--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" <turquoi...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > It's Arizona, but remember, it's a dry hate. > > Thanks, Joe. Best comment in the thread so far > because at least it's funny.
And goodness knows, a thread about 18 people being shot, and six of them killed, including a nine-year- old girl, isn't worth spit unless it's full of yucks. <snip> > It's like everyone has caught ACD (American > Newscaster Disease). That's where you talk, > talk, talk endlessly because you're more > terrified of "dead air" and saying nothing > than you are of appearing a fool by talking > endlessly without knowing any facts. Actually, by the time we started discussing it here, we knew quite a few facts. (Except, of course, for Barry's pal Sal, who "sadly, very sadly" announced that Giffords had died well after that initial incorrect report had been retracted, and after several of the first posts here made it clear that Giffords had survived. Oddly enough, we haven't yet seen a follow-up post from Sal expressing her relief that Giffords hadn't died.) > A similar thing happened with the big chemical > fire here in the Netherlands recently. All news > outlets basically had the same wire story to work > with, which contained almost no hard facts about > the nature of the smoke and whether it was toxic. > But the liberal media spun the story in terms > of "disaster" and imminent evacuations (none were > ever performed or even considered), while the > conservative media spun the story in terms of > "big business is taking care of things...don't > worry." Well, it isn't similar, actually. The media here weren't doing anything like this. The first hard facts I was able to get > on the story came, interestingly enough, from > a Chinese news agency. They were literally the > first to wait until they had all the facts and > thus get the story right. It would be really interesting to have a link to this story from the "Chinese news agency." Somehow I doubt Barry will be able to provide one. But even if we take Barry at his word that he saw such a story, his characterization of it is absurd. His "Chinese news agency" was certainly not the first to make hard facts available. Whatever hard facts Barry saw in the "Chinese news agency" story had been reported here already. CNN had reported, for instance, that Giffords had survived around 3:30 yesterday afternoon. Plus which, nobody, either here or in China, has "all the facts" yet, nowhere near. And how can a news agency be "the first to wait..."? The phrase doesn't make any sense. Barry apparently thinks that news organizations should withhold any reporting on a major story until all the facts are known. That's so ludicrous it doesn't merit any comment. Barry's entire substanceless post is really just an excuse for bashing.
