Party of inclusion finds prejudice a fuzzy warm blanket, Soledad can’t see or count, MooDoo’s latest dump and printing the rumor “because it’s news”
By LisaB on October 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM in Current Affairs
1)Today’s NY Daily News has a piece talking about the anti-Palin bias on the left. The article doesn’t offer new information or a jolt of outrage so much as some well-reasoned reminders of how prejudice is a human failing and not only the province of Republicans.
A well-to-do, middle-aged professional woman who identifies herself as very liberal casually declared at a recent social gathering that Palin was unqualified to be vice president. “Look at all those children; she would be neglecting them,” the woman said, before adding she herself has five grown daughters.
I could hardly contain myself. “How,” I managed to say relatively calmly, “would you feel if a man just said what you said?”
“Oh, I didn’t mean anything; I was just thinking of the children,” she said sheepishly.
Of course she was thinking of the children. And Jimmy the Greek was just talking history when he discussed slavery and black anatomy and Al Campanis was misunderstood when he said blacks lacked the “necessities” to be baseball executives.
———————-A similar blind spot toward the political “other” explains much of the contempt for Palin.
If she were a Democrat, her unusual life would be spun into a compelling narrative that would make her the darling of the coastal elite.
How she’s raising that lovely brood of kids, her care for that severely handicapped baby, her relationship with that rugged hubby who often cares for the kids and is part native, her unlikely rise through the political minefields, her tough knocks and gutsy performance on the national stage - all would be testament to a breakthrough of historic proportions we would be ordered to celebrate in the name of diversity and equality.
Yes, I know there are many legitimate reasons to vote against her and McCain. And I am not arguing for a second they should be supported, least of all because of her gender.
But couldn’t we all at least acknowledge Palin’s moment and what it means for America?
Apparently not. She must lose, the liberal narrative goes, because she is unqualified, case closed.
Some day, we will look back with disgust at the abuse Palin has taken and wonder how it could happen in this great nation, circa 2008.
Spare me. We already know the answer.
Indeed.
2) The creativeminorityreport.com has a video of Soledad O’Brien’s inability to either see or count hands. She asked for her press-required panel of “average voters” to vote for whom they thought won the vp debate. The blogger counted 11 for Palin and 12 for Biden. O’Brien called that “overwhelming” for Biden and “small hands” for Palin. WTH?
Rant alert:::::
And while we’re on the subject, WHY do they do these stupid panels in the first place? What purpose do they serve? Inevitably, those on the panel sit there and just look half numb while the pontificating talker pretends to listen to the usual response to “who do you think made the better case?” If you’re real lucky, the panel is actually uncommitted. If not, it’s like watching an ice-skating competition. The the scores and judges make no sense.
And while I’m STILL on the subject, why can’t the networks do away with those absolutely horrid, train-wreck-can’t-watch-without-vomiting, post-debate “expert” panels? Really, those should be produced only to use in lieu of water-boarding, although it’s arguable which is more tortuous. Those panels are awful. First off, they are stocked with partisans whose only role is to spin and dig. Spin for their guy way past any logic and dig at the other guy in as lofty a manner as possible. They add absolutely nada to the discussion or understanding of what has happened. It’s just the snark patrol. And while I could deal with that in its proper context, I resent it being passed off as learned commentary. Everything they say is utterly predictable, utterly useless and boring as heck. The fact that these people say such things with straight faces and the expectation that we’ll take them seriously is beyond all understanding.
And the fact that they get paid to do this evokes in me almost the same visceral response as Wall Street golden parachutes.
And lastly (for now) WHY do networks feel “news analysis” means a thing? Analysis is only useful if the topic is very confusing - like the economy and the bailout. When it comes to a debate, I can watch as well as anyone and I’ll form my own opinion, thank you very much. They think they provide “context.” The nicest thing I can say they provide is time for the anchors to dash to the little boys’ room.
Aggravated much? Yeah, I guess so. Moving on.
3) MooDoo has a piece of something today that makes fun of Sarah Palin’s way of speaking. Seriously. MooDoo is frustrated that after years of putting up with Bush’s verbal flailings she now has to put up with the “folksy” speech of Palin. (And that completely begs the question of what she might think of me, with my slight southern accent. Wait, no, I KNOW what she’d say - nevermind.) While MooDoo pencil whips Palin for being a backwoods rube, she somehow missed that Palin actually spoke, according to a linguist, at a higher level than Biden did during the debate. Or maybe she did see this and decided to counter in the only way she knows how.
The sophisticated view of MooDoo seems to be that she is “deliciously snarky” and fun to read because she is sooooo mean. I think she thinks she’s Dorothy Parker, but everytime I have to read MooDoo, I have to ask “what fresh hell is this?” I like a little snark, but I want it attached to a useful point, some research or observation. MooDoo doesn’t do this, she’s a snot because she doesn’t like someone. Well, bully for her. We can all be jerks to someone we don’t like - it doesn’t take much time or energy to think of snotty things to write. (See? I’m not even half trying. Just think how mean I could be if it would net me a 6 figure salary.)
MooDoo is a longer, NYT published version of bathroom wall scribble. The same level of malice and the same level of truth, although she does use Bartlett’s and a thesaurus. She’s a female (?) version of Robert Novak, minus the sources. MooDoo only talks to herself. Must be a reason for that. (If you want to read her latest spew, google it. I cannot bear to provide a link.)
4) Since I’m clearly on a media rant here, let me include a story not directly related to the election but symptomatic of what is going on nevertheless. Apparently errant reporting by a “citizen journalist” (short for “some dude we don’t have to pay”) resulted in a very real drop in share prices for Apple computer. Now, this is not the first case we’ve seen of this, by any means, but the notion of the media not playing the observer but as an active participant certainly applies in this election.
This story emphasizes that the initial false report was by someone whose motives are not yet clear and who is not a “real journalist.” But “not real journalists” gave a pass to this story before it found its way to the CNN site.
What hasn’t been widely circulated yet is that iReport was not the first place the fake story was sent. Arnold Kim, who operates the blog, MacRumors.com, wrote Friday that someone submitted the same rumor to his site using an anonymous IP address. Kim did some research on the rumor and decided it was a fake. Later, he tracked the report and found it being circulated by members of online message board 4chan. Kim also discovered the item was circulating on Digg, a popular news aggregation site. Digg users, however, voted the story down, meaning they also were skeptical.
Kim was clearly doing a good job not being a real journalis.
The next place Kim saw the rumor was at SAI (Silicon Alley Insider - a trade pub).
At about 6:25 a.m. PDT, SAI published this headline: “Apple’s Steve Jobs Rushed To ER After Heart Attack, Says CNN Citizen Journalist.” Within the blog, SAI informed readers that the report hadn’t been substantiated but reporters were checking it out. To that point, no other mainstream media outlet had published anything about Jobs’ health, according to Henry Blodget, SAI’s founder and a former well-known tech analyst.
The editor of SAI justified this by saying:
“(The story) was highly relevant to anyone who cares about Steve or Apple…it was already getting notice when we heard about it…we knew our readers would want to evaluate it themselves.”
–Henry Blodget, founder, Silicon Alley InsiderBlodget told CNET News that his staff tried to contact Apple and CNN representatives to confirm the story prior to publishing but were unable to reach them. SAI decided to post the item–with all the disclosures about it being unconfirmed–anyway.
At 6:41 a.m. PDT, Apple’s stock price began to plummet.
Sounds like lipstick on a pig to me.
lisab you rock!
I’m confused… was that MooDoo or DooDoo? I’m thinking the later.
No she’s correct.
That’s Moo, as in she’s a cow!
And Doo as in she’s shit!
Works for me!
LOVE IT!!!! Moo doo = cow shit!!!
to quote workinggclassartist of late:…
YOU BETCHA!
Flat earth News calls this Churnalism…McCain has Barky spinnin
maybe we need to change the libel/slander laws which govern the press. They seem incapable of implementing any ethical standard to govern themselves with.
Hmmmm…Teddy Roosevelt is McCain’s personal hero…Change is comin and Maybe JohnnyMac will carry a Big Stick….and the Buck Stops Here will have meaning again…Wouldn’t that be great?
workingclass,
I am living for the day when you do your “banjo up, tip of the banjo” again.
I’m hopin for a clean sweep of Workingclass Heroes to get to Washington…From Both Republicans and Democrats…and Independents…I’m just sayin’
Wasn’t the “buck” saying from Truman?
Works for me…
JohnnyMac channels TD and Palin Truman in a skirt…I’m just sayin…change is comin to DC and Barky will not be drivin that bus…He’ll be in Court…defending himself
Yes, Roosevelt = “talk softly..big stick”
Dorothy Parker was really witty, as in “if you don’t have anything nice to say, come sit next to me.”
She was intelligent and original.
BooDoo is just reiterating the same worn territory.
Actually the quote is from Teddy Roosevelt’s daughter.
If you haven’t got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me.”
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
However it definitely is a style Dorothy Parker perfected. Right you are, she was funny. MooDoo not.
Parker wrote terribly funny reviews and if I remember correctly suggested her tome stone read “Pardon My Dust.”
Who is MooDoo? Please would you consider at least once per article using people’s right names? I don’t always know all the sobriquets here.
And you are right: there are many legitimate reasons to detest Palin.
htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU
http://www.defendersactionfund.org/newsroom/sarah_palin.
Maureen Dowd, syndicated columnist. She has a style for which my favorite description, by some blogger, is “public psychotic breaks.” But at least she’s vicious toward everyone.
lol, thx, now I understand: an apt description
ROFLMAO…Maureen O’Gagme…is HOPELESS…Truly
As my daughter calls her: “An equal opportunity hater.”
Perfect moniker!
MooDoo is the 2008 version of Spanky’s “He man women haters club.”
oops, that could have worked better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU
http://www.defendersactionfund.org/newsroom/sarah_palin.html
I wouldn’t be able to post in your little lying world.
You are welcomed to post here, please unmaske yourself. I hope you are being paid enough.
With the bots it’s if you don’t support BHO then you’re a racist With the McCain drones (and I mean drones, not all McCain supporters, just f#cktards like you, Ugo) it’s if you don’t support McCain then one must be a bot. But I am neither. I am a former Clinton supporter, now supporting third party candidates. I post against both BHO and McCain and for 3rd party candidates, esp. McKinney & Nader.
With the dems decided to practice voter disenfranchisement I changed my registration to Independent. I initially planned to support McCain, but research on him and his voting record convince me he is not fit. I support any 3rd party gaining the 5% necessary for ballot access and federal funding, but not necessarily the candidates heading the tickets.
Your guy sucks as much as BHO: FISA, bailout, Keating 5, cablevision, Merrill Lynch/Enron, pro-Dubai Ports World, Soros funded Reform Institute & principle beneficiary of his McCain-Feingold “Reform”, Brzezinski was his foreign policy advisor in 2000, and one of his sons is an advisor today, Georgia warmonger (he assisted Bush in lying about the presence of alQaeda in Pankisi Gorge so US could station troops in Georgia to train them to guard our pipeline), anti-Ledbetter, anti-ERA, anti-abortion, and oh yeah: he campaigned for Bush in both 2000 and 2004: a SOS.
His vp is an abbatis for oil interests.
There wasn’t any lie in my post, a$$wipe: she’s for shooting wolves and bears from airplanes for sport. And you’re a liar if you say otherwise.
I support the NRA, and am a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights. I support legitimate hunting for food. I do not support blowing away animals from airplanes for fun. Or candidates who do.
I agree…I have never heard Maureen Dowd referred to as “MooDoo” but I have heard her referred to as “MoDo.” Regardless, best to use the full name first and then the nickname.
Nom cubed is a troll. please don’t feed it.
I, too, wondered about Soledad’s ability to count so fast that night, but I hadn’t had the chance to count myself. In any case, I made sure to watch the VP debate on (Gasp!) FOX. Their test audience also seemed a bit rigged. Oh Well. But I have to give FOX credit for an insightful–damning to O and the Dems–history of the financial crisis, and some commentary after it about how to deal with it.
