Chilly Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Has it been in their #$@%% newspaper? NO. Have they ruled out putting it in their !@#$ing newspaper? NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Have they ruled out putting it in their !@#$ing newspaper? NO. Either you are putting me on, or you are truly this daft. Either way, I'm done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Either you are putting me on, or you are truly this daft. It doesn't matter how many times you attempt to draw a premature conclusion, its still a premature conclusion. That, my friend, is daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 There are two papers in SF. The Examiner and the Chronicle. Both used to be good papers. The Examiner has become a free tabloid (ala Pennysaver). The Chronicle has been bleed ing money and losing readers left and right. Mr. Sharon Stone used to be the editor, but got fired. The sports section is on a par with the cheektowaga Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Not putting it in the newspaper when it is the HOMETOWN politician IS not covering it. Have to agree, there. A major story involving their senator (who derives much of her support from the SF area) resigning a committee.... It should have run the next day. Even monkeys stringing together AP wire stories --- which is actually a pretty good rundown of what the Chronicle does; they are a joke even in the newspaper industry --- should've been expected to pick that up. If they're planning a big, in-depth story about it, well that would mitigate, but doesn't change the fact that something --- even if they used all manner of weasel words like 'might,' 'seems,' and 'apparent,' and even if it was 2 inches on page B13 --- should have been in there the next day. Even if a blurb was to simply say she resigned, but offered no reason. Someone made a choice not to run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 My favorite part of the story is that the San Francisco Chronicle is apparently refusing to cover it. Pretty much the journalistic equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you." mmmmmm.....bias. Bias? Then why isn't the Republican party's media mouth piece covering the story either? Fox 'news' hasn't mentioned it at all. I searched there website and nothing. Going with this story, IMO, would be akin to printing rumors. What is this media outlet that went with the story? And they were going on a lead from the Nation, a respected Liberal media source, to be sure, but the problem is, they haven't released the story yet. So keep it up. Pretty soon you will catch the "liberal" media in the act, just not this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 For what? The exact same problem with conflicts of interest that every single other politician in the country has? Hell, I'm just going to say "Yes, she should, because she's a Democrat". For no other reason than because capricious partisanship seems to be the only thing your little idiot mind can comprehend. Tom, you are an idiot. Allow me to explain. Every single other politician in the country does not steer contracts to their spouse. That's just stupid. I don't know how you got me being partisan out of asking if a fellow Democrat should be arrested, but I guess that goes back to your idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Tom, you are an idiot. Allow me to explain. Every single other politician in the country does not steer contracts to their spouse. All that proves is that you have absolutely no idea how the government works. Feinstein didn't steer a single dime her husband's way. DC doesn't work that way. She's at least three steps removed from the decision as to who to award contracts to. That's just stupid. I don't know how you got me being partisan out of asking if a fellow Democrat should be arrested, but I guess that goes back to your idiocy. Just trying to get inside your head. Awful lonely in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Bias? Then why isn't the Republican party's media mouth piece covering the story either? Fox 'news' hasn't mentioned it at all. I searched there website and nothing.No one knows why Fox News does anything. They employ Geraldo. No one here really cares either. Pretty soon you will catch the "liberal" media in the act, just not this time.That's hilarious. You obsess over Fox News as a Republican mouthpiece but reject any notion that there are liberal counterparts. Guess what, jackass, slanted coverage doesn't mean coverage you don't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Just trying to get inside your head. Awful lonely in there... Careful, Tom. You're boldly going where no thought has gone before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Who is Peter Byrne? Obviously he has an axe to grind but after trying to decypher the following quote, I can't quite figure out if his axe leans to the left or to the right: "You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee. Conversely, you'd think she might stick around MILCON to try and fix the medical-care disaster she helped to engineer for the vets who were suckered into fighting her and Bush's panoply of unjust wars." Conversely, I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about a story reported by some Silicon Valley Weekly Newspaper that none of the leading left or right wing national news sources will touch without further investigation. PS, IMHO Bring on the investigation if someone thinks this is worthy of using up the time and money. Until then it's just another far right talking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Fineswine is a total idiot. For those that don't know, she got her jump start when the mayor and a supervisor in SF were killed by another supervisor. Dan White, one of teh board of supervisors was corrupt and was going to be indicted for it. He shot the Mayor and Harvey Milk. Fineswine was the vice mayor and became mayor. When the debate on "assault weapons" was going on in congress, she said that she "saw the effects of assault weapons first hand". White used a handgun, not an assault weapon. While she was mayor, the Hillside Strangler was still loose. He had moved from LA to SF. The cops had been honing in on him, due to the fact that the strangler wore a prototype of sneaker with a unique tread that only had a few hundred made. They had narrowed the search down to about 50 people and had kept it out of the news. Fineswine goes and blabs it at a news conference. They finally caught him 6 months-one year later. After he was convicted, the Strangler said that when he heard her on TV, he took his sneakers and threw them off of the Golden Gate Bridge. I don't remember if he killed anyone else between the time he got rid of the sneakers and was arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1) No one knows why Fox News does anything. They employ Geraldo. No one here really cares either. 2) That's hilarious. You obsess over Fox News as a Republican mouthpiece but reject any notion that there are liberal counterparts. Guess what, jackass, slanted coverage doesn't mean coverage you don't agree with. 1) They attack Democrats, but haven't picked up this story....think! 2) This from the guy who thinks Cheney is more believeable than the entire press! I know there are liberal media sources, I read some of them. But you try and say the entire media is lying about things like Iraq. Big difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Conversely, I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about a story reported by some Silicon Valley Weekly Newspaper that none of the leading left or right wing national news sources will touch without further investigation. Great post, you said what I tried to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1) They attack Democrats, but haven't picked up this story....think! 2) This from the guy who thinks Cheney is more believeable than the entire press! I know there are liberal media sources, I read some of them. But you try and say the entire media is lying about things like Iraq. Big difference Yeah, I pretty much trust Cheney as much as I trust any reporter or group of reporters. I think the vast majority of reporters are biased or incompetent or both. For all the crap we give politicians (and rightly so), they do deserve some credit for wanting jobs that come with a ton of responsibility. As much as I love this country, I don't think I'll ever want the responsibility, stress, and bull sh-- that would come with being POTUS. Reporters really don't have much responsibility. If you're great at your job and you're a politician, policeman, firefighter, doctor, etc. you can help a whole lot of people. If you're great at your job and you're a reporter, that means you break some big story like Watergate. If you're bad at your job and you're a politician, policeman, firefighter, doctor, etc. that means people get hurt. If you're bad at your job and you're a reporter, that pretty much means you end up obscure and maybe don't get promoted. Or maybe you write a book and cash in. Reporters to me are people that want to be famous and/or have the power to change the world without the responsibility that comes with that power. Jayson Blair built an entire career on lies and never really had to pay for it. How many other high profile jobs are like that? So basically, yeah, I think Cheney is more worth listening to than the group thought that comes out of most newsrooms, though that isn't saying much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 O RLY? In what world is a statement by them saying that they are still investigating it evidence that they refuse to cover it? Are you kidding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Yeah, I pretty much trust Cheney as much as I trust any reporter or group of reporters. I think the vast majority of reporters are biased or incompetent or both. For all the crap we give politicians (and rightly so), they do deserve some credit for wanting jobs that come with a ton of responsibility. As much as I love this country, I don't think I'll ever want the responsibility, stress, and bull sh-- that would come with being POTUS. Reporters really don't have much responsibility. If you're great at your job and you're a politician, policeman, firefighter, doctor, etc. you can help a whole lot of people. If you're great at your job and you're a reporter, that means you break some big story like Watergate. If you're bad at your job and you're a politician, policeman, firefighter, doctor, etc. that means people get hurt. If you're bad at your job and you're a reporter, that pretty much means you end up obscure and maybe don't get promoted. Or maybe you write a book and cash in. Reporters to me are people that want to be famous and/or have the power to change the world without the responsibility that comes with that power. Jayson Blair built an entire career on lies and never really had to pay for it. How many other high profile jobs are like that? So basically, yeah, I think Cheney is more worth listening to than the group thought that comes out of most newsrooms, though that isn't saying much. By the way, I think what I wrote last night mainly applies to political reporting, primarily on a national level. The press can and should play a significant and positive role in society when it comes to investigative journalism. The Walter Reed and Abu Gharib stories showed that. Unfortunately, there's a ton more work to do when it comes to meaningful government reform but most outlets choose to cheerlead for one political party or the other. Either that, our cover Anna Nicole Smith or Sanjaya on American Idol (rare topics that they seem to understand enough to report on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 So basically, yeah, I think Cheney is more worth listening to than the group thought that comes out of most newsrooms, Nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts