Posted on 10/10/2006 1:09:25 AM PDT by nancyvideo
With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.
That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Good thing we don't have one and never did. What a horrible concept it is.
<< Democracy could very well be the death of itself
Good thing we don't have one and never did. >>
Thank you for so noting.
And thank Almighty God -- and those of His angels who drafted and enacted its Founding Law -- for our beloved and eternal FRaternal Republic!
Amen
Let me know if you see a serious analysis of the Bush foreign policy, because I don't see any evidence that anyone is really watching. Instead, we get these idiotic partisan claims. People would feel a lot better if they would undertand the importance of the international unity Bush has fostered by carefully and persistantly building relationships. Whether it is NATO's first fighting operation in Afghanistan or the unanimous votes in the UN against Nukes in Iran and NK, these are the fruits of very effective statecraft that should make us feel optimistic and secure. The groundwork has been patiently laid for lasting solutions. It is a mistake to think that the news is in NK's temper tantrums, or violence in Palestine or Iraq and think we were better with checkbook diplomacy or playing Lets Make a Deal with tyrants of thugs. By refusing to paper over problems we have allowed the real problems to surface, and that is producing reassessment and problem solving using many forms of expertise and allies..
Sowell's the man.
. . . If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious . . .
More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.
. . . and some substantial fraction of the number of lives lost to enemy action in Iraq would have been lost, just as tragically, to auto accidents had those same young men been at home in peacetime. 50,000 more Americans were killed in Viet Nam over a period of ten years or so than have been KIA in Iraq.But of course, the fundamental point is that American journalism is inherently frivolous. When it comes to meeting deadline, "there's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper." And if yesterday's is worthless today, how much will today's newspaper be worth tomorrow? Then how much can it actually be worth today?
American journalists claim that journalism is objective. And that is a frivilous claim with no possible means of intellectual support. If it were true it could not be proven, and it is not true because journalism makes that claim from self interest. Journalism identifies the public interest with journalism's own self interest. And considering hoow bad news for America is good news for journalism, that is just about the lowest depth of hypocracy.
We might not be aware of a comprehensive policy for Iraq but I believe we have one..it would be stupid to expose it to the terrorists and also to the terrorist media. Then we'd be again bogged down in a PR war instead of a tactical one. I have faith that we're doing much more than is being reported.
T.S. is the man BUMP
By the way, I appreciate your dedication to the subject of journalism, c_i_c.
:-)
People who assume that it is their role merely to react to the information they are given, rather than to first read between the lines of what they are told and discern the truth, will always be the target of charlatans promoting panaceas. And such knaves have promoted supposed "objectivity" as the clothing of the perfectly naked King Journalism.The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithJournalism says journalism is objective - and few there be who dare ask, "Besides your own self-interested word, the proof of that is exactly what?" If you research history in the pages of journalism, you will find that, but for the advertisements, journalism is always criticism of the people and institutions upon whom/which we must depend. Other than journalism, of course . . .The perspective of journalism is that the interests of journalism are identical with the public interest. The actual definition of the public interest is, of course, at any time the subject of the most vigorous political debate. And at this point in history - and at least since Vietnam - the Democratic Party has identified itself nearly unreservedly to the interest of journalism, becoming essentially an appendage of journalism.
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.