• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the media owe the TEA party an apology?

Does the media owe the TEA Party an apology for their assumptions regarding Loughner?


  • Total voters
    33
Have you ever noticed that? When people try to choose people to represent the left, they always choose unhinged people. Its like saying all conservatives are like Glenn Beck.
Are you saying Earthworm is unhinged?
 
Last edited:
I get that. I just don't think that a loosely allied conglomeration of small groups who deflected criticism by pointing out that they weren't an organized bunch deserve to be apologized to as if they were in fact a group of people.
How can you claim you "get that" then turn around and completely discard it? Seems to me, you didn't "get" it at all.
 
Last edited:
Well, aren't liberal people generally on the left?

Completely missed my point. You used earthworms comments, and applied it to all liberal people by using the term "the left"
 
I get that. I just don't think that a loosely allied conglomeration of small groups who deflected criticism by pointing out that they weren't an organized bunch deserve to be apologized to as if they were in fact a group of people.

I get that, but I disagree with your basic premise. If one portion of that loose group does something stupid and the rest don't do or say or think the same thing, and then people condemn the whole, the Tea Party got upset by the suggestions that a lone groups actions represented what ALL of them thought.

The flip side to that, to fit what you're saying, would be to say that if a particular portion of the Tea Party suddenly got praise that they start shouting "you should give us ALL praise" even though the rest of the tea party isn't by and large doing that same action.

That isn't the case here though. Once again, just like during the election, you have a broad scale condemnation of "the tea party" as a whole for something that the tea party as a whole had, seemingly at this point, nothing to do with. Just like at the election, the anger is for condemning the entire group for actions that by and large aren't attributed to the vast majority of the group.

There's no inconsistancy. Its just an extention of what was going on in the election...with the group as a whole being tired of being misrepresented by the actions of a few, or in this case seemingly by the actions of someone not even directly involved in the group.

Again, my stance on the whole apology thing is known. I don't think they should owe them one, or that the tea party should demand one. I just don't see the big contradiction here that you're trying to make...in reality I see a clear consistant pattern of how the tea party identifies itself.
 
Honestly, I could give a rat's ass if the media apologized or not. I think the Obama admin owes an apology more than the media does. I just have to wonder why nobody's calling for the media to take responsibility for the violence it incites.

The media is supposed controversial stuff. That's their job.

BTW, I find your avatar to be violent and an incitement to violence. LOL

Against who, a generic silhouette? Take it up with 90s. :lol:
 
He didn't just read those books, he listed them among his favorites. And I never said you jumped to any conclusions. This is about the media.

Aesop's fables was also on that list, does the goose that laid the golden egg or the boy that cried wolf have any implications here? Being interested in a subject doesn't mean you totally adopt it's message (if at all). Nazism and Communism are two different things that don't work together.
 
Ok - the book thing might seem odd. But I've read them all :shrug: (ok - that doesn't help anyone)

I think WHY you read something and what you do with what you've learned is far more important than THAT you read it.

And considering that the books he reads don't point to ANY specific ideology speculating that he did what he did because of "liberal" ideologies is no different than saying he's part of the tea party movement.
 
Completely missed my point. You used earthworms comments, and applied it to all liberal people by using the term "the left"
That's not what I did. I used Earthworms comments to counter to the suggestion that nobody on the left is blaming the TEA party. Clearly, some on the left are saying that. Can you at least agree that I'm right about that?
 
That's not what I did. I used Earthworms comments to counter to the suggestion that nobody on the left is blaming the TEA party. Clearly, some on the left are saying that. Can you at least agree that I'm right about that?

But you did not say that in the original comment I quoted. If that's what you meant then you need to clarify, and not use absolutes.

And yes, some people on the left are doing that, and some people on the right are blaming the left. Stupidity is abound on both sides.
 
The media is supposed controversial stuff. That's their job.
Well, isn't it a politicians job to "fire up their base" and to try to defeat their political opponents? At least politicians don't claim to be unbiased, unlike news agencies, which claim they are, then show every day that they are not. It's just hypocritical that members of the media call out a group for supposedly inciting violence, when the media is not above doing it themselves.



Against who, a generic silhouette? Take it up with 90s. :lol:
Sorry, it's been argued here that crosshairs, in and of themselves, incite violence.
 
