The 'Media Party' is over (CBS' downfall is just the tip of the iceberg)

MSNBC ^ | Updated: 5:12 p.m. ET Jan. 11, 2005 | By Howard Fineman

[meema]

I just read all the posts, and the thread nanny thingy was a waste of my eyes!
All I wanted to read was the comments on Howard's article. Seems to me that one thread nanny comment was enough.
Thanks for posting this, onyx.

[Balding_Eagle]

Get a life.

[AGreatPer]

"Next the evil ACLU!!!"

At the same time.....Academia.

[mowkeka]

This is a great article. The party is over!

[Allosaurs_r_us]

You do act as thread nanny

I knew the handle looked familiar. There are a few of these lurking about. Some people are just natural born arguments and need to interject their poo poos to dampen everyones ego they can tread upon. Always entertaining to see a fellow freeper take them down a notch or two.LOL Doubt you have heard the last though. They generally also have to have the last word.

[onyx]

LOL!
This one irked me, primarily because the poster
of this article is new here and the thread nanny
crapola is tiresome. Furthermore, it's a job for the mods.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Did you pick the wrong guy. I have never attempted to post an article.

There's a newbie HTML thread that has a lot of tips for posting. If you search HTML I think it'll turn up.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"Objective" news was, I submit, an aberration that lasted about 100 years.

I would put it that "the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party)" came into existence with "objective" journalism. Because the AMMP claims the virtue of objectivity it is inherently self righteous. Only the establishment could cut a caper like that and expect to be believed by a free people. And I would suggest that liberal politicians have always been people who had no other political "principle" than to follow the naturally superficial, naturally negative, naturally arrogant AMMP.

Liberals always tended toward the Democratic Party, but then there was the very substantial "Rockefeller wing" of the Republican Party as well. Of course the shift came in the 1960s, with the nomination of Goldwater by the Republicans followed immediately by the Johnson Administration. By the end of the Johnson Administration the AMMP was making anyone who wasn't "liberal" - was not sympatico with the AMMP - feel uncomfortable in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of Truman, John F. Kennedy and Scoop Jackson became the party of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean. The party which can win only with a southerner, if not two southerners (Clinton/Gore) on the ticket to give it the appearance of balance.

The Republican Party became the party of Kemp, Reagan, Gingrich, and George W. Bush (and of George HW Bush, only so long as he remained "in the shadow of Ronald Reagan"). The party of Richard Shelby and the conservative, once-more solid, South.

The norm is "biased" news where customers can evaluate products that correctly label themselves at the outset.

I would style it not "biased" - that is the AMMP's preferred term - but "philosophical" or "humble." It is arrogant to presume to claim the virtue of objectivity; to eschew that vice by admitting that your perspective has a name which does not presume virtue is humility. By claiming the virtues of objectivity and moderation, the AMMP betrays its arrogant self righteousness - its sophistry. The humble claim only to love wisdom, rather than presuming that you already have it, is "philosophy."

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate