut on that one.
In other news, yet another conondrum of dying in the digital age:
Deaths of gamers leave their online lives in limbo
I would add that there are people who have a greater net worth online than offline, and indeed have more friends online than offline. Not for the better or worse mind you, just the way it is.
Jared Polis
have no corporeal existence whatsoever. It cuts down on grocery bills.
Doesn’t your avatar dine on virtual cuisine?
have you voted yet? You know, you might need us CD6 folks somewhere down the line…. 🙂
I’ve never read that before.
http://www.ccsu.edu/AMLC08/def…
Seattle is either number two — or tied for number one — according to the percentages presented.
I’m actually surprised that Denver came out ahead of Portland, OR.
….it’s curious that 1 factor in the score is a city’s newspaper circulation. So, when a newspaper dies, the city’s literacy takes a dive too?
all start reading USA Today and the Wall Street Journal …
…if I ever wake up at a Marriot without a USA Today outside my door, people will be fired and then flogged.
… I can comment that the Times’ problem stem in part from it’s editorial board. It’s a rather conservative paper in a very liberal city, one that sends “Baghdad” Jim McDermott back to Congress every two years with 80+% of the vote. That probably plays better in the ‘burbs but the death of the P-I (just announced today) leaves the city with only the alt-weeklies (two of them, both reportedly getting thinner with lack of advertising) to speak for most of the residents.
Not long after the invasion of Iraq some outfit polled the public as to their source of news and knowledge of news facts. For instance, “Were Iraqis on the planes that crashed into the towers,” or “We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
Turns out that the best informed people got their news from NPR and……..the Daily Show. The worst – shock! – got their “news” from Fox.
We are lucky that people are drawn to Jon Stewart and not some Fox/Limbaugh variant. That may not always be so.
I understand your point and agree wit it in content. Media changes and those who thrive adjust. An example:Walter Winchell did great in radio but sucked on television. This greatly reduced his influence later in his career. Walter Cronkite presented extremely well but the 3 old super networks lost massive market share with the introduction of cable.
http://www.theonion.com/conten…
We need to see where cp bloggers get their news. I don’t know how to set this up. This is what I would suggest:
1) How did you hear Obama won the election?
Radio
Broadcast TV
Cable TV
CNN
Fox
MSNBC
The Daley show
Internet
Print
2) If you heard sirens, and the sky was clear and it was not the third Wednesday, where would you go to find out why there were sirens?
Radio
Local Broadcast TV
Cable TV
CNN
Fox
MSNBC
Internet
Print
Phone somebody
3) If you wanted to know how Denver precincts voted in the last election, the day after the election, where would you go?
Radio
Local Broadcast TV
Cable TV
CNN
Fox
MSNBC
Internet
Print
Phone somebody
Dan Willis
market research.
1) Had the TV on cnn.com and web browsers pointed at FiveThirtyEight, TPM, DailyKOS, and MSNBC’s raw video feed on the web.
2) http://www.dailycamera.com – a local paper that is fast to update the website can’t be beat.
3) Secretary of State website.
… at the inclusion of Dan Willis as an option under # 3. Good one dwyer!
For example, the individual precinct votes don’t show up on the Denver gov. website for days if not weeks. I got that information, here, from Dan Willis. i consider him a source via this blog.
David, Mixed media. On internet, but original sources could be print. Interesting. Now, can you get cnn.com on your TV?
I hope I didn’t come across as thinking you were joking. Well, I probably did, which is my bad. I found it funny for exactly the reason you state. Dan knows his stuff, that’s for sure.