[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: allen

> It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience.

 As I said, it was stupid.

> Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
> uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
> other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
> story like flies on a turd.

 Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
*report*, too.

> Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
> rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.

 No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence that
other people can produce.

 Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for that
corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also highly
suggestive.

> Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
> completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
> nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
> credence.

 Whereas single-sourced stories that you *approve* of...

 Consider the single source of the U. S. Military on Haditha:

 "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a
roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen
attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines
returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

 You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein"
front.

>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>   
> I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:

> http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm

> That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
> you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.

 Indeed. Commentary like this, perhaps?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.pdf

 "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
conservative."

 I think you misunderstand me. I'm not a fan of the media in general. I just
don't think it's as simple as having a "liberal" or "conservative" bias.
(Well, except Fox, or Mother Jones, or what have you. They really do have an
explicit bias.) What the general media is biased towards is making money. That
results in more complicated distortions than just 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

> Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
> indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
> attention in the future however.

 Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't think
our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunch
support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil and
leave them to fend for themselves. (If the environment there is too inimical,
maybe they could move to South America, a proposal that was floated back in
the 1940's when Israel was being created.)

 Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?

> >  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
> >                               Adlai Stevenson
> An unexpectedly revelatory sig.

 "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 - Inigo Montoya.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                  (313) 227-2317

 "The [Bush] administration has already established that it has engaged in
 things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people
   after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war
  crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the
  very thing that we once prosecuted people for." - Jonathan Turley, George
             Washington University Constitutional Law Professor
                   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.