08-06-2008, 08:58 AM
08-06-2008, 11:56 AM
Look, the Sturgis thing isn't that big of a deal. It's freakin hysterical, but not a big deal. This is a politician being a politician- trying to relate to a bunch of people he has nothing in common with. You've got thousands of hell raising bikers, and John McCain- Annapolis educated Naval officer turned suit wearing senator- trying to act like he is one of them, and he ends up talking about something he has no clue about. I might add, I wouldn't mind seeing his wife in that competition.
08-06-2008, 12:38 PM
I tend to agree that it was basically just McCain popping off about something he didn't understand, trying to curry some votes. That said, I honestly do believe that if Obama had said something that damnfoolish then Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, Michelle Malkin, and a whole troop of others would be shrieking like harpies about bad judgement and an arrogant elitist talking about things he didn't understand because he's an ivory tower intellectual with no grasp of the common people, etc.
That story is the least of those listed anyhow. And yes, it's freaking hysterical, can you imagine how mortified McCain was once his wife understood what he was signing her up for? Lawd, lawd, I bet she gave him a look that would peel paint!
I also think that an extremely legitimate point is made late in that article. I hear the conservative wing of this board howling about the "left wing bias of the MSM" all the time, but as a liberal I very often see stories that are spiked or given very little coverage by traditional media unless the blogosphere sets up such a howl that it can't be ignored - something on the order of George Allen's "macaca" moment. Reporters who know that their editors, executive editors, and publishers are rockribbed Republicans are going to be affected in what they report and how they report it.
If that kind of intimidation applies to the CEO of Fedex and an employee, it is equally valid (or maybe moreso as it is an everyday consideration for a career reporter) here.
That story is the least of those listed anyhow. And yes, it's freaking hysterical, can you imagine how mortified McCain was once his wife understood what he was signing her up for? Lawd, lawd, I bet she gave him a look that would peel paint!
I also think that an extremely legitimate point is made late in that article. I hear the conservative wing of this board howling about the "left wing bias of the MSM" all the time, but as a liberal I very often see stories that are spiked or given very little coverage by traditional media unless the blogosphere sets up such a howl that it can't be ignored - something on the order of George Allen's "macaca" moment. Reporters who know that their editors, executive editors, and publishers are rockribbed Republicans are going to be affected in what they report and how they report it.
If that kind of intimidation applies to the CEO of Fedex and an employee, it is equally valid (or maybe moreso as it is an everyday consideration for a career reporter) here.
08-06-2008, 02:08 PM
A number of issues are being raised by a variety of journalists on their blogs regarding the absolute travesty surrounding ABC's initial coverage of the anthrax stuff; specifically, their initial reports that the government said the anthrax was tied to Iraq. Much of that reporting became part of the basis for the invasion of Iraq.
ABC continues to refuse to identify the sources for those stories. Why? The sources have been proven to have not only been false, but probably lied intentionally. So why continue to protect those sources?
Probably because they are all still employed in the West Wing.
Here's a great summary of the blogging debate regarding this right now, courtesy of The Poynter Institute:
http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=148199
ABC continues to refuse to identify the sources for those stories. Why? The sources have been proven to have not only been false, but probably lied intentionally. So why continue to protect those sources?
Probably because they are all still employed in the West Wing.
Here's a great summary of the blogging debate regarding this right now, courtesy of The Poynter Institute:
http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=148199