Warpublican said; “I owe alligence to no political party – but to go from LBJ – and skip over Nixon – the king of secrecy and press bashing, doesn’t look too great for your argument…”

Neither do I, but that fact that you completely dismiss what JFK, LBJ, and Clinton had done specifically for one president doesn’t bid very well for your argument either.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The job of the media is to stymie the government – to keep a spotlight on it – to make it sweat and twist and turn.

No. That might be how Worldwide Press Freedom Organization and Reporters Without Borders view news reporting, but that is not the purpose of the media. They’re job is to inform the public. In cases of an ongoing investigation, in days long past the media and prosecutors typically had a standard by which was almost always adhered to; “Hold on to the story for now to prevent our case from being undermined and we will in turn give you the full exclusive scoop.”

I have no doubt that the release was not intended to protect the Governor from making the mistake of following through, but to block the investigation from tying it to the Obama campaign to protect, “That one”.

As to revealing military strategy – there’s no way they could do that without LEAKERS in the militasry – you’re blaming the messenger – instead, you should be blaming a military that allows important secrets out of the gate.

Had you actually every been on “the other side” you might have some idea what really happens in many of these situations. The potentially damaging intel is usually NOT because some idiot intentionally “leaked” information that might compromise our military forces. This is a game media reporters play every deployment. Our media people are idiots and have no concept of national security. They don’t understand how in their penchant for sticking their noses in where it does not belong makes it more difficult for governments and military to do what they need to do effectively.

Whenever a deployment is underway reporters hound those being deployed with questions like; “Do you know where you are going?”, “What you will be doing there?”, “How many people are being taken.” “What types and numbers of equipment are being mobilized?”, etceteras. Then they gather all that information together and publish it which allows enemy to gain advanced knowledge which is used against our loved ones entering into harm’s way. It has gotten so bad that in many cases, those who are deploying are not told anything until they arrive in theater.

Then there are the idiot war correspondents who tag along with units and attemt to give “live broadcasts” so they can pass along more information for potential enemies to exploit. How often have you heard broadcasts like this:

“I am standing on the corners of _____ & ____ streets, just a couple of blocks north of where the ______ battalion and NATO forces have insurgents pinned down in a raid.”

It may sound cool and innocuous to idiots like Warpublican Review but that reporter has just telegraphed to the enemy important tactical intelligence that their people are under attack, might need reinforcements, and where those engaging them may be found in case they would like to catch these mean ol’ NATO forces in a cross-fire ambush.

BTW, can you name a single news story that undermined a military strategy?

Yes, War. The invasion of Iraq comes immediately to mind. Where like the correspondent example above, the reporters were on the roof of a well known and prestigious downtown hotel giving live video feed of what was occuring at that moment in Baghdad. From that vantage point. Saddam could see where his forces were under attack, where the fighting was less intense, and use that to plan his escape strategy. Don’t you think the hunt for Saddam would have gone a whole lot easier had our own News reporters shot America in the foot and provided the intel he needed to elude capture?

Is it not possible that the military purposely leaks info to get it into the press?

You are thinking of Congress, a few instances by intel agencies, and our media in general. Our military does not intentionally leak misinformation. It’s a matter of professionalism and credibility. They would much rather keep their mouths shut and not tell the media things they are not on a need to know basis or which they would prefer was not made public (domestic & foreign) knowledge.

I’d suggest that if the military needs to keep a secret – like Bush showing up in Iraq – they can do so…

Case in point.

Who says they’re above the law? By your equation – those who own guns are “above the law” because without the second amendment they’d have to give up their weapons.

How can an inalienable right be considered “Above the law”? As Mata points out, perhaps you should read and attempt to understand our Constitution and Bill of Rights, before condemning it.

Even if some in the media abuse the privilage – would you prefer a nation that muffles the media so the government can work in secrey? It’s an interesting quandry as we head into a possible long reign of Democratic power – do you REALLY want a media silenced by the government?

No we are not advocating for the silencing of the media. What we do want is RESPONSIBLE reporting. I’ve taken journalism classes and today’s journalist have forgotten the basics. With their freedom of speech comes certain basic responsibilities, they choose to ignore in the pursuit of their own glory, goals, agendas, fame, or to support certain individuals at the exclusion of other. THAT is not responsible reporting. Editorials and opinions are too often touted as fact with nothing supportive to justify such claims. Just as we encourage moonbats like you to back up your rhetoric and opinions with something substantial if you’re going to debate an issue. Why not, as Bill Moyer’s suggests, have a Hippocratic Oath for Journalists?

http://practicableideas.com/?tag=journalist-oath
http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/08/1733512-a-hippocratic-oath-for-journalists
http://media.www.richlandchronicle.com/media/storage/paper1245/news/2008/09/12/Viewpoints/Journalist.Oath-3427737.shtml
http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/07/standards-for-journalists-are-bloggers.html

It would seem that Dems, Libs, Repubs, & Conserves, would all agreed that it would level the playing field.

