After trumpeting Bush's "good news" last week, will the media now highlight a momentum reversal?
SUMMARY: Last week, the media seized on a "spate of good news" supposedly providing the White House a surge of momentum. In recent days, there have been negative turns of events in many of the areas that had been the focus of the media's enthusiasm, including the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the trial of a former White House official. Will the media give the same attention to this apparent string of bad news as they devoted to last week's "good news"?
Last week, the media seized on the supposed "spate of good news" purportedly infusing the White House with momentum, including the June 7 death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, the June 12 announcement that White House senior adviser Karl Rove would not be indicted in the CIA leak case, and President Bush's brief June 13 trip to Baghdad to meet with the new Iraqi prime minister. Sometimes citing small upticks in Bush's poll numbers, various media outlets highlighted Bush's "surge of momentum" and described him as "on a roll." A June 14 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) pondered, "Is he setting the stage for a political recovery?" And a June 16 report by ABC News senior national correspondent Claire Shipman featured on-screen text reading, "Best week ever? Is Bush on a comeback?"
But as Media Matters for America noted, in celebrating the White House's purported "momentum," these outlets overlooked the Bush administration's numerous ongoing problems. In recent days, there have been negative turns of events in many of the areas Media Matters previously identified, including the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the trial of a former White House official. At the same time, several other problems relating to the White House surfaced. In light of these events, will the media devote the same attention to this apparent string of bad news and how it might affect his purported "comeback" as they did to Bush's "surge of momentum"?
Notable recent developments:
- Safavian is convicted. On June 20, former White House official David Safavian was found guilty in federal court on four charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice relating to his dealings with disgraced former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Safavian is the former chief federal procurement officer for the Bush White House.
- North Korea moves closer to missile test. Recent reports have indicated that North Korea is planning to test a long-range ballistic missile for the first time in eight years. This development has provoked extensive diplomatic efforts from the United States and other nations. On June 20, the United States even took the step of activating its missile defense system.
- Violence and instability continue in Iraq. On June 16 -- the same day that Shipman touted Bush's purported comeback -- a suicide bomber killed 11 in an attack on a Baghdad mosque and two American soldiers were captured by insurgents in an ambush near Yusefiya. Four days later, the two soldiers were found dead after apparently having been tortured. The news of the murders came a day after Vice President Dick Cheney stood by his assertion in May 2005 that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." On June 18, The Washington Post published a cable sent recently from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq to the State Department detailing the "the daily-worsening conditions" in Baghdad and the increasing dangers faced by the embassy's Iraqi employees and their families. The memo, which has received scant attention from the rest of the media despite the very different picture it paints from Bush's optimistic remarks, cited reports that ethnic cleansing "is taking place in almost every Iraqi province." Also, Japan announced on June 20 its intention to pull its 600 ground troops out of Iraq.
- Three soldiers charged with murder of Iraqi civilians. The Army disclosed on June 19 that three U.S. soldiers had been charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqi detainees, as well as obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the Naval Criminal Investigation Service is continuing to investigate the possibility that "war crimes" were committed by a company of Marines during an incident on November 19, 2005, in the Iraqi town of Haditha in which one Marine and 24 Iraqi civilians died, including several children.
- Taliban insurgency gains strength in Afghanistan. USA Today reported on June 20 that the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan is intensifying, as insurgents are "ambushing military patrols, assassinating opponents and even enforcing the law in remote villages where they operate with near impunity." According to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, "We are faced with a full-blown insurgency." The increased violence and instability has led the U.S. military to mount a substantial counteroffensive involving more than 300 airstrikes in the past three months. Nearly four and a half years ago, Bush announced that the United States had "routed the Taliban in Afghanistan."
