From President Obama’s January 27 State of the Union speech
Hat tip to Media Matters
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Tag Archives: media
In State of the Union, President Obama Criticizes “TV pundits” for “reducing serious debates to silly arguments”
From President Obama’s January 27 State of the Union speech
Posted by: Audiegrl
His introduction of anchor Katie Couric was replaced Monday by a voiceover featuring actor Morgan Freeman.
The legendary CBS News anchor recorded the introduction, played at the beginning of most newscasts, when Couric started at CBS in 2006. Cronkite’s voice was kept on the air even after his death July 17.
“As comforting as it is to look back on the great career that Walter had, we’re looking forward now and we just felt it was the right time to make the move that at some point had to be made,” said CBS News and Sports President Sean McManus. “This seemed like the appropriate time since Walter’s passing to make the move.”
Having Freeman on board gives CBS the flexibility to record different intros when Couric has special reports and is on location, he said.
CBS has replaced Cronkite with a generic voice over the past few months when it wanted to highlight something special.
Click below to listen
Posted by Guest Contributor Hail To the Chimp
World leaders are meeting to discuss climate change, there are wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is taking away Nobel Peace Prizes from its citizens, the dollar just had its two month high against the Euro, our President just received a Nobel Peace Prize, the stimulas money is making its rounds in the economy, there is a health care debate still going on, there are still federal departments/agencies under continuing resolutions because Congress has not approriated money for FY2010, the economy is in shambles, the House just passed a questionable bill on financial reform, Guantanamo detainees, energy reform, Cap and Trade is being discussed, genocide is still occurring in Darfur, more children in the US are going hungry everyday, unemployment is between 10-19%, foreclosures are still high,…..
And the list goes on, but if you turn on the tube you would think that none of those issues exist or that there are no good stories on American heroes to report………
Every “news” channel is Tiger all the time. Will his wife leave him, can he redeem himself, what about his endorsements – what about John Doe who has been unemployed for 6 months, Cobra benefits are about to expire, is getting more and more calls from collection agencies, is about to lose his home, has to go to food banks to get food to feed his 3 children, has had his car repossessed, and is about to lose his home.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
SNL gets it right. Why is someone who has no responsibilities to the public being covered while politicians who have broken ethics laws, are hypocrites, and just purely being corrupt not covered? Ensign paid off his mistress’ family, Baucus tried to get his girlfriend to be made a US Attorney and only backed down when a reporter scooped him, several Republicans vote against bills knowing their constituents will still get funding for the earmarks they inserted in the bill, but voted against; governors cover up when they have executed innocent people, spouses’ companies get no-bid federal contracts, Congress cannot pass any bill, lets not forget that pesky lie that led to Iraq war…….
This is beyond just turning off the tv and just relying on blogs, research, and actual reporters. What exactly does the corporate media have to gain with this story, but not covering real issues that impact Americans? Why are the same lightweights on TV – David Gregory, John King do not know anything about the issues. They do not even know how to give rebuttals to the lies and spin that politicians give on their infotainment shows.
The 2008 election was about Bush and what he represented anti-intellectualism. The eight year war on science, math, and all–out critical and analytical thought. Sensationalism has always existed to some extent in the media, but there was always a difference between the National Enquirer and the NY Times. All one has to look at is the “op-ed” that someone wrote for Palin that was one of the top 10 reads for the Washington Post for 2009. Really? An “op-ed” that was a dishonest, non-fact supported rant in hope of getting attention. Surely this country can do better, but do we want to do better.
Posted by Guest Contributor Will Johnston from Mind Muse
UPDATE: Looks like I was wrong on this one. While cloture is a motion to end debate, on Saturday the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, not on the bill itself, making the statement that the senate agreed to begin debating the bill a true one. I should have looked more closely!
Time for a quick civics lesson! Countless news agencies are misreporting that yesterday’s Senate vote on the health care bill is a vote to begin debating the bill.
After days of indecision, the last two Democratic holdouts — Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) — joined their caucus in supporting a motion to begin debate.
The Senate voted on Saturday to begin full debate on major health care legislation
the Senate voted to move ahead with a floor debate
These are just a few examples, but you can find countless others on Google News.
They’re all wrong. The Senate voted to invoke cloture, a motion to limit debate on a bill or other matter (i.e. nomination) pending before the Senate.
In olden days, you couldn’t actually ever stop debate on a bill if any Senator wanted to keep talking about it. As you can imagine, this meant that if a couple of Senators were really opposed to something, they could just take turns talking about it until the rest of the Senators caved and moved on to the other things they needed to vote on. In an effort to help move things along, the Senate changed its rules so that if two-thirds of the Senators wanted to end debate, they could do so by invoking cloture. Yes, it sounds a lot like closure, and the two words have very similar meanings. They’re about bringing something to an end.
The bar for invoking cloture was still so high that it was nearly impossible to do. Getting two-thirds of the Senate to agree on everything is like getting two three-year-olds to eat all of their vegetables. In fact, cloture was only invoked five times during the next 46 years. Consequently, the Senate changed its rules to require only three-fifths of the Senators to vote for a cloture motion in order for it to pass.
I hope this little history and civics lesson has helped you understand what the Senate voted on last night. The fact is that the news agencies weren’t reporting what really happened. Cloture takes a bit more to explain well than can be put in a news article about another topic, so they took a shortcut. The party in control of Congress (currently the Democratic Party) sets the agenda and can debate whatever they want. They didn’t have to win a Senate vote to debate health care reform, they had to win a Senate vote to put an end to debating health care reform so they can actually vote on passing the bill.
How do I know so much about cloture? Well, I used to work for a Senator, so I learned a lot about what it was and how it worked. I didn’t really know the history part, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia pointed me to two articles on the Senate website that give the history of cloture.
Op-ed by Frank Rich
New York Times/Frank Rich—At last the American right and left have one issue they unequivocally agree on: You don’t actually have to read Sarah Palin’s book to have an opinion about it. Last Sunday Liz Cheney praised “Going Rogue” as “well-written” on Fox News even though, by her own account, she had sampled only “parts” of it. On Tuesday, Ana Marie Cox, a correspondent for Air America, belittled the book in The Washington Post while confessing that she couldn’t claim to have “completely” read it.
“Going Rogue” will hardly be the first best seller embraced by millions for talismanic rather than literary ends. And I am not recommending that others follow my example and slog through its 400-plus pages, especially since its supposed revelations have been picked through 24/7 for a week. But sometimes I wonder if anyone has read all of what Palin would call the “dang” thing. Some of the book’s most illuminating tics have been mentioned barely — if at all — by either its fans or foes. Palin is far and away the most important brand in American politics after Barack Obama, and attention must be paid. Those who wishfully think her 15 minutes are up are deluding themselves.
The book’s biggest surprise is Palin’s wide-eyed infatuation with show-business celebrities. You get nearly as much face time with Tina Fey and the cast of “Saturday Night Live” in “Going Rogue” as you do with John McCain. We learn how happy Palin was to receive calls from Bono and Warren Beatty “to share ideas and insights.” We wade through star-struck lists of campaign cameos by Robert Duvall, Jon Voight (who “blew us away”), Naomi Judd, Gary Sinise and Kelsey Grammer, among many others. Then there are the acknowledgments at the book’s end, where Palin reveals that her intimacy with media stars is such that she can air-kiss them on a first-name basis, from Greta to Laura to Rush.
Equally revealing is the one boldfaced name conspicuously left unmentioned in the book: Levi Johnston, the father of Palin’s grandchild. Though Palin and McCain milked him for photo ops at the Republican convention, he is persona non grata now that he’s taking off his campaign wardrobe. Is Johnston’s fledgling porn career the problem, or is it his public threats to strip bare Palin family secrets as well? “She knows what I got on her” is how he put it. In Palin’s interview with Oprah last week, it was questioning about Johnston, not Katie Couric, that made her nervous.
The book’s most frequently dropped names, predictably enough, are the Lord and Ronald Reagan (though not necessarily in that order). Easily the most startling passage in “Going Rogue,” running more than two pages, collates extended excerpts from a prayerful letter Palin wrote to mark the birth of Trig, her child with Down syndrome. This missive’s understandable goal was to reassert Palin’s faith and trust in God. But Palin did not write her letter to God; she wrote the letter from God, assuming His role and voice herself and signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” If I may say so — Oy!
Posted by Audiegrl
AP/Christopher Bodeen—Washington’s ambassador to Beijing hit out Friday at negative U.S. media coverage of President Barack Obama’s visit to China, saying it failed to take into account important progress on many issues.
Although producing no breakthroughs on key issues, Obama’s first state visit to the Asian giant that ended Wednesday was heralded by both sides as a success.
The trip was the top news story in China, drawing strong interest from the Chinese public who, surveys suggest, are largely positive in their view of the American president.
However, much of the U.S. media coverage was strongly negative, accusing Obama of failing to gain concessions on key issues such as Iran’s nuclear program and climate change, as well as being weak on human rights.
Ambassador Jon Huntsman said the reports missed the fact that the visit had yielded important progress on cooperation in areas such as clean energy, military-to-military exchanges and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
“I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao,” Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier.
“I’ve got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren’t talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings,” he said.
Huntsman made the comments during a question-and-answer session with Chinese and American students attending an international relations program at elite Peking University.
He said criticism about limited Chinese exposure for Obama’s remarks at a town hall-style meeting with students in Shanghai failed to consider the ubiquity of the Internet and blogging in China, where 350 million people use the Web.
“Go check some time and see how messages bounce around from Web site to Web site and blogger to blogger for a very long period of time and you’ll get a sense of what the communication revolution is all about,” Huntsman said.