Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Sep 29, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
I wondered what you Brits have to say about your media's coverage of His Highness?
If it does, it's nowhere near as concerted as that of certain sectors of the US media and population, who have a completely biased and openly partisan dislike to him.
I found this article an eye-opener as to some of the more questionable American attitudes to Obama: Who is Barak Obama?
And then there's this wee head-scratcher, as the level of fuckwittage on display here is just stultifying. This next clip is of the 'Tea Bag Party' in Washington DC, on 12th Sept 2009 (yes, I know, over here, 'teabagging' means something completely different, which makes it all the more hilarious, but there you have it) - they are "protesting", if that's the correct description, about Obama's outrageous plan to try and extend meaningful healthcare to all Americans, as opposed to only those who can afford it - hold on to your tin hats lads, there are some real Jethros and Bennies on display here - it would be funny if it wasn't so tragically ill-informed:
I like him and would happily vote for him if we had the choice.
He will be one of Americas greater Presidents and will win a second term.
I like the little wheel on the Cross at 2 mins 12.
Is it historically accurate do you think?
Only in as much as they reflect the position of British politicians and their desperate desire to be wanted by Obama. Witness Cyclops' utterly cringe-worthy neurosis over who would be the first to speak to Obama and congratulate him on his victory. Simply out of a need to be seen as a world statesman.
It's frankly pathetic.
Not a chance. You don't have a fucking clue.
Gordon Brown is not a head of state.
Sure, and you think intellectual minnows like Sarah 'I can see Russia' Palin would win the next term?
A keep hearing about the people objecting to Obama's healthcare plan, how they're apparently all gun-totin', Bible-bashin', cross-burnin', gay-bashin' inbreds, but I'm yet to see/hear a single report anywhere except in the Economist on what the plan is, and what the stated objections to it are. The press are obsessed with him, he can do no wrong so why debate his policies?
No - he's right you know.
The bar was set so lowly by the last few of them that even Brown couldn't fail to get a second term.
"They misunderestimated me."
This is a very interesting view in that many in the US believe just the opposite, including even some of the US media's own internal "watch dogs" (ombudsmen and the like) of various media sources such as the NY Times, Washington Post and CBS have conceded that their editorial staffs and reporters have in fact been too cozy with Obama.
Indeed, to its credit, the UK media has picked up on this phenomenon and pointed out the hypocrisy and lack of journalistic balance in the "coverage" of the recent demonstration in Washington DC where an extremely large (even on this issue the US media obfuscated the real significance of the gathering by arguing over the actual number of people present) and peaceful crowd of protestors expressed discontent with the current government.
I am confident when the history of this era is written in terms of the nature of its journalism, it will be an indictment on the US media generally in abdicating its special role in our Constitutional system of holding our government accountable to the people for its actions. It is this vital function, rather than telling "inquiring minds" which Hollywood starlet is shagging which Hollywood hunk or even worse shamelessly serving as the propaganda organ for the current government, that is the reason for the special protection afforded it in our Constitution.
I seem to recall you saying the same thing about his first election. Going for the hat-trick, are we?
Very insightful KB. In point of fact, if you could actually see the protests against Obamacare and other efforts by the current government, you would see these descriptors are false, lending even more support to the view of a growing number of Americans that the media is generally acting as a propaganda arm for the government.
Having been one of those present at the recent demonstration in Washington DC and having moved around the crowd a good deal, I saw a very broad spectrum of people expressing their dissatisfaction with the direction of our government. It is very telling that the most outspoken critics of these protests both in and out of the current government appear to be questioning not only their message but even more ominously their right to protest. It is also ironic and hypocritical that the violent protests against the G20 summit draw no similar condemnation.
As reputable polling is demonstrating quite convincingly--even as late as yesterday with the Rasmussen poll, as more and more Americans become familiar with the actual provisions of the proposed health care bill(s), opposition to them grows dramatically.
This is another reason why the proponents of these efforts by the current government, apparently including many in the US media, want to speed up the process and to silence opposition in any way possible.
Separate names with a comma.