Dana Priest is my hero.
» Breaking News
RNC Spent Almost $30,000 More In Clothes For Palin
Mumbai Terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab Promised $1,250 For Attack
Economy Kills Broadway’s Latest Version Of “Grease”
Katie Price: Dwight Yorke Ignores Disabled Son Harvey
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe Writing Book
Its nice to finally have journalists takes their jobs seriously. It was especially refreshing to have her admit that they should have done a better job in the leading up to the Iraqi war. Hopefully, with the publication of Helen Thomas’ new book, this means a shift in attitude among journalists covering this administration.
Nice back o’ the hand to Bll “Double Down” Bennett. I said so in my email to Dana.
“Hopefully, with the publication of Helen Thomas new book, this means a shift in attitude among journalists covering this administration. ”
What? From intensely hating Bush to very intensely hating Bush?
Dugger, Sheesh
I prefer the name “Las Vegas Bill” but the message is still the same. It was truly entertaining to watch this pompous hypocrite swell up like a toad with a bad case of indigestion as he was roundly disputed by all of intelligent people around him, even William Safire, not exactly whom one would call a flaming liberal.
If he is so convinced that reporters have broken the law and the first amendment doesn’t apply, why doesn’t he push for this administration to start prosecuting journalists? After last week’s thumping, I’m sure Alberto and company are chompin’ at the bit to be dragged again before the Supreme Court.
Dugger, you have to be kidding me. Journalists, especially the press corp, has completely dropped the ball when it come to questioning this administration. It is their job to question and keep the politicians that WE pay honest. No matter what party occupies the White House, the press has to hold the accountable. That has not been done well with this White House. It is not done well with many White Houses for that matter.
Oh, and as an aside, did anyone see Bill Bennett get his ass handed to him by Jon Stewart? Here is the clip, in case you missed it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru1M8VDpnAY
And Republicans are ignorant, uneducated, mouth breathers who beat their wives (when they have them), listen only to Rush and Hannity, and sit around in their trailer parks watching Hee Haw while spitting Skoal juice into an empty Coke can.
See! Generalizing is fun!
deets,
I’m not kidding you at all. The media in general are a pack of leftist idiots who went from journalism school, where they were taught that the ideal is to ‘make a difference’, straight into big media and haven’t had a real world experience in their lives. They hate Bush, Republicans, the military, flyover land and believe in their heart of hearts that they are superior, morally and intellectually, human beings. All of their “reporting” is thusly colored.
Dugger
Dugger,
Your paranoia would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Journalists have been and should continue to be America’s naysayers and muckrakers whether they are chasing down the “Monica story” or following up on the Downing Street Memo. The fact that they dropped the ball on the latter has nothing to do with their political persuasion any more than their emphasis on the former did.
I think most of us on the Left, lovers of America’s founding principles as we are, hope that the press continues its critical mission in our democracy. You seem to prefer propaganda.
zadura,
Open up your mind. Why should the media be “nay sayers”. Why should they not tell us what is actually happening - not embellshed in any way by crackpot ideology or a desire to “make a difference” or to say ‘nay’. And furthermore, journalists have a responsibility to report bad news, to muck rake at times, but also to honestly report good news. Even if said good news involves US troops or God forbid, Bush.
“hope that the press continues its critical mission in our democracy.”
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents that he tried to overthrow a presidency with? That critical mission?
The only godd*mned critical mission they’ve got is to report honestly - across the board.
Dugger
[...] in a 1986 speech, [former WaPo publisher Katharine Graham, who died in 2001] warned that the media sometimes made tragic mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.
This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities, Ms. Graham said.
After this post, I never want to hear Oliver complain about Ann Coulter again.
.. and to compound the mistake, Reagan, who thought Beirut was the capital of Grenada, retaliated against the wrong country.
Dugger,
I would like you to point out good news from Iraq not found in major papers. Each and every corner turned has gotten front page treatment from the original invasion to the establishment of the latest government. Maybe the facts just don’t support the idea that this is a huge failure and you should open yourself up to that possibility.
The press should be naysayers because that’s what our Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted a vigorous public debate. Perhaps that is lost on you - open-minded as you are - but that’s the fact, Jack.
Yes, ferris, because indirectly calling out a gambler on being a gambler is exactlythe same as……
Calling for the bombing of the NY Times building.
Calling middle-Easterners ragheads
Saying that the 9/11 widows were happy for their husband’s deaths.
Threatening the life of a Supreme Court Justice
Advocating the genocide of Muslim civilians
Cut the misdirection. Grow up.
I would like you to point out good news from Iraq not found in major papers.
All he’s going to say is “a school in Baghdad was painted” or something like that. He won’t even mention which school.
… or that the school was painted after being leveled by bombers and rebuilt eight times.
Make no mistake, cons don’t have a problem with the good news not being reported, what they really want is for the bad news not to be reported.
Bad news: 10 soldiers and 500 civilians died today in Iraq. But I just saved a bundle on my auto insurance!
zadura,
Why didn’t you answer as to why the press should be nay sayers instead of truth tellers? You, not I said they should be nay sayers. Now if by nay sayers you meant that the press should fairly report the known facts and cover, fairly, both sides of an issue, should that be your ‘nay saying’ , I’ve got no problem.
Also please tell me exactly where it was that our founding fathers said they wanted the press to be (only or predominately ) naysayers. I’ve been wrong before, but that sounds like a self serving interpretation.
Dugger
Our founding fathers themselves were the naysaying press. Many wrote extensively about King George, and how desperately they felt that a revolution was needed.Heck, thats how most of them became famous in the first place. If they had just shut up and gone about their days, we may still be singing God Save the Queen and having tea time. And if it werent for those pesky Frenchies, we may have lost that war of independence stirred up by the press. I wish the right wing would remember that on this independence day.
Dugger,
What a clever wit you are: truth-tellers rather than naysayers. I don’t really care what you call it as long as it ensures the protections under the First Amendment.
Since you are sure there is truth untold, what truth from the Iraq War has not been reported? That is the issue you let slide without comment.
Happy Independence Day!
The British marched through my town on SEP 28 1776
Dugger, I take your silence to mean that you are arguing a debunked position. I would argue to the contrary that there is not nearly enough reporting on Iraq. We don’t hear at all about where or why soldiers are killed, don’t know the factions we fight, don’t understand the culture of the people. Therefore, when we see movements in the leadership or the insurgents or anybody else, we have no means of interpreting them. That is the real tragedy of today’s journalism.
>>The British marched through my town on SEP 28 1776
Why didn’t your ancestors stop them, Frank?
I guess it was just a war they weren’t willing to fight.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
JK
I think Dugger inadvertently pointed out the main problem with our press when he said, “Now if by nay sayers you meant that the press should fairly report the known facts and cover, fairly, both sides of an issue, should that be your nay saying , I ve got no problem.”
The idea that the every issue or event has two sides and should explained from a democratic and republican perspective severely limits the scope of debate in this country to begin with. Instead of asking networks and journalists to present things from “both sides”, why don’t we just require them to ask tough, probing questions that force politicians to reveal their motives?
Dugger, you are not worth my time. You have no rebuttal and you manage to spread that across 5 paragraphs. Enough with you and your foolishness.
zadura,
Yes. If I don’t respond in a fair amount of time, you win the debate.
My criticism is not specifically of Iraq but of the general operating premise of the media - your ‘nay saying’, or any thing other than reporting the facts of a story and fairly reporting all meaningful sides of an issue. I reject “media with a mission” or media out to make a difference. Give me old fashioned reporting of all known facts.
Trust
And yes, Trust, there often may be more than two sides to an issue or no sides to an issue. Insofar as the media wishes or needs to go beyond the facts of a story, presenting a fair summation of the meaningful involved sides’ positions is fine with me. CSPAN does this well.
However, this
“why don t we just require them to ask tough, probing questions that force politicians to reveal their motives?”
is silliness. Why precisely do we care about ‘motive’ as opposed to the actuality of what was done. A cardinal sin of the left today and the MSM (redundant) is the focus on motive. If my senator votes for apple pie and motherhood because of some secret craving to steal the mother’s apple pie next door, I don’t care. His vote counts. Likewise if he voted aginst it because of some great concern for the welfare of mankind, I’d vote his *ss out. Motive is BS. Action counts.
Dugger
“Motive is BS. Action counts.” Spoken like a true cowboy!
What could possibly be more beneficial than understanding what a politician’s motivations are?! Most people do not have the means, time, or educational background to analyze specific pieces of legislation, but one of the best ways to make educated judgements about legislation (or any political action) is to try to understand the motivations of the people who are crafting and supporting legislation (or action).
I can’t believe I’m actually having to take the time to write this. I give up.
Trust,
You should give up. You understand that motive is not action. Right? You can understand motive ’secondarily’ all you want, but you sure as h*ll better understand what actually happens first.
And another huge problem with motive is that it is a convenient way to foist one’s own biased reading of another without actually having to deal with real facts. For instance, progressives just ‘know’ Bush has lied. When pressed, they cannnot deliver the goods.
And Z, I note when it comes to real discussion - when you are asked why the media should primarily or soley be “nay sayers” you pack up and leave. OK by me, but I’m still on the field and you have ’strategically redeployed.’
Dugger, “Motive” - give me a break!