I read a piece this morning in The Denver Post by Susan Greene, whose photo makes her appear to be a stylish young metropolital type. I don’t know her and haven’t read much by her. But the headline caught my eye: “McCain forum a real bash.”
In it she complained about how the audience really tore into her about the prejudice in the media. Well, she just thought it was so unfair. Here’s what I sent off to her:
“Ms. Greene,
In regard to your question–”So now it’s straighter to avoid questions than answer them?”–my direct answer is this: Yes, in many, many cases it is, and there are very good reasons to avoid some journalists’ questions–and go straight to the issues that people really want to hear about.
You should know right away that “gotcha” journalism DOES indeed happen. Why should anyone allow someone to manipulate his or her answer when that person knows the journalist to be, perhaps, a little biased against him- or herself? And don’t even try to tell us that there aren’t plenty of so-called journalists who can claim any type of objectivity. In Sarah Palin’s case, for example the McCain campaign would have been completely in their rights to ask that Gwen Ifill resign as moderator of the VP debate. As a person with a new book slated for sale after the election that basically worships at the altar (dare I say Greek altar) of Obama, she was not a person to be trusted as an objective moderator. If they HAD asked her to recuse herself, then the opposing side’s minions would have accused her of being “chicken.” Ifill did a credible job but I wonder if that was because she knew the outcry that had arisen when people who support McCain and Palin learned about her book at the last minute. So, Palin did the smart thing and “asked” her own questions, one she felt the American people might like to hear asked, by answering with the points SHE wanted to make about the topics SHE felt were important. It has been clear through this election, as even SNL noticed in regard to Obama and Hillary, that certain candidates get easy, leading questions and other candidates get hard, gotcha, questions.
Therefore, it’s easy to see that the media’s questions are what set up the biased journalism. I have often sat at my television or in a crowd and wanted to grab the microphone from the questioner and ask the questions I wanted answered. Those questions often never get asked, and yet journalists feel we should just sit back and bemoan the fact that it’s not fair when their hand-picked questions aren’t answered.
Basically the peope bashing you in the crowd may have grudges against the media for the specific types of stories it prints, but behind those grudges is this gripe: Why does the media start with “this question” before it writes a story and not start with “this other question”?
The field of journalism is so important in our society, as the “fourth” branch of government. If there is a strong, growing sentiment that journalists are biased and not doing a good job, I would not turn to journalism schools to back up your defense for your profession. [This is in fact what Greene had done; she got an interview with some "important" professor of journalism.] For example, I an an educator, and I know that schools of education ARE often the problem behind some of our public schools’ problems. I have been in the field long enough to see the change in what those schools of education have become compared to what they were when I started. I feel they have become a major factor in our inability to raise academic achievement in the U.S. I am sure it’s also true of journalism. I taught research writing as an adjunct instructor at several colleges and universities in the state. Some of my poorest researchers were the journalism majors. I was always shocked that they didn’t feel it necessary to do background research. They just decided who to interview and then came up with their own questions, formed in their own uninformed brains.
Soledad completely lost any credibility as a journalist when her and Roland Martin covered for CNN Rev. Wright’s speech at the NAACP. My goodness, they were gushing and fawning over that lunatic rantings and antics. Absolutely clueless and out of touch as she praised the wingnut’s off the wall theories on African vs. European learning styles and brain differences.
“If she were a Democrat, her unusual life would be spun into a compelling narrative that would make her the darling of the coastal elite.”
I’d have to differ with the NY Daily News on that point. Dems no longer like women. We (I say we loosely-as an ex-dem) had our token woman on the ticket with Ferraro. The dems seem to feel they filled their quota. So, no, if she were a democrat, she wouldn’t be the darling of the dems. She wouldn’t even have made the ticket.
Extremely good point!
The AAs became Dems after having been Republicans since the Civil War when Kennedy offered them help while Nixon didn’t. I’m guessing the Dem’s base of women may be soon making a party shift too.
Nothing these people say/write surprises me anymore. One has to consider what is in their
PATHETIC/PITIFUL ‘frame of mind’:
Opinion
Dare I believe Obama can win?
By Courtney E. Martin
CSM
Fri Oct 3, 2008
Brooklyn, N.Y. - Like so many Americans, I feel as though I am holding my breath.
Could the quiet seed of joy that was planted in my heart the day I heard Barack Obama speak for the first time take root and grow without fear of the brutal storms of disappointment?
Could a leader that evokes awe in me actually win a presidential election? Could the beauty – and logic – of his words win over the majority of this country’s voters? Could they see past the lies and distractions to the center of a human being who sincerely wants to invoke citizens’ higher selves?
Could a system that seems so broken, so moneyed, so corrupt actually serve to help the American people elect an authentic, complex thinker? Could it be that – despite all that is wrong with the electoral process – there is enough right to allow a thoughtful candidate to get through the muck and emerge earnest and excited to lead?
Could the inspirational, not aspirational, America that I was raised to believe in – Eleanor Roosevelt with her Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Martin Luther King Jr. with his dream, and John F. Kennedy with his “ask not” encouragement – be the America that I live in?
And finally, and perhaps most profoundly, could this country reflect the best within me?
There is part of me, I admit, that is fearful and self-focused and, worst of all, cynical. She understands why people stay home from the polls. But there is another part of me that is courageous and compassionate and, best of all, idealistic. If Senator Obama is elected, I feel as though that best part of me – the best part of all of us – will be given permission to lead.
As Nov. 4 nears, I feel heavy with internal struggle and dangerous anticipation.
I have never voted for a presidential candidate who has won, much less in an election that wasn’t considered potentially corrupt. I have never gone to sleep on Election Day with a sense of accomplishment, with the satisfying congruency of my values and those of the country’s leader merging as one.
I have never woken up the next day without a deep, wide sadness, without a sense that my country doesn’t reflect my dearest beliefs, that it actually mocks my youthful enthusiasm for the political process and commitment to following my political heart.
Now I watch Obama, a leader who articulates my own ideas and intuitions with the most eloquent grace, on the brink of a presidential miracle. His words about the critical nature of cohesive community, about injustice, about personal responsibility ring so true in my ears. But I’m scared to believe.
I don’t think that Obama is a “messiah.” I know that he has flaws, that he will fail in many ways, that the space between his ideals and his actions will often gape with a discomfiting hypocrisy, or at the very least, inefficiency.
But I am almost certain that he is good deep down, that he believes, as I do, that we could do better, that we could be better, that we are – when stripped of bureaucracy and alienation and skepticism – already better.
It is not his inevitable fall from grace that I fear. It is the possibility that on Nov. 4, I will find out that my acute craving for a kind and complex leader is not shared by the majority of Americans. That conclusion to this breathtaking story would tempt me, not just to be alienated from American politics, but from the American people. I fear that the worst part of me would bully the best part with cruel words: “I told you so. Hope is dangerous and naive.”
But what would Obama himself say to that sentiment? I imagine he’d stay calm, in his top-of-the-lake-on-a-still-day kind of way. He’d remind me that his candidacy was never about him, but about me, about all of us. That it isn’t his victory that confirms America’s greatness, nor his defeat that disproves it; it’s our own capacity to be resilient and committed to change every day, in all sorts of quiet, nonpresidential ways.
If Obama is elected, if I am invited to rejoice with the majority of Americans, the best part of me will have a chance to smile triumphantly at the worst.
Sometimes you believe in someone and they inspire you right back. Sometimes kindness and wisdom triumph over fear and brutality. Sometimes this country is as amazing as your wildest imagination of it.
• Courtney E. Martin is the author of “Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters” and a columnist for The American Prospect Online.
Good grief; Courtney sounds like she’s following a chimera. Obama is, IMO, the political version of Jim Jones.
It frankly pisses me off that dumb asses like that get a national platform and here I am writing to a small number of people on my little blog.
Pathetic drivel. She should be writing for Cosmo or Glamour Mag.
I wouldn’t even give M O’gagme that…She’s a pathetic LIAR…Got Caught LYIING about being in one place covering a story…when she wasn’t
She’s no better than that Jason Fraud…sheeesh!
I’ve been reading your blog, and I’d love to see you in print nationally. Guess I’ll just have to “hold my breath.”
And thank you for not using such a flowery, Victorian style of gushing like this woman. I can’t even read the whole thing, it’s too embarassing.
Oh please, not that 7th grade stuff again. Haven’t we suffered enough?
PUMA
I did not know Chris Matthews and Cameron Brown had a “love child”. MSNBC and CNN must be all she has been allowed to watch, poor thing.
Sorry, I nmeant to say Campbell Brown
If the dem base of women shifts, they’re finished. I just saw a snippet of an Obama speech that enraged me and I’d love someone to expand on it.
Remember Obama going on about his single mother’s sacrifices she made so he could go to college? Now he declares that when she was 53 and dying of uterine cancer he watched as she “had to fight the insurance company from her hospital bed” to get them to cover her expenses.
A lot of good it did her to sacrifice so her son could be a Harvard educated lawyer if he hung her out to dry to fight her last battles alone. I reckon he was about 35. Is this when he was “finding himself” in the Chicago black community?
As someone who was a patient’s advocate for both my dying parents, Obama will be forever scum to me for “watching” his mother fight the insurance companies” as a Harvard lawyer.
He wasn’t even there when she died.
“Dems no longer like women.”
Which is why Barak Obama is polling at 60%+ among women voters.
^^Troll alert.
Too bad 60% isn’t enough (if it’s accurate).
Aren’t trolls supposed to be out only with handlers? I thought they weren’t supposed to be out alone?
PUMA
A woman at work said “can you imagine listening to [Palin] for four years?” Too easy. My immediate response was, “uh, um, er, I, i-i-i-t would be better than listening to stuttering and lying.”
Ahh, politics in the workplace.
We haven’t taken anything lying down. Why aren’t we forcing the media to do its job?
I can’t stand MoDo. I was reading her about 5 years ago, but when she started in on Kerry, in such a crucial election, I knew she was only for one person, one thing–Maureen Dowd.
The person who I consider has the most integrity this year, is Sean Hannity. And for this, I want personal apologies from those smug, lying jackasses Harry Reid (my senator here in Nevada) and Nancy Pelosi. Dean and Brazille I’d like to see stripped of our American citizenship and sent to live together on a deserted island far, far away.
On the “News Analysis” rant, a parallel that you might find interesting:
Expert Testimony is a special thing, by law. It’s afforded greater “weight” — whatever that means exactly but people seem to get it. Two interesting applications to what I call the “Dance of the Bobbleheads” — since I call them Bobblehead Pundits (there’s no school or degree for either, which I’ll tie in later), I thought to call that thing they do after a debate or a news story a “dance” which is more credit than it deserves, actually.
First, you have to “qualify” as an expert. The court hears about your background, education and experience (specific to what you’re talking about, not on some other topic — a physicist can’t qualify as an expert in psychology, for example, even though they both start with a “p”) and decides whether or not to allow you to testify as an “expert” witness. Fine. Good rule.
So, how do these Bobbleheads qualify in the first place? How do they become “experts” on a topic? [An aside: the issue of bias can be addressed in cross-examination, if it's present -- which it obviously is in the Punditry arena -- but it doesn't disqualify an expert from giving their "expert" opinion.]
Well, they don’t. Being a journalist does not make you an expert on foreign policy, domestic policy or bathroom policy (M / W / or Unisex). Having an opinion does not qualify you as an expert. You have to have a special basis to justify our giving your opinion more weight than another.
Being around a long time and having a well-formed opinion doesn’t count, either. A “normal” citizen (we use the term layperson) can stay very well informed (more informed than many Bobbleheads today, unforutnately, from the evidence presented over the last several months) and can have well-formed and informed opinions. That does not qualify them as an expert in any court in this country. They have to have some special training or expertise that gives their opinion additional “weight” and allows us to call them “expert” and give their testimony (opinion) greater weight in a court.
We are in the court of public opinion. It is all opinion. Hopefully, backed up by facts. But, that can take place around a water cooler or on a blog. Having an opinion with three large letters on a screen behind you (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) does not make your opinion, no matter how long you’ve sat in that chair, special weight. It does not, in the most common parlance, make you an “expert”.
Okay, here’s the second part.
Even if you qualify as an “expert witness”, you are NOT allowed to testify AS AN EXPERT on a topic that does not require expert testimony. If the facts and answers are as accessible to the layperson as they are to you, there is no need for expert testimony.
Why this rule? Because expert testimony is given extra weight!
In the present case: yes, it means something for people to see or hear something on CNN or NBC than it does to read it on a blog (in our experience, we might have found the more reliable information to come from the blog but most mainstream Americans, without the time to do this, have not figured this out or don’t have the time to access it).
In a courtroom, because people tend to (and, in that case, are actually told to) give greater weight to expert testimony, such testimony isn’t even allowed in cases where people can figure it out for themselves.
An autopsy? Of course, you need an expert. You can’t send each juror in to examine the body from scratch, even if they knew what they were doing, where to look and what to look for.
On the other hand, gravity? Since thing X was on a shelf and was pushed off, it probably fell down, not up. Unless there was some intervening force that somebody could point to (maybe then you bring in an expert, if there was a magnetic field above the room created by a comet passing or whatever), this is pretty standard knowledge.
Without getting too distracted, that’s pretty simple.
It’s too powerful, this expert opinion, to throw it around where it’s not needed. To explain things that people can get it for themselves.
So, what would we do in the alternative universe, in the world where this “expert” rule was applied to the Bobblehead Dance? Well, it would be called “reporting” — something that’s gone away somewhere but people used to like a lot. It’s called journalism. Checking a story, asking the other side rather than engaging in “They said it, so it’s news” journalism — sloppy, hack reporting. Finding countervailing “facts” is fine.
That’s reporting. Report one side, then the other side, check out both, use some shoe leather. Go to Chicago and talk to people. Find the people at Ayers’ fundraiser for BHO, for example. Find some facts and let us have them. “They said it” facts aren’t facts. They’re spun facts and often don’t hold up.
If they don’t hold up, it is grossly negligent journalism to hold them up.
Especially to do that and add your “expert” opinion to the pie. Building a house of cards on a sandcastle, to brutalize a couple of metaphors.
Why do courts have these rules?
They don’t always perfectly accomplish this, but it’s the goal and these rules are in place to further the goal — the goal is to find the TRUTH.
Did anyone notice that they had a comments section for the MoDo piece and now the ENTIRE comments section has been removed?
I had a comment posted on the third page of the comments section (around number 70), critical of MoDo’s column and now it’s all been removed.
And Frank Rich has over 600 comments for his column today. I had posted a comment critical of his column very soon after his column was posted, but my comment–surprise–was never posted. Nowadays about half of the comments I post, always critical of the NY Times, are not posted, no matter how soon I post them after a column is put up. (And I never say anything offensive or off point, and I never use multiple names.)
Did you notice in Rich’s column there were two blatant examples of sexism? (”Sulking teenage girls,” strong politicians having “testosterone.”) And a line implying that most voters are racist? (He implies that people would tend to not vote for a black candidate if another black candidate in their state is convicted of wrong-doing.)
Trust me, a year from now books will come out analyzing all of this press and the NYT is going to look like the 21st century version of yellow journalism, which is exactly what it is.
Have noticed Nancy Polosi’s name in a couple of posts. I think she’s a real piece of work. In fact, dontated to her opponent, Dana Walsh. It would be nice for everybody to send a small donation from all over the country - it might be something she could use in an ad. How so many of us are so sick and tired of the *****, Nancy Polosi. Just a thought.
So frustrating. Is America going to wake up in time? We need journalists with integrity. Maybe they don’t care about BO’s lack of integrity, because they do not possess that quality either. I am praying McCain/Palin and their 527’s start hitting hard and hitting often. The thought of BO in the White House makes me want to hurl.
“Obama is, IMO, the political version of Jim Jones.”
Obama is a motivational speaker + PT Barnum + Jim Jones all rolled into one. He’s just a flim-flam artist; he doesn’t have an ounce of substance in him. Palin needs to take him out now.