9.08.2004
Give the dog a bone
On the way to work this morning, I heard an NPR Morning Edition story which centered upon former Republicans voting for Kerry. They are featured in a MoveOn.org 'switching' ad. There was no counterpoint.
This afternoon, coming home, I listened to NPR's All Things Considered. Turned it on, and caught the tail end of a story where a black man, father of a soldier killed in March or April of last year talked about the 1000-deaths figure being trivialized and downplayed...except when it was someone close to you.
This was followed by a story which called for more in-depth government analysis of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The gist of the story was this: there are too many 'studies' which could leave 'gaps' in the truth, and more attention must be paid to the 'policy' behind the affairs. In other words, blame must be assigned to members higher along the chain.
I only listened to a small portion of the entire broadcasts, but the portion I 'happened' to hear was the above. My impression was: anti-Bush, anti-administration. Let me repeat, there are two sides to this story, not one. I say to NPR: your bias is apparent -- you want Bush out and the Dem candidate (flaws and all) in. Spin, spin, and more. I am simple and out of the loop, but I'm no dummy. I can see this. I deeply resent it. Let us hear both sides in equal and fair amounts. Present all of the facts, not just those you wish to push. We would prefer NPR to reveal each side and not just one. You call yourself a news organization. Be one. Otherwise, state your position. If we know you are anti-Bush, it would help us to listen easier, with a grain of salt.
In other words, give the dog a bone...or tell us you don't care for Fido.
This afternoon, coming home, I listened to NPR's All Things Considered. Turned it on, and caught the tail end of a story where a black man, father of a soldier killed in March or April of last year talked about the 1000-deaths figure being trivialized and downplayed...except when it was someone close to you.
This was followed by a story which called for more in-depth government analysis of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The gist of the story was this: there are too many 'studies' which could leave 'gaps' in the truth, and more attention must be paid to the 'policy' behind the affairs. In other words, blame must be assigned to members higher along the chain.
I only listened to a small portion of the entire broadcasts, but the portion I 'happened' to hear was the above. My impression was: anti-Bush, anti-administration. Let me repeat, there are two sides to this story, not one. I say to NPR: your bias is apparent -- you want Bush out and the Dem candidate (flaws and all) in. Spin, spin, and more. I am simple and out of the loop, but I'm no dummy. I can see this. I deeply resent it. Let us hear both sides in equal and fair amounts. Present all of the facts, not just those you wish to push. We would prefer NPR to reveal each side and not just one. You call yourself a news organization. Be one. Otherwise, state your position. If we know you are anti-Bush, it would help us to listen easier, with a grain of salt.
In other words, give the dog a bone...or tell us you don't care for Fido.
// posted by HunterByrd @ 6:28 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Moomont:
I respect Andrew Sullivan as a powerful, insightful pundit. His points on the way Bush has inflated government like a gurgling bubble in the La Braea(sp) Tar Pits is valid. I agree with him - I heartily agree with him!
Sullivan cedes the war front to Bush, mistakes made and lessons unlearned notwithstanding. For me, that is a given: W's quintessential focus is on defense. Defense is the paramount issue of this election cycle. My full faith and confidence rests with this president.
As to the homosexual marriage issue, I respectfully disagree with him. I understand the depths of his passion on this issue, but I also deeply understand the counterpoint to his argument. This divisive issue is best left for another day and another venue. Our society will never be perfect. If we can remain civil, and continue our discourse without resort to uncivil measures, the issue will resolve itself (for better or worse) within a generation's time.
HunterByrd (had to post as anonymous b/c on another PC).
Post a Comment
I respect Andrew Sullivan as a powerful, insightful pundit. His points on the way Bush has inflated government like a gurgling bubble in the La Braea(sp) Tar Pits is valid. I agree with him - I heartily agree with him!
Sullivan cedes the war front to Bush, mistakes made and lessons unlearned notwithstanding. For me, that is a given: W's quintessential focus is on defense. Defense is the paramount issue of this election cycle. My full faith and confidence rests with this president.
As to the homosexual marriage issue, I respectfully disagree with him. I understand the depths of his passion on this issue, but I also deeply understand the counterpoint to his argument. This divisive issue is best left for another day and another venue. Our society will never be perfect. If we can remain civil, and continue our discourse without resort to uncivil measures, the issue will resolve itself (for better or worse) within a generation's time.
HunterByrd (had to post as anonymous b/c on another PC).
# posted by 
: 8:25 AM
: 8:25 AM << Home
