Bombing Al Jazeera was a funny joke
The British government has filed a "gag" against the UK's Mirror to prevent them from publishing further articles regarding the leaked 5 page transcript where Tony Blair talks Bush out of a plan to bomb the Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar. Basically, this is being done to prevent the publication of the actual transcript. Perhaps the BBC spin that it was a joke might be undone if people actually saw the documents. (Okay, Michael. You win. I will no longer defend the BBC.)
I will reiterate my observations from yesterday. If this was a very poor joke by Bush, then why did the transcript of this exchange go on for five pages? Do you really see Bush and Blair "fake arguing" back and forth for a couple of minutes? OR, does Blair think that Bush is so f***ing crazy that Bush meant it as a joke, and Blair took him seriously? Now that's scary.
I will reiterate my observations from yesterday. If this was a very poor joke by Bush, then why did the transcript of this exchange go on for five pages? Do you really see Bush and Blair "fake arguing" back and forth for a couple of minutes? OR, does Blair think that Bush is so f***ing crazy that Bush meant it as a joke, and Blair took him seriously? Now that's scary.
posted by mikevotes at
1:13 PM
4 Comments:
Hey Mike,
First I just wanted to wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving.
Second, if it were a joke, it was worse than Reagan pretending to hit the red buttom and nuke the eastern part of the planet. Not funny in either situation.
I tend to believe that w was serious. It meshes so well with the surronding info.
take care :)
By
Anonymous, at 8:28 PM
they have bombed them before
By
michael the tubthumper, at 8:58 AM
Mike...
Why do you think it is we have to learn so much about what our president is doing from BBC, Guardian, The Independent, etc.?
By the way, I've added a link to your site on northlandliberal. Thanks for the commentary you provide here.
By
Site Manager, at 9:52 AM
Duke,
That's a good question. I think there's a couple of reasons. Britain's top selling papers are closer to the "tabloid" format which tends to make it's headlines far more shocking to sell papers which means that reporters work a bit harder for that type of underground story. Also, they tend to have more papers with declared political positions so I think those papers are more likely to research and publish stories which would be considered "less safe" here.
Lastly, and probably most importantly, has been the change in the US media. Once a haven for true muckraking and shoe leather reporting, the corporatization of US media has created a tendency towards celebrity journalists. If I'm a whitehouse correspondent,for instance, it is decidedly against my interest to report a story critical of the Bush administration. If I uncover something they don't like, suddenly, I have no more access or sources.
In short order, because I can no longer deliver information, my network would replace me as whitehouse correspondent, transferring me to a decidedly less prestigious and less compensated position. Suddenly, my job is less secure, my chances at promotion are dented, and my income would quickly drop.
So, true reporting actually works against my personal economic and lifestyle interests. Reporters used to be in the noble business of working for their readers. The celebrity journalist rarely displays such ethics. Travelling in the money and power circles has now become the destination and purpose of alot of reporters.
So, breaking a half developed story on White Phosphorus, for instance, risks everything.
Too cynical?
By
mikevotes, at 1:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home