Dysentery strikes New Orleans
Ron Fournier should go to work for an organization that has editors, so they can stop him from looking like an idiot. Best bit: "Americans are doing what people do when government lets them down."
Yeah, that's what it's all about, the government.
posted by ColumbusGuy @ 4:29 AM
8 Comments:
But there is no media bias.
I suppose it's media bias now to even remotely suggest that one person, or one party, has screwed up more than another.
Ron Fournier has covered national politics for 12 years, including spending the entire Bush administration as the chief White House correspondent, and covered both the 2000 and 2004 elections. He enjoys a wonderful reputation both among colleagues and readers. I defy you to find a single bit of evidence before this week to demonstrate that he's anything but an excellent, unbiased journalists.
There are a lot of bullshit reporters out there, but Fournier's not one of them. Maybe he's just actually *right* this time, and you don't like it.
Nice post. But, Fournier sails fairly to the left.
Hey, ColumbusGuy, if you want to convince us that, as a reporter, Fournier did a bad job, some evidence might be helpful.
Now is not the time, Cato.
I'm not out to persuade you of anything, LAGuy, much less that Fournier, as a reporter, is good or bad.
What I said was, he fairly sails left, which he does. You just have to go to one of his recent "analyses" to see it: "What began as one mother's vigil on a country road in Texas two weeks ago has grown into a nationwide protest, putting a grieving human face to the miseries of war and the misgivings about President Bush's strategies in Iraq."
Gaack. Any sensible person would gag to write such a thing, and of course it's no more true than that what began as a Michael Moore bowel movement has grown into a nationwide grieving face, etc. It's agitprop, plain and simple, and such terrible analysis that it hardly deserves the term.
Unfornately, the best evidence doesn't contain the reporters names in the transcript, but it's Bush's April 2004 press conference that was entirely dedicated to "do you feel a personal sense of responsibility for Sept. 11" "you never admit a mistake," etc. It was a true embarassment for the Manhattan Media, so bad that it almost certainly had precisely the opposite effect intended. But until we can attach Fournier's name to a question, this is only guilt-by-association and guilt by failure to raise any balancing perspective against the absurd imbalance that existed (and perhaps our 12-year, skilled and effective White House correspondent wasn't even at this piviotal campaign year event).
But this is silly. You're incorrigible on this topic. I don't think you've ever admitted a Manhattan Media (three networks, AP, NYT, WPost) press bias against Republican policies, notwithstanding your several entries remarking absurd coverage and commentary of the Iraq War and the Middle East.
so, when clear evidence is shown, as in the current example, anonymous #2 (and LAGuy?) want more evidence. Maybe they are examples of Cass Sunstein's dictum.
Did you even read what happened above. ColumbusGuy doesn't like a column. Fine. Then someone defends Ron Fournier saying he's previously had a great career as an unbiased journalist and has a great rep (whether you think this little blip of an editorial matters.) Once again, fine.
So, ColumbusGuy decides to reply. Here is his entire answer: Nice post. But, Fournier sails fairly to the left.
That's it!! Nothing else. He doesn't respond to the claims in favor of Fournier. ColumbusGuy just says "nice try but actually it's not true."
Well, saying "not true" is not an argument, so I just asked him, since he acted as if it were so obvious, if he actually had any evidence whatsoever to back up his claim. I should have asked him if he has an actual argument, but I was being kind.
"Shut up," LAGuy explained.
Post a Comment
<< Home