+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America (/showthread.php?tid=54284)
Pages:
1
2
Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - guitarist - 05-03-2008
The most influential US political pundits (not counting us)
Order of the list surprising? Any faces missing? Any figures too low, or too high on the list? Some interesting choices here.
"The Telegraph today unveils its list of the 50 most influential political pundits to help readers sort through whose opinions matter. These are the people who make voters sit up and take notice. They are the ones who political candidates and campaigns are constantly seeking to woo and influence. They include television presenters, newspaper columnists, bloggers and talking heads..."
"While being opinionated did not guarantee consideration, having strong opinions was a key factor. Many important journalists have been left out because they portray themselves as objective and seek to inform rather than persuade..."
"You will not agree with all our choices. Let us know those who influence you – and those you believe should influence Americans when they go to the polls on November 4th."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1904702/The-50-most-influential-US-political-pundits.html
Their previous lists, 100 most influential conservatives and the 100 most influential liberals
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/uselection/nosplit/listintro.xml
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - RgrF - 05-03-2008
Without even a look. The Telegraph? Why not quote Fox?
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - guitarist - 05-03-2008
RgrF, If the BBC publishes a list, feel free to post it. Or quote orthodox leftist scripture from your favorite news source.
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - RgrF - 05-03-2008
You post what can only be called an opinion piece from a right wing rag and expect what?
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - Filliam H. Muffman - 05-03-2008
Carl Rove and Newt Gingrich are pundits? I think anybody that held a major party office for more than 6 years and gets a TV show should be considered a mouthpiece. Just like the "retired" generals that were parroting whatever the President/Pentagon wanted.
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - guitarist - 05-04-2008
RgrF, which part of the article or list is it that "can only be called opinion"? I thought you said if you didn't read it.
Sorry the list didn't appear in one of your favored British news sources. If you think it's unworthy of viewing, fearing your pristine eyeballs might be exposed to a news source who's editorial point of view you disagree with, you can select among the folllowing menu. Perhaps the editorial point of view of the Independent, Mirror, Observer, or Guardian might meet your requirements.
The Express: Right
The Mail: Right
The Telegraph: Right
The Evening Standard: Right of center
The Sun: Right of center
The Times: Moderate right of center
The Independent: Left of center
The Mirror: Left
The Observer: Left
The Guardian: Left
Re: Gingrich and Rove. One is a mouthpiece, one isn't.
Gingrich is a total Ideologue, tirelessly peddling the predictable Right-Wing point of view. Rove isn't. Surprisingly (it's weird to see him on TV to begin with) he does straight analysis of the campaign in general. He's like a human calculator. He's known for pulling up a white board, scribbling columns of numbers, scoring the delegate count, etc., while he talks. Different than what I expected. He gives commentary on both Repubs and Dems, revealing no noticeable favor either way. Just cold political analysis. I keep waiting for his head to spin around, half-expecting him to take a sip from a glass of human blood between comments, but so far, he plays it straight. Rove's beady little eyes look exactly the same when he talks about either campaign.
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - RgrF - 05-04-2008
Any such list is by definition "opinion".
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - $tevie - 05-04-2008
I don't really have any interest in discussing the list.
I felt compelled to post on this thread because I wanted to say:
WTF? We are supposed to be having conversations here. One way to start a conversation would be to post a list like that and invite people to express their opinions about the contents of that list, both pro and con.
All these forums are getting to be really tedious lately. Nobody wants to discuss a concept, everybody wants to shoot the messenger and firebomb the source of their link. I am tarring everyone with the same brush, because it is rampant lately and it is BORING.
My two cents.
Smiley face emoticon.
Funny signature.
Blah Blah Blah.
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - guitarist - 05-05-2008
[quote RgrF]Any such list is by definition "opinion".
This is both true and false. It's opinion because it was selected by editors, and the selection process (what's included, excluded, and what order they're in) is subjective. The priorities or the overall character of the list will likely reflect the editorial slant of the publication presenting it.
But it's not completely true. If it were, every word in print, in every news publication, is merely "opinion", including the news section, because headlines and stories and priorities are selected by editors.
In this case, leaving aside the editorial comments or descriptions associated with each list item, it's a fairly straight list, more or less equally representing figures from both sides of the political spectrum. Influence is diminished if it only caters to an exclusive group. Purely partisan figures like Limbaugh, or Carville, can rally the converted, but they're not likely to influence anyone outside their own party.
Democratic political strategists pay as much attention to what Carl Rove says as Republican strategists do. Republicans pay attention to what Chris Matthew says, even though he's a former Carter speechwriter. What difference does it make? If a figure is relevant to only one side or the other, preaching to the converted, that figure isn't as influential.
I agree with Stevie. It's a lot easier to trash, dismiss, or casually discredit an attempt at a discussion starter than it is to make a contribution, risk an opinion, or join the conversation.
Re: Top 50 Most Dangerous People in America - Lux Interior - 05-06-2008
What does Matt Drudge do? I don't read the "Drudge Report" but I thought it was just a list of links to actual news sources, reputable or otherwise.