OT-"NPR Unfair to Oreilly"-NPR Ombudsman

[WillStG]

Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes NPR
for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview with
Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
October 15, 2003
excerpt.

"But by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and
curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the
interview to develop.

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry
Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was
not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was
about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for
discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair
to O'Reilly.

The "Empty Chair" Interview

Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It
happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book
from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction,
O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote
anyway.

That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting
as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and
should not be used on NPR.

I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have
illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country.
Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some,
in NPR's liberal media bias. "

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Luke Kaven]

(WillStG) wrote:

> Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes NPR
>for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview with
>Bill O'Reilly.
>
>http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
>October 15, 2003

I'd be pleased if Fox would follow the example set here.

[John LeBlanc]

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> (WillStG) wrote:
>
> > Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes
NPR
> >for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview with
> >Bill O'Reilly.
> >
> >http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
> >October 15, 2003
>
> I'd be pleased if Fox would follow the example set here.

So would I, and I'm sure they would were it to ever happen. I've not yet
witnessed Fox doing to an interviewee what Terry Gross did to O'Reilly. Want to
present your evidence they have? I'm no big fan of Bill O'Reilly, but I've yet
to witness him bringing in a person under false pretense. Same goes for Hannity
& Colmes.

John

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> It was
> not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was
> about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon.

What a crock of **** this whole thing is.

O'Reilly is a contentious asshole. He intentionally stirs up hate
wherever he goes.

I'd love for someone to show me where NPR agreed not to discuss certain
topics with BOR. If they said they wouldn't bring up his reviews then
did, that's one thing.

If they interviewed BOR about something that had nothing to do with him,
that's another thing. But they interviewed him about things people said
ABOUT HIM, which makes it entirely appropriate to me. Why shouldn't he
have to face the music about the reactions he purposely engenders?

Perhaps Terry should have simply asked the questions then told Bill to
"SHUT UP" when he tried to answer.

That would probably be a tactic more BOR supporters would condone.

CT

[John LeBlanc]

"Charles Thomas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (WillStG) wrote:
>
> > It was
> > not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was
> > about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon.
>
> What a crock of **** this whole thing is.
>
> O'Reilly is a contentious asshole. He intentionally stirs up hate
> wherever he goes.

So that justifies what Terry Gross did? And please provide your evidence that
O'Reilly "intentionally stirs up hate wherever he goes." Just because you don't
like what he says doesn't make him a hateful person. I could very easily use the
same argument against you.


> I'd love for someone to show me where NPR agreed not to discuss certain
> topics with BOR. If they said they wouldn't bring up his reviews then
> did, that's one thing.

You'd do well to read Dvorkin's entire report. He covered that.


> If they interviewed BOR about something that had nothing to do with him,
> that's another thing. But they interviewed him about things people said
> ABOUT HIM, which makes it entirely appropriate to me. Why shouldn't he
> have to face the music about the reactions he purposely engenders?

Because he was brought there to discuss his book? Or does this fall under the
"O'Reilly is a contentious asshole" so anything goes?

Doesn't look like Fox will be suing NPR for using "fair and balanced" any time
soon, eh? <g>

John

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"John LeBlanc" > wrote:

>So that justifies what Terry Gross did?

It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
interview.

Your take is different, but I think you'd do well to realize that it's
because of your political bias that you feel he was wronged. I can
certainly admit that the reason I didn't hear anything Gross said as
inappropriate may be partly influenced by the fact that I can't stand
O'Reilly. But I doubt it. ;-)

>>If they said they wouldn't bring up his reviews then
>> did, that's one thing.
>You'd do well to read Dvorkin's entire report. He covered that.

I did read it, and I don't recall a section where he said that Gross had
agreed not to ask O'Reilly certain questions. Perhaps I missed it? I
did read the part where they said "Bill O'Reilly was invited on Fresh
Air IN PART because of his new book" (emphasis mine). Does that mean
it's the only thing allowed to be discussed?

> Doesn't look like Fox will be suing NPR for using "fair and balanced" any time
> soon, eh? <g>

If they did I'm sure it would go just as well as the last time they
tried it.

CT

[WillStG]

>Charles Thomas

>It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
>interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
>something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
>take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
>interview.
>

No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
something wrong. At this point, your argument is with no one other than NPR.
The NPR Ombudsman says in his professional judgement they breached Journalistic
ethics and were unfair to O'Reilly, they are judging themselves. It his gig to
judge such things. NPR knows Terry Gross screwed up, it's just you who lacks
the objectivity, moral clarity or education in the subject to understand why
that is.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not a professional in the
ethics of journalism.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
> something wrong.

Point taken.

I don't have to agree with them, however.

CT

[Tom Paterson]

>From: (WillStG)

>
> You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not a professional in the
>ethics of journalism.

Do ethics of journalism include:

From:

<http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm>

<On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing
illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press
organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management
and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The
ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or
regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.>

Thank you for showing us NPR holding itself to a higher ethical standard than
your own employer.

My own unprofessional opinion is that these ethical conventions are being used
here to put a pretty fine point on who has to play fair and who doesn't. My
brief viewings of BOR showed him shouting down anyone who didn't say what he
wanted. That's Empty Chair, too, by any name. And Rush Limbaugh? Those guys
just don't have an Ombudsman.

Opinion? BOR is a bully who couldn't handle getting poked back. Especially by a
girl, in public. Give it a rest.
--Tom Paterson

[EggHd]

Like the difference if BOR is talking about Ann Coulter's book or Hillary
Clinton's book. Fair and balanced? LOL!


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[nuke]

> Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes
>NPR
>for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview
>with
>Bill O'Reilly.
>
>http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
>October 15, 2003
>excerpt.

I agree. Bad radio on Terry Gross' and "Fresh Air" part. Just bad, no two ways
about it. She's capable of better work and she knows it.

I think BOR is a windbag and I don't care for his Fox News TV show, however the
Fresh Air episode was just bad radio and I can't think of a better example of
exactly the kind of thing that people like him complain about NPR. Indeed,
NPR's critics are correct on that point.

Let's face it, how many times has Al Franken appeared on various NPR shows
since his last book came out? I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough" interviews
either.




--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[EggHd]

<< I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough" interviews
either. >>

The same can be said regarding Ann Coulter on Fox news. have you checked out
her book?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[nmm]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 11:35 PM, John LeBlanc
> wrote:
>
>"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>> << I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
>> including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough"
>interviews
>> either. >>
>>
>> The same can be said regarding Ann Coulter on Fox news. have you
>checked out
>> her book?
>
>
>What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already
>asked?
>
>John
>


I was trying to get through to CNN when she was on to ask: "What's the
differance between McCarthyisim Denial and Holocaust Denial" .. I haven't
heard anyone ask her that .

OR what the Folks at WWCR asked her that made her walk out of an
interview; "How do you call yourself an American when you are fighting
against our constitution".

I guess she thought wwcr was something like CBN.. WRONG!!

Pat Robertson and his bussiness partner Charles Taylor are far away from
the true christians.






---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[John LeBlanc]

"nuke" > wrote in message
...
> > Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes
> >NPR
> >for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview
> >with
> >Bill O'Reilly.
> >
> >http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
> >October 15, 2003
> >excerpt.
>
> I agree. Bad radio on Terry Gross' and "Fresh Air" part. Just bad, no two ways
> about it. She's capable of better work and she knows it.

As a fairly dedicated Fresh Air fan since around the time it started airing on
our local NPR affiliate in 1987, I was surprised and disappointed by the thing.
It just wasn't what I'd come to expect from Terry.

I've listened to NPR in the morning and afternoon for nearly twenty years. I
don't listen every day, and I don't listen to all of it. As to the "liberal
bias" issue, NPR does lean to the left, which is fine by me. Run O'Reilly
through the "what side does it look like he's on" machine, and he leans toward
the right, which is also fine by me. As a reasonable adult, I'm capable of
listening to both sides and making up my own mind, which, I suppose, makes me a
danger to both the far right and the far left wackos.

John

[John LeBlanc]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
> including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough" interviews
> either. >>
>
> The same can be said regarding Ann Coulter on Fox news. have you checked out
> her book?


What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already asked?

John

[EggHd]

<< What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already asked? >>

My take on it is that BOR coddles her and it's like a love fest just as they
are saying NPR is with Frankin.





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Romeo Rondeau]

There's nothing wrong with coddling a guest that you like and agree with.
Gross' coddling of Al Franken isn't the issue here, it's 2 no-nos' in the
same interview. The invitation of giving an interview under false pretenses
and then conducting an "empty chair" interview after O'Reilly had left
because of the first no-no.

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already
asked? >>
>
> My take on it is that BOR coddles her and it's like a love fest just as
they
> are saying NPR is with Frankin.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< The invitation of giving an interview under false pretenses
and then conducting an "empty chair" interview after O'Reilly had left
because of the first no-no. >>

I'm converted to being a republican now. Thanks for helping me see the light.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[MikeK]

WillStG wrote:

>Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes
> NPR
> for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview
> with Bill O'Reilly.
>
> http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
<snip>
> The "Empty Chair" Interview
>
> Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing:
> It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill
> O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him
> for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the
> studio. She read the quote anyway.
>
> That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in
> broadcasting as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an
> unethical technique and should not be used on NPR.

I disagree strenuously. As a LISTENER I want to know what it was that scared
BOR so badly he left the room rather than respond to what was to be read.
It was NOT a question for him to respond to anyway, it was simply a
statement in a magazine article. He chose to leave, but it was HIS CHOICE.
The chair was empty because he knew what was coming and ran away; hence, it
was NOT unfair of Gross to read the piece to the audience. It's not like he
refused to come on the show and she went ahead and did the interview. THAT
would be the definition of "empty chair interview."

The ombudsman missed the mark on this one.

BTW, go to the website http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/ and read the
ENTIRE piece. Will's excerpt is more than slightly self-serving. Basically,
it says that Terry should have known BOR would be a lout.

[MikeK]

<snip>
>
> O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.
>
> GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.
>
> O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

<snip>
>
> O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families
> by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever
> hope to do.
>
> GLICK: OK.
>
> O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting
> those people.
>
> GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.
>
> O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?
>
> GLICK: Why?
>
> O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped
> view of this country.

<snip>
>
> O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
> respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
> FACTOR.
>
> GLICK: That means we're done?
>
> O'REILLY: We're done.

THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?

[John LeBlanc]

"MikeK" > wrote in message
...

> THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?

What was your problem with this transcript?

John

[Romeo Rondeau]

Go get 'em, Bill! Oh wait... I'm not supposed to like this... :-)

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "John LeBlanc" > wrote:
> >"Luke Kaven" > wrote
> >> (WillStG) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio,
criticizes NPR
> >> >for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's
interview with
> >> >Bill O'Reilly.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
> >> >October 15, 2003
> >>
> >> I'd be pleased if Fox would follow the example set here.
> >
> >So would I, and I'm sure they would were it to ever happen. I've not yet
> >witnessed Fox doing to an interviewee what Terry Gross did to O'Reilly.
Want to
> >present your evidence they have? I'm no big fan of Bill O'Reilly, but
I've yet
> >to witness him bringing in a person under false pretense. Same goes for
Hannity
> >& Colmes.
> >
> >John
>
> Transcript of O'Reilly's ambush interview with Jeremy Glick follows.
> He tells his subject repeatedly to shut up and then terminates the
> interview prematurely without giving the interviewee a chance to
> defend himself.
>
> The O'Reilly Factor 2-4-03
>
> O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised
> to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade
> Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the
> USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched
> with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the
> thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes
> of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama
> City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick,
> whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center.
> Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm
> surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the
> families who signed...
>
> JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.
>
> O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?
>
> GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also
> involved.
>
> O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who
> signed this advertisement.
>
> GLICK: As an individual.
>
> O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was
> surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the
> United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.
>
> GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral
> equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to
> back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that
> you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I
> feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting
> the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually,
> somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our
> current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited
> a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily,
> economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the
> alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of
> thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...
>
> O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...
>
> GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to
> support...
>
> O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why
> it's surprising.
>
> GLICK: ... escalating...
>
> O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal
> position in this society, which you're entitled to.
>
> GLICK: It's marginal -- right.
>
> O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see,
> even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I
> don't think your father would be approving of this.
>
> GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was
> illegitimate.
>
> O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...
>
> GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...
>
> O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a
> terrorist nation as you are.
>
> GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.
>
> O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...
>
> GLICK: What I'm saying is...
>
> O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.
>
> GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in
> Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and
> escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a
> hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government
> in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
>
> O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...
>
> GLICK: Maybe...
>
> O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.
>
> GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.
>
> O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.
>
> GLICK: Well, OK.
>
> O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...
>
> GLICK: But you do care because you...
>
> O'REILLY: No, no. Look...
>
> GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...
>
> O'REILLY: Here's why I care.
>
> GLICK: ... to rationalize...
>
> O'REILLY: Here's why I care...
>
> GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from
> domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.
>
> O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...
>
> GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.
>
> O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families
> by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever
> hope to do.
>
> GLICK: OK.
>
> O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting
> those people.
>
> GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.
>
> O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?
>
> GLICK: Why?
>
> O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped
> view of this country.
>
> GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...
>
> O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.
>
> GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On
> September 14...
>
> O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...
>
> GLICK: On September 14...
>
> O'REILLY: Here's the record.
>
> GLICK: OK.
>
> O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan
> to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
>
> GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in
> Afghanistan...
>
> O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
>
> GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...
>
> O'REILLY: Who killed your father.
>
> GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.
>
> O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
>
> GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
>
> O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
>
> GLICK: So what about George Bush?
>
> O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
>
> GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
>
> O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.
>
> GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who
> were...
>
> O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
>
> GLICK: Well, I hope she is.
>
> O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you --
> that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.
>
> GLICK: OK.
>
> O'REILLY: In respect for your father...
>
> GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
>
> O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.
>
> GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
>
> O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who
> was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed
> unnecessarily by barbarians...
>
> GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
>
> O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...
>
> GLICK: ... not the people of America.
>
> O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...
>
> GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
>
> O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
> respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
> FACTOR.
>
> GLICK: That means we're done?
>
> O'REILLY: We're done.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> >
> > O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
> > respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
> > FACTOR.
> >
> > GLICK: That means we're done?
> >
> > O'REILLY: We're done.
>
> THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?


Glick knew what he was brought there to talk about.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Why thank you :-) It wasn't meant to try to make you a republican, I could
care less. I was just trying to illustrate the point, as a matter of fact
politics don't really have a lot to do with it, or at least they shouldn't.

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << The invitation of giving an interview under false pretenses
> and then conducting an "empty chair" interview after O'Reilly had left
> because of the first no-no. >>
>
> I'm converted to being a republican now. Thanks for helping me see the
light.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[John Neiberger]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >
> > > O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
> > > respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
> > > FACTOR.
> > >
> > > GLICK: That means we're done?
> > >
> > > O'REILLY: We're done.
> >
> > THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?
>
>
> Glick knew what he was brought there to talk about.

I think that's the point: he was brought there to talk about it, but was
never allowed to fully explain his position. He was attacked by Bill early
in the interview and was never allowed to continue his explanation. When he
continued to attempt to clarify his position--rightfully so, IMO--Bill
simply cutoff the interview.

I used to be a big O'Reilly fan. I watched his show as often as possible for
a couple of years, but after a while I got tired of his attitude. I suppose
I still agree with him about 75-80% of the time, but I still can't handle
watching his show any longer.

John

[John LeBlanc]

"nmm" > wrote in message ...

> I was trying to get through to CNN when she was on to ask: "What's the
> differance between McCarthyisim Denial and Holocaust Denial" .. I haven't
> heard anyone ask her that .

The fact that you'd even ask that question tells me how much you know about
McCarthy and that era of history. Get your news from MTV, do ya...


> OR what the Folks at WWCR asked her that made her walk out of an
> interview; "How do you call yourself an American when you are fighting
> against our constitution".

Well, anyone can ask another any unfounded question they want, can't they? For
instance, I can ask you why you're such an America-hating, pro-Communist,
Jew-bashing, African American-hating racist, but that'd be sort of stupid,
wouldn't you agree?

John

[Luke Kaven]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote:
>"MikeK" > wrote in message
>
>> THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?
>
>What was your problem with this transcript?
>
>John

The interviewee was gagged and never allowed to speak on his own
behalf. The chair wasn't empty, but it may as well have been if the
subject is prevented from speaking.

[EggHd]

<< I can ask you why you're such an America-hating, pro-Communist,
Jew-bashing, African American-hating racist, but that'd be sort of stupid,
wouldn't you agree? >>

What the **** does this have to do with anything?

Only BOR get's to ask these kinds of questions?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[nuke]

"John LeBlanc" wrote:
>As to the "liberal bias" issue, NPR does lean to the left,
>which is fine by me. Run O'Reilly through the "what side
>does it look like he's on" machine, and he leans toward
>the right, which is also fine by me.

Fine by me too. O'Reilly actually has some decidedly "non-right" opinions too.
He's kind of quirky on a lot of issues. Probably more a mix of
right-leaning-libertarian on a lot of stuff.

>As a reasonable adult, I'm capable of
>listening to both sides and making up my own mind,
>which, I suppose, makes me adanger to both the
>far right and the far left wackos.

Indeed.

I gotta say one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved in
artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing political
parroting as well.



--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Altasrecrd]

>: (nuke)

>one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
>expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
>in
>artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing political
>parroting as well.

I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.

Maybe it's just the talented ones we should expect that from. :)

































"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering

[Jay - atldigi]

Seems like the basic thrust of the thread is that it's OK that Bill was
treated somewhat unfairly because he's not very likeable and he's not
always fair to his guests. Thinking back to grade school, I seem to
remember learning that two wrongs don't make a right.

Regardless of Bill's shortcomings, I would not have approached an NPR
interview quite in the same way Terry did. She could have moved off the
"here's another bad thing somebody said about you" questions after a
while. (This opinion coming from a big NPR fan)

I was actually a little curious about what was in his book as it's not
one I'm likely to buy, but it hardly seemed to come up. I would have
liked to see her give him some thoughtful questions on it's content
rather than talking mostly about others' opinions of him personally.

If you are serious about an exchange of ideas, you are best served when
you don't unduly anger or insult your conversation partner. Bill could
stand to keep this in mind as well...

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Jay - atldigi]

In article <w82lb.598505$Oz4.602531@rwcrnsc54>, "John Neiberger"
> wrote:


> I think that's the point: he was brought there to talk about it, but was
> never allowed to fully explain his position. He was attacked by Bill
> early
> in the interview and was never allowed to continue his explanation. When
> he continued to attempt to clarify his position--rightfully so, IMO--Bill
> simply cutoff the interview.
>
> I used to be a big O'Reilly fan. I watched his show as often as possible
> for a couple of years, but after a while I got tired of his attitude. I
> suppose
> I still agree with him about 75-80% of the time, but I still can't handle
> watching his show any longer.
>
> John

He used to be far more interesting to watch because he'd usually let the
other viewpoint get expressed even if he jumped down the person's throat
afterwards. Now it's a crapshoot whether he'll let them get anything
resembling a complete thought out of their mouths. It's far better to
see somebody win or lose in a fair fight. So, while I agree that his
journalistic integrity has suffered with the show's increasing
visibility, I still don't think that justifies Terry's conduct. It may
not have been a major breach, I'll agree, but I still can't say that
past poor behavior on his part excuses poor behavior on hers.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[5016]

(WillStG) wrote in message >...
> >Charles Thomas
>
> >It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
> >interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
> >something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
> >take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
> >interview.
> >
>
> No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
> something wrong. At this point, your argument is with no one other than NPR.
> The NPR Ombudsman says in his professional judgement they breached Journalistic
> ethics and were unfair to O'Reilly, they are judging themselves. It his gig to
> judge such things. NPR knows Terry Gross screwed up, it's just you who lacks
> the objectivity, moral clarity or education in the subject to understand why
> that is.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not a professional in the
> ethics of journalism.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Will is absolutely right that we expect a higher standard of
journalism from NPR than we do from Fox News. Of course it is easy to
dredge up examples of O'Reilly or any Fox News commentator behaving
abominably - finding instances like this is like shooting fish in a
barrel. But we expect more from NPR. Fox News isn't regulated by any
ombudsman, is entertainment rather than news, and therefore isn't held
to any level of accountability.

NPR shouldn't have O'Reilly on the show at all - everyone I know,
right or left, agrees that this obnoxious blowhard gets enough air
time as it is.

[WillStG]

> (Tom Paterson)
>Do ethics of journalism include:

>From:
><http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm>
><On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing
illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press
organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management
and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
>The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or
regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.>

>Thank you for showing us NPR holding itself to a higher ethical standard than
your own employer.

My own unprofessional opinion is that these ethical conventions are being used
here to put a pretty fine point on who has to play fair and who doesn't.>

Tom, you ignorant unprofessional wuss. <G> That case had ZERO to do with
my employer Fox News Channel - ZERO. To try to make than an indictment of Fox
News Channel is stupid, just as stupid as parroting the BS propaganda you read
on a partisan website.

That story had to do with a local Fox affiliate station in Florida.
Even if a Reporter turns out to be right on a story and her Producer was wrong,
she's not entitled to monetary damages because he called it his waym whether a
mistake or for whatever reason is what the Court ruling means. Sometimes
news is judgement call, not that I know all the facts about what happens in
every Fox affiliate station in the US (it's more like syndication, they just
buy programming from the mothership). But again, that case had ZERO to do
with Fox News Channel. You get it now?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nmm]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 4:02 AM, John LeBlanc
> wrote:
>"nmm" > wrote in message news:BBBA1C55-
...
>
>> I was trying to get through to CNN when she was on to ask: "What's
>>the
>> differance between McCarthyisim Denial and Holocaust Denial" .. I
>>haven't
>> heard anyone ask her that .
>
>The fact that you'd even ask that question tells me how much you
>know about
>McCarthy and that era of history. Get your news from MTV, do ya...
>

Because Revisionists are like Ann Coulter are trying to make out
McCarthy as a "good guy" , and other revisionists like Ernst Zundel
are trying to say there was no holocaust. If you don't see the
parallel , i might as well be talking to a brick wall. Persecution of
people being a "bad" thing; Ethics and Morality aren't your fort=8E.


How bout the more relevant parallels between the witchhunts for
terrorists, and the witchhunts for communists. Or the forced labour
camps of Aushwitz, and the forced labour camps of Palestinians.

The Naazi show trials before WW2 looked a lot like the HUAC hearings,
what a coincidence.


>
>> OR what the Folks at WWCR asked her that made her walk out of an
>> interview; "How do you call yourself an American when you are
>fighting
>> against our constitution".
>
>Well, anyone can ask another any unfounded question they want, can't
>they?

What is unfounded about asking someone how they claim to be a
'patriotic' American, yet want to destroy the "inalienable rights"
given to their fellow citizens? So why did the state legisalature in
Alaska pass an act sayting that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional?



>For
>instance, I can ask you why you're such an America-hating, pro-
>Communist,
>Jew-bashing, African American-hating racist, but that'd be sort of
>stupid,
>wouldn't you agree?
>
>John
>

I Agree that your post is pointless antagonisim, Yes.

Are you trying to call me something or are you just calling yourself
stupid, you are not clearly expressing yourself.


n


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A
Literacy Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[nmm]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 5:03 PM, WillStG > wrote:
> Mike, just how is expecting fairness and ethical behavior from tax-
>payer
>funded institutions "self-serving"?


Strange how almost every other country in the world has managed to do this;
BBC, ORTF, DW, CBC, ABC (Australia).

The thing is Reagan struck down the laws in America that said equal time
must be alloted to oppsing viewpoints on editorial comment. All of a
sudden America created a whole news fiction industry.





---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[WillStG]

(EggHd)
>My take on it is that BOR coddles her and it's like a love fest just as they
>are saying NPR is with Frankin.

Well when Ann Coulter crosses her legs on the set it reminds me of this
movie... Ummm, nevermind.

The difference between the NPR and Fox News Channel of course is that FNC
is independently owned and operated, and so is entitled to have any kind of
opinion programming and editorial political POV it wishes.

NPR on the other hand, is funded with Government public money, and so for
them to exibit partisan and left leaning bias is simply outside their mandate
as a tax-payer funded insitution. If they were private it wouldn't be that big
a deal (except for the lying and unethical behavior), but it's unfair to force
the public to support them financially if they can't go beyond their own
political bias.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[EggHd]

<< NPR on the other hand, is funded with Government public money, and so for
them to exibit partisan and left leaning bias is simply outside their mandate
as a tax-payer funded insitution. >>

I can agree with the entire post
..


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[WillStG]

>MikeK
>BTW, go to the website http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/ and read the
>ENTIRE piece. Will's excerpt is more than slightly self-serving. Basically,
>it says that Terry should have known BOR would be a lout.

Mike, just how is expecting fairness and ethical behavior from tax-payer
funded institutions "self-serving"? They did this on the public dime, so the
public has a right to take notice. And did it escape your attention that I
included the link exactly so people could read the whole article on the NRP
website?

Perhaps they just aspire to higher standards than you do...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Scott Dorsey]

WillStG > wrote:
>
> Mike, just how is expecting fairness and ethical behavior from tax-payer
>funded institutions "self-serving"? They did this on the public dime, so the
>public has a right to take notice. And did it escape your attention that I
>included the link exactly so people could read the whole article on the NRP
>website?

I would agree with you completely, if a substantial part of NPR's funding
actually did come from the government. Thirty years ago, it sure did, but
these days it's such a small part of their budget that I wonder why they
don't just give it up completely so that folks stop bugging them about it.

I think this is a shame, and I think a government-sponsored broadcasting
organization would be a good idea if, like the BBC, it could be built in a
way to be comparatively independant of the current administration and have
a clear mandate to support the arts. But NPR, much as it has raised the
level of broadcasting in this country, ain't no BBC. It's not even All-India
Radio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[MikeK]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MikeK" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?
>
> What was your problem with this transcript?
>
>

That O'Reilly basically told Glick to shut up. He asked questions, then did
not let the interviewee respond. Mostly O'Reilly told the INTERVIEWEE what
he thought, rather than actually conducting an interview. Obviously BOR's
fans like him to be overbearing and yell at people, but he could at least
PRETEND to be a journalist.

[MikeK]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps they just aspire to higher standards than you do...
>

NPR obviously aspires to higher standards than Fox...hell, I think everyone
here does, too.

[[email protected]]

Where does one reach the fox channel Ombudsman for comments on some of
their shows, they have one don't they?

> Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes NPR
>for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview with
>Bill O'Reilly.
>
>http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
>October 15, 2003
>excerpt.
>
>"But by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and
>curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the
>interview to develop.
>
>By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry
>Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was
>not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was
>about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for
>discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair
>to O'Reilly.
>
>The "Empty Chair" Interview
>
>Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It
>happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book
>from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction,
>O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote
>anyway.
>
>That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting
>as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and
>should not be used on NPR.
>
>I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have
>illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country.
>Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some,
>in NPR's liberal media bias. "
>
>Will Miho
>NY Music & TV Audio Guy
>Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
>"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[John LeBlanc]

"MikeK" > wrote in message
...

> Obviously BOR's
> fans like him to be overbearing and yell at people, but he could at least
> PRETEND to be a journalist.


I thought the argument was that he *is* a pretend journalist. <g>

I may or may not have mentioned this, but I'm no great fan of Bill O'Reilly. I
purchased his new book at Sam's Club because I thought $14 was a decent amount
to pay for research on the issue. I did my best to get through the first
chapter, but it was pretty painful. Maybe it's a cultural thing; I'm not from
his neck of the woods.

John

[WillStG]

>Where does one reach the fox channel Ombudsman for comments on some of their
shows, they have one don't they? >

We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP. But you
could try Eric Berne, host of "Fox News Watch". It's a weekend panel show that
criticizes the media, including FNC. The panel is bi-partisan and Eric Berne is
also IIRC on the NewsCorp board, I think he has clout if there are real ethical
violations you wish to address. I have seen some issues of balance get
addressed after being directed to him. I have been interested in such things
long before FNC was even a blip on your radar screen, I have been here for over
7 years.

You can find contact info on the Fox News Web site. Many of our shows,
O'Reilly, Cavuto and others also read email on air. IMHO they take viewer
feedback seriously. But know what you're talking about before you decide to
write Eric Berne unless it's about his program, please.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
...
> >: (nuke)
>
> >one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
> >expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
> >in
> >artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing political
> >parroting as well.
>
> I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.

I also think a lot of artists are the most shallow self seeking people in
existence. And I don't know why anyone would equate them with "smart" as far
as it pertains to wisdom.

[[email protected]]

On 2003-10-20 said:
>"MikeK" > wrote in message
>> THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's
>ombudsman? What was your problem with this transcript?
IT wasn't an interview, it was a public attack. I don't respect the
"empty chair interview" and never heard the NPR piece, but I don't
respect any interviewer that does that kind of job either. Even if
you disagree with a subject responsible "fair and balanced" journalism
means that you try to let the interview subject speak for himself
before you pull out the guns.

SO this is the new amss media. Talk about a cesspool, this is it.
Oops I forgot, it's just supposed to be "entertainment product."

REgards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

[Steve King]

"Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
news:pthlb.198924$%h1.192690@sccrnsc02...
> "Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >: (nuke)
> >
> > >one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
> > >expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
> > >in
> > >artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing
political
> > >parroting as well.
> >
> > I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.
>
> I also think a lot of artists are the most shallow self seeking people in
> existence. And I don't know why anyone would equate them with "smart" as
far
> as it pertains to wisdom.
>
>

Your statement about artists might be rephrased to say, "I also think that a
lot of people named Hunt are the most shallow self-seeking...blah blah blah"
and it would be just as silly.

Steve King

[WillStG]

> (Scott Dorsey)

>I would agree with you completely, if a substantial part of NPR's funding
actually did come from the government. Thirty years ago, it sure did, but
these days it's such a small part of their budget that I wonder why they don't
just give it up completely so that folks stop bugging them about it.>

So how can you tell how much they get from where Scott? They aren't
exactly transparent about such things as far as I can tell. I downloaded their
report for FY 2002 and they mention "50.11 million dollars in grants and
contributions", but nowhere I can find on their website on in the glossy promo
of a report exactly how much of that is Government sourced monies/from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.


And that "Corporation For Public Broadcasting" is clearer on their site
about such financial matters, it is mandated by law to spend 95% of it's
revenue on basically PBS and NPR and it is a $2.2 _billion_ dollar a year
operation. They got $300,000,000 in FY 2000 in federal appropriations, plus
$42,358,000 a year in federal grants, $59,834,000 from local governments and
$322 million from State governments.

http://www.cpb.org/pubcast/#who_pays

As a side note one thing that bugs O'Reilly is that Bill Moyers will
not release info about how much money he makes on the side from the programming
he produces with CPB / PSB /NPR money. I have to agree with O'Reilly that
that's very shady, and truth be told that Mr. O made an issue of this is the
backstory behind this whole dustup.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Altasrecrd]

> (WillStG)

>I downloaded their
>report for FY 2002 and they mention "50.11 million dollars in grants and
>contributions", but nowhere I can find on their website on in the glossy
>promo
>of a report exactly how much of that is Government sourced monies/from the
>Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

And why are right-wingers afraid to come out of the closet? Is it like the
Klan, where they know they should feel guilty about it?

































"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering

[Roger W. Norman]

You mean artists like Leonardo di Venci or perhaps Galileo? Or perhaps John
Lennon, who obviously couldn't hold a tune much less paint nor write books
nor have pertinent political opinions simply by virtue of his too shallow
egotistical world viewpoint?

Wisdom isn't a shoe made strictly for one set of people and you will find
evidence of self-centered, egotistical people in all walks of life who may
or may not exhibit any level of wisdom. But, by and large, it is the freer
thinking individuals that have probably brought mankind further along the
road to social evolution than dyed in the wool participants of some other's
plan.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
news:pthlb.198924$%h1.192690@sccrnsc02...
> "Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >: (nuke)
> >
> > >one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
> > >expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
> > >in
> > >artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing
political
> > >parroting as well.
> >
> > I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.
>
> I also think a lot of artists are the most shallow self seeking people in
> existence. And I don't know why anyone would equate them with "smart" as
far
> as it pertains to wisdom.
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

The difference isn't whether one is going to get gagged or not on Bill
O'Reilly. It's a given you will get no chance to talk if your line is
different than his, and will get plenty of time and pampered handling if
your line is the same as his. That's not been the problem within this
discussion and it's a bad example because we know this goes on all the time.

The problem as I saw it and first spoke up about it is that I expect more
out of Terry Gross than to pull this type of attack on Bill O'Reilly. She
should be above that and apparently NPR's Ombudsman agrees with me.

Part of the problem is with Bill, no doubt, and wussing out of the interview
wasn't the strength of character he likes to tout himself as having, but
another part of the problem is that Bill truly wasn't asked any questions
about his book, and I'm sure that this program was booked because of his
book tour contractual requirements. So, to him, the time taken didn't serve
to help him alleviate himself of his contractual requirements and it was
simply setting himself up for more criticism about his personal views and
his Fox News talk show than about his book. Again, had Terry invited him on
to talk about his show, I'm sure that O'Reilly would have turned the invite
down. Does anyone actually WANT to attend their own intervention?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "John LeBlanc" > wrote:
> >"MikeK" > wrote in message
> >
> >> THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?
> >
> >What was your problem with this transcript?
> >
> >John
>
> The interviewee was gagged and never allowed to speak on his own
> behalf. The chair wasn't empty, but it may as well have been if the
> subject is prevented from speaking.
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
> I thought the argument was that he *is* a pretend journalist. <g>
>
> I may or may not have mentioned this, but I'm no great fan of Bill
O'Reilly. I
> purchased his new book at Sam's Club because I thought $14 was a decent
amount
> to pay for research on the issue. I did my best to get through the first
> chapter, but it was pretty painful. Maybe it's a cultural thing; I'm not
from
> his neck of the woods.
>
> John


Actually, Bill O'Reilly is no journalist at all, and it's unfortunate that
he's associated with a news network because it gives a certain type of
legitimacy to the concept that he is a journalist. A secondary, but just as
unfortunate result is that real journalists are more and more making
commentary with their reports, which is truly sad for American journalism.

And, again, I am no O'Reilly fan, but I hold him up to no notion of
journalistic integrity, regardless of whether he's won awards or not. He
may have been a journalist at one point, but he's stepped outside of the
dividing lines with a deliberateness that belittles his previous
experiences.

I would never support any efforts of Bill O'Reilly simply because I couldn't
find it in myself to believe that there aren't ulterior motives for any of
his actions. His abuse of the American Red Cross in it's normal operations
of spreading donations out to cover the 10s of thousands of disasters it
works on year after year was appalling, all to the "chant" of unfair and
using the opportunity to bash basically good human beings who happened to be
liberal artists because of their participation in charities as if they had
control over the distribution of received donations was unquestionably the
worst exhibition of a mean spirited streak running the entire gamut of this
person's life. That he has such a large audience comprised of far right
viewers concerns me no end as to the overall knowledge of the average person
and so I would not choose to ever purchase a thing that would give one penny
to O'Reilly. He earns more than enough from his barking dog viewing public.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




>
>

[WillStG]

> (Altasrecrd)
> Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

Why must YOU sound so presumptive and condescending? Scott said he would
agree that NPR shouldn't exhibit a political slant since they are publically
funded, but that NPR doesn't receive much federal funding anymore. I tried to
look it up but no clear info is available on the NPR website, you correct me if
I'm wrong and just couldn't find it. But the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting which is the primary government funding source for NPR has it's
financials prominently displayed, and they are required by Congress to spend
95% of their 2.2 BILLION dollar budget on mostly NPR and PBS, that's not all
direct support but that includes providing programming near as I can tell. And
about $900 million of CPB's money is from Government sourcing, federal
appropriations, grants, and also from State and local money.

> And why are right-wingers afraid to come out of the closet? Is it like
the Klan, where they know they should feel guilty about it?>

At least I bother to do some research before I mouth off, but then you
would say only a "right winger" would care about how public tax money is spent?
That's brilliant Dude, I guess "Left Wingers" don't give an "F" about
financial accountability, huh... And talk about coming out of the closet, I
don't see a real name attached to _your_ posts. Is it because you know you
should feel guilty about making shallow, asinine comments?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[John LeBlanc]

"Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
...

> Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

What does it mean to "vote Independent"? Is that your way of attempting to
denegrate Will? It may come as a shock to you, but not everyone votes according
to party lines. Some of us actually study issues, compare candidates, and vote
for who we think is likely to do the best job. Assigning labels like
"Independent", "liberal" and "conservative" is mental shorthand, lazy and,
usually, incorrect anyway.

Although most people would call me a "conservative Republican" they would be
incorrect. While I do share some "conservative" positions, I also share lots of
"liberal" positions, too. Depends on the issue and the proposed solution. That's
being an independent thinker, or did your college education strip that choice
from you?


> And why are right-wingers afraid to come out of the closet? Is it like the
> Klan, where they know they should feel guilty about it?

Not all Klan members feel guilt. For instance, Robert Byrd has never apologized
for his membership and, in fact, praised his history in it.

As for being "afraid to come out of the closet" and "feeling guilty" -- you mean
like someone using the handle "Atlasrecr" rather than his given name? What do
you feel guilty of?

John

[Tom Paterson]

>From: (WillStG)

> Tom, you ignorant unprofessional wuss. <G>

You soiled yourself in public with that one. If I have displayed a lack of
courage (as I understand the epithet "wuss", a substitute for "pussy", or
"sissy"), drop the infantile name-calling and "give us a link".

That case had ZERO to do with
>my employer Fox News Channel - ZERO. To try to make than an indictment of
>Fox
>News Channel is stupid, just as stupid as parroting the BS propaganda you
>read
>on a partisan website.
>
> That story had to do with a local Fox affiliate station in Florida.
>Even if a Reporter turns out to be right on a story and her Producer was
>wrong,
>she's not entitled to monetary damages because he called it his waym whether
>a
>mistake or for whatever reason is what the Court ruling means. Sometimes
>news is judgement call, not that I know all the facts about what happens in
>every Fox affiliate station in the US (it's more like syndication, they just
>buy programming from the mothership). But again, that case had ZERO to do
>with Fox News Channel. You get it now?

Yeah, one of your branch offices pulled some **** (putting false words in a
reporter's mouth) and got away with it. My bad-- nope, actually, *their* bad.
Whatever, the gist of the story is that Fox got a judgement that says they
don't have to tell the truth. That doesn't go all the way up and down the line,
is that what you're trying to say while you're trying to intimidate me by
calling me names?

Poor BOR-- he got a taste of his own tactics, ran away from a girl with
everyone on the playground watching, and you jump to his defense. Your
political agenda is showing. "Fairness"?

Since I won't watch BOR past my few moments already endured (curiousity fully
satisfied, "Rush redux"), I was really glad to see the Glick transcript in this
thread.
This is worse than "empty chair", it is "bound and gagged". The BOR dittoheads
get a warm body they can safely dig at while BOR holds the head down. Just like
Rush, partisan crap disguised as "news", "commentary", or worst of all,
"entertainment". Crap. Like name calling instead of disputing issues.

Ah, "Fairness"? Give it a rest, Will.
--Tom Paterson

[Ellis Dees]

Jay - atldigi > wrote in message >...
> Seems like the basic thrust of the thread is that it's OK that Bill was
> treated somewhat unfairly because he's not very likeable and he's not
> always fair to his guests. Thinking back to grade school, I seem to
> remember learning that two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> Regardless of Bill's shortcomings, I would not have approached an NPR
> interview quite in the same way Terry did. She could have moved off the
> "here's another bad thing somebody said about you" questions after a
> while. (This opinion coming from a big NPR fan)
>
> I was actually a little curious about what was in his book as it's not
> one I'm likely to buy, but it hardly seemed to come up. I would have
> liked to see her give him some thoughtful questions on it's content
> rather than talking mostly about others' opinions of him personally.

Did you actually listen to the whole interview, or are you just going
from what you're reading online? Because the vast majority of the
interview *was* him talking about his book. It was only the last 5
minutes (out of about 40) or so that put him under any sort of
pressure at all, and he just spazzed out and walked off.

[Henry Salvia]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> The difference isn't whether one is going to get gagged or not on Bill
> O'Reilly. It's a given you will get no chance to talk if your line is
> different than his, and will get plenty of time and pampered handling if
> your line is the same as his. That's not been the problem within this
> discussion and it's a bad example because we know this goes on all the time.
>
> The problem as I saw it and first spoke up about it is that I expect more
> out of Terry Gross than to pull this type of attack on Bill O'Reilly. She
> should be above that and apparently NPR's Ombudsman agrees with me.

I guess I'm alone on this, but even as a fan of Terry I *don't* expect
more out of her, because I don't think she's a very good interviewer.
Exhibit A is (dragging this somewhere closer to audio) how Gene Simmons
played her like a vintage P-bass. And while I don't have specifics at my
fingertips, my impression of her interviews with musicians (especially
jazz)
tend to have long stretches of her explaining what she thinks the
musician
is attempting to do, rather than eliciting explanations from the
interviewee.

Its clear to me she is a big and (somewhat) knowlegeable music fan, and
the more the interview is about a subject she is personally passionate
about,
the more she interjects herself and her point of view into the
interview.
I think her behavior with Mr O'Reilly wasn't deliberate, but a byproduct
of
her weakness as an interviewer.

> Part of the problem is with Bill, no doubt, and wussing out of the interview
> wasn't the strength of character he likes to tout himself as having, but
> another part of the problem is that Bill truly wasn't asked any questions
> about his book, and I'm sure that this program was booked because of his
> book tour contractual requirements. So, to him, the time taken didn't serve
> to help him alleviate himself of his contractual requirements and it was
> simply setting himself up for more criticism about his personal views and
> his Fox News talk show than about his book. Again, had Terry invited him on
> to talk about his show, I'm sure that O'Reilly would have turned the invite
> down. Does anyone actually WANT to attend their own intervention?

Mr O'Reilly must be stunningly naive or as mind-bogglingly stupid as
the ravenous bug-blatter beast of Trull to accept an invitation to
be interviewed on Fresh Air and not expect the type of treatment he
received.

Man. 2 "professional" interviewers who can't conduct an interview. Maybe
they should hire Gene Simmons as a coach...

Henry Salvia.

> --
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
> See how far $20 really goes.
>
> "Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John LeBlanc" > wrote:
> > >"MikeK" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >> THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?
> > >
> > >What was your problem with this transcript?
> > >
> > >John
> >
> > The interviewee was gagged and never allowed to speak on his own
> > behalf. The chair wasn't empty, but it may as well have been if the
> > subject is prevented from speaking.
> >

[WillStG]

(Tom Paterson)

>> Tom, you ignorant unprofessional wuss. <G> <<

>You soiled yourself in public with that one. If I have displayed a lack of
courage (as I understand the epithet "wuss", a substitute for "pussy", or
"sissy"), drop the infantile name-calling and "give us a link".>

Well Tom, _you_ said you weren't a professional, did you not? But ok, I m
not not Dan Akroyd and it's not Saturday Night "Weekend Edition News" in 1978 -
so sue me. <G>

But grow up Tommy boy, it's on you to prove that case had one iota to do
with Fox News Channel. You can't because it doesn't. There is no such thing
as a branch office of Fox New Channel, we do have several bureaus but local Fox
Television Network affiliates are a totally different thing us, and we
certainly have nothing to do with how they run their local stations.

If you don't understand this, it's because you are extremely ignorant on
the subject. But when you parrot criticisms that are total, the burden for the
bullcrap still falls on your head for saying dumb things you can't back up.
Consider it a life lesson, check your facts before you spew.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Luke Kaven]

Henry Salvia > wrote:

[...]
>Mr O'Reilly must be stunningly naive or as mind-bogglingly stupid as
>the ravenous bug-blatter beast of Trull to accept an invitation to
>be interviewed on Fresh Air and not expect the type of treatment he
>received.
[...]
>Henry Salvia.

Thanks for injecting some much-needed Douglas Adams into the
discussion. [For those who don't remember, the ravenous bug-blatter
beast of Trull is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if he
can't see you, you can't see it.] Along those lines, there are some
who could benefit from a trip through the Total Perspective Vortex.

Ford: It's a little like being drunk
Arthur: That doesn't sound so bad.
Ford: Yeah? Ask a glass of water!

Luke

[[email protected]]

(5016) wrote in message >...
>
> Will is absolutely right that we expect a higher standard of
> journalism from NPR than we do from Fox News. Of course it is easy to
> dredge up examples of O'Reilly or any Fox News commentator behaving
> abominably - finding instances like this is like shooting fish in a
> barrel. But we expect more from NPR. Fox News isn't regulated by any
> ombudsman, is entertainment rather than news, and therefore isn't held
> to any level of accountability.
>
> NPR shouldn't have O'Reilly on the show at all - everyone I know,
> right or left, agrees that this obnoxious blowhard gets enough air
> time as it is.


Exactly. That's what separates NPR from Fox: NPR is actually
practicing journalism and self-correcting it. Fox does entertainment
and probably gave Bill hive fives for his "interview" with Jeremy
Glick.

And before someone jumps down my throat for being an NPR supporter,
I'm not. But at least it's journalism.

[flint]

> wrote in message
om...
> (5016) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Will is absolutely right that we expect a higher standard of
> > journalism from NPR than we do from Fox News. Of course it is easy to
> > dredge up examples of O'Reilly or any Fox News commentator behaving
> > abominably - finding instances like this is like shooting fish in a
> > barrel. But we expect more from NPR. Fox News isn't regulated by any
> > ombudsman, is entertainment rather than news, and therefore isn't held
> > to any level of accountability.
> >
> > NPR shouldn't have O'Reilly on the show at all - everyone I know,
> > right or left, agrees that this obnoxious blowhard gets enough air
> > time as it is.
>
>
> Exactly. That's what separates NPR from Fox: NPR is actually
> practicing journalism and self-correcting it. Fox does entertainment
> and probably gave Bill hive fives for his "interview" with Jeremy
> Glick.
>
> And before someone jumps down my throat for being an NPR supporter,
> I'm not. But at least it's journalism.

Bill interviewed Jiminy Glick??? I bet that was a riot!!!

[Kurt Riemann]

On 22 Oct 2003 13:10:04 GMT, (WillStG) wrote:

>> (Altasrecrd)
>> Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?
>
> Why must YOU sound so presumptive and condescending? Scott said he would
>agree that NPR shouldn't exhibit a political slant since they are publically
>funded, but that NPR doesn't receive much federal funding anymore. I tried to
>look it up but no clear info is available on the NPR website, you correct me if
>I'm wrong and just couldn't find it. But the Corporation for Public
>Broadcasting which is the primary government funding source for NPR has it's
>financials prominently displayed, and they are required by Congress to spend
>95% of their 2.2 BILLION dollar budget on mostly NPR and PBS, that's not all
>direct support but that includes providing programming near as I can tell. And
>about $900 million of CPB's money is from Government sourcing, federal
>appropriations, grants, and also from State and local money.
>

By the way, now that you're not a morning guy, check out what a lot of
that PBS money provides in the morning. That would be . . .

Family friendly Children's Programming. Stay at home Mom stuff.

Soft and gentle. No Kops for Kidz.; Teletubbies instead. I completely
support PBS and do the voiceovers for their local affiliate for free.
PBS is not rich. Most of these stations are held together with baling
wire and twine and a community commitment to provide good free
programming on the "public airwaves."

They don't get a free ride by any means. They really do need your
support, Miller Genuine Draft or Nike cannot BY LAW put ads on the
programs.

FYI


Kurt

[WillStG]

> ">Kurt Riemann <>

>By the way, now that you're not a morning guy, check out what a lot of
>that PBS money provides in the morning. That would be . . .
>
>Family friendly Children's Programming. Stay at home Mom stuff.
>
>Soft and gentle. No Kops for Kidz.; Teletubbies instead. I completely
>support PBS and do the voiceovers for their local affiliate for free.
>PBS is not rich. Most of these stations are held together with baling
>wire and twine and a community commitment to provide good free
>programming on the "public airwaves."
>
>They don't get a free ride by any means. They really do need your
>support, Miller Genuine Draft or Nike cannot BY LAW put ads on the
>programs.

Kurt, I have 3 year old, believe me I am _very_ familiar with PBS's
children's programming. And I do like Bill Moyers Journals. But to not be
open about the money he's making with programming he produces is just not
right. I think it's because he makes enough money to not need federal money to
do it at all, but that money provides a lot of funding for his foundation that
funds his political causes. That's just not being straight up. Nobody's
political faith is so sacred and holy that it excuses being anything less when
they're using government money and non-profit status, IMHO.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Chris/Power Salad]

I have not heard the NPR interview, to clarify and get that out of the
way, but I fail to see how Hannity & Colmes and BOR are *news*
programs or even how, aside from top of the hour reports, FNC is a
*news* network. I went searching for real news one morning a few
weeks ago, and came across FNC's "brighter, younger, prettier" morning
team with one of them, a blonde-bimbo-ish type, going off on Al
Franken, talking and talking and saying absolutely nothing. She kept
going on literally saying nothing but "He's a liar." for 10-20
seconds, and was nearly foaming at the mouth; may have ended up doing
so but I tuned away as fast as I could. Where the hell was the news? I
half expected an item on PMS to follow, who is running this travesty?

What we really need in these cable times is the power to select what
channels we want and don't want - the thought that my cable
subscription money is going to FNC and all the christian gimme gimme
channels turns my stomach.

BOR is but the latest Morton Downey Jr of broadcasting, and hopefully
soon he will similarly fade into obscurity, along with reality TV.


ObRAP: Sang jingles today into a lovely U87. Engineer first had it
open all the way around to catch 3 of us singing, then closed it up to
one side for my adding some harmonies. What a joy - makes even me
sound good! (DOH!)

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I have not heard the NPR interview, to clarify and get that out of the
> way, but I fail to see how Hannity & Colmes and BOR are *news*
> programs or even how, aside from top of the hour reports, FNC is a
> *news* network. I went searching for real news one morning a few
> weeks ago, and came across FNC's "brighter, younger, prettier" morning
> team with one of them, a blonde-bimbo-ish type, going off on Al
> Franken, talking and talking and saying absolutely nothing. She kept
> going on literally saying nothing but "He's a liar." for 10-20
> seconds, and was nearly foaming at the mouth; may have ended up doing
> so but I tuned away as fast as I could. Where the hell was the news? I
> half expected an item on PMS to follow, who is running this travesty?

All of the above shows that you have mentioned are talk-shows. None of them
are news programs and aren't intended to be. For instance, Larry King Live
is on the Cable News Network, but is not a news program.

[Kurt Riemann]

> Kurt, I have 3 year old, believe me I am _very_ familiar with PBS's
>children's programming. And I do like Bill Moyers Journals. But to not be
>open about the money he's making with programming he produces is just not
>right. I think it's because he makes enough money to not need federal money to
>do it at all, but that money provides a lot of funding for his foundation that
>funds his political causes. That's just not being straight up. Nobody's
>political faith is so sacred and holy that it excuses being anything less when
>they're using government money and non-profit status, IMHO.
>
>Will Miho
>NY Music & TV Audio Guy


> Kurt, I have 3 year old, believe me I am _very_ familiar with PBS's
>children's programming. And I do like Bill Moyers Journals. But to not be
>open about the money he's making with programming he produces is just not
>right. I think it's because he makes enough money to not need federal money to
>do it at all, but that money provides a lot of funding for his foundation that
>funds his political causes. That's just not being straight up. Nobody's
>political faith is so sacred and holy that it excuses being anything less when
>they're using government money and non-profit status, IMHO.
>


The only problem I have with PBS is that my daughter speaks with an
English accent when she says "Hello" to Teletubbies.
("Helleuu")
----------------------

RE - Bill Moyers

Is there something somewhere that says he HAS to give an accounting?
If not, well, then he doesn't have to.



Kurt Riemann

[WillStG]

>">Kurt Riemann <>
>RE - Bill Moyers
>
>Is there something somewhere that says he HAS to give an accounting?
>If not, well, then he doesn't have to.

I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that he
uses government taxpayer funds to Produce his programming that kind of
disclosure seems like it should be required, at least IMO.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >,
(Ellis Dees) wrote:

> Did you actually listen to the whole interview, or are you just going
> from what you're reading online? Because the vast majority of the
> interview *was* him talking about his book. It was only the last 5
> minutes (out of about 40) or so that put him under any sort of
> pressure at all, and he just spazzed out and walked off

Yes, I listened uninterrupted in it's entirety, and I'm not the only one
who had this impression, including the NPR Ombudsman.

Here's a quote from the Ombudsman:

>By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though
>Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners
>say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about
>his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a
>legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an
>interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
Jay - atldigi > wrote:

> Yes, I listened uninterrupted in it's entirety, and I'm not the only one
> who had this impression, including the NPR Ombudsman.

Yes, yes, NPR sold her down the river. We've established this.

CT

[georgeh]

(WillStG) writes:

> I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
>sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that he

Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.

[Richard]

wrote...
> (WillStG) writes:
>
> > I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
> >sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that he
>
> Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.

2 points for the man from Michigan.

--
Exporting jobs is treason.

Clark '04

[WillStG]

>Richard

>> (WillStG) writes:
>>
>> > I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
>> >sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that
>he...

>> Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.

>2 points for the man from Michigan.

Naah, 2 points are for actually addressing the issue or contributing to
the dialogue in a meaningful way. Cheap shots for laughs are like a 1/4
point...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nuke]

>Yes, I listened uninterrupted in it's entirety, and I'm not the only one
>
>who had this impression, including the NPR Ombudsman.
>
>Here's a quote from the Ombudsman:
>
>>By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though
>
>>Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners
>
>>say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about
>
>>his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a
>
>>legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an
>>interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.
>
>--
>Jay Frigoletto

Which is a real shame.

I bought the O'Reilly book in the airport today and had a chance to read a good
portion of it on the plane.

It isn't at all what a lot of his detractor's think. Not by a long shot. In
fact, I think a lot of people on this thread would find it at least
interesting, if not agreeable on many counts.

I wouldn't have bothered had NPR not so totally trashed the guy. The book would
have been well worth a proper interview.

All Terry did was further confirm his assertions about NPR.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Romeo Rondeau]

>
> Which is a real shame.
>
> I bought the O'Reilly book in the airport today and had a chance to read a
good
> portion of it on the plane.
>
> It isn't at all what a lot of his detractor's think. Not by a long shot.
In
> fact, I think a lot of people on this thread would find it at least
> interesting, if not agreeable on many counts.

Some of them would rather die a slow death than read this book, solely
because he wrote it.

>
> I wouldn't have bothered had NPR not so totally trashed the guy. The book
would
> have been well worth a proper interview.
>
> All Terry did was further confirm his assertions about NPR.

Yeah, too bad most of those people already know about the NPR. They (the
NPR) are just preaching to the choir. Anyone who heard the interview and
hated Bill O'Reilly probably hated him before the interview. They did
nothing really except ruffle a few feathers, they certainly didn't change
any minds.

[Carlos Alden]

Okay, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this thread, but here goes:

I am a diehard NPR fan. There, said it, that's out there. I produce a
weekly show for our local NPR affiliate. I am what most people would term a
"liberal." However, don't misperceive that to mean I vote and think in
lockstep fashion according to anyone's dictum. I read and listen to a
variety of sources for news.

For the past several years I have generally enjoyed O'Reilly (as well as
Fresh Air.) I like that he says what he thinks, that he has background as a
teacher, that he likes to poke holes in windbags of all stripes. My only
preconception of him is that he puts spin on issues as much as anyone else,
and that he cuts people off when he wants to disagree with him. This is
true - listen to his "okay, you can have the last word" tags - then he often
goes on to make the final comment after the speaker has had their say.
Nothing wrong with him stating his opinion one more time, but it's
disingeneous to "give someone the last word" then piggyback on top of it
going out to commercial. So he is thus no more a sainted virgin than most
other show hosts.

Terry Gross does a good job of poking holes in windbags, too. She does it
differently, though, by quietly asking persistent questions and not letting
up. I didn't hear the Franken interview, but I have heard her plenty of
times pursuing an issue to the discomfort of the guest. Good for her, and
O'Reilly too, for doing that stuff.

So - I downloaded an MP3 of this famous interview to decide for myself what
was going on. I heard both of them doing what they do. O'R started off
with a rude chip on his shoulder from the outset. He was in lecture mode,
and was patronizing and condescending. He put on his very best --if you
don't agree with me like any right-thinking American then there's something
wrong with you---hat. Who can possibly argue with anyone who says that?

I did NOT hear Gross focus on Franken throughout the interview, and in fact
I heard her ask O'R lots of questions about who he is and how he came to be,
just like she always does. Sure she had an agenda - what show host doesn't?
- and the agenda I heard was "how come you are so controversial and why do
you think you are always right and exempt from people pointing that out to
you?" This is the kind of thing O'R asks about all the time,except he just
tells them they're pinheads, so she was committing no major sin in my book.

Then the end of the show - what exquisite radio! O'R starts ranting about
the listeners knowing what's happening and this is NPR, what did one expect,
bla bla bla, then walks off in a huff. To my ears he had a tantrum meltdown
and gave NPR, Gross, and Fresh Air much more power and credence than if he
had just answered her questions and engaged in conversation with her. I
thought he was going to start talking about black helicopters and
secular-media conspiracy theories. He brought this reaction on all by
himself.

Then there's the famous "empty-chair" questioning technique that Gross
supposedly pulled on him at the very end. She asked him a question, which
she couldn't get through because he blustered his way off the show, then
capped the interview off by finishing the question she had already started
to ask. This was not unfair to my ears, and again, was the kind of thing
that O'R does on a consistent basis, but much more civilly.

My estimation of O'R went down because of the interview, but it was totally
his responsibility. He could have , and SHOULD have, handled it with more
civility and aplomb, and talked about these things with her. I mean, she
wasn't setting traps for him, she was just asking him about contentious
issue that she had observed and thought about, for God's sake. I expected
more of him because I like a lot of what he says and what he stands for, not
because I didn't like him in the first place!

THere. Probably regret I wrote it, but..

Carlos

[WillStG]

>Carlos Alden

>Okay, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this thread, but here goes:
>
>I am a diehard NPR fan. There, said it, that's out there. I produce a
>weekly show for our local NPR affiliate. I am what most people would term a
>"liberal." However, don't misperceive that to mean I vote and think in
>lockstep fashion according to anyone's dictum. I read and listen to a
>variety of sources for news.
>
>For the past several years I have generally enjoyed O'Reilly (as well as
>Fresh Air.) I like that he says what he thinks, that he has background as a
>teacher, that he likes to poke holes in windbags of all stripes. My only
>preconception of him is that he puts spin on issues as much as anyone else,
>and that he cuts people off when he wants to disagree with him. This is
>true - listen to his "okay, you can have the last word" tags - then he often
>goes on to make the final comment after the speaker has had their say.
>Nothing wrong with him stating his opinion one more time, but it's
>disingeneous to "give someone the last word" then piggyback on top of it
>going out to commercial. So he is thus no more a sainted virgin than most
>other show hosts.
>
>Terry Gross does a good job of poking holes in windbags, too. She does it
>differently, though, by quietly asking persistent questions and not letting
>up. I didn't hear the Franken interview, but I have heard her plenty of
>times pursuing an issue to the discomfort of the guest. Good for her, and
>O'Reilly too, for doing that stuff.
>
>So - I downloaded an MP3 of this famous interview to decide for myself what
>was going on. I heard both of them doing what they do. O'R started off
>with a rude chip on his shoulder from the outset. He was in lecture mode,
>and was patronizing and condescending. He put on his very best --if you
>don't agree with me like any right-thinking American then there's something
>wrong with you---hat. Who can possibly argue with anyone who says that?
>
>I did NOT hear Gross focus on Franken throughout the interview, and in fact
>I heard her ask O'R lots of questions about who he is and how he came to be,
>just like she always does. Sure she had an agenda - what show host doesn't?
>- and the agenda I heard was "how come you are so controversial and why do
>you think you are always right and exempt from people pointing that out to
>you?" This is the kind of thing O'R asks about all the time,except he just
>tells them they're pinheads, so she was committing no major sin in my book.
>
>Then the end of the show - what exquisite radio! O'R starts ranting about
>the listeners knowing what's happening and this is NPR, what did one expect,
>bla bla bla, then walks off in a huff. To my ears he had a tantrum meltdown
>and gave NPR, Gross, and Fresh Air much more power and credence than if he
>had just answered her questions and engaged in conversation with her. I
>thought he was going to start talking about black helicopters and
>secular-media conspiracy theories. He brought this reaction on all by
>himself.
>
>Then there's the famous "empty-chair" questioning technique that Gross
>supposedly pulled on him at the very end. She asked him a question, which
>she couldn't get through because he blustered his way off the show, then
>capped the interview off by finishing the question she had already started
>to ask. This was not unfair to my ears, and again, was the kind of thing
>that O'R does on a consistent basis, but much more civilly.
>
>My estimation of O'R went down because of the interview, but it was totally
>his responsibility. He could have , and SHOULD have, handled it with more
>civility and aplomb, and talked about these things with her. I mean, she
>wasn't setting traps for him, she was just asking him about contentious
>issue that she had observed and thought about, for God's sake. I expected
>more of him because I like a lot of what he says and what he stands for, not
>because I didn't like him in the first place!
>
>THere. Probably regret I wrote it, but..
>

Ok Carlos, for the sake of discussion lets say you're Terry Gross's
producer for "Fresh Air" rather than the producer of your local NPR show.

When the NPR Ombudsman hands you your head on a platter for being unfair,
unethical and for furthering the impression that NPR has a liberal bias in how
in treats guests, what do you do? Do you just protest that from your point of
view you did no wrong? Do you take a breath and take a couple of weeks to
reflect again on how you view things, and review your basic assumptions in
order to check yourself? Or do you keep quiet but just think internally that
the Ombudsman "sold you out" as someone here who shares your opinion on the
interview has suggested? (Which is the worst possible indictment of NPR I
think, either way you're saying NPR is immoral and unfair, but that accusation
which includes some degree of dishonesty is worse than the first! )

Personally if my professional judgement was so plainly and publically
judged by my own people, I would take time to reflect and reconsider how my
personal poltical bias was affecting my work. And that would require a period
of painful self examination, and the harder it is to see what I did that was
wrong would determine probably how hard that internal work would be.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

> (WillStG)
> Or do you keep quiet but just think internally that
>the Ombudsman "sold you out" as someone here who shares your opinion on the
>interview has suggested? (Which is the worst possible indictment of NPR I
>think, either way you're saying NPR is immoral and unfair, but that
>accusation
>which includes some degree of dishonesty is worse than the first! )

Sorry that was an overstatement and a mistake, I should have "either way
you're saying NRP has _behaved unethically_ and unfairly."

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Carlos Alden]

On 10/24/03 11:35 AM, WillStG eloquently wrote:

> Do you just protest that from your point of
> view you did no wrong? Do you take a breath and take a couple of weeks to
> reflect again on how you view things, and review your basic assumptions in
> order to check yourself? Or do you keep quiet but just think internally that
> the Ombudsman "sold you out" as someone here who shares your opinion on the
> interview has suggested? (Which is the worst possible indictment of NPR I
> think, either way you're saying NPR is immoral and unfair, but that
> accusation
> which includes some degree of dishonesty is worse than the first! )

You know, I really listened for some extreme violations of journalistic
ethics in this broadcast, and, honestly, just heard Terry Gross being Terry
Gross. For the record, I don't mind B.O'R being who he is, either.

But your point is very good, and I would, if I were her, try and see what it
was I might have been missing, especially since my own boss has pointed it
out to me.

In any case, regardless of what I would do if I were her, or what she does
or doesn't do about it, I still come away with the perspective that,
regardless of what idealogy B. O'R represents, he has at least 50% of the
stake in the interview going where it did. To simply point a finger at
Gross and blame her and some fictitious secular-agenda media machine is to
be a victim of the worst sort.

How about B. O'R? Is he going to "take a breath and take a couple of weeks
to reflect again on how (he) view(s) things, and review (his) basic
assumptions in order to check (him)self?" I doubt it, but I didn't hear him
being the innocent lamb being led to the slaughter.
>
> Personally if my professional judgement was so plainly and publically
> judged by my own people, I would take time to reflect and reconsider how my
> personal poltical bias was affecting my work. And that would require a period
> of painful self examination, and the harder it is to see what I did that was
> wrong would determine probably how hard that internal work would be.
>
>
> Will Miho

All well put, Will, and let's hope that anyone who puts themselves out there
as a journalist from any point of view would do the same.

Carlos

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, Carlos Alden
> wrote:

> How about B. O'R? Is he going to "take a breath and take a couple of
> weeks to reflect again on how (he) view(s) things, and review (his) basic
> assumptions in order to check (him)self?" I doubt it, but I didn't hear

I still prefer to strive for a more forthright discourse and not excuse
one person's bad behavior because of another's. Even if Bill doesn't get
it, this doesn't mean that Terry and the rest of us are free to
misbehave. This puts us on the slippery slope to more extreme forms of
the rationalization where it's OK to hold predjudices against and
mistreat the percieved bad guys of the moment.

A common thread in this discussion seems to be "we don't like Bill so
it's OK to treat him badly" and that's an unfortunate rationale.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Carlos Alden]

On 10/24/03 1:39 PM, Jay - atldigi eloquently wrote:

> In article >, Carlos Alden
> > wrote:
>
>> How about B. O'R? Is he going to "take a breath and take a couple of
>> weeks to reflect again on how (he) view(s) things, and review (his) basic
>> assumptions in order to check (him)self?" I doubt it, but I didn't hear
>
> I still prefer to strive for a more forthright discourse and not excuse
> one person's bad behavior because of another's. Even if Bill doesn't get
> it, this doesn't mean that Terry and the rest of us are free to
> misbehave. This puts us on the slippery slope to more extreme forms of
> the rationalization where it's OK to hold predjudices against and
> mistreat the percieved bad guys of the moment.
>
> A common thread in this discussion seems to be "we don't like Bill so
> it's OK to treat him badly" and that's an unfortunate rationale.


Well, to clarify, I stated that I generally like B. O'R, and a lot of his
ideas. (Or maybe you mean Terry Gross doesn't like B'O'R.) I certainly
didn't say it was aacceptable for Terry to be unprofessional due to me, or
her, or anyone else "not liking B. O'R." My point is that B. O'R seemed to
be generating at least half the friction in the interview with his
arrogance, his condescension, his patronizing, and his SPIN. I think he set
himself up with expectations of what Terry, NPR, and his idea of a secular
media are, maybe intentionally, to make it look like he was being
victimized.

I can understand how he might have gone in there like that. I've heard some
guests on his show who don't have a chance merely based on what he thinks
they have to say and where they are coming from. I've heard him twist and
interrupt and cut people off and use rhetoric just to make them sound silly.
Again, my point here is not to say "he does it so it's okay for Terry to
have done it, " but rather to point out that he was a big part of that
interview and it's simply inaccurate to say "oooh, what a bad interviewer,
she wasn't ethical and didn't stick to his book, ooooh, bad liberal agenda,
trying to shoot down someone who stands up for the rest of us against the
liberal elite." To be honest, I think Terry was less harsh on him than
he's been on a lot of guests. And that's fine, isn't it? I mean, she's a
different person and has a different interview style.

Again, for the record, I like a lot of his ideas and what he has to say, and
I think he's a great entertainer as well. If you just look at how the
interview went without filtering it through a political viewpoint, then, in
my opinion, it's pretty clear that he was doing the dance, too.

Carlos

[Luke Kaven]

Jay - atldigi > wrote:

>In article >, Carlos Alden
> wrote:
>
>> How about B. O'R? Is he going to "take a breath and take a couple of
>> weeks to reflect again on how (he) view(s) things, and review (his) basic
>> assumptions in order to check (him)self?" I doubt it, but I didn't hear
>
>I still prefer to strive for a more forthright discourse and not excuse
>one person's bad behavior because of another's. Even if Bill doesn't get
>it, this doesn't mean that Terry and the rest of us are free to
>misbehave. This puts us on the slippery slope to more extreme forms of
>the rationalization where it's OK to hold predjudices against and
>mistreat the percieved bad guys of the moment.
>
>A common thread in this discussion seems to be "we don't like Bill so
>it's OK to treat him badly" and that's an unfortunate rationale.

In the culture wars, there is a complex game involving holding the
opposition to a set of standards, often appropriate ones, while
defending one's own behavior. When the opposition points out that the
accuser is guilty of the same behavior, that is when the discourse
begins to splinter.

One reason for this is that the first side believes the second side is
blind to its own faults, and will deflect well-founded criticism using
any and all means at hand, which raises the fear that the exchange
will result in a net loss for the first side if only the first side
were to concede its own shortcomings, regardless of how well-founded
the criticism is. This perpetuates attacks on both sides ad
inifinitum.

For the record, I find fault on both sides, though I find that each
commits its mistakes in somewhat different "in-group" ways.

As an aside...having lived mostly among liberals myself, I do know
that they are critical of themselves and have a sense of humor about
it. Most don't remember that the whole PC thing began as a bit of
self-deprecating humor. Thirty years ago, all uses of the term PC
were accompanied by rolling of the eyes and the expression of "as if
we have all the answers". Later, someone took that ball and ran with
it.

Luke

[Steve K.]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> >Richard
>
> >> (WillStG) writes:
> >>
> >> > I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less
> >> > than
> >> >sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given
> >> >that
> >he...
>
> >> Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.
>
> >2 points for the man from Michigan.
>
> Naah, 2 points are for actually addressing the issue or
> contributing to
> the dialogue in a meaningful way. Cheap shots for laughs are like a 1/4
> point...

So Will Miho gets to determine (or thinks he does), for everyone, what
"the dialogue" will be and what constitutes meaning? I love the Right
Winger attitude towards everything. You sound just like Bill O'Reilly
himself there. O'Reilly's major contribution to the world is
arrogance--just what we need more of.

(And "cheap shot"? This is our president and vice president for cryin
out loud)

Koen

[Romeo Rondeau]

It's known as "judging others by their actions and yourself by your
intentions"


> In the culture wars, there is a complex game involving holding the
> opposition to a set of standards, often appropriate ones, while
> defending one's own behavior. When the opposition points out that the
> accuser is guilty of the same behavior, that is when the discourse
> begins to splinter.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Not only was it a cheap shot, it wasn't true. I took it to be a cheap laugh,
did you mean something else? Do you really think that you see examples of
this kind of behavior from Bush and Cheney daily? Where do you get your
information? Oh, you mean you were exagerrating? For effect? For a laugh
from your liberal friends? To take shot at Will? To take a shot at right
wingers? Please explain...


> > >> > I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but
less
> > >> > than
> > >> >sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given
> > >> >that
> > >he...
> >
> > >> Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.
> >
> > >2 points for the man from Michigan.
> >
> > Naah, 2 points are for actually addressing the issue or
> > contributing to
> > the dialogue in a meaningful way. Cheap shots for laughs are like a 1/4
> > point...
>
> So Will Miho gets to determine (or thinks he does), for everyone, what
> "the dialogue" will be and what constitutes meaning? I love the Right
> Winger attitude towards everything. You sound just like Bill O'Reilly
> himself there. O'Reilly's major contribution to the world is
> arrogance--just what we need more of.
>
> (And "cheap shot"? This is our president and vice president for cryin
> out loud)
>
> Koen

[[email protected]]

>
> So Will Miho gets to determine (or thinks he does), for everyone, what
> "the dialogue" will be and what constitutes meaning? I love the Right
> Winger attitude towards everything. You sound just like Bill O'Reilly
> himself there. O'Reilly's major contribution to the world is
> arrogance--just what we need more of.
>
> (And "cheap shot"? This is our president and vice president for cryin
> out loud)
>
> Koen

Aahhh, the old "who are you to judge" argument. Everything's
relative, right?
Well let me point out that you've judged that Will Miho
determines what "the dialog" will be for everyone, and that Bill
O'Reilly's major contribution to the world is arrogance. Your
statement is just an elitist way of saying, "shut up." It's also a
highbrow way of doing what you all are accusing Bill O' Reilly of
doing. Not allowing people to state their points.
What confuses me is that you mix in a little absolute (corny, I
know) when you say, "I love the Right Winger attitude towards
everything." If the Right Wingers have the same attitude towards
everything, then that would be an absolute, no? Maybe you're more of a
conservative than you think there Koen.

[[email protected]]

(WillStG) writes:

> I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
>sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given
that he

Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.
>
> (And "cheap shot"? This is our president and vice president for cryin
> out loud)


And another thing... I would also characterize that comment as a
cheap shot myself. Maybe if the comment was directed towards one of
your liberal heros you would see it more clearly. But I'll clear it up
for you anyway. When someone states that we see examples of Bush and
Cheney doing things that are legal yet immoral on a daily basis, it
would seem that then there should be many examples that one could give
to back such a claim, however they have not given examples. This is
hit and run tactic. If that's not a cheap shot then what is?
Should it be assumed that everyone should know what was implied
there? I guess you could make that assumption if everyone got their
"news" from The Nation and Barbara Streisand's web site but
fortunately, not everyone does.

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, Carlos Alden
> wrote:


> Well, to clarify, I stated that I generally like B. O'R, and a lot of his
> ideas. (Or maybe you mean Terry Gross doesn't like B'O'R.) I certainly
> didn't say it was aacceptable for Terry to be unprofessional due to me,
> or her, or anyone else "not liking B. O'R." My point is that B. O'R
> seemed to be generating at least half the friction in the interview with his

I was speaking of the thread in general, not trying to single you out.
That one part of your post was simply the catalyst at the moment. Your
point is understood - that it takes two to tango. My point, which I
think you understand, is that it would have been better for Terry not to
have fed the bears.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Luke Kaven]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:

>It's known as "judging others by their actions and yourself by your
>intentions"
>
>> In the culture wars, there is a complex game involving holding the
>> opposition to a set of standards, often appropriate ones, while
>> defending one's own behavior. When the opposition points out that the
>> accuser is guilty of the same behavior, that is when the discourse
>> begins to splinter.

I pretty much agree, only I'd add that if someone has a *genuine*
intention, then they also have an accompanying disposition to actually
behave accordingly.

Luke

[Carlos Alden]

On 10/25/03 2:00 AM, Jay - atldigi eloquently wrote:

> My point, which I
> think you understand, is that it would have been better for Terry not to
> have fed the bears.
>
> --
> Jay Frigoletto

Yes! Nicely put. However, I don't object to talk journalists (as a lot,
not just this specific incident) feeding the bears as a way to see who they
are and what they do.

Carlos

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, Carlos Alden
> wrote:

> On 10/25/03 2:00 AM, Jay - atldigi eloquently wrote:

> > is that it would have been better for Terry not to have fed the bears.

> Yes! Nicely put. However, I don't object to talk journalists (as a lot,
> not just this specific incident) feeding the bears as a way to see who
> they are and what they do.
>
> Carlos

Yes, though I would think that they should start off cordially to get
that side of the picture before they start waving the bacon around.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[nmm]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 9:23 PM, wrote:
>
>If being educated is a cause for derision, what would be preferred?
>

"Ignorance is Strength", what was the reasoning behind that again?

I think it was in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", it said
people who speak English too well are derided as being stuffy and pompus.



I liked Naomi Klien's peice in the The Nation about Hugo Chavez a few
months back . Bush phoned up to congradulate the millitary coupe
officers... but their Coupe only lasted three days and then democratically
elected Chavez was back.

I guess America doesn't think Democracy is the way to go, in Venezuela.


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[nmm]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 9:23 PM, wrote:
>
>If being educated is a cause for derision, what would be preferred?
>

"Ignorance is Strength", what was the reasoning behind that again?

I think it was in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", it said
people who speak English too well are derided as being stuffy and pompus.



I liked Naomi Klien's peice in the The Nation about Hugo Chavez a few
months back . Bush phoned up to congradulate the millitary coupe
officers... but their Coupe only lasted three days and then democratically
elected Chavez was back.

I guess America doesn't think Democracy is the way to go, in Venezuela.


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[Kurt Riemann]

On 25 Oct 2003 00:23:31 -0700, wrote:

> If that's not a cheap shot then what is?

You give us an example in your next paragraph . . .

>I guess you could make that assumption if everyone got their
>"news" from The Nation and Barbara Streisand's web site but
>fortunately, not everyone does.

I subscribe to the Nation. It's not "news," it's analysis of current
events in the light of circumstances not conveyed by outlets such as
Fox or CNN. The Nation has been in publication for nearly 150 years.

Where else would you find out that the Catholic Church in Africa is
saying condoms don't stop STDs or pregnancy, therefore giving millions
of Africans a higher risk of lingering, painful death by stopping
their use? That's not something I find trumpeted in The Christian
Science Monitor. But nonetheless it's true. It's not information I
like, but it's information that's important.

It's not left wing paranoia that we read about, it's the very real
effects of willful ignorance on the part of ANYONE that effects the
world as a whole. If you say that it's the Right, then so be it. To
those who have the worldview that is in the demographic of Nation
subscribers, anyone who is endangering large swaths of the world
politically, economically or socially is subject to scrutiny.

Oh, and I just love how the word "elite" is used to dismiss anyone who
feels education on issues is an important part of being an American.

If being educated is a cause for derision, what would be preferred?



Kurt

[Kurt Riemann]

On 25 Oct 2003 00:23:31 -0700, wrote:

> If that's not a cheap shot then what is?

You give us an example in your next paragraph . . .

>I guess you could make that assumption if everyone got their
>"news" from The Nation and Barbara Streisand's web site but
>fortunately, not everyone does.

I subscribe to the Nation. It's not "news," it's analysis of current
events in the light of circumstances not conveyed by outlets such as
Fox or CNN. The Nation has been in publication for nearly 150 years.

Where else would you find out that the Catholic Church in Africa is
saying condoms don't stop STDs or pregnancy, therefore giving millions
of Africans a higher risk of lingering, painful death by stopping
their use? That's not something I find trumpeted in The Christian
Science Monitor. But nonetheless it's true. It's not information I
like, but it's information that's important.

It's not left wing paranoia that we read about, it's the very real
effects of willful ignorance on the part of ANYONE that effects the
world as a whole. If you say that it's the Right, then so be it. To
those who have the worldview that is in the demographic of Nation
subscribers, anyone who is endangering large swaths of the world
politically, economically or socially is subject to scrutiny.

Oh, and I just love how the word "elite" is used to dismiss anyone who
feels education on issues is an important part of being an American.

If being educated is a cause for derision, what would be preferred?



Kurt

[[email protected]]

> I subscribe to the Nation. It's not "news," it's analysis of current
> events in the light of circumstances not conveyed by outlets such as
> Fox or CNN. The Nation has been in publication for nearly 150 years.

Analysis.... That reminds me of the commercial for the New York
Times where the lady says "I read the New York Times because it gives
me so many different ways to understand a story." How many different
ways do we need to understand a story? Well, certainly the way the
editor wants you to understand it? How about reporting the facts and
letting us sort it out? This reminds me of when you watch a State of
the Union. Afterwards the network anchor will come on and explain to
you what you've just heard. I don't need to be told what I just heard!
For an experiment, the next time you watch one of these, switch around
to all the networks and see how differently they explain what you've
just heard. Sometimes I wonder if they all listened to the same
speech.
Be careful with the word "analysis" when used in context with The
Nation. Post Op and persuasive writng would be better descriptors.
It's common for people to read publications that support their
world view. I do it. However I also like to sniff around to see what's
going on in the other camps as well. Tom Paine, The Nation, The Voice,
even Barbara Streisand's Truth alerts when I need a laugh (it's not
only her ideas, but her spelling and grammar that really entertain me;
Dear Mr. Gebhard!!!) So believe me, I see these issues from many
sides, just like the New York Times lady, and try to trim out the
rhetoric and opinion and get to the facts. As a conservative, I even
find Fox News' bias to be annoying.

> Where else would you find out that the Catholic Church in Africa is
> saying condoms don't stop STDs or pregnancy, therefore giving millions
> of Africans a higher risk of lingering, painful death by stopping
> their use? That's not something I find trumpeted in The Christian
> Science Monitor. But nonetheless it's true. It's not information I
> like, but it's information that's important.

It's not at all surprising that a Nation reader would bring up a
piece that associates the Catholic Church with Africa's aids epidemic
as an example. You've read my name in my previous posts and if you're
as educated as you say, I can guess that you assumed that I'm Roman
Catholic and chose that example accordingly. Picking on the Catholic
Church doesn't take any balls bro. I dare you to say something
negative about African Americans or homosexuals. That would show some
real character.

> It's not left wing paranoia that we read about, it's the very real
> effects of willful ignorance on the part of ANYONE that effects the
> world as a whole. If you say that it's the Right, then so be it. To
> those who have the worldview that is in the demographic of Nation
> subscribers, anyone who is endangering large swaths of the world
> politically, economically or socially is subject to scrutiny.

That's all well and good as long as it's true.

> Oh, and I just love how the word "elite" is used to dismiss anyone who
> feels education on issues is an important part of being an American.
>
> If being educated is a cause for derision, what would be preferred?

I use the word elite to catagorize the people who think they know
what's best for us and want to impose their will upon us because
that's who they are and that's what they do.
You seem to imply that being educated on the issues is exclusive
to liberals. If that IS what you are saying then I would call that
statement bigoted. Yeah, that's right. Liberals ARE capable of being
bigots.
And by the way, the word elite has nothing to do with education.
Check your dictionary.

Brendan "Irish Catholic" Flaherty
I can tell when someone's gunnin' for me

[Altasrecrd]

>

>Picking on the Catholic
>Church doesn't take any balls bro. I dare you to say something
>negative about African Americans or homosexuals.

man, you really know how to address a point, don't you?

I should elaborate; you really know how to address a question the way a
Republican would.

































"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering

[John LeBlanc]

"Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> >Picking on the Catholic
> >Church doesn't take any balls bro. I dare you to say something
> >negative about African Americans or homosexuals.
>
> man, you really know how to address a point, don't you?
>
> I should elaborate; you really know how to address a question the way a
> Republican would.


Pot, kettle, black.

John

[John LeBlanc]

"Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
...

> "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
> All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
> pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
> - Hermann Goering


Not much of a fan of WWII history, are you.

John

[[email protected]]

(WillStG) wrote in message

"..We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP.. "


You might want to nose around Rupert Murdoch and his holdings, since
his News International Corp. owns 80% of Fox Entertainment. I guess
that's Balanced.

[WillStG]

(WillStG) wrote in message
>
>"..We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP.. "
>
>
>You might want to nose around Rupert Murdoch and his holdings, since
>his News International Corp. owns 80% of Fox Entertainment. I guess
>that's Balanced.

I sense you want to get into a fight about something Tom, but I can't
quite figure out about what.

Do you think it's a bad thing that a News company owns an Entertainment
Company, like NewsCorp and Fox, is it really better do you think that an
Entertainment Company owns a News Division like say at Disney/ABC? Which
arrangement do you think will end up with the investigative journalism being
interfered with less? And is it a good thing to have a corporate board that
can interfere with a News operation like at MSNBC, or is it better to have an
individual President able to make decisions who answers only to the owner of
the company like here? The latter I would submit is more in the profile of how
traditionally newspapers and News organization have been run.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> (WillStG) wrote in message
> >
> >"..We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP.. "
> >
> >
> >You might want to nose around Rupert Murdoch and his holdings, since
> >his News International Corp. owns 80% of Fox Entertainment. I guess
> >that's Balanced.
>
> I sense you want to get into a fight about something Tom, but I
can't
> quite figure out about what.
>
> Do you think it's a bad thing that a News company owns an
Entertainment
> Company, like NewsCorp and Fox, is it really better do you think that an
> Entertainment Company owns a News Division like say at Disney/ABC?

Matters not. I don't watch television news. Or television. It's all drivel.

Glenn D.

[nmm]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 2:06 PM,
> wrote:
(WillStG) wrote in message
>
>"..We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP.. "
>
>
>You might want to nose around Rupert Murdoch and his holdings, since
>his News International Corp. owns 80% of Fox Entertainment. I guess
>that's Balanced.
>

This isn't the problem .. the problem is that Reagan overturned the laws
that made it manditory to present opposing viewpoints on an issue. Now we
here the one sided corporate line from very one sided corporate news. The
idea that it's Liberal Media Biased is a joke.. Al Jazeera might be
considered Liberal biased. The American media, like their corporate masters
dictate are NOT!

For example; Today's presidential press confrence Bush said "How
effective an organisation is the UN if it's resolutions are not enforced"
and not a single so called reporter asked him "Well what about the 74
outstanding unenforced resolutions with regards to Israel".
Pretty obvious question




---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[Glenn Dowdy]

"nmm" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 2:06 PM,
> > wrote:
> (WillStG) wrote in message
> >
> >"..We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP.. "
> >
> >
> >You might want to nose around Rupert Murdoch and his holdings, since
> >his News International Corp. owns 80% of Fox Entertainment. I guess
> >that's Balanced.
> >
>
> This isn't the problem .. the problem is that Reagan overturned the laws
> that made it manditory to present opposing viewpoints on an issue. Now we
> here the one sided corporate line from very one sided corporate news. The
> idea that it's Liberal Media Biased is a joke.. Al Jazeera might be
> considered Liberal biased. The American media, like their corporate
masters
> dictate are NOT!
>
According to Al Franken (okay, okay), newspapers enjoying 56% of the
country's circulation came out in favor of GWB in the last election. He does
spend a lot of time in his last book looking at the "liberal bias" of the
media.

Glenn D.

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "John LeBlanc"
> wrote:
>
>"Altasrecrd" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>>
>> >Picking on the Catholic
>> >Church doesn't take any balls bro. I dare you to say something
>> >negative about African Americans or homosexuals.
>>
>> man, you really know how to address a point, don't you?
>>
>> I should elaborate; you really know how to address a question the way a
>> Republican would.
>
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
>
>John


Yer makin' the group look like we're a bunch of infantile idiots.


Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Steven Sullivan]

WillStG > wrote:
> >Charles Thomas

> >It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
> >interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
> >something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
> >take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
> >interview.
> >

> No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
> something wrong. At this point, your argument is with no one other than NPR.
> The NPR Ombudsman says in his professional judgement they breached Journalistic
> ethics and were unfair to O'Reilly, they are judging themselves. It his gig to
> judge such things. NPR knows Terry Gross screwed up, it's just you who lacks
> the objectivity, moral clarity or education in the subject to understand why
> that is.


Typical liberal behavior: they're concerned with fairness and
prone to self-criticism.


Whereas for Fox, 'fairness' is just a slogan, and self-criticism is
for sissies. When's the last time Fox' ombudsman publicly chastised *its*
interviewers for being less than 'fair and balanced'?




--
-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

[BLCKOUT420]

To quote Bill O'Reilly of Fox News: "And I said on my program, if, if the
Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and we find nothing in 6 months, I
will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration
again." -- March 18, 2003.

Tomorrow is the day folks.You will see if O'reilly is a man of his word. He has
had thousands of people reminding him of his promise through emails to Fox
news...I guess we will just see.

[WillStG]

>Steven Sullivan

>Typical liberal behavior: they're concerned with fairness and
>prone to self-criticism.
>
>
>Whereas for Fox, 'fairness' is just a slogan, and self-criticism is
>for sissies. When's the last time Fox' ombudsman publicly chastised *its*
>
>interviewers for being less than 'fair and balanced'?

Steve, you are mistaken in this opinion, not that I have never been
personally irritated by some of the commentary I have heard on FNC. But in the
interest of helping you in your quest for media balance which you apparently
have so thirsted and longed for, let me suggest you watch "Fox Newswatch"
Saturdays on FNC. The moderator is on the Newscorp board, the commentators are
Media Professionals and Educators from across the political spectrum, and they
criticize everyone, including my employer Fox News Channel all the time.

I earnestly hope that drinking from the clear waters of intellectual
honesty, wherever they may be found, will help you to manage a greater respect
for diversity of opinion, for those who have opinions that are not in lock step
with your own politically, and that this will help you to play well with the
others.

Regards,

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(BLCKOUT420) wrote:

> To quote Bill O'Reilly of Fox News: "And I said on my program, if, if the
> Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and we find nothing in 6 months,
> I
> will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration
> again." -- March 18, 2003.
>
> Tomorrow is the day folks.You will see if O'reilly is a man of his word. He
> has
> had thousands of people reminding him of his promise through emails to Fox
> news...I guess we will just see.



This is me holding my breath.

CT

[Steven Sullivan]

WillStG > wrote:
> >Steven Sullivan

> >Typical liberal behavior: they're concerned with fairness and
> >prone to self-criticism.
> >
> >
> >Whereas for Fox, 'fairness' is just a slogan, and self-criticism is
> >for sissies. When's the last time Fox' ombudsman publicly chastised *its*
> >
> >interviewers for being less than 'fair and balanced'?

> Steve, you are mistaken in this opinion, not that I have never been
> personally irritated by some of the commentary I have heard on FNC. But in the
> interest of helping you in your quest for media balance which you apparently
> have so thirsted and longed for, let me suggest you watch "Fox Newswatch"
> Saturdays on FNC. The moderator is on the Newscorp board, the commentators are
> Media Professionals and Educators from across the political spectrum, and they
> criticize everyone, including my employer Fox News Channel all the time.

> I earnestly hope that drinking from the clear waters of intellectual
> honesty, wherever they may be found, will help you to manage a greater respect
> for diversity of opinion, for those who have opinions that are not in lock step
> with your own politically, and that this will help you to play well with the
> others.


To equate Fox Newswatch panelists criticizing Fox (along with other media outlets)
with an the *NPR ombudsman* publicly saying that NPR did wrong is simply......


to be expected of you, I guess.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

[S O'Neill]

Well?

Charles Thomas wrote:
> In article >,
> (BLCKOUT420) wrote:
>
>
>>To quote Bill O'Reilly of Fox News: "And I said on my program, if, if the
>>Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and we find nothing in 6 months,
>>I
>>will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration
>>again." -- March 18, 2003.
>>
>>Tomorrow is the day folks.You will see if O'reilly is a man of his word. He
>>has
>>had thousands of people reminding him of his promise through emails to Fox
>>news...I guess we will just see.
>
>
>
>
> This is me holding my breath.
>
> CT

[WillStG]

>Steven Sullivan
>To equate Fox Newswatch panelists criticizing Fox (along with other media
>outlets)
>with an the *NPR ombudsman* publicly saying that NPR did wrong is simply......
>
>
>to be expected of you, I guess.

I'll overlook the intended insult for the moment Steven. But I have gone
upstairs about as high as one can get and stepped in some pretty deep crap here
in the past, you really have no idea how much I have personally been willing to
put at risk for what I thought was right and wrong as far as FNC's coverage my
friend. True, if some called that stupid I suppose I might have a hard time
arguing it was not, but I have been around the block on this. So - do you
really have an issue you wish addressed or are you just posing with an open
mouth for the cameras?

The moderator of the Fox NewsWatch Eric Burns has had issues regarding what
I considered unfair journalism at FNC addressed when I referred actual injured
parties to him in the past. I think he is or was on the Newcorp board (I could
be wrong), but in any event he some clout if you have a real issue ( a couple
Emmy's for media criticism). You can also address concerns to
. And BTW, if you also wish to complain to ABC/Disney
about "ABC World News Tonight" not having an ombudsman the address is
. Maybe if they cut a few more techs they can hire
one.

If it is insufficient to you to know where best to direct complaints, or to
your own need to be telling people how they should run their own private
companies, please feel free to create your own International News Organization
yourself and by all means spend your budget accordingly. You could be your
own Rupert Murdock someday ( hey, most of his big newpapers have ombudsmen)...
It's freedom baby, yeah...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ScotFraser]

<< If it is insufficient to you to know where best to direct complaints, or to
your own need to be telling people how they should run their own private
companies, please feel free to create your own International News Organization
yourself >>

News? News is reported by journalists. What you got there at Fox/Murdoch, Will,
is entertainment.
<g>


Scott Fraser

[[email protected]]

What's the latest, Will? Did he say anything?


S O'Neill > wrote in message >...

> Well?
>
> Charles Thomas wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (BLCKOUT420) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>To quote Bill O'Reilly of Fox News: "And I said on my program, if, if the
> >>Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and we find nothing in 6 months,
> >>I
> >>will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration
> >>again." -- March 18, 2003.
> >>
> >>Tomorrow is the day folks.You will see if O'reilly is a man of his word. He
> >>has
> >>had thousands of people reminding him of his promise through emails to Fox
> >>news...I guess we will just see.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This is me holding my breath.
> >
> > CT

[WillStG]

>What's the latest, Will? Did he say anything?
>

I dunno, it wasn't my turn to watch him I guess. I usually put my kid to
bed at 8 O'Clock.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(ScotFraser)
>News? News is reported by journalists. What you got there at Fox/Murdoch,
>Will,
>is entertainment.
><g>

Gee thanks Scott! <g> But we also do have journalists in the field, news
analysts, commentators, and try to involve the audience in news discussion
(take calls and read the mail).

