Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama wins!

Obama wins! (Page 8)
Thread Tools
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not interested in continuing this discussion if you can't maintain basic civility.
I apologize if I have offended you.

If you wish to continue, let's move away from the hairsplitting, and get back to the main question:
According to your argument, the New York Times has "the pull" to determine which stories get the most attention in the public dialogue, and that the Times (and other members of the so-called "Mainstream Media") deliberately chose to keep the Obama administration's surveillance activities out of the spotlight.

Now, besides a few examples that may or may not fit your precise wording, I have given you links to editorials that are critical of the Obama administration's stance on domestic surveillance- both warranted and unwarranted- including one that criticized the president only a week before the election.

So, either the Times does not have the pull you claim it has, or it does, but somehow has somehow cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
I apologize if I have offended you.
If you wish to continue, let's move away from the hairsplitting, and get back to the main question:
According to your argument, the New York Times has "the pull" to determine which stories get the most attention in the public dialogue, and that the Times (and other members of the so-called "Mainstream Media") deliberately chose to keep the Obama administration's surveillance activities out of the spotlight.
Now, besides a few examples that may or may not fit your precise wording, I have given you links to editorials that are critical of the Obama administration's stance on domestic surveillance- both warranted and unwarranted- including one that criticized the president only a week before the election.
So, either the Times does not have the pull you claim it has, or it does, but somehow has somehow cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?
I'm not offended, though if I were, I doubt your non-apology apology would change my opinion. I'm simply have no interest in debating someone who feels the need to be insulting.

As for your question, you seem to be implying the NYT gets it's pull from what it writes in the opinion pages. This isn't the case, and is be surprised if you believed that.

Your scenarios exclude the middle. What I'm claiming is that the editors hated Bush (feel free to dispute that) and don't hate Obama. The result of this is they were far more interested in pissing on Bush than Obama. What happens because of that is one of them gets more pissed on than the other.

Just to be clear, is your argument the editors of the NYT wanted to do more stories on this but felt they couldn't?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not offended, though if I were, I doubt your non-apology apology would change my opinion. I'm simply have no interest in debating someone who feels the need to be insulting.
Of course, that's entirely up to you. By the way, what part, exactly, was insulting: suggesting that you prefer the short and simplistic answers that fit right-wing ideology over actual facts? Or are the facts themselves insulting?

By the way, if you can say that I'm making a non-apology apology, I can just as easily say that you're pretending to be offended because it distracts us from the fact that you haven't, or are unable to, support your argument.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for your question, you seem to be implying the NYT gets it's pull from what it writes in the opinion pages. This isn't the case, and is be surprised if you believed that.
So now you insist that when it comes to "pull," blogs and editorials don't count for some reason, even though they serve to increase focus on a story, rather than decrease it. Please explain why that doesn't count.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm claiming is that the editors hated Bush (feel free to dispute that) and don't hate Obama. The result of this is they were far more interested in pissing on Bush than Obama. What happens because of that is one of them gets more pissed on than the other.
Funny, I thought your argument was:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying the Times has enough pull to choose what sells. It's not the Times exclusively either. 60 Minutes can do that too.
At least, that's the one I'm focusing on. My argument is that this is simply wrong, and I've given you ample opportunity to refute that. The best you can do is say that even though blogs and editorials draw more attention to a story, they don't count for some reason when we calculate this "pull" you claim the Times has.

So, nice try on the "excluded middle" argument, but no: either the Times has the pull you claim it has, or it doesn't. I've shown you places where the Times was openly critical of the Obama administration, and where it ran stories about the administration's increasing of domestic surveillance. It's up to you to explain why those don't count when it comes to the Times' having this mystical "pull," and so far, you've only split hairs and tried handwaving the stories away.

I'll ask one more time: if the New York Times published numerous articles on Obama's increase of wiretapping (both warranted and warrantless)- articles whose point was extended and reinforced by blog posts and editorials that both criticized the administration and kept the story alive- why didn't those stories sell (i.e., become a major factor in the public dialogue) when the Times has the pull you claim it has?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 04:48 PM
 
Do I really need to explain how the "struggle with reading comprehension" gambit is insulting?

The reason I can accuse you of a non-apology apology is because "I'm sorry I offended you" pretty much fits the textbook definition.

You can accuse me of pretending so I can avoid your arguments, though that might look silly considering I'm right here discussing them, and will continue to do so as long as you desire and can refrain from being insulting.


Now, to your question, I vehemently disagree the difference between a warranted and warrantless wiretap is "hairsplitting". If you consider an article about how the government wants the telephone companies to have the infrastructure to provide court ordered wiretaps to be discussing what I'm discussing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Second, you're repeatedly putting words in my mouth. When you said the first time I claimed blogs didn't count, I explicitly replied they did. My discussion of the editorials wasn't as clear, but I'll make it clear now: they count too. What I am claiming, and you are free to dispute, is they count less than what's in the front section. They count even less than what's on the front page. Story above the fold? A blog entry doesn't mean shit comparatively.

So I disagree it's a question just whether you can drum up hits in a search. When and where were these pieces placed? Was it just one story or a multi-day exposé? Was it early in the Republican primaries, or was it a week before the general when everybody had already made up their mind? Why did that editorial before the election not get traction? Could it have something to do with the other editorial offering "enthusiastic endorsement" of Obama?

As I asked earlier, do you think the editors of the Times wanted to do more stories on this but felt they couldn't?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 05:06 PM
 
Ok, tell you what, let's try a different tack.

Why don't you explain, with clear and unquestionable examples, exactly how the Times has as much pull as you claim it has.

In fact, I'll go one step further: please identify which media outlets are included under the rubric "Mainstram Media," and I'll settle for an explanation (with examples, of course) of how its (the MM's) liberal agenda, rather than market forces, controls the public dialogue.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2012, 01:11 AM
 
I'm saying big news organizations can influence market forces. You seemed to agree with this a page ago.

Did you not say the market has given the Times this influence due to their acumen?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2012, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying big news organizations can influence market forces. You seemed to agree with this a page ago.
Did you not say the market has given the Times this influence due to their acumen?
You seem to have read my statements in a peculiar light. But I'll attempt to clarify:

In some cases, there is no question that certain media outlets are able to influence their audience's choices. The Times certainly has this pull when it comes to the arts- a Times review has a very large influence on 'highbrow' book sales or the theater. No doubt this plays well to the right-wing characterization of the left as snobs or "intellectual elites."And yes, the market has given the Times this pull. But even when it comes to arts and entertainment, the Times' pull is very limited: do you think that Twilight or Nascar owe their popularity to the Times?

But when we focus on the "news," that is, whatever the public dialogue focuses on at any given time, there is no evidence at all that the Times exerts this sort of influence. As we already know from a previous thread, the Times' and every other major news publication's circulation is dwindling: it is an irrefutable fact that people are getting their news from other sources. It is therefore ipso facto ridiculous to argue that the Times somehow maintains this power to choose what the nation discusses.

Moreover, as if any further reasoning were needed, it seems you want to invert my argument. That is, I claimed that the Times retains its position as the most reputable paper in the country because it has established a reputation for accurate and thorough reportage: Nate Silver is one such example. This means that consumers who are discerning enough to appreciate such reporting will continue to turn to the Times as a primary source of news. It does not mean that the Times has the ability to decide which news stories that audience will focus on, especially when we consider that there are many more media outlets with much larger audiences. To the contrary, it means that the Times must continue to provide accurate reportage, or its audience will look elsewhere.

You, on the other hand, seem to want to argue that the accuracy of Nate Silver's predictions are due to the Times' manipulation of information in order to produce exactly that electoral result.

In any case, this is the last time I'll indulge your attempts to change the topic. Back to the question at hand: please offer evidence that the Times is able to control the public dialogue to the extent that it can dictate which stories get the most attention, and which stories get the least.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2012, 07:45 PM
 
Is Fox?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2012, 03:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
You seem to have read my statements in a peculiar light. But I'll attempt to clarify:
In some cases, there is no question that certain media outlets are able to influence their audience's choices. The Times certainly has this pull when it comes to the arts- a Times review has a very large influence on 'highbrow' book sales or the theater. No doubt this plays well to the right-wing characterization of the left as snobs or "intellectual elites."And yes, the market has given the Times this pull. But even when it comes to arts and entertainment, the Times' pull is very limited: do you think that Twilight or Nascar owe their popularity to the Times?
But when we focus on the "news," that is, whatever the public dialogue focuses on at any given time, there is no evidence at all that the Times exerts this sort of influence. As we already know from a previous thread, the Times' and every other major news publication's circulation is dwindling: it is an irrefutable fact that people are getting their news from other sources. It is therefore ipso facto ridiculous to argue that the Times somehow maintains this power to choose what the nation discusses.
Moreover, as if any further reasoning were needed, it seems you want to invert my argument. That is, I claimed that the Times retains its position as the most reputable paper in the country because it has established a reputation for accurate and thorough reportage: Nate Silver is one such example. This means that consumers who are discerning enough to appreciate such reporting will continue to turn to the Times as a primary source of news. It does not mean that the Times has the ability to decide which news stories that audience will focus on, especially when we consider that there are many more media outlets with much larger audiences. To the contrary, it means that the Times must continue to provide accurate reportage, or its audience will look elsewhere.
You, on the other hand, seem to want to argue that the accuracy of Nate Silver's predictions are due to the Times' manipulation of information in order to produce exactly that electoral result.
In any case, this is the last time I'll indulge your attempts to change the topic. Back to the question at hand: please offer evidence that the Times is able to control the public dialogue to the extent that it can dictate which stories get the most attention, and which stories get the least.
While on the other hand, I shall continue to indulge your attempts to shove words in my mouth.

For instance, in the post you are responding to, I claimed "big news organizations can influence market forces". Why was the emphasis there? It was because your use of the word "control" changes my argument. To be explicit, I am not arguing the Times controls the public dialogue.

When it comes to influence, which if I have not made clear, is what I'm talking about, I'd say your analysis is superficial.

Firstly, it ignores who is reading it. What's the circulation of Foreign Affairs? Does that matter WRT its influence?

With the Times, every Editor in Chief (who doesn't suck) in the entire country gets and reads a copy every day. The President reads it. So does his entire cabinet. So do the Joint Chiefs. Most Senators. These are some heavy hitters, no?

Secondly, you seem to have the mistaken impression most people get their news from the Times by paying for it, which is what circulation numbers are indicative of. While I laud faith in your fellow man, this carries it to excess.

I tried with the paragraph about the inversion, but your claims about my argument are so divergent from the real thing, I don't know what to do with it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2012, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
You seem to have read my statements in a peculiar light. But I'll attempt to clarify:
Whoa, whoa, take a breath, please. Why are you being so ferocious here? Sub's actually pretty level-headed, compared to many others here, no reason to go ballistic.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2012, 09:07 AM
 
Ferocious?
Really?
Take a breath, then let 'em drop.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2012, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Ferocious?
Really?
Take a breath, then let 'em drop.
And don't forget to flush when all is done!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2012, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And don't forget to flush when all is done!
No need to quote, I have no interest in anything that one says.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2012, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

No need to quote, I have no interest in anything that one says.
Your attempts to coax civility out of all of us are noble and I wish you the best, but did you really mean to use the word "ferocious"?

I just want to make sure your attempts don't fall flat because of boy-that-cried-wolfing.


P.S. do you think that maybe Abe was arrested shortly after Obama's re-election?
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2012, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No need to quote, I have no interest in anything that one says.
That one?
You called me "that one"?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2012, 07:44 AM
 
Sorry for the delayed response, but I had more important things occupying my attention this weekend.

In any case,
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Whoa, whoa, take a breath, please. Why are you being so ferocious here? Sub's actually pretty level-headed, compared to many others here, no reason to go ballistic.
That's neither ferocious nor ballistic- Sub's just trying to accuse me of "putting words in his mouth" in order to distract from the fact that he hasn't supplied a single piece of evidence to support his claim. Instead, his argument seems to rely on nit-picking and misdirection- thus the use of "peculiar."

And, although I agree he's pretty level-headed, he's so far been able to supply any evidence to support his argument. This is probably because he has none, or at least nothing that would convince someone who didn't already belong to his religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2012, 12:10 PM
 
To be clear then, your claim is big media doesn't influence the public dialogue?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2012, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be clear then, your claim is big media doesn't influence the public dialogue?
Just give it up. I asked you, in several posts, to prove your claim. And you have utterly failed to address it, because you can't: outside of your dogmatic convictions, there's no truth to your claim at all.

Instead, you rely on the tried-and-true methods of anyone holding an inferior argument: you try to misdirect the conversation by hairsplitting and nit-picking. The above is a fine example: I repeatedly challenged you to prove your claim that the Times (or any other "mainstream media" outlet) had the 'pull' to decide what news the public discussed. You can't, so instead you try to misdirect the argument by "clarifying" my point- which is utterly irrelevant to the challenge I made.

In short, you are forced to keep the focus on my argument because you have no proof- other than unswerving faith that it cannot possibly be otherwise-for yours.

At this point, you're just boring me to death: congratulations, you win by default.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2012, 03:45 PM
 
Hence me altering my statement a half-dozen posts ago.

For whatever reason however, you appear to be more interested in looking for an excuse to be abusive.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2012, 11:09 AM
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2355701.html

Tagg Romney said his father "wanted to be president less than anyone I've met in my life," according to the Boston Globe.

“He had no desire,” the eldest Romney son said. “If he could have found someone else to take his place ... he would have been ecstatic to step aside. He is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them, but he has deep faith in God and he loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention."

Tagg Romney told the paper that his father was resistant to running because of his unsuccessful 2008 bid for president.
I'm having trouble discerning this. I see so many different implications from the statement. If Tagg his trying to save face for his father, it's a kind of ****ed up way to do it.

Also, LOL
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2012, 01:11 PM
 
A few times I caught myself thinking, "does he even want to win this thing?". I felt the same with McCain back in 2008 too, and Obama during the first debate. It's the greatest job in the world that no one who is actually qualified would want. Sleepless nights, frustration, stress, worry, premature aging, you're virtually taking the weight of the world on your shoulders, and roughly half the people in the country will hate you no matter what you do. Being PotUS is a thankless, irritating job, taking care of a particularly ungrateful bunch of folks, most of whom you wouldn't trust to babysit your pets.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2012, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A few times I caught myself thinking, "does he even want to win this thing?". I felt the same with McCain back in 2008 too, and Obama during the first debate. It's the greatest job in the world that no one who is actually qualified would want. Sleepless nights, frustration, stress, worry, premature aging, you're virtually taking the weight of the world on your shoulders, and roughly half the people in the country will hate you no matter what you do. Being PotUS is a thankless, irritating job, taking care of a particularly ungrateful bunch of folks, most of whom you wouldn't trust to babysit your pets.
Would you let me babysit your pets? Don't worry, I won't let them near your guns, although you should know that I'm a little afraid of goats...
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2012, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Would you let me babysit your pets?
No.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2012, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No.
How about your babies? I do a mean diaper, and I will provide my own talcum powder
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2012, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How about your babies? I do a mean diaper, and I will provide my own talcum powder
Would you let Blagojevich babysit your kids?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2012, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post


Would you let Blagojevich babysit your kids?
I don't have any kids, although I have a cat, which is pretty close right?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2012, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't have any kids, although I have a cat, which is pretty close right?
Would you let him take care of your cat?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2012, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post


Would you let him take care of your cat?
Yeah. My cat is not very good with using his powers appropriately anyway.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2012, 11:45 AM
 
Would you let Abe babysit your baby Shaddim?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2012, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Would you let Abe babysit your baby Shaddim?
I don't even let my sister watch my kid.


Ugh, okay I'm done neffing, geez.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2012, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

I don't even let my sister watch my kid.
Ugh, okay I'm done neffing, geez.
Do you and your sister have a tough relationship? You can tell Uncle besson3c all about it...
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2013, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A few times I caught myself thinking, "does he even want to win this thing?". I felt the same with McCain back in 2008 too, and Obama during the first debate.
I think you're confusing incompetence or being out of touch with lack of ambition.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,