Jon Stewart's Criticism About Cable News Correct?

During Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity yesterday, he was critical of cable news and the "chattering classes". Cable news has become mainly a non-stop push of conventional wisdom by media elites. Conventional wisdom is a belief or set of beliefs that is widely accepted, especially one that may be questionable on close examination.

Recent examples of conventional wisdom:

"If healthcare reform is not passed by a certain date, it will not pass."
Fact: On March 23, 2010 The Affordable Care Act became law.

"Wall Street Reform probably will not pass through the US Senate."
Fact: On July 21, 2010, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act became law.

Often times it seems whether this "wisdom" is grounded in fact or not is irrelevant to the corporate media.

Here is a video clip of Stewart's commentary on cable news captured by Mediaite.com.

The Media Is Liberal. Really?

It seems CNN reporters are "baffled" by Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity. The question is why? Were they baffled by Glenn Beck's rally? Answer: No.


Here is video footage by Mediaite.com from CNN's report.

Remember CNN is the "liberal media" according to the right.

Media's Lie About Bush Tax Cuts

I had not had the television on this morning for 30 seconds before I hear Chris Matthews on MSNBC telling weekend anchor Alex Whit that if the GOP takes over the house and the GOP repeatedly passes a tax bill with a tax cut "for all" and the POTUS vetoes it, it would be a "win win" for the GOP. I scratched my head when I heard this. The corporate media has become obsessed with polling data. They cite them daily on the air and spend endless hours analyzing them and drawing conclusions from them. So how does someone like Chris Matthews miss the polling data during the Bush tax cut debate that shows a majority of Americans think that tax cuts for the wealthy (top income earners) should end?


Here is a sampling of polling results on the issue:


"Should the Bush tax cuts end for all"? (code for-end for the wealthy)

NBC/Wall Street Journal - ( 9/22/10-9/26/10)

End Not End Unsure
49% 45% 6%

"Make those tax cuts permanent for families that make less that $250,000 a year"?

CNN Opinion Research - (9/21/10-9/23/10)

Favor Oppose Unsure
79% 19% 2%

"Making those tax cuts permanent for families that make more than $250,000 a year as well"

Favor Oppose Unsure
44% 53% 3%

Gallup Polling - (8/27/10-8/30/10)

44% "Keep the tax cuts in place for those making less than $250,000, but end the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000"

37% "Keep the tax cuts in place for all taxpayers"

As you can see the polling data does not support Chris Matthew's assertion but yet people like him in the corporate media keep advancing this false hood. The question is why?

My take is the majority of these "talking heads" that we see on the news are in the "top earner" income tax brackets and they want their tax cuts. In fact alot of them have million dollar contracts. This is the important thing that we, as viewers, have to realize when this debate if occurring.

Only in "punditry land" can extending tax cuts for 97% of Americans be a bad thing for the POTUS or the Democratic Congress.

Why The Generic Ballot Question?

In case you might have been out of the US the last several months, the generic ballot question in polling surveys has been frequently talked about on cable news. But is it really a valid question to ask poll respondents to begin with? Generic ballot simply means there are no specific candidates. Have you ever voted in any election where there was no specific candidates? Whether the election is local, state, or national, there are always specific candidates one must vote for 100% of the time. When this question has been asked previously about "Should President Obama be re-elected?" or "Who would you vote for: President Obama or Governor Palin?" You generally would get entirely different responses based upon which question was asked of respondents. So why ask this question to begin with?

My answer is it gives the "inside the beltway" media types more meaningless "stuff" to talk about for endless hours (a horse race type of story,whose up whose down) instead of covering real issues in America that actually are affecting our daily lives. It seems this generation of television news anchors seems to thrive on meaningless things.

Bring The Jobs Back!

I am watching MSNBC and the anchor is gushing over the jean's company Levi Strauss. He is glowing about how Levi Strauss has come to a blighted town called Braddock in Pennsylvania to film a television commercial in a blighted building in the town. My first thought is if American companies like Levi Strauss had not sent all their manufacturing jobs overseas for cheap labor and kept those jobs in the US, you would not have blighted towns like Braddock in America in the first place. My second thought is this anchor apparently thinks this is a big get for the town because Levi Strauss is paying a few locals they put in their ad and gave a little money to educating some of Braddock's residents. Without jobs in America, educating it's citizens will mean very little. The question that should be asked is why do American made companies like Levi Strauss have no allegiance to this country? Without the hard work, blood sweat and tears of the American worker who helped to build the brand, where would Levi Strauss and all it's outsourcing counterparts be?

Answer, nowhere at all.

Loosing The US House To Republicans Is A Good Thing?

I have heard this meme repeated several times over the last few weeks in the corporate media. This morning I wake up and turn the television on to MSNBC's Morning Joe and there is Joe Scarborough and Donny Deutsch repeating this nonsense. This once again illustrates that the punditry class is completely out of touch with real America. In a US economy that has been decimated over the last 30 years with the outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs overseas which in turn has created an environment in the US where people with multiple college degrees are not even able to get jobs, we get to turn on the television and see the "chattering class" tell us that yes it is a good thing for a party who 100% supports the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, a party who wants to give American millionaires and billionaires tax cuts in a "depression-like" economy, a party that wants to privatize the main senior citizen safety net program (Social Security), a party that supports very few regulations on big business, and a party that wants to cut veteran's benefits, would be good controlling the US House of Representatives because it would give President Obama a foil to run against in 2012.

These folks have lost their minds! That is a luxury that the "chattering class" can afford to deal with for a few years but not the average American worker. With record foreclosures and record unemployment, this would be the last damned thing that the American worker would need to have to deal with right now.

