Yes by all means, go to google or bing, and do a news search. See how many
newspapers parrot what the others say. On page three you find the individual
news stories. The Arizona Republic talks about Several members of
Arizona’s congressional delegation have calling on Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano to release data the government collects about
immigrants crossing the border illegally but refuses to make public.How about the An audit of the Department of Homeland Security found that the
agency has lost track of more than 1 million foreign visitors. The foreign
citizens came to the United States on temporary visas, but DHS can't
confirm that they've actually left the United States. In 1996, Congress
mandated the creation of an entry-exit system at all ports of entry to track
visa overstayers, but it has yet to be implemented. The audit was conducted by
the Government Accountability Office.Only a couple of papers
nationally carried the story. The media is failing America.
Most of the time when I "get involved" and express my political views
here, the DN censors me. What does that tell you about being active in the
I do think it is funny that any segment can both associate itself as a majority
and a minority at the same time. White and Mormon.... you belong to both
groups. It is also folly to assume one is in the majority when the polling
sample is those one associates with.And then you have comments like
those from prelax... who claim 90% of the media ignored certain stories....
when only 30 seconds on google would disprove those cliams... I guess unless you
have a very selective view on what 90% of the media means.People
flock to groups and media that reaffirm their own viewpoints. It is just human
By the stories they choose, they shall be known. The media is far
left on illegal workers being here, and the stories they choose to run show
that. When ICE took president Obama to court, (and the federal judge approved
it). Most media ignored it. The union that represents the people who would have
to decide who gets legalized under any new immigration law said in a letter
Tuesday that the Obama administration is not ready to handle the influx of
applications.And Kenneth Palinkas, the president of the Citizenship
and Immigration Services Council, which represents the 12,000 immigration
officers and staff who work at USCIS, warned House Republicans that even
flirting with a limited legalization such as just granting citizenship rights to
so-called Dream Act immigrants could lead to problems. It was ignored by 90% of
the media. All the scandals lately, how many were the result of
investigative reporters? Fanning the flames of the Martin trial was a favorite
pass time of the US media. Trying to scare Republicans into another amnesty is
another area the national media has stepped over the lines to supermarket
reporting. Does the press represent the majority of people?
After scanning these comments I'm surprised that most posters can even
appreciate their own intolerancia and wrinkles in the mirror. It's truly
amazing that some folks can do so with a straight face. After visiting these
comment boards for a couple of months now it's obvious that almost all of
the posters only do so to reinforce their own biases, and get praise from those
who agree. Adios, muchachos e muchachas. I can only stomach so much...
I wonder if Jeff feels the hardworking, high valued, ethical Christian Minority
in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, ect.should be shouted and drowned out to make way for the
Muslim Majority for the same reason his letter suggests in the Deseret News?
To "atl134" no it hasn't. Obama has added all sorts of
regulations. See "$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times
estimate" in the Washington Examiner to see how much the regulations in
Obamacare alone are costing us. Then read "Obama Administration Added $9.5
Billion in Red Tape in July" in US News. Apparently Obama is able to get
all sorts of regulations added with the help of Congress.The GINI
coefficient doesn't accurately dscribe the income inequality. If you look
up the limitations of the GINI coefficient, one thing that it doesn't
distinguish well is range of incomes. If you look at graphs of income
distribution (NOT GINI), the flatter the line, the more equal the distribution
of income. The US has one of the flatest lines in the world. Sweden is close,
but has a higher slope than the US.
RedShirt said: To "Tyler D" does it really matter who was president when
the problem started to grow?Yes, because it shows that policy
changes under Saint Reagan was the beginning of the end.The problem
is when conservatives and their corporate elected puppets use the same failed
policies and insist they're working, even though the evidence of there
failure since the 80's is well documented. The guy who created the
"trickle down theory" has also said it didn't and doesn't
work. I suspect they know this, but since they represent business owners and
corporate monopolies how does it help their bottom line to have a middle class?
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTOK then How about
the irony of the letter writer writing in complaining about "The media
isn't representing the majority" to the LDS own/published Deseret News
in Utah.Does that make you feel any better?
