# Army, Navy Times call for Rumsfeld's ouster



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Those of us who are opposed to the war or critical of the war effort are often criticized here for not knowing what we're talking about, and told that we should listen to people who have actually been there. That being the case, you might be interested in the editorial that is coming out in Monday's Army Times and Navy Times:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, seen on Oct. 18, is criticized in an editorial to be published Monday in publications catering to the major branches of the U.S. military.


Just days after President Bush publicly affirmed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's job security through the end of his term, a family of publications catering to the military will publish an editorial calling for the defense secretary's removal.

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Could he take Bush with him?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

jackmccullough,

Many Republicans and supporters of the war have been calling for Rumsefeld to resign for months, including Senator McCain. Don't think for a moment that many of us who support the war support the way it is being conducted - there is a a difference and I am sure with your fine Jesuit education you can understand that difference. But let us agree on one thing - Rumsfeld should be fired (and not be allowed to resign) the day after the election.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Just wondering, Karl.

Why after the election and not before? Wouldn't it help the GOP if he left now?

Why not allow him to resign? Is this a punitive thing? I think Rumsfeld has been unsuccessful, but I don't think he tanked it. Is it necessary to humiliate him for some reason rather than allow him to save face?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

After the election bc if it was before the election it would seriously hurt the GOP, and given the fact they will get mauled anyway, such an announcement will only erode their numbers in Congress.

Why should Rumsfeld be fired? One word - hubris. His continued arrogance and refusal to be flexible and recognize the facts on the ground have seriously jeopardized our mission in Iraq. His management style and lack of focus have created chaos at the Pentagon. I am not a DOD insider but I have a few friends who work in Washington and are close to the administration and my best friend is in Iraq now, they all tell me that Rumsfeld is universally disliked and he is impossible to work for. The fact that he holds grudges against those who offer him advice that contradicts his own views (see General Shinseki for example) doesn't help matters.

When people screw up on such a colossal scale, no matter what their intentions, they should be fired. Rumsfeld must be fired. And if Bush doesn't fire him in the next month then he may as well spend the next two years in Crawford.

Karl


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

This isn't totally off-topic, so it may as well be placed here instead of in a new thread:

https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?printable=true&currentPage=all

The remarks contained in this article are the very essence of political opportunism. I've always had a touch of sympathy for GWB because he has seemed like the perfect patsy and front man for the ideologues who have used him. Now, with nearly two full years left in his final term, utter scum like Perle are turning on him and at the end of the day GWB is going be left holding the bag (Cheney will bail on him as well - he might even resign "for health reasons"). This could get very ugly as it plays out. On the other hand, someone with GWB's ear - Condi, perhaps? - could help him turn this wholesale ideological defection into an opportunity. That's probably expecting too much, however.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Crs,
> 
> After the election bc if it was before the election it would seriously hurt the GOP, and given the fact they will get mauled anyway, such an announcement will only erode their numbers in Congress.


See, I don't get that. I think the reason why a lot of people are honked off at the GOP is the inflexibility, the stubborn stay-the-course mentality when all evidence points to the opposite. Some might see a change as caving into pressure, sure. But others would see it as our president finally getting his head out of ... ummm ... the sand.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*GWB=Cheney+Rumsfeld divided by Rove!*



Karl89 said:


> Crs,
> .
> 
> When people screw up on such a colossal scale, no matter what their intentions, they should be fired. Rumsfeld must be fired. And if Bush doesn't fire him in the next month then he may as well spend the next two years in Crawford.
> ...


Hubris, incompetence, arrogance, refusal to admit error.

Why that sounds like GWB

Maybe GWB can spend the next two years in Crawford, cutting wood and Bicycling with Lance Armstrong!:icon_smile:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

One publication and the Liberal media blows it completely out or proportion?

There are many military service people who have and are serving over there who say otherwise, but the liberal media never prints that, do they? With holding truth is telling a lie, as half truthes are lies.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

I am a Republican and think Rumsfeld must go. But I do wonder if these Lefties have ever called for a Democrat to resign. Did they demand Ted Kennedy's resignation when his drunken driving killed a woman? Did they demand Gerry Studds resignation when he had an affair with a 17 year old page? Did they demand Barney Frank's resignation when it was discovered that his companion was operating an escort service from his home? Did they demand Clinton's resignation when he lied under oath (with the effect that VP Gore would have been re-elected POTUS in 2000 rather easily)? Did they demand Chris Dodd's resignation when he praised fromer KKK member Byrd and said his leadership would have been welcome during the Civil War? Have they demanded Rep. Jeffeson resign after the FBI caught him picking up a garabage bag with $100,000 USD in cash? . Did they ask Cynthia McKinney to resign after her attack against Capitol Police?Did they ask Rep. Hastings resign given the fact he was impeached as a federal judge in 1989?

I think we know the answer to these questions. Democrats only hold Republicans to high standards - a good thing too, otherwise their ranks would be depleted.

Karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.


The Army Times, Navy Times, etc. are not "military magazines." They are owned by Gannett Group, which publishes USA Today. The magazines are private, and not official in any way. The rank-and-file troops consider it to be the National Enquirer of the military. Most so-called news outlets have not felt the need to mention these facts.

The coverage on this non-story is just another example of outrageously deceptive reporting. Given the laughable state of what passes for news in this country, we shouldn't be surprised.

But, I suppose, as one news man told me, we shouldn't criticize news reporters for their intense and obvious bias. It's like being a gynecologist and still having a sex drive, he said -- you can be a flaming, red-faced, rage-filled Communist, but _as long as it doesn't affect your work_, it's OK to pretend that you are a level-headed, decent person.

Right.

(By the way, I despise George Bush and this war, but I don't have to lie my way into phony stories to say these things.)


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Lushington said:


> This isn't totally off-topic, so it may as well be placed here instead of in a new thread:
> 
> https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?printable=true&currentPage=all
> 
> The remarks contained in this article are the very essence of political opportunism. I've always had a touch of sympathy for GWB because he has seemed like the perfect patsy and front man for the ideologues who have used him. Now, with nearly two full years left in his final term, utter scum like Perle are turning on him and at the end of the day GWB is going be left holding the bag (Cheney will bail on him as well - he might even resign "for health reasons"). This could get very ugly as it plays out. On the other hand, someone with GWB's ear - Condi, perhaps? - could help him turn this wholesale ideological defection into an opportunity. That's probably expecting too much, however.


Thank-you for that article - it's enlightening. (Though that neo-conservatives are weasels is nothing new to me).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> I am a Republican and think Rumsfeld must go. But I do wonder if these Lefties have ever called for a Democrat to resign. Did they demand Ted Kennedy's resignation when his drunken driving killed a woman? Did they demand Gerry Studds resignation when he had an affair with a 17 year old page? Did they demand Barney Frank's resignation when it was discovered that his companion was operating an escort service from his home? Did they demand Clinton's resignation when he lied under oath (with the effect that VP Gore would have been re-elected POTUS in 2000 rather easily)? Did they demand Chris Dodd's resignation when he praised fromer KKK member Byrd and said his leadership would have been welcome during the Civil War? Have they demanded Rep. Jeffeson resign after the FBI caught him picking up a garabage bag with $100,000 USD in cash? Will they demand that Rep. Did they ask Cynthia McKinney to resign after her attack against Capitol Police?Hastings resign given the fact he was impeached as a federal judge in 1989?
> 
> ...


Thanks Karl- that is quite a list there.

Do you really think Bush is a neo-conservative? During Reagans time there were two neo-conservatives that were Democrats that left the Democrat party, because the Democrat party no longer stood for neo-conservative. These two ex-Democrat neo-conservatives were not at all like Bush. Don't remember their names anymore.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The Army Times, Navy Times, etc. are not "military magazines." They are owned by Gannett Group, which publishes USA Today. The magazines are private, and not official in any way. The rank-and-file troops consider it to be the National Enquirer of the military. Most so-called news outlets have not felt the need to mention these facts.


They have a circulation of 360,000, so obviously some military people like them. Further, they must be making net profits of at least 20 percent or Gannett would have sold them, as it does with any property that doesn't perform to expectation. Thus, readers and advertisers must like these publications.

As a former Gannett employee, I can say with some assurance that the company's top management likely believes a "Green Party" is a celebration you hold when year-end bonuses are received. You couldn't possibly find a more apolitical company; profit is the lone motive and they accomplish this exceedingly well.

I wish I had saved this, but just before the 2004 election, the trade journal Editor & Publisher ran a list of newspaper endorsements for president. I took this list and broke it down by company to see if there was any pattern by ownership, and the only pattern that I could see was that newspapers in blue states tended to endorse Kerry and newspapers in red states tended to endorse Bush.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is a completely ignorant one with no basis in fact.



Phinn said:


> But, I suppose, as one news man told me, we shouldn't criticize news reporters for their intense and obvious bias. It's like being a gynecologist and still having a sex drive, he said -- you can be a flaming, red-faced, rage-filled Communist, but _as long as it doesn't affect your work_, it's OK to pretend that you are a level-headed, decent person.


That's not what I said. I said we are entitled to our political viewpoints like anyone else, but that we keep our personal wants and professional actions separate, same as a gynecologist would. The word "bias" is yours, and I believe you are being intentionally dishonest here. It is you who has the bias -- you don't think a Communist can be a "decent person"? You believe God is going to give half a crap whether a person is a Republican or Communist? Man, I feel sorry for you. You must be a lonely, sick person. Get yourself some help.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> They have a circulation of 360,000 ... blah blah blah


None of which remotely bears on my point, which is that the fact that these editorial opinions are not, despite their official-sounding names, as though a call for resignation were appearing in _Stars & Stripes_.

Maybe _you_ know the difference between _Army Times_ and _Stars & Stripes_, but most people don't. The fact that it took the Internet to actually reveal this critical piece of information tells me everything I need to know about the state of television and newspaper so-called news. They belong right there next to Bozo the Clown as far as seriousness and credibility.



> You are entitled to your opinion, but it is a completely ignorant one with no basis in fact.


Thank you for allowing me my opinion. How very gracious of you.

And, the facts I recited are the ones that were important to the point I made.



> I said we are entitled to our political viewpoints like anyone else, but that we keep our personal wants and professional actions separate


Thanks for the laugh. Bozo has nothing on you.



> you don't think a Communist can be a "decent person"?


No.



> You believe God is going to give half a crap whether a person is a Republican or Communist?


I'm an atheist.



> Man, I feel sorry for you.


I feel sorry for your readers.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I would just like to add that in Phinn's world, being St. Peter would be so much easier. You'd just have to show your voter-registration card at the Pearly Gates. Republicans, step right in. Dems, purgatory. Commie bastards, straight to hell. The Libertarians would be perplexing, however.

So you could be a Republican murderer and be a "decent person." You could be a Commie and dedicate your life to helping others and not be a "decent person."

Cripes, Phinn. If you can't see that you're the biased person -- judging one's decency on their voting record -- well, I don't know what more to say.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> Cripes, Phinn. If you can't see that you're the biased person -- judging one's decency on their voting record -- well, I don't know what more to say.


Hear hear. One suggestion would be to add Lushington's line: 'spare me'. It is elegant in its simplicity.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Maybe _you_ know the difference between _Army Times_ and _Stars & Stripes_, but most people don't. The fact that it took the Internet to actually reveal this critical piece of information tells me everything I need to know about the state of television and newspaper so-called news. They belong right there next to Bozo the Clown as far as seriousness and credibility.


Funny you should mention that. On an online forum for journalists, I mentioned this very thing when someone linked to the early story on msnbc.com. Within minutes, the story was updated to mention the Gannett ownership. Now I think this was probably coincidental that my post directly preceded the edit. However, I would imagine that someone at msnbc.com read the story and said, "You know, we probably should mention these newspapers aren't published by the military." This kind of second-guessing and revision happens every day on every news desk in the country. But it has nothing to do with a deliberate dishonesty in the first place -- most stories have a hole or two when filed. Hopefully the first editor plugs it, but the important thing is that it was corrected ASAP. You are jumping to a conclusion that almost certainly is erroneous.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

In Phinn's world, Peter's been dead lo these many millennia, and there are no pearly gates.

And if you think I'm a Republican, you are dumber than even I thought.

But, yes, one's decency is measured, at least in part, by the degree one uses aggressive proxies to control other people's lives. If you do not measure up in this category, maybe you should consider a personality make-over.

_Whatever you do, however terrible, however hurtful, it all makes sense, doesn't it, in your head? You never meet anybody that thinks they're a bad person._ 
-- Tom Ripley



> I would imagine that someone at msnbc.com read the story and said, "You know, we probably should mention these newspapers aren't published by the military." This kind of second-guessing and revision happens every day on every news desk in the country.


Applause all around then. The bravery! The competence! The objectivity!

You are really a barrel of laughs tonight. Hey, the _Daily Show_ is where a lot of people get their news these days. You should send them your CV.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> _Whatever you do, however terrible, however hurtful, it all makes sense, doesn't it, in your head? You never meet anybody that thinks they're a bad person._
> -- Tom Ripley


Wrong:

71,500 results for 'I'm a bad person' on Google. 4.3 million results without the quotation marks.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="I'm+a+bad+person"


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

It's a quote from a movie, dude. You know, a talkie.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> It's a quote from a movie, dude. You know, a talkie.


Was Chaplin in it? If not, then I'm not interested.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Applause all around then. The bravery! The competence! The objectivity!


I just thought it pointed out that you're ignorant about how things work, that your paranoia finds conspiracy in a rather basic flaw, and that when a professional reads the story, as I did, the initial instinct is to point out a flaw and suggest it be fixed, not be quiet about it because it fits or doesn't fit an agenda. Any experienced editor takes a certain glee in not just catching a flaw, but in pointing out the "catch" or "save" to any colleagues within earshot, who will nod approvingly. It's like a Labrador not caring whether it was a nice duck or a bad duck, it is a dead duck and he's gonna fetch it. It is part of the breed. If you knew any of us as people, you'd know this and not make such asinine comments.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If you knew any of us as people, you'd know this and not make such asinine comments.


By their fruits you will know them.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> By their fruits you will know them.


Finally...you post a photo of yourself. Are you sure that collar is Trad?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Whatever you say, Mr. Ripley.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Just FYI, Gannett newspapers were all over the map in 2004 presidential endorsements, the company's newspapers sometimes disagreeing within a single state, sometimes going for Bush in blue states, sometimes going for Kerry in red states:

Bush 

The Arizona Republic (Phoenix, 466,926) 
The Indianapolis Star (253,778) 
The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 63,578) 
Alexandria Daily Town Talk (36,321) 
The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, Miss., 110,981) 
Asbury Park Press (Neptune, N.J., 161,937) 
Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal (40,504) 
The Cincinnati Enquirer (216,509) 
The Greenville (S.C.) News (91,714) 
El Paso Times (74,278) 
Oshkosh (Wis.) Northwestern (21,748) 
The Post-Crescent (Appleton, Wis., 54,193) 

Kerry 
Montgomery Advertiser (61,208) 
Fort Collins Coloradoan (28,415) 
The News Journal (Wilmington, Del., 141,283) 
Florida Today (Melbourne, 90,877) 
The Honolulu Advertiser (145,943) 
The Idaho Statesman (Boise, 65,714) 
Rockford (Ill.) Register-Star (65,685) 
Journal and Courier (Lafayette, Ind., 36,784) 
The Des Moines Register (155,898) 
The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Ky., 216,934) 
The Times (Shreveport, La., 66,614) 
Battle Creek (Mich.) Enquirer (24,831) 
Detroit Free Press (354,581) 
Lansing State Journal (73,594) 
Reno Gazette-Journal (66,073) 
Courier News (Bridgewater, N.J., 41,601) 
Courier-Post (Cherry Hill, N.J., 79,400 ) 
The Daily Journal (Vineland, N.J., 17,941) 
Daily Record (Parsippany, N.J., 42,665) 
The Ithaca (N.Y.) Journal (17,861) 
The Journal-News (White Plains, N.Y., 142,145) 
Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle (169,697) 
Star-Gazette (Elmira, N.Y., 28,826) 
Asheville (N.C.) Citizen Times (55,982) 
Statesman Journal (Salem, Ore., 56,298) 
The Jackson (Tenn.) Sun (35,561)
The Tennessean (Nashville, 205,158) 
Huntington (W.Va.) Herald-Dispatch (31,423) 

Overall, U.S. newspapers that made endorsements favored Kerry, 222-192. That doesn't seem to indicate an "agenda."


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

And it's all still irrelevant.

What matters here is the extent to which various infotainment businesses wanted a sensational story about how top government officials were being criticized by military brass.

But they were, in reality, being criticized by some magazine editors who work for the same company that puts out America's McNewspaper.

None of which bothers me, other than the pretense of seriousness and objectivity.

Which, in truth, doesn't even bother me any more. Once you understand the con game they are playing, you simply adjust your expectations accordingly.

It's like watching a movie. No one over the age of 5 really thinks that what you see on the screen is real. The audience _allows_ itself to be decieved. It _wants_ to be decieved. "News" is just another form of theatre. It's fiction dressed up with some touches of reality. It's no more real than _The Office_ or _The Amazing Race_, but it's both exciting and comforting to pretend that it is.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

You ought to change your sig from "Too far from Texas" to "Too far from reality."


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> You ought to change your sig from "Too far from Texas" to "Too far from reality."


Lovely.

