Comments on: If Condi Says “Nixon” Directly Rather than Through Anonymous Sources, Does the NYT Hear?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:20:36 +0000

That’s hardly journalism we can believe in. The video of Condi is much better journalism because you have the person behind the words and you even have a live audio-video recording of it. All too often in recent years the NYT stories have proven to be propaganda and lies. That’s pretty clear evidence they’ve overdone the un-named sources quotes.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:52:10 +0000

It’s fine if they want to establish those rules, but that doesn’t mean we or anyone else have to follow them. We look at anything public figures say or do as being meaningful. If the MSM want to ignore some things, then they aren’t really true journalists, are they? After all, a journalist is someone who records (journals) their impression of events and includes pictures, audio & quotes to complete the picture for us.

What we sometimes get really worried about is when Dubya says ‘America would be a lot easier as a dictatorship’ and the media report it, but not very much. It appears at those times they’re covering their butts, but showing their editor’s acceptance of Dubya despite ANYTHING he might say or do. THAT kind of journalism becomes a kind of editorial comment we can do without. It’s the kind which leads us to wonder where the real Liberal Media can be found.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:42:09 +0000

I don’t think it’s ‘bizarre’. She was National Security ADVISER (or is it advisOr?) Who was she going to authorize or order?

She wasn’t even one who would say “I was only taking orders.” In her case she was only a courier.

Seems like a good legal defense. And, if she really was on the side of the angels in those principals discussions, then why should we pile on.

By: TheraP

TheraP — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:28:32 +0000

Beautifully expressed. Especially your last sentence. That some people mistake authoritarian behavior for leadership.

By: TheraP

TheraP — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:26:55 +0000

Med School. They are brutal in questioning during clinical years and residency. But they’re not lying. I’ve literally watched residents “flayed” emotionally by an attending doc. I think they’re trying to mitigate that now, however. So it’s not the demandingness of the courses. (They actually go out of their way during the first two years to help people pass those.) It’s being put on the spot to come up with a diagnosis and defend it. It’s pretty much an authoritarian system (and can, sadly, involve humiliating and dominating at times). (As opposed, for example, to our training in psychology - where the academics are demanding and no one’s going to make that easier for you, but the clinical training is very compassionate.) I was only an observer on the few occasions I witnessed, and it was horrible to watch.

Nevertheless, what Condi did was worse in my view, since it had nothing to do with professional training in your mid to late 20’s. The kid was a sophomore, I believe. It was a dorm. And her behavior was just way of line and uncharacteristic for the way most profs would behave, especially in an informal setting.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:29:17 +0000

“brutal” or academically challenging and demanding? Why would there be a reason to be “brutal” in Med school or “humiliate, dominate, pacify or lie” students

By: MiriamKniaz

MiriamKniaz — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:16:48 +0000

Of course the NYT didn’t report on it. We have to look forward, not back after all.

By: tjbs

tjbs — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:11:08 +0000

I’ve been calling out the NYT for months the clowns that they are.
They did publish my online letter this morning which read as follows concerning who to kill next in the middle east
2009 6:44 am

Because of the 9-11 treason lie we have no right to be anywhere randomly murdering innocents. Didn’t you guys attend worship this weekend?

By: wavpeac

wavpeac — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:49:45 +0000

I totally agree with your point. I guess my point was of a broader notion which is that we tolerate this behavior from far too many of our leaders, teachers, and parents in general.

This authoritarian behavior is not acceptable to me. But have you ever tried to get an elementary, or jr. high teacher fired for it? You can’t.

We can discuss all day long whether or not she “should” have behaved that way. In my view this is the behavior of a perpetrator. (someone guilty). I expect that this is exactly how a person guilty of her potential crime would act. Not saying of course that it is proof of her guilt, but simply that people who use power and control MUST engage in minimizing, denying and/or blaming. I have seen many in positions of authority use this behavior. In fact, my point is that our culture is almost “immune” to this behavior in our leaders and role models. My point is that we tolerated in Nixon, we tolerated this behavior in Reagan, we tolerated in Clinton, we tolerated in 8 freakin’ sick years of bushco.

I am all for the idea of making this behavior a red flag to everyone…but I fear that many folks would not agree with me, and some might even confuse this behavior (due to childhood conditioning) as a sign of authority instead of the way we see it.

By: maryo2

maryo2 — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:36:37 +0000

Envision a music video with Condi repeating the chorus
“No one could have foreseen…Do your homework.”
“No one could have foreseen…Do your homework.”