Everything · Log In · Sign Up (it's free!)
chit chat · jump 2 end
aslan:
Charlie Gibson, ABC, "condescendingly" questioning Sarah Palin.
Mission: cut her "down to size", thrill the liberal media by making her look bad.
Anyone who "doesn't" believe there is a liberal media bias, "ISN'T paying attention. Gibson is a joke as a journalist.
at 10:39PM 09/12/08
Mission: cut her "down to size", thrill the liberal media by making her look bad.
Anyone who "doesn't" believe there is a liberal media bias, "ISN'T paying attention. Gibson is a joke as a journalist.
at 10:39PM 09/12/08
cybergrammie:
Are you talking about sweet Charlie Gibson?! I see him in a whole different light now...
at 10:44PM 09/12/08
at 10:44PM 09/12/08
ms_amazing:
Are all the kingdom-bringing journalists still in school? Geez, people, get a move on!
at 10:53PM 09/12/08
at 10:53PM 09/12/08
cybergrammie:
For one thing Charlie needs to take some pointers from Palin on eyeglass selection!
at 10:53PM 09/12/08
at 10:53PM 09/12/08
aslan:
@lindsey.... Examples...? Fox? Fox actually presents a "somewhat" balanced perspective. I can name the self proclaimed liberals on Fox, as well as the conservatives. Now Sean Hannaty is a "commentator". Every channel, media outlet has them. That is not the same as a news anchor... who is supposed to present an objective, unbiased "report" of the news. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post ALL have a liberal slant on the "presentation" of the news, which is "different" than commentary on it. Check it out. None of the major news anchors deny it.... they're liberals. The major media outlets, both electronic and print, represent a liberal perspective. Which major news outlets or anchors are conservative? Rush is a commentator,,,, as are many "talk" radio hosts. Both ways?
at 10:59PM 09/12/08
at 10:59PM 09/12/08
gregory:
Jim....I'm being uncharacteristically serious about this question....I'm NOT using my usual hyperboles.....here goes the question.....who says that news anchors are suppose to be "objective"?
at 11:06PM 09/12/08
at 11:06PM 09/12/08
aslan:
@gregory... Having taught journalism... the ethical standards of journalism. Journalism is "objective" reporting of the news.... by definition. You can't be serious.....
at 11:17PM 09/12/08
at 11:17PM 09/12/08
joel:
She seemed over-rehearsed and way out of her depth on int'l stuff, just as GWB did when that Boston reporter pulled a "gotcha" in 2000 with the names of foreign leaders. The lesson for our dear Sarah Fey is to learn how to parry and re-frame questions rather than take whatever the reporter throws at her. I interpreted "Churly"'s look as one who realized she didn't know how to push back effectively - that he was dealing with an inexperienced interviewee. She looked terrific in the rest of the footage.
BTW, CNN impresses me most as a news operation.
at 11:17PM 09/12/08
BTW, CNN impresses me most as a news operation.
at 11:17PM 09/12/08
aslan:
A case in point..... On 9/12/08..... THIS morning, on CNN, John Roberts, News "anchorman" in discussing Obama's comments on campaign ads said, "Do WE risk...., or does the Democratic Party here risk, Barack Obama becoming John Kerry II?" Whoops!!!! Referring to the Democratic Party as "we"? Only confirms what was already known.
at 11:23PM 09/12/08
at 11:23PM 09/12/08
gregory:
@aslan....so R U saying that U R in favor of an Oligarchy of the Intelligentsia to censor our news media? Do they define what is "Objectivity" 4 us?
at 11:32PM 09/12/08
at 11:32PM 09/12/08
joel:
I think John is a fine reporter. I would interpret his self-correction as simple mis-phrasing of the sentiment "Are we seeing John Kerry II?" I think he realized he used the word "risk" which would have given the impression he favors one or the other. We see his motives differently. But I have all the respect in the world for Aslan's opinion. How could I not?
at 11:32PM 09/12/08
at 11:32PM 09/12/08
kylibo:
I think what needs to happen is that we must all accept that there will never be a objective news as long as humans are reporting it. it is impossible for a person to remove the lens through which he sees the world (language). we need to become more savvy consumers of the news, learning to be aware of word selection and also constantly being aware that a human, who has an internal standard by which they gauge all things, is reporting the "facts" as they see them. what i'm saying is that there is no such thing as objectivity except in God. For us humans everything is subjective naturally.
at 11:43PM 09/12/08
at 11:43PM 09/12/08
kylibo:
*being aware that humanS, who HAVE an internal standard by which they gauge all things, ARE reporting the facts as they see them
at 11:49PM 09/12/08
at 11:49PM 09/12/08
britt:
i agree with kylibo that there is no such thing as objectivity because the way we view the world is through our personal beliefs. as far as cnn in being the most balanced, that might be true but it still impresses me as having a bit of a slant.
at 11:55PM 09/12/08
at 11:55PM 09/12/08
aslan:
@gregory..... Oligarchy of the Intelligentsia???? Censoring???? Greg, Greg, Greg..... explain if you will. your line of reasoning. Such impressive multisyllabic words. Oh, and please use a deductive approach making use of "anything" I said as the major premise.... in syllogistic form please....... and do avoid any and all of the "fallacies" of logic.
Seriously, are you implying words have no meaning? Even Wiktionary has an acceptable definition: "not influenced by the emotions or prejudices" Why does "any" group have to make a such a ruling.
at 11:56PM 09/12/08
Seriously, are you implying words have no meaning? Even Wiktionary has an acceptable definition: "not influenced by the emotions or prejudices" Why does "any" group have to make a such a ruling.
at 11:56PM 09/12/08
kylibo:
the more i think about it the more important it becomes to me that we adopt this view. until we all accept that all news is subjective we will continue to think that our side is objective and the other side is twisting things to fit their view. both sides are twisting things and if we accept that fact then we can get rid of the pride that comes with the thought "my side is so honest and straight forward and the other side is so devious." allowing us to see that if we feed our minds one news network or another at least we realize we are choosing to brain wash ourselves in a certain direction and not smugly assuming that we are right because we feed ourselves data that confirms that we're right.
at 11:57PM 09/12/08
at 11:57PM 09/12/08
aslan:
Kyle, good point.... though it does "not" address the idea that these biases are "evenly" spread throughout the media. I CAN identify those with a liberal AND a conservative slant on most of the major news networks. Are there an equal number of each allowed air time on each of these news outlets?
at 12:01AM 09/13/08
at 12:01AM 09/13/08
britt:
kylibo, i don't think it's a matter of twisting stuff around to think the other side is 'wrong' but rather our political views are typically based out of whether we believe that humans are inherently good or evil. it is a matter of trying to understand the other side and finding a way for both sides to be somewhat satisfied (which is hard to do). like the suburbs of politics.
at 12:05AM 09/13/08
at 12:05AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
here's where i think things will progress in the near future. the t.v. news media will disappear as a stronghold of information as the newspaper did. the internet will become the main source of information for the younger generation (and we will soon become the older generation). this allows for a self dispensed form of news where you can choose to fill yourself with as much of a slant one way or the other as you'd like and i believe this will ,mostly, do away with the arguments that liberals control the tv media and republicans control the radio, because the consumer will mostly be getting their information by choice and not by chance. this is why i believe it's important that we realize that when we consume "news" we are choosing to build up a bulwark against an opposing side.
at 12:10AM 09/13/08
at 12:10AM 09/13/08
gregory:
@aslan...this is becoming fun...and hopefully, informative....I lapsed back into my hyperbolic ways....I use a hyperbolic pin to pop "sentimental political balloons"....I pull the "pin" out on your chit/chat threads because I know you won't take it person and you won't get insulted and you aren't sentimental but educated in your opinions...I'll make another post later...
at 12:11AM 09/13/08
at 12:11AM 09/13/08
joel:
Listen, there's always an agreement between the Fourth Estate and the citizens as to how journalists will do their job in a particular society. So there is a sense in which journalism can and should be objective, based on those shared values. Our media behaves in a particular way because of what our society holds dear. We would expect the media to perform very differently if we lived in a monarchy and everyone wanted the media to uphold the dignity of the crown. You get my point.
Disagreement comes when the U.S. media seems to arrogate to itself a role that many citizens have not agreed to give it. That of watchdog. Of course, we love it when the media hounds the other guy, so I think this is mostly selective indignation. In all, I'd rather have an overactive, overheated Fourth Estate than an insipid one. I can see through the smoke and bias just fine, thanks, though I appreciate folks who try to hew to objectivity - as we define it.
Also keep in mind that journalism is a low-paying profession, and one of the perq's is feeling like they have performed an important function in the democracy.
at 12:13AM 09/13/08
Disagreement comes when the U.S. media seems to arrogate to itself a role that many citizens have not agreed to give it. That of watchdog. Of course, we love it when the media hounds the other guy, so I think this is mostly selective indignation. In all, I'd rather have an overactive, overheated Fourth Estate than an insipid one. I can see through the smoke and bias just fine, thanks, though I appreciate folks who try to hew to objectivity - as we define it.
Also keep in mind that journalism is a low-paying profession, and one of the perq's is feeling like they have performed an important function in the democracy.
at 12:13AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
@britt i wasn't saying that one side was twisting information, but when you think of your side as objective you will assume that the other side is not because you can't both be objective and say different things, so one side has to be twisting the facts to fit and since it can't be your side it must be theirs.
at 12:13AM 09/13/08
at 12:13AM 09/13/08
aslan:
Objectivity....... hmmm...... yes an ideal, which by definition...... wait..... we aren't defining anything because the best I can do is give my biased interpretation of what it means..... AND the same is true about anything anyone else has to say... only their subjective view.. Since all I can present is my biases and all you (an abstract you) can present is your biases all that ever occurs is a "grasping" for human contact that disappears in a haze of subjective oblivion. All of existence loses meaning....... meaning, what does that mean. I know, but it is only my personal subjective, biased way of knowing..... so I don't know,... but wait maybe I do know but I have no way of knowing whether I do know or don't know. Does God Exist? I think I know but I can't be sure. It is, after all, just my subjective view of that which is unknowable...... and on and on and on. Lost in a post-modern world......
at 12:14AM 09/13/08
at 12:14AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
no no aslan we have dug to the foundation of the universe, we have realized that all things in the human mind and heart can only stand on faith. hmmm it seems that God set this place up...
at 12:17AM 09/13/08
at 12:17AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
now it's a matter of who or what we place our faith in, will it be science? or politics? or human goodness? or...
at 12:17AM 09/13/08
at 12:17AM 09/13/08
gregory:
As one who is largely inspired and motivated by Jas.5:16b"...the prayer of the righteous person has great power and wonderful results..." I think that ABC News is doing much better than their past. They are getting BETTER....I explain in another post.
at 12:19AM 09/13/08
at 12:19AM 09/13/08
joel:
Aslan, you are getting us into Kant's critique of pure reason. But you are right - it is a slippery slope. But I think unfounded fear of relativism drives much bad theology - it causes people to grasp for certainty in places where God has not provided it.
at 12:21AM 09/13/08
at 12:21AM 09/13/08
aslan:
@gregory.... I appreciate your recognition of "my" response to these discussions. I "don't" take things personally (at least I think I don't, but then again I may.... there is, after all no way of "objectively" knowing :) ). I enjoy hearing points of view that are different from my own. It is your RIGHT as an American to be wrong. It's in the Constitution somewhere. :)
at 12:24AM 09/13/08
at 12:24AM 09/13/08
gregory:
Yesterday and today Sarah Palin's interview was air on World News for two days, Nightline for two days. GMA for two days. All through the night on ABC news segements were shown. And John & Cindy McCain were on the View....THAT's PROGRESS FOLKS...intercessors should be encouraged and HAPPY...at lease those intercessors that pray for news anchor persons (not anchorman)...
at 12:27AM 09/13/08
at 12:27AM 09/13/08
britt:
joel, you've touched on a fear i have of both parties looking to their candidates as the answer to their prayers- one who will have their back. my hope is that those who are so easily swayed by media, either right or left, will not turn out to vote.
at 12:30AM 09/13/08
at 12:30AM 09/13/08
gregory:
Aslan....ROFLOL at your "Objectivity" comments...a generation of Postmodern Thought has left the "20 & 30 somethings" brain-fogged lemmings ....It is obvious that this DOES NOT APPLY to the Kilpatricks.
at 12:40AM 09/13/08
at 12:40AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
here's my fear. that people who profess Jesus as Lord do not spend the time it takes to listen to what the Holy Spirit is saying to do. I have been reading in Jeremiah and Ezekiel with my church (established reading) and it is talking about nebuchadnezzar taking over Israel and how Jeremiah told them the word of the Lord, being that they should serve under nebuchadnezzar and be humbled instead of running to the place that they believed would preserve them (egypt). my question is this, if the Holy Spirit told you to vote against your desires would you do it? the Israelites didn't, and I think it would be pride on our part to assume that we would automatically do what God wants.
at 12:45AM 09/13/08
at 12:45AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
what i am saying with my post is that we ought not to bias our spirits so much that it becomes difficult to hear what God is saying for us to do ( i am in no way endorsing one candidate or the other).
at 12:48AM 09/13/08
at 12:48AM 09/13/08
aslan:
It seems to me that for conversation, communication, any type of human activity to occur, there MUST be meaning.... though that meaning only begins as a convenient, agreed upon hypothetical. Call that meaning objectivity.... only a convenient label. Exploration of that meaning can continue to occur.... the objective... what is it?..... God, Himself...? But without meaning, the objective, objectivity....... all is meaning less.
Translation: Yes... I want my news reporters to at least strive towards being objective... or at least inform me of their biases. Joel, though you can see through the biases, I'm not confident that this is true of all viewers. Swayed by the media as Britt puts it. Yes..... I think that is occurring. And perhaps that is a source of my frustration.
Well, I was supposed to be reading papers. It's time.... past time. Be back later. Thanks all.
at 12:52AM 09/13/08
Translation: Yes... I want my news reporters to at least strive towards being objective... or at least inform me of their biases. Joel, though you can see through the biases, I'm not confident that this is true of all viewers. Swayed by the media as Britt puts it. Yes..... I think that is occurring. And perhaps that is a source of my frustration.
Well, I was supposed to be reading papers. It's time.... past time. Be back later. Thanks all.
at 12:52AM 09/13/08
kylibo:
it's a fun system that we have been created in, striving to find meaning between ourselves (if we were left to our own devices all things could mean whatever we want, but community forces us to find shared meaning). it reminds me of the days of babel when God scattered the people and confused their language because nothing they proposed to do would be impossible (because of their shared meaning and unity of spirit. *my opinion). i believe that the end game of this all is for us all to find our objective meaning in the only objective thing, God. until we as a people and we as individuals discover who we are in Christ we will continue to strive against each other in these things. sometimes it's good to remind yourself that God sits on His throne laughing, He sees it all and we can never mess it up so much that He can't save it. thank Him for that great peace.
at 12:58AM 09/13/08
at 12:58AM 09/13/08
scomom:
I only got to watch a litte bit of this, but I was upset w/both sides. Charlie Gibson obviously had an agenda. His demeanor alone said enough. But, I was equally upset that the McCain people had her so scripted that she seemed to be reading a teleprompter behind him. Plus...it just made it look like all her answers were "canned". I think they (McCain's people) made her look as bad as Gibson did.
at 06:03AM 09/13/08
at 06:03AM 09/13/08
jesse:
Oh my god! Yeah, MY god. and, MY beliefs. HANDS OFF! You "conservative" neocons! Stop trying to label anyone with a different opinion than yours as" liberal." And stop trying to elect legislators and vote laws to force us all to either adopt your worldview or become labeled as "liberal (read: un-american)"
at 07:17AM 09/13/08
at 07:17AM 09/13/08
francine:
@Aslan...you are so wise! We were very irritated as we watched him 'attack, attack, attack' her...Do you ever listen to Glenn Beck? You remind me of him. a lot...
at 07:26AM 09/13/08
at 07:26AM 09/13/08
anamaria:
In the 30 minutes I caught last night before falling asleep, I don't remember ever feeling like Churly was unfair. I'll have to look at it again, but I remember thinking he was actually being kind to a newbie. Perhaps that was interpreted as condescending, but I think anyone could have been a lot tougher on Palin. I like her, but even I know she needs preparation for these things to be successful.
at 07:45AM 09/13/08
at 07:45AM 09/13/08
ms_amazing:
Good journalism (the way it was meant to be), was intended to be neutral. This has obviously failed as more and more journalists, and well-respected ones, have shown more "slant" or their own opinion, whether in questions, the FORM of the questions (change words around or emphasize certain ones and you change the meaning of your question or sentence)...Because the elder pave the way for the younger, we now have a media that is no longer neutral. There are a lot of elements involved in this breakdown, including, but not limited to, the theories of absolute relativism, the battle of Humanism versus Christianity (begun much more full force in the 1940's), Democracy versus Socialism, etc. Here is a small bit of the honor code expected:
Virtually all media ethics codes have as an ultimate objective the maintenance of credibility. Credibility begins with a journalist’s honest pursuit of the truth within the framework of fairness, respect and responsibility that results in a trust by the public. While individual wording differs, most media codes are consistent with the principles embraced and adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists in 1996. The SPJ code can be summarized this way:
It is the responsibility of the journalist, acting independently (developing trust), to seek and report the truth (honestly and fairly) while minimizing harm (according respect) and being accountable to the public (demonstrating and accepting responsibility).
at 07:48AM 09/13/08
Virtually all media ethics codes have as an ultimate objective the maintenance of credibility. Credibility begins with a journalist’s honest pursuit of the truth within the framework of fairness, respect and responsibility that results in a trust by the public. While individual wording differs, most media codes are consistent with the principles embraced and adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists in 1996. The SPJ code can be summarized this way:
It is the responsibility of the journalist, acting independently (developing trust), to seek and report the truth (honestly and fairly) while minimizing harm (according respect) and being accountable to the public (demonstrating and accepting responsibility).
at 07:48AM 09/13/08
dougcrew:
Anyone bringing in the, "does God have a candidate?" debate should watch or listen to Lou Engle's message from the Outpouring Conference last Friday. I believe it is on the Bethel website. www.ibethel.org
at 10:34AM 09/13/08
at 10:34AM 09/13/08
jakesmom:
Haven't been able to read the entire thread but what I have read KODOS to you sir Aslan!!!
Bought my husband a shirt in Anchorage the other day,,,,the front had Hockey sticks with the face of a pit bull and the dog tag reads V.P. .....on the back the lipstick "the joke" signed with a lipstick tube by Sarah Palin....It's a beautiful thing....
at 11:29AM 09/13/08
Bought my husband a shirt in Anchorage the other day,,,,the front had Hockey sticks with the face of a pit bull and the dog tag reads V.P. .....on the back the lipstick "the joke" signed with a lipstick tube by Sarah Palin....It's a beautiful thing....
at 11:29AM 09/13/08
gregory:
Back to the top of this thread......Jim.....I have concerns at various levels....1st the quickness in which this particular picture and comment appeared gives me the impression that some tuned into the Palin "Interview" expecting a liberal biased attack on her....and that’s all they saw....But that's not what I saw....I saw a very intelligent Charlie Gibson interviewing a relatively unknown VP candidate with the appropriately tough questions needed for those politically astute viewers (whether they lean left or right) to come to an opinion about her abilities to be the next VP.
at 11:36AM 09/13/08
at 11:36AM 09/13/08
angelinaa:
I was frustrated and rolling my eyes at the way Charlie was speaking to her. I thought she handled herself well though.
at 12:07PM 09/13/08
at 12:07PM 09/13/08
joel:
Aslan, one thought that maybe you can help me with. The Josh McDowell-style argument against relativism and for absolute truth has always seemed misdirected and maybe counter-productive to me. Why do we not concede the illogic of faith? Pascal did. There seems to be advantage in avoiding the "Christianity is entirely rational" argument and instead speak to what people are really craving - the assurance of deeper, more dependable truth found not in a system of logic but in the person of Christ.
No, I'm not anti-reason. But neither logic nor mysticism nor anything else can get us there by itself, can it?
at 12:12PM 09/13/08
No, I'm not anti-reason. But neither logic nor mysticism nor anything else can get us there by itself, can it?
at 12:12PM 09/13/08
gregory:
This is such a diverse chit/chat thread or should I say threads....I wish I had the time today to get into "the Elevated Kilpatrick" Modernist vs Postmodernist part of this discussion thread but I don't....so I will quickly make some personal observations about the PreMod/Mod/PostMod eras of West Thought & Xtianity in another post.
at 12:37PM 09/13/08
at 12:37PM 09/13/08
kylibo:
Joel that's it exactly. If "without faith it's impossible to please God." then why would he make belief in Him logical. It seems that He would make belief in Him based on, well, faith. To be honest you really can't prove anything, you can only believe in something. Every belief is unprovable when really put under the microscope. The only thing that is impossible is to prove something is impossible. i just had to throw that in there because it gives me faith that God set all this up.
at 12:42PM 09/13/08
at 12:42PM 09/13/08
gregory:
My personal take on PreMod/Mod/PostMod eras of West Thought and Christianity. PreModernism centered around a right-brain approach -- non-logical revelations & mysticism (the rhema aspect of the word of God)....the Modernist era centered around the left brain approach of logical explanations (the logos aspect of the word of God)....the Post Modernism seems to correspond to the heart--the experiential, passionate, & the compassionate (person of the word of God)....soooo I'd like to see this comment deconstructed and maybe reconstructed.
at 12:50PM 09/13/08
at 12:50PM 09/13/08
dougcrew:
I agree Kyle. That's why when people get touched by God they are so adamant about His existence. No proof but it is hard to argue with someone's experience.
at 12:56PM 09/13/08
at 12:56PM 09/13/08
gregory:
Joel....your amazing....Kyle....As I re-read your comments to this thread I felt an invigorating stirring on the inside....I don't have the time today to comments on a couple of things said....maybe later tonight.
at 01:03PM 09/13/08
at 01:03PM 09/13/08
kylibo:
@dougcrew exactly. God doesn't only desire a belief in Him but a relationship with Him, so if we can prove Him logically to exist beyond doubt we don't have to have a relationship. Like my belief in New York City. I know it exists but I know nothing of it personally. I hold to the biblical view of "knowing." When Adam KNEW his wife it meant that he experienced her. For us to KNOW something we have to experience it not deduce it.
@gregory while I don't disagree with your view (I find many examples of the trinity in the development of man individually as well as a corporate body) I believe that it can be easy to focus so much on the development of one culture (being the one we are in) that we forget that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what we think of as premod/mod/postmod are microcosms of a pattern that has been expanding since creation. you can see the same progression of body, mind/soul, and spirit in the three stages of the Bible. First mankind lived for 1000 years to experience God through His creation and through walking with Him. Then man was limited in his age and had to experience God through His laws and worship and occasional words from the prophets. Finally we get to experience God inside of us through Jesus Christ.
An interesting side-note, in each of these phases one man ascended to heaven. Enoch in the first, Elijah in the second, and Jesus in the third. just something to think about.
at 01:09PM 09/13/08
@gregory while I don't disagree with your view (I find many examples of the trinity in the development of man individually as well as a corporate body) I believe that it can be easy to focus so much on the development of one culture (being the one we are in) that we forget that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what we think of as premod/mod/postmod are microcosms of a pattern that has been expanding since creation. you can see the same progression of body, mind/soul, and spirit in the three stages of the Bible. First mankind lived for 1000 years to experience God through His creation and through walking with Him. Then man was limited in his age and had to experience God through His laws and worship and occasional words from the prophets. Finally we get to experience God inside of us through Jesus Christ.
An interesting side-note, in each of these phases one man ascended to heaven. Enoch in the first, Elijah in the second, and Jesus in the third. just something to think about.
at 01:09PM 09/13/08
gregory:
In regards to whether Gibson is hopelessly bias or not.....I predict that Gibson will treat the other candidates he interviews with the same toughness that he questioned Palin with....and at the end of this campaign season Gibson will be seen as a champion and as one who try's to step outside his own personal biases for the purposes of informing his viewers. I have a feeling the Gibson abhors all forms of fundamentalism (scientific, secular and religious) as does a growing number of young adults....fundamentalism is the ugly arrogant outgrowth of the "Enlighten" Modernism way of thinking.
at 01:20PM 09/13/08
at 01:20PM 09/13/08
kylibo:
@gregory expand on the "enlighten" modernism way of thinking and fundamentalism. Are you referring to having an open mind versus being close minded?
at 01:23PM 09/13/08
at 01:23PM 09/13/08
gregory:
kylibo....I really don't have the time right now....I'm getting ready to go Dunsmuir to hang out w/ my wife at a city wide secular art walk that she is participating in....after that I'll be driving to Mt. Shasta City to watch a Pop Warner football game to cheer on some former hoodlum that have gotten saved at our (Bethel's) outreach to the area....I'll be hanging out w/ the single mom's and their revolving-door-boy's trying to remember who's now with whom....that is going to be more reality than I feel ready for but for the grace of God....later tonight.
at 01:36PM 09/13/08
at 01:36PM 09/13/08
aslan:
Just checked back in..... many thoughts, but I won't put all in one comment... too long :)
@ladybug.... Yes! That was my original point.. though my conclusion was that it was more than a bit.
@jesse.... I'm glad you commented. Hope you check back. However, I do want to comment on your points. Symbols.... words..... labels if you will are "necessary" to communicate with each other. Though they may be misapplied, they allow us some point of contact, "if" we can agree on what they mean. They are neither good nor bad, they simply are. While you object to the "liberal" label, you address the "conservative neocons". Each is a label. You do the very same thing you object to.... But , it's OK. I don't know how else it can be done... this thing called communication. You make your point, direct your comments with a label. How else? I personally don't object to labels. Helps me understand differences. To me liberal is a description, not a judgment. We NEED a range of perspectives. Many of my own positions would be labeled liberal by some.
As far as trying to elect.... welcome to the democracy. Isn't that what free elections are about? Isn't that what citizens are "supposed" to do? Each person or group is "free" to support the candidate of their choice. Laws? Yes, we have them, and for one I'm very glad we do. Laws "do" force. Is that bad? Someone can't take my stuff, without penalty. Someone can't set my house on fire, without penalty. Someone can't do me great bodily harm, without penalty. Should we legislate morals? We already do (see my examples). Now together we decide which ones...... but in a gov't of the people, "we" decide. If you support a point of view, join like minded people and get the people you support elected. Go out on election day and vote. It's the American way. But.... don't be surprised when other citizens exercise their rights in the same way. Hope you check back. I'd be curious as to your response.
at 01:47PM 09/13/08
@ladybug.... Yes! That was my original point.. though my conclusion was that it was more than a bit.
@jesse.... I'm glad you commented. Hope you check back. However, I do want to comment on your points. Symbols.... words..... labels if you will are "necessary" to communicate with each other. Though they may be misapplied, they allow us some point of contact, "if" we can agree on what they mean. They are neither good nor bad, they simply are. While you object to the "liberal" label, you address the "conservative neocons". Each is a label. You do the very same thing you object to.... But , it's OK. I don't know how else it can be done... this thing called communication. You make your point, direct your comments with a label. How else? I personally don't object to labels. Helps me understand differences. To me liberal is a description, not a judgment. We NEED a range of perspectives. Many of my own positions would be labeled liberal by some.
As far as trying to elect.... welcome to the democracy. Isn't that what free elections are about? Isn't that what citizens are "supposed" to do? Each person or group is "free" to support the candidate of their choice. Laws? Yes, we have them, and for one I'm very glad we do. Laws "do" force. Is that bad? Someone can't take my stuff, without penalty. Someone can't set my house on fire, without penalty. Someone can't do me great bodily harm, without penalty. Should we legislate morals? We already do (see my examples). Now together we decide which ones...... but in a gov't of the people, "we" decide. If you support a point of view, join like minded people and get the people you support elected. Go out on election day and vote. It's the American way. But.... don't be surprised when other citizens exercise their rights in the same way. Hope you check back. I'd be curious as to your response.
at 01:47PM 09/13/08
kylibo:
yeah no prob gregory. there's no time limit to a discussion, unless it's on t.v., except if you're Hillary Clinton (time limits don't apply to her, she can talk over anyone).
at 01:48PM 09/13/08
at 01:48PM 09/13/08
bobk:
Rat, Aslan lives outside time. The future and past are both present to him.
at 05:38PM 09/13/08
at 05:38PM 09/13/08
jackied:
@greg, I realize you're in Dunsmuir or Mt. Shasta right now, but I want you to know I appreciate your 11:36 post this morning. I agree
at 06:07PM 09/13/08
at 06:07PM 09/13/08
aslan:
@ratty86 A month ago...? Looks right to me. I like bobk's explanation....... but...... I'm really not sure why that happens.
Regarding Greg's 11:36 post. Do remember that last night was Part 2 of the interview. The 1st half of the interview was aired Thursday evening.
In addition, research studies emphasize the importance of nonverbal communication....... it's not only what you say, but the way you say it...? Watch the interview again and turn down the sound. Watch Gibson.
Finally, though it seems unacceptable to "presume" a liberal bias from Gibson's questioning.....is it AS unacceptable to presume the mindset that "some" had in viewing the interview? By the way, since I posted the picture, I'm the only one who qualifies under the description "some". We've known each other long enough that you can call me Jim...... has a better ring to it than "some". :)
at 08:14PM 09/13/08
Regarding Greg's 11:36 post. Do remember that last night was Part 2 of the interview. The 1st half of the interview was aired Thursday evening.
In addition, research studies emphasize the importance of nonverbal communication....... it's not only what you say, but the way you say it...? Watch the interview again and turn down the sound. Watch Gibson.
Finally, though it seems unacceptable to "presume" a liberal bias from Gibson's questioning.....is it AS unacceptable to presume the mindset that "some" had in viewing the interview? By the way, since I posted the picture, I'm the only one who qualifies under the description "some". We've known each other long enough that you can call me Jim...... has a better ring to it than "some". :)
at 08:14PM 09/13/08
ratty86:
Oh sorry I though just 2 weeks ago or so!
I was listening to rush and he was talking about it!
at 10:11AM 09/14/08
I was listening to rush and he was talking about it!
at 10:11AM 09/14/08
gregory:
@aslan….in regards of your 8:14PM post….Jim I think your suggestion is a good idea. Non-verbal is important….I suggest that the interviews that Gibson does with Biden, Obama, and McCain be recorded, viewed w/ the sound up and then viewed again with the sound down. Then view the Palin’s interview the same way. I’m betting that there will be very little difference….anyone reading this post up for that bet??????
Let’s see if Gibson is attacking Palin or McCain because they are conservative. Or, let see if he is a tough (sometimes rude and condescending) interviewer. I’m betting that he will generally treat each candidate the same.
Even though I started this comment w/ @aslan I’m actually posting this for all of you who are now reading this comment and I’m concerned that some of you are only expecting Palin to be attacked by the liberally biased media. I would like to challenge all of you to “Expect” a “change you can believe in” to occur with the media of this nation.
at 03:04PM 09/14/08
Let’s see if Gibson is attacking Palin or McCain because they are conservative. Or, let see if he is a tough (sometimes rude and condescending) interviewer. I’m betting that he will generally treat each candidate the same.
Even though I started this comment w/ @aslan I’m actually posting this for all of you who are now reading this comment and I’m concerned that some of you are only expecting Palin to be attacked by the liberally biased media. I would like to challenge all of you to “Expect” a “change you can believe in” to occur with the media of this nation.
at 03:04PM 09/14/08
papabear:
Papa Bear is somewhat bothered that some(not all) of the people posting are doing to Mr Gibson exactly what they are accusing him of doing to Governor Palin. I actually spent about 6 hours with Charlie on the devastating fires last year in Southern Calif. I was doing a briefing with the resources on my part of the fire line and Charlie stood next to me listening and asking questions. Yes, he is a tough interviewer, but he is a professional and from what I saw, he cares about what he does. I drove with him through the fire devastated areas and he became very quiet and appeared to be moved by what he saw. We stopped in area were houses had been burned and I thought I saw tears in his eyes as he spoke with the people who lost everything. I watched him as he tried to comfort one person by putting his arm around them as they told how they barely got away with their lives. What most of us don't realize is that these reporters see more in one week than any of us will see in a lifetime. Does that make the jaded? Possibly. At the end of the day, I told Charlie that I was honored to meet him and that he does an amazing job. He looked at me with a puzzled look as I told him that he (and other journalist) can take video pieces, sound bites and written notes and put together a story that everyone in America can understand. I may not agree with Charlie Gibson's political views, but I respect the man for the compassion that I saw in him that day and I tried to honor him. PapaBear is amazed at how an election year polarizes some believers and can bring out some of our less desirable qualities. ALL OF US are entitled to our opinion (thats what my son Jared is defending while he serves his country in the Air Force) but let's not forget what was once said - "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
at 10:26AM 09/15/08
at 10:26AM 09/15/08
nichole:
@ Papabear, I understand what you wrote and how awesome that Charlie Gibson is such a nice person! I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone on this post (I've been keeping up) is saying otherwise. I think what is being discussed is whether or not he is interviewing with a bias or not. The topic of this post is whether or not a journalist should be objective when conducting an interview. And if the journalist is not objective, whether or not there should be an equal amount of republican bias journalists vs democratic bias journalists.
Being bias, or not objective certainly does not make you a bad person. I can say with absolute certainty that there are many areas I am 100% bias in.... that does not make me bad and it doesn't make anyone who states the fact that I am bias any less Christian.
That's awesome that his stories mean so much to him! I hope that every journalist is the same in that regard :)
at 12:09PM 09/15/08
Being bias, or not objective certainly does not make you a bad person. I can say with absolute certainty that there are many areas I am 100% bias in.... that does not make me bad and it doesn't make anyone who states the fact that I am bias any less Christian.
That's awesome that his stories mean so much to him! I hope that every journalist is the same in that regard :)
at 12:09PM 09/15/08
papabear:
@nicole. I agree with you about being unbiased, but someone posted earlier about "...a pig a journalist". To my way of thinking, that is an attack on the journalist. The gist of what I read was that some (again, not all) are upset in the way Governor Palin was interviewed. I can't help but wonder if the person being interviewed was Sen. Biden or Obama, if there wouldn't have been such a discussion like we are seeing here. I have the highest respect for Aslan, Greg and others and I wouldn't even think I could debate with them (unless of course, it was a west coast NFL team located on the bay area peninsula). I was hoping to show in my above post, that even those people who we might think of as left wing liberal whatevers are human beings who have a capacity for compassion also. My two cents...
at 12:37PM 09/15/08
at 12:37PM 09/15/08
gregory:
@ aslan....this one is direct to you and not to "the some".....another concern I have is the idea that objectivity in journalism among the networks can somehow be achieved by balancing the number of liberally biased anchors with an equal number of conservatively biased anchors. Such parity doesn't equal objectivity.
at 01:40PM 09/15/08
at 01:40PM 09/15/08
gregory:
gregory: @aslan.....Earlier in this chit/chat thread I asked this question,".....who says that news anchors are suppose to be "objective"?..." This was a serious and (what I thought would largely be) a rhetorical question.....the answer I was looking for was: WE DO. We decided....and if WE don't like the news network product than DON'T watch. Contact the networks and the advertisers and let them know why. Aslan....duuuuude....you need to let your mane grow out and change your growling into a ROAR....ORGANIZE a boycott.....or at least grab the remote. 8-}
at 02:16PM 09/15/08
at 02:16PM 09/15/08
kylibo:
@gregory in regards to your 1:40 pm posting to aslan (although i am not he, i aspire to the maneliness) i think we are on a similar page as regards objectivity. having two opinions that are considered polar opposites, being balanced does not necessarily make good counsel. what if both opinions and views were constructed around a wrong perspective of the way the world works? what i mean is based in an apparent contradiction in scripture where it says "in a multitude of counselors there is safety" and elsewhere "Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand." my point being that as long as we view objectivity from our perspective and not God's we will continue to be ruled by our own subjective view.
at 03:03PM 09/15/08
at 03:03PM 09/15/08
aslan:
OK.... against my better judgment, I'll make a few more comments...... especially since it makes me wince to see may name "taken in vain". :)
@gregory
Regarding who says objectivity, etc... First of all, if something is described as a 'serious' question..... I'm not sure there's anything wrong with taking it as described.... as a question. If it's actually a "statement", a rhetorical question, it might be less confusing to "make" a statement. You say, "The answer I was looking for"......, well, why was the question asked? I can understand why you were disappointed with my response.. Skip the questions. Really... it's OK. :)
As to "who says news reporting should be objective?..... "We" do.... society as a whole. See ms_amazing's comment on 9/13, 7:48 AM. See the history of journalism in this country. You, of course, can disagree...... but that by itself does not change what has been and the way things are. Some level of societal, community if you will, agreement is necessary to live along side one another, to be able to interact with each other, to have community. Individual decisions as to what words/concepts mean is possible of course, but the potential effects on communication and the future of societial stability will be predictablity negative..... Perfect objectivity? I do agree that it is not possible on God's earth. News anchors representing "both" perspectives certainly isn't ideal, but what then.... no efforts at all? Just the haze of subjectivity... my opinions and yours? See my comments on postmodernism. Perhaps the way suggested is not the "best" way,,,,,,, what then..... just let the bias of perspective which exists to continue unchecked? Oh well.... when we all get to Heaven...... won't it be wonderful then... I'm "here" for now. If you don't believe that there exists a prevailing liberal media bias in television broadcasting, well then.... "you're wrong".
And one more point then I'll save other comments for later. Why rush to Charley G.'s defense on this thread? Doesn't make sense in light of other comments made. If public communication will contain subjective conclusions and objectivity is not a desired goal.... that is, if it even exists..... why the many attempts to temper... balance... "my" public communication regarding Gibson on this thread? I personally have concluded that opinions other than my own have "added" to this discussion, have had a net positive effect. Why can't the same concern be expressed with regard to the media discussion of the political candidates?
By the way the "grab the remote" comment is an solid argument in favor of pornography on the airwaves for those would would make such. "Grab the remote"........ REALLY??? You can do better than that. :)
at 05:30PM 09/15/08
@gregory
Regarding who says objectivity, etc... First of all, if something is described as a 'serious' question..... I'm not sure there's anything wrong with taking it as described.... as a question. If it's actually a "statement", a rhetorical question, it might be less confusing to "make" a statement. You say, "The answer I was looking for"......, well, why was the question asked? I can understand why you were disappointed with my response.. Skip the questions. Really... it's OK. :)
As to "who says news reporting should be objective?..... "We" do.... society as a whole. See ms_amazing's comment on 9/13, 7:48 AM. See the history of journalism in this country. You, of course, can disagree...... but that by itself does not change what has been and the way things are. Some level of societal, community if you will, agreement is necessary to live along side one another, to be able to interact with each other, to have community. Individual decisions as to what words/concepts mean is possible of course, but the potential effects on communication and the future of societial stability will be predictablity negative..... Perfect objectivity? I do agree that it is not possible on God's earth. News anchors representing "both" perspectives certainly isn't ideal, but what then.... no efforts at all? Just the haze of subjectivity... my opinions and yours? See my comments on postmodernism. Perhaps the way suggested is not the "best" way,,,,,,, what then..... just let the bias of perspective which exists to continue unchecked? Oh well.... when we all get to Heaven...... won't it be wonderful then... I'm "here" for now. If you don't believe that there exists a prevailing liberal media bias in television broadcasting, well then.... "you're wrong".
And one more point then I'll save other comments for later. Why rush to Charley G.'s defense on this thread? Doesn't make sense in light of other comments made. If public communication will contain subjective conclusions and objectivity is not a desired goal.... that is, if it even exists..... why the many attempts to temper... balance... "my" public communication regarding Gibson on this thread? I personally have concluded that opinions other than my own have "added" to this discussion, have had a net positive effect. Why can't the same concern be expressed with regard to the media discussion of the political candidates?
By the way the "grab the remote" comment is an solid argument in favor of pornography on the airwaves for those would would make such. "Grab the remote"........ REALLY??? You can do better than that. :)
at 05:30PM 09/15/08
gregory:
@Aslan.....I am not disappointed in any think you have to say. Quite the contrary. I hold you in high regards and the things you say as always needing to be closely looked at and pondered.... In another post on another thread on another profile in BU2 heaven your response to one of my comments stopped in my tracts and made me realize how overly passionate and therefore some what (or maybe completely) irrational my comment was.
at 08:10PM 09/15/08
at 08:10PM 09/15/08
aslan:
@papabear.... I, too, appreciate your comments about your experience with Gibson. Nichole's response, however, summarizes my response well. Charlie's character has never been an issue in "my" mind and I created this thread. I continue to question, however, his interviewing skills...... though based on some of the response comments, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3rd Party "Draft Charlie" movement break out any moment. :) (joke) Why I am commenting has to do with your reference to the "if you make a pig a journalist.." comment. It was a JOKE.... a JOKE... in reference to Obama's recent pig/lipstick comment. I know the person who made the comment....... When Obama made the comment, liberals were concerned that it was being misrepresented...... Obama was not attacking Palin. Let's give the same benefit of the doubt here. Finally, not sure what the without sin comment means. Certainly to have a point of view which it critical of a level of professionalism (right or wrong), is 'Not" the same as the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. No one is advocating stoning..... :)
at 09:10PM 09/15/08
at 09:10PM 09/15/08
bobk:
Dorothy Sayers quotes someone in one of her books "God made the integers, everything else is the work of man." Joel, the age of Reason seems to have been an attempt to understand and explain the physical universe. I'm not sure that many of it's early proponents would have suggested that we could apply the same empirical approach to the realm of faith and spirit. I think you're right that Western Christianity has largely grown in the intellectual garden, eschewing the experiential aspects of faith and attempting to subject faith to, and prove it by, scientific enquiry. This might be attributable to dispensational theology.
By the way, I love reading my sons' (Joel & Kyle) comments. It makes me proud to know them.
at 12:07AM 09/16/08
By the way, I love reading my sons' (Joel & Kyle) comments. It makes me proud to know them.
at 12:07AM 09/16/08
aslan:
@bobk.... I enjoy reading them as well. You guys "did good". :)
@joel... I agree with the statement, '....neither logic nor mysticism nor anything else... by itself..." I do have some thoughts, having been raised in a church characterized by an experiential, relationship focused, emotionally expressive approach to Christianity. The thoughts also relate to many of the comments Kylibo has been making. But this thread is so scattered that I may save the comments for another thread. It gets confusing at times trying to figure out who's saying what to whom.
at 12:55AM 09/16/08
@joel... I agree with the statement, '....neither logic nor mysticism nor anything else... by itself..." I do have some thoughts, having been raised in a church characterized by an experiential, relationship focused, emotionally expressive approach to Christianity. The thoughts also relate to many of the comments Kylibo has been making. But this thread is so scattered that I may save the comments for another thread. It gets confusing at times trying to figure out who's saying what to whom.
at 12:55AM 09/16/08
kylibo:
let me know where you post aslan. i'd love to hear your perspective. nothing better than iron sharpening iron. (that's a big assumption on my part about myself).
at 12:59AM 09/16/08
at 12:59AM 09/16/08
gregory:
I was thinking the same thing...about moving this thread about experiential Xtianty....I have a suggestion......on my profile I have a picture (I think its 6 down from the top) of a book I saw called Higher Ground: a PostmodernRomance...let's move over to there....but for now I have an 8AM appointment so it's zzzzz 4 me.
at 01:25AM 09/16/08
at 01:25AM 09/16/08
joel:
Thanks, wise guys, for your thought-provoking ideas. I've enjoyed this thread and each of you. Nice new avatar, Greg.
at 11:42AM 09/17/08
at 11:42AM 09/17/08
gregory:
Hey Joel...I want to continue some of this tread on another place.....see my 1:25AM post
at 11:55AM 09/17/08
at 11:55AM 09/17/08
papabear:
@Aslan - I stand corrected. I failed to see the joke about the pig. My apologies. I have to agree with abeleedy - you guys make my brain hurt:)
I think I'll stick with the simple things to debate... Guinness vs Budweiser, Dale Earnhardt Jr vs Jeff Gordon, Football vs Baseball and last but not least, will Cal Golden Bears ever make it to the BCS.
at 07:44PM 09/19/08
I think I'll stick with the simple things to debate... Guinness vs Budweiser, Dale Earnhardt Jr vs Jeff Gordon, Football vs Baseball and last but not least, will Cal Golden Bears ever make it to the BCS.
at 07:44PM 09/19/08
papabear:
@gregory...nope...not going there my friend. Tried it once years ago at a Bethel board meeting...not pretty, not pretty at all :) I'll leave all of the esoterical, escatalogical, ethereal, ecumenical, grammatical, ecclesiatical, debating of western christian thought to you guys. I only went to college for a semester.
Now if you, Aslan,Kylibo, Joel and Bobk have a burning question regarding fires, firefighting or general combustion theory i.e how much energy to raise one pound of water up one degree, then I could answer with "BTU". Or if you want to debate the merits of a combination 1.5 inch fog nozzle versus or 7/8" smooth bore tip than I think I could hold my own. Or what about vertical ventilation versus horizontal ventilation in structural fire fighting? Now there is a hot topic! "Hot" get it?Geez, I crack myself up. So lesson learned. I'll leave the deep thinking and oration alone and just enjoy reading what you guys put down. Now it's time for a Guinness before bed time.
at 09:37PM 09/19/08
Now if you, Aslan,Kylibo, Joel and Bobk have a burning question regarding fires, firefighting or general combustion theory i.e how much energy to raise one pound of water up one degree, then I could answer with "BTU". Or if you want to debate the merits of a combination 1.5 inch fog nozzle versus or 7/8" smooth bore tip than I think I could hold my own. Or what about vertical ventilation versus horizontal ventilation in structural fire fighting? Now there is a hot topic! "Hot" get it?Geez, I crack myself up. So lesson learned. I'll leave the deep thinking and oration alone and just enjoy reading what you guys put down. Now it's time for a Guinness before bed time.
at 09:37PM 09/19/08
gregory:
Hey Mark I taught my kids how to put out a flue fire...So I once came home to smelly house...one of my kids told me we had a flue fire, "We used a tray of ice cubes just like you taught us." "Good job", I told them "How ever, next time take the cubes out of the plastic tray."
at 09:53PM 09/19/08
at 09:53PM 09/19/08
sinyarda:
For real.....she handled it well I thought. Given the energy that must have been thick in the room. I guess what I like about her and what I wish was better are the same thing. She seems a bit out of her league but it's exactly what we need. Strange. Brilliant choice by McCain.
at 09:26AM 09/25/08
at 09:26AM 09/25/08
previous
Information
About Us
Our Blog
Advertise on BeenUp2
© 2007-2008 BeenUp2 LLC
All rights Reserved
About Us
Our Blog
Advertise on BeenUp2
© 2007-2008 BeenUp2 LLC
All rights Reserved