Wacka Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Just when you thought the NY Times couldn't get any slimier, they do: Why did they look into it?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Just when you thought the NY Times couldn't get any slimier, they do: Why did they look into it? 398973[/snapback] And if Fox could get away with it, they would. The Times is hardly the only media outlet seduced by the profit margins of tabloid journalism...
Chilly Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 A media company trying to find out inside information? I'M SHOCKED!
Wacka Posted August 5, 2005 Author Posted August 5, 2005 A media company trying to find out inside information? I'M SHOCKED! 399000[/snapback] Again the lib totally misses the point.
/dev/null Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Again the lib totally misses the point. 399020[/snapback] Think like a liberal.... Bush Bad! Therefore, the ends justify the means
Chilly Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Again the lib totally misses the point. 399020[/snapback] You missed my point, which was the same as CTMs: Why the hell does this surprise you?
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Doesn't it seem strange that two kids adopted from Latin America are so blonde. But, anyway, this stuff is not new. Think of all the Politicians that have withdrawn names because they had illegal immigrants in their household uncovered by media.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Just when you thought the NY Times couldn't get any slimier, they do: Why did they look into it? 398973[/snapback] LIBERAL MEDIA BAD! FOX NEWS GOOD! I feel like I'm in an echo chamber here. What effing difference is there? The problem is not one side or the other, it's both, and it's the fact that a juicy, salacious story catches more eyes and sells more advertising. It's that simple. Don't go acting like Brit Hume is the epitome of responsible "reporting."
UConn James Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 LIBERAL MEDIA BAD! FOX NEWS GOOD! I feel like I'm in an echo chamber here. What effing difference is there? The problem is not one side or the other, it's both, and it's the fact that a juicy, salacious story catches more eyes and sells more advertising. It's that simple. Don't go acting like Brit Hume is the epitome of responsible "reporting." 399148[/snapback] Actually, the real problem is when both sides continue to spin in the "what's wrong for you is not wrong for me" circle. Like when the right and Russia cry about Nightline airing the interview with Basayev, yet when Jean-Marie Le Pen is interviewed about why the Nazis were great.... that's no big deal. Why did they look into it? NYT tries to turn over every stone. They deal in information, even if it never sees ink.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Actually, the real problem is when both sides continue to spin in the "what's wrong for you is not wrong for me" circle. 399203[/snapback] I'd say you're dead-on, but for me that's just a symptom of the larger problem in the hegemonic structure of the media. This fabricated conflict is just grease for the gears of a monolithic machine. It's the reason nothing gets done, and the truth takes a backseat.
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Why did they look into it? NYT tries to turn over every stone. They deal in information, even if it never sees ink. 399203[/snapback] I am glad they do it. Most likely Roberts will be confirmed, (and I think rightly so) but this is a lifetime appointment. Only one chance to have a look.
Wacka Posted August 5, 2005 Author Posted August 5, 2005 You totally don't get it. That is why the dems keep losing seats. They are dragging his kids into it. I heard they also wanted to investigate his wife! Adoption records are sealed. What "right" does the NYT have to be trying to get sealed records that have nothing to do with his job opened? It's just the Bush/Right is bad mantra. Keep at it. Keep losing. Strange that the National Enquirer has more ethics than the NYT does.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 I am glad they do it. Most likely Roberts will be confirmed, (and I think rightly so) but this is a lifetime appointment. Only one chance to have a look. 399218[/snapback] Normally I might agree with you...but digging into his adoption records is pretty damned low, I think. That's not too far removed from attacking his kids.
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 You totally don't get it. That is why the dems keep losing seats. They are dragging his kids into it. I heard they also wanted to investigate his wife! Adoption records are sealed. What "right" does the NYT have to be trying to get sealed records that have nothing to do with his job opened? It's just the Bush/Right is bad mantra. Keep at it. Keep losing. Strange that the National Enquirer has more ethics than the NYT does. 399258[/snapback] I do get it. I just have a different point of view. There is probably no story here at all, but legal documents have everything to do with his job. Probably the adoption records will remain sealed, that doesn't mean that journalist shouldn't try to find out everything they can about him. This isn't attack journalism, at least not yet. In the times that I have dealt with NYT reporters they were tedious fact checkers, (or at least at one time when they had tough editors). Most of the stuff they get never makes it to print. If however, and this is a fictional scenario, they discover that the biological mother of the kids was paid 100,000 dollars, it says nothing about the kids, but would tell us something about Roberts.
Thailog80 Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 1955 called they want the clothes back that the kids had on. Saddle shoes...wtf?
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 1955 called they want the clothes back that the kids had on. Saddle shoes...wtf? 399364[/snapback] This was political stagecraft, and it was successful. Ask yourself why was an appointment made as a primetime announcement with the entire family of the candidate. Although abortion can't be discussed from the POV of the President, having the two adopted children present sends a not too subtle message to Bush's core constituency. The President's choice to do this was smart politics. Of course the President's team has already done background checks. If the press finds nothing shady about the adoptions (which I believe they won't), it will reaffirm the message that Bush was trying to send, which is I am selecting a man that is a good family man, and sees adoption as a viable alternative to the word I can't talk about in the nomination process.
Alaska Darin Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 This was political stagecraft, and it was successful. Ask yourself why was an appointment made as a primetime announcement with the entire family of the candidate. Although abortion can't be discussed from the POV of the President, having the two adopted children present sends a not too subtle message to Bush's core constituency. The President's choice to do this was smart politics. Of course the President's team has already done background checks. If the press finds nothing shady about the adoptions (which I believe they won't), it will reaffirm the message that Bush was trying to send, which is I am selecting a man that is a good family man, and sees adoption as a viable alternative to the word I can't talk about in the nomination process. 399420[/snapback] Are you fuggin' kidding? This man was just nominated to one of the most important positions in the country and announcing it in prime time with his family in attendance was for political reasons? I guess they should have done it in a bunker at 0300 Eastern with a Sony Handicam and a candle. It's amazing how hard the majority of people will look at something to find a hidden meaning in something yet won't spend 10 minutes on their personal finance.
VABills Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 This was political stagecraft, and it was successful. Ask yourself why was an appointment made as a primetime announcement with the entire family of the candidate. Although abortion can't be discussed from the POV of the President, having the two adopted children present sends a not too subtle message to Bush's core constituency. The President's choice to do this was smart politics. Of course the President's team has already done background checks. If the press finds nothing shady about the adoptions (which I believe they won't), it will reaffirm the message that Bush was trying to send, which is I am selecting a man that is a good family man, and sees adoption as a viable alternative to the word I can't talk about in the nomination process. 399420[/snapback] I doubt this was the message. But if it was, they did a damn good job setting it up, and I for one like the message. Let's see a couple of children alive and making a difference in the world, or dead and kitty chow in a garbage dump. Alex, I'll take door number one please.
boomerjamhead Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 I doubt this was the message. But if it was, they did a damn good job setting it up, and I for one like the message. Let's see a couple of children alive and making a difference in the world, or dead and kitty chow in a garbage dump. Alex, I'll take door number one please. 399489[/snapback] Yeah for real. I can't believe these a-holes who seemingly try to demonize adoption. !@#$ the pro-choice crowd.
Recommended Posts