Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Correspondent
Maria_H
Posts: 791
Registered: ‎07-19-2007
0 Kudos

Re: New media coverage

Kathy, you touch on something else with your comments, and that is, everyone not only has their own opinions, but they shape the discussion -- and, sometimes, arguments -- to fit their agenda. 

 

It's rare to find a thoughtful dialogue about these issues, since so many are entrenched on one side or the other and craft their thoughts and comments to only prove their point (whether informed or not).

 

We hope with this new board, we can deepen the discussion.  Perhaps help us see the larger picture and the effects it can have, not just on our wallets or within our four walls, but on others as well.

 


KathyS wrote:

Jon, I have to agree with what you say.  In this day and age of every known media, there is no way you can't be informed of both/all sides of these issues.  Yes, at one time, when the media sun rose and set on the opinions of major city newspapers, or few TV stations, and no internet, there was biased reports.  It's still there, but you can't limit yourself to reading/hearing just a few reports on any situation/issue. 

 

Everyone has to have their own opinions, and the more that can challenge those opinions, the better off we are.  I, personally try to take everything, at first, at face value, then I weigh all of it against each side.  Being naive is not an excuse, these days. 

 

Mostly my problem is hearing so much information, it does overwhelm the senses at times.  You are constantly weighing issues in your mind.  And it can come down to emotional evaluation, at times.  I think the more people that realize that every bill that is passed, or not passed, there are more than just one reason.  And I think these reasons need to be seen.  So much is contained in what seems like simple issues/bills, I don't think the general public wants to really know what's being hidden within those bills.  So many ads on TV give hard sides to these issues, it then becomes an emotional issue.  That's the appeal by these political groups, to sway the public with emotion.



 

 



Looking for a discussion? Find a Book Club for all your interests!


Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: New media coverage

What I see with the media more and more is that they are on the side of themselves and making themselves more and more part of stories ( Katrina, Iraq) and that their stories are not so much geared right or left but to the sensationalistic. The coverage that CNN gave to Anna Nicloe Smith? Outrageous!
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

When assessing right-wing/left-wing bias in the media you have to look at who owns what and what the owners' influences have been over the years.  Rupert Murdoch is very much seen as a 'right wing' player on the world stage and his News Corporation owns a significant chunk of the US media. 'Their total revenues last year were $17 billon. Its main holdings are the Fox broadcast networks and Fox News, Fox Sports, FX, and other Fox cable channels in the United States; 20th Century Fox studios; thirty-five local U.S. TV stations; the New York Post plus The Times and The Sun of London; the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard; the publishing house HarperCollins; the Sky satellite system in England and the Star satellite system in Asia; and various publications in Murdoch's native Australia.'

 

Three other established TV networks in the United States are part of conglomerates much larger than his.  CBS belongs to Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster, Blockbuster, Infinity radio, and so on, with total revenues of $25 billion. ABC is part of Disney, with revenues of $26 billion. NBC is owned by General Electric, whose total revenues were $131 billion. CNN is part of the AOL Time Warner combine, whose revenues last year were $42 billion - two and a half times News Corp's.

 

However: 'News Corp and Fox are personal companies in a way that other networks have not been since the days of Paley and Sarnoff. Murdoch and his relatives control some 30 percent of all News Corp shares, through a family trust called Cruden Investments. That stake is worth about $12 billion at News Corp's current market capitalization. Because of his role as owner, and also his market success, Murdoch's reign has been long and unchallenged in a way not seen for the past few decades, during which CBS and NBC (the networks Paley and Sarnoff founded), and most of the rest of the media world, became the province of corporations. Jack Welch was in charge of GE for more than two decades, and Michael Eisner has run Disney for nearly that long. But neither of them can expect to stay in command as long as they're physically able, which Murdoch clearly intends to do. And unlike Paley and Sarnoff, whose familial power died with them, Murdoch has planned his succession.'

 

When Murdoch was interviewed in 2003 by a Congressional Committee about his plans to buy Direct TV he was asked why there was an imbalance of political views on talk radio and many cable TV channels  Murdoch claimed that his news organizations always strove to be 'fair and balanced'. When asked if he could explain the fact that radio had 300-plus hours of nationally syndicated conservative talk each week, versus five hours of liberal talk he replied 'Apparently, conservative talk is more popular' and added 'If we could find a popular, amusing broadcaster to talk for an hour or two every day and he was a liberal, we'd have him on like a shot.'

 

America is generally regarded by other western democracies as a 'right wing' country, even when the Democrats are in power and this may be because of the significant influence the Christian church has on its population and its governments. If the majority of the population are perceived by the media owners to be subscribing to right of centre political views journalists, or rather the owners of their newspapers/TV/radio stations, will not go out on a limb to challenge those views because that puts the popularity of their newspaper/tv/radio station at risk.  When, during an election, there is a significant polling swing to the left (as when Obama was nominated) 'left wing' journalists will feel safer in endorsing left wing points of view for as long as that swing continues.  During the period of an election the media has a duty to see that all points of view are given equal air time/column inches and this may make it seem, in a normally right wing country, that the left wing are getting too big a share of the cake.

 

As with everything else in a capitalist economy, economics rule and journalists, whatever their personal politics, have to butter both their own bread and that of their employers.  

 

 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

Which viewpoint do you think is not being expressed?  

 

One viewpoint certainly not being expressed by the Democratic speakers in Congress, at least as far as I have heard, is that this mess was really caused in very large part by the Democratic Congress

 


 

I was referring to viewpoints being expressed in the media.  twj was saying that we only "hear one point of view" and yet I see articles from major media sources blaming the Democrats and Pelosi for the current mess every day (and plenty of articles blaming Republicans and everyone else as well.  In fact its hard to think of a group who hasn't had fingers pointed at them in this).  

 

I was mostly commenting on this idea that "the media isn't telling us" these points of view, which is rather ironic given that most of the people commentating on what "the media won't tell us" are members of the media themselves.   It's rather amusing to see political columnist after political columnist refer to the media as some vague "they" that somehow doesn't include themselves.  


Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-02-2008 08:44 AM

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

I am amused that you presume to speak for the world and world stage, in such comments as "Rupert Murdoch is very much seen as a 'right wing' player on the world stage," and "America is generally regarded by other western democracies as a 'right wing' country." 

 

Of course, to socialists or Marxists the middle of the road looks right wing.

 

But if you want real right wing, don't look over here, look to Europe.  Look at Austria's recent election, where two legitimately right-wing parties (pro-Nazi) garnered nearly 30 percent of the vote.  Or France where in 2002 La Pen and his far right wing party came in second in the first round of balloting for the Presidency. Or your own British National Party which according to the BBC has about 58 elected councilors (the party estimates 100) in local government positions, and polled 5.2% of the popular vote in the 2008 election for Mayor of London.  Those candidates over here would be lucky to garner 1% of a vote over here.  

 

If you want to see true right wing politics in action, you need to look in your own backyard.

 


Choisya wrote:

When assessing right-wing/left-wing bias in the media you have to look at who owns what and what the owners' influences have been over the years.  Rupert Murdoch is very much seen as a 'right wing' player on the world stage and his News Corporation owns a significant chunk of the US media. 'Their total revenues last year were $17 billon. Its main holdings are the Fox broadcast networks and Fox News, Fox Sports, FX, and other Fox cable channels in the United States; 20th Century Fox studios; thirty-five local U.S. TV stations; the New York Post plus The Times and The Sun of London; the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard; the publishing house HarperCollins; the Sky satellite system in England and the Star satellite system in Asia; and various publications in Murdoch's native Australia.'

 

Three other established TV networks in the United States are part of conglomerates much larger than his.  CBS belongs to Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster, Blockbuster, Infinity radio, and so on, with total revenues of $25 billion. ABC is part of Disney, with revenues of $26 billion. NBC is owned by General Electric, whose total revenues were $131 billion. CNN is part of the AOL Time Warner combine, whose revenues last year were $42 billion - two and a half times News Corp's.

 

However: 'News Corp and Fox are personal companies in a way that other networks have not been since the days of Paley and Sarnoff. Murdoch and his relatives control some 30 percent of all News Corp shares, through a family trust called Cruden Investments. That stake is worth about $12 billion at News Corp's current market capitalization. Because of his role as owner, and also his market success, Murdoch's reign has been long and unchallenged in a way not seen for the past few decades, during which CBS and NBC (the networks Paley and Sarnoff founded), and most of the rest of the media world, became the province of corporations. Jack Welch was in charge of GE for more than two decades, and Michael Eisner has run Disney for nearly that long. But neither of them can expect to stay in command as long as they're physically able, which Murdoch clearly intends to do. And unlike Paley and Sarnoff, whose familial power died with them, Murdoch has planned his succession.'

