Is This Article Useful?

Email Print posted by Cenk 04/28/2008 02:32:25 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
On Friday's show, Dave and I had a debate over whether this article from Huffington Post was useful.

I thought Thomas Edsall did an interesting job of breaking down how all of the media outlets parroted the same lines about how Obama supposedly has electability problems. Dave thought it didn't prove its premise that the media had jumped ship to Hillary Clinton over Obama and was generally pretty useless.

So, we're curious, who do you think is right?

< Ben Stein's Expelled | Senator Obama quoting Dr. ML King >

Poll

Is this article interesting or useful or is it pointless?
A. Interesting and/or useful 53%
B. Pointless 46%

Votes: 15
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Is This Article Useful? | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
Divisive (none / 0)



At first I'm all like, wait, what did he just say? I had to read it twice, I totally took a double take. It was like worded all like, Barack is useless, and I'm all like, no way I know Cenk does NOT think that, so I had to like, read it again. What is that like a dependent clause or something, I'm so bad at that, I totally have no idea.

But anyway, I'm kinda with Dave on this one but not really, like for different reasons. I think the whole idea of falling into anything with blaming the media first off is a trap, you see how there has been this war on the Times since the Fitzgerald thing and then the admin starts hating the media that isn't Fox and as his poll numbers drop lower and lower and the war continues it gets worse and worse. This is just a continuation, any way blaming the media is I think, in the long run build up to November, a real waste because it will turn around and bite you in the ass either way. I read the article though and it wasn't like a total waste of my time or anything and he did make some good salient points. But it is a waste of time and divisive to blame the media, that's all I'll say.

by tiggerporn on 04/28/2008 09:11:49 AM EST

Strangely enough (none / 0)

I was thinking about this whole "convince people the media is biased" thing on the way to work.   I had always thought it was a waste of time but then I recalled the early '90s when a fat, incredibly lazy, stoner who had never voted took his daddy's radio station made up a bunch of shit and reinvented the political atmosphere.

There in the vanguard of Rush's orgy of lies was the idea that the media was liberal and lying about pretty much everything.  How did this work out for the GOP?   

They siezed and maintained control of Congress for twelve years and got George freakin' Bush (kinda) elected twice.  And got Clinton impeached.

Hmmmm.  Maybe this strategy isn't the dead end we thought it was.  And it just might work for us since we now have demonstrable proof the media are actual shills for the GOP and the military industrial complex.  People HATED the ABC debate.  Perhaps the iron is hot.

Then there is part of me that doesn't want to be like that guy in the first Indiana Jones movie.  The truck driver who tries to go out the windshield, over the hood and under the truck just like Indy had just done but can't becuase Indy had messed up the Mercedes hood ornament.  You know, that guy. 

by ProfRich on 04/28/2008 09:38:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
every day... (none / 0)
Bob Somerby watches this stuff every weekday at The Daily Howler. He sometimes could use an editor because he gets long winded but he's been observing and writing, so you can check the archives, a long time. He would take everything in this post by Edsell and go one step further, I think, and talk more about the "why" of what's happening. And that "why" is that the pundits framing the stories are not making a working person's salary,  but are millionaires themselves, have been for some time, and know which side of their bread is buttered. Retired generals? Tip of the iceburg!

by MayorHardin on 04/28/2008 12:13:46 PM EST

a little useless (none / 0)
I think that any article that makes generalisations about "the media" is going to be a little bit useless. I also think that the premise of his argument is wrong... I don't think that the media was fully supportive of Obama before Pennsylvania... It was clear before then that for Clinton to be nominated, she would have to convince superdelegates to go against what democratic voters wanted and alienate African American voters... which is not going to happen... but even before Pennsylvania there was very little mention of this anywhere... It sound like Clinton has a 50/50 chance now, but it sounded like that before Pennsylvania too.

by musicinmouth on 04/28/2008 01:46:28 PM EST

bunch of yackers (none / 0)
I think Edsall does a convincing job documenting this recent media trend, but is his article useful?  Like Media Matters, I think it’s important that people are watching the news with a critical eye and informing the public of their observations.  On the other hand, I think these articles have little impact in the bigger picture but at least someone is trying to keep the media on their feet.   As is the case with Brave New Films, I do think it’s possible that people can  make an impact with enough buzz as BNF did with Fox, however, I feel such movements are move effective when they  are geared towards actual people and issues like Cliff Schecter is doing with The Real McCain. 

On a personal note, I use to enjoy following and critiquing cable news stations, though lately I feel like it’s a big waste of time.  I’ve noticed while watching the primaries that if I stick with TYT coverage rather than trying to watch CNN and MSNBC at the same time, I tend to have a more enjoyable and informative experience.  Sure I’ll still tune in to these stations, but lately the only thing that brings a smile to my face is watching Tamron Hall’s beautiful face.   Always feel free to drop me a line Tam if you’re reading this - god I’m such a media whore!

by rev24 on 04/28/2008 01:54:03 PM EST

Useful...somewhat (none / 0)

The article was well written and with a satisfactory number of references to make the point that some parts of the 'media' is falling out of love with Obama. Which is not surprising since Hillary did will PA by 10 points.

Is it useful? Somewhat. But it's not really quite as amazing as Mr. Cenk made it out to be on the show.

by farazharoon on 04/28/2008 02:32:37 PM EST

Media just want a race (none / 1)
There have always been Pro-Hillary media. The balance shifts I guess, but that is mostly because the media just want a race. Chris Matthews was right, that the media is promoting the Hillary canard that this is a real race and she's still in it and has momentum, and that the "victories" in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were "HUGE". They pretend as though they are meaningful in order to make people pay attention to their coverage. The article in question is just highlighting the fact that the media are trying to make a race out of it.

by jaredfox on 04/28/2008 03:45:35 PM EST

I suspect this is true (none / 0)
Hillary stays in = more money to corporate media for both buying TV airtime + sell more news by keeping it interesting as long as possible.

by desertpear on 04/28/2008 06:08:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is This Article Useful? | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: