Scott M. Kozel

Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> wrote:
    >
    > "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]>
    > > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> wrote:
    > >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]>
    > >> > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> prattled:
    > >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >> > Bert Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >> >> [email protected] (The Dixie Clits) wrote:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> > Ha ha ha! With Ashcroft that makes five already! This is
    > >> >> >> > the worst (best?) possible indictment of the Bush
    > >> >> >> > administration. When half your cabinet walks off I think
    > >> >> >> > they're trying to tell you something Mr. Prez!
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Without looking this up, I recall the following Clinton cabinet
    > >> >> >> members resigned at the start of his second term:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Secretary of State Warren Christopher
    > >> >> >> Defense Secretary William Perry
    > >> >> >> Labor Secretary Robert Reich
    > >> >> >> Transportation Secretary Federico Pena
    > >> >> >> Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary
    > >> >> >> Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor
    > >> >> >> HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Did I get this right? Any missing?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Great argument there Scott.
    > >> >
    > >> > I was agreeing with Mr. Hyman's cogent refutation of the OP's
    > >> > premise.
    > >>
    > >> No you weren't, you were saying [....]
    > >
    > > No, you brainless idiot, I wasn't saying or thinking any of the
    > > nonsense that you posted.
    >
    > Yes, you were, fjuk((**SLAP!!***))

Still an idiot, I see.

Miguel Cruz

Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    >>
    >> Here's how you can tell them apart:
    >>
    >> "liberals" are people.
    >> "the facts" are the things that they say.
    > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    > unvarnished truth?

In recent history, within the spectrum of "truth" that's in evidence, sure,
why not. Let the counterexamples fly, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Bertie the Bunyip

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> drivveled on and
onnews:[email protected]:

    > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> wrote:
    >>
    >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]>
    >> > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> wrote:
    >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]>
    >> >> > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> prattled:
    >> >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >> > Bert Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >> >> [email protected] (The Dixie Clits) wrote:
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> > Ha ha ha! With Ashcroft that makes five already! This is
    >> >> >> >> > the worst (best?) possible indictment of the Bush
    >> >> >> >> > administration. When half your cabinet walks off I think
    >> >> >> >> > they're trying to tell you something Mr. Prez!
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Without looking this up, I recall the following Clinton cabinet
    >> >> >> >> members resigned at the start of his second term:
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Secretary of State Warren Christopher
    >> >> >> >> Defense Secretary William Perry
    >> >> >> >> Labor Secretary Robert Reich
    >> >> >> >> Transportation Secretary Federico Pena
    >> >> >> >> Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary
    >> >> >> >> Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor
    >> >> >> >> HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Did I get this right? Any missing?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Great argument there Scott.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I was agreeing with Mr. Hyman's cogent refutation of the OP's
    >> >> > premise.
    >> >>
    >> >> No you weren't, you were saying [....]
    >> >
    >> > No, you brainless idiot, I wasn't saying or thinking any of the
    >> > nonsense that you posted.
    >>
    >> Yes, you were, fjuk((**SLAP!!***))
    >
    > Still an idiot, I see.
    >
And there's antother great argument.

And no, i'm not an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> drivveled on and
onnews:[email protected]:

    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>
    >> Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    >>
    >> Here's how you can tell them apart:
    >>
    >> "liberals" are people.
    >> "the facts" are the things that they say.
    >
    > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    > unvarnished truth?


Oh brrother.


Berti e

Scott M. Kozel

[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >
    > Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >
    > >> Here's how you can tell them apart:
    > >>
    > >> "liberals" are people.
    > >> "the facts" are the things that they say.
    > >
    > > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    > > unvarnished truth?
    >
    > In recent history, within the spectrum of "truth" that's in evidence, sure,
    > why not. Let the counterexamples fly, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.

The OP's premise was that there was something "wrong" with 4 of Bush's
cabinet members resigning at the start of his second term.

I responded to the poster who listed the *7* (seven) of Clinton's
cabinet members who resigned at the start of his second term.

You and Bunyip seem to be trying to divert attention from those facts.

AbsolutelyCertain

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >
    > > Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Here's how you can tell them apart:
    > > >>
    > > >> "liberals" are people.
    > > >> "the facts" are the things that they say.
    > > >
    > > > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    > > > unvarnished truth?
    > >
    > > In recent history, within the spectrum of "truth" that's in evidence,
sure,
    > > why not. Let the counterexamples fly, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.
    > The OP's premise was that there was something "wrong" with 4 of Bush's
    > cabinet members resigning at the start of his second term.
    > I responded to the poster who listed the *7* (seven) of Clinton's
    > cabinet members who resigned at the start of his second term.
    > You and Bunyip seem to be trying to divert attention from those facts.

You discovered a fact that wasn't covered in the Paver's Handbook?

Bertie the Bunyip

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> drivveled on and
onnews:[email protected]:

    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>
    >> Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Here's how you can tell them apart:
    >> >>
    >> >> "liberals" are people.
    >> >> "the facts" are the things that they say.
    >> >
    >> > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    >> > unvarnished truth?
    >>
    >> In recent history, within the spectrum of "truth" that's in evidence,
    >> sure, why not. Let the counterexamples fly, I'm sure you'll have fun
    >> with it.
    >
    > The OP's premise was that there was something "wrong" with 4 of Bush's
    > cabinet members resigning at the start of his second term.
    >
    > I responded to the poster who listed the *7* (seven) of Clinton's
    > cabinet members who resigned at the start of his second term.
    >
    > You and Bunyip seem to be trying to divert attention from those facts.
    >

Not at all, I was pointing out that oyu were talking shit. You said that
Liberals are alien from facts.

You were talking shit.

Period.


fjukwit

and now you're trying to dig your way out of that.


bertie

Rich Ahrens

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >
    >>Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    >>Here's how you can tell them apart:
    >>"liberals" are people.
    >>"the facts" are the things that they say.
    >
    >
    > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    > unvarnished truth?

Every time you do so, it asymptotically approaches certainty that what
comes out is unvarnished crap.

Scott M. Kozel

Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
    > > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >>Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    > >>
    > >>Here's how you can tell them apart:
    > >>
    > >>"liberals" are people.
    > >>"the facts" are the things that they say.
    > >
    > >
    > > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    > > unvarnished truth?
    >
    > Every time you do so, it asymptotically approaches certainty that what
    > comes out is unvarnished crap.

Given where your head is, you are blinded by unvarnished crap.

Bertie the Bunyip

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> drivveled on and
onnews:[email protected]:

    > Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
    >> > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> >>Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>>Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    >> >>
    >> >>Here's how you can tell them apart:
    >> >>
    >> >>"liberals" are people.
    >> >>"the facts" are the things that they say.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    >> > unvarnished truth?
    >>
    >> Every time you do so, it asymptotically approaches certainty that what
    >> comes out is unvarnished crap.
    >
    > Given where your head is, you are blinded by unvarnished crap.

and do tell why it is crap there Scott.

Tell us what your plan is to stop the approaching tide?

Bertie

Rich Ahrens

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

    > Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
    >>>[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>>>Scott M. Kozel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>Please... don't confuse liberals with the facts!
    >>>>Here's how you can tell them apart:
    >>>>"liberals" are people.
    >>>>"the facts" are the things that they say.
    >>>So every time they open their mouth, 100% of what comes out is the
    >>>unvarnished truth?
    >>Every time you do so, it asymptotically approaches certainty that what
    >>comes out is unvarnished crap.
    >
    >
    > Given where your head is, you are blinded by unvarnished crap.

Why don't you stick to the dittohead world, Scott. That's viewed as
witty repartee there, I understand.

Scott M. Kozel

Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Why don't you stick to the dittohead world, Scott. That's viewed as
    > witty repartee there, I understand.

2004's Biggest Losers
How Dan Rather and the media's kings lost their crowns.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, November 12, 2004

It is often said that the only sure winner in American politics is the
media. Amid GOP victory parties or the ruined dreams of the Kerry
candidacy, the one constant is that the media marches on.

Maybe not this time. Big Media lost big. But it was more than a loss. It
was an abdication of authority.

