About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An enemy of John Stossel -- is an enemy of mine.

Persistently-principled,

Ed

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 3:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now THAT would be a sight to see - John Stossel as the anchor of the news.
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/09, 3:13am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I must take exception to one or two points in this article. First of all, it is my understanding that Mr Jennings actually acknowledged that the liberal dominance of the US news media was a problem, and went so far as to defend Fox News' Britt Hume against charges of right-wing bias.

Second, whatever Jennings own political views, everything I've heard about his career suggests a pretty admirable sense of life.

(Disclosure: the World News Tonight show he presented goes out late at night on a British tv channel, and I generally enjoyed his style more than most other 30 minute news shows.)

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 8/09, 12:22pm)


Post 3

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My first reaction to the news: indifference, then: good, then: finally.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert D,

You can't actually mean you wanted this man to die of lung cancer???

Jim


Post 5

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Death is a natural part of life.  I did not value his life.

Post 6

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I repeat, for those who have trouble reading my stuff, "It is always sad when a fairly young and well-liked celebrity dies, as was the case with Peter Jennings, the longtime ABC-TV News anchor who succumbed to lung cancer at 67 the other day...."

Post 7

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I agree. You made that perfectly clear in your article. Thanks!

Jim


Post 8

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert said:
My first reaction to the news: indifference, then: good, then: finally.  [Emphasis mine.]
Then he said:
Death is a natural part of life.  I did not value his life.

The question is, why did you value his death?

Glenn


Post 9

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Our culture does tend to inflate the importance of a news anchor. The ability to read in a pleasing tone and accent, complemented by good looks is not the stuff of hard journalism.

For what he was, I enjoyed watching Peter Jennings. I didnt expect anything else.





Post 10

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Machan,

I repeat, for those who have trouble reading my stuff, "It is always sad when a fairly young and well-liked celebrity dies, as was the case with Peter Jennings, the longtime ABC-TV News anchor who succumbed to lung cancer at 67 the other day...."
Should I be offended?

 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert D,

You can't actually mean you wanted this man to die of lung cancer???

Jim

No Jim, I wanted him to die of shame.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

The question is, why did you value his death?

Because he was entirely too influential in promoting subjectivism, multi-culturalism, and the indispensability of government planners.


Post 13

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

(Edited by Robert Davison on 8/10, 5:31pm)


Post 14

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I don't get the good in your "good." The world's not now a better place consequently. There was always value in using network news readers as evidence of liberal media bias.

--Brant


Post 15

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The good is, that whoever replaces him will not be as successful at promoting leftist, liberal nonsense.  Who knows ABC may loose it's mind and replace him with John Stossell.

Post 16

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 3:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anchors dont need to possess brains so much as looks and a pleasing voice. All they are doing is reading.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,
     Using large, bold type in post #12 only adds to the offensiveness of your sentiment.

Glenn


Post 18

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

You may feel compelled to not speak ill of the dead, which is your prerogative, superstition or whatever.

Also appearances can be deceiving.  The post is in larger type because I typed it on Word to make sure the spellings were correct and then copied it to this 'thing'.  This 'thing' does not always behave well.  Did you know that 'internet' shows up as a misspelling here?

What now Holmes?  The “seven-percent solution”? 


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.