Who was right? - Page 17 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tbomachines · #**241** 07-28-2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Think for yourself.

Ignore those who have an agenda.

Change your thoughts.

I'm a victim of mass media

I have no thoughts!

Personally I think the whole situation is really stupid, and take pundits with a grain of salt. Gotta admit they are entertaining though. The willingness of people writing their opinions 230+ times tells me that it is not simply dismissed yet...thats all im saying with that one.

MS Fowler · #**242** 07-28-2009, 11:12 AM

Lessons
5) That the media will continue to cover up, and campaign for the President. Its not that I have an agenda to "get" the President; its just that I know if GBW had made ( maybe, WHEN GBW made) similar remarks the media called a lot of attention to it, and how stupid he was to have said......
These same people will not make any similar accusations, or focus uncomplimentary attention on this President. How so very unbiased of them.
Its not their job to get any particular person elected; it IS their job to be at least somewhat skeptical of any politician and ask the hard, embarassing questions.
Cronkite would have.

Brian Carlton · #**243** 07-28-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Lessons
5) That the media will continue to cover up, and campaign for the President. Its not that I have an agenda to "get" the President; its just that I know if GBW had made ( maybe, WHEN GBW made) similar remarks the media called a lot of attention to it, and how stupid he was to have said......
These same people will not make any similar accusations, or focus uncomplimentary attention on this President. How so very unbiased of them.
Its not their job to get any particular person elected; it IS their job to be at least somewhat skeptical of any politician and ask the hard, embarassing questions.
Cronkite would have.

It was the media who exposed the statement for what it was............false.

If it wasn't for the media, who you criticize so vociferously, Obama wouldn't have been backing down the following day.

Your bias against Obama is severely clouding any good judgment.

MS Fowler · #**244** 07-28-2009, 11:18 AM

Brian,
You may be right.

tbomachines · #**245** 07-28-2009, 11:27 AM

I think GWB earned a reputation of being an unskilled speaker whereas Obama has yet to make many gaffs. BO is a trained rhetoritician (law school) and is an extremely skilled public speaker so he has established himself as an arguably competent individual through public appearances. GWB started out okay but as soon as people began to see the gaffs over and over again it get to the point where it was just too easy to get the guy. I agree, national media have opted not to cover the president's comments and focused more on the incident itself. Different outlets also had different strategies. I think that a lot of the more liberal media will begin to get off of the BO "high" from the election soon and sober up. The moderates have already begun their criticism, and of course the conservatives have been on the attack since the campaign.

Honus · #**246** 07-28-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Lessons
5) That the media will continue to cover up, and campaign for the President. Its not that I have an agenda to "get" the President; its just that I know if GBW had made ( maybe, WHEN GBW made) similar remarks the media called a lot of attention to it, and how stupid he was to have said...

What sort of attention are you looking for? The President made a comment that he probably regrets, even though the comment was true, IMHO. It's now 12 days since the incident, yet it was still the main thing they were talking about on TV this morning.

Do you think that some sort of investigation is needed here? What more would you have the media do?

aklim · #**247** 07-28-2009, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

BO is a trained rhetoritician (law school) and is an extremely skilled public speaker so he has established himself as an arguably competent individual through public appearances.

As the 48th Rule of Acquisition goes: The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.

MS Fowler · #**248** 07-28-2009, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

I think GWB earned a reputation of being an unskilled speaker whereas Obama has yet to make many gaffs. BO is a trained rhetoritician (law school) and is an extremely skilled public speaker so he has established himself as an arguably competent individual through public appearances. GWB started out okay but as soon as people began to see the gaffs over and over again it get to the point where it was just too easy to get the guy. I agree, national media have opted not to cover the president's comments and focused more on the incident itself. Different outlets also had different strategies. I think that a lot of the more liberal media will begin to get off of the BO "high" from the election soon and sober up. The moderates have already begun their criticism, and of course the conservatives have been on the attack since the campaign.

I expect opposition from the opposing political party. I expect bouquets from the supporting Party.
I expect the PRESS to do their job--its why they were specifically protected in the Constitution. The press has always been partisan--look at the converage of Lincoln--he was either a god, or a gorilla, depending on the newspaper. What is different at this time is that the press is nearly monolithic in its POV, and they claim to be unbiased.

Honus · #**249** 07-28-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

It was the media who exposed the statement for what it was............false...

