I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
frist!!
frist!!
I loved this NYT letter today:
The revelation that a soldier's question to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the lack of armor on military vehicles in the Iraq war was suggested by an embedded reporter is really about as important as the fact that the president has speechwriters.
The facts are true, the issues are important, and the question addressed concerns of the troops and their families.
Why isn't it O.K. for a professional communications person to coach an untrained service member when somebody like Mr. Rumsfeld shows up for a photo-op? Especially one that he believes will be a "slam dunk"?
David J. Melvin
Chester, N.J., Dec. 10, 2004
I loved this NYT letter today:
The revelation that a soldier's question to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the lack of armor on military vehicles in the Iraq war was suggested by an embedded reporter is really about as important as the fact that the president has speechwriters.
The facts are true, the issues are important, and the question addressed concerns of the troops and their families.
Why isn't it O.K. for a professional communications person to coach an untrained service member when somebody like Mr. Rumsfeld shows up for a photo-op? Especially one that he believes will be a "slam dunk"?
David J. Melvin
Chester, N.J., Dec. 10, 2004
Amen, Brother. Keep it up. Keep hammering the point until it resonates throughout the land. We are the victims of our newsmedia. Simple as that
Amen, Brother. Keep it up. Keep hammering the point until it resonates throughout the land. We are the victims of our newsmedia. Simple as that
Good point, A-man.
the GOP will scream "PLANTED KWESCHINS"
and go off on its tangent, and the soldiers will keep dying in unarmored humvees.
this administration IS the Nixon/Reagan administration, fermented over the Clinton years.
Our soldiers deserve better.
Good point, A-man.
the GOP will scream "PLANTED KWESCHINS"
and go off on its tangent, and the soldiers will keep dying in unarmored humvees.
this administration IS the Nixon/Reagan administration, fermented over the Clinton years.
Our soldiers deserve better.
DId he just walk up to the soldiers and use them as puppets? No. They asked for his help.
Look, I like Jim and his site, but sometimes, the people who post on his site are idiots. I'll never forget the debate over Krispy Kreme. People were arguing that we were giving them free publicity by covering their openings.
I argued that if people are standing outside a freaking donut shop at 5 Am waiting for it to open and driving 50 miles to get there, that's a fucking story. Free publicity or not.
The same here. The guys asked for help, he gave it to them, and maybe saved a few lives. Good thing he did so.
DId he just walk up to the soldiers and use them as puppets? No. They asked for his help.
Look, I like Jim and his site, but sometimes, the people who post on his site are idiots. I'll never forget the debate over Krispy Kreme. People were arguing that we were giving them free publicity by covering their openings.
I argued that if people are standing outside a freaking donut shop at 5 Am waiting for it to open and driving 50 miles to get there, that's a fucking story. Free publicity or not.
The same here. The guys asked for help, he gave it to them, and maybe saved a few lives. Good thing he did so.
I am so sick of the media hang wringing about this Judith Miller/Matt Cooper thing.
Here's the deal. Yes the media should have to go to jail. Not necessarily for refusing to reveal their sources, but for the sheer stenograpy that passes for "reporting" these days. They should all be incarcerated for being mouthpieces for this crooked, lying administration.
They should be imprisoned for having no clue how to do their job. They should be sentenced to life for never questioning the run-up to war. They should be confined to a cell with tattooed goon for their timidity and abject fear of the Bush admin.
I am so sick of the media hang wringing about this Judith Miller/Matt Cooper thing.
Here's the deal. Yes the media should have to go to jail. Not necessarily for refusing to reveal their sources, but for the sheer stenograpy that passes for "reporting" these days. They should all be incarcerated for being mouthpieces for this crooked, lying administration.
They should be imprisoned for having no clue how to do their job. They should be sentenced to life for never questioning the run-up to war. They should be confined to a cell with tattooed goon for their timidity and abject fear of the Bush admin.
Not to mention the fact that the media has been totally ignoring the issues in and around Iraq for a couple of years by printing press releases as if they were the result of an active media process. The New York Times and the rest of the media establishment should walk out of their offices, hang a right (think its a right, I throw up everytime Im near their building so I might be getting confused) and walk straight towards New Jersey until their hats float. At least the little furry lemmings are content with killing themselves rather than others. Thats a big improvement over the bipedal lemmings of 43rd street.
Not to mention the fact that the media has been totally ignoring the issues in and around Iraq for a couple of years by printing press releases as if they were the result of an active media process. The New York Times and the rest of the media establishment should walk out of their offices, hang a right (think its a right, I throw up everytime Im near their building so I might be getting confused) and walk straight towards New Jersey until their hats float. At least the little furry lemmings are content with killing themselves rather than others. Thats a big improvement over the bipedal lemmings of 43rd street.
The "press mavens" now tut-tutting over "journalistic ethics" are in large part the same people who had their heads buried up Starr's bunghole several years ago.
The "press mavens" now tut-tutting over "journalistic ethics" are in large part the same people who had their heads buried up Starr's bunghole several years ago.
what's more important, planted questions, or planted road mines?
what's more important, planted questions, or planted road mines?
The liberal media strikes again.
Dipshits should know that soldiers should only be used as backdrops for photo ops and as pawns in Wolfowitz's game of Dungeons n' Dragons.
The liberal media strikes again.
Dipshits should know that soldiers should only be used as backdrops for photo ops and as pawns in Wolfowitz's game of Dungeons n' Dragons.
Dude, the Iwo Jima flag-raising was staged by the media and there's a fucking statue built to it in D.C.
Dude, the Iwo Jima flag-raising was staged by the media and there's a fucking statue built to it in D.C.
SING OUT LOUISE !
And Judy Miller can cry me a fucking river.
SING OUT LOUISE !
And Judy Miller can cry me a fucking river.
this is what i tell people all the time, & no one seems to get it;
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE EDITED (print, video, audio) is , BY NATURE, BIASED.
one way or another, a value judgement is made.
this is what i tell people all the time, & no one seems to get it;
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE EDITED (print, video, audio) is , BY NATURE, BIASED.
one way or another, a value judgement is made.
EVERY EDIT BETRAYS A BIAS.
EVERY EDIT BETRAYS A BIAS.
very true.
very true.
the words "ethics" & "journalist" should never be used in the same sentence.
the words "ethics" & "journalist" should never be used in the same sentence.
That's a little extreme, EarthMerm. I mean, what about sarcasm?
That's a little extreme, EarthMerm. I mean, what about sarcasm?
(I like sarcasm. Mmm... sarcasm...)
(I like sarcasm. Mmm... sarcasm...)
it's fucking amazing how shit just lines up for those bastards...a great gotcha moment and they
have this diversion of the reporter to take people's eye of the ball...when are we going to get something with some red meat on the bone.
it's fucking amazing how shit just lines up for those bastards...a great gotcha moment and they
have this diversion of the reporter to take people's eye of the ball...when are we going to get something with some red meat on the bone.
I rasied this point on Thom Hartmann's show yesterday - that they'll spin this story until the criminal act of sending soldiers into theater without enough to keep their asses alive is no longer the story, and some reporter who helped the soldiers with their questions is the story.
In a world with journalists who think, they wouldn't be able to do this with such ease. But we don't live in that world any more. The newspaper at which the reporter works has already apologized. Fools.
I rasied this point on Thom Hartmann's show yesterday - that they'll spin this story until the criminal act of sending soldiers into theater without enough to keep their asses alive is no longer the story, and some reporter who helped the soldiers with their questions is the story.
In a world with journalists who think, they wouldn't be able to do this with such ease. But we don't live in that world any more. The newspaper at which the reporter works has already apologized. Fools.
Members of the press are only high school nerds who are dazzled when the Big Man on Campus says hello.
Members of the press are only high school nerds who are dazzled when the Big Man on Campus says hello.
This is almost too obvious to mention... but, suddenly, as if by magic, the story is no longer about Rumsfeld or the war!
It isn't about soldiers sent without proper equipment to execute the whims of a halfwit cokehead! It isn't about the criminality of this occupation regime (I mean the one occupying this country).
No; the media, anxious to 'police itself', will beg for another electric shock and another dose of thorazine to avoid making the Chimp and Fat Karl unhappy.
There are courageous journalists. But in the main, the media as a class are HOORS! HOORS! HOORS!
Not to put too fine a point on it.
This is almost too obvious to mention... but, suddenly, as if by magic, the story is no longer about Rumsfeld or the war!
It isn't about soldiers sent without proper equipment to execute the whims of a halfwit cokehead! It isn't about the criminality of this occupation regime (I mean the one occupying this country).
No; the media, anxious to 'police itself', will beg for another electric shock and another dose of thorazine to avoid making the Chimp and Fat Karl unhappy.
There are courageous journalists. But in the main, the media as a class are HOORS! HOORS! HOORS!
Not to put too fine a point on it.
If there even a minimal journalism code of ethics, Robert Novak would be forced to cover himself in shit and run himself through a wood chipper.
If there even a minimal journalism code of ethics, Robert Novak would be forced to cover himself in shit and run himself through a wood chipper.
Uh, isn't the story here that the troops don't have armor on their vehicles?
No, it's the press navel-gazing again about "fake ethics".
When the press covers staged events and photo-ops, that's not bias?
But if the press 'inserts itself' into the story, that's bias?
It's only biased if the press does it.
(Right wing pundits are not subject to the above, of course, because they're not journalists, so they're free to clog the airwaves with bias).
But isn't the reporter giving us facts?
Yes, but facts are biased.
Forgive the incoherence above, but that's about where we are right now.
Uh, isn't the story here that the troops don't have armor on their vehicles?
No, it's the press navel-gazing again about "fake ethics".
When the press covers staged events and photo-ops, that's not bias?
But if the press 'inserts itself' into the story, that's bias?
It's only biased if the press does it.
(Right wing pundits are not subject to the above, of course, because they're not journalists, so they're free to clog the airwaves with bias).
But isn't the reporter giving us facts?
Yes, but facts are biased.
Forgive the incoherence above, but that's about where we are right now.
The only thing the media seems to want to talk about anymore is -- the media.
Every goddamned story ends up being about themselves.
They are completely self-referential. One big damn serpent swallowing its own tail. No wonder they are so lousy at doing their jobs anymore - they think their jobs are to report what they see in the mirror every day.
Useless fucking narcissistic hacks and whores. Useless.
The only thing the media seems to want to talk about anymore is -- the media.
Every goddamned story ends up being about themselves.
They are completely self-referential. One big damn serpent swallowing its own tail. No wonder they are so lousy at doing their jobs anymore - they think their jobs are to report what they see in the mirror every day.
Useless fucking narcissistic hacks and whores. Useless.
DId he just walk up to the soldiers and use them as puppets?
i thought you were talking about rumsfeld.
oh, wait...
everything they do borders on the criminal, and their manipulation of the media is sheer orwellian doublespeak. the guy that asked that question did not strike me as being all that sophisticated, but one thing i know (not being all that sophisticated my self) that soldier wanted to know the answer to the fuck'n question. "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want" rummy slapp'n down the troops.
but some how these sicko righties get it back on the 'liberal media'
and EarthMerm you are dead on about cooper and miller. tho i do believe journalists should have the right, not have to reveal sources. that they should only use judiciously and infrequently.
DId he just walk up to the soldiers and use them as puppets?
i thought you were talking about rumsfeld.
oh, wait...
everything they do borders on the criminal, and their manipulation of the media is sheer orwellian doublespeak. the guy that asked that question did not strike me as being all that sophisticated, but one thing i know (not being all that sophisticated my self) that soldier wanted to know the answer to the fuck'n question. "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want" rummy slapp'n down the troops.
but some how these sicko righties get it back on the 'liberal media'
and EarthMerm you are dead on about cooper and miller. tho i do believe journalists should have the right, not have to reveal sources. that they should only use judiciously and infrequently.
So, Bush-boy tried to reward another of his "Iraq failures," Kerik, only to have him shot down. He just loves to reward failure, doesn't he? Oops, I forgot, Bush is so delusional about Iraq he thinks it has been a total success so, of course, people like Rummy, Rice and Kerik must be rewarded for their "great work" there.
Has there ever been a more delusional and failed president than Bush?
So, Bush-boy tried to reward another of his "Iraq failures," Kerik, only to have him shot down. He just loves to reward failure, doesn't he? Oops, I forgot, Bush is so delusional about Iraq he thinks it has been a total success so, of course, people like Rummy, Rice and Kerik must be rewarded for their "great work" there.
Has there ever been a more delusional and failed president than Bush?
I don't think that the "Liberal Media Bushwacked Rummy" meme is going to survive the realization that there is significant untapped production capacity for armoring vehicles. For this, I congratulate the press for going to the manufacturers and asking the question.
Even in Freeperville, they are outraged about this, although the Bush and Rummy worshipers are lamely trying to excuse them.
They are also pissed-off about Kerik's nanny problem - of course that's due to their hatred of immigrants.
I don't think that the "Liberal Media Bushwacked Rummy" meme is going to survive the realization that there is significant untapped production capacity for armoring vehicles. For this, I congratulate the press for going to the manufacturers and asking the question.
Even in Freeperville, they are outraged about this, although the Bush and Rummy worshipers are lamely trying to excuse them.
They are also pissed-off about Kerik's nanny problem - of course that's due to their hatred of immigrants.
Has there ever been a more delusional and failed president than Bush?
No. But you knew that.
Has there ever been a more delusional and failed president than Bush?
No. But you knew that.
You're missing why this has such meaning to the Right. They're saying this is more proof that the media is engaged in a conspiracy to undermine our war effort and help the enemy. Remember, this is at the sae time as they are pushing story after story about schools forcing kids to reject Christianity and embrace Islam... To them the media, public schools, etc. are all part of the same liberal (i.e. Jewish) plot.
(Don't ask me how embracing Islam is part of a Jewish conspiracy -- I'm not a wingnut. ask them.)
You're missing why this has such meaning to the Right. They're saying this is more proof that the media is engaged in a conspiracy to undermine our war effort and help the enemy. Remember, this is at the sae time as they are pushing story after story about schools forcing kids to reject Christianity and embrace Islam... To them the media, public schools, etc. are all part of the same liberal (i.e. Jewish) plot.
(Don't ask me how embracing Islam is part of a Jewish conspiracy -- I'm not a wingnut. ask them.)
Isn't that reporter an "imbeded" reporter? That means by definition that they are part of the war story.
By the way, these reporters should actually be called "In Beds" since they are in bed with the miltary.
Isn't that reporter an "imbeded" reporter? That means by definition that they are part of the war story.
By the way, these reporters should actually be called "In Beds" since they are in bed with the miltary.
Hey, this story we'll just have to park,
'Cause someone used an improper mark.
Why, an "i's" been undotted.
Was the the writer besotted?
The mistakes are just so fucking stark.
Hey, this story we'll just have to park,
'Cause someone used an improper mark.
Why, an "i's" been undotted.
Was the the writer besotted?
The mistakes are just so fucking stark.
No. But you knew that.
True, I knew that the first year of his presidency. In fact, I predicted it before he was swarn in....
No. But you knew that.
True, I knew that the first year of his presidency. In fact, I predicted it before he was swarn in....
Have ANY of these knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed moth-breathers read, or ever fucking heard of, Daniel Boorstin's book "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events"?(remember, it was first published in 1960
UNTIL RECENTLY we have been justified in believing Abraham Lincoln's familiar maxim: "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." This has been the foundation-belief of American democracy. Lincoln's appealing slogan rests on two elementary assumptions. First, that there is a clear and visible distinction between sham and reality, between the lies a demagogue would have us believe and the truths which are there all the time. Second, that the people tend to prefer reality to sham, that if offered a choice between a simple truth and a contrived image, they will prefer the truth.
Neither of these any longer fits the facts. Not because people are less intelligent or more dishonest. Rather because great unforeseen changes-the great forward strides of American civilization-have blurred the edges of reality. The pseudo-events which flood our consciousness are neither true nor false in the old familiar senses. The very same advances which have made them possible have also made the images-however planned, contrived, or distorted-more vivid, more attractive, more impressive, and more persuasive than reality itself.
(snip)
The American citizen thus lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more digaity than its original. We hardly dare face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves.
Pseudo-events from their very nature tend to be more interesting and more attracfive than spontaneous events. Therefore in American public life today pseudo-events tend to drive all other kinds of events out of our consciousness, or at least to overshadow them. Earnest, well-informed citizens seldom notice that their experience of spontaneous events is buried by pseudo-events. Yet nowadays, the more industriously they work at "informing" themselves the more this tends to be true.
(snip)
Here are some characteristics of pseudo-events which make them overshadow spontaneous events:
(1) Pseudo-events are more dramatic. A television debate between candidates can be planned to be more suspenseful (for example, by reserving questions which are then popped suddenly) than a casual encounter or consecutive formal speeches planned by each separately.
(2) Pseudo-events, being planned for dissemination, are easier to disserninate and to make vivid. Participants are selected for their newsworthy and dramatic interest.
(3) Pseudo-events can be re
Have ANY of these knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed moth-breathers read, or ever fucking heard of, Daniel Boorstin's book "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events"?(remember, it was first published in 1960
UNTIL RECENTLY we have been justified in believing Abraham Lincoln's familiar maxim: "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." This has been the foundation-belief of American democracy. Lincoln's appealing slogan rests on two elementary assumptions. First, that there is a clear and visible distinction between sham and reality, between the lies a demagogue would have us believe and the truths which are there all the time. Second, that the people tend to prefer reality to sham, that if offered a choice between a simple truth and a contrived image, they will prefer the truth.
Neither of these any longer fits the facts. Not because people are less intelligent or more dishonest. Rather because great unforeseen changes-the great forward strides of American civilization-have blurred the edges of reality. The pseudo-events which flood our consciousness are neither true nor false in the old familiar senses. The very same advances which have made them possible have also made the images-however planned, contrived, or distorted-more vivid, more attractive, more impressive, and more persuasive than reality itself.
(snip)
The American citizen thus lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more digaity than its original. We hardly dare face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves.
Pseudo-events from their very nature tend to be more interesting and more attracfive than spontaneous events. Therefore in American public life today pseudo-events tend to drive all other kinds of events out of our consciousness, or at least to overshadow them. Earnest, well-informed citizens seldom notice that their experience of spontaneous events is buried by pseudo-events. Yet nowadays, the more industriously they work at "informing" themselves the more this tends to be true.
(snip)
Here are some characteristics of pseudo-events which make them overshadow spontaneous events:
(1) Pseudo-events are more dramatic. A television debate between candidates can be planned to be more suspenseful (for example, by reserving questions which are then popped suddenly) than a casual encounter or consecutive formal speeches planned by each separately.
(2) Pseudo-events, being planned for dissemination, are easier to disserninate and to make vivid. Participants are selected for their newsworthy and dramatic interest.
(3) Pseudo-events can be re
slightly OT:
When will the media change? Does anyone want to hire me? I've done Editorial Photography and I know how to write.
http://tinyurl.com/5qdzw
Bruce on the nature of his performances:
"Do you mind being called a sick comic?"
It is impossible to label me. I develop, on the average, four minutes of new material a night, constantly growing and changing my point of view; I am heinously guilty of the paradoxes I assail in our society.
The reason for the label "sick comic" is the lack of creativity among journalists and critics.
--Lenny Bruce, How to Talk Dirty and InfluencePeople
slightly OT:
When will the media change? Does anyone want to hire me? I've done Editorial Photography and I know how to write.
http://tinyurl.com/5qdzw
Bruce on the nature of his performances:
"Do you mind being called a sick comic?"
It is impossible to label me. I develop, on the average, four minutes of new material a night, constantly growing and changing my point of view; I am heinously guilty of the paradoxes I assail in our society.
The reason for the label "sick comic" is the lack of creativity among journalists and critics.
--Lenny Bruce, How to Talk Dirty and InfluencePeople
MORE
(3) Pseudo-events can be repeated at will, and thus their impression can be re-enforced.
(4) Pseudo-events cost money to create; hence somebody has an interest in disseminating, magnifying, advertising, and extolling them as events worth watching or worth believing. They are therefore advertised in advance, and rerun in order to get money's worth
(5) Pseudo-events, being planned for intelligibility, are more intelligible and hence more reassuring. Even if we cannot discuss interngenfly the qualifications of the candidates or the complicated issues, we can at east judge the effectiveness of a television performance. How comforting to have some political matter we can grasp!
(6) Pseudo-events are more sociable, more conversable, and more convenient to witness. Their occurrence is planned for our convenience. The Sunday newspaper appears when we have a lazy morning for it. Television programs appear when we are ready with our glass of beer. In the office the next morning, Jack Paar's (or any other star performer's) regular late-night show at the usual hour will overshadow in conversation a casual event that suddenly came up and had to find its way into the news.
(7) Knowledge of pseudo-events--of what has been reported, or what has been staged, and how--becomes the test of being "informed." News magazines provide us regularly with quiz questions concerning not what has happened but concerning "names in the news"-what has been reported in the news magazines. Pseudo-events begin to provide that "common discourse" which some of my old-fashioned friends have hoped to find in the Great Books.
(
Finally, pseudo-events spawn other pseudo-events in geometric progression. They dominate our consciousness simply because there are more of them, and ever more.
(snip)
Pseudo-events thus lead to emphasis on pseudo-qualifications. Again the self-fulfilling prophecy. If we test Presidential candidates by their talents on TV quiz performances, we will, of course, choose presidents for precisely these qualifications. In a democracy, reality tends to conform to the pseudo- event. Nature imitates art.
We are frustrated by our very efforts publicly to unmask the pseudo-event. Whenever we describe the lighting, the make-up, the studio setting, the rehearsals, etc., we simply arouse more interest. One newsman's interpretation makes us more eager to hear another's. One commentator's speculation that the debates may have little significance makes us curious to hear whether another commentator disagrees.
Pseudo-events do, of course, increase our illusion of grasp on the world, what some have called the American illusion of omnipotence. Perhaps, we come to think, the world's problems can really be settled by "statements," by "Summit" meetings, by a competition of "prestige," by overshadowing images, and by political quiz shows.
Once we have tasted the charm of pseudo-events, we are tempted to believe they are
MORE
(3) Pseudo-events can be repeated at will, and thus their impression can be re-enforced.
(4) Pseudo-events cost money to create; hence somebody has an interest in disseminating, magnifying, advertising, and extolling them as events worth watching or worth believing. They are therefore advertised in advance, and rerun in order to get money's worth
(5) Pseudo-events, being planned for intelligibility, are more intelligible and hence more reassuring. Even if we cannot discuss interngenfly the qualifications of the candidates or the complicated issues, we can at east judge the effectiveness of a television performance. How comforting to have some political matter we can grasp!
(6) Pseudo-events are more sociable, more conversable, and more convenient to witness. Their occurrence is planned for our convenience. The Sunday newspaper appears when we have a lazy morning for it. Television programs appear when we are ready with our glass of beer. In the office the next morning, Jack Paar's (or any other star performer's) regular late-night show at the usual hour will overshadow in conversation a casual event that suddenly came up and had to find its way into the news.
(7) Knowledge of pseudo-events--of what has been reported, or what has been staged, and how--becomes the test of being "informed." News magazines provide us regularly with quiz questions concerning not what has happened but concerning "names in the news"-what has been reported in the news magazines. Pseudo-events begin to provide that "common discourse" which some of my old-fashioned friends have hoped to find in the Great Books.
( Finally, pseudo-events spawn other pseudo-events in geometric progression. They dominate our consciousness simply because there are more of them, and ever more.
(snip)
Pseudo-events thus lead to emphasis on pseudo-qualifications. Again the self-fulfilling prophecy. If we test Presidential candidates by their talents on TV quiz performances, we will, of course, choose presidents for precisely these qualifications. In a democracy, reality tends to conform to the pseudo- event. Nature imitates art.
We are frustrated by our very efforts publicly to unmask the pseudo-event. Whenever we describe the lighting, the make-up, the studio setting, the rehearsals, etc., we simply arouse more interest. One newsman's interpretation makes us more eager to hear another's. One commentator's speculation that the debates may have little significance makes us curious to hear whether another commentator disagrees.
Pseudo-events do, of course, increase our illusion of grasp on the world, what some have called the American illusion of omnipotence. Perhaps, we come to think, the world's problems can really be settled by "statements," by "Summit" meetings, by a competition of "prestige," by overshadowing images, and by political quiz shows.
Once we have tasted the charm of pseudo-events, we are tempted to believe they are
It is terribly elitist and insulting towards our military to "blame" the reporter for this question rather than crediting a 31 year old grown man and volunteer National Guardsman for having the fortitude to ask the damn question. I thought it was the job of the left to look down their noses at those dim-witted military men... that's what I keep reading, anyway. Maybe Bush's shills didn't get the memo.
It is terribly elitist and insulting towards our military to "blame" the reporter for this question rather than crediting a 31 year old grown man and volunteer National Guardsman for having the fortitude to ask the damn question. I thought it was the job of the left to look down their noses at those dim-witted military men... that's what I keep reading, anyway. Maybe Bush's shills didn't get the memo.
goddamn does this guy ever quit?
goddamn does this guy ever quit?
MORE Boorstin, 1960, The Image
Once we have tasted the charm of pseudo-events, we are tempted to believe they are the only important events. Our progress poisons the sources of our experience. And the poison tastes so sweet that it spoils our appetite for plain fact. Our seeming ability to satisfy our exaggerated expectations makes us forget that they are exaggerated.
MORE Boorstin, 1960, The Image
Once we have tasted the charm of pseudo-events, we are tempted to believe they are the only important events. Our progress poisons the sources of our experience. And the poison tastes so sweet that it spoils our appetite for plain fact. Our seeming ability to satisfy our exaggerated expectations makes us forget that they are exaggerated.
To them the media, public schools, etc. are all part of the same liberal (i.e. Jewish) plot.
Mmmffmmm....mfifmmm...
Sorry. Was just eating a baby.
To them the media, public schools, etc. are all part of the same liberal (i.e. Jewish) plot.
Mmmffmmm....mfifmmm...
Sorry. Was just eating a baby.
here's one that seems really relevant to the tone on this thread.
About the rabid right, jeebus, and the dipwit media it all began way back when...
here's one that seems really relevant to the tone on this thread.
About the rabid right, jeebus, and the dipwit media it all began way back when...
Where were these people when the administration literally EMBEDDED reporters at the beginning of the war?
I guess insert != embed.
Where were these people when the administration literally EMBEDDED reporters at the beginning of the war?
I guess insert != embed.
Hate to be a wet towel, but (a)'Reporting the "news" is not a passive event without consequences, it shapes events' does not entail either (b)'The media is always a part of the story' or (c)'Every single story which is written implicitly inserts the media into the story.'
(a) is true, but (b) and (c) aren't. Sadly, both the right and the left tend to retreat into some kind of postmodernist never-never land when they encounter difficulties of this type.
But look: even if perfect objectivity turns out to be an unattainable ideal, there are differing degrees of intrusion into the story. And the intrusion in question *clearly* raises ethical questions.
Hate to be a wet towel, but (a)'Reporting the "news" is not a passive event without consequences, it shapes events' does not entail either (b)'The media is always a part of the story' or (c)'Every single story which is written implicitly inserts the media into the story.'
(a) is true, but (b) and (c) aren't. Sadly, both the right and the left tend to retreat into some kind of postmodernist never-never land when they encounter difficulties of this type.
But look: even if perfect objectivity turns out to be an unattainable ideal, there are differing degrees of intrusion into the story. And the intrusion in question *clearly* raises ethical questions.
It's not only this administration and it's press people or Rumsfelds "old man" bs, the Pentagons behind a lot of this diversion in my opinion so don't keep it just on Bushco. DU, Bradlees and the new troop transport that's a rolling death trap worse than a hummer. Stay on it. Freedom of the press undermines the natural instinct of the military to become and want a dictatorship.
It's not only this administration and it's press people or Rumsfelds "old man" bs, the Pentagons behind a lot of this diversion in my opinion so don't keep it just on Bushco. DU, Bradlees and the new troop transport that's a rolling death trap worse than a hummer. Stay on it. Freedom of the press undermines the natural instinct of the military to become and want a dictatorship.
Winston Smith - And the intrusion in question *clearly* raises ethical questions
Care to explain that? You can't just make the assertion and leave it there. Just what ethical questions are raised so *clearly*?
Winston Smith - And the intrusion in question *clearly* raises ethical questions
Care to explain that? You can't just make the assertion and leave it there. Just what ethical questions are raised so *clearly*?
This ain't "people handwringing over a fake journalist code of ethics".
This is "fake people handwringing fakily over a fake journalist code of ethics."
It's not the question that makes it newsworthy. It's that fucking shitty answer that Rumsfeld gave. Can't anyone in the media focus on this?
This ain't "people handwringing over a fake journalist code of ethics".
This is "fake people handwringing fakily over a fake journalist code of ethics."
It's not the question that makes it newsworthy. It's that fucking shitty answer that Rumsfeld gave. Can't anyone in the media focus on this?
"Dude, the Iwo Jima flag-raising was staged by the media and there's a fucking statue built to it in D.C."
-R. Robot
Absolutely.
And the media doesn't seem to be tut tutting over the manipulation by the Pentagon:
Saddam Hussein statue?
Jessica Lynch?
Hello? Is this on?
"Dude, the Iwo Jima flag-raising was staged by the media and there's a fucking statue built to it in D.C."
-R. Robot
Absolutely.
And the media doesn't seem to be tut tutting over the manipulation by the Pentagon:
Saddam Hussein statue?
Jessica Lynch?
Hello? Is this on?
One question: What is more important, how the question was asked or what was asked?
No-brainer.
One question: What is more important, how the question was asked or what was asked?
No-brainer.
Is it just me, or is this whole "planted question" bullshit just not getting any traction? Because all the stories I've seen recently seem to dwell on the actual issue of lack of proper materiel for the troops, and have no mention of the "planted" meme the brownshirts are trying to cover their ass with. Of course, trying to drum up sympathy for poor, put-upon Dr. Strangefeld ("he was ambushed!") is a losing proposition from the get-go...
Is it just me, or is this whole "planted question" bullshit just not getting any traction? Because all the stories I've seen recently seem to dwell on the actual issue of lack of proper materiel for the troops, and have no mention of the "planted" meme the brownshirts are trying to cover their ass with. Of course, trying to drum up sympathy for poor, put-upon Dr. Strangefeld ("he was ambushed!") is a losing proposition from the get-go...
Isn't that reporter an "imbeded" reporter? That means by definition that they are part of the war story.
Yep. And judging from his email, he obviously felt a kind of symbiotic duty to the troops he's been working alongside. And the troops themselves -- if not the officers -- appreciated having someone to make sure their questions wouldn't be subject to the Rumsfeld rhetoric-o-matic.
As for pseudo-events, Guy Debord's society of the spectacle is now with us.
Isn't that reporter an "imbeded" reporter? That means by definition that they are part of the war story.
Yep. And judging from his email, he obviously felt a kind of symbiotic duty to the troops he's been working alongside. And the troops themselves -- if not the officers -- appreciated having someone to make sure their questions wouldn't be subject to the Rumsfeld rhetoric-o-matic.
As for pseudo-events, Guy Debord's society of the spectacle is now with us.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
I remember when the "Kerry sweeps all three debates" story turned into the "Kerry called Cheney's daughter a LESBIAN!!!" story in a matter of hours. I thought something that transparently stupid would collapse under its own weight, but it didn't.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
I remember when the "Kerry sweeps all three debates" story turned into the "Kerry called Cheney's daughter a LESBIAN!!!" story in a matter of hours. I thought something that transparently stupid would collapse under its own weight, but it didn't.
Good to see the rest of the press rally,
though.
Don't want to make the Secretary of Death
uncomfortable, people.
Good to see the rest of the press rally,
though.
Don't want to make the Secretary of Death
uncomfortable, people.
This whole issue is so phony.
Are we to believe that this wascally weporter in addition to forcing the soldier to ask Rummy the question, also forced the spontaneous applause that erupted after the question was asked?
The "reporters" assigned to the White House could learn a lot from the Tennessee newspaper reporter and the soldier.
Ah, but then they might lose the status of having a cute nickname.
This whole issue is so phony.
Are we to believe that this wascally weporter in addition to forcing the soldier to ask Rummy the question, also forced the spontaneous applause that erupted after the question was asked?
The "reporters" assigned to the White House could learn a lot from the Tennessee newspaper reporter and the soldier.
Ah, but then they might lose the status of having a cute nickname.
What is more important, how the question was asked or what was asked?
No-brainer.
This is Karl Rove's world, though, where substance doesn't matter.
Was there kerning on that question?
What is more important, how the question was asked or what was asked?
No-brainer.
This is Karl Rove's world, though, where substance doesn't matter.
Was there kerning on that question?
I agree with Atrios that the media is always part of the story - I just think the media has turned the media into the story.
I don't need to hear over and over how a reporter helped the soldier craft questions. I certainly don't need to hear what that means vis-a-vis the media.
I'm tired of the media thinking it is the star of every story.
I agree with Atrios that the media is always part of the story - I just think the media has turned the media into the story.
I don't need to hear over and over how a reporter helped the soldier craft questions. I certainly don't need to hear what that means vis-a-vis the media.
I'm tired of the media thinking it is the star of every story.
I just think the media has turned the media into the story.
Call it the curse of J-school. And, in a sense, the curse of Woodward and Bernstein. Combined, today's press corps, apart from the old stagers -- Jimmy Breslin, Walter Pincus, Johnny Apple -- are more interested in navel-gazing, inside-baseball stuff... because it's self-aggrandizing, and because it's oh-so-fucking easy to write.
I just think the media has turned the media into the story.
Call it the curse of J-school. And, in a sense, the curse of Woodward and Bernstein. Combined, today's press corps, apart from the old stagers -- Jimmy Breslin, Walter Pincus, Johnny Apple -- are more interested in navel-gazing, inside-baseball stuff... because it's self-aggrandizing, and because it's oh-so-fucking easy to write.
oh yea, and what about the pentagon lying about tillman. why did they do that? it's not that i suspect some underlying story worse than what we now know (which is really just a wartime tragedy) but why?
i think maybe the jessica, and pat stories, are two of the more disturbing tales of this war.
well, i was taken aback this morning, when i read the story of US soldiers shooting rabid dogs. that are feeding on the corpses of the fallujah fallen.
oh yea, and what about the pentagon lying about tillman. why did they do that? it's not that i suspect some underlying story worse than what we now know (which is really just a wartime tragedy) but why?
i think maybe the jessica, and pat stories, are two of the more disturbing tales of this war.
well, i was taken aback this morning, when i read the story of US soldiers shooting rabid dogs. that are feeding on the corpses of the fallujah fallen.
Why does the right wing media hate our troops?
Hell, that's not even a snarky question.
Why does the right wing media hate our troops?
Hell, that's not even a snarky question.
'Bye all. I know we're reality- based here, but I have to go back to bizarro world to help O'Leilly defend Christmas by shopping at the malls.
'Bye all. I know we're reality- based here, but I have to go back to bizarro world to help O'Leilly defend Christmas by shopping at the malls.
i was taken aback this morning, when i read the story of US soldiers shooting rabid dogs. that are feeding on the corpses of the fallujah fallen.
I thought Bush's cabinet was just *resigning*? I must be reading the wrong papers.
i was taken aback this morning, when i read the story of US soldiers shooting rabid dogs. that are feeding on the corpses of the fallujah fallen.
I thought Bush's cabinet was just *resigning*? I must be reading the wrong papers.
that "ethically challenged" journalist and the soldier who asked the questions are true American heroes... by shining a spotlight on the scandal of putting troops in harm's way w/o the best protective armor possible, lives will be saved.
For once the press called bullshit on Rummy's lies, and the Pentagon has been forced to announce that it will beef up priduction.
More courage like this,please!
that "ethically challenged" journalist and the soldier who asked the questions are true American heroes... by shining a spotlight on the scandal of putting troops in harm's way w/o the best protective armor possible, lives will be saved.
For once the press called bullshit on Rummy's lies, and the Pentagon has been forced to announce that it will beef up priduction.
More courage like this,please!
Tena--
The issues it raises are obvious. Let's not be as intentionally obtuse as our right-wing friends. Even if the reporter's actions are ultimately defensible, there's no doubt that legitimate questions are raised.
I know you don't really need me to tell you this, but, specifically: in an event at which solidiers are given an opportunity to ask questions of an administration official, is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
The answer might very well be 'yes'--but that in no way means that it's crazy to ask the question.
Tena--
The issues it raises are obvious. Let's not be as intentionally obtuse as our right-wing friends. Even if the reporter's actions are ultimately defensible, there's no doubt that legitimate questions are raised.
I know you don't really need me to tell you this, but, specifically: in an event at which solidiers are given an opportunity to ask questions of an administration official, is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
The answer might very well be 'yes'--but that in no way means that it's crazy to ask the question.
Amen, Atrios, Amen!
The Myth of Objectivity is one of the worst heresies of contemporary journalism. it requires journalists to pretend to never insert themselves into a story--even though their very presence is an insertion. And it requires journalists to ignore all their previous experience, wisdom, independent thinking skills and gut feelings and instead assume a bland, tabula-rosa like pose. Which is just perfect for serving as a stenographer to those in power.
My problem is that journalists seem to lie prostrate before the false God of Objectivity only for the Bushies and their corporate Replublican masters. If they're reporting on Democrats---man, all the gloves come off and right away it's not only OK to question authority, it becomes a patriotic duty.
The whole idea of objectivity is bullshit and most thinking reporters know this on some level. The whole idea of fairness,however, has never been more important---but most of the media doesn't seem to practice fairness either. God, it might mean questioning the Bushies or acknowledging a wider range of ideas and viewpoint. And we can't have any of that!!!
I used to read Romanesko's website. As an ex-journalist, it was one way to catch up on all the gossip. I barely go there any more. The news profession is so whorish but clueless about their whore status, that I've all but stopped reading Romanesko. It was like reading mass delusion and denial.
Amen, Atrios, Amen!
The Myth of Objectivity is one of the worst heresies of contemporary journalism. it requires journalists to pretend to never insert themselves into a story--even though their very presence is an insertion. And it requires journalists to ignore all their previous experience, wisdom, independent thinking skills and gut feelings and instead assume a bland, tabula-rosa like pose. Which is just perfect for serving as a stenographer to those in power.
My problem is that journalists seem to lie prostrate before the false God of Objectivity only for the Bushies and their corporate Replublican masters. If they're reporting on Democrats---man, all the gloves come off and right away it's not only OK to question authority, it becomes a patriotic duty.
The whole idea of objectivity is bullshit and most thinking reporters know this on some level. The whole idea of fairness,however, has never been more important---but most of the media doesn't seem to practice fairness either. God, it might mean questioning the Bushies or acknowledging a wider range of ideas and viewpoint. And we can't have any of that!!!
I used to read Romanesko's website. As an ex-journalist, it was one way to catch up on all the gossip. I barely go there any more. The news profession is so whorish but clueless about their whore status, that I've all but stopped reading Romanesko. It was like reading mass delusion and denial.
That's one enterprising reporter who earned his pay!
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. For example, no two bystanders to a car accident will give identical reports.
OT, my first lecture in j school included this maxim: "Never trust a copper."
That's one enterprising reporter who earned his pay!
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. For example, no two bystanders to a car accident will give identical reports.
OT, my first lecture in j school included this maxim: "Never trust a copper."
...in an event at which solidiers are given an opportunity to ask questions of an administration official, is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
The answer is "yes."
And, given that reporters were barred from asking questions, or even attending, I don't think it's any "violation" of any written or unwritten "code of ethics" to do so. It's called good old-fashioned reporting - you know, where you take lemons and make lemonade, that sort of thing.
If any of our current crop of stenographers ever did any, they'd know this.
...in an event at which solidiers are given an opportunity to ask questions of an administration official, is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
The answer is "yes."
And, given that reporters were barred from asking questions, or even attending, I don't think it's any "violation" of any written or unwritten "code of ethics" to do so. It's called good old-fashioned reporting - you know, where you take lemons and make lemonade, that sort of thing.
If any of our current crop of stenographers ever did any, they'd know this.
Winston - you are the one being deliberately obtuse. The reporter did not ask the soldier to ask Rumsfeld a question.
The reporter was asked for help in framing a question by a soldier.
So all your obviousness is wasted, Winston. You are being obviously mistaken.
Winston - you are the one being deliberately obtuse. The reporter did not ask the soldier to ask Rumsfeld a question.
The reporter was asked for help in framing a question by a soldier.
So all your obviousness is wasted, Winston. You are being obviously mistaken.
...my first lecture in j school included this maxim: "Never trust a copper."
My Editing 101 instructor drilled two things into our heads: if a source screws you, blow him wide open.
And always have some "fuck you" money salted away...
...my first lecture in j school included this maxim: "Never trust a copper."
My Editing 101 instructor drilled two things into our heads: if a source screws you, blow him wide open.
And always have some "fuck you" money salted away...
This scribe clearly needs to recuse,
For transgressions one cannot excuse;
The unarmored lorry's,
No longer the story,
I mean, it's not like he works for Fox News.
..
This scribe clearly needs to recuse,
For transgressions one cannot excuse;
The unarmored lorry's,
No longer the story,
I mean, it's not like he works for Fox News.
..
I know you don't really need me to tell you this, but, specifically: in an event at which solidiers are given an opportunity to ask questions of an administration official, is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
In an event in which soldiers are allowed to dress up in civilian clothes, is it permissible for civilians to give them tips on what to wear?
In similar terms: does the embedded journalist get to ask the troops he works alongside about how, say, to wear the body armor he's been issued?
I know you don't really need me to tell you this, but, specifically: in an event at which solidiers are given an opportunity to ask questions of an administration official, is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
In an event in which soldiers are allowed to dress up in civilian clothes, is it permissible for civilians to give them tips on what to wear?
In similar terms: does the embedded journalist get to ask the troops he works alongside about how, say, to wear the body armor he's been issued?
What puzzles me is that Kerry made the same points as this question made in a nationally televised Presidential debate, didn't he? So it was not like a trick question on some obscure subject.
It's a question that has been asked again and again for months, maybe years now, here there and everywhere. In my view, the reporter did nothing wrong. The soldier was probably only too glad to ask the question after having seen his unit scrounging like some rag-picker in a dump to get some substitute for an armor upgrade.
What puzzles me is that Kerry made the same points as this question made in a nationally televised Presidential debate, didn't he? So it was not like a trick question on some obscure subject.
It's a question that has been asked again and again for months, maybe years now, here there and everywhere. In my view, the reporter did nothing wrong. The soldier was probably only too glad to ask the question after having seen his unit scrounging like some rag-picker in a dump to get some substitute for an armor upgrade.
In the age of universal whoring ethics are just another tool of propaganda, to be used when they serve the interests of the ruling elite. All of the above mentioning various media whores are right on the mark. If anyone working on the cable tabloid "news" stations have a shred of ground to stand on in a dispute of professional ethics it's a mighty small shred. And those of the legit press have little more than that. With a few exceptions.
"Never trust a copper."
monzie
That is only true if the j isn't in the pocket of the establishment already.
Re: Journalitic ethics.
Callie Crossley, If you see this, your silence last night was entirely clear and eloquent. And I'm entirely in agreement. One of the classiest moments I've ever seen on TV.
In the age of universal whoring ethics are just another tool of propaganda, to be used when they serve the interests of the ruling elite. All of the above mentioning various media whores are right on the mark. If anyone working on the cable tabloid "news" stations have a shred of ground to stand on in a dispute of professional ethics it's a mighty small shred. And those of the legit press have little more than that. With a few exceptions.
"Never trust a copper."
monzie
That is only true if the j isn't in the pocket of the establishment already.
Re: Journalitic ethics.
Callie Crossley, If you see this, your silence last night was entirely clear and eloquent. And I'm entirely in agreement. One of the classiest moments I've ever seen on TV.
Let's remember that nobody forced the soldier to ask the question. Give the guy credit. He could have told the reporter to go Cheney himself if he thought the question was out of bounds.
Let's remember that nobody forced the soldier to ask the question. Give the guy credit. He could have told the reporter to go Cheney himself if he thought the question was out of bounds.
well i do wanna say that i want Judith-Fucking-Miller to be held accountable for her words & actions.
i DONT want perle-cheney-feith using her as the scapegoat for something else.
& that is what i think is goin on here.
they want her out-of-the-picture for some *other* reason that has not yet bubbled to the surface.
well i do wanna say that i want Judith-Fucking-Miller to be held accountable for her words & actions.
i DONT want perle-cheney-feith using her as the scapegoat for something else.
& that is what i think is goin on here.
they want her out-of-the-picture for some *other* reason that has not yet bubbled to the surface.
It was shameful for the journalist, behind the scenes, to make the soldier ask the question that he did. It was shameful of the soldier to ask the question. But above all, it was shameful for the entire audience of soldiers to cheer the question as soon as it was asked.
It was shameful for the journalist, behind the scenes, to make the soldier ask the question that he did. It was shameful of the soldier to ask the question. But above all, it was shameful for the entire audience of soldiers to cheer the question as soon as it was asked.
Teena--
You are right, then, on a significant point. My bad. If the solidier asked for help, that significantly alters the case. I read a different account.
It still seems to me, however, that one can sensible ask whether the reporter should have bowed out under even those conditions.
The answer seems to me to be "no, if the soldier asked for help, and the reporter just helped him craft a question he already had, then there's simply nothing wrong with that."
What bugs me is, first, the frothing-at-the-mouth that goes on around here about such things--it reminds me of stuff I see on the wingnut sites. It's not stupid to ask questions about this event--and I say this as someone, remember, who *agrees* with you about the answer.
The second thing that bugs me is that folks on our side, like folks on their side, try to defend (alleged) failures of objectivity by calling the very idea of objectivity into question. When the Bushies do this, we (rightly) freak out.
What if, in response to objections about his bogus arguments for going into Iraq, W had said "well, there's no such thing as objectivity anyway, so I get to interpret the evidence however I want. The very act of judgment undermines any possibility of objectivity!"
Would you stand for such crap?
Teena--
You are right, then, on a significant point. My bad. If the solidier asked for help, that significantly alters the case. I read a different account.
It still seems to me, however, that one can sensible ask whether the reporter should have bowed out under even those conditions.
The answer seems to me to be "no, if the soldier asked for help, and the reporter just helped him craft a question he already had, then there's simply nothing wrong with that."
What bugs me is, first, the frothing-at-the-mouth that goes on around here about such things--it reminds me of stuff I see on the wingnut sites. It's not stupid to ask questions about this event--and I say this as someone, remember, who *agrees* with you about the answer.
The second thing that bugs me is that folks on our side, like folks on their side, try to defend (alleged) failures of objectivity by calling the very idea of objectivity into question. When the Bushies do this, we (rightly) freak out.
What if, in response to objections about his bogus arguments for going into Iraq, W had said "well, there's no such thing as objectivity anyway, so I get to interpret the evidence however I want. The very act of judgment undermines any possibility of objectivity!"
Would you stand for such crap?
The cheering you heard was canned applause played by the journalist.
The cheering you heard was canned applause played by the journalist.
The problem is not the responsible media like Fox (for conservatives) and CNN (for liberals)...the problem is blogs "on both sides" that will not admit their impartiality and do not fact-check.
(/snark)(/Lieberman Democrat)
The problem is not the responsible media like Fox (for conservatives) and CNN (for liberals)...the problem is blogs "on both sides" that will not admit their impartiality and do not fact-check.
(/snark)(/Lieberman Democrat)
Our system of government was overthrown in 2000 and that overthrow was reinforced by the latest "election". The reason that people aren't out in the streets with torches, heaping together barricades, is because the news media, being servants to the coup masters, continue to perpetuate the fantasy that everything is just hunky-dory, nothing to see here, move along...
Anyone who brings up the principal of journalistic ethics at this point, does so solely for comic effect because, save for a handful of lonely voices, "ethics" has bitten the proverbial dust.
Our system of government was overthrown in 2000 and that overthrow was reinforced by the latest "election". The reason that people aren't out in the streets with torches, heaping together barricades, is because the news media, being servants to the coup masters, continue to perpetuate the fantasy that everything is just hunky-dory, nothing to see here, move along...
Anyone who brings up the principal of journalistic ethics at this point, does so solely for comic effect because, save for a handful of lonely voices, "ethics" has bitten the proverbial dust.
Working as a reporter covering the civic business in the River Parishes around Baton Rouge, after I finished my masters, I made it known to folks that I would help petitioners--the overwhelming majority of whom were poor and black--form their petitions to the boards and commissions with whom they usually had legitimate beefs...i gave rhetorical advice, absolutely free, no charge...
Working as a reporter covering the civic business in the River Parishes around Baton Rouge, after I finished my masters, I made it known to folks that I would help petitioners--the overwhelming majority of whom were poor and black--form their petitions to the boards and commissions with whom they usually had legitimate beefs...i gave rhetorical advice, absolutely free, no charge...
Members of the press are only high school nerds who are dazzled when the Big Man on Campus says hello.
Susie
...
A distracted comment. Given current circumstances, almost forgivable. I think Ernie Pyle is somewhere whispering to em to relax and unclench my fist.
Members of the press are only high school nerds who are dazzled when the Big Man on Campus says hello.
Susie
...
A distracted comment. Given current circumstances, almost forgivable. I think Ernie Pyle is somewhere whispering to em to relax and unclench my fist.
The problem with the "journalistic ethics" argument is that it shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the history of the press.
The entire "neutral press" mythology is of comparatively recent vintage. It can't be said to apply to ANY version of the press we had, anywhere, prior to the Second World War. It's journalism's own version of the myth of the golden age of the 50's.
America's press for 200 years was intensely adversarial, partisan, and non-neutral. Newspapers were mouthpieces for parties and interested individuals. Very much like blogs, actually.
THAT is the type of press that gives you a populace that participates in politics.
The "neutral" press is the press that presided over the slow rocking to sleep of the majority of Americans. A genteel press sends the message that the events being covered don't matter.
The problem with the "journalistic ethics" argument is that it shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the history of the press.
The entire "neutral press" mythology is of comparatively recent vintage. It can't be said to apply to ANY version of the press we had, anywhere, prior to the Second World War. It's journalism's own version of the myth of the golden age of the 50's.
America's press for 200 years was intensely adversarial, partisan, and non-neutral. Newspapers were mouthpieces for parties and interested individuals. Very much like blogs, actually.
THAT is the type of press that gives you a populace that participates in politics.
The "neutral" press is the press that presided over the slow rocking to sleep of the majority of Americans. A genteel press sends the message that the events being covered don't matter.
Whispering to 'me,' that is.
Whispering to 'me,' that is.
George Will. 1980. Secretly helped prep RR for debate w/ Carter, possibly using stolen briefing book. Wrote columns praising RR's debate performance. If that ain't "insertion," well ....
George Will. 1980. Secretly helped prep RR for debate w/ Carter, possibly using stolen briefing book. Wrote columns praising RR's debate performance. If that ain't "insertion," well ....
just repukelican SOP; distract from the facts of the story by making a huge deal out of some extraneous meaningless feature.
-
just repukelican SOP; distract from the facts of the story by making a huge deal out of some extraneous meaningless feature.
-
Working as a reporter covering the civic business in the River Parishes around Baton Rouge
Was it an interesting beat? What the popular imagination would lead us to believe about LA?
It's too bad that more local reporting isn't done, that's where most of the real sleaze and corruption so beloved of tabloid TV happens. But, they don't seem to be doing much with the most corrupt federal administration in history. If we had a real "justice" system they might surpass the Reagan administration in corruption convictions. Till then his record stands.
Working as a reporter covering the civic business in the River Parishes around Baton Rouge
Was it an interesting beat? What the popular imagination would lead us to believe about LA?
It's too bad that more local reporting isn't done, that's where most of the real sleaze and corruption so beloved of tabloid TV happens. But, they don't seem to be doing much with the most corrupt federal administration in history. If we had a real "justice" system they might surpass the Reagan administration in corruption convictions. Till then his record stands.
What the journalist did WASN'T unethical.
the Williams Creed one of the oldest refrains on the code of ethics for American journalism, says expressly that journalists should ask questions to hold those in power accountable.
so does the modern version of the Society of Professional Journalism. in fact, the only aspect of the modern code that could be construed against him is if he paid the soldier money to ask the question.
which, I'm fairly sure he didn't.
What the journalist did WASN'T unethical.
the Williams Creed one of the oldest refrains on the code of ethics for American journalism, says expressly that journalists should ask questions to hold those in power accountable.
so does the modern version of the Society of Professional Journalism. in fact, the only aspect of the modern code that could be construed against him is if he paid the soldier money to ask the question.
which, I'm fairly sure he didn't.
Winston - Wake up honey - What if, in response to objections about his bogus arguments for going into Iraq, W had said "well, there's no such thing as objectivity anyway, so I get to interpret the evidence however I want.
Bush does this every time he talks about anything. He did it over Iraq repeatedly. He does it now. It's his empire, he thinks he controls reality. There is no objectivity in this administration.
That was an unfortunate example, Winston. And it tells me that you really aren't seeing what is happening with the media and the war in Iraq.
Winston - Wake up honey - What if, in response to objections about his bogus arguments for going into Iraq, W had said "well, there's no such thing as objectivity anyway, so I get to interpret the evidence however I want.
Bush does this every time he talks about anything. He did it over Iraq repeatedly. He does it now. It's his empire, he thinks he controls reality. There is no objectivity in this administration.
That was an unfortunate example, Winston. And it tells me that you really aren't seeing what is happening with the media and the war in Iraq.
There's an idea of quantum mechanics that says you can't directly observe something (at the quantum level) without affecting it because the act of direct observation is done using techniques that interact with it (err, yea, that explains it! Go read someone who knows what they are talking about...)
Anyway, the same is true for the press. Things change the moment the press shows up. People watch what they say, watch what they do, or, in the case of Cops, go the extra mile.
The press can't observe an event without being a part of it. If I were in the national guard and I got to as Rummy some questions I'd ask the press of some good ones since I'd have been more busy killing people than reading Eschaton.
There's an idea of quantum mechanics that says you can't directly observe something (at the quantum level) without affecting it because the act of direct observation is done using techniques that interact with it (err, yea, that explains it! Go read someone who knows what they are talking about...)
Anyway, the same is true for the press. Things change the moment the press shows up. People watch what they say, watch what they do, or, in the case of Cops, go the extra mile.
The press can't observe an event without being a part of it. If I were in the national guard and I got to as Rummy some questions I'd ask the press of some good ones since I'd have been more busy killing people than reading Eschaton.
My own problem with American news media is not a lack of objectivity, since that is not realistically possible, but rather a lack of evenhandedness. As in being evenhanded in the degree of questioning of those in power regardless of who they are and what party they support. I was under the woefully idealistic notion that the role of a free press in a democracy was to question those in power, be skeptical of those in power, and not to simply be stenographers for those in power.
What makes this so blatantly offensive is that this appeared to be the operating principle throughout the Clinton Presidency, yet one the Bush Presidency started suddenly it became acceptable to take what Administration officials said at face value, even as gospel. This is one of the most serious problems facing American democracy, along with a voting process that is neither transparent nor accountable, despite all the mythmaking to the contrary. America is in a very dangerous place these days, and the irony is that this is obvious to most of the world, especially the rest of the "free" world AKA other democracies.
This is where the myth of American exceptionalism is being used to destroy the fabric of American democracy. This is true in the media, in the voting process, indeed, just about everywhere. After all, if America is the best at everything, why then is there a need to question there is anything seriously wrong with it? America is in far worse shape internally than most would be willing to believe thanks to this myth of American exceptionalism, and I do not know how this can be dealt with. I wish America and Americans luck, they need it.
My own problem with American news media is not a lack of objectivity, since that is not realistically possible, but rather a lack of evenhandedness. As in being evenhanded in the degree of questioning of those in power regardless of who they are and what party they support. I was under the woefully idealistic notion that the role of a free press in a democracy was to question those in power, be skeptical of those in power, and not to simply be stenographers for those in power.
What makes this so blatantly offensive is that this appeared to be the operating principle throughout the Clinton Presidency, yet one the Bush Presidency started suddenly it became acceptable to take what Administration officials said at face value, even as gospel. This is one of the most serious problems facing American democracy, along with a voting process that is neither transparent nor accountable, despite all the mythmaking to the contrary. America is in a very dangerous place these days, and the irony is that this is obvious to most of the world, especially the rest of the "free" world AKA other democracies.
This is where the myth of American exceptionalism is being used to destroy the fabric of American democracy. This is true in the media, in the voting process, indeed, just about everywhere. After all, if America is the best at everything, why then is there a need to question there is anything seriously wrong with it? America is in far worse shape internally than most would be willing to believe thanks to this myth of American exceptionalism, and I do not know how this can be dealt with. I wish America and Americans luck, they need it.
No better example of the death of the American media, than the fact that a soldier has to ask a tough question.
It speaks volumes about the bastards who own and run the corporate media that a journalist can only ask a tough question by getting a soldier to ask it for him.
I knew the media was in the shit the moment that journalists and talking heads would turn up on Larry King to tell everyone what a great job they were doing.
No better example of the death of the American media, than the fact that a soldier has to ask a tough question.
It speaks volumes about the bastards who own and run the corporate media that a journalist can only ask a tough question by getting a soldier to ask it for him.
I knew the media was in the shit the moment that journalists and talking heads would turn up on Larry King to tell everyone what a great job they were doing.
My own problem with American news media is not a lack of objectivity, since that is not realistically possible, but rather a lack of evenhandedness.
My problem is that the media -- particularly the cablenewsers -- fall victim to a basic category error: that is, they report the fact that somebody said something about something and believe that they've reported on the thing itself.
The distinction between primary and secondary sources means nothing to CNNMSNBCFaux. Especially Faux.
My own problem with American news media is not a lack of objectivity, since that is not realistically possible, but rather a lack of evenhandedness.
My problem is that the media -- particularly the cablenewsers -- fall victim to a basic category error: that is, they report the fact that somebody said something about something and believe that they've reported on the thing itself.
The distinction between primary and secondary sources means nothing to CNNMSNBCFaux. Especially Faux.
Quoting myself, because it just occurred to me:
they report the fact that somebody said something about something and believe that they've reported on the thing itself.
And even here, the lede is 'someone asked someone about something'. Hello? How about doing some actual fucking reporting on the problems of unarmed Humvees and dump-diving for plate metal?
Quoting myself, because it just occurred to me:
they report the fact that somebody said something about something and believe that they've reported on the thing itself.
And even here, the lede is 'someone asked someone about something'. Hello? How about doing some actual fucking reporting on the problems of unarmed Humvees and dump-diving for plate metal?
Konopelli,
I remember reading Boorstin about 5 years ago and thinking he was dead-on, but must have seemed like a nutcase back in 1960.
And, BINGO: War in Iraq = pseudo-event, for most americans. It's portrayed from a distance that keeps it unreal. Filtered through the greatest pseudo-event machine ever created, the television.
This country has been massaged by the media for so long, that I fear there will never be a way to undo it. Objectivity is long dead except at rare places like this where it occasionally rears its head.
Now your treatise of the FF's need to control the internet is starting to make sense.
Konopelli,
I remember reading Boorstin about 5 years ago and thinking he was dead-on, but must have seemed like a nutcase back in 1960.
And, BINGO: War in Iraq = pseudo-event, for most americans. It's portrayed from a distance that keeps it unreal. Filtered through the greatest pseudo-event machine ever created, the television.
This country has been massaged by the media for so long, that I fear there will never be a way to undo it. Objectivity is long dead except at rare places like this where it occasionally rears its head.
Now your treatise of the FF's need to control the internet is starting to make sense.
Winston, what you miss, imo, is the relation of the embedded reporter with the unit in which he's embedded.
I imagine it went down like this: the company, whichever one, was selected to provide one representative questioner to play in the quasi-democratic sham of the foto-op. Probably because the unit was what they used to call "strack." Disciplined, taught, polished, productive. Good troops. Probably the unit selected a soldier, based on first-hand knowledge of their comrades. The guy the chose, knowing the embed, and knowing it was going to be a foto-op, asked the reporter something like "Okay, here's what I want to say. How do I do this?"
It was precisely to establish the relation of loyalty to the troops, and to blunt possible criticism against the actions of the troops that the Pentagon began the embedding practice.
It was fascinating to watch VonRumsveldt get caught so much off-guard. He was so surprised, so shocked, so astounded, that the soldier would have not only a substantive question, but also a critical question, that he totally rejected the first half of what he heard. Then, to buy time, and to impose discipline, he requestded a repetition.
Which was a mistake, cuz the speaker, having taken courage from the shock and awe he had so easily strewn, not only repeated but also elaborated the question, made it even more stinging, with the details with which he was already intimate.
The question brought vonRummy down. It broke the 'established' rules of power in discourse. It created a vacuum into which an incredible whirlwind of discontent swirled.
Whatsoever the (spurious) culpability with which the embed is impuned, he didn't prompt the second or the third or the fourth questiones, all of whom had legitiimate questions.
The fascist Rumsveldt thought he controlled the discourse. The embed, provided to the troops by the pentagon, provided an interruption in the discourse of power.
The embarrasment that ensued is not with the troops, but with the leadership. The fascists can withstand anything EXCEPT the revelation of the banality of their own corruption...
Winston, what you miss, imo, is the relation of the embedded reporter with the unit in which he's embedded.
I imagine it went down like this: the company, whichever one, was selected to provide one representative questioner to play in the quasi-democratic sham of the foto-op. Probably because the unit was what they used to call "strack." Disciplined, taught, polished, productive. Good troops. Probably the unit selected a soldier, based on first-hand knowledge of their comrades. The guy the chose, knowing the embed, and knowing it was going to be a foto-op, asked the reporter something like "Okay, here's what I want to say. How do I do this?"
It was precisely to establish the relation of loyalty to the troops, and to blunt possible criticism against the actions of the troops that the Pentagon began the embedding practice.
It was fascinating to watch VonRumsveldt get caught so much off-guard. He was so surprised, so shocked, so astounded, that the soldier would have not only a substantive question, but also a critical question, that he totally rejected the first half of what he heard. Then, to buy time, and to impose discipline, he requestded a repetition.
Which was a mistake, cuz the speaker, having taken courage from the shock and awe he had so easily strewn, not only repeated but also elaborated the question, made it even more stinging, with the details with which he was already intimate.
The question brought vonRummy down. It broke the 'established' rules of power in discourse. It created a vacuum into which an incredible whirlwind of discontent swirled.
Whatsoever the (spurious) culpability with which the embed is impuned, he didn't prompt the second or the third or the fourth questiones, all of whom had legitiimate questions.
The fascist Rumsveldt thought he controlled the discourse. The embed, provided to the troops by the pentagon, provided an interruption in the discourse of power.
The embarrasment that ensued is not with the troops, but with the leadership. The fascists can withstand anything EXCEPT the revelation of the banality of their own corruption...
Tena--
Um, I probably followed the arguments in the lead-up to the war *at least* as closely as you did, and I keep a sharp eye out for quasi-relativistic "justifications"...and I don't recall any Bushie ever *explicitly* using such a defense.