- New book details failures of war on terror. Released on June 20, Ron Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster), includes numerous startling revelations regarding the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror. As Washington Post staff writer Barton Gellman wrote in his June 20 review: "The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: 'All right. You've covered your ass, now.'" According to Gellman, Suskind also reports that Bush was specifically warned by the CIA in late 2001 that the Pakistani army and local Afghan militias that had cornered Osama bin Laden in the mountains in Afghanistan were "definitely not" equipped to handle the mission and that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful." As Gellman writes, "White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S. troops to get him."
- Rumsfeld does not recall facts of "largest defense procurement scandal in decades." A June 20 Washington Post article highlighted "how little of [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld's attention has been focused on weapons-buying -- a function that consumes nearly a fifth of the $410 billion defense budget." The Pentagon's weapons procurement system became a source of controversy after it came to light in 2004 that the department had spent $30 billion leasing tanker aircraft for which that it had no need, which the Post called the "largest defense procurement scandal in decades." A subsequent investigation by David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, determined that the Defense Department "is simply not positioned to deliver high-quality products in a timely and cost-effective fashion" -- a problem for which he partly blamed Rumsfeld's office.
With the exception of MMFA, Air America Radio, Democracy Now, and a select few other independent sources, the mainstream media will continue to kowtow to the Bush administration and carefully filter every piece of news. Bush and his cronnies own them lock, stock and barrel.
like Al-qaeda and the rest of the terrorist. You libs really crack me up. The only good news for you guys is bad news for the country. You're just waiting for some more bad news so you can score political points. I would hate to think that the success of my political party depended on bad things happening to Americans. The liberal elite media couldn’t get the word out fast enough about our brave soldiers being tortured and killed so that they can now trumpet another failure for America or as MMFA puts it “momentum reversal”. What a crock! The good news is there is no way that a majority of Americans are going to fall for liberal’s “failure” doctrine. Most Americans don’t believe that America is evil. Most Americans see through the veil of “presenting opposing views” for what it is…anti-american propaganda designed for the sole purpose of getting back into power. I have confidence in Americans to see through this BS as they’ve done election after election. You guys will never learn.
It's not about scoring political points. It's about showing that the rationale against the war had merit to begin with, to further show why the USA can't keep doing things like this in the future! Under what circumstances can someone who opposed the war for genuine reasons (which includes just about everyone who opposed the war as far as I can tell) point to these disasters to show that is what they were concerned about? Is it possible? Or is claiming partisanship the only card you have left, as your stack of chips dwindles rapidly in front of you?
you’ve got “big slick” suited and you bet pre-flop. With a lot of chips already in the pot you flop the royal flush. Your opponent has 7, 2 off suit but keeps firing at the pot on a stone cold bluff. You, to naive to realize what you’ve got decide to fold. In case you’re still not following me…”big slick” represents the American military. Flopping the royal flush represents the toppling of Saddam’s regime. Your opponent with no hand represents the terrorist. The only way you could lose would be if you folded…that represents the “cut & run” liberal policy. By folding you give away all the chips you already have in…those represent the troops who have already given their lives. If you had stayed in you could have taken your opponent out but because you folded your opponent now has a chance to take you out later. Do you get it? I know this is slightly off topic but since you are the one with a dwindling chip stack I couldn’t resist.
It sure is taking the dealer a loooong time to turn the cards in your scenario.
But I'm sure we're almost finished killing terrorists by now. There must be only a thousand or so left. When we kill them, the world will run out of terrorists.
but if we get the reputation of folding everytime someone bluffs at the pot, you can bet your opponent will be "all in" every hand. Weakness is not a good "table image" in poker or the war on terror.
But if you bluff every time, you will not be respected, either. We can not win militarily in Iraq. We can either stay 10 more years with a lot of more deaths before we discover this, or we can withdraw now.
have been playing the same hand for more than 50 years.
For all of those on the right to quit with the sports, gambling and game metaphors. There seems to be some sort of concerted effort by the RNC to use these metaphors when describing war. The leaders of this administration and their flacks in the media know about sports and they're comfortable gambling away the lives of other peoples children, but they don't know about war. If they did, they would treat the subject more solemnly.
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
-William T. Sherman
Let me say it this way so YOU can understand...
You've got a nerd with a "pocket protector"...oh, heck...never mind...you're just not worth the time.
What the hell are you talking about? Not only can't I relate to your analogy, but only cowardly right wing chickenhawks make analogies about things as serious as war. Like your heroes, you talk the talk but you haven't put your a$$ on the line. Get back to me with your analogy after you've dodged a few bullets, pal.
Sorry if I offended you. I shouldn’t have made it so personal. I've read some of your other posts on this site and have to say I don't always disagree with you. I apologize.
I might have been too personal with other posters sometimes myself. We all lose it sometimes.
This post proves nothing because you use an ill-fitting analogy. Iraq is not a card game.
moreover, I was just talking about his rhetorical standing. His response didn't exactly disprove my point.
Here we have a genuine mind-numbed robot. I've heard about them, but never really seen one. I wonder if he takes notes while listening to Limbaugh?
"You libs really crack me up. The only good news for you guys is bad news for the country."
RESPONSE: Bush is making all the calls for this country. Where is the GOOD news? Bush sets energy policy, and gas prices skyrocket. Enron gouges California for BILLIONS. Home heating costs also skyrocket, and American People are sending more and more of their dwindling incomes to the boardrooms of Big Oil, where there are ALL TIME RECORD PROFITS.
Social Security? Nothing from the GOP. Health Care? Turned over to HMO's and Big Pharmaceuticals, and now a record number of Americans are uninsured. Costs soar, and the GOP work to make sure we can't get cheaper generics for Canada. Make those elders pay PREMIUM prices!
Jobs? Exporting the good jobs, replacing them with more poorly paying (and no benefit) jobs in the service sector. Bush's "job creation" does not even keep up with staying even with population growth. American's average wages sink, while costs of living go UP UP UP, and directly into the pockets of the already wealthy.
Border Securtity? The GOP, a big ZERO in SIX YEARS of total power.
Corruption from Defense procurement, Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, the list is LONG of GOPers selling out their votes to well paying special interests. NO BID contracts for Halliburton, which can't account for MILLIONS lost, but they keep sending whopping checks to the Vice President. Bush's dad is at Carlyle, who make BILLIONS from WARTIME DEFENSE spending, so their selfish interest is in never ending war.
Bush's office EXPOSES secret undercover CIA operations for political gain alone. Bush LIES to America, about the reasons for war, about the extent of NSA domestic spying, about the cost of Medicare recommendations.
There's NOTHING but BAD NEWS for America, CB, since Bush took office. The economy is shot, the DEBT is astronomical, and we're mired in a quagmire WAR started on false premises. Our brave young soldiers die every day, along with thousands of innocent Iraqis. We have stressed our soldiers to the max, and now torture and atrocities are resulting from failed LEADERSHIP.
There's tons more, CB, but I don't get it ... WHY do you think Bush is doing anything GOOD for America? Where IS it? Unless you're just a fan of the rich getting fabulously richer, while the rest of us are in freefall, I don't fathom what you're cheering for.
BAD NEWS is BAD NEWS for all America, and the Bush Administration is nothing but BAD NEWS.
talk about contradictory statements. on the one hand, this headline is cheerleading for the media to get back on the bad news wagon. enough of this "momentum" stuff, we want gloom and doom - wondering, hoping, the media picks up on it. then on the other hand, they list several items referencing books and newspaper articles galore doing just that! oops.
MMFA is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of our "press corps". They should neither be cheerleading for nor against the administration, but just reporting the facts. By drooling over Puddinhead's "forward momentum" they ignored the fact that Iraq is still FUBAR and that the Republican-dominated government is rotting from the head down.
you know the festering began way before the Republicans took control. It started back in the Ford Administration.
