or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool - Page 8

post #281 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I would like to see more politicians forced to answer questions about what other people are thinking.

Sad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I don't know. John F. Kennedy was attacked constantly by the media by right wing for his ineptitude with Castro and the Bay of Pigs and even with what they perceived at the time, his administration's dealings with the Soviet Union. Mostly in print media. Editorial cartoonists were drawing him under a guillotine and with a target on his back. Some even wished upon his death. Which very well, may have helped make it come about.

Most of the policies he brought about were ineffective. Letting communism literally knock on your doorstep isn't going to help your case with the press. Finally while he may have been the first candidate that television helped, I don't think the press understood their power at that time.

Quote:
He was television's first political star, and that's where I believe where you are getting at with the media and I would agree. So was Reagan on television, but in many cases the press was livid with their hatred towards him, same as Kennedy, which again may have prompted the attempt on his life. Pretty much after that the press stepped back and gave him a free pass to say and do whatever he wanted. Something that still exists today, though the media was multi-pronged, whereas today there are only four. And those four are owned by even larger, more politically powerful corporations. Which in my opinion is wrong.

I think the vitroil for Reagan was based on the fact that as a person familiar with how presentation works, he was really the first Republican to beat them at their own game. While the media still had a slant, they still wanted to been seen as objective. This means if you managed your message right, they had no choice but to at least give it an airing. I see this the opposite of you. There were fewer media outlets then. CNN was founded and around in the time of Reagan but could not and did not have the effect multiple cable news outlets have now. In short with enough discipline, enough money and with the media leaning but not actively advocating, you could get out your message.

I would say that prime examples of this with regard to Republicans, and part of their learning process related to it were Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The difference between Bork and Thomas showed that media attacks could be overcome.

Quote:
But Nixon was sufficient at the time for an attack by the media. He was committing thousands of troops into what is called an illegal war. He was illegally bombing another country and eventually, thanks to the media revealed to have illegally broke in to the opponent's offices and with that tried to rig the election, which he did and may have also done in 1968.

So again, it works both ways. Yes, the media can be evil, but it can do what is right too. No surprise there.

It doesn't have to be good and evil. The media can simple report the facts. They spend more time spinning and analyzing it than reporting it at this stage.

This morning MTP had Rahm Emanual on. I would rather watch him for an entire hour or have two or three segments with different interviewees. Why do I need half an hour of him being asked questions and then another half hour of the talking heads telling us what to think about it? This trend is getting much worse.

Quote:
You seem to forget totally FoxNews and their constant 24/7 attacks on Obama sometimes don't you?

I don't watch FoxNews 24/7. When I go to aggregator sources, I do not see Fox News cited anymore than most news sites. I'm sure since I read conservative blogs, I would see their in depth investigations being used to discredit Democratic politician after Democratic politician. If anything, I would say they have gotten as lazy as the others in that they no longer question, just take the talking points and add their spin and thoughts to them. Journalism is more than reading press releases and talking points, no matter the source.

Quote:
We have become American Idolized. A sad fact. Remember, I don't have television constantly blaring on ears and eyes as 90% of everyone else here. I tended to get what I needed or wanted through my own "channels" via the Internet. From segments of the mainsteam media to the lowly video reporter with no agenda at all. I watched more interviews with Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and others just sitting at a card table or standing in a parking lot before a rally than you have.

You are right in that I probably "watch" less of my news than 90% of everyone and even you. The flow of information is just too slow most of the time. I get roughly 95% of my news from reading. I'd say 3% video clips and finally 2% actual watching of news.

Quote:
Again, sorry to say this, but you are wrong in this case. You have to thank the people I mentioned for that. Those people who capture moments that politicians don't want anyone to see. From McCain's "Bomb, Bomb, Iran and "100 more years" to Palin's idiotic, hate filled rally goers, it was all there to see. You think the media gave Obama a free pass, I'll say that though no one's perfect, he survived because of his poise and yes, his instinctive nature. That guided him through the shark pool that the media is. Here's a lesson all politicians should learn, don't be an ass anytime during a campaign, it will be bitten in the end.

That isn't news. Those are gaffes and images used to craft caricatures so that you will ignore the news. He didn't guide himself any better than anyone else. The media simply didn't want to create a caricature of him and so they didn't use his gaffes and their images of him for that purpose. This is part of why Obama still isn't "funny" and why people can't crack a joke about him. The media refuses to touch him. There are no endless jokes about his inability to count 57 states. There is no talking heads going on over and over about how incompetent he must be now that his vetting process has missed issues with two picks. There is no discussion about how he can't kick his smoking habit or any other nonsense. No one has counted his "uh's."

I honestly don't want the news to be about whether Obama has kicked the smoking habit. However why is there no discussion of whether a spending a trillion dollars is "stimulus" or just pigs feeding at a trough. The is just no questioning at all going on.

Quote:
Don't defend this woman trumptman. At least not with the argument that she was chum on a hook from the beginning. She was a model of ineptitude and contradiction. Yet, if given to the "right" media outlet, FoxNews let's say and given softball questions, she comes off as the Virgin Mary.

Works both ways...

Regardless of interviews, there is eventually this thing called reality. You dont have to like her interview but the reality is that her record is good. No record is perfect but hers is good. When I am reading crap like "Oh she raised sales taxes to pay for infrastructure" and doubts are cast about with that, it just comes off ridiculous.

Quote:
Again, it's best just to let this one go. She had just as many supporters now than she has critics. Give her time and she will be back. The media (Fox and right radio) will be counting the days...

The reason the media left the sidelines and clearly jumped into the game so quickly with her is two-fold. One, she has the same traits Obama has with regard to campaigning. Secondly, the media remember Reagan and knows what a media savvy Republican can do. She clearly wasn't and hasn't been savvy enough, but there is still fear there because like most bubbles, there is a sort of collective waking up and I suspect that soon this will happen after we have spent a few trillion and not watched anything improve.

Quote:
Uh, most politicians/presidents since the 1800's have been in bed with the media. So in many ways the media does help elect a president. They also, as I have pointed out, have destroyed presidents.

It's there job. Our job as people is to be educated, but we all know that that has been the problem for many these days to begin with.

We are as educated as we have ever been as a populace. I've noted multiple times that it isn't a coincidence in my view that the closer you are to a major media center, the bluer your politics. The media though is going broke as an institution. Propaganda isn't profitable. People declare it is just newspapers but it is weekly periodicals, network news and several cable channels.

The problem now isn't information, but disinformation. People tune out when they don't have five hours a day to sort out the crap from the news. When a news program promises 60 minutes of news and instead delivers 15 minutes of news with 45 minutes of "analysis." Most people don't have the extra three hours to get the full news because the signal to noise ratio is so bad.

As with the "who elected Obama" bit, people understood every caricature the media created. They were "informed" but not with news.

Quote:
With the media, all presidents get a free pass. Until they stumble. Then as with all previous elected ones, they enter the shark pool. Obama will be no different. Guaranteed.

I'll wait to see that guarantee.

Quote:
Was he asked what the new Obama administration and himself will do about the Israeli genocide?

Guess not. That's more pressing to me than a meeting Rahm may have had with an asshole.

Shit this typing is killing me. Done for now...\

Even I can understand why he wasnt asked and wouldn't answer that. The reality though is we had the entire campaign to inform ourselves to how we believe Obama would hande this. If you can't answer that and instead know that Palin is a bimbo with a pregnant daughter, then you are part of the problem because instead of rewarding that, we need to reward who asks the hard questions.

Sorry if the typing is killing you but this is much more enjoyable for me than the pictures. Your thoughts are good ones when I get to read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Absolutely. Rahm Emanuel and Sarah Palin are genuinely comparable in their interview technique, articulacy and acuity. When Rahm answers a question and you don't like the answer, it is because he is avoiding the question.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

PALIN 2012

We don't know because Palin would never have been given the softballs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, if it had been Palin in the position that Rahm is now, and she had been asked about phone calls, she would have said:

"You know, when it comes to phone calls and candidates and whatever position the voters have entrusted me with, there, I think it's very important to be very clear with the American people with regards to how they communicate, and when there is some question as there is there we've just got to do a better job of avoiding even the appearance of any wrong-doing, there, and I think that's what's happened, so, you know, I have faith that the American people will know what's right and we'll continue to work to put this country back on the right path with job creation and tax cuts, there."

And there would have been no followup question because lingering in the vicinity of such is too depressing, even for reporters.

You are so funny suggesting that Palin would be allowed to speak for several sentences without continual interruption by the interviewer challenging every word out of her mouth.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #282 of 383
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha.

Ha.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #283 of 383
Wow. I mean. Wow.

Did Nick just admit to getting his news from blogs?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #284 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Wow. I mean. Wow.

Did Nick just admit to getting his news from blogs?

Given that he apparently believes that "Palin (is not) allowed to speak for several sentences without continual interruption by the interviewer challenging every word out of her mouth", I would have to guess he's getting his news from I Am Making This Up As I Go Along.com
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #285 of 383
Quote:
He didn't guide himself any better than anyone else.

Obama?

He most certainly did guide himself better than anyone else.

He won the election by 9.5+ million votes.

There's your objectivity for you.

It was reported on the internets, the print media, and the audio-visual media.

Obama won!

In the end, that's the only fact I need to know.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #286 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Wow. I mean. Wow.

Did Nick just admit to getting his news from blogs?

The website op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, and the website op-ed pages of the ...

Whereas, I got my news from actually watching Obama speak, McCain speak, Biden speak, Palin speak, ...

First-person_narrative even.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #287 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Given that he apparently believes that "Palin (is not) allowed to speak for several sentences without continual interruption by the interviewer challenging every word out of her mouth", I would have to guess he's getting his news from I Am Making This Up As I Go Along.com

And that would be why I responded the way I did.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #288 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Wow. I mean. Wow.

Did Nick just admit to getting his news from blogs?

Last I checked every major media source had a website. What about reading print versus looking a pretty moving pictures screams "blogs" to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Given that he apparently believes that "Palin (is not) allowed to speak for several sentences without continual interruption by the interviewer challenging every word out of her mouth", I would have to guess he's getting his news from I Am Making This Up As I Go Along.com

No I haven't watched the Colbert Report or Daily Show at all thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Obama?

He most certainly did guide himself better than anyone else.

He won the election by 9.5+ million votes.

There's your objectivity for you.

It was reported on the internets, the print media, and the audio-visual media.

Obama won!

In the end, that's the only fact I need to know.

He won and the media were right there giving his opposition hours of negative ads/reporting per day. Remember the gaffe where he said 10,000 people died in tornadoes when the actual number was.......12. I'm sure he handled that superbly when SNL turned that and the 57 states gaffe into jokes about just getting all numbers wrong.

Oh wait... that didn't happen? I mean that was almost as good as not remembering what committees he was on in the Senate.

Votes don't reflect media objectivity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

And that would be why I responded the way I did.

