Sunday, November 18, 2007

What a difference... makes when you change the person in charge of an editorial page.

Unlike Heraldo, I don't think the Eureka Reporter has always skewed their news stories to parrot the Arkley line. But the first editorial that came out after the Reporter hired that Hannaford guy to take over their editorial page did raise my eyebrows since it was a 180 from the Reporter's prior editorials about Iraq.

Now we see it again with another glowing report on Iraq in the Reporter's editorial column. Looks like this might be a prominent, if not permanent, change in what we read in the Eureka Reporter from now on. I can't help but wonder if Hannaford was hired for one reason only: To send the right message in the Reporter's editorials. I've discounted others that have accused the Reporter of bias before, but this might be the real thing.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. After all, we're just talking editorials here. Everybody's entitled to an opinion.


At 10:44 AM, Blogger robash141 said...

Hannaford is just parroting the latest RNC/Bush Administration talking points. They send them out in mass emails every morning to their legions of right wing pundit stooges.

I think they are just using Enron style counting tricks to make it appear that things are going swell swell ,swell with the surge, surge, surge.

What they are really trying to do with all this happy talk is evade responsibility for a disaster of their own making is hang on no matter how many lives are needlessly wasted until Bush is out of office and then blame the next President for the pull out just as we were about to win.

At 1:19 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

Let's see if we have this straight: If a news story or opinion article agrees with our own opinions, it is "unbiased". If it posits an opposite view or reports facts which do not support our own preconceived notions it is: "lies, spin or biased".
Don't feel "sheepish" (pun alert) Fred and Rob this is a common human trait. Sometimes it's a relief to be a possum.

At 1:40 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Judging by the many YouTube videos from the front, where the soldiers are trying to get their views heard outside the vacumm of the traditional media - I'd say this is a good thing.

The unfilled niche is the "conservative" voice - the new "counterculture."

At 1:40 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Actually, I've said a number of times that most people claim bias simply because a certain news item isn't written the way they wanted it written.

I'm not sure bias is the right word to use in this case, as we're talking about editorial opinion.

That said, the purpose of my post was simply noting how simply changing who's in charge of an editorial page certainly can change the paper's editorial opinions quite a bit. At least it appears to have here.

In this case, two editorials in the last week (since the new guy took over) look like something that came right out of a White House press release whereas, before, they just seemed like varied opinions of the E/R editorial board ( or Glenn F-S), at least to me.

While I said there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it being a supposed editorial opinion,I would think such commentary could take it's toll on a paper's readership over time. Well, maybe it could. How many people read, or refuse to read, a paper based on a paper's editorials?

Still, if the paper gets a reputation as a release point for White House press releases, I could see a lot of left wingers and even middle- of- the- road types going elsewhere for opinion.

At 1:59 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

Well The Bush administration has such a long record of dishonesty and deceit in regards to the Iraq war one would have to be nuts to take anything they say at face value.

Plus the Bushies have already been caught red-handed bribing columnists to write favorably about them. Remember Armstrong Williams.

Its nice how Hannaford lumps over 60 % of the public who want us out of Iraq into the Move on/Code pinko wing of the Democrat Party.

At 2:21 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Rose wrote, "The unfilled niche is the "conservative" voice - the new "counterculture.".

Assuming you're suggesting "conservatives" supported the invasion of Iraq, there are a number of "conservatives" that say it is conservative to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq- Pat Buchanan being one that comes to mind.

At 2:41 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

Rose you are even more gullible than I believed.

The Military would censor any You Tube by any soldier ,sailor airmen or marine that Said anything negative about the administration, period.

Plus it's ridiculous to suggest that right wingers are the new conterculture. Right wing extremists already get way more face time on TV Way more air time on the radio and have a 3-1 edge in op-ed columns over their liberal counterparts .
Right wingers are the establishment

At 3:02 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

I would venture to say that the percentage of (sane) people who "want us out of Iraq" approaches 100 including Bush. He, after all has suffered justifiably or not from that mess. The real debate is how it is achieved. Many believe that the Democrats are invested in an ignoble retreat from Iraq in order to gain a political advantage. They point to recent congressional maneuverings to reduce funding for the effort coinciding with measurable progress (even admitted in the NYT and WaPo) as evidence of desperation on the part of the Democrats to assure defeat on Bush's watch. Conversely, the opposing partisans dismiss the reports of progress as reported even in the MSM as administration "lies, distortions and spin" and refer to past unspecified examples.

Those invested in one side or the other will continue with business as usual.

"An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion." it can however be avoided if one is able to tag his opponent with being a: ______phobe, racist, right/left wing extremist, liar etc.

At 4:52 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I think I figured out why I'm so "raised eyebrows" over this second E/R editorial. It just seems like it's something that should be in some national paper, like the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal.

It just seems weird seeing an obviously agenda oriented commentary in a local paper two times in one week.

Even weirder because the E/R publishes nationally syndicated columnists regularly. They even had a number of them this morning. Yet this one stood out to me as being out of place.

At 6:05 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

I would venture to say that the percentage of (sane) people who "want us out of Iraq" approaches 100 including Bush. He, after all has suffered justifiably or not from that mess.
I agree except for the part about Bush, He does not want us out , or it would have happened already. He's already He's the "decider"

Many believe that the Democrats are invested in an ignoble retreat from Iraq in order to gain a political advantage. They point to recent congressional maneuverings to reduce funding for the effort coinciding with measurable progress (even admitted in the NYT and WaPo) as evidence of desperation on the part of the Democrats to assure defeat on Bush's watch.

"many" who? A few right wing partisans in the media believe that, There is much empirical evidence that Bush and his cronies are much more desperate to keep the war going, than the democrats are to end it.
The New York times and Washington Post were instrumental in pushing the bogus WMD claims that started the war initially. Judy Miller , remember her.

There is also a long history of Bush adminstration mendacity on Iraq . Remember
yellowcake from Niger. Aluminum tubes for centrifuges
Unmanned areial drones,
Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq before the war, "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
Mobile Biological laboratories, 100 to 500 ton stockpiles of chemical weapons.
All this false information was put out in the Washington Post and the New York times.
Why trust them now if they have lied so many times before.

At 7:01 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

robash141: "The Military would censor any You Tube by any soldier ,sailor airmen or marine that Said anything negative about the administration, period."

Do you mean like Scott Thomas Beachamp whose fabrications were published by the New Republic and turned out to be bogus or Jessie MacBeth who claimed to be an Army Ranger that engaged in killing 200 people in Iraq but in fact made it through only 44 days of Army basic training, was never a Ranger and never set foot in Iraq? Was it "Military censoring" when "PepperSpray Productions in Seattle who produced the video titled “Jesse MacBeth: An Iraq Veteran Speaks Out.” released also on YouTube and later stated: "“Jesse Macbeth misrepresented to PepperSpray Productions and others his military service and was never deployed in Iraq. When we learned that Macbeth’s service records were fraudulent, we immediately pulled the video and are no longer distributing it.”

Funny how the reporters still can’t bring themselves to mention MacBeth’s criminal record. Or the people who gleefully promoted his vicious lies.

But that’s our watchdog media for you and it's only "agenda driven" when you disagree with it.

As leonidas pointed out, Robash141 is excused from making any cogent argument as his interlocutors are "right wingers".

At 9:02 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

For any of those interested and who can stomach 21 minutes of indymedia "pepper spray productions" baloney, have a look at the Jesse MacBeth video and rap sheet here.

Maybe robash was too busy getting his talking points from Operation Yellow Elephant or some of the Kos kids to learn of the lies of Joe Wilson as revealed by the U.S. Congress. Also rob might look up the definition of "lie" in Websters. Oh wait. My bad. I probably qualify as a "right winger". Never mind.

At 10:45 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Good points, pogo.

At 6:18 AM, Blogger robash141 said...

No pretty silly points actually...

I'd never even heard of Scott Thomas Beachamp or Jesse MacBeth until right wing radio honks started making a big fuss about them. If you showed me a picture of them I would not be able to identify them.
I see Geoge W. Bush on TV every day however
It's difficult to see how you could compare a couple of relatively obscure fraudsters with very limited influence to the President Of the United States

At 8:28 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Of course robash "never even heard" of Scott Beachamp or Jesse MacBeth. He appears to have been too busy soaking up the DNC talking points at Operation Yellow Elephant and Daily Kos or perhaps heard MacBeth by his birth name Jesse Adam Al-Zaid.

With regard to the "Bush Lied" mantra, I would say read the dictionary definition of "lie" (1 a: an assertion of something known by the speaker to be untrue) and get back to us with ONE example as regards Bush.

Hillary on October 10, 2002, after having been briefed with the same intelligence as the president and other members of the Senate stated in support of the Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq: "... Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...[L]eft unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." In fact, in voting for S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, she cited her husband’s invasion of Iraq and the “known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites” of Saddam Hussein as well as the over-400 cruise missiles president Clinton launched at those same suspected WMD sites in Iraq that must have been fresh in her memory.

