Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Joseph Campbell: 'Walter Cronkite Wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Joseph Campbell, talking to Reason Magazine about CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite.

Source:FreeState Now

"It's safe to say that Walter Cronkite was not the most trusted man in America, and it's safe to say he was not even the most trusted man among newsmen," says American University Professor Joseph Campbell, author of "Getting it Wrong".

Campbell says the 1972 survey that gave Cronkite the title of "Most Trusted Man" compared Cronkite with prominent politicians of the time, not newscasters, and so he "inevitably came out on top." He says CBS then used the survey results to promote the network.

"It was a way to tout Walter Cronkite as a source to go to for election coverage among the three networks," says Campbell.

Campbell sat down with ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie to discuss Cronkite and other myths propelled by the media." 

From Reason Magazine 

Whether Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America or not, who knows. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted news anchor in America. Which was more important and easier to judge. He had this saying at the end of the CBS Evening News: “And that’s he way it is." And people believed that, we don’t have that today where a lot of our media is determined by which side of the aisle controls that organization.

The three national network newscasts, on NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as PBS, which people tend to forget or not even be aware of, still report the news based on what they report: “This is what we found and these are the facts in the story, as best we can determine." And I believe they still carry out the Cronkite legacy. (As I would call it that way) Where most of the rest of the news operations, except for C-SPAN and CNN as well, cover the news from a slant from either the right or left.

Opinion news mix in let's call them targeted facts, they’ll give you half the story if that and the rest of it will be commentary. And most of the people they interview share their view of the news and what that means and they’ll interview them to back up their perspective. And when they interview someone from the other side, they do it to contradict that person. With Walter Cronkite and with the PBS NewsHour, you get: “These are the facts” their reporters are reporters whose job it is to find out what’s going on in the country and around the World.

The network news divisions will interview analysts, a lot of times people without political slants who are there to explain what the facts mean. Which is much different from Fox News that’s in the business to give right-wingers a voice in the country and be the spokespeople for the Republican Party. Except for Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, where you get real reporting and real interviews.

And with MSNBC, especially in the prime time, but you can go back to 3PM with Martin Bashir, what you get from them is voices of the so-called progressive movement. They go after Republicans, as well as Democrats when they believe they aren’t what they call progressive enough.

One of the problems with today’s news and why someone like Walter Cronkite wouldn’t be nearly as relevant, if even successful, is that today news is not only mixed in with commentary, but with also entertainment.

People much rather know what Kim Kardashian wore at the last event she went to. Or about Paris Hilton’s latest run in with the law, and not how well the economy grew in the third quarter or April’s jobs numbers. So hard news is a lot harder to sell today with news organizations under the pressure to report everything, not just what’s important. 

ESPN: 'The Fallen Champ- The Untold Story of Mike Tyson'

Source:ESPN- ESPN Classic showing this documentary.

"The Untold Story of Mike Tyson: "The Fallen Champ"......Great Documentary. Mike Tyson The Fallen Champ the untold story documentary, boxing fight knockout documentary compilation highlight. Fedor David Haye, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Juan Manuel Marquez, HBO 24 episode, Vladimir Klitschko Klitchko, Vitali Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Amir Khan, Carl Froch. Video tribute Joe Louis Frazier, Julio Cesar Chavez, Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, Jack Dempsey, Johnson."  

From Ibhof 

"When FALLEN CHAMP first appeared in 1993, director Barbara Kopple won both the Emmy and DGA award, but the film has rarely been screened since then. Now with the upcoming release of James Toback’s film TYSON, the time is right to look back on Kopple’s achievement at covering the subject from multiple perspectives.

Here’s what Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly had to say about the film at the time of its release...  

Source:Stranger Than Fiction- Former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Mike Tyson.

From Stranger Than Fiction

When I think of sports tragedies, I think of baseball players like Darryl Strawberry, Jose Cansesco, Pete Rose, Dwight Gooden, Denny McClain, etc. And In Strawberry and Cansesco's case, both five-tool players who had all the ability to be First Ballot Hall of Famers, but who weren't very disciplined off the field. And both had drug problems as well as injury problems, which had something to do with their lack of discipline as men. In Pete Rose's case, had an incredible great career, because of what he accomplished on the field by that alone, is a First Ballot Hall of Famer.

In Denny McClain's case, the former Detroit Tigers pitcher, who is a former Cy Young Award Winner, in 1968 who won thirty games in a season, who was on course to being a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again had drug and gambling issues and his career was cut short. Because of trouble he got into outside of baseball. 

