<p>
</p>
<p>I do that as well.</p>
<p>Of course, one of the best source for information on a candidate is to listen/read the candidates own words. Talk about eye opening!</p>
<p>That is so true, PMK. You can really get a good sense from reading texts of speeches and seeing whatever is on a candidate or office holder’s website. I have a compulsive need to do research, so I read maybe a dozen newspapers and magazines every day, both online and on dead trees. I just want to know!</p>
<p>My only problem with Newsweek’s approach is that it’s not clear enough that it is no longer a neutral publication. I mean, nobody is complaining about the hagiographic picture of Bachman on the cover of the National Review.</p>
<p>Well when Newsweek changed to its new format, the editors and publishers were very open (to their credit) about its new path. National Review has always been a conservative publication. Always. I can’t imagine that there would be any question about that.</p>
<p>Couple comments:</p>
<p>I think it’s just something about the arrangement of Bachmann’s features that give her this ‘deranged’ appearance. My mother and I both have the problem of looking half-asleep or worse, drunk, in about half our pictures. I could never run for office because there are too many pictures of me looking half-seas-over. And I do not drink alcohol at all. Hate it. </p>
<p>Even more disturbing than the wild-eyed photos are the ones in which Michele Bachmann makes the same face as Hilary Clinton often did when out on the stump. If either Bachmann or Mrs. C recognizes somebody in the crowd, they do this open-mouthed, open-eyed ‘excited’ face that really resembles a were-wolf espying a particularly tasty child. I wish they’d learn to smile brightly without opening their mouths all the way. </p>
<p>Thirdly – I covet Nancy Pelosi’s pearls…esp. those multicolored ones. </p>
<p>Finally, no political figure should ever be required to eat a corndog at a state fair in front of a photographer. If you google ‘Bachmann, corndog’ beware. Not safe for work, small children, or nervous persons.</p>
<p>Whoa! I’ve been googling “bachmann corndog” for twelve years and never got a single picture I liked until now. Thanks, Novelisto!</p>
<p>No one should eat a corndog. Ever. State fair or not. It is a heart attack on a stick. Bleh.</p>
<p>I want NP’s pearls, too. There is a string in the Costco’s jewelry case that looks like something Mrs Pelosi would wear. As soon as they fix the Dow, that string will be mine.</p>
<p>This may be a bit off topic but I don’t feel like starting a new thread and it is about Bachmann (and still not political) so here goes:</p>
<ul>
<li>I understand there is speculation that her husband (the one who cures people of their homosexuality) may actually be gay!</li>
</ul>
<p>Deep frying a stick of butter at a county fair is way worse than a corndog. Or a twinkie or a snickers bar, or whatever else those evil geniuses realize they are capable of frying in a vat of hot oil. </p>
<p>Either way, you won’t catch me eating one in front of photographers. Even if it is delicious.</p>
<p>I am embarrassed that any American media would publish the Bachmann corndog pix. What happened to all the grownups?</p>
<p>Kajon – It was a British paper/website. Naturally, it went viral over here.</p>
<p>Which reminds me, apropos of unbiased reporting/media…you can’t go too far wrong if you add in a percentage of foreign press. BBC is very good. I like the Indian papers too…though they very much reflect the opinions of their owners.</p>
<p>VP – That kind of speculation makes me uncomfortable. Of course, there is such a thing as ‘protesting too much’…but until he’s caught tapping his toe in a men’s room, we should leave it alone.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl
</p>
<p>Fox News (NBC/CNN’s desperate attempts to characterize it otherwise to the contrary). Some of the personalities, like Hannity, are very biased, but the news shows certainly have folks from both sides and the debates are lively.</p>
<p>The WSJ is still a good paper. NYT has gone the way of Newsweek.</p>
<p>Candidates who have a jones for a corn dog should break pieces off with their finger tips and avoid mouthing the object directly. I blame the handlers. Who lets a thing like that happen?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The folks from one particular side are there, but scarce. I can’t think of someone from that side who has their own show on Fox, ala Hannity. And if you want news on the Rupert Murdoch kerfuffle, that’s also scarce on Fox.</p>
<p>I’ll call it ** The Power Gaze **
It puts the pressure on the person and this is an intimidating gaze. </p>
<p>It’s also the ** The white lie Gaze **</p>
<p>She has been evading the questions about G&L with the help of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, Zooser, that’s the reason why many drink a lot of Kool-Aid from a certain politician until this day, but I am sure it’s not you, just others ;)</p>
<p>As for neutral news sources, it seems to me you have three choices:
- Sources that try to be neutral, but really aren’t.
- Sources that claim to try to be neutral, but really don’t, and thus aren’t.
- Sources that don’t try to hide the fact that they aren’t neutral.</p>
<p>In the more distant past, most sources were of the third kind–newspapers were clearly linked with particular political parties. Then we had a phase where the leading sources were the first kind–we all felt that Walter Cronkite was neutral, although he probably wasn’t. But now we have a mix of all three kinds, and it’s confusing.</p>
<p>I would agree that the NYTimes and WSJ are at least generally factually-based, even if of course the NYT has a liberal spin and the WSJ a conservative one. I also read The Week and sometimes The Economist. I’ve not really tried the Atlantic Monthly. </p>
<p>I still keep CNN on for background-news information, and I like Anderson Cooper (and let’s face it, he is cute, even if he wouldn’t ever give me the time of day, LOL), but there is too much fluff on it. They jumped the shark a few years back when they followed that alleged-Jon-Benet-Ramsey-killer on a flight from Asia to the US, reporting breathlessly on every in-flight meal the guy ate. Remember that?</p>
<p>
What? Reading something doesn’t mean one agrees with it. That’s where the discretion and judgment comes in. By the way, using the “Kool-Aid” expression tips this thread far into dangerous territory. Don’t go there.</p>
<p>
The WSJ doesn’t have a conservative tilt in terms of news, only opinion. The opinion pages are very far right, although not as far right as IBD.<br>
I have no problem with a tilt or a point of view. I happen to be a conservative, but I hold certain liberal positions and always want to be sure I’m fully aware, so I have no problem with reading left-wing publications and websites. I do so every day and feel that I benefit greatly from the diversity of thought. The only issues I have are with the freaks on both sides. For example, I really do think Andrew Sullivan should move on past Trig Palin’s maternity, but he hasn’t. He still believes and writes almost daily from the assumption that Bristol birthed both of those babies in such a short time.</p>