Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Flasch186 10-15-2009 07:30 PM

STIMULUS WATCH: Construction drives up new jobs - Yahoo! News

Quote:

By MATT APUZZO and BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writers Matt Apuzzo And Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 15 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Businesses reported creating or saving more than 30,000 jobs in the first months of President Barack Obama's stimulus program, according to initial data released Thursday by a government oversight board. Military construction led the way, and states in the South and Southwest saw the biggest boost.

The new job numbers — in line with expectations for such an early accounting — offer the first hard data on effects of the $787 billion stimulus program.

The figures are based on jobs linked to less than $16 billion in federal contracts and represent just a sliver of the total stimulus package. But they also represent a milestone of sorts for an administration that promised unprecedented real-time data on whether the program was working.

Until now, the White House has relied on economic models to argue that the program created jobs and eased the recession. The numbers help shift the discussion from whether the program is creating jobs to whether it is creating enough to justify its enormous price tag.

"These are the most thankful employees you'll ever want to see," said Robert Del Riego, majority owner of Frederick, Md.-based Re-Engineered Business Solutions, who said he hired 33 new employees, mostly skilled laborers looking for work in the dismal construction market.

He expects to hire six more to help with water and sewer projects in Arkansas and North Carolina and small construction jobs at other sites. His company won $1.9 million in Army Corps of Engineers contracts.

"It's extra work and with work, hopefully you make a profit," he said. "But the main thing is, it's putting real guys back to work."

The White House said the new numbers were validation that the administration was on track to hit Obama's goal of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

"The early indications are quite positive," said White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein, who said the report "exceeds our projections."

The construction industry showed the strongest numbers in Thursday's report, accounting for about a third of the jobs thanks to contracts to repair military bases. Despite those gains, unemployment in the construction industry remains high, at 17.1 percent. That's down from its February high of 21.4 percent.

"It's kind of carrying us, allowing us to retain employees until the economy makes a rebound," said Matt Rathsack, director of operations at the Kentucky engineering firm, TetraTech, which reported saving 71 jobs thanks to an Army Corps of Engineers construction project at the Detroit Arsenal facility in Michigan. "We've already pared back and cut back. The staff is on reduced hours. The feeling is we're coming around the corner. We're optimistic."

Environmental jobs also provided a big boost. CH2M Hill, the contractor in charge of cleaning the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, said nearly 2,200 jobs, from carpenters to engineers to secretaries, had been created in southwest Washington state.

On paper, Colorado posted the largest increase of any state, more than 4,700 jobs, largely thanks to a contract to set up a call center to field questions about a change to digital cable. But the jobs were spread across multiple states, underscoring one of the many hiccups in the data. Like most contracting jobs, these were temporary, and most are already over.

California, Florida, Tennessee and Texas also showed strong gains.

New England fared poorly, with fewer than 750 jobs reported across the region. Rhode Island, which has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country, reported the weakest job numbers, both overall and per capita. Businesses there reported creating or saving about six jobs.

Broader numbers on local stimulus spending, for everything from repairing public housing and building schools to repaving highways and keeping teachers off the unemployment lines, won't be available until late this month. Those figures are expected to show early stimulus money saving thousands of teaching jobs and creating construction work for highway projects nationwide.

Thursday's numbers represent such a small snapshot, they are unlikely to significantly change the debate over whether the stimulus law was the right prescription for an ailing economy. Until more money is spent and more data come in, it is impossible to accurately calculate how much the government is spending per job.

House Republican leader John Boehner said the numbers don't change the fact that unemployment has climbed higher than the White House ever expected. Since signing the stimulus in February, Obama has watched the economy shed millions of jobs. The White House says things would have been far worse without the stimulus.

"The administration's continuing assertion that the stimulus is working flies in the face of the harsh reality being faced by Americans outside the Beltway every day," Boehner said. "While the administration spins its illusion, Americans are asking, 'Where are the jobs?'"

In the short term, the most significant thing about the job numbers may be that they exist at all. The government has never before attempted to track the effects, in real time, of such a huge government program. The data released by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board allow taxpayers to see not just where their money is going, but what the government is getting in return and how many people are on the job.

The reporting does not attempt to measure jobs created by $288 billion in tax cuts or the sizable increases in spending on Medicaid and unemployment benefits. The White House has said that, when considering those factors and estimating the ripple effect through the economy, more than 1 million jobs have been created or saved so far.

Auditors, fearing businesses would use part-time jobs to inflate the numbers, required companies to convert all jobs numbers to full-time. That means a 20-hour-a-week roofing job is counted as half one job.

I cant wait to see how the different sides interpret the data and the assumptions going forward

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-16-2009 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2144762)
I cant wait to see how the different sides interpret the data and the assumptions going forward


So how do you interpret this data since you obviously felt it held some importance? Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted it.

gstelmack 10-16-2009 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2144762)
STIMULUS WATCH: Construction drives up new jobs - Yahoo! News



I cant wait to see how the different sides interpret the data and the assumptions going forward


I would say that most of the jobs appear temporary, and what they are doing has limited value and utility. It was fun being in Massachusetts 2 weeks ago and having all the new unnecessary highway signs that the stimulus bill had paid for pointed out. For example, Massachusetts' highways now have .1 mile markers strewn about, something that might have been useful back before EVERY cell phone had to have a GPS locator for 911 calls, but today, not so much.

Still not sure where money is going around here, other than some of the education dollars that went to hiring new math tutors for at-risk kids rather than saving some of the teacher positions that got cut. Do they count those as "new jobs", or since other positions had to be cut at the same time is it a net loss?

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-16-2009 07:53 AM

I found some of the assumptions Flasch was referring to in his post.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Let-the-Sunshine-In/

Quote:

First, if you extrapolate from this reporting to the bigger picture, this data appears to confirm that we’ve created or saved around one million jobs so far, which is just about what our own estimates and those of private sector forecasters have found using the types of methods our Council of Economic Advisors describes here.

Second, these reports cover only direct, tangible jobs created by recipients, which means there are even more jobs created when those folks go out and spend their new earnings—the so-called multiplier effect.

JPhillips 10-16-2009 08:04 AM

I think it's a fool's errand to try to tally jobs, but from what I've read there's pretty solid agreement that the stimulus added a couple points of GDP growth last quarter, not enough to see growth, but at least we weren't declining.

As for jobs being temporary, that's the goal. A well designed stimulus will create jobs temporarily to try to boost demand until the economy picks up and creates a more permanent demand. It would work even better if the group of moderates hadn't insisted it be not so big, full of non-stimulative tax cuts, and devoid of much direct aid to states, but at least they made David Broder happy.

flere-imsaho 10-16-2009 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2142376)
I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.


IMO, this might be because Republicans tend to be more dogmatic about their party (especially lately) whereas most Democrats have come to see their party as a "Big Tent" with both its benefits & drawbacks.

albionmoonlight 10-16-2009 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2145296)
IMO, this might be because Republicans tend to be more dogmatic about their party (especially lately) whereas most Democrats have come to see their party as a "Big Tent" with both its benefits & drawbacks.


Yeah, I think that it is harder to pin down a typical Dem, so it is harder to find a DINO. You might have a lower-income, religious, homophobic black construction worker in a union in Cleveland and a rich athiest white gay environmentalist in San Francisco. Both of those people are "typical" Democrats, but they have very little to do with each other and would disagree on a lot of major policy issues and probably don't even really like each other. But you can't say who is and is not the DINO.

ISiddiqui 10-16-2009 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2144093)
It's surprising right now as much as both parties are pandering to their extreme that a middle-of-the-road party hasn't found room to emerge.


Yeah, but look at who both parties got to run for President. Neither was a crazy extremist.

JPhillips 10-16-2009 12:17 PM

When both Baucus and Grayson can be in the same party, what would it take to be "in name only"?

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-16-2009 01:24 PM

Yes, and Bush was to the left of Hitler. What's the point? Isn't it obvious we're discussing this country and not parties outside? To be blunt, who gives a flying fuck about modern Europeans social democratic parties?

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-16-2009 01:38 PM

Yeah, and you're to the left of Jesse Ewiak. ;)

ISiddiqui 10-16-2009 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2145428)
Yes, and Bush was to the left of Hitler. What's the point? Isn't it obvious we're discussing this country and not parties outside? To be blunt, who gives a flying fuck about modern Europeans social democratic parties?


This.

Left and Right are relative positions which are society determined, not some objective measurements.

duckman 10-16-2009 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2145436)
Yeah, and you're to the left of Jesse Ewiak. ;)

That's mean. You shouldn't say that about Jesse...I mean Steve.

path12 10-16-2009 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2145445)
This.

Left and Right are relative positions which are society determined, not some objective measurements.


I agree with you that Left and Right are relative measurements, but I also agree with Steve's point about how the centerline has shifted rightward over the past 30-40 years.

To me, that's where a comparison against the European left-right scale is interesting but not much more useful than that. It's my impression that their relative scale has stayed fairly static over the same timeframe (with shifts back and forth during that period of course). Politicians on the right there today would be centrist/leaning left on the American scale.

But again, it's more just an interesting observation rather than something useful for American politics today.

gstelmack 10-16-2009 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12 (Post 2145495)
I agree with you that Left and Right are relative measurements, but I also agree with Steve's point about how the centerline has shifted rightward over the past 30-40 years.


Really? Progress on race relations, gay marriage, equal rights, environmental issues, consumer protections, reduced censorship... And we've moved RIGHT? One reason you have such a vocal right-wing right now is the movement left.

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-16-2009 03:15 PM

To be fair to Jesse I think he was speaking economically.

JonInMiddleGA 10-16-2009 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2145500)
Really? Progress on race relations, gay marriage, equal rights, environmental issues, consumer protections, reduced censorship


Let's go with "changes in" rather than "progress". Otherwise there's a whole other argument to be had & this thread has enough subplots as it is ;)

Flasch186 10-16-2009 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2145094)
So how do you interpret this data since you obviously felt it held some importance? Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted it.


you know my opinion of the Stimulus Bill as I know yours...hence my statement that it'll be spun both ways. Which one is truth? Doesnt matter really.

molson 10-16-2009 08:13 PM

It may be fluff compared to the other stuff talked about in this thread, but I really hope Obama pardons Jack Johnson. Long overdue.

Sen. John McCain, Rep. Peter King press President Obama to posthumously pardon Jack Johnson - ESPN

JPhillips 10-16-2009 08:18 PM

Amen.

duckman 10-16-2009 10:28 PM


duckman 10-16-2009 10:30 PM


Flasch186 10-17-2009 09:55 PM

From CNN.com

Stimulus gaffe spurs jobs reality check - Oct. 16, 2009

Quote:

On stimulus jobs reporting, a big 'Oops'
Error in Recovery Act accounting raises doubts about government's ability to precisely track the flow of funds and jobs.


By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 16, 2009: 4:53 PM ET

chart_stimulus_101609.03.gif

Federal guidelines don't allow UT-Battelle to report the 150 construction jobs funded by stimulus contracts.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gaffes in federal reports this week about stimulus have called into question the government's ability to accurately track how many jobs are being created by the massive $787 billion Recovery Act.

The data in Thursday's reports were filled with mistakes, including an error that made it look like a French vaccine maker received the largest stimulus contract, $1.4 billion, when in fact it has gotten an award one-100th the size.

Government research organization OMB Watch said its assessment of the reports revealed many inconsistencies in the job data.

"The data is rife with mistakes," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst at OMB Watch. "When you put out data that hasn't yet been checked, it undermines transparency, because you are putting out wrong information."

According to the Recovery Board, a non-profit, government-funded organization that operates stimulus data tracker recovery.gov, the government expected mistakes and is reviewing reports of them.

Uncovering how many jobs stimulus created is critical to the debate about the Recovery Act's value. Critics argue that the mammoth funding simply represents more government spending and is not effectively being used to create jobs. But proponents say stimulus is a crucial shot in the arm for the economy, and that the labor market would have fallen further without it.

"Understanding how many jobs are created will answer the very fair and important question, 'What return on our investment are we getting?' " said Christopher Mihm, the Government Accountability Office's managing director of strategic issues.

But the enormity of the stimulus bill leaves some experts saying it will be impossible to accurately portray the data. The sheer size of the reporting is dumbfounding: Tens of thousands of recipients will file reports after receiving stimulus funds from one of 28 government umbrella agencies, or from one of countless agencies from the 50 states.

Making it even more difficult to discover the true jobs number is a decision to put the responsibility of correcting mistakes on the stimulus recipients' shoulders. For transparency's sake, government agencies can point out errors but are powerless to change them. All of the data are under government review, and a report on the errors the agencies find will be available at the end of the month.

"It's important that those errors get caught before they get published, and right now they're still under review," said Jennings. "It's possible that some will be caught by the review, but it will take an incredible amount of man power just to sift through the data."

Recipients of stimulus funds were required to report how many jobs they saved or created and how much money they have received from government agencies by Oct. 10. The first sliver of that information was posted on recovery.gov on Thursday, with much more data to come on Oct. 30.

The contract awards posted Thursday represented less than 7% of the total stimulus funds doled out so far. By far the largest part of stimulus is in grants to states, which account for 83% of stimulus funding. Federal agencies and recipients are spending nearly three weeks reviewing these state reports to improve their accuracy before publishing them.

