I am not in a debating class with children and am tired of intellectually accomodating unfairness and factually incorrect hyperbole. I don't care what you welcome to be honest, feel free to communicate the way you want to, I'm not at all interested in what you think is appropriate.

We Need To Win -

Your recent posts have been marked by unnecessary gloating and an unwelcome sense of aggression. A debate is not a fight.

"CNN exit polls in Puerto Rico found a surprisingly high 31 percent of voters admitted the race of the candidates was important in their decision. Of those, 63 percent voted for Clinton and 37 percent for Obama".

Well, well . . .I wonder what conclusion one can draw from that? Could it be that a significant number of Latinos, "ONCE AGAIN" won't vote for an African-American candidate?

Ms. Valdes-Rodriguez -

The link you posted is broken, thus I am unable to write a more specific reply.

Again, though - your problem seems to be your total inability to recognise the nuance in our world.

Life is not a matter of black and white, Alisa; it is, in fact, many shades of grey.

Is the U.S. media an imperfect organ? Without a doubt.

Do corporate agendas, on occasion, negatively influence journalistic content? Almost certainly, yes.

Was I debating either of those points? No, I was not.

My argument was simply that "Big Media" is an artificial and problematic construct - and that the error in viewing it as a uniform body is similar to the error made when pundits make wholesale declarations about our entire community as though to be born "Latino" is to be born with a single, unwavering ideology.

It is clear that you are, in fact, not looking to inspire smart debate and dialogue through your posts. That is a shame. I was recommended this site by a friend, and found it's content quite predictable and boring. Your post was the only one that inspired me to post a comment, and it was my hope that I might be able to start a spirited give and take with someone whose political proclivities were similar to my own.

I was obviously mistaken.

"Haunt your blog"? How elitist of you, if you don't want comments and challenges don't post on a public site.

By the way, Hillary Clinton just blew out Obama in Puerto Rico (I think there are a few Latinos there) and more than 70% of Hillary voters said they would not support Obama. Hillary also won big among young voters. I know you hate facts.

i guess this reporter was also "crazy" for thinking there is corporate pressure on journalists in the u.s. to censor themselves:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_en_ot/tv_war_coverage

maybe you can haunt her blog now instead of mine, tell her she's imagining it all.

It is disappointing, your hesitation to engage in substantive debate.

Again, I have to agree with We Need To Win...

I too am a supporter of Mr. Obama.

And no, Ms. Valdes-Rodriguez, I am not a member of the "mainstream media".

But I am an Argentine-American, and I do continue to take issue with the shallow paradigm you have constructed - that there is an absolute "good" (Obama) and that anyone of our shared heritage who votes for Hillary has been duped.

You raised an excellent point in your reply to my initial post, that Latinos are not a monolithic block and that they vote for a variety of reasons in a diffuse set of patterns.

If you are capable of such nuanced analysis, why do you allow yourself to be satisfied with ridiculous conspiracies about the media playing a game of divide and conquer?

And why, when someone seeks to engage you in critical debate, to you resort to attacks on their character and dismiss them out of hand? Isn't this the same tactic that your (and my) candidate fights against?

Your shallow analysis and inability to articulate a true critique strikes me as symptomatic of a person who does not understand the difference between "criticism" and "opposition".

To be truly critical is not to be in opposition. Most of us have been trained to oppose and not to criticize. When a man or woman merely opposes, it generally indicates that he or she has some vested interest which he or she desires to protect, and that is not deep penetration through critical examination. True criticism lies in trying to understand the full significance of values without the hindrance of defensive reactions.

Take note.

Don't you get tired of being so wrong all the time? I voted for and support Obama for president and that has zero, nothing, nada to do with this. I conclusively proved factually you are wrong; there is no "main stream media" conspiracy to distort facts, there are individuals and assorted media companies all operating independently from one another, most with strict journalistic standards for their reporting as well as editorial and op-ed venues that are stated clearly. Every single journalist will say publicly that they are not told what position to take or what to write.

The voting patterns of Americans are what they are and anyone can choose to interpret them as they choose to.

My darling, the only thing you've destroyed is your credibility - and maybe 1/60th of my lunch hour.

Methinks thee worketh for Hee-lary. Methink thee needeth a new hobbit. Er, hobby.

I completely understand that you can't handle anyone who is a liberal democrat that doesn't drink your reactionary koolaid and who destroys your premise on the media. It's this naive, amateurish dogma while playing at politics today, that has made a McCain presidency possible despite Bush, the war and the economy, etc. I do enjoy the classless personal attacks though.

Bullets? I did not realize it was a duel. I'm not out of ammo. Just bored by your unfounded, unintelligent and predictable mantra. I checked out your activity on this site and decided you were a rightie mole trying to sound progressive, not worth the time and effort. I also decided you had waaaaay too much time on your hands, and way too much watery venom in your sack.

Out of bullets are we?

Still laughing. Keep 'em coming. You're almost as funny as Cantinflas.

JDilla, thanks for bringing some much needed common sense and rational thought to this discussion, your points are right on.

Alisa, I am sorry you seek to group all media together, it's really an ignorant and preposterous theory. Do you not think there is diversity of opinion in the "so-called main stream media"? Really? Are MSNBC and FOX the main stream media? Of course they are; and Sean Hannity and Keith Olberman are as diverse as two media persons could ever be. So you see, you are out there in the stratosphere.

Latinos have voted in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. That is a fact and one does not have to break down the demographics to make that a factual statement.

Who care that six companies own the free press institutions as you call them. If you think that the owners tell reporters what to report and what to say you are astoundingly ignorant.

More on the "free American media":

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp

Diversity of opinion in mainstream media? I'll comment on this, once I stop laughing.

I suspect this last comment was written by someone in the mainstream media of which I speak. How else to explain the conviction that "Latinos voted in overwhelming numbers for Clinton."

Latinos, like other human beings, vote for a variety of reasons. If anyone in this marvelous free and diverse media to which you refer had bothered to break "Latino" voters down by, say, economics, educational level, geographic location, ancestral national origin, etc., I think they would have found the patterns to be the same as among non-Hispanic whites. Young Latinos voted for Obama; black Latinos voted for Obama; educated Latinos voted for Obama, and so on.

The idiocy lies in the mythology of a monolithic "Latino community" - a phrase you yourself use here. What is offensive here is your assumption that Latinos are predictable voters by virtue of their perceived ethnicity. Then again, I suppose you work for one of the great free press institutions - all of which are owned by six companies in the United States.

Diverse opinions in the news? I haven't laughed this hard since Elaine danced on Seinfeld.

We Need To Win makes an excellent point...

Ms. Valdes-Rodriguez - Your post is filled with platitudes and vague conspiracy theories about "Big Media" that have little ground to stand on.

As a former journalist, you should be aware that our institutions, even our mainstream ones, are filled with a diversity of individuals who hold a diversity of opinions.

To write all of our media off in one grand sweeping statement that you haven't the facts to support is shallow analysis and poor journalism.

While I applaud your optimism and desire to promote a message of reconciliation... your superficial post does nothing to address that Latinos have voted, in overwhelming numbers, in favor of Hillary Clinton this primary season.

Your vague explanation that this is because of Big Media's "divide and conquer" strategy not only presents a false conspiracy (that such a nefarious, uniform body exists) - but it also denigrates the intelligence of the Latino community.

The logical conclusion of your post is that the Latino population is incapable of "seeing through the lies" and voting in its own best interest. You post would have us believe that Latinos who vote for Hillary Clinton have been duped, that they have no agency and are simply passive actors in a world controlled by the Big Media.

Your heart is in the right place, but your words do a disservice to your own community, and your argument is couched in condescension.

Stuff and nonsense as the queen said. "Big Media" doesn't "focus" on anything in particular, they report what the people do any say in exit polls when they vote. Period. Besides, your use of the phrase "Big Media" is no less an absurdity and generalization than reactionary conservatives referring to the "Liberal Media". Who are these "Big Media"? Do they all get together and plot? Are they all told what to say? Are they not individuals who come from different places and honestly try to practice their craft?

Were Woodward and Bernstein "Big Media"? How about Dan Rather? Phil Donahue? Bill Maher? An investigation disclosed that about 9 out of 10 journalists in the United States who made political donations gave money to Democrats or left-wing groups and the list includes the writer of ‘The Ethicist’ column for The New York Times.

For your information my good childhood basketball buddy is a senior editor for the same NY Times. We have had many off the record conversations about this subject and he is not looking me in the face and lying when he says that no one tells their reporters what to report on or how to report it. No one. I also grew up in the Frederick Douglass housing projects in New York City and the Latinos and African-Americans were always at odds with one another. Always. "Big Media" had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with it. Nothing. You can deny it until hell freezes over or you can acknowledge the reality and work towards correcting what is clearly an unfortunate and wrong-headed conflict between people who should be aligned "against the man" if anything.

the "facts" you refer to are actually statistics, which can be played any number of ways. that Big Media chooses to focus on perceived race or ethnicity rather than other divisions (economic, etc.) among people they see as "black" or "latino" is the issue here. the divide and conquer conjuring magic they work. that you think these are "facts" simply because they show up in a graph on a Web site is depressing. Think about it. Say a "Latino" and a "Black" go to a coffee shop. The Latino gets a latte because he likes lattes. The Black gets a soy chai because he is lactose intolerant. Along comes the NY Times and reports that Latinos support that dairy industry because they are predisposed to like milk, and blacks are aligned against the dairy industry. That is the type of "fact" you refer to. It's shoddy journalism at best, but more like fearmongering Machiavelian mind-fuck.

She's not insulting or patronizing Latinos who vote(d) for Hillary or African Americans who vote(d) for Obama. The media however IS responsible for the 'division' it has created in its biased and racist reporting style. The media influences people, and they hold a HUGE responsibility why Latinos and African Americans are often divided. On both sides there needs to be reconciliation, however. United we stand, or divided we will all fall! The media and other societial factors influence the 'divide and conquer' rule of the day.

I'd rather support and advocate Alisa's take on this issue, as simply pointing out 'the wrongs' without trying to 'make it right'...is what you are doing We Need To Win. Quit being a buster!

CNN and all the rest of the media outlets can report as they always do, isn't that why we call it Freedom of the Press? Quit whining.

We have racial and ethnic issues all across the board. I gathered from her video clip that she's trying to spread some HISTORICAL truth in our similarities, rather than focus on our differences. Chew on that.

I love you and your articles and videos. I am a big Coltrane and Duke Ellington and! Dizzy Gillespie fan! I am a white male and also could not agree with you more!

Terrific sax playing, maybe you and Bill can get together on stage sometime.

Don't you think it may be just a wee bit patronizing and insulting to the overwhelming numbers of Latinos who voted for Hillary and the overwhelming numbers of African-Americans who voted for Obama to blame the media for trying to separate Latinos and African-Americans? Isn't it true that as disturbing as it is on many levels there has always been a deep cultural rift between Latinos and African-Americans? Is it really helpful to deny that when everyone knows it's true ? Shouldn't it be talked about?

Should CNN and MSNBC not report the facts? Should we bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend racial and ethnic voting patters don't matter when statistics and facts say otherwise?

We all know that Barack Obama has routinely garnered 80-90+ percent of all African-American votes in the Democratic primaries?

We also know that Latinos overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. Here are two examples.

In Texas:

Clinton won 79%-20% Latinos 60+
Clinton won 69%-26% Latinos 45-59
Clinton won 66%-33% Latinos 30-44
Clinton won 51%-48% Latinos 18-29

In California:

Clinton won 78%-20% Latinos 60+
Clinton won 71%-28% Latinos 45-59
Clinton won 60%-40% Latinos 30-44
Clinton won 65%-35% Latinos 18-29

What false information disseminated by the press? Facts?

I love you, my Latina sister!
I am African American and could not agree with you more! You are way awesome and THANKS for sharing a bit of history with the Coltrane piece. This is nice, including your sax playing! Keep up the good work educating many of us out here in a world dominated by false information from the (un) free press as you quoted. I really enjoyed your video and thanks for making it plain! I hope other Latino's hear these truths because the status-quo is simply trying to 'divide an conquer' as you pointed out clearly. United we stand, divided we will definitely fall!

I heart you, Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez...great work.
I'm still smiling at the history in your message...love it!