Getting back to this:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:Maybe Scheer backs of a litttle more in the part I haven't heard. He's overbearing at the top of the interview.
That's Scheer being Scheer. He always has a lot to say. Hell, it's his show, but I didn't get the feeling he was being overbearing. He's a veteran in the game, and I enjoy his insights.
As for Wallace - reading the original post that got him fired, I was struck by the way he conflated the concept of objectivity with a false centrism. I agree with him that centrism is an inherently false concept. I'm not as convinced that objectivity is.
Do you find it worrisome that a journalist can be fired from the so-called liberal media format of public radio for simply expressing himself in what I felt was a rather innocuous personal blog post? I do.
I don't think objectivity forces someone like Wallace to do so, as he can still remain objective from his perspective of the truth. That would mean telling the truth as he sees it...even the inconvenient parts. As such...subjectivity and objectivity co-exist.
Apparently it cannot. Hence being axed.
This is different than what Greenwald and Parry are doing. They are operating as out and out advocates for a specific viewpoint- and neither seems to be above manipulating the facts to sell their world view. As such - I find them both useless.
I'm still not sold on Parry either way. From the little of his work I've seen I'm not impressed, but he apparently has some cache in the world of investigative journalists due to his past investigations. I haven't looked into any of that as of now.
Expressing one's opinion & manipulating the facts are very different. I don't really know how familiar you are with Greenwald, but I would never accuse him of the latter. In every debate and interview I've seen him in he comes across as an extremely honest guy who is unwilling to relent in his pursuit of the truth. It almost seems as if you have some personal vendetta against him.