Full Version: When issues are obscured does it hurt us all?
Here is the Herald-Dispatch original story. Read it first. The family that was supposedly "attacked" is noted in the last several paragraphs of the article.
( source: Link )
I did not have time to search for a more middle ground source but judging from pictures included on this web log (blog), the family has a history of becoming victims for political mileage. Scroll down to the story about the "Serial Republican Victim" to read posts about this family's alleged activities in two prior campaigns besides this one. To be fair, I have also noted the Bill Burkett supposed complicity in a similarly embarrasing, or even criminal, attempt to spread scandal. I did not add a link because there is another thread here on that subject.
The salient part begins with:
Coinkydinks
There's this guy. He's a Republican. Amazingly, for the past three presidential elections he's managed to convince reporters that he's gotten attacked and gotten his signs stolen and destroyed. What are the odds?
(Source= Link 2 )
The issues I see hammered daily are not overly pro-Republican or pro-Democrat but it does seem that starting with Clinton, the press has begun to spend more time, ink and broadcast waves on issues the 'older guard' in journalism would have left alone. I do remember the Gary Hart/Donna Rice "Love Boat" episode from MANY years ago but I believe this type story has come to the brink of absurdity.
My questions for debate: 1. Are we becoming increasingly innudated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of press coverage like this?
2. Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
3. Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thown out with the evening trash?
Edited to fix links...x2. Note: We do not use HTML tags to link to articles. Please use the BB Code tags - J
Sorry, while you were editing, so was I - large phrases somehow disappeared. My bad.
( source: Link )
I did not have time to search for a more middle ground source but judging from pictures included on this web log (blog), the family has a history of becoming victims for political mileage. Scroll down to the story about the "Serial Republican Victim" to read posts about this family's alleged activities in two prior campaigns besides this one. To be fair, I have also noted the Bill Burkett supposed complicity in a similarly embarrasing, or even criminal, attempt to spread scandal. I did not add a link because there is another thread here on that subject.
The salient part begins with:
Coinkydinks
There's this guy. He's a Republican. Amazingly, for the past three presidential elections he's managed to convince reporters that he's gotten attacked and gotten his signs stolen and destroyed. What are the odds?
(Source= Link 2 )
The issues I see hammered daily are not overly pro-Republican or pro-Democrat but it does seem that starting with Clinton, the press has begun to spend more time, ink and broadcast waves on issues the 'older guard' in journalism would have left alone. I do remember the Gary Hart/Donna Rice "Love Boat" episode from MANY years ago but I believe this type story has come to the brink of absurdity.
My questions for debate: 1. Are we becoming increasingly innudated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of press coverage like this?
2. Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
3. Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thown out with the evening trash?
Edited to fix links...x2. Note: We do not use HTML tags to link to articles. Please use the BB Code tags - J
Sorry, while you were editing, so was I - large phrases somehow disappeared. My bad.
This link might work better
1. Are we becoming increasingly innudated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of pres coverage like this?
Yes, I think we are.
2. Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
Possibly. Since the advent of 24 hour news networks, there is a tendency for them to feed off and inflate their own stories until molehills become mountains.
3. Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thown out with the evening trash?
I think they should actually be prosecuted for criminal libel, though I don't know how US laws on libel work, so I can't say how easy this would be.
1. Are we becoming increasingly innudated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of pres coverage like this?
Yes, I think we are.
2. Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
Possibly. Since the advent of 24 hour news networks, there is a tendency for them to feed off and inflate their own stories until molehills become mountains.
3. Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thown out with the evening trash?
I think they should actually be prosecuted for criminal libel, though I don't know how US laws on libel work, so I can't say how easy this would be.
An update. Is this a sign of more things to come, bloggers embarrassing mainstream media on a regular basis? ;-)
Are we becoming increasingly inundated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of pres coverage like this?
Perhaps, definite yes in this election. I see it as the public more interested in other people's trash and sensationalism, playing fiddle to the lowest common denominator of human nature in the largest audience.
Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thrown out with the evening trash?
I don't think Burkett and Parlock stories should be dismissed out of hand. I think/hope if the media did a better job of vetting so-called stories before publishing them to meet a deadline Burketts and Parlocks may think twice about pulling a fast one. This sounds idealistic, I know, but I am beginning to wonder if our press corps is adequately familiar with a multimedia approach to researching stories and, therefore, give them pause or include a second aspect if they do publish the story.
Are we becoming increasingly inundated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of pres coverage like this?
Perhaps, definite yes in this election. I see it as the public more interested in other people's trash and sensationalism, playing fiddle to the lowest common denominator of human nature in the largest audience.
Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thrown out with the evening trash?
I don't think Burkett and Parlock stories should be dismissed out of hand. I think/hope if the media did a better job of vetting so-called stories before publishing them to meet a deadline Burketts and Parlocks may think twice about pulling a fast one. This sounds idealistic, I know, but I am beginning to wonder if our press corps is adequately familiar with a multimedia approach to researching stories and, therefore, give them pause or include a second aspect if they do publish the story.
1. Are we becoming increasingly innudated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of press coverage like this?
2. Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
3. Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thown out with the evening trash?
1. yes, definitely there are too many talking heads with too many opinions. give me 2 sides of an issue and I can form an opinion of my own, give me 20 or 30 sides and I am lost.
2. While they are making mountains out of molehills, the real mountains are being hidden from view. Orchestrated Distraction, maybe?
3. not completely, those who use lies to attempt to sway public opinion about our elected officials should be prosecuted, and the stories about their prosecution should be aired.
2. Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
3. Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thown out with the evening trash?
1. yes, definitely there are too many talking heads with too many opinions. give me 2 sides of an issue and I can form an opinion of my own, give me 20 or 30 sides and I am lost.
2. While they are making mountains out of molehills, the real mountains are being hidden from view. Orchestrated Distraction, maybe?
3. not completely, those who use lies to attempt to sway public opinion about our elected officials should be prosecuted, and the stories about their prosecution should be aired.
It seems the proliferation of "News Outlets" has created a need for these revelations. After all, they have to fill broadcast time with something that is "branded" or they become one of many.
Did anyone notice a similarity in the responses offered by the White House Press Secretary today and those of a Democratic spokeman when the faulty intelligence about WMD's was discovered?
You could have used a "fill in the blank" press statement for EITHER to read.
Multiple choice press releases:
Circle one
Today, the Republicans/Democrats said that the use of a previously discredited source (Libya-Iran/Bill Burkett) showed just how far some groups were willing to go to discredit Bush/Kerry with information that later proved to be false (WMD Intelligence/Bush's Military Records).
How does a person who works for a living have time to wade through the hype these days?
How long will it be before we see a new Fox News Channel poll like this:
Would you hire Lyndie England as a nanny for your kids?
Choices: (1) Yes (2) No (3) No, but I would recommend her to a neighbor.
Did anyone notice a similarity in the responses offered by the White House Press Secretary today and those of a Democratic spokeman when the faulty intelligence about WMD's was discovered?
You could have used a "fill in the blank" press statement for EITHER to read.
Multiple choice press releases:
Circle one
Today, the Republicans/Democrats said that the use of a previously discredited source (Libya-Iran/Bill Burkett) showed just how far some groups were willing to go to discredit Bush/Kerry with information that later proved to be false (WMD Intelligence/Bush's Military Records).
How does a person who works for a living have time to wade through the hype these days?
How long will it be before we see a new Fox News Channel poll like this:
Would you hire Lyndie England as a nanny for your kids?
Choices: (1) Yes (2) No (3) No, but I would recommend her to a neighbor.
An update that I'm sure you'll all enjoy. From Michelle Malkin's site. While this guy does seem to go to a lot of opposition rallies, he doesn't appear to have his own sons tearing up his signs to get on the news. Nice theory though...
QUOTE
PARLOCK UPDATE
By Michelle Malkin · September 21, 2004 04:01 PM
For those still interested:
Just received a call from the IUPAT, which has now identified the union member who grabbed the Bush/Cheney sign from Phil Parlock's daughter and threw the pieces at the family as they left the event. "We are taking steps to deal with the individual," the union told me.
...
Meanwhile, President Bush sent the little girl a new sign that read:
"Dear Sophia, Thank you for supporting my campaign. I understand someone tore up your sign. So I am sending you a new sign and a signed picture."
By Michelle Malkin · September 21, 2004 04:01 PM
For those still interested:
Just received a call from the IUPAT, which has now identified the union member who grabbed the Bush/Cheney sign from Phil Parlock's daughter and threw the pieces at the family as they left the event. "We are taking steps to deal with the individual," the union told me.
...
Meanwhile, President Bush sent the little girl a new sign that read:
"Dear Sophia, Thank you for supporting my campaign. I understand someone tore up your sign. So I am sending you a new sign and a signed picture."
I have no idea what Michelle Malkin actually heard and what she completely invented, but the official statement by IUPAT says nothing about having "identified the union member" in question. To me, the "union member" does bear a striking resemblance to Parlock's son.
And, Lesly, I think you overlooked perhaps the most sinister aspect of the "update" at truthout: that Parlock has since been involved in yet another incident:
I, too, think this was definitely, definitely an act that was by an extremist kind of thing - an extremist kind of thing that would just happen to have been "harassed" in 1996, 2000, and 2004, an extremist kind of thing that would just happen to have the same newspaper standing by each time to cover his "story", an extremist kind of thing which might just happen to involve the victim's own son as one of the evil Democrats in question. And an extremist kind of thing that might even resort to firing a gun at a building full of people in order to demonize the opposition.
Are we becoming increasingly inundated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of press coverage like this?
Obviously. I would have to agree with William Rivers Pitt:
That's very bad.
Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
Absolutely. And it looks as though a guy like Parlock, having his craving for media attention fed, might just be upping the ante. In 1996, someone bumped into him; in 2000 they took his signs; in 2004, they took his signs and made his daughter cry - now someone is shooting at people? In none of these cases were there any witnesses or any corroborating evidence. There was just the word of Phil Parlock and a compliant newspaper - until the shooting incident. This sort of journalism might be more than just irresponsible. In the case of Phil Parlock, for example, it might be downright dangerous.
Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thrown out with the evening trash?
No, they should be investigated - thoroughly - and, if there appears to be substantial merit, then they should be covered. In the case of Phil Parlock, though, I would again agree with Pitt:
They might, indeed.
And, Lesly, I think you overlooked perhaps the most sinister aspect of the "update" at truthout: that Parlock has since been involved in yet another incident:
QUOTE
A gathering of Republicans at the local GOP headquarters got a nasty scare when someone fired a bullet at the building. About two dozen people were there to watch the Republican Convention in New York when a single shot hit the window.
Dee Delancy of WCHS news in Charleston reported on the incident, and interviewed several people who were there. One of them was Phil Parlock, who said, "I think this is definitely, definitely an act that was by an extremist kind of thing."
Parlock was there.
Dee Delancy of WCHS news in Charleston reported on the incident, and interviewed several people who were there. One of them was Phil Parlock, who said, "I think this is definitely, definitely an act that was by an extremist kind of thing."
Parlock was there.
I, too, think this was definitely, definitely an act that was by an extremist kind of thing - an extremist kind of thing that would just happen to have been "harassed" in 1996, 2000, and 2004, an extremist kind of thing that would just happen to have the same newspaper standing by each time to cover his "story", an extremist kind of thing which might just happen to involve the victim's own son as one of the evil Democrats in question. And an extremist kind of thing that might even resort to firing a gun at a building full of people in order to demonize the opposition.
Are we becoming increasingly inundated with stories that make us less able to discuss and understand candidate stances on real issues because of press coverage like this?
Obviously. I would have to agree with William Rivers Pitt:
QUOTE
This is how campaigns get mired in utterly mindless trivialities. Instead of discussing the upswell of catastrophic violence in Iraq, we get to hear about poor Phil and his crying daughter. There are important matters to discuss, matters central to the future of the country, but media tricks like this blow the whole show off-track. That's bad.
That's very bad.
Is this a function of TOO MUCH coverage where one's laundry becomes fodder for an "inside edition" type piece?
Absolutely. And it looks as though a guy like Parlock, having his craving for media attention fed, might just be upping the ante. In 1996, someone bumped into him; in 2000 they took his signs; in 2004, they took his signs and made his daughter cry - now someone is shooting at people? In none of these cases were there any witnesses or any corroborating evidence. There was just the word of Phil Parlock and a compliant newspaper - until the shooting incident. This sort of journalism might be more than just irresponsible. In the case of Phil Parlock, for example, it might be downright dangerous.
Should families and operatives like the Bill Burkett (purported CBS news forged document source) or Phil Parlock (serial GOP victim) be stories or thrown out with the evening trash?
No, they should be investigated - thoroughly - and, if there appears to be substantial merit, then they should be covered. In the case of Phil Parlock, though, I would again agree with Pitt:
QUOTE
This could be a series of coincidences, but someone should take a long look at this fellow regardless. Manufacturing a few sign-ripping incidents isn't a terribly big deal. But he appears to be hell-bent on making Democrats look like thugs, and there has been a shooting incident involving him on top of everything else. The media, which may well have been repeatedly scammed by Parlock, might want to do some further checking.
They might, indeed.
Just a question, if one of you posters here on AD was harassed that many times by the big bad Democrats, would you bring your 3-year-old daughter and have her carry a sign? Sounds like horse hockey to me. 
It's a shame about what Burkett did. I do not think that the Democratic Party had anything to do with it, but hey, I'm also sure that many Republicans wouldn't have thought that Richard Nixon would be involved with burglars breaking into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. In other words, there is precedent, so an investigation is warranted.
