We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, October 1. 2012
Uighurs In Paradise, the Sequel
Women earned majority of doctoral degrees in 2011 for 3rd straight year, and outnumber men in grad school 141 to 100
Grim Milestone: U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN HIT 2,000… Media Silent
Dispatches From The War That Nobody Wants
How to Buy an Election: Just ask the Democrats
Muslim violence is our new law
FPI National Survey: Foreign Policy Matters in 2012
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bird Dog: Grim Milestone: U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN HIT 2,000… Media Silent
You link to Gateway Pundit which cites Drudge Report which links to Yahoo! which provides the story from AP, which is published by 1700 newspapers and 5000 broadcasters.
Google News lists 1638 news articles the topic, including the front page of the New York Times.
There's no doubt the 'story' is 'out there'. I think the point is something else altogether.
The concept of the media being silent has more to do with what is perceived to be the MSM - a term which includes many outlets, but can be boiled down to about 10. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, MSNBC, Comedy Central (Daily Show/Colbert in particular since people under the age of 30 believe those to be honest news providers) and a few others...
The point of the silence is that while Bush was president, items like body counts were regular news items. Once Obama took office, things like this have faded into the background. Not non-existent, as you point out, but hardly worth mentioning on a larger scale.
In other words, when it happens to your guy - it's news. When it happens to our guy - it's not worth mentioning. We see a host of these items regularly. Obama's slips of the tongue never show up on Letterman the way Bush's did. Bad news like declining labor participation rates and rising food stamp recipients take a back seat to a lower (and less meaningful) unemployment rate. A Romney misstatement makes news for 2 weeks, while Obama's is 'explained' by the very people who are supposed to only do the reporting - except when it's Obama making the misstatement and then they work hard to provide context and rationale.
Denying the complicity of the MSM in bias is usually comprised of a few things. You used one item - "the New York Times had it on the front page and it showed up here and there, etc." Yes, but nobody made a big deal out of it, did they?
Another approach is "the media isn't biased, they have George Will on, after all. And Ben Stein." In other words, we know we're biased, so we slap a few faces on who disagree with us and that's enough to cover our tracks.
Another approach is "you have Fox News". Yeah - Fox News reaches roughly 5-7% of the news population at any given time, and it's a pretty consistent group of people. They reach 7% of the audience 100% of the time. The rest of the MSM reaches 95% of the audience 100% of the time. The supposed 'balance' is lacking.
The media is, indeed, silent on many things these days. But perhaps you can't blame them. Cynics would say it's because they are using their news shows to pump up profits by promoting their entertainment programming and celebrities who most benefit their organizations.
To some degree this is true. But that's not really the issue, because most of these organizations get pretty active on the news reporting front when they want to be active. It's just usually on very particular issues from a very particular viewpoint.
Having worked at many of these organizations, I'm well aware of what's going on there. The bias is usually pretty apparent if you spend any time at these places. Unless you agree with the bias.
It would be interesting, if one had the time, to track all the various news outlets that actually use the AP feed's story and compare the full AP feed with what content the outlets feature from the feed. Depending on how much content's in the feed, most newspapers are forced to cut out parts just for the sake of space. But you can also play games with what you include from the feed and what you don't, what you put at the top of the story and what you put continued back on page D 21, etc.
Bulldog: You used one item - "the New York Times had it on the front page and it showed up here and there, etc." Yes, but nobody made a big deal out of it, did they?
The front of the New York Times, with a top-page, four-column picture of a family grieving over the American flag. What else could they do to give it prominence? Other sources that have the story: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Alaska Dispatch, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, Turkish Weekly, Boise Weekly, Brisbane Times, Burlington Hawkeye, etc.
The claim that the media was silent appears contrary to even a cursory look.
Perhaps as a result of their newcomer status, women fall for the credentialism game more readily than men. They still think the good-girl certificates will guarantee them money and power, when in fact they need to figure out how to offer something that's in reliable demand and short supply.
