Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
KPFA News screws up again!
KPFA's 4 pm News headlines today, read by Max Pringle, began with another example of how KPFA News is often as bad as, if more subtle than, NPR and other ruling-class media in its reinforcement of government propaganda. Here's the transcript and my brief commentary.
"President Bush urged Congress today to renew major provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT and rejected critics who complain the post-September 11 anti-Terrorism law erodes civil liberties. Sixteen sections of the PATRIOT ACT are scheduled to expire at the end of the year and the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil. The PATRIOT ACT was approved by overwhelming margins in both the House and the Senate in the tense weeks after the September 11 attacks. But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger. Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, which the Bush administration has defended." [Emphasis added.]This story, particularly the part I emphasized, presumes that an essential part of the official Bushshit about the threat of "terrorism" and the purposes of the "PATRIOT ACT" is actually what the Bushies believe! Thus, KPFA, which is supposed to be an alternative to the corportate media, is presenting a more "objective" version of the same lies!
I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of transcribing this and posting it if it were an isolated mistake, but it's quite typical of the way KPFA treats government propaganda. Moreover, the 4 PM headlines are probably the only "alternative" news that most listeners to Hard Knock Radio hear, so it's especially upsetting that they are given such pablum instead of incisive exposure of government lies and manipulation.
[The recording of Hard Knock Radio can be downloaded here. It's more than sufficient to download just the first megabyte if you only want the news headlines.]
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
One recent exchange on the Morning Show this week when discussing the series of Nazi judges most likely to be appointed and win confirmation was also particularly irritating and reactionary: A lawyer from Equal Rights Advocates (formerly Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights) claims that she is religious, and another person being interviewed at the same time said the same, in response to Phil Maldari's correct questioning of the religious agenda of these judges. This lawyer did claim she believed in separation of church and state. However, Phil should have told her she cannot claim to be an educated person if she believes in superstition, and that is true of everyone claiming to have a college education and believing in superstition, which religion is.
The discussion of these judges is also framed in terms of Democrats being decent and Republicans, especially these recent appointments, being simply outside the mainstream, whatever that is, when in fact, these judges like Priscilla Own and Janice Rogers Brown should be called Nazi judges, which they are. Nazi Germany had a judicial system, and its fascist system was built gradually; it did not occur overnight. This is what we are witnessing, and this point is never made.
On the same program, they had the comment by Mumia Abu-Jamal that should be played every single day at 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. describing the "compromises" which are actually defeats, always at the expense of the workingclass, especially the black workingclass:
(1) The compromise with the slave states that constitutes the US Constitution, referring to blacks as 3/5 of a person;
(2) the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, allowing for the Union Army to withdraw from the South, which allowed the lynch mobs to take over, and caused former slaves to become sharecroppers, with no voting rights, segregation, and massive poverty; and
(3) finally the Democrats' compromise with their fellow capitalists, the Republicans regarding the filibuster so as to allow the appointments of these Nazi judges.
As Mumia said, if this is compromise, what is defeat? He also pointed out the thousands of lives lost in slavery and in the civil war due to the first compromise.
This is all because KPFA remains a Democratic Party campaign station, and the people in the public affairs department, are for the most part, not from the workingclass at all. KPFA is clearly a charity racket for Democrats and a training school for college students in broadcast journalism.
If KPFA is to survive, it must become the voice of the workingclass, the people who not only make less than $70,000 a year, but especially those who make less than $30,000 a year.
It also must openly, with every newscast, state the the 9/11 Inside Job was a hoax perpetrated by the US Air Force and CIA. They should stop referring to it as "attacks" and instead use the obvious: Inside Job. We have all read all the books by now so there is no excuse for this psycobabble as described above. The 9/11 Inside Job was a Reichstag Fire to perpetrate fascism at home and war abroad, and the "PATRIOT" Act, drawn up long before the 9/11 Inside Job, is part of that fascist agenda, to prevent labor organizing, which is what we desperately need now.
The discussion of these judges is also framed in terms of Democrats being decent and Republicans, especially these recent appointments, being simply outside the mainstream, whatever that is, when in fact, these judges like Priscilla Own and Janice Rogers Brown should be called Nazi judges, which they are. Nazi Germany had a judicial system, and its fascist system was built gradually; it did not occur overnight. This is what we are witnessing, and this point is never made.
On the same program, they had the comment by Mumia Abu-Jamal that should be played every single day at 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. describing the "compromises" which are actually defeats, always at the expense of the workingclass, especially the black workingclass:
(1) The compromise with the slave states that constitutes the US Constitution, referring to blacks as 3/5 of a person;
(2) the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, allowing for the Union Army to withdraw from the South, which allowed the lynch mobs to take over, and caused former slaves to become sharecroppers, with no voting rights, segregation, and massive poverty; and
(3) finally the Democrats' compromise with their fellow capitalists, the Republicans regarding the filibuster so as to allow the appointments of these Nazi judges.
As Mumia said, if this is compromise, what is defeat? He also pointed out the thousands of lives lost in slavery and in the civil war due to the first compromise.
This is all because KPFA remains a Democratic Party campaign station, and the people in the public affairs department, are for the most part, not from the workingclass at all. KPFA is clearly a charity racket for Democrats and a training school for college students in broadcast journalism.
If KPFA is to survive, it must become the voice of the workingclass, the people who not only make less than $70,000 a year, but especially those who make less than $30,000 a year.
It also must openly, with every newscast, state the the 9/11 Inside Job was a hoax perpetrated by the US Air Force and CIA. They should stop referring to it as "attacks" and instead use the obvious: Inside Job. We have all read all the books by now so there is no excuse for this psycobabble as described above. The 9/11 Inside Job was a Reichstag Fire to perpetrate fascism at home and war abroad, and the "PATRIOT" Act, drawn up long before the 9/11 Inside Job, is part of that fascist agenda, to prevent labor organizing, which is what we desperately need now.
Personally, I've never heard a definition of the word "God" that didn't strike me as either a silly fairy tale or, more often, a vague, meaningless abstraction.
But it's silly to say that one "cannot claim to be an educated person if she believes in superstition, and that is true of everyone claiming to have a college education and believing in superstition, which religion is." Quite a few educated people, including some rather famous ones, do/did believe in "God", some kind of religion, or even astrology!
Moreover, it's unreasonable to demand that Phillip Maldari or anyone else on KPFA should attack their guests for being religious! If John Brown were still alive and being interviewed about his struggle against slavery, would you insist that the interviewer should attack him for his (rather fanatical) religious beliefs?
That said, I don't want any program on KPFA that generally promotes religion or other superstition, as, unfortunately, Caroline Casey's VISIONARY ACTIVIST does! And it would be good to have one or many programs on KPFA where religion was discussed very critically, and religious people were challenged on their beliefs. But to insist that every KPFA programmer be a militant atheist is absurd!
BTW, I have criticisms to make of several other of the "morsels" by "Listener" that I don't have time to write up just yet. Hopefully, somebody else will deal with them and i won't have to.
But it's silly to say that one "cannot claim to be an educated person if she believes in superstition, and that is true of everyone claiming to have a college education and believing in superstition, which religion is." Quite a few educated people, including some rather famous ones, do/did believe in "God", some kind of religion, or even astrology!
Moreover, it's unreasonable to demand that Phillip Maldari or anyone else on KPFA should attack their guests for being religious! If John Brown were still alive and being interviewed about his struggle against slavery, would you insist that the interviewer should attack him for his (rather fanatical) religious beliefs?
That said, I don't want any program on KPFA that generally promotes religion or other superstition, as, unfortunately, Caroline Casey's VISIONARY ACTIVIST does! And it would be good to have one or many programs on KPFA where religion was discussed very critically, and religious people were challenged on their beliefs. But to insist that every KPFA programmer be a militant atheist is absurd!
BTW, I have criticisms to make of several other of the "morsels" by "Listener" that I don't have time to write up just yet. Hopefully, somebody else will deal with them and i won't have to.
I've been driving an unusual amount and listening to the radio. Today's broadcast didn't stick out. If you listen a lot,w hat is your impression of Dennis Bernstein? He seems pretty smart on his show, but I don't know whether to be biased towards him or the accusers. Once at speaker event, he did come across as flakey, where he wasn't following what the speaker was saying while everyone else was.
The specimen I quoted in my post above is actually typical of what's wrong with KPFA News. I haven't had the time or energy to compile and comment on a bunch of examples like this, but I was trying to show HOW they go wrong, rather than trying to show HOW REGULARLY or HOW FREQUENTLY they go wrong.
cp: "If you listen a lot,w hat is your impression of Dennis Bernstein? He seems pretty smart on his show, but I don't know whether to be biased towards him or the accusers. Once at speaker event, he did come across as flakey, where he wasn't following what the speaker was saying while everyone else was."
If you want an intelligent answer, you must pose an informed - not vague - question.
At least give a few (a minimum of a couple or one strong) examples of his "accusers" and what they accused him of.
At least give a few (a minimum of a couple or one strong) examples of how he came across as "flakely" or "where he wasn't following what the speaker was saying while everyone else was." What was the speaker event?
You're just engaging in the most vague innuendo and then expecting an informed answer.
I'm glad _you're_ not doing the news.
If you want an intelligent answer, you must pose an informed - not vague - question.
At least give a few (a minimum of a couple or one strong) examples of his "accusers" and what they accused him of.
At least give a few (a minimum of a couple or one strong) examples of how he came across as "flakely" or "where he wasn't following what the speaker was saying while everyone else was." What was the speaker event?
You're just engaging in the most vague innuendo and then expecting an informed answer.
I'm glad _you're_ not doing the news.
If KPFA really were to question the war on terror in their news segments, some centrist Democrats might get upset and change the dial!
You can't ask them to lose even a single centrist Democrat. For godssake, they've got to install Hillary to stop ALL these problems we're having with Bush! Every effort must be made to get her into office. People on KPFA even sing songs about Hillary.
Why, even just last night we were watching how KQED is funded by Centrists and other upper income people - they were offering DVDs of the great lodges of the National Parks! The DVDs start off with a cursory rundown of the highlights of each park and then move into the lodge for the rest of the show, after which the film becomes an ad for this high priced hotel for rich people that's promoted on the tails of how the parks are for everyone! These places are anywhere from $100 - $600 a night!
That's how KQED gets its cash. KPFA could also start selling DVDs of lodgings for the rich to get by instead of screwing up the news by not upsetting the sheeple about the war on terror while in their car.
Besides, aren't those news broadcasters doing it for free anyway? They are, aren't they?
You can't ask them to lose even a single centrist Democrat. For godssake, they've got to install Hillary to stop ALL these problems we're having with Bush! Every effort must be made to get her into office. People on KPFA even sing songs about Hillary.
Why, even just last night we were watching how KQED is funded by Centrists and other upper income people - they were offering DVDs of the great lodges of the National Parks! The DVDs start off with a cursory rundown of the highlights of each park and then move into the lodge for the rest of the show, after which the film becomes an ad for this high priced hotel for rich people that's promoted on the tails of how the parks are for everyone! These places are anywhere from $100 - $600 a night!
That's how KQED gets its cash. KPFA could also start selling DVDs of lodgings for the rich to get by instead of screwing up the news by not upsetting the sheeple about the war on terror while in their car.
Besides, aren't those news broadcasters doing it for free anyway? They are, aren't they?
I normally avoid this sort of on-line bickering because it serves no real purpose, but a colleague alerted me to your complaint so I figured I'd respond. I'm still not sure what Mr. Aarons is complaining about. I reported what Bush said. It isn't my job to read his mind, or to attribute values to his statements. He is the President. We don't have to like it, but the reality is that what he says is important. It is up to you whether you want to believe him. I reported what he said about the situtation as accurately as possible, using a variety of sources for the statement. I'm not going to editorialize about what Bush or anyone else is saying. That would be self-serving on my part and an insult to the listener's intelligence, because they are perfectly able of placing their own values on what officials say.
While some of the posts on here are definitely bickering and sometimes outright ugly, Aaron kept his criticism political. Which is good. And I'm glad you replied. I believe on-line discussion can facilitate a better analysis for leftist projects as long as it stays political and doesn't can't into name-calling.
Both of you stated your positions on what the news should be. I somewhat lean in your (Max's) direction versus something like the Robert Knight report which does indeed insult my intelligence. However, getting comments from credible critics or even people of the street about Bush's various comments and positions can help inform and contextualize a story.
Both of you stated your positions on what the news should be. I somewhat lean in your (Max's) direction versus something like the Robert Knight report which does indeed insult my intelligence. However, getting comments from credible critics or even people of the street about Bush's various comments and positions can help inform and contextualize a story.
No, I'm not going to bother to learn more about KPFA and dennis bernstein in order to ask a question. There are too many good radio alternatives at this location such as 104.1 and especially 104.9Radio Santa Cruz (which is great), to spend so much time. It is clear that KPFA has a big audience - I was shocked a few years ago when people came out for that march regarding KPFA's takeover problems, and there were literally thousands of people who stretched over 10 blocks. But even though I spend lots of time reading about political stuff and doing things, I somehow don't have enough mental energy for KPFA, and I am only idly interested in speculating whether Bernstein or the angry ex-workers are probably the askew ones. The Pacifica network really has some valuable real estate on FM, and it is sort of tragic when they can't be at their best.
I appreciate what you have to say listener. But, for the record the report Mr. Aarons refers to also contained criticism from the ACLU and civil libertarians on the dangers they see in the Patriot Act. Actually, despite Mr. Aaron's criticism, I think I accomplished my duty. Bush's statement got him concerned enough to post on Indybay, now maybe he'll work with the ACLU or another civil liberties group to take on the Patriot Act. For me that's the power of good progressive journalism; to inform, not to preach, and in so doing maybe motivate people to action. That's all I have to say here. By the way, I invite Mr. Aarons, or anyone who is concerned about discussing these issues in person, rather than on-line, to contact me through the newsroom and I'll sit down with you over a cup of coffee and discuss them. This Indybay thing is not really my speed. Thanks
i stopped listening to and donating to KPFA once i realized they, like Move On and Amy Goodman, are just Democratic Party cheerleaders and as such are perpetuating the U$ patriarchal capitalist Machine... i get my news from the internet where you can find it 'unapproved' by the Democratic Party...
I wonder, because you guys seldom, if ever, use them.
Aaron raises some excellent points, which you try to distort by claiming that he is asking for editorializing the news. You don't seem to understand that the mainstream corporate news (even of the variety that KPFA primarily rips & reads off the wire) _IS_ editorialized. Aaron is trying to get you to _de-editorialize_ it. The primary purpose of the so-called "Patriot Act" is not to search for potential "terrorists" among us, but to attack dissent.
How about, for a start, saying that the, "Bush administration _CLAIMS_ their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools..."
and, "needed to search for _alleged_ potential "terrorists" on American soil."
You guys, supposedly progressives, supposedly an _alternative_ news station, give an assumed _legitimacy_ to Bush's "fears" and purposes. That's why, at one Bay Area media conference, on person said that Robert Knight puts more in 5 minutes of news than the KPFA Evening News puts in an hour!: to which Knight got a solid round of applause.
As for your saying, Max, "By the way, I invite Mr. Aarons, or anyone who is concerned about discussing these issues in person, rather than on-line, to contact me through the newsroom and I'll sit down with you over a cup of coffee and discuss them", true progressives and leftists have been on the KPFA news department, politely or more directly, for _years_, and nothing has changed. I believe that your offer is just a PR ruse.
Currently, my understanding is that the KPFA news department has been trying to _sabotage_ or _ignore_ the new KPFA listener News Committee (composed of concerned listeners and perhaps some in-station volunteers), formed to offer constructive criticism of those complaints such as Aarons. You all take the listener News Committee about as seriously as the police take a citizens' policewatch or police review committee to uphold standards with the cops: you want it to go away.
The fact that the news department has been either ignoring or sabotaging efforts by others to offer constructive criticism over the years makes me think that, like on some other KPFA programs, there are no true progressives on the bridge - and that's why you're not capable of responding even to friendly critiques, let alone even cognizant of your reportage word usage. Too many hosts and producers at KPFA are just Kerrycrats, Clintoncrats, and other centrist Democrats (Republican-lite), and so _think_ and _talk_ like them, just like "reader" and "dragonfly" so aptly point out.
Get ready for "ABJ!!" ("Anybody But Jeb!!"), and "Hillary for Pres!", in 2008 at KPFA!
(Some hosts, like Jennifer Stone, have already started it!)
As for "cp", if your "not going to bother to learn more about KPFA and dennis bernstein in order to ask a question", then why ask a question that no one can answer in an intelligent way? Otherwise, I agree with you about 104.1 and KPFA often wasting its extremely valuable real estate.
Aaron raises some excellent points, which you try to distort by claiming that he is asking for editorializing the news. You don't seem to understand that the mainstream corporate news (even of the variety that KPFA primarily rips & reads off the wire) _IS_ editorialized. Aaron is trying to get you to _de-editorialize_ it. The primary purpose of the so-called "Patriot Act" is not to search for potential "terrorists" among us, but to attack dissent.
How about, for a start, saying that the, "Bush administration _CLAIMS_ their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools..."
and, "needed to search for _alleged_ potential "terrorists" on American soil."
You guys, supposedly progressives, supposedly an _alternative_ news station, give an assumed _legitimacy_ to Bush's "fears" and purposes. That's why, at one Bay Area media conference, on person said that Robert Knight puts more in 5 minutes of news than the KPFA Evening News puts in an hour!: to which Knight got a solid round of applause.
As for your saying, Max, "By the way, I invite Mr. Aarons, or anyone who is concerned about discussing these issues in person, rather than on-line, to contact me through the newsroom and I'll sit down with you over a cup of coffee and discuss them", true progressives and leftists have been on the KPFA news department, politely or more directly, for _years_, and nothing has changed. I believe that your offer is just a PR ruse.
Currently, my understanding is that the KPFA news department has been trying to _sabotage_ or _ignore_ the new KPFA listener News Committee (composed of concerned listeners and perhaps some in-station volunteers), formed to offer constructive criticism of those complaints such as Aarons. You all take the listener News Committee about as seriously as the police take a citizens' policewatch or police review committee to uphold standards with the cops: you want it to go away.
The fact that the news department has been either ignoring or sabotaging efforts by others to offer constructive criticism over the years makes me think that, like on some other KPFA programs, there are no true progressives on the bridge - and that's why you're not capable of responding even to friendly critiques, let alone even cognizant of your reportage word usage. Too many hosts and producers at KPFA are just Kerrycrats, Clintoncrats, and other centrist Democrats (Republican-lite), and so _think_ and _talk_ like them, just like "reader" and "dragonfly" so aptly point out.
Get ready for "ABJ!!" ("Anybody But Jeb!!"), and "Hillary for Pres!", in 2008 at KPFA!
(Some hosts, like Jennifer Stone, have already started it!)
As for "cp", if your "not going to bother to learn more about KPFA and dennis bernstein in order to ask a question", then why ask a question that no one can answer in an intelligent way? Otherwise, I agree with you about 104.1 and KPFA often wasting its extremely valuable real estate.
Peace to America, Israel, and all of mankind
Is whether Max will participate in a sing-along to get Hillary installed.
It's imperative that all good pwogwessives support Hillary.
The alternative--decaying capitalism without a millionairess at the helm--is simply unthinkable.
The alternative--decaying capitalism without a millionairess at the helm--is simply unthinkable.
>> I reported what Bush said. It isn't my job to read his mind, or to attribute values to his statements. He is the President.
So if Hitler was the president you'd report what he said about the Jews needing to get put away with no qualifiers, no context, no opposing view?
Apparently so. Just doin' yer job.
Sorry to break the news, but if no one thinks twice about speaking Bush's words verbatim on KPFA news programs, we are not moving forward.
But I think the reason for Max's position is in the words that Max wrote himself - "He is the president."
Max ACTUALLY believes that Bush IS the president . . . that exit polls somehow broke all statistical precedents and suddenly stopped working in the US in 2004 (although they worked for decades previously and continue to work single-handedly to determine elections all over the world), that having no paper trail on Repulbican-owned voting machines is good enough proof that your vote is valid, that suddenly the country has just swung to the far far right and is suddenly religious, that UC Berkeley statisticians are suddenly incompetent, etc., etc.
Wake up Max, as long as you think he's the president, you're dooming the rest of us to that illusion in your work on the air.
That's the real problem here. Max wants to 'do his job,' not question the premise for the PRESIDENT's decisions and fake war on terror. That's not his job. Guess what Max? It wasn't anyone's job to get in the streets for KPFA. It wasn't Daniel Ellsberg's job to whistleblow. It wasn't Rachel Corrie's job to stand in front of a bulldozer. It wasn't anyone's job to get in the streets and shut down SF when bombs fell.
Your job is a key position, but you don't even seem to know that.
(The importance of an internet thread is that we can say things that some might not say in person.)
Some people sacrifice everything. Some people sacrifice nothing. Some people just keep the boat afloat so we can all think it's okay while our tax dollars are used to murder brown people at every opportunity.
But that last group, those who KEEP IT ALL AFLOAT AND RUNNING SMOOTHLY, like Max, those are the ones who are more dangerous than those who do nothing at all. Those are the ones who keep the illusions alive that we all know are not reality. They keep it alive that the phony 'war on terror' is necessary and real. They keep it alive that there were 'wmds' in Iraq so we had to bomb. How many are dead now Max, in Iraq? Did you report on the wmds because it was your job? To keep it alive is to keep the illusion in place just long enough for those in power to slip out the back door with the cash and the valuables. That's what you're doing when you report Bush's words with no qualifiers - holding the door shut against the angry villagers while the most powerful and elite make off with the gems of the country.
By the time the reality is exposed, the powerful are long gone and the walls are bare.
That's where we're headed Max, as you're doing your job each day.
"Since the Civil War, without exception, the Democratic Party has opposed all mass struggles for democracy and social justice. These include the struggle for ballot reform, for the right of African Americans to vote and against American apartheid ("Jim Crow"), for the right to form unions, for the right of women to vote, against the war in Vietnam, the struggle to make lynching illegal, the fight against the death penalty, the struggle for universal health care, the fight for gay and lesbian rights, and endless others. Many of these struggles were initiated by or helped by the existence of small third parties."
http://www.gp.org/articles/camejo_01_05_04.html
So if Hitler was the president you'd report what he said about the Jews needing to get put away with no qualifiers, no context, no opposing view?
Apparently so. Just doin' yer job.
Sorry to break the news, but if no one thinks twice about speaking Bush's words verbatim on KPFA news programs, we are not moving forward.
But I think the reason for Max's position is in the words that Max wrote himself - "He is the president."
