1
Which news outlet do you watch the most? Which do you believe to be the most accountable?
.
Sez Dr. Grumpy,
I've changed my mind some regards to steroids, especially when used to combat injury, particularly career threatening injury (Morse for example). I'd rather see an evidence based, official medical treatment program reserving 'roids for that type of situation. That could potentially result in spin off advances in non-sports medicine (recovery from other types of injuries/surgery/etc.
Lots of medical therapies we use are potentially dangerous; I don't think that there's anything uniquely dangerous about steroids, if used under a strict medically supervised program.
.
Point A
Doctors are used to putting risks and rewards into scale. The mainstream media is not. It's always griped me, about steroids, the way that ESPN goes into Lynch Mob Mode on this issue.
Why are so few Americans interested in an even-handed judgment of people who have fouled up? James warns, at BJOL, that we are literally headed in the direction of a U.S. Civil War.
It starts with a media that is uninterested in truth, fairness, and the American Way. We have a media that is interested in winning its ideological battle ...
By. Any. Means. Necessary.
It's a mentality we need to wriggle out of.
...
About 5 degrees off of Dr. G's risks/rewards issue is the ethics issue. Bill James, it seems, was the first man to speak up and say HoldOnAMinnit as to whether steroids are really so terrible. He's been doing so for five years, at least. A week or two ago, he asked an anti-Clemens reader: How much do you care that Greg Maddux threw a spitball?
There must be some readers at SSI who are well over into the "Fry 'im!" camp. My question would be, what do you do with the fact that Nolan Ryan stepped in front of the rubber? And that Edgar erased the back line of the batter's box, cutting 1 MPH off the fastball? Or Tony La Russa stealing signs?
What ESPN howls about, at least, is that steroids are cheating. There are 9,000 arguments against it, but only one that ESPN uses. It's cheating!
Which is fine. I'm not into cheating; I'm a Christian. But why so furious about one form of cheating, and not another form of it?
.
Point B
I'm not anti-Selig. He'd be judged differently if he looked like, say, Barack Obama as opposed to looking like a ... well, like a used car salesman.
But his agenda on steroids is to get back at players for winning strikes. Get that straight.
.
Point C
Things always look one way from the 300 section, and another way from inside the clubhouse. Always.They had ARod's drug dealer on TV -- what was his name, Bosch? -- and once he got into the grimy details, it was indeed off-putting. Stories of injecting ARod in the men's room at a club, at 8:00 PM precisely so as to beat the drug test...
Sublingual poppers taken by, like, the first out of the second inning so as to be clean postgame. Massive records of cell phone texts where ARod triples and then gloats by text right out of his locker, "Really good! Explosive!" Complex protocols of 6 or 8 different cocktail drugs
The systematic lying on a massive scale, the grim focus on drugging up to the absolute maximum possible ... well, I can imagine that from up close, we might all be saying "Hey. We gotta get this under control."
.
Point D
Mess with Karma at your peril. Both Ken Griffey Jr. and ARod got greedy - for different things, for appreciation and for glory, respectively - and they seem to have paid a heavy Karmic price.
ARod wanted to do interviews, for the rest of his life, as Joe DiMaggio. He has wound up almost the inversion of that. DiMaggio was perceived as "class" personified, the Greatest Living Player and the guy you'd most want to have coffee with.
We remember a Bill James article for a mainstream rag, Sport or something, in 1996. There was a big photo of ARod, after his rookie year. "We don't know what he will be. But in 1996, as a rookie, he was baseball's best player."
ARod is rich, and that's about it. Few Mariner fans will shed any tears about the ruined legacy.
My $0.02,
Jeff
.
.....
Image: http://rico3244.deviantart.com/art/A-roid-166973042
Comments
2
.. and those 5 outlets are quoting a variety of different sources ... that's when I start to give it some credence. :- )
An accountable news outlet? Not meaning to be glib, I don't think they worry much about that. Nobody goes back later and checks their accuracy K/BB ratio.
.........
I read MLB Trade Rumors, just because it's an info dump, and a quick way to check and see whether Rosenthal, Gammons, etc etc are agreeing on something and if so, what language they're using to do it.
Anybody else?
3
Not baseball news.
4
over the last ~decade. I'm like you, Doc, in that I pretty much only pay attention to newsfeed type sites. I just want the DATA; leave the commentary out of it, please. I'll form my own conclusions, thank you very much.
Isn't that, quite literally, one of the only REAL freedoms any of us has?
5
... people who do not watch it, presume that Fox is an extension of the Republican Party. It is not.
Fox is "accountable" if only for the fact that the whole rest of the world is playing "gotcha" with them, in a way that they don't with MSNBC or anybody else. Fox is acutely aware of the potential for excess; the Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews crowd, for instance, seems to have no sense whatsoever of any checks and balances on their world views.
Sean Hannity is an extension of the Republican Party, but he's about the only one. Van Susteren and O'Reilly, to say nothing of the news shows, are objective. They're even biased slightly left, because of their concern about being labeled far-right, although their content does predominate towards compensating for the MSM's overwhelming bias. Van Susteren might have Sarah Palin on more often than would usually be indicated, but this is a reaction to the MSM's treatment of Palin, and Van Susteren's interview will be extremely professional.
For instance, O'Reilly just took Phil Robertson to task for offending gays in the A&E saga; I thought O'Reilly's "only Jesus can ever judge any behavior, so you're harming Jesus' cause" condemnation of Mr. Duck was self-contradictory by any standard, right or left. Ann Coulter, who is indeed far right, despises O'Reilly's attempts to look "reasonable" by taking stands in the center when he "knows better."
So if I wanted to watch TV to get a quick-scan of the day's current events, I'd go to Fox.
.........
Presuming that you can't get past the image that the MSM has successfully used to marginalize Fox, then the Wall Street Journal is usable. If not that, then you can use the same approach as in baseball - hit the news aggregate sites, distill a consensus, and don't forget to scan Drudge which will point out the stories that the New York Times pyramid is blacklisting.
You asked :- )
6
Good post as always Jonezie ...
7
I think so, too.
I have a hard time watching Sportscenter now that Olberman has returned.
I think O'Reilly is tremendously fair. Hannity, not always.
Dennis Miller might be the best thing on TV. What a hoot.....and almost always on point.
But then I'm one of the few guys advocating a trade for Scott Van Slyke.
So your mileage may vary! :)
The bolder, fresher moe
And, BTW, MLB Trade Rumors is a site I hit several times a day.
Trying to stay ahead of the curve, you know.
8
I shed mental tears over ARod's ruined legacy because I mourn what could have been. The 2000 season - Griffey left, RJ was traded. It was ARod's team, and he carried himself with class that entire season, put the team on his back and almost to the World Series. He was MVP, although the writers (forgive them, for they knew not what they were doing) voted for Giambi. It broke my heart when he signed with Texas. Boy he was some player. And, like Dylan sang, he threw it all away. ARod was to be the bridge that spanned the great 1990's teams with the great teams to come in the 2000's. He was to be our DiMaggio -linking our Ruth (Griffey) era to our Mantle (Felix, ?) era. You can't buy love, you can only earn it with loyalty, returning it to those who offer it to you. I hope he and his money are very happy together.
You look at the amazing culture, tradition and love this city pours out to the Seahawks today. It's awesome, the way the generations are bound to each other and to their fans and the team and its colors. The Mariners once had it in their grasp as well. Like ARod, they threw it all away. Commitment to excellence sorely lacking. Perhaps they'll get it back. After all, the team ownership is committed to staying in Seattle. Around here, it's a start - every franchise has either moved on or threatened to - even the Seahawks. It starts with loyalty.
People often say we'd all do the same thing - take the money and run. But it's not true. The average person is extremely loyal to those who offer them a fair shake, respect, and a good salary. My dad joined Boeing in 1961 and never left until retirement. NASA called, but he said no, and instead weathered the "last man out turn out the lights" period.
ARod, when he looks back on his shattered career, will likely look most fondly on 2000. Griffey could have told him: his daddy said you are never treated better than you are with your first team. But I suppose being considered the best Yankee 3rd baseman since Graig Nettles is something. But I suspect Graig will get the louder cheers at the old timer games to come.
9
That Fox isn't an extension of the Republican party. And that's not coming from someone who hasn't watched some of their programming. I've seen O'Reilly and Hannity and Fox and Friends. To say that their hosts aren't pandering to a certain crowd is disingenuous. I mean when you have Rove on about every other day, how could that even be a defensible position? And I know MSNBC is just as bad just the other way. I align myself more with the liberal crowd, but I still get sick of the one sided huffing and puffing that comes from either side. I don't even have cable so I don't ever catch cable news anymore, but isn't CNN generally regarded as trying to cover the middle ground that the two sides usually don't? That's how I remember it a few years ago, but I could definitely be wrong.
Just a quick thought on Palin. I don't think the media had to paint her as anything. I think she did just fine on her own. The interview with Couric comes to mind.
I know this will immediately make me look like someone that camped out in Central Park for 3 months chanting and holding up signs, but I do like The Daily Show as a source of news. Yeah, his audience is made of stoners, which I am not. But I think Stewart is one of those that isn't afraid to make fun of both sides. Sure, he takes issue with the right more than the left, but unlike Fox and MSNBC he doesn't have a dog in the fight.
10
.
.
.
I said, "Fox is not an extension of the Republican Party."
You said that (1) my position was, "Fox does not attend to a certain audience," and that (2) "this statement is a lie."
In fact, Fox DOES attend to the audience that is alienated by the MSM. Certainly it does.
So, No, I didn't lie. But thanks for the insult. That went off the rails in a hurry, didn't it?
........
"Pander" is YOUR characterization, an OPINION, and you logically proceed from it as a GIVEN, as if "Fox Panders" were a sound premise, and we all needed to move forward from that point.
PBS attends to a neglected audience, but that's not the definition of "pander." "Pander" means to gratuitously indulge a repulsive need or desire. Interest in Karl Rove's analysis is a repulsive need or desire?
How is Rove a less legitimate political analyst than James Carville? (Who is also frequently on Fox.)
.
.....
You pile up the straw men, on top of the self-appropriated word definitions, on top of the sneering insinuations as to my integrity, and that's just in your second post.
I don't have the time or the inclination to cut through 90 semantic bait-and-switches per post, to point out the definition of "pander" and every 12th word you misuse.
Nor do I wish to weed through your posts to point out all the places you have (1) presumed your opinion as a fact, and then (2) built a logical argument on top of your "fact", and then (3) triumphantly proclaimed that anybody disagreeing is a liar.
Everybody else here is able to exchange ideas without that stuff.
.........
Seattle Sports Insider is a venue for reasonable and interesting idea exchange. I seriously doubt anybody found any of this obfuscation to be interesting.
We're done here, LR. As Fox does, with people using the above tactics, I'll give you the last word.
.
11
and that most people feel a need to get their own 'dog in the fight' when it comes to the ridiculous political landscape which now exists in the USA. But, lr, the above post and the ones prior were the most blatant attempt to create a spitting match that I've seen on this site. I'm not flinging mud at you, and I'm not trying to say you don't actually feel/think/believe the things you're espousing. Nor am I trying to marginalize your position in any way. But SSI has, through its many incarnations over the years, always been a place where we do hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Mudslinging is fine on the playground. We all do it, and most of us are guilty of doing it when we really shouldn't have, but when you come HERE you're gaining access to a resource unlike anything you've ever had. I mean that quite literally: you've NEVER had access to a community like this. We take our dung-kickers off at the door 'round here.
