John McCain

Having spent a leeetle too much time of late getting stuck on that Ms. Palin there, dontcha know, I have not been thinking much about the top of the ticket, and as someone in the comments noted recently, perhaps he’s really the most worrying part… Rolling Stone on John McCain sure makes it seem that way, anyway. Sure, biased liberal media, blah blah, but if this is even partly accurate, this is not someone we can afford to have in office.

Although, it is quite depressing to think how beloved he is by so many members of the senate, including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and by most of the media, at least until recently… though that reminds me a bit of that article a while back by a liberal journalist who had a blast hanging out with G W Bush, and the importance of keeping in mind that in many situations, for many people, someone can be a lot of fun, a really nice guy, but not a good choice for an office of responsibility and power. Human beings do a lot of compartmentalizing.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “John McCain”

  1. rushmc Says:

    So even after the evidence of the last eight years, you are still willing to give credence to a “liberal media”?

  2. drinkme Says:

    well, Rolling Stone is probably more liberal than conservative.

    Actually, in straight “liberal” vs “conservative” terms I do think the media bends slightly liberal, but I also think it bends very much toward non-critical, whatever’s easiest, that is, if they’re given a story, they’re likely to take that rather than dig for something else, and they will not bite the hand that feeds them.

    So more often they’re “liberal” in the nice, “what’s cool” “what’s on HBO” “hipster” kind of way, in that they’ll talk about sex and be pro-choice or whatever. It’s like high school – they aren’t the freaky virgin “young republicans” but they’re liberal in a superficial way. And money & access make a lot more difference.

    Of course, different reporters / magazines / etc are different, know your source etc. And also of course, “the media” are not a unified thing – anyone’s free to write an article.

  3. rushmc Says:

    I think that there may have been a “liberal” (I hate labels) bent to the media overall in the past (in the same sense that there has traditionally been a liberal bent on campus, because it tends to naturally go hand-in-hand with anything requiring thought and analysis and understanding of anything outside of one’s own particular sphere), but now that it tends to function as propaganda arms for their wealthy and often right-aligned owners (see Robert Murdoch, et al), I don’t think that is the case any longer. Sure, they may talk about Lindsey Lohan’s sex addiction, but how often do they report on evolution or climate change without “presenting the other side”? And they have had virtually a hands off approach to the transgressions of the Bush administration, which is why The Daily Show emerged to be so significant–for a long time, they were the only ones TALKING about what was going on in anything other than party-programmed soundbites. Where’s the investigative journalism of the past decade? It seems to exist only on the fringe in weak, self-promotional, after-the-fact tell-all books.

    I think in the 80s the media would report on anything that garnered eyeballs and dollars, because it (including the so-called “news”) had become profit-driven. Since about the mid-90s, however, I think it often operates according to a very different agenda altogether. It’s a bonus for its owners if FOX News makes a profit, but it serves a much more valuable purpose for them even as a loss leader by promoting their various memetic engineering efforts on a gullible and under-informed public. Look at the windfall they’ve collected before (and during) the current economic “collapse,” which would have never been possible if they hadn’t been able to sell their schemes to the country.

  4. drinkme Says:

    In a post-ironic culture, there’s very little belief in a serious quest for truth anyway. Most members of the media already “know”, like we all do, that everyone’s corrupt and full of shit, so seeking out the story is blah, it has to be really big, and really salacious, for it to go anywhere.

    Although, timing is kind of everything, too – it has to be about the right guy at the right time – I do think this story about McCain would never have flown back when the media loved him in 2000. it just wouldn’t… They were into him then, and they would have read it as his military buddies talking shit about him to get GWB back into office. So, whatever, call it bias or whatever, but I think it’s human nature…

    In the end, if people like you, the stories don’t stick and if they are questioning you, the stories build. Reagan was “teflon”, Clinton was “slick willy” -there were investigations but they often frustrated the opposing side… that’s what it comes down to.

  5. rushmc Says:

    The thing is, there is a big percentage of the country (whether you slice it by geography, age, education) which I don’t think IS “post-ironic.” So while we are winking (or vomiting) at the shenanigans, many, many people are swallowing them whole, at least for a while.

    >>In the end, if people like you, the stories don’t stick and if they are questioning you, the stories build.

    The problem with that is that none of us know these people. We are deciding whether or not we like them based on an image that they spend a lot of money to create. Of course, you know this. But the people who care about who they’d want to drink a beer with don’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: