Heir Apparent to Edward R Murrow
While I understand that political news shows have increasingly become more partisan since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, only those news shows that present a substantive argument are worthwhile in the public discourse.
I find it interesting that critics of the Fairness Doctrine complained that it was used to "intimidate or silence" political opposition, while since its repeal, we have seen the rise of only baseless and unproven charges -- i.e., the "politics of personal destruction"; or the rise of pundits claiming to be "fair and balanced," but at most giving equal air time to a skewed presentation of facts on one side, countered by "sexed-up", politicized talking points on the other.
The following is neither. This is not a hit piece in my opinion, as it attempts to trace the actions taken (or not taken) by this Administration for counter-terrorism planning. It merely reveals what we have long known: That the focus of this Administration in the first 8 months was not on the most pressing threats at the time, but rather on Cold War-era defense strategies (SDI).
These are facts that have not been successfully refuted by the Administration; these are not baseless charges such as those often leveled at Bush's predecessor. If the Administration could detail a fact-based rebuttal, I would hope that Keith Olbermann would allow them the air time to do so, just as one of Olbermann's tele-journalist predecessors, Edward R Murrow, had done when he took on tyrants with substance, spoke Truth to Power.
(Hat tip to Hunter at Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars for posting this.)
I find it interesting that critics of the Fairness Doctrine complained that it was used to "intimidate or silence" political opposition, while since its repeal, we have seen the rise of only baseless and unproven charges -- i.e., the "politics of personal destruction"; or the rise of pundits claiming to be "fair and balanced," but at most giving equal air time to a skewed presentation of facts on one side, countered by "sexed-up", politicized talking points on the other.
The following is neither. This is not a hit piece in my opinion, as it attempts to trace the actions taken (or not taken) by this Administration for counter-terrorism planning. It merely reveals what we have long known: That the focus of this Administration in the first 8 months was not on the most pressing threats at the time, but rather on Cold War-era defense strategies (SDI).
These are facts that have not been successfully refuted by the Administration; these are not baseless charges such as those often leveled at Bush's predecessor. If the Administration could detail a fact-based rebuttal, I would hope that Keith Olbermann would allow them the air time to do so, just as one of Olbermann's tele-journalist predecessors, Edward R Murrow, had done when he took on tyrants with substance, spoke Truth to Power.
(Hat tip to Hunter at Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars for posting this.)
posted by non_seq at 7:50 PM
3 Comments:
wow. that is a very nice little piece of reporting. one might expect that all news programs would do something along those lines, instead of just reporting on what a craaazy mother that clinton is - but no. also, i want to express my appreciation for your clever employment of an ancient greek rhetorical term in your title (though i much prefer polyptoton).
hey thanks, eli. i think your thoughts on polyptotons are likely valid and the like, but definitely not definitive. But good call, because it's all good...
hee hee. your brilliance is truly brilliant, hilarious is your hilarity. (chiasmus is nice too.)
Post a Comment
<< Home