 

When Murdoch was interviewed in 2003 by a Congressional Committee about his plans to buy Direct TV he was asked why there was an imbalance of political views on talk radio and many cable TV channels  Murdoch claimed that his news organizations always strove to be 'fair and balanced'. When asked if he could explain the fact that radio had 300-plus hours of nationally syndicated conservative talk each week, versus five hours of liberal talk he replied 'Apparently, conservative talk is more popular' and added 'If we could find a popular, amusing broadcaster to talk for an hour or two every day and he was a liberal, we'd have him on like a shot.'

 

America is generally regarded by other western democracies as a 'right wing' country, even when the Democrats are in power and this may be because of the significant influence the Christian church has on its population and its governments. If the majority of the population are perceived by the media owners to be subscribing to right of centre political views journalists, or rather the owners of their newspapers/TV/radio stations, will not go out on a limb to challenge those views because that puts the popularity of their newspaper/tv/radio station at risk.  When, during an election, there is a significant polling swing to the left (as when Obama was nominated) 'left wing' journalists will feel safer in endorsing left wing points of view for as long as that swing continues.  During the period of an election the media has a duty to see that all points of view are given equal air time/column inches and this may make it seem, in a normally right wing country, that the left wing are getting too big a share of the cake.

 

As with everything else in a capitalist economy, economics rule and journalists, whatever their personal politics, have to butter both their own bread and that of their employers.  

 

 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

Which viewpoint do you think is not being expressed?  

 

One viewpoint certainly not being expressed by the Democratic speakers in Congress, at least as far as I have heard, is that this mess was really caused in very large part by the Democratic Congress

 


 

I was referring to viewpoints being expressed in the media.  twj was saying that we only "hear one point of view" and yet I see articles from major media sources blaming the Democrats and Pelosi for the current mess every day (and plenty of articles blaming Republicans and everyone else as well.  In fact its hard to think of a group who hasn't had fingers pointed at them in this).  

 

I was mostly commenting on this idea that "the media isn't telling us" these points of view, which is rather ironic given that most of the people commentating on what "the media won't tell us" are members of the media themselves.   It's rather amusing to see political columnist after political columnist refer to the media as some vague "they" that somehow doesn't include themselves.  


Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-02-2008 08:44 AM

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

[ Edited ]

I think part of the issue is that Americans and Europeans have very different ideas of what "right wing" and "left wing" even mean.

 

For example Americans tend to use the word "liberal" in the context of political economics to refer to a larger government role in the marketplace.  However in much of the rest of the world "liberal" economic policies refer to a more laissez-faire attitude favoring corporations.  In fact hardline Marxists in places like South America and Mexico tend to use the term "neo-liberalism" to refer to the corporate-led globalization that they oppose.

 

And that spectrum doesn't even begin address social issues.  The right-wing parties of Europe that you refer to are built primarily on nationalism and - in western Europe - depend largely on anti-immigrant sentiment for their success.   The right wing in the US tends to oppose immigration but not nearly as strongly and has rather different priorities - American conservatives seem more concerned over issues such as abortion and gay marriage than they are with the issues of nationalism that concern European right wing parties.


You are right however that there is a disturbing rise of fascist politics in Europe.  And even more disturbing is the fact, while nationalist parties in western Europe such as Britain's BNP or France's National Front get some media exposure here in the US, there is disturbingly little coverage of the areas where fascist politics show the potential to aquire real popularity and power, such as in Croatia or the Ukraine.   Once when I was visiting Slovenia I encountered gangs of neo-Nazi's openly marching around on the streets of the capital city in the evening - not exactly a comforting sight!

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-02-2008 12:18 PM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Different points of view

Maria, 

I appreciate boards such as these, because it does create a forum for opinions, questions, and answers.   I hadn't intended to post on this board.  I know from experience what they CAN be like.  So, my approach may be different - My personal thoughts.

 

I very rarely get into political, or religious discussions, on these boards.  I don't know these people, and they don't know me, personally, and writing personal views can be very tricky.  From  these experiences, darts can be thrown easier at people we can't see, or have no personal connection with.

