INT. DARK PARKING GARAGE - NIGHT
[JUDITH MILLER pulls into a space, turns off her engine. She flicks the headlights on and off three times, and waits. Moments later, she hears footsteps. She gets out of the car. Two men approach her - KARL ROVE and a stranger. The stranger’s hands are bound together.]
MILLER: This better be good. I have deadlines…
ROVE: I’m sorry to inconvenience you, Ms. Miller. This is Ben, a vagrant that was panhandling near my home.
BEN: Sorry…
MILLER: Okay. What did you want me to see?
ROVE: I don’t want to be identified.
MILLER: Sure. What?
ROVE: Nothing. Just… this.
[Rove draws a gun from his jacket and shoots “Ben” with precision in the middle of his forehead. Ben collapses. Rove fires three more bullets directly into Ben’s chest. The shots echo through the nearly empty garage and fade into silence. Pause.]
ROVE: And… this.
[Rove signals a van at the other end of the garage. It drives towards them, stops, and the side door slides open. A man gets out. Rove hands him an attache case. The man opens the case. Miller sees stacks of $100 bills. The man hands Rove a duffel bag, from which Rove withdraws a baggie of white powder, which he examines.]
ROVE: Thank you for the pure Colombian cocaine, Hector.
HECTOR: De nada.
[Hector hops in the van and it peels off, leaving Rove and Miller alone.]
MILLER: What are we -
ROVE: Wait. I’m not finished…
[Over the next five minutes, as Miller watches, Karl Rove vandalizes a parked car, breaks into a van and steals a stereo, molests a young boy and then sells him into slavery, litters, tears the tag off an unsold mattress, conducts interviews and then hires an under-qualified white woman over several more appropriate black candidates, sexually harrasses his new employee, gives classified American military documents to an Iranian agent while explaining some of the finer points on a chalkboard, sells a truckload of weaponized anthrax to a Islamist militant, and lights a cigarette beneath a “No Smoking” sign. He pauses, puffs, and looks at Miller.]
MILLER: So…
ROVE: I showed you this in confidence.
MILLER: Of course. I’m a reporter.
ROVE: Of course. Oh, one more thing. Valerie Plame is a CIA operative.
[Rove puts out the cigarette on Ben’s chest, from which blood has stopped flowing. He walks off and disappears, leaving Miller alone in the garage. She takes out a notepad, begins to write something down, pauses, and then throws the pad into her back seat; there’s no story here…]
—————————
Yeah, this Judith Miller business is complicated. And everyone’s having trouble thinking of Miller as the poster girl for anything - the left blames her for spreading the disinformation that led to the Iraq war. The right blames her for… being a Times reporter. Despite these challenges, there’s a lot of support for her martyrdom.
To me, there’s a crucial distinction between hearing a confession in confidence and actually witnessing a crime, and a distinction between witnessing a crime and being involved in one. After all, if Miller’s source had revealed Valerie Plame’s professional identity aloud and there was nobody there to hear it, you don’t need a philosophy degree to see that that’s not a crime - Judith Miller’s presence was required to break federal law.
I don’t know. On this case I can be persuaded I’m wrong, and this happens just about every day. I flip-flop. And like a lot of people, I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye.
But I don’t think it’s as cut-and-dried as some First Amendment enthusiasts are saying. If Miller had watched her source reveal military secrets, help an al Qaeda operative plot an attack on the White House, or molest a child, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t be protecting her source. So it’s a matter of her judgment that the crime she witnessed, was actually part of, wasn’t important enough to merit breaking her journalistic confidentiality.
That’s a judgment call. So is sending her to prison. And though I’m worried about a “chilling effect” on journalism, I think it’s more complicated than that. After all, my sources tell me that Miller and Rove have been lovers for years. I’d love to give you more details, but ethics forbid it.
Fanny Roborat
61 comments
dave
July 9, 2005 at 4:48 pm
1Wouldn’t it also be a crime to release information that is classified, like the pentagon papers?
Steve
July 9, 2005 at 4:53 pm
2Great piece, Adam.
Of course, the crime for which Miller deserves jail time is acting as a stooge and mouthpiece for the White House in the runup to the Iraq Disaster. This is sort of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
I swear I actually heard a story on NPR this Thursday afternoon that I swear fingered Karl Rove as the leaker. I’d just gotten off a long flight from Glasgow so my jet-lagged brain may have completely misinterpreted the story but if there’s confirmation of this, I’d love to know.
hedera
July 9, 2005 at 7:17 pm
3Nobody has actually fingered Karl Rove as the leaker. Not exactly. What is clear, and this is what you may have heard, Steve, is that the papers Time Magazine released to the grand jury in the Matt Cooper case name Rove as the person, or one of the people, who talked to Cooper when he was researching the Plame story. AFAIK Cooper hasn’t said what, if anything, Rove told him; Rove, of course, claims he never said anything about Valerie Plame. Yeah, right. And pigs do too fly, given sufficient thrust.
I haven’t been following this in detail because I think it’s disgusting. If we had anything like a law enforcement establishment in this country, it would be after Rove like a chicken on a June bug; but all they care about doing is locking people up for growing medical marijuana. I don’t know if they’re afraid of Rove, afraid of W, afraid of Cheney, or all of the above; but they’re acting like Rove is radioactive. Of course, the opportunity to bash the “liberal media” around some more was irresistable, too.
