Skip to main content

View Diary: IPDI nonsense: "must protect media from bloggers!" (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  more lists ... (none)
    Tony Snow, former Bush(41) speechwriter

    Tony Blankley, former staffer (chief of staff?) to Newt Gingrich

    Mary Matalin

    Roger Ailes, former communication director for Ronald Reagan, now running ops at Fox News

    Oliver North, former staffer (NSC) in Reagan white house

    George Stephenapolis ... former campaign aide and white house staffer for Bill Clinton

    Steve Forbes, magazine publisher and former candidate for President

    Wolf Blitzer, former activist for Aipac

    that's off the top of my head.  I'm sure some digging would find that a lot of columnist and commentators have at various times moved back and forth across the line between commentary and political activity.

    And it won't be hard to find columnists like George Will, whom even though I'm not sure he's held a position in either a campaign or elected official's office, but whom none-the-less can be shown to constantly write favor a particular candidate in an election or a particular party over several elections.

    •  of course (none)
      I'm always sceptical of this notion of a unbiased, balanced, and impartial media.

      My idea of fair reporting would be to have multiple commentators with various points of view fully stating their views and their arguments, then I can read it all and decide what makes sense to me.

      Personally, I think this lady's thesis is so full of holes it will be forgotten quickly.  But if they really make some rule saying that anyone who shows any partisanship is supporting a campaign with in-kind contributions, then to me every major media outlet in the country is open to attack on the argument that some of their writers, commentators, pundits etc are in fact partisans.

      Even if the organization proclaims "balance", balance to what.  I tend to support anarchists and Green parties.  So to me, even if CNN could show they were "balanced" in their coverage of Dems and Rethugs, to me that should be viewed as a massive in-kind contribution split between those two parties as their coverage will never be balanced to all parties trying to participate in the political process.

      Of course, the rule in this country for a long time is that the two major parties get special treatment.  I've been reading the stuff about Egypt's "reform" that requires every candidate on the ballot to get the approval of the party that runs the country.  I read that and tend to say "what's the difference?"  Its the same here, except there are two parties instead of one.  And when the two parties seem to agree on an issue like "free trade" (ie, corporate managed trade), then what's the difference between having a one-party state and a two-party state where the two parties have the same position.

      This is silly ... which means its probably likely to become law.

    •  You forgot (none)
      Armstrong Williams

      Or does it not count when the GOVERNMENT pays you?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site