Stars join anti-war hunger strike

[lukpac]

Yes, a few exceptions, but how about http://www.timeswatch.org?

What about it? Most of the stuff there is fluff about the bank spying program. Then you have stuff like this:

"Dr. Denton was under treatment for a severe thyroid problem several months ago, and she went on medical leave on June 15, though the reason was undisclosed. But some speculated that her status as an openly gay woman was what had really driven much of the criticism of her and that it had all grown to be too much....And Angela Davis, a professor at the Santa Cruz campus, referred at the memorial to 'the swirling controversies' and 'unrelenting homophobic attacks' that she said Dr. Denton had endured."

If that name sounds familiar, it is. And surely Glater knows about Davis' radical left-wing history (she was the Communist Party's VP candidate in 1980 and 1984) -- so why not put it in, unless it would make her positive opinion of the late liberal professor appear off-putting and outre?

"[S]o why not put it in"? Huh? Maybe because it had nothing to do with the story?

And as far as the rest goes...the fact that more and more secret stuff keeps coming to light doesn't bother you?

[lukpac]

No, but the Times did at least give someone a chance to go against the grain, so to speak.

What makes you think they are preventing people from "going against the grain"?

The fact that the NYT is exposing a lot of this stuff shouldn't be the story. The fact that few others *are* should.

[krabapple]

The times is biased and hates Bush. If they can make him look bad, they certainly will in any way that they can.

Oh, *bullshit* and *boo fucking hoo*. Compared to Clinton, whose *impeachment they advocated*, Bush has gotten a free ride from the Times.

It's a sign of desperation when your side pulls out this 'they make him look bad on purpose' whining.

[krabapple]

As far as Judith Miller goes, that is more of an exception, in my opinion, than a common occurence. I think the times deserves credit for that.

Credit for what? Misinformation?

No, but the Times did at least give someone a chance to go against the grain, so to speak.

Go against the grain?? The Times *supported* the Iraq war.

Do you ever read the actual paper itself, as opposed to the rightwing asshole blogs that complain about selections from it?

[Matt]

The times is biased and hates Bush. If they can make him look bad, they certainly will in any way that they can.

Oh, *bullshit* and *boo fucking hoo*. Compared to Clinton, whose *impeachment they advocated*, Bush has gotten a free ride from the Times.

It's a sign of desperation when your side pulls out this 'they make him look bad on purpose' whining.

A free fide? Come the fuck on man. You're not going to tell me next that the Times isn't biased, or that it's a little left leaning?

Speaking of whining, I would say *your* side does more than plenty of it.

[Matt]

As far as Judith Miller goes, that is more of an exception, in my opinion, than a common occurence. I think the times deserves credit for that.

Credit for what? Misinformation?

No, but the Times did at least give someone a chance to go against the grain, so to speak.

Go against the grain?? The Times *supported* the Iraq war.

Do you ever read the actual paper itself, as opposed to the rightwing asshole blogs that complain about selections from it?

No, I don't regularly read The Times. Nor do I read "rightwing asshole" blogs. This forum is where, and only where, I ever speak of politics.

I recall that The Times did receive some criticism in '02 for supporting the Iraq War. Honestly, The Times has seemed pretty critical of Bush and the war for a while now.

[Matt]

The fact that the NYT is exposing a lot of this stuff shouldn't be the story. The fact that few others *are* should.

Honestly Luke, should the public be aware of things like that? I don't see a need, and like you, I think freedom of the press is important.

[lukpac]

Honestly Luke, should the public be aware of things like that? I don't see a need, and like you, I think freedom of the press is important.

I'll admit the banking thing doesn't seem as outrageous as some of the other recent discoveries, but it does lend itself to a disturbing pattern. And to imply it will cause the country *harm* (going as far as yelling treason) is just stupid.

[Rspaight]

The issue isn't whether the public needed to know about SWIFT -- they already did.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... _some_say/

The issue is this completely bogus theory that the Times is trying to help the terrorists, which is too ridiculous to dignify with an argument.

No, but the Times did at least give someone a chance to go against the grain, so to speak.

So it's good that they print false stories every once in a while (like Miller's Chalabi-fed WMD fantasies) to balance out the factual stuff?

Ryan

[Bennett Cerf]

As far as Judith Miller goes, that is more of an exception, in my opinion, than a common occurence. I think the times deserves credit for that.

I love it. The Times deserves credit for printing a false story pushed by the Bush administration.

[Chris M]

The fact that the NYT is exposing a lot of this stuff shouldn't be the story. The fact that few others *are* should.

Honestly Luke, should the public be aware of things like that? I don't see a need, and like you, I think freedom of the press is important.

Let me ask you this Matt. Who do you think should have the authority to tell the press what stories they can run? The Gov't?

[krabapple]

The times is biased and hates Bush. If they can make him look bad, they certainly will in any way that they can.

Oh, *bullshit* and *boo fucking hoo*. Compared to Clinton, whose *impeachment they advocated*, Bush has gotten a free ride from the Times.

It's a sign of desperation when your side pulls out this 'they make him look bad on purpose' whining.

A free fide? Come the fuck on man. You're not going to tell me next that the Times isn't biased, or that it's a little left leaning?

What part of *compared to Clinton* was unclear to you? And how to explain how a biased liberal rag like the NYT went after Clinton with both barrels firing, hmm?

[Matt]

As far as Judith Miller goes, that is more of an exception, in my opinion, than a common occurence. I think the times deserves credit for that.

I love it. The Times deserves credit for printing a false story pushed by the Bush administration.

Take that any way you want it. If I put down The Times for having a bias, I'll get shit on here. If I say they deserve some credit for publishing something which goes against the grain, but was found to be false later, I'll get shit on as well.

[Bennett Cerf]

Tough times for a Bushbot.

If only reality weren't so biased against the Bush administration.

[lukpac]

Take that any way you want it. If I put down The Times for having a bias, I'll get shit on here. If I say they deserve some credit for publishing something which goes against the grain, but was found to be false later, I'll get shit on as well.

The "grain" you cite is one *you've created*.

And I have to laugh at shit like this. Times Watch clearly has no idea what the difference is between reporting and commentary. And even when it doesn't matter, they are still clueless. Quote:

"So, seven months after criticizing Bush for failing to track terrorist financing, Lichtblau made it far more difficult to do so with his exposure of the SWIFT terrorist-tracking program. Don’t expect the Times to acknowledge this contradiction anytime soon."

Yet the paragraph above contains this:

More from Lichtblau in November: “The administration has made cutting off money to terrorists one of the main prongs in its attack against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It has seized tens of millions of dollars in American accounts and assets linked to terrorist groups, prodded other countries to do the same, and is now developing a program to gain access to and track potentially hundreds of millions of international bank transfers into the United States. [...]"

Of course, there's absolutely no reasoning behind why exposing SWIFT should make any of this more difficult.