Comments

Boxers or briefs - obviously briefs ...

Maybe wait awhile before shuffling staff so the MEDIA doesn't go into its usual anti - West/free enterprise feeding frenzy?

Posted by Sean at May 23, 2005 11:14 AM

Tom - my thoughts exactly. I don't think there are too many of us who believe that these stunts (Abu grab especially) are the result of a few rogue soldiers that deserve to be singled out and punished. I don’t and never did believe that BS. Even if I’m wrong, however, it remains an indication that Command and Control is neither and must be changed. These actions are embarrassing to an entire country (ours) as well as our Muslim brothers both in country and abroad.

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at May 23, 2005 11:18 AM

I agree Tom. But first don't you think we have to give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Posted by Tom Asacker at May 23, 2005 11:20 AM

ironical statement mr asacker, i hope.
or should it be that you are a sleeper from "Special Branch for Terrorist Recruitment" disguised as marketing philosopher????

Posted by jens at May 23, 2005 11:52 AM

I always think it is refreshing and cleansing when someone at the very top of the organisation takes the rap and goes.

To me when scandals occur - even if it only one or two bad eggs in a massive institution - it illustrates vividly how the person at the top is not in touch anyway with grass roots so they may as well go.

There is also something almost liberating when the top man/woman goes of their own valition rather than being forced out by media pressure in these high level scandals.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2005 12:00 PM

Where does the buck stop? You're right, Tom. Someone should go. I vote it's 'Rummy'.

Posted by Matt at May 23, 2005 1:09 PM

I'm reluctant to get into this one. Business, not politics, is my first love. Plus, this one smells like the second front of a dated 1960's liberal agenda having gotten their pants beaten off them in the Stalled Mobility thread!

I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I like to do my own thinking and not follow either party's line. There is something I would like to say:

America is at war, whether we like it or not. Any abuses on the part of Americans serving in her armed forces deserve to be punished. And they will be because we have a very vocal media. There is a military procedure for handling it - a court martial. I see no reason for helping terrorists succeed in preventing freedom from taking root in Iraq by assasinating America's "top brass" who as far as I can tell are generally doing a good job, I'll grant you not a perfect job, in bringing freedom to Iraq. I'm not expecting instant or perfect results.

Just so long as we give equal coverage to what happens to American service men and women, and American citizens (as well as every other citizen, muslims too) when they are captured by the opposing side.

As for "what the rest of the world thinks of us", no great nation ("likeable" or not) can allow its foreign policy to be dictated by international bureaucrats or international public opinion.

It isn't a popularity contest.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 1:17 PM

I'm patiently waiting for NewsWeek to reveal to us who leaked the photos. That, or for The Sun to print a photo of Saddam flushing NewsWeek down his toilet.

Seriously, the best strategy for something like this is simply to cringe, throw up your hands, say "What can I say?", and ask for the next question.

Maybe we should have a national embarrassment pool... What's next?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by Jack Krupansky at May 23, 2005 1:23 PM

On the contrary, Noel. If Saddam had taken more interest in world opion, his country (rule) would have been considerably better off. I thought one of the official reasons for this sham war on terror was because of his foreign policy.

One likes to think that when people 'do their own thinking', common sense prevails. Clearly not.

Posted by Matt at May 23, 2005 1:46 PM

I agree Tom. Over the weekend I saw Jack Welch speaking on CSPAN about his latest book Winning when he was asked about corporate wrong-doing. In his answer, he said those executives in charge who violate corporate ethics and values should be "fired in the public courtyard" and not be allowed to "leave for personal reasons." It should be made clear for those who remain in the company that such violations are serious and dealt with accordingly. I don't see why it should be any different for members of the military.

Posted by Joel at May 23, 2005 1:54 PM

I think we need to ask Mr. Rumsfeld this question: "We've known for a long time that this sort of picture has been leaked from various sources. What have you done in the last 6 months to make it plain and clear to your chain of command that it will not be tolerated?"

If he's done anything, he needs to follow it up now. If he hasn't done anything, or has done nothing meaningful, it's Mr. Rumsfeld who should go.

And, as a Brit, embarassed by our own lapses, I'd say that applies to the UK government as well...

Posted by Mark JF at May 23, 2005 2:16 PM

Well, Matt, I've found that when people do their own thinking, common sense usually prevails. When people let others do their thinking for them, the fad of the moment inevitably prevails. This has been my experience.