Dwight Gooden's case, probably the best National League pitcher of the 1980s. A former Cy Young Award winner as well. Again on course to becoming a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again addicted to cocaine that kept him out of baseball for a period.

When I think of boxers who had tragic endings to their careers, who never lived up to their potential, I think of one boxer: Iron Mike Tyson, who dominated the heavyweight division in the late 1980s and that says a lot there. 

Iron Mike wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1986 and was dominant that year, as well as 87, 88 and 89, but loses his World Championship by 1990, to a journeyman, but talented boxer in James Buster Douglas, but never showed the discipline to be a great boxer. Who wins the World Championship by beating Mike Tyson in February, 1990, but loses his championship by November, 1990 to Evander Holyfield. And his career was basically over by then. Mike Tyson, by far the most dominant heavyweight of this 3-4 year period, but loses his championship to an unknown undisciplined boxer in 1990. Who loses the championship just nine months later.

And of course Mike Tyson makes an attempt at a comeback in 1991, with a couple of solid fights against Razor Rudduck. Wins both of them, setting up a potential fight with Evander Holyfield, by 1992. But was no longer the dominant boxer that he was a couple years ago, even though he's only in his mid 20s at this point. But of course that fight never happens because of Iron Mike's rape case in 1992. Where at the very least, Mike is guilty of poor judgement and shouldn't of put himself in that position to begin with. Which makes Mike Tyson's career, what could've been, which is how he'll go down, instead of what a great career he had. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Richard Mourdock: 'Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Supreme Court Decision'

Source:Daily Mail-  U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) who gives new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

Source:FreeState Now

“Politicians are often criticised for using canned responses and working in soundbites.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.”  

From the Daily Mail 

“Richard Mourdock Accidentally Releases Responses to ACA Supreme Court Decision” 

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) giving new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

From Talking Points Memo 

Without Maine and Indiana, as a Democrat I would be worried about Senate Democrats chances of retaining control of the U.S. Senate, just because of the numbers. 23-33 Senators that are up for reelection are Democrats, tight presidential election mostly likely either way. But thanks to the Tea Party and the GOP nominating Tea Party candidates to replace safe Republican Senators (as far as them being able to get reelected in Maine and Indiana) Senator Olympia Snowe not bothering to run for reelection in Maine, because of fears of a Tea Party challenger in the primary. (Thanks Tea Party! A lifetime of Christmas cards are in the mail for you)

And Richard Mourdock a Tea Party candidate knocking out Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, instead of Senate Republicans having to pick up 3-4 seats to take the majority depending on the presidential election, its more like 5-6, because they will lose Maine to either a Democrat or a Democratic leaning Independent.

Indiana which is a swing state to begin with, will now have a Tea Party candidate, going up against a Centrist Democrat. Far-Right or Far-Left candidates don’t get elected statewide in Indiana. This is not Mississippi where it’s common for people to believe that gays are responsible for 9/11, or Barack Obama is a Socialist-Muslim, illegal immigrant, from Kenya. Hoosiers tend to be Independent and centrist, and of sound mind.

Just to cover this video: let’s call him Dick Murdock, because I like how that sounds, instead of Richard Mourdock. It makes him sound like a TV private detective or a pornographer. Which could cost him votes in today’s Ozzie and Harriet Theocratic Republican Party that’s been sleeping in a cave since 1955. And hasn’t figured out yet that it’s actually 2012. But not only will Indiana have a Far-Right Republican to consider, that believes Americans aren’t qualified to determine who represents them in the US Senate, but someone who apparently believes he sees visions and can see the future before it happens.

Dr. Dick supports a Constitutional Amendment that would take our vote for Senate away from us and give that vote to State Legislatures, while speaking about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitution that he wants to amend for U.S. Senate. But a Far-Right Senate candidate that’s also a physic and just had a vision that the Supreme Court will rule that part of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and only throw out parts of it.

I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for or against a physic before. To tell you the truth a physic would have more than a leg up on his or her colleagues that they would serve with. They could say: “Look, we shouldn’t do that, I had a vision that wouldn’t work. And it would be horrible for the country.” They could also say: “You should vote for this bill because I had a vision that this bill would be great for the country.” And the physic would be correct, because they can see into the future. But the truth is the Supreme Court won’t officially rule on the Affordable Care Act until next week. 

Talking Points Memo: The FOX Report- Chris Wallace: 'Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Shepard Smith & Chris Wallace: two actual FNC journalists. 

Source:FreeState Now

"Chris Wallace Calls Interruption By Daily Caller Reporter 'Outrageous"

From Talking Points Memo 

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically. 

HBO Docs: The Weight of The Nation (2012)

Source:HBO Docs- From HBO's documentary Weight of The Nation. 

Source:FreeState Now  

"To win, we have to lose. The four-part HBO Documentary Films series, The Weight of The Nation explores the obesity epidemic in America." 

From HBO Docs

I’m all for cutting our healthcare costs, but doing it in a way that encourages personal responsibility and protects individual freedom. Two reasons why I’m against the NYC soda ban (which is an example of the Nanny State on steroids) it fails both tests, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Because of instead of leaving it up to the people to decide how to take care of themselves, it essentially outlaws a bad habit. Doesn’t eliminate it, just outlaws it. Two different things.

When you outlaw something, you are telling people what you can’t do, whatever it is you are outlawing. Doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means whatever has been outlawed, is now illegal. New Yorkers will still drink those large sodas, but take their tax dollars outside of New York City. 

But when you eliminate something, well guess what happens (I’m speaking basic English here) it goes away, because you eliminated it. So-called Progressives (Neo-Communists, in actuality) have this notion, that you can automatically eliminate bad behavior, by outlawing it, through prohibition. They’ve tried this with alcohol, organized gambling and now caffeine and sugar. Guess what, those things still continue , just done in different places or done illegally.

As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom, as long as you are not hurting innocent people with your freedom. As well as personal responsibility, that is to say we all make choices in life, for good and bad and have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. 

If someone wants to drink soda pop all day, eat nothing but junk food and doesn’t exercise, that’s on them as an adult. But that I and others who don’t make those bad choices and take better care of ourselves, shouldn’t be stuck with cost of John and Jane or whoever who made poor choices with their health.

People who make good decisions with their lives, should be rewarded for them and that people who make poor choices, should be held accountable for their poor decisions. Including the health costs of those bad decisions. Thats what comes from living in a liberal society and not a Nanny State. 

We’ll never have a health care system, where people who can’t afford health care, won’t get it, at least at the emergency room. Americans will always get health care, at least in emergencies. The question is how is it paid for. As much as Libertarians may want so-called free health care to go away. 

But what we can do is force people who have chosen to live unhealthy, a choice they didn’t have to make, to pay for their bad decisions up front. It’s very simple, you tax people for living unhealthy, not prohibiting it, so they can pay up front for the health care that they are going to need later on. As a result of their bad decision-making and you reward people for living healthy. Thats one good way to control our health care costs.

Talking Points Memo: 'The War on Everything'

Source:Talking Points Memo- CNN, doing a report on torture. Hopefully they didn't title it: "The War On Torture" LOL

"The War On Everything"

From Talking Points Memo

There are several words that are overused to the point, that I would almost like to see them disappear. Like a hot song, that sounds great for a the first couple of weeks, but then you get tired of hearing it and a song like that generally comes from a one-hit wonder. Someone like the group Dream, that was big ten years ago or so. With their song Love Me or Love Me Not, I think was the title. But if I had to put a list of lets say the top 5-10 words that are overused in America, going from 1-5, it would now be war, which just recently replaced awesome to me as the most overused word in America.

When I think of war, I think of combat, where people can get hurt or even die. Where lives can even be saved. The Iraqi War comes to mind, the Civil War in Syria would be a another one, the Vietnam War. But if you are not familiar with military combat, but somehow familiar with American politics, which would be really odd, you would have to be the ultimate political junky to meet that criteria, where all you are interested in is politics, you only follow campaigns and speeches and don't see anything else in the world, you would think war is purely a political term. The war on this and that and so-forth. The War on Women, the War on Capitalism, the War on Freedom, the War on Religious Liberty, etc. First of all: most of these things are fabricated.

The War on Women, thats not a war. Now you can make the case that House Republicans are making an effort to limit females access to certain health care. But thats not a war, its a campaign at best and they sound funny and perhaps clever and easy to remember, make good sound bites, etc. But these aren't wars, they are campaigns at best. I've been guilty of this myself using the word of war with my blogging. I wrote one blog post that I called the Christian-Right's War on Freedom, but I was half-joking. Perhaps I should've said the Christian-Conservative  Campaign Against Freedom. Which would be accurate and would also be easy to remember.

But a lot of times when people say The War on This or That, they generally aren't talking about a War on This or That. They are generally talking about something specific. Just to round out my list of words that are overused in America top 5-10 that I mentioned earlier, that hopefully may end up on the Late Show Top 10 List, perhaps as soon as beach houses go for sale in North Dakota or just after that) War would be at the top of the list for reasons I've already explained.

