Gitmo Got Me: Viewer Comments
George Bush might be out of office and clearing brush all the live-long day down in Crawford, but apparently, it’s still not polite party conversation to raise even the possibility of questioning certain aspects of his administration. In my blog post yesterday, I merely called for a responsible investigation of issues like torture, domestic spying, and extraordinary rendition that the Bush White House permitted as part of its fight against terrorism.
Well, my goodness, you would have thought I’d said there weren’t any WMD’s in Iraq. Here are a few of the comments from readers, both negative and positive… with my comments on the comments (Hey, it is MY blog!)
I’m not sure how Randy comes down on the investigation question, but he was very bothered that I was expressing any ideas about it at all:
Jim, you are supposed to be a journalist that provides unbiased reporting. I can't look at you this way anymore... What if your viewers have different takes on the news stories than you do? Roger Grimsby, Bill Beutel and all the others from the good old days of news broadcasts would turn in their graves if they watched WPIX.
I imagine they would, Randy. But those “good old days,” when their newscasts were the only ones on the air, are long gone. The myth of perfect, robotic objectivity has not worn well in the multiverse of media options people have now. Of COURSE viewers have different takes on the news than I might have. I’m a sentient human being and a member of this community. I don’t expect viewers to be pod people, and I would hope they don’t expect that of me.
Other commenters, like Mike H, detected some opinion from me as well, but it didn’t bother him since he agreed! (and really, people.. isn’t that what it so often comes down to?)
It does seem that you and Keith Olbermann would prefer to keep Gitmo open only for the purpose of replacing the inmates with members of the Bush administration. But I … actually welcome such an investigation, and subsequent trials, as much as you do. Yes, "Bring it on!" But please remember this prediction, Jim. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
Brian seemed to get the balance I’m trying to strike, and the evolving definition of “objective”:
Jim, agree 100%. Keep being objective, and also letting us know indirectly how an intelligent observer would react to the news you report.
Vicki was also a defender:
Jim, you are absolutely right and, for the record, my husband and I love your newscast… Keep blogging and sharing!
But from there, it was all downhill. Boris P kept his comment concise and to the point:
I don't like Channel 11 news.
Finally, Lee’s sister knows exactly what the problem is:
I am reading the latest Watkins blog. Is he for real or what? I don't think he is the brightest apple on the tree.
Ha! Lee’s sister, I have to tell you, I don’t think I am either! My thanks to everyone who read, reacted, and wrote.
| Search Blog
|
Comments: 20
You like being head kid on the block Jim. Is this a reflection of your childhood? I think Kaity is trying to keep it steady, but you have these looks of shear obnoxiousness. I watch different newscasters. I never stick to one. I don't have a favorite, otherwise, I would be watching any man's channel. Are you that sure of yourself? I don't know how anyone on Channel 11 could be. Remember, being on Channel 11, is like being second best.
Well, Jim, please don't get too carried away with my "agreement". Since I tend to use more space than most respondents, I didn't want to go into the double standard I almost always detect in commentary such as yours. To that point, I don't recall too many mainstream media calls for investigations and trials of the behaviors of the Clinton administration in their dealings with the Chinese. I recall in particular, questions about individual donors like Charlie Tree, Johnny Chung and John Huang, as well as corporate donors like Loral and Hughes for whom the administration apparently waived controls on technically sensitive exports to China.
Also, I'm confident you picked up on my support of investigations as a dare as much as a wish. I'd just love to see the Democrats who voted for the war once again question the very officials whom they had questioned in the winter of 2003. Surely you agree that political talk is cheaper than action from both sides of the aisle, don't you? I was extremely disappointed with Bush's failure to investigate the outrageous pardons issued by his predecessor. Sorry if I wasn't watching PIX then, so I might have missed your comment on that one.
Jim is right to question the administration just passed and we need more newscasters like him who aren't shy about sharing their opinions. Keep it up Jim.
I love WPIX! Its the only newscast i watch every morning and every night! Never miss it. Keep up the good work Jim and Kaity!
Geez. How did everyone get so personal over commenting? Seriously! Teach me to be sick and not keep up with the blog- apparently I missed the good stuff.
However, one man asking for an investigation or even throwing out that notion shouldn't be thrown under the bus for it. However, as he is writing under WPIX's site, Jim should watch what he says sometimes (I don't have a problem with you Jim, but apparently people will find anything to harp on these days i.e: Obama's oath "flub"). Then again in his defense, if whatever Jim wrote was so... outlandish or outrageous, then PIX brass wouldn't have let it really go up, right (no matter how much of a big shot Mr. Watkins thinks he is :-P)?
Anyway, in short, if the Obama Administration (or the Dems for that matter) wanted to bring the prior administration up on war crime charges, I don't think the blog postings of one lone reporter would affect their decisions to/or not to.
BTW: kudos to WPIX for making your site mobile friendly! It makes keeping up easier to do... but posting comments a pain in the... you know. This comment is short probably but it feels like it has gone on forever on this tiny screen.
Despite what Lee's sister said, I still think you're the brightest crayon in the box, the sharpest pencil in the pack, the best apple on the tree...you get it.
I don't think you are the brightest apple on the tree.
May I say, I like your news reporting. I do think that Pix is a fine station. I must admit that Mr. G is my favorite weather man, and he is an ok guy. Gotta go to work.
May I say, I like your news reporting. I do think that Pix is a fine station. I must admit that Mr. G is my favorite weather man, and he is an ok guy. Gotta go to work.
May I say, I like your news reporting. I do think that Pix is a fine station. I must admit that Mr. G is my favorite weather man, and he is an ok guy. Gotta go to work.
Grumpy today.
Where do I sign up?
Let's do it.
I would like to be able to buy Obama's lastest model of a Blackberry. It's about $300 and not available to the public (yet)? I wonder if they will ever be available. I understand that he can talk to his friends, etc. This has to be the most secure Blackberry out there, otherwise why would our Prez have one. LEE yathinktheywouldcostmoremoney
Probably the most absurd comment by a newsman in the last year - "Can't criticize Bush?" Really? The most villified president in modern history? I'm no Bush fan - I voted against him twice - but seriously, Mr. Watkins, you have lost the plot with that comment. People are expressing themselves. Apparently, a few don't agree with you. Get a little perspective, please.
I think people lose their mind when it comes to politics. I can't remember when this country has been so divided by Republican vs. Democrat. And thank you Bush and the "new" conservative party for fanning those flames. Jim writes "what is wrong with investigating Bush?" Nothing. No one, NO ONE, is above the law. Not Bush, not Obama. I don't give a damn what your political party is or who you voted for. Does anyone now question Woodward and Bernstein for investigating a lead on Watergate? Americans have a right to know why they were being bugged. Why people were tortured and jailed without the right to a trial. Geneva Convention anyone? Jim, how dare you even suggest such a thing! That's sarcasm, by the way. I'm not sure a few of you (Boris P, for example) knows what that is. Doesn't that sound too bitchy? Deal with it.
You could be powdered toast man.
Watkins is a wasp name.
Here is powdered toast man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powdered_Toast_Man
You could also be superman.
guys u don't have to hate the news that is the mans job and this is him being another human being like all of us
I'm so happy-go-lucky, but that ends with the news programs. It infuriates me that 'news people' give their opinions on the air at all. About ANYTHING. I don't want to hear it. I don't care one iota how they feel! I want reports. Period. News!
GOD!
It's like.. Take football. I wouldn't care how the commentators 'feel' about what's going on. I just want the game called. I want to know what's going on. Just call the game. Just report. Period.
A camera in front of a news person does absolutely not give him/her the right to impose their personal views on me in my home. ..From a news reporter I'm getting OPINIONS/their personal FEELINGS?? ..Holy smoke. Who are they to do that!? If I'm watching a show that's pundit designed, that's different! But the news SHOULD BE NEWS.
Also, with all the silly giggling and the yakking going on at the same time, it's become completely unwatchable. What noise! The comments after every single story seem so forced and all we see is what weiners they are. Why are they yakking at all!!?!? And why are they commenting on what they just reported!? Discussing how they feel about it is entirely inappropriate!
News programs, the anchors, and the 'journalists' were once so dignified. Just.. STOP.
I wasn't sure if Watkins was a wasp name or an Irish/English (wasp again) name. Superman, now that's another guy....LEE
justrespondingtothepowderedtoastremark
You go, Jim! You're great - keep pushing on Bush - clearly crimes were committed and attention should be paid.