The Free Press

[Golden Avalanche]

In my life, "mainstream" has always meant that which is indulged by the many. Going on that, I always get a chuckle that somehow the most watched 24 hour news network is never considered part of the "mainstream" media.

[GGGG]

As I said...

Norman Ornstein
‏@NormOrnstein
What we are seeing with Wikileaks is routine communications in any/every campaign hyped to max BECAUSE they are leaks! Press gut check pls

[HouWarrior]

OK, I will respond.  I joined your board in the Summer to talk recruiting.  Never came to this part of your board until two weeks ago on a thread about the Milwaukee Bucks.  As a conservative man of color, the remarks from the Bucks President touch me perhaps a bit differently than you.

I'm not equating racial slurs to being called a Chicos, but also am not 100% on what his intent was.  I said it was the first time that one has been thrown my way.  In providing some background to my race last week, it was a mystery what that moniker is supposed to mean.  Was it a racial attack as if I'm Hispanic?

Wow

This will be embarrassing for us and you.

This board has a history of postings and posters of which you are ignorant .

Here.... You owe Pakuni an apology.

Chicos has nothing to do with "hispanic" and not in your wildest imagination does the term have any racial insult...

...."Chicos" instead refers to a currently banned long time poster here who had the screen name of Chicos Bail Bonds (think movie Bad News Bears). Calling anyone here a Chicos is simply analogizing the poster's content to something Chicos typically might say or post.

Get it?

 BTW Chicos is a middle aged white guy living in California

Many of us here might not like being called a Chicos (because we'd connect the connotation to his postings and attitude)...so we actually thought you were expressing a way over the top insult and hurt in someone referring to you as a Chicos....we are embarrassed for thinking you knew who Chicos was and were just being over the top.

Now...where you will be embarrassed is....
 in recognizing no one was insulting you racially...
that you saw prejudice where it did not exist ...
and you went off on Pakuni unfairly.

We have enough misunderstandings and acting from ignorance already.

Lets reboot. I am sorry for for our misunderstandings of your post, but please ....for your part...
let Pakuni know of your misunderstanding of racial insult where none was remotely intended.

[Badgerhoney]

Now...where you will be embarrassed is....
 in recognizing no one was insulting you racially...
that you saw prejudice where it did not exist ...
and you went off on Pakuni unfairly.

We have enough misunderstandings and acting from ignorance already.

Lets reboot. I am sorry for for our misunderstandings of your post, but please ....for your part...
let Pakuni know of your misunderstanding of racial insult where none was remotely intended.

This is why I asked in the form of a question what the implication was.  When I originally made my statement, this Pakuni person said I protest too much, rather than address it. 

Let us reboot then, it was a misunderstanding.   Heading to CR for the game.  Go Badgers.

[Badgerhoney]

As I said...

Norman Ornstein
‏@NormOrnstein
What we are seeing with Wikileaks is routine communications in any/every campaign hyped to max BECAUSE they are leaks! Press gut check pls

Norm Ornstein is a liberal who supports Hillary. Of course he is going to say this. He is no different than David Brooks. Labeled as conservative, yet never supporting a conservative position of any kind.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/04/norman_ornstein_is_playing_the_part_of_a_conservative_.html

The communications are much more than that.  Including coercion with Gloria Alred and others to make up sexual assault stories against Trump. True feelings about minority groups. Having a public position and a private position. Clinton Foundation fraud.  There are still 20,000 or more emails still to come out.  Every day it is eye opening, but the media want their girl to win.

The proof is in the pudding. If the GOP candidate had these types of leaks coming out, the media could not contain themselves from running them 24/7 and Ornstein would say they disclose the real feelings of the candidate and party. 

[brandx]

Brandx, my biggest problem is that as we work through the Presidential election season, the media is setting the agenda. Do they elect a President? No, but their choice of what and how they cover things influences how voters see things.

I would love to know, for example, how Hillary Clinton and the Donald would prioritize their agenda once elected. I'd love for interpretive reporting on critical issues -- such as the economy, the environment, energy and national security to occur. Professor Jim Arnold taught Interpretative (J-194 for all you class buffs) in the Journalism College, but this reporting has gone the way of fins on cars, wide ties and lapels and typewriters. I simply does not exist often.

If this level of reporting existed at daily newspapers -- and it can be very expensive -- nobody would read it.

Every now and then, the MJS does great work covering environmental issues related to the Great Lakes, but that is way the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, it's the same "he said-she said" crap that allowed Joe McCarthy to go nuts in the 1950s. Oh yeah, and celebrity news. And the Packers, ad nasueum.

You really ought to read the book Biased by Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a former CBS News correspondent and I think his book would change your mind.

I think I mostly agree with you.

I would love more substantive news on policy and plans for the future by both candidates. But we have to keep in mind why we are not getting that.

It is because of one candidate who just wants to throw bombs. He did it to those in his own party and now is doing it to the opposing party. Sadly, these crazy rantings and braggings of assaulting women are news. Sadly it is nothing new in American Politics. Sadly, it now lasts for 2 years rather than a few months.

I am not a fan of Goldberg. I have not read the book, but have read many, many columns he has written. He writes about bias from a completely biased position. As a matter of fact, I have a cousin I call Bernard in "honor" of this man. One more guy who claims he was once a liberal. But my cousin is exactly the same now that he claims to be on the opposite side. He saw every issue as black & white then and still does. I see Goldberg the same way

[GGGG]

The proof is in the pudding. If the GOP candidate had these types of leaks coming out, the media could not contain themselves from running them 24/7 and Ornstein would say they disclose the real feelings of the candidate and party. 

Sure.

[dgies9156]

I think I mostly agree with you. I would love more substantive news on policy and plans for the future by both candidates. But we have to keep in mind why we are not getting that.

It is because of one candidate who just wants to throw bombs.

Respectfully -- Wrong.

Go back four years and see if Romney/Obama coverage was a substantive and objective look at the issues facing the country between 2012 and 2016. It wasn't because the media has trouble getting into the detail on the economy, environment, energy and national security. It requires thought and time -- something more and more reporters don't have and the country doesn't one.

Go back eight years and all you read about is a horserace and the possibility of a black president.

Plus, you are not getting a story about the economy above the fold on Page 1. That is a HUGE deal to reporters!  Al Neuharth, oh he of Gannett fame, once chided his editors because a cheerleader with large breasts was featured below the fold in USA Today. The public would rather read and look at busty cheerleaders than a concise and fair discussion of, say, global warming.

It's too bad because the biggest problem we have in this country right now is a 2.2 percent GDP growth rate during the past four years. If the economy is to deal with the 75 million Millennials plus the Xers and late Baby Boomers who are underemployed, 2.2 percent isn't going to get us there. The Democrats, on this score, know they have a huge problem that isn't being talked about and the Donald, despite his bombast, has no clue.

As a final thought, the sad thing about the media is it is falling for both sides' campaign tactics. I know they have to cover what the candidates say, but perhaps the reason Hillary is talking about Donald's intimate life and Donald is talking about Bill's misbehavior is that to do otherwise would open up discussion on something neither of them have a clue! That the sorrow of where we are right now.

[forgetful]

Respectfully -- Wrong.

Go back four years and see if Romney/Obama coverage was a substantive and objective look at the issues facing the country between 2012 and 2016. It wasn't because the media has trouble getting into the detail on the economy, environment, energy and national security. It requires thought and time -- something more and more reporters don't have and the country doesn't one.

Go back eight years and all you read about is a horserace and the possibility of a black president.

Plus, you are not getting a story about the economy above the fold on Page 1. That is a HUGE deal to reporters!  Al Neuharth, oh he of Gannett fame, once chided his editors because a cheerleader with large breasts was featured below the fold in USA Today. The public would rather read and look at busty cheerleaders than a concise and fair discussion of, say, global warming.

It's too bad because the biggest problem we have in this country right now is a 2.2 percent GDP growth rate during the past four years. If the economy is to deal with the 75 million Millennials plus the Xers and late Baby Boomers who are underemployed, 2.2 percent isn't going to get us there. The Democrats, on this score, know they have a huge problem that isn't being talked about and the Donald, despite his bombast, has no clue.

As a final thought, the sad thing about the media is it is falling for both sides' campaign tactics. I know they have to cover what the candidates say, but perhaps the reason Hillary is talking about Donald's intimate life and Donald is talking about Bill's misbehavior is that to do otherwise would open up discussion on something neither of them have a clue! That the sorrow of where we are right now.

I think you are missing a large reason for the lack of articles on the issues.  With the rise of the internet, candidates can thoroughly outline all elements of their stance on "issues" on the internet.  Go to their websites and you will find that info.  That mitigates the importance or reporting on these issues as it is readily available from other sources. 

Now if you were referring to why they don't report on the ramifications of these issues, I think the answer is also easy.  It is impossible to do so without implicit bias.  Such reporting would require going to experts in each field.  If you do that, which do you go to, the ones that support the policies of candidate X or candidate Y; or do you provide both so that there is no general conclusion to your article.  Either way the article then lacks a definitive story that doesn't deviate from the politicians own website info.

Essentially, too much info available from way more sources. 

[brandx]

Respectfully -- Wrong.

Go back four years and see if Romney/Obama coverage was a substantive and objective look at the issues facing the country between 2012 and 2016. It wasn't because the media has trouble getting into the detail on the economy, environment, energy and national security. It requires thought and time -- something more and more reporters don't have and the country doesn't one.

Go back eight years and all you read about is a horserace and the possibility of a black president.

Plus, you are not getting a story about the economy above the fold on Page 1. That is a HUGE deal to reporters!  Al Neuharth, oh he of Gannett fame, once chided his editors because a cheerleader with large breasts was featured below the fold in USA Today. The public would rather read and look at busty cheerleaders than a concise and fair discussion of, say, global warming.

It's too bad because the biggest problem we have in this country right now is a 2.2 percent GDP growth rate during the past four years. If the economy is to deal with the 75 million Millennials plus the Xers and late Baby Boomers who are underemployed, 2.2 percent isn't going to get us there. The Democrats, on this score, know they have a huge problem that isn't being talked about and the Donald, despite his bombast, has no clue.

As a final thought, the sad thing about the media is it is falling for both sides' campaign tactics. I know they have to cover what the candidates say, but perhaps the reason Hillary is talking about Donald's intimate life and Donald is talking about Bill's misbehavior is that to do otherwise would open up discussion on something neither of them have a clue! That the sorrow of where we are right now.

dgies, I still think I am agreeing with you. No, we aren't getting enough stories about the meat and potatoes of politics. But, where we differ is how much the media is at fault.

It is the biggest news in the world when one candidate declares himself to be a sexual predator bordering on pedophilia.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares that, if he loses, the election is a fraud.

It is the biggest news when one candidate denigrates the appearance of women every day.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares our entire government and most of our major institutions are a fraud.

It is the biggest news when he declares that our president is a fraud and not really our president.

These are just a few of the reasons that we don't get the in depth articles that we should be getting. It is simply because there is bigger news that doesn't just affect this election, but rather the history of this country going forward.

[Pakuni]

For the record, unlike some, I won't demand apologies over perceived slights from pseudonymic strangers with whom I argue over the internet.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

On the topic of fake WikiLeaks:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

This backs some points that I made early.  WikiLeaks "evidence" can be easily faked, they have no filter, and they will leak falsehoods.  Some leaks may be true but when stories like this come up, I have to question both their content and agenda.  I still believe that agenda is anti-American.  That remains consistent whether Bush II or Obama is in power, or in regards to this election.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I also wanted to point out an error in one of my posts from earlier in the thread.  I posted "Assange is using political decisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: 'exposing the truth'."

It should have been " Assange is using political divisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: 'exposing the truth'."

That wrong word drastically changed the meaning of my post.  I blame my editor.

[Badgerhoney]

In my life, "mainstream" has always meant that which is indulged by the many. Going on that, I always get a chuckle that somehow the most watched 24 hour news network is never considered part of the "mainstream" media.

That network is mainstream and will host a presidential debate in two days. If it wasn't mainstream, it would not be hosting the debate.

No, we aren't getting enough stories about the meat and potatoes of politics. But, where we differ is how much the media is at fault.

It is the biggest news in the world when one candidate declares himself to be a sexual predator bordering on pedophilia.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares that, if he loses, the election is a fraud.

It is the biggest news when one candidate denigrates the appearance of women every day.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares our entire government and most of our major institutions are a fraud.

It is the biggest news when he declares that our president is a fraud and not really our president.

These are just a few of the reasons that we don't get the in depth articles that we should be getting. It is simply because there is bigger news that doesn't just affect this election, but rather the history of this country going forward.

Clinton campaign felt Obama used fraud in Colorado to rig an election.  Why is it when Trump brings it up it is a problem, but not Clinton?  http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/emails-clinton-allies-believe-the-obama-forces-committed-voter-fraud-in-08/

Clinton's operatives started Obama a Muslim and not from the US long before Trump ever brought it up.   http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/leaked-emails-show-hillary-obama-muslim-2008-campaign/

Bill Clinton denigrated women all the time, as did Hillary for calling them whores and tramps. Not believing their stories   We're supposed to believe women that come forward now against Trump (even as their stories fall apart), but supposed to not believe all the women that came forward against Bill Clinton while Hillary demonized them?


The power of the media to spike stories or ignore them, while putting others on the front page is enormous.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Bye Chicos, way to ruin a perfectly fine thread.

[Badgerhoney]

On the topic of fake WikiLeaks:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

This backs some points that I made early.  WikiLeaks "evidence" can be easily faked, they have no filter, and they will leak falsehoods.  Some leaks may be true but when stories like this come up, I have to question both their content and agenda.  I still believe that agenda is anti-American.  That remains consistent whether Bush II or Obama is in power, or in regards to this election.

Clinton campaign hasn't claimed any of them are false.  Even admitting through surrogates (Paul Begala and others) that they are legitimate.  Some of the content in these emails are terrible, and if a Republican campaign had those emails they would be destroyed forever in their career, not lionized as a presidential candidate.

[rocky_warrior]

OK.  This was a decent thread that mostly (not wholly) avoided politics.  But time to shut it down.