Lets Discuss the Press

[volinbham]

A better philosophy would be, if you don't want stupid things printed about you in the news, don't become powerful. Most people can do all the stupid things their hearts desire and no one will ever read about it.

Agreed. To take it one step further, if you are powerful (person or entity) people will watch you like a hawk and ignore your non-stupid actions just waiting for a slip-up. If you don't have a slip-up, one will be implied (e.g. in the NSA terrorist financing story - no evidence of any abuses has been found or suggested BUT the potential is there....)

 

[OWB]

When all of the media outlets but one are clearly liberal, there is a pretty good chance that they will twist it to make you sound stupid.

Yeah, Bush has never said anything stupid on his own. :crazy:

 

[smoke_em06]

Yeah, Bush has never said anything stupid on his own. :crazy:

Sure he has, but haven't you. They report only BAD news and when Bush does stumble on a word they beat it to death.

 

[OWB]

They report only BAD news

That's what makes the most money for them. The news has been reporting bad things for quite some time now. Luckily for them, there are plenty of bad things happening in the world.

It's just the way it goes..

 

[smoke_em06]

That's what makes the most money for them. The news has been reporting bad things for quite some time now. Luckily for them, there are plenty of bad things happening in the world.

It's just the way it goes..

It appears bad because of the way they make it appear in Iraq and about Bush. Thats just the way it is. Admit it.

 

[OWB]

It appears bad because of the way they make it appear in Iraq and about Bush. Thats just the way it is. Admit it.

How could you not call Bush for what he is?

Watch

 

[CSpindizzy]

Are you're suggesting that the Bush admin wants the leaks (encourages?) so then they can blame the media? :blink:

I'm saying that if you say it's illegal, then pursue it. If you claim illegal actions are taking place and do nothing as a law enforcement branch, then it sure makes for either making false claims or wanting this activity to continue for some unknown and suspicious reason. I'd like to think neither but one of them has to be the case.

 

[smoke_em06]

How could you not call Bush for what he is?

Watch

My computer at work won't run that.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

It appears bad because of the way they make it appear in Iraq and about Bush. Thats just the way it is. Admit it.

Admit that things are actually going great with the president and in Iraq,
but the media is just going out of their way to make things seem bad?

No, don't believe I'll do that.

 

[smoke_em06]

Admit that things are actually going great with the president and in Iraq,
but the media is just going out of their way to make things seem bad?

No, don't believe I'll do that.

Suit yourself. You guys should apply for jobs at CNN.

 

[volinbham]

I'm saying that if you say it's illegal, then pursue it. If you claim illegal actions are taking place and do nothing as a law enforcement branch, then it sure makes for either making false claims or wanting this activity to continue for some unknown and suspicious reason. I'd like to think neither but one of them has to be the case.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. The claim has been made that certain actions by the press violate certain laws. Then the claim can be made that this appears to be one. However, prosecution is routinely not pursued in virtually every municipality in the country for any number of reasons (insufficient evidence, mitigating factors, etc.). In short, the prosecution arm routinely makes decisions about whether or not prosecution should be pursued.

In this case, it doesn't make sense but the admin can still say that such leaks border on illegality. To jump to the conclusion that they want it continue puts one in black helicopter camp.

 

[therealUT]

I'm saying that if you say it's illegal, then pursue it. If you claim illegal actions are taking place and do nothing as a law enforcement branch, then it sure makes for either making false claims or wanting this activity to continue for some unknown and suspicious reason. I'd like to think neither but one of them has to be the case.

So, you are saying that once you feel something is illegal, that you should immediately move to indict, without investigated first?

 

[CSpindizzy]

It doesn't have to be one or the other. The claim has been made that certain actions by the press violate certain laws. Then the claim can be made that this appears to be one. However, prosecution is routinely not pursued in virtually every municipality in the country for any number of reasons (insufficient evidence, mitigating factors, etc.). In short, the prosecution arm routinely makes decisions about whether or not prosecution should be pursued.

In this case, it doesn't make sense but the admin can still say that such leaks border on illegality. To jump to the conclusion that they want it continue puts one in black helicopter camp.

So it's completely fine for our government to accuse people of breaking the law but not offer any proof? That puts one in the slander and libel camp. Why would believing they want this to continue put one in the black helicopter camp? Perhaps the best way to cap leaks is to let them happen and trace backwards. That is not far-fetched and actually happens in law enforcement all the time. If that is black helicopter camp, label a government and law enforcement tool agents of black helicopters.

 

[therealUT]

Admit that things are actually going great with the president and in Iraq,
but the media is just going out of their way to make things seem bad?

No, don't believe I'll do that.

I will state that the media is going out of their way to make everything in Iraq seem bad. An easy analysis of this would be just to look at the big to do they made out of our 2,500 casualty. Number are all but arbitrary when not indexed against another number. One line of, hey, it took 3 years and 3 months to reach 2,500 casualties in OIF, we lost that many on D-Day.

 

[therealUT]

So it's completely fine for our government to accuse people of breaking the law but not offer any proof? That puts one in the slander and libel camp. Why would believing they want this to continue put one in the black helicopter camp? Perhaps the best way to cap leaks is to let them happen and trace backwards. That is not far-fetched and actually happens in law enforcement all the time. If that is black helicopter camp, label a government and law enforcement tool agents of black helicopters.

So, the media can accuse our government of breaking the law without any proof? Does that not make the media just as slanderous, and therefore, lying outside the law?

 

[volinbham]

I will state that the media is going out of their way to make everything in Iraq seem bad. An easy analysis of this would be just to look at the big to do they made out of our 2,500 casualty. Number are all but arbitrary when not indexed against another number. One line of, hey, it took 3 years and 3 months to reach 2,500 casualties in OIF, we lost that many on D-Day.

Correct - while it's hard to put a positive view on any troop casualities - if you look at pre-invasion stories the predictions were that many more than 2500 would be killed just in the invasion of Iraq.

As you say, it is a matter of context.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So, you are saying that once you feel something is illegal, that you should immediately move to indict, without investigated first?

LOL. Reaching my friend. Try not accusing someone of committing a crime until you HAVE investigated. I know you're trying hard to disprove me on this one. But this is just too simple of a process. You don't go around accusing people of wrongdoing unless you have something to back it up. That kills law enforcement credibility when they go around making claims and have no facts. if something was done illegally, then go investigate it. If something is found, pursue it. If not, keep your mouth shut. Don't just go run to the nearest bandwagon and spout out conspiracies and blame media and the Left just to score some points with your base. It's cheap and degrades the whole law enforcement process and trust in the government.

 

[therealUT]

LOL. Reaching my friend. Try not accusing someone of committing a crime until you HAVE investigated. I know you're trying hard to disprove me on this one. But this is just too simple of a process. You don't go around accusing people of wrongdoing unless you have something to back it up. That kills law enforcement credibility when they go around making claims and have no facts. if something was done illegally, then go investigate it. If something is found, pursue it. If not, keep your mouth shut. Don't just go run to the nearest bandwagon and spout out conspiracies and blame media and the Left just to score some points with your base. It's cheap and degrades the whole law enforcement process and trust in the government.

Does that not hold for the media as well? just the gov't?

 

[volinbham]

LOL. Reaching my friend. Try not accusing someone of committing a crime until you HAVE investigated. I know you're trying hard to disprove me on this one. But this is just too simple of a process. You don't go around accusing people of wrongdoing unless you have something to back it up. That kills law enforcement credibility when they go around making claims and have no facts. if something was done illegally, then go investigate it. If something is found, pursue it. If not, keep your mouth shut. Don't just go run to the nearest bandwagon and spout out conspiracies and blame media and the Left just to score some points with your base. It's cheap and degrades the whole law enforcement process and trust in the government.

Gonzalez stated the laws that allow for prosecution in some cases and suggested that the leaks MAY fit that circumstance. He then went on to say they would look into pursuing the matter.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I will state that the media is going out of their way to make everything in Iraq seem bad. An easy analysis of this would be just to look at the big to do they made out of our 2,500 casualty. Number are all but arbitrary when not indexed against another number. One line of, hey, it took 3 years and 3 months to reach 2,500 casualties in OIF, we lost that many on D-Day.

And the White House is going out of its way to make everything look rosy when it isn't. So take the middle ground which is probably what the average of the country is experiencing. You can't accuse the media of bias and leave the White House untouched. They've done everything possible to spin this all as some gloriously executed process. They deny anything negative until the American people by 3 to 1 numbers tell them it is bad. THEN they begin saying well maybe it isn't all wonderful.

I've seen things that support the media's case and things that support the WH's claims. Put yourself in different shoes around the country and see ALL aspects and you'd agree with neither side.

 

[therealUT]

And the White House is going out of its way to make everything look rosy when it isn't. So take the middle ground which is probably what the average of the country is experiencing. You can't accuse the media of bias and leave the White House untouched. They've done everything possible to spin this all as some gloriously executed process. They deny anything negative until the American people by 3 to 1 numbers tell them it is bad. THEN they begin saying well maybe it isn't all wonderful.

I've seen things that support the media's case and things that support the WH's claims. Put yourself in different shoes around the country and see ALL aspects and you'd agree with neither side.

Put yourself in Iraq and talk to the people there, the people that are never interviewed by the media, because there is no longer any grave threat of hostility in their sector.

 

[volinbham]

And the White House is going out of its way to make everything look rosy when it isn't. So take the middle ground which is probably what the average of the country is experiencing. You can't accuse the media of bias and leave the White House untouched.

But the WH is expected to persuade to a particular point of view as do all political entities. The press supposedly has no dog in the fight so to speak.

The problem arises when the "objective observer" over-emphasizes one view. The statements quoted in this thread by Brokaw and the other anchor point out that the underlying philosophy of many in the press is to speak for one view more than other views.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Does that not hold for the media as well? just the gov't?

The media released the news and facts of the situation. The media is not the law enforcement. They can report news and let whoever decide on what is the case. They question the legality and leave it to others to decide. It's not in a defined power for them to investigate laws being broken. It is the Executive Branch's role to not accuse without having some sort of basis to do so.

As I said, the media is independent and not a government entity. Do you want your government to go around as if it were a police state and accuse and intimidate people without cause? If you have a problem with the process, have your Congress change it. I think it's cheap for politicians to use this to score points with their base and then do nothing about it. I think it's even more cheap to take this fully out on the media and do nothing to ensure this process on the Executive's part were legal and constitutional. It's funny that people will trust the government in some cases but not in other cases.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Put yourself in Iraq and talk to the people there, the people that are never interviewed by the media, because there is no longer any grave threat of hostility in their sector.

really? You just said there were. And according to Bush the area of Baghdad is quite hostile. His own words indicate that as well as his own actions beefing up security. I've talked to many actually. I've talked to many Iraqis, foreign aid workers, and soldiers on the ground as well.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

So, the media can accuse our government of breaking the law without any proof? Does that not make the media just as slanderous, and therefore, lying outside the law?

The burden of proof in journalism carries a necessarily different weight than the judicial burden of proof. Reliably sourced and confirming sourced journalism does not constitute slander. You know this.

Further, while the recent conversations in the beltway were ostensibly threatening the media's use of leaked information, the real target of the talk was the leakers, i.e. "You talk to a reporter and you're veil of anonymity will be ripped away.". Good tact from the White House point of view, but perilous to journalist's attempts to get at the truth.