Let me begin, Mr. Miller, by clearing the air. I am not a liberal.
Lawyers have a saying: if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you do not have the facts, argue the merits; and, if you do not have the facts or the merits, argue like hell. I thoroughly enjoyed your precious, yet insipid, metaphor about forests and trees and pieces of bark. You do realize it proves nothing. Allow me to extend your analogy with even more meaningless drivel: I have discovered pine beetles growing in the bark of some trees and a controlled burn may be necessary to save the rest of the forest. Please, for your own safety, try to avoid the burn area as you enjoy your walk.
Aside from the poetic distraction, you say about me, "you attempt to belittle and grade based on minutiae..." How gracious of you to minimize your own errors! I prefer to call them details and, I am told, attention to detail can mean the difference between success and failure. You, on the other hand, have attempted to belittle and degrade me based on mere prejudice and paranoia.
I wonder how you would react to someone fabricating quotes and attributing them to you in an effort to score points in an argument? Would you call it an innocent, minuscule grammatical mistake or start ranting about libel?
http://rs834.pbsrc.com/albums/zz264/Murdercut3/IMG_20170121_034509_zpsra2erxj1.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip this is a picture of the girl he claims to be in love with, that's what he did to her on Thursday, the last time he saw her.
Here's the problem with the liberal ideology...and this is why Donald Trump won the election handily...you attempt to belittle and grade based on minutiae, focusing on the bark of a tree versus the forest. And you gloat that you've just hammered home your bark point and so you pat yourself on the back as the forest burns about you. By all means "Mr K," you won. I'm not qualified to have a grammar argument with you. Good day, sir. I'm going to go for walk in the forest.
One more thing. You insist, Mr. Miller, "I in no way have implied in any way..." Nice redundancy.
"...(and this is a direct quote)..." Excuse me for pausing here, but I have to laugh. Having erroneously implied that quotation marks do not necessarily indicate a direct quotation, you are forced to add this totally unnecessary parenthetical comment to clarify your meaning to your bewildered readers.
"...that I 'have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!'"
Correct use of quotation marks, Mr. Miller. You get a B. It would have been an A if you had left out the totally unnecessary parenthetical comment.
Now let's examine your claim. First, I feel I must point out the word "authority" has more than one meaning. When I used the word I did not mean "power to influence or command." I meant "an individual cited or appealed to as an expert," as in a professor of biology who is an authority on the mating rituals of mammals. (Definitions cited from [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary…]).
You do presume to criticize the media harshly, which does imply that you consider yourself highly qualified in matters of writing and reporting. I merely pointed out the irony that you yourself are busy violating the most rudimentary rules of reporting even as you presume to lecture your betters.
Mr. Miller consults his crystal ball and tells me, "It appears that you would be fine with the collusion between press and your favored government official..." Apparently being libeled yourself, as you claim, has taught you nothing. I have not stated any opinion about "collusion" one way or another. As I have stated quite clearly, I am against suppression of the press by your favorite government official, Mr. Miller.
If you are truly interested, ask me nicely, and I will tell you my opinion of collusion between press and government officials.
You write of the press, Mr. Miller, "they have the right to do whatever they want, but shouldn't expect not to be called out when they publish clearly false and deceitful narratives." I do not recall objecting to members of the media being "called out" for publishing lies. I did object to them being "slapped down" if they don't "behave."
My only Son was taken away from ne when he was eight years old by the Colorado Sorings Judicial System, corrupt GAL, Attorneys abd Judges! This happened in 1992! After my Son returned from visiting his Father fir the Summer, he had nightmares and tried to molest the neighbor girl! Thus happened when he was 5! I took him to a counselor and he disclosed to her that horrible things that his father and new girlfriend had done to him! The GAL Marcy Gouge convinced the judge that i had brain washed my child! I lost custody and they sent my Son to live with his Father permanently! I was never proven to have harmed my child in anyway! I fled with him to protect him but was caught two years later and charged with Felony Kidnapping of my own child! He is 30 years old now! He doesn't work, he uses drugs and he is terrified to leave! DHS destroyed my entire family to line their pockets with money! I need an attorney with guts! I want to sue each person involved, dhs, el paso county and the City! Because now my son can tell the story as an aadult. I was unaware that this injustice wad still occuring here! I though it was just those people that were involved then!
You claim, Mr.Miller, "I feel well-qualified to repudiate your expectation that the press should get a pass when they lie and deceive..." Exactly where did I write anything even remotely resembling that? What I actually wrote was that you should not get a pass when you appear to lie and deceive.
You continue, "I falsely assumed (and apologize for making such assumption) it would have been quite obvious to anyone who read the article that I was not intending a direct quote..." Then why did you put it between quotation marks? "However, my punctuation implied it..." The quotation marks "implied" that your words were "not" intended to be taken as a direct quote?
As I was trying to point out in my previous post, you seem to know nothing about the rudiments of grammar, but that has not stopped you from criticizing people whose business is writing. It has not even slowed you down.
Absolutely and categorically wrong: I would defend to the death against censorship of the press--that's embedded in the Constitution which is the basis of the Oath of Office for any uniformed member of the military. However, having been on the receiving end of dozens of libelous smears and lies in the local media [Pam was always fair and honest even if we don't share the same political views on many issues.], I feel well-qualified to repudiate your expectation that the press should get a pass when they lie and deceive to support the side they've not so subtly chosen. Accountability is necessary for both the government and for the press who has the sacred responsibility for integrity in holding the government accountable--not in political grandstanding or pushing a narrative.
Also, I falsely assumed (and apologize for making such assumption) it would have been quite obvious to anyone who read the article that I was not intending a direct quote, but rather the implied message from their proclamation. However, my punctuation implied it and I will be happy to insert "the implied message in the text of their threat was to "shape up..." because that is clearly the message they put out--though theirs was longer.
Here is the DIRECT quote: "But while you have every right to decide your ground rules for engaging with the press, we have some, too. It is, after all, our airtime and column inches that you are seeking to influence. We, not you, decide how best to serve our readers, listeners, and viewers. So think of what follows as a backgrounder on what to expect from us over the next four years."
It's the First Amendment--they have the right to do whatever they want, but shouldn't expect not to be called out when they publish clearly false and deceitful narratives. I in no way have implied in any way (and this is a direct quote) that I "have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!" I am certainly hopeful they would have integrity in what they do and, just as I would expect the same from the government for a lack of integrity, they should expect to be held accountable when they are deliberately deceitful to produce a narrative (kind of like the Time Magazine reporter who was so eager to falsely report on the removal of MLK bust from the Oval office, followed by numerous retweets from other outlets). It appears that you would be fine with the collusion between press and your favored government official/candidate a la the collusion between the Clinton Campaign and debate moderators and editors who allowed the final word to be given by the campaign and agreed to to cover issues in a favorable way.
It is understandable the frustration felt by an industry whose peddling of a narrative is finally now receiving the level of trust it deserves--the lowest in history. They did it to themselves. The main-stream media is no longer trusted as the gatekeeper of the truth.
According to you, Mr. Miller, "the Columbua [sic] Journalism group cited in this article made an unveiled direct threat to 'shape up or we'll fill our airtime and column space with revenge because you're mean.'"
You are pretending to quote the Columbia Journalism group, but a search of the article shows that they never use the word "revenge" at all, not even once. So, you make up false quotes and attribute them to those you oppose, and you think you have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!--which, by the way, is the very definition of censorship! In fact, your entire post is nothing but a thinly veiled argument in favor of censorship.
