David Sirota on Fox News
I meant to post this earlier, but the content is still meaningful.
David Sirota makes two appearances on Fox News.
When will we finally reach the point when sex between consenting adults, (even if one of them is a politician) is no longer worthy of media coverage? In America, maybe never. Or is the answer like the Buddy Holly song? That'll be the day.
Here's a link.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008083312/fox-news-debate-iraq-important-what-about-conservative-sex-scandals
David Sirota makes two appearances on Fox News.
When will we finally reach the point when sex between consenting adults, (even if one of them is a politician) is no longer worthy of media coverage? In America, maybe never. Or is the answer like the Buddy Holly song? That'll be the day.
Here's a link.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008083312/fox-news-debate-iraq-important-what-about-conservative-sex-scandals
Possibly we reach that point after those same politicians stop trying to criminalize sex between consenting adults. "Sex toy" and "sodomy" laws still exist on the books in too many places.
Reply to this
Paradoxically, maybe Senator Craig wouldn't have been busted in a Minneapolis if he felt as free to approach a man and inquire about mutual attraction as a hetrosexual man would feel about approaching a woman.
Reply to this
Larry,
It's interesting that we see these things from a different point of view.
Here's what I saw: One side said that the economy and the war would be the main issues in the election, and the other side said energy and the war would be the main issues. Both seemed to discount those social issues as major players in this election.
Reflecting back on an email response to your ezine # 27, I also am a Fox News watcher, mainly because I can get both sides on an issue. I know Fox News has been demonized by some, but the two Sirota clips illustrate my view.
Notice in both segments that both sides of the issue were presented. In the first clip, Sirota, introduced as a Democratic strategist, and Crowley were each given the opportunity to express their differing views. With that, I can decide if one of the views makes more sense to me. I like that.
In the second clip, on Hannity and Colmes, the questions were formulated first by Hannity, with a conservative view, and then by Colmes, with a liberal view. In both cases, Sirota and the other guest were given the chance to express their view.
So, for me, how does "We Report, You Decide" work? Not perfectly, but the best out there, by far.
As a contrast, last night late, I tuned to MSNBC's 9/11 programming. I watched way past my bedtime. It was riveting.
As one of MSNBC's promos, they hyped tonight's Rachel Maddow show, where she will fact check Sarah Palin. That could be interesting and informative, but I will not watch it, because, based on previous experiences, I expect it to be a biased smear job. If there would be a place for reasonable assertion and rebuttal, this could be a good show for me.
In other words, I don't mind differing points of view, but I view one-sided presentations for what they are. Sean Hannity is over-the-top sometimes, but he is almost always balanced by another moderator with an opposing point of view, and they have guests who express varying points of view. Olbermann is also over-the-top sometimes, or maybe often, and I could watch his shows if he had another voice there credible enough to counterbalance his assertions. In the absence of the other voice, it's silliness to me.
By the way, another instance of unchallenged partisan assertions is the Anne Killarney email about Sarah Palin. Some say it's a revealing look into her personality. By itself, I can't take it seriously, because of the clear bias. I need the rest of the story.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this