Loans to recipients make up the other 10%. Both grants and loans will be posted on recovery.gov at the end of the month.

There were 5,232 federal contracts reported Thursday, but 41,944 grants and loans will be reported on Oct. 30. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California recently said that his state alone submitted 5,747 reports from agencies and others who received funds from the state.
Mistake-prone reporting

A mistake in the very first contract listed on the site prompted doubts about the reliability of the reports.

Recovery.gov erroneously reported Thursday that French vaccine maker Sanofi Pasteur had received $1.4 billion in stimulus funds from the Department of Health and Human Services. The company topped the site's list titled "Largest federal contracts in U.S."

When CNNMoney.com first asked about the contract on Thursday, a spokeswoman from Sanofi Pasteur suspected the $1.4 billion figure was a mistake. HHS spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said the number on recovery.gov was erroneous and the actual amount was $10.4 million.

Sanofi Pasteur said Friday that $10.4 million is the correct figure.

"We anticipated errors in the reporting and so informed many reporters beforehand," said Edward Pound, spokesman for the Recovery Board. "This is the first time this kind of reporting is being done. These reports are being reviewed by federal agencies and recipients to catch any errors or problems."

The Recovery Board has the tall task of compiling all of the data, and is spending $18 million revamping its Web site to manage all of the information.

OMB Watch said its review yielded "really weird job numbers," including many discrepancies within the reports themselves. For instance, Jennings said OMB Watch found that many companies said in a narrative portion of their reports that it was able to retain several employees because of stimulus funds, but the "jobs created" column read "zero."

The Recovery Board aggregates its jobs data from the "jobs created" column to display the total number of jobs saved or created. Jennings speculated that recipients might have been confused about the scope of the term "created."

"I would not stake any sort of claims on those job numbers," said Jennings. "We don't know what's going on there."

Even the job figures that are input correctly do not always reflect the true number of positions created by stimulus funds.

For instance, UT-Battelle received a $338.7 million contract, listed as the fourth largest on the recovery.gov site. So far, the company, which manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee for the Department of Energy, has spent $13 million and created 41 jobs, mostly related to the oversight of subcontractors.

But the funding is actually creating many more jobs, said Thom Mason, UT-Battelle's CEO. Among the firm's first stimulus projects is the building of a chemistry and new materials research lab, which will employ 150 construction workers. None of these positions will appear on UT-Battelle's reports to the federal government.

"It's important that everyone reports on a consistent basis," said Mason, who expects to hire up to 4,000 subcontractors with stimulus funds. "The difficulty is that it gives you a number that's not really a realistic reflection of how many jobs are created."

Galaxy 10-17-2009 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2146501)


Aren't they talking of another one?

Flasch186 10-17-2009 10:14 PM

what do you mean?

I was just posting an applicable article to the thread. Whether its interpreted beyond that is up to ya'll for now since Im going to bed.

Galaxy 10-17-2009 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2146509)
what do you mean?

I was just posting an applicable article to the thread. Whether its interpreted beyond that is up to ya'll for now since Im going to bed.


I was asking a question. I thought I heard that they are looking at another plan.

panerd 10-17-2009 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2146501)



Sports analogy...

Unemployment is up hundreds and hundreds of thousands but our report that said we saved 30K jobs was wrong by 5-10K...

The Cardinals trade Albert Pujols (.327, 50 HR ) for Nick Johnson (.290, 8 HR) .... You don't like that trade? But we forgot to publish we also got Geovany Soto!!! (.215 10 HR's)

RainMaker 10-18-2009 12:16 AM

Isn't unemployment all bullshit anyway? I mean they stop tracking you after a year and don't count if you're just taking a part-time job to get by. I know a lot of people who had their hours cut back a lot.

Flasch186 10-18-2009 07:13 AM

oh, well for me the unemployment # and 'real' unemployment are a gap that makes me shake my head and also causes my disbelief in the stock market's rise...

Flasch186 10-18-2009 07:42 AM

I do NOT agree that this time it is as lagging as it has been in the past (albeit still lagging). I've been wrong thus far in correlating the markets move to this philosophy but I believe that gap is much smaller this time than in the past. Top line numbers for these companies show they only created $ through cuts and rarely have beaten expectations without simply looking at cost cutting measures. And dont even get me started on the banks numbers. I dont see where the growth that the stock market IMO is predicting is going to come from. That all being said I have been wrong up until now so WTF do I know.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 08:38 AM

Certainly an interesting day on the airwaves yesterday regarding the administration attacks on Fox News that we discussed earlier in the thread. Rather than easing up, the administration officials have increased their attack on Fox on multiple networks. Here's Axelrod and Emanuel in their appearances.............

Axelrod, Emanuel Criticize Fox News: "It's Not Really News" (VIDEO)

Fox News covered it on their end...........

White House Escalates War on Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com

And new footage where an administration official discusses their manipulation of information being given to media outlets.............

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

I'm not sure who decided this was a battle the administration wanted to wage, but it just seems like a waste of time given the more pressing matters at hand. I still can't see any positive outcome from an adminstration perspective. Passing some legislation would be far more impactful at this point.

Warhammer 10-19-2009 08:41 AM

I think it is a sign that the administration is under some intense pressure. Why in the world would they take on any news outlet? All it does is give greater credibility to that outfit and their message.

Flasch186 10-19-2009 08:42 AM

Youre right the only positive thing was the Fox News Editor admitting what he admitted (which is probably true of most of the crappy news organizations out there)...at least Fox admitted it.

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-19-2009 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147376)
And new footage where an administration official discusses their manipulation of information being given to media outlets.............

White House boasts: We 'control' news media


Again, do you even read the WorldNetDaily crap you post on here? This is from a conference IN JANUARY talking about "President Obama's presidential campaign."

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer (Post 2147378)
I think it is a sign that the administration is under some intense pressure. Why in the world would they take on any news outlet? All it does is give greater credibility to that outfit and their message.


I'm not sure that it gives them greater credibility per se, but it definitely gives them a larger audience and only further inflames the situation. Fox News has got to be loving the fact that they were the focus of attention on every Sunday morning news program and even some of the 24/7 news outlets. It's just a badly misjudged move by the Obama administration to think that this hurts Fox News in any way.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2147382)
Again, do you even read the WorldNetDaily crap you post on here? This is from a conference IN JANUARY talking about "President Obama's presidential campaign."


I read and listened to it. Your a very naive individual if you think that this tactic suddenly ceased upon inaguration.

JPhillips 10-19-2009 08:55 AM

Every administration tries to control their message. Why do you think Bush refused every interview request from the NYT for eight years? There's not much news in "White House press shop tries to control message".

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-19-2009 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147389)
I read and listened to it. Your a very naive individual if you think that this tactic suddenly ceased upon inaguration.


Well, la de fucking da, that's certainly not the disingenuous way you presented it.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2147397)
Well, la de (foul mouthed sailor) da, that's certainly not the disingenuous way you presented it.


I would think that the obvious indications that it has continued would be pretty obvious, whether you agree or disagree with the methods.

DaddyTorgo 10-19-2009 09:49 AM

LOL - I gotta agree with Ronnie here (and keep in mind he's nominally on your side). You can't post an article from January discussing the presidential campaign and claim it's "new footage" and defend it by saying "well obviously it's continued."

that's pretty...weak

DaddyTorgo 10-19-2009 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2147391)
Every administration tries to control their message. Why do you think Bush refused every interview request from the NYT for eight years? There's not much news in "White House press shop tries to control message".


+1

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2147412)
LOL - I gotta agree with Ronnie here (and keep in mind he's nominally on your side). You can't post an article from January discussing the presidential campaign and claim it's "new footage" and defend it by saying "well obviously it's continued."

that's pretty...weak


The article was posted yesterday (not January) with the footage. I'll be happy to agree with you if you've seen that footage posted previously. I personally have not.

I'd also note that Ronnie and I generally aren't on the same side. We disagree more often than we agree (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-19-2009 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147419)
I'd also note that Ronnie and I generally aren't on the same side. We disagree more often than we agree (not that there's anything wrong with that).


Best news I've heard all day.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2147423)
Best news I've heard all day.


I knew you'd agree. :D

lungs 10-19-2009 11:49 AM

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

Here is a move by the administration that even MBBF could get behind. Essentially, it's telling prosecutors to stop wasting time on medical marijuana in states where it is legal because there are much better ways to be using their resources.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2147513)
Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

Here is a move by the administration that even MBBF could get behind. Essentially, it's telling prosecutors to stop wasting time on medical marijuana in states where it is legal because there are much better ways to be using their resources.


I do like that. I'm a firm believer in not wasting our time on marijuana anymore. Sure, we should enforce any driving under the influence laws, but let people use it. Would save a ton of money on enforcement and wasted jail cells. I do think a certain percentage of users would move on to other drugs that should remain illegal, but marijuana in my eyes is no different than alcohol.

I should note that I've never even tried the stuff. Never appealed to me personally.

panerd 10-19-2009 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2147513)
Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

Here is a move by the administration that even MBBF could get behind. Essentially, it's telling prosecutors to stop wasting time on medical marijuana in states where it is legal because there are much better ways to be using their resources.


Essentialy they want all 50 states to have their own medical marijuana law. Then like in California people can just go buy weed. Then they have legalized it without actually legalizing it. Don't get me wrong it is a move that I completely support but why can't Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Bush I, etc...) just come out and say what MBBF said in his previous post?

Big Fo 10-19-2009 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2147607)
Essentialy they want all 50 states to have their own medical marijuana law. Then like in California people can just go buy weed. Then they have legalized it without actually legalizing it. Don't get me wrong it is a move that I completely support but why can't Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Bush I, etc...) just come out and say what MBBF said in his previous post?


"Soft on drugs," "ruining the nation's youth," etc. Political implications take precedence over doing what is sensible.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2147607)
Essentialy they want all 50 states to have their own medical marijuana law. Then like in California people can just go buy weed. Then they have legalized it without actually legalizing it. Don't get me wrong it is a move that I completely support but why can't Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Bush I, etc...) just come out and say what MBBF said in his previous post?


Online poker is a similar situation. The U.S. is losing a ton of money in tax revenue to other countries based on the UIGEA. It's ridiculous.

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-19-2009 01:23 PM

MJ was recently decriminalized in MA despite nearly *ALL* the establishment (police, DA, mayors, state legislators) urging the voters to vote no. We're about a year into it and it doesn't seem to have changed anything for the worse. Right after it took effect there were a few articles in the conservative Herald with police chiefs talking about how hard its made their lives, but it quieted down quickly.

In my mind, the only legitimate argument against it is that getting a true criminal for possession can make it easier (through PC) to get that guy for the really bad stuff, but I'm not sure that alone is worth the fight.

larrymcg421 10-19-2009 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147621)
Online poker is a similar situation. The U.S. is losing a ton of money in tax revenue to other countries based on the UIGEA. It's ridiculous.


We need a new Senate Majority Leader before anything will really change on that.

RainMaker 10-19-2009 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147621)
Online poker is a similar situation. The U.S. is losing a ton of money in tax revenue to other countries based on the UIGEA. It's ridiculous.


Ughhh...I hate even thinking about this. It would even bring in money from overseas and create jobs in this country. Don't have to worry about crime or other unsightly blights that people complain about a casino bringing into their neighborhood.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2147645)
Ughhh...I hate even thinking about this. It would even bring in money from overseas and create jobs in this country. Don't have to worry about crime or other unsightly blights that people complain about a casino bringing into their neighborhood.


Perhaps this is a problem in other parts of the country, but the casinos and areas around them in KC are actually pretty nice and don't have any real negative stigmas outside of people who just are completely opposed to gambling.

gstelmack 10-19-2009 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147666)
Perhaps this is a problem in other parts of the country, but the casinos and areas around them in KC are actually pretty nice and don't have any real negative stigmas outside of people who just are completely opposed to gambling.


Well, that and the people that throw their life savings away in them, adding themselves to the public dole that the rest of us now have to support. But yes, I understand it is possible to gamble responsibly, and we have lots of people right here.

If they legalized the online poker sites, how many do you think would REALLY move to the US? With all the scandals in the ones that are out there now, how would moving to the US and closer to the authorities be a good thing for these folks? What makes you think they'd actually start paying any noticable taxes?

RainMaker 10-19-2009 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2147666)
Perhaps this is a problem in other parts of the country, but the casinos and areas around them in KC are actually pretty nice and don't have any real negative stigmas outside of people who just are completely opposed to gambling.

I agree, but I do know it's usually something that opponents of it complain about.

RainMaker 10-19-2009 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2147704)
If they legalized the online poker sites, how many do you think would REALLY move to the US? With all the scandals in the ones that are out there now, how would moving to the US and closer to the authorities be a good thing for these folks? What makes you think they'd actually start paying any noticable taxes?

Players would rather play with a U.S. based poker site than one on some Caribbean island. I know I'd feel much safer about getting my money and playing a fair game.

Maybe that doesn't mean a lot of current ones move, but I guarantee you'll see a lot of investment in the U.S. to create new ones.

panerd 10-19-2009 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2147704)
Well, that and the people that throw their life savings away in them, adding themselves to the public dole that the rest of us now have to support. But yes, I understand it is possible to gamble responsibly, and we have lots of people right here. ?


Wow, have to say that argument is a complete 180 from anything that makes any sense logically. (And I think you were throwing it out there more than you really believe it) How about the responsible are allowed to anything that has the potential to hurt nobody but themselves without the nanny state looking out for the irresponsible who can’t handle that activity? And even better how about the public dole not support those who throw their life savings away?

Current US law: Prostitution between consenting adults, gambling your own money, taking drugs with your own body all illegal. Using responsible peoples' money to help lazy people stay lazy, legal. (Bullshit reason given for all three. What about the children!?!?!)

Alternate: Activities between consenting adults legal. Churchgoers (society as a whole I guess but let’s not be naive about why these three things are illegal) decide morality of their own church members, not the government. You keep the money you earn and lazy pieces of shit get jobs.



Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2147704)
If they legalized the online poker sites, how many do you think would REALLY move to the US? With all the scandals in the ones that are out there now, how would moving to the US and closer to the authorities be a good thing for these folks? What makes you think they'd actually start paying any noticeable taxes?


I think most people would move instantly to a US site. I don't drink bootlegger whiskey or look at underground porn, why would I gamble in the Caribbean if an alternative existed in the US? And I have an easy solution for this if the US ever did legalize online gambling. Use the power of the government to crush the overseas players who don’t pay taxes and "convince" them to play at US sites.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-19-2009 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2147704)
If they legalized the online poker sites, how many do you think would REALLY move to the US? With all the scandals in the ones that are out there now, how would moving to the US and closer to the authorities be a good thing for these folks? What makes you think they'd actually start paying any noticable taxes?


The scandals are occurring due to a lack of regulation. That regulation would be required if there were sites based in the States. The major hang-up for many casual players has always been the lack of oversight and control of the sites. The industry would explode if U.S. sites became a reality. There are many casinos in the U.S. just chomping at the bit to provide sites that use cross-promotion to help their bottom line and their casino.

Marc Vaughan 10-19-2009 10:49 PM

Quote:

Wow, have to say that argument is a complete 180 from anything that makes any sense logically. (And I think you were throwing it out there more than you really believe it) How about the responsible are allowed to anything that has the potential to hurt nobody but themselves without the nanny state looking out for the irresponsible who can’t handle that activity?

So you want Heroin legalised I presume then? ... after all it only affects the people taking it (no nasty second hand smoke like cigarettes) ....

panerd 10-19-2009 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2148224)
So you want Heroin legalised I presume then? ... after all it only affects the people taking it (no nasty second hand smoke like cigarettes) ....



Sure, why not? What is your reason for it being illegal? Morality? Not good enough for me. The children? Please. Because it is so hard for people to get right now due to the fact it is illegal? Where is the roll eyes smiley? Seriously why do you care what kind of drugs someone else does in the privacy of their own home? MBBF already stated what I also believe in... there are laws on the books for selling to a minor, possesion by a minor, operating a vechicle under the influence or for being disorderly. Why make heroin (or cocaine, or meth, etc) any worse than alcohol?

If it were legal I wouldn't go do it. Is that all that is stopping you from trying it?

panerd 10-19-2009 11:12 PM

And thats just from a personal liberty standpoint. If you want political reasons than explain to me with a straight face how anyone can debate the US government's side on the war on drugs?

RainMaker 10-20-2009 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2148224)
So you want Heroin legalised I presume then? ... after all it only affects the people taking it (no nasty second hand smoke like cigarettes) ....

It's funny you mention heroin. Heroin is actually in and of itself not that bad for you. It doesn't destroy the body like other drugs or pose any serious risks when taken responsibly. It's much easier on the body than smoking a cigarretes, drinking a beer, or snorting cocaine. In fact, it was used for many years as a pain killer that didn't harm the body.

Almost all the negative aspects to one's health come from the fact that it's illegal. Bad cuts, dirty needles, and mixing it with alcohol or other drugs are what get you most of the deaths. The fact that it's illegal causes it to be more difficult to obtain and more desperation by the user to get it. I would bet that if alcohol or cigarettes were legal, we'd have a lot of more issues with addicts causing trouble than we do today.

Heroin is still highly addictive and your can build up a tolerance to it quickly. The same can be said for alcohol though. You can take too much and slow your breathing down too much (just as I could pop too much Aspirin or drink too much Vodka).

I'm not saying that it should be legal, just that a lot of the problems you see with heroin users are caused by the fact that it is illegal. That if you had to take the choice of doing a lot of cocaine or a lot of heroin, you'd be much safer choosing heroin.

Edit: And no I've never taken Heroin and never intend to do so.

Dutch 10-20-2009 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2148365)
It's funny you mention heroin. Heroin is actually in and of itself not that bad for you. It doesn't destroy the body like other drugs or pose any serious risks when taken responsibly. It's much easier on the body than smoking a cigarretes, drinking a beer, or snorting cocaine. In fact, it was used for many years as a pain killer that didn't harm the body.

Edit: And no I've never taken Heroin and never intend to do so.


I'm assuming the answer to this is because it's "street modified"? If it were pure heroin you would take part?

EDIT: Not trying to play "gotcha" btw...just wondering.

RainMaker 10-20-2009 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2148368)
I'm assuming the answer to this is because it's "street modified"? If it were pure heroin you would take part?

EDIT: Not trying to play "gotcha" btw...just wondering.

No, because it's highly addictive and an expensive habit to have.

I didn't mean for it to come out that it was a good thing to do. I was just pointing out that from a pure physical standpoint, heroin doesn't really have any negative impact on the body. Cocaine will screw up your heart, smoking your lungs, and alcohol your liver, but Heroin doesn't screw up anything on its own.

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2148637)
No, because it's highly addictive and an expensive habit to have.

I didn't mean for it to come out that it was a good thing to do. I was just pointing out that from a pure physical standpoint, heroin doesn't really have any negative impact on the body. Cocaine will screw up your heart, smoking your lungs, and alcohol your liver, but Heroin doesn't screw up anything on its own.


I know very little about heroin, but can't you overdose on it and can't that overdose kill you?

Kodos 10-20-2009 12:38 PM

Yes, but then you just become a zombie and feast upon the living.

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 2148646)
Yes, but then you just become a zombie and feast upon the living.


Ah, well that's okay then. Can heroinzombies at least lose their driver's license?

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2009 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2148637)
No, because it's highly addictive and an expensive habit to have.

I didn't mean for it to come out that it was a good thing to do. I was just pointing out that from a pure physical standpoint, heroin doesn't really have any negative impact on the body. Cocaine will screw up your heart, smoking your lungs, and alcohol your liver, but Heroin doesn't screw up anything on its own.


Well, that's a overgeneralized version of what can happen.

Quote:

Medical consequences of chronic heroin abuse include scarred and/or collapsed veins, bacterial infections of the blood vessels and heart valves, abscesses (boils) and other soft-tissue infections, and liver or kidney disease. Lung complications (including various types of pneumonia and tuberculosis) may result from the poor health condition of the abuser as well as from heroin's depressing effects on respiration.

The supression of heart and lung function is a major issue. The constant use of even clean needles can also led to cardiovascular issues along with the possibility of foreign bodies entering the bloodstream through the resulting needle injection site.

RainMaker 10-20-2009 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148644)
I know very little about heroin, but can't you overdose on it and can't that overdose kill you?

It is rare to die from a strictly heroin overdose. Those that do die are mixing it with other drugs or alcohol, which is technically not an overdose (although the media and such call it one).

RainMaker 10-20-2009 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2148648)
The supression of heart and lung function is a major issue. The constant use of even clean needles can also led to cardiovascular issues along with the possibility of foreign bodies entering the bloodstream through the resulting needle injection site.

The heart and lung supression can happen with just about any drug out there in high enough doses. You can get the same effect from overdosing on Aspirin.

And the needle issue is not from the heroin. It's from the injecting of it into the body using needles. The heroin is not causing those issues which is all that I'm pointing out.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2009 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2148657)
The heart and lung supression can happen with just about any drug out there in high enough doses. You can get the same effect from overdosing on Aspirin.

And the needle issue is not from the heroin. It's from the injecting of it into the body using needles. The heroin is not causing those issues which is all that I'm pointing out.


In related news, it's not the lighting of a cigarette that can kill you. It's the actual inhalation of the smoke that's the problem.

RainMaker 10-20-2009 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2148663)
In related news, it's not the lighting of a cigarette that can kill you. It's the actual inhalation of the smoke that's the problem.

The smoke is part of the product though in a way. I don't think you can make that comparision.

I'm strictly talking the chemical properties of the drug. Not the needles and not how it works with other drugs. When you compare what heroin does to the body physically, it is much safer than many OTC drugs and widely prescribed ones as well.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2009 02:20 PM

This whole Fox News thing just keeps getting bigger. Booting them from the White House coverage pool as administration officials are suggesting would be unprecedented.

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints - Political News - FOXNews.com

Flasch186 10-20-2009 02:24 PM

I too however agree that opinion shows and News should not be mixed. Pick one and that goes to ALL media outlets.

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2148708)
I too however agree that opinion shows and News should not be mixed. Pick one and that goes to ALL media outlets.


Would that include scrapping the opinion pages/editorials from newspapers too?

Flasch186 10-20-2009 02:36 PM

No. If a TV opinion show on a News channel had maybe a disclaimer at the top on it like the Editorial or Opinion page does I think I might be alright with that.

molson 10-20-2009 02:36 PM

It's really a pretty new idea that news organizations aren't supposed to have opinions.

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2148717)
No. If a TV opinion show on a News channel had maybe a disclaimer at the top on it like the Editorial or Opinion page does I think I might be alright with that.


Do we really need to be saved from ourselves that badly? You don't think Americans are capable, by and large, of figuring out the difference between a news show and an opinion show?

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2148718)
It's really a pretty new idea that news organizations aren't supposed to have opinions.


Couric does editorials on the CBS Evening News, doesn't she? That's a real question btw... I never watch her, but I hear her commentaries run on WTOP here in the D.C. area.

The White House is complaining about Fox's 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, but they gave Ed Schultz (who's now on MSNBC at 6 p.m.) a front row seat to a prime time news conference. This isn't about the White House trying to hold the media to a high standard or to differentiate between news and opinion. This is the White House targeting the most watched news network in the United States because the administration doesn't like what Fox has to say, and I think it's a political misstep for the administration.

DaddyTorgo 10-20-2009 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148732)
Do we really need to be saved from ourselves that badly? You don't think Americans are capable, by and large, of figuring out the difference between a news show and an opinion show?


honestly - no i don't think they can

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2148742)
honestly - no i don't think they can


If that's the case, I officially call for an end to universal sufferage. If someone can't tell the difference, they don't get to vote. :)

RainMaker 10-20-2009 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148716)
Would that include scrapping the opinion pages/editorials from newspapers too?

Editorial pages are usually clearly noted as editorials.

The O'Reilly, Hannitty, Beck stuff is what it is, pundits who will say and do what they have to for ratings. I don't have a problem with that as I hope a lot of people can figure out that it's not real news. Fox is right on this issue that thoese are not to be considered part of the news team. Obama has no right to criticize those shows unless he's going to criticize MSNBC and CNN for doing the same.

My issue would be with the news side. Carl Cameron is the Chief White House Correspondent. His wife worked in the campaign to elect George Bush and had a history of fabricating quotes from Democrats. You have people like Karl Rove who are called "political analyst" or a blanket "contributor". Guys like Griff Jenkins who is acting as a journalist on scene. You have a history of dubious mistakes in reporting when it comes to Republican scandals (odd how they always make the mistake of listing them as a Democrat).

But what might be worse than those is creating news. The producer who riled up the crowd at tea party rallies to make it look like it was more active. The election day Black Panther story that was made to seem like a coup was taking place. The embelishment of numbers and facts to make a story or event look bigger than it was (or the reverse).

I think you can make the case these days that no Cable News network really passes as "news" these days. Unless knowing what Jon & Kate had for lunch is "news". Or telling me what homeboi4384 thinks of some story on Twitter is "news" (thanks CNN!). But I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Fox News isn't a news source. It has elements of one, but probably falls somewhere in the middle of news and entertainment. When you look at the shows that bring in its ratings, it is probably closer to entertainment.

Ronnie Dobbs2 10-20-2009 03:01 PM

Is there any way to extricate opinion from news, and has there ever been?

RainMaker 10-20-2009 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2148748)
Is there any way to extricate opinion from news, and has there ever been?

Probably not. In any reporting, there has to be some editorial discretion.

Take a football game which not many people would look at as something that can have bias. A writer needs to use his discretion to determine what quotes are most important, what plays were most meaningful, and what stats stood out.

I think it's always in shades of grey. My biggest issue is when stories are made to be bigger than they are (swine flu) or when the media is simply creating a story.

JPhillips 10-20-2009 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2148706)
This whole Fox News thing just keeps getting bigger. Booting them from the White House coverage pool as administration officials are suggesting would be unprecedented.

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints - Political News - FOXNews.com


You must have access to invisible quotes. I can't find anything in that story where an admin official suggests booting Fox from the coverage pool.

JPhillips 10-20-2009 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148732)
Do we really need to be saved from ourselves that badly? You don't think Americans are capable, by and large, of figuring out the difference between a news show and an opinion show?


I don't have a problem with the mixing of news and opinion, but I also don't have a problem with calling it out for what it is. The problem with today's brand of opinion shows, not just those on Fox, is that they purposefully are a mix of both, but prefer to hide behind the safety of saying they're just opinion. Olberman, Maddow, Hannity, Beck, etc. like to provide news and certainly like to be seen as the arbiters of truth, but when called out they like to hide behind the curtain of opinion.

DaddyTorgo 10-20-2009 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148746)
If that's the case, I officially call for an end to universal sufferage. If someone can't tell the difference, they don't get to vote. :)


Works for me!

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2148747)
Editorial pages are usually clearly noted as editorials.

The O'Reilly, Hannitty, Beck stuff is what it is, pundits who will say and do what they have to for ratings. I don't have a problem with that as I hope a lot of people can figure out that it's not real news. Fox is right on this issue that thoese are not to be considered part of the news team. Obama has no right to criticize those shows unless he's going to criticize MSNBC and CNN for doing the same.

My issue would be with the news side. Carl Cameron is the Chief White House Correspondent. His wife worked in the campaign to elect George Bush and had a history of fabricating quotes from Democrats. You have people like Karl Rove who are called "political analyst" or a blanket "contributor". Guys like Griff Jenkins who is acting as a journalist on scene. You have a history of dubious mistakes in reporting when it comes to Republican scandals (odd how they always make the mistake of listing them as a Democrat).

But what might be worse than those is creating news. The producer who riled up the crowd at tea party rallies to make it look like it was more active. The election day Black Panther story that was made to seem like a coup was taking place. The embelishment of numbers and facts to make a story or event look bigger than it was (or the reverse).

I think you can make the case these days that no Cable News network really passes as "news" these days. Unless knowing what Jon & Kate had for lunch is "news". But I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Fox News isn't a news source. It has elements of one, but probably falls somewhere in the middle of news and entertainment.


All right, to take your complaints in order: If you're going to be upset with Fox News calling Karl Rove a "political analyst", then I think you'd be more upset with ABC News having George Stephanpolous anchoring "This Week". People move from the political side to the news side all the time, just like former athletes have a tendency to pop up as analysts on ESPN. You may not like that it happens, but it's hardly like Fox News is the only one who does it.

I really don't watch Fox News enough to get the Griff Jenkins comment.. I see from Wikipedia that he's a "television and radio personality who is a producer for Fox News Channel." Carl Cameron being married to a partisan political operative isn't that unusual for D.C. Howard Kurtz of CNN's Reliable Sources is married to a Republican political operative. Christiane Amanpour is married to Obama advisor James Rubin. Going outside of marriage, it would not be unusual at all to find reporters/editors/producers/hosts who are close friends with political figures, or people who work for campaigns.

As for making news bigger or smaller than what it really is, I think every news network is going to be guilty of that (remember Dan Rather's faked memos in 2004?). As you say, you can make the case that no cable news network is really "news" today. But if that is the case (and after the Balloon Boy fiasco, I'd be inclined to agree with you), then calling out Fox News isn't about holding the network to the same high standard of other networks. It's picking on the most watched news network for ideological reasons.

gstelmack 10-20-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2148747)
The O'Reilly, Hannitty, Beck stuff is what it is, pundits who will say and do what they have to for ratings. I don't have a problem with that as I hope a lot of people can figure out that it's not real news. Fox is right on this issue that thoese are not to be considered part of the news team. Obama has no right to criticize those shows unless he's going to criticize MSNBC and CNN for doing the same.

My issue would be with the news side. Carl Cameron is the Chief White House Correspondent. His wife worked in the campaign to elect George Bush and had a history of fabricating quotes from Democrats. You have people like Karl Rove who are called "political analyst" or a blanket "contributor". Guys like Griff Jenkins who is acting as a journalist on scene. You have a history of dubious mistakes in reporting when it comes to Republican scandals (odd how they always make the mistake of listing them as a Democrat).

But what might be worse than those is creating news. The producer who riled up the crowd at tea party rallies to make it look like it was more active. The election day Black Panther story that was made to seem like a coup was taking place. The embelishment of numbers and facts to make a story or event look bigger than it was (or the reverse).

I think you can make the case these days that no Cable News network really passes as "news" these days. Unless knowing what Jon & Kate had for lunch is "news". Or telling me what homeboi4384 thinks of some story on Twitter is "news" (thanks CNN!). But I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Fox News isn't a news source. It has elements of one, but probably falls somewhere in the middle of news and entertainment. When you look at the shows that bring in its ratings, it is probably closer to entertainment.


Let's not forget that CBS has a long history of making news up, including such tidbits as placing rockets on pickups to make sure they'd blow up on camera, to Dan Rather spreading around the anti-Bush forged docs.

And to go along with your first paragraph, NPR ran Franken for a long-time, who goes right along with the guys you mention, so let's ban NPR as well.

gstelmack 10-20-2009 03:52 PM

Or just read Cam's response and ignore mine...

CamEdwards 10-20-2009 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2148763)
I don't have a problem with the mixing of news and opinion, but I also don't have a problem with calling it out for what it is. The problem with today's brand of opinion shows, not just those on Fox, is that they purposefully are a mix of both, but prefer to hide behind the safety of saying they're just opinion. Olberman, Maddow, Hannity, Beck, etc. like to provide news and certainly like to be seen as the arbiters of truth, but when called out they like to hide behind the curtain of opinion.


Perhaps we need a new phrase for these types of shows. Edutainment?

BTW, I think Jon Stewart and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Colbert do the same thing, only they hide behind the curtain of "this is a comedy show!"

JPhillips 10-20-2009 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2148780)
Let's not forget that CBS has a long history of making news up, including such tidbits as placing rockets on pickups to make sure they'd blow up on camera, to Dan Rather spreading around the anti-Bush forged docs.

And to go along with your first paragraph, NPR ran Franken for a long-time, who goes right along with the guys you mention, so let's ban NPR as well.


The truck thing was NBC. What do you mean by ran Franken? I don't think he ever had a show on NPR, did he?

JPhillips 10-20-2009 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148779)
All right, to take your complaints in order: If you're going to be upset with Fox News calling Karl Rove a "political analyst", then I think you'd be more upset with ABC News having George Stephanpolous anchoring "This Week". People move from the political side to the news side all the time, just like former athletes have a tendency to pop up as analysts on ESPN. You may not like that it happens, but it's hardly like Fox News is the only one who does it.

I really don't watch Fox News enough to get the Griff Jenkins comment.. I see from Wikipedia that he's a "television and radio personality who is a producer for Fox News Channel." Carl Cameron being married to a partisan political operative isn't that unusual for D.C. Howard Kurtz of CNN's Reliable Sources is married to a Republican political operative. Christiane Amanpour is married to Obama advisor James Rubin. Going outside of marriage, it would not be unusual at all to find reporters/editors/producers/hosts who are close friends with political figures, or people who work for campaigns.

As for making news bigger or smaller than what it really is, I think every news network is going to be guilty of that (remember Dan Rather's faked memos in 2004?). As you say, you can make the case that no cable news network is really "news" today. But if that is the case (and after the Balloon Boy fiasco, I'd be inclined to agree with you), then calling out Fox News isn't about holding the network to the same high standard of other networks. It's picking on the most watched news network for ideological reasons.


Was Cameron the guy that filed the fake Kerry story or was that a different Fox reporter?

Flasch186 10-20-2009 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148786)
Perhaps we need a new phrase for these types of shows. Edutainment?

BTW, I think Jon Stewart and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Colbert do the same thing, only they hide behind the curtain of "this is a comedy show!"


Well it is on Comedy Central.

I think having News in the name of the channel or show is the first gate to get through.

After that I think it probably is a slippery slope BUT I definitely think an hour long show of editorial commentary ought to have my banner at the top.

JPhillips 10-20-2009 04:29 PM

The problem with Fox is that it's set itself up as the opposition to Obama. They can do that, but they lose any veneer of objective news at that point. When the head of the network sees them as the Alamo, they become a political organization little different from the RNC or National Chamber of Commerce.

Every network has conflicts and poor journalistic practices to some degree, but what sets Fox apart is it's willingness to see itself as having a mission to defeat a political opponent.

molson 10-20-2009 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2148801)

Every network has conflicts and poor journalistic practices to some degree, but what sets Fox apart is it's willingness to see itself as having a mission to defeat a political opponent.


And they're allowed to do it - the real story here is why the white house feels it has a role in this. Why are they suddenly the arbiter of what's news and what's not?

RainMaker 10-20-2009 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148779)
All right, to take your complaints in order: If you're going to be upset with Fox News calling Karl Rove a "political analyst", then I think you'd be more upset with ABC News having George Stephanpolous anchoring "This Week". People move from the political side to the news side all the time, just like former athletes have a tendency to pop up as analysts on ESPN. You may not like that it happens, but it's hardly like Fox News is the only one who does it.

I know other networks do it and it sucks. I think the Stephanopolous situation is a little different as he's just hosting a show.

I'm more upset with the passing off of these people as impartial observers. They'll have a story about health care reform and bring in Karl Rove to give his analysis on the events of the day. Now you're just going to get the Republican talking points here which is fine, but it should be stated beforehand that this is the Republican view of the events, not a general view of what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148779)
I really don't watch Fox News enough to get the Griff Jenkins comment.. I see from Wikipedia that he's a "television and radio personality who is a producer for Fox News Channel." Carl Cameron being married to a partisan political operative isn't that unusual for D.C. Howard Kurtz of CNN's Reliable Sources is married to a Republican political operative. Christiane Amanpour is married to Obama advisor James Rubin. Going outside of marriage, it would not be unusual at all to find reporters/editors/producers/hosts who are close friends with political figures, or people who work for campaigns.

I agree that there are massive conflicts of interest. I don't think Kurtz is as big as he isn't really giving analysis on a topic and is a host of the show (it's a show about the media). Amanpour has one and I think it's fair to criticize that. I think should do their best to avoid situations where their reporters areI think news organizations reporting on issues that pose a conflict (I'm not sure if Amanpour is in that situation too much).

Cameron was the Chief White House correspondent. I just don't know how you can be impartial when your wife is literally employed by the guy you are interviewing. The Jenkins guy is just one of many. It isn't to knock him personally, it's just the use of partisian people as on-site reporters.

All networks do it but I do think Fox News does go farther on this than other outlets. I would also blame politicians for cherry-picking these interviews that they know are on their home turf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148779)
As for making news bigger or smaller than what it really is, I think every news network is going to be guilty of that (remember Dan Rather's faked memos in 2004?). As you say, you can make the case that no cable news network is really "news" today. But if that is the case (and after the Balloon Boy fiasco, I'd be inclined to agree with you), then calling out Fox News isn't about holding the network to the same high standard of other networks. It's picking on the most watched news network for ideological reasons.

CBS didn't fake the memos themselves, they just didn't authenticate them. It's still a good example. There were a lot of firings from the ordeal as well as careers ruined. It has forever tarnished Dan Rather.

But what happened with CBS is run-of-the-mill for these cable news outlets. They have a memo-gate almost daily. They "accidentally" put a D instead of an R during almost every major scandal. They let some loudmouth shoot off made up numbers and treat it as fact. No one is fired for these things. Rarely are people punished.

The Daily Show did a great piece mocking CNN for not once fact checking any of their guests over the course of a week. They let people just make up numbers on the air but then wanted to factcheck an SNL skit. But the Daily Show bit summed up what cable news is. Just a forum for people to voice opinions on the daily topics. That is why I can't consider any of those networks news. CBS fucked up by not authenticating that document, but these cable networks allow people to fling bullshit 24 hours a day with no punishment.

RainMaker 10-20-2009 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2148797)
Was Cameron the guy that filed the fake Kerry story or was that a different Fox reporter?

He filed a couple with fake quotes. One of them he ended up saying was an "internal joke" that wasn't meant to be published. That explanation didn't make sense.

I don't know how you can claim to be a news network and not immediately fire a reporter for fabricating a story or quotes.

RainMaker 10-20-2009 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2148786)
Perhaps we need a new phrase for these types of shows. Edutainment?

BTW, I think Jon Stewart and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Colbert do the same thing, only they hide behind the curtain of "this is a comedy show!"

But the shows are on Comedy Central. They aren't trying to be a news show. They aren't running ads claiming to have great reporting and digging for the truth. Half of the show is literally fake news. I just don't see how you can compare a show on these cable news outlets to the Daily Show.

I mean is Chris Rock on the same level as Sean Hannitty if he discusses current political events in his routine on HBO?

JPhillips 10-20-2009 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2148810)
And they're allowed to do it - the real story here is why the white house feels it has a role in this. Why are they suddenly the arbiter of what's news and what's not?


Of course they have a right to do it. Nobody is trying to close Fox, they're just getting called out for being at least as much of a political operation as a news operation. I don't think it's the best use of the admin's authority, but as I've said repeatedly, this sort of fight with a media outlet is pretty standard fare at least since Nixon.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.