bmags

people don't want objective news. Everyone conservative wants a cheering section for conservative viewpoints. Every liberal in here wants the cheering section for the progressive viewpoints. And neither one of us see's the news as being objective or on our side. Isn't that the funny part, that no one is right. And everyone is losing. News is worse now, and it is worse for no reasons that contain liberal or conservative. They're delusional grasp to maintain 20% profits has them cutting content and creates awful news. There isn't money to do long term investigations and to have your own data collecting. Luckily Lexis/Nexis is helping many make due. In reality, news is going to be progressive. They need to cover the uncovered, the less fortuned, and the corrupt. And great stories cover everything, and give sympathy to the unsympathetic. That's the history of news since the penny print. That has nothing to do with politics. And politics are what everyone is talking about. You can't put out a positive article on Obama without being in awe of him, you can't put out a negative article on Obama without being a republican hit job. And the result is news that just covers reactions. Everyone covers the media, and no one claims to be the media. The articles talk about how what a candidate says will be perceived by a group of people, and not how what a candidate will affect a group of people. Talking about what a candidates policies will actually do will lead to claims of bias. But the NY Times news is biased. You don't need proof. It's been said. And if it's been said it's true. That's news in 2008. The NY Times has had an awful decade. Judy Miller's mouth piece for the Iraq war, falling off of investigative reporting and foreign affairs, and the McCain innuendo story in Feb. (a pretty direct affect of the price restrictions of a newspaper). (Edit: add their despicable coverage of Duke Lacrosse) I think all of those I can attribute to something tangible (except lacrosse). I think they've picked up pretty well. For instance, this weekend, they resisted printing Maliki's Obama stance right away because it was merely hinted(by CentCom) that it was a misquote, mistranslation. They held off and got their own translation and found it was accurate. While initially criticized by left blogs, they affirmed for everyone that this was an undeniable quote by Maliki. They've done excellent stories about McCain and his son, McCain and his career, Obama and his mother, Obama and his neighborhood organizer years, McCain v. Obama taxplan. But that doesn't matter, because the NY Times is liberal because it is said they are. And make no mistake about it, it is because of their editorial staff. Just like it is said the Tribune is conservative because of their editorial staff. The editorial staff and news staff doesn't even see each other much, if at all, during the day. The WSJ, completely conservative editorial staff, has had great coverage of the presidential candidates. There are differences, If you were to take 1000 papers you'd find probably find them a few articles difference in pos./neg. coverage of candidates, but not enough to be significant. Not enough to skew a regular reader's minds. And that's the problem with cable news, which probably defines, whether we like it our not, how we think of the media covering elections. And cable news is all editorial. There's no analysis, they just have surrogate one and surrogate two. And youtube vid #1 and youtube vid #2. And then cut to a video of a helicopter crash in Boomer, Montana that has no value to democracy. So this media bias is stupid. This is not an example of media bias. This is the news we've all created. So enjoy it. And memo to McCain, don't mistake less coverage with unfavorable coverage. If you were covered as much as Obama, you'd be in more trouble than you already are. And Jackie Hayes, no I don't think Obama came out with anything new. It was more nuanced and better written. The border problems and explanations of Shia differences in the region were educational and heighted political dialogue. McCains was more general. He could've said the same thing in a better way and it would've ran. Framing is everything. He should just get better writers.

ay, they didn't say, Make your opinions more like Obama's, they wanted the content to (repeated ad nauseum, they wanted the definitive McCain Foreign Policy piece) be like Obama's (because Obama's in every way was his policy for the middle east. Had little to do with McCain besides clarifying their two positions). In other words, they didn't want to know why Obama was wrong, they wanted to know what McCain tried to do. So we are criticising the times for wanting a higher level of discourse. In Obama's piece, McCain was mentioned 4 times, in the intro and conclusion paragraphs, in McCain's piece, Obama or the pronoun "He"-which refers to Obama in the context, was used 11 times - in every paragraph except one. So they wanted a new draft. Boo hoo.

Right, because the NY Times leaked that they rejected McCain to seem really cool, I mean, they're so big they don't even NEED presidential candidates editorials. Hop on the cool kid's subscription bus! I didn't miss it. You saying that wouldn't it suck for you to edit balta's post are nothing remotely similar to the situation. At a newspaper there are editors and there are reporters and there are columnists and then theres the sports/arts/what have you. When you write a story, you take it to your editor, she/he will tell you what they think you are missing, where a better framing might be. AFter it's approved, it gets edited for copy and fact checked. In editorials, it's a little stranger. There are some regular contributors, but the also take on outside editorials from different papers on the wire and what have you. Then they'll also have guest editorials, sometimes from political players. Recently I had to copy a piece from a local official. The thing was really almost completely copied from their web site. We went through 4 drafts. It was annoying. He didn't go public about how unfair we were being. In my last, repeated statement I will say: This wasn't about bias. This was about selling papers. McCain has been pushing these talking points every where. They wanted an exclusive. McCain apparently doesn't want to clarify their positions, because it's much easier to say, No Surrender. Victory. Stay the course. Surge Surge. Obama (socialist) Inexperienced. Ba, what? Um, No, don't ask those questions. You do not ask those questions to John McCain!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) Length is not what the NYT was trying to change. They were trying to get McCain to change what he wrote. There is a big difference there. I don't think you would be happy if all of the sudden I started making it so that I had to approve your posts, based on the changes I suggested, and let other people's fly by. Who knows what the true reasons are, but it doesn't look good when you start forcing changes in people's writing. In some parts of the country they call that censorship. Give me a break. A privately owned newspaper asking for a different draft for an editorial that could have huge impact on how much papers they sell is not akin to censorship in any way, shape, or fashion. And, balta said length, CONTENT. Yet you focused solely on length for some reason. And comparing a message board to a newspaper is just completely out there. It's like comparing cooking shake n bake at home to working as a cook in a Chef's restaurant.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 04:51 PM) Which isn't any better to me. If they are going to publish editorials, the writer of them, not the editor, needs to decide what his message and relative content will be. Forcing changes in that, changes the authors message. If they wanted to have something specific to print, they should have just written it themselves and put their own name on it. Like I said, they wanted money. And they wanted to scoop. If McCain would've said, this is my copy, if you want I'll take it to the WPost and I'm sure they'll gladly take it, NY Times probably would've backed down. But, like I said they wanted "how I'll win Iraq", instead they got "talking points by John McCain". Especially with all that was happening that weekend I'm not surprised they wanted a better editorial. It wasn't much more than Obama and a bunch of glittering generalities.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) That's sort of irrelevant to the fact that Obama ran a piece, on the same subject, and McCain's was rejected. Unless McCain's letter clearly violated some rules of the paper (like it was full of expletives, or revealed state secrets, or whatever), then this is B.S. journalism. The editorial board should be ashamed. There's a big difference between rejected and revising. Rejected would be refusing to publish anything from McCain. Revising is what most everyone does. And when you are going to get a big spread in the Sunday edition of the NY TIMES, yeah, you might have a few drafts.

Is this sarcasm?

the republican thread also is carrying this dialogue btw.

First, the editorials are a different staff than the hard news portions of papers. And two, in my opinion, this was the NY Times wanting to out Scoop everyone. They got Obama's definitive Middle East positions before his speech exclusively, and got mucho coverage for it. They wanted the same from McCain. McCain's editorial wasn't much different from what he says on TV, so it wouldn't have been big news, and when I say this, I'm saying it's not much different because of the way it is structured/the way it is said. The Times is looking for the "Why we are going to win Iraq by: John McCain". Big, Bold, huge talking point for every media, and they'll all have to say : McCain's editorial in the NY Times today. I come to these conclusions due to the editor clearly wanting another draft from McCain. I understand the perceiving this as favoritism, from the ill-worded "what are your troop withdrawel timetables", but I can also see how the Times just wants to sell some papers by outscooping everyone. They are one of the big news outlets who are doing well with their web site, and out scooping everyone at a national level helps immensely. And further, I'd love for the responses to my query letters to editors to come back so polite and explained. Perks of being a Presidential candidate.

Sounds excellent! I'll read the journal when I have the chance.

see here's the thing, as someone said, and why I laugh at when some people argument about who is good and bad in the nfl so adamently, every year the opposite happens of what everyone expects except for a few AFC teams. Sure, the cowboys will probably be good this year. BUt besides that, I wouldn't put a guarantee on any team.

no. Super hero movies sure to bring in big bucks. I suppose they won't know the difference though and soon we get to see great ones like Capt. America and ...Thor.

god, more proof how stupid america is, space chimps is in 7th place. People here just aren't ready for good cinema. /green.

QUOTE (ChWRoCk2 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 05:14 AM) So, I need some help: My hard drive crashed just the other day. Obviously, lost all of my music on my computer (9000+ songs). On the positive side I have an iPod with basically all the songs I listen to on it. My question is do any of you know a program where I can take music off of my iPod and put it into iTunes free of charge? I know there are programs you can use to do this but the ones I have found require a payment which I'd rather not do. iRip used to give a 15 day trial but I think it's been taken down since. Download.com used to have it. So if you had this problem in 05, i'd have been great help.

the joker was the only batman villain that i've loved on film. But hell, I guess if I had to choose I'd take riddler.

I hope what batman learns is to not fall into the trap in, while trying to top the previous movies, they add too many villains. I know the thinking behind it, but the story becomes to convoluted and moves too slow.

I saw it today. Then I finally read all the black script in here.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jul 19, 2008 -> 07:10 PM) Have the people that made that list ever been to Aurora? hey watch it soxy, you're talking about the city of lights here. this is in that sardonic tone.

I think Columbia, MO is an awesome town. But yay, Naperville/Aurora...I am awesome.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 11:26 PM) My brother was telling me after the Cubs sweep, that week was unbearable with all the people in his face talking all that hot s***, but the next week after the Sox sweep they were nowhere to be found, and he had to track down some people because they were avoiding him. lol. haha that's hilarious.

why would cubs fans be under sui watch, they've made their entire marketing scheme after being losers (but FUN LOSERS!!)

i couldn't help but laughing ... but seriously what trash.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 08:22 PM) More importantly, if I was spending 33% of my work time looking for another job, would I get fired? Probably, and with good reason. Its the boss that's important here - which for a Senator, is their constituency. Running for President is a full time job. If I told my boss, "hey, I am going to go try to get another job, so I'll only be around here on occasion", how do you think that will go over? Well, your job is not a U.S. Senator. If during his term in office, and he never ran for President, he went and had a diplomatic trip to different countries around the world to promote U.S. interests, but during that trip misses say, 25 inconsequential votes, did he not do his job? Well, he is representing you as a U.S. citizen, but not as an Illinoisian, so is his job only to represent your interests? Well, by running for President of the United States, he is representing the citizens of Illinois, he won by nearly 50 points in 04, and is ahead by a large majority with the same type of policies he intends to implement as presidency, so is he not serving your interests as he runs for president? He is. He is agenda-setting currently and pushing policies that won him his senate seat in Illinois to national conversation. And while he is running for president. Staffs of hundreds are reading each bill and writing bills and writing recommendations to the Barack Obama on how to vote and what the conditions of the vote will be. He is reading constituent mail and having responses, even if written by an aide. He has offices in Illinois to help consitutuents with a number of things, academy recommendations, governmental problems, accomplishments. So during this campaign, he is pushing many ideals of Illinois voters to a national forefront, making it to close votes, having his staff work with constituents at home and staying in touch with their concerns or suggestions. Yet because he will miss 30% of his votes, largely without consequence as to the nature of the senate, he should step down? I would argue that Obama running for president are doing more for their state than Durbin is currently. Is this situation comparable to your work?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:22 PM) Again, you are off on the wrong track here. That is not why they need to vote. They need to vote to represent the interests of their constituents. as a US senator your interests should be two fold, you bring with you the knowledge of how it affects your constituents, but you are also there to serve the people of the United States. Running for president accomplishes the latter and the former.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:21 PM) This is the same argument I hear people make who don't care enough to vote for elected officials. They say their vote doesn't matter. Well, if everyone took that stance, then we wouldn't have a democracy anymore. And in the case of a Senator, the argument is much, much more hollow. There are only 100 of them, and they are PAID and ELECTED to vote on issues. If they don't do that the great majority of the time, then they are quite simply failing their constituents. It absolutely matters, more than any other single thing they do. First off, no it's not the same argument. Correct, and for the vast majority of McCain's senatorial career and majority of Obama's, they were there to vote, and draft legislation. BUt during campaigns, it has been accepted that candidates can spend prior months to a big election (say, a presidential one) on campaigning. This is due to the logic that with 98 other senators, the majority of housekeeping will still be getting done, and the importance of the future of the congress, country, party is dependent on the ability of the new candidate to run. If they need the candidate, then the candidate will come back, and make an informed decision on that bill that was probably a staple of their campaign anyways. So, in conclusion, whether or not a senator running for president is there whether to hang a flag over the capitol for Secretary's day will not affect congress. So no, your government, your senators are not failing you by campaigning for higher office. It doesn't matter, no matter how much that might shock. Much like how when your governor could be running for president, the state doesn't fall into a quagmire with legislation all piled up on the executives desk without anyone to pass it.