http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D94U6UA00&show_article=1

I’m OK with Rocky’s compassion, but, there are alot of things here at home that need fixing first. We go abroad fixin’ things, is just that much more money our kids will owe China.

I tune in because I appreciate hearing other points of view, I tune out when I don’t like the content. The programming is ultimately responsible to the market (basically…).

Every time you listen, or visit this site you are validating that the programming is working. Even if you strongly disagree with the liberal bias, you are reinforcing it as a success every time you visit this site, or listen to the show. So really the only way to change the programming is to end your (and others) participation in it.

For me, the bottom line is I have delivered a strong opinion on this issue, and I acknowledged that it’s unpopular and that I’m violating the “innocent until proven guilty” ideal with my words.

What ScottC is viewing as an issue with my behavior and credibility is seen by me as being passionate and honest about what my opinion is and my feelings about the issue are. Where he sees a dent to credibility, I see myself as being honest with the intention to show that I’m giving a credible opinion.

ScottC has a point, with For the People, just like anything in life, there’s good, bad and ugly. We work hard each day to put on a good show and start good discussions, some days we pick bad topics, and some days the discussions turn ugly. What’s ugly to one is great radio to another, however, and what we’ve got to keep in mind is that ScottC, or plowking, or Jasonthe or Tyler Riggs or whoever is always welcome to be a part of the dialogue, and also to give criticism, but all while remembering that everything is meant to start, foster and grow discussion on any range of issues.

The best we can do is take the information that we have before us and make decisions or form opinions. That’s all I’ll ever claim to do. I’m going to research issues, call them like I see them, and then find the balance between defending my opinion and welcoming the continued inflow of information to continue shaping my view on any given issue.

And PK, there is a lot to think about in your comment. Thanks for putting it up.

Good posts PK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h189uuzjeU

The Patriot Perspective on this is:

“Before Bennedict Arnold there were many other spies captured in the Revolutionary forces. One was a very loved and respected comander. The penelty for Spying in the Military is hanging. The Comander asked to be shot instead. A more respectiable death in his opinion. Allot of the men in the Army agreed and wanted him to be shot another comander stood and said the Penalty for Spying is hanging, if we are going to bow and shot him we might as well just let him go George Washington agreed and the man was hung”

We in the Military will always take care of are own. That goes both ways if these men are inocent your damn right i will be the first one to call for the exacution of all who brought the false charges against them! If they are guilty i will be the first to line the bastards up and shot them. They dont go to jail for life they dont sit and cost more and more tax payer money the penelty for there actions if guilty in the military in a war time sittuation is death by exicution by there comander or ranking officer. And it is the right move because if guilty every Marine will be the first to say they have disrespected the Corps and comitted the greatest offence. There is a reason why the greatest rulling that can ever be handed down is “actions unbecoming of a Marine” it pains me to even say it. Let us take care of are own we always have and always will we haise we iniciate and we settle are diffrences very diffrent then civilians because are lives are very diffrent then civilians!

You rely on the “persecuted liberal” bit so much that it becomes your default response to any criticism. My comment towards Tyler and now you, have absolutely nothing to do with your ideology or spin. Nothing. So most of what you went on about has no bearing on this discussion. My criticism of Tyler and FTP is the PROCESS by which certain opinions are formed and the MANNER in which they are communicated.

I would have no problem if Tyler expressed his skepticism on the innoncence of the men. There’s no requirement to be objective. But the argument employed made no sense and was needlessly vitriolic: from the title “Definition of Cowardice,” to the presumption of guilt for surrendering, down to the use of slurs.

For you and your tag-alongs to categorize my comments as a call to homogenize FTP politically or otherwise shows just how shallow the thinking is here. And you worry that I mistake FTP as a source for hard news?

This is a place to be opinionated. So I’m of the opinion that this has nothing to do with bias and more to do with behavior and credibility.

At least no one can call you guys thin-skinned SOBs. Your gracious acceptance of criticism and deference to pluralistic opinion is noted.

Jess said it best in that this is an opinion show and an opinion blog. Tyler offered his opinion (which I agree with… #6 plead, the remaining 5 ran to the last state with a high approval rating for Bush and the War. It’s not rocket science, and it is cowardly… if they were real Marines, they’d already be through the tribunal and acquitted or charged).

But in this comment discussion, in reaction to disagreeing with Tyler, “ScottC” writes:

FTP has its good, bad and ugly. Most of the time it is good. These types of juvenile rants are the bad. The crony journalism/broadcasting is the ugly.

This is what often frustrates me with our attitudes toward media, and specifically news media. Every day I hear someone, somewhere, reacting to something they disagree with using the most feeble minded of arguments: Media Bias. Every topic engaged in there is at least one person in the audience who chooses, rather in engage in the merits of debate and differing opinions, to malign the purveyor of the original opinion (most often offered as a starting point for discussion) rather than engage in an exchange of ideas on the topic, and why the two may agree or disagree.

The radio show, and this blog, as first envisioned by Tom and Ryan, was a springboard to public conversation. The topics are most often chosen by Tyler, Marc, or Myself simply out of practical necessity of a daily program, but even that process can be interrupted by any reader or listener who suggests a topic appropriate for broadcast. The discussions that erupt on air aren’t an opportunity for Tyler, Marc or Myself to “spin” the news to you, but rather offered as a springboard to a larger debate.

It’s through debate that we learn, and it’s through personalizing disagreement that we stifle our understanding. ScottC, your comments are the best example I could ever provide.

Since Tyler has taken over as host, and Marc and I as co-hosts, it’s popped up several times how “un-objective” the show is. Let me be the first to clarify for you: Hell yes it’s unobjective. It’s about opinions.

But for those who perhaps just can’t handle change, or for those who cannot disagree or make a cohesive argument without reducing yourself to attacking the merits of the hosts, rather than what you may or may not agree with that you hear us say, let me say: this show is not for you.

This show is about the exchange of ideas. And as with any such forum, any one of us can be wrong, misguided in our understanding, or even clouded in our judgment on an issue. Correct us. Tell us why. And expect the same from us and from other readers here. It’s the entire reason the show exists, and it’s the service it offers to the people of Cache Valley.

But do not come here to complain about the spin without providing an argument to support it more substantial than what ScottC has written above.

Debate is king here. Personalization of disagreements is just childish, and there are probably more suitable forums for what those people are looking for than For the People (Hannity has a blog, I hear).

I did, passionately, say we needed to wait for more information to come out before making accusations in the Sigma Nu incident. Specifically, I expressed frustration that the newspaper had reported using one source (the victim’s brother) that hazing was involved without any comment from the fraternity. So I contacted some guys I knew who were associated with the fraternity and asked them what they knew, and they defended their fraternity, something that I thought deserved “play” in our discussion on the incident. On the blog, here is a portion of what I said:

“But we need to step back and not fling accusations at individuals or organizations until more FACTS are known. Otherwise, those who report the accusations prematurely (as in The Herald Journal’s case) will end up with egg on their face and have dealt irreparable damage to reputations.

Let’s sit back and wait for the facts to come out before casting stones. If the Sigma Nu fraternity is found culpable in this incident, they may be shut down and they’ll have to pay the price for that. But so far, no one outside Michael Starks’ brother and The Herald Journal is making this claim — an egregious claim with little fact behind it at this point. Let’s not condemn anyone until they deserve to be condemned.”

So when police chief Russ Roper was on the show and said something to the effect of “We are now confirming that hazing was involved in this incident.” I said “Have at them.” One of the two Sigma Nu associates I spoke to for the initial report has since apologized to me profusely and expressed great disgust for what happened in his organization.

Now, back to this issue. This Blackwater incident isn’t a vacuum of information like the Sigma Nu incident was, in fact, there are loads of information out there including the FACT that one of the six men has pleaded guilty and there is an actual indictment (charges still haven’t been filed in Sigma Nu, mind you). While acknowledging several times on the air that these men are of course innocent until proven guilty, it is my personal opinion that the current information available to me as a consumer of information is that there’s a degree of guilt here.

Furthermore, from where I sit, the apparently coordinated decision to seek out a favorable jury is not a normal action. Being indicted on charges, facing the charges in XYZ court and seeking a change of venue in order to obtain a fair jury is one thing and is acceptable and a necessary thing within the system. There is a difference between a fair jury and a favorable jury, however, and at the end of the day this is where I find the biggest problem. And ultimately, this incident is a slap in the face to the intelligence of Utahns, on behalf of these five men, as it suggests that they think a crew of blood-red, gun-toting, Constitution carrying Utahns will do whatever it takes to exonerate them, even if it turns out the facts suggest otherwise. Utahns are smarter than that (and the earlier “redneck” comment was tongue in cheek, by the way.)

Do I HOPE these men are found not guilty of these manslaughter charges? Absolutely. I truly want to believe that these men did not needlessly kill innocent humans. The American justice system, which I absolutely believe in, will sort this out.

scott, i’m glad you don’t own KVNU. it sounds to me like you’d want to censor the content and make sure the hosts and writers had the exact same opinion and thoughts that you have.

talk about vanilla.

Some estimate close to 1 million Iraqis have died in this war. Is somebody trying to tell me they were all guilty? Or was it just tragic? I still think it is about accoutability. I think it is cowardly that Blackwater leaves these guys hanging, when they have made millions on the contract. Blackwater should be front and center on this deal, standing right next to them and covering all legal costs and handling the media. I feel the same way about Abu Ghraib. ‘Accountability’ stopped at staff sergeant. I think the Army hung those soldiers. Somebody higher than staff sergeant gave those orders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz7UNxnOI3M

I think torture is the most cowardly act a human can perpetrate on another.