Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The 9th anniversary of 9/11 has come and gone and I've just got to get some stuff off my chest. In no particular order:

I am so sick and tired hearing about Muslims and their g.d. easily hurt feelings I could kick an Imam in the azz. What do I care about the feelings of people who are so ignorant and so stupid they can't differentiate between individual Americans insulting their religion and official government policy?

And why on earth are we take seriously lectures on religious intolerance by people who engage in mutilation, stoning, flogging, hanging, beheading, bombing and grotesque repression, all in the name of their "religion." Screw you.

America is the most religiously tolerant nation in the history of the world, it's a big part of why there even is an America. We put up with that nutcake Elizabeth Clare Prophet and her looney Church Universal and Triumphant, even when they were digging bunkers and stocking up on automatic weapons. Nobody much cared about the Branch Davidians, until they started using ATF agents for target practice. We put "Rev." Moon in prison, not for his bizarre teachings, but for income tax evasion. And even then, many religious leaders professsed themselves concerned because of the possibly chilling effect his incarceration would have on religious freedom. And there are countless other examples. So take your diatribes about religious intolerance and shove 'em.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are quite content to ignore the religious practices (or lack thereof) of their fellow Americans. Even so, our Constitution protects the rights of Americans to criticize any religion or any religious practice without fear of government repression (now there's a concept these savages might try to emulate). And we are free to protest the location of a house of worship for any reason we choose (a concept which the Mayor of NYC might also study).

I categorically condemn any activity on 9/11 that detracts from the purpose of the commemorations: remembering the beastial murders of 3,000 innocent people. And that includes the president's ridiculous national day of service. What on earth does national service have to do with remembering this monstrous crime? Zip. In fact, the whole purpose of this Alinksy like endeavor is so we will forget what happened on 9/11.

It includes demonstrators at GZ, no matter why they're there. I don't want them pizzing on sacred ground, for any reason. And it certainly includes pipsqueak "ministers" and their publicity stunts. The idea that the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America called this twerp to beg him not to burn Korans is nauseating. What Secretary Gates should have done is inform this bottom feeder if he didn't stand down, he'd turn that tin outhouse he calls a church into a hood ornament.

And I can't leave the media out of this rant. Turning this "minister" into a national and world figure, quoted in the same stories with the president, is obscene.

The things we should remember on 9/11 are the horrific deaths of 3,000 innocent people, the heroic sacrifices of so many firefighters and police officers and passengers and the resolve which America has shown to punish those responsible and to not let it happen again.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Are you suggesting that the same media that had a field day with the Florida fruitcake has done a fair job representing ordinary Muslims in this country? That they aren't shining the spotlight just a little brighter on the ones whose feelings are, as you say, easily hurt?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Are you suggesting that the same media that had a field day with the Florida fruitcake has done a fair job representing ordinary Muslims in this country? That they aren't shining the spotlight just a little brighter on the ones whose feelings are, as you say, easily hurt?

It is not the job of the media to "represent ordinary Muslims," any more than it's the responsibility the media to "represent ordinary Jews or Christians." The job of the media is to report the news. That's why you don't hear Katie Couric announce that all the planes landed safely today, it isn't news. Even so, in the nine years since 9/11 there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of stories about "ordinary Muslims" and how they've been affected by 9/11 and their response to it. After all, our MSM are always on the hunt for some evidence of a "backlash" against Muslims. So everytime a car full of drunk teenagers drives by a mosque yelling insults, it becomes a major story.

And if "ordinary Muslims" want to be "represented" in the media, let them speak up and denounce Islamism. There's a story I'd love to read. I suspect many of them would if not for their fear of reprisals.

As far as the ones whose feelings are easily hurt, violent demonstrations and murders in the name of their "religion" in the Muslim world are news, whether you like it or not. There is no comparison whatsoever between the ignorant behavior of a few Americans (universally condemned, from the president on down) and government sanctioned (and probably organized) violence.

Moral equivalence is alive and well.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's no answer.

So the media's job is to report the news. Okay, what's the news? Is that Florida pastor news? You seem to think not. Why? Because he's not mainstream? Which leads me back to my question.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's no answer.

So the media's job is to report the news. Okay, what's the news? Is that Florida pastor news? You seem to think not. Why? Because he's not mainstream? Which leads me back to my question.

It was just an idiot in florida talking about doing something...he didn't even do it, how is that news?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's no answer.