Wouldn’t it be great if Alberto G. developed some genuine cojones and went after Rove for breaching national security by outing a covert CIA op? I’d forgive him the terror memo instantly.
And why the hell is Robert Novak immune to all this?
Adam Felber
July 9, 2005 at 7:32 pm
4Dave -
You’re not wrong, but I’m not convinced it’s a completely analogous case. There must be some distinction between whistleblowers and the reckless endangerment of intelligence personnel, between exposing a scandal and exposing an operative.
There are a whole slew of “whistleblower laws.” I don’t know if they’re relevant to the Pentagon Papers or Watergate, but they clearly don’t apply here. The ethical distinction between the two seems clear; there is absolutely zero public good that was accomplished by outing Plame, and I don’t think anyone’s argued otherwise.
Judith Miller might think that the administration informant wasn’t putting Plame at risk by outing her, but I’m not sure that this is hers to decide.
But yeah. It’s complicated.
dee
July 9, 2005 at 8:03 pm
5So, let me get this straight. Robert Novak wrote the column that identified Valerie Plame. He’s not in jail. Matt Cooper wrote a column AFTER Novak’s column, saying something along the lines that he, too, had been offered this info but chose not to publish it. He’s not in jail. Judith Miller never wrote a column about Valerie Plame, never said she had the info, and she’s in jail.
I’m no fan of Judith Miller, but seems sending her to jail is an over reaction. Since Novak walks the street a free man, I can only guess he must have told the prosecutor what he wanted to hear. And Time has turned over Cooper’s notes. So what purpose is served by sending Miller to jail?
I don’t know enough about the details to be very coherent here, but I do know this: anything that gets Karl Rove in a perp walk will have my support.
(BTW — love that “Felber blue” in the comments!)
dee
July 9, 2005 at 8:55 pm
6Aw heck - I shoulda just read Frank Rich
Lord that man can write.
Murray
July 9, 2005 at 9:13 pm
7The Right seems to want to claim that Miller is protecting a whistle blower.
Hardly.
Wilson was the whistle blower and the White House leak was this administration using its power illegally to PUNISH a whistle blower. Even if it were not a crime, it is still an abuse of power.
Miller is trying to say that a source is a source whether it is virtuous or evil and she needs to prove that she can protect him/her no matter what. In a way that makes sense. Say it was Rove, by protecting him he will be likely to continue using her to leak what he wants to the press. If she turns him in, he dries up and no one else would trust her either. (Besides she already knows what this administration does to those who make them unhappy).
She may also be trying to atone for the fiasco in quoting “Curveball” about WMDs.
Bob
July 9, 2005 at 9:38 pm
8I’m planning to start a Free Judith Miller So We Can Lock Her Up For All That Bogus WMD Crap campaign. But I’m going to need a snappier slogan first.
Auros
July 9, 2005 at 10:26 pm
9Mickey Kaus has actually done a really good job covering this one. Points to note:
a) Novak may’ve sung like a bird to the grand jury. We know he tesitified, but not what he said. It’s possible that the prosecutor has been hard on Miller because she can confirm something from Novak’s testimony.
b) Rove has been extraordinarily weaselly; his spokesmen and his lawyer have been parsing words like crazy (saying “Rove didn’t talk to Cooper yesterday” when what they meant was, he didn’t talk directly, but his lawyer talked to Cooper’s lawyer and conveyed a message). The most important thing they’ve said is that Rove never knowingly revealed classified information. Unfortunately for Rove, as Mark Kleiman points out, even if that’s true, it only gets him off the hook on the Intelligence Identities Protection violation; he still may be guilty of a violation of the Espionage Act, and, depending on what he said to the prosecutor during the first round of interviews, there may be a perjury charge. Certainly the judges involved with the case, who have seen everything the grand jury have seen, seem to believe that charges will be filed.
dave
July 9, 2005 at 11:33 pm
10It is complicated. The cleveland plain dealer is suppressing a story of government (republican) corruption of “profound importance” because the information was leaked illegally. I agree that the law should distinguish between cases based on the public interest served by revealing the source and that even with such a change this grand jury would be putting Miller in jail. The only weakness of your hilarious scenario is that Rove would not choose to flount laws and good manners in front of Miller if he knew she would out him. We deal with the same dilemma in health care - take away the privacy protections of minors and minorities and they die of STDs and botched abortions.
tess
July 10, 2005 at 12:54 am
11dave,
Yeah, but we’re talking about a leak to intentionally hurt the credibility of a whistle-blower and the maintain the status quo in power. It’s a little different from Mark Felt who did so at least in part because of illegal activities of those in power. I’d have to say that to me, this case is a little more cut and dried since Miller was afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable by promoting her half-baked WMD articles, and I want to beat Novak over the head a few dozen times using a dried-out Rove hull as a baseball bat.
Pat R.
July 10, 2005 at 12:36 pm
12Dave, simply put, Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers was an act of whistleblowing re: governmental deception and corruption. As has already been pointed out here, the White House’s outing of Valerie Plame was intended to punish a whistleblower, and was a criminal act — just one in a long series of deceptions and illegal acts by an administration that seems to be willfully blind to the results of its chronically dishonest, corrupt conduct.
dave
July 10, 2005 at 2:11 pm
13Um, I get it guys and gals. I was just making the point that the current law makes no distinction and that Woodward could have been held in contempt of a grand jury too. Wouldn’t whistleblower laws only protect these famous sources from prosecution, not identification?
dave
July 10, 2005 at 2:14 pm
14And Neil Sheehan. I had to go look that one up.
Auros
July 10, 2005 at 4:09 pm
15Dave, I’m not sure, but I think most states that have reporter-shield laws have whistleblower laws as well, so that if a source was providing information in service of the public interest, they’re exempt from prosecution under state laws. Obviously the federal level has nothing like that, though…
Ken... Just Ken
July 10, 2005 at 5:42 pm
16Bob,
How about:
Free Judith Miller…
…and jail her for her Crimes.
Still quite long, but punchier
Murray
July 10, 2005 at 6:07 pm
17Auros,
We do have a whistle blower law, (ask Wilson how well that works) but those who choose to do so must weigh the good of turning in wrong doers vs. never working in their field again. Some of us old geezers can remember Alexander Butterfield who disclosed to the Watergate Committee that Nixon had taped everything said in the Oval Office; he never worked again. Do you think there is a job in the Tobacco industry for Jeffrey Wigand? (Or any other industry for that matter).
Whistle blowers are shunned by industry and business who value loyalty (misguided or not) over ethics.
It is the very rare WB who becomes famous for doing the right thing and benefits from it. Most trade their lives for a clear conscience. Few would find this a good bargain.
Pete IVDL
July 10, 2005 at 6:30 pm
18It seems like the media have focused on Miller’s reasons and motives for protecting her source, when (as Hedera said) they could be arguing about who gets to sharpen a large stake to insert into Karl Rove. Mind you, it seems like Ms Miller is playing this for all it’s worth. Integrity, schmegrity.
Pete IVDL
July 10, 2005 at 6:33 pm
19BTW, Hedera, if a June bug is what I think it is, and Rove is one, then that’s one HELLUVA chicken! BUCK. BUCK. BUCAW.
Emmarie
July 10, 2005 at 10:18 pm
20Ken: I think yours would work nicely on a shirt. The top part goes above a picture of her, the bottom below.
Bob
July 11, 2005 at 4:40 am
21Ken -
I like it, too.
Ken... Just Ken
July 11, 2005 at 11:13 am
22OK, here’s the image:
http://moldenmildew.home.comcast.net/Miller.jpg
Landis
July 11, 2005 at 11:33 am
23So, protecting your source should depend on the intentions of the source? Now we’re on to judging the intentions of the action. Sounds familiar.
Thanks for bringing this up Adam. It’s sparked a very interesting discussion. I don’t like what Ms. Miller has done in the past, but I think when forming an opinion on this we need to look at only this case and not her history as a reporter. Many of the facts of this case set quite a scary precedent towards Freedom of the Press.
The most interesting thing is how this has focused almost entirely on Ms. Miller and the Press and once again nearly completely ignored the real story: another White House cover-up.
Monty Zoom
July 11, 2005 at 11:38 am
24Judith Miller has made a very poor judgement call. What she is involved in was the crime. (As Adam infers) At no point during Watergate did any reporter aid and abet a felon.
Revealing the identity of an active CIA operative is against the law. So, Robert Novak, who actually revealed the identity, should be in prison. Who cares who his source was! He leaked her identity!
Rove will probably argue this point and get off scott free. He accidentally revealed this tid-bit to Novak in confidence, not thinking he would print it. We can only hope they try hard to cover it up instead. Cover-up’s work so well!
Murray
July 11, 2005 at 1:43 pm
25MZ
Cover-ups work pretty well if Congress and the courts are on your side. Republican cover-ups work mudh better because the Democrats have so little stomach for attacking.
ice weasel
July 11, 2005 at 2:39 pm
26Adam,
Well done.
I guess where we differ is you apparently feel (and forgive me if I am misinterpretting what you wrote) that in some way, our “press” or “media” as they are frequently called by the more polite elements of our society, still have some credibility, that there is some dedication to “chill” with the Miller case. Frankly, I disagree. I think the few that are out there, doing actual investigative work that means something knows what’s going on with the Miller case and means nothing. I think some of the stooges (that’s another semi-polite euphamism) will use the Miller case as an excuse. The avst majority, well, the Miller doesn’t matter aside from being a nice talking point.
One other thing, you wrote above…
The ethical distinction between the two seems clear; there is absolutely zero public good that was accomplished by outing Plame, and I don’t think anyone’s argued otherwise.
Actually, it’s already an emerging meme from the right side that Plame and Wilson got what they deserved (being outed professionally) as they are liars and in outing them, Rpve performed a service to the citizens of the US.
Give them long enough, these people will slime anyone.
Allan
July 11, 2005 at 4:02 pm
27Actually there may be, in a perverse way, some public good to be had from the outing of Valerie Plame: it may yet lead to the very public destruction of Karl Rove.
Adam Felber
July 11, 2005 at 4:22 pm
28ice weasel -
You are reading me correctly. I DO feel that the “press” still has some credibility.
As I’ve written here before, I refuse to join in the orgy of press-hating that is now as ingrained on the left as it is on the right. To me, it goes beyond rational criticism of the lazy, sloppy, or incompetent reporting that is (undeniably) out there.
The left feels that the press has been insufficiently diligent in reporting the abuses and deceit of the Bush administration. I agree to a large extent [though it’s clear that “they” have reported on most of it, they haven’t made a Big Enough Deal about various stories].
We NEED the press. And there are plenty of reporters doing a great job every day. So it pains me to visit the liberal websites that I enjoy [like “Eschaton,” for example] and read the endless and shrill condemnations of the media. Everyone there seems to enjoy all that press-bashing, even as they cheerfully link to stories from the major media outlets that help them expose various Republican misdeeds. The extreme irony inherent in this occurs to no-one, and I’ve been excoriated there (and elsewhere) when I point it out.
Basically, the left has discovered what the right has known for years. It’s FUN to be furious at the press. They don’t fight back, and it gives us something to yell about together. The fact that both the left and the right believe that the press is a heedless tool of the other side ought to teach us something. Apparently, it doesn’t. We’re having too much fun agreeing that what we read in the paper is nothing but lies and propaganda.
I don’t know where we expect to GET our consensual truths after we’ve utterly debased the press. No, wait… I do. From official government sources. Won’t that be fun?
Read today’s White House press gaggle, the way the press corps was hectoring McClellan for answers about Rove. That was great. But though I haven’t looked around the web yet, I’ll bet you that the liberal response is “Well, FINALLY they’re showing some balls. So they got ONE LITTLE THING right!” And then they’ll go back to vilifying the press as a whole. Because that’s what’s done.
Forgive me if this seems angry - I’m not angry at YOU. Just at the prevailing “hip” attitude on the left that the press has No Credibility. It may be fun to say, but it’s inaccurate, overstated, and ultimately dangerous.
ice weasel
July 11, 2005 at 5:46 pm
29Adam,
Anger, dare I use the descriptive, “righteous” anger, requires no forgiveness. And I agree with you, to a point. Endless ranting about the press accomplishes little. I would add however, that doesn’t necessarily make said ranting much less accurate, it just doesn’t accomplish anything. We do need the press I suppose the question is, how do we hold them more accountable? How do we encourage them to pursue loftier goals than merely acting as stenographers for their respective political interests? I don’t know the answer to that question. I spent innumerable hours writing letters, posting things, in some kind of flaccid attempt to have an influence. But who am I compared to Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes, or that Tomlinson guy who’s been corrupting my much beloved NPR? How can I convince them that it is in the best interest of our nation, of our society, that they educate and inform as well as entertain and pander?
You’re right Adam. And to an extent, I’m as guilty as the next web obessed blog poster about the lack of media credibiility. I’ve used all the popular derisive terms and in the end, I’ve advanced my cause not a single whit (what is a “whit” anyway?). But what is the answer?
I would have not have to don my proverbial tin foil chapeau to wonder if this is yet anotehr cynical ploy from the people who really benefit from an entirely discredited media. Those people being the republicans who see no advantage in the media being instructive but rather, see it only as a tool for propaganda dissemination. Whether or not it is a conspiracy or a plan is irrelevant, the end result is the same. To me this smacks of Norquist’s plan to defund the government thereby making it incapable of doing much of anything. A media with no credibility only really hurts the liberal interests who hope, day after day, that by informing people that many of these republican policies work against their best interest, the electorate may see through the neo-conservative chimaera.
Sorry, that’s a lot of stuff but there it is anyway.
And one final note of thanks Adam; thanks Adam, you rock.
melina
July 11, 2005 at 6:35 pm
30i was nibbling my pink lady apple, and pleasantly perusing this post, and then i got to the part where rove puts out his cigarette and drops the “news”, and apple *sauce* almost, almost– flew out of my mouth.
adam…this is beyond great…thank you for putting it all in order and perspective.
bartkid
July 11, 2005 at 11:11 pm
31>”Valerie Plame is a CIA operative.”
That was the only thing about the scenario I didn’t believe.
Ah, this is better:
“Joe Wilson’s spouse is a CIA operative.”
There. And, look no treason anymore.
Emmarie
July 11, 2005 at 11:14 pm
32Ken, you might want to try underlining instead of italics. It’s easier to pick up on if you’re just glacing at someone (which is what most people try to do when reading a shirt or trying to not fall while reading a poster).
Sorry. I’m a font/layout freak.
hedera
July 11, 2005 at 11:40 pm
33Yes, weasel Rove’s latest whine is, “I never mentioned her name…” I’ve been shaking my head over that for 2 days. If you say, “Joe Wilson’s wife is a CIA operative”, isn’t that as precise as saying “Valerie Plame is a CIA operative”?? Joe Wilson is not a practicing Muslim, he has only one wife. That identification is as precise as if the name were used. I don’t see why that isn’t treasonous. But then, I’m not a lawyer.
Ice weasel, a “whit” is “the least bit; an iota”, in a nice dictionary complete with Middle English derivation.
Pete IVDL, a June bug is a fearsome critter; I’ve never forgotten the ones I saw visiting my relatives in Kanas, one summer many years ago. I was very small, and they seemed nearly as big as I was; certainly much too big for me to step on! Here are some nice photos for you to look at, of June bugs raiding the hummingbird feeders.