Which statement was false? The one about the police acting "stupidly"? If that's what you meant, then I said that the statement is true, but would have been better off not said by the President.

We now have hundreds of entries in this thread. Is there a single one that specifies which actions on the part of Gates violated Massachusetts law? We have a bunch of conclusions that Gates committed a violation, but I don't recall seeing any of those conclusions that are backed up with specific citations to any law.

tbomachines · #**250** 07-28-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I expect opposition from the opposing political party. I expect bouquets from the supporting Party.
I expect the PRESS to do their job--its why they were specifically protected in the Constitution. The press has always been partisan--look at the converage of Lincoln--he was either a god, or a gorilla, depending on the newspaper. What is different at this time is that the press is nearly monolithic in its POV, and they claim to be unbiased.

In a perfect world that would be true. There are a number of journalistic biases, mostly having to do with money:
1. audience bias
2. supervisory pressure
3. advertising pressure
4. personal reputation
5. language accessibility

Lots more, can't remember them right now from my press classes without my notes. Most of it revolves around making your advertisers happy, then the readers. There are plenty of moderate and balanced news sources out there, but a lot of people do not realize it (or take the "fair&balanced, no spin zone" claims for fact). I wish it were completely unbiased as well but its not going to happen as long as there is a medium involved. As Marshall MacLuhan famously said "the medium is the message"

Mistress · #**251** 07-28-2009, 11:47 AM

we need to move on....

Brian Carlton · #**252** 07-28-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Which statement was false? The one about the police acting "stupidly"? If that's what you meant, then I said that the statement is true, but would have been better off not said by the President.

We don't know if the police acted "stupidly". They might have acted perfectly reasonably if Gates was very abusive. Only a full audio transcript of Gates would allow you to make a conclusion............and, I'm sure that we, collectively, would reach different conclusions on the level of abuse that is required to generate an arrest.

mgburg · #**253** 07-28-2009, 11:52 AM

"And history will always be written by the victor."

It's amazing how true that statement is...but it could be 100% different if not for just two letters.

aklim · #**254** 07-28-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Which statement was false? The one about the police acting "stupidly"? If that's what you meant, then I said that the statement is true, but would have been better off not said by the President.

We now have hundreds of entries in this thread. Is there a single one that specifies which actions on the part of Gates violated Massachusetts law? We have a bunch of conclusions that Gates committed a violation, but I don't recall seeing any of those conclusions that are backed up with specific citations to any law.

Give him time. He is furiously backpedaling and trying to avoid having to retract it or apologize for his comment without knowing all the facts.

Unlike you, I am not a lawyer so like most, I can only go off my legal experience as a defendant in traffic court. From what I gather, the conviction only takes place in court. If that were true, Gates was ticketed on what Crowley considered a disorderly conduct. How broad or narrow an interpretation Crowley takes of it is up to him. As I SUSPECT, since I have no proof one way or the other, Crowley was doing what "Carolina" in the Volokh Conspiracy site said "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.". Again, we can't prove that was in Crowley's mind since I don't read minds so it is simply suspicion. Since Gates was being loud and disorderly, Crowley was within his rights to charge him with the violation. Maybe it won't stick because of lack of prosecuturial merit or because of the "Obama Get Out of Jail" card or both but the cop was within his rights to charge him for what he interpreted as a violation.

I was charged for Misdeminor Theft (or whatever it was called). In Arrainment (not sure of the term), it was bumped to Felony Theft. Basically, I saw a trailer in the road and was pushing it somewhere else where it wouldn't be in the way when the wife came home late that night and the owner didn't like it. I talked to the cop and forgot that I had the right to remain silent and the cop felt there were grounds for theft and ticketed me. The DA decided that they would dismiss the charges due to lack of lack of prosecuturial merit. I was polite and not being a jerk. So was that cop was wrong to ticket me too? It was her interpretation of whether there might be an offense or not. She was doing her job. She feels there might be grounds for a theft charge so she wrote me a citation. Let the courts sort it out. How was my case that different from Gates? He's black, I'm NOT white. I didn't have Clinton as my friend is about the difference I see.

aklim · #**255** 07-28-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

or take the "fair&balanced, no spin zone" claims for fact).

I wish it were completely unbiased as well but its not going to happen as long as there is a medium involved.

They are probably the same ones that believe Vince Schlomi and the Slap Chop, Graty or the Sham Wow.

As long as a human is involved, it never will be.