Bush Derangement Syndrome vs. the Obama Hate Machine

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't pretend that there as been NO hate-filled discord between the parties prior to the Clinton administration. I'm well aware that there's a long history of it in this country. Perhaps none as severe as the 20 years or so leading up to the Civil War. What I'm saying is that it seems, in the last 20 years, to have become much more prevalent, such that it's far more common to have people slinging mud than it is respectful disagreement.

 

And are you seriously drawing a comparison to a Genesis video showing Reagan as a puppet and someone showing Bush with a noose around his neck or some of the imagery thrown at Obama? Come on. I'm not referring to Chevy Chase making fun of Ford tripping and falling down. I'm referring to a Congress so determined to undermine a presidency that they launch a 6 or 7 year , non stop investigation just to eventually prove the guy got a blow job. Huge difference.

Apparently you didn't look up Nast, did you?

 

Google: thomas nast irish cartoons

 

Is it really that hard?

 

Edit: Is that hateful enough for you?

 

Nast was the mass media of the time. The difference is: duration and delivery. We see more and faster, than a single cartoon.

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dan]

Apparently you didn't look up Nast, did you?

 

Google: thomas nast irish cartoons

 

Is it really that hard?

Apparently you fail to realize that his cartoons are not germane to my point. Furthermore, you again assume that you're the only person that's familiar with his work. Do you always make so many wrong assumptions?

[Adam]

Oh, look: a non-denial denial!

 

You didn't see the Ronald Reagan, etc. puppet show that ran on network TV? You didn't see all the music videos from 1986-88, may of them using those same puppets? One in particular showing the Reagan puppet drooling like an invalid?

I find that very depressing. It erases any potential of credibility- but it is depressing and disrespectful- even if Reagan hadn't been a president.

 

No. His stance, and mine is: isn't it CONVENIENT, that now that your side just got shellacked, you suddenly want to adopt pacifism? The Democrats had the opportunity, since 2006, to change the political tone. They chose do do nothing.

 

Where was your concern about it ending, in 2005-today? Nowhere to be found. Now that your Obama vote looks dumb, you want to make the bad man stop? Nope. You have to sit here, and take your medicine, no different than when you insisted that Bush people take theirs. Tough schit, pal!

 

Now, as far as a solution to the problem? ALL of us need to focus on results. Most of the rhetoric is about distracting us from results. Also, most of the results are boring/difficult to understand. In what I do, we have an old concept called a "balanced score card". It's intended to give a relatively quick look at how an enterprise is performing, without getting into every gory detail.

 

I have always wanted to create an objective score card for a President, based purely on the #s/results. I think that would refocus people on the data, and therefore, reality. I think this would help put an end to this horrible "branding" concept in politics, which pretends that every politician is the same.

 

The marketing people, as per normal, are part of the problem, not the solution.

Hopefully one side will make the move to change things at one point. It will have to happen, cause this country is too stupid to force anything to happen.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Adam

[OCinBuffalo]

Apparently you fail to realize that his cartoons are not germane to my point. Furthermore, you again assume that you're the only person that's familiar with his work. Do you always make so many wrong assumptions?

Your point: today's discourse is MORE hateful than in past years.

 

I refute that by offering "Dusky Sally" and Thomas Nast. Two obvious cases of hateful discourse.

 

WTF? If you are familiar with Nast, etc., then WTF are you talking about?

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dan]

Your point: today's discourse is MORE hateful than in past years.

 

I refute that by offering "Dusky Sally" and Thomas Nast. Two obvious cases of hateful discourse.

 

WTF? If you are familiar with Nast, etc., then WTF are you talking about?

Actually my point has more to do with the amount of hateful discourse than the actual level of hate. Yes, there's hate-filled rhetoric, just as there always has been. But, what has happened (or so it seems) is it's become much, much more frequent and all intrusive.

[Adam]

It is as hateful and jaded as anything I can remember in my lifetime- I am sure you guys have seen more than I have. The thing that gets me is the so-called opinion/editorial shows that serve only to incense and incite people, fueling the hate. And neither side is alone in the blame for it- I hate MSNBC and FOX equally.

 

I am equally interested in progressive and conservative views on various topics. People say that means I waffle and don't have a legitimate opinion. I just want to be informed, knowldgeable and in control- instead of having a bunch of talking heads controlling me- as I have seen happen with a lot of people.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Adam

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually my point has more to do with the amount of hateful discourse than the actual level of hate. Yes, there's hate-filled rhetoric, just as there always has been. But, what has happened (or so it seems) is it's become much, much more frequent and all intrusive.

So, you've changed your point from degree of hatefulness, to frequency and duration, right?

Like I said: media has changed. The 24-hour news cycle, the exposure, etc.

 

You should be happy then, that FOX news and the internet exists now. We can't stop the deluge of information to which we are now exposed. However, thankfully, we now have diversity. And, this is a case where diversification ensures quality.

 

As I have said in the past, all of this will eventually settle down. News outfits are now being held accountable more than they ever have been in the past. This is a good thing, no matter your political views.

[Dan]

It is as hateful and jaded as anything I can remember in my lifetime- I am sure you guys have seen more than I have. The thing that gets me is the so-called opinion/editorial shows that serve only to incense and incite people, fueling the hate. And neither side is alone in the blame for it- I hate MSNBC and FOX equally.

 

I am equally interested in progressive and conservative views on various topics. People say that means I waffle and don't have a legitimate opinion. I just want to be informed, knowldgeable and in control- instead of having a bunch of talking heads controlling me- as I have seen happen with a lot of people.

I agree. Both sides share equally in the divisive nature of the political climate in this country.

 

So, you've changed your point from degree of hatefulness, to frequency and duration, right?

Like I said: media has changed. The 24-hour news cycle, the exposure, etc.

 

You should be happy then, that FOX news and the internet exists now. We can't stop the deluge of information to which we are now exposed. However, thankfully, we now have diversity. And, this is a case where diversification ensures quality.

 

As I have said in the past, all of this will eventually settle down. News outfits are now being held accountable more than they ever have been in the past. This is a good thing, no matter your political views.

No, I'm not changing my point. I'm clarifying my point because you misinterpreted it.

 

I would completely disagree with the bolded statement. Or are you suggesting that MSNBC is filled with quality programming?

 

I do hope it settles down, because IMO all it's doing is making this country more divided than we've been in quite some time. And that's not good.

[OCinBuffalo]

I agree. Both sides share equally in the divisive nature of the political climate in this country.

 

No, I'm not changing my point. I'm clarifying my point because you misinterpreted it.

 

I would completely disagree with the bolded statement. Or are you suggesting that MSNBC is filled with quality programming?

 

I do hope it settles down, because IMO all it's doing is making this country more divided than we've been in quite some time. And that's not good.

You don't seem to understand the concept of diversification then? (EDIT: and BS flag on not changing your point )

 

Back when we had 3 channels, and the New York Times was the paper of record, there was no accountability, and these organizations had absolute power to not only report the news, but to tell people what it meant. The Dan Rather scandal represents the end of that age. He was ass-raped by the internet. A perfect ending to the "bad old days".

 

Now, as MSNBC demonstrates, low-quality news reporting means low ratings, and eventually, removal from the market.

 

Once again, the free market triumphs over all other approaches. Why do you think the left wants the government to meddle with the media market? Answer: because they don't want the game to be fair, and they sure as hell don't want to have to try to sell their awful ideas in the free market.

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dan]

You don't seem to understand the concept of diversification then? (EDIT: and BS flag on not changing your point )

 

Back when we had 3 channels, and the New York Times was the paper of record, there was no accountability, and these organizations had absolute power to not only report the news, but to tell people what it meant. The Dan Rather scandal represents the end of that age. He was ass-raped by the internet. A perfect ending to the "bad old days".

