Friday Afternoon Open Thread

Good for Taylor Branch (and Somerby and Digby), but it does not matter anymore. The Media has no credibility. Not any part of it.

And the progressive blogs can not now pretend they did not play along in the 2008 primaries. To this day, they lionize Olbermann, who is as big a hack as there is (even when he hacks for things I like, like the public option.)

It's too late for the Media, and in some ways, too late for the blogs too. (Speaking for me only of course.)

This is an Open Thread.

< Wyden Plan Not Considered By SFC, Neither Was Medicare For All | Republicans Say New Amendment to HCR Will Raise Medicare Drug Premiums >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary likes being President.... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:33:10 PM EST

    If only!

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:40:08 PM EST
    are you backing off your belief that the media liking you matters?

    All this has been obvious to me since sometime in the nineties.

    It does not matter for policy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    It mattered for the 2008 election.

    I dont (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    think it even mattered for the 2008 election. If we let the media pick our candidates then we get this mess like we have now.

    You know I realize that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:35:10 PM EST
    rationalization is a powerful emotion but how exactly is the media the reason we have who we have as President, seriously, excusing incompetent campaigning is the sort of thing that lets the Mark Penn's and Bob (0-4) Shrum's keep getting work.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    They were salivating over Obama!  Before that they were salivating over Bush like a pack of school girls over the Jonas Brothers.  

    The media likes certain canidates (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    I mean they salivated over Clinton in 1992 and Reagan in 1980, hell JFK in 1960 was a movie star, it happens.

    How old were you in 1992? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    Hell (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:57:23 PM EST
    How old were you in 1980?

    What you write is simply delusional.


    Wait you really don't think (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    the Clinton on Arsenio, and Clinton MTV stuff were a sign that maybe the press was on Clinton's side for a while-- its not that they didn't hit him on scandals while running (Flowers was a big scandal) but they hit Obama over Wright for a solid month as well.

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    You give 2 examples of Clinton BYPASSING the Media.

    It undermines your argument imo.


    I think you misread what I said. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    I didn't exclude Reagan or Bill. They have tended to to pick them since the dawn of TV.   Take the claims of delusion back.

    Reply to Socratic (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:16:37 PM EST
    Not you.

    I agreed with your comment.


    I meant more what Salo was saying (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    the Media seems to choose the telegenic canidate early on and run with it- (though you can't do a simple media study- because of correalation/causation issues- the winner of each election is almost always the canidate who recieves the positive press).

    Well i could go back to Kennedy. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    Indeed one might think that we have a televisual presidency. Almost all the winners could be seen as MSM media darlings since Kennedy at least.

    Seriously, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    the only time in the since 1960 were the more TV-friendly canidate didn't win was what 1968 and 1972- Nixon was smart, but good god (and this could be the fact that his face has basically been imprinted on my generation as what someone lying looks like- flop sweat, 5 o'clock shadow, etc.)

    Well, you seem to be confusing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    "the media" with the medium.

    The television camera liked JFK (and to a lesser extent Reagan and Clinton), and famously didn't like Nixon.  And even Dick's mom thought he looked horrible on opening night.

    Are the viewers to blame for drawing their own interpretations from what they see?


    Democratic Party leaders picked Obama (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    and the media loved it.  But do not let off the Dem Party leadership for abdicating responsibility, even defying its charge per its own charter.

    I will say no more, or I would have to speak ill of the recently deceased. . . .


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    Do you really want to get into this- the Super delegates were heavily against Obama until he basically dominated the primaries for a month and a half winning at least 10 straight.

    Super Delegates (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    were not invented to rubber stamp voters' choices. They, supposedly, are the "wiser heads" who know how the game is played and are charged with the duty of casting their votes for whoever they feel is best for the Party, and the country.  

    TEN IN A ROW, is a sound bite, and the result of an undemocratic, unrepresentative, and intellectually fraudulent process. The total number of voters who were involved in the TEN IN A ROW "victory" were outnumbered by the tenants in one of the buildings in Co-op City in the Bronx. That's exactly the kind of scam the Super Delegates were supposed to analyze and understand in choosing who they voted for.

