Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2123 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Anonymous - Paul's point:
[Read the article: The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't see why you keep striking poses of disagreement with Paul Rosenberg. You and he are NOT DISAGREEING. Read more closely his rejoinder to your reply to his comment. There's no daylight between your two claims. (He wrote the imprecise sentence about Democrat-ness and reality-basedness being "one and the same," but his overall point is clearly the same as yours -- all the available reality-basedness is on the Democratic side. This is not the same as saying that everything Democratic is reality-based.
I never said what you're attributing to me -- namely, that "all the available reality-basedness is on the Democratic side." I wouldn't really accept that proposition; I think that's an over-statement.
And I don't see how it's possible to claim that Paul and I have the same exact point with no distance at all between them when the discussion began by his quoting something I wrote (namely: "I'm not sure what can be done to make it any clearer that media criticisms have nothing to do with a desire that journalists be more partisan") and then saying that it "misses the underlying the point . . . ."
I don't think the difference in our views is fundamental or even susbstantial. In fact, I think it's more semantic than substantive. But each time I make this point about wanting journalists to be factual and non-partisan - including in the past - Paul responds in some form to say that he doesn't quite agree, because to be more factual is, by definition, to be more partisan.
I never really responded to that point before because I was never quite sure exactly what the point was. But today, he expressed it in a way that seemed clearer -- albeit in a way that I didn't think was what he really meant -- so I asked if that was what he meant and explained why, if so, I disagreed with it. He made clear it was just imprecise wording, so to be perfectly honest, I'm still not clear about what his objection is to the original point I made.
Paul has thought about these issues for a long time and has many developed, detailed and complex theories about them. I like hearing those theories including when they deviate from what I think -- probably even especially then. But the points of disagreement are often very fine and subtle and not easily illuminated in a comment section.
But I don't think it's accurate to say that we think exactly the same about this issue or else he wouldn't be writing each time I make this point to say that he doesn't quite agree with it. That's all fine - there's no problem with any of it - it's just that the point, to me, is not that clear. That might be because I'm just not thinking about it the right way or it might be because the point is not clear.
-
Rick B:
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ron Paul is no more a bizarre outcast in the Republican Party today than he was two decades ago. He has actually been less noticeable in the last decade, that's all.
He believes that the only powers the Federal Government has are those expressly enumerated by the U.S. Constitution (which is why he votes against NASA funding). But those ideas were at least grounded in limited federal government principles that were common among Republicans. They just aren't any more -- at least not the Republicans to which one has to appeal in order to have any chance of winning.
-
bamage:
[Read the article: Have Bill Frist and right-wing bloggers plagiarized their new Iraq plan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I excerpted this para. from a few days ago,
Who were the panelists and what did they say? I think that transcripts are generated for that NPR show.
-
Sammis:
[Read the article: Who funds and runs the Politico?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shouldn't we as media consumers simply be aware that bias is out there and that we should read various sources and make up our own minds?
Salon doesn't purport to be a non-biased and objective news source. It is an opinion magazine.
The Politico purports to be non-partisan and free of any political agenda and is treated as such (that is why they hosted the GOP Presidential debate last night along with MSNBC).
That is sort of an important -- and self-evident -- difference.
-
Not as Crazy as You
[Read the article: Who funds and runs the Politico?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]However, in my opinion Glenn does an excellent job with respect to research, sourcing, and insightful analysis based on facts, not conjecture. I wonder, though, if this post strays a bit from that formula.
I want to understand your point. Do you really not think it's relevant that a news organization holding itself out as objective and unbiased and nonpartisan has a CEO and President who is a long-time right-wing GOP loyalist? Is that really information that you think is irrelevant and "ad hominem"?
Maybe there is an explanation for it - maybe he runs only the business aspects and is segregated entirely from the editorial and news content (though I don't see how that can be if he's CEO, but maybe that is how it's arranged). At the very least, I think they owe an explanation for this blatantly relevant connection.
-
Sysprog:
[Read the article: Who funds and runs the Politico?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Michael. Michael, who do you work for?
(Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, I work for Politico.com.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Politico.com?
Q Yes, sir. Today.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: You want a moment to explain to the American people exactly what --
(laughter.)
Q Mr. President, thank you for the question.
(Laughter.)
It's interesting. I find that little routine every bit as revolting the 100th time around as I found it the very first time I heard it. The reaction doesn't diminish at all.
That was actually the first sign that I recall indicating that The Politico was something that needed some attention.