“After going through that incredibly intense experience, I wanted to do something that was positive, that had joy in it and would make people happy and reassure them that redemption is possible,” Bruno said.
Now, believe me, I’m not one of those conservatives who feel that sex, violence, nihilism and darkness have no place in our entertainments. I want the arts to encompass the whole range of life—plus I like a good nude scene as much as the next guy. But what our cultural critics so often fail to understand is that there is nothing inherently more profound, more worthy or more entertaining in stories of despair and decadence than in stories of faith and decency. What makes The Mentalist so much fun to watch is precisely its sweetness, even innocence. The shy, old-fashioned burgeoning of young love between two of the co-stars, for instance, may not be realistic in its sexlessness, but it’s a warm pleasure to watch, gives you a good feeling and maybe even reminds you of something important in the interplay of men and women—something lost in the graphic sex scenes that win so much critical praise.
And there’s something else. Bruno goes on to say of his work on the show, “I needed to challenge myself—it’s easier to do something that is edgier and complex.”
That’s exactly right and it goes against everything our cultural critics believe. Their highest words of praise are adjectives like “shocking,” “disturbing,” “searing,” and “radical.” They swoon over films like Towelhead, The Woodsman and The Reader that seek to wrong foot our moral senses by presenting us with sympathetic child molesters and Nazis.
But the truth is, any fool can pull off crap like that. It’s easy.
The single hardest thing to do in the arts is not to shock or disturb or sear or radicalize—but to delight. And as the test of time is the test of ultimate value in the arts, I’m willing to bet that reruns of The Mentalist will still be drawing an audience long after the moral idiocy of The Reader is deservedly forgotten.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
PJM Home
The Last Thing I Remember
Empire of Lies
Damnation Street
Shotgun Alley
Dynamite Road
Man And Wife
Hunting Down Amanda
The Uncanny
True Crime
Animal Hour
Don't Say A Word
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
108 Comments
1. Mike Harmon:I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
Mar 25, 2009 - 11:01 am 2. Kit in Ohio:Mr. Klavan, even though I am still spooked by your Christmas story at Dirty Harry’s Place, your byline always means required reading. This piece could also explain a number of current and recent “surprise” (to critics that is) hits on television and at the movies. Great insight—I will give The Mentalist a chance.
Mar 25, 2009 - 11:26 am 3. LawhawkSF:There’s a wonderful lightness about the show even when dealing with serious crime. Like the old (probably apocryphal) story of a friend asking John Barrymore on his deathbed if dying was hard. Barrymore reputedly replied: “Dying is easy. Comedy is difficult.”
Mar 25, 2009 - 11:32 am 4. DamnCat:“What makes The Mentalist so much fun to watch is precisely its sweetness, even innocence.”
Ugly Betty is another show has the same characteristics without being Pollyanna-ish. There is plenty of bad behavior and Betty herself is not above temptation. But the characters all have a conscience that informs them that they are doing wrong even as they do it.
The now cancelled, Pushing Daisies is another recent example of a show that celebrated the persistence of innocence and virtue in a corrupt world.
Mar 25, 2009 - 12:24 pm 5. Stergeye:I stand ready to shoot the Hollywood twit who will eventually decide to “improve” CASABLANCA by having Rick and Elsa shown sweating in the sheets.
Mar 25, 2009 - 12:55 pm 6. Can you imagine if Obama said his bowling score was like the “guys”(terrorists) at Gitmo? « Jim Blazsik:It will be justifiable homicide.
[...] Our Clueless Critics – Andrew Klavin [...]
Mar 25, 2009 - 1:08 pm 7. Riley Hunter:“Aggressively unhip”?? Does Mr. Braxton remember he’s working for The Los Angeles Times… glass houses. No matter. Anyone who uses a phrase like “water cooler factor” is requisitely disqualified from evaluating hipness.
Mar 25, 2009 - 1:13 pm 8. Pete:So you’re comparing a weekly procedural television show that rarely deviates from a set formula to movies that have completely different structures? Too much of an apples and oranges argument, although telling a conservative not to whine about the Reader is like trying to keep a moth away from the flame.
If you’re going to play the “pointy headed critics don’t know shit” card, at least compare the Mentalist to another television program. But that would require too much work for the lazy, lazy, lazy PJ Media writers.
Mar 25, 2009 - 1:33 pm 9. Robin:I feel this way about Smallville.
Mar 25, 2009 - 2:51 pm 10. malclave:I guess I haven’t picked up on this show yet… I’ll have to check it out.
I’ve had some recent disagreements with friends over BattleStar Galactica. Sure, the new series was better technically, better written, and better acted, but I still maintain that the original was a better series. It was much more entertaining, and nowhere near as depressing.
Mar 25, 2009 - 3:33 pm 11. Jacob Churosh:Pete: You couldn’t even come up with two synonyms for “lazy”? Pot, meet kettle.
Mar 25, 2009 - 4:54 pm 12. caroline:Barrymore didn’t say “Dying is easy; comedy is hard”. It was Richard Burbage, lead actor in many of Shakespeare’s plays. Barrymore was probably just plagiarizing.
Mar 25, 2009 - 6:38 pm 13. Daniel Crandall:This post reminds me that the years described as Hollywood’s Golden Age were also years in which so many film artists had their art circumscribed by the Hayes Code.
It is interesting how much one can flourish when given a structure within in which to work; how much a structure actually forces someone to be more creative rather than less. Bruno makes this clear when he states that it was a greater challenge living within his own Hayes Code, then it was living with no code whatsoever. Well, no kidding.
Living without civilization is easy. Just walk into any forest, jungle, or prison and let your selfish, animal nature come forth. It isn’t hard. But try being decent to people who would spit on you as much as look at you. That is a challenge.
Mar 25, 2009 - 7:28 pm 14. Topics about Crimes » Klavan On The Culture » Our Clueless Critics:[...] Andrew Klavan placed an observative post today on Klavan On The Culture » Our Clueless CriticsHere’s a quick excerptCultural journalist Greg Braxton was stroking his chin over the success of the CBS TV crime series The Mentalist starring Simon Baker. “An aggressively unhip show with no built-in ‘water cooler’ factor, The Mentalist might try the patience … But what our cultural critics so often fail to understand is that there is nothing inherently more profound, more worthy or more entertaining in stories of despair and decadence than in stories of faith and decency. … True Crime … [...]
Mar 25, 2009 - 8:23 pm 15. Pajamas Media » Our Clueless Culture Critics:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Mar 26, 2009 - 2:11 am 16. Obi-Wandreas:I could never bring myself to watch “The Mentalist,” seeing as how it is a complete rip-off of Psych, a very enjoyable show.
Mar 26, 2009 - 3:02 am 17. hdgreene:I enjoy the Mentalists for all the reason stated. It’s a twist on the “psychic crime solver” twist on the old detective story. These are folks who can jump to conclusions about people, which the rest of us ain’t suppose to do (so it’s a guilty pleasure). But I say, bring back Sam Spade. Not only does he have insight, he can take a punch.
I did see The Woodsman a few years back. I found it in the public library (at least it wasn’t in the Children’s section) and had no idea what it was about. Most of the way through it was more boring than shocking but I did not realize the “protagonist” was actually a child molester until near the end, when the icky factor hit me all at once. At first I thought it was a case of mistaken identity.
Now a movie about the entire staff of a day care center getting swept up and sent to the penitentiary on the word of several demented “well meaning” therapist (who basically brainwash five year olds into making the accusations) — now that would be a movie Hollywood won’t make. But then again, I probably wouldn’t watch it either since it really has happened and who wants to think about that? So they should make another movie about Sen. Joe McCarthy instead.
Mar 26, 2009 - 4:17 am 18. Mike2:“The single hardest thing to do in the arts is not to shock or disturb or sear or radicalize—but to delight.”
Absolutely! And that is what my favorite shows, movies and books do for me, delight me.
Mar 26, 2009 - 4:19 am 19. e:—————————————
Who is John Galt?
I think one of the biggest things that crappy movies and TV shows are missing are likable characters. If everyone’s a crude, self-centered, worthless jerk why should I care to watch?
Mar 26, 2009 - 4:27 am 20. Paul from Hamburg:Pete:
Mar 26, 2009 - 5:43 am 21. RobertS:Here’s a challenge for you: Try writing a comment that doesn’t include tired cliches and name calling.
to 16 – Obi-Wandreas
Agreed. Hope you caught the very clever inside joke made this past season on “Psych” referring to “The Mentalist.”
Mar 26, 2009 - 6:05 am 22. vicsmith:The Mentalist isn’t nearly as silly as Psych and the cast is definitely easy on the eyes as well. They are also better actors.
Mar 26, 2009 - 7:09 am 23. tanstaafl:I’m sick of trudging through “the dark labyrinth of the human mind”, aka what has been passing for a very long time as the gold standard in art, books & movies.
The assumption seemed to be that, to be a true artist, you (and your creation) had to be saddled with tortured and damaged souls, desperately struggling to find a ray of light among the detritus of civilization.
No wonder American society, in recent decades, has morphed into a moral free, self-absorbed, ignorant bunch of negative junkies.
I am screaming for positive stories and something to burgeon the human spirit.
I’ve pretty much given up TV. I caught a bit of some show a few days ago where dialogue of the buff, tech happy crowd of actors nearly fried my remaining brain cells in just a few minutes of listening to their inane exchanges.
Maybe I’ll give The Mentalist a shot, and find a bit of redemption.
Mar 26, 2009 - 7:10 am 24. fred:Put in the list of people who are tired of cynicism, nilhilism, darkness, and hedonism. I would prefer being delighted and inspired. The last 30 years in entertainment has smothered us in The Dark Side. We need to come up for air.
Mar 26, 2009 - 7:24 am 25. Sgt. Mom:“I am screaming for positive stories and something to burgeon the human spirit.”
That’s the kind of stuff that I write – about those fairly ordinary people, who met challenges and persevered, who were tried by events and circumstances, and yet remained decent and honorable people. I got tired of schlock and horror, and all of that, when it came to novels. I did one novel about a group of pioneers, caught in the Sierra Nevada in winter, but whose party did not fall apart. (It’s called “To Truckee’s Trail” and it’s on Amazon.com, of course.) The other is a series about the German immigrants who founded various little towns in the Texas Hill country – “The Adelsverein Trilogy”. Here they were, essentially dumped on the frontier, under very trying circumstances… but they also managed to hold on to their basic decency.
Mar 26, 2009 - 7:29 am 26. Michael:(I used to write for Sgt. Stryker’s Daily Brief, back in the day – before I began having a feeling that we needed to remember the people who build this country as decent and honorable individuals, doing the best that they could.)
While there are places for darker views I totaly agree that they have taken over our culture.
I find that I have no wish to watch a show full of people I wouldn’t want to associate with in real life.
Mar 26, 2009 - 8:29 am 27. Canuckistani:To delight? Why that’s just crazy! It’d never work. The Beatles tried that and hey … wait!
Mar 26, 2009 - 9:37 am 28. Christian Toto:Great points … the film “Marley & Me” got trashed by some critics despite the fact that it’s an honest and well crafted look at a successful marriage. But dysfunction is catnip to critics, not a story about a couple which deals with life issues but emerges all the stronger for it.
Mar 26, 2009 - 9:41 am 29. アットローン :ブログがんばってくださいね。
Mar 26, 2009 - 9:43 am 30. wancow the islomogynist:People still watch TV?
Mar 26, 2009 - 9:55 am 31. The Historian:MEDIA LAP DOGS
This is why newpapers should officially become not for profits!
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/media-lost-in-wilderness.html
Mar 26, 2009 - 10:07 am 32. Ed Driscoll » Building An MSM Mystery:[...] Andrew Klavan writes: It must be difficult to be a mainstream journalist. The world is so full of mysteries. Why do crime rates go down when more people own guns? Why do HIV-infection rates go up when you distribute free condoms? Why does tax revenue decrease when you raise tax rates? And hey, why do people keep saying there’s a liberal bias in the news? To the mainstream media, it’s all just one big riddle. [...]
Mar 26, 2009 - 10:58 am 33. David S:We know why the right wing keeps claiming there is a liberal bias in the news – because that’s the best way to distract people from the actual bias toward corporations and conservatives.
Mystery solved.
Peace.
DS
Mar 26, 2009 - 11:16 am 34. Bonnie_:I enjoy the Mentalist and Psych, too, because we can watch them with our older kids. They are engaging, interesting, and don’t have graphic scenes so prevalent in other shows.
Plus, you’re right, the secondary characters rock the Mentalist. Our family loves “Cho” the detective. His dry wit cracks us up and we usually have to scan back in the episode to watch it again because we’re laughing so hard. The same is true with NCIS, where the wit flies so fast it’s worth watching twice just to catch the great dialogue. Good guys should always win. Ultimately, they always do.
Mar 26, 2009 - 11:34 am 35. DavidN:There’s an interesting phenomenon going on here, which Mr. Klavan doesn’t comment on in his article. This isn’t really his fault: the article isn’t about the transformation of Hollywood, it’s about how lame critics are (something I’m sure a novelist would have opinions on). What I’m referring to, however, is different. TV has become more mainstream, and by extension more conservative, than the Movie segment of Hollywood. 24 could never have been made as a movie. They may make a movie of it, eventually, because the studios can figure out that it would have a guaranteed audience. But the tenor of the show, where the main character is willing to do almost anything to save his country, including torture terrorists, lie, cheat and steal, is just not something Hollywood wants to explore, especially not in anything other than an exploitation picture with a B-level cast. TV puts its A stars in such vehicles (NCIS, Numbers, Without a Trace, Criminal Minds, etc.), and the effect is obvious: the shows are mainly successful, and have a long life. Even CBS’s much maligned CSI: Miami has some of this. David Caruso’s character (so easily parodied because of the dramatic sunglasses thing) tends to, once or twice a week, threaten a bad guy with a fate worse than death, something not sanctioned by the cops, as far as I know. Anthony LaPaglia’s character on Without a Trace got demoted for stretching the boundaries of what the FBI would tolerate, and the watcher of the show knows that he actually got away with stuff (torturing suspects, etc.) that would have gotten him fired and probably jailed had the higher ups known. Point is, what he did was presented in such a way that you can’t see anything else he could have done, if he wanted to save the person he was trying to rescue.
Which brings us back to Thomas Jane, the main character of the Mentalist. I disagree with Mr. Klavan here, slightly. The main character is actually pretty complex and interesting, and ought to be the draw behind any “water cooler factor” that the show has. Jane is a former fake psychic. He made a lot of money doing it, and got roped into helping the police hunt for a serial killer. Said serial killer somehow sensed Jane wasn’t really psychic, and proceeded to kill Jane’s wife and daughter. This shocked Jane, and he decided to use his real skills (he notices *everything* about people, and can deduce a great deal just by observing) to help the police full time, as a consultant.
The thing is, this is new, at least as far as I’m concerned. It’s a truly unique idea, in terms of fiction, something that’s never been done before. ER was successful in spite of the fact that Emergency! was essentially the same show, 20 years before. Most cop shows are pretty much rehashes of previous ones, with the success or failure of the project largely resting on the cast and screenwriters. In this case, the premise is unique enough that the actors can be relative unknowns, and the whole thing is still successful.
Mar 26, 2009 - 12:25 pm 36. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Serendipty R US
I admit to enjoying Joe vs. the Volcano, You’ve Got Mail, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, etc., while also taking pleasure in the Bourne series.
RE: The ‘Critics’….
…are godless souls who have no regard for the love of Life. After all, they support the murder of the most innocent of us all. And therefore, they have no grasp of the Light, let alone understanding and appreciation.
As it is written…
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 26, 2009 - 12:44 pm 37. Patty:[Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. -- George Washington]
I love your stuff, Andrew (I discovered you 1st with your Weiss/Bishop trilogy) so please consider this comment within that context. I find that I agree with you on most things.
But The Reader is not really about a sympathetic view of “The Nazis” –
Remember when the lawyer/prof. tells his students that the court is prosecuting the Nazi guards because “society is held together by laws, not morality? ”
This is a critical point and this raises a critical question for our society today,
They can’t just lynch the guards – while they are guilty of the heinous crimes, society must stay within the bounds of law and order. The guards are subjected first to a criminal prosecution.
But, Hannah was only doing as she was told. She was an obedient guard, one who followed (Nazi) law and order.
The young law students are eager to scapegoat the guards; they can afford this luxury because they are too young to be held responsible for the Nazi evil. But the teacher is not too young, and he is honest enough to admit that he has been party to the crime of Nazism simply by standing by while it occurred. “We all knew of the camps” he cries. “How many guards were there? 8000?”
Society can’t cleanse itself of the immorality and evil in the camps simply by blaming Hannah.
Hannah represents Germany, before her defeat in the War. She represents a solid, ernest, law-abiding Germany and she seduces the German youth.
Standing on all of her books, and committing suicide is very symbolic. Germany — despite all of her philosophy, music, art, medicine, knowledge cannot reconcile the fact that Germany is guilty of heinous crimes. And it is Germany that hangs, because of her evil deeds.
Hannah learns to read. But, reading cannot redeem her.
Now, she is buried in the churchyard. and there is a nod given to the religious implication of death, resurrection, and redemption but that is the subject for another time.
Mar 26, 2009 - 12:53 pm 38. Marc Malone:Lots of good comments here. I second the opinion about Battlestar Galactica. I kept rooting for the Cylons to wipe ot all those niserable humans. There wasn’t one worth spit as a human!
The reactions and pettiness of the people involved just turned me off. People come together in such times. A simple. “Hey, we’re all we’ve got!” shuts off such pettiness in such times. There would always be some idiots, but in such a circumstance, they would simply be spaced as a way for people to vent their anger.
I like Sci-Fi, but I haven’t found anything they produce that I have been able to like recently, not since they cancelled the Dresden Files. Of course, I also turn off the Sci-Fi channel in protest when they air Wrestling promos. It’s just too offensive. It has no place on the Sci-Fi station.
As for comparisons to Psych, I enjoy both shows. Howver, Psych drives me a bit crazy, as do all shows that have people acting truly obviously stupidly and not getting called on it. It’s just over the top. I didn’t like the Mentalist at first, but it grows on you, as the characters are all so simpatico.
Mar 26, 2009 - 1:03 pm 39. Topics about Culture » Klavan On The Culture » Our Clueless Critics:[...] Andrew Klavan created an interesting post today on Klavan On The Culture » Our Clueless CriticsHere’s a short outlineKlavan On The Culture. March 25th, 2009 10:38 am. Our Clueless Critics. Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers. It must be difficult to be a mainstream journalist. The world is so full of mysteries. Why do crime rates go down when … [...]
Mar 26, 2009 - 1:34 pm 40. Class Clown:It is as I have been saying for years: Wasn’t rebellion more fun back when there was still anything to rebel against?
In our current cultural cesspool, everything is already “edgy” and “shocking”. How can any new bit of pop culture flotsam and jetsom still be “shocking”?
Mar 26, 2009 - 1:37 pm 41. Tri Geek:David S.
Please provide all those solid examples of biases towards coporations and conservatives. Examples Please!!!!!
Peace Through Strength
Mar 26, 2009 - 5:30 pm 42. Tri Geek:Davis S.
I am waiting………
Mar 26, 2009 - 5:52 pm 43. Blackwater:List them here-
1. NPR? Not quite
2. PBS? Not even close
3. Hollywood? Whoops, not there
4. NBC? Wow, missed by a mile
5. CBS? Last time they ran a story that promoted a conservative book was…. How about the last time they had anything good to say baout ANY conservative?
6. ABC- There we go, they must have something. John Stocil (sp) comes close
7. CNN- Wow, this is getting hard
8. New York Times, LA Times, USA Today (put any major metropolitan paper in here)-
9. Fox News- There you go!!!!! Proof that the Consevatives control our media.
Good article. You’re one of my favorite writers on this site. I totally agree with your article. I might be a conservative that supports an increase of family values in our society but I do a good job of hiding it. I have large tattoos on my back, arms, chest and shoulders and I generally act like your typical 22 year old jerk. And I still watch all the violent sex filled movies and TV shows, listen to metal music, play extremely violent video games and get drunk and chase after girls with my friends a lot. But I still find myself flipping to the Christian and family oriented channels often and enjoy watching the programs with a positive message. It reassuring to me to remind myself that I don’t and shouldn’t live and act the way I do. We need more quality entertainmeny with positive messages. There’s a HUGE market for it as The Passion of the Christ and The Mentalist prove. These executives should start tapping into them.
Mar 26, 2009 - 10:21 pm 44. eon:The intellectual dishonesty of the critics was best illustrated by their reaction to the “Watchmen” movie. Almost without exception, they panned it for being “too accurate an adaptation” of the original story (by Alan Moore).
Too accurate? That’s rather like criticising a biographical film of being “too accurate” in depicting the life of the person it’s about.
The “critics” had similar misgivings about the entire “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, claiming that it was “too long and too detailed”. Having read Tolkien’s 1000+ page novel, I can assure you that a lot of it didn’t make it into even the Director’s Cut on DVD. That’s why the result was only nine hours or so long, instead of twenty.
Furthermore, if the critics want “dark and edgy”, there are few stories that qualify more on those counts than the ones I just mentioned. Yet the critics panned them. My own opinion is that they did so because;
1. Watchmen depicted a world where moral choices count- even when there are no good choices available. It’s also about the arrogance of power- and the fact that those who possess it may not always use it wisely.
2. LOTR was about justice, truth, loyalty, honor, and recognizing that there is a difference between right and wrong, good and evil- and that one must choose to serve one or the other, and accept the consequences.
In each case, the critics may have objected to a story which asked the audience, politely, to think- or maybe to think about things the critics themselves would rather not.
clear ether
eon
Mar 27, 2009 - 2:57 am 45. Margaret Evans:One of the best shows on TV, for my money, is Friday Night Lights. It explores the human heart honestly, and with nuance, and doesn’t patronize its subject matter – the small town south. The show takes on gritty postmodern issues – broken families, poverty, teen sex, addiction, etc – but doesn’t make them glamorous or without consequence. Best of all, it gives us a realistic, flawed, but loving family at the heart of the show. Coach Taylor and his wife have their problems, like every couple, but they clearly adore each other and their children, and they put family first. The show even manages to incorporate religion, still such a big part of life in the south, without condemning OR sentimentalizing it. It’s just a really poignant, even poetic, show. And yes, it delights me.
Mar 27, 2009 - 2:59 am 46. Critics Clueless: Klavan | KyleSmithOnline.com:[...] Klavan wonders why critics persist with a taste for all things desperate and despairy over more straight-ahead [...]
Mar 27, 2009 - 7:07 am 47. jasonS:My all time favorite feel-good shows are King of the Hill and the British TV adaptation of Jeeves and Wooster starring Hugh Laurie of ‘House’ fame. I am so sick of all the darkness and sickness and misery and depravity.
Mar 27, 2009 - 8:06 am 48. Mina Bender:I still don’t know who he is or why he is famous but I have seen your plugged show “The Mentalist” and the worst thing I have found about it is its name. Perhaps if it had named it “The Psychic” it would have drawn a broader crowd, its ratings would be double, and every psych nut job in town would be talking about it.
Mar 27, 2009 - 9:46 am 49. hawkeye:I find it to be a harmless, good taste show with a handsome guy and a skinny chic who is a bit anorexic and has a gun way to big for her petite little hands.The main reason I have seen it more than once is because I am too cheap to have cable and its a rabbit ears weekly. Enjoy
not that this is on subject, but i have always thought there are many movies, but few films.i think we want depth, and weight.i would say, kurosawa got it right.
Mar 27, 2009 - 10:50 am 50. David S:@42. Tri Geek:
Here’s a hint – you’ve missed the point.
First, ABC, CBS and NBC:
That sounds quite conservative to me.
Yep. Must be that liberal bias.
I certainly see the evidence of all this hard work. How did you miss it?
There are still a few of us that don’t drink your Kool-aid. You didn’t even list one liberal media outlet. Public sources (NPR, PBS) are as close to neutral as is possible – the rest of your list is a collection of corporate media sources that are objectively quite conservative.
Nice try.
Peace.
DS
Mar 27, 2009 - 12:40 pm 51. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: David S’s ‘Sources’
As I pointed out on another thread, these ’sources’ are ‘questionable’ to say the least.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 27, 2009 - 1:29 pm 52. AST:[Figures don't lie, but liars figure.]
I agree with Riley Hunter’s comment about Greg Braxton’s lame hipness, and I’m especially glad someone brought up NCIS, which is the single network show I have my DVR set to record each week. It’s popularity is growing, not, I suspect, because of the faux gore which is to be had in all the CSIs or the beautiful women and handsome men, but primarily because of the character of Jethro Gibbs, played by Mark Harmon and the background of the program which concerns crimes involving the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. The overall image of our military is one of highly competent people whose first concern is protecting all of us. Even when some of those people are guilty of crimes, we win when Gibbs and his team nail them. If I were a producer in Hollywood looking for a hit show, I’d build it around the military which is not the one portrayed in MASH, but a huge organization which is generally well run and high performing, despite the fact that it is composed of human beings.
I’ve watched The Mentalist, but grew bored, although I agree that it’s a lot better than general primetime fare. I was a fan of Numbers, but have watched it less this season. Why I don’t know. I think the themes of love (as opposed to jackrabbit lust), family, genuine affection and pulling together for the good of us all and of others have a lot to do with the success of these shows.
Now if CBS’ News division could home in on similar attitudes, it might become the Tiffany network again, even if it all ends up coming over the internet.
Mar 27, 2009 - 2:09 pm 53. Mike2:50. David S:
“Public sources (NPR, PBS) are as close to neutral as is possible”
ROFL!!! Has anyone sold you beachfront property in Arizona yet??
Mar 27, 2009 - 2:31 pm 54. Tri Geek:David S.
Forget the studies. Just open your ears and listen. The raeson liberals hate Fox and AM talk radio is because it is the only ooutlet left for conservatives.
Here is the problem. When you ONLY hear liberal info all day you start identifying it as middle of the road. Then when you hear true middle of the road, you think it is hard core right. It is a matter of perspective.
Mar 27, 2009 - 4:46 pm 55. Class Clown:Dang it Mike! Stop selling him real estate in my home state! We don’t need any more silly people here!
The only way that someone can realistically define the media as having a right-wing bias is to arbitarily move the “center” point to a spot of one’s choosing. That is exactly what is happening. The Left-wing is now so extreme that they consider as a conservative anyone who isn’t positively enthusiastic for homosexuality, belongs to an organized Christian religion, or doesn’t call for the prosecution of Bush for “war crimes”.
Letting a conservative on-air to talk sometimes doesn’t count. The real point is the underlying assumptions. NPR, for example, assumes as a bedrock truth every single nostrum of the Left.
No wonder they think that the media is biased to the right.
Mar 27, 2009 - 6:20 pm 56. fred:One of the things I like about Mr. Jane on The Mentalist is that he is very, very good at figuring out sociopaths and narcissists quickly, while most other people are dolts at picking up the clues about these turds. He is also very perceptive about human suffering and pain. He is truly a complex character. In a society such as ours, very few people are able to size up those kinds of people and do the sane and right thing: RUN THE OTHER WAY.
Mar 27, 2009 - 9:04 pm 57. fireyourguns:Here is the real reason that liberals can’t stand conservative news/talk:
CABLE NEWS RACE
THU., MARCH 26, 2009
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,420,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,987,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,374,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,160,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,888,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,322,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,300,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,208,000
CNN KING 1,144,000
CNN COOPER 1,118,000
They can’t compete!
Mar 27, 2009 - 9:30 pm 58. Jewels (AKA Julian):“shocking,” “disturbing,” “searing,” and “radical.”
Having watched foreign cinema and shows for the better part of a decade, I find the above adjectives in correct in thier description. I think, “Pointless”, “Dull”, “Self-Absorbed”, and “Head Shoved So Far Up Own Ass As To Become A Klein Bottle.” is the more accurate description of the current fair comming out of Hollywood.
Mar 28, 2009 - 9:53 am 59. one of my own:42 Tri Geek and 57 fireyourgubs apparently need to get together and reconcile your propaganda.
As for the rest of this . . . whatever it is . . . I love the irony of people critiquing an article on critics. You people (yes, I mean you people) sure have a knack for spinning in tight little circles.
Mar 28, 2009 - 11:41 am 60. AThinkingPerson:David S… So in your world being a white, male automatically means you’re a conservative? You always come up with the most illogical arguments. As for your contention that the news media leans right? Please, take a stroll on over to http://newsbusters.org/ and get your dose of reality there. I know Ariana Huffington can seem so convincing David, but in reality, she’s quite the dingbat. I’d get out from under her skirts more often if I were you. Let a little sunshine into that dim bulb world of yours.
Mar 29, 2009 - 3:26 pm 61. Koblog:I don’t know why Fox is held up as “Conservative.”
Have you watched Bones or House? Family Guy? Dollhouse?
Not exactly family values, that.
I very much enjoyed “canceling” Bones and House from my DVR when they starting feeding me lesbianism.
Mar 29, 2009 - 9:03 pm 62. SAF:My favorite show is “Bones” closely followed by “House.” We watch “The Mentalist” but that is further down the list. To really enjoy each of these shows you must follow them pretty closely and think about what is happening and thus it isn’t mindless entertainment.
I think that to be interesting a show must present issues that you don’t agree with and perhaps makes you uncomfortable. And for a series to do really well it needs to self reference and have continuity of characters. Unlike a movie which only gets one shot at character development a series has the opportunity grow characters. But you need to pay attention and the reward is more enjoyment of the show. And our three favorites do, IMHO, a great job of that.
