Posted on 09/19/2005 8:36:17 PM PDT by aculeus
occasionally forcing back tears, he said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."
Gee Dano, YOU could have said NI to the neweweltansordnungjournalismi, but you were in there
goose stepping with the rest of them!
If there were justice in the world, you'd be drug out of
your comfy studio and hung from a lamp post for perpetrating
a fraud on the American People for THIRTY YEARS!!!
Just brings tears to your eyes, doesn't it?
What a crock. Dan's fantasies are too much. CBS was the American liberal version of Pravda, a propaganda ministry right out of a George Orwell novel. Liberals destroyed the news media long before the wet lipstick fashion model newsreaders came along.
"Rather blasts 'new journalism order'"
Once again proving where he stands on the "adapt or die" aspect of the workplace.
That's pretty sad. A child in middle school could have explained to Rather how biased the cBS Evening News was.
Sign up for the National Guard - even for a specialty which requires a substantial commitment to active duty for training and makes you the tip of the NG spear - and cynics will say that if you didn't get killed in Viet Nam you are a draft dodger and not qualified to use the military in accordance with the Constitution. Decide to allow that training to lapse after historical changes have reduced the call for people with that training, and cynics will second guess that.But be cynical about American culture and values, urge people to refuse military service, and oppose funding the American military for thirty years, and you will be the cynic's choice for president.
The new journalism order is far better than the old journalism disorder.
If you want to know why I'm what you call a cynic you have only to look at your defensive rationalizations.
Your ostensible agnosticism on the subject cannot survive a fair reading of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents
5.56mm
I've been slowly working through the Newcomer article you linked. It's slow because I'm neither an expert in the history of digital typography nor a bright 12 year old who's fluent in word (the only two groups Newcomer thought would find his article to be child's play).
Whether I'm beating a dead horse depeneds on whether you still can't make up your mind about whether the documents are fake. So, you tell me. The Wikipedia article, which cites Newcomer, is easier to absorb than Newcomer in the original Greek, if that's any help.
Why is my position so difficult to accept?
At the time I didn't know about the opinions of a consensus and I found it impossible to follow the technical discussion. One guy said a typewriter could do what another said it couldn't. One expert claimed a near perfect match for the documents and Word generated modern copies. Another said the similarities were only superficial and disappeared upon examination under magnification. A third said it was impossible to decide because, after so many generations of copying, too much noise had been introduced. And so on.
By the way, I believe it's true that a consensus of experts supports the idea that modern global warming is caused by human activity...and that Intelligent design is about as scientific as necromancy.
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.