    Unfortunately, TEN IN A ROW fooled the media, many uninformed citizens, and apparently, you. It shouldn't have fooled the S.D's.


    Oh, I don't care if the Dems get into it (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    and fix it, as I'm not a Dem anymore.  Why be part of a group that doesn't even follow the rules that were so hard won decades ago by the disempowered?  I know that many here are too young to remember, or were not politically involved then, when those massive internal changes were made in the party.  But they mattered.  So a party that tosses those aside is the party it used to be and not mine anymore.

    But those who are still Dems might care, and might know that this is the time to fix it.  You think these things are fixed at conventions, or even in presidential campaign years?  Things that took decades to do can be undone in no time, but it will take time to put them back in place. If they care.

    And I do know super-delegates who do care, and who were not for Obama -- and there was a reason, you know, why that roll call was called off.  They were treated terribly, like the voters whom they represented.  Not the voters in those ridiculous non-democracies called caucus states.  Talk to some in states whose votes weren't counted -- primary votes or roll-call votes that never were allowed to be cast.  Or not, your call.  


    Yeah, forgot about that (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    Disenfranchising the millions of dedicated, Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan because a handful of knuckle-headed local politicians made some stupid decisions was an abomination of incalculable proportion. Coming from the "Count Every Vote" Party made the tragedy all the more hypocritical.

    There were many remedies by which the few "guilty" "leaders" in those states could've been punished without denying the voters their Constitutional right to vote for their candidate.  


    Oh, they haven't forgotten (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    nor have the super-d's in other states that never were allowed to cast their votes in the roll call.

    Some of them live for that moment . . . and it matters to some of us, too.  So now I know that it doesn't even matter if I cast a primary vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, since the party won't get around to my state's delegates.  Fine, thanks, I always can find other things to do that day.


    (slightly off topic) (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    any progress in hubby's situation, C.C?

    Since you mentioned it a few weeks ago, his situation has been with me.(like a tune you just can't get out of your head)


    Even though most of us know, on some (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    level, that the process is not squeaky clean, it can be so demoralizing to see just how corrupt it is, and just how easily it can be manipulated to produce some result that was ordained in a back room somewhere, that it can kill the belief in the democratic process to the point that a lot of people will go from being active and involved voters to being what-difference-does-it-make, cynical citizens who decide they have something better to do on Election Day.  

    That, I think, may be just one more element that will hurt the Dems in 2010 and 2012.


    Really (none / 0) (#13)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:43:21 PM EST
    you don't think that say Kucinich could have won do you- I mean the primaries on both sides basically whittled down to the richest, and most charismatic canidates on each side.

    I tended to understand... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    ...that the (and your own argument)  reasoning was about expediency for the electoral game.   However a lot of people did confuse the expediency of a bit of good copy for actually getting anything done once in office.  

    They were all considered universally (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    interchangable which completely aggravated me. Anyone paying even the remotest bit of attention could tell there were differences in their policy positions.

    Even the stimulus was a case in point. The first round of stimulus comprised of blank checks to consumers were touted by Obama's economic advisor Goolsbee as something he heavily advocated(and which was a big failure). They ridiculed the idea that money should be spent on programs and infrastructure as well as Clinton was suggesting.

    But no......they were all Democrats so therefore even though the facts supported some real differences the perception created by A listers was it was absurd to discuss these differences because they would all be better then the GOP alternative.


    I read Somerby's piece last night (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    His descriptions of the "simpering, wimpering" MoDo made me laugh out loud. As for Matthews, his inanity is impossible to sit through. Useless is as useless does.

    Yes Virginia, there are still bozos out there who believe the Clinton's killed Vince Foster. And some of them live and work in the village. Sheesh.

    It's never too late to do the right thing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    for the right reasons. Alas, I still think many of them are mired in the idea that a win is a win is a win rather than looking at what they are winning. Many are still willing to sacrifice core principles to put a win in the Democrats column and slander and smear in the process. Its a darn shame because I believe that in a good portion of the cases our side could win arguments based on their merits and doesn't need to gratuitously smear.

    That'd be nice (none / 0) (#12)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    but I just don't know who can win on ideals (and frankly that's how it always was look back at some of the historical campaigns they were hella dirty)- I mean Kucinich and Dean probably tried- but even that's debatable- ideals don't win campaigns money, strategy and tactics do.

    If it continually (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    has to boil down to money the winner is always going to be the top 1%(who control a large portion of wealth in this country). For the record, my fairly conservative husband liked Kuchinich. He respected that the guy has principles and knows exactly where he stands and that he wasn't bought and paid for. We could have done alot worse(and we did) then to have nominated him as a standard bearer.

    Oh and I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    He would have known what to do on the health care debate and it wouldn't have boiled down to the approval of Seantor Snowe either.

    Really is head-exploding (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    I just read the Digby post and was about to link to it over here myself.

    Haven't seen Taylor Branch on any of his press junket, but I am tempted to buy the book so he gets some more compensation for putting up with the likes of Matthews. I'm glad to see Branch is so quick on his feet with the facts at his fingertips to answer back. Matthews usually stuns people into silence with his idiocy and they never really answer him.

    But BTD is right. It won't do a bit of good. I fear the damage is irreversible.

    Taylor was on the Washington show (none / 0) (#52)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    with the GOP, Dem and Indi call in lines.  He was very good and very factual.  Some of the people on the GOP lines were so idiotic that it was painful to hear him patiently disabuse them of their misinformation.  

    That's all there is... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    Simple and true.
    The media has no credibility anymore.

    We are left to use our personal b.s. detectors to sift through all the garbage thrown our way.

    We need real investigative reporters who are not on a corporate payroll.

    As it is, we have to filter anything we read through a bunch of hidden and not-so-hidden agendas.

    And I wish that some blogs, like C&L for example, would give us clips of people like Hersh, Chomsky, Nader, Kucinich instead of focusing on distributing the rants of nuts like Beck or Coulter.
    But - that is not their mission.

    Talkleft is a place where I get honest feelings being expressed.
    It is reassuring. But it is a defensive game. A bunch of garbage is thrown our way and it is up to us to try to counter it. But we haven't got the time to mount something really aggressive to bring about the fundamental change that we need in this country.

    Teh Somerby article is devastating (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    for the NYT.  It does show that they are a propaganda organ for some very malevolent conservative and big money interest groups.

    The reason we think the media is (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    so lacking in credibility is that we take the time to seek out information on our own, from multiple sources, in depth, which allows us to see just how bad a job they do of informing the public.

    But there are still so, so many people who believe "the news" as reported by the major media outlets is the God's-honest-truth: if Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric or Brian Williams or Wolf Blitzer said it, you can take it to the bank, right?

    I have no tolerance for it anymore; none.  I'm kind of skeptical that the weather guy really knows what time the sun is rising and setting, for crying out loud.

    nah it's because of the myth of Objectivilty (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:08:47 PM EST
    We are all Sujects and the language is a slippery M*ther.

    My problem isn't that (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    people in the media have an opinion. My problem is that they often attempt to pass that opinion off as fact.

    If it doesn't fit into a 30 second sound bite they manipulate the story to suit that 30 second sound bite. It's offensive.


    Fortunately, (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    the 3 major nightly news shows no longer have quite the monopoly with news-seeking viewers that they enjoyed pre-cable era, and their overall viewer numbers have been in decline for a number of years.  

    Generally, I suspect, that more choices has led to an improved information situation overall, even with the RW-spouting FNC dominating the cable ratings, and even with the disappointment we see constantly with the fluff and filler and stupidity and short attention spans on CNN, and the mixed bag of shows on Msnbc.


    A lot of weather guys don't know, Anne (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    but they look real purty while they read the teleprompter that tells them that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night. :-)

    It's Oktoberfest time! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    Actually, it's pretty well winding down by now but, hey, I forgot to check.

    From the Suddeutsche Zeitung, one of the leading German papers, published in Munich, lots and lots of pictures.

    And you thought Americans were the only ones with silly/stupid drinking clothes.

