• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Valerie Plame, Time, and the NYT

Should journalists be compelled to divulge sources to grand juries?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only in certain cases

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

noreaster

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
107
Points
0
My political views are in the middle. Isn't everybody’s? :D

I took a look at FOXNews and compared it to NPR. Trying to find a middle ground. Very interesting differences on reporting. You be the judge.

FOXNews

"This is typical of Democrats. They smell blood and they act like sharks," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told FOX News. "Karl Rove is a good man. He was doing his job ... I don't see that he has done anything wrong."

FOXNews Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame

NPR

All Things Considered, July 13, 2005 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the real issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war, and how America was misled into that war.

Maintaining Focus: Rove and Iraq War Data
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
noreaster- you are comparing apples and oranges there. the foxnews example utilized a source and quoted the source without analyzing the source. this is how most media gets the job done and it's bad bad bad coverage. quoting people is reporting what people are saying, not what is actually happening. being fair and quoting both sides may be balanced and may even be fair, but it is not presenting news, it is presenting opinion and what someone said. daniel schorr is an analyist on the other hand and trends his view points to what most people would consider a liberal's analysis of the situation and does so with well backed up and thought out points of view. NPR also has conservative analysts do the same, i enjoy hearing both sides of the coin. but there is a big difference between an analyist disecting an issue and quoting a politician and calling it news.

i don't mean to hyjack this already hyjacked thread into a media critique, but that was not a good comparison of the two media forms. neither of those examples are "reporting".
 

noreaster

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
107
Points
0
My personal view is Politicians that say things like "This is typical of Democrats. They smell blood and they act like sharks," is not much different than a comedian that can't get the audience to laugh and goes right to human private parts to get a laugh. This is very insulting to the intelligence of Americans and free people everywhere. Democrats do the same thing. Americans deserve better answers than this. Politicians need to stick to the issues and not go for the crotch.
 

noreaster

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
107
Points
0
riverc0il said:
noreaster- i don't mean to hyjack this already hyjacked thread into a media critique, but that was not a good comparison of the two media forms. neither of those examples are "reporting".
ITs the best comparison I could come up with on such short notice. Your right. I wouldn't call either one reporting on the facts.
 

ctenidae

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
8,959
Points
38
Location
SW Connecticut
I was thinking about the whole Rove leak thing today, adn trying to be as analytical as I could be. Here are my thoughts:

1) Karl Rove has never done anything without a specific and well thought out purpose. The man is not stupid, and surely knew that leaking Plame could come back to bite him. Given that he isn't stupid, he probably had his defense laid out well in advance, and decided the risk of getting bitten was outweighed by the purpose of the leak.

The question, then, is what was the purpose? THe only reason I can come up with is to discredit Wilson and distract from his criticism of Bush's move towards Iraq. That brings up another question- Why did the Bush admin feel such a need to quell any criticism of Iraq? I ahve two theories there. One is that the Bush admin is so insecure they feel the need to control every aspect of everything concerning them. That is a possibility, and I kind of hope the right answer. The other theory is scarier- that BushCo did, in fact, orchestrate the whole war affair, and had to discredit all critics in order to cover things up. I hope that's not the case, because the last thing this, or any country needs, is a scandal of that magnitude.
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
One is that the Bush admin is so insecure they feel the need to control every aspect of everything concerning them.
if there is one thing that the bush administration is not, it is insecure in any thing policy they put into place. in fact, such total dedication to follow through on policy scares me. sometimes it is okay to admit a mistake was made (and that is in general, not meaning that to point to any specific issue but as a generalization).
 

pizza

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
259
Points
0
Location
Suffern, NY/Times Square/Killington, VT
Website
www.tursi.com
riverc0il said:
most people who consider themselves independant actually lean liberatarian or green/progressive.

The opposite of Libertarian is not green or progressive - it's authoritarian (Dictatorships, Absolute Monarchies, Facism..)

Green party members are all over the place. Jesse Ventura was actually a Libertarian. Ralph Nader was extreme left. Pat Buchanan was extreme right - but all called themselves green.

Progressive is just another word for liberal.
 

Charlie Schuessler

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Messages
1,126
Points
0
Location
Mont Vernon NH
pizza said:
...Progressive is just another word for liberal...

Now let me get this straight....if pro is the opposite of con...then is the opposite of progress is congress? That must be true because progressive is just another word for liberal so congress must be conservative...and that is supported because it is run by republicans....:wink:

You guys just can leave it alone....go outside and walk around in circles for a while and if you live in an urban area go find some second-hand pot smoke....it might do you some good… :idea:
 

JimG.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
12,170
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
noreaster said:
My personal view is Politicians that say things like "This is typical of Democrats. They smell blood and they act like sharks," is not much different than a comedian that can't get the audience to laugh and goes right to human private parts to get a laugh. This is very insulting to the intelligence of Americans and free people everywhere. Democrats do the same thing. Americans deserve better answers than this. Politicians need to stick to the issues and not go for the crotch.

Kudos! Well said.
 

noreaster

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
107
Points
0
JimG. said:
noreaster said:
..... Politicians need to stick to the issues and not go for the crotch.
Kudos! Well said.
JimG thanks!
Obviously, there are two wrongs here. Politicians that say this stuff and news media like FOX that report it. Maybe 3 wrongs. Americans that read this stuff and think its news.
 

JimG.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
12,170
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
noreaster said:
JimG. said:
noreaster said:
..... Politicians need to stick to the issues and not go for the crotch.
Kudos! Well said.
JimG thanks!
Obviously, there are two wrongs here. Politicians that say this stuff and news media like FOX that report it. Maybe 3 wrongs. Americans that read this stuff and think its news.

Ever see "Mind of Mencia"? Sort of a Hispanic Daily Show. Very funny! He does a section about things that shouldn't be news. Last night it was about 3 emus that escaped from the zoo somewhere. It went on and on.

As a counterpoint, he showed a tape of GWB rehearsing for a satellite TV message. GWB looks at the screen and flips the bird. That's news!
 

Stephen

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
1,213
Points
0
Location
Somersworth, NH
Website
www.dunhom.com
Well, so it now appears that Rove did NOT have access to classified info.

He learned the name from REPORTERS! The free press would NEVER risk our national security like that, would they?

I guess we now know why Judtih Miller is still in jail. She's not protecting Rove... she's had the same waiver that the other reporters have. (In fact, Rove waived it over a year ago.)

Do you really think these reporters give a rat's ass about saving Rove's hide? Of course not, they'd give him up in a heartbeat if they could.

No, the reality is that the Plume source is someone else, and that is why the prosecutor is NOT going after Rove. That is why Judith Miller is not giving up her source. And that is why we now know that ovak is the one who gave Plume's name to Rove. (He testified to that in the grand jury, it's now been revealed.)

Sorry, but this Rove-hunt is over. You'll have to find another way to try and skewer him.

-Stephen
 

ctenidae

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
8,959
Points
38
Location
SW Connecticut
Well, there goes all my fun. Something else will come along. Now, if it wasn't Rove, who was it?

This story has legs, baby!
 

JimG.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
12,170
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
Stephen said:
Well, so it now appears that Rove did NOT have access to classified info.

He learned the name from REPORTERS! The free press would NEVER risk our national security like that, would they?

I guess we now know why Judtih Miller is still in jail. She's not protecting Rove... she's had the same waiver that the other reporters have. (In fact, Rove waived it over a year ago.)

Do you really think these reporters give a rat's ass about saving Rove's hide? Of course not, they'd give him up in a heartbeat if they could.

No, the reality is that the Plume source is someone else, and that is why the prosecutor is NOT going after Rove. That is why Judith Miller is not giving up her source. And that is why we now know that ovak is the one who gave Plume's name to Rove. (He testified to that in the grand jury, it's now been revealed.)

Sorry, but this Rove-hunt is over. You'll have to find another way to try and skewer him.

-Stephen

These developments are fascinating. I really do hope that it plays out that GWB & Co. did nothing wrong...the country just doesn't need the kind of zoo that always develops around these alleged scandals.

And if it plays out that Miller is in jail because she won't give info to help bring the crook who outed Plame into the open, well then she belongs in jail.

And don't even get me started about all the taxpayer money that's already been wasted because she won't spill the beans.
 

noreaster

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
107
Points
0
JimG. said:
These developments are fascinating. I really do hope that it plays out that GWB & Co. did nothing wrong...the country just doesn't need the kind of zoo that always develops around these alleged scandals.
Wow this story is moving fast. I can't keep up. Took a break from the game. Redsox are up 17 to 1 after Ortiz grand slam. GoSOX :beer: Hey JimG your right on that. I don't like GWB but this country doesn't need another scandal in the white house. :blink:
 
Top