I don't think the people supporting Amendment E appreciated the NPR interview this morning.

Poor Bonnie Russell. She can't catch a break, as it would appear that the NPR interview didn't go as well as she might have hoped:
By and large the rest of media in search of better ratings, decided to favor "shriek journalism" favored by FOX. NPR and Nina Totenberg abandoned all journalistic standards when featuring Amendment E. Instead of interviewing the South Dakota sponsor, NPR interviewed an opponent, who runs a blog he describes as "a bunch of rambling nonsense from a smart aleck Republican" (Believe him, it is). Then NPR interviewed an attorney opposed to Amendment E. But the actual sponsor of Amendment E was not interviewed. Instead, NPR did an out-of-context, cut and paste cuts from earlier interviews and lumped that with a California man (also cut and pasted) not affiliated with Amendent E. At no time were questions posed to Stegmeier himself. Thus, NPR is the latest convert to ethics-free "Journalism."

It turns out the "watch dog" press abandoned the idea of fair reporting because media is big business. This explains how overnight, NPR became the new FOX. The only losers are the good citizens of South Dakota who are treated to vast amount of "distortion reporting" in place of, facts.
Read all of the crazy talk here at amendmente.com (and then go vote No on E)

Comments

Anonymous said…
PP,
I think Amendment E has great possibilities. In fact, I think it could bring a nice resolution to the Sen. Sutton deal. If Sen. Sutton doesn't drop out and he wins. Schoenbeck, being a good Christian man of his word, calls a special session. At the Special Session, the Senate, sitting in a judicial capacity, investigages and removes Sutton for a rules violation. Sutton, unhappy with the decision, uses Amendment E to sue Schoenbeck and all Senators who voted for his removal. What drama! If you want to see this happen, vote yes on amendment e and vote for Sen. Sutton.
Bonnie Russell said…
Can't catch a break? Are you kidding? On the contrary; Amendment E delivered one sizzling hot scoop by educating the public how tabloid journalism (no matter how they describe themselves) actually works!

I'm as proud of that as I was tipping print media to the fake attorneys and therapists practicing in family court; before judges who knew; but didn't care. (Tips which resulted in not one, but two magazine cover stories.)

But the hopeful comment above forgot a KEY, Amendment E fact.

Amendment E addresses D-E-L-I-B-R-A-T-E acts; not wishes, dreams and oversights.

However, I will give this gossipy, rambling bunch of nonsense blog one tiny bit of information;

I promise tonight's "debate" with Judge Rusch will be very illuminating.

Just not in an expected way.
Anonymous said…
Bonnie,
I am very glad that you can spell deliberate. However, it clear that you have no idea what it means. Judges don't rule by accident. Every decision is deliberate therefore, every action by the judge is subject to this wacky amendment.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th