But I have to agree that the situations in Iraq and in our own country are far more important than Air National Guardgate or that poor man who just isn't able to hit it off with the Democrats at Democratic rallies.
It's a shame about what Burkett did. I do not think that the Democratic Party had anything to do with it, but hey, I'm also sure that many Republicans wouldn't have thought that Richard Nixon would be involved with burglars breaking into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. In other words, there is precedent, so an investigation is warranted.
But I have to agree that the situations in Iraq and in our own country are far more important than Air National Guardgate or that poor man who just isn't able to hit it off with the Democrats at Democratic rallies.
UPDATE September 22, 2004
Apparently*, the Pro-Kerry Bloggers have it wrong. Malkin's web site says she received a call from the Union admitting there was an indication that a Union Member WAS involved rather than a Parlock relative. (This would be in addition to their earlier "no admission of involvement" apology and their promise to look into the matter.)
My source: a phone call to IUPAT where the receptionist admitted as much but had no details. I left an 800 number for the Political Action director to call me back. I will report the details when and if I receive them.
However, from what the information I got from the receptionist and a local nespaper, apparently this was (1) not Parlock's first confrontation at a Democratic political gathering and from information given by the Union's receptionist the offender WAS thought to be (2) a Union Member and (3) NOT currently thought to be a Parlock relative or operative. *(There was also no denial by the receptionist about a scenario in which their member might be a Bush fan.) Apparently, the union is still winding up its investigation. (How's that for conspiracy possibilities?)
Possibly more to come.
Michelle Malkin's web log's last update on September 21, is still listed as the most recent concerning Parlock and the IUPAT Union on her site. The link is michellemalkin.com
I will update the board with any information I MIGHT receive although my inquiry and message left on the PAC director's voice mail will probably be one in MANY. Again, the receptionist DID basically admit the union was fairly certain the perpetrator was a union member.
To answer your question about bringing my 3 year old daughter, Paladin, she is older now, in fact grown. When I put a "We Will Prevail" bumper sticker on my vehicle just days after 9-11, it had no party affiliation. She visited from her home some 1500 miles away shortly after the War in Iraq was begun. Her politics led her to say, "You know that sticker no longer means you simply support America, it means you support the War in Iraq."
I smiled. I always knew she was bright even though her politics are left of mine and mine are more centrist in a "different" sort of way. She sat me down and told me, "You know Bush is using this 'Go America' stuff to sell a 'You're either with us or you're against us' divisiveness and to help justify HIS War on Iraq. He should be after Bin Laden."
I am so happy to have a daughter who thinks for herself, stands up for what she believes and who is not afraid to speak her mind.
Apparently*, the Pro-Kerry Bloggers have it wrong. Malkin's web site says she received a call from the Union admitting there was an indication that a Union Member WAS involved rather than a Parlock relative. (This would be in addition to their earlier "no admission of involvement" apology and their promise to look into the matter.)
My source: a phone call to IUPAT where the receptionist admitted as much but had no details. I left an 800 number for the Political Action director to call me back. I will report the details when and if I receive them.
However, from what the information I got from the receptionist and a local nespaper, apparently this was (1) not Parlock's first confrontation at a Democratic political gathering and from information given by the Union's receptionist the offender WAS thought to be (2) a Union Member and (3) NOT currently thought to be a Parlock relative or operative. *(There was also no denial by the receptionist about a scenario in which their member might be a Bush fan.) Apparently, the union is still winding up its investigation. (How's that for conspiracy possibilities?)
Possibly more to come.
Michelle Malkin's web log's last update on September 21, is still listed as the most recent concerning Parlock and the IUPAT Union on her site. The link is michellemalkin.com
I will update the board with any information I MIGHT receive although my inquiry and message left on the PAC director's voice mail will probably be one in MANY. Again, the receptionist DID basically admit the union was fairly certain the perpetrator was a union member.
To answer your question about bringing my 3 year old daughter, Paladin, she is older now, in fact grown. When I put a "We Will Prevail" bumper sticker on my vehicle just days after 9-11, it had no party affiliation. She visited from her home some 1500 miles away shortly after the War in Iraq was begun. Her politics led her to say, "You know that sticker no longer means you simply support America, it means you support the War in Iraq."
I smiled. I always knew she was bright even though her politics are left of mine and mine are more centrist in a "different" sort of way. She sat me down and told me, "You know Bush is using this 'Go America' stuff to sell a 'You're either with us or you're against us' divisiveness and to help justify HIS War on Iraq. He should be after Bin Laden."
I am so happy to have a daughter who thinks for herself, stands up for what she believes and who is not afraid to speak her mind.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.