| To demonize the press, to characterize it as not just mistaken but malign, is to lay the groundwork for repression. | |
| … | |
| The enemy in any democracy is not dissent, from either within or without. Dissent, in fact, is essential. The enemy is dishonesty, ignorance, indifference, intolerance. The ability to hold journalists accountable has never been greater, and we take legitimate criticism as a challenge to do better. Attempts to suppress, dismiss and control, on the other hand, we understand as exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned against. | |
| — Nancy Gibbs | |
| Editor of Time Magazine | |
| From her editorial: “Jefferson’s Warning to the White House“, dtd: 13 February 2017 | |
| [Thomas Jefferson’s comment was that given the choice of government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, he’d choose newspapers over government. — KMAB] | |
| . | |
| On This Day In: | |
| 2016 | It Ain’t Easy |
| (Leap Year 29th) | Or Try To, Anyway… |
| (Leap Year 29th) | Circles Within Circles |
| 2015 | A Series Of Funerals |
| 2014 | And Your Point Is? |
| 2013 | Infinitely Care |
| 2012 | In My Room |
| (Leap Year 29th) | Stingray – TV Series Review (This is my most popular post since starting my blog – hands down! It still draws hits almost every week. The hits seem to come mostly from Central Europe. I guess the show must be in syndication there.) |
| (Leap Year 29th) | A Single Thread |
| 2011 | Lyrical Mixture |
| Teaching = Translating | |
Advertisements
If everyone disagreed like you did, we’d all be able to communicate! I want to acknowledge your civility and good manners in the way you disagree.
There is an interesting piece at http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/28/judge-asks-obama-about-lack-of-christian-refugees-allowed-in-us/
This is one of many articles but it isn’t even important now as that was 2016 article. All I was saying is that I wished both sides were given a voice in the media. For instance, when a Democrat says Trumps an idiot because of this and that, then Trump –or someone who represents him– would be allowed to respond and tell his side of the story in the same segment.
Obama did some things when he was first president, you’d see a little blip about it: then immediately someone from his side would be allowed to explain. With Trump, you see his gaffe, then 20 people expound on it, then off to the next story. To me that isn’t news. That is the arm of the Democrat party disguised (poorly I might add) as news.
Good bye Chicago Tribune. Don’t come crying to me when your subscriptions go down. Sunday paper is the worst with a 5 (liberal commentator) to 1 (conservative) commentator, columnists slant. I just want news. And if it something contrary to Trump, I want to hear it. I just also want to hear their side of the story.
Hi MMP,
Thanks for the compliment. I do try to be civil, but that’s mostly because I’m trying to understand why people feel the way they do. Particularly when there may be a difference of opinion. Partly because I might learn something new, but mostly because I’ve been wrong (incorrect) about so many things in my own beliefs in my life. There is an old Native American saying not to judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. I mostly assume folks are like me. I found (repeatedly) that’s only true in the most general sense. Hence my frequent incorrect assumptions.
Anyway, if you don’t mind a little advice… Don’t bother reading the “Daily Caller” for news. As near as I can tell, the only thing they get right is the date. The web site started out as a brain-child of Tucker Carlson and was meant to be a libertarian (somewhat Conservative) counter-balance to the “Huffington Post”. Carlson left and it’s been going further and further off the rails ever since. It’s not as bad as Breitbart (or even worse, Alex Jones), but it’s well on the way.
I typically read CNN and MSN on-line and Time Magazine (in paper). Note, I said “MSN”, not MSNBC. MSNBC is “mostly” accurate for news, but almost all of its “opinion” stuff is slanted “left and liberal”. The New York Times (on-line) is also pretty reliable for news. I find their opinions to be mixed, but left leaning – not 5 to 1 – but left leaning.
A bit like yourself, I search out both sides, but favor left of center. This is a shock to my kids who think I’m a complete “leftist” and then they “catch” me watching Fox News. LOL.
You are correct that President Obama wasn’t perfect when he started. Neither were Carter, Reagan or Clinton. Being President is a HARD job. There was no reason to believe Trump would start out well. If President Trump can help the economy create more jobs (manufacturing jobs, not service industry jobs) and keep us out of war, I will consider him to have done an acceptable job. I’m not sure I want him to be “successful” because I am a Christian and a Democrat and most of his positions and policies are neither Christian nor helpful to the average working American.
He’s only been on the job for a little over a month, so even with my low bar, it’s too early to tell if he’ll be “acceptable” let alone “successful”.
