JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Creative editing, there.

You're just so freaking anxious to get your jollies and confirm your Good Liberal cred by slamming Bush that truth and perspective have become unimportant.

The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to. Today every journo student learns about Woodstein at his prof's knee, and throughoiut his career longs to earn his Pulitzer breaking the Big Story that topples the Evil and Mighty.

I remeber the Nixon administration quite well, and nobody cheered louder than I did when he went down. But your comparison is either hysterical or woefully uninformed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Today every journo student learns about Woodstein at his prof's knee, and throughoiut his career longs to earn his Pulitzer breaking the Big Story that topples the Evil and Mighty.

I'd call that a good thing.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'd call that a good thing.

It is, as long as they're not so hypnotized by it that it leads them away from the truth.

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

In Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.

In "Pilgrim's Progress" the Man with the Muckrake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.

There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful... The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment:

A lapdog Congress.

everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny,

Not from anyone who can do anything about it. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Congress had steadfastly refused to set up the Watergate Committee, no matter how much press they got. Or if they'd reluctantly made the committee, but refused to allow it to interview administration officials. Or if they were allowed to interview officials, but not alone and not under oath. Or if official government investigators were denied security clearances, and were therefore forced to terminate the investigation.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Congress had steadfastly refused to set up the Watergate Committee, no matter how much press they got.

It's not a matter of "how much press they got". It's quality rather than quantity, and the quality has been garbage.

You can play crappy music though a huge amplifier (The Internet, anyone?) but it's still crappy music.

It's just louder.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It's not a matter of "how much press they got". It's quality rather than quantity, and the quality has been garbage.

OK. Replace "how much" with "what" in my post above, if you like.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

... everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with ...

Ken Starr is investigating?

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to.

Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny? Maybe because he's burned his bridges with just about everyone imaginable (the press, the left, the ENTIRE WORLD, the general populace)? Do you think, just possibly, there's a reason why his poll numbers are in the toilet?
And frankly, you're criticism of his being under the microscope doesn't hold up for most of his tenure as president. How else was he able to get us into Iraq on extraordinarily feeble evidence? Or, for a more recent example, find a comparison on major news outlets on the time spent on JonBenet last week vs. Diggs-Taylor's ruling. I already have one, but you will probably dismiss it as biased, since TP is a lefty site.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny?

How about "because thirty years later the world is a very different place, and information moves thousands of times faster"? Occam's Razor...

I'm not *criticising* his being scruitnized; it's both necessary and an inevitable consequence of technological change. The same was true of Bill Clinton, to a somewhat lesser extent, and if his wife is elected in '08, it will be even more true for her. Or anybody else who might be elected then.

Do you *remeber* 1974? I sure do. Your profile says you weren't even born yet.

[headsplice]

I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong?
Hooray for being born before me.
My response to you, paraphrased, is:
-1)Hostlie scrutiny of GWB is justified.
-2)The scrutiny isn't all that intense in the mainstream.
How does my age enter into the equation here? I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong? Hooray for being born before me...I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.

Actually HappyMonkey invoked Nixon, and my parallel construction was "thirty years later".

I think there's more hostile scrutiny for two reasons:

1) there's more scrutiny, period, and

2) the "mainstream" media has moved considerably to the left since 1974, due not in small part to the events of 1974.

That said, I'd guess that reason 1 is a vastly bigger impact than reason 2.

Your age is relevant because it's much more difficult to appreciate the profound differences in culture and mediaspace between 1974 and 2006 if you weren't around then.

Only four TV networks, with a daily news cycle rather than an hourly one. PBS/CBS/ABC/NBC news for an hour (or two, if you stayed up late) per night, but no CNN, no CNBC, no FoxNews, no CSPAN. Access to being published only if the editor or publisher of a dead-tree newspaper/magazine deems you worthy, and even your audience is no bigger than the readership of the rag in question.

Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.

Agreed.
However, I'm going to call shenanigans on saying the media has moved to the left since '74. There's always been folks willing to call the government on it's BS (Edward Murrow comes to my mind). What changed was the press's willingness to dig into what those in power were actually doing and exposing it. I'll also argue that the sunlight effect is fading with consolidation of major media (though that's another thread). Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.

I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.

My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.

My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.

And I've moved left
So, my general theory is that in the past few years (say, from the mid-90's, when media de-regulation really kicked into overdrive), fewer and fewer companies have controlled larger and larger percentages of the top-down, traditional media. And, though I may disagree with alot of the right's politics, they're generally better business people than the left. Therefore, the people that own top-down media have decreased in number, while simultaneously moving to the right politically, which has influenced the overall tone of media outlets.
So I wasn't trying to remove the demographic shift of the newsroom staff, I just didn't think it was relevant.
RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends.

Originally Posted by UG

What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

And how is the prosecution of the GWOT going at the moment? Hmmm...increased hostility towards Americans? Check. Increased incidences of acts of terrorism? Check. Decreased political stability in notoriously unstable regions of the world? Check.
And BTW, how exactly do you win a war on terror? Simple answer: not by blowing shit up or undermining civil liberties (those pesky little things that make us BETTER than the rest of the world), but by NOT BEING TERRORIZED.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Increased incidences of acts of terrorism?

You got proof? The gubmint don't publish those no more, cuz it harms the GWOT.