Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

WHAT’S ALL THIS “DEBATING” GOING ON?
As the year draws to an end, the United States public has born witness to an odd political aberration that the mainstream Media calls “debate”. Having grown up in an era when words actually meant something, and the correct use of the English language was lauded, I have always had a quite different idea as to what a “debate” was all about.
I recall that at one point in time there were extracurricular events as early as High School called Debate Teams. The format of any debate was comprised of two people taking opposite views of a subject with each person putting forth an argument that won over their opponent’s side of the argument.

I start to get a nervous, agitating little twitch when words in our language get hijacked by people who should know better, and twisted into a meaning, or definition, that is far from the original. I have experienced that little twitch as I have been watching and listening to this year’s political panel discussions amongst the crop of Presidential hopefuls presenting themselves to the public. These panel discussions do not comprise a debate. I direct your attention to the Webster Dictionary’s definition of both the verb and the noun shown below:

DEBATE

SIMPLE DEFINITION OF DEBATE
verb,  de·bate 
·           : to discuss (something) with people whose opinions are different from      your own
·           : to compete against (someone) in a debate : to argue          against another     person's opinions as part of an organized    event
·           : to think about (something) in order to decide what to do
noun  de·bate  \di-ˈbāt\
1.         a discussion or argument carried on between two teams or          sides
2.         a discussion of issues <We had a debate over where to go          on      vacation.>
SYNONYM DISCUSSION OF DEBATE
  •           discussarguedebate mean to discourse about in order to reach        conclusions or to convince.
  •           discuss implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting     considerations pro and con<discussed the need for a new highway>. 
  •           argue implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of     convictions   already held <argued that the project would be too costly>
  •           debate suggests formal or public argument between opposing       parties <debated the merits of the amendment>; it may also apply to           deliberation with oneself <I'm debating whether I should go>.
ORIGIN OF DEBATE
·                   Middle English, from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
·                   First Known Use: 14th century
SOURCE:

The only true political debate occurs when the vying Parties produce their final candidate and there is a true, defined debate between two people with differing views. Ten, or eleven bodies up on a stage is not a debate. It is usually a match of “one-upmanship” between a collection of egos each attempting to be heard over all the others. This seems to inevitably result in oral diarrhea be spewed in the faces of the audience in an vain attempt to impress someone; usually themselves.
In a true debate, facts matter. This does not seem to be a practice employed by anyone running for elective office regardless of Party affiliation.
To have men and women in the Media, who tout themselves as Journalists, allow this aberration to occur, makes absolutely no sense. My immediate conclusion on this count is that these “Journalists” are calling their profession something it is not; that would be Journalism (you can look that one up, too). I must admit, here, that my first college degree was in Journalism. It hurts my head to watch in utter wonderment as the race toward elective office in this Country morphs into some strange, twisted pissing match between folks who are probably normal outside the political ring. There seems to be very little of any substance on policy and direction offered during these trying times. And, that is a disservice to the American public who deserve a lot better from their potential political leaders.

My overall conclusion is that the voting public is the last bastion and hope for changing this abortion called the political process. The American public is not stupid, dumb, or ignorant. It is within their power to affect change; Lord knows, our politicians have thrown in the towel on that concept. Does anybody really want to “take back America”? Maybe it’s time to stand up, make your voice heard, and make your vote count. Please, just do it!







Friday, August 17, 2012

The New York Times at its best

   Congratulations are in order for The New York Times. In recent weeks I have called the Paper out on their lack of acknowledgement regarding the Wars we are fighting abroad and the Men and Women involved. The “Review” section of last weeks Sunday Edition, Aug. 12th, had an in-depth story about returning Servicemen and their quest for Medical Care, help with their Families, and adjustment back into Civilian life.
   To be honest and transparent, I don’t subscribe to the weekday Editions on The New York Times, so I cannot offer commentary for four days of the week (I do get the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Editions).
   Today, Friday, Aug. 17th, Iraq made the Front Page Index, Page A-6, and Afghanistan / Pakistan made Page A-10. Most reporting  of the News pales in comparison to reporting on our Service Men  and Women who are engaged in armed conflicts around the World. This is especially true when it comes to the incredible amount of mudslinging in this, a General Election Year. There are only two issues concerning the United States this year, and they are of equal weight. One is the Economy; the other is the constant deployment of Troops overseas. I will continue to rely on The New York Times for pertinent and current News in both the aforementioned categories.


YIPPEEE

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Any Questions ?

Below are just a few questions and thoughts on the last two week’s occurrences.

*      Can anybody remind me of why the Hell civilians need to own and/or carry Military style weapons of any type? I carried a Military weapon for one year, and I don’t have any desire to carry one again, ever. There is absolutely no rational for owning such weapons.


*      Is there no decency in Journalism anymore? If I lost a relative in a “news worthy” event, and someone shoved a camera and microphone in my face, I would dispatch said “news” folk to the next zip code without hesitation.
 

*      Why don’t I know where any of this year’s political hopefuls stand on any of the issues that actually matter to this Country? Sure, a good indication of future behavior can be found in current behavior, but I just end up getting my shorts in a knot when I hear the words Bain Capital and Birth Certificate, ad nauseum.


*      Why does my Cable TV supplier choose to ignore FCC regulations that make it against the Law to air Commercials at a significant higher volume than your own personal setting? They were good about it when the regulation went into effect, but now, three years later, they have slipped back to their old ways. I do believe the Cable suppliers offer the higher volume to advertisers, as an option in their marketing contract.


*      How do our returning Veterans feel about a Country and the Press putting their Wars on the back burner, while we all piss and moan over very trivial stuff, in comparison? Well, this one I can answer. They are starting to feel a lot like the Viet Nam Veterans did when they came home: forgotten, neglected, unappreciated, unwanted, disposable, depressed, and suicidal.