PeterDavid.net

Bah, who needs on-the-ground experience when you have the received wisdom of the neocons. After all, they're proven you don't need any real combat experience to run an occupation, right?

But Riggle is an ex-marine

PAD, might I recommend you not use this phrase in the future, particularly around Marines.

Because, as Jeff Shaara found out at book signing for one of his novels, there are no ex-Marines. :)

My impression was just that Rob isn't as good as their other guys. It didn't seem like he was messing up jokes because of any particular emotional baggage, I just don't think he has very good timing.

Yeah, last night he had a particular gleam in his eye, and Stewart saw it as clear as day.

I did enjoy his bit about the surge is something we can succeed at.

It's not the timing, it's the delivery. It was lacking in irony. He was basically just telling you how he felt (see the line about Bush trying to crush the spirit of the troops). My sense was they brought him on because he's a Marine aspiring to be a comic, rather than a comic who happens to be a Marine. Marines are trained to give it to you straight, so they probably just don't make very good comedians.

That depends on the Marine. Lee Ermey has great comic timing and a wonderful sense of humor.

But...

There's some shit you don't laugh about. This is one of them. Bush is throwing away twenty thousand lives. He could care less about those troops. All he cares about is the oil.

I knew when we went in that destabilizing Iraq was going to have disastrous consequences. I'm just a peon, though. No one was going to listen to me. And even in here, what I say means nothing. I'm preaching to the choir, something I'm really good at.

Buggrit. Talk amongnst yerselves.

Miles

"Lee Ermey has great comic timing and a wonderful sense of humor."

That's true, though it's definitely not Daily Show type humor. Maybe it would work on Colbert :)

Drew Carey is a Marine, no? Though I imagine he's not everyone's cuppa.

I saw Rob on DS last night. He seemed even more sarcastic than usual and I wondered about that.

That depends on the Marine. Lee Ermey has great comic timing and a wonderful sense of humor.

So is Jonathan Winters.

I have to check out the replay to see this.

By the way, speaking of pissed of Daily Show guys what about Jason Jones? That guy's comedy seems to come from a very angry place.

FYI, there's nothing "ex" about Rob's Marine status. - he's a reservist who still does work for the NYC public relations/media affairs office.

And if you watch his earlier pieces, including the first one (where he was brought out as a senior military analyst), you'll see that they tend to shift the dynamic a bit with his "reports" versus the others, and he and Jon often switch the host/correspondent role. I think it works remarkably well - Jon takes on the mantle of everyday logic, and Rob gets the view of the experienced out there. It's a rather devastatingly effective way to send up certain stupid things, because it cuts off the avenue of "well you don't know how people who've really been there feel".

I've seen Rob Riggle perform at the UCB theater in New York back in 2002. Being in the front row, a couple of feet from him was a little intimidating. He's a total riot and great at using anger as comedy.

"'But Riggle is an ex-marine'

PAD, might I recommend you not use this phrase in the future, particularly around Marines.

Because, as Jeff Shaara found out at book signing for one of his novels, there are no ex-Marines. :)"

A very good friend of mine spent 20 years in the Marine Corps and he allows that Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex-Marine.

I worked for a retired Marine general some years back, and he told me there are *two* ex-Marines: Oswald, and Oliver North.

Can't say that surprises me. For as much as convicted felon (overturned) Ollie loves to wave the flag and remind everyone he was a marine, most marines who knew him in Vietnam don't seem to have many positive things to say about him.

I thought I had seen all the recent DS shows, including the one produced on the heels of the troop build-up announcement, but I don't recall seeing a Riggle segment. Now I can't wait to see it. Riggle, like many people who passed through Saturday Night Live without finding a niche that exploited their talents to the fullest, has been really enjoyable on DS. His segments leading up to the Midterm election showed that he's really funny.

I think Riggle has been pretty funny of the DS. But last night both my wife and I thought he was a bit off. PAD's explanation seems plausible.

I have no love of Oliver North (I pretty much think he's reprehensible). But a felony conviction, or the fact that he was and still is an asshole, shouldn't lose him the honor of his service. Marines, like every other group, have members that are no good. I think the bar is pretty high for the corp fellows to disown them.

Oh, and another thought a few hours later:
The Daily Show films in a deceptively small studio.

