News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Food for thought on a rainy Sunday

Started by Ed W, March 11, 2012, 11:01:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ed W

I came across this yesterday.  It's an interesting premise once you get past the obvious spin.  Parry attributes our present gridlock and tit-for-tat infighting to the political conflict of the Nixon administration and Watergate.  He says that Nixon got away with some unspecified dirty tricks in the 68 election, tricks that were known to the Johnson administration, yet went unreported.  When Watergate blew up, conservatives could then claim it was a Democratic led witch hunt, rather than seeing it as an extension of the earlier events.

I hadn't heard of an earlier set of dirty tricks originating with Nixon, and I'm not entirely sure we should attribute our present troubles to him and Watergate.  The tit-for-tat partisanship began with the Roosevelt administration when he tried to stack the Supreme Court and more.  The Republican push-back lead to the rise of Senator Joe McCarthy and his protege, one Richard M. Nixon. 

Americans sometimes wonder how the nation's political process got so unspeakably nasty with vitriol pouring forth especially from right-wing voices like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage, to name just a few. Yet, whenever called on this ugliness, conservatives insist that they are the real victims, picked on by the Left.

This destructive and whiny dynamic has existed at least since the late 1960s when angry passions spilled over from the Vietnam War and grew worse after Richard Nixon exploited Democratic dissension on the war to win the White House in 1968 – and then continued the war for another four nasty years.


http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/08/how-the-rights-smear-machine-started/

Parry writes that until a few days before his death, Nixon played a behind the scenes role in prosecuting the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I'm not sure that Nixon should be regarded as a sort of puppet master, despite his many faults.

...and for no good reason...here's a gratuitous photo featuring Traci Lords:



Ed

May you live in interesting times.

AquaMan

The dirty tricks have gone on forever. What is new is the dominance of media outlets manipulated by the players to hasten their effect. First the networks, then cable, then the nets. The one think I am taking out of this new generation of tit for tat politics is that the days of journalistic professionalism are over. The concept of an unbiased third party reporting system seems quaint and naive with today's technology.

As usual, the Brits are way ahead of us on this trend. They long ago saw the trend and media outlets are now presumed to have strong biases. The consumer then picks and chooses what he considers the most reliable, most believable, most truthful recounting of facts then makes an informed decision as to what the truth is.

We're still busy blaming the messenger for bias and translation errors to have any concept of truth.

BTW, I don't remember anyone giving Nixon credibility in the decades following his demise, until Frost interviewed him. He was persona non grata in his own party.
onward...through the fog

Red Arrow

Quote from: AquaMan on March 11, 2012, 11:20:05 AM
As usual, the Brits are way ahead of us on this trend. They long ago saw the trend and media outlets are now presumed to have strong biases. The consumer then picks and chooses what he considers the most reliable, most believable, most truthful recounting of facts then makes an informed decision as to what the truth is.

How do their "Fox News/MSNBC" differences pan out?
 

AquaMan

I should say this is not a revelation I came upon from experience. I have never even been "across the pond". I watched some analysts on a program yesterday morning comparing our view of politics and reporting vs the British. Of course they have been rocked with their own scandals with Fox owned publications and their penchant for  unscrupulous news gathering techniques which include eavesdropping, computer mail hacking etc.

It seems the British are more at ease with confrontative politics judging by their parliament broadcasts and they are more print oriented than we are.
onward...through the fog

Red Arrow

Quote from: AquaMan on March 11, 2012, 12:13:39 PM
I should say this is not a revelation I came upon from experience. I have never even been "across the pond". I watched some analysts on a program yesterday morning comparing our view of politics and reporting vs the British. Of course they have been rocked with their own scandals with Fox owned publications and their penchant for  unscrupulous news gathering techniques which include eavesdropping, computer mail hacking etc.

It seems the British are more at ease with confrontative politics judging by their parliament broadcasts and they are more print oriented than we are.

