Americans divided over eavesdropping: poll
As it's written, the FISA law could "seem" appropriate...and the government would NEVER change the law once it's in place, right?
(JAKE's Post! / image shamelessly grafted on by TimmO ;-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PUT IT ON THE BOARD- JAKE with the first non -TimmO' post-GSS@YG.Com "THREAD" erection! (Boi-io-io-nnngggg!)
ReplyDeleteAs for FISA... as George Kennedy once said... the Bush Co, regime is just "RED-LINING this SUCKER" into the GROUND! And I thought Sammy used to tell a whopper now and again... this guy... GWB... it's always one good lie deserves another... and what better to follow it up with.. another whopper- and some down home charm! Almost Comfortably Shameless at this point!
It's like a game of 3-D CHESS and they have the DEMS on the run on ALL THREE LEVELS... CHENEY, ROVE and the SHRUB... the THREE WHOREMEN for the CRAPOCALYPSE... "Churls Gone Wild!" - the D.C. Version! They seemingly refuse to be restrained... what sacred cow is next???
And WHERE is UNDERDOG? ? ? ;-P
Media less assertive in covering NSA scandal than Whitewater
ReplyDelete(SOME FROTHING LIBERAL MEDIA ATTACKING BUSH, huh... (not!)
Last week, MM.org looked at the way The New York Times and The Washington Post covered two stories the day after they broke: the 1998 Lewinsky investigation and the current Bush administration domestic spying program. We summarized:
All told, on January 22, 1998, the Times and the Post ran 19 articles (five on the front page) dealing with the Clinton investigation, totaling more than 20,000 words and reflecting the words of at least 28 reporters -- plus the editorial boards of both newspapers.
In contrast, on December 17, the Times and the Post combined to run five articles about the NSA spying operation, involving 12 reporters and consisting of 6,303 words.
[...]
We could go on and on with comparisons like these, and bring in other news organizations, but it should be clear by now that the nation's leading news organizations haven't given the NSA spying story anywhere near the coverage they gave the Clinton-Lewinsky matter. And, based on available evidence, they haven't dedicated nearly the resources to pursuing the NSA story that they dedicated to the Lewinsky story.
We've gotten some feedback, suggesting that the disparity is because, basically, "sex sells." Of course, we heard throughout 1998 that the Lewinsky story "isn't about sex, it's about law-breaking." Anyone arguing that the Lewinsky story got such relentless coverage simply because "sex sells," however, is going to have to explain CBS' This Morning hosting Jonah Goldberg to discuss Linda Tripp -- a segment few viewers likely found "sexy."
But is it true that disparity in media coverage can be explained by the fact that "sex sells"? And, if so, does that make it right? The second question shouldn't require much attention, so what about the first?
Media coverage of Whitewater reached a frenzy, with calls for special counsels and investigations, long before the Lewinsky story broke. In the mid-1990s, Whitewater was a nearly 20-year-old land deal in which the Clintons lost money. As a January 5, 1994, Washington Post editorial explained, "[t]his should be stressed -- there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong."
And yet the news media covered Whitewater as though it was Watergate, Teapot Dome, and Iran-Contra all rolled into one...
(...Link to entire comment... )