Well that's one way to avoid answering a question, I suppose.

CUT THE MIC! or MIKE!

Nah, mic is good. : )

So what do you think of this?

They should have just cut his mic for being somewhat disruptive and allowed him to speak sans mic, imhb - not knowing the entire story.

Do you see a pattern, prag?

Yes, PRAG, it's still up on YT.

On topic for a moment, Gore clearly was on the defensive. Cutting the mic and allowing support staff to expel the guy only feeds the opposition and reinforces the image of Gore being 'all hat' to use a little Dubya lingo.

If I'd been Gore I'd have told the support staff to leave the man alone. Asked for a few seconds of silence to calm things down, and addressed the man's question fully.

And then I've looked like a hero, not only to my supporters in the room, but would have demonstrated to the world that not only did I have the "facts" straight, but that I was fully comfortable in addressing my critics.

Because, let's face it, he's been VERY insulated on this. Debate? Critical questioning? It's not happening.

And as the journalist said at the end, it would seem to be a given that the media would examine "big climate" as they examine "big government" or "big business." Again, it's not happening. Why?

Wonder what Gore followers will do if they see THIS movie?:

You know - I've been wearing shoes all my life and I believe that qualifies me to be a podiatrist...now, to build my clientele...

"Wonder what Gore followers will do if they see THIS movie?:"

What a GREAT picture of Gore on that poster--he looks like Satan! Well, a rather overweight Satan. Airbrush in some horns and a mustache.

"Do you see a pattern, prag?"

Between the "Don't tase me, bro" thing and this? No. I think the "Don't tase" guy set it up. He wanted that reaction, and he got it. He's a prankster (not sure if he's merry). And besides, unless Kerry was protecting Bush--oh, shit, they're all in cahoots! : )

"And as the journalist said at the end, it would seem to be a given that the media would examine "big climate" as they examine "big government" or "big business." Again, it's not happening. Why?"

But they don't really examine any of those things. Why would they examine big business; they ARE big busines. This is the problem. As Amy Goodman said, "We are the fourth estate, not for the state." Say what you will about Ms. Goodman's agenda, but from what I know of her, she asks real questions. Sadly, it seems the only journalists asking real tough questions are or are characterized as fringe. Hell, Rush Limbaugh, much as I can't stand his shtick, is no moron and asks some important questions. But couched as they are in seeming hate and anger, he loses lots of people right away. He's just one example who comes to mind. Completely dismissing Fox News because of perceived bias is unfortunate, but then, their stance is also unfortunate. One could probably say the same of NBC et al, though to me the bias is nowhere near as obvious. (And yes, that can make it much more dangerous.) But again, I don't buy into the idea of a liberal bias in media; I see and have always seen a corporate bias. The guiding question is, What's best for my bottom line. (A liberal agenda, it seems to me, would push for pictures of dead bodies coming home from Iraq, dead and maimed Iraqi citizens, etc. From what I've heard--I don't watch TV news anymore--these things are not happening, have not happened...)

PRAG-
Several things.

Rush is not a journalist... at least from the standpoint he is doing investigative work and having his efforts run in the media (papers, TV, etc) as a source as, for example, AP, Reuters.

His show is analysis of current events mixed with a healthy dose of humor based on truth. Therein lies a key... truth. When there's no truth behind it becomes juvenile sniping.

I disagree with your assessment that the media doesn't go after big govt or big business. The media was all over Bush once the bloom of the rose came off Iraq. Some are now coming around to realizing Obama isn't the Second Coming and I suspect the bloom is coming off his rose as well.

The press has been pretty stout in keeping up the lib party line that we're getting screwed by big oil, big insurance, big pharma, big finance, etc.

PRAG-
You said, "A liberal agenda, it seems to me, would push for pictures of dead bodies coming home from Iraq, dead and maimed Iraqi citizens, etc. From what I've heard--I don't watch TV news anymore--these things are not happening, have not happened...)"

When Dubya ran the show the lib press wanted those pics to apply pressure to weaken the nation's resolve... to weaken Bush's standing. The goal was to weaken Republicans in order to gain Dem advantage during election time.

Now that Dems run the whole show... and the body count is higher than it's been in a long time... we're not seeing those pics.

Why do you think that is? What's more important, ending a war or weakening a POTUS (and his party's) standing? Back under the Bush admin those goals weren't mutually exclusive.

The dearth of those pics in the lib media should provide the evidence you need to reach a conclusion. Obama and Dems must be protected. FOX wasn't gonna run that sort of stuff anyway, regardless of POTUS, so it's no surprise their stance remained the same. But what about the other networks?

"Rush is not a journalist... at least from the standpoint he is doing investigative work and having his efforts run in the media (papers, TV, etc) as a source as, for example, AP, Reuters.
His show is analysis of current events mixed with a healthy dose of humor based on truth. Therein lies a key... truth. When there's no truth behind it becomes juvenile sniping."

I agree with most of that assessment, except for the truth part. His analyses are based on his assessments of facts or situations reported, developed through his lens. In other words, yes, he's a commentator. I wrote that part poorly; _I_ don't confused him with news reporters, but I'm willing to bet (and I've heard it, here and otherwise), that many people do. He's not reporting fact; he's analyzing. The comments about hate and anger stand. (And FTR, I don't like the guy, but I don't deny him his right to air his shtick.)

"The press has been pretty stout in keeping up the lib party line that we're getting screwed by big oil, big insurance, big pharma, big finance, etc."

This contradicts your point that the media goes after big gov't, or seems to. As for the previous disagreement, I should have said, "I don't believe the media seriously goes after..." Yes, they ask some questions, but there's little hard and fast investigative reporting going on in Big Media. Big Media (including Fox) wants to line its pockets. Real investigative reporting is done by people who are or who get characterized as fringe. (Democracy Now. Project Censored. Etc. And those are just the left-leaning outlets I can think of.) This may have been different before the news branches of broadcasting companies were brought under the profit umbrella (or that could be a myth).

"When Dubya ran the show the lib press wanted those pics to apply pressure to weaken the nation's resolve... to weaken Bush's standing. The goal was to weaken Republicans in order to gain Dem advantage during election time."

I don't remember it that way. But this may be a difference between lib press and lib citizens. The argument I remember from citizens was about ending the war. A la Vietnam--if we saw the body bags, more of us would rise up. Again, could be a myth, but those are the discussions I remember.

"Now that Dems run the whole show..."

I hope you're not one of those suggesting that there's suddenly a "staterun media."

" and the body count is higher than it's been in a long time... we're not seeing those pics.
Why do you think that is? What's more important, ending a war or weakening a POTUS (and his party's) standing? Back under the Bush admin those goals weren't mutually exclusive."

Maybe I'm reading too fast, but I'm not getting your point here.

As for Fox's not changing its stance, what is that organization's official stance on showing pics of war dead?

For my part, I don't care who's in power. I think journalism should be robust and propaganda limited. (Very hard to achieve.) I think that during wartime, we should SEE the damage done to us, to the enemy soldiers, and to the citizens of the enemy. I think we should know the toll that is being taken, and not just on us. The human toll and the environmental toll. I think we would look at war much differently.

So if the "liberal media" (I don't buy the monolithic liberal bias argument) is doing as you say, they should fucking well cut it out.

Prag - a few weeks back some advertisers dropped Beck like a bad habit for speaking his mind - was that not showing bias? Are these advertisers for or against free speech? FYI - Beck has gone off on the previous administration far more than this one.

As for the networks and PBS - sometimes their bias is unassuming and other times in your face. There is bias on all sides - some bias is just a little sneakier than other bias.

Same reason I DON'T watch Hannity - his love affair with everything he deems good and right shines through like foundation over a big pussfilled pimple.

"Prag - a few weeks back some advertisers dropped Beck like a bad habit for speaking his mind - was that not showing bias?"

Yes, CORPORATE bias. They are worried about their bottom line, about offending their customers. And advertisers aren't the media--they pay the media, but that's not the same. This is a perfect example of my point. Now if you mean some stations dropped Beck, we might have a different discussion. : )

"Are these advertisers for or against free speech?"

They sure are--their speech. (Cf. the argument that companies make that advertising is speech and thus constitutionally protected, which I think is bunk.)

"FYI - Beck has gone off on the previous administration far more than this one."

Good for him. Or maybe not--maybe it just proves his cynicism and willingness to say whatever he needs to say to get ratings. I have not seen but one clip from one show, which was propagandistic and not very clever. And I read about six pages of one of his books while standing about in the bookstore--just enough for me to go, "Ye gods, another ranter!" (You can probably tell that I don't read books by these types, since ranting is their raison d'etre. He didn't horrify or offend me, in those pages, the way Ann Coulter did--fuckin' hypocrite that she is--but it was enough to tell me something about what kind of entertainer/commentator/
thinker he is.)

"As for the networks and PBS - sometimes their bias is unassuming and other times in your face. There is bias on all sides - some bias is just a little sneakier than other bias."

Yes, the myth of the objective journalist is just that--a myth. I don't so much mind bias as the lack of hard-hitting, investigative reporting.

"Same reason I DON'T watch Hannity - his love affair with everything he deems good and right shines through like foundation over a big pussfilled pimple."

That was a funny line. You know, I was flipping channels one day, and I stopped on some dude ranting about politics. I'm always intrigued, so I listened. I swore it was Rush L--the cadence, the content--but the timbre just wasn't right. Turned out it was Hannity. Ye gods, did this guy deconstruct Limbaugh's vocal stylings and adopt them or what? It was freakin' eerie. (And that's not a comment on content, just vocal delivery.)

"Beck has gone off on the previous administration far more than this one."

Did you type that with a straight face???
Hilarious.

Danni - do you watch Beck? He takes ALL OF WASHINGTON to task - he doesn't pick and choose - believe it or not, there are people out there who serve no party lines. His last two books are riddled with slams on nearly EVERY pol for the last two hundred years - no holds barred - too bad you cannot get past your hatred of Reagan - it's blinding you.

#15 - Hence the reason I get so peeved when someone says I'm spouting Hannity/Rush talking points - nearly everything I read on a daily basis is on the sidebar at one of my blogs - and of course I stray into enemy territory...

"Did you type that with a straight face???"

Nanc's posts and the truth have absolutely nothing in common.

#12 - PRAG This contradicts your point that the media goes after big gov't, or seems to.

The guiding rule is to promote liberalism. So they'll go after someone/something as it benefits Dems. They are dragged, kicking and screaming, into topics which don't fit their templates.

Take ACORN, for example. Or any number of Dem leader issues (Charlie Rangle, for example).

The war pics are another example. I could go on, but suffice to say the media has its favorites and its opponents... and uses its ink/airtime to shape public opinion. Look at how and why polling is done.

Oohrah, as you posted here:

Oh, well. I tried.

Thanks, though, Oohrah and Nanc, for sharing your thoughts civilly. That remains too rare here.

I am nothing if not civil at all times, damnit! *8]

PRAG-
Please forgive me for some lack of continuity here. I've been stepping away and other posts have come in during the interim.

On the war/casket issue. Here's my two cents: I begin from the template that the lib media wants to promote liberalism - the Democratic party. You may disagree, but I could point out so many studies and illustrations that we could rehash this in a thread of its own.

Back on point... almost EVERYONE supported Dubya shortly after 9/11. Remember Congress standing in solidarity? Let's assume, for the moment, that Dems were genuine. Regardless, the media reflected the Dem party at that time as well. The press largely supported the war effort, first the Taliban and then Iraq.

But as time went by before we actually went into Iraq, the Dem party regained its footing and opposed Bush. The media followed suit

With the media as a whole (there are exceptions) - they want the Dem party to be successful. Trace it back to Nixon if you want.

How best to destroy Bush? Turn the American people against the war. Their desire to show caskets was nothing more than a way to cripple Bush... otherwise you'd see pics plastered in the media today. After all, it's OK now that Dubya's gone. Yet we don't see the pics, even though there are more fatalities now than a year ago. The media constantly ran the number of deaths... often on page one. How often do we see that today?

Remember how the media dogged Bush about Gitmo, wiretaps, etc? Now that Obama's in charge, we hardly hear about it. Obama "says" we don't torture, yet where is the NYT digging and digging for anything resembling what was done under Dubya? Are they taking Obama at his word?

"I hope you're not one of those suggesting that there's suddenly a "staterun media."" - PRAG

That's a term Rush adopted (I don't know its origin) some months back. He used to call them "drive by."

The media isn't officially state run. Yet, the mainstream media (all but FOX and perhaps the WS Journal) has abdicated its role as a watchdog and has become a cheerleader. They willingly and openly have chosen sides. They may as well be state-run in terms of the favorable coverage Dems receive.

