<p>^^^As has the reputation for affected indignation–though tedious, as above–been well earned by feigning Democrats. </p>
<p>Faux Democrat/Fox Democratic?</p>
<p>We are either indignant over boorish name calling or we are not; or should I say, we are either hypocritical when so doing, or we are not; but since, in this case, the distinction rests on mere affected indignation I will conceded that it may be the lesser of the two evils and regard your kvetching as rote affectation rather than chump hypocrisy. </p>
<p>Dorothy, people who use the term “Democrat party” and insist that that’s it’s real name (as Higherlead did) have fallen for a bit of right wing propaganda - they actually think that they’re telling the truth. Republican PR guys figured out that “Democratic Party” is received more favorably by the public than “Democrat Party” so they’ve tried to substitute their choice of names for that of the Democratic party itself, and succeeded with their usual willing footsoldiers. So when Higherlead uses the term “Democrat Party” he’s unconsciously responding to intentional manipulation, not making a conscious editorial comment. </p>
<p>When a person writes “Faux News” they’re making a conscious and intention mis-statement of the company’s name, with no belief that it’s correct or intent that others take it as such. It’s an intentional, and overt, editorial comment.</p>
<p>There’s a difference. If you study that difference you can become better informed and wiser.</p>
<p>Kluge, there has been no shortage of misnomers used in these quarters for the Republocrat party on these forums (I repeat one here) that have, to my memory, not received the weak-kneed indignation that “Democrat” routinely provokes amongst hair-pinned–if not hair-brained–Democrats in these quarters (“ignorant” “■■■■■■,” et al). </p>
<p>It’s Pavlovian and I do not doubt that, as you said, the Republucrat punsters are well aware of it (same for Faux News and the twits on the other side). </p>
<p>Such Democrats are habitually put into high dudgeon. When having gained no more than a whiff of trite name calling (missing two letters–Democrat–Democratic) they are given to paroxysms of churlish indignation: Faux indignation being only one of the symptoms they incarnate, here as elsewhere. </p>
<p>If I gave it much thought, and I have not, I might come to believe that such slack-handedness lacks sincerity, if not character–but I am, as yet, remiss in contemplating the point.</p>
<p>ONe of my favorites I didn’t see mentioned: The Christian Science Monitor, which I read online regularly slong with the The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times. Occasional nods to the Boston Globe. </p>
<p>In print, the NY Times and WSJ, occassionally the NY Daily News. </p>
<p>On air: NPR programs, sometimes the BBC. In the past 18 months I’ve become a huge fan of Countdown on MSNBC. Olbeman is a witty and engaging smart ass that gives hell to the Bush Administration over the war, which I deplore. More opinion than news, but still great. I used to love Aaron Brown on CNN, but since he left I’ve cut down on watching CNN a lot except for breaking news.</p>
<p>Order of the day includes:
(all online or on TV, except where mentioned)</p>
<p>LA Times
Washington Post
New York Times news.yahoo.com (Yahoo News > Google News, there’s a bit more structure…)
Roll Call (in print)
The Hill (in print and online)
CNN
C-SPAN (C-SPAN 2 also included, I occasionally watch the Washington Journal, the morning segment counts as news… I think?)
FOX News
Local Washington news blurbs
The Politico (in print and online)
San Francisco Chronicle (only occasionally)
Newsweek</p>
<p>The paper version of the NYTimes every day. I am an addict. Then I read the local daily and weekly papers for the high school sports and the local robbery reports. Once in a while I watch Brian Williams or the Lehrer News Hour. I don’t subscribe to cable and I don’t feel I’m missing much (except the Met games).</p>