The major media does have a huge problem, but that problem is definitely not liberal bias. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN do not show favoritism for liberals, much less have it in for conservatives.
Add to that, you have Fox News with it's slogans "Fair and Balanced", "We Report, You Decide". This is problematic in two ways. Not only is Fox News not fair and balanced - just look up Media Matters on any given day and you'll see this clearly - the very premises behind these slogans are seriously flawed.
Sometimes it's just as telling what is not said as what is said. And it's telling to me that Fox does not allude to accuracy or being accurate in any of its advertising. Good journalism demands, first and foremost, accuracy, and sometimes, that means not being balanced. It means not constantly bending over backwards to make sure some of those you report on don't cry "Unfair! You're biased!" Does this mean I'm advocating that journalists do nothing but 'hit pieces' on people they don't like? Of course not. I am saying that too often media, in its zeal to be 'objective', 'neutral' and 'unbiased', sacrifices real objectivity, and, as a result, accuracy is the first casualty.
Just displaying everything that anybody can possibly say about a subject, then telling your audience "You decide" is not good journalism. It's stenography. Please stop with this notion that on any given issue, each side has equally or similarly compelling cases to make. The truth does not always lie somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one party is right and the other is wrong. Sometimes one side has facts, and ample anecdotal evidence to back up its case, while the other relies on spin, distortions, and half-truths to make its case. Good journalism will point this out. It will not play the phony neutrality game.
If John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and others got together to hold a press conference asking "How do you know the earth isn't flat?", would 'fair and balanced' reporting require a headline such as "Earth's shape in question" with the first sentence above the fold reading "Experts for years claimed it to be an irregular sphere, but this theory now has many critics"? Absolutely not! The shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion, but scientific fact. Anyone who denies this is grossly ignorant and/or a crackpot. But, in the parallel universe that demands 'fair and balanced' on everything, the assertions of flat earthers must be seen as equally compelling to the consensus of scientists who devote their lives to studying the topic. And no written or broadcast material is ever to refer to flat earthers as "crackpots" because that is 'unfair', 'unbalanced' and, of course BIASED!
Well, of course it is. Good journalism has a bias. A bias for accuracy and truth. The flat earth example is obviously not something that has happened in the media, but this is where I'm using an absurd example to make a larger point. Many of the big-time media outlets handle issues of great importance this way. And the problem isn't limited to Fox and right-wing AM radio - though they poison the information environment in their own ways. Just watch any Sunday morning interview/roundtable show, and you'll see, time and time again, conservatives make outlandish assertions without being challenged. It's more than that, though. To put the lie to the idea of 'dominant liberal media bias' - on the issue of health care reform, when was the last time you heard an advocate of single payer national health insurance on a major news outlet? When was the last time you heard a serious critic of our nation's militaristic foreign policy? Not just question a particular aspect of our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, but question our military presence in practically every nook and cranny of the globe? When was the last time you heard a call for a return to protectionist trade policies?
The answer is that those who advocate for such things are almost completely sidelined on the Sunday morning shows, and other major outlets. Liberal bias, my ass! The bias is towards misinfo-opinio-tainment (yes, I made that one up). The large media is owned by six large corporations. Do you seriously think that media personalities in their employ are going to challenge corporate power? They'll allow liberalism on their shows, but only a 'respectable' kind - one that doesn't talk back to power. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are well-known and given prime time slots on MSNBC, but those shows won't ever have the gravitas of Meet the Press, This Week, or Face the Nation. And it will be a cold day in hell before independent progressives like Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Marc Steiner, David Sirota, and the like are given a platform on the outlets deemed 'important'.
So, if you want to actually be informed, Olbermann and Maddow are nice, but that's because they rely on sources that actually do the business of journalism. If you want real news, independent outlets, whether on TV (Free Speech TV and Link TV are a couple of examples) on the web, or in print, are highly recommended. You won't get it from the 'bubble headed bleach blond that comes on at 5' as the Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry" put it.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Do I have to take a hard-line stance one way or the other?
Here I'm asking the question on whether or not there should be a playoff tournament for FBS college football (formerly known as Division 1-A, or major college football). My stance: I'm provisionally in favor of it.