Rob Riggle is a very big man. I don't intimidate easily, and when I found myself next to him at a benefit a while back, I was... intimidated. (And he was in a good mood!) The TV makes him look a wee bit pudgy, but in person, he's well over six feet of very big muscle.

I can just imagine the vibe he must give off when pissed - and imagine that in a tight space, it would be pretty... intimidating.

For those who haven't seen it:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80774

Bah, who needs on-the-ground experience when you have the received wisdom of the neocons.

Of course, Rummy did have on-the-ground experience, being a veteran himself. And about 30 percent of the Bush administration has military experience, which is right in line with the previous two administrations. Plus, once again, it was Bush and not the Democrat, who got most of the military popular vote in 2004.

But why bother with facts when you can effectively cry out chickenhawk like so many other mindless lefties these days?

-Dave OConnell

You know, Pete, I totally got that as well. Just saw it over here in Britain, and really liked the answers Riggle was giving to the increasingly worried(but understanding) Jon Stewart.

I liked that he mentioned 20,000 troops won't make any difference. He basically said that Bush has no strategy in Iraq, and that he's simply sending in the troops BECAUSE HE CAN.

He highlighted the idiocy at work there, and I liked that. It was awkward, but watchably awkward.

I felt real sorry for Rob, as well. Nobody in the White House cares about their fellow man...the point of governance is lost.

I love how people pick and choose which of those with "on the ground experience" count. I could present one supporting the war/president, but he;d be ignored/dismissed.

and polls before the 2004 election showed veterans, military families suporting Bush over Kerry, and those currently in the military trusting Bush over kerry by a wide margin (not to mention of those who are political the large majority for 30 years have been republican) but none of that would matter. It doesn't fit the preconceived notion that you already have. there is no logic or debate. Whatever demonizes, good, whatever doesn't ignored or in turn demonized. That's why we never here about, but they are there, of the people who have sons and daughters over there, or even have lost one, and still support the president (to a large or small degree). We hear about cindy sheehan

Buzzzzt!!!! Wrong!

Rummy had not real combat experience.

You can pull all the people you want, it won't change the fact that was the most poorly planned and executed war since the Spanish Armada smashed on the White Cliffs of Dover.

I realize it's painful for you bushapologists to sit there, having lorded it over those of us in the reality-based community for years about you had won the elections and, therefore, we should just sit down and shut up. And now, with less than a third of the country still believing the fantasies Team Bush is trying to sell about this fiasco and the clear majority now sees it as the clusterfuck that it is, you've lost the Congress and in 2008, the eventual GOP nominee is going to have to run away from Bush's record faster than Rosie O'Donnell inhales a buffet, all you can do now is cry about how mean the Democrats are to you.

Sorry, but I'm tired of being called anti-American, of being accused of wanting my own country to fail, of being a terrorists sympathizer just because I saw the writing on the wall four years ago.

Excuse while I have absolutely no sympathy, for the poor, crybaby neocon. God, I hope you bastards never get elected so much as the head of a city sanitation department again.

Just clarify: Rummy was in the military, but he's never been in combat.

Facts are fun.

Yeah. because Republicans are never called"nazis, imperialists, racists, sexists, fascists" and the like. No, of course not. Only one side is good-your side, and one side is bad, the other side.

Of course, it could just be reasonable, informed, reasonably intelligent people who, I don't know, disagree but are capable of talking, debating, and discussing issues with out name calling, and glee when the other side stumbles, because we all want what is best for our country????

Of course not. Demonization of the other side is where it is at, especially on this blog. Name claling, belittling, etc.

Den, lets say you are right and all that was done to you (BTW, Bush has always said "reasonable people can disagree and not engaged in that name calling, but ok, judge all by the limbaughs of the world, of course there are none of those on the left) -why would you want to become the thing you hate?

I'll give you a quote from another man who gave into hate, paranoia and anger, and became what he always accused his enemies of and who did not live up to this sage advice he gave here, upon resigning, to his staff:

“Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”
richard Nixon

You guys are at that point. and beyond.

Den are you in the miltary?
under your definition, if no, wouldn't rumsfeld trum0p you, and those in combat trump him?

So by your definition, your opinion would be worthless, unless you've been in the military.

of course, john mccain was in the military. he was in combat. he was a pow. he supports the war. he wants even more troops to fight it. so he trumps rummy.

But then, there are those who were in combat who opposed it. So, under your standard, how to choose between those in combat with different views? The impossible question under your views.

and my grandfather in law was in combat. he wants to nuke iraq. Under your view, he should be listened to more than someone not in combat. Interesting.

My father in law was in combat too. Heavy combat. He supports Bush. OMG what do we do? He was in combat eek.

Not to mention the military went for Bush in 2004 apparently according to several times. Overwhelmingly. OMG but many of them were in combat too!

and what if Kerry faces Mccain in 2008? Both have been in combat. They'll surely have identical views on foreign policy and military force. What an easy choice

I never said democrats didn't engage in mudslinging, too. Politics is a dirty business.

But, on balance, the GOP has been the more arrogant, condescending, and yes, insulting party over the past several years, going back to their days of trying to get Clinton (A president I didn't admire either, BTW) at all costs.

It is the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the Coulters that have been the spokespeople of GOP thought in recent years. And they've found a ready audience and multi-million dollar income peddling their hatred of anyone with a differing opinion.

Sorry, but after being called a traitor for the past several years, you'll excuse me for not feeling all warm and fuzzy towards the GOP and Bush in particular as they rush to through more bodies on the fire of their raging egos.

As for Bush being all about "let's get along", well, first of all, that's why he has Karl Rove to launch his smear campaigns from behind the scenes while Numbnuts tries to look presidential and above it all. Second, it's pure Bushit anyway, since Bush's idea of everyone getting along is everyone who disagrees with him can shut up while he listens to his kissass Smithers wannabe abvisors.

And finally, I think I'll skip advice on how not to be petty from Richard "enemies list" Nixon.

They'll surely have identical views on foreign policy and military force. What an easy choice

Okay, Spiderrob, I'm going to say it now:

You're an ass.

Where have I have said that everyone in military, past or present, has the same views on foreign policy or military affairs. Go ahead, find where I said it. No, huh?

Now, get this through the neocon blanket you've wrapped around your brain: I'm not talking about political opinions or viewpoints, I'm talking about expertise. Hence my construction analogy.

Bush systematically ignored those who had actual combat expertise and experience in favor of those who told him what he wanted to here. That has been corroborated by numerous sources. Maybe you paused to take Bush's cock out of you mouth long enough, you'd understand what I'm saying.

I realize it's hard, after believing that Numbnuts was annointed by God to protect you from the imaginary WMDs for so long to admit that he's an incompetent shit who didn't know what he was doing, but that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

Now, I'll repeat more earlier question: Can you name one thing, just one thing, that would lead any intelligent thinking person to believe that this idiot has suddenly developed the competence to solve this problem that he created?

Anything at all?

1And finally, I think I'll skip advice on how not to be petty from Richard "enemies list" Nixon.

****

See reasonable people can recognize wisdom in someone else's advice, even if that same person never even came close to living up to it. In a broken moment, Nixon for once saw a truth-don't hate others or you destroy yourself. He never lived up to that moment before or after, but it was good advice nonetheless.

And of course, its only republicans who have extreme personalties who say things to sell books or just because. Michael Moore, Al Franken, much of Air America, Jeanine Garofolo, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand, et al are nothing like that.

or perhaps, just perhaps, you only see it when it is directed to people with your views, and not to others. that would be a common psychological thing. Ideally, though, people would see it as wrong no matter who it effects, and who does it. I do. Sorry you can't. the name calling, though, really elevates the level of discourse and improves your arguments though. All those who disagree with your are bastards, and not "reality based" remember that. You're so smart and informed anyone who disagrees must be delusional or bad people. Good way to live life.

Den's greatest hits:

You're an ass
get this through the neocon blanket you've wrapped around your brain
Maybe you paused to take Bush's cock out of you mouth long enough
after believing that Numbnuts was annointed by God to protect you from the imaginary WMDs
incompetent shit
this idiot

I like your argument style. it would do Karl Rove and Nixon proud. Hannity and limbaugh couldn't get away with it on the air though, but coulter could probably get it into one of her books.

Three are ex-Marines. Charles Whitman.

