Posted on 08/19/2011 7:00:21 PM PDT by library user
ping
“But, we can get very, very busy in making them the “Onion” of the media and ridicule the NYT in every way possible. They should be the laughing stock of every journalism school and everyone who believes in delivering unbiased information to the public.”
Precisely correct.
I found the Times article informative. Knowing the source, I knew it was a hit-piece riddled with lies.
Reading between the lines and understanding the politics behind it made me like Issa even more. This article has been a win for Issa, big time. He’s now a Teflon-man. They’ve done their worst and it’s green lights ahead for all his investigations.
Obama is toast.
“Why does it seem like Darrell Issa and Chuck Grassley are the only ones doing any investigating of the most corrupt administration in America’s history?”
I suggest it is because the rest of comfortable with the status quo or are vulnerable to blackmail.
How has the Times responded to this embarrassment? So far, it is stonewallingThe idea that a newspaper is, or that it "has to" be objective, is revealed by this episode to be fatuous.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Which simply means that there's no law against a newspaper being tendentiously selective in its choice of the facts it chooses to print. Nothing in the First Amendment in particular, or the Constitution as a whole, would help you to get a conviction of a newspaper editor or publisher.Since there is nothing in the law which can force a newspaper to be objective, it is a giant leap of faith to assume that any newspaper will actually be objective. In fact, the very act of claiming to be objective is itself not objective. No, it is highly tendentious. All newspapers are recognizable - even if you post them on a web site rather than in print - for following standard guidelines such as "If it bleeds, it leads," "'Man Bites Dog' not 'Dog Bites Man'" and "Always make your deadline" ( even if there's no important news that day). It is a canard to call adherence to those rules "objectivity." Instead those rules define the self interest of the newspaper itself - they are designed to make the newspaper interesting to the public. They do nothing to promote the public interest, which is a different matter entirely. It is, humanly speaking, quite understandable for someone to conflate their own self interest with the public interest. But "objective," it is not.
The free market does not depend on the judgements of editors in order to work in the public interest - and that is what makes it a target of editors. Nothing could be more natural than that journalists would promote politics - journalism's forte - above the people at large. Thus, journalists either are principled supporters of the market or, more generally, they follow their own self interest in promoting socialism. And people who decide to become journalists know it.
Issa is a smart cookie....with street brains to boot!
Did you read the article? The Blue Light Special didn't just select facts favorable to the times political crusade, IT MADE THEM UP!
Made up "facts" are LIES pure and simple and with the obvious presence of malice should be actionable. I think the Blue Light Special just blew up the NYT!
John Hinderaker does good work.
Yes, yes he does. Unfortunately, I misspelled his name in the title (there’s no “c” in his last name). You got it right, though. :O)
I don't know, but try this: Business Roundtable types are telling the RNC to tell Boehner to back off Obama and Obamacare, because they want Obamacare to survive so they can dump off their insured employees onto the public option and "save money" -- profits, profits, profits if they can just get rid of their employees and their promises to their employees. Make employment more like Calcutta and Shanghai.
Except I put integrity and commitment by Congress to country and their individual citizen constituents as being most important regardless of Party.
This article about a new Issa staff member that had worked as a VP at Goldman and prior to that at the SEC and more of the revolving door that has benefited banksters. He changed his last name to make it less obvious. A special commitment to Goldman Sachs is not about integrity in my opinion.
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.