Large media institutions, such as CBS or the New York Times, have been
regarded as nothing if not authoritative. In the Information Age,
authority is a priceless franchise. But it is this franchise that Big
Media, incredibly, has just thrown away. It did so by choosing to go
into overt opposition to one party's candidate, a sitting president. It
stooped to conquer.

The prominent case studies here are Dan Rather's failed National Guard
story on CBS and the front page the past year of the New York Times (a
proxy for many large dailies). Add in as well Big Media's handling of
Abu Ghraib, a real story that got blown into a monthlong bonfire that
obviously was intended to burn down the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. I
think many people thought the over-the-top Abu Ghraib coverage, amid a
war, was the media shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Authority can be a function of raw power, but among free people it is
sustained by esteem and trust. Should esteem and trust falter, the
public will start to contest an institution's authority. It happens all
the time to political figures. It happened here to the American Catholic
Church and to the legal profession, thanks to plaintiff-bar abuse. And
now the public is beginning to contest the decades-old authority of the
mainstream media.

Two months ago, Gallup reported that public belief in the media's
ability to report news accurately and fairly had fallen to 44%--what
Gallup called a significant drop from 54% just a year ago. The larger
media outlets have been pushing the edge of the partisanship envelope
for a long time. People have kvetched about "spin" for years but then
largely internalized it. Not in 2004. Big Media chose precisely the
wrong moment to give itself over to an apparent compulsion to overthrow
the Bush presidency.

This was the election that brought the reality of the Information Age to
politics, not just the promise. Most of us, but especially voters in
battleground states like Ohio and Florida, were engulfed with political
inputs. TV commercials, canned phone calls, Internet ads, Web logs,
partisan 527s, talk radio and of course cable news.

A survey by the Pew Research Center reports that over three years from
January 2000, the percentage of people getting candidate and campaign
news fell 9% for daily newspapers, 10% for network news and 5% for news
magazines. The numbers rose, up to 4%, for cable news, the Internet and
comedy TV shows (Jon Stewart's rise as a news authority figure is the
court jester displacing the journalistic monarchy).

In a post-2004 election report, Pew and the University of Michigan
jointly note that this past summer, 40% of Internet users pulled down
political information, a significant increase over the 2000 election.
And not merely, as is often assumed, to ride with their own political
posses. "Wired Americans are more aware than non-Internet users of all
kinds of arguments," Pew concluded, "even those that challenge their
preferred candidates and issue positions."

Maybe the networks and big dailies should try spinning in both
directions, which is what the most sophisticated political consumers
seem to want. But it's probably too late for that. Rather than be spun
by large, faceless networks and newspapers, people now seem to want
something more akin to a political conversation with the spinners
operating Web sites?

Conservatives revel in the erosion of Big Media, believing on the basis
of easily replicated studies that all news particles spin
counterclockwise. But that begs the obvious question: Now what? With so
many people withdrawing their trust from Big Media, where will anyone
get what they used to call "news"?

In fact, it's too bad this abdication has occurred just as political
opinions have become overheated by the kind of electronic technology
deployed in the 2004 election. We really could use some neutral ground,
a space one could enter without having to suspect that "what we know"
about X or Y was being manipulated. The problem with being spun day
after day by newspapers or newscasts is that it gets tiresome, no matter
your politics. You end up having to Google every subject in the news
(Guantanamo, gay marriage statutes, Tora Bora, the Patriot Act) to find
out what's been left out or buried at the bottom.

But journalists have believed for 35 years that the highest purpose to
which their authority can be put is to help achieve what Martin Peretz
on this page Wednesday called "good outcomes." It's hard to see too many
traditional media players opting for life now as brokers of mere
information.

I'm not suggesting that Big Media has lost power. Anyone who can package
and drive a particularized version of the news on that scale can move
opinion, as clearly happened with Iraq the past six months. But these
institutions are no longer viewed as authority figures as in the past;
now they're just teams in the pro political league, like everyone else.

The real winners here are the politicians. Pig heaven for them. If much
of the public (a margin large enough to decide elections) believes it no
longer has access to a settled information baseline, an agreed-upon set
of facts, then it's so much easier for the pols, using this new arsenal
of high-tech info firepower, to manipulate a doubtful public and push it
around with propaganda (they can demographically target ads to the TV
screens in health clubs).

Here's a low-tech solution to a high-tech problem. Why don't we finally
institute an American version of the parliamentary question period
common around the U.K.? If the likes of Messrs. Rumsfeld, Ashcroft,
Powell, Snow, Cheney and Bush had to appear before the House in this
tightly regulated question-and-answer format, broadcast on C-Span,
surely the public over time would acquire a clearer sense of which ideas
are competing for their support and vote. Let's get to them, before they
get to us.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial
page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on
OpinionJournal.com.

[end]

Bertie the Bunyip

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> drivveled on and
onnews:[email protected]:

    > Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Why don't you stick to the dittohead world, Scott. That's viewed as
    >> witty repartee there, I understand.
    >
    > 2004's Biggest Losers
    > How Dan Rather and the media's kings lost their crowns.
    > BY DANIEL HENNINGER
    > Friday, November 12, 2004
    >
    > It is often said that the only sure winner in American politics is the
    > media. Amid GOP victory parties or the ruined dreams of the Kerry
    > candidacy, the one constant is that the media marches on.
    >
    > Maybe not this time. Big Media lost big. But it was more than a loss. It
    > was an abdication of authority.
    >
    > Large media institutions, such as CBS or the New York Times, have been
    > regarded as nothing if not authoritative. In the Information Age,
    > authority is a priceless franchise. But it is this franchise that Big
    > Media, incredibly, has just thrown away. It did so by choosing to go
    > into overt opposition to one party's candidate, a sitting president. It
    > stooped to conquer.
    >
    > The prominent case studies here are Dan Rather's failed National Guard
    > story on CBS and the front page the past year of the New York Times (a
    > proxy for many large dailies). Add in as well Big Media's handling of
    > Abu Ghraib, a real story that got blown into a monthlong bonfire that
    > obviously was intended to burn down the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. I
    > think many people thought the over-the-top Abu Ghraib coverage, amid a
    > war, was the media shouting fire in a crowded theater.
    >
    > Authority can be a function of raw power, but among free people it is
    > sustained by esteem and trust. Should esteem and trust falter, the
    > public will start to contest an institution's authority. It happens all
    > the time to political figures. It happened here to the American Catholic
    > Church and to the legal profession, thanks to plaintiff-bar abuse. And
    > now the public is beginning to contest the decades-old authority of the
    > mainstream media.
    >
    > Two months ago, Gallup reported that public belief in the media's
    > ability to report news accurately and fairly had fallen to 44%--what
    > Gallup called a significant drop from 54% just a year ago. The larger
    > media outlets have been pushing the edge of the partisanship envelope
    > for a long time. People have kvetched about "spin" for years but then
    > largely internalized it. Not in 2004. Big Media chose precisely the
    > wrong moment to give itself over to an apparent compulsion to overthrow
    > the Bush presidency.
    >
    > This was the election that brought the reality of the Information Age to
    > politics, not just the promise. Most of us, but especially voters in
    > battleground states like Ohio and Florida, were engulfed with political
    > inputs. TV commercials, canned phone calls, Internet ads, Web logs,
    > partisan 527s, talk radio and of course cable news.
    >
