The transcript of Wolf Blitzer’s interview with Lynne Cheney, now up on Drudge, borders on the comic. One of the roots of comedy is unconsciousness on the part of the protagonist and the CNN standby is sure unconscious in his pronouncements. He reminds me of no one so much as Monsieur Jourdain in Moliere’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme. Herewith, some dialogue:
WOLF: All right. Well that was probably the purpose, to get people to think. To get people to discuss these issues. Because –
CHENEY: Well, all right. Wolf, I’m here to talk about my book. But if you want to talk about distortion –
WOLF: We’ll talk about your book.
CHENEY: Right, but what is CNN doing? Running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans. I mean, I thought [Rep.] Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?
WOLF: The answer of course is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that.
CHENEY: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?
WOLF: Well all do respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.
CHENEY: Oh, wolf.
WOLF: This is reporting the news. Which is what we do, we are not partisan.
Not partisan, sir? Let’s start with the most obvious – the only not partisan person I’ve ever met is either dead or in the latter stages of Alzheimer’s. Everyone is partisan, almost since birth. Partisan and biased. It’s part of the human condition. And this bias often increases with age as the pressures of making a living and surviving shape us. We join cliques of like-minded people where we are cosseted and promoted. That is why people like Blitzer almost never vary their opinions. He is as predictable as a cyborg. I once substantially agreed with those opinions – now I have different opinons (biases) of my own. This is an accident of my own development. But I am partisan and Blitzer is partisan – perhaps even more than I am. After all, he works for a company whose chief news executive was so biased he was able to pronounce in public that US soldiers were deliberately targeting journalists without being able to cite any evidence of this. That’s partisanship at the level of delusion. And that was the person who gave Blitzer orders.
Of course, Blitzer is only a typical representative of his class. Nothing special or exceptional in any way, except for his success and longevity. Now some people call this class the “liberal media.” I reject that idea and terminology entirely. There is nothing liberal about them at all. They are a rich, privileged class much like the bourgeoisie in a Bunuel movie (or Moliere, of course). What is “liberal” is only a talking point to preserve their perquisites. Perhaps these values were there at some point, but that was decades ago in another universe. Now the real issues are good tailoring and homes in the country. Nothing should disturb that.
This “bad faith” informs everything they do and how they act. (When I write this, I know it infuriates them, but let me admit I am not much better.) Receiving news from Wolf Blitzer is like getting your information filtered through a highly-perfected survival machine. Well, maybe not so highly-perfected, but better than the network news, which is on the way out. (See the implosion of Katie Couric.)
Oh, by the way, Wolf, regarding that video of the snipers, there is no such thing as non-partisan film. Every frame, every camera angle, every editorial choice wreaks of partisanship – and that includes the decision to show it in a theatre or on television. Le caméra stylo, the camera is a pen, as someone quite intelligent once said. If you don’t know who that is, I’ll save you the effort. So stop lying to yourself and to others.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
44 Comments
1. heather:It takes me awhile, but I finally realized why the great US economic news (DOW, employment stats, etc) is simply NOT NEWS.
It isn’t really about the Dem bias and the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the MSM (OK, maybe a little bit)… it’s about the fact that the worst performing sector in the economy is .. the newspapers!! and the Old Line TV networks. Everywhere Wolf looks, his friends are losing their jobs; the NYT is fading, getting a job there is no longer a sinecure.
This could, by the way, be a partial reason for the hatred these MSM journalists have to Bush: their world is a tattered memory of the great Clinton Decade. In their childlike, narcissistic minds, then, it MUST BE DUBYA’S FAULT.
Oct 27, 2006 - 6:34 pm 2. ic:If the tape was an American army sniper hitting the jihadists, would that be pro- or anti- American?
Pro: for showing American “strength”
Anti: for showing American “brutality”
Take your pick.
Oct 27, 2006 - 6:52 pm 3. chuck:If the tape was an American army sniper hitting the jihadists, would that be pro- or anti- American?
Tough one. What if the tape was of a yellow banana tipping its hat to a strawberry?
Oct 27, 2006 - 7:28 pm 4. David Thomson:“we are not partisan.”
This is such a stupid remark. An American journalist should be “partisan.” We are the good guys and our Islamic nihilist foes are the scum of the Earth. It can’t get any simpler than that.
I can see it now. My imagination is getting the better of me:
ìGood Evening, Iím Wolf Blitzer and tonight we are interviewing the controversial Joseph Mengele. Is he a monster who performs gruesome medical experiments on human beings—or is Dr. Mengele a misunderstood scientist? Isnít it time to give Nazis a fair break? Who are we to say that our view of morality is the right one? Shouldnít we open a dialogue with Adolph Hitler’s staunchest supporters? Maybe we have more in common with them than we think. Perhaps we even did something to get them so angry? Couldn’t the Nazis be victims of American imperialism?î
Oct 27, 2006 - 7:38 pm 5. markus:That’s right “we’re all partisan.” And you’ve cast your lot, despite the disaster in Iraq, despite the multitude of other failures, with the President, who is flying around the country trying to gin up his base excoriating a New Jersey state Supreme Court ruling calling for civil unions, not even gay marriage.
Meanwhile, Friedman seems to have convinced you that the Democrats are trying to hurt the ‘po boys by trying to save guaranteed social security, not tied to the vicissitudes of the market.
After the election, I recommend joining Horowitz, and perhaps Hitchens too, at his “restoration weekend”.
To lick wounds, drink booze and figure out the next line of attack.
Bon voyage, and good riddance.
Oct 27, 2006 - 8:05 pm 6. Luther McLeod:Markus
If only you really meant it.
Oct 27, 2006 - 8:13 pm 7. vnjagvet:Unfortunately for Wolf, he ran into a talented informed woman who sliced and diced him.
He had to give her credit at the end of the interview.
Markus, I’m afraid you are in for some disappointment on November 8.
Ain’t going to be as good as you think.
Oct 27, 2006 - 10:26 pm 8. WichitaBoy:I suppose we all feel we’re “nonpartisan” and that other people’s who disagree with us are wrong, are nuts, are the devil’s spawn, depending on how charitable we feel. Aren’t we supposed to outgrow that sort of thinking by junior high or so?
The charitable view is that these “personalities” are so narcissitic they haven’t been obliged to grow up. The cynical view is that they are simply using their claim to nonpartisanship as a tool of power.
Claiming to be “nonpartisan” is a very useful weapon of power politics. If you have an opinion with which I disagree, you are partisan, whereas my opinion, being “nonpartisan” is THE TRUTH. So, I’m right, you’re wrong, we do it my way.
Oct 27, 2006 - 11:21 pm 9. chuck:Claiming to be “nonpartisan” is a very useful weapon of power politics.
I also think it is an unconscious appeal to modern science, an endeavor which is supposed to be dispassionate and unswayed by emotion. A misplaced appeal to be sure; one that conflates knowledge with the act of living and abandons the duties of the humanist. But a common enough error in these times.
Oct 28, 2006 - 12:41 am 10. Captain Hate:Sod off, markus; and close the door on your way out.
Oct 28, 2006 - 3:07 am 11. navyone:Roger,
Oct 28, 2006 - 6:08 am 12. jill bryant:Love your blog, first-time commenter.
As a sailor deployed to one of those places that is often discussed with wide-eyes, I get an interesting comparison with the real-time truth and what CNN chooses to expose to us. (It is odd, but CNN is usually playing most places I go to on base.) I myself stopped watching about 3 years ago after a July 4th special in which Judy Woodruff (ruff like a dog) rolled her eyes at some patriotic display. (She is above all that commoner stuff.) Not that I need my news patriotic all the time, but is not patriotism the point of a July 4th celebration?
I disagree with a lot of what you’ve said but that’s not why I want to leave a comment. (I’ve given up on that.) I just wanted to ask you how you define “partisan?” I was thinking about this statement:
“Not partisan, sir? Let’s start with the most obvious – the only not partisan person I’ve ever met is either dead or in the latter stages of Alzheimer’s. Everyone is partisan, almost since birth.”
and I’m curious about your definition of partisanship…. (Yes, I can look up the dictionary definition but you know that’s often meaningless to politically-based discussions.) I also wonder if it would be the same as Wolf’s.
Oct 28, 2006 - 11:37 am 13. Terrye:Well you know if they are not partisan and can’t ake sides maybe they would like to move their headquarters to Tehran. See if they feel more comfortable there.
markus,
Saddam ain’t dead yet, so if the Democrats win they can put him back in power and then the nonpartisan folks at CNN can do what they did a decade ago and lie to cover up his crimes so that folks like you can think Saddam’s Iraq is kite flying paradise of singing butterflies and dancing flowers.
Oct 28, 2006 - 11:50 am 14. AST:Well put, Roger. I’d be more forgiving if they were at least trying to be fair.
Lynne Cheney delivered an example for all Republicans and conservatives of how to stand up for themselves.
I’ve thought over and over how disappointing conservative candidates have been. It’s like they’re intimidated by the media. I’ve thought all year that the best thing the Republicans could do is come together behind the President and make the case for winning the war on terrorism. Instead, they’ve floundered around while the Democrats have been unified in attacking the war. The Dems don’t have any agenda other than undoing everything Bush, but they have passion. Republicans act like a herd of cats.
Blitzer and most other reporters see themselves as citizens of the world. I was amazed that he said he wanted us to win the war in Iraq. Most reporters would have said, “I don’t root for either side. I’m objective.”
Am I wrong to sense a Marxist echo in the rhetoric of those opposed to the war? Every time I watch the news I get the feeling that I’m listening to Al Jazeera or Pravda.
Mrs. Cheney is trying to give Americans resources for their kids to teach them about America, because the public schools have abandoned American values for multiculturism. Why couldn’t Blitzer ask her about that?
Oct 28, 2006 - 12:52 pm 15. pastorius:Roger,
Oct 28, 2006 - 1:39 pm 16. pastorius:The difference between you and guys like Blitzer is you are actually able to change your mind as new facts present themselves. Guys like Blitzer don’t change their minds, I suspect because they are not truly intellectually engaged with the issues. So yeah, maybe you are really into your home up there on that island, but who cares? Luxuries are relative, and what really matters is if you care about your fellow human, which you seem to do.
Sorry about the moralizing, but I thought it needed to be said.
Oct 28, 2006 - 1:39 pm 17. Erik:“we are not partisan”
But a few seconds before that he claimed:
“The answer of course is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that.”
He first claims to be partisan when it makes them look good, then when he needs to defend showing enemy propaganda, he hides behind “we are not partisan”.
So either way, the “not partisan” is a blatant lie, even by his own words. Unless he lied when he said they want the US to win, in which case he is, of course, also partisan…
I’d rather judge peoples actions than their words. His network hid Saddams crimes and put enemy propaganda on the air. Those actions speak louder than words…
Oct 28, 2006 - 2:10 pm 18. Yidwithlid:Wolf Blitzer has a long history of being a partisan. I remember when Arafat died I was in the Nashville Airport watching Blitzer on CNN. The guy was practically crying. I remember wondering what is he so sad about? Why is he mourning for a killer? Then I remembered the years of is bias in favor of terrorist groups.
Oct 28, 2006 - 2:13 pm 19. Walter Guest:You must follow the money to understand why CNN in anti-American. Here in Bangkok we get CNN International. Their biggest advertisers are oil-rich Arab Emirates which are building immense resorts. They sometimes buy a half-hour info commercial.
With their business in the States on the rocks, that pretty much puts CNN into the pockets of various sheikdoms. That is why their leading international correspondent is Christiane Amapour who is an Iranian with an English passport. She is the face of CNNI to appease and please the Muslims.
As I have said before, thereís nothing personal in what CNN does. Itís only business.
Oct 28, 2006 - 2:24 pm 20. turkeyblogger:CNN’s most famous broadcaster is now on the record that the news is the news but off the clock he and his colleagues are rooting for the home team. Let’s get this exchange translated into Arabic and distributed far and wide. We want the Arab world to hear “CNN” and think “pro-American at heart.” When the bad guys run with the CNN stringers, we want them to secretly worry that Wolf will only show their footage if there’s a hidden benefit for America.
The useful idiots in the media aren’t going to stop being idiots. But Lynne Cheney shows the way to keep them from being useful idiots – make them pick a side and use their words to alienate them from whichever side they don’t pick. What Wolf said goes against years of CNN tradition. We shouldn’t harrass him. We should thank for his candor and then use his words to force CNN to stand by him – and lose their international street cred – or walk away from him… and America – and become a less valuable propoganda outfit for our enemies.
Oct 28, 2006 - 2:45 pm 21. ricpic:“…the real issues are good tailoring and homes in the country. Nothing should disturb that.”
