Re: OT - You just CAN'T make this kind of stuff up...

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:08:21 +0000, Jeff wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:W0owj.6709$6h7.4635@xxxxxxxxxxx
witfal wrote:
On 2008-02-24 15:32:49 -0800, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@xxxxxxxx>
said:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:06:54 -0800, witfal wrote:

On 2008-02-24 08:02:24 -0800, Hachiroku ハチロク
<Trueno@xxxxxxxx> said:
OK, but I guess the article Wit posted means Clinton must be the
dumbest
man alive, or he doesn't pay attention to world news, or he just
really
doesn't care. Why the hell else would he put this deal together for
a Russian if he knew the russians have said they will supply
uranium to the Iranians?

People want to put this doofus back in the White House?!?!?

It's the Times. Impeccable, right?

And the overwhelming and deafening silence of Clinton apologists
here is
very entertaining.


I haven't read the Times for many, many years. I used to in High
School and College, but realized that I preferred thinking for myself
rather than
being told what to think.

So, I guess the Times is Pro-Obama?

Despite a pathetic attempt at looking pro-McCain in the past few
weeks, I'd say that honeymoon is over.

They endorsed McCain and Clinton for the primary.

Being pro-McCain doesn't mean holding back stories about him.
Unfortunately, regardless of whom they endorsed or were for, they used
really bad judgment.

Jeff

The burden of a free press is that it has to make sure that what it
prints is factual. There is no advantage to the general public for a
free press to print lies and inuendo.

This was pointed out by the public editor, posted earlier. And when you're
talking about a Presidential candidate, you have an even higher obligation
to make sure it is factual.

According to the public editor:

"If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a
lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the
conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the
point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a
way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless
behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

... "And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair,
whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers
more proof than The Times was able to provide.

... "The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good
story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991
for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators
on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a
crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money
in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with
lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal
Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one
of her clients."

Quotes from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?pagewanted=2&hp


It is fine to be pro-Candidate X, then come out with an expose about his
or her hiprocracy on a major issue, but the story has to be factual or
the particular media outlet loses credibility, and (even worse) other
media outlets also lose credibility. This is particularly true when the
media is charged as having a particular bias, and the lie proves the
bias is there.

The story is factual in that people actually made the the story. But the
story wasn't about the sex, but rather about his poor judgment. Sadly,
they threw a way a good story.

Jeff


Huh? This post makes it look like the story was made up.

It also says, "We don't really care if the story is factual, if the story
sounds good."

In other words, "We'll print anything that sells papers."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Look whos rooting for Obama (Naomi Ragen)
    ... to sound the alarm myself in other news groups, ... don't care about Israel. ... I don't think McCain will be good for Israel. ... foreigner and not like other Americans. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Gun Crazies will get us another 4 years of George Bush!
    ... They won't even care. ... The party that wins could care less how you ... other judges throughout the Federal court system. ... McCain is NOT someone I would have picked for President but the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Gun Crazies will get us another 4 years of George Bush!
    ... They won't even care. ... The party that wins could care less how you ... McCain is NOT someone I would have picked for President but the ... Also be wary about editting the Constitution. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Gun Crazies will get us another 4 years of George Bush!
    ... They won't even care. ... And THE most important thing is decent Supreme Court Justices and other ... McCain is NOT someone I would have picked for President but the choices ... You cannot have the American Constitution with ALL these freedoms, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)