“You cannot, in a democracy, expect people to be able to reach across the aisles and make the accommodations for important issues if they are terrified that in so doing they’re gonna expose themselves to the wrath of either the right or the left – either Jon Stewart’s humor or Rush Limbaugh’s sharp tongue.” – Ted Koppel, Main Stream Media Geezer, speaking at a symposium entitled The Twilight of Network News.
“When you and I were young, there were three networks. ‘Nightline,’ we had 70 percent of all the homes watching television at 11:30 at night. These days we are lucky to have 25 percent.” – Ted Koppel…
“If you eliminated MSNBC, Fox, and CNN, it would probably improve American democracy overnight. I’m not saying that we can ever return to the good old days. That’s gone. That’s done.” – Marvin Kalb, Main Stream Media Geezer, interviewing Koppel at the symposium.
Ted Koppel
The left currently controls 90+ percent of the media right now. Take away Rush and Fox and they would control 99+ percent of it. Even sacrificing MSNBC and CNN, (who are circling the drain anyway) they would easily reach that percentage.
Do they really think we’re that stupid out here? What army general wouldn’t sacrifice a couple of squads to annihilate the entire enemy army?
These two ancient, ego bloated, wind bags perfectly articulated the lament of the Main Stream Media. They want to go back to the way it used to be, when there was no threat from diversity of thought or democracy in journalism. And they would be willing to throw a couple of their crippled comrades under the bus for a time machine.
Though this will expose me to flak, I feel I should say it. What you’re saying about the media actually applied to the nation, and not due to some msm brainwashing plot.
The USA is now a majority socially liberal culture. If conservatives want to return to cultural and political relevance, they need to shift libertarian. Do that, and they’ll have my vote, and many others who went Den this time.
Refuse,.continue to tell gays and women what they can’t do with their own relationships and bodies, and grow small and weak until few listen anymore.
And, believe it or not, that.is not my wish. I know the den plan can’t work. But I would rather watch the nation dissolve than be fiscally solvent and socially repressive.
You don’t have a voice if no one is listening. Don’t double down on a failed message. The ends never justify the means. Be socially relevant and fiscally sensible, and enough of us social lefties will return the reigns.
Rick via mobile
>> Though this will expose me to flak
Ya think!? LMAO!
I love you man!
>> What you’re saying about the media actually applied to the nation
The nation wants us to go to three networks all with the same political (leftist) bent? I sure hope not. I even like to hear the opinions that don’t parrot mine. I like the grand marketplace of ideas.
I guess you’re saying that the nation (as does the media) wants us conservatives to moderate and be more like Democrats. De ja vu… Clinton’s second term… “Conservatism is dead”… same predictions, same advise… I’ll pass.
>> The USA is now a majority socially liberal culture
I’m not so sure about that… but maybe. But let’s say it is for the sake of argument; that a liberal majority will rule this nation from now until the end. That fact wouldn’t change ANY of my fiscal or social positions.
Why? Because I’m not trying to win. I’m just trying to be right.
My boss doesn’t want me to win… at least not down here. He just wants me to fight and do the right thing. Winning? He already took care of that…
>> If conservatives want to return to cultural and political relevance, they need to shift libertarian.
Why? Why not just denounce the Republican Party and actually become a Libertarian? You can’t be saying there is that much value in the Republican label.
The Republican Party may do that. I hope not; because I’m a fiscal and social conservative. But if they do… we’ll part ways.
>> Do that, and they’ll have my vote, and many others who went Den this time.
And maybe they’ll make up for the loss of us social conservatives. I don’t think so… but they can try if the want.
>> Refuse,.continue to tell gays and women what they can’t do with their own relationships and bodies
Most(a majority of) women support the Republican position on abortion. And don’t spew me the moron “rape” quotes. As much as the libs would like it to be and try to portray it to be; that is not the Republican stance.
As for gays… eat drink and be merry… but no special rights… no marriage, no adoption.