Among the tabloids in the UK, Fox is just another player.  At least that is my impression from what I have heard. The Brits seem to always be having a tabloid scandal of some sort.  Of course plain old solid reporting over there would not be news over here.
 

dbacks fan

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 11, 2012, 11:36:30 AM
How do their "Fox News/MSNBC" differences pan out?

Check out The Daily Mail and The Sun.

Red Arrow

Quote from: dbacks fan on March 11, 2012, 01:13:41 PM
Check out The Daily Mail and The Sun.

I was thinking more of the readers and their opinions of the readers of the "other" new source.  Kind of like TNF members totally dismissing any news from Fox, Huffington, MSNBC... depending on your views.
 

dbacks fan

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 11, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
I was thinking more of the readers and their opinions of the readers of the "other" new source.  Kind of like TNF members totally dismissing any news from Fox, Huffington, MSNBC... depending on your views.

So you mean "normal people" that get their news from a variety of sources, and formulate their own opinion based on rational thought? Does anyone do that anymore?

Red Arrow

Quote from: dbacks fan on March 11, 2012, 02:06:19 PM
So you mean "normal people" that get their news from a variety of sources, and formulate their own opinion based on rational thought? Does anyone do that anymore?

No, I mean normal people that only get their news from one source.  How do the UK Fox believers get along with UK "MSNBC" believers.

People who get their news from a variety of sources and formulate their own opinion based on rational thought are not normal and are no fun.   :D
 

dbacks fan

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 11, 2012, 02:42:28 PM
No, I mean normal people that only get their news from one source.  How do the UK Fox believers get along with UK "MSNBC" believers.

The same way the Conservative Party gets along with the Labour Party.  ;)

heironymouspasparagus

Quote from: Ed W on March 11, 2012, 11:01:29 AM
I came across this yesterday.  It's an interesting premise once you get past the obvious spin.  Parry attributes our present gridlock and tit-for-tat infighting to the political conflict of the Nixon administration and Watergate.  He says that Nixon got away with some unspecified dirty tricks in the 68 election, tricks that were known to the Johnson administration, yet went unreported.  When Watergate blew up, conservatives could then claim it was a Democratic led witch hunt, rather than seeing it as an extension of the earlier events.

I hadn't heard of an earlier set of dirty tricks originating with Nixon, and I'm not entirely sure we should attribute our present troubles to him and Watergate.  The tit-for-tat partisanship began with the Roosevelt administration when he tried to stack the Supreme Court and more.  The Republican push-back lead to the rise of Senator Joe McCarthy and his protege, one Richard M. Nixon. 

Americans sometimes wonder how the nation's political process got so unspeakably nasty with vitriol pouring forth especially from right-wing voices like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage, to name just a few. Yet, whenever called on this ugliness, conservatives insist that they are the real victims, picked on by the Left.

This destructive and whiny dynamic has existed at least since the late 1960s when angry passions spilled over from the Vietnam War and grew worse after Richard Nixon exploited Democratic dissension on the war to win the White House in 1968 – and then continued the war for another four nasty years.


Parry writes that until a few days before his death, Nixon played a behind the scenes role in prosecuting the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I'm not sure that Nixon should be regarded as a sort of puppet master, despite his many faults.



It has been even worse in the past.  Since about 1800 (yes, 200 years ago) there have been campaigns that were every bit as bad, if not worse, than what we see today.

Some of the old newspaper cartoons are startling!

"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don't share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.

nathanm

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 11, 2012, 12:37:00 PM
The Brits seem to always be having a tabloid scandal of some sort.

It was bad enough for Murdoch to shut down The Sun. (and move its staff to other papers where they can keep pulling the same BS)

So yes, they do regularly have scandals, but not quite so bad, as they don't usually end up taking down the masthead, or lead to arrests of the staff for that matter.

Anyway, my take on the topic is that politics has been getting more contentious because voters don't feel like they're being represented. This makes them angry, which makes them act obnoxiously. I've already outlined my recipe on several occasions, so I'll not repeat myself.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln