# Why "Brokeback" lost



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Bit late, but I just came across this:

"So for people who were discomfited by 'Brokeback Mountain' but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, 'Crash' provided the perfect safe harbor...." Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I can't recall where I read this, but it's been reported that a lot of Academy voters didn't even view Brokeback Mountain.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

A lot of academy voters don't view a lot of the films. That's been true going back at least 25 years. It's hardly unique to Brokeback.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The critic is entitled to his opinion. But since I'm an editor and my job is to challenge whether an opinion has holes in it or ignores facts, if I were editing a piece and came across something like that, I'd ask the writer that if Brokeback had won multiple Oscars, wouldn't conservatives then be criticizing liberals for doing the politically correct thing in honoring Brokeback Mountain?

My gut tells me that some voters probably saw the film's subject matter as overt Oscar bait and decided not to play along. No one likes being manipulated.

No matter which choice a liberal makes, conservatives will find some way of criticizing it, and usually they'll imply that the choice was not only wrong but insincere. It must be nice to be able to read other people's hearts and minds in order to come to conclusions like this one.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> The critic is entitled to his opinion. But since I'm an editor and my job is to challenge whether an opinion has holes in it or ignores facts, if I were editing a piece and came across something like that, I'd ask the writer that if Brokeback had won multiple Oscars, wouldn't conservatives then be criticizing liberals for doing the politically correct thing in honoring Brokeback Mountain?
> 
> ...


The L.A. times is hardly a conservative publication.
It does appear to be a fact that the Hollywood crowd go out of their way to use the awards as political statements that are usually leaning toward the Left. How else to explain awarding an Oscar for "Best Documentary" to "Bowling For Columbine" ? It was neither best, nor a documentary but it did attack what is perceived to be a subject owned by the Right--guns. Sean Penn gets best actor for "Mystic River"? Really?

Your gut is correct about the Oscar-bait. Any time somebody wants an Oscar, they can always choose from a reliable catalog of material. Unfortunately for Mr. Penn, that plan didn't work for his pathetic performance in "I Am Sam". He thought his portyal of a mentally retarded adult, no matter how badly done, would get him the big prize. And he was right to think so, given his Liberal Hollywood audience. That Denzel Washington won that year was merely a quirk, especially since Russell Crowe deserved to win for "A Beautiful Mind".

It is best to watch the Oscars for the sidways entertainment value and the absurd political overtones, not to find out who the really great performers are.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> "So for people who were discomfited by 'Brokeback Mountain' but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, 'Crash' provided the perfect safe harbor...." Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan


I'm sorry...and I know that this wont be a popular opinion...but I must aggree...while I didnt think either movie deserved to win (or even be nominated for that matter), but if I had to choose between those two, I'd have to go with _Brokeback Mountain_...(let me preface this by saying that I'm a hardline heterosexual [I do luuuuuv dem ladies], and a firm believer in the fact that the only thing that makes a person gay is having sex with people of the same gender [not watching a movie about gays])...but anyway...while the subject matter was a bit...ummmm...uncomfortable? for some...at least it was a solid story... a love story, and all around not a bad movie (not a classic either, but not bad) if you're willing to open your mind, and open you eyes to what really goes on in the world (and let me furthermore add that I am also a staunch conservative, but I have come to realise that people are the way they are and just because a person is gay, it doesnt make them bad or evil or whatever nonsense some would like to believe)...now, _Crash_, dealt with a everybody's favorite "hot-button" subject matter...racial tension...now, I'm all for exploring this problem so we can solve it, but the paper thin storyline of _Crash_, to me, was written to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and basically played into the typical thought pattern that "****** is the bad guy, keeping the poor black man down" (and, no, I'm not trying to start a debate on race here)...but if we really want to tackle this oh so heavy subject...how about a movie that is objective, and points out the fact that white people are the victims of just as much racism as the blacks, Hispanics, and everybody else...and that racism is all around ugly, and a white racist is no worse than a racist of any other color, and somebody being racist against white people isnt "liberating themselves" or whatever such nonsense, but rather pouring more gas on a fire that should have been extinguished along time ago (it's the 21st century, after all)...now, I think that would be a monumental movie...I think _Crash_ was just a bit of a cop-out as far as movies go...and the fact that it was chosen as the best movie of the year was a bit of a cop-out on the part of the academy...I'm sure somebody's going to rip into me for my "oh so uneducated" opinion, because I wasnt a member of the "old boy film society" in Essex or whatever, but if you have seen both movies, you'd have a hard time disputing what I've just said...but then again, I also thought Jon Stewart stunk the place up so bad, that I can't even watch _The Daily Show_ anymore...so what do I know???

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

On the other hand, maybe the point is that "Hollywood" just isn't terribly relevant any more.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

The Academy Awards would be much more interesting if they only gave an award each year if they believed a film (or director, or actor, etc) actually deserved it - rather than giving one away each year to the 'best' in the category, regardless of how pitiful a particular annual crop may be.

'Sorry, there will be no Academy Award for Best Picture this year...none this year live up to the minimum standards for the prize.'


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> On the other hand, maybe the point is that "Hollywood" just isn't terribly relevant any more.
> 
> Carpe Diem


Have you read Laura Ingraham's Shut Up and Sing?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Bit late, but I just came across this:
> 
> "So for people who were discomfited by 'Brokeback Mountain' but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, 'Crash' provided the perfect safe harbor...." Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan


This is not, as previously implied, a conservative criticizing liberals. This is citicism (author of the book, if I recall correctly) of the academy liberals for not being liberal enough to her liking (and her benefit). Her choice (to which she has the closest of personal ties) did not win the coveted Oscar. Now she's stamping her little feet. Her movie did not lose on it's merits, 'she wuz robbed'. Typical.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I'm not familiar with Ingraham's book. I'm very familiar with her viewpoints and I was wondering if it would be possible to summarize her thesis in "Shut Up and Sing"?

Carpe Diem


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> The L.A. times is hardly a conservative publication.


See, this is where I always think conservatives are wacko when they talk about the "liberal media." I've spent 30 years in newsrooms, and they are populated by liberals, conservatives and mostly people who distrust all politicians no matter the party. Never during a job interview has anyone ever asked me which way I leaned. Never in 30 years have I heard, or heard of, an editor telling someone to slant a story a specific way.

I've worked on papers with liberal and conservative editorial pages -- but they are separate from the people who work in the newsroom, sometimes so separate that we never meet them. The L.A. Times has more than 800 people in its newsroom. It is beyond ridiculous to believe that number doesn't include more than a few hundred conservatives. Which way this critic leans, I don't know. But it's crazy to think that a staff of 800 is of one mind.

My newsroom numbers about 250 -- and we have a good mix. And we'll go after politicians of any persuasion because it's a good story and because it would be unethical not to. Conservatives were complaining about our editorial page, so the people there tallied election endorsements over the past five years and found that they had endorsed almost as many Republicans as Democrats. I would imagine you'd find that to be similar on most papers -- endorsements usually are made on the basis of qualifications rather than dogma.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> _Crash_, dealt with a everybody's favorite "hot-button" subject matter...racial tension...now, I'm all for exploring this problem so we can solve it, but the paper thin storyline of _Crash_, to me, was written to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and basically played into the typical thought pattern that "****** is the bad guy, keeping the poor black man down" (and, no, I'm not trying to start a debate on race here)...but if we really want to tackle this oh so heavy subject...how about a movie that is objective, and points out the fact that white people are the victims of just as much racism as the blacks, Hispanics, and everybody else...and that racism is all around ugly, and a white racist is no worse than a racist of any other color, and somebody being racist against white people isnt "liberating themselves" or whatever such nonsense, but rather pouring more gas on a fire that should have been extinguished along time ago (it's the 21st century, after all)...now, I think that would be a monumental movie...I think _Crash_ was just a bit of a cop-out as far as movies go...and the fact that it was chosen as the best movie of the year was a bit of a cop-out on the part of the academy...


Wow, you had a much different take on this movie than I did. Look at the black characters:

Police detective who gleefully makes derogatory racist statements about his Latina girlfriend's culture.

His drug-addict mother.

His carjacker brother.

The carjacker's friend/partner-in-crime, and the off-screen racist black waitress whose black-on-black racism stokes his inner rage.

The law-abiding television director whose racist rage against the L.A. cops nearly gets him killed (but for the extraordinary intervention of a well-meaning white cop).

The director's wife, whose black-on-black racism causes a rift in their marriage.

The dirty undercover cop whose corruption was covered up by the police detective, leaving the white cop who justifiably killed him appearing to have acted recklessly.

The black police lieutenant attributing his own rise within the department as nothing more than the triumph of politics over institutional racism.

I think the only neutral black character was the female cop, who did nothing but stand around looking gorgeous. (Damn, Nona Gaye is hot.)

As for the other 'minorities': there was the Asian immigrant trafficking in illegal immigration for a tidy profit, the trigger-happy Persian quick to assume that the Latino locksmith cheated and subsequently robbed him. The Latina cop who mocks the Asian woman's accent and driving skills at the slightest provocation.

It's surprises me that someone could view this film as portraying "******" (to use your term) as the 'bad guy'. But I guess that just shows how bizarre this whole race issue is. Actually, I think the Latino Locksmith was the only 'idealized' character in the whole film -- in the context of everything else, though I hardly makes this film unbalanced or even remotely 'politically correct'.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Liberal media? Then why is there an annual listing of the 10 top censored news stories every year? Why did 60 Minutes cancel an interview with Julia Butterfly Hill when Patricia Bullwinkle, PR director for Maxxam went to work? Can anyone even name the last 10 best pictures? Van Go sold one painting- to his brother Theo. A black pilot in WW2 was awarded enough air medals to decorate a Christmas tree yet was denied the DFC. It's a silly, prejudiced and flawed system, possibly no better or worse than electronic voting, electing a new Pope or choosing the perfect cat from a litter of kittens. TIME is the ultimate award. Brokeback Mountain may very well become a cult classic, shown on valentine's Day with The Birdcage in Gay Nieghborhoods, much like Rocky Horror Picture Show has become a financial goldmine with midnight showings ( lots of fun!) I'm going to microwave some popcorn and watch LOST HORIZONS with the monks this afternoon. They are curious about how buddhism was introduced to the west.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

I liked "Walk the Line" best.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't read it either but I believe the main thrust is that if you don't share her mindless right wing politics then you ought to keep quiet.

------------------


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> I've worked on papers with liberal and conservative editorial pages -- but they are separate from the people who work in the newsroom, sometimes so separate that we never meet them. The L.A. Times has more than 800 people in its newsroom. It is beyond ridiculous to believe that number doesn't include more than a few hundred conservatives. Which way this critic leans, I don't know. *But it's crazy to think that a staff of 800 is of one mind. *


But management is - sell ads! They all bleed green.

My dinky newsroom has one libertarian, one conspiracy theorist-comedian, three old-style libs, one fretful mother, one ambitious recent graduate, and an intern who says she will teach us the _Internationale _ on May Day.

It's more like a situation comedy than anything else.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> A lot of academy voters don't view a lot of the films. That's been true going back at least 25 years. It's hardly unique to Brokeback.


And what do you base this on?

_I_ have seen most of the nominated movies and I didn't get sent a free copy in the mail.

------------------


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rojo is right. My wife worked in film publicity for a while and handled some Oscar nominated films and another friend handled Oscar publicity for Miramax. While Academy voters generally have seen the big films, they are less likely to watch the screeners for films in the "lesser" categories sent out after the nominations have been announced. There are about 6,000 or so voters but you don't have to be currently working in the industry to have a vote, which means that the voting demographic is older than the general film going public.

I believe, but am not certain, that some of the technical categories are restricted to voters with experience in those categories.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Fair enough.

Thanks for the information. I guess when I say I have seen most of the nominated films I mean I have seen most of the major nominees.

------------------


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 'Sorry, there will be no Academy Award for Best Picture this year...none this year live up to the minimum standards for the prize.'


If Hollywood actually did that, I might consider respecting them...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Here is a total shot in the dark.

Assume many academy members do not screen each of the nominees adequately before voting. Given all the fanfare and hype concerning Brokeback, would it not be unimagineable for a member to think, "Oh I know the premise to this one, same old love story, but this time with two guys. Gee, do I really need to watch this? No." Whereas, "This film is called 'Crash', I can't tell what the hell its about. Better watch it."

Granted this may sound terribly naive, but consumer behavior and patterns are often not overly complex. Academy member behavior would likely follow some trend or pattern, with its 6,000 members. Maybe Brokeback was actually a victim of its own hype and rather hum drum story line, gay characters aside.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Some interesting comments on the Oscars by Gore Vidal:
https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060303_gore_vidal_sex_oscars/


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

I think the whole AMPAS awards thing is absurd.

If the AMA where to start giving awards for Plastic Surgeon of the year, best; face lift, tummy tuck, liposuction, gastric bypass... it would be the same thing, a _*Pantload*_.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> ...Ingraham's book. I'm very familiar with her viewpoints and I was wondering if it would be possible to summarize her thesis in "Shut Up and Sing"?...
> 
> I haven't read it either but I believe the main thrust is that if you don't share her mindless right wing politics then you ought to keep quiet.


 Just curious. Which part of her politics do you find to be "mindless"?


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When conservatives complain about the liberal media, they are not saying it is 100% liberals. They are saying that it tends to lean to the left.

"Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative."

Read the whole thing:

Apparently the large number of reporters who self-identify as neither liberal nor conservative think they are fair-minded, middle-of-the-road moderates. My guess is that if you questioned these moderates about their views on specific issues, you would find yet more liberals. Even if they are actual moderates, every survey cited above found the conservatives in media to be a distinct minority.

Here's an example of a left-leaning headline from my hometown paper: "FBI Targets Local Muslims." What do you suppose that was about? Agents shooting at people? Locking them up? "Target" is a heavily loaded verb, implying unfair treatment and hinting at police brutality. Reading the article I learned that what the FBI was actually doing was _questioning_ local Muslims. Why didn't the headline writer use a more neutral verb, like "FBI Interviews Local Muslims"?

It's nothing as calculated as asking job applicants if they are liberals or editors asking that stories be given a particular slant. It happens all on its own simply because fewer (not none, just fewer) conservatives are drawn to journalism.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Crash stank on ice. An Afterschool Special with swearing.

Brokeback had stunning cinematography.

The Squid and the Whale featured writing and acting that decisively outclassed anything else in the competition.

And Sin City wuz robbed. If Mickey Rourke didn't deserve a nomination, I'll eat my Weejuns.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find it mindless that she thinks that she and the other right wing attack dogs - other New England Ivy league girls - feel that they are the ones to channel the feeling of average Americans while genuinely popular public figures have no right to speak out (because they don't agree with her positions).

The "elites" seem to have become the new bogeymen in American politics - latte drinking, Volvo driving, New York Times reading, sushi eating, European vacationing elites who, according to buffoons like Ingraham, want to sell America out to secular European-style socialism. Nonsense.

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> Apparently the large number of reporters who self-identify as neither liberal nor conservative think they are fair-minded, middle-of-the-road moderates. My guess is that if you questioned these moderates about their views on specific issues, you would find yet more liberals. Even if they are actual moderates, every survey cited above found the conservatives in media to be a distinct minority.


As I mentioned, most journalists are distrustful of any political party. The relationship between reporters and politicans is adversarial no matter what the reporter's political beliefs may be, because all politicians want to be presented in the most complimentary way and hope to suppress anything that might cast them in a negative light. A reporter will seek to unearth that which the politician doesn't want known, even if it's a conservative reporter covering a conservative politician.

Editors go to some lengths to ensure this. To cite a personal example, I once worked for an editor who put the Mets fan on the Yankees beat and the Yankees fan on the Mets beat, although both were professional sports writers who would have had an adversarial relationship with the players even if they had been assigned to the teams of which they had been lifelong fans.

Now it is a basic of journalism that newspapers exist to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," which is probably not how conservatives would prefer it. Does this entail a liberal sensibility? It may seem so, but my feeling is that Who's Getting Screwed and How The Bastards Are Wasting My Tax Dollars are more matters of high reader interest than of political stances, and newspapers do try to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable no matter which party is in power.



> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> Here's an example of a left-leaning headline from my hometown paper: "FBI Targets Local Muslims." What do you suppose that was about? Agents shooting at people? Locking them up? "Target" is a heavily loaded verb, implying unfair treatment and hinting at police brutality. Reading the article I learned that what the FBI was actually doing was _questioning_ local Muslims. Why didn't the headline writer use a more neutral verb, like "FBI Interviews Local Muslims"?


Often my job is to "slot" copy, in other words to be last person to read it before it's placed on the page and to judge and sometimes rewrite headlines if I think the headline is inaccurate, unfair, in poor taste, or simply because I think I have a better one.

Without seeing the story, based on what you write, I believe your local paper correctly used "targets" because the FBI seems to be profiling people based on their religious beliefs rather than their behavior. I don't think the word connotes brutality -- if we were to say "Bush Targets Low Test Scores," most people would take it as a positive headline.

What most people don't understand about headline writing is that the point size of the headline type and the width and number of lines are assigned before the headline is written, so the headline writer must choose words that will convey the gist of the story while at the same time _fit_ within the space alloted. "Target" is a shorter word than "interview," and the truth is that many headline words are chosen for that reason -- no one would write "inks pact" rather than "signs contract" for any reason other than that one. I can also assure you that many headlines are written in about 30 seconds. Fairness is of course a concern, but on a large morning newspaper, the work is being done at warp speed sometimes. Often a headline writer's job is akin to doing a crossword puzzle in five minutes -- tough because while many words could fit the hint, only one will fit the assigned space. Target? Yeah, that fits!


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> Editors go to some lengths to ensure this. To cite a personal example, I once worked for an editor who put the Mets fan on the Yankees beat and the Yankees fan on the Mets beat, although both were professional sports writers who would have had an adversarial relationship with the players even if they had been assigned to the teams of which they had been lifelong fans.


Newsday?


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Chuck Klosterman has an interesting article on "media bias" in his essay collection "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs."

In his view, the way a paper actually functions precludes the possibility of any bias--for example, quotes come from the sources which call back first.

He also posits that sports writers inevitably come to hate sports.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Brownshoe_
> 
> Chuck Klosterman has an interesting article on "media bias" in his essay collection "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs."
> 
> ...


I think Klosterman is an unreadable horse's patooty and I'm not sure he has any newspaper experience. I'm certain he doesn't have _substantial_ newspaper experience.

However, there is a point at which the story must be filed and the presses must start on time, so it's true that who calls back and who is the most quotable will to some extent dictate a story.

It's not inevitable that sports writers come to hate sports. I've worked with hundreds of sports writers, and was one myself. I think it's more a case of the writers deciding the people in pro sports are often ignorant and self-absorbed rather than not enjoying watching the games. In my case, covering pro basketball and major league baseball in my early 20s did give me a sense of "is this all there is?" and "do I have to spend my entire working life dutifully seeking the insights of cretins?" But I still enjoyed a summer night at the ballpark, although it is a lot more enjoyable now that I no longer have to pound out stories while the game is still being played.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he can be funny on frivolous pop culture stuff, and not bad on pop music.

He could be full of hot air in the newspaper piece, I have no idea. It was just an interesting perspective that I hadn't encountered before.

I think you're right about his take on sports writers--they start to hate athletes, managers, owners, etc, not the game itself.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

_Without seeing the story, based on what you write, I believe your local paper correctly used "targets" because the FBI seems to be profiling people based on their religious beliefs rather than their behavior._

I've been in the publishing industry for 15 years, but books and magazines, not newspapers. Obviously we don't have the same short deadlines that you do in the newspaper world.

But your statement above, to my mind anyway and perhaps you would disagree, shows your liberal leaning. I think that questioning people at local mosques is reasonable, logical, and good detective work. I think a mosque is a good place to look for Islamic extremists. From what I understand, they congregate in mosques. But I'm a conservative. You look at the same FBI activity and see "profiling people based on their religious beliefs rather than their behavior," which I submit is a liberal viewpoint.

_What most people don't understand about headline writing is that the point size of the headline type and the width and number of lines are assigned before the headline is written, so the headline writer must choose words that will convey the gist of the story while at the same time fit within the space alloted. "Target" is a shorter word than "interview,"_

"Queries" is the same length as "Targets." I still think the choice of the word "Targets" betrays a liberal leaning.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> But your statement above, to my mind anyway and perhaps you would disagree, shows your liberal leaning. I think that questioning people at local mosques is reasonable, logical, and good detective work. I think a mosque is a good place to look for Islamic extremists. From what I understand, they congregate in mosques.


Well, you can imagine the public outrage that would ensue if an abortion center were firebombed and the FBI decided fundamentalist Christian churches were a good place to look for suspects, so let's just question fundamentalist Christians at random, because anti-abortion extremists tend to congregate in churches. No, in this case, the FBI probably would need probable cause.

I think another thing that differentiates newspapers from magazine and book publishing is an attempt at objectivity at newspapers. What I see is one group of people being treated differently than another. To me it is not a liberal vs. conservative issue but one of basic human rights and freedom that ought to be applied equally to members of any group.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> ]
> 
> I think Klosterman is an unreadable horse's patooty and I'm not sure he has any newspaper experience. I'm certain he doesn't have _substantial_ newspaper experience.


Define "patooty," please.

(Could it have anything to do with why "Brokeback Mountain" lost? [}])


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> Define "patooty," please.


As Forrest Gump would say, "the buttocks."


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Doesn't Virgil mention a strange tribe - the Hootie Patooties - that walk everywhere touching their toes?

Or was that Homer?


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Regarding the statement "targets muslims", I too find the media latches on to phrases to convey a sense of pattern or emotion even if none exists. The media overly relies upon conflict and drama to attract interest. Why, because eveyone will admit the need to drive ratings or circulation. This is precisely the reason I do not believe the media is some sacrosanct body; they are an industry like any other, seeking a profit to stay alive. The age old "dog bites man - no story, but man bites dog..." thing undermines the very essence of delivering the news, nothing more, nothing less. If you want free airwaves, then by all means give us news without the edge or call it entertainment. That is what it has all become, entertainment. There is nothing wrong with entertainment, but putting journalists on a higher tier than the pope, himself, grows tiresome. 

"The FBI Targets Muslims" invokes conflict and fear, and betrays a sense of institutional racism. How often have we seen this play out with "black motorist". Rarely do I see "white motorist". In fact, it was often either "black motorist" or simply "driver".

It can also go in a relatively non-political way. Remember when journalists had a penchant for saying "Blackhawk down" (as in, "there's a Blackhawk down in ...") following the release and popularity of the book and subsequent movie. Please, just admit, the phrases are used to introduce emotion and conflict as a means to grab attention. This is standard play in the news business.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> Why, because eveyone will admit the need to drive ratings or circulation.


Except for tabloids, which rely heavily on street sales, the vast majority of newspapers gear the product more to home delivery rather than those fickle customers who might or might not buy a newspaper if an especially lurid headline or photo catches their fancy as they walk within sight of a newspaper rack. It would be an unwise business plan to try to focus on them. The cover price sometimes does not even cover the cost of paper, ink and distribution, let alone the labor involved in gathering and publishing news. Advertisers are not going to pay extra if another 10,000 people were to buy the Los Angeles Times or Chicago Tribune on a given day because of a headline -- they are interested only in purchasing access to a consistent market of readers, not one that will fluctuate depending on the skills of $75,000-per-year headline writers on any given day.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who's paying headline writers 75 grand? And where do I sign?


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're getting to the heart of the issue. You hear about the FBI treating Muslims differently and see not a liberal or conservative issue but "basic human rights and freedom" at stake. To you, that's being objective, centrist, moderate, and fair-minded.

To me, that's more of the liberal preoccupation with avoiding any kind of profiling. In my mind, it's necessary for the FBI to work on the assumption that a Muslim is more likely to be a Muslim extremist than is, well, a non-Muslim. I see a liberal putting political correctness ahead of public safety. I don't understand what answering some questions for the FBI has to do with "basic human rights and freedom"; to me, those are inapplicable and overly dramatic terms to use in this case.

Now do you begin to see why conservatives think there is a liberal bias in the news media?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> To me, that's more of the liberal preoccupation with avoiding any kind of profiling. In my mind, it's necessary for the FBI to work on the assumption that a Muslim is more likely to be a Muslim extremist than is, well, a non-Muslim. I see a liberal putting political correctness ahead of public safety.


Well, in my home state of New Jersey, we found that state police were stopping people on the New Jersey Turnpike for simply being black -- "arrested for driving while black," some people called it. The Turnpike is a major drug artery, and somehow the state troopers decided that a lot of drug dealers are black, so why not stop as many black people as possible? I'm happy to say that New Jersey state police are no longer allowed to function that way because the threat of damage to our freedom would be greater than the threat of damage from drug dealing.

So, yes, I am against racial profiling, ethnic profiling, religious profiling, etc. And I do not think my line of thinking is liberal -- I think my line of thinking in that regard is conservative in the most literal sense because I believe in conserving the Constitution and the rights of all citizens as guaranteed within.

You might consider this liberal, but in the state where I live, profiling of this sort is against the law -- and I might add that a Republican was governor while this change took place. When law enforcement disregards our laws, it is a newspaper's duty to point it out -- whether you like it or not.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Some interesting comments on the Oscars by Gore Vidal:
> https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060303_gore_vidal_sex_oscars/


 Thank-you, Doctor, for that link. It helped me to remember that Mr Vidal is still alive - and as intelligent as ever!


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While I agree with you the lifeblood is paid subscribers for print media, all formats, however, are in a fight to grab attention currently. Whether print, tv, radio, internet, etc., the crossover between formats has forced the industry to work outside of its traditional confines. The NY Times focuses much thought and energy on the .com version even though few pay the "Select" content. Time is money in both directions, for the consumer who invests their time, and the entity who can capture it. The news content itself, is becoming marginalized and what remains, more dramatic.


----------

