Jim McGreevey and the Church of Oprah (06:10)
Bill Clinton and the vast right-wing conspiracy (13:02)
Bill is to Hillary as Chavez is to Ahmadinejad? (05:11)
Leaking just enough intelligence about the effect of the war (12:15)
Did the Pope bumble into the clash of civilizations? (04:49)
Did Bush? (11:30)
Ann brings out the dead bodies (09:46)
ADDED: If you want just the audio, go here.
Posts
13 comments:
I think you may have missed - or at least minimized - the point of the New York Times thing. It isn't just that the New York Times is asking us to trust it about the NIE, without letting us see it, it's that the New York Times ITSELF hasn't seen the NIE.
To be sure, the credibility (or rather, lack thereof) of the NYT is certainly the major and ongoing issue, but in this particular case, there's something even more damaging to their credibility: they're basically asking us to trust not their own politically-motivated assesment of the NIE, but to trust their politically-motivated leakers' assesments about the NIE. They truly cannot be serious.
There is nothing to answer for, unless or until the NIE is made public. When it's public, when we can all see for outselves what's in it, there may be something that we have to talk about. But we can't talk about the substance of the NIE right now, because none of the people who are crowing about it or decrying it have read it.
David asked:
"Can the NYT be that self-destructive when it comes to their tattered reputation and credibility?"
I am a lapsed Democrat. I voted for the Democrat for president from 1972 thru 1992 (six straight elections (2 out of 6 Dems won). Am now a republican and admit I now analyze news stories thru my own prism.
In their own sneaky way, the MSM has become shrill, self-destructive to their own credibility and is absolutely committed to seeing the Dems get back in power. In their minds, that goal justifies every thing they do no matter how incorrect, or misleading or false.
The boomers working and running the MSM are desperate and so to answer you question- the NYT does not believe this poses a risk to their reputation.
Sorry to not relate to the content of the piece, which I did find interesting, but, afterall, it is a visual medium.
Three words of advice: focus, focus,focus. The blurriness distracted from my ability to...well focus...on the content.
Admitedly this could purely be a symptom of my slightly pre-babyboom generational difficulties with multitasking.
Did you request a 'True Conservative' co-head so you could be the 'Moderate/Liberal' this time around, or did it just happen this way?
(Just curious, but you mentioned before that you had been cast as the 'ostensible conservative' in your other bloggingheads bits and in other trips through the media)
I can't make my camera focus any more than it wants to. He's got a professional camera. I'm just using the iSight camera built into my iMac.
I didn't request a particular type of co-head. My earlier episodes were with Bob Wright and Matt Yglesias. I liked them too.
One way to deal with the focus issue is to sit further from the screen.
Now that I've actually watched the thing, excellent job hosting this Professor.
You offered the right mix of exploring topics in some depth while still moving things along.
I'm still not certain that the 'head' portion of bloggingheads is really necessary.
Seems like audio only interviews/discussions would be equally entertaining.
Pretty much that's how I consume this, and I suspect many others do as well, so adding the video only adds to the amount of bandwidth these take up and the technical difficulties in presenting them.
XWL: There's a link on the page for getting audio only. I put an update on this post to take you right there.
The stuff that's trickling out about that report is just confirming all of my initial and immediate skepticism about that article. It's sort of like what Ann said about Shalala's group: the NYT is making it impossible to take anything they publish seriously. They're squandering any credibility their argument might actually contain.
Ann, since you are using an iSight camera, and since I complained about your focus issue, I did a little web searching. Many people are having the same focus problem. Here is a review of an $8 utility program called iGlasses, which appears to, among other features, present the possibility of improving focus dramatically: http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/comments/review_2_great_mac_utilities_1_free_1_almost/.
Hope this is helpful.
Joe: Thanks! I downloaded it. I should do a vlog to test it out.
Of course, iGlasses doesn't focus the camera. It just lets you turn up the sharpness, the way a photo program does. Still, it may make it better. Also the light control is great. I have a big problem with the light on the iSight camera I use at home.
Post a Comment