more monday things...
now playing: steve ward, "the river leads me home"
someone at CNN cornered robert macneil and apparently, he was only too willing to let them know what he thought....
....Ask Robert MacNeil to assess the current state of journalism and he offers a modest disclaimer.
"I'm sort of a retired newsman. I'm not following it with the intensity I was when I was working," says the former co-anchor of PBS' "The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour."
But, when pressed, he cites what he considers among the most troubling trends, including news coverage decorated with tabloid glitter and opinion-shaded reporting.
"I think it's only beginning," he said of the latter.
MacNeil blames Fox News Channel for "cynically and deliberately" choosing to build its audience with "aggressive and competitive patriotism and waving the flag."
..."As this society, or at least the political animals in it, have become so polarized and so intolerant of other views, Democrats want to see more blood flow from the arrows of journalists and Republicans want more red meat out there going after Democrats," MacNeil said.
"There is evidence that the television industry, for its own commercial purposes and in unwarranted fear for the safety of its licenses to operate, has at times forced its news departments to adopt a craven and accommodating attitude to Congress and the White House."
oh, and in other news...
NEW YORK - Sen. John McCain said Monday it was fair game to criticize Democrat John Kerry's anti-war protests of three decades ago, firing an opening salvo as Republicans at their national convention sought to portray President Bush as a strong wartime leader.
McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS' "The Early Show" that television ads accusing Kerry of lying about his military service in Vietnam were "dishonest and dishonorable." But, he added, "what John Kerry did after the war is very legitimate political discussion." Kerry was a leader of Vietnam veterans who opposed the war.
so, there you have it...after all, he's a republican - what did any of us really expect?
here's a guy who probably still has rectal scar tissue from the four-years-ago reaming that he got courtesy of the same crew that are trying to slip it to john kerry right now, and he wants to testify as a character witness for the rapist...
one more time, for the benefit of those of you just joining in...
john kerry came back to the united states and testified before congress in 1971 of the atrocities in vietnam.
in order for this to be a bad thing, you have to fall into one of the following categories:
1. you have somehow come to believe that atrocities were never committed in vietnam.
which is to say that you honestly think that no villages were burned, that there were no free-fire zones, that no civilians were raped, tortured, or killed...that john kerry was dishonest during his testimony to congress. for him to have been dishonest, it would have to be proven that he was lying about these atrocities, that they never happened...yet, it's common knowledge at this point that these things did happen. but, it's a free country, and you can be as deluded as you want.
2. you have to somehow subscribe to the point of view that john kerry had no right to oppose the war.
now, as a veteran myself, i can tell you that soldiers give up any number of rights that are granted to civilians by the constitution...choices are made for you, you subscribe to the dress code, the haircut, the attitude, the subservience, the whole package. but, once your commitment to the service has been fulfilled, you revert to the same rights you were born with as a citizen of this country. and, in john kerry's case, he was free to return to the united states and oppose the war. and as long as his testimony didn't compromise classified information, he was free to say whatever the fuck he wanted - to congress or anyone else.
3. you believe that, somehow, his testimony before congress aided the enemy.
how? simple enough question, i think...how did john kerry aid the enemy by opposing the war? did his testimony pay for supplies, provide troop support, compromise intelligence? obviously not. and whether or not his testimony played into the vietcongs' hands as a propoganda tool is suspect, as well. let's break it down into a sports metaphor, shall we?
let's say that john madden and al michaels are broadcasting a game between the patriots and the perennially hapless cleveland browns...if the score at halftime is 37-10, and john and al are repeating every blow, every play, every score over the airwaves, are they somehow aiding the cause of the browns by reporting the ass-kicking they're receiving at the hands of the patriots?
because if you subscribe to numero 3, that's what you're saying...that john kerry somehow helped the cause of the vietcong by coming home and reporting the details of the inhuman slapdown we were putting onto the bystanders of the war.
i'm personally proud of john kerry for coming home and telling the truth. the fact that so many people consider him anything less than patriotic for doing so shows the world just how far we as americans have regressed...and how much we've been willing to voluntarily forget in the years since vietnam.
someone at CNN cornered robert macneil and apparently, he was only too willing to let them know what he thought....
