EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Well, there's always the competition:
Still too biased? ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s always Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh.
Public confidence in news sources is falling---drastically---while viewers are content to accept "news" they like from untested and even anonymous
providers online. Journalists find and report facts, but like scientists they are now widely seen as corrupted. Does that mean that they are, or just that
they have been inaccurately portrayed as such ?
Political leaders who encourage this trend do a serious disservice to their country.
I certainly didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to create an equivalency between Amy Goodman and Rush Limbaugh, in fact, I was trying to illustrate the obvious differences in integrity and expertise.
Goodman continually provides us with real news, a glimpse into the struggles of oppressed people across the globe, without ever talking about herself, while RushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s on air persona and opinionated, racist, vitriolic propaganda gives us some insight into the mindset of the fearful, uninformed white American, while providing little to no real information.
I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve ever heard anyone accuse Amy Goodman of fabricating a story or lying.
It is interesting that, while PBS congratulates itself on the quality of its news programs, and most of them (other than Paris 24, which is dreadful) are excellent, it was PBS stations that carried "RT News," formerly known as "Russia Today." I guess they figured out it was just propaganda; I have not seen it on the schedule for a long time.
Never having listened to the prattling of any of the talk radio group, Limbaugh, Imus, et alia, I cannot comment on their content, but I believe comparing TV newscaster Amy Goodman to radio commentator Rush Limbaugh is a tad off the mark.
As for the Internet, that, more than DC, is the swamp. It is alarming how terrible many of the "news" stories are. Even the old guard of newspapers - NYT, WSJ, Time Magazine - seem not to maintain their high quality.
repurposed), which resonates in discussions like ours. There is a difference, in fact, between where and how we hear some news, and what the content of
that news is. We might trust or at least respect a source---until we begin to hear things we aren't in agreement with; we might be surprised by an "alien"
source bringing us welcome content.
William Buckley might have given Amy Goodman a pass, until she interviewed Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader ? Or am I using today's disturbing standard---
shoot the messenger at the first sign of dissent---to describe another era ?