MP Fun Mirror Here is a much more rational comment and my thought.
"Greenwald and Intercept do represent a new hope for change where investigative means asking the questions and where certainty is not a positive conclusion?
Krugman surprises me a bit ...but maybe what's happening in those supported by mainstream corporate ,media will eventually compromise to survive by being with the "winner' candidate and his/her whichever of the 'non-choice' we now are stuck with?
So it goes...if all we are left with are two unacceptable choices certainly I suppose media voices we thought were columnists with integrity will start accepting the negative foibles of whom they assume will win among our two sad choices ...and cling for survival as columnist not necessarily as wordsmiths of integrity if one wants to survive?
Sad yes,so I suggest one need to develop a most athletic mind of sorts; to read beyond what you necessarily may not believe or accept at the moment but consider alternatives to standard, mainstream journalism sources, that read too often like the minutes of the local men's club...and explore a little further without fear of being beyond the limited scope and the influence of other ideas if your mind dare explore? Maybe Intercept sets a new standard where 'investigative' means something more that soaping of the news gathering culture?
Hope this makes sense ...or scrap it, but either way one of Eric's finest articles lately...do appreciate." Beryl
"It seems the people a ways Left and Right of Center insist on seeing Heroes and Villains... When in reality these politicians are just flawed humans just like us.
Trump and Clinton are both self centered people who have willingly chosen to live in the public eye and be "successful". Both have made questionable choices and made mistakes.
How does that go... Let the perfect throw the first stone...
I wish our culture would start focusing on why the candidates would be good for the position, instead trying to scare everyone against the opponent by turning them into the "villain"...
Those Mills vs Nolan attack ads are going to get real old by Nov. But apparently us silly voters buy " G2A
7 comments:
Since the media constantly focus on the "horse race" or the misquotes and overhype of the "character" issue rather than consistently stated policy positions, are we allowed to make our decision based on the candidate doing the least amount of offensive negative campaigning? It might be the best discriminator we have, and might serve to reduce the awful nonsense.
Of course we are allowed to "to make our decision based on the candidate doing the least amount of offensive negative campaigning."
Unfortunately studies have found that the best way to get you to vote for Trump is make you horrified at the idea of Clinton winning. Scared people show up in much higher numbers to vote than happy comfortable candidate supporters.
Same for how to get out the Clinton vote. If the Democrats can convince their voters that Trump winning would cause them personal harm, they are highly motivated to stand in line to vote for Clinton.
Well, voting against negative campaigners is highly desirable, if not the norm. I'm wondering if the current race may tend to reduce that somewhat, since both candidates are seen in very negative lights already, maybe additional negative campaigning doesn't matter? Studies show that negative campaigning works, but when both sides do it it simply depresses turnout. That generally helps Republicans, which is good because it is Democrats doing most of the negative campaigning.
Watching the Nolan vs Mills ads, I call it even. The sad thing is that it is the PACs running the worst ads, not the Candidates.
Yes, of course. The candidate can't do negative ads; they must be "above the fray." And the big money in politics isn't with the candidates anyway, it's in the various PACs and other special interest groups. Nothing especially wrong with that, except that it would be good if they could be a positive force for informing the public rather than dragging the whole process into the sewer. What always annoys me is how "Americans for a Better Future" or some-such great-sounding PAC seems to form, spend a ton on negative ads and then dissipate right after the election, with no one really knowing who is behind them.
I don't know about Nolan vs. Mills, and we may not. I do know that in the last Iowa Senate race, the negative/positive ratio for Ms. Ernst was 8/8, and for her opponent it was 15/1. Deplorable either way, but not at all "even."
Same old question... Source please...
Des Moines Register.
Post a Comment