Indiscreet
I am waiting for every Hollywood movie star who's voiced concerns about personal security to voice some outrage at The New York Times -- which, along with this piece, has actually run a picture of Donald Rumsfeld's weekend home, and helpfully pointed out that there's a security camera in the birdhouse.
Even the celebrity press, hardly known for its restraint, understands that it's dirty pool to print photos of the home of someone well-known, given the security risks such a decision could create.
So is it just a sign of the times that People magazine shows more decency and decorum than The New York Times?
Even the celebrity press, hardly known for its restraint, understands that it's dirty pool to print photos of the home of someone well-known, given the security risks such a decision could create.
So is it just a sign of the times that People magazine shows more decency and decorum than The New York Times?
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:55 PM
13 Comments:
Carol, why do you have to cheapen the discussion by lying about every thing no matter how minor? There was a similar story about the Clinton's Chappaqua house published by the NY Times in 2003.
Newspapers do publish puff pieces every now and then. Of course, you knew that, and are just pretending otherwise, right Carol?
Obviously, there's a huge difference between doing a puff piece about a retiring president's new house (even if it includes a picture that shows a close-up of some minor architectural detail of the house itself) and, in the era of terrorism, running a piece that can help terrorists locate the serving Secretary of Defense's house from some distance away.
So the Times showed Bubba's crib as well? That's the New York Times? Isn't that the one accused of blabbing crap they shouldn't? Twister's offering is merely more evidence that the Times is a low class rag, not a counter argument.
Ditto:
"While in office - Rumsfeld has doubled his networth buy selling tamiflu to the military and Cheney has quintupled his networh with Hallibruton contracts. ..."
There you go again, Ditto, pushing alarming-sounding statistics. Did you get these from some kind of Pew Study or something?
Carol attempts to backpedal furiously with, "Obviously, there's a huge difference between doing a puff piece about a retiring president's new house (even if it includes a picture that shows a close-up of some minor architectural detail of the house itself)"
What are these huge obvious differences, Carol?
Are you claiming the Rumsfeld piece in the NY Times Travel section wasn't a puff piece?
Are you saying a picture of the driveway of Rumsfeld's vacation house is less revealing than a close-up of the Clinton's permanent residence?
The piece on Clinton gave a run down of his favorite places to visit. Why didn't that disturb you?
Carol, you can just admit that you PO'd at the NY Times and will stoop to any level to try to smear them. It's not like anyone here doesn't already recognize this.
Marshall you are at you first-grade reading comprehension best. Let me explain Carol's post real slowly so you can understand.
Carol thinks the NY Times hates Donald Rumsfeld because he is a conservative. Carol wants you to believe that the only reason the NY Times published a picture of the driveway of Donald Rumsfeld's vacation house is because they hate him.
Carol thinks the NY Times likes Bill Clinton because he is a liberal. Carol doesn't mention that the NY Times published more detailed pictures of Bill Clinton's house, because that would shoot her initial claim all to hell.
Rather than be honest with her readers, Carol chose not to mention the Clinton story. This form of intentional deception is called lying.
It just get worse and worse for Carol and her lying ways. According to the photographer who took the pictures, the photographs were taken with Donald Rumsfeld's permission. [Cite] Boy, I bet Rummy feels bad for creating security risks for himself.
Now Gregster and MA, don't you feel stupid--I mean stupider than you normally feel that is--for leaping to a known prevaricator's defense?
Hmmm...
Let's see. I think we have two distinct logic threads coming from the left on this blog:
1. Ditto's laughable statistics and polls.
2. Twister's labelling of all opposing views as lies.
I truly hope this is the strategy used by Democrats all across the country this fall!
Gregster the Ignoratn writes, "Twister's labelling of all opposing views as lies."
Greg, your pants are on fire. I have labelled lies--such as your claim quoted above--lies. I have documented why each lie is a lie.
The best defense against being called a liar is to quit lying. I don't know why you and Carol can't seem to grasp that simple fact.
FWIW the Secret Service saw no security issues with the NY Times piece, when the reviewed it prior to publication.
Gosh, Greg, how embarrassing it must be to be you.
I'm not embarassed at all. I think this particular story is a non-issue.
However, I stand by my generalization of your tactics.
It's sad, really. I seem to remember you used to have much more substance to your postings. That seems to have given way to bitter name-calling.
Maybe you've just been in a slump lately.
I hope you get back on your game soon. It's much more fun when you actually present something worth looking into.
I'm not embarassed at all. I think this particular story is a non-issue.
It's good to see that you have decided to disagree with Carol's post.
Now that you've realised the knee-jerk reactions of other right-wing commentators, you should probably begin to question the entire message that you've been exposed to.c
Gregster opines, "It's sad, really. I seem to remember you used to have much more substance to your postings."
Let's see, using this thread for comparison...
I broke the news here about the Clinton's having been the topic of a similar puff piece in 2003, debunking Carol's main claim that the NY Times was picking on poor ole Rummy.
I broke the news here that Donald Rumsfeld approved the pictures used, completely eviscerating what remained of Carol's claims of this being a security risk.
Let's compare this to your posts, shall we? So far they are composed of calling dittohead names and lying about what I have written. Tons of whining; no actual substance.
Looking at the evidence, there is only one fair conclusion that can be drawn. You are a hypocrite.
Twister:
The points you "broke" were, to use your own terminology, "puff" in a thread about a, to use my terminology, "non-issue".
Should I bow down now? Or, wait until you greet me at the pearly gates at the right hand of the almighty?
But wait. You conclude by calling me names. Granted, at least you didn't call me a liar this time.
Different term, same tactic.
Sorry, no bowing.
Salient:
I actually disagree with Carol more than you may realize. There are many supposedly conservative commentators with which I disagree. In fact, there are some I think are dispicable.
Drudge - Yellow Journalism at its worst.
Rush - Pompous windbag
O'Reilly - Opportunist
So, definitely the "entire" message I've been exposed to deserves serious critical analysis (That probably disqualifies me right there.) But the CORE of the message is close to my heart and I will defend it to the end.
Personal Freedom
Personal Responsibility
Free Markets
Freedom of Religion
Strong National Defense
There's probably more. But I keep running up against that darned "serious critical analysis" requirement.
Post a Comment
<< Home