Followed by awesome: If everything is awesome, nothing is awesome. It seems like every time someone sees something they like now it's, awesome!!! When I think of the word awesome, I think of something or someone that's really amazing, good or bad, that there is no other way to explain it. Most of things in the world don't meet that criteria. A team isn't awesome just because they won the championship, they might not be awesome at all. A good meal or movie, band, song, whatever, aren't always awesome, they may just be good at that particular time.

Two other words that thank goodness have died down over that last few years, perhaps with Paris Hilton being in the news less (or in jail) are hot and fabulous. For the same reasons as awesome and I said top 5-10 and I've only done a top 4, or how about Fab 4, number five and then I got to wrap up. And I'm sorry if I offend any valley people, girl or guy here, but you guys and gals are big targets of mine. But like and totally, especially when they are put together. "Like totally!" That is so annoying to me!

And oh my God, especially when they are put together, thats nine and WTF. (Hopefully you know what thats short for) All for the same reasons as awesome. And there you have it my top now list of words that are overused and I'm tired of hearing. But look I understand lazy when it comes to language in America is in and thinking for one's self especially when it comes to expressing themselves and risking standing out, is not really in especially if you come as different. But being a person an individual is exactly that. And with that comes the freedom for people to be themselves, even if they are different from the pack or group. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviews Jonah Goldberg: ‘The Tyranny of Cliches and Political Discourse’

Source:Reason Magazine- National Review columnist and author Jonah Goldberg.

“Liberals are sure they’re in the reality-based community and anyone who disagrees with them either has a bad brain, or in some other way rejects empiricism and science, and they are the only ones working with the building blocks of facts and reason,” says National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, author of the new book, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.

“And I call bullshit on that.”

Goldberg, who became the editor of National Review Online in 1999, is responsible for creating the tone and format of the highly trafficked website, which built on the magazine’s venerable reputation while signaling, as he puts it, “that this is not your father’s National Review.” Goldberg’s new book, which follows his best-selling 2008 Liberal Fascism, argues that liberals should stop claiming their ideas derive solely from science and fact but never ideology–a way of arguing that stifles honest debate. Liberal arguments sometimes take the form of hackneyed cliches meant to sound self-evident but that in reality disguise a political bent, such as “violence never solves anything” or “I may disagree with you but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Goldberg sat down with ReasonTV’s Nick Gillespie for a wide-ranging discussion about liberal and conservative discourse, his early vision for National Review Online, and the firing of long-time National Review contributor John Derbyshire for writing a racist article in Taki’s Magazine. Goldberg also explains why he plans to vote for Mitt Romney despite his lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive GOP nominee.”

From Reason Magazine 

This is what I like about Jonah Goldberg and I’ll admit as a Liberal I have a short list of what I like about him. And could lay that out in under a paragraph, but he seems to understand the differences between Liberals and Socialists, at least to this extent. That he describes people who have been called “Modern Liberals”, as Progressives, (people who I could call Socialists) not Liberal. Even though like a lot of right-wingers, still throws out those old stereotypes that make Liberals look more like Socialists.

Jonah even has described his own politics as classical liberal, at least to a certain extent and sounds like a real Conservative in the classical sense. Not someone in today’s Christian-Theocratic-Populist Republican Party, but more with the Barry Goldwater line of thinking ideology, not Rick Santorum. (To use as an example) That’s what I like about Jonah Goldberg, in under a paragraph. But then says things that Liberals don’t believe in ideology, even though we wrote the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with Conservatives.

But Jonah says we don’t believe in ideology and that we get on and put people who do believe in ideology and we look down at people, who don’t look at the world exactly the way we do. And to use Jonah Goldberg’s line, “I call bullshit on that”. If Jonah used these stereotypes just to describe people who he sees as “Modern Liberals”, people who are Democratic Socialists, in the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus mode, then I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Because of the way he describes the politics of a lot of these people.

I agree with Jonah to a certain extent, but when he calls them Liberals and says that “Liberals believe in bloated big government” and our ideology is built around the welfare state. How we can empower the Federal Government to take care of people, again to use Jonah’s line, I call bullshit on him. Because he’s describing the politics of today’s so-called Progressives (who are really Democratic Socialists) and not my politics. And when he focus’s on big government, he only does it from one side of the aisle and doesn’t go after big government supporters from his own side of the aisle. He doesn’t go after the Christian-Right in his own party. Unlike myself who has long enough arms to pat myself on the back.

If Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about the big government leanings about the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus and other so-called modern Progressive Democrats and then also wrote a book about the big Government leanings about the Religious-Right, then I would take him more seriously. But the current track right now seems to try to make so-called Liberals look like people they aren’t. And only goes after the big government fascist views of one side of the aisle and sound more like a partisan hack to me more than anyone else. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.