Quote:
Geez Jim! I wanted to have some free time tonight! Let the bottom posting begin!


Correspondents tend to be college-educated. Colleges are known to be havens for liberal thinking, so correspondents must then be disproportionately liberal.

Quote:
This is bordering on elitist territory by assuming that most college educated peoples are of a liberal mindset so...[snip].


I confress to being an evil PITA. I am letting a certain mocking sarcasm creep into my posts. My "Colleges are known to be havens for liberal thinking' was simply my attempt to coopt conservative rant about the left-wing biases of academia. It was a joke. Likewise, I have taken to proactive pre-labeling any non-true-believers as comsymps and such. I figure that will save others the trouble.

Quote:
Journalism professors, on the other hand, do tend to be quite liberal. I know first hand how we had to read only liberal books on the evils of consumerism and the blessings of large government in order to pass a class

Books on the blessings of large government? You mean large government provides blessing in and of itself. Cool! Let's make government bigger if that helps! Ummmm, is it possible that some of those books mentioned things that government actually did?

Quote:
(and write only praising reviews to get a good grade). I thank God that I was repulsed by the requirement to write at a 5th grade reading level. This moved me out of broadcast journalism.


Was writing at a 5th grade level intended so that your future work would be intelligible to the majority of likely voters? That doesn't seem too heinous. Or did they insist that you write like a simpleton just to grind away at your self-esteem?

Quote:
The real problem IMO is that most journalists are driven by the desire to "change the world" which is not what journalism is about. If anything, that's what editorials are for. But, growing up in the age of Watergate and the McCarthyism, there is a mold for these budding journalists to fit into... Unfortunately, journalists/activists don't get the luxury of graduating to a better life. Instead, they get hired by the likes of Arthur O. Sulzberger.


Ah, AOS of the Illuminati:

Mr. Sulzberger needs to speak out fully in public, both about his political agendas and his coverage of the September 11 hearings and Iraq. He is the secretive, unelected and privileged publisher of one of the world's most influential newspapers, a newspaper that readers once trusted to inform them in perilous times. Source: http://www.raginglady.com/Arthur_Sulzberger.htm

Maybe I don't hold unelected presidents to the same standard as quasi-elected presidents. I don't know. I do think that I hold the NYT to a high standard. It is just amusing that my beef with them comes from 180 degrees opposite from what I am guessing yours might be. They f*cked up, big time.

Quote:
I seriously doubt you'll be motivated to write and complain about a bunch of journalists


Most of it is just second-rate e-mail, but my sent mail shows at least 21 (critical) messages sent to leftist media outlets like NPR, NYT and Seattle PI in the past 12 months. I know, I should be doing more.

Quote:
UN approval is nice (although it wasn't enough for Kerry in the Persian Gulf War),


Is there some requirement that he/we agree with a war because of UN approval? There were a lot of things flying around back then that could leave a borderline pacifist confused. Like non-existent babies being dumped out of non-existent incubators being described by non-existent witnesses ., so maybe we should cut John and other skeptics some slack.

Quote:
but shouldn't be a requirement for the United States or any country to protect itself.

I see that other BBSistas have challenged you on this point so I won't pigpile.

Quote:
If not having UN approval is "one of many reasons" to oppose something, I don't how this can be considered anything but a global test.


No. I think of myself as pragmatic and don't like to get sucked into the black/white false dichotomy thrown up by the right wing. "Global Test"? Well, I can say that in the months following 9/11 I stood by silently, somewhat uncomfortably, while GWB and Co took unilateral action in A'stan. I would have silently stood, by, too if it was a Gore administration dropping the smart bombs, but I confess that I would have had fewer anxieties about ulterior geopolitical motives. Do you somehow think that liberals are incapable of responding to threats? are incapable of rising to the defense?

Quote:
But again, we are debating issues that we'll never agree on.

Oh, I don't know. I get the sense that I am slowly winning you over.

Quote:
The real point was that a journalist's viewpoint should not enter into his job.

Yes and no. I think it is an illusion to think that the various Brokaws don't have their own viewpoint and that they can always keep it out of their work. I would like to think that what I am reading/watching/listening to is at least well researched and grounded in fact. On the other hand, if we insisted that all journalist be completely neutral automatons, we would never have the Pentagon Papers or heard about My Lai.

Quote:
Whether it be politics, sports or the purple section of USA Today, a journalists job is to tell the public what has happened.

But somewhere along the line, somebody decides what games to cover, what stories to tell.

Quote:

The world at large can have whatever sense they want. The point is that Russia vowed to veto any UN action in Bosnia so the US acted unilaterally. Clinton was smart enough to know that the UN was and is useless except when it comes to issuing pointless resolutions. (Just look at how many humanitarian disasters have happened as the UN sat idly by.)

I would agree that the UN's track record in the face of genocidal disasters of the past 20 years is not good. But what to do about that? What would the response of the world community be like -- how much better might have been our response in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc -- if the UN did not exist?

What I would call the Rush wing of US political opinion thinks that the answer to such dilemmas lies with mocking and disparaging the UN. I am not entirely certain what the remainder of their plan is for dealing with situations like Rwanda. Me? I am a lame-brained liberal internationalist. I stupidly think that institutions like the UN could become more effective if we supported them and tried to help them improve. And to say that the UN is completely ineffectibve is just not right. Look at the track record of agencies like WHO and IAEA.

Quote:
Some ground troops would have been nice, and it would ave been nice to let our pilots fly lower to avoid civilian deaths, but Clinton did the right thing.

I think you are now pulling my leg in revenge. Would you have supported a Clinton ground war?

Who would have criticized Bush for *not* invading Iraq?

Quote:
Once Saddam succeeded in lifting sanctions and reconstituting his weapons programs, the same people that point the finger at Bush for letting 9/11 happen, except that this time, they would have a valid argument. As Churchill said

I won't take you to task for quoting Churchill, and I think your Saddam threat has been adequately dealt with elsewhere.

Back to my point, though, I think that had Bush *not* invaded Iraq, the degree of outcry both foreign and domestic would be much less. Bush second-guessed with "Why didn't he invade?" 6-10 years down the road? Only by loonies.

Presently, we have a sitting President who *may* have been wirelessly prompted through a Presidential debate, but the only journalists with the temerity to ask what that bulge was live within the confines of a comic strip. That's not good.

Quote:
This is tin-foil hat stuff.

Maybe. I am a pretty trusting guy, actually. Maybe this shows just how low the Trust Meter has dropped. So what *was* that hump? Ah, somebody mentioned bullet-proof vest! Cool. That's plausible. Let's just go find a bullet-proof vest with a buckle in the back like a tright jacket. I am not trying to be ornery. Somebody explain it and I will shut up.

Quote:
Was he wearing earmuffs or something to cover his ears so that we couldn't see an IFB sitting in there?

Oh, ye of such small technological faith. You don't think WHCA can do better than Miracle Ear?

Tim Russert *is* one of those college-educated liberals, I think. What does he do that is unfair?

Quote:
I said in my post that Russert was a liberal and I didn't care. He does his job. He respects the people he interviews and respects his position as the host of one of the longest running political shows in the US. I have deep respect for him. It's impossible to expect any reporter to have "no views" at all. The problem only shows up when those views are reflected in the reporting. He does slip up from time to time on the Today show, but that's my fault for tuning in!

I applaud your respect for Tim Russert.

Quote:
To my amazement, there are still people who think it *was* winnable, and blame Cronkite, Fonda and others for our defeat. You?

Who can ever know? I was born in 1975, so I was too preoccupied with um.. I don't remember. I do know that the Vietnamese say that the Anti-War movement in the US is what gave them faith to keep fighting. At that point, they knew they didn't have to win strategically. All they had to do was cause enough US casualties to sway public opinion. The Vietnamese even have John Kerry and Jane Fonda in their museum .

Before we get too far afield, let us look at 55K US deaths versus 1.5 *million* indigenous deaths. Now not all of these were deaths of our "opponents"
Quote:
I sure as hell think that we could have won, had the war been fought differently from Day One, but that's all hindsight. Communism didn't spread throughout South East Asia after that, but anyone who claims to know whether that was or was not because Vietnam stopped that tide is talking out of their ass.

Oh, so you mean that all of thse functionaries who yapped incessantly about the so-called Domino Theory were talking out of their ass, too?

I mention relative mortality figures just to have you consider this notion of "the anti-war movement ...gave uis faith to keep fighting". Hey, they said it, so who am I to argue? But I recommend that you consider Viietnamese resolve, for good or ill, more broadly. Recommended reading: Bernard Fall's _Hell in a Very Small Place_.

Oh, and Edward R. Murrow was, I'm pretty certain, a liberal, thank goodness. [/color

Quote:
But that's not what made him a great reporter.

I am not sure I agree. Murrow was nothing without his liberal ideals, and his tribulations (such as wth _Harvest of Shame_) were tightly tied to his liberal/progressive core.

McGovern spells out what liberalism has accomplished. What has conservatism gotten us?

Quote:
Winning the Cold War and allowing millions of people to live in freedom comes to mind.


McGovern lists:

-Social Security
-Medicare
-rural electrification
-minimum wage
-collective bargaining
-Pure Food and Drug Act
-federal aid to education / land-grant colleges
-guaranteed bank deposits
-Federal Reserve
-Securities and Exchange Commission
-Food and Drug Administration
-National Park Service
-National School Lunch Program
-Voting Rights Act
-graduated income tax

and you counter with "winning the Cold War and allowing millions of people to live in freedom".

Not to minimize the impact of this, but I don't think it would be fair to ignore the less-than-perfect state of current affairs. Various post-soviet "stans" are now effectively dictatorships and our beloved Russia has just recently, for all intents, turned into a single-party dictatorship. Give me Social Security any day!

Edit: I came back to fix some typos and the color tag below, but, reading the statement above, I think it is inadequate. Maybe my last sentence should read "As an example of an unequivocal good thing, give me Social Security any day". Having seen wall-era Berlin east and west, I will jump on board with "allowing millions of people to live in freedom" even given some of Germany's post-unification tribulations. I just don't see the outcome of the breakup of the USSR in such uniformly rosey terms, given the dictatorial grip taking hold in the remains of that empire. It would make an interesting thread all by itself.

Does anybody in the current Iraq command structure respect Dill O'Reilly? Oh, he's not a journalist. Or is he?

Quote:
I think they do in spades. Because he supports and respects them. He honors their service and doesn't view them as war criminals in waiting. His ratings are doing pretty well too. But no, he is not a journalist. He is a political commentator who editorializes current events. I know that he leans Right of center, but he tells you that. In contrast, the Katies, Dans and Peters of the world pretend to be objective.


I asked that half rhetorically, as I *have* to believe that some troops watch Bill (did I type Dill? What a typo! I think I'll keep it!) and shout "Hooah"!

Ah, well, like the warrior GWB, I don;t think DO'R really cares one whit about them. Just my perception.

NPR comsymp Daniel Schorr had an interesting off-the-cuff spin this AM -- that any mention of "Iraq" helps Kerry while any mention of "terrorism" helps Bush. I don't know.

Quote:
I would agree with him at first glance, but then that would have put Bush's numbers at 5% by now if it were true (considering how often Iraq is in the news). Kerry's position on Iraq changes so often, he's better off not having to talk about it.

I could agree with this, except that anytime likely voters hear "Iraq", they are more likely to think of theor nephew or neice, their son or daughter, rather than Kerry's flipping.

Knowledge of unsecured or porrly secured dumps from which insurgents could lift large quantities of explosives, ammo, RPGs were in the news early on in the "post-war" war, weren't they?

Quote:
You misspelled poorly and around (way earlier) btw. I've been waiting like.. two years to do that.


With me squinting through my bifocals to read the small-ass type in this BBS post window, if you haven't seen the hundreds of typos in my previous posts, then maybe you weren't paying attention. Sometimes I see them in Preview Mode, but I got 'Fark, I am too tired. What is a little typo? Will Bitt track me down and shoot me?"

I am not sure why this one is getting so much attention other than the IAEA seals.

Quote:
Because someone from the UN leaked that memo, about an 18 month old story, due to the election being a week away.

Ach! Good for them! About bloody time!
Quote:
That, and Kerry has mentioned it in every speech.

Ah, politics.

A small voice in my head says "Do I want to spend the next four years listening to Republicans yell 'That Flipflopper!'" and a very tiny part of me wants to say "George, you want it? You can have it."

Quote:
I'm glad that you are coming to terms with Bush's inevitable victory already.

"Inevitable?" I know that this is tongue-in-cheek, otherwise you'd come off like Dick Cheney.

Quote:
But the thing to remember is that if Bush wins, as Americans, each and everyone of us is a winner.

I don't have any reason to think you are not sincere.

Everyone of us is a winner? I don't think so.

I *do* hope you'll read genixia's detailed reply and consider what you think about being lied to...serially.

Trust me, I have faint hopw that things are going to be significantly better during the next 4 years if Kerry wins.

I *think* that the likelihood of serious, nuclear-grade, Al Quaeda-delivered disaster in the US in the next 4 years is small, but I *know* it is not zero. And I am fairly certain that the probability of that varies not a whit based on the outcome of this election. What frightens me? For one, the possibility of another f*rked-up electoral outcome that erodes confidence in our revered democracy. Another? Well, one of my siblings is likely to pull the lever on Tuesday for GWB in the mistaken belief that it will keep her and her USMCR son safe. She, I think, is like many folks who would like to pull the lever, close her eyes, and let George "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here:. I shudder to think of the blow she and many others will need to absorb if and when the Bush "Bring 'em on" talisman fails.


Edited by jimhogan (31/10/2004 20:00)