My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Telecom Companies Versus Communities | Main | Jerk CEOs, Part 12,434 »

April 16, 2005

Comments

Owen

not:

The theme running through your responses seems to be that misbehavior is not limited to one party, one house or one branch. I haven't seen any writer question that assertion. Election irregularities, influence peddling, and all sorts of other issues of mis-, mal- and non-feasance by elected and appointed officials come up with appalling regularity in all corners.

So what?

Would you advocate that the media or the law or ethics groups shouldn't pursue some if they can't get all, giving everybody a pass for dishonorable acts? Does the extent or impact of wrongdoing not matter, lumping big and little sinners together for punishment or forgiveness?

For all the references to motes and logs, the fact remains that partisans on both sides tend look at the other party for evildoers, the more independent and objective observers reflect on them all, and it's the individual case's severity and significance that should command our attention in a manner appropriate to the offense.

not a Yank

Owen:

The theme running through all my comments is that the "objective" media is anything but. The media have an agenda and it colors the stories they report and the slant they give the news.

I argue that the media chooses to investigate individuals not because of the wrong that individual does but because that individual does not support the agenda of the media. Others who have engaged in similar or worse malfeasance are not pursued with such vigor because those individuals support the agenda of the media.

Mr. Delay is an example of such selective investigation. I have provided examples and details of others who also deserve investigation that are not being investigated because they support the agenda of the media.

This selective indignation and advocacy has now resulted in 56% of the people do not believe what they read in a newspaper. I do not think this statistic is comforting to anyone who wants an informed body politic.


Ran Talbott

"Instead you are just dismissive of all the information gathered and posted and discussed"

No, I'm being dismissinve of The Vast Media-Government Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth, which turned out to be a simple case of you not being able to do a google search.

"Sarcastic comments such as those you made do not persuade anyone of the merits of your position."

That's okay: they're intended to highlight the ridiculousness of yours.

The comments to this entry are closed.