It would be easy (and false) to make fun of this most natural aspiration humans have for comfort, status, position. But it always has been the case, and always will be, that the engine driving all of us, with the exception of a few saints, has been the pursuit of – for lack of a better phrase – a good berth.
This is not a problem at most times in most places. But occasionally a society is faced with a radical threat from a radical foe. A foe that doesn’t respect the rules of the game. Such a moment is upon us. The Islamists are such a foe. And at just such a moment the inability of Blitzer & Co. to vacate the comfort zone is evidence of a suicidal paralysis, that may well result in the loss of all their comforts, and of ours.
Oct 28, 2006 - 4:49 pm 22. ShoreMark:I like the way you think at 2:45 in the afternoon Turkeyblogger. The video is all over the place already, it just needs a bit more pushing/promos in the right directions.
Oct 28, 2006 - 5:31 pm 23. navyone:I just sent Wolf Blitzer’s words to Al Jazeera.
Oct 29, 2006 - 5:16 am 24. Vulgorilla:I will post a link if they publish it (in their “open comments” section.)
“Receiving news from Wolf Blitzer is like getting your information filtered through a highly-perfected survival machine. ”
His survival at CNN, of course. No thanks. I crave real news, collected as objectively as possible without regard to any hidden agenda. CNN hasn’t delivered that for literally years and years. Most of my friends call it the “Communist News Network”, or the “Clinton News Network” … and for very good reason – they’re on our enemy’s side, constantly rooting for the bad guys – I think that’s called being “partisan”.
Oct 29, 2006 - 7:18 am 25. navyone:Al Jazeera has an intersting smattering of comments from around the world on Iraq. A couple of brave Americans vs. more than a couple of harumphing tsk-tskers.
They posted my comment on Wolf Blitzer:
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12032#
Someone promptly rated it a bad comment.
Oct 29, 2006 - 10:30 am 26. Old Dad:Not so long ago, journalists were proudly partisan as hell. Every political stripe had its own rag, and you knew what you spent your nickel for.
I suppose the electronic media changed that, probably for economic reasons. It’s hard to sell advertisig to a mass market when you take a partisan editorial stance. So necessity became a virtue, and we bought it lock, stock, and barrel.
And, of course, the marvels of the new medium appeared to have great authority. After all, they were stars. And TV let us see their faces–the serious, craggy, Edward R. Murrow, the voice of London Calling. Who wouldn’t trust that raging lefty. And along came Uncle Walter who almost single handedly lost the War in Viet Nam.
Old myths die hard, but dying it is. Objective journalism and free lunches. Tell me another. Give me a straight shooting partisan hack any day. Mencken anyone? And a few more Hitchens, too.
Oct 29, 2006 - 12:10 pm 27. Lem:If our government is indeed “broken”, watching CNN would not allow even the possibility for 9/11 to have anything to do with it.
If the CNN pre-election blitz “it’s the economy” dashed off and replaced with “it’s the war stupid” in logo form at the bottom right hand of the screen in a “Broken Government” (hint; not Iraq) forum is not partisan, what would a logo “Its national security stupid” (closer to the truth) be?
There is an interesting article on today’s NY Times magazine, written by a Muslim, about weather or not the use of nukes can be permitted and defended by the laws of Islamic Jihad.
“What makes suicide bombing especially relevant to the nuclear question is that, by design, it unsettles the theory of deterrence” duah ?!
If Wolf really believes that naively sublime, September 10th not partisan condition to be reliable in a nuclear proliferating world, things maybe worst than we MSM critics have allowed ourselves to believe.
Oct 29, 2006 - 3:33 pm 28. Lem:There was call here earlier for a definition of a partisan.
Here is one w/ video.
http://tinyurl.com/yjqlkp
Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it’s actually going to allow human cloning.
M.J Fox: Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I – On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.
Read that again – I haven’t read it (what MY candidate is for) but I’m sure I’ll agree with it.
Oct 29, 2006 - 6:16 pm 29. Buddy Larsen:Right, Lem–that’s what Mr. Fox said, that he isn’t sure what the stem-cell proposal says, but he *is* sure of what *he* says.
Oct 29, 2006 - 7:00 pm 30. Captain Hate:Thanks for that link, Lem; if I’d waited for the MSM to bring that up I’d be living in ignorant less-than-bliss. My reservoir of sympathy for MJ Fox just became a dry hole; just another Whoryweird simpleton. I’m sure markus could explain how he isn’t with a show of casuistry that would shame a Jesuit but I’ll have to live without that extremely valuable information.
Hey Roger, I just finished “Director’s Cut”; the reason I picked it up was my book group pissed me off by choosing “The March” by Doctorow. I gave “The March” a try and slogged through about 40 boring pages before concluding that the Muse has left town on that commie symp and put it down; life’s too short to be bothered with trite crap. Moses Wine was the panacea; I’ll be reading more.
Oct 29, 2006 - 7:41 pm 31. jill bryant:Did you watch all of Michael Fox with Stephanopoulos?
What he said about the pro-ESC research candidates he was supporting was:
He didn’t care which party they were in (in fact he did an ad for Arlen Specter in 2004 – he said he would LIKE to find more Republicans that would support it…)
What he looked for was a race where a new candidate would be FOR ESC research v. the candidate presently holding the seat that was anti-ESC research. In other words, replacing a no vote with a yes – regardless of party. His goal was to get enough people in that they could have a majority against Bush’s one and only veto which was against ESC research. He talked about how awful it was to see thoughtful, careful, ethical people pass the bill through the House and the Senate and then have Bush come in and just write it off.
Why do you want to make the MJF situation a partisan issue?
And – he wasn’t up on the initiative because it was not part of his overall goal OR his endorsement. The ad with Caviezel (sp?) was against the initiative and was not about the candidate as far as I know (which makes it just the opposite.)
Oct 29, 2006 - 11:07 pm 32. jill bryant:Wow – I just watched the edited portion of MJF’s interview that was posted here…that is the most manipulative editing I’ve ever seen (I’m sure it’s out there on both sides all the time – I’ve just never been privy to before and after versions before.)
Watch the whole video (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ — this is not a direct link so you might have to look around for it) where Fox talks about how he does agree with some views of the present office-holders (that would be the Republicans) – that they agree on the adult stem cell research…but the best hope is the embryonic stem cells; that he understands some people have prayed on this and cannot accept it and he supports their right to that but he and his family have also prayed on it and are good people and know these are embryos that were being destroyed prior to this. That he is in favor of the snowflake children but they are a very small minority of the embryos that are out there….
This is a very good man that you are not giving a full listen to…
Oct 29, 2006 - 11:33 pm 33. Captain Hate:In the interest of saving people time, I read the transcript (which Jill seems obsessed with having people do since she’s posted the same message on sites that were linked to the Hot Air site) and it does nothing to counter the impression that Fox is a well-intentioned know-nothing who adds nothing of substance to the debate. Although it served as a reminder of “This Week” has become so worthless under Stephanopoulos.
Oct 30, 2006 - 5:27 am 34. jill bryant:Captain Hate -
Interesting you think he is a know-nothing about stem cell research after reading the transcripts. I thought he knew the area quite well – considering his life depends on medical breakthroughs, I also don’t find that surprising.
The reason I went to other sites and presented the same case is:
1) I thought this was really a non-partisan issue (unlike the original post topic which I would understand to be quite heated and was interested in, just as a general case of semantics.)
2) The comments were shut off on the hot air site for this topic which I thought was quite strange and made me feel like they were trying to get away with misleading their readers.
3) I thought I was addressing intelligent readers who would be interested in seeing the full case and would come to more positive conclusions in those circumstances.
My mistake. Captain Hate, I stand corrected.
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:25 am 35. Captain Hate:All you have are snarky replies rather than any evidence that Fox is anything but a political tool; that’s not an effective debating tactic. I’m going to stop wasting Roger’s bandwidth by responding to whatever agenda you’re trying to advance; other than to say the dog pictures on your blog are cute.
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:53 am 36. Buddy Larsen:Jill, I hope you take note of the fact that, due to the aspects of Mr. Fox’s ad that are arguably misleading, the ad itself–in many discussions– has become an issue.
I wonder if the word “backfire” applies.
There’s lots on this at “The Corner” –several later entries above this one.
Oct 30, 2006 - 10:19 am 37. Buddy Larsen:Just heard on CNBC that St Louis is now the nation’s “most dangerous city”, crime having surged “20% since 2004″. Couple that with the recent news of some 15,000 (so far) illegal voter registrations courtesy of that city’s chapter of “Acorn” –and you can’t help but get the impression that the “show me” state is showing us that maybe some truth and straight talk is sorely needed in the state of Missouri.