Seems to have involved the same troglodytes that are in power now, if you'll recall. Cheney and Rumsfeld and their cronies go way back. No, they didn't control the whole government back then, but they were just as slimey.
just to take an example highlighted here, how is this cheerleading for bush "And a June 16 report by ABC News senior national correspondent Claire Shipman featured on-screen text reading, "Best week ever? Is Bush on a comeback?"
read carefully, there is a question mark at the end which suggests to reasonable people that it's a matter of opinion, or left up to the viewer/listener. i know, if it had read this "worst week ever! bush on the ropes!", then you would be infinitely more pleased.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop. You just lost. That statement is soooooooooooooo pathetic. That point is beyond ridiculous. You are indeed living in a bubble if you can't admit the entire MSM was fawning over dubyah last week. Can you admit the MSM wasn't fawning over dubyah last week?
Yet, you still haven't refuted the main point: MMFA is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of our "press corps". They should neither be cheerleading for nor against the administration, but just reporting the fact.
All it takes is proper punctuation, and, PRESTO! Instant fairness and balance!
Here I thought Fox was biased. What the hell was I thinking???
Only on Fox: "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
Only on Fox: "Attacking capitalism: Have Dems declared war on America?"
Only on Fox: "Liberals on Iraq: Bad for America & Stocks?"
Oops, you just showed your progressive skin with ALL those question marks!
They'll cancel each other out. LOL
"Did Bush know about 9/11 and let it happen?"
The question mark makes it okay, doesn't it?
your headline needs to be supported by facts of some sort even to be credible. this headline is a subjective comment on someone's popularity and throwing it for pure discussion and conjecture. apples and oranges.
I'm confused by what you think your point is anyway. It's not cheerleading because it's a subjective opinion. Isn't cheerleading an expression of a subjective opinion?
And if there has to be some basis for that question, then there should be some basis for the question about his "comeback". There's easily just as much or more basis for the same questions about his slide within the last week, so why isn't the media asking THAT one?
>>your headline needs to be supported by facts of some sort even to be credible. this headline is a subjective comment on someone's popularity and throwing it for pure discussion and conjecture. apples and oranges.
What nonsense! You can say the same exact thing for the headline Nerzog posted. His headline is just a subjective question meant to generate discussion. It is not a statement of fact.
"Does Bush really not care where Osama bin Laden is?"
i don't have a problem with that headline either, as long as it ends with a question mark.
That is highly misleading reporting, and you just don't wan to admit it. How about if I pose a headline
"Does Bush really want to destroy America?"
Of course the headline reveals the direction of the story! You just can't make irresponsible statements and plop a question mark at the end to escape responsibility.
Bush actually said that he doesn't care.
---"on the one hand, this headline is cheerleading for the media to get back on the bad news wagon---"
The headline is a simple question. Cheerleading is something different. You can look it up in the dictionary.
---"we want gloom and doom - wondering, hoping, the media picks up on it."---
Another distortion. The question was whether the media will describe the recents events as downward momentum. No one is "hoping" for or "wanting gloom and doom".
I think MMFA's point is that when several events happened recently that were potentially good for Bush's image, the media wove those events into a narrative about how "Bush has new momentum" or some such.
Now there are newsworthy events that are potentially damaging to Bush's image. The media have indeed reported them, as you observed. The question is, will the media use these events to weave a narrative about Bush losing momentum?
i understand what this headline is saying. but it is a little silly, isn't it? bush momentum, or bush tanking, it's all in the perception of the beholder anyway. just like a poll, changes hourly. the point is it is much ado about nothing. the whole picture needs to be judged in it's entirety anyway, whether bush is up or down is really irrelevant to the events occurring. for if you love bush, he is always your hero fighting the good fight. if you despise him, he is crap. if you're somewhere in between, these little nuanced headlines or biases go unnoticed and under the radar.
I'll stop making much ado about these little things when Rush Limbaugh climbs down off of his "liberal media" pony.
i have no control over limbaugh and what he airs on his program. talk to him.
dubyah, or any Regressive, admits to being wrong.
"Silliness" isn't the issue. MMFA's point is quite valid. That is, the MSM hailed dubyah because of the "spate of good news" last week, but, now due to a series of “not so-good news”, will the MSM report that dubyah’s image/momentum is going in the other direction. The "perception of the beholder/MSM" was that dubyah was triumphant and a hero last week; will they report the new "perception" that not all is well in dubyah's world this week?
"for if you love bush, he is always your hero fighting the good fight. if you despise him, he is crap. if you're somewhere in between, these little nuanced headlines or biases go unnoticed and under the radar."
I'm curious what your basis is for the comment that these things go unnoticed by the middle. Do you really think that if the media only reports optimism for Bush and never talks about how bad things are for him, that it would make no difference than the other way around? I think you're kidding yourself, but it's not working on anyone else.
the headline clearly had a very relevant question mark on it. thus making it fodder for discussion and disagreement among the viewers/listeners. it wasn't meant to sway public opinion one way or another. face it, the only reason it gets under your skin at all is because the idea of bush getting any positive press boils your blood. just for the record, if the same news outlet ran a headline saying "worst week ever?" "is bush slipping?", i could care less. no big deal either way.
"the headline clearly had a very relevant question mark on it. thus making it fodder for discussion and disagreement among the viewers/listeners. it wasn't meant to sway public opinion one way or another."
This "question mark" defense is, pardon me, just plain stupid. The question being asked at all suggests that the "yes" answer has merit. Nobody poses a question where they expect people to believe the other way. Have you ever seen someone ask "Ishtar:the best movie ever made?"? As for whether it was meant to sway public opinion, there are two very obvious problems with that rationale;first, you're pretending to be psychic, and second the question is not intent, it's results.
"face it, the only reason it gets under your skin at all is because the idea of bush getting any positive press boils your blood."
Nice attribution of motivation. And wrong. He can get all the positive press he deserves, when he deserves it. BUT he should get grilled when he deserves that and that's what's been largely missing during this administration.
What is the point of your response if you don't answer my question? Let me try again:what on earth is your basis for believing that these things don't sway people's opinions?
you say i pretend to be psychic, yet you seem to know what does and does not sway public opinion? the broader point that you all refuse to accept is, so what? of course, every little thing either way may sway someone's opinion. how can you measure or gauge that? those that are entrenched in their ideology need a lot more than that to be swayed against the preconceived notions they have, that is the point. you are hung up on this headline and then squealing for one this week to counteract it? fine, i have just said that if that read bush slipping? i wouldn't be nearly as bent about as you people or this website.
"you say i pretend to be psychic, yet you seem to know what does and does not sway public opinion?"
Good Lord! Wow, I'm sorry...weren't you talking about apples and oranges before? You claim that the headline wasn't "intended" to sway people, as if you know the motivations of the people who wrote it. Meanwhile, you yourself claimed to know what does and does not sway public opinion:"if you're somewhere in between, these little nuanced headlines or biases go unnoticed and under the radar." Being hypocritical by making an outrageous apples and oranges comparison and being hypocritical by making a similar claim to what you're now chastising me for. That has to be some sort of personal record, I hope. And of course, recognizing that media stories influence public opinion does not require "mind-reading". Please.
"of course, every little thing either way may sway someone's opinion. how can you measure or gauge that? those that are entrenched in their ideology need a lot more than that to be swayed against the preconceived notions they have, that is the point."
I don't know how you gauge that, I'm simply contesting your bizarre declaration that they don't have any effect. Whether it's measurable or not is another story. If you want to look into it, I'm sure there are hundreds of socio-political studies regarding that sort of thing, and I can say with great certainty that they will not back up your contention. And the point has nothing to do with people who are entrenched, because I specifically mentioned those in the middle.
look, it all goes to degree. and that can be argued all day long. we were specifically talking about one headline and the fact the the question mark was not a declaration of a bush comeback, as much as it was open for discussion. you maintain it tilted to his favor, i say so what if it did or didn't. it's such a small little indicator either way. but you want to make it out to be some conservative bias swaying public opinion. ok, fine. people that are swayed either way by that will be swayed again and again and again, as i said before - meaningless and unnoticed and irrelevant to most.