The war was piss poor planning from the get go. Everything from the beginning just seemed wrong. First of all, the plan was to go no matter what the League of Nations did. I think this was the first mistake. I was a believer. I watched Colin Powell go in front of the U.N. and declare that Saddam was building up his WMDs again. Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that Saddam had WMDs, but he did not have the huge stockpiles that Rush, Sean and every other neocon believes he had. He had enough to maybe gas the Kurds and Shiites.
What makes our decision to go in alone wrong (200 Spaniards are not re-enforcements) is the fact that this has become a mess that only rest on the U.S.'s shoulders and the Brits index finger. We are screwed.
Second, this is not an island hopping campaign where we can cut off supplies to the bad guys. We did not secure Iraq. That left every single muslim extremist with a gun and a hatred for the US free reign. Of course, being from Texas I know that our goverment knows how to keep a border secure.
WE ARE STUCK THERE. Have you ever gotten stuck in mud and the more you give it gas the more stuck you get. I think that is what is going to happen. We send more troops, attacks go up.
I support the war because I know we can win. We will just have to wait two years until this knucklehead is gone.
I have one last comment about the popular vote thing. I remember election night 2000. I know I am beating a dead horse, but the governor of the state with election issues is Jeb Bush. Damn, I am now part of the conspiracy thoerists who believe Bush stole the election with a little help. Anybody have spell check?

For folks interested in military polls, the Military Times has a poll from 2005 and 2006 of active-duty servicemen here:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart2.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php

The 2006 poll shows 52% of those who responded approve of the way Bush is handling his job as a president. However, the answers to poll questions #6, #7 and #10 suggest a drop in military approval since 2005 for both the Iraq war and the way Bush is handling it.

Kelly: The TV makes him look a wee bit pudgy, but in person, he's well over six feet of very big muscle.
Luigi Novi: That's exactly the impression I get from him on TV. I never got the impression that he was pudgy.

spiderrob8: polls before the 2004 election showed veterans, military families suporting Bush over Kerry, and those currently in the military trusting Bush over kerry by a wide margin (not to mention of those who are political the large majority for 30 years have been republican) but none of that would matter. It doesn't fit the preconceived notion that you already have.
Luigi Novi: An accurate description of the tactics of the swift boat veteran propagandists whose smears of Kerry may have very well contributed to those poll numbers you site. But hey, why bring that up when it may serve to mitigate your preconceived notions? :-)

spiderrob: BTW, Bush has always said "reasonable people can disagree and not engaged in that name calling, but ok, judge all by the limbaughs of the world, of course there are none of those on the left
Luigi Novi: A hollow bit of moralizing on Bush's part, given that he is the direct beneficiary of the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth", etc., who far outnumber and out-organize any equivalent personalities on the left.

spiderrob8: And of course, its only republicans who have extreme personalties who say things to sell books or just because. Michael Moore, Al Franken, much of Air America, Jeanine Garofolo, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand, et al are nothing like that.
Luigi Novi: Please. In the first place, none of these people are as well-organized or systematic as the right-wingers are. In the second place, just how much power do you think someone like Barbara Streisand has? The fact remains that liberals have not made "conservative" into a dirty word, or have "demonized" those who are pro-war the way right-wingers have done with those who are anti-war. Right-wingers have operated under the assumption that "against the war" is synonymous with "traitor", "coward", "pro-Saddam", and "unpatriotic". The same does not hold true with liberals, even despite the occassional excesses I see from some of them (and this is coming from somene who spent much of a thread picking apart Michael Moore and the material in his films with one of his fawning apologists on this blog years ago).

The issue is not whether anyone in the administration has combat experience, since that would simply be an ad hominem argument. Clinton had no combat experience, and I didn't hear a lot of complaints from his supporters of Kosovo. Bush's dubious motives for going to war, and his lack of combat experience aside, the issue is people like him, Cheney and Rice either have none, and/or have not relied on the advice of those who do have experience, by ignoring their advice, and botching up the war. Whether Bush used familial connections to get into a National Guard unit flying an obsolete plane that would never see combat is secondary to the fact that he did not prepare an exit strategy, did not account for riots and looting amid Saddam's fall, did not even bother knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, and so forth.

Den, your language toward spiderrob, in particular your allusions to where he puts his male organ, does not lend credence to your position.

Rob Riggle? Who cares? Yeah, I'm terrified. Watched John Stewart and the other clown a number of times. Not funny. Overrated. Loved by a small number of smart asses who enjoy listening to other smart asses with a microphone. Real clever. Yippee. Har, har! Yeah...hysterical.

