1. IrvingSnodgrass - April 21, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
In Slate, you can read opposing viewpoints about the recent Pulitzer Prize awarded to the New York Times's Maureen Dowd. A.O. Scott thinks it was a good choice. Timothy Nash disagrees.
Does the Washington media spend too much time agonizing over matters most Americans don't care about?
2. RosettaStone - April 21, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
The Secret Service is acting like the nazis SS and taking over whole sections of Washington, DC.
To stop the demonstrations against NATO they are closing down whole sections of town and giving federal workers Friday off.
It's a scandal, and the American people will not be stopped from expressing our First Amendment rights.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
3. FreetoChoose - April 21, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
Irv, your second link failed. Did you mean:
Timothy Nash
4. FreetoChoose - April 21, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT
Timothy Nash's point about Dowd's column on Hillary isn't that she got it wrong, it's that she gives the subject more treatment than it's worth:
“Chatterbox figures it's worth a brief, rueful chuckle. Dowd thinks it's a scandal.”
Surely there is something ironic about taking 618 words to complain that Dowd's 724 word column is overkill?
5. justlooking - April 21, 1999 - 11:27 AM PT
Dowd is a witch.
6. benear - April 21, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
Other than NPR and the Washington Post, what Washington media are you referring to? Now the New York media certainly focuses on things few in the hinterlands care about. Is CNN the Atlanta media? That leaves only the Hollywood media. Now there's something people care about!
7. RosettaStone - April 21, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT
Not so. Dowd's Irish, pretty and actor Michael Douglas's girlfriend. I wish my daughters do as well as she does.
Now, Sec. of State Madeleine Not-2-Bright is a witch. I've seen the broom.
8. FreetoChoose - April 21, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
benear
There's
RollCall,
The Hill, and
Capitol NewsWire
9. benear - April 21, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
And the circulation outside of Washington would be? It's a one industry town, so naturally the local press is devoted to covering that industry. Like who reads the Cincinnati Inquirer outside of Cincinnatians? My point: This thread has a faulty premise.
10. JADEgold - April 21, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
benear;
"The Hill" and "RollCall" are unique in that they cover news "within the Beltway." They don't cover news like Mark McGwire or earthquakes or other traditional news. Instead, they cover politics--the machinations of Congress and the Executive branch.
11. IrvingSnodgrass - April 21, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
The thread topic refers to reporting *on* Washington, not *in* Washington. Almost every news organization or paper in the USA has a reporter or bureau in Washington. The NYT's Dowd is an example of "Washington Media."
12. FreetoChoose - April 21, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
benear
“And the circulation outside of Washington would be?”
Larger than the Cincinnati Inquirer, at least among people who affect our lives.
“It's a one industry town, so naturally the local press is devoted to covering that industry.”
But it isn't just any ol' industry. It's the industry that holds more power over your life than any other. If they aren't talking about things that matter to you, you should be concerned. I don't really care what the Inquirer finds important, but they don't hold power over my life. Readers of the RollCall do.
13. JJBiener - April 21, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
benear - The Washington Media also includes the Washington Press Corp, i.e. the Washington representatives of the major TV and radio networks, the news services, the national magazines, major newspapers, etc.
14. JADEgold - April 21, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
Additionally, the Washington media is comprised of "think tanks," lobbyists, and pundits with an agenda.
15. benear - April 21, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
What power over my life would that be? Quite frankly, you (figuratively) inside the beltwayers are too full of yourselves (figuratively).
16. JADEgold - April 21, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
benear;
There is not an aspect of your life which is not touched, if not affected, by the Washington media.
Here's an example: ever watch one of the talking head shows on Sunday? You know, the McLaughlin Group, Meet the Press, etc? Take a look at the commercials sometime. Ask yourself why would a Lockheed Martin advertise F-18s? You can't buy one. Why does Lockheed Martin spend the money on these ads?
17. cmboyce - April 21, 1999 - 12:38 PM PT
Well, the Washington news seems to have a remarkably salacious quality in recent years, which is surely an obvious subtext to this thread. And does the public generally care about the sex lives of the powerful? Well, probably ("Inquiring Minds Want to Know"), but they were pleased to _say_ they didn't, when the Republican House leaders decided they could make a play of their own with Clinton's peccadilloes. The public read it the way they wanted, for pleasure, I guess, & didn't think the government should halt therefor.
So is the press "to blame"? The first consideration probably should be, is the press to blame for much of anything? A public that tolerates the tabs without difficulty, along with the likes of Screw and what have you, is being disingenuous when it complains about the NYT and the WP et al, imo.
18. benear - April 21, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
Irv. I understand completely. However, the Washington Bureau of say the Atlanta Journal Constitution does report on things of importance to Atlantans, otherwise they would not get much column space. The AJC is a local medium and on any given day there is not a whole lot about Washington on the front page. If there is, they make every effort to give it a local spin.
I am well aware of Roll Call, etc., but those are "local" like the AJC. My point: there is no such thing as the Washington media except for the local media which of course reports on things of interest to local people.
During the height of the scandal, CNN was a Washington medium. Yesterday they were a Kosovar medium. Today, they are a Denver medium. I haven't seen today's WP, but I'll bet there was more about what happened in Denver yesterday than what happened in Washington.
Succinctly: There is the National media and there is the local media. The Washington media is by definition local.
19. OhioSTOPAS - April 21, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Many of the members of the "Washington media" of 1998-99 are people who have not demonstrated expertise in anything other than the adventures of the President's penis, but are nevertheless now advising our generals on military strategy.
20. JADEgold - April 21, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Good point, cmboyce.
This is a media-wide problem; the tendency of most media is to concentrate on controversy instead of issues. And it sells. Most Americans would rather listen to a debate on BC's sex life than a debate on Fed interest rate policy.
I suspect this is why the talking heads and news anchors aren't really journalists and reporters anymore. They're personalities; Sam Donaldson isn't interested in pursuing a story--he's more interested in provoking a controversy.
James Fallows wrote an excellent book on the subject.
21. benear - April 21, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Jade #16: Hahahahahahahaah. You are so funny. Like I said you vastly overestimate the power of Washington, let alone its media, over my life.
22. JADEgold - April 21, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
benear;
I don't overestimate it. If anything, I underestimate it.
23. benear - April 21, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
The last time the federal government had ANY influence over anything I did was two years ago when I ended my career working for Department of Energy environmental contractors (I wish the "Washington Media" would focus on the real scandals).
Today, I work for an independent Federal corporation, and even now the government has little influence in my day to day decisionmaking.
Why does Lockheed run those commercials? It's part of their sophisticated and rather effective lobbying effort.
24. JADEgold - April 21, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Benear;
Yes. It's a lobbying effort. But who is it aimed at?
Hint: It's not aimed at the DoD; they can't call up and order a dozen with the Sidewinder and CD-changer option.
What's an independent Federal corporation?
25. benear - April 21, 1999 - 1:07 PM PT
Why, Jade, it is aimed at Congress. The people of Marietta Georgia will vote how they vote no matter what commercials Lockheed runs. Likewise Idaho Falls Idaho and Bethesda Maryland.
Independent Federal corporation: There are only a few of them. You figure it out.
26. FreetoChoose - April 21, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
benear
“Quite frankly, you (figuratively) inside the beltwayers are too full of yourselves (figuratively).”
In other words, you agree with the subtitle of this thread?
27. FreetoChoose - April 21, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
benear
“The last time the federal government had ANY influence over anything I did was two years ago…”
You haven't filed or paid taxes in two years?
You haven't driven on a road in the last two years?
You haven't listed to a radio or TV in the last two years?
I KNOW you've used the internet in the last two years.
28. benear - April 21, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Freeto: I don't agree with the subtitle. The "Washington media" is of interest to people in Washington, just as the San Jose Mercury News is of interest to people in San Jose.
Sure, I pay taxes, but I also pay my bills and have enough left over to pretty much do what I want. So, no, taxes don't effect me on a daily basis.
I do use roads, but last time I looked, those orange barrels were being placed by contractors to the State. And, yea yea, I know about the highway trust fund.
Radio, TV, the internet, I use them but as a consumer I thought I was affecting them more than they are affecting me.
So, even if I concede your point, which I will cheerfully do, then gee, occassionaly a bureaucrat somewhere has affected my life in some small way. Those windbags in Congress? LOL. Clinton? LOL. The cabinet? LOL. OK, everytime I see Bob Barr's face on TV I pray that firearms proliferate and someday that bastard might get caught in the crossfire between the homos and the pro-abortionists.
29. ranheim - April 21, 1999 - 4:00 PM PT
I am not familar with their print media. My wife and I boycott all news broadcasts; the one exception being Sam & Cokie whom I watch on some Sunday mornings. This goes back 10/15 years; possibly more. I tended to trust "David and Chet". Stopped watching when Huntley quit.
We prefer to obtain our news locally; and, fortunately, the Baton Rouge Advocate is a fairly good newspaper. I don't blame the talking heads. It is the one or two steps above them who carefully pick the topics that I blame. I bleieve they are the cause of the vague feeling of many americans that the news is biased toward liberalism/left wing/progressive/socialist.
My wife prefers to watch the Antique Road Show; A&E; Discovery. I am a sports junkie. So we pretty well tune the Washington media out.
30. cllrdr - April 21, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
I think we're missing something here. It has to do with the nature of the press today and the way it functions. Dismissing the Beltway media as merely reflective of the gossip of a "company town" is easily done. The same thing has been said of Hollywood for years. But Hollywood "reporting" -- which is to say Personality Journalism -- has become the template for the Beltway. And this form has in turn subsumbed what used to be known as "serious journalism."
Today the way to be "taken seriously" is to get on television. And getting on television means being a pundit -- of the sort approved by the media powers-that-be. That's easily understood. But what's happened over the past few years is something far subtler. It relates to Sally Quinn's famous column published in the "Washington Post" the day before the last election, about how the Clintons had come in and "trashed the place." Quinn played a hand I never expected to be shown in public. She played the Class Card. From the bottom of the deck. What I'm talking about has to do with something other than money and "breeding" (she married the former and has none of the latter) so much as it has to do with the primitive tribalism of the Beltway media functioning as a class apart. Or as Warren Beatty put it so succinctly in "Bulworth" -- "It's a club!"
I'll be posting more about this shortly, but right now I've got to rummage around a bit.
31. benear - April 21, 1999 - 4:05 PM PT
Mr. Heim: Since you tune it out you are unaware that at least 50% of the pundits are conservative and at least 30% of those are radically conservative. Liberal media? LOL.
32. AuNaturel - April 21, 1999 - 4:05 PM PT
The Washington Media are a giant circle jerk. Might be fun to participate in if you're into that sort of thing but takes a strange sense of humor to watch very much of.
33. benear - April 21, 1999 - 4:09 PM PT
Oh God. With my luck I would get Bob Novak on one side and Pat Buchanan on the other. SHUDDER
34. ranheim - April 21, 1999 - 4:09 PM PT
for benear
What is your source of this information? If its personal observation, mine is worth as much as yours.
35. cllrdr - April 21, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
I'd put it at 60-75% myself.
BTW, Snitch and Spikey are comin' to town this weekend for appearances at the "Los Angeles Times Book Fair." Cellar Door will, of course, be present to pound them mercilessly -- time, weather, and opportunity permitting.
Andy questions you'd like to lob at these suckers?
36. benear - April 21, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
Yea Celler, I have heard Pat't penis is smaller than Boba's and I have heard that Bob is really a woman. "Get the facts, Jack."
M. Heim, why yes, it is more than casual observation. But you said you tuned it out. So, what have you been observing? I can't believe the Baton Rouge Rag is a liberal bastion. Then again, it is a college town.
37. ranheim - April 21, 1999 - 5:27 PM PT
Benear
You are forgetting that the print media comments on TV?
38. benear - April 21, 1999 - 5:41 PM PT
ranheim #29: "I am not familiar with their print media..."? Welcome to the Fray. I haven't seen you here before. Please be careful and don't get discouraged. There are some unforgiving people here who would take your seeming inconsistency and mercilessly heap ridicule upon your poor cyberself. I am not one of those people, unless of course you are a relative of Boba's.
P.S. watch your spelling and typos. just a friendly warning.
39. JJBiener - April 21, 1999 - 7:58 PM PT
benear - "Since you tune it out you are unaware that at least 50% of the pundits are conservative and at least 30% of those are radically conservative."
I will assume that this is an honest misunderstanding, and not a deliberate distortion. I can understand how you might come to such a distorted view. Conservative pundits are almost always identified as conservatives when they are introduced or referenced. Liberal pundits are almost never identified as liberal. This gives the impression conservatives are represented at much higher levels than they actually are.
It is not a deliberate deception. Since most in the media are liberal, they tend not to identify others with similar views as liberal.
40. MsIvoryTower - April 21, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
And just what do you offer in support of this assertion JJB, other than hacking the party line.
An old one at that.
41. CalGal - April 21, 1999 - 9:08 PM PT
JJ,
For one thing, there aren't all that many truly liberal pundits left. And even fewer party hacks. Both sorts are generally known as such.
So I don't see how you can make such an assertion.
The media just isn't all that liberal any more. If it ever was.
42. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 6:22 AM PT
"Liberal pundits are almost never identified as liberal."
That's because *there are no liberal pundits* !
43. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 6:23 AM PT
In the land of the meat puppets a "liberal" is anyone who doesn't parrot every word that comes out of Robert Novak's mouth.
44. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 6:39 AM PT
Chris Hitchens is a liberal/socialist columnist, but because he's not a Clinton cultist, David hates him.
Get it...
45. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 6:44 AM PT
I can think of very few liberal "talking heads" within the Beltway. Eleanor Clift. Maybe Al Hunt. Beyond them, I draw a blank.
Hitchens is an odd case; he has no ideology other than making money.
46. benear - April 22, 1999 - 6:48 AM PT
JJ: You're telling jokes. Hahahaaha. Aren't you? I just happened to watch that ludicrous Chris Matthews (he has his own show, you know) rant for an hour about the "violent and sadistic" crap coming out of Hollywood. You know, things like Pulp Fiction and Casino.
First of all, the man don't know jack about sadism. Secondly, his kind dominate the cable talk shows. The reason: they're more articulate in stating reasoned and thoughtful arguments as to why the government should be off our backs and in our bedrooms.
I have long ago given up hope that the liberals, even the self identified ones, would come up with articulate columnists and talking heads. The most egregious example is Newsweek where for years George Will has advanced the faciast agenda in an articulate and entertaining manner while Meg Greenfield just whines. It's depressing.
47. benear - April 22, 1999 - 7:02 AM PT
In fact, I quit reading Meg. I probably could write the column, word for word, that she is going to or already has written about the Littleton thing. My prediction: it will be a 500 word whine. Skip it.
Wasn't John Hinkley from Littleton?
48. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 7:03 AM PT
Again, benear, the problem is that the news and news analysis has become a form of entertainment. The GOFP has done a far better job of tapping into this fact than the Dems.
Some time ago, MsIT gave a thumbnail sketch of Rush Limbaugh and his effect on political debate. I can't reproduce it or quote it verbatim, but the gist was that he had dumbed down the debate by reducing everything to flippant one-liners.
Unfortunately, very few issues can be resolved or addressed in one-liners. Yet, this is SOP for conservative pundits and the GOFP. Another alarming facet is the connection between the conservative media and the GOFP. Examples: Will prepping Reagan for debates, Will's wife on Dole's staff, Novak's involvement with Quayle, etc.
Are we seriously getting valid news analyses from someone who is on the payroll of a political party?
49. benear - April 22, 1999 - 7:08 AM PT
We seem to be in total agreement on this one, JADE. Where is the fun in that? Bring on the foamers!!
50. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 7:30 AM PT
"44. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 6:39 AM PT
Chris Hitchens is a liberal/socialist columnist, but because he's not a Clinton cultist, David hates him.
Get it..."
Uh, no dear. I hate Hitchens because he *does* have half a brain,and he's been wasting it blathering over his hissy-fit with Blumenthal -- dragging the rest of us into the process. I loved his attacks on Mother Theresa. I loved much of his writing -- prior to this specious nonsense. Of course it's useless talking to the likes of you, who think anyone who doesn't vote Republican is a Clinton "Enabler."
51. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
Chris Matthews' "liberalism" consists entirely of his mantra-like mouthing of "Back when I was working for Tip O'Neal."
He's one of those Cowardly Drunks who starts fights, then backs off while his best pal the Truly Psychotic Drunk steps in to finish the job.
52. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 7:35 AM PT
Chris Matthews is far more violent than Joe Pesci.
53. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 7:37 AM PT
Chris Matthews should be ashamed.
My favorite Chris Matthews moment was when he predicted that "Saving Private Ryan" would win Best Pic Oscar. His reasoning: Hollywood was so guilty for supporting BC that they would honor a patriotic fim as penance.
54. ranheim - April 22, 1999 - 7:37 AM PT
For me this thread would have been much simpler had it been entitiled "East Coast Media". It never occurs to me to question whether the source is Boston/NYCity/Washinton/Baltimore/Atlanta.
Dispose of Atlanta first : CNN is quite a way left/liberal/progressive/socialist. Remember Hanoi Jane? CNN is not quite that far left. I don't consider Judy Woodruff (spelling) a right wing zealot. Didn't she come from Public TV where her show was consistently anti-America?
Where in the scheme of things are NPR? Public TV?
Where are the headquarters of Time/Newsweek/USNews? For years I have been saying " "Time is socialist; Newsweek is communist; and US News is blah". So does one then subscribe to the Moonies' Insight for balance?
Where are the headquarters for Brokaw; Jennings; Rather? Are they to be considered right/conservative/Tory?
Washington Week in Review? Where on the scale of left vs right?
Same for the Capital Gang; Crossfire; others.
Does one include Rush Limbaugh? Ollie North? Others of that ilk in this discussion?
Fascism is an interesting term. I lived through most of their existence. What I recall + what very little I have read : the top brass of the Nazi (Party?) co-operated with the German captains of industry to turn out products for use in the war. How different from that is Washington and Boeing co-operating to produce a bomber? An ICBM? Is this co-operation right? left?
As I have said previously, I tune much/most of this "stuff" out. One would have to live in a non-electrified cave not to have heard these names.
Unless there are great many more shows/pundits of whom I am not aware, I find it hard to place 50% of those above conservative; with another 30% radically conservative.
55. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
Well ranheim, I guess unless NBC becomes an owned and operated subsidiary of freerepublic you won't feel it's "balanced," right?
A pop quiz:
Who owns NBC?
Who is Andrea Mitchell's husband?
Who is Maureen Orth's husband?
Who is Judy Woodruff's husband?
Who is Joseph DiGenova's wife?
What was Sally Quinn's relationship to Ben Bradlee prior to their marriage?
What was NBC reporter Pete Williams' job prior to joining the network? Who did he answer to at that job?
Hey, this is fun!
56. benear - April 22, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
RanMan: You are too funny. I tried to give you a friendly warning. Now MsIT is going to spank your ass for a few misspelled words. And JADE is going to hunt you down like a dog.
BTW: Jane may shop at Nordstrom's at Perimeter Mall, but she does not run CNN.
Celler:
1: General Eclectic
2: Alan Greenspam
3: I forgot
4: C
5: Chris Matthews
6: She was his dominatrix
7: Pete tastefully hung the drapes at the Pentagon
57. CharlieL - April 22, 1999 - 8:03 AM PT
"Didn't [Judy Woodruff] come from Public TV where her show was consistently anti-America?"
Remember, folks, in ranheim's "America," it is anti-American to ask questions, and also to doubt the veracity of the PR flak coming from Washington.
Wow! I guess JJ and UnaBoomer have been anti-American all along!
58. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 8:05 AM PT
Orth: Timmy Russert
diGenova the slimy %^*%: Victoria Toensing
59. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
Mitchell is married to Alan G.
Woodruff is married to Al Hunt.
Or something like that.
60. benear - April 22, 1999 - 8:14 AM PT
I see a left wing conspiracy here: Two reporters married to two Al's. What's the odds of that being random?
61. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
Hey, whatever happened to "Random"?
62. CharlieL - April 22, 1999 - 8:21 AM PT
"I see a left wing conspiracy here: Two reporters married to two Al's. What's the odds of that being random?"
It's just a guess, but...
Approximately 100%?
Now, if you throw in the fact that the VP is also named Al, that makes it...
Approximately 100%?
63. CharlieL - April 22, 1999 - 8:24 AM PT
random imploded over the Pacific a while back, giving rise to the weather phenomenon occurring between "El Niño" and "El Niña," known as "El Ñitwit."
64. CharlieL - April 22, 1999 - 8:26 AM PT
Yeah, I know, it should have been "La Niña..."
Sue me.
65. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 8:37 AM PT
"Al" is a Beltway name in the same way that "Scott" is a gay name.
66. benear - April 22, 1999 - 8:47 AM PT
I get such an education in here.
I think Random went into showbizness by joining the Illinois Lottery Commission. You can catch his act nightly on WGN.
67. ranheim - April 22, 1999 - 10:16 AM PT
#57 caused me to think just a "tad" as to what Ranheim's America would look like. First of all, we would need a time capsule. The War Between the States should never have been fought. No other nation (not even the Tsars) fought a war over slavery. So back 150 years in our imaginary time machine.
1)What did Washington say about entangling alliances? Jefferson : "The govt that governs least, governs best. (Yes, he purchased the LA Territory - I probably would have opposed). Monroe and his doctrine.
2)No central bank. Gold coins would be in many pockets.
3) Huge fights in regard the tariff; because that would be Washington,D.C.'s main source of funds. There would be no income tax. I would have to think more about a consumption tax.
4)Albany, New York; Pierre, S.Dakota; etc. would be more important in the lives of the voters of those states than Washington, D.C.
5) John C. Calhoun and his theory of nullification would be the subject for serious debate; not a cause for war.
6)A militia would protect the USA from invasion. There would be no government instrument for the projection of power abroad. Domestic tranquility would be a fact (irregardless of the manpower each state needed); not just a phrase in a history book.
7) Some sort of labor organization would be tried. The Robber Barons were too selfish to give truly living wages. This organization would be an attempt to prevent the now known history of Washington's bungling interference between Big Business and Big Labor.
8) Thomas Paine and James Callender would be permitted to write newspaper articles. But, there would be a process by which reporters could be more easily sued for slander. Washington's media is akin to a toothache. It has to be endured.
If these opinions should make me a neanderthal,I certainly will make no apology for them. And, in my sixties, I have never been in a spelling bee. Apologies to all of you who are offended.
68. benear - April 22, 1999 - 10:53 AM PT
And in 1943, the German Luftwaffe would be in the skies over Chicago and the Wehrmacht would be having casual little lunches in our wonderfull sidewalk cafes. The malitia? They would be helping to escort American Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, tramps and thieves into the ovens in Kankakee.
69. harper - April 22, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
cllrdr: Message #35
Ask them if they're sleeping together. If they're not, then ask them who *are* they screwing this week.
70. harper - April 22, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
Oh for the days of Edward R. Morrow.
People like Barbara Walters (being taken seriously) have hurt the media. As a Beltway insider, I feel that the "Washington" media collectively need an enema. That might loosen them up a bit.I can't even think of a talking head with any credibility right now, can anyone else?
In order to get a fair take on things, maybe one needs to read the Post and the Washington Times, then divide by 2.
71. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
The Post is pretty bad, but the Times is abysmal.
72. benear - April 22, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
Hey, I wouldn't kick Fred Barnes out of bed. And who is that studmuffin on Geraldo? Dan....something. Geraldo should make him take his shirt off!
73. benear - April 22, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
I'm sorry. You said credibility. I thought you said fuckability.
74. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
Reality Check for JadeGold
Best think that has happened to Washington in the last ten years is the success of the Washington Times. The paper has great contacts in Congress and the Pentagon, and helps to keep the Post honest.
Curiously, the Times is also very good on local issues. I guess the Post doesn't think they are important anymore.
The reason the Post is now in color is also because of the Times.
75. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
think=thing
76. benear - April 22, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Color. Now there is a journalistic standard we can all aspire to.
77. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
It's wonderful. Especially now that the NYTimes and Post are using it. It's brings life to the newspaper and is one reason why my kids now look at the front page of the newspapers.
78. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
benear: You have no idea how hard it is for me to get my kids to watch classic movies when they are in b/w.
It's something that can't be explained unless it happens to you.
B/W is just not cool. My son even said it was "gay" which shows you how words are changing.
79. benear - April 22, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT
Changing? hardly. The stereotype that gays like old black and white movies is an old one. Is your son old enough to know that? If so, it is sad but typical that hatred of a group or class or race or etc., is being instilled in one so young. I, for one, don't wonder why things like Littleton happen. Kids reflect in a distorted way their environment.
And, don't take offense Rosie. I am not accusing you of anything. I don't even know you. I am just asking an honest question. How old is he?
80. harper - April 22, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
RosettaStone: Message #74
I wouldn't wipe my ass with the Washington Times.
81. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Well, then don't. But you sure do have a bad odor.
82. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
"Gay" has become a word that public school kids use all the time now to say it's not cool. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with hating homosexuals.
83. benear - April 22, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
Dream on.
84. Wombat - April 22, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT
Ranheim:
You would be living in a very poor country. Either that or a province of Canada (or Mexico).
Incidentally, the Monroe Doctrine was unenforceable by the United States at the time it was promulgated. Fortunately, Britain decided that it was in its best interests to go along with it. In your system, the Monroe Doctrine would still be unenforceable.
85. benear - April 22, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
Mr. Bat: Look on the bright side. Der Furher would be Pat Buchanan and he would report directly to Berlin.
86. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
I can't think of a worse paper than the Wash Times. Maybe that fascist rag in Manchester.
It's a Moonie paper. Its editor is a segregationist. Its chief financial and economic affairs editor is a supply-sider.
It is simply the worst paper in the US.
This is not to say the Wash Post is anything but mediocre.
87. CharlieL - April 22, 1999 - 12:38 PM PT
Message #80 - harper, you better not, unless you want a bright orange stripe up your backbone...
88. CalGal - April 22, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
Benear,
Yeah, that Dan (Jenkins, maybe?) is a cutie. Idiot, though.
89. CharlieL - April 22, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
Jade, don't forget the "sterling leadership" of Count de Borchgrave. When he was the editor of the Times he thought ranheim's America was reality.
90. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Editor Borchgrave is now trying to save the venerable UPI. Latest Crisis: It's Arab owners don't want to pay their writers salaries anymore.
91. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
One last thing before I go back to work.
The Washington Times gets tons of free publicity every day because C-SPAN uses its front page as one of three newspapers they highlight on Washington Journal.
It's made the paper popular around the country to those people who like the headlines and articles.
92. JADEgold - April 22, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
Charlie;
I forgot about Armand!
I particularly like the coup that happened at the Times about 15 years ago. Editors and managers were forced to join the Unification Church or be forced out. A couple editors did resign and sued Moon.
Some editors are plainly embarassed when quizzed on the subject.
"I have never received guidance or direction on any story from Sun Myung Moon or his church."
Are you a member of the Unification Church?
"Errr...yes."
93. benear - April 22, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
#88 CG: oh yea! Young, dumb and full of cum.
94. harper - April 22, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
The problem with reporting *on* Washington is that everyone has an agenda. Media types seem to talk only to the people who have the same agenda or think the same way they do. So you have "conservative" media types and "liberal" media types. But try to name one "unbiased" media type.
In reporting on Washington, they tend to be sloppy in checking their sources because they think they'll lose the scoop if they take the time to fact check. So there's a lot of misinformation flying around. There's so much competition that everyone & everything are fair game. There are no "gentleman's agreements" any more. The more prurient the better.
95. OhioSTOPAS - April 22, 1999 - 1:47 PM PT
I had the "pleasure" of hearing the detestible Chris Matthews substituting for Rush Limbaugh on the radio today. (I always tune in Rush when I happen to be in my car at lunch hour. I also can't resist looking at auto accidents.)
Matthews led off the show by reading a moving, gripping story about a brave teacher shot at the Littleton school the other day and students' heroic (but sadly futile) efforts to try to save his life. Matthews choked up as he read this story, with perhaps genuine emotion.
But when he finished, without pausing for breath he launched into a rant about how "the media" and President Clinton (and maybe Vice President Gore too) were sure to - in the future - exploit this tragedy to push for gun control and otherwise advance liberal political goals. Matthews denounced the liberals' prospective actions. How dare they!
A neat trick by our boy Chris: Exploiting a tragedy for political ends by denouncing exploiting a tragedy for political ends.
96. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
It would be easy to compare Chris Matthews to pond scum.
But I have too much respect for pond scum. It serves a useful ecological purpose.
Matthews might do so as well, but we have to bury him first to see what grade of fertilizer he might provide.
97. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
I love Hardball. Matthews has lots of interesting guests and highlights all the political news of the day.
Matthews, a loyal Democrat, voted for Clinton twice but gives the Republicans the opportunity to express their opinions.
He reminds me of why I liked Kennedy as a kid.
98. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
He reminds me of why I hated Kennedy as a kid.
Ask me about the Cuban missle crisis, Rosie.
Go ahead -- ask me.
99. RosettaStone - April 22, 1999 - 3:39 PM PT
The only time I ever saw JFK was in Miami, Florida, in 1962 when he was addressing the Cuban freedom fighters after their defeat at the Bay of Pigs. My uncle owned a restaurant down there and our family was visiting the family. He got us in. I was too young to understand the defeat and the Kennedy propaganda was in full force.
Anyway, go on, tell us why you hated Kennedy.
100. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 4:04 PM PT
He tried to kill me.
And you (I'm assuming we're roughly around the same age.)