Video on the
PFCs in the Widefield Aquifer: https://youtu.be/Zur7J4tgFp4
Really...with the Putin? Why doesn't somebody start talking about the CONTENT of the emails supposedly hacked by Putin's direct orders? I don't care if Osama Bin Laden came back from the dead and released those emails. And frankly, an unclassified server on Hillary's end with a Gmail account on Podesta's end...do you really believe it would take a crackpot KGB hacker to obtain those files? No matter...nobody has refuted them as false and they painted a very clear picture of corruption. The Russians didn't do the corruption in those emails.
Shall we all be buying the fake Russian dossier also pushed by CNN? The emails furthermore painted a systematic receiving of marching orders from the Clinton Campaign for some members of the press who became lapdogs for access versus the watchdogs upon which the republic depends. Why doesn't anyone discuss those media integrity fails? Instead the focus is on who exposed it. By all means dig for the TRUTH. But the Columbua Journalism group cited in this article made an unveiled direct threat to "shape up or we'll fill our airtime and column space with revenge because you're mean." That's not dedication to seeking and publishing the truth, it's political posturing--something the press should not be in the business of doing.
All this twaddle about truth versus transparency is nothing but a smokescreen. The real problem is that Putin's paramour is a pathological liar, and when exposed, he muddies the waters with bogus claims that the media are the ones who are lying. Immediately, his most fanatic followers (the true deplorables) begin campaigns of personal harassment and intimidation against individual reporters. This is naked censorship.
You are both saying the same thing - just that one of you is arriving at (what I see as) the truth coming from the east, and one coming to it from the west :)
I'm so tired of the word "transparency". But I don't find "truth" in it's lists of synonyms. If politicians won't provide it (transparency), then reporters must dig for it (truth). At it's best, the press must be tireless, fearless, as well as tiresome and fearsome until the truth is revealed. For these qualities, journalists will be both lauded and decried AT THE SAME TIME. As my dad used to say, "It all depends on whose ox is getting gored."
All candidates are welcome to let us know about campaign events that we can then tell our readers are happening. The Independent plans to endorse candidates as the election draws nearer. The filing deadline is Monday, Jan. 23.
LOL that may very well be Joel. There was a lot of butt smooching as well but there always is with those in power. I just hope Im wrong and this Country does not go off the deep end under Trump. We have been on the edge since Clinton was The President but what the hell Im about done anyway. But I hope to leave my kids and granbabies with the same freedoms Ive known. Its been good for the most part.
Too bad the readers and the editors of the Independent are so weak and ineffectual. A paper with any influence would not only identify the best competitors, but would begin supporting them with both articles and solicitations for public events, social gatherings, and donations.
Also...for every reporter that said "it stank," there would be 10 that said it was lovely and fragrant. :)
I think we agree on the necessity of the press. I disagree that the press has been after Obama. Had the same issues arisen with anyone else, those stories wouldn't have taken years to pick up steam. I believe the narrative that Trump is "moving the press out of his way" is narrative fabricated by some of the media who have been called out about their bias. To expand the access of the press outside the 40-50 elite in the WH press corps to hundreds as has been discussed would be a good thing. That may not make those 40-50 elitists happy, but it should make Americans happy. I'll withhold my judgment to see what actually transpires and if, as you suggest, Trump "moves the press out of his way," I'll be right next to you in expressing outrage.
I think there were many many out cries over the last 8 years. Many many things were uncovered after the fact and then reported on after the press was lied to. As they have with past admins. Look at the Clinton debacle, the Bengazi debacle as well as the E mail crap. There has been no pass. Those are a big part of why I didnt vote for her. Hell Obama couldnt fart without some reporter saying it stank. I think he has been the most scrutinized President in my lifetime. There should never be a pass for anyone that represents the People of this Country no matter what party a person support's. I didnt vote for Trump simply because he has not shown me hes trust worthy or knows what hes getting into. Now that hes trying to move the press out of his way is just another reason to make me wonder what hes going to be or is hiding. Frankly that should worry every American. But again thats my opinion.
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation