Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did the editors make me look less intelligent?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:09 AM
Original message
Poll question: Did the editors make me look less intelligent?
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 10:27 AM by tk2kewl

What I wrote...


The news media fails to do its job

James Pinkerton must be living in an alternate universe from mine <"Big media's high-water mark", Opinion, June 2>. While I'll agree that Watergate was not worse than the Civil War, I can think of few things worse than a president who deliberately and criminally interferes with the democratic process of elections in this country.

I can also agree that the news media were probably more liberal in the '70s, but Pinkerton's assertion that the news media is now more "diverse" is patently absurd. Today the news media has been consolidated by corporate interests and we are bombarded with info-tainment rather than hard news. In the midst of a war that has lasted longer than our involvement in WWII, in the face of nearly 1700 American casualties and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and with evidence piling ever higher that the Bush administration fixed intelligence around its predetermined war policy <"Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel," News, May 9>, the news media feeds us around-the-clock coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, runaway-bride, and fingers in chili.

Truth is crucial to a healthy democracy, and the news media has an obligation to report the truth on issues critical to our future. However, todays news media is content to let talking heads from both sides spin the latest stories, while doing virtually no fact checking or investigation of their own, leaving the public with diametrically opposed "opinions" having little or no factual basis. Unfortunately, Watergate may have indeed been "big media's high-water mark", as the quality and value of reporting today pales in comparison.


What Newsday printed...


Deep Throat: beyond the call of duty

James P. Pinkerton must be living in an alternate universe from mine <"Big media's high-water mark," Opinion, June 2>. Although I'll agree that Watergate was not worse than the Civil War, I can think of few things worse than a president who deliberately and criminally interferes with the democratic process of elections.

I can also agree that the news media were probably more liberal in the '70s, but Pinkerton's assertion that the news media are now more "diverse" is patently absurd. Today the news media have been consolidated by corporate interests, and we are bombarded with infotainment, rather than hard news.

With evidence piling ever higher that the Bush administration fixed intelligence around its predetermined war policy <"Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel," News, May 9>, the news media feed us around- the-clock coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, a runaway-bride and fingers in chili.

Unfortunately, Watergate may indeed have been "big media's high-water mark," since the quality and value of reporting today pales in comparison.


On edit... added last two choices
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sherwood Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. It was watered down
They do this to everyone, though. One of my conservative co-workers once sent in a letter that was at least somewhat reasonable (he's no Repuke) and they make him sound like a Nazi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. He sent it to Newsday, or some other paper?
I think it is important to give sane conservatives a voice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. THey censored the most damning part.
But that's the job of a media whore. Fluff the daddy with the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. They took ONE aspect of MSM, skipped another.
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 10:17 AM by Inland
One, feeding us trivialities, two, refusing to look for actual facts y putting it in talking head format for a "fight".

The first they kept, the second they cut out.

Still a good letter, even as edited.

I would add that my single LTTE published was about three sentences long, in the exact format of every other letter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. Your summary was in my book, your point, and they cut it out.
I had great respect for Newsday until recently. Now they too are in the hands of the facists.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. I picked door number 2
Number 3 is a excuse, not a conclusion. They could put the adverstising somewhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. hmmm..none of the above...
btw your poll questions don't leave any room for someone to disagree with you, which is awkward.

so, I will have to say I disagree. The only cuts I saw were on actual figures and a comparison to WWII, and a section on today's media. I felt what remained still told your story, with retaining the "big media's high water mark" sendoff, for example, in a more compact length without really sacrificing the core of your message.

there were also some style changes, but nothing I saw that compromised your content or made you look stupid. I think they weeded out some redundancy and streamlined it for a quicker read.

If anything, you should be proud that you got it printed, and your message not watered down by edits...IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I guess I should add an "other"...
I just assumed there is always room for disagreement by posting. Thanks for the comment. I am happy that you feel it still comes off well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. you're welcome...
I think you still got to target everyone you wanted to target, and you nailed them very well. I think it was a successful LTTE, IMHO. good job!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC