Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 2032 Editor's Choice: 74
-
WT, I thought there was something familiar...
[Read the article: Have Bill Frist and right-wing bloggers plagiarized their new Iraq plan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"As an army brat, it was my good fortune to go out for the team in several of these towns, and trust me, they were pretty much of a piece."
In my case, though, it was Air Force, mostly SAC Bases, and no football for me. And no cheerleading, either! Dreary places, those SAC bases, especially in the winter.
I have to say, the cheers in this post and in the comments are stupendous! and amazing!
In an earlier thread, I was thinking, but didn't get around to posting, that part of the problem is that our media stars feel they are exempt from the same consequences as the rest of us more ordinary folks... especially when it comes down to issues of civil rights being violated. They think that's the sort of thing that happens to those who are much lower on the food chain. And, mostly, they are right, but I think they're taking a lot for granted.
If more of them read Harper's, they might be a bit more worried: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/horton-20070504cryp ...another beginning for "it couldn't happen here?"
Just as the military worries about the effects of our admin's codified torture policy in the future, on our troops... shouldn't our "journalists" be more concerned about the possible future consequences on themselves of the Bush military's carelessness with the lives of foreign journalists?
Not to mention, their own threat risk being equated with al Qaeda's?
-
Deja vu?
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the first visit by the queen since 1991, when Mr. Bush’s father was president.
Wasn't that 1991 dinner also the one where FL Barbara had/tried to keep her son away from the Queen, so he wouldn't embarrass anyone?
-
types of verbal exchange
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dave Pollard posted something last week about conversation/debate/dialogue, suggesting 4 different types, according to Otto Scharmer. He isn't conclusive about the list, but rather asks for feedback.
I thought the list would be interesting to some of the commenters here, since we seem to engage in all of them:
1. Polite conversation: Cautious discourse which does not attempt to impart information or influence beliefs.
2. Debate: Espousing conflicting points of view, selectively presenting information and arguments favouring those points of view, with the objective of influencing the beliefs of others of opposing points of view, or previously uncommitted participants.
3. Reflective dialogue: Empathic listening while suspending judgement ('letting go' of conceptions).
4. Generative dialogue: Open, collaborative, creative conversation to allow emergent understanding ('letting come').
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2007/05/03.html#a1854
-
I agree with everything in Glenn's post...
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and yet... something about simply denying this conflation of Olbermann with O'Reilly bothers me.
I love Olberman and cannot abide O'Reilly... but perhaps it's time for Olbermann simply to ignore O'Reilly, instead of so often naming him the "Worst Person in the World." Even though I may agree with KO about whatever point he is making about O'Reilly each time, he does allow himself-- with this ongoing rivalry-- to be placed in opposition to O'Reilly.
And that is unfortunate, because what the work each do (and how they do it) is so completely and entirely different. Really! --giving any notice at all to O'Reilly should be beneath Olbermann. And wouldn't being ignored just make O'Reilly act that much crazier?
-
Yikes, the typos...
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]should have read:
And that is unfortunate, because the work they each do (and how they do it)
-
GG:
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My objection is to the idea that there "real reporters" like Brit Hume, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and the like, and then there are "partisans" like Olbermann (and Bill O'Reilly).
On that we are in total agreement.
I just think Olbermann allows himself to be labeled "partisan" at least in part because of his "feud" with O'Reilly. However, even without that issue, the BigMedia (e.g., AP writers) would still be trying to have their way with Olbermann.
(But why give BigMedia anything to work with... make them do what they usually do, invent. ;~)
-
Thanks for the link, LWM
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I did that Olbermann's audience share is growing, and I expect it will continue. Nice to see the numbers, though.
And wouldn't you rather that both networks set themselves apart from Fox, rather than adopt that model?
Of course I would, but I suspect that they (the BigMediaGuys) look only at the bottom line when they are considering market factors.
As for Olbermann, he's become such a star that he can actually lead and set a new standard, one that doesn't require him to be feuding with the likes of O'Reilly, in order to increase ratings.
All KO has to do is keep telling the Truth. Very compelling.
-
maybe time for some new short-hand...
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..."faux-balanced?"
Succinct, no?
-
LWM... to clarify
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...perhaps I should have said "short term gains," rather than just bottom line. Business managers used to have a longer view, one that incorporated natural business cycles.
It isn't just BigMedia... that short-term focus has ruined so much about all kinds of businesses and industries in the US. It's why acquisitions were so popular as a way of generating (leveraging?) income, why so many jobs now go overseas, and why so-called "journalists" and their keepers (i.e., paycheck writers) prefer expediency over principle.
Undoubtedly, Paul R will have something useful to add.
-
"Adversarial" to the exclusion of all else is partisanship."
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sounds like good ole GWB to me... given his complete refusal to consider the opinion of the 70%-plus of the American public who disagree with his war-- whether with its origins or its execution-- and who wish him to cease and desist.
paraphrasing...
You're either with us (read "me) or with the terrorists.
I'll stand my ground on the war even if only Laura and Barney are on my side. (Has anyone asked either Laura or Barney where they stand?)
and so forth...
-
the much shorter Paul R
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...a liberal enterprise--in the 18th Century/Enlightenment/free speech/consent of the governed sense of the term...
I.e., Conservatism would/could not have given us the American Revolution, nor our version of Democracy, but just more of King George (the earlier one).
Only a liberal mindset could have created the conditions for our form of government... the same one that neo-conservatives say Democrats and liberals love to hate.