Mar 30, 2009 - 4:50 am 63. David S:@60. AThinkingPerson:
Not at all – but it would be hard to argue that a bunch of white males constitute a diverse sampling of opinion, or somehow represent a fair and balanced media.
More to the point is the complete lack of representation in the mainstream media for progressive voices.
What part of 75% Republican did you not understand?
Peace.
DS
Mar 30, 2009 - 9:16 am 64. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: David S….Such a Liar
We’ve been over this ground before. But David S still insists that he’s not a blatant liar.
Whereas anyone with more than two syanpses to rub together can recognize the truth of the matter. Apologies to those who ‘graduated’ from high school in the last 20 years.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 30, 2009 - 10:49 am 65. Someone75:[The Truth will out.....]
Chuck -
Still doing the angry old man rants, I see. How’s that working out for you? Still voicing moronic opinions and launching flaccid insults in failing blogging site that nobody but fellow crazies read? Don’t worry – I don’t count myself in the previous statement. I’m just here to observe the hilarity of a party in the midst of self-destruction.
Regards,
Someone(75)
Mar 30, 2009 - 7:31 pm 66. Chuck Pelto:[Sarcastic comment here]
TO: All
RE: Another….
….projecting individual heard from.
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If they can't offer cogent args, they offer insults instead.]
P.S. And they call ME, ‘moronic’……how very apropos….for projection….
Mar 31, 2009 - 4:17 am 67. David S:@66. Chuck Pelto:
I’m so glad to see that your self-flagellation is proceeding according to plan…
That does seem to be your strong suit. No wonder your arguments always devolve to calling me names…
Yes, Chuck – it’s all about you. Thanks for proving your critics’ point at every opportunity. Tell us again about your Mensa buddies?
Peace.
DS
Mar 31, 2009 - 7:47 am 68. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: A GREAT Video….
…that describes the most frequent form of arg used by the likes of vivo, realitychiq, David S and oh so many others we encounter in this and other venues…..
Shut Up!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 31, 2009 - 12:51 pm 69. Chuck Pelto:[The Truth will out.....and the so-called 'progressives' are NOT going to like it....ONE LITTLE BIT.....]
P.S. Did I leave out Someone75?
I suspect, based on his/her nom des blogs that they were born in 1975. That would mean they graduated from high school well after such an education had already gone into the ‘tank’…..
Mar 31, 2009 - 12:52 pm 70. Chuck Pelto:P.P.S. Don’t you love it when a ‘plan’ comes together? Especially since it wasn’t MY plan in the first place. But David S, vivo and Someone75 all just walked right into the pit/pratfall of their own making.
And to think Klavan put it all together like this. He’s beginning to come across as the Karl Rove of Pajamas Media.
Kudos to Andrew Klavan…..
Mar 31, 2009 - 1:02 pm 71. Someone75:Chuck Pelto,
I love your narcissist complex. It manifests itself time and time again. I called you a moron and your response was to say, “no, YOU’RE the moron.” Great argument, gramps. It’s nice how you can negate any argument that you don’t like by saying nobody born post 1975 knows anything at all.
You’ve created a nice little padded cell for yourself by deciding that nobody but you can know anything. That’s why you’re a fool. Go on with your rants and petty name-calling.
The best part is how defensive you get. I post one thing and you fly off the handle with three posts alleging some sort of conspiracy of liberalism. This ain’t about liberals and conservatives – this is about the silly rantings of an old man who thinks he’s the only one with a clue. Looks like someone can dish it out but can’t take it.
Guess what, Chuck – we found you out.
Oh, and before you become too pleased with yourself, no – 75 was not when I was born. Brilliant bit of obvious deduction there, Sherlock, but as usual, you’re way off.
Warmest regards,
Someone75
Mar 31, 2009 - 1:48 pm 72. Chuck Pelto:[Please keep your flaccid insults coming though - they're pathetic and hilarious!]
TO: All
RE: Someone75
See what I mean? Nothing cogent. Just ‘Shut Up!’ ad homs.
Klavan nails em. And in a most righteous manner.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 31, 2009 - 1:57 pm 73. DZunga:P.S. I guess he/she can’t provide any evidence of their alleged ‘intellect’ being somewhat above ‘moron’. But that’s no surprise…..
Peace in…
Gentlemen, please. The only bias “the media” has is towards profitability, like any other business. Corporate media must make a profit, so they do what is necessary. Individual journalists succeed – earning fame, fortune and power – when they gain access to previously unknown, critical information. Woodward and Bernstein were not out to “get” Nixon; they were out to get the facts. The reason that journalists more frequently identify themselves as liberal is simply because journalism tends to attract people who are driven to seek out facts for themselves. Every career that predominantly involves seeking knowledge, information, facts, understanding the world through empirical evidence – tends to have more liberals. Think teachers, researchers, scientists. Conversely, careers where the emphasis is on faith, physical prowess, control and obedience – tend to attract conservatives. Think military, police, clergy, coaching. One of the defining characteristics of the liberal mind is that it is more accepting of – and more interested in reconciling – differences. Libs are more prone to see the other person’s point of view – as in their (unfortunate but undeniable) greater tendency to be understanding of Islamic fascism. Every viewpoint has its blind spots, after all. But overall, liberalism derives its strength from its openness to facts. Conservatism – not necessarily historically, but certainly as practiced today by the rump Republican party left over from the debacle of W Bush/Cheney – puts faith before fact. We all saw how the Bush administration decided public policy based on rigid ideology, reality be damned – leading to an unending series of policy failures, including the current economic crisis.
The MSM has for a while now been cowed by the unceasing, shrill accusations of liberal bias, so they make it their policy to bend over backwards to report both sides – even when they know one is simply untrue. This is the unfortunate spineless, temporizing aspect of liberalism at work, always having a tendency to yield to bullies.
Fox News is biased, however. It’s a deliberate, explicit corporate policy. They do it because they discovered that, as in talk radio, there is a lot of money to be made pandering to the angry Right wing. This also explains why, at the same time, they run programs that many conservative viewers find offensive: such programs are very profitable. Like most corporations, Fox places profits ahead of ideology. The profit motive – remember the profit motive, all you Right-wingers? – explains it all, folks.
Don’t bother with invectives, friends. I’ve listened to more Rush, Hannity and O’Leilly than most of you (since 1995, in fact), met many conservative icons in person, I attended school with Medved and studied under Prager. I’ve been published as a libertarian. I’ve read books by Ann Coulter, O’Reilly, even the loony Pat Robertson, for god’s sake (pun intended.) Go do the same homework.. If you’re diligent enough, as well as intellectually honest and capable, you can’t escape coming to the same conclusions that I do. .
Peace out.
Mar 31, 2009 - 8:51 pm 74. Someone75:Chuck Pelto,
Actually, I gave some very cogent reasons for your idiocy. You were just too stupid to understand them. Maybe if you had gone to school post 1975, you’d have higher reading comprehension. I actually didn’t say “shut up” at all in my previous posts – or any of my posts. That’s your argument, gramps!
It’s sad, really. An angry old man who can’t understand why the world has changed and left him behind.
Regards,
Someone(75)
Apr 1, 2009 - 11:05 am 75. Chuck Pelto:[Do yourself a favor - use a dictionary when you read my posts. And if a word is too big for you, just ask and I'll explain. I just want to help.]
TO: DZunga
RE: Yeah….Sure…
“Gentlemen, please. The only bias “the media” has is towards profitability, like any other business.” — DZunga
….you betcha.
