This is Exactly Why I Don't Watch TV

[Dan.Linehan]

Here's is a side by side of the original interview, then the hysterics with which it was covered on the different news stations.

YouTube - TPMtv: Wesley Clark Hyperventorama

The very best of MSM hyperventilation about Wes Clark's non-demeaning comments about John McCain.

Crazy, right? I would think the economy would be a bigger issue, especially the weak dollar, but that gets very little news coverage.

Minyanville - NEWS & VIEWS-Financial Tsunami Ahead

I now worry about the severity of the storm and if I am, indeed, positioned cautiously enough as it relates to the maturity and duration of my fixed income holdings. You must be positioned for something that hasn’t been seen before on our shores. Hurricanes are reasonably commonplace events in the U.S., particularly in the Southeast part of the country.

But what do we not have very often in the U.S., something of an ‘outlier event’, or what many in this industry would define as a very low probability event (‘tail risk’)?

A tsunami, defined by American Heritage Dictionary as: "A very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption." It's one huge problem that leads directly into another.

I have often, in private, compared the financial mess hitting the U.S. to a rare tsunami hitting a lonely shore where someone is standing, armed only with a small bucket to try to stop it.

Bennet Sedacca, the writer of that article, is the same guy who predicated the Bear Sterns collapse -- two weeks in advance when he saw their 40-1 asset leveraging ratio.

Then there's Iraq and Iran which hardly ever get mentioned on the news either. Two minutes per week per network. Hmmm.

All so these five companies can funnel / launder Billions of taxpayer dollars.


The media seems awfully desperate for a distraction, any distraction.

[Tasaio]

"I don't think flying in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

"Really?"

Notice the shock in the Bob Schieffer's voice. This guy needs to get a clue.

I admit I am puzzled. Wesley Clark is quite correct. While I admire John McCain for his POW years, I don't think he'd make a good president. In fact, his POW years would give me pause--I could see old ghosts and old anger affecting his judgement. We already know he's stubborn, impatient, and short tempered. Are those really qualities we want in the person in charge of the world's largest military?!

Americans need to change their mindset towards the military; I detest this blind worship, this blind adoration for the military. Soldiers are people that (1) kill things and (2) blow things up. Of course, there's more to them than that, but it's very sad that modern society places them on such a tall pedestal.

The media seems awfully desperate for a distraction, any distraction.

I don't think it's a distraction. I think they're desperate to attack Obama in any way they can.

[ThoughtAddict]

I absolutely agree with what Wesley Clark was saying. Politically, it was a stupid thing to say. It is odd, but the sentiment behind the attacks is that the statement is disrespectful/demeaning to the troops. I've met Wes Clark, and he is an exceptional man who likely meant nothing disrespectful. He was telling the truth... a dangerous thing in today's feeding frenzy elections.

The media took it up because, well, it is news people can talk about. It is news that is simple and lets pundits shout black and white rather than acknowledging shades of grey. The shades of grey are more complex. The USA is in serious trouble. While it is not as bad as the media made out at one point (I remember hearing the word "depression"), the overall status is shaky. The US reputation in the international community, economic power, military readiness, domestic political and legal integrity, and national unity/identity have been severely damaged over the course of the last decade. The era of the United States superpower may be ending, whether quietly or with unprecedented strife. The media? They're busy covering the boxing match while the arena starts to burn.

So it is. If the country is to be saved it will be in the same way it always has: a few brave, cunning men who inspire millions of grunts to pull together. I believe Obama has shown glimpses of the charisma necessary. Hollow charisma, but charisma nonetheless. I wonder if there's any substance under the veneer...

[Eric Revelin]

I don't see what's so hard to understand about good soldiers not always making good leaders. I'd trust Rambo to fight for the country but I'd never vote him in as president. McCain's service and patriotism hasn't been called into question. Alas, the media will sensationalize anything...

[SomeRandomGuy]

I am very glad to see that others view this situation in the same was I do. While being shot down and captured does not inherently make John McCain a bad choice for President, it certainly does not inherently make him a good candidate. I don't question McCain's patriotism. I am even to take the "hero" label assigned to him at face value. If we start electing officials based on what they have done for the country in the passed, rather than what they can/will do for the country in the future then what is next? Strangely, this makes me think of the role of Henry Ford in society in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

[Still Growing]

I listened to the entire interview and Clark did not disrespect McCain's military service in a clear way. He did, however, use the fact that McCain was a POW did not qualify him for President. Its not what Clark said its really more about his tone.

Clark then explains that McCain has never commanded troops in a war... This is contradictory to his statement that being a POW doesn't qualify you to be President. Why would he use the fact that McCain has never commanded troops during a war as a selling point for Obama?

Just a few months ago Clark was saying that Hillary was more qualified to be President than Obama because she was first lady.

I think that although Clark is right about McCain and that his POW status alone does not qualify him to be President. This was clearly an attempt by Clark to lobby for VP. He was even asked if he would and he eluded to his interest.

I think that this clearly shows that Clark is out of his league. He has been a career military guy and he thinks that this gives him a voice. He is a rookie politician and clearly in WAAAY over his head.

Obama, being a smart politican has jumped on the bandwagon denouncing Clark's statments. McCain's camp pounced on this opportunity as well.

It just goes to show that the truth doesn't matter and that politicians don't care about whats true or not. They just care about winning and power. Clark has just learned this the hard way.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Clark then explains that McCain has never commanded troops in a war... This is contradictory to his statement that being a POW doesn't qualify you to be President. Why would he use the fact that McCain has never commanded troops during a war as a selling point for Obama?

Just a few months ago Clark was saying that Hillary was more qualified to be President than Obama because she was first lady.

It seems to me that leading troops would have relevance. A good president has the ability to organize people, leading them toward an objective with imperfect information. Both roles would require leadership skills, a tolerance to uncertainty, and an ability to thrive in high stress, high stakes situations while maintaining a level head.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I think that although Clark is right about McCain and that his POW status alone does not qualify him to be President. This was clearly an attempt by Clark to lobby for VP. He was even asked if he would and he eluded to his interest.

I think that this clearly shows that Clark is out of his league. He has been a career military guy and he thinks that this gives him a voice. He is a rookie politician and clearly in WAAAY over his head.

You may be right that this was an attempt by Clark to go for VP. Frankly, I think he'd be a great one. I went to a speech of his at a university in Arkansas. He is an extremely intelligent man who cares deeply about his fellow citizens. He does not like politics. He is largely incompetent when it comes to feeding frenzy politics. In his speech and in almost everything since, I've seen him provide good answers to the challenges the US faces. He has repeatedly told the hard truths that others seek to avoid.... which is why he is a long shot for election. Pity, that. I think he'd do well in the job.

[MariaIsabel]

Wow. Thanks for that post. I don't watch television either, for many reasons, but that was most enlightening seeing Clark's actual comments juxtaposed with the media reaction.

I'd heard about people commenting Wesley Clark's "offensive remarks" on NPR but I hadn't actually been cognizant of the degree of the media frenzy that followed. Incredible.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I never got what was so offensive about what Clark said in the first place.

[Brutha]

Clark then explains that McCain has never commanded troops in a war... This is contradictory to his statement that being a POW doesn't qualify you to be President. Why would he use the fact that McCain has never commanded troops during a war as a selling point for Obama?

Being a good president is about the ability to lead people in your administration to get work done.
Commanding troops is a relevant experience. Being captured doesn't (a thing that would be hold against him in a society that values the honor of soldiers).

Russia imprisonend it's soldiers that became POW after WII and shipped them to Sibiria because they equated being a POW with being a traitor because you didn't want to die for the country.

But Clark certainly doesn't hold being a POW against McCain and it's something that you could hold against him in some cultures. Seeing failure in war as heroic is something for which the west is seen as decadent and weak by people with more traditional values but neocons don't care for traditional values either way.

Depeding on the context some people might consider Clark making that traditional value argument that you shouldn't reward failure and not make a failure president.
But I don't think that he is making that arguement. But you shouldn't forget that the argument still exists somewhere in the cultural baggage the America carries around.

If you don't know that it exists it's like stepping on a mine. You just doesn't understand why it made bang.

[Barcs]

Wow. We live in sad times, indeed. Times where the media is so desperate they will blatantly blow an honest, true comment out of proportion. What Clark said is 100% accurate. Why would the fact that you've been in war and a POW qualify you for president any moreso than someone who hasn't? It doesn't. Clark didn't insult McCain's record. He even said in the interview that he respected his war record. I didn't realize the media was this bad.

[schola]

There is nothing on TV, not even the infotainment that masquerades as "news," that doesn't serve as a simple distraction for the masses.

Bread and circuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Brutha]

There is nothing on TV, not even the infotainment that masquerades as "news," that doesn't serve as a simple distraction for the masses.

Unfortunatly it's a little more harmful than Circuses.
Bad news coverage has serious consequences.

[Bitsy]

This is exactly why I don't watch American news. I don't watch news much at all, but at least news in other countries is professionally reported.
This is American. News in other places is more balanced and more professional, devoid of all the emotion exuded in American news. After being abroad for so long, and then rarely having watched news when I was in this country before, I had never realized how biased and emotionally charged the delivery of news is in this country. You aren't supposed to deliver the news with any emotional overtones. No wonder it gets turned upside-down. And the commentary that follows is even worse.

In other more civilized countries, like Sweden and Finland, and I bet most, if not all of Europe, people don't care too much, for example, about the sexual indiscretions of their politicians or about their personal lives.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Here's is a side by side of the original interview, then the hysterics with which it was covered on the different news stations.

Crazy, right? I would think the economy would be a bigger issue, especially the weak dollar, but that gets very little news coverage.

Then there's Iraq and Iran which hardly ever get mentioned on the news either. Two minutes per week per network. Hmmm.

All so these five companies can funnel / launder Billions of taxpayer dollars.

The media seems awfully desperate for a distraction, any distraction.

And it all speaks to the value system of this country. What is important, what is not important. And the media make the values, if they don't like certain ones that might emerge in the public, they make valuable what they please and the public is ignorant about the certain other issues they might find more important under neutral circumstances.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

This is exactly why I don't watch American news.
This is American.

In other more civilized countries, like Sweden and Finland,...
.

I prefer BBC as they seem more neutral.

I can't speak about Sweden and Finland but in many European countries the news is bias towards socialism. When you pay so much taxes everyone (including the media) looks for facts and data that supports their way of life.

I am not sure that I would say its more civilized; just different.

[MariaIsabel]

I just wanted to say that American public television is excellent. PBS has some very well-produced and researched news programs that report on things that you don't see on the networks or cable news channels. I urge all of you who are disgusted by what passes as news on regular TV to check out David Brancaccio's NOW or Bill Moyers' program. National Public Radio also has some very good programs.

As well, there are some really good reporters in print. American media is not all bad, but you have to sift through it and you certainly can't pay attention to most of the broadcast media.

[Brutha]

As well, there are some really good reporters in print.

How do you know? Do you have a deep understanding of the topic that those reporters cover before you read the article (otherwise you can't judge whether they did a good job at letting people understand the topic)?

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I prefer BBC as they seem more neutral.

I can't speak about Sweden and Finland but in many European countries the news is bias towards socialism. When you pay so much taxes everyone (including the media) looks for facts and data that supports their way of life.

I am not sure that I would say its more civilized; just different.

I like BBC too. I always used to watch BBC World.
I never found Swedish or Finnish news to be trying to push an agenda like they do here in the US. I've never seen other European news.

Especially regarding non-domestic news, there is a great difference in how it is reported in the US and abroad, and by abroad, I guess I mean the countries I have experience with, including the BBC. BBC World had a lot better things to do than to have a bunch of overly emotional opinionated people shouting at each other about who said what to who and why. BBC World showed a lot of interesting documentaries and such about foreign cultures, Islam, women in different countries, international news events etc., to inform us about people and places we see on the news all the time, but don't know more than what we see on the news. I learned a lot about the world from watching that. I think that's where I saw this story of the man who told the world that Israel has nuclear weapons, for example--there was a documentary on how he was treated in prison in Israel, how they tried to keep him isolated and quiet. And, as another example, there was a special report done by one of their reporters in Iraq when he and his crew all got bombed by an American airplane and their translator was killed. These are reports I remember despite the years that have passed since I saw them.

What BBC World showed was always so informative and interesting. So much better than watching a bunch of strange Americans screaming at each other and speculating about nothing--talk about much ado about nothing.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Unfortunatly it's a little more harmful than Circuses.
Bad news coverage has serious consequences.

The problem is that the "circus," a source of cheap entertainment, has been disguised as a lecture hall. Most people think the lecture hall has turned into a circus but in reality, it was a circus all along.


The news media's first and foremost job has always been entertainment. It is just becoming more blantantly obvious now. Yellow journalism was rampant in America during the 20s.

Even Thomas Jefferson said this 200 years ago:

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

[Brutha]

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

Yes, that the difference to circus entertainement.
I don't think that visiting a circus makes you less educated.

Bad newspapers have serious consequences.
Bad circuses don't.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Yes, that the difference to circus entertainement.
I don't think that visiting a circus makes you less educated.

Bad newspapers have serious consequences.
Bad circuses don't.

I agree and I want to make sure you understand my contention. Being entertained is not a problem as long as you hold no illusions about the reality that you are watching entertainment. When you begin to think you are being informed instead of entertained, that is where the problems arise.

Nothing has changed with respect to the news media. Newspapers have always been sensationalist publications so it is no wonder that cable news networks are the same. Sensationalism and news media goes hand in hand. Why? It sells papers. Their roots go back to before the printing press even existed. Heck, what are tall tales and myths? Exaggerated stories of true events. Story tellers would "sell" their stories by adding details and hyperbole.

So sensationalism and bad journalism are nothing new.

Newspapers and other news media are entertainment sellers masquerading as information sellers. It allows people to be entertained while deluding themselves into believing they are being informed too. This delusion makes the news media moguls, like Rupert Murdoch, a lot of money.

I don't play the delusion game anymore and you shouldn't either. In the same way that I don't watch pornography and delude myself into thinking I'm learning about anatomy, I don't watch the news and delude myself into thinking I am being informed either.

Fox News is a special brand of infotainment for a...hmm... how do I put this, less worldly subset of the population, but the BBC or CNN or Al Jazeera or even NPR are not really any better.

That is why I like Steve Colbert and the Daily Show. They know it is all a sham. They know their job is to entertain and they do it well.

[Brutha]

Nothing has changed with respect to the news media.

Unfortunatly it's get worse.
Decades ago newspaper employed people that had the crazy job as "Fact checkers" (sperate people from the ones who write the article).

It's get also worse because journalist get less and less times to research a story. If Fox wants to report one hour after a event happens it has a lot less time to research than a newspaper decades ago.

I agree and I want to make sure you understand my contention. Being entertained is not a problem as long as you hold no illusions about the reality that you are watching entertainment. When you begin to think you are being informed instead of entertained, that is where the problems arise.

Unfortunatly few people know that they aren't informed as good as they think they are.

Take a given number like the number of people who life in the US. Then go and ask a few people to give you a range of two numbers where they are sure with a confidence of 97% that the real number lies between the two numbers.
In general you get around 60% right answers instead of 97% right answers because people aren't aware that there aren't that good informed about the number of people who life in the US (the example comes out of Nassim Talebs "The Black Swan").
If you ask MBA's it even a lot worse with around 20% right answers.

Knowing that you know not that much is damn hard. Even watching Colbert will increase your confidence that you know more about what happens in the world.
Not playing the delusion game is hard. Because our brains didn't evolve in a enviroment where it was important to not let yourself get deluded.
In the past it was a lot more important to see patterns and it didn't cost much to see a tiger when there is no tiger and run away.

Today there are huge consequences if you see Wes Clark demaining the troops.
Those errors matter.

[schola]

Brutha,

How much of what is in the newspaper and on the TV news is could truly be considered "useful" information to an individual who is reading it? Even the well researched and fact-checked articles are ultimately nothing more than useless trivia.

Many times what we need to know and what we think we need to know are two different things.

I find the news to be mostly negative and fear-based (because playing on fear gets ratings too), and that is another reason why I pay less attention to it now.

Do we really need to know about the latest gun massacre or plane crash? How does knowing those things help us survive, or attain happiness, or achieve our goals?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Take a given number like the number of people who life in the US. Then go and ask a few people to give you a range of two numbers where they are sure with a confidence of 97% that the real number lies between the two numbers.
In general you get around 60% right answers instead of 97% right answers because people aren't aware that there aren't that good informed about the number of people who life in the US (the example comes out of Nassim Talebs "The Black Swan").
If you ask MBA's it even a lot worse with around 20% right answers.

You seem to chime in often on the site with counter arguments.

Just curious, what percentage of the time do you think you are right?