A Blatant Example of Mass Media Manipulation

[Yoshi525]

Why not? It's true - they're about 95% white and they're very angry... could it be because they are liberals protesting a conservative, instead of the conservative tea party people protesting a liberal president?

Sure it could...

I'm not in a position to comment on your media, over here there are strong sources of agenda-driven media bias, on multiple sides. I'm sure this is true to a certain degree in most places that endorse free speech - an acceptable trade off, relative to alternative options in my book. I see your point though; true over here as well, but not to the same degree and probably a bit more subtle and insidious (though by no means with regards to all sources, some British media outlets wouldn't know subtlety if they were choked to death by it).

At this point I doubt there is any need to argue with him, guys. Let him live in his black and white (seewutididthere) utopia where pure-hearted Conservatives stand against the vile, lie-mongering Liberals. Extremist opinions are boring as hell anyway.

In the recent bout of going-nowhere-except-The-Vats 'debate' threads, criticism of DB for supposedly seeing in black and white has been rife. The funny thing is, a lot of these critics (not saying you fall into this party) are making fairly black and white, knee-jerk reactions to him themselves. I can see why people react the way they do, but his 'made you post' catch phrase seems rather applicable here

Not that I'm in the same boat by any means, though my views are probably more conservative (in some ways at least) than a lot of posters here. The labor government here (and the media bias that did, and still does follow it, really pissed me off on many levels. Having said that, it works to ways - for sometime after Thatcher, most of the British (well English any-hows) media was extremely anti-left. I'm yet to hear a positive analysis of the last government, which I agree with and/or understand/accept the reasoning for.

 

[DammitBoy]

At this point I doubt there is any need to argue with him, guys. Let him live in his black and white (seewutididthere) utopia where pure-hearted Conservatives stand against the vile, lie-mongering Liberals. Extremist opinions are boring as hell anyway.

In the recent bout of going-nowhere-except-The-Vats 'debate' threads, criticism of DB for supposedly seeing in black and white has been rife. The funny thing is, a lot of these critics are making fairly black and white, knee-jerk reactions to him themselves. I can see why people react the way they do, but his 'made you post' catch phrase seems rather applicable here

Very astute observation there Yosh.

It's been my personal experience that there is no more intolerant a creature than a liberal who will not tolerate intolerance...

 

[SimpleMinded]

Good good, I'm glad you identify them as liberals who don't tolerate intolerance.

Since this topic seems to have moved more towards the tea party than the original post about lies in the media, could you provide me with more information about the group? Since all I get to hear is the media koolaid, it has been pretty much impossible to hear a lot of depth and consistency to their beliefs besides "taxed enough already." To be honest, I've heard people complain about their taxes since the day I was born so this isn't really all that mind blowing.

Can you provide me with any kind of details on how they hope to reach that point where we can have "low" taxes and what exactly low taxes would imply?

 

[Little Robot]

All I said was that the Tea Party rallies almost certainly had a small minority of racists who seized the party as an easy way to vent their anger. I'm not saying that all Tea Party members are racist-- in fact, I specifically said that wasn't the case.

Please keep posting. You are a perfect example of how the media manipulates opinion.
Plus your logic fail is hilareous.

--

I mean, DB, it's pretty clear that there is a racist faction within the Tea Party. I'm not sure you're denying this, but if you are, c'mon now...

I've always said you were a smart lad...

 

[DammitBoy]

Can you provide me with any kind of details on how they hope to reach that point where we can have "low" taxes and what exactly low taxes would imply?

You seem like a smart lad - do a google search and check out their websites. I always find that people learn best when doing their own research.

---

little robot: as evidenced by your cherry picking and reinvention of the intent of mine and others posts - I'd say you are an apt student of media manipulation.

Your self-applied nametag is apropos...

