"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
A test for the media
On MSNBC on Thursday, Time's Jay Carney offered an assessment of the McCain campaign's most recent assault on the media: "Clearly, the campaign has decided that one way to win is to attack the media. Now, that could work. It does not have a great history of working. 'Annoy the Media: Re-Elect George Bush,' 1992 -- Bush got, I think, 39 percent of the vote or 37 percent of the vote."
Carney didn't explicitly say it, but he seems to be under the impression that the point of the McCain campaign's attacks on the media is to win support from voters who dislike the media. And he seems to think the Republicans only occasionally wage a war on his profession.
In fact, it is a constant war, the point of which is not to merely win a few votes from people who dislike the media. The point is to make voters distrust the media, to make them believe the media are out to get conservatives and thus cause them to discount news reports that are unfavorable to conservatives, and to cow the media themselves into running fewer such reports. (It serves another purpose, too: It helps a nominee whose heiress wife shows up at the convention in an outfit estimated to cost $300,000 pretend to be a man of the people raging against the "elites." But that's a story better told elsewhere.)
And it does indeed have a great history of working. No, it has a spectacularly successful history of working -- of helping conservatives win both short-term and long-term victories. Don't take my word for it: Longtime Washington Post reporter Tom Edsall, now of The Huffington Post, has explained:
The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right.
Take one example of right-wing media bashing contributing to short-term electoral success: Under fire from the White House and conservative activists, CBS News spiked a report questioning the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war that was supposed to air shortly before the 2004 election.
During that year's presidential debates, Bush told Americans, "I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations" -- a direct assault on the media from the president of the United States in the biggest forum he had. But that was only a small drop in the steady stream of media criticism that came from Bush and his allies during the 2004 election.
If Jay Carney is going to point to election results to assess the success of the GOP's assault on the media, he can't simply cherry-pick the elections the Republicans lost; they've been doing this every election cycle for 40 years.
But the conservatives' attacks on the media aren't simply about the next election. They recognize that each such criticism makes voters and the media more likely to believe the next -- so even if the 2004 attacks hadn't worked, they still would have been successful.
And there would be nothing wrong with any of that -- if the Republicans' complaints had significant merit. But they frequently do not -- and they often don't even pretend that they do.
A few weeks ago, for example, there was a frenzy of conservative whining that Barack Obama had gotten more media coverage than John McCain. Now, the amount of coverage each candidate has gotten, by itself, tells us virtually nothing. What was the content of the coverage? Was it positive? Negative? True? False? Fair? Balanced? The conservative complainers made no attempt to assess this -- they just yelled that Obama was getting more coverage. Well, O.J. Simpson got considerably more coverage than Mother Teresa in 1994 -- anyone want to argue he got more favorable coverage? Anyone want to argue that, by covering Simpson too much, the media were demonstrating that they were in the tank for him?
Still, despite glaring flaws with the Republicans' criticism, the media took them seriously, and many journalists adopted the complaints as their own.
The past week provides a useful case study of how the Republicans' assault on the media works.
Last Friday, John McCain announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The media had a few questions -- basically, who is she, and is she ready to be president? So the McCain campaign threw a tantrum, insisting the media were being unfair. As usual, the complaints were short on details and merit -- but the media still took the complaints seriously, treating them as one of the most important topics of the past few week.
Perhaps the best example of how phony the GOP's complaints were: the McCain campaign's cancellation of an appearance by McCain on Larry King Live because, they said, CNN anchor Campbell Brown had behaved improperly in interviewing campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds the night before. They didn't really say what Brown had done wrong -- probably because all she had done was ask simple questions that Bounds couldn't answer. After Bounds said that as governor of Alaska, Palin leads the state's National Guard, Brown asked him for an example of a decision she had made in that capacity. He didn't answer. So she asked him again. That isn't inappropriate; that's exactly what she should have done -- that's journalism.
And that drove the McCain campaign crazy.
So, did all the complaints work?
Consider this: Wednesday night, Sarah Palin falsely claimed she had told Congress she did not want funding for the "bridge to nowhere." She didn't; that was a lie. Congress had said a year before Palin became governor that Alaska need not spend the federal funds on the bridge. And Palin had initially supported the bridge, not opposed it. And once she became governor, Palin kept the money. Palin's false claims Wednesday night were not new: She had said the same thing in previous campaign appearances since McCain picked her -- and several media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times had debunked the boast. But when Palin told the lie during her convention speech -- after days of McCain complaints that the media had been too hard on Palin -- those newspapers ignored the lie.
That wasn't the only false claim in Palin's speech that went un-debunked by the media. She falsely attacked Barack Obama's legislative record -- and media uncritically quoted the false claims. She lied about Obama's tax plans -- she said he "wants to raise" them, even though John McCain's own economic adviser has admitted that is false -- and, again, the media repeated her claim without debunking it.
Instead, much of the media gushed over her speech. If you watched MSNBC yesterday, you would have seen reporter after reporter talk about the McCain complaints that the media were too hard on Palin. And you would have seen reporter after reporter lavish praise on Palin's speech. But you wouldn't have seen them say much about the actual content of Palin's speech -- certainly not about whether she told the truth in it. At one point, Andrea Mitchell declared that "what came through" in Palin's address was "the authenticity."
Nonsense. "Authenticity" doesn't consist of doing a good job of delivering a speech -- not if the speech is riddled with falsehoods. But most of the media didn't tell you about the falsehoods, they just fell all over themselves praising the speech -- even praising the "authenticity" of someone who stood before the nation and repeated lies she had already been caught telling.
So, did the McCain attacks on the media work? They certainly didn't hurt.
And this isn't the first time a McCain assault on the media has appeared to pay off. He and his campaign have spent much of the year attacking the press.
And it seems to have worked: McCain still hasn't faced the media scrutiny reporters kept insisting would come eventually.
The media have told us a lot about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, for example -- but kept key details about John McCain's relationship with Charles Keating a secret. Did you know that Cindy McCain was business partners with Keating around the time John McCain was meeting with regulators on Keating's behalf? Probably not: The Washington Post hasn't told readers that fact during this campaign; The New York Times has made only brief mention of it. ABC, CBS, NBC -- nothing.
Or how about the fact that John and Cindy McCain would save nearly $400,000 a year under John McCain's tax plan -- a tax plan that includes the extension of Bush tax cuts McCain once bashed as unfairly skewed towards the wealthy? Have you seen any media mention to that lately? It wasn't long ago that news organizations thought John Edwards' wealth was important to keep in mind in assessing his policy proposals -- but that apparently doesn't apply to John McCain.
The McCain campaign's war against the media shouldn't be surprising; this is what conservatives do. The only real question is what reporters are going to do about it. Are they going to fall for the absurd argument that John McCain -- arguably the national politician who has received the most favorable media coverage over the past decade, if not longer -- is being unfairly treated by reporters who still haven't given him any serious scrutiny? Are they going to cower in the face of right-wing bullying as they have so many times in the past?
It's hard to imagine that they won't. But there have been some encouraging signs this week. Time's Carney seems legitimately irritated that the Republican vice-presidential nominee refuses to face reporters. And colleague Joe Klein -- who has, in the past, been awfully kind to McCain -- urged fellow reporters not to back down in the face of the barrage of criticism from the right:
There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.
The next two months will constitute a test for reporters: If they fall for the idea that they're treating unfairly a candidate who has long referred to them as his "base," what won't they fall for? If they won't stand up to these attacks, what will they stand up to?
This is the issue, and the reason that Media Matters is here, and is so often the reason that the WITH crowd makes their bogus claims.
When conservative misinformation spews from the media, it either makes the conservative look better than they deserve to look or it makes the liberal look worse than they look.
That supposedly baffles the righties. They can't understand it they claim. The fact is they won't accept the reality that the liberal media bias is nonsense. They won't accept that even smaller, less important stories that further the conservative agenda do more damage than that simple, minor story - there's a cumulative effect, and the righties know it - they just can't allow themselves to admit it!
It's the overall effort that sometimes creates incredibly offensive comments and other times simply portrays a Democrat in a bad light or gives a Republican more credit than what they deserve. It all adds up.
