I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Good to see a little more backbone from WaPo
Attention, Washington Press Corps!Please memorize the following phrase and use it often: What did the president know and when did he know it?
The noose is tightening.
Go to CNN poll: "How do you rate the amount of media coverage of Reagan's funeral?"
http://www.cnn.com/
"too much" >60% right now
Am I missing something?
I am a Bush-hater and I'm sure, based on the legal memos etc., that it does go to the top, but I'm not so sure that this particular report provides much evidence that that is so. Of course the White House was interested in the information that might come out of Abu Ghraib, but the key is linking the interrogation techniques to the White House, not just the desire for information.
Good to see a little more backbone from WaPo...
Maybe that upcoming 30th anniversary of Tricky Dick's resignation is reminding them of something...
OT and perhaps beating a dead horse - but here's a morning rant fueled by coffee and a hangover from watching the sun set in Whitey, I mean, Simi Valley.
But back to yesterday's thread about the Reagan economic expansion. There's an even larger issue to be made here about the economic recovery of the 1980s. Here it is - whereas all economic expansions of the 20th century (before Reagan) were, to use metaphor, rising tides that lifted all boats, the Reagan expansion benefitted only those better off. For those with college or graduate degrees, wages improved substantially; however, for those with high school education or less, wages declined.
This isn't arcane academic knowledge - it's been all over the papers at different points in the past decade. How has this little inconvenient fact been forgotten - particularly in the talk about Reagan Democrats, many of whom lost their jobs under the leadership of Dutch.
What has taken the WaPo so long to wake up?
Bushboy should be impeached and indicted for Abu Ghraib atrocities, the outing of Valerie Plame and the lies leading to the Iraqnam folly.
Any of the above are more serious and more lethal than getting a blow job in the Oval Office.
Or at least what I remember about oral sex.
Last rant on Reagan:
I am sick of hearing how Reagan "made us feel good about ourselves." In terms of history, that will be his albatross, not his salvation.
Leaders don't make us feel good about ourselves. That's candy for the baby. Leaders make us do what we need to do, in spite of our selfishness. That's what makes us realize, later, they were right, and we were wrong, and thank [whatever] that they were in charge.
Lincoln is universally revered today. He made us do what we didn't want to do: preserve the Union. He made us fight a war and end slavery and do other things that were not popular nor widely regarded, and none of it, in his presidency, made us "feel good about ourselves."
But now how do we feel, when we think of Lincoln?
The adoration of Reagan is the adoration of Narcissus for her reflection. It is potentially fatal if indulged too long, but it is certainly in error. If Reagan made us "feel good about ourselves again," it will eventually be seen as the worst thing he could have done, and a sign of what a poor leader he was.
By the time any of this gets played out, the election will be over.
OT: God, I hope Scott Simon doesn't try and do some weepy-eyed bit on Raygun this morning.
the key is linking the interrogation techniques to the White House, not just the desire for information.
Desire does matter, especially given that the memos detail how would take the order of the president to sidestep international law and treaties.
It is, as I understand it, their argument that the president is outside the bounds of law, and if he so decrees, the laws become null and void, allowing for whatever interegation techniques come down from on high.....
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We all thought what he'd said in December 2000 was just another Bushism:
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
Turns out, nope, it wasn't a Bushism at all, but rather an executive order. Welcome to the Monkey House.
The Thorn Papers...
Y'all come by now
What the White House staff was interested in was knowing how long the insurrection would continue to imperil the re-election prospects of Bush.
My Mom is visiting, so she flipped on the T.V. Ron Reagan, Jr. was talking. Absolutely brilliant. He commented on his Dad on thinking God spared him after the shooting to want him to do good -- "He viewed it as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."
Wow. What a slam on W!
Give to Hoeffel!
OT: God, I hope Scott Simon doesn't try and do some weepy-eyed bit on Raygun this morning.
My reflex this morning was to turn on NPR, but my instincts told me not to.
Now I know why.
If Simon started waxing eloquent (i.e., "weepy") on Reagan, I'd smash every radio in the house.
I understand the "good" Ron Reagan, the deceased and former president's son wrote a piece for a major magazine that was scathingly critical of Bushboy & the Goopers and their crass attempt to politically exploit Reagan's death (as they do everything).
Does anyone know which magazine this article appeared in?
If Reagan made us "feel good about ourselves again," it will eventually be seen as the worst thing he could have done, and a sign of what a poor leader he was.
Robert M. Jeffers
I'm digging it.
Is the REagan canonization orgy finally over????
Can I come out and play now?
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
Interesting historical tid-bit (picked up from my daughter's 6th grade history class).
The word "dictator" goes back to the Roman Empire (and we get it directly, apparently, from the Latin).
The "dictator" was a supreme commander, appointed in times of crisis to run the government and the military, a term limited to six months (Julius Caesar was a dictator, and decided, based on his popularity, to extend his term forever. This is why Brutus, et al., turned on him).
The dictator ran the military and the government without interference, until the crisis was over or the six months had run.
Interesting that Bush now wants to declare an "endless" crisis, and arrogate to himself all power over both the government and the military. And that we talk constantly of America as the "New Rome."
What's that French saying about the more things change, the more they stay the same?
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Nancy Reagan and Ron Reagan endorsed Kerry for the presidency because of Bushboy's cowardly cave-in to the religious right on Stem Cell research?
Goopers would be apoplectic!
The Gipper's legacy might make one small step toward redemption.
And if if I can expand on that a litte, we're supposed to be a nation trying to become better. Reagan let many believe that we didn't have to really do the hard things to become better, we could just tell us that we were the best and leave it at that.
BushCo promising you more in Nov '04:
torture
theocracy
tax-free police state
vote the totalitarian ticket!!!
*******
Write your Representative and ask for impeachment hearings!
*******
Here is a sample letter I wrote here. You can find your rep here.
Rudy - Salon.com
Reagan let many believe that we didn't have to really do the hard things to become better, we could just tell us that we were the best and leave it at that.
Exactly. Ever so much easier to tell ourselves how grand we are, than to do the real work of improvement.
Why, we might have weaned ourselves from foreign oil if we'd decided we weren't entitled to all the world's fuel supplies.
And we might have decided we had an obligation to care for the mentally ill, rather than putting them all on the streets.
And we might have been appalled when Reagan bragged that there were more homeless shelters at the end of his Administration, than at the beginning. (Because before he took office, the number of homeless in America was so negligible the word didn't exist in the public vocabulary).
But since we were so busy "feeling good about ourselves," we blamed the homeless for their plight, decided oil was our God-given right, and reduced medical care, all the while convincing ourselves ours was the best medical system on the planet.
Feeling good about yourself is great; but when it's based on nothing but lies and delusion, what good is it? How long can you lie to yourself before reality catches up?
I assume that this trail leads straight to Ann Veneman, President Bush's Secretary of Agriculture. No one else could possibly keep track of all those bad apples.
The White House was unable to provide an immediate explanation.
I love that.
This guy, Lt. Col Steven Jordan is a Pentacostal chaplain... or was in 2003, if he is the same guy... like unto Ashkkkroft...
Max Blumenthal has the links...
http://maxblumenthal.blogspot.co...torture-
is.html
This is going to be very very interesting...
Ron Reagan, Jr. was talking. Absolutely brilliant.
He's the only sane one in that family.
"Interesting that Bush now wants to declare an "endless" crisis, and arrogate to himself all power over both the government and the military. And that we talk constantly of America as the "New Rome."
Endless crisis=more civillian surveliance. Plot is cementing. Must
stop Bush before he erradicates indepedant thought.
Nothing to see here.
Just a few bad apples.
Those apples?
George "Wine Sap" Bush
Dick "Gravenstein" Cheney
Paul "Empire" Wolfowitz
Condoleeza "Granny Smith" Rice
Donald "Spartan" Rumsfeld
Richard "Jonalicious" Perle
These are war crimes, punishable by death- not just impeachment.
This wapo report is two days old.
You should see today's paper. Front page, top 1-column head, with the rest of the head on Reagan.
This 1-col head is:
General Granted Latitude At Abu Ghraib Prison
The report screws Gen. Sanchez big time.
Wapo has documents that show Sanchez approved the interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib.
Read the report at Wapo site.
NEW YORK, NY – June 10, 2004 – The Bush Administration is committing war crimes and other serious violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of routine policy, according to a report released today by the Center for Economic and Social Rights. The report, Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq, documents ten categories of war crimes and rights violations regularly committed by U.S. forces.
"Torture is only the tip of the iceberg," said Roger Normand, an international lawyer who directs the Center. "From unlawful killings, mass arrests, and collective punishment to outright theft and pillage, the U.S. is violating almost every law intended to protect civilians living under foreign military occupation."
The report blames the Bush Administration for misusing the war against terrorism to exempt itself from the Geneva Conventions and other legal norms, creating a climate of impunity in which ordinary soldiers feel free to torture and abuse Iraqis. Rather than scapegoat those caught on camera, the report recommends that George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and other responsible U.S. officials be held accountable for war crimes resulting from their policies.
CESR is a UN authorized human rights org.
Heres another one.
Amnesty International lent its voice to mostly Democratic critics of the policy and called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners detained or interrogated by the United States, including whether Administration officials are criminally liable for acts of torture or guilty of war crimes, the organization stated.
Well, this makes the THIRD international body calling for war crimes
The report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights notes that leaders of the countries concerned have condemned rights violations and have pledged to bring those responsible to justice.
But "it is imperative that this be done, with accountability to the international community," it asserted and called for appointment of an international ombudsman on human rights and humanitarian law.
Wapo has documents that show Sanchez approved the interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib.
That's only part of it. The article goes on to say that Sanchez approved the tactics for Abu Ghraib after Maj. Gen. Miller brought them over from Guantanamo ... and that Rumsfeld approved them for use in Guantanamo.
Which leaves us one step from the morally unfit stain in the Oval Office himself.
Post with excerpts, commentary and more Google-bombing at Needlenose.
Let's see. 3 different departments, WH, Pentagon, Justice.
All three had political appointee lawyers spend weeks writing up BS opinions that w did not have to obey the law.
w says he can not recall seeing these reports.
WHY would 3 different depts spend weeks writing up "justification" for torture reports, UNLESS w asked them to?
From the Artist Formerly Known as WH'ho, via email:
Thank god we have blogs to break these important stories. This was a Digby scoop, right, Atrios?
As you know from my previous comments on the importance of blogs (well, of some blogs), I'm just messin' with you. Seriously though, I notice that breaking these kinds of stories nets precisely NO positive response from Eschatonistas, who take it as a matter of course that the media can obtain any secret memo anytime it wants.
"What has taken the WaPo so long to wake up?"
Have you seriously missed the rest of WaPo's coverage of Abu Ghraib? Or the stories about how the WH suppressed info about the Medicare bill? Or the pieces on how the WH was going to cut a series of domestic programs in its next budget?
Here's a question for all of the media critics in here (with a special shout-out to four legs, renato, Athenae, Tena, pansypoo and other sparring partners I had in here before the Secret Police got me), do you think that blogs are having, or are going to have, the same impact on media that television did in the 1950s? (I'm thinking of the way John Chancellor's coverage of Little Rock battles over school integration revolutionized the media).
Also, did anyone in here notice that there was only one question that Bush tried to cut off repeatedly at his Savannah press conference? We're trying to figure out what to read into it.
My understanding--and I believe I heard this on Pacifica--was that four former prison officials had been hired by BushCo to oversee at least some aspects of prisons in Iraq. All of them, if memory serves, had been accused of allowing or encouraging prisoner abuse of a very similar type to that in Abu Ghraib. One was from Arizona, and had actually been forced from his post in disgrace after the media learned about the stripping, sexual humiliation and abuse of prisoners.
Haven't seen this in any major papers, though. Anyone else?
Also, did anyone in here notice that there was only one question that Bush tried to cut off repeatedly at his Savannah press conference?
...and may i have the envelope please?
The more we complain about this the more these people will start accepting it just out of spite.
The same people who wouldn't hesitate to lynch a black man and set his body on fire alongside the sign of the southern cross, are the same people who advocate the use of torture.
Then there are those who are so sheepish and buglike in their fears that they cannot stand up and be heard. They'd rather get in line behind the person(the Prez') or people(republicans) whom they've chosen to look upon as father figures on whose lap they can sit and be told how things will be ok if they just trust mommy and daddy.
So when it comes to torture, we should be trying to alienate the sheep from the bigots. We should play on their fears like the bigots do, by appealing to other instincts that are more noble, but at the same time more primal.
It's all just so messy that even I don't want to bother with it.
MYOB'
.
Sometimes I don't get Wh' Ho - reads the site but doesn't seem to get it. The media is a collective, criticisms of "the media" are directed at that as such.
Sure, good reporters deserve more praise, yada yada yada, but the last thing those reporters need is "Left wing blogger atrios says XX XXXX is his favorite reporter."
The media fails to adequately educate this public every day, despite plenty of good work by plenty of good reporters.
And, for the most part, the more "public" reporters are - the more their work is amplified by other media appearances - the more clueless they are.
In an age where stories get amplified by the echo machine, and only those stories get much attention, a media which fails to amplify the truly important ones is failing, particularly when the amplification machine is hideously slanted in favor of, at the moment, official power.
As horrible as much of the media was during the Clinton years, at least then they were "in opposition." Now they're spokesmen -- and, yes, once again, despite the good work by many good reporters.
From TAFKAWH'ho, via email:
karlstumpf, Bush really only showed annoyance, and even anger, at two questions.
The first was the follow-up on the torture issue, in which the reporter said that he was not satisfied with the "I ordered it all to be legal" answer because of all the efforts to draft an argument that it was legal. But Bush didn't cut that one off.
The one he tried to cut off, repeatedly, was about Plame, and whether Bush knew that Cheney had been quizzed by investigators and whether Bush stood by his promise to fire whoever was behind the leak.
The transcript, which you can read on the WH site, doesn't do it justice. Bush looked away from the reporter and repeatedly cut off the question, looked obviously annoyed and irritated by the question. We're all trying to figure out just how bad things are getting inside if that's the public face of the WH reaction, especially at a press conference in which he was mostly joke-y and fairly "on."
...Thanks, butterpat...
i did get all fuzzy and 'comforted' by Dub's torture answer, but dint hear about the Cheney-Plame cutoff/annoyance... did he stick out his little lower lip and scowl? those mean ol' media-sheep gonna get the silent treatment?
More from the 'ho:
Atrios, the problem with your rationale for firing broadsides at "The Media" is that you end up commingling Chris Matthews with John Burns, Paula Zahn with Mike Allen, Dick Morris with Ron Fournier, Judith Miller with Walter Pincus, when in fact they could not be more distinct. This is, in my opinion, lefty Coulterism, and must be challenged at every turn.
So maybe I don't "get" the site. I admit that I thought I did: A clearinghouse for news, drawing attention to information and analysis that doesn't get noticed or gets drowned out by the flood of crap in today's media. That's certainly why I "use" your blog, and Josh's, and Kos, and others.
"for the most part, the more 'public' reporters are - the more their work is amplified by other media appearances - the more clueless they are."
I don't disagree with that observation, and I think you've been very smart in your takedown of the Reagan myths (expansion, popularity, etc) and the apparent refusal of reporters to go back and look at their own coverage of Reagan for real-time criticism of the man when he was in office.
BTW, I recommend "On Bended Knee" to anyone who hasn't read it (and if you have time, Crouse's "Boys on the Bus" ought to sober up people who say that the media only started to suck in recent times).
The hiring of contractors to interrogate is totally against military regulations, because of security of intelligence obtained.
SHORTER BUSH
The law is whatever I say it is.
There is a claim that the ENTIRE document that Ass Crack refuses to release will be on the internet Monday- site undisclosed.
When you piss off the State Dept, CIA, FBI, and professional military, leaks are impossible to stop.
This is, in my opinion, lefty Coulterism, and must be challenged at every turn.
This statement lacks perspective and a sense of scale.
Atrios, the problem with your rationale for firing broadsides at "The Media" is that you end up commingling Chris Matthews with John Burns, Paula Zahn with Mike Allen, Dick Morris with Ron Fournier, Judith Miller with Walter Pincus, when in fact they could not be more distinct. This is, in my opinion, lefty Coulterism, and must be challenged at every turn.
So there's a war on generalities as well as metaphor? It seems to me that when Atrios complains about the media, we all KNOW what he means. He's talking about the overall effect of the media as it's structured. I don't think anyone here leaps to the conclusion that anybody who works in media is a corrupt hack. On the contrary, Atrios and other posters routinely praise not only good journalists, but questionable journalists who (for once) write good stories.
Given the day-to-day discourse here, use of "the Media" seems like perfectly acceptable shorthand, and very far from "Coulterism" indeed...particularly since I'd define Coulterism as gleeful lying with malice aforethought.
Conflating conscious, vicious dishonesty with (at best) sloppy terminology might fly with the "spinsanity" crowd, but it doesn't wash with me.
Oops. First, I didn't treat "media" as a plural. Second, I should've said "sloppy terminology (at WORST)."
Sorry about that. It's still early out here in California...whaddaya want from me?
...you end up commingling Chris Matthews with John Burns, Paula Zahn with Mike Allen, Dick Morris with Ron Fournier, Judith Miller with Walter Pincus...
I don't think this is true at all. From what I've seen, Atrios always focuses his ire first on the individual hacks by name, then perhaps secondarily on the powers behind the hack (or the atmosphere that tolerates/encourages hackdom).
As in nearly all fields, the people trying to do good, honest work are swimming upstream in a river of BS. I think Atrios conveys that situation.
From from the 'ho:
Well, I'm certainly sorry that my use of the Evil One's name drowned out my broader point about how unfair it is to lump together sub-moronic TV hairdos with hard-working journeymen and -women.
I know that this comes across as a whiiiiiiine on my part, and I'm sorry to take up both time and bandwidth with it. But part of my complaint has to do with the previous thread about reporters not risking their lives to bring you guys "the truth." I don't know Frank Gardner (the BBC guy shot in Saudi) well, but I met him a couple of times. Smart guy. I know my outlet's team in Iraq, and hear the stories you never will about how they come under fire by both U.S. forces and insurgents. And it really makes me angry to see people use "The Media" to mean both those people and the wretched, status-hungry nitwits who populate our airwaves.
But apologies to Atrios for even hinting that his approach has any meaningful links to She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
RR was great man for WHITES ONLY.
and georgie is worse.
WH'Ho , your comments are fascinating and very comforting to know that the WH reporters are not all of the same ilk. You are always welcome to this site, even if he has to go through an indirect email route.
Atrios as well as the hangers on here,
we all know that the media are not monolithic. As Philalethes pointed upthread, Atrios always points to a particular report and the reporter at fault. We treat with great respect reporters like NYT's John Burns, Wapo's Walter Pincus, Mike Allen,
Dana Milbank. And the list gets pretty thin after that. No one cares for Dick Morris here; but why is Judith Miller still kept on the beat? Why Tim Russert, Judy Woodruff go off on tangent with lies and nothing but lies? Elizabeth Bumiller with her hero worship? How do we expose them and stop them? That is the frustration. There is nothing we can do, except shout here till our throats are sore, but it accomplishes nothing. That is where thoughtful reporters like you can help by shaming and correcting those reporters.
Peer pressure and peer shaming are what is needed.
WH'Ho, any thoughts on that?
The 'ho for ecoast (and I'm going to work, so the 'ho has to reach his sibling to get stuff on here from now on):
Bumiller's a tough one. I don't think she's quite as hero-worship driven as you think. She's written her share of tough pieces.
Judith Miller, on the other hand, is not a tough call. She ought to be gone, daddy, gone. But in a world that gives George Will a pass for his work with Reagan, and rewards Barnicle with a TV show, I'm not optimistic that anyone will do much about it.
Russert is a weird bird. There's a group of reporters and journalists (I draw a distinction between news-providers and news-analysis-comment people) that basically went nuts during impeachment and have never been the same. Russert is one. He used to be regarded, quite fairly, as the best follow-up questioner in the biz. He's still good, but there's no mistaking which team he's rooting for. Krauthammer used to be a must-read (though not must-agree) foreign affairs writer ("cast your mind back not so long ago" if I may quote Asia), but when he started writing about impeachment something snapped, and he's basically been impossible to stomach.
Ecoast, I don't know if you saw my pre-Secret Police posts, but my refrain is "more howler, less mediawhoresonline" (with the exception that contacting reporters, editors and other media types is pretty useful). If you write "I hate you, you hummer-giving hack," don't expect much. But most of the print reporters I know read their email, and take criticism pretty seriously. Ditto for the editors and publishers.
(more coming)
last from me for the 'ho:
On a day to day basis, I'm as frustrated as you are.
I'm honestly not sure what the impact of blogs will be on the mainstream media. Some are trying to co-opt the phenomenon (WaPo, TNR). Some are trying to dismiss it (FoxNews). Only a handful of my colleagues, in a totally unscientific survey, even knew what a blog was. (Not to depress you further, but "what's a blug" was the answer from one under-40 colleague).
If I had the time, I would put together a blog that combined all of the best stories from the best outlets in a kind of virtual paper (this is something Atrios effectively does on his best days). Imagine a virtual paper in which you don't read Miller except for the fact-check, where Barton Gellman's piece isn't A30 but front page, where Mark Knoller's amazing institutional memory gets op-ed placement, where Mike Allen's straight news WH piece sits side-by-side with Dana Milbank's more, um, colorful piece, where Kos' political analysis rides shotgun for the latest Gallup/Zogby polls, where David Sanger's North Korea story leads the foreign policy section...
The entire blogosphere provides this service, but imagine a one-stop.
I can dream, can't I?
wow! is anyone else jumping up and down at the use of the term "war crimes?"
mars, bitch!!!
and hey, 'ho: you're making progress. keep reading.
but wow! war crimes! i'm so giddy i could pee...
Hmm. Has WH 'ho been riding the airwaves lately?
WH'Ho, thank you for your quick response.
You have made several points for us to think and write about.
(I am worried that this thread will loseits freshness in a day, after another deluge of new posts from Atrios, what with Rumbaugh divorce and GWB's presidential library, and none of us will come back to this.)
Atrios - Would you find a way to keep this discussion current by pulling this up a new post?
Wh'Ho - I see your point re George Will and Krauthammer. But wapo gets away with it, because they are columnists. I will bear that, as long it gives us Harold Myerson and EJ Dionne on the op-ed page and Letters to the Editor in wapo are much more aggressive anyways. The thing with Little Russ (Okay, I caught myself before calling him Fat Russ, because of your admonition 
) is he is not a columnist. He is Wash Bureau chief and an interviewer. Whatever his opinions may be (didn't he say in interview with Howard Kurtz that he cleaned himself up from his Dem opinions when got into to TV?) he should not change facts. Atrios in a down posting showed how he twisted fact on Larry King. These TV guys have big megaphones, compared to what John Burns or Walter Pincus. Also did you notice John Burns is more outspoken when he comes on Charlie Rose on his personal opinions about the conduct of Iraq war, compared to his NYT dispatches?
My point is: Tim Russert, Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer, Lisa Myers,
Andrea Mitchell are twisting facts.
I even have a feeling, as Bush poll numbers are sinking, they are getting even more desperate and more outrageous in their distortions.
On your virtual newspaper point, actually you have a great idea and business model. I think you should approach your news organization
with this idea. I mean, Mark Halperin
does pretty much the same thing with
his Note on ABC. Wapo does with Howie Kurtz's online column and Jefferson Moreley's international media review column. IF you start that, you can easily get a 100,000 hits per day to start with. That's what these organizations are looking for - drive traffic to their web sites.
Also, don't give up, if your WH colleagues ask you "what's a blog?". Introduce them to some of the best blogs and explain to them patiently what goes on here. That would be
step 1, in the 12-step program.
Seymour Hersch has been quoted as saying that children were tortured in front of their parents in Iraq. I wonder why he hasn't written about this particulary horrific crime in his New Yorker pieces?
Is he under some pressure to be quiet now?
*
truthout has 50 pages of secret ok to torture memos.
Jenny from the blog- Heather Wilson R NM is backing d's on torture investigation.
Ot- but all the fucking "news" channels are STILL all Reagan all the time.
WH'ho:
regarding your "best of the blogs," such a thing is possible today.
On your own PC, install an "RSS Aggregator" like SharpReader:
RSS Aggregators
To build a web site that aggregates, you can run it on something like phpNuke or another content management system that provides for RSS Syndication.
Email me for more info if you like.
I'd like to join the chorus thanking WH'ho for his (or her) contributions. Rest assured that we know there are good reporters out there, and we do recognize them by name quite often. If we sometimes tar with an over-broad brush here at other times, it's out of profound frustration--think "Waiting to Exhale" and its depiction of men.
WH'ho, does "caught by the secret police" = "can't post from a certain work-related IP address anymore'? Otherwise, the significance of your changing your posting name from WH'ho (anonymous) to Butterpat (anonymous) escapes me, since you're still claiming the same identity and providing the same valuable info. Not a criticism, just wondering what I missed.
Russell Baker, the former New York Times columnist, got closer to the mark in the Dec. 18 issue of The New York Review of Books. "Today’s top-drawer Washington news- people ... belong to the culture for which the American political system works exceedingly well," he wrote. "The capacity for outrage had been bred out of them."
Across the Great Divide of Class
By Brent Cunningham, Columbia Journalism Review
http://www.alternet.org/story.ht...l?
StoryID=18759
From 'ho, via sis:
"Also did you notice John Burns is more outspoken when he comes on Charlie Rose on his personal opinions about the conduct of Iraq war, compared to his NYT dispatches?"
I did, ecoast. I think the world of Burns and his work. I think that the difference between what he puts in the paper and what he says in terms of his opinion is a useful and reasonable one (not that I have the standing to be judging Burns). He puts news in the paper. He puts his views on Charlie Rose.
The key thing to understand, and I've taken grief in here for this before, is that it's not Burns' job to express shock, outrage, anger, etc at the goings on. It's his job to report the goings on, in context, and let the reader draw their own conclusion.
What I mean by that is you shouldn't see "My god! Get a load of this outrage: The WH suppressed Medicare costs estimates to mislead the Congress into voting in favor of its bill" in the paper. You should see "The WH suppressed Medicare costs estimates to get the Congress to vote in favor of its bill" and let you supply the "These &^%$##@@#$$ need to be kicked out of office."
One is news, the other is news plus editorial.
Does that make sense?
"My point is: Tim Russert, Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer, Lisa Myers, Andrea Mitchell are twisting facts. I even have a feeling, as Bush poll numbers are sinking, they are getting even more desperate and more outrageous in their distortions."
Well, I'm sorry my opinion of Russ Minor didn't come through clearly enough. I don't disagree with your "twisting facts" point, but I wouldn't race to tie it to Bush's poll numbers. From what I know of them, they're not driven by his poll numbers but by their own ratings. And have you noticed what's happened to MTPress since Russert went quasi-con?
Quick story about Lisa Myers: She had a breathless piece, quoting all anonymous sources of course, about how Clarke had misrepresented the Millenium plot. The biggest problem with the piece? A local paper did all of the reporting, quoted all officials on record, about 20 months before Myers did her "but we have learned" thing. (the other problem: Clarke didn't say exactly what she claimed)
You're right that The Note is basically what I suggested, but I would broaden it a bit to social trends and science and entertainment, not just politics.
And don't get me started on Kurtz, please.
WH'ho, does "caught by the secret police" = "can't post from a certain work-related IP address anymore'? Otherwise, the significance of your changing your posting name from WH'ho (anonymous) to Butterpat (anonymous) escapes me, since you're still claiming the same identity and providing the same valuable info. Not a criticism, just wondering what I missed.
Turbo, WH'ho is emailing his posts to someone (Butterpat) and posting them with one level of indirection - or even two levels, if Butterpat is not his sibling. But let us focus on the content.
'ho via sis:
Turbonium, ecoast it's a thin line, but I'm sending emails to a friend (Butterpat - he just went to work and is out of commission) and to my sister ('ho's sistah, >) for posting in here.
I'm hopelessly technologically illiterate (so jac, your offer is great but it may as well be in Chinese), but the way my boss and our techs explained it to me, they can tell the difference between me reading Eschaton (which is okay) and me posting to Eschaton (which will get me in trouble) via a simple filter.
In other words, they aren't reading the threads to see if I'm here.
So I'm going around the filter.
BBC 9/23/01
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.
ISN"T IT TIME to DEMAND the truth????
What I mean by that is you shouldn't see "My god! Get a load of this outrage: The WH suppressed Medicare costs estimates to mislead the Congress into voting in favor of its bill" in the paper. You should see "The WH suppressed Medicare costs estimates to get the Congress to vote in favor of its bill" and let you supply the "These &^%$##@@#$$ need to be kicked out of office."
A frequent failure, though, is that what we see is not
"The WH suppressed Medicare costs estimates to get the Congress to vote in favor of its bill"
but
"The WH suppressed Medicare costs estimates to get the Congress to vote in favor of its bill" -- Democrats say.
Making the entire issue, y'know, factesque.
your offer is great but it may as well be in Chinese
Yo, 'ho:
Try this story, as I am a hopeless geek who probably can't explain it in English.
RSS stands for "really simple syndication." It exists to do exactly what you suggest - take "feeds" from websites like Eschaton (look down below the Heoffel Cashometer on the left side of the home page and look for the "XML" button and the "Alternative XML/RSS Feed" link. The latter - http://atrios.blogspot.com/rss/atrios.xml - is entered into SharpReader just like a "Favorite" or a "Bookmark" in your web browser.
You'll find the RSS feed to Josh Marshall's site here, and feeds are a common feature of news-oriented sites.
Email's up above if you want any help - register a blind account and shoot me one.
WH'ho, thanks for clarifying. I certainly agree with ecoast that the content deserves more focus than does the delivery mechanism. I'm happy to read WH'ho's posts even if they're sent via smoke signal. Still, it would be highly disconcerting if someone were actively trying to enjoin WH'ho from talking with us. A blanket restriction on posting to blogs from work computers, OTOH, is commnplace and nowhere near as insidious. I'm glad to learn that's all we're talking about in this case.
'ho (or his simulacrum):
OK. You seem a decent egg and you portray your compatriots as well-meaning (for the most part.)
Have you ever come under pressure to "re-emphasize" a story from your editors?
.
Seems to me the entire voyage of the Teflon Casket was rife with comparisons negative toward poor old dumb Dubya. Reagan could walk, Reagan could talk, you could trust Reagan's word, non Americans liked Reagan, Reagan was kind, Reagan was elegant...to me they might as well have said, Dubya can't walk, talk or be trusted and so on.
I didn't watch but enjoyed RR jr's "not a mandate" slam on the tinny Texan as mush as I enjoyed watching Dubya's half-hearted casket stroking...Always thinking of himself, Bushie had to be imagining the cardboard casket and nonceremonial bonfire in his sad future.
One last one for the 'ho:
Click Me
A screenshot of Sharpreader installed and working.
Damn Haloscan
- Click Me Instead
The cruel treatment of Iraqi inmates at a Baghdad prison was approved by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top US general in Iraq, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
Sanchez approved senior officials at Abu Ghraib prison to "use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of bread and water on detainees whenever they wished," said the newspaper, citing US government documents.
Wh'Ho - Great example, that Lisa Myer's story, or non-story. That was exactly my point - she has 10M audience for her megaphone. You knew the real story behind her report, you won't be able to point that out through your news channel and so the real story is limited to just Atrios blog. How we do rectify that?
How do we correct stories immediately with almost the same impact. Then just the threat that their reports are being tracked, watched and get played will make these lazy reporters a bit more cautious. Another example, Little Russ - Russ Minor, I like that - two days ago on Larry King said that the week-long Reagan thing was a positive thing for Bush since conservative Repub values were being celebrated and how could it not be a good thing for Bush? At the same time, he said Clinton's book would not be good for Kerry, because it would suck oxygen from Kerry, even when Larry King was prompting him to say that Clinton would plug kerry at every book stop, he wouldn't bite.
See the crap we have to put up with,
when the blogger CW is that Reagan week was bad for Bush
because 1) it knocked off the TV screens the D-day thing 2) knocked off
G-8 meeting 3) comparison with Reagan was a bad thing for Bush.
At least Russ could have given both sides and let the viewer pick.
He could have given both sides on Clinton book too.
Back to the question: How we do we expose these guys?
THE COVER UP ATTEMP CONTINUES
WASHINGTON — Military and civilian employees at the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were warned recently not to talk with attorneys who represent detainees held there, according to a document prepared by the legal office of the Army-led task force that runs the facility.
The document, obtained by USA TODAY, says that soldiers and interrogators are not required to give defense attorneys statements about the "personal treatment of detainees" or any "failure to report actions of others." It also says that refusing to cooperate with defense attorneys "will not impact your career."
from my br'ho:
For spork and ecoast
Spork, gee, thanks for the rousing vote of confidence.
Yes, of course I have come under pressure from higher-ups to change a story. In fact, it's not pressure, it's a command. You have a bit of leeway to argue your case, but ultimately the suits decide. Most often, it boils down to "the A.P. is going with." On a couple of occasions when I covered the Lewinsky nightmare, it was "how come Lisa Myers has this and we don't?" and then pressure to match her story at all costs.
It's a daily battle. Some people think that reporters choose their own headlines. Nope. Some people think reporters choose how their story is introduced by the anchor. Nope. Even WH 'hos get b-slapped by their pimps. (bad analogy, not to mention tasteless, but you know what I mean).
Ecoast...I don't have the answer. But the more publications link their online versions to blogs like this, the more blog knowledge will seep into the mainstream. Already, Calpundit is over at Washington Monthly. The big day will be when the WaPo and NYT link their sites, and not just individual columns, like Kurtz's, to blogs.
And ombudspeople are getting more power and attention these days, so the advice I'd give you is to write a very composed, demure, letter laying out the facts of the story in question (or the publication decision, like putting something crucial on A21).
WH 'ho"-
I was trying to ask an honest question: how much do editors/publihers influence coverage.
You answered my question fairly...if my question was antagonistic I apologize...you answered my question faily.
I have to say: But still...
.
'ho for spork:
I'm sorry, I don't understand. My "vote of confidence" line was meant as a jokey response to your "good egg" line.
Is there something I left out that you would like to know?
'ho:
Sorry. We're getting crossed-up. My fault (trust me.)
"vote of..." was taken as jokey.
hey sistah ho's sistah sez:
Is there something I left out that you would like to know?
Oh, you can't imagine.
'ho, I appreciate you posting here.
.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.
Why doesn't the Washington Post look into Bush's history of prisoner abuses under his watch as Texas Governor, and see the parallels to today?
From Ocnus.net:
William Justice, ruled that Texas' entire penal system was pervaded by a "culture of sadistic and malicious violence." Presiding over a lengthy prisoner rights case, Justice concluded that Texas prison guards routinely rely on excessive force, officials turn a blind eye to sexual enslavement, and the state's supermaximum-security units function as "virtual incubators of psychoses."
Judge Justice made this ruling in 1999, folks.
Tiny Url is down right now, so I'll post the link to the article mentioned, separated after "publish/"
http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/
article_12254.shtml
If this scandal continues to progress its way to the top at the current brisk pace, it looks like the Republicans in congress may soon be forced to make a choice- to support the constitution and the rule of law, or to continue support the president, regardless of what crimes his administration may have committed, in the ultimate expression of IOKIYAR. Personally, I expect the Republicans to show their true colors and choose the second option. If they do, and the nature of their choice is made clear to the American people (Democrats, do you're duty!), I think this is something that could break the Republican party.
to support the constitution and the rule of law, or to continue [to] support the president, regardless of what crimes his administration may have committed, in the ultimate expression of IOKIYAR
Richard, guys, has just been released from a cryonic vault and neither understands IOKIYAR nor has heard of Scalia or USAPATRIOT and its siblings.
People, they really don't care. It might not be possible to make them care. They tried to tell us that in Watergate and we didn't listen. Reagan (and all this hatred of Carter, like he was anything near as bad as Nixon or Ford) more than anything else symbolizes the unquestioning acceptance of Rethugism and bottomless forgiveness of Nixon. Which is theirs to wield as an advantage since they are the party of unquestioning obedience.
Billmon has linked to an interesting diary, posted from Abu Ghraib by a guy named Joe Ryan. Scroll down to March 30th entry. Note, that he is getting messages from Condalezza Rice stating that Dubya is being briefed on the events there. He was probably also receiving pictures of the tortures being afflicted on Iraqis. He is a guy that enjoys having that kind of power.
Always fun to see Atrios post when he's stoned--see above. Hee hee.
Tenet resigned, citing concern for his son.
Parents seeing children tortured in fron of them in Abu Gharib.
I see a connection here, a good man will have nothing to do with this regime.
Bush thinks his comments about such are going to be in sealed records, so he's above reproach since the repub House will not impeach.
About the time he said "none of us will be alive..." perhaps he really thinks sealed records are his loophole/plea in this disclosure...
Perhaps the Joe Ryan link you mentioned, and the date/timeline will coincide with Bush's "none of us will be around" quote.
Condie advised him no worry on disclosure so he smirks his way out with the quote the same day.
Bring It On! Drop this fucking hammer on him please our nation deserves no less.
Or it's possible that Tenet resigned because Bush fired him. The CIA may have made an airtight case against Bush in the Plame affair, and alongside the Chalabi scandal, that makes Tenet an "enemy of the state."
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
