Letters to the Editor
-
Shooter's right about Code Pink
I've seen three different newscasts(NYC), none of which FOX, and CNN tonight. The grand total of coverage challenging the General's testimony was 90% Code Pink, 5% really old congressman(forgive me) not believing the general, and 5% speaker cursing(all the five year olds paying attention irreparably harmed) about Code Pink(if that's what their name is). Nothing regarding cherry-picking violence statistics or previous optimistic claims. My wife looks at me bewildered when I explain this, then goes to bed. Fuck if I know how this will turn out.
-
Amity
Here, I'll quote more of the original text for you if it helps:
[Glenn:] The media should not take a position as to how much credibility ought to be assigned to Gen. Petraeus' testimony, but it is inexcusable to exclude from their coverage these facts ...
Surely I don't need to belabor the obvious fact that Greenwald is not being sarcastic here. He means what he is saying, or at least seems to.
In what way is replacing "General Petraeus blah blah blah" with "General Petraeus, whose credibility on any matter related to the war is tarnished by his long history of utter horseshit, blah blah blah..." somehow out of bounds for the press, at least as we might wish it to be?
I suggest that this is exactly the sort of thing we do want, and need, from journalists, and I'm surprised at Greenwald's implication to the contrary.
Glenn is not being sarcastic. I think you hit on the problem yourself, when you mention "out of bounds for the press," and how "we might wish it to be," and "this is exactly the sort of thing we do want." The thing is, while you and I -- as partisans -- might enjoy reading your proposed alternative, there's no way the press is going to go from their current stance of praising Petraeus up the wazzoo, to calling him a liar in every article. I read Glenn as saying to the press, "Do your job. Be impartial, but present some factual context for Petraeus' statements by pointing out his long history of saying the very same things, and for crying out loud, stop spinning for him."
If you read the whole quote, Glenn says this:
The media should not take a position as to how much credibility ought to be assigned to Gen. Petraeus' testimony, but it is inexcusable to exclude from their coverage these facts -- facts which demonstrate indisputably that what Gen. Petraeus is claiming this week about the war's success is exactly what he has been claiming for the last several years.
-
TomG76
Sounds like you have one of those apolitical wives, too.
Or as mine likes to point out, one who has a "life."
-
Done
Watched the video, signed the petition, and sent it to a selected list of the like-minded. I also pledged financial support for MoveOn's campaign to run anti-war Democrats in congressional districts with incumbent war-enablers. Being retired, I'm not sure my support for the general strike will be very meaningful, but as other actions come along, I'll support them in any way I can.
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, etc., etc.... General Petraeus should be made aware that this works both ways.
-
Good news for shooter & the...
...other dead enders here:
Tonight I was channel surfing in-between Daily Show commericals & I happened upon Fox Noise, BillO & M. Malkin.
Malkin promised your ilk "there will thousands of counter protesters" showing up to counter the upcoming war protesters (Washington D.C.; 15th I think).
Of course "counter protesters" translates to: "pro-war pests."
So you have to to look forward to...that thousands of pro-war pests who would be fighting in Iraq if they didn't have a belly & did have courage will be there to offset Code Pink & Cindy Sheehan.
But I'm sure y'all will be there as "counter protesters" yourselves since George Bush's honor is at stake.
It's the least you can do since you are actually too chickenshit to go "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."
-
Sulzer and psyberdawg
Sulzer:
The press needs to report what was said, and put it in context (what was said before that is relevant). Assigning credibility is opinion.
Very well, I stand corrected. "General Petraeus blah blah blah" should ideally be replaced with "General Petraeus, who has long history of being wrong in both his description and prediction of events in Iraq, though you can make up your own mind about whether that means he's full of shit or simply an idiot, blah blah blah ..."
Seriously, "putting in context" doesn't have to mean "posting a history logfile," all due respect to Greenwald's and others' efforts to do just that. If it's simply a fact that the man is full of it and has always been repeating what the White House says, there's no reason not to say that. Period. Footnote the references.
psyberdawg:
there's no way the press is going to go from their current stance of praising Petraeus up the wazzoo, to calling him a liar in every article.
We all know what the traditional press is and is not actually capable of saying. Let's take it as given that we're talking about what Greenwald -- and me, and you -- thinks the press should say.
So given that, I absolutely do think that any responsible journalist worth the name should call Petraeus a liar in every article -- at least whenever he is lying, which is every time he opens his mouth. Why is it so hard to say that? We don't have trouble referring to popular figures as "disgraced" when they misbehave, or theories and their proponents as "discredited" when they're proven wrong.
And as for being a partisan -- what, me? All I want to see is the truth. If reality has a well-known liberal bias, is that my fault? ;)
-
The Facts
Thanks to you, Glenn, and FireDogLake for doing this. I'm glad it's on YouTube and hope it spreads virally to the kids. Good job!
-
Petition
I signed enthusiastically and sent to friends. I hope they will do the same.
Why is Petraeus not put under oath?