Posted on 09/23/2004 5:20:54 PM PDT by Vision Thing
<<
and they have MUCH MORE resources to do it with.
>>
Actually, their resources are dwarfed by ours. CBS has a handful of "military experts" on staff or retainer. FR has hundreds.
CBS has a handful of "IT experts". FR has hundreds.
Ya gotta wonder if Rush's newest galpal at CNN is one of the MSM members who hate Freepers.
<<
In this opinion piece by Tina Brown, she equates new media to the startups of the Internet-bubble era, and the old media to the staid, stately conglomerate companies. She doesn't exactly say it, but I think she's hoping the new media will suffer the same fate as the Internet startups.
>>
Same thing jumped out at me.
Bad analogy.
Kinda like Tina - eh?
I agree. Based on the posts I've seen from Buckhead, and knowing that he is a seasoned lawyer, he seems careful, analytical, and detail-oriented.
The other stations think they're safe because we're focusing on Rather.....they're wrong about that too.
This place is astounding. Post on ANY SUBJECT AT ALL -- tens or even HUNDREDS of real-life experts will come a'running. Some are even *gasp* real-life journalists!!
THAT is what they can't figure out. A brilliant physicist is still a brilliant physicist when he is wearing bunny slippers and PJs.
That's the point. And try, TRY to post something factually erroneous. It is considered to be high FReeper sport to nail errors -- usually with wicked humor to rub it in a little.
So let the Old Media prattle on about how this was a blind man who found a diamond when he stepped on it. If they spent more that 10 minutes here then they would realize the awsome power of thousands of experts in every subject imaginable.
btw: Since a lot of us like to lurk at DU, I think we can all agree they don't have this kind of brain-power there. 1) Because it is so much smaller and 2) because intelligent people are by and large conservatives.
What dear Tina really means, of course, is that "everyone (in her circle) knows. Not because they have any proof -- or any evidence of any kind -- but because they simply feel it must be so.
After all, that's what their daddies did for them, isn't it?
An evening with Tina and her friends would doubtless be a tedious exercise in superficiality. Fashionable, but vacuous.
Like the old saying about monkeys, right Tina?
And we have Tina's number on what she's obsessed with:
Media Elite: The Wind Beneath Bill's Wings
excerpt:
For pro-Bill gushing, East Coast division, Tina Brown, editor of the New Yorker, laps the field. Brown also attended the Blair dinner and reported on it in the February 16 issue of her magazine. Herewith some gooey excerpts: "Close your eyes and enter this parallel universe, where the squalor and rancor of the trivia cops are temporarily shut out. Now see your President, tall and absurdly debonair, as he dances with a radiant blonde, his wife."
Unfortunately, Ms. Brown isn't finished: "His glamour is undersung. For those of us who had dismissed him as a garrulous, blow-dried, lip-biting occupant of the oval orifice [sic], this comes as a slight shock. Forget for a minute all the Beltway halitosis breathed upon his image. Forget the dog-in-the-manger, neo-puritanism of the op-ed tumbrel drivers, and see him instead as his guests do: a man in a dinner jacket with more heat than any star in the room (or, for that matter, at the multiplex)... His newly cropped, iron-filing hair and the intensity of his blue eyes project a kind of avid inclusiveness that encircles every jaded celebrity he passes. He is vividly in the present tense and dares you to join him there."
But are you 'politically obsessed'? :-)
I am.
That's why I don't belong to MoveOn.org.
....and I AM A PROFESSIONAL when it comes to voting.
The bloggers do a lot more nailing, and in considerably greater depth, that Tina's elderly hubby Harold Evans can manage these days.
...His newly cropped, iron-filing hair and the intensity of his blue eyes project a kind of avid inclusiveness that encircles every jaded celebrity he passes. He is vividly in the present tense and dares you to join him there."
OH PLEEEEASE!!
<<
After all, that's what their daddies did for them, isn't it?
>>
Yes. Not all dads, not all the time, but it was not uncommon. This makes it easy to assume and then believe.
And that pretty much defines the cultural divide we're living with today.
There were also plenty of dads in between those you identified. For example, Al Gore's dad understood the importance of Al's service, but I don't doubt that he pulled strings to assure Al stayed out of harm' way.
My dad did 3 tours in 'nam (all 12 months). I enlisted the same year he retired.
What the heck do I know?
What you said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.