|
|
Posts Tagged ‘CNN’
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
As I was thinking about President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address that we will all be listening to tonight, I couldn’t help but become a little bit frustrated by what we will all hear after the State of the Union – the spin doctors. It really aggravates me that in 2010 we will have to be subjected to two completely different “fact-based” opinions on what the President said during his Address. What also bothers me is that every single Democrat or left-leaning media person will praise Obama like he’s the Second Coming (like they did during the election cycle) and every single Republican or right-leaning media person will decry his Address saying that he completely missed the point.
Frankly, in 2010 in America – that’s disgusting.
I’ll be watching the speech on FOX News and probably listening to their post-Address wrap up and thoughts. The reason why I choose FOX News is because they will at least bring on both Democrats and Republicans to give their points of view. While their standard slate of commentators (note – commentators) tend to lean to the right on most issues, at least I know that by watching FOX News I’ll be able to hear both sides of the story and that I’ll have a greater chance of getting a news person acting as a fair and impartial arbiter of the discussion. You can’t find that on MSNBC or CNN (though CNN has come a long way).
As for the speech itself, let me turn to the Asbury Park Press which published an article today that said the following:
It has been widely reported that Obama will announce programs aimed at the middle class on issues such as student loans. However, those measures will have limited appeal if unemployment remains high.
“He can do all he wants on college loans. But for those in dire straits, he has to go farther,” Greenberg said.
FYI – David Greenberg is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University. I’m interested to hear what Obama has to say about student loans. Those of you who frequent this blog know that I write about my student loans – a lot (see yesterday’s post). While I have created a plan of my own to repay this debt, by doing so I am effectively taking myself out of the for-sale housing market for the next two years.
Now, a few years ago I would say that I was an extreme example of how student loan debt could possibly hurt and stifle the middle class economy. Today, however, I think there are a lot more people in my situation (albeit at lower dollar amounts) than people may think. Sure, one guy in New Jersey who is handcuffed by six figure student loans is an extreme example of how one person can’t contribute to the economy’s recover…but when you multiply that times let’s say one person in each state, you now have 50 people that aren’t contributing. Then when you consider that there might be 10 people in each state in this situation (a likely figure), now you’re at 500 people that have good paying jobs, but cannot contribute to the economic rebound. Up that to maybe 1,000 people per state (again, not unreasonable when you consider the total population) and now you have 50,000 people not participating.
Simple math: 50,000 people x $250,000 (cost of each person buying one home) = $12,500,000,000 in new home sales
That’s a lot of zeroes, huh? And those are just numbers that I’m pulling out of the air. I’m confident that there are more than 50,000 college graduates who are stifled by their student loan debt and I’m sure that people would be buying more/other things besides new homes – like new cars, clothing, electronics, etc.
Also from the Asbury Park Press:
Recent Republican victories have been attributed in part to economic issues, with unemployment in double digits.
“The challenge is to frame a policy to create jobs, while cutting the deficit,” said Joseph Patten, an associate professor of political science at Monmouth University.
“Traditionally, you stimulate the economy by spending more. It’s difficult to do that when you have a spending freeze,” Patten said.
I had to include Dr. Patten in this entry because he used to be one of my Professors at Monmouth and the guy knows what he’s talking about. I wouldn’t want the task set before President Obama – find a way to generate new jobs while cutting the deficit and still finding a way to appease your ultra-liberal base by spending more money on more programs. Good grief!
Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight.
Posted in Student Loans, United States Politics | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009
CNN, the Associated Press, and USA Today have all called the New Jersey Gubernatorial election for Republican challenger Chris Christie. Here is the report directly from the Associated Press:
The Associated Press and CNN are calling Republican challenger Chris Christie the winner of the New Jersey governor’s race, based on exit polling.
The actual results are still pretty close: Christie’s ahead 49% to 44% with 81% of the precincts reporting. But Christie is doing extremely well in Republican strongholds in Ocean, Monmouth, Morris and Somerset counties, while holding his own against Gov. Jon Cozine in key swing counties, including Bergen and Middlesex counties.
Christie would become the first Republican to win statewide office since Christie Whitman, who also defeated an incumbent Democrat, Jim Florio.
And there you have it. Republican voters in New Jersey have had enough of dealing with the cross-talking and ultra-liberal Jon Corzine and he’s lost his job because of it.
Posted in The State of New Jersey | No Comments »
Friday, October 23rd, 2009
Unless you don’t watch television news, I’m sure you’ve been keeping somewhat of an eye on the battle started by the White House against FOX News. The folks in the White House have suggested that FOX News isn’t a real news outlet and they’ve even begun to cut them out of interview opportunities. The New York Times ran an article on this struggle this morning which does a great job of covering what, exactly, the White House’s beef is and the FOX News response.
There is a lot to write about this particular issue. I could write about how one of my liberal professors is touting the White House’s opposition to FOX News strictly on ideological grounds. One could also write about how Chris Wallace from FOX News Sunday hit the nail directly on the head when he suggested that this White House is filled with a bunch of crybabies. Or one could write about how other news stations are sticking up for FOX. In fact, directly from that New York Times article comes this:
In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”
Pretty respectable for the competition to honor the unfair treatment that FOX News has been receiving, huh?
However, I want to focus on two things regarding this issue – the White House’s intentional blur between what is news and what is opinion on FOX News and the game that the White House is playing with FOX News.
First, anyone who studies media or watches a great deal of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News while reading a diversity of newspapers can tell you that there are only so many ways a company can report a story. When a tornado hits Kansas, you don’t often hear FOX News reporters saying, “A tornado hit Kansas today and the lousy liberals are to blame.” Just like you don’t hear any legitimate reporter on MSNBC blaming conservatives for acts of God. When it comes down to reporting events from around the world, you’re going to read or watch the same report no matter where you go.
However, when it comes to commentary, you’re going to get a divergent approach to “reporting.” Bill O’Reilly calls himself a “humble correspondent.” That’s part of his approach to opinion journalism and there is nothing wrong with that at all! O’Reilly takes a very traditional view on the issues, but that’s okay because he’s hosting a program that is rooted in commentary. Glenn Beck has a staunchly libertarian point of view. Now, those who are not well-versed in political ideology would suggest that Beck is a conservative, but he’s not. So the next time you hear a mass media report or read in a newspaper that Beck is a conservative, then you need to second guess that source of news. Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is a hardcore conservative and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.
FOX News clearly labels these programs as commentary and anyone who knows anything about social interaction beyond “Hello, my name is…” can tell that these programs are NOT news-based! The White House isn’t filled with dummies, they understand that these programs are opinion programs. However, their strategy is to lump the legitimate news departments in with these opinion programs to paint FOX News with a broad, anti-liberal, anti-Obama brush. They know that by doing this, there will be a certain percentage of the population that completely agrees with them and will eventually take over this fight now that it has been brought up at a higher level. It’s a shame that such easily influenced, non-critical thinking people exist to do the White House’s prolonged dirty work.
My second point is that the White House actually managed to do something that they hadn’t been able to do up until they began attacking FOX News, i.e. get the FOX News commentators to STOP digging into the backgrounds of Obama’s staff. Think about it. Glenn Beck single-handedly led to Van Jones’ downfall, which opened up the door for other media organizations to wonder what they had missed out on (read the New York Times article linked above). This, frankly, scared the hell out of the White House and led to them attacking FOX News. If the media is covering itself, then they’re NOT digging into the people who maybe shouldn’t be sitting around the table with the President, right?
Hopefully, people will begin to notice this on a large scale and begin to demand that their White House stop engaging in partisan attacks on the media and, instead, get back to the job of running this country.
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
Friday, August 7th, 2009
With all of the talk going on about the possibility of a middle class tax hike, President Barack Obama needs to tread very, very carefully. As an independent voter, I think many of my fellow independents pulled the lever for Obama due to his repeated refrain during the campaign of not raising taxes on those households making under $250,000 per year. Sitting here and thinking about it, there are no households in my immediate family, extended family, within my network of close friends, and even in my network of “sort of” close friends who bring home more than $250,000 per year. In other words, according to President Obama’s campaign promise everyone that I care about should be safe from a tax hike.
