New York Time's Frank Rich: Bush "Dishonest, Corrupt, Reprehensible"

[chiphomme]

JimSmith - 11/28/2005 3:30 PM

KV led into the quote with his opinion, namely that it was about time the press started doing its job of calling out Bush on his manipulation of facts, and that he was amazed at how blatantly this NYT editor let loose. The article was cut and pasted because often times sources like the NYT require you to subscribe to their services to go there via a link. Cutting and pasting makes it easier for those who would like to read the article. It makes it just as easy for you to ignore, just use the scrolling wheel on your mouse, or, don't open the thread at all. I recommend the latter. Jim

Cutting and pasting should be used sparingly. And only as a buttress to ones own point.

[Shane]

chiphomme - 11/28/2005 2:25 PM

It was an opinion not a journalist piece. Get it?
And it get's really annoying when people cut and paste other people opinions and expect counter arguments. Either present your own opinion (with links if you want to buttress it) or shut up.


Oh just admit it, you do not like Kirk's politics. There now, don't you feel better!


You don't answer a question with a question. I asked you if your snide "middle class menatlity" remark was meant as a slam. Remember?

Why do you think it was a snide remark? Again I ask what is wrong with the middle class? I see nothing wrong with their point of view. Obviously you do.

[chiphomme]

Shane - 11/28/2005 3:42 PM

Why do you think it was a snide remark? Again I ask what is wrong with the middle class? I see nothing wrong with their point of view. Obviously you do.

There's nothing wrong with the middle class but your remark seemed to be mocking them.

If you don't remember we were discussing a boy getting a $450k car and I thought it ridiculous. Then you came back and made the "Middle class mentality anyone?" comment. I took it as a slam and I asked you directly whether you meant it as one. You have yet to answer the question.

[Ammonium]

chiphomme - 11/28/2005 3:31 PM

I guess you missed my point. Is it only news when its a negative piece on Bush?

When there is lots of BS coming out of the white house to write about then you get negative articles. Search around, they existed in the same amount when LBJ was in charge of vietnam. Remember Walter Cronkite's "what the hell is going on here" bit from vietnam?

[chiphomme]

Ammonium - 11/28/2005 4:07 PM

When there is lots of BS coming out of the white house to write about then you get negative articles. Search around, they existed in the same amount when LBJ was in charge of vietnam. Remember Walter Cronkite's "what the hell is going on here" bit from vietnam?

Walter Cronkite had no business expressing an opinion on the war in Vietnam while pretending to be an unbiased journalist.

[old300D]

chiphomme - 11/28/2005 2:19 PM

Walter Cronkite had no business expressing an opinion on the war in Vietnam while pretending to be an unbiased journalist.

Oh that's special. Why are you watching Fox news then?

[Shane]

chiphomme - 11/28/2005 2:55 PM

There's nothing wrong with the middle class but your remark seemed to be mocking them.

If you don't remember we were discussing a boy getting a $450k car and I thought it ridiculous. Then you came back and made the "Middle class mentality anyone?" comment. I took it as a slam and I asked you directly whether you meant it as one. You have yet to answer the question.

My statement was left open to interpretation. You are the one that decided to take it negatively. Shame on you! To mock America's best asset! Have you no patriotism!

[JimSmith]

So, what role does the press have in your view? Do they merely repeat the bits and pieces they are fed by through the official channels, or do they have an obligation to test those bits and pieces to establish the facts and context before repeating them? When they find the bit and pieces are not wholly factual, if they are an impartial or unbiased or otherwise supposedly neutral journalist do they confront the official channels with the evidence of misstatements? If they do, is it not fair game, or ethical, to confront the originator of the bits and pieces using a widely distributed media?

I think Walter Cronkite asked the question, not out of the blue. Given the daily opportunity to pontificate if he so desired, and the size of his audience, I find your easy condemnation of his reporting a bit irrational. Besides, you did not respond to the point, which was to counter your relatively unsubstantiated claim that news consisted of critical reports of Bush only. While this is obviously not true the Cronkite reference was made to show when explicitly poor behavior is exercised by a President of either party, the press is equally critical. The intensity and frequency of critical news reports is directly related to the critical nature of the poor performance and frequency of same by a sitting President.

When Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski began to dominate the news it was never clearer that when news reporters smell the stink of a cover-up or lie, it becomes news when each and every layer of the cover up is peeled back. The act of getting blow job was not illegal, had no bearing on the outcome of the inquisition. The effort to cover it up was and did, and it was reported in the press moment by moment. The President's denials and the denials of his supporters are not as newsy as another lie being uncovered, debunked and reported.

So, don't Look to destroy the media because of the news they are reporting or how they report it. Look to what those in the news are doing that is being reported. Like the Monica Lewinski stories did for Clinton, the present Iraq war reporting is giving Bush a chance to be truthful. And when he opts to stonewall and cover up, it gives the press more to write about. It is what makes the news organizations functional. Jim

[chiphomme]

Shane - 11/28/2005 4:40 PM

My statement was left open to interpretation. You are the one that decided to take it negatively. Shame on you! To mock America's best asset! Have you no patriotism!

Bulls#$t

[Shane]

Deep response.