We live in a time when the world calls evil good and good evil, and puts darkness for light and light for darkness… as for me; I’ll have no part in it; not to be liked by the world; not even to regain power.
>> (Refuse to grow socially liberal) and grow small and weak until few listen anymore.
By worldly standards… I’m OK with that.
>> And, believe it or not, that.is not my wish.
If the options are compromise our conservative principles or grow small and weak… I choose small and weak.
>> But I would rather watch the nation dissolve than be fiscally solvent and socially repressive.
OK… We’ve got at least two, maybe four years of running in that direction at full speed. We’ll see how you feel on down the road. Personally I don’t really think it matters. We’re too far gone and going too fast to do anything about it now.
Me, I’ll fight for fiscal responsibility, and national morality. I’ll continue to take personal responsibility and pull my (and others) weight as best I can. I’ll run a good race despite it all.
>> You don’t have a voice if no one is listening. Don’t double down on a failed message.
They hear; whether they choose to listen is up to them.
To us it’s not a failed message; it’s just the right message. The kind you easily double or triple down on, and you stick with it not because it’s popular or not, but just because it’s the right thing to do. Consequences be dammed.
>> The ends never justify the means. Be socially relevant and fiscally sensible
This from the guy who says you’ll take us to fiscal apocalypse if we don’t change our social ways.
In poker terms, I really don’t think your bluffing; which is too bad because there was never a chance I wouldn’t call…
>> and enough of us social lefties will return the reigns.
Look, nothing personal. Really. God love ya’ as Joe says…:) but I don’t want you to return the reigns. The price is too high.
Let the Democrats have them and I’ll try and take them on my own; but no deal.
Now that’s just Texas Lynn talkin. $#^&, I don’t even consider myself a Republican; because they’re too %$#^less. Maybe the Republican Party will do the math and take you up on the offer. If they do, I’ll find another party, but that’s OK too.
It’s all good.
By ends and means, I was assuming your priority was fiscal over social. Fair enough, I was wrong to assume that. The two sides will lock, the Dems will win. Sounds like it’s be easier to make liberals fiscally responsible than conservatives socially moderate.
I agree that there are two things that are too late to turn around: environmental disaster and bankruptcy, though on the second one we could fix it if we raised taxes and cut benefits and eased immigration to increase taxpayers.
You’re going down with Jesus land, I guess. That won’t work. First, because govt mandated morals aren’t morals, and second because there are more atheists than evangelicals. And no, you are flatly wrong to say more women are pro life than pro choice (or words to that effect). That’s the blinders-on mindset that blew the election.
Sorry about the Jesus land crack. That was rude. This is why I shouldn’t talk about religion or politics. Turns me into an asshole.
Back to creative writing, instead of destructive.
>> By ends and means, I was assuming your priority was fiscal over social.
I think that would be more the nature of a Libertarian.
>> Fair enough, I was wrong to assume that.
Yes. In my defense, I have stated in the past (in this blog) I place more value on social/moral issues than fiscal. It’s the Christian heart/treasure thing.
I’m a fiscal AND social conservative; what is known as a true conservative.
But I have my priorities straight.
>> The two sides will lock, the Dems will win.
Our (conservatives) demise has been written in the history books many times. Maybe this time it’ll take.
>> Sounds like it’s be easier to make liberals fiscally responsible than conservatives socially moderate.
Yeah… Good luck with that. I’ll be glad to help any way I can.
Side Note: Geithner today (or yesterday) said we shouldn’t even have a debt ceiling. This is what you have to work with.
>> I agree that there are two things that are too late to turn around: environmental disaster and bankruptcy, though on the second one we could fix it if we raised taxes and cut benefits and eased immigration to increase taxpayers.
No idea what you’re referring to on environmental disaster… hopefully not global warming / climate change.
Bankruptcy… Only problem there is on a national/global level, the debt doesn’t go away. China still wants a return on her investments. Your kids inherit the pain of paying it off.
>> You’re going down with Jesus land, I guess.
