Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1359 Editor's Choice: 1
-
"impliedly"?
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mind you, I'm on my first cup of coffee, and likely can't write a coherent sentence before noon (let alone post a blog article)--but...
-
GG
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I beg your pardon! I had not come across that particular critter before. Personally, I think Dick Cheney should take it out hunting one day...
GG, on another note, I have a couple of emails into your salon address, requesting contribution mailing address.
-
Not a hate site, but may be a 'torture site'
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The torture is reading replies to, and arguments with certain posters here who cannot be argued with, for they possess no coherent position, and whose posts are simply not worth responding to. Such "arguments", that have taken place here month, after month, after month (involving the same posters) are a form of torture.
-
Just to be clear
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG, on another note, I have a couple of emails into your salon address, requesting contribution mailing address.
I'm referring here to a physical mailing address, aka, snailmail address. I do not use paypal. I cannot send payments to an email address.
-
Spin from the left
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To me, the most disappointing thing about the Leahy/O'donnell interview snippet is the spin being placed on it from the left. I will use Think Progress as my evidence. Under the tab "Braindead Media", Think Progress titled the March 23 piece:
O’Donnell Tells Leahy: ‘You’re Going To Get The Truth From Karl Rove’
This is, crudely put, bullshit. Here is the transcript:
O’DONNELL: Well Senator, Tony Snow said today that you guys want the truth. And in this interview, you’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove.
LEAHY: Oh, really?
O’DONNELL: What’s wrong with that?
O'Donnell is not "telling" Leahy this. She is relaying a statement accurately from Tony Snow, for Leahy's reaction. This is her job. SHE is not stating any of this as her opinion.
Think Progress then writes the following:
Borrowing the White House’s talking points, MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell pestered Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about why he was insisting on “putting on a show trial.” She told him the White House offer was perfectly acceptable. “You’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove. What’s wrong with that?”
Again, this is bullshit. Here is the transcript:
"O’DONNELL: Senator, you’ve heard the President say though, that you’re putting on a show trial. And that Tony Snow said today, I thought this was a fact-finding mission, not a ratings-findings missions, and that you’re trying to create a courtroom atmosphere."
This is not "borrowing talking points", nor is it "pestering", nor did she "tell" him that the White House position was "perfectly reasonable". She is accurately relaying what the administration has said, in order to get a response from the Senator.
I cannot comment on the tone and posture of the interview, as I can't view the clip. But the transcript does not deserve the microscopic attention it has gotten. And the the over-the-top spin put on this by Think Progress is simply shameful.
-
The value of transcripts
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Then reserve your rather Olympian judgment until you have seen it."
First, I have no idea what you mean by "Olympian".
Second, I neither wrote nor implied my comment here was an "eye-witness account". I think they call this a red herring.
Third, a transcript, if accurate, is the true record of what was actually said. Perhaps you share this administration's contempt for them. Personally, I think they are important. And the idea that one can't comment unless one has seen the tape is ludicrous.
Fourth, you haven't offered any argument against any substantive item in my comment.
Finally, as news and opinion consumers, I believe we should hate bullshit, regardless of where it comes from.
-
spin, misrepresentation, and propaganda
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My substantive points in the earlier comment were regarding misrepresentation of what O'donnell actually said. Think Progress manipulated the interview in their piece, and the transcript (to their credit, they also provided the transcript) reveals this. In essence, the Think Progress piece is spinning to the level of lying and misrepresentation. I am equating lies and misrepresentations with bullshit. I apologize for any offense.
We should not be striving to replace right-wing propaganda with progressive propaganda. We should be striving to replace bad reporting with good reporting.
Kitt, if O'Donnell has a hidden agenda (or not so hidden), then she should be slammed at every possible opportunity. Including when she grooves a slow pitch right across the plate (warning: baseball analogy in progress), the way she did to Leahy. In my opinion, Leahy (whom I admire) hit it for a single. He could have hit it out of the park, but a single is a good respectable hit. He clearly expressed his and the committee's position.
But what we should not be doing is hitting her with sloppy junk, which is what the Think Progress piece is, in my opinion. If her reporting is boldly, explicitly biased, then it should never be nessessary to misrepresent her, in order to assail her positions or her work.
-
Frankly, my dear, ...
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the actual words used form a very small percentage of what is being communicated in a spoken communication.
If this is the case, why should we not accept the administration's offer of discussion of the USA firings, but with no transcript?
If transcripts only convey 7% (or so) of the informational content (data), what's the big deal with getting White House Officers on paper?
-
LWM
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Think Progress is an advocacy site.
OK, so my use of the word "reporting" may not be the best term. But, if you look at the post, I hope you would agree that Think Progress misrepresents the interview.
and the general point remains true in my opinion. that is, accuracy is to be preferred over inaccuracy, even if it is progressive inaccuracy.
-
LWM
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"That should read:
TP's "gentle counter-spin"."
I enjoyed this. Understatement is a lost art these days.