Monday, January 17, 2005

What I Missed Last Weekend (Including Another Great Blog)


Link
I was busy Saturday and Sunday with my son's birthday party and related preparations-- including baking the cake myself. (Yes, I'm proud of it. It was a "Deeply Chocolate Almond Cake with Chocolate Cream Cheese Frosting." Someday I'll post the diet-busting recipe here.)

So let me take care of three things I could not get to over the weekend:

1. I wish I had posted something about the L.A. Times story on Condoleeza Rice's "divisive" tenure as Stanford's provost, which the Times writers saw as a portent of similar problems at the State Department.

2. I wanted to say something about the Times' story on Rathergate, which is written pretty much as an epilogue to the whole sordid matter.

3. I had planned to mention Cheat Seeking Missiles, another fine Southern California-based blog.

All is well, however. Had I done no. 3 I could have taken care of 1 and 2, because Laer, who runs Cheat Seeking Missiles, handles both topics very well. Read his take on Condi Rice here and his analysis of the Times/Rathergate story here. I've added him to the blogroll.

Just one additional comment on the Times' Rathergate story. As Cheat Seeking notes, the story dismissed the question of bias on a single paragraph:

Republican partisans viewed such statements as evidence of political bias. They joined some independent analysts in faulting the review panel for not concluding whether liberal political sentiments tainted CBS' story. But a review of months of provocative internal CBS e-mails uncovered no messages that attacked Bush directly.
Let's see: If there is not a message attacking Bush directly, there is no bias? The term non sequitur comes to mind. Well, why should we be surprised? The "60 Minutes II" crew found what it wanted to find in the Burkett memos. It appears that here, the Times writers failed to find what they did not want to find in the CBS story. Clearly irony did not take the weekend off!

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The LAT like Viacom has been anti-American for 45 years. That they would bad mouth Condi is part of being anti-American. They promote Viacom's coverup for the same reason. Notice any pattern here? 

Posted by Rod Stanton

Monday, January 17, 2005 1:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L.A. Times is anti-american? That would imply that they are pro-ummm, something else. Care to fill us in Rod? Or maybe hedgehog could help a bit--on whose behalf is the liberal mainstream media working for? Rod says it isn't America. I'm beginning to think you guys may be on to something with all the whining that goes on about it--who is it that is corrupting my feeble mind? Please help me out fellas.

 

Posted by Steve Birch (No relation to John)

Monday, January 17, 2005 10:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve, I don't think the Times is are anti-American but it is overwhelmingly biased against the views of millionas of Americans. Book upon book and article upon article have been written discussing this. I doubt that most Times reporters and writers even realize how biased they are. Like Dan Rather, they probably think they are "common-sense moderates." A lot of moral vanity there, I think. 

Posted by The Hedgehog

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home