The value of a free press

[Bill McIntyre]

So many times I read some of you bitching that all the press does is report bad news, often slanted, designed to appeal to readers.

There is another thread going about the shitty treatment for our returning wounded at Walter Reed Army hospital.

Who uncovered that story and made it news? It wasn't the administration or the Army- it was the Washington Post.

On the news tonight I saw the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army saying that he just wished he had not had to hear about this on the news rather than through the chain of command, and he was promising to personally see that all the problems were corrected. He wasn't denying the existence of the problems, but was just promising to fix them.

The clip of him was followed by an interview with an Army Lt.General doctor and a retired Army Staff NCO medical corps guy who is with a veteran's group called Veterans for America. The SNCO said that he had repeatedly gone to the people in charge over the last three years and pointed out the problems, but nothing was done.

After the press reported it, something is being done.

[spaghetti]

That story about Us Veterans is now on european news too. It touches the hearts.
Comments on our media is that your military medical structures are showing to be inadequate, just because nobody expected so many wounded soldiers (23 thousands, we've been reported: is that it?), and that military hospitals and recovery structures havent' been improved before, because the administration couldn't pay the political price to OPENLY say they were expecting such a huge number of wounded.
--
But comments are comments, facts are facts. And in this case, the WP and the other press has done a good job, because we didn't know anything about that before. Now we know, and anyone can speak out own his comments.

[Christof]

There is another thread going about the shitty treatment for our returning wounded at Walter Reed Army hospital.

Who uncovered that story and made it news? It wasn't the administration or the Army- it was the Washington Post.

My "bitch" Bill is that if Clinton were president right now, the WP would have buried that story on page 13....

I find it amusing that none of the WP-type papers have touched one negative story on Hillary... I have watched that women with close scrutiny since the Clinton administration, and they could devote a whole paper to her and her morphing into position in which she now sits... In fact, I find it hard to find one single other politician that equals her on two-faced agenda and posing...

[Bill McIntyre]

My "bitch" Bill is that if Clinton were president right now, the WP would have buried that story on page 13....

I guess you will always believe that, but there is no way to prove what the WP "might" have done. I think its likely that it would have gotten the same coverage, no matter who was President.

In any event, the press is taking a lot of shit for giving the Bush adminstration a free ride on the war, publishing everything they were told as fact and not doing any fact checking, so its a bit of a stretch to complain now that they are not fair to him.

I find it amusing that none of the WP-type papers have touched one negative story on Hillary... I have watched that women with close scrutiny since the Clinton administration, and they could devote a whole paper to her and her morphing into position in which she now sits... In fact, I find it hard to find one single other politician that equals her on two-faced agenda and posing...

What are you smoking? Do the LA Times and New York Times qualify as "WP type papers?" If so, I've read many articles about her trying to have it both ways by not taking a stand on the war, etc. And today, they both have front page articles on her attacking David Geffen for supporting Obama, when she and Bill used to think he was just wonderful and let him sleep in the White House when he was raising money for them. I wonder just how critical they would have to be to satisfy some of you.

[spaghetti]

I see your point, Cristof, but I don't think a story like that could ever be buried on page 13: readers would get it as an offense. And in any case, that story itself would hit the public opinion even from page 13.
However, the basic meaning of free press should be: tell the people what's going on, with no submission to politicians or big companies, right?. Unfortunately, we don't have much of that, but we have an "acceptable" compromise: the press is not entirely pro-Clinton when Clinton is the president, and not all pro-Bush when Bush is ruling. As long as it's not illegal to write things that will be a pain in the ass for the president in charge, the people can read papers from both sides, and find out that true story is probably in the middle. But it takes a little effort from the people: it is mandatory to use the brain and think. If you don't use your brain while you're reading, it is useless to read.

[Christof]

I've read many articles about her trying to have it both ways by not taking a stand on the war, etc.
Oh PLEESE Bill.... You mean not taking the stand THEY thought was the right one... Find me ONE article, just one, by any of your named papers that has spoken out about her and Bill bribing the group of Rabbi's to get the jewish support in her district. Or the many times she has said one thing, only to denounce the same thing she spoke in support of when it became unpopular (the vote for war is just one of many)...
She stood up and praised herself when Saddam was captured, and boasted of her vote for the war. Now she stands up an blasts the admin for rushing into a war.. She also says Saddam was not a threat... Not what she said back in 2002...
She's the worst when it comes to politicians and self-gain/interests.. Obama is your man... I would vote for him... Not perfect, but a lot closer to you and I than she could ever even imagine herself...

On a last note here, I would never trust a politician, male or female, that has had their eye on the most powerful position in the world since they were in their 20's.. She made her intentions clear back when she was in law school, and has had that end in mind since then... That is dangerous, to thirst for power that badly...

[mcjaret]

I believe that started when Geffen was quoted in a Maureen O'Dowd column in the WP as saying "All politicians lie. What gets me is the Clintons do it with such ease."

Hillary then attacked Obama over Geffen's comment, and Obama hit back. Can't wait till next year when the campaign really heats up.

[Christof]

I cant wait to see those two sqaure off in a debate... I will be laughing my ass off as Hillarys makeup begins to melt off her face...

[peterv]

Congrats to Mr. Geffen for having the courage (in Hollywood no less!)
to say that the Emperor & Empress have no clothes.

I hope he buys the LA paper.

The Clintons may have brains, but the slimy Marc Rich pardon showed their true colors.

[Bill McIntyre]

Congrats to Mr. Geffen for having the courage (in Hollywood no less!)
to say that the Emperor & Empress have no clothes.

I hope he buys the LA paper.



I hope someone does. The Tribune company forced them to lay off a lot of the news staff, and the paper has really gone downhill. The only up side is that it doesn't take me nearly as long to read it in the morning.

[Bill McIntyre]

I saw Sec Def Gates on TV tonight talking about the problem at Walter Reed. He said how grateful he was that the press uncovered this problem, and expressed regret that he didn't know about it without the help of the press.

He said nothing hinting that it would have been on page 13 if Clinton had been the President.

[Mikerotch]

Due to the fact that I despise 536 of the 537 elected idiots in Washington and view them all as socialist ilk, allow me to referee this one, even at the risk of siding with Bill. Obviously, the press as a whole, does a better job of trashing politicians across the board than most give them credit for, and apparently does a fair job of presenting them in a "good" light as well, or else you guys wouldn't have so much ammunition to fire at each other. The truth is, none of them have any principles to stand on, except to serve themselves and the cronies and donors for whom they write their unconstitutional legislation for. Once again, a Bush vs Clinton debate is sort of like picking brain cancer over liver cancer. The end result is the same.

Mikerotch, Stop the Cancer Advocate
(Ron Paul, 2008)


Mikerotch,

[riplipper]

Due to the fact that I despise 536 of the 537 elected idiots in Washington and view them all as socialist ilk, allow me to referee this one, even at the risk of siding with Bill. Mikerotch,

:lol: Now thats funny...but I have to ask, who is the lucky one you dont despise?...your not banging Hillary are you? :eek:

[Mikerotch]

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas, 14th district if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Currently serving as a Republican, but opposes both parties on many issues as his measuring stick for any legislation is the U.S. Constitution. He, in his many years, has yet to vote for anything that in his opinion, was not in keeping with the Constitution and its framers' original intent. He was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1988, I believe, and is rumored to be entering the Republican primary in 2008. He has nearly no chance I'm sure, because most of the population now views government as the means by which to take from others and/or impose their will on others. A list of his many articles and speeches can be found here, including all his predictions regarding Iraq, made prior to our invasion.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

Without a doubt, in my opinion, the most inteligent, principled individual to hold elected office in many moons.

Mikerotch, Ron Paul Advocate

P.S. And no, I'm no Hillary fan, I wouldn't ???? her even using someone else's equipment.

[jackpine savage]

Mikerotch-When you refer to the Constitution in its original intent what exactly do you mean? Wouldn't your idea of what their original intent is simply be an interpretaion which you deem correct? My understanding of the Constitution and the intentions of the framers of this document was that they left it purposely vague in many areas because they foresaw changes ocurring in this nation and felt that the Constitution should "evolve", for lack of better word, to meet these changes.

By the way I agree with you that politicians are for the most part bought and payed for by special interests. There are a few that aren't but they will either retire out of frustration or be relegated to irrelevance. Sadly this nation has the elected officials they deserve until we all wake up.

[Mikerotch]

There are certainly some parts of the Constitution that are a bit vague and a few spots where two reasonable people may draw different conclusions from the same portion. However, and I'm not an expert in this area by any means, there are numerous portions, that when put in context and compared with other writings of the authors, including things written in the federalists papers, the articles of confederation, etc. which had a very concise meaning. Some, for example, the general welfare clause, have been taken to extremes and have been used to promote and allow activities that were never envisioned by the founders as legitimate functions of government.
There are certainly items today to deal with the framers didn't have, but I would contend that their basic framework understood man's nature and placed limits on each branch to keep that nature in check. Unfortunately, as we have taken the limits off, the price we pay is sometimes very high. Examples would include the judicial branch expanding into the area of "legislating" from the bench, the legislative branch spending literally trillions for "general welfare", or the executive branch authorizing torture and suspending habeus corpus.
Finally, knowing that they were, in fact, not "all knowing", they did leave in place the option of amending the constitution, which I would argue is much safer and wiser than arbitrarily changing the meaning of what was written.

Mikerotch, Big Fan Of The Framers, Small Fan Of Politicians