Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

April 20, 2005

All I can say is, “Wow.”

Filed under: Media — Bunker @ 9:39 am

At PowerLine Scott has a lengthy excerpt from an article written by Phil Boas, a managing editor in MSM. Phil gets it:

To many of you, bloggers are a presumptuous rabble – amateurs elbowing their way into the publishing world. You may not know them, but they know you – your face, your manners, your prejudices, your conceits.

They’re your readers. And, God help us, they’ve become the one thing we’ve always begged them to become…Engaged.

And he believes, as do many of us, that this is a positive thing. As he mentions, we don’t have the resources to hit the streets and come up with news items on a daily basis. I know from trying to run my own local news site that I cannot hold down my own job, run this blog, and attempt to keep up with everything happening in my city. I tend to focus on our local Congressman and education. That takes plenty of time.

What we can do is dig deeper. We have access to expertise through a post or email. We provide a forum for all to comment. Ours is the editorial page, with op-ed pieces and letters to the editor via comments. On occasion, we collectively do the investigative work MSM are ill-equipped for or uninterested in doing. Phil also talks about this:

They’ll be our competitors and our colleagues and they’ll force us to dig deeper into issues, think harder about them. They’ll show us how to coalesce expertise on a breaking story and drill deeper for the more complete truth. They’re already teaching us today how to own up to our mistakes.

Mistakes. We all make them. The problem MSM have is that they have been viewed for so long as the Keepers of the Truth that they began believing it. Now they have been shamed by that conceit. Some recognize the symptoms, and some don’t.

Phil Boas is warning his contemporaries that they risk becoming irrelevant if they don’t.

Republicans

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 5:45 am

The Republican Party has seldom voted en masse the way the Democratic Party does. Whether that has more to do with a lack of unity or a sincere belief in doing what is right regardless of Party leadership desires is for you to decide on your own. But this has me scratching my head:

Unexpected cracks in Republican support threw into limbo President Bush’s high-profile nomination of John R. Bolton to be the country’s representative at the United Nations.

Pure politics. I’ve not seen anything that discounts Bolton’s ability to do the job. Democrats don’t want to approve any Bush appointees. They gave Condi Rice grief. But why are the Republicans wavering on any of these nominations? I don’t expect them to simply bow and scrape to the President, but they seem to be afraid of supporting his nominations.

If they can’t muster enough political courage to deal with something like this (and how much courage could voting for Bolton take?), how can we possible expect them to make tough decisions?

I guess they aren’t interested in remaining the majority party. They’ll certainly not get my vote acting like this.

Standards

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:28 am

The Catholic Church now has a new Pope. Some people aren’t happy about the selection. Benedict XVI has a reputation as someone who believes the Church has standards which must be upheld.

Why is that bad? Because some people in this world don’t want to have to live up to standards. They want the standards changed to suit their own sense of how things should be done. That is true in just about every area of our lives. It is why we have so many problems in our public education system. It is why criminals thrive in certain areas. Just about any problem you name can be traced to someone unwilling to maintain a standard.

The new Pope wants his Church to maintain standards.

I don’t think that’s too much to ask. If you don’t like the standards, you shouldn’t be part of an organization. In matters of Christianity, those standards are absolutes, not suggestions. They have a history and are founded on the words and deeds of the Man the entire religion is based upon.

And those standards aren’t too hard to follow, they are simply inconvenient to some. Rather than follow their faith, they would prefer to pick and choose the tenets they agree with. It has more to do with ego and the need for acceptance than anything else. Engaging in activities condemned by the Church brings a stigma. Rather than abstain from the activity that causes it, some would have the Church accept it so the stigma no longer exists.

Sorry. I don’t buy that. I’m not Catholic, but if you are and continue to be, you should embrace the Church’s standards as your own. Otherwise, you are not really part of that community and are simply delusional.

April 19, 2005

Blah, blah, blog!

Filed under: Media — Bunker @ 2:07 pm

Are you ready for Celebrity Blogs?

Something caught my eye. Perhaps it means something, perhaps not. A difference in site fundamentals between Rosie O’Donnell and Bruce Willis. Hmmm.

Bruce is a conservative. Rosie a liberal.

(more…)

Tips

Filed under: Media,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 11:06 am

Liberal Larry, ever the education guru, has decided to post some Lessons for Liberal Bloggers

One of the most powerful weapons in a liberal blogger’s arsenal is the dreaded Hitler mustache.

I think we all know what he means.

Still, conservatives are as predictible as they are ignorant, and will typically claim that the photos are fakes – as if authenticity has anything to do with accuracy.

Got us again, didn’t he?

American Soldier

Filed under: Media — Bunker @ 7:30 am

American Soldier hits the 150,000 visitor mark!

Congratulations!

Democrats long for ‘Fairness Doctrine’

Filed under: Media,Politics — Bunker @ 6:35 am

Ever notice how politicians scurry around like cockroaches when the light shines on them? First we had BCRA which was supposed to take Big Money™ out of politics. The policians had already figured out how to bypass that before it was ever really considered, so it was a non-starter as far as reform is concerned. And when small-money ways of expressing support of or opposition to candidates made inroads, politicians and bureaucrats looked to quash that vehicle, too.

Now a politician wants to return to the Media Dark Ages and reinstitute a fairness doctrine for all electronic media. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat from New York, has lined up such luminaries as Charlie Rangel and Dennis Kucinich to co-sponsor her bill. And there is now a web site dedicated to its passage, with an online petition which has garnered 5850 signatures thus far.

We once had a Fairness Doctrine which required television stations and networks to provide equal time to all candidates. It was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1986, primarily because it was a rule instituted by the FCC rather than a law (sound familiar?). Slaughter apparently feels a law would pass judicial muster. So do many others.

Bill Moyers and The Pioneer of Progressive Talk are all over this. So is Media Matters, who take issue even with liberal media:

But after reading the magazine’s nearly 6,000-word profile of Coulter, readers still don’t know the real Ann Coulter. They don’t know the real Ann Coulter because Time carefully hid her from view, glorifying her legal work, whitewashing her habitual lies, and downplaying her — at best — grossly inappropriate rhetoric.

I haven’t read the article, but I’m sure Time fawned all over Ann Coulter.

AlterNet thinks it’s “Time for a Digital Fairness Doctrine” because those nasty Swift Boat Vets wanted to air their concerns about the Democratic candidate for President:

The debate on Sinclair Broadcasting’s plans to air an anti-John Kerry documentary on its 62 stations underscores the need for new national safeguards for the electronic media in the U.S. Policies that ensure that digital media – including cable, satellite, and the broadband Internet – have an obligation to provide diverse viewpoints are more necessary than ever.

I keep writing about the latest FEC rulemaking proposals and the move in Congress to “exempt” the internet from such intrusions, but few others seem to be. Now we have Congress trying to resurrect a bad rule by making it law. Where do they come up with the sense that media “have an obligation to provide diverse viewpoints”?

All the sponsors are Democrats. Do you think there is a reason for this? Aren’t the Democrats always telling us how they support and defend the rights of all Americans?

Talk. Right now they’re upset because people actually criticize them and they have no rebuttal except to whine about people being mean to them. Perhaps they should try and develop some kind of reasoned policy.

Nah. Too hard.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress