Bias in the Media?

[Razare]

So I flip on the TV today and reporters are making all these stretching arguments crediting Obama with the rallies in Iran. Somehow his conciliatory speech on June 4th may have spawned this response in the Iranian election. Who knows, this analysis *could* be correct on some level, but it's not something that would generally be determinable one way or the other. The fact that every anchor is trying to make this connection just tells me how much they like the President.

Does anyone else notice this persistent bias? This is just one issue, but I see it happen all the time. I'm not saying a little reverence for a President is completely uncalled for, but what happened to an attempt at objectivity?

It just makes me wonder what would happen if a major news organization tried to find factual information and present it in an unbiased way. My local TV news tends to do this. Local politics is very divided, not necessarily along party lines either, so they generally take a fact presentation stance on those issues, interviewing both sides. You never see the anchor smirk after one person's interview and then make positive comments to the next guy's.

They have no standards or personal ethics is the conclusion I come to after watching the news. It seems all news is becoming advocacy journalism. I'm alright with advocacy journalism too, but they should be up front about it instead of hiding it between the lines so the dumber among us aren't so easily fooled.

 

[fullerene]

er.... yes? It's not just the news, I don't think, but the yahoo headlines (on the homepage) and news articles I've seen online have been hugely supportive of Obama, too. It does seem to me that every news source I've seen (which, admittedly, isn't many--I hate the news) puts Obama in a hugely positive light, though.

 

[Razare]

I'm guessing it's always been this way and I just never realized it until I was 18 or so. Just lately, I've found it over the top. I didn't mind their jibes at Bush, those were fairly entertaining but a**-kissing? ... not so much.

 

[Toad]

I agree with Bill Maher when he says Obama is trying to be too much of a celebrity.

The media will always be biased as long as station owners are making money from politics. Everybody has an agenda. That is why I think private news outlets are important. The internet is a great place to find unbiased news.

 

[drumir93]

Hey, it's not just a leftist biased. I think Fox Opinion channel(i refuse to call them news) is by far worse than all the others.
And CNN doesnt have a bias, what they do is get both sides even and tell you to make up your own mind on what the facts are.
I think thats the core problem right there, like Fox says "We report, You decide".
It's the news, im not supposed to decide, and neither are they. Either its fact or it's false, theres no deciding about it.

I would love to see an American ancore get a nice long interview by the BBC.

 

[Decaf]

What I've noticed is that all the 24 hour network news has started falling off to the extreme ends of the scale (or maybe its been there the whole time and I didn't believe it). I think Obama's done a fine job thus far, but the democrat friendly news makes me embarrassed how they go on about him. I thought Bush did a terrible job during his tenure, but I was forced by my principles to defend him from those that went overboard in abusing him.

The big media conglomerates can not be trusted to give us information straight up. That's terrible, but its also why they are suffering and that pain will be the impetus for change. Either it will eventually kill them off, or they will adapt. As much as they frustrate and embarrass me now, I hope they adapt to become more credible.

That and I hope Rupert Murdoch loses his shirt in a high stakes game of poker with Dikembe Mutumbo.

 

[Red Mage]

What's more irritating than the news are people who complain about it. Don't watch/read it at all, or only watch/read what conforms to your political views. There was as much or more ass-kissing for Bush his first six years. The only difference is that his ass-kissing was done in the name of patriotism instead of who he is or his policies. His last two years dispelled any magical patriotism-induced illusions about his presidency for all but his die-hardest supporters.

The ass-kissing of Obama has much to do with many factors. For one, he's not Bush, whom everyone is glad to be gotten rid of. Two, he's new -- some say too new. Whatever. Three, he's the first black president. Four, the economy has gone to shit and when that happens people look to one leader to fix things, even if it takes more than one person to do so. This causes extra infatuation with the president. It might seem like a weird notion today, but presidents, especially recently-elected ones, are usually treated quite well by the media because they represent the country and change (no, that wasn't just this election). And their favorability with the public also jumps considerably during this time. Why would the media attack someone so liked?

Also, because of Bush's last two years being terrible and the media actually painting him unfavorably for that period of time, the very fact that this president is being painted favorably at all seems like an egregious bias. At least this favorability is just, so far, while the first six years of Bush the favorability was arguably, well, egregious -- considering the failure to stop 9/11, lying to go to war, etc. Most of the policy issues the left had with Bush was simply partisanship. Same with everything that the right has against Obama right now. The problem was that calling Bush out on things like 9/11 and Iraq became lumped into it; it was considered just partisanship, when it was really actually epic failure on Bush's part.

Oh, and don't mistake the entertainment media for the news media. The vast majority of the unfavorable coverage of Bush was from the entertainment media (such as talk shows and comedy shows). Guess what, it was also true with Clinton. I remember even Sabrina the Teenage Witch made jokes about the Monica Lewinski scandal for christ's sake. But the news media basically fawned over Bush for the most part. Even MSNBC did at the beginning.

I think the fact that the GOP and the right-wing as a whole are up their own asses at the moment also plays a part in this. Obama and the Democrats don't have much of an opposition right now, and most of the attacks coming from the GOP and the right are pretty petty and ridiculous. Except during election years, the centric media actually does a good job of not covering petty and, well, retarded arguments. That's right, not even during the Bush years! Of course, the blatantly biased media outlets will still discuss those petty arguments to hopefully paint the opposition poorly, even if done in a weasle-worded way ("Some say..." "I'm hearing..." "What do you have to say to people who claim...") to appear neutral.

Phew, that was longer than I intended. The main takeaways are these: 1) The media always loves new presidents, 2) the media isn't The Media, it is separate entities, and 3) It really is that it just feels like Obama is being specially treated (it's not really any different than any other inaugural year).

 

[del]

A majority of highly educated Ivy League graduates are democrats. It's just statistics. That's the same group most of the writers for big newspapers like the NY Times are selected from. Is it surprising there's a political and cultural bias in the major media? Not really.

Fox News is sort of an exception since they go out of their way to be biased, lol (and this has been documented in several documentary films). With other outlets it happens by accident.

But I don't think the bias along party lines is the biggest problem: I think there's more danger with the institutional bias. Most people don't know that the media do not sell their news coverage to the audience -- they sell their audience to advertisers.

This is true with everything from newspapers to the 24-hour television stations to Yahoo! News. They make a vast majority of their money from advertisers, and either give away their news coverage or sell it at close to the cost it takes to distribute it. And advertisers want a nonthreatening platform to push their products on you -- this is why the media will ignore a story that threatens an advertiser even if polling research indicates it would be a big hit with their audience.

So yeah, maybe the news is a little biased; but instead of seeing stories about whether or not biotechnology companies are suppressing research into the probable carcinogens in their pesticides, you get to hear about the woman who had eight babies (brought to you by Monsanto).

And no, this isn't because people are stupid and prefer sensationalistic tripe. Every Pew Research poll has indicated that people would rather watch the news if it had stories like that. But when the news runs the story and every biotech company pulls its advertising, the story gets dropped, and they lose money regardless if they have less of an audience.

 

[truthseeker72]

Razare- I completely agree with your observation that the mainstream media's fondness for President Obama is not only unseemly, but a threat to the sanctity of our democracy. Melodramatic? I don't think so, especially when the vast majority of Americans base their voting decisions on three-second soundbytes and headlines. Bernard Goldberg, who worked as a correspondent for CBS for decades, has documented the media's infatuation with Obama in his book "A Slobbering Love Affair." Keep in mind that Goldberg was a media insider for many years, and he is not a "right-wing nut" with an axe to grind.

Two examples of the media's outrageous bias come to mind: 1) a independent media watchdog group reported this week that favorable coverage of Obama's proposed nationalization of health care has outweighed the negative by 3 to 1; 2) Obama's extended standup comedy routine in front of a guffawing crowd of reps from the major media outlets this week shows just how much these reporters really enjoy the fact that he is president. Yes, its nice that our President has a sense of humor (even though its easy to read jokes from a teleprompter), but I wonder how much media objectivity is lost in the process.

