Posted on 11/20/2004 9:40:16 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
Like Confederate General Jubal T. Early, I make occasional raids into Washington, D.C. The raid this week included a visit with some of my children and grandchildren, meeting Judge Robert Bork, and assorted other pleasures. But the most telling moment of the trip came in a deserted corridor of Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning. Then and there I understood the mechanical voices of the MSM (Mainstream Media).
It was a politico-religious experience, a secular epiphany, if you will.
I took a wrong turn and wound up in an empty hallway. There were moving walkways on both sides, but they were out of service and marked off with orange cones. Still, every five seconds a female mechanical voice said urgently, “Caution! Moving walkways are ending!”
In that moment I suddenly understood a talk show I’d seen an hour before, starring Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan and Sam Donaldson, among others. (I’m not picking on these gentlemen. Most other talking heads – with or without bad hairpieces – would have filled the bill.)
I realized there is no significant difference between these “live” talkers on the MSM, and that disembodied voice in that empty airport hallway. Before the election the MSM thought the Democrats might win. After the election, when the Republicans had won, the underlying message did not change. In thousands of words the talking heads of the MSM are repeating, ad nauseam, the same seven word message. It is:
“Caution! Republicans are bad! Democrats are good!”
Try this experiment for yourselves. Pick any talking head show. Choose any MSM print outlet; the New York Times will do nicely, thank you. Take whatever apparent story they’re talking about, and boil it down like Vermont maple syrup in the fall. When you reduce the story to its essence, beneath the level of the apparent facts of the day, see whether any political story in the MSM has any core message other than the “Caution!...”?
Bias is usually subtle. Pay attention to the verbs. I read a story right after the election on the thousands of state legislative races. The article consistently referred to seats “won” by Democrats, but seats “claimed” by Republicans. Is it any surprise that the reporters writing that were primarily Democrats? Or, pay attention to the adjectives. Others have researched to a fare-thee-well the respective use of “left-wing” and “right-wing.” Republicans often get the second label; Democrats seldom get the first one.
Are there more right-wingers than left-wingers in American politics? Check out the websites of the Congressional Black Caucus, or of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or of almost any union (but especially the National Education Association). See if you conclude that the left wing is alive and well. Its label disappears because the MSM reporters don’t perceive the left as being “left-wing.”
When the MSM had a monopoly, facts they chose not to report simply did not exist. The monopoly has ended. Facts get reported in the alternative media. The MSM no longer controls the agenda; it can only embarrass itself by pretending that it still does.
TV requires, of course, more than just words. There has to be something to point a camera at, the apparently live and sentient pundits sitting in their chairs. But is that any more than window dressing? Does that make the content of the political shows any more substantial than that mechanical voice in the airport?
The MSM are dying by degrees in the quarterly Arbitron reports on audience shares. The MSM are dying because they insist on producing vacuous bias in their political coverage. This task will be unsettling, but I recommend it. Read the MSM, listen to them, watch them with more care than they think “dumb” Americans can bring to the task. See if you reach the same conclusion, that you’re hearing repetitive, mechanical voices from the MSM.
When the voices are clearly mechanical, they may be annoying but they seem less threatening. The true menace comes from voices which present the illusion of being real. Think of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and the Hal 9000. Don’t the first three need the same cure as Hal got in the movie, 2001? Don’t they need to be deprogrammed, back to a time before they learned to lie, or worse, learned to believe their own lies?
Don’t they all need to go back to Urbana, Illinois, in 1992? Shouldn’t they all be asked to sing us a song before they fall silent? “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer true ....”
Yep!Wow, what a thread. Over 200 replies now. :^D
I can't believe I missed your post last night! Oldtimers setting it. I'd say it was the perception of a newbie troll attacking one of our oldtimers. It was obvious to me that Jehngis had been around FR for a long time in some capacity, so the newbie troll tag wasn't operable. My observation was and is the item in contention neither added to nor detracted from the gist of the article, it only added color. And in that sense, though it appears he was right, Jehngis was nitpicking an insignificant point in a fashion unbecoming to a perceived newbie. A well placed "whatever" somewhere in the exchange might have taken the food away from the combatants; I dunno.
Even though it seems he did a perfunctory search on the item in question, CBB might be well advised to fact check even his unrelated points in the future because there will always be a "scholar" around to pick even the best articles apart.
I do not suppose this would be a good time to reiterate my observation of the need for a closer study of Robert's Rules of Order or some similar system of organized debate?
What?! Bring order to a food fight?! Puleeze! Besides a, er, debate is no fun unless you get a little on you ;^)
FGS
I'm hesitant to respond and drag this out any longer. But I actually agree with your assessment. I realize my points were minor--and even started to preface them as "nit-picking." That's one reason why I put in so many "LOLS."
If you look back I just posted two posts correcting the facts, and I thought it would end there. Or at most, BB would post something to the effect of: "oops, you're right, I got it misinfo from a sloppy site." Instead he called me names and tried to "argue from authority" based upon his registration date here. And then others decided to pile on.
I have to say that your latest post and Copernicus' last post have restored my faith a little. I agree with Copernicus that there should be some minimal rules of debate--or at least civility in the back of posters minds. Otherwise too many good people will be driven away for no real purpose. And this has happened quite a lot, as you probably known.
FGS
That really symbolizes how disconnected from actual events the MSM and their message is. The message drones on, regardless of how many changes we see in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, jobs, education, Social Security, taxes, immigration...
-PJ
Understood. But the ten yard penalty (or timeout!) in this case must go to Billybob. Jehngis was neither intemperate nor incorrect in his orginal comments. Billybob solicited comment and he received it. His response (mope) was ungraceful to say the least.
As Billbears famously once observed "Reaganism this ain't!"
I would add- with conservative behaviour like this who needs liberals or DemocRATS?
While there is no standard (of which I am aware) for "conduct unbecoming a Freeper" I would like to believe a high profile senior Freeper like the more or less Congressman would have the grace to publicly apologize to Jehngis Khan and possibly even admonish some of his erstwhile allies to learn some proper etiquette and moderate their conduct when acting on his behalf.
As a Fipper (Frequently Ignored Poster) I am sure this post will hit the roundfile almost as quickly as I type it.
Best regards,
FGS
Aye, but can you help me determine if this is a tragedy or a farce?
Once again we are confronted with the paradox, the absurdity, of a highly respected senior Freeper who publishes a reasonably cogent critique of the Muddlestream Media, solicits commentary, receives gratis a remarkably authoritive insight, becomes irrationally confrontational about that insight with the consequent result that the first words of the first sentence of the first paragraph of his commentary undercut his entire thesis with an egregious error of fact.
This is like the joke about mixed blessings.(What do you do when you see a Lawyer drive off a cliff in your brand new Cadillac?)
What can any LIEberal do except laugh? ( If he can't get Jubal A. Early correct as a more or less honorable Congressman Billybob from North Carolina, what other errors of ommission or commission are embedded in his editorial?)
I am once again speechless in the presence of the Republican movement sweeping the country.
Best regards,
You are right. The media is more dangerous than ever. These are true believers, ideologues, communists with a small c. They are the equivalent of the children Hitler used to defend the ashes of Berlin. They will not give up their megaphones easily.
That was good.
As for General Early's advance into the heights above Washington, that was pinned down only about two years ago. I suspect that What's-his-name is behind in his historical reading.
Of course, there IS the point that deleting General Early root and branch from the article would not change my a single gram the weight or accuracy of the arguments presented.
Cordially,
John / Billybob
P.S. No one "speaks" for me. We're all grownups. Each is responsible for his or her own statements, temperate, accurate, concise, or the opposite of all three.
"It's as if no one bothered to tell the AP reporters that the Democrats don't run the show anymore."
Reminds me of the reporter who voiced his distress after the 1994 elections gave the Congress to the GOP: "But I don't know any Republicans!"
Nice job. Bump
On the topic of General Early's initial a quick trip to multiple sources such the 1969 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary or a copy of "Lee's Lieutants" firmly establishes his name to be Jubal A. Early. Thus, your attempt to make a colorful comment undercuts the entire premise of your work which I presume would be "Accuracy in Journalism".
On the topic of General Early's advance into the surveyed boundaries of Washington then or now, I would possibly extend you some poetic license as a reader and generally leave the details to the archealogical historians. Whether all readers would be as generous is a matter of speculation.
My primary interest in this particular thread is the deportment and demeanor exhibited in ordinary discourse by individuals with a (presumably) shared common interest.
The facts are fairly straightforward: You solicited feedback. You received an authoritive "heads up" from a poster unknown to you about a fundamental aspect of your column. For reasons unknown you elected to reply in a most ungracious manner.
Should the orginal posts directed to your attention have been prefaced with a cordial salutation? Absolutely. Should the two of you consequently endulge yourselves in a mutual namecalling spat as a result? Absolutely not. Should the Freeper Flying Monkey Squad be allowed to indulge in lynch mob behaviour about matters which they clearly do not understand or even care about? No. A resounding NO. ( A waste of bandwidth and all that sort of thing)
Your editorial is not directed solely to JhengisKhan ( I believe that is to whom you refer when you say "whats-his-name")
His comments accurately reflect the view of many people (who you presumably wish to persuade) that if you can not get details correct in print you are unlikely to know what you are about in general. Completely unfair, of course, but frequently the rule in these matters.
I would think it unwise to depend on any website as the final authority about anything.
Overall, I thought your efforts were yeomanlike and useful.
There is no need to eliminate General Early from your remarks (after all, you are a Southerner by grace of God) merely acknowledge and correct typos and inaccuracies-real or perceived.
I would comment on your post script but I do not understand to what you refer.
Please accept these observations in the spirit in which they are offered- that the principles of a Constitutional Republic prevail in the free marketplace of ideas.
Best regards,
Perhaps you will find this comment from an anonymous amateur copy editor to be of some value:
Good heavens! What is all the fuss about? Just change the sentence to read : "Unlike Confederate General Jubal A. Early, I make frequent forays directly into the very heart of Washington, D.C." and no one will have any reason to complain!!
Best regards,
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.