To the Local Paper of Record

Since the average age of newspaper readers is fifty-five and I am only forty-four, please, Los Angeles Times, stop calling me and trying to sell me your newspaper. Why should I pay for something that I can get for free?

Last night, one saleswoman even tried this selling point: that I couldn’t read the pixelated version of the LAT at the breakfast table. Have these people not heard of laptops? I don’t have one, but Sheesh! At least I know they exist.

Evolve…

The audience for network news on TV has dropped faster than for newspapers, he said, and radio news has almost disappeared.

Or die.

(Thanks to Roger L. Simon)

Comments

[V the K]

Lefties sneer at people for not reading newspapers, which makes me ask, 'Why?' The newspaper is eighteenth century technology. Should I light my house with a whale oil lamp? Should I wait for a horse-drawn ice-wagon to bring me ice with which to keep my food cold?

Never mind the arrogance that says that all information must be carefully processed through an editorial board that decides what I should and should not see.

[-keith in mtn. view]

I dropped our subscription to the San Jose Mercury because I simply got dragged down and tired of the wholesale defeatist negativity and distorted perspective, besides being little more than a mouthpiece or reprint of the NYT. We got to the point where we only read the comics, and then only a couple of them. The dead-tree Media-machine became irrelevant.

[-keith in mtn. view]

Oh yeh, Banana Oil also points out an ongoing aspect of editorial bias which I find truly disgusting, the use of context-less headlines that manipulate and underscore our casualties, without mentioning our successes. For instance, Six Marines Killed in Iraq Bomb Attacks. In the firs paragraph they suggest that only 29 "insurgents" have died in the offensive. Eight paragraphs into the story we finally find out that over 290 local civilians have been killed by terrorists, and not until paragraph fifteen that our offensive against them has killed 71 of the terrorists and now 6 more = 6-vs.-77, that's a 13-to-1 success ratio on our part. And then even this discovery is buried in crap by a meaningless and biased mis-direction quote from Syria's snake-president Assad.

[sortapundit]

Careful. Now you'll start getting endless calls from laptop salesmen.

[Ian Hamet]

I appreciate Keith trumpeting my blog, but in all fairness, that post is merely a quote of and link to a post by Sachiko ab Hugh at Big Lizards.

When I myself say something brilliant, should it ever happen, I'll be more than happy to take credit for it. :)

[AJackson]

With EBay siphoning off classified ad revenue, plus real estate Web sites, on-line Job boards like Monster, CareerBoard, not to mention portals like Yahoo, MSN, and Google - future earnings do not look promising for the daily dead-tree news business.

[skinner]

Yea will televisions just as bad
I was just reduced to watching Rod Stewart sing That " but most of all I wish you love", song, on jay leno { no cable ] I just caught the tail end of it with him doing his dieng butter fly impersonation on the stage when is he gonna do a duet with Barry Manilow { barely manenuff] ? They even look alike little big nosed shrimps with fiberglass hair and Light Loafers on
Please hand me my puke bucket
The only reliable news periodical is the Weekly World News and im starting to wonder if they got bought out by the new york times some of theyre stories are starting to sound a little far-fetched

[Rae]

I so agree, Juliette, but I take no local paper because of the missing degree of professionalism from the "journalists." They are either all LDS or all liberal. Nice choices.

[Rae]

I so agree, Juliette, but I take no local paper because of the missing degree of professionalism from the "journalists." They are either all LDS or all liberal. Nice choices.

[Zendo Deb]

Besides the governments Do Not Call list, every organization is supposed to maintain its own. Ask them to put you on the their Do Not Call list and the visit https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx

[Steve]

From what I've read the New York Times does feed their stories to many papers around the country who inturn basically just reprint the story. Many of them, like the Boston Globe, they also own.

I think "liberals" want people to read just the newspapers because they are a source of a few surface facts and a lot of opinion.

They want everyone to be on the same sheet of music and it makes them uncomfortable that people are looking for more substantial information. I guess it seems threatening to them in this competitive world. But oh well, what are you going to do?

During a period that I read the New York Times I did notice that they would go for the sourest headline and have the first 4/5ths of the article in that biased manner of theirs but if you were able to make it through all of that in the last 1/5 of the article it would often give you a little peek at the real facts behind the story. Funny and odd of them, in a way.

One interesting thing though. A while back I mentioned to Justin that he ought to see if his local library provides Proquest. It allowed me to go back through just about all the newspaper articles for the last 25 years. It at least dispells the illusion the MSM news media today is trying to project that the case against Saddam was made out of the blue by the Bush administration. If the media has "intelligence" then they made enough of a case themselves for the removal of Saddam's regime. Or, at the very least they give a lot of context and weight to the whole situation regarding Saddam's removal and this material contrasts with the phony pose the MSM news now gives in faux surprise at Saddam's removal.

Anyway, since mentioning that here about Proquest I believe that something has changed at the local library in regards to access to all the articles I used to have through Proquest. Not real sure about that just yet, could be something else. A little strange if so.

That also goes for the Discover the Network web site and their no longer allowing a person to view their maps of the inter-connection between various groups, people, and their funders. I hadn't had the time to really go through that site yet.

I hate to make it seem like it was my doing but on both the Proquest and Discover the Network I was able (still am though) to really get into somethings.

[skinner]

And another thing about television { as long as were on the subject} Am I the only one who that BurgerKing King Beheaded
On television If that sick bastard shows up with a hamburger at my house Hes getting both barrels ... And that other Idiot commercial with morons eating hambugers at work through harmonica holders Theyre dead meat I keep threatoning to kill my television but Why shoot the messengers You guy's are mostly in LA Im way up in central Oregon
Maybe YOU have some addresses
just curious.

[skinner]

In my rage I didnt proofread, sorry.....................
Am I the only one that wants to see that BurgerKing King /clown Ass looking, pediphile,peepingtom acting,crossdressing, paintywaist,
light in the lofer PUKE
BEHEADED AT HALFTIME ON THE
SUPERBOWL XXV 11 Whatever the hell or do you want to see michael Jackson pleading for amnesty I dont know where to post a vote but Ill find out better yet throw into SADAMS Cell
and do em both this January

[Duane]

Yeah, I had to drop them (LA Times) like a disease not too long ago. The paper should stop being in denial and call itself The Socialist Worker--- with an entertainment section!

[lyle]

News junkies have abandoned Old Media. Newspapers, radio, and network TV are shallow, slow, and lockstep liberal.

Even if I still bothered to subscribe to a newspaper, I would have to spend just as much time on the Net finding news that has been filtered or blocked by the gate-keepers. As time goes on, excluded news is more relevant than the biased second-rate crap that liberal editors insist we should be reading.

The linked news article failed to mention that reason for the decline of Old Media. I don't believe I have ever read a newspaper survey of Internet junkies that asked them why they abandoned Old Media. I guess that's yet another thing they don't think their readers should know.

[torchy]

skinner- Steve H. beat you to it: http://www.hogonice.com/2005/10/burger_queen.html

[skinner]

Thanks torchy some very funny comments there I added to favorites . Some how in my wisdom I knew I wasnt the only one that saw some underly debauchery in these adds . When my grandson { sort of] Was six
I asked him he liked Barney He gave me a little bit of a grimace and then said, "Barneys a pediphile" I cracked up thinking what a smart kid until I asked him
what a pediphile was and he said
" i dont know " but hes still a bright kid and so's his dad

[Bill O..]

Steve: 'I think "liberals" want people to read just the newspapers
Because they are a source of a few surface facts and a lot of opinion'...'I guess it seems threatening to them in this competitive world. But oh well, what are you going to do?'

Me: It is odd that you would say this because this notion is much
more obviously applicable to the relationship between the right and what passes for the MSM particularly broadcast; Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And then there is the whole array of Bush-government secretly paid scumbags like Armstrong Williams. Specifically what are the names of these liberals you are referring to anyway?

You should read what the reality based community has to say about the MSM before you make statements about what "liberals" want on this
subject. One of the more reoccurring ideas expressed at liberal blogs like the Daily Kos (typically the most trafficked political blog in English) and talking points memo is optimism for what they see as their increasing erosion of the power, influence and excess of the MSM. A quantity of the discourse on this subject at the left blogs implicitly posits that they are generating the level of journalistic detail that is increasingly absent from the establishment press. At
this very moment good number of the heavily trafficked left blogs are discussing/celebrating Bush shill Judy Miller's disgrace and are hoping that this will finally mean the downfall of the New York times Reputation as the paper of record.

[Steve]

Bill O said: Specifically what are the names of these liberals you are referring to anyway?

I say: VtheK asked at the top: Lefties sneer at people for not reading newspapers, which makes me ask, 'Why?'

I was responding to the general use of "lefties" that VtheK started. The "lefties" in this sense I naturally took to mean the commonly encountered. So, as usual in these sorts of statements specific names are not implied to be the issue but rather an observation of general trends after encountering many of them over some period of time. Mentioning the Daily Kos specifically misses the point if it is asserted as an entire refutation to the use of the word "lefties". That is, if I am to even believe you that it is an exception to the rule.
-----------------
As for Fox News? What, as compared to the other MSM news channel outlets?. I'll go with Fox. Apples for apples.

As for Rush Limbaugh? What, as compared to Al Franken and AirAmerica? Apples for apples.
I'll go with Rush.

And as for Armstrong Williams he is not a scumbag. With all the dirty things that have gone on in the relationship between Washington politicians and media connections over the last 15 years what Armstrong has been involved in here is very small. Not nearly the threat to accurate reporting that the Democratic Party has in its incestuous relationship with the news media and Hollywood. It is that relationship's current competition with the Internet sites and blogs that has been making the real news in relation to this issue.
------------------
Bill O: left blogs are discussing/celebrating Bush shill Judy Miller's disgrace and are hoping that this will finally mean the downfall of the New York times Reputation as the paper of record.

Me: Please, as for the downfall of the New York Times? That would be much more to the advantage and joy of conservatives and about everyone in the country understands that.

But "conservatives" I talk to are not interested in that at all. They are more interest in the fact that of the 9 Centrifuges involved in the AQ Kahn network's deal with Libya only 2 are accounted for. They are also interested in the fact that the CIA concluded after talking to officials of the Niger government that Saddam was, more than previously thought to be, looking to establish a trade relationship for future purchases of Nigerian yellowcake from his old main 1980s supplier. A country whose only export of use to Saddam is also an export that accounts for 75% of the country of Niger's export revenue.

So it is rather the politically motivated lie of Joe Wilson and the MSM news' diversion concerning this whole issue that has got me most interested.

[teal marie]

Troll in the grass.
Horse's ass.
Alas!
Bill Oing gas.
This too shall pass.

[Bill O..]

Steve: “Mentioning the Daily Kos specifically misses the point if it is asserted as an entire refutation to the use of the word "lefties". That is, if I am to even believe you that it is an exception to the rule.”

Me: So you have no other proof other than liberals you have personal experience with disdain people that don’t read newspapers. But when I point out that the dominant sentiment at the Daily Kos, which recently got almost a thousand comments for just one post, is against the MSM and the New York Times in particular you say “…if I am to even believe you that it is an exception to the rule”. Well you can type the URL and see for yourself Steve. As many of us in the reality based community believe at some point “you see what you know” is plain old willful ignorance. According to your logic if I point out that most of the self described conservatives are racist because the ones I have personal experince with are racist I would be correct.

Steve: “As for Fox News? What, as compared to the other MSM news channel outlets?
Me: I am not defending the MSM remember? Fox news (a.k.a. the missing white woman channel) still manages to out stink the rest of the crap though.

Steve: I'll go with Fox. Apples for apples”…”As for Rush Limbaugh? What, as compared to Al Franken and AirAmerica? Apples for apples. I'll go with Rush.

Me: One would get the impression from those last statements that for every Franken there is a Limbaugh. Unfortunately once you’ve done Franken/Limbaugh, and Michael Moore/OReilly you’ve exhausted the liberal side but only reached the tip of the Republican noise machine.

Steve: “Please, as for the downfall of the New York Times? That would be much more to the advantage and joy of conservatives and about everyone in the country understands that.”

Me: Reread what I wrote Steve. It is the downfall of the Times reputation as the paper of record i.e. its prestige and influence.

Steve:…“and about everyone in the country understands that.”

Me: If by everybody you mean the people that only watch Fox news for their “information” then yes you are probably correct. But really I doubt the average American has read the New York Times and that is fine with me. No one is dumber or smarter for it. However I do doubt that the average person that rails about the New York Times as some giant liberal megaphone has actually arrived at their conclusion from any actual experience reading it and thinking about it critically. But even if I did write the downfall of the New York Times how would that be to the advantage of the conservative movement? Why do so many conservatives have such a fixation on this paper that printed and defended Bush stooge and Chalibi mouth piece Judy Miller whose “journalism” was subsequently quoted by administration officials to justify the invasion. This is the paper that carries David Brooks, Tom “out source” Friedman and is in general always very pro-Israel. Is their style sections a little too big government or is it that they also carry a balance of liberal opinion writers?

Steve: 'But "conservatives" I talk to are not interested in that at all. They are more interest in the fact that of the 9 Centrifuges involved in the AQ Kahn network's deal with Libya only 2 are accounted for'…

Me: I think "the tubes" are hidden next to the Iraqi WMDs … I mean post-Gulf war WMD development program which is also sitting on top of President Crony’s resolve to demand that Pakistan seriously pursue and hand over Bin Laden (the man that actually caused 9/11). All this stuff is being carefully secured in the desert by the 100,000 (or is it 300,000 again) Iraqi government troops that have been fully trained and fully equipped by our US forces for the last 2.5 years to safe guard their new "democracy" that will never become an Iranian satellite. Or better yet someone can ask Judy Miller to again ask her friend, neo-con darling, Iranian spy Ahmed Chalibi where exactly "the tubes" are located. Maybe the liberal NY Times can run that story a few more times. Speaking of politically motivated lies -who knows maybe if Fitzgerald goes for conspiracy charges he will be the one to find out what really happened to "the tubes".

[-keith in mtn. view]

I want some of what he's been smokin!

[Steve]

Bill O said: So you have no other proof other than liberals you have personal experience with disdain people that don’t read newspapers.

I say:This was an assertion by VtheK and as for me? I have on other debate websites noticed that liberals have expressed something along this same sentiment. They do seem to actually mourn the fact that todays liberal newspapers are not as dominant as a source of opinion and information and also that the major news outlets of CBS, NBC, and ABC are also not dominant like they once were. I hold to that and I believe that I could find a lot of people who would also agree with that. I believe that you also know that yourself and for some reason you would rather take this tack at this moment even while knowing that between all 3 audiences here (you, me, and other readers), including you, that VtheK's assertion has more truth to it than would the opposite, to the extreme assertion, that it is absolutely groundless, as you are now mysteriously asserting, as though you don't already know its that within yourself.

Bill O: But when I point out that the dominant sentiment at the Daily Kos, which recently got almost a thousand comments for just one post, is against the MSM and the New York Times in particular you say “…if I am to even believe you that it is an exception to the rule”.

I say: Maybe I'll go looking for this website of hags as though it would be of some ultimate worth to anything whatsoever. As though numbers are all that matter in the same untruth that more bugs increaeses rather than decreases the value of a website or property (hey, you said scumbag).

But I am guessing that their problem is that the New York Times is too far right of the Los Angeles Times the sameway roaches would complain that a particular property is not dirty enough.

Bill O said: According to your logic if I point out that most of the self described conservatives are racist because the ones I have personal experince with are racist I would be correct.

I say: You could assert that if you wanted (I suppose you sideways did) just like VtheK started with an assertion. But, what would be more interesting is to see whether or not it would be seconded like I did with VtheK's assertion. An assertion that was actually in line with the subject of baldilock's blog article.

But, you know, like everyone knows, there has actually been a long long record of racism against more than a few groups (including blacks) by the likes of still prominent "left" wingers and democrats like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, etc... It just isn't noticed as much because it is often enough to create a numbness much like repeated lite slapping to some part of one's body does or as a person learns to sleep through the 3:00am train.

-----------------

As for tubes? I guess you are speaking of the ILLEGAL import of tens of thousands of aluminum tubes headed from a Chinese-Australian Hong Kong company and destined for Iraq that was subsequently confiscated, as it should have been, by the government of Jordan. Of which tubes nothing could be said for certain at that time what their ultimate purpose was intended to be but that only a portion of those, if milled properly, could have been used in centrifuges. A centrifuge program that a good portion of was hidden at the home of an Iraqi scientist that was sufficient to restart Iraq's nuclear weapon's program. Those tubes? Or are we talking about some almost certain future illegal shipment from this same company?

As for WMD? There was enough found in Iraq to put Saddam's regime once agian in material breach of another U.N. resolution, UN Resolution 1441. It is obvious that material, and records, hard drives, scientists, and baathists, were shipped out of the country (mainly to Syria) prior to the war, in addition to the decontamiation work that was done in Iraq.

