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

[allen]

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: allen
>> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>     
>>>  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
>>>       
>> "The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
>> producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
>> resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."
>>
>> suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
>> stupid does" was catching around CBS.
>>     
>
>  And a lot of people were ejected in disgrace from Nixon's administration,
> too. I just think it's funny that I compared Rather's actions to Nixon's,
> and you appear to think that means I'm *going easy on Rather*.
>
>   
Oh, I don't think you're going easy on Rather so much as the industry 
and his employer went easy on him.

The damage Rather did to CBS' credibility and indeed the credibility of 
the industry certainly warranted a more dramatic end to his career then 
retiring a bit earlier then planned. But that's not what happened. What 
should have been a watershed - a high-ranking, experienced newsman 
caught using his position to advance a personal political agenda and in 
an insultingly clumsy manner at that - seems to have had essentially no 
effect on the industry at all as evidenced by the recent AP revelation.
>> I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
>> just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.
>>     
>
>  Apparently we have some alternate-reality bridge going on here, and
> you're responding to messages from selgnI yaR. I do in fact believe, based
> on the evidence (both positive and negative) in the article that I linked
> to, that it's extremely probable that Bush didn't really fulfill his
> obligations to the National Guard, and used the Guard to avoid service in
> Vietnam.
>
>   
You're free to be sure of whatever you choose but absent evidence who 
cares? There isn't evidence of any of the charges you bring up and the 
best you can do, being unwilling to let go of the episode, is to 
complain that the absence of evidence that everything was done right is 
proof that something was wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
>> If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
>> a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
>> that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do.
>>     
>  Um, there's more to it than that. Y'know, like I actually pointed out.
>
>   
Nope, there isn't. There's a Wikipedia article of dubious value. That 
becomes clearer when you follow some of the links to something called 
"THE AWOL PROJECT" and get an eye full of what The AWOL Project 
considers evidence. Not unlike you definition actually in that a failure 
to provide sufficient evidence of innocence is considered evidence of guilt.
>> That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
>> organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
>> important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
>> innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
>> enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
>> evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
>> absence of evidence of bias.
>>     
>
>  And yet, I haven't seen anything produced that contradicts the overall
> accuracy of, say, the situation in Iraq. So far, the 'poster boy' story
> of bias (the "Jamil Hussein" affair) has been shown to be credible in
> essentially all confirmable. What else ya got?
>
>   
Well, there's the "Jamil Hussein" affair as evidence of bias. 
Single-sourcing controversial stories with no follow up and no attempt 
to vet the single source. Hardly the handiwork of an organization 
anxious to maintain a reputation for evenhandedness.
>> Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
>> profession. That he does is a mark against the profession
>>     
>
>  And I *agree* with you. But, as I've said and you've apparently not
> read, over and over again, I *don't* think that the media is unbiased.
> I think it's biased towards 'whatever makes money', and further distorted
> by deliberate attemtps to shape and spin coverage by all comers.
>   
That's hardly a bias worthy of consideration. Might as well charge the 
reporters with being biased towards breathing.

Of course the organizations are biased towards financial survival but 
knowing that doesn't prove bias in any other direction. Separate issue 
and an issue which quite clearly transcends considerations of wicked 
profits since governmental news agencies don't even attempt to hide bias.

If anything, the pursuit of profit is more likely to cause a news 
organization to avoid overt evidence of bias although obviously, it's no 
guarantee.
>  What you apparently seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
> "they're all liberals" or something. Which manifestly isn't true.
>
>   
You're wrong. It's just that the presumptions of the left hold a 
particular attraction for the news media an attraction that's not a 
recent phenomenon either.
>> No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
>> the news and outright lie...
>>     
>
>  Yes, they (in the person of their corporate parent) very definitely did.
> They very *specifically* advanced that argument in court.
>
>   
No, the link you provided was long on innuendo and implication and short 
of specifics. The site you pointed to has no more credibility then "The 
AWOL Project" and their artful interpretation of the court decisions 
does nothing to improve their credibility.
>> ... so you're still in need of some case of similarly egregious behavior.
>>     
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
>
>  I fail to see why the *exact same type of evidence* that you believe
> proves *liberal* bias in other media sources does not apply to Fox News.
>
>   
>> And please, no more sites like the one you linked.
>>     
>
>  Okay, here's the actual court decision:
>
>   http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
>
>  I particularly recommend for your consideration the top of page 4.
>   
And I recommend for *your* consideration the preceding paragraphs 
starting towards the top of page 3. They lost and now they're, or 
they've found interested parties, to spin the story more to their liking.
>   
>> It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
>> for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
>> causation via repetition.
>>     
>
>  Well, it made a lot more sense in the period of the cold war, when it
> got started. But the relationship has continued after that, and it's
> still a convenient ally for military actions in the region. (Which,
> again, wouldn't be necessary if we didn't need the oil.)
>
>   
OK, so you do plan to establish causation via repetition. That doesn't 
change the fact that every military clash between Isreal and it's 
neighbors resulted from either the crossing of Israel's borders by Arab 
military units or the evidence of imminent intention to do so. And none 
of this border crossing it should be noted involved an Arab state with 
enough oil in the ground to lubricate a door hinge.
>> As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
>> community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
>> the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
>> enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
>> those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.
>>     
>
>  Tell ya what. How about we treat them the same way - either Darfour and
> Israel get the same level of help from the U.S., or else they get the help
> from the U.N.
>
>   
Why?
>  My point, if it's not too much trouble to ask you to address it, is: Why
> do we fund Israel at several million dollars per day but not Darfour?
>
>   
And that's one way of avoiding the question of why U.N., that source of 
all that's good internationally, hasn't gotten it's collective thumb out 
of its collective ass and gone to help the folks in Darfour? It's not 
like there's much in the way of Oil-for-Food graft to protect any more 
and it can't be that complex to run a child prostitution service so why 
hasn't the U.N. performed even a lick of peace-keeping in Darfour?

American interest in the Mideast is in maintaining order in a 
strategically important part of the world, of which the trade in 
petroleum is part. If that's insufficiently noble then you'll just have 
to deal with it but it does provide a credible reason for not inserting 
U.S. military into Darfour.
>> You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
>> strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
>> industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
>> reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, 
>> geographic neighborhood of Israel.
>>     
>
>  Name, say, your top three other reasons.
>
>   
It's been a critical trading region since Biblical times. That's changed 
to a degree but it's still important. The Mideast provides land access 
between Asia and Africa which is of both military and economic importance.
>> As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
>> left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
>> citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
>> helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
>> petroleum reserves.
>>     
>
>  Well, if you're right, then they *don't* need us. So why are we supporting
> them again, even at political cost to ourselves?
>
>   
For the same reason we've always supported Israel: in this important 
part of the world there's no other nation with which we have common 
interests.
>> Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder
>> in the Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
>> to regional pressures.
>  A. Why is disorder there a threat to the human race? Be specific.
>   
Is there something about "widespread disorder in the Mideast" that 
requires clarification?
>  B. Is support for Israel a band-aid solution that cannot work indefinitely?
>
>   
If it were a "band-aid solution that cannot possibly work indefinitely" 
what difference would it make? Are the only solutions worthy of pursuit 
permanent and clearly so?
>> You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
>> with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
>> realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
>> balance I don't find all that much to fault.
>>     
>
>  So, we (based on probable disinformation from Britain) overthrow an elected
> government to impose a monarchy in Iran.
Yup.
>  That blows up on us later, so we fund
> and supply a brutal dictator in his war against our former puppet, providing
> him with satellite photos and analysis (which gave him information he could use
> later to try to hide things from us).
Yup.
>  Then he slips form his leash and attacks
> another country and we have to go in and stomp him with a full military
> offensive.
>
>   
Yeah, that about sums it up.

In a different world with different political forces at work or more 
perfect knowledge of the future there might have been other ways to 
protect America's interests but in this world I don't see what could 
have been done much differently.

What would you have preferred? A punctilious regard for the electoral 
outcome of the Iranian election of a communist government? Not providing 
weapons to Saddam Hussein? Not moving to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?
>  Meanwhile we are funding and supplying radical Islamist insurgents against
> the USSR in another country, helping them learn how to run a guerilla war
> against a superior military force.
>
>   
So we shouldn't have funded and supplied radical Islamist insurgents 
against the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan? It's not like we had a lot 
of choice, it was the radical Islamist insurgents or nothing and 
"nothing" didn't seem like a good idea then and it still doesn't.
>> The U.S. no more overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran
>> then a shout is an avalanche.
>>     
>
>  That's, uh, a rather charitable reading of events.
>
>   
No, the election of Mossadegh was followed by the usual escalation of 
violence and repression against the political enemies of the incipient 
"people's" republic and, having fouled their nest in so doing, undercut 
whatever popular support the regime may have come into office with.
>> Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes
>>     
>
>  The actual allegations of the 'communism' of Mossadeq came from Britain,
> upset about losing control of Iranian oil, and appear to have been largely
> disinformation. It wasn't really the key reason, anyway - they were worried
> about a weak Iran being taken over by the USSR.
>
>  I might diffidently suggest a possible alternative - convince Britan to
> work with Iran on their oil negotiations, maybe even accepting a
> less-than-desirable settlement from the British perspective, but one which
> would cement Iran's relations with the West. (The US could have brokered
> such a deal - we'd already saved Iran from a Soviet incursion once.) Britan
> just wanted the oil, though, and the US wasn't willing to hold to the courage
> of their convictions. And that led to, well...
>   
The "allegations" of communism were certainly not undercut by the 
nationalization of the petroleum industry, collectivization of 
agriculture and repression of political enemies, a series of steps which 
by then could practically be put to music. It's not as if there weren't 
a whole slew of "people's" republics that has sprung into existence 
following exactly the steps that Iran was started on.
>   
>> You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
>> petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
>> good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
>> Israel.
>>     
>
>  *If* we're going to do that, we should get more for our efforts. The
> Saudi regime is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:
>
>   
Nope, that's what we should get for our efforts. Besides, that's what we 
did get for our efforts. Second-guessing may be fun but it's not 
particularly worthwhile.
>  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer
>
>  And the fallout from that will be much worse from our perspective... if
> we're still dependent on their oil.
>
>   
There's nothing special about the House of Saud from the U.S. point of 
view. They're there so we deal with them. Should we pretend they're not?

And, we're not dependent on Saudi oil. It's cheaper then the 
alternatives right now although even that's partly a function of 
technology and partly a function of politics. Given a reasonably period 
of time a sufficiently unreliable source of supply will deal itself out 
of the market by artificially inflating prices and with unpleasant but 
survivable repercussions.
>> Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
>> engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
>> same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
>> values and goals?
>>     
>
>  Oversimplification. We don't have to treat Israel "the same as" the rest
> of the Middle East; what I object to is the *major* amount of *unconditional*
> support we offer without any apparent consideration of the ROI or
> consequences.
>
>   
That's an easy objection to make since it's untrue. The amount of aid is 
a function of the utility of the regime to U.S. interests; none of the 
Arab regimes are worth spit in that regard. Aid is always contingent on 
political value but that's domestic and international political value so 
there's your ROI consideration.
>>>  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
>>> the terrorists those regions spawn.
>>>       
>> Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
>> would you characterize your views?
>>     
Uchh! Enough! I can't spend any more time at this.

Maybe you're quicker on the keyboard but this is just sucking up too 
much of my time.

If you want to continue, you bring the pizza I'll bring the beer. That 
way if we can't come to a meeting of the minds we can settle this like 
men: I've got Pepsi, I've Mentos and I know how to use them.

Allen