Oct 30, 2006 - 10:26 am 38. jill bryant:Buddy -
Thank you for pointing that out. That is so sad. In the interview, Fox does talk about the fact that Talent is for adult stem cell research and is happy about that but, again states the most hopeful research is with embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. Of course, that is the hot button and I’m surprised anyone would think he needed to call that out since I assume it is known but – as topics get more complicated – I guess they become more difficult for people to put forward.
Captain Hate -
Oct 30, 2006 - 11:32 am 39. Mikey:My agenda is to discuss this as a non-partisan issue but I understand that is not what RLS’s post is about. Thank you for writing back (”snarky”? ah well). Also, thank you for the comment on the dog pics on my blog
I am glad to see that somebody else has not forgotten Eason Jordan’s performance in Davos where he earned the ire of Barney Frank for that lie.
I also remember an op-ed in the NYT that Jordan penned on April 11, 2003, wherein he confessed CNN’s sins of making themselves part of Hussein’s Ministry of Information in order to protect employees and maintain access.
(I wonder how many other thugocrats the press has made that deal with?)
No, I haven’t forgotten. Or forgiven.
Oct 30, 2006 - 1:13 pm 40. Steven Mitchell:“Everyone is partisan, almost since birth. Partisan and biased. It’s part of the human condition.”
True. And this would seem to make the goal of objective journalism nothing but a smokescreen, and one presumably that should be abandoned as soon as possible.
However, people are generally not equally partisan about all issues. Or rather, a given person is capable of being relatively non-partisan on some issue. Sometimes, they can be so close to non-partisan that other humans can’t tell the difference. Perhaps I’m neglecting possibilities, but I think this happens when a person has extensively studied an issue but not accepted any of the competing answers. Such people often make good moderators, but this is generally by accident. Non-partisanship is not a goal of human nature. Presumably, someone studying an issue hard is trying to arrive at some conclusions. To decide is to become a partisan–even if only to join the camp of cheddar cheese lovers and reject the Harvati heretics.
When a certain identified group of people, on a regular basis, display their lockstep ignorance, shallowness, and total lack of self-awareness–then one has to believe that their resulting lockstep partisanship is not related to the idea expressed in the previous paragraph. The only way to even approach the press ideal of objective reporting is to assume partisanship, then ruthlessly cull it where possible, avoid a particular news beat where not at all possible, and otherwise honestly admit it. Such a high standard would seem to require a great deal of introspection, as well as a mechanism for correcting failure.
Oct 30, 2006 - 3:48 pm 41. pst314:I suppose that “The Triumph of the Will” would suddenly cease to be Nazi propaganda if CNN were to rebroadcast it.
Oct 30, 2006 - 7:09 pm 42. Sandy P:– again states the most hopeful research is with embryonic stem cell (ESC) research.–
They hope, but at least 10-15 years away.
The private money would be there if there were a possibility.
Now, adult stem cells, well, they’re a definite success story.
Via Bros. Judd, A TIME article from 7/17/06:
…At a recent conference of researchers from around the world, a team from Kyoto University in Japan reported success in taking a skin cell, exposing it to four key growth factors and turning it into an embryo-like entity that produced stem cells–all without using an egg. The Kyoto group has submitted its work for publication, after which it will be open to the scrutiny of the scientific community. If successful, it could turn stem-cell science from a tedious, finicky process into a relatively straightforward chemistry project….
Oct 30, 2006 - 7:48 pm 43. Buddy Larsen:The financial interests behind the initiative are interesting. James & Virginia Stowers have evidently contributed almost 100% of the funds to mount the iniative (some $27mm), and have promised to build a 600,000 sq ft research facility only if the iniative wins.
Learn more by searching the names.
Nothing wrong with the Stowerses approach–only it has not been publicized, in favor of presenting the initiative as a sort of people’s groundswell movement.
Like Mr. Fox’s ad, the campaign–seemingly–has been needlessly manipulative.
Oct 31, 2006 - 6:26 am 44. joe:Sandy P.
Would you please stop. Just stop it.
You are confusing people like jill with facts.
All you are going to accomplish is to make her grumpy.
So just stop it.
Thanks.
Nov 2, 2006 - 12:59 pm