Divergent opinions are welcome, as are attempts to explain such opinions. But trying to so blatantly create a flame war will be negatively received by EVERY member of this community. We're all smart and savvy enough to recognize the above when it comes out, and we've all decided both individually and collectively, that such TYPES of interaction are undesirable. That's something you need to think about, probably for a few days: we have all moved PAST that type of interaction. A heated exchange of ideas creates less friction here than anywhere I've ever been, but it must SIMPLY be about the IDEAS.
Here's hoping you can become a part of the community :) We're always looking for new additions.
12
Heh! I'm hearing my own words here, DaddyO. What's amazing is that, on an individual level, I can confirm each and every point you make in the above post.
And I'm only 32!!
Great post. I really do love this community :) Even when someone lines up on the absolute opposite side of a debate I feel like I can engage them and something will actually come of it, rather than deteriorate into a food fight.
13
Go reread my post. In it I said that I don't like the way either Fox or MSNBC deliver news. Fox panders to their crowd the same way MSNBC does to theirs. Sure, there is some real news on either station, but they both choose what news to put on. To me it's pandering, but you think that's too strong a word, so how about appease? What do you call it when an organization intentionally airs a story or doesn't based on how they think their viewers will like it? Whatever that is, that's the word I'm trying to come up with. Both sides do it and it gets tiring to watch. This whole "Fox only tries to uncover the stories the MSM doesn't want us to see" narrative is bunk. Both sides have an agenda.
As to the opinion=fact formula....what? Don't you write on a site where you give opinions on a daily basis? Do you prime every statement with an "opinion tag" before you send it off into the world? Where was I claiming that my beliefs were facts? Isn't anything written on here taken as an opinion unless otherwise stated? Geesh.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your PBS analogy, but what PBS does and what Fox and MSNBC does is easily distinguishable. Equating PBS's mission to Fox's is just soooo far off base. PBS is actually the station I watch the most, between NOVA, Downton Abbey, Chicago Tonight, Check Please and the countless British murder mystery shows. PBS isn't driven by ideology, it's driven by information and entertainment. The cable news shows are driven by all three plus power and influence.
.
.
I don't think what I wrote is grounds for you being so hostile. I reread my first couple sentences and I notice that what I said could be seen as a straw man argument. That wasn't my intention. My opening statement was that I think Fox is in some ways an extension of the Republican Party. You said you thought otherwise, so we can argue about that. You got hung up on "pander" and our very brief history and from there launched. I don't think what I wrote warranted all of this condescension and vitriol. (did I use that word right?) Seriously, does anyone else care to read my little 3 paragraph post and point out to me where are the straw man arguments are, or where all my sneering insinuations about your integrity are located? Your reaction to what I wrote was 5 times more insulting than what I originally wrote.
I like to post when I feel that one side of the story is getting too much coverage, especially when I feel that side is wrong. You clearly have an audience, and you're comfortable with your audience, and they are comfortable with you. Everyone is just snug as a bug. That's why when I come in I usually have to read the "we respect polite and honest dialogue" posts that usually follow an exchange between you and I. This site is of the mind that to disagree you must always do so politely and without any semblance of direct confrontation. I don't live that way in real life and I don't do that online either. I'm not a rude person, but I am blunt and direct most of the time, and would muuuuuch rather people speak the same way to me. It appears my style of conversation has upset the community now for the 2nd or 3rd time, so I will quietly bow out of future discussions.
.
.
I'll just leave with this, per Merriam-Webster.
pan·der
intransitive verb \ˈpan-dər\
: to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable
You're telling me that neither Fox nor MSNBC has ever been guilty of this? For real?
14
Ditto w/r/t appreciating this community. Oh to be 32 again!
15
and that you genuinely come across as a good dude, but please point out to me where all the mud slinging came from my end? I asked him what news channel he watches/trusts the most, he responded with Fox and described it in a way that I disagree with. So I told him which objections I had with his viewpoint. In my eyes I didn't say anything that would set off an even-keeled person that is interested in a real debate. I didn't insult his intelligence or call him names and I didn't try to belittle him in front of everyone. He did both.
Please, if you're going to mediate, at least do it while facing the guy who flung the most mud.
.
.
I love good debate. I love learning. I love listening. I'm very open to all of these things. That's why I come to this site, in the hope that I might learn something. But when someone says or thinks something that is factually incorrect or logically incoherent, it should be pointed out, and both parties should be allowed to defend their position. If I say something that is incorrect or incoherent, I EXPECT to be called on it. I should be called on it. This is where I think I diverge from the population of this site. The people on here don't like to ruffle feathers (SABRmatt excluded). Everything needs to be polite and light-hearted. I just fundamentally disagree. I think people should be challenged on their opinions and confronted on what they say/write. Sometimes this comes across as instigating or just trying to create a "flame war". People need to grow a thicker skin.
I'm not saying that there should be mud slinging. Name calling and belittling have no place in civilized debate. I truly recognize this. Again, I welcome anyone to go back and read what I wrote. You tell me what makes what I wrote any more charged or personally attacking than any healthy debate. I think what caused all of the backlash was his becoming personally offended and lashing out at me, because I can't see what was so egregious in my post.
16
The most revealing thing about Fox News is the reaction to it of the crowd that has had a stranglehold on national news for at least 40 years. They had a de facto monopoly on it from the 1970's until Fox News started up in 1996. It made it's name, reputation and following as the one alternative news source to the heavily biased national TV network news, which always aired free over free television stations. It quickly grew into a national phenomenon despite the fact that people had to pay cable fees in order to get it. Nobody forces anyone to watch it, and yet over time huge numbers of people migrated to it because it more reflected their point of view than the eastern establishment beltway liberalism that ruled the national networks' point of view.
The reaction among it's detractors, whose point of view is akin to that of the national networks, was not to welcome a healthy debate they were confident they could win. It was to make every attempt to marginalize and discredit this upstart who dared to challenge the "approved" point of view. Basically they tried to write it off like anyone who watched FOX News instead of their news must be a complete rube, a knuckle-dragger. And once it became clear that this would not suffice to make it's influence and audience growth wane, they expanded their efforts, making attempts to actually silence it.
And yet EVERY other news network of any consequence carries their point of view. Is that point of view slanted towards an audience different from CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC? No doubt. But of course, Fox News' detractors seems to want to ignore the fact that for 40 years the news they approve has been just as slanted. That's what's disengeuous. Many people who felt unserved by their news finally had had enough of listening every night to voices that suppressed news they wanted covered, that rigged news and it's presentation towards certain accepted axioms of the left and left-center. That routinely went out of it's way to make center-right and right positions look ridiculous and ignorant.
I find FOX News biased towards center-right. But what's wrong with that when you have 99 out of 100 alternatives speaking off slightly nuanced varieties of the same page on the left? I find it amazing that the reaction of the left-leaners is to demonize pretty much the only voice that disagrees with them. I also find it amazing that they think that anyone that disagrees with them must be an ignoramus.
If your position is so assured, why not have the assurance that truth will win out in the end? Why not just compete in the marketplace of ideas? The only possible reason is that you consider yourself one of the "few" who have it figured out, the elite who alone deserve to rule. Everybody else does not even deserve to be heard. And yet for 40 years conservatives sat night after night listening to left-leaning news and never made a move to silence it. All they wanted was a voice in the marketplace.
Ruppert Murdoch simply figured that out and took advantage of it. It helped make him a much richer man than he already was.
FOX News is not The Truth. But it has legitimacy; that is hard to argue against given it's vast audience.
17
Here I am reading it 3-4 days later... Also note that I don't really watch the news much, I much prefer to gather facts online and try and form an opinion instead of listen to talking heads bluster on any channel... Of course it is hard to find unbiased, non opinion articles online too... sigh, I guess that is just the world we live in, every fact comes with a handful of opinion and spin (anyway, every way, up, down, left, right) it is up to the responsible consumer to weed out the actual facts I guess...
