The chart here shows how a few well-connected conservative players have adapted the Swift-boat model of negative campaigning for the 2010 campaign.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Swift-boat: To tell the truth about a candidate favored by the liberal media.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
did you get that definition from conservapedia?
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
No, from watching the original Swift-boat ad.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In all honesty, I've talked to actual Conservatives and they would say that, there's actually a widespread belief at least among those I've talked to about the whole "liberal media" sticht.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Swift-boat: To tell the truth about a candidate favored by the liberal media.
quote:A major part of the SBVT controversy centered on the group's testimony. The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits. One affiant, Al French, acknowledged he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.[55] The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves. Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies."[56]
Aww. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Just for clarity, what I meant by "swift-boat model" in the OP has less to do with the content of ads than with the way they are funded. The SBVT campaign was notable in that it was high-profile on a national stage, purportedly grass-roots/independent/non-partisan , and actually heavily funded by people close to the benefiting (conservative) candidate. These groups have run ads in dozens of congressional races around the country.
I can't find it at the moment, but I recently saw a graph that looked at individual contributions by political party over time. It showed the GOP with a consistent lead over Democrats throughout the 90s and early 00s. Republicans take a big hit around 2006-2008, and fall behind the Democrats. Here's the thing, though. Although they make up ground in 2010, the Republicans were still behind in donations. The theory I've heard, and it makes a lot of sense to me, is that the donation gap is explainable if a significant portion of GOP donors are instead donating to these "non-partisan" groups.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I love the smell of astroturf in the morning. It smells like... Pyrrhic victory.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I hate political ads altogether. They have gotten very nasty lately between Harry Reid and Sharon Angle here in Vegas.
Just once I want to see a candidate run an ad that goes something like "My opponent is a good man (or woman) that truly believes they are doing what is best for you. I also wish to have that opportunity because I believe I can do a better job."
I'd probably vote for them just for running an ad like that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sharron Angle: a candidate so terrible, she gives Reid a shot.
Thanks, NV.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't really envy anyone a job that sets them up to take blame for everything that's going wrong in Nevada right now, quite frankly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, Nevada is just kind of a ridiculous disaster all around. Keeping Reid gives democrats another floozy vote, but letting Angle have the place could be a better long-term tactical option.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
More interesting is NPR's firing of Juan Williams...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why is that interesting?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Basically he was fired for expressing his honest opinion on Fox
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Basically he was fired for expressing his honest opinion on Fox
And why is that interesting?
A private organization has the right to separate itself from people who express opinion they disagree with or which they view would be damaging to them.
Which of course doesn't mean you can't complain about it. If I agreed with Juan Williams (for example, I have no idea if you do or not), then I imagine I would complain to. But NPR is still completely within their right to do it.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Basically he was fired for expressing his honest opinion on Fox
And why is that interesting?
A private organization has the right to separate itself from people who express opinion they disagree with or which they view would be damaging to them.
Which of course doesn't mean you can't complain about it. If I agreed with Juan Williams (for example, I have no idea if you do or not), then I imagine I would complain to. But NPR is still completely within their right to do it.
That's why they call it National Private Radio.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
He was fired for expressing prejudice against Muslims on-air.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Juan Williams had been warned before that the content of his talks on Fox was endangering his job as a news analyst on NPR, since NPR's ethics code states that someone on the payroll in his function can't do what he was doing.
Then he goes back on the same program, and expresses prejudice against muslims on-air.
And gets fired.
Perhaps for the sin of having integrity enough via their ethics code to be equally liable to fire a commentator for marginalizing muslims as they would be were they to marginalize, say, jews, rather than celebrating this inclusion into a toxic, politicized environment with a multimillion dollar contract package, we should stir up yet another conservative brouhaha attempt to dissolve NPR.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: He was fired for expressing prejudice against Muslims on-air.
Not exactly. NPR has guidelines about its reporters putting out personal opinions on political topics. As I understand it, Juan Williams had been crossing or coming close to crossing this line. This was the latest and most egregious example of this.
I think the content of this one played a big role in the decision to fire him (and also, it's a pretty stupid thing to say/believe). I'm not party to any of what went on before this (for all I know, they had already told him that if he crossed the line again, he'd be fired) or during, but I think NPR went about this the wrong way.
However, it's pretty clear that he violated the standards of that he agreed to follow when he took the job. I also believe that these standards of journalistic objectivity are good things to have. Plus, again, what he said is pretty stupid and reflects poorly on whoever employs him. So, the end result of Juan Williams not working for NPR is, I think, the correct outcome.
And now he works for an organization that has...looser standards of journalistic objectivity and integrity, so it looks like he got what he wanted too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course, this is just dishonest conservative distraction techniques to get away from an issue that they don't want to discuss. I'm not sure exactly what the deal is with the OP. This doesn't strike me as particularly note worthy, so I'm wondering why people see it that way.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:However, it's pretty clear that he violated the standards of that he agreed to follow when he took the job. I also believe that these standards of journalistic objectivity are good things to have.
Exactly. I feel like this whole "controversy" only exists because the concept of journalistic objectivity has become a foreign concept to most news and thus most people. I like having a divide between the people who report the news and the people who report their opinions. I am grateful that NPR still does this.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I hate political ads altogether. They have gotten very nasty lately between Harry Reid and Sharon Angle here in Vegas.
Just once I want to see a candidate run an ad that goes something like "My opponent is a good man (or woman) that truly believes they are doing what is best for you. I also wish to have that opportunity because I believe I can do a better job."
I'd probably vote for them just for running an ad like that.
I loved the last seasons of West Wing because they did just that. They took two qualified candidates, who had a lot of respect for each other, and had them run against each other. It also showed the pressures each were under to run those negative ads, and why.
I spent the whole season wishing I could see that type of campaign run IRL, but knowing I probably never will.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: More interesting is NPR's firing of Juan Williams...
Excellent distraction work. "Pay no attention to the corporate interests behind the curtain! Look! NPR FIRED SOMEONE".
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Of course, this is just dishonest conservative distraction techniques to get away from an issue that they don't want to discuss. I'm not sure exactly what the deal is with the OP. This doesn't strike me as particularly note worthy, so I'm wondering why people see it that way.
I'm having a difficult time parsing you. Are you asking what my deal is?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm just wondering why you thought that what you posted was noteworthy. I'm not trying to criticize, just wondering what your perspective of this was.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I like having a divide between the people who report the news and the people who report their opinions. I am grateful that NPR still does this.
I have to agree. I am quite a big fan of Bill Bryson, and I think it's a great thing that in all of his historical accounts and memoirs, he doesn't fiddle with political opinions or sermons- but rather involves real facts, and suppositions about real possibilities and real consequences of people's and societies' actions. It lends his books an air of honesty and integrity, because even when he is dealing with political topics and events, he keeps his own personal feelings and tastes mostly out of the picture, and focuses on how the reader can relate to his subjects and how they effect our lives.
It's ok for a writer to be more opinionated, but I think that one must choose, or that an organization must eventually choose, which road to take: you can be opinionated, and sacrifice attempts and fairness and objectivity, or you can restrain yourself and be professional, and try to take yourself and your ego, as much as you can, out of what you are reporting on. I don't think you can reasonably or practically have it both ways, and so I very much agree with your point.
This is why I have so much more respect for the likes of John Stewart than I do for anyone on Fox, or even on CNN or MSNBC. Stewart lets you know where he stands, and makes it clear in what he says that he is expressing a viewpoint, as honestly and effectively as he can. When people tell you they're going to be fair, and they're going to be sportsmanlike and balanced, and then clearly *aren't*, then there's no reason to trust them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I can't find it at the moment, but I recently saw a graph that looked at individual contributions by political party over time. It showed the GOP with a consistent lead over Democrats throughout the 90s and early 00s. Republicans take a big hit around 2006-2008, and fall behind the Democrats. Here's the thing, though. Although they make up ground in 2010, the Republicans were still behind in donations. The theory I've heard, and it makes a lot of sense to me, is that the donation gap is explainable if a significant portion of GOP donors are instead donating to these "non-partisan" groups.
That theory makes a lot of sense if you assume that campaign donations cause votes. However, that's not true.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:he theory I've heard, and it makes a lot of sense to me, is that the donation gap is explainable if a significant portion of GOP donors are instead donating to these "non-partisan" groups.
quote:Democratic incumbents raised more than twice as much as their Republican opponents over all in three dozen House races The New York Times classified as competitive, yet Republicans won about half of those contests on Tuesday, according to a Times analysis. In all but a handful of those races in which fund-raising was lopsided, Republican outside groups significantly outspent Democratic ones.
------------
quote:That theory makes a lot of sense if you assume that campaign donations cause votes. However, that's not true.
First of all, I don't think that assumption is necessary for the theory.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)