Category: just for laughs
10/30/05 03:56 - ID#24565
In Response to Ajay
(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. :)
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. :)
Permalink: In_Response_to_Ajay.html
Words: 565
Author Info
Date Cloud
- 01/11
- 07/10
- 06/10
- 05/10
- 03/10
- 02/10
- 01/10
- 12/09
- 11/09
- 09/09
- 08/09
- 07/09
- 06/09
- 05/09
- 04/09
- 03/09
- 02/09
- 01/09
- 12/08
- 11/08
- 10/08
- 09/08
- 08/08
- 07/08
- 06/08
- 05/08
- 04/08
- 03/08
- 02/08
- 01/08
- 12/07
- 11/07
- 10/07
- 09/07
- 08/07
- 07/07
- 06/07
- 05/07
- 04/07
- 03/07
- 02/07
- 01/07
- 12/06
- 11/06
- 10/06
- 09/06
- 08/06
- 07/06
- 06/06
- 05/06
- 04/06
- 03/06
- 02/06
- 01/06
- 12/05
- 11/05
- 10/05
- 09/05
- 08/05
- 07/05
- 06/05
- 05/05
- 03/05
- 02/05
Category Cloud
More Entries
My Fav Posts
- This user has zero favorite blogs selected ;(
I beat you to the Marc Rich punch - at least acknowledge that Clinton pardoned a guy that should be in prison right now. Also, I do not believe that Cheney carries options right now - if anything he may carry a retainer of some sort just like any CEO gets when they retire from a job. Who is next on the list to go after if they are suspected of being corrupt, Michael Eisner? Lol.
Cheney was not actively trying to get the sanctions lifted, that is a factually incorrect statement - what you are referring to is a separate entity related to Halliburton that Cheney didn't manage. $100M to Republican supporters as a result of no-bid contracts... Ajay that is horseshit. I'm still waiting for my check. ;-)
I could go after a veritable plethora of people besides Niman - there are plenty of journalists with no integrity or fallability that are caught up like Niman are. I merely use Niman because a) he's a local "journalist" (at least you agree that Niman is a crackpot) and b) he wrote a story that was factually incorrect but ran with it because he liked what he heard - just like Rathergate!
I'm all for Iraq having to pay us back, at least partially. Are you suggesting its a good idea, or are you merely using that as a crutch to point out that NO will have to pay for part of its reconstruction? I mention it because I know god damn well that liberals do NOT like the idea (at least those that I've read on the subject) because they feel that it would be just another way for Big Bad America, their sworn enemy, to take advantage of poor people. So, which side is it for you Ajay? You can't have it both ways.
Here's the bottom line: if what Niman writes is crap, then don't read it! Simple! Problem solved. Artvoice is such a small "newspaper" that they have to give it away free to get readership. Don't you think if Niman was that great, he would have been syndicated by bigger newspapers? Next, you'll start targetting the Amherst Bee! ;-)
The Billion-dollar loss I was talking about was the corruption scandal in the Iraqi Ministry of Defence. Obviously, since the media is so liberal as you claim, every major newspaper is screaming about it, right? So the 4 newspapers your read must have covered it in great detail, right? And hence you must have read about it, right?
BTW: Cheney may have liquidated his stock, but he has options. And you know how valuable options are when a stock goes up.
And before you trot out Marc Rich, remember that Cheney was actively campaigning to get the sanctions on Iraq lifted, and Halliburton set up offshore shell corporations to deal with Iraq even while sanctions were in place. And they did the same with Iran. And do I need to point out the no-bid contract that Halliburton got? The largest such in history? With no oversight? With 100s of millions of dollars siphoned off into Republican supporters' pockets?
Your talk about Niman is the classic strawman argument: find one lame figure on the other side and hammer away at him. All you're doing is fiddling while your Republican government burns down the house. 300+ Billion in Iraq and counting. And the ironic part? The Iraqis don't have to repay Uncle Sam, but the Katrina victims do!
Don't forget to get your magnetic sticker! ;-)