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: Lane3 who wrote (114184)	5/17/2005 8:37:49 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793917

its not others responsibility to monitor Newsweek. It is the purpose of the editorial staff to direct the printing of their mag and set standards. I question why they spend time on such trash in the first place if not i gotcha nonsense.

To: Lane3 who wrote (114184)	5/17/2005 9:38:50 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

Probably because we gave Newsweek too much credit as a credible source if information. Now we know for sure what their brand stands for. why, if what Newsweek did was so obviously invalid and so dangerous, no one made an issue of it before it manifested in riots.

To: Lane3 who wrote (114184)	5/17/2005 9:40:11 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793917

Hasty publication of "news" is a media fault that transcends ideology. UW and Bill can beat up on Newsweek all they want, but there are cases all over abeit certainly less eggregious that get on the air or in publications as news every day. Fox is clean only until they are unclean as was Newsweek. Trying to turn this into a left wing/right wing thing misses the point. The American people will be harsh on all journalists until they all clean up their act. Does anyone remember right wing rags claiming the Clintons killed Vince Foster. Oh but i guess that was true so it was ok. (g)

To: Lane3 who wrote (114184)	5/17/2005 10:34:11 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793917

But there's also a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking if not downright hypocrisy in that pounding. Of course there is. With all the Abu Ghraib pounding of the admin by the MSM, all intended to hurt Bush, this was five throwaway lines in a rumor section. Al Qaeda has got a lot of benefit from all of it. But in this case, two things jumped out: 1) It was a major fake by the MSM. 2) The negative results for us were immediate and obvious. I know you love to play "devil's advocate" here, but this just brought to a head all the conservative frustration with the anti-Bush media. That is why everybody went both ballistic and political.