We’ll just have to pray for him, for America, and hope for the best…
Kevin
Great explanations! I would tend to lean toward Liberal: I like the feed the poor, house the homeless etc message they supposedly stand for. But here in Chicagoland, I watch in amazement as the only ones who tend to benefit from higher taxes are the teacher pension funds, and the politicians. Great for them, but the poor don’t seem to fare so well. The very poor who vote them in are screwed with red camera light tickets, higher property taxes that are forcing many to leave IL, insane taxes on cigarettes, and long waits for affordable housing, rates so high to park (the whole parking meter scandal thing)- that I can’t take them seriously.
Hi MMP,
As I stated earlier, I don’t know much about Chicago politics. Most of what I do know would probably seem history to you. A bit of the “original” Mayor Daley story and the “vote early, vote often” joke that surrounded Chicago and Boston (although I believe Boston also followed the “and wake the dead” vote rule in politics, too). LOL! Did that Governor of yours ever get out of jail?
I must admit, I’ve only known a couple of folks from Chicago, but they never said they left the area for those reasons. They only said, “This is Northern California, and I was tired of dealing with the winters.”
And, again, thanks for the visits and the comments!
Kevin
I think that repressing the press would be wrong. I think what some people are worried about is biased news, considering the press the arm of the democratic party. I wish the news would just be news. When Obama was elected there was peace on the news. When Trump was elected, there has been nothing but criticizing etc. When Obama put a temporary ban on immigrants from certain countries, there was not a peep: because it was for the safety of our country and because it was Obama who said so. Trump does the same thing, and he’s racist, phobic etc. For this reason, I’ve cancelled my newspaper subscription. I counted these past few sundays, 5 liberal commentators to 1 conservative. I’m tired of it. I don’t watch news anymore.
Here in Chicagoland, the press gets invited to parties. If you don’t give the Democrats here the story they want, the individual press doesn’t get invited. If you want to be wined and dined and loved by the government in power here, you give the story they want.
Instead, I wish the news would just be news, not trying to slant the view, not trying to persuade the public, but instead just reporting the facts. I’m not sure that is the goal anymore.
Hi Michele Marie,
First, let me apologize for the delay in my reply… Sometimes life gets in the way of my blogging. (LOL)
I think your comment has several points:
Is the news biased?
Is it biased to the Democrats?
Is President Trump being treated differently than President Obama was treated?
What’s going on in Chicago?
On bias:
I think the “news” is always biased and always has been.
Having said that, the difference is (in my lifetime) there has been a change in politics and political discourse. In the old days, “liberal” and “conservative” applied to both Democrats and Republicans.
The founding fathers were almost all “liberal”, that is,
1) they believed in a broad education as a means of creating an individual capable of “better” political decisions and a rational government;
2) they believed in the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties, (see the Bill of Rights) and
3) they believed that government exists to solve problems and serve the people (see the Preamble to the Constitution).
Conservatives, generally believe that government should be as restrained / constrained as possible as more often than not it will restrict the people’s freedom over time. In recent times, this has meant:
1) they believe in personal responsibility,
2) limited government,
3) free markets,
4) individual liberty,
5) traditional American values, and
6) a strong national defense.
And that is why you could have “liberal” Republicans and “conservative” Democrats.
Nowadays, “liberal” means someone who is a proponent of social equality and economic justice; while “conservative” means someone who is a proponent of faith over science and unfettered capitalism. Yes, I know I am generalizing, but I believe the descriptions are accurate.
On news bias for the Democrats:
Modern “news” channels are not really news channels at all. They are mostly entertainment channels based on current events. In any given hour, there is probably 10 minutes of news and 30 minutes of opinions and commentary and 20 minutes of commercials. Some channels make an effort to be non-biased because they are publicly funded: PBS, CSPAN, etc. Some slant “right”: all of the various Fox channels. Some slant “left”: MSNBC. Then the majors (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) try to play both sides. In the last ten years, what they (the “majors”) have found is that in the attempt to be balanced and present both views, they have actually confused the public by demonstrating false equivalency. An example: if 99.99% of all environmental scientist believe climate change is happening and you can find the one in a thousand scientist who doesn’t, and you put him on a discussion panel, you give the public the impression there is a disagreement among scientist. The public doesn’t know the network had to search far and wide to come up with the “one” person who feels that way. All they know is that there is a scientist who disagrees and they got equal time on TV.
Your comment is that the channels are weighted to the “Democratic” side. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree.
But let’s not limit ourselves to TV news. Try to find a “liberal” talk station on the radio… Good luck! I doubt you will. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area – one of the most progressive / liberal areas in the country and we do NOT have a single progressive / liberal / “Democratic” radio station in our area. Think about that: NOT ONE!!
Why not? Because the “progressive” stations were all bought up by conservative corporations and converted in to sports talk or conservative talk.
Personally, I used to watch Fox News through most of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, until I got fed up with the lies and misrepresentations (and that was before Obama). Now, I’m mostly PBS and CNN, with a dose of MSNBC for “biased” opinion, and Comedy Central for humor. I feel it is sad that Comedy Central has more real (unbiased) news than Fox News, but that’s just the way it is…
On Trump vs Obama treatment:
Now, is Trump being treated differently than Obama was? Absolutely. On day one, the Republicans said, “We are committed to making his Presidency a failure and him a one-term President.” They even went so far as to oppose EVERY initiative President Obama put forward. Take health care: the “ACA” (“Obamacare”). The plan was created by a right-wing think tank in Washington (the Heritage Foundation). It was initially passed in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor (Mitt Romney). But because it was proposed by Obama, not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted in favor of it. Republicans have voted over 40 times to overturn it since it was passed. In the almost seven years since it was passed, they have not been able to come up with a replacement plan. They still don’t have one. President Trump campaigned on “Repeal and Replace on Day 1!!!” and “I have a plan!” Ok. Where is the plan???
The Democrats haven’t said, “We will oppose anything you come up with!” What they have said is: “Show us the better, cheaper plan… Then we’ll decide if we want to support it or not.” Does that sound like the same treatment to you?
You comment on the treatment of the Trump ban and if I agreed when Obama did it… I discussed this extensively in the comments to my post at: https://kmabarrett.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/not-now-not-ever/
If you do read the post, please take the time to read through the articles and then the original Executive Orders by President Obama. If you do, you’ll get a fine example of media bias and you’ll see what Obama did was not the same at all.
As for Chicago politics:
I really am not in a position to comment. I honestly don’t know enough about the history there except what I’ve seen and heard about growing up over the last 60 years.
Wow! I hope you’ve made it all the way through this. I didn’t mean to write the “Great American Novel” as a reply, but I sometimes get carried away…
Take care,
Kevin
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response:” …I didn’t mean to write the “Great American Novel” as a reply, but I sometimes get carried away…” personally I think it was justified since the topic is involved 😉
Whether or not I agree with you, I see that both side see things very differently. Back when Obama won the elections, I didn’t sob, wail, or bawl, (as many did when Trump beat their candidate) instead, I wished the best for Obama, and hope for the best for Trump. Many stories that would perhaps have swayed your opinion on Obama were not made public in the media to society: like allowing Muslim refugees, but NOT Christian refugees, from Syria to enter the US. Many times he showed an unfavorable bias towards Christians, and I found that very disconcerting. But anyway, thanks for your response, I’m ALWAYS curious and interested as to why people think the way they do.
Hi Michele Marie,
Thanks for your comment / reply…
I’m curious where you got the impression that President Obama did NOT allow or was biased against Syrian Christian refugees. Do you have any sources?
My research indicates just the opposite.
It is true that the rate of Syrian Christians (1%) seeking refugee status in the U.S. is lower than the general Christian population in Syria (10%), but there are several reasons for this:
1) Assad persecutes Syrian Christians less than he does other Muslims. Assad is a Shia Muslim (13% of the population). The group he “mostly” terrorizes are the Sunni Muslims (74% of the population). The Shia “dislike” Christians, but then hate Sunni. The feeling is pretty mutual – by the way – of Sunni to Shia.
2) According to the U.N., Syrian Christians are generally wealthier than Sunni Muslims, so they can simply buy tickets to somewhere else. They don’t “need” to apply to the U.N. to become refugees.
3) Again, according to the U.N., Syrian Christians “seem” to prefer to move to Lebanon (which is 40% Christian and right next door). And,
4) Syrian Christians are one of the only countries in the world where the proportion of refugees doesn’t match the proportion of the general population. You would think if the Obama Administration was biased against “Syrian” Christians, he would be equally biased against all Christians refugees from other countries. There is no evidence of this.
So, I would be happy to refer to any of your sources to see what I’m missing.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic and would be very interested if my general impression on this is incorrect.
Again, thanks for the comments!
Kevin