Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Answering Back to the News Media, Using the Internet
New York Times ^ | January 2, 2006 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Posted on 01/02/2006 4:25:30 AM PST by infocats

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, or so goes the old saw. For decades, the famous and the infamous alike largely followed this advice. Even when subjects of news stories felt they had been misunderstood or badly treated, they were unlikely to take on reporters or publishers, believing that the power of the press gave the press the final word.

The Internet, and especially the amplifying power of blogs, is changing that. Unhappy subjects discovered a decade ago that they could use their Web sites to correct the record or deconstruct articles to expose what they perceived as a journalist's bias or wrongheaded narration.

But now they are going a step further. Subjects of newspaper articles and news broadcasts now fight back with the same methods reporters use to generate articles and broadcasts - taping interviews, gathering e-mail exchanges, taking notes on phone conversations - and publish them on their own Web sites. This new weapon in the media wars is shifting the center of gravity in the way that news is gathered and presented, and it carries implications for the future of journalism.

Just ask "Nightline," the ABC News program, which broadcast a segment in August about intelligent design that the Discovery Institute, a conservative clearinghouse for proponents of intelligent design, did not like very much. The next day, the institute published on its Web site the entire transcript of the nearly hourlong interview that "Nightline" had conducted a few days earlier with one of the institute's leaders, not just the brief quotes that had appeared on television.....[more]

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abcnews; accountability; blogs; discoveryinstitute; fightingback; intelligentdesign; internet; mediabias; newmedia; weblogs; websites

1 posted on 01/02/2006 4:25:33 AM PST by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: infocats

From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon.


2 posted on 01/02/2006 4:28:06 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Expect legislation soon.

Indeed. Though the propaganda push is already in full swing, there was an article posted here yesterday(?) concerning the inaccuracy of the "Blogoshpere" in comparison to the "real" media. The liberal weenie who wrote the article seemed to take exception with the "real" media not being sufficiently revered for it's selfless struggle to preserve the "truth".

When you want to stop your enemy but can not imediately kill him, the first step is to discredit him. Bloggers are in the crosshairs as we type.
3 posted on 01/02/2006 4:38:58 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Whats with the Marquis of Queensbury Rules bullsh*t, we fight for our very survival! Fight Dirty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Expect legislation soon.

Count for McCain to be in on it.

4 posted on 01/02/2006 4:40:31 AM PST by johnny7 (“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infocats
Let the Freedom of the New Media Reign!

It's long been said, "You can't believe everything you read in the paper." I view the internet news and blogs like any other source of information. What is so different in a blog as opposed the the homeless guy selling his paper on the street corner? Each has something to say and a right to be heard.

They don't like the bloggers 'cause it questions their integrity? Perhaps shouldn't be doing things in such a manner as their integrity can be questioned?
5 posted on 01/02/2006 4:43:27 AM PST by EBH (Never give-up, Never give-in, and Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

The good news is that even if the Govt. and media succeed in censoring the Internet, technology will provide a way around it.

The truth will always come out in the end. McCain and his 'Act', the media whining, the concern of all politicians who cannot control the message - nothing will prevent it.


6 posted on 01/02/2006 4:44:14 AM PST by wvobiwan (It's OUR Net! If you don't like it keep your stanky routers off it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
"The liberal weenie who wrote the article seemed to take exception with the "real" media not being sufficiently revered for it's selfless struggle to preserve the "truth".

I wonder where the liberals get their unfailing respect for the "truth." Certainly not in our universities. There is no truth there. There is only the manipulation of language for political power.

7 posted on 01/02/2006 4:44:20 AM PST by Reactionary (The Liberal Social Order is a Hedonistic Idiocy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
To a liberal, the truth is a soft malleable thing. It changes from situation to situation but is ALWAYS what the liberal says it is. Until it no longer serves his needs.

You can never pin a liberal down to the truth of falsity of a particular situation because like morality(in the liberal mind), truths change depending on whether they support your desires of stand against them.

If you want the truth where a liberal is concerned, ask yourself one question. How does this benefit the liberal?
8 posted on 01/02/2006 4:51:37 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Whats with the Marquis of Queensbury Rules bullsh*t, we fight for our very survival! Fight Dirty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
truth of falsity

Of = Or.
9 posted on 01/02/2006 4:52:36 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Whats with the Marquis of Queensbury Rules bullsh*t, we fight for our very survival! Fight Dirty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
"But readers and viewers need to realize that one interview is only one part of the story, that there are other interviews and other research and that this is just a sliver of what goes into a complete report."

