I agree with Keith Olbermann (11/15/10) about the dubious value of “objectivity” as a journalistic value; he makes a telling point about how journalistic icons like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are most honored for the moments when they reached conclusions and asserted values.
And I think he’s right that the U.S. media establishment’s failure to see through the lies that sold the Iraq War is a singular failure of our journalistic system—one that does indeed suggest that we need an entirely different system that better serves our democracy.
Olbermann’s MSNBC forerunner, Phil Donahue, was fired in the run up to the war not because he wasn’t neutral enough, after all, but because he would hamper the network’s ability to be “waving the flag” like its competitors (All Your TV, 2/25/03). What NBC and its corporate parent GE were looking for was not objectivity but the right kind of bias.
Which is to say, Olbermann is right that it’s necessary to have journalists who express values and draw conclusions—but not sufficient. We also need to talk about which values our corporate-dominated media system is likely to tolerate, and which conclusions are allowed to be drawn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html
I was disappointed that the above article, the Ted Koppel op-ed that inspired Olbermann’s special comment, was not linked in the post. I’ve included it because I feel the merits of his views stand on their own. In fact, I don’t really feel that the article was much about Olbermann at all, rather than the corporate influence in journalism, similar to the FAIR post on the 12th dealing with MSNBC’s donations. The point that Olbermann took this piece by Koppel as a personal attack, much as he took the Stewart/Colbert rally personally, demonstrates nothing more than his thin skin – the Achilles heel of all demagogues. And I do think Olbermann is a demagogue, although one I may agree with more often than others. He proves this with his allergy to those who disagree with him. Koppel’s point is less about the relative accuracy of one demagogue over another, but about the corporate decision to make journalism into a forum of competitive demagogues.
“failure to see through the lies” ??? You can’t fail at something you don’t try…
Today’s cable and mainstream media are so completely out-of-touch with journalistic reality, that what they “fail” at is seeing they are not really journalists at all, but mere “talking heads, parrots and echo chambers” for the corporate elite who are pulling their strings in exchange for their Warhol of celebrity.
I agree with both Janson Croley and James “Rolin” Stone. Well said.
Am always dissapointed to see people like Janson Croley attack people for doing the same thing he does.
Its obvious Stewart and Koppel believe Olbermann to be part of the establishment.
Stewart came out and said it on Maddows interview with him.
But if Olbermann defends himself from a direct attack by Koppel and an indirect one by Stewart, hes thin skinned?
So I guess if Janson Croley was attacked by somebody he would sit back and shut up?
We all comment on those that mention us in a bad light, its our nature, its the thing of debates.
Its irrelevent if Olbermann didnt hit the exact point Koppel was making because he was taking the oppoertunity to make his own point, which he made eliquently. Hes allowed to do that, not serve Jansons whims and then be called thin skinned.
As for being a demagogue because hes allergic to opposing views?
What does that even mean? Hes allergic by not responding to them? By responding to them at all? By not making his show a serious round table show?
His show is to inform and entertain, get over it. It wont be a serious NPR style discussion forum. It doesnt have to be. They already have those and they need to improve.
Or I just dont get what is meant by his line.
oh, and about Croleys disappointment with a lack of link to Koppels article, if it wasnt obvious, Koppels piece is irrelevent to KOs point and to the point of this blog post, no matter that it set KO off.
You can write your own blog post if you want to respond in praise of Koppel. I am sure I also agree with Koppel in principle, but KO was going after another criticism thrown at him, even if Koppel wasnt the one slinging it this time.
To a certain extent I admire Keith Olbermann. His show tries to expose the right for what they really are. Unfortunatley he has to do it within the confines of a corporate owned company (GE).
His show, like Rachel Maddow’s show, do nothing more than stick their tounge out at the right. Unfortunatley there is not a lot of substance (you have to get up at 5am and listen to programs like “Democracy Now for that).
I admire him for what he is trying to do. But just throwing insults at O’Reilly, Hannity et al, doesn’t really make him any better than they are.
If MSNBC are serious about the news, then why not give Noam Chomsky his own show, or Amy Goodman, or at least interview Dennis Kucinich once in a while.
Olbermann was fired for donating money to democrat candidates. GE has donated over $500,00 to political candidates over the last few years What’s the difference? (Maybe if he’d donated to the Republican party…….).
Paul.
Another diversion. While folks are arguing over who gets to say what, or complaining about getting felt-up by a TSA employee, 101,000 amenable mortalities will occur in the U.S. in 2010, just like what happened in 2009, and just like what will happen in 2011. That’s a death every 5.2 minutes! The reason? Their inability to receive the kind of medical care or drugs needed to stay alive. (As an anecdote. The GOP House member I heard complaining about body scans probably has â┚¬Ã…“nothingâ┚¬Ã‚ to hide, and is fearful of the word getting out.)
Seems to me the universal message should be: peace; jobs; health care; affordable housing; education. Those needs resonate with the working class. Once they are achieved let’s all get behind a new five point message. As my old Pappy used to say, â┚¬Ã…“The working class is a mighty river that loses its strength when it allows itself to be diverted into many rivulets.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Amen Pappy, amen.
It is a long held journalistic axiom that news and opinion can be mixed but that the distinction between the two should always be made clear. Olbermann’s technique is usually to use a hard news story as a lead-in or set-up to opinion commentary. More often than not, it is successful because the distinction is obvious. Someone like Hannity, on the other hand, usually blurs the line by offering opinion as fact “my sources inside the white-house” (what sources?), “some people say” (when in fact, no one said ) or the popular “very reliable sources tell me Obama is unstable” (who are these sources and how would they know?) So, the factual lines are blurred with vagaries and innuendo. For Olbermann, his technique more closely serves the goals of journalistic integrity. For Hannity, his technique more closely serves corporate interests, confuse and divide for market share.
Your old Pappy was a wise man, Rich. Let’s all merge back into the mighty working class river and pass Medicare for All, HR 676. A death every 5.2 minutes from lack of access to our world class health care is wrong. Sick and wrong.
I disagree with you and Keith on this point:
“I think he’s right that the U.S. media establishment’s failure to see through the lies that sold the Iraq War”
When this was going down, I was a knucklehead graphic design student in LA and even _I_ knew that the lies in the run-up to the war in Iraq were pure bull. Not only did knuckle-head-me know it, all of the independent US media knew it, and all of the INTERNATIONAL press knew it. The ENTIRE WORLD was calling bullshit. If the “U.S. media establishment” failed to “see through the lies”, then they would either have to be oblivious to all journalism outside the US as well as all of the independent journalism within the US, or, they would have to be deliberately ignorant. In either case, why listen to them at all? Either they are lying or they’re ignorant.
So, I think the media establishment must have “seen through the lies”, because THE ENTIRE WORLD DID. Anyone who would even try, did, and I can’t believe that the mainstream media, as incestuous as it may be, would completely ignore the US independent media and the media of the whole, entire, rest of the world, when a war is at stake. No, I think they knew exactly what they were ignoring.
THEY KNEW! If some knucklehead graphic design student [me] from LA knew, with credible sources amounting to the entire press establishment of the entire world outside of the mainstream US, then I think it’s safe to say that CNN, The New York Times, FOX, and anyone else you’ld like to mention, KNEW. Kay! En! Ee! Double Yew! KNEW!
I feel like we can’t even begin to discuss what happened to objectivity in US media if we can’t agree on what happened during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Why hasn’t anybody here mentioned the obvious??. Who owns the media? We depend on the very people who would enslave us for our information about our world. What would you expect under those circumstances?…….and as for “journalists”…there are no journalists in America. We have wage earners who are paid to expouse the ideas and opinnions of millionaires and powerful politicians and to help them bamboozle the public. No amount of complaining is going to change this dynamic. The people who are fooled by corporate shills and fox news do not read “FAIR” blogs, know nothing about its existence nor will they be able comprehend what they read here. The solution is to first cure them of their fear and racism, then educate them as to own self interests; then together we can confront the media owning elite.
His show is painful to watch,as is Democracy now.But all power to them.The more in the pool the better.To day your top scientist On Climate change admitted that Global warming is not at all about climate change.It is about redistribution of wealth,and always has been.FOX will Im sure report it and Keith will not.Things happen like this on the other side as well.That is the balance.But you need to watch Beck and Keith to reason it out.That is the homework you must do.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned. And theologians debated how many angels might dance on the head of a pin while Europe rotted. And commenters argued about…
Right lads! Lets parse every demagogue while some of them, many of them indeed, undermine the Republic, spread hate, foment violence, and bring on talk of secession and insurrection. An old proverb says “gearrtar ar dtús an gad is giorra don scÃÂÃ…’rnach:” cut first the garrotte nearest the throat. But what would y’all know about that?
