Utah Mining Disaster

[Michael Tee]

<<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.>>

I'm having a hard time trying to understand you, Prince.  I already KNOW that Bob Murray's a scumbag piece of shit.  I wouldn't even bother to post an article about that, because it would degenerate immediately into a "Yes he is/No he isn't" debate where each side just gets to air its own prejudices.  And more importantly, it really doesn't matter to anyone whether or not Bob Murray is a scumbag piece of shit or not - - just as it wouldn't matter to anyone if he were a prince of a guy (no pun intended.)

Why are you so fixated on making the article be about something as inconsequential as Bob Murray's character?

The article was about newsmaking.  The point of the article was the way the MSM covers the story.  THAT is important and it's got consequences for all of us because it's a window of understanding (if you accept its premises) of how we get our news and how our opinions are formed.  Something obviously of much greater significance than whether Bob Murray is a good guy or a bad guy.

I don't think trusting the Huffington Post is relevant to the issue unless you have reason to suspect the facts it reported.  If you don't trust the facts they report, you can challenge them.  If you feel that they did not bring out all the relevant facts, you can say what it is that they left out that you'd like to know.  If you just don't think the story is interesting enough to debate further, you can say so.  But just to run the whole thing down, unexamined, on the basis that you don't like the messenger, well, that's just plain dumb.  That's really a sirs-like way to conduct yourself, and frankly, I think it's unworthy of you.

[Universe Prince]

I already KNOW that Bob Murray's a scumbag piece of shit.

You know that do you? I see.

And more importantly, it really doesn't matter to anyone whether or not Bob Murray is a scumbag piece of shit or not - - just as it wouldn't matter to anyone if he were a prince of a guy (no pun intended.)

I think it matters to you and Huffington. You're the ones pointing out awful he is and wondering why the traditional media isn't reporting on it.

Why are you so fixated on making the article be about something as inconsequential as Bob Murray's character?

I'm not making the blog entry about that. Go back and look at the blog entry again. Right off the bat, in the headline for the post, Huffington asks, "Why Are the New York Times and So Much of the Traditional Media Neglecting a Vital Part of the Utah Mine Collapse Story?" A vital part. What vital part? "So why has so much of the coverage focused on folksy Bob Murray, the stalwart and kindly mine owner, instead of mining mogul Robert Murray, who may have been at least partly responsible for decisions that led to the disaster?" It's about Bob Murray being a bad man. The only reason to question why the traditional media hasn't reported on how Bob Murray is supposedly such a bad man, is because people ought to know how Bob Murray is supposedly such a bad man. I didn't make it about Murray. It was that way before I got there.

I don't think trusting the Huffington Post is relevant to the issue unless you have reason to suspect the facts it reported.

I have reason to believe it to be biased, and Huffington in particular is not, from what I know, a reasonably objective reporter.

But just to run the whole thing down, unexamined, on the basis that you don't like the messenger, well, that's just plain dumb.

Yes, it is. But I did not do that. My initial remarks were a response to your comments. And no, the Huffington Post blog entry did not go unexamined. And I'm not running anything down. I'm merely suggesting that contrary to comments by you and Huffington that there is something entirely false about Murray as concerned mine owner, that maybe the man is more complex than to fit neatly into the pigeonholes of concerned mine owner or greedy mine mogul.

Does the news media routinely not tell the whole story? Sure. But I have no reason to think I'm getting the whole story from Huffington. And lots of people think the news media doesn't tell the whole story. Some people think the news media deliberately ignores the good stories in Iraq with happy endings to instead focus on abuses and deaths. I can probably find all sorts of blog entries with facts about that. And that's just one example. The traditional media does what it always does, tells news in a way that gets readers and viewers. So that Arianna Huffington thinks the news media is not investigating Bob Murray enough, well, frankly that doesn't impress me. I'm not saying she's necessarily wrong. I'm saying I'll look around a bit more before form an opinion one way or the other.

Judging from your comments, you don't believe this, but I am actually keeping an open mind on the matter. But when I see an obvious eagerness to vilify someone, that is a little red warning flag that maybe I'm not getting the whole story. Right now, most of what I can find is about whether or not there is any hope left that the miners may be rescued. I'll keep looking.

[Michael Tee]

OK, thanks, I think I see where you're coming from.  The media focus issue is really a Bob Murray issue because if the media DID focus on the back-story, it would show how bad Bob Murray really is.  In other words, where the media chooses to focus is really an indicator of how much significance they put on the issue of Murray's character.

I can't say I agree with you, but at least your attitude is not as incomprehensible as I thought it was.

The reason I don't agree with you is because I think the back-story is really about political influence on federal regulatory agencies, not about Bob Murray being a really bad guy, although that certainly would be an incidental part of the back-story.  The way I see it, the media is protecting the Bush administration and Murray by keeping the story focused on the rescue efforts.

[Amianthus]

The reason I don't agree with you is because I think the back-story is really about political influence on federal regulatory agencies, not about Bob Murray being a really bad guy, although that certainly would be an incidental part of the back-story.  The way I see it, the media is protecting the Bush administration and Murray by keeping the story focused on the rescue efforts.

How much money did Murray contribute to Democrats?

It's been my experience that rich businessmen donate to both parties in roughly equal amounts so they have access no matter who wins the election.

[Michael Tee]

Since 1978, this guy's either been a True Believer or he had no confidence whatsoever in the ability of the Democratic Party to influence his fortunes.  All contributions that weren't to PACs were to Republicans.
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=OH&last=Murray&first=Robert

The article I originally linked to showed, I believe, about $750K or more to Republicans. 

In any event your query is somewhat irrelevant - - the obvious conclusions drawn from the article are that he gave to Republicans and that an appropriately grateful Republican administration played games with the lives of his workers, gambled and lost them.  Whether he gave to Democrats as well and whether the Democrats wouild have gone equally far in showing their appreciation is nothing but speculation.