Imagine living in a country where every picture you have to hang on your wall is a portrait of George Bush - George Bush saluting the troops, George Bush bravely slaughtering a rabid dog, George Bush smiling proudly (for no apparent reason). Imagine all of the media and all of the news stations being directly controlled by George Bush. Imagine walking down the street and every other tree is a statue of George Bush. Imagine family members, your children, mysteriously disappearing because George Bush's secret police decided to hold them for questioning for 20 or 30 years, possibly killing them in the process. This is not a world you have ever had to live in.

To answer your points, there are a few things to consider:

First of all most Iraqis are grateful to be rid of a man who was essentially a giant Mafia don, leg-breaking and assasination included.

Secondly, while none of us like the idea of America being arrogant, we also don't want to repeat Vietnam where soldiers who fought in the field came home to a country who despised them and mistreated them for serving their country.

Finally, if Saddam Hussein had taken a less brutal approach to his own people, never mind how he handled his foreign affairs, there would have been absolutely no excuse for invading. It was his own viciousness that made it possible for him to be demonized.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 2:53 PM

Our military is nothing but a shadow of what our country looks like. I was enlisted in the USN for 6 years and loved the Navy and loved serving. However, folks like to put the military up on this incredibly high pedestal. It's just plain stupid.

Frankly, our military is composed of a lot of average and below-average kids.... in intelligence, pay, education, upbringing, etc. Please don't take this as an insult. As a veteran I saw it all... drug problems, prostitution, theft (lots of theft), cussing, drinking, partying, sex, etc., etc., etc... and that was before we got in port! My father's stories are even more colorful.

We throw these kids in boot camp for 8 weeks and expect them to come out with the enough smarts to solve world hunger, end wars without fighting, and understand every ethnic background in the world - oh and while doing it, obey all international and national laws. And GOD forbid they do something that could be reported by any of the tens of thousands of journalists who pant at the opportunity to throw them to the wolves.

Then we throw these kids out in the desert or in a ocean, away from their loved ones, with a couple bucks in their pocket and tell them to just be patient while they're picked off one by one by terrorists with nothing to lose.

Do you know, this very second, what each and every one of your employees is doing? Do you? Have you ever fired someone for breaking the rules? Did you put your own 'butt' on the platter when it happened?

I think not... much like the 'generals' whom you speak of.

Get real, Tom.

Posted by Douglas Karr at May 23, 2005 4:11 PM

Jens. Tongue planted firmly in cheek on the last one. I'm for truth, honor and courage!

Posted by Tom Asacker at May 23, 2005 4:16 PM

Rummy obviously took "CEO Finger Pointing 101" when he was in the private sector and is now applying those lessons in his position as Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, it is having as disasterous an effect on our national reputation as it has had on the reputations of every corporate Don who refused to take accountability and lied to their stakeholders.

I think it's time our President/Brand Manager in Chief take a look at what his subordinates are doing to our image and make some more concrete changes before our international stakeholders decide to take action. What will be the damage when China, South Korea, Japan and the rest of our stockholders/bond holders (who are supporting our massive debt) decide they've had enough?

Unfortunately, Rummy is not the only one who needs to be looked at for the damage they are doing, but at least it's a start.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at May 23, 2005 4:32 PM

Tom - I'll give you that Rumsfeld has certainly changed things...including making the military lean and mean...and then throwing soldiers into battle without much needed gear and equipment (that lean part)...And, don't let's us drag Congress & Kerry "I voted for it and then I didn't" into it - that was 18 months AFTER the "war" started. This type of planning from a military that spends over $500,000 PER machine for fax machines that can withstand nuclear holocaust (um, and who will be faxing? What did the holocaust resistant paper cost?) This is the just the latest example of why Rummy should go...I love my country - but this is just shameful.

P.S. Noel - I'm a proud liberal - look up the dictionary definition. We "Ls" can think for ourselves too - in fact, thinking is key to being a liberal.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at May 23, 2005 7:21 PM

You do, Mary. Other liberals and conservatives I've seen follow only the party line.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 24, 2005 3:31 AM

completely aggree.
gwbush is not doing his country much of a service - "shining city on the hill" - no, mam! - but as it is with modern brands, they are largely defined through the ceo.
tough times for you guys....

because: suddenly "national pride" starts to become a difficult thing.
because "truth, honour and courage" for example can sound very much like some navy-seal-oath ... whereas this is not bad either of course... it is just, that it easily gets the wrong taste these days.

i know what i am talking about, i am a german living aboard, and lots of things germans are still just not supposed to think or say... thanks to those parts of our strong brand image that are rooted in the third reich.
...

or when was it the last time that you heard a german say: i am proud of my country.

