I did not drink the Obama kool aid. I am not ashamed to admit that I was a McCain supporter. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin has forced me, kicking and screaming, over to the other time. Sigh... Does anyone know where I can buy some good granola and Birkenstocks?
I'm interested in which part you dispute. Or, even which parts seem to be biased because of loaded language, or predisposed agendas.
People have a variety of reactions to perceived cognitive dissonance. They can choose to limit their exposure to the discomforting messages, they can choose to overcome the discomfort by refuting the messages, etc. One common strategy is to malign the source of the dissonance, what we commonly refer to as "kill the messenger."
It is entirely possible that some of the implied claims in the article aren't necessarily bad, or aren't as simple as they are made to seem. But, the absence of those arguments, in addition to the increasing number of voices (even from within GOP circles) speaking out against the McCain tactics of late and the Palin nomination, suggest that killing the messenger isn't enough.
The danger of the written word is that it is so easily misinterpreted. That said, when I read your lecture to me on perceived cognitive dissonance it struck me as condescending. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, in which case I apologize.
My problems w/the article begin here: that it is printed in the NY Times. Their ongoing crusade against conservatism causes me to doubt the veracity of anything political that they print. Why would I believe the message when I know the messenger to be a liar? I could say the same thing about CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, mainstream media ad nauseum; you may feel the same way about the few conservative news outlets that can be found, I don't know.
The article pretends to be balanced, in that it quotes persons from both parties, people in Wasilla, the state capitol, etc. There is, however, no indication that I saw that they ever attempted to get the other side of the story. Just an agenda to be accomplished. Any person in the political realm will have dirt thrown at them from both sides of the aisle so I don't know why it would be surprising that Gov. Palin would have people unhappy w/her, Democrat or Republican.
Journalism has changed and I'm disappointed in what passes for reporting in today's culture. Beyond that, when I first was introduced to this blog (by you) your writing seemed to be different. Now it's my feeling that you have such an emotional tie to Barack, that you're so desperate for him to win, that the "win at all costs" mentality now pervades your efforts. I find that disappointing because I agree w/you when you say it's not just what we say, but how we say it...
As for my condescension, I don't know what to say. I told the truth. Take it as you will.
I have no response to your media critique. It is an interesting opinion, but without support. Let me add that conservative columnists David Brooks, Russ Douthat, and Richard Cohen all (today) attack the McCain for his lying and the Palin pick. This is not just a partisan issue.
You are correct that I have made a commitment in this campaign. I'm not a journalist. I don't presume to always be detached. I see this as the most important election, with the starkest differences, in my adulthood. Win at any cost? Really? Where am I lying? You may not like my tone, but I'm not lying to you.
If I wanted to win at any cost, I would hypmotize you. And you would say, "Hep me! Hep me! I been hypmotized!" But you would vote for Obama.
Now you are definitely being condescending. Without cause.
If you truly believe that the media is unbiased... Sheesh.
I did not and do not accuse you of lying. It's just that if I wanted to read some liberal rag like the NY Times I'd go there. You are the one who has written at length about the need to change the tone of politics and yet your tone has become increasingly less modulated.
7 comments:
I did not drink the Obama kool aid. I am not ashamed to admit that I was a McCain supporter. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin has forced me, kicking and screaming, over to the other time. Sigh... Does anyone know where I can buy some good granola and Birkenstocks?
Dude, you are so, like, welcome in our home. Give us a hug.
Another unbiased piece of journalistic "investigation" from the NY Times. How refreshing.
I'm interested in which part you dispute. Or, even which parts seem to be biased because of loaded language, or predisposed agendas.
People have a variety of reactions to perceived cognitive dissonance. They can choose to limit their exposure to the discomforting messages, they can choose to overcome the discomfort by refuting the messages, etc. One common strategy is to malign the source of the dissonance, what we commonly refer to as "kill the messenger."
It is entirely possible that some of the implied claims in the article aren't necessarily bad, or aren't as simple as they are made to seem. But, the absence of those arguments, in addition to the increasing number of voices (even from within GOP circles) speaking out against the McCain tactics of late and the Palin nomination, suggest that killing the messenger isn't enough.
The danger of the written word is that it is so easily misinterpreted. That said, when I read your lecture to me on perceived cognitive dissonance it struck me as condescending. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, in which case I apologize.
My problems w/the article begin here: that it is printed in the NY Times. Their ongoing crusade against conservatism causes me to doubt the veracity of anything political that they print. Why would I believe the message when I know the messenger to be a liar? I could say the same thing about CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, mainstream media ad nauseum; you may feel the same way about the few conservative news outlets that can be found, I don't know.
The article pretends to be balanced, in that it quotes persons from both parties, people in Wasilla, the state capitol, etc. There is, however, no indication that I saw that they ever attempted to get the other side of the story. Just an agenda to be accomplished. Any person in the political realm will have dirt thrown at them from both sides of the aisle so I don't know why it would be surprising that Gov. Palin would have people unhappy w/her, Democrat or Republican.
Journalism has changed and I'm disappointed in what passes for reporting in today's culture. Beyond that, when I first was introduced to this blog (by you) your writing seemed to be different. Now it's my feeling that you have such an emotional tie to Barack, that you're so desperate for him to win, that the "win at all costs" mentality now pervades your efforts. I find that disappointing because I agree w/you when you say it's not just what we say, but how we say it...
As for my condescension, I don't know what to say. I told the truth. Take it as you will.
I have no response to your media critique. It is an interesting opinion, but without support. Let me add that conservative columnists David Brooks, Russ Douthat, and Richard Cohen all (today) attack the McCain for his lying and the Palin pick. This is not just a partisan issue.
You are correct that I have made a commitment in this campaign. I'm not a journalist. I don't presume to always be detached. I see this as the most important election, with the starkest differences, in my adulthood. Win at any cost? Really? Where am I lying? You may not like my tone, but I'm not lying to you.
If I wanted to win at any cost, I would hypmotize you. And you would say, "Hep me! Hep me! I been hypmotized!" But you would vote for Obama.
Now you are definitely being condescending. Without cause.
If you truly believe that the media is unbiased... Sheesh.
I did not and do not accuse you of lying. It's just that if I wanted to read some liberal rag like the NY Times I'd go there. You are the one who has written at length about the need to change the tone of politics and yet your tone has become increasingly less modulated.
Post a Comment