Suskind:White House ordered CIA to back-dated letter

[HuskyCaucasian]

[Gregory Pratt]

Because the standard canned answer, much like the beginning of this thread, and the discourse it's taken, is total cynicism when it comes to what the Bush administration did or did not do. It's posted here all the time and it gets just plain old. Alpha is making my point much better then I did. All we see from most liberal folks is that Bush did everything he could to lie, manufacture, kill, torture, maim, rape, and totally screw over everyone and everything related to the Iraq war and the presentation of it to the American people. Hence, it's all a "CONSPIRACY" comment I made earlier, and the digging of rubbish to pile on top of GWB. (That's a conspiracy too, evidently).

 

Journalists are a lazy bunch (in general - sometimes you have exceptions). They want to hit the limelight on very little corroborating evidence. But in the end, people believe what they WANT to believe anyway... and with the political drones we seem to have in this country now, it's sad.

 

Really? Are we talking about TV broadcasters or actual print journalists? Because there's all the difference in the world. And, even on that, I'd note that almost all newspapers insist on at least two sources for news like this, and usually there's more. "Lazy" is not a term for journalists.

[whitesoxfan101]

Really? Are we talking about TV broadcasters or actual print journalists? Because there's all the difference in the world. And, even on that, I'd note that almost all newspapers insist on at least two sources for news like this, and usually there's more. "Lazy" is not a term for journalists.

 

TV broadcasters in a lot of cases should have the title "journalist" removed from them. So many of them are lazy asses that think they rule the world just because they are on T.V.

[lostfan]

TV broadcasters in a lot of cases should have the title "journalist" removed from them. So many of them are lazy asses that think they rule the world just because they are on T.V.

Personality journalists. Basically, they are the root, stem, and leaf of why everybody is so cynical about the media anymore.

[bmags]

Personality journalists. Basically, they are the root, stem, and leaf of why everybody is so cynical about the media anymore.

 

but some anchors call themselves journalists when really they just re-write stories from newspapers. There are TV Journalists, Carol Marin still has admiration from me. Great piece on Blago last night from her.

[lostfan]

but some anchors call themselves journalists when really they just re-write stories from newspapers. There are TV Journalists, Carol Marin still has admiration from me. Great piece on Blago last night from her.

There are good TV journalists, yeah. It's just hard not to talk in sweeping generalizations though.

 

I'm mainly talking about the people who have their hour-long soapboxes on cable news (O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Olbermann). They're good for entertainment IMO but little else.

 

I know I've said this a lot on this board but I just think it bears repeating.

Edited August 6, 2008 by lostfan

[Gregory Pratt]

I believe the BBC calls their TV reporters "presenters" because all they do is present the news. But then again, what they do isn't "lazy" because they're working twelve hours a day at the station. "Journalists," however, are not "lazy" by any stretch.

[bmags]

I believe the BBC calls their TV reporters "presenters" because all they do is present the news. But then again, what they do isn't "lazy" because they're working twelve hours a day at the station. "Journalists," however, are not "lazy" by any stretch.

 

Some are, the ones who re-write press releases are. I hate them. Or the ones that just cover that a politician released a press release without critically analyzing it.

 

But yes, working at a newspaper from 9-9 calling every possible person that might be remotely connected is fun but draining. And for low money, or in my case, to pay to do that.

[lostfan]

I believe the BBC calls their TV reporters "presenters" because all they do is present the news. But then again, what they do isn't "lazy" because they're working twelve hours a day at the station. "Journalists," however, are not "lazy" by any stretch.

This depends on what group you're talking about though.

 

The word "lazy" probably refers to banking on irrelevant details like national polls and overanalyzing them instead of going after what actually matters, or doing things like parroting Hillary's stupid "popular vote" arguments and giving them unnecessary credibility.

[bmags]

This depends on what group you're talking about though.

 

The word "lazy" probably refers to banking on irrelevant details like national polls and overanalyzing them instead of going after what actually matters, or doing things like parroting Hillary's stupid "popular vote" arguments and giving them unnecessary credibility.

 

I think coverage like that is on the editors. I wouldn't have guessed that so long ago, but these stories continue to get front page, so its the editors that like it. s*** must sell. Grosses me out.

 

did you hear they are changing the format of the Chicago Tribune to be more tabloid-y? Hurray!

[lostfan]

I think coverage like that is on the editors. I wouldn't have guessed that so long ago, but these stories continue to get front page, so its the editors that like it. s*** must sell. Grosses me out.

 

did you hear they are changing the format of the Chicago Tribune to be more tabloid-y? Hurray!

I used to be a loyal CST reader but I just can't do it anymore.

[bmags]

I used to be a loyal CST reader but I just can't do it anymore.

 

I used to love their sports section because I loved the show sports writers and was it lincicome at the ST?

 

I loved watching those old sports writers who'd seen it all talk about their stories and who reminded them of whom, it wasn't all the arguing that a sports writers show of today would be.

[Gregory Pratt]

From the Washington Post:

 

"It's interesting. Rob Richer talked to me and actually other reporters, too, yesterday morning -- he was fine. He'd gotten the book Monday night, read it. And then something happened yesterday afternoon. It's, you know, it's one of these instances you've got a few people whose testimony could mean the impeachment ostensibly of the president. It's enormous pressure on both men. Look, I'm sympathetic to them. They're good guys. I've spent a lot of time with them. Their interviews are taped. . .

 

Viera: "What would have happened yesterday, that's what I don't understand. Richers retired from the CIA."

 

Suskind: "But also, he's a government contractor. He runs an intelligence firm that lives on government contracts by and large. . . .

 

"This is a dynamic situation. There are folks in Congress calling -- they want people under oath -- they said, 'There's only so much a journalist can do. We need to have people under oath with threat of perjury. That's the way to get to the bottom of something this contentious and portentous.'"

 

Viera: "So you still stand by everything and say that perhaps these two guys were pressured."

 

Suskind: "You know, in this situation, you know, you can almost expect that they would be pressured. You know? It's the testimony of a few people with so very much at stake. . . . We'll see how it unfolds."

 

Last night, in an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Suskind also noted the specificity of the denials. His book, he said, "never says that Maguire was in the chain of command. It says in fact that Rob talked to John Maguire about it but Maguire was going back to Baghdad, so his successor handled it."

 

There is only one solution to this: call them before Congress, all of them, and especially Suskind, and tell him to play his tapes. If he doesn't have them, send him to prison; if he does, then everyone else has some serious questions to answer.

 

But, of course, this Congress is terrible.

[bmags]

From the Washington Post:

 

 

 

There is only one solution to this: call them before Congress, all of them, and especially Suskind, and tell him to play his tapes. If he doesn't have them, send him to prison; if he does, then everyone else has some serious questions to answer.

 

But, of course, this Congress is terrible.

 

well all these congressional hearings have certainly gotten to the bottom of everything. I'm guessing exec privilege, congress puts them in contempt, court rules exec privilege isn't founded, congress has to sue, new president is in office, they don't want to live in the past, blah blah blah

[Gregory Pratt]

well all these congressional hearings have certainly gotten to the bottom of everything. I'm guessing exec privilege, congress puts them in contempt, court rules exec privilege isn't founded, congress has to sue, new president is in office, they don't want to live in the past, blah blah blah

 

This Congress isn't worth a damn.

[NorthSideSox72]

did you hear they are changing the format of the Chicago Tribune to be more tabloid-y? Hurray!

Actually, they opted away from the tabloid format recently. They will stick with the newspaper style, though it will shrink a little.

 

And I agree with GP that there is a vast difference between talking heads/TV news people and legitimate print journalists. I've even said in here before, major papers are still the best source for news that is at least close to accurate and material. They are just, also, a bit slower on the take than the boob tube folks.

 

[Texsox]

Ahh yes, everything's a conspiracy.

 

My take is why does it take 5+ years for crap like this to come out? If it happened, it would have been out well before now.

Like who Deep Throat is/was? Some people are good at keeping secrets, which is why they are in the upper reaches of government and military.

 

Not saying I agree with this, but the timing isn't something that concerns me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Like who Deep Throat is/was? Some people are good at keeping secrets, which is why they are in the upper reaches of government and military.

 

Not saying I agree with this, but the timing isn't something that concerns me.

 

Yeah, but it's not like you'd expect the CIA to be capable of secrecy or anything. . .

 

[bmags]

Actually, they opted away from the tabloid format recently. They will stick with the newspaper style, though it will shrink a little.

 

And I agree with GP that there is a vast difference between talking heads/TV news people and legitimate print journalists. I've even said in here before, major papers are still the best source for news that is at least close to accurate and material. They are just, also, a bit slower on the take than the boob tube folks.

 

My brother informed me that he read in Cranes that the tribune will be placing entertainment/sports on the front page now ala USA Today.

 

See, I think the newspapers actually get to stories that aren't press releases or commercials from campaigns faster.

[NorthSideSox72]

My brother informed me that he read in Cranes that the tribune will be placing entertainment/sports on the front page now ala USA Today.

 

See, I think the newspapers actually get to stories that aren't press releases or commercials from campaigns faster.

Let's just say I have some inside information here. The current plan is not tabloid format, nor is Entertainment/Sports going to be front page PER SE. Hard to explain, and I shouldn't really anyway.