So the media's job is to report the news. Okay, what's the news? Is that Florida pastor news? You seem to think not. Why? Because he's not mainstream? Which leads me back to my question.

Sure it is. It's just an answer you don't like or can't understand.

Generally speaking, the Klan isn't news, Fred Phelps isn't news, PETA isn't news and the guy in Gainesville isn't news (and it has nothing to do whether he's "mainstream" or not). He and they represent only themselves. And the media should be sophisticated enough to know when they're being played. Now if somebody runs over and kills a bunch of Klan, Phelps, PETA, Koran burners, that would be news. Otherwise, for the most part, we'd be better off if the media ignored them. The coverage is what they want. The coverage is their reason for existing. And every story about them guarantees there will be more activities.

The decision on what's news varies, what may get covered today may not be covered tomorrow because of breaking stories. For example, on 9/11 I'm guessing no NYC media dropped in on the annual meeting of the Moffat Tunnel Morality Board. Sorry, more important matters to cover.

Every newsroom gets far more "requests for coverage" than they can possibly accomodate. Judgements are made every day that "this isn't news" "this isn't important enough for us to waste our time" "are they kidding?"

Every day a reporter is sent out to cover one thing, but is called off by his news director and sent to a different, more important story. I've done it many times. And I've also refused to send reporters out to cover Phelps. What benefit is there in giving him a platform? As I said in a post last week, if somebody plugs Phelps, we'd be right over. Otherwise, don't bother, we won't be there. And our credibility wasn't affected in the slightest.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

@ShirtlessGuy (your response posted after I wrote this, Pio)

I'm with you, actually. I think the guy is a publicity hoar, and he got exactly what he wanted. That said, the fact that he didn't follow through on his promise is irrelevant to the initial decision, no?

My original point was that unless you're going to subsidize news media with public funds (something I think we're all against - or at least most of us), then you kind of have to accept the fact that "the media" exist in no small part to provide a return to their shareholders. Which means that they're not going to decide what counts as news by using some idealistic standard from some journalism-school textbook from 60 years ago.

Which means that one of the criteria for what counts as news is whether or not it draws attention. And on that score I'm not sure there can really be any doubt that the Florida guy qualifies. Which is why I asked my question in the first place: if the media shine spotlights on people based on the sort of reaction that it will cause, how do you generalize from the few who are selected for coverage to all those who don't?

@Pio
I wouldn't be so hard on the media in this case. Sure, people decide not to cover Phelps' latest publicity stunt *now* but that's because he's a known quantity. Same for other publicity-hounds with finely tuned "shock" tactics. But it's one thing to act on prior knowledge and decide to ignore Phelps and another thing entirely to make a snap decision the first time his name comes up, and correctly predict that this is just the first of what will be many, progressively more stupid demonstrations.

When you don't know exactly what you've got, but you know it's explosive, and others will cover it whatever you decide, it's really hard to decide not to pay attention.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

@ShirtlessGuy (your response posted after I wrote this, Pio)

I'm with you, actually. I think the guy is a publicity hoar, and he got exactly what he wanted. That said, the fact that he didn't follow through on his promise is irrelevant to the initial decision, no?

My original point was that unless you're going to subsidize news media with public funds (something I think we're all against - or at least most of us), then you kind of have to accept the fact that "the media" exist in no small part to provide a return to their shareholders. Which means that they're not going to decide what counts as news by using some idealistic standard from some journalism-school textbook from 60 years ago.

Which means that one of the criteria for what counts as news is whether or not it draws attention. And on that score I'm not sure there can really be any doubt that the Florida guy qualifies. Which is why I asked my question in the first place: if the media shine spotlights on people based on the sort of reaction that it will cause, how do you generalize from the few who are selected for coverage to all those who don't?

I've never been part of a discussion in which the concept of "shining a spotlight" on someone "based on the reaction that it will cause" was brought up. And I doubt very much that discussion happens much, if at all. The people in the news business try to report on what's really news. Remember, they have made promises to their listeners or viewers that they're going to provide "news" for so many minutes at so many times of the day. And one thing you can't do is say: well there's nothing really newsworthy going on today, so we'll do two 7AM newscasts tomorrow to make up for it.

Whether the standards for what is news were developed by John Peter Zenger is beside the point. You try to provide a service for your listeners/viewers and try to make it as accurate and timely and "entertaining" as you can. You try to be as balanced and fair (note: I reversed them) as possible. And to correct quickly any mistakes you make.

And you have to differentiate as between national and local. Frequently (usually) what is covered nationally becomes fodder for your hometown outlets--it's called "localizing." And sometimes it can inflate a non story into a major deal. Take adulterated halloween candy for instance. A few years ago there were a couple of isolated (and never proven) instances where this allegedly occurred. Suddenly, and for several years, these stories became a staple of local reporting around the country--despite the fact that there wasn't even one verified case of a kid being injured by adulterated candy. Oh, there was a boy fatally poisoned by his father in Houston, but that was for the insurance money, and Texas juiced him. Other than that, nothing. Yet how many stories did you see about how to protect the kiddies, going along with the kiddies, cancellation of trick or treating and helpful hospitals offering to X-ray candy? Dozens and dozens. It was a total non story, period. In fact, the story was the gross overreaction, by people who should have known better, to urban legends.

If I were News Director at a Gainesvill station I would cover the "minister" by reviewing his rich history of outrageous statements. I'd compare his assertions "that he really isn't comfortable doing these interviews" with the faxes he had sent out to local media requesting coverage. I'd have my reporters interview the national folks in town, and ask them what the hell they're doing here? In other words, I'd do my best to expose him as the phoney he obviously is.

I recall an instance in Omaha where some public servant we were interviewing said some really dumb things. The reporter played the tape for me and I told her to run the story. Subsequently this idiot called me, wanting us to pull the quotes. I asked him if that was his voice and had we edited the tape in a way to make him appear to be saying something he wasn't saying. Given that it was and we hadn't, I told him he was out of luck. He complained that he wanted to convey a different message in the interview and his quotes didn't reflect that. I advised him there were no do overs.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bear: Here's a point I used to make with my reporters all the time. News is what we say it is. Given that we can't cover every story, every day, our judgement as to what is and is not important enough to merit making the cut is absolute. It's up to us to make good judgements, of course, but in the final analysis, we decide. Period.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I think the Florida example is distracting. You don't see something like that every day. And I think you're exactly right that news producers don't go about their daily business scouring for the next Phelps.

But I think the larger point stands. The people who get on TV are almost never a representative sample, so it's sort of dangerous to generalize from the "public reaction" you get from the media.

I have to think that pretty much every local news organization has at some point sent out a camera crew to get the reaction from "the man on the street."

When that footage makes the 6pm broadcast, how often do you see five minutes of people walking past the camera shaking their heads? One obvious difference is that some people don't want the attention. But some do, so you inevitably get footage. Does the crew stop immediately once they get enough footage to fill their allotted 45 seconds? Or do they keep going for a bit, hoping that they'll run into someone who (1) wants to be interviewed and (2) isn't as much of a dud as that last guy?

Again, I think Phelps-types are an extreme example. But I'm still dubious that when the media - at any level - presents public opinion/reaction to some story, that reaction isn't filtered by some sense of "newsworthiness." I think the wisest way for anyone to consume that sort of news is to say "OK, there is at least one person or some people who think that way" . . . and that's about it.

$.02

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I think the Florida example is distracting. You don't see something like that every day. And I think you're exactly right that news producers don't go about their daily business scouring for the next Phelps.

But I think the larger point stands. The people who get on TV are almost never a representative sample, so it's sort of dangerous to generalize from the "public reaction" you get from the media.

I have to think that pretty much every local news organization has at some point sent out a camera crew to get the reaction from "the man on the street."

When that footage makes the 6pm broadcast, how often do you see five minutes of people walking past the camera shaking their heads? One obvious difference is that some people don't want the attention. But some do, so you inevitably get footage. Does the crew stop immediately once they get enough footage to fill their allotted 45 seconds? Or do they keep going for a bit, hoping that they'll run into someone who (1) wants to be interviewed and (2) isn't as much of a dud as that last guy?

Again, I think Phelps-types are an extreme example. But I'm still dubious that when the media - at any level - presents public opinion/reaction to some story, that reaction isn't filtered by some sense of "newsworthiness." I think the wisest way for anyone to consume that sort of news is to say "OK, there is at least one person or some people who think that way" . . . and that's about it.

$.02

It's very hard to get "representative" coverage on anything. Media, especially local media, are limited to whoever they can get to respond. And one of the driving imperatives is to get "balance" in your coverage. If you have a quote from one side, you need a quote from the other. Well, in the abstract, that's not a bad idea. But that's part of what was going on here, the media in a lather to quote this idiot because in their minds it represented "balance" with Muslim nutbars.

Let me just say "man on the street" or MOS interviews are absolutely the lowest form of life in our business. They represent a total abdication of our responsibilities to report news. The first cousin to MOS, is when local TV news shows up at a local talk show and tapes the flashing lights or morons on hold and extracts a couple of (balanced, naturally) quotes proving their point that this or that issue "really lit up the 'phones at K-blah." That stuff is garbage. And though you're right that TV doesn't show people refusing to respond, what of it? What does that mean? And just because someone doesn't want to be on TV, how does that make them automatically "more balanced?" It obviously doesn't. Here's what happens, when those segments are prepared for broadcast, they are "balanced." Four responses, two for, two against. Thus, any chance the segments actually represent the feelings in a community is blown away.

You have this idealized vision of "representation," well for a variety of reasons, technical and financial among them, it's not possible. So again, you do the best you can. You can't interview everyone. You can't afford to poll. and don't have the time even if you have the budget. You're stuck with the poeple you can get to comment (and some of them are decidely NOT representative).

And "newsworthiness," which you seem to dismiss, is what it's all about, baby. That's why some "stories" are never covered, they aren't "newsworthy." You may disagree, but that's the way of life, my friend. In the alternative, news organizations could report on stories that aren't newsworthy, a prescription for a sudden, dramatic death. What we're talking about here is "news," it would probably be a good idea to put "newsworthy" stories on the air,don't you think?

Nobody should rely entirely on just one or even two media sources. We have more choices than ever in history, and well read people should avail themselves of those choices.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Sure it is. It's just an answer you don't like or can't understand.

Generally speaking, the Klan isn't news, Fred Phelps isn't news, PETA isn't news and the guy in Gainesville isn't news (and it has nothing to do whether he's "mainstream" or not). He and they represent only themselves. And the media should be sophisticated enough to know when they're being played. Now if somebody runs over and kills a bunch of Klan, Phelps, PETA, Koran burners, that would be news. Otherwise, for the most part, we'd be better off if the media ignored them. The coverage is what they want. The coverage is their reason for existing. And every story about them guarantees there will be more activities.

The decision on what's news varies, what may get covered today may not be covered tomorrow because of breaking stories. For example, on 9/11 I'm guessing no NYC media dropped in on the annual meeting of the Moffat Tunnel Morality Board. Sorry, more important matters to cover.

Every newsroom gets far more "requests for coverage" than they can possibly accomodate. Judgements are made every day that "this isn't news" "this isn't important enough for us to waste our time" "are they kidding?"

Every day a reporter is sent out to cover one thing, but is called off by his news director and sent to a different, more important story. I've done it many times. And I've also refused to send reporters out to cover Phelps. What benefit is there in giving him a platform? As I said in a post last week, if somebody plugs Phelps, we'd be right over. Otherwise, don't bother, we won't be there. And our credibility wasn't affected in the slightest.

The problem is that the media wanted a "backlash from those teabaggers against the muslims" story and they lost control of it in a way they never imagined. This is what happens when those in the media take sides... they see themselves as part of the battle and they want to win. However, since they're not actually part of any one team the ability to screw up is there.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The problem is that the media wanted a "backlash from those teabaggers against the muslims" story and they lost control of it in a way they never imagined. This is what happens when those in the media take sides... they see themselves as part of the battle and they want to win. However, since they're not actually part of any one team the ability to screw up is there.

That was a major part of it, IMHO.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bear: Here's a point I used to make with my reporters all the time. News is what we say it is. Given that we can't cover every story, every day, our judgement as to what is and is not important enough to merit making the cut is absolute. It's up to us to make good judgements, of course, but in the final analysis, we decide. Period.

Well said.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Well said.

uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but the media didn't want to touch Rev. Wright... they got smoked out when the audio and videos started to get in the hands of other people. You can't even pretend to claim that was reported "wrong" or shouldn't have been reported.

Barack Obama worshiped in front of an altar cast in hate. Even if he doesn't believe in it and was only there to put on that he was religious (and a few other things) as a facade, he let his children listen to the words from that altar of hate. Shame on him.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but the media didn't want to touch Rev. Wright... they got smoked out when the audio and videos started to get in the hands of other people. You can't even pretend to claim that was reported "wrong" or shouldn't have been reported.

