Chris Christie - next President(Bridge Scandal)

[john5746]

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/chris_christie_bridge_scandal_some_praise_his_response_others_skeptical.html

 

Chris Christie, NJ governor is in the middle of a political scandal that could end his career. If no further links are found between him and the freeway jam for payback, I actually think this can help him.

 

Christie is a mixture of establishment with out of the beltway maverick thrown in. Moderate democrats and independants could embrace him. His weakness is with the right evangelical/tea party types. I think many of them will find his abrasiveness towards "enemies" appealing.

 

He did a great job of taking responsibility, but not the blame. Of course it was his close circle, not just random, rogue employees that did this. Of course he sets the tone that results in this juvinile behavior. I am almost positive that at the very least, he told someone "give them some payback, don't get caught and don't tell me". Instead, he appears to be an innocent that was a victim of bad employees.

 

Assuming no further damage to him directly, I think he will be the republican nominee for President.

[imatfaal]

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/chris_christie_bridge_scandal_some_praise_his_response_others_skeptical.html

 

Chris Christie, NJ governor is in the middle of a political scandal that could end his career. If no further links are found between him and the freeway jam for payback, I actually think this can help him.

 

Christie is a mixture of establishment with out of the beltway maverick thrown in. Moderate democrats and independants could embrace him. His weakness is with the right evangelical/tea party types. I think many of them will find his abrasiveness towards "enemies" appealing.

 

He did a great job of taking responsibility, but not the blame. Of course it was his close circle, not just random, rogue employees that did this. Of course he sets the tone that results in this juvinile behavior. I am almost positive that at the very least, he told someone "give them some payback, don't get caught and don't tell me". Instead, he appears to be an innocent that was a victim of bad employees.

 

Assuming no further damage to him directly, I think he will be the republican nominee for President.

 

When people that close to a politician act so improperly then there must be some blow-back for the head-honcho who gave them the job in the first place. Whilst there is ministerial responsibility and not all decisions are referred upwards - Christie and other men and women in his exalted position do not hesitate to take credit for their appointees good work and thus cannot be allowed to avoid blame for their appointees screw-ups. Especially when the screw up are on an administration level but are motivated by purely political ends. His closest ally was a complete fool who allowed political differences to sway her judgment to a horrendous extent - how well does that reflect on his ability to create a cabinet to run the country?

 

That said all I have seen from the right hand side of the Atlantic of Christie has been very good. I was first impressed by him during the terrible storms during the last election run up. It was perceived by republican stratergists that he was in a prime position to wound Obama by criticising the central administration's and presidential response to the storms - and he refused to because he felt it was not true and it was making a petty political point when action rather than words were required.

[Phi for All]

Assuming no further damage to him directly, I think he will be the republican nominee for President.

 

I hope you're right. I, too, was impressed with his willingness to cross party lines for efficiency, effectiveness and integrity during his state's recent storm emergency. I may not vote for him, but he's the Republican candidate I'd feel best about winning, especially if he has to work with a Democratic majority in Congress.

[john5746]

 

I hope you're right. I, too, was impressed with his willingness to cross party lines for efficiency, effectiveness and integrity during his state's recent storm emergency. I may not vote for him, but he's the Republican candidate I'd feel best about winning, especially if he has to work with a Democratic majority in Congress.

 

I agree with your conclusion that he is probably the best Repub candidate with any chance of being nominated, I prefer Huntsman, but he has no chance of nomination.

 

But this ordeal really makes me question his character. I would be concerned about foreign affairs especially, Obama dropped the ball on healthcare, but at least we are focused on domestic issues, even with an impotent House.

 

As far as working with Democrats, they are easier to work with than Repubs. Governors seem to be able to do that, but it doesn't scale to Washington.

Edited January 10, 2014 by john5746

[iNow]

I tend to avoid MSNBC in the same way that I avoid Fox News (I'm not a fan of CNN either, really). I prefer sources like NPR and PBS and BBC, myself, and have even seen some good reporting lately on Al-Jazeera US. With that said, I was linked to the video below from a Bill Moyers article and I think it's a perspective with merit.

 

Summary: The political retribution story is probably not crap, but it seems likely that it was never intended to be against the mayor for refusal to endorse Christie during the election. Instead, it seems likely that it was a move against the democratic legislature for their treatment of Christie's judicial nominees (as evidenced by a news conference less than 12 hours before the email ordering the lane closure was sent).

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/an-alternate-theory-of-the-bridgegate-scandal-111611971764

 

 

I agree with your conclusion that he is probably the best Repub candidate with any chance of being nominated, I prefer Huntsman, but he has no chance of nomination.

I couldn't agree with you more here. Edited January 10, 2014 by iNow

[Bignose]

But this ordeal really makes me question his character.

I agree with this. It is going to be interesting if (when?) he officially becomes a candidate how much more issues like this come to light.

 

Remember, this is the guy who thought it was ok to use the state helicopter to fly to his kid's little league game: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_christie_arrives_at_sons_h.html

 

There is a fine line between "Brash guy who gets things done" and "Person who abuses his power and bullies others".

Edited January 10, 2014 by Bignose

[iNow]

There is a fine line between "Brash guy who gets things done" and "Person who abuses his power and bullies others".

This was highlighted rather successfully IMO last night on The Daily Show in the following clip (starting at 3min in):

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-9-2014/the-neverending-sorry

[overtone]

Christie looks like a typical crime boss, a smart thug - these guys always kiss ass uphill and kick teeth downhill, and that's where the sucking up to Obama to get Sandy aid comes in as well as the intimidation and abuse of those beneath him.

 

Integrity has nothing to do with it. Christie hasn't even admitted he knows what his entire staff has been up to for years.

 

It's not a good way to govern a modern industrial State, as the history of fascistic governments since WWII shows, the incompetence of the Cheney crowd recently demonstrated, and the current Republican Congress seems bent on nailing to their foreheads - for some reason the notion that jackboot asskicking gets the trains running on time attracts a certain fraction of Americans, but it's an illusion created by the hordes of yes-men and flatterers such governance attracts.

 

What you get is Potempkin railroad schedules, Potemkin village facades, Potemkin FEMAs, Potemkin wars even - look at Iraq.

 

As a variety of eyewitnesses have stated, citing examples (MSNBC has aired several on a couple of its shows), this kind of abusive screwing around is how Christie has been running things in New Jersey all along. I don't think he can run for President successfully any time soon - as with Anthony Weiner's disgrace, this reflects too badly on the immaturity of his judgment and character and fills the TV screen too easily with reminders. Maybe after the upcoming lawsuits have been settled.

 

 

 

I tend to avoid MSNBC in the same way that I avoid Fox News

Inability to distinguish viewpoint or ideological stance from deception and corruption and propaganda puts you in the power of the propagandist -

 

the idea that media outlets such as MSNBC are like Fox, merely on the "other side" - so that "both sides are doing it" - is exactly the current Fox line, for example. Youve been sold on it.

Edited January 14, 2014 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

If I had to vote for a Republican and I had any authority to vote at all in the US elections, it would certainly be for Christie. I don't think anyone doubts that he's going to be a nominee* for 2016, but I'd be interested to see if he can actually make it through to becoming the Republican presidential candidate.* He's much too bipartisan for a lot of Republicans - especially the Tea Party faction - and I suspect that many base Republicans would rather support someone like Paul Ryan or possibly Marco Rubio (maybe Ted Cruz). I wouldn't be too upset if Paul Ryan got it either, personally. He's not all terrible and he's had some decent middle-of-the-road suggestions.

 

How this stupidly names bridge-gate fiasco affects Christie comes down a lot on how true his statement of his not-knowing turns out to be. I was under the impression that Christie was fairly renowned as a bit of a bully, though the purported reasons behind the bridge shutdown seem so trivial and minor that I find it hard to believe that he would actually order this be done. One suggestion I heard, which I would be much more willing to believe, is that the staff responsible were potentially acting under a sort of implied directive. In other words, Christie could well have said, 'do what you need to do to get X done,' and staff could have interpreted that however they wanted without Christie having actually told them what to do or knowing what they were planning. That being said, I like iNow's suggestion also and it's given me something to ponder.

 

Overtone, I'm sorry, but iNow is definitely right as far as MSNBC, et al are correct. I listen to a bunch of different political podcasts since I don't really have access to your news programs, namely PBS's Washington Week, Slate's Political Gabfest, Freakonomics radio (it often covers policy issues or policy related ones), KCRW's Left, Right and Center and formerly, the NPR It's All Politics one (may it RIP). Going from those sorts of sources, which I enjoy and find to be very good in how balanced they approach stories, to CNN or (mostly) MSNBC (or FOX) is like walking into a whole other world full of terrible journalism - and believe me when I say that I get more than enough of that in Australia. They're (again, mostly MSNBC) about as sensationalist, bias and at times, as wrong as FOX news sometimes is, it just happens to be on the left side of politics rather than the right.

 

*Not sure if my terminology is right, there. I'm sure you all get the idea.

[overtone]

How this stupidly names bridge-gate fiasco affects Christie comes down a lot on how true his statement of his not-knowing turns out to be

Not really. It comes down to whether that silly claim is taken seriously by the major media, and if so whether the obvious implications for Christie's diligence, oversight of and attention to his staff's behavior, and acquaintanceship with the major events and problems affecting the State of New Jersey, are then placed front and center in the reporting of the event.

 

He isn't Reagan - he doesn't get to claim an amiable mental "disengagement" and have that actually work as an excuse. His whole schtick is dilligent, hands-on competence.

 

 

Overtone, I'm sorry, but iNow is definitely right as far as MSNBC, et al are concerned.

To repeat: "Inability to distinguish viewpoint or ideological stance from deception and corruption and propaganda puts you in the power of the propagandist -" To point out the obvious example of the consequences: there is no "et al". You were referring to nothing. It's the only major US TV broadcast station without a notable rightwing bias throughout its entire news delivery and analysis operation.

 

 

 

They're (again, mostly MSNBC) about as sensationalist, bias and at times, as wrong as FOX news sometimes is, it just happens to be on the left side of politics rather than the right

You will find it difficult to back that up with even one or two examples, if you try.

 

Besides: that makes it equivalent to a partisan Repubublican propaganda outlet with no allegiance to facts or reality? Not a chance. MSNBC does get its facts straight, ordinarily - Rachel Maddow's show posts its sources and support online, so you can compare easily (note how automatically you understand that Fox does nothing like that, on any show) - and broadcasts corrections of the fairly rare errors, which puts it in an entirely different category from Fox. There is no equivalence, even remote - Fox is nonstop propaganda, without allegiance to physical reality even in their "straight news". All the non-rightwing talk and analysis programs on MSNBC, not just the ostensibly straight news reports, factcheck at a professional level. Fox doesn't even correct errors discovered by others (Benghazi, recently, illustrates).

 

 

 

They're (again, mostly MSNBC) about as sensationalist, bias and at times, as wrong as FOX news sometimes is, it just happens to be on the left side of politics rather than the right

A little more than a third of MSNBC unique broadcast output is biased rightwing - it is the station of Morning Joe, etc. This is true of its straight news reporting, also - center, center-right, mostly. Until very recently the fraction was greater - the center-left stuff like Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow is newer than than the rightwing and center-right.

 

Fox is not "sometimes wrong" - they are normally and consistently deceptive, only correct and accurate in so far as it suits the agenda of their corporate support. And they have no lefty stuff at all - there is no Fox version of Morning Joe, or the lineup of rightwing and conservative and corporate rep voices on any MSNBC reporting venture relevant to such.

 

If you can come up with a single example of any story in which the "bias" or "sensationalist" treatment at MSNBC in general matched Fox in general but on the left rather than the right, please name it. I say there has never been one -

 

but recall two things first: reality has a "liberal bias" in the US these days, as that term is commonly employed; but that would not apply here (simple factual reality, like the size of W's last two spending deficits in 2008 and 2009, are neutral); and also one must distinguish between viewpoint or ideological stance and "bias". The one is a perspective on facts otherwise fairly reported, the other a consistent distortion of facts to fit a preconception - bias is assessed by comparison with factual reality, not with ideological position. The takehome is that bias is best measured by direction of error, not viewpoint. Reporting the glass as half full rather than half empty is viewpoint without bias; reporting a glass sitting there with some water in it as being taken over by water or menaced by air, without mentioning the level, would be bias. Fox will actively deceive about the water level.

 

So while all the major US news media dutifully reported W's 2008 "budget deficit" as around 450 billion, the official number handed out by W's administration, those who went on to point out that W's policy of omitting the two ongoing wars and the bank bailout from the "budget" underestimated the actual government deficit spending that year by more than half were not "biased" but simply delivering news; those who did not carefully correct the impression W was trying to create were either incompetent or biased - and those who five years later still assert that Obama ran the first trillion dollar deficits in US history are actively deceptive on top of rightwing bias.

 

Wrongness is a dubious assessment, partly perception, but the matter of deception and dishonesty is not - Fox is dishonest to a far greater degree, uniquely, regardless of "side", than MSNBC or any other major US media outlet. From the Acorn hit video to Shirley Sherrod to Benghazi, the airwaves are so normally filled with deception from Fox that it's accepted as a norm. There is no equivalency there: it's a unique operation in the US. The comparison might be with the old Pravda before the USSR collapsed, or the North Korean official media.

 

And so the Fox take on Christie will be governed by the political agenda of its corporate backers, rather than the nature of the event or the nature of Christie's governance. And that will have more influence on Christie's ambitions than any other single media factor.

Edited January 14, 2014 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

Not really. It comes down to whether that silly claim is taken seriously by the major media, and if so whether the obvious implications for Christie's diligence, oversight of and attention to his staff's behavior, and acquaintanceship with the major events and problems affecting the State of New Jersey, are then placed front and center in the reporting of the event.

 

Well sure, but how the media responds to it would depend largely on whether or not the claim stands up, if not now then certainly how they continue to report it after the initial furore has died down. I can't remember what the details were exactly, but I recall that there was some meeting he had with staff a little while ago that indicated he was telling the truth about not knowing about it. I couldn't tell you anything more specific without trawling back through my history. Even if it is true, it of course doesn't excuse the fact that it happened; it might help this not become such a huge issue down the track, however.

 

Given that he is certainly going to be running for presidency, his actions in NJ and elsewhere are going to be in the news regardless of this event and how the media choose to run it. He seems to be quite well liked by the media on both sides though, insults about his weight notwithstanding (seriously, what was that all about?); his apology conference seemed to be week received, at any rate (based on the Slate and PBS sources I was reading). My personal view is that this will die down very quickly and the public will stop caring about it, unless it is revealed that he was definitely lying, in which case it will drag out some more and possibly affect his running chances.

 

I am not going to respond to the remainder of your post, as it is off topic (and in fairness, I shouldn't have responded to it in my previous post either, so I am sorry for that). However, if you wanted to discuss it elsewhere, I'm sure I'd be happy to participate.

[john5746]

My personal view is that this will die down very quickly and the public will stop caring about it, unless it is revealed that he was definitely lying, in which case it will drag out some more and possibly affect his running chances.

I think it will die down nationally, but locally it will live for some time. I can feel the sharks circling the water now that a little blood has spilled. If anything arises with Sandy relief, that will prove a nail in the coffin. I doubt that will be the case, but we will see.

[iNow]

Inability to distinguish viewpoint or ideological stance from deception and corruption and propaganda puts you in the power of the propagandist -

 

the idea that media outlets such as MSNBC are like Fox, merely on the "other side" - so that "both sides are doing it" - is exactly the current Fox line, for example. Youve been sold on it.

Whoa... Slow down there, over-reaction-tone. Way too much assumption underlies your response to me there. What said is that I tend to avoid MSNBC and Fox and CNN. I shared that prefer certain other sources, not that I believed these (MSNBC/Fox) to be somehow equivalent or equally biased. That is all.

 

Your desire to read between the lines here has led you to err, and there is no need to rhetorically browbeat me or suggest I'm somehow incapable of distinguishing deception from ideological stance. That is not warranted, and I would appreciate it if all of your future comments could remain about the content and not about me personally. Fortunately, such an approach is also better aligned with the rules to which we all agreed to adhere while posting here at SFN, and this is the last I'll comment on this issue in this thread.

 

 

However, if you wanted to discuss it elsewhere, I'm sure I'd be happy to participate.

FYI, we sort of have in the past already (a few times ):

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61629-fox-news-viewers-know-less-than-people-who-dont-watch-any-news/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/42169-is-fox-news-a-news-organization/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50810-fox-news-channel-is-the-news-of-record/

 

 

 

I can feel the sharks circling the water now that a little blood has spilled. If anything arises with Sandy relief, that will prove a nail in the coffin.

Like this recent story:

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/14/262357165/feds-launch-audit-into-sandy-related-spending-in-new-jersey

Embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gives his State of the State speech on Tuesday. His administration faces lingering questions about politically-motivated lane closures at the George Washington Bridge. And now Christie faces another high-profile investigation. This one focuses on how his administration spent millions of dollars of Superstorm Sandy relief funds on a marketing campaign.

Edited January 14, 2014 by iNow

[swansont]

I can imagine an opponent making hay of the fact that Christie fired Bret Schundler in 2010 for supposedly lying to him. The lesson was "don't lie to the governor". I would expect someone to go Cruise/Nicholson on him and inquire how it is that someone would lie to him after that (Bridgegate) and call his leadership into question. If they can handle the truth.

[overtone]

 

 

What said is that I tend to avoid MSNBC and Fox and CNN.

You did not say you avoided MSNBC the same way you avoid CNN. You drew the parallel - "the same way" - not between MSNBC and CNN (which is closer to reasonable) or Fox and CNN (also closer to reasonable), but between MSNBC and Fox, which is not close to reasonable.

 

You might want to avoid both, but not "the same way" - the one presents honest news analysis with fact checking and allegiance to accuracy, the other hoses the airwaves with deceptions, misdirections, innuendo, misinformation, and flat lies - it's not actually a news provider at all, any more than the marketing department of a national pizza chain is. You don't avoid Fox the "same way" you would avoid CNN or MSNBC, you avoid Fox the "same way" you would avoid Alex Jones or Stormfront or the PR department of British Petroleum.

 

The parallel you drew was also read by others, some in agreement - you were supported in what everyone responding from the post took to be your claim of equivalence, in subsequent posts.

 

 

 

Your desire to read between the lines here has led you to err, and there is no need to rhetorically browbeat me or suggest I'm somehow incapable of distinguishing deception from ideological stance. That is not warranted, and I would appreciate it if all of your future comments could remain about the content and not about me personally. Fortunately, such an approach is also better aligned with the rules to which we all agreed to adhere while posting here at SFN, and this is the last I'll comment on this issue in this thread.

If your actual complaint is about being misunderstood, you might also address the others here who "misunderstood" in exactly the same way - including at least one who if I am not mistaken would be in charge of enforcing those rules you think are broken here, in post 9 of this thread.

 

I contend that addressing common confusions about the nature of the various major media organizations that will be covering Christie as he manuevers for the Presidential nomination is directly relevant in this thread, and a handy example is just that. As seen below - -

 

 

 

Well sure, but how the media responds to it would depend largely on whether or not the claim stands up,

It's the other way around. The claim is silly - not remotely credible, for any governor let alone one with Christie's history and well established mode of operation. The only way it can both "stand up" (be generally believed or accepted) and also work to clear and support the guy is if it is both accepted as a sort of "Sunday Truth" by the better informed gatekeepers of public information (he gets a pass on credibility a la Reagan and W, because he's liked by the likes of Fox and CNN) and then carefully avoided for its implications about Christie's competence and management abilities.

 

You can't govern well a modern industrial State like that, either way - in that mode of screwing the public for partisan and personal gain, or that state of oblivious cluelessness as one's closest staff in a cooperative body shuts down major roads and creates serious problems for the biggest developments in one's State - and Christie's job title is after all "Governor". That's the story - and not the first time in Christie's tenure that story has presented itself to be told.

 

So the question of whether it will be told has little to do with whether Christie was lying. It has to do with the integrity of the major media covering the event, and Christie's campaign for hte Presidency.

[swansont]

You did not say you avoided MSNBC the same way you avoid CNN. You drew the parallel - "the same way" - not between MSNBC and CNN (which is closer to reasonable) or Fox and CNN (also closer to reasonable), but between MSNBC and Fox, which is not close to reasonable.

 

You might want to avoid both, but not "the same way" - the one presents honest news analysis with fact checking and allegiance to accuracy, the other hoses the airwaves with deceptions, misdirections, innuendo, misinformation, and flat lies - it's not actually a news provider at all, any more than the marketing department of a national pizza chain is. You don't avoid Fox the "same way" you would avoid CNN or MSNBC, you avoid Fox the "same way" you would avoid Alex Jones or Stormfront or the PR department of British Petroleum.

 

Not that this matters much or that this is not making a mountain out of a molehill, but you have assumed a great deal here. All iNow said was he tends to avoid MSNBC the same way he avoids Fox news. He didn't say which way that is. You have focused on ways these channels are different, but have no actual basis for knowing these are the reasons for the avoidance.

 

Both channels employ opinionated pundits. That alone could be a reason for avoiding them. There are other similarities as well. It could be something as trivial as the two channels being located at an inconvenient place on the spectrum, whereas the preferred ones are located next to other channels he likes. I don't know (since iNow never went into detail about it). But the point is, neither do you.

[Delta1212]

I avoid MSNBC in the same way I avoid Fox. Better than 9 times out of 10, I already know what they're going to say on a given topic even before I know more than the barest details.

 

I find that Fox tends to be more manipulative and/or outright wrong in its reporting than MSNBC, but both inject a heavy dose of opinion into their reporting and political bias into their choice of stories, which I don't care for.

 

I watch both occasionally, but I don 'to consider either a good primary news source and don't treat them as such: because they're not. You can argue about degree and kind in terms of why they're each awful, but since there are some actual good news sources out there, I don't see any reason to value one over the other just because it uses a different, less poisonous form of terrible journalism.

 

Edit: Just because Fox News is lying when it says that every other source of news but them is a biased, lefty piece of garbage does not mean that there aren't news sources with a pronounced liberal bias. I'm way left of the American center, but I don't need my news to come from an echo chamber, even if it agrees with me.

 

In fact, I'd rather watch Fox if only because it's easier to spot the lies you disagree with than the slant that you already believe to be true.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Delta1212

[overtone]

 

 

In fact, I'd rather watch Fox if only because it's easier to spot the lies you disagree with than the slant that you already believe to be true.

 

The question is why you would want to watch a corrupt and dishonest pretense at delivering "news" at all, if any other choice were available - the notion that one is somehow above the fray, that continual repetition of a bullshit frame (the real danger of Fox, not the lies they count on their audience forgetting anyway) will not influence one's thinking, is not supported by the evidence of other people, is it.

 

 

 

both inject a heavy dose of opinion into their reporting and political bias into their choice of stories, which I don't care for.

1)That's not what "bias" means 2) They all choose the same stories to report on - do they all have the same "political bias"? 3) You seem to be confusing reporting with punditry.

 

 

 

Edit: Just because Fox News is lying when it says that every other source of news but them is a biased, lefty piece of garbage does not mean that there aren't news sources with a pronounced liberal bias.

Well, no, it doesn't, but there arent anywayy - - - but that needs untangling: 1) There is no such thing as a liberal "bias" in US journalism. Journalism in a democratic, secular, and free society - reporting of facts and events honestly and as objectively or completely as one can manage regardless of the implications or the effects on society etc - is an ideologically liberal endeavor in the first place. Bias itself, in a newscast, is contrary to liberal principles.

 

2) But we know that anyone who watches Fox as a news deliverer, thinking that they are seeing through the lies and acquiring information by contrast, is already unable to articulate liberal principles or distinguish "bias" from "viewpoint", "side", "stance", etc; the meaning of "liberal bias" they intend is what they have had inculcated by Fox - or one of the other adopters of the Fox frame in this matter, such as ABC or CBS or CNN.

 

so: 3) It is necessary to point out here that there are no major US sources of straight news with a "pronounced liberal bias" in that Foxframe sense, nominally in the bullshit Fox frame a consistent leftwing perspective on the issues and events of the day, and in practice simply a label applied to whatever Sean Hannity's backers want him to disparage, Limbaugh's guiding "think tank" missives sic him on. (How else could authoritarian Federal gun confiscation acquire the label "liberal", or taxpayer bailout of private and deregulated banks acquire labels "left", "socialist"?).

 

MSNBC, for example, has two or three moderately leftwing pundits discussing stuff in its talk and panel shows, but its straight news delivery (there isn't much of that, actually, at MSNBC) is framed in the same familiar (rightwing, corporate leaning) terms as CNN's or anyone's, and it does the same kind of "balancing" of legit punditry with corrupt bs that has ensconced David Brooks and Ross Douthat and the like at the NYT - a flagrant betrayal of honest journalism, punditry, and liberal principles, a corruption of the news media that completely disproves any hypothetisized liberal or leftwing dominance of any of these news deliverers.

 

And this is critical in estimating Christie's political future here, now that he's more visibly a more or less typical example of his type and set of allegiances. How will the media establishment frame the coverage of Christie's record, as the months (days) roll by and we hit the amnesia wall of the balancing, or bull, s. ?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Overtone

 

Stop now. You do not get to tell people what they are thinking, the reality of their motives, nor correct their use of language because you do not agree with the content (I see no problem with Delta's post).

 

This thread is about Chris Christie - please get back on topic

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[overtone]

This thread is about Chris Christie - please get back on topic

The topic is Chris Christie's shot at the Presidency in the wake of this latest and for some reason suddenly famous example of his governing methods.

 

My point, directly and explicitly relevant and supported by the entire post, is that the key factor in this scandal's effects on Christie's chances will be the media handling of it, given the nature of the news and punditry organizations we have these days.

 

 

 

You do not get to tell people what they are thinking, the reality of their motives, nor correct their use of language because you do not agree with the content (I see no problem with Delta's post).

I didn't. The poster I was replying to supplied that entire body of evidence for my argument as is, including the "conservative" characteristic misuse of language in support of a characteristic Foxframed invalid assertion about that media

 

directly paired with a claim of immunity to the lies retailed by Fox, made in support of preferring Fox to MSNBC.

 

That, of course, is evidence for my argument here. Christie's fate rests not in the details of exactly what he knew and when - given the obvious - but in the framing by the media, which Murdoch et al dominate, as illustrated.

 

if all previous patterns hold, either the Murdoch et al media will use that inculcated dominance of framing ( "liberal bias") to defend Christie via various rhetorical tech from whatever genuine reporting makes the airwaves, and posters will copy such "argument" into this forum,

 

or the Murdoch et al media will use that same dominance to trash Christie and get him out fo the way of their new chosen candidate.

 

Either way, it's front and center of any discussion of Christie's recovery odds.

 

The deficit of straight US news reporting from even a centrist, let alone leftwing, perspective is a major factor here on this particular thread, with this topic. Christie is a classic rightwing authoritarian type, he's done exactly what that type does when given power, and that opposition perspective having gone missing is significant. Denial of that tends to - has, if you read posts above - reduce analysis of Christie's chances to argument-free claim and counter claim - be simpler to take an opinion poll, if that's what you want.

 

If you do not understand the problem with Delta's post even after I pointed it out, or recognize its direct relevance here to Christie's chances of avoiding accountability even after explication, might I suggest a more careful reading of my post?

 

Or if you did follow the post and think I erred, how about something reasonable in a counter-argument. My posts here are spot on topic, and if you notice I have confined my response to the "moderation" post to those aspects of it that were on topic here - ignoring the "moderation" aspects, as instructed.

Edited January 15, 2014 by overtone