Where Are the Young Voices?

Katha Pollitt has made the important point that women are grossly underrepresented on the op-ed pages of America's newspapers.

Here's another grossly underrepresented demographic in the media: young people. Millennials-- roughly defined as those 28 and under-- make up one-quarter of the population, yet we are nowhere to be found in the mainstream media.

Yesterday on TAPPED, Mark Schmitt acknowledged the phenomenon:

Here are the regular op-ed columnists for the New York Times and the Washington Post in ascending order of age:

Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, 42. (Does not live in the U.S.)

Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, early 40s, graduated Oxford 1986.

David Brooks, Times, 45

Nick Kristof, Times, 48

and up they go from there. And they wonder why young people don't read newspapers!

Young people don't follow the news for a variety of reasons-- but the fact that they don't see anyone from their generation reporting the news is a huge factor.

Especially on TV. I don't know about you, but as a young person, my stomach churns every time I hear Charles Gibson try to make a joke. And whenever people like the comparatively young Brian Williams do any sort of reporting on "what's going on with those crazy youngsters," I find it condescending and out of touch.

Is it so shocking that so many of us watch Jon Stewart instead of this crap?

Unfortunately, the problem actually goes beyond the mainstream media. Young people and the issues they face are also poorly represented in the blogosphere. Sure, you've got some great young writers like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein, but these guys generally aren't writing specifically about the issues facing young people today. The slightly older Matt Stoller, who is young and writes a fair amount about the importance of getting young people involved in politics, is an exception.

As Mike Connery at the Future Majority blog writes, mega-blogs like Daily Kos rarely discuss issues relevant to Millennials:

But what about the blogs? Kos wrote a (positive) short post about the youth impact on the elections, but the community is rarely receptive to the ideas and concerns of its younger members. In fact, from my experiences writing on the site and trying to drum up support for young voters and youth projects, I would say that the community opinion on young voters ranges from somewhere between non-committal to downright hostile.

Given this, is it so shocking that 81 percent of progressive blog readers are over 40 years old?

This is a real shame, because countless studies have shown that Millennials are poised to become an incredibly liberal generation. They've got, more or less, good political instincts, and yet they're not motivated to act on them and become engaged. I've spent years trying to figure out why young people aren't engaged and I'll tell you what: The lack of young voices in the media is a huge part of the problem.

Comments (47)

1. Not to mention the fact that with no military draft (I mean Selective Service - You've been selected!), the current Afghan and Iraq wars (and future Iran war) seem unable to mobilize young opposition to the wars and the policies which created them.

   I think that as more issues which affect the young directly (as global warming does) come to the forefront, the Millenial demographic will be more involved.

   Posted by bjkron at 02/27/2007 @ 1:57pm

2. You don't get to to be on the ed page at 28. When the kids marched in 1969 or 1971, CBS NEWS and the NYT op ed page were not filled with young voices either, yet the kids made themselves heard. Look for better reasons.

   Posted by donescobar at 02/27/2007 @ 2:02pm

3. Again, Mr Graham-Felsen seems to be contradicting himself....

   Here..."I've spent years trying to figure out why young people aren't engaged..."

   But here: Youth Vote Surging? by Sam Graham-Felsen--11/08/2006

   "If young voters turned out like this across the country, it would appear that the 2004 surge in turnout was no fluke-- that increased participatoin among young people is a genuine trend."

   One month the "youth vote" is going to take over....a few months later, they're not engaged?!?!?!

   Posted by Mask at 02/27/2007 @ 3:03pm

4. " I don't know about you, but as a young person, my stomach churns every time I hear Charles Gibson try to make a joke. "

   As an old person(over 50), everytime I hear Chuckies voice my stomache churns...Same for Hillary, Katie, Brian...

   May be we need an Affirmative Action program to force a numbers quota on the media..

   Now, there is a job for ZERO...all he has to do is count heads..maybe a little division...

