I Give, The MSM is a Political Wing of the Left

[tegator80]

I have been playing the arrogant/sloppy card for most of the network "news" based on the idea that it has gone from being a money loser before 60 minutes, Nightline, the OJ Simpson chase/trial, and 9/11 to being a BIG money maker. But you can't have two masters (money and the truth) and I presumed that the chase for money was a corporate requirement but that the minions still remember what journalism represents to a free society.

I just watched bits of Meet the Press, which had Speaker Boehner on to give him an opportunity to voice his side of the story. It was about the biggest hack job and character assassination on a con that has a LOT of players. I can handle tough journalism (he ain't what he says he is) but when you compare the line of questioning from David Gregory and his way he handles the left (they like puppies!), there is definitely a movement taking place that is to lead the cattle.

I just wish that Fox would give up on Hannity and Coulter because that is just fighting fire with fire. A true conservative doesn't need pandering and whining, they need news and promoting people who want to reach out to like minded true conservatives (not the preachers against abortion types). I am now on the side of the conspiracists. I will not get ANY news from NBC (the others were written off a long time ago). If it isn't on the internet and if multiple and differing philosophical sources aren't covering it (like bloggers) then it is base manipulation and pandering to the cattle.

I appreciate the dialog that Too Hot has (even though half of you are wrong:laugh:) because there are non-MSM references/links to information that we all can piece together to get a semblance of the truth. Intelligence is a rare commodity today. Thanks, everyone, for adding to the IQ of the general population. Try to keep it going 'cause we need all the help we can get.

[rivergator]

What specifically was Gregory disagreeing with Boehner about?

[tegator80]

What specifically was Gregory disagreeing with Boehner about?

Basically, Boehner was stating plainly his side of the argument - The Pubs agreed to spending increases in January, it was time for some cuts. He hammered him about "what about closing tax loopholes?" and he reiterated that is was time for the President to step up and propose some cuts. Gregory didn't like that he was playing the "It's Obama's turn" card and tried to paint an unmistakable picture, not as a journalist but as a questioner using his platform as an editorialist. The panel afterwards was just as culpable to paint the dire problems we are facing and how it is the Pubs who are doing it. Any basis for journalism was never presented.

Listen, the game is to get the other side to give up the specific cuts so that the freeloaders can lynch them. That is pretty much a given. But for a "journalist" to help one side is not journalism, it is manipulation and to believe that one side is righteous and the other malevolent is foolhardy at best and propaganda pushing at worse. And I have given up on the idea that it is merely a show for liberals and it helps to pay the bills. That is what the evening news is supposed to do (sound bites and dramatic stories). The Sunday morning shows are for the issues that can't fit into a convenient sound bite and can be discerned when times aren't so busy.

[rivergator]

Basically, Boehner was stating plainly his side of the argument - The Pubs agreed to spending increases in January, it was time for some cuts. He hammered him about "what about closing tax loopholes?" and he reiterated that is was time for the President to step up and propose some cuts. Gregory didn't like that he was playing the "It's Obama's turn" card and tried to paint an unmistakable picture, not as a journalist but as a questioner using his platform as an editorialist. The panel afterwards was just as culpable to paint the dire problems we are facing and how it is the Pubs who are doing it. Any basis for journalism was never presented.

Listen, the game is to get the other side to give up the specific cuts so that the freeloaders can lynch them. That is pretty much a given. But for a "journalist" to help one side is not journalism, it is manipulation and to believe that one side is righteous and the other malevolent is foolhardy at best and propaganda pushing at worse. And I have given up on the idea that it is merely a show for liberals and it helps to pay the bills. That is what the evening news is supposed to do (sound bites and dramatic stories). The Sunday morning shows are for the issues that can't fit into a convenient sound bite and can be discerned when times aren't so busy.

I didn't watch it, but did read this:

NBC's David Gregory and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) butted heads during an interview when the speaker insisted that President Obama did not have a plan to replace sequestration and Gregory disagreed. The interview was taped Friday afternoon after Boehner met with the president to discuss sequestration and aired on "Meet the Press" Sunday.

"Mr. Speaker, that's just not true," Gregory said. "They've made it very clear, as the president just did, that he has a plan that he's put forward that involves entitlement cuts, that involves spending cuts. That you've made a choice, as have Republicans, to leave tax loopholes in place and you'd rather have those and live with all these arbitrary cuts."

Boehner called Gregory's objection "nonsense."

"Well David, that's just nonsense. If they had a plan, why wouldn't Senate Democrats go ahead and pass it," he said.

Boehner returned to this point throughout the interview, insisting that Democrats do not have a plan because the Democratic-controlled Senate has not voted on one.

link
(http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/david-gregory-to-boehner-mr-speaker-thats-just)

[madgator]

Intelligence is not necessarily in short supply

however, critical thinking definitely is

[tegator80]

Intelligence is not necessarily in short supply

however, critical thinking definitely is

We could also use much more common sense, but as I has said before I think that is an inherrent trait and not something that can be developed. But whatever we were relying on in the past, we just don't have it - or don't want to use it - anymore.

[rivergator]

Was what I quoted accurate?

[tegator80]

Was what I quoted accurate?

If you are asking was there a butting heads situation I would agree with that assessment. What I see in your post is that Gregory insisted that the President had a plan and that is what I also remember. Also, I remember that Gregory did not accept the premise that he was being used in the game but that he was taking sides, the President's side, without any proof that the President did indeed have a plan.

His agenda was pretty transparent. It was not to call BS on Boehner but to paint a picture to the unintelligent that I have hashed out who is to blame for your problems and he is sitting in front of me. THAT is propaganda pushing, or if it is sloppy work then enough for a rather significant apology for his lack of professionalism. I highly doubt that neither he or NBC will provide one.

[Minister_of_Information]

Gregory is about as partisan and slanted as Russert was professional and evenhanded. And Russert was pretty doggone professional and evenhanded. What Meet the Press has become is very sad. You know it's bad when Hardball seems positively fair minded by comparison.

[cocodrilo]

The MSM is a Jekyll and Hyde. Its commentators or "news reporters" have a liberal bias, but only when it is safe to do so. The MSM leans to the liberal side on all the political bickering that dominates the news. But when it comes to reporting or investigating crimes of the state, there is silence or at best ridicule of "conspiracy theories" etc., because the MSM are owned by a few big corporate entities who don't want the boat rocked unless they themselves rock it. (Attempting to overthrow FDR, for example, or bumping off JFK.)

This MSM silence or ridicule is the same as saying there is bias to the right, which is to protect what amounts to corporate fascism. This is in effect self-protection on the part of the commentators or "news reporters," because corporate fascists can have you fired, ruined or killed.

The liberal bias of the MSM, in sum, is superficial. When the chips are down, as to what really goes on in the deep bowels of our government, they are shills or protectors of their corporate masters.

[jdrgator]

Gregory is an annoying idiot, but the incessant crying by many on the right about media bias is much worse.

[GatorFanCF]

"Mr. Speaker, that's just not true," Gregory said. "They've made it very clear, as the president just did, that he has a plan that he's put forward that involves entitlement cuts, that involves spending cuts." as quoted by tegator

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=258183#ixzz2MW3AGfeK

Have we seen the plan put forth by President Obama? Or, is it David Gregory's position that because the President says he has a plan, he in fact does?

And, maybe he has put forth a plan. You know the usual: "$1 tax increase now for $MILLIONS of spending reductions in future years and budgets; which, of course, never happen. If this is the case, Republicans should be shamed for not having framed the argument any better - most everyone understands the time value of money (at least once we stop QE we will) and a dollar today can be worth a lot more than a promised handful of dollars in the future. Or, am I the only one who has ever lost money in an investment?

[DaveFla]

I didn't watch it, but did read this:



link
(http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/david-gregory-to-boehner-mr-speaker-thats-just)

It's not Gregory's job to argue for the democrats. He was doing much more than merely trying to stimulate the conversation... He was guiding it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Gregory is an annoying idiot, but the incessant crying by many on the right about media bias is much worse.

I'm curious, what does it say about the NBC news organization that Gregory was given the flagship political program of the entire network?

[rivergator]

It's not Gregory's job to argue for the democrats. He was doing much more than merely trying to stimulate the conversation... He was guiding it.

Meet the Press is a discussion, not a bunch of people making unchallenged claims. If a guest says something that Gregory believes to be false, is he really not supposed to say so? Just sit there quietly?

And, seriously, don't you think Boehner had a pretty ridiculous argument: That the Democrats couldn't have had a sequester plan, otherwise they would have passed it?

[Minister_of_Information]

I actually think Chuck Todd and the Morning Joe political crew do a comparatively professional job of reporting, though I don't think it's very disputable that most are definitive leftists. It's OK to be a leftist who is also journalist, just please be professional and treat everyone critically, not just those on the right. That's the problem with Gregory. Being critical doesn't mean assuming a mock glowering expression and asking softball questions in a deadpan voice, it means actually trying to find the holes in what that person is arguing, rather than providing the appearance of it. That is what Russert was phenomenal at doing. He could rake a republican over the coals and in the next segment treat a democrat identically.

[tegator80]

Meet the Press is a discussion, not a bunch of people making unchallenged claims. If a guest says something that Gregory believes to be false, is he really not supposed to say so? Just sit there quietly?

A journalist does not call BS unless he has the goods. Anything else is editorializing or opinion giving, just what you and I do. But we don't get to sell our ideas to the nation under the guise of being the truth. And no one at NBC seems to care, unless he is doing exactly what they told him to do. And if that is the case then he is not a journalist, just an entertainer like Bill Maher.

[rivergator]

A journalist does not call BS unless he has the goods. Anything else is editorializing or opinion giving, just what you and I do. But we don't get to sell our ideas to the nation under the guise of being the truth. And no one at NBC seems to care, unless he is doing exactly what they told him to do. And if that is the case then he is not a journalist, just an entertainer like Bill Maher.

Was Boehner right?
"Well David, that's just nonsense. If they had a plan, why wouldn't Senate Democrats go ahead and pass it," he said.

OK, I'm just playing and it's kind of silly of me. Yes, the Democrats had a plan and the reason that they didn't pass it in the Senate was the usual reason: The Republicans filibustered it.
That's why the Democrats didn't pass it. Not because they had no bill.
And that's why Boehner's claim was false.

[jdrgator]

I'm curious, what does it say about the NBC news organization that Gregory was given the flagship political program of the entire network?

I am not sure know if it says much beyond that in this instance, NBC let an annoying twit take over a show which always seemed to me to be more hype than anything else, even under Russert (though it's true, Russert had his coal-raking moments).

But I do think the constant whining about "the media" by many here seems more of a siege-mentality run amok than thoughtful criticism. Blanket generalizations and categorical statements are no stand in for critical thought.

[Minister_of_Information]

I am not sure know if it says much beyond that in this instance, NBC let an annoying twit take over a show which always seemed to me to be more hype than anything else, even under Russert (though it's true, Russert had his coal-raking moments).

But I do think the constant whining about "the media" by many here seems more of a siege-mentality run amok than thoughtful criticism. Blanket generalizations and categorical statements are no stand in for critical thought.

Was it the bombastic theme music that turned you off? ;)

[jdrgator]

Was it the bombastic theme music that turned you off? ;)

ahahaha. Nah man, I just don't watch much network or cable news. Pollutes ones thinking after awhile.

[rivergator]

I am not sure know if it says much beyond that in this instance, NBC let an annoying twit take over a show which always seemed to me to be more hype than anything else, even under Russert (though it's true, Russert had his coal-raking moments).

But I do think the constant whining about "the media" by many here seems more of a siege-mentality run amok than thoughtful criticism. Blanket generalizations and categorical statements are no stand in for critical thought.

I think the blanket "it's the media" is absolutely no different than someone like Sharpton saying "it's racism."
Just a constant whine that gives you an excuse to blame everyone else.

[ncbullgator]

I think the blanket "it's the media" is absolutely no different than someone like Sharpton saying "it's racism."
Just a constant whine that gives you an excuse to blame everyone else.



The evidence is overwhelming and you are in denial. Always have been.

:lie:

[rivergator]

The evidence is overwhelming and you are in denial. Always have been.

:lie:

Thanks, Al.

[wargunfan]

Once Tim Russert passed away I stopped watching. Turns out I haven't missed anything.
http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/8qz29gqxdmxb9qoo61e.jpg
Tim was a quality guy.

[tegator80]

I actually think Chuck Todd and the Morning Joe political crew do a comparatively professional job of reporting, though I don't think it's very disputable that most are definitive leftists. It's OK to be a leftist who is also journalist, just please be professional and treat everyone critically, not just those on the right. That's the problem with Gregory. Being critical doesn't mean assuming a mock glowering expression and asking softball questions in a deadpan voice, it means actually trying to find the holes in what that person is arguing, rather than providing the appearance of it. That is what Russert was phenomenal at doing. He could rake a republican over the coals and in the next segment treat a democrat identically.

This is exactly my point. I don't care that a journalist is a liberal. But I DO care that they know that they are in that capacity (when they are interviewing the guest and not during the discussion segment) and that they can be grilling but fair. What Gregory did was play the "I need to help our side out" card and that is unprofessional at best.

And the proper response to Boehner's comment about the lack of a Democratic bill is to pull out a statement by Reid that says this bill was brought to the Senate floor but was Senate protocoled away from being voted on. He didn't have it because it didn't exist. And Gregory knows the game that is being played. And using a football reference, he thought that it was okay to try and tackle someone sprinting down the sideline by coming onto the field during the play, even though he is not a player. And I am sure that the NBC coaches told him that he could get away with it.

[108]

Guess you just got to work a little harder pubs

"Pull up them bootstraps"

[geauxgator1]

Guess you just got to work a little harder pubs

"Pull up them bootstraps"

Are you saying conservatives are racists by definition? Or just admitting to the obvious media bias?

[108]

Are you saying conservatives are racists by definition? Or just admitting to the obvious media bias?

Nope, just that it's been the answer for everyone else's perceived victimization

[FlyingGatorII]

Guess you just got to work a little harder pubs

"Pull up them bootstraps"

While that is certainly true, it is sad that one of the mainstays of a democratic society, a free press, has somehow been lost. Now one has to choose which propaganda site they prefer to watch instead of just knowing they are getting the full, unvarnished story about Who, What, When, Why, Where and How. Too bad Andy Rooney's Journalists' Code was never adopted, even by him in later years..

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19830611&id=ZgJOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1301,3019678

[neisgator]

Gregory is an annoying idiot, but the incessant crying by many on the right about media bias is much worse.

Crying or factual statements with endless proof.
Definitely one of the two.

[PSGator66]

The MSM are more concearned about protecting the president than the people and therefore are activists rather than journalists.

[surfn1080]

Crying or factual statements with endless proof.
Definitely one of the two.

apparently video and audio evidence is not enough....

[rivergator]

apparently video and audio evidence is not enough....

Keep in mind, this thread started with the complaint that Gregory told Boehner that what he said was false. And it was false.

[Gatoragman]

So where are the details of this bill you say the pubs fillibustered away?

[tegator80]

Keep in mind, this thread started with the complaint that Gregory told Boehner that what he said was false. And it was false.

You know, facts are your friend. Bring them to us and we will bow to your investigative skills. Otherwise you are believing what you choose to believe.

[rivergator]

You know, facts are your friend. Bring them to us and we will bow to your investigative skills. Otherwise you are believing what you choose to believe.

Hardly requires an investigation.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/02/28/defeated-by-filibuster-agai/)

[surfn1080]

Keep in mind, this thread started with the complaint that Gregory told Boehner that what he said was false. And it was false.

actually it is very subjective if its true or not. I still have yet to see any REAL proof there was another plan.

[rivergator]

actually it is very subjective if its true or not. I still have yet to see any REAL proof there was another plan.

1. I just posted it.
2. I can't help you if you don't follow the news at all and refuse to believe everything that you didn't already know.

[tegator80]

Hardly requires an investigation.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/02/28/defeated-by-filibuster-agai/)

Defeated by filibuster, again

Posted by Jonathan Bernstein on February 28, 2013 at 5:21 pm

(Ron Edmonds/ Associated Press)

The Democratic sequestration replacement was defeated in the Senate today. By filibuster. Reporters who don’t include that in their story aren’t doing their job...

The Democratic plan, however, was supported by a majority of the Senate, with all but three Democrats supporting it and every Republican opposed...

Of course, any bill will need both Democratic and Republican support to clear both chambers of Congress and get a presidential signature. Just because the Democrats have something that wins a majority of the Senate doesn’t automatically mean that they are more ready to compromise than the Republicans...

And at any rate: It’s just a better description of what’s actually happening in the Senate to say that something was defeated by filibuster than to say that it received 51 votes but “needed” 60. Yes, that’s standard operating procedure now, but it’s obstruction just the same, and a big part of the story.


River, you know and I know that this is a whine piece, kind of what you libs say we are always doing. It says "yes, we have a process that gets bills passed: the Senate passes bill, the House passes bill, they meet and hash out differences, they go back and vote to approve the compromise bill and then the President signs it into law. But the Senate had people who didn't keep up their side of the bargain and we want to blame the Pubs for it."

Did you notice that the Senate Dem proposal had three Dem dissenters? How is that different than the Pub dissenters? And going back to my OP, how does that give Gregory cover to call out Boehner? Again, if Reid wants to go on record that there were procedural steps that kept a viable bill from passing then let him step up...and THEN Mr. Gregory can play pit bull all he wants.

It is all so convenient to say "well, if the Senate had just halted procedures and let the majority party have its way then we can blame the Pubs in the House" and is a LOT of bull. It is called the oppression of the majority and is THE reason why we have checks and balances like the electoral college. Sorry, but that is sour grapes. And it does not support the contention that Boehner lied. But as I said, you believe what you want to believe.

[rivergator]

Tegator: Boehner's claim that I believe we are discussing is this:

"Well David, that's just nonsense. If they had a plan, why wouldn't Senate Democrats go ahead and pass it," he said.

Boehner returned to this point throughout the interview, insisting that Democrats do not have a plan because the Democratic-controlled Senate has not voted on one.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=258183#ixzz2MbW7S9FF

Again, the reason it wasn't voted on was because the Republicans filibustered it, which required it to have 60 votes.It only had 52. The three more Democratic votes wouldn't have made a difference.

[tegator80]

Tegator: Boehner's claim that I believe we are discussing is this:



Again, the reason it wasn't voted on was because the Republicans filibustered it, which required it to have 60 votes.It only had 52. The three more Democratic votes wouldn't have made a difference.

But my point is that the plan wasn't a plan, it was a political move to "prove" that they weren't sitting on their asses while the country goes into sequester. The Pub's bill was exactly the same game. But once again, there was not bill that was brought to a serious vote that was endorsed by the President.

Remember the theme of this thread: there is a game being played in Washington and as a result, there is a sequester in play and both sides are in the blame mode. That is the system we have. What transpired on Sunday morning was that a supposed journalist clearly and with malice chose a side. THAT is the definition of a propaganda pusher. You want to give him a mulligan, that is your choice.

[rivergator]

But my point is that the plan wasn't a plan, it was a political move to "prove" that they weren't sitting on their asses while the country goes into sequester. The Pub's bill was exactly the same game. But once again, there was not bill that was brought to a serious vote that was endorsed by the President.

Remember the theme of this thread: there is a game being played in Washington and as a result, there is a sequester in play and both sides are in the blame mode. That is the system we have. What transpired on Sunday morning was that a supposed journalist clearly and with malice chose a side. THAT is the definition of a propaganda pusher. You want to give him a mulligan, that is your choice.

Politifact weighs in Boehner's claim:

Boehner said that the White House and Democrats in the Senate have no plan to replace the sequester.

He’s wrong on both counts. Obama has a proposal for replacing sequestration cuts with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. And Senate Democrats have filed a sequester-replacement bill taking a similar approach.

Pants on Fire!

link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/04/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-obama-democrats-ha/)

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're saying. There really was no bill? The Democrats didn't introduce anything? So what were they voting on?