I’m really glad MMFA pointed out this conservative misinformation *rolls eyes*
Look, the reason the media get attacked is really simple; because they are a totally biased organization and promote their own agenda.
Case in point: When McCain announced Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, the (liberal) Media (wanting an Obama victory) did everything in its power to destroy her in that first week. No holds bared. It was disgusting.
They used her pregnant teenage daughter, they used her baby with autism, and they called her a bad mother.
The media has little consciences and can be extremely hardhearted.
The media deserves a smack-down when they act in this way.
I want you to read this bit from Joe Klein again... SLOWLY... and tell me why you think he is 'wrong'.
"There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."
Tell me why the media does not have a duty to report those things about Palin. Also, tell me exactly what 'agenda' the media has in doing that.
Take your time... this may require a little actual THINKING on your part.
The media does not have a duty to report wistful delusions, that's why.
The media DOES have a duty to report facts and reasonable inference from factual happenings.
What you are putting forth as 'a story' is liberal wishful thinking.
Also, tell me exactly what 'agenda' the media has in doing that.
Come on, lol.. you're not going to really make me say it now are you?!!
The 'agenda' the media has in doing that is that they want Barack Obama as president, and would like nothing better than to torpedo Gov Sarah Palin.
Obviously, you are inconvenienced by facts as all of those points about Palin noted by Klein are documented and are available easily. Do the work. You can start with this:
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
Oh, and you seems to think that the Bristol Palin pregnancy isn't a 'legitimate' story, right? Why is that? Is it because you do not want the stupidity of abstinence-only programs to be exposed as a fraud based on that situation?
And do not sit there and give me any bullsh*t about the Palin family being 'off limits'... not after the way you jackasses went after the Clintons. Remember McCain's comment about Chelsea having Janet Reno as a father? Yeah, real classy there, huh?
You people are puerile moronic hypocritical dweebs. Suck it up and accept the truth about yourselves and quit your whining
Correct. How about you tell me about all the members of your family (assuming you have one) and let me start picking them apart. I'm sure it will be totally relevant to your ability/right to post here on these boards.
So what was the relevance of going after the Clintons, especially Chelsea?
Take your time, please... let's have an intelligent response, all right?
None. You liberals are really dense aren't you.
I do not support attacking Sarah Palin's family and I do not support attacking Clinton's family.
What's wrong with you?
You know, it's comments like yours that give liberalism a bad name.
You can't address the issue head on, so you say something stupid.
Hold up... show me the 'attacks' on the Palin family in the MSM. And do not use the pregnancy story because that is not an 'attack' - that IS a legitimate item considering that Sarah Palin believes in abstinence-only programs for Alaskan students AND YET her daughter ends up being knocked up. The media certainly should explore that issue.
Thing is... the pregnancy throws a wrench into that sqeaky-clean 'narrative' the Right tried to set up about that family... now it's falling apart, the press is having a field day with it, and the Right is royally pissed because they now look stupid. And let's not forget that it was Sarah who outed the daughter, not the media, so take it up with her if you've got a beef.
i agree...and frankly, abstinence-only program or not, it was still a story to be reported. It's ridiculous to think that it wouldn not have been reported, all things considered. Especially, since not much else was known about her at the time, considering how she seemingly came out of nowhere. I thought Obama was decent in saying that it should remain a private family matter and still they didn't return the favor and simply skewered him in their speeches. I noticed though that they had no problem quoting him on it, time and again "even Senator Obama has said it should be, blah, blah, blah". He went so far as to use his own mother as an example, even though sex education and birth control was not as readily available back then.
It's an attempt to suppress the media, plain and simple. Don't talk about the family (but the teenage dad to be is proudly trotted out), that's an attack, don't talk about her lack of accomplishments, that's sexism...then it's used as an excuse to keep her from answering questions from the press, while she goes out and charms the public. Someone running for the second highest office and the media is not allowed to question them.
Max Dharma is a liar. The press did no such thing.
The reason the righties try to make the press out to be villians, out to prop up the left and kick the legs out from under the righties is because that's the only way the right can win - on deceitful arguments.
Just like abortion foes can't win on the facts, righties can win based upon a fair look at reality. So they have to try to slant the playing field.
There are no disputed facts with regard to abortion. You kill your baby/fetus/embryo, and some of us think that's unthinkable. Period.
If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
Max wrote:
>>There are no disputed facts with regard to abortion. You kill your baby/fetus/embryo, and some of us think that's unthinkable. Period.
But then wrote:
>>If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
You realize you completely contradicted yourself, don't you?
Try rereading may original statement several times and maybe you'll get it (or ask someone and maybe they will explain it to you)
PS. I replied the the Chelsea question. *points*
So McSurge had no reason whatsoever to say that Chelsea's dad was Janet Reno? None at all? Just blurted it out... like that stupid 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' tripe, right?
You are so full of it. Really. I think you know the reason, you're just too cowardly to say it.
Max wrote:
>>Apparently you're too stupid to understand even the most grammatically simple sentences.
Yes, whenever someone loses an argument they resort to name calling and insult someone's reading ability. We see it all the time here.
Let me explain my post in case you missed my point. In the first sentence you concede that whatever is inside a woman is either a "baby/fetus/embryo," that there is no factual agreement on what it is. If what is inside a woman is just an embryo, then it is not murder.
Then in the next sentence you state that it is not a matter of "who has the better argument." But of course it is, by your own admission in your first sentence. If you can argue that it is just an "embryo" inside a woman, than one is not committing murder at all.
The point is this: kill a baby/fetus/embryo and it's atrocious regardless of how well you articulate your argument.
(I'm certainly not implying you are articulate.)
PS. In case you didn't know, an embryo is fertile, i.e., from the time of first cell division
PS. In case you didn't know, an embryo is fertile, i.e., from the time of first cell division- Max Dharma
Puberty happens in the womb? Now it's getting interesting!
Joe Biden explained this very well today on MTP.
We're more than willing to allow you to hold the opinion that it's the taking of a human being, even if it isn't. It's not a human being, or a person, or even a baby when it's a non-viable fetus. But you can chose to hold that opinion that's contrary to the facts if you want to.
But it's not your right or your privilege to force all women to hold and abide by your moral judgments. Just because many families with 4 children would have chosen to abort a Down's syndrome fetus rather than continue the pregnancy, we're never going to force someone to have an abortion. Our choices don't have to be their choices. But you dishonestly try to taint the discussion by saying that babies are being aborted, and distract us from the point by bringing up that 'babies' are fertile. So what?
When they are not viable outside the womb, they don't have the right to control the woman's body and force her to remain pregnant. It's the woman's choice, because it's her body being forced to remain pregnant or not being forced to abide by other people's morality!
I have a unsettling vision of Pippi Longstocking with her hands over her ears pleading that the bad noises go away!
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:WM7-kxFKlkIJ::www.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/lists/images/pippi01.jpg
You need to stop looking in the mirror then.
It's you who is the liar and who can't refute valid arguments that debunk everything you've ever posted here.
It's you who, instead of refuting other's arguments, does the "la-la-la, I can't hear you" defense. It's you who, when trying to distract us from the fact that you can't create a coherent argument, makes personal attacks that have no basis in reality.
If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
What a moron you are.
There are facts about abortion. Like the fact that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed right to control her own body and choose to remain pregnant or not remain pregnant. Like the fact that non-viable fetuses (ones that can NOT sustain life outside the womb, even with substantial medical intervention, love, food and shelter) should not get to control a woman's body. Facts like that it's not a baby inside the mother's womb. It's a fetus. If it leaves the womb, it's either a non-viable fetus, a premature infant (a viable fetus) or it's a full term newborn baby.
Then there are opinions, like the opinion that every fetus has a right to force the woman to remain pregnant, despite the factual evidence that says that someone with that opinion doesn't have a factual basis for making that argument.
One can argue about opinions. You can't argue with facts - they're facts! They aren't subject to change, like opinions are.
Righties here try to argue against the facts, and they lose every time, because there is no legit way to argue against facts. They could argue against opinion, and argue that it's their opinion that all life that can be preserved must be preserved. Except, when they do that, they prove the shallowness of their argument, because they don't really want all 'life' to be preserved - ever seen anyone protesting outside an in-vitro fertilization clinic which throws away unwanted fertilized eggs as biohazard medical waste every day?
Hypocrites. It's about control. And they hate that they can't control other people's morality and force everyone to have their morality imposed upon them.
God help you the day your surrender that mental defense.
Is that supposed to be an intelligible comment? Because it's not.
God and I have a very good relationship. My God doesn't demand that I allow a non-viable fetus to control my body. You don't know if I'd choose an abortion or not, and under what circumstances, if any, I'd choose an abortion for myself.
You, on the other hand, demand that it's your way or the highway. That's not God's way. In fact, that's exactly counter to God's way. He accepts everyone. He is the judge of what's right and wrong not you. And He doesn't agree with you on this issue - and neither do you. If you did believe that all life is sacred, you and people like you would be protesting down at in-vitro clinics where unused fertilized eggs are disposed of a biohazard waste every day. But you aren't. So it's clear that it's simply a wedge issue, and it exposes you as the hypocrite you are.
And guess what? The people Jesus scorned the most? Hypocrites! Yeah, that's YOU!
Not unless they repent.
He is the judge of what's right and wrong not you. And He doesn't agree with you on this issue - and neither do you
Yes I do agree with me!
Case in point: When McCain announced Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, the (liberal) Media (wanting an Obama victory) did everything in its power to destroy her in that first week. No holds bared. It was disgusting.
This was all McCain's fault. He shouldn't have picked a novice. There are women in the republican party who are leaps and bounds ahead of Palin but apparently they weren't as far to the right as she is (which comes in handy if your goal is to shore up the republican base). Palin's right -wing extremism is the reason McCain chose her and ability to actually do the job was thrown out the window.
Maybe you should hook up with bottlebrush .. she had some (paranoid) theories wrt my use of spacing or something.
Ooooh! .. *spooky*
In fact to quote your hero, "take off your Republican hat and put on your American hat".
Wherever there is a free press, and whenever anyone in the public spotlight has some kind of fortune or misfortune, the media is going to run with it. It doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum.
And when the person places themselves onto the national stage, their past political stands are going to be scrutinized. If the incident that attracts media attention contradicts those positions in any way, the media is going to scream hypocrisy. It's no vast liberal media conspiracy. The media is only interested in selling brooms and mops. They care only for profit. They'll take their profit at the expense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation.
I'm not saying it's right, fair or proper. It just is. Unfortunately, the media will keep this non-story, about Gov. Palin's daughter alive. The great thing for your side is that the public will be sold a story of "family values" and the Republicans may garner more support in sympathy for what the Palin family is going through.
This really sucks. I hate that it's going to happen, but it will.
But in the meantime, the media will glance over Palin's right-wing extremists positions. It will ignore her statements to her church about "war being "God's will". It will ignore her position on creationism, sex education, science, free libraries, etc. Very little will be mentioned about how the people of Alaska were to understand that building that gas pipeline for tens of billions of dollars was indeed "the Lord's work".
I'm not interested in anyone's family. But I'm damned well interested in preventing America's slide into it's own dark ages.
It's no vast liberal media conspiracy. The media is only interested in selling brooms and mops. They care only for profit. They'll take their profit at the expense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation.
But it is my belief that both the media at large (most TV broadcast media) and MMFA have a keen interest in seeing B. Obama elected president. If we can at least agree on that, then we will have reach a milestone; a place on which to build greater and more interesting debates.
MMFA has an non vested interest in seeing Obama win in November.
The main street medias owner's have a vested interest in a McCain win and the on air staff is mostly interested in keeping the race as close as possible to pump up ratings. Many are partisans for the left or right. But none wants to see a blowout.
As for the media, they are not as much interested in their country as they are their own greed.
Just like many of us. But I also know that many on the left, right and center do put the greater good before their own.
The thing that saddens me is the right's derision of hope and community as they play on our fears.
Max,
Maybe you want to be called by your more formal name of Science101. You know who you are. Try bringing facts and not stupidity to the discussion.
Goldfish! I love your new names for people. How long did it take to think of that one. I did notice that you have been absent for awhile.
No, I actually pointed out that your other screen name, The Wussie, also thinks that his posts deserve more space and attention than they actually deserve or need to use.
Thanks for letting everyone know that this screen name is just an obnoxious version of DaWuss - both are the same poster. It's nice when scoundrels admit that they're scoundrels.
It's also nice when they admit how ignorant they are, that they don't get how it weakens their arguments (if one can call what you pose here an 'argument'!) when they admit that they're sockpuppets.
You seem to be stuck in some sort of loop needing resolution, and if that will help you regain a handle on your senses (assuming you have some), then it's all good.
Don't bother recounting even more names of past posters you may think me to be, just assume I am them and save us all a bunch of time.
PS. I take it you suck at grammatical analysis.
We already know that there are repeated sockpuppet identities here, and since you're one of them, you know that too. So shove it where the sun don't shine, you dishonest punk. Hope it makes you feel all warm and toasty while it's up there.
You suck as The Wussie, and you suck as Max Dharma. You sucked as whatever your previous screen names were, and you'll suck when you have worn these out and have to create a new screen name and log on under a new ISP because Media Matters has blocked your IP address.
It will be wonderful when Republicans who you support crash and burn over the next couple of elections. Then tactics like you employ may get trashed ,and we may be able to have reasonable debates with those on the other side of the aisle. Media Matters is doing a great service to our nation to debunk dishonest punks like you.
They used her pregnant teenage daughter, they used her baby with autism, and they called her a bad mother.
Here's a reality check: Palin herself outted her daughter and made her a public issue. Nobody else. And who's criticized the baby?
A question for conservatives: ya think it's a good idea for a 17 year-old girl to get married? to get pregnant?
What does it say about the family, or about the super-mom?
What if Chelsea had gotten pregnant? I suspect you guys would still be talking about it.
I cannot agree any more... that family will not connect with the majority of voters in this country. McSurge really screwed the pooch with this one.
And since when did the Right all of a sudden embrace teen pregnancy as a wonderful thing? What happened - did they suddenly lose their fundie morals? Or did they never really have them to begin with? Was it all a sham?
LOL....I have to qgree. As an Obama supporter, surely I would be concerned with anyone who electrified the party as she has. But with her it's different...it's like an alternative universe where this extremist, inexperienced, hypocrite, not to menton extremely nasty control freak, has people eating out of her hands and God only knows why. Not sure where I heard this nickname for her but it's "The Killa from Wasilla". LOL.
Your comment about the brother-in-law and trailer trash made me laugh out loud. And did you read about the soon to be son-in-law's MySpace page (which has since been removed). Granted he's a young man...so he can be excused for his rantings but he surely doesn't sound like a "fine young man".
Still, I am disappointed that the Democrats haven't responded more forcefully. Where are Obama's allies in this? Why hasn't Nancy Pelosi said anything? Howard Dean as the head of the Party should've responded to some of the insults. I wouldn't underestimate the Palin effect, especially with the backing of the right-wing wackos Evangelicals.
No, not at all, but you liberals do.
o) Hand out condoms in school
o) Let under age girls get abortions without their parents knowledge.
It's all fine and dandy until it happens to a conservative; hypocrite.
Max wrote:
>> o) Hand out condoms in school
What in good God's name are you talking about? The question asked is if right-wingers think it is a good thing for a 17-year old to get married or to get pregnant. Condoms *prevent* you from getting pregnant, in case you missed your sex ed class. And since the daughter is only getting married because she is pregnant, a condom would have prevented a shotgun wedding as well.
Max wrote:
>>Handing out condoms in school (a liberal principal) is a nod towards sex in school.
That is your opinion. But it still doesn't explain your bizzarre logic. If Bristol's partner had used a condom, guess what? Handing out condoms does not promote pregnancy. If you doubt this, just look at the teen pregnancy rates in Europe, which are so low as to be non existent. In Europe, there is no taboo against sex, but teens use birth control.
Max wrote:
"Handing out condoms in school (a liberal principal) is a nod towards sex in school."
Who's the "liberal principal" you're talking about?
I'm guessing it's that Stephen Harper character from Boston Public. I always liked that dude--firm, but fair.
I don't know what exactly is "a nod towards sex in school." I'm figuring it's in the restrooms, but maybe it's in class when the teacher ain't looking? Or maybe it's got something to do with Mary Kay Letourneau? Did she serve under a liberal principal? Help me out here.
You think the Effin Redneck and Bristol Palin needed condoms to have sex???
For your sake, please don't go there... you will lose miserably if you go down that path.
"No, not at all, but you liberals do."
Then why are Righties incensed over the media focussing on it? Why isn't YOUR side going after them if it isn't all right?
A question for conservatives: ya think it's a good idea for a 17 year-old girl to get married? to get pregnant?
No, not at all, but you liberals do.
o) Hand out condoms in school
o) Let under age girls get abortions without their parents knowledge.
Another nugget of poop from Max Dharma.
We don't think that 17 year olds should be getting pregnant or getting married if they do get pregnant. They should continue the pregnancy if they are anti-abortion, and then put the child up for adoption since they are too young to do a good job of being a parent and it puts that girl behind the eight ball for the rest of her life in most cases. Teen marriage, especially when forced by a pregnancy, is a disaster!
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
Handing out condoms in school, so that when teenagers do what they're clearly going to do with or without condoms, helps prevent STD's and pregnancy. It's a good idea with almost no bad side effects. Even in families like Sarah Palin's, sex happens. Sarah Palin got pregnant and had to marry her husband because they had sex before they were married, for goodness sake!
Allowing pregnant girls to have an abortion without parenta notification but with judicial oversight, a medical procedure that their parents might not allow and that easily could help a girl redeem her life, is a great idea too, without any downside. Unless and until we can prove that every parent will put their daughter's needs first instead of recklessly making decisions that will not help the girl, we need to have a way to protect those girls, and that includes allowing some under 18 to have abortions without their parents' knowledge.
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
I couldn't agree more.
Seeing how you don't understand conservatism at all, you should probably stick to pontificating the liberal beliefs.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
I couldn't agree more.
Seeing how you don't understand conservatism at all, you should probably stick to pontificating the liberal beliefs.
Foser is misleading in his narrative. The question should be asked why CBS felt it was necessary to release a report critical of the President right before an election. The report had been done for months, and was delayed to shortly before the election so as to have the most impact on the election. This is not the first time CBS has done this. The entire Dan Rather saga was another clear attack based on party lines. When Rather was the news anchor, and address the democratic convention, that is a clear conflict of interest. When he releases forged and false documents about Bush and the National Guard on 60 minutes, that is a problem. Even when the documents were shown to be a forgery, or, at the very least highly suspect, he refuses to issue an apology for days. CBS and rather in particular have a long history of being strong democrats, and opposed to republicans.
The actions of Time magazine and US magazine with their choice of covers, , the action of Oprah and her refusal to book Palin until after the election, and the complete cover up of the MSM of the Edward’s affair, until the story was broke open by the National Enquirer……come on guys…it took the National Enquirer, and the choice of MSNBC to put Olberman, the biggest partisan Hack on tv covering the convention all point to a strong strong liberal media bias.
Many of you here hate Rush, and that is fine. He does not cover the convention live. Bill O and Hannity have, but they are all part of a one hour show. Olberman is entitled to be as left wing as he wants. But to have him and Maddow cover the primaries, elections, and conventions is an insult to anyone not so far to the left that they are practically out of sight. Olberman was caught on a live mike insulting Joe S. as he was making a report. Olberman can not even hide his contempt and make it look like he is doing an honest job. All of this points to a left wing media bias.
But to have him and Maddow cover the primaries, elections, and conventions is an insult to anyone not so far to the left that they are practically out of sight.
What are Maddow and Olbermann's positions that "are practically out of sight"?
Assuming that this left-wing bias really exists, so what? You guys and gals have Fox News on your side so what's the problem? Cheney only watches Fox News... perhaps you should do the same. You seem to be more comfortable with right-wing bias so have at it.
The thing is you guys want EVERYTHING to be YOUR way ONLY. Admit it.
Rabbit
So what......are you kidding me? Foser rights an article, using examples of left wing bias which he covers up, and then takes the real examples of left wing bias in an attempt to show intimidation on the right!! I noticed you did not comment on any of the examples of left wing bias I provided. The entire foundation of his article is false, and the best you can come up with is so what. Really Impressive.
One of your supposed examples of bias is Oprah. Oprah? She runs a completely personality based show centered around the topics she wants to discuss. Is making an incompetent therapist like Dr Phil a household name also some sort of liberal plot?
Way to establish your credibility.
Oprah is not obligated to be 'fair and balanced' you moron.
AND... I think this discussion is hilarious considering that you Righties are loath to see the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Seems to me now all of a sudden you guys want it. :P
Oh, so apparently you are in favor of some sort of rule requiring television programs to give equal time to opposing points of view, perhaps some sort of "balancing equation" or maybe a "fairness doctrine."
Oprah presents an entertainment show based on what she believes in and what she believes her audience wants to watch. Her decision to get behind Obama does not suddenly make her a part of the imaginary "liberal media." When she gets a show on a cable news network or starts advertising herself as "The News You Need to Know" or "Fair and Balanced Journalism" you'll have a valid complaint. Right now she's competing against syndicated game shows, soap operas, courtroom programs and other talk shows, not headline news or pundit roundtables.
"Oh, so apparently you are in favor of some sort of rule requiring television programs to give equal time to opposing points of view, perhaps some sort of "balancing equation" or maybe a "fairness doctrine."
BAM! There it is.
The Right is so damn hypocritical. They don't want lefty views on their righty shows but they demand righty views on lefty shows. Amazing... absolutely amazing.
You and Moon are both incorrect....big suprise.
In no way do I want the incredibly un-fair and tool of the left “fairness” doctrine in effect. It is designed for the sole purpose of stopping Rush and talk radio. Additionally, I don’t care who Oprah has on her show, but to make the claim that she is not a part of the media and does not focus on politics does not even pass the laugh test. She can be as biased as she likes, it has never stopped the rest of the left wing media from doing the same. Again, what you two fail to grasp, through all of the examples I provided, is that Foser is way off in his article, and in fact uses examples of actual left wing bias to try and prove that it does not exist.
"It is designed for the sole purpose of stopping Rush and talk radio."
A well-worn talking point from your side but I have yet to see ANY evidence of its validity. Care to cough up the evidence?
Foser is talking about bias in the actual news media. You are talking about any and all broadcast media when you include a show like Oprah's. One may as well complain that the overly authoritarian, black & white thinking of Judge Judy is some sort of proof of right wing bias.
The truth is that after Nixon lost to Kennedy it became a major part of Republican political campaigning to rail against the "liberal media" in order to discredit news reporting.
It works like this: Once you have created the idea of a massive liberal conspiracy within the news media anything they say that is critical of the right or positive to the left it is due to their bias and false but when they report something positive about the right or negative about the left it must be true because they are so biased they wouldn't lie about something that goes against their secret agenda. ie. "Even the liberal <insert news organization here> said..." "Well what else would you expect from those left wing loons over at <pick another news organization, it doesn't matter which one>....."
What a laughable example - Oprah.
It's her show and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it... if she doesn't want Palin on her show then more power to her. Jeez, the damn Righties just want everything to be THEIR way or NO way. Boo effin' hoo!
Perhaps POV didn't consider that having Palin on Oprah's show wouldn't be a smart idea ratings-wise. Oprah most likely will only want guests that will do well for her show. You know, that free market thingy and all...
Oprah, folks, in case no one noticed, is NOT the media. Nor is she a journalist. She has a television show, that she produces etc etc....
How does that compare with what Fosser has said.
Well, POV is dragging her into this discussion because he's pissed that his darlin' Moose-Eater won't be warming up a seat there. WAH WAH WAH.
And yes, Oprah IS a bad example but since he brought her into it we'll grab that ball and run with it. :)
No, POV is dragging her into this discussion because she is an open supporter of Obama and she is afraid to give Gov Palin equal coverage since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
Max wrote:
>>No, POV is dragging her into this discussion because she is an open supporter of Obama and she is afraid to give Gov Palin equal coverage since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
Really? And the proof you have that (1) Oprah is afraid and (2) that America loves her is what? Is there some type of poll that rated her approval rating high that I am not aware of. Note, the right-wing base is not America.
since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
What Maxie has fallen for is the dumbass reports I heard on Fox after Mrs. Loopner's almost-competent reading of Karl Rove's speech the other night (paraphrased, but close) "Palin has united the Republican base, and America".
There are KKK wizards talking to very enthusiastic crowds somewhere in America right now, crowds that represent a fraction of 1% of Americans, just like the sparsely filled stadium Palin "energized" the other night.
That's not America. If it is, we're in serious trouble.
Well COL. SANDERS, I guess you would be an expert on that now wouldn't you ;)
Apparently.
America is in love with her??? Uh, post the link that says so. This is hilarious...
Perhaps a certain SEGMENT of America is 'in love' with her - far rightwing extremist types and young 20-something basement-dweller boys at best. Sorry, those two segments do not comprise ALL of America.
Oh wait, I get it. Real sly there. Those Americans who are NOT 'in love' with her are somehow not American anymore, right? Playing that 'if you're not with us then you're unamerican' card, right?
It's like they can't understand the difference between having a potential Presidential candidate on the air months before anything is decided and having a nominated VP candidate less than 2 months before an election, isn't it?
It's like they can't understand that Oprah gets to invite whoever she wants on her show, and her show is not the same as a news broadcast, and not restricted by the same rules as news sources are, isn't it?
For them, simple common sense is equivalent to brain surgery in that they'll never understand it.
Yeah, that's what I said, so what. Quitcherbitchin and leave the tube on Fox 24/7 and that way you won't have to deal with any 'lib bias'. I'll stick with the progressive talkers and DK and I won't have to deal with any rightwing garbage. We'll BOTH be happy.
Fair enough?
"When he releases forged and false documents about Bush and the National Guard on 60 minutes, that is a problem. Even when the documents were shown to be a forgery, or, at the very least highly suspect, he refuses to issue an apology for days."
There was no evidence they were forged. The worst thing about them is that they weren't verified adequately.
But even the guy's old secretary said that it sounded like him.
The irony was, that CBS story didn't even need those documents. They were merely icing on the cake-- the story already had enough witnesses to nail Bush.
carlileb5935
Obviously the story did not have enough, , as Rather and CBS both had to apologize, and producers were fired. None of the story could be proved, and it was a blatant attempt to sway an election.
It's simple. Let's say you kill someone. The police have tons of circumstantial evidence that says you did it. So, you create false "evidence" to be discovered that proves you did it. The police bring the case against you with this "smoking gun" piece of evidence as their crown jewel, but in court you are able to show that the evidence was falsified. It basically shuts down the prosecution.
The "forged" documents contained TRUE information.
Wow. Haha!
Pov, this is why you can't argue with a liberal. You produce an irrefutable argument and they refute it anyway with some kooky conspiracy nonsense that STILL paints conservatives as the bad guys. .. lol
The information they contained was true....this is not disputed.
It was used as a device exactly as I described to descredit true information.
POV wrote:
>>Foser is misleading in his narrative. The question should be asked why CBS felt it was necessary to release a report critical of the President right before an election. The report had been done for months, and was delayed to shortly before the election so as to have the most impact on the election.
I doubt you have any proof to show that CBS delayed the report to have impact on the election.
>>This is not the first time CBS has done this.
Really? When else did he do this?
>>When Rather was the news anchor, and address the democratic convention, that is a clear conflict of interest.
When did Dan Rather address the Democratic convention? I have the feeling you are making stuff up.
>>The actions of Time magazine and US magazine with their choice of covers
What do you mean by this? Which covers? Are you claiming that both magazines have not had glowing covers for right wingers? Is there some study that shows a bias?
>>the action of Oprah and her refusal to book Palin until after the election
Good grief! Oprah is not news.
>>and the complete cover up of the MSM of the Edward’s affair, until the story was broke open by the National Enquirer
What complete coverup? Do you have proof of this?
None of your examples comes even close to showing what you claim.Funny Man.....you live up to your name.
1. CBS acknowledged that the report had been done for some time and was to be released before the election.
2. They did the same thing with the national guard fake document story.
3. Rather addressed the Dem Convention as a day time speaker when during the B. Clinton convention.
4. 7 covers for Obama….3 for McCain. US cover with Obama and his wife on the cover under the title “why he loves her” vs. Palin on the cover with the title “Babies, lies and scandal”
Damn man………do some research for a change. Stop buying funny pants and read once in a while.
5. Oprah made the decision to enter the political fray, and to refuse time to Palin
6. Ok….show many how many MSM media outlets….print, tv, radio, even mentioned the Edwards affair before the Enquirer ran the story. Yet the NY Times runs a page one story on an alleged McCain affair with no proof at all.
You really can learn something if you try.
Rabbit
Of course they are....both sides do whatever they can to win. I have no problem admitting that.......but take a look a few posts above ours to what that idiot - Timme said......all a rove conspicarcy....lol...year right..... to many on left buy into that crap
Then what the HELL is your beef then? You just admitted that YOUR side 'plays the game' as well so what's the problem? I can counter your example with the one put forth by The Detestable One, aka His Vileness, aka Mark Levin about how Obama plans to enroll all the youth of this country into 'reeducation camps' and send them out to 'radically change' this country and 'destroy' all of its 'traditional' values, all in the name of 'community organizing'. Blah blah blah...
I mean, COME ON! What a load of hot steaming stinking paranoid SH*T! It's just laughable and any sane person knows it.
Your side does the same damn thing. So... AGAIN... WHY are you whining about what the Left does when the Right does the same damn thing?
POV wrote:
>>How on earth do you complain about what was done to CBS...when CBS is one of the worst media offenders out there?
No, it is not. You are simply making things up in your post. You claim that CBS deliberatly tried to sway an election, but offered zero proof. In contrast, Foser offered proof.
Wait, you're comparing Time and US Weekly covers?
If you get a chance this weekend stop by your local grocer and ask him for tips on differentiating apples from oranges.
I was not comparing them......read it again..I was giving examples of diff media types
The Oprah thing was a trumped up story on Drudge the other day that turned out to be completely false. And in any case, if Oprah WERE to be held to some kind of fairness doctrine (which she's not), shouldn't she be forced to have McCain on and not Palin? Isn't he the parallel to Obama in this election?
Palin is a distraction, and a good one, because her personal life is wildly entertaining.
Let us not forget she has 3x the experience as Obama.
POV
Sorry, but you seemed to address the issues, but did not.
>>CBS acknowledged that the report had been done for some time and was to be released before the election.
Where is the link for this? And besides, that doesn't show it was trying to sway the election. There may have been other reasons. Like I said, you cannot back up your assertion with proof.
>>They did the same thing with the national guard fake document story.
Which report are you talking about? I had the impression that point 1 and 2 were the same.
>>Rather addressed the Dem Convention as a day time speaker when during the B. Clinton convention.
No he didn't. You are lying right through your teeth.
>>7 covers for Obama….3 for McCain. US cover with Obama and his wife on the cover under the title “why he loves her” vs. Palin on the cover with the title “Babies, lies and scandal”
Wow! You actually picked only the covers that pertain to McCain and Obama. I believe each publication is weekly, so where are the other 104 covers? And why should I believe your assertion that there were actually 7 for Obama and only 3 for Obama?
>>Oprah made the decision to enter the political fray, and to refuse time to Palin
And Oprah is not the media. As has been pointed out.
>>Ok….show many how many MSM media outlets….print, tv, radio, even mentioned the Edwards affair before the Enquirer ran the story. Yet the NY Times runs a page one story on an alleged McCain affair with no proof at all.
Um, you said that the MSM tried to cover up. Again, where is your proof? You know, I expect something like reporters saying "My boss told me not to cover the story because it would hurt Edwards." You are using speculation in place of facts.
>>You really can learn something if you try.
Right. When you can't win an argument on facts, resort to insult. You haven't provided one link in all your arguments.
I'll take you seriously when you can show me when Rather spoke at the Democratic National Convention, as you claim.
Funny
I gave you all the facts. If you can use google, you can find them all. Do your own damn research. Everything I said was true. I heard the speech Rather gave.....dont tell me it did not happen. Just because you cant find it does not mean it did not happen. There have been a tonnn of articles on the Time cover story. Google it. I am at a loss of words for how you cant find anything.
News reports are that up to 10,000 US magazine readers have cancelled because of the Palin cover. Once again....goggle it. I will give you a hint to get you started. Google US magazine Palin Cover.
POV
>>I gave you all the facts. If you can use google, you can find them all. Do your own damn research. Everything I said was true. I heard the speech Rather gave.....dont tell me it did not happen.
Yes, I accept your defeat. You cannot produce *one* link to back up your assertions. Translation: you are lying through your teeth.
In case you don't realize you debates work, you cannot throw out some claim, and then expect the other person to find out the research.
Let me repeat: you are lying through your teeth.
>>News reports are that up to 10,000 US magazine readers have cancelled because of the Palin cover. Once again....goggle it. I will give you a hint to get you started. Google US magazine Palin Cover.
Uh huh. Now you are employing a moving target argument. You used the number of covers for McCain vs Obama as your original argument. Now you are switching your whole argument, abandoning your original claim. But your new claim is even weaker! 200 million people could cancel their subscription to any magazine, but that wouldn't prove anything, now would it? Your claim (if true), only proves that 10,000 people don't want anything negative said about Palin because they view her as their hero. There is nothing new in rallying around your leader, even when she is wrong; that has been going on since history began.
Damn you are dumb Funny Man
I did not abandon or back away from any of my points. Each one is true. Just for fun..take any one of them.......you pick....any one......and you prove me wrong. provide the links you so badly want...and prove me worng on any item you decide on.
POV wrote:
>>Damn you are dumb Funny Man
Uh huh. Like I said, when you lose an argument, start resorting to name calling. It is always a sure sign that you don't have facts on your side.
>>Each one is true. Just for fun..take any one of them.......you pick....any one......and you prove me wrong. provide the links you so badly want...and prove me worng on any item you decide on.
Now *this* is funny. Since you cannot prove your assertions, you want me to prove them wrong? How am I supposed to prove a negative, for one thing? Do you think there is some link out there that says "Dan Rather did not speak at the Democratic Convention?"
Let me repeat: you are lying through your teeth.
I would have thought since I was lying it would be easy for you to do. I guess you cant take any one of my several points.all of which you said were lies..and prove any of them wrong.
POV wrote:
>>I would have thought since I was lying it would be easy for you to do. I guess you cant take any one of my several points.all of which you said were lies..and prove any of them wrong.
Really, POV, I am still waiting for you to provide me with that link that shows Rather spoke at the Democratic convention.
Do you think I am fooled by your bluff? You are lying through your teeth. You cannot back up what you said because it is absolutely, 100% false, so you keep posting the same response: prove me wrong.
Oh, but that's easy. As long as I keep repeating you have no proof, I am doing just that.
Still waiting for those links, POV.
Here are some of the links you are unable to find.
Time Magazine Covers favoring Obama to McCain
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/another-time-cover-for-obama.html
US magazine controversy
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/09/03/us-magazine-launches-tabloid-style-attack-sarah-palin
I cant find a link that shows him addressing a convention years ago, so I gave you this one where he was the star attraction at a democratic fundraiser. Real fair and balanced for a major news network anchor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34557-2001Apr3
Since you cant find anything on your own….this should get you started.
POV wrote:
>>Time Magazine Covers favoring Obama to McCain
You linked to a right wing blog, not any objective analysis. But more to the point, the covers *prove* nothing. Are you seriously saying that because there are more stories on Obama in one publication, that proves wide-scale bias? That is patently absurd, as I have already pointed out. So no, your link shows nothing.
>>US magazine controversy
You are bluffing again. The argument you added about the so-called attack on Palin was added after you couldn't produce any proof. Your link only shows that Newsbusters (a rigthwing site) thinks the cover was unfair. You are using an opinion as proof.
>>I cant find a link that shows him addressing a convention years ago
Yes, BECAUSE HE NEVER SPOKE AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION! Just as I siad all along. In other words, you were lying through your teeth, just like I said. I saw the link already on the fundraise (you see, I did do a google search, which is why I knew you were flat out wrong--Rather speaking at a convention would have gotten lots of lots of controversy and lots and lots of hits!), but Rather claimed he did not know it was a fundraiser.
You claimed that CBS delibeately delayed a report twice to sway an election. Your proof? Nothing!
You claimed that Rather spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Your proof? nothing!
The only thing you have shown is that Rather unknowningly spoke at a fundraiser, that Time had more covers on Ombama than McCain. That is the laughable sum of your proof. (I am not even going to mention the ridiculous Newsbusters piece, unless we are going to start using editorials as fact.)
So in other words, your original case, which seemed so strong, has completely fallen apart.
Like I said, you were bluffing all along.
spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further.
Oops!
and oops again....
Meanwhile, Oprah Winfrey has issued a statement responding to a report that she'll have Palin on her show. “The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue,” Winfrey's statement read. “There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”
You can come to a dialogue with core positions that you insist must be respected. But in return for that you must stand willing to accept criticism on your facts and your reasoning.
The problem with the Right is that they shove their facts and their reasoning into the 'must be respected' column. So a reporter asking for facts becomes an attacker, a partisan, a liberal.
That's nonsense. And furthermore when you do it, you damage your position of demanding that respect.
Liberals did not regard the Eliot Spitzer story or the John Edwards story as partisan attacks. Sensational factual reporting--but not damaging to liberal principles since nobody ever took the position that Spitzer or Edwards were part of liberal core beliefs.
In the Bill Buckley days, conservatism was like that. Strongly held principles, willing to discuss and examine the world in light of those beliefs.
But not any more. The right's 'core positions' that you demand equal time for are things like 'Iraq is the central front for the War on Terror," "The economy is going great" and "Torture is necessary." None of those are corre beliefs and none are entitled to the respect core beliefs are due.
We don't regard Eliot Spitzer's coverage as partisan--but Geoorge Bush's AWOL story is. it is not. It's a matter of fact, which is not entitled to the fairness doctrine, or the rules of debate, or anything.
Bill Buckley was a tennis player who hit the ball back and forth across the court with agreat deal of dexterity. He played a good game.
You guys are tennis players who stand and shout 'foul' every time someone hits you a serve, and shouts 'that was out!", yells at the refs and then runs off the court claiming you've won.
When you learn how to play the way Bill did, come back and play. Otherwise it's not tennis, it's tantrums.
Not their bosses, not to any neocon, or any republican.
I guess they'll stand up to concerned citizens. They have little thought to the publics informational needs. Maybe some contemp for them that live and die outside their bubble world.
There's some exceptions, but on the whole, the two solutions of any worth are bringing back the fairness doctrine, and removing corporation control from our media. Or as so many people are doing, stop watching the garbage, to get the information they need elswhere.
In fact, it is a constant war, the point of which is not to merely win a few votes from people who dislike the media. The point is to make voters distrust the media, to make them believe the media are out to get conservatives and thus cause them to discount news reports that are unfavorable to conservatives, and to cow the media themselves into running fewer such reports. (It serves another purpose, too: It helps a nominee whose heiress wife shows up at the convention in an outfit estimated to cost $300,000 pretend to be a man of the people raging against the "elites." But that's a story better told elsewhere.)
It also helps the MCCain campaign hide Palin from the media.
Let's see ... Who owns the major media outlets? Viacom, General Electric, Disney, Time/Warner, and Rupert Murdoch. Any wonder the mainstream media has a bias?
Once upon a time, CBS, NBC, and ABC were owned by Columbia, National, and American Broadcasting.
Just a little while ago, Campbell Brown on CNN did a segment on the EBAY airplane story. They did a good job showing how it was actually sold to a private party at a loss.
They even showed a clip of McCain today lying through his teeth, claiming that "she sold it on EBAY and she made a profit!"
But when the panel discussion resumed, McCain's lie was totally ignored. Instead, the discussion revolved entirely around Palin, and what was fair, what wasn't, did she say this, did she say that, ad nauseum...
Proof positive that the repubs are using Palin as a shield, and the media is going right along, wringing their hands all the way...
In comes Sarah Palin...the shield McCain hopes can last 60 days
That isn't what Palin said in her speech, which was that she "put the plane on E-Bay". She didn't lie, what she said in her speech was the truth.
The truth is that plane did not sell on E-Bay after being listed for awhile, it was removed and eventually sold to a private citizen.
I felt the entire episode on CNN was designed to mislead the viewing audience into incorrectly thinking that Palin had said she sold the plane on E_Bay.
If this is the type of reporting we can expect from the national media on Palin, it will do nothing more than turn Palin into a sympathetic figure being treated unfairly by the national media.
Which has been the case so far.
Jamison, this piece is great, as far as it goes.
However, it left me wondering when you were going to draw connections between the GOP's rhetorical attacks on the media, and the overt and brutal physical attacks we're seeing against journalists in Minneapolis.
Seems like there's an huge escalation going on -- the reasons for which you explain very, very well -- and that's a crucial part of the story.
Above is written:
The point is to make voters distrust the media, ...and thus cause them to discount news reports that are unfavorable to conservatives, and to cow the media themselves into running fewer such reports.
...and of course, that is 100% dead-on accurate true. Take the thought that these Republican complaints against the media are in part to "cow [pressure and intimidate] the media into running fewer such reports [that are unfavorable to conservatives]", and twist it slightly for the even more specific purpose of:
To pressure and intimidate the media from questioning and reporting the qualifications (or lack thereof) of Gov. Palin, to the Office of the Presidency of the United States (which is of course the most serious and only real qualification, to the Office of the Vice Presidency).
And add also to this Republican campaign to make the American People distrust whatever critical things the media might report about the McCain-Palin campaign (particularly the qualifications of Gov. Palin), and also to that same Republican strategy to pressure and intimidate the media from a vigorous and honest examination of Gov. Palin's career so far, and of her National Policy experience and opinions... add to those things, this also:
To create a ready made pre-fabricated excuse and rationale, for certain dishonest elements of the media to refrain from any close examination, of Gov. Palin's career and qualifications (or lack thereof) to the Presidency.
Consider this: in just this first week of this Republican campaign strategy, we have this from a Fox News Channel executive (by way of a Los Angeles Times article linked to below):
"There does seem that there's been a feeding frenzy," said Marty Ryan, Fox News' executive producer of political coverage, adding that he thought his network "didn't overdo it."
BANG that's it right there: Fox News has already, in just the the first week, the first hours really, of this Republican campaign to pressure and intimidate the media away from reporting anything negative about the McCain campaign in general, and Gov. Palin in particular, Fox has made the announcement that "we're not going to overdo it... we feel we have not overdone it in these first hours, and we're not going to overdo it."
"You're not going to overdo what?"
"We're not going to overdo any examination of Gov. Palin's career or qualifications (or lack thereof) to the Presidency of the United States... and for that matter, we're not going to overdo any critical or negative reporting about the McCain campaign in general"
Again, as I said, this whole Operation Cow The Media (from reporting critically on the McCain campaign in general, and Gov. Palin in particular) has also the added advantage of providing a ready made pre-fabricated excuse and rationale for Fox News Channel (and others) who had no intention in the first place, of rigorously examining and reporting on, Gov. Palin's career and qualifications (or lack thereof) to the Presidency.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mediaattacks5-2008sep05,0,6088101.story
I would add to where I said that what Republicans did this week at their convention, in launching broadside attack after broadside attack, against something called a "media", was in part....
To pressure and intimidate the media from questioning and reporting the qualifications (or lack thereof) of Gov. Palin to the Presidency of the United States (which is of course the most serious and only real qualification to the Office of the Vice Presidency).
Add to that thought, the consideration of the timing of it all:
Why is it that these attacks against the media (meant to pressure and intimidate I say), why were these attacks launched in the same week in which Gov. Palin was announced as the VP candidate?
Mere coincidence?
Consider the timing of it.
What do you think about this new, sudden, "poor Sarah-- Oprah is being so mean to her" story?
A deliberate fabrication that the Repubs are engineering to intimidate both Oprah and the general MSM.
It appears to me that Oprah Winfrey was baited into responding to reports that an "unnamed source" on her staff said that "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her [Gov. Palin] on [Oprah's television show], but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama."
Seeing as the first thing Ms. Winfrey said in response to that "unnamed source" report was that it was "categorically untrue", then as I said, I think she was baited into responding... and once baited, they then picked out from her statement her assertion that she would have Gov. Palin on her show, "after the campaign is over".
And so it does seem like they successfully baited a public media figure (as media as they get) who is a proclaimed Obama supporter, into appearing to have a media bias of sorts against Gov. Palin, by saying the Governor would not be on the Oprah Winfrey television show, while the campaign was underway.
Putting aside for a moment the purely political aspect of this, and picking up instead on the media angle (this being a media website), if Oprah Winfrey has been using the Public Airwaves (of which she owns no part of in the least, but merely uses by way of an FCC License, or by way of contracting with those who hold FCC Licenses), if she has been using her television show to endorse or support the campaign of Sen. Obama, and doing so without any thought to the concepts of EQUAL TIME or REPLY TIME, then she is no better than simply a different kind of Fox News; and she is as much an abuser of a Public Resource the Public Airwaves, by using that precious Public Resource as her own private political platform, as is Fox News or rush limbaugh or sean hannity: as they would all be making the same private political use of a precious (not available to you and I) broadcasting License... but just doing so from different ends of the American political spectrum.
That is (again) if indeed Oprah Winfrey has been using her television show to endorse or support the campaign of Sen. Obama.
If so, she is wrong not to allow EQUAL TIME in the broadcasting of political opinions (in this case, her political opinions), because the precious Public Resource that she uses to do that, is in no way shape or form anyone's private property, least of all Oprah Winfrey's (or Fox's or rush's or sean's either).
The problem of this out-of-control private political use of the Public Airwaves, and the concept of EQUAL TIME as a Fair and Balanced solution to that problem, are both much greater and should transcend, mere political differences.
If Oprah Winfrey has been using her television show on the Public airwaves to endorse or support the campaign of Sen. Obama, then she should allow EQUAL TIME by having John McCain on also... and if she has had Sen. Biden on her show, then she should have Gov. Palin on also.
And if she has not had Mr. Biden on, but would like to satisfy the "tons of requests" that the unnamed source claims she has been getting on her website, to have Gov. Palin on her show, then she should have the both of them on, at the same time (we are civilized enough for such a thing, aren't we Joe and Sarah?), in which case the concept served would be sort of like SIMULTANEOUS TIME, which is every bit as good if not better, than EQUAL TIME.
The whole thing is that much of a problem, and it should transcend mere political differences: as much for the Fairness and Balance it would demonstrate now, without compulsion, and as an example for what it is we need in the future (again), by mandate of the FCC.
That's my extended opinion on the matter: were I to have had recourse to Ms. Winfrey prior to her taking the bait I spoke of, I'd have told to simply state that the "unnamed source" report was false, and say no more... lest you invite a debate you'd rather not have at this time.
Oprah doesn't broadcast anything. She produces a show and sells it in syndication. Any responsibility towards equal time laws belongs completely to the stations that buy and broadcast her show. She doesn't legally have to do anything to comply with those laws though Channel X in Midville, USA may have to find some sort of balancing program to air.
Additionally I'm not actually certain of much equal time laws apply to the primary season as opposed to the time after a candidate is officially running for president instead of running for nomination. Oprah's Obama shows all were originally aired before he won.
Then by your strange and helpless reasoning, no one who appears on television could ever be held accountable for what they say or do on the Public Airwaves, because none of them are broadcasters, there always being a line of buffers and firewalls (contractors and sub-contractors) between production and broadcast...
That's a scatter-brained argument, that renders everything moot, and no one responsible.
And if you're saying that Oprah Winfrey has not used her television show (and the Public Airwaves) to endorse Sen. Obama, then I point out that I said "if" she did, and "then" she should etc.: I don't watch her show, so I wouldn't know.
And the distinction you strain to make between Primary elections and the General, is just self-serving nonsense.
My "strange and helpless reasoning" is actually the way it works. Government has extremely limited power over the media because of First Amendment issues. The only reason that the FCC can enforce anything at all is because television and radio broadcast frequencies have been designated a limited resource to be controlled by the US Government through the granting of broadcast licenses. It is the license holders that are under the power of the FCC, not the performers. CBS got fined for Janet Jackson's free show, not Janet and Justin.
I wasn't making the Primary/General election distinction for any reason other than to suggest that just as the FEC makes different rules for those seasons, the FCC may also do so. I honestly don't know if they do or not. However the Equal Time Law does exempt "regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events ." http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm
From info gained from the letter Anne Kilkenny put out about Sarah Palin she actually isn't lying about Senator Obama raising taxes, neither is Senator McCain. "They" will be paying more in taxes. The Palin's are in the income bracket being affected (over $250,000/year) ...her husband does have a real job other than just fishing. A very plum, union job if statements in the letter are factual. They are misleading the American people! It's a shame how hypocritical supposedly god-fearing conservative people can be. The American people need to learn more about Sarah Palin and who better to relay this info than a citizen of the city of Wasilla. Who would know her better! For more info Google "Anne Kilkenny" and read the letter she emailed her friends.
At first I thought, "he can't possibly be using O.J. Simpson and Mother Teresa as an example of how who gets more press coverage doesn't matter" but then I realized that in fact, many people do seem to think that Barack Obama embodies all that is good and holy in politics while John McCain represents everything that's evil.
However, the polls I read showed that Obama received more FAVORABLE press coverage, particularly in his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton.
What happens to those in the media who raise any questions about Sen. Obama? Dana Millbank of the Washinton Post was disinvited from "Countdown" where he had appeared almost nightly. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker found there was no room on the Obama press plane to Europe.
Attacking the media is a play that the Obama campaign has taken directly from the Republican playbook, Spiro Agnew would be so very proud.
You don't want fair press coverage, you want media cheerleaders. If I'm incorrect, please point me in the direction of one Media Matters comment critical of anything regarding Sen. Obama.
The media did not cover Bristol Palin's pregnancy because they have a liberal bias. They covered it because, above and beyond any ideological leanings on the part of assorted journalists, the media is about tabloid sensationalism. Celebrity unwed pregnant teens will always be front page news.
If poor miss Sarah thinks she's being treated unfairly I'd love to see her reaction if her daughter's indiscretion had received as much attention and analysis as that of Jamie Lynn Spears. The Palins got off lightly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americaspast /us_elections/article4687976.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
The article speaks for itself.
>>The article speaks for itself.
Link is broken.
they should consider three instances where the corporate mainstream
media rolled over for Bush & Co.
-- Their jingoistic backing of the march to war in 2002-2003.
-- The New York Times' withholding of the story on illegal surveillance
of supposed "terrorism" suspects,
October 2003-December 2004.
-- Nearly unanimous indifference to the 2005 "Downing Street Memo"
revelation (Sunday Times of London) which
which showed conclusively that in planning for the invasion of
Iraq, the Bush administration was fixing intelligence around its
belligerent policy and ignoring post-invasion planning in the bargain.
The first rollover gave Bush the war he wanted. The second helped him somehow
get a second term. The third helped stave off impeachment during his
second term.
Granted, it's a short list of media rollovers for Bush. But long on results.
Jerry Elsea
Potentially OT but just wondering...seeing as how "The Shrilla from Wasilla" a) believes that the War on Terror is a "task from God" and b) makes a big deal out of being CinC of the Alaska National Guard which has units fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it kind of strange that she's never visited either country? In sharp contrast, Biden's been to Iraq 7 times and went to Afghanistan earlier this year.
I seem to recall the McCain campaign had some choice words about Obama not having visited Iraq since 2006:
“Obama has done shockingly little to educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq. Instead, he displays an arrogant certainty gained on the campaign trail. … Obama’s failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand and witness the surge’s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies him from being commander in chief.”
Wow...that sounds just like the Shrilla to me. Would LOVE to see a DNC ad nailing her on this point!
The media will cave in to McCain. Bank on it.
Because of his cantankerous relationship with the Bush White house and the Republican stance on multiple issues.
The love relationship with the press ended when he became the Republican nomination for President.
The so-called McCain love affair with McCain over the years by the press is such a liberal left wing canard.
He was used exactly the same way that Chuck Hagel currently is.
Who the hell do you think you're fooling with this ridiculous point?
If he had been a lock step Republican on the issues he would have been treated by the press like all the rest. He was USED by the liberal press in attacks against Republican orthodoxy, he has now outlived that use for sure.
When journalists contribute to the Obama campaign 20 to 1 over McCain; When it takes the Enquirer, THE ENQUIRER!, to do the media's job investigating and exposing the lies of John Edwards, etc, etc....but it takes just a nanosecond for the Obamamedia to crank up the smear machine against Gov Palin's family.
Clearly, the culture war is on.
If your leftist media had done its job last year regarding Edwards, Hillary would be president in less than 60 days.
Journalists contribute to Obama 20-1? Really? Can you prove that or are you just making that up out of thin air?
If you are giving the Enquirer such praise, then you must be 100% behind the story they just published about Palin having an affair with her husband's business partner right?
If Edwards had been busted awhile back, it would have changed nothing about who would be running for President right now for the Democrats. Folks did a study, and reviewed the numbers, and it turns out, that if Edwards had been caught say right after Iowa, most of his votes would have gone to, wait for it, Obama, and NOT Hillary Clinton.
"The McCain campaign’s war against the media shouldn’t be surprising; this is what conservatives do."
Since Media Matters for America is at war against the media I guess they must be conservative. Who knew?
The only media that's stood up to Liar McCain-Liar Palin are the liberal blogs like Americablog and Huffington Post and Firedoglake, along wih Randi Rhode and Mike Malloy of Nova M Radio, and Ed Schultz http://www.wegted.com [Schultz has already gotten under Liar McCain's skin once] and the black blogs like Black Agenda Report, and black talk radio like THE POWER http://www.radio-one.com and WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com.
The rest of the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media is concocting reasons to kow-tow to and/or show even MORE blatant favoritism to Lia McCain-Liar Palin than they are already.
Lets face it...We all know Charlie Gibson will be given a list of questions about stupid crap when he interviews her later this week...Inane stuff about how she likes to make mooseburgers & coach horse hockey...What I can't wait to see is her in the debate against Biden! Those glasses of hers are only going to magnify that deer in the headlights look!!! Tell that "pitbull with lipstick" to put her big girl pants on and show the country she's not going to pick up her toys and leave when its RUSSIA "picking on her". Go ahead & try to keep her under wraps ReCONicans...It just makes us wonder even more what you're hiding ....
This Speaks for Itself. If you call yourself a news reporter then report, not give me your comments on the news. If you want to be a talk show that states that has a agenda then great. Talk radio you know the agenda, Rush, Air America, Glenn, you know what their agenda is, but when the "News' turns into this, then it is not the news. Hence the below artical.
MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign.
But NBC News journalists, who often appear on the cable channel, did see a problem, arguing behind the scenes that MSNBC's move to the left -- which includes a new show, debuting tonight, for Air America radio host Rachel Maddow -- was tarnishing their reputation for fairness. Tom Brokaw, the interim host of "Meet the Press," said that at times Olbermann and Matthews went too far.
In May, MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in an interview that during live events Olbermann and Matthews "put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem." MSNBC's more liberal outlook has boosted its ratings, though it remains the third-place cable news channel.