"I hope you're not one of those suggesting that there's suddenly a "staterun media."" - PRAG

My comment ("Now that Dems run the whole show") which prompted your quote... was that Dems control all branches of government.

"My comment ("Now that Dems run the whole show") which prompted your quote... was that Dems control all branches of government."

Now, that we can agree on. Well, except the judicial of course (with five justices appointed by Reagan or one of the Bushes, right?). And thank you for clarifying.

Other than Chris Matthews, though, I haven't seen anchors or news organizations willingly and openly choosing sides. But I don't watch TV news anymore (pretty much at all), so maybe I've missed it. Back four or five years ago, I didn't see it the way you describe it.

I maintain that at base, the bias is a corporate bias, though I understand some of your points. Will you take a look again at my ideas about investigative reporting, and let me know what you think?

Hilarious the GOREACLE is only practicing LIBERAL TRANSPARENCY just like OBAMA/GOD...

BTW have Obama and Chuck Gibson heard of ACORN yet, the last I heard your daddy OBAMA/GOD still has not heard of BILL AYERS and the weatherman...

DAMN PESKY QUESTIONS KILL THE MIKE...

Boy oh boy, non sequitur alert.

By the by, Obama never said he hadn't heard of Bill Ayers. He said what he said pretty clearly: worked on a board, etc. And Jesus, even if they were friends, who the fuck cares? I have lots of friends whose opinions don't indoctrinate me toward a particular worldview. In fact, I have friends whose worldview is nearly the opposite of mine. Doesn't make me go all rightwing wacko on anybody.

Obama never said he hadn't heard of Bill Ayers.

Bill Ayers was a fund raiser for Obama when he wasn't too busy blowing up things and VAN JONES speaks for himself, it would seem Obama has a trend of surronding himself with radicals and communists...

"You are the company you keep" Mac Daddy Himself...

"Bill Ayers was a fund raiser for Obama when he wasn't too busy blowing up things and VAN JONES speaks for himself, it would seem Obama has a trend of surronding himself with radicals and communists..."

You do know that Ayers's violent radicalism took place when Obama was in diapers, yes? You do know that people who are politically engaged do things for those who are politically potential, right? You're engaging in at least two logical fallacies. But you probably know that, too.

Van Jones? Whatever. I don't care if there are communists in the government. I'm not Joseph McCarthy. I don't want a communist gov't or economic model, but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with having advisors of different stripes. Knowing a person or even having them in your inner circle doesn't mean you are one of whatever that person is (assuming said person can be reduced to such a simple label). Hell, Obama has at least a few Republicans on his staff and in his cabinet (or other advisory capacity); does that mean he's gonna turn Republican?

Man, it must be nice to live in your black-and-white, reducible world.

By the by, Obama never said he hadn't heard of Bill Ayers.
Posted by pragmatist

You are going to look pretty stupid when it's determined that Ayers was the Ghost Writer of Obama's block buster novel.

Oh, shit, Wis, that's funny. Thank you.

Oh, shit, Wis, that's funny. Thank you.

#33 | Posted by pragmatist

Don't forget to tip your server. The School Board shouldn't have to. I'll be here all week.

How's the ham?

How's the ham?

#35 | Posted by pragmatist

Ask a Democrat. They know about Pork.

And Sean Foley knows about little weenies.

And Ted Kennedy knew about gravy before he died. His head was full of it.

"And Sean Foley knows about..."

Sean Foley the actor? I thught he lived in England???

Ah, crap. Wis, my retort was lame, but yours is even lamer. We must both be tired. Ah, well, we'll always have ghost writer. (Ghost writers in the sky?)

Crispee, never heard of him. Sean Astin I'm familiar with. I don't think he likes weenies. Though he did play a small character in his most famous film.

Ah, crap. Wis, my retort was lame, but yours is even lamer.
#40 | Posted by pragmatist

Your opinion. I stuck to a political figure. And you stuck to a weiner.

#40...

You sure you aren't trying to get around a gaffe? Seeing as it was a rep/dem retort? You meant Mark Foley didn't you? God only knows why you would counter a Kennedy line with some actor from England. Come on Prag. This what you expect from your students? To try and cover up? Besides the Foley crap is so yesterdaysnews....

I was busy grading papers. -Prag.