The biggest loser in the recent election was...

[haggis]

Serenity, I was a "soldier" (not technically correct) for 28 years and am now a business manager with quotas and deadlines.

I have been a barely adequate writer – defined as somewhat able to form a complete sentence made up of one independent clause with no dependent clause attached and consisting of at least one subject and one predicate in a Subject Verb Object typology, something I’m sure I’ve failed at more than once - for a few years shy of all that.

I think I'm happiest in the "B" column

And Selma, I think your placement in the “B” column is uncontestable. Although now that I think on it, I do remember complimenting you sometimes back on the wording of several of your clever flights of fancy.

(Ed. “Well, pal, if Selma’s amusing word sculpting musings qualify as “flights of fancy,” your psychotic babble puts you well and truly on your way to galactic central!!!)


Barf,
” I don't know if Goldwater could have beaten an alive and humanly flawed Jack Kennedy or not. I clearly recall that he was not universally adored until after he was dead, though.”

Who? Kennedy or Goldwater?

I also remember the election but I was too young to vote. I thought it was rather dishonest for LBJ to frame AUH²0 as a “war monger” and after he was elected, LBJ proceeded to implement most of the same things that AUH²0 advocated.

[barfle]

Kennedy, like every other president since I started paying attention (and that would have been during the Kennedy administration) had his detractors. He didn't beat Nixon by much in the election, and most Republicans thought he was leading the country on the road to socialism (but so has every other President since then).

Admittedly, my concerns were more about getting a date for the dance Saturday night than they were about politics, but JFK was thought of as a charming but hypocritical vote-buying liberal, at least in the area where I lived (Orange County, CA - admittedly very conservative).

Probably the only thing he did that met with the Republicans' approval was his handling of the Cuban missle crisis.

When he was killed, it was as shocking to us as 9/11 was. The entire country went into mourning, and even tood a day or two off work to engage in mass melancholy. The funeral, televised nationally, gripped everyone with sadness, even my very, very right-winged parents. The whole process of laying to rest a young charismatic JFK pretty much made a lot of people tend to forget what it was they despised about his policies.

Goldwater, and genuine conservative politics, never stood a chance against that legacy. And we were stuck with LBJ, who even admitted that he boogered up Viet Nam big time by not running for a second full term.

<small>[ 11-15-2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: barfle ]</small>

[shostakovich]

From Haggis: "I also remember the election but I was too young to vote. I thought it was rather dishonest for LBJ to frame AUH²0 as a “war monger” and after he was elected, LBJ proceeded to implement most of the same things that AUH²0 advocated."

Goldwater advocated low level nuclear bombing to deforest the Viet Nam jungles. The word "nuclear" scared the crap out of most voters.

A humorous writer (wish I could remember his quite well known name) said " A friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Goldwater we'd be deep into war within half a year. He was right. I did and we were."
Shos

[barfle]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
Goldwater advocated low level nuclear bombing to deforest the Viet Nam jungles. The word "nuclear" scared the crap out of most voters.

He was quoted as making a remark that such a thing might happen, but he was no more interested in starting a nuclear war than Jack Kennedy was. The cold war was in full swing, and talk of nuclear weapons was being bandied about by almost everyone.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute has a pretty good review of a book about Goldwater, his policies, and the environment they both existed in, and makes mention of this incident. It's not all praise for his policies.

[shostakovich]

From Shos: "A humorous writer (wish I could remember his quite well known name) said " A friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Goldwater we'd be deep into war within half a year. He was right. I did and we were."
Shos

I just remembered. It was Art Buchwald.

[BigJon]

RATHER IS GONE!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11490932%255E2703,00.html

Sorry I had to shout.

BigJon

[haggis]

Getting back to the subject of this thread

The Economist

” Mr Rather's retirement epitomises two broader shifts of power. First, the old media are losing power to the new. And, second, the liberal media establishment is losing power to a more diverse cacophony of new voices.
For most of the post-war era the American media were dominated by a comfortable liberal consensus. The New York Times was the undisputed king of the print news, while the network anchors lorded it over TV news. That consensus is now under siege. The attacks are partly coming from the cable networks—particularly from conservative Fox News. (Charles Krauthammer once quipped that Rupert Murdoch had spotted a niche market—half the country. Sure enough, Fox is now America's top-rated cable news network.) But old media also face a newer and more unpredictable source of competition—the blogosphere. Bloggers have discovered that all you need to set yourself up as a pundit is a website and an attitude. . . .
The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean's presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans' then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried. It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.”