Everytime you laugh while Obama spends another 100 billion, a kitten dies.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #289 of 383
[CENTER]
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Votes don't reflect media objectivity.

[/CENTER]

[CENTER]
Voting is an objective fact!

Winning by 9,500,000 plus votes is an objective fact![/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #290 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Most of the policies he brought about were ineffective. Letting communism literally knock on your doorstep isn't going to help your case with the press. Finally while he may have been the first candidate that television helped, I don't think the press understood their power at that time.

Oh they had it and they knew it. There were many times when this man had corporate advertisers boycott his reporting and the corporation he worked under punish him for it. He would be given the opportunity to chide them for it...

Quote:
Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

- EDWARD R. MURROW, RTNDA Convention, Chicago, October 15, 1958

But maybe that emboldened them. Since E. R. Murrow was on the outs then anyway...reduced to do fluffy celebrity interviews.

Quote:
This means if you managed your message right, they had no choice but to at least give it an airing. I see this the opposite of you. There were fewer media outlets then. CNN was founded and around in the time of Reagan but could not and did not have the effect multiple cable news outlets have now. In short with enough discipline, enough money and with the media leaning but not actively advocating, you could get out your message.

The media slowly caught on, Iran/Contra, Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging, lobbying scandals, EPA controversy, Savings & Loan bailout and eventually his own deterioration with reality. Don't get me wrong, he weathered these very well, he had that talent from Hollywood, but he also had a crack team of handlers and press secretaries, who in my opinion were the ones who also created and help game the media (the flow and ebb of information...and downright lying) also.

Quote:
It doesn't have to be good and evil. The media can simple report the facts. They spend more time spinning and analyzing it than reporting it at this stage.

I don't mind analysis, when it is done right. But in today's 24/7 media circus, how many of these good analysts are on beck and call 24/7? And how many deserve that status? And how many are shills in the political (or as we saw with the Iraq war - military shills) game? Yes, sad state we're in. I agree.

Quote:
This morning MTP had Rahm Emanual on. I would rather watch him for an entire hour or have two or three segments with different interviewees. Why do I need half an hour of him being asked questions and then another half hour of the talking heads telling us what to think about it? This trend is getting much worse.

I caught his Q&A over the economy. And well, it was pretty convincing that this is something so much more important than the issue with him on the phone with an asshole.

Quote:
I don't watch FoxNews 24/7. When I go to aggregator sources, I do not see Fox News cited anymore than most news sites. I'm sure since I read conservative blogs, I would see their in depth investigations being used to discredit Democratic politician after Democratic politician. If anything, I would say they have gotten as lazy as the others in that they no longer question, just take the talking points and add their spin and thoughts to them. Journalism is more than reading press releases and talking points, no matter the source.

You can't discount that over the past eight years, FoxNews, with one of the largest viewership in history for a cable news network, didn't influence their viewers, just as much (more even) than the liberal news networks.

Quote:
You are right in that I probably "watch" less of my news than 90% of everyone and even you. The flow of information is just too slow most of the time. I get roughly 95% of my news from reading. I'd say 3% video clips and finally 2% actual watching of news.

That's good. Overall one has to do this. I do it out of necessity and sanity. During the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion, I was watching them all, and ALL the networks supporting the invasion, and most newspapers too. But online and through just a stroke of luck I guess (thanks Excite!), I started reading the McClatchy and Knight Ridder reports online and realized that not all was being said and not all was being supportive of it.

Quote:
The media refuses to touch him. There are no endless jokes about his inability to count 57 states.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008


Quote:
There is no talking heads going on over and over about how incompetent he must be now that his vetting process has missed issues with two picks.

"John McCain and I, and our camps, are working together to get John McCain elected." --Sarah Palin, denying reports that she is "going rogue" while suggesting there are separate Palin and McCain camps, Oct. 27, 2008

Quote:
There is no discussion about how he can't kick his smoking habit or any other nonsense. No one has counted his "uh's."

"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation." --Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in Greensoboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 2008

Quote:
I honestly don't want the news to be about whether Obama has kicked the smoking habit. However why is there no discussion of whether a spending a trillion dollars is "stimulus" or just pigs feeding at a trough. The is just no questioning at all going on.

Rahm was grilled today. And he got through it pretty well, he's the appointed Chief of Staff you know, the guy that "manages the flow of information". Currently he is the one on the hot seat. Talk to him. Obama will be available after January 20th, when he becomes president and all that.

Quote:
Regardless of interviews, there is eventually this thing called reality. You dont have to like her interview but the reality is that her record is good. No record is perfect but hers is good. When I am reading crap like "Oh she raised sales taxes to pay for infrastructure" and doubts are cast about with that, it just comes off ridiculous.

Dude, the reality is that she immediately reminded me of some of my neighbors who have some smarts and some good intentions, but if they can't run their family, they can't run for office. She be back. She is a survivor. She has learned her lessons.


Quote:
I'll wait to see that guarantee.

When haven't you seen the media turn against a president in office?

Quote:
Sorry if the typing is killing you but this is much more enjoyable for me than the pictures. Your thoughts are good ones when I get to read them.

Thanks you and your welcome. I find a lot of your gripes petty and insignificant to the larger scope of things. My conservative brother and sister are now gushing over Obama's appointments and the direction he is taking. Why aren't you?

Quote:
We don't know because Palin would never have been given the softballs.

Oh PLEASE. Did you see her interview with Sean Hannity? I know you did, but I should repost this for others to watch if they hadn't.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three.

She did amazingly well. I wonder why...

Twenty minutes of softball goodness, that's why.

Quote:
You are so funny suggesting that Palin would be allowed to speak for several sentences without continual interruption by the interviewer challenging every word out of her mouth.

Ha ha. "The Coulter Effect"

I'm tired, goodnight.
post #291 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I find a lot of your gripes petty and insignificant to the larger scope of things.

On NPR the other day, Jonah Goldberg called it "shooting spitwads."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #292 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Last I checked every major media source had a website. What about reading print versus looking a pretty moving pictures screams "blogs" to you?

Well... Let's see... If you don't watch Fox News (or any other TV news source), don't like the WP/NYTimes/BBC triumvirate of news providers (all of which have healthy online editions) and their step cousins of MSM online media, then I really don't see how you get along without devoting most of your online info gathering sessions on conservative blogs.

Look at it from my perspective, if you are able: I don't have cable television. I am in lab during the normal news casting days/hours. I never spent any amount of time on blogs except for 538 this year -- both sides of the political persuasion blogger verse are filled with cunts. CUNTS! My news is obtained from various online media, from NYTimes, to FT to crap local papers. If I need perspective, I sit back and think. When you say you read to get information and in the same breath disparage almost all national and international news agencies, one has to wonder exactly what you consider news...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #293 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Well... Let's see... If you don't watch Fox News (or any other TV news source), don't like the WP/NYTimes/BBC triumvirate of news providers (all of which have healthy online editions) and their step cousins of MSM online media, then I really don't see how you get along without devoting most of your online info gathering sessions on conservative blogs.

Look at it from my perspective, if you are able: I don't have cable television. I am in lab during the normal news casting days/hours. I never spent any amount of time on blogs except for 538 this year -- both sides of the political persuasion blogger verse are filled with cunts. CUNTS! My news is obtained from various online media, from NYTimes, to FT to crap local papers. If I need perspective, I sit back and think. When you say you read to get information and in the same breath disparage almost all national and international news agencies, one has to wonder exactly what you consider news...

Quote:
objectivity

noun
judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

A neutral definition that I can certainly sink my teeth into.

Objectivity (journalism)

Quote:
Definitions

What the fuck?

You mean to tell me that there's more than one single unique invariant definition for objectivity (journalism)?

In other words, the very definition itself is subjective, since there is no single unique invariant definition for objectivity (journalism).

Thought so.

Quote:
On-Line Journalism

New forms of journalism, such as on-line journalism, further alter perceived notions of objectivity and balance due to the advantages of speed and content that can cause journalists to hasten their copy. If journalists are seen as gatekeepers for objective and verifiable information, then that role is surely threatened by a medium where people can access and use virtually any piece of information at will. It has been proposed to certify web based news with a .news domain.[1].

Tim Berners-Lee, credited with the creation of the World Wide Web, has recently stated that he is worried that the Web is being used to spread misinformation:

"On the web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable. A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging."

Objectivity in on-line journalism can suffer as a direct result of these 'cults of thinking'. Tim Berners-Lee refers to the false rumours of the harmful effects of the MMR vaccine which spread across the Web in the United Kingdom, which led to many children remaining unvaccinated. [2]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #294 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Wow. I mean. Wow.

Did Nick just admit to getting his news from blogs?

It's very specialized news! Only the news you want to hear.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #295 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Last I checked every major media source had a website. What about reading print versus looking a pretty moving pictures screams "blogs" to you?



No I haven't watched the Colbert Report or Daily Show at all thank you.



He won and the media were right there giving his opposition hours of negative ads/reporting per day. Remember the gaffe where he said 10,000 people died in tornadoes when the actual number was.......12. I'm sure he handled that superbly when SNL turned that and the 57 states gaffe into jokes about just getting all numbers wrong.

Oh wait... that didn't happen? I mean that was almost as good as not remembering what committees he was on in the Senate.

Votes don't reflect media objectivity.



Everytime you laugh while Obama spends another 100 billion, a kitten dies.

Quote:
Everytime you laugh while Obama spends another 100 billion, a kitten dies.

Killed by George Bush because the family that owned it couldn't afford to feed it due to Bush's recession.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #296 of 383
DAY FOUR HUNDRED: RAHM "STILL NOT UNDER THE BUS"

Breaking: Rahm will never be "thrown under the bus" because there is no merit in the story. It was made up on conservative blogs by shellshocked people who can take no responsibility for the events of the last eight years and the loss of the last election.
post #297 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

On NPR the other day, Jonah Goldberg called it "shooting spitwads."

Isn't that cute? You don't have to work so hard to provide an example of the "non-news" that clutters up the landscape. Two talking heads filling five minutes of time about how to go from "whining to winning" is just the sort of crap we don't need to call news. I'm sure it will be a weekly segment now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Well... Let's see... If you don't watch Fox News (or any other TV news source), don't like the WP/NYTimes/BBC triumvirate of news providers (all of which have healthy online editions) and their step cousins of MSM online media, then I really don't see how you get along without devoting most of your online info gathering sessions on conservative blogs.

Look at it from my perspective, if you are able: I don't have cable television. I am in lab during the normal news casting days/hours. I never spent any amount of time on blogs except for 538 this year -- both sides of the political persuasion blogger verse are filled with cunts. CUNTS! My news is obtained from various online media, from NYTimes, to FT to crap local papers. If I need perspective, I sit back and think. When you say you read to get information and in the same breath disparage almost all national and international news agencies, one has to wonder exactly what you consider news...

