KFNX1100AM Listen Live
Air America


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

June 02, 2004

Chalabi And Two Idle Thoughts

Iran was in a long painful war with Iraq. Chalabi, it will likely be revealed (if you need more proof than is already out there, which I personally do) was working for Iran and very nearly seems to have gained a leadership position in Iraq (and he's had one with the US for years).

More importantly, though, he fed the willing ears of the government of the United States a gushing line of bullshit.

Actually, it's more than an idle thought. It's not beyond the scope of possibility.

But because I'm a voice at a (very small) partisan blog any Iraq War II supporter will dismiss this faster than the noon bell on the last day of school.

And there in - assholes of the blogosphere - lies the danger in journalism returning to its bitch-slapping 19th Century days where everybody had an opinion and developed a vehicle to get it out there.

Those wishing for opinion-based, bias-revealed (even when it has nothing to do with the subject) journalism need to go fuck themselves.

Would it suprise anyone to know that when I reported more directly on state government some Republicans I reported on thought I supported their ideas. Some Democrat politicians thought I supported theirs?

I like it that way motherfucker. It's called doing a job well. A soldier does his/her job despite that he or she may disagree with the rationale for going into that war.

It's called doing a job. It's tough.

Clearly it's much much tougher on most soldiers because their lives are often on the line. Clearly. But at least they get to express opinions on everything else.

Me. I get to shut my mouth (in public) and I do it. Those who push and support the first amendment's right to freedom of speech, do the least of it on issues of substance.

That' s hard. But I value it above everything else in my profession.

Punditry is not journalism. Fact-based journalism - even if from The Washington Monthly or the American Spectator I do consider journalism, even though it comes from a slant. But they are forever damaged in trying to get across certain points to readers.

They've lost credibility to certain people.

That's a mortal damage that good journalists strive to remove from their professional lives.

What other industry publishes its self-examination in the form of Letters to the Editor and ombudsmen and a series of public corrections?

You want a link. How about
the speech John Carroll gave in early May, just after his paper, the LA Times won five Pulitzers?

Really, read it. It's an honest debate started and contined by Carroll and Fox's Roger Ailes the ugly-minded whiny bitch takes one assertion out of it and complains loudly and brashly (in the Wall Street Journal oped page) like someone who KNOWS they're wrong and hope's bluster will cover that fact.

Read the two side by side. Which one do you trust is pseaking his heart. Which one is more inspirational and forward-thinking?

Here's another link. I agree with every word, but because the ombudsmen is pointing to no-questioning coverage of Pres. Bush, I and it will be discounted as partisan. By fools who waste time. But I would agree with the same points if Clinton was the president in question.

My earlier examination of the crapshoot that is Ken Timmerman - and the fact that people can bother to quote him as if it makes a salient point and this Carroll speech inspired this post and my sincere belief that critics of journalism (which does not include the clear fuck ups - Jayson Blair, Michael Kelly et all) need to STOP CONFUSING JOURNALISM WITH PUNDITRY.