Monday, May 23, 2005

Who watches the watchdogs?


Shame on the media for their coverage of the First Lady's middle eastern trip. Six idiots heckle her and the networks act like the entire country just turned out to protest her visit. This is why I have to watch John Ritter ogle Suzanne Somers' boobs every night. I can't stand CNN.

Photo by Chester Arthur Burnett

Comments:
Laura Bush had guts to go to those shrines.

And for her to take flak from both Jews and Arabs while there, that just underscores for me the balance the U.S. has taken toward the Middle East.

(actually, i think those Israelis protested America's imprisoning of their spy Pollack just to counteract the Palestinian protests ... a PR tactic so that the world audience wouldn't perceive the first lady's visit as a sign that America is too cozy with Israel)
 
Where'd you get the electric head?

Did you use light stands to illuminate it?

Wish I could find some electric head!
 
Dontcha see that the media is really in cahoots with the Administration? I'd say Bushes, but it's farther than them. Hell, they set Laura up to take some heat. The protests were probably staged too. This is a wag the dog thing and we're buying it. They don't want the US people to see Iraq going sour and now our Afghan puppet getting some balls and wanting to (gasp) close up the opium fields and take control of his own country. If the media were truly out to slam Bush et,al then why don't they show some American war dead or some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi war dead. They don't have the cojones to do anything but what the White House says. There's not a truly contrary voice to be heard. They won't even show pictures of coffins coming home. Where the hell is Eddie Adams? The Baghdad bureaus of almost all the media are like they're on vacation or something. You couldn't get a straight report outa any of them if your life depended on it. Oh, yeah, it probably does.

The National media is a bunch of slugs, for sure, but they're shills for the status quo. The news departments of the networks are run by the entertainment division, have been for years.
 
Methinks talk radio is the true vermin here. Get this. Gov. Naploitano of AZ vetoed legislation today that basically said that local police authorities would have had jurisdiction in immigration matters. The talk radio guys out here went nuts on her, saying she was harboring illegals and stuff. They went off on the "liberal" bandwagon again, as they do so well ( it makes such good radio).

The reason she vetoed it, which the state legislature agreed with, was that that kind of border law enforcement would have cost the localities big time. Phoenix, for example, would have to choke $$$20-25 million up to pay for new cops and different enforcement. The state would be glad to make the law and then the localities have to pay for it.

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. The point is, the legislature made legislation and no means to fiscally support it. They knew she'd veto it on those grounds.

The reality here is that the mostly republican legislature set up the democrat governor to look like a border weenie. They get the support of their constituents on 2 counts. They're tough on the border and she isn't. Then, on the other side, the democrat governor looks fiscally responsible and the legislature looks arrogant. Hell, it's the classic win/win. Take a few bumps but protect your job. Maintain your constituency.

Yeah, I know. In the end we are the ones that lose. But, my dear friends, in politics we always lose. It's the nature of status quo doing of politics. This is, by definition, true conservative adherence to the status quo. Protect everyone's job, even your enemy. After all, the devil you know is safer than the devil you don't know.
 
Nitsa;
You gotta have some pictures to post. C'mon. We need some distraction. Lar and Ted bait me with all this serious stuff and I, alas, take the bait. I am dog-paddling out of a quagmire of emotional morrass that would kill a normal man. Maybe post one of those "Mojogoon" pics of you in front of the diner and give them some free air time here too. (By the way, I listened to some of their sound a while back. They sound pretty good.)
 
Oh, by the way. In America, there are no watchdogs. We're all rugged individuals, remember.

Nobody can tell us what to do or how to think. We relish the independence and the ability for free thought. We oughta just tell the media to shove it up their collective asses and tell the freaking ruling bullshit elites that we have no use for them and we want to take our country back.

Back from the liberal bullshit that runs us ragged, trying to be good to everyone. Back from the conservative fringe that insists we have to be independent but careful. Don't stand for terrorism but stand for loss of constitutional freedom.

But we won't. We're not hungry. We don't hurt. We're comfortable in our malcontent because we have a roof and food and we rule the freaking world. The rest of them can work the wal-mart slave jobs in China and keep us comfortable enough to be pissed but prosperous.

We screw them and, now, they're screwing us back.

"Jojo was a man...." Remember that song? Get Back to where you once belonged.

Face it, we don't belong anywhere any more. We're just there and they (lots of they) manipulate us to death... "Til you're so fuckin' crazy you can't follow their rules..." (J.Lennon)

Yeah, a Working class hero is something to be.
 
Leo ...

To treat "the media" as some sort of singular entity that's in cahoots with not-your-choice-of-leaders is like believing that the CIA, FBI, Mafia, National Park Service, Boy Scouts and Dallas Police Department were all in cahoots in gunning down JFK.

The publisher and editor of my newspaper do not consult a holographic interface with the Empiror of The Galactic Media before they cast their decisions on how to cover the news. Rarely they might consult with Mr. Wick.

Reporters are on the front line. They go and report. It's hard to bury what they find sometimes. Look at Abu Ghraib. Undeniable. But did Laura and W. order that? Nah.

Granted, truth is the first casualty in war. It's sad how much of that we've witnessed in the "War on Terror." I don't agree with many tactics in the national policy. Even the term "War on Terror" seems as impossible to fathom as the "War on Poverty." What is it with these Texan presidents? Their state is so frickin' big, they think they can outdo God.

The real casualty of truth occurs in the lands of Islamic fanaticism, where other religions are not tolerated, women are subjugated, and where democratic freedoms do not exist in the way that we take so much for granted.

I chuckle at its redneck simplicity, but listen carefully to Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue," which makes a good observation of the American psyche. I'm not condoning senseless aggression. And those red stripes in Old Glory do not represent pretty flowers either.

