Iraqi's want US to stay awhile

[Jester]

I thought it was clear I was talking about what journalists *should* be doing, and what we *should* expect from them, rather than giving a bitter, cynical analysis of what actually happens.

"I suggest you look at Al Jaziera and Fox News, and try to tell me that a shred of objectivity exists in either place."

Duh. Is this a good thing? Because my point was that it's a bad thing, and that supporting a position to the contrary for nationalistic reasons is stupid.

I don't disagree with you about what journalists unfortunately tend to be, both these days and historically, nor do I disagree with you about what value this subtracts from the news. What I wonder about is why this is counter to my post. Superstar reporters? What does that have to do with what I wrote?

Sorry if I'm not sharp enough anymore. I think I'm losing my edge.

Jester

[Quillan]

kandrathe, my only slight at you was that you regurgitated the Washington Times information without taking appreciation for all the information contained, which was quite ironic under the circumstances. The rest of my post was opinion and analysis of your source.

I commend you for taking the time to not only read the entire article, but to also take a look at the prestigious Gallup itself. The debate over all polls being misleading is one for another day. I have to say though, that if you had read the whole piece, your post was misleading, and only furthered the time's distortion of the truth.

My concern though, is not those who are intelligent enough to read not only one article, but others on the same topic from different sources, and then take the time to think about it and analyze the results (as you claim to have)... my concern is 'deluded joe sixpack' who reads your post, and the first line of the article, and considers himself informed for reading anything that isn't on the comics or sports page.

I too am concerned about the average news coverage, so i try to read several sources on things that seem interesting. By knowing the bias before hand, it is easier to focus my energy on how the information will be biased rather than trying to determine if it is.

Alright, i don't want to pick a fight, i just hate to see falsehoods progagated...

BTW, you said:
You may now feel better about yourself for first putting words into my mouth, and then using them to denigrate me as some SOB conservative. I guess to counter I'd have to accuse you of being an afficionado of Al Franken, but then, you aren't that funny.

go reread my post, i never once quoted you, i only pointed out that what the article was really saying seemed to have eluded you. I also did not 'denigrate you as some SOB conservative'. I suppose the dig at ann coulter was unnecessary, but have you read that woman's work or seen her talk? She is the embodiment of what is wrong with the US today.... IMHO :)

cheers.

Quillan

[Occhidiangela]

On the objectivity of reporters.

I am glad to see that we appear to agree on the 'delta' between what should be and what is. :D

The superstar reporter syndrome is a part of the loss of objectivity, if it ever existed. (See Hearst News Service for example.) The reporter as media superstar strikes me as a betrayal of the original concept, and role, of the fact finding journalist, the ink stained wretch who digs up the dirt and brings it to the light of day. One more asshole with nice hair and an opinion is of little real value added beyond packaging and entertainment.

Superstardom is also an immense step away from objectivity -- see both Amanpour and Ollie North at Fox -- since the bigger the ego and the star, the less likely it is, people being human, that the position is not used as a bully pulpit.

[kandrathe]

BTW, you said:
You may now feel better about yourself for first putting words into my mouth, and then using them to denigrate me as some SOB conservative. I guess to counter I'd have to accuse you of being an afficionado of Al Franken, but then, you aren't that funny.

go reread my post, i never once quoted you, i only pointed out that what the article was really saying seemed to have eluded you. I also did not 'denigrate you as some SOB conservative'. I suppose the dig at ann coulter was unnecessary, but have you read that woman's work or seen her talk? She is the embodiment of what is wrong with the US today.... IMHO

Ok then, I guess you are somewhat funny then. You are right though that I chose the subject line to catch your attention and to stimulate discussion. So maybe I'm guilty of the typical headline sensationalism like, "3 headed dog eats town". Just don't accuse me of believing them.

Hmmm, Ann Coulter, Yes I seen her on the talking heads shows, I visit her site once in awhile, and I think she is pretty cute and sassy. I respect her intellect, but I too find her expressed views to be doggedly one-sided which I suspect is to pander to her conservative audience. I guess I would say that her conservative cheerleading is as annoying to me, as say the doggedly liberal Bill Maher, or the Ragin' Cajun - James Carville. But, I like people that are capable of defending their thoughts. I think of those commentators more as the political side-show of entertainment, which is why I suspect it is tempting side work for comedians.

[ShadowHM]

since the bigger the ego and the star, the less likely it is, people being human, that the position is not used as a bully pulpit.

Your comment above reminded me of this news story, from CBC.


General's 'Satan' remarks freedom of speech: Rumsfeld

Last Updated Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:08:19

WASHINGTON - U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is downplaying a three-star general's controversial comments about Satan and Muslim extremists.

Lt.-Gen. William Boykin has made several speeches at evangelical Christian churches. In his talks, he portrayed the campaign against terrorism as a religious battle.

News media in the United States reported his comments this week, showing him dressed in an army uniform complaining about Muslims warlords worshipping idols.

"We're a Christian nation," he said. "Our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian.… And the enemy is a guy named Satan."

Some Islamic leaders in the United States called on the White House Thursday to have Boykin reassigned. He is the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence.

Rumsfeld repeated the Bush administration's position that the fight against terrorism is not a war against Islam but against people "who have tried to hijack a religion."

The defence secretary told reporters that he hadn't seen Boykin's comments. But he called him an officer with "an outstanding record" who has the right to speak his mind.

"We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country," Rumsfeld said.

"I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong. Saddam Hussein could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like."

A preliminary review of Boykin's remarks suggest no military rules were broken, according to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"There is a very wide gray area on what the rules permit," Myers said.



Written by CBC News Online staff


On the subject of talking heads, and the delta between what oughta be and what is.......

Where does this fall? The quote of his above is mild compared to other things he has apparently said. How do you take this man's comments? Free speech or hate-mongering? I could buy the freedom of speech line, if he were not wearing his uniform while saying it - if he were making it crystal clear that he was speaking as a private citizen. But I am troubled by the notion of a man who holds a responsible position in administering U.S. Foreign Policy making such comments while wearing the uniform that symbolizes that position.

[Occhidiangela]

Ann Coulter is an illustration of exactly what is right in America today. It is called free speech, which includes the freedom to be held up to ridicule for what you say. Note Michael Moore, another example of free speech run amok, and Lord bless him for it say I! :D

I find Coulter a bit mean spirited, afflicted by tunnel vision, and a bit shrill, just as I find Naom Chomsky and James Carville a bit much to take for all of their wit. Al Franken, while funny now and again, is a windbag on the order of Rush Limbaugh. Two sides to a coin, those two. They could both use a nice fresh cup of ShutThe#$%&Up, but free speech is their right.

Likewise, Coulter has as much right to be heard as anyone on the Left, Right, or Center. There is obviously an undercurrent of agreement with her on many topics (hell, both she and Hillary bashed Arnold the Governator, thought for different reasons) that you may object to, but as a counterbalance to some of the nonsense from the Left, I'd say she fits perfectly.

Me, I prefer my commentary a little less mean spirited, and a little less tunnel vision impaired. Is your objection that as an intelligent, attractive woman, she should only be a Liberal?

What about Laura Ingraham? She's a bit less shrill, though certainly right of center.

What's the problem here? Does she not fit your preconceived notion of what a conservative is?

[Lelorinel]

Isn't this a "Hot-Button" topic?

[Occhidiangela]

Here on the Lounge. Or do you think Free Speech should not be discussed? ;)

Hot button topics include telling a rogue that the leather dress she is wearing makes her look fat. :o

If yo udo that, here come the slings-and-arrows-of-hell-hathing-no-fury-like-a-woman-scorned-or-told-that-dress-makes-her-look-fat.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Hot button topics include telling a rogue that the leather dress she is wearing makes her look fat.

Hmmm. How about "phat"?

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Clumsy on the part of the fellow making the remarks, if he is on active duty. Every one in uniform knows how much trouble Patton go into when his remarks to one audience got blown into a larger context. Ike had to publicly censure him.

Idiotic for any American Muslims to try and tell anyone in this administration who to hire and fire. I have yet to see a Muslim nation where Free Speech is as well protected as in America. However, they are free to make their complaints heard, and to be frank with you, I am not sure I disagree with them. Given the political realities of our relations in the Mid East, I find the comments, if true, at odds with public policy pronouncements from the White House since 9-11 2001. But, I don't know when they were made.

I am at a loss as to why the gentleman in question used his position to make those public comments, if he did it in an official capacity. I believe he is a retired general, as is General Clarke the presidential hopeful. He'd be in hot water for talking "above his paygrade" were he on active duty and in an official capacity. As a private citizen, he can say what he damned well pleases. I may have it wrong, but the news I got here was that it was a retired general.

As I understand it, he is either a finalist or nominee for a position in the current administration. If he was speaking in a non official position, as in, if these comments were made before he accepted a nomination, then free speech covers it, though political tact may be moot. If he made those same comments after being appointed, I'd have to say it would be a matter of some concern to both the State Department and the White House to have an official doing that while so much in the Mid East is being worked a bit more delicately.

I don't know enough about the context to comment further, but I am scratching my head.

[Occhidiangela]

At least, not the Rogue homey (or was it a Rogue honey? I forget, and blame the caffeine) that used to get drunk at Ogden's Tavern while waiting for the dreamy Naked Sorcerer with the Steel Long Staff of the Ages to show up for their date . . .

[ShadowHM]

If he made those same comments after being appointed, I'd have to say it would be a matter of some concern to both the State Department and the White House to have an official doing that while so much in the Mid East is being worked a bit more delicately.

Here is what I understood his postition to be from NBC's web-site:

March 2000-2003: Commanding general, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, N.C.

June 2003 - present: Deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence (intelligence and war fighting), the Pentagon

I don't understand whether that current job is a 'uniform-wearing' position or not, but it certainly does lend an aura of 'officialness' to his pronouncements, no?

There is more here:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/980764.asp?0cb=-113186886

I do gather that most of the more controversial remarks were made before he was awarded that position and that he has stated that he will now be curtailing such remarks. That was not apparent in the first news reports I heard, so my concerns are somewhat allayed.

[kandrathe]

I read about him as well. The allegations are that he made some rather anti-Islamic statements speaking to church congregations, and sometimes while in uniform. So, I'm not sure where the military stands on his rights of free speech.

In the US, my understanding is that as an active duty military person, any rights (even Constitutional) are secondary to military jurisdiction. So, in this case, his rights of free speech are determined by his superior officers. I doubt they would condemn him today for things he has said in his past (depending on how distant that was). If this snow balls into a political fiasco, then who knows, he may get booted from any position in the middle east. But, like Patton, military officers are not neccesarily promoted based on their skills in diplomacy. And, IMHO, they should be selected on how well they can lead an Army. Leave the political BS to the politicians.

[Quillan]

Ann Coulter is an illustration of exactly what is right in America today.  It is called free speech, which includes the freedom to be held up to ridicule for what you say.  Note Michael Moore, another example of free speech run amok, and Lord bless him for it say I! :D

I find Coulter a bit mean spirited, afflicted by tunnel vision, and a bit shrill, just as I find Naom Chomsky and James Carville a bit much to take for all of their wit.  Al Franken, while funny now and again, is a windbag on the order of Rush Limbaugh.  Two sides to a coin, those two.  They could both use a nice fresh cup of ShutThe#$%&Up, but free speech is their right. 

Is your objection that as an intelligent, attractive woman, she should only be a Liberal? 

What's the problem here?  Does she not fit your preconceived notion of what a conservative is?

I appear to be misunderstood.

Free speech has nothing to do with it... my ONLY concern in both of my posts was to point out that the washington times piece that was originally quoted was bollucks, and extremely misleading.

My inclussion of coulter has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the fact that she too, is quite liberal in her use of the truth. She can take any position she wants and defend it till she is blue in the face, and i'd have no problem with it. The problem is when she (and you accurately point to michael moore as her liberal counterpart in this) distorts the truth to prove her point. I'm all for stats, but they don't always say what people say they do, and misquoting, whether completely or by omission, is lying.

(by omission is like doing this:
Said: 'Its not like i'm saying bush is a genius' --- very different from
Quote: 'i'm saying bush is a genius')

As for a preconceived notion of what a conservative is, being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with lying (or, if lying is black and white to you, 'shaping the truth so that it is only a spectre of its former self' will suffice).

They're as far down the slippery spiral of rheteric i'll go in this post, i'd need much more energy to discuss chomsky and limbaugh!

Cheers, Quillan

[Occhidiangela]

So you are suspicious of spin doctors? We all should be, methinks. :D

[Occhidiangela]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice has some very strict limits on what public utterances a commissioned officer may make. An excellent example is the Air Force two star who referred, in public and in uniform, to President Clinton as "a dope smoking draft dodger" and was sent packing a day or two later by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

The other issue raised is one of top cover. If a general addresses anyone in public in uniform, he must assume that he is going to be taken as making an officila utterance.

If, on the other hand, he is addressing a congregation in civilian attire and is speaking as a private citizen, the rules are, as General Myers notes, a hell of a lot grayer.

[Occhidiangela]

After the horse ran out, perhaps.

"He says, “I don’t want … to be misconstrued. I don’t want to come across as a right-wing radical.”

Well, it appears that the general has gotten at least his 15 minutes of fame, for better or for worse. But I guess he is still on active duty. For him to get top cover from Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers is noteworthy. Some folks, like Admiral Macke a few years back, say a word out of place and are history.

In his defense, he appears to understand something a lot of folks whose life is secularly based, do not.

Religion is part of it, like it or not, and his reference to what went on in Somaila is completely missed by the average news consumer.

However, to infer that God put President Bush in the White House strikes me as a stretch. I thought the Supreme Court came out with the last word on that one.

The other point I'd make is: every public speaker packages his remarks to his audience.

This could be fun to watch.

[kandrathe]

However, to infer that God put President Bush in the White House strikes me as a stretch.

What if that is how your Commander in Chief sees it? No less radical than the Presidents beliefs, IMHO.

[Occhidiangela]

Do you want to buy a suspension bridge over a swamp in Florida near a voting booth?

The day any American politician believes that God, and not the political machine behind him and the ballot box that tallied the results, is who put him in office is the day you may as well get out the guns and take to the streets, because at that point, the American electorate will have successfully f**ked away the world's winningest hand.

[kandrathe]

ROFL. I didn't think you would buy that one. :)