@Redshirt[If the problem was "low marginal tax rates, deregulation,
corporate power, and crony capitalism", then why is it that income
inequality has accelerated under Obama's increased regulation, increased
tax rates]Because most of that regulation has been blocked by
Republicans who vehemently oppose Dodd-Frank, anyone running the Consumer
Financial Protection Board, and then there's the continued efforts of
lobbyists who fund people in Congress (more than ever now that SuperPacs run
political financing) that made things like Dodd-Frank rather watered down in the
first place. Taxes didn't go up until the start of 2013, after the entirety
of Obama's first term. "The more collectivist (Progressive)
policies they adopt, the greater the income disparity becomes."That is incorrect. Just look at the very collectivist states in Scandinavia
with extremely high tax rates and you'll find the nations amongst the
lowest GINI coefficient. We have more income inequality than pretty much every
single western European nation. Do you want to argue that we're more
progressive than the nations that actually are socialist?
@2 bits;I read the letter with an open mind (you apparently closed
your eyes). I read "minority sleaze", not simply "minority".
How is it that you don't find that offensive? What if he had said "LDS
sleaze" instead, would that have triggered your sense of offense? Mormons,
after all, are also a minority.
To "Tyler D" does it really matter who was president when the problem
started to grow? If the problem was "low marginal tax rates, deregulation,
corporate power, and crony capitalism", then why is it that income
inequality has accelerated under Obama's increased regulation, increased
tax rates, and fascism? Doesn't that imply that the more Progressive your
policies are, the greater the income disparity becomes?Explain how
the right has been able to really do anything to thwart Obama's regulation
and incrased taxes? See "$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times
estimate" in the Washington Examiner.Just look at other nations
around the world. The more collectivist (Progressive) policies they adopt, the
greater the income disparity becomes. If you look at the raw distribution of
income, the US is actually quite even, while nations like Germany and England
have less equal distributions (this is something the GINI coefficient can
miss).Conservatives take no pride or shame in seeing that some
people have succeeded in these rough times.The problem is when
Progressives and their ilk keep trying the same failed policies over and over
again and can't figure out why things keep getting worse.
When I read these comments... I'm amazed at the lengths some people on the
left will go to in order to find something to be offended at.Did you
read the article with an open mind? When he said "Minority"... he
didn't mean "gay, lesbian, women, black, hispanic, Muslim, and
Democrats". Obviously he was refering to minority in opinion/viewpoint
(not race, etc). Ie conservive vs progressive, religious vs non-religious,
various political views, not race, and the others listed! Don't
automatically think "RACE" every time you hear "minority"!
That's not the default meaning of "minority" in most people's
minds. I don't think he was talking about Race or sexual orientation at
all!But some people will bend over backwards to be offended... and
even mis-state his words in order to get OTHERS to become offended!
@RedShirt – “…the more Progressive policies are enacted, the
worse the inequality becomes.”I’m always amazed (well,
not so much anymore) when people lay out facts (or partial facts) and then state
conclusions that are exactly opposite of what logically follows from those
facts.In this case, income inequality was lowest between WWII and
the 1970’s and began a sharp widening in the early 1980’s (under
what president?). That this trend has continued under Obama simply confirms that
all the policies started in the 80’s – low marginal tax rates,
deregulation, corporate power, and crony capitalism, none of which Obama has
been able to redress due to the power of the Right – are still working
“wonderfully.”But I’m baffled why this is
apparently upsetting to you? That the 1% have bounced back richer than ever from
the Great Recession (not so much for the other 99%) should be a point of pride
and celebration for your “ilk”… what gives?
"...the minority sleaze..."-- Jeff Porter, author of this
letterJeff, Your comment leads me to believe that you
have no morals or honor yourself. Calling your opponents "sleaze"
indicates that you're unwilling to listen or discuss their points of view
and will accept none other than your own.Additionally, I find it
discouraging that the Deseret News would even print a letter that denigrates
minorities (whichever minority).The fact is, Jeff, that whether or
not you agree with those "minorities", they deserve to be treated with
To "The Real Maverick" the failed ponzi scheme is not what Reagan
started. The failed Ponzi scheme is liberalism and Progressivism.Here is a hard fact for you and your ilk to take. The GINI coefficient, that
is the measure of income inequality, has increased more under Obama than under
Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. See "Obama Calls Income Gap
'Wrong' — After Widening It" at IBD. Just viewing the
history of Progressivism/Liberalism over the past 40 years shows that the more
Progressive policies are enacted, the worse the inequality becomes.
Progressivism is a failure.
If Jeff has really traveled around this great country of ours, and has met
good hard working people with values, ethics, ect.Then he probably
also found out that most hard working Americans, paying taxes, paying bills, and
raising families...Were also gay, lesbian, women, black, hispanic,
Muslim, and Democrats. This veiled attempt to say only Americans
that are White, Male, Chrisian, Republican, Tea-Partiers can be the only hard
working, or ethical, or high valued Americans is so Rush Limbaugh, Fox
News-esque -- it makes me want to vomit.
Re: "Never should a government have a goal to merely repeal
laws/obstruct."IMO the founding fathers WANTED proposals with
narrow/partisan support to fail.They wanted the President to be
obstructed by Congress, that's why Congress is there. That's why they
required a Super-Majority for all super-important things (like ammending the
Constitution). That's why the filibuster is allowed today. They wanted
most government action to be blocked UNLESS it had widespread support. The founders were statesmen. They intended for actions that had huge
widespread appeal (call it "bypartisan support" in today's
venacular) to pass. They didn't want votes to be divided along party
lines and pass if one party had one more person than the other party. They
actually wanted things to have almost unanimous support before they pass (which
would require compromise, negotiation, statesmanship, and "good"
legislation, not the "We don't need any Republican votes we have the
numbers and can pass whatever we want"... mind set, and legislation that has
no "win" for the other side. They thought making
obstruction easier than passing... would require Congress to be Statesmen... and
only propose things that would have widespread/bypartisan support.
@procuradorfiscal"You're not really suggesting that
Americans DON'T believe communism/socialism is morally and economically
bankrupt, are you?"Um, no. I also don't
believe that "progressive" means [newspeak for
"socialist/communist"] just as I don't believe that
"conservative" means [newspeak for "fascist"]. See, I can play
word games too. Still waiting for that data to back up the
"vast, vast majority" claim.
@procuradorfiscal"The vast, vast majority clearly understands the
moral and economic bankruptcy of the "progressive" [newspeak for
"socialist/communist"] philosophy. And, we're also quite aware of
the fact that liberals' "new progressive era" would look very much
like the thoroughly discredited, old, drab, gray, REPRESSIVE, Soviet era.And, we're not buying it."Actually we did. We
re-elected Obama, added a couple Democratic senate members, and cast more votes
for Democratic house candidates than Republican ones (Republicans only still
control the house because of how voters are split up in districts).
Re: "We'd all love to see the hard data to back this 'clear
understanding' up."Here are a couple:-- The
Nation has not yet fallen, at least not completely, into the communist/socialist
sphere.-- Americans are repelled by the thought of living in a
communist state -- see a Mar 2013 Gallup poll showing an American favorability
rating for the last true communist state at 12%.You're not
really suggesting that Americans DON'T believe communism/socialism is
morally and economically bankrupt, are you?
FOX news is everywhere. What on Earth are you complaining about? Will you just parrot the idea that there is no conservative news you trust
forever even though that's where you get the idea from?
Mr. Porter,Thank you for writing. While I don't agree with much of
what you wrote, I am grateful that there are people who are willing to share
their beliefs in the public sphere. We need more open and honest political
discussion. With that said, I'm sure that a good Christian man such as
yourself believes that respecting the beliefs of others is a reflection of
someone with "great values, morals and ethics". You may
feel frustrated that your voice is not being heard, and you have every right to
speak your mind, but I was sorely disappointed that you would resort to name
calling by referring to people like me as "minority sleaze". I suggest
that you remember that name-calling is childish, immature, and unnecessary in
political discussions. I realize it happens on both sides of politics, but that
does not make it appropriate.I am a good, honest, and upstanding
person, and I don't think referring to someone as "minority sleaze"
is appropriate in any way. Perhaps we don't agree on what constitutes
morality, but that does not mean that either one of us is a bad person.
Re: "Never should a government have a goal to merely repeal
laws/obstruct."So, Congress in 1865 was wrong to repeal slavery
and obstruct its continuing as an American institution?And,
it's interesting that we hear nothing but liberal praise for Wendy Davis,
the Democrat Texas state senator who obstructed changes to Texas abortion
law.Hmmmmmm.I think what we're all hearing is that
standard liberal mantra -- "never should a government have a goal to merely
repeal laws/obstruct the agenda I want advanced."Or, that even
more famous liberal philosophy -- "all animals are equal, but some are more
equal than others."
@procuradoralfiscal"The vast, vast majority clearly understands
the moral and economic bankruptcy of the "progressive" [newspeak for
"socialist/communist"] philosophy."We'd all love to
see the hard data to back this "clear understanding" up. I'll
This type of letter and comments along similar reasoning always make me wonder
what it is that makes it necessary for some people to believe that their views
are shared by the majority. Do people fear that if their views are not shared by
the majority, "the silent majority, the moral majority" that they are
Re: "It is time for the silent majority to arise and start a new progressive
era."Yeah, yeah -- we have nothing to lose but our chains! Except everything.The vast, vast majority clearly
understands the moral and economic bankruptcy of the "progressive"
[newspeak for "socialist/communist"] philosophy. And, we're also
quite aware of the fact that liberals' "new progressive era" would
look very much like the thoroughly discredited, old, drab, gray, REPRESSIVE,
Soviet era.And, we're not buying it.
@Longfellow"However, the majority of the media are well past
redemption. They routinely distort and misrepresent the facts to hype a story.
Both the liberal and conservative media do this. Additionally, the
media routinely under report or ignore the news that is incompatible with the
newsperson's worldview. The rise of the Internet as an alternate source of
information has highlighted this phenomena. "=============That's the free market at work. Nothing more or less. A news
organization primary function is not to inform, but earn profit. They will
report what will turn into subscriptions, viewers, and clicks. Hence, the
circus of the George Zimmerman trial, why? People were watching, clicking and
buying. The lack of coverage of is because no one is watching, clicking or
buying.I understand Fox is the most watched, but there is a reason
they are the almost he sole provider of a "conservative
spin"...it's because the free market has shown the money to be
somewhere else. Anything more would simply over saturate the market need of
"conservative news" If the trend of popular stops heading
left, and goes to the right, so will the media. It's about $$.
I agree, the silent majority is tired of the nonsense obstructionism that has
infected our Congress, especially the House. Never should a government have a
goal to merely repeal laws/obstruct. We need statesmen who are actually
interested in governing. We need to stand up to folks like Mike Lee and show
them who really runs this country!
Jeff, your comments about getting involved are well taken. However,
the majority of the media are well past redemption. They routinely distort and
misrepresent the facts to hype a story. Both the liberal and conservative media
do this. Additionally, the media routinely under report or ignore
the news that is incompatible with the newsperson's worldview. The rise of
the Internet as an alternate source of information has highlighted this
phenomena. Finally, the media periodically lie about the facts to
sell a point of view. The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident and
resulting trial was an especially egregious example of this. NBC's
intentional editing of the 911 call to portray George Zimmerman as a racist is a
prime example. The widespread use of the term "white Hispanic" to
describe George Zimmerman and the use of pictures of Trayvon Martin that
misrepresented his actual appearance at the time of the incident are further
examples. The media have become propagandists that would make Joseph Goebbels
I would not expect the media to represent the majority. I wouldn't expect
the media to represent me. I would not expect the media to represent ANYBODY.
That would make them PART OF the political machine (If they represent the
majority, or the current administration, or the party in control).IMO That's the problem with our media today. They are too much a part
of the political machine.IMO the media should be
"independent". They should be able to express any view they want
(majority or not).But it seems that many in the media today are more
and more uncomfortable with expressing any views the current administration
would frown at. Maybe it's from the early behavior of this administration
when they started banning news agancies that didn't report friendly views
of them from press conferences. We stopped that... but I think the chilling
effect is still out there.Bottom line... the media should be
completely independent. Not afraid of the current administration (that's
how you get shoddy news like Provda). Not just representing the majority.
They need to be INDEPENDENT of the political machine.We should have
seperation between media and State.
I agree. For far too long we have been silent on a bad joke. For decades we have
seen our wages fall flat and decrease while the richies at the top have made a
killing! For years and years we have heard about "trickle-down"
economics. Nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. A failed economic policy.It is time for the silent majority to arise and start a new progressive era.
