believer;699702 wrote:I'll help you with that...they aren't.

I'm as quick to bash media as anyone here, having lived and worked on both sides (as a reporter/editor and as a PR/media relations person), and I'm here to tell you that MOST mainstream newspaper reporters are very bright folks. And hard workers. At least they used to be. It's very possible most of those reporters simply don't exist, anymore, since papers have had to cut so much staff.

Can't say the same for the TV side. They were pretty much all about wanting me to just give them the "bottom line" and didn't want to do any legwork or research on their own. There were a few exceptions, but not many.

I didn't deal with so-called "new media" much when I was on the job; it simply wasn't as big as it is now, so I don't know if those folks are willing to put in the time and effort to find out the truth on an issue.

This I do know: the really big mainstream players have the resources, brains and time to do the job right. That they don't tells me (1) they're either very lazy and only want to do minimal digging or (2) they are so biased and entrenched in their views, they want to see nothing that contradicts their world view. And they certainly aren't going to work hard to dig and find something that does so.

Since Obama has come into office, I'm convinced more than ever that it's more (2) than (1), although I think one feeds into the other. Since they WANT DESPERATELY for Obama to succeed and do the things they believe it, they aren't willing, and see no reason, to dig through data that dispels their beliefs.

That includes disputes like Ohio and Wisconsin, where the president has clearly taken sides.

Writer,

I'm guessing that nowdays it's more about circulation and ratings than it was when you were a member of the media. The TV execs want ratings, so sound bites and "gotcha" moments have replaced actual stories. As for the print media, detailed pieces can be found there but, once again, the bottom line is circulation. They need something to attract the public and now we're left with everything looking like USA Today. If I had to blame anyone it would be the print editors and TV executives. Nothing gets published or aired without their consent.

Writerbuckeye;699737 wrote:I'm as quick to bash media as anyone here, having lived and worked on both sides (as a reporter/editor and as a PR/media relations person), and I'm here to tell you that MOST mainstream newspaper reporters are very bright folks. And hard workers. At least they used to be. It's very possible most of those reporters simply don't exist, anymore, since papers have had to cut so much staff.

Can't say the same for the TV side. They were pretty much all about wanting me to just give them the "bottom line" and didn't want to do any legwork or research on their own. There were a few exceptions, but not many.

I didn't deal with so-called "new media" much when I was on the job; it simply wasn't as big as it is now, so I don't know if those folks are willing to put in the time and effort to find out the truth on an issue.

This I do know: the really big mainstream players have the resources, brains and time to do the job right. That they don't tells me (1) they're either very lazy and only want to do minimal digging or (2) they are so biased and entrenched in their views, they want to see nothing that contradicts their world view. And they certainly aren't going to work hard to dig and find something that does so.

Since Obama has come into office, I'm convinced more than ever that it's more (2) than (1), although I think one feeds into the other. Since they WANT DESPERATELY for Obama to succeed and do the things they believe it, they aren't willing, and see no reason, to dig through data that dispels their beliefs.

That includes disputes like Ohio and Wisconsin, where the president has clearly taken sides.

My response was more sarcasm than a slam on individuals who choose this as a career. I'm just flat out disgusted with American journalism in general. The bias, the political agendas, etc. piss me off. When objective journalism returns to the forefront, I'll stop the sarcasm.

stlouiedipalma;699765 wrote:Writer,

I'm guessing that nowdays it's more about circulation and ratings than it was when you were a member of the media. The TV execs want ratings, so sound bites and "gotcha" moments have replaced actual stories. As for the print media, detailed pieces can be found there but, once again, the bottom line is circulation. They need something to attract the public and now we're left with everything looking like USA Today. If I had to blame anyone it would be the print editors and TV executives. Nothing gets published or aired without their consent.

Those folks have the same biases as the reporters, so it really doesn't matter. Some (as we saw in the doctored documents by CBS with Dan Rather) are even more actively biased than even reporters. It was, I believe, his producer who really pushed using the forged documents, although Rather obviously wanted to use them, too.

