News Snipet 'Blog

Yep. Another choice example of liberal "tolerance."

Bloggers of the world, unite!

 

Did you read the article in the Times? It's equally as critical of Conservative and Liberal blogs.

The quotes are from Steve Lovelady, would you call him a liberal? I don't think so.

I agree with Jeff Jarvis, "I wish our goal were not taking off heads but digging up truth."

Read the article here and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050214/ZNYT01/502140694/1020/NEWS04

 

I did, Mochi! Thanks for pointing this out, but I always go read what people reference. That's what makes the Snipet so unique. :)

Dan Rather and Eason Jordan were hardly forced to resign because of "RAMPANT UNEDITED DIALOGUE". "At the same time, some in the traditional media are growing alarmed as they watch careers being destroyed by what they see as the growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue."

What these people resent is their crumbling power structure and that fact that their lies and bias are being exposed lessening their influence. The only way thing they can do is lash out at what is hurting them. Keep in mind, Mochi, I called attention to the article to liberal and conservative bloggers alike.

Also, I listened to the interview with Rony Abovitz who was at the lecture given by Jordan in Switzerland--a direct eyewitness--and it's no wonder he is having to resign. This amidst the massive fraud perpetrated by CNN where they omitted news and changed news stories in order to maintain an outpost in Iraq, and multitudes of more scandal. And yet KATHERINE Q. SEELYE in the NY Times article alludes that these "poor people" are having to resign because of the "growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue".

No, Mochi, as bloggers and individuals we need to maintain OUR integrity (although many do not), but also use our collective power to expose and promote truth. Granted, this does not always happen--I read many 'blogs that are nothing but partisan and emotional nonsense--but it should be the standard to which we hold ourselves and others.

Steve Lovelady, who is quoted in the article as describing 'bloggers sounds like he is talking about the wreckless and biased media rather than a few webloggers: "Have we entered an era where our lives can be destroyed by a pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors, and no accountability?" Jason Blair, we discovered, was just the tiny tip of the iceberg.

Mochi, you can't seriously think this article is targeted at "liberal" blogs, when the whole article is in criticism of conservative bloggers barring the one statement: "Morever, last week liberal bloggers forced a sketchily credentialed White House reporter to quit his post." conservative bloggers alike; however, if you read the NY Times article you can see that the focus of it is against conservative bloggers.

 

I was directing my comment to the butt of the lightning bug. I realize you are careful about sourcing your information, although I'm not certain I understand why you linked to an editorial on the article and not the article itself.

Exposing and promoting the truth is as noble a cause as spreading democracy and freedom across the globe. Be aware that truth is not a black or white concept in this context, it's your interpretation.

Just a thought but why not hold George Bush to the same standard as Dan Rather? Didn't they both act on false information?

 

Ha! Understand, Mochi, and value your insight. When it comes to analysis though, I often link to what makes sense--Just like I would link to your blog article if you do a good job of analysis.

But to answer your last question about Bush I guess I would have to quote my friend Mochi: "Be aware that truth is not a black or white concept in this context, it's your interpretation."

Glad to have you aboard, Mochi! Your comments are always valued as much as Lightning Bugs!