|
Romney's comments/America's poverty statistics
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Meat187 |
| Typical disgusting "affection journalism". Everyone pities poor suffering children so they're a favorite tool when the media wants to use emotions to steer people's opinion. I ing hat that . :mad: |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Typical disgusting "affection journalism". Everyone pities poor suffering children so they're a favorite tool when the media wants to use emotions to steer people's opinion. I ing hat that . :mad: |
So, this media you speak of... How long do you think they've been purposefully manipulating perceptions and for who's benefit?
I'm pretty sure it's the Jews but I haven't ruled out the Shriners, yet. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Of course it's the Jews, stupid. :p
I guess I'm just pissed because I always hear Obama fanboys complaining when Faux News does something like that, but as soon as it supports their political views it suddenly becomes OK. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Of course it's the Jews, stupid. :p
I guess I'm just pissed because I always hear Obama fanboys complaining when Faux News does something like that, but as soon as it supports their political views it suddenly becomes OK. |
The difference is that Fox just makes up random based on nothing in reality, where at least stuff like this has some basis in truth. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Of course it's the Jews, stupid. :p
I guess I'm just pissed because I always hear Obama fanboys complaining when Faux News does something like that, but as soon as it supports their political views it suddenly becomes OK. |
Fareed's got one of the few hours on CNN that is balanced and informative. He and Anderson Cooper, to a far lesser extent, approximate what I'd consider to be worthwhile. This whole notion that CNN's editorial policies are somehow slanted with liberal bias, however, is pretty much false. CNN wants to portray itself as "neutral", therefor balancing out against Fox as "more reputable" but, seriously, the only thing CNN is really good at is perpetuating non-partisan ignorance. Whether you're a liberal or conservative, after watching CNN for twenty-four straight hours, you're no better informed on any subject that's been covered than you would be if you obtained all of your news from World Net Daily.
Most of CNN is garbage. Fareed tends to be one of the more informed anchors and he maintains enough editorial control of his show that watching it is worthwhile. The segment above is just one opinion piece and he's not necessarily trying to leverage out conservative view-points and arouse people's sympathy with it. More-over, his point is to look how we compare with other countries while debunking a lot of what Romney is saying on the campaign trail. |
|
|
| OrangestO |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Fareed's got one of the few hours on CNN that is balanced and informative. He and Anderson Cooper, to a far lesser extent, approximate what I'd consider to be worthwhile. This whole notion that CNN's editorial policies are somehow slanted with liberal bias, however, is pretty much false. CNN wants to portray itself as "neutral", therefor balancing out against Fox as "more reputable" but, seriously, the only thing CNN is really good at is perpetuating non-partisan ignorance. Whether you're a liberal or conservative, after watching CNN for twenty-four straight hours, you're no better informed on any subject that's been covered than you would be if you obtained all of your news from World Net Daily.
Most of CNN is garbage. Fareed tends to be one of the more informed anchors and he maintains enough editorial control of his show that watching it is worthwhile. The segment above is just one opinion piece and he's not necessarily trying to leverage out conservative view-points and arouse people's sympathy with it. More-over, his point is to look how we compare with other countries while debunking a lot of what Romney is saying on the campaign trail. |
Agreed. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
I don't know about CNN in general or that show, but the above segment conveys mostly the message "Romney is a bad person because he doesn't care about the poor children" to me.
The comparisons with other countries seem rather vague. Why are there differences in certain areas? What sense does a comparison make if another country has, for example, completely different social and health care systems? These statistics only mean something in context with such additional information and this context is not provided.
So to me this segment looks like some cheap and superficial pseudo-journalism with a touch of defamation. Not saying, of course, that other stuff on TV was better or that this show or channel were always on this level. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I don't know about CNN in general or that show, but the above segment conveys mostly the message "Romney is a bad person because he doesn't care about the poor children" to me.
The comparisons with other countries seem rather vague. Why are there differences in certain areas? What sense does a comparison make if another country has, for example, completely different social and health care systems? These statistics only mean something in context with such additional information and this context is not provided.
So to me this segment looks like some cheap and superficial pseudo-journalism with a touch of defamation. Not saying, of course, that other stuff on TV was better or that this show or channel were always on this level. |
You're right in that it relies on a presumed understanding in the context, not only of Romney's remarks but of the perceptions Americans have of themselves in relation to other countries. Romney's initial remark that he didn't "care" about poor people was taken woefully out of context in a way that actually retarded much of the political discourse in America and forced Romney to back-track quite a bit. Compared to how his remarks were portrayed by both journalists and pundits, including the CNN anchor who initially and stupidly challenged Romney with the false perception that he actually didn't care about poor people, Zakaria is actually doing Romney a favor. Zakaria isn't saying that Romney doesn't care about poor people, at all - in any way. He's not even promoting some idea that Romney is necessarily out of touch. In fact, he's diverting largely from the subject of the presidential campaign as he utilizes Romney's flawed statistics as a topical, rhetorical reference point for elaboration on his thesis.
The vague comparisons to other countries notwithstanding, the perception of America, by Americans, is largely one that is inherently compromised by political rhetoric and flawed media coverage. The statistics cited by Zakaria, while undeveloped in the five or so minutes his editorial takes, also argue against a rose-tinted perception that many people in America have about how we actually compare to other countries. Pundits frequently point to Europe as bad; as what Obama is trying to convert us to. To take their remarks at face value is to view Germany, England, France, Spain, et al, as dystopian hell-scapes where the accumulation of wealth is made untenable by meddling government bureaucracies who stifle their populations to such a degree that whole societies wallow in mediocrity; painfully ignorant of just how good things could be were laissez faire economic policies to be allowed. Zakaria isn't editorializing against Romney. If anything, he's trying to dispel American conceits about our own superiority. Of course you couldn't possibly understand that with your inferior German education and stifling economic conditions. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
It seems a bit overly simplistic to just see a bit of education for the "USA is number one!!11!"-guys in this.
Pointing out existing problems is fine. But pointing to cheap solutions like "the Blair government made reducing child poverty a priority" is just silly. Putting that in context with Romney's comments certainly creates an aura of manipulation. I guess, as you say, it's quite harmless compared to what the US media usually does and what they could have made from his badly phrased words.
Basically I'm always complaining when simple solutions are offered for complex problems. Of course TV does that almost all the time. Thinking that "dystopian hell-scapes where the accumulation of wealth is made untenable by meddling government bureaucracies who stifle their populations to such a degree that whole societies wallow in mediocrity" is imho just as wrong as disposing that statement as utter bull. There are a number of problems for example with the German social and health care system, and I would indeed call it overblown in some respects.
Maybe I just cringe to at this affection crap. When they talk about poor children and their terrible prospects in life. Or, one of my favorites, when some catastrophe happens and the say "numerous victims, among them women and even children". As if it were somehow worse when a woman or child dies compared to a man. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
Your views are perfectly understandable and even well-informed, considering the oppression you suffer. :p
I don't necessarily get that he's over-simplifying European solutions for the sake of editorial expediency but I won't argue against that, either. It's a relatively short piece that couldn't possibly consider the nuances of European and American policies or their impacts. I'm definitely not informed enough to argue from Zakaria's point of view, regarding those issues. As complex as the problems faced in America are, there a many more people whose understanding of problems along with the solutions they advocate for are betrayed by less than fundamental understandings. Compared to them Zakaria is far more informed but they are still allowed and even applauded for speaking their mind on issues they have no fundamental understanding of. On the other hand, perhaps it's telling that you perceive weakness in Zakaria's arguments. It causes me to wonder how well European public discourse is informed when a German finds fault with an arguable pinnacle of American political discourse if not journalistic integrity.
Perhaps he over-played the slides of poor-children, portrayed in surroundings that seemed to reek with poverty, with dirty faces, and pushing shopping carts. They seemed chosen to depict a dilapidated standard of living rivaling that of the third-world. While my sense that his use of imagery had more to do with anchoring such symbolism to his statistics, I think his point could have done better without it. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Don't worry, the discourse in Europe is not informed at all. I guess at least Germans are rather sensitive to opinionated programs, as our main media is government financed and thus forced to be as neutral and balanced as possible. The downside is that they're watered-down useless outlets of political correct .
I don't know much about the US and its politics, but I always see those stupid black and white reports and corresponding Republicans vs. Democrats flamewars. |
|
|
|
|
