Don't criticize what you can't understand: You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone

Newspapers have got to find a way to survive in the new market of the internet age. People want information, they want it for free, and they don't want to look too hard.
Bob Woodward doesn't like facebook, and thinks google killed the newspaper. He may be right about that last part.
If you remember Hilary Clinton's comments about the state of our media, you may remember her saying that Al Jazeera appears to be a better than american news.
Hilary points out that it covers a wider variety of relevant news topics for a broader audience without "feeling like you're listening to a bunch of talking heads."
May i point out that it even has a live stream available for free, online, in ENGLISH!


Score one for Al Jazeera.

It's always political

I don't care for cable news. Its always seemed silly to me to watch a bunch of people talk about what just happened, basically repeating themselves, waiting for some new developement, so they can talk about something new, and then repeat themselves some more.

But if you're into that, why is it surprising that news channels focused on a practical armegedon rather than a horrific murder.
And for all the complaints i've heard about the coverage being politically motivated, and news channels choosing to ignore the tragedy in Itamar, I haven't heard many people point out that news channels who covered the masacre were doing so for the SAME political reasons. (Actually the opposite, and probably to claim a higher ground and make a big stink about how the other side is biased and ignoring certain stories etc.)

It's always political.

No fly zone

So the Arab world imposes a no fly zone over libya before the western world....

As per my earlier post, i seriously question what the white house is trying to accomplish by keeping relatively quiet about the situation in Libya.

If you wanted to say that they are trying to seperate themselves from the previous administration by not being quick to stick their noses where it don't belong,
then how do you explain egypt?

In other news, Japan was hit by godzilla, and nuclear meltdown is a strong possibility.

A good strong argument for the corner store prophet.

Obama has a funny media game

Just a quick question, here, since i'm on a publishing spree, finally posting all the blogs i've written in the last week.

Now, I'm all for freedom everywhere. And i love to see a dictator toppled.

But why is it that when unrest started in egypt, Obama took no time at all to demand Mubarak, an ally of the united states, and a comparatively sane guy (compared to say, any other middle eastern dictator, his murder rates are more akin to the Weathermen) to step down. Now, i don't like the idea of allying ourselves with dictators, because that tends to make us look bad thirty years later, in a highly unstable region, when the next regime is in power, and not too happy about our previous allis.

But, he was our ally, and yet, Obama made statements in the media that he step down, within a day, while he outed Gaddafi (a psychopathic, murderous lunatic who is a sworn enemy of the US) only a few days ago.

Let's impeach the president

For the above link, i want you to do what, apparently, americans aren't capable of doing: Ignore the video, and listen to the words.

All of them are golden, but pay special attention to the end there:

Let's impeach the president for hijacking

Our religion and using it to get elected

Dividing our country into colors

And still leaving black people neglected

Neil Young, in his old age, got a little senile, and forgot that he's a prophet. And prophets talk about the future, never the present.

But seriously, there is allot of call for an impeachment here. After muscle-ing the health care bill thru, (correct me if i'm wrong here, anyone, unconstitutionally) now he refuses to uphold the defense of marriage act. Now don't get me wrong, that law is absolute bullshit, but the president is not the head of the judicial branch, and it is not his right to decide to over rule the legislative branch.

Perhaps, the good thing that comes out of all this will be a new american party. One that understands the social libertarianism that is the basis of the democratic party's popularity, but also follows the constitution, and understands that the gov't is not my mommy, or my older brother.
Kind of like, the tea party, without the racists and paranoid Mccarthyists.
Or, maybe the USA is a christian country at heart, and is simply doomed.

This country is so polarized. The best place to find anti-obama reporting is a news channel with little integrity, that most of the country thinks is in the pocket of big oil/big business and evangelical christians.

And on the other side, we have threats of race riots if obama is impeached.

Your guess is as good as mine, but the way i see it is that it's clear the world as we know it is coming to an end.
Luckily I've got Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, so i believe something better is coming.

What's his angle?

It was a fairly big scandal on fox news when they reported that President Obama has not met with any of his cabinet members one on one, or had any communications with more than half of them.

Now, I'm not sure how much i believe fox news (and i KNOW exactly how much i trust them) but i think i can say with certainty that he DEFINITELY meets with his actual cabinet members less than he meets with the head of the AFL, Richard Trumka.

Now, I've always hated Obama's politics, and i've always hated the Obama conspiracy theorists/haters because i felt that by being racist, islamaphobes, and McCarthyists, you subtract from the legitimate complaints about this man's despicable politics.

But, i don't know, this is getting SKETCHY!

I mean, if he's taking advice from a man who heads a private organization with separate goals than the federal gov't, and ignoring his own cabinet, whose interest is he protecting?

Not mine, that's for sure.

War! (What is it good for?)

War is a hot topic.
Doubtless, emotions rise, with so much blood on both sides. The british news report we watched in class was more reserved, compared to american news.
The question i have is thus:
Is it more accurate reporting to capture the blood and heated emotions,
or the facts?

Is it possible to accurately capture both?