Letters to the Editor
Holly McLachlan
Published Letters: 544 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Would The Politico even have been allowed to field some of the tougher questions they received?
[Read the article: Have Bill Frist and right-wing bloggers plagiarized their new Iraq plan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...this morning on C-Span's Washington Journal the first half hour was devoted to Republican callers only and their assessments of the first Republican debate. From first caller to last there was general outrage. Not over the candidates but over "liberal" Chris Matthews as moderator. One caller even suggested that Bill O'Reilly should be the next moderator and that Republicans should shun MSNBC as Democrats had shunned Fox.
It was a surreal segment with Republicans claiming that the debate was fixed and the Republican candidates treated unfairly.-- nlaceyOf course. Softballs only for the soon-to-be-anointed Ruler, lobbed by SpongeBill O'Reilly. They insist that their candidates are inherently legitimate -- and that therefore tough questions are an unacceptable impertinence in a moderator.
More truthfully though, they know (even if they won't ever admit it) that there are very few fair questions which can be ask in a debate format that would allow the Republicans to make an array of flattering answers.
Healthcare, taxation, the role of the feds wrt private morality, terrorism... almost all simply worded, unspun questions about each of these issues would be tough to answer while still respectfully toeing the party line.Desert Son has been right all along. No Kings.
-
I always want to know who owns what
[Read the article: Who funds and runs the Politico?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Since I already assume everyone has a bias, I am not really concerned with why they have a bias. Also, I don't really consider a biased person who has claimed to be objective to have made a misleading statement because I find such a statement to be a fairly reliable indicator of bias. So perhaps this information is relevant to people who believe in such a thing as objectivity, but not to me.-- Not As Crazy As You
Your faith in your own ability to discern every form and instance of bias that a journal might be subject to is heartwarming, but probably not well-placed. I also assume that everyone has biases -- that is why I would like to know as much as feasible about what they might be.
If The Politico were as devoted to impartial reporting as indicated in their mission statement they would have bent over backwards to reveal their connections whenever appropriate. I.e. in the mainstream print media Businessweek is a stand out for this. The phrase ..."a McGraw-Hill company" shows up regularly in the text of their articles.
In contrast, The Politico appears to downplay their connections. This suggests that those connections have unusually strong influence on them and that the influence extends beyond affecting the tone of articles -- that it includes some control over what gets published.
Your letter was not an ad hominem attack, rather it was an ennui-laced effort to embarrass those who favor being informed. Why don't you provide us information junkies with a little more data, and explain why? Why would our interest in this backstory move you to post this letter? -
Remember to h/t shooter242 when you (try to) use his talking points
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Stupid
So now you want to limit people who have political connections to participate in politics.
Stop whining.
-- tiberius
Participation in politics is already largely limited to those who have political connections -- by definition. Did you mean: "So now you want to [keep] people who have political connections [from participating] in politics."?
Are you trying to say that Glenn and his commenters have no business commenting on and participating in political discourse? The clever bits surrounding your sentence ..."Stupid" and "Stop whining" suggest that was your point.
Would you be trying to keep those who largely don't have political connections from participation, by use of derision as an intimidation and silencing tactic?Indeed, that works so well in this forum! You go girl!
-
Jest right
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kelly Joyner
You and I made a lot of the same points in our letters, posted minutes apart. I wasn't cribbing from you, I swear! Didn't see your letter until after I published mine.
-- JestapleroThere is no way anyone could have mistakenly connected your letter and hers. Your post was distinguished by being polite, clear & to the point. You didn't come across as a superannuated Ab Fab character making a strained effort to sound like a "regular country gal".
I tend to agree that Ms. Akers is not as appropriate a target for Glenn's posts as the editor and owner of The Politico. The latter present themselves as serious journalists; Ms. Akers is a gossip columnist for the Beltway types. And, as you mentioned, she quietly imparted some real information amidst the fluff by mentioning the Albritton connection. But I can understand why he might go off on a spiel after reading her piece. The lifestyle details and attitude she reported on were annoying to read about.