by Keith Koffler on April 18, 2012, 9:16 pm
16 Responses to Just Another Lazy Afternoon at the White House
Here he is at the grocery store, picking up some fresh meat.
Perhaps superpacs could make an attack add with man’s best friend.
I see it now. Thanksgiving @ the White House.
Romney could drive the dog from MA to DC on his roof and then be secretly served his dog as cross country pate…like from War of the Roses…
lol…perhaps…I think it is fucking hilarious the way the new media has turned this dog stuff around on Obama and his palace guards. For months, all we heard about was the stupid story about Seamus on top of the car. This story is so fucking funny…The left was made to play by their own rules…And the result has gone viral.
most certainly hilarious and clever. Only one side is about culture and the other side is about callous…possible cruel behavior.
Aside from funny, it is also very sad when it comes to the dirtiness of politics.
I don’t follow your meaning about culture and callous/cruel behavior.
Politics is dirty. Perhaps if each side is made to adhere to their own rules, as the the left has in this instance, things will get better.
Not trying to defend Obama; but his story is about his culture.
Romney putting his dog on top of the car is questionable.
Can’t say if the dog like it. Can’t say it scared the shit out of it. But the action is callous and borderline cruel.
Obama’s story does not compare to Romney’s story.
Cronk, you’re a brother from another mother, but seriously? About Obama’s culture? LOL. This story is nothing but a great illustration of how ridiculous the months of news stories about Seamus riding on the roof have been. Both stories are absolutely pointless, yet one has been run by the Obama palace guards for months. The only reason the palace guards have been forced to run the Obama Eats Dog Story is because it went viral. You trying to make Seamus on the roof have some meaning such as Romney is cruel and callous is laughable. It has nothing to do with his ability to be a good or bad president. Meanwhile, the MSM could have been reporting about Obama’s drug use, his ties to American terrorists, his ties to numerous socialists/communists, etc, which go much further towards demonstrating possible incompetency as the leader of the free world.
I agree it is ridiculous.
It certainly does not suggest how Romney may run the country.
I would not say the meaning in and of itself is laughable.
It lends to judgement and it lends to personality.
It was a clever way for the left to try and create hatred within a dog loving country.
And they should report about drug use, ties, etc.
But in the end the media is there to mediate
who of the two we should pick. Almost all of the time no matter who is picked the country ends up in the same direction.
To me there is no real difference in the two party system.
Same shit different mouthpiece….
I agree with you except that the purpose of the media is not to mediate. The purpose is to investigate, report, and provide factual information.
As for the country heading in the same direction, you are right, in terms of debt and deficit spending, and maybe even crony capitalism. I feel like the Tea Party tried to change that, but they ran up against the Obama Palace Guards.
In terms of social issues, there are many changes taking place, despite Democrats or Republicans being in power.
One more bit…What is the difference between transporting your dog in a crate in the bed of your truck versus with the crate strapped to the roof? Here in the South, many dogs, loved much by their owners, ride around in the back of trucks. I fail to see how this demonstrates anything about personality or judgment. I’m not aware of any evidence that it is safer to put your dog in a crate in the truck bed vs. strapping the crate to the roof. Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Good point about how dogs travel in different parts.
Perhaps it is perception.
But even here on the east coast; those with pick ups in the country do not seem to transport spot in the bed. He is always in the cab with the owners.
The purpose of media is to do as you say, but when conglomerate monopolies, btw anti american, run the gambit you have no longer what they should be, but rather a device to guide your choice and mediate between the same choice in a different package.
Think about it, the corporate sponsors and advertisers can direct news by advertising dollars.
Also these conglomerates are the ones who had the FCC laws changed where you do not have to propose opposing arguments or even facts. Opinions can now be reported as news.
When a discussion occurs these days it is usually a bullying session against the side chosen to lose.
If the speaker is good and can over come the bullies then announcers have been famous to just plain say SHUT UP.
That my friend is not investigative journalism.
That picture’s a solid, irrefutable laugh. Thanks! Is that real?
“real,” not “shopped.”
Cronk / Wood,
You are both honorable and distinguished gentleman in the grand halls of IBC.
I would propose to the both of you:
The purpose of the media is not to mediate nor investigate , report, or provide factual information.
The purpose of the media is to sell advertising that creates revenue for the media company and any “partner”. Partner meaning company that pays for the ad.
The purpose is to provide profit for the media companies owner (If private). Or increasing revenue as a fullfillment of fiduciary obligations, to shareholders.(if publicly traded.)
In either case -it keeps millions of “content providers” employed.
Many stories are created to simply increase revenue.
The more outlandish the story. The more “buzz” if generates. The more eyeballs view it, or click on a link to it.
The more data that is then provided to companies who want to advertise with the media company. (The more clicks or pageviews – the higher the price justified and backed by “data” to the potential company wishing to advertise with the media outlet.)
“If it bleeds it leads.” Because that generates cash.
Not making any “moral” judgements here.
Just stating what I believe to be true.
(I certainly wish that there was more mediation, old school traditional investigative journalism where pursuit of the absolute truth and reporting on it to inform existed.)
At the end of the day these types of stories are run for the following 2 reasons. In order of importance.
1.) Generate profit.
2.) Political manipulation.
1 always above 2.
that certainly sums it up. i think there is more emphasis on #2 than we think there is.
the diversity of media and journalism have all but disappeared these days.
sadly journalists are reduced to tele-promter readers and have lost the investigative edge that was at the crux of the business model.
but i get your point that first and foremost it is a business.
You could be correct! (more of an emphasis on political manipulation than we think.)
Journalism certainly is lost.
It always amazes me when people believe one media outlet or news agency over another.
I always read many different sources of content.
And see who is paying for that content.
In a magazine..who has the largest fold out spreads for advertisements.
On the “tee vee”..ask the question who is paying for the ad?
On a website..who is paying for the banners.
And then apply a lot of critical thinking.
The ultimate idea being..
If Time magazine has a huge fold out spread for an oil company then you will certainly not see any stories against “Big oil.”
Heck it’s one reason why CNBC is just silly these days.
The parent company GE does not want reporting that could affect any of their interests.
(There will always be a tug of war between the producers of the shows and GE corporate as a parent company.)
The “journalists” on CNBC fall in line so that they can collect a large paycheck.
One position that used to amaze me is being the Editor in Chief of the New York Times.
A copy of the New York Times used to go into the Library of Congress everyday.
The copy of the Times was considered “Official and recognized US history. On that particular given day.”
What is interesting is that students who want to get a PHD in US history. At some point, need to write a large dissertation. Essentially what will become a text book for future children.
And guess what the primary source would be?
Recognized US history. The copy of the Times for that day.
In essence. What the Times dictated…becomes what our children read in history class as they go through school.
So, whoever is the Editor in Chief of the NYT. Controls what becomes news. What is in and what is out for that given day. And thus controls what our children are taught and believe is US history.
VERY powerful position in the long run.
But whatever, just an interesting story there.
Ultimately I find that I have to read multiple sources all of the time. And think critically. To make my own judgement.