Skip to main content.

March 23rd, 2006

Book Burning at the Associated Press!

Basically a bureau chief in Vermont submitted a column written by one its own, Senator Patrick Leahy, on the “growing threat to our democracy by infringements imposed by the Bush administration on America’s hallowed Freedom of Information Act”, and was abruptly fired after 27 years on the job!  The man’s name is Chris Graff, someone who was “easily the most respected voice in Vermont journalism, running the AP bureau here and hosting the weekly journalist roundtable discussion on Vermont Public Television”.  His grave sin apparantly was “moving an item written by a ‘partisan politician’ without including a rebuttal from a partisan politician of a different stripe”. 

So in America today, a state bureau chief cannot run a column written by his own Senator.  The man has to search out a counter-point to the piece or whatever the Senator has to say cannot be heard.  In other words, the voters of Vermont don’t deserve to hear Leahy’s opinions on government unless certain unstated conditions are met beforehand.  Either that, or whatever Leahy has to say angers a higher-up on a personal level, and in today’s US media market, that’s enough to warrant the termination of a career 27 years in the making.

The column wasn’t written by a liberal version of Ann Coulter, it was written by the US Senator these readers happened to vote for several times already.  Leahy’s chief of staff was quoted as wondering, “how open government could be partisan?”  Well, there’s a lot at stake at this point in our republic’s history, and the amount of criticism aimed at our President has become downright inconvenient!  The very notion of our elected leaders expressing their thoughts and ideas in opposition to the President wouldn’t fly in Russia, so why should it in the United States of America?

Indeed, what’s good enough for Russia is good enough for the USA!  Just like we all learned in school growing up.  If Senator Leahy wants to be heard, he just needs to fill out the proper form, get all the required stamps, say twenty “Hail Bushs” and it wouldn’t hurt to donate $10,000 to the Republican National Committee.  It’s the system our founding fathers fought for, and the tradition of freedom our soldiers are dying to protect at this very moment…in Iraq.

First, since former USA Today president and publisher Tom Curley took over the reins at AP in 2003, things have taken a turn for the worse. Graff isn’t the first veteran AP bureau chief to get axed recently. Curley’s new Gannett-style policies and guidelines are being imposed with an iron fist by his new team of managers. There are complaints the news is being dumbed down by corporate, and the AP gold standard is being turned into cow flop.

Posted by Al Swearengen in Words

26 Comments »

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 23rd, 2006 at 8:18 pm and is filed under Words. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

26 Responses to “Book Burning at the Associated Press!”

  1. Wisenheimer says:

    I can understand the counter-balance, but things have gotten ridiculous as of late. I could go on TV saying the sky is blue, and they’d have to find someone that says its purple.

    March 23rd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
  2. Chris Austin says:

    Exactally…no such thing as a ‘fact’ anymore. Guess which side that arrangement favors…

    March 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 pm
  3. Washington says:

    Fact: You used the word apparently-which you misspelled – so either that is the reason he was fired or it isn’t – so which is it?

    Fact: Senators are partisan. It is a widely used practice to require a rebuttal. This is not something I agree with but it is a practice.

    Fact: You state “these readers happened to vote for several times already. Not everyone in Vermont voted for Pat Leahy. You can check that fact online.

    Fact: Pat Leahy is connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff-having received thousands of dollars in donations from the disgraced attorney. He appears on two lists that the DOJ is investigating.

    What’s hilarious is that you use Russia as an example to compare the US with-yet your own political philosophy, which is readily apparent on deadissue.com is socialist – or didn’t you know that? HILARIOUS.

    March 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 pm
  4. Right Thinker says:

    Your upset about this NOW????? I’ve been bringing this up with the mohamad cartoons weeks ago. What about all you talk about the financial end and no matter how small the muslim readership the newspapers were protecting their bottom lines???

    So you have a partisan attack on the President of the United States during war time and you think the anti-American Left has full run of the media to publish what ever they want? Sure, that’s how it was before 9/11 going back decades.

    Why doesn’t Leahy post his diatribe attacks on a website or the NYT or any of the 1,000 liberal media outlets across the countyr. Hell, let’s get those high school teachers to preach Leahy’s words as fact. I digress.

    This whole issue about censorship is a day late and a dollar short. Maybe the newspaper doesn’t want a reputation of being a Left wing attack vehicle where any liberal can commit yellow journalism without fear of a counterpoint. And that is what it is, fear, fear that the Right would drive an aircraft carrier through the holes in their logic. So there can’t be any competition because the liberal iideas wouldn’t hold up.

    After all the editors who got canned to writing about the mohamad cartoons, I have no tears left for a liberal political activist, 27 years or no.

    March 24th, 2006 at 1:05 am
  5. Chris Austin says:

    Washington, you use the word ‘socalist’ and then turn it into anything you want. Socialism wasn’t responsible for Stalin, the man was responsible for himself.

    During recent elections, Russian newspapers were barred from reporting on campaigns the Kremlin wanted to go one way. This was reported widely. Information was kept from the public.

    In this situation right here, the man was fired for submitting an editorial by Leahy. The higher-ups at AP did not want what Leahy had to say to get out. Information was kept from the public.

    The same type of rationalization you’re ploding through in this response is what Russian leaders go through themselves before finally deciding to keep the public in the dark about something.

    The fact that you prop up the military so often, yet don’t care in the least about the condition of what they’re fighting for here at home…that’s not hilarious, it’s SAD.

    Leahy was elected by the voters of Vermont, as was another man who RAN AS A SOCIALIST! So they don’t DESERVE to hear what their elected representatives have to say about how our government is being run? Well, according to you Washington, as long as there’s one person in Vermont who doesn’t agree, then NO, they don’t.

    How about droping the bullshit, ‘not partisan, all about the LOGIC man’, and look inwardly for a moment. This editor getting fired after 27 years…that’s your idea of America? Oh, I suppose so, as long as Republicans are in charge.

    March 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
  6. Chris Austin says:

    Right: After all the editors who got canned to writing about the mohamad cartoons, I have no tears left for a liberal political activist, 27 years or no.

    OK, so now being Republican is a religious belief? So by Leahy QUESTIONING the suppression of information by this administration, he’s on par with anyone writing cartoons that insult the religion of others…

    Let’s get real here. He’s a Vermont Senator, writing a column to be read by HIS CONSTITUENTS. To you Right, that’s the same as an editor publishing cartoons depicting a religious icon in less than a positive light?

    So basically, Bush = Jesus or Muhammad?

    What’s next?  A hundred foot tall statue of his likeness in the center of every major city across the country?  Perhaps laws passed against speaking against the President? 

    You and Washington made my points for me.  Whereas in Russia, a man like Stalin becomes an icon, a man who must practically be worshiped or people face consequences…that dies down, but Putin brings it back, Stalin AND Milosovich are viewed as heros to millions of Russians, while the current government bars newspapers from running articles about certain elections taking place.

    Here in America, you guys think it’s just fine that a 27 year veteran of the news Vermont has been reading hapily for quite a while…he’s knocked down for what?  FOR ATTEMPTING TO PUBLISH THE WORDS OF THE STATE’S OWN SENATOR! 

    We are becoming Russia…and those of you who don’t buy the connection would in a second if it were a Republican Senator and a Democratic President. 

    March 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
  7. Right Thinker says:

    Let’s get real here. He’s a Vermont Senator, writing a column to be read by HIS CONSTITUENTS. To you Right, that’s the same as an editor publishing cartoons depicting a religious icon in less than a positive light?

    So basically, Bush = Jesus or Muhammad?

    No Free Speech for Liberals=Free Speech for Conservatives

    Why are you all up in arms all of a sudden because and Liberal attack, THAT ACTUALLY GOT PRINTED, got an editor fired because he didn’t uphold the standards of the publisher? Leahy works for the voters, the voters need to hold him in check, not the other way around.

    The newspaper has it’s standards to maintain the ever important bottom line you talked about in previous posts.

    If an editor can be fired for costing a newspaper subscribers by printing cartoons then an editor can be fired for costing a nerwspaper subscribers by printing a partisan attack with no corroboration of balance.

    March 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
  8. captain_menace says:

    There are complaints the news is being dumbed down by corporate, and the AP gold standard is being turned into cow flop.

    I think the news is being dumbed down because the average viewer doesn’t understand the complexities of most international or political news stories. You don’t make ad money running coverage that is way over the average viewers head. You make money covering sex scandals and sports scores.

