carson
|
|
response 7 of 12:
| 
Jun 30 18:21 UTC 2003 |
(I'll remember that the next time mvpel steers an item toward guns.)
(it's not even that I disagree with Larry's assessment [I do] or that it's
too dependent on philosophical caricatures [it is] or that conservatives
and Republicans are used as synonymous identifications [they aren't
synonymous]. it's that Blair wasn't a commentator, he was a reporter.
yet Larry seems to be all-too-quick to tar-and-feather both occupations
with the same brush. commentators aren't fact-checkers. they're rarely
researchers. reporters, on the other hand, are supposed to be both and,
as writers, they're supposed to properly credit the works of others. what
Blair did incorrectly only has the most tangential relationship to the
virtual witchhunt of President Clinton [which was awfully easy to
facilitate] and the virtual softballing of President Bush [which has more
to do with the mood of the country than his party affiliation].)
(of course, that's all only my opinion, which is only based on a
bachelor's degree in political science and several years as a reporter.
it's not necessarily more credible than anyone else's, but I happen to
believe in knowing the credentials of someone who gives an assessment so
as to properly consider the source, which is why I mention it.)
|
senna
|
|
response 10 of 12:
|
Jul 1 02:52 UTC 2003 |
If republicrats are so upset with the treatment they're getting from the other
side, why don't they take the high ground and put their money where their
mouth is, instead of complaining their way into the mud pits with the
opposition?
I understand that many feel that they "must" play that game to get ahead, but
complaining about it is unseemly.
|
polygon
|
|
response 11 of 12:
|
Jul 1 04:27 UTC 2003 |
Re 9. I have simply accepted the change in mood that the country brought
about by the administration in Washington.
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn
them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship," said Grover Norquist,
a leading Republican strategist, who heads a group called Americans
for Tax Reform.
"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape," Norquist, a onetime
adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said, citing an axiom
of House conservatives.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1416067,00.html
|
polygon
|
|
response 12 of 12:
|
Jul 1 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Re 7. Y'know, I usually like reporters. They have a huge and important
job that they usually tackle with good humor. I return their calls and
answer their questions. But I have no illusions about the competence or
honesty of most of them.
I have been interviewed by reporters probably hundreds of times, under a
wide variety of circumstances. Usually, the reporter has already made up
his or her mind what is happening, and is only interested in quotes which
could be used to support that conclusion. Or else the reporter is
startlingly clueless about what is going on, and not interested in
learning anything.
I have been involved in politics and issues for more than thirty years,
and been close to all kinds of newsworthy events. I'm pretty sure I have
never seen a daily or weekly newspaper story of more than a couple of
paragraphs, about something I knew about directly, which was completely
right.
Fact checking??? Ha. Only once in my ENTIRE LIFE have I gotten a call
from a fact checker. It was for the late Brill's Content magazine. And
that fact checker was not interested in any "not exactly"s, or any answers
but "yes". It might as well have been a recording.
Bias??? In 1999, I was a candidate for city council, and the Ann Arbor
News was vehemently opposed to my candidacy (due to the fact that my
winning would create a "super-majority" of Democrats on city council). And
for some reason, none of the points I made in my campaign, none of the
issues I raised, were ever mentioned in the AAN's coverage of my race.
Well, some of the better things I said were attributed to my opponent.
Instead, one answer I gave early in the campaign, supporting approval of
the Ashley Mews project downtown, was exaggerated into alleged enthusiasm
about all development, and just about every article about the race focused
on this, as if my entire goal was to give away the store to developers.
Does anyone here think that's a fair summary of my point of view on city
issues?
(It would have been ungracious to complain about this at the time, and
arguably I'm better off never having had to serve on city council. I
mention it only because you question my credentials to scoff at the
quality of reporters' work.)
Not that these problems are necessarily the fault of the individual
journalist. Reporters, on the whole, are poorly educated, wretchedly
paid, and given vastly more work to do than they could reasonably complete
before deadline. And it shows in the appallingly bad work that they do.
|