Posted on 10/14/2005 3:17:22 AM PDT by sure_fine
...or is it
how did this country survive the first 50 years without blogs and 24/7 news
60 years ago a comment like "well I'll be damn" would have been the reaction remark by someone hearing or reading what went on in the govt
fast forward to 2005, every person with internet access seems to think their individual input is needed before a decision can be made by an elected official
IMO, we have to let some things just run the course to find whats at the end
don't vote for someone that leaves you guessing
/rant for today
ping!
50 years ago that person would have been reacting to "NEWS" instead of the slanted newsitorials we have today and wouldn't have felt as compelled to respond.
good point
So stuff like elections, KELO and CODE PINKO and Cindy Sheehan should be alowed to run their course before we react?
where have they got so far?
without the pushback, they would be nothing or even noticed
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
one side trying to shout down the other does what?
there has to be consequences that are tangent, not just sore throats
50 years ago no one would know anything about who Harriet Miers was until after she was confirmed. Newsitorials don't sway people today, the facts do. News today is not as filtered today as it was.
Fair enough. Stay home. We'll take care of the rest of the country.
I didn't say newsitorials sway people, i said newsitorials are biased by nature and make people feel more compelled to respond. I don't know what you mean by news is more filtered today either...in what way?
It was more filtered because 50 years ago all news came from the big three networks or the big newspapers, and whatever a few people thought was important was reported. Now virtually anybody can put news out there and the media is forced to cover it. For instance, if just one person annomously posts internal exit polls on the internet, it spreads like a wildfire and everyone soon knows. Just back 15 years ago there was no way for something like that to happen. Even if someone leaked the info to the media, the media would sit on it. There are pros and cons because bad information can get leaked that could have a significant impact.
I see...like the saying goes...all the news that's fit to print...I can see that...but exit polls are notoriously biased depending on who is asking and who they choose to ask etc. it just seems like the media back then at least felt some responsibility to just report the facts instead of presenting both sides as they do today. The MSM doesn't seem forced to cover something just because someone puts it out there...they seem more inclined to only cover stories that suit their particular agenda (right or left).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.