Conspiracy and the Press...

[BLUEHAWK]

Pho -
Maybe not... I am the type who fails to understand most jokes without a further explanation, sorry. I don't think I'm stupid exactly, though some may believe so. Maybe incredulous and guileless would be better terms?

I had to train myself to handle and participate in the onslaught of kidding around, all my life. I am getting better at it though, never will be expert I'm sure.

If I've made a faux pas I am sure to be reminded of it forever after... and that's okay too.

[BLUEHAWK]

Bob K -
I listen to or watch and read everything possible, too... on the assumption that we are all on the same team, and mighty mighty grateful for the freedoms of speech and press we do still have. Those two instincts among us humans are almost impossible to completely destroy, luckily.

I had meant to mention, as you now have, what happens because of editors to writers and reporters. If your editor (or his/her publisher) is of a certain political leaning, you can be sure that what you write, even when perfectly written, may not resemble your intent. There are always other ways though, but then it becomes a function of how one reaches the largest audience, and that brings advertising and access into the mix.... as you have implied.

It all does work out in the end, as Little Sparrow confidently infers... however, there are always always always interruptions or threats and defeats that can and do occur; such as Nazism, Communism, Fascism, terrorists, dictatorships, hate groups, arrogant corporations and unpredictable events like September 11th.

[Arrow]

Mike,

You grew up poor but you are fully aware of Krystal Nacht,Aushwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, theTrail of Tears, Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, Americans being on death row that our innocent etc. I think you just proved my point.You live in the greatest country on earth and you have the freedom of access to all manner of information be it for or against the status quo.

Do notassume that those of us that support our government in its attempt to secure our safety walk around unaware that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I have always asked the hard questions of my government.Anybody that knows me knows I'm neither complacent nor naive when it comes to politics.

Griz's reference to "if you are doing nothing wrong you don't have to worry" was specific to our security today in the light of 9/11. People bitched and complained that our intelligence community let us down that it was unresponsive. Now they are bitchin' and complaining because they don't want it reported that someone is reading material about how to put together a dirty bomb on an internet site.

Well,if you come up with a better plan let us know. In the mean time I'm going to thank LE local and federal for carrying out their thankless task.

"whisky for my men and beer for my horses"

[Seascamp]

One thing I found out in VN is that there more than a few sides to a story and few of them ever match, not even close. The press reports of an operation didn?t match the after actions reports and neither looked a bit like what I saw. But then I didn?t have a wide view but certainly as wide as the press did. On the other hand, the secure TTY info coming and going was always spot-on and very reliable.
My Ma sent me Time Magazines and once there was an article about an operation I was in. In that it was a two-ship duel with NVA shore arty, it wasn?t all that hard to get it wrong but they did. Page 76 and 77 of the book that Joy gave a reference to about the USN in VN, has some pics of the Cruiser St. Paul giving and taking during that particular battle and as can clearly seen from the pic of the water spouts on page 77, the NVA gunners usually couldn?t hit their butts with both hands and were more or less sitting ducks. Oh, the smoke plume above the St. Paul just indicates all boilers in and hauling buns doing a run and shoot deal. But Time had a dramatic deal going down and embellished the saga, I don?t know why.

These days, I highly doubt the talking heads on any newscast are topic experts on anything but some seem to be real smart about general stuff. Their producers write their stuff and if there are any topic experts or spinners of yarns, that?s probably where they are, not in front of the camera. But some analysts appear to participate in writing their material and I suppose that?s a good sign.

I would agree with Sis about the level and amount of information available to us, but on the other hand I caution myself that way to many authors, reporters and commentators don?t have the editorial control we might think and others have an issue over the difference between fiction and non-fiction. So, in my opinion, it?s best to get several views before taking a whole lot to the bank.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Little Sparrow, and anyone else who is reading -

I learn a lot from everyone here.

I do not recall ever saying or implying in any manner that we are not all very blessed to live in a wonderful nation.

I do NOT assume that everyone who supports our government, of which I count myself as one, is walking around with blinders on. Nor should anyone assume that because accurate descriptions of things as they are get stated that the author does not support the government... so long as it is by, of and for the people.

Since there's a big difference between knowing something and doing something, I am putting more emphasis on the work of doing, with every available resource.

I totally agree about the tiresome blame-casting that goes on about, what I humbly consider to be, utterly the wrong problems... such as how our intelligence community gets whipsawed and unjustly discredited. I've said as much elsewhere here, and got a lot of incoming over it.

If we are all lucky and stick with it, PF is one excellent way to come up with a better plan, authored by many and owned by none... but you all knew that way before I ever showed up. I'll be hangin' in here, one way or another, or for as long as there is electricity... mostly learning. I feel quite honored to be part of this unique forum.

I'll pass on the whiskey and beer just now, but my dog'll have some, if you don't mind.

Beautiful picture Little Sparrow, I've seen such in person...many many times.

[BLUEHAWK]

DMZ LT -
Obviously, I have embarassed myself in your presence.

Please accept my apology.

I'll try to make sure it never happens again.

[b3196]

Scamp
I'm in agreement 110%

Little Sparrow
Great Thread!!! You rejuvinated a few million dead brain cells
on this one.

Bob K

[phuloi]

One more little article on the liberal,biased media.


The New York Observer's Joe Conason is out with a new tome called "Big Lies," one of those "lies" being the Myth of the Liberal Media. In doing so he has now joined The Nation's Eric Alterman in claiming that the news media are not as liberal as they are, which is undoubtedly true.

The suggestion, however, that the news media do not tilt to the left, is just not serious thinking. Or, if it's coming from those who would consider themselves serious thinkers, it's just not intellectually honest.

I don't know if Al Franken is a joke or a fraud. I do know he is a man full of hatred for conservatives, and because of that, a darling of Conason's supposedly conservative press.

Last week, Franken was featured not once, but twice on NBC's "Today Show" to plug his upcoming book slamming the right, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Matt Lauer dutifully read excerpts like, "Bush lies about important things like the economy, his tax cuts, his education, our reasons for going to war and drunk driving. But I think he lies only when he feels he has to. He knows that most of the time Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh are only too glad to do it for him." Lauer also invited his audience to visit NBC's Web site, where other excerpts are proudly displayed, including the one focusing on "those sh---y books by Ann Coulter and Bernie Goldberg" and their "total bulls--t" claims about a liberal media bias.

Lauer could have challenged Franken to prove his argument and then debated him, point-by-point. That is, after all, standard operating procedure for conservative guests. But Franken received none of that scrutiny.

Lauer could have denounced Franken's nastiness. Remember all that media talk about "Clinton-haters" on the right? About "mean-spirited" conservatives? About the "politics of personal destruction"? Lauer not only didn't confront Franken with his ad hominems, he invited him back for an encore performance.

Which raises another point about this supposedly non-liberal press. How does Franken rate two appearances in one week? Sure he's witty and all that, but he was there to promote a book, a book that wasn't anywhere on any New York Times bestseller list. (With this kind of double promotion, you can be assured that now it will be.)

Now compare NBC's treatment of Franken's nemeses, Goldberg and Coulter. Goldberg was sitting on the New York Times bestseller list for, count 'em, 19 weeks before NBC finally invited him on the "Today Show" -- but only on the condition he be paired with ultra-leftist author Michael Moore. (Another double standard: When conservatives are the focus, the discussion must be balanced; when liberals are the focus, they appear alone.) Then there's Miss Coulter. Her new book "Treason" has been on the New York Times bestseller list for over two months now, but she has yet to be invited on the "Today Show" set.

NBC is not alone. Over at ABC News they're having problems with their signature "This Week" Sunday program. A couple of years ago, the network dropped conservative Bill Kristol from the roundtable segment while promoting ex-Clinton spin doctor George Stephanopoulos into an anchoring role where suddenly he was transformed into a journalist. The ratings plummeted as a result, and now ABC apparently has concluded that the show still has too much conservatism. ABC has axed the roundtable segment where George Will offered occasional (and no doubt vexing) conservative insights. ABC promises that Will will appear from time to time, but not as a reporter, and not an opinionated analyst. This would seem to guarantee that Will's conservative commentaries are over.

If you don't like ABC's Sunday worldview, you're going to dread what's happening next door at CBS.

It's no longer unusual to find journalists offending religious believers, and it's simply inconceivable that a journalist would apologize for his insult. But watch what happens when the host of CBS's Sunday morning show "Face the Nation" upsets some atheists. Bob Schieffer recently used the old saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes," but after hearing criticism from some atheists he was quick last Sunday to make amends on his show, pointing out they "reminded me that freedom of religion also means the right not to believe, and they said my remark unfairly challenged the sincerity of their views." Schieffer begged forgiveness: "They have every right to their belief, and I would never challenge their sincerity. So to all of you who took offense, I can only say that none was intended, and I regret a poor choice of words." How some liberals can, with a straight face, continue to deny the liberal bias in the press is beyond me.

[MORTARDUDE]

Al Franken and Michael Moore are good to laugh at and that is exactly what I do...!!!

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

Griz -

Good points, well stated... to be remembered.