    > A survey by the Pew Research Center reports that over three years from
    > January 2000, the percentage of people getting candidate and campaign
    > news fell 9% for daily newspapers, 10% for network news and 5% for news
    > magazines. The numbers rose, up to 4%, for cable news, the Internet and
    > comedy TV shows (Jon Stewart's rise as a news authority figure is the
    > court jester displacing the journalistic monarchy).
    >
    > In a post-2004 election report, Pew and the University of Michigan
    > jointly note that this past summer, 40% of Internet users pulled down
    > political information, a significant increase over the 2000 election.
    > And not merely, as is often assumed, to ride with their own political
    > posses. "Wired Americans are more aware than non-Internet users of all
    > kinds of arguments," Pew concluded, "even those that challenge their
    > preferred candidates and issue positions."
    >
    > Maybe the networks and big dailies should try spinning in both
    > directions, which is what the most sophisticated political consumers
    > seem to want. But it's probably too late for that. Rather than be spun
    > by large, faceless networks and newspapers, people now seem to want
    > something more akin to a political conversation with the spinners
    > operating Web sites?
    >
    > Conservatives revel in the erosion of Big Media, believing on the basis
    > of easily replicated studies that all news particles spin
    > counterclockwise. But that begs the obvious question: Now what? With so
    > many people withdrawing their trust from Big Media, where will anyone
    > get what they used to call "news"?
    >
    > In fact, it's too bad this abdication has occurred just as political
    > opinions have become overheated by the kind of electronic technology
    > deployed in the 2004 election. We really could use some neutral ground,
    > a space one could enter without having to suspect that "what we know"
    > about X or Y was being manipulated. The problem with being spun day
    > after day by newspapers or newscasts is that it gets tiresome, no matter
    > your politics. You end up having to Google every subject in the news
    > (Guantanamo, gay marriage statutes, Tora Bora, the Patriot Act) to find
    > out what's been left out or buried at the bottom.
    >
    > But journalists have believed for 35 years that the highest purpose to
    > which their authority can be put is to help achieve what Martin Peretz
    > on this page Wednesday called "good outcomes." It's hard to see too many
    > traditional media players opting for life now as brokers of mere
    > information.
    >
    > I'm not suggesting that Big Media has lost power. Anyone who can package
    > and drive a particularized version of the news on that scale can move
    > opinion, as clearly happened with Iraq the past six months. But these
    > institutions are no longer viewed as authority figures as in the past;
    > now they're just teams in the pro political league, like everyone else.
    >
    > The real winners here are the politicians. Pig heaven for them. If much
    > of the public (a margin large enough to decide elections) believes it no
    > longer has access to a settled information baseline, an agreed-upon set
    > of facts, then it's so much easier for the pols, using this new arsenal
    > of high-tech info firepower, to manipulate a doubtful public and push it
    > around with propaganda (they can demographically target ads to the TV
    > screens in health clubs).
    >
    > Here's a low-tech solution to a high-tech problem. Why don't we finally
    > institute an American version of the parliamentary question period
    > common around the U.K.? If the likes of Messrs. Rumsfeld, Ashcroft,
    > Powell, Snow, Cheney and Bush had to appear before the House in this
    > tightly regulated question-and-answer format, broadcast on C-Span,
    > surely the public over time would acquire a clearer sense of which ideas
    > are competing for their support and vote. Let's get to them, before they
    > get to us.
    >
    > Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial
    > page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on
    > OpinionJournal.com.
    >
    > [end]

and your argument is?


Fjukwit


Bertie

Scott M. Kozel

Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> wrote:
    >
    > "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Why don't you stick to the dittohead world, Scott. That's viewed as
    > >> witty repartee there, I understand.
    > >
    > > 2004's Biggest Losers
    > > How Dan Rather and the media's kings lost their crowns.
    > > BY DANIEL HENNINGER
    > > Friday, November 12, 2004
    > >
    > > It is often said that the only sure winner in American politics is the
    > > media. Amid GOP victory parties or the ruined dreams of the Kerry
    > > candidacy, the one constant is that the media marches on.
    > >
    > > Maybe not this time. Big Media lost big. But it was more than a loss. It
    > > was an abdication of authority.
    > >
    > > Large media institutions, such as CBS or the New York Times, have been
    > > regarded as nothing if not authoritative. In the Information Age,
    > > authority is a priceless franchise. But it is this franchise that Big
    > > Media, incredibly, has just thrown away. It did so by choosing to go
    > > into overt opposition to one party's candidate, a sitting president. It
    > > stooped to conquer.
    > >
    > > The prominent case studies here are Dan Rather's failed National Guard
    > > story on CBS and the front page the past year of the New York Times (a
    > > proxy for many large dailies). Add in as well Big Media's handling of
    > > Abu Ghraib, a real story that got blown into a monthlong bonfire that
    > > obviously was intended to burn down the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. I
    > > think many people thought the over-the-top Abu Ghraib coverage, amid a
    > > war, was the media shouting fire in a crowded theater.
    > >
    > > Authority can be a function of raw power, but among free people it is
    > > sustained by esteem and trust. Should esteem and trust falter, the
    > > public will start to contest an institution's authority. It happens all
    > > the time to political figures. It happened here to the American Catholic
    > > Church and to the legal profession, thanks to plaintiff-bar abuse. And
    > > now the public is beginning to contest the decades-old authority of the
    > > mainstream media.
    > >
    > > Two months ago, Gallup reported that public belief in the media's
    > > ability to report news accurately and fairly had fallen to 44%--what
    > > Gallup called a significant drop from 54% just a year ago. The larger
    > > media outlets have been pushing the edge of the partisanship envelope
    > > for a long time. People have kvetched about "spin" for years but then
    > > largely internalized it. Not in 2004. Big Media chose precisely the
    > > wrong moment to give itself over to an apparent compulsion to overthrow
    > > the Bush presidency.
    > >
    > > This was the election that brought the reality of the Information Age to
    > > politics, not just the promise. Most of us, but especially voters in
    > > battleground states like Ohio and Florida, were engulfed with political
    > > inputs. TV commercials, canned phone calls, Internet ads, Web logs,
    > > partisan 527s, talk radio and of course cable news.
    > >
    > > A survey by the Pew Research Center reports that over three years from
    > > January 2000, the percentage of people getting candidate and campaign
    > > news fell 9% for daily newspapers, 10% for network news and 5% for news
    > > magazines. The numbers rose, up to 4%, for cable news, the Internet and
    > > comedy TV shows (Jon Stewart's rise as a news authority figure is the
    > > court jester displacing the journalistic monarchy).
    > >
    > > In a post-2004 election report, Pew and the University of Michigan
    > > jointly note that this past summer, 40% of Internet users pulled down
    > > political information, a significant increase over the 2000 election.
    > > And not merely, as is often assumed, to ride with their own political
    > > posses. "Wired Americans are more aware than non-Internet users of all
    > > kinds of arguments," Pew concluded, "even those that challenge their
    > > preferred candidates and issue positions."
    > >
    > > Maybe the networks and big dailies should try spinning in both
    > > directions, which is what the most sophisticated political consumers
    > > seem to want. But it's probably too late for that. Rather than be spun
    > > by large, faceless networks and newspapers, people now seem to want
    > > something more akin to a political conversation with the spinners
    > > operating Web sites?
    > >
    > > Conservatives revel in the erosion of Big Media, believing on the basis
    > > of easily replicated studies that all news particles spin
    > > counterclockwise. But that begs the obvious question: Now what? With so
    > > many people withdrawing their trust from Big Media, where will anyone
    > > get what they used to call "news"?
    > >
    > > In fact, it's too bad this abdication has occurred just as political
    > > opinions have become overheated by the kind of electronic technology
    > > deployed in the 2004 election. We really could use some neutral ground,
    > > a space one could enter without having to suspect that "what we know"
    > > about X or Y was being manipulated. The problem with being spun day
    > > after day by newspapers or newscasts is that it gets tiresome, no matter
    > > your politics. You end up having to Google every subject in the news
    > > (Guantanamo, gay marriage statutes, Tora Bora, the Patriot Act) to find
    > > out what's been left out or buried at the bottom.
    > >
    > > But journalists have believed for 35 years that the highest purpose to
    > > which their authority can be put is to help achieve what Martin Peretz
    > > on this page Wednesday called "good outcomes." It's hard to see too many
    > > traditional media players opting for life now as brokers of mere
    > > information.
    > >
    > > I'm not suggesting that Big Media has lost power. Anyone who can package
    > > and drive a particularized version of the news on that scale can move
    > > opinion, as clearly happened with Iraq the past six months. But these
    > > institutions are no longer viewed as authority figures as in the past;
    > > now they're just teams in the pro political league, like everyone else.
    > >
    > > The real winners here are the politicians. Pig heaven for them. If much
    > > of the public (a margin large enough to decide elections) believes it no
    > > longer has access to a settled information baseline, an agreed-upon set
    > > of facts, then it's so much easier for the pols, using this new arsenal
    > > of high-tech info firepower, to manipulate a doubtful public and push it
    > > around with propaganda (they can demographically target ads to the TV
    > > screens in health clubs).
    > >
    > > Here's a low-tech solution to a high-tech problem. Why don't we finally
    > > institute an American version of the parliamentary question period
    > > common around the U.K.? If the likes of Messrs. Rumsfeld, Ashcroft,
    > > Powell, Snow, Cheney and Bush had to appear before the House in this
    > > tightly regulated question-and-answer format, broadcast on C-Span,
    > > surely the public over time would acquire a clearer sense of which ideas
    > > are competing for their support and vote. Let's get to them, before they
    > > get to us.
    > >
    > > Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial
    > > page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
    > >
    > > [end]
    >
    > and your argument is?

The Wall Street Journal is not part of the "dittohead world" that Richie
was referring to.

    > Fjukwit

Vomit poster.

Bertie the Bunyip

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> drivveled on and
onnews:[email protected]:

    > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ., XZXZX> wrote:
    >>
    >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > Rich Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Why don't you stick to the dittohead world, Scott. That's viewed
    >> >> as witty repartee there, I understand.
    >> >
    >> > 2004's Biggest Losers
    >> > How Dan Rather and the media's kings lost their crowns.
    >> > BY DANIEL HENNINGER
    >> > Friday, November 12, 2004
    >> >
    >> > It is often said that the only sure winner in American politics is
    >> > the media. Amid GOP victory parties or the ruined dreams of the
    >> > Kerry candidacy, the one constant is that the media marches on.
    >> >
    >> > Maybe not this time. Big Media lost big. But it was more than a
    >> > loss. It was an abdication of authority.
    >> >
    >> > Large media institutions, such as CBS or the New York Times, have
    >> > been regarded as nothing if not authoritative. In the Information
    >> > Age, authority is a priceless franchise. But it is this franchise
    >> > that Big Media, incredibly, has just thrown away. It did so by
    >> > choosing to go into overt opposition to one party's candidate, a
    >> > sitting president. It stooped to conquer.
    >> >
    >> > The prominent case studies here are Dan Rather's failed National
    >> > Guard story on CBS and the front page the past year of the New York
    >> > Times (a proxy for many large dailies). Add in as well Big Media's
    >> > handling of Abu Ghraib, a real story that got blown into a
    >> > monthlong bonfire that obviously was intended to burn down the
    >> > legitimacy of the war in Iraq. I think many people thought the
    >> > over-the-top Abu Ghraib coverage, amid a war, was the media
    >> > shouting fire in a crowded theater.
    >> >
    >> > Authority can be a function of raw power, but among free people it
    >> > is sustained by esteem and trust. Should esteem and trust falter,
    >> > the public will start to contest an institution's authority. It
    >> > happens all the time to political figures. It happened here to the
    >> > American Catholic Church and to the legal profession, thanks to
    >> > plaintiff-bar abuse. And now the public is beginning to contest the
    >> > decades-old authority of the mainstream media.
    >> >
    >> > Two months ago, Gallup reported that public belief in the media's
    >> > ability to report news accurately and fairly had fallen to
    >> > 44%--what Gallup called a significant drop from 54% just a year
    >> > ago. The larger media outlets have been pushing the edge of the
    >> > partisanship envelope for a long time. People have kvetched about
    >> > "spin" for years but then largely internalized it. Not in 2004. Big
    >> > Media chose precisely the wrong moment to give itself over to an
    >> > apparent compulsion to overthrow the Bush presidency.
    >> >
    >> > This was the election that brought the reality of the Information
    >> > Age to politics, not just the promise. Most of us, but especially
    >> > voters in battleground states like Ohio and Florida, were engulfed
    >> > with political inputs. TV commercials, canned phone calls, Internet
    >> > ads, Web logs, partisan 527s, talk radio and of course cable news.
    >> >
    >> > A survey by the Pew Research Center reports that over three years
    >> > from January 2000, the percentage of people getting candidate and
    >> > campaign news fell 9% for daily newspapers, 10% for network news
    >> > and 5% for news magazines. The numbers rose, up to 4%, for cable
    >> > news, the Internet and comedy TV shows (Jon Stewart's rise as a
    >> > news authority figure is the court jester displacing the
    >> > journalistic monarchy).
    >> >
    >> > In a post-2004 election report, Pew and the University of Michigan
    >> > jointly note that this past summer, 40% of Internet users pulled
    >> > down political information, a significant increase over the 2000
    >> > election. And not merely, as is often assumed, to ride with their
    >> > own political posses. "Wired Americans are more aware than
    >> > non-Internet users of all kinds of arguments," Pew concluded, "even
    >> > those that challenge their preferred candidates and issue
    >> > positions."
    >> >
    >> > Maybe the networks and big dailies should try spinning in both
    >> > directions, which is what the most sophisticated political
    >> > consumers seem to want. But it's probably too late for that. Rather
    >> > than be spun by large, faceless networks and newspapers, people now
    >> > seem to want something more akin to a political conversation with
    >> > the spinners operating Web sites?
    >> >
    >> > Conservatives revel in the erosion of Big Media, believing on the
    >> > basis of easily replicated studies that all news particles spin
    >> > counterclockwise. But that begs the obvious question: Now what?
    >> > With so many people withdrawing their trust from Big Media, where
    >> > will anyone get what they used to call "news"?
    >> >
    >> > In fact, it's too bad this abdication has occurred just as
    >> > political opinions have become overheated by the kind of electronic
    >> > technology deployed in the 2004 election. We really could use some
    >> > neutral ground, a space one could enter without having to suspect
    >> > that "what we know" about X or Y was being manipulated. The problem
    >> > with being spun day after day by newspapers or newscasts is that it
    >> > gets tiresome, no matter your politics. You end up having to Google
    >> > every subject in the news (Guantanamo, gay marriage statutes, Tora
    >> > Bora, the Patriot Act) to find out what's been left out or buried
    >> > at the bottom.
    >> >
    >> > But journalists have believed for 35 years that the highest purpose
    >> > to which their authority can be put is to help achieve what Martin
    >> > Peretz on this page Wednesday called "good outcomes." It's hard to
    >> > see too many traditional media players opting for life now as
    >> > brokers of mere information.
    >> >
    >> > I'm not suggesting that Big Media has lost power. Anyone who can
    >> > package and drive a particularized version of the news on that
    >> > scale can move opinion, as clearly happened with Iraq the past six
    >> > months. But these institutions are no longer viewed as authority
    >> > figures as in the past; now they're just teams in the pro political
    >> > league, like everyone else.
    >> >
    >> > The real winners here are the politicians. Pig heaven for them. If
    >> > much of the public (a margin large enough to decide elections)
    >> > believes it no longer has access to a settled information baseline,
    >> > an agreed-upon set of facts, then it's so much easier for the pols,
    >> > using this new arsenal of high-tech info firepower, to manipulate a
    >> > doubtful public and push it around with propaganda (they can
    >> > demographically target ads to the TV screens in health clubs).
    >> >
    >> > Here's a low-tech solution to a high-tech problem. Why don't we
    >> > finally institute an American version of the parliamentary question
    >> > period common around the U.K.? If the likes of Messrs. Rumsfeld,
    >> > Ashcroft, Powell, Snow, Cheney and Bush had to appear before the
    >> > House in this tightly regulated question-and-answer format,
    >> > broadcast on C-Span, surely the public over time would acquire a
    >> > clearer sense of which ideas are competing for their support and
    >> > vote. Let's get to them, before they get to us.
    >> >
    >> > Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's
    >> > editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on
    >> > OpinionJournal.com.
    >> >
    >> > [end]
    >>
    >> and your argument is?
    >
    > The Wall Street Journal is not part of the "dittohead world" that
    > Richie was referring to.
    >

But you are.

Bertie


    >> Fjukwit
    >
    > Vomit poster.
    >