Max ACTUALLY believes that Bush IS the president . . . that exit polls somehow broke all statistical precedents and suddenly stopped working in the US in 2004 (although they worked for decades previously and continue to work single-handedly to determine elections all over the world), that having no paper trail on Repulbican-owned voting machines is good enough proof that your vote is valid, that suddenly the country has just swung to the far far right and is suddenly religious, that UC Berkeley statisticians are suddenly incompetent, etc., etc.
Wake up Max, as long as you think he's the president, you're dooming the rest of us to that illusion in your work on the air.
That's the real problem here. Max wants to 'do his job,' not question the premise for the PRESIDENT's decisions and fake war on terror. That's not his job. Guess what Max? It wasn't anyone's job to get in the streets for KPFA. It wasn't Daniel Ellsberg's job to whistleblow. It wasn't Rachel Corrie's job to stand in front of a bulldozer. It wasn't anyone's job to get in the streets and shut down SF when bombs fell.
Your job is a key position, but you don't even seem to know that.
(The importance of an internet thread is that we can say things that some might not say in person.)
Some people sacrifice everything. Some people sacrifice nothing. Some people just keep the boat afloat so we can all think it's okay while our tax dollars are used to murder brown people at every opportunity.
But that last group, those who KEEP IT ALL AFLOAT AND RUNNING SMOOTHLY, like Max, those are the ones who are more dangerous than those who do nothing at all. Those are the ones who keep the illusions alive that we all know are not reality. They keep it alive that the phony 'war on terror' is necessary and real. They keep it alive that there were 'wmds' in Iraq so we had to bomb. How many are dead now Max, in Iraq? Did you report on the wmds because it was your job? To keep it alive is to keep the illusion in place just long enough for those in power to slip out the back door with the cash and the valuables. That's what you're doing when you report Bush's words with no qualifiers - holding the door shut against the angry villagers while the most powerful and elite make off with the gems of the country.
By the time the reality is exposed, the powerful are long gone and the walls are bare.
That's where we're headed Max, as you're doing your job each day.
"Since the Civil War, without exception, the Democratic Party has opposed all mass struggles for democracy and social justice. These include the struggle for ballot reform, for the right of African Americans to vote and against American apartheid ("Jim Crow"), for the right to form unions, for the right of women to vote, against the war in Vietnam, the struggle to make lynching illegal, the fight against the death penalty, the struggle for universal health care, the fight for gay and lesbian rights, and endless others. Many of these struggles were initiated by or helped by the existence of small third parties."
http://www.gp.org/articles/camejo_01_05_04.html
Max Pringle: "I reported what Bush said. It isn't my job to read his mind, or to attribute values to his statements. He is the President."
So then Max is just an administration and government _stenographer_ just like the rest of the corporate media.
With that attitude no wonder he has entirely no sense of even just appropriate professional journalistic qualifiiers. And with that attitude no wonder even attempts at polite constructive criticism over the years to him or Aileen (now including a KPFA listeners news standards committee that he wants to go away) has had no effect. Now he's confirmed that to tell him anything (even "over a cup of coffee") is just a waste of time. Exposure and criticism (perhaps shaming him, if he is not beyond shame), or even making fun of his loose journalistic standards and apparently easy trust of the President's stated motives, is the only recourse.
Maybe someone can start doing a "Daily Show" spoof of Max Pringle's news style: 'I don't question the President', "he is the President", "what he says is important", "It isn't my job to read his mind, or to attribute values to his statements".
Or, as Dan Rather said, "The President is my commander", Max too is thus saluting and hereby reporting for dooty, ...Sir.
So then Max is just an administration and government _stenographer_ just like the rest of the corporate media.
With that attitude no wonder he has entirely no sense of even just appropriate professional journalistic qualifiiers. And with that attitude no wonder even attempts at polite constructive criticism over the years to him or Aileen (now including a KPFA listeners news standards committee that he wants to go away) has had no effect. Now he's confirmed that to tell him anything (even "over a cup of coffee") is just a waste of time. Exposure and criticism (perhaps shaming him, if he is not beyond shame), or even making fun of his loose journalistic standards and apparently easy trust of the President's stated motives, is the only recourse.
Maybe someone can start doing a "Daily Show" spoof of Max Pringle's news style: 'I don't question the President', "he is the President", "what he says is important", "It isn't my job to read his mind, or to attribute values to his statements".
Or, as Dan Rather said, "The President is my commander", Max too is thus saluting and hereby reporting for dooty, ...Sir.
Aaron, you have your own news show.
I think Max Pringle and others on their evening news show are fine. indybay.org would only be improved if we could cover half the material they cover, or rise to their level of journalism. I contribute here as an amateur, and often no one else uploads articles originally written by themselves on the subjects I cover, or even crossposts from other news sources. Often I am lazy and just quickly stick up pictures from a protest, and barely check my grammar and paragraph structure to the level I expect from students at college. There are a few international indymedias that would be good examples of having high average writing level.
In any case, I don't think it is valid to criticize them as though they are a single state run media source to which there is no alternative. If people don't like their style, they can read other websites and visit other radio stations.
I think Max Pringle and others on their evening news show are fine. indybay.org would only be improved if we could cover half the material they cover, or rise to their level of journalism. I contribute here as an amateur, and often no one else uploads articles originally written by themselves on the subjects I cover, or even crossposts from other news sources. Often I am lazy and just quickly stick up pictures from a protest, and barely check my grammar and paragraph structure to the level I expect from students at college. There are a few international indymedias that would be good examples of having high average writing level.
In any case, I don't think it is valid to criticize them as though they are a single state run media source to which there is no alternative. If people don't like their style, they can read other websites and visit other radio stations.
The no-critique havin' liberals at KPFA are vindicated by the fact that you can't be bothered to edit your posts?
That's some funny-ass shit.
That's some funny-ass shit.
Your "critique" at this point is just name calling.
Max: "'I don't question the President', "he is the President", "what he says is important", "it isn't my job to read his mind, or to attribute values to his statements."
Dan Rather: ""The President is my commander.When he calls I salute and say, 'Yes, Sir'."
cp: "I think Max Pringle and others on their evening news show are fine."
Telling...
Dan Rather: ""The President is my commander.When he calls I salute and say, 'Yes, Sir'."
cp: "I think Max Pringle and others on their evening news show are fine."
Telling...
What does "liberal" mean. Its a generic insult of both the radical-left and the radical-right but it seems to be more tied to stereotypes about upper middle class intellectuals than an actual political viewpoint. Is the difference between liberal and radical a willingness to go along with electoralism? Would that mean that all the people who supported Matt in the SF race two years ago were liberals? Perhaps it means people who ocassionally vote Democrat for pragmatic reasons? If thats the case one has many more poor people of color who are liberals than are radicals since the immediacy of labor issues and cuts to social services cause many more poor people to hold their nose and vote for their own short-term self-interest than rich voters who may vote more based off moral beliefs about helping the less fortunate (which seems to be the stereotype of what a liberal is).
Liberal, radical, left and right are all buzz words used more to insult and rally around that containing any real meaning. Would Sami Al Arian be a radical because of his stance on Israel or a conservative for his campiagn ing for Bush in 2000? Would a Catholic opponenent of war and the death penalty who also opposes abortion be a conservative a liberal or a radical? What about supporters of Castro's policies which in terms of death penalty, freedom of speech and other such issues is a conservative but in terms of healthcare and support for the poor is perhaps liberal.
KPFA may not be what everyone wants it to be but the more people try to beat it into something that will only be listended to by the radical left the less of a threat it will be to those in power. Capitalism isnt threatened much by an insular radical community that doesnt reach out to change US society beyond small scale actions mainly within or on the border of its own community. If KPFA had more voices ranging from the extremely mainstream to the radical left it would have much more power to pull people over to a radical viewpoint than if it remains as it is where a listener comming from a more conservative background isnt going to really know what to think when hearing it (since it starts from an assumption that listeners are already at least left of center on most issues and thus the arguments needed to convince a conservative or apolitical average American are never really given)
Liberal, radical, left and right are all buzz words used more to insult and rally around that containing any real meaning. Would Sami Al Arian be a radical because of his stance on Israel or a conservative for his campiagn ing for Bush in 2000? Would a Catholic opponenent of war and the death penalty who also opposes abortion be a conservative a liberal or a radical? What about supporters of Castro's policies which in terms of death penalty, freedom of speech and other such issues is a conservative but in terms of healthcare and support for the poor is perhaps liberal.
KPFA may not be what everyone wants it to be but the more people try to beat it into something that will only be listended to by the radical left the less of a threat it will be to those in power. Capitalism isnt threatened much by an insular radical community that doesnt reach out to change US society beyond small scale actions mainly within or on the border of its own community. If KPFA had more voices ranging from the extremely mainstream to the radical left it would have much more power to pull people over to a radical viewpoint than if it remains as it is where a listener comming from a more conservative background isnt going to really know what to think when hearing it (since it starts from an assumption that listeners are already at least left of center on most issues and thus the arguments needed to convince a conservative or apolitical average American are never really given)
I think it's important when assessing the politics of Americans to take into account that most Americans aren't political.
Wasting time voting doesn't make a person a liberal in my book. Just as much, *not* wasting time voting doesn't make a person a radical (it should be noted, though, that working class and poor people are far less likely to vote than is your average dye-in-the-wool liberal).
Unlike your average American--who makes no pretense of holding definitive political views--KPFA is a radio station that purports to be political. It can be assessed and analyzed as such. The inescapable conclusion is that *most* of what it presents is left (as opposed to right) liberal politics. Who could disagree?
Wasting time voting doesn't make a person a liberal in my book. Just as much, *not* wasting time voting doesn't make a person a radical (it should be noted, though, that working class and poor people are far less likely to vote than is your average dye-in-the-wool liberal).
Unlike your average American--who makes no pretense of holding definitive political views--KPFA is a radio station that purports to be political. It can be assessed and analyzed as such. The inescapable conclusion is that *most* of what it presents is left (as opposed to right) liberal politics. Who could disagree?
[What does "liberal" mean. Its a generic insult of both the radical-left and the radical-right but it seems to be more tied to stereotypes about upper middle class intellectuals than an actual political viewpoint. Is the difference between liberal and radical a willingness to go along with electoralism? Would that mean that all the people who supported Matt in the SF race two years ago were liberals? Perhaps it means people who ocassionally vote Democrat for pragmatic reasons? If thats the case one has many more poor people of color who are liberals than are radicals since the immediacy of labor issues and cuts to social services cause many more poor people to hold their nose and vote for their own short-term self-interest than rich voters who may vote more based off moral beliefs about helping the less fortunate (which seems to be the stereotype of what a liberal is).]
Liberal. n. a middle to upper class, predominately caucasian, citizen of the United States and Great Britain who believes that: (a) the two party system is necessary to maintain social stability; (b) US military and economic dominance around the world constitutes the ideal means eliminating poverty and violence; (c) the world should be organized accordingly to an economic model based upon Adam Smith, as revised by carefully selected theories of Keynes, in order to combat the pernicious principles of Marx; and (d) multiculturalism should be utilized to create the illusion that people of color are involved in fundamental decisions that affect their lives.
--Richard
Liberal. n. a middle to upper class, predominately caucasian, citizen of the United States and Great Britain who believes that: (a) the two party system is necessary to maintain social stability; (b) US military and economic dominance around the world constitutes the ideal means eliminating poverty and violence; (c) the world should be organized accordingly to an economic model based upon Adam Smith, as revised by carefully selected theories of Keynes, in order to combat the pernicious principles of Marx; and (d) multiculturalism should be utilized to create the illusion that people of color are involved in fundamental decisions that affect their lives.
--Richard
This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' and has more to do with some perceived slight and ego tripping by some folks who feel shut out of the KPFA listener/community boards. Their slate lost in the elections and this is their forum for spreading b.s.
KPFA news could surely be improved but the transcript emphasized in the original post doesn't in any way sink to the level of NPR or corporate media stenographers. Pringle told the truth, i.e. "...the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil....." Isn't that what the Bush Administration has demonstrated that it fears, the loss of 'law enfrcement tools'? How is that supportive of Bush? It's pretty obvious that Bush wants to increase police powers and go after what he calls 'terrorists.' As Pringle said, the news report included dissenting opinions.
Another reality behind the complaints about KPFA is the perception by some that the station promotes the Democratic [sic] Party. Certainly it's true that there's no real representation of or discussion of socialism or socialist parties but that has more to do with the bias and fear of some individual programmers. As a Peace and Freedom registrant, I'm not happy that our candidates get little coverage compared to the Democrats but there has been airtime devoted to others. Ralph Nader was interviewed on Flashpoints and Democracy Now, Matt Gonzalez is a substitute host for Larry Bensky (definetly guilty of bias against third parties), coverage of local races includes Greens. Let's keep pushing for more inclusion in a real way, not based on some overblown paranoia about KPFA being a tool of the Democratic [sic] Party.
KPFA news could surely be improved but the transcript emphasized in the original post doesn't in any way sink to the level of NPR or corporate media stenographers. Pringle told the truth, i.e. "...the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil....." Isn't that what the Bush Administration has demonstrated that it fears, the loss of 'law enfrcement tools'? How is that supportive of Bush? It's pretty obvious that Bush wants to increase police powers and go after what he calls 'terrorists.' As Pringle said, the news report included dissenting opinions.
Another reality behind the complaints about KPFA is the perception by some that the station promotes the Democratic [sic] Party. Certainly it's true that there's no real representation of or discussion of socialism or socialist parties but that has more to do with the bias and fear of some individual programmers. As a Peace and Freedom registrant, I'm not happy that our candidates get little coverage compared to the Democrats but there has been airtime devoted to others. Ralph Nader was interviewed on Flashpoints and Democracy Now, Matt Gonzalez is a substitute host for Larry Bensky (definetly guilty of bias against third parties), coverage of local races includes Greens. Let's keep pushing for more inclusion in a real way, not based on some overblown paranoia about KPFA being a tool of the Democratic [sic] Party.
This is one way that change happens. Someone gets fed up and then creates a post and it gets discussed.
Just looking at the paragraph in the post, I can see tons of ways to add details of context that inform the listener about the reality of the PATRIOT Act rather than just saying how anonymous 'civil liberties groups' oppose it. Anyone on the fence about these groups, or who has no real image of who and what they are, doesn't really register the dissent, only that these screaming liberals groups are having their say again.
One could include that Berkeley & Oakland City Councils passed measures against the act, that SPECIFIC members of congress expressed dismay that they hadn't READ it ahead of time, that it was a 300 page document all completed and ready to go within just weeks of the attacks (i.e., was ready to go long ago, just waiting for the 'attacks' to 'happen'), that the anthrax attacks were coincidently happening during its passage through congress, that x number of congress people, including x and x in CA are now on record against it and for sunsetting it, etc., AND/OR add the specific nature of the contents, that your home can be searched with no notification to you or even the necessity of any warrant that you may ever see, etc. Mark Sapir's Retropoll showed that most people who hear the term 'Patriot Act', don't actually know what it means. Using broad language like 'civil liberties groups' doesn't help the less informed to really understand what those groups are and why this is meaningful to them.
Sure, it's just the news, afterall.
Just looking at the paragraph in the post, I can see tons of ways to add details of context that inform the listener about the reality of the PATRIOT Act rather than just saying how anonymous 'civil liberties groups' oppose it. Anyone on the fence about these groups, or who has no real image of who and what they are, doesn't really register the dissent, only that these screaming liberals groups are having their say again.
One could include that Berkeley & Oakland City Councils passed measures against the act, that SPECIFIC members of congress expressed dismay that they hadn't READ it ahead of time, that it was a 300 page document all completed and ready to go within just weeks of the attacks (i.e., was ready to go long ago, just waiting for the 'attacks' to 'happen'), that the anthrax attacks were coincidently happening during its passage through congress, that x number of congress people, including x and x in CA are now on record against it and for sunsetting it, etc., AND/OR add the specific nature of the contents, that your home can be searched with no notification to you or even the necessity of any warrant that you may ever see, etc. Mark Sapir's Retropoll showed that most people who hear the term 'Patriot Act', don't actually know what it means. Using broad language like 'civil liberties groups' doesn't help the less informed to really understand what those groups are and why this is meaningful to them.
Sure, it's just the news, afterall.
liberal: "If thats the case one has many more poor people of color who are liberals (a willingness to go along with [duopolistic RepubliCrat] electoralism)"
Malcolm X called that "bamboozled".
Reality Check: "Pringle told the truth, i.e. "...the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil....."
Reality check? Time to check YOUR reality:
HOW do you KNOW that?
How do you know WHAT Bush actually fears?
Are you inside his head?
Were you at any of his pertinent meetings?
HOW do you or Max KNOW that Bush wants more "law enforcement tools", as opposed to more legalized "law breaking" tools for the _weakening_ of search & seizure (like more clandestine warrantless searches by the police/FBI) and civil liberties protections, a further weakening of privacy laws, a further weakening of attorney-client laws, a further weakening of discovery laws, a further weakening of FOI laws, further limits on public protest, even less restraint on the cops using force and police brutality, more dragnet mass arrests at protests (used to discourage other and non-typical participants), a weakening of judicial oversight or recourse, or more COINTELPRO tools "tools" (itself a slanted word, as "tools" usually connote instruments used to build something constructive, as opposed to "measures") - or more "tools" to send, without recourse, suspects to foreign dictatorial regimes (for all his talk about "democracy") that _openly_ practice torture.
How do you or Max KNOW that Bush wants tools to "to search for potential terrorists", as opposed to have more "tools" to repress dissidents, protesters, and Arab-/Muslim-Americans?
Of the 1,000s of people arrested either at demonstrations or in Arab-/Muslim-American communities, how many have turned out to be terrorists? NONE in the former and almost none, particularly in the latter.
I guess that you too believe Bush when he says that abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons are filed with "terrorists"?
That's what APPROPRIATE JOURNALISTIC QUALIFIERS are for.
That's what they used to teach, among the basics, in journalism schools.
RC: "KPFA news could surely be improved but the transcript emphasized in the original post doesn't in any way sink to the level of NPR or corporate media stenographers."
Still think so?
Tell me that NPR wouldn't have read it (but probably did read it) the very same way: "the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
RC: "Another reality behind the complaints about KPFA is the perception by some that the station promotes the Democratic [sic] Party."
You mean like when KPFA mostly became Kerrycrat Central during that last presidential election season.
RC: "that has more to do with the bias and fear of some individual programmers."
Then doesn't that beg the issue?
RC: "Ralph Nader was interviewed on Flashpoints and Democracy Now"
DN is not a KPFA produced program and Dennis had Nader on as almost a mark of defiance at KPFA to 3rd party candidates and analyses being virtually shut out of KPFA. You heard George Lakoff (Democrat party champion) on several times (once even for an HOUR on the Morning Show); did you ever hear lefttist Thomas Frank on to give a deeper analysis ("What's the Matter with Kansas?") vs. George Lakoff's superficial analysis of how the Democrats can talk a better game? (I guess, "I feel your painnn" is not good enough anymore.)
RC: "This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' and has more to do with some perceived slight and ego tripping by some folks who feel shut out of the KPFA listener/community boards. Their slate lost in the elections and this is their forum for spreading b.s."
You mean the slate that won 6 out of 10 seats in the last KPFA board elections? A slate that would have won *7* out of 10 seats had one candidate not had to drop out due to a family emergency?
You mean people who democratically win in KPFA committees (like moving Democracy Now to 7:00am where most working people can hear it), but then have their victories autocratically rescinded or neutralized by the management or certain senior personnel?
You mean people, even on the board, who can't get a look at the financial books, to see where the millions of dollars KPFA raises every year THROUGH THE LISTENERS is going?
We know that 100's of dollars is going to hire 'security' guards at KPFA board meetings (per meeting) now: more than shades of the Mary Barry and Pat Scott regime. But NO MONEY has been allocated (blocked by certain elements) for the video web casting/archiving of the board meetings: audio web casting from indybay, not KPFA's website, has all just recently been done by ad hoc volunteers. Then, let's see what melee breaks out if the current chair unfairly tells the PAID 'security' guard to manhandle and muscle someone out - because you can bet that the rest of us won't idly sit by and put up with that. But it will be caught on volunteer video.
RC: "This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' "
It's probably "a tempest in a teapot" to YOU because YOUR privileged and relatively comfortable quiescent (who's probably got nothing to protest) liberal life probaby won't really be affected at all by whether a Green, a socialist, a Democrat (a Republican-lite), or even a regular Republican is in office. Politics for you is probably more of a style over substance issue. For you it's, 'Ahhh, what's all the bother..?" You probably don't care that the current board treaurer was a stealth candidate - a CFO from 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Only the relatively comfortable can afford to make such easy excuses.
You probably don't care that the current board Treaurer, MARNIE TATTERSAL, got on as a stealth candidate - a CFO at about 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Some far WORSE than NPR!
It's people like you that give Bay Area leftist groups a bad name: too many posers and dilettantes, or people who are NOT really in touch with Reality.
Malcolm X called that "bamboozled".
Reality Check: "Pringle told the truth, i.e. "...the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil....."
Reality check? Time to check YOUR reality:
HOW do you KNOW that?
How do you know WHAT Bush actually fears?
Are you inside his head?
Were you at any of his pertinent meetings?
HOW do you or Max KNOW that Bush wants more "law enforcement tools", as opposed to more legalized "law breaking" tools for the _weakening_ of search & seizure (like more clandestine warrantless searches by the police/FBI) and civil liberties protections, a further weakening of privacy laws, a further weakening of attorney-client laws, a further weakening of discovery laws, a further weakening of FOI laws, further limits on public protest, even less restraint on the cops using force and police brutality, more dragnet mass arrests at protests (used to discourage other and non-typical participants), a weakening of judicial oversight or recourse, or more COINTELPRO tools "tools" (itself a slanted word, as "tools" usually connote instruments used to build something constructive, as opposed to "measures") - or more "tools" to send, without recourse, suspects to foreign dictatorial regimes (for all his talk about "democracy") that _openly_ practice torture.
How do you or Max KNOW that Bush wants tools to "to search for potential terrorists", as opposed to have more "tools" to repress dissidents, protesters, and Arab-/Muslim-Americans?
Of the 1,000s of people arrested either at demonstrations or in Arab-/Muslim-American communities, how many have turned out to be terrorists? NONE in the former and almost none, particularly in the latter.
I guess that you too believe Bush when he says that abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons are filed with "terrorists"?
That's what APPROPRIATE JOURNALISTIC QUALIFIERS are for.
That's what they used to teach, among the basics, in journalism schools.
RC: "KPFA news could surely be improved but the transcript emphasized in the original post doesn't in any way sink to the level of NPR or corporate media stenographers."
Still think so?
Tell me that NPR wouldn't have read it (but probably did read it) the very same way: "the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
RC: "Another reality behind the complaints about KPFA is the perception by some that the station promotes the Democratic [sic] Party."
You mean like when KPFA mostly became Kerrycrat Central during that last presidential election season.
RC: "that has more to do with the bias and fear of some individual programmers."
Then doesn't that beg the issue?
RC: "Ralph Nader was interviewed on Flashpoints and Democracy Now"
DN is not a KPFA produced program and Dennis had Nader on as almost a mark of defiance at KPFA to 3rd party candidates and analyses being virtually shut out of KPFA. You heard George Lakoff (Democrat party champion) on several times (once even for an HOUR on the Morning Show); did you ever hear lefttist Thomas Frank on to give a deeper analysis ("What's the Matter with Kansas?") vs. George Lakoff's superficial analysis of how the Democrats can talk a better game? (I guess, "I feel your painnn" is not good enough anymore.)
RC: "This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' and has more to do with some perceived slight and ego tripping by some folks who feel shut out of the KPFA listener/community boards. Their slate lost in the elections and this is their forum for spreading b.s."
You mean the slate that won 6 out of 10 seats in the last KPFA board elections? A slate that would have won *7* out of 10 seats had one candidate not had to drop out due to a family emergency?
You mean people who democratically win in KPFA committees (like moving Democracy Now to 7:00am where most working people can hear it), but then have their victories autocratically rescinded or neutralized by the management or certain senior personnel?
You mean people, even on the board, who can't get a look at the financial books, to see where the millions of dollars KPFA raises every year THROUGH THE LISTENERS is going?
We know that 100's of dollars is going to hire 'security' guards at KPFA board meetings (per meeting) now: more than shades of the Mary Barry and Pat Scott regime. But NO MONEY has been allocated (blocked by certain elements) for the video web casting/archiving of the board meetings: audio web casting from indybay, not KPFA's website, has all just recently been done by ad hoc volunteers. Then, let's see what melee breaks out if the current chair unfairly tells the PAID 'security' guard to manhandle and muscle someone out - because you can bet that the rest of us won't idly sit by and put up with that. But it will be caught on volunteer video.
RC: "This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' "
It's probably "a tempest in a teapot" to YOU because YOUR privileged and relatively comfortable quiescent (who's probably got nothing to protest) liberal life probaby won't really be affected at all by whether a Green, a socialist, a Democrat (a Republican-lite), or even a regular Republican is in office. Politics for you is probably more of a style over substance issue. For you it's, 'Ahhh, what's all the bother..?" You probably don't care that the current board treaurer was a stealth candidate - a CFO from 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Only the relatively comfortable can afford to make such easy excuses.
You probably don't care that the current board Treaurer, MARNIE TATTERSAL, got on as a stealth candidate - a CFO at about 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Some far WORSE than NPR!
It's people like you that give Bay Area leftist groups a bad name: too many posers and dilettantes, or people who are NOT really in touch with Reality.
You have no idea what you are saying here and I don't see the point in the personal attacks. If you'd like to engage in a discussion of issues, activism and your own priveleged position, go ahead and vent.
Since you don't know me, you are off base in claiming to understand or assume what I think or believe. But you did confirm my point - that a lot of this discussion is more about disputes among board candidates than about the news report. Thank you.
Now, I certainly do care that there have been undemocratic and underhanded tactics at KPFA. I also am concerned that one of the station's more provocative (if whiny) hosts is apparently also a sexist thug (or could be innocent until proven guilty, but not likely given the credibility of his accuser). These are points for a different discussion. Re: Max Pringle's report, it may be incomplete but I still don't see it as at the level of NPR/corporate media crap as you do.
Excuse me, but Bay Area 'leftist' groups don't need me to give 'em a bad name; many seem to be doing pretty well without my involvement. Those that I am involved with are succeeding, with little concern about your perception of public image or name, whether you are in touch with reality or not!
Break time's over; gotta get back to real work - overthrowing Schwarzengroper, impeaching Bush, etc.
>>>>
RE:" It's probably "a tempest in a teapot" to YOU because YOUR privileged and relatively comfortable quiescent (who's probably got nothing to protest) liberal life probaby won't really be affected at all by whether a Green, a socialist, a Democrat (a Republican-lite), or even a regular Republican is in office. Politics for you is probably more of a style over substance issue. For you it's, 'Ahhh, what's all the bother..?" You probably don't care that the current board treaurer was a stealth candidate - a CFO from 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Only the relatively comfortable can afford to make such easy excuses.
You probably don't care that the current board Treaurer, MARNIE TATTERSAL, got on as a stealth candidate - a CFO at about 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Some far WORSE than NPR!
It's people like you that give Bay Area leftist groups a bad name: too many posers and dilettantes, or people who are NOT really in touch with Reality."
Thanks for the info. Please stay on the topic.
Since you don't know me, you are off base in claiming to understand or assume what I think or believe. But you did confirm my point - that a lot of this discussion is more about disputes among board candidates than about the news report. Thank you.
Now, I certainly do care that there have been undemocratic and underhanded tactics at KPFA. I also am concerned that one of the station's more provocative (if whiny) hosts is apparently also a sexist thug (or could be innocent until proven guilty, but not likely given the credibility of his accuser). These are points for a different discussion. Re: Max Pringle's report, it may be incomplete but I still don't see it as at the level of NPR/corporate media crap as you do.
Excuse me, but Bay Area 'leftist' groups don't need me to give 'em a bad name; many seem to be doing pretty well without my involvement. Those that I am involved with are succeeding, with little concern about your perception of public image or name, whether you are in touch with reality or not!
Break time's over; gotta get back to real work - overthrowing Schwarzengroper, impeaching Bush, etc.
>>>>
RE:" It's probably "a tempest in a teapot" to YOU because YOUR privileged and relatively comfortable quiescent (who's probably got nothing to protest) liberal life probaby won't really be affected at all by whether a Green, a socialist, a Democrat (a Republican-lite), or even a regular Republican is in office. Politics for you is probably more of a style over substance issue. For you it's, 'Ahhh, what's all the bother..?" You probably don't care that the current board treaurer was a stealth candidate - a CFO from 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Only the relatively comfortable can afford to make such easy excuses.
You probably don't care that the current board Treaurer, MARNIE TATTERSAL, got on as a stealth candidate - a CFO at about 5 Disney-owned radio stations! Some far WORSE than NPR!
It's people like you that give Bay Area leftist groups a bad name: too many posers and dilettantes, or people who are NOT really in touch with Reality."
Thanks for the info. Please stay on the topic.
I don't mind criticism, but please be fair. One poster accused me of saying "I don't question Bush." That isn't true. If you can show me where I said that, I'd like to see it. Again to be clear, I reported what Bush said. I also reported what Patriot Act critics said, giving them equal weight, to be balanced on the scales of the listener. I don't believe in doing people's thinking for them, you and I may differ on that, but that's my take. You equate my reporting what Bush said to Dan Rather's statement about supporting him. I don't understand how reporting what someone says automatically makes you a shill. Again I can't read his mind, he may believe what he's saying, or maybe he wants to diminish civil liberties. I gave equal time to those who think he want to do the latter. I did say "he is the President", because it's true. We can argue about the election but the fact of the matter is he occupies that office, and makes decisions that effect you and I, you can call that the President, or a blade of grass or whatever, but the reality is we need to know what he's saying. The analogy about reporting about the Nazis is a red herring. The administration is bad, but it's not Nazi Germany. I think you know that, because if it were, why wouldn't you or anyone else in their right mind have fled to the Canadian border long ago. As for adding qualifiers. I could add qualifiers to any statement made by anyone, i.e. "civil libertarians claim the Patriot Act diminishes liberties, of course we all know that to be nonsense" and so on. You see what I'm getting at. That's just bad writing and delves into the area of propaganda. And that's not what I'm about. I'm sorry. As for my journalistic standards, I've been practicing journalism since junior high school. I have a Masters degree in journalism from the country's top journalism school. I love, honor and respect the profession. And no amount of personal attacks, or attacks on my professionalism will change that.
APPROPRIATE JOURNALISTIC QUALIFIERS.
Argue with that!
Argue with that!
I'll try and be a little clearer. As for "appropriate qualifier", by which I think you mean attribution. It's there. The sentence is in the basic SVO structure. President Bush fears weakening of terror fighting tools. That is what he said he fears. What you don't seem to understand is nobody but Bush knows what he actually means. The statement is unqualifiable without giving my personal opinion, (which is really bad journalism), but it is attributable. And I have done so, while giving equal time to Patriot Act critics. You will probably take what I've said out of context again and distort it again, so I really will make this my last statement on the issue. I don't see the point in continuing.
Max: "Again I can't read his mind, he may believe what he's saying, or maybe he wants to diminish civil liberties."
That's my point.
Max: ""civil libertarians claim the Patriot Act diminishes liberties"
Yes, that's also entirely and journalistically appropriate. But, that would be also an _objectively_ accurate statement to say, "civil libertarians say the Patriot Act diminishes liberties". But, you didn't even say, "the Bush administration _says_..."
Given that KPFA is _supposed_ to be a progressive/leftist station, we should especially more likely question or journalistically _qualify_ the statements of government and Power, with appropriate and _objectively_ true journalistic qualifiers like "claimed" or "alleges". How is that "propaganda", Max?
Max: "That's just bad writing and delves into the area of propaganda"
Propaganda? -- to qualify something you don't really know to be true?
Let me quote you again, Max, "Again I can't read his [Bush's] mind"
Max: "As for my journalistic standards, I've been practicing journalism since junior high school."
Well, we know what's long happened to even the most basic journalistic standards since then.
Max: "I have a Masters degree in journalism from the country's top journalism school."
Well, we also know that journalism degrees aren't necessarily worth what they used to be. And there have been journalists without journalism degrees who were far better than journalists with them - indeed who have been icons of journalism.
(Did I.F. Stone go to journalism school? Does Dahr Jamail have a journalism degree?)
Why does everyone realize this except for these fake leftists and hidden right-wingers posting at indybay, Max?
Max: "I love, honor and respect the profession."
Hang on to your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy saccharin pablum!
That's my point.
Max: ""civil libertarians claim the Patriot Act diminishes liberties"
Yes, that's also entirely and journalistically appropriate. But, that would be also an _objectively_ accurate statement to say, "civil libertarians say the Patriot Act diminishes liberties". But, you didn't even say, "the Bush administration _says_..."
Given that KPFA is _supposed_ to be a progressive/leftist station, we should especially more likely question or journalistically _qualify_ the statements of government and Power, with appropriate and _objectively_ true journalistic qualifiers like "claimed" or "alleges". How is that "propaganda", Max?
Max: "That's just bad writing and delves into the area of propaganda"
Propaganda? -- to qualify something you don't really know to be true?
Let me quote you again, Max, "Again I can't read his [Bush's] mind"
Max: "As for my journalistic standards, I've been practicing journalism since junior high school."
Well, we know what's long happened to even the most basic journalistic standards since then.
Max: "I have a Masters degree in journalism from the country's top journalism school."
Well, we also know that journalism degrees aren't necessarily worth what they used to be. And there have been journalists without journalism degrees who were far better than journalists with them - indeed who have been icons of journalism.
(Did I.F. Stone go to journalism school? Does Dahr Jamail have a journalism degree?)
Why does everyone realize this except for these fake leftists and hidden right-wingers posting at indybay, Max?
Max: "I love, honor and respect the profession."
Hang on to your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy saccharin pablum!
I know I said I wouldn't post anymore but you're still bein unfair. Why is it impossible for you to engage in a debate without being rude, or sarcastic. Can you actually have an adult conversation, and use your name as well. The only reason I mentioned my background and my thoughts about journalism is because you implied that I don't have the knowledge or committment to do my job. But back to the point. Bush said he fears. I reported it. If I'd used says you probably would have still had a problem with that. The verbs claims, alleges, says are all variations on the same theme. They are used to attribute a statement to someone. Your argument is now getting into semantics. From my report, a reasonable listener understands that Bush is putting out a statement about the patriot act. The listener then decides whether he or she chooses to believe it. In my report the listener also heard criticism from civil libertarians. The listener than chooses to believe them by carefully weighing what they say. You're really reaching to find something journalistically wrong with my report.This doesn't seem to be about journalism. It's about you wanting me to make speeches instead of give reports. You hinted at it in one of your earlier postings when you said something like "Bush wants to eliminate our freedoms" or some such. That may be the case, or maybe not, that's for you to decide. As for holding power accountable, I'd love to score an interview with Bush. I'd ask him tough questions and not allow him to wriggle off the hook. But, oddly enough, he doesn't return calls from KPFA.
Max Pringle: "Don't get it"
Max: "Why is it impossible for you to engage in a debate without being rude, or sarcastic."
I may express sarcastic disbelief sometimes, but my arguments _are_ SUBSTANTIVE and I document what I say. (You don't see me just calling you a bunch of names or engaging in pure sarcasm.)
So, you think that *objective* journalistic qualifiers are not appropriate. That really says everything that is wrong about your "journalism". And I'll tell you this much: I didn't have to go to journalism school to know this.
First of all, you often engage in hyperbole to dodge valid journalistic points which should not even be arguable from an either "progressive station" or a "progressive journalist", the latter, especially, if not entirely the former, of which more and more people have long doubted.
(Maybe you don't see yourself as a progressive journalist at all. Then you should take your top journalism school degree and go to CBS or CNN and be the government stenographer that you are, de facto, defending.)
Second, you claim not to know what _Bush_ really thinks, but you seem quite ready to know what _I_ 'really' think: "Bush said he fears. I reported it. If I'd used says you probably would have still had a problem with that".
Third, you say, "The listener then decides".
But, you are _NOT_ letting the listener decide: you have already _decided_ for them what Bush feels! And you use the credibility of a supposedly progressive, longtime, and venerable institution.
In fact, you are MAKING A CONCLUSION yourself about what the president's true motivation is!
Then you say, "The verbs claims, alleges, says are all variations on the same theme."
But you didn't use _ANY_ of them. And those words are _not_ all equivalent in connotation. "Says" is the weakest, but "claims/alleges" at least does what a "progressive" journalist or institution is supposed to do: question the government - especially the _Bush_ administration!
Then you say, " It's about you wanting me to make speeches instead of give reports"
I'm asking you, _at least_, to use _NEUTRAL_ terms when reporting on already BIASED government press releases and your equally BIASED conclusions. You are _NOT_ doing so. So, _you_ are thus already engaging in pro-Administration _BIAS_, if not 'speeches'/speechlets.
Max: "You hinted at it in one of your earlier postings when you said something like "Bush wants to eliminate our freedoms" or some such."
I never said any such thing.
And you see that problem is that you have the _written_ record above, right before your eyes, to have checked, Mr. Journalist.
If you, as a "journalist", think that the difference between _neutral_ terms and _objective_ qualifiers vs. _biased_ terms and _conclusions_ are merely "semantics", then you have a journalistic deficit problem that no one could ever hope to help you with.
Max: "As for holding power accountable, I'd love to score an interview with Bush. I'd ask him tough questions and not allow him to wriggle off the hook."
You show no evidence of that from your reportage.
I may express sarcastic disbelief sometimes, but my arguments _are_ SUBSTANTIVE and I document what I say. (You don't see me just calling you a bunch of names or engaging in pure sarcasm.)
So, you think that *objective* journalistic qualifiers are not appropriate. That really says everything that is wrong about your "journalism". And I'll tell you this much: I didn't have to go to journalism school to know this.
First of all, you often engage in hyperbole to dodge valid journalistic points which should not even be arguable from an either "progressive station" or a "progressive journalist", the latter, especially, if not entirely the former, of which more and more people have long doubted.
(Maybe you don't see yourself as a progressive journalist at all. Then you should take your top journalism school degree and go to CBS or CNN and be the government stenographer that you are, de facto, defending.)
Second, you claim not to know what _Bush_ really thinks, but you seem quite ready to know what _I_ 'really' think: "Bush said he fears. I reported it. If I'd used says you probably would have still had a problem with that".
Third, you say, "The listener then decides".
But, you are _NOT_ letting the listener decide: you have already _decided_ for them what Bush feels! And you use the credibility of a supposedly progressive, longtime, and venerable institution.
In fact, you are MAKING A CONCLUSION yourself about what the president's true motivation is!
Then you say, "The verbs claims, alleges, says are all variations on the same theme."
But you didn't use _ANY_ of them. And those words are _not_ all equivalent in connotation. "Says" is the weakest, but "claims/alleges" at least does what a "progressive" journalist or institution is supposed to do: question the government - especially the _Bush_ administration!
Then you say, " It's about you wanting me to make speeches instead of give reports"
I'm asking you, _at least_, to use _NEUTRAL_ terms when reporting on already BIASED government press releases and your equally BIASED conclusions. You are _NOT_ doing so. So, _you_ are thus already engaging in pro-Administration _BIAS_, if not 'speeches'/speechlets.
Max: "You hinted at it in one of your earlier postings when you said something like "Bush wants to eliminate our freedoms" or some such."
I never said any such thing.
And you see that problem is that you have the _written_ record above, right before your eyes, to have checked, Mr. Journalist.
If you, as a "journalist", think that the difference between _neutral_ terms and _objective_ qualifiers vs. _biased_ terms and _conclusions_ are merely "semantics", then you have a journalistic deficit problem that no one could ever hope to help you with.
Max: "As for holding power accountable, I'd love to score an interview with Bush. I'd ask him tough questions and not allow him to wriggle off the hook."
You show no evidence of that from your reportage.
"Max you're journalistically hopeless." "Hold onto your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy pablum." Explain to me how in any universe those statements are not insulting and sarcastic. In any of my postings did I imply that you are a sap, or a fool, or a dupe or anything of the sort? I kept my criticisms respectful. You've taken every opportunity to take pot shots. Back to the issue. You say I've made up the listener's mind what Bush feels. I reported what the man said. Would you like me to put words in his mouth? He said he fears that weakening the Patriot Act would weaken the hunt for terrorists. I can't put it any clearer than that. I'm not taking this from some White House press release. I'm taking it from Bush himself. That's what he said. Again, nobody's forcing you to believe him. I'm not deciding anything other than to report Bush's statement. And then I decided to report criticism of Bush's Patriot Act. Again your argument is coming down to semantics because now you've narrowed it down to one word: fears. I could say, "I fear I'll be late for the bus if I don't leave now." You could report, "Max fears he'll miss the bus if he doesn't leave soon." Would you be reading my mind if you did that? NO. You would be reporting what I said. End of story. Now go ahead and insult me some more.
The standards of today's mainstream journalism are so low that I realize that to you "appropriate journalistic qualifiers" means merely "attribution": that you attributed a statement to a particular person. Well, duh-uhhh...! So, if Bush says he "fears", then you merely report (stenographize) that he "fears", and (co-)conclude whatever else as his true motivations.
Whereas in _higher_ standards of journalism, "appropriate qualifiers" means that you at least use _neutral_, _objective_ language, like "claims", or "alleges", etc.
I once saw a children's tv program on journalism that pointed out these standards. (It even dealt with the term "terrorists" -- especially consistency in use of between the mainstream media of dominant nations vis-a-vis others -- vs. "insurgents" vs. "guerrillas" vs. "resistance" vs. "irregulars". Pretty advanced for a children's program, huh?) Can I see about you getting a copy of it?
Whereas in _higher_ standards of journalism, "appropriate qualifiers" means that you at least use _neutral_, _objective_ language, like "claims", or "alleges", etc.
I once saw a children's tv program on journalism that pointed out these standards. (It even dealt with the term "terrorists" -- especially consistency in use of between the mainstream media of dominant nations vis-a-vis others -- vs. "insurgents" vs. "guerrillas" vs. "resistance" vs. "irregulars". Pretty advanced for a children's program, huh?) Can I see about you getting a copy of it?
>>The analogy about reporting about the Nazis is a red herring. The administration is bad, but it's not Nazi Germany.
Ergo, we have no duty to do what anyone might have felt a duty to do in Nazi Germany - sacrifice for the sake of the larger good vs the Masters degree and the mortgage.
The difference is, Max, that Hitler didn't have the most intense weaponry in the history of the world that outweighed the rest of the world combined. Bush does.
Hitler didn't have the most massive, entrenched and bought-off media propaganda machine in the history of the world, delivering it direct to every livingroom in the world with extremely sophisticated tools to shape people's opinions with nothing but lies. Bush has that.
Hitler's propaganda didn't flood the rest of the world. Bush's does.
Hitler - Reichstag
Bush - 9/11
Hitler - Genocide of millions
Bush - ??!!?? Destruction of democracy via destruction of economies worldwide .. . possibly an upcoming PANDEMIC if the latest virus is released in another Reichstag / 9/11.
But as long as you try to act like we still have electoral politics (we don't according to Arundati Roy) and like whatever object sitting in the White House needs to be revered (by reinforcing what you fear - that he impacts your life - by treating him as someone to be revered), we don't get anywhere. We are treading water trying to get you to make the most simple of minescule efforts around WORDING while they could be planning a way to get into IRAN.
Like I said, you're holding the door closed as the villagers are trying to get in and get at the enemy you are protecting with semantics. By the time you step aside, they'll be lighting explosives in IRAN. And guess what? The interests of China, India and Russia are deeply (billions) invested in Iran's oil. That would amount to WWIII to go in there, as the neocons have been boasting.
"Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." - Paul Krugman, a neocon remark
Do we have to wait around for Nazi Germany to do the right thing? Or is it already going on, silently, everyday around the world right now? Will the news broadcast suddenly say, "We are now as bad as Nazi Germany!"
There is no easy way to show what most of us already know.
Ergo, we have no duty to do what anyone might have felt a duty to do in Nazi Germany - sacrifice for the sake of the larger good vs the Masters degree and the mortgage.
The difference is, Max, that Hitler didn't have the most intense weaponry in the history of the world that outweighed the rest of the world combined. Bush does.
Hitler didn't have the most massive, entrenched and bought-off media propaganda machine in the history of the world, delivering it direct to every livingroom in the world with extremely sophisticated tools to shape people's opinions with nothing but lies. Bush has that.
Hitler's propaganda didn't flood the rest of the world. Bush's does.
Hitler - Reichstag
Bush - 9/11
Hitler - Genocide of millions
Bush - ??!!?? Destruction of democracy via destruction of economies worldwide .. . possibly an upcoming PANDEMIC if the latest virus is released in another Reichstag / 9/11.
But as long as you try to act like we still have electoral politics (we don't according to Arundati Roy) and like whatever object sitting in the White House needs to be revered (by reinforcing what you fear - that he impacts your life - by treating him as someone to be revered), we don't get anywhere. We are treading water trying to get you to make the most simple of minescule efforts around WORDING while they could be planning a way to get into IRAN.