Regarding the much-reviled FOX news: Undoubtedly, they lean right, but at least FOX interviews left-wing commentators and/or give them an opportunity to voice their opinions. I have yet to see Keith Olbermann, from MSNBC (who makes Bill O'Riley seem neutral) give air time to any conservatives or Republicans on his show.

I understand that 100% impartiality is probably unattainable, but that does not excuse the media's excessive praise and adoration of our current president.

 

[Citizen X]

I'm not saying a little reverence for a President is completely uncalled for,

I have problems with people reverencing a head of state.

These guys work for us, the public who elected them to do their job, but everyone seems to have forgotten about this.

I'm not American, but I see this whole Obama phenomenon as the combination of novelty and (unfounded) white guilt with a mixture of identity cult. Case in point, the recent Fly swap while he (Obama) was being interviewed. Damn it, the media treated it like breaking news! Let's not talk about how sad state of affairs things might be in if something as inane as killing a fly makes it into "breaking news" department, but the way the note was dealt. Had Jorgito B00sh killed a fly in the middle of an apparently important interview, I can only imagine the backlash the administration would have received.

I really dislike politics, but it is impossible to ignore them now.

 

[Razare]

Hey, it's not just a leftist biased. I think Fox Opinion channel(i refuse to call them news) is by far worse than all the others.
And CNN doesnt have a bias, what they do is get both sides even and tell you to make up your own mind on what the facts are.
I think thats the core problem right there, like Fox says "We report, You decide".
It's the news, im not supposed to decide, and neither are they. Either its fact or it's false, theres no deciding about it.

I would love to see an American ancore get a nice long interview by the BBC.

CNN makes a fair attempt at being unbiased, but my original comments were in reference to CNN. Though other news stations I can't stomach and CNN is what I generally watch, so I'll agree it's probably the best out there.

Red Mage:

Also, because of Bush's last two years being terrible and the media actually painting him unfavorably for that period of time, the very fact that this president is being painted favorably at all seems like an egregious bias.

I see some truth in this reasoning.

About FOX, I tried watching them years back but something doesn't sit right with me and their perspective. I'm conservative in most ways, but I somehow arrived at conservatism by leaning so far left I wound up on the other side. The thing is, I think government program XYZ is a great idea, that capitalism needs better regulation, and that government could do a lot of good for this country, just that I've become wise enough to no longer trust it with fulfilling its goals. So I'm a conservative that became one out of cynicism for what government is actually capable of doing rather than one who was brainwashed at the age of 5 as if being a republican is a second religion. The people on FOX seem to be the later and while I agree with 70% of that perspective, the reasoning that brought us there is totally different.

This makes me sympathize with left leaning individuals more, but ultimately I see that stance as misguided idealism. So when it comes to news, I'd rather just find something that's as middle of the road as possible.

I like listening to Rush and Levin though, and while I occasionally disagree with them, their shows are good in a long commute. I really like Levin for his stance on upholding constitutional integrity, which I think is important, though I doubt he was there criticizing Bush for trampling the constitution.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Time for some schoolin'.....

First, I gotta get this out of the way:

@truthseeker, Bernard Goldberg? Doesn't have an ax to grind? Really? The guy who wrote the book "The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America" listing mostly leftys and a few token but already disgraced conservatives (thus making them safe targets)? That's who you want to cite? The same Bernie Goldberg who is a regular at Fox? Seriously, dude, if you had said that about Limbaugh the only difference would have been that the wrongness of the statement would have been more obviously wrong. Not more or less wrong, just more obviously wrong.

Now on to the topic:

@Razzare, most of what is found on the 24 hour news channels is what can be described as confrontational journalism. That is, a lot of the time they like to bring a lefty and a righty on to debate (rather argue) an issue for 5 minutes or so before moving on. A lot of the time both sides tell their lies and the anchor just plays dumb. Sometimes however, and a lot more so lately, the anchor seems to be breaking the tie. That often happens when one side is telling a more obvious lie. More on that in a bit.

Fox news on the right and MSNBC on the left have mostly become echo chambers. By that I mean their programing and coverage is designed to tell it's audience what it wants to hear. There is a large market out there for echo chambers as most news watchers rather not be forced to think but merely have their suspicions confirmed. It feels good to people. Especially to those who want to feel like they are part of a group and fit into said group.

Remember! 24 hour news is first and foremost a business. That is THE guiding principle for these networks.

Now as to the specific bias shown towards Obama. I'm going to use a scoring system to help explain the factors going into the bias that can seem pervasive. "0" will be the base score meaning absolute balance of coverage and fairness, positive numbers meaning leads to favorable coverage and negative, negative.

1. The Bush effect cannot be discounted!
A. Bush did not make himself as accesible as Obama has. He lacked the savvy and charisma of Obama. (+1)
B. After the chaos of the Clinton years, the early coverage for Bush was pretty good (not as good as Obama is getting but pretty good). After 9/11, Bush made his one and only truly great speech and his popularity with the public soared. So did the favorability of the coverage he recieved. The coverage was so favorable that Bush was able to get away with many transgressions (like Iraq, wiretapping among many others) and still not face tough questioning of his policies (not even MSNBC who at that time was trying to model themselves more like FOX). After the Katrina disaster exposed the true incompetence of the Bush administration, Bush's favorability plummeted as did the coverage he recieved. Translation: Public popularity leads to more favorable coverage. Obama's favorability is still around 60% (+3)

2. The historical factor.
A. Obama is the first minority president (+1) The fact that that minority status is black adds another (+1)
B. Obama gives big speeches on big issues. His oratory skills are phenomanal (regardless of the silly telepromter criticisms he gets, more on that in a bit). In other words, Obama gives these 24 hour people plenty to talk about that doesn't involve the murder of some blonde. (+2)

3. The Repiblicans are a sad joke.
A. A democracy requires at least two choices and there needs to be credible voices of opposition to anyone in power. The key word is credible. The Republicans have none, zip, nada. (+2)
B. The Republican lack of credibility is being made worse by their actions thus far. Their reflexive knee-jerk reactions to anything Obama says or does makes them look silly and when it is exposed that they supported an issue under Bush that they automatically oppose now, their opposition seems disengenuous. Right now, Republicans are invited onto news shows for their entertainment value, not the substance of their feeble arguments and the anchors are having fun confronting them. (+2)
C. The Republicans lack leadership. A recent poll asking who leads the Republican party, no one got 52%. The leaders among those actually named are Rush, Newt and Cheney. A radio blowhard, a disgraced former speaker of the house and the most unpopular vice president in history. Obama is getting a free pass on dissent by default. (+1)

4. Image is everything.
A. Obama is Mr. Miyagi Super Fly Swatter. Bush passed out after choking on a pretzel. Enough said (+3)

So what does Obama have going against him?

1. Nervousness about his policies.
A. The Republicans did do one thing that was effective and that was portraying the closing of Gitmo as meaning we would be releasing terrorists into our suburbs and shopping centers. Even though that kind of talk elevated the prisoners to the status of super men in the Middle-East and made us look like cowards for being afraid of them, it worked and more Americans now oppose closing the prison than favor. (-2)
B. The stimulus package. Unbelievably big and scary as hell. Uncontrolled deficit spending has potential catastrophic consequences that should make the world's hearts skip a beat. Like it or not, if our economy collapses, so will most of the worlds. (-3)
C. The GM bailout is more mixed and goes against America's sense of self and identity. Businesses are supposed to rise and fall on their own merits, at least that is how people like to think of it. (-1)

That leaves a (+10) in Obama's favor. It's not going to last but it would be fooloish to expect it to get as bad as Bush's coverage got in his last couple of years. The odds of him slipping that far are long and improbable, however there will be a leveling off away from adulation. Unless of course all of Obama's policies not only get passed but work miraculously well, but that ain't happening.

Any questions? ;-)

 

[Red Mage]

This makes me sympathize with left leaning individuals more, but ultimately I see that stance as misguided idealism. So when it comes to news, I'd rather just find something that's as middle of the road as possible.