We need to protect our jobs, our benefits, and our families. We do not live to
serve corporations but they live to serve us. Time to join the fight and turn
this completely upside down economic policy back onto the right track. The
future of our country depends on it! Lets get back to the economic policy and
tax rates of the 50s! They worked fine then, why not now?
@10CC – “For many, jumping into a debate and getting swatting down
is not appealing.”Those are all excellent points, especially
this one. We should all recognize that making others too
uncomfortable can sometimes make them retreat back into their bubbles where too
often their own vague and emotionally based worldviews are reinforced in ways
that do not lead to growth in knowledge and understanding. That
said, newbies who are tactful I think have little to fear. It’s the ones
who, having been nursed on the milk of ignorance & arrogance by some media
pundits, make these grand, overly simplistic and easily refuted statements that
should expect to get swatted a bit. Most of those either go away or
continue to make a lot of bare assertions without engaging in the debate.
Assuming they care, I’ve always wondered how they reconcile the cognitive
dissonance.The moderators do a fair job though in keeping thing from
degenerating too far and so good discussions can be found… much more than
on many other “flame throwing” sites.
The part of the media that I really believe is not doing their job of being the
eyes and ears of America is the national media that is supposedly there to be a
check on our government officials. Can you imagine if there were no FOX News,
and a few radio hosts. That is about the only outlet that is skepticle of
Democrats and especially the Obama administration. If not for the voices heard
on FOX, Obama would be reigning as the greatest President in American history.
In fact probably called one of the greatest people ever to live in human
history. As I write this I laugh that some of you who might read this also
believe that Obama is those things. Time for a reality check.
Jeff, you're not exactly the next Marshall McLuhan here. Indeed, I'm
not even sure why you're worried about the so called media; you yourself
suggest turning to social media to forward your viewpoint rather than rely on
the traditional media. It's the way things are these days, no one wants to
be challenged but rather expect to see only themselves in their media today. As
for writing your lawmaker with your latest gripe; I don't know too many
lawmakers but I'd bet they get so much of this stuff that they have to
ignore most of it in order to function.
Many people don't express themselves because they either don't have
the interest, or feel they're not educated enough on the issues to have a
compelling argument. Look at the regular respondents here on the
D-News, those who are well educated on the issues and cogent enough to formulate
compelling responses. Frequently we'll see somebody voice their opinion
here with a fairly simplistic argument that is easily dissected and critiqued.
The regulars are capable of wading through conflicting information,
accommodating the complexities of a "grey world", and still can offer a
strong opinion. I would venture to guess the number of left-leaning thinkers in
this group is relatively high, compared to most people in Utah. Same for most
college graduates.For many, jumping into a debate and getting
swatting down is not appealing. It's easier to select a source of media
inline with your basic thinking (Beck, Rush, Fox, MSNBC, etc) and stick to
repeating what you hear, rather than sift through the material, understand it,
reconcile with your worldview, and then offer an original opinion or
response.The result is a type of anti-intellectualism.
So, if I'm not in agreement with Mr. Porter in all my views, I'm just
"minority sleaze?"As CHS 85 said, this is anecdotal at best.
Simply because the people you work and associate with share many of your same
views, that does not mean everyone, or even a majority, do. Your
"opinion" is exactly that Mr. Porter. Your opinion. Your letter has no
basis in scientific polling or statistics.And, FYI, Richard Nixon
beat you to the term "silent majority" by decades. He too, was
convinced that the silent majority supported him. How did that work out for
Jeff,The unease you feel with "the media" merely reflects
your unwillingness to let reality into your life.Your discomfort
with the news says more about you than it does the news.
"Use your Facebook, Twitter or other social media sites to express your
views."Can't I just use my Facebook page to share pictures,
funny stories, and communicate with my friends and family? Must I use my
Facebook page to communicate my political views? My "friends" and
family who espouse constant political views on Facebook find themselves being
hidden. I don't open Facebook in the evenings to discuss politics. Oh, and your "majority" doesn't mean everyone else's
"majority." It is anecdotal at best.
I wish I had some context as to what Mr. Porter was referring. Who portrayed
something you so vehemently disagreed that you wrote a letter to the editor?On a very general level, I agree we do need to be more active. Writing
out representatives is always a good thing.
I guess Jeff hasn't noticed Utah is a bit different than the rest of the
world.And in many cases, that is a good thing...