swiss cheese is elitist?   give me anything over that rubber goo they call american cheese. 

Im more of a cheddar guy myself.

The "news" media is becoming more and more irrelevant everyday. Scandal and drama are have replaced information and analysis. The devastating result is a woefully uninformed public, prime pickings for manipulative politicians. The best thing a person can do is seek alternative sources of knowledge and understanding and then confront the "boob news" providers and watchers. Debate. Challenge. Persist. Never stand idlely in the face of ignorance."Refuse and anything that is not actualResist anything that is not factualRefuse to let the current situation worsenResist anyone that is disrespecting your personRefuse to be afraid. It's only God you should fear.Resist the temptation to act like you don’t care.Its a struggle out there and we all feel the pressure.

You say its all good, I want to make it all better."

---Talib Kweli

For those interested in "alternative sources of knowledge" try Air America or a progressive station radio.  Pick a show and listen!  I assure you that you will be impressed!  In contrast to the lies y garbage fed by the Rush/Hannities, these shows present truth and have excellent interviews with relevent people in the media.  I have heard the conservatives try to discredit these progessive shows by stating that they are boring...but the truth is that they are very interesting, especially compared to the pill-popper.

I recommend Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, etc.  Try them and don't just take what right-wingers are saying about them as truth.  We know that they tend to be anything but truthful...

The news media is not irrelevant, nor is that the position to which we should aspire.  I agree that what is being broadcast today is really not relevant from most of our positions, but it's not irrelevant to the process.  The process is simply applied marketing at a level previously not allowed or technically possible until recently.   This is nothing but corporate fascism married to new age advertising.  It's all about how many 'impressions' can be purchased.  It's why politics cost so much.  Americans have a presumption that 'mainstream' news is balanced, even as they are aware that Fox is not.  What most don't realize is how badly the so-called-unbiased-media (SCUM) is being abused.  Because most of us here are aware of the bias and lies of the SCUM, we find it irrelevant, but all those extra free 'impressions' coming from media are very relevant.  Censoring the nonsense isn't American, but regulating some form of equal time or breaking up the meglomedia trusts might be in order.

I was watching some Richard Feynman videos over on Youtube the other day.  He won a Nobel for his work in physics and math.  He made a comment that the 'social sciences' have not produced diddly squat (I paraphrase) in comparsion to the 'hard' sciences like physics and math.  With deference to the genius of the man, I disagree and point to the Orwellian imposition of the current regime over the objections of a vast majority of the people.  The continuation of the Iraq war is only the latest example that is predated by the conspiracy to involve us in it to begin with (WMD's for everybody).  If the social science of mass manipulation didn't work here, people would be taking to the streets like enraged British soccer fans.

Why it works so well here and not so well in places more European is worth investigating (and copying).  The Euorpeans have abandoned us in Iraq (even as we import 1000 CHILEAN mercenaries!).  Some were smart enough not to get involved at all - (the one that provides free healthcare and subsidized daycare for everybody).  We need to figure out real quick what they obviously figured out long ago.

Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis.  It is the solution for it.Enjoy.

The sad part about the state of our supposed 4th estate is that you get a more informed news report/analysis from NakedNews.com!

TheOnion.com (for all its parady) is a better source of news than Fox Noise!

Corporate run media is very dangerous, it is very much like a flesh eating disease, slowly eating away at the brain until there is nothing left.......

The explanation for this is VERY SIMPLE: MSM reporters get HUGE salaries. They, and their bosses, who by and large are millionaires to billionaires HATE paying taxes. The Republicans have proven time and again their willingness to eviscerate the domestic reality for average Americans by handing over the Treasury to the wealthy, including poeple like TV reporters drawing obscene salaries. I know. My father was an anchorman for one of the major networks in the 1970s. Even then, he was pulling in close to a quarter million pre-tax, not adjusted ofr inflation. He bitched constantly about his tax burden, while hourly wage earners in that period were suffering for about $2.00 @ hour.

This is a very insightful article, and really effectively articulates a very large issue in a very understandable way.  The "big lie" stererotypes used against progressives are part of an overall tendency by "the posers that be" (include the "liberal media" here) to play to the lowest common denominator - the right wing herd - to distract from the destruction of our country, its treasures and credibility, it's history and it's good works by the fascist minority who continue to loot and plunder anything public in a frenzy of self-centered, short sighted greed and avarice. The really sad thing is, all of these fabricated and irrelevant distractions actually do seem to keep a majority of Americans from truly appreciating the extent and effect of  the rot and corruption festering behind the political curtain at so many levels.  Check out Al Gore's latest book; once you get past the ranting about Bush, he makes some really good points about fear, conditioning and stupidity, all of which apply in making the fascist "big lie" so effective today.

And let me add that Dad was a lifelong Republican. So the idea that newspeople are liberal and always have been is bull sh-t.

While you point out that media folks are following their pocketbooks when it comes to political coverage, you left out one important facet of this. When you're selling print or TV time, war is a really good seller. CNN was made by the first Bush war. The lead-up to this war was almost inconceivably uncritical on the part of the mainstream media, especially the 24-hour 'news' channels that sold lots more soap during that time of worry. It seems often overlooked that war has to be one of the biggest sellers of their product. In this way, their motivations in regard to war should be looked at with a level of scepticism almost on par with an arms manufacturer. Makes sense if you think about it, but I never hear anything about this from all those media folks who love to do stories on themselves.

I recently had a conversation with a conservitive friend of mine and Al Gore came up.  The first thing out of his mouth was that Al had said he "invented" the internet.  When I said not true but that he had sponsered legislation that would make the internet more accessible and inprove it his comment was "well I know thats what he said because all the newspapers and Rushbo said he said it."  When I pointed out that the internet had been around since the late 70's and didn't really take off until the 80's it would have been impossible for Al Gore to "invent" the internet.  But no about of proof on my part could convence him that "ol"e Al wasn't trying to take credit for doing the impossible.  Needless to say I just gave up.  Repeat a lie often enough and in some minds it becomes the truth.

You can always give your friend a lesson in reading a dictionary and use this: "If you make a ham sandwich you have CREATED a ham sandwich, but you didn't INVENT it" (read from another thread here at MMFA, but I don't remember who said it"

Gore said he HELPED CREATE the internet.  He never said he INVENTED it (I know, preaching to the choir here!)

 

Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out that the MSM seems to be slowly,SLOWLY coming around.They are actually beginning to question this shameless Bush regime.He makes the point that progress is being made in increments.I believe Media Matters is aiding in this slow,incremental move toward a more open and honest press.Yes we are still being swamped by endless non stories about hair cuts and unpatriotic food choices,but maybe,just maybe things are starting to change.

Great job by Jamison Foser...

Jim Miklaszewski is a piece of right-wing corporate filth.

Always has been.

THANK YOU MR. FOSER. THAT'S WHY I LOVE MEDIA MATTER, THEY TELL THINGS LIKE THEY REALLY ARE. THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ASKS LIKE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY "YOU KNOW WHAT DON'T SMELL".

The media has an obligation to cover all sides of the story, not just the right and the left.

They need to stop covering the "he said, she said" baloney. The global warming naysayers don't have a leg to stand on, but the media gives them some credibility by uncritically reporting their stances. That needs to stop.

To the term "military industrial complex" we should add "military industrial media complex" as the corporate media is so in bed with the industrialists and the politicians who gave us the invasion of Iraq, the degradation of our environment, and the gutting of the middle class.  The lack of reporting on these issues and obsessing on trivia speaks volumes.

This is kind of weird....the above story did not include what Al Gore said on CNN in the interview about the internet.......here it is....

"But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

When you do a Nexis search for "AL GORE and INVENTED THE INTERNET" ... well, Nexis throws its hands up in despair. It gives up, declaring, "This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 3,000 results.

I know I have an old 486 here because I am poor but in my internet I had no trouble getting the info. Maybe old computers work better deep in the hills of Wash. state. 

 

Maybe you didn't read DOGGONE's earlier post, but thank you for proving his point.

NOWHERE in the quote you just posted does Al Gore say the he "invented" the internet.  I remember SEEING and HEARING Gore on one occasion say 'I took the initiative in creating the funding and legislation to develop what is now the internet'.  And that is EXACTLY what he DID.  The quote you just posted is simply a variation of the same comment I have referenced.

Now, I'm not an internet historian, but I do recall once seeing a documentary in which the presumably knowledgeable "expert" described the creation of "ARPANET".  It was an obscure collection of government and research computer technology used mainly by, surprisingly, government (military?) and university research types.  Senator Gore, along with others, recognized the societal and economic benefits and obtained funding and passed legislation that EXPANDED "ARPANET" and  LED TO the CREATION of the current INTERNET.

NEVER IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY has Al Gore EVER claimed to have 'INVENTED' the internet.

Is that clear enough for you?  OK Troll, consider yourself "tweaked".

J that is the reason I posted Al's sentence.....so it would be available for viewing....thats one of the subjects at hand....you are confusing yourself with to much deep thought....I know what he meant when he said it....no argument here :)

Sorry man, I misunderstood.  I thought you were trying to offer that as an example of Gore saying he had invented the internet.  Consider me "tweaked".

J:

Tweak DID mean to offer that quote as proof of his claim. To the rightwing, that quote means that Gore claimed "to have INVENTED the internet". They cannot understand why EVERYBODY does not see it clearly, as THEY do.

Since they interpret the statement as Gore saying he "INVENTED" the internet, they see no problem repeating THEIR INTERPRETATION over and over again, ad infinitum, as if it is TRUE.

This is the soul of Rightwing misinformation; the attempt to make THEIR INTERPRETATIONS ... and smears and innuendoes ... into FACTS.

When they clearly are NOT.

But the true believers cannot see what is right before their eyes. These Bush apologists ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that the emperor has a dandy set of new threads. If you claim different, they look upon you as if you are insane, crazy, and unbalanced.

Because they BELIEVE. 

I took the initiative in creating the Internet.{Al Gore}

Create:

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. 

2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

3.To give rise to; produce

4.originate, invent.

I see.  So because "invent" is one possible meaning of "create", therefore it's fair to claim that Al Gore said he "invented" the internet?

No, not really.  Gore's statement was an accurate reflection of what he did.  As usual, you have no point.

your first sentence contains his actual words.    

TAZ inadvertantly destroys the Rightwing’s argument.

Definition NUMBER ONE of the word used, “create” …

Create:

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

-------- 

What did Gore do? As senator, he addressed by legislation the release of the working internet system, which was held exclusive as a proprietary holding of government entities, and made it available to the public.

Was it UNIQUE? It was. Was it going to “naturally evolve” into public usage? Not without legislation such as GORE presented.

So, following TAZ’s own definition, what Gore said he did, is exactly covered by this definition of what it means to “create”.

TAZ, of course, scrounges to a fourth tier alternative synonym as being the OPERATIVE definition he believes is most important, completely discounting the MAIN FIRST definition. This is understandable, because Rightwingers are fourth-tier thinkers. REALITY doesn’t work for them, so their rationalizations must be found in obscure inoperative tangents, while ignoring the most obvious.

Further, the thrust of the "Gore claimed he invented the internet" canard is that Gore is exaggerating or flat-out lying.  But, we know that Gore took this initiative, however one chooses to describe it.  Taz tries to convince us that "invented" is a suitable substitute for "took the initiative in creating" in this context.

If it's not a valid synonym, then his comment has no merit.  But even if it is a valid synonym, then there's no point in favoring that phrasing over what Gore actually said, because Gore would be telling the truth in either case. 

Bearing that in mind, one has to wonder what motivation these people have for insisting on the "invent" terminology.  Is it because they're being dishonest?  Are they spouting out right-wing talking points in a knee-jerk manner, without taking a single moment to contemplate how brainless they are?

For right-wingers who don't have enough emotional maturity and/or confidence in their own party to just admit that a Democrat accomplished something visionary, either option seems entirely possible.

BRAB:

No need for confusion. The Rightwing Smearmerchants are expert at distortion, taking out of context, and outright LYING in order to service their "narrative".

The "narrative" about Gore ... and really any other opponent ... is to characterize them as inauthentic, exaggerators or liars, flip-floppers, anything that is worthy of RIDICULE.

A LIE works fine. When the rightwinger says, "Gore says he INVENTED the internet", this is supposed to be so patently ridiculous, that the rightwing legions profer up a combined "Bwaaa-hahahaha! Gore is a damn LIAR!"

It doesn't matter if the claim is TRUE, it only needs get the reaction, and then be repeated constantly AS IF TRUE.

Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet. THIS is the damn lie, Yet, it doesn't matter to the rightwing. As a SMEAR, as an indicator of their narrative, it WORKS. So they're sticking to their lie. It's the essence of propaganda. 

I think you're confused about the purpose of the NEXIS search that MMFA did, and what their point was in noting that they maxed out the system at 3000. They were showing the amount of stories that were written about Gore "inventing the internet." They weren't trying to find the original quote.

Thanks "clams", I am fully aware, Accurint is more fun. 

What do you mean, you are "fully aware"?

When you do a Nexis search for "AL GORE and INVENTED THE INTERNET" ... well, Nexis throws its hands up in despair. It gives up, declaring, "This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 3,000 results.

I know I have an old 486 here because I am poor but in my internet I had no trouble getting the info. Maybe old computers work better deep in the hills of Wash. state. 

You said that you had no trouble getting the info, but that isn't what Media Matters was pointing out. They were not saying that they could not get the info. What they said was that they got too much info when they searched for stories like this, so why would you be saying that you could get the info? You suggested that your old computer was better than Media Matters computers. They were doing a "Nexis" search to figure out how many stories there were. That's totally different than doing a search to find any story about Gore and the Internet.

I guess you are a troll.

Just trying out new material for my comedy act. I guess I wont use that one. I'm ugly to.

The issue was not that they could not find a story about Al Gore and the Internet. The problem was that when they did a "Nexus" search, they were bombarded with results - so many that the search engine gave up by saying there are too many results to count them individually!

That was their point. This has been an oft-repeated story.

The fact that you could find a story about Al Gore and the Internet means nothing.

You'd think in all these haircut stories, someone would at least mention that there was no $400 haircut at all, but rather $400 in chares for two haircuts.

(And, actually, though he didn't say so, I think Gore should be credited as one of the inventors of the Internet. There was no "Internet" as we know it at the time Gore introduced his legislation to drag the Arpanet out of it's DOD/academic backwater and make it into something the rest of us could use. Without Gore, there's not even Mosaic, ferkrissakes, and most of this stuff we're doing wouldn't work.)

Sorry AVEDON, I didn't read your post before I responded to DECKTHETROOL above.  But thanks for also providing alittle "NET" background to our confused little troll.  You ironically made the point that I left out that without Senator Gore's stewardship, and that of others, we likely would be unable to communicate with such mind-boggling speed and dispersal.

Senator Gore, to his credit, recognized the potential impact of the internet and took action.  His forward thinking (don't you miss that kind of thing in a leader?) should be applauded, but he is insted mocked and marginalized by our so-called "liberal" media.

Absolutely! Gore did indeed provide crucial support in the birth of the Internet as we know it today. And the history bastardizers be damned. It's not like this was 4 billion years ago or something, there are plenty of plenty of Written Records from that far away epoch. 

And for those whose memories extend into those murky depths, you may remember that silly episode when Gore got a bit of heat for repeatedly suggesting that this new network thingy be referred to as an "Information Superhighway". That was silly. Even then it was clear that the "Internet" or just "Net", would be the adopted moniker. He was right about the rest, get over it, chumps.

1990s... I shouldn't feel so OLD about this...

 

 

If you had assiduously gathered and reported statistics on how often journalists had mentioned "Whiz with" or the size of Romney's house or Bernarnd Kerik, instead of relying on the impressions of aggrieved liberals, it would have strengthened your case.

Otherwise, excellent work.

DECKTHETROOL, ROFLMSAO

JSCOTT thanks for the laugh.

I've been working with computers and the WWW since 1974; people like trool haven’t a clue of the magnitude and speed with which the internet has become what it is today.  Men like Al Gore who saw the potential for the good that would come from it should be applauded and not ridiculed.   He is now being ridiculed by the right and their lords (big business) when he speaks out against global warnings.  God save us from closed minded sycophants like him.  Trool look it up if you don’t know the meaning….

What the heck are you talking to yourself about???? I love big Al.

warming,

Yah its a big pile of sh*t. We look at it, study it, become informed about it, occasionally take issue with it. We is a buch of cropologist's. Should be worth an arm patch or some such.

Thank you Mr. Foser.

Excellent article, though I can think of one example on the Repub side. The story on George H.W. Bush and the supermarkket scanner. It fit in the narrative of him being "out of touch" so it was pounced upon. Maureen Dowd , like she does now for Kerry and others, made up some snarky quotes for Bush too. No matter, the Edwards treatment is despicable.

It did more than fit into a "narrative".  It was concrete "proof" that Daddy Bush was "out of touch".  He also didn't help himself by appearing bored and looking at his watch during the debate with Clinton and Perot.

Also, keep in mind that you're talking about 1992, before the nitwits at Faux News came into prominence, and Rush Limpballs was just another backwater radio moron. 

I guess its my day to do this job......

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/

Its you job to link to a site that tells us what we already know? OK.

It could be useful to some of the morons who drop by from time to time, e.g. AUTOPSYCHOTIC and others.

My fantasy: Rather than wait until hell freezes over, a candidate, who gets saddled with a potentially damaging story "that connects with people, they remember it, they get it," needs to confront the story quickly and directly and ad infinitum until the whole things becomes irrelevant and silly.  

John Edwards could/should have a whole website just about the $400 haircuts.  The facts, good and bad, could be stated upfront.  A daily diary of every instance of the mention of the haircuts could be recorded and particularly egregious examples could be spotlighted and ridiculed.  Comics and commentators could be asked to write on the issue for the site.  Edwards needs to take control of the issue rather than let others yank him around by the hair.

The notion of giving "the haircut" a page of its own is novel - and powerful! The opportunities to surround that page with (other) messages from the campaign; the idea of creating buzz with original content dedicated to defusing that haircut; the redirection of what was intended to be a mortal wound; if you haven't, you should tell the Edwards campaign. I'd bet that finding out that Mr. Edwards has a sense of humor, some of those curiosity-seekers might linger to find out that he also has a very powerful, and almost unique, message for the American people. Some might also click the (not too well hidden) "DONATE" button.

The White House had a chef whose specialty was French Cooking and was indeed from France during the time they called Kerry "French."

Yeah, but he only served "freedom fries".

God Bless Jamison Foser!

"Romney's support of tax policies that overwhelmingly benefit the superrich--like Mitt Romney--may remind middle class Americans that he is not one of them."

Does the corporate media ever say this?  Of course not.

THIS SAYS IT ALL.  The corporate media is constantly spinning to keep their preferred party in power.  Many people call this FASCISM. 

 

 

 

Jamison Foser's piece is descriptive, but not explanatory.  He does a good job laundry listing the media's obsession with haircuts, earth tones, screams, cheese, and the way it ridicules by pretending to taking a speaker's hyperbole as literal truth (viz. Gore's internet comment).

But description alone of what the media does, and the unfairness of it by focusing on Democrats and stepping lightly when it comes to Republicans, is not enough.  The why question is going unanswered.  Why does the media do this? Why does it get away with it? Why? 

I surely don't know, but I have some ideas. These matters (haircuts, earth tones, screams, cheese, etc.) are seen as personal "tells" in poker parlance. Identifying them tends to belittle the person exhibiting them.  They are easily mocked if sufficient distance is put between the individual and the observer. From the vantage point of the observer, they tend to make the observer feel superior, and the object of the scrutiny somehow lesser. Bullies understand the dynamic as they pitch their scorn to their audiences.

That may be it.  The venue in which media play is a public forum, whether an article, column, or television. It's all theater, a show.  Cracks about haircuts, earth tones, screams and cheese play well among the bullying throng. The venue invites the cracks, and the commentators score points by spotting the "tells," and getting the laughs.

But just try to make cracks about lies, eavesdropping, commutations, wars, perversion of power and so forth.  Doesn't work. Not funny. People who truly worry about these matters justifiably tend to be serious and can't get the audience.  Who wants to be bored?  We go to NASCAR for crashes, hockey for fights, and all hope Lou Pinella goes nuts and kicks dirt on the umpire.

Colbert and Stewart are onto something.  If we can make fun of Bush, recreate satire as an art form, heap ridicule on Cheney, belittle the neocons, and perhaps spot their "tells" and  do unto them some of what they have done unto us, without the meanness and cruelty, but with perhaps some vicious sarcasm, then maybe we can get somewhere.  It's a form of fighting back that we liberals aren't too good at.  Why is that? The "why" question again.

 

 

 

Temp,

A very well thought out and right on analysis.

Thank you.

There may be some truth to that, but I feel like you're overthinking a bit.  It's true there are some who apparently engage in that sort of stick-in-the-eye jounalism.  Maureen Dowd comes to mind, and on the left Molly Ivans was absolutely the master of scathing and jsutifiable scorn.  Stephanie Miller is enjoying great success on the left with her satirical jabs at the "Right-wing World".  But for the most part, I think the problem with the mainstream media is corporate control of the message.  It's PROPAGANDA, pure and simple.  The ruling elite spin the message, and the corporate owned media stenographers willingly comply.  With each passing day, this country sinks deeper and deeper into the clutches of a FACIST GOVERNMENT.  Hurry up 1-20-09, if it's not too late by then.

 

"If it were just Smith and Simon repeating this nonsense over and over, one might be tempted to assume that the two Politico colleagues are merely engaging in a contest to see which one can prove that their hiring was the bigger mistake."

 

 What a classic line!  The whole piece is really first-rate, but this barb is just genius.  Thanks for the wit and the impeccable reasoning throughout, Mr Foser.

Ivy Shoots