Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (542887)	1/11/2010 2:02:53 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574758

If the tv channels start doing fact checking on politicians, Rs are road kill! You read it here first. IN DEFENSE OF FACT-CHECKING.... Jay Rosen's modest proposal for more fact-checking on television news programs seems to be generating some worthwhile discussions. We saw one yesterday on CNN's "Reliable Sources," when host Howard Kurtz returned to the subject. Kurtz noted a couple of major-league lies from last week, highlighting Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) obviously false claim that President Obama refuses to use the word "terrorism," and Rudy Giuliani's (R) claim that there were no domestic terror attacks during the Bush/Cheney era. He noted that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow presented reality to her viewers, prompting Kurtz to ask whether "television need do more of that." If we're voting, put me down for a "yes." Kurtz noted, "I've been in a situation where people have made charges in an interview, and I don't have the facts to challenge them at that moment. I'm talking about coming back later and doing that." Now, I'm not unsympathetic to media professionals who don't always realize when a politician is lying -- journalists can't know everything. But it's worth noting that the reporters asking the questions have to know at least a little more about the subject at hand. In theory, it's their job. After DeMint starting telling his favorite lie last week, for example, there were widespread reports online documenting how false his claim was. He kept repeating the lie anyway, and media interviewers seemed completely unaware of reality. (I'm not saying every high-paid media professional should be as quick, informed, and intelligent as Rachel Maddow ... but our discourse would be less stupid if they were.) But Kurtz's other point -- that networks can come back later and do fact-checking -- is the angle of note here. He asked Amanda Carpenter of the admittedly right-wing Washington Times about this, and she suggested network fact-checking is unnecessary: "I mean, there's a number of blogs on each side of the political who go through these shows line by line." To which Kurtz responded, "Exactly. And I'm saying why leave it entirely to the blogs? Why don't television producers and correspondents do it themselves?" The discussion ended there, but Kurtz's questions have real merit. In recent years, the media has created a truly bizarre dynamic -- news consumers who want to hear a bunch of politicians make a lot of claims can watch television news interviews, and news consumers who want to know if those claims are accurate can go online. At that point, television news stops informing the public, and simply becomes literally nothing more than a conduit for talking points and pretty pictures. Viewers who want to learn accurate information about current events are told they must go elsewhere -- it's not CNN's job to tell you the facts; it's CNN's job to tell you what "both sides" think about the facts. In theory, if major media outlets started caring about fact-checking, fewer people might turn to blogs like this one. At this point, though, I think the benefits for the discourse would be worth the risk. I talked to Amanda Carpenter via email today, and she reminds me that she actually likes the fact-check idea, but as the video clip notes, she's concerned "that some fact-checks are more like opinion checks."

To: i-node who wrote (542887)	1/12/2010 11:45:04 AM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574758

That's the problem with cap and trade, it can lead to abuses. No question about that. It's no secret that Enron was pushing hard for Cap and Trade. I wonder why? :) On another note, looks like Obama wants to recoup the cost of the bank bailouts through a tax. I'm all for it. If they are going to abuse tax payers by paying out ridiculous bonuses they got by borrowing at 0% interest rates and investing in US bonds, at taxpayer expense, then I want that money back through higher taxes for them. Obama to target banks with new levy By Tom Braithwaite in Washington Published: January 11 2010 20:55 \| Last updated: January 12 2010 14:50 ft.com The Obama administration is planning to impose a new levy on top US banks, to pay for the financial bail-out as part of the budget to be presented in February. The surcharge will aim to recoup the full cost of the Tarp bail-out fund, which the administration estimates at $120bn, although officials expect the ultimate cost will be less than $100bn.