"Most Americans are convinced that technology...will carry the day for us"
Although Katz appears to have matured in the wake of the murderous terrorist acts of 911 he still resorts to old ways. This piece is a case in point.
Katz's premise is wrong: he, like many, mistake significant journalistic bias for the beliefs of the American people.
Nearly everyone I know is fully supportive of the need to pursue this action with conventional, old-fashioned military strategy i.e. men with machine guns and tanks killing other men with machine guns and destroying their tanks. Technology certainly gives us a great edge, but it won't win this or, probably, any other war. Journalists have tried hard to find dissenting voices, but there just aren't many, discounting a few thousand hippies in San Francisco, and Lord knows the media has given those relaitve few tremendously disproportionate coverage (e.g. last Fiday's "Newshour" piece, "Voices of Caution", 'Caution' presumeably being a term less fraught with historical disdain than 'pacifism'. Journalists are merely spewing in an attempt to provoke reaction and, because at heart many of them are anti-war, to hamstring political support for the war. 'Vietnam' is still a seminal event for many liberals and, therefore, many journalists. Their constant tendency to compare any American conflict with our supposed humiliation in Vietnam (which we did a great job at, despite activist and media disinformation - refer to American Heritage, May 2001 "The Meaning of Tet": e.g. 30-40 Vietcong soldiers dead to our 1, the victory of Tet, etc) is a telling reminder of their bias. Journalists know full well their unfortunate influence on many Americans: Our defeat in Vietnam is proof of their power in these sorts of times, and that's why we hear so much about it.
I was reminded of all this today: I took the day off and spent a bit of time watching a couple of press conferences. I caught both Ari Fleischers and Secretary Rumsfeld's. Each conference quickly reminded me of one of the primary problems we face in waging this, and any, modern war: self righteous, provocative, and biased journalists. Watching a press conference is entirely different than catching the sound-bites from it that make the evening news. The full measure of journalist-induced nausea can't possibly be conveyed in a soundbite.
Many members of the Fourth Estate have at least one thing in common with Attorneys: they're 'neccesary evils'.
Is this the same Katz whose articles I've been reading off and on for years? Who finally pissed me off so badly I checked his box on/.'s config page? (I've since changed user names and haven't gotten around to re-configuring my preferences, thus I'm occasionally exposed to Katz's work). Today's article and one from yesterday (or the day before) have significantly changed my attitue about Katz: I can't believe I'm writing this, but he's struck the right tone. Yes, we should be concerned about the potential loss of privacy. However, we shouldn't act as though we're living inside an X-Files episode, as though the federal government existed primarily to slowly (or not so slowly) strip away the rights of it's citizens. The record of American history shows that we have many more freedoms today than we've ever had. Furthermore, the historical record, at least from my reading and research, proves that our government will return suspended rights to the people after a war has finished. The Civil war saw the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the introduction of the Income Tax. Both measures were rescinded at wars end. The Japanese were interned during WW2 and, whatever one might think of that act, they were released at war's end. The draft has come and gone numerous times. I'm still waiting for someone here to cite examples in American history of rights suspended during wartime yet not returned during peacetime.
Should we be concerned? Your damn right we should and, I think, it would be un-American not to be a bit concerned about the power of our gvernment. Should we be paranoid? American history itself says no.
Katz has, IMHO, struck the perfect balance in this and in his last article: I'm sure that there are many here that are furious with him, but it's about time someone rattled their cages. I was particularly impressed with Katz's last article, in which he asked how this community, using it's prodigous and unique talents, could best support the war effort. Frankly, most of what I've read in the past 7 days was "Oh my God, they're going to take away our rights!". I'd hoped that someone would post a piece like this one, but I would have never believed it would be Katz.
No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th Amendment,
ratified in 1913, gave the Federal Government the power to collect income taxes
and had absolutely nothing to do with war: it passed simply because 99% of Americans were exempted (that percentage is not an exageration).
I'm confident that a fundemantal ignorace regarding the facts of American history is in good measure the cause of the general/. paranoia.
Now, getting back to my origianl post: you're still faced with the question of citing a single example of a civil right rescinded during war time but never returned in the peaceful aftermath. American history actually shows that we can trust our government. Your paranoia, and that of many other/. members, is not only baseless, but actually runs counter to the example of American history. A good portion of this community has abandoned reason, and the proof of history.
Taco is letting his usual colors show. This is a poorly written piece that merely echoes nearly every other piece posted to SlashDot since the WTC incident.
"Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War"
That has got to be one of the grossest oversimplifications I've ever read on SlashDot, and that's saying something
People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards. A few examples: Habeus Corpus was rescinded during the Civil War, and Federal Income Taxes were implemented. Both measures were reversed after the conflict ended. The draft has come and gone several times. It's up to us to make the sacrifice neccesary to eliminate this evil, and then afterwards see to it that our political leadership return our freedom to us. It's been done before, it can be done again: our system works. I suspect that some of you have been OD'ing on X-Files re-runs.
This paranoia is baseless: we've fought wars before, and seen many harsh restrictions during the conflict, but not a single post I've read has specified a freedom lost in past wars that we've been unable to regain as citizens. In American history there is no historical basis for this mania: the historical record actually shows the opposite to be true!
Give the Federal Govenrment the tools, and the support, it needs to fight this war, then see to it that, when the job is done, our freedoms are returned. Past generations have done the same, and we've reaped the benefits of their sacrifice while suffering no reduction in our civil liberties.
Who in the world has suggested that we surrender "all of our freedom"? Not even the most hawkish politicians have made that suggestion.
You've actually illustrated my point perfectly: at the mere suggestion of a temporarty loss of some of our freedoms many members of this forum howl as if the Constitution was being shredded. In this case, a decreased level of personal privacy somehow metamorphs into the "loss of all our freedom".
"Endangering the lives of many military personel"? What do you think those soldiers are for? This sort of thing is the very reason we have an Army/Navy/Marine Corp/Air Force. I wore the uniform and I know many that still do. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of American servicemen and women relish the thought of being involved in any action that punishes those responsible, despite the risks to their lives and limbs. They know their duty, and the risks of their profession: they're paid to do one of two things: train to fight the enemy and fight the enemy.
5000 people die, yet you can't imagine giving up e-mail privacy to prevent it from happening again. Your attitude is exactly what pigs like Bin Laden are counting on. I'm sure his ilk are aware that there are many Americans too spoiled and selfish to make the sacrifices neccesary to punish those responsible and to see that it never happens again.
Too many SlashDotters have the immature attitude that freedom is absolute, that any abridgement is tantamount to tyranny. Over the years I've been amused by many such slashdot threads. But now amusement has been replaced by nausea: these threads just make me sick to my stomach.
I consistently agree with O'Reilly on issues. However, I dislike his vitriolic, aggresive, and often rude methods. His comments are regularly irrational and occasionally just plain ridiculous. Did any SlashDotters catch his Tuesday-or was it Wednesday?-interview with a guest about Airline security? The guest commented that Americans are often hesitant to surrender freedoms to National security forces, a reasonable statement, especially relative to the average SlashDotter. O'Reilly proceeded to jump all over him, denying that Americans might have reservations about the power of the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al.
He regularly browbeats his guests, especially those he disagrees with. My two-bit ananlysis of the phenomonon of his success: many viewers find vicarious pleasure when watching O'Reilly abuse guests that they disagree with.
I prefer the NewsHour's approach: arrange a panel with well-behaved and well-spoken representatives from both sides of the political spectrum, add an Academic or two, then moderate with an intelligent, informed, professional, and unfaillingly courteous journalist.
Publications and Organizations whose writers/leaders are regularly represented: Weekly Standard, National Review, The Nation, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ACLU, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, NAACP. The list goes on and on, and includes just about every well known conservative and liberal publication/organisation in the country.
As to Jim Lehrer's bias: you are absolutely wrong. I've watched him for years and still have no idea what his politics are (and if anyone knows, for God sakes don't tell me). You've failed to grasp the fact that Jim Lehrer's political androgony is precisely what I find appealing: I firmly believe that he, and many others in his newsroom, are completely committed to providing me with the information that I need to make a judgement. That's most certainly not the case with O'Reilly and most, or at least many, other journalists.
To sum-up: I would agree that O'Reilly editorializes, but at least in his case it's obvious. Many other journalists mask their editorial bias behind a facade of journalistic balance. A rare few, Lehrer among them, actually attempt to convey the facts and are willing to let their viewers make up their own mind.
Predictably, Jon continues to grind his new media vs. old media 'axe'. However, there's a new twist: in this case, at least, he admits that the old media has an impact that the new hasn't significantly blunted.
Typically, Katz frames the argument about the relative benefits of both old and new media outlets in terms of politicians/pundits vs. the man on the street. Presumeably, the Politicians and Pundits cannot present news sans bias, yet the man on the street can. His position has always struck me as simplistic and puzzling. I could give a damn about the media outlet type...the question is whether or not the outlet reports the news accurately, fairly, and professionaly. Katz himself is a perfect example of the "Man on the Street" that reports with bias. PBS's Newshour is a perfect example of "Old Media" that gets it right (see below). Dan Rather and the newsroom that he runs is an example of "Old Media" that shows regular bias despite their protestations to the contrary.
The sad fact is that Jon's brand of 'reporting' is a good example of one of the reasons that the "New Media" continues to lag behind the old. I've read his pieces off and on since 'Wired' and his bias and, frankly, immaturity, are often on display.
Furthermore, it's obvious that Jon frequently heeds his own call to "turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences". He often has a poor grasp of facts, political realities, and the world in general. His slanderous use of the phrase "fled to various bunkers" to describe the President's activities after the incident is evidence that Jon has little understanding of the facts surrounding events nor the tremendous repercussions should the President have been killed. The destruction of the World Trade Center was a tremendous blow struck against US, and world, economics. The destruction of the President, (not George W Bush the man, mind you, whom it's obvious that Katz despises, but rather the President of the United States) would have been a tremendous blow against the US government. The combination of the two blows would result in chaos for this country, and the world. Katz's statement is silly, petty, and poorly thought out for so many reasons, too many to describe here. I'm not surprised by them, though: it's typical of him.
The "cool and natural" demeanor of Reporters that Jon calls "odd" I call refreshing and professional. I don't want a reporter sobbing, dazed, shocked, exhausted, angry, etc. I take it for granted that even the most hardboiled reporter is genuinely moved by recent events and, if they're capable of containing their emotions while doing their job, they're to be congratulated.
Anecdotes are nice and occasionally important. However, hard facts are what makes news, IMHO, and I want those facts presented rationally and dispassionately. I enjoyed Jon's first piece about the tragedy but I certainly wouldn't describe it as journalism: I was genuinely moved when he mentioned that he fell to his knees and prayed. However, that's anecdotal. Ultimately, I want facts, not emotions.
On-Line reporting, at least reporting unconnected with "Old Media" has a long way to go and attitudes like Katz's are at least in part to blame. Katz has crowed for years about the impending demise of "Old Media" and now, in today's piece, he's admitted that "old Media" still reigns supreme. I was surprised to see Katz admit that much: I'll be even more surprised when he admits that his brand of "reporting" is one of the reasons why "On-Line" journalism still eats the "Tube's" dust.
Replace Katz and his ilk with the On Line equivalent of Walter Cronkite, Robin McNeil, or Jim Lehrer, and things might change. Until then I'll still rely heavily on the "Tube" for news.
Now it's time to plug my favorite news program: PBS's "NewsHour". If you:
1. take News seriously and
2. despise the "O'Reilly Factor" method of news reporting
then do yourself a big favor and watch the NewsHour tomorrow afternoon.
Noticed that the author placed apostrophes around "free", implying the inaccuracy of that word in this context. The Libertarian in me winces every time I see the word 'free' used in conjunction with the Government... As a memeber of the middle class I refexively reach for my wallet to see if it's still there.
In many (most) cases, if the governemnt is involved (any form of government) not only is it not free, it costs one hell of a lot more than it otherwise might. Besides that, did I miss something? Is there a shortage of (truly) free web-based e-mail providers? Typical: government, driven by vote-seeking politicians, proposes a solution to an imaginary problem (in this case, a shortage of free e-mail providers), throws a lot of money at it, wasting it in the process, all for nothing.
The most infuriating (and ingenious) element of this process: those that speak out against the program are bombarded with accustaions of insensitivity to the needs of the poor. It's perfect, in a perverse way: a ridiculous idea that has a built-in controversy eliminator or, at the least, minimizer.
Right, it's nit-picking, but this fellow should know better: after all, he was there! The Air Force was formed in '47 out of the Army Air Corp. My Dad joined the Army in '42 or '43 and was assigned to the Air Corp... He seperated along with about ten million other guys not long after VJ day
You've got a good point. However, I have to say that I was impressed with the number, and variety, of industry opinion in Gamespy's hit-list. Quite an impressive panel. Thier comments are generally interesting, if not insightful. The level of participation from those in the Biz sets this survey apart from those I've seen elsewhere.
Either Defender or Stargate deserved to be on that list. Stargate had me hooked so bad that, given the choice between $3.00 worth of Stargate or a porno mag, I wouldn't have thought twice. What a game.
Now, I'm not so sure about Pong or Breakout: I think I played those games (on the Atari) when it was either that or Gilligan's Island. But It wasn't as though I'd miss Starsky and Hutch just to play Pong.
Sure, all "Greatest Hits" lists are subjective, and won't come close to satisfying everyone, but I'm gonna yell anyway: how in the hell did FO1 or 2 miss that list? Starcraft and BG1 make it, but neither FO? That's screwball!
Omitting Descent 1 or 2 I can see, although barely, despite the fact that one or the other would easily make my top 20. What about Jagged Alliance 2? An absolutely awesome game with endless replay potential.
They got it right in some respects: Doom should be #1. It's succesor was the sole reason I decided to buy my first computer: I shelled out $600.00 for 16 Megs of RAM: remember those days?. However, games like X-Com TFTD and Descent 1 quickly validated my purchase. That was back in the day when I'd play from dusk to dawn.
The inclusion of X-Com UFOD was spot-on as well. Both System Shocks definitely deserved to make the cut, as well as Duke 3D.
Wish they'd omitted consoles. At least Super Metroids made the cut, but I would have had to choose Herzog Zwei as well.
In fairness to the reviewers, there are entire genres I've virtually ignored (simulations, god-games, fighting). The editors had to make room for games from every genre in both PC and Console. They made some tough calls, I know, but I have to say that the omission of one of the Fallout games has to be the biggest boner of all. I went through them from 50 to 1, in that order, and as I went I was increasingly please because I fealt certain that FO was going to score higher than I'd anticipated. It wasn't until I got to the 10-2 page that I realized it had been overlooked: I knew Doom had to be #1.
Think it's time for me to contact Gamespy and ask for an explanation.
There's nothing distasteful about rational, reasoned discussion of a distasteful subject, any subject. Why are we all here talking about it if it's an illegitimate topic? My gripe with this sort of garbage program has nothing to do with the the distastefulness of the subject. I'm disturbed by the fact that, like so much of modern art and entertainment, the performer/artist intentionally offends while cloaking their "art" within the mantle of "social commentary". Modern artists/performers are often souless, directionless, without strong moral centers. The only avenue left for some: ridicule and parody the mores of the society that they live within, yet despise. This is a pattern that became pronounced in the 60's, waned in the 80's, and is now returning with a vengeance. Many Artists/Performers simply choose offensive material because it gains easy notoriety (this entire thread is a case in point). They lack the more subtle, refined, and crafted ability to comment on society in a productive, thoughtful manner.
A fundamental: while some societal values do change over time, some values MUST remain. Restrictions against the acts of murder, theft, cheating, lying, and many other forms of behaviour are, at the very least, neccesary for the continued existence of a stable and ordered society. At most, they're neccesary for the spiritual health of every human being. I often wonder if modern liberal thought perceives all mores as individual dominoes in a chain, each one falling when struck by the one before. Your statement, and others, has almost left me with the impression that the taboo against sex with children is just one more restriction on individual desires that society will one day overcome.
Finally, your piece mixes apples and oranges: you confuse the taboo that surrounds the act with the act itself and sceintific facts. You use murder as an example of something worse than paedophilia, as though to argue that paedophilia should be just as frequently parodied, joked about, etc. Herein lies a bit of the difference between the two: many (most?) people can relate, at least in part, to murder, at the very least in the sense of wishing violence towards someone, murder being the ultimate form of violence. However, which of us, in any way, finds a three year old sexually desireable? It's unthinkable, and it's impossible to imagine the sickness of a mind so contorted. Of course, you might argue that we merely find such a thing unimagineable because it's taboo. Other's, and I'm in this camp, maintain that taboos are tools developed by society to safeguard against the most harmful forms of human behaviour. The taboo surrounding paedophilia exists for good reason, and little thought is required to understand the importance of that particular taboo. Sure, lets discuss the issue rationally and intelligently, but lets not make something so horrible and debased a subject to be joked about by the next Leno or Letterman.
Slashdot Mirror
"Most Americans are convinced that technology...will carry the day for us"
Although Katz appears to have matured in the wake of the murderous terrorist acts of 911 he still resorts to old ways. This piece is a case in point.
Katz's premise is wrong: he, like many, mistake significant journalistic bias for the beliefs of the American people.
Nearly everyone I know is fully supportive of the need to pursue this action with conventional, old-fashioned military strategy i.e. men with machine guns and tanks killing other men with machine guns and destroying their tanks. Technology certainly gives us a great edge, but it won't win this or, probably, any other war. Journalists have tried hard to find dissenting voices, but there just aren't many, discounting a few thousand hippies in San Francisco, and Lord knows the media has given those relaitve few tremendously disproportionate coverage (e.g. last Fiday's "Newshour" piece, "Voices of Caution", 'Caution' presumeably being a term less fraught with historical disdain than 'pacifism'. Journalists are merely spewing in an attempt to provoke reaction and, because at heart many of them are anti-war, to hamstring political support for the war. 'Vietnam' is still a seminal event for many liberals and, therefore, many journalists. Their constant tendency to compare any American conflict with our supposed humiliation in Vietnam (which we did a great job at, despite activist and media disinformation - refer to American Heritage, May 2001 "The Meaning of Tet": e.g. 30-40 Vietcong soldiers dead to our 1, the victory of Tet, etc) is a telling reminder of their bias. Journalists know full well their unfortunate influence on many Americans: Our defeat in Vietnam is proof of their power in these sorts of times, and that's why we hear so much about it.
I was reminded of all this today: I took the day off and spent a bit of time watching a couple of press conferences. I caught both Ari Fleischers and Secretary Rumsfeld's. Each conference quickly reminded me of one of the primary problems we face in waging this, and any, modern war: self righteous, provocative, and biased journalists. Watching a press conference is entirely different than catching the sound-bites from it that make the evening news. The full measure of journalist-induced nausea can't possibly be conveyed in a soundbite.
Many members of the Fourth Estate have at least one thing in common with Attorneys: they're 'neccesary evils'.
Is this the same Katz whose articles I've been reading off and on for years? Who finally pissed me off so badly I checked his box on /.'s config page? (I've since changed user names and haven't gotten around to re-configuring my preferences, thus I'm occasionally exposed to Katz's work). Today's article and one from yesterday (or the day before) have significantly changed my attitue about Katz: I can't believe I'm writing this, but he's struck the right tone. Yes, we should be concerned about the potential loss of privacy. However, we shouldn't act as though we're living inside an X-Files episode, as though the federal government existed primarily to slowly (or not so slowly) strip away the rights of it's citizens. The record of American history shows that we have many more freedoms today than we've ever had. Furthermore, the historical record, at least from my reading and research, proves that our government will return suspended rights to the people after a war has finished. The Civil war saw the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the introduction of the Income Tax. Both measures were rescinded at wars end. The Japanese were interned during WW2 and, whatever one might think of that act, they were released at war's end. The draft has come and gone numerous times. I'm still waiting for someone here to cite examples in American history of rights suspended during wartime yet not returned during peacetime.
Should we be concerned? Your damn right we should and, I think, it would be un-American not to be a bit concerned about the power of our gvernment. Should we be paranoid? American history itself says no.
Katz has, IMHO, struck the perfect balance in this and in his last article: I'm sure that there are many here that are furious with him, but it's about time someone rattled their cages. I was particularly impressed with Katz's last article, in which he asked how this community, using it's prodigous and unique talents, could best support the war effort. Frankly, most of what I've read in the past 7 days was "Oh my God, they're going to take away our rights!". I'd hoped that someone would post a piece like this one, but I would have never believed it would be Katz.
Katz, thanks for this piece, and yesterday's.
No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave the Federal Government the power to collect income taxes and had absolutely nothing to do with war: it passed simply because 99% of Americans were exempted (that percentage is not an exageration).
/. paranoia.
/. members, is not only baseless, but actually runs counter to the example of American history. A good portion of this community has abandoned reason, and the proof of history.
I'm confident that a fundemantal ignorace regarding the facts of American history is in good measure the cause of the general
Now, getting back to my origianl post: you're still faced with the question of citing a single example of a civil right rescinded during war time but never returned in the peaceful aftermath. American history actually shows that we can trust our government. Your paranoia, and that of many other
Taco is letting his usual colors show. This is a poorly written piece that merely echoes nearly every other piece posted to SlashDot since the WTC incident.
"Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War"
That has got to be one of the grossest oversimplifications I've ever read on SlashDot, and that's saying something
People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards. A few examples: Habeus Corpus was rescinded during the Civil War, and Federal Income Taxes were implemented. Both measures were reversed after the conflict ended. The draft has come and gone several times. It's up to us to make the sacrifice neccesary to eliminate this evil, and then afterwards see to it that our political leadership return our freedom to us. It's been done before, it can be done again: our system works. I suspect that some of you have been OD'ing on X-Files re-runs.
This paranoia is baseless: we've fought wars before, and seen many harsh restrictions during the conflict, but not a single post I've read has specified a freedom lost in past wars that we've been unable to regain as citizens. In American history there is no historical basis for this mania: the historical record actually shows the opposite to be true!
Give the Federal Govenrment the tools, and the support, it needs to fight this war, then see to it that, when the job is done, our freedoms are returned. Past generations have done the same, and we've reaped the benefits of their sacrifice while suffering no reduction in our civil liberties.
Who in the world has suggested that we surrender "all of our freedom"? Not even the most hawkish politicians have made that suggestion.
You've actually illustrated my point perfectly: at the mere suggestion of a temporarty loss of some of our freedoms many members of this forum howl as if the Constitution was being shredded. In this case, a decreased level of personal privacy somehow metamorphs into the "loss of all our freedom".
"Endangering the lives of many military personel"? What do you think those soldiers are for? This sort of thing is the very reason we have an Army/Navy/Marine Corp/Air Force. I wore the uniform and I know many that still do. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of American servicemen and women relish the thought of being involved in any action that punishes those responsible, despite the risks to their lives and limbs. They know their duty, and the risks of their profession: they're paid to do one of two things: train to fight the enemy and fight the enemy.
5000 people die, yet you can't imagine giving up e-mail privacy to prevent it from happening again. Your attitude is exactly what pigs like Bin Laden are counting on. I'm sure his ilk are aware that there are many Americans too spoiled and selfish to make the sacrifices neccesary to punish those responsible and to see that it never happens again.
Too many SlashDotters have the immature attitude that freedom is absolute, that any abridgement is tantamount to tyranny. Over the years I've been amused by many such slashdot threads. But now amusement has been replaced by nausea: these threads just make me sick to my stomach.
You couldn't be further from the truth:
I consistently agree with O'Reilly on issues. However, I dislike his vitriolic, aggresive, and often rude methods. His comments are regularly irrational and occasionally just plain ridiculous. Did any SlashDotters catch his Tuesday-or was it Wednesday?-interview with a guest about Airline security? The guest commented that Americans are often hesitant to surrender freedoms to National security forces, a reasonable statement, especially relative to the average SlashDotter. O'Reilly proceeded to jump all over him, denying that Americans might have reservations about the power of the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al.
He regularly browbeats his guests, especially those he disagrees with. My two-bit ananlysis of the phenomonon of his success: many viewers find vicarious pleasure when watching O'Reilly abuse guests that they disagree with.
I prefer the NewsHour's approach: arrange a panel with well-behaved and well-spoken representatives from both sides of the political spectrum, add an Academic or two, then moderate with an intelligent, informed, professional, and unfaillingly courteous journalist.
Publications and Organizations whose writers/leaders are regularly represented: Weekly Standard, National Review, The Nation, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ACLU, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, NAACP. The list goes on and on, and includes just about every well known conservative and liberal publication/organisation in the country.
As to Jim Lehrer's bias: you are absolutely wrong. I've watched him for years and still have no idea what his politics are (and if anyone knows, for God sakes don't tell me). You've failed to grasp the fact that Jim Lehrer's political androgony is precisely what I find appealing: I firmly believe that he, and many others in his newsroom, are completely committed to providing me with the information that I need to make a judgement. That's most certainly not the case with O'Reilly and most, or at least many, other journalists.
To sum-up: I would agree that O'Reilly editorializes, but at least in his case it's obvious. Many other journalists mask their editorial bias behind a facade of journalistic balance. A rare few, Lehrer among them, actually attempt to convey the facts and are willing to let their viewers make up their own mind.
Predictably, Jon continues to grind his new media vs. old media 'axe'. However, there's a new twist: in this case, at least, he admits that the old media has an impact that the new hasn't significantly blunted.
Typically, Katz frames the argument about the relative benefits of both old and new media outlets in terms of politicians/pundits vs. the man on the street. Presumeably, the Politicians and Pundits cannot present news sans bias, yet the man on the street can. His position has always struck me as simplistic and puzzling. I could give a damn about the media outlet type...the question is whether or not the outlet reports the news accurately, fairly, and professionaly. Katz himself is a perfect example of the "Man on the Street" that reports with bias. PBS's Newshour is a perfect example of "Old Media" that gets it right (see below). Dan Rather and the newsroom that he runs is an example of "Old Media" that shows regular bias despite their protestations to the contrary.
The sad fact is that Jon's brand of 'reporting' is a good example of one of the reasons that the "New Media" continues to lag behind the old. I've read his pieces off and on since 'Wired' and his bias and, frankly, immaturity, are often on display.
Furthermore, it's obvious that Jon frequently heeds his own call to "turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences". He often has a poor grasp of facts, political realities, and the world in general. His slanderous use of the phrase "fled to various bunkers" to describe the President's activities after the incident is evidence that Jon has little understanding of the facts surrounding events nor the tremendous repercussions should the President have been killed. The destruction of the World Trade Center was a tremendous blow struck against US, and world, economics. The destruction of the President, (not George W Bush the man, mind you, whom it's obvious that Katz despises, but rather the President of the United States) would have been a tremendous blow against the US government. The combination of the two blows would result in chaos for this country, and the world. Katz's statement is silly, petty, and poorly thought out for so many reasons, too many to describe here. I'm not surprised by them, though: it's typical of him.
The "cool and natural" demeanor of Reporters that Jon calls "odd" I call refreshing and professional. I don't want a reporter sobbing, dazed, shocked, exhausted, angry, etc. I take it for granted that even the most hardboiled reporter is genuinely moved by recent events and, if they're capable of containing their emotions while doing their job, they're to be congratulated.
Anecdotes are nice and occasionally important. However, hard facts are what makes news, IMHO, and I want those facts presented rationally and dispassionately. I enjoyed Jon's first piece about the tragedy but I certainly wouldn't describe it as journalism: I was genuinely moved when he mentioned that he fell to his knees and prayed. However, that's anecdotal. Ultimately, I want facts, not emotions.
On-Line reporting, at least reporting unconnected with "Old Media" has a long way to go and attitudes like Katz's are at least in part to blame. Katz has crowed for years about the impending demise of "Old Media" and now, in today's piece, he's admitted that "old Media" still reigns supreme. I was surprised to see Katz admit that much: I'll be even more surprised when he admits that his brand of "reporting" is one of the reasons why "On-Line" journalism still eats the "Tube's" dust.
Replace Katz and his ilk with the On Line equivalent of Walter Cronkite, Robin McNeil, or Jim Lehrer, and things might change. Until then I'll still rely heavily on the "Tube" for news.
Now it's time to plug my favorite news program: PBS's "NewsHour". If you:
1. take News seriously and
2. despise the "O'Reilly Factor" method of news reporting
then do yourself a big favor and watch the NewsHour tomorrow afternoon.
Noticed that the author placed apostrophes around "free", implying the inaccuracy of that word in this context. The Libertarian in me winces every time I see the word 'free' used in conjunction with the Government... As a memeber of the middle class I refexively reach for my wallet to see if it's still there.
In many (most) cases, if the governemnt is involved (any form of government) not only is it not free, it costs one hell of a lot more than it otherwise might. Besides that, did I miss something? Is there a shortage of (truly) free web-based e-mail providers? Typical: government, driven by vote-seeking politicians, proposes a solution to an imaginary problem (in this case, a shortage of free e-mail providers), throws a lot of money at it, wasting it in the process, all for nothing.
The most infuriating (and ingenious) element of this process: those that speak out against the program are bombarded with accustaions of insensitivity to the needs of the poor. It's perfect, in a perverse way: a ridiculous idea that has a built-in controversy eliminator or, at the least, minimizer.
Right, it's nit-picking, but this fellow should know better: after all, he was there! The Air Force was formed in '47 out of the Army Air Corp. My Dad joined the Army in '42 or '43 and was assigned to the Air Corp... He seperated along with about ten million other guys not long after VJ day
You've got a good point. However, I have to say that I was impressed with the number, and variety, of industry opinion in Gamespy's hit-list. Quite an impressive panel. Thier comments are generally interesting, if not insightful. The level of participation from those in the Biz sets this survey apart from those I've seen elsewhere.
You're taking me back to the day....
Either Defender or Stargate deserved to be on that list. Stargate had me hooked so bad that, given the choice between $3.00 worth of Stargate or a porno mag, I wouldn't have thought twice. What a game.
Now, I'm not so sure about Pong or Breakout: I think I played those games (on the Atari) when it was either that or Gilligan's Island. But It wasn't as though I'd miss Starsky and Hutch just to play Pong.
Sure, all "Greatest Hits" lists are subjective, and won't come close to satisfying everyone, but I'm gonna yell anyway: how in the hell did FO1 or 2 miss that list? Starcraft and BG1 make it, but neither FO? That's screwball!
Omitting Descent 1 or 2 I can see, although barely, despite the fact that one or the other would easily make my top 20. What about Jagged Alliance 2? An absolutely awesome game with endless replay potential.
They got it right in some respects: Doom should be #1. It's succesor was the sole reason I decided to buy my first computer: I shelled out $600.00 for 16 Megs of RAM: remember those days?. However, games like X-Com TFTD and Descent 1 quickly validated my purchase. That was back in the day when I'd play from dusk to dawn.
The inclusion of X-Com UFOD was spot-on as well. Both System Shocks definitely deserved to make the cut, as well as Duke 3D.
Wish they'd omitted consoles. At least Super Metroids made the cut, but I would have had to choose Herzog Zwei as well.
In fairness to the reviewers, there are entire genres I've virtually ignored (simulations, god-games, fighting). The editors had to make room for games from every genre in both PC and Console. They made some tough calls, I know, but I have to say that the omission of one of the Fallout games has to be the biggest boner of all. I went through them from 50 to 1, in that order, and as I went I was increasingly please because I fealt certain that FO was going to score higher than I'd anticipated. It wasn't until I got to the 10-2 page that I realized it had been overlooked: I knew Doom had to be #1.
Think it's time for me to contact Gamespy and ask for an explanation.
There's nothing distasteful about rational, reasoned discussion of a distasteful subject, any subject. Why are we all here talking about it if it's an illegitimate topic? My gripe with this sort of garbage program has nothing to do with the the distastefulness of the subject. I'm disturbed by the fact that, like so much of modern art and entertainment, the performer/artist intentionally offends while cloaking their "art" within the mantle of "social commentary". Modern artists/performers are often souless, directionless, without strong moral centers. The only avenue left for some: ridicule and parody the mores of the society that they live within, yet despise. This is a pattern that became pronounced in the 60's, waned in the 80's, and is now returning with a vengeance. Many Artists/Performers simply choose offensive material because it gains easy notoriety (this entire thread is a case in point). They lack the more subtle, refined, and crafted ability to comment on society in a productive, thoughtful manner.
A fundamental: while some societal values do change over time, some values MUST remain. Restrictions against the acts of murder, theft, cheating, lying, and many other forms of behaviour are, at the very least, neccesary for the continued existence of a stable and ordered society. At most, they're neccesary for the spiritual health of every human being. I often wonder if modern liberal thought perceives all mores as individual dominoes in a chain, each one falling when struck by the one before. Your statement, and others, has almost left me with the impression that the taboo against sex with children is just one more restriction on individual desires that society will one day overcome.
Finally, your piece mixes apples and oranges: you confuse the taboo that surrounds the act with the act itself and sceintific facts. You use murder as an example of something worse than paedophilia, as though to argue that paedophilia should be just as frequently parodied, joked about, etc. Herein lies a bit of the difference between the two: many (most?) people can relate, at least in part, to murder, at the very least in the sense of wishing violence towards someone, murder being the ultimate form of violence. However, which of us, in any way, finds a three year old sexually desireable? It's unthinkable, and it's impossible to imagine the sickness of a mind so contorted. Of course, you might argue that we merely find such a thing unimagineable because it's taboo. Other's, and I'm in this camp, maintain that taboos are tools developed by society to safeguard against the most harmful forms of human behaviour. The taboo surrounding paedophilia exists for good reason, and little thought is required to understand the importance of that particular taboo. Sure, lets discuss the issue rationally and intelligently, but lets not make something so horrible and debased a subject to be joked about by the next Leno or Letterman.