Every ass has an orifice and can make noise, but rather that polluting the forum with excrement or gaseous fumes. How about providing something of evidence to back up your claims and postures once in a while.

BTW, the right (along with compliant democrats) gave immense powers for spying on Americans.

Have you even read the Patriot Act? The primary target was not innocent everyday Americans, but terrorists, those associated with terrorists, and those suspected of considering association. They are probably not wiretapping you next door neighbor’s phone lines to monitor his movements and find out what errands his wife is sending him on or which businesses he might be frequenting.

Yawn – name ONE liberal who wants to see Fox taken off the air – with a quote!

You wanted ONE, here’s a few, take your pick. Click on the links & find your own quotes instead of wasting our time having us do your research for you.

Research is very easy, you just choose a search engine, type in your search term (such as, “take Fox off the air”), and miraculously you get things we call links that can be used to support your arguments. The you can copy and paste sources to back up your mindless rhetoric. Why don’t you try it some time?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×2355963
http://foxattacks.com/blog/?p=1159
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Boycott_FOXnews_UNTIL_IT_S_OFF_THE_AIR
http://www.floort.com/show/2188/

It even happened in Mexico prior to elections (Interesting the other stations weren’t similarly targeted):
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/29/entertainment/et-fox29

And in New York:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2D6113EF931A25753C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The most of you democrats need to get your history straight. Clinton issued more no bid contracts than anyone in history. JFK was the most secretive administration ever. As far as taking FOX or getting rid of talk radio you don’t like. It doesn’t surprise after all Hitler and Stalin did the same thing, and eventually they got theirs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wardouche, Fairness Doctrine. As for wanting FOX off the air, try reading what’s at HuffPo, DUNG, or KOS.

I’d embarrass you further but Mata did a tremendous job of it, with your assistance of course. You are so ignorant it’s funny and pathetic at the same time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ms. Warp’ed said:

You see it as a problem – i see it as a blessing. The job of the media is to stymie the government – to keep a spotlight on it – to make it sweat and twist and turn.

Ah yes… like they’ve done vetting Obama. Oh yeah, they didn’t want to do that. Too busy tearing down Clinton, McCain and Palin to have any time left for “that one”… the guy we know so little about save what he’s told us. Even that was ignored for deeper research.

I have no problem with the press acting as a watch dog. They are supposed to. Point is, they ignored the eras of rising housing prices, loans to the unqualified, and extreme differences in costs for US auto manufacturers and the UAW’s contribution to those costs until too late. Too busy nursing their BDS.

And most especially they ignored Obama’s only administrative experience… which he avoids talking about like the plague. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge failed experiment done in conjunction with Bill Ayers. You want to know how well Obama manages big money as an administrator? Trying reading about that. You want to know the tie that binds between Ayers and Obama? The “social and economic justice” plan for the public education system. Did the media want to know about that? But noooooo….. They deliberately avoided the entire reason that relationship had a bearing on Obama’s candidacy. Good job, media.

For a watch dog, they sure take their eyes off the front gate alot…

As to revealing military strategy – there’s no way they could do that without LEAKERS in the militasry – you’re blaming the messenger – instead, you should be blaming a military that allows important secrets out of the gate.

No where did I give a pass to those that pass on military secrets to the media… or anyone outside those that “need to know”. However if a military insider tells me something about strategy, and I broadcast it to the world, you bet your tush I’m going to be hauled in for discipline and interrogated for who that leaker was. I will not be granted immunity, nor have the ability to protect my sources…. simply because I’m not a journalist.

I was standing behind one of our nation’s finest in the store yesterday. He’s headed out for his third tour of duty in the ME, and his unit was advised they are likely to be one of the last ones out of Iraq. He really lit into the media, who misinforms the public with propaganda about what is going on over there. Then he really lit into the same media who decided to broadcast their training location.

You call that “news”? I call that reckless endangerment of our troops, and frankly would like to see the journalist *and* the leaker hauled up on charges. With freedom comes responsibility. And yes, there is a delicate line between freedom of speech and that responsibility. However broadcasting military strategy to the enemy provides little of substance to the common citizen, but provides plenty to the enemy who watches our media like a hawk for these little tidbits.

Tell you what… you install a security system in your home, tell me your entry code, and I’ll post it here on FA. That’s “news”, eh? So who’s at fault.. you telling me your code? Me passing it on? Or both?

BTW, can you name a single news story that undermined a military strategy?

Can you be this dense? Abu Ghairab for one. Those responsible should have been handled internally. Waterboarding KSM for another. Again should have been internal. If I find a neighbor abusing a child, should I take it to the proper authorities to be corrected? Or should I call the newspaper…. Responsibility and judgment INRE the situation.

How about the NYTs wiretap/FISA story, alerting the enemy that when they called into the US from overseas, we were listening?

Oh yes… you consider calls originating from suspected terrorists from outside the US into the US “spying on Americans”. Another dodo bird who fell for the media propaganda lock, stock and barrel.

Who says they’re above the law? By your equation – those who own guns are “above the law” because without the second amendment they’d have to give up their weapons.

Don’t be absurd. My RKBA is protected only if I don’t abuse it irresponsibly, and find myself locked away as a felon. And in case you don’t know, our Constitutional Bill of Rights are not laws, but stated rights that are not subject to infringement by government. Your analogy shows you do not have a grasp on freedom and the responsibility it carries. And your Constitutional knowledge… deplorable.

It’s an interesting quandry as we head into a possible long reign of Democratic power – do you REALLY want a media silenced by the government? The Bushies tried – that’s a fact …. snip

I’d say the others before have pointed out your partisan and erroneous view of party power in this nation. Bush has had virtually no power over a media, consumed with BDS, since early 2003. Just how do you suggest he succeeded in “silencing” the media? On the other hand, the only ones in favor of the “fairness doctrine” happen to be the progressive/socialists reigning supreme in our Congress at the moment.

Obama has his own, more stealthy method of resurrecting the fairness doctrine. He knows that it will not be accepted as a full on package… just as he knows Marxist/socialist policies will be fought down. So he will bring them in piecemeal… a little by little grab so as to escape detection.

“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz added. “That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

He’s against the revival because he’s got other kinds of legislation in mind for controlling the media that will do the same…

i.e. ownership caps (a new definition of “monopoly” by Obama?)

regulations on “network neutrality”, (and who defines and enforces “neutrality”?)

and “increasing minority ownership”. (what’s this entail… telling a broadcast owner to sell to minorities to keep a “quota”??)

Stix to Ms. Warp’ed:

You need to do a little research into your own party.

Allow me to correct that for you, Stix… “You need to do a little research into your own party.” Now it’s correct.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Pfffft. Like you ignored how those were all dems? You are such a hypocrite.
Wardouche, you are proof that you have to be ignorant, unbalanced, and full of hate to be a leftist.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Warpublican Review: Ah yes Nixon the scatter brained idiot that was more worried about an election that he won easily. And do you actually think that it was only Nixon that does that kind of stuff.If you do than you are very naive

But really all of what you said before was all in Democratic administrations, why are you only bashing Republicans here. JFK had MLK wires tapped, no Republican administration has ever done that. The CIA assasinating people, that has not happened since JFK’s time and he did a piss poor job of it anyway. And who is it now that is in the hot seat for selling a Senator seat and who was it that had $90,000 in a freezer???? And when we on the Conservative side have someone like that we shun them unlike the career advancing in the Democrat Party. Chicago’s Machine has perfected the Pay For Play scheme.

So no I am not looking bad in my argument. You are just looking foolish spouting out MSM and Liberal Talking points.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Wow, Warpublican, you are talking about Democratic Administrations there. Most of all you are talking about happened under JFK, LBJ and Clinton administrations. So what the hell are you upset with republicans for???”

I owe alligence to no political party – but to go from LBJ – and skip over Nixon – the king of secrecy and press bashing, doesn’t look too great for your argument…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wow, Warpublican, you are talking about Democratic Administrations there. Most of all you are talking about happened under JFK, LBJ and Clinton administrations. So what the hell are you upset with republicans for???

You need to do a little research into your own party. And I am not saying the republicans are clean as the daisy’s but what you just said was all done by Democrats. Just ask Martin Luther King’s family about the FBI looking into his affairs to quell the Civil Right Movement. the Republican championed the Civil Rights Movement and the Dems tried to stop it. Without Sen Dirkson from Illinois there would be no Civil Right Act.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“It’s those like you who want talk radio destroyed because you can’t dominate it. It’s your kind that wants FOX taken off the air because they “dare” to try and be fair instead of mindlessly spewing DNC talking points. Little Eichmans, thy name is DNC.”

Yawn – name ONE liberal who wants to see Fox taken off the air – with a quote! The right wing and the Republican party have used media bashing as part of their platform for years – and no wonder – whether breaking into Democratic offices, overseeing secret bombing raids on Cambodia or Laos, using the FBI to quell the civil rights and black rights movements, using the CIA for assasination and foreign political intrigue, handing over tax dollars to no-bid cronies – er contractors – etc, etc, etc – the rigth’s mission is to undermine freedom wherever they find it – but particularly in America.

And you need SECRECY for that kind of work…

lots and lots of SECRECY…

Like or Dislike: 0  0