NationStates Jolt Archive

So the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is coming up on Thursday, and already I can tell that Bush, Mc. Cain and Obama are going to milk this for all it's worth. The question is, how are they going to milk this dead cow? Here's my Vegas line bet.

Bush:Will give a speech about how we must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat the terrorist, and how we are fighting for our freedom, and freedom of others, even though the others didn't ask for it. He'll also give lip service to those who died on 9/11.

Obama:Will also give lip service to those who died on 9/11, and say that we must change the way we do international affairs, and we must hope for a better future. We must change the way we view the world, and hope that Osama will find it in his heart to give up.

Mc. Cain: Will basically get off of his knees, zip up Bush's pants and say "Ditto" to Bush's speech.

Osama will continue to hide in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan and laugh his ass off because Bush let him escape when he was cornered in Tora Bora.

So, how are the politicians going to exploit 9/11?

Bush will supprise the world by declaring it a national holiday, and renaming it 11/9 to 'get in with' the rest of the world, and also declare that The USA is going Metric!

Bush will supprise the world by declaring it a national holiday, and renaming it 11/9 to 'get in with' the rest of the world, and also declare that The USA is going Metric!

Hooray for Metric standardisation!

Hooray for Metric standardisation!

You do realise that its just a plot to undermine white society, promote 'free love', normalise gay and bisexual behaviour, and melt down "promise" rings?

I will take that bet what are your odds?

You forgot Bush and Mccain will trot out old Guiliani again to sing his praises and end up as a televised circle jerk.

CENSORED

Move along folks, nuthin to see 'ere

:)

it started last week at the republican convention with a video tribute that was so harsh that keith olbermann apologized for showing it on msnbc.

... a video tribute that was so harsh that keith olbermann apologized for showing it on msnbc.

The result of which was that he lost his anchor seat (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080909/ENT07/809090353) to someone less likely to interject his personal opinions into what was ostensibly 'neutral reporting'.

The result of which was that he lost his anchor seat (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080909/ENT07/809090353) to someone less likely to interject his personal opinions into what was ostensibly 'neutral reporting'.

****!

Dammit, I liked Olbermann as an Anchor. No more Countdown? Dammit...

I hope they do a reenactment with Bush's head.

both McCain and Obama agreed to no politics, and both will be at ground zero. I'm hoping they stick to their promises.

****!

Dammit, I liked Olbermann as an Anchor. No more Countdown? Dammit...


There will still be countdown. The link just says that he and Chris Matthews will not be hosting election night coverage.

both McCain and Obama agreed to no politics, and both will be at ground zero. I'm hoping they stick to their promises.

They've already broken those promises.

both McCain and Obama agreed to no politics, and both will be at ground zero. I'm hoping they stick to their promises.

They've already broken those promises.

This.

There will still be countdown. The link just says that he and Chris Matthews will not be hosting election night coverage.

Oh that's fine. I just basically read, "Olbermann no longer anchor, will be kept on as "commentator"", and I guess I just assumed too much. Oh well, yay for more Countdown. I actually had a look at the offending video w/ Olbermann's response on Youtube, and I found it to be quite tasteless, and I can't even say I lost someone in the Towers, like Olbermann.

Oh that's fine. I just basically read, "Olbermann no longer anchor, will be kept on as "commentator"", and I guess I just assumed too much. Oh well, yay for more Countdown. I actually had a look at the offending video w/ Olbermann's response on Youtube, and I found it to be quite tasteless, and I can't even say I lost someone in the Towers, like Olbermann.

Link?

Link?

Sure.

RNC 9/11 Tribute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs)

Hooray for Metric standardisation!

Wait, what does the metric system have to do with the date system?

You forgot Bush and Mccain will trot out old Guiliani again to sing his praises and end up as a televised circle jerk.

Guiliani watches Family Guy.

Bush will supprise the world by declaring it a national holiday, and renaming it 11/9 to 'get in with' the rest of the world, and also declare that The USA is going Metric!November 9th was the bigger day, anyway.

Sure.

RNC 9/11 Tribute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs)

I actually agree with what he said...

I actually agree with what he said...
Largely irrelevent. He was being a commentator when he should have been an anchor. The distinction between commentary and news should not be blurred, even if you like the commentary.

Largely irrelevent. He was being a commentator when he should have been an anchor. The distinction between commentary and news should not be blurred, even if you like the commentary.

It's why I've never liked Keith Olbermann. He's an outright jackass and might as well be some sort of Democratic equivalent to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.

It's why I've never liked Keith Olbermann. He's an outright jackass and might as well be some sort of Democratic equivalent to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.That's hardly fair. The Republicans have done plenty to warrant commentary the likes of which Olbermann provides.

It's why I've never liked Keith Olbermann. He's an outright jackass and might as well be some sort of Democratic equivalent to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.

See, that's the problem. We allow Fox to have full-on anchors covering events LIKE Hannity and O'Lie-ly for the Right, whereas when one finally comes out for the Left, and it's somehow wrong? Whither balance?

Also, Olbermann wasn't bombastic, he wasn't jingoistic, he just said that those memories were still painful and that (if it were his decision) the video shouldn't have been shown, and had it been shown by the DNC, the uproar against it would have been measurable on seismometers miles away from Denver.

NBC pulled those two to avoid looking exactly like Fox, which is kinda confusing to me given that the genie of news-to-suit-your-audience is already out of the bottle. At this point, castrating the one guy with any balls for the non-Fox audience is voluntarily disarming yourself in the information war.

I know it sucks, but there's now no longer any news agency not seen as having a heavy bias by some large segment of the US population. Whatever there was of objectivity is gone, and there will likely be no replacing it without some network willing to lose money to do it (and that will never happen).

See, that's the problem. We allow Fox to have full-on anchors covering events LIKE Hannity and O'Lie-ly for the Right, whereas when one finally comes out for the Left, and it's somehow wrong? Whither balance?We criticize Fox for doing what they do, same as we do to MSNBC. The difference is MSNBC responds, whereas Fox does not. It has nothing to do with what we "allow", but only what they do.

Also, Olbermann wasn't bombastic, he wasn't jingoistic, he just said that those memories were still painful and that (if it were his decision) the video shouldn't have been shown, and had it been shown by the DNC, the uproar against it would have been measurable on seismometers miles away from Denver.
What he said was true, heartfelt, and well said. However, when acting as a news anchor, his role is not to add commentary or editorialize. His objective, and that of all journalists who are not acting as commentators, is to remain as neutral as possible. He failed that, and was punished for doing so.
NBC pulled those two to avoid looking exactly like Fox, which is kinda confusing to me given that the genie of news-to-suit-your-audience is already out of the bottle. At this point, castrating the one guy with any balls for the non-Fox audience is voluntarily disarming yourself in the information war.It's disarming in the war of talking points and sound bites, yes. In the information war, no (assuming there is even such a thing)

He is still allowed to do all the commentary he wants when not acting as an anchor.

I know it sucks, but there's now no longer any news agency not seen as having a heavy bias by some large segment of the US population. Whatever there was of objectivity is gone, and there will likely be no replacing it without some network willing to lose money to do it (and that will never happen).
And so there is no point in at least attempting to present unbiased news at any point in the day? I don't buy it.

We criticize Fox for doing what they do, same as we do to MSNBC. The difference is MSNBC responds, whereas Fox does not. It has nothing to do with what we "allow", but only what they do.

Fair enough, but I can't help feeling like that gives Fox the upper hand.

What he said was true, heartfelt, and well said. However, when acting as a news anchor, his role is not to add commentary or editorialize. His objective, and that of all journalists who are not acting as commentators, is to remain as neutral as possible. He failed that, and was punished for doing so.

Fair enough, part two. In an ideal media world, that would matter.

It's disarming in the war of talking points and sound bites, yes. In the information war, no (assuming there is even such a thing).

Assuming? Are you high? We live in a country where people won't trust something that comes over CNN, even if it's the damned weather! Perhaps you haven't seen the bumper stickers that call it the "Communist News Network", but I have. The radio news segments are more even-handed, but when a Fox radio anchor reads the news, you can hear sarcasm inflected into anything dealing with Obama (recent cross-country move in a radio-only U-Haul truck during the Dems' convention and the Dayton bombshell proved this to me). At least when I listen to NPR, an interviewer like Robert Segal or Terry Gross will bother to ask questions that bring up valid and relevant opposition points to which the subject is expected to respond, and the listeners are allowed to make up their own minds. Let's see Rush or Hannity do that without their usual base mockery.

He is still allowed to do all the commentary he wants when not acting as an anchor.

I never questioned that, but thanks for repeating it for those who missed it.

And so there is no point in at least attempting to present unbiased news at any point in the day? I don't buy it.

Of course there's a point, but MSNBC simply had to know that Olbermann wasn't unbiased and never could be -- hell, they didn't HIRE him to be. To suddenly act all surprised when their own version of a talking-head pit-bull decided to gnaw on the blatant use of 9/11 imagery to advance a political candidate is brutally disingenuous. It's almost like NBC allowed MSNBC to use Olbermann just so they could yank him and thereby attempt to gain "neutrality" street cred or something.

Sure.

RNC 9/11 Tribute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs)

Its adorable how they subtly tried to link 9/11 to Iran.


ps- Olbermann is 100% right. Chose the wrong venue for it, but you know what, fuck it, principles should win out.

I would have waited for a more appropriate time to say it (and he has his own bloody show...) but he did what he felt he had to do. Good on him.

Making him an anchor however was a mistake to begin with however. Should have seen this coming.

And Mathews...is a tool. Should have never been given a soapbox, let alone an anchorship.

So the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is coming up on Thursday, and already I can tell that Bush, Mc. Cain and Obama are going to milk this for all it's worth. The question is, how are they going to milk this dead cow? Here's my Vegas line bet.