Lynne
July 12, 2005 at 9:33 am
34Hedera - great point - Joe Wilson also doesn’t live in a commune in Utah and have 15 wives, either.
The press is such an easy target and it’s amazing how the right and the left can watch the same show or read the same paper and both feel that their side is being bashed.
The point that the left loathes Judith Miller for her complicity in the run up to the war (of the 14 stories The New York Times apologized for, 12 were hers) and the right hates her and The Times for being liberal.
That is why I love coming here.
Thanks Adam and all of you.
Murray
July 12, 2005 at 10:54 am
35Adam, I think you are fighting a losing battle; you are right in doing so, but a tough row none-the-less.
The main stream media (MSM) is not a group of virtuous reporters who have no axe to grind and are willing to do anything to come up with the truth. Nor are they a group who make everything up to bolster their political leanings. Not even a group that finds anything that requires more than 3 sentences to explain it too boring and besides there are “missing white women” to yammer about. The MSM is what the public demands. If all we wanted was virtue, we’d get it. And the same for phony news and fluff, because the public consists of individuals some of whom want virtue, and/or political ammunition, and/or fluff, we get all of this.
Yes there is virtue in the MSM, PBS and NPR are as good a place to start as any. The NY Times and Washington Post do a pretty good job too. There is plenty for those who want solid reporting. There is also a lot of crap and fluff. Just look at FOX, Inside Edition, and many of the shouting head shows.
I understand your zeal to maintain the honor of the news industry. If for no other reason than that the Right has a political need to undermining it in order to be able to get away with crimes that would be spotlighted and then believed by the public if they held the MSM in high regard. You either accept that the news is mostly as accurate as possible or you just throw in the towel and say it’s all phony (like our landing on the moon).
But just like the American public, the news is good AND bad, intelligent AND stupid, virtuous AND duplicitous, interesting AND boring.
And just like the hull of a boat, which if it is 99% water tight, will still sink, when a few news people turn out to be making up the news, or influenced by the money paid by the administration to push its programs, it makes the average person feel it’s not safe to believe what they hear.
This administration knows how easy it is to undermine the media and is willing to do so to further muddy the waters that they have fouled. I’m glad you are willing to wade in to do what you can to restore faith in a flawed industry. If more Americans demanded real news, we would get it.
Pete IVDL
July 12, 2005 at 11:37 am
36Bullseye, Murray! “Be careful what you ask for…”. It’s kinda like ‘whipped cream’ in a can - no-one really likes the stuff, it’s nothing like real cream, but people keep buying it anyway. (That’s a whole ‘nother story, I know, and not entirely OT).
Hedera - thank you! We call ‘em Christmas beetles down here, because we only see them in the hottest months (December-February). They may not be related, but by golly they’re close. And intimidating, nonetheless. Still, if we pretended that Karl Rove’s withered soul lived in one of these things, I’m sure I could overcome my squeamishness.
ice weasel
July 12, 2005 at 1:36 pm
37You know, not to beat a dead or dying horse here but I think something else deserves mentioning.
And I bring this up not to slap at Adam or his point, as I said above, I think it has much merit, much truth. But that said, keep in mind, the is a a group of very influencial members of the media who have known exactly who did to what to whom in this coverup and they have said nothing. While some reporters yesterday raked scotty over the coals for answers, these “repoerters” continue to perpetuate the lies of this administration and assist this coverup.
So, how am I supposed to feel about these people?
This is not just about Miller and Cooper. It’s acknowledged that Rove (and the other leaker who many assume to be scooter Libby) told a number of reporters trying to get this smear spread around. So, this isn’t analagous to Watergate. At least not from the media end of things. In fact, this is a “conspiracy of silence” on the part of the media protecting “sources” who have clearly lied for reasons having nothing to do with the security of the country, merely to further their own political agenda.
I’m weak. I admit it. It’s difficult for me to maintain anything even remotely akin to faith in this media when situations like this can fester for years.
Now, someone please tell me I’m wrong and why. I would very much like to feel differently.
sockmonkey
July 12, 2005 at 9:10 pm
38I agree with everyone. (my problem with sites like this. ) now what i must admit to is a little petty: I am disgusted with the media for reasons that are simple: they never let up on Clinton. over just about nothing. he lied under oath about sex. okay. not good. but not much compared to cooking the books to go to war, or to get a drug benefit before the election, or installing a hooker playing a reporter into the wH press room. The imbalance over the last 5 years when it comes to the relentless half truths from W and company about real issues is both weird and is still shocking.
I would like to take the press seriously - but why should i ? they don’t really anymore. The RIght has screeched about the media for years because the truth never suits them . Reporters tend to tell it when they can. and the truth rarely is “fair and balanced”. it is just the truth.
The Left is yelling now because the media has such a bizarre set of priorities. Perverts in Idaho, tom Cruise’s views on ANYTHING, pretty people who are missing, brides who bolt. Meanwhile, a war is on, the deficit is - well - rather large - and CIA agents are outed for sport.
as for demanding the MSM cover stories that make W look bad - then ripping them in the same breath - oh well - we do need TV to get anything done. Awful, but true. and the tv “news” is full of nonsense. but it is the only tv “news” we have. so we need to stay on them or they - like a child with A.D.D. - will wander off to Neverland.
cooper
July 12, 2005 at 10:46 pm
39Okay, Adam, quit reading this nonsense and get back to work! You’ve got a book to finish, so stop wasting time here. Get back to work, I mean it!
