The last four years or so have seen a great increase in the amount of political reading I engage in. Specifically, the reading of opinion pieces by various pundits and talking heads.  I'm an equal opportunity reader, I don't care about their politics so much as what they have to say.

I must say that, after four+ years that I am nothing but disappointed.

I can sum up the entire experience by means of a single anecdote that amused me greatly when I first read it a few years back.

Famously William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal :

QuoteAt the Aug. 28 debate in Chicago - the penultimate encounter in the series, with an estimated 10 million people watching - things began with relative calm. But it didn't stay that way, and before long the men began exchanging words that one simply didn't hear on TV at that time (see box below). Vidal called Buckley a "pro-crypto-Nazi," a modest slip of the tongue, he later said, because he was searching for the word "fascist" and it just didn't come out. Inflamed by the word "Nazi" and the whole tenor of the discussion, Buckley snapped back: "Now listen, you queer," he said, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in you goddamn face and you'll stay plastered." Smith attempted to calm the exchange with "gentlemen, let's not call names," but the damage had been done.

That these two great, opposed, minds could not make it past convient labels like Crypto-Nazi (or even Fascist...) and 'queer' speaks to me of the problem with political pundits.

I watch the news to stay informed, and yet both sides of the aisle, so to speak, tell me that its biased and unreliable.  I may not have the education of some people but I've learned how to read between the lines, to see what isn't being said.  So I read what they have to say... and continue to not see what what isn't being said.

Both sides seem incapable of telling the entire truth, of letting the reader make up their own minds. I don't mind bias, but hiding and obfuscating facts isn't bias, its sign of your own weak arguments.  If you aren't deliberately doing it... if you think your arguments aren't weak, then don't preserve me from hard counterarguments to 'save space'.

Another anecdote, this one personal.  16 years ago, as a youth, I took a debate class in school. Well, it was a speech class that included a singular major project in the form of a Debate. I chose to stand for Capital Punishment, while my distinguished opponent chose against.  It should have been a rousing debate. I know I spent weeks doing research to support both my own preconcieved notions, and to find reasons I hadn't thought of to support it. I also looked at the reasons AGAINST capital punishment, all the arguments I could find in my spare time, and how I would counter them.

My opponent chose, however, to coast on his existing grades and did nothing at all to prepare.  As we stood there before the class and I waited for his first rebuttal, or his own first point I realized something.  I couldn't win this debate.  I couldn't win because without sound counterarguments, or even unsound counter arguements, there was nothing for me to say, nothing for me to do but devolve into a lecture.  

So I handed my opponent my cards with all my arguments, all my notes, all my counterarguments, especially the ones I felt I was weakest against.  I fed him points, pointing to research I did.  It was brutal, it was one sided, but it was better that people could hear all the arguments... I could only wish they could have heard them from someone who had done their own research.

I got the only A+ for that project.

But I learned a great many lessons. I learned that arguing with yourself is a great way to win, but a terrible way to make a point.  I learned that the strongest arguments are made when there are strong points for them to resist.  I even learned a few things about blindly assuming I know something without looking for the facts.

Why can't these stuffed shirt experts learn the same thing? Or is that they are right and I am wrong, and people really are sheep that only want their own preconcieved notions repeated back to them as confirmation?

-Spike, who looking back at what was said realizes that the points made are weaker looking than intended... bah.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene II)

That sums up my political feelings, adding only "and take their stuff!".

-clash

I think any time you approach the media in the U.S. and Canada, you have to always keep in your mind first and foremost that it is a product being sold to you as a consumer.  What drives the machines that give spaces for these people to speak is advertising and that's what everybody running the machines is concerned about.  They don't give a shit about the actual information.  Obviously, you know this, but I think it really needs to be the first filter any time you read any of that stuff, whatever side of the debate it is on.

Second, the idea that journalism can be objective is a very American one.  In Europe, it is assumed from the start that media outlets have a certain bias.  Front page news stories are written much more editorially, with an individual linked to them.  We have one paper here in Montreal, Le Devoir, which follows that model.  It definitely reports on the news, but it makes very clear where it stands on those issues.  I find it much more honest than these fake objective articles where supposedly just the facts are relayed to the reader (see:  all of John Morrow's links).