January 26, 2007 Is the date that Hillary voted to confirm General David Petraeus to lead the "surge" in Iraq, again without even a token expression of doubt. Apparently this date is lost on Hillary’s conveniently sieve-like memory.

September 11, 2007: Hillary, showing her lifelong contempt for our military and her party's investment in U.S. defeat in the Middle East told General Petraeus that his report to Congress, which cited empirical evidence (acknowledged by such opponents of the war as the New York Times and Washington Post) that the surge was working – that America was winning, required “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Hillary Clinton considers General David Petraeus ("Betray us") a liar – while she continues to defend her husband, the man proven to have lied to the entire world for almost a year, was disbarred for lying and obstructing justice and was impeached as President of the United States. Will robash now assert that Mrs. Clinton is lying?

This post is not intended as a defense of the policies of Bush with regard to the Iraq situation but to point out the dishonesty of the politicians who place the defeat of the US and the furtherance of their political power above all.

At 10:02 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

I'm not sure what all this blathering on about Hilary Clinton is supposed to prove. Perhaps you have some manly hangups about the prospect of a woman president.
I'm not exactly a fan of Hilary Clinton. War-mongering corporatist Ivy League lawyer scum that she is

Damn Hilary Clinton.

I am not privy to Mr Bush's innermost thoughts and feelings. However, Mr Bush has a long and well documented history of public mendaciousness which would strongly suggest a less than honest disposition.

At 11:02 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

Spartacus doesn't get out much.
The New York Times encouraged our imperial misadventure enthusiastically, so it's not surprising that some at the Times might listen credulously to the great General Petraeus.

At 6:40 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

robash: "Perhaps you have some manly hangups about the prospect of a woman president."

Could be. I probably would have voted for Jean Kirkpatrick as opposed to Bill.

"War-mongering corporatist Ivy League lawyer scum that she is. Damn Hilary Clinton."

Tsk tsk. Watch that "hate speech"!:o)

"am not privy to Mr Bush's innermost thoughts and feelings." "...He does not want us out , or it would have happened already. He's already [sic said?] He's the "decider"

Well, which is it? You don't know, or are you making an inference because he hasn't surrendered yet?

"...Bush has a long and well documented history of public mendaciousness..."

OK; show us the "documentation" (opinion doesn't count).

carson park ranger: "Spartacus doesn't get out much."

Congratulations! After you complete the spelling class you can sign up for history:o).

"...some at the Times might listen credulously to the great General Petraeus."

Just not at the advertising desk.

At 7:15 AM, Blogger Carol said...

Well, I wasmn't going to chime-in until I read Hannaford's editorial today - sheesh! I wish they would heed my request to stop delivering their faux news propaganda to my house.

At 3:07 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

Regardless of ones position on the political spectrum there is an insightful post on this subject here.

At 8:40 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

One of the most cherished myths of the Far Right is the notion of "Liberal media bias" Many of their other preposterous claims are based upon this fiction.

Spartacus is utterly credulous when it comes to Bush's high number of public statements which later turned out to be untrue.

However, he's quite willing to indulge in conspiracy mongering any news outlet that does not conform to his ideological proclivities

Spartacus should prove liberal media bias.

What these righties are really saying is that they hate the notion of a free press.

What Hannity and Limbaugh and all the other scores of far right media are saying when they complain constantly about "liberal media" is that they want all of the media to be just like them.

They don't want a free press they want a authoritarian sychophant press that is spouting right wing polemics incessantly. That is why all the carping about liberal bias

At 6:06 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Well some progress at last! The "lies" are now things that turned out to be untrue. Now if we can just get rob to apply to Sacramento for his clairvoyant/psychiatric license so he can legally mine those "right wing" minds for those naughty thoughts nirvana will have arrived. Meanwhile he may need to check with Miller Farms to buy more straw to construct those men he's building.

At 7:24 AM, Blogger Carol said...

Rob is correct, ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ.

BTW, Rob's letter in today's ER was spot on AND fun to read - a very punchy letter. It is a disgrace that the current administration turns its back on returning vets.

When we had our satellite internet service installed, the chain-smoking 65 year old fellow told us he was called back into service. At first he refused. Then the military offered him $200,000/year and a million dollar life insurance policy. He accepted. He didn't tell him he had a stroke several years ago.

At 8:33 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"It is a disgrace that the current administration turns its back on returning vets.".

Except that it seems every administration is accused of such things. Not saying there might be some truth to it, but to say this wasn't happening all along seems to just be partisan finger pointing, to me.

As an aside, I haven't look too far into it, but I've seen a couple blurps today on various blogs, Nobody's Business for one, that the military is asking for enlistment bonus money back from some disabled vets because they weren't able to continue their terms of service due to injuries received.

Again, just saw the headlines and figured I'd look into it later. Time for my morning session of Aces High now.

At 10:28 AM, Blogger Carol said...

What percentage of protesters of this war or any war within the last 50 years have been republicans, Fred?

At 10:35 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I don't know and I suppose there's no real way of knowing. What does that have to do with the government supposedly screwing over veterans, though? That's a different issue than who supports or doesn't support a given military action.

I've been hearing accusations, whether real or imagined, of the government reneging on promises to vets since at least the 70s, and that includes both Republican and Democrat led administrations.

At 5:36 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Carol: "Rob is correct, ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ.

We would be interested in the items referred to in rob's "correctness". Cheerios for breakfast perhaps? What you are really saying Carol is that you are disposed to accept rob's unsupported assertions over any conflicting facts to the contrary as presented in the links at Eternity Road. Not surprising for a fellow progressive.
Sorry to be unable to comment on rob's "punchy[?]" letter (I, unlike many progressives commenting here do not comment on subjects which I have not researched). Perhaps you should do more investigation of the 65 yr old recruited for "service". Was it military service? If so, he would be assigned to the Pentagon, wearing at least 4 stars and earning more $ than Harry Reid $180,000.00.

The government has a habit of "screwing over" veterans. The current regime has no monopoly on it in spite of DNC talking points.

At 9:35 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

The troops know Bush is behind them they can constantly feel him there.

Shown his he has shown his support love and apprciation in the sollowing ways

Involuntary Extensions of combat duty

Multiple deployments and with less time between tours;

Force wounded to troops pay for the equipment that is lost, damaged or wrecked when they are wounded;

Sending troops into combat without proper equipment

Ostracizing troops who seek treatment for combat stress

Stiffing Vets on disability claims from combat service.

And the latest forcing wounded soldiers to pay back enlistment bonuses.

The Bush Administrations treatment of the vets is nothing short of sadistic

It’s a national scandal
much much worse than FUBAR.

I personally think a lot of those ardent military service advioding high ranking chickenhawks in the Admin want to secretly punish vets for being braver than them.
Now that they are in a position to do so they are taking full advantage.

At 7:14 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Regardless, I've heard similar complaints for at least 30 years. Every administration has had fingers pointed at it, whether deserved or not.

Some, of your complaints, I'd have to disagree with, like sending troops into combat without proper equipment. We have the most fully equipped army in the world. Sure, some may enter the fight without certain top- of- the- line items of equipment, but they're still far better equipped than the opposition who are basically fighting with no modern equipment.

At 7:46 AM, Blogger Pogo said...

Concerning the "amazing" revelation of how the government bureaucracy can trample individuals (and always has by the way), robash reminds me of the adolescent who just discovered sex: Wow! This is awesome! Look what I have discovered. He sees the entire world through the partisan spectacles of BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) and somehow believes in the face of all the evidence that when his (good) guys are put in charge of this MONSTER, injustice will cease; not realizing that it isn't a personnel problem but a systemic one. Fred and the greek pointing this out means absolutely nothing to him or other so called "progressives" who will as always, define the "enemy" as "the vast right wing".

At 11:26 AM, Blogger robash141 said...

Squandering their lives needlessly in a war of aggression. I should have added that to my list.

Fred you've already displayed your callous indifference to pretty much anything that does not benefit you personally . so your reply is not one bit surprising to me.

Pogo Indulges in typical Limbaughian logic.

1. First lump all of Bush adversaries across the spectrum, one group..

Assign nefarious or petty partisan motivations to everything your adversaries say or do..

He doesn't believe that despite the fact that I am a veteran, that I come from a family with a high number of veterans and that many of my friends are veterans that

I could be saying these things out of any genuine concern. He believes that the only reason why I would say it is because bcause i've been brainwashed by the daily kos and evil Democrats to bring down the Great Bush

3 Denny,deny,deny everything.

The kind of shoulder shrug "everybody does it" answer o

is lame and Hypocritical

It's pathetic.

If some elementary school kid somewhere in a America managed to write and anti war letter and send off to a soldiers in Iraq .
They would be beside themselves over this "insult" to "the troops"

Pogo and his chain-email buddies would no doubt work themselves rightgeous spasms of feigned outrage. Demanding that the kid be expelled and the teacher fired, and the parents audited by the IRS the DHS and the NSA.

It's amazing to me how mercilessly they can go after their percieved enemies.

However when these right wingers themselves get caught doing something they ought not to have All we hear are miles and miles of excuses.


Post a Comment

<< Home