Now answer this article.. Why is he still alive?

[dumpster56]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/middleeast/16jihad.html?hp

If we are taking out terrorists worldwide??

 

[tryan]

Well, if the NYT was working WITH us - instead of AGAINST us - we would have the exact location of these animals. Then there would be no problem. 8)

 

[cube_rat]

I don't usually get involved in politically fueled internet threads However, this post begs another question: Why in the hell is Bin Laden STILL on the loose? With all of the advanced satellite technology we have, we can't "find" him?

 

[Cut-Throat]

Well, if the NYT was working WITH us - instead of AGAINST us - we would have the exact location of these animals. Then there would be no problem. 8)

So, you think that the Press should be a tool of the government like it is in dictatorships in the middle east? What part of freedom don't you understand?

 

[samclem]

I don't usually get involved in politically fueled internet threads However, this post begs another question: Why in the hell is Bin Laden STILL on the loose? With all of the advanced satellite technology we have, we can't "find" him?

Yep. Technology can help, but what we need is a good snitch. Those are hard to come by, particularly because Stansfield Turner and do-gooders in the Carter administration decided that in-person spying was beneath the US's dignity and that we could depend on technology instead. They significantly cut back on funding for HUMINT, and put restrictions on how it can be performed. Stupid. And it's not something that can be fixed overnight--it often takes decades to build reliable sources. Many public articles have been written about the poor intel we had on Iraq--this is one major reason.

(In fairness, the restrictions on HUMINT came partly as a response to abuses by the intelligence community--search under "Church Commission" for more info. Still, the response by Carter and his belief in a technological answer was idiotic. We risk the same thing happening again if the present package of more aggressive collection techniques is seen as abusive.)

 

[tryan]

What part of freedom don't you understand?

If one seeks out an enemy for the sole purpose of collecting/sharing information they are walking a fine line between freedom of the press and treason .

 

[JohnEyles]

If one seeks out an enemy for the sole purpose of collecting/sharing information they are walking a fine line between freedom of the press and treason .

In my opinion the press, who risk their lives every day to try to tell the world what
is going on in places like Iraq and Lebanon, are true heroes.

 

[Peaceful_Warrior]

I would rather read/hear about stories in the press from the good things happening in the world. I like happy fluffy stuff.

Unfortunately, bad things is what sells news in our society.

I stopped watching/reading the news years ago... too depressing. If it's important enough that I need to know about it, then somebody will tell me.

In my opinion the press, who risk their lives every day to try to tell the world what
is going on in places like Iraq and Lebanon, are true heroes.

 

[tryan]

In my opinion the press, who risk their lives every day to try to tell the world what
is going on in places like Iraq and Lebanon, are true heroes.

Weelll, let's agree the "true" heroes are the volunteer troops fighting this war. And they do it earning a fraction of the pay the press makes covering the war.

But to understand my "treason" point we need to look at the motivation of the terrorists. WHY do you suppose these animals agreed to do this interview/article with the NYT. Was it:

a) FREE PUBLICITY - unlikely. Thier distrust, dislike, and distain of America/Americans would overrule any value to a 1/2 page ad/article in an American News Paper. Also thier limited understanding of freedom would put limited value to such an article.

b) $$ - were they PAID for the article? We'll never know. But if so, how many future suicide bombs/bombers did the NYT just pay for.

c) Info/Tech Exchange - being holed up in a third world country leaves you hungry to trade information and technology; both of which will help in the future.

2 of the 3 are NOT in favor of freedom of the press. Why else do you suppose the terrorists would risk being exposed by the very people they distrust?

 

[laurence]

why is a) unlikely?? They release videos more often then a rap star! They are doing interviews on Al Jazeera constantly. They want to get their message out. People don't fight us for no reason, this is an ideological war, and they do want their ideology to win. A is absolutely the reason.

/rant/
I personally have a very big problem with the war on the press right now. Cut public news funding, marginalize mainstream news, only get your news from talking head blowhards that tell you what to think rather than what is going on. O'Rielly touts that his ratings beat all the actual news programs on a regular basis - as if that's a good thing - then we are told the media is left leaning. Wah? O'Rielly, Rush, and the rest effectively ARE the media now. No one bothers to broadcast or listen to objective news anymore. It's Rush and Fox News vs. Keith Olberman and Air America. Once the Feds finally pull the plug on PBS and NPR we'll have to get any sort of free objective press from a foreign country. It's disgusting. A free investigative press is often the last line of defense against abuse of power by those in office. This is being slowly taken away while everyone smiles and drools at the latest scoop on Paris Hilton. The issues? Oh, not to worry, my favorite on air hypocrite blow hard will tell me what to think on those.

..../end rant/

 

[Cut-Throat]

Weelll, let's agree the "true" heroes are the volunteer troops fighting this war. And they do it earning a fraction of the pay the press makes covering the war.

So, you think to honor those "true heroes" is that we set up a government that controls the press just like the Iraqi government did?

- You have very little understanding of how and why this country was formed do you?

Did you go to college?

 

[dumpster56]

/rant/
I personally have a very big problem with the war on the press right now. Cut public news funding, marginalize mainstream news, only get your news from talking head blowhards that tell you what to think rather than what is going on. O'Rielly touts that his ratings beat all the actual news programs on a regular basis - as if that's a good thing - then we are told the media is left leaning. Wah? O'Rielly, Rush, and the rest effectively ARE the media now. No one bothers to broadcast or listen to objective news anymore. It's Rush and Fox News vs. Keith Olberman and Air America. Once the Feds finally pull the plug on PBS and NPR we'll have to get any sort of free objective press from a foreign country. It's disgusting. A free investigative press is often the last line of defense against abuse of power by those in office. This is being slowly taken away while everyone smiles and drools at the latest scoop on Paris Hilton. The issues? Oh, not to worry, my favorite on air hypocrite blow hard will tell me what to think on those. tickedoff




Oh man I am totally on board here!

 

[2B]

/rant/
I personally have a very big problem with the war on the press right now. Cut public news funding, marginalize mainstream news, only get your news from talking head blowhards that tell you what to think rather than what is going on. O'Rielly touts that his ratings beat all the actual news programs on a regular basis - as if that's a good thing - then we are told the media is left leaning. Wah? O'Rielly, Rush, and the rest effectively ARE the media now. No one bothers to broadcast or listen to objective news anymore. It's Rush and Fox News vs. Keith Olberman and Air America. Once the Feds finally pull the plug on PBS and NPR we'll have to get any sort of free objective press from a foreign country. It's disgusting. A free investigative press is often the last line of defense against abuse of power by those in office. This is being slowly taken away while everyone smiles and drools at the latest scoop on Paris Hilton. The issues? Oh, not to worry, my favorite on air hypocrite blow hard will tell me what to think on those.

..../end rant/

There is news and there are commentators. O'Reiley, Rush and talk radio are commentators. CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC (amongst others) run what they bill as "news" which should discuss facts but they are overrun with inuendo that slant the story. I've heard both ways but generally see the "lead ins" to be considered non-Bush policies. I can't say that automatically means anti-conservative since so much of what Bush does is definitely non-conservative by any definition I've seen.

A lot of times it's how the "issue" is defined. With Clinton's impeachment it always seemed to be about "his private sex life" in the newsreports. When it was really about perjuy before a grandjury (Sound like a current event that got a whole different exposure in the media?). Wild Bill later pleaded "no contest" to the charge before a judge and lost his law license for awhile. I can only assume our Senate believes perjuy isn't in the group defined by "high crime and misdemeanor."

PBS has long outlived its reason for being. There are no shortages of broadcast outlets so I don't know why my taxes go to a pseudo-govt broadcast business.

 

[laurence]

So the first part of your post agrees the news media has become biased, then you finish by saying you don't know why we need PBS. It's precisely because other media is beholden to those who pay their bills that we need PBS. Objective, investigative media is critical. Sunshine is the best disinfectant!

 

[tryan]

... interesting, no disagreement that 2 of the 3 border on treason. Just rant and insults.

 

[2B]

So the first part of your post agrees the news media has become biased, then you finish by saying you don't know why we need PBS. It's precisely because other media is beholden to those who pay their bills that we need PBS. Objective, investigative media is critical. Sunshine is the best disinfectant!

But I think PBS is blatantly biased. They make hardly any pretenses that they aren't a bunch of far-leftists grinding their axes. I don't think I need to pay for that. I can turn off any of the news shows I want to and I'm not out any money. If I don't listen to PBS I still pay for it.

 

[samclem]

I, too , believe NPR and PBS are left-leaning. I don't watch much PBS, but I listen to a lot of NPR and I seldom agree with their framing of their stories and interviews. Still, I am happy to send my 2 local stations a check every year. Their coverage is, hands down, the most complete broadcast coverage available of the news.

Should this work be funded with tax dollars? That's a whole different issue. I'm inclined to think not. To the extent taxpayers are funding this, the government has a responsibility to assure the coverage is evenhanded, and that puts them into the position of deciding what the public gets to hear. I don't want govt moderated news coverage.

 

[laurence]

But I think PBS is blatantly biased. They make hardly any pretenses that they aren't a bunch of far-leftists grinding their axes. I don't think I need to pay for that. I can turn off any of the news shows I want to and I'm not out any money. If I don't listen to PBS I still pay for it.

Last night their commentator was Newt Gingrich, but I've heard some call him liberal, so I'll drop that point.

Would you care to name a news outlet or source you find to be objective?