"people that are swayed either way by that will be swayed again and again and again, as i said before - meaningless and unnoticed and irrelevant to most."
It's not a flip-flop thing, it's a cumulative effect. If the media overwhelmingly tilts Bush's way, then the public gets the message that Bush is doing well, and he just plain is not. That's far from meaningless or unnoticed or irrelevant.
This is a common tactic though...there are any number of examples of misinformation on this site and you can point to any one of them and say "hey it's just one thing...no big deal". But after hundreds and thousands of "one little thing"s, then that argument is exposed for the intellectual bankruptcy it truly is.
for the hundreds of thousands of little things on this website that are no big deal individually, but collectively they add up to something big. there are the same number of little liberal bias things that do the same thing. so in esssence, they probably cancel each other out. next topic.
Please be specific. Once again you use the generalization "well, there is lots of bias out there, so it doesn't matter if right-wing bias is uncovered." That is a perpetually lazy and weak defense.
"for the hundreds of thousands of little things on this website that are no big deal individually, but collectively they add up to something big. there are the same number of little liberal bias things that do the same thing."
Where??? I've been to the MRC many times. I rarely see anything about people misleading with left-wing talking points. I rarely see anything that's genuinely out of the mainstream from the left there. The vast majority of what I read there is just calling anything that reflects badly on the right "bias". Breaking a story that hurts Bush? They must be biased! Not dismissing that story out of hand? Biased! Not marching to Rove's fax machine? Biased!
Here we get Limbaugh lied, CBS lied, NBC lied, ABC lied, O'Reilly lied, Coulter lied, Fox lied, MSNBC lied, the AP lied...and on the MRC we get diatribes about how anyone who actually does their job and questions a Bushite is a liberal and David Letterman's top 10 list. It's a joke. And any argument that there's anywhere close to a balance on this issue is a joke as well.
If you think media criticism is silly, then why do you come on these boards? I'll tell you what, why not join the world cup boards and talk about how silly a game is?
And once again, how many times will you use the vague, general defense "well, there is bias everywhere?" I'm glad you're not a lawyer. "Well, ladies and gentlman of the jury, sure my client might have killed someone, but there is killing every day, the point is the big picture, is there still life on earth?"
I've addressed this sort of thing before.
Just because it's in the form of a question does NOT mean that it is not leading the viewer to agree with the underlying message of the question.
Why are they speculating on futurepoll numbers anyway? Why don't they just poll and comment on the actual facts (being the poll results)?
There really is no good defense for this one man..
underlying this, and underlying that, double meaning, hidden messages, psychological and subliminal nuanced phrases, biased against this or for that..... oh please, i have a headache. are you people serious over all this? go out and urge the democrats to stick to their message, put forth real solutions to problems, be honest and upfront, straighforward and you will win elections all over the place. all this crying foul nonsense about a question mark. whew!
I honestly don't care if Bush is getting good press, but I honestly feel like MSM is acting like the sun is shining and everyone should forget the past blunders of this administration. That's what bothers me.
.........if you think anyone, mainstream media included, has forgotten this administration's blunders. they are on our newscasts every day.
newscasts are they on?
You are simply blowing smoke at this point.
>>underlying this, and underlying that, double meaning, hidden messages, psychological and subliminal nuanced phrases, biased against this or for that.
The post you are responding to doesn't even come close to saying this. It is short and precise (why not let the poll speak for itself?)
What are you even doing on this thread, Tommy, but blowing a lot of smoke?
Tommy,
Either you are being outright dishonest or silly. Here is what you claim:
>>all this crying foul nonsense about a question mark. whew!
