Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
I have to youtube that then. That jerk just annoys the hell out of me. What he is doing/done is almost the equilvalant of me walking into a Porsche dealership wasting the salesman's time for 4 hours only for him to find out that there is no way in hell I can afford ANY car at the place.
Why?Quote:
fox brings him on to bitch slap.
fox is pandering now. they don't want to be the minority, and newscorp is about to have a massive layoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Fox has been doing that to everybody it seems as of late. They drilled Nader the other day...:lol
Nader drilled himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by florige
I recall several networks showing up at his house in the early days. It's when he started offering up some of his more ridiculous opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
He's an unremarkable dunce who has become (depending on who you are) an example of the hypocracy and limited perspective of the Right, or an example of how the "Left Wing Media" will go out of its way to tear down anyone who does not share their ideology.
The precedent just makes me uncomfortable. Man confronts political candidate and the conversation is broadcast nationally. Man becomes symbol and hero of political candidate's opponent. Man becomes celebrity by virtue of being mentioned repeatedly in Presidential Debate and on campaign trail. Man embraces newfound celebrity (as many people would). Man's personal life becomes part of the public conversation.
Frankly, the only thing Joe the Plumber did differently than millions of other people in this country is challenge a Presidential Candidate's tax policy. His surge to national celebrity was not his doing. Does anyone doubt that even if he had refused to talk to reporters outside of his home, there would have still been digging into his past?
Clearly (and fortunately), this particular person doesn't seem to care or realize what a joke he's become, and doesn't have the capacity for personal shame that would drive a lot of people into seclusion after such a ride. Of course, he's also getting a lot of mixed signals from different people hoping to capitalize on him. Still, the probing into his personal life (his income, his real name, his welfare status, etc.) is not directly tied to his willingness to vocalize his jackassery to the media, IMO.
I don't care about Joe as an individual, but I do care that our tabloid perspective on life makes us feel entitled to dissect people like him. Who will be next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
True.:lol I'm just used to watching Katie Couric and Brian Williams thrown out softball questions to the people they interview. I'm not used to seeing reporters drill people no matter what they might say...
Yeah, but the early days were a vetting process of a guy the McCain campaign was touting. The media had an obligation here. Think about the cries of liberal media bias that would have been lobbed out if Joe the Plumber had been ignored as a dunce. As it turns out they were denounced for vetting him, but that is actually what they're for. It's just been so long since the media has done their jobs that people forget what it looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
The only precedent is that the McCain camp put so much emphasis on him without vetting him. The practice of singling out people who become icons of a certain kind of politics is common and often unfortunate. Just as Rasputin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Obama had like 10,000 cameras on him when Joe issued his challenge. Painting the guy like a shy little violet now is a bit much. Plenty of people asked Obama questions on camera while he was campaigning. The McCain camp didn't make celebrities out of all of them. Fox and Drudge highlighted the Joe issue and McCain bit on it. As for refusing to talk to reporters, it seems to be working out okay for B on her face girl. She's not all over Fox News.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Making sure the next person thinks twice before asking a deciving question to a political figure is exactly why this was important. Had Joe's question not been personal it wouldn't have had half the impact. "Your plan might in theory cost someone money" is not the same as "Your plan will cost me money and prevent me from establishing my own business." Hundreds, if not thousands of people had already asked Obama the theorhetical question. What made Joe's challenge unique was his supposed personal angle and that's why Fox, Drudge, and McCain jumped on him as a "living, breathing example" of people who would be victims of Obama's tax plan. That fact that it was all based on a lie is valid to explore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Vetting a person held up as an example by a major political figure is basic media responsibility 101. Otherwise what is to discourage having campaigns hire actors to pretend to be "men on the street" to sabotage the other side and get soundbites?
it is an unimaginable amount of incompetance from the right.
he needs to be scorched.
Vetting him as an individual misses the point. Joe was held up by the McCain campaign as a symbol of how Obama's tax plan would affect small business owners. A truly responsible media would explore Obama's tax plan as it relates to small business owners and analyze whether such a plan truly crushes the American Dream. But the American audience would become bored with that kind of analysis, preferring tabloid journalism instead. Through all of the digging into whether Joe actually made what he said he made, or whether he was actually who he said he was, the average American viewer heard nothing about whether Obama's plan would actually hurt Joe the Plumber and to what extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
Agreed.Quote:
The only precedent is that the McCain camp put so much emphasis on him without vetting him. The practice of singling out people who become icons of a certain kind of politics is common and often unfortunate. Just as Rasputin.
I only saw one camera angle on the video that made its way around the internet.Quote:
Obama had like 10,000 cameras on him when Joe issued his challenge.
I'm not painting him as shy but it's irrelevant. The video made rounds because Obama said "Spreading the Wealth." If he had been caught on tape making that statement to Patricia the Bashful Seamstress, she would have been the one getting mentioned 22 times in a Presidential Debate.Quote:
Painting the guy like a shy little violet now is a bit much. Plenty of people asked Obama questions on camera while he was campaigning. The McCain camp didn't make celebrities out of all of them. Fox and Drudge highlighted the Joe issue and McCain bit on it.
Again, Joe's challenge was only unique because it caused Obama to answer in a way that could be construed as advocating socialism. That's all.Quote:
Making sure the next person thinks twice before asking a deciving question to a political figure is exactly why this was important. Had Joe's question not been personal it wouldn't have had half the impact. "Your plan might in theory cost someone money" is not the same as "Your plan will cost me money and prevent me from establishing my own business." Hundreds, if not thousands of people had already asked Obama the theorhetical question. What made Joe's challenge unique was his supposed personal angle and that's why Fox, Drudge, and McCain jumped on him as a "living, breathing example" of people who would be victims of Obama's tax plan. That fact that it was all based on a lie is valid to explore.
I disagree completely with the idea that private citizens should be vetted for talking to political candidates. I'd rather candidates run the risk of answering questions from actors than citizens' personal lives be subject to probing for political exploitation. That's a bit too Big Brother for my tastes.Quote:
Vetting a person held up as an example by a major political figure is basic media responsibility 101. Otherwise what is to discourage having campaigns hire actors to pretend to be "men on the street" to sabotage the other side and get soundbites?
Yeah, in retrospect it was a sucker punch. My apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
It's more of a hangup with the martyrdom bestowed upon the mythical being known as "Joe the Plumber". This is the stuff shadows in Plato's cave are made of. It drags yet another issue into the "sacred belief" weeds.
Hey, do as I say not as I've done.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Joe the plumber
one might ask why a stupid fucker like you feels the need to troll me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClingingFarts
-Mars
"spreading the wealth is good for everyone?"Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
ahahahahahahahahah
substance? more like SOCIALISM.
-Mars
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by ClingingFarts
:tu
Vetting him as an individual happened because he presented himself as an example. Had he simply posed a theoretical question I don't think he'd have gotten much attention and he wouldn't have been vetted, but I have no alternate reality crystal ball to prove that. I know that by holding himself up as an example, he invited scrutiny. He tried to ambush and it backfired. He'd actually have been able to deliver the punchline and run if not for McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Exactly. An example he did not meet. If Obama's tax plan is going to affect small business owners so badly, where are the scores of them that should be lining up to say so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You are confusing the role of the media with that of the opposition party and expert analysts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Joe the Plumber will be getting a tax cut under Obama's plan. All the McCain camp had to do was find people who actually would be hurt by Obama's tax plan and put them in a room with Joe the Plumber and some cameras. If there were so many of these people, then they should have been easy for Republicans to find. The truth is that this theorhetical borderline of people that are going to be hurt by Obama's plan really don't exist in any significant numbers and if they do, they are dwarfed by those who will benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Meh, I don't have any proof one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe Obama was walking around with only 1 camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
America heard the soundbite over and over and over. Republicans had every chance in the world to attack this whole "spread the wealth" angle. In the end, voters decided they'd rather a few people get slightly screwed in favor of the majority getting tax breaks. Joe has been revealed as a fraud, but his being a fraud did not stop Republicans from making their argument. That they couldn't sell their side is not the media's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Lots of people had posed that same question. What made Joe's challenge unique was that it personalized a theorhetical question. And the element that made it unique was revealed to be untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
He was not vetted for talking to Obama. He was not vetted for asking a question. He was vetted for holding himself up as an example. Actually he wasn't even vetted for that - he got away with it. He was vetted because McCain held him up as an example. A theorhetical question doesn't care who asks it - there is no credibility issue. A personal question requires credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
"Your plan might cost some people their businesses."
