I can't stand the way the media keeps doing things to attack our president. Like in this article, which is obviously part of their plot to take the President at face value solely so they could let Michael Moore make F9/11. Because surely the media would never do anything which at the time would have helped the Bush Administration make the case for going into Iraq. The cabal of lefties who run things wouldn't allow that. Oh well, check out Stories pushed aside in march to war (msnbc.msn.com) anyhow. Read things like:
Originally posted by MSNBCWASHINGTON - Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.
Originally posted by sameFrom August 2002 through the March 19, 2003, launch of the war, The Post ran more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq. Some examples: "Cheney Says Iraqi Strike Is Justified"; "War Cabinet Argues for Iraq Attack"; "Bush Tells United Nations It Must Stand Up to Hussein or U.S. Will"; "Bush Cites Urgent Iraqi Threat"; "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare for War."
Reporter Karen DeYoung, a former assistant managing editor who covered the prewar diplomacy, said contrary information sometimes got lost.
"If there's something I would do differently -- and it's always easy in hindsight -- the top of the story would say, 'We're going to war, we're going to war against evil.' But later down it would say, 'But some people are questioning it.' The caution and the questioning was buried underneath the drumbeat. . . . The hugeness of the war preparation story tended to drown out a lot of that stuff."
HELP IS ON THE WAY! "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush 8/5/04
What I always wondered about the "liberal" media was how did Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush get elected (6 terms) if the "liberal" media was so influential? Also why didn't they make sure Dean got the nomination? Even if there is a huge liberal slant, the public doesn't seem to buy it, at least nationally.
The way I have always thought it worked was that journalists and reporters have typically liberal leanings, and that sometimes their points of view slip into their work and influence people.
But, as media consolidation gets worse and businesses become bigger and greedy, they tend to go after whatever stories make the most money. This buries any leanings the journalists have, because they end up writing to further the agenda of the company that pays them. In this case, they wanted war and stories and photos had to frame war as an inevitability rather than a possibility.
The Republicans won all of those terms, because the Democrats couldn't get it together. Carter gave them such a bad name, Mondale wasn't able to stop the Reagan juggernaut, Dukakis took that stupid picture, and finally Clinton got smart and connected with voters.
Journalists may be liberal, but their bosses want more deregulation and money, and may have more fiscally conservative leanings.
I dunno, anything that has anything to do with L. Brent Bozo...er I mean Bozell doesn't do anything for me.
I prefer arguing the points not the person. What of his evidence do you disagree with and why?
Just a pet peeve of mine when people try to refute evidence without disproving the evidence.
There are plenty of people out there who say the same things as him and his organizations that I would rather read. Mediaresearch.org is a conservative group (it says so on their website), so I'm not going to go to them for so called "facts" about media bias just like I'm not going to MichaelMoore.com or TedRall.com or WhatLiberalMedia.com for stuff on how bullied liberals feel.
I also just plain don't like him. I don't agree with his whole "clean up the broadcast world" crusade, and I don't agree with his bullying of sponsors and the television.
I'm not saying that the media isn't biased. It is, and it's impossible to not have bias in news and media. Like I said, though, I'm not going to get my information on the liberal bias in the media through an ultra-conservative website run by a man that I don't like or trust.
Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects.
Originally posted by GrimisAnd let's forget that the media is liberal. Hence, the two major papers of record(NY Times, WashPost) are complete ignoring Kerry's lies about Cambodia...
Hell, look at the whole story.
Bush: - not running on his military record - accused of going AWOL, skipping out on duty, etc. - media puts Bush on the defensive, not his accusers - forced to provide records to disprove the charges - media never questions the motives of his accusers
Kerry: - running on his military record - accused of lying about numerous things in his record - media puts accusers on the defensive, not Kerry - does nothing to disprove the charges - media repeatedly questions the accusers' motives and financial backing
Originally posted by JaguarIt'd be a neat trick for Bush to run on a military record he doesn't have...
At least Bush's people were smart enough to realize that and not make that weakness the be all and end all of his campaign.
Unlike the Kerry people....
I think you're correct. Bush's early years of less than stellar decisions as a human being are best left alone. As a liberal Dem, any liberal Dem should, say it was 30 years ago and people grow.
Kerry should have said he served, what he did following and left it at that.
All I know is that almost all of the people I know who served in Korea, WWII, and Vietnam didn't talk about the horror they were part of and downplayed their part. I was taught the more you talked about what you did, the less likely you did much of anything. I am not saying Kerry didn't do his job but I question people who beat me over the head with something.
Thread ahead: NJ Gov McGreevery Resigns Comes out of Closet Next thread: And you thought "Smackdown Your Vote" was a bad slogan. Previous thread: International team to monitor U.S. Presidential election
And while there is the very real possibility that an African-American will be president after the next election, we still need to be reminded that there are still completely idiotic views around like those quoted above.