The level of intelligence I see displayed on our DU boards and the

[CoffeeAnnan]

honest discussions that take place here are so far removed from the op-ed pages of the NYT and Wa Po I now feel that we can dispense with them altogether.Anyone else feel that way?

[rogerashton]

1. It varies from the sublime to the ridiculous.

So I wouldn't chuck the papers. You could get a pretty good guide here to what to read in them, though.

[Beam Me Up]

17. Good point.

Like the original poster, LBN and other forums have become my primary news source. However, the most interesting things I find here point me toward other web sites and toward further reading in press and book form. Occasionally--very rarely as I've basically given up TV--it will get me interested enough to watch a particular show on the boobtube.

[Straight Shooter]

2. The difference being that we aren't bushie-whipped.

They're trying, though. Lord knows they're trying.

[jdj]

3. I come to LBN here, that is my paper.

[Warpy]

4. I've dispensed with corporate, news, period

They can sell their papers and advertise their garbage to other folks because I'm completely done with their repetition of RNC talking points, the infortainment/tabloid wastes of time and their blatant lying by omission.

I'll get my news online and offshore, thanks.

[CoffeeAnnan]

5. Exactly.They have somehow managed to destroy the natural

curiosity of people by intentionally avoiding serious discussions and setting the parameters for such discussions.Anything that falls outside these parameters is immediately labeled a CT.

I do not know what you call them, but I call them propaganda organs.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I think you run into two problems with this.

Firstly, if you want to convince people that they are wrong and you are right, it is invaluable to know how they think. My view is that any liberal should regularly read conservative media outlets (I read the Daily Telegraph and the Economist when I can get it, and I lurk on FR).

If one holds a position, I think it behoves one to be able to quote and rebut all the standard counter arguments.

If one only ever encounters the opinions of people whom one agrees with, one risks developing "inbred thinking", the believe that one's opinions are self-evident and do not need to be defended, and that anyone who holds an opposing position is self-evidently a fool or a crank.

Secondly, I would claim (more controversially, I suspect) that the most liberal take on a matter is not usually the most accurate one. Associated with any subject (the war in Iraq, say, or economics) there are millions of true propositions. By emphasising some or other of those propositions one can tell one story or another.

I think that in general the story liberals tell about these subjects is more accurate than the one conservatives tell, but too often the bits that don't fit with it get dismissed or ignored completely. One should always acknowledge awkward facts, and too often liberals don't (in some ways, I think we're even more guilty of this than conservatives), so one should read conservative media to have one's nose rubbed in them.

[pretzel4gore]

13. always always always it's the liberals!

the point is there are 2 worldviews, liberal or republican aka conservative, and they are premised on the very simple left right notion of 'the needs of the many' versus 'the privileges of the few' so how can the latter be truer or more accurate or more honest if the basic idea (piggishness) is intrinsicly flawed? Why isn't the focus on the nazipoo assholes, who've turned everything upside down in their mad gadarene rush? why why why i ask....?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. It's not that simple.

You must know it's not that simple. I assume you're simply letting of steam, but seriously:

Right wing views are not *based* on supporting "the priveleges of the few"; that's an unintentional consequence. There may be a few conservatives out there who genuinely believe that a liberal approach to the economy would lead to a better world, but oppose it out of selfishness, but they are a minute minority, especially in politics. Most conservatives genuinely believe that cutting taxes on the rich will help the poor. To beat them, we need to acknowledge their good intentions and point out why this does not in fact work. Denying that they even believe it gets us nowhere.

If you insult someone in a debate then you may be scored as winner by the judges, but you won't make anyone change their mind. No-one likes eating humble pie. By far the most effective way convert a conservative one has to convince them that they've been right about most things all along, and that they've actually always been a liberal.

Trying to outdo one another yelling about how evil conservatives are is fun, but it certainly won't win elections, and I'm not even convinced that it's fair - at least not on economic issues. I think that on abortion, say, or gay rights, those who accuse conervatives of being malicious rather than mistaken are on stronger ground and conservatives for whom those are the key issues are going to be much, much harder to convert.

The alliance between economic conservatism (based on the principle of absolute personal freedom, a superficially rather attractive idea) and social conservatism (based on extreme interventionism) has always struck me as an odd one. Ah well.

Bite your tongue, find some economic conservatives, and start making nice with them. It's the only way to win.

[PaganPreacher]

23. 2 worldviews? The world is a bigger place than that.

"Liberal v. conservative" is a gross, and inaccurate, oversimplification of the 3-dimensional nature of the social, economic, and political viewpoints in the US.

Using my own example:

POLITICAL: I am a strict civil libertarian. I believe our rights, both natural and those enumerated in the Constitution, must be defended at all costs. The 9th and 10th amendments, often overlooked in constitutional discussions, recognize that we have rights beyond those defined in the Constitution. I am pro-abortion, pro-gun, pro-private property rights, pro-free speech and pro-religious freedom (both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.)

SOCIAL: Socially, I am far more radical than most "liberals". I believe in the freedom to live in a family of my own definition. If I choose to have two wives with legal standing, and my religion permits (which it does), then the state should have no authority to prevent it. In fact, I am in favor of the abolition of "marriage licenses" in favor of civil relationship contracts, open to two or more people, to cover inheritance and benefit issues.

ECONOMIC: My economic theory is waaay outside of a "liberal" v. "conservative" spectrum. I believe in the freedom to choose the manner in which our tax money is spent (individual line-item disbursement for each taxpayer), with a mandatory percentage for those responsibilities specifically described in the Constitution. I also favor balanced Federal and state budgets, and the elimination of national debt. In other words, if the federal government wants to spend money, it needs to convince taxpayers of the utility of that use, and the taxpayers will approve it by approving disbursement on their individual tax returns.

At the same time, I oppose confiscatory taxes. Small government is good government.

Does that make me a "liberal?" Does that make me "conservative?" No easy answer here.....

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[CoffeeAnnan]

14. Although I have given up on reading the NYT and WaPo, I do read

The Economist,watch the BBC,read the Times of London, Daily Telegraph,Newsday and even the American Conservative. Those that have open minds and not a preordained agenda is what I look for.But I make DU my home.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Can someone translate for a poor benighted limey, please?

What sort of papers are the NYT the WaPo, Newsday and the American Conservative?

And I'm not convinced that the writers of the Economist "have open minds and not a preordained agenda"!

I read it because it's very well written, and has good factual accuracy, but it's "free-market-over-all" propaganda pure and simple. Anyone considering taking up journalism should read it for examples of how to write, but it's firmly of the opinion that not merely that Free Markets are Good, but that Good is Free Markets.

[CoffeeAnnan]

19. Indeed the Economist is a Free Market believer.That does not mean that

they spout irrational nonsense like the Fox News airheads.Newsday is a newspaper from long island which was worth a read just for Jimmy Breslin's column.Now that Jimmy has hung it up, I think I will quit reading it too.The American conservative is a weekly published by patrick Buchanan and takes strong Conservative positions, especailly on our foreign adventures. It has strong isolationist view and is firmly against our War on Iraq.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CoffeeAnnan]

9. You are wrong. I will say no more.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. I'm curious. What do you base your accusations on?

Because of the chosen screen name? Because her posts are "inflamatory" or "vague" and sound "elitist"? How so? And, since when do "inflamatory", "vague" or "elitist" sounding posts on DU demand expulsion? If that were the case, there would be about 3 members here.

[welshTerrier2]

7. The NYT is worth every penny they charge for it ...

there was an excellent post in DU's new Gardening forum explaining that newspapers do a great job keeping down weeds in your garden ... let's see you do that with a DU thread !!!

[hunter]

10. You have to print out DU threads before you use them in your garden!

:silly:

(This would be a good thread to do that with.)

[welshTerrier2]

11. damn ...

i knew there was some kind of fancy techie way to do it ... i tried putting my laptop in the garden but the weeds won that battle ...

[CoffeeAnnan]

12. in the mid 60's I was in Italy for a summer as a grad student and took a

10 hour boat ride from Naples to Messina in sicily.There were no toilet paper on board ths hip and because some people thoughtfully forewarned me and my friends, we took some old NYT with us.I will say they came in handy!I have not find a better use for them until you mentioned their use for keeping weeds out. Like everything NYT improves with age, I should say!

[gordianot]

20. I am media new free.

I have a good listing of favorites on my trusty Dell.

DU can get hairy but it beats most other sources.

[norml]

21. Why the New York Times and Washington Post bashing?

I doubt your judgment. I question your intent. And what examples can you give?

[Tsiyu]

22. I live on DU, news junkie that I am

I cannot forgive the media for what they've done to America.

I shun all news except what I find linked on DU. I believe there are many of us. The media is feeling it, too. Believe me.

Whether or not the journalists are willing to sacrifice for America remains to be seen. Until they decide to grow some fuzzi wuns, I trust NOTHING from MSM.