 

[Little Robot]

Really? Because it seems to me that all you've been doing with my posts has been cherrypicking. You've never commented on any of the times I mentioned that I believe that the Tea Party is a legitimate political organization which was not run by racists, but instead took apart semantics and made wild accusations which avoided the main brunt of my posts entirely. BN posted something which said that there were certainly racist elements in the Tea Party. Surprise! No response to that either.

Throughout this whole discussion, I've been perfectly willing to concede that the Tea Party is a legitimate organization which has only a small minority of racists using it as a platform-- just as the protests against Justice Thomas are perfectly honest protests which are utilized by racists in the same way. I never said that the Tea Party should be portrayed as a racist organization.

But you know what? You're right. The "Liberal Mass Media" has turned my brains to mush. No one can stand against it except the Holy Crusades of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and their brilliantly piercing pure truths about how all people should live their lives. They are modern equivalents to Jesus Christ motivated by their pure and true love for you, DB, not by their six-figure incomes or anything like that. Good thing you have those guys to keep you unbiased.

 

[DammitBoy]

The "Liberal Mass Media" has turned my brains to mush. No one can stand against it except the Holy Crusades of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and their brilliantly piercing pure truths about how all people should live their lives. They are modern equivalents to Jesus Christ motivated by their pure and true love for you, DB, not by their six-figure incomes or anything like that. Good thing you have those guys to keep you unbiased.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha! That's awesome posting right there. Thanks for proving my point once again.

It's so easy to see the hate and fear when you prod the right people in just the right spot. You have me pigeon-holed so perfectly in your little mind, don't ya lil fella?

You buy the hype so badly, so furiously - you can't see anything beyond the end of your own nose. "Holy crusades" "pure truths" - I couldn't have made better shit up for you to say myself.

But here's where reality will part with your pipedream. I'm not a tea party participant. I think Bill O'Reilly is a shyster and a tool. Glenn Beck, while a very funny little man, is a loon.

Please, please tell me what else you've assumed about me based on the media pap you swallow so willingly. It's comedy gold and proves my point.

Let me help you out: What's my position on abortion? How about gay rights? Whose my favorite talk radio host?

I mean, if you can rant about the former 'holy truths', surely you have me all figured out about the latter, right, right?

 

[Little Robot]

Sorry, DB. I was definitely out of line. I got frustrated with this debate and made a dumb post. The reason I assumed those things was because of your claims of the "liberal bias" of all reporting. These are usually the ideas spouted by conservative pundits (and, frankly, ideas that I had previously heard espoused only by these pundits or the people who follow them), and so I assumed that you subscribed to the pundits' philosophy. Sorry. I try not to insult people for silly reasons, and I got hot headed and broke that rule here. I apologize again, and I'll keep a level head in the future.

However, I would appreciate a response to the fact that I've actually agreed with you on basically every point except the fact that there are racists in the Tea Party. My argument with you stems from the fact that you have failed to admit that racists do exist in the organization, despite the common sense argument that any organization attacking a black man will attract racists to a certain extent.

I know that I've made a fool out of myself in that post, so I guess that I'll step out of it here. I get too hotheaded over this sort of politics anyway. Sorry again for flaming you, DB. I hope that we'll find an even ground somewhere.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Let me help you out: What's my position on abortion? How about gay rights? Whose my favorite talk radio host?

Would be curious to hear that. Without any offense or provocation. Also in which sprectrum do you see your political position. Or with other words do you lean more toward republicans, democrats ? If at all. (as said without any provocation meant. Just curious).

 

[DammitBoy]

I got frustrated with this debate and made a dumb post... I try not to insult people for silly reasons, and I got hot headed and broke that rule here. I apologize again, and I'll keep a level head in the future.

No need to apologise, especially since my intent was to get you to lose your cool. Please don't keep a level head, it makes my job harder.

My argument with you stems from the fact that you have failed to admit that racists do exist in the organization, despite the common sense argument that any organization attacking a black man will attract racists to a certain extent.

My argument, as kharm so eloquently pointed out, is that racism is irrelevant in this context, whether I admit your "common sense" claim is accurate or not.

what matters to his point is that media are using implications of an unproven supposition to discredit a movement. That is simply bad journalism.

In this case, bad journalism = media manipulation.

If you want to discuss racism, start a new thread and I'll post on-topic there. I haven't "admitted" to racism in the tea party because I have no proof of such and anything I suppose about that possibilty would be baseless opinion and conjecture.

I'll leave that to the media.

ps - "even ground" sounds very boring and btw - I am a conservative - just not the kind you've "heard" about.

 

[.Pixote.]

I am a conservative

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rko9_XkTFJA[/youtube]

 

[DammitBoy]

Let me help you out: What's my position on abortion? How about gay rights? Whose my favorite talk radio host?

Would be curious to hear that. Also in which sprectrum do you see your political position. Or with other words do you lean more toward republicans, democrats ? If at all. (Just curious)

Is that bi-curious?

Let's see - I believe a woman has right to control her body, not a big fan of abortion, but I believe it's her choice not the governments.

Gay rights - yes, I think it's only fair that homos should have to suffer thru marriage and divorce just like straight people. Alsoplustoo - don't ask don't tell may work for bill and hillary, but it's a stupid idea for the military (thanks dumbocraps).

Talk show host - Neal Boortz and until he quit, Herman Cain (omg! he's black!)

As for my political position - fiscal conservative, libertarian in most other respects, except when it's a really good idea to blow up brown people somewhere.

I call it "Neo-Con Southpark Libertarian". As you can see in my sigline, PJ O'Rourke is my moral compass.

Last election, I would have loved to have been able to vote for a Condi Rice/Mitt Romney ticket - in fact, I think Condi would have pwned Obama in any debate. Next election, I hope Herman Cain makes it all the way.

The reality though is that our system is broken and less than half of the population barely notices.

 

[Little Robot]

I agree with you that the two-party system clearly has many problems. Forcing candidates through two very strong, established parties only ensures that we'll get outdated party dogma designed to get votes instead of candidates who actually care about the future and people of the country.

But then again, I don't really see it changing any time soon-- to really make third parties matter we would have to drastically change the electoral college system, I think, and this would require the votes of a heck of a lot of Democrats and Republicans, the same people who were elected based on their propensity for reelection rather than their care for the country.

 

[Ilosar]

Problem is ''propensity for reelection'' is a (relatively) quantifiable and measurable thing, ''care for your country" is not, it's subjective and prone to falsification by the person to boot. That is the main reason why a "merit" or "moral values" or "love for X thing" based political class cannot function in reality; who decides what is "moral" and who "merits" something?

Not saying it's necceserally good or bad. Just pointing out many "what if politics were like that" scenarios fall apart the moment you try to apply them. Current US system is far from flawless (heck, no system in the world is even close to being ideal) but it is functional and understandable, even if only by initiates, so changing it must be done carefully.

And broken? please, this isn't a dictatorship or an anarchic nation like Somalia. People still vote for their leaders. What they do with their votes and/or how they let themselves be influenced by various sources is not the system's fault, at least not fully.

 

[Little Robot]

I'm not saying that the system of voting should be replaced with some system which magically elects the politician who cares most about America. I'm saying that the current system encourages politicians who are willing to debase their beliefs and water down their politics in order to go through the two main parties, who honestly aren't great in the first place. A vote for anything but Democrat or Republican candidates is basically a wasted vote in many cases, and this means that the two parties don't really need to provide meaningful candidates. They just need to say the same thing that they've been saying for many years-- that they basically believe the opposite of the "other guy." Encouraging more political parties would mean that candidates who really care about America would get a chance to survive without getting ground down and moderated through the PR machines of the big two parties, and I'd say that it would make the system better (certainly more democratic). I don't know though, and it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Hassknecht]

People could also start voting for the third parties.
It's not a wasted vote, you know? If everyone who's fed up with the two main parties' bullshit starts voting for the thirds, then it will give them a huge sign that they just can't pull that shit off anymore.
How can a vote be wasted if you vote for a party that suits your opinion?

 

[Little Robot]

The way that the electoral college system governs presidential elections, for example, means that third party candidates can basically never win, no matter how much of the vote they get. In order to actually win, third party candidates would need (if I remember correctly) a plurality in the states which give them enough electoral votes to win a majority of the votes. There have been third party candidates who have gotten a really high percentage of the popular vote, and they never got a single electoral vote (nor did the two main parties really reform themselves). Because we don't go by a direct democracy for election of the president, the two main parties don't care about anything except each other until a third party candidate can literally get more votes than them in states across the country. It's a really weird system, but basically it's one where a vote for a third party is practically just saying "fine, don't tally up my vote when finding whether republicans or democrats won."

 

[SimpleMinded]

You seem like a smart lad - do a google search and check out their websites. I always find that people learn best when doing their own research.

Great, went to the tea party sites, read their mission statements, looked at their about us pages.

So what I can find:

teaparty.org:

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

Very little on how the budget will be balanced besides the tax cutting.


teapartypatriots

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

So their plans to cut spending are... the tea parties interpretation of the constitution?


From their contract from America:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law
2. Reject emissions trading
3. Demand a balanced federal budget
4. Simplify the tax system
5. Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending
7. Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
9. Reduce Earmarks
10. Reduce Taxes

I'm sure I have to dig further but whenever I hear tea party candidates speak, I largely just hear the phrasing of a balanced budget but none of the steps to get that far. But oh well, I guess I just don't care enough to do any further research.

The way that the electoral college system governs presidential elections, for example, means that third party candidates can basically never win, no matter how much of the vote they get. In order to actually win, third party candidates would need (if I remember correctly) a plurality in the states which give them enough electoral votes to win a majority of the votes. There have been third party candidates who have gotten a really high percentage of the popular vote, and they never got a single electoral vote (nor did the two main parties really reform themselves). Because we don't go by a direct democracy for election of the president, the two main parties don't care about anything except each other until a third party candidate can literally get more votes than them in states across the country. It's a really weird system, but basically it's one where a vote for a third party is practically just saying "fine, don't tally up my vote when finding whether republicans or democrats won."

There's always the option of the national popular vote, which would likely gain more momentum again if there was a strong third party candidate that lost. I'm a fan of a ranking system of some kind, rather than a binary voting system but that's just me.

My argument, as kharm so eloquently pointed out, is that racism is irrelevant in this context, whether I admit your "common sense" claim is accurate or not.

I don't think it can be so easily dismissed though. I don't believe the presence of racism alters the group's political views, but if the tea party wants to avoid associations with racial views, they have to watch what many of their "leaders" say.

Just pulling a few quickly off Wikipedia

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as a "Monkey God".

According to the Dayton Daily News, on March 21, 2010, Springboro (Ohio) Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas tweeted a racial slur on the Twitter Page he managed, directed specifically at the Hispanic community that stated "Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?".

While not a tea party member, when someone views the Tea Party like this, it's certainly alarming:

Steve Smith, Pennsylvania Party Chairman of the white nationalist American Third Position Party, has called Tea Party events "fertile ground for our activists"

To say it's all just media koolaid and the media's bias seems a misrepresentation of the existence of racism in the group.

 

[DammitBoy]

teaparty.org:

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

Very little on how the budget will be balanced besides the tax cutting.

Really? Just looking at that laundry list, I see several things that would help balance a budget. Like making bailouts and stimulus plans illegal, that'd save billions.

Illegal aliens drain our resources in the billions. Downsized government would save money, don't you think? Ending deficit spending sounds like a route towards a balanced budget.

I'd add term limits, eliminating the electoral college, eliminating most of our foriegn aid, and reducing our military footprint around the world - but that's just me.

 

[mobucks]

If we reduced our military footprint around the world, the 5 guys making all the money off of weapons we buy from them wont be able to buy 5 jets, 3 yaghts, and the fuel for them.

Think of the billionaires, DB.