Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a "liar". Obama agrees.

[Razgovory]

Well, both statements are true.  Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.

[dps]

Well, both statements are true.  Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.

Neither are news, though.

[Berkut]

Well, both statements are true.  Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.

Neither are news, though.

It is so very Italian though to think that it is relevant to share that information with a fellow political leader.

[Malthus]

Well, both statements are true.  Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.

Neither are news, though.

It is so very Italian though to think that it is relevant to share that information with a fellow political leader.

Hey, to Berlusconi, this is vital information! 

[crazy canuck]

Speaking of which, it could have been worse than callinf Bibi a liar ...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/fall-berlusconi/2191/berlusconi-%E2%80%98called-merkel-unfuckable-lard-arse%E2%80%99

ITALIAN newspapers claim Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi referred to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel as an "unfuckable lard-arse" in a telephone conversation with a newspaper editor.

I wonder how many times Merkel has had to pay for sex? 

[Admiral Yi]

Just out of curiosity, what did Bibi say to merit the liar tag?

[Sheilbh]

Just out of curiosity, what did Bibi say to merit the liar tag?

That wasn't heard. 

He does seem to have a record of pissing everyone off though.  Sharon told him he was born a liar and would die a liar, I think Blair called him an armour plated bullshitter, Robert Gates apparently describes him as 'ungrateful' and I think everyone who came in contact with him in his first government ended up hating him - Clinton administration figures are still scarred from dealing with Bibi and he turned many of his allies and own party against him.

[Ed Anger]

and Merkel is unfuckable.

I'd give her a ride.

[Malthus]

I find this Israeli politician very doable ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf

The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". 

[dps]

I find this Israeli politician very doable ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf

The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". 

Face is OK for her age, but you can't tell anything about her figure from the wikipedia pic.

[The Brain]

I find this Israeli politician very doable ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf

The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". 

Face is OK for her age, but you can't tell anything about her figure from the wikipedia pic.

You don't have to fuck her figure.

[Viking]

I find this Israeli politician very doable ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf

The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". 

Face is OK for her age, but you can't tell anything about her figure from the wikipedia pic.

You don't have to fuck her figure.

You don't have to fuck her face.

[Malthus]

You don't have to fuck her face.

You don't have to, but if the opportunity presented itself ... 

[Viking]

You don't have to fuck her face.

You don't have to, but if the opportunity presented itself ... 

This is all making me nervous.. all this discussion where we can fuck... I'm sure Caliga would like to fuck her tits, Brain would like to fuck her cat, dps would like to take her from behind (with a paper bag) and you seem willing to risk forcing her to get a 2000 shekel stroller using the traditional missionary method.

This all belongs in TBR, where I can't see it and be compelled to comment on it.

Edit: Me? Apparently I'm relying on her not biting.
Edit 2: And, to confirm my perversion street cred, hoping not to get a paper-cut from dps paper bag.

[Sheilbh]

But the reality is that the press *always* functions as gatekeeper, if through nothing else, then through their decisions what to report, what not to report, and how prominently to report what they do report.  So the press does decide for us, just as it always has.  What has changed is the decisions the press makes about what we should pay attention to have degenerated to the least common demoninator.  It is still the 1950s, except the Murrows have been completely supplanted by the Winchells of the press world.

It always does by necessity but that doesn't mean we should transform into a virtue.  It's a good thing that the press decide with their privileged knowledge what is and isn't worth sharing with us.  My view is that we should simply let the market work which will bend towards a more inclusive and full discourse.

I've always thought the Economist is onto something when they say that one of the possible reasons the populist right hasn't taken off in Britain is because of our media.  The anti-immigration stories and political correctness gone mad (such as the bogus 'Winterval' story in the Mail) are reflected in our media.  The biggest selling newspapers cover them so the 'metropolitan liberal' media like the Guardian and the BBC have to respond to them, so do our mainstream political parties.  That starves the likes of the BNP or the FN.  Similarly I think there's also less resentment of our liberal media than there is in the US for that reason.  The press are gatekeepers but there's so many angles and they're selling to so many markets that the bar to entry's pretty low and everyone's involved.

The other thing is I always think of this as being like Gladstone's tax cuts.  He always, given the opportunity, cut stamp tax on newsprint and other printing, eventually abolishing both.  His theory was that it would enable the common man greater access to knowledge, to the Classics, and that they would self-improve and become respectable Victorians.  That didn't happen.  Instead for the most part there was a flood of yellow journalism, the start of the picture press and penny dreadfuls.  But it did end up producing halfpenny classics and cheap translations of Homer and working people who wanted and were able to read more could begin to afford to. 

I think the internet's done a similar thing in that it's dragged down our lowest common denominator to roughly just above a British tabloid and expanded the knowledge at the top.  At both ends of the market the gatekeeping has been reduced, which is a good thing.

I think the prim and proper American media are otherwise far too intimate with the powerful and it should be to their enduring shame that the National Enquirer got the John Edwards story.  They need to muck-rake more.  But I think in the US blogs have done a lot of that and they produce a lot of shit but sometimes they actually get a story and they force it to be covered.  But on there is also far more high-end stuff out there.  It's relatively easy to find short academic papers, consultation papers produced by think tanks or serious journals and I can communicate with experts in their field casually and, sometimes, if they've the time they'll reply.  If you want more detail than a good article in the NYT or the Economist gives you then that's also available.

My view which I've said before is that the press's role, the role of the media in general, is to spread information.  Assuming they've reason to believe it's true and they didn't acquire it illegally (unless it's of huge significance) then I think they should just publish and let us decide.  I don't think they should then have a conversation about whether it's legitimate to publish it.  But as I've said I think it's a virtuous cycle: they'll shift more copy, we'll all be more informed to the degree that we wish to be informed.

But I don't at all think one should disparage journalists who do not ascribe to that mentality. They have no responsibility to anyone to satisfy peoples desire for another "gotcha".

I think they've a responsibility to report.  I also think any good reporter may well decide this isn't a story.  If they're then casually asked by a Presidential assistant to can the story they should be demanding it's given a couple of inches on the front page.