Bush:Will give a speech about how we must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat the terrorist, and how we are fighting for our freedom, and freedom of others, even though the others didn't ask for it. He'll also give lip service to those who died on 9/11.

Obama:Will also give lip service to those who died on 9/11, and say that we must change the way we do international affairs, and we must hope for a better future. We must change the way we view the world, and hope that Osama will find it in his heart to give up.

Mc. Cain: Will basically get off of his knees, zip up Bush's pants and say "Ditto" to Bush's speech.

Osama will continue to hide in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan and laugh his ass off because Bush let him escape when he was cornered in Tora Bora.

So, how are the politicians going to exploit 9/11?

Pretty much hit the nail right on the head there, bud.

Fair enough, but I can't help feeling like that gives Fox the upper hand.Only so long as the culture permits them to continue with the status quo. MSNBC wasn't allowed to because the target audience of the station demanded that the NBC brand maintain intellectual honesty and unbiased anchorship. The target audience of FOX does quite the opposite. So yes, the upper hand belongs to FOX, but only temporarily.

Assuming? Are you high? We live in a country where people won't trust something that comes over CNN, even if it's the damned weather! Perhaps you haven't seen the bumper stickers that call it the "Communist News Network", but I have. The radio news segments are more even-handed, but when a Fox radio anchor reads the news, you can hear sarcasm inflected into anything dealing with Obama (recent cross-country move in a radio-only U-Haul truck during the Dems' convention and the Dayton bombshell proved this to me). At least when I listen to NPR, an interviewer like Robert Segal or Terry Gross will bother to ask questions that bring up valid and relevant opposition points to which the subject is expected to respond, and the listeners are allowed to make up their own minds. Let's see Rush or Hannity do that without their usual base mockery.

I draw a distinction between a "spin war" and an "information war". May be pendantic, but it seems more accurate.



I never questioned that, but thanks for repeating it for those who missed it.
But if he is still on air, then he hasn't been castrated, as you stated, but meerly muzzled at certain times.


Of course there's a point, but MSNBC simply had to know that Olbermann wasn't unbiased and never could be -- hell, they didn't HIRE him to be. To suddenly act all surprised when their own version of a talking-head pit-bull decided to gnaw on the blatant use of 9/11 imagery to advance a political candidate is brutally disingenuous. It's almost like NBC allowed MSNBC to use Olbermann just so they could yank him and thereby attempt to gain "neutrality" street cred or something.Nearly anyone can remain relatively unbiased. Add to that the fact that we are discussing a man who graduated from Cornell and a man who has won an award for his journalism (note, I say "journalism" and not "commentary"), and I have an incredibly hard time believing that he couldn't have maintained his journalistic integrity. He knew what he was doing was commentary, and even went so far as to remove himself from the other members of the desk. This, in my opinion, was a good move on his part, as he made it clear that he had shifted from reporting to commentating. Unfortunatly, he was not there for commentary. He was, in this situation, employed to function as an anchor, and expected to maintain the journalistic requirements of such a position. There is no logical reason he could not do so.

You do realise that its just a plot to undermine white society, promote 'free love', normalise gay and bisexual behaviour, and melt down "promise" rings?

why none of that has happened in Finland?

See, that's the problem. We allow Fox to have full-on anchors covering events LIKE Hannity and O'Lie-ly for the Right, whereas when one finally comes out for the Left, and it's somehow wrong? Whither balance?

Also, Olbermann wasn't bombastic, he wasn't jingoistic, he just said that those memories were still painful and that (if it were his decision) the video shouldn't have been shown, and had it been shown by the DNC, the uproar against it would have been measurable on seismometers miles away from Denver.

NBC pulled those two to avoid looking exactly like Fox, which is kinda confusing to me given that the genie of news-to-suit-your-audience is already out of the bottle. At this point, castrating the one guy with any balls for the non-Fox audience is voluntarily disarming yourself in the information war.

I know it sucks, but there's now no longer any news agency not seen as having a heavy bias by some large segment of the US population. Whatever there was of objectivity is gone, and there will likely be no replacing it without some network willing to lose money to do it (and that will never happen).
Oh, I agree with you on a principle standpoint.

I just don't like him. I don't have to like him to agree with you on a principle standpoint, now do I?

Fair enough, but I can't help feeling like that gives Fox the upper hand.FOX has the upper hand because there are enough idiots out there that buy into it to justify the airtime, not because MSNBC doesn't fight dirty.

FOX has the upper hand because there are enough idiots out there that buy into it to justify the airtime, not because MSNBC doesn't fight dirty.

Reality Television is a canary for detecting idiocy in the masses. As long as they continue being churned out as reliable hits, you know the people are going to vote Bush for a third term.

Reality Television is a canary for detecting idiocy in the masses. As long as they continue being churned out as reliable hits, you know the people are going to vote Bush for a third term.We've got Reality TV and stupid people over here as well, but that doesn't mean they like Bush.

We've got Reality TV and stupid people over here as well, but that doesn't mean they like Bush.

Regional flavours of stupidity ;)