However, there is a lot of rhetoric out in the political sphere right now about the possibility of raising taxes on the very population that President Obama promised not to raise taxes on. Let’s listen to our friends at CNN…
I don’t buy the clarification offered by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I think that both Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers aren’t skilled in the growing level of doublespeak in this administration. In other words, the further they get from being at President Obama’s side, the more we can expect them to tell us what’s really going on.
It’s scary. President Obama needs to tread lightly on this subject because if he raises taxes – even temporarily – on the middle class, he can kiss the majority in the House and Senate goodbye. Americans don’t like to be lied to. Let’s all hope that President Obama keeps this promise.
Posted in United States Politics | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009
Over the weekend I read an opinion editorial on CNN’s website that talked about the workaholic as he was known in the 1980’s/early 1990’s and today’s worker in a constantly connected world. The writer talks about a guy that he once knew named Robert Hyland who went to the office at 2:30am and stayed until 5:00pm. That’s a full 14 and a half hour day, folks.
However, the writer makes an interesting point:
E-mails and text messages and BlackBerrys and all their digital cousins may have given us the illusion of freedom — we tell ourselves that we are unfettered by traditional offices, that we can go anywhere we please — yet in the end they have created a nation of Robert Hylands. We’re never off the clock; that cell phone may ring at dinnertime, that allegedly urgent e-mail may arrive at 11 p.m., that instant message from the regional manager may pop onto the screen when we’re on vacation with our families.
Like almost everyone else who works in a professional setting these days, I have a way of accessing my e-mails from my “home office” (which consists of a desk in the corner of my bedroom and two bookshelves on the side of the desk). And the truth is that when I get home from work, aside from my Yahoo and Gmail e-mail accounts, I also open up my work e-mail account. On a typical day, there are two or three e-mails delivered to my work inbox during the hour long commute home. Sometimes those e-mails are urgent, but most of the time they aren’t pressing at all. Yet, I still have to look.
It’s the ease of the access that’s the problem; the fact that you can access this information in the blink of an eye and that, generally, the information contained in the e-mail can be processed quickly. That’s the problem. That’s why I check my work e-mail as soon as I get home and frequently while I’m at home.
The next big problem is the integration of BlackBerry phones and other smart phones into the work day. One of the reasons that I initially purchased my Treo 700p (the “p” stands for “piece of garbage”) was so that I could access my work e-mail from anywhere. However, once I realized that this meant I would always be connected to the office and once I realized that I essentially didn’t need a smart phone because I was never so far away from a computer that I couldn’t check my e-mail, I turned off the internet on my phone. Turning off the internet turns off the ability to be constantly connected.
However, I do find it interesting that with all of the advances in smart phone technology that I’m already planning for my next phone to be a BlackBerry. I’m on the Verizon Wireless network, but I refuse to pay Verizon Wireless for access to the internet when I already pay my cable company for access and when my office has wi-fi access. So I’m waiting for a wi-fi enabled BlackBerry phone to be available on the Verizon Wireless network before I get a new phone. In essence, I’m preparing to be constantly connected to the office when I really don’t want to be. But I digress…
Most of my co-workers are wrapped up into this “always connected” thing, too. It’s not uncommon for an e-mail to be sent after 5:00pm and for a response to come back around 8:30pm. Frankly, I think that it’s nice that some of the lagging issues that we deal with at the office can come to a conclusion after hours – after we’ve all had some time to process different solutions. However, I think we’ve all subconsciously begun to cut back on the amount of after hours work that we’re performing for the company.
And, honestly, cutting back on after hours work is probably the best thing for today’s worker. When you consider all of the stresses that are wrapped into simply having a job there is little reason to want to bring any of that back to your home with you. The home should and can be the refuge – if we let it.
Posted in Computers, Internet, & Technology | 2 Comments »
Thursday, April 30th, 2009
What does “middle of the road” mean in today’s mainstream media? Are we still stuck in the 1980’s and early 1990’s time warp when it was okay for the mainstream media to openly bash conservatives and Republicans while fawning over liberals and Democrats? Is it still okay for a news organization to call a sitting President of the United States “stupid” on an on-screen graphic because they fundamentally disagree with his economic policies? The New York Times printed an interesting story on this subject just the other day.
(more…)
Posted in Book, DVD, Movie, & Media Reviews, United States Politics | 3 Comments »
|
|
|
| |
|