I'm afraid part of the problem is that newspapers, as a media, are a dying entity. Nobody has figured out how to make it profitable as it was before the Internet Age, and maintain staffs that have time available to (1) cover local events extensively and (2) do in-depth stories on local government.

That is a tragedy because without local reporters getting out information about local school boards, salaries, negotiations, etc., the public is on the hook for paying salaries and benefits without the benefit of any REAL transparency.

It just makes a bad situation (collective bargaining by government workers) that much worse.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8a60e128-4791-11e0-9892-001cc4c002e0.html

Quote from the article:

Repeatedly saying "America is not broke," Moore said "the country is awash in wealth and cash ... It has been transferred in the greatest heist in history from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich."

Uber-rich there Mikey? Really?

What are you doing with your enormous wealth? You always conveniently side-step that question when it's put to you.

When you give all of your money to America's alleged starving masses your obese piece of human waste, you'll gain some credibility.

In the meantime, STFU.

Ehh, Moore is an idiot who has really strayed from his original message.
He is not helping.


I saw today where the Governor is basically laying down the gauntlet and will be start to send out pink slips tomorrow.

ptown_trojans_1;701014 wrote:Ehh, Moore is an idiot who has really strayed from his original message.
He is not helping.

I saw today where the Governor is basically laying down the gauntlet and will be start to send out pink slips tomorrow.

Walker for Prez. Moore for court jester.

I hope the media pounds home the message from all this: there are going to be something like 1,500 layoffs happening BECAUSE OF THE UNION. If they simply put their workers first, as they claim to do, nobody loses a job and certainly nobody ends up in poverty. Instead, the union has to make a point and they do it on the backs of the workers.

Come on union defenders -- tell me again how great unions are and how they protect American workers.

ptown_trojans_1;701014 wrote:Ehh, Moore is an idiot who has really strayed from his original message.
He is not helping.
I saw today where the Governor is basically laying down the gauntlet and will be start to send out pink slips tomorrow.

Helping what, exactly?

Writerbuckeye;701465 wrote:I hope the media pounds home the message from all this: there are going to be something like 1,500 layoffs happening BECAUSE OF THE UNION. If they simply put their workers first, as they claim to do, nobody loses a job and certainly nobody ends up in poverty. Instead, the union has to make a point and they do it on the backs of the workers.
Come on union defenders -- tell me again how great unions are and how they protect American workers.

Victory in Jesus!

Writerbuckeye;701465 wrote:I hope the media pounds home the message from all this: there are going to be something like 1,500 layoffs happening BECAUSE OF THE UNION. If they simply put their workers first, as they claim to do, nobody loses a job and certainly nobody ends up in poverty. Instead, the union has to make a point and they do it on the backs of the workers.

Come on union defenders -- tell me again how great unions are and how they protect American workers.

So you are advocating capitulation? Or appeasement? Because that's certainly the message you are sending, that if you "roll over and take what we're offering, things will be OK".

Do you mean to tell me that if your boss told you he was going to redesign your contract, take away a greater percentage of your wages and restrict your ability to negotiate a better contract, you'd say "Yessum, Mr. Bossman."? And where do we draw the line? How wide do they need to spread their legs to accomodate the next round of cuts?

If this were just about balancing the budget it would be over by now, because the union has agreed to the monetary changes. I'm sorry, it's always been about power, plain and simple. As long as the Koch brothers and others like them are pulling the strings it will always be that way.

stlouiedipalma;701645 wrote:Do you mean to tell me that if your boss told you he was going to redesign your contract, take away a greater percentage of your wages and restrict your ability to negotiate a better contract, you'd say "Yessum, Mr. Bossman."? And where do we draw the line? How wide do they need to spread their legs to accomodate the next round of cuts?

I already operate under those rules and have since I earned my degree in 1983....it's called "employment at will".

That's right - all of my raises, benefits packages, and bonuses if any have been tied to my own personal merit and performance.

I didn't need a union thug I don't even know negotiating for me and I never had to pay any dues to make the union bosses politically powerful and live comfy lifestyles.

Teachers are college educated and supposedly smart peeps. Why shouldn't they operate under the same rules as me?

believer;701710 wrote:I already operate under those rules and have since I earned my degree in 1983....it's called "employment at will".

That's right - all of my raises, benefits packages, and bonuses if any have been tied to my own personal merit and performance.

I didn't need a union thug I don't even know negotiating for me and I never had to pay any dues to make the union bosses politically powerful and live comfy lifestyles.

Teachers are college educated and supposedly smart peeps. Why shouldn't they operate under the same rules as me?

Because if they did that would mean all the fat-cat union hacks would have to abandon their 6-figure compensations and go find a real job.

stlouiedipalma;701645 wrote:Do you mean to tell me that if your boss told you he was going to redesign your contract, take away a greater percentage of your wages and restrict your ability to negotiate a better contract, you'd say "Yessum, Mr. Bossman."? And where do we draw the line? How wide do they need to spread their legs to accomodate the next round of cuts?

That's the beauty of the at-will doctrine --- they might be able to fire me any day they want; and I can walk out on them any day I want..................... and go start my own company and take business away from them pursuant to market forces. Some of you guys think it is a a zero sum game and there is no option for the 'worker bee', but that is not the case at all; people leave their jobs every day and go out on their own to do things better or to better themselves should they think they are getting the short stick. There is beauty and opportunity within the organized chaos.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this:

If you were in a union, with a bargaining agreement in place, wouldn't you resist efforts by your employer to unilaterally throw out that agreement? I understand that in a non-union setting you have no agreement, no basis for establishing work rules, benefits, etc. You can cut your own deal or leave if you don't like what's offered.

stlouiedipalma;702017 wrote:I guess the point I'm trying to make is this:

If you were in a union, with a bargaining agreement in place, wouldn't you resist efforts by your employer to unilaterally throw out that agreement? I understand that in a non-union setting you have no agreement, no basis for establishing work rules, benefits, etc. You can cut your own deal or leave if you don't like what's offered.

In the former, you are not able to cut your own deals. If the agreement was to go away, then you would be able to.

If I was forced to be in a Union, I'd lobby to negotiate for myself. I don't need to pay someone else "dues" so they can negotiate my pay for me, and it scares me that so many people WANT someone else to place no value on their work as an individual. With collective bargaining, no individual teacher's efforts in the classroom really mean anything in the negotiation process, which is why I cannot, for the life of me, understand why a teacher who busts his/her ass and really invests into his/her students would fight so hard to have their "above-and-beyond" passion for their work ignored when compensation is evaluated.

To me, it just makes no sense.

Well, the issue now appears to be a moot point, as Wisconsin Republicans use a "transparent" means of getting what they want. By doing it this way it seems to not be such a budget issue after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/wisconsin-republicans-plan-pass-budget-democrats-sources-say/

stlouiedipalma;705581 wrote:Well, the issue now appears to be a moot point, as Wisconsin Republicans use a "transparent" means of getting what they want. By doing it this way it seems to not be such a budget issue after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/wisconsin-republicans-plan-pass-budget-democrats-sources-say/

It was a childish move, but lets face it. Both major parties are acting immaturely in this whole thing. The "refugees" still hanging out in Illinois aren't exactly a shining example of doing the job correctly.

Lost in this whole conversation is the fact that what the Wisconsin Democratic Senators are doing amounts to a filibuster of sorts. I don't know enough about their procedures in Wisconsin, so I don't really know whether they have any other means of mounting a filibuster.

stlouiedipalma;705604 wrote:Lost in this whole conversation is the fact that what the Wisconsin Democratic Senators are doing amounts to a filibuster of sorts. I don't know enough about their procedures in Wisconsin, so I don't really know whether they have any other means of mounting a filibuster.

I don't mind a good filibuster (from time to time), but there's a significant difference between showing up and using a tactic to keep a bill from being voted on and just not showing up.

One still has a person doing his or her job, odd though it may be. The other, regardless of the ends, is a lack of doing one's job. The end goal might be the same, but the means are what I'm addressing.

Doesn't justify what the 'Pubbies are doing now, though.

O-Trap;705618 wrote:Doesn't justify what the 'Pubbies are doing now, though.

Why not? How else are they going to deal with babies and adolescents? Hiding in Illinois, still??? If we still had stockades, that would be a great place to stick their cowardly asses if and when they return. They all need recalled...ASAFP.

What a disgrace...and yet there are some on here defending acting like cowardly pansies. Filibuster???? Are you kidding me??? Doesn't a filibuster REQUIRE attendance in order to delay the vote???

BGFalcons82;705678 wrote:Why not? How else are they going to deal with babies and adolescents? Hiding in Illinois, still??? If we still had stockades, that would be a great place to stick their cowardly asses if and when they return. They all need recalled...ASAFP.

What a disgrace...and yet there are some on here defending acting like cowardly pansies. Filibuster???? Are you kidding me??? Doesn't a filibuster REQUIRE attendance in order to delay the vote???

Dealing with them by saying, "Fine! We don't need you anyway," isn't a solution. It's addressing childishness with more childishness.

Again, I'm not defending either side. If any other employee doesn't show up for work for three weeks without approved leave, they get fired, so what's being done here is ... "unapproved."

O-Trap;705723 wrote:Dealing with them by saying, "Fine! We don't need you anyway," isn't a solution. It's addressing childishness with more childishness.

Again, I'm not defending either side. If any other employee doesn't show up for work for three weeks without approved leave, they get fired, so what's being done here is ... "unapproved."

OK...again I ask you...what are they supposed to do...shut down the Wisconsin government? Wait a minute...hhmmmm....that might have been a great solution. Maybe not...Walker would have been blamed for the Dems hiding like little fucking children. At some point, they have to come back. I wonder if Fox will broadcast these "senators" next town hall meeting in their districts? Heaven knows CNN, PMSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSN, Reuters, and Hillary's favorite network, Al Jezeera, won't broadcast anything negative about Dems in Wisconsin.

O-Trap;705594 wrote:It was a childish move, but lets face it. Both major parties are acting immaturely in this whole thing. The "refugees" still hanging out in Illinois aren't exactly a shining example of doing the job correctly.

When one party leaves the state in an attempt to get around the spirit and intent of the rules at some point the majority party has to carry on with business. Has anyone violated the law or legislative rules?

majorspark;705751 wrote:When one party leaves the state in an attempt to get around the spirit and intent of the rules at some point the majority party has to carry on with business. Has anyone violated the law or legislative rules?

To my knowledge, neither has violated the rules.

Unfortunately, the "spirit" and "intent" need explicitly stated if they are to be enforced. Again, what the Democrats there have done is infantile.

What are the rest supposed to do? Handle other matters, I suppose. Is voting all they do all day?

What I'd LOVE to hear that they were doing would be reading through bills that are coming up. Some of those things are long as hell, and I'm willing to bet many of them don't go through them like they should. I would actually applaud the Republicans for doing that during this time.

And anyone who would blame Walker for a party's representatives fleeing their responsibilities is a fool, and his or her opinion shouldn't matter to anyone. I'm not Walker's #1 fan or anything, but to blame him because someone else isn't doing their job is asinine, and should be treated as such.

If anyone is upset that no votes are happening ... well, let's look around. At this point, if the Republicans are still around, keeping busy with important things, but ready to vote on an important issue, you can't blame THEM for not doing their job. Given the two-party system we have, that only leaves one option for who's holding things up.

I think a lot of people are seeing this as an ends-justify-means, and I think that goes for both sides. The Democrats have held up the vote (the ends), so somehow, the fact that they are neglecting their responsibility is being either endorsed, or at least forgiven. That shouldn't be.

But it goes for this as well.