Parker Griffith lost his primary. Unfortunately, he’ll just be replaced by another maroon:
Brooks said in that interview that he was opposed to the White House’s plan for NASA even though it may result in additional business for the United Launch Alliance factory in the district, citing concerns about having the private sector being in charge of unspecified “national security information”.
It’s unspecified because it’s complete bull hockey. Why won’t the press call these idiots out on things like this?
“Why won’t the press call these idiots out on things like this?”
At the risk of stating the obvious, it’s because they know even less about the issues involved than the idiot they are talking to. Remember, these are English, Journalism, and Communications majors we are talking about. They don’t know much beyond their particular specialty, even though they think they do. They view their operating assumptions as empirical facts, which need not be checked. So yeah, if some idiot parrot’s some stupid nonsense that fits in with what they believe to be true, they won’t do the (hard) work of actually checking it.
Why won’t the press call these idiots out on things like this?
And why won’t the Obama administration call them on this? Why don’t they just say Bill Nelson and Richard Shelby are corrupt politicians who are simply trying to get as much money from the federal treasury as they can? Is it fear of mutually assured destruction, where each side has enough ammunition to show the other is corrupt?
“Why won’t the press call these idiots out on things like this?”
I’ll third the obvious answer: Because they aren’t even moderately competent in the field they’re covering. Carl has it exactly correct. There’s only two fields I know of where the ‘mainstream’ reporting of the field is even vaguely competent: sports and geekdom.
A second reason is: The entire concept of “Public Relations” has encroached into business and politics so deeply that the relevant media is bombarded with releases from the principle actors themselves. The whole idea of “independent research” is flushed when you’re receiving prewritten articles – and only using your college-educated skills to reword things enough to avoid gross plagarism. This is also exceedingly obvious if you pile up every article on a particular subject that was written at the same time. You see the identical “dollar words” pop up. Like “Gravitas” being used in every single news report – every station, every timeslot – when first ascribed to Clinton.
Martijn Meijering
[[[Bill Nelson and Richard Shelby are corrupt politicians]]]
Because President Obama has to work with the Senate to get things done and both have a lot of power in the Senate.
…citing concerns about having the private sector being in charge of unspecified “national security information”
Is this guy saying we can’t trust Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop-Grumman (and others) with classified information? Does he have any clue what these companies do?
Egad! Someone needs to call him on this.
Mike
“Like “Gravitas” being used in every single news report – every station, every timeslot – when first ascribed to Clinton.”
Yeah, it’s like they all were watching the same episode of Mr. Rogers that morning. Can you say “Apollo on steroids”? I knew you could.
Does he have any clue what these companies do?
And does he have any clue that no national security payloads have flown on the Shuttle since the early nineties (not the eighties as I erroneously claimed elsewhere)?
Because idiots stick together.
You see the identical “dollar words” pop up. Like “Gravitas” being used in every single news report – every station, every timeslot – when first ascribed to Clinton.
This might explain the mysterious appearance of the adjective “ultra-loyal” back in 2002 and early 2003, to described the Iraqi Republican Guard. I think if we could just simply disbarred “journalists” who slavishly use these dollar words, we’d cut out a considerable portion of the stupidity and laziness in the media.