Good News...Bad News...Good News - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 07:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
I believe we're getting an early glimpse of what's no doubt to come in this campaign. Obama will most certainly get his if he's the nominee. Hillary is a walking-talking version of this stuff, no matter what
No doubt.

Gawd what a f-king insane system.

The only thing worse would be if there were no free speech and no intense public scrutiny of the candidates.

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 07:49 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Oh wait, when you actually read the article, both individuals deny a relationship.

This is going to be a lo-o-o-o-ng political process, isn't it?

B
That is my point. The media churn has begun.

While I would EXPECT both sides to deny it [as they both retained counsel regarding the issue] I also would expect that the NYT would vet the hell out of the article before pushing the ol ENTER key. You seldom, if ever see them have a need to retract an entire story.

And we are going to see the same level of detailed investigation on whoever the Democrat is from the NYT also.

The thing I have found after researching metric shitloads of this for my coursework is that none of the major players are going to dump a major story without vetting it, quad checking sources and having backup out the ass.

All everyone has to do is look at Dan Rather and see what happens when process is NOT done correctly. Nobody in the real media wants that repeated with them in the crosshairs.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #13 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 07:55 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
No doubt.

Gawd what a f-king insane system.

The only thing worse would be if there were no free speech and no intense public scrutiny of the candidates.
And that thought is the winner.

Like them or not, the media serves the purpose of rummaging through the dumpsters to find out the things that we are not able to.

Candidates know this when they sign up to run. If they have issues that they don't want revealed, they need to find a different profession. It is usually arrogance that makes them assume they will be able to "handle" the issue.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #14 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 07:58 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
I believe we're getting an early glimpse of what's no doubt to come in this campaign. Obama will most certainly get his if he's the nominee. Hillary is a walking-talking version of this stuff, no matter what
I think the media are the only folks that will be more disappointed than the NeoCons if Hillary does not get the Dem nod.

The amount of material they have to work with on stories like the one posted at the top has got to fill rooms. It has got to be Howard Dean's worst nightmare.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #15 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 07:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
That is my point. The media churn has begun.

While I would EXPECT both sides to deny it [as they both retained counsel regarding the issue] I also would expect that the NYT would vet the hell out of the article before pushing the ol ENTER key. You seldom, if ever see them have a need to retract an entire story.

And we are going to see the same level of detailed investigation on whoever the Democrat is from the NYT also.

The thing I have found after researching metric shitloads of this for my coursework is that none of the major players are going to dump a major story without vetting it, quad checking sources and having backup out the ass.

All everyone has to do is look at Dan Rather and see what happens when process is NOT done correctly. Nobody in the real media wants that repeated with them in the crosshairs.
Are you suggesting that vetting a story is the same as proving it? I hope not.

Whole story retractions are rare, but not that rare. Also, plainly false stories can stay in place sometimes for decades, like their 1930's articles about the USSR, for example. They turn-out to be total lies written by a reporter infatuated with communism. He received a pulitzer for his work which the NYT has never repudiated.

Finally, retracts of portions are not uncommon. But more commonly most people realize it is impossible to prove the negative -- under those circumstances, how can 2 people PROVE they weren't romantically involved?

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #16 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 08:05 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
What's to retract? The article doesn't actually allege anything. It just attempts to cast a dubious shadow over the McCain campaign.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #17 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 08:08 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Are you suggesting that vetting a story is the same as proving it? I hope not.

Whole story retractions are rare, but not that rare. Also, plainly false stories can stay in place sometimes for decades, like their 1930's articles about the USSR, for example. They turn-out to be total lies written by a reporter infatuated with communism. He received a pulitzer for his work which the NYT has never repudiated.

Finally, retracts of portions are not uncommon. But more commonly most people realize it is impossible to prove the negative -- under those circumstances, how can 2 people PROVE they weren't romantically involved?
I am strongly suggesting that vetting the facts of a story of this magnitude equal proving it. If you can't vet the facts, the story would not hold up for print. If you can vet the facts, that is the proof.

Yes, whole story retractions in modern professional journalism are VERY rare. I can name two authors who reset the standards for how stories are vetted and you can see by the number of authors that there is no "wild duck" scenario.

Retractions of portions are more common but usually not in major stories. This story has been in process for six months. McCain hired lawyers [Bob Bennett] in December to quash the story and McCain himself called the editor. McCain also refused to be interviewed to provide his side of this.

While the "affair" portion of the story is the headline, the more important point is the concern that the very good friend [affair or not] assisted in writing telecommunications legislation for McCain's Senate Committee. Careful reading will show that this is where the point of the story actually resides.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #18 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 08:52 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
From Politico: McCain Response

Politico
Jonathan Martin
February 20, 2008
NYT runs with McCain story; McCain camp hits back hard

The New York Times posted its long-awaited story tonight on John McCain's alleged relationship with a telecom lobbyist. Both McCain and the woman in question denied having a romantic relationship.

The story, word of which first leaked to the Drudge Report in December, relies on anonymous sources tied to McCain who said the lobbyist was warned to keep her distance to the senator in the run-up to his first campaign.

In the piece, McCain is quoted as telling Times editor Bill Keller that he never did anything unethical. Top McCain advisers, including his former Senate chief of staff Mark Salter also say on the record that there was nothing inappropriate done legislatively.

McCain's campaign tonight issued a tough statement blasting the Times for their decision to publish the piece, using similar language from a preemptive strike they released after word first leaked on Drudge.

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

McCain told reporters Wednesday night when asked about the story: "I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment."

The four Times reporters primarily involved with the McCain story, along with top editors, were in lock-down Wednesday night..

Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, when contacted by Politico, wrote in an e-mail: “I am going to pass for now. The story speaks for itself.”

Reporter David Kirkpatrick echoed a similar line when reached by phone: “I think the story speaks for itself. This one I can’t help you with.”

Executive editor Bill Keller and political editor Dick Stevenson did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

Reporters Jim Rutenberg, Stephen Labaton, and Marilyn Thompson - who's leaving the paper - also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

On Feb. 12, the Washington Post announced that Thompson would be leaving the Times and returning to the Post, her employer for fourteen years.

Rumors had circulated internally that Thompson had been working on the McCain piece and was dissatisfied it had not yet run, according to two Times staffers.

Politico asked Baquet if holding the piece had anything to do with her leaving the paper.

“I'm not going to go into stories that may or may not run in the paper,” Baquet said last week, declining to confirm or deny that there was such a story. “I had long conversations with Marilyn, and it's about her regarding the Post as home."

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #19 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 08:57 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTFA
"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
It seems that Communications Director Hazelbaker doesn't have any recollection of the Keating 5. Wonder if there is a Wiki on that where she could brush up on her boss?

It's OK to fight back against an article. But it really helps to be forthright in that fight. It makes everything seem dubious which is the wrong impression.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #20 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-20-2008, 09:00 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Nothing to get any traction from that article!
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    On Borrowed Time...Good News and Bad News Charlies84380SE W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 8 11-20-2007 07:05 PM
    Sirius Starmate - Good news and bad news Zut R171 SLK-Class 7 01-17-2006 10:32 PM
    Good news or Bad news...Every1 read... MHPHOCKEY W163 M-Class 25 03-18-2003 08:53 PM
    Good news, CD changer installed and working. Bad news, C-pillar rub... Brian R170 SLK-Class 11 10-05-2001 12:42 PM
    Spring change...good news, bad news Jon R170 SLK-Class 1 06-24-2001 01:54 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome