Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

ahem.
 

Well, I ASSUME a few others I know of strive to be fair and objective, and such. :-)
 

That's a little better. I was thinking of some Confederate memorial issues. I guess that's not really a problem with objectivity and stuff, just defining the scope of a beat, I suppose.
 

Thanks :)

This will be interesting to follow.
 

Trixie. Now, you know the difference betwixt a dadgum column and a news story!
 

Yeah, I know. Just had to give you some static. I was bored for a second.
 

Bored. A-hem! You should be too busy to be bored! :-)
 

Sheesh... it was just for a second.... :^(
I'm workin'... I'm workin'....
 

After this much time off from a full-time gig, can Trixie honestly call herself a journalist still?

:-)
 

GRRRRR!!!
 

LOL. Now, you kids simmer down! Teditor, yer liable to draw back a nub!!!
 

Seems to me the point being made by the AIM guy has little to do with fairness. It also sounds like the WashPo reporter was "accurate," to the extent he quoted his source. It sounds to me as though the source may be suspect, however.

Anybody think there is a movement afoot to discredit ALL major media outlets, one by one? Maybe this is the next form of terrorism ... in the sense of sneaking up on Americans' tendency to take things for granted that they will always be safe and sound, and yanking the rug right out from under us.
 

I don't see this as an issue of fairness and accuracy, I see it as an issue of laziness, just like in Dan Rather's case.

I bet what "happens every day" is that trusted sources pull something over on otherwise fairly thorough reporters.

I bet this was a case of somebody told somebody who had told somebody, and therefore it was deemed accurate, etc.

I mean, duh, it's a political issue! It's a political issue when the President tries to get his own brother, acting as governor of Florida, to get custody of some woman because the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case! Have you EVER heard of anything more nespotic than that?? Megalomantic? Are the Bushes going to go visit her? Turn her every 2 hours? Mix that special formula for her feeding tube? Or would they turn around and hire her mother to keep on doing that?
 

Hey Anonymous, and just how do you know the President asked the Governor to do that? Hmm? You've also got your timeline all wrong. Something causing inaccuracy seems to be going around.
 

Well, accuracy is one thing. Fairness is another. And the truth is another. I have often accurately quoted people who were wrong, misinformed or worse. My favorite never-used attribution is "... blah blah blah," he said, lying. Next up: " ... blah blah blah," he said, ignorantly. You get the idea.

Wildcats 41, OSU 38 at the half.
"GO POKES," I said, hopefully.
 

President Bush has been widely quoted in recent weeks and leading up to the issues that happened this week as being in favor of life -- he was specifically responding to questions about the Schiavo case. He intended to get involved.

Here's how it went down most recently:
Monday, March 21 -- Congress passes Senate Compromise
Bill 686

early morning, Tuesday, March 22 -- President Bush signs it into law

Wednesday, March 23 -- appeals court decision upholds Florida federal court ruling (implying the federal law may be unconstitutional); Jeb Bush seeks state custody of Schiavo (this because other avenues had been exhausted)

I think the record speaks for itself.

Two sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/cassel.schiavo/

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
 

The record does speak, but it doesn't say anything about the President asking the Governor of Florida to take custody of Terri because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, as you assert.

It shows on the miami.edu site timeline that the Governor sought custody on March 23, and the Supreme Court didn't deny to hear the case (again) until March 24.

Then there's the case of Cassel on CNN.com being too biased to offer an opinion that isn't suspect. She repeatedly harps on the Congress for bringing religion into the bill.

There isn't one thing in S.686 that refers to religion. Simply noting the time of year (Easter, Holy Week, Palm Sunday) in which all this happened during debate means nothing. In the official bill, none of that is referred to. It's no worse than the time Hillary Clinton referred to "the season of Ramadan" asking for peace while she was First Lady. They open Congress with prayer, for crying out loud, so what's the big deal with mentioning a religious time of year on the floor?

(No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.)