Support NeoGAF

[cjdunn]

LA Times getting shittier by the day.

MEDIA IS CHANGING! And The Old Guard Is Scared
by KingOneEye

Rosenberg starts by characterizing the Olbermann model, which he calls a "snide act," as consisting primarily of smug histrionics, relentless needling, and shameless self-puffery. He also lays into Bill O'Reilly, but contends that the difference between them, in terms of the threat they pose to journalism, is that there will only ever be one Bill O'Reilly, while another Olbermann can be reproduced by anyone with a fairish sense of humor. [Note to Rosenberg: If you think O'Reilly is unique, you might want to do some further study on the subject paying particular attention to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, etc.] But the real message in Rosenberg's column is summed up in a single paragraph that is dripping with the lament of one who senses that his time is past.

Is this to be the standard during this period of media transition? What do we have, a few years at best, maybe 10 before news goes all Internet all the time and moves to fingernail-sized screens that we read with a magnifying glass? Technology-driven change is transforming news media, and news consumers, at warp speed. How many years before newspapers like this one are available in present form only as antiquities, like the illuminated manuscripts on display under glass at the Getty Center?

Yes, Rosenberg is afraid that the Internet will soon make obsolete the media environment in which he has grown so comfortable. He is suspicious of a transformation that is moving too fast for his liking. He fears that he and his kind will be relegated to the musty corridors of museums. And he even shudders at the notion of a news platform that strains his aging and failing eyesight.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Well, not like they're wrong about Olberman being a horrible journalist and more of an Obama talking points speaker. Least he other MSNBC guys can come off as more objective, even Mathews.

Olbermann has been saying most of these things and doing his schtick since before Obama declared his candidacy. He's a progressive journalist who's aped what he believes to be Edward Murrow's biting style.

Over the last few years he's more directly engaged conservative ideas, but I think really his attitude has been consistent since the beginning.

Also, Matthews has been enthusiastically pro-Obama anti-Hillary since the beginning. There's nothing wrong with that, but he's hardly objective and he doesn't aim to pass himself off as such.

 

[scorcho]

LA Times getting shittier by the day.

just because i think Olbermman is on the right side of the issue doesn't give him a license to be the counter-thug to O'Reilly.

 

[Trakdown]

honestly who wants to vote for a grandpa who might be going to heaven anytime due to some old age disease?

That's actually the least horrible thing about McCain. You think he's old, look at some of the ideas he's peddling.

 

[theBishop]

The journalism's true role should always be to question the decisions of the powerful. Certain people view that as liberal bias. Its too early to pass judgment on Olbermann. His response to Obama's potential abuses of power will be his measure.

 

[theBishop]

That's actually the least horrible thing about McCain. You think he's old, look at some of the ideas he's peddling.

Agreed. Its so quaint to hear him talk about "small government" and "free markets". Anyone with half a brain can see that government has grown under the staunchest so-called conservatives and there is no such thing as a free market.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama bouncing a bit in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, up 48-40 now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Not the Gallups, but hey.

 

[thekad]

honestly who wants to vote for a grandpa who might be going to heaven anytime due to some old age disease?

You're no Triumph.

But then again, who is?

 

[Pimpwerx]

What gives with the veepstakes? CNN has it in their head that Hillary would be good, ignoring the negative heat she garners from Reps. I keep hearing Sebelius's name floated around here like some check Clinton knock-off. Why exactly does Obama need a woman on the ticket? Is he honestly expected to struggle with the female vote in the Fall? Don't they already vote Democrat in large numbers? Are the few, bitter grandmas holding a grudge that important?

What about the hispanic vote? That's the vote that will swing Florida. That's the vote that can swing some SW states as well, should they mobilize like blacks are expected to. It seems to me that winning the Hispanic vote (the largest minority population now, right?) is more important than winning a fringe portion of the female vote that's likely to be voting Democrat anyway.

I just haven't heard any talk about Richardson as VP in the MSM. Is that idea a non-starter for some reason? Edwards would be the best overall choice, but how is Richardson not a strong #2 in everyone's minds? I just fail to see how a female VP is supposed to swing states.

LA Times getting shittier by the day.

Meh, Olbermann is looking pretty petty in his battle with Bill-O. I just prefer Keith's rants more. PEACE.

 

[delirium]

I have a question. If the Democrats gain control of the Presidency, House, and Senate would they really do anything? They control both House and Senate now and have been telling their constituents for years now that they would pull out of Iraq and other stuff but they haven't really done anything.

 

[jarrod]

I'd like to see Edwards as vp (honestly, I'd have liked to see him heading the ticket more) but Clinton really brings the most in terms of support (in votes, organization, funding, brand, etc). The media can't seem to let Hillary go either, and I think her negatives about galvanizing the GOP are a bit exaggerated (that's going to happen regardless... at least with Hilldawg on the ticket it may take the brunt away from Obama).

From Clinton's perspective though, I think it'd better serve her career going back to the Senate and pushing for ml.

 

[scorcho]

I have a question. If the Democrats gain control of the Presidency, House, and Senate would they really do anything? They control both House and Senate now and have been telling their constituents for years now that they would pull out of Iraq and other stuff but they haven't really done anything.

no. Democrats will likely pass measures to ban opposing parties and invest heavily in Halliburton.

 

[Farmboy]

Have you guys seen that DemConWatch has started a General Election tracker? It uses WaPo's map to create it, and averages the projections from Electoral-Vote, FiveThirtyEight, NBC, OpenLeft and FrontLoaded. See here).

They color in the 'leaning' states, so the only ones that are still grey are MI, OH and VA. Obama wins if he wins either one of those (or ties, if it's only VA).

As I've said before, these and similar maps bode very well for Obama. It's a great baseline, and I expect him to do better than the baseline. That is much more likely than him doing worse, for a number of reasons:
* Obama will outfundraise and outspend McCain.
* Obama has a more formidable, strategy-savvy campaign team.
* Many of the polls used in this baseline don't fully account for the unity-bounce yet.
* Obama will most likely outperform McCain in debates and other media appearances.
* The McCain-leaning states are closer to switching than the Obama-leaning states are (NV will turn blue before CO/NM turn red, NC/ND will turn blue before NJ/WI will turn red).
* Obama has a clear edge in OH and MI. Winning both (and adding VA) would just be icing on the cake.

 

[Evander]

I was reminded today of another issue I had with Edwards.

When he talks about "evil" corporations he is far too nebulous. It just sounds like he is spouting the same anti-corporate bullshit you hear from 17 year olds. There are definitely corporate abuses that go on in this country, but anyone who outright ignores the many positive contributions of corporations to our society really bugs me. Especially because these are people who are suposed to be on my "side", as a liberal.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

All this Sebelius VP talk... I think she's probably qualified and from what I know of her seems like a good politician.

BUT if we're looking at this from a political standpoint she doesn't work for two reasons. One, she has no foreign policy experience, and that's the "edge" McCain has for him right now (in the minds of the people).

Two, how would it look to the (shudder) 18 million Clinton supporters if Obama picked a woman for VP that WASN'T Clinton? Like a slap in the face, that's what (also to Clinton herself). Granted, if these people were truly feminists they wouldn't care, but then again if they were truly feminists they wouldn't be considering voting for McCain right now. As unfortunate as it may be though, Sebelius would be looked at as a female VP pick in the sense of Ferraro, even if she wasn't.

1. Obama says he's not weak on foreign policy.

2. Hillary may not want VP.. and may champion the fact he picked another female.. This all depends on her campaigning after the fact.

 

[firex]

I think Obama needs to go with an unknown as his VP but let Edwards and Richardson be groomed for cabinet positions. There's too much baggage with picking another big name VP, especially someone who's going to be treated as a gimmick by the media (i.e. sebelius for women/richardson for latinos).

 

[sangreal]

Please stop talking as if Hillary has 18 million voters that are lost without her help. Even taking one of the harshest polls, 60% say they will vote for Obama and I think only 22% said they would vote for McCain. I doubt those numbers even, but that would be almost 4 million voters, not 18.

 

[alr1ght]

so how would Obama's presidency affect the tax rate? I know the people earning over 250k a year will end up paying more by repealing W's tax cuts. Also, he's going to up the tax on capital gains. I get people all the time spouting off that he's going to raise taxes so much that he's going to bankrupt them. Most of these people are earning about 30k a year.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Please stop talking as if Hillary has 18 million voters that are lost without her help. Even taking one of the harshest polls, 60% say they will vote for Obama and I think only 22% said they would vote for McCain. I doubt those numbers even, but that would be almost 4 million voters, not 18.

And that poll was done on Friday, before Clinton's concession, but the numbers are already way down from the week before.

 

[SouthernDragon]

FlightofHeaven, is that a drawing of colbert in your avatar?

Yes, yes it is.

Also, I wouldn't bother responding en masse to King_Slender. He usually pops in, drops a line to agitate the thread, and leaves.

 

[jarrod]

Please stop talking as if Hillary has 18 million voters that are lost without her help. Even taking one of the harshest polls, 60% say they will vote for Obama and I think only 22% said they would vote for McCain. I doubt those numbers even, but that would be almost 4 million voters, not 18.

I don't think *anyone* around here's really maintaining otherwise. The Clinton bloc will mostly come around wether or not she's on the ticket.

 

[Cheebs]

Obama bouncing a bit in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, up 48-40 now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Not the Gallups, but hey.

Uh...Rasmussen has him down a point from sunday. Nothing important just statistical noise, but not a bounce from yesterday. Still waaaay better than he used to be doing.

Gallup hinted at a monday boost cause theirs is a 5 day poll, cant wait to see.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Uh...Rasmussen has him down a point from sunday. Nothing important just statistical noise, but not a bounce from yesterday. Still waaaay better than he used to be doing.

It hadn't been posted in a few days, IIRC. I was looking at the top line, which is flat from yesterday.

And the bounce is significant compared to just a few days ago.

 

[Cheebs]

It hadn't been posted in a few days, IIRC. I was looking at the top line, which is flat from yesterday.

And the bounce is significant compared to just a few days ago.

Today was 50-44, yesterday was 50-43. Nothing important though. It is far better than it was prior to tuesday, yes. Gallup will be interesting to see, I trust them more. Mostly because they have pretty graphs.

 

[Kyuuketsu_Night]

Well, not like they're wrong about Olberman being a horrible journalist and more of an Obama (during the primary) and now a Democrat talking points speaker. Least the other MSNBC guys can come off as more objective, even Mathews. Olberman is just the lefts Bill O'Reily.

Except Olberman is always right and Bill is not.

 

[sangreal]

so how would Obama's presidency affect the tax rate? I know the people earning over 250k a year will end up paying more by repealing W's tax cuts. Also, he's going to up the tax on capital gains. I get people all the time spouting off that he's going to raise taxes so much that he's going to bankrupt them. Most of these people are earning about 30k a year.

They would be getting tax cuts

 

[Hitokage]

I have a question. If the Democrats gain control of the Presidency, House, and Senate would they really do anything? They control both House and Senate now and have been telling their constituents for years now that they would pull out of Iraq and other stuff but they haven't really done anything.

They passed much of their 06 agenda, but the huge problem with Iraq is that they only have a slim majority and Bush is still commander in chief.

 

[scorcho]

so how would Obama's presidency affect the tax rate? I know the people earning over 250k a year will end up paying more by repealing W's tax cuts. Also, he's going to up the tax on capital gains. I get people all the time spouting off that he's going to raise taxes so much that he's going to bankrupt them. Most of these people are earning about 30k a year.

tax rates will (hopefully) be more progressive and those earning ~30k and less a year already receive a pretty nice return at the end of the tax year; that won't change.

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

Let's see the Great Orator without a teleprompter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

(has this been posted yet - I searched, couldn't find anything)

The training wheels are off :lol

Damn that one was completely brutal. It was very painful to watch that. It will no doubt show up in a Republican commercial. It actually succeeds in making him look like he has no idea about what he's doing.

Not that it's true, but again that was brutal.

 

[Cheebs]

tax rates will (hopefully) be more progressive and those earning ~30k and less a year already receive a pretty nice return at the end of the tax year; that won't change.

He is going to give a new tax cut to those under 50k though.

Damn that one was completely brutal. It was very painful to watch that. It will no doubt show up in a Republican commercial. It actually succeeds in making him look like he has no idea about what he's doing.

Not that it's true, but again that was brutal.

that wont be in any commerical. It is nothing.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Polls are among 'likely voters' and Obama will increase these ranks beyond what the polls currently reflect.

 

[Stumpokapow]

They passed much of their 06 agenda, but the huge problem with Iraq is that they only have a slim majority and Bush is still commander in chief.

In this post from the last thread, I detailed some of the Democratic success stories of the last two years:

Shit the Democrats promised they would do:
- Lobbyist reform. Passed.
- Pay-as-you-go. Passed.
- 9/11 Report recommendations. Passed; delayed ~6 months to resolve Senate/House differences.
- Raise federal minimum wage. Passed.
- Stem cell research. Passed, vetoed.
- Direct negotiation with pharmaceutical companies. Passed.
- Cut student loan interest rates. Passed.
- End some tax subsidies for oil companies. Passed.
- Try to end the War in Iraq. Tried multiple times; mix of failing, vetoes, veto threats.
- Investigate Bush administration corruption; Stonewalled multiple times, but Waxman among others has done a fabulous job.

I think it's very naive to say that the Democrats haven't got anything done. They've done their best to undo six years of foolishness. They've done their best to enact a legislative agenda at complete odds with the President. They've done their best to solidify their gains and gain further in future elections. They've done their best to prevent Bush administration abuses and corruption in the civil service. On the balance, they've succeeded.

The GI Bill in particular is an unexpected surprise that they didn't campaign on but have developed anyway. It's a spontaneous but excellent piece of legislation. I think you either underestimate the amount of effort it takes to overcome the damage the Republicans did to both houses procedurally over the last six years or overestimate the clout which Congress has to hold the President accountable without cloture or a supermajority.

I would say the biggest failure of the last two years would be action on climate change (at least partially due to Inhofe's procedural tactics but also due to the fact that there was literally no starting point). Pretty much every other issue, they've done what they can do to their limits.

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

He is going to give a new tax cut to those under 50k though.


that wont be in any commerical. It is nothing.

Considering far less has been used against Presidential candidates, forgive me if I'm not convinced that it wont be used against him.

 

[The Lamonster]

Have you guys seen that DemConWatch has started a General Election tracker? It uses WaPo's map to create it, and averages the projections from Electoral-Vote, FiveThirtyEight, NBC, OpenLeft and FrontLoaded. See here).

They color in the 'leaning' states, so the only ones that are still grey are MI, OH and VA. Obama wins if he wins either one of those (or ties, if it's only VA).

As I've said before, these and similar maps bode very well for Obama. It's a great baseline, and I expect him to do better than the baseline. That is much more likely than him doing worse, for a number of reasons:
* Obama will outfundraise and outspend McCain.
* Obama has a more formidable, strategy-savvy campaign team.
* Many of the polls used in this baseline don't fully account for the unity-bounce yet.
* Obama will most likely outperform McCain in debates and other media appearances.
* The McCain-leaning states are closer to switching than the Obama-leaning states are (NV will turn blue before CO/NM turn red, NC/ND will turn blue before NJ/WI will turn red).
* Obama has a clear edge in OH and MI. Winning both (and adding VA) would just be icing on the cake.

Yes I pretty much agree that Obama is the next president. /thread

 

[Cheebs]

Considering far less has been used against Presidential candidates, forgive me if I'm not convinced that it wont be used against him.

First, negative ads almost never start till the fall you think they'll remember him going uh a lot at one town hall in 4 months? And second wasting millions on a national ad....to use this nonsense little comment? Come on. You are paranoid over nothing here.

 

[sangreal]

Considering far less has been used against Presidential candidates, forgive me if I'm not convinced that it wont be used against him.

edit: I meant http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc I think

(I don't have any sound at work and they are both the same rally)

 

[ViperVisor]

Don't say Keith is the Left's Bill-O.

Bill-O doesn't do a newscast for 1. And is active in promoting his bullshit "traditionalist" position which is really 80% of the usual right wing position. While doing this he also slams the "secular progressive" side with lies and or slime.

When does Keith promote the Liberal position on things? Doesn't slime or lie about the right's position either. He only gets on them when they lie or slime things. Usually the things they are against, liberal things.

And the dude lumps in Dan Abrams with Keith and Mathews as Obama lovers/Hillary haters. Anyone who actually has watched the show knows Dan has been very fair and balanced on the Obama v. Clinton trail.

