40 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Your link doesn't work. Try again?
I guess they moved it.
The other way to look at the story.
The lack of attention in serious media shows that it's just plain old right-wing progaganda.
As has been discussed recently: just an opinion, just as valuable or worthless as any other opinion. That's the nice thing with opinions.
opinion is he should leave.
Facts are as they stand, no matter what one's opinion of them are. Here in USA we tend not to favor communist sympathizers followed by their lies about it, in power. In truth his resignation is a win for the liberals since they can remove him as a polarizing figure and replace him with someone hopefully not the same.
propaganda oh my
the truth cuts to the quick
I guess it's not propaganda.
He's gone. He resigned in the dead of the night.
Not MY Nexis search...
but you gotta admit, it got almost until AFTER he was booted. Typical.
You posted it and also posted that the NYT had not mentioned his name even once. It took me less than 30 seconds to disprove that. I didn't try any of the other major outlets mentioned but I bet I'd get similar results.
It was all over the mainstream media wasn't it?
A website called "Hot Air" has the same POV as you.
BTW, those stories were after he resigned...?
What did they say about him before he was thrown under the bus? That's what I was talking about.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
no mention of "before" or "after" in original post
Did you happen to notice the date on the article I posted?
..... on the win!
However, I chose to continue to use The Washington Post, New York Times, and ABC news as my trusted sources of information. I have nothing against NBC News or CBS News, I just watch ABC. (Also some on cable.)
If you don't mind being lied to and kept in the dark..
I guess they're okay. Trusting them seems perilous. I prefer to know the truth myself.
I don't see it as a "win". Do you see it as a "loss?"
Then you should continue to avoid
....... the media you identified as not telling the truth. Waste of time.
No, I don't see it as a loss.
I see it as a case of careless vetting. Somebody should have asked the right questions and thought ahead.
Young people have often become involved in causes they later regret.
This wasn't the first shadow on the White House, ad it won't be the last.
A case of careless vetting...
One of many?
But it's not that. They knew who he was. Time to open your eyes.
No, No, Angeline..
No, No, Angeline, the last thing you want is for the MSM to start examining Obama's lack of vetting. They just lost credibility, and may try to recapture it. To that end, they might "dogpile" the next incident that comes up with the past of a Czar. That would be bad for Obama, but if they instead "dogpile" not a single Czar but the entire Czar vetting process, the entire house of Czar cards might collapse, and that would be a disaster for Obama.
Obama should have thrown him under the bus long before. Now, with the delay, the media are starting to examine the mechanics of the bus itself, rather than just a particular passenger on it.
We have often criticized our presidents
......... for not throwing some people under the bus. When the populace keeps crying "Get rid of him (or her) !" having been being long-time trusted friends should not be a saving grace.
It could turn into one...
It could turn into one if the call to examine the rest of the so called "Czars" and their vetting process, gets "legs".
On the story about Jones, on Friday CBS saw it coming and started covering it. Their motivation may have been something that many may not have considered. It may not have been for the sake of informing the people, but to slip a knife between the ribs of NBC and ABC. It gave them the ability to say CBS covered it, while they ignored it.
Look at it like business tactics. Another example: Remember the recent story about somebody having a rifle at an Arizona public meeting. MSNBC showed a carefully cropped photo where no skin was visible, leading to outcry about a "white" man with a gun by a Democratic official. After a couple of days, CNN ran the footage in full, clearly showing that the person was black. Zip, right through the ribs into the credibility of MSNBC.
It's not a new thing. Remember when the Pope was shot in Rome and the perp was being transferred into a van at police headquarters? He shouted something. I got it with a shotgin mic. Back at the broadcast feed facility we shared with NBC, we listened to it and heard his apology (I'm sorry two tourists were hurt.). Mic's eyes lit up and he sent someone to monitor NBC's satellite feed back to the U.S. When he came back and reported that the NBC story said he shouted defiantly to the crowd, we sent our correct feed to the U.S. with instructions wait to air it until NBC broadcast their incorrect story. Zip, one through the ribs.
The point is, even if they have a bias, after questions are raised about their not covering the Jones story start being asked, in the future they might leap on the bandwagon right at first when questions other so called "Czars" are asked. They might not want to be caught again, and may wish to set themselves up for criticizing other MSM outlets that ignore it. They now realize that stories about other "Czars" might get "legs", and might now want to be caught flatfooted again. We shall see what happens.
The media has to learn...
that they can't get away with it any more. You would think the Dan Rather fiasco would have taught them something.
John Holden should get some scrutiny.
we all win
This guy was "coarse" which is putting it mildly, as one did. He's been involved in outright communist activities in the past. He's a 9-11 conspiracy buff. It may take more than one year just to get all the oddballs moved out of this administration and hopefully get some better replacements moved into place. This is almost on the level of the Livingston scandal during the early Clinton years.
Why does he need a replacement at all?
"Green Jobs Czar"? Give me a break. Just a way to get another radical in power with NO scrutiny or Congressional approval.
This is NOT the way to run a free country.
Haven't we been told that the person at the top...
Is the responsible party? This is not the first time something like this has happened in this Administration. It seems systemic. As somebody said...
"Is this they guy you voted for, or is he the guy WE TOLD YOU ABOUT ??"
Don't bust an artery!
I agree it starts at the top, but in ALL administrations.
So the last one was responsible for sending our warriors into a war on shaky grounds without proper equipment and with poor planning, for appointing a guy who was into polo stuff to handle a disaster, for example. There were a lot of deaths from both.
I am not above being critical of this administration. I want us out of Afghanistan, IMO, we lost our chance to reach a positive outcome when it was put aside to invade Iraq. I do believe that it would be terrible for the Taliban to take over again. Al Qaeda is said to be in Pakistan. (And in other places in the world.) I suspect they are well funded, quite mobile and able to travel at will. I'm not sure if or mission is revenge or justice.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)