But you did not say that in the original comment I quoted. If that's what you meant then you need to clarify, and not use absolutes.
I probably should have worded it better.

And yes, some people on the left are doing that, and some people on the right are blaming the left. Stupidity is abound on both sides.
People on the right are blaming people on the left for the shooting? I haven't seen that. I've seen some on the right counter the suggestion that the shooter was a TEA partyer buy showing that the opposite could in fact be true. I have not seen anyone on the right blame some left wing web site or graphic for causing the shooting.
 
Well, isn't it a politicians job to "fire up their base" and to try to defeat their political opponents? At least politicians don't claim to be unbiased, unlike news agencies, which claim they are, then show every day that they are not. It's just hypocritical that members of the media call out a group for supposedly inciting violence, when the media is not above doing it themselves.

You are mistaking doing something to incite others with informing the public about something someone else is doing. Even if what that someone else is doing serves only to incite others, reporting the facts about what they're doing is nowhere near the same thing as the act itself.

Sorry, it's been argued here that crosshairs, in and of themselves, incite violence.

That argument hasn't been made by me, so by continuing to press me on it you succeed only in making yourself look foolish.
 
You are mistaking doing something to incite others with informing the public about something someone else is doing. Even if what that someone else is doing serves only to incite others, reporting the facts about what they're doing is nowhere near the same thing as the act itself.
Yeah, 'cause stating the facts is all they do. :roll:


That argument hasn't been made by me, so by continuing to press me on it you succeed only in making yourself look foolish.
Don't get defensive. I'm just using you as an object lesson. I'm the one who's arguing that an image of crosshairs is no BFD and anyone who claims that it is, is making a ridiculous argument.
 
SEVERAL apologies, actually, going back a couple of years now... but we ain't holding our breath waiting.



I once had to apologize to a CNN correspondant back in 91.... I made my distaste for the media while I was doing my job very very well known, back then.... :mrgreen:
 
Yeah, 'cause stating the facts is all they do. :roll:

Way to move the goal-posts.

Don't get defensive. I'm just using you as an object lesson.

Then say something like, "Better be careful, or the PC Police will be after you for that avi next."

The way you phrased it made it seem like you were picking at me for my avi because I in any way expressed a view which held that what Palin did was in any way dangerous.
 
The bloggers and other commentators who jumped to connect Loughner to the Tea Party should probably apologize for jumping to conclusions, but I don't see that as a huge sin, given the circumstances. Anybody who believes any of them did it just to have a personal "gotcha" moment has been drinking divisive Koolaid, IMO.

At the end of the day, both parties have been using divisive rhetoric that greatly damages this country by distracting from the important issues and making compromise and bipartisanship more difficult. Even today, the issue is becoming more about which party was wrong rather than what, if anything, can be done so that something like this doesn't happen again. The anger is understandable. The stakes of partisan politics went up with the shooting, even if the shooting itself was completely unrelated to partisan politics. Nobody likes to be unjustly accused of causing the death of another. But at the same time, nobody likes to see one of their number nearly killed off under circumstances that almost inevitably point to something another side was warned about and did anyway. Both parties need to calm down, recognize that partisanship has gotten way out of control and infected both sides of the aisle, and stop accusing and implying that the other party is dishonest/unamerican/whathaveyou and act like adults for once.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, what happened to news broadcast that went like this

"This is what happened today, and this is all the facts that we know"
The end.
Make up your own damned mind on what to think. I could care less what some "expert" the news channel brings on has to think.

I'm thinking those broadcasts never really existed.
 
You are mistaking doing something to incite others with informing the public about something someone else is doing. Even if what that someone else is doing serves only to incite others, reporting the facts about what they're doing is nowhere near the same thing as the act itself.



That argument hasn't been made by me, so by continuing to press me on it you succeed only in making yourself look foolish.

If the person doing the reporting of what someone else is doing is blowing things out of proportion and adding their own artisitc license to the report, than he is just as guilty of doing the same thing.
 
If the person doing the reporting of what someone else is doing is blowing things out of proportion and adding their own artisitc license to the report, than he is just as guilty of doing the same thing.

I know that sounds good to you, but the problem is that "blowing things out of proportion" and "adding their own artistic license" are both highly subjective judgments. You and I, for example, could look at the same news clip and I argue two totally different interpretations of how objective the clip is. Furthermore, you could pick your interpretation and I could sit there and argue the exact opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom