I think I understand the cause of our discord

[burythehatchet]

This election, and the two preceding it, have been unique in terms of the role of the internet in advancing the debate. The remarkable trend is that with each election cycle the magnitude of the effect that online debate has had becomes geometrically greater.

I know I am not alone in stating that I have been completely weaned off of all the talking head BS infotainment crap. I haven't watched a consecutive 10 minutes of CNN et al for about 5 or months. (This was my intent, and I succeeded).

The result of this has been that the informational inputs that I have established for myself - DU, Think Progress, HuffPo, among many others - do not include any lamestream media.

There are two debates that are occurring

Two debates are occurring simultaneously, but the participants are generally unaware of this fact. I would suggest that there is the "normal" debate occurring in the media. This consists of absolutely nothing but the racehorse. Who's ahead, which poll has who within what margin of error blah blah blah. Many of us, including me, decided that there is an alternative. We found it out. The result is the genuine debate that many of us have engaged in for the past 6 years. Many opinions have been formed by virtue of knowledgeable analysis and commentary. We managed to escape the "normal" election process. And therein lies the rub.

There is a complete disconnect between the two debates, and what is reported for the consumption of the CNN viewer has nothing to do with the debate on policy and governance that has been occurring here at DU, among many other places.

Our internal conflicts are arising, I believe, because of this dynamic. I believe that a certain group of DU members relies quite heavily upon the corp. media for their cues and guidance. Personally, I find that really disappointing. In fact, I think many of us are reacting with such ferocity because we don't want to eat the soylent green anymore. But it is constantly pushed in our faces. If I wanted to know what the pollsters were saying I know what channel to turn to. But I'll be dammed if I'm going to let those clowns ever influence my opinions again.

I think this is worth fighting for. I'm going to fight as hard I need to in order to help prevent us from losing our way. I'm not going back to the old ways again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I think you are onto something

I may add, that we are also in an incredibly divided country

[OKNancy]

2. I don't think it's what media outlet DUers watch that

causes discord. People who don't agree with your take on things is what causes discord.
People who don't agree with me=stupid teevee watchers/newspaper readers=uninformed
Now... got to go watch Keith.

[H2O Man]

3. I agree.

Nominated.

We cannot find The Way by following the roadsigns placed on a trail blazed by the corporate media or any political machine.

[burythehatchet]

5. Let me also add

that when we debate the merits of the positions taken by the candidates on major issues, the liberal candidates consistently come out ahead. But when we talk about winning alone, the corporate candidates are said to be winning - again, a reflection of the horse race mentality at the expense of policy discussions.

[tbyg52]

51. Yup. And the ones who are ahead

are, for the most part, in that position because of name recognition. Period. Yet the race is already being called by the M$M.

[WCGreen]

4. We have to remember that. at the most, 10 million or so eyeballs

are on CNN, Fox, MSNBC and Headline news in the best of times...

It's all about pictures...

That's why the fires in Southern Cal are dominating the news on the cable...

Pictures...

Movement...

Action...

The net is full of that as well but if you are curious, you can find almost anything you want to know, compare conflicting arguments and actually interact with people...

TV is passive, the internet is active...

[burythehatchet]

6. I think that tracks perfectly with the thesis. n/t

[Whisp]

7. 'not going back to the old ways again'.

excellent post. thank you.

[burythehatchet]

8. Thank you. I guess my question is when will we reach the critical mass

necessary to influence elections? Maybe in time for 11/08.

[Whisp]

10. the new ways ( to me) have only made many more questions.

It was much easier on the blood pressure - 'the old way'. I didn't think and look and compare to the degree that the internet has allowed.
I truly do not believe that the election system as set up now and the massive control by lobbyists and the interests of wealth by the very few will reflect an honest representation. We are going to have to find another way to vote.

[burythehatchet]

11. It took me a long time to learn what "Ignorance is bliss" meant. n/t

[cali]

14. interested in responding to my post

about my sources of info? i know it doesn't go with your theory, but then, i see your theory as flawed. you have no way of knowing whether the group of people you assign as influenced by the MSM, actually are.

[cali]

9. I watch no tv

haven't had one in years. the only news i listen to is NPR, Pacifica, BBC and CBC. I don't read time or newsweek; i read harper's, the new yorker, and the sunday nyt, along with some obscure journals.

I don't agree with you often. what does that do to your theory of discord at du?

[Whisp]

13. if I may. what it means to me....

I do still watch some CNN, etc., but I am on a totally different plain from the old days of believing it all. It's almost dark humour to me now. Now I'm beginning to wonder if others are lying to me as well.

[cali]

19. Well, i haven't watched

it for years and years. I used to have C-Span, but then I pulled the plug altogether and that was about 3 years ago. Anyway, I always got more of my info from reading.

[renie408]

12. No, I don't think you do understand the cause of our 'discord'.

Because your obnoxious "I and a few others who are smarter and more well informed than the those of you who disagree with us" attitude makes me want to kick your ass. If I disagree with you, it's because I think you are wrong. I don't watch CNN any more. I just read where Cali doesn't, either. We sometimes disagree. OH MY GOD!! Do you think it could be because we are capable of thought independent of that which is fed to us??

Goober, we all fight because we like to. The end. I think you are a patronizing dick. How's that for discord??

[cali]

16. omg, renie

your post is such a riot.

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

18. Check you mail. Legitimate offer for you to come kick my ass awaits.

[renie408]

20. You can call me a skank on the board. You don't have to send it by PM.

I don't mind.

BTW...the tone of your...ummm...missive just bears out my theory that we just like to fight. It isn't because some people here aren't as well informed or as properly informed as you are.

And honey, I am a 43 year old mother of two. I might WANT to kick your ass, but A) I don't know you well enough to be sure I could and B) I don't do that sort of thing any more. I think the last fist fight I got into was in 1988.

[cali]

23. this is getting funnier by the moment. n/t

[cali]

22. I suspect the OP

has me on ignore. god what a statement that makes about not wanting to hear opposing povs. If not, she doesn't seem to want to deal with what I pointed out- but it looks like she took your butt kicking joke seriously.

[renie408]

27. Some people just don't have a sense of humor. n/t

[porphyrian]

15. Soylent Green is PEOPLE...! - n/t

[renie408]

17. Dude. have you been watching CNN again? What have we told you about that?? n/t

[porphyrian]

21. Oh...sorry. - n/t

[rzemanfl]

24. The cause of our discord is that things are FUBAR and we have

no experience in dealing with it and supporting ourselves at the same time. In the '60s we could demonstrate and more, because Mom and Dad paid the bills, now we are Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa.

[bonito]

25. Corporate and unincorporated candidates

Only thing is the unincorporated candidates don't get the media.
But for us.

[cali]

26. that's just a tad simplistic

Kucinich isn't doing well for a lot more reasons than media coverage or the lack thereof. An instructional memory is Howard Dean in 2004. NOT a corporate candidate.

[robinlynne]

28. Thank-you for an excellent OP!

[cali]

29. hey,, robinlynne

you and i disagree on many things, and yet I'll wager I'm far less in touch with the MSM than the OP or you. Doesn't that kind of blow the OP's theory? And how does the OP know who does and doesn't tune into the MSM?

[renie408]

30. Duh. It's obviously the people they disagree with. Jeez, can't you keep up?? n/t

[cali]

32. yeah, and they love to ignore

or disparage anybody who doesn't agree. It's such a poorly thought out piece, and the enthusiastic agreement of it is rather amusing.

[renie408]

34. Amusing? I thought it was creepy.

Do the people who are saying, "Yeah!!" REALLY mean "Yeah!!"??

I find it hard to believe that people really think that the 'level of discord' here is due to inferior news outlets or differing news outlets. I tend to think that the reason people disagree here is because they have differing opinions, live in different parts of the country, come from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds and are just DIFFERENT. And some of them fight about it because they like to argue.

[cali]

40. You're right on all points about why people disagree here

and you're right that it's creepy- or rather smug, narrow minded and arrogant.

[jgraz]

31. That is some excellent analysis

I think there's a lot more to explore here as well. One of the main issues I see is a lack of understanding of this debate from the Democratic leadership. Their BS about "not having the votes" may fly on the Sunday Bobblehead Shows, but most people on the net can see right through it.

[cali]

33. Let's see if jg will address

my points: 1) I don't have tv; haven't in years, read harpers, some obscure journals, listen to BBC, get info from various internet sources, and I often disagree with those most enthusiastically agreeing with the OP. 2) how does the OP know who on DU is influenced by the MSM. This OP has holes big enough to drive a tank through them. All the OP is really saying is that people who don't agree with me are brainwashed/ill informed.

[jgraz]

36. I think the OP is trying to figure out why the same tired talking point keep showing up here

The "we don't have the votes", "impeachment gets us nowhere", "you can't defund the war" points. All of them have been debunked over and over again but they're still used every day by people who should know better.

It's either ignorance, dishonesty or some sort of learning disability. The OP's theory is as good a guess as any.

[renie408]

38. Man, that is so arrogant. Because you don't agree with those opinions..

they are "ignorance, dishonesty or some sort of learning disability."? I have asked those questions point blank and NEVER had them debunked. I have asked here at least three separate times and all I get are opinions.

[jgraz]

42. You can disagree with opinions, you can't disagree with facts

The three talking points I listed have been debunked repeatedly. Here's a quick recap:

"we don't have the votes": You don't need the votes to keep legislation off the floor. FISA, war funding and Southwicks nomination should have never come to a vote.

"impeachment gets us nowhere": Out of the nine attempts at presidential impeachment, the party bringing the charges has held or extended their majority AND took the White House in the next election. History shows that impeachment proceedings are a great way to rally the base and focus attention on the failings of the administration.

"you can't defund the war": A majority of Americans disagree. In the last poll, 67% (from memory) are against funding the war without a timetable for withdrawal.


All of these are simple facts. You could perhaps argue that you can still hold an opinion despite all of this evidence, and I would agree. However, if I had the opinion that George Bush was the greatest president ever, you would be well within your rights to tell me that I'm ignoring an overwhelming amount of hard evidence to the contrary.

[cali]

44. Simple facts that omit other simple facts.

I'll grant you the facts about holding legislation back.

But the facts that you omit about impeachment are: if cheney or bush are cleared in the Senate it serves as an exoneration. it potentially makes it harder for members of the admin to be held accountable. Your statement that "History shows that impeachment proceedings are a great way to rally the base and focus attention on the failings of the administration." is pure opinion, you haven't provided any evidence of that. Furthermore, the election of 2000 shouldn't have even been close; was this because Gore distanced himself from Clinton too much, or because there was a taint from impeachment and other issues? Opinion is NOT uniform. Hate to break this to you, but lots of smart people disagree with you. you just pick the smart people who do agree with you, and write off all others as centrist or DLC or not sufficiently progressive or whatever.

About that 67% of Americans; well, you conveniently left out that an even greater percent don't want the military in Iraq defunded no matter what. In other words, as we all know, it's how the question is asked.

yep, ommitting facts is just as onerous as ignoring facts.

[jgraz]

47. You're playing semantic games.

"But the facts that you omit about impeachment are: if cheney or bush are cleared in the Senate it serves as an exoneration."

An opinion about an opinion. The only real evidence we have is the nine previous impeachment attempts. Conviction or not, no party has ever suffered a political penalty for bringing articles of impeachment against the president.


"About that 67% of Americans; well, you conveniently left out that an even greater percent don't want the military in Iraq defunded no matter what. In other words, as we all know, it's how the question is asked. "

Again with the semantics. Of course few people want the troops completely defunded, especially if it's spun like they'll be hitching a ride out of Baghdad. What you leave out is that the Democrats would not be the ones defunding the troops. All they need to do is pass a funding bill with timetables. If Chimpy vetoes it, HE'S the one defunding the troops.


I gave quick recaps to a poster who doesn't seem to have done the slightest bit of reading on the subjects. There are mini-arguments within each of these larger issues, most of which seem to run up against the same imperviousness to new information.

The main feeling expressed by myself and the OP is one of frustration with revisiting these points again and again with the same people.

[cali]

48. I'm no more playing semantics than you are.

exonerating bush via a vote to not convict in the Senate is a legitimate argument. you may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's not a real possibility, worthy of consideration.

Polls show that the American people are confused about funding in Iraq. You're aware of that. You say that "What you leave out is that the Democrats would not be the ones defunding the troops. All they need to do is pass a funding bill with timetables. If Chimpy vetoes it, HE'S the one defunding the troops." That's simply immaterial. So what if it's bush who's defunding the troops? That wasn't what I was addressing. Are you trying to say that bush would be held responsible for that defunding? Possibly, but again, I was simply pointing out that you were being selective in your usage of facts.

The truth is the OP was simply a statement that could have been condensed into this: I'm better informed and more enlightened than you are.

That's arrogant, narrow minded and elitest, no matter how you cut it. You want to align yourself with that, feel free.

[cali]

39. ah, but I don't agree with you, and I'm not ignorant

disabled or dishonest. I fall into the impeachment camp, but I've seen perfectly reasonable arguments against it that I don't believe have been debunked.

The OP is elitest nonsense that boils down to if you don't agree with me you're ignorant, dishonest or learning disabled. And as that's your argument as well, you're spouting the same narrow, elitest nonsense.

[burythehatchet]

41. You are on target. Two different conversations altogether.

psst. I think a nerve has been struck. ;)

[cali]

46. sure a nerve has been struck

unbridled arrogance and elitism, always bothers me. congratulations on fitting that bill. :puke:

and clue: I sincerely doubt that you're nearly as smart or insightful as you claim to be. People who claim that, ususally aren't.

[robinlynne]

43. The same people who believe that also believe Bush won his elections.

And the Democrats did "something wrong", besides not counting the votes, which they can fix in the enxt election,a nd Dems will win and everythign will be peachy keen.
I call them the wait until the election crowd.

[cali]

45. really? who are you speaking for?

Another ignorant arrogant thing to do. I don't believe bush won his elections legitimately but i damn well think, along with many political experts that both Gore and Kerry could have run more effective campaigns.

I call you and yours the arrogant/ignorant crowd.

[renie408]

35. Where are you getting your information online?

I have had a lot of questions about how the Dems are supposed to be changing things with the very slim majority that we now have and while I get a lot of opinions, I haven't gotten anything that actually explains it to me. Could you please give me a link to a site which explains HOW the Dems can pass legislation unpopular with the GOP without having a larger majority? And then how they can defeat a Bush veto?

[jgraz]

37. It has nothing to do with passing legislation

It has everything to do with STOPPING legislation. The war funding, FISA expansion and today's Southwick confirmation never should have made it to the floor, let alone been passed on for Chimpy's pawprint.

You can't veto a bill you never get.

[DeepModem Mom]

49. You make excellent points about new media, but do you get informational input...

from DU's LBN? If you do, you are getting information from MSM. The fact is that "corporate media," at least for now, has the money and resources to report news that independent media can more often than not only comment on. That corporate news is commented on by independent sources may save us yet, but dismissal of all corporate news (and dismissal of the opinions of those who watch or read it) is, IMO, wrongheaded. I look forward to a day when more stories come from within the independent media, but I wouldn't, at this point, rely on it as my only source of news.

Some of what is reported in the MSM is pure propaganda, some is useless, some is essential to our knowledge of what is going on, and that includes damage the Bush regime has done to our nation and the world.

Here are some of my DU posts, from MSM, in the last 48 hours:

NYT/AP: FBI Watched Eugene McCarthy Anti-Hoover Effort

NYT: Russia Working to Limit Election Observers

CNN: Obama questions Romney's Osama slip of tongue

MSNBC puts a political spin on California fire coverage (Value of Bush's coming to California questioned on MSNBC in light of his failure to help New Orleans re. Katrina.)

NYT: NASA Faces House Hearings on Air Safety

NYT op-ed: "If Mukasey cannot say that the President must obey statute, he ought not be Attorney General."

NYT/Reuters: U.S. General Outlines Baghdad Security Handover Plan (We can dismiss the outline, but not if we don't see it reported.)

NYT, page one: Use of Contractors by State Dept. Has Soared: But few officials oversee contracts

NYT editorial, Tilting the Scales of Justice: Political prosecution in Gonzales's Justice Department

NYT: Maureen Dowd, Madness as Method: Dick Cheney's craziness IS U.S. foreign policy

Reuters: Gore says 2007 pivotal year in climate change fight

WP, Froomkin: Bush's Brazen Request -- for another $46 billion; What explains his cocksureness?

WP/AP: Space Shuttle Discovery Blasts Off

NYT/AP: Former GOP Attorney General Thornburgh charges DOJ political prosecution in Pennsylvania

CNN: Obama aims fire at Clinton over Iran vote: Sends postcard to Iowa voters

*

I think I'm bright enough to look at MSM and not be fooled by it. I come here to DU, and get easy access to a daily dose of independent media, and the opinions of DUers, which I consider as essential as the news gathered by other sources. I don't think reading the NYT or watching some political coverage on MSNBC diminishes my ability to choose a Presidential candidate, or even steers me toward certain ones. I consider it useful, as well, to be aware of what kind of news the majority of Americans are seeing (if they're seeing any at all). And that dose of reality, I admit, might influence my choice of candidate -- as that candidate will be competing for election in the real world out there.

And just a P.S., on the "horse race" -- Some citizens, some DUers, are political junkies. They are interested in the race as a race, in the process. Some of us have worked, and may be working now, on campaigns. To be interested in strategy, in polling, in what makes a successful candidate does not mean that there's no interest in policy and governance. What politician was it who said, "First, you have to get elected"?

[burythehatchet]

50. I understand your points. To answer your questions

I don't read LBN. I too am a political junkie. But my drug is policy not polls. My focus is on healthcare and by reading the contributions of a number of excellent DU thinkers I have become better informed on many other issues. I also want to distinguish between media generated analysis you cite in your post and the cable news mud wrestling. As you can see the biggest detractors of what I wrote try desperately to turn this thread into a spittle flying episode of CrossBalls. The larger point is that one conversation is about policy the other is about the horse race. I suspect we need both groups to achieve our goals, but we probably should attend different cocktail parties.

[cali]

52. repeating that won't make it any truer

what is true, is that you're unable to deal with people who don't agree with you, and fabricate a theory with zip evidence to back it up, as to why. I've explained several times on this thread, that my contact with the MSM is minimal, including the fact that I never watch tv. I'm willing to grant that you simply have a different pov, and I don't use elitist and fallacious excuses to try and disparage it. You want a hallelujah chorus, and pats on the back, not discourse.

[arendt]

53. k&R'd. I came here to avoid the corporate propaganda, but its being pushed here too n/t

[bvar22]

54. Insightful!

Thanks.

K&R

[Perry Logan]

55. Absolutely. Most of the unpleasantness at DU comes from people spreading media disinformation.

Since this stuff was specifically designed to demoralize Democrats and to sow dissent amongst them, it's no wonder things have gotten weird here.

[burythehatchet]

56. Any thread with the word "poll" in it immediately deleted. n/t