Bill, Your scenario doesn't offer any hope for the real truth in my opinion. We have two sides that are polarized each offering their own version of the truth while the mainstream media in your opinion is not capable nor has the journalistic integrity to offer the truth. I think the truth fluctuates mostly in the middle and usually but maybe not 100% of the time contained in the MSM. I'm certain they don't get it right all the time but at least they have a creed, a stated objective that says what they offer must be as close to the truth as possible whether or not it benefits the right or the left. Nice example of the journalistic creed: http://journalism.missouri.edu/about/creed.html
My last post didn't contain any argument....just a couple relevant facts. The argument would have been along these lines......there is NOTHING that the federal government could have done that would have prevented suffering by the people that refused to comply with a mandatory evacuation order and chose to stay behind and cast their lot with an incompetent local administration. NOTHING. That said, could the federal response be improved? Without question! Was the federal government responsible for the misery and suffering? UTTER NONSENSE. Terry
Having a creed and living up to it are two different things MCG. The creed sounds nice in a college classroom. But in my opinion way to many of MSM don't live up to it and feed off each other with their liberalism. And while you may think of yourself as middle of the road I would venture that your blame Bush first approach kind of says something different. But it's fine with me that you stick with them.
As I stated I think those that get it right most of the time are the MSM because at least that is their given objective and it is against their doctrine to issue journalism that is slanted to a particular point of view politically. You say I blame Bush first and I say you never would blame Bush no matter what. I guess that's a standoff.
What I didn't say about many of MSM is that they overtly lie. So many of them are liberal that they probably believe what they write. But the general bias of MSM is liberal. And since you want to push the objective of journalism, then you must have to admit the same applies to conservitve and liberal writers. So I don't see where you say the person who wrote the article I posted is not being objective. As far as blame or not blaming Bush, what you say about me doesn't hold water. Unlike you I don't have to place blame for everything that happens. It hink Terry and some others that posted here that there were failures at all levels where it came to the New Orleans situation after the storm is true and that certainly applies to Bush as well so I am in no way saying that everything was handled well. On the other hand as pointed out above you always have to find someone to lay blame on and you seem to balme Bush for about everything except the bad calls the Gators get in football games.
Bill, The article was in defense of Bush specifically. My comments addressed that intent of the author to defend Bush. You posted the article and I merely responded but here is my response and in it I do ascertain that ineptitude was present "at all levels". "No doubt some reporting was supercritical of FEMA and the Bush administration's handling of Katrina but there is also no doubt that the suffering was real and was widespread and was prolonged by a discourse of inaction and failed communication and a general lack of a cohesive strategy at all levels. With Katrina...the fish rots at the head and that's what people remember the most about the poor emergency response efforts and post-storm management." As usual Bill anything negative said about W on this board pounds upon all of the rightwing nerves predominant on the board and everyone's knee jerks to an overreaction. Par for the course.
MCG, Do we really look that stupid? I am not a conservative, and I don't think that there is anything resembling kneejerk thinking or overreaction on the Board. On the contrary, I admire the level of intellect and the thoughtful commentaries I've seen on every topic. Regardless of leaning - and I know that conservatism is the predominant leaning here - there is nothing even remotely resembling what you have portrayed. On the other hand, the fact that you would make those accusations is a clear indication that you are prone to display the kind of unthinking liberal arrogance that got the Democratic party in the position its been in for quite some time.
Sid, I can't think of many if any times I have stated a negative opinion on this forum about Bush that didn't meet with strong rebuttal and sometimes harshly. The man is not responsible for all ills and I never state that but I have my opinions of his results as president as do 2/3 of Americans apparently. There are some who are afraid to admit weakness at all cost for fear of losing ground in the political "game" if you will. Admitting that some issues could be better handled by Bush is akin to party treason in some minds it seems.