Who brought up the question mark, us or you? Please tell us. Do you realize how silly/dishonest you are being? You tried to convince us that the question mark at the end of a headline completely alters its meaning. We disagree and you drag the thread on and on with weak and non-existent reasoning. And then, finally, you say that we shouldn't be crying over a question mark!
Are you just trolling tonight or not?
---"go out and urge the democrats to stick to their message, put forth real solutions to problems, be honest and upfront, straighforward and you will win elections all over the place. all this crying foul nonsense about a question mark. whew!"---
I'd suggest you follow some of your own advice and do the same---for your own candidates or party---and reconsider your dozens of scolding messages to people you disagree with over a topic you disingenuously describe as not worth anyone's time.
As our Conservative pals slavishly remind us, the liberal press doesn't report any good news from Iraq.
Is a puzzlement.
There's a funny commercial I've seen, but not often; it must have been during a ballgame; I doubt you've seen it, so here's a description:
There's two guys standing there; they're each chewing on a candy bar (that's what the commercial is for, a new candy bar I've never heard of and can't think of the name now)...
One of the guys proclaims about the candy bar (in a way overblown voice) "WOW! This is great! This is awesome!"
And the other guy comes back, even more overblown "WOW! It is! It's delicious!"
And then right in the midst of us looking at their beaming, chewing faces, the frame freezes...
And text appears over their picture (their faces ecstactically enjoying the candy, and having just shared their ecstacy with us), and a voice-over accompanies the text, saying (and reading):
"The World's Best Candy Bar?...
Or Paid Actors?"
It's funny; it's unexpected; the advertiser gives us the overblown testimonial, but then freezes it; and then comically asks us to decide: "Are you being conned by actors, or do you think maybe these guys are really in the throes of ecstacy over a candy bar?"
It's funny, to me anyway; I imagine it would make a kndred soul laugh too, one who was otherwise amused (or not) by all this "second wind" and "surge of momentum" stuff.
"The Best Presidential Comeback Ever?...
Or Paid Media Hacks?"
Fox reports; you decide.
Very good, but....
It should have been: We Distort - You're Deceived
and
It should always be followed by: News... At the Speed of Lies
The "spate of good news " referred to in the opening paragraph is objective, factual data; al-Zarqawi killed, etc, as are all the items under the "notable recent developments" line. They all have happened or are happening. Should the media NOT report that Bush was repaetedly warned about an upcoming attack in the summer of '01? If it's true and he blew it off I WANT to know about it! Any comeback for the dimwit in chief exists only in the minds of the faithful Bushite 30%. Wait a munute, was that the same liberal-dominated, leftist MSM that was reporting all over the place about the best week ever? I believe it was. What ARE they up to?
Stay the course. Really, folks, this IS the last throes; not kidding this time, really mean it. Stay the course.
All of the apologists for this perverted sham of an administration who whine about only hearing bad news need to realize that it's because the predominance of the news IS bad. Heard about the two slaughtered and mutilated Marines? It doesn't get much worse than that. And that's jus in Iraq.
If a question gets asked often enough in the media, the answer begins to (almost) not matter. And before long the question mark is dropped entirely and a narrative is born. Is Bush on a roll, turning point, bump, turn around? Give me a break. An example of the narrative the headline of Wash Post recently,"Spate of Good News Gives White House a Chance to Regroup" or how about "Bush's Visit to Baghdad Signifies Upturn in His Political Fortunes", from Wall Street Journal. Zarqawi dead great news. Bush's 5hour visit- a political stunt/joke to me. Just the news please. If it is bad so be it. I can take gloom and doom. Today 85 shia factory workers were kidnapped in broad daylight by men wearing police uniforms. How this can happen boggles the mind. Tip of the hat to Columbia Journal Review.
You can bloat the bad news and downplay the good news. No matter what your perspective or political persuasion, when the dust settles, the air is clear and you carefully weigh the facts, the war in Iraq is an abomination.
there was no spike in the approval ratings . . .
Pete posed the fictional headline:
"Does Bush really not care where Osama bin Laden is?"
To which you replied:
"I don't have a problem with that headline, either, as long as it ends with a question mark."
Well . . . when you consider that Bush once said:
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and really don't care Its not that important. Its not our priority." - 13 March 2002
a question mark at the end of Pete's above headline isn't really necessary, is it?
I have heard reports on both CNN and MSNBC that clearly raised this point. They both talked about these new events and how it is not good for the positive and improving image the administration has been touting.
That kind of defeats the agenda LostLogic. Be careful when you point this out. You will be labeled a troll, repug, or the dreaded Nazi.
You don't want to join us in that club!
...thanks for caring. But I have already been called all those things and more…doesn’t really bother me much. The posters that I respect on this cite usually just go about trying to shoot holes in my arguments (some times I find them more successful at it then I would like) and don’t need to resort to calling me silly names. Generally in a single day I manage to annoy someone on both sides so I image it all cancels itself out in the end. But at the end of the day there are many posters here who I have learned a lot from and are far better informed then I am and that cancels out the few that just come around to shoot jabs. I will continue to call it as I see it and odds are I will probably have you annoyed with me in short order too(-;
And highlight thier master is an incompetent boob?
Of course they will push the Bush highlights,we are used to it. Be patient their arrogance will inevitably show their dark side.
Two beheadings of US troops.
Seven troops charged with murder of another innocent Iraqi.
Miltary cover up of the death of two US troops in 2004 (shot by some of those standing-up Iraqi troops).
Federal judge calls the case against Padilla "Very light on facts".
Hurry rush to the press it's another good week for Bush!
like Al-qaeda and the rest of the terrorist. You libs really crack me up. The only good news for you guys is bad news for the country. You're just waiting for some more bad news so you can score political points. I would hate to think that the success of my political party depended on bad things happening to Americans. The liberal elite media couldn’t get the word out fast enough about our brave soldiers being tortured and killed so that they can now trumpet another failure for America or as MMFA puts it “momentum reversal”. What a crock! The good news is there is no way that a majority of Americans are going to fall for liberal’s “failure” doctrine. Most Americans don’t believe that America is evil. Most Americans see through the veil of “presenting opposing views” for what it is…anti-american propaganda designed for the sole purpose of getting back into power. I have confidence in Americans to see through this BS as they’ve done election after election. You guys will never learn.
CB
Aw showing why you guys only make up 36% of the population let me rain on this ditto head parade... One the guy's death you and the other drooling right wing zombies could have been done three years ago, instead Bush let him lived so it didn't messed with their reason to invade Iraq, that's one second the conservatives idea of supporting the troops is slapping on little made in China yellow stickers and posting on liberal chatrooms to rattle off whatever creep out that little conservative mind of theirs. Sucess of bad things happening to Americans CB that last time I check it was the Republicans that used the events of 9.11 to justify why they should be elected, it was a Republican president who used 9.11 to justify getting the US stuck in a war with no possiblie victory in sight.
CB I don't have time to respond to you crap post but I would like to remind you of somethings you guys make up depending on some polls 29% to 36% of people that still support Bush and his war
And 25% that still back this GOP control congress
- cb
CB I know the Bush droolers have very limited think capacy
Well, at least he didn't "fall off a mountain bike" or "choke on a pretzel." The Beltway types are so far behind the country on this they might as well be covering Calvin Coolidge. He's rich; he's from a rich, high profile family' they consider him holding up some sort of dynasty. That's the way they see him; MSM just doesn't see him as what he is; a failure who is leading this country down a dangerous path. As Dem U Ground pointed out his polls actually DROPPED by two points from 35% to 33% during the "best week ever." This is a question of complete corporate control over the media and access to the honchos in the administration. He was a Karl Rove media creation in 2000, a "compassionate conservative." He was re-invented as the "Warrior President" after 9-11. The media in this country would apologize for a Republican from now until doomsday to make him look good. Get with the program CB and Right On!!!!