« Blinded by Science | Main | Making Abortion Unthinkable »

January 19, 2007

Comments

".....Christianity’s “apocalyptic ramblings” to be “paranoid”....

Those adjectives describe radical Islam perfectly--ironic, no?

That editor obviously has never heard Greg's quote on the book of Revelation (the two things that he knows for sure):
"A whole bunch of people get beaten up and we win in the end".

ya i went to one of greg's lectures when i was in university and it really screwed me up too man.

hhaha just kiddin - it was great

Sounds to me like the reporter had heard of Greg and didn't like him. So when his name came up Greg was over emphasised, because he was an easy target.

There is actually a larger problem. Much of our current press corps consists of lazy, shallow fools and liars. This is as true of "liberals" like David Broder and Maureen Dowd as it is of "conservatives" like Brit Hume and William Kristol. Basically the press writes their stories along the lines of broadly and informally agreed upon narratives. The advantages are obvious - the stories write themselves so one need not worry about things like truth and research and telling stories is so much more fun then dealing with boring things like policy. For a perfect example check out this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183811/site/newsweek/

Everyone knows what evangelicals are about so why should the writer have to bother with actually doing research and actually talking to a person who she is going to name and associate with certain views? The story involves a terrorist, shouldn't we make an extra effort to be accurate? Get real.

If you want to see how this works you might check out this:

http://dailyhowler.com/index.shtml

and read though the archives. Brad Delong's blog also has a fair bit of media criticism -

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/

------------Warning, Grinch like content below-----------

Now for a bit of the schadenfreude one experiences when ones fellow humans are hoist on their own petards. During the 2004 election, one G. Koukl was happy to defend the Swift Boat Liars as it provided his side a political advantage. In an earlier day with higher standards they would have gotten nowhere because they were obviously a partisan dirty trick and, well, liars. Soon after the election we had the Schaivo incident where "pro-lifers" were willing to pass on absolute nonsense, some of it quite disgusting. There are of course other examples but I will spare those who have read this far.

We are not going to get a better media until we demand it across the board, not just when we are the victim. The truth is the truth and journalistic standards should be universal. No cause is so important that we should be willing to take a pass on lies and corruption in order to achieve it.

First, Greg supported the right of the Swift-Boat folks to bring their issues and concerns to light, since Kerry had made that a major selling point of his candidacy. Greg was opposing those that said that Kerry's service record was a non-issue in the race, he wasn't saying that what the Swift-Boaters said was necessarily right.

Second, you wrote: "Soon after the election we had the Schaivo incident where 'pro-lifers' were willing to pass on absolute nonsense, some of it quite disgusting."

By "absolute nonsense" I suppose you mean ideas like "people shouldn't be starved and dehydrated to death simply because they are inconvenient." (sorry... couldn't help myself). Seriously, what was it that pro-lifers (not sure why you put that in quotes) said that was so "disgusting"? Did some people use it purely for political gain? Yes -- on BOTH sides. The majority opposed her extermination because they recognized that humans have intrinsic value, simply by virtue of being human, and not because of the things they can do.

No one disputes the right of people like the swift-boaters to do something despicable and dishonest; my problem is when folks who should know better go along with it. This is really simple - Rove is famous for dirty tricks like this (recall McCain in the South Carolina Primary in 2000) and their claims had no basis. Anyway anyone falling for the SBV falls into the fool or knave category.

Schaivo was a classic case of ideological over reach. You all were lied to and you all really need to come to terms with that. One heard the most outrageous claims against Michael Schaivo - none of which were true. A handful of politicians and movement folks played the base like a fiddle.

Alan,

Please supply documented specifics for your assertions of lies. Otherwise all I hear is your opinion, which I have no reason to consider anything more than a partisan rant.

Actually, don't bother unless you can logically connect your comments to the subject of the thread.

It seems that Greg's point is that there is no reason to believe that anything he tought could be attributed Gadahn's rejection of Christianity.

It is appropriate to note the New Yorker's sloppiness when they attribute, by indirect association, rambling, paranoid and hollow teachings to Greg Koukl.

I also share a general low opinion of the state of much of the main stream media reporting as well as some of the more obscure sources.

It is more important though, I feel, to encourage an educated, informed population, trained to understand logic, reasonable argumentation and motivated by the virtues held necessary to a successful government by the founders of our nation.

I note especially the role religion and specifically Christianity, played historically in encouraging virtue and education in this nation.

This would be a sound defense against a press that does not perform is function honorably.

"This would be a sound defense against a press that does not perform is function honorably."

Hi William, The link to all this is the willingness of folks in the public eye to compromise the truth in the pursuit of something else. Greg got shafted because the reporter who wrote the Gadahn story is lazy or stupid or both. This is not uncommon.

"HARRIS/HALPERIN (page 129): And it was not just those three tone-setters who latched onto a negative image of Gore. Nearly every newspaper and television network in the country did stories at some point during the campaign raising the question of whether the vice president was a big liar or merely a small one. As Rolling Stone pointed out long after the election, “Journalists just refused to drop unflattering Gore stories, no matter what the facts revealed.”

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102406.shtml

Greg is small potatoes; our elections are determined by these folks. You want links? Fine, go read the archives of the "Daily Howler".

"It is more important though, I feel, to encourage an educated, informed population, trained to understand logic, reasonable argumentation and motivated by the virtues held necessary to a successful government by the founders of our nation."

I absolutely agree and in order for that to happen we need a media that tells the truth always. Too often agendas prevail over truth. Greg (and the rest of the radio Right) valued the election of Bush over Kerry and, in the case of the Swift Boat Vets, were willing to pass on lies and distortions in order to achieve that end.

Greg's rationale was especially disingenuous as it boiled down to an assertion that even though someone had been shown to be wrong or lying previously each new assertion needed to be taken without prejudice.

You ask for links. if you are reading this you are on the internet. Go to "www.google.com" and do what I did, google "swift boat veterans" and "swift boat veterans liars" and start reading. Wikipedia also has an entry.

The comments to this entry are closed.