This is not a political blog. I have very specific views, I'm willing to change them if you can convince me that I'm wrong, but I'm here to tell you, that usually doesn't happen. Politics, like religion, is a dangerous subject, you are likely to lose friends over seemingly simple topics. Finally, there are enough talking heads on television, and as for bloggers, well, lets just say if you can come up with a theory, there's a group of crazies discussing it online. But I started this page just to post about my thoughts of the day, and this middle of the night rant is political, so here goes nothing.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican. That being said, I am also an independent thinker, and not a candidate for public office affiliated with the Republican Party. So many of my personal beliefs run counter to what would be lumped into a vast overgeneralization of what a 'Republican' would think. My personal preferences for politicians run more towards those who stick with their convictions, rather than compromise them for political expediency. In fact, the candidate for Governor that most intrigues me right now is Gavin Newsom, who would probably be considered the most liberal of all the Democrats who have been touted as possibilities. So imagine my delight in the last election, where the two candidates fought over who was more likely to give away the farm to embrace bi-partisanship.
I do not defend people to the death, just because they have an R by their name, nor do I attack those with D's just out of a sense of partisan duties. I have plenty to complain about with all politicians from both parties. And in the end, this is not really about politics, it's about newspapers and why they are disappearing faster than a bonus check on Wall Street. The internet is a wonderful thing. When asked to name the 7 people who had the biggest impact on history up to now, the first person I thought of before doing any research was Johannes Gutenberg. The printing press started the first information revolution, by decreasing the cost of printing to the point that it was available to the masses. The internet has started a second information revolution, though we're not quite through it yet.
Newspapers and the networks used to take their news gathering seriously, no matter their beliefs, they treated their positions as a matter of public trust. Today it seems like they are more interested in making news, and pushing their beliefs over performing the watchdog function that they had been respected for. And the consumers are partly to blame, we say we don't want to see the latest celebrity train wreck, and the paparazzi are invading their privacy, all the while buying the magazine with those pictures in the Supermarket check out lane.
I don't agree with much of the policies of the new administration. But I also know that I'm in the minority currently with my opinions. But more and more people are moving away from blind acceptance and enthusiasm with the new administration, and starting to delve into what is being suggested. The continual gaffes by the President and Vice President aren't helping them either, though I would ask how in the world is President Obama making any mistakes when he's being fed information on a telepromter for every public speaking event. Why isn't anyone criticizing him for not being able to think on his feet? What's left of the print media seems to have thrown all their working capital behind the success of this administration.
Witness the editorial in today's New York Times titled, "The Rule of Law." It seems that the Times isn't satisfied with the pace of change brought by the new administration, but to me that's simply because they are shooting themselves in the foot every day with their own mistakes. The easy way to keep people from looking at the stupidity of the incumbents? Bring on the 'Truth Commission' to start holding hearings on the big bad Bushies. That ought to provide fodder for the front pages, and distract the people from what's going on today. If you are the Times' friend, and you make a mistake, they want you to forgive, forget, and move on. If you are an enemy, you are fair game for life. This thinly disguised political partisanship is bad for everyone.
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. But the attacks on him for his statements that he wanted Obama's policies to fail were shrouded in the veil of patriotism. No real American would want their President to fail! Except they conveniently left out the part where James Carville and other Democratic strategists were conducting a focus group on 9/11/2001, and were quoted before the Twin Towers were hit that they hoped that President Bush would fail miserably. I guess attacks are okay on a Republican President in his first year in office, just not a Democrat.
I don't like hypocrites. Which is why I don't subscribe to any newspaper anymore. I read all my news online without paying for it (I know I pay for my internet access, but I'm not paying the newspaper directly), and I don't feel bad at all. Because if the big Gray Lady is the standard that all other papers strive to achieve, it's a bunch of, well since this is a family friendly page, I'll say junk. I will finish off with a simple statement. News providers, please stick to providing me useful relevant information. If you are going to be an investigative journalist, hold everyone to the same standard, in fact, I would be more inclined to read you if you were harder on those you agreed with. And if you're going to provide an editorial position, don't let it be so extreme and partisan that you alienate the majority of your potential audience. But don't listen to me, it's not like if you don't change the way you operate you're going to go broke, right?
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican. That being said, I am also an independent thinker, and not a candidate for public office affiliated with the Republican Party. So many of my personal beliefs run counter to what would be lumped into a vast overgeneralization of what a 'Republican' would think. My personal preferences for politicians run more towards those who stick with their convictions, rather than compromise them for political expediency. In fact, the candidate for Governor that most intrigues me right now is Gavin Newsom, who would probably be considered the most liberal of all the Democrats who have been touted as possibilities. So imagine my delight in the last election, where the two candidates fought over who was more likely to give away the farm to embrace bi-partisanship.
I do not defend people to the death, just because they have an R by their name, nor do I attack those with D's just out of a sense of partisan duties. I have plenty to complain about with all politicians from both parties. And in the end, this is not really about politics, it's about newspapers and why they are disappearing faster than a bonus check on Wall Street. The internet is a wonderful thing. When asked to name the 7 people who had the biggest impact on history up to now, the first person I thought of before doing any research was Johannes Gutenberg. The printing press started the first information revolution, by decreasing the cost of printing to the point that it was available to the masses. The internet has started a second information revolution, though we're not quite through it yet.
Newspapers and the networks used to take their news gathering seriously, no matter their beliefs, they treated their positions as a matter of public trust. Today it seems like they are more interested in making news, and pushing their beliefs over performing the watchdog function that they had been respected for. And the consumers are partly to blame, we say we don't want to see the latest celebrity train wreck, and the paparazzi are invading their privacy, all the while buying the magazine with those pictures in the Supermarket check out lane.
I don't agree with much of the policies of the new administration. But I also know that I'm in the minority currently with my opinions. But more and more people are moving away from blind acceptance and enthusiasm with the new administration, and starting to delve into what is being suggested. The continual gaffes by the President and Vice President aren't helping them either, though I would ask how in the world is President Obama making any mistakes when he's being fed information on a telepromter for every public speaking event. Why isn't anyone criticizing him for not being able to think on his feet? What's left of the print media seems to have thrown all their working capital behind the success of this administration.
Witness the editorial in today's New York Times titled, "The Rule of Law." It seems that the Times isn't satisfied with the pace of change brought by the new administration, but to me that's simply because they are shooting themselves in the foot every day with their own mistakes. The easy way to keep people from looking at the stupidity of the incumbents? Bring on the 'Truth Commission' to start holding hearings on the big bad Bushies. That ought to provide fodder for the front pages, and distract the people from what's going on today. If you are the Times' friend, and you make a mistake, they want you to forgive, forget, and move on. If you are an enemy, you are fair game for life. This thinly disguised political partisanship is bad for everyone.
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. But the attacks on him for his statements that he wanted Obama's policies to fail were shrouded in the veil of patriotism. No real American would want their President to fail! Except they conveniently left out the part where James Carville and other Democratic strategists were conducting a focus group on 9/11/2001, and were quoted before the Twin Towers were hit that they hoped that President Bush would fail miserably. I guess attacks are okay on a Republican President in his first year in office, just not a Democrat.
I don't like hypocrites. Which is why I don't subscribe to any newspaper anymore. I read all my news online without paying for it (I know I pay for my internet access, but I'm not paying the newspaper directly), and I don't feel bad at all. Because if the big Gray Lady is the standard that all other papers strive to achieve, it's a bunch of, well since this is a family friendly page, I'll say junk. I will finish off with a simple statement. News providers, please stick to providing me useful relevant information. If you are going to be an investigative journalist, hold everyone to the same standard, in fact, I would be more inclined to read you if you were harder on those you agreed with. And if you're going to provide an editorial position, don't let it be so extreme and partisan that you alienate the majority of your potential audience. But don't listen to me, it's not like if you don't change the way you operate you're going to go broke, right?
0 Responses to "The third rail"
Post a Comment