"truth, justice, and all that stuff ..."

[Irvine511]

You can say that again. The Daily Planet of the 40's never printed classified information about The Manhattan Project, breaking the Nazi Enigma Code or rumors of a June invasion somewhere in France in which "high-placed sources" predict tens of thousands of American soldiers may die.

To be fair, neither did the New York Times of the 40's. Oh my, how things have changed.

and what, pray tell, about the Wall Street Journal?

i'm sure you'd love the newspapers in North Korea.

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

(and my goodness, talk to me about the "outrage du jour" ... this story is such a crock, but the Republicans have always sobbed and moaned about "the media" whenever things aren't going well ... it's bee quite a full court press by Rove since early June, first we try to kick the shit out of gay people, and then we make Zarqawi out to be perhaps the most overrated terrorist in history, and then we start screaming about "cut and run," and now that the SCOTUS kicks the shit out of the Bush GWOT, we throw tantrums about the NYT.

give.

it.

up Mr. Rove.)

 

[maycocksean]

You can say that again. The Daily Planet of the 40's never printed classified information about The Manhattan Project, breaking the Nazi Enigma Code or rumors of a June invasion somewhere in France in which "high-placed sources" predict tens of thousands of American soldiers may die.

To be fair, neither did the New York Times of the 40's. Oh my, how things have changed.

So you're saying that the New York Times is taking classified top secret information and just unleashing it on the public, without any consequences? Isn't that illegal? Don't the papers only release what was "formerly classified"?

Because my understanding is that the Manhattan Project and D-Day were highly classified and I'm not sure that the NY Times would have had much to report.

To be frank, the reason that there is so much criticism and complaint about this war is because it's a stupid war being run in a slovenly fashion--(THAT is a disservice to our men and women fighting over there. ) This country--including it's media--is still capable of rallying behind the U.S. involvement in a conflict. Most people understood the war in Afghanistan, and the response of this country to the Gulf War was radically different than to the war in Iraq, and we hadn't even been attacked.

I'm not saying the press doesn't need to be held accountable for it's missteps and biases. But implied here is the idea that whatever war our leaders decide to bumble into we must be in lock-step support of or we're not patriotic. That's just nonsense. Our country has fought some wars that needed to be fought--the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and World War II. We've also fought in some wars that were either not such a good idea or just plain wrong, like Vietnam and the Mexican War (which was really just an ill-disguised, Manifest Desitiny fueled land grab).

My country right or wrong? Absolutely. But we at least need to know when we're wrong.

 

[INDY500]

So you're saying that the New York Times is taking classified top secret information and just unleashing it on the public, without any consequences? Isn't that illegal?

Some are arguing just that. Some even go as far as to call it treasonous.
Me (and I'm trying to keep this related to the topic), I just know that it appears to many Americans that neither the establishment media nor Hollywood is behaving--in regards to the current war on Terror--as it did during WWII when Superman was "kicking Nazi ass on the radio." Contrast their full-support and active participation during WWII to the hash criticism and, in the case of the NY Times possible undermining, of U.S. efforts. In other words, like the makers of the current movie, they act like they no longer believe the principles of "Truth, justice and the American way" to be synonymous.
Please don't read too much into that, it's a broad simplification to be sure and I'm certainly not attacking the movie as I haven't seen it. It's just that I see the actions of the Times as another example of the disconnect between the elites in Big Media & Hollywood and Middle America. A disconnect that holds relativism above all else and believes that America is the source of most of the worlds problems. A disconnect that didn't exist in the 40's by the way, but now extends, in addition to general distrust of the military, well into cultural, economic and religious issues.

It's a conservative thing.

 

[Irvine511]

Some are arguing just that. Some even go as far as to call it treasonous.
Me (and I'm trying to keep this related to the topic), I just know that it appears to many Americans that neither the establishment media nor Hollywood is behaving--in regards to the current war on Terror--as it did during WWII when Superman was "kicking Nazi ass on the radio." Contrast their full-support and active participation during WWII to the hash criticism and, in the case of the NY Times possible undermining, of U.S. efforts. In other words, like the makers of the current movie, they act like they no longer believe the principles of "Truth, justice and the American way" to be synonymous.

what about the WSJ? they published the EXACT same article, but only one newspaper is getting any sort of flak from the administration.

the Hollywood stuff is crap, to me -- i'd rather an entertainment establishment that challenges me and challenges the leadership of this country rather than march in lock step with them as if this were a fascist state.

i also think that comparisons between Iraq and WW2 are wildy off-base.

It's just that I see the actions of the Times as another example of the disconnect between the elites in Big Media & Hollywood and Middle America. A disconnect that holds relativism above all else and believes that America is the source of most of the worlds problems. A disconnect that didn't exist in the 40's by the way, but now extends, in addition to general distrust of the military, well into cultural, economic and religious issues.

so blind faith is better than skepticism?

 

[Irvine511]

oh, i actually did see the movie, and firstly, it's really, really good. saw it at the huge Uptown movie theater in DC (2 story screen) and thoroughly enjoyed it.

i was also thrilled that Superman has been globalized and that they dropped "the American way" -- some of this, i'm sure, is due to global B.O. concerns, but it also fits with the story and the essence of Superman -- he's here to save humanity, not just America, and if anything, the movie hits you over the head with the Christ/savior parallels that it would seem not just overly patriotic, but downright chauvinistic to view the US as the world's chosen people worthy of defense by Superman. it's clear that we've progressed since the 1930s/40s and aren't as tribalistic in our global outlook.

it also helps to internationalize the film when we notice that Superman and Lois are flying over Sydney, and that many of the extras have vaguely Aussie accents.

 

[INDY500]

what about the WSJ? they published the EXACT same article, but only one newspaper is getting any sort of flak from the administration.

the Hollywood stuff is crap, to me -- i'd rather an entertainment establishment that challenges me and challenges the leadership of this country rather than march in lock step with them as if this were a fascist state.

i also think that comparisons between Iraq and WW2 are wildy off-base.

so blind faith is better than skepticism?

Of coarse Iraq and WWII are vastly different. Of coarse we need watchdogs in the press, not lapdogs. I said it was a simplification,
I'm trying to keep this related to Superman after all. But the makers of the movie claim "it's a different world" and they're right. And one way it's different is I just can't imagine reporters Clark Kent and Lois Lane printing classified information on the front page of the Daily Planet that would cause President Roosevelt to say "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." Can you?

I'll tell you another way it's different. Yesterday after the USGP, the German and Italian national anthems were played over the public address system. Hard to imagine that happening during WWII as well. So of coarse the world is different than 60 years ago, and in most ways, I think actually better. Enemies have become allies, we live longer more comfortable lives, we're more colorblind as a society, technology puts the world at our fingertips and we listen to U2 instead of Glenn Miller. Better, right?

 

[Irvine511]

And one way it's different is I just can't imagine reporters Clark Kent and Lois Lane printing classified information on the front page of the Daily Planet that would cause President Roosevelt to say "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." Can you?

William Safire, retired former columnist for the NYT, and speachwriter for Nixon and Agnew had this to say on Meet the Press yesterday (which was a rather wild roundtable, moderated by Andrea Mitchell and featured a really agitated Bill Bennett):

[q]SAFIRE: Look, I don't speak for the Times. I've been in the Times for 30 years disagreeing with Times editorial policy right down the line. On this one, I think they did the right thing. Here we are on Independence Day weekend, 230 years ago, celebrating what was the resistance to a king who said "We're going to hang you for treason." And here we have a Long Island congressman, happens to be named King, who's saying "treason" and "put these reporters in jail." I think there's a big fundamental thing going on here now, and across the board, of "get the press, get the media." And, look, I used to write speeches for Spiro Agnew, I'm hip to this stuff, and, and I can say that it gives you a blip, it gives you a chance to get on the offensive against the, the darned media. But in the long view of history, it's a big mistake.[/q]

ultimately, this does nothing to damage national security because if a terrorist didn't know that his finances were being monitored, then he's a total idiot who wouldn't be able to remember that it's socks first, then shoes, let alone gas the NYC subway.

it does seem that every time there's a national security story the Bushies don't want published, they claim it will damage national security. but they never tell us how it will, nor do they prove it after the fact, and it's simply not a crime to publish classified information.

and, again, why are you only picking on the NYT? why not the WSJ?

Enemies have become allies, we live longer more comfortable lives, we're more colorblind as a society, technology puts the world at our fingertips and we listen to U2 instead of Glenn Miller. Better, right?

okay -- you got me. better!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

There's no evidence that Superman has ever been a U.S. citizen.

I think Joli's adopted childern are US citizens, so since Superman has US step parents, then I guess that makes him a US citizen.

 

[kimby]

Joe Shuster was Canadian, Jerry Siegel wasn't.

So, is Siegel the source of the "American Way" bit?

 

[melon]

I saw the film. This whole "American Way" controversy is overrated. An abrasive newspaper editor said this line, and the fact that he abbreviated the phrase would be in character for someone in his career position.

Melon

 

[melon]

I think Joli's adopted childern are US citizens, so since Superman has US step parents, then I guess that makes him a US citizen.

I doubt he was formally adopted. Instead, he's an illegal immigrant.

Melon