I’m trying, thank you.
>> And no, you are flatly wrong to say more women are pro life than pro choice (or words to that effect)
Never said that… or words to that effect.
>> That’s the blinders-on mindset that blew the election.
No, it’s just part of the leftist propaganda spin machine that worked this go-round. And congrats on that.
When presented with the questions of:
1) No abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or life/health of the mother
2) No to late term abortions.
3) No partial birth abortions.
4) No tax subsidized abortions.
as opposed to the Democratic position of Abortion on demand… Women agree in the majority with the Republican positions and against the Democratic positions. It’s not just a YES/NO question/issue.
Actually, I don’t think abortions should be tax funded either. But I see further restrictions as a slippery slope, just as you would see gun control.
When China and India build another 1000 coal powered electrical plants, it won’t matter what anyone believed. The poles will melt, and the climate will be changed for the worse, for many people. Not all, and not everywhere. But it’ll force the evacuations if a billion people and destroy many local economies. New Jersey was not a fluke. It was a beginning.
Probably take the remainder if the century for the full damage to take hold, but it’s too late to stop it now. We can only slow it.
Funny side note. I was continuing this conversation with myself, and I found myself thinking this: I actually love Jesus. I’m just not real big on Christianity and it’s politics right now. I also love the Bible, and wish I could believe in miracles, but I can’t. The Bible us beautiful. Sure, I can point out some horrors, but I can point out many more things of beauty and joy and mercy.
It’s a strange feeling, and im a strange dude.
>> Actually, I don’t think abortions should be tax funded either.
I think most people would agree with that as well as the other 3 stipulations above; especially the bottom three.
>> But I see further restrictions as a slippery slope, just as you would see gun control.
Fair enough. I think I would be satisfied if the above were the law. AND it was followed/enforced… thus no more money to Planned Parenthood.
>> When China and India build another 1000 coal powered electrical plants, it won’t matter what anyone believed. The poles will melt, and the climate will be changed for the worse, for many people. Not all, and not everywhere. But it’ll force the evacuations if a billion people and destroy many local economies.
Interesting… I don’t agree; but interesting.
Don’t get me wrong, pollution is bad… but it’s not causing global weather issues.
>> New Jersey was not a fluke. It was a beginning.
No clue what you’re talking about here? Sandy maybe? It was just another hurricane. They have happened before and will happen again.
Think back to the “dust bowl”. Imagine the doom-sayers if it repeated itself in this day and age. The weather has cycles, years, decades, centuries, and millennia… It’s nature.
Dad told me a story about when he was a young farmer in a bad (drought) year he asked his grandfather if they had ever lost a complete crop. My grandfather replied yes, once in his lifetime. Dad said “It must have been really dry.” And my grandfather replied, “Nope, it rained every day…”
>> Probably take the remainder if the century for the full damage to take hold, but it’s too late to stop it now. We can only slow it.
Me, I’m not convinced and definitely not convinced enough for the socialist solutions pushed at Al Gore and company.
>> I was continuing this conversation with myself, and I found myself thinking this: I actually love Jesus.
And from my perspective He loves you.
>> I’m just not real big on Christianity and it’s politics right now.
That would be my failing… not his.
>> I also love the Bible, and wish I could believe in miracles, but I can’t.
Logic and science isn’t going to get you there. It’s no accident “faith” is mentioned so much and so prominently.
Keep having the conversation.
>> It’s a strange feeling, and im a strange dude
Yes you are!
>Think back to the “dust bowl”. Imagine the doom-sayers if it repeated itself in this day and age. The weather has cycles, years, decades, centuries, and millennia… It’s nature.
The Dust Bowl is a great analogy… for my argument.
That was due to nature (drought) and bad farming practices. Didn’t you just read a book about that?
India and China are going to create more coal burning plants, with lower pollution standards, than we’ve ever made. We won’t be the #1 polluter in 20 years; they will be. We also won’t be the big oil consumer; that’ll be them, too. So I say, let them protect the Suez Canal. We’ve done our bit propping up the global economy.
But back to pollution. I’m no hippie — really. But we only have one atmosphere and one ocean. I don’t think we can throw billions of tons of crap that wasn’t there before into both air and sea for a *century* and argue, credibly, that it has no effect on the weather. I agree that “warming” is not the correct description. It’s change — in geological terms, rapid change. Some places will get hotter, some colder, some wetter, some dryer, as the jet stream changes, and ocean levels rise. This is not debatable. It’s already trending. The poles will probably be water within our generation. There’s some good to that — more room for algae to make oxygen.
But for the most part, those changes will be economically disastrous for existing communities who have to leave to farm somewhere else, change trade routes, or just to get to higher ground. Half the Earth’s human population lives on the coast. It’s going to be bad. Not for us (Dallas or East Texas), but I wouldn’t want to be in Florida, Rio, Indonesia, Okinawa, the lower half of India, the Netherlands, etc.
So, true, it’s not that the sky is going to fall, and what the Al Gore crowd is asking for is too much. But like I said before, we Dems know it’s not going to work. These are negotiation points. It’s like the GOP doesn’t really expect to outlaw abortion — so they go strong, compromise to something I would have already agreed with (no public funding), and it looks like a victory.
>And from my perspective He loves you.
They asked me to say the prayer tonight at Thanksgiving at my aunt’s, and it got to me. I’m not an atheist. I’m a frustrated theist. And I want to know, not believe. No magic tricks. No believe it here but not there; no believe Jesus did X but not that Krishna did Y. No counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
That’s what I want for Christmas. Supreme knowledge. Ok, Santa? And don’t forget the batteries this time.
>> I’m not an atheist. I’m a frustrated theist. And I want to know, not believe.
I know. And I sorry about that. But like I said, “faith” isn’t mentioned so prominently in the Bible for nothing.
You want everything wrapped in a nice box with a bow and that’s not going to happen. Not for anybody. Not in this life.
>> That’s what I want for Christmas. Supreme knowledge.
I think, as the supposed Chinese curse says, you are wishing to live in interesting times.
“For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.”
I believe that to be very true.
Thanks.
Back to the actual topic of your blog post…
I’d like to add some of my own disappointment in the MSM, but from the other direction. I’m a fan of the NYTimes. For me, it’s the best newspaper in the country, regardless of political alignment. The second best is the WSJ. Without them, I genuinely believe our democracy would suffer. I don’t think anyone truly knows how much original content comes from these two sources (plus perhaps the Washington Post). I don’t watch much TV news; for me it’s NPR and the NYTimes.
Most topics on TV media, whether broadcast by NBC or Fox, start as NYT/WSJ articles. Those sources steer the conversation, because they have the best research and writers. They’ve earned their audiences.
But, it may surprise you to hear that I am disappointed with the NYT in particular for being too soft on the federal government — and not just during the Obama administration. Throughout the Bush administration, they published stories that repeated misinformation and spin created by the White House and CIA in support of the invasion of Iraq, and throughout both the Bush and Obama administrations, they have used kid gloves when talking about torture, a word they own’t even use as part of editorial policy. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” is the spin.
This reminds me of the Obama administration’s recent use of “disposition matrix” as spin for “kill list.” I expect my government, whether conservative or liberal, to spin it. I don’t expect my news sources to regurgitate it — but they do, and not always just towards the party they’re supposedly friendly towards.
Fox News, however, has reliably kept up its non-stop attack on the Obama administration, and sung it’s eternal love for everything right-wing, so I’m sure you’re OK with that.
>The left currently controls 90+ percent of the media right now.
I don’t see how you can say that, unless by percentage you mean “number of outlets,” which would be a silly measurement. Fox News is the dominant TV news, WSJ is a dominant paper.
If you mean something like Washington Post vs the Washington Times, well, thank God.
But that’s not a conspiracy, that’s just the marketplace of ideas.