As much maligned as CNN is for being a leftist mouthpiece, Lou Dobbs seems to be taking Obama to task tonight. Far more than I ever expected a CNN show to do

6/23/2009 7:55:35 PM

i thought that was kind of Dobb's M.O.


btw, here is another Bill Maher rant from last week, responding somewhat to his previous rant. (the relevant part starts at 2:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrCR8TndvYk
of course, his point in criticizing Obama is that he's not Liberal or Progressive enough, and we need a true Progressive party that doesn't kowtow to corporate wishes, like both the Dems and Republicans do now.


[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 8:04 PM. Reason : new rules]

6/23/2009 8:00:11 PM

well, you'll forgive me if i don't watch much CNN to know the difference, lawls

6/23/2009 8:10:12 PM

^ well, me neither - i don't have cable, and have only seen Lou Dobbs on as clips and excerpts.

--

Here's Glenn Greenwald ripping NPR a new one
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/22/npr

Quote :

"Anyone who believes that NPR is a "liberal" media outlet -- and anyone who wants to understand the decay of American journalism -- should read this column by NPR's Ombudsman, Alicia C. Shepard, as she explains and justifies why NPR bars the use of the word "torture" to describe what the Bush administration did."

Here is is accusing NPR of basically using the same tactic that I accused Fox News of in the other thread - of making every issue "two sided" and presenting it as "us vs. them", instead of just reporting the goddamned facts
(italics is the NPR onbudsman's defense. the rest is Greenwald)

Quote :

"It's a no-win case for journalists. If journalists use the words "harsh interrogation techniques," they can be seen as siding with the White House and the language that some U.S. officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer. If journalists use the word "torture," then they can be accused of siding with those who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration. Here’s the nub of the matter – the crux of journalistic decay in America. Who cares if NPR is "seen" as siding with the White House or its critics? How it is perceived -- and who it angers -- should have nothing to do with how it reports. Its reporting should be guided by the truth, by verifiable facts, and by the objective meaning of words [notably, NPR's excuse -- "the Right will get angry at us if we call it 'torture'" -- is identical to The Washington Post's excuse for why they stopped calling Dan Froomkin a reporter (it angers the Right); it's amazing how much The Liberal Media makes editorial decisions based on a desire to please the Right]. Also, note that Shepard explicitly admits that, with its language choice, NPR has opted to be "seen siding with the White House and the language that some U.S. officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer." That, too, is an odd choice for a supposedly Liberal Media outlet. And note her snide and revealing assumption -- conventional wisdom among the establishment media -- that the only people who want these tactics to be called "torture" are those "who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration" (or, as David Ignatius put it, "liberal score-settlers"). It doesn’t seem to occur to her that something other than base vindictiveness – such as a desire to maintain the universal taboo against torture, or allegiance to accuracy in language – might motivate those who want NPR to call torture "torture," rather than prettify it with banality-of-evil euphemisms invented by the very people who perpetrated it. "

6/23/2009 9:41:34 PM

Quote :

"Black, 74, was sentenced for accepting thousands of dollars in illegal payments while speaker of the N.C. House. "

Why didn't they use "bribe?"

http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1578232.html

6/23/2009 10:10:45 PM

does anyone actually listen to anything Lou Dobbs says?

6/24/2009 8:16:14 AM

I stoped reading the Glenn Greenwald article about half-way down. It's full of interpretive "truths" and exaggeration, blowing the matter entirely out of proportion.

NPR's decision not to use an ambigious, sensational and evolving term such as "torture" is now the "the crux of journalistic decay in America".

6/24/2009 10:00:28 AM

Quote :

"NPR's decision not to use an ambigious, sensational and evolving term such as "torture""

oh look, someone reads, and actually believes Karl Rove's talking points.


Greenwald's conclusion about "the crux of journalistic decay" is overblown and hyperbole, yes. But the overall point remains valid, and you're a fool if you don't think that journalistic quality and integrity are decaying.

6/24/2009 10:04:54 AM

Who cares if Karl Rove said it? Would you stop breathing if he said "The Bush administration supports respiration"?

I don't doubt that journalistic decay is happening, but he's not making a valid point by looking in the wrong places. The incredible irony here is that Glenn's own article is a much finer example of journalistic decay.