    Oh - and the banner ad that says "Krankenversicherung ab E 59./mtl"?  That translates to "Health insurance, from 59 Euros a month."  And that's insurance that meets the pretty comprehensive requirements set out by the German Government.

    Just to keep on-topic.

    Christie is (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    taking a nosedive.

    Come on Corzine, pull this one out!

    Ah NJ (none / 0) (#14)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    the impossible dream for the GOP, it never gets old they always think it'll be the break through state and it always remains just out of reach.

    New Jersey had a Republican Governor (none / 0) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    less then seven years ago.

    No Republican elected statewide since 1997 (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    but that has a lot to do with the fact that they don't have many statewide elections. Pretty much everything is appointed--which is why it's an important office to hold.

    I am so sick of commercials (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    with him in them. And now we are being bombarded with the woman from CT also.

    I do hope Corzine pulls it out. Christie strikes me as ultra sleazy, aside from being a Repub.


    You mean (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    this woman. I think her bio is hilarious, but the Republicans probably see her as a RINO.

    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    I do like how she never mentions what party she's with. Oh, and "something different" because we all see how "change" is working out! Also think it's funny how Thompson always ends with "The Democrat", lol!~ Is it Nov YET?!

    Change is working out decently (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    not perfect- but its been okay given the scope of the problems we faced in January 2009- the economy has at the very least been kept from the collapse that seemed imminent and Iraq has started to be pulled back from, Healthcare's a clusterf@ck but at this point I'm not sure reform is entirely possible.  

    Oh really? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Spamlet on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:25:44 PM EST
    I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just end here:

    Healthcare's a clusterf@ck but at this point I'm not sure reform is entirely possible.

    Yeah. I wonder why.


    Simple (none / 0) (#77)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:58:29 PM EST
    Because I've seen Two highly charismatic Democratic Presidents come in and try and reform healthcare in my lifetime- one crashed and burned leaving the status quo entirely intact, while the other appears to have gotten incremental change at best- maybe it'll take a Republican to get it done in that "only Nixon can go to China" kind of way.

    Right (none / 0) (#78)
    by Spamlet on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:51:14 PM EST
    A Democratic president, Democratic majorities in the House and Senate (with perfectly legal ways to maneuver around Senate Republican and Blue Dog opponents), a strong popular mandate for health care reform with a public option--somehow none of this is enough, so it's going to take a Republican. Who knew?

    I saw in the gym (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    that Bloomberg is going pretty negative. He's doing man on the street attacks on Thompson.

    I guess you've got to fire all of your cannons.


    Of course they can still pretend. (none / 0) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    And most of them will likely never stop pretending. In fact, they'll do the same thing over and over again.

    People can change, but they usually don't.

    Hate to break this to you, (none / 0) (#16)
    by bocajeff on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    If you look back with an unbiased eye you will see that the media has never been as good as you think. In some ways it is better now only because of the multiple outlets that exist - therefore the choices are greater and the crap is diluted. For ever Fox there is an MSNBC.

    One problem is that there is no accountability for providing wrong information or for providing information late. Because of this you get a class of journalists who can pretty much say and parrot what they want with little consequence.

    The irony is that the media's love for Obama put him where he is - however the media's love should never have been known...

    the 4th estate occured- was it basically from 1950-1974 or what because from what I can see historically the media was if anything worse than it is today- I mean good god Spanish-American War people, or heck look at the press in the hands of a founding father- look at how Jefferson and Adams basically used various papaers as propoganda organs against each other.

    There was no pretext or faith... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    ...in the illusion of objectivity. papers were understood to be polemical and tabloiditastic by one and all.

    Ding! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    the strawman argument about Golden Ages is one I especially detest.

    So maybe the problem isn't the press (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    but that we had a decent press corp for about 2 decades and now the remenants of that press corp are still living off the prestige and credibility of their predecessors.

    Before 1980 (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    (I'm dating myself here) I was a member of 'th media.' I don't capitalize, because it was on a city-level, not nationally. Were we out to get people? yes we were. We didn't have such an inherent sense of "us versus them," but we were able to find enough to make it about "them."

    In other words, we did what used to be called "reporting." It wasn't investigative reporting, it was reporting.

    Hell, everyone had an axe to grind. We just didn't make sh!t up and spend our time covering what other reporters said, or what star panels or 'Starr Chambers' reported, we went out and verified from our own sources such reports.

    Of course, we were reporters. We weren't allowed in most living rooms, nor were we particularly respected. Not that resect had been earned for the most part, either!

    No, thre was no 'golden age' of newspapers. except that, back in the day, cities had 5-10 papers, and even small towns had at least one daily, and usually a weekly to combat it.

    But when non news companies began to purchase papers, which did go along with people leaving papers for television, newsrooms contracted--less reporters, more spot news, less reporting.

    "this meeting happened, and here's what happened in it." No examination of why, just an acceptance.
    that it happened, and the realization by the corporate bosses that they could hire a minimum wage plus ten percent college dropout to do the reporting.

    Hell, fom my years of reporting, all told about six in newspapers, and another seven in radio, I have no colleagues left in reporting.

    We became lawyers, professors, professional military, or, in at least one case, a jewelry maker.

    the profession changed, and we were the 'moustache Petes' We actually looked for news.

    Nowadays I talk to my old reporter friends on occasion. We agree on only one thing-- there's no difference between "entertainment tonight" and any newspaper, television news program, or news channel.

    The mainstream media is dead. there are still a few folks who actually do 'reporting,' but they are at small papers or small news outlets. The Weather channel does a better job, nowadays.

    No, I'm not bitter. I can look at the changes and be glad I went into the military and then became an academic-- not in a journalism or communications department. My reporter colleagues didn't become journalism professors, either. Hmf.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:46:10 PM EST
    Very well said.

    that is the problem (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    See this from 2005 - Link.

    Thank You (none / 0) (#55)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    They are feeding off the myths of Objectivity... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    ...hatched during the 50s and 60s for the Cold War propaganda machine. Like leeches from a bloated corpse floating in Mekong Delta or the wolves feeding of the carcass of a Marine at the Chosin Reservoir.

    Can you say the fairness doctrine? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    Good is a relative term (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:48:06 PM EST
    How do you know what I thought of the Media before the 90s?

    You may be surprised.


    Telecommunications Act of 1996 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    even after pres clinton gave the media barons a HUGE gift in one of the biggest corporate giveaways (Telecommunications Act of 1996) they didn't cut him much slack...

    The fairness doctrine died long (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    before that act.  The seeds of the right wing media and their objectives were well on their way by 1996.

    I'm still PI$$ED! (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    As I stated in my diary on KOS, as Kos himself stated, anti-Americanism was at play in Chicago being the first eliminated bid city for the 2016 Olympics.  Well, that's life in the big, er, second city.  
    My posting at KOS addressed the economics of Chicago's bid, America's wealth and the resulting anti-Americanism displayed by this international body.  As Chicago's bid was so summarily rejected by the IOC, a bid judged by all to be the most economically feasible, by the most econimcally feasible country, I'll be curious to see what happens with the upcoming negotiations over revenue sharing between the IOC and the USOC.  Frankly, I wouldn't lose sleep if the USOC told the IOC that this just isn't a good time, for the next 7 years,  for America to finance an international sporting event.  I mean, we have other international entities to prop up, don't ya know.

    Well (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    If they hate America so much, why do we get one of the Olympics every 20 years or so? And why is 2016 going to be South America's first Olympics ever?

    Latest Polanski news. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:25:38 AM EST
    He settled the civil suit with his victim 15 years after his conviction for $500,000.

    However, so it does not appear he ever paid her any of the money. Or if he did, it was a paltry amount, like a few thousand here and there.

    Isn't he just so much the coolest dude ever?

    Link to the story (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:28:14 AM EST
    Uh ok. Some more googling says (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:32:35 AM EST
    as of 1996 he hadn't paid any of the money agreed upon in the 1993 settlement.

    It is unclear if he's made any payments since.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:04:04 AM EST
    Hope he doesn't kill anybody on his next venture on the H1...