Hey Buddy - - what d'ya suppose happened here? Anyway, it's a good early morning giggle when you get the picture in your mind:
ok, AP, lessee --want to stay away from pointless blue-sky (such as 'it were destiny, or else it wouldn't a happent!'), whatever guess made ought to include an explanation of the timing. Let's point out that few folks have experience tunneling underneath a patio, nor (if it was built the other way) pouring cement onto a flat cellar roof. Let's say the wiring to a ceiling light in the gun room was wearing every time someone on the pation stepped on a certain spot, and --discounting the explosion, which mitigates against mere second-degree burns as she would've been in the maximum heat and overpressure 'cone' of an explosion powerful enough to blow off a concrete-slab roof --i'd say a slow ember-charring over time weakened a joist or three (these patio floor joists are the gun room roof rafters, in this hypothetical).
Ceiling light being likely center-room, that's where the middle rafters, presumably overloaded, would be in compression atop the vertical plane of an installed 2 x 8, with the bottom of the same center-line in tension.
With these two forces rapidly alternating per shifting patio load points, a little charring turns the wear into breakage and sets up a sudden snap failure.
The madam falls through at the site of the smolder and picks up the minor burns from the ember material.
They called it an explosion because 'it sure seemed like one!'
okeedokee, that's my best shot --whatcha think?
What I have been saying for years--with regards the way democratic women look:
1. They all try to look the same, because that is a ticket to the next inner circle of "change agents".
2. The democrats appeal to the "plain and unmarried (unmarriageable?). That goes along with the mass appeal of the communist party, etc., etc.
3. The truly ugly women will also most likely be Republican--and make the best friends. That's because they have already accepted what is and try to work harder for what they can get without the looks. It is the middle of the road plain janes that will destroy this country!
"Spiritual but not religious" is the mark of people who believe that feelings are valid guides to spiritual issues. This, of course, a recipe for kidding oneself, a practice at which mankind has excelled since Eve contemplated the fruit of a certain tree.
(HEE HEE HEE) Aww Buddy--you know what I think: I think your wonderful !!!
Aw shucks (blush, scuff shoe), AP, yore so sweet! (grins like a wave on a slop bucket)
That story did make a good laugh --the hubby is a state legislator, a lawmaker, and the couple hail from the town of Burly, Idaho. So nearby on the same page is a list of headlines from around the area including somethinhg like 'Accident at home of Burly lawmaker'.
Mentally you auto-finish the header, 'Accident at home of burly lawmaker, Burly lawmaker'
Bob Newhart in the movie of ''Catch-22''. Surname Major, prankster parents Christian-name him 'Major'. He jines up the Army, and rises to the rank of Major. Major Major Major, and with a deadpan delivery worthy of Bob Newhart.
double haw haw
i think maybe Joseph Heller --WWII vet writing the book soon after the war --was maybe gloriously 'writing off' his PTSD. A very smart and stylish therapy indeed!
Well, if 1953 is "soon after" WWII. (According to Wiki.) And published in '61.
I got a copy in '65 or so, read the first 5 chapters, couldn't make sense of it. Later, having just gone thru AF training, read it and found it incredible funny. Five years later, found it incredible sad. Five more, saw both sides.
Sam L--that is a nice summary of my experience with the book. It took a while and some experience with life before I too could find the balance.
--well, it's pretty bleak --not much of a young person's book. Black humor, absurdist humor, can't do much for a reader too young to 'relate'. A little seasoning time in the adult world needed, probably.
The movie got panned, of course, coming as it did in the closing era of no one but no one ever admitting any movie could be better than the book. They were just completely different animals, of course --the simple explanation and the true one, except critics, ink-stained fan-magazine & uptown newspaper columnist wretches all, don't get a turn at center stage thataway.
The casting was genius. Try to imagine another face in the roles played by Arkin, Voight, Newhart, Welles, Henry, Prentiss, the real-life guy she was married to and played iirc her love interest in the film, the guy who unfortunately seems to've had no name, at least judging by my recollection, Garfunkle, heck, all of 'em.
Richard Benjamin. Dangit --first go names, then your prostate, then you're prostrate, and start getting a little behind on the newspapers