Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
What more self-damning statement could there be?

I didn't say I didn't read it, I said I didn't need to read it. But it's not clear that you've read anything.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I didn't say I didn't read it, I said I didn't need to read it. But it's not clear that you've read anything.

You didn't say you read it, either.

I did.

We've only searched 8% of the known possible sites. Thus, your spin-article carries little weight beyond partisan drawing-of-conclusions that satisfy the author's predisposed bent based on completely insufficient evidence.

But, of course, you didn't need to read that, right?

(But, if you change your mind - http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You didn't say you read it, either.

Bilmore: What more damning statement could there be?

me: How about, "I didn't read it." That would be more damning.

We've only searched 8% of the known possible sites. Thus, your spin-article carries little weight beyond partisan drawing-of-conclusions that satisfy the author's predisposed bent based on completely insufficient evidence.

me: Here's an article that points that that there's nothing of substance in the Kay report.

Bilmore: They've only had several months to search the country, and haven't looked everywhere yet.

me: Then someone should tell Bush before he claims the report as vindication. Oops, too late.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Then someone should tell Bush before he claims the report as vindication. Oops, too late.

Wait. First, you claim he buried it. Now, he's claiming it as vindication? I think you need to pick one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wait. First, you claim he buried it. Now, he's claiming it as vindication? I think you need to pick one.

Did you look at the news Friday? It was obviously orchestrated. The report was released, and Bush claimed victory that afternoon, ensuring that (1) fewer people heard about it, and (2) those who did came away with the wrong impression. (Especially those watching FOX.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(Especially those watching FOX.)

I don't understand what you mean by this part.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't understand what you mean by this part.

I was referring, tongue in cheek, to the stories discussed on this board in the last few days to the effect that people who rely on FOX rather than other media* were morely likely misinformed about certain recent events.

* Since this study seemed to look at people who relied exclusively on one network/source, maybe everybody they surveyed was some sort of freak.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was referring, tongue in cheek, to the stories discussed on this board in the last few days to the effect that people who rely on FOX rather than other media* were morely likely misinformed about certain recent events.

* Since this study seemed to look at people who relied exclusively on one network/source, maybe everybody they surveyed was some sort of freak.

Ah, that. I wondered about that survey - if it were re-done, testing on people's knowledge of the current state of affairs in Iraq, I figured the results would simply all trade places.

[bilmore]

Too bad. Looks like it's Governor Arnold.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Too bad. Looks like it's Governor Arnold.

On the plus side, maybe this means Cruz Bustamante hang them up.

[ias_39]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

On the plus side

For the dem's, the plus side is that Davis lost. The LA Slime was stoopid drunk for letting out the Arnold stories. Arnold's poor performance as governor will help sustain the dem's lock on Cali politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ias_39
The LA Slime was stoopid drunk for letting out the Arnold stories.

I don't understand what anyone thinks the LA Times did wrong. There's obviously a story there. I don't understand why anyone thinks they would sit on it, waiting for someone else to break it.

[ias_39]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

I don't understand what anyone thinks the LA Times did wrong. There's obviously a story there. I don't understand why anyone thinks they would sit on it, waiting for someone else to break it.

If they hadn't sat on it, I wouldn't be critical. They had enough to run earlier, but chose not to. The LA Slime writes up stories and sits on them until days before an election to achieve maximal effect. They're good at it too. You think it was pure chance that they pulled last minute stories of smut on Arnold and Herschensohn days before an election? Doubtful.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ias_39
If they hadn't sat on it, I wouldn't be critical. They had enough to run earlier, but chose not to. The LA Slime writes up stories and sits on them until days before an election to achieve maximal effect. They're good at it too. You think it was pure chance that they pulled last minute stories of smut on Arnold and Herschensohn days before an election? Doubtful.

God bless the free market in action, then.

But why would they sit on it? Are they really going to sell more papers just before the election? And they risk that someone else will run it first.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But why would they sit on it?

Because they have abdicated the role of the press to others, and have, instead, taken on the role of raw partisan participation, no longer merely reporting, but now actually manufacturing the news, in a blatant move to ensure the promulgation of their own political philosophies. They have decided to stop telling people facts and letting them make up thier own minds, and instead now manage the news to attain their own desires. They have become whores.

Sell more papers? That's small thinking. Single-handedly defeat a recall election? Now, that's power.

Here's a story in the LA Weekly about all of this that's interesting. The story contains no factual support for its thesis, ("Insider knowledge" only) and so, for now, should be read only as innuendo, but it will be interesting to see if it fleshes out in the coming days. If it does, I would expect to see the top layer of the Times looking for work, as the owner attempts to retake some semblence of respectability.