Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
MRC follow up
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) MRC isn't exactly hounding King here. These are off hand complaints about pretty ordinary stuff he's doing. Yes "Many say" can be misused to give a reporter's personal opinion under a veneer, but it is true that "many say" Bush is trampling the constitution. It wasn't "many say bush sleeps with 5 year olds." None of these items was a feature about John King, just him being mentioned in their litany of items for a given day or week. That there only 2 mentions of him in 2007 is germane too.
2) None of these are relevant to how he handles John McCain. Glenn's complaint that King favours McCain is not redressed by King purportedly kicking Bush or the right wing complaining about him. Both sides can be right about their complaints here, they don't nullify. It's perfectly plausible that King detests Bush and bashes him whenever possible (I don't see it) and loves off McCain and praises him endlessly (MM and GG make that case better).
3) MRC is (I may say) really crappy and not at all the equal of Media Matters, who does meticulous linked reserach to justify their complaints of bias. They don't just whine every time a media figure says anything critical of the left or in praise of the right, they show why it is false or misleading. MRC just catalogs everything the media says critical of conservatives, republicans, or favourable to liberals and democrats. They do link to videos of the incidents they're complaining about but they do no work to show why their complaints have merit. Did Bush ever visit Vermont? Why not? Is it unusual for a second term president to not have visited every state? Show us before grousing about it.
It speaks to the right wing's incomprehension of the idea that one can be "fair" and one can be "balanced" but usually not both. Everything King said in the complaints I looked at was justifiable.
Media Matters, on the other hand, is demonstrating that McCain's justification of his tax cut vote is not what he said at the time. That is a valid complaint. They're not complaining so much that King reports on McCain's statement, but that he uncritically accepts it without fact checking it, because it turns out to be false or at least unproven. If McCain was thinking this way when he voted he never said so.
-
But King does prove
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That the Media Research Center, as vacuous and trite as their content is, serve a valuable right wing purpose. They give a shield to journalists to defend themselves against attacks from "the left" (read: "anyone concerned with objective, skeptical journalism")
They just have to generate enough noise, that morons will think that they and Media Matters are just flip sides of the same coin. None of the complaints need any merit whatsoever, as long as they make enough of them.
-
Anonymity and rudeness as Smith's fuel for rebuttal
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It strikes me that Tim Smith's response reads like every Joe Klein response to scores of critical emails and complaints he gets "Oh, someone said something nasty and anonymous, so let me just dismiss the entire thrust of the criticisms offered"
It is a common tact by established types, to select a limited example of rude or offensive responses, and use those as a straw man with which to knock down all the polite and thoughtful critiques offered.
I'd also remind the Professor that the Federalist papers were written under pseudonames, as are many books. The Economist almost never names the author of any piece (Who is "lexington" anyway?) The quality of the argument is key, not the arguer.
To demand we all use our real names or we are beneath notice is infantile and evasive.
-
The House is the key I think
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dodd's filibuster and the dozen good Democrats who will back him is probably the most we can expect in the senate. If they get cloture, then it will come down to the conference version of the bill.
See, right now is the time where if the Progressive house caucus signs a letter pledging to vote down any immunity containing conference bill, that puts pressure on the senators and bolsters their fight.
Don't think of these as disconnected or sequential fights. The House members have been too quiet, but that half-decent FISA bill they passed has to become the line in the sand, and be used to club the Senate Democrats back into line.
The time for all this is before a Senate bill is passed, and the old "inevitability" mentality takes over. There's no reason in principle a conference bill can't lose. And symbolically, Pelosi will not want a bill that passes without the largest group in the Democratic caucus.
Also there are a couple primary fights on Bush-Dogs heating up as we speak. Al Wynn (BD-MD) and Dan Lipenski (BD-IL) are fighting for their lives against strong progressive challengers, and might be amenable to voting the right way. If they don't, they make their defeat even more likely.
Last thought, don't just pressure Clinton and Obama. Edwards was a senator and has the right to enter the Senate (this is actually partly why ex congresspeople are so attractive for lobbying firms, they have literally the best possible access). Symbolically it would be valuable if all 3 Dem candidates were to attend the senate in solidarity against this. Unlikely I suppose, but it would be courageous and I think effective. Just the C-Span shot of the 3 of them standing together opposing this in the floor of the senate would be awesome.