From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #256 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Friday, November 12 2004 Volume 06 : Number 256 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [RS] Taking the ... [Lisa Davis - home ] [RS] The Washington Post and bias [Norman Johnson ] [RS] We CAN handle the truth... [RockinRonD@aol.com] Re: [RS] Taking the ... [Joe Mally ] RE: [RS] The Washington Post and bias ["Kristen Myshrall" ] [RS] Thank you, Vanessa! ["jw" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:00:41 -0500 From: Lisa Davis - home Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... Personally, I think the Far Right turned out in droves because they couldn't stand gays getting married. Maybe that makes me paranoid in a different way. I mean sure, who knows, but that's my guess, BECAUSE the exit polls had people citing "moral values" as the most important thing for them. THAT is the scary part of this election (obviously, applying my biased interpretation of what they meant by that). On the flip side has anyone seen the Michael Moore 17 (or whatever) reasons for not slitting your wrists? Lisa Davis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:54:16 -0500 From: Norman Johnson Subject: [RS] The Washington Post and bias >> Actually, I always thought the wash post was biased left. << The Washington Post a generation ago was a great bastion of investigative journalism. Today, it is not definitely not. In fact, the WP took many of the now-shown-to-be-totally-false claims by administration and Chalabi regarding the Iraq war at face value without much questioning of the validity of the sources. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002488.html http://prorev.com/2004/05/chalabi-washington-post-new-york-times.htm INorman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:06:33 -0600 From: "kunigunda" Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... Ok guys - I'm heading for bigger and better things right now. Leaving shortly for Chicago to see Richard after about 4 hrs sleep. Hope I make it! Hope like heck it doesn't get canceled. Wouldn't that be the pits! Must think positively. Will report back on the show if Smokey doesn't beat me to it. Carrie in KC.. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:22:54 EST From: RockinRonD@aol.com Subject: [RS] We CAN handle the truth... Who else but the mainstream media to investigate voter fraud? Sadly, solid, unbiased investigative journalism in this country seems to have vanished. No one, it would appear, has the guts to ask the tough questions--questions that really need to be answered, especially about the purposes of this hideous war Bush initiated in Iraq. God forbid they should lose their entree to the White House briefing room for asking tough questions. Where are Eric Sevareid, Edward R. Murrow, David Brinkley, Lowell Thomas, Tom Wicker, David Halberstam and Walter Cronkite now that we need them? Sheesh! RockinRonD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:51:38 -0500 From: Joe Mally Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... I did see his 17 points last week. It made me laugh, except of course #7 :) Just found this article that will make your skin crawl http://www.beliefnet.com/story/156/story_15602.html Back to Richard, I just heard on Grassy Hill, Richard singing **Wisteria ****from the sonora sessions - **Is this available or was it strictly a freebie? What a beautiful version. - -joe Lisa Davis - home wrote: > On the flip side has anyone seen the Michael Moore 17 (or whatever) > reasons for not slitting your wrists? > > Lisa Davis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:32:10 -0500 From: "Kristen Myshrall" Subject: RE: [RS] The Washington Post and bias Thanks Norman and Vanessa, That's the sort of thing I was talking about when I meant biased. The Washington Post (though they're by far not the only newspaper!) just writes...they don't investigate. They just seem to take in whatever they're told and assume it's true and spread it to all of it's readers. Unfortunately a lot of readers just take what they see in the newspaper as truth and that to me is extremely sad and scary. >From: Norman Johnson >Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org >To: shindell-list@smoe.org >Subject: [RS] The Washington Post and bias >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:54:16 -0500 > > >> Actually, I always thought the wash post was biased left. << > >The Washington Post a generation ago was a great bastion of investigative >journalism. Today, it is not definitely not. In fact, the WP took many of >the now-shown-to-be-totally-false claims by administration and Chalabi >regarding the Iraq war at face value without much questioning of the >validity of the sources. > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html > >http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002488.html > >http://prorev.com/2004/05/chalabi-washington-post-new-york-times.htm > >INorman _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:44:00 -0700 From: "Keith Mahoney" Subject: [RS] FW: shindell-list-digest V6 #255 Let's get back to Shindell talk or at least Shindell based political talk! Thanks, - -Keith - -----Original Message----- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:19:52 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:01:13 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] FW: shindell-list-digest V6 #255 Why are you singling me out for this? - --V On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:44:00 -0700, Keith Mahoney wrote: > Let's get back to Shindell talk or at least Shindell based political talk! > > Thanks, > > -Keith > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:19:52 -0500 > From: Vanessa Wills > Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... > - -- "Oh yes, I know, the obligatory pieties about "healing" have begun; not least from the lips of the noble Loser. This is music to the ears of the Victor of course, who wants nothing better than for us all to Come Together, a position otherwise known as unconditional surrender." --Simon Schama, http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1343956,00.html "If we're to be damned, let's be damned for what we truly are." --Captain Jean-Luc Picard ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:06:41 -0800 (PST) From: Deb Woodell Subject: RE: [RS] The Washington Post and bias Kristen wrote, > The Washington Post (though they're by far not the only newspaper!) just writes...they don't investigate.> - --- While a working journalist for nearly 30 years, with no designs on quitting, I hope I don't sound like an apologist for what I am about to say, because I do wholeheartedly agree we need more investigative journalism. But (there's always a but) ... It's hard for newspapers, especially, to do the type of investigations that they used to do when the staffs are hanging on by what seems like a thread. Where I work, the Philadelphia Daily News, we are in the midst of yet another round of buyouts (between us and the Inquirer, the company wants 40 positions lost; they haven't even replaced the three people who DIED in the past year). And 40 is a small number; Newsday in New York just announced it wants to trim 100 jobs; the Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News are coming in at around a combined 350 jobs. While the cuts are supposed to come from all walks of life, you can bet that a lot will come from newsrooms. The media are more about profits than newsgathering these days (and 15 percent PROFIT is viewed as subpar and unacceptable). And while staffs are cut, they also are run ragged doing the daily "grunt" reporting; investigative journalism, by and large, is not viewed as "growing the revenue." Deb ===== This I have learned: Because we can, we must try to change the world -- fully, wisely, restlessly. -- Rudy Nemser == Life is such a changing art. -- Dar Williams == __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:22 -0800 From: "jw" Subject: [RS] Thank you, Vanessa! Thank you, Vanessa, for taking the time to post your very enlightening piece! Jean - -----Original Message----- - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:39:59 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:22:10 -0700, Donald Frick wrote: > PLEASE! Someone enlighten me as to why NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox are > biased. I take no position either way - no one, on either side, has > provided me with an argument based on FACTS. For the most part, the problem with the mainstream media is not so much that they're not giving the Right Answers, as that they're not even asking the right questions. Although we have sometimes the appearance of critical evaluation, actually so much is taken for granted that instead of asking, Should the U.S. be carpet-bombing Fallujah or should it not? the media asks, How will carpet-bombing Fallujah help promote democracy in Iraq? already assuming that the right action is being taken, and we have only to evaluate its many virtues. ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #256 ***********************************