It's almost that time again: Election Night 2012!!!!!

[vchimpanzee]

Remember that the voters gave FDR three terms to clear up the Great Depression -- and then re-elected him *again* in 1944 after the Depression was over -- and then elected his VP in 1948. The difference IMHO is, that the Great Depression hit at the *beginning* of a GOP term. The Americans of 1932 knew what the economy would look like with a depression under a GOP government; they had three years' experience.

The Americans of 2012 don't have that experience.

I've heard it said that FDR didn't end the Depression. Hitler did.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Personally, when I saw the Fox News Channel coverage I was seeing how much delusional Karl Rove was starting to act after the results came in. No offense Karl but if I want accuracy I'll turn to Nate Silver.

I prefer Erin Silver.

 

[dhett]

I feel like we should be taking all of the reporters and pundits to task at each and every network for the laundry list of questions and/or policies that were not addressed during the campaign:

the fiscal cliff
climate change and the respective candidates "solutions"
the Federal Reserve and monetary policy
the Drug War, Mexico and border security

The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone can maintain a straight face and say the mainstream media is biased, when it appears they've all but given up even trying.

I don't know - the mainstream media were pretty active when the issue was Mitt Romney bullying someone in HS, or riding with the dog in a kennel on the roof of the car. It's been pretty selective coverage from where I sit.

 

[landtuna]

Remember that the voters gave FDR three terms to clear up the Great Depression -- and then re-elected him *again* in 1944 after the Depression was over -- and then elected his VP in 1948. The difference IMHO is, that the Great Depression hit at the *beginning* of a GOP term. The Americans of 1932 knew what the economy would look like with a depression under a GOP government; they had three years' experience.

The voters elected FDR in 1932 and then again in '36 - either or both of those elections could be considered for the purpose of "cleaning up the Depression". However, by the election of 1940 war was raging in Europe and in parts of Asia and the coming war with Japan was generally assumed. The Depression was largely over as manufacturing ramped up to supply our allies and by 1944 was history.

I've heard it said that FDR didn't end the Depression. Hitler did.

There is some truth to that statement.

The New Deal did implement many strategies to address the Depression but it probably would have lasted longer than it did had not war broken out in Europe and Asia. Military spending picked up in the mid-30's in response to Hitler's election and continued issues with Japan's invasions of Manchuria and China but it was Hitler's attack on France and the Low Countries that sparked an all-out race to bring American military forces up to speed after their decimation following WWI.

 

[Silkie]

Good piece of historical information there.

 

[LKellerIII]

I feel like we should be taking all of the reporters and pundits to task at each and every network for the laundry list of questions and/or policies that were not addressed during the campaign:

the fiscal cliff
climate change and the respective candidates "solutions"
the Federal Reserve and monetary policy
the Drug War, Mexico and border security

The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone can maintain a straight face and say the mainstream media is biased, when it appears they've all but given up even trying.

I don't know - the mainstream media were pretty active when the issue was Mitt Romney bullying someone in HS, or riding with the dog in a kennel on the roof of the car. It's been pretty selective coverage from where I sit.

I think that's a skewed perception, but I'm not putting you down. It's like when you buy a particular model and color of automobile. You had never particularly noticed duplicates of your car on the streets before, but now that you own one, you see them everywhere constantly.

If we're expecting the media to be biased, we'll find examples of it without trying. I recall that the media were all over the Monica Lewinsky scandal - Bill Clinton looked bad for months. So it seemed to me that the media were "after" Clinton.

So whether it's "sexual relations with that woman" or Mitt strapping his dog to the roof of the car, what the media are really after is a BIG LURID STORY - regardless of whether the subject of the story is liberal or conservative.

And to justpassingthrough's point - I think he's right. Stories like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph are low hanging fruit, and unfortunately, people like sensationalism. Doing in-depth investigative reports on the fiscal cliff or the drug war are HARD and take require lots of resources, like statistical analysts, researchers, and fact-checkers. This becomes a problem in an age when media resources are being slashed - newspapers going out of business, TV networks cutting news staff, etc. As great as the internet is, the web hasn't really picked up the journalistic ball and run with it. The majority of "news" websites mostly aggregate stories from the near-bankrupt "old" media. And talk about biased - many websites don't even try to be objective, as in Huffington Post (liberal), the Drudge Report (conservative), and so on.

