They are after her for supporting the WMD in Iraq.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
likes it under the bus?

Snippet of Bill Keller's Email memo:

"I wish that when I learned Judy Miller had been subpoenaed as a
witness in the leak investigation, I had sat her down for a thorough
debriefing, and followed up with some reporting of my own. It is a
natural and proper instinct to defend reporters when the government
seeks to interfere in our work. And under other circumstances it might
have been fine to entrust the details _ the substance of the
confidential interviews, the notes _ to lawyers who would be handling
the case. But in this case I missed what should have been significant
alarm bells. Until Fitzgerald came after her, I didn't know that Judy
had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson
whisper campaign. I should have wondered why I was learning this from
the special counsel, a year after the fact. (In November of 2003 Phil
Taubman tried to ascertain whether any of our correspondents had been
offered similar leaks. As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have
misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement.) This alone
should have been enough to make me probe deeper."

From The Washington Post:

http://tinyurl.com/9v5h3

I fully expect Our Lady of Op/Ed Virginity Maureen Dowd to be driving
the bus and Frank Rich to be selling tickets for the ride.

Side note: Makes the "Old Gray Lady" and "Newspaper of Record" a
little suspect eh, what?

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:46:30 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:

They are after her for supporting the WMD in Iraq.

What WMD? She was behaving like a mouthpiece for this administration. A
competent and independent media is a very important check, as in checks
and balances, in a democracy. The NYT failed, among others, and 2,000
young Americans are dead. Hopefully, they will get back on track. They
could use Knight Ridder as an example.

http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3725

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:46:30 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:

They are after her for supporting the WMD in Iraq.

What WMD? She was behaving like a mouthpiece for this administration. A
competent and independent media is a very important check, as in checks
and balances, in a democracy. The NYT failed, among others, and 2,000
young Americans are dead. Hopefully, they will get back on track. They
could use Knight Ridder as an example.

http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3725

90% of the "independent" media you speak of is biased to the left.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:44:02 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


90% of the "independent" media you speak of is biased to the left.

Only 90% ? A little simplistic, don't you think? No one speaks with an
objective voice, and the media in this country doesn't speak with one
voice. Is Rush biased left? What about NewsMax? Fox News?

Labeling media is a way of trivializing it. Propaganda spinners have used
the trick for years. It doesn't flush. Media has always spoken with many
voices. If you are truly looking for bias, you might consider left/right
isn't the only bias.

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:44:02 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


90% of the "independent" media you speak of is biased to the left.

Only 90% ? A little simplistic, don't you think? No one speaks with an
objective voice, and the media in this country doesn't speak with one
voice. Is Rush biased left? What about NewsMax? Fox News?

Labeling media is a way of trivializing it. Propaganda spinners have used
the trick for years. It doesn't flush. Media has always spoken with many
voices. If you are truly looking for bias, you might consider left/right
isn't the only bias.

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

True true, but until you acknowledge the bias and see it as bias you are not
getting a real view of the world. Those of us on the right acknowledge the
bias of Fox News, but those on the left don't think that the other news
medias lean to the left. That's a serious problem!!

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:44:02 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


90% of the "independent" media you speak of is biased to the left.

Only 90% ? A little simplistic, don't you think? No one speaks with
an
objective voice, and the media in this country doesn't speak with one
voice. Is Rush biased left? What about NewsMax? Fox News?

Labeling media is a way of trivializing it. Propaganda spinners have
used
the trick for years. It doesn't flush. Media has always spoken with
many
voices. If you are truly looking for bias, you might consider
left/right
isn't the only bias.

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

True true, but until you acknowledge the bias and see it as bias you are
not
getting a real view of the world. Those of us on the right acknowledge
the
bias of Fox News, but those on the left don't think that the other news
medias lean to the left. That's a serious problem!!

What is funny is how the liebrals continue to lump talk show hosts and news
reporters in the same group.......it is the only way to give any sort of
validity to their position.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:44:02 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


90% of the "independent" media you speak of is biased to the left.

Only 90% ? A little simplistic, don't you think? No one speaks with an
objective voice, and the media in this country doesn't speak with one
voice. Is Rush biased left? What about NewsMax? Fox News?

Labeling media is a way of trivializing it. Propaganda spinners have
used
the trick for years. It doesn't flush. Media has always spoken with
many
voices. If you are truly looking for bias, you might consider left/right
isn't the only bias.

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

True true, but until you acknowledge the bias and see it as bias you are
not getting a real view of the world. Those of us on the right
acknowledge the bias of Fox News, but those on the left don't think that
the other news medias lean to the left. That's a serious problem!!


A more serious problem is that many people who think "the media" is
left-biased never actually read or listen to those media, and are simply
repeating what they've been told to. For instance, rumor has it that NPR
rarely, if ever mentions anything positive about Iraq. That's odd, because I
hear them mention something positive at least a couple of times a week. Are
the droolers listening to a totally different NPR Morning Edition than I am?
Of course not. They simply don't listen.

Another example: I believe it was April of 2004 when a drooler in rec.guns
demanded that no self-respecting gun owner support public radio because they
never ran stories about hunting or fishing. Bull****. I searched their site.
There had been six or seven stories since the beginning of the year, all of
them completely positive. Again, the droolers don't listen.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:53:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~`

A more serious problem is that many people who think "the media" is
left-biased never actually read or listen to those media, and are simply
repeating what they've been told to.

Certainly, NPR is more left than right, but they can, occasionally, do
the right thing (get it - right thing - RIGHT thing?) and at least
attempt to be fair and balanced.

My major complaint is that while "Morning Edition" is more balanced in
it's total reportage, news and features wise, "All Things Considered"
isn't.

Finally, ever listen to WFCR in Amherst? It's like listening to Radio
Tirana in it's hey day.

The problem is that for the most part, conservatives will admit they are
conservative, liebrals will constantly claim the are "fair and balanced.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:53:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~`

A more serious problem is that many people who think "the media" is
left-biased never actually read or listen to those media, and are simply
repeating what they've been told to.

Certainly, NPR is more left than right, but they can, occasionally, do
the right thing (get it - right thing - RIGHT thing?) and at least
attempt to be fair and balanced.

My major complaint is that while "Morning Edition" is more balanced in
it's total reportage, news and features wise, "All Things Considered"
isn't.

Finally, ever listen to WFCR in Amherst? It's like listening to Radio
Tirana in it's hey day.

Hmmm....."Warriors for Christ Radio" - sounds like it's right up my alley.
burp

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:10:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:53:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~`

A more serious problem is that many people who think "the media" is
left-biased never actually read or listen to those media, and are simply
repeating what they've been told to.

Certainly, NPR is more left than right, but they can, occasionally, do
the right thing (get it - right thing - RIGHT thing?) and at least
attempt to be fair and balanced.

My major complaint is that while "Morning Edition" is more balanced in
it's total reportage, news and features wise, "All Things Considered"
isn't.

Finally, ever listen to WFCR in Amherst? It's like listening to Radio
Tirana in it's hey day.

Hmmm....."Warriors for Christ Radio" - sounds like it's right up my alley.
burp

More like W Five College Radio - Smith, Amherst, UMASS, Hampshire and
Mt. Holyoke.

You couldn't find a more group of compatible left wing schools even if
you walked into the Harvard Coop and screamed "Saddam Rules"!!!

Are we looking at the same organization? www.wfcr.com