Not to be a stick-in-the mud, but just how did the White House…
… CNN
Yeah, and I never called the fat bully in my class fat either. I would not say he did anything to “intimidate” me except to exist.
Given CNN’s history of Access Uber Alles! why should we think that their failure to do their jobs is anything but journalistic cowardice?
Beagle-
I also get tired of dumbass crybabies like DtC and Reeder. Jesus Christ, they will believe any bullshit as long as it’s bad and about Bush.
Not that crybaby liberals have a monoploy on this kind of behavior. Crybaby conservatives are just as bad. It’s great being moderate. I can call people assholes on both ends of the spectrum.
It’s not that I like GWB. Even when I agree with his policies, I have a nagging feeling his overconfidence will screw things up. OTOH, making an accusation of intimidation should include at least one overt act that we can examine.
Anything else is just rank speculation from the buttocks.
Asshole, logical, moderate! 
Asshole, logical moderate!
And his sick twisted hapster too!
hampster!
Ok, I’m off to start a rant about tiny edit boxes, locked input screens, fat fingers, and lack of sleep.
sheeesh
And even after the revision, you STILL got it wrong.
H-A-M-S-T-E-R. Hamster. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Yeah, right. The press has never soft-pedaled news and toed an administration line in time of war before. You idiot, Diogenes. This happens in every friggin’ armed engagment the United States enters.
You would do well to read the book, *Ruses for War*, by John Quigley. Interesting read on the manipulation of the press and public opinion by the executive branch in every armed conflict on which the U.S. has been involved since the Korean war in 1950.
Of course, you prefer clamping on those Liberal blinders you habitually wear, as opposed to actual objective thinking. Talk about tools.
As reprehensible as Briganti’s comments may be, your outrage doesn’t seem to be aimed properly.
Hamster/Hapster/Hampster - Big Deal
Put helmets on any of them and they can beat the Steelers!
Bubba
Did I just break a rule here? - tail wagging slowly:p
The accusations regarding CNN’s supposed cover-up of Iraqi torture were discussed, and shredded, many months ago in this GD thread.
Anyone who knows me also knows that i lose no opportunity to criticize the Bush administration, or Fox news. And i certainly agree with DtC that Briganti’s statement was the sort of self-serving, flag-waving, jingoistic bullshit that we have come to expect from Fox.
But in criticizing that statement, it seems to me that a key issue is one of journalistic integrity. And if that is the topic for debate, then i really don’t think we can let CNN and Amanpour off as lightly as you do, Diogenes.
As Neurotik said in the first response in this thread, CNN demonstrated a complete lack of courage by caving in to the so-called pressure. If CNN really wanted to tell the real story, and not be lap dogs for the administration and the armed forces, then they should damn well have reported accordingly. It strikes me that there were enough Americans opposed to what was happening in Iraq to provide a decent audience for some non-Fox-style coverage.
On the other hand, maybe CNN was happy to follow along with the flag-wavers when the war was going well, and are just now having a change of heart because Bush is coming under increasing pressure over the whole WMD thing and the currect situuation in Iraq. If that’s the case, then they’re no better, in terms of journalistic integrity, than Fox news.
It certainly is possible that CNN applied self-censorship in response to the overwhelming barrage of administration and Fox news-type bullshit, but if they did then we should hold CNN responsible for this, not the administration or Fox news. As sublight suggested, it’s not as if CNN is some lone, crusading muckraker who could be easily intimidated; it’s a big news organization that should be willing and able to set its own priorities and maintain the ideal of journalistic integrity.
And if Amanpour was so outraged at what as going on, why didn’t she fly home during the war, resign from CNN in protest, and break the news of this press muzzling? Maybe the glamour and the big paycheck were worth more to her than the little matter of journalistic integrity. I believe her accusation that the media toed the administration line–in fact, i was making the same assertion during the war–but her admission seems a little self-serving when it comes months after the fact.
“We at CNN were too credulous, lazy and protective of our ratings to sufficiently pursue the truth in our reporting leading up to and during the war in Iraq. We resolve to do better in the future.”
I could respect that kind of statement. But “We wuz intimidated by the Bush Administration and Fox News!” invites contempt, not respect.
OK. I, too, have a strange attraction to Chrsitiane Amanpour. Just hearing her say that sensual name turns me on.
Christiaaaaaaaaaaaane Amanpooooooooour.
Hmmmmm. Does that make me gay?
Because your lame-ass non-response to my arguments remained unresponded to?
Bite me, dog boy. Your arguments were stupid, but I responded to each and every point you made to me, even your truly idiotic claim that CNN’s coverage had been “insidious” because it reported the torture allegations of an Iraqi defector. Others will have to judge for themselves, but I regard your claim of “lame-ass non-response” as completely moronic.
[Swingers]
Mike: The whole Judy Garland thing kinda turned me on. Does that make me some kind of fag?
Trent: No, baby, you’re money.
[/Swingers]
Your control of your immature emotions, or lack thereof, is something I always enjoy reading. Internet thugs always make me laugh. I hope that in court your reactions to being out thought are a bit more measured.
Beagle, it’s bad enough that you’re making an ass of yourself in this thread; now you drag in evidence from another thread that makes you look even dumber.
In your debate with minty in that thread, he not only addressed your main criticisms, but his last post made some extremely relevant points about the difficulties of being a journalist in a society ruled by a dictatorial regime. Does your failure to address that point suggest that you agreed with him, or simply that you couldn’t think of a response?
He also asked about the contradiction of seeing Saddam as a brutal killer in general, but then apparently denying his power and brutality when it comes to discussing whether a reporter should rat out his sources. Maybe you were happy enough for those sources to pay the price of their lives just so we could have some verifyable sources, but i imagine that they were not, and neither was the journalist in question. As far as i’m aware, when a source requests anonymity as a condition of giving information, Journalism Ethics 101 requires that the reporter either (a) refuse the information, or (b) honor the request or anonymity.
I’m not saying that minty was right about everything or that you were wrong about everything, but when you drag in another debate in an attempt to discredit him, you should try to make sure that it’s not you who ends up looking like the jackass. You accuse him now of making a “non-response” in that other thread, yet you were the one to abandon the thread while there were still important issues on the table for discussion.
As I say, others will have to judge for themselves. I gotta tell you, though, that “I r001 u!” isn’t much of an argument. It would have been ever so much more convincing if you’d actually shown where I purportedly failed to respond to your arguments. But I ain’t holding my breath on that one.