"Rob Riggle? Who cares?""

Apparently you do, if you've bothered posting on this thread.

Posted by: Luigi Novi, Union City, NJ resident at January 12, 2007 08:02 PM

Den, your language toward spiderrob, in particular your allusions to where he puts his male organ, does not lend credence to your position.

Den, I'm gonna echo what Luigi's saying, and I'm gonna amplify it: I wouldn't have expected you to go for the low road like this. I honestly think you're better than this.

If that doesn't sway you, chew on this: you're not acting that much differently than I did when I began feuding with Mike Leung. Have you yet equalled my stupidity? No, not even close. But why even start down that road? I honestly do think you're much, much better than this. You're an intelligent person with a lot more to contribute than just mixing it up with a rabble-rouser.

Dude, you're an adult. Ultimately, it's up to you. But I thought I'd provide some unsolicited advice. It's yours to think about -- or ignore -- as you wish.

Damn, I really think I had too much wine with dinner. :P

I admit I came out swinging tonight and it was cathartic for me to let that out. Something I hadn't done for a while. If anyone besides spiderrob was offended by it, then I apologize. Technically, I never told spiderrob anything about where he puts HIS male organ, though. :)

Anyway, I'd like an answer from someone why we should believe that an administration that has been wrong on everything about Iraq for the past six years is suddenly going to get this new slogon, I mean plan this time. How many more chances should we give them before we say enough?

Den, I certainly wasn't "offended." Just dismayed that someone may have been repeating my mistakes.

I have no answer for your inquiry. The midterm elections were a referendum on the Iraq war as much as anything else. The people spoke loud and clear in November. But Bush is tone deaf to their cries for change.

Okay, I didn't read the passage close enough. I should've said, "allusions to him performing sex acts on Bush". Mea culpa.

I have no quarrell, however, with your recent question.

Posted:
spiderrob8: And of course, its only republicans who have extreme personalties who say things to sell books or just because. Michael Moore, Al Franken, much of Air America, Jeanine Garofolo, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand, et al are nothing like that.
Luigi Novi: Please. In the first place, none of these people are as well-organized or systematic as the right-wingers are. In the second place, just how much power do you think someone like Barbara Streisand has?

Guys, what I'm about to post is most assuredly a nitpick, but the woman's name is BARBRA. For crying out loud, people, she's only been in show biz for 44 freakin' years, earning Tonys, Grammys, Oscars, and Emmys in that time (as well as dozens of RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum records), so you'd think her spelling her name correctly wouldn't prove so daunting a task.
(For the record, the other female celebrity mentioned is Janeane Garofalo, but I'm not going to be so nitpicky over this one.)

>>Guys, what I'm about to post is most assuredly a nitpick, but the woman's name is BARBRA. For crying out loud, people, she's only been in show biz for 44 freakin' years, earning Tonys, Grammys, Oscars, and Emmys in that time (as well as dozens of RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum records), so you'd think her spelling her name correctly wouldn't prove so daunting a task.

I think SHE'S been spelling her first name wrong for 44 years. Think she'd finally get it right after all this time.

I assume that Ms. Streisand changed the spelling of her name for the same reason many big musicians change their names or spelling of names.

To paraphrase a Great American:

I'm ashamed that George W. Bush is from my country.

Guys, what I'm about to post is most assuredly a nitpick, but the woman's name is BARBRA. For crying out loud, people, she's only been in show biz for 44 freakin' years, earning Tonys, Grammys, Oscars, and Emmys in that time (as well as dozens of RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum records), so you'd think her spelling her name correctly wouldn't prove so daunting a task.

Well, as a further nitpick: Barbra Streisand hasnt earned "Tonys" plural. She's only earned one Tony Award (thus far) and that a special, non-competitive award; for that reason, some people don't include Streisand in the infamous trivia-question list of people who've won the Tony, Oscar, Grammy, and Emmy awards.

I love Spiderrob's logic: because your party engages in mudslinging, it's perfectly okay for my party to do so. Two wrongs make a right! Right?

Where did spiderrob say or indicate that?

Actually, spiderrob8 was saying the exact opposite: that people can and should be able to disagree respectfully.

While I believe he is often more combative than he realizes, in retrospect I am forced to acknowledge that his heart is in the right place. I think he truly wants to have a respectful conversation. It's just that he, like me, often overreacts to perceived insults. But, y'know, it's not like some of us (like me, f'r'instance) didn't provide fuel for his fire.

