|
|
Posts Tagged ‘Msnbc’
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 »
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, May 8th, 2009
Is the world ready for a Cheney campaign for the Presidency in 2012? Immediately, the left wing extremists out there cry out, “No! No! Cheney is evil and will destroy America! Cheney is a war crimes criminal and should be arrested! Oh, the horror! The despair! NO!!!” If I may respond…shut up. Besides, I’m not talking about Vice President Dick Cheney, no. Instead, I’m talking about his daughter Elizabeth Cheney. Why Elizabeth and not her father? Read about it after the jump.
(more…)
Posted in United States Politics | 1 Comment »
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 »
Thursday, January 29th, 2009
Over and over again I’ve said on this blog that I am both a consumer of and a shareholder in Sirius XM satellite radio. I’m also an affiliate for the company as you can tell from my links all over these posts trying to get you to buy something! But I think I cover the satellite radio company honestly and from the perspective of a consumer, shareholder, and marketer of the company.
Yet, whenever I check what the online financial media is saying about Sirius XM, I always find that the loudest negative voices are spewing from the Motley Fool website. I have no problem with an analyst saying that a stock is not worth buying (at this point, unless you’re a long-term investor I wouldn’t suggest buying Sirius XM either), but the group at Motley Fool is viciously against this radio company and I can’t figure out why? Maybe a bunch of their writers got burned on the stock – who knows?
The latest article was posted up on MSNBC’s website and it talked about how Sirius XM is the worst stock of 2009. Bear in mind that 2009 isn’t even a month old yet! What bothers me, though, is the complete one-sided opinions that they put out there and the implied stance that their ideas are obviously applicable to the rest of the country. An example:
Satellite-radio competes for my ears with my Apple iPod and its dedicated car jack, my custom-burned CDs, and with a host of new mobile applications, including Ford and Microsoft’s Sync. And with other automakers experimenting with putting routers in their cars that could stream free Internet radio, Sirius’ competition for luxury dollars is increasing.
And satellite radio is very much a luxury. A past subscriber myself, I found my use waning in the months following a cross-country trip. As use fell, I found defending the monthly cost difficult — and that was before the economy cratered, when luxury spending was easier to justify.
First, just because your ears have multiple listening options, that doesn’t apply to everyone. I’m glad that you can afford a car with a dedicated jack for your iPod. I – and a great deal of Americans who are struggling in the current economy – cannot afford this luxury. Second, I’m glad that your new, expensive car has either a router or Ford/Microsoft’s Sync program. The 2000 Civic that my Mom just gave me doesn’t have those options. Neither did the 1999 Chevy Blazer that I donate to charity at the beginning of the month. Maybe the next used car that I buy will have a fancy feature or two, but again – the vast majority of Americans can’t afford these cars with all of these bells and whistles that you apparently can afford.
Need proof? Isn’t the domestic car industry in the crapper? Exactly.
It’s a shame that this writer’s cross-country trip is used as one of the driving factors in his purchase of Sirius XM. That was his dumb choice. For me – someone who drives more than two hours per day – I enjoy the variety that I get from Sirius XM. Sure, sometimes the lack of original content on Howard Stern pisses me off and yes, even with dozens and dozens of commercial-free music channels there is sometimes nothing to listen to, but that’s no different than cable television with hundreds of channels with nothing to watch!
For me, Sirius XM is the perfect companion during my daily commute and drives around the state. It’s also nice to turn it on in the office and be able to listen to commercial-free music. For some people, Sirius XM isn’t right.
However, as a shareholder I have a serious problem with Motley Fool publishing around 10 negative articles on Sirius XM this month alone. That’s ridiculous and an obvious show of bias. I wouldn’t care what Motley Fool does with their webspace, except that Google Finance uses their updates in their news feed so every few days I get another death story from these bias folks. If the rest of Sirius XM’s investors are getting the same reports, then what does anyone expect besides a huge sell off?
If this company dies, it will be in no small part thanks to the one-sided, arrogant comments by online groups like Motley Fool.
Posted in Computers, Internet, & Technology, Idiots, Morons, & Fools, Money, Jobs, & Finances | 4 Comments »
Monday, August 25th, 2008
For political science junkies, this is the most wonderful time of the year! Or the last four years, to be exact. This week we will be treated to political craziness at its best with the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. I’ve been following the pre-Convocation hype machines on FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC (all emanating from Denver) and it’s been interesting to say the least. Both FOX News and CNN keep asking their Democratic guests about the logic in choosing Senator Joe Biden as Senator Barack Obama’s running mate while the fish at MSNBC keep flopping around like crazy about how great Obama/Biden will be for the country.
Personally, I’m a fan of Biden, but for the wrong reasons. I like the fact that he speaks his mind and seems like a regular guy in terms of telling people to go F themselves. I also like the fact that he isn’t afraid to say, “Person A is a complete moron. Don’t listen to them because they don’t know what they’re talking about!” That’s candor for you!
But as much as I enjoy watching the political conventions (there will be more insanity when the Republican National Convention takes place), I always hate what comes with these events. For example, as I was flipping from CNN to FOX yesterday I caught a bunch of protesters on FOX News chanting, “Fuck FOX News! Fuck FOX News!” This was their response to a FOX reporter who was asking them what they were protesting about and if they could justify their stance. That type of childish, grade school activity is unnecessary and strongly detracts from any “cause” these people are trying to push. I’d rather that these protesters come on and give their best shot at answering the question (which one older man tried to do to no avail – he made no sense).
Anyway, the big story of the week will be how the Clintons interact with the delegates at the convention. Will Senator Hillary Clinton use her speech to focus on her personal accomplishments and the amazing gains that she’s made for women in national politics? It’s likely, but it’s also well-deserved. Will President Bill Clinton continue his lackluster support for Barack Obama or will he come out of the gate swinging for Obama/Biden? I think we’ll see Hillary continue her support for Obama and for Bill to talk about the message of hope and change. Nothing ground-breaking from either of them, though.
But be on the lookout for people going over the edge during the conventions (and I’ll repeat this warning when the Republicans begin their show). You’ll hear more lies, half-truths, and spin during a political convention than almost any other time of the year (the day before Election Day being the exception). So sit back, relax, and enjoy political theater at its best!
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
|
|
|
| |
|
