Powered by TypePad

« For Able Danger Aficianados | Main | Keeping An Eye On Russert »

November 28, 2005


Rick Ballard

"Well, I'm partial to the idea they ain't saying what they could and should."

That they could is undeniable. That they should presumes a duty that does not and has never existed. They are employees hired by corporations to generate return to owners. Their trade has no set of enforceable ethical standards and therefore there is nothing to measure against to reach "should".

"Should" elevates them to an undeserved status. Their job is to generate enough interest in their medium to be able to sell advertising space. They are not even doing very well at that.


Oh yes, there are oughtas without rules. They should tell the truth. Of course, that's what readers and advertisers should want, too.


Jim E

Pretty sure I said DC was incestuous. My point was/is this selective outrage over Luskin and V-Nov being friends is laughable and the notion that reporters should recuse themselves from the on-set of a story everytime they are friendly with a subject of a story is silly because no reporter would be able to report.

You guys can selectively take this ONE to a new level of scandal but in doing so you look like hypocrites because DC reporters rub elbows with DEMs every bit if not more than with Repubs.

So where are the glowing love letters V-Nov has written to Luskin and Rove in the pages of Time Mag? On the otherhand, after Campbell's most recent wiffle ball session with Wilson did she disclose that the Wilson had been personal guests in her home? NO. Is that a crime? NO.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, I bet dollars to doughnuts that Time Mag and V-Nov USED that relationship more to their benefit and again, I'm sorry but I haven't read the pro-Rove Pro-Conservative angle in their stories. That they used this is standard operating procedure that goes both ways.

I suspect V-Nov doesn't even know what she said, but if it is noteworthy and not a delaying tactic then one could presume that what she did say was probably not good for Matt Cooper. If that is the case and say Matt Cooper, whom there appears to sudden animosity towards, LEFT out information that would have HELPED Rove, will we mad at Cooper or mad at V-Nov?

Rick Ballard


It is what readers and advertisers want. The fact that they don't get it may have something to do with declining circulation and viewership.


The problem with giving out information during the period of a heated election's rhetoric is that the information is incomplete.

The investigation has not been finished yet. Other facts have not been revealed. Any specific point (such as one of Cooper's sources was Rove) is completely devoid of context.

Jumping to conclusions, guilty unless proven innocent, are facts of rhetorical life. I believe anyone who thinks these 'facts' should have been revealed then is being dishonest and is not really looking for any 'truth' because one 'fact' devoid of all context could very well sway an election. 'Truth' be damned.

If one wishes to win dishonestly, then one desires these types of incomplete revelations.

richard mcenroe

Jeff -- Robert Scheer.


Jeff points to the following questions Fitzgerald asked Woodward as examples of questions that might have created problems for his indictment of Libby, and which weren't essentially required to be asked by the circumstances:

He asked if I had possibly planned to ask questions about what I had learned about Wilson's wife with any other government official.

Fitzgerald [asked] if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment.

To me, considering Fitzgerald already knew Woodward had talked to Libby, these questions are unavoidable; at least for any prosecutor with even a shread of integrity. Fitzgerald wasn't providing Woodward with every opportunity to throw a huge wrench into his case against Libby, he was dealing with a situation he couldn't avoid.

jason davies

did you know this site is a googlewhack???



You can complain to the FCC about Don Imus. I filed a complaint online. I may be contacting the NAACP and other organizations to see if they will follow suit in filing a FCC complaint - maybe if they get enough fines they will pull the show. Here's the link to the FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html The company that owns wfan is http://www.infinitybroadcasting.com

Pass it along. Let's get this show off the air!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.