sirdroseph wrote:
  Y'know, for a misanthrope, you're pretty likable in my book...

 musik_knut wrote:  

Concerning Obama's so-called liberal agenda...I've never seen a public figure attacked more for things people think he's going to do than Obama. He wasn't even in office yet, and people were declaring him to be the most liberal President ever. Concerning his approval rating - the problem is that many in this country have no patience for things to turn around. The economic conditions that were in place around the time that Obama took office were the worst they had been since the Great Depression; those things aren't going to change overnight. During the Great Depression, our forefathers hunkered down for the long fight, knowing things weren't going to get fixed overnight. Now, however, people today, angry that things weren't totally fixed in three months or so, look for someone to blame for the state of the economy right now, and many of those people choose Obama. Rightly or wrongly, it comes with the job. An approval rating for a President is really just an approval rating for the overall state of the union. If the country is in the toilet, the best President would still have a crappy approval rating. Also, it's not that surprising that his approval rating is declining, as this has happened in the first two years of every new President since Truman, with the exception of Kennedy, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. (due greatly to 9/11). Also, out of all of those Presidents, Clinton was the only one who left with a higher approval rating than he started office with; everyone else saw their approval ratings decline during their presidency. (Info from the Wall Street Journal's site, here . I noticed, though, after putting this together, that graphs on other sites, like Wikipedia, look a little different, and show Reagan's approval rating also increased slightly, and that Bush Sr's ended up about the same as when he started office.)

Secondly, I don't get the statement that Glenn Beck is not FOX. I don't know of anyone who has said that Beck controls FOX (if they did, they'd be wrong); however, his show is broadcast on their network, and he is one of the stars of their network, so I don't get the need to distance him from the network that signs his checks. Beck's views are just a more extreme version of many of the messages pushed by Fox News overall and believed by many of their viewers. The stimulus package has hurt the country? Check. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (or it's at least suspect)? Check. Obama is an extreme liberal looking to push this country towards socialism? Check. For more examples, see below. Generally speaking, these views are the same thing being pushed by Fox News and by the commentators on Fox News.

• 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
• 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
• 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
• 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
• 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
• 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
• 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
• 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
• 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

 musik_knut wrote: 
Sort of like the one about how the 'main stream media' is rabidly liberal?

 sirdroseph wrote: 
. . . they channel public opinion . . .

 musik_knut wrote: 

Quite frankly other than maybe NPR and PBS; they ALL suck and it is because WE suck.  In mainstream news media for the most part, there is only ONE consistency; desire for ratings; they give the people what they want and it is the great unwashed that truly SUCK.

For the record, yes I am a proud elitist.

 Jack_Jefferson wrote: 

I would agree with you that many news orgs now blur, not always, but once in awhile, news and commentary. Was a time a reporter would inform his viewers that the following was a Commentary. Now, you might have to shake the news loose from opinion. Not always and almost never on breaking stories: they're too new to form opinions in that sense. And many reporters will speculate *a thin form of an opinion?* 'well, I think the guy with the gun was doing the shootings'...
I do get a chuckle out of FOX SUX...that their reporters are not pros, that the make up news that they yadda yadda yadda...it's such an old lament...shop worn and dog eared. It should be retired because it's now just a reflexive thought for some.

 musik_knut wrote: 

You make good, fair points, but you have to admit, Fox News and MSNBC are still very guilty of intentionally blurring the line between news reporting and commentary.  I'm sure educated people like yourself, me and most RPers can tell the difference and see through that.  As for the rest of the viewing public, I'm not so sure I have as much faith.

 Jack_Jefferson wrote: 

Ummm. No. I think CNN, MSNBC and FOX, along with others, employ professional journalists who do not harm the profession. They seek answers to stories, they keep us informed and I appreciate their efforts, often under the most trying conditions. Where many folks, I think, confuse FOX is between FOX reporters and FOX commentators. They are not one and the same yet to many of my friends on the other side, FOX sucks and they make no distinction between FOX opinion pieces which do run middle—->conservative and FOX reporters who walk a street looking for the story or tag along in Afghanistan in harsh and deadly conditions.
As I stated, CNN and MSNBC handled the Chilean story different than did FOX. Each org made a decision. It seems FOX dumped scheduled programming while CNN and MSNBC stuck with their programming and provided updates on the Chilean story. If you were inclinded to follow each drum roll of that story, FOX was there. I watched it for a few and then it became more of the same with each rescued miner which was truly a great story and a lift to all of Chile and others. But 3 or so hours of coverage? Its like Super Bowl Sunday...you can only repeat yourself so many times before the kickoff...

 musik_knut wrote:  

A snide comment about a republican or a positive comment about a democrat, homosexual or racial minority is still very much grounds for dismissal at Fox News.  So are you essentially conceding that Fox News has started or, at the very least, joined in on this race to the bottom when it comes to journalistic professionalism?

As for your second point, I don't doubt that the miners' story was newsworthy.  I think you and I just disagree as to how newsworthy it really was.  It was a great compelling human interest story.  I agree with you there.  Was it really necessary to block off two or three hours of waiting for each and every miner to be rescued?  I'm not sure.  I think a lot of people would have found something that had a more immediate impact on their lives more newsworthy.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Ok. Thanks for the pertinent data.

 musik_knut wrote: 


If I recall correctly Reagan had to deal with some rather steep unemployment figures as well, which would be confirmed by the stats above (timing might suggest that Reagan increased those figures to an even higher level than is currently the case). Of course, unemployment figures aren't entirely uncontroversial/unambiguous either.

 hippiechick wrote: 

And if I am not? It must be Mr. Mustard, in the library, with the latest polls in his hands...

 RichardPrins wrote: 
technically i think that makes them ignorant

the vast majority of (mis)information heaped on the public from practically all mainstream media is schlock.

imho, there's very few programs worthy of gleaning.

regards

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
I'm not

 hippiechick wrote: 

No hc. And I resent that. I did not spend 35 years as a scientist without a frigging care for fact and the discovery of fact.
What I said regarding Mr. Obama's fortunes is true...he continues a downward trend...not precipitous but discernibly downward. What would not only be refreshing but shocking would be for you to ever see the realities surrounding Mr. Obama and how the public views him and his policies. In a nutshell, not all peaches and cream as you might think *and often imply*

 hippiechick wrote: 

MK is confused? Or you're confused?

 hippiechick wrote: 
This is something to brag about?

So, MK, basically your take is, don't confuse you with the fact, right?

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Likeability in a pol, particularly a President, has less impact than approval. The more  President Obama sinks, the more emboldened his detractors and now at this point, even some of his allies. A lot of folks like to compare Mr. Obama today and the same points in time for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Reagan. Fair. But not accurate because Mr. Obama is at the switch with 9.8% unemployment. Neither Mr. Clinton or Mr. Reagan had that sack of rocks hanging on them. That's where approval matters more than 'for he's a jolly good fellow' does.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
The numbers have been roughly the same since February