Like I said, you're holding the door closed as the villagers are trying to get in and get at the enemy you are protecting with semantics. By the time you step aside, they'll be lighting explosives in IRAN. And guess what? The interests of China, India and Russia are deeply (billions) invested in Iran's oil. That would amount to WWIII to go in there, as the neocons have been boasting.
"Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." - Paul Krugman, a neocon remark
Do we have to wait around for Nazi Germany to do the right thing? Or is it already going on, silently, everyday around the world right now? Will the news broadcast suddenly say, "We are now as bad as Nazi Germany!"
There is no easy way to show what most of us already know.
Now I have the intellecual level of a child. Again insults instead of civil debate. Is there anywhere in this string where I used anything but civil discourse in reference to you? I knew there was a reason why I avoided these on-line debates. Rather than listen and exchange and use their real names people hurl insults from the safety of anonymity. This is pointless.
Looks like we were typing at the same time and posting at virually the same time.
Max: ""Max you're journalistically hopeless." "Hold onto your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy pablum." Explain to me how in any universe those statements are not insulting and sarcastic."
>> Me: "I may express sarcastic disbelief sometimes, but my arguments _are_ SUBSTANTIVE and I document what I say. (You don't see me just calling you a bunch of names or engaging in pure sarcasm.)"
Max: "You've taken every opportunity to take pot shots."
Me: _OBJECTIVELY_ not true. Go back and look back up at, Mr. Journalist, the electronically printed record. While I may _sometimes_ have a catchy sarcastic title or a sarcastic last sentence or two, the body of my arguments has been virtually nothing but _SUBSTANTIVE_.
You just can't effectively deal with the _SUBSTANCE_ of my arguments and you keep falling back and back and tripping over yourself in the process.
In fact, it's _YOU_ who have even resorted to _lying_ about the record, because you said that you reported, "Bush said he fears", when you _actually_ said, "BUSH FEARS [blah, blah, blah]"
The _difference_, Max, is not merely semantics; the _difference_ is also the relative importance of the two statements: what Bush believes about the Patriot Act and his true motivations vs. what you believe about missing your bus -- which will not affect 280 million people in this country alone and hundreds of million of people elsewhere, and the need to _at least_ be careful and more _objectively_ precise about what you say/report.
And in fact, if I stenographized, "Max fears he'll miss the bus if he doesn't leave soon", I would be forming A BIASED CONCLUSION!
How do I know what you _actually_ fear and how do I know that your motivation is to _actually_ catch the bus -- as opposed, hypothetically, to have a tryst or catch up with your dealer? I (and other people) often make a polite false excuse when I have to get away soon but don't want to possibly offend someone that I'm talking to, or when I want to do something whose true purpose I don't want to disclose. But, I would say, "Max is afraid that he'll miss his bus; that's why he had to leave", because that situation is far less important, and requires far less critical examination or scrutiny, than the reasons the President of the United States might give for something far more important.
And I remind you: I don't even have a journalism degree, but I know this!
Max: ""Max you're journalistically hopeless." "Hold onto your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy pablum." Explain to me how in any universe those statements are not insulting and sarcastic."
>> Me: "I may express sarcastic disbelief sometimes, but my arguments _are_ SUBSTANTIVE and I document what I say. (You don't see me just calling you a bunch of names or engaging in pure sarcasm.)"
Max: "You've taken every opportunity to take pot shots."
Me: _OBJECTIVELY_ not true. Go back and look back up at, Mr. Journalist, the electronically printed record. While I may _sometimes_ have a catchy sarcastic title or a sarcastic last sentence or two, the body of my arguments has been virtually nothing but _SUBSTANTIVE_.
You just can't effectively deal with the _SUBSTANCE_ of my arguments and you keep falling back and back and tripping over yourself in the process.
In fact, it's _YOU_ who have even resorted to _lying_ about the record, because you said that you reported, "Bush said he fears", when you _actually_ said, "BUSH FEARS [blah, blah, blah]"
The _difference_, Max, is not merely semantics; the _difference_ is also the relative importance of the two statements: what Bush believes about the Patriot Act and his true motivations vs. what you believe about missing your bus -- which will not affect 280 million people in this country alone and hundreds of million of people elsewhere, and the need to _at least_ be careful and more _objectively_ precise about what you say/report.
And in fact, if I stenographized, "Max fears he'll miss the bus if he doesn't leave soon", I would be forming A BIASED CONCLUSION!
How do I know what you _actually_ fear and how do I know that your motivation is to _actually_ catch the bus -- as opposed, hypothetically, to have a tryst or catch up with your dealer? I (and other people) often make a polite false excuse when I have to get away soon but don't want to possibly offend someone that I'm talking to, or when I want to do something whose true purpose I don't want to disclose. But, I would say, "Max is afraid that he'll miss his bus; that's why he had to leave", because that situation is far less important, and requires far less critical examination or scrutiny, than the reasons the President of the United States might give for something far more important.
And I remind you: I don't even have a journalism degree, but I know this!
...there was another politically decaying, militaristic, civil liberties-eviscerating republic, Weimar Germany. And like Bush was first _selected_, so was Hitler _selected_ -- by a Weimar leader. If we are not entirely there yet, the lessons of Nazi Germany was that we were supposed to be ever-vigilante of its parallels and modi operandi.
I didn't lie because never said that I wrote: "Bush said he fears." That isn't true. I've stood by what I wrote. "Bush fears ..."Again, because that's what he said. Also I haven't gone back and tripped over myself. My point has always been the same. I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it. Again, that is your job as the listener. I've never wavered from that position, because I think it's the right one. Also, you never answered me. Where did I say anything insulting, or sarcastic about you? I don't think it's necessary, apparently you get some kind of pleasure out of it, maybe to seem clever. I don't know. I regret saying I have a journalism degree to assure you that I have a solid background, because I knew from your postings you would try to score political points from it. Oh, he's got a fancy degree, he isn't for the "people" and so on. And as predicted you've implied just that. Of course without knowing anything about my background. Like I grew up in a single parent home, in a lower working class neighborhood in Vallejo. I say this just to prove that you can't judge a book by its cover. It's almost a certainty that you had a much more priveleged upbringing than I. Yet that, doesn't matter. I'm "Mr. Journalist." You, of course, have me all figured out. And here's my one bow to sarcasm: because you know everything.
Max: "I didn't lie because never said that I wrote: "Bush said he fears." "
Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 5:32 PM): "He _said_ he fears that weakening the Patriot Act would weaken the hunt for terrorists."
Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 4:07 PM): "Bush _said_ he fears."
vs.
Max (Thursday, Jun. 09, 2005 at 4:00pm news headlines): "the Bush administration fears..."
Max: "I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it."
You did worse than that! You attached your _own_ (CO-)CONCLUSION to it! At any rate A CONCLUSION _IS_ A VALUE!
(I'll restrain from saying, _DUMMY_!)
Max: "Also, you never answered me. Where did I say anything insulting, or sarcastic about you?"
Max, you're worse than a little child. A big guy like you!: Are you *THAT* SENSITIVE and THIN-SKINNED! I'm terribly sorry: I didn't realize that. I know little barely-teenage girls who can take more than you can. (Is there a non-sexist word for a grown-ass man _SISSY_?)
So let me _re-paste_!:
>> Me: "I may express sarcastic disbelief sometimes, but my arguments _are_ SUBSTANTIVE and I document what I say. ...While I may _sometimes_ have a catchy sarcastic title or a sarcastic last sentence or two, the body of my arguments has been virtually nothing but _SUBSTANTIVE_."
Me thinks thou doth protest too much, Max!
Max (more hyperbole): "Oh, he's got a fancy degree, he isn't for the "people" and so on."
I'm saying that a journalism degree doesn't necessarily make one a decent journalist. That would be clear to almost everyone but you, because you're licking your hurt (mostly self-inflicted) wounds so much. Most of my friends have degrees, and advanced degrees, and they are "for the people". But, one of the smartest of them all doesn't have a degree at all!
By the way, in addition to I.F. Stone (or Dahr Jamail, the I.F. Stone of the Iraq War), another iconic journalist of the 20th centurty, George Seldes also didn't have a journalism degree.
Max: "It's almost a certainty that you had a much more priveleged upbringing than I."
Again, you now repeatedly claim you don't know, after all, what Bush really "fears" or what his true motivations are, but once again, you know, and to "almost a certainty", things about me that I haven't even told you about or that you have never even read. Well, making an ASSUMPTION is also attaching a _VALUE_ to your beliefs. And you don't even know this 'book'! Why do you think I'm so privileged?: just because I can _think critically_ and I know what words mean? Isn't that more than a little _classist_ of you?
Max (more hyperbole): "You, of course, have me all figured out."
Self-explanatory evasion in hyperbole.
Max: "And here's my one bow to sarcasm: because you know everything."
Booo-hoooo! Now you've made _me_ cry!! Booooo-hooooooo....! I'm gonna tell my mommy...!!
Let me recap the SUBSTANCE here: You attached your _own_ (CO-)CONCLUSION to it -- backed up by 'the good name' of venerable KPFA. (You know, hopefully, we have some teens and 20-somethings listening to KPFA, and maybe some middle-class 9-to-5 suburbanites with a house in Pleasant Hill and 2.5 kids, not just a all middle-aged and above counterculture people that you think could always tell the difference between truth and propaganda and that you can't ever confuse.) An unobjective CONCLUSION -- even a rip-&-read or stenographized one (and reporting a claimed _emotion_ about something is _inherently_ NOT objective unless you can literally get into Bush's mind, and report whether the emotion is, in fact, true or the motivation is, in fact, true) -- about Bush's statements _IS_ a VALUE that YOU are, IN FACT, placing!
Go ask anyone else who deal in the meanings of words for a living: perhaps like a linguist. Avail yourself of UC Berkeley, so nearby, one of the world's largest and premiere public universities.
Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 5:32 PM): "He _said_ he fears that weakening the Patriot Act would weaken the hunt for terrorists."
Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 4:07 PM): "Bush _said_ he fears."
vs.
Max (Thursday, Jun. 09, 2005 at 4:00pm news headlines): "the Bush administration fears..."
Max: "I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it."
You did worse than that! You attached your _own_ (CO-)CONCLUSION to it! At any rate A CONCLUSION _IS_ A VALUE!
(I'll restrain from saying, _DUMMY_!)
Max: "Also, you never answered me. Where did I say anything insulting, or sarcastic about you?"
Max, you're worse than a little child. A big guy like you!: Are you *THAT* SENSITIVE and THIN-SKINNED! I'm terribly sorry: I didn't realize that. I know little barely-teenage girls who can take more than you can. (Is there a non-sexist word for a grown-ass man _SISSY_?)
So let me _re-paste_!:
>> Me: "I may express sarcastic disbelief sometimes, but my arguments _are_ SUBSTANTIVE and I document what I say. ...While I may _sometimes_ have a catchy sarcastic title or a sarcastic last sentence or two, the body of my arguments has been virtually nothing but _SUBSTANTIVE_."
Me thinks thou doth protest too much, Max!
Max (more hyperbole): "Oh, he's got a fancy degree, he isn't for the "people" and so on."
I'm saying that a journalism degree doesn't necessarily make one a decent journalist. That would be clear to almost everyone but you, because you're licking your hurt (mostly self-inflicted) wounds so much. Most of my friends have degrees, and advanced degrees, and they are "for the people". But, one of the smartest of them all doesn't have a degree at all!
By the way, in addition to I.F. Stone (or Dahr Jamail, the I.F. Stone of the Iraq War), another iconic journalist of the 20th centurty, George Seldes also didn't have a journalism degree.
Max: "It's almost a certainty that you had a much more priveleged upbringing than I."
Again, you now repeatedly claim you don't know, after all, what Bush really "fears" or what his true motivations are, but once again, you know, and to "almost a certainty", things about me that I haven't even told you about or that you have never even read. Well, making an ASSUMPTION is also attaching a _VALUE_ to your beliefs. And you don't even know this 'book'! Why do you think I'm so privileged?: just because I can _think critically_ and I know what words mean? Isn't that more than a little _classist_ of you?
Max (more hyperbole): "You, of course, have me all figured out."
Self-explanatory evasion in hyperbole.
Max: "And here's my one bow to sarcasm: because you know everything."
Booo-hoooo! Now you've made _me_ cry!! Booooo-hooooooo....! I'm gonna tell my mommy...!!
Let me recap the SUBSTANCE here: You attached your _own_ (CO-)CONCLUSION to it -- backed up by 'the good name' of venerable KPFA. (You know, hopefully, we have some teens and 20-somethings listening to KPFA, and maybe some middle-class 9-to-5 suburbanites with a house in Pleasant Hill and 2.5 kids, not just a all middle-aged and above counterculture people that you think could always tell the difference between truth and propaganda and that you can't ever confuse.) An unobjective CONCLUSION -- even a rip-&-read or stenographized one (and reporting a claimed _emotion_ about something is _inherently_ NOT objective unless you can literally get into Bush's mind, and report whether the emotion is, in fact, true or the motivation is, in fact, true) -- about Bush's statements _IS_ a VALUE that YOU are, IN FACT, placing!
Go ask anyone else who deal in the meanings of words for a living: perhaps like a linguist. Avail yourself of UC Berkeley, so nearby, one of the world's largest and premiere public universities.
RC: "You are so.... righteous!"
This coming from someone who _arrogantly_ calls him/herself the all-knowing "Reality Check", but then exhibits the most subjective and sloppy analysis!
RC: "Excuse me, but Bay Area 'leftist' groups don't need me to give 'em a bad name; many seem to be doing pretty well without my involvement."
But didn't you say that _you_ were in a "leftist" group??? And you are certainly potentially and at least incrementally giving it a bad name with your sloppy intellectual and political analysis. If someone as analytically sloppy and outspoken as you represents _your_ "leftist" political group, I certainly wouldn't want to join it.
RC: "a sexist thug (or could be innocent until proven guilty, but not likely given the credibility of his accuser)."
"a sexist thug"!: that's not highly charged language, is it. I hope _you're_ not a "journalist" of any kind, and I'm glad that you're not a judge. What are you basing "a sexist thug" on? Have you directly spoken to the three parties involved (any of them?) or examined the contending statements and evidence -- or is this just your ad hominem conclusion about one of the parties? Your "reality" seems pretty subjective.
Here's a true reality check: While I would _not_ defend ANY abusive behavior and I _would_ want to see _all_ appropriate redress, (1) you don't know _why_ everyone has left Flashpoints over the years (some may have just moved on to outside positions or went back to school for another degree) and (2) there have been _MALE_ staffers who have left Bernstein's show in strong disputes too.
This coming from someone who _arrogantly_ calls him/herself the all-knowing "Reality Check", but then exhibits the most subjective and sloppy analysis!
RC: "Excuse me, but Bay Area 'leftist' groups don't need me to give 'em a bad name; many seem to be doing pretty well without my involvement."
But didn't you say that _you_ were in a "leftist" group??? And you are certainly potentially and at least incrementally giving it a bad name with your sloppy intellectual and political analysis. If someone as analytically sloppy and outspoken as you represents _your_ "leftist" political group, I certainly wouldn't want to join it.
RC: "a sexist thug (or could be innocent until proven guilty, but not likely given the credibility of his accuser)."
"a sexist thug"!: that's not highly charged language, is it. I hope _you're_ not a "journalist" of any kind, and I'm glad that you're not a judge. What are you basing "a sexist thug" on? Have you directly spoken to the three parties involved (any of them?) or examined the contending statements and evidence -- or is this just your ad hominem conclusion about one of the parties? Your "reality" seems pretty subjective.
Here's a true reality check: While I would _not_ defend ANY abusive behavior and I _would_ want to see _all_ appropriate redress, (1) you don't know _why_ everyone has left Flashpoints over the years (some may have just moved on to outside positions or went back to school for another degree) and (2) there have been _MALE_ staffers who have left Bernstein's show in strong disputes too.
Again here it is. I openly admit that I said "Bush fears.. so and so." And I stand by that. This has to be the 10th time I said it. A person listening to that will conclude that that is Bush's statement about this issue. They can then choose to believe what he says, or not, and weigh it against his critics statments. I don't think people are as stupid as you seem to think they are. I think people of whatever class, are capable of making up their own minds. You seem to think you have the right to make up people's minds for them because they're young, or less educated, or whatever. That's where we differ. It isn't even about some word in some sentence read on the news last week.
SInce when does wanting to engage in grown up discussions without making anonymous smart-assed remarks, or insults, make some one a sissy? I think that makes them a decent, well-adjusted adult human being. Again notice that I didn't sink to insulting you, or saying something snide to get my point across. You've clearly lost this debate and you're covering it up with insults.
SInce when does wanting to engage in grown up discussions without making anonymous smart-assed remarks, or insults, make some one a sissy? I think that makes them a decent, well-adjusted adult human being. Again notice that I didn't sink to insulting you, or saying something snide to get my point across. You've clearly lost this debate and you're covering it up with insults.
<<I openly admit that I said "Bush fears.. so and so." And I stand by that...>>
If we're to extend the logic of that defense, you would report that "Bush loves freedom and justice" if he claimed that he did.
I'd say its time for a concession speech, Max.
If we're to extend the logic of that defense, you would report that "Bush loves freedom and justice" if he claimed that he did.
I'd say its time for a concession speech, Max.
As someone who writes radio news headlines (for unlicensed radio) I have to agree, KPFA news could use a lot of work. Starting with a news story from e.g. news.google.com, I have to spend quite a bit of time rewriting it to offer some semblance of reality (hopefully along the way I can find other sources, indymedia etc.) -- de-editorializing and de-spinning the news. It's not unusual for every single clause to need qualifiers --- of the de-editorializing type, not the editorializing type. KPFA on the other hand sounds an awful lot like what I read on news.google.com -- thanks a lot guys, real good use of your grandfathered 59 kilowatts.
Max: "Again here it is. I openly admit that I said "Bush fears.. so and so." "
Also Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 7:06 PM): "I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it.."
Now, I've objectively, linguistically, journalistically, LOGICALLY, showed that you did: attach your own _conclusions_ and, inherently, a _value_ to it. So, now, which is it: you _did_ or you _didn't_?
And now, for someone who says that he doesn't want to make assumptions, you've also moved on to what you _subjectively_ believe is true about all listeners, their level of intelligence or media sophistication. Is this your excuse for sloppy or careless journalism?
Max: "I'm not going to editorialize about what Bush or anyone else is saying."
And I've also showed how you _did_, in fact, editorialize the news because without appropriate journalistic qualifiers, you definitively are not making a _neutral_ statement -- whatever your assumptions about the level of intelligence about the listeners.
Max: "A person listening to that will conclude that that is Bush's statement about this issue."
I don't _OBJECTIVELY_ know that that's _Bush's_ statement. I don't _OBJECTIVELY_ know _who's_ statement that is. Could be any Republican; could be a conservative or mainstream Democrat. Maybe it's _your_ statement about Bush.
And a person listening could _OBJECTIVELY_ conclude that _you_, a news director, at a supposely progressive/leftist venerable radio station in Berkeley, believe that it really _is_ Bush's fear and motivations and the statement _is_ true -- whatever you subsequently believe about civil liberties organizations. And you could believe that _both_ are true!
Max (going around in circles, chasing his own tail now): "You seem to think you have the right to make up people's minds for them"
But you _OBJECTIVELY_ DID! -- You made a _CONCLUSION_ for others -- whether or not anyone actually believes you. You stated the line _AS A FACT_ . You could _NOT_ objectively know this -- unless you can get inside of Bush's brain! And I linguistically, factually, and logically demonstrated this to you.
Max: "It isn't even about some word in some sentence read on the news last week."
No, it's about some word in some sentence read in your news seemingly _every_ week.
Max: "SInce when does wanting to engage in grown up discussions without making anonymous smart-assed remarks, or insults, make some one a sissy?"
It does if someone is more thin-skinned that some 13 year-old girls that I know (including one of my friends twin kids that I tease all the time!), over a single mildly sarcastic sentence in some particular post to you, and _none_ in most others of mine to you.
Let's see (if you weren't a news director, I wouldn't be wasting my time with this) what posts you're crying over:
Friday, Jun. 10, 2005 at 9:08 PM: none
Saturday, Jun. 11, 2005 at 7:11 PM: none
Sunday, Jun. 12, 2005 at 2:03 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 12:48 PM: none (about but not to you)
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 2:46 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 3:34 PM: "Hang on to your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy saccharin pablum!"
Oh, that would make _anyone_ cry!
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 4:18 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 4:58 PM: none in the body (maybe you want to count the title: "Max, you're journalistically hopeless!", something that seems objectively true!)
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 5:33 PM: "I once saw a children's tv program on journalism that pointed out these standards. ...Can I see about you getting a copy of it?"
Ooo! That was a _rough_ one!
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 6:02 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 8:07 PM: "(I'll restrain from saying, _DUMMY_!)"
Hmmph...! Compared to your obtuseness, I _admire_ my _restraint_!
Max: "Again notice that I didn't sink to insulting you, or saying something snide to get my point across."
Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 7:06 PM): "And here's my one bow to sarcasm: because you know everything."
Now, which is it?
Max: "You've clearly lost this debate and you're covering it up with insults."
Give me a _brrrreak_...!
You know what they say, if you've dug yourself into a hole and you want to get out, STOP DIGGING!
You've just made yourself look like a fool (well, you took it that far!) in front of the entire Indybay-reading Bay Area -- not to mention your KPFA station colleagues -- under my whithering (again, you took it that far) logical criticism of your reportage, such as it is. You've just been torn to shreds!
And I haven't spent _one_ day in journalism school!
If you haven't had enough, then how about I bring my personal cassette recorder, I meet you over at the UC Berkeley linguistics department, and then we go over to the journalism school, and then we go over to the law school, and we see what representative senior professors who deal in the meaning of words have to say?
At least you'll find out who I am. (Not that a real journalist couldn't figure it out anyway. I'm hardly taking great pains to cover my tracks. For sake of politeness -- because I've got no personal grudge against you and, God bless you, you might be doing your best -- I wanted to express myself anonymously in these instances, but now I hardly even care.)
Are you up for one last (mostly self-)humiliation?
You could have just said at the beginning, 'Okay, you're right...: I'll use appropriate journalistic qualifiers and be more careful about how I report the news.' And you could add, if you have any _political_ sensitivity, 'especially given that we're supposed to be a progressive radio station that's suppose to _question_ or _critique_ power, not _stenographize_ it.'
"hmm
by aaron Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 11:01 PM:
If we're to extend the logic of that [Max's] defense, you [he] would report that "Bush loves freedom and justice" if he claimed that he did." "
Nice example, aaron!
Also Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 7:06 PM): "I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it.."
Now, I've objectively, linguistically, journalistically, LOGICALLY, showed that you did: attach your own _conclusions_ and, inherently, a _value_ to it. So, now, which is it: you _did_ or you _didn't_?
