Saturday, December 6, 2008
- Am I alone in thinking these two could be related?
On the left, Liberal leader candidate Michael Ignatieff, on the right senator John Kerry
-
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Let's face it, cable news today is only a step above the yellow journalism of the Hearst newspapers of a century ago. The main difference is that at least all three networks have some credibility in some areas and will produce some interesting programming especially the long form documentary programming. It's also virtually impossible to be unbiased in anything. Even the acclaimed news programs that OSers talk about such as the BBC has a history of being criticized for bias. The BBC is a UK government funded news agency and for YEARS people over there have complained about the network being too tightly tied to the government. So in essence what we get from their international news broadcasts are seen through the prism of UK governmental policy.
Going back to CNN though, you may hate their editorial slant but there's no single news organization on this continent that has the resources, the people on the ground and the coverage that CNN does. CNN is still the best at covering breaking news. FNC has to rely more on opinion makers and less on actual news gatherers on the ground. More often then not FNC has to lean heavily on other FOX owned foreign news outlets to get the pictures and sounds of what's going on on the ground. That's not to say CNN doesn't do that, because they do but CNN more often then not actually has someone working there whereas FNC doesn't have a very strong international news bureau which is surprising when they make money hand over fist.
As to the positives of the cable news outlets? CNN and MSNBC/CNBC have very strong documentary divisions. (though MSNBC just slashed their longform budget substantially)Both networks have strong ties news magazines (Newsweek for MSNBC, TIME for CNN) and both have a versatile group of opinion makers and analysts. FNC is brilliant at channeling the news through the prism of its editorial vision. Surprisingly, for such a successful news network they're devoid of actual good newscasters/hard journalism types. Brit Hume is retiring and the only other one that is serious with journalism is Chris Wallace. FNC has a small cadre of opinion makers/analysts who are very good distilling the news into the cauldron of conservatism. Most of these people are dye in the wool right wingers who are stringent in their dogma. The main personalities of the network are essentially nothing more then over caffeinated editorialists.
One last thing about FNC. It's a little disturbing how one sided the network is, out of all the main personalities on the network only one is an out and out democrat/liberal and that would be Geraldo Rivera. The other left leaning personality Allan Colmes has decided to leave the network. At least the other two networks have people who go against the grain of the overall editorial policy. Lou Dobbs at CNN and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC. (although Scarborough has softened considerably)
In the end we can't just sit there and hope for unbiased news on TV. The best thing anyone can do is to watch all three networks when it comes to a single topic, read the blogs, read some online editions of newspapers and listen to the radio. A lot of people don't bother to do that and it leads to fragmentation, especially those who watch FNC. I believe I saw a statistic where 80% of FNC viewers use that network alone to shape their opinion on the news. That's pretty disturbing and probably explains some of the tunnel vision that you get with some conservatives. All in all, all three networks have a distinct personality. CNN is middle of the road leaning left and doesn't really have a true identity but is still the best in terms of resources, MSNBC is like a young activist shouting out his/her opinions. The network has created the image of one that's very politics oriented and finally FNC is the brash, somewhat bullyish guy with big opinions and is not afraid to air them.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Posted on December 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM.
Pictured on the left NDP Leader Jack Layton, Liberal leader Stephane Dion and on the far right Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.
************************************************** *************
Just yesterday the unthinkable happened. The Liberals and NDP (New Democrat Party) proposed a coalition government with the backing of the seperatist Bloc Quebecois in order to defeat the minority government of the Conservatives and Stephen Harper. This is a naked act of aggression pure and simple by three bumbling idiots. This wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the bully tactics of one Stephen Harper.
Let me backtrack so you guys can get an idea of what caused this. The Conservatives under Stephen Harper are more or less a bunch of bullies. They've ripped several pages out of Mike Harris' "Common Sense Revolution" in Ontario in the '90s where he won a couple majority governments in the province. The M.O. of Harris' Conservatives was to take no prisoners and go balls to wall with their platform. This caused numerous public sector strikes and such but one has to hand it to Harris, he kept the province economically strong and had a strong set of beliefs.
Harper's main strategist worked with Harris back in the '90s and they've tried to use the same tactics on the national stage. Harper's first minority government was run much like a majority and Harper and his colleagues gained the reputation of being confrontational and hardheaded. In fact, one of the big problems that have dogged the conservatives in recent years have been back benchers and party leaders making crude comments that has made the party look like it's being run by jackasses.
One of the things Harper did in the last election campaign was to soften his approach and he even spoke in conciliatory terms about the other parties. Harper traded in his grey suits for brightly colored sweaters and did photo ops with ordinary Canadians. This approach worked so well that the Conservatives nearly garnered a majority as they picked up more seats then they expected to in Ontario which has historically been Liberal. The Conservatives only needed 12 extra seats to achieve majority status. That's how close they were to securing themselves for the next 5 years.
Sadly, Mr. Harper must've confused himself as he set out to destroy any goodwill he built with the opposition with the talk of working together and consulting each other. The first thing Harper and Co. did was slash government funding of the arts in Quebec which got that province up in arms and pissed off the Bloc. Next thing he does is slash government funding of all the political parties. He probably thought he could get away with it because monetary wise it looked like the Conservatives would lose a ton of funding but the truth is the Conservatives have a huge fundraising operation and it wouldn't really cost them. The Liberals and NDP on the other hand would lose 63 and 57% of their budgets without anything to replace it! The last blunder made by Harper and his cronies was releasing an Economic Update with no consultation with the other parties AND without a stimulus package to boost the economy.
Well, that just about did it....Now you think that would be a great reason to try this coalition but alas the opposition were ALREADY plotting this thing out. There are reports that the candidates for Liberal leadership (Dion led the Liberals to their worst defeat in a century) invited Dion, Layton and Duceppe over to construct this coalition WEEKS AGO!
It's only a convenient excuse that the Conservatives are too bullheaded to put out a stimulus package and this blunder is being used as the key to an overthrow. Now if you think that's bad enough, take a gander at the PR nightmare that is this coalition in waiting. You have a guy who would be interim Prime Minister who can't even speak english properly. The NDP leader is a nutbar whose party is stuck in the 1960s labour mindset and they're being propped up by a party whose main goal is the destruction of confederation!
Already you have people calling into news shows wanting to burn down Quebec because they're of the belief that this is some crazy BQ scheme. Other people are calling in and calling a spade a spade and disowning the Liberal party which for 2+ generations has been THE face of Canada. Finally, you have others cursing out the Governor General who will be faced with the choice of offering the coalition the reigns of power or calling an election if the No Confidence vote succeeds on Monday.
This situation is even graver then the King-Byng affair where PM Mackenzie King was ousted in a similar manner and Arthur Meighen ran the country for 3 months. King ran an election campaign decrying then Governor General Byng duty of overruling the votes of Canadians. That event led to the Liberal Dynasty of the 20th century in many ways. The situation is much more grave here as this would be unprecedented to have 3 parties more or less running the country as one. You have the old East/West and Canada/Quebec divisions flaring up again in much more intemporate ways. Let's just say the scars that will be left behind after this will be around for a long time.
...and all because one man can't play nice. In fact there's also a lot of Canadians that want to see Harper step down as leader of the Conservatives due to what just happened.
It's madness up here! Maybe it's the cold air freezing everyone's brains.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
What a striking cover to a recent issue of TIME magazine. I gotta say I don't know if any politician today can live up to those lofty expectations but Barack Obama is probably the best candidate.
I do like what Obama has done so far in his transition and I have a feeling that it's something FDR would do. It's not surprising given that in the preparations to his inauguration that Obama has been reading books on FDR and his administration. Obama has done some very crafty things such as the recent noon press conferences where he's been addressing the economic issues and what he feels needs to be done. Some may think that's highly egotistical of him but I think it sets a tone for the first 100 days. There has been talk that Obama may very well actually start his administration well before inauguration day.
Some media outlets question the makeup of Obama's cabinet pointing out that most of these people are Clinton era folks, while that may be true I don't think that's a harbinger of things to come. Obama is a very pragmatic and hard nosed politician. I don't think he'll let these people who have tons of experience override what he specifically wants to do. In my humble opinion I think it's a good thing to be surrounded by so many people who have experience and are steady hands at what they're doing. It allows for a smoother transition in that those people will know exactly how to do things and all Obama has to do is lay out policy which they would enact upon.
One last thing that i'm fairly impressed with is Obama's use of technology. He's already done a number of youtube "fireside chats" so to speak and I think this is something long overdue. Let's face it, very few people actually listen to the Presidential Radio Address but I'm willing to bet a lot more will actually watch Obama's speeches. There's also a plan to have other senior admin folks doing their own videos as well. This is not only a great way of utilizing technology but it also allows the Obama Administration's message to be heard and understood not only by Americans but by the entire world.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The other day I watched a fairly interesting Q&A with historian Sean Wilentz about his book titled The Age of Reagan: 1974-2008. It's interesting to see that Wilentz is the first historian to look at Reagan through the eyes of history rather then the patchwork we've seen. We've seen books that verge on hagiography and also works that portray Reagan as a bumbling old man who ascended to the presidency almost by accident. Wilentz opts out of that trap and actually writes something that is serious and well balanced.
Wilentz was asked why it has taken so long for historians to take a deep look at Reagan and he was quite blunt by saying that most historians are to the Liberal Left and therefore held/hold a lot of disdain for Reagan and what he stood for. I found that to be very honest and forthright as you don't see someone saying such a thing about other members of said community.
So what is it that makes Reagan a transformative president and worthy of an Age? Basically Reagan changed the structure of government by the trickle down economics and surprisingly being pragmatic in regards to the Cold War. The subject of the Cold war and Reagan was a big chunk of the Q&A. This is where Reagan gets very complicated. Reagan was interesting in that he may have been a Republican but his rhetoric and speeches harkened back to FDR and JFK. Reagan married the self assurance and measured words of FDR and his fireside chats which is why when most people think of Reagan they think of the kindly grandfatherly president yet Reagan also tried to embody the hope and new frontier "sunny side of life" outlook of JFK.
Reagan, for all his talk of the "Evil Empire" and the arms build up was secretly looking for ways to bring about a peaceful end to the Cold War long before Gorbachev became the leader of the USSR. The one event of the Cold War that shaped Reagan's outlook of the situation was the infamous Able Archer military exercise in 1983. This was a NATO/US military exercise that went overboard and the world was even closer to nuclear confrontation then the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can read more about the Able Archer incident here.
From that point forward Reagan worked hard on ending the Cold War. In fact, Reagan was actually quite frightful of the whole situation that went down with Able Archer and it led to the whole idea and creation of the SDI "Star Wars" program. Wilentz was asked if this was the militarization of space or did Reagan really think it'd work. Wilentz said that as crazy as it may seem Reagan truly believed that SDI would shield the US from any incoming nuclear attack.
One hallmark of Reagan that was discussed was his idealism and not so realistic thinking when it came to issues regarding foreign affairs. It was said that Reagan and Gorbachev laid the groundwork for the end of Communism but the transition from Reagan to Bush the Eler was rocky. The "Realpolitik" of the Northeastern Republican establishment didn't trust Gorbachev at all and it took a while for Bush Sr. to finish what Reagan started.
Reagan carved out an "Age" by the people that came after him. His policies and ways of dealing with government took the Goldwater Conservatism and transformed it into another animal altogether. If you look at the Primary season you'd have seen that all the GOP candidates embodied one aspect or another of Reagan. That being said, the "Age" has run out of steam as the changing of demographics and the new problems of the 21st century has made the Reagan style conservatism moot. Just look at GWB as he came into office espousing many of the ideas and characteristics of Reagan but he took an extreme turn to the right and went far beyond what Reagan would've done. Bush in essence created a hollowed out governmental structure and placed all power to the Executive Office which is something that Reagan would not have done. Reagan was more Co-operative and moderate in his thinking.
All in all it was a fascinating session and i'm glad I watched it as it truly shined a new light on Reagan.
43,811 Forum Posts
44 Blog Entries
453 News/Blog Comments
1 Reader Score Votes
87 Friends
28 Chalkboard Messages
0 Screenshots
0 Videos
15,275 Arena Visits
SPTO's Blog Categories
SPTO's Xbox 360 Gamercard
SPTO's Screenshots (0)
SPTO does not have any albums to display.
More
SPTO's Friends
Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this Arena were:
SPTO's Arena has had 15,275 visits
SPTO's Arena has had 15,275 visits
Working...