Pete, Christmas bugs, indeed! They are nowhere near as big as June Bugs, or as fierce. When I was six and growing up in North Carolina, one day we caught one and I tied a kite string to one of its legs, thinking I’d fly it around like a pet helium balloon. Lucky for me that my older sister was outside and nearby. When I let the June Bug loose, a blue jay saw it (I’ll tell you about our blue jays some other time), the June Bug saw the blue jay and the race was on. Now the other end of the kite string was tied around my wrist and after the June Bug flew all the slack out of the string, I found that I could suddenly run much faster and with less effort than had previously been possible. As I got airbourne, I flew right over my sister at about head high. She jumped up and grabbed me by the belt. The BlueJay caught the June Bug, ripped off it’s head and we both fell rudely back to earth. So, don’t be telling me about your limp wristed ozzie Christmas Bugs. I am entirely unimpressed.
waterfowler
July 13, 2005 at 4:33 pm
40Adam,
First time reader. I’m a wing-nut from the other side that rarely comments. I read alot. This is the most sane commentary I’ve ever heard or read from you lefties. The MSM does still have some credibility. Like when it comes to REPORTING. When they add their commentary or talk about anything political is when they can’t help but show their true color, red, or is it now blue? That’s when they’re easy to tune out. It’s almost funny to see how angry the lefties are at the MSM for not having public executions of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Ashcroft, waterfowler and anyone else they don’t like, when in reality, the MSM has always been squarely on their side. Maybe MSM is trying to stay in business by starting to tell it like it is. Good site Adam.
And yes sockmonkey, I want the truth too, not a “version” of it.
ice weasel
July 13, 2005 at 4:57 pm
41the MSM has always been squarely on their side.
waterfouler, can you back up this assertion without quoting a republican/conservative?
I didn’t think so. In fact, even if you could come up with a quote, you would have ignore the majority of “the media” (measured by any reasonable standard) which is squarely center-right at best, hard right in many cases (example; Faux).
We all have opinions and viewpoints, I was just checking to see if the straight line in your post was intentional comedy or accidental tragedy.
Just my pov and well worth the electrons it took to post it.
Harold
July 13, 2005 at 5:28 pm
42Waterfowler, it is nice to have a wingnut in our midst who is not frothing at the mouth or carrying a club (as far as can be seen so far.)
BTW, ice weasel, is that name a Kierkegaard/Groening reference?
ice weasel
July 13, 2005 at 6:56 pm
43Oh my! Yes Harold, you are dead on target. It’s been a nom de plume of mine since about 1990.
Harold
July 14, 2005 at 6:29 am
44Whoops. Nietzsche. I meant Nietzsche/Groening.
waterfowler
July 14, 2005 at 2:35 pm
45ice weasel,
I was referring to the MSM, or old Big 3, not todays media in general. As for backup to my assertion, Dan Rather.
Can you tell any difference between ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN….they all have the same stories,on the same day, w/ the same angle. It’s boring.
FOX is obviously right wing, but they aren’t included in “MSM”.
Also, “fouler” is a bit offensive since I’ve helped to save and restore millions of acres of wetlands in North America w/ groups like Ducks Unlimited, and helped reduce overfishing and shrimping by-catch w/ Gulf Coast Conservation Association. If you want to save the planet from evil conservatives, put your money where the work happens, not in some so-called environmental group that spends its $s in D.C.
Don’t make me come over there!
From now on, it’s Mr. Waterfowler for you.
Murray
July 14, 2005 at 4:01 pm
46Waterfowler,
It’s good to hear a conservative who believes in conservation. You do agree that this administration is the most anti-environmental on record, right?
Ducks unlimited, trout unlimited etc, all make me wonder how one can love something and work to protect it in order to kill it. I hope you don’t belong to Puppies unlimited.
Ann
July 14, 2005 at 4:43 pm
47Hee hee, Puppies Unlimited! Thank the Lobster that Tyson’s is saving chickens from extinction.
waterfowler
July 14, 2005 at 5:07 pm
48Murray,
You don’t protect the animals, you protect the environment. This allows you to harvest what the environment provides, whethter it is grapes or elk.Don’t we have one of the cleanest environments in the world? Haven’t we run circles around the rest when it comes to reducing pollution and cleaning up previous messes? “this administration” has very little difference from previous ones or future ones. It’s all part of their political game. ANWAR is not that big of deal in the scheme of things, either way. It’s not THAT much oil and it’s not THAT bad for the environment. Kyoto is a UN style fraud to punish US, not China or India or any of the other real polluters. In the 70s, our ship channel was actually flammable! Democrats ran the show then, locally, statewide, and nation wide. I think that’s “on record”.
As for the “unlimiteds”, we can discuss that later or I can just send you some puppy jerky.
Harold
July 14, 2005 at 5:18 pm
49Waterfowler, I’m not sure how you can justify not including FOX “News” in the Main Stream Media, unless you construct a definition for the term specifically to exclude FOX. It seems that any definition that includes MSNBC would also have to include FOX.
Ann, I’ve heard reports (on that pinko commie leftist radio network NPR) that one of the main factors for the spread of Avian Flu in Asia is the use of traditional, free-range poultry-raising methods. Bizarre, innit?
Murray, some of the biggest proponents of deer and woodlands conservation that I know of are actually deer hunters. Of course, some of the people I would put in the “should not be trusted with anything more dangerous than a feather duster” category are also deer hunters. But, on the third hand, about 75% of the people I know here in Northeastern PA are deer hunters, so I’m not sure where I’m going with this.
Ann
July 14, 2005 at 5:31 pm
50Harold,
Yes, of course deer hunters promote conservation. And pedophile priests promote all-boy choirs! It’s not the least bit surprising.
As for avian flu, free-range birds would certainly spread disease to humans faster than confined birds would, but no one’s suggesting that wild birds should be confined, so the disease will be spread one way or another.
I’m a vegetarian–I get to sidestep some of these moral dilemmas.
Landis
July 14, 2005 at 5:54 pm
51Um, do you think we can try not to become like all the other left-leaning (and right-leaning) blogs out there. Let’s not demonize everybody on the other side of an issue. Just because hunters kill animals for sport, it doesn’t mean that their attempt to protect the environment is a bad thing. I’m not a hunter by any stretch, but I’m also not a vegan. I am an environmentalist and in this aspect I can agree quite a bit with the members of groups like Ducks Unlimited.
As for comments regarding Kyoto and about the other countries being the “real polluters” and the implication that the environmental record of this administration is just as good as that of any previous administration’s….
But please keep this blog and community from devolving into just another one of those that blindly strikes at everything and everyone that is on the other side of the argument.
Welcome aboard, Waterfowler. You’ll generally find us to be a pretty good discussion group.
Kristin B
July 14, 2005 at 6:26 pm
52I know that there is a concern about a “chilling effect” on the press. But, I think we should ask ourselves exactly what we are afraid will be chilled. Karl Rove did not expose a crime to Judith Miller. He did not even expose his own or anyone else’s wrongdoing. The wrongdoing was actually commited when he talked to Judith Miller. Are we worried, then, that there will be a “chilling” of people using the press to commit crimes/wrongs? It seems to me that the less we have of that the better.
Ann
July 14, 2005 at 7:09 pm
53Landis, I don’t see any demonizing going on. There was no name-calling and no flaming. Waterfowler described his conservation efforts, Murray suggested that perhaps some of those efforts weren’t purely disinterested, Harold added that deer hunters are proponents of conservation, and I questioned the hunters’ motives.
Apparently, if we just use ellipses to cast doubt on opinions we disagree with, instead of pointing out errors or hypocrisy…
waterfowler
July 14, 2005 at 10:45 pm
54Ann,
Is there no moral dilemma w/ someone, or yourself, having to kill your vegetables before you eat them?
thanks for the welcome yall. I’ll be back in a week or so.
ice weasel
July 15, 2005 at 8:14 am
55Waterfowler, I think it’s interesting you feel a refutation of the point if possible with the name Dan Rather. If ever there was more smoke about less fire, the Rather incident was it.
Basically, we have an issue of a news anchor reporting something true, but using a spurious piece of evidence to do it (when in fact there was a ton of legitimate evidence supporting the contention as well). So, the conclusion by the MSM, and apparently yourself is, the issue, bush dodged the draft, suddenly becomes false.
Not the kind of logic I employ but hey, if it works for you, more power to you. This is one of the classic intellectually dishonest ways to argue a point. Poison the well.
As for conservation, an issue I didn’t address at all (aside from my extremely erratic typing skills or lack thereof) I don’t have an issue with hunters or guns. So trying to place me in some category that makes it comfortable to argue the tired old liberal versus conservative thing doesn’t work on me.
Finally, regarding your classification of the MSM, I have no idea why you would leave Faux out of it. They’re certainly just as legitimate a part of the MSM as the Washington Times or NPR. However, at least it appears we can agree that Fox is one of the most egregious prevaricators of news going. As for the rest of the MSM, for the most part, they’ve pandered to this administration in ways that boggle the mind (yes, post Tomlinson NPR included).
For exmaple, NPR reporting on the Rove issue this morning was utterly without shame. NPR “reporters” parroted the republican line of reasoning giving almost no time to the opposing side, dare I suggest, the side that seems to stick to the germane facts of the issue.
Balance isn’t achieved isn’t by reporting both “sides”. Balance is acheived reporting the facts, regardless of whose ideology those facts may offend. This is something that has been nearly totally absent from the MSM for more than ten years now (at least).
Just my take.
Murray
July 15, 2005 at 10:29 am
56Waterfowler,
I’m aware of how Trout Unlimited works and I am in favor of any attempt to protect the habitat of various species. However I would prefer to go one step farther and protect the habitat of all of the animals and plants in the environment, not just amp up the numbers of desirable game animals. My query to you was tongue in cheek (hence the emoticon) but it does have an element of real concern. I work to protect the environment because I love the animals and plants. (I worked as a naturalist in a state park for a number of years and my bike shop and 2 homes are all super energy efficient). My question is; are you in favor of conservation to help the environment or just make hunting and fishing more convenient? If it’s the latter, that’s fine, it’s your right to hunt and fish, but then any environmental work doesn’t stand on its own merit.
I don’t have a problem with hunting. I was a hunter as a young person and I allow hunting on my property. As a matter of fact I feel that this area has FAR too many deer. There are browse lines on all of the woods around, there are almost none of the standard forest floor wild flowers, I am forced to put up 5′ fencing around all of my 100 fruit and nut trees. Unlike where Harold lives 99.9% of the people around here hunt, it is by far the main religion in these parts, despite my efforts to introduce biking.
As far as the environment goes you can’t look at problems in the 70’s and say that they were caused by the Democrats and now things are better thanks to Republicans. Some of the very best environmental laws were bipartisan, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by Nixon. Democrats don’t own the environmental issues; there are plenty of good steward Republicans.
BUT, this administration at EVERY turn has worked against any environmental clean up.
Air: One of the biggest air pollutants is the sulfur emitted from coal burning plants in the Midwest. During the black out of 2003 the University of MD was doing air quality monitoring and got a quick view of what would happen with out the power plants spewing pollutants. With in 24 hours Sulfur Dioxide levels dropped by 90% and ozone declined by 50% Day time visibility increased by 25 miles due to a 70% decrease in light scattering particles. (Discover magazine Nov. 2004). The current laws order plants to clean up but allow them to do so slowly to avoid economic impact. When they do any expansion or improvements they must then also install pollution controls. This administration passed Clear Skys which says that the power companies no longer have to install pollution controls. It is painfully clear that the administration has changed a law that was working (far too slow for my tastes) to one that doesn’t work at all. The only ones who benefit are the owners of power companies. I would be willing to pay more for electricity to clear the air.
Forests:
Healthy Forests allows timber companies to cut in protected forests in the name of making them more fire resistant. Not only can they take dead wood but also live trees. They are merely given a permit to timber what we have decided was special and should not be cut. What would help would be to clear the undergrowth, it’s expensive but about all that will work now that we have prevented small burns for the past half century that would have cleared the under story with out endangering the main body of the forest. Healthy Forests doesn’t do this.
Water:
Mercury limits were set by Clinton, guess who thought these were too stringent.
Wetlands:
The administration didn’t change the laws to allow development in wetlands, they merely changed the definition of what a wetland was. Guess what way they moved the definition.
Energy:
There is a cartoon of a sinking ship in the background, dogs fill a life boat. One dog stands up and says. “I vote that we eat all of the food right now”. This is the energy policy of the Bush administration. When we are approaching a shortage of oil his view is that we should drill everywhere possible to get to the last oil we can. It would be easy for America to cut its oil intake by up to 25% with in a decade. With proper insulation, passive solar design, and simple energy saving devices most houses could reduce their energy consumption by one half. (My bike shop uses less than $100 of propane a year to heat, and with my house in MD I was able to retrofit and reduce the energy consumption by 90% over the previous owner). The only possible energy policy that will work is one that stresses conservation not glutting the market with new oil
You may or may not think that ANWAR is important, but it’s only one more example of the myopic view of this administration.
I’ve already yammered on for far too long but I could go on much more about the total disregard that this administration has for anything environmental.
Harold
July 15, 2005 at 2:08 pm
57Okay, this just in from the “You gotta be f***in’ shi**ing me” department:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B3E65822F-C874-4175-8 AC2-EE63D65F3C18%7D&siteid=google
Rove: CIA leak came from Novak
By MarketWatch
Last Update: 2:38 AM ET July 15, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Presidential confidant Karl Rove told a federal grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative from Washington columnist Robert Novak, according to a Friday media report.
Rove testified that he later informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke during the summer of 2003, the Associated Press reported, citing an unidentified person it said was briefed on Rove’s testimony.
Rove said Novak, a conservative syndicated columnist with the Chicago Sun-Times, contacted him and offered the information, the AP reported, and then published the information several days later.
ice weasel
July 15, 2005 at 5:17 pm
58Standard rove tactic, muddy the waters, poison the well. Do anything you can to divide opinion, add new “facts” from that point on, it’s only a matter of speculation and political point of view. That keeps the wingnuts happy.
All in all, all this partisan hand wringing from the so-called liberal media will mean little, it all hangs on what Fitzgerald does.
Pete IVDL
July 17, 2005 at 8:34 pm
59Sorry Cooper, I have been repairing the roof since the last mozzie broke through… I got the .303 out to finish off the litte ‘uns, but I ran out of ammo and resorted to clubbing the buggers to death. Easy peasy if you sneak up behind ‘em.
I grew up in the bush, and my scariest memories are of magpies swooping in spring. I’ve still got the scars. Magpies 1, petrified humans ZIP.
I’m glad to hear that your Bluejayosauruses are still alive and kicking the dings out of the June bugs! My all-time favourite bird (as a 7-y-o bookworm) was the Blue Jay. Remarkable plumage!
Pete IVDL
July 17, 2005 at 8:35 pm
60Oh yeah, Rove blahblahblah, Miller blahblahblah, Scot Mclellan hahahaha…
hedera
July 18, 2005 at 11:29 pm
61Pete, my favorite blue jay incident happened just south of Carmel, CA. We stopped for lunch at a restaurant with outdoor tables, and someone had left an empty iced tea glass, with lemon wedge and straw, on a nearby table. We sat and watched while a scrub jay hopped onto the glass, removed the straw and dropped it on the table, then dived back down into the glass, grabbed the lemon wedge in its beak and flew off with it. Delightful.