[shostakovich]

What does "scandal mongering" mean in this context? Poo-poohing it or investigating it?

[haggis]

I think investigate it. Most mainstream bloggers that I read are partisan in varying degrees but the fact-checking hoard of people online make it impossible pass off a falsehood to advance a theory.

Too many people will call them on it the same way they called Dan Rather.

I think we are entering a period where the MSM will first try to ignore the fact checking hounds at their heels, failing that (already underway) they will attempt to discredit them (already failed) and then will either re-invent MSM into a more accurate fact reporting business or become immaterial.

The press/TV has comfortable decided what we are informed on for decades. When events run counter with their beliefs, they don't report them.

I believe that's changing now and I, for one, am excited that irresponsible opinion mongering disguised as "news" can no longer be put forth without regard for consequences.

The internet has redefined "news" as a commodity; anyone with a computer and an opinion can be read by numbers that would cause the New York Times to drool for.

[shostakovich]

I'll join you in that hope, Haggis. Thanks for the post.
Shos

[piqaboo]

Here's to ya, and to an informed populace.

[haggis]

In mid November, Howard Dean (remember him? EEAAAYYYYYAAAAH?) was quoted in the Yale Daily News

” Dean stressed corporate ownership of the media and the increased focus on entertainment as problems with today's media, and he emphasized the importance of diversity and regulation in fixing these problems....

"The media is a failing institution in this country," Dean said. "They are not maintaining their responsibility to maintain democracy"....

The solution to restoring an ethical media, Dean said, is to ensure diversity and cap corporate ownership of media outlets. He said he supports government regulation of media ownership. "[The media] are incapable of regulating themselves," Dean said. "What's at stake is our democracy..."

So, the way to restore integrity and honesty and restore our news media's status as independent watchdog over our democracy is….government regulation!

"Dean received a standing ovation and an enthusiastic response from the audience."

I don’t know which is scarier, the recommendation to increase governmental scrunity over the ownership of the press or the fact that he was cheered for making it.

[OperaTenor]

There he goes, calling us a democracy again....

[haggis]

Sheesh, picky, picky, picky. O.K. a "representational republic"

<small>[ 12-01-2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[shostakovich]

Don't we already have a government regulatory body called the FCC? As for ownership of the media by private companies, how else would they sell stock?

Dean's speech seems like pointless blather. He must be campaigning already. It would be nicer if he recognized "media" as a plural.
Picky, Picky, Picky

[piqaboo]

I got the impression he was talking about preventing media near-monopolies, rather than against private ownership of media. Nor was he askign the Feds to regulate content.

There is little diversity in our reporting - as bemoaned by many on this board. Ownership by the many instead of the few would (increase the cost of reporting) increase diversity of the slant given.

[RC]

Piq, that is my take as well.

I think Haggis' concern though is government regulation in capitalism as he also crticizes Roosevelts numerous regulatory infringements on a capitalist economy and actually referred to Roosevelt as a dictator. (To which, just BTW, I agree in general). I think he also mentioned that he voted for Carter who was responsible for beginning deregulation - (don't shoot me if I'm wrong Haggis).

It was under Roosevelt that the first anti-trust act(s) was/were passed (starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act and then dominoing on to a multitude of other government interventions).

It occurs to me that the stock market crash and the following depression was our first indication that unrestrained capitalism and democracy sometimes clash.

I can't remember where all this talk was between Haggis and I but I also recall that he turned right around and pointed out that the greedy little monopolistic tycoons were all democrats. To which I resonded, "what's your point?" and never had an answer.

Maybe now is my opportunity to ask again.

My issue with Roosevelt is that he did not properly identify the cause of the crash and ensuing depression. ONE thing that came out of that era to everyone's benefit was the changes to corporate accounting and reporting. (IMHO). Most of the rest of the "Trust-busting" regulations should have been unnecessary over time. We didn't have time.
The social assistance was absolutely imperative but should have dissolved over time.
Since these regulations never went away, we've lost our free market to a great extent. We can never know what anti-trust regulation is still necessary because we can't isolate the other variables; Farm aid, airline bail-out, international tarrifs etc...