    The AP is a private corporation? If so they are free to hire/fire whoever they please. End of story. If liberal-minded folk have a problem with what the AP has done, pull together a buyout proposal, or rig the board. Complaining about the boss is a bit pathetic.

    March 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
  9. Chris Austin says:

    This isn’t a man working at a power plant or a bank. What’s happening now by the press being owned by the same corporations who fund the lobbyists and the campaigns, is that instead of the public being provided information, we’re instead wound up on a weekly basis over something chosen by the boardroom.

    Whatever anyone thinks of Patrick Leahy, a US Senator is somebody in our society! More of a somebody than Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olberman combined!

    We’re talking about our democracy here, and for political reasons, there are those of us who will look the other way. Not only is that NOT being a patriot, it’s in fact an example of what a Soviet was described to me as in school.

    It breaks my heart that it’s come down to this. Whereas in the 1980s we faced an enemy with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us, civil librities, rule of law and seperation of powers weren’t chucked out the window. Why now?

    What is it about 9/11 that continues to make us blind to what’s going on here?

    March 24th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
  10. captain_menace says:

    What’s happening now by the press being owned by the same corporations who fund the lobbyists and the campaigns, is that instead of the public being provided information, we’re instead wound up on a weekly basis over something chosen by the boardroom.

    Love, or hate it. That’s capitalism. The money talks.

    Whatever anyone thinks of Patrick Leahy, a US Senator is somebody in our society!

    But that doesn’t mean that he has the right to use a corporation that is beyond his control as a broadcast system for his message, if that corporation doesn’t wish to be used in such a fashion (isn’t that what CSPAN is for?). This senator probably spent a lot of money during his campaign to get his message out. If his message for today is that important he should find a willing media outlet, or pay for ad space like everyone else. I’m sure he makes enough to pay for it.

    If the shoe were on the other foot I would have no problem with that either. If a journalist was fired for broadcasting a DeLay defense against the wishes of the media outlet owner that would be alright with me.

    In all fairness though I do think that conservatives have the upper hand here due to the nature of business and conservatism… hand/glove. I have to laugh when conservatives complain about the liberal media conspiracy. A couple of problems with that… 1) I don’t think the media has it together enough to conspire to anything, 2) I think the media focuses on the negatives (in Iraq and domestically) simply because they make for better TV (stuff blowing up exciting, stuff being built yawn).

    March 24th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
  11. Chris Austin says:

    If anything, this episode with the AP should put to rest, once and for all, the tale of liberal media bias.

    What it reminds me of is when a guy like General Shinsecki tells Rumsfeld how he feels about what it will take in terms of troops strength to secure Iraq…fired.

    The official who contradicted Rumsfeld’s claims that the war would only cost 5 billion…fired.

    It’s the same thing. If you don’t say what they want you to say, you’re fired and they move on. Facts, truth, expertise…it’s all out the window with this crew.

    Too many cowards in this administration, backed up by rich cowards who’re happy about having their taxes cut. 

    March 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
  12. captain_menace says:

    Washington:

    Why did you respond to my post on your blog, but you didn’t allow my post to be viewed by others? I thought I was doing you a favor. Your blog is a ghost town.

    And you’re off the mark. I’m not a liberal. I’m more conservative than liberal. That doesn’t mean I won’t argue with conservatives when I hear them parroting talk radio.

    I respect Chris here for allowing me to post without “moderating” my posts. That is a sign of confidence on his part. It shows that he is secure in his beliefs, and that he is tolerant of varying view points. This characteristic is more important than whether you happen to be more liberal or more conservative.

    You on the other hand don’t seem very confident in your own ability to debate, or successfully argue your point of view. I’ve been persuaded by conservatives before, but apparently you don’t feel secure enough to attempt the art of persuasion. Pity.

    March 25th, 2006 at 12:09 am
  13. captain_menace says:

    Too many cowards in this administration, backed up by rich cowards who’re happy about having their taxes cut.

    Agreed. A sincere politician seems almost too good to be true these days.

    I will give Bush a little credit for his appearance before a crowd in Cincinatti the other day. He fielded some tough questions, but of course he didn’t REALLY answer them. Don’t they call that the Potomac two-step?

