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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (50855)	6/23/2005 4:30:13 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

You're saying that the media is, "well-informed, malevolent and Machiavellian" but then you also say, "I know one reporter there quite well. He's definitely a liberal..." Why does he work for a paper whose editorial practices he doesn't respect? Who in the world is not cynical about the media? Anyone over the age of 18 is cynical about the media. Of course there are many cases, the NYTimes being one as I've said before, where the owners and editors deliberately quash stories. They also stupidly publish totally bogus stories. It's well known that there is gross negligence in the WSJ's editorial board and Fox is a propaganda machine. The existence of these entities, however, doesn't mean there's a nationwide conspiracy. I don't think professional journalists on the whole are altogether that brilliant. I think many of them are downright stupid and some are simply talentless and many are truly lazy. I think they are also, as a group, whiny and juvenile when confronted with justified criticism. The most ridiculous part about their whining about the DSM is their blame of AP. Now THAT's a huge problem but it's also a well known problem. Individual papers keep sourcing from AP which means they're all getting (OR NOT GETTING) the same story with the same viewpoint. This isn't new. It's a cost-cutting, lazy, let's-just-repackage way to make money. Now if an editor at AP had said, 'this is a huge story!' then would it have gone through? It's a very constipated pipeline for news. washingtonpost.com "...Michael Smith: Firstly, I think the leaks were regarded as politically motivated. Secondly there was a feeling of well we said that way back when. Then of course as the pressure mounted from the outside, there was a defensive attitude. "We have said this before, if you the reader didn't listen well what can we do", seemed to be the attitude. I don't know if you have this expression over there, but we say someone "wants to have their cake and eat it". That's what that response reeks of. Either it was politically motivated and therefore not true or it was published before by the U.S. newspapers and was true, it can't be both can it? The attitude they have taken is just flat wrong, to borrow an expression from the White House spokesman on the Downing St Memo. It is one thing for the New York Times or The Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting with the Prime Minister's office. Think of it this way, all the key players were there. This was the equivalent of an NSC meeting, with the President, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and Tommy Franks all there. They say the evidence against Saddam Hussein is thin, the Brits think regime change is illegal under international law so we are going to have to go to the U.N. to get an ultimatum, not as a way of averting war but as an excuse to make the war legal, and oh by the way we aren't preparing for what happens after and no-one has the faintest idea what Iraq will be like after a war. Not reportable, are you kidding me? One point I would make though, everyone keeps saying it is continually making waves over here. We at the Sunday Times are not going to let it go but no-one else is interested in the U.K. press. The Washington Post came to it late but look at everything it is doing now. Ignore today's silly editorial article. The Post is now working away at this and I know they are planning to try to do more on it. Sadly there is no sign of the New York Times changing its sniffy we told you this already view!..."