I have to say it's pretty sad when the only person in the mainstream media who deserves to be called a journalist is a former sportscaster who was famous for two things: hating soccer and adding humor to ESPN broadcasts. But is there anyone else in the mainstream US media who even questions the Republican "alternate facts" and talking points? I can't think of any. Most have become stenographers, dutifully writing down or repeating without question whatever their Republican masters tell them.
Virgulino | 10.07.06 - 1:32 pm | #

Well, aside from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher was doing it last night on HBO.

But, general point taken.
rabbit | 10.07.06 - 5:42 pm | #

Oh yeh. I forgot about the cable TV comedians. So a sportscaster famous for adding comedy to ESPN's broadcasts and three comedians are the only four people who get close to deserving to be called journalists in the "mainstream media" in a country of 300 million people with a "free press." Let's not forget that Stewart and Colbert (except when he's in character) refer to their programs as "fake news shows."

Still, I can't believe I forgot about The Daily Show and its spinoff, The Colbert Report. TDS's coverage of Condi Rice's testimony to the 9/11 commission was really good, and put all the major media outlets' coverage to shame, while somehow still managing to be really funny.

YouTube has it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U...h? v=UCmXCviuYZ4

Stewart's facial expressions are priceless.

Part 2 features Rob Corddry basically playing the role that Colbert plays on "The Repor' " now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L...h? v=L2GBa49Ox6I


I laugh, but at the same time, there's something wrong about depending on a "fake news show" for decent English language coverage of news stories.

Virgulino | 10.08.06 - 11:17 am | #

There's something wrong about just about everything about this era in history.
rabbit | 10.08.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Interesting point. I've thought that before, but then I've wondered if it's true. Is there something qualitatively different between this era and previous eras? Is there any previous era about which it could be said there was something wrong?

Since I have to go to a meeting and don't have time to think of a better example, let me focus on the current US president's total lack of qualification for the job. But Lincoln was also seen as being stupid by some who didn't like him politically. FWIW, I'm no fan of Lincoln. In school they told us he was the guy who freed the slaves, but they didn't get around to mentioning that he didn't do it because he thought slavery was wrong, but to strike a blow against the economy of the South. And among those who actually study US history, it appears that Lincoln is revered for having held "the Union" together. My basic response to that is "BFD," but I'm a happy expat. Still, I don't think Lincoln was stupid or unqualified for the job.
Similarly, Brazil's president, who doesn't even have a high school education, is constantly cut down as being "stupid" by those who don't like his politics. I think he's actually reasonably smart and even fairly knowledgeable, two things I would not say about the current US president. Lula is not educated and Bush is (MBA from Harvard), but Lula appears to be significantly smarter and more knowledgeable than Bush. I think a lot of people mix up those three things (knowledge, formal education, and intelligence), and that's why some call Lula "stupid."
I do feel like there's a difference between GWB and all 42 of his predecessors, but is there really, or am I blinded, as Lincoln's detractors were (and as I believe Lula's detractors are), by my opposition to GWB's politics and policy? Generalizing again, is there anything really different about this era in history, or do we feel that way because of our utter revulsion at what has been happening in the USA over the last 6 (or more) years? What could historians 100 years from now say was really different about the turn-of-the-21st-Century era?
Virgulino | 10.09.06 - 9:21 am | #

I've wondered this too. You read enough history, you see the same complaints voiced about other time periods. Closer to home, most of the criticism I might have of the present is encapsulated in the Port Huron statement. Maybe they're not qualitatively different, but the political deception, surveillance (at least in the industrialized world), and utter destruction of the environment everywhere do seem to be occurring on a more massive scale than ever before. Maybe it's all just human nature, but human nature that's been given ever more effective tools for destruction.
rabbit | 10.09.06 - 9:35 am | #

It is with some shame that I admit that I'd never read the Port Huron Statement. I still haven't gotten through all of it.
As I said, I do feel there is a significant difference between the current US prez and all of his predecessors. I can put the presidents of my lifetime in order from best to worst (FWIW, Nixon was president when I was born), but it now seems like a stupid exercise to put all of them in order when it can be summarized as follows:

Clinton
(significant gap)
The others
(galactic-scale gap)
Dubya

I had my problems with Clinton, but it seems clear to me that he stands head and shoulders above the rest of them. Does that make him the star of the Lilliput NBA? Maybe.
The differences between Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41 are small compared to the difference between Clinton and all of them, and ridiculously tiny compared to the difference between any of them and the disaster that is GWB.
Well, that's how I see it now, anyway. I do wonder if I'll see it differently in 5, 10, 20, or 30 years.
What's wrong with the Bush Administration? Let's start with a short list: the good-for-corporations-but-not-for-workers economy; torture; warrantless surveillance; signing statements; total disregard for the Constitution in general; "preemptive war;" "shock and awe" (can somebody please explain to me how "shock and awe" is different from terrorism?); the general shortsighted "profit now" attitude without a single thought for the future; out-of-control spending with the bill being sent to all of us and future generations with interest; stupid and shortsighted foreign policy; etc. Maybe it would be easier to make a list of what isn't wrong with W's government. Here it is:

Just in case you missed it, I'll repeat it:

Thank you for taking the time to read it. Did I forget anything?
Anyway, the point is that there is something about this moment that feels truly historic. In the history of the USA, I don't believe there has been abuse of power and utter disrespect for the Constitution and established laws and values that even comes close to what's going on now. Is that my own ignorance showing? Is it my dislike for this administration coloring my perception, or does my dislike of this administration come from my perception of the things it's doing wrong? I believe the latter, but I do wonder if it could be the former.
Virgulino | 10.12.06 - 9:53 pm | #

I've been away a while. Back now. Anyway, all I'll say is basically ditto on the defining issues...not so sure I'd put Clinton so far above the pack, but at least he is smart and meant well, neither of which can be said of the current occupant.
rabbit | 10.18.06 - 9:29 pm | #