by: Michael Shaw

Sun, 04 May 2008 13:04:51 +0000

She’s a whiner? Have you ever listened to the neocon right? I would even dare say conservatives in general, especially when it comes to things like social security and universal health care. They’ve been whining over those things since FDR and still going strong today. They also criticize everyone and everything that does not walk in lockstep with them. I would call them the real whiners. Perhaps spoiled brats would be a better appraisal. Also since it is the duty of the media to be adversarial to power, Huffington is only carrying out that duty, unlike her protagonist Tim Russert who golfs with Dick “there is no doubt they have weapons of mass destruction” Cheney!

by: Peter knopfler

Fri, 02 May 2008 21:16:22 +0000

Thankyou, being an immigrant to three different countries, in this life time so far,gifts me with a different angle.People try to listen but when the accent is foreign, eastern block accent its difficult for some Americans to hear and have patience to listen. DP go home was what I heard growing up when telephone had party lines. My own father Hungarian. Also the Huffington name doesn’t match her accent to the uneducated which most are. Most Americans still only speak one language. Also when Americans hear a foreign accent talking about local politics, they cringe at the very thought. Many times, or most often unconscious. Something TS Elliot said, Your presence is so loud I can’t hear a word your saying! To have Her on any TV show is last minute fill in, no Big Deal, we don’t want to ruffle feathers, not to rock the boat, been there, done that, good enough for my DADDY good enough for me. Huffington is just that a Huff and a puff, next.Sometimes its not what you say but How, and She puts down too many people trying to make a point. Famous words, those who shed light on others faults, only double their own, and if you close your eyes, listen to Her tone, not verbal content, tone She sounds like a whinner, whinners are liners they line you up for slaughter. Walk softly carry Big stick! thankyou peter.

by: Tess

Fri, 02 May 2008 13:03:34 +0000

Russert afraid of Huffington? Oh my whose ego is bigger? This leads to only one possible conclusion: there are no true journalists practicing their craft. There are only mediocre analysts, biased pundits, and wanna-have-my-own-show 10th tier nobodies.

by: Robert M. Cerello

Fri, 02 May 2008 00:35:48 +0000

Ms. Huffington here, unfortunately not as in all other cases, documents what she says is true by very clear examples. But in refusing to call her rebuff as a guest by Tim Russert “censorship”, because she exposed his incompetence in a recent book, she still raisesdthe question of why other perhaps vitally-important stories, other persons, other so-called experts are not granted airtime, while it is furnished over and over again for no defensible reasons to persons from lunatic, governmental-administration, news monopoly or extremist fringe opinions circles and persuasions.
This is not a small question I suggest; this is the method by which an elected lawmaking pro-imperial presidency claque of nondefining statist mental failures maintain their stranglehold over scientists, formerly free individuals and a nation of effectively disenfranchised formerly free individuals.
The public television news media are not non-fictional purveyors; they adhere to no definitions that separate myths from attested facts, standards-based evaluations from mere attitudes and proven science from inexplicable and groundless beliefs.
They are not governed by regulations as to how they must not use and thus avoid committing crimes by Kantian false misusing headlines, favoritisms, a hidden agenda of myths, discontexted attitudes being quoted as “value judgments” when they are no such thing and untrue believed assertions set in contradiction to science, to attested facts and to standards-based evaluations.
At the end of her all-too-brief opportunity to speak, Ms. Huffington brilliantly, perhaps, redeems herself for the “censorship” missed opportunity; when she talks about false quality assurance in the government-licensed public-corporate media: the pretense that there are exactly two sides to every issue and that objectivity by media ‘moguls’ consists of defining nothing in reality but instead of presenting one’s own choices as spokesmen for two “sides” or viewpoints. Is this procedure a guarantee of “objectivity”?
One person perhaps says, “Reality space-time exists and I can define it by categorizing definitions. I know what I’m talking about.” A
But then the other fellow says, “Shucks, folks,
Reality is whatever we can cause a majority of minds to believe exists by whatever means”
Sorry to have to remind everyone, but that’s science in the first case, postmodernistic big-lie techniques–statism–in the second case.
Ms. Huffington’s remarks here, especially re Ann Coulter’s lack of scientific credentials (here implied), the covering up or “censorship” of stories by government-licensed or permitted newstwisting corporations and their false-dichotomy ploy, blacklisting of scientifically qualified truthtellers, the total lack of categorizing definitions, in public monopoly news etc., etc are all not only true but also central to the total moral-ethical and professional breakdown of news media as a
whole–despite occasional attempts on a concrete level by some newsmen to deal with elements of the real.
Bravo Ariana! Now that is news analysis. That’s integrity. That’s what we’ve needed for decades.
Someone to name what’s been done to the selfish rights of the individual in this former country in the name of imperial presidential power-seeking, of destruction of the balance of powers, of spurious safety seeking and of public interest ‘lawmakers’ attacks on regulations; upon the means by which individuals used to claim their rights, when these still existed before neocons’ ‘deregulation” was begun.
Yes, get the money out of politics; but, even then, Joseph Biden and John Edwards, the realistic speakers for restoration of the Constitution and for realism in policies of change could still have been marginalized and trivialized out of their equality as candidates. So long as no regulations forbid fake news analysts from playing ‘god’ over the airwaves and adhering to no professional standards of conduct whatever except for avoiding certain words, no man and no news story can be safe. There has to be more to non-fiction and to adult-level thinking I argue than granting monopolies to corporate-hired media hacks who then praise their own “criminal” methods to the skies, set up a hidden un-American agenda and then commit the actions I have defined above–with impunity…
If there weren’t, Charles Keating would have been a great entrepreneur and not an ordinary man who thought he had reached a point of such privileged misuse of powers that he like the predatory lenders of recent months was then freed from all fear of prosecution for having harmed individual others to enact his “doctrine”.
That’s how the neocons define news, I argue, plus advocacy, government and power–”libertarian” to these failed minds means freedom from having to watch out or safeguard the rights and freedoms of others–that is what which liberals and governmental servitors are by our Constitution required to do. If that’s how such warped thinkers see their role, then you know why I claim there has been no election in this country since 1994. And a philosophically poisoned set of them from 1902–1994 before that.
hank you Ariana. I wish every American could hear your words–and understand them…

by: Lanny

Thu, 01 May 2008 22:29:32 +0000

There’s more to this. Look deeper.

by: Charlie Seivard

Thu, 01 May 2008 20:24:01 +0000