Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2011 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 8/21/2011 9:56:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2011 6:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 8/20/2011 11:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/20/2011 8:32:00 PM (view original):
swampy is somewhat on track. I'm getting the "I'm too educated to watch TV news" from will.
I think I said it earlier but you can find **** on the tube, on the radio and in any number of print sources. Get the information from wherever and do what you need to do with it.
That's funny because I'm getting a "here's why lefties can play second base" vibe from you.
They can. They won't do it very well but they can. Of course, someone with a narrow view of the world, someone who thinks TV is an evil news source with no redeeming value, wouldn't think they could.
loll -- yes, that's exactly what I said.
Look, it's fine if you want to drive a Chevrolet rather than a Mercedes, that's your choice. Or have their kids attend community college rather than an Ivy League school. But this whole notion that all information sources are created equally is about as plausible as a lefty playing second base.
I don't think television news is evil -- I think most of it is a waste of time that can be occasionally amusing. Much like some of the posters in this thread.
loll -- yes, that's exactly what I said.
Look, it's fine if you want to limit your news sources rather than expand your possibilities, that's your choice. But, as has been said numerous times, what you do with the information you glean is up to you. Without doubt, some people say "Glenn Beck said it, it must be true" while others worship Jon Stewart or believe every word Media Matters prints. However, it's patently ridiculous to say "I don't use this form of media because it's slanted." That really comes off as unintelligent and narrow-minded. I don't think you are but that's how it sounds. Personally, I don't care if you watch TV. I don't care if you even own a TV. I just think it's silly to dismiss it as a legitimate news source.
No it wasn't what I said but you appear to be well versed in making it up as you go along. But anyway you are correct that I do limit my choices. That's something most adults do because they do have a limited amount of time so they make decisions based on the quality of service or product they receive, which is information in the case of media. I pay to subscribe to different newspapers and magazines rather than buying cable packages that include FOX and MSNBC. I make that choice based on past experience. It's a win-win for me because not only am I limiting myself in exposing to ******* like Rush, Beck, Olbermann, I'm not subsidizing the salaries of said mike chimps.
Obviously, given the amount you post in this forum, you've clearly got more time on your hands than I do as well as develop your skills at sophistry. You've not yet articulated how you bother to inform yourself, which, given your insights, doesn't surprise me.
In the meantime, I'll give you an example of why I make the choices that I do. Here's a link to a recent post by
Jennifer Rubin on Paul Ryan, touting his presidential prospects. You'll note several links to different forms of media including a very good debate between New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ryan at the American Enterprise Institute. Whatever your position on Ryan or opinion on Brooks, ******* like Rush, Olbermann, Beck and others don't get invited to these grown-up political events. That's because policy makers recognize they are entertainers rather than serious pundits. You'd be better off watching South Park, something that I quite enjoy. Not only are they more entertaining, you will be treated to far more insights than a month of listening to Rush.