Utah Mining Disaster

[Michael Tee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-are-the-new-york-t_b_60412.html

The huffpo has a very thoughtful article on the  MSM's treatment of this unfolding tragedy, the link to which I reproduced above.

Central to the article is a Jon Stewart comment, that if you want to distract the media from a very important issue, give them a bright shiny object to play with over here, while the real story is over there.  According to the huffpo writer, the "bright shiny object" is "Bob" Murray, the folksy, down-to-earth (seemingly) mine operator and the real story is the manipulation of federal regulatory agencies by well-connected mine owners and operators like Murray, who donate REALLY big bucks to the Republican Party.

Here's just a para, but I really recommend the entire article:

<<But we get precious little on the Murray who had enough political muscle to get a Mine Safety and Health Administration district manager who had cracked down on safety issues at one of Murray's mines reassigned (clearly, contributing $213,000 to Republican candidates over the last ten years, as well as another $724,500 to Republican candidates and causes through political action committees connected to Murray's businesses, has its benefits). The Murray who rails against the United Mine Workers Association, claiming it wants "to damage Murray Energy, Utah American and the United States coal industry for their own motives." The Murray who called Hillary Clinton "anti-American" for saying America needs a president who will fight for workers' rights, and telling a Senate committee this summer that Al Gore and Congressional Democrats are bent on "the destruction of American lives and more death as a result of his hysterical global goofiness with no environmental benefit.">>

Really looks like there are two "Bob" Murrays, and CNN, NYT and the rest of them are only showing good-guy "Bob," "aw-shucks" Bob, etc.

Looks like this guy and the Bush administration once again got away with murder.

[Universe Prince]

Really looks like there are two "Bob" Murrays, and CNN, NYT and the rest of them are only showing good-guy "Bob," "aw-shucks" Bob, etc.

Looks like this guy and the Bush administration once again got away with murder.

Or maybe the situation isn't quite as black and white as you're making it out to be.

[sirs]

Boy, this has been taking a whole lot longer in trying to blame Bush for this one.  Are those inflicted with BDS, in a relatively catatonic state?

[Michael Tee]

The article that I linked to made some very specific accusations, that the mining plan was inherently risky yet had been approved by the federal regulators.  That the mine had over two hundred violations but had not been shut down.  That Robert Murray, the owner, had made very heavy contributions to the Republican Party.

From the quality of response to the post, I don't believe that anyone responding even looked at the article.  Though the article was specific in its accusations, the "defence" of the mine owners and the Bush administration was knee-jerk and totally non-specific, responding to none of the points raised.

[Lanya]

http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/no-red-hats-allowed-dangers-of-underground-mining/

Sort of a sidebar.

[sirs]

Accusations full of unsubstantiated innuendo.  SOP; Major disaster (mine cave in, in this case) --> obnoxious owner of Big X (mining owner) --> owner's donations to Republicans --> Bush is a Republican --> blame Bush for the disaster & "murder".  Pretty standard hyperbolic fare, albeit asanine as ususal as well

[Michael Tee]

<<Accusations full of unsubstantiated innuendo.  SOP; Major disaster (mine cave in, in this case) --> obnoxious owner of Big X (mining owner) --> owner's donations to Republicans --> Bush is a Republican --> blame Bush for the disaster & "murder".  Pretty standard hyperbolic fare, albeit asanine as ususal as well>>

Just as I suspected.  No reference to any specific accusation, just generalized knee-jerk fascist response to an article you never read.  Worthless trash talk, waste of my time reading and waste of my time replying to. 

[Universe Prince]

Though the article was specific in its accusations, the "defence" of the mine owners and the Bush administration was knee-jerk and totally non-specific, responding to none of the points raised.

I have no reason assume that a Huffington Post blog entry is an authoritative and reasonably unbiased source of information about the person and character of Bob Murray. And while you talk about "two 'Bob' Murrays", I'm pretty sure is there is just the one guy. Just because we might see a favorable presentation one place and an unflattering presentation in another place doesn't necessarily mean the man is either a saint or a devil. He may just be a human being with flaws. So you'll forgive me if I don't jump on the "hate Bob Murray" bandwagon just yet. And that isn't a defense of him or the Bush administration. That's just me not trusting everything I read.

[gipper]

Well, we're running out of villains in this one. Stupid miners? Heartless union? Damn God? Avaricious owners too big for their responsibilities? Lax regulators under a sorta laissez-faire administration?

[Michael Tee]

<<I have no reason assume that a Huffington Post blog entry is an authoritative and reasonably unbiased source of information about the person and character of Bob Murray.>>

Nor do I.

 <<And while you talk about "two 'Bob' Murrays", I'm pretty sure is there is just the one guy. Just because we might see a favorable presentation one place and an unflattering presentation in another place doesn't necessarily mean the man is either a saint or a devil. He may just be a human being with flaws. >>

I think the phrase "two Bob Murrays" relates more to the concept of him being portrayed one way in the MSM and maybe being a lot different in real life than as he is portrayed in the MSM.   

<<So you'll forgive me if I don't jump on the "hate Bob Murray" bandwagon just yet.>>

This is a pretty good illustration of why one should read an article before commenting on it.  The article was not a "Why We Should All Hate Bob Murray" piece, it was more of an examination of how the MSM has chosen to cover this story by focusing on Bob Murray and the rescue effort to the virtual exclusion of Bob Murray and his seemingly magical immunity from federal regulatory intervention. 

And BTW, "jumping on the bandwagon" was not required.  Intelligent commentary for or against the points made in the article would have been just as nice.

<<And that isn't a defense of him or the Bush administration. That's just me not trusting everything I read.>>

I thought it was just you rejecting something you DIDN'T read.

[Universe Prince]

I think the phrase "two Bob Murrays" relates more to the concept of him being portrayed one way in the MSM and maybe being a lot different in real life than as he is portrayed in the MSM.

My point being that he may be different in real life from how he is portrayed in the traditional media and the Huffington Post.

This is a pretty good illustration of why one should read an article before commenting on it.  The article was not a "Why We Should All Hate Bob Murray" piece,

Could have fooled me. It seemed to trying to paint the guy as some sort of rich, evil bastard who shuns safety for money and/or power. Not exactly a "well he has flaws too" kind of piece.

it was more of an examination of how the MSM has chosen to cover this story by focusing on Bob Murray and the rescue effort to the virtual exclusion of Bob Murray and his seemingly magical immunity from federal regulatory intervention.

And that may be a legitimate complaint. Probably is. But I don't trust Huffington Post blog entry to give me a well-rounded look at the situation.

And BTW, "jumping on the bandwagon" was not required.  Intelligent commentary for or against the points made in the article would have been just as nice.

When I have more information, I might do that.

I thought it was just you rejecting something you DIDN'T read.

You assumed. Your assumption is erroneous.

[sirs]

No reference to any specific accusation, just generalized knee-jerk fascist response to an article you never read.  Worthless trash talk, waste of my time reading and waste of my time replying to. 

You've got that art of projection, down to a science.  Just swap out fascist with irrational bush hatred

[Michael Tee]

<<Could have fooled me. It seemed to trying to paint the guy as some sort of rich, evil bastard who shuns safety for money and/or power. Not exactly a "well he has flaws too" kind of piece.>>

That was the POV of the article but the main point of the piece was the MSM coverage seen from the Jon Stewart observation about something bright and shiny.


<<And that [MSM coverage] may be a legitimate complaint. Probably is. But I don't trust Huffington Post blog entry to give me a well-rounded look at the situation.>>

Whether or not you trust Huffington Post isn't really the issue.  They made specific comments about the MSM coverage, and you can either disagree or agree with them, with reasons.  Merely voicing distrust of the messenger is sort of bringing the whole debate down to sirs' level.  Or if you need more information before commenting, at least say what you think is missing.

My "assumption" BTW was based on the total lack of specific comment.

[Universe Prince]

Whether or not you trust Huffington Post isn't really the issue.

It seems a relevant factor to me.

They made specific comments about the MSM coverage, and you can either disagree or agree with them, with reasons.

And when I have more information, I might do that. (I said that already, didn't I?)

Merely voicing distrust of the messenger is sort of bringing the whole debate down to sirs' level.

And you'll notice I didn't say that until you started insisting I had not read the blog post.

Or if you need more information before commenting, at least say what you think is missing.

The blog may not be missing anything, other than some semblance of objectivity, but I don't know that until I find other sources of information. The Utah miners story is not one I have followed closely.

I do think you and the Huffington Post entry seem a little eager to make Murray out to be a villain. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe I won't. But I wouldn't do it based solely on a Huffington Post blog entry.

[sirs]

if you need more information before commenting, at least say what you think is missing.

The blog may not be missing anything, other than some semblance of objectivity, but I don't know that until I find other sources of information. The Utah miners story is not one I have followed closely.  I do think you and the Huffington Post entry seem a little eager to make Murray out to be a villain. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe I won't. But I wouldn't do it based solely on a Huffington Post blog entry.

Not just eager to hang this on Murray, but Bush as well.  Kinda bring the point of the article down to his level...Bush bad, Bush evil, Bush the source of all that's bad in this world.