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: LindyBill who wrote (43033)	5/9/2004 11:32:10 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793817

BIAS By Cori Dauber - Ranting Profs Blog Now that my grades are in, I've finally allowed myself to start reading the Woodward book. And although I haven't gotten very far, I'm still interested in any media mentions of the book because it seems to me that the book itself is a media event. Today the book is reviewed formally in the Sunday Times (despite having already been reviewed in the paper. Hmm. A twofer.) And, bonus for Woodward, the reviewer is a Clinton-era official. The review is good enough, decent enough, fair enough. But there are a few random comments that speak to a real bias, not so much about the Bush administration per se, as about what constitutes good reporting. First, he says, the book, even before publication was: rumored to be more critical of the Bush administration - and therefore important - than Woodward's previous reporting. Why is it that only negative reporting is by definition important reporting? Then he says: Worse, it seemed Woodward achieved his extraordinary access at a price, coddling the insiders he needed information from, an impression his last book, ''Bush at War,'' about 9/11 and Afghanistan, only amplified. In other words, the first Bush book, being positive, was simply not to be trusted. One last thing. The reviewer also notes that "Woodward has an uncanny ability to channel a conversation long after the fact," but you'll recall that Greg Easterbrook of The New Republic has complained about precisely this feature of his writing, arguing that he uses a novelistic device of reconstructing conversations long after the fact that couldn't possibly be reconstructed -- in other words, his "uncanny ability" is based on putting quotation marks around best guesses.

To: LindyBill who wrote (43033)	5/9/2004 11:28:12 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793817

I found this bit interesting That ain't just interesting. It scares me and I'm not afraid of anything! That kind of long range planning means anything is possible. There is no reasonable or unreasonable way to protect against every possible eventuality like that. The depth of recon (This had to be planned during construction, perhaps even before the VIP schedule was written), knowledge of VIP schedules, and the ability to accomplish the task in the middle of a large construction site are clear indicators of why Homeland Defense is trying to beef up. They are also a sound reason to continue...indeed to increase the combat pressure on the terrorists.