At the moment I am a daily Instapundit reader, which is because at the moment I find American politics a whole lot more interesting than British politics. At least Obama is interesting! Cameron just makes me want to give up thinking about British politics altogether.
But the interesting American question for me is not who will win their next Presidential election. Personally – in defiance of our Dear Leader (although time may well prove to me the error of my ways), for all the grief it may bring, and for whatever miniscule difference it may make to anything – I support Anyone-But-Obama for President rather than the man himself. No, what interests me about America just now is to what extent the old mainstream media really are in the process of being dethroned.
This is what is so interesting about things like the Obama Eats Dogs story. In itself it is about nothing. Its only significance is that Obama’s cheerleaders want this story to stop, while Obama’s detractors want it to rock on. But that is exactly why it is so interesting. It is pure media. It’s like one of those enemas that doctors inflict upon you, to enable them to see what is happening inside you. It does nothing to you, other than make your insides trackable. Obama Eats Dogs stories tell you about the power of The Media either to suppress a story which they now don’t like, or maybe not to suppress it.
My take on the alleged bias of the American mainstream media is that they have been monstrously biased in a statist direction for well over a century. Every other Media story since the year dot has been about (a) a Problem; and (b), all intertwined with that, what the government is doing about the Problem or ought to be doing about the Problem. There is now a huge constituency of idiots who really do think that the answer to any problem of any sort is for the government to take charge of it, and screw it up some more.
What is now changing is not the bias. What is changing is that now, because of the rise of other media (barium enema media?), this bias is trackable.
Don’t kid yourself that an earlier generation of Old Gents In Suits Who Worshipped Facts were not almost as biased as their now visibly biased progeny. The point about bias is not – or not only – whether you lie. The point is what you say is a story in the first place.
Problem!!! Facts. What is the government doing about it?!? More facts. What does Everyone Important say about what the government ought to be doing about it?!? More facts. There’s no need to lie about anything to skew the way you present the world.
Imagine, on the other hand, a world in which The Media all assumed that problems were there to be solved by humans, and that the “politicians” are just another of those problems that we humans have to deal with from time to time. The “News” would be completely different.
And what interests me about America just now is that this kind of thing is all becoming so much more visible, to the point where it might even be changing, in a good direction.
Brian,
Let me congratulate you and nominate this as the oddest blog post title I have seen this year.
Oh, and all the rest of it I agree with absolutely. Cracking title, cracking post.
While I agree with your assessment that this is largely media generated sound-and-fury, the image in your link of Obama gaily skipping after his dog with a carving knife in hand is just too funny.
The media go out of their way to protect Obama. They can shield him when he’s incompetent, indecisive and borderline averbal – but it is really difficult for them to protect him from himself when he acts like a self-deprecating buffoon.
No President wants to be portrayed as a clown. That was always the media’s favourite tactic with Bush. The strange thing is Obama did this to himself.
Q: What’s Obama’s favourite chocolate bar?
A: Yorkie
I am against the whole ‘anyone but Obama’ idea. This is what has been getting us into trouble for the last several years. I much prefer we simply don’t vote. This may provide Obama with a second term, but it shall also provide Republicans with a clear message- either actually work for us, or die as a viable party.
It appears we are about to be presented with yet another empty suit as the Republican nominee. When two stupid empty suits run, the better looking one tends to win.
The banquet at issue placed the left wing media in a predicament: How could they report the “dog related” jokes that were being told, by the President apparently, in the face of the de facto embargo they had placed on the dog eating story in the first place? Although Romney’s travails with his dog were widely reported, the fact that Obama literally ate “hot dogs” as a child was ignored by the old media.
The fact that everyone understood the references to dog eating at the banquet illustrates the point nicely: The old media has lost its monopoly on information.
@August-
Tho’ tis off Brian’s points, I challenge you to compare Romney’s life and his actions; and, especially his associates with all that of Obama.
I am definitely not a Romney fan, tho’ I do appreciate the social and moral values adhered to by Mormans.
He is no “empty suit.” His record of having done things (whether one approves of all those things or not) rather than having Obama’s record of being the beneficiary of things done for.
Romney does not have a record of voting “present.”
Obama’s ‘present’ votes were, at least, less damaging than Romney’s development of the healthcare socialism that Obamacare is based on. Romney has displayed a propensity to do exactly the sort of things Obama does- and in this particular case, though Obama lies often, Romney is more of a liar, because Romney likes to pretend he is conservative. They are both empty of sense, and in terms of principle, one could argue Obama has more of them, though his principles tend to be the sort I disagree with. The bottom line though, is what will result in more freedom? Romney will simply extend the regime; I want this thing to break. We need something new to replace it.
We are not quite “out of the woods” yet with the political impacts of the various forms of “Mass Media.”
That is because, with its revival by television, then reinforced in print, that MM are still the major generators and preservers of perceptions.
Perceptions, which are compatible with prejudices, confirming of inclinations, and resist analysis, rather than information, which calls for understanding and analysis, have for long dominated, and will continue to dominate, the processes for assigning representative authority by the electorates.
Public perceptions are what provide the representative authority, but not necessarily the functions of governing (now largely delegated to the unelected – the “Establishment,” staffs, agencies, etc.). The representative functions are now chiefly the representation of interests in the uses to be made of the mechanisms of governments (operated by the unelected), rather than representation of principles as in some former ideology. So, those seeking to attain or retain representative authority in this environment are largely enthralled to MM for means of creating desirable, or preventing adverse, perceptions.
The role of the present forms of MM will be impinged upon (and increasingly impugned) by other readily “digestible” information from other sources that will expose the flaws in the perceptions touted by the MM, but the MM will not be displaced in that function until a sufficiently broad enough spectrum of information sources establish a significant degree of public confidence. It is enough now that doubts of MM created perceptions are rising; doubts first confirmation to follow.
At the risk of appearing to shill for the MSM, I’d like to add a positive note. Here in Canada we have a “national broadcaster” (i.e., state-sanctioned radio) called the CBC, similar to the BBC. I have noticed that its news and current events coverage has improved markedly in recent years. Not that it’s a bastion of fair reporting, but it appears that the old guard of baby-boomers is being replaced by a new guard of gen-somethingorothers that don’t necessarily subscribe to the old prejudices. It’s still very statist-oriented, of course, but appears to be more balanced in its statism.
I maintain some hope that this may be a good sign for the future.
Some sort of health care plan in Massachusetts was going to be put into effect regardless of whether Romney was governor or not. Previous administrations had broken the health care market in Mass with the result that insurers were leaving in droves and Mass citizens had some of the highest health care costs in the US. The plan that Deval Patrick implemented along with the legislature differed remarkably from what Romney wanted. Romney’s proposed plan was much more free market oriented. For a more comprehensive write-up please refer to :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/12/how-deval-patrick-gutted-romneycares-market-oriented-reforms/
Tedd, most of what I know about the CBC comes via Ezra Levant’s website (http://ezralevant.com/), and he seems to take a very dim view of it.
Like our own dear BBC it enjoys almost unlimited funding, does not suffer competition lightly, and is apparently both deaf and immune to criticism.
There is no obvious reason why either organization should enjoy a penny of state funding.
The Obama Eats Dog story is stupid, and it is the sort of politics that elevates the adolescent over the adult. I’m biased, I always considered that sort of thing to be something the Left resorts to, every chance it gets.
I’m stupid, and I am enjoying too much the way the Chief Epicurian’s acolytes scream, “Unfair! Unfair!”
There is now a huge constituency of idiots who really do think that the answer to any problem of any sort is for the government to take charge of it, and screw it up some more.
I think that government is the ultimate incarnation of an “If I were you…” mentality.
There is now a huge constituency of idiots who really do think that the answer to any problem of any sort is for the government to take charge of it, and screw it up some more.
I think that government is the ultimate incarnation of an “If I were you…” mentality.
It is indeed a “trial of strength” story.
The left (i.e. the msm and so on) were running lots of “Romney put his dog in a dog crate” stories (to show his “lack of compassion” and so on).
So people brought up the “I ate doggies” story from Obama’s (or Bill Ayers) book – “Dreams From My Father”.
The left decided that this story should not be reported – and, as Brian points out, have found crushing a story harder than they thought it would be.
Things are changing – for example as recently as 2000 when the left (the msm and…) decided that the Democrat Convention delegates shouting various nasty things at some young Boy Scouts was a “non story” Fox News (and so on) just meekly went along with the judgement that it was “not worth reporting” – and the internet did not really matter (for most people) in 2000.
Now “Obama eats dogs” is a story that is harder to crush.
Of course it is not a policy story – it is indeed just fluff.
But if the left say it should not be reported…..
Save Rover! Kick out Barack!
It’s certainly a non-story (a child eats what he’s given; my mother once made me eat okra!). Still, the discomfiture it’s causing the Obama camp and the MSM is most enjoyable.
Okra is delicious. I have never tried dog, but horse is OK.
I will eat a dog, a cat or even you for that matter if it were placed in front of me with roast potatoes. It would be rude not to.
Actually, I hadn’t heard of this story at all, until now.
My mother didn’t know what to do with the okra (she’s a Northerner!), so she just boiled it. Trust me, it’s nasty, slimy and inedible. Breaded and deep-fried it’s fine, but then again so is anything. Deep-fried cardboard is probably delicious.
But I would eat dog. I’ve tried lots of “non-customary” (by western standards) foods, and would try dog, too. But even I have limits. I don’t think I’d (knowingly) eat you, wh00ps, even with roast potatoes and even at the risk of rudeness. I’d also have a bit of a problem at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. But perhaps that’s just me.
Never had it deep-fried – we cook it in tomato sauce. Yes, it is still slimy- and yummy!
The best method of defeating Obama is to make him an object of ridicule. Unfortunately, the beneficiary is the socialist Romney.
I agree that the “Obama ate dogs” story is stupid. But it falls into the category of what Mark Steyn calls the democratic party exploding cigar issues.
Nobody would care if David Axelrod hadn’t decided to bring up how Mitt Romney decided to transport his dog when it had the runs. 30 plus years ago.
Then someone noticed Obama killed and ate dog something like 40 years ago. I have a unique philosophy, I guess. I have a small dog curled up in my lap right now. The only reason I have a small dog is because I’d be sentencing my preferred hunting breeds to death if I actually used them as God intended. Every single hunting lease I can get on is a working ranch, and they put out cyanide traps for the coyotes. They probably don’t allow cyanide traps in Britain, but then I’m pretty sure they don’t allow coyotes. Point being, I could never teach my dogs to resist the bait.
I really, really like my dogs. I prefer them to 95% of human beings. But if I was starving, well…
You can be damned sure I wouldn’t write about it as a 30 something. Then expect people to ignore it because I ate the damned dog when I was 6 years old. I’m pretty confident that I did a lot of things when I was 6 that aren’t making it into the autobiography. What makes the cut, and what doesn’t, is an adult decision. Feel free to hold me responsible.
To me, the larger issue is this. This is what our choices have been reduced to. Be afraid. Be very afraid.