« Dog attacks | Main | Obstacles, challenges »

February 15, 2006

Important news

Friday’s paper (2/10) featured the 2002 terrorist plot on L.A. prominently on the front page. It is certainly suspect that the Bush administration is releasing this story four years later to justify its “eavesdropping.”

In the same edition, the revelation that Scooter Libby was directed to leak information from an intelligence report by his superiors only garnered a small space on page A-6. Paul Pillar (senior intelligence officer for the CIA) only earned page A-11 with his indictment of the White House handling (ignoring) of warnings that Iraq could cascade into violence if we invaded to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Once again, the administration has succeeded in taking our eye off the ball and The Star has been implicit by assigning importance in the placement of these stories.

Cheryl Hughes
Prairie Village

Comments

GCYL

"I also wonder what rules would apply if I was involved in a similar incident. But I think I know the answer. Gearge Orwell said something about some being more equal than others. Geuss we now know who he meant."

But jack, when have you and I ever been "equal" to any Vice President? When has the KC police department cleared out the roads and highways to help our traveling efforts? When will we get our own security force ranked higher than the local police?

As to your other questions, it is my honest opinion that no matter what party the Vice President belonged to the over all issues would have remained the same. There would be some slight differences, for example if you believe in the "liberal slant" of the "main stream" media, I could see a Dem VP reporting sooner. Still, overall, same same. Well, the "conserative slant" of the "new" media would be going ballistic. Which is a fair indicator that some of the actions by those involved were not all good. But I don't believe the other side would have done "better". Just different.

Lost_In_Ambivalence

Jack

Questioning the Secret Service is not a possibility. They are required not to speak on any incident. This is true whether the president steals a candy bar or if the first lady is shot. That is the game they play. Personally, I respect that.

Two ways they could get rid of the slant.
1) Only do human interest stories and never cover anything political, religious, or crime oriented. Don't speculate or print quotes of speculation.
2) Get rid of the adjectives (with exception of physical descriptions of people). I don't care if the President acted with hubris or compassion. I can decide, you just tell me what he did. Unless you are quoting the individual, I can't stand when they say he was without remorse. You don't know how a stranger looks when they are remorsful.

A third that would really help...Get rid of headlines. Talk about misleading. Some of them are the completely misleading.

As a subscriber for the star, I think that the reason they slant the way they do (be it to the left or right) is because that is what people are willing to buy. Often you hear complaints about various things but I gotta be honest...if there wasn't a market, the product wouldn't be there.

jack

I gather from what the administration has been saying regarding the VPs firefight in Texas that they will decide what is worthy of being reported and what isn't.

I read that Scott McClelan (sp) said at least 11 times yesterday that the American people are not interested in what happened.

Geuss I'm not an American. I keep wondering why those closest to the incident (the Secret Service Agents) were never questioned. I also wonder why the Sheriff's office didn't go to the scene, didn't question anyone for at least 14 hours, why a report was written (by the Sheriffs Office) stating the incident was an accident and alcohol was not involved BEFORE any intereviews were conducted, and why a person who thought the injured party was the VP (she says she was 100 yards away when she noticed the commotion) is the "best possible witness".

I also wonder what rules would apply if I was involved in a similar incident. But I think I know the answer. Gearge Orwell said something about some being more equal than others. Geuss we now know who he meant.

GCYL

"I gather that "reporting facts" is the main criterion for a "liberal slant," the way that term is bandied about by people who think that any media source that isn't FoxNews or the Drudge Report is, by definition, "liberal." - CRD

"I gather that "reporting facts" is the main criterion for a "conservative slant," the way that term is bandied about by people who think that any media source that isn't Michael Moore or democrats.com is, by definition, "conservative." - Ray

Ouch. Take my word on this Ray, people don't like it when you do stuff like that.

Ray Seay


FOX NEWS-- “Fair and balanced. We report, you decide.” What could be more factual than that???. )

I gather that "reporting facts" is the main criterion for a "conservative slant," the way that term is bandied about by people who think that any media source that isn't Michael Moore or democrats.com is, by definition, "conservative."

CRD

"gimmie an example of liberal slant."

I gather that "reporting facts" is the main criterion for a "liberal slant," the way that term is bandied about by people who think that any media source that isn't FoxNews or the Drudge Report is, by definition, "liberal."

GCYL

"I grew up thinking questioning and criticizing were good American values."

When I was growing up Jim I had a t-shirt that said "Never Question Authority". It was a gift from my parents.

Jim Dent

"Then get rid of the liberal slant to the news stories."
I'll bite Charlie, gimmie an example of liberal slant.

Betty

Get back to the 5 W's that I learned newspapers were supposed to report!

I can't count how many times the writer has expressed his own personal opinion in supposed news stories. Are all the editors on vacation?

Charlie

In the spirit of courtesy, I would say have more than one or two token conservative columnists.

Then get rid of the liberal slant to the news stories. For those of you conservatively challenged, bring back your fondest memories, the heydays days of the Clinton administration, and remember how the press fawned over every move he made. Then try for something in between 1993 and now.

Engineer

Jim
Maybe add 6 or 7 conservatives to the Editorial Board? Actually the coverages complained about in the letter seemed fair to men. However, in the past there have been stories that were presented in the following manner, only slightly exaggerated:
"In........... this Administration has acted illegally, violated the Constitution and failed to look after the best interests of the American people, charged the highly respected and admired O. H. Sopure, Democratic Senator and civil rights activist. Hardline Republican spokesman and well known far right warrior, Sen. Whatta Krock, denied the charges.

Ray Seay

JD;

Out of curiosity, what would the Star need to do to be more fair?
Posted by: Jim Dent |

ANSWER:
Let me write a daily column.
Alternate, let some of us here take turns writing one.

Jim Dent

Out of curiosity, what would the Star need to do to be more fair?

Betty

Ray, thanks. I've been reading these posts for a while, and these people seem to work themselves up into quite a lather. Sometimes you have to sit back and chuckle.

I discontinued my subscription to the Star for it's left-leaning, and have friends who would do the same, but worry about the income of the person who delivers the paper. See, conservatives DO have a heart.

Ray Seay

Betty Charlie

Welcome.

Charlie

Betty, I agree. The Star doesn't even try to put up the appearance of objectivity. Time for these people to change the tin foil inside their hats.

Betty

Just how far left must one lean to imagine that the Star (the STAR for goodness sakes!)is in collaboration with the Bush administration?

CRD

"To imply that the administration is Nazi like is wrong"

Unless, of course, the administration does in fact engage in tactics that are similar to those used by the Nazi government, of course. If that were the case, then we would be perfectly correct to imply (or to state directly) that the administration is Nazi-like.

Of course, drawing a comparison between the Bush administration and another government (whether it be that of Nazi Germany or that of contemporary France), based on a particular characteristic the two governments arguably share is quite a different exercise from attributing to all those who might criticize the administration a lack of patriotism, by the circular argument that a willingness to criticize the government implies a lack of patriotism.

Engineer

Ray
You are correct, as usual. I was just trying to reassure jack. I did not intend to exclude you from the "conseravtives"

Ray Seay


JD;;

I agree with you that people who criticize the president should not be called unpatriotic. Most of his critics are liberal. But he is also criticized from the right.
Questioning polices is proper but assuming he is guilty of everything is wrong.
The president was attacked by republicans and defended by democrats 8 years ago. Now the roles are reversed.
If both sides could stop the namecalling and partisan attacks and stay with facts we could probably get something done.
To imply that the administration is Nazi like is wrong and to imply critics are unpatriotic is wrong,

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright