Letters to the Editor
-
Jim W., Ondo
This past Oct. the mebers of the Caspian area had a summit to discuss that area.
From what I gathered-they were trying to decide on the division of Caspian waters and a countrys' sovereignty- and make agreements on it.
From what I'd read-it sounded like those countries HAD reached a consensus-Russia included to -watch each others' backs-against US forces.
I'll look for the article--It was Asia Times-back in Oct.
-
here ya go
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ18Ak01.html
-
Do want you like
I'm waiting for reports to filter back from the people on the ground out there who keep in touch with sources that I rely on.
Pat Lang, Larry Johnson. Like that. Flat out assuming that we are trying to start a war with Iran is idiotic. We just went through all that. And the consensus was that they had given it up. Talk about knee-jerk reactions. The carriers aren't even there. Just one, but wait until they have three or four. Then you can sweat.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/hudong.htm
Honestly, sometimes you folks are downright kooky.
-
@Paul Dirks
“According to the officials, the radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships said: "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes."
Does this strike you as a likely accurate description of the event?”
If it is, it sounds like foolish high schoolers dealing with each other.
We probably maneuvered too close and they responded. Not anyway to conduct naval operations in such tight space. I sure hope what sounds like our provocation was unprofessional and not planned by Washington. Hard to say at this point what really happened.
One thing that bothers me about comparing the M$M reporters to high schoolers is that many of our youth attending high school are of fine, upstanding character and this kind of demeans them without an intention to do so.
As our "representatives," the Busheviks lower everyone’s standards. Sure will be nice when we can once again have a president we can be proud of.
-
*What* you like
Only one CV
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
-
Here's AP's version of what happened
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_navy_iran
-
Re: doctorscience
"Pretending?" In what way are political reporters "pretending?" To be "serious?" Ha! High school gossip and highjinks is not serious by definition, and that is by far the majority of reporting on matters political in the major mass media.
Has been for years and years, and it doesn't get any better, despite all the cogent and brilliantly argued criticism that has flooded the blogosphere about it.
The process of democracy bores them. Those who go into the field of public service bore them. Voters bore them. Primaries bore them. General elections bore them. The cold in Iowa and New Hampshire sucks. The candidates (except for their favorites) suck. The food sucks. The hotels suck. The bus sucks. Everything sucks.
Well, except for that paycheck.
So they come up with the minimum their employers want -- gossip, highjinks, horserace nonsense. Another newshole plugged, then on to the next.
That's the game, that's what they're paid for. Don't like it? There are alternatives. Free market and all that.
Can't get to the editors, publishers and producers? Why not? They really aren't all that insulated. Call them up. Read them the riot act. Get to the people who can make a difference. That isn't the reporters.
Doesn't mean you'll change things quickly or at all, but let them know that you're fed up and not going to take any more of this crap. Stop subscribing to their rags. Don't watch their dreck. Tell them why.
In fact there has been just a little bit more substantive reporting this cycle than in many a year, in part because there were some indications there was a market for it. There's still an overabundance of crap, too. There's a big market for that as well. And the crap is what the editors and publishers and producers are convinced the People want. Tabloidization of the News. Always been with us, never going away.
But mostly we get the crap and the boredom and the highjinks and the gossip because it makes the political process itself seem crass and corrupt and irrelevant and kind of creepy. And who benefits from that perception?
-
A (muted) defense of the people on the bus
It doesn't explain the whole problem, but...
If your employer has sent you out, at considerable expense, to cover Iowa/New Hampshire etc., traveling with __________, and you have no real story to file, because the only thing you saw all day was ______________ giving the exact same stump speech six times, are you really going to do that, file nothing, and trying, with no story, to convince readers that there was nothing to cover, nothing going on, nothing new here etc. etc.? I wouldn't...
There's a news hole to fill, a column to file. And in the absence of any real news being made in the endless parade of gymnasiums, you start reporting on what those around you (also on the bus) are saying, thinking, buzzing about.
Hilary and Romney get bad press. But they can't have had no role in making their press relations bad.
-
PUHLLEEEZ
......"it's not enough to convince me." LWM
Yes LWM-we get it already-you are "elitist" and have admitted so-So if a fireman came to your burning house--you'd want to see his degree first.
Those "smart=smug"guys with wirerimmed glasses haven't fared so well in being correct though now have they?
That's the point of the post.
-
@ JohnPM
May I suggest Triggerstreet.com for screenplay assistance and support? (Founded by Kevin Spacey, it's a well-regarded peer-reviewed stie for screenplay and film production.)
Your Chi Tribune example is disappointing, but not surprising.
Way back in the mid 1970's I took a TV and Radio news writing course presented by a local weathercaster, who I believe, was the real-life protagonist for the cartoon strip, John Darling.
Our mission was always to write for a then C average high school sophomore. That was the targeted level of education and understanding in the greater Cleveland TV market at that time. Needless to say, the reporting was nigh unto useless, and the "if it bleeds it leads, and if it thinks, it stinks" mantra was learned early on - as in the first week during the introductory principles of newscasting lecture.
That television news reporting is abbreviated to sound bites with superimposed visuals makes it a marketing message to the exclusion of news reporting, which if done accurately and fairly, would include the presentation of nuance, of multivariate views and analyses and would most definitely include accurate context and background information.
The blogosphere is made up of people who each bring different filters to the news. Those filters consist of content experts on the micro and macro levels, academics, innovators, those who "live" the particular story under scrutiny, others who bring philosophical argument and critique, and so on. We serve as an aggregate filter and editor, and we get it much more accurately and comprehensively more of the time than any traditional media source, in my humble view.
However, we (the blogosphere) lack the funding for investigative reporters, for a newsroom, and for the ability to develop sources (access), for the transportation and expenses of the staff, equipment and costs of doing business as an investigative news organization.
So until the philanthropists sponsor enough bloggers and blog organizations to make a significant impact, it's the volunteer populist work that we are doing which is bringing radical transformation to traditional news reporting.
Perhaps our next iteration will be that of persuading philanthropic organizations and agents to begin to support our work in order to bring power back to the individuals and divest it from the corporations and organized power brokers.