(e:ajay) I think you actually didn't read who posted the rant - it was me. You may be actually talking about the commentary that (e:jason) left on my last post... you know, that stuff you couldn't respond to directly so you chose to ignore it?

Anyhow, in response - I read 4 newspapers a day and parts of others - if you are suggesting that Niman is a "black sheep" you couldn't be more wrong. The thrust of his horeshit commentary is just as prevelant in major print media - the only difference is that in major media they are professionals and Mike Niman isn't. What does that mean? Its the difference between what you say in polite company and what you say amongst your friends - its the wording. His crybaby antics are inspired by and parroted because of what you read in papers like the New York Times, Washington Post and Baltimore Sun. Maureen Dowd is just as radical and arrogant as Mike Niman is.

As far as my comment concerning "policing" what journalists write - stop changing the subject - we aren't talking about President Bush, we are talking about Mike Niman. What I'm getting from you is that journalists, in your opinion, should be able to write as irresponsibly and untruthfully as they want to. That is hilarious to me considering that what I'm talking about precisely is the reason why Rather got in trouble. His editors did little to no fact checking because they were so in love with a false story that it didn't matter if it was true or not. You are fucking absolutely right that journalists should be policed by their editors in order to adhere to a standard. To not do so is absolutely insane because what you end up with is a media that you can't trust because of their partisanship and arrogance. The Minnesota Star-Tribune got into trouble recently because of this exact problem, and when the facts came out they got a black eye. Only after intense pressure did they feel compelled to write a correction. After that fiasco, who is actually going to trust what they read in that paper now? Editors checking the journalists is extremely important because it provides something that the print media sorely lacks right now - INTEGRITY. Now, for fucks sake please, don't digress. Do you think that its important for journalists to have integrity in the eyes of the readership?

Anyhow, I find it interesting that you would bring the war stuff up, considering that my post that you are responding to had NOTHING TO DO with the war. I expect better. Try to stay on topic please. The only thing I might add to your digression, since I'm feeling charitable, is that a) Cheney liquidated his Halliburton assets in 2000, and b) if you are suggesting that the Oil for Food scandal was somehow the United States' fault that is the stupidest thing I've ever read. The most interesting thing out of the OFF scandal, by the way, is that Marc Rich (Clinton's boy that got pardoned) was found out to have been wheeling and dealing with Saddam Hussein directly during the embargo. Notch another one up for Slick Willy!

By the way, I voted for Clinton. The single worst decision I ever made as a registered voter. Well, no... maybe I regret Gore more. :)