   Posted by john maasch at 02/27/2007 @ 3:05pm

5. Mask,

   The youth of America are doing what they have always done and will continue to do..have fun, get laid , get high and then find a job...once working and viewing their shrinking take home, from taxes, fica, med whatever...THEN you will hear from them..especially after the wife wonders where all the money goes..:)

   Posted by john maasch at 02/27/2007 @ 3:35pm

6. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/27/2007 @ 3:35pm

   I'm just confused by Mr Graham-Felsen's "on-again, off-again" optimism about "the youth vote"?

   Again, one month it's "The kids are going to take over and they're going to make the 60s look like the 80s!"....

   a bit later it's "Well, obviously the kids aren't engaged...nobody from www.coolassblogs or MTV's The Real World is a commentator for the NY Times"

   Posted by Mask at 02/27/2007 @ 3:49pm

7. Lord, take me now! LVL1 & I agree on something!

   But, seriously, did Katha Pollitt say women are grossly underrepresented on the op-ed, or that Coulter & Malkin are gross and misrepresent the views of average women?

   Posted by nathanhale at 02/27/2007 @ 4:33pm

8. Mask-- I don't think I've written anything contradictory... It's true that youth participation is going up significantly, and it's also true at the same time that they are very disengaged as a whole

   Posted by samgf at 02/27/2007 @ 4:39pm

9. Mr Graham-Felsen...sorry, but that's a FINE distinction-

   "It's true that youth participation is going up significantly, and it's also true at the same time that they are very disengaged as a whole"---Posted by SAMGF 02/27/2007 @ 4:39pm

   So it's "signifincantly improving" but "as a whole, still bad". Sounds like a Bush Administration report on Iraqi insurgency!

   Posted by Mask at 02/27/2007 @ 4:48pm

10. If we could get the National Guard to shoot at the few "engaged" youths, maybe the vast majority of the uncommitted ones might pay attention. But only for a short time.

    Posted by donescobar at 02/27/2007 @ 5:05pm

11. JM, you're right. I have 3 boys and their only interests are...girls, sports, girls, eating, girls, school, girls, chillin with the homies , girls, their rides and their rims, girls, springbreak, and more girls. Politics are a foreign culture and language to them.

    Posted by ACook at 02/27/2007 @ 5:27pm

12. It's true that youth participation is going up significantly, and it's also true at the same time that they are very disengaged as a whole.

    I would qualify that. Millennials are more disengaged from the political mainstream as a demographic, but that doesn't mean they're not aware or astute. Annenberg's late-night viewing poll shows Daily Show watchers are more informed about reality than those watching Leno or Letterman.

    While it's true that younger people are demographically less vested in the political process than older citizens, it's nothing but prejudice to suggest that all "they" care about is MTV or videogames. It would be as accurate or fair to counter that all Boomers care about are their 401ks.

    The participation gap is closing, and if you look at where people's priorities are as age brackets, the 18-29 group is the only progressive/liberal block. That's significant.

    Posted by josh koenig at 02/27/2007 @ 8:50pm

13. "as age brackets, the 18-29 group is the only progressive/liberal block. That's significant."

    Thats because they(that group) have no money...once they start to accumulate cash and stuff of life, and then they see the ZEROs of the world, coming after their things cause he can't get them on his own..THEN you see them separate into groups...and blocks...

    Posted by john maasch at 02/27/2007 @ 9:17pm

14. Mask-- I don't think I've written anything contradictory... It's true that youth participation is going up significantly, and it's also true at the same time that they are very disengaged as a whole

    Posted by SAMGF 02/27/2007 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person

    It's OK Sam, Mask often 'confuses himself' when he makes up contradictions that aren't there.

    Most people call them false dichotomies...I call them 'Mask-boxes'...and you just discovered its fun to make them go...

    ...poof!...

    ...just by illuminating them with the simple light of reason.

    LOL!!!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/28/2007 @ 12:34am

15. Posted by LILLIAN 02/28/2007 @ 12:34am

    And I call them "LIL poofters", where she or anybody else SAYS something contrary to what I've said....ergo it's true.

    Can't be both.....can't be youth participation is "SIGNIFICANTLY up"...and they are "VERY disengaged". Atleast not and have any REAL meaning. Is it up from 1% to 3%? That WOULD BE a 300% increase, but not very meaningful.

    As I said, it's like the Bush Admin saying the insurgency in Iraq is "SIGNIFICANTLY down" (45 attacks a day down to 40 attacks a day), but that it's still "VERY bad" (40 attacks a day). Does that make you feel any better about what's going on in Iraq???

    Poof!

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 09:18am

16. Katha Pollitt here. Thanks for the mention, Sam, but really, there's no comparison between women and the under-30 set. The women I mentioned have all the experience, writing chops and fame of the men who have columns so disproportionately -- sometimes more! These are plum jobs, not starter positions. Can you mention a 25 or 28 year old writer who has a journalistic record like Kristof, or has written works of history as important as Anne Applebaum ?(and why does it matter that she doesn't live in the US? British papers employ American columnists -- Sidney Blumenthal, for example.) Maybe if the so-called Millenials spent a little less time on FaceBook? but oh, I forgot, Facebook is the genius political organizing tool of your generation!

    Posted by calico at 02/28/2007 @ 09:45am

17. Can't be both.....can't be youth participation is "SIGNIFICANTLY up"...and they are "VERY disengaged".

    Posted by MASK 02/28/2007 @ 09:18am | ignore this person

    Well, not in your 'has to be either black or white' mind Mask. The rest of us see, not only many shades of grey...but colors too.

    BTW, are you under the assumption that everyone who votes is totally 'engaged' in politics? If you are, I'd love to introduce you to m neighbor...she votes regularly, but never reads a newspaper, watches the news, or listens to the radio.

    ...poof!

    hehe

    Posted by Lillian at 02/28/2007 @ 10:25am

18. "The lack of young voices in the media is a huge part of the problem."

    My two cents; this is not a HUGE part of the reason younger people are not engaged.

    But i think rather that young people are busy trying to establish their own niche or piece of the pie. To do this requires time and effort and as such during their leisure hours most prefer to disengage from the very ugly and often confusing world of politics and engage the travel, club, 24/American Idol, internet circuit.

    When you are younger, politics gets boring and too complicated to absorb in relatively short attention span, especially in this IPOD age of relative instant gratification.

    Posted by CPT at 02/28/2007 @ 10:57am

19. Posted by DONESCOBAR 02/27/2007 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person

    Perhaps you can get them to throw stones at them?

    Posted by CPT at 02/28/2007 @ 11:01am

20. are you under the assumption that everyone who votes is totally 'engaged' in politics? ---Posted by LILLIAN 02/28/2007 @ 10:25am

    LILLIAN, Mr Graham-Felsen is making the SAME assumption.

    So what are you saying? That "the kids" "not engaged", but "significantly UP" in their voting?

    Okay. But then we don't need any more talk of the "new progressivism" of the youth vote. Since they're not engaged, they're probably just voting for who their parents voted for.

    I know where you're coming from....ANYTHING Mr Graham-Felsen says is true, and even when YOU just contradict it, it's STILL true, because you see so many "shades of grey".

    Except of course when it comes to your judgement of people (like me) who disagree with you or Sam from time to time!

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 1:12pm

21. So I post this...

    Well, not in your 'has to be either black or white' mind Mask. The rest of us see, not only many shades of grey...but colors too.

    And, right on cue, you jump to this...

    I know where you're coming from....ANYTHING Mr Graham-Felsen says is true...

    I agreed with Sam in this case...and you twisted that into meaning that I think ..."ANYTHING Mr Graham-Felsen says is true"...

    ...because you are incapable of recognizing (much less admitting) that you're (once again) stuck in 'it-has-to-be-either-black-or-white' mode.

    But that's OK, we've all seen it plenty of times before, Mask. And your posts now show you're obviously at it again.

    hehe

    Posted by Lillian at 02/28/2007 @ 3:13pm

22. I'm 61 and I couldn't agree more with Mr. Graham-Felsen on the need for more under-30 writers to find outlets in the regular media for their views and analysis. No generation agrees to share the bully-pulpit without a fight, but the Class of '68 finally yielded a little op-ed space to the Kristof's and Applebaum's. We'd all benefit if that access broadened further so that some young writers can help shape the political debate that so affects their generation. They are called upon, sadly, to fight our wars...they drive much of our cultural change in music/art...they bring us tools like Google from their Stanford dorm rooms and the networking "Facebook"-type programs I've hesitantly learned on the Save Darfur website...they produce and direct Academy Award-nominated films like "Jesus Camp"...they are doing much of the cutting-edge science and medical research on stem cells and the genome. Are we really content to then say, "But the under-30 crowd doesn't have five or ten political writers worthy of an occasional slot on the op-ed pages of the Times or the Post"? I think the Nation deserves some credit for going out and recruiting younger writers, such as those who won the National student writing contest Linked text [thenation.com] More publications should follow the Nation's lead I also share Katha Pollit's call for more women in the op-ed columns and believe more writers of color deserve access as well--but surely some of those writers under 30 will be women and people of color.

    Posted by fredcnoonan at 02/28/2007 @ 4:14pm

23. ...because you are incapable of recognizing (much less admitting) that you're (once again) stuck in 'it-has-to-be-either-black-or-white' mode.

    Posted by LILLIAN 02/28/2007 @ 3:13pm

    A grand lecture, LILLIAN...but you know OCCASIONALLY, things are "black or white". Like is it good or bad in Iraq or a "shade of grey" to you? Was the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina, good, bad, or a "shade of grey" to you? Is spying by the NSA on domestic phone calls...."G"..."B"...or "SoG"?

    Are "the kids" "significantly up" in their participation and activism...or "very disengaged"? Is it significant or not significant if they are VERY disengaged?

    Actually I should have been specific....you like anything ANY liberal says and see it as "white" and any disagreement with it as "black" and not that BOTH sides might be partially right, because obviously one side is "good" and the other "evil".

    And you know how those "evil" guys ALWAYS see EVERYTHING in "black or white" terms!

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 4:26pm

24. As a sidenote, Jon Stewart is also over 40...he was born in 1962, so I guess that makes him one of the "old crowd."

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/28/2007 @ 5:45pm

25. Hello- I'm a student at Phillips Exeter, which I know automatically makes me unusual in that I like to learn more than say, the average teenager. However, I find that in trying to stay up with the news a) TV news is frustrating and if I even have the time to watch TV I certainly won't be interested in knowing how many more soldiers have died or how big Anna Nicole's boobs are. Or was it her child that they're debating? I feel like newspapers can be good places for news, but I'm more interested in opinion.... so this leads me to magazines and websites in particular. As long as the magazines are easy to navigate, as well as the sites, my interest is kept. I suppose I do agree though that the age of newscasters etc. might have something to do with it. But not really - most of my teachers for the past however many years have been over forty, but this doesn't mean that they're not understanding. I think teenagers are used to adults. No offense, but all of you aren't anything new. We have parents as well.

    Posted by mondly at 02/28/2007 @ 6:57pm

26. Katha-- I certainly don't dispute the fact that the underrepresentation of women is in a different ballpark from the underrepresentation of youth. You're right, the people you mentioned are vastly more qualified than almost any Millenial who applies for one of these plum jobs. But my point is that we need to rethink the whole notion that just because someone is young and relatively new to politics, they have nothing important to say and don't deserve a voice in the MSM. And don't get me wrong: I don't want young people to pose as know-it-all pundits. I want them to talk about the issues that specifically affect our genertaion, or talk about the particular ways in which young people are being affected by broader problems-- and I want them to fess up, up front, that they are YOUNG voices, voicing a perspective of the youth, not world-class experts. Yes, young people don't care enough about politics (although I'd argue they care much more today than they have in decades)-- but they're not going to care about politics unless they care about the news. And they're not going to watch the news unless they get something that is watchable! The MSM, at least TV, is unfathomably out-of-touch with Millenials right now.

