Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wow, John! Congrats! The funny thing is...you probably have now been
published in the NY Times more times than Harry. And he writes for a living! "John H" wrote in message ... In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:49:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
Wow, John! Congrats! The funny thing is...you probably have now been published in the NY Times more times than Harry. And he writes for a living! "John H" wrote in message .. . In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I'm sure Harry will have some snide, unanswered, comments. It was the Washington Post, not the Times. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote:
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor ("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication? Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?" It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution. For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html. Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because they are named? But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it! And we knew you back when... Joe Parsons |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joe Parsons wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote: In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor ("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication? Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?" It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution. For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html. Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because they are named? But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it! And we knew you back when... Joe Parsons Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Remember that old feature on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show...the one where Johnny comes out in a lumberjack's plaid jacket and makes some idiotic response to an item in the news? That's our Johnny...Herring. -- Email sent to is never read. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Joe Parsons wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote: In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor ("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication? Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?" It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution. For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html. Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because they are named? But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it! And we knew you back when... Joe Parsons Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the newspaper actually did some good. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Joe Parsons wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote: In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't totally, 100%, biased! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor ("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication? Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?" It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution. For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html. Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because they are named? But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it! And we knew you back when... Joe Parsons Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the newspaper actually did some good. Here's another example of a rightie not really able to think: I made no comment on the impact of letters to the editor, but, rather, on the fact that Herring's letter ran on Saturday. -- Email sent to is never read. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the newspaper actually did some good. Yeah, but Doug has a half a brain. Harry is nothing but a binary thinking two bit PR man who works for a corrupt union company run by crooks. Did you really expect any other response from him? |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Joe" wrote in message ... Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the newspaper actually did some good. Yeah, but Doug has a half a brain. Harry is nothing but a binary thinking two bit PR man who works for a corrupt union company run by crooks. Did you really expect any other response from him? Of course not. But that's the fun in playing on rec.boats. Pull the right string, and the puppet moves just as planned. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bush Quotes | General | |||
OT--So many great headlines I can't decide which one to post | General | |||
OT - Where is the lie? (especially for jcs) | General |