I'm fairly centrist. Left-leaning, though. The important thing is to establish what exactly is center. To the right, any sort of government regulation, intervention, or 3% increase in taxes on the top 1% of americans constitutes far-left. That's an unfair assessment. This is the argument of the right, libertarians, and teabaggers at the moment. They sat with their thumbs up their asses while Bush pissed on the Constitution and bailed out the banks, but Obama raising taxes a little and wanting reform and re-regulation is far too much! It calls for the kind of protests we're seeing right now in Iran!

There are many on the left who are wacko. Absolutely batshit insane. The thing is, though, that those people are well-intentioned -- they want to save this and help that without thinking all the way through. This is only a small fraction of the left that gets lampooned on television to make it seem like it's everyone. The right sees them as nefarious simply because their requests involve more government regulation. There is a considerably larger portion of the right who is absolutely batshit insane, except their intentions are mostly religious fanaticism and anti-this and anti-that. This doesn't make either position more right or wrong, though.

As for idealism, those batshit liberals I mentioned fit under this, but the vast majority do not. In fact, I see liberalism as being wholy based on pragmatism and rationalism. The fact is, government regulation has to happen to sustain our economy and protect the individual, and taxes are a way of life. I see libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism as misguided idealism. The market isn't going to regulate itself, and public in general isn't going to do it either. Those ideologies are wishful thinking. Libertarianism isn't rational or pragmatic. It's ideological.

Whereas for liberalism government intervention is a means to achieve an end (sustaining the economy and helping the individual), for libertarianism the means IS The end -- that is, complete government non-intervention is the goal and not just the means to achieve a goal. Whatever happens as a result of this, good or bad, doesn't matter as long as we are abiding their ideological belief of limited government and a free market. That's their ideal. They just tell themselves they're being rational because "it's the only system that works." Because government interference has never ever "worked out" .

By the way, regarding the media: Everyone needs to remember that most of what we're talking about in regard to bias is the opinion shows (O'Reilly, Olberman, etc.). There was a report a year or so ago that showed that even on the cable news the daytime anchored news was unbelievably neutral. Opinion shows are meant to be watched by those already in their fold.

 

[walfin]

I'm not American, but seriously, I think Obama should STFU about Iran's election, or at most call for non-violence on both sides. Especially since he knows the media's worshipping him.

Does anyone still give a shit that Saudis don't have elections and their women can't drive? Granted, Iran still has some way to go but they're at least slightly progressive.

Here we have a country that at least has ELECTIONS. Even the Ayatollah hinted at the possibility of investigations of fraud. Investigations should be governed by Iran's due process as is constitutional, and a former lawyer, a professor no less, should understand that. How'd Obama like it if rabid right wingers claimed HIS election was fraudulent? If Americans believed that tosh and protested about it the whole US of A would collapse. And that's what he's trying to do. Cause the collapse of a country just because the US government doesn't like Ahmadinejad. It'll just increase terrorism and create a shittier situation in the world since, hey, even a Muslim country that practices some form of democracy is scorned by the US President because it's suspected that they have WMD.

And another thing. If the US can require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict criminals, what right have they to claim definitively that Iran is developing WMD based on their suspicions?

 

[EditorOne]

What IA said.

But here's a thought: Who said the media is required to be objective?

Speaking just of the United States: Early newspapers were partisan. The first "broadsheets" at the time of the Revolution were exhortations in support of a political faction and information to support that position. That continues right through to 1920 or so. Every town had at least two newspapers, one was one way politically and the other was the opposite

When economics changed and a town could no longer generate enough advertising to support what it took to keep two newspapers viable, the papers started merging. Only the biggest US cities today have two or more daily news outlets. When that change started happening, publishers started saying "OK, our editorial pages will be the only place we'll express our opinion, all the other pages will be dispassionate presentation of the news, favoring neither Republican nor Democrat nor Bullmoose nor anyone else." And that worked for awhile.

That's print.

Broadcast is a different game entirely because the initial limitations on broadcast -- the requirement that opposing sides on any issue be given access to air time to present their view -- stems from the fact that the airwaves are considered public property, not private property. Since it is public it can not be used for partisan political purposes unless everyone can access it. That's eroded, balance is no longer required, and when you get to cable companies, the degree of public "ownership" is problematic. It exists only because cable companies are regulated like public utilities, with limited competition in specific geography in order to make the thing worth doing economically for the cable company. These are publicly awarded franchises, but there are far fewer limits, apparently, in terms of balanced presentations.

Fox News is the logical outcome of deregulation of the broadcast/video whatever world. It has become the 21st century version of the politically inspired messaging from 1778, quite partisan and paying almost sarcastic homage to fair and balanced. The key is in the shout-downs and other things that happen on Fox when, nominally, they are looking at all aspects of an issue. The Fox News goal is to have its position prevail, and that's what happens.

So, Inappropriate Behavior's analysis was wonderful in terms of the presumption that there are factorsin play that favor Obama yet have nothing to do with an attempt to advance a particular ideology by the media. All I'm saying is you can take it a step farther and ask why we think dispassionate reporting is so important for the successful functioning of a modern society. It may very well turn out to be critical, but it's just an assumption that it's important.

 

[NoID10ts]

I think bias is unavoidable to some degree and we shouldn't be surprised by it. In my opinion, Fox news demonstrated a brilliant business decision in going conservative. Conservatives (about half of the country) typically believe that all of the major networks are liberally biased, so along comes Fox with a conservative bias, and they have the market cornered on half the country. It's just business.

I hate politics more and more with every passing day. It's like a new kind of religion. Political discussions get so wrapped up in emotion and the charisma of the leaders and party lines. Objectivity gets lost, people will die for it, they will kill for it, they will stake their ground and stay there against all odds, they will not bend or break.

If religion were to die completely, we'd still have politics to "make the world a better place".

Let's have a look at good old fashioned anarchy.



ps - I don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about.

 

[Tyria]

I think that there will always be bias in the media. Unfortunately, I think that the corporate setting has changed the way that news is reported (and what stories are as well!)

I personally think that the good old field of journalism is dying out in the face of modern news networks. I personally will miss it, and the people that made it happen.

 

[Razare]

I see libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism as misguided idealism

A true libertarian is a misguided idealist, yes. Government is required in many instances. I think there is a practical stance on each side, the difference being...

A practical libertarian wants as little government as possible to maintain a healthy, stable, and secure economy in which there are not excessive and unreasonable disparities. This stance disagrees with the stated platform of the libertarian party.

The difference between this stance and that of a practical democrat is that the practical democrat wants as much government intervention that is practically possible and perceived as necessary. They're looking to expand government rather than trim it and streamline it. They each believe they have a unique insight into how the government and economy should be operated. They believe they can pass regulation to improve society, while such regulations do exist, they each have their own theory on what is best. In reality, perhaps 1 out of 10 things they implement are worthwhile. You take 2 doses of poison with each dose of medicine.

I argue the USA can function without constant and changing intervention. Congress and the president should be the stewards of the United States, rather than constantly implementing chaotic change with each political wind. One era yields an idiot neo-con who invades countries on bad intelligence, while the next era yields an over cautious, inexperienced leader who talks big.

People take care of their own lives as long as the infrastructure that allows the economy to function is working. Government handouts are not needed, expanding government is not needed, and the few times intervention is warranted, time and time again congress and the president fail to do their jobs.

Several years ago, when the auditor of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac brought up issues to congress, what happened? Congress defended them. When intervention was warranted and necessary, government failed and did nothing. It could also be argued that the reason the housing bubble happened was due to even another failure of government which caused it. Government failed and failed to fix it's failure. The less resources we allocate to failing stewardship, the better, so long as basic public needs are being met. It's arguable as to what basic public needs are, but the practical democrat sets the bar much higher than the practical libertarian.

 

[Red Mage]

A practical libertarian wants as little government as possible to maintain a healthy, stable, and secure economy in which there are not excessive and unreasonable disparities. This stance disagrees with the stated platform of the libertarian party.

The difference between this stance and that of a practical democrat is that the practical democrat wants as much government intervention that is practically possible and perceived as necessary.

I don't believe that's a fair assessment. That's how it is perceived by the right. The vast majority of liberals also want as little government as possible; the true difference being that liberals believe more government is required than conservatives/libertarians believe is required.

Also, along the political spectrum the Democrats, and certainly Obama, right now are in the direct center or center-right. Being casted as extreme left-wingers or socialists by the right is histerical. The left hates that, but that's the game of politics for you.

 

[Razare]

Whereas for liberalism government intervention is a means to achieve an end (sustaining the economy and helping the individual), for libertarianism the means IS The end -- that is, complete government non-intervention is the goal and not just the means to achieve a goal.

Ah you're wrong about this. Libertarians probably assume everyone understands why they pursue smaller government, I know I do. The thing is, once you're able to understand and comprehend the macro economy with a critical analysis of what happens in the real world, you're forced to conclude smaller government is usually better.

I was a democrat until I took macroeconomics in college taught by a Keynesian professor. That class changed my entire view of the economic system. Resources are either utilized by the free-market or the government. The pie is fixed for any moment in time. The reason it doesn't seem like the pie is fixed is because our government borrows to increase their share of the pie artificially. If the government taxed to pay for its spending, the people would not support it. The only reason it is excusable is because we are not paying for it today, and people don't worry about what they don't see.

This artificial economic stimulation caused by government borrowing will break one day. Interest rates will rise too high, or the debt will grow too large, then congress will have to increase taxes. This will anger constituents and many congressmen will lose their jobs. This will happen without a doubt, and so I know I am on the right side of the larger government / smaller government issue, because the majority of Americans agree with me, they're just too dumb to understand the consequences of government's excessive spending since the inauguration of Bush.

It's a problematic issue too because despite voting in a republican in 2000, it didn't result in smaller government. It's not like I trust republicans or democrats with fiscal responsibility, that's another reason to lean libertarian. Libertarian ideals may be unachievable, but if we move in that general direction our nation will improve.

 

[Razare]

I don't believe that's a fair assessment. That's how it is perceived by the right. The vast majority of liberals also want as little government as possible; the true difference being that liberals believe more government is required than conservatives/libertarians believe is required.

Notice I said they "perceive it as necessary". Yeah, it's describe from my right leaning point of view, if I was left leaning I would have just said "it's necessary spending". It's all about how high you set the bar for how big government should be compared to where we are at. So I think we're seeing it the same way just my perspective causes bias in how I describe it.

 

[EditorOne]

"difference between this stance and that of a practical democrat is that the practical democrat wants as much government intervention that is practically possible and perceived as necessary. "

"Perceived as necessary" is the key to understanding a mindset here. We've been told our financial institutions were so big and so vital to our well being that they could not be permitted to faill, even though failure would have come as a result of their own greed, avarice and callousness. Anything too big to allow to fail is manifesting a serious amount of power. Is anything too big to allow to fail, something that has all our well-being on the table, also something that should be given free reign? To a great many people, that makes as much sense as allowing a mob of meth freaks to arm themselves with howitzers, then refusing to control the army. It's going to go badly wrong and it's only a matter of time. Anything that dangerous to all of us needs to be controlled by the people who will suffer if things go wrong.

And the amount of control necessary is directly proportional to the power of the entity in question. The most powerful institutions in our society, the banks and other financial institutions, clearly require powerful controls, otherwise they do to suit themselves, to our eventual detriment. We've seen what happens when real control is lacking: You and I reach in our pockets and give them money to keep them from collapsing and taking us all down.

While LIbertarians are one thing, radical conservatives are another. It is a misconception that radical conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin are against government control. They are very much for it -- but for control of individuals, not corporations. They want to control your private decisionmaking about things that don't affect the national economy, only your life: Abortion, worship, etc. They are all about imposing their belief system on everyone else.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Surprising ties between Forbes Magazine and Russia:
This will make you wonder what other ties there are.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Surprising ties between Forbes Magazine and Russia:
This will make you wonder what other ties there are.

Kind of explains why forbes has been reporting more pro Russian.
Though Id say they are apperring moderate.