[Bill O.]

Steve you are playing both sides of the street pretty badly. On the one hand you claim that “we” all know what liberals think about the decline of the MSM because, well… that is what we all think. Then when I refer you to a website that actually provides bulk numbers of these actual people expressing the exact opposite view that you ascribe to them it suddenly does not matter what everyone thinks. I am sorry I am reality based and you are contradicting yourself. Again the Daily Kos is on any given day the most trafficked political blog site in the English language. As such it is pretty representative of what some liberals think. So again please name these mysterious liberals that are bemoaning the decline of the MSM and we will compare the numbers and quality. If these sources are blogs it shouldn’t be too hard for you to post the URLs. This is now the third time I have asked you and I am starting to suspect you are ducking.

Steve: “But I am guessing that their problem is that the New York Times is too far right of the Los Angeles Times.”

Me: No that’s not it. If I had to generalize/simplify it -my take is that a significant number people on the left feel that the New York Times is characteristic of the failure of corporate media dynamics. That is the media is more concerned about offending commonly held wisdom as opposed to actually presenting the truth. This makes it susceptible to the Judy Millers of the world spreading misinformation fed to her by a neo-con backed Iranian spy. A lot of rightist are up in arms about how the press is treating the Crony President and the war these days but they sure didn’t seem to mind when the press, particularly the NY Times was stoking the excitement to invade or when it was all over Clinton. This fickleness which should be evidence of serious journalistic inquiry is actually the result of a media afraid to go against commonly held wisdom and which you exhibit in spades. Reread the part in the first paragraph about what “we” all think.

You still have not explained specifically why the right is fixated on the newspaper through which Judy Miller misinformed the public about WMDs and was subsequently sited by the Bush administration to get us in Iraq and how why its downfall should be celebrated by the right. Was the NY Times being a liberal rag when it was cheerleading for George too?

Steve: “you could assert that if you wanted (I suppose you sideways did) just like VtheK started with an assertion. But, what would be more interesting is to see whether or not it would be seconded like I did with VtheK's assertion.”

Me: So I guess what you think my point is not valid unless someone on a right wing blog site seconds it? Is this Roberts rules? Please see the first paragraph about playing both sides of the street again

Steve: …”there has actually been a long long record of racism against more than a few groups (including blacks) by the likes of still prominent "left" wingers and democrats like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, etc...”.

So lets here about it then. Include some URLs. Again please re-read the first paragraph and while your at it include a list of Steve approved civil rights activist in your next post. I would love to see that.

Steve: “As for tubes? I guess you are speaking of the ILLEGAL import of tens of thousands of aluminum tubes headed”…

Me: These tubes must have been multiplying. So where is your source Steve Judy Miller?

Steve: “As for WMD? There was enough found in Iraq to put Saddam's regime once agian in material breach of another U.N. resolution, UN Resolution 1441.”

Me: You mean the WMD’s that King Crony Bush knew we were going to find when we invaded Iraq? You mean the slam duck WMDs or the batch Rumsfeld personally delivered? Well if Bush knew so much about the WMDs before we invaded why does he know even less about them now that we are in Iraq? Why not put the screws to Syria? Syria couldn’t get out of Lebanon fast enough when we told them to so why not pressure them then on the WMDs? Seriously where did you get your information? Please post the URLs.

[dymphna]

I don't read the Daily Kos (I have so little time I have to limit it to what's already on my blogroll) but someone told me it's an aggregate of commenters or journals. Would that not account for the numbers? If you added up the top whatever corresponding numbers of blogs of the other persuasion, would that not be a more accurate measure of whom it is that is being read in the greatest quantity?

Just asking.

PS The legacy media is being supoenaed again for questioning about the veracity of their valid subscription numbers. See here --it's in the middle of the post somewhere:

Iraqi Triumph vs MSM Trivia

[Steve]

Bill O: Steve you are playing both sides of the street pretty badly. On the one hand you claim that “we” all know what liberals think about the decline of the MSM because, well… that is what we all think.

Me: Lets follow this logicaly then. The MSM news media, as well as Hollywood, and the record industry are all very liberal (Democrat) biased. (Bernard Goldberg, CAMERA, AIM, NY Times Watch, polls done of journalists voting patterns, colleges of journalism on our campuses).

1:Now, you seem to be acknowledging the "liberal" label for the MSM news media from what you've said.

2: You seem to acknowledge the MSM news' decline in influence.

3: I have asserted that "liberals" are unhappy with the loss of the "liberal" MSM news' influence. Now, on the surface of things that would seem to logically follow, but you say that there is a surprise here for us and that it doesn't actually follow as it turns out and you've got the proof in the Daily Kos.

4: VtheK asked why liberals want people to read the newspapers? Given the blog article and what little I know of VtheK I took it as a slight meant for liberals and the "liberal" biased newspapers. I seconded that and added a little fuller explanation that could explain some part of the reason why. It was a bit sharp like a lot of things that are expressed on sites like this and that includes from you Bill.

5: You said that I claimed that “we” all know what liberals think. I actually said: They [liberals] do seem to actually mourn the fact that todays liberal newspapers are not as dominant as a source of opinion and information and also that the major news outlets of CBS, NBC, and ABC are also not dominant like they once were. I hold to that and I believe that I could find a lot of people who would also agree with that.

What I said above would not make most people think that I meant every liberal. I'll try and take some thoughts normally not put into words and express them here for you. The normal and conversational interpretation of a statement like that, I would expect and get from others usually, would be that this is a generaly observed trend that may exist in 50% to 85% of liberals. I stand by that still and I am not alone because it has been part of what has been talked about in relation to this fall in MSM news audience.

Your hyper reaction was to make it seem that I was denying that any other "liberal" existed at all. Therefore you showed some "proof" that some other types do exist and are now flocking in hordes on an Internet site from a realistically potential audience of 200 million adults called Dailey Kos.
----------------
Judy Miller alone does not make a paper like the New York Times, with all they've written over these past years, the kind of paper you seem to be implying. The New York Times is a very very "liberal" paper and there is no way you are going to convince anybody with this ridiculous argument based on there being a Judy Miller writing for them. This sounds like some second hand plan your expressing. A plan possibly even cooked up at the New York Times itself to sacrifice Judy Miller for their own real and imagined sins. I guess I am not understanding what Judy Miller has got to do with a whole hell of a lot. I read the New York Times between September of 2001 to maybe February of 2004 so I know somewhat the paper we are talking of but it seems you are fixated on this Judy Miller for some reason. Did someone else, or a blog, pass this fixation about Judy Miller to you? The New York Times has never "cheerleaded for Bush". What I mean by cheerleading is maybe something like two consecutive weeks of gushing approval. Never happened, not even for 3 days, if even 2 days.

As I sit here now I have not looked at the Dailey Kos but I have heard about it before but I don't think it alone makes your case as strongly as you seem to think it does.

I will say again that I am guessing that the Dailey Kos is on the New York Times' case because it is not even further to the "left". But I'll go look when I've got time but I am not surprised very easily. People are pretty predictable in their manner like you and those words like "crony", "mouthpiece", "stooge", "darling". I am guessing you've picked up that kind of stuff and a dozen more cute ones at the Daily Kus.

And just some more additional advice for the maturity meter. Don't claim to be anything when it comes to things like "reality based". Let your mother or your girl friend say that of you. Between strangers on the Internet it sounds like you are saying to me you are outgoing, with a sense of humor, and you like dogs, canoeing, and hot tea and a good book, as well as reality based. We are not doing personal ads here.
---------------
As for your out of the blue "racist" assertion I do find that a little odd. It usually means exactly what everyone here already knows it means about yourself actually. And yes, someone seconding it might be a little help. Just the help you need especially now. And you want me to go and find the racist remarks by the people I have just named and report back to you. I could do it if you really want but this is a little like asking is the pope Catholic? I say "yes"? You say get me the URLs?

===============
The tube order that Saddam was to receive was 60 thousand. I know it seems like a lot but it isn't actually. What I am saying is that number of tubes is not the surprising information in that story. Its OK Bill, a lot of people do not understand these things and you showed yourself to be one of them on this subject is all. But it is still a little funny for me to hear of your surprise at the number of tubes. There is a lot of stuff at ISIS and more than one on aluminum tubes I suggest you check it out. This one is what you may be looking for (39 pages in PDF format not that much reading):

http://www.isis-
online.org/publications/iraq/
IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf

excerpts:

Iraq was at the time banned from possessing aluminum tubes above a certain strength unless those items were imported through the UN, used for civilian or non-banned purposes, and subject to monitoring by inspectors.

Since none of these conditions were met, Iraq was not allowed to import these tubes no matter what their purpose.
-----------------
[Iraq's] Military and Industrial Commission wanted to acquire 60,000 aluminum tubes with an outer diameter of 81 milimeters to revive an indigineous program to make ground-to-ground rockets.
----------------
Eventually, he found International Aluminum Supply, an Australian company headed by Gary Cordukes, willing to give a good price. Cordukes company was half owned by the Australian subsidiary of the Kangartec Company, which represented, and is owned by, the Chinese aluminum
company Kam Kui Aluminum Extrusion Company in Tai Shen, near Hong Kong.
--------------
Two or three days after the shipment left the plant, the director of the Kam Kui plant was telephoned by an official of the Chinese government. Cordukes, who was at the mill that day, was contacted by his employers what the Chinese government official had told his superiors. The Chinese official said that the United Nations had approached
the Chinese government on behalf of the United States, which
objected to the tube order. This official said that the United Nations told the Chinese government that the tubes could be used for inappropriate
purposes.
---------------
Subsequently, the Jordanian government seized the container of tubes.
---------------
Determining an exact use of the aluminum tubes was impossible
in 2001.
-------------
The CIA estimated in October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq would need 25,000 operating centrifuges to make enough highly enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons a year.
-------------
Since the fall of Baghdad last spring, no evidence has emerged that Iraq planned to use the aluminum tubes in centrifuges.
------------
Mahdi Obeidi is the source for what is said below.

His [Mahdi Obeidi] included 200 design drawings of centrifuge components, 180 reports on manufacturing and operating centrifuges, and about half a dozen key centrifuge components. Obeidi said that his collection
represented Iraq's critical knowledge about centrifuges and was sufficient to reconstitute a gas centrifuge progarm. The existence of this collection was suspected by inspectors, and one of the reasons ISIS started its outreach to Iraqi scientists
------------------
As for the WMD question. Since you knew so little about the aluminum tubes I am guessing you have not really done your homework and I can't tutor you across this website. The WMD has a lot to do with issues concerning Russia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Al Qaeda, Islamist groups, Afghanistan, Pakistan, black market, North Korea, and so on. It is the whole scene out there.

As for Syria? You can google on "James Clapper" + Syria and work from there and please do not tell me that this is a surprise to you.

http://www.insightmag.com/
main.cfm?
include=detail&storyid=670123

http://www.freerepublic.com/
focus/f-news/1012679/posts

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/
Printable.asp?ID=10111
--------------------------------
On the next one you'll have to scroll down about 3/5ths of the way to where it says the following:

"Saddam’s Missing WMD
US Spy Satellites “Saw” Heavy Eve-of-War Convoys to Syria"

Read right on through to a few more articles from that point I just gave you in sequence at this Debka site:

http://www.debka-net-
weekly.com/issue.pl?
username=&inumber=131
---------------------------------
What I mean about "enough" was not meant neccessarily to mean actual WMD. It was meant to mean that there was evidence that Saddam was hiding and not reporting things he was suppose to have.

If all your are doing Bill is hanging around debate sites you are lost and not getting the picture of what we are facing in the Middle East. The Middle East picture as it relates to Iraq takes time and effort to develop and that picture is developing further with each passing quarter of a year. I kind of doubt you've done your homework. I've done a lot compared to many and once you have you also realize just how much you could still explore on the whole subject.

[cardeblu]

Where's Juliette? This post is 5 days old, with nothing new since. Did I miss something about her being gone?

[Bill O..]

Steve: “Lets follow this logicaly then. The MSM news media, as well as Hollywood, and the record industry are all very liberal (Democrat) biased. (Bernard Goldberg, CAMERA, AIM, NY Times Watch, polls done of journalists voting patterns, colleges of journalism on our campuses).”
Me: And I can put of tons of links that debunks the “liberal bias” rap. I can also talk about my personal experience with the economically privileged, sheltered, shallow, mono-cultural student bodies of a few high end journalism programs. But really this was not about any of that. This is about your inability to name or site any of these shadowy liberals you refer to.
1)“Now, you seem to be acknowledging the "liberal" label for the MSM news media from what you've said.”

Me: No I didn’t. I did however point out how the MSM aka the corporate media is fickle because it is afraid to go against whatever commonly held notions are prevalent at the moment which is often manifested as received wisdom –something that you are struggling with. This decline in journalism for the sake of profit was accelerated by the media consolidation brought by yet another Republican incompetent crony hire Michael Powel.
2)Steve: “ You seem to acknowledge the MSM news' decline in influence.”
Me: Yes.

3) Steve: “I have asserted that "liberals" are unhappy with the loss of the "liberal" MSM news' influence. Now, on the surface of things that would seem to logically follow, , but you say that there is a surprise here for us and that it doesn't actually follow as it turns out and you've got the proof in the Daily Kos.
Me: Thats right except originally I said sites like the Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo, suggesting an even larger number of blogs, share this sentiment. If I wanted to I could also include magazines like the Nation, In these Times, etc. To make it even more clearer than I thought possible there are a large number of liberal blog sites of which the Daily Kos, the most trafficked, is representative. One very common sentiment expressed on these blogs is that the “blogosphere” is the liberal alternative to the MSM and will be the ultimate destroyer of the MSM. At many of these sites, of which the Daily Kos is (again) representative there is consistent and frequent criticism of the MSM, the NY Times particularly, its journalism, its opinion page, etc. This pretty much reflects the sentiment of my liberal friends in the real world. If anything there is a contingent of snobby liberals that feel that the networks and newspapers has always been lowest common denominator crap geared towards brainless right wing middle America and for years they have been referring to network new as McNews. And yes there is a right wing version of his too.

4: Steve:“VtheK asked why liberals want people to read the newspapers? “

Me: Reread 3)
Steve: “[liberals] do seem to actually mourn the fact that todays liberal newspapers are not as dominant as a source of opinion”…” I hold to that and I believe that I could find a lot of people who would also agree”... “that this is a generaly observed trend that may exist in 50% to 85% of liberals. I stand by that still and I am not alone because it has been part of what has been talked about in relation to this fall in MSM news audience.”
Me: And here it is again. You want to use anecdotes to prove your point when it supports your received wisdom then site names and URLs when the other person presents anecdotes. I have now asked you 4 times to name these mysterious liberals or their blog sites and you have ducked out all 4 separate times. You use phrases like “…it is generally observed..” and “…a lot of people will agree..” Sorry Steve you are referring to the straw men created by Fox news, Rush Limbaugh not the majority of actual liberals. You are free hold on to horse manure and believe the world is flat. I am sure you can find a few people to act out your stereo types or you can project what you think. What I also find such a paradox is how many Limbaugh/Coulter types are constantly reassuring their followers that agreeing with their interpretations of the world is some how synonymous with having the courage to think for yourself.
Steve” “Your hyper reaction…”

Me: You are the one that posts huge sagas, essentially using this site as your own free and personal blog on an almost daily basis. I have been writing within the word limits established by your posts.

Steve: “Judy Miller alone does not make a paper like the New York Times, with all they've written over these past years, the kind of paper you seem to be implying. The New York Times is a very very "liberal" paper and there is no way you are going to convince anybody with this ridiculous argument…”

Me: Here you go again. I have also been asking you (is that 3 times now?) specifically what makes the New York Times liberal. As mentioned they were brutal on Clinton (deservedly) for 8 years. He himself has mentioned this, journalist have also. They were cheerleading for Bush or a neutral on him between Sept 11 up until maybe a year ago except for Dowd and Krugman. The editorial page ranges from liberal Paul Krugman to conservative David Brooks. They have libertarian and outsource “guru” Tom Friendman, then there is the conservative replacement for William Safire, also a conservative who was writing for the Times up until about a year ago, liberal Maureen Dowd. And so we can keep on going down the line. Generally for every liberal columnist there is a conservative. Now if you want to complain about the quality of the journalism that has nothing to do with politics …ask Judy Miller.