Frankly many arguments put forth by the anti-playoff contingent are vapid. Their main argument seems to be that college football has the best regular season in all of sports, and a playoff would just ruin it. One thing they state is that many historically significant regular season games, such as Texas-Arkansas in 1969, USC-UCLA in 1967, Oklahoma-Nebraska in 1987, Michigan-Ohio State in 2006, etc. would lose their luster if we had a playoff. The sense of urgency just wouldn't be there. Maybe they're right about that, but if that happens I frankly wouldn't mourn that loss. Their primary stance is "we already have a playoff. It's called the regular season."
That is pure sophistry. The regular season isn't a playoff. It's more like a combination of a months-long beauty pageant, elimination-style reality TV, and a caste system. Each year about 10 or so teams are anointed as national championship contenders. If those teams turn out to be the best, great! Those teams can certainly lose their anointing with a defeat or two. The problem is, the rest have to work many times as hard to impress the intelligentsia. And if you're not from one of the Big 6 conferences - SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10 or Big East - some voters will give you no shot. There's absolutely nothing you can do to make some voters consider you worthy of being considered one of the top two teams. Some state this openly. Take TCU. The same arguments come up every year. Those teams (this year TCU) play in a weak conference, hence weak schedules, and therefore don't deserve squat. Colin Cowherd actually put it in those exact words: "The little guy doesn't deserve squat!" Had Boise State not lost to Nevada, many would still insist on denying them anything. Don't you see, programs like Boise State and TCU just shouldn't get uppity and need to learn not to forget their place. Then they'll say: there's no way those teams would be undefeated in a conference like the SEC. Maybe not, but are you so sure they'd never fare any better than the middle of their conference? Are you absolutely certain BSU or TCU would get eaten alive in the SEC and finish just slightly ahead of Vanderbilt and Tennessee?
Another argument they trot out is that if we went to a playoff, bowl games would be less meaningful. First of all, many of the pre-New Year's Day bowl games now (and some on or after) don't attract much buzz outside of the participating schools. Who right now arranges their entire schedule around the Insight Bowl or Alamo Bowl? Also keep in mind that playoff proponents usually don't advocate ending these bowl games. Many, myself included, see the value in those games. Players get a chance to do more team bonding, do some sight-seeing, community service, and end their season on a high note. There's no reason why a playoff tournament and bowls for those who don't make it can't co-exist.
Another bit of sophistry is this faux concern about academics. The FCS plus Divisions II, III and the NAIA have a playoff system. Where's your concern over academics for those players? They play 3 or 4 postseason games before a champion is crowned. And this after at least 10 regular season games, so spare me your crocodile tears.
The problematic part is figuring out what kind of system to have. I haven't yet come up with a conclusive opinion on this, hence my provisional support for a playoff.What I don't want to see is a system that's great for us who sit on our couches at home, guzzling beer and stuffing ourselves with munchies but economically infeasible and logistically nightmarish for students, parents and alumni who want to go to the games. Maybe their should be no more than two rounds at neutral sites. Making arrangements to attend one bowl game is problematic enough. Please don't compound that problem any more than what's absolutely unavoidable. If you do proceed to implement a playoff, proceed thoughtfully.
Frankly many arguments put forth by the anti-playoff contingent are vapid. Their main argument seems to be that college football has the best regular season in all of sports, and a playoff would just ruin it. One thing they state is that many historically significant regular season games, such as Texas-Arkansas in 1969, USC-UCLA in 1967, Oklahoma-Nebraska in 1987, Michigan-Ohio State in 2006, etc. would lose their luster if we had a playoff. The sense of urgency just wouldn't be there. Maybe they're right about that, but if that happens I frankly wouldn't mourn that loss. Their primary stance is "we already have a playoff. It's called the regular season."
That is pure sophistry. The regular season isn't a playoff. It's more like a combination of a months-long beauty pageant, elimination-style reality TV, and a caste system. Each year about 10 or so teams are anointed as national championship contenders. If those teams turn out to be the best, great! Those teams can certainly lose their anointing with a defeat or two. The problem is, the rest have to work many times as hard to impress the intelligentsia. And if you're not from one of the Big 6 conferences - SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10 or Big East - some voters will give you no shot. There's absolutely nothing you can do to make some voters consider you worthy of being considered one of the top two teams. Some state this openly. Take TCU. The same arguments come up every year. Those teams (this year TCU) play in a weak conference, hence weak schedules, and therefore don't deserve squat. Colin Cowherd actually put it in those exact words: "The little guy doesn't deserve squat!" Had Boise State not lost to Nevada, many would still insist on denying them anything. Don't you see, programs like Boise State and TCU just shouldn't get uppity and need to learn not to forget their place. Then they'll say: there's no way those teams would be undefeated in a conference like the SEC. Maybe not, but are you so sure they'd never fare any better than the middle of their conference? Are you absolutely certain BSU or TCU would get eaten alive in the SEC and finish just slightly ahead of Vanderbilt and Tennessee?
Another argument they trot out is that if we went to a playoff, bowl games would be less meaningful. First of all, many of the pre-New Year's Day bowl games now (and some on or after) don't attract much buzz outside of the participating schools. Who right now arranges their entire schedule around the Insight Bowl or Alamo Bowl? Also keep in mind that playoff proponents usually don't advocate ending these bowl games. Many, myself included, see the value in those games. Players get a chance to do more team bonding, do some sight-seeing, community service, and end their season on a high note. There's no reason why a playoff tournament and bowls for those who don't make it can't co-exist.
Another bit of sophistry is this faux concern about academics. The FCS plus Divisions II, III and the NAIA have a playoff system. Where's your concern over academics for those players? They play 3 or 4 postseason games before a champion is crowned. And this after at least 10 regular season games, so spare me your crocodile tears.
The problematic part is figuring out what kind of system to have. I haven't yet come up with a conclusive opinion on this, hence my provisional support for a playoff.What I don't want to see is a system that's great for us who sit on our couches at home, guzzling beer and stuffing ourselves with munchies but economically infeasible and logistically nightmarish for students, parents and alumni who want to go to the games. Maybe their should be no more than two rounds at neutral sites. Making arrangements to attend one bowl game is problematic enough. Please don't compound that problem any more than what's absolutely unavoidable. If you do proceed to implement a playoff, proceed thoughtfully.
What persuades people?
I love to discuss ideas. I love thinking about and refining ideas, and learning from others with great ideas. I like the finer points of debate. Not a poo-flinging, pissing contest, but a robust exchange of ideas where each party makes their case but shows a willingness to learn and create more understanding. It's healthy for our political environment, and I think it's a plus for human relations in general.
I'll be honest. I wish more people thought the way I do. And I would get a lot of satisfaction seeing someone come around to my way of thinking. That said, I've found it best to set realistic expectations when it comes to that sort of thing. I used to be hard-right politically and an evangelical Christian. To be fair, some of what changed that was seeing or hearing arguments that blew my assumptions out of the water. But that was far from the main catalyst.
Many people are largely products of their own experiences. Not long after I got out on my own the evangelical Christian worldview just didn't make sense any more, then some time after that atheism - just concluding there's no good reason to believe in any gods until solid evidence or strong logical arguments for them - made the most sense to me. Even after I stopped with the evangelical thing, I still had a kind of absolute belief that people make their own luck and each of us needs to just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
After moving back to my home state and losing jobs twice in a relatively short span, my previous assumptions about self-reliance and rugged individualism started to dissipate as well. I then saw the value of a strong social safety net. My resolve to never accept any form of public assistance started to appear to me like nothing more than grandstanding once I saw that stubbornly keeping that stance wouldn't just effect me, but my spouse too. Being at jobs where the employee base isn't predominately white made me see some of my own ignorance as well.
I see so many people cling to conservative beliefs on economic and social issues, and a great deal of these folks are ones who are themselves hurting. So it often mystifies me that those people seemingly refuse to see what's staring them in the face but continue to swallow the lies such as "trickle-down economics" or the lie that the key to prosperity is to let the "free market" to its own devices. But then I have to remember that I let go of those notions only after first stubbornly clinging to those myself.
The last thing I want is for people to experience a crisis that threatens their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. I don't even want hard-core conservatives to face that. Especially when children are involved. On the other hand, I wonder if it may take something like that to look at issues like taxes, economic stimulus, health care reform, etc. a little differently. In many cases I'll have to accept that I can argue my perspective until I'm blue in the face (and will sometimes continue to do so), but people often come to different conclusions on their own. We can only make our own points so much, but then at some point need to let go and allow others to make their own conclusions. We'll have to accept that if people come around, they'll do it more or less on their own terms. I'll have to accept that experience is often the greatest teacher for others as well as me.
The same thing applies when it comes to the question of religion and gods. Again, I won't hide the fact that I wish fewer people believed in gods. But I've come to accept that it's OK to argue your point on this as well, but after that, let people have their own opinions. And I'd rather people first develop the habits of critical thinking, the habits of questioning their own assumptions as well as what they're told by people they trust. I have no delusions that me making one argument against a particular religious belief will cause someone to say "Oh! How could I have been such a fool?! Now I see that there's no good reason to believe in God. I'm atheist now." There's even a good chance that if it happens that way they're doing it all wrong.
What I do hope to accomplish, in the short term, by expressing my ideas, is to challenge assumptions. To get people to be willing to question their own assumptions (just as I need to be willing to question mine), to sometimes be willing to soften their stances. This holds true regardless of the subject matter.
I'll be honest. I wish more people thought the way I do. And I would get a lot of satisfaction seeing someone come around to my way of thinking. That said, I've found it best to set realistic expectations when it comes to that sort of thing. I used to be hard-right politically and an evangelical Christian. To be fair, some of what changed that was seeing or hearing arguments that blew my assumptions out of the water. But that was far from the main catalyst.
Many people are largely products of their own experiences. Not long after I got out on my own the evangelical Christian worldview just didn't make sense any more, then some time after that atheism - just concluding there's no good reason to believe in any gods until solid evidence or strong logical arguments for them - made the most sense to me. Even after I stopped with the evangelical thing, I still had a kind of absolute belief that people make their own luck and each of us needs to just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
After moving back to my home state and losing jobs twice in a relatively short span, my previous assumptions about self-reliance and rugged individualism started to dissipate as well. I then saw the value of a strong social safety net. My resolve to never accept any form of public assistance started to appear to me like nothing more than grandstanding once I saw that stubbornly keeping that stance wouldn't just effect me, but my spouse too. Being at jobs where the employee base isn't predominately white made me see some of my own ignorance as well.
I see so many people cling to conservative beliefs on economic and social issues, and a great deal of these folks are ones who are themselves hurting. So it often mystifies me that those people seemingly refuse to see what's staring them in the face but continue to swallow the lies such as "trickle-down economics" or the lie that the key to prosperity is to let the "free market" to its own devices. But then I have to remember that I let go of those notions only after first stubbornly clinging to those myself.
The last thing I want is for people to experience a crisis that threatens their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. I don't even want hard-core conservatives to face that. Especially when children are involved. On the other hand, I wonder if it may take something like that to look at issues like taxes, economic stimulus, health care reform, etc. a little differently. In many cases I'll have to accept that I can argue my perspective until I'm blue in the face (and will sometimes continue to do so), but people often come to different conclusions on their own. We can only make our own points so much, but then at some point need to let go and allow others to make their own conclusions. We'll have to accept that if people come around, they'll do it more or less on their own terms. I'll have to accept that experience is often the greatest teacher for others as well as me.
The same thing applies when it comes to the question of religion and gods. Again, I won't hide the fact that I wish fewer people believed in gods. But I've come to accept that it's OK to argue your point on this as well, but after that, let people have their own opinions. And I'd rather people first develop the habits of critical thinking, the habits of questioning their own assumptions as well as what they're told by people they trust. I have no delusions that me making one argument against a particular religious belief will cause someone to say "Oh! How could I have been such a fool?! Now I see that there's no good reason to believe in God. I'm atheist now." There's even a good chance that if it happens that way they're doing it all wrong.
What I do hope to accomplish, in the short term, by expressing my ideas, is to challenge assumptions. To get people to be willing to question their own assumptions (just as I need to be willing to question mine), to sometimes be willing to soften their stances. This holds true regardless of the subject matter.
Back to Obama and his capitulations
My last entry was cross posted as a Daily Kos diary. It only received 4 comments (no biggie) but one struck me. The commenter wrote:
The commenter was challenging this from me: "The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure."
But that comment illustrated my point perfectly. At the first sign of stiff opposition, Obama goes into capitulation mode. He shows no willingness to force the other side's hand. Good negotiation requires you to be willing to concede a little, but not to take your key principles off of the table before serious discussions even begin. Aren't at least some of your values worth fighting for? Did any of us expect the opposition to say "OK, Democrats. You're the majority. Have your way"?
This of course, doesn't just speak to his handling of the health insurance issue, but now, the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts. And when push comes to shove, President Obama shows where his priorities seem to be. Get tough with your base for being "sanctimonious purists" and "whiners". But don't bother showing any intestinal fortitude when dealing with Republicans. All the while act like you've accomplished some great victory. I'm not even sure it's appropriate to call it a pyrrhic victory. A very similar thing happened as the health care bill was finalizing. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich threatened to vote against the bill on principle due to it not being nearly strong enough reform. Instead of Obama pressuring Republicans to make some concessions - after all, Democrats had majorities in both houses, he went to Kucinich's district in order to pressure him to vote for the bill which mandates that all have health insurance, but mandates everyone be a customer of a private, for-profit company. Kucinich eventually agreed, but it shows once again Obama's unwillingness to stand by anything he campaigned on.
I have zero evidence of this, and suggesting this is, I fully acknowledge, nothing more than wild speculation. But often I can't help but wonder if some folks got a hold of President Obama some time back, and told him, more or less "If you know what's good for you, you'll remember which side your bread is buttered on. You forget this to your peril. In fact, if you do forget this, being a one-term President will be the least of your worries." Or, as I saw from another comment, did some people get a hold of him and ask "How much do you really want to be like JFK?"
"I believe that the PO was traded away early on, and that pretty much anyone in the room knew that insurance companies would have blitzed with an ad campaign that would have stopped the entire process cold. That's a really cynical view, I fully realize. The deal with pharma was about stopping that special interest (one with plenty of ready cash on hand as well, due to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004) to throw in with the opposition as well. It's exactly why they were invited to the table, while others trying to make the case for any government run health insurance plan at all were pointedly kept out. (Somewhere in the dkos archives, I believe, that little episode is documented.)
In other words, the politics of the thing was just as important a consideration throughout as the policy. There were several lines that policymakers dared not cross, and that compromised the entire notion of reform. Which is why I get so very annoyed by anyone here trying to make me believe that PPACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Too late now to change anything, and we're stuck with very pricey RomneyCare for all."
The commenter was challenging this from me: "The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure."
But that comment illustrated my point perfectly. At the first sign of stiff opposition, Obama goes into capitulation mode. He shows no willingness to force the other side's hand. Good negotiation requires you to be willing to concede a little, but not to take your key principles off of the table before serious discussions even begin. Aren't at least some of your values worth fighting for? Did any of us expect the opposition to say "OK, Democrats. You're the majority. Have your way"?
This of course, doesn't just speak to his handling of the health insurance issue, but now, the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts. And when push comes to shove, President Obama shows where his priorities seem to be. Get tough with your base for being "sanctimonious purists" and "whiners". But don't bother showing any intestinal fortitude when dealing with Republicans. All the while act like you've accomplished some great victory. I'm not even sure it's appropriate to call it a pyrrhic victory. A very similar thing happened as the health care bill was finalizing. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich threatened to vote against the bill on principle due to it not being nearly strong enough reform. Instead of Obama pressuring Republicans to make some concessions - after all, Democrats had majorities in both houses, he went to Kucinich's district in order to pressure him to vote for the bill which mandates that all have health insurance, but mandates everyone be a customer of a private, for-profit company. Kucinich eventually agreed, but it shows once again Obama's unwillingness to stand by anything he campaigned on.
I have zero evidence of this, and suggesting this is, I fully acknowledge, nothing more than wild speculation. But often I can't help but wonder if some folks got a hold of President Obama some time back, and told him, more or less "If you know what's good for you, you'll remember which side your bread is buttered on. You forget this to your peril. In fact, if you do forget this, being a one-term President will be the least of your worries." Or, as I saw from another comment, did some people get a hold of him and ask "How much do you really want to be like JFK?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)