The defenses they did use were of a different type--usually they either simply exaggerated the evidence in favor of their claims or downplayed evidence against them. That's chicanery, but chicanery of a different variety.
Such straight-forward lies are loathsome, but at least they don't try to deny that it is *possible* to be reasonable and objective. Denying even the possibility of objectivity is a whole new level of loathsomeness...
And, again: if you DO deny the possibility of objectivity, then you have *absolutely no grounds* for complaining about the actions of the Bushies. If objectivity is impossible, then they've done nothing wrong.
And, um, let's try to keep this civil, o.k.?
Tena--
Um, I probably followed the arguments in the lead-up to the war *at least* as closely as you did, and I keep a sharp eye out for quasi-relativistic "justifications"...and I don't recall any Bushie ever *explicitly* using such a defense.
The defenses they did use were of a different type--usually they either simply exaggerated the evidence in favor of their claims or downplayed evidence against them. That's chicanery, but chicanery of a different variety.
Such straight-forward lies are loathsome, but at least they don't try to deny that it is *possible* to be reasonable and objective. Denying even the possibility of objectivity is a whole new level of loathsomeness...
And, again: if you DO deny the possibility of objectivity, then you have *absolutely no grounds* for complaining about the actions of the Bushies. If objectivity is impossible, then they've done nothing wrong.
And, um, let's try to keep this civil, o.k.?
Ahem.
E*R*N*I*E P*Y*L*E
That is all....
Ahem.
E*R*N*I*E P*Y*L*E
That is all....
C'mon folks.
Who does not by now that 'objectivity' is an advertizing gimmick, invented by WR Hearst to attack Pulitzer and placate and pacify advertizers affronted by Pulitzer's independent, often populist, "yellow journalism." Whatsoever else it might be, objectivity is and always was about shielding the powerful from the public expression of their deeds...
C'mon folks.
Who does not by now that 'objectivity' is an advertizing gimmick, invented by WR Hearst to attack Pulitzer and placate and pacify advertizers affronted by Pulitzer's independent, often populist, "yellow journalism." Whatsoever else it might be, objectivity is and always was about shielding the powerful from the public expression of their deeds...
It's only bad when Karl and Karen don't write the questions for people to ask.
It's only bad when Karl and Karen don't write the questions for people to ask.
Konopelli--
That's nothing like a complete history of the concept of objectivity, though for all I know that's its complete history in journalism. No sane person doubts that there are objective facts--e.g. that there is a war going on in Iraq. So why do you think it's impossible for someone to report those facts to us? Objectivity may be rare, but it just ain't impossible.
You guys give up to easy.
Konopelli--
That's nothing like a complete history of the concept of objectivity, though for all I know that's its complete history in journalism. No sane person doubts that there are objective facts--e.g. that there is a war going on in Iraq. So why do you think it's impossible for someone to report those facts to us? Objectivity may be rare, but it just ain't impossible.
You guys give up to easy.
Ahem.
E*R*N*I*E P*Y*L*E
That is all....
GWPDA
...
Hey, I already sed that (2:1.
Ahem.
E*R*N*I*E P*Y*L*E
That is all....
GWPDA
...
Hey, I already sed that (2:1.
Atrios - hate when you do this - you pan every fucking single person / part of "the media" as a sick generalization with these type of posts.
I don't hink oy understand what "the media" does - only what you want it to do. Too fucking simplistic man. We're an easy target - yet "the media" means different things to different people." National media is an entirely different animal from many other outlets. Yet every single reporter, journalist, on camera man and woman get tarred with the same brush.
It's a gross simplification and you prove your own argument weak when you use it.
In this particular post - the lamest. By writing anything, you say, a journalist becomes part of the story in a meaningful way. What complete garbage. You come off like Fox News complaining about "the media."
Also, Republican critics are charging bias and you are confusing the two deliberately.
Remember Chris Rock's Niggers vs Black People piece? "It's the media. The media is distorting our image. ... Cut the fucking shit. When I get my money out of an ATM machine I'm not looking over my shoulder for the media." Slightly paraphrased.
I thought of this last night - Media bias to a liberal is someone who doesn't ask enough questions. Media bias to a Republican is one who asks too many.
Try harder Avis.
Atrios - hate when you do this - you pan every fucking single person / part of "the media" as a sick generalization with these type of posts.
I don't hink oy understand what "the media" does - only what you want it to do. Too fucking simplistic man. We're an easy target - yet "the media" means different things to different people." National media is an entirely different animal from many other outlets. Yet every single reporter, journalist, on camera man and woman get tarred with the same brush.
It's a gross simplification and you prove your own argument weak when you use it.
In this particular post - the lamest. By writing anything, you say, a journalist becomes part of the story in a meaningful way. What complete garbage. You come off like Fox News complaining about "the media."
Also, Republican critics are charging bias and you are confusing the two deliberately.
Remember Chris Rock's Niggers vs Black People piece? "It's the media. The media is distorting our image. ... Cut the fucking shit. When I get my money out of an ATM machine I'm not looking over my shoulder for the media." Slightly paraphrased.
I thought of this last night - Media bias to a liberal is someone who doesn't ask enough questions. Media bias to a Republican is one who asks too many.
Try harder Avis.
The question brought vonRummy down. It broke the 'established' rules of power in discourse. It created a vacuum into which an incredible whirlwind of discontent swirled.
Konopelli, outstanding analysis!
The question brought vonRummy down. It broke the 'established' rules of power in discourse. It created a vacuum into which an incredible whirlwind of discontent swirled.
Konopelli, outstanding analysis!
By the way on case it wasn't clear - I am in complete support of Lee Pitts and have made this clear elsewhere. His only error - which perhaps wasn't his - was adding the "how" into the article that ended up in the paper.
By the way on case it wasn't clear - I am in complete support of Lee Pitts and have made this clear elsewhere. His only error - which perhaps wasn't his - was adding the "how" into the article that ended up in the paper.
What if, in response to objections about his bogus arguments for going into Iraq, W had said "well, there's no such thing as objectivity anyway, so I get to interpret the evidence however I want. The very act of judgment undermines any possibility of objectivity!"
winston, isnt that EXACTLY WHAT HE DID?!?!?!?!
What if, in response to objections about his bogus arguments for going into Iraq, W had said "well, there's no such thing as objectivity anyway, so I get to interpret the evidence however I want. The very act of judgment undermines any possibility of objectivity!"
winston, isnt that EXACTLY WHAT HE DID?!?!?!?!
Of course we can't rid ourselves of objectivity when we right, but that's one of the reasons journalists have editors -- to find the questions behind the questions the reporter asks and tell him/her to find those answers, too.
I've been a reporter and writer and advised people on how to ask questions when they were nervous about how to frame remarks in a public forum. I dont't see anything wrong with that.
But I do have problems with Atrios' screed. Yes, he's right to point the finger at the hypocricy of those whining in this instance, and to point out the horrendous bias in reporting many stories.
Still, the aim should be toward that higher standard of objectivity. Aim always exceeded grasp, but I do remember times when we at least tried.
Of course we can't rid ourselves of objectivity when we right, but that's one of the reasons journalists have editors -- to find the questions behind the questions the reporter asks and tell him/her to find those answers, too.
I've been a reporter and writer and advised people on how to ask questions when they were nervous about how to frame remarks in a public forum. I dont't see anything wrong with that.
But I do have problems with Atrios' screed. Yes, he's right to point the finger at the hypocricy of those whining in this instance, and to point out the horrendous bias in reporting many stories.
Still, the aim should be toward that higher standard of objectivity. Aim always exceeded grasp, but I do remember times when we at least tried.
Winston must have helped David Paul Kuhn with his little article about blogs.
I recognize the vague references to ethical violations and when pressed, can't come up with any possible breach of ethics; instead, he sighs about how 'uncivil' we are getting by asking.
Exactly what kind of, um, journalistic ethics have been breached, Winston?
Winston must have helped David Paul Kuhn with his little article about blogs.
I recognize the vague references to ethical violations and when pressed, can't come up with any possible breach of ethics; instead, he sighs about how 'uncivil' we are getting by asking.
Exactly what kind of, um, journalistic ethics have been breached, Winston?
n69n - Yeah, that's exactly what Bush did, as I pointed out to Winston.
Winston, exactly what is not "objective" about asking Rumsfeld about a lack of proper equipment? Is it not an objective fact that there is a severe equipment shortage in Iraq?
That's the story that's been reported and that's what our soldiers are saying.
n69n - Yeah, that's exactly what Bush did, as I pointed out to Winston.
Winston, exactly what is not "objective" about asking Rumsfeld about a lack of proper equipment? Is it not an objective fact that there is a severe equipment shortage in Iraq?
That's the story that's been reported and that's what our soldiers are saying.
Ah, "right" should be "write" -- and I've been a proofreader, too!
Ah, "right" should be "write" -- and I've been a proofreader, too!
Tena--
Now you are just confusing two obviously distinct points.
I asserted two things:
(1) The journalist in question may have done something wrong by ('cause I can't think of a better term) intervening in the soldiers' formulation of their questions
and
(2) However the problem in (1) is resolved, it's dumb to think that questioning the very idea of objectivity is a good way to deflect the question.
I didn't say, nor did I even suggest, that the journalist's reporting wasn't objective.
And, as for the Phreddian silliness above: he's confused, too. I didn't *substitute* a plea for civility for arguments, I *added* it to my arguments. Too bad it wasn't heeded...
You know, when I start to get depressed about how bad the wingnuts are, it always makes me feel better (i.e. worse) to come over here and see how unreasonable and uncivil the lefties can be...
Sometimes this place is like groupthink central...
Tena--
Now you are just confusing two obviously distinct points.
I asserted two things:
(1) The journalist in question may have done something wrong by ('cause I can't think of a better term) intervening in the soldiers' formulation of their questions
and
(2) However the problem in (1) is resolved, it's dumb to think that questioning the very idea of objectivity is a good way to deflect the question.
I didn't say, nor did I even suggest, that the journalist's reporting wasn't objective.
And, as for the Phreddian silliness above: he's confused, too. I didn't *substitute* a plea for civility for arguments, I *added* it to my arguments. Too bad it wasn't heeded...
You know, when I start to get depressed about how bad the wingnuts are, it always makes me feel better (i.e. worse) to come over here and see how unreasonable and uncivil the lefties can be...
Sometimes this place is like groupthink central...
mars bitches...
mars bitches...
Sometimes this place is like groupthink central...
naw, that's dkos.
Sometimes this place is like groupthink central...
naw, that's dkos.
Winston Smith's been spending too much time with O'Brien, me thinks. Objectivity is a Pentagon news release.
Winston Smith's been spending too much time with O'Brien, me thinks. Objectivity is a Pentagon news release.
OT, but I hope that these units that are lacking stuff they need release their "cumshaw artists" and by hook or by crook get what they need.
OT, but I hope that these units that are lacking stuff they need release their "cumshaw artists" and by hook or by crook get what they need.
If the story is about " journalist code of ethics" then the questions shouldn't be about a reporter daring to help soldiers craft questions for Rumsfeld-
they should debating why the hell a journalist has to get a soldier to be able to ask Rumsfeld a f--king question.
If the story is about " journalist code of ethics" then the questions shouldn't be about a reporter daring to help soldiers craft questions for Rumsfeld-
they should debating why the hell a journalist has to get a soldier to be able to ask Rumsfeld a f--king question.
(b)'The media is always a part of the story' or (c)'Every single story which is written implicitly inserts the media into the story.'
By writing a story, hasn't a reporter "inserted" him/herself into the story?
A story is a story after a reporter writes it; it can be done with degrees of objectivity/subjectivity, but until the reporter "inserts" him/herself, it isn't a "story," it's an "event."
(b)'The media is always a part of the story' or (c)'Every single story which is written implicitly inserts the media into the story.'
By writing a story, hasn't a reporter "inserted" him/herself into the story?
A story is a story after a reporter writes it; it can be done with degrees of objectivity/subjectivity, but until the reporter "inserts" him/herself, it isn't a "story," it's an "event."
Stencil-- O'Brien and his ilk (including, apparently, lots of folks around these parts *deny* the possibility of objectivity. Read the book...
I'm outta here.
But once again before I go: If there's no such thing as objectivity, what are you people whining about? W's distorted version of the facts is every bit as true (or "true") as yours. It's all relative...war is peace...freedom is slavery...ignorance is strength..
...Democracy is doomed.
Seriously: it's this very mishmash of relativism, skepticism, "social constructionism" and irrationalism that Orwell warned us against.
Apparently to no avail.
Stencil-- O'Brien and his ilk (including, apparently, lots of folks around these parts *deny* the possibility of objectivity. Read the book...
I'm outta here.
But once again before I go: If there's no such thing as objectivity, what are you people whining about? W's distorted version of the facts is every bit as true (or "true") as yours. It's all relative...war is peace...freedom is slavery...ignorance is strength..
...Democracy is doomed.
Seriously: it's this very mishmash of relativism, skepticism, "social constructionism" and irrationalism that Orwell warned us against.
Apparently to no avail.
OT -- Ohio's Secretary of State is at it again, illegally locking down voter records. Ohio Revised Code requires these records be open to public inspection:
"On Friday December 10 two certified volunteers for the Ohio Recount team assigned to Greene County were in process recording voting information from minority precincts in Greene County, and were stopped mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office. The Director Board of Elections stated that “all voter records for the state of Ohio were “locked-down,” and now they are not considered public records.” "
Go read the whole thing at Ray Beckerman's blog:
http://tinyurl.com/5n2am
Then go to the home page and find out what's happening to support the recount where you live:
http://tinyurl.com/4p32c
I'm a recount coordinator and had a good first encounter w/ the BOE director where I'm to work. But that was before Blackwell's latest edict. God knows what havoc it will bring.
Be angry, then channel the anger, please!
OT -- Ohio's Secretary of State is at it again, illegally locking down voter records. Ohio Revised Code requires these records be open to public inspection:
"On Friday December 10 two certified volunteers for the Ohio Recount team assigned to Greene County were in process recording voting information from minority precincts in Greene County, and were stopped mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office. The Director Board of Elections stated that “all voter records for the state of Ohio were “locked-down,” and now they are not considered public records.” "
Go read the whole thing at Ray Beckerman's blog:
http://tinyurl.com/5n2am
Then go to the home page and find out what's happening to support the recount where you live:
http://tinyurl.com/4p32c
I'm a recount coordinator and had a good first encounter w/ the BOE director where I'm to work. But that was before Blackwell's latest edict. God knows what havoc it will bring.
Be angry, then channel the anger, please!
I just realized that I've never seen "The Journalistic Code of Ethics". Is the universally accepted, internally coherent code written somewhere so that all may see? Link please.
I just realized that I've never seen "The Journalistic Code of Ethics". Is the universally accepted, internally coherent code written somewhere so that all may see? Link please.
Winston - You know, when I start to get depressed about how bad the wingnuts are, it always makes me feel better (i.e. worse) to come over here and see how unreasonable and uncivil the lefties can be...
Sometimes this place is like groupthink central...
And I'm so fucking tired of you wingers coming over here and accusing us of being engaged in groupthink - pay attention here, Wintson - because we don't agree with you.
Good bye.
Winston - You know, when I start to get depressed about how bad the wingnuts are, it always makes me feel better (i.e. worse) to come over here and see how unreasonable and uncivil the lefties can be...
Sometimes this place is like groupthink central...
And I'm so fucking tired of you wingers coming over here and accusing us of being engaged in groupthink - pay attention here, Wintson - because we don't agree with you.
Good bye.
groupthink central
La,la,la,la,.....
Imagine that. A left-wing blog attracts people who have the same opinion.
If you want to see real groupthink just turn on any of the 24hr cable tabloids, any talk radio you happen across on the dial, all of the major dailys, the right-wing blogs....
Also note, all of the right-wing columnists are working the "discrimination against conservatives" line this month. Each in turn will turn out their usual column on this subject. Sort of like
"Yes, Virginia, there is an American Enterprise Institute".
groupthink central
La,la,la,la,.....
Imagine that. A left-wing blog attracts people who have the same opinion.
If you want to see real groupthink just turn on any of the 24hr cable tabloids, any talk radio you happen across on the dial, all of the major dailys, the right-wing blogs....
Also note, all of the right-wing columnists are working the "discrimination against conservatives" line this month. Each in turn will turn out their usual column on this subject. Sort of like
"Yes, Virginia, there is an American Enterprise Institute".
OT -- More recount udate: Congressional hearings on Ohio voting irregularities will move to Ohio on Monday. Please tell C-SPAN to televise this hearing.
More infor here: http://tinyurl.com/5albf
Contact C-SPAN here: events@c-span.org
Go here for more about SOS Blackwell's decision Friday to stop recount volunteers from examining public voting records:
http://tinyurl.com/3k3pb
Every vote counts / Count every vote
OT -- More recount udate: Congressional hearings on Ohio voting irregularities will move to Ohio on Monday. Please tell C-SPAN to televise this hearing.
More infor here: http://tinyurl.com/5albf
Contact C-SPAN here: events@c-span.org
Go here for more about SOS Blackwell's decision Friday to stop recount volunteers from examining public voting records:
http://tinyurl.com/3k3pb
Every vote counts / Count every vote
[...] is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
The answer might very well be 'yes'--but that in no way means that it's crazy to ask the question. Winston Smith - 1:43 pm
The answer is "yes", and the question, if not "crazy", remains irrelevant and immaterial. If there was evidence of
real subterfuge, e.g. that a soldier was somehow coerced into asking the question, or if the "soldier" turned out to be a disguised reporter, that would certainly be worth disclosing. (But even if there were such subterfuge, in no way does it eclipse or negate the weight and significance of the "story" of the question being asked and the response to it.)
I've never been to j-school, or investigated the philosophy of journalism, but there seems to be an orthodox ideal or model treating journalistic inquiry as if it were as rigid, rigorous, and elaborate as scientific or judicial inquiry. In the latter disciplines, there are detailed formal rules proscribing queries: who makes them, the form in which they're made, what constitutes a valid query, etc.
This may be a noble, exalted standard, but it's pretentious at best to apply it to everyday journalistic operations. No one is operating from a pure, disinterested perspective. I'm certainly not saying that all's fair in news reporting, just that the question of whether the ends justify the means must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, it's absurd to suggest that the reporter was somehow a man behind the curtain perpetrating a fraud, and that this is the "real" story that vitiates the significance of Rumsfeld's atrocious and infamous reply.
Like Atrios said.
[...] is it permissible for a reporter covering the story to--in effect--ask a soldier to, in effect, ask a question for him?
The answer might very well be 'yes'--but that in no way means that it's crazy to ask the question. Winston Smith - 1:43 pm
The answer is "yes", and the question, if not "crazy", remains irrelevant and immaterial. If there was evidence of
real subterfuge, e.g. that a soldier was somehow coerced into asking the question, or if the "soldier" turned out to be a disguised reporter, that would certainly be worth disclosing. (But even if there were such subterfuge, in no way does it eclipse or negate the weight and significance of the "story" of the question being asked and the response to it.)
I've never been to j-school, or investigated the philosophy of journalism, but there seems to be an orthodox ideal or model treating journalistic inquiry as if it were as rigid, rigorous, and elaborate as scientific or judicial inquiry. In the latter disciplines, there are detailed formal rules proscribing queries: who makes them, the form in which they're made, what constitutes a valid query, etc.
This may be a noble, exalted standard, but it's pretentious at best to apply it to everyday journalistic operations. No one is operating from a pure, disinterested perspective. I'm certainly not saying that all's fair in news reporting, just that the question of whether the ends justify the means must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, it's absurd to suggest that the reporter was somehow a man behind the curtain perpetrating a fraud, and that this is the "real" story that vitiates the significance of Rumsfeld's atrocious and infamous reply.
Like Atrios said.
I don't know, I think it's healthy to recognize that journalists are always part of the story to some extent, but I think journalists should strive to interfere as little in the story as possible without compromising their ability to report what is actually happening. In this case, the handwringing is silly because the soldiers really did want to ask questions on this subject, but the e-mail the reporter sent afterwards was just stupid and bound to hurt his cause.
I don't know, I think it's healthy to recognize that journalists are always part of the story to some extent, but I think journalists should strive to interfere as little in the story as possible without compromising their ability to report what is actually happening. In this case, the handwringing is silly because the soldiers really did want to ask questions on this subject, but the e-mail the reporter sent afterwards was just stupid and bound to hurt his cause.
What I find particularly hilarious is this reporter is from the Chattonooga Times Free Press. I don't know if any of you have ever had the pleasure of reading this fine piece of journalism, but in the continuum of politcal viewpoints its editoral page is slightly to the left of Stormfront's. My ex-wife is from Chattanooga (City motto--Welcome to Chattanooga, please set your watches back 40 years) and visiting her parents was always a treat.
I still remember the Times Free Press' outrage that the Federal Government would celebrate that communist, rabble rousing, adulterer Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday with a national holiday. They thought it would have been much more appropriate to honor a true American hero. Someone like (I swear to God they really printed this in 1986) Robert E. Lee.
What I find particularly hilarious is this reporter is from the Chattonooga Times Free Press. I don't know if any of you have ever had the pleasure of reading this fine piece of journalism, but in the continuum of politcal viewpoints its editoral page is slightly to the left of Stormfront's. My ex-wife is from Chattanooga (City motto--Welcome to Chattanooga, please set your watches back 40 years) and visiting her parents was always a treat.
I still remember the Times Free Press' outrage that the Federal Government would celebrate that communist, rabble rousing, adulterer Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday with a national holiday. They thought it would have been much more appropriate to honor a true American hero. Someone like (I swear to God they really printed this in 1986) Robert E. Lee.
go peddle yer wares somewhere else, winston.
go peddle yer wares somewhere else, winston.
But once again before I go: If there's no such thing as objectivity, what are you people whining about? W's distorted version of the facts is every bit as true (or "true") as yours. It's all relative...war is peace...freedom is slavery...ignorance is strength..
Winston is equivocating here between the correspondence theory of truth (that what is true is so because it corresponds to objective reality) and the related epistemoligical question of whether "objectivity" in reporting external reality is actually possible.
Nowhere did I see anyone arguing that truth was relative, only that objectivity is (at worst) an epistemoligical impossibility. I would think that 360 years of "brain in a vat" thought experiments would make this sort of obvservation uncontoversial. Really, the only question about the position is the degree to which it matters pragmatically as opposed to philosophically (While it's certainly possible the mission to the moon was faked, it's sufficiently improbable that I really don't need to waste much mental energy dealing with it).
But still, the kind of objectivity being discussed isn't even about confirming factual questions about the world, but beliefs about justice, politics, morality etc. shading the way in which factal occurences are covered in the media. Again, a noncontoversial question which matters more pragmatically than it does on some plane of absolute truth. (I really should take a reporter's take on the Iraq war's justifiability into account when reading an article by them on the subject).
And if the media is to be truly 'objective' in that sense, doesn't it result in the sort of "he said, she said" reporting so prevalant today. Isn't this just as perniciously relativistic as saying there is no objective fact?
But once again before I go: If there's no such thing as objectivity, what are you people whining about? W's distorted version of the facts is every bit as true (or "true") as yours. It's all relative...war is peace...freedom is slavery...ignorance is strength..
Winston is equivocating here between the correspondence theory of truth (that what is true is so because it corresponds to objective reality) and the related epistemoligical question of whether "objectivity" in reporting external reality is actually possible.
Nowhere did I see anyone arguing that truth was relative, only that objectivity is (at worst) an epistemoligical impossibility. I would think that 360 years of "brain in a vat" thought experiments would make this sort of obvservation uncontoversial. Really, the only question about the position is the degree to which it matters pragmatically as opposed to philosophically (While it's certainly possible the mission to the moon was faked, it's sufficiently improbable that I really don't need to waste much mental energy dealing with it).
But still, the kind of objectivity being discussed isn't even about confirming factual questions about the world, but beliefs about justice, politics, morality etc. shading the way in which factal occurences are covered in the media. Again, a noncontoversial question which matters more pragmatically than it does on some plane of absolute truth. (I really should take a reporter's take on the Iraq war's justifiability into account when reading an article by them on the subject).
And if the media is to be truly 'objective' in that sense, doesn't it result in the sort of "he said, she said" reporting so prevalant today. Isn't this just as perniciously relativistic as saying there is no objective fact?
Dave in NYC -- I agree, objectivity is an ideal to strive for even if it can never be fully achieved. I used to have to take notes when I read the NYTimes during Watergate because the stories were repleat with counterclaims and counter evidence. Now I skim it for the propaganda of the day if I bother to read it at all . . .
Dave in NYC -- I agree, objectivity is an ideal to strive for even if it can never be fully achieved. I used to have to take notes when I read the NYTimes during Watergate because the stories were repleat with counterclaims and counter evidence. Now I skim it for the propaganda of the day if I bother to read it at all . . .
you aren't really a bad guy ws so it pains me to say it,but you are what is known as a "usefull idiot".
and the repukers will make use of you.
you aren't really a bad guy ws so it pains me to say it,but you are what is known as a "usefull idiot".
and the repukers will make use of you.
i keep noticing that the commentary in this thread appears to be moving on two parallel tracks:
One, that the media is both manipulated, and complicit in that manipulation; that journalisim's lowest common denominator is as a come-on for advertising or commercial breaks, or promoting the political spin of the media's owners, and not real concerns with accuracy.
Two, that journalisim at its best shows a responsibility to report accurately the facts of what happens in a (presently) pluralistic society and why.
The argument that the reporter may have crossed some ethical line is, to my mind, bogus. The NYT crossed an ethical and legal line to publish The Pentagon Papers, which had been illegally copied from DoD files.
Did that make the NYT complicit in Daniel Ellsberg's 'crime'? Or did the (then) editors of the NYT decide a larger principle was at stake -- that Johnson, Nixon, and their administrations had lied to the nation about the Vietnam war and contravened the Constitution. These were facts that needed to be reported.
i keep noticing that the commentary in this thread appears to be moving on two parallel tracks:
One, that the media is both manipulated, and complicit in that manipulation; that journalisim's lowest common denominator is as a come-on for advertising or commercial breaks, or promoting the political spin of the media's owners, and not real concerns with accuracy.
Two, that journalisim at its best shows a responsibility to report accurately the facts of what happens in a (presently) pluralistic society and why.
The argument that the reporter may have crossed some ethical line is, to my mind, bogus. The NYT crossed an ethical and legal line to publish The Pentagon Papers, which had been illegally copied from DoD files.
Did that make the NYT complicit in Daniel Ellsberg's 'crime'? Or did the (then) editors of the NYT decide a larger principle was at stake -- that Johnson, Nixon, and their administrations had lied to the nation about the Vietnam war and contravened the Constitution. These were facts that needed to be reported.
the amazing yet simple fact of lying as a policy and repeating the lies has gotten so common that the public has just turned away and changed the channel...faux-cnn-msgop and the steno
bitches are less than human and deserve no respect for their failure to maintain the truth in reporting...
at least they're out front about it and don't pretend to be objective any longer...access isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on...why bother to go to any press conference...
as for vote counting...force the bitches too get with the program...
boycott voting macines by using only
ABSENTEE BALLOTS...make them count and recount and recount again if necessary...scum such as the asshole sec of state in Ohio must be forced to earn their money...unified voting rules for the whole country and honest
counts are the least we expect...
otherwise it's time too buy guns and canned foods for the long haul...
the amazing yet simple fact of lying as a policy and repeating the lies has gotten so common that the public has just turned away and changed the channel...faux-cnn-msgop and the steno
bitches are less than human and deserve no respect for their failure to maintain the truth in reporting...
at least they're out front about it and don't pretend to be objective any longer...access isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on...why bother to go to any press conference...
as for vote counting...force the bitches too get with the program...
boycott voting macines by using only
ABSENTEE BALLOTS...make them count and recount and recount again if necessary...scum such as the asshole sec of state in Ohio must be forced to earn their money...unified voting rules for the whole country and honest
counts are the least we expect...
otherwise it's time too buy guns and canned foods for the long haul...
Carpbasman,
Glad I dropped in again to link to this sad thread... At least I'll have an opportunity to defend myself against your charge of equivocation.
Since people were being pretty sloppy, I allowed myself to be so, too. Instead of saying that, were we to accept the irrationalism presupposed in some of the above arguments that we'd have to admit that W's version of the facts was just as true (or "true") as ours, I should have said that we'd have to admit that his version is just as *well-justified*, or just as objective.
No equivocation there, just going with the flow of the prevailing sloppiness. I kinda think that should have been reasonably obvious... Still, I regret any confusion it might have caused.
And as for your last question: no, a commitment to objectivity doesn't require "he said/she said" reporting. It requires a commitment to reporting the facts as accurately and completely as you are able. If, for example, W lies about WMD, it demands that that fact be reported.
Now I'm really out of here.
Carpbasman,
Glad I dropped in again to link to this sad thread... At least I'll have an opportunity to defend myself against your charge of equivocation.
Since people were being pretty sloppy, I allowed myself to be so, too. Instead of saying that, were we to accept the irrationalism presupposed in some of the above arguments that we'd have to admit that W's version of the facts was just as true (or "true") as ours, I should have said that we'd have to admit that his version is just as *well-justified*, or just as objective.
No equivocation there, just going with the flow of the prevailing sloppiness. I kinda think that should have been reasonably obvious... Still, I regret any confusion it might have caused.
And as for your last question: no, a commitment to objectivity doesn't require "he said/she said" reporting. It requires a commitment to reporting the facts as accurately and completely as you are able. If, for example, W lies about WMD, it demands that that fact be reported.
Now I'm really out of here.
I still don't see the particular ethical issue. At the very most, he encouraged the Specialist to ask a question that was obviously, from the reaction of the audience, on a lot of the soldiers' minds. He may have got him to ask a question that he may not have normally asked (because military protocol generally discourages an E-4 from asking such an impertinent question of a General, let alone the SecDef) and the reporter may have helped him frame it. But it is not like the question was irrelevant. He didn't ask why the Air Force was going ahead with the F-22 instead of just modernizing the F-16. He asked a question that was directly applicable to his situation and his safety. The reporter did nothing unethical or wrong.
I still don't see the particular ethical issue. At the very most, he encouraged the Specialist to ask a question that was obviously, from the reaction of the audience, on a lot of the soldiers' minds. He may have got him to ask a question that he may not have normally asked (because military protocol generally discourages an E-4 from asking such an impertinent question of a General, let alone the SecDef) and the reporter may have helped him frame it. But it is not like the question was irrelevant. He didn't ask why the Air Force was going ahead with the F-22 instead of just modernizing the F-16. He asked a question that was directly applicable to his situation and his safety. The reporter did nothing unethical or wrong.
If the reporter coaching the Soldier saves one live or one maiming.....then everthing else is just bullshit ! Priorities people!
If the reporter coaching the Soldier saves one live or one maiming.....then everthing else is just bullshit ! Priorities people!
Frankly, I think the real problem with the mainstream media - even down to the local level, frankly - is homoginization. How many papers are in your home town? How many news magazines? Alt-weeklies? One, maybe two. Y'all in New York City have a couple, same in Washington, but name me another town where there's more than one source of information where there's genuine competition. Here in Athens, we've got a daily newspaper, one news-art alt-weekly and a local news bi-weekly. None of them, to be quite frank, are on equal footing. For one, the difference in publication make it flat-out impossible.
Now, find me a town where one company doesn't own all the radio stations or all the TV stations or all the newspapers, or a combination thereof. There's no competition anymore. That's what made Watergate such a fascinating study: the Washington Post and New York Times were actually competitng with each other for the story. That doesn't happen anymore. Oh, sure, there's scoops, but more often than not, it's just getting the one-up on a colleague rather than doing the legwork that Woodward and Bernstein did.
And, to be quite frank, in most towns, newspapers are own, published and, for the most part, edited by folks who rub shoulders with them that are calling the shots. That's not always the case. There was a paper in Kentucky called, I believe (I'm stoned right now, so forgive the bad memory), The Mountain Eagle that was out-and-out trying to take down the corrupt city and county officials that controlled the small mining community where it was based. That, however, is a rarity; most newspaper publishers are part of local business organizations or chambers of commerce. In other words, it behooves them to not rock the boat that much.
Objectivity in the media is a complete and total myth, mainly because human beings aren't machines. We have biases. We have agendas. We have ideologies. And we have bills to pay. Unless you've worked for a small-town newspaper, you have no idea how much the advertising dollar defines what is and what isn't a news story. I can't count the number of stories I saw that went on the spike because it'd piss off a big advertiser.
I don't mind media bias, personally, as long as it's honest. Sources like Mother Jones or The American Spectator make no bones about what side of the isle they fall in with, and I got no problem with that. What bugs me is when some group like FOX trots out the "fair and balanced" nonsense, or even when Wolf Blitzer offers up his weak-legged protests of "objectivity".
The best case scenario for a reporter is to simply tell what happened, where it happened, who it involved, how it happened and when it happened. Then, you ask the people involved for their opinions as to why. You try not to let your own predjudices color your questions, but it's the height of foolishness to pretend it won't happen.
Personally, I'm not surprised t
Frankly, I think the real problem with the mainstream media - even down to the local level, frankly - is homoginization. How many papers are in your home town? How many news magazines? Alt-weeklies? One, maybe two. Y'all in New York City have a couple, same in Washington, but name me another town where there's more than one source of information where there's genuine competition. Here in Athens, we've got a daily newspaper, one news-art alt-weekly and a local news bi-weekly. None of them, to be quite frank, are on equal footing. For one, the difference in publication make it flat-out impossible.
Now, find me a town where one company doesn't own all the radio stations or all the TV stations or all the newspapers, or a combination thereof. There's no competition anymore. That's what made Watergate such a fascinating study: the Washington Post and New York Times were actually competitng with each other for the story. That doesn't happen anymore. Oh, sure, there's scoops, but more often than not, it's just getting the one-up on a colleague rather than doing the legwork that Woodward and Bernstein did.
And, to be quite frank, in most towns, newspapers are own, published and, for the most part, edited by folks who rub shoulders with them that are calling the shots. That's not always the case. There was a paper in Kentucky called, I believe (I'm stoned right now, so forgive the bad memory), The Mountain Eagle that was out-and-out trying to take down the corrupt city and county officials that controlled the small mining community where it was based. That, however, is a rarity; most newspaper publishers are part of local business organizations or chambers of commerce. In other words, it behooves them to not rock the boat that much.
Objectivity in the media is a complete and total myth, mainly because human beings aren't machines. We have biases. We have agendas. We have ideologies. And we have bills to pay. Unless you've worked for a small-town newspaper, you have no idea how much the advertising dollar defines what is and what isn't a news story. I can't count the number of stories I saw that went on the spike because it'd piss off a big advertiser.
I don't mind media bias, personally, as long as it's honest. Sources like Mother Jones or The American Spectator make no bones about what side of the isle they fall in with, and I got no problem with that. What bugs me is when some group like FOX trots out the "fair and balanced" nonsense, or even when Wolf Blitzer offers up his weak-legged protests of "objectivity".
The best case scenario for a reporter is to simply tell what happened, where it happened, who it involved, how it happened and when it happened. Then, you ask the people involved for their opinions as to why. You try not to let your own predjudices color your questions, but it's the height of foolishness to pretend it won't happen.
Personally, I'm not surprised t
Con't, sorry:
Personally, I'm not surprised this whole issue arose from a reporter from a relatively small town. You think anyone from the Washington Times or CNN would give two shits what a solider thinks if it didn't fit what the powers that be wanted said?
Follow the money, beloved. Therein lies illumination.
Con't, sorry:
Personally, I'm not surprised this whole issue arose from a reporter from a relatively small town. You think anyone from the Washington Times or CNN would give two shits what a solider thinks if it didn't fit what the powers that be wanted said?
Follow the money, beloved. Therein lies illumination.
Winston - Let me be among the many (I'm sure) who've told you this: you are a blowhard.
Most of what you say makes no sense. You talk about us being sloppy - you just blather. You don't say anything. It's all just obfuscation - empty words.
You have never said what your objections to the post or any of the comments are with any specificity. In fact, you haven't said anything specific. Nor have you cited any sources for anything you've posted.
All you've really done is whine and bitch about our incivility and homogenous mindset. You are a fraud.
Winston - Let me be among the many (I'm sure) who've told you this: you are a blowhard.
Most of what you say makes no sense. You talk about us being sloppy - you just blather. You don't say anything. It's all just obfuscation - empty words.
You have never said what your objections to the post or any of the comments are with any specificity. In fact, you haven't said anything specific. Nor have you cited any sources for anything you've posted.
All you've really done is whine and bitch about our incivility and homogenous mindset. You are a fraud.
the amazing yet simple fact of lying as a policy and repeating the lies has gotten so common that the public has just turned away and changed the channel...faux-cnn-msgop and the steno
bitches are less than human and deserve no respect for their failure to maintain the truth in reporting...
at least they're out front about it and don't pretend to be objective any longer...access isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on...why bother to go to any press conference...
as for vote counting...force the bitches too get with the program...
boycott voting macines by using only
ABSENTEE BALLOTS...make them count and recount and recount again if necessary...scum such as the asshole sec of state in Ohio must be forced to earn their money...unified voting rules for the whole country and honest
counts are the least we expect...
otherwise it's time too buy guns and canned foods for the long haul...
the amazing yet simple fact of lying as a policy and repeating the lies has gotten so common that the public has just turned away and changed the channel...faux-cnn-msgop and the steno
bitches are less than human and deserve no respect for their failure to maintain the truth in reporting...
at least they're out front about it and don't pretend to be objective any longer...access isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on...why bother to go to any press conference...
as for vote counting...force the bitches too get with the program...
boycott voting macines by using only
ABSENTEE BALLOTS...make them count and recount and recount again if necessary...scum such as the asshole sec of state in Ohio must be forced to earn their money...unified voting rules for the whole country and honest
counts are the least we expect...
otherwise it's time too buy guns and canned foods for the long haul...
Yeah what we need is more un-ethical reporters like this one.
Imagine this scenario if the Nazi press had not been completely controlled by Hitler:
CNN's (German Division) would be giving equal time to Nazi Death Squads and to minority opposition all in the name of being "fair and balanced". Never taking a moral stance on the issue of the "final solution".
Yep folks, the "final solution" would have been just another news story to be reported in an "objective" manner. This is the model that the American MSM now deems to be "respectable journalism". Silence is consent, and Atrios is absolutely correct, the media is always part of the story--impossible for them to abdicate their responsibility by putting a bullshit label like "fair and balanced" on their efforts.
Yeah what we need is more un-ethical reporters like this one.
Imagine this scenario if the Nazi press had not been completely controlled by Hitler:
CNN's (German Division) would be giving equal time to Nazi Death Squads and to minority opposition all in the name of being "fair and balanced". Never taking a moral stance on the issue of the "final solution".
Yep folks, the "final solution" would have been just another news story to be reported in an "objective" manner. This is the model that the American MSM now deems to be "respectable journalism". Silence is consent, and Atrios is absolutely correct, the media is always part of the story--impossible for them to abdicate their responsibility by putting a bullshit label like "fair and balanced" on their efforts.
Well Winston, I also said that when we talk about objectivity in the media it's not the same thing as objectivity in factual reporting. Media "Bias" isn't supposed to be about facts it's supposed to be about the ideological interpretation of the facts. And when idealogical interpretation of the facts includes denial of, for instance, Global Warming, "media objectvity" as it stands today entails presenting both sides of the issue without any analysis as if that will somehow approximate the truth of the matter.
This is what people mean when they say the idea of media objectivity is a myth or not even desirable. If one side of an issue is flat wrong, the media should be able to say so. And it can't under the current rules of objectivity. Objectivity as it exists is relativistic and worse, it's relativistic only between competing opposites.
That is, people when discussing media objectivity pretend they are talking about reporting the world as ii is, but what they are really taking about is not taking sides on an issue, ideological objectivity.
Well Winston, I also said that when we talk about objectivity in the media it's not the same thing as objectivity in factual reporting. Media "Bias" isn't supposed to be about facts it's supposed to be about the ideological interpretation of the facts. And when idealogical interpretation of the facts includes denial of, for instance, Global Warming, "media objectvity" as it stands today entails presenting both sides of the issue without any analysis as if that will somehow approximate the truth of the matter.
This is what people mean when they say the idea of media objectivity is a myth or not even desirable. If one side of an issue is flat wrong, the media should be able to say so. And it can't under the current rules of objectivity. Objectivity as it exists is relativistic and worse, it's relativistic only between competing opposites.
That is, people when discussing media objectivity pretend they are talking about reporting the world as ii is, but what they are really taking about is not taking sides on an issue, ideological objectivity.
The nutjobs are ignoring the wild cheers that came from the military personnel present when he asked the question of Rumsfailed.
The nutjobs are ignoring the wild cheers that came from the military personnel present when he asked the question of Rumsfailed.
Carpasman is correct - people are discussing different usages of the word "objectivity".
"Objectivity" in the epistemlogical sense means that we are able to attain knowledge of, and issue descriptions of, actual objective facts. That there isn't something in the process of observation or communication that immediately poisons the possibility of knowledge.
Therefore, posts that say, "There is no such thing as objectivity" or "Objectivity is a trick of those in power", if applied to this usage of the word, would appear to be saying that there is no such thing as objective truth. If there is no such thing as objective truth, there is so such thing as a lie, either, and it follows that Bush can tell whatever stories about WMD he wants, because the nature of consciousness and experience means that there are no such things as lies.
But this usage of the concept of the "objective" is not what is under discussion here.
There is a common-usage sense of the word [one that is probably a misuse], though, that defines the "objective" as "the even-handed; the disinterested". When used with reference to journalism, it means that the reporter does not engage his material with any preconception about what party to a situation is in the "right". It is THIS conception of the objective that leads to the "he said / she said" structure of stories, and that leads to reporters bending over backwards to try to prove that their personal ideology doesn't lead to "bias".
The two concepts are related, but distinct. When one denies that disinterested or even-handed journalism is possible or even worthwhile, one is not disputing the existence of objective truth in the universe. You're merely disputing whether bending over backwards to "show both sides" or "give the benefit of the doubt" or "stay out of the frame" actually helps us determine the truth.
One could easily hold that it is precisely the attitude of intellectual excitement, of vigour, of animated engagement, that comes from a venomous and hostile press, that advances the cause of a free press. How does an intellectual environment where all reporters are supposed to have no point of view serve the cause of public debate better than an environment where all reporters stridently serve to advance their own point of view, but where all points of view are allowed?
Pissed-off people engaged in political conflict, frankly, DIG HARDER than people patting themselves on the back about how "fair" they are. The "yellow" press was a free press, and it served its public. And no one can accuse the yellow press of disengaging the public from politics, and you certainly can persuasively make the case that our current press has.
Carpasman is correct - people are discussing different usages of the word "objectivity".
"Objectivity" in the epistemlogical sense means that we are able to attain knowledge of, and issue descriptions of, actual objective facts. That there isn't something in the process of observation or communication that immediately poisons the possibility of knowledge.
Therefore, posts that say, "There is no such thing as objectivity" or "Objectivity is a trick of those in power", if applied to this usage of the word, would appear to be saying that there is no such thing as objective truth. If there is no such thing as objective truth, there is so such thing as a lie, either, and it follows that Bush can tell whatever stories about WMD he wants, because the nature of consciousness and experience means that there are no such things as lies.
But this usage of the concept of the "objective" is not what is under discussion here.
There is a common-usage sense of the word [one that is probably a misuse], though, that defines the "objective" as "the even-handed; the disinterested". When used with reference to journalism, it means that the reporter does not engage his material with any preconception about what party to a situation is in the "right". It is THIS conception of the objective that leads to the "he said / she said" structure of stories, and that leads to reporters bending over backwards to try to prove that their personal ideology doesn't lead to "bias".
The two concepts are related, but distinct. When one denies that disinterested or even-handed journalism is possible or even worthwhile, one is not disputing the existence of objective truth in the universe. You're merely disputing whether bending over backwards to "show both sides" or "give the benefit of the doubt" or "stay out of the frame" actually helps us determine the truth.
One could easily hold that it is precisely the attitude of intellectual excitement, of vigour, of animated engagement, that comes from a venomous and hostile press, that advances the cause of a free press. How does an intellectual environment where all reporters are supposed to have no point of view serve the cause of public debate better than an environment where all reporters stridently serve to advance their own point of view, but where all points of view are allowed?
Pissed-off people engaged in political conflict, frankly, DIG HARDER than people patting themselves on the back about how "fair" they are. The "yellow" press was a free press, and it served its public. And no one can accuse the yellow press of disengaging the public from politics, and you certainly can persuasively make the case that our current press has.
I have 2 nephews who have served in Assganistan and Irack...they"ll prabably both go back. I DON"T CARE WHO HELPS TO MAKE THEIR TOURS A TAD SAFER. Shouting intentional, as I'm sure you know.
I have 2 nephews who have served in Assganistan and Irack...they"ll prabably both go back. I DON"T CARE WHO HELPS TO MAKE THEIR TOURS A TAD SAFER. Shouting intentional, as I'm sure you know.
cochise - brilliant comment. Just a perfectly apt analogy and exactly what is wrong with the media. And fuck they will not see it.
cochise - brilliant comment. Just a perfectly apt analogy and exactly what is wrong with the media. And fuck they will not see it.
Any trivia to detract from the real issue, which of course is while defense $$ are spent providing $200k mercenaries to protect Haliburton employees, our soldiers are UNEQUIPPED, UNDERQUIPPED and often, horrifyingly UNPAID. Rummy should be tried for treason for his stupid and false claim that you have to do "with the Army you have" -- this is true UNLESS it's a war of choice, as is this one. WHATANOUTRAGE!!!
Any trivia to detract from the real issue, which of course is while defense $$ are spent providing $200k mercenaries to protect Haliburton employees, our soldiers are UNEQUIPPED, UNDERQUIPPED and often, horrifyingly UNPAID. Rummy should be tried for treason for his stupid and false claim that you have to do "with the Army you have" -- this is true UNLESS it's a war of choice, as is this one. WHATANOUTRAGE!!!
the only thing I care about is the fact that the marines cheered and applauded after the question was asked. they were able to get it off their chests. and I greatly admire the spec who had the guts to pose the question to old chickenhawk gutless in the first place no matter who put him up to it.
the only thing I care about is the fact that the marines cheered and applauded after the question was asked. they were able to get it off their chests. and I greatly admire the spec who had the guts to pose the question to old chickenhawk gutless in the first place no matter who put him up to it.
So a soldier had a reporter help him frame his question so what? It's not like the reporter had to tell him he didn't have enough armour. This has been a known problem for awhile now. It's the second time Dummy, er, Rummy has had this question posed to him.
I think a planted question would sound more like, "Mr. Rumsfeld, since this war is so important, do you know why President Bush hasn't sent his own kids to fight"?
So a soldier had a reporter help him frame his question so what? It's not like the reporter had to tell him he didn't have enough armour. This has been a known problem for awhile now. It's the second time Dummy, er, Rummy has had this question posed to him.
I think a planted question would sound more like, "Mr. Rumsfeld, since this war is so important, do you know why President Bush hasn't sent his own kids to fight"?
"The media is always a part of the story."
Ahem:
The media are always a part of the story.
Carry on.
"The media is always a part of the story."
Ahem:
The media are always a part of the story.
Carry on.
Anyone who tries to spin this story about the Pentagon's lack of support for the troops into a "liberal media" issue is scum and beneath contempt. I'd like to make a comment that's more complex, wittier, ironic, etc. etc. - but there's really nothing else to say.
My disgust with the civvies who sent our kids into war has reached the vein-popping, "beat 'em with a stick 'til they scream for mercy and then beat 'em some more" level of disgust and outrage.
Anyone who tries to spin this story about the Pentagon's lack of support for the troops into a "liberal media" issue is scum and beneath contempt. I'd like to make a comment that's more complex, wittier, ironic, etc. etc. - but there's really nothing else to say.
My disgust with the civvies who sent our kids into war has reached the vein-popping, "beat 'em with a stick 'til they scream for mercy and then beat 'em some more" level of disgust and outrage.
Spinoza,
Word.
Spinoza,
Word.
i like hanging out here at eschaton as much as anyone, but some of you people really need to get out more. there are other liberal, anti-war, anti-bush blogs out there. winston smith's is one of them. the tribal orthodoxy bullshit that crops up here from time to time pisses me off no end.
i like hanging out here at eschaton as much as anyone, but some of you people really need to get out more. there are other liberal, anti-war, anti-bush blogs out there. winston smith's is one of them. the tribal orthodoxy bullshit that crops up here from time to time pisses me off no end.
I just realized I used "disgust" twice in that last sentence regarding the BushCo Boys, when I should have used it at least thrice. Also I left out "nausea", "loathing", "repulsion" and "abhorrence". Sorry about that...
I just realized I used "disgust" twice in that last sentence regarding the BushCo Boys, when I should have used it at least thrice. Also I left out "nausea", "loathing", "repulsion" and "abhorrence". Sorry about that...
Under the US Constitution, journalists are not supposed to be 'disinterested.' The Fourth Estate, remember. They are in fact fucking supposed to work in the interests of democracy, to inquire of the institutions of gorernment as to their peractices, to report those in the interests of an informed populace. n 'objective' press is a defanged press. The RPess starts from the observation that the State always already has all the pucking power it needs, and there needs to be some contervailing power whent ht state seeks to conceal its operations, which all states--from those in Britain during the Enlightenment, right thru to today--shamelssly do....
Why the juicy, slippery, sliding fuck do you suppose there is a press freedom clause in the Fucking Cnstitutiopn in the fucking FIRST PLACE...
Under the US Constitution, journalists are not supposed to be 'disinterested.' The Fourth Estate, remember. They are in fact fucking supposed to work in the interests of democracy, to inquire of the institutions of gorernment as to their peractices, to report those in the interests of an informed populace. n 'objective' press is a defanged press. The RPess starts from the observation that the State always already has all the pucking power it needs, and there needs to be some contervailing power whent ht state seeks to conceal its operations, which all states--from those in Britain during the Enlightenment, right thru to today--shamelssly do....
Why the juicy, slippery, sliding fuck do you suppose there is a press freedom clause in the Fucking Cnstitutiopn in the fucking FIRST PLACE...
Olaf...
Winston, for all his enlightened pretense, in the end learned to love Big Brother...didn't you read the fucking book???
Olaf...
Winston, for all his enlightened pretense, in the end learned to love Big Brother...didn't you read the fucking book???
It is now almost a reflex of the White House to focus on the questioner every time someone points out what they are doing wrong. Fox, CNN and the rightwing nutball echo chamber of Drudge, Rush, Hannity and lesser assholes now do the White House's work for them. They never question the motivations or the background of people who ask bullshit softball questions to the President at his loyalty oath vetted appearances. That would seem to be "attacking the President". Well I call bullshit on this practice. From now on everyone who asks a softball question to the president needs to be checked into just like this Army Spc. Thomas Wilson. I mean it's the "fair and balanced" thing to do, right?
This was the first CNN.com headline.
Reporter planted GI's question for Rumsfeld
This was the follow-up story headline.
Editor: Disclosure was needed on armor query
Gee CNN. Where are these story?
"Armor-gate! Sec. of Defense fails to protect troops due to policy blinders"
"Sec. of Defense doesn't answer reporter's questions, reporters resort to other tactics for straight answers."
It is now almost a reflex of the White House to focus on the questioner every time someone points out what they are doing wrong. Fox, CNN and the rightwing nutball echo chamber of Drudge, Rush, Hannity and lesser assholes now do the White House's work for them. They never question the motivations or the background of people who ask bullshit softball questions to the President at his loyalty oath vetted appearances. That would seem to be "attacking the President". Well I call bullshit on this practice. From now on everyone who asks a softball question to the president needs to be checked into just like this Army Spc. Thomas Wilson. I mean it's the "fair and balanced" thing to do, right?
This was the first CNN.com headline.
Reporter planted GI's question for Rumsfeld
This was the follow-up story headline.
Editor: Disclosure was needed on armor query
Gee CNN. Where are these story?
"Armor-gate! Sec. of Defense fails to protect troops due to policy blinders"
"Sec. of Defense doesn't answer reporter's questions, reporters resort to other tactics for straight answers."
The American "news" media is sickening. This episode shows just pathetic they are. It took a fighting soldier to ask a question they should have been asking 15 months ago. The cowardly talking heads.
The journalist who did work with the soldiers to form the questions deserves a promotion, big raise and a million "thanky ous" from every American concerned with the safety of American armed forces.
The American "news" media is sickening. This episode shows just pathetic they are. It took a fighting soldier to ask a question they should have been asking 15 months ago. The cowardly talking heads.
The journalist who did work with the soldiers to form the questions deserves a promotion, big raise and a million "thanky ous" from every American concerned with the safety of American armed forces.
C'mon Olaf.
The guy drops in making allegations of some sort of imagined ethical violations based on what he probably heard from CNN, indicating that he did no research of his own,
and then started bashing Tena because she called him on his bullshit.
There is obviously no ethical violation here at all.
It's just the right wing trying to take the heat off by diverting the conversation to the way the question was asked.
Mr. Winston Smith came over to moralize. He certainly added no value.
-
C'mon Olaf.
The guy drops in making allegations of some sort of imagined ethical violations based on what he probably heard from CNN, indicating that he did no research of his own,
and then started bashing Tena because she called him on his bullshit.
There is obviously no ethical violation here at all.
It's just the right wing trying to take the heat off by diverting the conversation to the way the question was asked.
Mr. Winston Smith came over to moralize. He certainly added no value.
-
And now, Action 6 News, LIVE, with Biff McCoke and Hori Hummer...
"Our top story tonight... bias in the NEWS. Can it be stopped? What are it's intentions? Does it come in peace? On location in her bedroom, Lonely Tokenblack has the story."
"Biff, I'm here at home, and I'm having a hard time getting up to come in to work this evening. Why? I'm afraid I can't report without unknowingly signalling my own preconceptions and biases. More accurately, I'm afraid I'll get yelled at and called names by political hacks and pundits, or even letter-writers in the pages of the local newspaper. So I'm just going to sit here instead, paralyzed by fear, and unable to comport myself in a manner befitting a functioning adult homo sapiens.
Back to you, Biff."
And now, Action 6 News, LIVE, with Biff McCoke and Hori Hummer...
"Our top story tonight... bias in the NEWS. Can it be stopped? What are it's intentions? Does it come in peace? On location in her bedroom, Lonely Tokenblack has the story."
"Biff, I'm here at home, and I'm having a hard time getting up to come in to work this evening. Why? I'm afraid I can't report without unknowingly signalling my own preconceptions and biases. More accurately, I'm afraid I'll get yelled at and called names by political hacks and pundits, or even letter-writers in the pages of the local newspaper. So I'm just going to sit here instead, paralyzed by fear, and unable to comport myself in a manner befitting a functioning adult homo sapiens.
Back to you, Biff."
Olaf - you know, my side of my conversation with Winston was made up of my own ideas, not some collective hive of thought. I was responding to his actual comments.
Why is it that people immediately assume that if you disagree, you are being rude? I don't get this at all. I answered him and asked him questions that he never really answered and then he started complaining about the fact that we weren't agreeing with him. Well, fuck me, but I didn't know I was obligated to agree with everyone.
Olaf - you know, my side of my conversation with Winston was made up of my own ideas, not some collective hive of thought. I was responding to his actual comments.
Why is it that people immediately assume that if you disagree, you are being rude? I don't get this at all. I answered him and asked him questions that he never really answered and then he started complaining about the fact that we weren't agreeing with him. Well, fuck me, but I didn't know I was obligated to agree with everyone.
Olaf glad and big | Email | Homepage | 12.11.04 - 6:22 pm
Right. That's olaf glad and big.
Hilarious.
Olaf glad and big | Email | Homepage | 12.11.04 - 6:22 pm
Right. That's olaf glad and big.
Hilarious.
Christ, the wimp does have a blog.
His latest post whines about his treatment here. Not to worry, Olaf apologized for our behavior.
Smith neglects admitting to being wrong in his first post and persisting in an angels dancing on a pin grad school discussion thereafter. His agrument, as best I can understand, was that the objectivity of a reporter reporting on a media event -- staged by one of the planet's most powerful men that was meant to exclude the press from any involvement other than taking notes -- was compromised if the reporter somehow participated in holding the bigwig's feet to the fire.
Not that he bothered to support or debate the silly position, just insisted there was a core objectivity issue deserving serious thought.
Christ, the wimp does have a blog.
His latest post whines about his treatment here. Not to worry, Olaf apologized for our behavior.
Smith neglects admitting to being wrong in his first post and persisting in an angels dancing on a pin grad school discussion thereafter. His agrument, as best I can understand, was that the objectivity of a reporter reporting on a media event -- staged by one of the planet's most powerful men that was meant to exclude the press from any involvement other than taking notes -- was compromised if the reporter somehow participated in holding the bigwig's feet to the fire.
Not that he bothered to support or debate the silly position, just insisted there was a core objectivity issue deserving serious thought.
Advice to troll:
Walk out your door and head to civilization.
It's waiting for you.
Advice to troll:
Walk out your door and head to civilization.
It's waiting for you.
Anybody notice how Yahoo reported this revelation?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...ues01&
printer=1
Yep, turns out the question wasn't "authentic" and that the anger was not real either.
Anybody notice how Yahoo reported this revelation?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...ues01&
printer=1
Yep, turns out the question wasn't "authentic" and that the anger was not real either.
the whole notion that asking the secdef a QUESTION!!!!!!! is some break of protocol or ill manners shows you how little we understand about how the press is supposed to work.
The press is not supposed to support policy, only report the facts. The so called cable "news" and punditry channels and the lazy corporate sumner redstone outlets have grown used to steady profits and rising share price- they are not about journalism. they are about shareholders profits.
long ago, having happy advertsiers became more important than the truth
that
is
the
problem
the whole notion that asking the secdef a QUESTION!!!!!!! is some break of protocol or ill manners shows you how little we understand about how the press is supposed to work.
The press is not supposed to support policy, only report the facts. The so called cable "news" and punditry channels and the lazy corporate sumner redstone outlets have grown used to steady profits and rising share price- they are not about journalism. they are about shareholders profits.
long ago, having happy advertsiers became more important than the truth
that
is
the
problem
There's an idea of quantum mechanics that says you can't directly observe something (at the quantum level) without affecting it because the act of direct observation is done using techniques that interact with it (err, yea, that explains it! Go read someone who knows what they are talking about...)
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Yep.
There's an idea of quantum mechanics that says you can't directly observe something (at the quantum level) without affecting it because the act of direct observation is done using techniques that interact with it (err, yea, that explains it! Go read someone who knows what they are talking about...)
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Yep.
The tut-tutters should ask themselves: if not the soldiers asking those questions, who would? they should save their wrath for their derelict colleagues who let Rumsfeld get away, literally, with murder and don't have the imagination to plant a few questions when they get a chance to penetrate the wall of silence the administration has built around the truth.
We need more of this, not less.
The tut-tutters should ask themselves: if not the soldiers asking those questions, who would? they should save their wrath for their derelict colleagues who let Rumsfeld get away, literally, with murder and don't have the imagination to plant a few questions when they get a chance to penetrate the wall of silence the administration has built around the truth.
We need more of this, not less.
Did that make the NYT complicit in Daniel Ellsberg's 'crime'?
There is a huge difference between Ellsberg's story and the one; for example, in which Novak outed Plame.
In Ellsberg's case he was reporting wrongdoing on the part of the governemnt, the NYT of memory, not the one we've got today, was exposing wrongdoing. Novak was acting as waterboy for a vindictive administration.
Judith Miller's trouble stems from her being a witness to a crime and refusing to cooperate with a criminal investegation. She is covering up governmental wrongdoing.
If a conservative can't see the difference it's no surprise to me.
Did that make the NYT complicit in Daniel Ellsberg's 'crime'?
There is a huge difference between Ellsberg's story and the one; for example, in which Novak outed Plame.
In Ellsberg's case he was reporting wrongdoing on the part of the governemnt, the NYT of memory, not the one we've got today, was exposing wrongdoing. Novak was acting as waterboy for a vindictive administration.
Judith Miller's trouble stems from her being a witness to a crime and refusing to cooperate with a criminal investegation. She is covering up governmental wrongdoing.
If a conservative can't see the difference it's no surprise to me.
Here is an excerpt from Kerry in the first of the 2004 Presidential Debates:
"And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.
"I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got them for a birthday present.
"I think that's wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament."
Bush's response to that was basically that Kerry had voted against an appropriations bill that included some funds for more body armor, etc.
The real story is that here we are in December, and they still haven't unfucked this situation.
Here is an excerpt from Kerry in the first of the 2004 Presidential Debates:
"And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.
"I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got them for a birthday present.
"I think that's wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament."
Bush's response to that was basically that Kerry had voted against an appropriations bill that included some funds for more body armor, etc.
The real story is that here we are in December, and they still haven't unfucked this situation.
The revelation that a soldier's question to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the lack of armor on military vehicles
The guy is a Bushtard. Not only did he vote for President Asshole, but says he "supports him 100%."
Hard to feel sorry for someone who supports the cause of his problem.
The revelation that a soldier's question to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the lack of armor on military vehicles
The guy is a Bushtard. Not only did he vote for President Asshole, but says he "supports him 100%."
Hard to feel sorry for someone who supports the cause of his problem.
"it always makes me feel better (i.e. worse) to come over here and see how unreasonable and uncivil the lefties can be..".
Why? Because we won't bow down and kiss your ass and "see the error of our ways."
Stay on the freeper boards; they're much more your speed.
"it always makes me feel better (i.e. worse) to come over here and see how unreasonable and uncivil the lefties can be..".
Why? Because we won't bow down and kiss your ass and "see the error of our ways."
Stay on the freeper boards; they're much more your speed.
that was me, pie. not a false olaf.
that was me, pie. not a false olaf.
Half?
Half?
The link Atrios provided is a popular discussion board for reporters on the poynter institute website, a journalism center that, among other things, talks a lot about journalistic ethics.
So there's a certain logic that media types might spend a large amount of time talking about journalism there.
And should anyone have read the site Atrios linked to, they might have noticed that very few journalists thought the young reporter from Tennessee acted unethically. Most defended his actions.
I realize that jibe with the self-righteous certainty expressed here that ALL journalists are Republican toady, glory-grubbing, self-referential 'hoors' as was so pleasantly expressed here.
But then, so it goes.
The link Atrios provided is a popular discussion board for reporters on the poynter institute website, a journalism center that, among other things, talks a lot about journalistic ethics.
So there's a certain logic that media types might spend a large amount of time talking about journalism there.
And should anyone have read the site Atrios linked to, they might have noticed that very few journalists thought the young reporter from Tennessee acted unethically. Most defended his actions.
I realize that jibe with the self-righteous certainty expressed here that ALL journalists are Republican toady, glory-grubbing, self-referential 'hoors' as was so pleasantly expressed here.
But then, so it goes.
Well, they aren't called 'stenographers to power' for nothing.
Well, they aren't called 'stenographers to power' for nothing.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
