Letters to the Editor
MarieA
Published Letters: 264 Editor's Choice: 19
-
Why journalists don't touch this story
[Read the article: George Bush told the truth yesterday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Journalism (to use the term quite loosely) is operating under several constraints and has become focused on specific methods of presenting news.
The first constraint is simplicity. This is not necessarily a simple story.
The second is that the media does not want to look soft on terrorism.
They are also constrained by their methods of presenting the news. The media likes the for-and-against story, the he said/he said. The telecom immunity does not have good traction for this method because the two sides are going to talk past each other. Pro-telecom immunity spokesman just shout, "Terrorists! Security!" Anti-immunity spokesmen can't really respond directly to that in what the media perceives will be a satisfactory way (they might look soft on terrorism). Anti-immunity spokesmen would address the deeper issues of proper behavior in a Constitutional republic and no pro-immunity spokesman can counter that.
The media also favors personal perspective--the victim, the dramatic circumstance. In this case, we don't know who was spied on and how that might have "harmed" them. The media knows that many people in the U. S. operate under the false assumption that if someone isn't doing anything wrong, spying on them is no big deal. So it takes a lot to overcome this without looking soft on terrorism. Right now there aren't any sympathetic victims to hang a story on.
If the Congress held hearings on this issue, it might get a little traction because there would be footage and maybe some compelling stories, much like the sickbed image of Ashcroft.
But as long as Congress fails to do its job, the media just can't cover the story.
-
The Slippery Slope
[Read the article: The "liberal" position on the Surveillance State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for reminding us about the dangers of the FISA court.
I have sat in shock at the collective amnesia we have had about the FISA court, as if terrorism is an excuse to throw our rights away, as if secret courts are compatible with our rights as citizens.
We must stop being so afraid and stand up to unconstitutional government intrusions on our lives.
-
Cheap and Easy -- the key words
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cheap and easy perfectly sums up the state of journalism today.
The press likes the whiff of a scandal. They believe it is much more interesting for their audience than substantive issues.
The very act of having to explain and dig around for the details of potential scandals, plus wanting to be the first to break a story, makes them linger and dwell on things that may not have any facts behind them.
Add in the ever eager political operatives who are happy to appear on camera endlessly speculating about the alleged scandal, which of course must be rebutted by denials that will be questioned (because wouldn't you deny it even if it were true?).
Things like the Jack Abramoff situation were fairly easy to explain, the man rolled over and went quietly off to prison. The administration went "tut-tut" and "if we'd only known."
There wasn't anything to hang endless speculation on.
Whee! Journalism is fun!
-
Negative thinking works too!
[Read the article: Claim your refund for useless Airborne cold supplement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't take any vitamins or remedies to enhance my immune system and I sometimes feel that I'm getting a cold but then don't. When my kids get a cold, I always assume that I will get it too, although I often don't (probably because I had the same virus at some previous time, not for lack of exposure, believe me).
Yet I haven't had a cold in 3 or 4 years.
So, why don't we all try using a bit of scientific reasoning? Might be fun for a change.
-
Power corrupts
[Read the article: Shocking new revelation: Unchecked government powers get abused]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But, as someone once said:
Absolute power is kind of neat.
-
Toadies
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you, thank you for so beautifully expounding on this subject.
The subservient behavior of journalists has bothered me for years. This precious access they claim they have by deferring to the powerful's wishes gains them nothing but access. (Apparently they really enjoy the ass-kissing.)
I blame a lot of this, at least in part, to the rise of journalism schools and journalism as a "profession." In the days when most reporters weren't even college graduates, let alone journalism/communication/print media specialists, they were outsiders and proud of it.
Nowadays, journalists are worried about keeping their 401Ks flush. Plus they like to be in with the in crowd. They get to know the backroom stories while being the gatekeepers for the rest of us, complicit with the rich and powerful.
This attitude has run rampant for a long time, but has really come to full bloom after 9/11, when journalists didn't want to appear to undermine the U.S. and "aid the enemy."
Pussies.
-
A Brilliant Idea and Why Prostitution and Not Pornography Is Illegal
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Greenwald posits that if all infractions, petty and great, caused politicians to resign, there would be none left in office.
Now you're talking!
As to the prostitution v pornography legality issue, well, the self-perceived moralists who believe prostitution should be illegal on moral grounds would love to see pornography and the actors in it criminalized as well. And porn has been illegal in various guises, but in recent memory, Supreme Court decisions generally legalized it. Zealots still pursue the dream, however.
Those who believe in consenting adults doing what they want even when money changes hands but still want to criminalize prostitution make the argument that prostitution promotes crime, brings down property values, corrupts the young. They ignore the circular reasoning that criminalizing a transaction begets criminal behavior.
I will say also, from recent experience with moralizers and law enforcement, that maintaining prostitution crimes gives cops an excuse to bust people (esp. women) while giving the perception of "cleaning up the streets."
Please note that there are a number of laws that exist primarily as an excuse to arrest people because proving that they are committing serious crime is hard.