 

Now, as MSNBC demonstrates, low-quality news reporting means low ratings, and eventually, removal from the market.

 

Once again, the free market triumphs over all other approaches. Why do you think the left wants the government to meddle with the media market? Answer: because they don't want the game to be fair, and they sure as hell don't want to have to try to sell their awful ideas in the free market.

I understand the concept quite well. I just don't insinuate that diversification means increased quality. Increased quality is certainly a possibility of diversification, but it's not a given by any means. I think we could also agree that quality is in the eye of the viewer as well.

[OCinBuffalo]

I understand the concept quite well. I just don't insinuate that diversification means increased quality. Increased quality is certainly a possibility of diversification, but it's not a given by any means. I think we could also agree that quality is in the eye of the viewer as well.

Well, since the "currency" of media is ratings, and ratings are what they are, it's fairly easy to determine who is doing quality work, and who isn't. Sure, I understand that a lot of people like to be told what they want to hear. But, that also defines the market, and the spaces in it. If MSNBC refuses to see the market as it is, then, we can expect them to get the exact ratings that they currently get, and stay in their little, irrelevant space.

 

Competition is the key to making things better, and it always has been. Only a fool believes that everybody who watches FOX, for example, or listens to Limbaugh, is a hardcore conservative. If that were the case, both would not enjoy the ratings successes they have.

 

Only a fool believes that the original 3 stations, and the NYT, wasn't massively biased. And, their failure to keep hold of their market positions, once serious competition was introduced, clearly demonstrates that.

[Rob's House]

I want to know where everyone is hearing all this "hate" from Rush and Glenn Beck. Admittedly I haven't been listening that often lately, but neither is mean spirited or hateful. In the case of Rush, he basically talks about the news and makes fun of people who attack him or people he supports. In the case of Beck, he's a very maudlin dude. He cares a lot, and wants to expose people he thinks have sinister agendas. Even Hannity is a pretty civil guy. He calls it like he sees it, much in the fashion of a broken record, but again, not a hateful guy.

[Dan]

Well, since the "currency" of media is ratings, and ratings are what they are, it's fairly easy to determine who is doing quality work, and who isn't. Sure, I understand that a lot of people like to be told what they want to hear. But, that also defines the market, and the spaces in it. If MSNBC refuses to see the market as it is, then, we can expect them to get the exact ratings that they currently get, and stay in their little, irrelevant space.

 

Competition is the key to making things better, and it always has been. Only a fool believes that everybody who watches FOX, for example, or listens to Limbaugh, is a hardcore conservative. If that were the case, both would not enjoy the ratings successes they have.

 

Only a fool believes that the original 3 stations, and the NYT, wasn't massively biased. And, their failure to keep hold of their market positions, once serious competition was introduced, clearly demonstrates that.

American Idol gets some of the highest ratings out there. Is that quality TV? I highly doubt it. Just because you're popular doesn't mean you're of high quality. It just means you're able to tell/show the people what they want to hear/see in a way they want to hear/see. I do agree competition tends to make things better. But, that's not always the case either. And, believe me, I'd never say that only hardcore conservatives watch FOX because I watch it quite frequently and I'd be reluctant to call myself a hardcore conservative.

[OCinBuffalo]

I want to know where everyone is hearing all this "hate" from Rush and Glenn Beck. Admittedly I haven't been listening that often lately, but neither is mean spirited or hateful. In the case of Rush, he basically talks about the news and makes fun of people who attack him or people he supports. In the case of Beck, he's a very maudlin dude. He cares a lot, and wants to expose people he thinks have sinister agendas. Even Hannity is a pretty civil guy. He calls it like he sees it, much in the fashion of a broken record, but again, not a hateful guy.

For me:

 

Limbaugh is past his prime and fading. He used to be funny, which is why I used to listen. He's just not quick anymore. He misses a lot more than he hits now.

 

Beck, Jesus, you never know what you are going to get. I keep my finger on the remote when he's on. Sometimes he's extremely insightful, and his research is pretty darn good, but, when he starts impersonating Andy Griffith's character from "A Face in the Crowd", I press the button.

 

If I want to know today's Republican talking points, I switch on Hannity He is a living, breathing position memo.

 

But, you are right, NONE of these guys speak from actual hatred.

 

In contrast, the hatred is so clear when you turn on Olbermann, or that Ed guy, it's friggin palpable.

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Adam]

Successful media will always be tinged with hate and fear. As OC said, ratings is the currecy of the media. Unfortunately, hate and fear draw ratings more than intellectual content. The media doesn't serve us, we now serve them.

[OCinBuffalo]

American Idol gets some of the highest ratings out there. Is that quality TV? I highly doubt it. Just because you're popular doesn't mean you're of high quality. It just means you're able to tell/show the people what they want to hear/see in a way they want to hear/see. I do agree competition tends to make things better. But, that's not always the case either. And, believe me, I'd never say that only hardcore conservatives watch FOX because I watch it quite frequently and I'd be reluctant to call myself a hardcore conservative.

Apples and Oranges comparison. People aren't intellectually switched on when watching Idol, or the rest of the crap. They are looking to consume a different product. Nobody analyzes the performance of Idol judges, etc., because there's nothing to base that analysis on. Example: Who cares what a judge said 3 shows ago? Who even remembers?

 

The point I have made over and over: things are in flux right now. There is next to 0 rigidity, or barriers to entry, to the news media market, and that's a good thing. Any fool with a website can start reporting/analyzing the news. I would venture to guess that some of the regulars here get more news here, than they do anywhere else. Which is disturbing

 

Sooner or later, like with every other emerging market, consolidation will occur. Eventually, the best performers will gain a tenuous position. But, the low barrier to entry ensures that they will have to keep performing or risk immediate loss of market share. This is what we want for the news media: absolute accountability, or swift and severe punishment. That beats the hell out of the days when the Walter Cronkites could lose wars for this country.

 

That will only happen if the government stays the f out, and isn't given the opportunity to start artificially picking winners and losers, like it always does.

[OCinBuffalo]

Successful media will always be tinged with hate and fear. As OC said, ratings is the currecy of the media. Unfortunately, hate and fear draw ratings more than intellectual content. The media doesn't serve us, we now serve them.

You missed it. Back in the day, the media was a feudal system, with local anchors serving their national masters. God help you if you didn't report the story the way corporate demanded. God help you if you tried to sell a local story nationally, that wasn't presented per corporate standards(read: with appropriate bias). If you towed the line, some day you might get promoted to the national office, and, as a reporter, if you ever deviated from the holy writ, you were done, and had no chance of getting a job anywhere.

 

That was the bad old days, and that was when the Media was free to attack anyone with impunity, and could be as incompetent as they pleased. That's when we served them.

 

Put it this way: no way Dan Rather loses his job if he pulled the same stunt he tried to pull on Bush on Reagan jut before the 1984 election. Nobody would have had any way to inspect his bogus letter. Today, that letter was busted in 15 minutes, but a Professor of Fonts, of all things, on the internet. Welcome to the "good new days".

 

You should be happy that you never had to put up with the old nonsense. You didn't miss anything.

[ExiledInIllinois]

She, actually. My recollection is that the rhetoric started specifically with HillaryCare, hence to Whitewater and then completely downhill from there.

 

It actually started a little bit earlier with this stuff:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkAUrPHLkA8

[/dev/null]

It actually started a little bit earlier with this stuff:

 

youtube.com/watch?v=SkAUrPHLkA8

 

Started earlier than that

 

In your heart you know he's right

In your guts you know he's nuts

[Jim in Anchorage]

She, actually. My recollection is that the rhetoric started specifically with HillaryCare, hence to Whitewater and then completely downhill from there.

Saw a bumper sticker I liked the other day- "proud member of a vast right wing conspiracy"