logo Sign In

State of the Union — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
You can listen to analysts and still develop your own opinion. You just have to be of strong enough will to take away from their analysis the facts, and only the facts. You say that the analysts try to influence opinion, well what the hell do you think the president is trying to do? Do you really think he's trying to give both sides of the issue to let you make a decision? No. He wants your opinion to be his. Some analysts are the same way, but they just help sift through a majority of the shit to get to the core of what's being said. If you cannot develop your own opinion based on this, you shouldn't be watching news analysis, nor should you be watching the State of the Union address, period.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
The President does not try to cover both sides, and nowhere do I suggest that. But the President has the power to set an agenda. The analysts do not. Whenever you listen to an analysis of a presidential speech, it becomes, at that point, heresay. If you can indeed filter out all of the slant and misinformation that comes from today's pundits, that is good. But to rely on analysis alone and not hear the direct words said from the one who is setting the agenda means that you are not making up your mind on what was said, but about what was said about what was said.

The vast majority of the talking heads on the regular networks, news networks, local channels, magazines, newspapers and Internet blog sites means that while free speech is alive and well, what is being said is getting diluted and twisted more and more. The proof is in the pudding: The accuracy of polls and pundit's predictions is growing more and more askew as time passes. Therefore, I don't put as much stock in what they have to say. For every truly informed and balanced talking head like Russert, there are dozens of O'Reillys and Carlsons and Kinsley's who are throwing darts.

Keep in mind that very few of these schmucks even studied political science. Most of them studied journalism (or it's bastard step-child "broadcast journalism"), which is little more than a specialization in language skills. Not that a certain failed Texas oil baron studied much of anything, but he has been given the authority to do more than just talk. He has been given the authority to ramrod an agenda. Fortunately in our form of government, checks and balances were created to keep him from turning agenda into law by his will alone. Therefore, when he goes before Congress, his cabinet, the judiciary and the nation as a whole to set his agenda, it is the duty of citizens to pay attention and hold him accountable. We do that by voicing our own opinions in forums where a difference can be made, and by influencing our other elected officials who can stop such an agenda if it doesn't agree with the will of the masses.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.