Anyways as to why Dr. D got upset, at least to my read... The original question, while it may have been innocent, was not really about the article at hand, and it is a common flame war starter and / or insult, "Heh, heh, I bet you watch Fox News Too!" and since you have read this blog for a while I am willing to bet you knew Dr. D's answer would be Fox News... Anyway, I will assume that you meant it innocently and not to bait anybody, however it should be noted that the question alone put the conversation on a heightened level of emotion. While I was reading these comments as soon as I read that question my exact thought was, "Ohhhh this is about to get good..." :) Again, not saying you meant to bait anyone, just that it put the initial emotional quotient of the thread at a 6 (out of 10, normal would be 3-4).
And here is where we get to what actually set Dr.D off... In your 3rd post on the thread, the one that you keep asking people to point out where you went wrong you said, "To say that their hosts aren't pandering to a certain crowd is disingenuous." I would be willing to bet that Doc got to the last word in the sentence and didn't even read the rest of the post just started writing his heated reply, which I will say was more strident than it needed to be, but Dr. D was obviously responding emotionally. Why? If one reads this blog for any length of time they will see that Dr. D is all about integrity, honesty, and openness of thought. If you tell Dr. D he is wrong, or stupid, or fat he would laugh it off or engage in debate, but you called out his integrity, you basically called him a liar, and THAT is what ruffled his feathers...
From Merriam-Webster:
dis·in·gen·u·ous adjective \ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs, -yü-əs-\
: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere
Actually it is even worse... Not only did you call him a liar, but you called him the worst type of liars, you called him a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Anyway, I am sure that is not what you really meant. And in fact this type of thing gets me in trouble all the time as well. I want to win a debate and I want to sound smart (I am smart, and I am sure you are smart as well, I am not calling that into question...) so I use a word that I LIKE, one that sounds good and one that probably has several syllables, and one that holds some weight, but unfortunately is the wrong word and doesn't actually fit the sentence I am meaning to write, but I use it anyways because I like it so much and... boom, it blows up in my face. Anyways, you asked what prompted the reply,and while I am not the Doc, that is what would have set me off...
LR, I like having you around, and we need different and dissenting voices, so don't let a little vim and vigor from Dr. D run you off! :)
Cheers,
OBF
18
I did have a good idea when I asked the initial question that his response would be Fox, but I didn't want to assume so I asked. The reason I asked a question like that was because it was in a thread labeled sports-political, and there were terms like "mainstream media" and phrases like "I'm not into cheating; I'm a Christian" uttered (which got my blood going). I figured that if there were a thread designed for political or religious comments and questions, this would be the one. I know that people are charged up when it comes to politics, so I can see how someone would be get on edge just by merely being asked what news station they like. I don't think that's the appropriate feeling, but I can understand where it comes from.
.
.
The reason why it's nearly impossible to "win" (I don't even like that term in this context) a political argument is because when I say something like "To say that their hosts aren't pandering to a certain crowd is disingenuous" there are going to be people that agree with that statement and those that become enraged by it. Some people on the left would generally agree with that statement, even using the strict dictionary definition of the words pandering and disingenuous. Some people ARE disingenuous when it comes to espousing beliefs. I was only referring to the belief that Fox news never panders to it audience, not really about any one isolated issue. I wasn't trying to single out his comment alone as evidence of him lying, I was more taking a larger scale view at people that would never admit that the news channel they trust would pander or deliberately choose what to put on air or not based on how their audience would react to it. I can see that it came across as directly accusatory on my part, but that wasn't my intent. I can see why he took offense to that, but still that doesn't make his response to me any more acceptable. Instead of trying to understand what I was getting at and reading the rest of my post (I agree, I think he snapped after he read that line and ignored the rest of it) he flew off the handle.
As to my use of disingenuous, I agree with you, it probably wasn't the right word. I should have used another word. I stand behind the comment if you change disingenuous to untrue or unreasonable. I would gladly have that debate.
.
.
Anyways, I do appreciate you chiming in. I'm always looking for constructive criticism. Thank you.