My Favorite Political Commentator

[Lewkowski]

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

This is one of the reasons why John Stossel is my favorite political commentator. This program is a bit old but in hindsight many of the cases are even stronger. In reality I'm sure I don't agree with everything John Stossel says but I agree with him more then any other commentator or pundit.


John Stossel Top 10 Failed Government Promises:

10. Cash for Clunkers
9. Minimum Wage Laws
8. Title IX
7. Tax Payer Funded Sports Stadiums
6. Support Agriculture
5. Credit Card Regulation
4. Government Health Care
3. Ethanol
2. Government Supporting Home Ownership
1. Fiscal Responsibility

Feel free to debate any of the issues or include your own favorite commentator and we can discuss some of their views.

[Lewkowski]

Video too long or does everyone agree with the points made? I assume everyone agrees with #6 and #3 and probably #7 but I had assumed all the other points would bring about some discussion.

[Veldan Rath]

I like Stossel, but again, I'm biased.

I'm sure there are some on here who would call him a douchebag, and think Chris Matthews as a hard hitting interviewer and commentator.

[Lewkowski]

I like Stossel, but again, I'm biased.

I'm sure there are some on here who would call him a douchebag, and think Chris Matthews as a hard hitting interviewer and commentator.

Liberals tend to hate the guy. Anytime he is mentioned on liberal forums like DU someone posts the clip of him getting assaulted by a wrestler and then it descends into cheers and wishes for it to occur again.

[Enoch the Red]

I generally agree with Stossel, but I think his reporting often leaves something to be desired.

[Lewkowski]

I generally agree with Stossel, but I think his reporting often leaves something to be desired.

In what way? Keep in mind he is full time opinion reporting these days. He doesn't give any false pretense about his political views (libertarian).

[Enoch the Red]

In what way? Keep in mind he is full time opinion reporting these days. He doesn't give any false pretense about his political views (libertarian).

It often seems to be catered to the lowest common denominator. Journalists smashing things like Gallagher might appeal to some, but I can do without it.

But hey, it's cable television agitprop, so I guess you have to set your expectations accordingly.

[Lewkowski]

It often seems to be catered to the lowest common denominator. Journalists smashing things like Gallagher might appeal to some, but I can do without it.

But hey, it's cable television agitprop, so I guess you have to set your expectations accordingly.

I see your point but to someone who doesn't understand the basics of the Broken Window fallacy it can get the point across. I don't think it detracts much from the presentation.

[GGT]

Stossel is primarily a cultural commentator. It's no accident that his missives are picked up by Fox News stations. They don't have very high journalist standards.

[Veldan Rath]

Wow, I guess you don't remember when he was on ABC

[Lewkowski]

Stossel is primarily a cultural commentator. It's no accident that his missives are picked up by Fox News stations. They don't have very high journalist standards.

Cultural commentator. Can you define what you mean by that?

[GGT]

The Andy Rooney style of "journalism" infused with personal opinions, commentary, and bias.

Most cable TV is entertainment using interesting personalities, with factoids thrown in almost accidentally, trying to pass as "Hard News". Pretty common these days.

[Lewkowski]

The Andy Rooney style of "journalism" infused with personal opinions, commentary, and bias.

Most cable TV is entertainment using interesting personalities, with factoids thrown in almost accidentally, trying to pass as "Hard News". Pretty common these days.

Ah you mean someone who has a position, who tells you what his perspective is and then makes a case for that position? I guess you dislike any commentator who shares their opinion.

In my mind this is a MASSIVE step up from what "journalism" used to be.

Journalism used to be this. I have a position. I won't tell you what it is but I will slant the news towards that position so I can try to influence you. EVERYONE is biased. Everyone has a political point of view. Either they tell you - or they don't. Either they pretend to be objective or they are honest.

Liberals like yourself would love to go back to the old days where newspapers and the big 3 were how Americans got their news. They controlled the media and were able to push their agenda very effectively.

[Loki]

Any time spent bloviating is time not spent on presenting other news (whether biased or not).

[Lewkowski]

Any time spent bloviating is time not spent on presenting other news (whether biased or not).

And your point would be?

[Loki]

And your point would be?

Does the American public seem particularly informed to you?

[Lewkowski]

Does the American public seem particularly informed to you?

Do you think this is due to the quantity of news available?

[Loki]

It's certainly one of the reasons. The amount of hard news on news programs has declined for the last few decades, while the amount of celebrity "news" and bloviating has increased exponentially.

[Lewkowski]

It's certainly one of the reasons. The amount of hard news on news programs has declined for the last few decades, while the amount of celebrity "news" and bloviating has increased exponentially.

The quantity of news has never been greater. Nearly any fact is about 2 minutes away if the person wants to look it up. There are now just a lot more options.

[Veldan Rath]

But I think one can fall into the same trap Lewk, just because we can Google, does not mean we can get an accurate account.

But back to folks like Stossel, he comes right out, tells you his view point, then tries to defend it. He is not claiming to be a reporter of the news, he is a commentator. I'm not sure how popular he is with the Fox folks either, cause he says the same thing to the big government conservatives that he says to the gang on the otherwise of the aisle.

[Loki]

The quantity of news has never been greater. Nearly any fact is about 2 minutes away if the person wants to look it up. There are now just a lot more options.

Um, most of the media reports on the same handful of issues, but from slightly different angles. There might be more news available online, but there's the problem of knowing where to find it and figuring out what's real news from complete crap (something most people don't have the time or inclination to do).

[GGT]

Ah you mean someone who has a position, who tells you what his perspective is and then makes a case for that position? I guess you dislike any commentator who shares their opinion.

In my mind this is a MASSIVE step up from what "journalism" used to be.

Journalism used to be this. I have a position. I won't tell you what it is but I will slant the news towards that position so I can try to influence you. EVERYONE is biased. Everyone has a political point of view. Either they tell you - or they don't. Either they pretend to be objective or they are honest.

You're lumping news and commentary together, treating cable TV the same as objective reporting, and calling it all "journalism".

News Flash: information access changed with the internet and multi-media, and the demise of print newspapers -- that used to hire investigative reporters for in-depth research without bias. Now they're competing in a 24/7 news cycle that's instantaneous and viral in the Twitter universe. Entertainment often trumps hard facts and thorough analysis. It's more common to see sloppy stories with retractions, instead of taking the time to check sources and confirm facts.

Liberals like yourself would love to go back to the old days where newspapers and the big 3 were how Americans got their news. They controlled the media and were able to push their agenda very effectively.

Right, it's all been a vast left wing propaganda conspiracy to control facts. No wonder folks from the right-wing fringe (like you) use terms like "Lame Stream Media".

[ar81]

Media has ideological bias, determined by top management ideology. So journalists do not have freedom of speech. You know that American and British media will never criticize the design of banking system, Wall Street defends oil industry, etc.

Media lied to us regarding EU crisis. US had a worst debt to GDP rate than Spain since 2010, and still it presented Spain as in worst shape than US. US government lied about inflation and unemployment, but press only attacks lies on inflation of Argentine government. Media covered the arab spring, but not the "american spring". Press advocated recessive measures that would make greek recession worse and advocated bailouts that would actually increase greek debt. They created a sense of risk of greek bonds, while indeed Greece was under speculative attacks of financial entities from UK and US, according to greek intelligence agency EYP.

So no wonder why people consider mainstream media as unreliable.

[Lewkowski]

You're lumping news and commentary together, treating cable TV the same as objective reporting, and calling it all "journalism".

News Flash: information access changed with the internet and multi-media, and the demise of print newspapers -- that used to hire investigative reporters for in-depth research without bias. Now they're competing in a 24/7 news cycle that's instantaneous and viral in the Twitter universe. Entertainment often trumps hard facts and thorough analysis. It's more common to see sloppy stories with retractions, instead of taking the time to check sources and confirm facts.



Right, it's all been a vast left wing propaganda conspiracy to control facts. No wonder folks from the right-wing fringe (like you) use terms like "Lame Stream Media".

Almost all the news that's politically important is relentlessly researched by political parties and thousands of individuals. Remember Rathergate? 20 years ago his lies would have been believed. Because of fact checking by thousands of individuals the truth came out. Facts are easier to research, more verifiable and more detailed then ever before.

And for the final time there *NEVER* was objective reporting. It didn't exist. It doesn't exist. It never will exist. (At least for anything that could be related to politics)

[Lebanese Dragon]

Almost all the news that's politically important is relentlessly researched by political parties and thousands of individuals. Remember Rathergate? 20 years ago his lies would have been believed. Because of fact checking by thousands of individuals the truth came out. Facts are easier to research, more verifiable and more detailed then ever before.

And for the final time there *NEVER* was objective reporting. It didn't exist. It doesn't exist. It never will exist. (At least for anything that could be related to politics)

I think it could exist, it's just very difficult. One way it could exist is to have a computer report the news in a bunch of different ways, in different orders, etc... Anyway, the news is better today than it was in the past especially if you look in the right places (emphasis on places).

Also a good listener cansee what side has been given more detailed explanation and what side was not (there are reasons for everything, regardless if you agree with them.) Again a good listener will look for more than just one source.

[GGT]

Almost all the news that's politically important is relentlessly researched by political parties and thousands of individuals.

That's a laughable statement. All sorts of unchecked 'facts' make it onto broadcasts, are picked up by social media, and disseminated to the public before all that "relentless checking" happens.

Remember Rathergate? 20 years ago his lies would have been believed. Because of fact checking by thousands of individuals the truth came out. Facts are easier to research, more verifiable and more detailed then ever before.

Remember Michele Bachmann on Fox News claiming Obama was going to spend $200 million on a trip to India? How about more recently when Hannity claimed the State Dept was watching "live feed" from the Benghazi consulate attack? Hell, all sorts of news outlets repeated the story of Notre Dame football player T'eo and his dying girlfriend for years...all false.

And for the final time there *NEVER* was objective reporting. It didn't exist. It doesn't exist. It never will exist. (At least for anything that could be related to politics)

Are you high, or is your tin foil hat too tight?

Watergate was blown open by investigative, objective reporters, and Nixon's resignation. Same for other political corruption and scandals, including one leading to President Clinton's impeachment. That's why whistle-blower protections were legislated. Even the Bernie Madoff scam discovery began with financial reporters digging into SEC complaints and writing about them in depth.

The news source matters. If they just repeat things from other sources without checking, that's not really "journalism", but copy/paste. Sometimes even shady news agencies follow the facts, and report fraud or corruption (ie Rupert Murdoch).

[Lewkowski]

Its not tin foil hat to believe that everyone has a bias. This isn't some hush hush conspiracy nonsense this is just journalists being biased and slanting their stories one way or the other. Its always been that way.

Explain to me why liberals always bemoan the demise of the media the way it used to be? Why? Its because they had an advantage when journalists could control the spin on the news. Now they can't (or at least they don't have as much sway as they used to).

[GGT]

Its not tin foil hat to believe that everyone has a bias. This isn't some hush hush conspiracy nonsense this is just journalists being biased and slanting their stories one way or the other. Its always been that way.

You are wrong about the history of Journalism. It's one thing to say that today's "news" doesn't have much credibility, but that's a reflection of multi-media and anyone posing as a "news source" in this internet age. No, it wasn't always this way. It used to be easier to distinguish tabloid or 'rag' publications from Newspapers, emphasis on "news".

Explain to me why liberals always bemoan the demise of the media the way it used to be? Why? Its because they had an advantage when journalists could control the spin on the news. Now they can't (or at least they don't have as much sway as they used to).

Wait a minute here. First, you say that journalists have always been slanting factual news with their bias, and put their spin on the news. Next, you infer that only "liberals" remember a time when journalism didn't mean spin, bias, or multi-media. Then, you say factual news will *never exist* without journalistic bias.....AND that today's news doesn't have as much spin or bias. What the fuck?

It sounds to me like you're projecting a paranoid suspicion, and casting a wide net.

[Lewkowski]

This isn't a hard concept GGT. Previously the media was almost fully in the hands of liberals. Now there are conservatives in the game too. It started with talk radio and expanded from there. Now you get biased stories from the right AND the left. Balance. Perspective. Real debate and discussion. Each side can argue their point and the world can see it. This is what makes today's media far superior than in the past.

[GGT]

Changing goal posts. Please, stop conflating News with Media. And it's not really "fair and balanced" to have biased stories from the right AND the left.

Today's multi-media is only "superior" if people choose to read sources challenging their ideas or opinions. Most people tend to read sources that confirm their ideas or opinions, aka bias.

Also, what's the basis for your opinion that "liberals" previously controlled the media news?