Slytot,
Thank you. I agree. I would like to see, and be part of, a movement that gets as much coverage as the T Party, but stands for unity, common sense, and based on facts, whose goal is to educate. Any idea how we can start something like this. We need a credible leader. (anncn@comcast.net)
DES
A demagogue is someone often whom we disagree with.Someone who we believe undermines the republic.Someone who we believe spreads hate.Forments violence, and brings on talk of secession, and insurrection. Someone as I see it- is exactly like Obama and his party.He is the garrotte!THat is my perception.Yours is very different.And that is the single best thing about this land we live in.WE both have a voice.WIth all the cross currents that produces-it is the best thing about us.
I sympathize with the aims of FAIR’s article, but I do not like the rhetoric with which it begins, calling objectivity a “cult” and declaring that it is of “dubious value.”
Ever since the 1970s, liberals (of whom I am one) have been casually disparaging “objectivity.” I seem to remember that in the old days, they were careful enough to set quotation marks around the word when they critiqued it, so as to indicate that what they meant was really only BAD “objectivity,” and then eventually dispensing with quotation marks altogether.
I believe we liberals need to stop rejecting “objectivity,” even inside quotation marks. Instead, we need to redefine it and embrace it. If we do not, then this term will become what “morality” has become, namely the exclusive rhetorical property of the right. At the same time, by devaluing “objectivity,” we undermine the credibility of information that really is objective, such as the data that seem very conclusively to show that human activity is altering the Earth’s climate.
Here is how I would define REAL (that is, good) objectivity. It is not the absence of subjective feelings or opinions – and I believe it is dishonest of media corporations to require their employees to act as though they had none. Instead, REAL objectivity is the presence of journalistic investigation and research that back up one’s opinions and demonstrate that one’s subjective feelings are not delusional, but have a real-world basis. It is also the journalistic honesty that makes a clear distinction between opinion and fact, to the degree that one can. I believe this definition of REAL objectivity is clear – and clearly favors good journalists, including good opinion journalists, and not the journalistic quackery of FOX “News.”
Reclaiming REAL objectivity for ourselves as liberals would accomplish two things:
(1) take back the term from the right, particularly from those conservatives who are now attacking liberal journalists merely for having subjective feelings and opinions; and
(2) make clear what we are FOR, rather than merely what we are against, so that we liberals do not appear – as so often happens – to be malcontents who are not actually “for” anything.
Please accept the following revision of the second paragraph of my previous post:
Ever since the 1970s, liberals (of whom I am one) have been casually disparaging “objectivity.” I seem to remember that in the old days, they were careful enough to set quotation marks around the word when they critiqued it, so as to indicate that what they meant was really only BAD “objectivity.” More recently, we have too often carelessly dispensed with quotation marks altogether.
Proofreading – another important journalistic virtue!
“A demagogue is someone often whom we disagree with.”
This statement, contributed by a conservative interloper on this thread, demonstrates how easily conservatives can exploit the rhetorical space that we liberals create for them when we disparage “objectivity.” Notice how the word “demagogue” in the above statement is defined without any reference to facts whatsoever; instead, the definition requires only that various opinions exist, which we are obliged either to agree with or disagree with.
Unfortunately, as consumers of increasingly research-free opinion journalism – “infotainment” that offers us less and less “info” all the time – we are increasingly losing our ability to make informed rather than merely reflexive or prejudicial judgements about the opinions of others. The duty of journalists is to inform us. The difference between information and demagoguery is the presence or absence of what I have called REAL objectivity, that is, the presence or absence of real journalistic investigation and research.
The definition of ‘demagogue” in the Oxford Dictionary is a “political leader who tries to win support by using arguments based on emotion rather than reason”. To expand this concept, a demagogue uses journalism to bring across his point of view and bases his “arguments” on lies and phantasy. That would apply to people O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc. to make people believe that which is not so, i.e. Fox “News”. Mr. Croley throws out this slur to Olberman because he is unable to formulate a coherent argument against Mr. Olberman’s logic and straighforwardness. As far as I’m concerned, there is no “Right” and “Left”. Something is either right or wrong. Mr. Olberman distinguishes the one from the other for us by giving us facts and then drawing conclusions. Long life to him.
Did you actually just say logic and straightforwardness in the same sentence as Kieth Olberman?That loon?I just saw his ratings. Compare them to the fellows you named.His logic is falling on deaf ears more and more each day as the conservative juggernaut roles on.And you forgot to include Obama in arguments based on “lies as fantasy.”WHo could ever beat him in that?Or how about the entire Dem party?Loosing pretty badly in the arena of ideas Id say…wouldnt you?Or did you miss the memo on the last election?I think The message was pretty clear.YOU are wrong.WE(tea party conservatives) are right!Long life to Keith(his mouth is our best weapon).Also to Beck ,Hannity, Rush ,and the rest of the conservative patriots.
Olbermann’s MSNBC forerunner, Phil Donahue, was fired in the run up to the war not because he wasn’t neutral enough, after all, but because he would hamper the network’s ability to be “waving the flag” like its competitors (All Your TV, 2/25/03). What NBC and its corporate parent GE were looking for was not objectivity but the right kind of bias.
NBC is owned by GE and they have a number of military contracts which involves Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that Phil was against the Iraq war and that was one of the reasons he was let go.
“To day your top scientist On Climate change admitted that Global warming is not at all about climate change.It is about redistribution of wealth,and always has been.FOX will Im sure report it and Keith will not.”
Will they give a name to “[our] top scientist On Climate change”?
Austin his name is Ottmar Edenhoffer.Co chair of working group 3 on mitigation of climate control.He is an UN-IPCC official.One of the big wigs of the climate change world.I mistakenly called him a scientist.His background is actually an economist.Sorry for that.
As should come as no surprise, that is not at all what Ottmar Edenhofer said. You can read a Google Translated version of his remarks here:
http://bit.ly/aoGf3q
Exactly so, Matt Gilbert. I remember watching Colin Powell’s laughable “proofs” being presented to the UN. By this time, of course, I knew that it would be bought by the major media–the great old liberal, Dan Schorr, called it “stirring,” and wondered how anybody could come away from Powell’s presentation not utterly convinced that Saddam and Iraq needed to attacked, immediately. A sad and outrageous moment for the old journalist Schorr, but I shouldn’t have been surprised that he emerged from the pod.
P.S.: Thanks, Jim, for the non-surprise. I know you’re just doing your job–lucky me, I get to ignore these things.
Mr Edenhoffer is now openly talking about a simple fact.De facto economic policy and global warming are linked.Have always been linked.And the goal is to link them.This is a bombshell.And not what has been spoon fed us.Especially for a science(sic)that is daily taking its lumps and that much of the world(China)has no intention of abiding by.Only a socialist or progressive could read his words without shuddering at there implications.Of course for a progressive and those who believe on some level in one world government this would be the goal at any price.As we have said all along.
If there’s one thing that the rabid right-wing can’t abide its the truth, and that’s what Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’Donnell dish out, day after day. Hopefully, this torrent of truth will soon melt these ignorant haters down to nothing, like water did to the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz.
Michael e; still at it are you? So much BS on so many issues, I am astounded at just how wrong and misinformed you are on the facts in so many topics you are wont to discuss. You cannot help yourself I guess. The right wing distortion machine and FOX not news has you steeped in its ungrasp of the facts. For example, I guess you still believe “Climategate” was proof of wrong doing by the scientists in those stolen(and no one talks about the fact they were stolen, that is ill gotten information by deniers, who were looking to find errors that were not there in order to discredit reality agreed upon by many climate change scientists) emails at Angola. “Climategate” stories have been debunked by no more than three reliable sources, that is, no wrong doing discovered in those emails. And even after the debunking, the AG of Virginia has been after one of those scientists, Mann, to turn over related info about his work at the university there, but the school has declined to provide the info because of Cuccinelli’s disparaging request. The university there does not see any reason to pursue the matter due to the lack of its integrity and has dropped the matter. However, Cuccinelli is still planning to reword the request in order to discredit this scientist. WTF!!
Cuccinelli’s stunt is probably lauded by the right as not allowing people to mislead the public. But they are wrong. It would be pure spin. The Republicans are sore losers, and will do whatever is possible to go around the rules for their ideology, however misleading it is. But they forget that facts can be checked and truth can be discovered.
And so, Michael e., spew on, no one believes you. You are one who is just tolerated in spite of your drivel. I would like to find out if you can post without talking against the dumb Democrats and that crazy undeserving President Obama, and let’s not forget the worst ever, Clinton. Yea, all these non-patriots that you enjoy slicing up with your partisan knife. Can you present reality without the notion that somehow those who are not right wingers also have a viewpoint that is valid, and probably is more in line with truth and reality. Sorry, but I did inject some partisanship there, but you sir, are someone who lurks at websites and posts contrary, not just as a different opinion, but to stir the pot of division. and that takes away from the topic at hand. I have tried to point this out a few times. Yes, you have succeeded, you have gotten under my skin and I know that just makes feel all warm inside.
I will not direct any more posts your way and try to stay on topic.
You’re gettin’ it now, Raymond. Don’t feed the chimps, and they’ll make less noise and piss through the bars less often.
Raymond..I worked for Clinton.He had many faults, but was number one…. QUALIFIED!.Number two… a pragmatist.And number three and four…. was fortunate to be counter weighted by a conservative side car ,and was blessed with more grey matter than the last three presidents put together.So again you read me wrong.
No I do not believe in much of the absolute science(sic) of climate change tied to- future US and world economic policy- tied to political power grabs using those means as much as you do.WE will agree to disagree.AS far as posting contrary opinion?Sir everything on these blogs except for a few exceptions, is in complete lockstep with liberal grog.Anything I write will seem contrary because I am not a liberal pod person who believes this nonsense.And if you think I am alone……you did not see the last election results.And you do not see the shlacking coming your way in a November in the near future.
TIm PETA will be all over your ass for printing something like “Dont feed the chimps”Starving the chimps Tim?PETA has zero sense of humor.Boy oh boy your gonna get it now.And I will try to stop pissing through my bars.But can you really fault me?You were so damn close.
I personally believe the attack on the word “liberal”, is used to under mind free thought and expression. Michael E and others always seem to use it to deride those who have differant thoughts on a subject. Emotional rather than subjective.
As far as Clinton, his embrassing of Nafta, in my opinion, has added to the world order, take-over of us, if you belive in such lofty ideas.
Michael also seems to have a short memory, as far as political results. His facts could be stated the same way, just 2 or 4 years ago, by the “liberal pods” and Dem’s. What’s the point? Their should never be a mandate from the public, as such thought is not a principle of our democracy.
As far as Olberman, his airtime has much more commentary, than news reporting, compared to the old school newscasters, but not as much as all of FoxNews, which I consider the worst for reporting news.
Media personalities all have opinions and we rapidly discover their biases. What we almost never understand are their assumptions and the models of the world which they hold within. That may be because the individuals do not want the assumptions and world models exposed for discussion and debate. Lawyers take apart witnesses in depositions and on the stand because they get behind assertions and opinions. People in the media cannot do it alone. They ought to be subjected to rigorous examination as if in the courtroom and find out what they assume and what their world models are. Then we would have a useful context in which to understand their emphasis and judgments.
Rob I agree with a lot of what you say. Especially people stating what system they espouse.STep up and be counted.The tea party makes no bones about being constitutionally based.I love it.NO smoke and mirrors.Strong core values of limited government. An end to deficit spending.Audit the FEd.etc .Rush and Hannity are Regan conservatives.Obama is….?Obama is….?Well that is a tough nut.He was a huge fan of Saul Alynski and a whole host of radicals,progressives,keneysian economic theorists and yes socialists.THis was going in. Now who knows.MAybe You really don’t want to ask that question of him.
WE deserve to know where our elected officials stand.Not legally but at least morally.WE should all make it important in getting our votes.Of course any cross examination of private citizens is unconstitutional and could never be considered.
MY use of the word liberal reflects the sad hi- jacking of the term by the progressives.And my memory of the last election is that Bush and his Rs moving forward deserved to loose.He was no conservative,and his administration spent like drunken sailors.HE made plenty of mistakes.OBama is a thousand times worse and has shown the horrors of his brand of government.WE in the Tea party will be watching the next up to bat.
Michael e. You really are unaware of self reflection aren’t you? You are not just a different opinion in what you say by not walking in lockstep to this blog and being what you think is a dissenting voice. You, sir are just a contrarian, if I said the sky is blue, you would say, no it’s sea green. You usually cherry pick what you post, create an enemy and then attack that enemy. I welcome conservative views, but it is rare to find one who is moderate in their views. It seems the only conservative view is far right. It is on FOX and the right wing media machine. No middle ground is presented. Step out, be different. But as it stands you are walking lockstep with the likes of Beck FOX and right wing radio. You do not seem to be able to express your views without sarcasm, and disparaging the other person. You don’t seem to realize just how little of a grasp of the facts that you have. I’m sorry for you.
You don’t seem to be able to express yourself without sarcasm and putting down the views of others. FAIR is first and foremost dedicated to exposing the spew of the right, and secondly, the position they take has to do with reality, and a dedication to the facts. I must say again, truth is neither left nor right. The left relies on facts of reality and mostly wants to abide by the truth.
The term left and liberal has been demonized and demoralized for years by the conservatives. Call the MSM liberal and that is supposed to seal any argument. Yep, they’re liberal, so they are obviously biased, not dedicated to the truth, and must be discounted for what they say. left and liberal are loaded words that is meant to stop all discussion and concede to the right wing viewpoint. When in fact, the right is also becoming, not loaded, but definitely a known position for which you can know that what is being said is going to be distorted leading to misinformation and a way to muddy the waters.
We who post here are not liberal pod people either; that is your distorted view. I wish that you would refrain from name calling, pre judging what others say, and generally misapplying what is said. You draw misinformed conclusions and think that you are being astute, but you’re not. And yes, I must agree you are not alone, but don’t be so quick to jump on that bandwagon. The election results do not represent what you seem to think they do. The Republicans like to say they know what the American people want and the elections proved that. They are always talking about the “American people”. But why don’t they do what the people say? The people do not want to extend to the top 2% rax cuts, there are polls that show this. The people would rather spend for unemployment compensation than worry about the deficit. The people want to repeal Don’t ask, don’t tell. The people want to pass the DREAM act. But do they do what the American people want? Hell NO they don’t; to adopt a phrase.
I do wish that you would be less divisive and less emotionally charged.
Doggone, I said I was not going to direct anymore posts to you.
If Chomsky had Olberman’s voice and Amy Goodman had Maddow’s, then infotainment TV might consider hiring them–not that either Chomsky or Goodman would be able to stomach serving under Gen. Electric. Their voices alone make it difficult for even the most ardent leftist or liberal to listen to them–despite the assumed integrity of their message.
Raymond have you sir by any chance seen the constant personal attacks against me.Yes I reply with sarcasm to them… humor and often disgust at the elitist attitudes.My god man Tim N in on a posting called me seventeen seperete crude names.I have been called an anti semite and a zionist… and every name you could think of.What you just wrote is replete with insult.Look at you last sentence.SElf reflection?You must be joking.I have been called uneducated yet I am quite sure my education is better than 99% of those on these blogs.Low IQ ….on and on and on.As I was told by one poster “Michael most of us are socialists ..your kind is not wanted on FAIR”.I think FAIR Has become a home for very like minded people,who see the world from a certain perspective that I am diametrically opposed to.I am a fiscal conservative .Very liberal in my social views.Very educated and experienced in politics from early in childhood as my family has been in politics since then.I worked for Clinton and Nadar and I think my perspective is pretty opened minded on many things…Yet I am not fooled for a moment by what has happened to the Democratic party.You on these blogs spout rhetoric that reeks of the con that has been perpetrated.I simply am giving my view on that con.Watch what i write.See how I state a position and then RESPOND To the onslaught of attacks.Yes it does degrade after that.Lets look at Sarah Palin(not me) as an example.Has she earned her way yet into the big debate ?Will you give her respect to listen to her ideas and vision if she were the nominee for the Republican party and weigh those ideas on their merit?Not for a moment…. Personal attack. Derision. Insult. Mocking- jeering-innuendo.You cant stop yourselves.It is in your DNA.You insult as you breath.When that stops..then things will be less emotionally charged .Polls just in reported that 42% consider themselves conservative.23% Liberal.I just think that 42% should win a place at the table.
Des Nero neither fiddled, or played any stringed instrument, while Rome burned but in fact worked to get he fires out. Unfortunately the myth is so evocative of the nihilistic factor of the dictator that it will be remember over the reality by more for a longer time.
Such numbers of “conservative” and “liberal” and “I don’t care” are interesting but too simplistic unless you can link me to the site so I can see the questions asked and their methodolgy. But they could be true. Germany had been prepped for decades for close mindedness, violence, intolerance and worship of the state and self. The self as intelligent even as they derided the educated. We saw that it was fertile soil for National Socialism but it could have easily have been Stalinist Communism for all of its despotism and exuberance of the military and violence. We have many of the same conditions today in our own country, ripe for despotism.
Tittman
Im a little confused if you are advocating al JAZEERA as a news organization that can be trusted to bring good honest information to those who rely on them.