No floor votes of importance were taken last week.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong but I would guess that the people who drafted the bills that were voted on, and the people who sponsored the legislation that was voted on, or, at a minimum, the people who asked for the legislation in the first place all consider the votes to be important.
This is the Internet. The PD could include – and thereby make it a heck of a lot easier for its readers to find – a list of what floor votes did occur. Or a link to that list. Or a subject summary of what the GA voted on.
And then decide for themselves what is and isn’t important.
More ugga ugga. Sigh.
You know, this kind of shortcut is precisely why blogs and other web-based news provision will not be going away and will continue to cut into traditional news dissemination: because this kind of shortcut says, “Accept our opinion that “no floor votes of importance were taken last week.'”
What? It’s a space thing? It’s a lack of interest thing? It’s a “they won’t understand it” thing?
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.
It’s a “I’ll decide for myself whether it’s important or not” thing.
What will be the death of MSM? Its failure to recognize that they are not the final arbiters of what is and isn’t important. There are simply too many people who want to judge for themselves and too many ways for them to do that now for such practices to continue. (And let’s not get started on the reasons why people want to judge for themselves – a little thing about not trusting the sources these days, maybe?)
Finally, how on earth is making the judgement as to what is and isn’t an important floor vote “neutral” news provision?
Want to complain about a lack of critical thinking in the American public? Then look no further than the MSM’s abuse of power over pretending that they can do it all for us.
My exercise of discretion says, I think not.
*By the way, if you’ve made it to this point, let me just say that I have nothing againt Aaron Marshall whose name appears at the bottom of this week’s This Week. This observation of mine would exist regardless or which reporter’s name was attached to the item. However, if anyone can provide any background (for example, some people want to provide more but said no, or…it’s never occurred to anyone to provide more, etc.) as to why the This Week feature uses such a conclusory statement, I’d definitely like to learn about that.