I'm not certain, but I believe I heard him say something about "Blogs4Bush"!!

I give President Bush applause for recognizing the blogosphere and even more credit for seeing how they are surpassing (albeit slowly) the MSM in terms of information.

Reviewing this quote, I did notice something interesting:

"I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving"

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but did I just infer that he basically said the MSM doesn’t support the troops, so bypass them and go to the blogs? If so, I agree with the sentiment completely, but wonder what the MSM will do now.

Recall, NBC’s Today had a hissy fit with what Laura Ingraham said yesterday regarding their non-balanced coverage and did a story attempting to de-bunk her like an 8 year old saying “are not!"; and today they are not supporting the troops?

If their patterns are a constant, expect Murtha, Feingold, “Schmucker”, Pelosi, and Reid on tomorrow crying impeachment with Matt and Katie.

Or maybe David Gregory will show up drunk; same thing really.

On a side note, glad President Bush said “internet” vs. “internets”; maybe Patrick Ruffini is having an effect on the old 1600. Now if Bush were to say “Cascading Style Sheets”…..

Who knew electrons could be so powerful?
:)

Freedom1 - I've been in telecom since 63, and always have thought that the free flow of ideas, from people to people around the world would solve all the problems. That political leaders would lose their power to control people and their thoughts.

Never would I have imagined what we have in place today. Blogs are the links from mind to mind, come in all shades and varieties. While we have a ways to go, we are nevertheless communicating worldwide.

World peace should be on the horizon, and let the small differences that remain be settled in other ways. Ways that are peaceful and hurt no-one.

What you and I write here can be seen by others around the world almost instantly. I also have a voip service here that lets me call US, Canada and 21 countries for $23.12 flat rate a month, simply amazing capabilities today.

Would you recognize a entry from President Bush if you saw it? From Bin Laden, Fidel Castro, Tony Blair, Shakira or Rachel Welch? No, I don't think you could. There may be moonbats out there that disagree, but that is what moonbats are for, and we still like them too.

As steve would say - peace -

God bless our brave military and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

To all the leftist/liberal/Moonbats who come to this site to "Bash-Bush"....they all, shall fall by the wayside, as their party can't find "their own asses in the dark"....I know I write emphatically, but I mean to do it, as I would also
speak, if you could hear me. I use the humor of
pausing, being loud(thru caps) and I know WHAT I AM WRITING ABOUT....Thank God, we have so many other writers here, who do give the President, Rove, and many other GOP members who told Matt and
Mark...THEY DO READ THE BLOG SITES. "IT IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW, THEY DON'T GET THE TRUTH, THE
FULL STORY, OR THE OTHER GOOD NEWS FROM THE WAR FRONT, PUT BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA BY THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA....SO THEREFORE, AS WE'VE SAID MANY TIMES...."THANK GOD FOR THE BLOGS, THAT HAVE GOTTEN THE WORD OUT, AND CONTINUE TO HOLD THE DONKS FEET TO THE FIRE. THIS, IS THE NEW AGE, FOR
SO MANY, WHO HAVE FINALLY BEEN FREED OF THE LIBERAL MSM, AND PRESS, THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SLANT "ANY STORY, FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDAS"
SO PEOPLE, "KEEP ON BLOGGIN'....THE PRESIDENT AND
ALL THE PRESIDENTS PEOPLE, ARE READIN'....THANKS TO MATT AND MARK ONCE AGAIN....

I guess this comments thread would be remiss without a heart-felt Thank You to B4B for tireless effort in telling the rest of the story. It may not mean very much in The Grand Scheme of Things, but you have made my bookmarks.

dl,

I have been in journalism nearly as long as you have been in telecom and I too am amazed at where we have come. And while it is wonderful, there is a real downside in terms of accountability. For example there are adult predators in chat rooms passing themselves off as teenagers. Anyone with the price of web space can espouse their philosophy or post information as true when it may well be lies. (I won't mention any names, Matt and Mark)

So we have to be careful placing too much faith in this new form of communtication.

Come on, President Bush doesn't look at blogs - well all know he doesn't know how to read.

Ash,

I have a question that I would like an honest answer to, because I really wish to know about this. It's not an attack on any political party or anyone's character. Is there anything that expressly prohibits professional journalists from lying and/or distorting the truth in their work? Obviously most journalists must attain some sort of degree, but just because someone has the capital to survive at least four years of college doesn't mean that they aren't able to retain a noticeable slant in their writing style. We can't really rely on publishers to "sort out" the false and incompetent journalists, since sometimes lies and misleading statements sell better than the truth. I really feel uncomfortable applying a code of ethics to journalism when I see so much that shows its vacancy. Since you have first-hand knowledge about the "biz," could you tell me any reason to trust professional journalists over "freelance" ones?

Ash,

I totally agree with you. One of the things I hated about telecom was when 900 numbers came into being. They did have a nice part that could have been great for dial up tech support because calling party paid. However, porn lines took over and no self respecting business would want to be associated with 900 numbers. Likewise when telephone companies were not responsive to the customers, and "Ma Bell" was a dirty word, and not a company you'd be proud to work for.

It's like the sounds you hear on some of the high speed links there is intelligence on some of it, and you need to filter out what has the "ring of truth", against what is a "bunch of bull". The basic capabilities are the same for both and will transport both equally well. The filters you put on are in a way (I almost hate to say it) "A Bias".

Take your entire lifes experience and throw away everything you were taught. It could very well be wrong. Then start all over again and re-learn a little at a time. You are trying to recalibrate your instruments to a known good source. For the bell system, they had 1 tone that ran the entire network. Everything was in phase and sync with it. Then slowly build from there. It's a long process, but like AT&T said it insured the integrity and reliability of the network. They were right.

We have a long way to go, and the rewards in the end will be worth it. We're still learning how to get along in this country, and we have a very diverse population. If we only had 2-3 different types of people like some places, maybe we wouldn't be so nice to the others.

Maf53....Well all know he doesn't know how to read?

and You, Maf, can't write properly. I see you all
over the map with your "Bush Bashing"...don't you
have Anything Good to EVER say? Doubt it.

Omega- That is a good question. I think like any profession there are journalists that are incompetent and dishonest. A couple of cases come to mind- the guy from the Washington Post that plagarized and Jeff Gannon who I guess was not really a journalist but a plant. I think Judith Miller did things that were unethical. But I really believe for the most part journalist do a good job.

What you might see as slanted or lying is a result of the fact (well I have no figures to back this up, only personal experience) that most journalists lean towards being liberal. They might be attracted to the profession as an opportunity to help the downtrodden, to right what they see as unfair, etc. So that may come through in their point of view or the stories they chose to cover. But I don't think they intentionally slant stories.

As far as lying, editors really do a good job of holding our feet to the fire. If too many mistakes are made, we won't be around long.

A good rule of thumb would be this: trust your local paper, the reporter that lives in your community. Be more skeptical of the mega newspapers. I don't think Judith Miller or Robert Novack are evil people. I think they are extremely ambitious and probably did a lot of questionable things to get where they are.

I love the work I do and love to talk (write) about it. Hope this helped a little.

dl,

I'm not sure if this is up your alley or not, but my wife used to work with a company that was installing and "lighting up" fibre optic. From what I could understand about it, it would be something that would really propel communications to another level. She has since left the company so I haven't followed the developements. Do you know anything about this?

Thanks, Ash

One other thing Omega, you noticed I didn't mention television news at all. Not to be a snob, but us print types don't place much stock in the blow dried boys and girls of the airwaves. That is where you get your juiced up stories that try to sell commerical time. (How else can you explain all the time spent on Natalie Holloway or the latest blond teenage chic to be kidnapped and/or mutilated?)

Cyber-Townhall meetings will be coming soon. I think the RNC and the GOP should get on this. The internet provides an inexpensive and instant method of communicating directly with the American public. There are just so many possibilities for the internet.

Ash

Sorry but I stopped reading my local rag (the Hartford Courant)years ago because of bias -With about 7% of journalists voting for Bush, I see no need to trust any of them - I'll take the net because I can reference any issue in many places and get a feel for the truth far better than in those wandering editorials the papers call news!

Ash, Yes, fiber to telecom is like a mega-lane interstate is to a deer trail/path. In telecom, FCC controls the spectrum, and you needed to squeeze as much as you could in that narrow space. Fiber is a tunnel the FCC does not need to control, technology and the physical limits of the fiber is all that controls/bounds it.

Unlit fiber is strands that are in place and just haven't been used yet. Like a gold mine if you have the traffic/application that can fill it & pay for it. From the time when AT&T was the only company, there was a race to build networks, and a lot of fiber was installed to handle 2-3 or 4 times what we needed at the time.

It's all still there, just waiting for someone to think of a new idea/application. What we have seen in ebay, yahoo, google and voip were just the beginning steps of what is possible. Maybe they were just the easiest baby steps.

They say the mind is unlimited in it's capabilities, telecommunications is likewise now unlimited. Like Freedom1 said, cyber-townhall meetings are possible now.

I already use msn messenger on a laptop with wireless connection at christmas time to bring other family members into my living room for opening presents. Each communicating medium has different values, benefits and drawbacks. As you pointed out in the blown dry hair commentators personalities on TV vs the print media where the thoughts of one person get thru to many instead. Blogs are like print media except many thoughts broadcast out to many minds. Whereas a video conversation has you paying attention to your hair and watching the small non-verbal parts of the conversation.

Video conversations are so much different, the value added to a townhall meeting where all radicals will be seen as radicals, and men and women who are understanding of each others needs and the situations they commonly face will be able to get together face to face and all help each other.

From cradle to grave, our real purpose in life is to help each other along the way. To not be of help, seems somehow so wrong and immoral.

More MSM hype:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 56 Iraqis died Thursday in violence, including a car bombing that killed 25 people in the third major attack on a police lockup in three days.

I think it is shameful that the MSM would blame the deaths of those 56 Iraqis on a car bomb. What proof do they have? People die every day from natural causes. I doubt the reporter has a medical degree, so there is no way they can be sure of the cause of death.
This type of irresponsible reporting is ruining the war for me.

Thank goodness you Republiscums know real news when you read it, and we have Blogs we can turn to find out what's really happening in Iraq.

Ash,

Thanks for the information. I still have a few questions about journalists and editors, however. If a journalist writes an article or report, but doesn't have the capability to completely check all of the facts and the circumstances of the reported event may be distorted due to his or her political preconceptions, and the editor that evaluates the articles also shares the journalist's preconceptions, is it entirely possible for the article to be printed as fact when in fact it may be false? I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everyone has reached a concensus on what is factually correct, and certain editors may not be savvy to the depth of the conflict, and thus "accidentally" mislead people. It's like if both the journalist and the editor believed that 2 + 2 = 5, but in actuality the answer is four, then there's nothing to stop the paper from being wrong, right?

mike h raises a good point, maybe the problem isn't with the MSM, its that people don't know how to read, and understand what they're reading.

The ditty says 56 died in violence, 25 from a car bomb. Not that 56 died from a car bomb. Thanks for taking one for the team mike.

Don't let irresponsible reporting ruin the war for you, there is plenty of death and destruction we can rejoice about.

Well all I can say Omega is that no true journalist ever writes anything that they can't receive verification on. Usually from 2 independant sources. That's the first thing that you learn in J School, or the first thing your editor will pound into your head. Not all reporters are true journalists however, And I guess thats the rub.

dl for example won't read the Hartford Courant not because he could identify any errors the reporters made, but because only 7% of them voted for Bush. So he adds 2 + 2 and gets 5 by assuming only those that voted for Bush could be telling the truth.

There are times I had to attend and photograph events that were repulsive to me as an individual, but I consider myself a professional and did the best and fairest job I could.

I really think you are barking up the wrong tree if you believe there is some hidden conspiracy in the media to lie or distort the facts.

Omega, You want to know what the worst thing to happen to journalism was? USA Today. They revolutionize newspapering by printing 10 inch stories that couldn't be jumped to an inside page. It was often taking complex stories and condensing them into a "Cliff's Notes" version. So what was left was bare bones and didn't give enough details for readers to assess and make up their own minds. USA Today was outrageously successful and all daily newspapers had to copy them. Now thats all we seem to have: sound bites, little background, and less opportunity to provide in depth coverage.

Ash,

I've always been leaning on the side that the media isn't intentionally biased, but sometimes can't help itself. I know that most of the time the articles themselves aren't very biased, but it's the actual articles that get published in the magazine frequently that I dispute with. It just sometimes seems odd to me when there are ten articles a year in my local newspaper about how U.S. would be better when following Kyoto, and only one article that caters to the people that don't think like that. Meh, but we can't change journalistic preference, can we?

I guess I just get sort of upset sometimes when I read the news. For instance, I remember distinctly how awhile ago I picked up a Newsweek, one where the main subject was (of course) Iraq. I clearly remember sprinkled throughout the article messages like "...does not bode well for the troops," "...public is increasingly voicing dissent against the occupation..." and what have you. And it's not the fact that they're abstractly reporting semi-truths, because I know that most of what they say could probably be supported by studies or polls. It's the way that they phrase it, it almost seems like the words bear malice, when they should, in my opinion, bear professional neutrality. When I read things like this, I can't help but think about those in the middle who are easily swayed by public opinion and signs of dissent or agreement. I can't help but think that these little "negative reinforcer" phrases could have a large impact on this group of people. And I know that Newsweek isn't a good source for news material, but I'm just trying to point out what I perceive as bias in a mainstream magazine.

There's some truth to what you are saying Omega. I get the same feeling when I listen to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or read the Daily Standard. Things are so complicated and there is such animosity these days I think it's impossible to tell what the truth really is. I just wanted to defend my little corner of the world of journalism. I truly believe there are very few journalists that intentionally lie. But I also think it is nearly impossible to keep our feelings out of stories, like you say, in the way something is worded. Or what is chosen to be reported on.

I get so mad when I hear people going off on the "MSM" because I know the MSM is actually real live people and we are doing the best we can.

All I can suggest to you is to read a lot of sources and use your common sense to decide what you believe and what you don't believe. Remember that writers can be biased in their writing, but readers can also be biased in their reading.

And most importantly remember the MSM is really a bunch of individuals. Not really something evil like the KGB or Mafia.

Nice conversing with you Omega. I think I learned from you and I hope I helped you a little.