That’s why they’re all tanking at the moment. And need a ‘revitalization act’ of Congress to rescue them.
RE: Cowed? The Media??!??!?!
“The MSM has for a while now been cowed by the unceasing, shrill accusations of liberal bias, so they make it their policy to bend over backwards to report both sides….” — DZunga
I saw how ‘cowed’ they were on the television in the run-up to the General Election.
Case in point…..
Some talking-head on one of the major television networks during their formal evening ‘news’—what a misnomer—program. Something about ‘fact checking’.
Four items showing how allegations against Obama were false.
One item showing how allegations against Palin were ‘not quite accurate’.
Jack—…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
P.S. Are you another ‘incarnation’ of David S?
Apr 1, 2009 - 1:51 pm 76. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Someone75
Notice that this person cannot stay ‘on-topic’?
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 1, 2009 - 1:51 pm 77. DZunga:[If you can't beat them....call them names.]
Chuck – So, you’re making the claim that certain media organizations are tanking as a result of their bias? If so, you would need to present some evidence for this, because it doesn’t follow logically. A media business, like any other business, can fail for a multitude of reasons. The rise of the internet is most frequently cited as the cause of economic difficulties in traditional media. Where is your evidence that “bias”, presumably against the Right, plays any role?
As to some talking head on a major news network…are you saying that media bias against the Right is proven by this one piece of anecdotal “evidence” as reported by you?
Remember what George Harrison said about everything being in the mind…you gotta constantly check your mind against reality.
DZunga
P.S. I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t know enough about Buddhism to say for sure.
Apr 1, 2009 - 3:24 pm 78. Chuck Pelto:TO: DZunga
RE: English….
“Chuck – So, you’re making the claim that certain media organizations are tanking as a result of their bias?” — DZunga
…is a tertiary language for you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. George Harrison doesn’t mean ’squat’ to me. Let alone others with more than two synapses to rub together.
I remember his songs…..
P.P.S. If you worship George Harrison….you’ve got ’serious’ problems….
Apr 1, 2009 - 3:53 pm 79. Chuck Pelto:P.P.S. RE: ‘Tanking’….
…please explain what has happened over the last few weeks vis-a-vis:
• The NYT selling off properties.
• The Seattle Intelligencer—what a misnomer—going on-line only.
• Odd happenings at the LATimes.
Etc., etc., etc…..
Apr 1, 2009 - 3:55 pm 80. DZunga:Chuck(le) – Certainly, I can explain the above phenomena. I think I can explain pretty much anything you toss at me. As I wrote, I pay close attention to the conversation on the Right, so I’m familiar with most of the arguments from your side.
Before I answer, however, I want to point out that I have posed questions for you, and you have not responded. Why is that? Do you prefer exchanging insults to exchanging information? Is attacking easier than defending? After eight years of W Bush’s disastrous policies, I think the Right has a lot to answer for – but I don’t hear it. Don’t you think it’s time for the Right to engage in some much-needed intellectual re-tooling?
The above big-city newspapers are slipping because they’re losing readership, mostly to the electronic media. We’re in the midst of a technological revolution, and the traditional model of information-gathering is changing. With that change comes corresponding changes in advertising, which finances media. With finite advertising $ available to sell product, there is much less for the major dailies than there was when they were the only game in town. The bigger ones are the most endangered because they had so much of the old-fashioned journalistic infrastructure (e.g. foreign bureaus, staff reporters) to pay for. But, what do their difficulties have to do with media bias? This is really the same question I posed to you before, still unanswered.
BTW, English is my first language, though I can get along in Spanish and French. The question was rhetorical, you see.
George Harrison’s words were offered as advice. I was saying that, while each of us creates our own version of reality inside our heads, when you venture out into the world – especially when you talk politics and public policy – you need to fact-check your inner reality against the actual course of events, and adjust when necessary. (This is precisely what W Bush et al did not do.) If you don’t, you’re not intellectually serious. I’m guessing by your remark about Harrison that you are a comparatively young man. In fact, few people in my generation paid much attention to him, but that is still a very interesting remark of his.
I’ve challenged you, rather than insulted you. Can you respond in kind?
DZunga
Apr 1, 2009 - 10:37 pm 81. Chuck Pelto:TO: DZunga
RE: Evidence?
Are you REALLY this obtuse? You sound EXACTLY like David S[tupid]. You have GOT to be a clone or another ‘incarnation’ of that idiot.
But, just to humor you….as well as show to the rest what a jackass you are….
• One
• Two
• Three
* Four
• Five
• Six
Enjoy….buckie….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 2, 2009 - 12:32 pm 82. Someone75:[The Truth will out....and idiots are not going to appreciate it.....]
DZunga,
My advice is to leave him alone. A quick google search reveals that Chuck(le) enjoys posting wildly contrarian views on anything, not limited to politics. Basically, he’ll argue anything with anybody, but not in a fair way where there is actual dialogue. All he knows to do is start negating your ideas because A) you’ve been brainwashed by the educational system or B) you’re an idiot. It gives him an opportunity of reuse his flaccid insults.
I had tried to reason with him, but there is just nothing to reason with. It’s like trying to talk to your five-year-old son like he’s an adult. I just call him out sometimes because he’s good for a laugh or two. It doesn’t take much to make him fly off the handle with a whole string of angry, insulting posts. It’s funny if you look at it that way.
I know you were sincerely trying to have a discussion, but it’s a lost cause. That’s probably why he’s been banned from so many online forums.
Someone75
Apr 2, 2009 - 12:42 pm 83. Chuck Pelto:[Don't you just love the little postscripts he provides that are about 90% less witty than he thinks they are?]
TO: All
RE: Someone75 & Projection
“….he’ll [I] argue anything with anybody, but not in a fair way where there is actual dialogue.” — Someone75
Anyone here recognize the fact that Someone 75 does exactly what he talks about me doing? And where are his/her ‘facts’ supporting any ‘actual dialogue’?
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 2, 2009 - 1:14 pm 84. Chuck Pelto:[The Truth is coming out.....]
P.S. Isn’t it ‘interesting’ that after DZunga asks for ‘evidence’ and I provide it, Someone75 suggests that DZunga ‘ignore’ me……
Well….it makes sense. Better to quite while he thinks he’s still ‘ahead’…..
Apr 2, 2009 - 1:57 pm 85. DZunga:Chuck – I think Someone75 has your number. I enjoy dialogue and reasoned argumentation. I make it a point to search for people on the other side who do as well. Why is it so hard to find them? Anyone? Anyone?
Thanks for the “evidence.” I read all of the links. There’s nothing to support your belief that the media has a liberal bias. Rather, they all deal with the fact that the newspaper business is in trouble, which we all know, and several articles corroborate the reasons I gave previously.
DZ
Apr 2, 2009 - 6:46 pm 86. DZunga:Someone 75 – thanks for the heads up. His last post pretty much proves your point.
The sad fact is, while his is an extreme case, it is consistent with the way the Right tends to approach disagreements. They begin with inner certainty and unshakeable faith in their righteousness, so all who disagrees with them or challenge them are, ergo, wrong and may be treated with contempt. When they do use facts, they use them selectively and with a complete absence of logic. Shameless rabble-rousers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, O’Reilly et al could not exist on the Left. Funny thing is, most of my business colleagues – really fine, decently-educated, mature folk – toe the same line and dance to the same terrible tune. Fine people who, unfortunately, cannot separate themselves from the Right-wing culture that comforts them, incapable of realizing that their side has been taken over by a cancer capable of destroying our country. I have regular dialogue with several of them and, while we at all times avoid name-calling and personal rancor, their arguments are grade-school level. It’s like I’m arguing with my teenagers. I’ve coined the phrase “arguing like a Republican,” because every one of them argues politics the same way: passionately, blindly, obstinately, without regard to of logic and careless with facts. And to this day, none has admitted to being wrong on any issue – even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. Very sad. I think Christopher Hitchens is onto something when he notes that the emotional portion of the human brain is far larger than the part that controls rational thought.
DZ
Apr 2, 2009 - 7:09 pm 87. Chuck Pelto:TO: DZunga
RE: Liar
All you do is lie and claim it is ‘reasoned argument’. I’ve pointed that out. You don’t like it? Sounds like a ‘personal problem’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 3, 2009 - 6:29 am 88. Chuck Pelto:[Surely a liar tears at the very fabric of society.]
TO: Andrew Klavan, et al.
RE: Based On…..
….these discussions with DZunga, Someone75, David S and oh so many others….
….I think you are mistaken about them being ‘clueless’. Rather I think they are, as I identified DZunga, ‘liars’ and very much aware of their predilection. And they are VERY clever about it.
Case in point….
Earlier DZ asked me for evidence that the so-called mainstream media was ‘failing’ as a result of their malfeasance.
So I provided a list of six items showing the so-called mainstream media, in the newsprint format, are tanking.
All of these papers are ‘progressive’ in their make-up. Or am I wrong about the NYT or the Seattle Intelligencer? I doubt it. And anyone who is not an outright liar would agree with me.
So, after providing the evidence he asked for which supports my claim that the newsprint mainstream media is tanking, DZunga changes the angle of attack and now says….
That wasn’t his original question in the first place.
In my honestly held opinion, this cretin is a consummate and likely pathological liar.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 3, 2009 - 7:25 am 89. Chuck Pelto:[The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else. -- George Bernard Shaw]
P.S. To put down the latest lie by DZunga, I offer these items….
• One
• Two. [Note: This one support my args in my previous series to DZunga too.]
• Three
• Four
• Five
• Six
I can go on and on….but I’ll just close THIS suggestion….
[1] Go to Instapundit
[2] Go to the Search engine there
[3] Enter the term “journalist” in the textedit block
[4] Punch your ‘return’ key
[5] See all the other examples of the [misnomer] ‘liberal’ bent of the so-calle mainstream media.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 3, 2009 - 8:03 am 90. DZunga:[The Truth will out.....]
Chuck, Andrew et al –
You’re wrong. My arguments are entirely consistent. I asked for evidence that certain papers are tanking as a result of their liberal bias. The issue in question is “Cause and Effect.” The evidence suggests that they are in trouble because of the changes in information technology.
Having said that, it’s understood that there are many people who believe – mistakenly, but sincerely – the MSM is biased – you, Klavan, just about everyone I know on the Right, in fact – and their loud noises have definitely influenced the public perception of this issue. That’s the result of one side yelling so loud that many people in the middle have heard what they are saying. The other side doesn’t yell quite as loud. The Right is far more aggressive – and emotional – in making their case, always. That’s the nature of faith-based groups in general.
But, that doesn’t affect the fact that the MSM, by its nature, is not biased. After all – to use an extreme example – the Nazis convinced most of the German population that the Jews were to blame for Germany’s ills. The fact that the public bought into that ghastly lie didn’t make it true, did it? If Jewish businesses failed because people thought they were dishonest, does that actually make them, in fact, dishonest? By the same logic, you can’t make a case that the MSM is biased simply because many people say it is. You have to provide evidence of real bias. The key to understanding is to look at who is making the charges of bias, and why.
With the millions of stories reported each year, you can certainly find evidence of bias – unintentional or otherwise – cutting both ways. If you are selective, it’s easy to make a simplistic case for bias on either side. The more in-depth reality is that the media is a communications medium used much better by the Right than by the Left.
I know all about Goldberg’s claims. Why don’t you read Eric Alterman’s book, “What Liberal Media?” and then get back to me. Oh, and read up about the Gore/Bush campaign and how the media treated the two of them. There are forces at work here that you don’t see and so can’t understand. And this makes you angry and disrespectful of those who see what you do not. In that respect, you exemplify the Right’s biggest problem.
DZ
Apr 3, 2009 - 12:49 pm 91. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: See What I Mean?
Nothing to offer but “You’re wrong.” In the face of all the evidence I’ve provided. All he can say is his/her own personal opinion.
This is the behavior of a pathological liar. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. All he offers is one other man’s ‘book’? Against all the articles from various sources I can cite?
If he were in a debate tournament, he’d be laughed out of the round…..
Apr 3, 2009 - 1:20 pm 92. Chuck Pelto:P.P.S. And the ‘judge(s)’ would be chuckling as they filled out their critiques/ballots…..
Apr 3, 2009 - 1:21 pm 93. Chuck Pelto:P.P.P.S. And just to add sauce to DZunga’s oh-so-targetable ‘goose’, we have….
…..THIS!
Here’s the opening remark….
You just can’t make this s— ‘up’.
Apr 3, 2009 - 2:00 pm 94. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: DZunga v. Reality
I find it interesting that all of the evidence that major elements of the so-called mainstream ‘media’ of the newsprint, especially of the ‘progressive’ form, are tanking is found on the web as opposed to what you get from the newsprint and television-news.
The distinct impression is that those two, along with DZunga and his/her ilk, are telling everyone lies.
Hope that helps…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 3, 2009 - 2:05 pm 95. Chuck Pelto:[Television is educational. Every time someone turns one on, I go read a good book. -- Groucho Marx]
TO: All
RE: DZunga and David S
Notice how they sign off with their initials? Additionally, their form of sentence and paragraph structure is remarkably the same.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 3, 2009 - 2:26 pm 96. DZunga:[The Truth will out....]
Chuck
and All
Chuck,you need to read more carefully. Context, context. You’re wrong because none of what you offer proves liberal media bias. You’ve simply reinforced two points where we agree: large metro newspapers, are doing badly and many people think the MSM is biased.
In fact, Chuck, while I offered up Alterman’s book, nearly every book and article written by well-respected, independent journalists/authors about the Bush administration, e.g. Fiaso by Tom Ricks, American Theocracy and a couple of other books by Kevin Phillips, Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, The Price of Loyalty by Paul O’Neil, State of Denial by Woodward, all paint a very similar picture. Also, hundreds of articles in The New Republic, Atlantic Monthly, and many in-depth studies of the Bush years. They all paint a picture of a Republican party that is morally and intellectually ill. I would challenge you to read a few of these, then reflect on how few of the damning facts were explored by the MSM which feels constrained to report both sides equally, without consideration of which is true and which is false. You see, Chuck, you’re just interested in one side being right; it makes you feel good, it validates your worldview, it empowers you. It’s uncomfortable to read too much that contradicts you. But, if you are to truly be certain of your ideas, you have to read contrary opinion – a lot of it, and in depth, and then be able to dispute it. One amateur like me disputing your notions can’t affect you. As liberal radio host Randi Rhodes says, “Don’t believe me. Don’t believe anyone. Go do a lot of work for yourself.”
All – I recognize that Chuck is a true believer and not open to considering contrary evidence. I deal with many people like him, altho’ not as belligerent. But his thought processes, his inability to understand logic, his conspiracy notions (no, I am not David S, but we both write intelligibly, I guess) are familiar to me. One of my good friends thinks pretty much the same way. I drop in on these sites from time to time to see if I can find reasonable folks from the Right. I can’t call it a waste of time – even though I haven’t found anyone yet – because it’s always a learning experience for me to see how the other side comes to their strange conclusions. ‘All that’s required for evil to triumph is for decent men to do nothing.’ No, folks on the Right are no more or less good or evil than those on the other side, but when it comes to ideas, the Right’s ideas have brought us to a dangerous place, and we need to wise up. I’m just trying to do my bit. I also regularly volunteer to feed the homeless. This is doing the same for the uninformed.
Here’s a link to the most consistently accurate source for in-depth news and enlightened commentary: http://www.tnr.com Read it for a while and see if it makes a difference. Or read a few of the above books. I don’t expect anyone to take it from me. I’m a layman. But the information you need is out there, plenty of it, easily available. If you simply drop the prejudice that everyone is out to get the Right and let the facts speak for themselves…you’ll understand how things came to be so screwed up at the present time. It’s a fascinating, ugly tale.
Peaceout.
DZ
Apr 3, 2009 - 4:25 pm 97. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: DZunga and More Lies and Jest
See what I mean? Nothing anyone offers. No matter what the source…no matter how many say the same…..will convince this cretin.
It is a waste of time to communicate with such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 3, 2009 - 4:40 pm 98. Chuck Pelto:[Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. -- Pr 26:5]
P.S. Talk about an ‘indicator’. Now DZunga offers ‘Peace’, like David S….
Apr 3, 2009 - 5:00 pm 99. Someone75:D Zunga,
haha – so, was I right about Chuck? Man alive. You could construct the most cogent argument ever, but Chuck is always already unwilling or unable (the latter is more likely) to understand.
I’ve gone through the same good-faith invitation to dialogue, but it always ends up with the pre-adolescent fingers-in-ears LALALALALA-ICAN’THEARYOU nonsense.
I’ve had maybe three or four interesting discussions with people on PJMedia over the last year. I think you’re dead on in your critique of right wing extremists and their hesitancy to enter into thoughtful dialogue. However, as much as I hate to say it, I think the left is guilty of that as well – at least sometimes.
I’d love to see people like Chuck develop the courage to go to Huffington Post and start trying to talk to people. No need to worry about that though. His type is too spineless to even tolerate the possibility of conflicting ideas.
Someone75
Apr 4, 2009 - 3:25 pm 100. Chuck Pelto:TO: Someone75, et al.
RE: As I Was Saying….
“You could construct the most cogent argument ever, but Chuck is always already unwilling or unable (the latter is more likely) to understand.” — Someone75
Show me your Mensa membership ID number…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ll wager dollars against donunts that he/she can’t.
And that’s Krispy Kreme donuts…..
Apr 5, 2009 - 12:55 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: The Truth Will Out
“I’d love to see people like Chuck develop the courage to go to Huffington Post and start trying to talk to people. No need to worry about that though. His type is too spineless to even tolerate the possibility of conflicting ideas.” — Someone 75
I’m not allowed to post on Huffington’s blog. Something, I guess, to do with being too cogent and effective.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Apr 5, 2009 - 12:56 pm 102. Chuck Pelto:[If you can't beat them, 'kick/ban/kill' them.]
P.S. Speaking of developing ‘courage’….
….I have to wonder when it was that Someone75 developed that trait sufficiently enough jump out of a perfectly good airplane in flight at the behest of our rich Uncle Sam…..
Apr 5, 2009 - 12:58 pm 103. Peter the Australian:DZUnga
We all know that left-wing media organisations are going bust all over the World. The problem is that they are not commercial enough. They let their ideological bent get in the way of their profit motive.
The classic exampleis Hollywood. The biggest selling films are all right wing and usually based upon British literature : Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, James Bond. Yet Hollywood continues to make crappy lefty films starring George Clooney, that don’t really make much money at all.
Here in Oz the Daily Newspapers are all leftish. They are laying off staff at a rate of knots, because they are losing A and B class readers. The right wing mags, such as the Spectator, thrive whilst the left wing ones close down with monotous regularity. Let’s face it, being a lefty is being a prat. lefties are not free-thinkers, but moronic, follow-my-leader twits, who don’t think so much as feel.
Apr 5, 2009 - 2:30 pm 104. Someone75:Hi Chuck,
Yes – a MENSA membership is the only qualification of intelligence. Actually, I have a PhD in engineering, and no, I feel no need to prove it to you. You’ve asked me for proof before, but sorry – I’m not scanning my diploma and posting it online.
You were probably banned on Huffington Post for your petty, personal attacks. You whine like a little girl whenever I say anything, and yet all you can counter with is calling me a liar. I highly doubt your ban on Huffington (and all those other sites) had anything to do with your quality (or lack thereof) of arguments.
As for courage, I don’t believe you were ever in the military. If so, send me your discharge papers. See? It goes both ways. You were never in the military. You’re a pathetic liar and you insult our fine troops by claiming that you were. You’re not worthy to polish their boots.
I’ll wage dollars against donuts that you can’t show me proof that you were in the military.
haha – this is far too easy, Chuck(le). You throw me cowardly arguments, and I throw them right back at you.
Regards,
Someone75
Apr 5, 2009 - 4:13 pm 105. raoul:Drew, you look like leonard cohn with that shaved head!
Apr 8, 2009 - 10:47 am 106. Mitch:Before this thread was claim-jumped by six-year olds, DavidN suggested “The Mentalist” is a new idea. I want to disagree, but bear with me. Look at all the popular shows about a single character with a focus so acute they can size up a person or situation in seconds, shocking co-workers with what seems to be supernatural knowledge. These characters always have a foil who follows them and tries to debate what seems so obvious to the main character. Their official superiors disapprove of their methods, but refrain from discipline because the results are uniformly positive.
These shows succeed because they are restatements of the cases of Sherlock Holmes.
Vincent D’Onofrio as Bobby Goren, with his Watson, Eames, played by Kathryn Erbe, on Criminal Intent.
William Petersen as Gil Grissom, a fount of arcane information, his team devoted to him on CSI.
The main characters of Psych fit the Holmes mythos.
The Mentalist, of course.
Bones, where the main character espouses reason and rationality to the point where it makes her an excellent detective but an inept person. Booth is her Watson, emphasizing physicality and action, rather than mere deduction.
And of course, House, who has James Wilson, not John Watson. Since Hugh Laurie’s cowardly shot at W, I’d say that House is not a Holmes.
All these shows adapt Holmes’ surpassing intellect, but to complicate the character, to bring these people who are so adept they might alienate themselves from us down to our level. Doyle made Holmes a drug addict who was uncomfortable with women or even men when it came to emotional attachments. All these characters are made close to us with their various problems. Grissom seems emotionally barren, spending his time with his bugs; Shawn in Psych is eternally glib; House has his injury and his hatefulness; Jane has money but has experienced deep loss, which wounds him.
So, DavidN, I don’t think the idea is new, but the new shows have a fine ancestry. I definitely agree with your first paragraph, TV is the medium where shows like “The Mentalist” and “24″ have a chance. It’s why I rarely go to movies anymore.
Andrew, keep up the good work.
Apr 12, 2009 - 8:45 am 107. Matt Knowles:TO: Chuck
RE: Feeding the trolls…
… don’t.
Nothing sucks more than really digging a comment thread only to have some idiot jump in and show off his shiny new tinfoil hat… unless it’s having an otherwise sane and usually interestinr commented start feeding said asshat’s ego.
Jul 2, 2009 - 12:24 pm 108. Matt Knowles:grr… “interesting commenter” not “insterestinr commented”
Jul 2, 2009 - 12:25 pm