Barack Obama worshiped in front of an altar cast in hate. Even if he doesn't believe in it and was only there to put on that he was religious (and a few other things) as a facade, he let his children listen to the words from that altar of hate. Shame on him.

They would have gotten away with it 20 or 30 years ago, but not now.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

It's very hard to get "representative" coverage on anything.

[...]

You have this idealized vision of "representation," well for a variety of reasons, technical and financial among them, it's not possible. So again, you do the best you can. You can't interview everyone. You can't afford to poll. and don't have the time even if you have the budget. You're stuck with the poeple you can get to comment (and some of them are decidely NOT representative).

And "newsworthiness," which you seem to dismiss, is what it's all about, baby.

We agree on all points.

The point I was trying to make all along, w/o being a flaming arsehole about it, was that your 'off the chest' post seemed to rely on media portrayal of Muslims, and "Muslim opinion" as representative. That's it. No more, no less.

I'm no pacifist. When I deny that we're at war with fundamentalist terrorists, it's not because I deny the threat. It's because I'm an academic who understands "war" to have a specific meaning that I don't think applies, and I think "war" thinking has a net negative influence on our ability to prevail.

I'm with you all the way with respect to winning, and devoting the resources necessary for it. But when people start talking as if what we really need is just to fight the d@mn holy war already . . . that's when I check out.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

We agree on all points.

The point I was trying to make all along, w/o being a flaming arsehole about it, was that your 'off the chest' post seemed to rely on media portrayal of Muslims, and "Muslim opinion" as representative. That's it. No more, no less.

I'm no pacifist. When I deny that we're at war with fundamentalist terrorists, it's not because I deny the threat. It's because I'm an academic who understands "war" to have a specific meaning that I don't think applies, and I think "war" thinking has a net negative influence on our ability to prevail.

I'm with you all the way with respect to winning, and devoting the resources necessary for it. But when people start talking as if what we really need is just to fight the d@mn holy war already . . . that's when I check out.

Well, in the theocratic, repressive societies that make up the Muslim world, I'd concede it's not always possible to ascertain what they're thinking. They don't encourage independence of thought (they punish it with death a lot of the time), so it's at least theoretically possible that a majority of folks in that part of the world view things differently from their masters. So? They have no way of putting those thoughts into action short of revolution. Looks like in a couple of months voters are going to send a painful message to the president. That's how we do it. In Iran, for instance, the only choice is to take to the streets, and then you get gunned down. Was it John Mitchell who said: "Watch what we do, not what we say?" Seems like good advice in this situation.

We'll just have to disagree on the use of the word "war." Our problem is, out of an abundence of concern with what the Muslim "street" thinks, we've called it the war on terror (or that insulting phrase Obama uses: "man caused disasters). It is, of course, the war on Islamism and IMO we're not prosecuting it as vigorously as we should. I do give the president high marks for stepping up the Predator attacks on what the national media stupidly continue to call "militants." Richard Trumpka is a militant, the arseholes we're killing in Pakistan are terrorists. Let's get that body count high enough that even the mentally defective youngsters who buy into that philosophy will shrink from attacking us.

What was it DeNiro said in "The Untouchables?"

I want you to get this ****** where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PIZZ ON HIS ASHES!

Works for me.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I disagree with the notion we are not at "war" with "islamofascists" "islamic radicals" "terrorists" or whatever other term you want to use


props to Obama on predator drone attacks but right now Bush and Obama need to concede we've failed in many aspects of this fight (see our homegrown terrorists) and we need to re-double our efforts.

mainly, some glaring missed objectives here: the heads of Usama, Zawahari, and Mullah Omar.

these guys should have been made into chum in 2002. We're 9 years on from 9/11 and at this rate these guys will live into their 80's or beyond w/out our having killed or captured them.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bush and Obama need to concede we've failed in many aspects of this fight (see our homegrown terrorists) and we need to re-double our efforts.

What are you talking about? I think there was what, the times square bomber who is seemingly too incompetent to even rise to the level of terrorist.

In both the Obama and Bush terms, numerous arrests have been made and plots foiled both domestic and foreign. They've both done a fine job when it comes to national defense since 9/11.