    Posted by samgf at 02/28/2007 @ 8:24pm

27. Oh, and as for Facebook. Young people spend too much time on it. But it's also one of the most effective organizing tools in history. And lots of young people who do care about politics are using it and finding it to be an unbelievable asset to their campaigns.

    Dissing someone for using Facebook is like dissing someone for reading books. True, there are tons of crappy books out there that are an utter waste of time. But there are also lots of good books that are the opposite of a waste of time. Facebook can be a waste of time or the most productive use of time imaginable. Depends on the person using it and the ways they choose to use it... I don't think you can argue that Facebook, in and of itself, is a bad thing.

    Posted by samgf at 02/28/2007 @ 8:36pm

28. Posted by CALICO 02/28/2007 @ 09:45am

    Posted by SAMGF 02/28/2007 @ 8:36pm

    Boy, this will be a poser for LILLIAN....trying to find shades of grey ...to support BOTH Katha Politt AND Sam Graham-Felsen whor are disagreeing with each other!

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 8:57pm

29. Posted by MASK 02/28/2007 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person

    A grand lecture, LILLIAN...but you know OCCASIONALLY, things are "black or white". Like is it good or bad in Iraq or a "shade of grey" to you? Was the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina, good, bad, or a "shade of grey" to you? Is spying by the NSA on domestic phone calls...."G"..."B"...or "SoG"?

    Those are easy ones...and yep, pretty clearly all bad. So yes, when you stick to reality Mask, things can be pretty black or white.

    Are "the kids" "significantly up" in their participation and activism...or "very disengaged"? Is it significant or not significant if they are VERY disengaged?

    Well oops, see...there's where you've strayed from 'rational thought' into 'Maskian BS' and things now aren't the 'black-or-white' world you're trying to paint.

    Tell you what, let's actually review what Sam said and see where things went wrong, shall we...

    Youth Vote Surging? by Sam Graham-Felsen--11/08/2006

    "If young voters turned out like this across the country, it would appear that the 2004 surge in turnout was no fluke-- that increased participatoin among young people is a genuine trend."

    Good question Sam...thought provoking. If young voters continue to turn out...it might be a genuine trend. So far so good.

    Then, more recently...

    ..."I've spent years trying to figure out why young people aren't engaged..."

    Again, pretty clear...I've been wondering that myself.

    So now let's put those together...Sam obviously hopes it was a trend towards young people becoming more engaged...because he's spent years trying to figure out why they haven't been.

    Gee, that sounds pretty clear...certainly the two parts are in no way contradictory...as Sam himself tried to explain to you Mask.

    So, now let's look at what you morphed that into shall we Mask?...

    One month the "youth vote" is going to take over....a few months later, they're not engaged?!?!?!

    Posted by MASK 02/27/2007 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

    ...say what?

    Sam obviously didn't say that, did he Mask. You turned Sam's 'I wonder if this is a trend' into "the "youth vote" is going to take over" to create something that wasn't there.

    By any measure, that's a complete fabrication on your part Mask. A false-dichotomy, manufactured out of whole cloth...another of your little 'Mask-boxes'.

    And Sam rightly made it go...

    ...poof!

    And it was quite amusing!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/28/2007 @ 9:24pm

30. "Unfortunately, the problem actually goes beyond the mainstream media. Young people and the issues they face are also poorly represented in the blogosphere."

    While I always appreciate an article addressing young people and civic engagement, I think there are a growing number of groups focused on young people and the issues they face and which are important to them. To name a few, Mobilize.org, Association of Young Americans, students for saving social security, youth policy action center and young people for.

    Now it is true that such groups founded and operated by young people have generally less resources and connections in the mainstream media, which make it less likely they will get the same media coverage as say AARP or the NRA. But that doesn't mean that young people are disengaged or uninterested. Rather such groups receive less media coverage and the perception that young people are uninterested is perpetuated.

    Posted by Luke99 at 03/01/2007 @ 08:03am

31. LILLIAN---"So yes, when you stick to reality Mask, things can be pretty black or white."

    By "reality" of course you mean issues that you have firm "black or white" views on and which almost all "progressives" agree. Obviously things don't get dicey until progressives disagree (such as Ms Politt and Mr Graham-Felsen on the "importance" of Facebook).

    "So now let's put those together...Sam obviously hopes it was a trend towards young people becoming more engaged...because he's spent years trying to figure out why they haven't been.

    Gee, that sounds pretty clear"

    Yes...now that YOU spin it as "Sam was talking about the past tense and possible future tense, not present tense". And it is spin.

    Mr Graham-Felsen in his "Rah! Rah! The youth vote is arising" pieces tries to engender some optimism that "the kids" (or "Millenials" if you want) are getting more and more engaged and going to usher in some Progressive Revolution soon. (Which their grandparents said in 1965, and their parents said in 1985 "After all this Reaganism becomes passe'").

    But being a liberal AND realist, the problem has to be highlighted as a "crises"....soooooooooo....he does a "Things suck...no 'kids' are being allowed to be NY Times Op-Ed columnists" and he throws out how "very disengaged" the 'kids' are....refuting his early OPTIMISTIC assessment that things were "significatntly" improving.

    So now you've re-worded it as "He was talking about how they weren't in the past, but maybe, possibly, could be in the future".

    Cool....accept that verb tense use and he's absolutely right.

    which was the whole point of your defense of it.

    Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 09:07am

32. Posted by MASK 03/01/2007 @ 09:07am | ignore this person

    Now you turned my...

    "Sam obviously hopes it was a trend towards young people becoming more engaged...because he's spent years trying to figure out why they haven't been."

    ...which obviously wasn't "spin" at all but a pretty accurate condensation of the 2 Sam quotes you provided...into...

    "Sam was talking about the past tense and possible future tense, not present tense".

    HAHA!

    Poor Mask...you just can't help yourself, can you.

    Mask, Sam made your Mask-box go...

    ...poof!...

    ...and rather than deal with it, you just keep trying to blow it up again with all that hot air.

    It's starting to get pretty pathetic.

    hehe!

    Posted by Lillian at 03/01/2007 @ 10:22am

33. LILLIAN....okay LIL....I'll just QUOTE Mr Graham-Felsen (not base it on "these words exactly Thrawn. NOT a combination of many posts over the year or so I've been around here."---BLOG | Posted 12/08/2006 @ 12:01am Only a Rainbow Will Win--Katrina vanden Heuvel)

    Whenever he starts the "rosy scenario" of "the kids" rising up and starting a revolution on some new blog or campus organization...I'll post "it's also true at the same time that they are very disengaged as a whole---Posted by SAMGF 02/27/2007 @ 4:39pm)."

    Whenever he starts into how terrible it is that "the 20 somethings" aren't more involved....I'll post "BUT...It's true that youth participation is going up significantly---Posted by SAMGF 02/27/2007 @ 4:39pm)"

    How's that?

    Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 1:47pm

34. Posted by MASK 03/01/2007 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person

    I have no doubt that, in the future, you'll continue to do what you've always done here..pretend he said something that he really didn't, then hammer him for the 'Maskian contradiction'...

    ...and the rest of us will do what we've been doing, which is, to make them go...

    ...poof!

    How's that?

    Posted by Lillian at 03/01/2007 @ 2:01pm

35. pretend he said something that he really didn't

    Posted by LILLIAN 03/01/2007 @ 2:01pm

    "pretend he said something that he really didn't"?!?!?!

    LILLIAN, can't you read? I SAID, I would post EITHER..

    "it's also true at the same time that they are very disengaged as a whole"

    OR

    "It's true that youth participation is going up significantly"

    ---Posted by SAMGF 02/27/2007 @ 4:39pm

    And leave it at that....

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 4:35pm

36. Posted by MASK 03/01/2007 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person

    Yes, but let's review WHEN you said you'd post those quotes...

    "Whenever he starts the "rosy scenario" of "the kids" rising up and starting a revolution on some new blog or campus organization..."

    "Whenever he starts into how terrible it is that "the 20 somethings" aren't more involved...."

    Now, we ALL know that Sam won't post those words...

    ...but whenever he actually DOES post something on the subject of 20-somethings...

    ...you'll try to morph his post into your own words above and claim that's what he really said...even if he responds, himself, that he didn't say that...

    ...just like you always do...and then, someone will surely point out your BS and make it go...

    ...poof!

    We've all seen it a hundred times...and no matter how many times people catch you at it...you'll just keep on repeating the same BS...over and over again!

    hehe!!!

    Posted by Lillian at 03/01/2007 @ 5:50pm

37. born in 1979, i experienced the very last days of the cold war; having said that, it was a much different cold war than my parents experienced. i think the difference between myself, those my age and younger is that many of us, frankly, do not equate freedom with free markets, nor do we equate socialism with evil. it's a completely different mindset and, through my scope, the cause for this generation's shift to a more global, egalitarian view of the future.

    ...josh

    Posted by thecurtain at 03/01/2007 @ 7:57pm

38. Posted by THECURTAIN 03/01/2007 @ 7:57pm | ignore this person

    Intersting glimpse on your perspective.

    Would you consider yourself to be 'engaged'...or at least 'attuned'...to what's going on in the world and/or national political stage?

    And what about your friends or others of your age group? What's your take? I'm genuinely curious.

    Personally, I'm a bit of a 'geezer' so I'm sure my perspective is obviously much different. I have children, 13 and 17 and both are quite aware...even passionate, about what's going on in the world around them. As are a fairly large portion of their friends. But I'm no position to gauge how prevelant that kind of thinking is.

    Posted by Lillian at 03/01/2007 @ 9:18pm

39. Hey Mask...since you saw fit to dredge up some old post...I found some old posts too...check these out...(Like I said...everyone has noticed.)

    As to this being a post by Ari Berman about Joe Liebermann and the Ct senate race.... agreed. So why did you turn it into an attack against the Lamont campaign's alleged incompetences ?

    Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/16/2006 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

    -

    Mask -

    You are (again) mischaracterizing things.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/17/2006 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person

    -

    Mask, congrats on devising that false choice.

    my point is that the two choices have absolutely nothing in common.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/30/2006 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person

    -

    Damn, dude, your habit of putting words people didn't say into their mouths and then trying to call them on what they didn't say... is repugnant.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person

    -

    Then you started accusing me of equating the two and comparing which was "worse". I did no such thing. but you didm, and continue to do so, while trying to put your own words in my mouth.

    You are a very dishonest debating adversary.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 3:51pm | ignore this person

    -

    Your credibility working its way down the drain.

    Posted by URMYGYRO 10/05/2006 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person

    -

    Show where I have said they are "Totally non-partisan"

    Posted by URMYGYRO 10/05/2006 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person

    -

    Here is the TRUTH.

    You are the most DIHONEST poster here. You take the title hands down. And you probably laugh about it....to yourself and think it is clever.

    Your never ending circular logic, loaded questions, consistent misrepresentation are without a doubt UN-precedented. EVEN here.

    You are not content to do that once, not twice, but every single time.

    You ALWAYS incorrectly attribute statements made by one poster or another and you do this ceaselessly.

    If one poster says A....you "brilliantly" counter with their words and reinterpert as if they said B. The poster says no i said A....but you continue as if they said B and form other conjectures based on B. All the while they are trying in a futile attempt to say that "NO i said A"

    Let me simplfy...for you edification.....you are a con man, a fake, a charloton, a liar and a fraud.

    But somehow, in your wierd mind you think you are making a point...well nope, you are not...the point is that you are intellectually dishonest. simple

    But what makes it worse...and yes it gets worse...is that you are CONSISTENTLY intellectually dishonest. EVEN when corrected several times.

    I am not talking about taking soemthing out of context...that happens with everyone here, however what makes you different is that you keep repeating the lie over and over again.

    So i chose not engage you; that often in your silly MASK games.

    Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 9:41pm | ignore this person

    -

    I could post a LOT more Mask...but you get the idea.

    Posted by Lillian at 03/01/2007 @ 11:25pm

40. Posted by LILLIAN 03/01/2007 @ 11:25pm

    Nice work, dear.

    From URMY to CPT....I rub BOTH sides the wrong way. Hmmm...doesn't sound too "black or white", does it? More "black AND white".

    And typically someone else's view of "mischaracterization"...is taking what they're saying to its logical conclusion, or NOT putting the "best face" or "what they MEANT to say" on what they say, but actually looking at what they say.

    But again....from now on, when Sam Graham-Felsen discusses the "youth vote"....I'll merely quote him.

    that should be good enough...plus it'll make sooooo much harder for you to say that I'm "mischaracterizing" what somebody says....but posting EXACTLY what they said.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 09:32am

41. a recent survey in my state found that almost 50% of seniors at our state colleges were unable to read & explain the contents of the front page of the New York Times. how to reach this pool of younger voters & potential activists? cartoons?

    Posted by djw313 at 03/02/2007 @ 10:00am

42. Posted by DJW313 03/02/2007 @ 10:00am | ignore this person

    Do you think Sam's idea of getting more 'young voices' into the MSM has merit?

    And given Katha's comment that they should have the "experience, writing chops and fame" to suit the job, which 'young voices' might be up to the task?

    Posted by Lillian at 03/02/2007 @ 12:38pm

43. BTW, LILLIAN....could explain this, before I "mis-characterize" it?

    "Here are the regular op-ed columnists for the New York Times and the Washington Post in ascending order of age:

    Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, 42. (Does not live in the U.S.)"

    What exactly does Mr Graham-Felsen mean by that addendum? Is that some criticims of Anne Applebaum???

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 4:15pm

44. What exactly does Mr Graham-Felsen mean by that addendum? Is that some criticims of Anne Applebaum???

    Posted by MASK 03/02/2007 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

    Well let's see Mask...let's trying looking at the what Sam says in his actual post...

    Just prior to the list that includes Anne Applebaum, are the words that note "Yesterday on TAPPED, Mark Schmitt acknowledged the phenomenon:" with the link to Mark Schmitt's post...which includes the parenthetical qualification about (Does not live in the US).

    Now a reasonable person might conclude that Sam left that in because that's exactly what was in Mark Schmitt's post...which Sam was citing.

    But apparently you have been searching for a way to morph that into some kind of 'Sam is slamming Anne Applebaum' thing?!?!

    Posted by Lillian at 03/02/2007 @ 7:09pm

45. ...let's trying looking at the what Sam says in his actual post...

    Wow, mangled that one, huh?

    ...let's try looking at what Sam says in his actual post...

    Posted by Lillian at 03/02/2007 @ 10:12pm

46. Posted by LILLIAN 03/02/2007 @ 7:09pm | ignore this person

    Look at that Mask...made another one go...

    ...poof!

    (Well, since it was only half formed, maybe more like...pfffft!)

    Posted by Lillian at 03/03/2007 @ 10:28am

47. i am a political activist and i am continuaaly shocked by the lack of participation by young people- they don't come to marched, they don't turn out to phone banks, they don't volunteer at the public radio stations... there is PLENTY they can do to be heard. they did it in the sixties... there are way more outlets available to them thru the internet and current TV-- stop whining and do something!!

    Posted by dman at 03/04/2007 @ 1:56pm