 

These are two topics/subjects that can cause people to become highly emotional.  I have enjoyed reading these posts, here, but I know after reading the first or second post by someone, which side they are on:  their political agenda. 

 

Going into a discussion, with an already preconceived agenda, is not going in with an open mind to show that you want a response; it's only trying to convince the "other side" that they aren't seeing the real picture....their picture.

 

You can't approach a "discussion" with the idea that you want to attack someone else's ideas, or ideals.  As moderators, or administrators, I have appreciated the questions that you raise, to alter these discussions to bring them back into a more introspective frame of mind.  I have witnessed this from both you, and from Jon.  Without that, there would not be discussions, only hurtful debating and arguing.  

 

With this election year, the gray areas are enormous.   And then some people may not see these areas as gray.  It is up to us to evaluate, no matter which party you are registered with.  Parties, in this day and age, as far as I see them, are causing both sides to switch, continually.  What does that say?  Where are the hard lines and values that they once stood for?  I honestly think this is a good sign.  Why does one party have to stand for what "they think" is the  only way for the American people to go...which only says the other side is wrong?  Why do we have to tear someone else down, to make ourselves look "right, or good"?  In tonight's Vice Presidential debate, we'll see who uses the most sarcasm.

 

Each side has valid points to their opinions.  We do base our own opinions on who we are - how we've been raised; where we've been raised;  by whom we've been raised;  who has talked to us the most.  The list goes on and on, but unless we can step back and look at the big pictures, away from our personal set-in belief system, there is no way anyone is ever going to become nonbiased in a discussion.

 

Thank you, admins, for these clear, and tactful, perspectives you offer.

 

Kathy S.

 

 

Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi

because my current events page is not displaying properly, i am having trouble reading all of the comments and who they are from. i can only reply if i choose someone near the bottom of the page because the page view is obstructed with drop down columns.

in essence, it doesn't matter who owns the media or who controls it. what matters is what the media presents. if what they present is a biased viewpoint, then that is all we will hear. if they control the news and how we receive it, we will never know the whole story. if you like what you are hearing you will probably have no interest in questioning it, or perhaps, it won't be in your best interest to wonder about what you are hearing or not hearing. sometimes it is the way you are hearing something that makes it biased. here is one source which shows the media bias some of you do not think exists. here is another from ucla.

twj
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi has morphed into bias comments

[ Edited ]

the media reflects many views, but many face the same direction. there are many faces of bias, as well and i guess i have addressed some, rightly or wrongly. they are my opinions, only. please, feel free to change my mind. i am open to hearing new information.

i just don't want opinions or misquotes or bias from my news sources; i want facts, all the facts. if there is a headline, it should be newsworthy and properly checked out for veracity. I want to hear all sides of a story, not just one side. I am really tired of the sarcasm and innuendo and fingerpointing that has become mainstream. if one party's scandals/negatives are covered ad nauseum (palin is an animal killer), don't give the other a pass (biden is a plagiarist).
barney frank's and clinton's complicity in this finance debacle should be covered as much as the finger pointing at the current administration which has been blamed for everything, including the weather. mc cain should be given credit for suggesting reform, way before the debacle. go to the link and then click on the congressional record and read the statement. nancy pelosi should not be given a pass for her immaturity in making that vindictive political speech which caused the vote to reverse. you can push people so far and then they have had enough. what about pelosi's ties to american samoa? i really wonder if the special "pork" for american samoa in the current bailout bill, is somehow involved with her constituency.

the bias is not imagined. it is real. the media is definitely biased in all directions but studies have shown that mainstream media leans left. perhaps we should all read everything we can that is out there rather than just the stuff that supports our own views. then maybe we can make rational decisions. instead of wondering why someone thinks there is media bias, give them the benefit of the doubt and ask yourself if it could exist. do some research and find out for yourself. maybe you still won't find it. let me know. why can't we learn from each other?
twj

 


Message Edited by thewanderingjew on 10-02-2008 06:01 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

[ Edited ]

I broadly agree with you here Jon but would point out that the rise in power of separate fascist parties is a fairly recent phenomenon and has mainly been the result of anti-immigrant feeling over the whole of Europe because of the increasing tide of immigration from the war torn developing world. (Exascerbated by Iraqi and Afghani refugees.)  Before that our Conservative parties all had ultra-right wing people within them but they did not overly influence the policies of those parties.  For instance, when Margaret Thatcher was PM her right wing policies attracted former members of the BNP and they joined and voted for the Conservative Party.  The Conservatives have since changed and have more liberal leadership so those people have now joined the BNP again. In Europe similar voting patterns have emerged from within the major parties.   In the US at the present time you have a number of ultra-right factions who similarly coast along in the Republican Party - the KIu Klux Klan people for instance, or the ultra-right in the gun lobby, or the people you call 'rednecks'. It may well be (although I sincerely hope not) that the current financial crisis will bring about the same sort of racism seen against Jews in the 1920s and that the US in turn will see a rise in fascism either within the Republican Party or in a new fascist party.

 

The ultra-right in Europe, in places like Germany, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia etc, have always been there and they are not only nationalist factions but longstanding anti-semitic ones - and nowadays anti-Muslim too.   Indeed, I would say that it is anti-Muslim feeling in the light of what we are calling 'world terrorism' which has given fuel to their campaigns. Certainly this is so in the UK as the rise of the BNP has coincided with 9/11, 7/7 and our anti-terrorist campaign, as well as an increase in immigration from Islamic countries. 

 

Every day I read an English, a French, a German and an American newspaper online, sometimes two, and so keep as abreast as I can in world affairs. And I often read Asian papers because one of my lodgers is Asian.  This is in addition to listening to various political  documentary TV and radio programmes.  This is why I feel I can speak of 'world' opinion in reference to political commentators.  When I use the words 'right wing' I am referring to mainstream conservative opinion, not fascism, and when I use the words 'left wing' I am referring to mainstream social-democratic opinion, not to pure socialism, communism or marxism.  These are the general definitions within the European press.  Like you, they use the words 'ultra-right' (or neo-fascist) to describe fascists.              

 

 


Jon_B wrote:

I think part of the issue is that Americans and Europeans have very different ideas of what "right wing" and "left wing" even mean.

 

For example Americans tend to use the word "liberal" in the context of political economics to refer to a larger government role in the marketplace.  However in much of the rest of the world "liberal" economic policies refer to a more laissez-faire attitude favoring corporations.  In fact hardline Marxists in places like South America and Mexico tend to use the term "neo-liberalism" to refer to the corporate-led globalization that they oppose.

 

And that spectrum doesn't even begin address social issues.  The right-wing parties of Europe that you refer to are built primarily on nationalism and - in western Europe - depend largely on anti-immigrant sentiment for their success.   The right wing in the US tends to oppose immigration but not nearly as strongly and has rather different priorities - American conservatives seem more concerned over issues such as abortion and gay marriage than they are with the issues of nationalism that concern European right wing parties.


You are right however that there is a disturbing rise of fascist politics in Europe.  And even more disturbing is the fact, while nationalist parties in western Europe such as Britain's BNP or France's National Front get some media exposure here in the US, there is disturbingly little coverage of the areas where fascist politics show the potential to aquire real popularity and power, such as in Croatia or the Ukraine.   Once when I was visiting Slovenia I encountered gangs of neo-Nazi's openly marching around on the streets of the capital city in the evening - not exactly a comforting sight!

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-02-2008 12:18 PM

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-04-2008 03:31 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

[ Edited ]

As I have explained to Jon in another post, I read a broad spectrum of world newspapers every day and listen to many political documentaries on TV/radio and so feel reasonably qualified to talk about world opinion. And when I use the term 'right wing' I am referring to conservatism not fascism, which is nowadays described as the ultra-right. A fair proportion of conservatives in the US are also referred to as neo-conservatives, or neo-cons. The conservative leader here, David Cameron, recently distanced himself from American neo-conservativism. 

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

I am amused that you presume to speak for the world and world stage, in such comments as "Rupert Murdoch is very much seen as a 'right wing' player on the world stage," and "America is generally regarded by other western democracies as a 'right wing' country." 

 

Of course, to socialists or Marxists the middle of the road looks right wing.

 

But if you want real right wing, don't look over here, look to Europe.  Look at Austria's recent election, where two legitimately right-wing parties (pro-Nazi) garnered nearly 30 percent of the vote.  Or France where in 2002 La Pen and his far right wing party came in second in the first round of balloting for the Presidency. Or your own British National Party which according to the BBC has about 58 elected councilors (the party estimates 100) in local government positions, and polled 5.2% of the popular vote in the 2008 election for Mayor of London.  Those candidates over here would be lucky to garner 1% of a vote over here.  

 

If you want to see true right wing politics in action, you need to look in your own backyard.

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-04-2008 04:07 AM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

As I have explained to Jon in another post, I read a broad spectrum of world newspapers every day and listen to many political documentaries on TV/radio and so feel reasonably qualified to talk about world opinion.

 

So since I read the Times, Guardian, and BBC websites every day, I guess that makes me as qualified to talk about British opinion.  So listen up when I talk about what the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh believe!  :smileyhappy:

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

Choisya wrote:
edited by twj...
It may well be (although I sincerely hope not) that the current financial crisis will bring about the same sort of racism seen against Jews in the 1920s and that the US in turn will see a rise in fascism either within the Republican Party or in a new fascist party.
these comments concern me of course, especially this last week when we heard, over and over, that the vote for the bailout had to be postponed because of the jewish holidays but, why do you accuse only the republican party of this kind of thing?
senator robert byrd of w. virginia, was once a member of the kkk, so the democrats are not immune to prejudice and hate, or, is there something i am misunderstanding in your remarks? i am not a political scientist or a historian just a plain ordinary person.
does anyone know if judaic law would have allowed jews to attend those meetings since it was an emergency? i hate to see jews used as a scapegoat. perhaps that delay would have been necessary, anyway, before another vote could be taken. maybe  discussions on the crisis should have taken place earlier. perhaps those committees involved, should have been on their toes and more aware of the problem before we had a collapse.
(those committees are controlled by democrats so let's be fair. i know i must be missing your point. i don't believe you are really accusing the republicans/conservatives, of being racist/facist, etc. and giving the democrats a pass.)
twj
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

Jon_B wrote: (edited by twj)
....American conservatives seem more concerned over issues such as abortion and gay marriage than they are with the issues of nationalism that concern European right wing parties.
You are right however that there is a disturbing rise of fascist politics in Europe.  And even more disturbing is the fact, while nationalist parties in western Europe such as Britain's BNP or France's National Front get some media exposure here in the US, there is disturbingly little coverage of the areas where fascist politics show the potential to aquire real popularity and power, such as in Croatia or the Ukraine.   Once when I was visiting Slovenia I encountered gangs of neo-Nazi's openly marching around on the streets of the capital city in the evening - not exactly a comforting sight!
i am not sure that is a fair comment jon, why do you only point to the conservatives who are perhaps not paying attention? why wouldn't you apply that same comment to the liberals as well? not to be mean, but they are more worried about creating class warfare and entitlements so they can win the election. the declining economy is their best card to play. perhaps they are instigating the problem you fear, by playing it up so much. i almost felt that you were implying that conservatives were responsible for the rise of neo nazi gangs. i know you weren't but the juxtaposition of those two thoughts and the way you placed blame, made it seem that way, to me, anyway. again, since i am not a political scientist or an historian, maybe i am misunderstanding your point. i am sensitive about this issue.

twj


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

In general WJ, fascism or extreme nationalism is the politics of the far right and is not associated with more liberal parties.  This is an historical and international interpretation, not just my own and not just applicable to US conservatives.   Of course there are exceptions, as with everything.  By European and Scandinavian standards, the Democrats are also right wing so you may be right. 

 

I don't think Jews have been used as a scapegoat in this crisis - the delay occurred well before the religious holiday.  I think people were both surprised and puzzled that everyone took a holiday in the midst of a crisis and that the holiday was not suspended but if Jewish religious holidays for Congress are built into your parliamentary system, I expect the holiday legally had to be observed. It was difficult for the public to understand at a time of crisis and I am sure that there were many non-orthodox Jews who would have been willing to attend meetings etc but rules is rules:smileyhappy:.  On the other hand, perhaps it was also a good thing to take a day off for reflection? 

.   

 


thewanderingjew wrote:
Choisya wrote:
edited by twj...
It may well be (although I sincerely hope not) that the current financial crisis will bring about the same sort of racism seen against Jews in the 1920s and that the US in turn will see a rise in fascism either within the Republican Party or in a new fascist party.
these comments concern me of course, especially this last week when we heard, over and over, that the vote for the bailout had to be postponed because of the jewish holidays but, why do you accuse only the republican party of this kind of thing?
senator robert byrd of w. virginia, was once a member of the kkk, so the democrats are not immune to prejudice and hate, or, is there something i am misunderstanding in your remarks? i am not a political scientist or a historian just a plain ordinary person.
does anyone know if judaic law would have allowed jews to attend those meetings since it was an emergency? i hate to see jews used as a scapegoat. perhaps that delay would have been necessary, anyway, before another vote could be taken. maybe  discussions on the crisis should have taken place earlier. perhaps those committees involved, should have been on their toes and more aware of the problem before we had a collapse.
(those committees are controlled by democrats so let's be fair. i know i must be missing your point. i don't believe you are really accusing the republicans/conservatives, of being racist/facist, etc. and giving the democrats a pass.)
twj

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

I will, if you give links. I perhaps ought to add that I am also a graduate and practitioner of the political sciences whereas you are a lawyer:smileyhappy:. I listen up a lot more when you are talking law.   

 


Everyman wrote:

As I have explained to Jon in another post, I read a broad spectrum of world newspapers every day and listen to many political documentaries on TV/radio and so feel reasonably qualified to talk about world opinion.

 

So since I read the Times, Guardian, and BBC websites every day, I guess that makes me as qualified to talk about British opinion.  So listen up when I talk about what the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh believe!  :smileyhappy:


 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.


Choisya wrote:

In general WJ, fascism or extreme nationalism is the politics of the far right and is not associated with more liberal parties.  This is an historical and international interpretation, not just my own and not just applicable to US conservatives.   Of course there are exceptions, as with everything.  By European and Scandinavian standards, the Democrats are also right wing so you may be right. 

 

I don't think Jews have been used as a scapegoat in this crisis - the delay occurred well before the religious holiday.  I think people were both surprised and puzzled that everyone took a holiday in the midst of a crisis and that the holiday was not suspended but if Jewish religious holidays for Congress are built into your parliamentary system, I expect the holiday legally had to be observed. It was difficult for the public to understand at a time of crisis and I am sure that there were many non-orthodox Jews who would have been willing to attend meetings etc but rules is rules:smileyhappy:.  On the other hand, perhaps it was also a good thing to take a day off for reflection? 

.   

 


thewanderingjew wrote:
Choisya wrote:
edited by twj...
It may well be (although I sincerely hope not) that the current financial crisis will bring about the same sort of racism seen against Jews in the 1920s and that the US in turn will see a rise in fascism either within the Republican Party or in a new fascist party.
these comments concern me of course, especially this last week when we heard, over and over, that the vote for the bailout had to be postponed because of the jewish holidays but, why do you accuse only the republican party of this kind of thing?
senator robert byrd of w. virginia, was once a member of the kkk, so the democrats are not immune to prejudice and hate, or, is there something i am misunderstanding in your remarks? i am not a political scientist or a historian just a plain ordinary person.
does anyone know if judaic law would have allowed jews to attend those meetings since it was an emergency? i hate to see jews used as a scapegoat. perhaps that delay would have been necessary, anyway, before another vote could be taken. maybe  discussions on the crisis should have taken place earlier. perhaps those committees involved, should have been on their toes and more aware of the problem before we had a collapse.
(those committees are controlled by democrats so let's be fair. i know i must be missing your point. i don't believe you are really accusing the republicans/conservatives, of being racist/facist, etc. and giving the democrats a pass.)
twj

 



I think it's hard for non-Jews to understand how Jews feel about the high holy days.  I heard a lot of criticism about the congress taking off.  It's my impression that Christians think of the Jewish holidays as they would think of Christmas.  It's not the same.  Even non-orthodox Jews have very deep feelings about these days of the year.  They're really non-negotiable.

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Jewish holidays.

[ Edited ]
Thanks for that insight T.   I know that non-orthodox Jewish friends of mine here celebrate the main 3 festivals of the year and consider the New Year celebration (which has just gone) important.  But their celebrations begin at sundown and some would go to work at usual during the day.  (They belong to the Liberal Synagogue.) 

 


Choisya wrote:

I don't think Jews have been used as a scapegoat in this crisis - the delay occurred well before the religious holiday.  I think people were both surprised and puzzled that everyone took a holiday in the midst of a crisis and that the holiday was not suspended but if Jewish religious holidays for Congress are built into your parliamentary system, I expect the holiday legally had to be observed. It was difficult for the public to understand at a time of crisis and I am sure that there were many non-orthodox Jews who would have been willing to attend meetings etc but rules is rules:smileyhappy:.  On the other hand, perhaps it was also a good thing to take a day off for reflection? 

