The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, can anyone translate Coito's last post for me? I think he was responding to me, but by the third or fourth little chop, I realized that he was saying things I'd already addressed, or that were completely irrelevant.

I can try to pick out the relevant points I guess, but does anyone else find it pretty much incoherent in that format? Oh well, maybe tonight if I have some time

I addressed every point you made directly.

It should be coherent to anyone who can speak English. You make an assertion, and I address that assertion. If I put it all in one big long post, you wouldn't know which specific assertion I am addressing.

Let me explain it to you: You read your little point which I quoted - and then right after it, what I type there, is my response to your point. Got it? There...that's not so hard, now is it?

No, see, English does not quite work like that. It has constructs called sentences and paragraphs and writing. These build together to form a coherent whole. The whole should be analyzed as a work before deconstructing it.

Really reading your post again I still have no idea what points you want to make or what you are trying to say. You seem to want to contest that the demonetization predates the Clinton Era as a widespread phenomena. This is simply not the case.

Is. I cited several examples - 1968 Johnson demonization of Goldwater, and the Jefferson/Adams horrible cross-allegations, and blatant lies. Need more?

You want to say that the media favored Gore and was biased against Bush. Studies have not generally agreed with you. In fact studies typically show reasonable levels of balance when objective measures are used in broadcast media. You want the Swiftboat vets to be unrelated to Bush when some of his biggest supporters were donating millions to them and Jeb wrote them a personal thank you note in January 2005.

I equate them with Moveon.org. Remember - I'm not the one saying that one side is worse than the other.

Do you "equate" Moveon.org with Obama? Didn't think so.

Is your point that the Democrats didn't control congress for only 12 years in the last 80 when I can count 22 since 1945?

I didn't go back and add it all up, and clearly stated I was estimating. You make my point. 22/75 is .29. Democrats, by your numbers, controlled Congress 71% of the time.

No my friend, you may have written many, many words inbetween my words, but I fail to see much addressing points or making any occurring. I don't think that it happened. Honestly, I'd spend less time trying to jump up in the middle of what I am saying yelling "interjection!" and more time trying to think of what you would like to say rather than spinning the wheels in the interjections. I have never in the past enjoyed talking to hyperactive kids who jump up and down and interject every time you pause to take a breath. I submit the posting style may resemble that rather more than you might intend.

Look - just because you reject my position doesn't mean I haven't addressed the points you raised. I have. And, you must allow me to choose my own position here. I'm arguing that both sides do it, and I have presented massive amounts of sources to back me up, and I argued that it predated Clinton and it damn well did.

[camoguard]

What about a non profit controlled media that wasn't chaired or run by CEOs or politicians? Can there be a non-government, non-corporation media that exists in order to distribute minimally biased information and to provide a check on the government and the big business?

[Robert_S]

What about a non profit controlled media that wasn't chaired or run by CEOs or politicians? Can there be a non-government, non-corporation media that exists in order to distribute minimally biased information and to provide a check on the government and the big business?

There could be a media outlet funded by a combination of public funds and private donations that had a wall between the politicians and the editorial stance...

[camoguard]

I interpret the idea of a government run media to be a media that has independent tax supported funding because it is beneficial to all citizens that it exists. I don't consider government controlled media to be what Sand was suggesting because I would mentally rule out a media that the government could shut down.

[sandinista]

I interpret the idea of a government run media to be a media that has independent tax supported funding because it is beneficial to all citizens that it exists. I don't consider government controlled media to be what Sand was suggesting because I would mentally rule out a media that the government could shut down.

Not sure what you think I'm suggesting. I mentally rule out any corporate controlled media as well.

[Coito ergo sum]

I interpret the idea of a government run media to be a media that has independent tax supported funding because it is beneficial to all citizens that it exists. I don't consider government controlled media to be what Sand was suggesting because I would mentally rule out a media that the government could shut down.

Well, the question then becomes, what kind of media is envisioned? What other options are there?

[Coito ergo sum]

What about a non profit controlled media that wasn't chaired or run by CEOs or politicians? Can there be a non-government, non-corporation media that exists in order to distribute minimally biased information and to provide a check on the government and the big business?

There could be a media outlet funded by a combination of public funds and private donations that had a wall between the politicians and the editorial stance...

Somebody has to run the place.

If public funds are provided to it, then the the wall is necessarily breached because a politician need only threaten to call for a withdrawal of funds if the business doesn't tow the line....

And, a media outlet funded by a combination of public funds and private donations.......how is this different than National Public Radio and PBS on television?

[GreyICE]

Look - just because you reject my position doesn't mean I haven't addressed the points you raised. I have. And, you must allow me to choose my own position here. I'm arguing that both sides do it, and I have presented massive amounts of sources to back me up, and I argued that it predated Clinton and it damn well did.

*shrug*

Look, you can think as you like, I have no ability to change your mind beyond that which you grant me. I think I have explained why I have no real desire to try and read or translate choppy incoherent posts, and why I think they're an ineffective tool. You responded by chopping my posts into bits and ignoring what I was writing.

If you want to keep doing this, knock yourself out. I don't read posts in German either, but I don't dismiss people's right to speak German. The two seem approximately as good at communicating ideas (well, I could actually learn German...).

[Coito ergo sum]

Look - just because you reject my position doesn't mean I haven't addressed the points you raised. I have. And, you must allow me to choose my own position here. I'm arguing that both sides do it, and I have presented massive amounts of sources to back me up, and I argued that it predated Clinton and it damn well did.

*shrug*

Look, you can think as you like, I have no ability to change your mind beyond that which you grant me. I think I have explained why I have no real desire to try and read or translate choppy incoherent posts, and why I think they're an ineffective tool. You responded by chopping my posts into bits and ignoring what I was writing.

If you want to keep doing this, knock yourself out. I don't read posts in German either, but I don't dismiss people's right to speak German. The two seem approximately as good at communicating ideas (well, I could actually learn German...).

I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I specifically addressed it. All of it.

I never dismissed your right to do anything. I only asserted my right to my own position.

There was nothing incoherent about my posts in response to you, at least not to anyone who can read English. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine.

[Robert_S]

What about a non profit controlled media that wasn't chaired or run by CEOs or politicians? Can there be a non-government, non-corporation media that exists in order to distribute minimally biased information and to provide a check on the government and the big business?

There could be a media outlet funded by a combination of public funds and private donations that had a wall between the politicians and the editorial stance...

Somebody has to run the place.

If public funds are provided to it, then the the wall is necessarily breached because a politician need only threaten to call for a withdrawal of funds if the business doesn't tow the line....

And, a media outlet funded by a combination of public funds and private donations.......how is this different than National Public Radio and PBS on television?

I was referring to those outlets.

[GreyICE]

I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I specifically addressed it. All of it.

I never dismissed your right to do anything. I only asserted my right to my own position.

There was nothing incoherent about my posts in response to you, at least not to anyone who can read English. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine.

I'm communicating my approach to that garbage. There is no pretense about it. I have given up trying to determine what people who cannot form a coherent series of thoughts that flow together to form a point intend to say. Mostly, they intend to "win" a "war" on the internet by "completely demolishing" their opponent.

I'm not really interested in that fucking shit. I'm interested in talking to people. 99% of the fuckers who do that ain't, and I'm not fucking interested in trying to separate those that are and just have no fucking clue from the rest of the chaff.

[JimC]

I interpret the idea of a government run media to be a media that has independent tax supported funding because it is beneficial to all citizens that it exists. I don't consider government controlled media to be what Sand was suggesting because I would mentally rule out a media that the government could shut down.

Well, the question then becomes, what kind of media is envisioned? What other options are there?

Well, Britain's BBC, and Australia's ABC are publically funded media that have a long tradition of independence from the government of the day. They often have major fights with government policy, and provide a useful contrast to corporate media outlets. Government pressure on them is limited, because the opposition would have a field day if it came out, which it inevitably would. The ABC does have to fight a constant battle for reasonable funding, but has a lot of public support, which means politicians cannot be too draconian with it...

[eXcommunicate]

Well, Britain's BBC, and Australia's ABC are publically funded media that have a long tradition of independence from the government of the day. They often have major fights with government policy, and provide a useful contrast to corporate media outlets. Government pressure on them is limited, because the opposition would have a field day if it came out, which it inevitably would. The ABC does have to fight a constant battle for reasonable funding, but has a lot of public support, which means politicians cannot be too draconian with it...

The closest thing we have to that here in the U.S. is PBS or NPR, neither of which receive a substantial portion of their budgets from the government. In fact, they are usually the first on the chopping block from some politicians (conservatives) when it comes time to come up with the national budget. And lately both have started to include "corporate partners" to help fund their operations, which is kind of troubling.

[Warren Dew]

The closest thing we have to that here in the U.S. is PBS or NPR, neither of which receive a substantial portion of their budgets from the government. In fact, they are usually the first on the chopping block from some politicians (conservatives) when it comes time to come up with the national budget. And lately both have started to include "corporate partners" to help fund their operations, which is kind of troubling.

They're also far more partisan than the BBC.

[camoguard]

I think we would all agree that the ideal media is sort of like the educational system. The ideal media is provided for by the government but it's not managed by the government. Like healthcare and education, a working media is an essential element of civilized societies. So you can tax me for it. And then run it like a well oiled NPO.