SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (244861)10/13/2007 7:59:42 PM
From: Sea Otter  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
He's not an objective observer; he was in command and is thus passing the buck for his own failures

True that he's not objective, but I'm not sure who would qualify as objective. And if the observer wasn't objective, he could hardly qualify as an expert. And certainly you'd have to say Sanchez is an expert on this war (who else would qualify?). That's why his opinion carries such tremendous weight.

Covering his ass? Well, of course - at least partly. That's the way things work in the real world. But that doesn't mean the criticism wasn't accurate.

One question: have you read or listened to Rush's actual words? Yes nor no

Yes. In fact, I took the trouble to look up the transcript when the story broke. I don't like secondary sources and always try to see the raw data.

And my honest read was that he was referring to all soldiers who oppose the war. This view is reinforced by expanding the context and considering all of Rush's comments, not just that one transcript. He as been consistently harsh and judgemental on any person, in military or not, who expresses doubts, and so it's easy to see him labeling them all phonies.

Ok I just looked at it again and can see how the transcript can be interepreted otherwise. It may boil down to whether you trust Rush or not. I don't.

That is why I am so disturbed by acceptance of the "fake but accurate" standard of journalism.

I share the concern. Two examples: on the left, the Jena 6 "story" and, on the right, the active disinformation campaign on global warming.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News