The problem with anchors not sharing their personal opinions is they
don't become a star that way. That, and the follow the herd mentality are a
lot of what drives TV journalism IMO. Some people copy Fox News now because we
kicked CNN's butt, but some day they will follow whoever else is next.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> The problem with anchors not sharing their personal opinions is they
> don't become a star that way. That, and the follow the herd mentality are a
> lot of what drives TV journalism IMO. Some people copy Fox News now because
> we
> kicked CNN's butt, but some day they will follow whoever else is next.

It is a big part of the problem.

God help us whenever someone finally starts putting executions live on
TV. The scariest thing about the movie "The Running Man" is just how
well a tv show like that would do in the ratings.

Five years from now we'll have "DTV" and "FTV".

Twenty-four hours of Death and ****ing, respectively, every day.

CT

[ScotFraser]

<< The problem with anchors not sharing their personal opinions is they
don't become a star that way. That, and the follow the herd mentality are a
lot of what drives TV journalism IMO. >>

Well, I think ALL TV, whether journalistic or not, is driven by ratings, &
that's why TV news is doomed to never have much integrity.

<< Some people copy Fox News now because we
kicked CNN's butt, but some day they will follow whoever else is next. >>

And that whoever else will be the one providing the most entertaining, lurid,
sensationalistic version of the news, aimed at the least educated portion of
the population.


Scott Fraser

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

> And that whoever else will be the one providing the most entertaining, lurid,
> sensationalistic version of the news, aimed at the least educated portion of
> the population.

Amen, Scott.

Not exactly something to crow about, IMO.

"We managed to lower the bar more than anyone else! Woo-HOO!"

Now if you can get on here and tell me about how Fox managed to snag
more awards for journalistic excellence than anyone else, that's one
thing. But to say "We got the best ratings"? Doesn't impress me with a
news channel.

Some of the best and most important reporting is about the stuff nobody
wants to hear.

CT

[ScotFraser]

<< Some of the best and most important reporting is about the stuff nobody
wants to hear. >>

Or about the stuff the administration doesn't want you to hear.


Scott Fraser

[WillStG]

(ScotFraser)
>Well, I think ALL TV, whether journalistic or not, is driven by ratings,
>&
>that's why TV news is doomed to never have much integrity.

Sales mean nothing in the studio business, eh Scott? <g>

>And that whoever else will be the one providing the most entertaining, lurid,
sensationalistic version of the news, aimed at the least educated portion of
the population. >

As much as I am tired of hearing about the Peterson Case and Micheal
Jackson myself Scott, I have to take issue with this. Frankly, I think a
somewhat holier-than-thou attitude regarding your largely left of center
political positions color your perception of why FNC has been successful, and
so limit your ability to perceive the reality "as it is". To see the truth you
have to put that stuff aside, and if you cannot you won't be able to
effectively analyze, let alone counter, the success of FNC. This is why the
eggheads at the NY Times keep inviting Roger Ailes to speak to them about FNC's
success, that's what smart people do.

In fact I think it *quite* important not to underestimate the audience,
and I know for a fact that I am not in the minority at FNC in that opinion.
Everybody knows when you are talking down to them, and they know when you are
trying to play them. I can't say none of that goes on here - it's everywhere
and news does have slow days. But I know people try pretty hard to be better
than average here, and who come to play everyday. Not everyone is totally
sincere or nice, but there are a lot of smart people and everybody works their
butts off. If you wish to take the position that counts for nothing, you of
course are free to think as you wish. But I think you are missing the big
picture, and details like "all us little people" ...

BTW, I have copy of "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television" on
my bookshelf (more like 100 arguments!). There are ways to overcome the
limitations of a medium, if you are aware of what they are.

Regards,

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> In fact I think it *quite* important not to underestimate the audience,
> and I know for a fact that I am not in the minority at FNC in that opinion.
> Everybody knows when you are talking down to them, and they know when you are
> trying to play them.

Exactly, that's why NASCAR and Pro Wrestling will NEVER be successful.

Oh, wait.


CT

[WillStG]

>Charles Thomas
>Exactly, that's why NASCAR and Pro Wrestling will NEVER be successful.
>
>Oh, wait.

Well, since as many liberals as conservatives watch FNC, exactly what are
you trying to say Charles? And what when did you get into the study of News
Channel Demographics?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> Well, since as many liberals as conservatives watch FNC, exactly what are
> you trying to say Charles?

I thought my point was quite clear.

You said that programming won't be successful if it panders to the
audience, or treats the audience like it's not intelligent.

I pointed out, through the use of humor, that there are successful
programs which do just that (e.g. NASCAR and Professional Wrestling). I
could have pointed out many more (like Elimidate and Jerry Springer).

I'm not surprised you didn't understand the point, Will, because you
have historically demonstrated a seemingly endless inability to grasp
what people are actually saying, preferring instead to read your own
meaning into everything other people say and twist the meaning around to
your own ends.

How you got anything having to do with liberals and conservatives out of
a comment about NASCAR and the WWE is truly a mystery for the ages. I'm
only certain that I have no interest in gaining any insight on the
thought process which brought you there.

The bottom line is that my comment really wasn't a point for you to get,
Will. It was more for the others in the group who understand the
concept of humor.

So just let it go and have a good day.

CT

[ScotFraser]

<< I dunno, but you can't credibly
say really that he never ever had WMD, like some people are saying now.
>>

Nobody is saying that. What they're saying is that Saddam didn't have WMDs in
2003, when invaded under the pretext of having said weapons.


Scott Fraser

[WillStG]

(ScotFraser)

><< I dunno, but you can't credibly
>say really that he never ever had WMD, like some people are saying now.
> >>
>
>Nobody is saying that. What they're saying is that Saddam didn't have WMDs
>in
>2003, when invaded under the pretext of having said weapons.

Nobody Scott? And saying he didn't have them in 2003 is still drawing
conclusions based on insufficient data, given they have only searched 1/10 of
the real estate used for weapons purposes in the past. And it is also a real
possibility they moved them over the border into Syria.

So did you get invited to the big "Hate Bush" party Larry David's wife is
throwing today? <g>

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>Charles Thomas >
>I thought my point was quite clear.
>
>You said that programming won't be successful if it panders to the audience,
or treats the audience like it's not intelligent.
I pointed out, through the use of humor, that there are successful programs
which do just that (e.g. NASCAR and Professional Wrestling). I could have
pointed out many more (like Elimidate and Jerry Springer). >

Sigh... And my point was that to draw a comparison between the success
of FNC with NASCAR and the WWF (which I have also done audio for), is implying
that we share the share Demographic, in other words those "ignorant least
common denominator viewers" you would suggest are behind our success. As the
actual numbers are something like 52% conservative to 48% liberal, I am
suggesting that it's difficult to claim that political ignorance or slant is
the basis of our success, and were you to actually study the marketing
demographics you'd find our viewers are better educated than the average, and
heavily in something like the 25 -54 age range IIRC, which is actually younger
than most news demographics.

>I'm not surprised you didn't understand the point, Will, because you
>have historically demonstrated a seemingly endless inability to grasp
>what people are actually saying, preferring instead to read your own
>meaning into everything other people say and twist the meaning around to
>
>your own ends.

Take your best shot Charles. You're a very funny man.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

>my point was that to draw a comparison between the success
>of FNC with NASCAR and the WWF (which I have also done audio for), is
>implying that we share the share Demographic, in other words those
>"ignorant least common denominator viewers" you would suggest are
>behind our success.

My point was to say that programming needn't be intelligent to be
successful. Period. All the rest of the spin you've put on my
motivations are applicable solely in your head.

I didn't even say a single thing about FNC in my post, Will. I mererly
rebutted your statement that programming won't be successful if it
underestimates the intelligence of the audience.

Therefore, I'm done discussing this point. I made my point, you made
yours, and apparently they had nothing to do with each other. End of
story.

> the actual numbers [of those who watch Fox News] are something like
> 52% conservative to 48% liberal

I'm curious where you're getting those numbers.

Are they the split of who actually watches Fox News, or the split of
those who are "Fox News Subscribers"?

Not saying that they are here, but in the past (in highly public cases,
as I'm sure you're aware) Fox has claimed that everyone who has cable TV
and receives FNC is a "Fox News Subscriber".

And giving the political stats on "Fox News Subscribers" (i.e., people
who own cable) is hardly the same as the breakdown of who actually
watches Fox News.

I'm not saying that your numbers are wrong, but if someone told me that
48% of the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are liberals I'd find the
study that came up with that statistic questionable to say the least.

CT

[Jerry Steiger]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message
...
> << Some of the best and most important reporting is about the stuff nobody
> wants to hear. >>
>
> Or about the stuff the administration doesn't want you to hear.


Yeah, but it's the stuff the newsmen don't want you to hear that you will
never, ever hear.

Sorry, I couldn't restrain myself. Back to giving thanks that there are
actually threads about microphones, preamps, monitors, and music.

Jerry Steiger

[WillStG]

>Charles Thomas
>Therefore, I'm done discussing this point. I made my point, you made
>yours, and apparently they had nothing to do with each other. End of
>story.

Fine. And if you don't want a dialogue, don't take a cheap shot at a guy
then say not to bother to answer. Not that you even seem to notice when you do
it. I don't believe you are the kind of guy who checks himself very often.

>I'm curious where you're getting those numbers.
>
>Are they the split of who actually watches Fox News, or the split of
>those who are "Fox News Subscribers"?

Actual sampling of viewers, according to Nielsen. Like I asked you, when
did you start studying demographics? You have implicit assumptions about what
the viewership of FNC is comprised of, based on your personal political views.
And my point was that those assumptions are wrong.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ScotFraser]

<< Nobody Scott? >>

That's right.

<< And saying he didn't have them in 2003 is still drawing
conclusions based on insufficient data, given they have only searched 1/10 of
the real estate used for weapons purposes in the past.>>

Yeah, right, sometime in 2019 an American Humvee is going to run right smack
into ten tons of nerve gas that somehow was overlooked before.

<< And it is also a real
possibility they moved them over the border into Syria. >>

It's also a real possibility I'm hiding them up my ass.

<<So did you get invited to the big "Hate Bush" party Larry David's wife
is
throwing today? <g>>>

Sounds like fun but I think my invitation was lost in the mail. Btw, every
party I attend is a Hate Bush party.
Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< Yeah, but it's the stuff the newsmen don't want you to hear that you will
never, ever hear. >>

Well, no, Jerry, that's just not true at all. Newsmen don't make corporate
policy.


Scott Fraser

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> You have implicit assumptions about what
> the viewership of FNC is comprised of, based on your personal political
> views.
> And my point was that those assumptions are wrong.


Have a good day, Will.

CT

[ScotFraser]

<< >Well, I think ALL TV, whether journalistic or not, is driven by ratings,
>&
>that's why TV news is doomed to never have much integrity.>>

<<Sales mean nothing in the studio business, eh Scott? <g>>>

Irrelevant. Recording studios are not attempting to convince the public that
they are disseminating truth.

< >And that whoever else will be the one providing the most entertaining,
lurid,
sensationalistic version of the news, aimed at the least educated portion of
the population. > >>

<< As much as I am tired of hearing about the Peterson Case and Micheal
Jackson myself Scott, I have to take issue with this. Frankly, I think a
somewhat holier-than-thou attitude regarding your largely left of center
political positions color your perception of why FNC has been successful, and
so limit your ability to perceive the reality "as it is". >>

Don't get defensive Will, I'm not talking about Fox here, I'm talking about ALL
TV. My political stance has nothing to do with the fact that all broadcasters
have dumbed down to appeal to the least educated sector of the population.

<< To see the truth you
have to put that stuff aside, and if you cannot you won't be able to
effectively analyze, let alone counter, the success of FNC.>>

Again, you don't have to defend Fox to me, I'm not singling them out. The whole
industry aims at the lowest common denominator. Fox may be leading the pack in
the headlong rush to the tabloidization of what passes for news these days, but
they're all guilty of shirking journalistic responsibility.

<< In fact I think it *quite* important not to underestimate the audience,
and I know for a fact that I am not in the minority at FNC in that opinion.
Everybody knows when you are talking down to them, and they know when you are
trying to play them.>>

I would say that if TV audiences realize they are being talked down to (which I
doubt) they must like it. How can one underestimate the audience for
"Blind-Dating-A-Millionaire-Who-Isn't"?

<< I can't say none of that goes on here - it's everywhere
and news does have slow days. But I know people try pretty hard to be better
than average here, and who come to play everyday. Not everyone is totally
sincere or nice, but there are a lot of smart people and everybody works their
butts off. If you wish to take the position that counts for nothing, you of
course are free to think as you wish. But I think you are missing the big
picture, and details like "all us little people" ...>>

It doesn't matter. Policy is set by the board of directors with one sole aim:
increase ratings, thus make more money. Journalism as an honest career doesn't
figure into that equation.

<< BTW, I have copy of "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television"
on
my bookshelf (more like 100 arguments!). There are ways to overcome the
limitations of a medium, if you are aware of what they are.>>

Public funding, for instance?
Scott Fraser

[WillStG]

(ScotFraser)
>Show me the nerve gas.

Is it your honest beleif that Saddam never used nerve gas against the
Iranians or the Kurds?

Talk about revisisionist.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> (ScotFraser)
> >Show me the nerve gas.
>
> Is it your honest beleif that Saddam never used nerve gas against
the
> Iranians or the Kurds?
>
I don't think anyone here is denying that. The issue was, at the beginning
of this year: Does Saddam Hussein currently possess WMD that are enough of a
clear and present danger to the United States of America for the USA to act
against the consensus of the UN and launch a preemptive war? So far, the
evidence is no.

> Talk about revisisionist.
>
Talk about. Pop Music!

Glenn D.

[nmm]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2003 4:33 PM, WillStG > wrote:
>it's bull to cry "liar" at President Bush.


Just About WMD, why not start with Bush Links to the Bin Ladens, Bectel,
Carlyle Group, Chene's Links to Halliburton,

Or Florida Election Results.. That was a Lie.. Voter Lists from Texas and
people not being allowed to vote.


OR Silverado Savings & Loan.

Or the World Trade Center... wich coincidentally housed a lot of the SEC
Files on ENRON! ( More money was spent investigating Clinton's Blow Job,
that Shrub's Con Job)



Ya so many other reasons to Call him and his people Liars...

ask Him about Fritz Thyson/THYSSEN FRITZ too.. that's a good story.

[Jerry Steiger]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message
...
> << Yeah, but it's the stuff the newsmen don't want you to hear that you
will
> never, ever hear. >>
>
> Well, no, Jerry, that's just not true at all. Newsmen don't make corporate
> policy.


No, but they dig up the evidence and write the stories. If they don't want
to find the evidence they won't have much to write about. No matter what the
corporate policy is, the writers still write the stories with their own
slants.

Since I'm an engineer and not a newsman, I should probably quit now that
I've reached about the limit of my understanding.

To get back to music--do you know anything about a group called Pink
Martini? They are going to be playing with the youth symphony after
Valentine's Day and I'm wondering what to expect.

Jerry Steiger

[ScotFraser]

<< Is it your honest beleif that Saddam never used nerve gas against the
Iranians or the Kurds?

Talk about revisisionist. >>

Did I ever say that? You know very well I didn't. Why even pose the question?
And who's talking about revisionism? Are you high?


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< O'Reilly was asked today on Regis and Kelly about this, "Bill, what's up
with the weapons of mass destruction?" (typical Regis). Mr. O basically said
George Tenet should be fired and maybe Paris Hilton appointed in his place, but
that it's bull to cry "liar" at President Bush. >>

Good idea. Fire the messenger, when the intelligence failure was entirely in
the administration.

Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< To get back to music--do you know anything about a group called Pink
Martini? They are going to be playing with the youth symphony after
Valentine's Day and I'm wondering what to expect. >>

They're incredible. Kind of an Art/Mambo/Lounge band. Their singer is equally
capable singing in French, Portugese, English & Greek. They're a ton of fun,
but have managed to only record one album in the last 6 years. Highly
recommended.

Scott Fraser

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(Tom Paterson) wrote:

> > In your world, that may well be true. But it's a **** poor way to spend
> >one's life on this planet - IMHO.
>
> This from the most tireless right-wing poster on this newsgroup.


Political fanaticism seems, for some reason, to unplug people's irony
and hypocrisy detector.

CT

[ScotFraser]

<< I just want the current administration out. McCain would be a perfectly
acceptable replacement.
>>

Joe the garbageman would be a perfectly acceptable replacement.

Scott Fraser

[WillStG]

>Charles Thomas

>You really need to investigate the concept of the "loyal opposition",
>Bob.

There are lot of people who need to investigate the concept. Especially
those in the opposition who just mouth off without thinking about the
consequences.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >Charles Thomas
>
> >You really need to investigate the concept of the "loyal opposition",
> >Bob.
>
> There are lot of people who need to investigate the concept.
Especially
> those in the opposition who just mouth off without thinking about the
> consequences.
>
What consequences? Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Glenn D.

[WillStG]

>"Glenn Dowdy"

>Pershings would have only destabilized the detente that had worked for 40
>years. It was 40 years of the 11th ACR sitting in the Fulda Gap and decades
>of MAD that kept the USSR out of western Europe.
>

Wrong. We outspent the Soviets on defense until they finally ceded the
point. Reagan created an envrionment neccessary for the internal forces
desiring change in the USSR to be able to create that change. But I guess for
defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War, you will never forgive the
man.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >"Glenn Dowdy"
>
> >Pershings would have only destabilized the detente that had worked for 40
> >years. It was 40 years of the 11th ACR sitting in the Fulda Gap and
decades
> >of MAD that kept the USSR out of western Europe.
> >
>
> Wrong. We outspent the Soviets on defense until they finally ceded
the
> point. Reagan created an envrionment neccessary for the internal forces
> desiring change in the USSR to be able to create that change. But I guess
for
> defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War, you will never
forgive the
> man.
>
Reagan was only in office for eight years. What about the years between 1945
and 1981? I don't think his movies kept the Sovs out of Western Europe, did
they? Besides, all that money for defense spending means nothing if you
don't have soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen willing to take that war
fighting equipment into harm's way. A big ol' warehouse full of M1s and
destroyers don't mean nothing.

Glenn D.

[WillStG]

(Tom Paterson)

>This from the most tireless right-wing poster on this newsgroup.

You can me "Right Wing" if that pleases your jingoistic sensibilities Tom,
but I in fact hold a variety of positions on the issues of our time. And many
"Reagan Democrats" are now "911 Democrats", and my views on the "War On
Terror" are in fact the prevailing centrist view in American politics. As the
next election will prove to you.

> How many posts
>in defense of Limbaugh, Bennett, OReilly (let alone Bush II and cronies)
>during
>the work day over the last few months, Will?

I also defended Steve Earle who is very left of center as well Tom. When
I was a kid I campaigned for probably the fathest left Senator in Congress,
Neil Abercrombie D- Hawaii. I just hate hyposcrisy on the left as well as the
right, and I call it like I see it - for example, I have always supported the
decriminalization of soft drugs on this newsgroup. So regarding Rush, I said
if you beleive in decriminalizing drugs because of situations like how easy it
is to become addicted to prescription drugs, you are a hypocrite to call for
Rush to go to jail when your real motivation is political. You disagree with
that, fine. I can live with myself holding to that position.

Gambling is legal, but even guys here who have dropped cash in Vegas have
wanted to call Bennett a hypocrite for gambling, when in fact he has never
taken the position against gambling. I call _that_ sheer hypocrisy as well,
and I can live with my conscience taking that position.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>"Glenn Dowdy"

>What consequences?

I rest my case.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nxmm]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2003 1:31 PM, Glenn Dowdy >
wrote:
>
>"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>> >Charles Thomas

>>
>> >You really need to investigate the concept of the "loyal
>opposition",
>> >Bob.
>>
>> There are lot of people who need to investigate the
>concept.
>Especially
>> those in the opposition who just mouth off without
>thinking about the
>> consequences.
>>
>What consequences? Those who give up freedom for security
>deserve neither.
>
>Glenn D.
>

Will is a sick sick person

Will Miho of ______ New Rochelle NY called Homeland Security to
investigate me because of my opinions, and my posts.
Him and one of his flunkie friends, who posted here briefly to bolster
Will's Fascist opinions, then disapeared, both made a point of trying to
'shut me up'

IT Didn't WORK..

I"m still here, Still Posting ..

No wonder Canada is listed as the 8th best country in terms of Freedom of
the Press, and America is somewhere arround number 168.

Dweebs like Will Miho being part of the Propagandist Media down there..
God Help America!

[WillStG]

I have killfiled "mmm" so someone sent me his post about calling "Homeland
Security" on him because of his "Political Posts". Horse****.

The man offered to pay money to anyone who would shoot the Pressident Of
The United States, which is a felony in the USA. And if "mmm" subbourns the
murder of our President again, I won't just call the Mounties and his ISP
about it next time.

Publish your own address, "mmm". I am not intimidated in the least by your
little stunt. Everyone here knows I am listed and use my real name, unlike
chicken****s like you who talk big and hide in the shadows.







Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nmm]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2003 4:17 PM, WillStG > wrote:
> I have killfiled "mmm" so someone sent me his post
>about calling "Homeland
>Security" on him because of his "Political Posts".
>Horse****.
>

They were called by you so there is Lie # 1



> The man offered to pay money to anyone who would
>shoot the Pressident Of
>The United States, which is a felony in the USA. And if
>"mmm" subbourns the
>murder of our President again, I won't just call the
>Mounties and his ISP
>about it next time.
>

You called Homeland Security who contacted INSET, who called the
Mounties... YOu are a LIAR, just like Bush.. no wonder you like him so much
Tojo.

INSET wouldn't give my name to the Americans because they deemed this to be
a "Prank" by YOU.

> Publish your own address, "mmm". I am not intimidated
>in the least by your
>little stunt. Everyone here knows I am listed and use my
>real name, unlike
>chicken****s like you who talk big and hide in the shadows.
>

Yeah Right.. If someone had a good reason to know who and where i am, they
would know.


We are living in times when lawyers lives are threatened for defending
security certificate detained immigrants. And not offered police
protection. Times when the American Ambassador to Canada says that Canadian
Passports won't be honored by the United States.

You are a Fascist, using Fascisyt Tactics.

Plenty of people know exactly who i am in this news group.. You will not
be one of them.

[ScotFraser]

<< Wrong. We outspent the Soviets on defense until they finally ceded the
point. Reagan created an envrionment neccessary for the internal forces
desiring change in the USSR to be able to create that change. But I guess for
defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War, you will never forgive the
man. >>

Now we're talking some serious revisionism.


Scott Fraser

[WillStG]

>"nmm"

>You called Homeland Security who contacted INSET, who called the
>Mounties... YOu are a LIAR, just like Bush.. no wonder you like him so much
>Tojo.

You admit you offered money to shoot our President. That is enough. But
I really did call the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and they transfered me to
some guy who specializes in such things. And one of your ISP's kicked you, you
didn't they?

So sour grapes Baby. And I would do it again, whether you consider laws
that make your words a felony "fascist" or not. And in fact the next time you
offer money of someone will shoot our President, I will call our Office Of
Homeland Security as well.

And now, back into the killfile.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(Tom Paterson)
>I called you "right wing" because you are the most tireless poster in defense
>of right wing positions and personalities.

They are the most frequently assailed individuals on this newsgroup
politically. If a criticism is fair, I don't have a problem with that. If it's
a hypocritical bull**** rant, I call people on it. I have called people on the
right here for the same thing, it just happens a lot less.

>Well, with all the rhetorical meat-pounding in support of Rush, Bennett,
>OReilly and the current administration, I guess I missed that brief
>interlude.
>Maybe you could provide a quote or something.
>You've also proudly declared "liberalism" as a "BTDT thing" here in this
>newsgroup. That's like Enron bookkeeping, declaring something sold as an
>asset.

No, I haven't. Maybe YOU could provide a quote or something. In fact I
think traditional liberal values are pretty centrist to American politics and I
hold a number of so called "liberal" positions. The "been there, done that"
that I talk about is "leftism". That is a very very different thing than
liberalism.

Everyone likes to point the finger, as if that make the crap they are
full of ok. It doesn't. Truth is, "You can't change the world if you can't
change yourself." Anyone wants to be part of some kind of "Vanguard", try
starting with yourself.

You are entitled to your own opinions Tom, and I have no compulsion to
argue with you over stupid stuff like who you think is cool and who you don't,
which is about the depth of your political thought IMO. But if you want to be
a person of principle, be willing to defend the unpopular.

Ciao.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Jerry Steiger]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message
...
> << To get back to music--do you know anything about a group called Pink
> Martini? They are going to be playing with the youth symphony after
> Valentine's Day and I'm wondering what to expect. >>
>
> They're incredible. Kind of an Art/Mambo/Lounge band. Their singer is
equally
> capable singing in French, Portugese, English & Greek. They're a ton of
fun,
> but have managed to only record one album in the last 6 years. Highly
> recommended.


Thanks, Scott. Now, back to our regularly scheduled political arguments.

Jerry Steiger

[Richard Kuschel]

> << BTW, I have copy of "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television"
>on
>my bookshelf (more like 100 arguments!). There are ways to overcome the
>limitations of a medium, if you are aware of what they are.>>
>
>Public funding, for instance?
>Scott Fraser
>
>

Like Tass and Pravda?
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[nmm]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2003 10:52 AM, Richard Kuschel >
wrote:
>Like Tass and Pravda?

http://english.pravda.ru


"there was greater press critique within the Soviet Union of the
Afghanistan operation, than there was of the American vietnam operation, by
the American Media, at the time" Noam Chomsky

[Roger W. Norman]

BTW, did anyone see Noam on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks ago. I think I
mentioned it the next day, but what a man of precision thought. He not only
cuts through the bull****, but he'll tell you that you're not asking the
right question and why.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"nmm" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2003 10:52 AM, Richard Kuschel >
> wrote:
> >Like Tass and Pravda?
>
> http://english.pravda.ru
>
>
> "there was greater press critique within the Soviet Union of the
> Afghanistan operation, than there was of the American vietnam operation,
by
> the American Media, at the time" Noam Chomsky
>
>

[nmm]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2003 9:48 AM, a hard to believe 48 year old William J Miho
of New Rochelle NY wrote:
>For one thing it is documented historical fact that
>Saddam had in the early 90's previously tried to obtain
>Yellow Cake Uranium in
>Africa, so in that respect the point is at best moot.

Cocaine Rehab really brings you back to a fantasy world doesn't it Wiliam
J.


From Niger perhaps..... To be used with that high grade Alluminum Tubing
perhaps?


Here we witeness Fox news at work... a Lie/ Forgry blatently false peice
of news was discovered and now it's being remanufactured as a part truth.
Unverfied Lies again.

I guess the WMD were in the Fridge next to the frozen babies waiting for
Saddam to scatter them about after American Precision bombs killed the
really really Bad people.


Ali Abas has no arms anymore because of People Like William J Miho... a
48 year old Moron from New Rochelle NY.

I'm sure he's tanking you for your BRAVE stance in the face of that
serious Threat.



namir m muhammad
Toronto Canada

[Kurt Riemann]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:00:25 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> wrote:

>BTW, did anyone see Noam on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks ago. I think I
>mentioned it the next day, but what a man of precision thought. He not only
>cuts through the bull****, but he'll tell you that you're not asking the
>right question and why.

He's not easy to listen to, but it's important to hear. I think that
Charlie Rose was getting a little exasperated that Chomsky wouldn't
give any short answers. Or would correct the questions when they were
based on provably false assumptions.

He has a very good sense of history in that he remembers the actual
documented sequence of events. As Chomsky says, "Look at the record.
It's not hard to find." Not at the spin, not the interpretation of
motivation, but What Actually Occurred. Another wickedly insightful
person is John Pilger. If you need to see a broader clarity of global
events and causes, any of Pilger's books will help.

The sad thing about relying on collective memory of events is that it
averages out motivations over time into what the interpreting culture
as a whole can live with as acceptable.



Kurt Riemann

[ScotFraser]

<< BTW, did anyone see Noam on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks ago. >>

Yes, a brilliant & incisive mind. What a rare commodity these days.


Scott Fraser

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, I guess being a commodity is only good if people take advantage of it.
Unfortunately I don't believe you'll ever see Noam on Fox News, where the
exposure would do the most good for the greatest number of Americans
confused about what the White House is doing to this country. Then again,
Noam just doesn't offer up enough sound bites to make him worth the 7
minutes.

But speaking of Fox News and being fair, it appears that today, instead of
talking about Al Gore's support for Dean, Fox and Friends are turning into a
battle between Gore and the Clintons who apparently are trying to unseat
Dean's groundswell efforts. No, it's not that the Clintons support Wesley
Clark because they might believe he's the better candidate. It's just to
stop another Democrat. Don't ya just love the way Fox makes the news.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"ScotFraser" > wrote in message
...
> << BTW, did anyone see Noam on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks ago. >>
>
> Yes, a brilliant & incisive mind. What a rare commodity these days.
>
>
> Scott Fraser

[WillStG]

>"Roger W. Norman"

>But speaking of Fox News and being fair, it appears that today, instead
>of
>talking about Al Gore's support for Dean, Fox and Friends are turning into
>a
>battle between Gore and the Clintons who apparently are trying to unseat
>Dean's groundswell efforts. No, it's not that the Clintons support Wesley
>Clark because they might believe he's the better candidate. It's just to
>stop another Democrat. Don't ya just love the way Fox makes the news.

"Makes the news?" Is it a contrived story by Fox that there is
infighting in the Democratic Party? I don't think so, certainly not from the
producers at "Fox & Friends". Try "Newsmax", Drudge or the Washington Post
maybe. It's hardly like the Producer's at Fox And Friends are the _source_ of
these kinds of "Inside Baseball" stories.

Does anyone really care that Al Gore gave no courtesy call beforehand to
his former running mate Joe Lieberman that he was endorsing someone else as
Democratic Presidential candidate? Maybe the Clinton's control of the National
Party by the pursestrings and Dean's challenge to the Dem's status quo is of
interest to political junkies? Well I know I'd rather hear about that kind of
stuff myself than Micheal Jackson or Scott Petersen for the millionth time, but
then I _have_ to watch.

What's _your_ excuse Roger? <g>


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Roger W. Norman]

> Does anyone really care that Al Gore gave no courtesy call
beforehand to
> his former running mate Joe Lieberman that he was endorsing someone else
as
> Democratic Presidential candidate? Maybe the Clinton's control of the
National
> Party by the pursestrings and Dean's challenge to the Dem's status quo is
of
> interest to political junkies? Well I know I'd rather hear about that kind
of
> stuff myself than Micheal Jackson or Scott Petersen for the millionth
time, but
> then I _have_ to watch.

While I agree with you on the MJ or SP minute by minute noise we both have
to put up with, that wouldn't mean that there isn't more here than some
simple infighting. Hell, apparently the White House has had some major
infighting going on since it became an administration. What's new with
that?

Do you even pay any attention to what's really going on? Gore didn't give
Lieberman a courtesy call? So what. Have you listened to both people's
viewpoints of late? Do you realize that, for all practical purposes,
Lieberman is the Democratic Bush, except that I don't believe he'd be raping
the America heritage and laying off the debt to our children. Otherwise, I
don't see a lot of difference.

OTOH, Gore has come out quite strong against this administration and it
totally fits what he's been speechifying about in the past year. I don't
blame Gore at all. He is the party's leader (regardless of what the
Clintons think) and he should point the way. His past two speeches have
left absolutely no area for question as far as his suggestions for the party
planks, and I think it's got Americans thinking. If you go back and read
speeches from Gore and Dean you'll find a lot of similarities in not only
what they are saying, but how they are saying it. And if you remember
correctly, Gore not only won the popular vote, but by the presiding judge's
words, ALL the votes would have been counted, and since that's been done,
Gore would have been the winning leader of the Democratic Party and we
wouldn't be having this discussion now. That's TWO Republican elections
that have been stolen now. And if you're wondering, try googling October
Surprise with Wm Casey.

Gore doesn't owe Lieberman anything just like no other politician owes when
it comes to being in a Presidential race where you were the "and losing Vice
Presidential candidate was...". Gore lost, and by default, so did
Lieberman. Who in Lieberman's shoes would want a losing candidate's
endorsement? I'd think distance would be a desired thing. And if you were
already the losing Vice Presidential candidate, who the **** would expect to
get elected as the President? Does Joe simply have some desire to see
himself punished time and time again, somewhat like Gephardt (who is only
slightly left of Lieberman but I think they are wearing the same suit)? And
just how badly did Lieberman's inclusion on the ticket cause Gore to lose,
popular vote not withstanding apparently? Assuming you believe the US
Supreme Court that Bush just had to be President.

So what's my excuse about what? I was in my kitchen with FNF on the tube
while I was doing morning stuff, and I was assaulted with a "news" report
that then had a twist from the "news" reader as to what the "news" really
meant, and THAT became the news, just like a Prosecutor's closing statement
sticks with a jury 90% of the time. My complaint is that "news" items don't
have comment, they are simply read. If the reader utilizes commentary on
the "news" then it's not really the "news" is it? Of course, you guys like
to say that you aren't a news show, and therefore there's no reason to worry
about a little commentary here and there because it's all just entertainment
after all.

It's all a matter of purposeful influence peddling and I'm sorry, but that's
the best way I can put it. In broadcasting that used to be against the law.

Ah, but you see, now Bush is hiding the FCC mandate Mr. Powell (the younger)
wanted to be put into place, thereby attaching an $816 Billion dollar budget
with an untenable amendment. But since the republican strong House voted
214 to 187 yesterday, the airwaves are going to be more like Fox and less
like real news. And, to add insult to injury, Bush's idea of limiting
overtime pay and allowing corporations to determine whether or not to pay
overtime if they don't want to is a good thing, right? He's stuck that in
the back of the inappropriately timed session between Thanksgiving and
Christmas (AGAIN- remember last year's Pre-emptive strike request) so that
no one has the proper amount of response time unless they want to shut the
government down come next September. And while this is happening,
somebody's paying a sitter lots of money while they are at work not making a
penny and ain't that a pretty good way to treat you citizens, don't you
think. After all, it creates teeny bopper sitter jobs, and these other
stupid mother****ers should be glad they have a ****ing job in the first
place, with this administration. How dare someone want overtime pay!
Hrumphhh.

Again, what's my excuse? Ah, I'm just nitpicking. <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >"Roger W. Norman"
>
> >But speaking of Fox News and being fair, it appears that today, instead
> >of
> >talking about Al Gore's support for Dean, Fox and Friends are turning
into
> >a
> >battle between Gore and the Clintons who apparently are trying to unseat
> >Dean's groundswell efforts. No, it's not that the Clintons support
Wesley
> >Clark because they might believe he's the better candidate. It's just to
> >stop another Democrat. Don't ya just love the way Fox makes the news.
>
> "Makes the news?" Is it a contrived story by Fox that there is
> infighting in the Democratic Party? I don't think so, certainly not from
the
> producers at "Fox & Friends". Try "Newsmax", Drudge or the Washington
Post
> maybe. It's hardly like the Producer's at Fox And Friends are the _source_
of
> these kinds of "Inside Baseball" stories.
>
>
> What's _your_ excuse Roger? <g>
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[S O'Neill]

Kurt Riemann wrote:

> The sad thing about relying on collective memory of events is that it
> averages out motivations over time into what the interpreting culture
> as a whole can live with as acceptable.


This is unfortunately true. I think, though, it's the job of "culture" - the
arts, architecture, literature - to keep us reminded of what we as a species
aspire to, remind us of what our standards are. Too bad TV falls down so
terribly in this area.

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
Kurt Riemann <> wrote:

> The sad thing about relying on collective memory of events is that it
> averages out motivations over time into what the interpreting culture
> as a whole can live with as acceptable.

Wow.

It's too bad that's so wordy, because it belongs on t-shirts and bumper
stickers all over this great land.

CT

[Harvey Gerst]

Charles Thomas > wrote:

>> >, Kurt Riemann wrote:
>
>> The sad thing about relying on collective memory of events is that it
>> averages out motivations over time into what the interpreting culture
>> as a whole can live with as acceptable.

>Wow.
>
>It's too bad that's so wordy, because it belongs on t-shirts and bumper
>stickers all over this great land.
>
>CT

"We remember only what we want to remember"

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[ScotFraser]

<< Unfortunately I don't believe you'll ever see Noam on Fox News, where the
exposure would do the most good for the greatest number of Americans
confused about what the White House is doing to this country. >>

That's if you think the "newsertainment"-numbed Fox audience is intellectually
capable of hearing what he has to say. Maybe Chomsky could go on one of the
scores of "blind date with a bogus millionaire" shows & reveal some of his
pearls of wisdom to the great unwashed in that format.
<g>


Scott Fraser

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
Harvey Gerst > wrote:

> Charles Thomas > wrote:
>
> >> >, Kurt Riemann wrote:
> >
> >> The sad thing about relying on collective memory of events is that it
> >> averages out motivations over time into what the interpreting culture
> >> as a whole can live with as acceptable.
>
> >Wow.
> >
> >It's too bad that's so wordy, because it belongs on t-shirts and bumper
> >stickers all over this great land.
> >
> >CT
>
> "We remember only what we want to remember"
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/


"If we can..."

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Chris Hornbeck]

> Kurt Riemann wrote:
> The sad thing about relying on collective memory of events is that it
> averages out motivations over time into what the interpreting culture
>as a whole can live with as acceptable.

> Harvey Gerst wrote:
> "We remember only what we want to remember"

>Jay Kadis wrote:
>"If we can..."

Harry Nilsson in "The Point!" wrote:
"You see what you want to see and you hear what you
want to hear."

Chris Hornbeck
"That is my Theory, and what it is too."
Anne Elk

[Roger W. Norman]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message
...
> That's if you think the "newsertainment"-numbed Fox audience is
intellectually
> capable of hearing what he has to say. Maybe Chomsky could go on one of
the
> scores of "blind date with a bogus millionaire" shows & reveal some of his
> pearls of wisdom to the great unwashed in that format.
> <g>

OK, so to be vulgar, that's only if young America wants to see Noam Chomsky
grabbing his nether region and going "spewt, spewt, spewt (i.e. his "pearls
of wisdom)" because without that there's no chance that he'll be listened
too. Which is what I thought I'd said, in a roundabout method.

In other words, if one is presented the truth and doesn't recognize it as
the truth, then what's the truth? Apparently the truth is as God Bush
expounds it. I think we've recently gotten beyond that. Noam would be, not
a harbinger of desparation in the desert, but a light in the future of
mankind. He proves that if man doesn't remember the past, man is most
likely to repeat history because Noam knows the past and doesn't let anybody
forget it if they are listening. Unfortunately, far too few are listening.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

[WillStG]

>"Roger W. Norman"

>Do you even pay any attention to what's really going on? Gore didn't give
>Lieberman a courtesy call? So what. Have you listened to both people's
>viewpoints of late? Do you realize that, for all practical purposes,
>Lieberman is the Democratic Bush, except that I don't believe he'd be raping
>the America heritage and laying off the debt to our children. Otherwise, I
>don't see a lot of difference.

Well - not to get so deeply into politics that we can't get out of it in
a couple of posts or all spontaneously combust or something - but before
Lieberman threw his hat into the ring to run for President, he gave Gore a
courtesy call to make sure Gore wasn't running. That Lieberman heard about the
Dean endorsement from the media instead of from Gore directly means that at the
very least, Al Gore wasn't in this instance very reciprocal or considerate. But
then that's sort of the rap on the Clinton's as well, that they kick people to
the curb when they have no further use for them.

I don't people like that generally - no matter what their politics -
especially lead singers like that.

>He is the party's leader (regardless of what the
>Clintons think) and he should point the way.

Heh heh... You think that? Ok...

>Of course, you guys like
>to say that you aren't a news show, and therefore there's no reason to worry
>about a little commentary here and there because it's all just entertainment
>after all.
>

Hey, I'm off the morning show for a while now! But it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out that the story angle about the power struggles
for control of the DNC and Hilary's positioning for her future Presidential bid
aren't being thought up by the Producer's at Fox & Friend's, the stories are
all over the place.

>Again, what's my excuse? Ah, I'm just nitpicking. <g

Yes, I think that's my point. Nothing in those stories you can't read in
every major paper in the country.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"Roger W. Norman" > wrote:

> He proves that if man doesn't remember the past, man is most
> likely to repeat history because Noam knows the past and doesn't let anybody
> forget it if they are listening. Unfortunately, far too few are listening.

It's part of the brilliance of the right-wing debate methodology.

If they have an opponent who has good points to make and is intelligent
and not easily debated they simply dismiss them altogether as some kind
of "kook".

"Chomsky?" (Or "Nader?" or whomever) <rolling eyes> "That guy's just a
left-wing wacko."

Then you don't have to bother to debate any of his points, nor address
the issues he brings up.

Works every time.

CT

[Gack]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:


> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News

The only good republican is a DEAD republican.

Gack

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
Gack > wrote:

> The only good republican is a DEAD republican.

Hey, c'mon. That's a little extreme, don't you think?

It's enough that you crush them, see them driven before you, and hear
the lamentation of their women.

;-)

CT

[WillStG]

>The only good republican is a DEAD republican.>

This is the way people on the extremes of politics think. The extreme left
AND the extreme right wish harm and misfortune to those with whom they
disagree, poltically, religiously or otherwise. This should be a clue to anyone
with a bit of sense who actually cares about anyone in this world.

It is a "Classic liberal value" to consider such talk and sentiments to
be ignorant, bigoted and generally unevolved, Humanistically speaking.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ScotFraser]

<< "Chomsky?" (Or "Nader?" or whomever) <rolling eyes> "That guy's just a
left-wing wacko."
Then you don't have to bother to debate any of his points, nor address
the issues he brings up.
Works every time.>>

Goes on around here, too. Just dismiss uncomfortable truths as the political
rantings of anti-American Bush-haters. Happened during Vietnam, also.


Scott Fraser

[RB]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >"Roger W. Norman"
>
> >Do you even pay any attention to what's really going on? Gore didn't
give
> >Lieberman a courtesy call? So what. Have you listened to both people's
> >viewpoints of late? Do you realize that, for all practical purposes,
> >Lieberman is the Democratic Bush, except that I don't believe he'd be
raping
> >the America heritage and laying off the debt to our children. Otherwise,
I
> >don't see a lot of difference.
>
> Well - not to get so deeply into politics that we can't get out of
it in
> a couple of posts or all spontaneously combust or something - but before
> Lieberman threw his hat into the ring to run for President, he gave Gore a
> courtesy call to make sure Gore wasn't running. That Lieberman heard
about the
> Dean endorsement from the media instead of from Gore directly means that
at the
> very least, Al Gore wasn't in this instance very reciprocal or
considerate. But
> then that's sort of the rap on the Clinton's as well, that they kick
people to
> the curb when they have no further use for them.

According to ABC Radio News this afternoon, Gore called Lieberman twice
yesterday, but could not get through to him. It was reported that Gore left
messages which were never returned by Lieberman.

RB

[WillStG]

>"nmm"

>Cocaine Rehab really brings you back to a fantasy world doesn't it Wiliam
>J.

And that would be? I haven't even smoked a joint in over 25 years.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(ScotFraser)

>So true. They're watching dumb TV instead of listening for truths.

Well maybe when you're elected dictator Scott, everyone can be forced to
consume the news and information _you_ feel is good for them.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>"RB"

>According to ABC Radio News this afternoon, Gore called Lieberman twice
>yesterday, but could not get through to him. It was reported that Gore left
>messages which were never returned by Lieberman.

Yesterday the Gore endorsement of Dean was already old news. Lieberman had
already heard of it from the media first.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Steven Sullivan]

ScotFraser > wrote:
> << Is it your honest beleif that Saddam never used nerve gas against the
> Iranians or the Kurds?

> Talk about revisisionist. >>

> Did I ever say that? You know very well I didn't. Why even pose the question?


Because he's a man who advocates 'intellectual honesty' but isn't
so good at practicing it?

Just guessing, based on my reading of this thread. The agendas are
pretty clear.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> And the silence from those of you on the left when a guy like this seeks
> to intimidate people he disagrees with in the manner he has is deafening.

I'll stand up when I see him cross a line you haven't, Will. Until
then, it all falls into the "turnabout is fair play" territory as far as
I'm concerned.

Have a good one.

CT

[WillStG]

>Charles Thomas

>I'll stand up when I see him cross a line you haven't, Will. Until
>then, it all falls into the "turnabout is fair play" territory as far as
>I'm concerned.

Bullpussy Charles. Have I offered money to have anyone shot? It is a
felony in the United States to offer money to have the President shot like this
moron has, that's "Turnabout is fair play" to you? Have I tried to intimidate
people by publishing where they live?

I know you're an ideologue Charles, but I am still surprised that you
can't bear to say it is wrong to offer money if someone will shoot the
President.

You're lost.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> Have I offered money to have anyone shot? It is a
> felony in the United States to offer money to have the President shot like
> this
> moron has, that's "Turnabout is fair play" to you?

TRY to stay with the point, Will. PLEASE?

I'm not sure why you'll be able to in this instance when you've never
been able to in the past, but here goes one more try, ok? Focus.

You were bitching about the tactics he was using AGAINST YOU in a
debate. You were asking people from the left to complain about his
tactics, or to say that his debate tactics in this argument were not
appropriate.

But here's the rub, someone posting in a usenet group about shooting the
president has nothing to do with the tactics being used against you in
the debate at hand.

Now if he'd said something like "Agree with me or I'll shoot the
president" or something along those lines, your point would be valid.
As it is, it is not. Stay with the point.

> Have I tried to intimidate people by publishing where they live?

No, you've just turned people over to the authorities for things they've
written in arguments with you on Usenet. A lot worse, I'd say.

For the record, offering money to shoot the president is wrong. And if
I had the slightest inclination to believe that you actually thought the
president was in real danger, I'd applaud your efforts. But I don't
believe that for a second.

It's far more likely, in my opinion, that you found yourself out-argued
in a debate and called the authorities as a mean-spirited, last-ditch
move. Maybe I'm wrong, but the fact that almost nobody stands up for
you in these things leads me to believe I'm probably right. You're a
bully, and have no ability to debate in a rational manner. That people
don't like you and won't stick up for you in an argument that you've
brought upon yourself doesn't surprise me one bit.


>I am still surprised that you
> can't bear to say it is wrong to offer money if someone will shoot the
> President.

You are an insufferable bully, Will, but beyond that you may well have
some kind of cognitive disorder. Seriously. What does someone
allegedly offering money to shoot the president have to do with "the
left" sticking up for you against someone who's winning a debate with
you on usenet? Any link between these two concepts exists only in your
very warped perception of things.

> You're lost.

That's funny. I believe I know right where I am.

CT

[ScotFraser]

<< You know this for a fact do you?>>

Yes, & I take it by your response you know you have no way to truthfully
counter it.

<< And who exactly is it that you would
claim would be doing a better job than GWB in the "War On Terror" right now? >>

I made no claims, but I can come up with several hundred thousand names if you
really want to know.

<<Oh yeah, Al Gore, Vice President under the Clinton Administration which
_gutted_ the CIA in the first place.>>

He would be one of them, yes, but I have to correct your false statement that
Clinton gutted the CIA. Didn't happen. It is in fact the Bush administration's
meddling in the internal workings of the CIA that have made many intelligence
professionals there throw up their hands because not all the information being
gathered fits the Bush agenda.

<< You really want to claim the ONLY REASON British Intelligence and the
CIA
said Saddam tried to obtain Uranium was because of that one forged document?
>>

No, I'm claiming that British intelligence never followed up the document to
find out it was a hoax & the CIA did follow up on the story, discovered it was
a hoax, & thus never purported that there was even a a hint of truth to the
story. They knew better.

<<Does a forged document by a source who wanted to make money mean that Saddam
Hussein DIDN'T EVER try to obtain Uranium? >>

The forger(s) did not make money from this.

<<What crap! You know better than
that, or should Scott. For one thing it is documented historical fact that
Saddam had in the early 90's previously tried to obtain Yellow Cake Uranium in
Africa, so in that respect the point is at best moot.>>

The point is that what may or may not have happened a decade ago has not the
slightest bearing on the truthfulness of the issue under discussion.

<< And for the last time , what GWB never refered to the forged document in
the State Of The Union Address, he refered to British Intelligence reports.>>

Same difference. British intelligence was based on the bogus info forwarded to
them by Italian military intelligence. Bush was referring to the exact same
matter.

<< And
they stand by their accessments to this day.>>

They are, of course, utterly wrong if they say there is any truth to the
document.

<< Hilarious, Scott? Your tone is extremely disrespectful to as many as
hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who were victims of those
horrific weapons. The gravity of the facts, that the weapons in question were
used in the mass murder of innocent people who were then dumped into mass
graves would seem to me to deserve a little sensitivity, and to the degree you
cannot acknowledge that is the degree that you have lost touch with your own
humanity Scott. Politics is NO EXCUSE.>>

Does my disdain for Bush's lies also mean I'm insensitive to the plight of the
slaves in the American south, of the victims of the holocaust, of starving
Biafrans? You're insane if think there is any connection whatsoever between the
crimes Hussein visited upon Kurds & my feeling about the Bush administration.
You've lost any touch with logic if you honestly believe what you're saying.

<< The CIA may suck, but that hardly makes you of your leftist friends a
better
source of FACT.>>

In this case the CIA does not suck. Any mention of my leftist friends here is
meaningless & irrelevant.

>There is NOTHING that has done more profound damage to America's interests
>than
>Bush's policies have>>

<< The only way you can say that is if you consider the deaths of
thousands
of Americans at the hands of Islamist terrorists to be meaningless.>>

I include the losses of 9/11/01 in my damage assessment, & I reiterate that
Bush has done vastly greater damage to America's interests than any external
force possibly could.

<< Just because you can criticize someone does not mean you have
any better ideas, or that you could do the job any better.>>

And by the same token, just because I can criticize someone doesn't mean I have
any worse ideas or could do the job any worse. But none of this is about me,
it's about Bush.

<< All you have to actually advocate here is your animosity Scott, and the
politics of your hate. >>

But I don't hate. My politics are based on the loving, caring, all-embracing,
positive knowledge that absolutely anybody would be an enormous improvement
over Bush.


Scott Fraser

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

nmm > wrote:

> Isn't the rule of morality that you can't hold people to higher moral
> standards then you personally demonstrate?

Apparently not. The lesson W has been teaching the world is that
morality is subjective, and as long as you're left standing and your
accusers and/or those you're accusing are dead, you can claim the moral
high ground.

I would have thought that killing innocent civilians to serve your
political agenda would be as wrong for the US military as it was wrong
for Al Qaeda. I've been corrected:

If you suspect a man of being a terrorist, drop a bomb on his village.
If you kill him, he can't maintain his innocence. If half a dozen
children are killed too, they can't defend him either. If their
brothers take up arms against you, then you're justified in killing
them too. As long as you don't look too far into the future, this
logic appears to be airtight.

It's kind of like finding a hole in your umbrella and plugging it with
your sword.


ulysses

[WillStG]

>You were bitching about the tactics he was using AGAINST YOU in a
>debate. You were asking people from the left to complain about his
>tactics, or to say that his debate tactics in this argument were not
>appropriate.

What I said was when a guy tries to intimidate people by publishing where
they live or offers money to have people shot that's over the line, and the
silence from those of you on the left here when that happens is deafening.

I know plenty of serious liberals and peace activists who would speak up
and denounce that in an instant. But then they are actually sincere in their
beliefs, and not just playing "us vs. them" politics.

>No, you've just turned people over to the authorities for things they've
written in arguments with you on Usenet. A lot worse, I'd say. >

Horse**** Charles. He did it as a "cool aside" to others on this group
like you. And it has nothing to do with "Free Speech" either, you can't shout
"Fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't defame or libel people, you can't joke
about having a bomb when you're getting on an airplane and you can't threaten
to shoot the President or offer money if others will do so.

>For the record, offering money to shoot the president is wrong. >

Ya Think? Be careful you don't hurt yourself trying so hard to get that
out...

>And if had the slightest inclination to believe that you actually thought the
president was in real danger, I'd applaud your efforts. But I don't believe
that for a second. >

Charles, how imminent a threat YOU think the man is doesn't make it any
less of a _felony_. This is a newsgroup where people commonly get turned in
for trading in cracked plugins and hacked software. Do you seriously think
after the events of Sept. 11th, I am the only one here who would turn in
someone for offering money for someone to shoot the President? Bzzzt - Wrong.
Take a hint, the man's bitching about people complaining to the Office Of
Homeland Security - well that wasn't me brother, _I_ called the Mounties
because the guy's a Canadian. And I haven't published his name and address
and invited every right wing nut in the world to go shoot him and his relatives
either, have I? But I have left it up to him to stand up and print his real
name, but he evidently lacks the courage of his convictions to do so.

>You are an insufferable bully, Will, but beyond that you may well have
>some kind of cognitive disorder. Seriously. What does someone
>allegedly offering money to shoot the president have to do with "the
>left" sticking up for you against someone who's winning a debate with
>you on usenet? Any link between these two concepts exists only in your

It has nothing whatsoever to do with debate Charles, but when _YOU_ have
to be backed into the corner before you'll come out and say that threatening
the President's life or trying to intimidate others on the group is wrong, that
speaks volumes about _your_ moral authority and sense of right and wrong.

That's me "being a bully"? What a wimp!


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Gack]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:


> And the silence from those of you on the left when a guy like this
> seeks to intimidate people he disagrees with in the manner he has is
> deafening. So what if he offered only $1if someone would shoot the
> President - $1 is enough to lose all the your rights if you play on
> someone's record too and make that also a "work for hire", and enough
> to make murder the same same thing.

There is silence because you're an asshole and no one wants to stand up
with a right-wing asshole, except other right wing assholes.

Are you always this clue-free or do you have to work at it?

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> It has nothing whatsoever to do with debate Charles, but when _YOU_ have
> to be backed into the corner before you'll come out and say that threatening
> the President's life or trying to intimidate others on the group is wrong,
> that
> speaks volumes about _your_ moral authority and sense of right and wrong.

Well Will, I can't say this was any fun, but I can say that it's over.

There are too many people out in the world from whom I can actually
learn something, and who actually have the ability to learn from others
in the process of a debate.

You are, I'm sad to say, not one of those people... so into my killfile
you go. Life's too short to be misrepresented and bullied by someone
like you, and frankly I'm tired of wasting my energy on dealing with you.

Have a nice life, and may all good things come to you.

CT

[WillStG]

>Are you always this clue-free or do you have to work at it?

Hey, I think I called where you are coming from pretty accurately.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>There is silence because you're an asshole and no one wants to stand up
>with a right-wing asshole, except other right wing assholes.

So it's ok with you if radical assholes talk about murder for hire? If
you can't say (to yourself at least) "Come on pal, I agree with you politically
but that's over the line, don't talk like that", then IMO you're pretty ****ed
up man, whatever your politics are
..

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Gack]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

>
>
> >There is silence because you're an asshole and no one wants to stand up
> >with a right-wing asshole, except other right wing assholes.
>
> So it's ok with you if radical assholes talk about murder for
> hire? If you can't say (to yourself at least) "Come on pal, I agree
> with you politically but that's over the line, don't talk like that",
> then IMO you're pretty ****ed up man, whatever your politics are

I think what Bush has done to this country pretty much amounts to
murder-for-hire.

But I also think that snitches are the scum of the earth and since
you've done that sort of thing, you're scum of the earth.

For that matter, that applies to anyone working for that vile "network"
you work for.

[WillStG]

>I think what Bush has done to this country pretty much amounts to
>murder-for-hire.

So you are saying therefore talk of killing the President is righteous and
justifed?

>But I also think that snitches are the scum of the earth and since
>you've done that sort of thing, you're scum of the earth.

People on this newsgroup routinely turn people in for trading in cracked
plugins and hacked software, "Gack". Let's hear you call the people here who
do that "the scum of he earth" too. It is a *felony* to offer money if someone
will shoot the President, but that's cool with you huh...






Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Aaron C Borgman]

WillStG > wrote:

>>I think what Bush has done to this country pretty much amounts to
>>murder-for-hire.

> So you are saying therefore talk of killing the President is righteous and
> justifed?

Was our presidents talk of assainating Saddam Hussein and his sons (and
offering to pay those who would do so) righteous and justified?

--
Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer

JF4-4-C5
phone: 971-214-8380

Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's

[nmm]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 1:44 PM, WillStG > wrote:
>
> So it's ok with you if radical assholes talk about
>murder for hire? If
>you can't say (to yourself at least) "Come on pal, I agree
>with you politically
>but that's over the line, don't talk like that", then IMO
>you're pretty ****ed
>up man, whatever your politics are

So you are saying that the state of America today is "pretty ****ed up" as
your "radical asshole" leader is running a
"Murder for Hire Operation" on an international scale.

I agree.

Offering $15 million bounty on someone's children posted in all majore
media outlets. That are some "****ed up radical assholes".

You really should watch out who you are in Bed with William J.

[Roger W. Norman]

> There is silence because you're an asshole and no one wants to stand up
> with a right-wing asshole, except other right wing assholes.
>
> Are you always this clue-free or do you have to work at it?

Now I don't know about that. As much as Will and I have shootouts at the
"It ain't OK corral", Will has his belief systems and he doesn't waver from
them. I can't find fault with that. I can find fault with his ability to
turn one phrase into another one, seemingly thinking that both are the same,
but I honestly don't know just how I would respond to people had I been in
the environment of Fox News' Fox and Friends for 3+ years.

I happen to agree with Charles in that Bush has plenty of people to protect
him, and nobody in their right minds would even come close to accepting the
job of killing Bush for a dollar or five or five million unless they were
already predisposed to do so (such as the terrorists that would do it for
nothing), and even those that might for some unknown strange reason,
couldn't possibly want Cheney as President. So I think the requirement that
those of us whom Will perceives as being liberals (a dirty word these days,
don't you know) would step forward to avow our support for his efforts to
play snitch just doesn't hold water. Were I privvy to some scheme to kill
George Bush, I wouldn't hesitate one minute in bringing it to the attention
of the authorities, no matter how badly I would like to see Bush not be
President. I don't believe the man deserves to die unless the whole country
somehow found him to be a traitor to the nation's people.

But again, Will has been steadfast in his convictions, regardless of
whatever tactics he uses to debate the facts we bring up. A man can be a
pillar of fortitude and still be wrong. That doesn't change the
individual's strength of conviction, and strength is what we all could use a
little of right now.

It would be nice if Will smartened up a little, but I don't doubt his
integrity for making claims about "intellectual honesty", just his ability
to grasp facts. I assume that there's somebody out there that could
actually make up a scale of intellectual honesty. It just isn't Will.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"Gack" > wrote in message
.com...
> In article >,
> (WillStG) wrote:
>
>
> > And the silence from those of you on the left when a guy like this
> > seeks to intimidate people he disagrees with in the manner he has is
> > deafening. So what if he offered only $1if someone would shoot the
> > President - $1 is enough to lose all the your rights if you play on
> > someone's record too and make that also a "work for hire", and enough
> > to make murder the same same thing.
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey, I think I called where you are coming from pretty accurately.

No Will, you assaulted those whom you claim are on the far left with
statements unbecoming a person that should to be able to stand on his own.
However, we now see that you can't stand on your own. You need a foil or
your thoughts become like dust around you.

I'm not a liberal yet you've shoehorned me into that category because I love
this country and believe it is my duty as a citizen to stand up for what I
see is going wrong. I do believe in Choice for women. Like I've said, if
you've got a dick you don't have a vote (ask your wife). I also believe in
the Constitution's stated right of the people to bear arms. Not militias,
not just the Army or the police, but honest tax paying individuals without
criminal records that wish to protect their homes or even go out and kill
Bambi's mom or dad in season. I've gone through all of this before, and yet
you'd still wish to simply stamp me with the red "L" on my forehead, hoping
that all like me would be castigated and shunned, never to be a part of a
community again. It just doesn't work that way. It is your perception of
the world that makes us not stand up for you. And it's because you have
become "the answer" when most of the rest of us are pretty certain you don't
even know the questions yet.

Now as a person, I praise you for being a forthright husband and father,
providing for your family, and holding down a good job and doing it well.
As I recall you even work within the community, but I can't put my finger on
what it is that you do. But when it comes down to being a deep thinker, I'm
just plain sorry, but there is no depth in your train of thought, at least
politically. It's been proven time and time again. No, not in predictions
as we're not talking about prognostication here. We're simply talking about
your ability to gather and retain facts without somehow spewing them forth
in some convoluted manner that leaves little of the original fact intact. I
find your posts about audio and your experiences to be well stated and fully
with merit based on your talent and level of competence. Politically I
think you just haven't studied recent history enough (meaning the last 50
years of American political history).

So just because you think you hit the nail on the head doesn't mean that you
didn't bend the nail, and you usually do.

But that's just my $.02 and it's not worth the copper it's printed on.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Now no leading questions, please. Of course it was righteous and justified.
We do, after all, have God on our side and he apparently chose George W.
Bush to run this war on terrorism. Of course, I still contend that it was
Ossama Bin Laden that made that choice, but what do I know?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"Aaron C Borgman" > wrote in message
...
> WillStG > wrote:
>
> >>I think what Bush has done to this country pretty much amounts to
> >>murder-for-hire.
>
> > So you are saying therefore talk of killing the President is
righteous and
> > justifed?
>
> Was our presidents talk of assainating Saddam Hussein and his sons (and
> offering to pay those who would do so) righteous and justified?
>
> --
> Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer
>
> JF4-4-C5
> phone: 971-214-8380
>
> Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 11 Dec 2003 18:09:03 GMT, (WillStG) wrote:

> Were Fox News not credible liberal contributors like Geraldine
>Ferraro and Eleanor Clift would not be working here.

!!

Chris Hornbeck
"That is my Theory, and what it is too."
Anne Elk

[WillStG]

> "Roger W. Norman"

>I'm not a liberal yet you've shoehorned me into that category because I love
this country and believe....

Stop, stop Roger. Exactly _when_ did I call you a liberal? As I have said
before, I think liberalism is pretty centrist to American politics. I don't
have a problem with "liberal" at all, and I'm sure I share a number of
"liberal" positions with you.

Swartzenegger and Guiliani are liberals on most of their social policies,
yet they get absolutely _nailed_ by people for being "right wing" all the time
because they couldn't run from inside the Democrat power structure, and so had
to run for office with "R"s after their names. If the Democratic Party is so
_****ed up_ that the ONLY WAY people like those guys have to try to make a
difference politically is to run as Republicans, try blaming the party bosses
once in a while instead of the "right wing". If for no other reason than that
the majority of voters aren't buying into that kind of "us vs. them" bullcrap,
as the California election would show anyone with half a brain.

>I'm not a liberal yet you've shoehorned me into that category because I love
this country and believe it is my duty as a citizen to stand up for what I see
is going wrong. >

Never called you a liberal Roger - I have called you a leftist.

> I do believe in Choice for women. Like I've said, if
>you've got a dick you don't have a vote (ask your wife). I also believe in
the Constitution's stated right of the people to bear arms. Not militias, ...

Now you're ranting on abortion and guns? Jeez.

> I've gone through all of this before, and yet you'd still wish to simply
stamp me with the red "L" on my forehead, hoping that all like me would be
castigated and shunned, never to be a part of a community again. It just
doesn't work that way.>

I called you a leftist, not a liberal Roger. And as you know by now I
have had a number of friends who were far more serious leftists than you once
upon a time, a Radical Priest and some American Indian Activists, several
ex-members of the revolutionary SDS, I worked with Black Panther leader
Eldridge Cleaver in the 80's, *WHY* would you claim I beleive in shunning
people for being "wrong politically" or anything of the kind? No, I beleive in
_redemption_ - but in my experience the hardest person for someone who has held
a "radical faith" to forgive is themself.

>Now as a person, I praise you for being a forthright husband and father,
providing for your family, and holding down a good job and doing it well. As I
recall you even work within the community, but I can't put my finger on what it
is that you do. But when it comes down to being a deep thinker, I'm just plain
sorry, but there is no depth in your train of thought, at least politically...>

Well I have never thought that either you or I were an Einstein, but when
have I held that against you brother? <g>

But it would be laughable if you were to try to claim that very much of
the anti-Bush rhetoric around here is based on any intellectual basis
whatsoever, most of the comments are jabs, jokes and based on sheer cultural
emotionalism. "mmm"'s offer to pay to have Bush shot falls in that category,
and it's a little too much like shouting "Fire' in a crowded theatre. And I
think I am smart enough to be able to tell when a political cause starts with
the conclusion/desired result they wish first, and then work backwards to
create reasons why it should be so. And that's most of what I see you guys on
the left doing.

>So just because you think you hit the nail on the head doesn't mean that you
didn't bend the nail, and you usually do.>

Well ok, I haven't the greatest social skills. Good thing I have broad
shoulders eh?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>Aaron C Borgman
>Was our presidents talk of assainating Saddam Hussein and his sons (and
>offering to pay those who would do so) righteous and justified?

Reference please. And if you have something to say, stand up and say it,
or cut the crap.

In either case is it moral or legal therefore to threaten the life of the
President of The United States? Are you now the judge, jury, and the
executioner (or just looking to hire one)?



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>"Roger W. Norman"

>Al Franken is a much better read. He may not be right all the time, but
>at
>least it's funny.

Al Franken and Ann Coulter are about the same. Except when Ann gets
drunk she doesn't go around picking physical fights with people she disagrees
with politically.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Scott Dorsey]

WillStG > wrote:
> Swartzenegger and Guiliani are liberals on most of their social policies,
>yet they get absolutely _nailed_ by people for being "right wing" all the time
>because they couldn't run from inside the Democrat power structure, and so had
>to run for office with "R"s after their names. If the Democratic Party is so
>_****ed up_ that the ONLY WAY people like those guys have to try to make a
>difference politically is to run as Republicans, try blaming the party bosses
>once in a while instead of the "right wing".

But they are both fiscally pretty conservative.

If for no other reason than that
>the majority of voters aren't buying into that kind of "us vs. them" bullcrap,
>as the California election would show anyone with half a brain.

California is a weird sort of place, in that it's about the only place left
with a large contingent of extreme liberals voting, but it also has a large
contingent of extreme conservatives voting. This makes for some very fun
elections, and it makes for some very weird bedfellows.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jay Kadis]

In article >, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

[snip]
>
> California is a weird sort of place, in that it's about the only place left
> with a large contingent of extreme liberals voting, but it also has a large
> contingent of extreme conservatives voting. This makes for some very fun
> elections, and it makes for some very weird bedfellows.
> --scott

I used to wish we could split California into North and South, but after the
last election, I'd rather split into West and East. LA county and the SF bay
area rejected Arnold handily while the rest of the state put him in office. As
it is presently constituted, California is ungovernable.

The fact that a Green candidate for San Francisco mayor came within 6% of
winning the runoff election, having spent 1/10 of what the winning Democrat
spent, is a hopeful sign. Registered Green Party members are still only 3% of
registered voters here, but it took $4M, Clinton, and Gore to keep Gonzalez from
winning.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[WillStG]

(Scott Dorsey)
>But they are both fiscally pretty conservative.

And do the mainstream voters buy the idea that a candidate is "right wing"
based on being fiscally conservative? I don't think so, rather a lot of people
in this country see that as a question of a household "living within it's
means". When people rail about a "right wing" agenda over *that*, for the most
part I think only the "True Beleivers" are buying it.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Gack]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

> (Scott Dorsey)
> >But they are both fiscally pretty conservative.
>
> And do the mainstream voters buy the idea that a candidate is "right
> wing"based on being fiscally conservative? I don't think so, rather a lot of
> people in this country see that as a question of a household "living within it's
> means". When people rail about a "right wing" agenda over *that*, for the
> most part I think only the "True Beleivers" are buying it.

If you look at the PNAC web site, you'll know your rhetoric here is a
lie.

But then how can you tell when a Faux n00z employee is lying?

Their lips are moving or they're typing on a keyboard.

[WillStG]

>Gack

(WillStG) wrote:
>> (Scott Dorsey)
>> >But they are both fiscally pretty conservative.

>> And do the mainstream voters buy the idea that a candidate is "right
wing"based on being fiscally conservative? I don't think so, rather a lot of
people in this country see that as a question of a household "living within
it's means". When people rail about a "right wing" agenda over *that*, for
the most part I think only the "True Beleivers" are buying it. >>

>If you look at the PNAC web site, you'll know your rhetoric here is a lie.
>
>But then how can you tell when a Faux n00z employee is lying?
>
>Their lips are moving or they're typing on a keyboard.

What does the PNAC have to do with how Americans voters view people like
Swartzenegger and Guiliani? Both NYC and California generally are heavily
Democratic, but they were elected despite "right-wing takeover" pronouncements
of doom from ideologues such as you seem to be.

So exactly what is the lie I am telling when I say that I think many
Americans beleive fiscal conservatism is a household living within it's means
issue?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >"Roger W. Norman"
>
> >Al Franken is a much better read. He may not be right all the time, but
> >at
> >least it's funny.
>
> Al Franken and Ann Coulter are about the same.

Except for that facts thing.

Glenn D.

[WillStG]

>"Glenn Dowdy"

>> Al Franken and Ann Coulter are about the same.
>
>Except for that facts thing.

You're right Glenn, Franken does play fast and loose with the truth quite
a lot, like with what actually happened at the Washington Presscorp dinner.
His account is full of crap according to all the first hand accounts I have
heard, with people I work with everyday.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >"Glenn Dowdy"
>
> >> Al Franken and Ann Coulter are about the same.
> >
> >Except for that facts thing.
>
> You're right Glenn, Franken does play fast and loose with the truth
quite
> a lot, like with what actually happened at the Washington Presscorp
dinner.
> His account is full of crap according to all the first hand accounts I
have
> heard, with people I work with everyday.
>
That's hardly sufficient evidence given that we don't trust those people to
begin with.

Glenn D.

[Gack]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

Have you got a big boner for Ann or something?

Because Ann Coulter is a MAN, BABY!

You like that kinda thing huh? Maybe you'll like this:

http://bbs.****edcompany.com/icons/a2m.gif

[Gack]

In article >,
"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote:

> That's hardly sufficient evidence given that we don't trust those people to
> begin with.

