Letters to the Editor
karrsic
Published Letters: 446 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Home Court Rules
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been an amateur basketball player all my life and though probably not strictly representative of the pros, I always liked playing at home. I'm talking about my huge plywood backboard where I could spin in layups from the lower right hand corner. My friends and I always had to rotate where we played, because home court was always an advantage (though not always decisively so.)
I suspect there are nuances of the home court that are familiar and comfortable to the home team despite their "regularity." The backboard feels different. The rim feels different. The lighting, space behind the backboard, the way the ball bounces -- feel different. Maybe it is all in their heads: who knows exactly how the brain calculates and "remembers" angles, distances, and trajectory.
-
Propaganda law
[Read the article: Brian Williams nominates Peggy Noonan for a Pulitzer Prize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has anyone discovered the law(s) that folks at the Pentagon may have broken? I've seen several comments that laws may have been broken, but have yet to see the law citation. I've looked here, but to no avail:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
@hoeyst - that looks great, the best counter yet. (though the blue on black is hard to see...)
-
Sysprog
[Read the article: Brian Williams nominates Peggy Noonan for a Pulitzer Prize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the data, I appreciate that. Most of what I found seemed to be with respect to targeting foreigners. These seem a little bit of a stretch. If there's not something stronger, perhaps there should be.
-
Defense all setup
[Read the article: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How the media + government will respond to this issue is all laid out. Media celebrities will simply rely on the trust they've established with the viewers. They will not respond substantially to any issues raised, but merely (defensively) say "I did nothing wrong." Williams is an honest and trusted voice and the analysts use used are "close friends" and he vouches for their honesty and integrity. That should be enough. Williams has no concerns regarding his own objectivity. (My comment to his blog stating this much was not posted.)
Media stars, executives, administration officials, and the DoD will simply confuse the issue. "Of course retired officials tend to be pro-Pentagon. Of course they are now in the private military industry. Of course they have ties to the Pentagon and continue to speak to the connections there. What would you expect? That's why they are valuable analysts."
These people are deliberately conflating the media organization's practice of hiring analysts with the Pentagon's illegal propaganda program.
See former ABC Pentagon correspondent Robert Zelnick. He simply refuses to discern the difference between proper use of analysts and the illegal Pentagon propaganda program:
http://tinyurl.com/5hr6xp
See analysts repeating verbatim Pentagon talking points here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo
-
A post for Shooter
[Read the article: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think this one was written with you in mind:
http://hunter.dailykos.com/
-
wouldn't you be embarrassed?
[Read the article: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.”
Again, it's not (only) that the analysts had connections to military industry, nor that the analysts were "briefed" by the Pentagon, it is that the Pentagon engaged in an illegal program to manipulate the media's coverage of the war. The media is culpable in that they did not vet their analysts nor disclose their ongoing ties from which they profit through continued war, but this is best viewed from the perspective that the Pentagon was purposefully and illegally manipulating citizen perception of the war effort.
-
elektro87
[Read the article: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NPR wasn't implicated in the scandal.
The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.
-
More NPR
[Read the article: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not my intention to defend NPR, but from NewsHour:
JUDY WOODRUFF: For the record, the NewsHour briefly put five military analysts on a retainer in 2003, but none of them attended Pentagon briefings while on retainer to the NewsHour.
-
carrot and stick
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Politicians go where there bread is buttered. They (rightly) believe that campaign contributions directly affect their probability of being elected. Therefore, taking an untoward position on a bill which doesn't receive a lot of attention is relatively low risk. A campaign to expose the position increases his risk, so may be effective. Offering campaign contributions if the proper position is taken provides additional incentive. (I believe that was directly responsible for Edward's belated stance on telecom immunity.)
For the record, 2008 campaign contributions for Carney (through March 3):
Clear Channel Communications $500
Comcast Corp $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $5,000
AT&T Inc $2,000
Embarq Corp $1,000
National Telephone Cooperative Assn $1,000
Verizon Communications $1,000
Courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics.
-
bread, butter, and carrots
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]where their bread is buttered. I can't even mix my metaphors right. ugh.
-
calling all shooters, calling all shooters
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]please report to the guantanamo ward. we know something. thought you'd want to know. calling all shooters, please report to the guantanamo ward.
-
walter_map
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree! I think he's perhaps turnable, which is why I recommend the carrot, as well as the stick.
He's raised 1.3M v. 1.4M for his Republican opponent. 57% of Carney's $ came from PACs and 43% from individuals. (There could be more telecom contributions in the individual's bucket.)
As a matter of fact, I see that Comcast is one of the largest campaign donors at 16.5K, so I don't where that was hidden. He's also taken money from the ultra conservative AmeriPAC and the BlueDog PAC.
Good dog, these guys will take money from anyone.