Political Theater and news coverage

[Korriken]

Since the state of the union address, I've been troubled by one thing. It's something I've seen before, countless times, but never so.. blatantly in my life.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about already, but for those who don't I'm talking about Mark Rubio's sip of water that the media obsessed over, while for the most part ignoring the state of the union address itself. Rubio's words were even ignored, all eyes were on that water bottle.

Now, normally, when the media decides to sidestep or ignore something, they find some piece of sensationalist 'news' to distract you with. Problem is the whole Dorner manhunt wasn't all that interesting because looking for a guy isn't entertaining as finding the guy and blowing his brains out, which hadn't happened yet. The disabled cruise ship was news, but without masses of dead bodies, it wasn't sensational.

so they decide to focus on Rubio taking a sip of water. They ignore that Obama's first state of the union address has him promoting gun control, by bringing in a bunch of people who have been affected by gun violence for a photo op,

On the topic of photo op, do you remember this? This was big news when it happened. in fact, it was big new for quite a while. Bush was lambasted and mocked for it relentlessly. However, Obama's many many photo ops, have been largely ignored.

Remember this? apparently Obama wanted to be absolutely CERTAIN that the doctors looked like doctors. and that's just 1 photo op out of many. Obama seems to have a thing for having just the right thing next to him or in the background when he's delivering a speech, be it children, doctors, or an oil derrick and a large red tanker.

and yet, the media only called Bush out of doing photo ops. Hell, even TIME magazine called Obama out on at least one rather ridiculous photo op.

[TheMason]

Great topic Korriken.

Media's role in a democracy has always been a core problem for free societies.

The media can be disruptive:
* With the manhunt for Dorner, once they had him holed-up the police had to ask the media to not show live aerial feeds of the building since Dorner was presumed to have access to TV and the media copters would act as drones for him to keep tabs on the SWAT teams outside.
* When I worked flood relief we would spend 45 minutes throwing sandbags from one another to keep the Missouri River from overflowing the levy. It was hard work since we're talking about wet sandbags that weighed 45lbs dry. When we did have a chance to rest, it was usually cut short by some News 'copter flying overhead and the officers getting all nervous about us looking like we weren't doing anything.

The media exists in a free-market:
Just in my lifetime we have seen the rise of two things that displaced iconic media outlets: network news (which spans both the radio and TV age) and newspapers. The nightly news and their network affiliates now have to compete in a 24/7 news cycle in which the casual news consumer can just turn on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc anytime they want. Hell, CNN created a newschannel just for the ADD crowd when it created Headline News. Likewise, the internet has provided every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a national and even global presence.

So they have to compete, and this means sensationalizing everything. Just look at violent crime. In the 1990s it shrank by 20%...but the media latched onto stories about violent crime and increased their coverage of this topic by 600%. Now people think that there is an epidemic.

The media can create bubbles:
I'm not talking about economic ones, but ideological ones. Most people find a news source that by and large agrees with their worldview and latches onto it. They don't read anything else or listen to another channel or watch another channel. Thus people's opinions become insular. That's why I try to read CNN, FOX, and Real Clear Politics (which links to a multitude of outlets across ideologies). In the car I switch between Sirius' Patriot and Left channels. For TV...I pretty much just watch the Nightly news.

====

In the end, this is why the founders wrote the Constitution so that only one part of the government would be directly elected: the passions of the masses are easily fanned to destructive ends. Back then people could still insulate themselves in terms of what paper they read...but they still had to interact in a community that was far more connected than it is today.

Perhaps we need to return to these founding principles.

[Korriken]

At 2/19/13 01:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

Perhaps we need to return to these founding principles.

maybe, but given that these same companies give us things like Reality TV (which passes scripted amateurs off as being "real events in their life") among other plagues. now, the thing that should scare the hell out of everything, is the number of people who think what they see on these reality shows is real. It's a testament to just how bad our society has become, when people can sit there, staring at a television, watching the antics of the people on TV, and NEVER once realizing that no one ever seems to notice the camera crew, or notice the fact that the same few people win every single auction and every episode someone finds something amazing/

of course, the fact that people consider a guy gorging himself with food to be quality entertainment should send a chill down your spine as well.

It's a new kind of social engineering. dumb em down and make them easily distracted by virtue of their entertainment. could be why many government officials want to go after video games. they're not as easily controlled.

[Camarohusky]

So what's your point here? That the media hasn't pointed out Obama numerous photo ops, or that they focused on the sip of water more than the content of the State of the Union Speech?

Who cares? Either way, the answer is a big fat, so what?

Oh boo hoo. The media isn't pointing out what ALL Presidents have done since sensationalist article have been combined with visuals. So what if Obama paraded a bunch of shooting victims to get an emotional point accross to support gun control? Is it any different than Bush talking about 9/11 in regard to Iraq? Any different than any other Presidents using theater to make an emotional case? Not at all.

You bring up the "mission Accomplished" flap, but fail to acknowledge the proper reason it was a flap. It wasn't a flap because Bush did it with pomp or circumstance. It was a flap because the message conveyed was overtly decietful. How many American soldiers died in combat after that declaration? Exactly. The mission wasn't over, and everyone knew it, even at the time.

If it's the media focusing on the sip more than the speech, well, welcome to the late 20th Century. Very little when it comes to the Presidents' speeches in the State of the Union is important. Always partisan and always meant to make a political impact, but never really important to the regular person (cause frankly, they never say anything new). All that is important to the regular person is the occasional monkeywrench, or the occasional viral bit, such as the sipping of water or the "That's not true." You can try to make the comparison that during Bush' term, the viral bits often focused onhis speech, but that's nothing more than a reflection of Bush's unrehearsed and yeoman style of speech and of Obama's very polished speaking skills, not of the media.

So, what IS your point here?

[Korriken]

At 2/19/13 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So what's your point here? That the media hasn't pointed out Obama numerous photo ops, or that they focused on the sip of water more than the content of the State of the Union Speech?

Mostly focusing on the sip of water, but it's just one of the latest (and very visible) thread in a tapestry of deception weaved to keep the public from seeing the real problems.

Who cares? Either way, the answer is a big fat, so what?

see, this is a shining example of the problem here. "so what?" I mean, I know you have the intellectual honesty of Rush Limbaugh (who I don't listen to btw, can't stand the guy), but this is overboard, even for you. I point out how the media is keeping people uninformed by focusing on what doesn't matter to avert their eyes away from the real issues, and all you can say is "so what?"? Of course, I guess it benefits those who share your viewpoint on government, so it's fine, right?

Oh boo hoo. The media isn't pointing out what ALL Presidents have done since sensationalist article have been combined with visuals. So what if Obama paraded a bunch of shooting victims to get an emotional point accross to support gun control? Is it any different than Bush talking about 9/11 in regard to Iraq? Any different than any other Presidents using theater to make an emotional case? Not at all.

Wonder how you would have reacted if Bush ushered in a bunch of 9/11 survivors and relative of the dead when he made his speech? I can only imagine the shit storm THAT would have caused. I can just see those headlines "Bush using children of victims to push for war." "Bush uses victims as stage props."

You bring up the "mission Accomplished" flap, but fail to acknowledge the proper reason it was a flap. It wasn't a flap because Bush did it with pomp or circumstance. It was a flap because the message conveyed was overtly decietful. How many American soldiers died in combat after that declaration? Exactly. The mission wasn't over, and everyone knew it, even at the time.

Not the point. the point is, it wasn't ignored because it made Bush look stupid. would you not consider spending millions to fly the Airforce One to new Mexico to give a 15 minute speech to a couple hundred people in front of an inactive oil derrick for a photo op deceitful? Of course not. Because he's on your side, right?

If it's the media focusing on the sip more than the speech, well, welcome to the late 20th Century. Very little when it comes to the Presidents' speeches in the State of the Union is important.

Except, it is. the media didn't focus on how eloquently he spoke, nor did they focus on his points and scrutinize them, nor did they even mention much at all about it... but oh boy, that sip of water was just HUGE. and HUGE for a reason. the sip of water served too purposes. it misdirects the attention of the audience, and it's used as a battering ram to hammer away at Rubio, and by extension, the right. So basically, they focus on a single trivial thing in order to not have to do their job.

The problem is people are accepting this problem as just a fact of life, when they shouldn't be.

Always partisan and always meant to make a political impact, but never really important to the regular person (cause frankly, they never say anything new). All that is important to the regular person is the occasional monkeywrench, or the occasional viral bit, such as the sipping of water or the "That's not true."

Funny how you just brush off the double standard, but I suppose that's normal for you.

You can try to make the comparison that during Bush' term, the viral bits often focused onhis speech, but that's nothing more than a reflection of Bush's unrehearsed and yeoman style of speech and of Obama's very polished speaking skills, not of the media.

that's bullshit and you know it. Obama's gaffes were and are still purposefully ignored. true, Bush wasn't the best speaker we ever had, not by a long shot. However, when Bush made a gaffe, it was news. Obama has made more than enough gaffes, and they were systematically suppressed and ignored. How fast do you think Obama's career would have sank if his gaffes were focused on? He'd still be a nobody senator from Illinois, if that, and we'd have the first woman president in office. People are stupid, people rely on the media to tell them things and they all know it. .

just imagine how foolish Obama would look if the media didn't ignore how often he uses other people for props for his speeches and all the photo ops he uses. "Obama using victims as stage prop yet again!" "Obama spends millions of dollars flying Airforce One just to get photo op in front of oil derrick" "Obama spends tax payer money for lab coats to give to doctos as stage prop" I would link the pictures, but I already have once. Or if they focused on how he was unable to continue his speech when the teleprompter breaks down. Or perhaps, his many, many, screw ups when he was campaigning the first time. I would bother to put up a list of some pretty major gaffes, but it wouldn't do any good, given you'd just say "so what?"

If Obama was held to the same scrutiny as Bush and Palin, he would have never been nominated or elected. Thing is, the people in charge of the news LOVE the guy, they LOVE his positions on topics and they get to choose the narrative their corporations tell the nation, and so Obama the Great Black Messiah, here to save us all from the evil Republican Party was born. Hell, for a while they were pointing out Hillary Clinton's gaffes. Why? Simple! to destroy her campaign to make room for Obama.

what you don't say can tell more about you than what you do say. It would have been easy to twist the message from "Obama the black messiah" to "Obama the arrogant fool" simply by focusing on his gaffes the same way the media focuses on the gaffes of candidates they don't like.

So, what IS your point here?

what's my point? you should know all too well what my point is. Problem is, you're in support of what they do. either that or you're just complacent, which isn't much different.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/20/13 12:14 AM, Korriken wrote: Mostly focusing on the sip of water, but it's just one of the latest (and very visible) thread in a tapestry of deception weaved to keep the public from seeing the real problems.

Like what? That the Republicans are too hooked on saving the wealthy money that they're willing to hold the nation hostage? Or the same with Democrats and welfare programs? You don't think we all know that already?

I point out how the media is keeping people uninformed by focusing on what doesn't matter to avert their eyes away from the real issues, and all you can say is "so what?"?

Is there a point in the midst of the attacks and drivel?

News media outlets are entertainment outlets. The State of the Union has never been important enough to be news, and the content is rarely entertaining. Rubio looking foolish is entertaining. If it were Harry Reid or John Kerry or some other Democrat looking stupid, that would have made the news. Trying to get people to pay attetion to the content of the State of the Union is like squeezing blood from a stone.

Wonder how you would have reacted if Bush ushered in a bunch of 9/11 survivors and relative of the dead when he made his speech? I can only imagine the shit storm THAT would have caused. I can just see those headlines "Bush using children of victims to push for war." "Bush uses victims as stage props."

Bush made numerous connections to 9/11 when he was promoting the Iraq War. He may not have done the theater, but he still made Iraq about 9/11. I doubt the media would have gone afer him for it if he did, because the media was eating that shit up like crazy. Do you not remember that far back?

Not the point. the point is, it wasn't ignored because it made Bush look stupid. would you not consider spending millions to fly the Airforce One to new Mexico to give a 15 minute speech to a couple hundred people in front of an inactive oil derrick for a photo op deceitful? Of course not. Because he's on your side, right?

And Bush didn't do things just like that? HE DID. You are still not understanding what makes a flap. (FACE PALM!!!!!)

Except, it is. the media didn't focus on how eloquently he spoke, nor did they focus on his points and scrutinize them, nor did they even mention much at all about it...

You know why they didn't? Because we've heard it all before. State of the Unions have never been little more than a repetition of campaign promises. Also, people don't give a shit what the President says there. For one, it's all talk, most of which never comes to fruition. Second, most Americans don't understand it and think it is boring.

but oh boy, that sip of water was just HUGE. and HUGE for a reason. the sip of water served too purposes. it misdirects the attention of the audience, and it's used as a battering ram to hammer away at Rubio, and by extension, the right. So basically, they focus on a single trivial thing in order to not have to do their job.

They ARE doing their job: TO ENTERTAIN. Do you k now why they even noticed it at all? Not because the sip was really that noticeable or because of some Half-baked conspiracy. They noticed it because it became a massive meme OVERNIGHT. That's right: THE PEOPLE MADE IT NEWS, NOT THE NEWS OUTLETS.

The problem is people are accepting this problem as just a fact of life, when they shouldn't be.

You're missing the problem. The problem isn't that there's some Alex Jones GOP colored glasses media conspiracy. NO. THAT'S FUCKING RETARDED. The problem is what I have pointed out before: that news outlets are there to entertain first and educate second. That means they will waste time focusing on the shit news because that gets hem ratings and gloss over the real news that less people care about.

Funny how you just brush off the double standard, but I suppose that's normal for you.

What double standard? I never appreciated the State of the Union. I've thought it was just as worthless regardless of whether it's red or blue.

that's bullshit and you know it. Obama's gaffes were and are still purposefully ignored. true, Bush wasn't the best speaker we ever had, not by a long shot. However, when Bush made a gaffe, it was news. Obama has made more than enough gaffes, and they were systematically suppressed and ignored. How fast do you think Obama's career would have sank if his gaffes were focused on? He'd still be a nobody senator from Illinois, if that, and we'd have the first woman president in office. People are stupid, people rely on the media to tell them things and they all know it. .

First off, list some of the gaffes. I'm still not sure you really understand what a gaffe is yet. Second, do you even remember Bush's gaffes? His gaffes were comical, and thus (wait for it...) entertaining. Because when Bush gaffed, people laughed and tuned in, those gaffes were shown agaon and again for the ratings. I have yet to see Obama make a gaffe that's even slightly comical. Heck, I can only think of one gaffe, and the context it was in it was hardly noticeable, let alone entertaining.

just imagine how foolish Obama would look if the media didn't ignore how often he uses other people for props for his speeches and all the photo ops he uses.

AStp acting like photo ops (Which every President hs done) are gaffes. They're not. The media loves photo ops because they're simple and usually short enough to keep the viewer's attention. Are photo ops often stupid? Yes. Are they almost always forced? Yes. Are they often staged? Likely. So what?

If Obama was held to the same scrutiny as Bush and Palin, he would have never been nominated or elected.

Ahh, now it all makes sense. Can't handle tht the GOP has fallen into dissaray on the National level so it MUST be the media that's doing it.

what you don't say can tell more about you than what you do say. It would have been easy to twist the message from "Obama the black messiah" to "Obama the arrogant fool" simply by focusing on his gaffes the same way the media focuses on the gaffes of candidates they don't like.

The media focuses on what people want to watch. If they don't they don't get watched. (see MSNBC) This is no conspiracy. When Obama screws up it isn't done in a comical manner ala Palin and Bush. When Bush and Palin screwed up they made a show of it.

what's my point? you should know all too well what my point is. Problem is, you're in support of what they do. either that or you're just complacent, which isn't much different.

No, you're point is that you're frustrated with the state of your party and you're making mental pretzels and logical fallacies to CORF it. CORFing is for losers.

[Korriken]

At 2/20/13 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

First off, list some of the gaffes. I'm still not sure you really understand what a gaffe is yet.

Yes I know what a gaffe is. and it's not just gaffes I'm talking about. I've seen them go after any minor little thing they can find to attack a politician they don't like. However, if there's a politician they support, it's completely ignored if possible. Much like fast and furious was ignored until it finally snowballed to the point it was impossible to keep in the closet.

Second, do you even remember Bush's gaffes? His gaffes were comical, and thus (wait for it...) entertaining. Because when Bush gaffed, people laughed and tuned in, those gaffes were shown agaon and again for the ratings.

I have yet to see Obama make a gaffe that's even slightly comical. Heck, I can only think of one gaffe, and the context it was in it was hardly noticeable, let alone entertaining.

out of curiosity, what gaffe was that?

Of course they're not funny.. to you.

I found many of them hilarious, like the breathalyzer bit (that was ignored) or his gift of DVD's to Gordon Brown, which were the wrong region and he couldn't even use them on a british dvd player.

the DVD screw up was pretty damned funny to me. sadly, I didn't find out about that one until I heard about it from a british guy I played Team Fortress 2 with. He pointed me to the article on a UK news site. Apparently this was big news in the UK, but not the USA.

That's no minor gaffe either. not only was it funny as all hell, that was a SEVERE political screw up. was it reported on? no. was it focused on? no. However, I remember when Bush gave him a bomber jacket. Bush was a laughingstock. and It was commented on so many times. Of course, there was the time Obama gave the queen an Ipod... *facepalm*

the difference? They media won't do anything to harm Obama. (well except for Evil Fox News), but no one but right wing extremists would watch that channel, right?

I'll put it like this. I wouldn't have even remembered the sip of water if it hadn't been so far blown out of proportion. to me it was about as interesting as any other politician taking a sip of water while speaking.

The media can turn just about anything into a massive shit storm/joke/panic/etc. in 1954 there was a panic over pitting and tiny dings in windshields, in Seattle Washington. It was reported on and all of a sudden EVERYONE took notice. People were panicking about it. and many (some outright nuts) theories on why it was happening were brewed up.

turns out that the pitting was there all along, it's just that no one had ever noticed it. until someone pointed it out and caused a panic.

In the same token, If i watched enough political speeches, finding other politicians on both sides sipping on water during a speech would be an inevitability. Why is this one so different? simple. the media is pointing and laughing at it. why was it even funny? I have no idea, I didn't find anything remarkable about it. If he walked across the room and grabbed one from a mini fridge under a table, held it up in the air and yelled "Drink break, bitches!" now THAT would have been funny.

Ahh, now it all makes sense. Can't handle tht the GOP has fallen into dissaray on the National level so it MUST be the media that's doing it.

wrong. I couldn't care less about the GOP. to me all politicians are a bunch of power brokering hypocritical elitist ruling class that look down on others as livestock while claiming to understand the plight of the common man.

but of course, that would be your go to "shut the hell up already" remark.

No, you're point is that you're frustrated with the state of your party and you're making mental pretzels and logical fallacies to CORF it. CORFing is for losers.

state of my party? heh. I'm not a republican dipstick. Never have been. Republicans don't match my philosophy on life. neither do the democrats. No party does. Mental Pretzels? hardly. Once you take off the blindfold and compare how different news companies handle their coverage, it's not too hard to see how it all pans out. I also find it amusing when people condemn people like Rush Limbaugh (don't like him either) or Sean Hannity (ugh), but fail to condemn people on the left for doing the exact same thing, and even defending them, while using the exact same premise to attack the pundits they don't agree with.

and yes i purposefully cut most of the post because I can already tell this is just going to go around in circles until one of us gets bored and walks away. I never expect to have any sort of intelligent or semi intelligent conversation on this forum, most people who have been here for more than a week know it always breaks down into someone spewing insults and derision at each other in the place of an intelligent counterpoint. this, thanks to you, is no exception.

[Warforger]

At 2/19/13 12:36 PM, Korriken wrote: Since the state of the union address, I've been troubled by one thing. It's something I've seen before, countless times, but never so.. blatantly in my life.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about already, but for those who don't I'm talking about Mark Rubio's sip of water that the media obsessed over, while for the most part ignoring the state of the union address itself. Rubio's words were even ignored, all eyes were on that water bottle.

Not to mention all the focus on the Gun Control part of his speech, ignoring the obviously more important part about Global Warming.

At 2/19/13 12:36 PM, Korriken wrote: Now, normally, when the media decides to sidestep or ignore something, they find some piece of sensationalist 'news' to distract you with. Problem is the whole Dorner manhunt wasn't all that interesting because looking for a guy isn't entertaining as finding the guy and blowing his brains out, which hadn't happened yet. The disabled cruise ship was news, but without masses of dead bodies, it wasn't sensational.

You kidding me? I thought Dorner's story sounded like some badass action movie. I mean not in a good way, but he just out of nowhere started killing people and kept going and going till he died out in a blaze.

so they decide to focus on Rubio taking a sip of water. They ignore that Obama's first state of the union address has him promoting gun control, by bringing in a bunch of people who have been affected by gun violence for a photo op,

It was by no means the focus of the media, the Dorner story was much larger and again Gun Control was a small part of his speech. The part I really liked was when he had the photo op with the old lady who despite obvious issues stood in line for hours just to vote. Yet again Gun Control isn't that important, massacres are sad and all but the right to own guns isn't as important as the right to vote or the threat Global Warming poses.

On the topic of photo op, do you remember this? This was big news when it happened. in fact, it was big new for quite a while. Bush was lambasted and mocked for it relentlessly. However, Obama's many many photo ops, have been largely ignored.

I don't recall Bush being lambasted for it. The main thing he was lambasted for lying because then he wouldn't be looked as incompetent because if he merely brought down Hussein on a hunch that would make him look stupid (still not as stupid as Eisenhower though).

Remember this? apparently Obama wanted to be absolutely CERTAIN that the doctors looked like doctors. and that's just 1 photo op out of many. Obama seems to have a thing for having just the right thing next to him or in the background when he's delivering a speech, be it children, doctors, or an oil derrick and a large red tanker.

Even worse was when Paul Ryan asked a charity to delay its opening IIRC so that he could go on for a photo op.

and yet, the media only called Bush out of doing photo ops. Hell, even TIME magazine called Obama out on at least one rather ridiculous photo op.

I don't recall that at all. It seems the Left has moved on with Bush, it's just the Right can't let him go.......