>Kelley makes three assumptions:
Lou makes several as well. You just agree with his assumptions. It's not that I disagree either. I'm pointing out that he distances himself critically and sees propaganda in one instance, and in the next, he doesn't.
One of the reasons why I spoke up is because people are riding the roller coaster. Up and down, up and down. Bad idea. It's gonna be a long struggle. See your post of the other day, warning about this stuff.
>(1) She knows, objectively, what is in
>the interest of the government (or "they"), (2) that _they_ know (as she
>does) what is in their interest, and (3) that all parties, from
>reporters to president share this knowledge and are working on it at any
>given moment.
>
>All three assumptions are false.
1]. I don't think this is "objective" truth. I'm _interpreting_ media reports from the perspective of the "war party", as they represent their views and asking why they would want news that makes them look bad. If this news weren't coming from embeddeds, I would agree with Lou. E.g., Chris's analysis of the London papers makes sense for instance.
2]. not sure what you're getting at. sounds sinister and bad. have i been scolded?
3]. absolutely not. first, i'm only talking about the war party. (when one calls them that, it's because one acknowledges splits in the admin. we've talked about this split for years now). second, i'm correcting lou's assumption that he's getting "inside information" from an embedded report and, as such, he's seeing information leak through the cracks in the media.
I think he may be right about the split in the admin, but to think that an embedded reporter's minder had directions on the field already to help in the effort of one wing of the admin fighting against the other... not likely.
kelley