Letters to the Editor
Politically Lost
Published Letters: 108
-
Glenn
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the second sentence of the fifth paragraph you refer to Ross asserting something, I think you're referring to Schneider.
BTW,
I'm extremely happy that you have made the move to Salon, this excellent piece would probably not been possible before the move.
-
One of those moments...
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had one of those moments again. You know the kind I'm talking about. Assaulted again by media silliness this morning and last night. It's not anything new, and yet it's as if there were a lighting storm of anger and outrage that jolts the brain-stem.
These moments are infrequent because we're assaulted everyday by some new outrage or reality defying 'news' story.
Pelosi wearing a scarf. It's a scandal, she's submitting to the islamufascists....
Sorry, I'm reflexively having that moment of anger again. Motherf@$%!!! There aren't enough curse words to convey how absolutely idiotic and mindless that is. How does anyone in the media survive such utter horse shit?
Funny how some stories get under your skin (and deep into the conniption center of the brain) and in other cases one can deal with a story in a very rational and cerebral way.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote...
Was it during WWI, when they went along with the total censorship of anti-war views? Or the post-WWI Red Scare, which the media was instrumental in promoting, and which vanished almost overnight when it vanished from the pages of the papers?
Was it during the Great Depression, when the Literary Digest predicted FDR's defeat in the 1936 elections? (They were right, he lost--Maine and Vermont.) Was it during the McCarthy Era, when they printed McCarthy's wild accusations, and never asked to see the "list of names" he waved above his head, which later turned out to have been a blank sheet of paper?
Was it during the Civil Rights Movement, when a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr. never made the New York Times front page? Was it any time since second wave feminism first appeared, when feminism has been repeatedly reported dead every four or five years or so? Was it during the 15-year long "global warming debate" when not one peer reviewed article was published on the "skeptics" side of the debate?
When, exacly, was this period of liberal media bias, when the majority of American papers have endorsed the Republican presidential candidate in every election since the Great Depression, except for 1964?
Thank you for this. If you don't mind I'm going to cut and paste that onto my frontal lobe (too many brain references today) and use it regularly.
Because you didn't go for the obvious, you know the pantie sniffing, the blue dress, the dead Foster, the ten year investigation that found nothing, the frenzy into Iraq, ignoring Abramoff, and and and etc. etc. ad infinitum.
-
Even rhetorical questions need answers sometimes..
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you think Matt Lauer -- pompously condemning Pelosi's trip -- has the slightest inkling about any of this? Did he do a single thing to read about the history of House Speakers making foreign trips, whether what Pelosi did was at all unusual, whether those condemning her are doing so because they are expressing a principled belief or whether they said the exact opposite when the partisan positions were reversed? Or did he just hear an angry Dick Cheney and read the Editorials by the Wall St. Journal and Fred Hiatt and then uncritically regurgitate in front of a camera what he ingested? Those questions are rhetorical ones, needless to say.
I want answers to those questions, I demand those answers.
What's going on with this Pelosi story is much bigger than her headgear. There is a subtext of a prelude to war with Iran. The consequences of which can not be quantified. These pompous nutless sacks are either purposely or mindlessly pushing the country into another war. ( I would define war as the ultimate brutalization of the human spirit )
Oh, and Shooter:
"A closed eye to the Legislative branch usurping function of the Executive? "
Why would you purposefully avoid that part about what Gingrich has done in the past?
Doesn't serve the agenda right?
Well, if you keep nipping at the heels maybe one day you'll latch on. Good luck to you.
-
Interesting JimC thread...
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is your point about posting my rules for commenting? Are you an anarchist? I pay the bills for that site, I lay down the rules, just like this site has rules...get over yourself.
Point? Finding out what motivates/drives individuals.
Who does Jeebus like in the SuperBowl next year?
I'm afraid it might be canceled this year due to war with Iran. But I'm sure some higher power of some sort of monotheistic persuasion will be rooting for both sides.
-
Glenn:
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How can ABC and Ross justify continuing to conceal the identity of these sources -- some of whom, presumably, were and still are in the Bush administration -- when those sources concocted lies with the intent to manipulate Ross and the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the anthrax attacks?
I'm not sure how effective you'll be at asking ABC and Ross to respond to the false stories that they've run with in the past. But, I bet a congressional investigation would be extraordinarily effective at uncovering just who these "sources" were.
Isn't that the investigation that Senator Roberts managed to stifle all these years?