Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
Elephantman - You're confusing the editorial page with the news
[Read the article: The Bill Moyers documentary on our failed and barren press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not the same thing, at all. There is a "wall" between editorial content and news content at most large newspapers. The editorial pages of the New York Times frequently attack the Bush administration, but the news pages tend to reinforce Republican talking points. The editors who write the anti-Bush screeds have no control over the contents of the newspaper itself. It's the news itself that seems to be biased, either intentionally or through incompetence. Judith Miller is only the best known example of bad reporters who simply repackaged information from the White House and presented it as breaking news on the front page of the New York Times.
-
They need to create a "triumph" first
[Read the article: Senate sets Iraq timetable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Something... anything. Even their own people aren't behind them 100% anymore. I frequently look at Free Republic to see how the right wingnut tide is flowing, and was shocked to see an actual debate occurring on a post about the recent bombing where 9 soldiers were killed. There were some freepers suggesting that it was time to bring our troops home. There was also the predictable backlash, but it was amazing that anybody dared to even bring up the possibility on that site.
-
I don't know about studies - but I see a difference
[Read the article: The psychology of $4 a gallon gasoline]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here in Northern California I used to feel as if the SUV's were taking over the world. Now, they mostly seem to be in used car lots. There are still a lot of gas guzzlers on the road, but they are outnumbered by smaller cars (including a lot of small hybrids), except on used car lots. It might be because gas prices here regularly approach $3.50/gallon. I recently paid $3.35/gallon, and gas hasn't been below $3 in 6 months. I am definitely seeing an effect, although it may not be showing up nationwide at this point.
-
This is bigger than just politics
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They're trying to undercut the Democrats on-line base. The right (which, imo, include Lieberman) knows that the only advantage Democrats have over Republicans is that they can attract a broader base, particularly (although not exclusively) over the internet. If Conservatives can drive a wedge between Democrats and the bloggers, then Democrats will have fewer opportunites for grassroots activities. They have to make individual bloggers so hot that Democratic candidates won't touch them.
This would be pretty easy to turn around on the attackers, if we were willing. Just reasarch the background of every place the Republican candidates speak, and every person they appear with, and every large donor. Okay... it's not as easy as doing a web search, but someone who knows how to do research and has access to Nexus could do it pretty easily. Pretty soon, there will be so much mud in thea air that nobody will know who threw what and everybody will be so dirty that nobody cares about the issue anymore. I know it's distasteful, but the recent attacks are just a taste of what is coming in next year's election, and if we don't learn to dish it out, we will lose. Sitting back and waiting for people to realize that they've voting for the kind of dirty politics they hate is not working.
-
Rights and Responsibilites
[Read the article: Safe speech]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that a lot of people need to learn the difference between having a right to do something and doing the right thing. Imus had a "right" to use whatever language he wanted on his show. Other people had a right to tell his sponsors that they were going to boycott them if they didn't stop supporting him. Protesting certain words is as much a right of free speech as saying them. The government isn't allowed to restrict our speech, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to censor ourselves, or that individual people and groups of individuals can't use their right of free speech to say "I don't want that kind of crap on my airwaves".
Will this kind of censorship sometimes result in undesirable consequences? Probably. As a great writer once said, we're delaing with human beings here, not angels. But the alternative is that anybody can say anything without consequence, and I think that's worse. We need some mechanism to enforce a basic level of civility. Sometimes people just need to say "Stop". Hopefully, these times will be mostly limited to times when the behaviour of the individual being criticized is truly reprehensible.
-
But will people ever know?
[Read the article: Mission accomplished]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The headline on the Yahoo News AP article about this is: "Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill"
It continues: "WASHINGTON - President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate." The first mention of "funding" is in the 16th paragraph.
CBS News webs site headline is: "VETO: Bush Rejects Iraq Timetable, Continuing Showdown With Congress", although when you actually click through to the article the title is "Bush Vetoes Iraq Funding Bill"
ABC News says "PRESIDENT BUSH VETOES LEGISLATION TO PULL U.S. TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ IN A HISTORIC SHOWDOWN WITH CONGRESS". Again, when you click through they mention that he vetoed a funding bill.
New York Times web page: "Citing ‘Rigid’ Deadline, Bush Vetoes Iraq Bill" The president called the bill, which set a timetable for troop withdrawal, a blueprint for failure and defeat, intensifying a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress. The words "fund" and "funding" do not appear in the associated article.
These are the only sites I looked at. Four totally arbitrarily chosen sites. The media has not changed. They are way too attached to the "Democrats hate the troops" meme to ever let go of it.