Once again, CNN committed journalism malpractice in its coverage yesterday. But this is nothing new for the network, which embarrasses itself daily with the likes of Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer (and twice on Sunday with Candy Crowley's talking head extravaganza), to name just a few.
The hits just keep on coming. As Chuck Todd shames NBC News every day, David Gregory on Sunday must leave Tim Russert spinning in his grave.
Yet the problem extends beyond media outlets that want profits from its news division. Even the "PBS NewsHour" has fallen into disrepute with its "he said-she said" format and the questioner doesn't point out that what he or she said is a total lie, a distorting fabrication of reality.
There was a time in America when being a journalist was a noble calling. Now, all it requires is a good hairdo, nice clothes and ability to say nothing for hours on end.
Actually, the figure I heard last night on NBC was 30,000 Americans are killed by a firearm every year.
For once, the NRA knew enough yesterday to keep its mouth shut and didn't issue its usual "guns don't kill people ..." idiocy. Of course, it didn't offer any sympathy to the victims or their families, either, simply saying it wouldn't comment "until all the facts are known."
What?!?
Here are the facts: The fact is that 20 children and seven adults working with little kids were killed because high powered hand guns and assault rifles are so readily available. It doesn't matter that the guns used were acquired legally and registered. No one - and I mean absolutely no one outside of law enforcement or the military - needs a Glock or a Sig or an assault rifle. And I'm not convinced law enforcement needs such weapons, either.
Thanks to five men on the Supreme Court who didn't understand 18th century punctuation and grammar, we ended up with an insane ruling in the 21st century on guns.
I read Mr. Escobar's intriguing idea when it appeared the other day at TomDispatch. Alas, I'm not sure Pres. Obama "doing a Nixon" today would work.
For one thing, when Richard Nixon went to China, his 20+ years of being a Commie hating red baiter immunized from criticism except from Taiwan and the far fringes of the right wing in America. Despite Mr. Obama's tough (albiet pointless) sanctions against Iran, he is still be hit for going to Cairo and saying that America must reset its relations with the Middle East and Moslem world. Mitt Romney kept trotting out the "I won't apologize for America" line during the campaign even though Mr. Obama never apologized for anything.
For another, in Pres. Nixon's era, foreign policy was still seen by both parties as a non-partisan issue. Some of us can still remember the old saw about politics ending at the sea shore. Sen. William Fulbright, as brilliant a foreign policy thinker as this country may have produced in the 20th Century, worked closely with Democrats and Republicans to ensure that America spoke with one voice. And Sen. Fulbright knew of Henry Kssinger's secret trips to Beijing that paved the way for Mr. Nixon's trip but didn't utter a word to anyone about it.
Today, alas, there is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right wing radio that would go ballistic if The White House announced that the president was leaving for Tehran in the morning. Regardless of the value of such a trip, if it could be set up in such a way as to produce a marked change in US-Iranian relations, Big Right in the US - which includes all of the institutional conservatives including everything from AIPAC to the media to the Hill - wouldn't shut up about it. Israel would cry "betrayal" even though the opening would make that nation more secure, not less.
There's also the issue of Iranian politics: Who would the president meet with that the US could be assured was speaking for the country. Iran's president? The Ayatollahs? The Revolutionary Guard?
Mr. Escobar put forth a novel approach to breaking the deadlock with Iran. But I'm afraid the reality of US politics would try to short-circuit any gains made by such a trip.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Once again, CNN committed journalism malpractice in its coverage yesterday. But this is nothing new for the network, which embarrasses itself daily with the likes of Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer (and twice on Sunday with Candy Crowley's talking head extravaganza), to name just a few.
The hits just keep on coming. As Chuck Todd shames NBC News every day, David Gregory on Sunday must leave Tim Russert spinning in his grave.
Yet the problem extends beyond media outlets that want profits from its news division. Even the "PBS NewsHour" has fallen into disrepute with its "he said-she said" format and the questioner doesn't point out that what he or she said is a total lie, a distorting fabrication of reality.
There was a time in America when being a journalist was a noble calling. Now, all it requires is a good hairdo, nice clothes and ability to say nothing for hours on end.
Actually, the figure I heard last night on NBC was 30,000 Americans are killed by a firearm every year.
For once, the NRA knew enough yesterday to keep its mouth shut and didn't issue its usual "guns don't kill people ..." idiocy. Of course, it didn't offer any sympathy to the victims or their families, either, simply saying it wouldn't comment "until all the facts are known."
What?!?
Here are the facts: The fact is that 20 children and seven adults working with little kids were killed because high powered hand guns and assault rifles are so readily available. It doesn't matter that the guns used were acquired legally and registered. No one - and I mean absolutely no one outside of law enforcement or the military - needs a Glock or a Sig or an assault rifle. And I'm not convinced law enforcement needs such weapons, either.
Thanks to five men on the Supreme Court who didn't understand 18th century punctuation and grammar, we ended up with an insane ruling in the 21st century on guns.
I read Mr. Escobar's intriguing idea when it appeared the other day at TomDispatch. Alas, I'm not sure Pres. Obama "doing a Nixon" today would work.
For one thing, when Richard Nixon went to China, his 20+ years of being a Commie hating red baiter immunized from criticism except from Taiwan and the far fringes of the right wing in America. Despite Mr. Obama's tough (albiet pointless) sanctions against Iran, he is still be hit for going to Cairo and saying that America must reset its relations with the Middle East and Moslem world. Mitt Romney kept trotting out the "I won't apologize for America" line during the campaign even though Mr. Obama never apologized for anything.
For another, in Pres. Nixon's era, foreign policy was still seen by both parties as a non-partisan issue. Some of us can still remember the old saw about politics ending at the sea shore. Sen. William Fulbright, as brilliant a foreign policy thinker as this country may have produced in the 20th Century, worked closely with Democrats and Republicans to ensure that America spoke with one voice. And Sen. Fulbright knew of Henry Kssinger's secret trips to Beijing that paved the way for Mr. Nixon's trip but didn't utter a word to anyone about it.
Today, alas, there is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right wing radio that would go ballistic if The White House announced that the president was leaving for Tehran in the morning. Regardless of the value of such a trip, if it could be set up in such a way as to produce a marked change in US-Iranian relations, Big Right in the US - which includes all of the institutional conservatives including everything from AIPAC to the media to the Hill - wouldn't shut up about it. Israel would cry "betrayal" even though the opening would make that nation more secure, not less.
There's also the issue of Iranian politics: Who would the president meet with that the US could be assured was speaking for the country. Iran's president? The Ayatollahs? The Revolutionary Guard?
Mr. Escobar put forth a novel approach to breaking the deadlock with Iran. But I'm afraid the reality of US politics would try to short-circuit any gains made by such a trip.