So basically because you think the MSM is liberal and that we all know it is in decline that liberals are unhappy. If liberals actually thought the MSM reflected their values that might be true in some. On the other hand a significant number of liberals are also seriously invested in notions of inclusiveness and balance things that ideally the MSM should be too. (Remember the fairness doctrine?) However this is one of the areas where your logic keeps breaking down.
Steve: ”As I sit here now I have not looked at the Dailey Kos but I have heard about it before but I don't think it alone makes your case as strongly as you seem to think it does.”
Me: And here is the kernel of many of your assertions. You have not seen it -you did hear about it though (received wisdom) - so you doubt it makes my case (gee who told you that?). You sure did sound like you had seen the Daily Kos when you referred to the people at that site as hags and bugs. How exactly then do you know the Daily Kos is a hive of bugs and hags? And you wonder why I say that I am from the reality based community?

Steve:”People are pretty predictable in their manner like you and those words like "crony", "mouthpiece", "stooge", "darling". I am guessing you've picked up that kind of stuff and a dozen more cute ones at the Daily Kus.”

Me: No actually I formed these words by reading about Judy Miller relationship with an Iranian spy and the same White house that used a male escort to pose as journalist to disrupt the valid questions of real journalists. Oh did I forget to mention the banana republic style clandestine payments of editorialist? But ultimately I can more credibly apply your own statement to you and fox news.

Steve:” And just some more additional advice for the maturity meter. Don't claim to be anything when it comes to things like "reality based". Let your mother or your girl friend say that of you. Between strangers on the Internet it sounds like you are saying to me you are outgoing, with a sense of humor, and you like dogs, canoeing, and hot tea and a good book, as well as reality based. We are not doing personal ads here.

Me: I can’t decide from your paragraph long tone poem if you have an inferiority complex or you are upset about being unsuccessful in securing a date. What I can say though is that for someone who speaks authoritatively about something you pretty much have no experience with when you very easily could you are in no position to lecture anyone about maturity. I am reality based and you are not. To use your phrase… “I hold to that and I believe that I could find a lot of people who would also agree with that.”

Steve:”As for your out of the blue "racist" assertion I do find that a little odd. It usually means exactly what everyone here already knows it means about yourself actually. And yes, someone seconding it might be a little help. Just the help you need especially now.”

Me: actually I think in this case your problem is a reading comprehension issue. Here is exactly what I said:

“According to your logic if I point out that most of the self described conservatives are racist because the ones I have personal experince with are racist I would be correct.”

But just to make it crystal clear I was saying your logic is flawed. Or to put it differently I was applying your non-logic to another situation to illustrate its absurdity.
Steve:” And yes, someone seconding it might be a little help. Just the help you need especially now.”
Me: Steve you are projecting. You are crying out for help hoping someone else throws up some dust so you can wriggle out your inability to site any of these elusive liberals. This seems like a natural response for someone that relies on the “everyone thinks it so it must be true” line of thinking.
Steve: “I kind of doubt you've done your homework I've done a lot compared to many and once you have you also realize just how much you could still explore on the whole subject.”
Me : Steve I think by the standards you are applying to me (and that you think you embody) most of the conservatives in this country have not done their homework. How many know what the capital of Pakistan is, Saudi Arabia or can find Iraq on the map?
I sure wish Bush was as well informed as you think you are. So far I have read part of one of your sources and while it is well written and seemingly bias free it seems to contradict you in a major way. Also at this same site there is a document that describes in very clinical terms the missing ordinance at Al QaaQaa Iraq possibly in the tons. This is the ordinance which is likely being used on our troops because Bush/Rumsfelds lack of foresight, planning and just plain bungling.

Now if only you could post links to those mysterious liberals

[teal marie]

Cardeblu,
I wonder, too. She was having problems with Typepad. She also seems to have pulled AcidMan back from the brink. She may have gone to help him.
Perhaps we could send our prayers for her health and happiness anyway.

[baldilocks]

No worries. I've got some issues that should be resolved in a few days.

[Steve]

As for making this site my personal blog I would say that I posted something much like anyone else and you've gone and taken this off the deep end. It is equally taking the two of us to do this. But we'll continue then.

This is an interesting aurgument technique you are now using of declaring yourself the victor and your opponent the loser and then complimenting yourself by declaring yourself as "reality based". I may not care to get you the URLs on this point but I believe I've seen something like this method on the Internet before. Is this what people do at the Daily Kos? Its got a certain pizzaz. But the only thing is that to dramatically declare yourself "reality based" in the midst of what is ultimately a fairly petty subject anyway doesn't seem all that "reality based". I know you are mad at me because I will not take this Daily Kos/liberal matter as serious and as critical as you have. Are you sure that this is not an indication of your own "bleeding". If so, it is self inflicted you know.

And as for the Daily Kos? I may get around to looking into it but if you are any indication of what I am going to find there I feel entitled to an opinion concerning my prediction of "bugs" as in like your "scumbag" remark. To get to know a website will take some time in hours as well as in weeks and maybe I'll get around to it and report back. I'll also keep in mind while looking at it your claim that it refutes my "feelings" or "observations" of the phenomenon that "liberals" like the old MSM news and the New York Times. We'll see. I am busy with other things that I've already established as important to me like anyone else does. You cannot simply demand that I look at something one moment and that I be ecstatic over it the next. The ISIS site I gave you could take you a week to a month to look over because I am presuming you to be busy with other things too.

Iranians? You really ought to look at these:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/
ReadArticle.asp?ID=15364

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11939

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11939

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14977

Come to think of it this subject concerning people like Iranians and connections to them in this country does provide me with a lot of ammo. Maybe later.
=================
I can't seem at this hour to find the precise article I am looking for concerning Iran and Al Gore but when you've got time google and read several articles:

Chernomyrdin + Gore + Iran
===============
The missing tons of high explosives, like a lot of other things, were taken out of the country before the start of the war. There is not a lot you can do about that. It might be an interesting thought to run sorties to the Syrian border in February of 2003 but I kind of figure there was a good reason they could not. I could imagine a few possible reasons. I don't think I've heard any suggestion from anybody that we could or should have. This idea that the Generals were not expecting this at all is not something we've established as true either. Afterall, the images that were taken along the border were probably done in expectation of this. Syria and Iraq had been cooperating quite a bit since about 1997. Here is a little "reality based" advice. Set yourself to expect that some bad things are going to happen if you are going to take on anything large. And when they do you can get angry but do not get "pissy" I guess would be the word.

I find it a little telling that all you had to say about the Syria and Iraq connection was that old story about the explosives. I say that not so much because it doesn't matter but because this connection means so much more than that. Maybe I'll fill you in more later.

I'll admit that the general public is all around uninformed. But since you asserted that it is the conservatives who are the least informed I will then say that it is the "liberals" that are generally the least informed. I think the election results for liberals would be worse if their was a small simple test to determine eligibilty to vote.

[Bill O..]

Steve: “As for making this site my personal blog … It is equally taking the two of us to do this. But we'll continue then.”

Me: I will quote my own previous post for you Steve:

I have been writing within the word limits established by your posts.

Steve: ‘This is an interesting aurgument technique you are now using of declaring yourself the victor and your opponent the loser and then complimenting yourself by declaring yourself as "reality based"…. in the midst of what is ultimately a fairly petty subject anyway’

Me: I have not declared myself the victor. You are having problems with proving your points though and your logic is situational. By the standards defined by the White house official who coined the term I am reality based and you are not. But what is funny is how much keyboard time you’ve put into to what you are now claiming is a petty point. One could interpret that as you were making assertions about something you really don’t know about, you got called out and now you are trying to trivialize this.

Steve: “…I feel entitled to an opinion concerning my prediction of "bugs" as in like your "scumbag" remark.”

Me: You certainly are entitled to your opinion so in reference to Armstrong Williams I will add disgraced, corrupt and ethical leper. And while I can point to the specific details to merit these characterizations you can not do the same about the “bugs” and “hags” at the Daily Kos. I am sure someone told you something about it though…

So far Steve I have read one of the fontpage mag articles you refer to and it only faintly seems to have anything to do with the point you think you are making. It was an article about the history of John Kerrys “corruption”. Of the 40-50 paragraphs in the article 5 refers to an Iranian-American businessman lobbyist who it is rumored to be an Iranian agent. This proof is pretty meager when you compare it to then chairman of the RNC Halley Barbour on a Yacht in Hong Kong harbor with Chinese Military officials taking huge quantities of cash back to the Republican party. He was just on television the other week nuancing this, incapable saying no this did not happen. But really the true meagerness is clear when you compare this lobbiest trying to donate cash to Kerry to histroric hustler Ahmed Chalibi passing false information to the US with the purpose of getting rid of Irans nemesis and creating an Iranian satellite. So just to review one link you provided was well written but said the opposite of what you claimed. The second does not contradict my point about the Iranian spy rather it only very faintly implies that a Iranian-American lobbiest in Kerry general sphere is rumored by some to be an agent of Iran,. Whif.

Steve: ”Set yourself to expect that some bad things are going to happen if you are going to take on anything large.”

Me: If only the Bush crew and the people that voted for him had followed your advice. Remember when the neo-cons in the administration were saying on background that Iraq would be up in running in about 18 months after the invasion just in time to invade either Iran or Syria in Bushes second term. Remember that? Reality bassed?

Here is the actual quote from the Bush administration official, relayed by Ron Suskind and that I think is applicable here:

‘The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."’

Compare this college coffee hose logic to the admission a few months ago by the same administration that now that we are actually in Iraq they have a more realistic understanding just how difficult this blunder will. Maturity meter?

Since you can not seem to come up with the specifics to support your assertion I will put out a standing request to you Steve. Please tell me specifically what makes the NY Times liberal? And name the liberals (or conservatives for that matter) not employed at the NY Times who are actually sad about the decline of the MSM? I will give you all the time you need and you can google, lexus-nexus or mapquest the answers. But please leave the Fox news/Limbaugh produced army of straw liberals out of it.

[Steve]

Bill O,

As for Chinese connections I would suggest you read the book Ron Brown's Body by Jack Cashill. It will bring a little perspective to this issue for you. Seriously, read it.

As for Democrats and Iranians you say that you've read only one of the articles I gave you on John Kerry's Iranian connections. It sounds to me that you read the short bio. I've already read them and posted them in no particluar order. Try:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14977

Excerpt:

One of John Kerry’s most controversial supporters: the Iranian Hassan Nemazee. Nemazee is pursuing a ten-million-dollar damage claim against the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) and its coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia. A Nemazee victory in this suit would almost certainly muzzle or destroy altogether the SMCCDI, one of the most energetic and courageous opponents of Iran’s entrenched but uneasy mullahocracy. But now that Nemazee’s lawsuit has been filed, it has become increasingly clear that it could embarrass the entire Democratic Party — and severely damage the already flagging candidacy of John Kerry.

Nemazee is an influential figure with many friends in high places in groups such as the American-Iranian Council (AIC), the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and the Iranian-American Bar Association (IABA). Nemazee’s name is also well known in Democratic Party circles. He was a prominent contributor to Bob Torricelli’s New Jersey Senate campaign. The multimillionaire entrepreneur also contributed $50,000 to his friend Al Gore’s Recount Fund (and $250,000 to the Gore campaign), $60,000 to Bill Clinton’s legal defense fund, and over $150,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Clinton attempted to reward him by naming him U.S. Ambassador to Argentina — but the Senate declined to confirm him after Forbes magazine published, in May 1999, an extremely damaging expose of his shady financial dealings.

Undaunted, Nemazee continued efforts to establish fruitful contacts between Iranian groups advocating normalization of relations with Iran and high-level members of the Democratic Party. He joined the Board of Directors of the AIC, an organization whose president, Hooshang Amirahmadi, is identified on the SMCCDI website as a “well known lobbyist for the Iranian Mullahocracy.” Nemazee was involved in a March 2002 fundraiser for Senate Foreign Affairs Committee heavyweight Joe Biden (D-DE).
----------------------
Have you looked into Chernomyrdin, Gore, and Iran?

This is something a little bit related to that as well:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news
/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17655
-----------------------
As for "reality based" it appears to come from that newspaper you dislike so much and the source is an unnamed aide, not an unnamed "official". This from wikipedia:

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush.
--
I'm even less impressed by it now. That is too bad because it had me so enthused.
---------------------
http://www.aim.org/special_report/4096_0_8_0_C/

As for the New York Times being "liberal"? I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is not. Whether you are speaking of foreign policy, domestic policy, or social issues it is a "liberal" newspaper. This is so true and so well known that a simple street poll, or a poll conducted here at this site, could affirm this by lopsided numbers. A term paper-like study of this newspapaper is not something that I can be expected to give to you over this site. You have not proven that the New York Times is a conservative newpaper either. You are rather strategically trying to gain a false position in this aurgument to see if you can get the onus of proof on me as to whether or not a long time ackowledged "liberal" newspaper that was instrumental in bringing Castro to power is somehow not "liberal". Your sumo style does bring an element of tension and drama and also a little short lived feelings that say "Hey, maybe the New York Times is conservative."

It isn't really the newspaper itself that is going to get explored and studied on a small site like this but rather the fact that we have someone so far left that the New York Times looks right. Are you sure you are not a Bolivian cocaleros?
--------------------------
The fact that you've so imploded on Judy Miller as though she is a major reason why we are in Iraq is really kind of sad of you. It shows you have a very small mind on this subject. This whole subject concerning Iraq as a threat is quite large. Judy Miller's reporting on Iraq could just as well have never happened and we still would have had to have the Senate vote that passed 78-22, and Resolution 1441 passed.

But lets just wildly say that the New York Times was making the case for war, or a final confrontational posture, with Iraq from, lets say, November 2001 to April 2003. Then I would say that is a good thing. Not that it happened.
------
Interesting quotes from many of your favorites:

http://www.perryonpolitics.com/archives/001736.html

And one, Al Gore, in particluar:

“Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.” (Al Gore, Remarks To The U.S. Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February 12, 2002)

[Bill O..]

Steve.
I read 2 of things you refer to and as I said previously 1 contradicts you and the other is pretty meager. the one you refer to as a short bio was 40-50 paragraphs.

Steve:"The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush"

Me: Thats right Steve I even said Ron Suskind in my last post. But let us be clear Scooter Libby wanted Judy Miller to refer to him as a "Hill Staffer". If you really believe that Ron Suskind took time to meet with a White house aid you really are special.

Steve:"As for the New York Times being "liberal"? I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is not."

Me: translation -Steve can't come up with anything substantial to prove his point that New York Times is a liberal paper other than that’s what everyone thinks. To slide out of this Steve is trying to shift the burden onto me. I am not the one making assertions tha liberals think the NYT is a liberal paper.You are Steve. I have also given plenty of proof that show the exact oposite. And you should know it is also "common knowledge" that you can't prove a negative. Steve your maturity meter should be telling you that an adult should not make an assertion that they are not informed about or they should just admit they were wrong. If it is such common knowledge that the Times is liberal then it should be very easy to give specifics which you haven't for what is it now -6 different times.

Steve:” Whether you are speaking of foreign policy, domestic policy, or social issues it is a "liberal" newspaper."

Me: Ok give examples and then we will finally have a grown up conversation. Again it so sad that you reference the facts when you think people wont read your sources then you use anecdotes and appeals to common knowledge when it suits you. You are still playing both sides of the street poorly Steve. And this is why the term reality based is so apt.

Steve:"This is so true and so well known that a simple street poll, or a poll conducted here at this site, could affirm this by lopsided numbers."

Me: I am sure a lot of people who post at this site will agree with you. And you can try to call in the cavalry all you want. However I am asking you Steve, not the other people posting here to give examples to support your assertion. I am not asking for a term paper I am asking for what you claim to be common knowledge. You had about 6 posts to do it and you can't. You are embarrassing you’re self.

Steve:"You have not proven that the New York Times is a conservative newspaper either."

Me: Because I never did assert that it was conservative. I did however mention that a number of the opinion writers at the Times are conservative and a number are liberal. Are youu saying David Brooks is not conservative?

Steve:” Interesting quotes from many of your favorites:"

Me: How do you know who my favorites are? Did Rush tell you who my favorites are too?

Steve:"The fact that you've so imploded on Judy Miller as though she is a major reason why we are in Iraq is really kind of sad of you. It shows you have a very small mind on this subject."

Me: No she is a representative example of the media we have under the Crony President and if the rumors that are being reported today at US new is correct this is the tip of iceberg that will soon get exposed. Merry Fitzmas.

My question to you Steve still stands. What specifically makes the NY Times liberal and who are these liberals that are sad at the decline of the MSM? Calling in the cavalry is not going to prove you actually know what you are talking about. You have nothing new to say and your are now becoming boring, tedious and repetitive.

[teal marie]

Steve, please note that Bill O was banned long ago. Do us all a favor and quit feeding the troll.

[baldilocks]

Bill O. isn't banned. Not yet.

[teal marie]

No? My mistake. I thought he was banned when he used 11 different screennames to bolster his feeble position.
I'm sorry.

[baldilocks]

My mistake. I thought you meant right now.

