Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Catfight! | Cop Killers »

Monday, November 13, 2006

The Morning News

posted by on November 13 at 6:50 AM

Iraqi prime minister tells US troops to get out; Bush responds with vague promises of a “fresh approach.” (He also stands by his man John Bolton for U.N. ambassador, despite overwhelming opposition from world and Congressional leadership.)

Always in touch with what’s really important, Bush tells US public to be “proud” they were given a chance to vote in a time of war.

Good news: Habeas may return!

Meanwhile, as McCain and Lieberman call for sending more troops to Iraq, the new Democratic leadership pushes for “phased redeployment” within four to six months.

Speaking of Lieberman, is it weird that his opponents in 2000 and 2006 got the exact same number of votes?

Anti-war Rep. John Murtha emerges as new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s choice for House Majority Leader.

New data show that global fossil-fuel emissions have increased four times as quickly in the last five years as they did during the preceding five years .

FEMA official takes a dunk to apologize for mishandling Katrina. 45 minutes? They should have kept him in there for 15 months.

RSS icon Comments

1

I actually thought the Bush quote about being proud was kind of cool. While many Republicans made comments about the election result being a gift to terrorists, Bush chose the high road and said that the result was something to be proud of. I can see that if you interpret it as meaning "Americans should feel lucky that we even let them vote" then it sounds terrible, but that's not what he meant.

Posted by Gabriel | November 13, 2006 7:31 AM
2

Murtha will almost certainly not be leader. It's a symbolic move, but one that some folks see as a smart one.

Posted by Gabriel | November 13, 2006 7:34 AM
3

Erica, your headline is wrong. Prime Minister al-Maliki wants to pull the U.S. troops back to their bases - not out of Iraq.

Posted by Fact Checker | November 13, 2006 7:48 AM
4

The Bolton link is broken.

Posted by Gabriel | November 13, 2006 8:06 AM
5

um fact checker, if they are in their bases, they are on US territory--not in Iraq.

That may be playing with semantics, but the underlying meaning is the same.

Posted by seattl98104 | November 13, 2006 8:21 AM
6

LOL semantics, 98104. The troops are still in the Middle East, amidst Iraqi soil, aren't they? If al-Maliki wanted them to leave the continent, he would have stated such.

Posted by Gomez | November 13, 2006 8:51 AM
7

Can't we all agree that Erica should not be posting about the news anymore?

Posted by Erica should work for Fox News | November 13, 2006 9:15 AM
8

agreed!

Posted by Dems win | November 13, 2006 9:16 AM
9

#7 I'm with you on that one.

Posted by word | November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
10

Ha, you know, i didn't think of it like that, but you're totally right. Her posts near the end of last week (disabled on busses, etc.) were total Fox news tactics. For Shame

Posted by spicy pickle | November 13, 2006 9:20 AM
11

7) /Signed

Posted by Pesto_pasta | November 13, 2006 9:22 AM
12

Can we all agree that the never-ending animosity toward Erica is just plain weird?

Relax a bit, people.

Posted by The Real LeBron James | November 13, 2006 9:23 AM
13

wow ... can you say "sock puppets"? yeesh. honestly, I think all politial apologies should be accompanied by dunking. A wet, drippy poltico is so much more sincere looking.

Posted by Whomsoever | November 13, 2006 9:25 AM
14

I'd just rather she not post, period. Her idea of "opinionated" journalism is just as irritating and untrustworthy as faux news. (waiting for erica to delete this comment in 3...2...1...)

Posted by charles | November 13, 2006 9:39 AM
15

Is this really about apples, Charles?

Posted by Gabriel | November 13, 2006 9:40 AM
16

Bush didn't write a word of that.

Posted by Justin J | November 13, 2006 10:37 AM
17

LOL the anti-Erica sock puppet posting. However biased, her opinion and selective news coverage has its value.

Posted by Gomez | November 13, 2006 10:39 AM
18

selective is the key word though, gomez. i don't trust that she isn't omitting things that don't fit her opinion. the public isn't better served by getting an opinion in the news section. the public is better served by getting all the facts, trusting that the person behind the reporting isn't playing some facts up while leaving other facts out. that is the fox news model, and that method, regardless of whether the lens the writer looks through is red or blue, is lame.

Posted by charles | November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
19

Oh, I agree, charles, and it's the big thing I give her a hard time about. She calls it advocacy journalism, but I doubt that approach in general.

That said, I'm not gonna insist she stop posting just because I don't care for her philosophy or approach.

Posted by Gomez | November 13, 2006 11:03 AM
20

i'm not really insisting i guess. it's more along the lines of "i'd rather rush limbaugh stop doing his radio show" ;)

my view is that if you feel that your calling is to be an advocate, work for an advocacy group. journalism is a mechanism for getting out facts. in the past facts were hidden for various reasons, and journalists got them out. just because the facts that were gotten out may have in turn "helped" the other side, one shouldn't confuse the reporting of those facts with furthering the cause or ideology of one side or the other.

the only thing journalists should be an advocate of is a fully informed public. if your "advocacy" goes beyond that, work for a politician. or a political action group. or a community organization. or whoever. start your own if you want.

people who claim to be "advocacy journalists" are just trying to put their compromised journalism in a positive, populist light.

(3...2...1...)

Posted by charles | November 13, 2006 11:18 AM
21

Good points again, charles. The thing here is that advocacy journalism (AJ) with this paper is a top to bottom philosophy. Dan has even admitted that part of the paper's M.O. is to operate with a political agenda. Josh Feit is another champion of AJ.

If we want to argue that AJ is a problem in journalism, ECB in this case is only a symptom of a bigger 'problem.'

Posted by Gomez | November 13, 2006 11:32 AM
22

yep.

i heard dan give a speech to a bunch of budding young journalists a few years ago. he basically said that he wants to see a return to the days where every town that is big enough has a half dozen little fox-news-esque local papers that all preach to their own choir.

the idea is that if you have a half dozen papers to choose from you will somehow become better informed because you will be able to read all of them and therefore, through a diversity of papers, your own opinion will become more "enriched".

The problem with this is completely illustrated by the however-many-percent of americans who STILL to this day BELIEVE that we FOUND weapons of mass destruction in iraq. Meaning that when you create an environment where everyone with a press has an agenda it becomes nearly impossible to really know what the TRUTH is. Nobody would have any credibility as everyone would trip over themselves to cater to their "base".

advocacy journalism is base journalism akin, in my mind, to the strategy that karl rove espouses. get people out there saying outlandish things, get attention, villify your opponents (Seattle Weakly, the mayor, cripples, crying, anyone?)... all of it creates more eyes, more circulation, more advertising dollars. I think that erica herself is just really young and passionate and has become blinded by it. If she really wants to be a journalist she should take all the negative reaction she gets as a clue that she just *might* have her head up her ass. She should at least consider it.

That said, I think that higher up it's more cynical. They think we're all stupid and enjoy playing the puppet master by making outrageous posts and then laugh as we all take them seriously. or maybe they really believe it.

Posted by charles | November 13, 2006 11:49 AM
23

Yawn. As long as I work at the Stranger (and am female) I'll be called "young" and "passionate."

I'm getting to the age where I'm starting to take that as a compliment.

Posted by ECB | November 13, 2006 12:02 PM
24

I followed the link here to Bush's radio address and read it. One particular quote bugs the hell out of me:

"I met with Senators Reid and Durbin. We had good discussions. I told them what I have told the men and women in my administration: We must put these elections behind us, and work together on the great issues facing America."

No, we mustn't put these elections behind us. "These elections" signaled the first bright day of political and legislative hope in six years.

I can't be the only one who is sick of everyone downplaying the 06 election results. When Bush "won" the 04 election by the slimmest of shady margins, he declared a "mandate." Yet when we change control of both the House and the Senate in one fell swoop, pundits and Bushies say "Oh, it was no big deal," and "they're more conservative than Republicans," and "we need to put it all behind us."

One word: Bullshit. We the People executed one of the broadest, most sweeping political climate changes in American history. The 06 elections were a mandate. Dems and right-minded people, I emplore you: Don't back down from that truth.

I want to see heads roll in January. Bring on the investigations. Bring on the tribunals. We knew as a people it had to be done. We voted in a party change so it could be done. So don't "put these elections behind" you. Put them beneath you. They are foundational. Build upon them. The time is now. We demonstrated our strength by changing congress. Now congress needs to use the strength we've given them to do what is necessary.

Posted by Doctiloquus | November 13, 2006 12:08 PM
25

The HUGE news today is the opening of negotiations with Iran and Syria. A tremendous shift in policy, and one overdue in my opinion.

Posted by golob | November 13, 2006 12:43 PM
26

so.... you don't think that you've compromised your credibility as a journalist? Actually I'm curious. Do you consider yourself a "journalist", or do you see yourself in some other vein? And for my own personal amusement, are you suggesting that the stranger is sexist, too? do they not call male writers your age "young and passionate" or something?

Posted by charles | November 13, 2006 1:09 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).