“I’m not saying that coverage of the campaign thus far has been flawless, mind you. There have been errors of judgment, sins of omission and missed opportunities; there have been instances in which much was adone about nothing. And I’m sure there’s more of the above to come.”

**Ditto.

But also a challenge EJ.  Do it.  Speak truth to power…..  I calculate that you could supersede me in eloquence if nothing else…so my challenge to you EJ…is…DO IT.

Two words Eugene - Bull Shit!

All:

Fabulous article on this issue!

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/77972

Peace.

Maybe the media is being somewhat more responsible because informed citizens are demanding this.

The public realizes that media outlets are being controlled by owners with financial and political agendas. This is part of the reason Americans are going to the Web instead of TV news and newspapers.

This is also happening in Ohio, where foreign conglomorates such as Macquarie of Australia are buying up regional newspapers. Macquarie is doing the same thing in Texas and other states.

As far as Obama, he faces a unique situation in the state of Ohio. The demographics and history of Ohio are complex and these are reflected in the local media.

The recent rant by a Cincinnati radio personality at a McCain rally with former Cincy congressman Rob Portman is an example.

What role will Obama’s mixed ethnicity have in Ohio?

These and other elements of the Dem primary and the upcoming general election in Ohio are explored in the article ...

“Obama faces Ohio hearts and minds”

AmericanChronicle.com
February 28, 2008

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/53747

Excellent!!!!!

This just out:  ER returns and churns out his semiweekly contractual piece and barely beats deadline following a trip to the ER for an emergency lobotomy.

Has the MSM been covering the “issues”?  Yes.  I believe it was a fine peach sauce exhibiting hints of clove and almond with an overtone of mint that was employed.  Yes.  I’m sure that was it!

Brine Winsomes and Pie-face astute and alacritous moderators?  You bet.  What a debate!  I couldn’t wait.  The raster couldn’t move fast enough.  More!  More!  If only there were 42 hours in a day and not 24!  And that Head-On commercial.  Divine each and every time.

No folks, on a more serious and sober keel, have you heard the MSM ask a candidate if they think a citizen’s state of health impinges upon his/her “certian unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” or if our forefathers’ Preamble edict to “promote the general Welfare” has any legal or moral bearing on this Nation’s responsibility to provide healthcare for it’s citizenry?  No.  And I don’t think you will.

The MSM and remaining viable candidates hold fast to the word and concept of “insurance” [private p(l)ayers] as if anything else is unimaginable.  Consumer’s Union, Link TV, Free Speech TV, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and other independent (non-commercial) entities rightly advocate a single-payer (government) system.  How can we, as a so-called Christian Nation, demand a fetus’ right to life outside the womb when that life carries no guarentee of quality or assurance of basic worthiness?  Let’s not put the cart before the horse.  Let’s get the healthcare right first and then we can have the other discussion.

Blackspeare:

You raise a good point: neither candidate is actually offering TRUE single-payer (i.e., solely “government-sponsored”) health care.  Both are offering forms of “universal” health care, in as much as both plans do or can cover everyone and are avalable to everyone.  But, as you point out, both health plans still rely on relationships with the (rapacious) health care companies.

There are three main issues re the plans.

First, the one Clinton harps on - that hers is “closer” to “universal” health care and that Obama’s plan “leaves 15 million uninsured” - is true in as much as hers has a mandate for adults as well as children.  We can debate whether or not that is a “good” thing (Obama argues that it’s a matter of affordability, Clinton argues that it’s a matter of need - i.e., what if the adult gets sick, but not the child), but hers is unarguably more “universal” than Obama’s.

Second is the question of moving toward a true single-payer, mandatory system (like Social Security or Medicaire).  In this regard, Clinton is correct that unless we get people used to the idea of paying for health care (mandatorily), they will be more likely to reject a true single-payer system if and when it is introduced.  That is, if there is ever to be true single-payer health insurance (paid for via paycheck deduction etc.), people are more likely to fight it unless they have already gotten used to paying for health care. 

Finally, there is cost.  Jonathan Gruber (an MIT economist considered among the top health care economists in the country: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber) has looked carefully at both plans as they have been proposed, and has found that Clinton’s plan would be FAR less expensive to implement: $4,400 per each newly insured person under Obama’s plan, against $2,700 per each newly insured person under Clinton’s.

Peace.

While the candidates have spoken on the issues it has only been superficially.  They don’t offer comprehensive plans——just overviews.  Let’s take “universal” health care for example.  Let’s say both Clinton and Barack have virtually the same plan.  What they don’t tell is how their plans will mesh with current private health insurance carried by employees both in the private and public sectors and with Medicare and Medicaid. They don’t even tell whether their plan will be single payer or a potpourri of private insurance carriers like Medicare D.

I foresee that any government sponsored universal health care, whether single payer or private carriers, is fraught with unknowns.  Will employers terminate their private plans (Why not?).  Will Medicare be privatized completely as is Medicare D?  Will Medicaid be eliminated?

And don’t forget the new prez can’t do much with approval from Congress.  However should Obama win with a substantial majority in the House and Senate——-Watch out——we’re in for quite a ride!

Hey Eugene, did you really expect to get any sympathy for the press on this ridiculous page you wrote?

It’s winter here still where I live, cold, boring, walls are closing in, having extreme cabin fever.

If I could just borrow some of that stuff your taking. oooh what a rush I’d feel.

        SPRING HAS SPRUNG!

” A kind word for the media ” ???

How about chat room or text message lingo; ROTFLMAO!

Lib:

Yes, scary isn’t it, agreeing with Aegrus?  LOL.

Peace.

We’re not so different, you and I. };>

Excellent points all, Maani.

All pundits, and ER is no exception, never lack in inane commentary and predictions that prove false despite being delivered with loud authorative voice. It is like reading your horoscope every day, and just as meaningless.

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Macbeth, Avt V, Scene 5.

Are we supposed to take this seriously?  An apologia for the media from…a (complicit) member of that media?  Is ER being tongue-in-cheek?

This is of a piece with corporations “regulating” themselves and government agencies “investigating” themselves.

Please.  Give me a break.  The media sucks (almost across the board), and is hopelessly complicit in the control of the political system.

ER - take your pens and paper airplanes and go home.

Peace.  (maybe…)

I read and reread your post thinking I’m missing something we couldn’t possibly be agreeing! BUT, I agree with you 100%.  Good post !!!!

I disagree heartily. There are more issues than Iraq, Health Care and the Economy. Those just happen to be the ones on everyone’s mind. Why? Because the media, and the candidates, saw initial reactions to these issues and decided to run them all the time. Every once in a while Immigration gets mentioned.

While this is an exciting contest(and Britney Spears’ breakdowns are too juicy to ignore), the media gave little cover to our battlegrounds in Washington over FISA, the impeachment hearings requested by Wexler and Kucinich, Supreme Court turning a blind eye to the falsely detained, the FCC deregulation and much, much more.

It is never okay to defend the shock journalism, yellow journalism, celebrity worship, opinionists, pundimockery and glazed over media. We’re lucky to get any valid piece of journalism from the major newspapers and televised news, and even then it is often downplayed and quickly forgotten.

Also, just because people are talking about these issues on these programs doesn’t mean the discussions they are having are valid. These pundits will talk about how universal health care is going to hurt democrats in the thirty seconds they are allowed to speak before another pundit has to speak in a two-minute discussion. Nothing gets discussed genuinely and fully in the media. Otherwise, ratings would drop, advertising revenue would fall and everyone would lose their treasured status as masters of spin.

Piss off, corporate media! Shame on anyone who praises their bullshit!

Ah, Cyrena…you’re asking too much.  Our media doesn’t do context very well.

You’re right about Condi: she’s not a Russian expert, she is supposedly a Soviet expert.  It is strange that she needs a translator.  V.V. Putin speaks both English and German well enough to do without a translator…and apparently Angela Merkel’s Russian is coming along enough so that when they speak they’re starting to use Russian instead of German (at least sometimes)

The Soviet Union did collapse, but well before that it had unilaterally drawn down its military belligerence and even its Empire.

If you’ll remember, H.W. Bush was a good friend of Gorbachev, but he hated and distrusted Boris Yeltsin.  Things changed with the election of W.J. Clinton.  Then again, during the 90’s we embarked on a program of economic rape in Russia.  I don’t know if it was simple greed or a concerted effort to hollow out a once (and possible future) threat to our hegemony.  Perhaps it was the latter, considering how much emphasis we put on NATO expansion during those years.
SDI has always been viewed as an offensive weapon by first the Soviets and then the Russians.  And no wonder they’re uncomfortable with us fomenting revolutions in former Soviet states.

But our planners didn’t count on two things: V.V. Putin and exploding oil prices.  Yeltsin could be manipulated because he was a politician.  Putin never was a politician.  He was a spy, and a very good one.  Only the best got foreign assignments, and he lived in Germany for many years.  His specialty was economic espionage.

What G.W. Bush failed to recognize when he looked into Putin’s eyes was that he was not dealing with a politician trying to play the Greatest Game…he was looking at a professional.  That fatal misstep has been abundantly evident ever since.

We had an opportunity to change the political/military dynamic of the world in the 90’s, but we flubbed it badly.  In some respects, the situation of the late 80’s is now reversed.  As someone at Scholars & Rogues said not too long ago: we don’t need a new JFK, we need our Gorbachev.

patting yourself on the back. Why not sell this BS to Kucinich, or Mike Gravel, I’m sure they would like to know how meaningful the press is. The focus has been on Hillary and now the shift is to Obama. As much as I detest Libertarian Ron Paul, he also gets little attention from the media. As the world turns newspapers are declining in readership and if Americans were smarter it would have happened a decade ago. Since I no longer fish, I have no use for a newspaper. Radio and television news fit into the same category…unless you are hooked on crime.

Eugene,
So, what’s up with the media and Russia?
As for Condi the Rice and football, you should have mentioned that RUSSIA is her special intellectual forte. At least, that’s what she supposedly got her doctorate credentials in/about/whatever.
She’s a Russian specialist, even if she can’t really speak Russian. (she can’t…always has to have an interpreter). But, Condi’s Russian specialties are of the Cold War variety. That ended a while back ya know; not because of anything the US did or didn’t do, but just because the Soviet Union collapsed. (at least in terms of it’s former Cold War status).
Meantime, if there are renewed troubles with Russia, (since the fall of the Soviet Union) then I suspect that it’s mostly because of the shrub and his policies in the international arena. How does anyone figure that any one person or country can play bully to the rest of the world for this long, and not eventually have some repercussions?
And why is Russia now being seen as ‘problematic’ or even behaving belligerently? Is it because they won’t do what George tells them to do? Is it because GWB is anywhere and everywhere - where we aren’t wanted?
Why DOES the US have to construct a gigantic anti-missile defense system in Russia’s backyard? Why, when Hillary was bad-mouthing Russia in the Ohio debate, did she have to bring in Iran? Well, apparently, she’s bad mouthing Russia on its geopolitical relations with Iran. (as if Russia and Iran don’t happen to be geographically situated for these relations for the past many centuries). Nope, Hillary says Iran is bad, and now Russia is ‘helping’ Iran, (be bad I guess) and so that means, Russia is bad, because they’re friends with the bad guys. And, why is Iran one of the bad guys? Well, no reason. Why do we have to have a reason? The Shurb just doesn’t like them, and they won’t give up their oil, or control over their nation. Isn’t that reason enough?  And, Hillary says she’s not talking to them either. So there.  Let’s just stick out the tongue at Russia as well.
Maybe we could also admit that all of this shit is because the US has been a dangerous, aggressive bully for the past several years, and has brought misery to the entire globe, and managed to piss off the planet. Head-butts, eh?
Why has George just sent 3 war ships to the Mediterranean, and why didn’t he address that in his ‘conference’? Any of the media planning to cover that?
Well, the Houston Chronicle did..
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5580342.html
Meantime, the shrub also mentioned this thing with the economy today. More rabbit hole stuff.
Bush: U.S. Not Headed Into Recession
President Does Express Concern About Slowing Growth; Also Presses Congress On Intel Bill

•  “One of the things he wanted to do is focus attention on the White House,” said CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer after the press conference.

FOCUS ON THE WHITEHOUSE? Now wouldn’t THAT be a switch? Where ARE all of those e-mails? What ELSE is down in the rabbit hole, or under the rug in the Oval Office?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/politics/main3886164.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3886164

Great post, Eugene. I have to agree, it’s silly to imagine that a bunch of professional writers would be willing to ignore the opportunity to do a first hand, modern day re-write of “David and Goliath”, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” and “Moby Dick” (Bill Clinton,) all in one.

Even Bush seemed to notice how irrelivant he’s become when he made that lame joke about “suck it up”, today. I think the comment he made to his Harvard Business School roommate about African-Americans was, “they’re all lazy.”

Of course, we won’t know what character to assign him until history get’s done cleaning up his legacy for him. But, so far I have him playing Lennie and Cheney playing the part of George in “Of Mice and Men”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Mice_and_Men#Characters_in_Of_Mice_and_Men