The Times’ own ombudsman agrees with me. Smart fellow, that.
Squink, surely you know that, in a political campaign, helping or hurting one candidate is hurting or helping his opponent.
Nope. If that were the case then every article which supplies any information upon which one might base a judgement of a candidate would count as advocacy.
That’s absurd.
The only mention of Clinton or Obama in the ombudsman’s piece is a quote from an Obama supporter. The ombudsman never suggests that the original piece was written for the benefit of those democratic candidates; so I guess the ‘smart fellow’ disagrees with you too.
Even without the sex, the story skewered McCain quite nicely. Are you now claiming that was inapropriate too? With that sort of PC filter in place, how do you expect anyone to ever learn anything about the candidates?
No, the absurd thing is to misunderstand the point so thoroughly. The article’s purpose was to trash one particular candidate. Not to “supply information” - as we’ve seen, there wasn’t any real information here. See the difference? :dubious:
It raised allegations, but without adequate context to make any judgments about it.
Both of which points I’ve made quite clear. Oh well, horse, water …
Ah, the royal we wears blinders, and is a mindreader:
I guess you’ll just have to disagree with me and the ombudsman here:
I’ve seen a lot of discussion these past few days about McCain’s relations with lobbyists.
Now maybe you think the press should not report on such matters, since doing so might influence citizens to vote for someone else, but I’m heartly sick of the endless stream of McCain fluff pieces. Actual meat is good for democracy.
I’ve been quite clear, as I’ve said. You need to do your part too, though. :rolleyes:
Exactly. But this wasn’t it.
Uh oh, now the AP is advocating Obama:
Democrats seek FEC probe of McCain
Will the madness never end ?!
I think we understand that you think that they shouldn’t run a piece without pictures of the dead girl or live boy. To each his own.
Just on the off chance that you’re somehow, appearances notwithstanding, willing to discuss the matter responsibly: What do *you * think the story is? :dubious:
My take on the story is pretty much what Keller said in the link. I had posted my take before reading Keller’s, so that is some evidence that Keller wasn’t blowing smoke. Hey, I agree that a Senator in bed with lobbyists (either literally or figuratively) isn’t Pullitzer Prize material, but it is a story.
Damn shame they led with the affair crap instead then, innit?
Lets see him explain away the Keating Five fun and games. Why was he the only one to escape with his career. The films are still around. They will be shown. Lobbyist tool then lobbyist tool now. He got caught red handed and has tried to make it look like he learned a lesson. Apparently not.
Glenn “escaped with his career” too. Of the other 3, 2 served out their terms (and were old and plausible retirement candidates anyway), the other took an appointed job.
Maybe the magnitude of the facts was less than the magnitude of the scandal yet again?
I suppose your right . Costing the tax payers more than 3 billion is not worth much when compared to this admin.