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!

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.

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

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?

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

The British marched through my town on SEP 28 1776

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.

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

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.

All he’s going to say is “a school in Baghdad was painted” or something like that. He won’t even mention which school.

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. 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.

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.

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