If I had more stamina I might just do that. I could certainly not do worse than they do.
Hollywood wrote: > dick, > > I suggest you apply for a position as editor at CNN and show them how > it's done. > > On Sep 11, 8:28 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> The MSM is the one that is telling us that we should believe them >> because they fact check everything. That is their whole basis for our >> belief in them. Now you are saying that I have to take human nature >> into consideration. Tell that to Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman when they >> tell you that the MSM can be totally trusted and the bloggers can't. >> Strange that the bloggers are the ones who are right and the MSM is the >> one that is wrong. Your response? They are human and can make a >> mistake. With that in mind how do I then divorce the "mistakes" from >> the true stories. I know. Just don't believe them at all. >> >> You are the one who is being childish. You believe them. I don't until >> they prove to me that their story has a basis in some sort of fact. >> This one did not ring true at all. How likely is it that the Coast >> Guard would run an exercise like that without telling the local >> authorities. Then the first step for the newsmen should be check with >> the local authorities. Then check with the Coast Guard. They did >> neither. Why then should I believe them. >> >> >> >> Hollywood wrote: >> >>> Dick, >>> >>> As i said, you rationalize like a child. You completely fail to take >>> human nature into consideration. OF COURSE there have been, over the >>> years, most likey a number of mistakes and even lies. Let's look at a >>> period of let's say 10 years. How many hundreds of thousands of >>> stories, how many thousand of reporters and/or spokespersons and >>> commentators involved? Are the lies and/or mistakes occuring 1/10 of >>> 1% of the time? Is it happening 10% of the time? How many honest >>> mistakes are being called "lies", with no logical justification? >>> >>> If you are looking for absolute perfection and feel that if that does >>> not exist it MUST then be 100% false, well all I can say is you are >>> going to be one bitter, angry and delusion fellow. >>> >>> On Sep 11, 8:11 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> If the same group makes the same mistake over and over, then it appears >>>> to be a normal behavior for them. I am not rationalizing. You are. I >>>> am saying that since they have told lie after lie after lie, then to >>>> break that pattern they should be absolutely correct in their >>>> verification before they put out the news story. You are sayng that so >>>> what if they lied before; this time they might not have so I will just >>>> call it a mistake. That is the very definition of a rationalization. >>>> >>>> Hollywood wrote: >>>> >>>>> dick, >>>>> >>>>> Did I claim it was their FIRST mistake ever? You rationalize as a >>>>> child. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, making a statement and then not being able to prove it is not >>>>> proof that the statement is a lie. >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 11, 8:01 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We ARE talking about CNN here. Remember that they already have admitted >>>>>> that during the Saddam era they lied with their reporting. Remember >>>>>> also that their news director claimed that he had proof that the >>>>>> American military were aiming at the reporters in the MSM and made this >>>>>> statement at an international meeting in Switzerland. When he was taxed >>>>>> to prove it he admitted that he did not have the proof. Why should I >>>>>> not equate their "mistake" with a "lie." That is their MO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hollywood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> dick, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did you not take note of my usage of the word "mistake"? It was a >>>>>>> MISTAKE to have not checked the story. So what does that have to do >>>>>>> with LYING? Are you purposely playing the fool? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 11, 7:37 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I thought the reason we should pay attention to the MSM is because >>>>>>>> they fact check everything. Obviously that is not true and also >>>>>>>> obviously the bloggers on the internet are doing a much better job of >>>>>>>> vetting than the MSM is. In fact Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman just >>>>>>>> spoke >>>>>>>> out on that Sunday on the morning news shows as to why you should >>>>>>>> believe the MSM rather than the bloggers. Guess they lied. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hollywood wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dick, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So? It's called a mistake. A lie is when you KNOW something to be >>>>>>>>> false or wrong at the time you say it. You might wish to invest in a >>>>>>>>> dictionary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 11, 7:02 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *September 11, 2009* >>>>>>>>>> *Categories:* CNN >>>>>>>>>> <http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/index.cfm/category/CNN> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CNN takes heat for Coast Guard report >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CNN had some explaining to do on the air Friday morning, following >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>> earlier report that the Coast Guard "tried to prevent a boat from >>>>>>>>>> entering a security zone on the Potomac River," and that shots were >>>>>>>>>> fired not far from where President Obama commemorated the attacks on >>>>>>>>>> Sept. 11. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The network caused a stir on Twitter >>>>>>>>>> <http://twitter.com/CNN/status/3911715344> with the following: >>>>>>>>>> "BREAKING >>>>>>>>>> NEWS: Suspicious boat in river near Obama in DC. Police scanner >>>>>>>>>> reports >>>>>>>>>> of shots fired. Circumstances unclear." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It turns out the Coast Guard was involved in a training exercise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jeanne Meserve, CNN's homeland security correspondent, went on the >>>>>>>>>> air >>>>>>>>>> after to explain why the network reported on shots being fired. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "We saw things happening on the water," she said. "We could see boats >>>>>>>>>> racing around. And we were listening to Coast Guard radio traffic." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Meserve said she heard on the Coast Guard radio that 10 rounds had >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> fired. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CNN had based its initial story >>>>>>>>>> <http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/11/coast-guard-confronts-boat-as...> >>>>>>>>>> on reports from police scanners that shots had been fired, but had no >>>>>>>>>> independent confirmation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told POLITICO >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27036.html> that CNN >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>> attend the Coast Guard's noon press conference where they'll explain >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> exercise on the Potomac. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "My only caution would be that before we report things like this, >>>>>>>>>> checking would be good," Gibbs said. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Later, Gibbs and CNN's Elaine Quijano had a heated exchanged during a >>>>>>>>>> gaggle with reporters, where the press secretary said it was "a >>>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>>> hard to divorce the media coverage" from her questions. Gibbs said >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> criticism wasn't of her, "just writ large at CNN." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Look, if anybody was unnecessarily alarmed based on erroneous >>>>>>>>>> reporting >>>>>>>>>> that denoted that shots had been fired, I think everybody is >>>>>>>>>> apologetic >>>>>>>>>> of that," Gibbs said. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CBS News Radio White House correspondent Mark Knoller, on Twitter >>>>>>>>>> <http://twitter.com/MARKKNOLLER>, said that "some networks have a >>>>>>>>>> lot of >>>>>>>>>> explaining to do--misinterpreting police scanner messages as shots >>>>>>>>>> firect [sp?] by the coast guard. He added: "As Walter Cronkite used >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> say, get it first, but first, get it right." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Matt Drudge singled out the network, with a blaring headline: "CNN >>>>>>>>>> PANIC >>>>>>>>>> IN DC ON 911 ANNI." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A CNN spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for >>>>>>>>>> comment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> UPDATE: CNN's statement. >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/CNN_unapologetic_...> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *By Michael Calderone 11:31 AM* >>>>>>>>>> comments (197) >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/CNN_takes_heat_fo...> >>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>> post comment <javascript:daysElapsed('q1','2009,9,11','1');> | >>>>>>>>>> permalink >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/CNN_takes_heat_fo...>- >>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
