Quantcast
The three headed dragon against Obama

Forums - Politics Discussion - The three headed dragon against Obama

theprof00 said:

where does it say that?

http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-email-objected-benghazi-talking-points-220924269.html

And the timing of Petraeus going public with his affair and stepping down was pretty suspicious, even more so in light of this.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
theprof00 said:

where does it say that?

http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-email-objected-benghazi-talking-points-220924269.html

And the timing of Petraeus going public with his affair and stepping down was pretty suspicious, even more so in light of this.

Oh wait, you said the "state department" was strenuously objecting, not the white house.

According to your link, the white house was simply doing what it was told, and that they in fact had approved a lot more information being left in earlier.

So, are we now past blaming Obama for this, or does this still tie into him somehow?





theprof00 said:

Oh wait, you said the "state department" was strenuously objecting, not the white house.

According to your link, the white house was simply doing what it was told, and that they in fact had approved a lot more information being left in earlier.

So, are we now past blaming Obama for this, or does this still tie into him somehow?

Well, it is his administration. A president is going to be expected to answer for what his administration does and needs to be seen as dealing with such situations, not pleading ignorance as if it's some kind of defense.

Other than that, I guess he should have to answer for personally pushing the YouTube video long after it was known that Ansar al-Sharia had pulled off the attack in revenge for the killing of al-Libi and for the White House's lie (via Jay Carney) that they and the State Department together only made one change to the talking points, an insignificant change of "consulate" to "diplomatic outpost". And I suppose we're also owed an explanation as to why assets in the region were told to stand down instead of responding to the attack.



badgenome said:
theprof00 said:

Oh wait, you said the "state department" was strenuously objecting, not the white house.

According to your link, the white house was simply doing what it was told, and that they in fact had approved a lot more information being left in earlier.

So, are we now past blaming Obama for this, or does this still tie into him somehow?

Well, it is his administration. A president is going to be expected to answer for what his administration does and needs to be seen as dealing with such situations, not pleading ignorance as if it's some kind of defense.

Other than that, I guess he should have to answer for personally pushing the YouTube video long after it was known that Ansar al-Sharia had pulled off the attack in revenge for the killing of al-Libi and for the White House's lie (via Jay Carney) that they and the State Department together only made one change to the talking points, an insignificant change of "consulate" to "diplomatic outpost". And I suppose we're also owed an explanation as to why assets in the region were told to stand down instead of responding to the attack.

ok well, that is your opinion.
Most of the CIA and military take their confidentiality very seriously, so I'm not sure exactly what we should do about transparency. The immediate end-result to this would seem to be that the CIA just stops telling the white house and state anything. So we'll just be completely out of the loop.

I also don't see how we're owed an explanation for that stand down decision. Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why the hell we would be talking about our military strategy and movements with civilians?



theprof00 said:

ok well, that is your opinion.
Most of the CIA and military take their confidentiality very seriously, so I'm not sure exactly what we should do about transparency. The immediate end-result to this would seem to be that the CIA just stops telling the white house and state anything. So we'll just be completely out of the loop.

The then-director of the CIA (who was a lifelong military man) wanted to be more forthcoming with the public, so I'm not sure that's what's going on here.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

I don't think anybody is going to argue that MSNBC is unbiased, so extrapolating from one media outlet to the media market in general is erroneous. I personally don't watch either network, so I don't really know how much each network focuses on news vs. editorial style coverage . I mean.......this is the chart  you should be posting, which does much less to support your point (and is from the same study), especially given how campaign coverage changed over the course of the election season. I don't think anyone is going to disagree that there are partisan news sources, especially when you look at the huge amount of sources available today....the question is whether there is systematic bias.

Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?

Yes.....I don't like the term objective, but I don't think the fact that someone is liberal means they have to report stories with a liberal slant. There is a difference between attitudes and actions.



GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?

Yes.....I don't like the term objective, but I don't think the fact that someone is liberal means they have to report stories with a liberal slant. There is a difference between attitudes and actions.

What do you mean you don't like the term objective?

That media should be objective at all times - give us the news without your opinion. 

Perhaps the issue is the movement toward opinionated reporting? Or the types of stories promoted as Kasz mentioned (premium on gay marriage, unions, healthcare, etc)?



GameOver22 said:

Yes.....I don't like the term objective, but I don't think the fact that someone is liberal means they have to report stories with a liberal slant. There is a difference between attitudes and actions.

Yeah, of course there is. But it's tough enough for an individual to recognize his own biases and try to rise above them. When newsrooms are overwhelmingly populated by people of a liberal disposition it becomes nearly impossible for them to recognize their biases because they exist in a culture of pervasive liberalism. When everyone else they know is also liberal it's not "liberal" for them, it's just "normal". No one would argue that media doesn't need diversity in race and gender to provide better coverage of stories where those things are a factor, so why shouldn't newsrooms be more ideologically diverse as well?



dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?

Yes.....I don't like the term objective, but I don't think the fact that someone is liberal means they have to report stories with a liberal slant. There is a difference between attitudes and actions.

What do you mean you don't like the term objective?

That media should be objective at all times - give us the news without your opinion. 

Perhaps the issue is the movement toward opinionated reporting? Or the types of stories promoted as Kasz mentioned (premium on gay marriage, unions, healthcare, etc)?

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. Opinions are fine.....best example probably being Murrow's reporting on McCarthyism. The problem is, even with opinionated reporting, there will always be people who disagree. In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking. If there is anything we know, it's that politicians lie...... a lot....for meaningless reasons often times.



badgenome said:
GameOver22 said:

Yes.....I don't like the term objective, but I don't think the fact that someone is liberal means they have to report stories with a liberal slant. There is a difference between attitudes and actions.

Yeah, of course there is. But it's tough enough for an individual to recognize his own biases and try to rise above them. When newsrooms are overwhelmingly populated by people of a liberal disposition it becomes nearly impossible for them to recognize their biases because they exist in a culture of pervasive liberalism. When everyone else they know is also liberal it's not "liberal" for them, it's just "normal". No one would argue that media doesn't need diversity in race and gender to provide better coverage of stories where those things are a factor, so why shouldn't newsrooms be more ideologically diverse as well?

I'll copy the question I was asked, "Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?"

I agree with your point.....social networks matter, but I don't think this means the media cannot be objective. People just have to be cognizant of their biases and account for them in their reporting (meaning I think the media can be objective......it just takes effort). I also don't know the job market for reporting, but I imagine part of the problem is just self selection, meaning there are more liberals in reporting because liberals value reporting jobs more than conservatives.