....Ask Robert MacNeil to assess the current state of journalism and he offers a modest disclaimer.
"I'm sort of a retired newsman. I'm not following it with the intensity I was when I was working," says the former co-anchor of PBS' "The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour."
But, when pressed, he cites what he considers among the most troubling trends, including news coverage decorated with tabloid glitter and opinion-shaded reporting.
"I think it's only beginning," he said of the latter.
MacNeil blames Fox News Channel for "cynically and deliberately" choosing to build its audience with "aggressive and competitive patriotism and waving the flag."
..."As this society, or at least the political animals in it, have become so polarized and so intolerant of other views, Democrats want to see more blood flow from the arrows of journalists and Republicans want more red meat out there going after Democrats," MacNeil said.
"There is evidence that the television industry, for its own commercial purposes and in unwarranted fear for the safety of its licenses to operate, has at times forced its news departments to adopt a craven and accommodating attitude to Congress and the White House."
oh, and in other news...
NEW YORK - Sen. John McCain said Monday it was fair game to criticize Democrat John Kerry's anti-war protests of three decades ago, firing an opening salvo as Republicans at their national convention sought to portray President Bush as a strong wartime leader.
McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS' "The Early Show" that television ads accusing Kerry of lying about his military service in Vietnam were "dishonest and dishonorable." But, he added, "what John Kerry did after the war is very legitimate political discussion." Kerry was a leader of Vietnam veterans who opposed the war.
so, there you have it...after all, he's a republican - what did any of us really expect?
here's a guy who probably still has rectal scar tissue from the four-years-ago reaming that he got courtesy of the same crew that are trying to slip it to john kerry right now, and he wants to testify as a character witness for the rapist...
one more time, for the benefit of those of you just joining in...
john kerry came back to the united states and testified before congress in 1971 of the atrocities in vietnam.
in order for this to be a bad thing, you have to fall into one of the following categories:
1. you have somehow come to believe that atrocities were never committed in vietnam.
which is to say that you honestly think that no villages were burned, that there were no free-fire zones, that no civilians were raped, tortured, or killed...that john kerry was dishonest during his testimony to congress. for him to have been dishonest, it would have to be proven that he was lying about these atrocities, that they never happened...yet, it's common knowledge at this point that these things did happen. but, it's a free country, and you can be as deluded as you want.
2. you have to somehow subscribe to the point of view that john kerry had no right to oppose the war.
now, as a veteran myself, i can tell you that soldiers give up any number of rights that are granted to civilians by the constitution...choices are made for you, you subscribe to the dress code, the haircut, the attitude, the subservience, the whole package. but, once your commitment to the service has been fulfilled, you revert to the same rights you were born with as a citizen of this country. and, in john kerry's case, he was free to return to the united states and oppose the war. and as long as his testimony didn't compromise classified information, he was free to say whatever the fuck he wanted - to congress or anyone else.
3. you believe that, somehow, his testimony before congress aided the enemy.
how? simple enough question, i think...how did john kerry aid the enemy by opposing the war? did his testimony pay for supplies, provide troop support, compromise intelligence? obviously not. and whether or not his testimony played into the vietcongs' hands as a propoganda tool is suspect, as well. let's break it down into a sports metaphor, shall we?
let's say that john madden and al michaels are broadcasting a game between the patriots and the perennially hapless cleveland browns...if the score at halftime is 37-10, and john and al are repeating every blow, every play, every score over the airwaves, are they somehow aiding the cause of the browns by reporting the ass-kicking they're receiving at the hands of the patriots?
because if you subscribe to numero 3, that's what you're saying...that john kerry somehow helped the cause of the vietcong by coming home and reporting the details of the inhuman slapdown we were putting onto the bystanders of the war.
i'm personally proud of john kerry for coming home and telling the truth. the fact that so many people consider him anything less than patriotic for doing so shows the world just how far we as americans have regressed...and how much we've been willing to voluntarily forget in the years since vietnam.
posted by tom at 15:45
<< Home