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

[allen]

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>
>> It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience.
>>     
>
>  As I said, it was stupid.
>
>   
Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
the scope and seriousness of that transgression.

He sought to use the access to the public his job granted as a means of 
pursuing his own political preferences, showing no regard for the tenets 
of his profession, the democratic process and a disregard for the truth 
that no one should have to bear. Consider, the most favorable 
explanation for Rather's behavior is that he was incompetent to do his job.
>> 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.
>
>   
As I recall, the story was replayed with nothing in the way of 
contradiction and no evidence of competitive investigation until the guy 
with Microsoft Word on his computer put up the infamous jpg making it 
all but impossible to ignore questions of the credibility of the story.
>> 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.
>
>   
"Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that would prove 
innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!
>> 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.
>
>   
You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves as 
credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if 
they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military 
which is not a news agency.

AP has to do a better job of gathering/supporting their reportage if 
they're to be seen as a better source of information then an agency of 
government they propose to investigate. They have to present, on a 
continuing basis, proof that they're deserving of the trust of people 
who depend on them for impartial, professional journalism. If they're no 
better then the U.S. military in this regard then there's essentially no 
purpose for their continued existence.

And I have been following recent developments about Jamil Hussein. AP's 
odor isn't improving. It's still looking very much like the best case 
scenario for AP is that AP is run by inept amateurs. From there things 
go downhill rapidly with AP's consciously aiding and abetting terrorists 
being among the possibilities.
>>  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."
>
>   
Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the 
authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to 
escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the 
transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I 
cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.

>  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.) 
Mother Jones and various other, similar publications make no bones about 
their partisanship although they prefer to cloak their bias in what they 
perceive as noble causes. Fox, and CNN, AP, CBS, ABC, the New York Times 
and Washington Post lay claim to the title of journalism, the clear 
definition of which requires a ruthless disregard of personal bias. CNN, 
AP and CBS have, by the actions of important employees or indefensible 
actions by unnamed employees, diluted their claim to be journalistic 
organizations. Whether ineptitude or bias, either erodes their claim on 
public trust.

If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide examples 
of similarly egregious behavior.

> What the general media is biased towards is making money. That
> results in more complicated distortions than just 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
>   
The general damned near everything is biased toward making money. Other 
then hobbies and charities, what else is there?

Of course they're "biased" towards making money. Those organizations 
that weren't collected their Darwin prize and are no longer heard from.

The neat thing about capitalism, and it works just as brilliantly in the 
journalism profession as anywhere else, is that the hoi-polloi decide, 
collectively, on the continued survival of their betters.

The reason, ultimately, that Dan Rather decided to retire a year early 
isn't because of his ethical transgression but because the damage he'd 
done to the credibility, the *market*value*, of the CBS brand which, 
after all, is dependent on people having some reason to believe that 
what Dan Rather or his successors, tells them has been subject to the 
attention of thoughtful, capable adults who take seriously their 
responsibility to inform the public without regard to their personal 
agenda. Rather's crime, whether due to ineptitude or bias was to 
undercut that belief and with it the value of CBS stock.
>> 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.)
>   
You're free to believe that but I'd be interested to know what other 
regimes in the area might have a confluence of interest with the U.S. 
other then on a purely mercantile basis? The only other nation in the 
area with a passing acquaintance with democracy is Egypt and that'd be a 
pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest it's a choice between a 
moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repressive monarchy, a 
repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" republics. There's 
simply no other nations in the region with which to have a friendly 
relationship.

Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant 
of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in 
the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?

As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to 
Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependence.
>  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
>   
Yup.
>>>  "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.
>   
The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a source 
of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function of 
how poorly you started then how far you've come.