First Amendment groupies
I was going through my daily blog list when I came across a regular love-fest, Kumbayah and all, over at GF Teenview blog. Just below where he brags about the little girl dying in the van making it on Drudge, he has a little hoorah for flag burning and the New York Times.
Now I think he may be a decent kid, this Rick, but he just wasn't really thinking when he wrote the post on the little baby. I'm sure others read his wording and cringed, as I did. If a baby dying makes it to Drudge, how about not exalting in the national newsworthiness of it, OK kid? Some things are better not pointed out, alright? And speaking of not pointing things out, about that NY Times thing.....
The lovefest I witnessed was in the comment section, where Dave Miller, Tu Uyen Trang and this Rick kid are busy high-fiving each other over the fact that the NY Times "broke" a story that will now alert terrorists to take more care in their financial transactions, thereby further eluding justice.
Apparently you guys got your secret First Amendment goggles from the box tops you sent in, and now you can view your life and the entire world through them. That everything has to be weighed and judged by that one standard alone crowds out other worthy considerations, like the need to win a war by using tools available to us like the Swift program. Just like the other manufactured scandal about phone conversations, all this latest act of dubious reporting will do is frustrate those charged with winning the war on terrorism. This program, like the other, is completely legal, subject to screening and review by all three branches of the government. A little in-depth "research" would reveal that.
Given that, what's left to celebrate? Borderline treason? Aiding and abetting the enemy? Bush bashing? Go ahead. Doesn't do much for your credibility, in my eyes and those of others. What you come off looking like is a bunch of Woodward and Bernstein wannabes, looking to come up with the next big "-gate". Guess what? Ain't gonna happen. And you'll wear out your own righteous indignation and the public's patience trying. Bush isn't Nixon and Swift isn't Watergate.
In the eyes of the public, there's a line between reporting and partisan commentary. Live in one world or live in the other. Cross at your own peril. Does "Dan Rather" mean anything to you?
At the end of the day, you all need to realize that what you do is create a product for consumption by "customers". If that product is of good quality, well researched, and in the case of reporting, free of bias, it should sell well. If not, well, folks will look elsewhere. If in a fit of arrogance you refuse to accept that, you'll get a pass for a while, but it will eventually catch up to you. The market will not be denied. But what the hell do I know?
posted by Good Ol' Boy at 8:49 PM
17 Comments:
I have a new church. The church of Good Ol' Boy. Your truth shall set us free!!! :)
I wasn't "exalting" this horrible story of the baby dying. I was simply pointing out that it made it on Drudge. I didn't write "Hey! Awesome, it made it on Drudge!".
I don't like insinuating that another blogger was getting a kick out of the fact that this story made the Drudge Report. I also don't like patronizing a younger blogger by calling him a "kid"...all right "old man"? Actually, much of this particular post could be called a patronizing jab at your fellow GF-bloggers.
Surely there are better things to blog about that people would want to read and comment on? This seems to have come out of nowhere to me...
GFG- As an old geezer, I find your categorizing of me as merely an 'old man' to be patronizing. Sorry if I came across that way, perhaps it was just too much reading news that triggered such a reaction. Having been duly chastened, I note no one yet disagrees with my assessment of the NY Times behaviour....? Where I was coming from with that whole thing was from the aspect of a news consumer, not a generator or reporter. Re-read it in that light and let me know what you think.
To address the point of a church of the Good Ol' Boy, nothing doing. Get thee behind me,Satan. However, the "Good Ol' Boy Institute of Technology" think tank has existed for nigh onto twenty years now.
Wow! Mention something about a fellow "blogger" and get chastised by another fellow "blogger."
Pastor Good ol' Boy had a point. To some folks, the 1st amendment means they can do "anything I please and you can all go to hell for even thinking about second guessing my motives."
The little "lovefest" at the blog is what Pastor Good ol' Boy was talking about and explaining his point, just makes sense.
As far as finding something else to "blog about" take some time and check out the Grand Forks bloggers and count how much similarity there is on topics. I have most of them in my bookmarks and at times it's a waste of time going down the list. Just a lot of repeats, not all, but there's enough.
Just my $.02 and it's all worth what you paid for it.
Go ye out into the world and spread the blog.
(Oh, and smile)
:-)
Darn Skippy we'll keep smilin'! I hope nobody incurs too much scrotal torque (engineering term) over this stuff. We're just folks with opinions, and you know what opinions are like.
As always, the danger lies in taking ourselves too seriously- life's too short for that.
I think it's good that you aren't afraid to voice your opinion. Rock on.
Dave, I agree somewhat with what you say.
My problem with most media types is what they select to produce is not so much the news as an opportunity to exhibit an aggenda. Of course it's the same on both the left and the right.
Here's an example: Rick & Tran chose to give high fives to the NYT when there are stories out there like this: http://tinyurl.com/s3mjy that draw a direct association between Hitler and Islam. and with pictures for support. Where are other stories like the linked blog? This is important enough not to be ignored.
People wonder why some of us read Coulter, Drudge, Free Republic, etc. when the main stream media ignores anything that doesn't make Bush look stupid. He may not need a lot of help in that department but for some reason the main stream media thinks he does.
Bill Clinton was quoted as saying people need to accept a little limit on their freedoms for the pursuit of safety (something to that effect) but where are the mdia type high-fives about that??
And for someone to get their panties in a knot when one blogger brings something up about the story in another blog is really silly.
Dave, I notice the regurgitation as well. I'm trying to get away from doing the same stories as other people, but there really isn't much going on around here.
You should come back to KNOX and have us all on, come on... please!?
Dave, don't you like my name for us guys..."The Grand Forks Blogosphere"? Makes you vomit? Shucks...I thought it was kinda cute.
I realize that there is increasing "regurgitation" among some of us. However, isn't that kinda how it is on blogs covering national politics too? There are only so many stories to go around so we can't really be expected to have only stories that are 100% unique to our blogs. However, I do try to "come up" with some stories instead of just copying someone else (my recent post on the Adelphi Fountain is an example). But you're right, Dave...we need to all get more creative. I challenge my fellow bloggers in the "Grand Forks Blogosphere" to have a healthy mix of both regurgitated and original stories on their respective blogs. I'm going to try harder...
One thing you do have to give us all credit for is the fact that we exist. There is a very healthy level of blogging in GF compared to others towns our size.
BTW, I hope we can still be friends, GOB. I still don't really like you "picking on" your fellow bloggers, but I don't think you really meant anything bad by it.
::group hug::
You right-wing know-it-alls. It's always the media with you people just like it is with the left-wing know-it-alls. Who leapt on the Clintons for that Lewinsky woman, "travelgate", Whitewater, Asian campaign finance scandals? The media!
The story you're referring to is about process or the lack of process. The NYT explained very clearly that there were concerns that the administration was not following normal processes. The financial snooping was set up in the emergency after 9/11 and wasn't supposed to still be in place five years later. If the program was so important to the administration, it should have gotten congressional authorization or put some formal policy in place.
Was it a threat to our national security? How the heck would you know? Because Republican politicians tell you so? Please. There are plenty of others who will say otherwise. You're only picking people to reinforce what you already believe.
The reason process is important is because that's what the rule of law is all about. The media is coming after the administration for this because it's shown a disturbing my-way-or-the-highway attitude towards any restrictions on its policies.
We went into Iraq with far fewer men than our generals wanted. Result: Lack of preparedness for the inevitable nation building task that Mr. Bush had derided several years earlier.
We went into a war in which we will likely need a lot of man power for the peacekeeping by giving most of our allies the birdy. Bush Sr. and his excellent foreign policy team (including my personal favorite, James Baker III) made sure we had all the allies lined up before we went into Kuwait. Bush Jr. and his team are a bunch of amateurs in comparison. Result: We're doing most of the work and paying for it instead of sharing like we did in '91.
The administration had dissenting opinions within the intelligence community about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. The administration went and ignored its own spooks. Result: We embarrassed ourselves in front of the world community.
The administration outed an active CIA agent for political purposes. Result: I have no idea but it was an asinine decision, a threat to one of our own people and probably didn't help national security either.
The administration used the NSA to snoop, without warrants, on its own people. If the reasons for domestic spy is good enough -- which it is if we are going after terrorists -- then the administration should have gone through the proper channels. Checks and balances are a fundamental part of our political system.
There. I'm spent.
The media isn't against particular administrations, it's simply a watch dog on the government. That's our agenda. What gives us that right? It's a right that all citizens have, except most don't. Blogs are a nice way for citizens to participate -- except a lot of citizens are a bunch of partisans who think their side is always the right one.
By the way CY, there is no "direct link" between Hitler and Islam. If you read the article it says there's a direct link between Hitler and Islamofascism ("the Nazi roots of extreme Muslim anti-semitism"). Too many Americans believe that there's this clash between Islam and the West. There's a clash between violent psychos who misread the Koran and the West, yes. But the violent psychos aren't necessarily the majority. There is a huge difference, which is a war between civilizations and a war between civilization and the uncivilized.
"Who leapt on the Clintons for that Lewinsky woman, "travelgate", Whitewater, Asian campaign finance scandals? The media!"
Only once it was so obvious it could no longer be ignored!
BC got a free ride for a long time, in fact it was so obvious, that the media is being a lot more carefull in the way it reports on the Senator from NY.
The whys & etc. of the Gulf War wasn't a part of the conversation and was only an example of the slanted coverage given the Bush Admin.
As far as the link between Hiltler & Islam, I'm still waiting for a large group of Islamic Clerics to come out of hiding and declare the Islamofascists for what they are.
I've heard of a couple small timers come out but there is a large empty void.
That is unless there has been more but it wasn't the day for the media to cover it?
Don't get me wrong and take any of this personally. I enjoy your articles and believe they are fair and far from the mainstream slant. I just can't understand the high-five you and Rick enjoy over the NYT article when the balance was only tipped for the byline.
For what it's worth NYT refused to print the "cartoons" that incited RIOTS in the Arab world, but they print information that is illegally leaked AND poses a grave security risk to our citizens?
As to the tracking of terrorists money, in an editorial a year or two ago, the NYT all but demanded that the Bush Admin do the same thing they say is wrong today.
All it comes down to is the byline and selling papers.
Sorry for the added post, but the high-fives & "Hoorah for the NYT" just sticks in my gullet.
I should hope we can all still be, if not friends, at least respectors of one another at the end of the day- right wing hacks, left wing moonbats, and media apologists, all of us. Maybe we can all do coffee someday by the banks of the River Rouge?
P.S. You lefties are still wrong :)
God bless America! Left right and center.
I salute all of you "Blogosphere" folks for exercising the 1rst amendment, those that comment, and even those that get to see their byline. :-)
Have a great fourth and remember what it is for. . . . . .
Kumbayah, my Lord, Kumbayah...
...someone's bitching, Lord, Kumbayah...
Boy, Dad, you sure get a lot of undies in a bundy on your blog. Well, you know the old saying about critics, "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
Lots of legless folks out there, it seems.
Well, I love ya.
-Me.
Post a Comment
<< Home