The g-ddamned jihadists got our attention, and now we are on their doorstep with a cudgel in one hand and the torch of freedom in the other. Friends are being won.
 
Heh heh, gotcha!
 
CIA, FBI, Mafia, sure were involved. When Kennedy nixed the idea of dusting Castro, the cabal of slugs, thugs, spooks and punks that wanted Cuba back to pre-Fidel days had Kennedy offed. Wouldn't surprise me if Lyndon wasn't in on it too. Sometimes conspiracies are true.

What friends are we winning? I guess I don't see that. I do see a bunch of third world maniacs pissed at America because of the way we've screwed them out of their own autonomy, not to mention their natural resources that we consume like there ain't no tomorrow.

I've met many a person returning from Iraq and regretting the day they enlisted. I feel bad for them. Many of these troops, the men and women that put themselves in harms way, have seen first hand what we hear about in a shadowy way and they feel betrayed by the leaders that sent them. Leaders who, in their day, avoided service to their country.

Why do we hate to take responsibility for our having caused problems? I know I hate to admit the screw-ups I've perpetrated, but it's the only way to really get past them and, hopefully, not repeat them.

This is why I hate politics, but still can't shake the habit. Politics is a real bad Jones.
 
Yeah, politics is a bad Jones.

Sorry ... hehe ... I kind of went off on a rant there. Middle-of-the-night rant. Divorce can do that to ya.

I can be as cynical as the next guy, and I can see through false agendas of politicians, especially local ones, once I get to know them. A reporter develops a sixth sense about that sort of thing. On the national scene, I don't know ...

... but right now I'm watching a program about the Green Berets, and their motto is "De opresso liber." It's right there on the patch on their berets. It means "to liberate the oppressed." They still believe in that ideal. I think that's cool.
 
I sleep like a baby (without the part when they wake up to eat :)
One of the things I love doing is visit dreamland. it's one of the most fascinating places I know. yep, even more amazing than NYC. so obviously I gotta sleep!
I don't think it has anything to do with gender, I know many women who stay awake at night and worry.
 
I know about the middle of the night stuff. You wake up and your brain toils over every little thing that you have no power over at that particular time (and sometimes never do). Your chest is tight and blood pressure varies between high and non-existent. I tried reading, watching TV. Drinking used to work until drinking became the problem. I know Lar scans pics and does computer insanity. It's like being stuck in a cul-de-sac. All you can do is go in circles. Must be a masculine thing. I'll bet Nitsa never loses sleep, do you?
 
So Nitsa likes dreamland?

No wonder her photos are so surreal.
 
I agree. both my dreams and photographs are the link to my subconcious.
 
Isn't Dreamland down the road from Knotts Berry Farm?
 
Leo, you should know better! if you go down that road you'll end up at Legoland :)

Dreamland is somewhere near the old city of Jerusalem. duh!
 
I too am an insomniac. I slash at the bars of my cage in the middle of the night.
 
I croon at the bars.
 
Hey, wait. Legoland is in Oceanside.
 
Public, press differ on attitudes about partisan bias, accuracy and press
freedom
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two-thirds of Americans say they think that when
journalists make a serious mistake, most news organizations either ignore it
or try to cover it up, a survey found.
The poll comes after a series of high-profile mistakes by the news media,
though it was taken before Newsweek magazine reported — and then retracted
its report — that a copy of the Quran was flushed down a toilet at
Guantanamo Bay.
A separate survey of journalists found that three-fourths say they quickly
report their mistakes.
“If journalists believe what they told us in the survey, they’ve got a
communications problem,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the
University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. “When the
public lacks confidence that the media gets the facts right, it can’t
perform the role it’s supposed to in a democracy.”
The American public is divided on whether it’s good or bad for a news
organization to have a clearly political point of view — though a few more
think it’s a bad thing. They’re evenly split on whether news organizations
generally get their facts straight. And just over half think the government
sometimes has the right to limit reporting of a story, according to the
survey done for the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Four in 10 people said they think when journalists make a serious mistake
they try to cover it up, another 24 percent say they just ignore it.
Working journalists take a decidedly different view. Eight in 10 journalists
think it is generally a bad thing for a news organization to have a clearly
political point of view. Almost nine in 10 think news organizations
generally get their facts straight. More than nine in 10 think the
government never or rarely has the right to limit reporting of a story.
One bright spot for journalists: People were more likely to rate them as
ethical than they were to rate lawyers, politicians and government officials
as ethical. Almost three-fourths of those polled rated the ethics of
journalists as good.
Geneva Overholser , who along with Jamieson co-edited “The Press,” a new
book published by Oxford University Press, said the study “reveals a
worrisome divide between the public’s view of journalism and journalists’
own views of their work.”
The public survey was taken between March 3 and April 5 among 1,500 adults
with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The journalists’ survey was taken between March 7 and May 2 of 673
journalists chosen at random from a list of working media of all types
including 350 top newspapers, broadcast outlets, both local and national,
and online publications by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. That survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4
percentage points.
A congressman who organized a panel to examine the role played by the media
said Tuesday that news organizations have drifted toward tabloid journalism
and have been intimidated from reporting about the war in Iraq.
“The vast majority of the mainstream media is not only unwilling to
accurately report on the failings of the administration, but the few who do
have fallen victim to scapegoating and retribution,” said Rep. John Conyers,
D-Mich. “We have turned from breaking stories like Watergate and the
Iran-Contra scandal to celebrity journalism.”
The congressman released an analysis by Congressional Research Service which
found that reports in the British media about the United States and Great
Britain secretly agreeing to invade Iraq received very little coverage on
major cable TV outlets in the days after it was published in Britain.
———
On the Net:
Annenberg Public Policy Center: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org
———
Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this story.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?