Originally Posted by GermanStar
What's a shame? Is there something in that brief article that doesn't ring true? Have you ever watched this brilliant video (I've posted the link before)? The Nexus of Politics and Terror
I have watched it - I wouldn't call it "brilliant" though. I know you'll take this wrong, because you seem to be invested in this particular bit of video, but I'm not sure it's of any value other than for sensationalism. Much of what it alleges is as flaccid as arguments people have made here trying to link one phenomenon to another. I'm not saying any of the events or dates are false, just that there's nothing to back up the allegation that there exists such a nexus outside the circumstantial nature of those dates and the manner in which they seem to follow.
If, for example, you could point out that there were no other announcements of "credible threats", like the ones shown in this piece, except on the heels of news which the administration would look upon unfavorably, it would be a more compelling argument.
And perhaps that's the reality - but that's not where Olbermann went, and I suspect it's because his case holds about as much water as did Powell's when he went to the U.N. - and like Powell, he knows it.
TV news magazine shows don't break stories. They take some liberties with news stories, and pursue different angles that are mostly speculative. They don't have to be right, because they're largely fact-based opinion shows. It's a form of cerebral entertainment - a less caustic version of Rush Limbaugh. It's designed to sell commercials to a specific audience, who happens to be critical enough not to fall for any old BS. It has to be BS with high production values and a serious sounding voiceover.
It's thought provoking, sure, but I wish there was some effort to contrast these "findings" (10 events, 15, who cares - it's a lot) with data on announcements which didn't follow bad news for the White House.