Another day, more gratuitous shots at George W. Bush in the PI. Yawn. Did you know that President Bush is the most competent, lying bastard ever...and he's a brick too (try and figure out that irony)? You can read it all here and here.
It's all part of a broader theme of media chest-puffing in the wake of harsh criticism of the NY Times, etc. for disclosures related to national security. It's a fever striking the media at every level.
The irony is that between the PI's editorial and Jamieson's column they really seem ready to live out this quote by Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (found here).
I suppose if they're really serious about it, that might hasten the demise of the PI, if the collapse of the JOA and declining readership don't get them first (covered recently at Sound Politics). I'll admit sometimes I tremble at the thought of Ryan Blethen at the helm of the last newspaper left standing in Seattle. But on days like this, not so much.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 04, 2006 10:00 AM | Email ThisI think questioning the government is the most patriotic thing one can do. Aligning oneself blindly with either party is not good for anyone. It seems the parties have fooled alot of people thinking that blind alegiance to George Bush or blind alegiance to Ron Sims is a good thing.
The P-I is just like every other paper out there. It's biased. Just like the NY Times. The Wash Post.
What would you rather have? You sound like you'd be happier if the newspapers were owned and operated by George Bush. Would that make you happy? Then you could read government happy talk all day.
Posted by: Jacob on July 4, 2006 10:06 AMYou leave out the third option. How about newspapers that report the news without bias, filtering or omission? Not editors detemined to undermine the president. Not papers that repeat what the New York Times report. Not papers that reprint government and corporate press releases.
Just the news. Investigate allegations of wrongdoing and report the results. No speculation. No inuendo. No political agenda. Fair and balanced is all I ask for.
I had an exchange recently with an editor from the Seattle Times over bias. His defense was to allege, like you, that the alternative to bias is government controlled media. That was a laughably pathetic argument in defense of his grossly biased newspaper too.
Posted by: MJC on July 4, 2006 10:15 AMI don't want one-sided news any more than I want dissent stiffled. What I do want is a little transparency, and veracity. When even a liberal will admit that the P-I et al are biased, isn't it time for these "paragons of objectivity" to drop the pretense and pick a side?
Posted by: speedloaded on July 4, 2006 10:22 AMThere are lets of ways to define patriotism, so let's put that one aside, but I will say I wholeheartedly support the right to question one's government. I'm glad the PI has the right and the ability to say what they said today, and I'm glad we have men and women in our armed forces who volunteer to defend that right. But, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them on substance. In this case I don't, and I'm pointing it out.
I do actually enjoy a diversity of opinions and sources of news. It's good to know what all sides are saying.
And while I suspect you and I might disagree on many issues of the day, I also agree with the travesty that is involved when someone aligns themselves lock, stock, and barrel with one party only. In fact, the longer I'm here at Sound Politics, the more you'll see that's the case. I'm quite willing to point out flaws in the party I agree with more, and I'm not afraid to go after sacred cows in the process.
Thanks for commenting.
Now one thing I do wish is that the PI would get some balls and start signing the editorials with their names, instead of using the "editorial board".
Posted by: David on July 4, 2006 10:40 AMOne example is how Seattle Monorail Project used the newspapers. Several months before that fiasco was put before the voters, the JOA papers repeatedly quoted Joel Horn saying the tax would need to be in place 23 years. Then after very close election, the truth comes out and the tax was going to be in place for 50 years.
Of course the JOA got paid off - remember the huge full-page ads that SMP took out the year after the election?
The JOA acts as a publicity organ for Sound Transit as well. ST has paid over one million dollars DIRECTLY to the JOA, and it has funnelled even more payments to it through third-party media buying firms.
Because of payments like that to the JOA, there never will be accurate reporting on how local governments operate.
Posted by: Upland Bird Shot on July 4, 2006 10:58 AMWhat about women not driving in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, what about reports on polyagmy, what about reports on the rampant abuse of American wives who marry Muslim men ... why not a report once a week in the NY Times on this. Why can't a christian church be built in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, what about the Christians just jailed in Saudi Arabia for praying ... One time in 4 years CNN did a report on behind the veil of Muslims shooting a women in Afghanistan for adultry ... it had a massive audience. The rest of the time it is the anti-US, anti-Israel channel and losing ratings.
No wonder the Seattle Times and other newspapers are dying. Who wants to pay $0.25 to read to this drival.
What about the genocide on Christians in Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan, ... every week stories go unreported by the NY Times. Instead, it's hear about Abu Gharib again for the 150x time.
To bad George Bush tries so hard to appease these critics. Like this Bozo at the Seattle Times is ever going to change his opinion.
It seems that Bush only responds to critics. One of the reasons that I bash him so hard, because he seems tone deaf to anything a supporter has to say.
Bush has got to get serious (doubt he will). The libs are right about one thing. Bush is not following the law at Gitmo - These prisoners were out of uniform, they should have been pumped for intelligence and then shot within the month. That's what the law says and public opinion would have supported him. However, 4 1/2 years later and 500 stories for the NY Times about what a bunch of nice guys they are, the path was very predictable. However, Bush would still spike in popularity if he line these bastards up and shot them. Bush just creates endless problems for himself because he acts like a liberal and talks like a conservative.
For example, Bush could put the smack on the NY Times right now for treason. Instead, he only talks about how bad it is, but invites them the "traitors" to the White House for dinner. Good Lord! Hard to make me believe he is serious about the scandel when he is breaking bread with the bad guys.
Posted by: John McDonald on July 4, 2006 11:45 AMPlease continue demonstrating your liberal delusions for the benefit of any who might have just tuned in...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 4, 2006 01:14 PM
I'm not sure how you charge an entire Newspaper with treason. You can only charge a person with treason. So pick a person if you're serious about that.
I can't believe you'd seriously think that smacking down on a newspaper's right to publish is good for democracy.
What seems so obvious to me is that the people who hate the newspapers love the Bush administration despite their failures at nearly everything they've done.
I also never hear any complaints about the Fox News channel, which is about as close to a government-owned media outlet as you can get. Rupert Murdoch is well-known for getting rid of anyone at FoxNews who isn't a parrot for his conservative big business views.
Does anyone really think Fox is 'Fair and Balanced?'
Posted by: Jacob on July 4, 2006 05:35 PM
Rupert Murdoch is well-known for getting rid of anyone at FoxNews who isn't a parrot for his conservative big business views.
The same Rupert Murdoch who recently hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton? The same Fox News that hired Greta Van Susteren? The same Fox News that hired Alan Colmes? The same Fox News that hired Geraldo Rivera? Hannity's a conservative. O'Reilly is a pompous populist. Sounds like balance to me.
And for the record, I never watch any of the talking head channels, or the local TV news for that matter. Internet news sources only.
Try again ... but this time, know what you're talking about.
Posted by: jimg on July 4, 2006 06:15 PMRupert Murdoch is well-known for getting rid of anyone at FoxNews who isn't a parrot for his conservative big business views.
The same Rupert Murdoch who recently hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton? The same Fox News that hired Greta Van Susteren? The same Fox News that hired Alan Colmes? The same Fox News that hired Geraldo Rivera? Hannity's a conservative. O'Reilly is a pompous populist. Sounds like balance to me.
Jacob,
Jimg said what I would have had I not first headed off to watch the fireworks. However, I would have added Susan Estrich (Campaign manager for Michael Dukakis and clearly a liberal, albeit with less foam at the mouth), and Martin Frost as a columnist.
In addition, Fox is constantly booking liberal guests to its programs to give their point of view such as Whoopie Goldberg on the Hannity and Colmes show recently. There are more and better examples, but I don't have them readily available. The point is Fox more often and more consistently presents liberals and liberal view points than ANY leftist media presents conservatives and conservative viewpoints.
If you believe that Fox is completely in the pocket of the government and is entirely right wing, then you have gotten your information not from objective first hand knowledge but from listening to and reading the far left wing media sources. And of course, anything moderate-liberal and to the right will be portrayed as facist, right wing stooges of the evil Bush administration. Which, of course explains your uninformed regurgitation of said leftist bias.
How professional for a news channel. It's just a joke channel.
I don't object to their right wing bias since it's so obvious in everything they broadcast. I more object to their self titling themselves as 'Fair and Balanced' when they so obviously are the most biased TV news on the air.
Posted by: Jacob on July 5, 2006 12:43 AMAnd it's funny when Bill O'Reilly gets frustrated with guests, he just tells them to 'SHUT UP.... SHUT UP'
Now I KNOW you are getting all your info on Fox news from the left wing sources. Have you personally witnessed such an "outburst" from O'Reilly? Do you have any referencable examples of this? I bet not. you are smply taking a left wing critic at his word. It's funny-- because what the critic of O'Reilly is effectively doing is to tell HIM to shut up. They are so frustrated with him that they have to make things up to discredit him. I used to believe O'Reilly was a crackpot too. That was before I ever heard a word uttered by him. After watching him myself, I was able to make my own opinion. I have never seen O'Reilly NOT give a guest due resepct and allow them to make their point (rude guests not withstanding).
... when they so obviously are the most biased TV news on the air.
From the liberal's dictionary:
BIAS Any opinion counter to the liberal agenda.
When a liberal news channel teams a conservative cohost with thier liberal one on the prime time slot, maybe then you can talk about objectivity--well... obejectively.
Fox news is a joke to you because you consider the NY Times objective.
Posted by: Eyago on July 5, 2006 08:19 AM