This is a simple theorhetical statement that requires only third party proof and thus the credibilty of the person stating the question is less important that the proof offered in its favor.
"Your plan will cost me my business."
This person is offering themselves as proof and their credibility is directly linked to the validity of their statement.
Big brother invaded for no reason and made it a crime. Joe invited attention by putting himself out there and, for all that he's been called on, he has not been criminalized. Your "anyone can publiclly make any claim and never be investigated by the media" point of view makes me cringe, but I suppose there are different sides to every coin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I'm going to refrain from doing another sentence-by-sentence response. Suffice it to say, a lot of your position sounds like "Spying is okay if you're not doing anything illegal." I don't feel that you invite media digging into your personal life by asking a personal question of a political candidate when cameras are around but I suppose that's just a fundamental disagreement we have. And Joe most certainly was not the only person to ask how Obama's Presidency would affect his personal business. It's just that the others were fortunate enough that Obama did not utter "spread the wealth" on camera as a response to their questions.
if joe were sincere, he wouldn't have lied about his personal position.
Dude. Spying is illegal. Had anyone spied on Joe, this guy would be bilking a lawsuit as fast as he could. Spying is wire-tapping on someone's phone without their knowledge without a warrant. All the information, to the best of my knowledge, presented to the public about Joe was obtained through public records AFTER he was brought to the public's attention by the guy he was supporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
And, yes, I believe there are consequences for actions. I believe that if I hold myself up as an example of something I should be held to task for it. Free speech means free from criminal consequences, not social ones.
I'm aware of what spying is, and I know it's illegal. When someone says "Being spied on is okay if you're not doing anything illegal," they're speaking from the perspective that it should be made legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
Anyway, I'm not suggesting any of the media's actions here infringed on any of Joe's 1st Amendment rights or should be made illegal. But I think it all fits within the same moral umbrella.
My main point is that the whole thing is a poor reflection on society and our media.
joe invited the media to his party. joe took the initial step. joe should have been honest. joe deserves what he gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I don't see that anyone has made that case. I don't believe anyone has the right to spy on anyone for any reason, regardless of what comes from it. That guy who hacked Palin's email? 100% wrong. Media vetting of public figures is not spying, and whether for better or worse, McCain and Joe made Joe a public figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Yeah, I think tabloid journalism sucks and I'm sure Lady Diana would agree with us. But there is a valid use for vetting. Joe the Plumber is simply a case of the media doing its job. It only looks bullying because the guy is so spectacularly bad at everything.
Some people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
Well, again, I think our idea of media responsibility is fundamentally different but I respect yours. To me, Joe's legitimacy as a personification of the overtaxed small business owner was always irrelevant. On a national scale, in terms of what really mattered to this country when deciding who to elect for President, what truly mattered was how small business owners would be affected by an Obama tax plan.Quote:
Yeah, I think tabloid journalism sucks and I'm sure Lady Diana would agree with us. But there is a valid use for vetting. Joe the Plumber is simply a case of the media doing its job. It only looks bullying because the guy is so spectacularly bad at everything.
Some people also believe that blood sausage tastes good, but none are in this thread ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I'm happy to agree to disagree. I just think the responsibility to make the case for these alleged small business owners was the responsibility of the opposing party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I'm self-employed and I had to research for myself what the different tax plans would mean for me. Bottom line, I'm still getting screwed, but Obama's plan screws me slightly less ;-)