Carp & Cube
Jonathan comments to the last post:
I do not think writing for the National Review is what it used to be anymore. Sure, Dreher wrote for the Review but so did Gary Wills. He came up with concept of "Mater Si! Magistra No!" Look also what he had to do to get on the News Hours. He has checked his values at the door. Tell me the last article he wrote supporting Pro-Life views or for diversity in the media? Never! However, because he is against the war and tells enough Bush bashing jokes he gets included in with the other elites. Quite an example if you ask me.
Also can someone tell me of a Conservative Catholic who gets the status of Dreher, Kuo et.al.? Their isn't any. It has all the diversity of the Pravda.
Cubeland Mystic responds:
Jonathan, A liberal friend once said to me "Why do gay people want the Catholic Church to accept them? They should just go off and do their own thing. It is so much easier."
Well she was right. They should do their own thing, and start their own institutions rather than anger the people who dominate the institution they are trying to corrupt.
We should do the same thing here. We should have our own institutions including the media. Pauli posted on a man who is buying a radio station in San Fran. Are we all supporting him? Do we all support EWTN?
I get some of my news here at Est Quod Est. Why do we even care about diversity and liberal hypocrisy? We should apply ourselves to making the institutions we have successful.
I've mentioned to Jonathan in public posts and private emails in the past that I agree whole-heartedly with his assessment of the MSM. But I think Cubeland's point need to really be taken to heart. The "media" as a whole is diverse, probably moreso now than ever. Sure, it's irritating that the old liberal dinosaurs still have plenty of power and are too stubborn to change much. They're all like "dogs who returneth to their own vomit" in this regard, Dreher's vomit is Catholic Church bashing, Kuo's vomit is outright liberal goofiness posing as Christian charity.... Big name media clowns like Chris Matthews have even more disgusting rainbow-colored vomit featuring abortion rights pimping, military bashing, Republican baiting, Clinton-worship and those are just the big chunks....
Sorry, getting a little too realistic there. We can only spend so much time cursing the darkness before we get back to lighting candles. Or M-80's. (Wow, haven't seen one of those suckers in a while.)
I'm one to also predict the new push for the so-called "fairness doctine" is going to ultimately end up in nowheresville. There are many reasons for this, but the most blatant one to me is MONEY. If anyone thinks that all the people pulling down the swag from the El Rushbo/El Hannitybo Industrial Complex are conservative Republicans then you know less about American business than Wendell Berry.
Pauli:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Cube that we should develop our own sources for media. What I try to do is call people like Dreher et.al. out for what they are. It makes more people aware of the men behind the masks.
I also thought these people should be called out because of their clear biases. For example, Dreher's paper spread the disinformation about the Pope's message regarding Non-Catholic churches. Yet when my Diocese ordained 4 men to the Priesthood last Saturday, do you know how much coverage it got? About as much as they give to sexual abuse in Orthodox Churches, none. It should be noted that ordination was the largest in the Diocese's history. Yet you will not hear Dreher's paper cover it.
ReplyDeleteJC
ReplyDeleteI was not being critical in the other post I was trying to be encouraging. I trust your take on the "news" more than Couric's take on the news. If you or Paul report on something, I have few doubts.
Dreher has a Cafeteria persona. He really thinks he is a conservative. He really thought he found "it" in Catholicism until he found "it" in EO. With me I know that I suffer from pinkoism. I have leftist streak in me mostly in the areas of science and education. I will take your money to fund educators and scientists. The difference is I won't call it conservatism. It's socialism, but in the end I think it will make us stronger.
Rod is a dishonest liberal with conservative tendencies. He's not worth wasting your time over. It's better to spend your time blogging on positive things that might help people like me become better Catholics and conservatives. As Web 2.0 becomes more of a reality the dying left will vanish. So carve out a space on the internet. Take yourselves seriously, and everyone else will too.
The election is coming what is your battle plan? How is this blog going to fight for its principles? Study great people like Mother Teresa. She said little. When she spoke she said the same things over and over and over. A very simple message. Picked up a man being eaten alive by worms, he asked why, "because I love you", this was Jesus in the distressing disguise of the poor, he shared in Christ's suffering, I shared in the joy of loving, be only all for Jesus. This pretty much is her basic story which she repeated very often.
In her mind when she saw deep suffering she was transported to Calvary to tend to and comfort our Lord in His passion. How did she shake up the world? Through her consistent actions. People didn't listen to her, they watched her. You do the same.
Cube:
ReplyDeleteI will try to focus on the positive and show the good things that go on in my hometown. I just feel the need at times to confront his disinformation. It lacks no perspective. An example would be his Iraq position. Yes, things are screwed up over there and will take time to rectify but what does he suggest? If we leave Iraq the Terrorists will not come here and fight us? That is why I think it is better to stand there than to leave. This is because unlike North Vietnam these Islamofascists will bring the war home to us.
Wow, Cube, you are da bomb!!!!
ReplyDeleteHe's not worth wasting your time over.
As Kathleen might say, cue the music:
Aaaay-men! Aaaay-men! Aaaaay-men, Aay-men, Aay-men!
BTW: What do you mean by Web 2.0? Clue in us technologically challenged folks. Thanks!!
Diane
Diane, Web 2.0, I think, means people like you and me and anyone can start a blog and be part of the media. Shea, Welborn, et al -- they don't have computer science degrees. It doesn't even cost anything to start a blog. (You might have to figure out how to log in, however. 8^) )
ReplyDeleteI think Cube nails it here when he suggests that being dishonest about the approach is the main problem with media like the MSM. If you read Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias" there's a section where he talks about a conversation with Dan Rather where he tried to get Rather to admit the media was liberal. Rather wouldn't do it; Goldberg would name a reporter and Rather would respond "straight up the middle".
In a sense, I don't have a problem with NPR, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC et al having left agendas. They're corporations -- as long as the boards of directors are cool with it, it's fine.
Dreher's thing is a little more nuanced. He's so negative on the things he dislikes in the Republican Party and so embarrassed by normal conservatives that he has had to come up with his own "thang". The anger he displayed when Jonah G. suggested a debate about whether or not "crunchy conservatism" even existed was proof that the emperor was buck naked.
I'm with Jonathan in that I have fantasies of someone in the media standing up and saying "Of course we're liberals! More secular liberalism is what WE need in the world! Down with conservatism, down with Christianity!!" But the fact they don't do this just shows they know they can't admit this, it "doesn't play in Peoria."
And in Dreher's case, this would probably translate to him saying, "I'm socialist on some things, liberal on others, capitalist every once in a while, and conservative on social issues. Plus I like local coffee shoppes better than Starbucks, and French wine better than pina coladas and walks in the rain." But that would make him sound like Michael Savage minus the hemorrhoidal flare-ups every 15 minutes. He'd rather wrap all of this "effluvia" (his word, not mine) into a kind of unified politico-religious theory.
As always, correct me if I'm wrong.
(Also, Diane will be happy to know that effluvia now includes P. G. Wodehouse, a recent discovery.)
To add to what Paul has stated in addition to blogging, you also have podcasting, youtube, on line applications. Computing should not be inaccessible, it should be very accessible. For example if there was a news event in Parma, Ohio, Paul could run over there with his camera take pictures or video, summarize the events and publish them to the blog. Why do I need NBC or ABC to spin them for me? You will see tons of little media outlets in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe technology part of it is about leveraging existing technology to created web based applications that free users to move about the country. For example, If you own a small salvage lumber business there is no reason for you to be back at the shop by a phone and computer to transact business. With wireless technology and an iphone I think you would have all you need to conduct business where it is happening for you. All the software most people need can be provided for free by sites like zoho.com. Using the various collaborative softwares you can collaborate with colleagues all the time. If you can get used to it IM is a great technology for this. In a phone meeting we constantly feed each other input while we are engaging a customer or technology partner, “too harsh, he’s pissed, back off a bit, tell her how you are going to make her successful..” That’s just IM.
So web 2.0 is about pain free technology, collaboration, and constant innovation. It’s about us using technology the way we want to, rather than using a technology the way a vendor like microflaccid wants us to use their technology. It’s more conceptual than an actual technology or a particular Standard. Hope that makes it clearer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2
Cube:
ReplyDeleteWhile you are right when you said
"Rod is a dishonest liberal with conservative tendencies. He's not worth wasting your time over."
I believe he must be confronted when he acts up. For example, when his paper ran that hit job on Father Benedict Groeschel, I tried to get him to criticize it. This was his response.
http://www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/the_first_dmn_story/
" What Groeschel did in this case was unfair and self-serving, at least as far as I can tell. You don’t do everything in your power to keep a reporter from getting accurate information, and then complain because he has published inaccurate information."
Neither he nor his paper have offered an apology to Father Groeschel. This despite the report the Catholic League did tearing apart the DMN's hatchet job.
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/groeschel.htm
In short, yes we should develop alternative media to get out information not reported by the liberal MSM. However, when we do not respond to their hatchet jobs we get what happened to Father Benedict, a modern version of the movie "Abscense of Malice."