Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Media Bias


Posted by: shamalama 01-Mar-2004, 05:12 PM
Last week Democratic Representative Corrine Brown of Florida attended a briefing on the situation in Haiti with Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega.

At this meeting were about 30 people, and, right across the table from Noriega, Brown launched into a diatribe about how the Bush administration's policy toward Haiti was racist and she called the President's representatives "a bunch of white men." Noriega shot back that he would pass along her comments to Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, both high-level African-Americans in the Bush administration. Noriega also pointed out a member of the delegation, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, was born in Cuba. Noriega himself is a Mexican-American.

It was then that Corrine Brown said "you all look alike to me."

Imagine if a Republican had said that. A white Republican. A white male Republican. The media would be demanding he be fired. Either way this would surely have been told about by JenningsBrokawRather.

But did anyone hear about this story on any major media outlet? I didn't. I wonder why?

dry.gif



Posted by: MDF3530 01-Mar-2004, 05:30 PM
Where'd you hear about it? No, let me guess, it was the "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel, right?

No comment on General Powell, who I do still have some respect for, or Ms. Rice. But I would like to point out that some Hispanics are very Anglo-looking. For example, take one of the local news anchors at the local CBS affiliate here in Chicago, Antonio Mora:

Pretty Caucasian-looking, eh?

Posted by: shamalama 02-Mar-2004, 08:36 AM
Nope, not Fox News. Check out the Associated Press story at the Miami Herald (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8040153.htm).

I don't consider Fox News any more balanced than the other networks. But even if I had heard it on Fox, would it have made the story any less interesting? Would the story have been assumed to be untrue on Fox, yet true on CNN?

I am, for the record, neither Conservative nor Liberal. I detest them both equally. I am closest to Libertarian. I simply "calls them as I sees them".

I fully agree that many Hispanics are very Anglo-looking. But my essence of my post is that a public response such as "you all look alike to me", made by a civil servant, would have made the news if, let's say, a white conservative male had said it to a liberal black female. It would have set off a media firestorm, the Rev. Jackson would have been calling for censure, and all three major networks would have headlined it.

There are certainly double standards in America. It is also my contention that such a double standard also exists in the media. I firmly believe that while Fox certainly has a conservative slant, practically all the others (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters) have a liberal slant, one that can be verified over time by providing examples for discussion. And when "news" services can be shown to have an idealogical bias, then information from such services becomes suspect.

Posted by: tsargent62 02-Mar-2004, 08:55 AM
Shamalama, I agree with your assessment. I believe Rep. Brown made a big fool of herself and represented herself as a bigot. It makes no difference if there are some Latinos that look white (my wife is one of them), there is no excuse for that kind of comment. And it makes no difference as to the skin color of the Latinos in question. There is no room for that kind of bigotry in Congress.

If a white conservative Republican from Michigan made those kinds of comments, he would surely be forced from office.

Posted by: maisky 02-Mar-2004, 05:25 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Mar 2 2004, 09:55 AM)
Shamalama, I agree with your assessment. I believe Rep. Brown made a big fool of herself and represented herself as a bigot. It makes no difference if there are some Latinos that look white (my wife is one of them), there is no excuse for that kind of comment. And it makes no difference as to the skin color of the Latinos in question. There is no room for that kind of bigotry in Congress.

If a white conservative Republican from Michigan made those kinds of comments, he would surely be forced from office.

Yes, if she is going to make racist statements, she MUST become a southern republican!!! tongue.gif

Posted by: maisky 02-Mar-2004, 05:26 PM
Seriously, biggotry in ANY form is ugly. It is a reflection of inner darkness in the person who holds it. sad.gif

Posted by: shamalama 03-Mar-2004, 08:08 AM

QUOTE

 
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Synonyms: bug, fanatic, fiend, freak, maniac, nut, zealot
 


This has always amazed me. I don't mind anyone having any opinion - that's what makes us so unique. But the intolerance of others is so very strong in so many people. Why? Wars are started this way.

If people worried about themselves as much as they worry about others we'd all be a better people.


Posted by: tsargent62 03-Mar-2004, 08:37 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ Mar 2 2004, 06:25 PM)
Yes, if she is going to make racist statements, she MUST become a southern republican!!!  tongue.gif

Dude, you need a geography lesson. Michigan is one of the northern-most states. We border on Cananda. tongue.gif

Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2004, 12:02 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Mar 3 2004, 09:37 AM)
Dude, you need a geography lesson. Michigan is one of the northern-most states. We border on Cananda. tongue.gif

I know that, but the NORTHERN Republicans don't have the racist tendencies of the Southern ones! (or the sheets with eye-holes). biggrin.gif

Posted by: tsargent62 03-Mar-2004, 12:41 PM
Ah, we're engaging in sweeping generalizations. So, by your logic, all southern republicans are bigots. Is that it? Is that why GWB has so many minorities in his cabinet?

Posted by: Swanny 03-Mar-2004, 02:26 PM
QUOTE
Yes, if she is going to make racist statements, she MUST become a southern republican!!! 


Now who is expressing bigotry? Oh, sorry. Sarcasm is supposed to be YOUR purview.

Swanny

Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2004, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ Mar 3 2004, 03:26 PM)

Now who is expressing bigotry?  Oh, sorry.  Sarcasm is supposed to be YOUR purview. 

Swanny

Sir Swanny, I will NEVER deny you (or tsargent) the right to sarcasm... biggrin.gif There is plenty to go around. laugh.gif I'm just glad you are willing to engage in these discussions.

Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2004, 06:35 PM
I was making fun of Southern Republicans. Bush is not a Southern Republican. Bush is a carpetbagger from Connecticuit. He is many things, but a racist is not one of the things I believe of him.

Posted by: MDF3530 03-Mar-2004, 08:14 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Mar 3 2004, 06:35 PM)
I was making fun of Southern Republicans. Bush is not a Southern Republican. Bush is a carpetbagger from Connecticuit. He is many things, but a racist is not one of the things I believe of him.

I could think of a few other names besides "carpetbagger" to call Bush, but I'd have to use the censored.gif smiley face for most of them biggrin.gif ...

And the Bushes are not from Connecticut. They are from Maine. Get it right biggrin.gif !

Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2004, 09:14 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ Mar 3 2004, 09:14 PM)
I could think of a few other names besides "carpetbagger" to call Bush, but I'd have to use the censored.gif smiley face for most of them biggrin.gif ...

And the Bushes are not from Connecticut. They are from Maine. Get it right biggrin.gif !

OOOPs, Sorry. I knew it was ONE of those yankee places.... biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 03-Mar-2004, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Mar 3 2004, 09:14 PM)
OOOPs, Sorry. I knew it was ONE of those yankee places.... biggrin.gif

Do I have to get Annabelle in here to teach you geography biggrin.gif ?

Posted by: maisky 04-Mar-2004, 08:11 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ Mar 3 2004, 10:23 PM)
Do I have to get Annabelle in here to teach you geography biggrin.gif ?

Please? laugh.gif

Posted by: shamalama 04-Mar-2004, 09:43 AM
QUOTE

 
maisky: I was making fun of Southern Republicans
 


Them's fighting words, sir! tongue.gif

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

For today's media bias let's look forward to the upcoming 2004 Presidential Campaign and compare it to the 2000 election.

During the 2000 election, according to information culled from the Nexis media database, media reporters used the phrases "liberal" and "conservative" to define politicians, interest groups and policy positions.

Here's the breakdown of what was said by the three major networks:

QUOTE

 
Use of "conservative" or "liberal" label by network anchor or reporter on ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs, Jan. 1 1997 through Dec. 31, 2001, including weekends.  Data verified by the Media Research Center.

.............."Liberal"............."Conservative"
ABC.............96...........................365.....     
CBS.............64...........................289.....
NBC.............87...........................338.....
TOTAL........247...........................992.....
 


From this we can safely say that the three major media network's reporters and anchors used the phrase "conservative" as a description far more than they used the phrase "liberal".

Why?

As Bernard Goldberg explained in his book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, "to Dan Rather and to a lot of other powerful members of the chattering class, that which is right of center is conservative. That which is left of center is middle of the road. No wonder they can?t recognize their own bias." He claims that the media pointedly identify conservative politicians as 'conservatives' but rarely use the word 'liberal' to describe liberals. In the world of the Jennings and Brokaws and Rathers, conservatives are out of the mainstream and have to be identified. Liberals, on the other hand, are the mainstream and don?t have to be identified.

Only one reporter, NBC?s Lisa Myers, used 'liberal' to describe Democratic candidate Bill Bradley (Sept. 25, 1999), and no network reporter labeled Vice President Al Gore as liberal during the entire 1999-2000 election cycle. In contrast, then-Governor George W. Bush was called a conservative 19 times. On August 14, 1999, for example, NBC?s David Bloom defined Bush as "a tax-cutting, anti-abortion, pro-business, pro-school vouchers conservative." Reporters included Bush?s "compassionate" modifier on six of those 19 labels, but CBS?s Bill Whitaker tried to discredit that concept on August 3, 2000: "The compassion often obscures the conservative, but it?s there."

GOP Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney?s conservatism was portrayed as scandalous during the week before the 2000 GOP convention. Dan Rather referred to Cheney?s "hard-line conservative congressional voting record" (July 26, 2000) while NBC?s Andrea Mitchell castigated Cheney?s votes as "mainstream, perhaps, for a conservative Republican in 1980, but not for this day and age" (July 30, 2000). Cheney?s Democratic counterpart Joe Lieberman was called a centrist or moderate eight times but never liberal, despite having been awarded a 95 percent approval rating from the liberal ADA in 1999.

Very few of these 1,239 labels were wrongly applied, and terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" are a fine shorthand way to tell viewers where a politician, group or policy falls in the American political landscape. But the lopsided way that network reporters applied these labels to conservatives and not liberals over the past five years confirms Goldberg?s observation that network reporters generally regard conservatives as having alien and eccentric views that need to be labeled, while liberal beliefs require no special identification.

This year, those same reporters seem ready to help John Kerry hide his anti-defense, pro-abortion, high-tax, big-government, Massachusetts liberal pedigree.

Again . . . why?

Posted by: maisky 04-Mar-2004, 11:06 AM
QUOTE (shamalama @ Mar 4 2004, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE

 
maisky: I was making fun of Southern Republicans
 


Them's fighting words, sir! tongue.gif






Since you are in Conyers, you know about the group of "good ol' boys" I am refering to. biggrin.gif They are not necessarily republicans (or able to SPELL republican). tongue.gif

Posted by: shamalama 04-Mar-2004, 11:33 AM
QUOTE

...you know about the group of "good ol' boys" I am refering to...


Oh my yes. They're all around me like flies at a dump. These inbred, tooth-less wonders never cease to amaze me. It's as if they're living in another time, or on another planet.

I am proud of many things Southern: respect for parents, respect for church, respect for women.

I detest other things Southern: desire for slavery, hatred of others (blacks, gays, etc.), keeping a woman 'in her place'

I was born in Conyers, I have lived here practically every day, and I'll die here. I have travelled from Maine to California, but I'm home in Georgia. Inbred tooth-less wonders not withstanding.

Posted by: birddog20002001 04-Mar-2004, 11:39 AM
Assholeitis knows no geopolitical boundaries. It is a sad and destivating disease that can strikes across all known boundaries around the world, from the good ole boys to the talkin heads and yes some times even to the highest office in the land. This destivating sickness makes otherwise nice people say bad things.

QUOTE
maisky: I was making fun of Southern Republicans


QUOTE
OOOPs, Sorry. I knew it was ONE of those yankee places


There is no vaccine, the is no cure. But there is hope, for as little as $75 a day you could help a deserving me live in the lifestyle I am accustomed to. Please if you don't send money it may be too late. Send all of your cash to:

Find a cure or a way to get free beer money,
c/o Gene R.
1 Assholeitis Drive
Waynesville, NC
28786

Posted by: maisky 04-Mar-2004, 01:18 PM
lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 04-Mar-2004, 08:05 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Mar 3 2004, 01:02 PM)
I know that, but the NORTHERN Republicans don't have the racist tendencies of the Southern ones! (or the sheets with eye-holes). biggrin.gif

Let's see if I understand this correctly--the northern Republicans who have fled to the suburbs so their kids won't have to go to school with poor blacks (and some poor whites) are somehow less racist than southerners? Here in Rochester, NY, the city (where I live in an integrated neighborhood with working class and professinal whites, blacks, and others) has become a rotten core surrounded by a ring of relatively wealthy (largely white) suburbs. This is true in many other northern cities, as well, as has frequently been pointed out by our black mayor (one of the few Democrats of any color or gender I have ever voted for--but I sometimes think he's a closet libertarian).
However, to show that they are not racist, the northern Republicans will severely chastise any white (particularly white males) who makes "racially insensitive remarks." They have actually forced resignations of some white males whose remarks were far less offensive than those being discussed here. Of course, we all know that it is only white males who can be racists or bigots--not!

Posted by: tsargent62 04-Mar-2004, 10:45 PM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ Mar 4 2004, 09:05 PM)
Let's see if I understand this correctly--the northern Republicans who have fled to the suburbs so their kids won't have to go to school with poor blacks (and some poor whites) are somehow less racist than southerners? Here in Rochester, NY, the city (where I live in an integrated neighborhood with working class and professinal whites, blacks, and others) has become a rotten core surrounded by a ring of relatively wealthy (largely white) suburbs. This is true in many other northern cities, as well, as has frequently been pointed out by our black mayor (one of the few Democrats of any color or gender I have ever voted for--but I sometimes think he's a closet libertarian).
However, to show that they are not racist, the northern Republicans will severely chastise any white (particularly white males) who makes "racially insensitive remarks." They have actually forced resignations of some white males whose remarks were far less offensive than those being discussed here. Of course, we all know that it is only white males who can be racists or bigots--not!

Implying that living in the suburbs is racist is a very slippery slope. By your reasoning, I live in the suburbs of Detroit, therefore I'm racist. That's a load of crap. Yes, there is racism in the north, I won't argue the point. We live in the suburbs because Detroit is not the greatest, or safest, place to raise a family. I've lived in the city, I know what it's like and I know what kind problems there are. We do have a few families of black folks in our town and, to my knowledge, no one gives them problems. They are welcome.

I spent 6 years in the Army. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you that, for most, any prejudices that you bring with you are largely thrown in the garbage after you realize that, when your life depends on the guy next to you, there is no time for bigotry.

Posted by: maisky 05-Mar-2004, 05:16 AM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Mar 4 2004, 11:45 PM)


I spent 6 years in the Army. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you that, for most, any prejudices that you bring with you are largely thrown in the garbage after you realize that, when your life depends on the guy next to you, there is no time for bigotry.

You are right sir, it pretty much clears out THAT issue! biggrin.gif

I'm certainly glad to see my friends here picking up on my use of multi-level sarcasm! The job of a jester isn't easy! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 05-Mar-2004, 06:57 AM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Mar 4 2004, 11:45 PM)
I spent 6 years in the Army. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you that, for most, any prejudices that you bring with you are largely thrown in the garbage after you realize that, when your life depends on the guy next to you, there is no time for bigotry.

After spending 7 years in the Air Force, mostly flying unarmed recon missions over the Gulf of Tonkin and Plainnes des Jarres, I would agree with this, but would go one step farther and argue that for most of us, racism itself is largely a thing of the past, and the military deserves a large share of the credit for making it so. IMHO, it is the politicians--Democrate and Republicans alike--along with groups like the ACLU and NAACP with a vested interest in "fighting racism" that perpetuate the myth that racism continues to be a significant problem. As a scout leader who has had ample opportunity to watch white and black youth working and playing together, I have noticed for some time that while the youth are well aware of and appreciate their differences, they do not allow the differences to get in their way. The same thing holds true in the workplace and in social settings for most of the adults I deal with. Personnally, I think the ruling elites are using "racism" as a wedge issue to divide working class and middle class whites and blacks against each other to divert them from realizing that the real problems in this country originate in the corporate boardrooms. So, yes, I think it is wrong to suggest that southerners are somehow more racist than northerners--suburbanites or otherwise--but it is equally wrong to suggest that for most of us, racism is even an issue any longer.

Posted by: maisky 05-Mar-2004, 07:33 AM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ Mar 5 2004, 07:57 AM)
After spending 7 years in the Air Force, mostly flying unarmed recon missions over the Gulf of Tonkin and Plainnes des Jarres, I would agree with this, but would go one step farther and argue that for most of us, racism itself is largely a thing of the past, and the military deserves a large share of the credit for making it so. IMHO, it is the politicians--Democrate and Republicans alike--along with groups like the ACLU and NAACP with a vested interest in "fighting racism" that perpetuate the myth that racism continues to be a significant problem. As a scout leader who has had ample opportunity to watch white and black youth working and playing together, I have noticed for some time that while the youth are well aware of and appreciate their differences, they do not allow the differences to get in their way. The same thing holds true in the workplace and in social settings for most of the adults I deal with. Personnally, I think the ruling elites are using "racism" as a wedge issue to divide working class and middle class whites and blacks against each other to divert them from realizing that the real problems in this country originate in the corporate boardrooms. So, yes, I think it is wrong to suggest that southerners are somehow more racist than northerners--suburbanites or otherwise--but it is equally wrong to suggest that for most of us, racism is even an issue any longer.

You have obviously never spent much time in the hills of north Georgia. Racism is alive and well there; of course the Civil War is alive there, also. rolleyes.gif

There are many places in the US where racism is alive and well. Biggotry is ugly wherever we encounter it! Racism is not such a big issue now for most of us. It's place has been taken up by immigration policy. Being biggoted toward immigrants isn't much different from racial bias.....?

Posted by: Randy 05-Mar-2004, 08:12 AM
I can back up Maisky up 100% on that. I went to college at Georgia Southern University in tiny Statesboro, GA. If it were not for the University it would only be a cotton field. Raceism was rampid. I will never forget (coming from NY) seeing a guy with a tee shirt that said the REAL BOYS IN THE HOOD and on the back it had a bunch of clan people on it. He was just walking thru town like that. I remember telling him he would not last 10 min in NY with a shirt like that. He with what should have been an odvous response told me something to the effect that us yankees did not know how to deal with your ....... I am sure you can fill in the rest.
Also a friend on my team was telling me his family was from Tennessee and that on the way home there was a county that he would never drive thru in Northern Georgia cause he would probably get strung up.
It really blew my mind. I know there are and have met many wonderful people from the south, but something needs to be done.

Posted by: shamalama 05-Mar-2004, 08:45 AM
 
QUOTE

maisky
verb
from the latin "maisce" meaning "to stir the pot"   biggrin.gif
 


Yep, them hills of north Georgia still house bootleggers, inbreds, and racists. As do many of the "white flight" zones in some northern surburbs. As do some lovely towns in Europe.

Also, those same areas house people that get along with anyone, regardless of color or national origin.

Divisions along racial/national/gender/religion/political lines have existed since Adam and Eve left the Garden. One bad apple stinks up the whole bushel.

Mailagnas was close to the answer with his statement:
QUOTE

it is the politicians--Democrate and Republicans alike--along with groups like the ACLU and NAACP with a vested interest in "fighting racism" that perpetuate the myth that racism continues to be a significant problem
 


The correct answer is that it is the politicians--Democrate and Republicans alike--along with groups like the ACLU and NAACP, need racism to flourish in order to keep working class and middle class whites and blacks fighting against each other. These people can't keep their power and their "on camera" time without the existence of a racial divide. They feed it, prepetuate it, they live because of it. Without it they would become un-needed.

Yes, I've seen employers that wouldn't hire someone because they're a (insert any minority here). I've also seen employers that couldn't hire anyone but a (insert any minority here) regardless of their qualification due to hiring quotas. Now which is more racist?

I've found that real racism knows no specific boundry. I've heard the dreaded "N" word in Maine and Illinois as often as in "them hills". I take no offense to the stereotype of my home being any more racist than the blue-blood homes of Massachusetts because I know it's not true.

And, sadly, Mailagnas is correct: "it is only white males who can be racists or bigots".

QUOTE

Jesse Jackson called Jews ''Hymie'' and New York ''Hymie-Town.'' Al Sharpton called Jews ''diamond merchants'' and denounced ''white interlopers.'' They both apologized, and the matter quickly died.  Never mind that Sharpton jump-started his career by falsely accusing a white district attorney of rape in the fraudulent Tawana Brawley case. Sharpton never apologized.

The National Association of Black Social Workers officially opposes ''trans-racial adoptions'' of blacks by whites, calling them ''cultural genocide.''

Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan officially supports a separate geographical area for blacks, as set forth in the organization's website.  Farrakhan made anti-Semitic remarks, and, among other things, called Korean shop owners ''blood-suckers.'' He supported the presidential candidacy of Jesse Jackson who, despite calls to do so, refused to renounce the group.
 


Yeah, there's those at Georgia Southern that "want to string one up". Been there, seen it. And that's bad. Yet you have rappers from a northern ghetto that sing that they "want to string one up", and that song makes it to #1 on the BET channel's weekly video wrap-up. Huh?


Posted by: tsargent62 05-Mar-2004, 08:47 AM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ Mar 4 2004, 09:05 PM)

However, to show that they are not racist, the northern Republicans will severely chastise any white (particularly white males) who makes "racially insensitive remarks."

Excuse me, but this northern Republican resents the implication that it is only us engages in this activity. Racism knows no political party.

And which way do you stand? In one post you say that whites move to the suburbs because they're racist, then you say that racism is no longer an issue. What'll it be my friend?

Posted by: maisky 05-Mar-2004, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (shamalama @ Mar 5 2004, 09:45 AM)
 
[QUOTE]
maisky
verb
from the latin "maisce" meaning "to stir the pot"   biggrin.gif
 

Close enough! lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 05-Mar-2004, 01:02 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Mar 5 2004, 09:47 AM)
And which way do you stand? In one post you say that whites move to the suburbs because they're racist, then you say that racism is no longer an issue. What'll it be my friend?

Why, both ways, of course. Just like quantum physics. angel_not.gif angel_not.gif angel_not.gif
I never said all northern Republicans are racists and bigots, only that northern Republicans are no less racist than southerners. Of course, if you think all southerners are racist, then the statement could be interpreted (wrongly) as saying all northern Republicans are racist. Fortunately, racism among most groups is now as low as it has ever been, and likely to remain so. To the extent racism does continue to be a problem, it is just as much a problem in the north as in the north. Furthermore, I think overt racism now tends to be directed at white males who are not members of the ruling elite (which is most of us) more than at any other group. As others have pointed out, the media largely ignores or excuses racial statements directed at white males. On the other hand, one bad (and fairly mild) joke was enough to get Earl Butz fired.
And, while not all suburbanites are racist (and those moving to the suburbs today probably do so more for economic reasons than racial ones), you would have a hard time convincing that when white flight started in reaction to forced integration that a good number of the whites moving to the suburbs weren't doing so for racial motives. Frankly, white flight, combined with a lost War on Poverty and misguided Urban Renewal, left behind a legacy of concentrated, mostly minority, poverty that is every bit as pernicious today as slavery was in it's time.
In short, while there is no doubt isolated racists still exist, you are as likely to find them in a northern suburb as the Georgia hills--although the suburbanite will likely be more hesitant to express his or her racism publicly, and will likely pay severely up doing so. For most of us, racism is a smokescreen used by politicians to divert us from their peccadillos.

Posted by: tsargent62 05-Mar-2004, 01:20 PM
Ok, now I got ya. Now that I understand your statements better, I agree with them.

There is a term that came out of the media that I severely object to: reverse discrimination. Reverse? (That statement should be a double negative) Why is it reverse discrimination when a white male is discriminated against? GRRRR! Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. That phrase is a large source of anger for me.

Posted by: Swanny 06-Mar-2004, 11:34 AM
Since the thread started as "media bias" and has turned toward racisim, here is a recent article that pertains.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031774093895

Swanny

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 06-Mar-2004, 11:57 AM
Interesting article. Thanks.
I wonder how long it'll take for some habeas corpus petitions to be filed, using the judge's chat room statements, seeking to overturn cases he decided.
A comparison of the media reaction to this case, relative to the case that started this thread, might also be interesting. The judge's words, however offensive, don't seem to be any worse than the words by black politicians that seem to be considered by the media to be not even worthy of reporting on. If there is a black public official who has resigned for something like this, I sure haven't heard about it.

Posted by: shamalama 08-Mar-2004, 09:25 AM
Here's a possible media bias:

Dan Rather, in an January 28 interview with Kerry carried on CBS?s Up to the Minute overnight show, but possibly run in Western time zones since it was conducted during the 10pm EST hour when EST/CST CBS affiliates were airing a Judging Amy re-run:

"Senator, you know what they say about you at the White House. They say, 'Listen, he?s just a tall Dukakis. He?s another McGovern. He?s a Ted Kennedy disciple, he?s just another Northeastern liberal' and they intend to run against you that way. Do you think you can win and, if so, how against that kind of characterization?"

But a few hours later when the January 29 Early Show viewers saw the very same exchange, they heard this from Rather:

"Senator, you know what they say about you at the White House. They say, 'Listen, he's just a tall Dukakis. He's just another Northeastern liberal' and they intend to run against you that way. Do you think you can win and, if so, how against that kind of characterization?"

What's the difference? A two-second edit leaving out "He?s another McGovern. He?s a Ted Kennedy disciple". Now it can certainly be argued that the network really needed to save those two seconds, and therefore an edit was required. Or maybe the "offending words" were too much for CBS to tell their viewers. Media bias also includes the Sin of Omission.

Posted by: maisky 08-Mar-2004, 01:02 PM
Good point, Sir S. We need to read between the lines and consider the sources and biases when reading ANY news article.

Posted by: shamalama 08-Mar-2004, 01:51 PM
I guess that's what irritates me the most, Sir M. 99.999% of us do not have the time, with our so-very-busy days, to doube check and cross reference what is issued to us by the news outlets. For better or worse we say, "Honey, I heard it on CNN so it has to be true." And through misleads, omissions, or blatant lies, we are like sheep with an evil shepherd.

The best thing that ever happened for information was the internet and it's micro-second cross-reference with sources around the world. Oh yeah, some are from those tin-foil hat people that just escaped Area 51. But 10 years ago I could never have checked CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/AP/UPI/Reuters all in one morning.


Posted by: Shamalama 22-Mar-2004, 12:36 PM
1. The Liberal Media Loves Uncle Saddam:
Diane Sawyer: "I read this morning that he?s [Saddam Hussein] also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their President because he?s been loved for 35 years, he says, the whole 35 years."
Dan Harris in Baghdad: "He is one to point out quite frequently that he is part of a historical trend in this country of restoring Iraq to its greatness, its historical greatness. He points out frequently that he was elected with a hundred percent margin recently."
-- ABC?s Good Morning America, March 7, 2003.

2. Ted Kennedy Is A God-send
"If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
-- Charles Pierce in a January 5, 2003 Boston Globe Magazine article.

3. Any Tax Cut Is A Dangerous Thing
"The President?s tax cut is beginning to show up. Will three extra dollars stimulate the national economy?"
-- Peter Jennings teasing a July 8, 2003 story on ABC?s World News Tonight

4. The Conservatives Are Attacking
Host Cal Thomas: "Many conservatives and religious people in this country feel that much of the media, especially the broadcast media, is biased or at least insensitive to their points of view..."
CBS?s Lesley Stahl: "I?m going to attack the premise of the question, because I think today you have broadcast journalists who are avowedly conservative....The voices that are being heard in broadcast media today, are far more -- the ones who are being heard -- are far more likely to be on the right and avowedly so, and therefore, more -- almost stridently so, than what you?re talking about."
Thomas: "Can you name a conservative journalist at CBS News?"
Stahl: "Well, I don?t know of anybody?s political bias at CBS News. I really think we try very hard to get any opinion that we have out of our stories, and most of our stories are balanced."
-- Exchange on Fox News Channel?s After Hours with Cal Thomas, January 18, 2003.

5. Bush's Ads, v.1
"One September 11th widow told the [New York] Daily News this morning she was offended by the use of 9/11 images in these ads, saying quote, ?After three thousand people were murdered on his watch, it seems to me that takes an awful lot of audacity. Honestly, it?s in poor taste.? What?s your response to that?"
? NBC?s Katie Couric to Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes on the March 4 Today. Couric skipped quotes in the same article from 9/11 relatives who support Bush.

6. Bush's Ads, v.2
"The firefighters union says in a statement that it was a cheap trick to use even fleeting images of the real events of 9/11."
? ABC?s Diane Sawyer to Hughes on Good Morning America, March 4. Sawyer did not mention that the same firefighters group has endorsed John Kerry and is actively campaigning on behalf of his presidential campaign.

7. McCain, We'd Love You If You Were A Democrat
"I think that?s just everybody?s wishful thinking that he might switch parties and join his Vietnam buddy. But he?s a pretty loyal Republican, so that?s unlikely, I think."
? ABC?s Claire Shipman, Good Morning America, March 3.

8. Being A Liberal Is Not An Issue
"He [President Bush] said, you know, ?Let?s talk about the issues.? Well, we all know that one of the first things they?re going to do is not talk about the issues. They?re going to define John Kerry, and they?re going to try to paint him as a left-wing liberal who?s out of touch with the rest of the country."
? Bob Schieffer on CBS?s The Early Show on March 3

9. Here Come Those Christians Again
"It?s hard to imagine the movie [Mel Gibson?s The Passion] being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin."
? New York Times Arts editor Frank Rich on August 3. In the 12 days following its February 25 release, The Passion had grossed more than $200 million.


Posted by: maisky 22-Mar-2004, 01:22 PM
When checking "alternate news sources", try some more of those outside of the US, like "Business Day" (South Africa) and Irish Times. I am sure there are many others. It is good to get perspectives on American news from outside the US.

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Mar-2004, 11:51 AM
Sometimes I do like to see us from other's eyes, although I find many of them also have hidden agendas just like our own media, making them interesting, refreshing, and sadly suspect. We are the most powerful and richest, so by that alone many outside our borders have a bad taste for things American. And when you add our cocky attitude to the mix, I can surely see why many in other countries are simply tired of hearing anything about the US.

And I have an easier and more fun time debunking and exposing the media inside our own borders!





Posted by: maisky 24-Mar-2004, 11:04 AM
for the best news coverage "inside our borders", try www.theonion.com

Posted by: Shamalama 08-Apr-2004, 08:03 AM
Today's installment is about which loser would have made a better President, and why you can't say certain things.

(1) Sen. Trent Lott, awhile back, remarked that the country would have been better off if former segregationist Strom Thurmond had won his 1948 bid for presidency. The Democrats demanded Lott's ouster due to his racially-insensitive remarks. Flanked by the Congressional Black Caucus, they pumped their fists at Lott and demanded that he vacate his post. There was tremendous media coverage.

(2) Sen. Robert Byrd, the longstanding Democrat from West Virginia, cast his 17,000th vote in the chamber last week. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) saw fit to mark the occasion with a rousing tribute in which he proclaimed, "There is no one I admire more. There is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter than Sen. Byrd." There is Dodd, on the Senate floor, demanding that Sen. Byrd "would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation..."

The problem with #2 is that Byrd is a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd broadcast his racial insensitivity by using the N-word during a 2001 appearance on Fox News. So, according to the public words of Dodd, a former Klansman would have been great during the Civil War?

There has been no media coverage of this event. There have been no Democrats demanding Dodd's ouster.

Had a Republican praised a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, the media would have been up in arms. But when a Democrat makes racially-insensitive remarks, they avert their eyes. Some things should not be ignored. Some things should not be subject to the whims of partisan politics. When our elected leaders spew racist remarks, they need to be held accountable - regardless of their political affiliation.

It would be nice if the party that demanded Sen. Lott's ouster for praising a former segregationist could be equally outraged when one of their own praises a former Klansman. It will probably happen after I win the lottery - never.


Posted by: Shamalama 14-Apr-2004, 10:03 AM
The St. Petersburg (Florida) Democratic Club paid for an ad in a local newspaper this week. That ad, which was a general diatribe against George Bush, contained the following line:

QUOTE

Rumsfeld [has] said of Iraq, 'We have our good days and our bad days.'  We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger.



http://www.drudgereport.com/stp.gif

I bring this up for one reason: what if it had been a Republican group that placed the ad? What if the ad had called for the assassination of a prominent Democrat? Do you think that there is a chance that you wouldn't have heard about it on virtually every network newscast yesterday? Do you think that there is one front page of a major newspaper that wouldn't have carried the story?

Also, MoveOn.Org, a liberal advocacy group, is running the television ad featuring an actor purporting to be Mr. Bush testifying before the September 11 commission.

"Before 9/11, I was obsessed with Iraq," says the actor in a voiceover as the screen displays a picture of Mr. Bush at a microphone. A disclaimer at the bottom of the screen says, "President Bush's voice is being imitated."

"Then I used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq," says the actor in a compelling impersonation of the president's accent and voice inflections. "So now we're less safe than we were before."

One person associated with the group said the ad is not misleading because it includes an on-screen disclaimer that the president's voice is merely an imitation. But Republicans said the disclaimer is slyly camouflaged as white lettering at the bottom of an overly bright screen and blends into the background. All the other lettering in the advertisement is dark.

Again, if it were the Republicans doing the same sort of advertisement don't you think there would be cries of 'dirty politics' coming from the media?

Just wondering.

Posted by: maisky 14-Apr-2004, 10:39 AM
The DNC and Kerry campaigns have denounced the add suggesting shooting Rummy, and it is being retracted. The other add is simply too true for your comfort. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 14-Apr-2004, 11:07 AM
Actually the fact that I couldn't see the disclaimer was probably due more to excessive Glenlivet that any screen color combination. biggrin.gif

Now trying The Macallan.

user posted image

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Apr-2004, 02:29 PM
OK, not really Media Bias, but for your consideration:

---

Pictures of a dying Diana, Princess of Wales are due to be broadcast on television in the United States, it emerged today.

The photographs, never seen before, will show the stricken princess moments after the 1997 car crash in Paris, which led to her death hours later.

The pictures will be shown on the US network CBS, which said it had attained a copy of the confidential French investigation report into the crash.

The 48 Hours programme is be broadcast at 3am BST tomorrow.

CBS has obtained thousands of pages of confidential documents, including the forensic analysis and post-mortem examination of the driver Henri Paul and analysis of the car.

A programme spokeswoman said the show would also include images of Diana at the scene after the crash.

The programme will also look at persistent rumours that the Princess was pregnant when she died.

According to CBS, the report says Mr Paul was receiving money from an unknown source.

Diana?s former protection officer Ken Wharfe and Patrick Jephson, her chief of staff, are interviewed on the show.

They tell of the great lengths they went to to hide Diana?s marriage difficulties, and how she conducted extra marital affairs.

Full story at: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2813043

---

Should this even be on TV?


Posted by: maisky 21-Apr-2004, 03:10 PM
It would be interesting to see what a REAL investigation into Bush's desertion from the N'l Guard would turn up! The networks are simply affraid of doing that. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 22-Apr-2004, 07:14 AM
Dear Brother Maisky, considering that the majority of the media wants to prevent Bush from being re-elected, I have to believe that if there was any real truth to Bush being a deserter that such evidence would have surfaced long ago.


Posted by: Catriona 22-Apr-2004, 07:41 AM
The British press have extensively reported on CBS' airing of the photographs.

The following was taken from www.news.bbc.com Personally, I think it is in the worst possible taste. That poor woman has been dead for about 8 years, and yet barely a day goes by without someone, somewhere printing something about her - often detrimental. Her poor sons must wonder if they will EVER be free of the scurrilous stories that are being written by people who barely knew their mother... (And I am no great fan of the UK monarchy, or of Princess Diana - but for goodness sake, when will the woman be allowed to rest in peace?)

Considering the US press were outraged when certain countries allowed photographs of US troops who had been killed by a mob in Iraq.... how can it be 'moral' to allow Diana's dying minutes to be shown?

______________________________________________________________
Family's shock over Diana images


The US network has copies of the confidential French investigation
The brother of Diana, Princess of Wales says he was "shocked and sickened" by the broadcast of photographs of his dying sister on American television.
The pictures, taken moments after the Paris car crash in which she died, were shown by US network CBS in a programme looking at the accident.

Lord Spencer expressed his revulsion in a statement on behalf of the family.

Former-palace spokesman Dicky Arbiter said it was "particularly bad taste" for CBS to run the pictures.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said the action was distasteful and could cause "distress to her family".

Mr Arbiter told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "It will be painful, painful for William and Harry.

There will always be people to do the story as long as people continue to talk about Diana

Mr Arbiter said he was surprised at an American television network running "this sort of picture".

But he added: "There will always be people to do the story as long as people continue to talk about Diana."

Clarence House, the residence of the Prince of Wales and his sons, has declined to comment on the broadcast.

Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi also died in the 1997 crash, accused CBS of "insensitivity".

Defending its decision to show the images CBS said: "These photocopies are placed in journalistic context - an examination of the medical treatment given to Princess Diana just after the crash - and are in no way graphic or exploitative."

CBS said the images, which had not been broadcast before, were part of a 4,000-page French government report the broadcast recently obtained.

The US broadcaster said it had also obtained confidential documents relating to the crash.

These reportedly include forensic analysis of the scene and vehicle, and post-mortem examination of the driver, Henri Paul.

'Instantly recognisable'

One of the pictures taken by paparazzi photographers at the scene - included in the official crash report - showed her head in the car.

BBC Royal correspondent Peter Hunt said CBS showed the black and white images for just 15 seconds during the one-hour documentary.

But, he said, Diana was "instantly recognisable" from a picture of the side of her head.

The crash which killed Diana and Dodi was deemed an accident

British newspapers had previously decided not to publish the photographs, he added, on the grounds of taste and decency.

The programme also examined rumours that the Princess was pregnant when she died - a suggestion strongly denied by former royal coroner Dr John Burton, who was present at her post-mortem examination.

Diana's former protection officer Ken Wharfe and Patrick Jephson, her chief of staff, were interviewed on the show.

'Crime'

Mr Al Fayed accused CBS of cashing in on their deaths.

He has never accepted the finding of the official report by the French that the crash was an accident.

He said: "This was a crime - the murder of two innocent people.

"CBS obviously doesn't care about the appalling effect of showing images of murder victims. They simply want to cash in on the tragedy.

"It is disgraceful and insensitive of them to do this. It is devastating for me and for Prince William and Prince Harry."

Mr Al Fayed has staged a lengthy legal battle against paparazzi photographers who were following Diana and Dodi for invasion of privacy.

Diana's personal bodyguard, Trevor Rees Jones, was the sole survivor after their speeding Mercedes crashed in an underpass on the short trip from the Ritz Hotel to Mr Al Fayed's Paris apartment.

The French inquiry in 1999 blamed Mr Paul, concluding he had taken a cocktail of drink and drugs and had been driving too fast.








Posted by: Shamalama 22-Apr-2004, 12:50 PM
Catriona, this is from: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004042213510002194108&dt=20040422135100&w=RTR&coview=

---

CBS' decision to air photographs of Princess Diana in her last, dying moments may have outraged British prime minister Tony Blair and others, but they didn't do much in the way of ratings Wednesday.

CBS' 10 p.m. newsmagazine "48 Hours Investigates," which ran the photos as part of a report on Diana's 1997 death in a Paris car crash, averaged 9.4 million viewers and a 2.8 rating/7 share in the adults 18-49 demographic, according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research. That's an increase over "48 Hours"' usual showing, particularly in the key demographic, but it was still overshadowed in the time slot by NBC's "Law & Order" (17 million, 5.8/15) and ABC's "Extreme Makeover" (9.7 million, 4.4/12).


Posted by: Catriona 22-Apr-2004, 03:49 PM
So....... it made Americans turn off in their droves, too, hmmmmm? Then what was it for?

Posted by: maisky 22-Apr-2004, 04:14 PM
QUOTE (Catriona @ Apr 22 2004, 04:49 PM)
So....... it made Americans turn off in their droves, too, hmmmmm? Then what was it for?

Sometimes my fellow countrymen are a bit hard to understand. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Catriona 22-Apr-2004, 04:25 PM
I think, in this instance, it shows 'good taste'... I think it was an appalling thing to transmit - don't you?

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 22-Apr-2004, 06:15 PM
QUOTE (Catriona @ Apr 22 2004, 05:25 PM)
I think, in this instance, it shows 'good taste'...  I think it was an appalling thing to transmit - don't you?

Agreed. I suspect far more people have far more respect for Princess Diana than CBS was ready for. If I ever watched CBS (which I don't), this would be a good reason to stop.

Posted by: maisky 22-Apr-2004, 07:18 PM
I don't watch the broadcast channels, either. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 22-Apr-2004, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Apr 22 2004, 08:18 PM)
I don't watch the broadcast channels, either. biggrin.gif

Hoo-rah. Another area of agreement for this libertarian and our voice of the liberals.

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Apr-2004, 09:18 AM
If someone would just start "The Law & Order and CSI channel" I'd tune to it and throw the remote away.

Whatever the major networks in the US tout as "News" rarely is. I have long since given up on broadcast TV.


Posted by: Randy 23-Apr-2004, 09:31 AM
Wow Shamalama, I could throw you in a room with my parents and the TV with Law and order and CSI and you guys will never be heard from again. I cannot believe how many times those shows are on every day )))

Posted by: barddas 23-Apr-2004, 12:29 PM
I found this to be interesting. The Pentagon is upset over photos published on a website of coffins of soldiers from the current war. But, it was ok to show photos of Princess Diana's final moments..... I know that they are not directly connected.... but I still think it's a bit of a double standard. The news agencies said there was no harmful intent with those photos. But there was still no appology to those it may have affended. And the FCC is worried about someone cursing on the radio, or a naked woman during a football game......... rolleyes.gif

Geez, I am noticing the more I am this part of the forum, the more things aggrivate me....LOL!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/22/mortuary.photos.ap/index.html

Posted by: JaneyMae 24-Apr-2004, 10:13 AM
Got this letter from a friend.....hope my typing is acceptable unsure.gif

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted
to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home, and justso you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently:

-Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever
in Iraq.
-Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.
-Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur.
-The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster.
-School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
-The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the
war.
-100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war.
-Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in
place.
-Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
-Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
-Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
-Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
-Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
-Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to
prevent the spread of germs.
-An interim constitution has been signed.
-Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq.
-Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many many people from Iraq that want us there and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts.

If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding
has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

It's nice to have something positive about Irag instead of the negativity that everyone is so willing to believe, dismissing the positive aspects. I hate seeing young men die, but maybe............................

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 24-Apr-2004, 09:29 PM
According to http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/combatend.asp there's a bit more to the story. Here's an http://vitw.us/weblog/archives/000485.html#more

Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 25-Apr-2004, 02:39 AM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ Apr 24 2004, 09:29 PM)
According to http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/combatend.asp there's a bit more to the story. Here's an http://vitw.us/weblog/archives/000485.html#more

I guess there is always two sides to every story and it depends what side of the fence your on.

The Iraqi report is a out dated---seeing the lady Kathy made her trip in 2003 and the soldier's letter JaneyMae posted earlier is quoting up-to-date stats. I have to believe our military is fighting a noble cause...because I just can handle thinking that the ones who lost their lives did so in vain. unsure.gif sad.gif

Pray for an end to the War in Iraq...Pray for Peace!
Roisin

Posted by: maisky 25-Apr-2004, 05:22 AM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Apr 25 2004, 03:39 AM)

Pray for an end to the War in Iraq...Pray for Peace!
Roisin

Pray for those (kind, sensative person) and for the removal of excess "shrubs in the government" to make those possible, because King George II has no CLUE of how to extract us from Bushnam. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: JaneyMae 25-Apr-2004, 10:27 AM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Apr 25 2004, 02:39 AM)
I guess there is always two sides to every story and it depends what side of the fence your on.

The Iraqi report is a out dated---seeing the lady Kathy made her trip in 2003 and the soldier's letter JaneyMae posted earlier is quoting up-to-date stats. I have to believe our military is fighting a noble cause...because I just can handle thinking that the ones who lost their lives did so in vain. unsure.gif sad.gif

Pray for an end to the War in Iraq...Pray for Peace!
Roisin

There are two sides to every story, however I have a hard time believing reports from Iraq as they kill innocents at every turn and then blame the USA. I too cannot stand the thought that those who have died, did so in vein.

I'm grateful we live where we can put down our government or praise it and no one comes to our homes and kills us for voicing our opinions.

Yes, pray for peace in the world with no more terrorism!

Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 25-Apr-2004, 02:25 PM
I agree with you JaneyMae...I support our troops in Iraq and in Afganistan. I know the terrorists are to blame. Just hearing about all the killing of our military day after day is taking its toll. I have always believed that war is sometimes neccesary to confront evil.

When I say Pray for the war in Iraq to end...I'm in essence saying that I hope all conflict (especially by the terrorists) will end so that there can be peace and our military can come home.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 25-Apr-2004, 02:50 PM
QUOTE (JaneyMae @ Apr 25 2004, 12:27 PM)
I'm grateful we live where we can put down our government or praise it and no one comes to our homes and kills us for voicing our opinions.
thumbs_up.gif

That is what we're fighting for.

MacE

Posted by: maisky 25-Apr-2004, 06:40 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ Apr 25 2004, 03:50 PM)
thumbs_up.gif

That is what we're fighting for.

MacE

Unfortunately we are NOT fighting for that in Bushnam (Iraq). We are fighting for Bush's ego and lies about WMD's and Al Queda connections that didn't exist. There are indeed foreign terrorists in Bushnam, NOW. The have arrived in droves after our dear president put so many US troups so they are convenient for the terrorists to attack. The pattern of warfare now is JUST like in Vietnam, with the exception that it is CITY gorilla warfare rather than jungle. We have already lost the war. The deaths of the hundreds of coalition troups is wasted on Bush's ego. He is too stupid to admit it, so the deaths will just go on and on......

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Apr-2004, 11:02 AM
Lies about WMD's?

I thought Bob Graham was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Dec. 8, 2002 - We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.

I thought Robert Byrd was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Oct. 3, 2002 - The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.

I thought Jay Rockerfeller was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Oct 10, 2002 - There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

I thought Nancy Pelosi was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Dec. 16, 1998 - Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

I thought Gore was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Sept. 23, 2002 - We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

I thought Clinton was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Feb. 17, 1998 - If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

I thought Kerry was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Jan. 23. 2003 - Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.

I thought Ted Kennedy was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?
QUOTE
Sept. 27, 2002 - We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction

I thought the UN was on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq?

You see, this whole "Bush lied about WMD's" is just political posturing. No news nor facts here. Move along.

There are indeed foreign terrorists in Iraq now.
QUOTE
American Forces Press Service - Jan. 30, 2004 - Terror groups from other countries are going out of their way to use Iraqi citizens in pursuing their objectives, a coalition military official said at a Baghdad news conference today.  "They have demonstrated time after time that the foreign terrorists will fight to the last Iraqi to achieve their aims here in Iraq," said Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Combined Joint Task force 7.

There were indeed foreign terrorists in Iraq at the start of the war.
QUOTE
Reuters - April 6, 2003 - The U.S. military said on Sunday it had captured or killed fighters from Sudan, Egypt and other countries in Iraq, and some of those captured had led it to a terrorist training camp.  Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a briefing at Central Command in Qatar that the camp, found at Salman Pak southeast of Baghdad, demonstrated "a linkage between this regime and terrorism."

There were indeed foreign terrorists in Iraq for the last decade.
QUOTE
- Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
- Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service.
- An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator.
-In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
- In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
- As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, says Colin Powell
- Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid.
- In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
- Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003.
- Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000.
- Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000.
- Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.


You see, this whole "Bush encouraged terrorists to come to Iraq" and "There are no ties between Iraq and al Queda" is just political posturing. No news nor facts here. Move along.

Posted by: RavenWing 26-Apr-2004, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ Apr 26 2004, 05:02 PM)
You see, this whole "Bush encouraged terrorists to come to Iraq" and "There are no ties between Iraq and al Queda" is just political posturing. No news nor facts here. Move along.

Agreed.

One our closest friends was very high ranking in the republican guard under Saddam Hussein. He had to do runs between thetwo of them, as well as acta s security while Osama Bin Ladin. No someone please tell my why I should disbelieve someone who might as well be a member of my family?

Posted by: maisky 26-Apr-2004, 04:00 PM
QUOTE (RavenWing @ Apr 26 2004, 12:43 PM)
Agreed.

One our closest friends was very high ranking in the republican guard under Saddam Hussein. He had to do runs between thetwo of them, as well as acta s security while Osama Bin Ladin. No someone please tell my why I should disbelieve someone who might as well be a member of my family?

A member of your family? Does this mean YOU have ties to terrorism? unsure.gif

Posted by: RavenWing 27-Apr-2004, 07:08 AM
QUOTE
A member of your family? Does this mean YOU have ties to terrorism? 




You have no idea what that psycho did to him and I HIGHLY resent that remark.

Posted by: JaneyMae 01-May-2004, 03:01 PM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Apr 25 2004, 02:25 PM)
I agree with you JaneyMae...I support our troops in Iraq and in Afganistan. I know the terrorists are to blame. Just hearing about all the killing of our military day after day is taking its toll. I have always believed that war is sometimes neccesary to confront evil.

When I say Pray for the war in Iraq to end...I'm in essence saying that I hope all conflict (especially by the terrorists) will end so that there can be peace and our military can come home.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who supports our fight against tyranny and terrorism. I do not want our boys there but since they are we had best finish it up. Terrorism is fine to make fun of and say it doesn't exist until it effects our family and friends. We can label what is going on there with cliches (brother dear) but it still exists. It isn't Clintons fault or Bushes or the Republicans or the Democrats. The blame lies with the evil beings in this world: Hussein and Bin Ladin to name two. I am a definite pacifist and detest any kind of fighting and killing but I also hate seeing innocents killed!


Ravenwing, I'm sorry someone you know and love had to suffer at the hands of a beast!

It would be grand if the media would discuss the good things that are troops who are coming home are talking about. The violence is in limited pockets. The good is tremendous! Children have food, electricity, water, and are having the opportunity to learn rather than fearing for their young lives for the very first time.

My two cents!

Posted by: Shamalama 01-May-2004, 03:28 PM
The media refuses to discuss the good things that are troops who are coming home are talking about.

The media refuses to acknowledge that violence is in limited pockets.

The media refuses to tell us how children have food, electricity, water, and are having the opportunity to learn rather than fearing for their young lives for the very first time.

That's because the media does not want this operation to succeed. Between Bush and Hussein, the media has chosen Hussein. And in any other country but the US it would be considered treason.


Posted by: MacEoghainn 01-May-2004, 03:55 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ May 1 2004, 05:28 PM)
That's because the media does not want this operation to succeed.  Between Bush and Hussein, the media has chosen Hussein.  And in any other country but the US it would be considered treason.

That's because a large part of the "Mainstream Media" is just the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and the Democrats want this war to be a failure. They may have various reasons for this but the main one is so they can regain their political power (power they think is rightfully theirs). As for Treason, that's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Democrat.

Posted by: maisky 02-May-2004, 05:26 AM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ May 1 2004, 04:55 PM)
That's because a large part of the "Mainstream Media" is just the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and the Democrats want this war to be a failure. They may have various reasons for this but the main one is so they can regain their political power (power they think is rightfully theirs). As for Treason, that's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Democrat.

You are sadly misinformed, Brother. The media was liberal 30 years ago. It has been bought up by a small group of right wingers and has become seriously conservative.

Are you saying you are no longer a Democrat because you commited treason? I find that rather unlikely. tongue.gif

Posted by: maisky 02-May-2004, 05:29 AM
The latest intelligence is: the insurgency was set up by Saddam before the invasion. It was all planned well ahead. Saddam even WARNED us about it before the invasion. It is coming down just like he said it would.

Posted by: maisky 02-May-2004, 05:34 AM
QUOTE (RavenWing @ Apr 27 2004, 08:08 AM)



You have no idea what that psycho did to him and I HIGHLY resent that remark.

RavenWing, I apologize if I offended you. Anyone who ventures into the Politics forum is likely to get their toes stepped on. The fact is, that removing Sadam from power was NOT the justification for the invasion. The invasion was illegal and makes the US (and British) top leaders eligible for a nice War Crimes trial.

Posted by: RavenWing 03-May-2004, 07:56 AM
QUOTE (maisky)
The fact is, that removing Sadam from power was NOT the justification for the invasion.  The invasion was illegal and makes the US (and British) top leaders eligible for a nice War Crimes trial.



I am not taking issue with your politics here. In fact, I could care less about your opinions. I am taking issue with your suggestion that I am a terrorist. That was uncalled for, and I am extremely offended.




QUOTE (maisky)
Anyone who ventures into the Politics forum is likely to get their toes stepped on.


You seem to forget that I am a moderator here, and I am well aware of how things work around here.

Posted by: maisky 03-May-2004, 06:58 PM
I am sending a more personal apology in a PM, but needless to say, my joke was in poor taste. I HATE the taste of my foot. I definitely was out of line on this one. My jokes are not always easy to see as such.

Posted by: Shamalama 04-May-2004, 07:51 AM
If you listen to the mainstream media in the US you will come away with the distinct impression that it is conservatives who are mean-spirited and nasty, and liberals who are full of love for their fellow man. Well, take a look at this piece of work by liberal editorial cartoonist Ted Rall as shown on Slate.com and MSNBC yesterday.

user posted image

OK, let's break this down. This loving, compassionate liberal calls Tillman an idiot? And how do you like the line "Tillman ... falsely believed that Bush's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan had something to do with 9/11." There may be a debate, however empty, over Iraq, but Afghanistan? And Rall believes that our army is "low rent?"

Maybe it's time for you to give a second thought to just which side is evil, wicked, mean and nasty.


Posted by: maisky 04-May-2004, 03:39 PM
That's whichever side each of us is against (at the moment). laugh.gif

Posted by: MacEoghainn 04-May-2004, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ May 4 2004, 09:51 AM)
....Well, take a look at this piece of work by liberal editorial cartoonist Ted Rall as shown on Slate.com and MSNBC yesterday......

censored.gif censored.gif censored.gif cartoonist Ted Rall !!!! mad.gif
I'd use some more colorful words that I learned in the Navy to express my thoughts of Mr. Rall, but this is a family website and I try not to cuss like a Sailor anymore.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 05-May-2004, 12:08 PM
Rall is an idiot whose mean-spirited trash does more damage than good to the causes he claims to favor. His garbage just makes it more difficult for well-reasoned opposition to Mr. Bush to be taken seriously.
I would boycott any media outlet that continues to use him, if it were possible to do so. However, I stopped reading the only "newspaper" in my area that publishes his trash long ago; and don't bother with either slate.com or msnbc.
It's extremely unfortunate that anyone would publish his trash in any format. While guilt by association may not be fair, this is a good example of why liberals have a bad reputation. Where are the liberal denunciations of this trash?

Posted by: maisky 05-May-2004, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ May 5 2004, 01:08 PM)
Where are the liberal denunciations of this trash?

He's an idiot. There! tongue.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 05-May-2004, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ May 5 2004, 06:32 PM)
He's an idiot. There! tongue.gif

No, he's an insensitive idiot. He gives us sensitive idiots a bad name.

And for the record, Pat Tillman was fighting in a war we supported, the one in Afghanistan.

Posted by: maisky 06-May-2004, 03:44 PM
Well put, Sir! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 07-May-2004, 08:07 AM
Let's take another look at this Ted Rall character - a far-left cartoonist and columnist and a self-described Kerry supporter.

QUOTE

AN ARMY OF SCUM

Or, We're Looking For a Few Good Homosexual Rapists
NEW YORK--Now it's official: American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS. Like the Germans during World War II, they cordon off and bomb civilian villages to retaliate for guerilla attacks on their convoys. Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America's victims disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers. The U.S. military is short just one item to achieve moral parity with the Nazis: gas chambers.

"Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" by soldiers, freelance mercenaries and professional torturers under the command of CIA intelligence officers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, according to an internal government report. The detainees, about 60 percent of them assumed to be innocent by the Americans themselves, were routinely beaten, sodomized "with a chemical light or broomstick," urinated upon, tied to electrified wires and threatened with death, stripped and forced to perform homosexual sex acts on each other and U.S. troops. Don't be fooled by military apologists who insist that these American SS are nothing more than a few bad apples. Seymour Hersh, who has read the army's internal report, quotes Major General Antonio Taguba as saying that U.S.-committed atrocities are "systemic, endemic throughout the command structure...[The soldier-torturers] were being told what to do and told it was OK."

True, most soldiers probably don't condone torture. But all soldiers have been tarnished by it. George W. Bush's new gulag archipelago, a string of concentration camps, military and INS prisons that span the globe from North Carolina to Iraq to Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay to New York City, has been designed to give torturers the veil of secrecy they require to carry out their hideous acts as well as the tacit understanding that they won't be held accountable. The Red Cross, defense lawyers and relatives of the victims, few of whom are charged with a crime, are denied access to the detainees or even the simple confirmation that they're being held by our government.

Some soldiers, like Sergeant Ivan Frederick II, "questioned some of the things I saw," such as "leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door." But when he discussed these abuses with his superiors, he says they brushed him off: "This is how military intelligence wants it done."

As proven by the classic psychological experiments of the '50s, people put in a position of total power over another human being find it hard to resist abusing their charges. Prison guards mistreat inmates for a simple reason: they can. Wherever one controls another, sadism is inevitable. However, this tragic truism can be mitigated by creating mechanisms to ensure transparency behind bars. Granting prisoners access to attorneys, journalists and other members of the outside world, unannounced inspections by human rights agencies, recognizing their rights under the Geneva Conventions and rigorous prosecutions of criminal guards can never entirely eliminate abuse, but they're essential to prisons run by democratic societies.

We know about Abu Ghraib only because the inbred psychos who forced nude Iraqi men to pile up in pyramids were dumb enough to snap photographs as mementos of their time liberating the nation from Saddam. It's like the Rodney King video: cops beat up blacks every day, but there usually isn't a camera around.

Abu Ghraib, you can bet your bottom dollar, is merely the tip of the iceberg. Our military is structurally corrupt. Beginning in Afghanistan during the weeks after 9/11, civilian command yielded to the amoral gangster mentality of the arrogant intelligence officers of Army Special Forces and the CIA, who stand accused of massacring thousands of captured Taliban prisoners yet have never faced a real investigation. The new tone of lawlessness comes all the way from the White House, directed by a commander-in-chief who starts illegal wars without justification, strips captured prisoners of their rights under the Geneva Convention and whose smirky fingers-crossed response to the prisoner abuse scandal--"I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated...Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people"--sends a wink and a nudge to our uniformed torturers. Keep it up, boys. Keep those broomsticks busy.

Even our coalition partners are getting the message. British soldiers running a coalition gulag in Basra reported smashing the jaw and teeth of an Iraqi accused of stealing, then dumping the broken body of the accused thief off the back of a moving truck. "They did not know whether he survived," writes The New York Times.

One more Iraqi, it seems, who won't be tossing roses at his liberators.



That is from http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

OK. Rall's column is entitled "An Army of Scum." He says that the U.S. Army is virtually indistinguishable from the Nazi SS. In fact, Rall says that the Army needs only one thing to bring it up to moral parity with the Nazis - and that one thing would be gas chambers. But wait! Rall isn't through. He also calls our soldiers the "American SS" and "inbred psychos."

Ted Rall is the author of "Wake Up, You're Liberal: How We Can Take America Back From the Right".

While you're considering the words of Ted Rall remember that it's the conservatives that are supposed to be evil, wicked, mean, nasty and full of hate.


Posted by: maisky 08-May-2004, 01:47 PM
He carried it too far. The ENTIRE army doesn't fit that description, just MI. sad.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 13-May-2004, 12:26 PM
For the past several days the mainstream media in the US have been discussing the Iraqi prison abuse. CBS recently had a poll to find out what the general public thought about it. CBS News anchorman Dan Rather soon explained how a new CBS News poll found "public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level yet" and "the President?s overall job approval rating in the latest poll is at a new low, 44 percent." But Rather skipped how the survey discovered that a majority don?t want any more prisoner abuse pictures to be released and 49 percent believe the media have spent too much time on the prisoner abuse story, compared to a mere 6 percent who think it?s been under-covered.

Next time you see one of those polls on the nightly news please be aware that what they say may not be the entire truth, especially when the data goes against the network's own agenda.

The national media pride themselves on their ability to make fine distinctions and appreciate subtle nuances. But their incessant repetition on the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse story, accompanied by the same rotating set of photographs, lacked context and truth.

There is a vast difference between sexual humiliation and brutal murder. But to the national media, there is also much greater outrage for U.S. prisoner abuse than there is for the enemy?s murders. Viewers received a false picture of moral equivalence, with only American offenses amplified.

The number of prisoner-abuse stories on NBC?s evening and morning news programs (NBC Nightly News and Today) from April 29, when the story emerged, through May 11, were 58. Contrast that to a grand total of 5 stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the reign of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and 2004. A handful of prisoner abuse stories compared to mass graves containing 300,000 bodies.

The Today Show has used the Abu Ghraib pictures to insist on political damage to the Bush administration. NBC was in a rush to punish. Co-host Katie Couric opened last Wednesday?s show in full scandal mode, demanding: "What did administration officials know and when did they know it?" I do not believe perky Katie ever used that phrase when describing Saddam.

Couric and co-host Matt Lauer have asked repeatedly about whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign. On Tuesday morning, Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski insisted "there's a steadily growing political and public opinion drumbeat calling for Rumsfeld's resignation," even though the latest Gallup poll numbers disagree, 64 to 31 percent. But then we, the Great Unwashed, aren't nearly as 'enlightened' as Katie and Matt.

Posted by: maisky 13-May-2004, 04:42 PM
Murder by terrorists is what we expect. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! Of COURSE we don't approve of the murders.

We DON'T and should NOT expect (or tolerate) prisoner abuse by US soldiers. True, milder forms of such abuse is fairly common in US prisons, just not as common as in MOST countries. The cases are not even open for comparison.

Posted by: tsargent62 14-May-2004, 07:28 AM
Rall is a flaming idiot! As a veteran myself I would love to personally punch him in the face. He dishonours all our dead. SS my a**. He's right up there with Michael Moore. True, these guys give all liberals a bad name. While being a conservative myself, I respect the views and opinions of my liberal counterparts. Those 2 don't respect anyone. As long as they get their extreme views publicized they don't care who they hurt.

Posted by: Shamalama 18-May-2004, 10:47 AM
We have seen the hysteria over the Abu Ghraib abuses, with the daily running of photos on front pages and the continued news and editorial preoccupation that greatly damage the war effort.

If German prisoners in World War II had been stripped naked and humiliated to get information to save American lives, would any major American paper have published the photos during the war?

On the day The New York Times reported the savage murder of Berg its lead editorial was yet another in a series denouncing the Bush administration for prison abuses in Iraq. The Berg murder was just one column on the front page, with a photo, the smallest of three front-page photos, at the bottom of the column.

In one week alone, the Washington Post published 33 headline stories on the Iraq prison incidents, while the New York Times pumped out 23 similar stories. Neither Nick Berg?s murder or the earlier murders and mutilations of our contactors in Fallujah, received anything like this amount of coverage.

The Berg murder provides further evidence of how a leftist worldview determines the way news is presented, namely the media's depiction of it as "revenge for America's Iraqi prison abuses."

Nick Berg's murderers said their butchery was revenge for American abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison, and the world's press dutifully published this as if it were a fact.

"American beheaded in revenge for abuses" -- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
"Grisly Vengeance" -- The Hartford Courant
"Militants avenge abuse with taped beheading" -- The Des Moines Register
"Vengeance on Video" -- The Arizona Republic
"With a Vengeance" -- Newsday (Long Island)
"Amid prison inquiry, revenge" -- Minneapolis Star Tribune
"U.S. civilian beheaded in Iraq; abuse responsibility in dispute" -- The Providence Journal

Perhaps the starkest example of the pronounced leftist impact on news reporting is the difference between the headlines in Canada's two major national newspapers. The headline in the liberal Globe and Mail was "Murderous revenge: U.S. hostage dies in wake of Iraq prison abuse." The headline in the conservative National Post was "Al-Qaeda Beheads American."

Most of the mainstream press stopped airing images of the planes striking the World Trade Center and the Twin Towers collapsing just days after Sept. 11 because the constant imagery had become overdone and was ?upsetting.? Images of victims falling to their deaths were never shown. Most American media, such as CBS, also refused to air the Berg beheading video, clips or images from it because they were "too gruesome."

It seems that these same media believe that obscene images that undermine our war effort and are guaranteed to enrage and inflame the passions of our fanatical enemies need to be published ad naseum, but photos and footage that vividly demonstrate the brutality of the medieval enemies we fight should be censored.

In the Senate, three days after Defense Secretary Rumsfeld?s May 7 testimony, Kennedy recklessly snorted: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam?s torture chambers opened under new management -- US management." Apparently to Kennedy, a dozen terrorist inmates stripped naked with female underpants on their heads equates to the thousands of Saddam?s former prisoners now missing body parts like ears, tongues and hands, or the 400,000 buried in mass graves, many having been run through wood shredders feet first while still alive. The media replayed Kennedy's rant over and over for days, so it has to be true, right?

Kerry, eerily reminiscent of his blame-America statements during his anti-war glory days in the 1970's, added: "What happened [at Abu Ghraib]?comes out of how we went there in the first place, an attitude that comes out of America?s overall arrogance as policy." To him a few misguided and ill-trained reservists mistreating hardened terrorists in an overcrowded Iraqi prison are somehow a direct product of America?s fundamentally flawed nature. Did he receive any media comment? Nope.

Nick Berg was slaughtered, not beheaded. The world's news media distorted the nature of the savagery inflicted by Islamic "militants" on a young American man who went to Iraq to help Muslims. But so what? It's already forgotten, and perky Katie can return to the 83,765th discussion of Iraqi prison abuse.


Posted by: Shamalama 24-May-2004, 07:53 AM
And finally there is a bit of validation to the claim that mainstream media has a definite liberal slant.

---

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.

"It is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person"
media - 15%
general population - 60%

"Homosexuality should be accepted by society"
media - 80%
general population - 50%

Full story at: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184


Posted by: Shamalama 24-May-2004, 10:46 AM
It took all of 12 minutes for perky Katie on NBC's Today show to make ANOTHER analysis of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story. Every morning it's the same thing over and over and over . . .

So why doesn't she tell us this story:

QUOTE

Nine years ago in Abu Ghraib prison, on the night before doctors were to cut off his right hand, Nazaar Joudi wrote a letter to his wife. It was the final act he was to perform with the hand, which was to be methodically removed on Saddam Hussein's orders as punishment for the crime of doing business in American dollars.

"Do not be sad," Joudi wrote to Um Fuqaan that night. "Hopefully Allah will replace my hand with an even better one. . . . God will reward you for standing next to your husband and being my right hand."

Thanks to a Fairfax-based film producer, a half-dozen health care providers and businesses in Houston, and a legendary "white knight in blue spectacles," Joudi's promise to his wife came true last Monday.

Doctors and prosthetists moved by the plight of Joudi and six other Iraqi merchants whose right hands were amputated at Abu Ghraib finished fitting each of the men with $50,000 "bionic" hands. Black tattoos of crosses that had been carved into the men's foreheads to label them criminals were removed by a Houston plastic surgeon a few weeks earlier. All the services and products were donated.

As resentment of Americans in Iraq seems to swell each day, these seven Iraqis are unabashed in their gratitude, not just for their new hands, but for the U.S. role in ending what they call the "reign of horror" that claimed the lives of as many as 2.5 million of their countrymen.

"Tell the American people what all Iraqis want to tell to them," Salah Zinad said. "Tell them: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you."

...

Zinad on the prisoner abuse: "Some American soldiers are a problem. Not all Americans. These Americans who did this will be punished. Under Saddam, such abuses were rewarded and praised. Iraqis understand the difference."

Qasim Kadhim on Americans who think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake: "I think those people have made a mistake, because under Allah, all people are brothers. We must help each other if we have a problem. . . . How do we do it if nobody helps us?"

...

Amnesty International estimates that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqis had their hands amputated for similar crimes.

"Baghdad is Amputation City," North said. "Within a block you run into two to three people without a leg, or an arm, or an ear."

Hussein's secret police, like Hitler's, kept meticulous records of who was killed or maimed, and why. A committee of former prisoners is sorting through 2 million to 4 million files in hopes of accurately quantifying the scope of the depravity.

Full story at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5046676/



Perky Katie is part of the Liberal Media Elite. They don't want "Bush's War" to succeed. They want democracy in Iraq to fail. Don't believe me? Then watch a week's worth of news stories from the major media and keep a count of how many stories are positive and how many are negative. Stories like the one above will not make it to the national nightly news shows, but the death of soldiers and the abuse of prisoners will make it on TV every night.

I wonder if Perky Katie would even consider to interview Joudi. Probably not.


Posted by: Shamalama 24-May-2004, 11:28 AM
Sometimes exposing media bias is just too easy. But it sure is fun!

---

(a.) The Iraq war has turned out to be a festival of double standards. Just about every­body who insisted on an apology from President Bush for seven months of pre-9/11 failure to confront terrorism.

(b.) But these same media types demanded no such apology from Bill Clinton for his perjury and assorted lying and for eight years of doing almost nothing about terrorism.

---

(a.) Democrats are blind with rage that Bush went to war without U.N. approval.


(b.) But the Left rarely mention that Clinton did the same thing three times -- in Bosnia, Kosovo, and in Operation Desert Fox (the bombing of Iraq in 1998).

---

(a.) Those in the news business who have spent so many months admiring the moral authority of the U.N.

(b.) Those in the news business have basically looked the other way as evidence accumulates about corruption in the oil-for-food scandal. The major media downplayed (dropped, would be a better word) the story for many weeks. Even now oil-for-food news is buried way inside most newspapers or simply ignored. One might conclude that the media is not very interested in negative stories about the U.N.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 24-May-2004, 08:40 PM
Here's a letter to Tom Brokaw from a retired USAF Brig. Gen. that seems to be in line with this thread. Although I disagree with the War on Iraq (primarily because it detracts from the true war on terrorism, which should be directed at the Saudis, among others, and do not find the evidence of terrorist links to Iraq terribly persuasive), I think Gen. Jackson very ably states what many of us feel regarding media bias:
QUOTE
Here's a note from BGen (Ret) Grover Jackson ( . . .  . ) to Tom Brokaw.......


Attached is a letter I mailed earlier today.  It felt good to get this off my chest.  Should I turn up dead under mysterious circumstances, chalk it up to a "vast left wing media conspiracy"!!

Best regards,
Grover

                                                                                              May 23, 2004

Tom Brokaw
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York  NY  10112                 

Dear Mr. Brokaw:

Full disclosure:  you and I are approximately the same age (my DOB is 8/31/40).  From what I know of your background, while you were beginning a career in journalism, I was entering active duty with an ROTC commission as a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force.  At that time, I left a job as a police reporter and copy editor with a daily newspaper in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama, so I have at least some idea of the challenges journalists face.  As you moved up the tape in the news business, I elected to continue service as an Air Force intelligence officer, retiring after 29 years of service in 1991.  My tours of duty included a year in Vietnam and a final assignment as Director for Intelligence, U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu. 

Because of the affinity of intelligence work and that done by journalists, I came to devote increasing amounts of time to consuming news reported by the American media, including evaluating its objectivity.    Over the years, I turned increasingly to NBC as my primary source because I thought the network did a better (more accurate and objective) job of covering international developments.  After my retirement from the military and nine years in management jobs in the private sector, I ?retired/retired?, as the saying goes.  With the increased amount of time I had available, I began to get to some of the reading I had postponed for years.  That included your books on World War II, which I enjoyed a great deal.  Those books reinforced the high regard I had developed over the years for your work as a journalist.  These days I also spend much more time watching television news, particularly the war on terror, including our involvement in Iraq.

With the foregoing as background, I write to tell you of my disappointment in how you and the rest of the moguls in NBC News have misreported the reality of the situation in Iraq over the last twelve months or so.  The only consolation I can offer is that you have plenty of company among the major U.S. media in this regard.    I?m writing this letter to you only because I gave up on your counterparts at CBS, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post long ago.  Although I understand and appreciate the old newspaper and TV news line that ?what bleeds, leads?, you have suppressed the positive aspects that come with the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from a tyranny that has few historical equals (and liberation of another 15-20 million people in Afghanistan), and have done so in a fashion that borders on the criminal.  The list of positives is long, from rebuilding and resupply of schools, to improvements in water quality, medical care, electric power, the holding of local elections, and the establishment of independent media for starters.  There is no balance in your reporting.  One of your younger reporters in Baghdad (his name escapes me for the moment) comes across as a breathless teenaged cheerleader for the Ba?athist deadenders every time they kill more innocent people, Iraqi and American.  It?s bad enough that you have miserably missed the journalistic mark for balance.  Of much greater importance is that you have grossly distorted the reality the American public looks to the media to report and on which the public must base its judgments regarding our foreign policy alternatives.  Top it off with the deleterious effect your mischaracterization of the situation is having on the morale of our military people risking their lives every day.  Have you ever thought about that?

Don?t take my word for the distortion charge.  Interview the returning GIs who have spent a year or more on the ground in close contact with the Iraqi people and ask them what our nation has accomplished in that time.  I have read many accounts of the amazement and frustration our warriors express when they see on television how NBC and the rest of the mainstream media are misreporting the Iraq story.  Go back and look at the truly outstanding job your embeds did during major combat operations.  Give the American public both the good news and the bad news of the totality of the Iraq story in the very balanced way the embeds did in 2003.

I?ve spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how a premier journalist like you could have suffered, in the waning days of a great career, such a performance deterioration in such a short time.  I?m reminded of the story of how a greatest generation Air Force officer, General Curtis LeMay, addressed mission failure in his units when it occurred.  He?d fly in to the base involved, convene the senior leadership, and tell them:  ?I can?t tell if it?s incompetence or intent, and I haven?t got time to figure it out.  You?re fired.?  In the same way, I can?t determine how NBC News went so badly into the ditch on one of the biggest stories of the last 50 years.  I must say that it?s hard to believe it?s a competence problem, given the performance of your embeds in this war.  The alternative explanation is even more unpleasant.  For the time being, I?ve ?fired? you as the gold standard of news sources, as have many other Americans.

Mr. Brokaw, for the sake of this country and its need to destroy terrorism, you must get your network back on track.  There is time to do so before you hang up your shoes.  Try something as simple as allocating an equal number of minutes every day to the good news and the bad news in Iraq.  There is plenty of the former, I assure you.  If you don?t fix your balance problem, the American public is likely to repeat the disenchantment it developed during the Vietnam war.  I don?t want to see another generation of American military professionals have to deal with that kind of environment while trying to focus on destroying those forces dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life.  I wish you every success in salvaging both your own and your network?s reputation for journalistic competence.

                                                                                    Sincerely,


                                                                                    Grover E. Jackson
                                                                                    Brigadier General, USAF (Ret)

Posted by: Shamalama 25-May-2004, 08:53 AM
 
user posted image
 

Posted by: Shamalama 27-May-2004, 03:26 PM
Everybody now knows that a artillery shell containing sarin gas was exploded recently in Iraq. Everybody but ABC News.

ABC?s World News Tonight on Tuesday (5/25) had time for stories on
- how the turn over of authority in Iraq is not as "simple" as President Bush claims,
- how Iraqis are skeptical about Bush?s promise to tear down the Abu Ghraib prison, with one man wanting to know if there?s a guarantee that Bush :"will not torture prisoners in the new prison?",
- how U.S. forces in Najaf had damaged "one of the most important Moslem shrines" and how Israeli bulldozing of a Gaza neighborhood had left an old Palestinian woman "scowling the rubble" for her medicine.

But, while the cable networks and CBS and NBC picked up on late afternoon word that a laboratory had confirmed sarin was in a shell in a roadside bomb detonated by U.S. forces on May 15, ABC and Peter Jennings didn?t utter a syllable about it.

Why?

Posted by: maisky 27-May-2004, 05:34 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 27-May-2004, 04:26 PM)
Everybody now knows that a artillery shell containing sarin gas was exploded recently in Iraq. Everybody but ABC News.

ABC?s World News Tonight on Tuesday (5/25) had time for stories on
- how the turn over of authority in Iraq is not as "simple" as President Bush claims,
- how Iraqis are skeptical about Bush?s promise to tear down the Abu Ghraib prison, with one man wanting to know if there?s a guarantee that Bush :"will not torture prisoners in the new prison?",
- how U.S. forces in Najaf had damaged "one of the most important Moslem shrines" and how Israeli bulldozing of a Gaza neighborhood had left an old Palestinian woman "scowling the rubble" for her medicine.

But, while the cable networks and CBS and NBC picked up on late afternoon word that a laboratory had confirmed sarin was in a shell in a roadside bomb detonated by U.S. forces on May 15, ABC and Peter Jennings didn?t utter a syllable about it.

Why?

There has been a STORY about an alleged shell of Sarin in the Conservative media, but no evidence has been forthcoming....Usual administration BS?

Posted by: Swanny 27-May-2004, 07:26 PM
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9666790%255E1702,00.html

It seems the Aussies have picked up on the story, but I have to hear a peep from the Liberal U.S. Press:

QUOTE
Sarin confirmed in Iraq shell
From correspondents in Washington
May 26, 2004

COMPREHENSIVE testing has confirmed that a 155mm artillery shell discovered in Iraq earlier this month contained the deadly nerve agent sarin, a Pentagon spokesman said today.

"Further testing has revealed that it was indeed sarin," said Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable.

"We're looking at what new risks this poses to our operations and people in Iraq," he said.


Posted by: Shamalama 28-May-2004, 12:52 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 27-May-2004, 07:34 PM)

There has been a STORY about an alleged shell of Sarin in the Conservative media, but no evidence has been forthcoming....Usual administration BS?


Story? Alleged shell? Conservative media? Oh geez.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An artillery shell used in a roadside bomb in Baghdad did contain the nerve agent sarin as originally thought, U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday.

Laboratory tests confirmed initial findings from field tests that suggested the chemical agent was in the shell, which was found on May 15 and exploded two days later.

The 155-mm artillery shell was designed to mix two inert chemicals when fired from a cannon to produce sarin, and military officials said it was ineffective when rigged as a roadside bomb.

In 1990, Iraq admitted to the United Nations that it had built some sarin gas artillery shells -- prototypes that it insisted had all been destroyed during testing.

When the shell was found near the Baghdad Airport, U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the artillery round was of an old style that Saddam Hussein's regime had declared it no longer possessed after the Persian Gulf War.

Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- has also been found in Iraq.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 Posted: 11:06 PM EDT (0306 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/25/iraq.main/index.html

The same night ABC *could* have run with the story, if they had wanted to. You can't tell me that the news editors at ABC didn't at least know something. They have an agenda, and this story didn't fit with that agenda.

Peter Jennings. The guy who's former girlfriend is PLO spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi.

Peter Jennings. In 1972, as a reporter covering the Palestinian murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, Jennings would not refer to the murderers as "terrorists." Instead he called them "guerrillas" and "commandos."

Peter Jennings. In April 2002 he covered a pro-Palestinian rally in Washington, D.C., but ignored a pro-Israel rally in Washington held just six days earlier.

Peter Jennings. In December 2001, when the Bush administration froze the assets of the Arab terrorist group Hamas, both NBC News and CBS News correctly labeled Hamas as a terrorist organization, but Jennings refused to do so. In the same newscast, Jennings blamed Israel for an "explosion of violence in the Middle Eas."

ABC and Jennings have their agenda. It affects their journalistic objectivity. And it affects what regular viewers see, and how they see things.

Look, everyone has an opinion about everything. And in America the freedom to believe and express your beliefs is considered a cornerstone of our democracy. But I get ill when people express their bias and label it as objective factual reporting.

As time goes on I think we'll find more and more of Saddam's toys, the ones the Libs say don't exist ('O dear God don't let Bush be right'), and they're going to be used to kill both Americans and Iraq's new government.

No BS here.


Posted by: Shamalama 02-Jun-2004, 08:16 AM
Famed British war historian John Keegan had a few things to say about the war in Iraq yesterday. He's none-too-pleased with the way the media is reporting the insurgency in Iraq. He points out, accurately, that an insurgency such as this is what you would expect when a third-world dictator is overthrown. Here's a great quote from Keegan's column in The Telegraph yesterday:

QUOTE

"The British and American media detail with evident satisfaction every scrap of information that implicates service people in wrongdoing ... If those who show themselves so eager to denounce the American President and the British Prime Minister feel strongly enough on the issue, please will they explain their reason for wishing Saddam Hussein should still be in power."



Good challenge.

Posted by: Shamalama 03-Jun-2004, 11:27 AM
June 6, 1944 - the Allied invasion of Normandy.

Things went wrong with that invasion, as things have gone wrong with wars as far back as there are any records of wars. Yet no one called it a quagmire when American forces were pinned down by German fire on Omaha beach and taking heavy casualties. No one called the generals or the president incompetent or stupid.

In a desperate attempt to help U.S. troops unable to break out of the Normandy beachhead, Allied bombers launched massive air raids on the area, accidentally killing more than a hundred American soldiers. But no one called it a quagmire.

No one demanded a timetable showing how much longer the war was going to last or an accounting table showing how much it would cost in dollars and cents.

The Iraq war was not a month old before the word "quagmire" began appearing in the media.

When Allied troops landed at Normandy, Americans had already been fighting for two and a half years of bitter defeats and costly victories - and the British even longer. Yet no one called them "war-weary" and the news stories were about what was being accomplished, even as they told of the cost of those accomplishments in blood and lives.

Even after the Normandy invasion was successful, the Germans later caught the Allies by surprise with a massive counter-attack that led to the bloody "battle of the bulge." But no one called it a quagmire. They called it war.

These two wars, Iraq and WW2, were of course different, as all wars are different. But the biggest difference was not between the wars themselves, but between the media of that day and today.


Posted by: maisky 05-Jun-2004, 05:31 AM
Bushnam is indeed a "Quagmire". The similarities with Vietnam are frightening. It is a war we have no reason to be in. It is sapping our military, our economy and killing our young people. It is causing the US to be HATED around the world. It is distracting us from where our attention SHOULD be focused: the war on terrorism. Oh, and it is distracting us from the Bush administration raping the environmental laws. The only "good" thing about the war is that it will guarantee Bush's defeat in November. beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 07-Jun-2004, 11:38 AM
Brother Maisky, you and I are going to have to find ourselves a quiet pub where we can sit and sip and watch the election. I'll buy the first round.


Posted by: maisky 07-Jun-2004, 04:31 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 07-Jun-2004, 12:38 PM)
Brother Maisky, you and I are going to have to find ourselves a quiet pub where we can sit and sip and watch the election. I'll buy the first round.

I'll drink to that, Brother Shamamlama!!! beer_mug.gif

Posted by: gtrplr 08-Jun-2004, 09:40 AM
QUOTE
Brother Maisky, you and I are going to have to find ourselves a quiet pub where we can sit and sip and watch the election. I'll buy the first round.


Since ya'll are located in GA and IL, may I suggest Nashville as a meeting place. I'll come and sell tickets. It'll be bigger than Ali-Frazier. cool.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: maisky 08-Jun-2004, 04:10 PM
QUOTE (gtrplr @ 08-Jun-2004, 10:40 AM)

Since ya'll are located in GA and IL, may I suggest Nashville as a meeting place. I'll come and sell tickets. It'll be bigger than Ali-Frazier. cool.gif biggrin.gif

Naaa, Brother S and I are friends who disagree on some minor political points and who enjoy the debate!

Posted by: Shamalama 10-Jun-2004, 08:30 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 08-Jun-2004, 06:10 PM)

Naaa, Brother S and I are friends who disagree on some minor political points and who enjoy the debate!


It all started when Brother Maisky started the "Catfish Vs. Trout" argument. I had just subscribed to this board when that started, and I jumped in with both feet.

Then he had the gall to begin a "Coke Vs. Pepsi" thread. Can you believe it?

We almost fell into name calling during the "Chewing Gum Vs. Chewing Tobacco" debacle. I didn't know anyone had such beliefs.

I had to get the Moderators involved when he started the "Ice Hockey Vs. NASCAR" message thread. It wasn't pretty. There are still scars from that one.

By comparison the "Bush Vs. Kerry" discussion is quite mild.


Posted by: gtrplr 10-Jun-2004, 08:54 AM
QUOTE
It all started when Brother Maisky started the "Catfish Vs. Trout" argument. I had just subscribed to this board when that started, and I jumped in with both feet.

Then he had the gall to begin a "Coke Vs. Pepsi" thread. Can you believe it?

We almost fell into name calling during the "Chewing Gum Vs. Chewing Tobacco" debacle. I didn't know anyone had such beliefs.

I had to get the Moderators involved when he started the "Ice Hockey Vs. NASCAR" message thread. It wasn't pretty. There are still scars from that one.


Can't we all just get along?!?! (And don't say 'A long what?') tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 10-Jun-2004, 10:55 AM
Did you hear the story about U.S. Special Forces that rescued four hostages in a raid yesterday? Three Italian security guards and one Pole were freed in the daring rescue. The hostages were in good health and no blood was shed in the rescue.

Even the AP reported the story with their typical doom and gloom, anti-American slant. They downplayed the rescue of course, pointing out that there were still others being held hostage. Leave it to the partisan media to turn good news straight to bad.

Don't forget the template: all good news out of Iraq is being embargoed, because it would benefit President Bush. All bad news must be reported early and often, so as to turn the public against the war and the president.

The media has their marching orders from the DNC, and so they largely buried this story.

Posted by: MDF3530 10-Jun-2004, 03:33 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 10-Jun-2004, 11:55 AM)
Don't forget the template: all good news out of Iraq is being embargoed, because it would benefit President Bush. All bad news must be reported early and often, so as to turn the public against the war and the president.

The media has their marching orders from the DNC, and so they largely buried this story.

The reason why it wasn't reported was because of the 24/7 coverage of Reagan's weeklong funeral.

Posted by: maisky 10-Jun-2004, 04:23 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 10-Jun-2004, 11:55 AM)
Did you hear the story about U.S. Special Forces that rescued four hostages in a raid yesterday? Three Italian security guards and one Pole were freed in the daring rescue. The hostages were in good health and no blood was shed in the rescue.

Even the AP reported the story with their typical doom and gloom, anti-American slant. They downplayed the rescue of course, pointing out that there were still others being held hostage. Leave it to the partisan media to turn good news straight to bad.

Don't forget the template: all good news out of Iraq is being embargoed, because it would benefit President Bush. All bad news must be reported early and often, so as to turn the public against the war and the president.

The media has their marching orders from the DNC, and so they largely buried this story.

Fox is still extremely right-wing. CNN leans left and MSNBC is center.
I read about the rescue and also about the report charging the "Bush mafia" with authorizing torture and then covering it up. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: maisky 10-Jun-2004, 04:25 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 10-Jun-2004, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 08-Jun-2004, 06:10 PM)

Naaa, Brother S and I are friends who disagree on some minor political points and who enjoy the debate!


It all started when Brother Maisky started the "Catfish Vs. Trout" argument. I had just subscribed to this board when that started, and I jumped in with both feet.

Then he had the gall to begin a "Coke Vs. Pepsi" thread. Can you believe it?

We almost fell into name calling during the "Chewing Gum Vs. Chewing Tobacco" debacle. I didn't know anyone had such beliefs.

I had to get the Moderators involved when he started the "Ice Hockey Vs. NASCAR" message thread. It wasn't pretty. There are still scars from that one.

By comparison the "Bush Vs. Kerry" discussion is quite mild.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Posted by: Herrerano 11-Jun-2004, 02:28 PM
The Coke vs Pepsi debate is still a pretty hot topic and occasionally pops up on other threads even now. I had thought the whole thing had been put to rest but then noticed one day that someone was advocating Tab (gasp, choke, cough). Now the debate has blown up into a three way free for all.

The thing is it is pointless, we all know Maisky drinks Bud lite, we have seen the photographic evidence.


Leo tongue.gif

Posted by: maisky 12-Jun-2004, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (Herrerano @ 11-Jun-2004, 03:28 PM)
The Coke vs Pepsi debate is still a pretty hot topic and occasionally pops up on other threads even now. I had thought the whole thing had been put to rest but then noticed one day that someone was advocating Tab (gasp, choke, cough). Now the debate has blown up into a three way free for all.

The thing is it is pointless, we all know Maisky drinks Bud lite, we have seen the photographic evidence.


Leo tongue.gif

You can malign my morals, my politics and my intelligence, but my BEER PREFERENCE!!!!!? Them's FIght'n words!!! angel_not.gif

Posted by: maisky 12-Jun-2004, 04:10 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 10-Jun-2004, 05:25 PM)
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 10-Jun-2004, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 08-Jun-2004, 06:10 PM)

Naaa, Brother S and I are friends who disagree on some minor political points and who enjoy the debate!


It all started when Brother Maisky started the "Catfish Vs. Trout" argument. I had just subscribed to this board when that started, and I jumped in with both feet.

Then he had the gall to begin a "Coke Vs. Pepsi" thread. Can you believe it?

We almost fell into name calling during the "Chewing Gum Vs. Chewing Tobacco" debacle. I didn't know anyone had such beliefs.

I had to get the Moderators involved when he started the "Ice Hockey Vs. NASCAR" message thread. It wasn't pretty. There are still scars from that one.

By comparison the "Bush Vs. Kerry" discussion is quite mild.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

We were going to have a dual over the gum vs tobacco issue, but we couldn't agree on pistols or swords, and had to call the whole thing off..... tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 07:07 AM
In London the media is singing the praises of one Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Suday. This Muslim extremist gave a speech in London last week. The Associated Press quoted Sheik Abdul as saying that the history of Islam is a testament to how different communities can live together in peace and harmony. Then along comes the BBC who calls this menace "The world's most celebrated Iman" and credited him for working for "community cohesion."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3796631.stm

So? What's the problem here? Where's the bias?

Neither the Associated Press nor the BBC happened to mention in their coverage of this particular Islamic cleric that in the past he has given speeches calling for the "annihilation of Jews." He has also referred to Jews as "... the "scum of the human race, the rats of the world," and "the offspring of apes and pigs." The imam further advised Arabs to abandon all peace initiatives with Jews and asked Allah to annihilate them.

http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i27/27b01401.htm
http://www.upjf.org/documents/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2719

Had this been a white supremecist or neo-Nazi, past statements surely would have been included in their reports.

Why didn't the AP and BBC report the truth about the Sheik? Could it possibly be because they felt that this would cause people to be concerned about Islamic extremists like the Sheik? After all, this might cause people worldwide to support the war on Islamic terrorism.

Radical Islam is the new media darling, a protected group.

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 07:16 AM
Remember last week's LA Times poll that came out of nowhere showing Kerry had surged ahead of Bush by seven points?

According to Roll Call, not counting independents, the poll's results were calculated based on a sample of 38% Democrats and 25% Republicans. Well, no wonder Kerry was ahead by 7 points! To get that result, they had to ask 13% more Democrats. In other words, the media skewed the results on purpose.

All polls are suspect, but that should give you pause the next time you hear the media trumpeting some poll. Remember the template: any story that presents President Bush in a negative light gets the most coverage, while any story presenting the president in a positive light gets buried.

Now the media is forging poll results to make the President look bad. Hopefully you aren't surprised.


Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 07:22 AM
And while we're at it, let's discuss another poll.

A new Associated Press poll shows that 57% of Americans think that the United States has lost jobs in the last six months.

Huh? There have been over 1,200,000 jobs created, not lost, in the last six months. Not only that, but information from employers indicates that new jobs will be created in the coming months at the highest rate in the past decade.

Assuming that those polled are not complete idiots, why would 57% think that the United States has lost jobs in the last six months?

The mainstream media isn't telling them. All of us have seen headlines telling us of the jobs that have been lost. How many of you can remember one single headline touting job growth?

It was only months ago that Kerry was singing the blues about Bush and the terrible American economy. It turned around. Then Kerry sang the blues about job loss. That has turned around. Bush whipped the recession. But if the truth were told then Bush would have an advantage, and the media cannot allow that to happen.

Again, remember the template. If a story hurts Bush, hammer it. If it helps bush, bury it.


Posted by: maisky 16-Jun-2004, 12:50 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 16-Jun-2004, 08:22 AM)

Again, remember the template. If a story hurts Bush, hammer it. If it helps bush, bury it.

We will all try to remember this, Oh Great One, as November draws closer and Bush's approval continues to decline..... biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 01:30 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 16-Jun-2004, 02:50 PM)

We will all try to remember this as November draws closer...


Remember? Heck, once November 2 arrives I'll either be celebrating Bush's victory or drowning in Kerry's victory - either way I'll be in a 'Highland fog'. Shouldn't be too much remembering.

beer_mug.gif

If I start early I might even vote for Nader. blink.gif


Posted by: gtrplr 16-Jun-2004, 01:39 PM
There was a recent poll on http://slashdot.org (a tech website) titled: Why will you vote in the next election. The options were:

No reason, really
Hate the incumbent
Love the incumbent
Hate the challenger
Love the challenger
Civic Duty
Pride
To get the "I Voted" bumpersticker

The stats(with 24,281 votes:

No reason, really - 5%
Hate the incumbent - 44%
Love the incumbent - 6%
Hate the challenger - 5%
Love the challenger - 1%
Civic Duty - 24%
Pride - 2%
Just wanted to get the "I Voted" bumpersticker - 9%

44% will vote because they hate George W. Bush.
1% will vote because they love John Kerry.


What has this country come to? We hate the man in office so much that we'll vote for anyone else regardless of their beliefs, morals, or ability, or lack thereof?

Posted by: maisky 16-Jun-2004, 04:21 PM
QUOTE (gtrplr @ 16-Jun-2004, 02:39 PM)
There was a recent poll on http://slashdot.org (a tech website) titled: Why will you vote in the next election. The options were:

No reason, really
Hate the incumbent
Love the incumbent
Hate the challenger
Love the challenger
Civic Duty
Pride
To get the "I Voted" bumpersticker

The stats(with 24,281 votes:

No reason, really - 5%
Hate the incumbent - 44%
Love the incumbent - 6%
Hate the challenger - 5%
Love the challenger - 1%
Civic Duty - 24%
Pride - 2%
Just wanted to get the "I Voted" bumpersticker - 9%

44% will vote because they hate George W. Bush.
1% will vote because they love John Kerry.


What has this country come to? We hate the man in office so much that we'll vote for anyone else regardless of their beliefs, morals, or ability, or lack thereof?

It's a damn shame that Shamalama or Peckery aren't running, then we would have someone to vote FOR! tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 17-Jun-2004, 09:33 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 16-Jun-2004, 06:21 PM)

It's a damn shame that Shamalama or Peckery aren't running, then we would have someone to vote FOR! tongue.gif


Oh my heavens. You young'uns couldn't handle all the skeletons in my closet if I were to run for any office.

Clinton and Monica were child's play compared to me.

shocking.gif

There was a time when there were true statesmen that felt a calling to represent the people. Sort of like a preacher, doctor, or teacher. Today it's all about special interests, power, and money. More akin to organized crime than what the Founding Fathers envisioned.


Posted by: maisky 18-Jun-2004, 04:21 AM
MY HERO!!!! biggrin.gif

Why don't we form the DOM* party? biggrin.gif

*Dirty Old Men

Posted by: Herrerano 22-Jun-2004, 10:46 AM
Here is a study on, well, what else, Media Bias. I know maisky will grind his teeth all the way through this, oh well, personally, it being a rather long article, I slept through most of it myself. tongue.gif

29 pages guys, pack a lunch. biggrin.gif


A Measure of Media Bias
Tim Groseclose
Department of Political Science, UCLA, and
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
Jeff Milyo
Harris School of Public Policy
University of Chicago

http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppe/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf


Leo cool.gif

Posted by: maisky 22-Jun-2004, 03:21 PM
QUOTE (Herrerano @ 22-Jun-2004, 11:46 AM)
Here is a study on, well, what else, Media Bias. I know maisky will grind his teeth all the way through this, oh well, personally, it being a rather long article, I slept through most of it myself. tongue.gif

29 pages guys, pack a lunch. biggrin.gif


A Measure of Media Bias
Tim Groseclose
Department of Political Science, UCLA, and
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
Jeff Milyo
Harris School of Public Policy
University of Chicago

http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppe/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf


Leo cool.gif

Does this mean you want to join the DOM party, too? biggrin.gif

Posted by: gtrplr 22-Jun-2004, 04:11 PM
QUOTE
Why don't we form the DOM* party? biggrin.gif

*Dirty Old Men


Too late, maisky. I'm already a charter member! laugh.gif

Posted by: maisky 22-Jun-2004, 08:16 PM
The latest on the Shrub administration's much touted "success" in the war on terror.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government restated its 2003 accounting of terrorist attacks Tuesday, reporting a sharp increase in the number of significant attacks and more than doubling its initial count of those killed.

The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high.

"We have 18 more total events, five more significant events and 13 more nonsignificant events than originally reported," said Cofer Black, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator. "These new figures are accompanied by a dramatic increase in the numbers of casualties originally calculated."

The number of attacks originally reported was the lowest total since 1969, but Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier this month that the reported decline was incorrect.

Researchers Alan B. Krueger of Princeton University and David Laitin of Stanford University reported in May that the number of significant attacks represented a 36 percent increase over 2001, up from 124 that year.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California has suggested the numbers were being "manipulated" to serve the Bush administration's political interests.

The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.

"For the past two weeks now, we have had a major effort under way within the State Department to get to the bottom of the data error and determine what corrections were appropriate and to make those corrections so we could show those corrections to the American people," Powell said Tuesday.

Powell previously blamed the erroneous conclusions on mistakes, not political pressure.

Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."

The information was compiled by the CIA and the Terrorist Threat Information Center, which includes officials from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA.

John Brennan, director of the federal Terrorist Threat Integration Center, said a database error caused his agency to provide incomplete statistics to the CIA. The CIA then passed those incomplete numbers along to the State Department.

Brennan said he took responsibility for the error, but "Anyone who might assert that our numbers were intentionally skewed is mistaken."


BULL!!! More lies.

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Jun-2004, 11:45 AM
Last Thursday?s New York Times headline told us that the 9/11 Commission found "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post insisted that the "Al Qaeda-Hussein link is dismissed."

But what last Wednesday's commission statement actually said was that the panel had discovered "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." And both the co-chairs of the panel?one Republican, one Democrat?have stressed that the interim report did not dispute the White House?s argument about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Saddam's possible role in 9/11 had little to do with the case for war in Iraq. The point there was to prevent another 9/11 from new terrorists, be they Saddam-supported or not.

Did the administration make Iraq's substantial terrorist ties, including to al Qaeda, one of the primary reasons for going to war? Of course. But did the administration try to pin 9/11 on Saddam? No. And when a Liberal tries to tell you so, he's lying.

The lead of the Times' Page One story reads like a John Kerry press release: "The staff of the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a 'collaborative relationship' between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

What the Times neglected to mention was that the commission wrote that bin Laden personally had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Sudan in 1994. Hardly an insignificant detail, particularly when it's all in the same paragraph of the commission report.

The Washington Post was as biased: Its lead sentence announced that the report's single paragraph on Iraq "challeng[ed] one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." Except that, as I already noted, Bush didn't use Saddam's role in 9/11 as a "justification" for the war. What Bush did do was, correctly, argue that Saddam's ongoing contacts with al Qaeda posed an unacceptable threat.

It's bias, folks. Pure, unadulterated bias. The editors at these media outlets are determined to do absolutely everything they can to turn the public against George Bush during this election year. They're going to be voting for Kerry, and they want you to vote for him also.

Posted by: barddas 24-Jun-2004, 01:40 PM
Something from my neck of the world. Does this mean that Mr. Bush is wearing blinders, dillusional or just not informed with proper information??? You decide smile.gif

Cheers


http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/24/loc_loc1abush.html

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 24-Jun-2004, 05:56 PM
QUOTE (barddas @ 24-Jun-2004, 02:40 PM)
Does this mean that Mr. Bush is wearing blinders, dillusional or just not informed with proper information??? You decide smile.gif

My vote goes for delusional.

Posted by: maisky 24-Jun-2004, 06:44 PM
Georgie's inability to accept ANY responsibility for ANY of his messups points to delusional. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 25-Jun-2004, 12:16 PM
The Associated Press sued the Pentagon and the Air Force on Tuesday, seeking access to all records of George W. Bush's military service during the Vietnam War.

Filed in federal court in New York, where the AP is headquartered, the lawsuit seeks access to a copy of Bush's microfilmed personnel file from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in Austin.

The White House says the government has already released all the records of Bush's military service.

OK. Fine and dandy. But will the AP ever sue the Pentagon seeking access to all records of John Kerry's military service during the Vietnam War?

Why not?


Posted by: maisky 25-Jun-2004, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 25-Jun-2004, 01:16 PM)
The Associated Press sued the Pentagon and the Air Force on Tuesday, seeking access to all records of George W. Bush's military service during the Vietnam War.

Filed in federal court in New York, where the AP is headquartered, the lawsuit seeks access to a copy of Bush's microfilmed personnel file from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in Austin.

The White House says the government has already released all the records of Bush's military service.

OK. Fine and dandy. But will the AP ever sue the Pentagon seeking access to all records of John Kerry's military service during the Vietnam War?

Why not?

Because Kerry wasn't a deserting draft dodger? biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 29-Jun-2004, 12:26 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 25-Jun-2004, 07:33 PM)

Because Kerry wasn't a deserting draft dodger? biggrin.gif


And Kerry didn't fake his Purple Stars? rolleyes.gif

There's all this buzz about Bush lying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The liberals blast Bush's assertion that al Qaeda and Iraq have been linked for years.

OK, so why doesn't anyone cry out "Clinton lied"? Well, we all know that he DID lie to a federal grand jury, but what did Clinton say about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq?

---

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

---

If Bush lied, then so did a bunch of other people over the last several years. Or maybe it's the case that Bush didn't really lie.

The media outlets are determined to do absolutely everything they can to turn the public against George Bush during this election year.


Posted by: Shamalama 30-Jun-2004, 10:02 AM
Following the formal handover of sovereignty to Baghdad, 15 Iraqi and Iraqi-American groups have issued an open letter to the American people, thanking them for the sacrifices they endured to liberate their country.

The letter will be delivered to President Bush at the White House today and published in a full page ad in USA Today.

"Just as we mourn for the victims of Saddam's regime, we also grieve for the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or injured during the liberation or by terrorists determined to hold us back," the letter reads. "We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism."

The groups express the Iraqi people's hopes as they transition to democracy and calls for continued cooperation and friendship between the two nations.

It concludes: "As Iraqis assume full sovereignty over our nation, we extend our hands in friendship and gratitude to the American people."

"The sacrifices your sons and daughters made for our liberation will never be forgotten. Without those brave young men and women, this day might never have come."

The letter was organized by the Iraq-America Friendship Alliance

---

Watch and see how much the media covers this story. Or how little. Remember the template: if it makes Bush look good, then bury the story; if it makes Bush look bad, then run it daily.



Posted by: Shamalama 01-Jul-2004, 01:48 PM
Ugh. Either the media is completely ignorant, or they're liars, or they simply want Bush out of office.

NBC?s Tom Brokaw introduced his interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi by marveling at how he "still believes that Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda." When Allawi expressed that view during the interview aired on Monday?s NBC Nightly News, Brokaw scoffed and corrected him: "Prime Minister, I?m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission in America says there is no evidence of a 'collaborative relationship? between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaeda." But Allawi stood his ground: "I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaeda. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can?t vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists."

(1.) There is growing evidence that there has been a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda for years. Even Allawi recognizes that. Saddam and al Qaeda are parts in the overall war on terror.
(2.) There is no evidence that there has been a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Al Qaeda hit the World Trade Towers, not Saddam. We -might- discover a link later, but there's nothing today to link Saddam with 9/11.

We went to Iraq for the war on terror, not 9/11. Bush has never said nor implied that Iraq was connected to 9/11. Period. Non-debatable. So Brokaw's statement of "I?m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is factually incorrect in that Allawi never said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq; he said "Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda." Al Qaeda, in their jihad against America, is quilty of far more than just 9/11; 9/11 was just "the straw that broke the camel's back".

Again, either the media is completely ignorant, or they're liars, or they simply want Bush out of office. Either way NBC?s Tom Brokaw is not broadcasting the news, but rather an agenda.

Posted by: MDF3530 01-Jul-2004, 05:21 PM
QUOTE
Again, either the media is completely ignorant, or they're liars, or they simply want Bush out of office.  Either way NBC?s Tom Brokaw is not broadcasting the news, but rather an agenda.


This is the same tactic that the GOP media arm of Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox "News", and the Washington Times used against Clinton. What's the matter, you don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Jul-2004, 01:26 PM
It's hard for me to comment about then, because (gasp) I was actually hoping that Clinton hadn't lied to the federal grand jury. I didn't think 'ole Bill was that bad of a guy until he sat in front of a TV screen and told me (and the other 250,000,000 of us) that he didn't diddle with a 20-year-old intern, and that his testimony was factual. I watched that telecast, and I remember turning to my bride and saying, "He just drew a line in the sand."

Lo, and behold, Drudge was right. Several media outlets knew of the story months earlier and had buried it. Some people think that's lying.

Today these same media outlets are still bending, distorting, and hiding the truth, Tom Brokaw included. Some people think that's lying.

Brokaw purposefully twisted Allawi's words to suit Brokaw's own aganda. That is not a characteristic of a journalist.

"Prime Minister, I?m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq." Tommie Boy, Allawi never said there was a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

"The 9/11 Commission in America says there is no evidence of a 'collaborative relationship? between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaeda." Tommie Boy, the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, said "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that." Even Clinton, twice, publically claimed there was an al Qaeda-Iraq connection.

Tom, you're supposed to be Journalist #1 at NBC news and you can't even get these two facts straight? Or are you lying? Or do you simply want Bush out of office so bad that you'll do 'whatever it takes'?

It's not news. It's an agenda. Whether it's a "taste of my own medicine" or not, it's still lying, and it's still wrong.

Whatever happened to telling the ENTIRE truth and letting the people decide for themselves? What are NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN scared of?


Posted by: MDF3530 02-Jul-2004, 04:05 PM
QUOTE
Whatever happened to telling the ENTIRE truth and letting the people decide for themselves?  What are NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN scared of?


They are telling the whole truth and people are deciding for themselves.

NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are scared of the same thing most intelligent people are of: FOUR MORE YEARS OF AN INCOMPETENT MIDDLE-AGED FRATBOY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Posted by: maisky 03-Jul-2004, 11:10 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 02-Jul-2004, 05:05 PM)

They are telling the whole truth and people are deciding for themselves.

NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are scared of the same thing most intelligent people are of: FOUR MORE YEARS OF AN INCOMPETENT MIDDLE-AGED FRATBOY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

You forgot "Draft Dodger, Deserter and War Criminal". biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 03-Jul-2004, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 03-Jul-2004, 12:10 PM)
You forgot "Draft Dodger, Deserter and War Criminal". biggrin.gif

Sorry, my bad biggrin.gif tongue.gif .

Posted by: Shamalama 06-Jul-2004, 01:27 PM
?It is one of President Bush?s last surviving justifications for war in Iraq and today it took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no ?collaborative relationship? between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden....The report is yet another blow to the President?s credibility.? ? John Roberts on the June 16 CBS Evening News.

Peter Jennings: ?One of the Bush administration?s most controversial assertions in its argument for war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda. Today the 9/11 Commission said, unequivocally, not so....?
Terry Moran: ?After the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined President Bush?s main argument for going to war, this new finding by the 9/11 Commission challenges his case on another front.? ? ABC?s World News Tonight, June 16.

?The 9/11 Commission also has come to some conclusions about the link, or the absence of it, between Iraq and al-Qaeda....The Commission is sharply at odds with what leading members of the administration continue to claim.? ? Tom Brokaw on the June 16 NBC Nightly News.

?Memo to the Vice President: 9/11 Commission finds, quote, ?no credible evidence,? unquote, of any link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.? ? MSNBC?s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, June 16.

?Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.? ? Front-page headline in the New York Times, June 17.

?Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed.? ? Headline in the June 17 Washington Post.

?Everything?s been built on lies. Everything! I mean, the entire pre-text for war.? ? Former 60 Minutes correspondent Meredith Vieira, now a co-host of ABC?s The View, June 17.


::::::AND NOW THE TRUTH:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

These were the two top members of the 9/11 Commission at a June 17 press conference. Maybe they should have sent an email to CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Did CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post simply make an honest mistake? Sloppy journalism? A rush to publish?

Or did CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post already know the findings and chose instead to lie? The ends justify the means when you're demanding anybody but Bush, huh?

"They are telling the whole truth and people are deciding for themselves." Oh please. And Clinton didn't inhale.


Posted by: Shamalama 06-Jul-2004, 01:45 PM
The media has a left slant. The numbers show it, and more American's are realizing it.

- The Brookings Institution?s Stephen Hess surveyed the Washington press corps in 1978 for his aptly-titled book, The Washington Reporters. More than twice as many journalists told Hess they were liberal (42 percent) as said they were conservative (19 percent). As for the public, even back in 1978 self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals by a 31 to 26 percent margin, according to the General Social Survey taken annually by the National Opinion Research Center.

- A pair of Indiana University journalism professors, David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, surveyed more than 1,000 journalists for their 1986 book, The American Journalist. Their poll included more than just top reporters, and, overall, they detected only a modest skew towards the liberal side of the spectrum ? 22 percent of those interviewed called themselves liberal, compared with 19 percent who said they were conservative. But among 136 executives and staffers at ?prominent news organizations? ? the three weekly newsmagazines, the AP and UPI wire services and the Boston Globe ? the tilt was much more pronounced, with liberals outnumbering conservatives by a more than two-to-one margin (32 to 12 percent). Only six percent of this group identified themselves as Republican, compared with seven times as many (43 percent) who said they were Democrats.

- When the Los Angeles Times polled journalists around the country in 1985, 55 percent were willing to call themselves liberal, far outstripping the 17 percent who said they were conservative.

- In 1992, Weaver and Wilhoit conducted another national survey of journalists, and noticed the group had moved farther to the left. Writing in the Fall 1992 Media Studies Journal, they pointed out that 47 percent of journalists now said they were ?liberal,? while only 22 percent labeled themselves as ?conservative.?

- The Freedom Forum?s 1996 poll of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found 61 percent labeled themselves as ?liberal? or ?liberal to moderate,? compared with only nine percent who chose either ?conservative? or ?moderate to conservative.?

- As for the notion that business reporters might be more conservative than their brethren on the political beat, that possibility was put to rest by a 1988 poll by a New-York based newsletter, The Journalist and Financial Reporting. The survey of 151 business reporters from newspapers such as the New York Times and USA Today, and business-focused magazines such as Money, Fortune and BusinessWeek, discovered six times as many self-identified Democrats as Republicans ? 54 percent versus nine percent.

- In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers. They learned that newsrooms were more ideologically unrepresentative than they had been in the late 1980s: ?In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988,? when the ASNE last conducted a comprehensive survey. Those identifying themselves as independent jumped from 17 to 24 percent while the percent calling themselves ?liberal/Democrat? or leaning left held steady, down one point to 61 percent.

- In the July/August 2001 edition of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research?s journal Public Perspective, Washington Post national political reporter Thomas Edsall summarized the results of a poll of 301 media professionals taken earlier that year by Princeton Survey Research Associates (PRSA) and sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation. ?The media diverge from both the public and from the policymaking community in terms of partisanship and ideology,? Edsall reported. ?Only a tiny fraction of the media identifies itself as either Republican (4 percent) or conservative (6 percent). This is in direct contrast to the public, which identifies itself as 28 percent Republican and 35 percent conservative.?

- In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a survey of 547 journalists and news media executives, including 247 who worked for national news organizations. The poll reprised many of the questions asked by the same group (then called the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) back in 1995. Pew found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just four percent in 1995, seven percent in 2004. As for local reporters, liberals outnumbered conservatives by a nearly two-to-one margin (23 to 12 percent).

- A Pew survey conducted in the final weeks of the 2000 campaign showed further deterioration in the media?s public image. According to the report, ?over the past eight years, there has been an increase in the number of voters who say that reporters often allow their political preferences to shape news coverage. Fully 57 percent of voters hold that view now, compared to 49 percent in September 1992. Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) say that journalists at least sometimes let their political views affect coverage, while just 9 percent say this seldom or never occurs.? As the earlier surveys had shown, much more of the public detected a pro-liberal tilt than a pro-conservative skew in the press. ?Twice as many voters [47 percent] say the media is pulling for a Gore victory compared to those who think the media is hoping for a Bush win [23 percent],?the survey revealed.

- A Gallup poll conducted in February 2003 asked whether, ?In general, do you think the news media are ? too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?? As the other polls had discovered, far more respondents identified liberal bias as the problem (45 percent) as worried about a conservative tilt (15 percent), while just 36 percent said coverage was about right.

- In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation?s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats: "Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent."

Bottom line: most of the media, televised, printed, and published online, have a distinctive liberal slant in their reporting. Their views shape what you see or read. Their facts, or those facts left out, help shape what the viewers read and hear. The media has an agenda, one that mainstream America doesn't have.


Posted by: maisky 06-Jul-2004, 04:22 PM
As near as I can make out: Anybody who is smart/and/or educated leans to the left. biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 06-Jul-2004, 05:04 PM
How about using numbers from today of the supposed "liberal" media, rather than numbers that are 25 or 30 years old?

BTW, the reporters report. It's the editors that decide what make it to print.

Posted by: Shamalama 07-Jul-2004, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 06-Jul-2004, 07:04 PM)

[SIZE=4]How about using numbers from today of the supposed "liberal" media, rather than numbers that are 25 or 30 years old?SIZE]


???

- In the July/August 2001 edition ...
- In May 2004 ...
- the final weeks of the 2000 campaign ...
- in February 2003 ...

I tried to get a cross section of the last 30 years, both recent and past. Did I not succeed?

QUOTE
Anybody who is smart and/or educated leans to the left.


Geez, that darn Brother Maisky is trying his best to make me pop an artery. Nah, the statements are all of the media, not of doctors/lawyers/scientists, etc. The only logical conclusion that can be made is to media types, not smart or educated (since it's neither the case that 'all smart/educated are media types', or 'all media types are smart/educated'; Logic 101: subset P != subset Q). Nice try, but it missed "just a bit to the left".


Posted by: Shamalama 07-Jul-2004, 11:20 AM
Here's an example FROM TODAY of the supposed "liberal" media, rather than using any numbers that are 25 or 30 years old.

Four years ago, the networks immediately pounced on the conservative ideology of George W. Bush?s pick for Vice President, Dick Cheney. In the first 24 hours after Bush announced his choice, CBS alone tagged Cheney as "a bedrock conservative," "a rock-solid conservative" with a "a solidly conservative voting record" and a man whose ?politics are of the hard-right variety." But in the hours following John Kerry?s announcement that he selected John Edwards as his running mate, despite the fact that National Journal rated Edwards the fourth most liberal Senator for 2003, a focus on his ideology was absent from network coverage this morning.

Instead of hearing this morning about the liberalness of either Kerry or Edwards, CBS?s Harry Smith characterized Kerry?s announcement speech as "right down the middle." The middle? Coming from one of the most liberal senators in the US?

Earlier, at 7:45am EDT, reporter Byron Pitts gushed about the Edwards pick: "When you talk to Democrats 'Who would you like?' by far the name you hear most often is John Edwards. He's 51 years old, in 2000 People Magazine selected him the sexiest politician in America. He is a newcomer but he is by no means a novice to this business. He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he is considered one of the best debaters on the Senate floor, as you know, Harry, as a trial lawyer."

Here's a comparison from 2000 when the discussion was on Cheney. Note that this is all from just one day: Wednesday, July 26, 2000:

ABC: Linda Douglass referred to him as one of the "most conservative members" of Congress who had "a very conservative voting record." Diane Sawyer sighed that while he "doesn't look fire-breathing," he's "very conservative." George Stephanopoulos dubbed him a "very hardline conservative."

CBS: Bill Whitaker managed three different adjectives, tagging Cheney "a bedrock conservative" and "a rock-solid conservative" with a "a solidly conservative voting record." Whitaker also relayed how Democrats are "planning to paint him as too far right and wrong for the country." Plus, Bryant Gumbel put Cheney outside the mainstream: "Cheney's politics are of the hard-right variety."

NBC: Tom Brokaw noted Cheney's "stellar conservative credentials" before Anne Thompson stressed his "very conservative record." Lisa Myers agreed, recalling his days in Congress: "His voting record? Very conservative."

ABC's Linda Douglass offered only one expert opinion on Cheney's days in Congress and she insisted "he was on the far right." Douglass stressed how "he was one of the few to vote against more funds for the Older Americans Act, services for the elderly." Douglass reported that Cheney grew rich running Halliburton while consumers were getting screwed: "Records show he sold some of his holdings for $5 million last June, just as oil prices were skyrocketing and consumers were paying a premium at the pump."

CBS's Dan Rather stressed how Democrats "blast Cheney's voting record in Congress as again quote ?outside the American mainstream' because of Cheney's votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman's right to choose abortion..." CBS also featured a soundbite from Democratic Senator Tom Daschle putting Cheney on "the far right."

Just in the above references I count 11 "conservative" or "right". I challenge anyone at CelticRadio to find 11 references of "liberal" or "left" about Edwards from Tuesday's major media newscasts. You can't - because NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN have a specific agenda that destroys any attempt at fair and balanced: getting a liberal into the White House.

Posted by: MDF3530 07-Jul-2004, 04:04 PM
QUOTE
Just in the above references I count 11 "conservative" or "right".  I challenge anyone at CelticRadio to find 11 references of "liberal" or "left" about Edwards from Tuesday's major media newscasts.  You can't - because NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN have a specific agenda that destroys any attempt at fair and balanced: getting a liberal into the White House.


As if Fox "News" Channel, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the ChicagoTribune, and the vast majority of political talk radio don't?

Posted by: Fran19 07-Jul-2004, 09:04 PM
Hi Guys - I hope I can jump in on this and not be rude.

Mike - You're so used to the slant from CNN, etc, that Fox reporting the news in a fair and balanced manner seems right leaning to you. It's not. It's simply the news, as it was meant to be.

As to the WSJ, their reporting and opinions are slanted towards what is good for the economy. Since the socialism that liberals promote is terrible for the economy, the stories presenting the facts will naturally present a case that is against whatever the liberal policy of the moment is.

With talk radio, I believe you are confusing your issues. Talk radio has never presented itself as anything but opinion, whether it is the host's or the caller's. The major news networks present their stories as facts - the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is this disingenuousness that irritates me, and apparently many others.

Posted by: maisky 08-Jul-2004, 04:40 AM
QUOTE (Fran19 @ 07-Jul-2004, 10:04 PM)
Hi Guys - I hope I can jump in on this and not be rude.



If you don't want to be rude, you are in the wrong forum. laugh.gif The Cooking forum is a different catagory, where you aren't supposed to be rude. You ARE welcome here. biggrin.gif


Posted by: Fran19 08-Jul-2004, 07:33 PM
Thanks, maisky. I will do my best to offend and irritate you!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: maisky 08-Jul-2004, 08:25 PM
QUOTE (Fran19 @ 08-Jul-2004, 08:33 PM)
Thanks, maisky. I will do my best to offend and irritate you!! biggrin.gif

THANK YOU!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 09-Jul-2004, 02:26 PM
QUOTE (Fran19 @ 07-Jul-2004, 11:04 PM)

The major news networks present their stories as facts - the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is this disingenuousness that irritates me, and apparently many others.


That's the key. Good job Brother Fran19. And don't worry about "being rude" - I've already paved that road.

NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are considered to be the major mainstream news outlets. Fox News Channel, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Chicago Tribune are single players.

Talk radio depends on callers to sustain their show, and provide debate, something liberal talk shows cannot handle. Liberalism cannot survive open debate.

And the AP certainly can't be claimed to be conservative. No way.


Posted by: maisky 09-Jul-2004, 04:08 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 09-Jul-2004, 03:26 PM)
Liberalism cannot survive open debate.


lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

The Right Wing talk radio shows can HARDLY be called debate. laugh.gif

Posted by: High Plains Drifter 12-Jul-2004, 10:39 AM
"S" are trying to tell me that Dick Cheney is not a hardline conservative. I'm willing to admit where I'm at, left of center. If Cheney is conservative, then the reporting was correct in his case and since "liberal" been turned into a slur by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram and the rest of the reactionaries who have the talk shows that are forced down our throats, then to call somebody liberal would be akin to calling them Communist. Again I find it interesting that when example of the ultra-conservative media are pointed out, the conservatives are quick to call it good reporting.

Posted by: Shamalama 12-Jul-2004, 03:45 PM
QUOTE (High Plains Drifter @ 12-Jul-2004, 12:39 PM)

...the talk shows that are forced down our throats...


???

I haven't heard a talk show for days, and certainly nothing has been forced down my throat (especially since I finished off that bottle of Laphroaig - yeah, it was forced at times blink.gif )

I do believe the term "reactionaries" can be applied equally to the left and the right. You say Limbaugh, I say MoveOn.org.

"...since "liberal" been turned into a slur..." Oh my heavens. I didn't know that the cons had that much reign over the english language. Do you mean anything like "...since "conservative" been turned into a slur..." by CBS?

"...call somebody liberal would be akin to calling them Communist." Yeah, I've been accusing Brother Maisky of that for months now. He just won't admit it. Right Comrade?


Posted by: gtrplr 12-Jul-2004, 04:33 PM
Let's face it. There are fanatics on both sides of the aisle. Rush likes to paint liberals as "pinko-left-wingers" and MoveOn.org sees conservatives as "a vast-right-wing-conspiracy".

They're both right. And wrong.

I have both liberal and conservative friends (side note: I count both Shamalama and Maisky as friends, although I've never met either in the real world, only here in the forums.) and we agree and disagree on various issues.

I don't believe W. is evil.

I don't believe Kerry is evil, either.

But for the record, I don't believe Kerry would make a good president. After looking at his Senate voting record, I simply can't bring myself to vote for him. His voting record on 2nd Amendment issues is enough by itself.

So am I voting for Bush. No.

My choice? http://www.badnarik.org/

Media Bias? Try to find something about Badnarik in the media. Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Edwards, Nader? Yep. Anyone else, no.

Choice? Not much.

My choice? Badnarik.

Sorry if this rambles, it's been a rough day.

Posted by: Shamalama 13-Jul-2004, 10:57 AM
I have strong disagreements with a few of Badnarik's positions, but gtrplr has made one very important observation:

"Media Bias? Try to find something about Badnarik in the media. Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Edwards, Nader? Yep. Anyone else, no."

Until the Libertarians get 20% of the vote they will never get any media coverage. And even then all they'll get is "Aren't you the people that want to legalize marijuana?" and skip over every other issue. Sad.



Posted by: gtrplr 13-Jul-2004, 11:56 AM
I don't agree with Badnarik on every issue. I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, for instance.

(sidebar: Since the bible says that God considers homosexuality an abomination, and God ordained marriage, I don't consider either gays or lesbians married, regardless of what anyone or any government says. If they aren't married in the sight of God, they aren't married. Period. Just my humble opinion, your mileage may vary.)

However, I agree with him on enough issues (2nd amendment, war on drugs, income tax, just to name a few) that I can vote for him with no problem.

BTW, I highly recommend http://www.reviewjournal.com/columnists/suprynowicz.html June 27 column. Of course, I highly recommend just about anything Vin writes.

Posted by: Shamalama 19-Jul-2004, 01:16 PM
What a grueling interview.

Look at the questions below:

"What were you like as a kid?"
"Was there ever any doubt about you going to college even though neither of your parents did?"
"Tell me about your wife. Where did you meet her?"
"Why did you want to be a lawyer?"
"I gather you were a hell of a lawyer."
"I gather you?ve never been short of confidence."

These are all of the questions Peter Jennings was shown asking John Edwards, the person who would be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, in an interview played on the July 7 World News Tonight. This would not happen to either Bush or Cheney.

Posted by: Shamalama 19-Jul-2004, 01:17 PM
And maybe a bit of honesty?

"Let?s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they?re going to portray Kerry and Edwards ? I?m talking about the establishment media, not Fox ? but they?re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There?s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that?s going to be worth maybe 15 points."

That was Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas on the July 10 edition of Inside Washington.


Posted by: maisky 19-Jul-2004, 04:09 PM
I was trying to post a link. I will try again later. Sorry to disappoint.

Posted by: Shamalama 20-Jul-2004, 02:27 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jul-2004, 06:09 PM)

I was trying to post a link. I will try again later. Sorry to disappoint.


Don't worry Brother Maisky. I'll hold a place at the table fer ya. We're serving catfish and brunswick stew.

Posted by: gtrplr 20-Jul-2004, 02:29 PM
Mind if I join you? I love catfish. I'll bring the ice cream.

Posted by: maisky 20-Jul-2004, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (gtrplr @ 20-Jul-2004, 03:29 PM)
Mind if I join you? I love catfish. I'll bring the ice cream.

I'll bring the beer! biggrin.gif beer_mug.gif

Posted by: gtrplr 21-Jul-2004, 09:54 AM
Just found this: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4782.shtml

Researchers Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago did some work on media bias, and this article decribes their findings. One paragraph jumped out at me:

The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take into account that the Times is much further from the center than Fox. "To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York Times."

Interesting.


Posted by: Shamalama 26-Jul-2004, 10:53 AM
Just a tidbit I noticed today:

This morning on NBC's "Perky Katie and Still-In-The-Closet Matt Show" (a.k.a. The Today Show) Katic Couric did a live interview with Ted Kennedy relating to the Democratic Convention in Boston and how the Kennedy family is from Boston.

In the background flashed images of elder Kennedys, certainly including JFK, although they didn't show any pictures of Ted's drowned mistresses. But the thing I noticed most is that during the ENTIRE interview Katie was constantly giving her trademake "cute/happy" smile. She was absolutely enjoying herself. She looked like a schoolgirl that had just gotten her first kiss.

I wonder if, during the Republican Convention, she will emote in the same way when interviewing someone like Cheney or Rumsfield?

The Mainstream media loves the Liberals.


Posted by: Shamalama 26-Jul-2004, 11:02 AM
According to the Drudge Report (so take it as you will):

USAToday has comissioned the conservative Ann Coulter to write a column from the Democratic Convention.

USAToday has comissioned the liberal Michael Moore to write a column from the Republican Convention.

This ought to be quite tasty.

BUT...

Coulter filed her first report from Boston Sunday night, only to be told hours later that editors found it "unusable" and "not funny." Let's see if Tuesday's column is printed. Let's see if any of Moore's columns are spiked.

If this happened to Moore would he be crying "First Amendment!"?

Fair and balanced?


Posted by: birddog20002001 26-Jul-2004, 11:23 AM
QUOTE
USAToday has comissioned the conservative Ann Coulter to write a column from the Democratic Convention.

USAToday has comissioned the liberal Michael Moore to write a column from the Republican Convention.


Hilarity should ensue for both conventions, but Coulter like so many conservatives is not known for her sense of humor just mostly for being a lovely but very bitter female lawyer.

I feel that is the one of the main failures of Conservatives they just aren't light hearted or very joyful, I mean name one, McCain a Rino (Republican in Name Only) and Powell (known for a recent performance amongst ambassadors portraying the construction worker and singing the YMCA; or being asked several years ago who is your favorite band, he answered ABBA, hell I got more soul than that and I'm just a GoB.

Just not funny Neo-Cons
Rumsfeld
Ridge
Cheney
Ashcroft
Rice (she is so not funny they named an Exxon tanker after her.


Posted by: Shamalama 28-Jul-2004, 03:16 PM
It should have been Dennis Miller at the Democratic convention. I like him (mostly).

Coulter is way too edgy to be in USAToday. Talk radio, conservative publications - OK. I enjoy her writing, but then I liked ABBA too. biggrin.gif If I am served more than 3 or 4 wee drams you MIGHT see me on the table singing "Take A Chance On Me".




Posted by: MDF3530 28-Jul-2004, 06:09 PM
I don't believe much of what Matt Drudge says. Most of his "news reports" are actually thinly veiled anti-liberal rants. I'll give you the conservative news story chain. It starts with Drudge and "American Spectator". It is then reported by Fox "News" Channel, the New York Post, and the Washington Times. From there, it ends up being repeated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on their syndicated radio shows, and in the case of O'Lielly and Coulter, their syndicated columns. Then, it finally ends up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune.

Posted by: Shamalama 29-Jul-2004, 10:45 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 28-Jul-2004, 08:09 PM)
I don't believe much of what Matt Drudge says. Most of his "news reports" are actually thinly veiled anti-liberal rants. I'll give you the conservative news story chain. It starts with Drudge and "American Spectator". It is then reported by Fox "News" Channel, the New York Post, and the Washington Times. From there, it ends up being repeated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on their syndicated radio shows, and in the case of O'Lielly and Coulter, their syndicated columns. Then, it finally ends up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune.

My, oh my.

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is a powerful, demonic beast, ain't it.



Posted by: Shamalama 29-Jul-2004, 11:42 AM
Last night on CBS, Dan Rather once again proved why he was a shill for the left. Right after John Edwards got done speaking and Rather and Bob Schieffer were conversing on the air, Rather delivered this line: "We know that after considerable consideration, the Bush/Cheney campaign decided to send Vice President Cheney out this week as a kind of hitman for their side."

Hitman?

That's right - he called the Vice President of the United States a hitman.

Of course, this is just Rather being his usual Bush-hating self. But think for a moment and ask yourself: what if a Republican had called a sitting Democratic Vice President a hitman? It would be all over the headlines, with people demanding that person's apology or resignation. But not when it comes to demonizing Cheney - that's allowed.

Dan Rather has always been a big liberal. He just doesn't hide it anymore. He can't hide it anymore.

Posted by: maisky 29-Jul-2004, 04:38 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 29-Jul-2004, 12:42 PM)
Last night on CBS, Dan Rather once again proved why he was a shill for the left. Right after John Edwards got done speaking and Rather and Bob Schieffer were conversing on the air, Rather delivered this line: "We know that after considerable consideration, the Bush/Cheney campaign decided to send Vice President Cheney out this week as a kind of hitman for their side."

Hitman?

That's right - he called the Vice President of the United States a hitman.

Of course, this is just Rather being his usual Bush-hating self. But think for a moment and ask yourself: what if a Republican had called a sitting Democratic Vice President a hitman? It would be all over the headlines, with people demanding that person's apology or resignation. But not when it comes to demonizing Cheney - that's allowed.

Dan Rather has always been a big liberal. He just doesn't hide it anymore. He can't hide it anymore.

What's the problem with calling a spade a spade? Cheney is NOT a hitman. He has other people who take care of that stuff. biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 29-Jul-2004, 05:16 PM
This is from MoveOn.org. You can almost hear giant sucking sounds...


QUOTE

Dear MoveOn member,

Since Fox ?News? is unable to rebut the basic premise of ?Outfoxed,? its anchors have resorted to slamming the film?s technique. Fox News? convention correspondent Carl Cameron, who is portrayed in the movie sucking up to then-Governor Bush before an interview, complained ?It was an unfortunate piece of editing in the movie that gave a far worse impression than the reality.?

To counter this charge, director Robert Greenwald has released the entire footage of Cameron?s pre-interview moments with Bush, when he didn?t realize the tape was rolling. The full clip makes Cameron look even worse. He spends a full three minutes fawning over Bush. See this outrageous footage here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?539

All this bluster hides the serious fact that Fox ?News? allows political partisans like Cameron to do important journalistic interviews, even when there are blatant conflicts of interest.
This footage is a smoking gun?Fox ?News? is a Republican outlet, and the reporters make no bones about it. At most networks, even a perception of a conflict of interests is enough to reassign a reporter. In 2000, a CNN producer whose husband was a lawyer for Gore was told not to have anything to do with campaign coverage [1]. Last Thursday, the San Francisco Chronicle put its letters editor on leave for contributing $400 to the Kerry campaign [2]. Not so at Fox ?News?, where Cameron remained in charge of campaign coverage, including the exclusive interview with Bush, despite his wife?s involvement with the Bush campaign.

Do conflicts of interest really matter? Well, to take just one example, the head analyst of election results for Fox News in 2000 was John Ellis, Bush?s first cousin. On Mr. Ellis? advice, Fox News was the first to declare Bush the winner of Florida and the presidency. Ellis? call for Bush set off a cascade of similar calls by other networks, ultimately leading to the infamous Florida vote-counting controversy.

Blatant conflicts of interest like Cameron?s and Ellis? highlight an appalling lack of journalistic balance on the part of Fox ?News?. To permit such assignments is unprofessional and deceptive. It?s the sort of behavior that gives Fox News such a bad name.

Most news outlets would be embarrassed and apologetic. Fox News is smug and unrepentant. Worse, they are doing it again this election. Before we go any further, demand Fox ?News? reassign Carl Cameron from the conventions and choose a reporter without personal ties to one candidate:

Roger Ailes, CEO and Chairman
Fox ?News? Channel
(212) 301-3000

Of course, Fox ?News? is trying hard to deny its obvious partisanship. Both Cameron and Roger Ailes always cite a single story as proof that Fox ?News? doesn?t favor Republicans: the discovery of George W. Bush?s arrest for drunken driving in the final week of the 2000 election. Fox News takes credit for getting the scoop. Real journalists at Salon magazine, however, reveal that the story was discovered by a young reporter at a local Fox broadcast affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine, not the team at Fox ?News? Channel. Fox ?News? recently affirmed it has ?no editorial oversight? of any Fox affiliate [4]. Read the Salon story at:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/23/fox_dui_moveon/

P.S. Here?s the transcript of Cameron and Bush chatting:

CARL CAMERON: ?for Carl to say now ?Carl, you can?t tell this from the satellite feeds ?cause I know you?re in your desk in Washington, but, you know, Governor Bush does have a halo and wings, just take my word for it.? And how the hell would I know?
You having fun still?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, I?m doing great. I am.

CAMERON: You look like you?ve been dealing with Gore effectively, he?s, uh...

BUSH: Yeah, he?s punching a lot, you know.

CAMERON: But that gives you your chance to do your counter-punches.

BUSH: I think it does, it really does, I think I?m in pretty good shape. He?s evidently coming to state tomorrow to make a big thing.

CAMERON: I?m gonna ask you about it. San Antonio, talk about budget and health care and all that kind of stuff. It seems to me to be a total non-issue, I mean, you?ve got a surplus.

BUSH: We do have a surplus, and the comptroller, I don?t know if you know this.

CAMERON: I do.

BUSH: She coming out tomorrow again.

CAMERON: With...

BUSH: With a higher number.

CAMERON: Really. Are you prepared to talk about it?

BUSH: No, I don?t, I, uh uh.

CAMERON: Okay.

BUSH: I?m just giving you a heads up, so you?ll know.

CAMERON: My head is up.

BUSH: But I don?t know the number.

CAMERON: Okay.

BUSH: And she won?t tell anybody the number. It?s kind of a tradition in Texas.
CAMERON: Is she appointed, elected, what?s the deal there?

BUSH: Elected by the people.

CAMERON: Republican or Democrat?

BUSH: Republican.

CAMERON: That helps.

BUSH: Well, she?s independently elected.

CAMERON: Understood.

BUSH: She?s got a job to do.

CAMERON: Absolutely.

BUSH: And she?s not gonna give out numbers that aren?t real.

CAMERON: Okay.

BUSH: It?s not my, uh. Obviously if she were my accountant, it would take a little bit of credibility out of the process.

CAMERON: Sure, of course it would.

BUSH: Anyway, things are good. Your family?

CAMERON: Very well. My wife has been hanging out with your sister.

BUSH: Yeah, good, my county...

CAMERON: Doro?s been al over the state campaigning, and Pauline has been constantly with her. Umm.

BUSH: Doro is a good person.

CAMERON: Oh, and she?s been terrific. To hear Pauline tell it, when she first started campaigning for you, she was a little bit nervous.

BUSH: Yeah.

CAMERON: But now she?s up there.

BUSH: Getting her stride?

CAMERON: Doesn?t need notes, she?s going to crowds, and she?s got the whole riff down.

BUSH: She?s a good soul.

CAMERON: She?s having fun, too.

BUSH: She?s a really good soul.

CAMERON: Yesterday I ended up not working because my 10-year-old son went to basketball camp. First time he?s ever been away.

BUSH: And he did okay, I hope?

CAMERON: They put him in with 13-year-olds.

BUSH: Eww.

CAMERON: Who beat the hell out of him. So I had to take the day off.
BUSH: Physically?

CAMERON: Well, they didn?t like the snot nose 10-year-old.

BUSH: I mean, not beating.

CAMERON: Elbows.

BUSH: Yeah, that?s okay.

BUSH: But is he... Did he hold his own?

CAMERON: He wanted to quit at the end of Monday.

BUSH: Yeah.

CAMERON: So I had to go up there yesterday and sort of couch him off the tree. And have him say, look you know this is what it?s about. Think of Alan Iverson, think of Larry Bird.
BUSH: The fact that he?s there is amazing, though, for the 13-year-olds kids.
CAMERON: I played a lot in high school and college.

BUSH: Did you really?

CAMERON: Oh yeah.

BUSH: Did you have any moves?

CAMERON: I was, I was nominated for All-American.

BUSH: Oh come on!

CAMERON: Didn?t make it.

BUSH: Camerones! You were?

CAMERON: Absolutely.

BUSH: Fabulous! Hehe.

CAMERON: My high school coach was the, went on to be the assistant coach under Tommy Hineson for the Celtics.

BUSH: Really?

CAMERON: Yeah

BUSH: And where was this?

CAMERON: Melrose, Massachusetts. Just south of the New Hampshire border.

BUSH: Sure, I know Melrose.

CAMERON: So was...

BUSH: And you played college basketball?

CAMERON: Yeah.

BUSH: Did you really?

CAMERON: Well, well Division 2.

BUSH: That?s okay, but still.

CAMERON: Oh yeah, I was...

BUSH: Where was this?

CAMERON: Bates College.

BUSH: Sure, I know Bates.

CAMERON: I was uh, well, Lewiston, just north of Kennebunkport.

BUSH: Sure, I know Bates. Bates is a fabulous school. No, I know Bates. It?s a great school.

CAMERON: No, I was a hit man.

BUSH: You were the Tommy Hineson. Jim Luskatoff.

CAMERON: I was enforcer, that?s right. Exactly. Alright, you guys ready? Alright.

BUSH: That?s great.

CAMERON: Here we go, Governor. You see, the little things that get disclosed.

BUSH: I like that.

CAMERON: Thank you for joining us, sir.

BUSH: Yes, sir. Thanks, Carl. It?s good to see you again.

CAMERON: Just a few days away from the convention now, how important is it to you, what premium price do you put on a harmonious convention, and why?

BUSH: Well, this is an event, a big event in the course of a long campaign. You and I have been through several of them...

Sources:

[1]"Outfoxed", Dir. Robert Greenwald. Carolina Productions, 2004. http://www.outfoxed.org/
[2] http://www.freepress.net/news/4187
[3] http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=122948
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125437,00.html

Posted by: Shamalama 30-Jul-2004, 01:08 PM
Funny y'all should use the word "hitman".

---

Officials: Democrats? Biggest Money Man Has Mob Connections

By Brian Ross
ABCNEWS.com

BOSTON, July 28, 2004 ? As Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards arrived in Boston today for the Democratic National Convention, so did the California man who is their single biggest contributor.

He is Stephen Bing, a wealthy film producer who, with little fanfare, has managed to steer a total of more than $16 million of his money to Democratic candidates and the supposedly independent groups that support them.

Bing is perhaps best known for sparking a tabloid frenzy when he publicly expressed doubt that he was the father of actress Elizabeth Hurley's baby. (A paternity test proved he was indeed the father.) He repeatedly has refused to say why he is funneling millions of dollars to the Democrats.

In fact, Democratic Party officials said they knew nothing about the man who law enforcement officials tell ABC News is Bing's friend and business partner ? Dominic Montemarano, a New York Mafia figure currently in federal prison on racketeering charges.

Montemarano has a long criminal record and is known to organized crime investigators by his street name, Donnie Shacks.

"Donnie Shacks' main activity was murder. No question about it. That was his main function for the Colombo family and for organized crime in general. He was one of the top hit men in the New York area," said Joe Coffey, a former NYPD investigator.

According to The Los Angeles Times, Bing paid Montemarano's legal fees after his most recent scrape with the law. Montemerano's lawyer said his client was an employee of Bing's.

After a recent private lunch with Democratic vice-presidential candidate Edwards, Bing also declined to answer questions about his relationship with Montemarano.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/convention_stephen_bing_040728-1.html

---

Montemarano -> Stephen Bing -> John Kerry and John Edwards

I think I saw this episode on "Law & Order".

Vote for Kerry, or I'll dump your lifeless body in the Hudson River.


Posted by: maisky 30-Jul-2004, 01:12 PM
But I was ALREADY planning to vote for Kerry! tongue.gif
Tell me, do Cheney and his comic sidekick check the backgrounds of all of THEIR donors? Of course not. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 19-Aug-2004, 12:36 PM
The media will spend weeks going through pay stubs for Bush's National Guard service in Alabama in the waning days of war, but if Kerry tells them exotic tales of covert missions into Cambodia directed by Richard Nixon, they don't even bother to fact-check who was president in December 1968.

The Boston Globe biography of Kerry published earlier this year compliantly repeats Kerry's yarn about how he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia "despite President Nixon's assurances that there was no combat action in this neutral territory."

Huh? Kerry was 55 miles away from the Cambodian border on Christmas 1968, and Nixon wasn't president in 1968. But the major media never brought this fact-checking up.

Tom Harkin was shouting this week that Dick Cheney is a "coward," evidently for not fighting in Vietnam like Harkin. Except Harkin didn't fight in Vietnam either. The last time Harkin was bragging about his Vietnam service was in 1984 when he told David Broder of the Washington Post: "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962. One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions."

Huh? Harkin had never been in combat in Vietnam, but was based in Japan during the war, ferrying damaged planes from the Saigon airport to Japan for repairs. Oops. Where was the media here?

Then there was Al Gore who, like Kerry, was in Vietnam just long enough to get photos for his future political campaigns. Gore enlisted in the Army in 1970 in order to help his senator dad during an election year. Al was given a cushy job writing for the 'Stars and Stripes' newspaper, a bodyguard, and an exit strategy when dad lost the election. And the media has never complained one bit.

After five months of this dangerous tour of duty Mr. Gore asked to come home - another "short time" veteran. But yet he has been quoted in the media:
- "I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon." (The Baltimore Sun)
- "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later." (Vanity Fair)
- "I was shot at. I spent most of my time in the field." (The Washington Post)

Where was the media with their searches for medical records and pay stubs? As long as it's a Democrat the media will believe whatever is told them. But a Republican has to prove, and re-prove, any facts he claims.

During World War II, then-congressman Lyndon Johnson went on a single flight ? as an observer ? for which he was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Only recently has it been exposed that the medal was a complete fraud, probably awarded by MacArthur to curry favor. At the time, no one in the press bothered to investigate why Johnson was the only member of the crew to receive any sort of decoration for the 13-minute flight that never came under enemy fire ? and on which Johnson was merely an "observer." For the rest of his life Johnson got away with wearing what historian David Halberstam called "the least deserved and most proudly displayed Silver Star in military history."

That is until Kerry and major media's selective blindness.

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Aug-2004, 10:38 AM
Certainly you've read many stories over the past months about the television advertisements being run by Moveon.org and The Media Fund. But have you ever seen this sentence, or anything like it, in any of those stories?

"Moveon.org, an organization bankrolled by John Kerry supporters ......"

Now you're reading about the television ads being placed by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In reading those stories how many times have you seen this sentence, or something like it:

"A group of Vietnam veterans bankrolled by George Bush supporters ...."

Do I really have to say any more?

It seems that the only way the media can defend its candidate is to tie any detractors to George Bush. Weak.

The media will eagerly report the Kerry claims that the Bush campaign is behind the Swift Boat Veterans. There is no proof .. but the media will repeat the charge endlessly.

The Bush campaign, though, has released a list of the top 10 connections between John Kerry and the 527s, including: Joe Sandler, who is general counsel to the DNC, while also serving as legal counsel to Moveon.org and Moving America Forward. Also, a Moveon.org staffer recently joined the Kerry campaign as director of online communications and organizing. How's that for extensive connections? There are more, but you get the idea.

These are all extensive connections between the Kerry campaign and Moveon.org, the same group that is smearing President Bush by running ads that lie about his military record in the Texas Air National Guard. These are proven lies, unlike many of the Swift Vets accusations, which Kerry hasn't even responded to.

Where is the media on this? As usual, doing their best to elect Kerry.

I understand that many people do believe that the Swift Boat veterans are telling outrageous lies, but the fact is that many people think they're telling the truth. The book, after all, is number one right now. And just who is doing the backtracking? Hint: It's not the Swift Boat Veterans. All the while the media continues to do their best to shed doubt on the Swiftees while assuming as gospel truth anything coming from the Kerry camp.

Why?

Posted by: maisky 26-Aug-2004, 11:07 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 26-Aug-2004, 10:38 AM)


I understand that many people do believe that the Swift Boat veterans are telling outrageous lies, but the fact is that many people think they're telling the truth.  The book, after all, is number one right now.  And just who is doing the backtracking?  Hint:  It's not the Swift Boat Veterans.  All the while the media continues to do their best to shed doubt on the Swiftees while assuming as gospel truth anything coming from the Kerry camp.

Why?

Why? Because the Swift boat folks and their masters in the administration are lying. biggrin.gif It is OBVIOUS, DUH!

Thanks, Brother S. I LOVE it when you feed me such good straight lines.....Maybe we should go on the road together. beer_mug.gif

Posted by: deckers 26-Aug-2004, 12:49 PM
There is NO media bias whatsoever. Okay, actually there are two media biases, and I prefer to think they cancel each other out.

What's been happening in the Great Media Bias Controversy is that each side is trying to find the speck in the other side's eye, while being blinded with a plank.

I've heard Republicans say they find Fox News fair and balanced, while NPR is liberal. And I've heard Democrats say NPR is fair and balanced, and Fox is conservative. And both sides can prove it.

So it's no surprise that a recent thinktank report (can't remember the source, or else I'd post it) says that both arguments are accurate. There is both a liberal and a conservative bias in the media.

The report pointed out that there is almost no objective reporting anymore. In order to attract more readers/viewers/listeners, the news outlets have adopted a a partisan stance. Now this stance may be subtle or overt, but it's there.

As a result, media watchers on both sides are able to point to a real bias in "the media." And both sides are correct. It's just the other side won't admit it.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: maisky 26-Aug-2004, 12:59 PM
Erik! You are going to ruin our fun if you keep inserting FACTS into these discussions. tongue.gif
Good post, sir. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 26-Aug-2004, 02:25 PM
Brother Shamalama,

May I suggest that you take a look at the "About Us" section of Move America Forward's web site before you link them with MoveOn.org ?

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/?Page=AboutUs

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Aug-2004, 11:28 PM
Thanks MDF3530. You actually did your homework and caught what I was trying to say.

There is a wretched disaster known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. There are only so many lawyers that know how it works, and Benjamin Ginsberg is one of them. Benjamin Ginsberg was approached by the Swiftees for advice on how to properly follow the new 527 rules. But Benjamin Ginsberg is/was also a Bush campaign attorney. Therefore, the Swiftees are (in Brother Maisky's words) fascist minions of Bush.

Both the pro-Kerry 527's and the pro-Bush 527's use these few experts on the new campaign finance rules. But only Kerry's claims of collusion are reported by the major media. Only Kerry's claims of Republican wrongdoing are being voiced. Why?

What is so wrong with a group of voters banding together to express an opinion? This is an issue where both Kerry and Bush are dead wrong. There should be no elimination or restriction to the 527's. Geez, the pro-Kerry groups have spent +$60 million in efforts to get you to vote for Kerry and no one, including the media, has uttered a word. Heck, most people hadn't even heard of a 527 group until this week.

But now that a pro-Bush group, one that has spend less than $20 million, has started being noticed Kerry and his "socialist minions" are demanding justice, and that Bush should denounce what they are saying. It took Kerry two months to say anything about MoveOn.org doing that Bush-Hitler ad.

Pure hypocracy here. The 527's, like MoveOn.org, were OK back in the Spring and early Summer. Now only one 527, the Swiftees, and being smeared by both the Kerry camp and the major media. Why?

Kerry people have been helping the pro-Kerry 527's, and that's OK. Bush people have been helping the pro-Bush 527's, and it's immoral if not illegal. Why?

Soros has given at least $12.6 million to Democratic groups working to beat Bush, and he's OK - he's never mentioned. But that mysterious "Texas homebuilder" that gave money to the Swiftees has been mentioned many times over the last two weeks. Why?

deckers, with all due respect sir, you are both right and wrong. True, there is bias in every media outlet because every journalist has their own personal agenda and most editors have their own agendas. But there is little "cancelling each other out". CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN have carried a left slant for years. Only Fox News carries a right slant. The playing field is far from being leveled.

And Dear Brother Maisky, it is MoveOn.org and their comrades in the Kerry camp that are lying. It is OBVIOUS, DUH! tongue.gif (why does he feed me such good straight lines?).

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Aug-2004, 11:37 PM
Here's some stuff I found just for new Brother Deckers and his claim of "there are two media biases, and I prefer to think they cancel each other out." This is from the Boston Globe online edition, hardly a bastion of conservative views, and Kerry's hometown newspaper.

---

Some of Kerry's biggest fans are in the press
Not much doubt who the media wants to win

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | August 24, 2004

With the exception of the Fox News Channel, the liberal tilt of the mainstream media - the major newspapers, the networks, National Public Radio, the news magazines - has long been a fact of American life. No one observing the coverage of this year's presidential campaign with both eyes open can have much doubt that the media establishment is pulling heavily for the Democratic ticket.

That explains why, for example, the intense media interest in George W. Bush's National Guard records last February wasn't matched by an equally intense interest in John Kerry's Navy history in May, when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first went public with their criticisms. Far from leaping on the charges that Kerry's Vietnam heroism had been greatly exaggerated, the mainstream media's initial reaction was to largely ignore them. And while the press saw no reason to question the credibility of Bush's accusers or to demand that Kerry repudiate them, their attitude toward the Swift Boat vets has been much more hostile.

None of this should come as a surprise. The nation's newsrooms are Democratic strongholds, and that cannot help but affect their coverage of the news. Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, put it plainly last month.

"Let's talk a little media bias here," he said on the PBS program 'Inside Washington' on July 11. "The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Just how lopsided is the pro-Kerry bias? When New York Times reporter John Tierney surveyed reporters covering the Democratic National Convention last month, the results were striking.

"We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington," he wrote on Aug. 1. "When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/24/some_of_kerrys_biggest_fans_are_in_the_press/


Posted by: MDF3530 27-Aug-2004, 12:02 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 27-Aug-2004, 12:28 AM)
Thanks MDF3530. You actually did your homework and caught what I was trying to say.

deckers, with all due respect sir, you are both right and wrong. True, there is bias in every media outlet because every journalist has their own personal agenda and most editors have their own agendas. But there is little "cancelling each other out". CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN have carried a left slant for years. Only Fox News carries a right slant. The playing field is far from being leveled.

You're welcome, Brother Shamalama.

BTW, I noticed you left out MSNBC, Matt Drudge, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and virtually all of talk radio when you mentioned the right wing media outlets. Please don't forget this in the future.

Posted by: Shamalama 27-Aug-2004, 01:30 AM
MSNBC? They've only got 387 viewers - hardly worth mentioning.

Drudge? He's currently getting 9 million hits per day. I would think that ABC has quite a bit more viewers during only one hour of their nightly broadcast. That doesn't include their morning programs, or their "newsmagazine" thingies.

The New York Post and the Washington Times are cancelled out by their local competitors. No score there.

The Wall Street Journal has always been conservative. The smart money people usually are. But the WSJ is more about dollars than they are about politics (until it is perceived to touch their money) - most people don't read the WSJ for political commentary.

I don't know anything about the Chicago market.

Virtually all of talk radio? Wow, you really think that there are that many people that still listen to AM radio in their cars while driving home in the afternoon? And Rush, the Godfather of right-wing radio, is on during the day, when most people are at work. Who is listening to him?

Take everything you've mentioned and you'll probably equal one of the major broadcast media outlets. I mentioned four of them. Also remember that the explosion of right-wing radio, Drudge, and Fox News are less than 10 years old - the liberal slant on mainstream media has been going on for decades.

As I said, the playing field is far from being leveled, but considering how much the liberals are afraid today, it's going to be fun once it is. Thank heaven for cable TV and the internet!

Posted by: deckers 27-Aug-2004, 10:45 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 27-Aug-2004, 12:37 AM)
Here's some stuff I found just for new Brother Deckers and his claim of "there are two media biases, and I prefer to think they cancel each other out." This is from the Boston Globe online edition, hardly a bastion of conservative views, and Kerry's hometown newspaper.

Just how lopsided is the pro-Kerry bias? When New York Times reporter John Tierney surveyed reporters covering the Democratic National Convention last month, the results were striking.

"We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington," he wrote on Aug. 1. "When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic."

I don't doubt for a minute that journalists -- the actual writers, reporters, etc. -- are Democrat.

However, I've heard similar surveys that show a majority of the publishers and editors are Republican.

My point is that for every newspaper you find that is liberal, I can find a conservative one. For every conservative radio talk show you can find, I can find. . . well, there's just the Air America network, but you get my point.

And for every liberal TV anchor you find (Dan Rather), I can find a conservative one (like Tom Brokaw, who when Rush Limbaugh called him a liberal in one of his books, Brokaw got pissed and corrected him. Limbaugh had to apologize).

You'll never convince me that there is NOT a conservative bias in the media. It's there, and I see it. But I also agree that there is a liberal bias in the media. You can't convince me there's not one of those either.

Which is more prevalent? I don't think we'll ever know. For starters, we would have to have an independent think tank decide a research methodology we could all agree on. Then they would have to examine every political news story on TV, radio, and in the newspaper for the 2 years leading up to an election and 1 year after.

Ann Coulter does this, but she only picks on liberal outlets. Al Franken does this, but he only picks on conservative outlets. Their arguments are pretty much unencumbered by logic and rationality, and usually end up being the "Oh yeah?! Well YOU'RE stupid!!" type.

It's like if Coulter can prove there is a liberal bias, then it must follow that there is no conservative bias. So Franken goes out to prove the opposite.

And it just goes round and round and round, and neither of them win. Okay, so maybe WE win, because it's pretty freakin' entertaining, but they'll never settle it.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: Shamalama 10-Sep-2004, 01:19 PM
This one is turning out to be very tasty.

CBS News had a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes II" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

The focus of the show was "previously unseen documents . . . obtained by '60 Minutes,' " as the network bragged Wednesday night on its Web site. Their author, supposedly, was Bush's squadron commander, Jerry Killian, who died 20 years ago.

They "include a memorandum from May 1972," CBS reports, "where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about 'how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.' " A document dated "18 August 1973" complains that Killian is being asked to "sugar coat" Bush's record. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," the document says.

One of the documents is an official order to Bush to report for a physical, which never was carried out.

CBS made the four documents available in their original form on its Web site Wednesday night. Copies of these documents are at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/BushGuardDocs.PDF

BUT . . .

It is starting to appear that these four documents were forgeries.

- The spacing between the letters and the words was proportional, and only a very few IBM electric typewriters could achieve that effect back then.
- The documents contain superscript lettering which was not available to electronic typewriters in the 1970's.
- The documents contain curly quotation marks which were not available to electronic typewriters in the 1970's.
- The documents have "proportional spacing," which was on very few typewriters in the 1970's.
- The number "4" in the documents does not have a "foot" and has a "closed top," which is indicative of the Times New Roman font, a font exclusive to modern computer word processing programs.
- One of the documents lists the squadron's address as a P.O. box, and that the numbers are surprisingly sequential - standard military practice has always been to place the actual physical address on the letterhead.

These lead a rational person to conclude that these "1972-1973 documents typed by Bush's squadron commander" are in fact fakes done on modern word processors.

The author of the weblog "Little Green Footballs" wrote: "I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date '18 August 1973,' then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as 'authentic.'"

Killian's son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. "It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so," he said. "We don't know where the documents come from," he said, adding, "They didn't come from any family member."

Marjorie Connell, widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, questioned whether the documents were real. "The wording in these documents is very suspect to me," she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she "just can't believe these are his words."

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president." I believe we can add CBS to that list.

CBS has said there will be no investigation as to the authenticity of these documents. Dan Rather is personally vouching for the documents, and has said he will not reveal his sources.

But why would CBS go to all the trouble of having this the focus of a much-hyped investigative report without first contacting Killian's widow, or his son? Is it because Dan Rather himself created these fakes?

Or did they come from either the Kerry camp or the Democratic Party, and Rather will not expose his good friends?

Some convervatives have suggested that Ben Barnes, former Texas Lt. Governor and current anti-Bush media darling, may have a hand in this hoax.

Remember that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN all spent a good portion of Wednesday all but convinced that "Bush lied, and these documents prove it". None of the networks had apparently done any research or fact-checking, but that didn't stop them from televising "the fact that Bush lied". And yes, these are the same networks that, from May to August, ignored or disparaged charges against Kerry by his fellow Swift Boat veterans.

In the American mainstream media if you criticize a Republican you're simply doing your duty to inform the people, and facts and fact-checking are unimportant. If you criticize a Democrat then you're smearing them and using dirty-tricks, and facts are simply assumed to be lies.

Posted by: MDF3530 10-Sep-2004, 04:08 PM
Then how do you explain those records were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request?

Also, did the thought that his records could've been entered into a computer database at a later date occur to you? Government offices are doing that now.

Posted by: Macfive 10-Sep-2004, 08:00 PM
It is definitely a forgery. People just don't put this sort of stuff in memos. If there was going to be any "sugar coating" it would have been done over the phone or in person.

And, who the heck was George Bush in the early 70's - nobody! Commander would not waste his time on such matters, especially with Vetinam going on.

Then the superscript. Its interesting that on some of the titles it is not superscript, but perhaps their focus was not clear as they created the memo. I believe this was forged by 1 person and then passed off as authenticate. If it was more than 1 person they would have proofed read to death the document and pointed out this.

In any event, whether it is Kerry or Bush, it does not matter. This is an assault on the American people to try and influence an election. My own personal opinion, while meaningless, is they should track down who did this and let him spend some time in a nice cold dark cell with creepy crawlys on the walls.

bag.gif

Posted by: MacEoghainn 12-Sep-2004, 04:53 PM
Here are some suggestions to the Democrats and a comment for CBS News:

Democrats: If you're going to forge documents from the late 60's and early 70's you might want to at least make the effort to find an old typewriter to forge them on (preferably one with a couple crooked letters and a correct font).

CBS: Your bias is showing (and maybe it's time for Dan Rather to retire)


QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 10-Sep-2004, 06:08 PM)
Also, did the thought that his records could've been entered into a computer database at a later date occur to you? Government offices are doing that now.


Mike, including the guys signature???

Posted by: deckers 13-Sep-2004, 11:47 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 10-Sep-2004, 02:19 PM)
CBS made the four documents available in their original form on its Web site Wednesday night. Copies of these documents are at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/BushGuardDocs.PDF

BUT . . .

It is starting to appear that these four documents were forgeries.

I heard another interesting tidbit (on NPR) related to this, but I don't know what to make of it:

Apparently, there was a post on ABC's weblog (yes, ABC) at 8:59 pm that same night which started discussing the possibilities of these documents being forged. While this response is not surprising, what IS surprising is that it happened during the same hour that the CBS program was being aired.

The documents were not available yet, and CBS had only shown a brief, non-close-up glance at the documents on TV.

So was it a lucky guess by the poster in the hopes that the docs WERE forged, and then they actually were? Or did he or she actually know something? And if so, whose side are they actually on?


Erik

Posted by: Shamalama 13-Sep-2004, 02:47 PM
A few weeks ago, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe was on PBS' ''Newshour'' explaining why the hundreds of swift boat veterans' allegations against John Kerry's conduct in Vietnam was unworthy of his attention. "The standard of clear and convincing evidence," he said, talking to Swiftvet John O'Neill, "is what keeps this story in the tabloids -- because it does not meet basic standards."

OK Mr. Oliphant, exactly what are the "basic standards"?

Dan Rather and the elderly gentlemen at ''60 Minutes'' were all excited because they'd come into possession of some hitherto undiscovered memos relating to whether George W. Bush failed to show up for his physical. The media had been flogging this dead horse for years, but these "newly 'discovered'' memos had jump-started the old nag.

Thomas Oliphant's Boston Globe, the New York Times and the Washington Post all rushed the story onto their front pages because it met their ''basic standards.''

Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who oversaw "60 Minutes," recently commented on media institutions like CBS and the emerging crop of web blogs: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."

Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that does not meet "basic standards". But a CBS hoax that was so easy to debunk (by people in their living room wearing pajamas), one in which neither CBS nor anyone else obviously did any fact-checking -- that meets "basic standards".

Therefore can anyone guess the proper definition of "basic standards"? It's simply "does it promote euro-neo-liberalism"? There's the media bias in America.

On the one hand, we have hundreds of living veterans with chapter and verse on Kerry's fantasy Christmas in Cambodia (made public by people in their living room wearing pajamas), and, on the other hand, we have a guy who's been dead 20 years but is still capable of operating Microsoft Word (promised to be valid by multiple layers of check and balances at '60 Minutes'). There's the media bias in America.

According to the American Spectator, ''The CBS producer said that some alarm bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story.'' But they wouldn't touch the highly documented words of the Swiftees. There's the media bias in America.

The media and the Democrats sustain each other's make-believe land. Dan Rather tells his staff, ''Kerry's told me there's nothing to this Swiftvet thing.'' Kerry tells his, ''Rather's assured me this Swiftvet story's going nowhere.'' There's the media bias in America.

Next week's ''60 Minutes'': ''Exclusive! Handwriting Expert Says Bush Wrote The Hitler Diaries!''

Sen. Tom Harkin enthusiastically held a press conference on Thursday morning using the forged documents as the tent pole for attacks against President Bush. Harkin called Bush a "liar." How is it that a US Senator can hold a press conferrence less than 24 hours after the CBS show, quoting from the forged documents? Did he have an "advance copy"? Or did he already know about the documents? Did he have a hand in this hoax?

A defensive Dan Rather went on the air Friday to complain of what he called a "counterattack" from "partisan political operatives." It appears to me that Dan and his buddies are the "partisan political operatives" and that the "counterattack" comes from the mainstream media. There's the media bias in America.

Posted by: deckers 14-Sep-2004, 10:04 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 13-Sep-2004, 03:47 PM)
How is it that a US Senator can hold a press conferrence less than 24 hours after the CBS show, quoting from the forged documents? Did he have an "advance copy"? Or did he already know about the documents? Did he have a hand in this hoax?

You're kidding, right?

How is it that a politician can grab onto any little thing and use it to hammer the president from the opposition party with six weeks to go before the election? Hmmmmm.......

I don't think he had an advance copy. I think he and his aides saw it on the news and leapt on it like a hungry cheetah chasing a sick antelope.

It has nothing to do with conspiracies. It has everything to do with naked opportunism and the chance to embarrass the other side.


Erik

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Sep-2004, 12:48 PM
Right about now there is only one legitimate news institution in this country that believes the documents produced by Dan Rather last week are real, and that news institution is CBS. We have former FBI document experts, typesetting experts, typewriter experts, and experts on experts who all say that the documents are false. Nobody not working for CBS news has come forward to say the documents are real. Nobody. Even the lady who did the typing for Lt. Col. Jerry Killian while he was Bush's National Guard Commander says that the documents are "most certainly" fakes. Yet Dan Rather continues to stand by the authenticity of the documents. Why?

And what about CBS's "document expert?" Marcel Matley, a primary CBS "expert" is not certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. Matley has no formal training in document examination, has never been trained in any document laboratory and has no law enforcement training. Marcel Matley is the man CBS cites as the expert who verified Jerry Killian's signature on the questioned documents. Where did this man get his experience? This the man CBS wants to rely on for expert analysis of their prized documents?

Some of CBS's experts warned CBS not to use those documents in their news story, that the documents might not be genuine. Emily Will, a document examiner consulted by CBS, told ABC News "I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story." Rather didn't listen. Why?

Dan Rather and CBS News offered Americans a set of faked, forged documents to push the idea that George Bush was, in essence, a National Guard slacker.

Rather has an intense hatred for all things Bush, probably starting way back in 1988 with his interview with Vice President George Bush 41. Rather has never been a fan of anything conservative while generally throwing softballs to the liberals. But this time Rather has shown his true colors, and the colors of CBS News, to Joe Sixpack, and I certainly hope that both CBS and Dan Rather reap their "rewards".

Rather also doesn't want the the story to become the forged documents. These documents came from a Kinko's in Abeline, Texas, sent by Bill Burkett, a big-time Democratic supporter. Burkett also is a retired Texas Air National Guard officer who is and has been hell bent on the political destruction of George W. Bush. Burkett has been in a dispute with the Texas National Guard over medical benefits. Apparently he contracted some disease during an assignment in Panama. Since leaving the guard, he has suffered a nervous breakdown and been hospitalized for depression.

Most of the mainstream media is well aware of Mr. Burkett and his vendetta. They also know that he is not what you would consider to be a good source. We must assume that Rather and the CBS news officials have heard from this character before. This would mean that they probably knew that there were some strong questions about Burkett's honesty, and thus strong questions about the genuineness of those documents. CBS chose to ignore those questions, and the questions put on the table by their own "experts," and went ahead.

Even ABC News is reporting that CBS News ignored concerns about the authenticity of the fake memos.

Again, why? How many of you actually trust CBS news any more? Would Dan Rather have accepted phony documents had they been about John Kerry and come from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? The CBS anchor has now been caught red handed trying to help elect Kerry. CBS's Andy Rooney once called Dan Rather "transparently liberal" and advised him to "be more careful." It appears Rather should have listened.

At the time of Bush's service National Guard regulations required a minimum of 50 service points to satisfy a yearly obligation. Since Bush joined the Guard in May of 1968, his "year" ran from May to May. Byron York writing in "The Hill" gives us the total number of points he earned for each year of service:

May 1968 to May 1969 253 points
May 1969 to May 1970 340 points
May 1970 to May 1971 137 points
May 1971 to May 1972 112 points
May 1972 to May 1973 56 points
May 1973 to May 1974 56 points

Uh oh. Yes, his points went down over time, but it looks like Bush made the grade every single year. Don't look for this information in one of Rather's broadcasts.

The 'blogosphere' took down CBS News. Hopefully NBC and ABC won't be far behind.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 16-Sep-2004, 07:27 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 16-Sep-2004, 02:48 PM)
At the time of Bush's service National Guard regulations required a minimum of 50 service points to satisfy a yearly obligation.  Since Bush joined the Guard in May of 1968, his "year" ran from May to May.  Byron York writing in "The Hill" gives us the total number of points he earned for each year of service:

May 1968 to May 1969        253 points
May 1969 to May 1970        340 points
May 1970 to May 1971        137 points
May 1971 to May 1972        112 points
May 1972 to May 1973          56 points
May 1973 to May 1974          56 points

Has Brother Shamalama points out President Bush fulfilled his obligations as required by military regulations.

My own personal experience:

After 6 months in the inactive reserves and almost 9 years of active duty in the United States Navy I enlisted in the Naval Reserve with the intent of doing my 1 weekend a month and two weeks active duty a year. After I got settled into civilian life I found that the time I had set aside for the reserves had disappeared in favor of keeping my job and putting food on the table. Now admittedly George Bush has probably never had to worry about things at that level (and neither has John Kerry) but it is not always easy to balance things in the manner one would like. Since I had served the 6 years (active, and then some) we owe the government I was able to transfer to inactive Naval Reserve by writing a letter to my command requesting said transfer and it was automatically granted (I guess some would say I shirked my duty). George Bush also fulfilled his minimum requirements each year as he was required to do. Any less and I don't care who his dad or Grand-dad was I'm sure the chain of command would have come down on him like a ton of bricks (can anyone say "Transfer to Active Duty, orders to combat duty, SE Asia"?).

Posted by: deckers 20-Sep-2004, 01:30 PM
Despite what has been tossed back and forth here, I still have not seen any evidence that certain segments of the media do NOT have a conservative bias. I freely admit that there are some segments of the media that have a liberal bias -- CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times, and NPR? (Although a recent study has shown that NPR is actually starting to tilt more toward the right in terms of overall news coverage).

But will the "anti-liberal bias" folks here agree that there is a conservative bias?

Like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw of NBC (both self-avowed conservatives)?

How about MSNBC, the station jointly owned by General Electric and Microsoft, two corporations whose management and Board of Directors are decidedly Republican?

What about ABC Radio, the distributors for the Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura shows?

The Washington Times and the New York Post?

Just curious.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: Shamalama 20-Sep-2004, 06:03 PM
CBS News and ABC News are markedly liberal. Those two account for a huge percentage of the mainstream televised media and news.

CNN is markedly liberal, although, due to the recent dominance of Fox News, they have started actually taking a neutral stance on some issues. CNN accounts for a huge percentage of online news media, although they are woefully suffering on cable/satellite televised news.

The New York Times is a major source of the New York-based televised media. There have been numerous accounts of shows like NBC's Today program taking stories practically verbatim from the New York Times. Therefore the New York Times decidely liberal slant affects a large number of televised viewers. The liberal LA Times is the west coast equal of the New York Times, both in print and televised news media.

Tim Russet a conservative? Normally a balanced interviewer who presses both liberals and conservatives to justify their positions, Russert has often repeated a favorite 'Meet the Press' theme that President Bush's tax cut was unaffordable and fiscally irresponsible. Russet has always disagreed with tax cuts as a fiscal policy, even though it is nearly always a major plank of the conservative and libertarian movements. I can't see calling him a conservative.

And just because MSNBC is "jointly owned by General Electric and Microsoft whose management and Board of Directors are decidedly Republican" has no bearing on any of their news stories, and to assert such is laughable. Most Board of Directors of any major corporation tend to be conservative.

And just because of the fact that ABC radio distribute Limbaugh and Laura has no bearing on any of their news stories, and to assert such is laughable. And you missed Paul Harvey and Sean Hannity. But ABC Radio also has the following formats: Oldies, Classic Rock, Country, Adult Contemporary, Urban, Contemporary, R&B, and Gospel. Are those conservative as well? Is ABC Radio's urban hip-hop programming promoting the Republican cause?

I still say that there is far more liberal media and news reporting hitting more average Americans than there is conservative media and news reporting. That slant has an effect during elections, and thus has the ability to shape the course of the American government. That's why I use terms like "mainstream media" - the major sources of information for the most viewers/readers.

If it weren't for "renegade" media outlets such as the Drudge Report the average American wouldn't have discovered that Dan Rather and CBS News used shoddy reporting, and maybe even direct lying and cover-ups, in a bogus smearing of the conservative candidate. If it weren't for "biased" organizations like Fox News the average American would never have heard of the Swift Boat Veterans and their claims of the liberal candidate's lying about his military career. For the first time, possibly ever, the average American now hears both sides of an issue, of a candidate, and can now make an informed and intelligent decision. Maybe now the liberal bias of the mainstream media will be too scared of public ridicule, thanks to Dan Rather, to rear its ugly head.

Posted by: Shamalama 20-Sep-2004, 10:02 PM
Can the CBS document story get any more bizzare?

Yep, the documents were forgeries. Check out the following link for all the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

The discovery was made by amateur bloggers in scant hours of the original broadcast. There is absolutely no reason, no reason at all, that all the investigative power of CBS News shouldn't have discovered the truth immediately. Even the other media outlets picked up on this within a few days thanks to a constant public hammering of the issue by Matt Drudge (The New York Times wouldn't have done so on its own).

The fact that Bill Burkett came up with the documents should have meant something. Burkett is the owner of some strongly held left-wing political views. He blames Bush for the military denying him medical care during an illness in 1998. He is known for trying to be a political player, writing editorials and trying to sway the American people against George Bush and the Republican Party.

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member. Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

Joe Lockhart, a Kerry campaign advisor, said CBS producer Mary Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

Yep, the Kerry campaign is at least somewhat involved with CBS and the bogus documents. Is anyone surprised? But we all know that nothing will be done about any of this. Can anyone imagine the outrage if this had been Fox News and the Bush campaign? Is there any liberal out there that can spell the word "hypocracy"?

At least two experts consulted by CBS warned against going with the story, saying there were "problems" with the memos. But CBS, and Dan Rather himself, ran with it anyway.

CBS must have suspected it was using counterfeit documents. Worse, CBS may be complicit in a criminal conspiracy to use forged U.S. government documents to bring down a president. Rather and CBS executives and producers must testify against the hatchers of this rotten plot or they, too, must stand trial as accomplices. CBS can't be allowed to get by with a "we were duped" admission. If they admit that the documents were forged, then the documents, who forged them, and how they got to CBS become the story. There should be no pretense at protecting sources. You don't protect sources who feed you bogus documents. To maintain even a sliver of journalistic integrity CBS will have to divulge just where those documents came from. Divulging the source of those documents would be no problem to Dan Rather if that source was operating independently of the Democratic Party or of the Kerry Campaign. But, what if the source was the Democratic Party or of the Kerry Campaign with only Burkett or Cleland as a middle-man? Is it time for another Vince Foster 'suicide' to 'happen'?

This week the mystery has been just why Rather has seemed almost afraid to step forward and admit that the documents are forgeries. At this point virtually everyone else in the media - and that includes the DC and NYC press corps - knew the documents were fakes, his CBS bosses were about to capitulate, yet Rather was still using his "the documents may be fake, but they're correct" escape valve. Was he that blind, or that dumb?

How could Rather have been so stubborn and blind? He is now a cartoon caricature of liberal bias. Can anyone believe CBS would have clung this long to so patently falsified an attack if it were against John Kerry? The Swift Boaters had far more evidence and CBS never gave them the time of day. Dan Rather is perhaps the most partisan of the major broadcast network news anchors. His hatred of all things Bush approaches the pathological. His burning desire to see John Kerry elected this fall has clouded his news judgment. He was all-too-eager to jump on a story that he thought could wound or possibly cripple Bush. Can he spell the phrase "journalistic integrity"?

Dan Rather has no credibility left, assuming anyone but liberals has believed anything coming out of CBS for the past several years. This will also have an effect on all mainstream media news outlets. It was pride and a blind hatred of Conservatives that led Rather to commit a journalistic atrocity that will end up killing not the President's re-election, but his own reputation and career, and maybe Kerry's chance at the Presidency.

I have never seen an implosion that was as beautiful as this one. Can I dare hope that Peter Jennings will suffer the same fate as Dan "I am CBS" Rather?


Posted by: deckers 21-Sep-2004, 01:07 PM
Tim Russert has said he's a conservative. So has Tom Brokaw. In fact, Rush Limbaugh said in one of his books that Brokaw was a liberal. But Brokaw got so upset that Rush printed a retraction in another book AND said so on the air.

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I don't agree with everything my party does. That doesn't make me a non-Democrat. Tim Russert can be (and IS) a conservative and yet still agree with his party. Bill O'Reilly did the same thing when he actually apologized for siding with President Bush on the Iraq war.

There is a rather famous story of Jack Welch, CEO of GE, who personally killed a story about light bulbs that would have thrown GE bulbs into a bad light (no pun intended). Commercial TV and radio is notorious for spiking stories that will show bad light on their employer or owner.

As far as ABC goes, how many liberal radio shows do they promote and distribute?

If you want to get an idea of who is doing liberal and conservative media, check out some of the studies from groups like FAIR (www.fair.org) or university linguists. They will set up parameters about what is considered liberal and conservative language and then examine the stories to see which type of language is used.

So tell me this: Did the liberal media who covered up the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Didn't the liberal media show the same clip of Clinton hugging Monica day after day? Didn't the liberal media who did not give us a daily update on what was going on with the Congressional hearings? Didn't the liberal media record every salacious detail of presidential DNA, the Starr report, and the cigar?

If there was truly a liberal media, Monica wouldn't have been the big splash that it was.

I've already agreed that there is a liberal media bias. But I believe there is also a conservative one that is equally rampant. And for every liberal bias you can point to, I can point to a conservative one.

So you can say "CNN this" and "NPR that," but that doesn't change the fact that there is ALSO a strong conservative bias that shares the airwaves. If there wasn't, people wouldn't find these results in the numerous studies that have been published over the past few years.

BTW, do you know that the term "liberal media" was coined by Pat Buchanan when he worked for Ronald Reagan? Reagan used it in a speech, and it took off. Buchanan later admitted that there was no liberal media -- they just made it up for political reasons. But the Republicans have managed to hang on to that myth and beat it in the ground.


Erik

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Sep-2004, 03:48 PM
Monica? Oh my heavens. The mainstream media had been spiking the story for weeks, and would have kept it buried had it not been for a new blogger by the name of Matt Drudge. He broke the story, not the mainstream media. It was only after he kept pounding on the story that the average American started asking questions, and only after then did powerhouses like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the DC and NYC press corps start actually airing the story. Supposedly reporter Michael Isikoff had been working on "the story of his career", only to have it spiked by his bosses since it would make King Clinton look bad. The story became a sensation DESPITE the efforts of the mainstream media to squash it, much like the CBS fiasco today.

Transcript from ABC'S This Week, 1/18/98:

BILL KRISTOL: The media is going to be an issue here [in the Paula Jones case]. The story in Washington this morning is that NEWSWEEK magazine was going to go with a big story based on tape recorded conversations in which a woman who was a summer intern at the White House, an intern of Leon Panetta's testified --

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And Bill, where did it come from? The DRUDGE REPORT! You know, we've all seen how discredited that it --

BILL KRISTOL: There were screaming arguments at NEWSWEEK magazine yesterday. They finally didn't go with the story. Then there is going to be a question of whether the media is now going to report what are pretty well validated charges of presidential behavior in the White House.

