Favorite sites and links 3/11/08
Mar 11th, 2008 by jeremy
- The Onion profiles the Presidential candidates
- Food Porn of the day, Tempura Udon
- Michael Jackson’s Neverland is falling into ruins
- LDS Church apologizes to Catholics for it’s idiotic missionaries
- 50 people looking for the Virgin Mary go blind looking at the sun
Some of my favorite sites.
Grandma Called to Serve is a blog recently started by my former boss, Kim Griesemer. Her husband passed away a few years ago, and she recently started the blog to chronicle her life as she gets ready to leave on her mission to Ecuador (she’s currently in the MTC) for the LDS church. No favorite posts, it’s just interesting to see the whole mission thing from a grown-up point of view. She was updating daily, but I don’t know how long that will continue, or if it will continue at all once she leaves the country.
Crooks and Liars is for political junkies only. It gathers news posts that try to explain why politicians, news channels and Rush Limbaugh are ruining the country. They post ten to fifteen times a day depending on what’s happening in Washington. Recent posts include Karl Rove being taunted at a speech, how CNN elevates the public discourse, and Rush comparing one of our vets to a suicide bomber.
After spending some time on “Crooks and Liars” I suggest it be renamed “Liberal Spin on How Conservatives are Ruining the Country.” Certainly that would be a valid (though quite redundant) outlet, but it would also be a more transparent approach to introducing its content. Is it not possible to have an objective outlet in politics (or at least semi-balanced)? The more I look around, the more discouraged I get, and start to believe that people see what they want to see, regardless of political affiliation. I suppose it has always been that way–I guess it would take too much effort and would take a convenient tool away from those who seek and hold power to have people from all sides actually address issues and have apt opportunity to not have their positions misrepresented. I fear the internet and 24 hour “news” movement makes it even more difficult for that to happen on a grand scale–everyone has an opinion that can be made public, which is great, but it sure makes it difficult for someone who wants “the facts” to find them without them being presented in a sterile context.
/soapbox
On a brighter note, the snow is melting.
Thanks for all the interesting links–always something interesting linked from your site.
Having noticed that this site was posted under some of your “favorite” sites, I realized that my comments may come across as a personal criticism, and they weren’t meant that way. I just get a bit discouraged when I start readings comments on such sites and get hit with the same realizations that I tried to capture in my previous comment–any you provided a convenient pathway to vent a bit about things that go well beyond that site. Thanks.
There is no “fair and balanced” site on the internet. Once you understand that, I think it’s easier to accept site’s like Crooks and Liars. With a Republican administration, this is where Crooks and Liars see what it perceives to be the problems in politics. People say the same thing about shows like The Daily Show, that they pick only on Republicans and conservatives. However, when the Senate recently became a Democratic majority, Democrats started to get picked on just as much.
As for it being one of my favorite sites, I’m not a conservative, so obviously I’m not going to pick something like National Review or Powerline (the Right’s version of Crooks and Liars). And don’t worry, I didn’t take it as a personal criticism. I believe what I believe, and trust me, in Utah I’m reminded every day that there are plenty that don’t believe the same way.
If you want balanced, the most fair reporting I’ve found is the BBC. They don’t seem to care about Democrat and Republican, they report the same either way. Everyone else has some kind of spin, you just have to choose what spin you’re looking for.
Jeremy, I don’t disagree with your overall point, but what if there were such a site (I know, my idealist side is manifesting)? That’s my issue–is it even possible? I don’t know. Bias runs deep and people often struggle to even recognize their own biases. I just find it so interesting that some people see the mainstream media as liberal and some see it as conservative–some see the Clinton administration as the most corrupt in history, some see Bush as Hitler. Of course there really isn’t just one media voice, so that’s part of it, but sometimes it is very obvious how a media outlet spins things one way or another.
Actually, regarding that particular site, it wasn’t so much that a particular administration is attacked, it’s a different tone toward Republican/Conservative happenings vs Democrat/Liberal happenings. The latter gets apologetic treatment–a willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and the former and more cynical spin and unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt. Kind of like one starting with the presumption of guilt, the other a presumption of innocence. My Utopian query was toward having means to avoiding these presumptions in the first place, but I suppose that might go against human nature. How can one decide which spin to gravitate toward if one has only been introduced to issues by spin? I fear it will get increasingly difficult for people to make truly informed decisions, assuming they even desire to (which is probably one reason I seem to be right in the middle of the political continuum–that and my double dose of the indecision gene).
The conservative sites could also be renamed to be more transparent, and have the same issues of presumptions and bias–though conservative media is arguably a more recent player in the overall media.
By the way, I do disagree with you to a point that it is mostly a matter of the administration being in power that draws the media ire. Having paid pretty good attention during the Clinton and Bush administrations, there is no question in my mind that the presumptions of guilt vs innocence have not been equally applied to both administrations (and I don’t mean EVERY time in EVERY way)–the Bush administration getting the rawer end of things (and I’m not a Bush fan, though I admit I do not admire Bill Clinton). But that should not be a surprise given the admitted voting preferences of journalists as a group. I’m sure some are able to put that aside, and I’m sure others aren’t.
I think the idea of a news outlet that completely lacks bias is a dream. It’s unfortunate, but I don’t think it’s possible to write about an event or person without injecting your own views into it, even slightly.
The internet is only contributing to this I’m afraid. Because here is a rush to be the first to report something, news agencies don’t seem to want to wait to find out all the facts. So first rumors of a governor having sex with prostitutes is reported (with spin by the journalist), then more facts come out either adding or subtracting to the rumor (with more spin), then years later you probably are able to find out the whole story.
I understand what you mean about tone though, I do the same thing here. I support Barack Obama’s Presidential bid. So you can be assured most of my links about McCain, Clinton or George Bush are not going to be flattering (see today’s links for a perfect example). I don’t have a problem doing that because I know people realize I’m not a journalist, and I’ve never tried to write posts without bias.
I think you’re write that people will find less and less that there are bias free ways to get your news. Depending on what your read, you could easily interpret Bush’s Presidency as either a catastrophic failure, or a valiant fight against evil. Maybe in 50 years you’ll be able to get a bias-free look at what really happened from 200-2008, but not until many people are gone.
Do you think reporters feel more now that they have a personal stake in what’s happening? When you watch someone like Hannity and Colmes or listen to Rush Limbaugh (or Al Franken on the liberal side), it’s fairly obvious that Hannity isn’t trying to be a reporter, he’s trying to influence people, while pretending to be a reporter on a news channel. Reporters on Fox News don’t come right out and say who they support most of the time, but they make it well known that they support Republicans. Then if you switch over to MSNBC you’re going to get the same thing. Now reporters actually coming out and saying they support Obama or Clinton, but making it obvious that they would prefer one of them.
In short, I don’t think it’s ever going to get better, and more than likely it’s going to get worse. Part of it is our fault. Don’t you think that someone that voted for George Bush twice, supports the Iraq war, and hates homosexuals is going to watch or read news that reinforces those choices they’ve made (feel free to switch any of those examples to something normally associated with liberals)? People want to be right, and they’re going to listen to the people that keep telling them they’re right.
Yeah, that’s true, people will want to read what confirms their biases or choices or votes, whatever. I think that with cable news, the line between reporter and commentator is razor thin or even nonexistent. In fact, I wonder how many people get their news from Jay Leno/David Letterman/John Stewart, etc. I suppose the upside, however, is that one can hear “the news” from multiple outlets and try to put the pieces together themselves-though in this busy world that is not always easy.
Thanks for the discussion.
I enjoy reading these back and forth comments between the two of you. They are intelligent and informative and, best of all, not belligerent.