And now, for someone who says that he doesn't want to make assumptions, you've also moved on to what you _subjectively_ believe is true about all listeners, their level of intelligence or media sophistication. Is this your excuse for sloppy or careless journalism?
Max: "I'm not going to editorialize about what Bush or anyone else is saying."
And I've also showed how you _did_, in fact, editorialize the news because without appropriate journalistic qualifiers, you definitively are not making a _neutral_ statement -- whatever your assumptions about the level of intelligence about the listeners.
Max: "A person listening to that will conclude that that is Bush's statement about this issue."
I don't _OBJECTIVELY_ know that that's _Bush's_ statement. I don't _OBJECTIVELY_ know _who's_ statement that is. Could be any Republican; could be a conservative or mainstream Democrat. Maybe it's _your_ statement about Bush.
And a person listening could _OBJECTIVELY_ conclude that _you_, a news director, at a supposely progressive/leftist venerable radio station in Berkeley, believe that it really _is_ Bush's fear and motivations and the statement _is_ true -- whatever you subsequently believe about civil liberties organizations. And you could believe that _both_ are true!
Max (going around in circles, chasing his own tail now): "You seem to think you have the right to make up people's minds for them"
But you _OBJECTIVELY_ DID! -- You made a _CONCLUSION_ for others -- whether or not anyone actually believes you. You stated the line _AS A FACT_ . You could _NOT_ objectively know this -- unless you can get inside of Bush's brain! And I linguistically, factually, and logically demonstrated this to you.
Max: "It isn't even about some word in some sentence read on the news last week."
No, it's about some word in some sentence read in your news seemingly _every_ week.
Max: "SInce when does wanting to engage in grown up discussions without making anonymous smart-assed remarks, or insults, make some one a sissy?"
It does if someone is more thin-skinned that some 13 year-old girls that I know (including one of my friends twin kids that I tease all the time!), over a single mildly sarcastic sentence in some particular post to you, and _none_ in most others of mine to you.
Let's see (if you weren't a news director, I wouldn't be wasting my time with this) what posts you're crying over:
Friday, Jun. 10, 2005 at 9:08 PM: none
Saturday, Jun. 11, 2005 at 7:11 PM: none
Sunday, Jun. 12, 2005 at 2:03 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 12:48 PM: none (about but not to you)
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 2:46 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 3:34 PM: "Hang on to your wallets everyone, here comes the syruppy saccharin pablum!"
Oh, that would make _anyone_ cry!
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 4:18 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 4:58 PM: none in the body (maybe you want to count the title: "Max, you're journalistically hopeless!", something that seems objectively true!)
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 5:33 PM: "I once saw a children's tv program on journalism that pointed out these standards. ...Can I see about you getting a copy of it?"
Ooo! That was a _rough_ one!
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 6:02 PM: none
Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 8:07 PM: "(I'll restrain from saying, _DUMMY_!)"
Hmmph...! Compared to your obtuseness, I _admire_ my _restraint_!
Max: "Again notice that I didn't sink to insulting you, or saying something snide to get my point across."
Max (Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 7:06 PM): "And here's my one bow to sarcasm: because you know everything."
Now, which is it?
Max: "You've clearly lost this debate and you're covering it up with insults."
Give me a _brrrreak_...!
You know what they say, if you've dug yourself into a hole and you want to get out, STOP DIGGING!
You've just made yourself look like a fool (well, you took it that far!) in front of the entire Indybay-reading Bay Area -- not to mention your KPFA station colleagues -- under my whithering (again, you took it that far) logical criticism of your reportage, such as it is. You've just been torn to shreds!
And I haven't spent _one_ day in journalism school!
If you haven't had enough, then how about I bring my personal cassette recorder, I meet you over at the UC Berkeley linguistics department, and then we go over to the journalism school, and then we go over to the law school, and we see what representative senior professors who deal in the meaning of words have to say?
At least you'll find out who I am. (Not that a real journalist couldn't figure it out anyway. I'm hardly taking great pains to cover my tracks. For sake of politeness -- because I've got no personal grudge against you and, God bless you, you might be doing your best -- I wanted to express myself anonymously in these instances, but now I hardly even care.)
Are you up for one last (mostly self-)humiliation?
You could have just said at the beginning, 'Okay, you're right...: I'll use appropriate journalistic qualifiers and be more careful about how I report the news.' And you could add, if you have any _political_ sensitivity, 'especially given that we're supposed to be a progressive radio station that's suppose to _question_ or _critique_ power, not _stenographize_ it.'
"hmm
by aaron Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 11:01 PM:
If we're to extend the logic of that [Max's] defense, you [he] would report that "Bush loves freedom and justice" if he claimed that he did." "
Nice example, aaron!
Come on “another listener”, I’d hardly say you’ve logically and linguistically proven anything. There’s a lot to respond to here so please bear with me. You say I keep digging myself into a hole. That would mean I’ve been changing my line of argument. Look at the record. I haven’t. If you look, many grand generalizations were being made about how my report is nothing more than mouthing Bush platitudes. I quickly laid those criticisms aside. Soon all you were left to complain about was one word, which you “illogically” have used to encapsulate my entire journalistic output. I’ve explained over and over that saying Bush fears…is little more than a report of the words that came out of his mouth. In fact, you agree with me, because when I used my bus analogy, you acknowledge that one could say for example “Max is afraid he’ll miss the bus if he doesn’t leave.” Any “linguist” will tell you that to be afraid is to fear something. Same difference. As far as value judgments, listen, this is a complex world. There are no cartoon villains twirling their mustaches saying, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?” You’re not living in the real world if you think that happens. Throughout the Patriot Act debate the administration has maintained that it fears that rescinding the PA will hamstring its efforts to prevent future attacks. Many people, myself included, disagree strongly. But again, this isn’t a cartoon world, it’s pretty clear that Bush and his ilk have at least convinced themselves that they’re doing the right thing. It’s human nature, we all do it. Think about when you’ve done something wrong, or held a wrong position, have you ever told yourself, “I’m doing this because I just want to do wrong and I’m selfish and I want to hurt people?” Of course not, nobody does that. When I report that they fear rescinding the PA, especially when they’ve repeatedly said so, it doesn’t mean that I too buy into it. It is simply a report about their (very wrong) belief that the PA is necessary. It’s not attaching values. It’s expressing their point of view accurately. You give them too much credit if you think they’re actively saying to themselves, “ how wonderfully eeevil we are eroding civil liberties this way.” The world isn’t a movie, people don’t operate that way. It’s quite obvious they believe this stuff or they wouldn’t pursue it so diligently. No need to emote or say allege or claim here, that implies that they‘re lying to themselves, which is extremely difficult. It’s easier to convince yourself of a position, wrong or right. People do it everyday. But the administration is just wrong on the merits of the argument and listeners can figure it out on their own. To give an honest and balanced report to listeners a reporter must give PA critics time to explain why they disagree, which I did.
Again I trust listeners to be intelligent and critical thinkers. I think 20-somethings and poor and under educated people are just as insightful as me and can attach their own values to people’s statements, if given a balanced look. They don't need know-it-alls telling them what to think. On this point you and I appear to strongly disagree.
Also you imply that I’m making an argument that journalism school is the only way to be a good reporter. Look at my postings, I never said that. J-school is one way to get training, apprenticeships and on-the-job training are others. But since I never argued otherwise I’ll leave that there.
On to maintaining civil dialogue, I’ve asked you if you’re able to debate without making it personal. You respond by avoiding the question and responding with another barb, implying that I’m oversensitive, or a like a little girl, or something along those lines. Believe me I’m not offended by your attacks. Your opinion of me means zilch. My whole point is that it isn’t about me, or you, it’s about the issues. You tried to make it a personality conflict. I didn’t. I am interested only in adult civil dialogue. An honorable response on your part would have been to say, “you know I have been rude and disrespectful, I’ll stick to the issues.” You chose to do the opposite. If you’ve ever been in a structured debate, you’ll know that personal attacks are not allowed because they’re irrelevant and detract from the issues. You also make the attacks anonymously, then imply that I’m supposed to be able to figure out who you are. Now we’re really getting into the metaphysical, not very “logical” indeed. Should I know you from your writing style? As I said at the outset, I rarely look at Indybay and this is the only place where I could have encountered you. I came into this debate because someone told me I was mentioned in a posting here. I found the criticism unfounded, so I responded. This is an important issue and I thought an explanation on my part would help clear things up. Instead nothing but personal attacks An intelligent adult discussion could have been helpful. But people don’t debate here they sling mud and screech and grandstand, all from the cover of anonymity. It’s a pity really.
Again I trust listeners to be intelligent and critical thinkers. I think 20-somethings and poor and under educated people are just as insightful as me and can attach their own values to people’s statements, if given a balanced look. They don't need know-it-alls telling them what to think. On this point you and I appear to strongly disagree.
Also you imply that I’m making an argument that journalism school is the only way to be a good reporter. Look at my postings, I never said that. J-school is one way to get training, apprenticeships and on-the-job training are others. But since I never argued otherwise I’ll leave that there.
On to maintaining civil dialogue, I’ve asked you if you’re able to debate without making it personal. You respond by avoiding the question and responding with another barb, implying that I’m oversensitive, or a like a little girl, or something along those lines. Believe me I’m not offended by your attacks. Your opinion of me means zilch. My whole point is that it isn’t about me, or you, it’s about the issues. You tried to make it a personality conflict. I didn’t. I am interested only in adult civil dialogue. An honorable response on your part would have been to say, “you know I have been rude and disrespectful, I’ll stick to the issues.” You chose to do the opposite. If you’ve ever been in a structured debate, you’ll know that personal attacks are not allowed because they’re irrelevant and detract from the issues. You also make the attacks anonymously, then imply that I’m supposed to be able to figure out who you are. Now we’re really getting into the metaphysical, not very “logical” indeed. Should I know you from your writing style? As I said at the outset, I rarely look at Indybay and this is the only place where I could have encountered you. I came into this debate because someone told me I was mentioned in a posting here. I found the criticism unfounded, so I responded. This is an important issue and I thought an explanation on my part would help clear things up. Instead nothing but personal attacks An intelligent adult discussion could have been helpful. But people don’t debate here they sling mud and screech and grandstand, all from the cover of anonymity. It’s a pity really.
>>Is this your excuse for sloppy or careless journalism?
But another reader, he isn't being sloppy or careless . . . he really thinks that he has nothing more to do on this subject because Bush is the president and it's his job to report Bush's words and fears.
He just happens to work at KPFA, so he allows the inclusion of remarks about the ever-present 'civil liberties groups,' and that's really all that's required. It's not like he has anything that's required of him or anything. Afterall, saying something like, instead of:
"the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
saying:
"the Bush administration claims their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools which they say are needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
And then this part:
"But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far,"
to be
"But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress - often citing the fact that most Americans are unaware that the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to enter and search their homes without notification - say the law has gone too far."
And XX out this part altogether:
"putting American freedoms in danger"
What freedoms? The freedom to choose between Coke and Pepsi?! The freedom to allow protestors to have a say? We don't know which 'freedoms' (as though we should be begging for these when they are actually our human RIGHTS) are being talked about.
And why is it required to report that at all? Why is reporting what Bush believes more important than informing Berkeley residents about details of the Act that WILL ALLOW men with guns to enter their homes with no warrant?
The problem with talking about things in such general terms - fears, freedoms, groups, some members - is that it becomes mundane and normal and reasonable in people's heads. If you filled in 'Hitler' with 'Bush' in that paragraph, it might highlight the need for qualifiers and DETAILS, however annoying they may be to get in there.
With the word Hitler in there, the need simply becomes more relevant. But whether it's 6 million or 6 hundred (as we know well), death is death. And as it turns out, we're reading for our friends, our neighbors, our elderly . . . people who might be wondering why they thought the Patriot Act was about 'American freedoms" when they come home and find their home turned upside down and a bunch of FBI asking them to explain why they have mail from the Middle East on their kitchen table, or why they have porn on their computer, or why they were writing on a site featuring "domestic radicals," as Indymedia could likely qualify . . ..
Domestic radicals are referred to in the new Homeland Security scenarios for disasters and attacks, but they are never defined.
But another reader, he isn't being sloppy or careless . . . he really thinks that he has nothing more to do on this subject because Bush is the president and it's his job to report Bush's words and fears.
He just happens to work at KPFA, so he allows the inclusion of remarks about the ever-present 'civil liberties groups,' and that's really all that's required. It's not like he has anything that's required of him or anything. Afterall, saying something like, instead of:
"the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
saying:
"the Bush administration claims their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools which they say are needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
And then this part:
"But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far,"
to be
"But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress - often citing the fact that most Americans are unaware that the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to enter and search their homes without notification - say the law has gone too far."
And XX out this part altogether:
"putting American freedoms in danger"
What freedoms? The freedom to choose between Coke and Pepsi?! The freedom to allow protestors to have a say? We don't know which 'freedoms' (as though we should be begging for these when they are actually our human RIGHTS) are being talked about.
And why is it required to report that at all? Why is reporting what Bush believes more important than informing Berkeley residents about details of the Act that WILL ALLOW men with guns to enter their homes with no warrant?
The problem with talking about things in such general terms - fears, freedoms, groups, some members - is that it becomes mundane and normal and reasonable in people's heads. If you filled in 'Hitler' with 'Bush' in that paragraph, it might highlight the need for qualifiers and DETAILS, however annoying they may be to get in there.
With the word Hitler in there, the need simply becomes more relevant. But whether it's 6 million or 6 hundred (as we know well), death is death. And as it turns out, we're reading for our friends, our neighbors, our elderly . . . people who might be wondering why they thought the Patriot Act was about 'American freedoms" when they come home and find their home turned upside down and a bunch of FBI asking them to explain why they have mail from the Middle East on their kitchen table, or why they have porn on their computer, or why they were writing on a site featuring "domestic radicals," as Indymedia could likely qualify . . ..
Domestic radicals are referred to in the new Homeland Security scenarios for disasters and attacks, but they are never defined.
I have fried so many sheep with my semantic noodle twisting that I now have to go blow dry my empty head.
It's exhausting picking apart all this fluff but it sure beats getting my hands dirty doing actual real world work.
Can someone please just declare me the supreme victor in this incredibly enlightening exercise in word games and let me get back to massaging Bill O'Riled Up's Loofa?!?
It's exhausting picking apart all this fluff but it sure beats getting my hands dirty doing actual real world work.
Can someone please just declare me the supreme victor in this incredibly enlightening exercise in word games and let me get back to massaging Bill O'Riled Up's Loofa?!?
I THINK ABOUT ZIONISTS 19 HOURS A DAY.
I SIT IN MY BASEMENT AND ROCK BACK AND FORTH, AND FOAM COMES OUT OF MY MOUTH
ZIONISTS CAN FLY
ZIONISTS RUN EVERYTHING AND OWN EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE
MY DOG IS SECRETLY A ZIONIST. I SHAKE HIM FOR ANSWERS BUT HE WAS TAUGHT TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. DAMN MOSSAD SECRET AGENT HOUSEPETS.
ZIONISTS CAN TELEPORT
ZIONISTS STARTED EVER WAR AGAINST THEM, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT WERE STARTED AGAINST THEM
WHEN ISRAEL GETS ATTACKED, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT
WHEN ISRAEL ATTACKS, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT, OR THE FAULT OF "THE ZIONISTS"
JERRY SEINFELD IS A SPACE ALIEN WHO CAME FROM THE ZIONIST MOTHERSHIP
ZIONISTs OWN AND RUN EVERYTHING BUT THEY ARE NOT SMART, NO SIR, THEY ARE REALLY DUMB.
I LIKE TO ACCUSE ZIONISTs OF MANY THINGS, AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF WHINING WHEN THEY RESPOND TO MY ATTACK
YOU ARE SECRETLY ZIONIST
EVERYONE IS ZIONIST
I LIKE TO ACCUSE ZIONISTs OF BEING CHEAP. THEN I ACCUSE ZIONISTs OF BEING RICH AND FLAUNTING THEIR WEALTH. YOU'D THINK THOSE STATEMENTS CONFLICT EACH OTHER, BUT I GUESS NOT.
TEHRE ARE NO ZIONISTs
HELP ME, THE VOICES IN MY HEAD FRIGHTEN ME
HOW COME ZIONISTs WHO GET MASTERS DEGREES AND PHDS GET BETTER JOBS THAN ME, I SPENT MY CHILDHOOD BLOWING UP RODENTS, DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL AND CANNOT SPELL MY OWN NAME, WHY AM I NOT A CEO
OHHH MY HEAD HOW IT HURTS
ZIONISTs ARE AFRAID OF FRUIT
WHEN MULTIPLE ARAB COUNTRIES TEAMED UP TO REPEATEDLY ATTACK ISRAEL, WHOSE FAULT WAS IT? 1) THOSE ARAB COUNTRIES, 2) THE ZIONISTS.... CHOICE "2" OF COURSE!
WHERE IS MY MEDICATION
I SIT IN MY BASEMENT AND ROCK BACK AND FORTH, AND FOAM COMES OUT OF MY MOUTH
ZIONISTS CAN FLY
ZIONISTS RUN EVERYTHING AND OWN EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE
MY DOG IS SECRETLY A ZIONIST. I SHAKE HIM FOR ANSWERS BUT HE WAS TAUGHT TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. DAMN MOSSAD SECRET AGENT HOUSEPETS.
ZIONISTS CAN TELEPORT
ZIONISTS STARTED EVER WAR AGAINST THEM, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT WERE STARTED AGAINST THEM
WHEN ISRAEL GETS ATTACKED, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT
WHEN ISRAEL ATTACKS, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT, OR THE FAULT OF "THE ZIONISTS"
JERRY SEINFELD IS A SPACE ALIEN WHO CAME FROM THE ZIONIST MOTHERSHIP
ZIONISTs OWN AND RUN EVERYTHING BUT THEY ARE NOT SMART, NO SIR, THEY ARE REALLY DUMB.
I LIKE TO ACCUSE ZIONISTs OF MANY THINGS, AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF WHINING WHEN THEY RESPOND TO MY ATTACK
YOU ARE SECRETLY ZIONIST
EVERYONE IS ZIONIST
I LIKE TO ACCUSE ZIONISTs OF BEING CHEAP. THEN I ACCUSE ZIONISTs OF BEING RICH AND FLAUNTING THEIR WEALTH. YOU'D THINK THOSE STATEMENTS CONFLICT EACH OTHER, BUT I GUESS NOT.
TEHRE ARE NO ZIONISTs
HELP ME, THE VOICES IN MY HEAD FRIGHTEN ME
HOW COME ZIONISTs WHO GET MASTERS DEGREES AND PHDS GET BETTER JOBS THAN ME, I SPENT MY CHILDHOOD BLOWING UP RODENTS, DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL AND CANNOT SPELL MY OWN NAME, WHY AM I NOT A CEO
OHHH MY HEAD HOW IT HURTS
ZIONISTs ARE AFRAID OF FRUIT
WHEN MULTIPLE ARAB COUNTRIES TEAMED UP TO REPEATEDLY ATTACK ISRAEL, WHOSE FAULT WAS IT? 1) THOSE ARAB COUNTRIES, 2) THE ZIONISTS.... CHOICE "2" OF COURSE!
WHERE IS MY MEDICATION
Max: "Come on “another listener”, I’d hardly say you’ve logically and linguistically proven anything."
Well, not to anyone like you that doesn't even understand logic or what words mean -- sad for a "journalist"; worse for one supposedly at a "progressive" radio station.
Max: "You say I keep digging myself into a hole. That would mean I’ve been changing my line of argument."
No, that's not necessarily the only logical conclusion (although you have been doing that -- just look back up at the written record): it could also logically mean that you keep making some of the same discredited arguments (at least by the standard meanings of words -- not by Max Pringle's definitions like journalistic "qualifier" means "attribution") or by more obtuse or inane arguments.
By the way, here's another chance for you to show that you know what you're talking about:
Can you tell me in what standard American English dictionary "qualifier" means "attribution"? -- like _COPY or TRANSCRIBE the exact words, cite the source and specific reference.
Max: "If you look, many grand generalizations were being made about how my report is nothing more than mouthing Bush platitudes."
Real journalists are supposed to document their claims. That's what I've done and I've never spent a day in J-school. So, _document_ your claim: give the _specific instances_ -- or in your case, I'll even accept one -- of my "grand generalizations" -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words.
Max: " I quickly laid those criticisms aside."
Now, I'll accept just one documented instance of where you did that. Specifically where? -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words.
Max: "Soon all you were left to complain about was one word, which you “illogically” have used to encapsulate my entire journalistic output."
Can you mention anything and document or specifically reference it, so that we know that we're both talking about the same "word". Please cite the "one word" -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words.
Max (chasing his own tail again): "Bush fears…is little more than a report of the words that came out of his mouth."
And just _HOW_ do you _OBJECTIVELY_ know _WHAT_ Bush _FACTUALLY_ fears? Please specifically tell us.
As a matter of fact, from that sentence _HOW_ do you _OBJECTIVELY_ know that those words even came from his mouth? Where in that sentence -- or even in that paragraph -- does it _LINGUISTICALLY_ or _LOGICALLY_ say that Bush actually _said_ that? How, _logically_ does it not say that maybe that was just _your_ conclusion? -- or anybody else's? Please respond and SPECIFICALLY _DOCUMENT_ your claim -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words where it specifically says that Bush said that.
Max: "In fact, you agree with me, because when I used my bus analogy, you acknowledge that one could say for example “Max is afraid he’ll miss the bus if he doesn’t leave.” "
You see, I _DOCUMENT_ my claims. I claim that you, supposedly a "journalist" are _MISREPRESENTING_ my _QUALIFIED_ 'agreement'. And here's where I _DOCUMENT_ it:
Copy-&-Paste:
[ The _difference_, Max, is not merely semantics; the _difference_ is also the relative importance of the two statements: what Bush believes about the Patriot Act and his true motivations vs. what you believe about missing your bus -- which will not affect 280 million people in this country alone and hundreds of million of people elsewhere, and the need to _at least_ be careful and more _objectively_ precise about what you say/report.
And in fact, if I stenographized, "Max fears he'll miss the bus if he doesn't leave soon", I would be forming A BIASED CONCLUSION!
How do I know what you _actually_ fear and how do I know that your motivation is to _actually_ catch the bus -- as opposed, hypothetically, to have a tryst or catch up with your dealer? I (and other people) often make a polite false excuse when I have to get away soon but don't want to possibly offend someone that I'm talking to, or when I want to do something whose true purpose I don't want to disclose. But, I would say, "Max is afraid that he'll miss his bus; that's why he had to leave", because that situation is far less important, and requires far less critical examination or scrutiny, than the reasons the President of the United States might give for something far more important.