So Haggis, here is my question:
If you don't like Howard Dean's suggestion and you don't like the liberal monopoly of the press, what do you propose as a resolution?

<small>[ 12-02-2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[haggis]

” So Haggis, here is my question:
If you don't like Howard Dean's suggestion and you don't like the liberal monopoly of the press, what do you propose as a resolution?”

I think you might have misunderstood my point. It appears from his statement Dean believes by injecting some more governmental regulation or oversight into the media industry then the media will once again become the watchdog of government. I thought that was slightly amusing.

“Liberal monopoly” and liberal ownership are two different things. I can assure you that the loss of that liberal monopoly is exactly the reason Mr. Dean’s knickers are in a twist.

In 1987 the Supreme Court repealed the FCC rule that required broadcasters to devote airtime to important controversial issues and to air contrasting views on those issues. At the time the Democrats hailed the ruling publicly as an exercise in freedom and privately as a victory for the media, which would no longer have to pay “equal time” lip service to the Republicans.

The Democrats reasoned that since all media at the time was exclusively liberal, with the exception of the WSJ, then the media would just continue to remain liberal, bad reasoning.

Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio, FOX, Washington Times, et al all sprang from that ruling. There was a quip when FOX news started that Rupert Murdoch had cleverly discovered a niche market, 50% of the American population.

Now the Democrats want to put the genie back into the bottle, and that’s exactly what Mr. Dean’s comments were alluding to.

The congressional Democrats have been trying to reinstitute that FCC rule by codification for many years without success and I suspect that they won’t even be able to get close for several decades; a good thing, as Martha would say.

What do I want to happen in the news media world? Well, nothing actually. There is no way for one person to control the output of information and the FCC’s already come pretty close to killing broadcast TV and muzzling broadcast radio.

I predict that by the end of the decade broadcast TV will be relegated to the local affairs they were in the 50’s and all serious news will come from the cables and the Internet.

Radio’s future is a bit trickier to predict but I think the FCC will begin to lose some of its regulatory power. I don’t want anyone, liberal or conservative, telling me what’s proper to listen to or watch. If you don’t like Howard Stern (I don’t, actually) then don’t listen to him.

Piq,
” There is little diversity in our reporting - as bemoaned by many on this board. Ownership by the many instead of the few would (increase the cost of reporting) increase diversity of the slant given.”

I confess to being taken aback at that comment. Can you give me an example when we had the diversity of reporting that you feel we lost?

Surely not the 50’s – 80’s when all the news we received came from ABC, CBS, and NBC. When 6-7 old white guys dressed in grey suits, wearing horn rimmed glasses told us what the news was? To be fair the TV was B&W, so the suits might have been green, but I doubt it.

Possibly I misunderstood and you are referring to newspapers? I agree we had greater diversity in the past, but I would maintain the diversity was local.

I can take the time and point out 20 major, different sources of news available today, thanks to the Internet. I can especially recommend Yahoo’s news search engine. For greater diversity I recommend the The Jerusalem Post and The Asian Times.

I’ve said before that the Internet has reduced news to a commodity, not the premium product it was when it was controlled by very few organizations.

Now, when I see some outrageous news report (generally about Iraq these days) I don’t have to accept it at face value, I have resources and options to check the truthfulness or slant of the article. It’s amazing what you will find out. I generally find some way to post the most outrageous of those here on BB.com.

Which is another example of wide-ranging, unrestricted (well, mainly unrestricted) lateral communications.

Name one other way you could have instantly shared your opinion and beliefs AND instantly received someone else’s opinion and beliefs halfway around the world before the internet?

The MSM, as we knew it, is no longer able to control what we hear and see.

Giddy times to be living, boys and girls!!!

[piqaboo]

Haggis,
I was refering to the slightly greater diversity due to different ownership of TV vs newspaper, and the time when the liberal owned media was in transition to the murdoch media group. So there were high numbers of both slants available. Thats when I started paying attention to news, albeit in a vague way.

No question fax machines and the internet greatly ease the task of getting a diverse set of viewpoints and stories.

MSM cant "control" it, but it where most of us get our news, since its quick and easy, and life is full and busy.

Rush, Howard, Dr Laura, etal are not news. They are hot air. Rich hot air, but hot air nevertheless.