 

[The Lamonster]

Don't say Keith is the Left's Bill-O.

Bill-O doesn't do a newscast for 1. And is active in promoting his bullshit "traditionalist" position which is really 80% of the usual right wing position. While doing this he also slams the "secular progressive" side with lies and or slime.

When does Keith promote the Liberal position on things? Doesn't slime or lie about the right's position either. He only gets on them when they lie or slime things. Usually the things they are against, liberal things.

Exactly. Anybody that doesn't like Countdown, or thinks it is equivalent of O'Reilly is either a conservative nutjob or they haven't seen it enough or they just don't have the mental capacity to handle truth.

I'm sorry if you can't handle news and real life when it is broadcasted with emotion.

 

[thekad]

Bill O is an idiot. Keith O is a blowhard. There is a difference.

 

[Trakdown]

Damn that one was completely brutal. It was very painful to watch that. It will no doubt show up in a Republican commercial. It actually succeeds in making him look like he has no idea about what he's doing.

Not that it's true, but again that was brutal.

God, you're right! And against a master orator like McCain, I mean...that's it! Game over, man! Game over!
[/snark]
40 seconds of one town hall isn't going to sink Obama. This is the exception to the rule (you can't be on ALL the time, after all). As for the Republicans, they do NOT want to get into an argument about stage composure. At least Barack has to stumble a lot to look like he doesn't know what he's doing. McCain just needs a camera.

 

[avatar299]

Exactly. Anybody that doesn't like Countdown, or thinks it is equivalent of O'Reilly is either a conservative nutjob or they haven't seen it enough or they just don't have the mental capacity to handle truth.

I'm sorry if you can't handle news and real life when it is broadcasted with emotion.

Wal-Mart health care policy

 

[Instigator]

Exactly. Anybody that doesn't like Countdown, or thinks it is equivalent of O'Reilly is either a conservative nutjob or they haven't seen it enough or they just don't have the mental capacity to handle truth.

I'm sorry if you can't handle news and real life when it is broadcasted with emotion.

I'm sorry you need news infused with fake outrage.

 

[ToyMachine228]

1. Obama says he's not weak on foreign policy.

I agree with this. The traditional Republican strategy will be to pain him as weak on foreign policy and one who didn't serve in the military, but in this case I don't think it's going to work. Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, and McCain doesn't. Foreign policy experience doesn't decide which one of those people will vote for, it's the stance itself. Also Obama is touting a restoration of diplomacy while McCain is asking for more pre-emptive conflicts and war. In this election, the man with foreign policy experience is the one with stances that aren't popular and are near undefendable.

 

[Trakdown]

Fundraising just keeps on chugging!

 

[Hitokage]

Exactly. Anybody that doesn't like Countdown, or thinks it is equivalent of O'Reilly is either a conservative nutjob or they haven't seen it enough or they just don't have the mental capacity to handle truth.

I'm sorry if you can't handle news and real life when it is broadcasted with emotion.

Forgive me if I prefer reporting thorough enough to make any outrage self-evident rather than having it fed to me.

Besides, Olbermann has none of the subtlety of Murrow.

 

[Keylime]

Forgive me if I prefer reporting thorough enough to make any outrage self-evident rather than having it fed to me.

I never thought about it that way :lol

CAN'T YOU TELL THIS IS INFURIATING?! JUST LOOK AT ME!

 

[The Lamonster]

I'm sorry you need news infused with fake outrage.

So basically you've only seen his Special Comments?

Also I don't watch Countdown for news, I watch it for entertainment...yet it contains real news. As for the outrage, I doubt it's fake. As hard as it is to swallow, liberals hate this administration.

 

[Hitokage]

Of course, I'm a public radio fanboy who doesn't think much of cable news to begin with.

 

[The Lamonster]

Of course, I'm a public radio fanboy who doesn't think much of cable news to begin with.

Are you an NPR elitist?


I am.

 

[Trakdown]

Even as somebody who was starting to get into Countdown, KO's kinda been pissing me off the last few weeks with this vendetta he has against Murdoch. I know Rupert's an evil fucking businessman, but Keith's been devoting way too much time to mocking him with a pirate voice over stuff that happened years ago at Fox.