And I remind you: I don't even have a journalism degree, but I know this! ]
What version of this story do you think would sound more convincing to others: _your_ version that I merely "agree[d]" with you, or the much more _QUALIFIED_ version that I posited above?
In a trivial/casual personal situation, it's not important whether I uncritically or unqualifiably stenographize your claim. With the President of the United States, it is. Now who do you think that most people will agree with: you or me? And who do you think most, especially, progressive journalists will agree with: you or me?
So, the fact that you EQUATE claims with national and even international ramifications about what Bush fears about the expiration of sections of the Patriot Act with your personally casual/trivial claims -- or my stenographizing them -- about your missing a bus, doesn't say much about you as a "journalist". Or what do _YOU_ think that says about you as a "journalist"?
Max: "Any “linguist” will tell you that to be afraid is to fear something. Same difference."
Are you purposely evading the point and being OBTUSE -- OR DO YOU JUST NOT KNOW ANY BETTER???
The linguistic and journalistic argument here (that of Aaron Aarons, reader, aaron, others, and mine) is _NOT_ whether "afraid of" and "fear" are synonymous! Maybe that's your 'linguistic' attempt at evasion of the point (like when you misrepresented my so-called "agree[ment]" with you), but ...
YOU'RE JUST MAKING _A PUBLIC FOOL_ OF YOURSELF!
The linguistic and journalistic argument is that you are forming a _CONCLUSION_ -- and thus _inherently_ placing a _VALUE_ -- on something you cannot _OBJECTIVELY_ and _LITERALLY_ know to be true! Thus your _CONCLUSION_ about something subjective that you can't possibly literally know is both placing a _VALUE_ on that subjectivity and _EDITORIALIZING_ about it.
Or do you, indeed, claim that you _OBJECTIVELY_ and _LITERALLY_ know what Bush fears about the Patriot Act and his true motivations? Can you, Max Pringle, literally get into Bush's mind?
In the meantime, let's _DOCUMENT_ Max's previous claims that are inherently in contradiction with the linguistic and logical facts:
Max: "I'm not going to editorialize about what Bush or anyone else is saying."
Max: "I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it."
MORE EXAMPLES OF MAX'S SHEER OBTUSENESS:
Max: "As far as value judgments, listen, this is a complex world. There are no cartoon villains twirling their mustaches saying, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?” "
I am talking about _LOGICAL_ value judgements. (You are either doing a great job of acting _STUPID_ or you are _SLOWER THAN MOLASSES IN DECEMBER_ !)
When you form a _CONCLUSION_ about something, you are making a _LOGICAL_ (or in your case an _ILLOGICAL_) VALUE JUDGEMENT. The _VALUE_ judgement is that you believe the statement to be true or are linguistically stating the statement as true.
YOU -- SUPPOSEDLY A "JOURNALIST" -- JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OPERATIVE WORDS IN THIS ARGUMENT MEAN, DO YOU?
Max again: "As far as value judgments, listen, this is a complex world. There are no cartoon villains twirling their mustaches saying, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?” You’re not living in the real world if you think that happens."
And you're living in Never Never Land. In fact, with that attitude, no wonder the KPFA news sucks to often. If you actually believes that, then you shouldn't even be a journalist. No credible news outlet should even hire you as a journalist.
'Do men actually sit in rooms and knowingly plan evil acts to erode civil liberties, saying, in effect, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?”
I can _DOCUMENT_ my answer to that:
1) have you ever heard of the Wansee Conference?
2) have you heard of the Nuremburg Laws?
3) have you even heard of the Black Codes?
4) have you even heard of the "Jim Crow" laws?
Do you think that any of those were evil?
Now who's "not living in the real world"?
Max, if you're _that_ naive, then no wonder you're more psychologically sensitive and thin-skinned than three 13 year-old girls that I know, daughters of friends of mine. In fact, if you were 13, I would trust you to go to the corner store by yourself: you'd probably walk off with some guy who claimed that he needed your help to find his lost puppy!
Max: "Throughout the Patriot Act debate the administration has maintained that it fears that rescinding the PA will hamstring its efforts to prevent future attacks."
There have been credible claims that 9-11 could have been prevented (under the belief that Arab hijackers did it) with the "tools" the government and the military already had!
Just _HOW_ do you _LITERALLY_ and _OBJECTIVELY_ know the _TRUE_ motivations of those "fears", Max?
How do you know that the real "fear" isn't that the government will not be able to control dissidents or protest marches, if the real goal isn't, otherwise, to eviscerate our civil liberties and our democracy for the autocratic reconsolidation of the elite ruling class and the control of our society and its economy to benefit the elite's corporations (and now worldwide) -- the primary goal that _Hitler_ had!?
Max: "But again, this isn’t a cartoon world, it’s pretty clear that Bush and his ilk have at least convinced themselves that they’re doing the right thing."
Have you read the Project for a New American Century? It specifically _COUNTED ON_ "a new Pearl Harbor" terrorist attack to help the government erode our democracy! Does that sound evil to you? Does that sound like "Bush and his ilk" are earnestly trying to do "the right thing" for us?
Max: "it’s pretty clear that Bush and his ilk have at least convinced themselves that they’re doing the right thing. It’s human nature, we all do it."
Yeah, and Nixon 'convinced' himself -- when he was ready to offer millions of dollars in bribe money -- a felony -- to obstruct a federal investigation of a felony -- that "I am not a crook"!
Max: "Think about when you’ve done something wrong, or held a wrong position, have you ever told yourself, “I’m doing this because I just want to do wrong and I’m selfish and I want to hurt people?” "
You mean like Operation Northwoods? Look it up, MAX -- WHO BELIEVES IN THE ESSENTIAL GOODNESS of Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, and the rest. No wonder too many "progressives" like you aren't worth a damn! _YOU'RE_ the one living in some cartoon world.
You mean, not want to hurt anybody (especially innocent civilians) when the U.S. government overthrew democracies and trained death squad governments in Central America?
You think that what's going on in this country is some gentleman's debate, where both sides motives are honest and sincere! I THINK THAT QUALIFIES ME TO SAY --WITH MOST INDYBAY READERS IN AGREEMENT -- THAT YOU'RE A DILETTANTE _IDIOT_, MAX!!
More Max: "When I report that they fear rescinding the PA, especially when they’ve repeatedly said so, it doesn’t mean that I too buy into it."
No, it just means that you linguistically reported it as a _FACT_, the way you literally reported it!
Yet more Max: "It is simply a report about their (very wrong) belief that the PA is necessary."
AND THIS CINCHES IT: FOR YOU, THE NEWS IS JUST ONE HONEST OPINION VS. ANOTHER!
THAT'S WHY THE KPFA NEWS IS OFTEN SO CRAPPY!
Obtuse Max: "It’s not attaching values."
That statement has already been logically discredited.
Inanely naive Max: "It’s quite obvious they believe this stuff [apparently that they are doing it for all our good] or they wouldn’t pursue it so diligently.:
Journalistically _INCOMPETENT_ Max (except as a stenographer): "No need to emote or say allege or claim here, that implies that they‘re lying to themselves"
No "allege" and "claim" doesn't linguistically mean that they are necessarily lying to themselves. It _LINGUISTICALLY_ and _LOGICALLY_ and _OBJECTIVELY_ means you -- an outside/external third party -- are not ASSUMING -- placing a _VALUE_ on the truth of, or attempting to DECIDE (wittingly, or unwittingly with in your case the most literal sense of the word) for the reader, and thus EDITORIALIZING -- that an inherently subjective or literally unknowable statement (especially to an external 3rd party) is an objective fact!
Max: "People do it everyday."
Sloppy and careless or mainstream corporate "journalists" (stenographer-reporters) do it every day.
Max: "To give an honest and balanced report to listeners a reporter must give PA critics time to explain why they disagree, which I did."
It's not in the paragraph above. So, WHERE, Max? Show us where you gave PA critics "the time to explain why they disagree".
Max (here's what you said): "But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger. Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, which the Bush administration has defended."
Unless you think the _11_ word phrase, "the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger", or the _7_ word phrase (counting "to" and "and" as nominally one word) "allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records", is any kind of substantive explanation? Yes or no or any way you'd like to explain it?
Max: "I think 20-somethings [I said teenagers, but of course you must employ your sleight-of-hand _LIE_] and poor and under educated people are just as insightful as me"
You know what Max? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Berkeley 20-somethings and teenagers were a _LOT MORE_ insightful -- and A LOT SMARTER -- than you.
Max: "Also you imply that I’m making an argument that journalism school is the only way to be a good reporter. Look at my postings, I never said that."
_YOU'RE_ the one who touted your "top journalism school" credentials. I _OBJECTIVEY_ reflected your statement back to you. I didn't _LOGICALLY_ imply anything else about your beliefs there, other than you obviously thought -- when you emphasized "top" -- that it greatly qualified you to be a good journalist.
Here's the _DOCUMENTATION_:
Max: "As for my journalistic standards, I've been practicing journalism since junior high school. I have a Masters degree in journalism from the country's top journalism school."
I was just demonstrating that some of the biggest icons of American journalism never even went to journalism school at all -- and that they were often a lot better and more renowned journalists than most of those who did -- and certainly a lot better than _YOU_.
Max: "On to maintaining civil dialogue, I’ve asked you if you’re able to debate without making it personal. You respond by avoiding the question and responding with another barb, implying that I’m oversensitive, or a like a little girl,"
No, I said that you were _WORSE_!
And here's the DOCUMENTATION:
another listener: "I know little barely-teenage girls who can take more than you can. ...It does if someone is more thin-skinned that some 13 year-old girls that I know (including one of my friends twin kids that I tease all the time!), over a single mildly sarcastic sentence in some particular post [2 out of _11_ long and short posts] to you, and _none_ in most [all the other] others of mine to you (see Tuesday, Jun. 14, 2005 at 1:43 AM).
So, about 99% of what I said included _NO_ sarcasms, and the 2 sarcasms I made were so tepid, that the three 13 year-olds I alluded to wouldn't have even flinched.
I'D SAY THAT MAKES YOU A BIT OF A _DAMN_ SISSY!
And you grew up in lower working-class Vallejo? What were you "a mamma's boy"?
Max: "An honorable response on your part would have been to say, “you know I have been rude and disrespectful, I’ll stick to the issues.” "
No, I'm _NOT_ going to because I'm not going to honor your statistical red herring and your further attempts to evade the _SUBSTANCE_ of my arguments by your partially evasive attempts to focus on two mildly sarcastic statements: which were grossly _UNDERESTIMATES_ of you, if anything.
And I'm still not insulting you -- even here! My strong assessments of your intelligence here I think are RIGHT ON TARGET AND EVEN _MORE_ ACCURATE!
Max: "If you’ve ever been in a structured debate,..."
Well, you know what, Max?: life is not really just a gentleman's debate of just sincere and honest disagreements. I guess it's time you learned that from _someone_.
Max: "I found the criticism unfounded, so I responded"
I think that your repeated returns here found the criticism all too compelling.
Max (licking his wounds): "Instead nothing but personal attacks"
That's already been _DOCUMENTABLY_ and statistically disproven by me. Can you _DOCUMENT_ otherwise? If so, then do so or stop your _CRYIN'_.
Max: "Believe me I’m not offended by your attacks. Your opinion of me means zilch."
Obviously it _DOES_ mean something to you because I am obviously intelligent and you obviously keep coming back -- this time with the most dense post you have written.
So, with what you're saying, we all might as well realize that KPFA news just isn't going to get any better, huh?
Max, why don't you leave KPFA and become a mainstream, corporate journalist? With your great naivete and absolute obliviousness -- as well as your nonseriousness with regard to the meanings of words -- you'd fit right in.
Max, I have no information or reason to believe that you are not a nice, very delicate, very sensitive, guy who I suspect I would probably personally get along with outside of the issues of progressive/leftist political consciousness.
BUT AS A (ESPECIALLY SO-CALLED "PROGRESSIVE") JOURNALIST, YOU _SUCK_ !
AND THESE COMMUNICATIONS RECORDS WOULD BE DOCUMENTED REASON ENOUGH THAT YOU SHOULD _NEVER_ BE HIRED AT A PROGRESSIVE RADIO STATION.
Well, not to anyone like you that doesn't even understand logic or what words mean -- sad for a "journalist"; worse for one supposedly at a "progressive" radio station.
Max: "You say I keep digging myself into a hole. That would mean I’ve been changing my line of argument."
No, that's not necessarily the only logical conclusion (although you have been doing that -- just look back up at the written record): it could also logically mean that you keep making some of the same discredited arguments (at least by the standard meanings of words -- not by Max Pringle's definitions like journalistic "qualifier" means "attribution") or by more obtuse or inane arguments.
By the way, here's another chance for you to show that you know what you're talking about:
Can you tell me in what standard American English dictionary "qualifier" means "attribution"? -- like _COPY or TRANSCRIBE the exact words, cite the source and specific reference.
Max: "If you look, many grand generalizations were being made about how my report is nothing more than mouthing Bush platitudes."
Real journalists are supposed to document their claims. That's what I've done and I've never spent a day in J-school. So, _document_ your claim: give the _specific instances_ -- or in your case, I'll even accept one -- of my "grand generalizations" -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words.
Max: " I quickly laid those criticisms aside."
Now, I'll accept just one documented instance of where you did that. Specifically where? -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words.
Max: "Soon all you were left to complain about was one word, which you “illogically” have used to encapsulate my entire journalistic output."
Can you mention anything and document or specifically reference it, so that we know that we're both talking about the same "word". Please cite the "one word" -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words.
Max (chasing his own tail again): "Bush fears…is little more than a report of the words that came out of his mouth."
And just _HOW_ do you _OBJECTIVELY_ know _WHAT_ Bush _FACTUALLY_ fears? Please specifically tell us.
As a matter of fact, from that sentence _HOW_ do you _OBJECTIVELY_ know that those words even came from his mouth? Where in that sentence -- or even in that paragraph -- does it _LINGUISTICALLY_ or _LOGICALLY_ say that Bush actually _said_ that? How, _logically_ does it not say that maybe that was just _your_ conclusion? -- or anybody else's? Please respond and SPECIFICALLY _DOCUMENT_ your claim -- like _COPY-&-PASTE the exact words where it specifically says that Bush said that.
Max: "In fact, you agree with me, because when I used my bus analogy, you acknowledge that one could say for example “Max is afraid he’ll miss the bus if he doesn’t leave.” "
You see, I _DOCUMENT_ my claims. I claim that you, supposedly a "journalist" are _MISREPRESENTING_ my _QUALIFIED_ 'agreement'. And here's where I _DOCUMENT_ it:
Copy-&-Paste:
[ The _difference_, Max, is not merely semantics; the _difference_ is also the relative importance of the two statements: what Bush believes about the Patriot Act and his true motivations vs. what you believe about missing your bus -- which will not affect 280 million people in this country alone and hundreds of million of people elsewhere, and the need to _at least_ be careful and more _objectively_ precise about what you say/report.
And in fact, if I stenographized, "Max fears he'll miss the bus if he doesn't leave soon", I would be forming A BIASED CONCLUSION!
How do I know what you _actually_ fear and how do I know that your motivation is to _actually_ catch the bus -- as opposed, hypothetically, to have a tryst or catch up with your dealer? I (and other people) often make a polite false excuse when I have to get away soon but don't want to possibly offend someone that I'm talking to, or when I want to do something whose true purpose I don't want to disclose. But, I would say, "Max is afraid that he'll miss his bus; that's why he had to leave", because that situation is far less important, and requires far less critical examination or scrutiny, than the reasons the President of the United States might give for something far more important.
And I remind you: I don't even have a journalism degree, but I know this! ]
What version of this story do you think would sound more convincing to others: _your_ version that I merely "agree[d]" with you, or the much more _QUALIFIED_ version that I posited above?
In a trivial/casual personal situation, it's not important whether I uncritically or unqualifiably stenographize your claim. With the President of the United States, it is. Now who do you think that most people will agree with: you or me? And who do you think most, especially, progressive journalists will agree with: you or me?
So, the fact that you EQUATE claims with national and even international ramifications about what Bush fears about the expiration of sections of the Patriot Act with your personally casual/trivial claims -- or my stenographizing them -- about your missing a bus, doesn't say much about you as a "journalist". Or what do _YOU_ think that says about you as a "journalist"?
Max: "Any “linguist” will tell you that to be afraid is to fear something. Same difference."
Are you purposely evading the point and being OBTUSE -- OR DO YOU JUST NOT KNOW ANY BETTER???
The linguistic and journalistic argument here (that of Aaron Aarons, reader, aaron, others, and mine) is _NOT_ whether "afraid of" and "fear" are synonymous! Maybe that's your 'linguistic' attempt at evasion of the point (like when you misrepresented my so-called "agree[ment]" with you), but ...
YOU'RE JUST MAKING _A PUBLIC FOOL_ OF YOURSELF!
The linguistic and journalistic argument is that you are forming a _CONCLUSION_ -- and thus _inherently_ placing a _VALUE_ -- on something you cannot _OBJECTIVELY_ and _LITERALLY_ know to be true! Thus your _CONCLUSION_ about something subjective that you can't possibly literally know is both placing a _VALUE_ on that subjectivity and _EDITORIALIZING_ about it.
Or do you, indeed, claim that you _OBJECTIVELY_ and _LITERALLY_ know what Bush fears about the Patriot Act and his true motivations? Can you, Max Pringle, literally get into Bush's mind?
In the meantime, let's _DOCUMENT_ Max's previous claims that are inherently in contradiction with the linguistic and logical facts:
Max: "I'm not going to editorialize about what Bush or anyone else is saying."
Max: "I reported what someone said and didn't attach a value to it."
MORE EXAMPLES OF MAX'S SHEER OBTUSENESS:
Max: "As far as value judgments, listen, this is a complex world. There are no cartoon villains twirling their mustaches saying, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?” "
I am talking about _LOGICAL_ value judgements. (You are either doing a great job of acting _STUPID_ or you are _SLOWER THAN MOLASSES IN DECEMBER_ !)
When you form a _CONCLUSION_ about something, you are making a _LOGICAL_ (or in your case an _ILLOGICAL_) VALUE JUDGEMENT. The _VALUE_ judgement is that you believe the statement to be true or are linguistically stating the statement as true.
YOU -- SUPPOSEDLY A "JOURNALIST" -- JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OPERATIVE WORDS IN THIS ARGUMENT MEAN, DO YOU?
Max again: "As far as value judgments, listen, this is a complex world. There are no cartoon villains twirling their mustaches saying, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?” You’re not living in the real world if you think that happens."
And you're living in Never Never Land. In fact, with that attitude, no wonder the KPFA news sucks to often. If you actually believes that, then you shouldn't even be a journalist. No credible news outlet should even hire you as a journalist.
'Do men actually sit in rooms and knowingly plan evil acts to erode civil liberties, saying, in effect, “myah ha ha ha. How can I eeevilly erode civil liberties?”
I can _DOCUMENT_ my answer to that:
1) have you ever heard of the Wansee Conference?
2) have you heard of the Nuremburg Laws?
3) have you even heard of the Black Codes?
4) have you even heard of the "Jim Crow" laws?
Do you think that any of those were evil?
Now who's "not living in the real world"?
Max, if you're _that_ naive, then no wonder you're more psychologically sensitive and thin-skinned than three 13 year-old girls that I know, daughters of friends of mine. In fact, if you were 13, I would trust you to go to the corner store by yourself: you'd probably walk off with some guy who claimed that he needed your help to find his lost puppy!
Max: "Throughout the Patriot Act debate the administration has maintained that it fears that rescinding the PA will hamstring its efforts to prevent future attacks."
There have been credible claims that 9-11 could have been prevented (under the belief that Arab hijackers did it) with the "tools" the government and the military already had!
Just _HOW_ do you _LITERALLY_ and _OBJECTIVELY_ know the _TRUE_ motivations of those "fears", Max?
How do you know that the real "fear" isn't that the government will not be able to control dissidents or protest marches, if the real goal isn't, otherwise, to eviscerate our civil liberties and our democracy for the autocratic reconsolidation of the elite ruling class and the control of our society and its economy to benefit the elite's corporations (and now worldwide) -- the primary goal that _Hitler_ had!?
Max: "But again, this isn’t a cartoon world, it’s pretty clear that Bush and his ilk have at least convinced themselves that they’re doing the right thing."
Have you read the Project for a New American Century? It specifically _COUNTED ON_ "a new Pearl Harbor" terrorist attack to help the government erode our democracy! Does that sound evil to you? Does that sound like "Bush and his ilk" are earnestly trying to do "the right thing" for us?
Max: "it’s pretty clear that Bush and his ilk have at least convinced themselves that they’re doing the right thing. It’s human nature, we all do it."
Yeah, and Nixon 'convinced' himself -- when he was ready to offer millions of dollars in bribe money -- a felony -- to obstruct a federal investigation of a felony -- that "I am not a crook"!
Max: "Think about when you’ve done something wrong, or held a wrong position, have you ever told yourself, “I’m doing this because I just want to do wrong and I’m selfish and I want to hurt people?” "
You mean like Operation Northwoods? Look it up, MAX -- WHO BELIEVES IN THE ESSENTIAL GOODNESS of Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, and the rest. No wonder too many "progressives" like you aren't worth a damn! _YOU'RE_ the one living in some cartoon world.
You mean, not want to hurt anybody (especially innocent civilians) when the U.S. government overthrew democracies and trained death squad governments in Central America?
You think that what's going on in this country is some gentleman's debate, where both sides motives are honest and sincere! I THINK THAT QUALIFIES ME TO SAY --WITH MOST INDYBAY READERS IN AGREEMENT -- THAT YOU'RE A DILETTANTE _IDIOT_, MAX!!
More Max: "When I report that they fear rescinding the PA, especially when they’ve repeatedly said so, it doesn’t mean that I too buy into it."
No, it just means that you linguistically reported it as a _FACT_, the way you literally reported it!
Yet more Max: "It is simply a report about their (very wrong) belief that the PA is necessary."
AND THIS CINCHES IT: FOR YOU, THE NEWS IS JUST ONE HONEST OPINION VS. ANOTHER!
THAT'S WHY THE KPFA NEWS IS OFTEN SO CRAPPY!
Obtuse Max: "It’s not attaching values."
That statement has already been logically discredited.
Inanely naive Max: "It’s quite obvious they believe this stuff [apparently that they are doing it for all our good] or they wouldn’t pursue it so diligently.:
Journalistically _INCOMPETENT_ Max (except as a stenographer): "No need to emote or say allege or claim here, that implies that they‘re lying to themselves"
No "allege" and "claim" doesn't linguistically mean that they are necessarily lying to themselves. It _LINGUISTICALLY_ and _LOGICALLY_ and _OBJECTIVELY_ means you -- an outside/external third party -- are not ASSUMING -- placing a _VALUE_ on the truth of, or attempting to DECIDE (wittingly, or unwittingly with in your case the most literal sense of the word) for the reader, and thus EDITORIALIZING -- that an inherently subjective or literally unknowable statement (especially to an external 3rd party) is an objective fact!
Max: "People do it everyday."
Sloppy and careless or mainstream corporate "journalists" (stenographer-reporters) do it every day.
Max: "To give an honest and balanced report to listeners a reporter must give PA critics time to explain why they disagree, which I did."
It's not in the paragraph above. So, WHERE, Max? Show us where you gave PA critics "the time to explain why they disagree".
Max (here's what you said): "But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger. Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, which the Bush administration has defended."
Unless you think the _11_ word phrase, "the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger", or the _7_ word phrase (counting "to" and "and" as nominally one word) "allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records", is any kind of substantive explanation? Yes or no or any way you'd like to explain it?
Max: "I think 20-somethings [I said teenagers, but of course you must employ your sleight-of-hand _LIE_] and poor and under educated people are just as insightful as me"
You know what Max? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Berkeley 20-somethings and teenagers were a _LOT MORE_ insightful -- and A LOT SMARTER -- than you.
Max: "Also you imply that I’m making an argument that journalism school is the only way to be a good reporter. Look at my postings, I never said that."
_YOU'RE_ the one who touted your "top journalism school" credentials. I _OBJECTIVEY_ reflected your statement back to you. I didn't _LOGICALLY_ imply anything else about your beliefs there, other than you obviously thought -- when you emphasized "top" -- that it greatly qualified you to be a good journalist.
Here's the _DOCUMENTATION_:
Max: "As for my journalistic standards, I've been practicing journalism since junior high school. I have a Masters degree in journalism from the country's top journalism school."
I was just demonstrating that some of the biggest icons of American journalism never even went to journalism school at all -- and that they were often a lot better and more renowned journalists than most of those who did -- and certainly a lot better than _YOU_.
Max: "On to maintaining civil dialogue, I’ve asked you if you’re able to debate without making it personal. You respond by avoiding the question and responding with another barb, implying that I’m oversensitive, or a like a little girl,"
No, I said that you were _WORSE_!
And here's the DOCUMENTATION:
another listener: "I know little barely-teenage girls who can take more than you can. ...It does if someone is more thin-skinned that some 13 year-old girls that I know (including one of my friends twin kids that I tease all the time!), over a single mildly sarcastic sentence in some particular post [2 out of _11_ long and short posts] to you, and _none_ in most [all the other] others of mine to you (see Tuesday, Jun. 14, 2005 at 1:43 AM).
So, about 99% of what I said included _NO_ sarcasms, and the 2 sarcasms I made were so tepid, that the three 13 year-olds I alluded to wouldn't have even flinched.
I'D SAY THAT MAKES YOU A BIT OF A _DAMN_ SISSY!
And you grew up in lower working-class Vallejo? What were you "a mamma's boy"?
Max: "An honorable response on your part would have been to say, “you know I have been rude and disrespectful, I’ll stick to the issues.” "
No, I'm _NOT_ going to because I'm not going to honor your statistical red herring and your further attempts to evade the _SUBSTANCE_ of my arguments by your partially evasive attempts to focus on two mildly sarcastic statements: which were grossly _UNDERESTIMATES_ of you, if anything.
And I'm still not insulting you -- even here! My strong assessments of your intelligence here I think are RIGHT ON TARGET AND EVEN _MORE_ ACCURATE!
Max: "If you’ve ever been in a structured debate,..."
Well, you know what, Max?: life is not really just a gentleman's debate of just sincere and honest disagreements. I guess it's time you learned that from _someone_.
Max: "I found the criticism unfounded, so I responded"
I think that your repeated returns here found the criticism all too compelling.
Max (licking his wounds): "Instead nothing but personal attacks"
That's already been _DOCUMENTABLY_ and statistically disproven by me. Can you _DOCUMENT_ otherwise? If so, then do so or stop your _CRYIN'_.
Max: "Believe me I’m not offended by your attacks. Your opinion of me means zilch."
Obviously it _DOES_ mean something to you because I am obviously intelligent and you obviously keep coming back -- this time with the most dense post you have written.
So, with what you're saying, we all might as well realize that KPFA news just isn't going to get any better, huh?
Max, why don't you leave KPFA and become a mainstream, corporate journalist? With your great naivete and absolute obliviousness -- as well as your nonseriousness with regard to the meanings of words -- you'd fit right in.
Max, I have no information or reason to believe that you are not a nice, very delicate, very sensitive, guy who I suspect I would probably personally get along with outside of the issues of progressive/leftist political consciousness.
BUT AS A (ESPECIALLY SO-CALLED "PROGRESSIVE") JOURNALIST, YOU _SUCK_ !
AND THESE COMMUNICATIONS RECORDS WOULD BE DOCUMENTED REASON ENOUGH THAT YOU SHOULD _NEVER_ BE HIRED AT A PROGRESSIVE RADIO STATION.
Right on time (it's 5:03pm)!: Robert Knight (who admittedly sometimes does an open left-editorialized form of the news, as with "Islamic scholar, Tony Blair") and Dahr Jamail on Flashpoints!
But, again, as someone once said to a sound round of applause at a journalism conference, "Robert Knight puts more in 5 minutes of news than the KPFA evening news doesn in an hour!"
...(time to arrange my ride home with my carpool)...
I actually challenged myself, above, to methodically get through all of Max Pringle's dense last drivel -- just to see if I could! I _did_ it!!
But, again, as someone once said to a sound round of applause at a journalism conference, "Robert Knight puts more in 5 minutes of news than the KPFA evening news doesn in an hour!"
...(time to arrange my ride home with my carpool)...
I actually challenged myself, above, to methodically get through all of Max Pringle's dense last drivel -- just to see if I could! I _did_ it!!
Hey, Max: we're all waiting.
Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot Act
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Conservative groups have found common ground with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in their opposition to the USA Patriot Act and pledge to wage a high-profile fight against it, claiming even its renewal is shrouded in secrecy.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, who led conservative efforts to impeach President Clinton, is leading a group called "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" that is focused exclusively on opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050614-121304-2787r.htm
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Conservative groups have found common ground with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in their opposition to the USA Patriot Act and pledge to wage a high-profile fight against it, claiming even its renewal is shrouded in secrecy.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, who led conservative efforts to impeach President Clinton, is leading a group called "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" that is focused exclusively on opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050614-121304-2787r.htm
Max Pringle, KPFA News: "Sixteen sections of the Patriot Act are scheduled to expire at the end of the year and the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil."
--A SENTENCE -- UNLIKE PRINGLE'S CLAIM -- WHICH HE DIDN'T EVEN _ATTRIBUTE_ TO A PARTICULAR PERSON OR QUALIFY.
The S.F. Chronicle: "President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to renew the USA Patriot Act, which he called an invaluable tool in the war on terrorism... Bush, in a speech Thursday ... praised the Patriot Act, which includes provisions that make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information about suspects and allows for roving wiretaps and secret immigration proceedings in some cases."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/10/MNGB7D6JMJ1.DTL&hw=patriot+act&sn=001&sc=1000
Which is more informative?
And note that the Chronicle actually used QUALIFIERS _and_ ATTRIBUTIONS -- which Pringle did _NOT_ use in his sentence about what Bush "fears". And note, the Chronicle did not say that Bush "feared" anything, so that makes me wonder where Max got his 'quote' from, since he subsequently said that that's what Bush "fears".
The Chronicle: "...which HE CALLED an invaluable tool in the war on terrorism..."
A la Pringle: "... an invaluable tool in the war on terrorism..."
======================================================
Now, let's look at the New York Times:
"The Patriot Act closed dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps that terrorists exploited when they attacked us," Mr. Bush _SAID_... [caps and underscore, mine]
The U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, broadened the F.B.I.'s wiretapping authority and other surveillance powers ...
...
... The Patriot Act made it easier for intelligence officers to share information with law enforcement agents by lowering a bureaucratic "wall" long in place. Critics have said that that aspect of the law has led to situations in which law-abiding citizens who are neither spies nor criminals find themselves victims of snooping into their private affairs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09cnd-bush.html?oref=login
"broadened the F.B.I.'s wiretapping authority and other surveillance powers ...", is arguably more informative than Pringle's vague, "putting American freedoms in danger", or even his, "allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records".
After all, how many adult Americans regularly use a library anyway (or even read a serious book, let alone some leftist/radical political book) -- so they can always say, "Well, that won't affect me". But all adults use telecommunications, internet computers, credit cards, online banking, and other means of electonic data transmission.
And, "Critics have said that that aspect of the law has led to situations in which law-abiding citizens who are neither spies nor criminals find themselves victims of snooping into their private affairs,"
...would certainly get more ordinary Americans attention than someone being worried about the latest celebrity book or home decoration or gardening book they bought.
--A SENTENCE -- UNLIKE PRINGLE'S CLAIM -- WHICH HE DIDN'T EVEN _ATTRIBUTE_ TO A PARTICULAR PERSON OR QUALIFY.
The S.F. Chronicle: "President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to renew the USA Patriot Act, which he called an invaluable tool in the war on terrorism... Bush, in a speech Thursday ... praised the Patriot Act, which includes provisions that make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information about suspects and allows for roving wiretaps and secret immigration proceedings in some cases."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/10/MNGB7D6JMJ1.DTL&hw=patriot+act&sn=001&sc=1000
Which is more informative?
And note that the Chronicle actually used QUALIFIERS _and_ ATTRIBUTIONS -- which Pringle did _NOT_ use in his sentence about what Bush "fears". And note, the Chronicle did not say that Bush "feared" anything, so that makes me wonder where Max got his 'quote' from, since he subsequently said that that's what Bush "fears".
The Chronicle: "...which HE CALLED an invaluable tool in the war on terrorism..."
A la Pringle: "... an invaluable tool in the war on terrorism..."
======================================================
Now, let's look at the New York Times:
"The Patriot Act closed dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps that terrorists exploited when they attacked us," Mr. Bush _SAID_... [caps and underscore, mine]
The U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, broadened the F.B.I.'s wiretapping authority and other surveillance powers ...
...
... The Patriot Act made it easier for intelligence officers to share information with law enforcement agents by lowering a bureaucratic "wall" long in place. Critics have said that that aspect of the law has led to situations in which law-abiding citizens who are neither spies nor criminals find themselves victims of snooping into their private affairs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09cnd-bush.html?oref=login
"broadened the F.B.I.'s wiretapping authority and other surveillance powers ...", is arguably more informative than Pringle's vague, "putting American freedoms in danger", or even his, "allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records".
After all, how many adult Americans regularly use a library anyway (or even read a serious book, let alone some leftist/radical political book) -- so they can always say, "Well, that won't affect me". But all adults use telecommunications, internet computers, credit cards, online banking, and other means of electonic data transmission.
And, "Critics have said that that aspect of the law has led to situations in which law-abiding citizens who are neither spies nor criminals find themselves victims of snooping into their private affairs,"
...would certainly get more ordinary Americans attention than someone being worried about the latest celebrity book or home decoration or gardening book they bought.
Now that I have ruffled your pringles
it's on to bigger fish:
Dennis Bernstein charged with
sneering in the mirror
live on air
it's on to bigger fish:
Dennis Bernstein charged with
sneering in the mirror
live on air
Eat your Pringles
by 'another listener' , Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2005 at 9:37 AM,
is a forgery.
by 'another listener' , Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2005 at 9:37 AM,
is a forgery.
If you haven't had enough, then how about I bring my personal cassette recorder, I meet you over at the UC Berkeley linguistics department, and then we go over to the journalism school, and then we go over to the law school, and we see what representative senior professors who deal in the meaning of words have to say [about your "journalism"]?
Reading this therad its obvious that you have some problems with Max other than what you have been stating. I can underatnd why some peopel may be bothered by a news broadcaster ocasionally reading wireservice copy that uses wording that seems to play into the hands of the Bush regime but the few cases quotes above dont seem that bad. Are you really assuming that KPFA listeners are so stupid that something stating "Bush fears that" isnt taken to mean "Bush claims that he feras that".
I personally prefer the BBC and the AFP to KPFAs news but for almost the opposite reason from the complaints mentioned above; the depth of coverage of the BBC and wireservices just cant be rebroadcast in real time if everything has to be paraphrased to not reflect possible biases.
One sure way to bring KPFA down and limit its power it to start attacking all of its journalists for not being radical enough in their coverage, pushing KPFA in a direction where its only listeners are already those convinced of the message they hear repeated back to them.
I personally prefer the BBC and the AFP to KPFAs news but for almost the opposite reason from the complaints mentioned above; the depth of coverage of the BBC and wireservices just cant be rebroadcast in real time if everything has to be paraphrased to not reflect possible biases.
One sure way to bring KPFA down and limit its power it to start attacking all of its journalists for not being radical enough in their coverage, pushing KPFA in a direction where its only listeners are already those convinced of the message they hear repeated back to them.
???: Reading this therad its obvious that you have some problems with Max other than what you have been stating.
Well, since you can apparently read my mind, I'm thinking about a number between 1 and 20 that I also haven't stated: what is it?
For sake of argument and to indulge you -- what you say might hypothetically and vaguely suggest somthing, but you have a little problem: if you look above, you can see that I'M NOT THE _ONLY_ PERSON complaining -- or who has been complaining -- about the pro-government (and worse, pro-Bush administration) bias and wording in the KPFA news; nor are the complaints limited to the true progressives/leftists above; nor are the complaints not longtime ones; nor are Pringle's shortcomings isolated ones in how he words (pro-government editorializes) the news. That's why certain longtime KPFA listeners have formed a listeners KPFA News Committee, to form and compose constructive criticism -- which, as I said above Pringle, Alfandary, Mericle & Co just wish would go away. Since that is the case, one might wonder about your relationship with Max.
Aaron Aarons: "I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of transcribing this and posting it if it were an ISOLATED mistake, but it's quite TYPICAL of the way KPFA treats government propaganda. Moreover, the 4 PM headlines are PROBABLY THE ONLY [SO-CALLED] "ALTERNATIVE" NEWS THAT MOST LISTENERS TO HARD KNOCK RADIO HEAR [THAT WOULD BE MOSTLY HIGH SCHOOL TEENS AND YOUNG 20-SOMETHINGS], so it's especially upsetting that they are given such pablum instead of INCISIVE exposure of government lies and manipulation." [CAPS, MINE.]
>>Max: "It isn't even about some word in some sentence read on the news last week."
>>another listener: No, it's about some word in some sentence read in your news seemingly _every_ week.
???: "I can underatnd why some peopel may be bothered by a news broadcaster OCASIONALLY [??] reading wireservice copy that uses wording that seems to play into the hands of the Bush regime but the FEW [??] cases quotes above dont seem that bad."
And you say that you can't be fooled. I see: you're just not paying attention!
"I personally prefer the BBC and the AFP to KPFAs news but for almost the opposite reason from the complaints mentioned above; the depth of coverage of the BBC"
So, you really think that the BBC is better than, say the PBS Newshour, or CNN, or for that matter, the other corporate media news? You really think (and I use that word hypothetically) that the American broadcast of the BBC is really any better on the Middle East (say, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, or any other place important to the Anglo-American imperialists) than the other corporate media?
Well, then, that objectively makes you rather "stupid". And that's the reason that those of us who are more serious and incisive are and have been criticizing Pringle and the KPFA news. Pringle and KPFA are supposed to rise to HIGHER standards of usage, analysis, and incisiveness.
But if you're satisfied with Pringle or the BBC, then -- hey -- _that's you_!
The apparent "the depth of coverage" you allude to is just government propaganda tailored and aimed to a, generally, college educated audience who thinks that more (and ostensibly drier or staid, without commercials) necessarily means deeper or more incisive. You see how easily you were fooled? That's why we don't need the KPFA news adding to the corporate media pile.
HERE WE _GO_ AGAIN: HERE'S THE OLE MANTRA OF THE _DISINGENUOUS_ OR THE MENTALLY _LAZY_ ... :
???: One sure way to bring KPFA down and limit its power ...
But you were just arguing for that (and for Max)! And let me _DOCUMENT_ it:
???: "I can underatnd why some peopel may be bothered by a news broadcaster ocasionally[??] reading wireservice copy that uses wording that seems to play into the hands of the Bush regime but the few[??] cases quotes above dont seem that bad."
???: "the depth of coverage of the BBC and wireservices just cant be rebroadcast in real time if everything has to be paraphrased to not reflect possible biases."
Well, some people manage to do that, and I'll _DOCUMENT_ the claim! (and odds are that Max didn't see him/her in his class/roster at "the country's top journalism school"):
[ "news
by license shmicense, Tuesday, Jun. 14, 2005 at 12:21 AM:
As someone who writes radio news headlines (for unlicensed radio) I have to agree, KPFA news could use a lot of work. Starting with a news story from e.g. news.google.com, I have to spend quite a bit of time rewriting it to offer some semblance of reality (hopefully along the way I can find other sources, indymedia etc.) -- de-editorializing and de-spinning the news. It's not unusual for every single clause to need qualifiers --- of the de-editorializing type, not the editorializing type. KPFA on the other hand sounds an awful lot like what I read on news.google.com -- thanks a lot guys, real good use of your grandfathered 59 kilowatts." ]
???: "it to start attacking all of its journalists for not being radical enough in their coverage"
I see, you have 'the Max Pringle syndrome', which is easily remedied by a question (a grade school teacher told me that this is how she has to question little lying youngsters in class): Nowww, did I rrrealllly "attack" -- [I guess that's what you call legitimate and DOCUMENTED criticism] -- "ALLLL" of KPFA's jourrrrnalists? Tell the twooth nohttp://www...?
Why don't you list ALLL of KPFA's journalists in one column ... and list the _ONE_ I "attacked" in another column.
In fact, I specifically praised two journalists on KPFA -- one (the one in Iraq!) who I know hasn't even been to journalism school.
AND HERE WE _GO_ YET AGAIN: HERE'S THE OLE MANTRA OF THE _DISINGENUOUS_ OR THE MENTALLY _LAZY_ -- OR DEMOCRAT DILETTANTE LIBERALS ... :
???: "pushing KPFA in a direction where its only listeners are already those convinced of the message they hear repeated back to them."
In other words, 'If you don't agree with me and Max, you're only preaching to the choir.'
Well, since the S.F. Chronicle, the New York Times, and even the Washington Times -- with stories that at least QUALIFIED/ATTRIBUTED every single claim/quote in every paragraph or even sentence where they were cited -- had more informative and incisive critical sentences than Pringle had, then maybe KPFA will pick up some of their more LAZY audience who are looking for a less challenging message.
(Tell Max "hi" for me while you're there. Tell Max that we're still waiting for his _DOCUMENTED_ replies to my questions.)
Writing broadcast newscopy is a lot of work, you have to de-editorialize and de-spin whatever you might be using as a source and end up with something a lot shorter than a written (print or web) story -- not only does the whole story have to be shorter but each and every sentence has to be shorter and less complex. You have to remove most quotes (unless you have a recorded quote to play) and resort to summaries and paraphrases.
One thing i'm interested in is a free broadcast newswire service for community, microradio and webradio stations to use. News programs could register an account and post their news scripts. This site could make broadcast newscopy writing more efficient and perhaps help reduce reliance on corporate news sources.
One thing i'm interested in is a free broadcast newswire service for community, microradio and webradio stations to use. News programs could register an account and post their news scripts. This site could make broadcast newscopy writing more efficient and perhaps help reduce reliance on corporate news sources.
Check it out . . .
AP / Yahoo:
"Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was PASSED QUICKLY in the EMOTIONAL aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
Max Pringle:
"The PATRIOT ACT was APPROVED by OVERWHELMING MARGINS in both the House and the Senate in the TENSE weeks after the September 11 attacks."
hmmm . . .
AP / Yahoo:
"Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on "FISHING EXPEDITIONS" on people's reading habits and that INNOCENT people could get TAGGED as potential TERRORISTS based on what they check out from a library."
Max Pringle:
"Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, WHICH THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION HAS DEFENDED."
Gee, does the BUSH ADMINSTRATION need anymore help from the KPFA News Dept???
Max Pringle:
"President Bush urged Congress today to renew major provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT and rejected critics who complain the post-September 11 anti-Terrorism law erodes civil liberties. Sixteen sections of the PATRIOT ACT are scheduled to expire at the end of the year and the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil. The PATRIOT ACT was approved by overwhelming margins in both the House and the Senate in the tense weeks after the September 11 attacks. But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger. Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, which the Bush administration has defended."
AP / Yahoo
House Votes to Limit Patriot Act Rules
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_libraries
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to block the
FBI and the Justice Department from using the anti-terror Patriot Act to search library and book store records, responding to complaints about potential invasion of privacy of innocent readers.
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers complaining about threats to privacy rights. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries.
The vote came as the House debated a $57.5 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State. The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and GOP leaders often drop provisions offensive to Bush during final negotiations.
Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was passed quickly in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Congress included a "sunset" provision under which 15 of the law's provisions are to expire at the end of this year.
Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on "fishing expeditions" on people's reading habits and that innocent people could get tagged as potential terrorists based on what they check out from a library.
"If the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant," said Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Supporters of the Patriot Act countered that the rules on reading records are a potentially useful tool in finding terrorists and argued that the House was voting to make libraries safe havens for them.
"If there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes, how to put together biological weapons, how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons ... we have to have an avenue through the federal court system so that we can stop the attack before it occurs," said Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla.
Last year, a similar provision was derailed by a 210-210 tie tally after several Republicans were pressured to switch their votes.
In the meantime, a number of libraries have begun disposing of patrons' records quickly so they won't be available if sought under the law.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.
But when asked whether the administration would agree to exclude library and medical records from the law, Gonzales demurred. "It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint," he said.
Authorities have gained access to records through voluntary cooperation from librarians, Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller said.
AP / Yahoo:
"Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was PASSED QUICKLY in the EMOTIONAL aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
Max Pringle:
"The PATRIOT ACT was APPROVED by OVERWHELMING MARGINS in both the House and the Senate in the TENSE weeks after the September 11 attacks."
hmmm . . .
AP / Yahoo:
"Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on "FISHING EXPEDITIONS" on people's reading habits and that INNOCENT people could get TAGGED as potential TERRORISTS based on what they check out from a library."
Max Pringle:
"Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, WHICH THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION HAS DEFENDED."
Gee, does the BUSH ADMINSTRATION need anymore help from the KPFA News Dept???
Max Pringle:
"President Bush urged Congress today to renew major provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT and rejected critics who complain the post-September 11 anti-Terrorism law erodes civil liberties. Sixteen sections of the PATRIOT ACT are scheduled to expire at the end of the year and the Bush administration fears their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil. The PATRIOT ACT was approved by overwhelming margins in both the House and the Senate in the tense weeks after the September 11 attacks. But civil liberties groups and some members of Congress say the law has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger. Among the provisions opposed by civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, which the Bush administration has defended."
