Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey press, spare me your damn "outrage". It's insulting. (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Brian Ross is okay in my book. (8+ / 0-)

    He's starting to remind me of a modern Edward R. Murrow.

    We need professionals like Brian Ross.  It takes guts to go against the flow, and I appreciate that he is doing it.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:34:23 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  agreed -- as usual, I'm disappointed by Kossacks' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Levity, sunbro

      inability to differentiate real reporters from the White House press corps, let alone the idiot bobbleheads on TV.

      I visited Brian Ross's blog, The Blotter, last week for the first time, and I think it's great, and I encourage every Kossack to go check it out.

      no TV reception here, so even if I wanted to watch, which I don't, I wouldn't know what Ross was reporting 3 years ago, when -- excuse me for remembering the reality -- many public Democratic voices were in favor of the Iraq invasion, and many Kossacks were at least in favor of their Democratic politicians shutting up about any opposition to it -- "OMG we can't run Dean, he can't win, he's anti-war!!!!" -- but what Brian Ross is doing now is great stuff. and I thank him for it.

      Then there's the "I get all my news from dKos" commenters -- who somehow seem to forget that all that news on dKos isn't "news" -- it's links to real news reported by real reporters -- what the hell would Kossacks talk about all day long without news from reporters to talk about? Tweety? God forbid, we get more than enuf about his idiocies already.

      (How many reporters have been killed in Iraq so far?)

      •  dead reporters (0+ / 0-)

        How many reporters have been killed in Iraq so far?

        Not counting the braindead, the Committee to Protect Journalists tallies 69.

        AS far as Dean, I prefer Jeremy Scahill's take, to the effect that Howard Dean never met a war he didn't like 'til he realized there was political advantage to opposing the Iraq war.

        Thanks for the Ross blog link.

        (aka Charles)

        ". . . the more educated you are, the more indoctrinated you are. After all, propaganda is largely directed towards the privileged." -Noam Chomsky

        •  I believe Scahill uses the word 'adore' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sunbro

          i.e., "never met a war he didn't adore." It rhymes, you see.

          look, Solomon (Kucinich supporter), Scahill (Green), and other old-school progressive columnists were all late to the Dean campaign. Their coverage of the Dean campaign, the "ah ha, Dean isn't a progressive, don't be fooled" stories came (as far as I saw) mostly after Dean started getting the first mainstream attention calling him "a fiery liberal." (Sure, the mainstream media's analysis was false, but that's not unusual, is it? that was back when anybody speaking out against our glorious leader's invasion simply HAD to be "a fiery liberal," remember?)

          Solomon, Scahill, etc. weren't reading the DFA blog, they weren't listening to those who were building the campaign that got Dean noticed in the first place (contributing to the unprecedented grassroots fundraising drives, organizing local meetups and events). Many of us had decided that Dean was worth supporting precisely because his common-sense opposition to the Iraq invasion, and his non-ideological "framing" of the government as something citizens had to "take back," came attached to a moderate record as governor.

          The NRA endorsement, the GOP votes that reelected him in the face of a challenge from the progressive left (and good on them, it was time for a challenge from the progressive left, a third term as governor) -- all were "features," not "bugs" for a Presidential candidate who could beat Bush.

          Obviously (this is too long already), this isn't the place to debate "taking back" the Democratic Party vs. a third-party strategy, or the merits of voting for anti-choice Kucinich vs. pro-gun-ownership Dean, but Scahill, of course, supports a third-party electoral strategy, so, he has no interest in Democrats winning elections, progressive or otherwise.

          However, despite all that, back to the specific point: I don't think I've actually read any documentation at all from Scahill that Dean supported or "adored" any wars before Iraq.

          There is a Scahill piece quoting Dean from March 2003 re: "disarming Hussein," but it isn't very convincing evidence that Dean's decision to speak out against the Iraq war was based on political calculation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site