J.

[Steve]

Bill O,

Bill O: "the Daily Kos, which recently got almost a thousand comments for just one post"

Although at the time you wrote that it did seem like an opportunity to boast it also came to me with an underlying sense of something else. After experiencing you here that "something else" seems ready to be diagnosed now as a disease. A Daily Kus disease, if you will. If we may think of you as an ambassador of the Daily Kus you reek of the disease of your home.

For example, you took time to take issue and mentioned the 40-50 paragraphs of the "short bio" I wrote of. That is a short bio, whereas 275 pages would be a moderate biography and 550 pages would be refered to as something like the word "long". But it isn't so much about what to call it really, the issue rather, is that its a symptom of yours that is indicative of what I am presuming now to be the Kus Disease. With over 1,000 responses to one post that has got to mean 10,000 mentions of "darlings", "cronys", "scumbags", "neo-cons", "reality based", and "poopy faced", etc, etc, etc. I guess I can't wait to go there but it will have to wait until after my yearly vacation to the slums of Mexico City. I surmise that I hypothesize that there is a probability that a certain portion of people among the portion that I speak of that would at least halfway understand what I meant by that last sentence. Don't you all of a ceratin portion out there three-fifths of the way agree with at least part of that statement?

As for Ron Suskind and his unnamed source? A reporter using an unnnamed source would seem to be something that a big strong, Michael Moorish, and skeptical, "reality based" person like yourself would normally find objectionable and be used to put vitriol in your tank in order to oppose its use by the reporter.

It actually sounds like somehting a reporter like Ron Suskind would have liked to have heard. It almost sounds funny and made in jest. It is also of no consequence except maybe as flypaper for the flys carrying the Kus disease to get stuck on.
-------------
And back now to the absolutely critcal question of whether or not the New York Times is "liberal".

I say that it is and I also say that I think most people would agree.

You say that it isn't liberal and that you don't believe most people, and especially "liberals" you know of, would agree that it is liberal either.

You claim to have proven to me that it isn't liberal and I claim that you have not proven any such thing.

Your claim of having accomplished your thesis on its non-liberalness has now put the onus on me, as you claim, to bring forth and hand in a thesis on its liberalness to you, and right now. This demand of yours of me is to you still consistent with the spontaneous claim of being in the possession of something called "reality based".

Now, another way of approaching this is along the lines of semantics and protocol. Since we are strangers to each other, and there has been no prior agreement between us as to what constitutes "liberal", it could be said that we are having a very common problem of communication. But, although in a way that could be thought of as more true in some circumstances, I think it is less so here. Because I think that the assumption between strangers on the Internet is not some private esoteric definitions but rather the common defintions of words. And I believe that under the common definition of the term "liberal" that at least the semi-informed portion of the general public have come to use it, the New York Times does come under the category of "liberal". And that it is commonly, and rightfully, refered to as "liberal". And therefore it should not be a surprise in an Internet situation among strangers to see it refered to as "liberl" also. Maybe you would like to spend a little time first and define for us your new and uncommon use of the term "liberal"?
-----------
I mentioned Proquest earlier and my problems accessing it from home. Those problems, it turns out, has something to do with Norton, I think. So I went down to the library and got access to Proquest. Judith Miller appears to have written several hundred articles related to Saddam since the first Gulf War on up to the second Gulf War. She wrote well over 200 articles between just before Desert Fox in December of 1998 to the start of Gulf War II. The first mention of Chalabi was, I believe, on January 13, 2003. Chalabi has not been altogether wrong, and he is not all of what Judy Miller is about, and Judy Miller is not much of anything compared to the actual real issue of Iraq. So the issue to me, in light of the larger issues of Iraq, is a used and discarded can of soda in the garbage can of Daily Kus and is now attracting the flys as these things do and should.

[teal marie]

LOL! That's a load off. I thought I was getting the varmints mixed up.
I still get Skinner and StinKerr mixed up until I start reading. I think it's because StinKerr doesn't stink.
Not that you stink, Skinner. But you are apt to put a capital letter in the middle of a word. ;-)

[Bill O..]

Steve keep on tap dancing and throwing up the dust. My questions still stands and you still duck. Is that 7 or 8 times?

[Steve]

Bill O,

So what is the "duck"?

The "duck", as you say, is that you want me to provide you with something in this discussion that you have not (but you claim to have) provided me either.

We are actually discussing whether or not the New York Times is a "liberal", or just at least a non-liberal, or even as much as a "conservative" newpaper.

I say that it is generally what is today refered to as liberal on all three counts of foreign, domestic, and social issues. You seem to be claiming that it is not. I haven't asked for anything from you concerning your assertion but you seem to want me to hand you over this site something like what would have to be a 6 to 15 page thesis. But cheer up there is hope for you. I got the idea of looking for PDF files that might address this distressing issue for you.

This one is from the New York Times itself. It acknowledges that the editorial pages are "liberal" and that it is affecting their news stories in the rest of their paper. What a discovery by them! Such minute tugs of "liberalism" on their news had to have been detected by the slightest variations in the behavior of a another and more observable entity. Like the discovery of Pluto by its minute effects on the orbit of Neptune. Actually, for them, it was more like trying to detect and capture the theoretical neutrino sub-atomic particle.

They captured it! And they took off down the fire pole like fireman to a three alarm fire at a stripper joint. Look in the middle of page 14 of this PDF file:

http://www.nytco.com/pdf/siegal-report050205.pdf

"Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Time's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic. Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds. We should look for all manner of diversity."

[StinKerr]

Thanks, TM. It's a play on my last name. My gaming name, StalKerr, didn't seem appropriate for comments threads. I have also made rare appearances elsewhere, long ago, as PoKerr.

The handle is probably the only place where I put a capital in the miDdle of woRds. oOPs. ;-)

[teal marie]

AwWw. You are so welcome.
I much prefer your succinct and pertinent comments over suffering succotash.
And which, thank you for not being corny and full of beans. That's my function. :-)

[Bill O..]

Steve you finally posted something that vaguely resembles an observation of your own as to why you think the New York Times is liberal. But unfortunately for you you’ve whiffed again. But let me point a few sad facts first:
1) You actually had to go to the New York Times to get a reason for why everyone, according to you, knows the New York Times is liberal.
2) This reason you finally coughed up is not a reason that has come from you or any other conservative for that matter which still proves that you and many others don’t know why you hate the New York Times. You are pulling a rhetorical slight of hand. All you know is that someone like Rush told you it was liberal and thus it is to be hated. You replied, so to speak, how hi.
3) 9 separate times I asked you to explain to me what makes the New York Times liberal and you dodged all 9 times by saying that this was common knowledge (received wisdom) or that you don’t have time for a term paper. What you never could square was how something that was common knowledge would require a term paper to explain when if it was so obvious you should be able to list off the reasons quite easily. The only explanation for this Steve is that every time I asked you for your reasons it wasn’t that it was common knowledge or you had “other business” it was that you did not have a reason at all and you have been furiously googling, lexus-nexusing and map questing the whole time to get one. And in the end this is not your reason the New York Time is liberal this is something you essentially got from the New York Times marketing department. You would be better off finding some text from the Nation or a quote from Michael Moore and then pass those off as your own/commonly held thoughts.

And this is with out a search engine Steve; The text you linked to was somewhat of a topic of discussion when it was first created because it was written in response to the firestorm around Judy Miller-Chalibi’s bad pre-war WMD writing. Back then the paper was taking a second major post-Jasyn Blair body blow to its credibility and it had to show the public and the journalism community it was going to fix its credibility profile.

Now as for the text -let’s use the judicious study of reality vs. received wisdom. The document you site is basically a marketing plan which essentially describes a lot of techniques the NY Times claimed to adopt to “decease the drop in standards” i.e. increase its readership in middle America. Of the 16 or so pages the 1 paragraph you site calls its own editorial section liberal and claims this spread to the journalism section. So lets look at, yet again, exactly who is own the editorial pages. Steve each of their photos can be found at the bottom of this page: http://nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html which should make it easier for you to follow along.
David Brooks (Pro Bush conservative except for Miers)
Maureen Dowd (Anti-Bush, Anti –Clinton, liberal)
Thomas Friedman (Pro-Iraq War, ultra pro-Israel, pro-business/pro-outsourcing libertarian, anti-Rumsfeld occupation bungling)
Bob Herbert(liberal)
Nicholas Kristof (centrist ? All he seems to write about is child sex slavery)
Paul Krugman (liberal/anti –Bush)
Frank Rich (liberal)
John Tierney (Pro Bush conservative replacement for arch-conservative William Saffire)
And lets not forget the public editor Daniel Orkent (tends to center) who just replaces the conservative public editor.
Now here is where the critical thinking part comes in Steve how many of these are liberals and how many are conservative? How many have been critical of Bush how many have been critical of Clinton? Notice a pattern? No? Now compare the passage from the text you linked to.
Reality based and (to you your phrase )I am holding to that.

#10x)Oh by the way Steve can you explain why the New York Times is liberal WITH YOUR OWN THOUGHTS and name or provide links to which liberals are sad about the decline of the MSM? I know you are furiously googling as we speak.

[baldilocks]

I'm enjoying the back-and-forth, gentlemen, so don't get me wrong when I say the following.

If you're enjoying arguing and you'd like me to give you something more to argue about, please hit my Typepad tip jar. (It's the one that says "Tip Jar, Thank you.") Nothing earth-shaking; a mere $14.95 for this month's fee will do. Otherwise you'll have to wait until I get paid (end of this month at the latest).

Just a thought. You don't have to do it.

[torchy]

baldilocks- Great idea but when I went to Paypal I got this message:

"We are currently performing weekly maintenance on the PayPal website and it is temporarily unavailable. We estimate that it will be available at approximately 11:25 PM PDT. We apologize for the inconvenience."

That's 3:25am edt on my side of the woods, a whole hour away.
So instead of saying you're SOL I'd like to issue a challenge. I'm willing to risk $50 in the belief that there's at least a couple folks willing to match that donation. If this was a big reason why there's no new threads then I implore you to speak up sooner, we owe you for the space you offer us, no shame in collecting what's owed. If not, I hope you can get the time/energy/desire to blog. If there's anything we can do to help you out there, feel free to ask, early and often.

[torchy]

Crap, no wonder I'm dirt poor, 11:25 pm pst is 2:25am est, not 3:25am. Well, too late to rescind my challenge now so it stands as issued. Didn't mean to toot my horn about donating, better if I didn't. But I couldn't really issue a challenge with making a public oath myself. So don't feel you have to toot yours if you cough up, regardless of how much. I'm pretty sure any show of support will be appreciated.

[torchy]

Here's a nice picture from the Iraqi elections this pat Saturday:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/iraq4.php

[Steve]

Bill O,

No Bill you have got me completely wrong on just who I am and how I've been spending my time since we got started on this. I am not furiously looking for evidence for the position that the New York Times is liberal and the reason is that I know that it is liberal and I am quite comfortable in that position. I am actually quite relaxed here and sort of enjoying this. I pulled that pdf file off in just about 30 seconds, seriously. I am not working on this because I cannot seem to get Proquest at my home computer right now. So to do the kind of research to prove to you that the New York Times is liberal in foreign, domestic, and social issues would take much of my time even if I could get it right from this home computer. I could do it at the library and bring my notes back here and assemble them for you but I wont be doing that and who in this world would expect me to? Where would I post this thesis for you to read?

As for Rush Limbaugh I do not listen to him or any radio for that matter. You've got me pictured all wrong about that. I haven't much listened to Rush for what is coming up on 11 years. Its possible that the avergae liberal has heard more of Rush in the last 11 years then I have. The only time I hear him is when I visit my 71 year old mother and even she doesn't listen all that much. But this is not to say that there is anything wrong in listening to Rush Limbaugh if a political radio program is what you would like to hear on any given day.

To help you get the picture with respect to myself I consider the New York Times to be liberal in the same sense that I consider Thomas Sowell or George Will to be conservative. It isn't that the two of them always agree, or that they are always and in everyway conservative, but it is more accuate and less laborious when speaking of them to refer to them both as "conservative" without going into unneccessary conversational detail about how it is that actually each is a little different because one is a little like this, and the other is a little like that, and that each one has this peculiar unconventional and slightly nonconservative idiosyncrasy. Like William Buckley's serious thoughts about legalizing drugs but all the while he was still, and rightly so, refered to as a "conservative". So in that sense of language (this shouldn't be this difficult) it is I think right to refer to the New York Times as "liberal". When a person is communicating they are (or should be) considering the person, or people, he/she is communicating too (maybe more than he is considering himself). In that sense I believe you'll find a consistent use of the term "liberal" used when refering to the New York Times whether it is spoken of by a conservative to a conservative or a liberal to a liberal or any combination of people as well as using it to mean something good or bad.

This natural sense in understanding the use of words was also displayed in the pdf I gave you produced by the New York Times and I believe it is a valid point I made by bringing that up. Whatever you want to call them, and therefore try to invalidate their use of the term "liberal" to describe the New York Times, they are at the very least people like any other who are very familiar with the paper they work for. I think they would be surprised to hear you contend with them about their positive use of the term "liberal" in describing the paper. If you do not want to call it liberal that is your own business and it is the business of others what they call it. I would say that if you want to, lets say, call it "conservative" out there in the general population you are going to get some double takes and you will be the one being asked to explain yourself.

Like I said I am not looking out on the Internet for evidence of the New York Times being liberal and the pdf I gave you I got in about 30 seconds. Mysteriously you seemed to find great fault in the idea that I would site the New York Times for an accurate description of their paper. I am really bending over backwards for your obsession here. Do you realize how generous I am being spending time on this given that your point concerning the paper has not been proven and I am not asking you to but I rather just accept your point as a little personal oddity of yours. So to get someone other than the people at the New York Times and a little closer to this "everyone" you are requiring I just now googled on "New York Times is liberal" and got 404 matches and when I googled on "New York Times is conservative" I got 85 matches. So if that could be seen as a kind of quick poll it would appear that the New York Times could, in a sense, be thought of as 82.6% liberal and 17.4% conservative. But anyway you describe those numbers it would seem that "liberal" appears to be the commonly understood term, for good or for bad, when speaking of the New York Times. It is interesting for me because those numbers are about right for the way I think of the New York Times.

So that may take care of that. Unless you would like me to go through and provide you the individual links to some of those 404 websites I mentioned but I leave that to you. It is as though I am turning this in to be graded by Professor Abe Yuse when I am not even enrolled in his class.

Now for the question of whether or not liberals mourn for their lost MSM news monopoly? That was a theory I put forth to VtheK's very first post that started the current thread we are on. VtheK seemed to be wondering why do "lefties" want us to read papers so badly and also something to the effect that it is filtered through an editorial board first. I then offered a theory that the papers were not a good source for details about a story and I still stand by that of course. Afterall, investigating is what so many people are doing with a large portion of their time on the Internet.

I should clarify something I said earlier. I should rather say that the accumulation of the information carried in all papers over a lot of time isn't too bad a source. But the problem there is that that information in earlier papers, and all other papers, is not carried over very well to the following day's papers. I realize that it is somewhat impractable with a physical object like a paper as compared to the digital Internet. But their is a problem in that the newspapers are then able to remake themselves on any given day and take a new and inconsistent line with the information they have been reporting on over the years. There does seem to be something about the nature of the printed news and the TV news that does allow them to be as fleeting with their postions as the light pattern on the TV screen. This might be something of an example of what I am saying and that is that PBS cannot bring me an interview with Sabah Khodada, and others like him, over the course of years and then also have programs that seem to basically communicate to the public an almost total dismissal that a confrontation with Saddam was remotely neccessary. I am not trying to pick on PBS because this is happening with all of them. I do not know how the New York Times can take much of the information carried in the past several hundred Judith Miller articles, or all information the New York Times has provided on the current article's subject, and carry that over to today's paper but something like that might be sort of nice. It doesn't seem right that a newspaper can shift their tack knowing all will be forgotten by the public while they then ridicule the people who have to decide some very tough decisions and stick with them and always be remembered for those decisions.

The Interent allows for people to ignore what appears to me to be an attempt by the MSM news media to herd everyone into a certain point of view. A point of view that changes painlessly for them and allows for them to take their pound of flesh off people who must decide matters that they (the news media) had alarmingly reported on at one time in the past. I do not find that to be right of them.

So there is a fuller explanation to the statements about "surface facts" and "same sheet of music". But I think VtheK kind of understood all this when I said this because I've got a little bit of a feeling of where he/she has been coming from politically.

I am not freaking out like I believe you may be. It seems that you have a reputation around here already and I think you've projected your own feelings on to me. I said the things I said in humor and I am having a little fun with it. Anyway, I think I have more than satisfied any reasonable request of you to me concerning this subject on a site like this and I give myself a A+.