So the media take the easy way out. And the unfortunate fact is, complicated stories bore and confuse many people who would rather be watching TMZ. At least that's my theory.

 

[dhett]

So the media take the easy way out. And the unfortunate fact is, complicated stories bore and confuse many people who would rather be watching TMZ. At least that's my theory.

Let me start by agreeing with you here. A lot of people want nothing but bread and circuses, and the media (and the government) are more than happy to provide those because it's easy.

And talk about biased - many websites don't even try to be objective, as in Huffington Post (liberal), the Drudge Report (conservative), and so on.

While I'm in such an agreeable mood, I'll give you an amen here as well. The "new media" is critical to combatting bias, but too many sites are content to run with unsubstantiated rumors. Journalism is as lacking in the new media as it is in the old media.

I don't know - the mainstream media were pretty active when the issue was Mitt Romney bullying someone in HS, or riding with the dog in a kennel on the roof of the car. It's been pretty selective coverage from where I sit.

I think that's a skewed perception, but I'm not putting you down. It's like when you buy a particular model and color of automobile. You had never particularly noticed duplicates of your car on the streets before, but now that you own one, you see them everywhere constantly.

If we're expecting the media to be biased, we'll find examples of it without trying. I recall that the media were all over the Monica Lewinsky scandal - Bill Clinton looked bad for months. So it seemed to me that the media were "after" Clinton.

Likewise, if we're denying bias in the media, we'll explain it away no matter how egregious. Not surprisingly, I believe that my perception is accurate.

 

[landtuna]

A lot of people want nothing but bread and circuses, and the media (and the government) are more than happy to provide those because it's easy.

WHOA! Someone has been reading up on the Roman Empire. ;D But that has always been true and in most every country ever existing.

What is different now is the speed of communication. Never before has the capability existed for one person to publish across the entire world with the push of a button. This is good and bad and we all know why by now. Unfortunately, it also provides a basis for each of us to take in the story and if we agree with it no bias exists but should we disagree with it.....you know the rest.

In the old days we had time to evaluate different slants on a particular story but the news cycle now is almost too fast to do that unless you do not much of anything else except read 'breaking' stories.

I'm retired and somewhat of a news junkie so I read a lot of different accounts and I must confess, I don't see a lot of differences between them. Some are more up-to-date than others but none of the true news accounts could really considered to be 'biased' in the political sense of the word. The op-ed people may prove their value with more in-depth accounts of a specific story but they also tend to write with a purpose other than pure reporting in mind so I don't pay much attention to them until the story fades and a historical perspective is written.

 

[LKellerIII]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, dhett. I'm not saying you're wrong. I think I mentioned that I've noticed a conservative lean from Jake Tapper - I guess because he seems to be harder on liberal politicians than the conservative ones. I could be wrong - maybe he's personally liberal and over-compensating.

I think it's fair to say that the majority of reporters are personally liberal. So it must be hard for them to stay objective and never let their bias cloud their judgment in picking stories. I know it would be hard for me.

But I don't believe there's any liberal media conspiracy to slant the news to the left, or ignore negative stories about liberals, while promoting negative stories on conservatives.

IMO - Romney was his own worst enemy. The dog on the roof story aside, Mitt often said things that made him look bad, when he should have known cameras were rolling. The most egregious example being his "47 percent" remarks. Talk about damaging! That was probably the moment he blew Ohio and Florida.

Obama did it a couple of times too (telling Medvedev that he could help him after he was re-elected, not to mention the "you didn't build that" speech). Those Obama gaffes were widely reported by the media. But Romney was especially adept at stepping on his own tongue, as were the people who ran his campaign (remember "Etch-A-Sketch"). That guy should have been fired immediately.