In the same spirit, feel free to use this as your avatar.

Think of it as a form of truth-in-advertising.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> You ought to change your sig from "Too far from Texas" to "Too far from reality."


....

Ha!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Lovely.
> 
> In the same spirit, feel free to use this as your avatar.
> 
> Think of it as a form of truth-in-advertising.


But why would he want your photo as his avatar?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Phinn said:


> And it's all still irrelevant.
> 
> What matters here is the extent to which various infotainment businesses wanted a sensational story about how top government officials were being criticized by military brass.
> 
> ...


Your right! I've seen papers that put athist in as the head writer for the Churches. I've seen papers put in writers for local resturants that say nothing nice about any of the resturants. I've seen were it is the right week to prune such and such plants, but the guy said that last week, last month, etc.

I really don't see equal left and right, nor middle for so many newspapers or the 3 big nightly news on tv- it is almost all left with a little bit of the other two thrown in to prevent accusation. And, yes! When the left comes up with a dead beat, they do dump them.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Here's another take on the meaning of the anti-Rummy editorial:

A fairly astonishing editorial appears in today's editions of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times, calling on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

These weekly newspapers are not official organs of the U.S. military. They're published by a private corporation, the Military Times Media Group, which is, in turn, owned by the Gannett Corp. This is why the editorial is only "fairly" astonishing. (If Stars & Stripes, which is the official newspaper, had called for a secretary of defense to step down, it would be prelude to insurrection.)

Still, "astonishing" is an apt word, however qualified. The Times papers are bought almost entirely by military personnel. Their reporters and editorial staff are nearly all veterans with close ties to the senior officer corps. They're essentially trade papers, covering issues from the perspective of the men and women of the armed forces. Most editorials are about military pay, retirement benefits, the fate of certain weapons systems. To the extent that they're about the war in Iraq, they tend to deal with their readership's personal issues-body armor and troop rotations-not with broad policy or politics.

Read the rest here: https://www.slate.com/id/2152981/


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's another take on the meaning of the anti-Rummy editorial:
> 
> A fairly astonishing editorial appears in today's editions of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times, calling on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.


Do you feel that the opinions of these publications should be viewed more seriously because of the backgroudn of its editors?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I notice that the Slate editorial writer front-loaded the part about how the magazines are "not official organs of the U.S. military."

It's interesting that he chose this point to be part of his central thesis -- he apparently considered it, after three days of coverage, to be a sufficiently fresh angle on the "story." It would not have been fresh if it had already been said a thousand times. In other words, he managed to take a solid criticism of the coverage of the "story" (a fault that CRS even noticed), and turn it into the basis for a polemic against the Bush administration.

Also, your quote left out another interesting comment:



> They would not run an editorial like the one in today's editions unless they knew that it reflected a broad and deep consensus among high-ranking, active-duty officers across the military establishment.


Political propaganda is interesting, isn't it? Look at the lengths to which the Slate writer is willing to go to bolster the credibility of the original editorial. The underlying "sources" are unknown. But he fills in this enormous gap in the evidence with an emotionally-charged supposition that cannot be disproved -- the military is in a secret state of discontent. The Slate writer reads the tea leaves, sees this "fact" lurking between the lines, and encourages us to see it, too.

But it's all smoke and mirrors. After reading both the original editorial and the Slate piece, you and I have no more of a concrete, reliable assessment of what thousands of military men and women really think than we did a week ago. Instead, we are encouraged to project our own anxieties onto the minds of thousands of military personnel whom we don't even know. This, in turn, is supposed to help nudge our anxieties a little further down the road, transforming them into political action -- a vote.

It's masterful, really, the rhetorical sleight of hand.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> In other words, he managed to take a solid criticism of the coverage of the "story" (a fault that CRS even noticed), and turn it into the basis for a polemic against the Bush administration.


That's not what I said. I gave a likely explanation for its initial absence to contrast with your paranoia. You are overblowing the fact the publications are owned by Gannett, anyway. If they lacked credibility with our servicemen, as you claim, they would not have survived this long, at least not under Gannett ownership. Everything Gannett does anywhere is with the company's almighty stock price in mind. Publications that are profitable but not insanely profitable are sold to companies that are willing to settle for profit margins of, say, 15 percent instead of 25 or 30 percent. There is _no way_ Gannett would publish such an editorial if it wasn't absolutely certain that its military readership would largely approve. I'm not saying it needs the unanimous approval of its readers, but it isn't going to commit business suicide in order to make a political point. You seem to lack a fundamental knowledge of how a publically traded business works. You certainly aren't going to sink a highly profitable franchise just because you don't like Rumsfeld. The shareholders would mutiny, and you'd be out on your ass.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> That's not what I said.


Sheesh. Now I'm going to have to go back and get what you said.

Here it is:



> On an online forum for journalists, I mentioned this very thing when someone linked to the early story on msnbc.com. Within minutes, the story was updated to mention the Gannett ownership.


So, let's recap:

1. I describe how the omission of the magazine's ownership was a basis for criticizing the coverage of the editorial.

2. You say that you noticed it as a fact that was missing and stated so publicly at the time, calling this sort of thing a "catch" or a "save."

3. When I characterize this as you "noticing" a "fault," you say, "That's not what I said."

Right. Whatever.

Plus, you really don't understand the concept of "relevance," do you? I don't care if Gannett owns the _Army Times_, or if it's owned by Disney under the direct supervision of Mickey Mouse himself. The POINT is that it is NOT run by the military.

Oh, I came across a neat summary that you might find useful. Enjoy.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Why am I not surprised you'd use Wikipedia?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Military people seem to be having a lively discussion about the editorial on the publications' message board.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Why am I not surprised you'd use Wikipedia?


Your comment is as substantive as I have come to expect from you.

Consider it a mere starting point in your education. For example, read the references listed, including:

- Gilovich, T., Griffin D. & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). _Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN 0-521-79679-2)

- Baron, J. (2000). _Thinking and deciding_ (3d. edition). New York: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN 0-521-65030-8)

- Bishop, Michael A & Trout, J.D. (2004). _Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment_. New York: Oxford University Press. (ISBN 0-19-516229-3)


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

crs said:


> Why am I not surprised you'd use Wikipedia?


Are you trying to imply that the linked article contains inaccuracies? Please provide us with corrections.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Relayer said:


> Are you trying to imply that the linked article contains inaccuracies? Please provide us with corrections.


No, I bashed Wkipedia in general. Any idiot can write there and only idiots rely on it.

https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

So the article linked may well be completely accurate and valid, as far as you know? 

You only disparage the poster for it's being on Wikipedia?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Relayer said:


> So the article linked may well be completely accurate and valid, as far as you know?
> 
> You only disparage the poster for it's being on Wikipedia?


They have no fact-checking standards. Therefore, everything is suspect. People who use Wikipedia as a source are too ignorant, lazy and/or cheap to use reference material with some standards of accuracy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> They have no fact-checking standards. Therefore, everything is suspect. *People who use Wikipedia as a source are too ignorant, lazy and/or cheap to use reference material with some standards of accuracy.*


Yes, because Phinn, so far, has certainly struck me as someone with those characteristics.

I don't know, I read through the article and thought many of the definitions were very good, you might find this one helpful crs:



> Déformation professionnelle - the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one's own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.


Regards

Edit: To be fair, I need to edit this in: I was very suspect of Wiki at first. I have found it to be fairly reliable though and read it is nearly as accurate as the good old EB.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Any idiot can write there and only idiots rely on it.


That reminds me -- Which newspaper do you work for?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Edit: To be fair, I need to edit this in: I was very suspect of Wiki at first. I have found it to be fairly reliable though and read it is nearly as accurate as the good old EB.


I've heard people say they've read Wikipedia is nearly as accurate as EB. But how can that possibly have been measured? You're not stupid, Wayfarer, so how can you believe that someone A.) fact-checked every fact in every volume of the EB and then B.) fact-checked every fact on Wikipedia, which happens to change by the minute, and then compared the two? Couple that with the fact that EB employs experts to write about their field and fact-checkers to check the experts, and Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute and does not fact-check.

We don't use it where I work.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I've heard people say they've read Wikipedia is nearly as accurate as EB. But how can that possibly have been measured? You're not stupid, Wayfarer, so how can you believe that someone A.) fact-checked every fact in every volume of the EB and then B.) fact-checked every fact on Wikipedia, which happens to change by the minute, and then compared the two? Couple that with the fact that EB employs experts to write about their field and fact-checkers to check the experts, and Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute and does not fact-check.
> 
> *We don't use it where I work.*


*chuckle* Again I refer you to the article


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> *chuckle* Again I refer you to the article


Again I say I won't use Wikipedia. I dismiss it entirely.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The senior managing editor of Army Times Publications answers questions:



Edit: Link died, sorry


----------