How can you tell a Fauz n00z employee is lying? They're speaking or
typing.

[WillStG]

>"Glenn Dowdy"

>That's hardly sufficient evidence given that we don't trust those people to
>begin with.
>

Well, I know 5 people who were there, and their first hand accounts to me
of what happened were as soon as they got back from Washington a couple days
later - long before Franken started taking his bull**** stories on the road to
push his new book, and to cover for his behaving like pussillanimous, drunken
ass in public.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>Gack

>Have you got a big boner for Ann or something?

She's similar in how she approaches politics to AL Franken to my way of
thinking, she's a bit of a bomb thrower and not really interested in serious
discourse, understanding others or finding concensus.

Kind of like you Brother.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ScotFraser]

Will, I have to concede the point that you are never going to allow yourself to
accept that your guy did wrong, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, so
I see no point in continuing this matter. As with the overiding intellectual
failing of the current administration, the problem I see here is that you
dismiss all facts which contradict your ideological agenda as politically
motivated misinformation from your opponents.

<< And I think guys like you
are damaging American interests far more than anything the President has done.
>>

Unlike you, & George Bush, I spend a lot of time overseas, several months a
year, & I talk to people in other countries, & I am telling you truthfully that
the damage done to America's credibility, respect, & international standing by
Bush's policies is truly staggering. Of course you, & the administration, will
never choose to believe this, because it doesn't match your ideology. Your
blindered ideology, however, doesn't alter the truth.


Scott Fraser

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >Gack
>
> >Have you got a big boner for Ann or something?
>
> She's similar in how she approaches politics to AL Franken to my way
of
> thinking, she's a bit of a bomb thrower and not really interested in
serious
> discourse, understanding others or finding concensus.
>
While not convinced that Franken falls under this umbrella, it certainly
covers Coulter to a T.

Glenn D.

[WillStG]

> (ScotFraser)
>Unlike you, & George Bush, I spend a lot of time overseas, several months
>a
>year, & I talk to people in other countries, & I am telling you truthfully
>that
>the damage done to America's credibility, respect, & international standing
>by
>Bush's policies is truly staggering.

There is a quite strong parrallel with similar opinions overseas of
America during the Reagan Administration during the "Cold War". Those people
were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

>Of course you, & the administration, will
>never choose to believe this, because it doesn't match your ideology. Your
>blindered ideology, however, doesn't alter the truth

The course of "inaction by concensus" which would please your progressive
friends would only bring down more smoke and ash and spill even more American
blood. Nothing we do or do not do will make our enemies any less our enemies,
but we can make their lives and operations more difficult.

In the coming days when you get outvoted on this issue Scott, you might
consider the possibilitythat it's not because the American people lack your
enormous intellectual prowess, but rather it's because you're just plain wrong.
Maybe the American people prefer that we actually *win* the "War On Terror",
or at the very least prefer to err on the side of our own National Security,
after all, eventually we are the ones who will have to bail the French and
Germans out of the trouble they end up in anyway.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>"Glenn Dowdy"
>While not convinced that Franken falls under this umbrella, it certainly
>covers Coulter to a T.


Sorry Glenn to shatter your illusions about Franken, but the man's a
bigtime jerk, and he owes a lot of people a serious apology for his boorish
behavior.

Disagreeing on the issues is one thing, but at a Washington Presscorp
social function to be standing over Alan Colmes in a drunken manner and
screaming to the point of physical threat that Alan wasn't being enough of a
"loyal liberal", and trying to get into a physical fight with other people I
work with, and then going on his booktour and flatout lying about what
happened, I have lost all respect I had for the man.

What stopped Al was our resident jock Brian Kilmeade, who "chilled him
out" and prevented anything from actually coming to blows.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Scott Dorsey]

WillStG > wrote:
>
> Sorry Glenn to shatter your illusions about Franken, but the man's a
>bigtime jerk, and he owes a lot of people a serious apology for his boorish
>behavior.
>
> Disagreeing on the issues is one thing, but at a Washington Presscorp
>social function to be standing over Alan Colmes in a drunken manner and
>screaming to the point of physical threat that Alan wasn't being enough of a
>"loyal liberal", and trying to get into a physical fight with other people I
>work with, and then going on his booktour and flatout lying about what
>happened, I have lost all respect I had for the man.

Uhhh... he's a comedian. This is his schtick.
You aren't supposed to respect him, you're supposed to laugh.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[RB]

And you witnessed this first-hand at the Washington Presscorp?

RB

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> >"Glenn Dowdy"
> >While not convinced that Franken falls under this umbrella, it certainly
> >covers Coulter to a T.
>
>
> Sorry Glenn to shatter your illusions about Franken, but the man's a
> bigtime jerk, and he owes a lot of people a serious apology for his
boorish
> behavior.
>
> Disagreeing on the issues is one thing, but at a Washington Presscorp
> social function to be standing over Alan Colmes in a drunken manner and
> screaming to the point of physical threat that Alan wasn't being enough of
a
> "loyal liberal", and trying to get into a physical fight with other
people I
> work with, and then going on his booktour and flatout lying about what
> happened, I have lost all respect I had for the man.
>
> What stopped Al was our resident jock Brian Kilmeade, who "chilled
him
> out" and prevented anything from actually coming to blows.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[WillStG]

> (Scott Dorsey)

>Uhhh... he's a comedian. This is his schtick.
>You aren't supposed to respect him, you're supposed to laugh.

Everybody on Fox & Friends is sophisticated enough to recognize schtick
and appreciate satire Scott. Al Franken wasn't being funny, he was acting
like an arrogant ass that's off his meds.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>"RB"
>And you witnessed this first-hand at the Washington Presscorp?

As I said, I know 5 people who were there who gave the same perturbed
account about it when they got back from Washington. On thing about Fox News,
the anchors/correspondents/producers and the crew talk all the time - except
for O'Reilly.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nmm]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2003 6:30 PM, WillStG > wrote:
>>"nmm"
>
>>Cocaine Rehab really brings you back to a fantasy world
>doesn't it Wiliam
>>J.
>
> And that would be? I haven't even smoked a joint in
>over 25 years.



25 years clean and "sober"?

And before that? What happened to the 23 year old William J. to turn his
back on the "alternative subculture" in 1978.

IT was just a guess that at some point you must have had a major break
with your "liberal leaning" father, and rehab / reprogramming might have
been part of that.


But i do congradulate you. Most people come to realise that drugs are just
a plot to subvert the subculture.

[Glenn Dowdy]

"nmm" > wrote in message ...

> But i do congradulate you. Most people come to realise that drugs are just
> a plot to subvert the subculture.
>
I thought it was to sell crappy music.

Glenn D.

[ryanm]

"nmm" > wrote in message ...
>
> But i do congradulate you. Most people come to realise that drugs are just
> a plot to subvert the subculture.
>
Any shred of credibility you may have had just flew out the window.
Ignorance and paranoia are not endearing qualities.

ryanm

[nmm]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 2:12 PM, Glenn Dowdy
> wrote:
>
>"nmm" > wrote in message news:BC020E4F-
...
>
>> But i do congradulate you. Most people come to realise
>that drugs are just
>> a plot to subvert the subculture.
>>
>I thought it was to sell crappy music.
>
>Glenn D.
>
>
>

Q: what does a Dead fan say when he has no drugs at a concert?







A :This Music Sucks!!!!!

[nxmm]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 4:23 PM, WillStG > wrote:
> Bullpussy Charles. Have I offered money to have
>anyone shot? It is a
>felony in the United States to offer money to have the
>President shot like this

The Government you so rabidly support has offered and given money to have
people shot.




>moron has, that's "Turnabout is fair play" to you? Have I
>tried to intimidate
>people by publishing where they live?
>
> I know you're an ideologue Charles, but I am still
>surprised that you
>can't bear to say it is wrong to offer money if someone
>will shoot the
>President.
>
> You're lost.


YOu were using a pedantic technicality to try and cause me grief. What was
obviously a joke a $5.00 bounty was misquoted out of context by you when
you informed the authorities, and My ISP. It is again here being misquoted
by you in ordr to make your point.

It's not so strange that you believe the lies of youur government , when
you justify your own actions with lies.

NOw why didi you claim credit for a post in this NG that is word for word
being posted by others all over the USENET?

Where is your agenda of lies really coming from William J Miho of New
Rochelle NY. ( P--- ave.)

[WillStG]

>Finally someone who really understands Will. What a piece of **** that
>guy is.
>
>Oh, I agree about Bush, except I'd **** on him too.

Feel free to come on over and try, Brother.

Ot perhaps you could build up your courage to the point of posting your
real name too, maybe explain if you actually have more than snot (Gack) to do
with audio, that kind of thing...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Gack]

In article >,
(WillStG) wrote:

>
>
> >Finally someone who really understands Will. What a piece of **** that
> >guy is.
> >
> >Oh, I agree about Bush, except I'd **** on him too.
>
> Feel free to come on over and try, Brother.
>
> Ot perhaps you could build up your courage to the point of posting your
> real name too, maybe explain if you actually have more than snot (Gack) to do
> with audio, that kind of thing...

Spoken like a piece of ****.

Your wife and children are ****, too. Your wife is a lousy lay, too.
Doesn't even know how to properly give a blow job.

Have ya got that?

[WillStG]

>Gack

> (WillStG) wrote

>> Ot perhaps you could build up your courage to the point of posting your
real name too, maybe explain if you actually have more than snot (Gack) to do
with audio, that kind of thing.. >

>Spoken like a piece of ****.

You area of expertise I take it, talking ****?

About all you have done since finding usenet a week ago Snotface, is throw
out offtopic political barbs, on

alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers
alt.books.stephen-king
and here on RAP.

If you have nothing on-topic to contribute, you really don't deserve much
to take up bandwidth with the offtopic stuff. And contrary to your juvenile
assumptions, the guys here who disagree with me politically aren't impressed
much with jr. weeners such as yourself.

>Your wife and children are ****, too. Your wife is a lousy lay, too. Doesn't
even know how to properly give a blow job.
>
>Have ya got that?

Oh, tough guy huh... But you're still too much of a chicken-****,
candy-assed, pimple-faced geek to print your actual name when you pathetically
attempt to call someone out? And you expect anyone to take your flaccid
posturings seriously? In the real word it's deeds, not empty words that
matter, "Gack". And as for calling me "liar" for working at Fox News, well
unlike you I get *paid* to do audio and in my world _you_ wouldn't last a
minute before they'd kick your pathetic dumb ass out of the chair.

But you really have a burning need to discuss this in person, anytime
Brother. I used to do live sound too. Just tell us sweetness, who you are,
and who you work for (besides your left hand.)


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ryanm]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Like any rational, sane human being, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
>
But it's rational and sane to lock someone up for the rest of their life
at the cost of millions to the taxpayers? If someone is dangerous enough
that they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives, then they're
dangerous enough to save the millions and put a $0.50 bullet in their heads.
What, exactly, is the point of locking someone in a cell for 50 years or
more until they die of old age? You took the same thing from them, just more
slowly and cruelly than the bullet.

ryanm

[nmm]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 12:55 PM, Ciberratt >
wrote:
>Unless CNN had it wrong. They were talking baout it just the other
>day.
>

well the Toronto star reported today that Bush wants a Fair Trial and then
an Execution.

Tell me where , and what country that the president can make sentancing
comments on a pending trial.. that ofcourse is supposed to be fair.

american justice is a sad joke..Unless this trial is held in accordance
with the Rome Convention, or the World Court ( who i believe the US is
still barred from).. It will be a kangaroo court with a hanging 'judge".

[nmm]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 7:22 PM, ryanm >
wrote:
>What, exactly, is the point of locking someone in a cell for 50
>years or
>more until they die of old age? You took the same thing from
>them, just more
>slowly and cruelly than the bullet.
>
>ryanm
>

ask Timothy Evans..

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

ryanm > wrote:

> "Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> >
> > Like any rational, sane human being, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
> >
> But it's rational and sane to lock someone up for the rest of their life
> at the cost of millions to the taxpayers? If someone is dangerous enough
> that they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives, then they're
> dangerous enough to save the millions and put a $0.50 bullet in their heads.
> What, exactly, is the point of locking someone in a cell for 50 years or
> more until they die of old age? You took the same thing from them, just more
> slowly and cruelly than the bullet.


A minor point is that the execution costs several times what life in
prison costs. A more important practical matter is that when you find
out 10 years later that you convicted the wrong guy (which happens ALL
the ****ing time in this country, and especially in the states that
execute the most people), it's a lot easier to let him out of prison
than out of the cemetery. And most importantly in principle, killing
people is a ****ing stupid way to iterate your contention that it's
wrong to kill people. A child could tell you that.


ulysses

[Steven Sullivan]

Justin Ulysses Morse > wrote:
> nmm > wrote:

> > Isn't the rule of morality that you can't hold people to higher moral
> > standards then you personally demonstrate?

> Apparently not. The lesson W has been teaching the world is that
> morality is subjective,


Morality *is* subjective, in the sense that it's a human construct.
There is no objective 'morality' in nature that can be deduced
from observation, that would exist without human thought.

Sorry.

That doesn't excuse GWB, for good arguments against *his*
form of morality can be made.

[S O'Neill]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> A minor point is that the execution costs several times what life in
> prison costs. A more important practical matter is that when you find
> out 10 years later that you convicted the wrong guy (which happens ALL
> the ****ing time in this country, and especially in the states that
> execute the most people), it's a lot easier to let him out of prison
> than out of the cemetery. And most importantly in principle, killing
> people is a ****ing stupid way to iterate your contention that it's
> wrong to kill people. A child could tell you that.

Also, the violent crime rates in states with the death penalty are
slightly higher that those without.

[WillStG]

> S O'Neill
>Also, the violent crime rates in states with the death penalty are
>slightly higher that those without.

Well Jeez, why wouldn't people who have to live with a high level of
violent crime want to deal with it more harshly than those who live in States
where it's less of a problem?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Glenn Dowdy]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...

> So then you applaud Bush for trying to clean up the mess named Saddam
> Hussein and for bringing freedom and self determination to the peoples of
> Greater Persia?
>
Persia is Iran. Plus, we've yet to see how much freedom and
self-determination is going to happen.

Glenn D.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

WillStG > wrote:

> So then you applaud Bush for trying to clean up the mess named Saddam
> Hussein and for bringing freedom and self determination to the peoples of
> Greater Persia?

I can't think he's making a sincere effort to clean up the mess until
he removes the people who MADE the mess from his administration. His
rhetoric about no longer supporting undemocratic regimes will ring
hollow as long as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of those guys who have
been actively engaged in this mess-making since the Nixon
administration are still working for him. You can tell a lot about a
man by the company he keeps.


ulysses

[WillStG]

>Justin Ulysses Morse

>So what you're saying, is that it's a method for the innocent to become
>as guilty as those they are bringing to justice.

No, I am saying the purpose of the Death Penalty is not merely as a
cautionary tale for innocents, the purpose of the penalty is to serve Justice.
And Justice is as much a virtue as Mercy.

Can you say "all you have to give" is NOT a fair penalty for "taking more
than you can ever repay"? In that regard the Death Penalty for a mass murderer
is in fact a _lesser_ payment of debt.

And I did allow that perhaps for the truly repentant, Justice could be
served with lesser means. We have one life, and it is better in my opinion
that a human being change and grow as much as possible while here in the body.
The next world has enough human trash in it, better to solve the person here
in this world, the next world is not intended to be a garbage can. But if a
person isn't going to change anyway, taking his life is a "Just" way to remove
the debt for murder from his own head. Justice in truth serves the
perpetrator, as well as the victims and society.

I agree the criminal justice system sucks, but there is no better.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Roger W. Norman]

And most importantly in principle, killing
> people is a ****ing stupid way to iterate your contention that it's
> wrong to kill people. A child could tell you that.
>
>
> ulysses

It's a holdover from the Old Testament when prisons weren't a concept, and
it's also one of the things that shows that religious government such as the
Islamists wish to inflict upon the world wouldn't be a good thing. Laws
written 1500 to 3000 years ago were for a time when people were less able,
economically and simply in the physical realm, able to take care of
"prisoners". They took part of a tribe's food away. They were a constant
reminder of the crime and the tragedy, and a source of contention that would
have to be dealt with later. And they required that some number of people
would have to be guards, which meant less people to help the tribe continue
their existence. Hence, "justice" was immediate and severe. An eye for an
eye, tooth for a tooth. It's really a very uncivilized concept and makes
one wonder just how mankind ever developed a more enlightened concept of
real justice.

Now certainly, even 3000 years ago there were prisons within the confines of
large city-states, but they were more along the lines of holding cells
because anyone needing to see the Pharoah, for example, for judgement was
most likely going to be put to death anyway. And for the time, and the
level of development of man's laws, swift and irrevocable punishment was
just another level of maintaining power through fear.

In today's environment, the concept of a death penalty is supposedly a
deterrent to inhuman acts but law and justice have never taken the
psychological factor into consideration, assuming that no one wants to be
killed for killing another. If it's not a consideration during the
commission of a murder, for instance, than it damned sure wasn't a
deterrent. So logically, the reason we have a death penalty can't be
deterrence, and is therefore still that "eye for an eye" level of vengence
from the Old Testament.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
m...
> ryanm > wrote:
>
> > "Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > Like any rational, sane human being, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
> > >
> > But it's rational and sane to lock someone up for the rest of their
life
> > at the cost of millions to the taxpayers? If someone is dangerous enough
> > that they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives, then they're
> > dangerous enough to save the millions and put a $0.50 bullet in their
heads.
> > What, exactly, is the point of locking someone in a cell for 50 years or
> > more until they die of old age? You took the same thing from them, just
more
> > slowly and cruelly than the bullet.
>
>
> A minor point is that the execution costs several times what life in
> prison costs. A more important practical matter is that when you find
> out 10 years later that you convicted the wrong guy (which happens ALL
> the ****ing time in this country, and especially in the states that
> execute the most people), it's a lot easier to let him out of prison
> than out of the cemetery.

[WillStG]

> "Roger W. Norman"

>Geez, Will. Give it a break. Ulysses is taking about a philosophical
>concept and you want to bend it to some form of anti-liberal gibberish so
>that you can claim Ulysses was calling Saddam innocent.

Look, I wanted to present the other side of the argument, not attack
Justin. I do agree there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty - in
some circumstances. But there are are also valid reasons _for_ a death penalty,
not the least of which is the concept of "Justice" which went unmentioned in
Justin's musings. Calling the death penalty something "a child could
understand" as wrong is a less than well considered argument, IMO. Children
get murdered too.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Roger W. Norman]

OK, but you specifically said > Well - I agree you have a childish point
of view Justin >, which ain't just presenting the other side. It's an
attack, presenting the opinion that Ulysses has nothing to say or that he
was wrong in his assessment, when you were the one that leaped from the
"concept" of the death penalty to his supposed pronounciation of Saddam
being innocent, which isn't what he said at all.

And again, > Calling the death penalty something "a child could
understand" as wrong is a less than well considered argument, IMO<, which,
of course, he didn't say either. He said that the concept of putting
someone to death to support the concept that killing someone is a bad thing
is something that even a child could understand. His words >And most
importantly in principle, killing people is a ****ing stupid way to iterate
your contention that it's
wrong to kill people. A child could tell you that.< doesn't equate on iota
with your answer.

I don't know if you took Evelyn Wood's speed reading course and didn't come
up with the comprehension factor that makes speed reading a viable exercise,
but something has got to give about your inability to read a statement and
understand what is being said in the context it is being given.

And this is not a dig on you. More rather it is a suggestion that you take
a little more time in reading the post than just jumping in to support an
argument when, in fact, a concept is being presented. An argument for the
concept of the death penalty might be deterence or it might be saving the
state/taxpayers money, or whatever, but it's not concerned with the said
guilt or innocence of a person. And what Ulysses was talking about is the
death penalty in conjunction with our ability to discern whether a person
is, in fact, guilty or innocent. My thoughts on this are a little earlier
in the thread, so you only need to go read that rather than attack me as if
I can't see whether Saddam should be considered guilty or innocent. Again,
one is a matter of evidence, the other is a concept, the result of which, if
incorrectly applied, means the death of an innocent person. It has nothing
to do with Saddam's guilt or innocence, just in terms of the concept of
killing someone because they killed someone else.

I understand you have strong convictions, but please Will, let's try to make
them at least apply to the exact statements involved and not turn them
around to mean something else, such as in your above statement "Calling the
death penalty something "a child could understand" as wrong is a less than
well considered arugment, IMO. Children get murdered too." It has NO
bearing on Ulysses' statement and doesn't make you look too good in your
ability to argue a point.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> > "Roger W. Norman"
>
> >Geez, Will. Give it a break. Ulysses is taking about a philosophical
> >concept and you want to bend it to some form of anti-liberal gibberish so
> >that you can claim Ulysses was calling Saddam innocent.
>
> Look, I wanted to present the other side of the argument, not attack
> Justin. I do agree there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty -
in
> some circumstances. But there are are also valid reasons _for_ a death
penalty,
> not the least of which is the concept of "Justice" which went unmentioned
in
> Justin's musings. Calling the death penalty something "a child could
> understand" as wrong is a less than well considered argument, IMO.
Children
> get murdered too.
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

>Well Jeez, why wouldn't people who have to live with a high level of
>violent crime want to deal with it more harshly than those who live in
States
>where it's less of a problem?

Damn, you did it again. It's states "with the death penalty" that was the
qualifying clause. Not more violence. The proper interpretation is that
the death penalty DOES NOT deter violent crimes. Geez.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> > S O'Neill
> >Also, the violent crime rates in states with the death penalty are
> >slightly higher that those without.
>
> Well Jeez, why wouldn't people who have to live with a high level of
> violent crime want to deal with it more harshly than those who live in
States
> where it's less of a problem?
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[WillStG]

>"Roger W. Norman"

>>Willstg
>>Well Jeez, why wouldn't people who have to live with a high level of violent
crime want to deal with it more harshly than those who live in States where
it's less of a problem?>>

>Damn, you did it again. It's states "with the death penalty" that was the
>qualifying clause. Not more violence. The proper interpretation is that the
death penalty DOES NOT deter violent crimes. Geez.

Perhaps you are putting cart before the horse with your "proper
interpretation" Roger. Perhaps it is _because_ of the high rate of
murder/whatever you-wish-to-call-it that the voters in States with the death
penalty have instituted such laws through their duly elected representatives.
You may have the causality reversed.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>"Roger W. Norman"

>OK, but you specifically said

Move on to my later post on Justice.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nmm]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 11:10 AM, WillStG >
wrote:
>Perhaps you are putting cart before the horse with your
>"proper
>interpretation" Roger. Perhaps it is _because_ of the high
>rate of
>murder/whatever you-wish-to-call-it that the voters in
>States with the death
>penalty have instituted such laws through their duly
>elected representatives.
>You may have the causality reversed.

Perhaps you are caught in a traffic jam of Horse and Buggies with your
backwards morality.

America Iran and Congo are the countries that execute the most people.. So
look at the company you keep.

Just because a lot of people believe in Astrology doesn't make it science.


Why does America lead the world in violent crime? Because it's an
Industry.

[S O'Neill]

You're inverting cause and effect, like my ex-wife used to do.

WillStG wrote:

>>S O'Neill
>>Also, the violent crime rates in states with the death penalty are
>>slightly higher that those without.
>
>
> Well Jeez, why wouldn't people who have to live with a high level of
> violent crime want to deal with it more harshly than those who live in States
> where it's less of a problem?