The trouble with your press

Umm.. how did we all get equated with Gordon Brown?

I mean, he's better than Blair was, but that's not saying much.

Nothing is more vengeful than a bureaucrat (even one with a medieval title) who believes he wasn't heeded with sufficient fidelity by his accountable boss. In this one I am inclined to sympathize with Brown, but acknowledge that the issue may indicate a certain lack of political charm on his part.

Nimh - would you say that PM Brown and the British press now echo this sentiment:
_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-only-lesson-we-ever-learn-is-that-we-never-learn-797816.html

And if not, what is the difference with the U.S. press, or the previous PM?

As this thread has gone and done the Easter thing...

The story below points to a serious change in news-gathering in the US (Canada as well)... the significant reductions in news/tv staff who are actually involved in investigative reporting.

These reductions are a consequence of financial demands placed upon the news outlets to minimize costs and optimize profits. And those demands have grown and become more dominant as news outlets have fallen subject to increasing consolidation and control by corporate entities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26bus.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1206536548-lnw4oOB67cK9kkoWIpEaww

We are outraged with the Washington Post’s editorial coverage of Venezuela. The Post was once the bastion of genuine investigative reporting and truth-seeking. Those days are well gone and the Washington Post has now become nothing more than a tabloid serving special interests. The noble principles Eugene Meyer envisioned for the Washington Post in 1935, including “telling the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained”, “telling ALL the truth so far as it can be learned, concerning the important affairs of America and the world and “the newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public persons,” have been violated by editors like you, Mr. Diehl, who have chosen to promote a harmful personal agenda instead of ensure the ongoing greatness of your newspaper.

Sincerely,

Andrés Izarra
Journalist
Minister of Communication and Information
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7956/

Oh, Rama, and you believe a journalist who works for the Minister of Truth.

Good for you.

Truth hurts
and absolute truth is a foreign word in American media.

No, for that you need to go to a Venezuelan "journalist" who's on the payroll of Chavez's Ministry of Communication. According to Rama, anyway, apparently.

Nimh
Sorry sir.
I am ready to confront any body.
USA's WP, NYT, IHT, CNN
are embedded, easy-chair intellectual media .

in my computer i have many cut and paste to substantiate my views..
I am not trying to score a point but I air my agonized critical views.
Take it easy

From another thread, in response to a post by Ramafuchs with pretty much the same content:




That's what I'd like to see from you, Ramafuchs. No cut-and-paste job, with you saying "look at this guy, he says exactly the same thing that I would have said if my English was any better".

One coherent post. In your words.

That's what I'd like to see.

Old Europe
I am not here to make your wish fulfilled but i am here to expose my ignorance beside learning from others..
I beg you to ignore my views if it hurts your soul.
My original name is Rama Fuchs

OK fine. I dont like 'em either. (Well, I like the IHT - but WaPo, not much, and CNN, MSNBC, etc... yuck.)

So, we agree - there's problems with US media. I dont think they're in any way "intellectual" (if only) - but one of their problems is rooted in the way they are too "embedded", in a way. Embedded with the authorities, with ruling politics, the dominant discourse, etc.

Fine.

But then, as alternative, you point to stuff like this Venezuelan "journalist" who works for Chavez's Ministry of Information! Do you really think his kind of journalism is any better?

How come you are able to look super-critically at US media and politics, but then you are ready to just swallow whatever comes from America's opponents? Do you not think they are just as able to lie and obfuscate?

Why shouldnt you be just as critical and sceptical about what is said by the media or politicians from, for example, Venezuela?

Be critical, by all means. All I'm saying is, be critical always, not just when it comes to the country or party you dont like. Be critical when you read stuff from your "own" side too. Otherwise you are the same as those conservatives repeating talking point heads; just another tool for propaganda, just for the other side.

Nah. You're not here to learn from others. Otherwise you would be willing to have a conversation with people. The only thing I see you doing is talking at people, though.

(Let me know if you understand the difference or not. I'm willing to clarify. And if it's a language problem, we can do that in German, too.)




It certainly doesn't "hurt my soul". It just makes me think that you are an easy-chair intellectual.




Congratulations.

in German, too


Warum denn immer gleich sachlich werden,
wenn es auch persönich geht?= Andre heller

You can cut and paste German quotes, too? Great.

Im großen und ganzen besagt obige Aussage doch nur, daß persönliche Beleidigungen einer sachlichen Diskussion vorzuziehen seien. Und das ist genau das, was die Beiträge von 'Ramafuchs' immer wieder aufs neue darstellen: persönliche Beleidigungen anstatt sachlicher Diskussion.

Good job.

Keine Grenze verlockt uns
mehr zum Schmuggeln als die Altersgrenze"- Robert Musil
I am not old to retire from leaning nor youngh enough to hide my identity.

OK, warum sprechen Sie denn nich personlich? Sprechen Sie schon mit uns, nicht nur zum uns.

Personlich sprechen, dass meint doch auch nicht nur noch ein Slogan or Zitat wiederholen; nicht nur etwas kopieren dass Sie gefunden haben in eine Zeitung; aber ein eigenes Idee formulieren.

Sie sagen, dass Sie hier sind um zu lernen; OK, also, dann muss man doch Gesprache fuhren, Fragen stellen und auch Fragen antworten, ein Idee zum Ende fuhren, so dass man es auch testen kann.

Aber am wenigsten kann man doch Frage antworten. Zum beispiel, dieses. Man kann nichts lernen wenn man nie sprecht uber etwas spezifisches.

(Entschuldigungen fur die Qualitat meines Deutsch; es ist langes her dass ich in Deutsch schreiben musste.)

Thanks
my language is original.
I had given a vagure reply to your above link.

As a citizen who have endured the ordeals around the globe
I wish USA the most powerful or the only Soup power
learn something about Democracy from Germany if not from India.
Of course Iraq and Afganisthan will teach the imported democracy.
Good night
Rama

I still stand for correction( if I made any impolite personal villification or vituperation)

Yes, it was indeed vague - very vague. Which is why I mentioned it as an example.

I mean, why so vague? If you are so very sure that America can learn something about democracy from Germany, surely you can tell us WHAT it can learn? Or at least give us, say, thee concrete examples?

I mean, I think it can learn something from Germany too. What do you think it can learn?

The following piece illustrates the main problem I see with our media apart from the fact that it is far too politicized and makes itself into advocacy far too much to qualify as objective journalism. The following piece is the other element that I find deplorable with our media: crappy research; sloppy journalism; and willingness to damage somebody's reputation and good name before the facts are checked.

Plagiarism!
The sloppy hackery of the left.
by Dean Barnett
03/29/2008 12:00:00 AM

LAST THURSDAY, A controversy erupted in the blogosphere. Like most controversies that start in the blogosphere and die there as opposed to gaining a second and more meaningful life in the mainstream media, the entire affair was a tempest in a virtual teapot. But this incident was a particularly pregnant one, as it revealed the difficulties the left will have in developing a coherent attack against John McCain. It also highlighted Barack Obama's most significant weakness in a match against Senator McCain.

In a campaign address to the Los Angeles World Council, McCain made a point of stressing his hatred for war:

I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed.

Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly.

The statement is eloquent and powerful, but given the speaker, unremarkable. There are few people in America who can speak so personally to their dislike for war than a fellow who spent a half decade in the Hanoi Hilton. If there's anyone in this presidential race who
has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain. Compared to McCain's personal experience, Barack Obama's exposure to war is a mere intellectual construct. Even Hillary Clinton, the Lioness of Tuzla, can't compete with McCain in this area.

For reasons that still mystify, men of the left decided that McCain's denunciation of war represented a soft spot. The bumbling gumshoes at the lefty website Think Progress got busy investigating McCain's speech and discovered that Rear Admiral Timothy Ziemer had given a speech featuring remarkably similar language in 1996. "Plagiarism!" the left wing blogosphere cried, nearly in unison.

The American Prospect's Ezra Klein seemed the most excited by the "scandal," apparently thinking that with proper massaging, it could devastate McCain:

Some of you will remember that Joe Biden's 1988 bid for the presidency was felled when he plagiarized a major speech from British politician Neil Kinnock. Now, via Think Progress, McCain looks to be risking a similar fate. Turns out quite a bit of his foreign policy speech yesterday was stolen, without credit, from a speech Admiral Timothy Ziemer gave in 1996.

What's particularly telling is where the lifting happened--in the section where McCain explained his deep hatred of war. Turned out it wasn't quote his after all. If that section of the speech, which seemed so very personal, but was in fact anything but, than what can we really take away from the address? The point of the speech was that McCain's core beliefs militate powerfully against war. But that's not true for his policies, and we now learn, those aren't strictly his core beliefs. This seems like a big deal to me.

Without leaving you in any further suspense as to how the brouhaha ended, suffice to say McCain's critics beclowned themselves in the extreme. Turns out Admiral Ziemer's 1996 speech borrowed from a speech that McCain gave in 1995. The fact that the McCain campaign had posted the 1995 speech on its website should compound his critics' embarrassment. The additional fact that no one at Think Progress contacted the McCain campaign or even checked the Senator's website before charging "Plagiarism!" will likely cause professional writers to think twice before citing a Think Progress report in the future.
LINK