SAM DONALDSON: I'm not an apologist for NEWSWEEK, but if their editors decided that they didn't have it cold enough to go with, I don't think we can here, unless you've seen what they were basing their decision on how can we --

While you're looking at www.fair.org also check out www.mrc.org.

Oh yes, most certainly, there are some media outlets with a strong conservative bias. But it is still my opinion that there is far more liberal media and news reporting hitting more average Americans than there is conservative media and news reporting. Yes, you have Fox News, Matt Drudge, and Tom Brokaw. But their audience is nowhere as large as that of the markedly liberal media (print, televised, and aired). It's no myth when consumer and university studies expose it, and it's not being beaten into the ground - it's being raised and exposed for what it is.

A fairly recent survey of White House correspondents:
- 9 voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988, one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984, zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980, 2 for Reagan

Of the 1400 members of the national media who were in a different survey:
- 44% considered themselves Democrats
- 16% Repubs
- 34% independents
- 89% voted for Clinton in 1992
- 7% voted for Bush in 1992

And these are the people that come into your living room every night and tell you their opinion of what's going on in the world, and expect you to take their word for it. But I think you're going to soon discover that Dan Rather and the liberal media has 'died'. Liberal opinion is in the majority only in the media, not in average Americans.

Posted by: MDF3530 21-Sep-2004, 03:59 PM
QUOTE
If it weren't for "renegade" media outlets such as the Drudge Report the average American wouldn't have discovered that Dan Rather and CBS News used shoddy reporting, and maybe even direct lying and cover-ups, in a bogus smearing of the conservative candidate.


If anyone could recognize shoddy reporting, it would be Matt Drudge. That man defines the term "attack journalism".

Posted by: deckers 22-Sep-2004, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 21-Sep-2004, 04:48 PM)
While you're looking at www.fair.org also check out www.mrc.org.

I don't put much stock into the MRC. By their own admission, they're conservative. From their website:

"On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene."

That's not objective. You only have to read the language on their front page to see they're not unbiased.

On the other hand, FAIR says:

"FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

You only have to read their website to see that they attack both sides with equal vehemence. They're not apologists for NPR and CNN -- they've launched some of their most blistering attacks against these two groups. They actually have both liberal and conservative writers working for them, not just one side or the other.

I'm suspicious of organizations, like think tanks and watchdog groups, founded by a group of one ideology who then claim to be unbiased or objective. Unfortunately, in this political landscape, anyone who's in this business has an agenda of some kind. The only way to achieve a balance is not to be objective and not take a side, but to attack both sides equally. I wish there were some entities who actually WERE objective. There are a few, but they're usually polling groups like Gallup.

A group like the MRC is an old PR trick. You create a group to further your own agenda, but make it seem like a grassroots organization or watchdog group. The tobacco industry did it with their Center for Tobacco Research (or whatever it was called).

Basically, unless the group has distinguished themselves as being truly non-partisan or bi-partisan, they're probably not.

Posted by: Shamalama 24-Sep-2004, 12:15 PM
QUOTE (deckers @ 22-Sep-2004, 12:12 PM)

Basically, unless the group has distinguished themselves as being truly non-partisan or bi-partisan, they're probably not.


Ahhh, and we finally return to the topic at hand: Bias in the Media.

Is there anyone that hasn't seen the liberal bias at CBS yet?

- How is it that one of the most powerful investigative news agencies in the world "duped" by obviously forged documents?
- How is it that Mary Mapes can work on this story for the last 5 years, and all of a sudden these documents seem to appear out of nowhere?
- How is it that CBS didn't listen to their own experts telling them that these documents were suspicious?
- Why would CBS also "include" one of Kerry's top aides in their "uncovering" of these documents?
- Why would CBS put so much faith in previously unknown documents coming from a known liberal hack?

A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that's true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.

CBS' sole (that means 'single') source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's "demonic personality shortcomings" (which would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore). At a minimum, the viewing public should have been informed that CBS' sole "unimpeachable" source of the forged anti-Bush records was textbook left-wing Bill Burkett in order to evaluate the information.

And yet this was the evidence CBS relied on to accuse a sitting president of a court martial-level offense 50 days before a presidential election. Dan Rather either knew he was promoting forgeries on the nation to try to change a presidential election, or he simply wanted to believe that he "had the goods" to bring down Bush once and for all.

The liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence, an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career. To the contrary, such an outrageous fraud was inevitable given the outright partisanship of the mainstream press.

Burkett didn't come to CBS; CBS found Burkett. Rather's producer, Mary Mapes, called Joe Lockhart at the Kerry campaign and told him he needed to talk to Burkett. Lockhart himself has been moving in and out of Democratic campaigns and jobs with the mainstream media, including at ABC, NBC and CNN. But there's no bias, huh?

What if CBS had waited 72 hours before the election to air this false character assassination?

Has anyone forgotten the near total blackout on the Swift Boat Veterans in the mainstream media? And NBC's Today Show gave 3 days to Kitty Kelley? CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry. But there's no bias, huh?

It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society (even without Kerry's post-Vietnam help). It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts.

And as for Drudge: do you realize that 99% of what goes on his website are links to other news agencies and stories? How in the world do you consider that "attack journalism"? He simply shows you stuff that CNN won't; that doesn't make it any less true.

It is comforting to watch Dan's career go down in flames. It is comforting that because of internet bloggers the media's (mostly liberal) stranglehold on information is ended. It's about time we started hearing the truth.


Posted by: Shamalama 30-Sep-2004, 04:07 PM
Can CBS be more biased?

Five weeks before the election, CBS decided to give legitimacy to Internet rumors by devoting a "What Does It Mean to You?" segment to "fears" of a supposedly Bush-supporting mother that President Bush will impose a military draft. Dan Rather said, "A mother worries her son will be drafted. Does she have good reason?" Richard Schlesinger focused his piece around how the mother "is petrified about a military draft, and she's not alone. Mass e-mails are circulating among worried parents."

Schlesinger had given credence to her fear: "The machinery for a draft is already in place, and the acting director of Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly."

Wow.

But wait a minute. There is zero chance of the draft returning. The only people that have brought it up are Democrats who are trying to invent a mythical issue to bash President Bush with. Anyone who says the draft might return is lying. There will be no return of the draft. The administration and the Pentagon all have said it clearly: no draft.

Since they sensed and opportunity to spread a lie in order to defeat the president, CBS and Dan Rather decided to report on "draft fears," and profiled a woman who said she was worried about the draft. And the supposedly 'concerned mother' is actually the head of an interest group called People Against the Draft. It turns out this group has leftist Democratic ties.

Is anyone surprised?

Posted by: MacEoghainn 30-Sep-2004, 05:24 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 30-Sep-2004, 06:07 PM)
Can CBS be more biased?

Five weeks before the election, CBS decided to give legitimacy to Internet rumors by devoting a "What Does It Mean to You?" segment to "fears" of a supposedly Bush-supporting mother that President Bush will impose a military draft. Dan Rather said, "A mother worries her son will be drafted. Does she have good reason?" Richard Schlesinger focused his piece around how the mother "is petrified about a military draft, and she's not alone. Mass e-mails are circulating among worried parents."

Schlesinger had given credence to her fear: "The machinery for a draft is already in place, and the acting director of Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly."

Wow.

But wait a minute. There is zero chance of the draft returning. The only people that have brought it up are Democrats who are trying to invent a mythical issue to bash President Bush with. Anyone who says the draft might return is lying. There will be no return of the draft. The administration and the Pentagon all have said it clearly: no draft.

Since they sensed and opportunity to spread a lie in order to defeat the president, CBS and Dan Rather decided to report on "draft fears," and profiled a woman who said she was worried about the draft. And the supposedly 'concerned mother' is actually the head of an interest group called People Against the Draft. It turns out this group has leftist Democratic ties.

Is anyone surprised?

Not me.

I heard a report that some enterprising Vandal had removed the C from a CBS sign somewhere. The resulting two letter sign pretty well sums up what we are getting from CBS news.

Posted by: deckers 01-Oct-2004, 09:12 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 24-Sep-2004, 01:15 PM)
[Is there anyone that hasn't seen the liberal bias at CBS yet?

- How is it that one of the most powerful investigative news agencies in the world "duped" by obviously forged documents?
- How is it that Mary Mapes can work on this story for the last 5 years, and all of a sudden these documents seem to appear out of nowhere?
- How is it that CBS didn't listen to their own experts telling them that these documents were suspicious?
- Why would CBS also "include" one of Kerry's top aides in their "uncovering" of these documents?
- Why would CBS put so much faith in previously unknown documents coming from a known liberal hack?

I've heard a few people comment on this in the news, but no one has really followed it up:

No one seemed surprised or outraged at the content of the now-infamous documents. Yes, they were proven to be forgeries, and it was a slimy move.

But before that, the White House just accepted them as true. To Scott McLellan, it was just another set of damning documents revealing a little bit more about Bush's National Guard service, and his job was to spin them, not deny their validity.

I think what was NOT said that day may be just as important as what was said.


Erik

Posted by: Shamalama 01-Oct-2004, 03:05 PM
Brother MacEoghainn, CBS is now "See? BS!"

Brother Deckers, I believe the contents of the documents were as bogus as the documents themselves. Period. Scott McLellan and the rest of the Bush people were caught blind-sided, and probably believed that the documents were correct. To them it was, "Oh geez, where did these come from".

The mainstream media is not going to follow-up on them. They are just as embarassed as CBS is. The entirety of the mainstream media took a black eye on this. CBS, while sometimes is the worst, is not the only one of the major networks to show a distinct bias.

The latest bias from CBS is evolving as well. To sum up:

- For the last week or so there has been an email racing through millions of computers claiming that George Bush is ready to crank up the military draft as soon as the election is over.
- CBS assmued that the emails were true and began their own "investigation".
- The Selective Service had declared that there was no plan to reinstitute the draft and that the emails were proven to be bogus.
- CBS disregarded the Selective Service and continued with their "investigation".
- Never in the story do they identify the emails as being debunked even though they knew this to be the case. Even if the veracity of the e-mails wasn't central to the narrative of the segment, it was surely egregiously irresponsible to report their existence without disclosing their fundamental inaccuracy.
- CBS found some woman named Beverly Cocco who said that she was petrified that her sons would be forced into the service after she got the email saying that the draft was pending.
- Beverly Coco was the president of an organization called "Parents Against the Draft", a group that has publically stated that they want "to bring U.S. troops out of Iraq". She has stated that she is "a one issue [the draft] voter".
- CBS knew that their "random" person had a strong bias, but they played her off as a random woman. CBS did not mention on the program that she is an anti-draft activist.
- CBS is defending the story and the way they reported it. The CBS reporter, Richard Schlesinger, said that whether or not the emails were true was "almost beside the point." The CBS producer for the story told a writer that "the truth of the emails was absolutely irrelevant" to the story, very much akin to the previous forged documents.
- The story was aired almost immediately following recent Kerry-Edwards talking points that were expressly designed to elicit unrealistic fear of a draft reinstatement for political purposes.
- The use of inaccurate supporting material and the selective use of highly relevant facts mirrored many of the exact flaws that crippled the recent 60 Minutes story about George Bush's National Guard service.
- The online transcript of the show has been altered to include the line "Beverly Cocco is so concerned she is involved with the organization 'People Against the Draft'" even though that line did not appear in the actual broadcast.

CBS failed to achieve common journalistic standards by failing to disclose Ms. Cocco's position and activism, failing to disclose the Selective Service's explicit statement denying the impending possibility of the draft and failing to disclose that the circulated e-mails in the story contained false and misleading information. These omissions - along with the story's questionable timing and dramatic tone - combine to create a blatantly misleading piece.

Why did CBS run the story anyway? There can be only one reason: because they felt that the story would harm George Bush. That, my friends, is textbook bias. CBS knew the story to be false, they knew their reference person to have a strong bias, they acknowledged that the falseness of their program to be irrelevant as compared to the possibility of having something to scare the viewers and make a statement against Bush.

A culture of ingrained liberalism is responsible for motivating the CBS story, as well as many other stories at ABC, NBC, and CNN (the big 4). CBS news has become one big Democrat infomercial.

Let's apply the logic of CBS: Dan Rather is a child molester. I mean, that is what the rumor is, according to a mass email I got. And the actual truth of it is irrelevant, right? Because the issue is not the facts of Dan Rather?s child molestation, it?s the rumors surrounding Dan Rather criminal felonies with little kiddies.

Are you getting the picture yet, Dan?


Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 01-Oct-2004, 03:47 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 01-Oct-2004, 05:05 PM)
Dan Rather is a child molester.

If you include the fact that he tries to inculcate this mush minded crap into their vulnerable minds, then you're not far wrong. Is anything worse than "mind molestation"?

Posted by: deckers 01-Oct-2004, 03:57 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 01-Oct-2004, 04:05 PM)
Brother Deckers, I believe the contents of the documents were as bogus as the documents themselves. Period. Scott McLellan and the rest of the Bush people were caught blind-sided, and probably believed that the documents were correct. To them it was, "Oh geez, where did these come from".

That's my point. McLellan and the White House staff believed them to be true. No one said, "You know, that sounds pretty far out, even with everything we've heard so far." They all sort of said, "uhhhhh, sure, whatever you say," NOT "This seems pretty far-fetched."

Personally, I'm glad that the fraud was exposed. That's pretty slimey, and uncalled for. That's the part of politics I hate -- the dirty tricks and underhandedness. I'm not real wild about the wild accusations and stretching of the truth by either candidate, but the out-and-out lies and life-ruining tactics used to get their guy in power should be met with firings and possible criminal or civil charges.


Erik

Posted by: deckers 04-Oct-2004, 12:43 PM
While we're on the subject of CBS' liberal bias, as per Dan Rather and the now-infamous "Bush National Guard documents," I wonder if Brother Shamalama will stipulate that FOX has a conservative bias, since they were duped by a group calling themselves "Communists for Kerry."

It seems Fox News posted an interview with the group, which presents itself as a legitimate, pro-Kerry group. Fox quoted group member Komoselutes Rob as saying, "We're trying to get Comrade Kerry elected and get that capitalist enabler George Bush out of office." The Fox report said, "it is unclear whether the Kerry campaign has welcomed the Communists' endorsement."

What Fox failed to mention is that CFK is a parody by a pro-Republican 527, Hellgate Republican Club. Fox News retracted the article and said they weren't at fault, because their website reporter asked Rob whether they were legitimate (he said they were).

However, if the reporter would have actually visted the obviously satirical website -- http://www.communistsforkerry.com -- and clicked on the "About Us" link, he would have discovered this information:

"Communists for Kerry" is a campaign of the Hellgate Republican Club, a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that exists for the purpose of; Informing voters with satire and irony, how political candidates make decisions based on the failed social economic principles of socialism that punish the individual by preventing them from becoming their dream through proven ideas of entrepreneurship and freedom."

So does Fox News and their website earn the distinction of being biased since they fell for an obvious fake, and failed to investigate it by clicking the one link that would explain who they are?

I'll admit to mine if you'll admit to yours. wink.gif


Erik Deckers

Posted by: Shamalama 04-Oct-2004, 03:47 PM
QUOTE (deckers @ 04-Oct-2004, 02:43 PM)

I'll admit to mine if you'll admit to yours. wink.gif


That sounds kinky, but let's go for it.

Oh yes I believe Fox News has an equal amount of conservative slant to any of the liberal media outlets. I didn't catch the www.communistsforkerry.com bit (wonderful website, by the way), but it is laughable.

And this ain't the first time Fox News has been caught red-handed.

But considering how very liberal 85% of the broadcast media is, I start to worry that the average American is showered with liberal half-truths and lies. Sure, Fox News "balances" a portion of it, but the average journalist, talking head, producer, and writer is still liberal and reports "facts" with a liberal slant. Therefore I can use the phrase "liberal media" with some accuracy (the accuracy of a shotgun).

If the two CBS "stories" has appeared on Fox News or Drudge then we'd all be laughing at them. But since it was CBS they're somehow insulated from criticism, and that any complaints against them are simply "partisian".

Wasn't it Brokaw that called such complaints a "jihad" this weekend? Jihad? Geez guy, we're simply pointing out that "your people" made an obvious mistake showing obvious bias towards one side of the political spectrum, and we're upset about it. Has responsibility now become jihad? The mainstream media has "circled the wagons" now, so maybe we'll actually start getting some honest reporting of facts - but I doubt it, not when 90% of the media always seem to vote one way.

The bloggers are now watching everything any talking head says now, and I bet we see more exposing in the short term. This is going to be fun!



Posted by: Shamalama 07-Oct-2004, 10:17 AM
One of the most obvious anti-Bush biases in the mainstream media is their almost refusal to cover one of the most important, and most amazing, stories in years: free elections in Afghanistan.

The first presidential elections in Afghanistan's history will be held Saturday, and the media couldn't care less.

Too much world media coverage will focus on pictures of violence at polling places, not on the big news: lines of courageous Afghans patiently waiting to vote. Tyrants-of-the-day are passing out leaflets in refugee camps promising divine rewards to anyone who kills a poll worker.

Such terrorist acts by die-hard Taliban insurgents may be excitingly pictorial, but images of Muslims, especially women, voting for the first time, and of candidates for office literally taking their lives in their hands to campaign, are deemed not sufficiently mesmerizing. Why is this?

Already, the elections are being minimized in the media. We are told the elections are being "staged" and that democracy there is an "experiment." My heavens, people, democracy in the US was called an "experiment" for our first 100 years. Geez.

Another reason to downplay or dismiss Election Day in Afghanistan is that it is clearly good news for America and its allies, who are directly responsible for this outbreak of freedom in a Muslim land. But remember the template of the mainstream liberal media: if it is either pro-American or pro-Bush then downplay it; if it is anti-American or anti-Bush then run the story every night for a month.

If the mountain people of this war-ravaged nation, whose cash crop is poppies for illegal opium, can stand up to their tormentors and grasp the powers of democracy, their example will offer hope to the better-educated Iraqis sitting on their nation's sea of oil. Afghanistan would be the first good domino to tip over. This is my flower-in-the-desert example that liberals here seem to dismiss as "unachievable".

In the face of assassination attempts on the lives of candidates, over 10 million Afghans have registered, plus 2 million more in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran.

Afghanistan is doing quite well, compared to where it was. What once was a terrorist state that was harboring Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, is no longer so. The Taliban are either dead or out of power, and much of Al-Qaeda was killed. By any measure, the war in Afghanistan has been a success. The fact that one single person has not been confirmed as deceased in no way diminishes the fact that much of the "machine" that attacked the US is now either in jail or in hell. Osama, you can't hide in a cave forever.

Why isn't this being covered hard every night by Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw? Because they don't want freedom in Afghanistan to succeed (that would imply a Bush victory). They don't want freedom in Iraq to succeed (that would imply a Bush victory). And it's just because they don't like Bush; their hatred of one man is enough to deny freedom for millions of people in the Middle East.

Please tell me which broadcast of Rather, Jennings, or Brokaw you watched where they heralded the possibility of freedom in either Afghanistan or Iraq, because I must have missed it.

Afghans, fighting their unaccustomed way to the polls through feudal fundamentalists and Arab terrorists, will be the most closely watched. But Australians also vote this weekend. Prime Minister John Howard has reaffirmed the traditional Australian-American alliance; he is opposed in the elections by Labor's Mark Latham, the bring-the-boys-home-from-Iraq-by-Christmas candidate.

Then come the U.S. elections, which most of you here have already heard something about.

Finally, Iraqi elections are scheduled for January. These will be influenced by the Afghan electoral example, and by the Australian decision signaling the breadth of future coalition support. Most of all, the U.S. election outcome will tell Iraqi voters to expect U.S. help in building a new life in a federal system - or to worry about helicopters hurriedly leaving the roof of the U.S. embassy.


Posted by: Shamalama 11-Oct-2004, 10:17 AM
Fair And Balanced.


Posted by: deckers 11-Oct-2004, 10:53 AM
QUOTE
Such terrorist acts by die-hard Taliban insurgents may be excitingly pictorial, but images of Muslims, especially women, voting for the first time, and of candidates for office literally taking their lives in their hands to campaign, are deemed not sufficiently mesmerizing.  Why is this?


I thought there weren't any more Taliban. That's what Bush said a couple of weeks ago.


QUOTE
Why isn't this being covered hard every night by Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw?  Because they don't want freedom in Afghanistan to succeed (that would imply a Bush victory).  They don't want freedom in Iraq to succeed (that would imply a Bush victory).  And it's just because they don't like Bush; their hatred of one man is enough to deny freedom for millions of people in the Middle East.


Actually, Brokaw is a self-avowed conservative, so he would WANT this to succeed.

QUOTE
Please tell me which broadcast of Rather, Jennings, or Brokaw you watched where they heralded the possibility of freedom in either Afghanistan or Iraq, because I must have missed it.


They've talked about it with great frequency on NPR since Friday. And I've heard some mention of the elections in both countries. Whether they "herald" them, I don't know, but there have been some brief mentions on some of the newscasts.


Erik

Posted by: Shamalama 25-Oct-2004, 12:25 PM
On the October 21 CBS Early Show, CBS News reporter Byron Pitts played a clip of Kerry, during an Ohio campaign appearance. He then "picked just a local Ohioan voter" for their impression. What neither CBS nor Pitts mentioned was that the "random voter" was Kristen Breitweiser. Breitweiser was identified on screen as a "9/11 widow."

Kristen Breitweiser has been an active, publicity-seeking Bush-bashing 9/11 widow.
Kristen Breitweiser has spent time on the campaign trail for Kerry-Edwards.
Kristen Breitweiser is featured in a new Kerry-Edwards TV ad.

Random voter, huh? And it seems that CBS has no memory either.

Back on the September 28 Early Show, CBS reporter Jim Axelrod announced, over video of John Edwards on stage handing a microphone over to Breitweiser: "Mr. Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, was joined on the campaign trail by 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser." CBS played a clip of her, identified on screen again only as a "9/11 widow."

Recently an ABC World News Tonight, not CBS Evening News, featured a clip of her new ad for Kerry. ABC's Bob Woodruff explained, over a brief shot of Breitweiser on stage with Edwards at a campaign event, how "yesterday the Kerry campaign released its own 9/11 ad" in which "widow Kristen Breitweiser accuses George Bush of opposing the 9/11 Commission and resisting reform." Wow. This "random voter" really gets around.

Nothing about her campaigning for the Democratic ticket, or cutting a TV ad for them, made it to the "random voter interviews".

Is anyone surprised?

Posted by: maisky 26-Oct-2004, 06:50 AM
QUOTE
Is anyone surprised?


No surprise. This is typical Republicant ranting. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Oct-2004, 10:20 AM
I'll try to make this one easy enough for even Brother Maisky to understand. tongue.gif

Yesterday (Monday) the news broke about 380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency was raising quite a fuss over this, as was the American mainstream media.

ABC News mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 4 times
CBS News mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 7 times
MSNBC mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 37 times
CNN mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 50 times

Boy oh boy, did the media love this story. After all, it really looked bad for Bush, didn't it? Another Abu Ghraib?

Then, of course, we had the Kerry campaign jumping on the story. He called it one of the greatest blunders of Iraq. He slammed Bush for, as he put it, "failing to guard" the stockpile of explosives. And the media gleefully repeated his blatherings.

Then John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president." This too was repeated by the media.

Huh? Are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?

Then last night we got a report on NBC news that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003. The last time the IAEA saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003. There is no way to know just when the explosives were removed. Sometime after the IAEA saw them in January and before American troops got there in April. Obviously this isn't a case of Bush failing to "guard" the explosives. By the time our troops got there they weren't there to guard. In other words, nobody failed to guard anything and there was nothing we could have done about it. They were gone when we got there.

An NBC News crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

Did anyone in the media take even a minute to check any facts before broadcasting this "news"?

Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives? NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political." The UN being political against Bush? Nah, you don't say!

CBS's "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast on October 31, but the New York Times simply beat them to it. This was supposed to be the liberal's "October Surprise", with the liberal media attacking Bush only two days before the election.

Yep. This is not a news item. This is petty politics, along with a healthy dose of the liberal media doing whatever they can to get Bush out of office. Not Republican ranting, but rather more proven liberal media bias.

Posted by: maisky 26-Oct-2004, 10:22 AM
QUOTE
Yep. This is not a news item. This is petty politics, along with a healthy dose of the liberal media doing whatever they can to get Bush out of office. Not Republican ranting, but rather more proven liberal media bias.


Well, if it works, it will be worthwhile. biggrin.gif

Posted by: deckers 26-Oct-2004, 10:32 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 26-Oct-2004, 11:20 AM)
ABC News mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 4 times
CBS News mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 7 times
MSNBC mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 37 times
CNN mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 50 times

But MSNBC and CNN are on 24 hours per day. ABC News and CBS News are on for 30 minutes. Of course, MSNBC is a mostly-conservative station, given their focus on financials and the fact that they're co-owned by two huge multinational corporations.

QUOTE

Did anyone in the media take even a minute to check any facts before broadcasting this "news"?


Of course they don't check the facts! What's wrong with you?! wink.gif

Actually, the media is to blame for their own situation -- they created this. In a rush to get news out faster, thanks to 24 hour news channels and the Internet, everyone is in a rush to be first.

The stupid thing is that this mentality is left over from the newspaper days when you could be scooped and have a story all to yourself for 24 hours. Being first drove up sales, which drove up revenues. But now, since news breaks in a blur, and every station can be relied on to get the same story out within minutes of each other, there's no advantage to being first. In fact, as we're seeing, there's a disadvantage.



Erik

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Oct-2004, 11:23 AM
Brother Deckers makes a great observation. Is America really demanding to-the-minute reporting, so that a "scoop" of one hour really makes any real difference?

Do any of us here choose our news outlet based on how many "scoops" they have at any given minute?

Since we're seeing so much error due to zero fact checking, how many average Americans are going to rely on ABC-CBS-NBC as their news outlet in 2005? When and why did "news" stop and "entertainment" start?

What is the definition of "journalism" today?

We laughed at Jayson Blair and the New York Times back in 2003. We were shocked by Dan Rather this year. Who's next?

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Oct-2004, 02:13 PM
UPDATE:

The whole "380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq" is old news that occured before US troops entered Iraq. But Kerry and the liberal media are still blaming this on Bush.

NBC news has already stated that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003. The only way Bush could have secured this site would have been to enter Iraq months earlier than he did.

It's a lie. It's a sham. And (I can't believe it) Kerry has actually made a campaign ad repeating the lie. It's an ad that will be shown in the "battleground" states.

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html

Kerry knows the facts are being misrepresented. Kerry is flat-out lying in his advertisement. This is absolutely amazing. But there won't be any media, outside of Fox News or Drudge, that will call Kerry on this - the media is trying to HELP Kerry. This is something you would expect from some 3rd world dictator during his "election".

Kerry-Edwards will say and do anything to get into office. And the media is only too happy to assist.

---

News of missing explosives in Iraq - first reported in April 2003 - was being resurrected for a CBS "60 Minutes" election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of "60 Minutes", said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

The story instead debuted in the New York Times (another Kerry supporter). The paper heralded the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as an "exclusive."

First it was Dan Rather's forged documents. Now it's this "old news repackaged to appear new" lie that happened before US forces entered Iraq. Both have now backfired, painting CBS News in a heavy coat of liberal paint - and also showing them to be ignorant of facts.

The Mainstream Media - not only Liberal, but also Dumb.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 26-Oct-2004, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 26-Oct-2004, 04:13 PM)
UPDATE:

The whole "380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq" is old news that occured before US troops entered Iraq.  But Kerry and the liberal media are still blaming this on Bush.

NBC news has already stated that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003.  The only way Bush could have secured this site would have been to enter Iraq months earlier than he did.

1) Somebody at the DNC must have let the people at NBC know they were off the Reservation on this because they were backpedaling like crazy on tonight's evening news.

2) As I understand the composition of these "Explosives", neither of these items were readily usable as components for car bombs, unless the bomb makers had a degree in chemistry and a lot of other specialized materials to combine with these materials. These items where most likely actually some of the components one would need in the "Non-existent" Iraqi Nuclear Bomb Program to create the shaped charges to make the appropriate fusion or fissionable material go BOOM!!!

Posted by: maisky 27-Oct-2004, 06:04 AM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 26-Oct-2004, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 26-Oct-2004, 04:13 PM)
UPDATE:

The whole "380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq" is old news that occured before US troops entered Iraq.  But Kerry and the liberal media are still blaming this on Bush.

NBC news has already stated that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003.  The only way Bush could have secured this site would have been to enter Iraq months earlier than he did.

1) Somebody at the DNC must have let the people at NBC know they were off the Reservation on this because they were backpedaling like crazy on tonight's evening news.

2) As I understand the composition of these "Explosives", neither of these items were readily usable as components for car bombs, unless the bomb makers had a degree in chemistry and a lot of other specialized materials to combine with these materials. These items where most likely actually some of the components one would need in the "Non-existent" Iraqi Nuclear Bomb Program to create the shaped charges to make the appropriate fusion or fissionable material go BOOM!!!

Do you mean the Iranian nuclear program or the Syrian nuclear program?

Posted by: Shamalama 31-Oct-2004, 11:47 PM
This whole "380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq" was a package put together by the national Democratic party and hand-delivered to an eagerly-waiting liberal media. To the Dan Rathers of the media this was like Christmas morning. Too bad that actual facts burst their balloon.

ABC, NBC, FNC and CNN, but not CBS, on Wednesday night provided new details, about what is known to have happened at the al-Qaqaa facility in January to May of 2003, which cast more doubts upon the charge that the 377 tons of explosives disappeared after U.S. troops arrived. CBS just cannot accept the fact that this story is a flub, that Bush cannot be charged with a crime, and that the Democrats might actually be lying (or at least mis-representing the facts).

Dan Rather is a baffoon. So is the major media's coverage of this year's election.

1. CBS News had to appoint an outside two-member investigating committee to find out how and why (1) Dan Rather aired a hatchet job on President Bush based on forged documents that CBS was warned about and (2) CBS Producer Mary Mapes coordinated with senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart concerning the discredited source of those documents.

2. Last spring, over 250 Vietnam War contemporaries, including veterans who served with him when he was a Swift Boat commander and his entire chain of command, came forward to publicly challenge Kerry?s version of Vietnam and his anti-war activities. After being ignored for several weeks the media turned on these honorable men with a vengeance, rather than give them a shred of credibility.

3. When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was at 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Today, as Bush stands for re-election, unemployment is at 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent and economists? consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent. Coverage of the Clinton economic data was overwhelmingly favorable (35 positive, 6 negative stories). Under Bush, it?s literally reversed to 6 positive, 38 negative. Numbers don?t lie. Bias is the only explanation.

4. CBS correspondent Richard Schlesinger focused this story around Beverly Cocco, portraying her as a mom "petrified about a military draft." He never mentioned she is the activist leader of a group called "People Against the Draft." He never mentioned that the Pentagon, the Republican Party, and the Bush campaign all oppose a new draft. Dan Rather introduced the segment this way: "A mother worries her son will be drafted. Does she have good reason?" Both Schlesinger and Producer Linda Karas cited erroneous email chatter about the draft as justification for doing an Evening News segment. Karas incredulously intoned: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece."

5. "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. ? And I think they?re going to portray Kerry and Edwards ? I?m talking about the establishment media, not Fox ? but they?re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and opportunistic and all. There?s going to be this glow about them ? that?s going to be worth maybe 15 points." ? Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 7/10/04.

The elite liberal media is not objective, not fair, not balanced. They are partisans who are sacrificing any remaining credibility in an effort to defeat President Bush. Watch for smiles and a general "upbeat attitude" everytime a state votes for Kerry, but a sense of "doom and foreboding" everytime a state votes for Bush. Tuesday night's coverage should be very easy to watch.

Posted by: maisky 01-Nov-2004, 08:21 AM
QUOTE
Tuesday night's coverage should be very easy to watch.

Not NEARLY as easy as Kerry's first State of the Union speach. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 01-Nov-2004, 10:42 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 01-Nov-2004, 10:21 AM)

Not NEARLY as easy as Kerry's first State of the Union speech. biggrin.gif


Just as long as he does it from Paris. tongue.gif


Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 05-Nov-2004, 12:48 AM
And now all we here in this forum is the sound of crickets... unsure.gif

Posted by: maisky 05-Nov-2004, 07:35 AM
From The Onion:

Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On
Bush, Kerry
WASHINGTON, DC?Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers.

Posted by: Shamalama 05-Nov-2004, 10:53 AM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ 05-Nov-2004, 02:48 AM)

And now all we here in this forum is the sound of crickets... unsure.gif


After all these long months of battling Brother Maisky it's time to "take a breather". Time to tend to the wounds, time to repair the swords and shields.

Time for a full bottle of a fine single malt.

ABC News struck back Thursday night at the notion that exit polls, which found that "moral values" led all other topics as the most important issue to voters, meant support for conservative positions on social issues, as if liberal anti-war activists were equally likely to have picked "moral values" as their top issue. With "Moral Values" in quote marks over a red/blue state U.S. map, Peter Jennings treated the concept as alien as he described how "ever since the polls closed on election night, there's been a lot of buzz in the political establishment, in the country at large, about this question of quote, 'moral values.'"

The liberal media elite cannot grasp the overall concept of "moral vaules" because they pride themselves on having none. To mention "morals", to them, implies "radical conservatism". But to so many Americans it simply means a system of beliefs, usually strongly held, in something more than oneself. You see it in restaurants across the globe: one family says a prayer before their meal while others look at them with disgust.

On ABC's Good Morning America co-host Diane Sawyer expressed astonishment over "one of the big surprises" of the campaign which "still has everyone talking. Voters saying that their top issue in choosing a candidate, not the economy, not terrorism, not Iraq, but moral values." Sawyer at least painted liberal Democrats as the ones out of touch, telling Paul Begala how "a woman in the newspaper this morning said something which really intrigued me." The woman said, 'I've been made to feel by liberal people that my faith just makes me weird' and at the end of the day she didn't like that.

The liberal media is completely out of touch with mainstream America, and their catering to the New York elite is their downfall.


Posted by: Shamalama 30-Nov-2004, 02:13 PM
Imagine this:

Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the world community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Wall-to-wall media coverage on every channel throughout the day and night, Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It?s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

So I?m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from the media, from Hollywood, from the public-at-large over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh?s crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood?s creative community? Where is the outrage from the media? Where is the outrage from the college campuses? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!

Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. You stand to lose a lot more from Islamic terrorists than you do from Michael Moore.

Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they?re not those evil Christians or Jews. Death at the hand of a Muslim is not nearly as bad as death by a Christian or Jew, right?

Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists, the media, people of America, people of the world?

Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 01-Dec-2004, 01:20 AM
My dear friend...Your analogy is brilliantly written and so true. The world seems so blind to the threatening black clouds that loom just above filled with extreme hatred by those who are bent on world dominance through the indoctrination into their extreme Islamic beliefs whereas by means of fear, cold blooded murder and assimilation they intend to win their ultimate jihad. When is the Western World going to wake up? These so called Muslims are everywhere and are waiting patiently...planning and have been acting out their aggression. Everyone who is not muslim/moslem according to the Koran is an infidel and an enemy of Islam!!!! When you hear that Islam is for peace...think again...If you believe this then may I suggest that you go and study the Koran for yourself and then you'll get an eye-opener.

These extremists and those who follow the Koran literally look at the Western world and its freedom, liberty and different brands of democracy as evil and from the devil. They hate our freedom...the freedom that our women have to make their own choices...freedom of religion...freedom to pursue justice justly...freedom to elect our political officials...freedom to voice our thoughts and ideas through written and oral communication. They reject the van Goghs, the Jungs, the Piccasos, the Margaret Thatchers, the Rodans, the Spielburgs, the Anthony Hopkins, the Churchills, the Mozarts, the Rock and Jazz musicans of this world...they hate and reject all free thinkers! When will the world wake up???? And stand up to this irrational hostile hatred and say enough is enough.

They naysayers who say, "Oh, you are over dramatizing the situation...there is no real threat of terrorism." Or the other intelligent people who claim the American government crashed our own planes into the Two Towers in N.Y. and the Pentagon in D.C. to kill over 3,000 of their own citizens so they could go to war are like the same people who said that over 5 million Jews weren't genicide by Hitler and the Nazis.
Over 500,000 people thrown into mass graves found in Iraq isn't that big of a deal, bloody torture chambers and people afraid to fight back is no great consequence...right?
Just like Stalin...Hussien was a nice guy...right? Especially when he was lining the pockets of the heads of the U.N., France, Germany and Russia with Oil for Food money...what is 80 Billion Dollars in their pockets when supposedly the children of Iraq were starving and suffering because of the U.S. back sanctions? Now we can see that these leaders weren't being led by their morals and principles of diplomacy and peace when they stood against the United States, the United Kingdom and the rest of the Coalition who wanted to make Sadam Hussien be held accountable by the U.N....do you think greed was the determining factor??? No, only ignorant people would come to those conclusions...right?!
Europe Wake Up!!!! Canada Wake Up!!! Liberals Wake Up!!! Socialists Wake Up!!!


Posted by: Shamalama 07-Dec-2004, 01:53 PM
And it couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

Reporters Trail Badly (Again) in Annual Poll on Honesty and Ethics
By Greg Mitchell
Published: December 07, 2004 11:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - Once again, newspaper reporters score poorly in the annual Gallup Poll, released today, on ?honesty and ethical standards? in various professions, as judged by the American public. They rank even lower than bankers, auto mechanics, elected officials, and nursing-home operators.

To put this in perspective: Newspaper reporters are even less respected than their TV counterparts.

Somehow, however, they top lawyers, car salesmen, and ad directors. And they also edge business executives and congressmen.

Nurses top the list as most honest and ethical.

If there's any good news for newspapers, it's that since 2000, the number of those saying that reporters have high or very high ethical standards has climbed from 16% to 21%. In 2000, reporters were behind even lawyers in that category.

All in all, in the current survey, Gallup found that 5% of the sample gave newspaper journos very high marks for honesty, 16% high, 50% average, and 28% low or very low.

So one positive way to look at it is that 71% said that at least reporters displayed average or above honesty and ethics. Even so, they were way down the list.

At the top, 79% gave nurses high or very high marks. Other categories, in order:

1. Nurses
2. Grade school teachers
3. Druggists, pharmacists
4. Military officers
5. Medical doctors
6. Policemen
7. Clergy
8. Judges
9. Day care providers
10. Bankers
11. Auto mechanics
12. Local officeholders
13. Nursing home operators
14. State officeholders
15. TV Reporters
16. Newspaper reporters
17. Business executives
18. Congressmen
19. Lawyers
20. Advertising practitioners
21. Car salesmen

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000732750
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14236

Posted by: maisky 10-Dec-2004, 06:45 AM
The question here is not whether Rumsfeld is an idiot (he is), or whether the troops going to Iraq are getting screwed on equipment (they are), but why the white house and pentagon are upset because a reporter sidestepped thier censorship? The questions the troops asked were MOST pertinent.

(CNN) -- The question a U.S. soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday about the lack of armor on some combat vehicles in Iraq was planted by a newspaper reporter embedded with the soldier's unit, the reporter told colleagues in an e-mail.

Edward Lee Pitts, Chattanooga Times Free Press military affairs reporter, said he wanted to ask the question himself but was denied a chance to speak to Rumsfeld at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting for GIs in Kuwait.

Pitts wrote the e-mail to co-workers at the Tennessee newspaper Wednesday, and it was published Thursday on the Web site of the Poynter Institute, a center for journalistic studies in St. Petersburg, Florida.

"I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," Pitts wrote from Kuwait, where he is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit preparing for deployment to Iraq.

"As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough so I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld."

Soldiers at Camp Buehring, a staging area in the Kuwait desert, peppered Rumsfeld with queries, including one about armored vehicles from Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th. (Full story)

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in a hangar to hear Rumsfeld.

Pitts said he was told only soldiers could ask questions, so he and two GIs "worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

To make sure the soldiers were picked, Pitts said he "found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

Wilson was the second soldier recognized.

"When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees," Pitts wrote, "the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question."

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed."

"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Rumsfeld's response was aired repeatedly on news channels, including CNN. The Pentagon held news conferences to discuss the issue.

Even President Bush weighed in, telling reporters at the White House Thursday that the military is working to address the issue, and that he didn't blame the soldier for asking such a tough question.

"If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I would want to ask the secretary of defense the same question. And that is, 'Are we getting the best we can get us?' And they deserve the best," Bush said.

In his e-mail, Pitts said he had been "trying to get this story out" since he learned several weeks ago that he would be assigned to an unarmored truck, and the Times Free Press published two stories on the issue.

"But it felt good to hand it off to the national press," Pitts wrote. "I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be too late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after."

Pitts wrote that Wilson told him he "felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad."

Military officials had given the Tennessee Guard unit "reassurance all along that this would be taken care of," said Tom Griscom, the paper's publisher and executive editor.

"We have pictures of soldiers in the 278th literally going through [a] scrap heap" scavenging steel plate for their vehicles, Griscom said.

"They [the soldiers] spoke for themselves," Griscom said.

Griscom said he supported the way Pitts handled the situation.

"Lee called in here yesterday on the [satellite] phone, told us how the questions had unfolded," he said.

"I am supportive of his trying to find a way to get a question asked," Griscom said.

Though there was some discussion at the paper about Pitts' handling of the matter, Griscom said, "I would not start by saying we made a mistake. I personally do not think we made a mistake."

Professor Stuart Loory, who holds the Lee Hills Chair in Free Press Studies at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia, said he doesn't consider the manner in which the question was asked to be a problem for the reporter.

"Reporters don't have the same access any longer that they did to ask their own questions," he said. "And planting a legitimate question with somebody who may have the access, I think, is an acceptable practice.

"The question is whether or not the soldier who asked the question really believed in it, and my guess is that he did, or he wouldn't have asked it," said Loory, who also is editor in chief of Global Journalist magazine.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita disagreed.

"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.

"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."



Posted by: Shamalama 10-Dec-2004, 09:13 AM
1- The two soldiers in question were coached in their questions. The questions came not from them but from the reporter that wanted HIS questions answered.

2- Humvees were never designed to be armored. They are simply the evolution of a Jeep. The engineers never designed armor, the military never requested armor - this is a media-inspired event, nothing more, to cast a bad light on the war on terrorism. The production facilities for the Humvees are pumping out as many armored units as they can, increading production 10-fold.

3- The only thing unusual about this particular ?town hall meeting? was the fact that the press was invited. Rumsfeld intended to show that he has nothing to hide - sort of like a ?full public disclosure? kind of thing. The problem with this is obvious. When the cameras are rolling and a soldier stands up and asks why the military isn?t doing anything to properly equip him for war, the anti-war media machine immediately establishes a new "truth" - in this case it?s that the military is not equipping the force. Absolutely no effort is made to fact-check the soldier - his word is taken as pure gospel. Politicians on Capitol Hill start ranting and raving, the pundits weigh in, and the opposition party gleefully waves the "I told you so" banner. All because of one question from a hard-working well-meaning lower enlisted soldier.

4- SPC Wilson is one of those soldiers who likes to take shots at authority figures. His ex-wife said of him, "It wouldn?t matter if it was Bush himself standing there. He would have dissed him the same." This does not mean he?s a bad soldier. It does mean that he?s probably not a good choice to be an Army spokesperson, which is exactly what he became. If Wilson had said anything pro-war the media wouldn't even have reported it. How many media outlets repeated what all the other soldiers had to say at this meeting? Why? This specific soldier said something that fit into the media's pre-conceived agenda - nothing more.

5- 2,300 soldiers in an air hangar and this reporters' flunkie gets asked a question. Coincidence?

6- The question was legitimate. Rumsfeld's answer was legitimate. The problem is that the media quoted the most damaging parts of the question, and quoted the weakest half-sentence of Rumsfeld's 3-4 paragraph answer, thereby making it look like Rumsfeld got "grilled" and couldn't handle it, when in reality he took a tough question and gave a direct and straightforward response that really answered the soldier's concerns.

7- Contrary to what the majot media is saying, there are very different opinions of the Rumsfeld meeting. Sgt. Missick, C-Co., 319th Sig Bn:

QUOTE
As the story of Secretary Rumsfeld's visit continues to move along, most of you by now are aware of the news that Drudge helped bring to light regarding how the questions were fostered by one of the embedded journalists with Spc. Wilson's unit.

Almost immediately after returning to camp yesterday after the visit by the SECDEF, I did a google news search and read the AP Wire article and noted that, although the piece was fairly accurate, there was definitely a sense of exaggeration in the tone that presented the townhall meeting as a gripe session.  As one of the soldiers in the audience, I felt that presenting the morning in such a fashion was misleading, and with such negative connotations, I wondered how long it may be before the mainstream media ran with the story and turned a pleasant morning with the Secretary of Defense into a scenario that resembled a defendant being cross-examined by the prosecution in a court room.  I knew the story was generating heavy circulation when I saw it headlined on Drudge today.

One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military.  Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely.  Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer.  This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission.

http://www.missick.com/


8- This is much more a media event than a real issue.

Posted by: maisky 10-Dec-2004, 11:15 AM
This summarizes it nicely:

Posted by: maisky 10-Dec-2004, 11:16 AM
and this:

Posted by: Shamalama 13-Dec-2004, 09:09 AM
This ArmorGate business is simply a media event; nothing more.

Most U.S. military vehicles have required some kind of armor upgrade to withstand the volleys of RPGs and large-munition roadside bombs the Iraq conflict has produced. The Stryker units have what looks like steel grating around them to throw up an anti-RPG "fence," photos of Bradleys show what looks like reactive armor kits in place, and even the mighty Abrams appear to have been modified with extra plating. "Up-armoring" is taking place even though the media says it ain't so.

More armor is not a magical solution, never has been. It is represents a trade-off between protection and mobility. The preference for less armor can be seen today with at least some Marines in Fallujah. They point out that up-armoring their Humvees reduces the ability to see threats coming. Of course this is not mentioned by the embedded reporters. Even so-called up-armored Humvees will shred if hit by a well-placed RPG.

It's odd that the mainstream media has failed to note that the criticism of the failure to get armor kits to the troops comes primarily from members of the party whose leaders voted against appropriations to fund the war. They can't have it both ways - or can they?

Which brings me to this article:

QUOTE


Report: Most Skyscrapers Still Not 'Up Armored'

(2004-12-10) -- More than three years after terrorists crashed commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, most skyscrapers still the lack armor plating that could help reduce casualties in a future attack, according to a report released by Congress.

"The Bush administration has devoted almost zero resources to up-armoring our nation's tallest buildings," said an unnamed official who had seen parts of the report. "We have anecdotal evidence of stock brokers dragging dumpsters into their offices and actually working inside the dumpster to get that extra layer of protection."

The report's release comes just days after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced a spontaneous question from a soldier in Kuwait about the difficulty of securing armor for Humvees.

"If each tall building were blanketed with steel, America would finally be safe," the official said. "The terrorists would have to give up, just like they would be stymied if all military vehicles were up-armored. There's nothing they could do to hurt us then."

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001977.html



Posted by: Shamalama 22-Dec-2004, 01:45 PM
In a Sunday night ABC story, the brother and mother of soldiers killed in Iraq denounced Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for having an auto-pen machine sign his letters of condolence. The brother charged that Rumsfeld doesn't "care about the troops." The mother claimed "it personally shows me how callous and unfeeling he is and our government is." World News Tonight/Sunday anchor Terry Moran portrayed the two as representative of how "some military families" are "upset" with Rumsfeld.

Is there any chance that these two "average Americans" somehow had their own agenda? What did ABC not tell us?

Ivan Medina, the brother of the late Irving Medina, spoke in June at a pro-Fahrenheit 9/11 publicity event. In May she took part in an anti-Rumsfeld protest outside of West Point where he charged: "This government lied to the military soldiers. Bush went to war to settle a family vendetta."

Sue Niederer, the mother of the late Seth Dvorin, sported a "President Bush: You Killed My Son" T-shirt when she was arrested for disrupting a September speech by First Lady Laura Bush. Earlier, in a May interview with the liberal Counterpunch web site, she urged harm to President Bush.

Now how is it that little 'ole me can discover this information but ABC News couldn't? Or did ABC simply go out and find two families that they knew already had strong anti-Bush opinions, and did nothing to balance their "story"?

Would ABC News, and anchor Terry Moran, consider airing the stories of two families that support the rebuilding of Iraq and/or think Bush is doing a good job? You know the answer as well as I do.


Posted by: maisky 23-Dec-2004, 07:51 AM
QUOTE
Would ABC News, and anchor Terry Moran, consider airing the stories of two families that support the rebuilding of Iraq and/or think Bush is doing a good job? You know the answer as well as I do.

The problem with this is that a growing majority of Americans do NOT think he is doing a good job.
Rummy needs to be replaced. There is nothing like having an insensitive amateur in charge of the military. (aren't you glad I used "amateur"?)

Posted by: Shamalama 23-Dec-2004, 09:52 AM
So what's wrong with being an insensitive amateur? Heck, I've been living that way for decades! laugh.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 23-Dec-2004, 10:09 AM
I was appalled when Dubya appointed Rummy Secretary of Defense. When he did, he put the neo-con chickenhawk think tank Defense Policy Board Institute, who'd been screaming "IRAQ! IRAQ! IRAQ!" since the end of the first Gulf War in charge of the military.

Posted by: maisky 23-Dec-2004, 03:24 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 23-Dec-2004, 09:52 AM)
So what's wrong with being an insensitive amateur? Heck, I've been living that way for decades! laugh.gif

When YOU do it, thousands of people don't die! It's CUTE when YOU do it. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 27-Dec-2004, 10:21 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 23-Dec-2004, 11:09 AM)

I was appalled when Dubya appointed Rummy The Spawn Of Satan . . .

What is it about the liberals and Rummy?

He has rebuilt the U.S. military, which has freed 50 million people from tyranny, decimated al Qaeda, and won two wars. None of his predecessors back to James V. Forrestal, appointed by President Truman, can claim anything approaching such a record.

From the very beginning of his tenure, Mr. Rumsfeld has spearheaded the Pentagon?s shift from a Cold War-era, European- and Northeast Asian-theater force into one better positioned to fight the wars of the 21st century. After the large drawdowns of the 1990s, Mr. Rumsfeld?s efforts to get uniformed personnel out of civilian Pentagon jobs boosted Army troop levels by 30,000. None of his critics concede it, but those 30,000 alleviated the need for a draft.

Mr. Rumsfeld has overseen the destruction of al Qaeda, the freeing of those 50 million from the yoke of dictatorship and the bolstering of the prospects of countless others. In Afghanistan, the swift assault against the Taliban unseated one of the world?s most cruel regimes and paved the way for democracy. It?s fun for the liberals to lose sight of how momentous an accomplishment that is.

After Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld directed the manhunt to capture or kill al Qaeda?s leadership. To date, three-quarters are dead or in prison. Osama bin Laden is in hiding and appears to have been rendered impotent

It's well-documented that the liberals dislike Rummy because they dislike the war itself. And they dislike the war simply because Bush started it. There is absolutely no doubt that if Gore had won in 2000 and proceeded the same as Bush that this "liberation event" would be hailed in the media as one of the greatest moments in US history.

Posted by: MDF3530 27-Dec-2004, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 27-Dec-2004, 10:21 AM)
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 23-Dec-2004, 11:09 AM)

I was appalled when Dubya appointed Rummy The Spawn Of Satan . . .

What is it about the liberals and Rummy?

He has rebuilt the U.S. military, which has freed 50 million people from tyranny, decimated al Qaeda, and won two wars. None of his predecessors back to James V. Forrestal, appointed by President Truman, can claim anything approaching such a record.

From the very beginning of his tenure, Mr. Rumsfeld has spearheaded the Pentagon?s shift from a Cold War-era, European- and Northeast Asian-theater force into one better positioned to fight the wars of the 21st century. After the large drawdowns of the 1990s, Mr. Rumsfeld?s efforts to get uniformed personnel out of civilian Pentagon jobs boosted Army troop levels by 30,000. None of his critics concede it, but those 30,000 alleviated the need for a draft.

Mr. Rumsfeld has overseen the destruction of al Qaeda, the freeing of those 50 million from the yoke of dictatorship and the bolstering of the prospects of countless others. In Afghanistan, the swift assault against the Taliban unseated one of the world?s most cruel regimes and paved the way for democracy. It?s fun for the liberals to lose sight of how momentous an accomplishment that is.

After Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld directed the manhunt to capture or kill al Qaeda?s leadership. To date, three-quarters are dead or in prison. Osama bin Laden is in hiding and appears to have been rendered impotent

It's well-documented that the liberals dislike Rummy because they dislike the war itself. And they dislike the war simply because Bush started it. There is absolutely no doubt that if Gore had won in 2000 and proceeded the same as Bush that this "liberation event" would be hailed in the media as one of the greatest moments in US history.

First:

I did NOT call Rummy the "Spawn of Satan". That title is reserved for Dubya biggrin.gif .

Second:

We are NOT winning in Iraq. Just ask the families of soldiers who've been killed over there. I spoke yesterday to a cousin of mine who is in the Marines and will be going to Iraq in the next year or so. He admitted to me that Dubya made a classic military blunder: getting involved in a land war in Asia.

Third:

They're doing a great job in Afghanistan with CLINTON'S military. The military is using GPS technology for their bomb and missile guidance systems, which was put in place during the CLINTON administration. Rumor has it that Clinton got the idea when his brother Roger told him about having Lo-Jack installed on his car.

Posted by: Swanny 28-Dec-2004, 07:22 AM
I've been kind of laying low on this thread but.....

QUOTE
Dubya made a classic military blunder: getting involved in a land war in Asia.


Can't you find better documentation than a work of children's fiction (The Princess Bride). Probably one of the best motion pictures ever, but none the less a work of fiction. Heck, that's nearly as bad as quoting the Washington Post or Fox News Net.

"Pirates are good!!!" biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 28-Dec-2004, 07:54 AM
MDF3530: "We are NOT winning in Iraq. Just ask the families of soldiers who've been killed over there."

We are winning in Iraq. Here is part of the transcript from Rummy's recent visit to Iraq. Now everyone knows about the media-planted question about lack of armor, but did ANY of the major media outlets post this part of Rummy's visit:

QUOTE

UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: Everything we do good, no matter whether it?s helping a little kid or building a new school, the public affairs sends out the message that the media doesn?t pick up on. How do we win the propaganda war?

RUMSFELD: That does not sound like a question that was planted by the press. That happens sometimes. (Laughter.)

RUMSFELD: Everything we do here is harder because of television stations like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia and the constant negative approach. You don?t hear about the schools that are open, and the hospitals that are open, and the clinics that are open, and the fact that the stock market is open and the Iraqi currency is steady and the fact that there have been something like 140,000 refugees coming from other countries back into this country. They?re voting with their feet because they believe this is a country of the future. You don?t read about that. You read about every single negative thing that anyone can find to report. I was talking to a group of congressmen and senators the other day, and there were a couple of them who had negative things to say and they were in the press in five minutes. There were 15 or 20 that had positive things to say about what?s going on in Iraq and they couldn?t get on television. Television just said we?re not interested. That?s just ? sorry. So it is, I guess, what?s news has to be bad news.


Lance Frizzell is a 2nd Lt Medical Platoon Leader with the Tennessee National Guard 278th Regimental Combat Team, and currently serving in Northern Iraq. He also runs a blog out of Iraq
( http://iraq.billhobbs.com/ ) . What does he say about the war in Iraq?

QUOTE

The putrid system we are rolling back here is just as insideous as fascism in WWII and even communism during the Cold War.


QUOTE

I think Tony Blair is probably the best thing to come out of England since these guys [the Rolling Stones].


QUOTE

The level of commitment and sacrifice displayed by the Iraqi citizens who openly support us is nothing short of amazing. The vast majority of Iraqis support what we are doing but for some it is a life or death proposition to publicly support liberty as well as free and open elections for Iraq. The MSM [mainstream media] doesn't do much to spotlight these folks but they are here and they are patriots. And just like our original patriots, they sometimes die for their country's future.


I will also DARE anyone here to visit http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/12/good-news-from-iraq-part-17.html and try to find any falsehoods in this guy's blog about the good news coming out of Iraq daily. Yes, this guy is a conservative, but facts are facts and are neither liberal nor conservative. All facts presented are backed up with references, and they tend to show that wonderful things are happening in Iraq on almost a daily basis. None of these facts are ever discussed in the mainstream media - why?

So "yes" we are winning in Iraq, and I understand that it makes you very angry.

MDF3530: "...CLINTON'S military..."

?!?!

OK, the first use of GPS-guided bombs and missles was in Kosovo in 1999. GPS navigation was first used in the Gulf War in 1990. Considering that it usually takes about 10 years of research and development prior to any deployment, I don't see how these technologies were Clinton's.

When the Clinton Administration presented its defense budget request for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 it was inadequate to fund the current defense policy, much less any future policies - and certainly nowhere close to funding any major conflict. Clinton's defense budgets were lower (in percentage or in growth) than his predecessors.

Defense Secretary Les Aspin had earlier called the lower funding "the first truly post-cold War budget", which really meant "yep, we going to start spending a lot less for defense". Here you can argue whether we, after the end of the Cold War, actually needed to spend as much as we did earlier. Some say yes, and some say no. Clinton needed the money for social engineering projects, which is typical of the liberal philosophy. Different philosophies have different opinions on "what's most important" for the country.

I have to give Clinton credit in that he did spend a few dollars for research, both new and continued (F-22, JSF, BMD programs). But he also cut the total numbers of both active duty and Guard and Reserve forces.

But "Clinton's military"? Nah. The military is it's own beast, simply supported or burdened by the purse strings of it's figurehead Commander In Chief. The CiC simply gives orders - the military figures out the best way to do the job. Do you think FDR figured out and planned the Normandy invasion?

Posted by: Shamalama 28-Dec-2004, 08:37 AM
OK, this is not "Media Bias", but is rather "Academic Bias". But since they're both populated primarily by leftists I will post it here.

The January issue of the Duke University "Commentary" is out, and it contains a disturbing piece (no link is available yet, but I'm still looking for it) by two Duke University graduate students, Eric Adler and Jack Langer called "The Intifada Comes to Duke."

The authors are referring to Duke's recent hosting of the annual conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM). One of PSM's stated principles is that it refuses to denounce any terrorist act committed by Palestinians. Yep - refuses to denounce any terrorist act committed by Palestinians.

One of the scheduled speakers at the Duke conference, Charles Carlson, has openly called for lethal attacks against Israelis, saying "each wedding, Passover celebration, or bar mitzvah [in Israel] is a potential military target." Wow, this is a nice guy.

One PSM organizer, Fadi Kiblawi has written of his urge to "strap a bomb to his chest and kill those Zionist racists."

Another spokesperson, Hatem Bazian has called for "an intifada in this country."

None of this was of concern to Duke president Richard Brodhead. He found the decision to host the pro-terror organization to be "an easy one" given "the importance of the principle free expression." It is true that after the PSM's statements and deeds were spelled out in detail for Brodhead, he modified his position. Now the "deepest" reason for hosting the conference was no longer free speech, but "the principle of education through dialogue."

The dialogue, as Adler and Langer show, was a one-sided and darkly anti-Semitic affair. Keynote speaker Mazin Qumsiyeh (a Yale professor of genetics) presented a short history of the virulent Zionist "disease."

At a workshop, Huweida Arraf of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) urged students to join her group, which she acknowledged cooperates with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and offered them tips on how to enter Israel surreptitiously. Thus, in the name of dialogue, did Duke University assist in the recruitment of accomplices to terrorism.

OK, now the bias.

Take everything above and substitute:

- "Klu Klux Klan" for "Palestine Solidarity Movement"
- "lynching" for "terrorist act committed by Palestinians"
- "load the shotgun and head for the ghetto" for "strap a bomb to his chest and kill those Zionist racists"
- "kill all the (insert the n-word here) " for "an intifada in this country"
- "African subhuman" for "Zionist disease"
- "hide in the shadows of a predominately black church" for "enter Israel surreptitiously"

Do you believe that Duke president Richard Brodhead would still claim "the importance of the principle free expression" or "the principle of education through dialogue" about a KKK rally at Duke University?

Posted by: maisky 28-Dec-2004, 09:55 AM
Don't be so narrow, sir! Duke ALSO hosts PRO jewish groups. Shucks, they even host those radical CHRISTIANS and military recruiters on campus. laugh.gif

Posted by: MacEoghainn 28-Dec-2004, 05:50 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 28-Dec-2004, 10:55 AM)
Don't be so narrow, sir!  Duke ALSO hosts PRO jewish groups.  Shucks, they even host those radical CHRISTIANS and military recruiters on campus. laugh.gif

While Brother Maisky is being sarcastic (at least I'm fairly sure he is unsure.gif ) I still have to ask the question: Which of the groups Maisky mentioned is advocating "Straping a Bomb" to themselves and killing people with the "Zionist disease"?

Posted by: maisky 29-Dec-2004, 07:01 AM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 28-Dec-2004, 05:50 PM)
While Brother Maisky is being sarcastic (at least I'm fairly sure he is unsure.gif ) I still have to ask the question: Which of the groups Maisky mentioned is advocating "Straping a Bomb" to themselves and killing people with the "Zionist disease"?

Nobody else refer to "Zionist disease". The Republicants advocate bombing EVERYBODY. rolleyes.gif
Perhaps THEY should be banned from campus. unsure.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 30-Dec-2004, 12:11 PM
At the end of 2004 I have to admit that I am grateful for one thing: media bias.

?!?!

For many generations, Big Media represented the interests of the dominant political and business elites - the Fat Cats of the US.

Some of those interests were good, and some were very bad. With the arrival of the civil rights movement, journalism slowly began to reform itself and to work overtime to represent underrepresented political and social points of view. There developed a great tolerance for viewpoints and perspectives from ideological minorities, and a great hunger to represent those views in direct contrast to their former Fat Cat mentors.

The new recruits to big journalism and their new mentors did not work overtime to assure that, in the elevation of tolerance of ideological minorities, there would remain representation of majoritarian points of view. In fact, majoritarian points of view became suspect, and the focus of pervasive hostile reporting and analysis. The pendulum had swung completely the other way - and one extreme is no better than another. In modern language, this is when mainstream journalism no longer represented the Red States.

By the time the new millennium arrived, legacy media was populated at its elite levels by as homogeneous a group of reporters-producers-commentators,
all of minority ideologies (or better put non-majority ideologies), a self-replicating echo chamber of left, overwhelmingly anti-Republican, anti-Christian, anti-military, anti-wealth, anti-business (and really anti-middle class).

Sometimes being with the "majority" is certainly a bad thing. One has to look no further than Nazi Germany. But sometimes being with the "minority" is certainly a bad thing too. Look at militant Islam today.

Today's journalists have no tolerance for majoritarian points of view (look at all the dismay when state after state turned red in the last election), and they consider themselves somehow "above the fray" for having such philosophies. Down here in Georgia we simply call them "snobs".

The majority of listeners/viewers grew tired of the exclusion of its views from the media. When Rush Limbaugh arrived, he prospered because at last there was a voice reflecting majoritarian points of view. The same welcome greeted Drudge, Fox News, and the blogs. Look at any Nielson numbers - conservative outlets are cleaning house against the long-establshed media, and the trend shows no sign of abating. CNN's ratings over a decade are in a freefall, as are those of CBS, and the others are not looking healthy.

People are now, for the first time in 40 years, having the opportunity to see multiple sides of the news. People now have the ability to decide for themselves who is telling the truth and who is lying - something the media was supposed to be doing all along.

How can it possibly be that 80-90% of journalists vote liberal election after election, while such a trend is not seen among the general population? That's easy: it's because journalists simply have a very different philisophy from "middle America". Today's journalists are far more closely aligned, in philisophy, with the new-euro-Socialists.

The blogosphere is intensely partisan, just as old media has been. But, unlike the old media, there is truth on the Internet. On the Internet you can easily Google practically any story or subject and find both fact and fiction, again something mainstream media has not done for 40 years. This is a significant advantage going forward in the competition for credibility and trust. If old media does not develop some level of tolerance for the majoritarian points of view in the United States (and yes, I do mean Republican, Christian, pro-military, pro-wealth, pro-business, and pro-middle and upper class), it will continue to decline in reach and authority. And it could happen to a nicer group of people. The departure of Dan Rather is far more symbolic than just an old guy retiring.

Posted by: maisky 30-Dec-2004, 06:59 PM
QUOTE
By the time the new millennium arrived, legacy media was populated at its elite levels by as homogeneous a group of reporters-producers-commentators,
all of minority ideologies (or better put non-majority ideologies), a self-replicating echo chamber of left, overwhelmingly anti-Republican, anti-Christian, anti-military, anti-wealth, anti-business (and really anti-middle class).

Sometimes being with the "majority" is certainly a bad thing. One has to look no further than Nazi Germany. But sometimes being with the "minority" is certainly a bad thing too. Look at militant Islam today.

Today's journalists have no tolerance for majoritarian points of view (look at all the dismay when state after state turned red in the last election), and they consider themselves somehow "above the fray" for having such philosophies. Down here in Georgia we simply call them "snobs".

The majority of listeners/viewers grew tired of the exclusion of its views from the media. When Rush Limbaugh arrived, he prospered because at last there was a voice reflecting majoritarian points of view. The same welcome greeted Drudge, Fox News, and the blogs. Look at any Nielson numbers - conservative outlets are cleaning house against the long-establshed media, and the trend shows no sign of abating. CNN's ratings over a decade are in a freefall, as are those of CBS, and the others are not looking healthy.

Rush Limburgher "majoritarian"? Only if the majority are religious right extremists. laugh.gif
The media is rapidly coming under the "command" of it's extreme right-wing owners. More and more you have to access international sources to find out what is REALLY going on. Anybody who watches FOX and thinks they are getting a true picture is wearing blinders.

Posted by: maisky 01-Jan-2005, 05:33 AM
I have found a news source on the web that is not only non-partisan, it bills itself as having "nothing to hide": www.nakednews.com biggrin.gif
NOTE: You need to be 18 to access this.

Posted by: Shamalama 03-Jan-2005, 10:47 AM
I've "heard" about www.nakednews.com. It's been out for a year or two. Great "commentary".

Nah, Rush is as wacko as Rather. But the nice thing is that Rush today has an audience comparable to Rather, as well as all the "shades of grey" between.

Today mainstream media is entertainment and agenda, not journalism. World News Tonight with Peter Jennings is no more news than Sesame Street.

BUT ...

With the advent of blogs a formerly silent voice can be heard. Without blogs we would never have heard from the Swiftees or Rather's bogus documents. And without those two events Kerry would have been elected. So "independant media" is having a real effect on what happens in the world, at a time when viewership of the "big three" is declining rapidly. And with the decline of entertainment and agenda we just might get to see the truth - something neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want. Anybody who watches ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/FOX and thinks they are getting a true picture is wearing blinders.

Outside of a half dozen large urban areas the rest of the country got colored red this past election. This alone tells you something about the attitudes, morals, and desires of the "majority". Those voices need to be heard just as much as the half dozen large urban areas. This country is a lot more than just New York City or Los Angeles.

Posted by: Shamalama 03-Jan-2005, 12:10 PM
On Sunday, January 02, the Iraqi Arabic newspaper 'Nahrain' had the following press release by the Iraqi ministry of defense:

---

1. At 1 am Iraqi National Guard (ING), the Mahmudih division, arrested 217 individuals suspected of being terrorists and confiscated a large cache of light and heavy caliber weapons and ammunition.

2. At 2 am the same ING division arrested Hatem Alzobaae, a suspected terrorist cell leader.

3. At 2:30 am ING in Hillah arrested the terrorist Ali Mehsan Ghnajar. In his possession were 19 grenades, three 28mm mortars.

4. At 4 am, based on a tip that he had returned from Syria, the criminal Ali Latief was arrested by the ING. Four men who are part of his cell were also arrested.

5. At 4 am 10 terrorists were arrested after returning from Mosul by the ING Mahmudiah division.

6. At 4 am ING raided the Hai Alaskari area based on a tip. As a result of the raid the ING arrested 10 terrorists one of which resisted and was wounded and arrested.

7. At 4 am terrorists attacked the Hadbaa police station and were repelled with 2 terrorists killed and their weapons confiscated.

8. At 5 am ING started a security clean sweep of Bab Shams. They confiscated a large number of hand grenades and mortar weapons and rounds.

---

Now time for the bias.

(1) Check your local newspaper from this past weekend and see whether these successes by the Iraqi National Guard have been reported.
(2) Then ask yourself whether any successful terrorist attack, whether via car bomb, attack on a police station, kidnapping, or whatever, has ever gone unreported in your local paper.

Why?

Posted by: Shamalama 06-Jan-2005, 12:58 PM
Here's a bit more Academia Bias from Ahmad Al-Qloushi.

QUOTE


I am a 17-year-old Kuwaiti Arab Muslim and a college freshman studying in the USA.  I was three years of age when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. My parents still remember what it was like for us during the invasion. Waiting for long hours in line for a few pieces of bread. We had darkness 24 hours a day from the burning oil wells. My two uncles are still traumatized from being kidnapped and tortured in Iraqi prisons.  Most of all we remember our one-week-old baby cousin who died while the Iraqi invaders were stealing incubators from hospitals to sell them for profit. The Americans by contrast came in to liberate us and asked for nothing in return.  I love this country for the freedom it provides and for rescuing Kuwait?s liberty in the first Gulf War.  12 Years later, America once again has selflessly protected my country and my people by removing Saddam Hussein.

I arrived in the United States for the first time 5 months ago with tremendous enthusiasm to study the political institutions and history of this extraordinary country.

I enrolled in Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, California and immediately registered for ?Introduction to American Government and Politics."  I was shocked by my Professor?s singularly one-sided presentation.  Week after week, I encountered a lack of intellectual and political diversity that I would have more commonly expected to have heard on the streets of pre-liberation Iraq. In this particular class I heard only one consistent refrain: America is bad.

A week before thanksgiving Professor Woolcock assigned us a take home final exam.  The final exam consisted solely of one required essay: ?Dye and Zeigler contend that the Constitution of the United States was not ?ordained and established? by ?the people? as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.?

When I read the assignment I remembered back to my high school in Kuwait.  Many of my teachers were Palestinian; they hated America, they hated my worldview, and they did their best to brainwash me.  I did not leave my country and my family to come to the United States to receive further brainwashing.  I disagreed completely with Dye and Zeigler?s thesis. I wrote an essay defending America?s Founding Fathers and upholding the US constitution as a pioneering document, which has contributed to extraordinary freedoms in America and other corners of the world - including my corner, the Middle East.

Professor Woolcock didn?t grade my essay.  Instead he told me to come to see him in his office the following morning.  I was surprised the next morning when instead of giving me a grade, Professor Woolcock verbally attacked me and my http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad%27sessay121004.htm.  He told me, ?Your views are irrational.?  He called me naïve for believing in the greatness of this country, and told me "America is not God's gift to the world."  Then he upped the stakes and said "You need regular psychotherapy."  Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America you must be deranged.  Professor Woolcock went as far as to threaten me by stating that he would visit the Dean of International Admissions (who has the power to take away student visas) to make sure I received regular psychological treatment. 



One of the liberal's most passionate lies is that of intellectual diversity, which is only allowed if it's liberal - conservative or moderate thought is generally not tolerated.

Well, Ahmad's story made it to the internet, and more than a few people could easily see the blind bias against America by, gasp, a professor of American Government. Then the local media picked up the story. So what did professor Wookcock do? He filed a grievance - an ?act or threat of intimidation or general harassment?. What a loser, a wimp, and a neo-Socialist liberal.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/12/prweb187767.htm

Joe Woolcock
Political Science Instructor (Honors Instructor)
Business and Social Sciences
(650) 949-7485
[email protected]

Oh, and Foothill College is in California. Not surprising.

Posted by: Shamalama 10-Jan-2005, 11:39 AM
Here's an example of liberal bias from the BBC, as reported by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/nbook09.xml
(scroll down towards the bottom of the page)

QUOTE


'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line

Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.

Instead the BBC's coverage was dominated by the self-important vapourings of a stream of politicians, led by the UN's Kofi Annan; the EU's "three-minute silence"; the public's amazing response to fund-raising appeals; and a Unicef-inspired scare story about orphaned children being targeted by sex traffickers. The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera.

The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground. Here and there, news organisations have tried to report this, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine in Germany, and even the China News Agency, not to mention various weblogs, such as the wonderfully outspoken Diplomad, run undercover by members of the US State Department, and our own www.eureferendum.blogspot.com. But when even Communist China's news agency tells us more about what is really going on than the BBC, we see just how strange the world has become.

One real lesson of this disaster, as of others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad", the story is suppressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.


Posted by: maisky 10-Jan-2005, 01:56 PM
Ranting by an extreme right wing columnist to try to prove that the BBC is biased just won't work. Nice try, though. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 11-Jan-2005, 07:00 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 10-Jan-2005, 02:56 PM)

Ranting by an extreme right wing columnist to try to prove that the BBC is biased just won't work.

Why not? Everyone believed it when Dan Rather, a clearly-defined left-winger, said that the mainstream media isn't biased.

And his political affiliation is not important if you can actually find evidence that the BBC includes mentioning the primary aid force (the US and Australian military) as an integral part of any tsunami reporting. The BBC doesn't mind often quoting a few lines from the few UN officials over there.

Which brings me back to King Dan. Ahhh, this couldn't have happened to a "nicer" person and a "nicer" network. January 10, 2005: the day that CBS News decended into the abyss.

Everybody remembers it. On September 8, 2004, the show "60 Minutes" ran a story apparently showing documents that proved that Bush lied on several accounts regarding his Texas Air National Guard service. The only problem was that these documents were fake, and CBS knew at the time that they were fake and ran them anyway.

The investigation into what really happened was released yesterday. It's called The Thornburgh report.

Oh, and the very day that the CBS Fake Documents report was released was the very day that Dan just happened to take a day off? Yeah. CBS News veteran Don Hewitt called Dan Rather's disappearance from Monday's Evening News "really stupid" during a damage control meeting on Monday. There are rumors that Rather was told to stay off the air on Monday.

And Dan is not simply "retiring" in 2005. Les Moonves, CBS chairman, for the first time seemed to link Mr. Rather's decision to step down from the anchor position to his association with the discredited report. Yep, Dan was shown the door. "Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken responsibility for his part in the broadcast. He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the 'CBS Evening News' in March of 2005. We believe any further action would not be appropriate." Bye bye, Dan.

The Thornburgh report is being quoted and misquoted all over the media. But the one thing that no one will mention is that the fundamental problem that led to the downfall of 60 Minutes and, perhaps, CBS News, was the fact that no one involved in the reportorial or editorial process was a Republican or a conservative. If there had been anyone in the organization who did not share Mary Mapes's politics, who was not desperate to counteract the Swift Boat Vets and deliver the election to the Democrats, then certain obvious questions would have been asked:
- Where, exactly, did these documents come from?
- What reason is there to think that they really originated in the "personal files" of a long-dead National Guard officer, if his family has no knowledge of them?
- How did such modern-looking memos come to be produced in the early 1970s?
- How can these critical memos, allegedly by Jerry Killian, be reconciled with the glowing evaluations of Lt. Bush that Killian signed?
- Why haven't you interviewed General "Buck" Staudt, who is casually slandered in one of the alleged memos?
- Why didn't you show the memos to General Bobby Hodges, rather than reading phrases from them to him over the telephone?
- Isn't it a funny coincidence that these "newly discovered" memos are attributed to the one person in this story who is conveniently dead?

The senior management of "60 Minutes" had one agenda, and it had nothing to do with either truth nor facts: it was to help deliver the White House to Kerry. And, thanks to the blogosphere, it failed.

The words of the mainstream media has always been, "Yes, we're pretty much all Democrats, but that doesn't influence our news coverage." Does anyone actually believe that anymore?

There was even communication and apparent coordination between 60 Minutes staff and the Kerry campaign. Huh? A "fair and balanced" news agency working with a particular political candidate? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Nope, not if your
agenda is the same as the candidate's.

Did you know that the Democratic National Committee launched its "Fortunate Son" ad campaign, which duplicated the themes of the 60 Minutes program, the very next morning after the program aired. Now what are the chances that such could happen?

And here's another funny item. The primary blog that exposed the forged documents is a little place called Little Green Footballs. It was completely offline yesterday due to a Denial Of Service attack. Seems like the liberals are not overly happy with the news when it goes against their agenda. But thanks to an extensive mirroring system the blog remains active. Nice try, though.

The bottom line is that CBS News is far more concerned with promoting either a liberal candidate or a liberal agenda than they are televising factual news. You cannot convince me that a trained staff of professional journalists couldn't see these documents as fakes but a handful of internet bloggers saw them as fakes in a few hours.

CBS News has seen years of poor ratings and reduced influence. Now they suffered a crushing blow to its credibility because of a broadcast that has now been labeled as both factually discredited and unprofessionally produced. And for lying to the American public for all these years, I say, "Rest In Peace, CBS".

Posted by: maisky 11-Jan-2005, 07:48 AM
The REAL tragedy about the faked documents is that it obscures the fact that Bush DID lie about his service. A little noted interview with the secretary who typed the REAL memos indicated that, while the memos were fake, the content of them was correct. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 11-Jan-2005, 09:13 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 11-Jan-2005, 08:48 AM)

A little noted interview with the secretary who typed the REAL memos indicated that, while the memos were fake, the content of them was correct.


I was SO hoping someone would say this. The documents were fake, but what is written on them is true.

Sort of like Clinton's great line, "I smoked marajuana, but I didn't inhale."

Geez. The blatant fraudulence of the documents used to try to alter a Presidental enection IS the issue. This was a victory of the New Media, the Internet, bloggers and talk radio, over the Old Media, the New York Times, Washington Post and, of course, CBS. ABC and NBC also need to watch carefully.

Mary Mapes has been after Bush since he was a Texas Governor. She discovered a fraud, embellished it, coordinated it with the DNC, and rushed it to TV. She is not a journalist, merely a political hack in a position of great power. It's a good thing that she is unemployed today.

Are you really implying that forgeries are OK as long as you believe that the information contained within is assumed to be true? I can write a letter from the Pope, and even put his signature on it, as long as what's inside the document is factually correct? Would you allow me to televise the following:

QUOTE


Jesus is returning soon.

Cordially yours,
The Pope



Now would you be willing to go in "60 Minutes" with the above 'document' and attest to it's validity? The contents are true, and who cares if the actual document is fake, right?

The fraudulence of the documents is the issue. Period.

Posted by: maisky 11-Jan-2005, 10:36 AM
QUOTE
fraudulence of the documents is the issue. Period.

Not true. Bush is STILL a liar, a draft dodger and a deserter.

Posted by: MDF3530 11-Jan-2005, 10:41 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 11-Jan-2005, 10:36 AM)
Not true. Bush is STILL a liar, a draft dodger and a deserter.

The Republicans must not believe in karma.

Everything they said about Clinton is coming back to them biggrin.gif .

Posted by: Shamalama 18-Jan-2005, 11:49 AM
This one almost got by me. But in the Rathergate's Thornburgh Report there is the following:

"...Dotty Lynch, CBS News? Senior Political Editor....recalled having discussions with Mapes over Labor Day weekend, about the September 8 Segment."

OK, so who is Dotty Lynch, CBS News? Senior Political Editor? Well, earlier in her career she directed polling for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale and the DNC.

In Lynch?s her own words: "From 1972 until 1985 I worked in politics as a pollster for Democratic candidates and liberal causes. Most of the candidates, most notably Presidential contenders George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart, were simpatico with my liberal values and I felt somewhat fulfilled in working through them to build a better society."

She is a self-described "very ardent feminist".

She participated in a December 2004 CSPAN panel. She agreed that the Swift Boat attacks had no basis in fact. To the suggestion that the MSM should have actually investigated what the "facts" were, before pronouncing them to be false, Lynch stated that since the public can only focus on a few sentences of a story, the mainstream media was justified in not investigating this "complex" Kerry story, because it would only confuse the public.

Yep, absolutely no bias in this person. Exactly the person a major worldwide media outlet should employ to inform the populace in a fair and balanced way.

The liars that have the most influence on the average person do not live in the White House.

Posted by: Shamalama 20-Jan-2005, 09:34 AM
This one is tasty.

ABC wants to "balance" its coverage of President Bush's inauguration with coverage of a military funeral:

QUOTE


Jan. 19, 2005 ? For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below:



Note that only the families of Iraqi war dead need apply. If a soldier died in Afghanistan, or aiding tsunami victims in Indonesia or Sri Lanka, or in a training exercise, never mind. That isn't the "balance" ABC is looking for.

Fortunately several blogs found this and spread the word. ABC News quickly removed the page, although one blogger was able to capture a screenshot (a little funky and doesn't exactly duplicate the original, but it's close).

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/story.htm

Would any media outlet have run such a "balance" story if Kerry had been elected?

Posted by: MDF3530 20-Jan-2005, 03:17 PM
That was so badly faked it is unbelievable. Any teenager in his parents' basement could do that. I could put an ABC News logo here and claim it's from their website.

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Jan-2005, 04:02 PM
Thursday night ABC did, in fact, run such a story.

On Thursday's World News Tonight, Jennings, over video of a flag-draped casket in a church, a picture of the killed Marine, a flag being folded over the casket and scenes of grieving funeral attendees, pointed out:

"In Rockport, Texas today, just about the time the President was speaking, there was a funeral for a young Marine reservist: 21-year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb. His brother told a local paper that as much as Matthew wanted to be home, he was very proud of what he was doing in Iraq. And it is something you hear from so many people in the services, including the ten thousand who have already been wounded."

So, even if the WEBSITE is fake but the CONTENT is true, then you must accept it as credible and worthy, or so said Brother Maisky about RatherGate.

Comrade Jennings later said that "these are big issues in the country" and added: "We remind you, again, this is a President who is elected on a fairly narrow basis, whatever he may say about his mandate today." Would anything close to this have ever been said during the Clinton administration? Geez.

NBC's Brian Williams brought up the "dead horse": "the squeaker, the closer national vote still being fought over whether it was legitimate or not in Ohio." Brian, Bush won on every recount in Ohio. You're supposed to be a man - get over it.

On the morning of President Bush's second Inauguration, ABC's Good Morning America devoted a segment to seven 7th and 8th graders, at a Los Angeles school, who denounced Bush and his policies and complained about the state of the country. A boy argued: "I think that you should just make a law that would ban most of the lumbering, because we're annihilating forests and that's going to end up leaving the U.S. without any natural beauty." A girl complained: "Banning, like, same-sex marriages? I mean, I don't see any reason to do that." Another girl contended: "He should be focusing on Iraq, with all the people that have been killed and he should be bringing the troops back because that's kind of sad because for all the people that are dying."

Yeah, I seek and ask the wisdom of 13-year-olds about the national lumbering industry. 14-year-old girls are the primary nexus of information about same-sex marriages. And 13-year-old boys generally are taken to the Pentagon to be briefed on the complexities of morern warfare. These kids were parrotting what has been said in their homes, and Good Morning America found a few of them that shared GMA's opinions and put them on TV.

But there's no bias.




Posted by: Shamalama 22-Feb-2005, 12:41 PM
Well, I haven't beat up on the media lately, so here goes:

See if you can spot the media bias.

Bob Schieffer, soon-to-assume the anchor chair of the CBS Evening News, was the host of Face the Nation this past Sunday. Two US Senators were in Baghdad, and Bob was to interview them. One of the Senators was Hillary Clinton and the other was Lindsey Graham. So how does Mr. Schieffer introduce the segment?

"And we welcome to the broadcast from Baghdad what has become Capitol Hill's 'odd couple,' and I say that as a compliment: Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, conservative Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who are doing something very unusual these days. They've joined together to try to get something done for our military veterans and also members of the Guard and the Reserve."

If you saw the bias raise your hand. If you didn't, then read it again.

This is actually nothing new in that it occurs almost every night on one of the major news metworks. They've been doing it for years. They can't help it. These people are liberal all the way to their bones. I doubt this was scripted; it's just the was liberals (like good 'ole Bob) see the world.

In case you didn't see the bias, read it once more and see how Hillary is described versus how Lindsey is described. Most "journalists" will never actually use the word "liberal" to describe one of their own, but they don't mind labeling someone else as a conservative. And anyone out there that actually thinks Hillary is mainstream needs to be checked for worms.

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Mar-2005, 07:18 AM
The Agence France-Presse , known online as the AFP, is an international news-gathering organization, somewhat comparable to the US's Associated Press, "providing readers all over the world with news as it happens on politics, economics, finance, sports, cultural affairs, science, fashion and all other subjects of general interest, presented with all the objectivity and rapidity of an international agency"

http://www.afp.com/english/home/

There have been several dubious news releases by them recently that I haven't commented on, thinking they were just "honest mistakes". But this one cannot go without comment.

After years of referring to Osama bin Laden as a "militant," Agence France-Presse downgrades him to "dissident". Yahoo picked up the story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050220/photos_wl_me_afp/050220195355_od0tue72_photo0

QUOTE


Picture dated 08 November 2001 shows Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri at his hideout at an undisclosed location in fghanistan. (AFP/Ausaf Newspaper/File)



Is there a reason that a news agency just can't bring itself to refer to Osama as a terrorist? I think the word "France" in Agence France-Presse is the reason.

Consider the following two stories of the same event:

1. Israel's massive military operation into the northern Gaza Strip shows no sign of a let-up after two deadly weeks that have seen 111 Palestinians killed, mainly children, and Qassam rockets still being fired into Israeli territory. - Agence France-Presse

2. In 11 days of fighting in the northern Gaza Strip, Israeli forces have killed at least 90 Palestinians, including about 55 militants and 35 civilians, according to Palestinian hospital officials. The dead include 18 Palestinians who were 16 or younger, according to a count by The Associated Press. - The New York Times

But wait - how can this be? Aren't AFP's journalists independant and neutral?

Two of the largest wire services ― Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Associated Press (AP) ― have employed journalists with inappropriately close ties to the Palestinian Authority. Majida al-Batsh was a Palestinian affairs correspondent for AFP for many years, while simultaneously being on the payroll of the Palestinian Authority as a reporter for the PA's official news agency, Al-Ayyam.

So AP and AFP: are you giving us news or propaganda?

Of course, they're to different from many European news agencies (as well as most of our domestic news agencies). BBC has issued an official apology for irresponsible coverage of the Mideast conflict. In the wake of Friday's Tel Aviv bombing, BBC One TV produced a segment called 'A Family in Mourning', which showed extensive footage of the parents of the Palestinian terrorist, but no pictures at all of the mourning families of the terrorist's victims. Fair and balanced?

The Islamic Jihad even hold their own press conferences that the media fawn over.

http://www.honestreporting.com/images/islamicjihadpress.sm.jpg


Posted by: Shamalama 15-Mar-2005, 08:32 AM
This one is just a bit of an "I told you so".

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=578904

---

Shamalama says: For this they needed a study?



Posted by: jpmoore 15-Mar-2005, 03:35 PM
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 15-Mar-2005, 09:32 AM)


Shamalama says: For this they needed a study?

Didn't matter anyway did it?
All the folks that I know that voted for W wouldn't believe anything they hear on the major news outlets (except for Fox): cause they are (liberally) biased!

Posted by: MDF3530 15-Mar-2005, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (jpmoore @ 15-Mar-2005, 03:35 PM)
QUOTE (Shamalama @ 15-Mar-2005, 09:32 AM)


Shamalama says:  For this they needed a study?

Didn't matter anyway did it?
All the folks that I know that voted for W wouldn't believe anything they hear on the major news outlets (except for Fox): cause they are (liberally) biased!

No, that is what they are being told by Fox "News", George Will and virtually all of talk radio.

BTW, if the media is supposedly "liberal", why are all the top syndicated political talk radio programs wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Republican Party?

Here are the top 5 syndicated political talk radio hosts:

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Bill O'Reilly
4. Ann Coulter
5. Thom Hartmann

One liberal (Hartmann) to four conservatives.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 15-Mar-2005, 05:24 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 15-Mar-2005, 06:12 PM)
No, that is what they are being told by Fox "News", George Will and virtually all of talk radio.

BTW, if the media is supposedly "liberal", why are all the top syndicated political talk radio programs wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Republican Party?

Here are the top 5 syndicated political talk radio hosts:

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Bill O'Reilly
4. Ann Coulter
5. Thom Hartmann

One liberal (Hartmann) to four conservatives.

no.gif Mike, I really worry about you sometimes. smile.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Mar-2005, 02:20 PM
"wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Republican Party?"

?!?!

I'll wait until I see proof of this before I comment.

What bothers me is that "talk radio" is just that - an entertainment show where a host makes comments and callers call in and comment on it.

But ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN try to pass themselves off as "news" programs, with an assumption that they're telling the whole story and have validated the statements made by both the anchors as well as the reporters. There is not supposed to be any agenda - verifiable facts only. CBS and Dan Rather's phony documents may be the most publicized recent event of bias, but the liberal bias permeates the major news outlets in America. Study after study are coming to the same conclusions.

This is one reason people are moving away from the mainstream media and going to blogs and other sources for news. Fox News is gaining market share everyday while the others are losing more and more everyday - why? Conservative talk radio is expanding everyday - why? The answer is simple: people are tired of the lies told to them by Dan Rather and his comrades. People now, thanks to cable/sattelite TV and the internet, have a choice, and their choices are clear: outside of half a dozen metropolitan (and densely populated) areas, the rest of the US is either moderate or conservative. It is only a few urban areas that are steadfast liberal, with one (New York City) being the home of the major network news agencies.





Posted by: Shamalama 04-Apr-2005, 12:26 PM
Oh this one was too good to let get by.

In big bold letters CNN's website proclaims:
QUOTE

Poll: U.S. Catholics would support changes
But survey finds agreement with pope on abortion
Sunday, April 3, 2005 Posted: 6:14 PM EDT (2214 GMT)
(CNN) -- A majority of U.S. Catholics surveyed want the next pope to have a theological outlook similar to that of Pope John Paul II, but they would also like to see changes on issues such as birth control, stem cell research and allowing priests to marry, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/03/pope.poll/index.html

Wow. Big letters. Bold letters. Proclaiming that this survey wants changes. This must really be important information, and this must be a big sampling of US Catholics.

Nope. Look into the small print. Wedged into the body of the article are these words: "In telephone interviews mostly conducted before his death, two-thirds of the 254 Catholics polled..."

Huh? Only 254 people? What does "mostly completed" mean? Telephone interviews done a few here and there over what timeframe? What were the demographcs?

Which means that all that bold print, all those large letters in their headline mean absolutely nothing. But since "birth control, stem cell research and allowing priests to marry" are basic fundamentals of the liberals you see CNN plastering them in front of your eyes as if there was actually something to read.

Liberal media bias again . . . and again . . . and again.

Posted by: Swanny 18-Apr-2005, 08:08 PM
We can add the Boston Globe to papers willing to publish articles with a liberal slant before checking the facts. In this case, the writer flat-out LIED.

Writer Fabricated Boston Globe Story on Seal Hunt

By Greg Frost

BOSTON (Reuters) - A Boston Globe freelance writer fabricated large chunks of a story published this week, the newspaper said on Friday in the latest incident to embarrass the U.S. media.

The Globe, which is owned by The New York Times Co., said it stopped using writer Barbara Stewart because of a story that ran on Wednesday about a seal hunt off Newfoundland -- a hunt, it turns out, that had not taken place.

The Halifax, Nova Scotia-datelined article described in graphic detail how the seal hunt began on Tuesday, with water turning red as hunters on some 300 boats shot harp seal cubs "by the hundreds."

The problem, however, was that the hunt did not begin on Tuesday; it was delayed by bad weather and was scheduled to start on Friday, weather permitting, the Globe said in an editor's note.

Stewart could not immediately be reached for comment.

The newspaper, which first learned of the problem when the Canadian government called to complain, said in an editor's note it should not have published the story and should have insisted on attribution for details because the writer was not reporting from the scene.

"Details included the number of hunters, a description of the scene, and the approximate age of the cubs. The author's failure to accurately report the status of the hunt and her fabrication of details at the scene are clear violations of the Globe's journalistic standards," the paper said.

'NEVER ASSUME'

Globe Foreign Editor James Smith said that the newspaper knew Stewart was not at the seal hunt and was doing her reporting from Halifax.

"What she told us -- and we did check during the day -- was that she had confirmed with one of the fishermen in the story that it was going ahead," Smith said, adding that in retrospect the paper should have worked harder to clarify this.

"The point is, never assume," he told Reuters.

He added that Globe staffers have since reviewed two other stories Stewart wrote for the paper, but found no inaccuracies or other problems with them.

Canada is extremely sensitive about the hunt, during which hundreds of thousands of seals are beaten to death or shot for their pelts every year. U.S. activists, who says the seals are killed inhumanely, are urging consumers to shun Canadian seafood until the hunt is stopped.

Canadian Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan said his officials had called the paper to point out the error.

"We've been trying to get the facts out about the seal harvest, the fact that the herd is very healthy ... that in 98 percent of cases it (the hunt) is done in a humane way," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Officials with the newspaper were not immediately available for further comment.

U.S. media organizations have been hit with a series of high-profile cases involving plagiarism or fabrication.

In 2003, The New York Times' top two editors, Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, left the paper after it was disclosed that reporter Jayson Blair had fabricated and plagiarized material.

CBS News, The Washington Post, NBC News, CNN, the New Republic magazine and USA Today have also been caught up in celebrated flaps over inaccurate reporting.

(additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa)

Posted by: bubba 20-Apr-2005, 10:09 AM
Media bias is real, but it isn't what you think. The media is biased toward profit, pure and simple. I worked for a Gannett newspaper for awhile. Believe me, the executives and editors only care about one thing, selling papers and they'll twist anything every which way to sell a few more. As for broadcast, it's ad revenue. All of it comes down to the dollars on the bottom line.

Posted by: Shamalama 20-Apr-2005, 10:49 AM
QUOTE (bubba @ 20-Apr-2005, 12:09 PM)

All of it comes down to the dollars on the bottom line.


If it weren't for the documented evidence I've been presenting over the last 29 pages in this thread I'd believe you.

Yes, profit is involved. But for so many there is something besides profit that drives the mainstream media - and it is their agenda for America.

But time and time again evidence is presented that the broadcast media in America (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN) has a marked left tilt. Yes, you can say that Fox News has a marked right tilt, but Fox News only reaches a fraction of the people the others reach. Broadcast media, as a whole, has a left tilt.

Time and time again studies and polls have shown that the print media in America has a marked left tilt. Yes, you can say that talk radio has a marked right tilt, but talk radio only reaches a fraction of the people print media reaches. Print media, as a whole, has a left tilt.

The bottom line is that the average American sees more liberal viewpoints that conservative viewpoints (unless they actively seek it), especially if their "news" comes from the "morning paper" and "the evening TV news", and it's not an accident that this happens.

Posted by: bubba 20-Apr-2005, 12:25 PM
Media will champion whatever agenda makes the most money. Consider this, news outlets are owned by corporations and the bigshots tend to be primarily Republican in their political views. Why would they print a liberal slant? Because that's what the readership buys the most. At the moment in my area the papers are pushing a much more conservative viewpoint where until a few years ago it was more liberal. Why? It's what the readership will buy in larger numbers. My advice is take everything you get from the US media with a whole shaker of salt. I only specify the US media because that's what I'm familiar with.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 20-Apr-2005, 04:06 PM
QUOTE (bubba @ 20-Apr-2005, 02:25 PM)
Media will champion whatever agenda makes the most money. Consider this, news outlets are owned by corporations and the bigshots tend to be primarily Republican in their political views.....

Bubba appears to be hanging around with MDF3530 (or people of a similar political persuasion). I want to see names and voter registration information on all these "Rich" Republicans that are running the mainstream Media in the US.

Posted by: bubba 20-Apr-2005, 08:41 PM
Almost all newspapers now are owned by rather large corporations. The hometown paper is a thing of the past and isn't likely to return. The same corporations that own the newspapers also own TV and radio stations. You can't possibly believe Gannett is owned by liberals, can you?

Posted by: Shadows 20-Apr-2005, 09:01 PM
Here we go with this liberal/conservitive BS again! To place a such label on people goes to show how narrow minded folks are!

One can hold "liberal" beliefs on one subject and "conservative" on another...Republican does not mean conservative in all aspects as Democrate does not mean liberal in all... I say look into the Libertarian or Constitutionalist for true answers.

Come on folks this "old school" mine is bigger then yours is getting real old!

Posted by: bubba 20-Apr-2005, 11:02 PM
All I did was try to point out that the real media bias is toward profit. The discussion seems to have broken down into ad homs so I quit. I'll just let em carry on with their fun and games without me. Frankly, as far as the liberal and conservative tags, seems few even know what they really mean anymore and they just get thrown around as epithets. You're so right, it gets old.

Posted by: Herrerano 21-Apr-2005, 02:30 PM
It's OK bubba, this is where we come sometimes to flex our muscles and let off some steam. If you look around you will notice some of us are in here fairly rarely, you know, once a month or so, and others (Shamalama for example) are in here pertnear everyday (He has some issues you know.) I wouldn't worry too much about what anybody says in here anyway, shucks, we all lied like crazy on our profiles anyway so nobody knows anything about anyone else. laugh.gif

In reality I am a 350 lb beautician who participates in jello wrestling on the weekends and normally posts on here in the nude. I don't want to say too much about the other "guys" other then to thank Shama for the really lovely garter he brought for me to the fights last Saturday night and I might mention that if you poke around through enough old posts here there is a very revealing photo of our beloved maisky (who is currently on a sabbatical participating in some sort of eastern religious rite like making dinero or something).
cool.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 21-Apr-2005, 03:28 PM
I'm just thankful that Sister Herrerano likes me the way I am. Most people don't accept garters from me, especially ones I've been wearing for a couple of weeks straight.

user posted image


Posted by: Herrerano 21-Apr-2005, 04:48 PM
Oh Shama...LAMA !!!!

You know what I like.

Oh baby, baby, baby.....


dribble.gif drool.gif dribble.gif

Posted by: MacEoghainn 21-Apr-2005, 05:06 PM
I especially like the red hair!!!! wub.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 22-Apr-2005, 10:36 AM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 21-Apr-2005, 07:06 PM)

I especially like the red hair!!!! wub.gif



It's that way under my armpits too. rolleyes.gif


Posted by: Shamalama 24-Apr-2005, 07:21 AM
Here's an interesting case from across the pond:

---

Tory fury as BBC sends hecklers to bait Howard
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party's head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party".

These included "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair".

Mr Black's strongly-worded letter accused the BBC of staging the event "to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage. . . intended to embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party". The letter said that BBC staff were guilty of "serious misconduct". At least one of the hecklers was seen again at a Tory event in the North East, Mr Black added.

Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=4M4KYZ0WHU2CFQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/04/24/nhow24.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/24/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=14627

---

So here we have the BBC sending "hired guns", equipped with wireless microphones, to a Conservative meeting, and having the BBC's cameras pre-focused on the heckling that was about to begin instead of the Conservative speaker.

And they said it was "about the history and art of political heckling". That sounds like something Dan Rather would say.

Now don't get me wrong; I want Blair to win in the next election over there. But it's nice to see that the US media isn't the only news organization with an anti-Conservative bend to it.

Next, will the BBC will send "fake insurgents" to set off a car bomb in Baghdad for footage of their documentary "the history of deadly explosions"?

The difference between the BBC and CBS, the New York Times, CNN, etc. is that the BBC is a government funded organization. The BBC is the dominant news source for Britain and, in fact, much of the world. This is a tremendous scandal. Wouldn't it be nice if they have their public funding eliminated because of this?

Posted by: MDF3530 24-Apr-2005, 12:19 PM
QUOTE
The difference between the BBC and CBS, the New York Times, CNN, etc. is that the BBC is a government funded organization. The BBC is the dominant news source for Britain and, in fact, much of the world. This is a tremendous scandal. Wouldn't it be nice if they have their public funding eliminated because of this?


Who would you like to see get that funding? SKY News (which, BTW, is the British arm of Fox "News")?

Posted by: MacEoghainn 24-Apr-2005, 04:55 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 24-Apr-2005, 02:19 PM)

Who would you like to see get that funding? SKY News (which, BTW, is the British arm of Fox "News")?

Here's a thought: How about giving the money back to the British people and letting the BBC compete in the marketplace of ideas with voluntary investors money(if they could find any).

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Apr-2005, 11:52 AM
With all respect to my ancestors across the pond, I do have to disagree with any governmental funding or undue control of media - be it print, TV, or radio.

I can understand having some controls in place, like not allowing someone to use language deemed vulgar to the majority of the people watching/listening (you can't use the f-word repeatedly during the evening news), but when the government is funding what they want the public to see/hear then you're setting yourself up for something akin to Hitler's propaganda machine.

You have to have competition in the marketplace of ideas, as Brother MacEoghainn stated so well, since no one down here on earth has the wisdom of God and has all the correct answers and opinions.

And "giving the money back to the British people"? I do understand that this is an alien thought to so many people, but I bet if the British people were able to keep a bit more of their income that they would then take some of that money and use it to obtain news and information from a variety of sources (online editions of news agencies, worldwide news agencies, blogs, message boards, etc.) that they otherwise wouldn't able to do.


Posted by: Swanny 16-May-2005, 11:02 AM
I'm surprised that no one has commented on Newsweek's latest escapade.

Reference http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

[quote]
WORLD
Newsweek backs off Quran desecration story
Account blamed for violent riots in Afghanistan

Monday, May 16, 2005 Posted: 1:01 AM EDT (0501 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine backed away Sunday from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base -- an account blamed for sparking violent riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

At least 15 people were killed and dozens injured last week when thousands of demonstrators marched in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world, officials and eyewitnesses said.

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

In an article assessing its coverage, the magazine wrote, "How did Newsweek get its facts wrong? And how did the story feed into serious international unrest?"

Remainder of article on-line at [url] http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html[/url]

Newsweeks "error" has cost people their lives, and will cost more before it's over.

Swanny

Posted by: Shamalama 16-May-2005, 01:06 PM
I've not posted on it because I've been living through it.

There is a small town in Afghanistan, 80 miles east of Kabul, called Jalalabad. It's close to the border with Pakistan. It's also where my son is stationed. He's a Corporal in the US Marines.

Jalalabad was one of the riot sites that you saw on TV. Stores were trashed. Cars were burned. My son stayed quiet yet ready in case the locals decided to band together and try to swarm their base.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that my son could be killed because of what Newsweek authors Michael Isikoff and John Barry wrote. And yes, if I were to meet these two characters today I'd want to "do them bodily harm."

Under any circumstances, Newsweek?s flagrant, tragic error is an error a long-time-coming. The magazine?s "apology" (and how can anyone treat it as a real apology) doesn?t begin to account for the damage. I hope that "Newsweek Lied, People Died" is a phrase repeated for some time.

You first have to understand the rules of the New York-Washington-LA media axis:

QUOTE


Presume the government is lying? always make that presumption, particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the US military? always make that presumption, even when the president is a Democrat. Add multi-cultural icing? the complaints and allegations of "Third World victims" are given revered status, the statements of US and US-allied nations met with cynical doubt and arrogant contempt.  Be hateful for the country that allows you to spew your hate, for so many other countries would kill you for the very words you speak/write.



So Newsweek was simply doing what it's been doing for years. It's just that recently a creature called the internet, it's to-the-second data transfer, and the blogosphere have combined to tear down the hallowed veil that seperated The Media Elite from us common tramps. Or, in other words, major media news lies, and does so on a more frequent basis that anyone thought or could prove before now.

And now I see this from The Arab News:

QUOTE


In Afghanistan, a group of clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over military interrogators who are reported to have desecrated the Qur?an.

The warning came after 16 Afghans were killed and more than 100 hurt last week in the worst anti-US protests across the country since US forces invaded in 2001 to oust the Taleban for sheltering Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network.

The clerics in the northeastern province of Badakhshan said they wanted US President George W. Bush to handle the matter honestly ?and hand the culprits over to an Islamic country for punishment?.



OK, the Newsweek has already been shown to be factless, and nevertheless the clerics want "military interrogators" to be "handed over" for "punishment". Did any of y'all notice the lack of a trial date?

Not that I want to cut Newsweek any slack the endangering my son, but Newsweek isn?t the problem. The problem is that people will kill over a book being desecrated. Actually, over a anonymous report buried within a third rate weekly magazine. There is something wrong when people value a book, of which there are millions, over human lives. This is the real problem, and Newsweek isn?t the source of it. The problem is an ignorant and violent subculture within the islamic world, and the general lack of tolerance about religion therein. Damn it, I ONCE AGAIN challenge anyone here to find anything in the Quran that speaks of grace, love, and acceptance. The Quran beautifies war and death.

But let's get back to News Weak.

A journalist has responsibilities to the truth and to the public interest. He or she must make every possible endeavour to ensure that his/her stories are true. The more serious the consequences of publishing the story the greater the obligation to ensure that the evidence is solid. Even then, if the likely consequences of publishing the story are far more grave than the matters it describes the public interest would be best served by not publishing at all. That doesn?t mean ignoring a potential abuse, because whatever evidence the journalist has can be brought to the attention of the proper authorities and the threat of publication used to ensure that they take it seriously.

But to publish such incendiary material without proper evidence is to shout ?fire? in a crowded theatre on the basis of gossip. If NewsWeek?s staff didn?t realise what they were doing then they are incompetent. If they did, they are devoid of ethics. This is more serious than RatherGate or Eason Jordan?s notorious comments, because it?s already got people killed.

Why is it that all the stories you read in Time-Newsweek-The New York Times-The Washington Post-Etc. or see on CNN-The BBC-CBS-NBC-Etc., why is it that all their stories about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, etc., why is it that the presumption, the prejudice, the predisposition never goes the other way? Why is it that their reporters always assume the worst: that we?re doing dirty at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and are primed to pick up and believe any rumor damaging to the United States? So why do these journalists, trained to sift evidence, to probe sources, to listen beyond the static of rumor: why do they only do so in one direction, so to speak? Yes, I know that?s a self-answering question, at least in part, but it is worth pondering nonetheless.

It's called the Liberal Bias entrenched in the major media in the U.S.

- Drop a crucifix in a glass of urine, and its art (yes, this was an art exhibit recently).
- Complain about it, and the left tells you that you are a phillistine.

- Drop a Koran in a urinal, its desecration and cause for bloodshed.
- Point out that many Muslims are overreacting, and the left tells you that you are a culturally insensitive bigot.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)