I disagree with a LOT of what he says, and I believe many of his arguments are logically flawed. But that's no reason to put words in his mouth.

As a viewer from beyond the US shores I have to say I love America but I hate the 'news' service provided withi its borders. Seriously, whenever I get back to the UK I need to watch an hour of SKY or BBC just to find out what's really been going on in the wider world.

Though I hate the politics of, say, FOX News, what I hate more is the fact that it's portrayed AS news. It's not. It's 90% opinion, with commentators commentating, panelists pontificating and the continual promotion of a 'fair and balanced' claim that's laughable (and all too often supported by a 'well everyone else is biased too defence).

The Daily Show may be an accquired taste but its strength is often in the fact that the first 10 minutes or so are often not FAKE news but pretty accurate ironic commentary... but it doesn't claim to be anything grander. Jon Stewart has often said that the show isn't there to report the news impassively, it's to say 'Hold on a darned second...what the hell's going on?'. Though the Republican party is often the butt, the Democrats have got it in the neck too and will even more the next time they get into the White House.

Me... I get my news from as MANY sources as possible rather than falling into the trap of only seeking out the source that echoes my pre-existing thoughts . That's the only way to expand your knowledge and even try to avoid those who tell you if you don't think as they do, you're wrong and it's your fault.

Language Log reports...

Bush presidency plutoed
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004041.html

I've read through this whole topic, agreed with some views and disagreed with others. And what my opinion of the actions of both political parties boils down to is this.

When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

Remember that quote? B5. My favorite show has been off the air for close to ten years, and it looks more topical than ever. Bush is like President Clark, a little man who's gotten his hands on enormous power and is hellbent on keeping it at any cost. The Department of Homeland Security is the Ministry of Peace and the Nightwatch, all rolled into one. We can't find the terrorists who attacked us, so we go attack someone else instead. The actions of a few have made us the most hated nation on the planet. And the actions of the Republicans are something the Democrats will be cleaning up after for a century, assuming they stay in power that long.

I'm most disgusted with McCain. Six years ago, he was the only decent Republican to run for president since Eisenhower. Now, he's Bush's pulltoy. If Bush said he was going to start making snuff porn films in the Oval, McCain would be all for it.

And as a party, the Democrats have become so wimpily defensive that they've lost any effectiveness. Maybe they'll get that back, now that they have control of Congress again. We'll see.

Shit like this is one reason why I call myself a Libertarian, and I don't agree with a lot of their views.

Scotty, beam me the fuck outta here. These people are all nuts.

Miles

John, many of us would probably find the BBC anything but fair or unbiased.

The examples are too numerous to list, though the one by correspondent Barbara Plett come to mind: speaking od the death of Yasser Arafat she said ""When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry...without warning."

Bill Mulligan, I agree that the BBC, like any news outlet, has its own set of biases. (A gentleman I know in England once told me, "The 'Beeb' talks a lot of bollocks these days.") Nevertheless, I believe that the BBC's international coverage is more thorough than that of the major U.S. networks, and is worth watching for that reason alone.

That's why I agree with John Mosby that one should get one's news from multiple sources. It makes sense to read both the Washington Post AND the Washington Times.

I used to avoid anything with a conservative angle "back in the day," until I realized that I was cheating myself of a legitimate and often worthwhile point-of-view.

I'm not sure if you've perceived this, Bill, but I think a few of the posts I've addressed to you over the last few months have been a bit... I dunno, snarky? Snotty? I'm not sure where it came from or why. That's why I want you to know that I value your point-of-view particularly because it's not always the same as mine. Our exchanges often challenge my preconceived notions and help me avoid becoming intellectually lazy.

Just thought you should know.

The examples are too numerous to list, though the one by correspondent Barbara Plett come to mind: speaking od the death of Yasser Arafat she said ""When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry...without warning."

While we posting from home know Arafat as someone who passed $2 billion to his widow, while the Palestinians insist the Jews are their problem, Plett may have been reacting sympathetically to the despair of the Palestinian people. I don't automatically assume her inability to demonize them as a sign of bias.

If Plett witnessed ragged Palestinian women and children shouting down a well to Arafat's spirit, like villagers out of a Kurosawa film, it seems denying them any representation in the media is what is really biased.

For those who may have missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zftpYrR9Z_4

Bill, I haven't had any sense of snarkiness in the least from you. I owe you an e-mail or two but I plead forgiveness on the grounds of A-final exams for this semester; B-preparing for the new batch of eager young minds yearning for knowledge; C- A series of film projects almost too cool for words and D- a terrible cold. Worst I've had in years. This is the frikkin Andromeda Strain, I swear.

You know, I like listening to the BBC, they hit a lot of European news that would otherwise be missed. What's happening in Belgium? It's more likely that the BBC will tell me than CNN. But they have, in my opinion, a very pronounced anti-Israel bias.

However I should, in the interest of fairness, point out that they may be aware of this and taking steps to correct it. The example I gave, concerning Ms. Plett, resulted ultimately in the BBC Board of Governors stating that she had "breached the requirements of due impartiality" and the director of news characterized it as an "editorial misjudgment".

I know that here in the USA I can access all manner of news programs, from Fox to CNN to MSNBC to the BBC. Can folks in Europe watch FOX or MSNBC if they choose? (I'm genuinely curious, I have no idea how many channels are available in Europe. Do they get stuff like the Cartoon Network or the Sci Fi Channel? Are there some premium channels there that we don't get that would likely be hits?)

Bill Mulligan, I'm sorry to hear about the cold. Hope it clears up soon. I can't wait to hear about the film projects, though! I'll keep my eyes peeled for the tell-all e-mail!

As for the 'Beeb,' it would not be unreasonable to conclude that it is more likely to "tow the party line" because it is government-funded and run. I've read, however, that the opposite is the case: the BBC tends to bend over backwards to run negative stories about the British government precisely because they want to avoid the appearance of being the government's lapdog. It would seem that they try harder to appear unbiased than their private-sector U.S. counterparts. Pretty ironic, ain't it?

But, yeah, it would be a mistake to think that the BBC doesn't have its own set of biases nevertheless.

Getting at the truth is a bitch, isn't it?

[The BBC] have, in my opinion, a very pronounced anti-Israel bias.

Do you have any examples, or are you saying a correspondent demonstrating a sympathy for the Palestinians is inherently anti-Israel?

But is bending over backwards to run negative stories really the act of an unbiased institution?

The good news is that, like all the established media, the BBC has to deal with the interent and the army of bloggers and other writers who are quick to jump on any innaccuracies or slanted coverage. They can, of course, ignore this but I think it would be unwise to do so.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 16, 2007 02:54 PM

But is bending over backwards to run negative stories really the act of an unbiased institution?

No. Although to be fair "bending over backwards" was my phrase and may not have been the best choice of words. I was just trying to point out that they try to be careful not to act as the British Government's "ministry of information."

Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the BBC has its own set of biases, just as any news organization does. But I think the international coverage they provide makes them worth watching nevertheless.

I remember a professor in college telling me that the most objective newspaper being published at the time was The Christian Science Monitor. I've never had occasion to check that claim. Has anyone else heard this? If so, by whose standards are they "the most objective" and how was this measured?

Heh. I just remembered one of the slogans The Daily Show: used to use in its ads: "...where more Americans get their news than probably should."

Heh. I just remembered one of the slogans The Daily Show: used to use in its ads: "...where more Americans get their news than probably should."
Bill Myers: no used to about it. They still run it almost every evening, right before The Daily Show starts. They started it up when Pew released their most recent findings.

I've never had occasion to check that claim. Has anyone else heard this? If so, by whose standards are they "the most objective" and how was this measured?
I've heard this as well. It's measured by... uhm, it's not Pew, but another group that's in Upstate New York. They sift through articles looking for slant/bias... the problem is, they tend to be biased themselves, and have a short term memory. They actually recently took The Daily Show to task for being biased against Republicans - but only took into account the shows during the Bush Administration. Another study group went back a full eight years (Stewart's complete reign) and found that the show's actually pretty balanced in dishing it out - it's just that it dishes out hardest to those making the news.

And that's the problem with anything that posts statistics like "most reliable" and "least biased" - you have to dig out their biases and agenda in order to evaluate their claims. (For example, the Upstate New York place whose name I can't remember doesn't appear to "get" satire, or comedy, and routinely denounces late night television in all forms...)

Okay. Rambling. La la la...