The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Please do us a big favor news media and stop repeating accusations from the right wing propaganda machine. The job of journalism is not to repeat both sides belief. Rather, your job is to hear both sides and try to find out the truth. The right wing propaganda machine is taking advantage of you right now because they know you will carry any thing at all. Please stop it. Check to see if there is any substance before you run it. It's the only respectable thing to do. It is your profession.
For me it becomes like the boy who cried wolf. That's what will happen when you get it so wrong so often. Why should I believe you when you are wrong more times than not? Below are 2 examples on Pelosi that were nothing:
For me it becomes like the boy who cried wolf. That's what will happen when you get it so wrong so often. Why should I believe you when you are wrong more times than not? Below are 2 examples on Pelosi that were nothing:
- The controversy surrounding her use of a bigger plane. First, people were upset she had this right. Ummm, Denny Hastert had the same thing. It was decided after 9/11 that it might be a good thing to have the person behind Cheney to have this amenity. When that failed, it was she needed a bigger plane for all her staff. Well, let's see. There is no record of her requesting the bigger plane. It was done by the agency since Hastert's old plane was too small, fuel capacity-wise, for Pelosi. If she used Hastert's old plane, she would have to stop every time to refuel when flying from DC to SF. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me to give her a bigger plane.
- Her exclusion of Samoa in the minimum wage bill. First off, Del Monte (owners of Starkist) have not contributed to Pelosi. You can't really do quid pro quo when you never got the quid. Secondly, she has sponsored similar legislation with the same exemption since 1997, years before Del Monte bought Starkist. Thirdly, this exemption has been in every minimum wage bill for the last 10+ years, whether sponsored by Democrats or Republicans. You could argue the exemption is not right, but there is no proof that Pelosi was involved in anything nefarious.
In addition, there is the new Edwards' blogger "scandal" (he hired 2 dirty hippies who used profanity while blogging. Oh the humanity!). And the falsehood of the Clinton started the Obama madrassa story. And the Edwards real estate story (AP story which was very funny because if Edwards had done what the writer wanted he would have been breaking the law). I could do on and on. But in each instance there was not even smoke yet the media reported there was a fire. Media, you're already on the path to irrelevancy. Try practicing journalism instead of stenography. Or else just STFU.
posted by Tom G at 2/07/2007
4 Comments:
Yeah, Pelosi us just a selfless servant of the people.
I'm curious as to what your source for the putatively exonerating info (please don't say Wikipedia ;)). I recall hearing the same thing about Delmonte not being a contributor to Dems, but I can't recall where.
It might well be the case that she's done nothing wrong here. However, you can hardly cry foul over people rasing their eyebrows when she champions a minimum wage bill that has exemptions benificial to a company in her district, regardless of whether they have contributed directly to her campaign.
Stay tuned.
Huh? Nancy Pelosi is not a saint. Like all human beings she has flaws.
You want to condemn her, but you got nothing. So what is the point of this exercise? Prove Mike and Tom wrong? Prove that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republics?
The media is trying very hard to find something wrong with Nancy. They have not found much; a private jet and a minimal wage exemption for ~3,000 people, which she did not propose.
Now lets compare her to our sitting president and those linked with Jack Abramoff. Is that crickets I hear?
First of all, unless you regard Fox News as 'the media', the suggestion that 'the media' is out to crucify Pelosi is absurd. She's been treated quite favorably by the press outside of Fox.
Secondly, for the umpteenth time, I don't give a fuck about the Republicans. But there is no shortage of criticism of the Republicans - its ubiquitous, especially here. I donlt feel motivated to write a post saying "Yup, me too!". I tend to write when I disagree. Trust me, there are people who are as convoenced I'm a liberal as you guys seem to be that I'm a conservative.
What concerns me is the kneejerked reaction to lovingly gaze upon the Dems with an uncritical eye, making excuses for things which you'd be skeptical of if it were on th eother side of the aisle. If you wonder why I tend to bash the Dems here as opposed to the Republicans (whom I have ever praised, by the way) its simply because you guys don't express an ounce of skepticism or healthy skepticism about anything from that side of the aisle. And I'm not impressed at all with the "she's not the first person to ride the jumbo jet" defense. Are you against such extravagance or are you just against Republican extravagance?
Joe,
I'll type slowly so maybe you can understand. My point is that the media (yes, it is not confined to just Fox News; all of these stories were repeated throughout the mainstream media including the NY Times) does itself a disservice by just repeating right wing talking points without determining whether the accusation has any validity. I understand the motivation for the right wing to "get" Pelosi or Obama or HRC or Edwards or Reid...And you know what, they probably will find something with teeth. But right now they have nothing. And everytime the media reiterates right wing talking points and it's proven false (usually with a 5 minute Google search) it makes it that much more unlikely for me to believe it when it does happen. Not because I think Dems are any better than Republicans. Rather, because there's a track history that makes mistrust the only real option. Hence, why I titled the post The Boy Who Cried Wolf. And eventually the American people will realize they've cried wolf so many times that something big will happen and no one will pay attention because of the history of lies.
As for the plane or Samoa exemption, those are completely different topics than what was posted. For me, I do not like the exemption. But it invokes little outrage in me (just above the outrage you've seen me post on labor laws in other countries, which is none).But it's not corruption on Pelosi's part and that's what the story was about. As for the plane, I actually think it makes sense. I knew that Hastert got access to a plane after 9/11 and it made sense. We were attacked on 9/11 and he was 3rd in command. So I definitely don't feel that Pelosi should apologize for having the same protection. Or did I miss something and did the war on terror suddenly end? I think allowing the plane to fly coast to coast is a no-brainer. I would have supported it for Hastert and don't understand why he didn't have that ability. For while the Speaker is accountable to his constituents he's also 3rd in command and accountable to all of us.
Post a Comment
<< Main