Wave, Wave, Wave!

I was watching cable news this morning as I am getting ready for work. I turned from channel to channel and all I heard from one network to the next was "the 2010 midterms will be a wave election for the Republicans." What evidence does the corporate media have to support this claim? Anecdotal polling data? Because Republican strategists say so? It sure is not actual early voting data for the 2010 midterms because when you review this data, it does not suggest a wave of any kind. So, tell me pundits, where is your data to substantiate that there will be a Republican wave in this election?

Is This Really a Smackdown or Sourgrapes?

Democratic candidate for Governor in Rhode Island, Frank Caprio, was not endorsed by President Obama. Caprio is running against former US Republican Senator, Lincoln Chaffee, who supported Obama in 2008 when he was running for President. The President has not endorsed either candidate. Caprio was asked during a radio interview about the President not endorsing him. His response was "He can take his endorsement and shove it" and then proceeded to talk about the President not coming to visit Rhode Island after a recent flood. It will be interesting to see if the press gives the entire background story involving Chaffee or will they simply just run with Caprio's comments and just proclaim it a smack down of the President and not explain on air the entire story?

Media Continues To Ignore Early Voting

The corporate media continues to ignore actual ballots casts in the early voting for the 2010 midterms and instead continue to engage in endless discussions about polls. I do not get it? If you are a jury during a trial, which is more important to analyze? A) Hypotheticals or B) Actual evidence captured by the police against the defendent?


The data that have been released thus far in early voting, shows Democrats voting in the same or more percentages in these early voting states. Could it be that the corporate media refuses to actually start analyzing the actual ballots cast because the results thus far do not favor the Republicans? And this early voting data does not fit the corporate media narrative about the midterms that they have been deligently promoting for the last several months?

All Signs Pointing To A Republican Win in November. Really ABC?

I am watching ABC World News and the anchor starts the newscast with this commentary. And just what are these vaunted signs the anchor makes reference to? Who knows, he didn't bother telling us those. Maybe, he along with the majority of the corporate media need to actually look at the early ballots already actually cast for the November election over at the United States Election Project instead of polling data.

Voting Data Not Important?

I know I have posted about this before but it has become an emerging meme that has been repeated regularly since early voting has actually started for the 2010 midterms - "Democrats will not be able to overcome the enthusiasm gap in this election".

Fact: Meanwhile, Democrats continue in early voting to cast ballots in similar or in more numbers in the majority of the early voting states than Republicans. The United States Election Project updates the early voting data daily. Yet, pundits are more interested in talking about polls and analyzing them as opposed to the actual votes already casts.

The Democrats are Not Enthused About the 2010 Elections! Really?

Well, somebody had better tell that to Ohioans. According to the Associated Press, the campus police at Ohio State where the President and First Lady appeared at a rally, estimated a crowd of 35,000 people in attendence. And not one cable news network covered this event live. But Sarah Palin was streaming live lastnight in the 8 pm hour on a few of the networks. Isn't the media supposed to be liberal? Isn't that the charge made endlessly from the right?

Enthusiasm Gap

The "enthusiasm gap" is a term frequently used by the corporate media to advance the "Republican Tsunami" meme about the 2010 elections. It is used to allegedly refer to how "enthused" voters are to cast ballots in an upcoming election. These voters are categorized by political party affiliation.

Talking Head

A talking head is an individual who offers their opinion or commentary to mass-media. Television pundits may also be referred to as "talking heads".

Republican Tsunami? Not So Fast!

Remember how we have been hearing for the last several months from the talking heads in corporate media about this vaunted "enthusiasm gap"? Poll after poll they quote almost daily about how the Republicans lead the Democrats by several percentage points in being enthused about voting this year. Even some "inside the beltway" democratic strategists have repeated these very same words. But is this really accurate?

I saw a report on Fox News this morning about early voting for the 2010 election. I then did a google search and came across an article on the same subject on HuffingtonPost. Some interesting things have already happened in the early voting in two states that may suggest this "enthusiasm gap" meme may not be accurate . In the states of Ohio and Iowa, where early voting for the November elections have already started, a trend has emerged.

Fact: In Ohio, over 112, 000 votes have already been cast in two counties that are democratic strongholds. According to Professor Michael P. McDonald, who teaches at George Mason University, this represents over 10% of all ballots cast in the 2006 election in these very same counties.

Fact: In Iowa, 42% of the 119, 430 of the early voters are registered Democrats, while only 29% registered as Republican.

Professor McDonald goes onto to say that he spoke to two Ohio election officials and they stated there there may be two factors to consider for this increase there. One, Ohio recently adopted no-fault absentee voting, which increased the pool of eligible voters. Second, election officials in the two counties referenced, decided to mail an absentee ballot request form to every registered voter.

Also, in Iowa, they are utilizing the mailed ballot in the early voting process there as well.

McDonald cautions that there is no way of knowing if this voting surge for Democrats will continue through election day or not. But the question is why haven't these two stories recieved coverage in the corporate media? Fox News atleast reported the story today.

What is a meme?

A meme, as it pertains to the world of the corporate media, is an unchallenged idea that spreads from journalist to journalist. Facts are generally not a part of the creation of a given idea.

Opinion Journalism

Opinion journalism makes no claim of objectivity whatsoever. Journalists are encouraged to give their opinions on air and in print.

Social Media

Social media is a term used to describe a variety of web-based technologies, applications, and platforms that enable people to social interact with another online (examples: twitter, facebook, myspace, et al).

New Media

New media is a generic term for for the different forms of electronic communication (example: blogging) that are made possible via computer technology.

Presser

A presser is a term that is used by media to refer to a press conference.

The "Palin Moment"