Elitist BS, as usual.

10 posted on 01/02/2006 4:57:27 AM PST by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
"The liberal weenie who wrote the article seemed to take exception with the "real" media not being sufficiently revered for it's selfless struggle to preserve the "truth"

Oh, they 'preserve' the truth alright. They just don't print it if it can benefit an evil Republican. They take the attitude of the Colonel in "A Few Good Men", "The truth? You couldn't handle the truth!"

11 posted on 01/02/2006 5:04:25 AM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: infocats
"This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

That's what MSM reporters do every day -- but they get upset when ordinary people turn the tables and do the same thing to them.

12 posted on 01/02/2006 6:12:52 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats
Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon, said the traditional skills of sifting through information and presenting it in context were especially vital now because there were so many other sources of information.

"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said. "I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

CNN is widely reviled by the military -- I hate to read quotes from one of their reporters telling me what a great job CNN is doing.

13 posted on 01/02/2006 6:18:59 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats; Timesink; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; ...
Media Schadenfreude alert.

Seelye:

..."Here's your chance to go behind the scenes with the gatekeepers of the national media to see how they screen out viewpoints and information that don't fit their stereotypes," Rob Crowther, the institute's spokesman, wrote on the Web site...

..."All these developments have forced journalists to respond in a variety of ways, including becoming more open about their methods and techniques and perhaps more conscious of how they filter information."

14 posted on 01/02/2006 6:21:13 AM PST by an amused spectator (Bush Runner! The Donkey is after you! Bush Runner! When he catches you, you're through!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel

Don't tick off a guy who buys his pixels by the Terabyte.

15 posted on 01/02/2006 6:23:52 AM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

But, but, but, don't you know that "CNN is the most trusted name in news"? They tell us so on their radio news updates on the hour, every hour. /sarc off


16 posted on 01/02/2006 6:27:46 AM PST by McGarrett (Book'em Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon.

Yes, we'll see how important the "public's right to know" really is...

17 posted on 01/02/2006 6:29:22 AM PST by GOPJ (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infocats
Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon..... It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

If that isn't a glaring example of the need for the internet, I don't know what is.

18 posted on 01/02/2006 6:30:50 AM PST by mollynme (cogito, ergo freepum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGarrett
But, but, but, don't you know that "CNN is the most trusted name in news"? They tell us so on their radio news updates on the hour, every hour. /sarc off

Whenever I'm listening to Rush in the afternoons and ABCNews comes on at the top of the hour, I do a voiceover for their intro blurb:

"And NOW here's the latest on how Bush sucks from ABCNews"

More often than not, the first piece is a Bush hitpiece...

19 posted on 01/02/2006 6:32:49 AM PST by an amused spectator (Bush Runner! The Donkey is after you! Bush Runner! When he catches you, you're through!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

It's the same with CNN. The local classical music station uses their news updates. If there's no really important news, they all too often lead with the latest story about U.S. military deaths in Iraq. The other thing I've noticed about these news updates, they'll always quote more Democrats in controversial stories, or they'll give them longer voice clips.


20 posted on 01/02/2006 6:42:11 AM PST by McGarrett (Book'em Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
Count for McCain to be in on it.

And count on Bush to sign it into law.

21 posted on 01/02/2006 6:43:47 AM PST by Maceman (Fake but accurate -- and now double-sourced)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: infocats
Read more at nytimes.com ...

NYT will get my money some time after Hell freezes over. They'll get my clicks on the Web some time after that.

Old Media needs to be reminded of the FULL First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will not concede that my freedom of speech is in any way inferior to the NYT's freedom of the press.
22 posted on 01/02/2006 6:47:08 AM PST by filbert (More filbert at http://www.medary.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator; All
Please recall hillary's ominous pronouncement about needing to rethink a "gate-keeping" function on the internet after the RAT's had their @sses kicked in the 1990's. To her credit, she saw the meaning of the net long before many did(even here on FR). Let's not stupidly discredit the enemy by thinking they're all fools like the blind and masturbating staff at the old gray whore. Some, like hillary and wolves, can actually formulate a pack strategy and attempt to take down prey much larger than themselves...
23 posted on 01/02/2006 7:03:52 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (The problem with being a 'big tent' Party is that the clowns are seated with the paying customers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: infocats

This article seemed to be uniquely fair. I think the author was trying to insinuate that now the world is free to see the process, that the end product will be somewhat deficient because the interviewers are now subject to scrutiny. Of course, the converse is true because they are no longer allowed to cherry pick their info in order to push their thinly veiled agendas.


24 posted on 01/02/2006 7:09:05 AM PST by kerryusama04 (The Bill of Rights is not occupation specific.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
"From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon."

The stocks of most of the MSM mediot companies took a real pounding in 2005. You can bet that they and their Congressit buddies are getting ready to save what is left of their bacon


25 posted on 01/02/2006 7:19:45 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infocats; Liz; martin_fierro; Ernest_at_the_Beach; devolve; PhilDragoo; BOBTHENAILER

I posted this thread yesterday. 2005 was not a good year stock price wise for the electronic MSM, and 2005 was more of a disaster for most of the big fishwraps.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550250/posts

Media stocks flat; majors down for `05 Big newspaper publishers' valuations slumped
Market Watch ^ | 12/30/2005 | William Spain


Posted on 01/01/2006 10:15:30 AM PST by Grampa Dave


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Media stocks ended the last day of 2005 trading pretty much flat as shares of all the big conglomerates stalled.

NWSNWS16.61, -0.06, -0.4%) , Disney (DIS: Walt Disney Company (The) (Holding Company) News, chart, profile Last: 23.97-0.20-0.83%

DISDIS23.97, -0.20, -0.8%) and Time Warner (TWX: time warner inc com News, chart, profile Last: 17.44-0.04-0.23%

TWXTWX17.44, -0.04, -0.2%) ended down less than 1%, while Viacom (VIA: viacom inc cl a News, chart, profile Last: 32.76+0.34+1.05%

VIAVIA32.76, +0.34, +1.0%) was up slightly.

The four will end the year lower than where they started it. Time Warner is down 10.3% over the past 52 weeks; Viacom is off 11.7%; News Corp. is down 13.5%; and Disney has given up 13.8%.

But that isn't a patch on the valuation drops at some big newspaper companies:

The New York Times (NYT: New York Times Company News, chart, profile Last: 26.45+0.01+0.04%

NYT abd TRB have surrendered 35.2% and 28.42, respectively, since the end of 2004.

Dow Jones, (DJ: dow jones & co inc com), parent of MarketWatch, the publisher of this report, is off 17.6%

In an interview with the Times of London, Martin Sorrell the chief executive of advertising agency holding company WPP warned that while global ad spending should be up in 2006 with the help of worldwide sporting events and U.S. midterm elections, it could be a tough year for the industry in some spots.

Shares of WPP Group (UK:WPP: news, chart, profile) were down in London as were those of both its American rivals, Omnicom (OMC: and Interpublic (IPG:

William Spain is a MarketWatch staff writer in Chicago.


26 posted on 01/02/2006 7:24:30 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats
"It's now O.K. to demonize the messenger," he said. "This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

Awwwwwwwwwww! In other words, they're caught, and they know it!

With reporters conducting interviews more frequently by e-mail, he said, "You have to start thinking a couple of moves ahead because you're leaving a paper trail. And the truth squad mentality of some bloggers means you are apt to have your own questions thrown back at you."

"Truth Squad" mentality? My, they're upset at being exposed!

"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said.

And that's different from what you do, how?

27 posted on 01/02/2006 7:27:15 AM PST by BlessedBeGod (Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

Thanks for the ping.


28 posted on 01/02/2006 7:28:08 AM PST by GOPJ (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Heheh----happy days are here, again.


29 posted on 01/02/2006 7:30:40 AM PST by Liz (You may not be interested in politics; doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you. Pericles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.


30 posted on 01/02/2006 8:06:48 AM PST by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

" It couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.!"

Amen, and may they continue have it "happen to them" throughout 2006 and as long as they are in business.


31 posted on 01/02/2006 8:22:07 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Jamie McIntyre: "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

So Jamie McIntyre admits CNN has an agenda!? They have to tell US what the information means? We're not capable of understanding and drawing our own conclusions?

My, what a judgmental and demeaning statement that is. CNN is the "elite" and we, the plebeians, with no ability to comprehend, must be "told" what the information given means?

ExCUZE, me, but I have a college education and I read and I have a molecule of brain cells and I can even use a computer as well as a library to research for information. WHY should I believe YOUR interpretation, Jamie McIntyre and CNN? How many times has CNN pushed an agenda instead of reporting just the facts of a case?

That's a rhetorical question, yet, there's someone at CNN who will sit at a desk trying to think of the one time CNN did not have an agenda. And that person's skeleton will be discovered, covered with spider webs, in fifty years.

Even on the first day the station opened, first line of the first person who said "This is CNN" -- had an agenda.
32 posted on 01/02/2006 10:34:45 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (In Memory of Crockett Nicolas, hit and run in the prime of his Cocker Spaniel life, 9/3/05.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; infocats; RonDog
Thanks for the ping....Hugh Hewitt's Blog has a bit on this (Why is it in the Business section?):

Power of the Blogs" and the Sherpas Who Write Them.

*******************Excerpt******


The article --in the business ssection-- recognizes that MSM has been filtering news, has been selectively quoting sources, and has been upended by blogs that do neither.

"The good old days" when those with the access could control the story are gone. Meloncholy is the best way to describe the air of the piece's pro agenda-journalism slant. Like a buggy maker's sighs as the cars that first annoyed then disturbed finally became not a nuisance or a challenge but an eclipse.

"They will always need buggies," I am sure the best buggy assembler said to himself:

***************************

See link for the rest of Hugh's comments....

33 posted on 01/02/2006 12:42:34 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
Count for McCain to be in on it.

F--- McCain! I'm going to FLAT OUT make a candidate endorsement on my upcoming DUmmie FUnnies audio podcast. Hey McCain! You don't like it? Then indict me! I would LOVE to be a test case on this issue.

34 posted on 01/02/2006 12:54:33 PM PST by PJ-Comix (Join the DUmmie FUnnies PING List for the FUNNIEST Blog on the Web)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All; Grampa Dave; Liz
From Captain's Quarters Blog:

January 02, 2006
Journos Reckon With Empowered Readership, Still Mostly Clueless

*******************************Excerpt**********

The media revolution of the past three years has introduced a level of empowerment to the consumers of mass media unlike anything that has ever existed before, and that empowerment comes primarily through the blogosphere and the Internet. The New York Times' Katherine Seelye explores some of the impact felt by journalists and editors at having to make themselves accountable to their readers:

**************snip*********************

What the technology allows people like me to do is to become our own newspaper, our own media outlet, with the entire blogosphere acting as oversight to my posts. It takes the same basic activities that reporters perform -- fact-gathering, quote-gathering, interviews on occasion, and publication -- and then subjects the result to a peer-review process that the media long since gave up.

It's that crucial component that Seelye misses in her article, and that the media misses when it considers the impact of the blogosphere. Blogs get their assumptions wrong and facts incorrect as well, but the natural peer-review process exposes it pretty quickly -- and our credibility suffers if we don't acknowledge it. The Exempt Media doesn't bother to do peer review or act in any kind of competitive manner at all, except in narrow geographic areas where newspapers and local TV stations compete for consumer attention.

****************************************

See link for the full article....

35 posted on 01/02/2006 1:26:06 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SueRae; Liz; Grampa Dave; PJ-Comix; infocats
From another Blog:

Memo from NY Times to Confidential Sources: You're Toast

*******************************Excerpt*****************

Memo from: Bill Keller, Executive Editor The New York Times
To: Our Confidential Sources
re: Screwed, Blued & Tattooed. Sorry.

Gentlemen:

The dozen of you have been of inestimable value to the New York Times and I want you to know that we, the reporters, editors and shareholders, appreciate it. Your willingness to talk with us a year ago about your concerns surrounding NSA eavesdropping on Al Qaida conversations with their operatives in our homeland is evidence of how highly you value a free press.* It's a value we share with you and with all enlightened Americans living within our circulation footprint.

Your willingness to share highly classified information with Jim and Eric before taking it through the normal channels for internal complaints within NSA, CIA and Justice or even up to the congressional oversight committees was commendable. It allowed you to be effective, which as we all know is extremely difficult when one is in a minority position.

You helped us bring fresh light on this Administration's total disregard for American values, in that what is not explicitly legal is by definition illegal when the Administration is conservative. You showed up all those petty people who disagreed with your position, they'll be facing months of hearings and visits with their lawyers while attempting to defend a really useless attempt at defense. Talk about a win/win. Wow!

Even more, though. You can look forward to the day when the program itself is cancelled, thanks to your efforts. As it becomes less effective—I mean, you'd have to be a pretty dense terrorist to continue to depend on phone calls after this!–and the pain of running this formerly covert exercise increases what with the hearings and all, well… it's just natural that it will quietly fade away. Thanks to you!

So, let me pat you on the back and add my "atta boy!" to the congratulations I'm certain you're already enjoying from so many of your friends and neighbors who've heard your story.

************************************

See link for rest...........

36 posted on 01/02/2006 1:50:11 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: infocats
"...We've pretended to be like priests turning water to wine, like it's a secret process. Those days are gone."

Amen!

37 posted on 01/02/2006 2:04:52 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

LOL-----beautiful.


38 posted on 01/02/2006 3:25:56 PM PST by Liz (You may not be interested in politics; doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you. Pericles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated
Jamie McIntyre: "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."


That is the one sentence that drove me nuts. Thank you for your comments, I totally agree. The thing that strikes me, is that is what the entire Democrap mindset is: you are too stupid to understand what is good for you. Ex: Hitlary's comment on 'we have to take some of these things away from you for the common good....'

Reminds me of the days before the Gutenburg press, when the Bible was printed and the 'peasants' learned to read, and understand. Hello???????

You hit the nail on the head!!
39 posted on 01/02/2006 4:29:21 PM PST by nuclady (( Nagin, Blanco and Landrieu: Wynkin', Blynkin', and Nod ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
A couple of my favorite passages:

Danny Schechter, executive editor of MediaChannel.org and a former producer at ABC News and CNN, said that while the active participation by so many readers was healthy for democracy and journalism, it had allowed partisanship to mask itself as media criticism and had given rise to a new level of vitriol.

I dont' suppose it ever occurred to this guy that "partisanship" could mask itself as journalsim, eh. The new level of vitriol is only new to him. Angst at the media and their shenanigans has been around for more years than the internet; it's just allowed the "other" voices to be heard.

"It's now O.K. to demonize the messenger," he said. "This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

Heh. And the downside is???

40 posted on 01/02/2006 4:29:25 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
"This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

So I guess Schechter heard about me nicknaming Anick Jesdanun "Cookies" Jesdanun. :-)

More to come, Danny. ;-)

41 posted on 01/02/2006 8:17:31 PM PST by an amused spectator (Bush Runner! The Donkey is after you! Bush Runner! When he catches you, you're through!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake; Ernest_at_the_Beach; little jeremiah

A search on Danny Schechter is interesting. He appears to be worn out 60 year old pusher of the Gay Agenda and hater of republicans and a strong military. The link below is interesting:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_412/whatmakesdannyrun.html


42 posted on 01/03/2006 7:11:50 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Thanks, Grampa. Speaking of media bias, did you see the article this AM with the AP calls terrorists "martyrs"? GAG.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551089/posts
Associated Press photo caption describes terrorist as a "martyr"

Next they'll be calling them saints.


43 posted on 01/03/2006 8:50:19 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
So I guess Schechter heard about me nicknaming Anick Jesdanun "Cookies" Jesdanun.

With a tiger like "Cookies" on the case, we should be thankful the Bush imperialists aren't dropping, er, spyware on their visitors, eh? No pun intended of course.

44 posted on 01/03/2006 9:21:52 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
He appears to be worn out 60 year old pusher of the Gay Agenda...

Egad, another one! A lot of these "happy" folks fetched up in journalism. And they want to change the world; making it a better place?? Spare me!

I feel a graphic coming on. How's about the "Fudgesicle Times" or "The New Fudgesicle Times"? "The Los Angeles Fudgesicles"???

45 posted on 01/03/2006 9:46:41 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

How about Fudgepackers of the MSM?


46 posted on 01/03/2006 11:10:26 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Wonder what the percentage of Gay's in the Journalism profession is....sems rather high!


47 posted on 01/03/2006 11:42:12 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Hmmm, the MSM, packing fudge so you don't have to??? Uh, packing fudge for "Pinch"???


48 posted on 01/03/2006 12:22:32 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

They were there before they came out of the closet and have settled heavily into the MSM for the past two decades.

When we run these Yahoo searches on some of these MSM Fudgepackers, their electronic/paper trails of pushing the Gay Agenda often go back a decade.


49 posted on 01/03/2006 2:42:24 PM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson