Subject:
|
Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:05:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Yes, missing a golden opportunity like this is a shame. I don't care what
> > the Iraqi editors would have done--let them cancel the interview even--ask
> > the questions that need answering--"Saddam, you have killed your
> > citizens--why and are you going to stop?"
> >
> > Ask him--you're sitting across from him.
> >
> > Ah, oh well, opportunity lost.
>
> "Oh well"... "A shame"... ???
>
> Is that the best you can do, Dave? One could argue that this interview(1)
> was "aiding and comforting the enemy", assuming Saddam's our enemy
> specifically(2).
>
> This interview(1) is a perfect example of what's wrong with a lot (not all,
> mind you but a lot) of the media in the US. (and much of the rest of the
> West, including Canada, from what I gather) Really, Dave, I'm disappointed.
> I must say you make a far poorer showing on this than Dave! But then I've
> always suspected you of moral relativisim.
>
> 1 - er, "travesty of a propaganda exercise" rather than "interview", but
> interview is easier to type
>
> 2 - not that I am assuming that, mind you.
>
> ++Lar
Well, I didn't want to get into it deeply for I didn't see the actual
interview, and am only going by what has been said here, as well as the
links posted.
But if true, I don't think I'd string Dan up on the nearest branch--rather
I'd do something like boycott his news show in favour of, hopefully, a more
balanced newscast.
That said, as with another posting along the same line, who, upon viewing
this interview, would be convinced to change their POV?
THe folks that don't want war wouldn't be swayed, and the folks that do want
war wouldn't be swayed--so basically it's a wash.
Another issue I heard a while ago went along the lines of news shows should
just do that--report the news--they shouldn't bias or slant their
'journalistic integrity' for the sake of ratings. Sure they'll do poorly in
the ratings, but does everything have to be about money? When there's an
emergency, we want to know who, what, where, when, how, why and what to do
about it--if the agencies are so worried about ratings, instead of getting
good info out to the viewers, then it's not news, it's a 'reality show' (1).
So if you want me to drag Rather and his company over the coals, well, I'll
do it in my own way--CBS has lost my viewership (which is sad 'cause I do
like David Letterman and Craig Kilborn)
Want me to make a fuss? I learned my lesson--I don't get worked up--I just
take care of 'my family business' in my own way.
See ya CBS.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) In answer to a few other points made... (URL) out the 'toon at the bottom of this page... It has been said that I'm morally 'wishy washy'. I think that, given a cut 'n dry scenario, I am (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| (...) "Oh well"... "A shame"... ??? Is that the best you can do, Dave? One could argue that this interview(1) was "aiding and comforting the enemy", assuming Saddam's our enemy specifically(2). This interview(1) is a perfect example of what's wrong (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
92 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