I've been watching a lot of Daily Show lately, and downloaded the audiobook of America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, and it inspired me to watch more C-Span, more of the moment-to-moment debate on the House and Senate floors.

My advice: don't do this. Don't. Save yourself the agony of realizing that nearly everyone involved in the process, from media talking heads to the leaders of our nation, is no different from every douchebag you meet online. It's sometimes terrifying to see how like message forum bullshit every session of our legislature is, with irrational polarity, irrational off-topic discourse, irrational personal conflicts, and more than anything else, irrationality. Also, no one involved seems at all rational.

Then someone grabs two random people from opposing poles and throws them in front of a camera for Caricature Time, which assures no one hears anything moderate, productive, or rational. And they yell their opinions back and forth as if they're certainly right, without any more logical support than talking points can deliver.

It's all bullshit. The government is too mired in self-indulgence to service the people who bleed money to pay for it. The media doesn't care, forgot, or never knew that the trade for their freedom of the press is the responsibility to make government transparent to the people. And the people are people: mostly mediocre, and also having forgotten that their freedoms are bought at the cost of responsibilities, too.

The solution is revolution, destroying it all so it's all new and exciting again. And then it'll wear off, and be bullshit again. The one great truth about all times, all ages, all empires and federations and nations, is that overall, they're average, because that's what average is. Exceptionality is the exception.

I understand the objective media thing, I also understand that it is a relative newcomer in the grand scheme of things. At one time you had openly liberal and openly conservative, or more party based, newspapers... many of whom survive today in name, if not ideals.  

That said, there was... as near as I can tell... some few decades ago where journalistic 'objectivity' and so forth were... while imperfect... still held as honest ideals to be striven for.  Now we have open bias masquerading as objectivity.

But as I said: I don't mind bias. I expect bias. What I dislike is when people try to convince me by lying to me, either deliberately or by omission.  It has the opposite effect on me.  In the words of The Operative [Serenity] " I am not a moron"...

Some of these pundits and talking heads make good, even great points. But every time they catagorically dismiss their opponents position without a thought (Liberal Intelligensia, Conservative Fundamentalists, Tax and Spend whomever the otherguy is....) they lose me.

The one thing I come away with is the disturbing idea that maybe both sides are actually, completely, absolutely correct... that each side is in fact in lock step on all these various issues. Yes, every liberal, from the News Media, to the Democratic Party, to the National Educators Association really ARE working together to turn our school systems into Political Re-Education Camps. Maybe every Republican and every Christian and every Business are in lock step to turn America into a Theocracy, with the 'poor' as serfs.


I mean, that shit falls right behind 'Demolition Man' Utopian future as the stuff of nightmares.

Quote from: walkerpI find it much more honest than these fake objective articles where supposedly just the facts are relayed to the reader (see:  all of John Morrow's links).

Like you actually ever read or understand any of them.

Quote from: SpikeBoth sides seem incapable of telling the entire truth, of letting the reader make up their own minds.

That's because the truth doesn't serve any particular pure political agenda.  That leaves a person with a choice.  They can compromise their political agenda or conceal the truth.

Quote from: John MorrowLike you actually ever read or understand any of them.

well the first one I went to was one of the most horrible crime stories I have read in quite a while, where they specifically emphasised, in the guise of being objective, the details of the torture, rape and murder of a white women by several black ex-cons.  You were using that to make some kind of point, I guess, but I couldn't see what there was to understand and after that I stopped following any of your links.

My point in that throwaway line was those are the kinds of articles that act like they are reporting info, when their main goal is to drive a very specific fear-based political agenda.

I just read this bit of blather from Jonathan Kay, an editor* of Canada's National Post newspaper (quite well respected). In this bit posted on the BBC here's his reasoning for why American deserters shouldn't be able to stay in Canada:**

Quote from: Jonathan KayShould Corey Glass have enlisted in the US National Guard back in 2002? Probably not. From what I saw and heard of his 21 May press conference in Toronto, my first impression was that this pale, lanky 25-year-old should be playing synth in a Gothic emo band - not kicking down doors in Iraq.

Piss off. :rolleyes:

It's stuff like this that bugs the hell out of me.  The entire Left = Sissies / Right = Macho Men politics in North America. So people pick teams based on whether they want to appear smart, or tough, or sensitive, or whatever... instead of actually talking about the issues.

*Kay is comment pages editor of the National Post. In addition, he is a columnist for the National Post op-ed page, and a regular contributor to Commentary magazine and the New York Post.

**It doesn't matter what you think about the issue.  If Corey Glass was built like Hulk Hogan it really shouldn't make any difference.

Quote from: SpikeI watch the news to stay informed

And there's your problem

It's not so much that it's biased, rather that it's very trivial and superficial. "But is he wearing his flag pin?" For fuck's sakes...

The average political candidate wouldn't survive a high school debate. That they can survive journalists show how piss-weak journalism has become.

Quote from: StuartIt's stuff like this that bugs the hell out of me.  The entire Left = Sissies / Right = Macho Men politics in North America.

What?! I can't be a leftie and macho?

I will have to rethink my whole approach to life now.

Quote from: StuartI just read this bit of blather from Jonathan Kay, an editor* of Canada's National Post newspaper (quite well respected).

While I agree with your overall point, I do have to take exception that National Post is quite well respected.  It's an upstart national newspaper that developed out of what was a very well-respected financial daily, centered in Toronto but focused on Canadian business.  The editor who launched it into a general national paper (Ken White, I think his name is) is a well known neo-con of the David "Wormtongue" Frum school of Canadian Bush Admin lampreys.  And the publisher was of course Conrad Black, another traitorous scumbag on his way to jail if he's not there already.

It's always been firmly right-wing and kept going there when they sold it to Izzy Asper, who is more of a free market asshole of the old school than a true neo-con.

It is commonly considered the right-wing national paper here in Canada.  The lack of respect, though, comes from its trashy, celebrity-oriented (generally American) journalism. It does things like putting Pamela Anderson on the cover in big splashy colour.  It's choice of front page articles are either strongly biased to their politics or sensational (not that the Globe & Mail is much better on that latter point).

So while a large national paper, I don't think we can say it is truly respected.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat?! I can't be a leftie and macho?

I will have to rethink my whole approach to life now.

No no no... you can't be macho because you are GREEN. The fact that Greens fall to the far left is coincidence.

Not that Greens are the only movement that happens to be leftist that can't be macho...

Communists, however, they can be macho.  Just look at the Russians. Even the women are macho and they were communist for years....

You don't have to be a commie to be green. I mean, I want a free market, a very conservative financial sector, logging, hunting vermin with a rifle, I believe in exploiting the Earth - just doing it in such a way that we can still exploit it tomorrow - and so on.

I was just having an argument with my old man over bailouts to struggling businesses in the country and subsidies for diesel. As he lives in the countryside and drives a diesel truck eighty miles every day, he supports them. Whereas I am a "you chose to live there knowing you'd have to drive a long way to everywhere, and businesses sink or swim on their own, tough shit."

Apparently only left-wing commie city slickers think things like that - that if you make choices and they have consequences, you should have the benefit or trouble of them. I thought "stand up and take it like a man" was right-wing. Not nowadays, though.

Politics is fucked-up and confused. I mean, if you say, "so the banks made dodgy decisions, let 'em sink", people think you're a communist. I thought in a free market shit like that happens? You take the bad with the good.

I 'spose when you try to force all the political ideas in the world into just two parties, as in the US or Australia, then things are going to be mixed up, though.

At some point, green has to be macho, doesn't it?  I mean definitely not the I buy organic diapers for my child that I drive around to play dates kind of urban greenie that are popular today, but what about the rugged, forest ranger types or Earth First militants?  That seems kind of macho.