Comments on: By passing judgment on new items, news concedes to previous items’ righteousness

By: aaronsw

aaronsw — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 04:40:30 +0000

I don’t quite understand this argument. Whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea, how to deal with the insurgency and Saddam are real issues that need to be dealt with. Discussing them doesn’t concede the righteousness of the actions that caused them. How could it?

By: dmsherwood53

dmsherwood53 — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:58:38 +0000

Furtheron this:
Its bad but it grows out of a wish to build on what has already been said i.e. I’d want to go on from saying Bush is a dick-head and his admin economic policy is a disaster. To Why has USA allowed itself to elect a dick head and follow socially divisive policies. To do that I must ignore the segment of the population that thinks Bush is peachy -keen

By: dmsherwood53

dmsherwood53 — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:49:32 +0000

By passing judgment on new items, news concedes to previous items’ righteousness

Think this a special case of ’sharpening and levallling’

By: dmsherwood53

dmsherwood53 — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:48:04 +0000

If you like the ‘impartiality’ of British TV be aware that its under threat prestegious big name (sorry for lack of referance)inside the Beeb said last week that the lack of solid opposition to Blair was tempting comentators into a basically political position

By: mystache

mystache — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:27:56 +0000

in re “(The British don’t have this problem since their news doesn’t decide for you. They just report.)”

Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges 3rd Ed., Charles Hauss.
p. 93, par 5, ll 9-16:
“Although British networks tend to be impartial, that is not necessarily true of individual journalists. Interviewers are known for the grillings they give politicians, especially those thought to be arrogant or to be withholding information. Some interviewers, including John Snow – the most popular anchor – make no attempt to hide their political beliefs”