    Anyway, he was asked a question just recently that I truly relished (they showed it on the Daily Show). Possibly the best question I’ve ever heard put to him. It went something like this…

    “Do you think the events going on in Iraq right now are an indicator of impending Armageddon (in the biblical sense), and if not, why not?”

    How do you answer that question? Bush was stumped. The clip didn’t last long enough to hear his answer.

    March 25th, 2006 at 12:17 am
  14. Chris Austin says:

    Stewart hit the nail on the head during that segment. I heard that on the radio initially, and it got me to thinking about how ‘hardcore’ Bush really is when it comes to the people he panders to politically.

    My gut tells me that he used those people, but at the end of the day, he’s not nearly enough of a nutcase to buy into the ‘end of days’ talk.

    Of course, if he continues to install oil lobbyists in positions where their job is to censor climate scientists…he may go down in history as the leader who oversaw the turning point.

    Stewart hit the nail right on the head though…the chatter in his head…’eh, how do I answer this question without pissing off my base?’

    On the Rolling Barrage comment, I’ve been hearing this from a few others as well. A couple days ago they had a post up that said they wouldn’t be moderating comments in the future, but I don’t think that has happened.

    There were a couple of mine that never got posted, or there would be a new batch approved but not the one that I had written…that kind of stuff is shady. Especially when your words are used in one of RB’s posts…that happened to me, and my responses were in limbo for far too long. I say, if someone else’s words from comments in another area are going to be used in a post, the author of those words should be notified and provided a chance to respond in that venue.

    I earned the nickname “the veteran” and from there was told in several ways how I was…well, an idiot I guess.

    Kind of plays into the theme of what I’ve been saying about the ‘free flow of information’ and how it’s such a huge aspect American life…at least my version of American life, how I envision it should be.

    March 25th, 2006 at 1:14 am
  15. Washington says:

    Chris and Menace:

    I received some very abusive comments that were signed Chris and Menace. These weren’t disagreements-but rather they were way over the top. I’ll admit to getting upset about it.

    Yesterday when I attempted to allow comments to go through I lost 39 posts and about 29 comments. I asked someone to look at it and they pointed out that the comments that were from Chris and Menace had the same ip – and it didn’t match previous comments made by you guys. So it was someone screwing around with me.

    Thus, I apologize for getting upset. Under the circumstances, and owing to the nature of the comments, anyone would have been upset. That’s how it was…

    As for all the other comments I am unable to stop moderating until the code is worked out.

    Menace:

    My blog is hardly a ghostown – it is quite popular and is one of three that I blog on. Your appearance there is appreciated but if you have other blogs to visit feel free. My readership is growing.

    Chris:

    Too bad about BC – I wish you the best!

    March 25th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
  16. captain_menace says:

    Washington:

    No problem here. My skin is fairly thick, and I’ve been 86′d from so many blogs that I don’t take it personally at all. I’d be interested in seeing what those nasties were sending to you in my name (you can bleep out the profanity). I’m always up for a good chuckle.

    Good luck on your increased readership.

    March 25th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
  17. Chris Austin says:

    Washington, same here – getting booted is in some cases a compliment. Rest assured, none of the obscene comments would have been from me, and from what I know of captain, wouldn’t have been him either.

    I’ve had this site bombarded by storm troopers before, and it’s a bitch…if you pin down who it is and know it’s someone from this webring, let me know.

    In the meantime, you probably want to pull your “going to stop moderating comments as well” post, put a crossout through that sentence and update that post with what you laid out here. Lurkers abound, perhaps even some working for the government…integrity is like the ice caps, once it breaks off, there’s no turning back, folks stay away forever.

    The goal should be to lose the moderation altogether, and if you’re getting spammed, locking out IPs and certain words (ie: putting swear words into automatic moderation)…for me it’s a constant struggle, as it is for most bloggers. Good luck w/ that.

    March 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
  18. Right Thinker says:

    Chris Austin says:

    It breaks my heart that it’s come down to this. Whereas in the 1980s we faced an enemy with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us, civil librities, rule of law and seperation of powers weren’t chucked out the window. Why now?

    What about two months ago when a real freedom of the press issue came about????? One guy get fired for screwing over the newpaper and the readers and your on valium and listening to the Cure. But when the entire world is intimidated from exercising free speech your all “gotta protect the newpaper’s bottom line” What gives???? It doesn’t make any sense.

    This guy was trying to promote an agenda while excluding the ideas of a large segment of our population. Why are you shedding a tear for this guy???

    March 27th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
  19. Right Thinker says:

    A senior Anglican priest was forced to resign as editor of a Welsh church magazine because he allowed an image of Mohammed to be published alongside an article calling for tolerance among all faiths, according to the Guardian.

    The Venerable Meurig Llwyd Williams, archdeacon of Bangor, included a cartoon showing Mohammed sitting on a cloud with God and Buddha and being told: “Don’t complain — we’ve all been caricatured here.” It was published in YLlan, a magazine with a circulation of about 400.

    All copies of the magazine have since been collected and destroyed. The publication was called “a gross error of judgment,” and an investigation has been launched.

    “Despite the publication’s small circulation, we are concerned about the possibility of causing any offence to the Muslim community in Wales – with whom the Church in Wales has an excellent relationship – as a result of the reproduction of this cartoon,” said Sion Brynach, a spokesman for the church.

    It is still happening all around the world and you want me to be outraged about a liberal activist that got what was coming to him???

    Liberals own the media, the least they can do is appear somewhat unbiased rather than steamroll the public with their partisan attacks. Seriously, where is the quality of journalsim America should be proud of?

    March 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
  20. Chris Austin says:

    Right – they’re not the same thing. The Freedom of Information Act was passed in the 60s (pretty sure), and without it, we’d never find out half of what we do. For the sake of our democracy, it’s essential that the public have access to information the government would rather keep secret.

    I consider an act of congress to be 100 times more relevant than whether or not a newspaper runs the religious cartoon.

    One has to do with seperation of powers, the other is a matter of taste. The obvious ‘partisan’ element here is that the party in charge would rather the discussion of ‘seperation of powers’ never enter the discussion. To me though, it’s not ‘partisan’, it’s simply ‘American’.

    Right, what did you learn in school growing up about our government, about how it works, why it’s lasted so long while the governments of other countries tend to fold periodically?

    It’s the design. Three equal branches. If you asked a Republican how valuable this construct was back in the 80s, or during Clinton’s first term, they’d agree. Now that Republicans are in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches, a power grab is not worth discussing.

    March 27th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
  21. Chris Austin says:

    Furthermore – the idea that America is at war against Islam is detrimental to our future prosperity. Right, radical Islam is not going away based on anything we do or say about it.

    You believe that we are at war with this religious culture, and let’s say that’s what 95% of Americans think. If that’s true, then why is it a positive step in your mind to publish cartoons that make fun of the prophet?

    It’s not cowardly to not print them. In fact, if we are at war with these people, if our GOAL is to make them realize how ridiculous their beliefs are, then…in your opinion, making fun of them is a good way to go about it?

    Personally, if that was even America’s problem…cultural matters from across the globe…neither bombs nor insults would be the first thing I’d reach for to change their minds.

    It only seems like our problem because of 9/11, but if US bases weren’t on Saudi soil to begin with, 9/11 never would have happened.

    I know it’s difficult to accept the fact that we don’t have the right to do whatever we want in all instances, that our military goals shouldn’t necessarily be respected by everyone else in the world…it’s hard to wrap our heads around that concept, and so, to deal with the fact that our own actions led to 9/11, we create this false conflict with ‘radical islam’…

    When it wasn’t that radical Islam flew planes into the WTC…it was ‘pissed off Arabs who wanted us out of their neighboorhoods’ that led to this.

    Our being in Iraq today is not a good thing, regardless of what the military industrial complex wants us to think about it. Make no mistake…they’re in it to make money, and if that means getting us riled up about ‘radical islam’, then so be it.

    At the end of the day though, what can we actually do to fix this problem? Because invading a Middle Eastern country and occupying them…that hasn’t worked.

    Right, are you suggesting that we simply need to insult them more?

    March 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
  22. captain_menace says:

    Liberals own the media, the least they can do is appear somewhat unbiased rather than steamroll the public with their partisan attacks. Seriously, where is the quality of journalsim America should be proud of?

    You’re full of it Right. The media spews corporate America’s doctrine, regardless of whether you think they are right or left. They sell ad space. That’s it in a nutshell. Their programming is based on what their “programmers” think America wants to see (and what advertisers will pay for). Not some mythical left-wing agenda. If you want to bitch about what’s on TV, or even print for that matter bitch at the corporations and businesses that advertise on those media outlets. It’s about ad revenues, and not about conspiracies. Take a Business 101 class, it would do you some good.

    Given all of that. I think Muslims are off their rocker. I have absolutely no use for a religion that cannot tolerate non-believers. If they don’t like the cartoons they shouldn’t look at them. Either Muslims need to become a lot more tolerant, or they should be prepared for some SERIOUS warfare in the future.

    March 27th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
  23. Right Thinker says:

    I consider an act of congress to be 100 times more relevant than whether or not a newspaper runs the religious cartoon.

    Ahhh, now were getting somewhere. In the Chris School of COnstitutional law Freedom of Speech comes in levels of importance and the level of importance is set my the liberal agenda. So a liberal partisan attack article with no chance for the target to present their side holds the highest protection under Chris’1st Ammendment but anything religious based is about a G or and H on the Free Speech-o-meter.

    Are you serious that speech comes in levels?? One form can be 100 times more important than another?

    For the sake of our democracy, it’s essential that the public have access to information the government would rather keep secret.

    Or it’s just a loophole for the NYT to alert Amreica’s enemies to our security plans. Besides, what does this have to do with anything. Were talking partisan politics here, not freedom of information.

    One has to do with seperation of powers, the other is a matter of taste.

    No, one has to do with Leahy bolstering his political base before an upcoming election and the other is the fundamental right to free speech, free religion and a touch of free association but mostly freedom of the press. I’d go for saving the 1st Ammendments over re-electing liberals any day. I don’t recall a right for liberals to smear Republicans before an upcoming election.

    Now that Republicans are in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches, a power grab is not worth discussing.

    What power grab??? Probably the reason it isn’t worth discussing is because it doesn’t exist. Do you have any evidence of unprecidented taking of power or changes allowed by Congress that increase the Presidential powers?

    Right, what did you learn in school growing up about our government, about how it works

    I learned to look for empirical evidence and not to adhere to partisan conspiracy theories. Something a bit more solid, please.

    Furthermore – the idea that America is at war against Islam is detrimental to our future prosperity. Right, radical Islam is not going away based on anything we do or say about it.

    Islam came to us, Islam is at war with us. As long as you falsly imply that we went after islam the longer you will be in the dark on world events.

    If that’s true, then why is it a positive step in your mind to publish cartoons that make fun of the prophet?

    They don’t make fun of the prophet, but if they did, who cares? The 1st Ammendment, which you seem to selectively enforce, doesn’t say anything about making fun of something. If anything, the right to Parody is encouraged.

    When it wasn’t that radical Islam flew planes into the WTC…it was ‘pissed off Arabs who wanted us out of their neighboorhoods’ that led to this.

    Bullshit, this was the beginning of a campaign to restore the Caliph and install Sharia as the world body of law. Being in their neighborhood was just a coincidence because of Saddam and this whole Jihad is part of a larger campaign. By this logic WW2 was just about one day, Dec 7, 1941.

    At the end of the day though, what can we actually do to fix this problem? Because invading a Middle Eastern country and occupying them…that hasn’t worked.

    It seems like it’s working pretty good, Saddam is gone, Al Quesda gone, Syria, Lybia, etc. playing fair. Only Iran and N. Korea remain the worlds assholes.

    Right, are you suggesting that we simply need to insult them more?

    If defending ourselves is an insult to them than I am all for insulting them, 24/7 – 365. Why should we grab our ankles to help spread their culture to the detriment of ours?

    The media spews corporate America’s doctrine, regardless of whether you think they are right or left. They sell ad space. That’s it in a nutshell.

    I would agree with you to a certain extent and that is liberals, who are plentiful in media, take the opportunity to fill the void left by corporate to fill the airwaves with partisan bile. While corporations only care about their message and product, they rarely care what happens with the rest of the airtime.

    March 27th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
  24. Al Swearengen says:

    I can’t tell if this is spam or not…no link in the comment, yet just like spam tends to be, it’s posted in an old thread w/ the content of an unrelated topic

    October 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
  25. Nick says:

    If you put your cursor over his name you can see its linked to a website, spam indeed.

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
  26. Al Swearengen says:

    That bastard…thing is, I’ve had several friends with that name…

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>