 

[Cut-Throat]

I, too , believe NPR and PBS are left-leaning. I don't watch much PBS, but I listen to a lot of NPR and I seldom agree with their framing of their stories and interviews. Still, I am happy to send my 2 local stations a check every year. Their coverage is, hands down, the most complete broadcast coverage available of the news.

Should this work be funded with tax dollars? That's a whole different issue. I'm inclined to think not. To the extent taxpayers are funding this, the government has a responsibility to assure the coverage is evenhanded, and that puts them into the position of deciding what the public gets to hear. I don't want govt moderated news coverage.

Well, of course they lean to the left of FOX! - which is an entertainment program for the far right. You guys have watched so much right wing TV, you fail to realize when someone is truly in the middle! :

 

[samclem]

Well, of course they lean to the left of FOX! - which is an entertainment program for the far right. You guys have watched so much right wing TV, you fail to realize when someone is truly in the middle! :

I'd put them to the left of CBS and CNN, which is saying something.
One big challenge today is that there are so many sources of information. 40 years ago there were three networks, and they could all get a good share of the "eyeballs" by staying fairly close to the middle. One benefit was that most Americans, while they might disagree on how to deal with things, at least agreed on what was actually happening in the world. Also, people got more of their news from print media, which tends to give coverage with more complete contextual information. Today, the radio and TV news coverage fits small boutique demographics. The stories covered and how they are covered is far more diverse, and people are generally onlt watching/listening to the source tey most agree with (that 'ol cognitive dissonance theory again). As a result, we have increasing polarization in the electorate, and have a harder time reaching national consensus.

Iliked the news in Europe when I was there. No flash, no human interest stories, no Natalie Holloway in Aruba, no 55 solid minutes of coverage of a police chase in Detroit. Nope--one talking head who read the news.

 

[unclemick]

Well, of course they lean to the left of FOX! - which is an entertainment program for the far right. You guys have watched so much right wing TV, you fail to realize when someone is truly in the middle! :

Suze Orman! Suze Orman! I think Jonathon Pond has a half hour shot tonight on our PBS.

heh heh heh - and another thing - how come all those Doo Wop and 60's British Invasion cat's got old looking. They could have stayed young like me - get rid off the mirrors in the house, a little Grecian Formula , , :, : .

 

[Craig]

Cut public news funding ... Once the Feds finally pull the plug on PBS and NPR we'll have to get any sort of free objective press from a foreign country. It's disgusting. A free investigative press is often the last line of defense against abuse of power by those in office.

Oh, please ... you're killin' me here. :

Let me get this right ... we desperately need government-funded news so we can have a free investigative press. Have I got that right? Wow.

I'll agree in a heartbeat that Fox is biased ... as is CNN ... as is PBS. That mix of free enterprise Fox / CNN press is how it should work, my friends. Not providing more government funding. What an amazing twist of logic to believe PBS is freedom.

 

[laurence]

So two biased media outlets some how equals objective reporting? Each of these news networks has filled their lineup with commentators who spew their diatribes all day long. But if that's what passes for news now I guess that's the way it is.

I saw your post on the global warming thread, I think you've made it abundantly clear what your worldview is, and that no one's gonna change your mind. So I won't try here.

 

[sgeeeee]

why is a) unlikely?? They release videos more often then a rap star! They are doing interviews on Al Jazeera constantly. They want to get their message out. People don't fight us for no reason, this is an ideological war, and they do want their ideology to win. A is absolutely the reason.

/rant/
I personally have a very big problem with the war on the press right now. Cut public news funding, marginalize mainstream news, only get your news from talking head blowhards that tell you what to think rather than what is going on. O'Rielly touts that his ratings beat all the actual news programs on a regular basis - as if that's a good thing - then we are told the media is left leaning. Wah? O'Rielly, Rush, and the rest effectively ARE the media now. No one bothers to broadcast or listen to objective news anymore. It's Rush and Fox News vs. Keith Olberman and Air America. Once the Feds finally pull the plug on PBS and NPR we'll have to get any sort of free objective press from a foreign country. It's disgusting. A free investigative press is often the last line of defense against abuse of power by those in office. This is being slowly taken away while everyone smiles and drools at the latest scoop on Paris Hilton. The issues? Oh, not to worry, my favorite on air hypocrite blow hard will tell me what to think on those.

..../end rant/

Thanks for a nice, on-target rant, Laurence.

 

[Craig]

Laurence, you've also made it clear you're in the top quartile of the lemmings.


Read history. A free press has always meant biased reporting from the left and the right, since the founding of the republic. Answer my point ... do you really believe government-supported press is the solution?

I certainly do agree with the point above that while I'd love for our military to learn where these scumbags live and train, the press can't do their job if they become an arm of our intelligence community. That's part of a free press too, even if it is uncomfortable.

Everyone has their bias, Laurence ... including this forum. It's notable that attempts here to see the other perspective are often met with insults and derision. Sophomoric, but humorous.