the Downing St. memos

[Mazer]

Yes, that was what I was getting at. Debate is healthy as you say, but arguing for the sake of arguing isn't and neither is jumping to conclusions. I'm willing to keep an open mind as long as debate continues and as long as facts are discussed. Expressing one's opinion is a two way street; you need to be willing to hear opposing opinions without crying foul if you're ever to accomplish anything.

[malvachat]

Listening to other points of view is so important in a healthy democracy.
Sometimes this is forgotten what a freedom this is.
To be shouted down and called names or smeared is not right.
But of course the freedom to be stupid is still a freedom of sorts.
Politics is a dirty game,sometimes moral issues have to be put aside
to get the end result.
I know "TBW"worked with Chilli's government during our dispute
with Argentina.Even though it was a right wing dictatorship,
With dreadful human rights issues
Sometimes the rules have to be bent to achieve the end.
In that case no law was broken and the British government
managed to keep it quiet.
Years later it came out and "TBW"defended her action on the grounds that it saved British lives.Ends justifying means and all that.
It seems to me that the Bush administration is not too good
at covering it's tracks,thence the name calling.
At the end if it's proven they broke the law,
I don't think it's right that they get away with it.
I know we need the oil in the west,and Britain backing the states
is in my opinion the right thing for Britain.
I just wish it could all be a little more honest and within
the laws of each respective country

[theknife]

the media is a critical part of this debate, and it is because of the media's failures that this debate is even necessary.

in a healthy democracy, the media's role should be that of a watchdog - challenging and adversarial, because that is the only thing that keeps government even slightly honest. the US media rolled over like sick sheep after 9/11, didn't ask the hard questions when Bush was selling us a war we didn't need, was too afraid of looking unpatriotic and basically allowed the adminstration to dictate the terms of the debate.... and look where that has gotten us.

Mazer's logic is an extension of this mindset: criticism is unpatriotic and divisive, questioning the war and how we got there hurts the troops, editorial dissent is propaganda etc. this is the same mentality that allowed us to get swept into this arguably illegal, certainly foolish, and apparently unwinnable war in the first place. by questioning it, by investigating how we got there, by demanding some accountability from the leaders who misrepresented the material facts, then can lessons be learned from the catastrophic mistakes we have made.

the media doesn't create the problem - they only make people aware of it. this awareness is how things that are broken in a democracy get fixed.

[Sinner]

the media doesn't create the problem - they only make people aware of it. this awareness is how things that are broken in a democracy get fixed.

I agree






EDIT
Now Knife, you do know the media is owned by corporations right? In 1983 fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and by 1997 with all the mergers that number dropped to 10. Info from Ben H. Bagdikian book The Media Monopoly… Now in 2005 that number could be lower.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

the media is a critical part of this debate, and it is because of the media's failures that this debate is even necessary.

The critical part the media plays is to report on both sides of the debate fairly, and when the media fails in this respect then debate becomes impossible despite its necessity. Granted, there is no law that requires news outlets to provide equal time, but there's still a code of ethics that the media follows (however selectively), and when a scandal of this magnatude comes to light it is important for journalists to double and triple check their sources and hunt down corroborating evidence. As watchdogs they tend to ask questions no one else asks, and those are the true powers of the free press. Make no mistake here knife, the press isn't staying away from this story for fear of being called unpatriotic, they're refraining because they know that one-sided reporting is wreckless and irresponsible, and that would be far more damning in the public eye than mere unpatriotism. To keep their audiences loyal to them the media need to appear fair and balanced (sorry to repeat that epithet here, but why do you think Fox News uses such a phrase to advertise themselves?).

The divide and conquer approach does not work for political reporting. Convincing one half of the citizenry of a presidential conspiracy doesn't make convincing the other half any easier, and in fact it may make that other half more vocal and disidient. In that situation the lessons to be learned would be hard and few; mostly you would learn that polarizing the nation is a mistake to begin with. If the media is to report on the Downing Street minutes it must frame the debate in a way that allows all points of view to be understood, all evidence to be admited, and all accusations to be cross examined, and after that you may begin to question, to investigate, and ultimately to hold someone accountable. This can be done in public forums, in Congress, and in the courts as well as the media, but the point is that the truth is meaningless unless you follow a logical, balanced, methodic process to uncover it. This has yet to happen.

The media may not have created this problem, but it can sure make it worse. Raising awareness is one thing, but the reporters you've quoted so far are just drawing lines in the sand.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

the media doesn't create the problem - they only make people aware of it.

Yeah knife, the same way they make people aware of a koran getting flushed down a toilet. They didn't create a problem at all eh?

And I guess they didn't create any problems revealing that a certain woman was a CIA agent.

The media has it's own selfish agenda and it means screwing other people or organizations they have no problem with that.

[theknife]

the latest Zogby poll

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

interesting that Zogby polled on the impeachment question at all....