Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (1601)	5/29/2003 5:32:18 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793795

The Times also has a columnist problem Zev Chalets - New York Daily News - Columnist Wednesday, May 28th, 2003 I predicted the other day that the rest of the media would start circling when Raines chummed the waters with Bragg. In the town where I live, you can turn in a criminal by calling (800) 898-TIPS. The New York Times now offers a similar service to its readers. They can finger crooked stories by sending an E-mail to The Times at retrace@nytimes.com. Jayson Blair is the proximate cause of this humiliating hotline. But some of the TIPS coming into The Times aren't about Blair. Nobody knows exactly who's under investigation. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Rick Bragg was suspended last week for letting an uncredited intern do his reporting. He's quitting. And at least one other internal review is taking place. It concerns Pulitzer Prize columnist Maureen Dowd. I'm not a certified Timesologist, but I can't say I'm shocked by what's happening at the Newspaper of Record. I've been expecting a blowup since August, when The Times ran a front-page story misrepresenting Henry Kissinger's views on war with Iraq. A newspaper willing to lie so boldly in pursuit of its editorial agenda is a newspaper out of control. In fact, after the Kissinger incident, I stopped reading The Times' news section. But because I'm in the column-writing business, I continued looking at the editorial and op-ed pages. It was there, this month, that I came across an article by Dowd titled "Osama's Offspring." Dowd famously dislikes President Bush. She often calls him names and says mean things about him. This time, she accused him of flimflamming the country. Two bombs had just gone off in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, presumably detonated by Al Qaeda. According to Dowd, this gave the lie to the President's assertion, delivered in a speech in Little Rock, Ark., that Al Qaeda was "spent." Here's what she wrote: "'Al Qaeda is on the run,' President Bush said last week. 'That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated ... they're not a problem anymore.'" Here's what Bush actually said: "Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore." The words in italics were replaced in Dowd's column by three little dots. Those dots say to the reader: Trust me, I'm abbreviating here, but what I'm leaving out doesn't change the meaning. But the dots did change the meaning. In fact, they turned it upside down. Far from declaring Al Qaeda "spent," Bush was warning the country against complacency. The only terrorists the President declared "no longer a problem" were the ones already jailed or dead. New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis says the paper is "looking into" the column. If Dowd intentionally misrepresented the President's words, she is guilty of a journalistic offense much worse than Bragg's intern problem, or even Blair's fantasies. Blair is a kid, after all, who made things up for fun and profit. Dowd is a major figure at The Times, a role model. A syndicated role model. Other journalists, including Andrew Sullivan and Greg Pierce of The Washington Times, have noted Dowd's dot trick. But as far as I know, I'm the first to turn her in to the TIPS hotline. If The Times finds her guilty, it can send my reward money to the Home for Wayward Columnists. And it should send Dowd there, too. nydailynews.com

To: D. Long who wrote (1601)	5/29/2003 5:42:14 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793795

I was surfing some media sources and was astounded to read this. The LAT is so liberal is squeaks. I don't know how Carrol can survive there. The source is called "L.A. Observed Los Angeles media, culture and history...mostly." Did not seem to be a right wing nut shop. And they source the material below. LAT Editor Carroll declares war on "liberal bias" Third floor editors at the Los Angeles Times are buzzing about a memo from top editor John Carroll dropped in their e-mail boxes last Thursday. It slams a front-page abortion story in that day's paper by Houston correspondent Scott Gold. The key grafs are these: "I'm concerned about the perception---and the occasional reality---that the Times is a liberal, "politically correct" newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer. [.....excerpted...] The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times." laobserved.com

To: D. Long who wrote (1601)	5/29/2003 9:26:15 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793795

The only problem I see is with children- who cannot consent- they do not have the capacity to do so. Animals we eat, I don't think having sex with them ought to pose much of a problem, as long as no cruelty is involved- consent is not an issue with animals, imo, considering the way we treat them in our society already. You think slaughter is preferable to an animal over a little bestiality? If so, I must rofl. Who cares what adults get up to? You could care personally, about your own morality, determined by whatever God you have consented to follow, or by your own independent and non-religious moral ideas- but why should any laws regulate the concentual sex of others? Outside of moral strictures- imposed by various religions- I see no reason to regulate what people do. Do we regulate what people can legally eat? We inspect food processing (and IMO we should make sure prostitutes are healthy) but we do not make it illegal to practice coprophagy, for example, nor is it illegal to eat any other food (except for people- [a consent problem, again] and endangered animals). I don't see why sex should be any different.

To: D. Long who wrote (1601)	5/29/2003 4:44:26 PM
From: Bridge Player	Respond to of 793795

Did you overlook this part? <<<<<<< Anyone who recognizes the critical significance of strong marriages and families to the well being of children and the social health of the nation should shudder at the prospect of a radical redefinition of the already much-battered institution of marriage. Although we are only a little more than 30 years into the sexual revolution that began in earnest in the 1960s, the legacy of sexual-liberationist ideology is measurable in ruined relationships and broken lives. We need policies that uphold and strengthen marriage, not those that further erode it in our law and culture. On this, too, Rick Santorum is right. >>>>>>>>