My political posts: "Needs improvement" or "Excellent"?

[thatcrazycajun]

At least two people on my f-list have called me to account for what they consider to be "uninformed and biased" postings on politics, and accuse me of "blindly parroting the liberal press." (See comments on prior post here.) Well, I never claimed to be unbiased; on the contrary, I am a liberal Democrat and damn proud of it, and I will never apologize for being such, nor have I ever attempted to hide that fact in this journal. And I will never apologize for my beliefs, although I will take responsibility for and attempt to avoid factual inaccuracies and unfairness to individuals or groups.

And I have never considered myself a blind follower of the so-called "liberal press" (one assumes that they are referring to magazines and websites with an explicitly liberal worldview, and not to the mainstream news media, which have long ago been solidly proven to be anything but liberal...and I can cite you chapter and verse to prove it, should you so insist). I make an honest effort to seek out multiple sources for my information, including even ones on the right—whether explicitly so, as with columns by the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer and publications such as The Weekly Double Standard, or supposedly "objective" but actually right-leaning ones such as the Wall Street Journal (now likely to be even more so, with Rupert Murdoch taking it over). I try to find out who's funding what I'm reading/watching/listening to, what the writer's or speaker's background is and what axes they may have to grind if I don't already know; and not even the most revered liberal icons get a completely unquestioned free pass from me, despite what some of you may think.

But I am only too aware that there are frequent occasions when I make the mistake of, as an old Cajun-country saying has it, "letting my alligator mouth overload my hummingbird ass." I have a great passion for politics in general and for seeing policy made that expands freedom rather than reducing it, that lifts up rather than grinding down, and that ensures that everybody, but everybody lucky enough to have won the genetic lottery and be born in the USA (or those, like zsero, who have worked hard to earn their way into it) gets to share in the blessings resulting therefrom. Sometimes this passion gets the better of my caution and judgment; and I freely and humbly acknowledge this.

So if you think there are some hard truths I need to hear about how I express myself politically in order to improve them and avoid giving offense unnecessarily, let's have it. And those of you who disagree and think better of my political postings, I'd like to hear from you, too, about why and what I'm doing right. Even if you've posted about it here before, tell me again; I inherited my daddy's hard-headedness and sometimes need to be told more than once. I want to be heard, and to make change happen; but I also want to be fair and factual, otherwise I can never hope to change any minds.

Please try to keep it as civil and reasoned as you can; I'm looking for constructive criticism here. And if you're still reading my rants after years of this, whatever your political affiliation or philosophy, even if you don't post comments often...thank you from the bottom of an old lefty news junkie's heart.

Comments

[tokyosteven.livejournal.com]

I think you should continue to post in whatever fashion that makes you express yourself the best. The last time I checked, LJ is a place where you can do just that. You don't owe it to anyone to post anything in a certain way. I definitely wouldn't get upset over someone bashing one of your posts when in their own journal they rant about being "informed" when their very next post states "Is their a secret plot to destroy the NY Times' reputation?" (an obvious grammar error). We all have opinions and we're entitled to them. And sometimes, we all make mistakes. If one of your posts sparks a debate, then so be it. My vote is for "Excellent!"

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I read the rant, and the responses, and found myself getting slightly annoyed with everyone involved. ;) Mostly because of the ludicrous phrase "liberal press". It ain't. Demonstrably, categorically so.

What it is is sensational. Not in the hey-wow-best-ever sense, but in the if-it-bleeds-it-leads sense. And the different ways disparate sources can report on the same event is sometimes staggering.

You know me, Matt; sometimes I go for nuance, sometimes for absolutes. Regarding the specific issue that prompted this, the notion of "judicial activism" is, to me, a straw man. There is good judgeship, i.e., interpreting and upholding the law in an even-handed way, and bad judgeship, i.e., allowing personal feelings and philosophies to get in the way of even-handedness. If a law is wrong and stupid, or if it's been crafted as a trap, especially if it's been crafted to tell other people they can't do something that doesn't harm anyone, well, striking down such a law is the judiciary's job.

As to your commentaries... hey. Your LJ, your opinion. If commenters point out where you are factually wrong, that's one thing. When they insult your "reporting", when you not in fact a reporter, that's another. When they insult your "reporting" because they believe differently... that's their problem. I've had it a number of times myself, and there are a few friends with whom I've just Agreed To Disagree With on certain things, so that our otherwise great friendships can continue.

P.S.: I've gotta say, using Will or especially Krauthammer for a source is kinda like using moldy Play-Doh for a birthday cake. You can shape the stuff to kinda look like it, but....

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

I havent read any rants but my thoughts are this:

1) I don't think youre partisan.

2) While I usually agree with you, I think the sheer volume of stuff you write implies that it cannot be all your original thoughts. Nobody is that prolific. I'd rather see higher quality and less quantity. Most of the time I don't think you are regurgitating a specific agenda, but I do think you are regurgitating someone or somebodies.

3) The sheer volume kinda makes it a pain to read your journal. Too much political stuff crowds my FL. I purposely don't post political rants all that often for this reason. Today I was actually thinking I might need to move you off of the default view (this is why I'm responding...you said you wanted to know)

3) Some of your points are better than others. . Sometimes I feel I have to inform you on matters you jump the gun on-- immigration and the Michael Vick story for example. I was kinda apalled that I had to point out the obvious fallacy with "people didn't willingly pay the price [of the iPhone]...it's that they had no other choice if they wanted the product". If feel this as often as I do (not often but enough), I would tend to think your political posts probably need work even if I dont where they need it and so I'm more likely to scan them than take the time to read as many of them as you post.

Basically I think if you limited yourself and put more time into your own research, they'd be way better.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Stipulated that more research and fewer posts would probably bring significant improvement. I post as much as I do mainly because (a) I'm less able to discuss things with my overseas partner now; and (b) because my current employment involves hours and hours of tedious, time-consuming work that would bore me shitless (and even crazier than I already am) otherwise.

And the emotions and basic worldview is all mine, even if outside sources do have some debatable degree of influence over how they're applied. I do try to credit the author(s) whenever I do consciously use outside material...and recognize their limitations, influences and agendas, if any.

Thanks for being my friend.

Much ado

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

I agree with both filkerton and scruffycritter even where they're criticizing my addition. Both of their posts are reasonable and well stated.

I only think that you're quoting liberal sources because the misinformation that you sometimes quote is always deeply from left field rather than right.

I suggest that you leave the mainstream media(MSM, both left and right) behind and look at privately run web sites and blogs. The post that we're discussing is a good example. I don't know why you either didn't know or didn't present the side that zsero voiced, but it's grossly prejudicial not to have.

I once again add my voice to those who say this is your journal and not a political debate site. I just get steamed when you present only half the story while concurrently speaking as if anyone with a differing opinion has to be stupid not to see it your way. That's what I meant about the paint brushes. Not all conservatives are rabid righties, and making that accusation while presenting bogus facts to support it is bound to piss people off.

Just decide what effect you're aiming for, do it, and don't apologize. I'm just saying hit what you're aiming for, not just what might appear to be the broadside of a barn, yet turn out to be nothing but a propagandistic billboard painting of one.

As for your prolificacy, that's just talent. You don't see the reams I post just because I do it on private sites where the subject matter is more defined and debate really is the point. There is nothing more certainly indicative of a world class writer than simple numerousity of notes and multitudinicity of musings. Although interesting as opposed to inane is to be striven for. :-)
=============================================
stevie baby! Still tryin' ta get some play huh? Thanks for the spell check; good for somethin' anyway.

I saw it when I did it but forgot to fix it, 'cause I didn't really care that much. Now that we've fixed my misspelling you might wanna work on your own grammar. I'll bet even money that you have to have someone help you figure out what's wrong with your sentence quoted below.

-I think you should continue to post in whatever fashion that makes you express yourself the best.-
=======================================

I love true irony.

Re: Much ado

[(Anonymous)]

As I stated, we all make mistakes.

Re: Much ado

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Don't yu meen misteak$

[wordwitch.livejournal.com]

I'm having fun reading. Frankly, my FList is primarily fan-based, so it's nice to get some hard-left commentary every now and then. Make me feel a little less like a voice crying in the wilderness, you know.