Hobit wrote:
is the reporter not remiss in not letting the public know that the elected official has been contradicted by other sources?
LOL---it happens all the time at WH press briefings--even the public can become irritated at the cross questioning trying to trick the official into saying something that can be picked apart and perhaps later retracted but hey that goes with the territory---why do you ask----I'm puzzled by your questions.
Still waiting on an answer to the Ashcroft question.
What exactly is your question about Ashcroft?
What is your reason for saying that Ashcroft's actions have been examples of "democracy at its best"? Have you evidence which supports this opinion? Please explain how actions that cut into the protections listed in the Bill of Rights can be consistent with democracy. Also, please explain how micromanagement of sentencing laws to try and increase the number of death penalty sentences handed out are consistent with democracy.
Hobit wrote:
Also, please explain how micromanagement of sentencing laws to try and increase the number of death penalty sentences handed out are consistent with democracy.
Let me tackle the last one first----I'd like you to show me evidence that the --intent --of the recent effort to bring some uniformity to the various state sentencing practices was to increase the number of death penalty sentences. I think you're reading in something that isn't there.
While you're working on that , I will work on the rest of it----I need to dig some.
I am truly beginning to think that some of the more responsible media in the US has come out of its torpor (helped by the heavy, threatening hand of Karl Rove, which is losing its power) and beinning to report, and that many editors, publishers have begun to re-examine their roles.
Tonight, on the Lehrer Newshour (ever see it, perceptive person?), Jim Lehrer, in giving a brief economic report, said productivity was up slightly. Then he added a bit about unemployment was up, and tied it up with the productivity figure by pointing out that the productivity meant less man-power, which meant more job loss. Also, that the applications for jobless benefits had risen quite a bit. I could almost swear he winked. But, this is a serious newshour, and I'm hearing things said now that I didn't 6 months ago. The Washington Post is like it's come out of a long sleep. Not all media, of course. And I still think the BBC is one of the best. I suspect that their reporting on the WMD dossiers was accurate and backed up, and that what we're seeing is a power tug-of-war.
I am simply amazed at the amazement anyone would have to find editorial comment from a news outlet. I know of no journalistic endeavor in history which did not editorialize. If a news media outlet were playing fast and loose with the truth, the other media would be all over them in a feeding frenzy. Rather like Frankel has done, and is doing now. Any claims about bias against the BBC or anyone else which are not backed up with credible accusations of willfully distorting the truth to achieve their editorial ends is so much chin music unless those making the accusations can pony up some cold, hard facts to back up their contention.
Which hasn't happened. But when Blair's credibility is on the line...the dead give-away was the resignation of Alsitair Campbell.
Hobit wrote:
What is your reason for saying that Ashcroft's actions have been examples of "democracy at its best"? Have you evidence which supports this opinion? Please explain how actions that cut into the protections listed in the Bill of Rights can be consistent with democracy
The term that I used was "this is democracy in action"
and the very fact that Ashcroft is still on his campaign would seem evidence enough to me. If you would like to be more specific I will try to research a legal opinion for you but you can probably do that better than me. It would be a good exercise for all here to read the complete text of the Patriot Act, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights----Google has it all right at your findertips
The Patriot Act was passed to provide legal authorization for the Justice Dept to prevent further attacks on this country. The Act is coming under increasing attack from the Aclu and other civil liberties organizations because they believe some of our liberties guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been infringed upon. This is democracy in action. Some groups want the entire Act to be repealed. This probably won't happen because most people in congress recognize there will be a need for at least most of the provisions of the current Act as long as Terrorism is a threat. Each and every provision of the Act will probably be challanged and brougth before the court and some of the provisions will undoubtedly be struck down. This is democracy in action. John Ashcroft believes that he must maintain most of the provisions so he is out campaigning where-ever he can find a listener because he knows his legal tools could be taken from him. Seems fairly logical to me. There again this is democracy at work.
He believes he must keep his legal tools ----other people believe he shouldn't.
Since you weren't specific in exactly which liberties you think have been taken away---it is impossible for me to address those issues
In any complex dispute such as this if will take time for the various provisions of the Act to be tested and many of the provisions will cease to exist sometime in 2005 automatically.
Some aliens have been inconvenienced to be sure but the families of the 3000+ people who lost their lives on 9/II have been a little more than inconvenienced.