.   

 


Timbukto wrote:

 

I think it's hard for non-Jews to understand how Jews feel about the high holy days.  I heard a lot of criticism about the congress taking off.  It's my impression that Christians think of the Jewish holidays as they would think of Christmas.  It's not the same.  Even non-orthodox Jews have very deep feelings about these days of the year.  They're really non-negotiable.


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-04-2008 11:03 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

I'll give as many links as you gave in your post claiming to know what the whole world thought.

 


Choisya wrote:

I will, if you give links. I perhaps ought to add that I am also a graduate and practitioner of the political sciences whereas you are a lawyer:smileyhappy:. I listen up a lot more when you are talking law.   

 


Everyman wrote:

As I have explained to Jon in another post, I read a broad spectrum of world newspapers every day and listen to many political documentaries on TV/radio and so feel reasonably qualified to talk about world opinion.

 

So since I read the Times, Guardian, and BBC websites every day, I guess that makes me as qualified to talk about British opinion.  So listen up when I talk about what the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh believe!  :smileyhappy:


 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

As you constantly criticise my giving links that is a strange request!  When you write about law  I usually take what you say as authoritative because you have studied the subject and practice it as a professional. I would not expect you to give links unless it was to back up a certain pov.  Similarly, I have studied and practiced politics for over 50 years (still do!) and I therefore claim to speak with some authority.  There are other people here whose 'voice' I take as authoritative, like Connie who is an EngLit professor or Laurel who is a D.Litt.  I feel that is only courteous.  If a person has an area of expertise they cannot be constantly spelling it out or naming the hundreds of articles and books they have read on the subject throughout their professional life.  A lot has to be taken on trust in such conversations, both here and in real life. 

 

Also, much of what is written here is necessarily 'shorthand'.  We cannot go into chapter and verse of a subject without boring the pants off everyone and we do that often enough! 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

I'll give as many links as you gave in your post claiming to know what the whole world thought.

 


Choisya wrote:

I will, if you give links. I perhaps ought to add that I am also a graduate and practitioner of the political sciences whereas you are a lawyer:smileyhappy:. I listen up a lot more when you are talking law.   

 


Everyman wrote:

As I have explained to Jon in another post, I read a broad spectrum of world newspapers every day and listen to many political documentaries on TV/radio and so feel reasonably qualified to talk about world opinion.

 

So since I read the Times, Guardian, and BBC websites every day, I guess that makes me as qualified to talk about British opinion.  So listen up when I talk about what the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh believe!  :smileyhappy:


 


 

 

 

 


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi : Bias in the press/media.

:smileyvery-happy:

 


Choisya wrote:

As you constantly criticise my giving links that is a strange request!  When you write about law  I usually take what you say as authoritative because you have studied the subject and practice it as a professional. I would not expect you to give links unless it was to back up a certain pov.  Similarly, I have studied and practiced politics for over 50 years (still do!) and I therefore claim to speak with some authority.  There are other people here whose 'voice' I take as authoritative, like Connie who is an EngLit professor or Laurel who is a D.Litt.  I feel that is only courteous.  If a person has an area of expertise they cannot be constantly spelling it out or naming the hundreds of articles and books they have read on the subject throughout their professional life.  A lot has to be taken on trust in such conversations, both here and in real life. 

 

Also, much of what is written here is necessarily 'shorthand'.  We cannot go into chapter and verse of a subject without boring the pants off everyone and we do that often enough! 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

I'll give as many links as you gave in your post claiming to know what the whole world thought.

 


Choisya wrote:

I will, if you give links. I perhaps ought to add that I am also a graduate and practitioner of the political sciences whereas you are a lawyer:smileyhappy:. I listen up a lot more when you are talking law.   

 


Everyman wrote:

As I have explained to Jon in another post, I read a broad spectrum of world newspapers every day and listen to many political documentaries on TV/radio and so feel reasonably qualified to talk about world opinion.

 

So since I read the Times, Guardian, and BBC websites every day, I guess that makes me as qualified to talk about British opinion.  So listen up when I talk about what the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh believe!  :smileyhappy:


 


 

 

 

 


 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.