AP / Yahoo
House Votes to Limit Patriot Act Rules
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_libraries
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to block the
FBI and the Justice Department from using the anti-terror Patriot Act to search library and book store records, responding to complaints about potential invasion of privacy of innocent readers.
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers complaining about threats to privacy rights. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries.
The vote came as the House debated a $57.5 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State. The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and GOP leaders often drop provisions offensive to Bush during final negotiations.
Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was passed quickly in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Congress included a "sunset" provision under which 15 of the law's provisions are to expire at the end of this year.
Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on "fishing expeditions" on people's reading habits and that innocent people could get tagged as potential terrorists based on what they check out from a library.
"If the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant," said Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Supporters of the Patriot Act countered that the rules on reading records are a potentially useful tool in finding terrorists and argued that the House was voting to make libraries safe havens for them.
"If there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes, how to put together biological weapons, how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons ... we have to have an avenue through the federal court system so that we can stop the attack before it occurs," said Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla.
Last year, a similar provision was derailed by a 210-210 tie tally after several Republicans were pressured to switch their votes.
In the meantime, a number of libraries have begun disposing of patrons' records quickly so they won't be available if sought under the law.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.
But when asked whether the administration would agree to exclude library and medical records from the law, Gonzales demurred. "It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint," he said.
Authorities have gained access to records through voluntary cooperation from librarians, Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller said.
Richard Baker here. I'm a New Zealander who once lived in the Bay Area for a short while and was quite fond of KPFA and Indybay. But now I'm glad to be back home and here's why:
You Yanks are a mess especially this Another Listener bloke. If this is the best your left can muster no wonder you lot have such an awful government.
A.L. is a bloody walking stereotype of an arrogant chest-thumping Yank bastard. Spending what seems like days wanking in front of a computer screen. No wonder we in the rest of the world bloody think you're a lot of fat, self-important gun-worshipping bullies.
The amount of time spent going on about some obscure headline written, it seems like days ago, is testament to the Yank left's ineptitude.
The report wasn't perfect but after reading the transcript it was understandable and I got a general idea about what's on in DC. That's what a short headline in what looks to be a short newscast is supposed to do. If you want deep analysis flippin' read a book about the Patriot Act if there are any. You lot are too busy tearing each other apart to have someone take the time to write one.
And why even compare a radio headline to a newspaper article? How bloody daft are you? Any git knows newpaper articles are always longer and more detailed.
Do me a favour Yanks, stay right where you are. Never come to New Zealand and get involved in our politics. We in Wellington have enough to worry about dealing with our corporate state without your bloody stupidity.
You Yanks are a mess especially this Another Listener bloke. If this is the best your left can muster no wonder you lot have such an awful government.
A.L. is a bloody walking stereotype of an arrogant chest-thumping Yank bastard. Spending what seems like days wanking in front of a computer screen. No wonder we in the rest of the world bloody think you're a lot of fat, self-important gun-worshipping bullies.
The amount of time spent going on about some obscure headline written, it seems like days ago, is testament to the Yank left's ineptitude.
The report wasn't perfect but after reading the transcript it was understandable and I got a general idea about what's on in DC. That's what a short headline in what looks to be a short newscast is supposed to do. If you want deep analysis flippin' read a book about the Patriot Act if there are any. You lot are too busy tearing each other apart to have someone take the time to write one.
And why even compare a radio headline to a newspaper article? How bloody daft are you? Any git knows newpaper articles are always longer and more detailed.
Do me a favour Yanks, stay right where you are. Never come to New Zealand and get involved in our politics. We in Wellington have enough to worry about dealing with our corporate state without your bloody stupidity.
Richard-- Can't we send you some of our Turkeys?
Richard-- Can't we send you some of our Turkeys?
Take your CHUMP-ASS, PUNK-ASS, LAME-ASS, _FAKE_-ASS back to wherever you came from. Before you get a BLOODY ASS. You're not fooling ANYONE!
'Bloke'
'Bloke'
Oh no you don't mate. You're not dragging me into some Yank pissing contest. For anyone reading who may be sane does this another listener bloody fool not prove every point that I previously made. He's a bloody nine-year-old trapped in a man's, (and I use that term loosely), body. Also if you can bloody-well read, I am back where I came from you ridiculous Yank circus clown.
You and you're Yank left fascists can stay in your silly little culturally bereft country safe and sound.
You and you're Yank left fascists can stay in your silly little culturally bereft country safe and sound.
You're from New Zealand and you're dissing the US for being culturally bereft? Funny guy.
Now, let's stick to the topic.
Now, let's stick to the topic.
"For anyone reading who may be sane does this another listener bloody fool not prove every point that I previously made."
And if you don't like it here, then what did you bring your FAKE-ASS back here for anyway -- TWICE!
And if you don't like it here, then what did you bring your FAKE-ASS back here for anyway -- TWICE!
"Another listener" is obviously another of JA's, uh, charm offensives. And as usual, there's no charm, only offensive.
@%<
@%<
not bloody likely 'mate'
I was already up, you twit. You're going to have to do better than that. As for New Zealand's cultural level, look at who's running your country. The sheer level of bible thumpers, gun-toters and criminals roaming your streets says all that needs to be said about U.S. culture.
Baker the Faker: "I was already up, you twit."
yyyeahhh..., rrrright....
(and decided to stay up until 7:39am, huh...?)
yyyeahhh..., rrrright....
(and decided to stay up until 7:39am, huh...?)
I haven't been to bed. I work overnight in a laboratory. I'm sure you've at least heard of overnight shifts. Good luck Yanks, you're going to need it judging by what I've seen here.
6:54pm USPT, 8:35am USPT, 11:39am USPT, 12:39pm USPT, ...
you work lonnng hours NZT, all throughout the day and all throughout the night, huh?
g'day 'mate', or rather, fake.
you work lonnng hours NZT, all throughout the day and all throughout the night, huh?
g'day 'mate', or rather, fake.
This is sort of surreal, I look out my window and see suburban Wellington, but there's a little Yank out there who keeps telling me I'm in California. Try and wrap your mind around this one: We may not be as big, or as rich and powerful as you. But we poor little Kiwis do have computers in our homes too. Now I'm bored go play with yourself.
From all your posting hours 'Kiwi Boy' (even in the middle of the night, 'way over there' in 'New Zealand'), obviously all you ever DO (even at 3:35am 'your time', wink wink) is think about us yanks in l'il ole Berkeley (and you decided to stay half an hour, 7:39am Fri, 'your time', after your 'shift' was over just to post to us)! For someone who hates the U.S. so much, you sure do come ' back ' here a lot!
You're "OUT OF BUSINESS" here, Faker.
We don't care _where_ you're _really_ posting from.
Nobody gives a FUCK _what_ you have to say.
(You see, Max, Baker the Faker is somone who engages in "nothing but personal insults". You want _him_ on your side defending you??? Hey Fake..., I don't think he does.)
You're "OUT OF BUSINESS" here, Faker.
We don't care _where_ you're _really_ posting from.
Nobody gives a FUCK _what_ you have to say.
(You see, Max, Baker the Faker is somone who engages in "nothing but personal insults". You want _him_ on your side defending you??? Hey Fake..., I don't think he does.)
Pretty hilarious that the Gehrig's of the place are on the prowl on every thread . . .
And Faker, what an idiot! Australia! Hilarious.
Of course, this way, we can all forget about the KPFA news and how almost ALL the mainstream press is more REAL in their reporting of Bushmoron and the Patriot Act simply because they aren't afraid of telling it like to is and upsetting the Centrist Democrats who are terrified of seeming too 'left,' or for the right-wing to come after them as being too Micheal Moore-ish.
They're so desperate to appeal to the CENTER that they are to the RIGHT of the AP newswire!!!
And Faker, what an idiot! Australia! Hilarious.
Of course, this way, we can all forget about the KPFA news and how almost ALL the mainstream press is more REAL in their reporting of Bushmoron and the Patriot Act simply because they aren't afraid of telling it like to is and upsetting the Centrist Democrats who are terrified of seeming too 'left,' or for the right-wing to come after them as being too Micheal Moore-ish.
They're so desperate to appeal to the CENTER that they are to the RIGHT of the AP newswire!!!
Baker the Faker actually _claims_ to be a 'Kiwi' ('New Zealand'), rather than a 'Skippy' ('Australia')! Haha! But your point is valid either way.
No one could have put this any better than you:
Unlike most of KPFA -- "so desperate to appeal to the CENTER that they are to the RIGHT of the AP"(!) -- the _corporate_ media "aren't afraid of ... upsetting the Centrist Democrats who are terrified of seeming too 'left,' or for the right-wing to come after them as being too Micheal Moore-ish."
No one could have put this any better than you:
Unlike most of KPFA -- "so desperate to appeal to the CENTER that they are to the RIGHT of the AP"(!) -- the _corporate_ media "aren't afraid of ... upsetting the Centrist Democrats who are terrified of seeming too 'left,' or for the right-wing to come after them as being too Micheal Moore-ish."
by "another reader", just above (3:38 PM), should have been by "another listener".
Help us, we are Another Listener and Reader and we're hopelessly in love. We know our intolerant, backward, inbred society won't accept us so we have to express our love for one another on Indybay.
reader listener (undoubtedly gehrig or Baker the Faker): "We know our intolerant, backward, inbred society..."
Help us, we are Another Listener and Reader and we're hopelessly in love. We know our intolerant, backward, inbred society won't accept us so we have to express our love for one another on Indybay.
Wow! After a few days away from this dialogue (which went from 40 comments to 85) I had hoped there might be some intelligent posts to read. Instead you've degenerated into name calling and even more nit picking about nothing.
Let's call a truce and concede that KPFA news needs to be improved, news writers need to be conscious about their choice of words and attributions, and that no matter how careful KPFA news reporters are, there will be a few, or many, folks who don't think the reporting fits their view of accurate, unbiased or critical reporting (or adheres to their own bias).
We can compare KPFA to Yahoo but what's the point? It does remind us that Yahoo trillionaire Jerry Yang (?) will be hosting a $50,000 per plate dinner for Arnold Schwarzengroper this week. Shouldn't we be calling for a boycott of all things Yahoo and fighting the real enemies rather than just engaging in pedantic semantics and infantile attacks?
loved the 'another listener' post about eating pringles! more humor, less snide bullshit!
Let's call a truce and concede that KPFA news needs to be improved, news writers need to be conscious about their choice of words and attributions, and that no matter how careful KPFA news reporters are, there will be a few, or many, folks who don't think the reporting fits their view of accurate, unbiased or critical reporting (or adheres to their own bias).
We can compare KPFA to Yahoo but what's the point? It does remind us that Yahoo trillionaire Jerry Yang (?) will be hosting a $50,000 per plate dinner for Arnold Schwarzengroper this week. Shouldn't we be calling for a boycott of all things Yahoo and fighting the real enemies rather than just engaging in pedantic semantics and infantile attacks?
loved the 'another listener' post about eating pringles! more humor, less snide bullshit!
>>concede that KPFA news needs to be improved
If that had been included early on, the conversation might have been positive and more easily constructive, instead of loaded and tactical (and constructive). We've probably saved someone valuable money in therapy learning about how being automatically defensive and not pausing to consider, "Well, okay, I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes, and actually it takes someone big to admit it," is a more meaningful way to interact with people than, "Hey, what's wrong with YOU, anyway? I'm the one who does nothing wrong. I'm just doing my job."
Of course, it was several against one.
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile.
If that had been included early on, the conversation might have been positive and more easily constructive, instead of loaded and tactical (and constructive). We've probably saved someone valuable money in therapy learning about how being automatically defensive and not pausing to consider, "Well, okay, I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes, and actually it takes someone big to admit it," is a more meaningful way to interact with people than, "Hey, what's wrong with YOU, anyway? I'm the one who does nothing wrong. I'm just doing my job."
Of course, it was several against one.
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile.
"But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile."
What breakthrough?
We are still sure to see more pointless word games from 'another listener,' who hasn't had any kind of breakthrough to get beyond the attack/defend mode. Max Pringle made many more thoughtful comments early in this discussion, and was considerate enough to use his name; 'another listener' has just used the forum to vent frustration. It was entertaining for a minute, but has anything really been learned or accomplished?
What breakthrough?
We are still sure to see more pointless word games from 'another listener,' who hasn't had any kind of breakthrough to get beyond the attack/defend mode. Max Pringle made many more thoughtful comments early in this discussion, and was considerate enough to use his name; 'another listener' has just used the forum to vent frustration. It was entertaining for a minute, but has anything really been learned or accomplished?
>>concede that KPFA news needs to be improved
If that had been included early on, the conversation might have been positive and more easily constructive, instead of loaded and tactical (and constructive). We've probably saved someone valuable money in therapy learning about how being automatically defensive and not pausing to consider, "Well, okay, I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes, and actually it takes someone big to admit it," is a more meaningful way to interact with people than, "Hey, what's wrong with YOU, anyway? I'm the one who does nothing wrong. I'm just doing my job."
Of course, it was several against one.
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile.
If that had been included early on, the conversation might have been positive and more easily constructive, instead of loaded and tactical (and constructive). We've probably saved someone valuable money in therapy learning about how being automatically defensive and not pausing to consider, "Well, okay, I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes, and actually it takes someone big to admit it," is a more meaningful way to interact with people than, "Hey, what's wrong with YOU, anyway? I'm the one who does nothing wrong. I'm just doing my job."
Of course, it was several against one.
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile.
>>" Of course, it was several against one.
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile."
Did "another reader/listener" admit they were off base with ridiculous nitpicking semantic bullshit? NO. So there was no 'breakthrough.' Even though you re-posted your comment, it still makes no sense. Who are the several against one?
Did another listener/reader morph into multiple personalities or is/are he/they still fuming about fake-ass kiwi versus aussie time zone mismanagement?
And who the hell is the Reality Chick?!? I'd like to meet her and ruffle her pringled frock, or frock her ruffled pringles, or check her unattributed sound bytes!
Big news just in, the Umpire Strikes Back!
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile."
Did "another reader/listener" admit they were off base with ridiculous nitpicking semantic bullshit? NO. So there was no 'breakthrough.' Even though you re-posted your comment, it still makes no sense. Who are the several against one?
Did another listener/reader morph into multiple personalities or is/are he/they still fuming about fake-ass kiwi versus aussie time zone mismanagement?
And who the hell is the Reality Chick?!? I'd like to meet her and ruffle her pringled frock, or frock her ruffled pringles, or check her unattributed sound bytes!
Big news just in, the Umpire Strikes Back!
>>" Of course, it was several against one.
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile."
Did "another reader/listener" admit they were off base with ridiculous nitpicking semantic bullshit? NO. So there was no 'breakthrough.' Even though you re-posted your comment, it still makes no sense. Who are the several against one?
Did another listener/reader morph into multiple personalities or is/are he/they still fuming about fake-ass kiwi versus aussie time zone mismanagement?
And who the hell is the Reality Chick?!? I'd like to meet her and ruffle her pringled frock, or frock her ruffled pringles, or check her unattributed sound bytes!
Big news just in, the Umpire Strikes Back!
But it's good that this breakthrough happened, even if it took awhile."
Did "another reader/listener" admit they were off base with ridiculous nitpicking semantic bullshit? NO. So there was no 'breakthrough.' Even though you re-posted your comment, it still makes no sense. Who are the several against one?
Did another listener/reader morph into multiple personalities or is/are he/they still fuming about fake-ass kiwi versus aussie time zone mismanagement?
And who the hell is the Reality Chick?!? I'd like to meet her and ruffle her pringled frock, or frock her ruffled pringles, or check her unattributed sound bytes!
Big news just in, the Umpire Strikes Back!
doesn't like it because he too is not dealing with REALITY at all!
He just wants to stick his head in the sand just like Pringle (or in 'Reality's' or "huh?'s" case, UP THEIR BUTTS).
"huh?" is about your mental spead, "huh?" -- like Homer Simpson's more famous "duh?"
If you're so intellectually and politically dull that you don't care what even the so-called "progressive" news says, then -- hey -- that's YOU! Just live in blissful ignorance until the next 9-11 and when Homeland "Security" institutes a "Patriot Act" that makes today's "Patriot Act" look like 'living in Sweden' (where even as bin Laden pointed out, if the U.S. says that he hates our "freedom, rights & democracy" so much, people in Sweden have significantly *more* freedom, rights and democracy -- and social safety, with regard to either crime or social benefits).
And *speaking* of reposting comments that don't make any sense to begin with, "huh?" ...
(I only carried on a long debate with Pringle because at least there's some *reason* to carry on a long debate with him.)
He just wants to stick his head in the sand just like Pringle (or in 'Reality's' or "huh?'s" case, UP THEIR BUTTS).
"huh?" is about your mental spead, "huh?" -- like Homer Simpson's more famous "duh?"
If you're so intellectually and politically dull that you don't care what even the so-called "progressive" news says, then -- hey -- that's YOU! Just live in blissful ignorance until the next 9-11 and when Homeland "Security" institutes a "Patriot Act" that makes today's "Patriot Act" look like 'living in Sweden' (where even as bin Laden pointed out, if the U.S. says that he hates our "freedom, rights & democracy" so much, people in Sweden have significantly *more* freedom, rights and democracy -- and social safety, with regard to either crime or social benefits).
And *speaking* of reposting comments that don't make any sense to begin with, "huh?" ...
(I only carried on a long debate with Pringle because at least there's some *reason* to carry on a long debate with him.)
With the aim of making my above criticism constructive, I offer an alternative way the story could have been written:
Rejecting criticism that the law erodes civil liberties, President Bush urged Congress today to renew major provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, arguing that their expiration will weaken law enforcement tools needed to search for potential terrorists on American soil. The PATRIOT ACT was hastily approved by both the House and the Senate in the climate of hysteria generated by the September 11 attacks and the subsequent mailing of letters containing anthrax to Democratic members of Congress. Some critics argue that its purpose is not to fight terrorism but to strengthen the police powers of the government against any threat to the dominant order. But even many who accept the basic premise of the law say the it has gone too far, putting American freedoms in danger. Among the provisions opposed by almost all civil liberties advocates is one allowing authorities to sieze library and bookstore records, which the Bush administration has defended.
YOU should be doing the news at KPFA.
You're obviously more qualified
You're obviously more qualified
THIS JUST IN!!:
Subject: Re: West-Block Dissident Book & KPFA's Hidden History
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Folks,
Could this be the 'smoking gun' about Bensky's nefarious past? Some of us have been suspecting Bensky to be an 'operative' for many years. Some people say its his ego thats the problem or he's concern about being PC, but I myself tend to think he's an agent of some sort.
Coincidentally, between 1964 and 1966, Bensky (a former Yale University student newspaper editor during the McCarthy Era) apparently was employed as the Paris editor of The Paris Review magazine. In an April 18, 2002 article that was posted on the http://www.antiwar.com website, Richard Cummings made the following interesting reference to an alleged historical link between the Central Intelligence Agency and The Paris Review magazine that used to employ the Pacifica national affairs correspondent who trashed Blum's book on the CIA's hidden history:
Thought you might be interested in posting on your site the following article, since it contains an interesting reference to the Pacifica/KPFA gatekeeper who apparently used to be the former Paris editor of The Paris Review magazine.--bob
Tinker, Writer, Artist, Spy: Intellectuals During the Cold War
http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i30/30a01901.htm
Excerpt:
Indeed. The Hudson Review, The Sewanee Review, Poetry, Daedalus, and The Kenyon Review all benefited from a C.I.A.-backed program to boost the sales of the right sort of publication. The Kenyon Review was edited by C.I.A. agent Robie Macauley; *The Paris Review was cofounded by then-C.I.A. employee Peter Matthiessen*. (emphasis added)
[Everyone knows that the CIA has often used journalists as its cover, spies, and propaganda spinners. --JA]
Subject: Re: West-Block Dissident Book & KPFA's Hidden History
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Folks,
Could this be the 'smoking gun' about Bensky's nefarious past? Some of us have been suspecting Bensky to be an 'operative' for many years. Some people say its his ego thats the problem or he's concern about being PC, but I myself tend to think he's an agent of some sort.
Coincidentally, between 1964 and 1966, Bensky (a former Yale University student newspaper editor during the McCarthy Era) apparently was employed as the Paris editor of The Paris Review magazine. In an April 18, 2002 article that was posted on the http://www.antiwar.com website, Richard Cummings made the following interesting reference to an alleged historical link between the Central Intelligence Agency and The Paris Review magazine that used to employ the Pacifica national affairs correspondent who trashed Blum's book on the CIA's hidden history:
Thought you might be interested in posting on your site the following article, since it contains an interesting reference to the Pacifica/KPFA gatekeeper who apparently used to be the former Paris editor of The Paris Review magazine.--bob
Tinker, Writer, Artist, Spy: Intellectuals During the Cold War
http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i30/30a01901.htm
Excerpt:
Indeed. The Hudson Review, The Sewanee Review, Poetry, Daedalus, and The Kenyon Review all benefited from a C.I.A.-backed program to boost the sales of the right sort of publication. The Kenyon Review was edited by C.I.A. agent Robie Macauley; *The Paris Review was cofounded by then-C.I.A. employee Peter Matthiessen*. (emphasis added)
[Everyone knows that the CIA has often used journalists as its cover, spies, and propaganda spinners. --JA]
West-Bloc Dissident Book & KPFA's Hidden History
by bob feldman
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1749885.php
by bob feldman
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1749885.php
Reality Check Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 9:53 AM wrote:
"This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' and has more to do with some perceived slight and ego tripping by some folks who feel shut out of the KPFA listener/community boards. Their slate lost in the elections and this is their forum for spreading b.s."
Wrong. As a matter of fact, there were 9 seats contested in the last KPFA station board elections. 6 were won by People's Radio candidates, 3 were taken by KPFA Forward candidates (i.e. those who support the entrenched status quo at the station and oppose listener involvement) . The KPFA Forward crowd still have an overall slim majority on the board, but as far as the last election goes, the People's Radio slate won hands down!
"This discussion is a 'tempest in a teapot' and has more to do with some perceived slight and ego tripping by some folks who feel shut out of the KPFA listener/community boards. Their slate lost in the elections and this is their forum for spreading b.s."
Wrong. As a matter of fact, there were 9 seats contested in the last KPFA station board elections. 6 were won by People's Radio candidates, 3 were taken by KPFA Forward candidates (i.e. those who support the entrenched status quo at the station and oppose listener involvement) . The KPFA Forward crowd still have an overall slim majority on the board, but as far as the last election goes, the People's Radio slate won hands down!
You're all nuts.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network