6/24/2009 10:15:57 AM

^^ Yeah, like when you call on some blogger from HuffPo as the second question in a presidential press conference.

Quote :

"CHECK WIT HUFFPO"

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM. Reason : ^]

6/24/2009 10:16:38 AM

Quote :

"Who cares if Karl Rove said it? Would you stop breathing if he said "The Bush administration supports respiration"?"

The point isn't who said it - it's that it's complete bullshit. It's a bullshit argument that news organizations shouldn't use the word "torture" because it's "an evolving term", because 1) it's a complete non-sequitur to claim that we can't use the term because it's "evolving", and 2) it's been completely agreed upon up and down the ladder on both sides of the isle that what we did was considered torture.

Quote :

"The incredible irony here is that Glenn's own article is a much finer example of journalistic decay."

A lawyer turned blogger living in Brazil writing on Salon is an example of journalistic decay...... how, exactly?

6/24/2009 10:21:52 AM

Did you not just agree that his conclusion was "overblown and hyperbole"?

6/24/2009 11:29:00 AM

I'm claiming he is not a journalist, and therefore his own writings or conclusions, in and of themselves, have no relevance to the state of journalism in the country.

He's a "lawyer turned blogger/columnist".

6/24/2009 1:55:13 PM

right- or left-wing media is better auto-tuned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eooXNd0heM

6/26/2009 6:24:02 PM

Quote :

"BEWARE THE OBAMA 'EVIL EYE' Tue Jun 30 2009 07:43:56 ET As the summer begins, White House watchers have spotted a new look by President Obama: The Evil Eye! Staffers have joked about the menacing glance, which comes when the president meets with world leaders who are not aligned with his progressive view. White House photographers have captured the "evil eye" in recent weeks, during sessions with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Colombia's Alvaro Uribev. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got hit with the commander's malocchio last week in the Oval office. And at least one White House reporter has been on the receiving end of the daggers during a press conference. Developing..."

6/30/2009 9:49:30 AM

i like the italics at the end...nice touch

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM. Reason : i too read the onion]

6/30/2009 9:52:51 AM

lol the onion?

this shit is better than the onion

it's from the front page of drudge

6/30/2009 9:57:23 AM

6/30/2009 10:23:19 AM

This is a video of Gen. Ray Odierno briefing reporters on the situation in Iraq today:

http://tinyurl.com/l8g6l6

I post this for several reasons, but I post it here because I want all of you to witness the douche bag from NPR at about 7:15--this type of thing is one of my big problems with NPR. I have no problem with tough questioning of our leaders and top officials, but this kind of shit gets on my nerves.

Do you think that the NPR douche at issue would question Chairman Obama in such a dogged and disrespectful way? The answer is self-evident. And watch how the other assholes sit there and smirk as this career military professional--an American hero--is poked and prodded.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM. Reason : It's fucking outrageous. ]

6/30/2009 5:31:43 PM

AN AMERICAN HERO

6/30/2009 5:34:34 PM

^ Just watch the video.

6/30/2009 5:35:21 PM

What is it about the question that it is "this kind of shit".

I'm personally a bit concerned that the Commander of Multinational Force Iraq doesn't even have a ballpark idea of how many "trainers" are in the cities.

When he is being that vague that the best answer he can give is "it's significantly lower than it was", he deserves to be grilled. The American people pay his salary.

Furthermore, the overall vagueness about the draw down plan doesn't really surprise me. If he doesn't like people being incredulous about the apparent lack of a plan, maybe he should have a better plan to talk about when having these sorts of press breifings.

6/30/2009 5:48:07 PM

What an idiotic question.
I'm not even talking about the way he asked it... the question itself was just fucking stupid. Any even mildly informed person should have been able to give themselves an answer as soon as the question came into their head. (referring to the first question)


The next two about numbers weren't really wrong to ask... he was sort of a douche about it, but wanting a ballpark number isn't unreasonable at all, and frankly Odierno should have been able to at least provide an inexact answer... even just an "at least x" or "generally no more than x" or "probably around x, give or take about y"... it seems like the sort of statistical information someone would want to make sure they know before giving a press conference.

6/30/2009 5:49:14 PM

I think it was the pair of Rayband sunglasses perched on top of his slick gray head that makes him seem like such an asshole.

It like the guy is trying to look like a douche bag. If he drives a BMW convertible, the image will be complete.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ``]

6/30/2009 5:55:44 PM

Quote :

"Do you think that the NPR douche at issue would question Chairman Obama in such a dogged and disrespectful way?"

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ^ Yeah, a pink shirt with a popped collar and the image would've been complete. ]

6/30/2009 5:56:39 PM

the question from NPR was exactly the question that people have, legitimately, been wondering. And Odierno gave a good answer that should put the question to rest, at least somewhat, assuming he was truthful (for example, he said something about "before we had 'combat brigades', where as now we will have 'training specialists'", or something like that. It was months ago that someone at the pentagon leaked something like "they will be the same troops, we'll just have different names for them")

was he being disrespectful? I don't know.... maybe about as much as someone who would ask "Chairman Obama" a question like "you used the words 'appalling' and 'outrageous' to describe the situation in Iran. ....... what took you so long?"

6/30/2009 6:02:18 PM

^ The tone was completely different.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM. Reason : And you know it. ]

6/30/2009 6:05:21 PM

you're right - Major Garrett was being an douchebag-asshole, while Tom Bowman was being a pompous-know it all.

6/30/2009 6:06:53 PM

Quote :

"Do you think that the NPR douche at issue would question Chairman Obama in such a dogged and disrespectful way?"

I don't know him personally, so I can't give you an answer to that. The guy could just be highly antagonistic of everyone in positions of military/corporate/government authority, or he could be some partisan asshole with an agenda to push.

A better question would be, since NPR isn't represented solely by this one guy, "Would NPR send a douche to question Chairman Obama in such a dogged and disrespectful way?"

I'd hope they would, but frankly I don't listen to NPR enough to give a reliable response to that. Coming purely from my complete lack of faith in humanity and modern news media in particular, I'd have to say "No, probably not".

...Though on a side note, that doesn't make them any worse than most other news sources. The fact that I even had to say "probably" in my response automatically makes them miles ahead of any TV news networks, in terms of journalistic quality.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : [quote]]

6/30/2009 6:09:18 PM

^ If everybody got questioned that way, I wouldn't have a problem. Clearly, this is not the case.

6/30/2009 6:10:43 PM

Quote :

"you're right - Major Garrett was being an douchebag-asshole, while Tom Bowman was being a pompous-know it all."

winner winner chicken dinner

No use in responding any more to this part of the thread

6/30/2009 6:21:08 PM

That was milder that most of the presidential press conferences.

It does seem odd though how reluctant he was to give any idea at all how many "troops" there are still working in Iraq.

6/30/2009 6:21:51 PM

Quote :

"Clearly, this is not the case."

We're also not certain if he's a Democrat/liberal/whatever label. Demographically, he probably is, but to say definitively that he is without some additional information on the guy would just be stereotyping (and that would be wrong). He probably has a website -- you could just look up his life's story and the whole thing would be settled.

6/30/2009 6:25:53 PM

You be the judge.

Tom Bowman

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5457129

6/30/2009 6:34:40 PM

Quote :

"It does seem odd though how reluctant he was to give any idea at all how many "troops" there are still working in Iraq."

Because the timelines always have been when benchmarks are met and they honestly have no real idea how long it will take the Iraqis to meet the benchmarks. I suppose it's easier to not know specific details about troop levels than to tell America "we're kinda winging it and we have no idea how long this is going to take".

Most everyone realizes this is how it has been all along, but no one wants to remind us of that fact.

^

He seems like just the kinda guy we need asking tough questions

Quote :

"He is also a co-winner of a 2006 National Headliners' Award for stories on the lack of advanced tourniquets for U.S. troops in Iraq."

HE WAS WRONG TO QUESTION IF OUR TROOPS WERE GETTING THE CARE AND SUPPORT THEY NEED IN THE FIELD. FUCK THIS GUY

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2009 6:42:58 PM

Huh, seems he's been covering military or military-related subjects for most of his career. It's entirely possible that he is simply critical of such areas in a non-partisan fashion. It's actually the sort of thing I'd want to see from a journalist -- A genuine passion for the field of work and some degree of dedication for exposing truth. Again, demographically, he likely is liberal, but given his areas of coverage it would appear that he's isolated to exposition of military matters. I also can't find anything at all that confirms him to be a member of either party.

A quick search actually resulted in the following article, which shows that he has at least once in his past echoed Bush and implied his support for the surge:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200707310009

6/30/2009 6:50:38 PM

Quote :

"You be the judge. Tom Bowman http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5457129"

19 years at the Baltimore Sun and 3 years at NPR? 11 years covering The Pentagon?
Irish Catholic? Degrees in history and American Studies?

BOILER-PLATE LIBERAL IF I'VE EVER SEEN ONE

6/30/2009 6:54:37 PM

^C'mon, did you really need to bring a into this whole thing? The discussion has been kept rather civil and neutral as far as TSB goes, but you just gave hooksaw a reason to respond with some sarcastic non-sequitur and a hefty dose of eye-rolls.

6/30/2009 6:58:36 PM

eh, he was baiting us with the "you be the judge", and I bit

6/30/2009 7:10:39 PM

Come on trombone, no discussion with hooksaw is civil and neutral. I mean in this thread, it's pretty clear he lost. Clear. Yet, you can be sure he'll have something to say about Bowman. Hell, he is probably googling his fingers off as we speak.

6/30/2009 7:36:28 PM

you people and your sides, your concepts of "winning" and "losing", your assumptions instead of waiting for factual results... bleh. Fuckin' skanks trying to destroy the intellectual public discourse.

6/30/2009 7:40:51 PM

Quote :

"Fuckin' skanks trying to destroy the intellectual public discourse"

I simply have no time for formalities with self proclaimed partisan hacks like hookslaw.

6/30/2009 7:43:16 PM

I call that "sacrificing your integrity and becoming no better than the one you're arguing against"

6/30/2009 7:46:38 PM

whats the point if no one wins?

6/30/2009 7:49:28 PM

Quote :

"I call that "sacrificing your integrity and becoming no better than the one you're arguing against""

It's the wolfweb, most reasonable discourse died in TSB a long time ago, so do you honestly expect a statement like that to resonate with me?

6/30/2009 9:00:33 PM

Quote :

"so do you honestly expect a statement like that to resonate with me?"

No, not at all... similar to how I expect the American public to elect incompetent morons, and how I expect 24 hour news networks to be devoid of meaningful information.

Doesn't mean it's not worth saying.


V Where else would I bitch about it? It's not like I hold press conferences. And I'm far too introspective and apathetic to become a political blog writer.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2009 9:06:49 PM

rofl at the irony of you bitching about the downfall of society...ON THE FUCKING WOLFWEB

6/30/2009 9:18:50 PM

good job on showing me the light

6/30/2009 9:26:48 PM

Quote :

"and apathetic"

You keep outdoing yourself man. Got any more?

6/30/2009 9:54:39 PM

Nobody gives a fuck what Fail Goat says anyway. OH NOES! You called me a farm animal, now I have to cyberstalk you and post personal information about you because I'm constantly butthurt and sandy vagged--WAAAAAAAAAA!!!1 STFU, you creepy bald-headed loser.

1. I happen to think that General Odierno is an American hero and deserves respect--if you don't, then so be it. Regardless of Mr. NPR's political leanings, he could have asked the exact same questions with a lot less of the popped-collar douchbaggery. I mean, can you take the fucking sunglasses off your head when you're speaking to the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq?

2. General Odierno--in a classy move--apologized for losing his cool at Mr. NPR:

US Iraq commander loses cool over troop numbers

Quote :

"'Sorry I lost my temper a little bit on the number,' he said, to some laughter from reporters."

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN30262848

3. If Mr. NPR is so goddamned concerned about the numbers in Iraq, why don't he and his colleagues go grill Chairman Obama? I mean, Obama's the commander in chief and Odierno answers to him, right?

4. So, now--as a truly concerned citizen--I have my own question:

WHY IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HIDING THE NUMBERS OF AMERICAN FORCES REMAINING IN IRAQ?

7/1/2009 1:41:20 AM