Posted by jens at May 24, 2005 8:39 AM

ment: ...living abroad... :)

Posted by jens at May 24, 2005 8:46 AM

Hussein is a light weight junior Hitler for our time - any sentiment toward maintaining his diginity for Islamofascists is lazily placed.

Liberalism used to mean something in the USA - now it is a perverse ideology that lacks reason, and has few that admit to being a "liberal".

The main thing is to kill the supply chain of Islamofascist homicide bombers and terrorists - and that is happening with extreme prejudice, thank heaven.

The media scramble for ratings to sell TP and dog food [to the Chinese?] is the main story - they will broadcast and print anything to get your attention.

Posted by Sean at May 24, 2005 9:30 AM

What brand of America do we want to export? These are going to be the most challenging times we've ever seen with the vanishing oil reserves and a new Chinese super economic power emerging. As Thomas Friedman points out in his new book, the world is flattening.

Do we really want to go this alone? Let's go back to kindergarten and learn how to play in the same sand box with others. If that means taking steps necessary to ensure we don't needlessly upset other cultures, we need to do it and demonstrate it's highest priority.

I know - I know - I can hear the "other countries don't dictate our foreign policy" pundits yelling at me. To you I say, "we need to change more than our foreign policy if we are going to survive."

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at May 24, 2005 10:19 AM

--IT rolls down hill. "I'm NOT PAYING YOU TO THINK PRIVATE" "YOU WILL DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD AND YOU WILL NOT ASK QUESTIONS." These are our commands and they come from the top.

Anyone who has been in the military knows this for sure. Unless you are an officer you are not setting forth policy. You will not question policy you will do what they say. Anyone who has been in the military knows that the big man goes down when the little guy screws up because the little guy is the big mans responsibility. The Grainer case made no sense to me it was obvious that Abu Grave was being Gitmoized and he was just following orders. The reason that some one and two stars have to go is because they set forth policy and that is the truth, whether you can handle it or not.

Posted by Gary Fox USMC at May 24, 2005 11:45 AM

--IT rolls down hill. "I'm NOT PAYING YOU TO THINK PRIVATE" "YOU WILL DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD AND YOU WILL NOT ASK QUESTIONS." These are our commands and they come from the top.

Anyone who has been in the military knows this for sure. Unless you are an officer you are not setting forth policy. You will not question policy you will do what they say. Anyone who has been in the military knows that the big man goes down when the little guy screws up because the little guy is the big mans responsibility. The Grainer case made no sense to me it was obvious that Abu Grave was being Gitmoized and he was just following orders. The reason that some one and two stars have to go is because they set forth policy and that is the truth, whether you can handle it or not.

Posted by Gary Fox USMC at May 24, 2005 11:45 AM

Personally, I think this can all be summarized as "The Buck stops here." which was the sign on Harry Truman's desk. Something our so-called leaders have largely forgotten (in both public and private sector). Our "fat, dumb, and happy" entitlement society has enabled our CEOs and leaders to weasel out of accountability and responsibility. Everything is somebody else's fault...I didn't know, whine, whine. Brings to mind yet another example of what we've lost over the years - the night before D-Day, Eisenhower wrote two versions of his letter for after the event. One if it succeeded, one if it didn't. In the second, he said something like, "the failure is mine, and mine alone." Hmmm, somehow I don't see anybody in the current administration doing such a thing. Leadership is not a fair weather job. Duty is often unpleasant. Both of which spoiled frat boys and draft avoiders apparently cannnot understand. I don't like war (what sane person does?) - but if you're going to do it do it right and - Dubya and Rummy - suck it up fellas and be men! This latest brohaha about Saddam and his underwear is just a symptom of many problems - not the root cause.

(Sean, if you want to debate liberalism, etc. off-line, I'm always happy to get into it with worthy adversaries!)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at May 24, 2005 12:39 PM

I don't mind if stories such as prisoner mistreatment and photos of the dictator in his underwear are covered. But a little balance would be appreciated. I get the feeling that some of the mainstream media would rather have the bad guys win than let Pres Bush or the military have their due credit. War is both imperfect and unpleasant. So let's root out the problems and swiftly punish the guilty but let's also keep things in perspective. The blame-America-first crowd doesn't know who the good guys are but the rest of us certainly do.

Posted by Chris at May 24, 2005 1:32 PM

Mary - really how can you compare D-Day and the scope of WWII [dad parachuted in] with pictures of the latest minor league Hitler in terms of accountability?

The main deal is to kill bin laden and the perversion of Islamofascism to protect/enhance freedom, free enterprise, etc. before a nuclear homocide bomber comes forth. The Flat World market [Freidman] of all countries staying peaceful because of joint supply chains hopefully will be an ultimate solution.

Outside of the blue socialistic metro areas - the presidential and secretary of defense/state roles are seen as exemplary. I've lived in metro-ville [NYC, DC, Seattle, etc] and it makes sense why some have given up and are ready to let big government think/act for them.

The saturation of media is a main social driver now - Lincoln, E. Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, JFK - they could all be painted as nazi lovers by today's "media" - like Al Jeezera/Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO brain-washes hate for even well-educated Muslims.

Posted by Sean at May 24, 2005 1:33 PM

I’m having a re-think. I’ve been trying, really trying (and I can see others have been too), to get worked up (one way or the other) over this specific issue of American soldiers flushing books and magazines down toilets. I’m sorry, I can’t see the reason for firing your country’s Secretary of Defense or any of its military generals. It is childish and silly and pales in comparison to the atrocities the terrorists are committing who make attacks on civilians a centerpiece of their strategy.

Should I ever have the misfortune to be taken captive, may it be the Americans who grab me. They can insult me all they like, desecrate my most beloved books to their heart’s content, photograph me naked if they want, I don't care (though I should warn you - my legs are nothing much to look at), just so long as they don’t publicly chop my head off or put a bullet in my brain on international TV.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 24, 2005 2:02 PM

Noel - what a breath of fresh air you and Trevor are - the liberal media here [TP company at times too] have ZIP for real world reasoning ability. USA/UK leadership, thank heavens, ARE deadly in a time when yes we need to kill your failed leadership and replace it because you are Nazi-islam homocide devils.

Posted by Sean at May 24, 2005 2:44 PM

Well, my wife was born in Iran and has told me a lot about the culture out there. They are a very gentle and tolerant people but are unfortunately at the mercy of a radical government at the moment. Many Iranians I have known have been very free-spirited and loved America.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 24, 2005 3:24 PM

There are good points from both sides listed above, but please let’s not compare US to them. It’s silly to compare public embarrassment to public execution, but those who are capable of such cruelty aren’t the one we worry about offending. The good people who otherwise may choose to join our cause are those to whom we should listen. Let’s pay close attention to who we offend, let’s learn other cultures and religions so well that we act in a manner that makes them want to support the actions of the U.S. Let’s make them proud to love us.

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at May 24, 2005 3:45 PM

We judge standards of behavior by our own standards. For example, I've known people who have felt that prostitution was a job like anything else and should be legalized and regulated, but when I asked those people would they want their daughters, or sisters, or mothers, to be prostitutes, their answer was always no. Therefore, when speaking about flushing books down toilets, it is not unreasonable to ask what standards of behavior you would prefer if you or someone dear to you, like your mother, or your sister, or your son, were captured. Which would be worse - having their books, even their bible, flushed down the toilet or having their legs broken?

It is our responsibility and the responsibility of the media to keep things in perspective. Sean's not wrong. The crazy people who are blowing themselves up in cars are certainly radicals and very dangerous. And it is true that not every Moslem is a radical. In my experience, most are not. I think a majority of Moslems detest terrorism and willingly prefer the American alternative, as imperfect as it may be. They are not so thin-skinned and weak as to be unable to discern the extreme differences between the two options.

The point of view that every Moslem now no longer wants to support the US is, as with so many other false notions, propagated by a sensationalist media who lay claim to speaking for everyone when in fact they speak for a minority, a vocal minority, mostly themselves.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 24, 2005 5:05 PM

I love Blogging redux. This exchange is so much better than anything that's been in the major media ...

Posted by tom peters at May 24, 2005 5:46 PM

To Bruce who wrote: "Do we really want to go this alone? Let's go back to kindergarten and learn how to play in the same sand box with others. If that means taking steps necessary to ensure we don't needlessly upset other cultures, we need to do it and demonstrate it's highest priority."

The sand box you talk about is utopian. Fact is, there are people on this planet who detest and despise you and me, for absolutely nothing we've ever done to anyone, but simply because of where we live, or the society we live in, or the faiths we hold dear. The riots, and subsequent deaths, in Afghanistan weren't caused by the alleged desecration of the Koran...they were merely an excuse for outrage against America. And Saddam Hussein was far from a devout Muslim, so I'm confused why a photo of him in his underwear disrespects anyone but the despot himself; it certainly doesn't reflect on the Islamic religion.

We need to realize who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in the sandbox...I think we sometimes like to flagellate the good guys and try to morally equate two very different wrongs (i.e., blowing up or beheading innocents vs. humiliating our enemies).

Posted by Chuck at May 24, 2005 9:04 PM

As a very proud Brit I am in total agreement with Noel - if ever I was a prisoner of war I would rather it be America holding me than any other nation - despite all this latest stuff.

As far as I can see the very special relationship between Brits and Americans must be preserved and nurtured at all costs.

Most Brits with an IQ above freezing point agree with - I think it was - Lyndon Johnson who said;

'I'd rather have them on the inside of the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in'

Don't misunderstand me - I am not being patronising to you guys - just realistic. Pragmatism rules!

Keep rattling the cage.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 25, 2005 3:42 AM

It is ironic to me how history spins along and alliances form and reform.

Remember 1980 and the USA presidential [Jimmy Carter - probably our worst president] decision to boycott the Moscow Olympics - deprived our fabulous sports' culture from that opportunity?

And why did this happen - because Russia invaded AFGANISTAN.

NOW THE RUSSIANS are allies [for the most part] of the free world and are fighting their own Islamofascist battles - we all had to endure the horror of last years' 300+ loss [mainly kids] in the southern city of Beslan.

The low-IQ impotent perverse Islamofascists shall burn forever in hell as their just, devine reward. To fret over a devil in briefs is a typical liberal lament - USA liberals have wolves at their family/community door - but love to chase rabbits via some perverse PC "logic".

Posted by Sean at May 25, 2005 9:16 AM

Sean: "USA/UK leadership, thank heavens, ARE deadly in a time when yes we need to kill your failed leadership and replace it because you are Nazi-islam homocide devils."

Perhaps you need a refresher. There may have been a Stalinist dictator in Iraq before the U.S./U.K. invasion, however, he was a secularist and himself despised bin Laden. The "Nazi-islam homocide devils" you speak of did not appear in Iraq until after the U.S./U.K. invasion destabilized the country to the point that any maniac can enter the country to go blow up U.S. soldiers. Whether you agree with the invasion or not, it is an indisputable fact that the internal security situation there is currently worse than it ever was under Saddam Hussein. Don't use a situation that the United States created as a pretext for invasion because that makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by John at May 25, 2005 11:41 AM

Chuck: "Fact is, there are people on this planet who detest and despise you and me, for absolutely nothing we've ever done to anyone, but simply because of where we live, or the society we live in, or the faiths we hold dear."

Perhaps you should revisit some history books on 20th century American foreign policy. Our government has done enough things to give plenty of people excuses to be pissed off. Or have you already forgotten all the games the U.S. has played with other people's lives and freedom by backing monsters who were just as bad - if not worse - than Saddam Hussein? And whether you think "that was different because of the Cold War" and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a legitimate excuse for this behavior, it is quite apparent that such excuses aren't working for the people who want to kill you and me.

Posted by John at May 25, 2005 11:51 AM

quick delivery on viagra John - time to wake up - the Afghan & Iraq wars are incredible successes - 95% supported by its residents to REIMAGine the perverse world of Islamofascism at its cradle. The free world has never been safer given the new century hot terror war and the Jihad pledge to kill millions like yourself. The USA must back [at that time in history] the allies that do the most for the free world - brush up on history a bit - you could easily be in a gulag yourself given your low energy level.

Posted by Sean at May 25, 2005 1:44 PM

John - Your point is certainly taken. America's foreign policy, in retrospect, has been misguided and we've made mistakes and backed some bad guys.

But I think we should be cautious of establishing a moral relativism between America and those who hate us today. There's nothing we can do, short of abiding by bin Laden's decree to us (i.e., we all convert to Islam, renounce Israel, etc.), that will make us tolerable in the extremists' eyes. I don't believe we play by those same rules: we're trying to stifle those who would indiscriminately kill, maim, butcher anyone who doesn't subscribe to their view of the world.

I've worn a military uniform for 30 years and still believe we're the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Posted by Chuck at May 25, 2005 3:01 PM

This is a great discussion.

As my country, Britain, has been supportive of the US throughout I would like to make a few points.

I recall two distinct cases here in the UK

One case of a British soldier killed in action in Iraq – the parents met Mr Blair and said afterwards they supported Britain in its action. Whilst obviously and rightfully distraught, angry and sad they could apparently understand why Britain had to support America after they met and talked to Mr Blair

The second case is of a father of another British soldier killed in Iraq who recently stood for parliament against Mr Blair in his own constituency. This gentleman cannot forgive Mr Blair and is still asking for an apology from Mr Blair for the invasion.

I am certainly not qualified to make a judgment about which of those parents are correct. I would not be so arrogant.

In fact I think my position is they are BOTH RIGHT if only because they have they each have the right to different opinions expressed openly on national television. Significantly, one of the joys of western culture - despite the warts and wrinkles is that we allow – even encourage – that difference and tolerate it.

buy generic viagra online in australia

I consider myself fortunate never to have suffered family loss through war and I have never been in the forces. So, I speak from an ‘uninformed’ position in many respects. When I see Chuck’s comments after 30 years service in the forces I tend to take note.

Let’s be frank - no one in their right mind wants war.

I supported my UK Labour government for its stance. This is not a party political thing. When Britain liberated the Falkland Islands in the early 1980’s I supported that action too because that was the decision my government made at the time. There were many critics then too. That was a Conservative government so it is clearly not a party political issue for me.

I am a pragmatist and there is a basic point here surely.

Under Saddam would the citizens of Iraq have been be allowed to comment freely on Tom Peters Blog as we do in the west and we take that wonderful opportunity as a right and not a privilege?

There is still much to do to move to a more peaceful existence for the wonderful citizens of Iraq and sadly there is still much unease and violence.

They say all journeys start with a small step and history will judge whether all this has been worth it.

I hope this posting has not been too indecisive but like everything else there is always more than one view.

Some things are not as simple as perhaps even I would like to think :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 26, 2005 4:39 AM

Sean - to your reply re how I could compare D-Day to Saddam...I did note that the brouhaha is a symptom of a much larger problem. I really couldn't care less about what is ultimately a tempest in a teacup. I don't want to see people I like in their underwear, or cripe's sake. Dubya is no FDR, Theo. Roosevelt...heck, he's not even a Nixon...he thinks leadership means riding around in a big shiny plane and playing dress-up. He'd never own up/take accountability...ditto Rummy. As evidenced over and over again. And before you start in on the Liberal thang again - I'd be thrilled if John McCain was president right now.

Noel, Sean & Co. - WHAT liberal media? You mean the media that has played lapdog to this administration? Hey, I'd love to read the liberal media - where is it?

And, once again - I point you to the definition of "liberal" in your dictionaries. If I have to keep reading slams against out-of-touch, dumb liberals, I'm going to shift into reaction mode and start talking about out-of-touch conservatives. Although I do find some of them highly entertaining.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at May 26, 2005 3:23 PM

Mary, I find party line anything hard to take. You think for yourself and thankfully, a lot of people on this forum think for themselves. The problem with the media is not that they're mostly all left or mostly all right, it's that they don't present information based on fact; it's all opinion, their unqualified opinion. They would like us to believe they have an inside knowledge they do not possess. Like us, they are on the outside looking in, only with cameras, microphones and an inflated sense of self importance. Someone captured it well when they said that reporters don't report on what the Secretary of State said. They report as though they are the Secretary of State.

To my ears, it's all slanted, no matter which way it's slanted. Everyone I speak with is jaded. I don't know too many people who listen to the news and believe it. Maybe I should mix with reporters more!

I'm not saying there are no official media commentators or reporters with integrity. There are. Just too few. I think this blogging thing is in its early stages, but will gradually have a very positive effect on the media as a whole. They are going to have to factor in what people are really thinking and not only on what they want to tell us to think. Those who adjust will be read and watched. Those who don't will be sidelined, with or without official credentials.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 26, 2005 4:06 PM

Mary - you've drifted far to the left.

Posted by Sean at May 29, 2005 4:11 PM