Notice the coincidence about the two Presidents who didn't take good care of the nuclear codes? Both were DEMOCRATS.
update: additional information here.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Good Thing We Won The Cold War...
...otherwise we might have been in a great deal of trouble.
I Told Monica They Were Cheat Codes For Grand Theft Auto, Now Look What's Happened...
Notice the coincidence about the two Presidents who didn't take good care of the nuclear codes? Both were DEMOCRATS.
update: additional information here.
Notice the coincidence about the two Presidents who didn't take good care of the nuclear codes? Both were DEMOCRATS.
update: additional information here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
@wally:
"Still don't know why you're such a fan of British "journalism". "
Because I can't rely on MSM "journalism" to "speak truth to power" or act as an objective player when the power is in the hands of Democrats.
In the current case, do a Google search on "clinton nuclear codes" and see the results: the only MSM outlets that have covered the story are CNN International (not really a US MSM outlet) and ABC News; the rest are overseas news outlets or Murdoch papers (New York Post).
@wally: and really, when it comes down to it, "it is rumored" and "it is claimed" is not all that much different than "anonymous sources reported," which is seen all too often in MSM reporting, usually when bringing charges of malfeasance against Republicans/conservatives.
Hm, I thought I had deleted those posts after discovering that I had come to the wrong conclusion by following only one of your two links. But as long as you're willing to discuss the topic, a few observations:
• I did a Google search as requested, and found that CBS News and The Atlantic are also covering the Clinton story. And how do you define the MSM, if you don't include the NY Post?
• If you believe that British tabloids are objective players, you are among an elite few indeed.
• The idea that "anonymous sources reported" is seen all too often when reporting on conservatives in the MSM is, I suspect, based more on preconceptions than fact. To back up that claim, I'll offer you a dollar for every instance of that you can show me--among reputable news outlets, of course.
One more thing, for the sake of balance: I think NPR's firing of Juan Williams was absolutely wrong and stupid.
@wally: the CBS story wasn't up at the time I posted my reply.
The Atlantic, although a worthy source of information, is one of the minor players in the news industry.
I use the definition of "MSM" as most conservatives do, to describe the large newspapers and television networks that have traditionally set the agenda for the daily news cycle. These include The New York Times, Washington Post, and the three broadcast news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC). All of these have described themselves as objective while in fact leaning heavily to the left of the political spectrum.
Murdoch's media outlets such as Fox News and The New York Post don't qualify as MSM because they are both latecomers on the scene and also because they don't share the same ideological leftist orthodoxy as the MSM. They are, in fact, the antidote to the MSM.
The only UK news source that I use in my blog that qualifies as a tabloid is The Daily Mail. I also use The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, both of which are classfied as broadsheets, not tabloids. Both of my links in this story come from the Telegraph, so your comment about UK tabloids in this instance is not germane.
For just a single example of an MSM outlet sliming a conservative politician with anonymous sources, what better example than 2008's October Surprise from The New York Times:
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity. It's not "anonymous sources reported" word for word, but I certainly think it qualifies. Probably much of the coverage of Sarah Palin can be mined for such slime stories, as well, but I don't feel like spending the day researching for just a few dollars.
@wally: I agree fully on Williams.
I also just remembered the obvious example of Dan Rather attempting to influence the 2004 election in John Kerry's favor by filing a 60 Minutes II story on Bush's supposed A.W.O.L. status while a member of the National Guard during the Vietnam War, relying on forged documents for his "evidence."
I take your point about the McCain story, although you're casting a somewhat broader net than I intended. It's pretty clear where the information is coming from, even though they couldn't name names. A larger issue is whether this is a proper issue for investigation. I'm just not sure about that. You'll have to admit, though, that political bias doesn't really seem to be at work in the field of "slime" stories. Plenty of Democrats have been the subject of such things, as I'm sure you recall.
The point of my comment, and my wager, was not that such practices never occurred among the MSM; it was that I don't believe they're as commonplace as you do. Since I know of no studies on the subject, we'll both have to rely on our biases.
Post a Comment