I sample the cable news, say 20 minutes every other week, but the product is just terrible. The scrolls, the 2 minutes of news with 5 minutes of analysis. It just isn't a good way to get information.

Let me ask you Hardee, have you noticed how more and more often no news segment can end on just the news? More and more often the spinner has to come on to end the segment. So good ol'Katie will read the political news for a segment and then instead of leaving it there Bob Schrum has to zoom in and they spend five minutes telling you how to think about it before they sign off. That is just not a good way to present news.

I consider news to be news and not discussion or analysis. What is interesting is that in becoming more like blogs or talk shows, the news has actually become more like the sources you now claim I must get my information from when my complaint is the signal to noise ratio being to low. In short you declare, rather strangely that I must get my information from the types of sources that are the cause for the complaint. How strange is that?

Ever hear of an RSS feed reader? I'm sure you visit some sites like RCP that gather up links from an array of sources. Finally the fact that a source presents an incomplete picture or the fact that the signal to noise ratio is too low is merely a complaint about that site and it doesn't mean I ban, ignore, or refuse to read the site.

Unlike you guys with real or imagined conservative sources, I still read MSNBC, NY Times, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

DAY FOUR HUNDRED: RAHM "STILL NOT UNDER THE BUS"

Breaking: Rahm will never be "thrown under the bus" because there is no merit in the story. It was made up on conservative blogs by shellshocked people who can take no responsibility for the events of the last eight years and the loss of the last election.

You've made it clear that you own the "never" square. Maybe we should add a poll since others don't see so convinced as you. They enjoy their bus pictures, but they don't seem to be on record.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #298 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

DAY FOUR HUNDRED: RAHM "STILL NOT UNDER THE BUS"

Breaking: Rahm will never be "thrown under the bus" because there is no merit in the story. It was made up on conservative blogs by shellshocked people who can take no responsibility for the events of the last eight years and the loss of the last election.

Exactly!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #299 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

DAY FOUR HUNDRED: RAHM "STILL NOT UNDER THE BUS"

Breaking: Rahm will never be "thrown under the bus" because there is no merit in the story. It was made up on conservative blogs by shellshocked people who can take no responsibility for the events of the last eight years and the loss of the last election.

Yeah it's that no responsiblity part that makes not want to forgive them. But of course some of them will have to bear the hardship of the Bush legacy as well. They'll just blame Boomers, immigrants, or terrorists.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #300 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Maybe we should add a poll since others don't see so convinced as you. They enjoy their bus pictures, but they don't seem to be on record.

"Others"? Here? In this thread? Others?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #301 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Unlike you guys with real or imagined conservative sources, I still read MSNBC, NY Times, etc.

I forgot to mention the Onion. Life imitates The Onion. It is truly America's finest news source.

It reports the future, automatically making it superior to all other news sources.

Yes, sarcasm on 11. Sorta. Oh, and they are gearing up for Obama.

Happy MLK Day y'all. I'm at work, so I'm reduced to posting more bus pictures. Yay!

post #302 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Unlike you guys with real or imagined conservative sources, I still read MSNBC, NY Times, etc.

We know you read all of the magazines and newspapers, any of them that have been in front of you over all these years. You have a vast variety of sources where you get your news. Beaumont isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested it seems like, 'wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking and doing when you live down there in the desert exurbs.' We believe you, Beaumont is like a microcosm of America.
post #303 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh they had it and they knew it. There were many times when this man had corporate advertisers boycott his reporting and the corporation he worked under punish him for it. He would be given the opportunity to chide them for it...

Well we will have to agree to disagree here. I'm sure they understood their power as the media, but I'm not convinced they thought of their power beyond gate keepers.

Quote:
But maybe that emboldened them. Since E. R. Murrow was on the outs then anyway...reduced to do fluffy celebrity interviews.

The media slowly caught on, Iran/Contra, Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging, lobbying scandals, EPA controversy, Savings & Loan bailout and eventually his own deterioration with reality. Don't get me wrong, he weathered these very well, he had that talent from Hollywood, but he also had a crack team of handlers and press secretaries, who in my opinion were the ones who also created and help game the media (the flow and ebb of information...and downright lying) also.

Government and graft associated with each other? Oh the horror! I have no doubt that he and every president have handlers. I don't think they needed Reagan to DO SOMETHING to be skeptical. I mean we are talking just a few years after Watergate. No one had to take a president at his word "just because" after that.

Quote:
I don't mind analysis, when it is done right. But in today's 24/7 media circus, how many of these good analysts are on beck and call 24/7? And how many deserve that status? And how many are shills in the political (or as we saw with the Iraq war - military shills) game? Yes, sad state we're in. I agree.

I don't think anyone minds it done right but it isn't done right. It should be separate from the news like editorials.

Quote:
I caught his Q&A over the economy. And well, it was pretty convincing that this is something so much more important than the issue with him on the phone with an asshole.

Well I'm going to agree and disagree with you. First his Q&A for his entire interview was just a friendly and soft-ball as the Palin interview you link to below. Second we are watching the Democratic party have loads of scandals occurring right now. When an unquestioning media ignores that scandal or doesn't investigate as they should, merely reports the particulars when they are indicted, it does have a cost. You can say the calls themselves don't amount to much, but really that will make me happy in a way because when you embolden people by granting them permission, it makes the train-wreck that much bigger later.

Quote:
You can't discount that over the past eight years, FoxNews, with one of the largest viewership in history for a cable news network, didn't influence their viewers, just as much (more even) than the liberal news networks.

That's good. Overall one has to do this. I do it out of necessity and sanity. During the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion, I was watching them all, and ALL the networks supporting the invasion, and most newspapers too. But online and through just a stroke of luck I guess (thanks Excite!), I started reading the McClatchy and Knight Ridder reports online and realized that not all was being said and not all was being supportive of it.

Well, no double standard on here, but I guess Addabox will soon be along declaring that since you don't admit to getting your news from certain sources, you must only read blogs and I'm sure that Frank will be along declaring that you only read editorials. (Don't worry I know they won't)

We seem to be on the same wavelength, find the sources that can give a better signal to noise ratio.

To address your series of Palin quotes, there are pages that track just as many Obama gaffes but the reality is that the media doesn't use them to craft a caricature and you haven't addressed that bit of information.

Quote:
Rahm was grilled today. And he got through it pretty well, he's the appointed Chief of Staff you know, the guy that "manages the flow of information". Currently he is the one on the hot seat. Talk to him. Obama will be available after January 20th, when he becomes president and all that.

You seriously called that grilled? I call it taking a guy completely at his word and not challenging any answers with followups. The only thing they could have done to make it less challenging was to have Gregory give the guy a foot massage. One of the site that a few on here love to quote, Media Matters will declare something biased if it is merely uncritical or doesn't challenge. Gregory goes well beyond that often crafting questions that contain Obama administration assumptions in them that merely need affirmation from the interviewee. It doesn't get more softball than that. Read the transcript and what you see are instances where instead of interrupting to challenge, you just get affirmative little utterances because both are putting forward the same perspective. It isn't an interview, it is a conversation among two like minded people putting out their perspective together. "Mm-hms" and "right" affirmations are not the substance of challenging questions.

Quote:
Dude, the reality is that she immediately reminded me of some of my neighbors who have some smarts and some good intentions, but if they can't run their family, they can't run for office. She be back. She is a survivor. She has learned her lessons.

Well you start to hit on part of why I'm a conservative. If you can have smarts, good intention and the love of a family member but still cannot be coerced into certain positive actions and choices, then how can the government, which is so much less than that bring about that result?

The money, energy and efforts wind up as wasted. That is why this trillion dollars much that yet again isn't going to infrastructure, will end up wasted. Finally professional and personal just aren't the same thing. People can give their child every opportunity and every bit of support and watch the walls still come crashing down. People are people. As an example I'm sure Obama's grandparents did a fantastic job of raising his mother but the reality is she ended up twice divorced and with two kids from two different marriages. Those aren't terrible things by themselves but are less than ideal.

I mean calling parenting into question when you've got 17 year olds is just hard on everyone. That is right at the age where the kids are a step below adults but in reality can manipulate and control just about every variable they want. It isn't about dictation but is more about negotiation. The best you can hope for is that they don't hurt themselves until they get old enough to reason a little better.

Quote:
When haven't you seen the media turn against a president in office?

I've never seen the media come of the sidelines like they have for Obama. I mean I remember the whole Clinton Camelot routine as well. However this is really the first time I can remember where the media just gave up all pretense of objectivity. We've gone from won't ask the tough followup to the whole basis of the interview and questions associated with it are just the campaign talking points. In short we can't question why he is flying oveseas and meeting with foreign leaders as a candidate when we only have one president at a time and we can't question why he won't comment on Gaza when we only have one president at a time. It signals he can uncritically do whatever he wants.

Quote:
Thanks you and your welcome. I find a lot of your gripes petty and insignificant to the larger scope of things. My conservative brother and sister are now gushing over Obama's appointments and the direction he is taking. Why aren't you?

Hey, you know how I feel about the pics so we both have areas we think the other can improve on. I'm not gushing over Obama because I have principles and they don't involving generating a pile of debt and printed cash to try to solve a problem. I have a memory that notes when the banks have to be bailed out for billions and a few months later Obama is already pressing them to make bad loans again, it will lead to even bigger bailouts.

In short I can't push aside the abandonment of capitalism and especially of moral hazard whereby we declare the reason the economy has stalled because we had winners and losers and the solution to that is the hand the losers a bunch of money and beg them to lose some more and finally not see the rinse and repeat cycle of that.

Obama as a human being is fine. His family is great. He clearly is a good husband and father. His daughters are cute as buttons and hopefully won't be messed up by Washington and the trade-offs of a public life associated with being president. There's nothing to dislike about him on a personal level, the differences are with policy for me.

Quote:
Oh PLEASE. Did you see her interview with Sean Hannity? I know you did, but I should repost this for others to watch if they hadn't.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three.

She did amazingly well. I wonder why...

Twenty minutes of softball goodness, that's why.

I didn't see it. I don't watch Hannity. I'll watch the links that you posted though so thanks. Softball goodness is all Obama has had for interviews so I hope that any omissions in his abilities are known and compensated for instead of making us pay for them as a country. The media hasn't done their job but reality will and I hope the result isn't bad for us.

Quote:
Ha ha. "The Coulter Effect"

I'm tired, goodnight.

Yeah anyone who has seen Coulter get interviewed understands it. SNL tried to do something about it and I saw it based on the link from their front page. It was pretty much the most unfunny political thing I've seen this year.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #304 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

As an example I'm sure Obama's grandparents did a fantastic job of raising his mother but the reality is she ended up twice divorced and with two kids from two different marriages. Those aren't terrible things by themselves but are less than ideal.

Tomorrow Barack will be our President.

Go figure.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #305 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I didn't see it. I don't watch Hannity.

If you didn't watch it, why am I even arguing about any of this?
post #306 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

If you didn't watch it, why am I even arguing about any of this?

I once had a long argument with SDW about Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, until he admitted that he hadn't even read it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #307 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumpy View Post

Softball goodness is all Obama has had for interviews so I hope that any omissions in his abilities are known and compensated for instead of making us pay for them as a country. The media hasn't done their job but reality will and I hope the result isn't bad for us.

Nick. Here is a serious question.

After seeing Barack Obama campaign and speak for the last year or so, do you honestly believe that there is any chance of him being less competent than George Bush?

It's just that George Bush is an international laughing stock who has brought your nation to the edge of ruin. So I'm wondering what special rules apply to Democratic presidents.

Edit: Another question.

Just so as know... where you're really coming from, would you prefer that Sarah Palin were president?
post #308 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

It's just that George Bush is an international laughing stock who has brought your nation to the edge of ruin. So I'm wondering what special rules apply to Democratic presidents.

Maybe if teh media hadn't waited until the day before Bush left office to start calling him on everything he's done in the past eight years, we wouldn't be as screwed as we are now.
post #309 of 383
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #310 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

If you didn't watch it, why am I even arguing about any of this?

Well I did say this....

I didn't see it. I don't watch Hannity. I'll watch the links that you posted though so thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I once had a long argument with SDW about Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, until he admitted that he hadn't even read it.

These was once a long argument with me in here when I found a false claim in the Franken book. People declared left and right that I hadn't read it because I didn't want to go RE-READ it to find the error and the man didn't have any index or endnotes. Finally I went and found the page and paragraph and told them to shut the hell up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Nick. Here is a serious question.

After seeing Barack Obama campaign and speak for the last year or so, do you honestly believe that there is any chance of him being less competent than George Bush?

It's just that George Bush is an international laughing stock who has brought your nation to the edge of ruin. So I'm wondering what special rules apply to Democratic presidents.

Edit: Another question.

Just so as know... where you're really coming from, would you prefer that Sarah Palin were president?

I don't think speaking ability, especially with a teleprompter has anything to do with good decision making. I do believe that Barack Obama could be profoundly less competent than Bush because he is not saying he will radically alter the actions of Bush, but instead will do them much more stridently. Obama as an example is not the candidate of peace. He is the candidate of a better war. So for example he hasn't said bring the troops home, but instead bring them to Afghanistan.

Even though I disagree with what Bush is doing, I can see the point of the nation building. We did it in Japan and Germany and those countries have helped stablize regions of the world. My view is that we still have a massive military and big presence there so it isn't so much peace as lack of war when someone has a big stick. That sort of cost we cannot afford anymore but the claim is that if we don't somehow sustain that effort the world will fall to shit.

I may be heartless but my view is, let the world fall to shit. Let Europe worry about their own backyard. Let Japan rearm and police the Pacific. Focus us on alternative energy and stop giving cash to inferior societal models.

I am especially worried about Obama with regard to spending. I'm going to use an analogy for two reasons, one it will make what I am saying clearer and two, it will drive Midwinter nuts and perhaps he will go punch someone over at Sundance. I'm personally rooting for the latter.

Suppose you got yourself deep into debt. Let's say you are close to bankrupt. You are 30, and have 50,000£ of debt while earning 60,000£ a year. It is a deep hole and so you decide that you need to "change" and go do something that radically adds to your debt, but you hope it will also radically alter your earning ability. You decide to go to law school and immediately take on another 100,000£ of debt.

Now the question is, if you actually use the money wisely, go to school and graduate, then you will end up in a better place. With so much debt it wouldn't be incredibly, life-changing better but you will have a better upward path, more money to address your problems, more opportunities, etc.

However suppose you don't "change" and instead you don't pass the bar, fail several classes and now have the same earnings potential as before, but now have triple the debt.

You are completely and totally fucked.

People are spending sums in the U.S. that are on par with what it took to fight a two front war during WWII and help rebuild all of Europe afterward.

If that were guaranteed to go for infrastructure and true improvements, say funding alternative energy source, getting us several nuclear power plants, etc. say a war to end our dependence on foreign oil, then I would be happy about rolling the dice.

Instead though the house draft of this bill has come out and it contains token spending on those types of issues and huge chunks of it are just giveaways and income redistribution done even bigger.

That won't fix anything and the U.S. is bad enough off financially that there isn't a strike one or two. This is strike three. We will be done.

As for preferring Palin, I don't know if she has enough to get it done either. I'm actually very glad to have Democrats in power because with the media being on their side, you can't defeat their ideas in the realm of discussion. You have to let the fuck-ups occur and let people see reality. In short I'm hoping people will change when we hit rock bottom and there isn't anything for John Stewart and Stephen Colbert to make fun of anymore without someone punching them in the face.

As a quick example, right or wrong about starting the war in Iraq, it has actually been a very EFFICIENT war in terms of deaths and dollars per capita. If we agree that all military action has a cost, this one has actually cost very little for the result it has achieved.

The very strange reasoning out there seems to be, that since Republicans didn't achieve utopia with very little, we have simultaneously achieve a "big lift" and fix the problem immediately with massive spending and energy and secondarily it probably still won't be utopia but it will be "better" than what Republicans did while the cost goes up 500%.

Quick sample:

D: During the Clinton years we had surpluses and Bush gave those up with tax cuts and a war based on lies.

ME: So what do you propose to do about it?

D: We aren't leaving, but will spend more to "win the peace" in Afghanistan and then we will run trillion dollar deficits for a few years at home to fix the economic damage.

ME: How does spending trillions and not ending the war fix overspending and bad wars?

D: Hope and change dude, hope and change, don't be a downer, jump on the bandwagon!

This is part of why I have looked into the generational angle. I'm not sure there is a Boomer Republican out there who can get us back to the mindset that we had of trying to balance budgets and stop being a cop to the world. The 1994 Republicans had those goals for a while. I'm not sure anyone Democratic or Republican has them now with regard to boomer and they have the power reigns for now. I see a boomer generation scared, printing and tossing money at problems right before their retirement years. They want the bright youngest brother(Obama) to fix what they never addressed their entire adult lives. It won't happen and it doesn't look good in my view.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #311 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

But they apologized!

B-b-but McClatchy and Knight Ridder! Pre-War Coverage. Doubts...

Going It Alone...

Quote:
When the New York Times apologized to readers May 26 for not being "more aggressive" in examining the administration's decision to invade Iraq, editors couldn't help but give a nod to a less-vaunted news organization that had been beating the Times on the story for some time: Knight Ridder's Washington bureau.

The contrast in coverage was stark at times. On September 8, 2002, the Times proclaimed in a front-page headline, "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts." Knight Ridder had two days earlier proclaimed, "Lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons worries top U.S. officials." Knight Ridder continued with headlines like "Troubling questions over justification for war in Iraq" and "Failure to find weapons in Iraq leads to intelligence scrutiny," even as most other major media outlets sang a tune more in line with the Bush administration.

It wasn't until February that Michael Massing bestowed some of the first accolades on Knight Ridder, writing in The New York Review of Books: "Almost alone among national news organizations, Knight Ridder had decided to take a hard look at the administration's justifications for war."

A few weeks earlier, Knight Ridder Washington reporters Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay received the Raymond Clapper Memorial award from the Senate Press Gallery for their coverage of the sketchy intelligence used to justify war with Iraq.

For about a year-and-a-half, the pair had filed compelling stories on the issue and, on many occasions, it seemed like they were banging the drum alone. It wasn't until earlier this year, when it became increasingly apparent Hussein had not been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, that other news outlets grew more critical of the administration.

Strobel says their conclusions came from a lot of extra digging and source-building they were forced to do without the red-carpet access to high-level officials that some of the nation's top media outlets enjoy.

Oh well, at least they were rewarded...in 2008.

Quote:
Walcott was honored for leading a team of reporters whose skeptical coverage of the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons programs in the months before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 was largely unmatched by other news outlets — and also largely ignored by policymakers.

"This is belated recognition of the powerful work done by Walcott in directing his colleagues in developing stories that were unappreciated and almost totally unnoticed at the time," Bob Giles, the Nieman Foundation's curator, said in announcing the award. "Because so many journalists fell short in their pre-Iraq war coverage, there's a real need to recognize this dogged editor who went about his business in a resolute way to challenge many of the justifications for the war that proved to be false."

\
post #312 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I don't think speaking ability, especially with a teleprompter has anything to do with good decision making.

SARAH PALIN 2012!

You really believed all that stuff on littlegreenfootballs and redstate and powerline!

I can only encourage you, from the bottom of my heart, to continue exchanging ideas with this community, so in touch with the 'real' aspirations of 'real' Americans.
post #313 of 383
Nick is absolutely correct: Sarah Palin's biggest problem is poor speaking ability.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #314 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Entire rant/screed/manifesto edited out for the sake of clarity.

Check. Check. Check. Check.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #315 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Check. Check. Check. Check.

I, for one, especially liked reading about the multiple face punchings he gleefully envisions.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #316 of 383
Oh, nothing.
post #317 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Oh, nothing.

Oh no, Hassan. You cannot give up. America is facing an enormous crisis at the moment: the chief of staff of the POTUS is still not under the bus.

I suspect that this is connected to the email I just got from someone is part of the email whisper campaign stuff. I quote the salient bits:

Quote:
TOO BAD OUR BRILLIANT NEW JUNIOR HIGH ADMINISTRATION CAN'T SEE THIS/by the way--did you see the new Junior High White House unravel/implode yesterday at the news conference? The incompetence/ineptness is 1,000 times worse than we thought--even the Liberal media is missing President Bush-they are frustrated
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #318 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Oh no, Hassan. You cannot give up. America is facing an enormous crisis at the moment: the chief of staff of the POTUS is still not under the bus.

Yeah, I was waiting for an updated bus schedule. Dang, this thing is LATE. Did it have a flat tire somewhere in the middle of nowhere?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #319 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Yeah, I was waiting for an updated bus schedule. Dang, this thing is LATE. Did it have a flat tire somewhere in the middle of nowhere?

I've heard that Obama signed an executive order that will throw Rahm under the bus eventually, but in the mean time they are studying the issue and eventually will get around to starting the bus in a year or so.

Or was that Guantanamo Bay......

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #320 of 383
This just in from GloboNewsInternationalWorldNews. It looks like it's all over for Rahm.


Quote:
ᄌᄆᄀᄢ Rahm Emanuelطبسגגסءطبᄌᄆᄀᄢاسرائيل تدافع عن استخدامها الفوسفور الابيض
اسرائيل تصر على انها استخدمت الفوسفور الابيض في هجومها على غزة بشكل لا يخالف القا "scream scream in pains"نون الدول"large bus"ي، واولمرت يكلف وزير العدل سسثځةةةᡂᡉᠸןןןללᄌᄆᄀᄢطبسגגסءطبᄌᄆᄀᄢسسثځةةةᡂᡉᠸ東京五 輪招致 "thrown under"、国会決議に暗雲 都
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool