| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2003/11/27-28 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media] UID:11248 Activity:nil |
11/26 This should be censored really fast. More on the media's left bias:
http://www.thehill.com/york/112603.aspx
\_ What about the WMD (or lack thereof) stories that get buried on
the back pages? The fact is that the media is biased against
anything that doesn't sell to the lowest common denominator,
because they are corporate owned and beholden to the almighty bottom
line. Obscure political scandals aren't juicy enough until they
snowball, preferably with public hearings, and even then you need
an obvious villian and an obvious victim. Both the right wing
and left wing need to stop whining about this and do something
about it, if they really care. This is what independent media is
all about.
\_ WMD? So you want an above the fold front page headline every
day that says, "STILL NO WMD!"? Uhm, hello?
\_ Uhm hello to you. Remember the "chemical weapons vans?"
Remember where THAT story got retracted? Scandals take
a very long time to build. The original article is just
bitching because the scandal isn't nearly as interesting
as the columnist wants it to be.
\_ And "interesting" as the media defines it is "sounds good
in a 10 second sound bite" and "preferably involves sex
and/or drugs" and "can be understood by someone with the
mental capacity of a turnip." Look at the Michael
Jackson story, for instance - even better since it
involves a celebrity, though that isn't required
(c.f. Laci Peterson).
\_ Where did the chemical weapons van story get retracted?
AIRC, the end of the story was the vans might have been
used as such and probably had the capability of such and
were scrubbed clean in a suspicious way to eliminate all
possible evidence of such leaving us with a good guess
that they were used as such but not solid proof as they
were cleaned of such. Such is the way of things. So what
was there to retract?
\_ Also, never underestimate the influence of press "turf wars" on
what does and does not get covered. The NYTimes and the WaPo
have a long standing rivalry, and often if the WaPo is
taking the lead on a juicy story the Times will try to pretend
it doesn't exist. This is why the Times was so far behind
the WaPo on Watergate, apparently.
\_ Wait... if you are competing, pretending the story doesn't
exist is idiotic.
\_ I didn't say it wasn't, though I'd use the phrase "stupid
pride" as a more accurate description. I was just
pointing something out that happens. Why do computer
people always assume that everyone simply obeys logic?
\_ Why do you assume I am a computer person?
\_ Lets see. You have a soda account. You write to
the motd. You seem to thinking only in terms of
binary logic when terms like "turf war" and
"rivalry" can imply something other than logic.
Seems pretty likely that you are a computer
person.
\_ You may be surprised to learn that the CSUA grants
accounts to any berkeley undergrad interested in
CS, not just 'computer people.' Furthermore,
the only thing I said was that ignoring a story
during journalistic competition is idiotic
(which is true). There can certainly be many
reasons why people may have ignored a story.
Political bias, pride, incompetence, etc.
These are all reasons. This doesn't change
the inherent idiocy of the situation, and I don't
think me pointing this out entitles you to any
judgements about me using 'binary logic', whatever
the hell that means (presumably some sort of
insult). |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.thehill.com/york/112603.aspx Imagine this: A liberal publication obtains copies of secret internal memos by members of Vice President Dick Cheneys energy task force. The documents reveal that Cheney and his aides not only consulted big energy companies but actually took orders from those companies in crafting national policy. If an oil company wanted the vice president to hold off on an initiative, then the vice president held off on the initiative. If an electricity giant wanted the vice president to block the appointment of a regulatory official, then the vice president blocked the appointment. The documents even suggest the administration knows it is doing wrong; When the memos are published, the administration doesnt deny the facts but instead accuses Democrats of stealing the documents. Now ask yourself: Were all that to happen, do you think the story would be ignored by The New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , the news sections of The Wall Street Journal , and ABC, NBC and CBS? And in the one big paper to mention the story, The Washington Post , do you think the only report devoted to the subject, a brief wire-service account on Page A-4, would be headlined, Apparent Theft of Memos Probed? However the Cheney memos became known, the primary story would be their substance, and what they revealed about the internal workings of the energy task force. But something quite similar is going on right now, concerning not the presidents energy policies but his judicial nominations. Recently, The Wall Street Journal editorial page published excerpts from a group of memos written by Democratic staffers to Sens. The staffer continued: They the groups want to hold Estrada off as long as possible. And guess what: The Democrats held Estrada off as long as possible not scheduling a vote for him when they controlled the Judiciary Committee, and filibustering him when they became the minority party. Another memo, to Kennedy, dated April 17, 2002, details how the NAACP Legal Defense Fund asked Democrats to delay the nomination of Julia Scott Gibbons to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Legal Defense Fund officials did not want her on the court when the University of Michigan affirmative action case was decided. Members of Kennedys staff conceded they were a little concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case. Now that the memos have become public, have Democrats denied any of it? Rather, their defense has been to claim that Republicans stole the documents. It appears that the documents in question were taken without authorization and possibly illegally, Durbin wrote in a letter to the Senate sergeant at arms. Late Tuesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch R-Utah announced that a Republican staffer had been placed on administrative leave after having improperly accessed some of the memos. Its not at all clear if that means the staffer, or any other staffer, in fact stole the documents. But if that did happen, then whoever is responsible should be fired. But none of that changes the fact that it is the substance of the memos that is the greater issue here. The memos raise serious and troubling questions about the power which Senate Democrats granted to outside interest groups in the confirmation process. Editors note: This is a revised version of the original York column, which went to press before Sen. |