Broadcast networks ignored Democratic response to Bush's address
Following President Bush's January 10 prime-time address announcing his decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) delivered a brief Democratic response from Capitol Hill in which he stated, "Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction." But ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox Broadcasting Co. all declined to air Durbin's remarks. ABC, NBC, and CBS returned to their regular programming. Fox, meanwhile, held a post-speech discussion with National Review editor Rich Lowry and Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers, followed by an interview with Fox News military analyst retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, instead of cutting to Durbin.
PBS and cable news networks CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all aired Durbin's response.
that all the major channels didn't air the democratic response... God forbid that the party in power of Congress gets equal time.
Can't have a citizenry thats too informed. We all know what happens when that.....uh....happens..... remember 11/7/06!
Although the blatant disregard by the media isn't going to change to many minds into thinking the democrats had nothing to say....
But no doubt that is what the corporate media, Mr Ailes and the FOX propaganda machine is hoping for!
---But no doubt that [the major media keeping Americans uninformed by not playing the democrat response] is what the corporate media, Mr Ailes and the FOX propaganda machine is hoping for!---
Is that why Fox aired the democrat response? I don't get it.
gttntoobed5295, it shows top media outlets not airing a response to a CRITICAL issue. It shows top media outlets basically ignoring the election by not giving equal time. What don't you get about that. This is a trend. Just because several of the cable outlets showed it, doesn't mean it this isn't happeneing.
By the way, is meida matters ever going to level with the public about wha tthe media is doing as far as selling a war on Iran? How about dropping the bias and start being "Media Matters for AMERICA" instead of turnign a blind eye to how the media is pushing the Israeli agenda?
Pundits and politicians are actively trying to create a confrontation with Iran.
You know, it is our lives we are talking about. Stop the suppression. Look what 60 Minutes left on the cutting room floor. They did that to suppress the fact that President Ahmadinejad Calls for Democracy, Free and Fair Elections and a Durable Peace.
Dick Durbin is not that interesting....its all about the ratings. Dick, you are like watching paint dry.
we should bring back the fairness doctorine!
response
Dick Durbin is not that interesting....its all about the ratings. Dick, you are like watching paint dry.
- dave
-------------------------------------
And Gee Duhbya is oh so interesting and smart what with his reading the teleprompter in the library and all...and you said he couldn't read!
Why it makes me want to sacrifice trillions more dollars and lives for a losing cause!
While you may be right about Durbin (listen to Al Franken.... listening to him talk is like watching paint dry... but I do it.) being boring while talking...... he was the guy that the democrats put up there to respond to Bush's speech.
In order to be considered 'news' shouldn't the 'media' at least have the courtesy to air it? It's their call whether to air it or not..... but come on now.
People such as yourself might have flipped to a new channel, but it would have been the democratic and decent thing to do!
Try Ed Schultz or Sam Seder.
These guys do liberal talk radio that sizzles.
I do listen to them....... I also listen to Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow....... I do however miss Springer, but I don't want to go off topic.
Occasionally I listen to Rush Limpballs for a few minutes at a time, if only to hear his latest 'intelligent' speak......
I try to listen longer, but listening to him is like putting razor blades to my eyelids, which is obviously worse than watching paint dry!
to do something entertaining -- like breaking into a foam-flecked rant.
Instead, let's break up the media conglomerates, legislate a "max-reach" of 30% of the nation for any single entity, and tax the bastards in full for the use of public resource (such as spectrum, or right-of-way for cables), and deny any diversification into additional forms of media. Then . . . I'd like to start on corporations in general . . .
Lets follow a few of our Northern European friends and offer free high speed internet, at least 3MB/S and a minimum of 10 MB/s for paying customers, tie it to a jobs project and you've got good decent paying jobs installing a new internet backbone, I guarantee Microsoft and Apple inc. will fall all over themselves designing a sub $100 PC, and everyone else can pick up an internet capable PC... an old one anyway, for under 50 bucks. ads will pay for just about everything, and you can free up the airwaves for citizen use, or ignore them like I do anyway. The benefits for business should be obvious, the educational benefits for everyone else would be nearly unlimited, and any corporation with an active brain somewhere among the decision makers would realize the opportunity in signing on to a cheap free pc with built in captive audience. If you up the free broadband to 10MB/s you destroy the usefulness of the airwaves in any case, though I think you're relicensing idea is a good one too.
blah blah blah corporations can do what they want blah blah blah capitalism should drive the news blah blah blah liberals should buy their own channel blah blah blah liberal voices aren't heard because the market doesn't support it...
did I miss any?
He will filibuster the thread according to his own agenda.
BUT you do a creditable (if not wholly credible) spoof.
you missed the fact that every piece of republican misinformation is actually just harmless comic genius , very important one there
I believe the five big television news networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN -- are the PRIMARY reason our nation is fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq today. Most Americans get their news -- including false and bogus news (read: WMD) -- from television. Congress must enact a law that forces big media to sell media properties in order to create greater numbers of media owners. We must break up the media oligopoly if we are going to save America. There are too few owners of media today. Let's end this insanity.
But more to the point, and without NEARLY so much flying spittle . . .
We here in New Zealand, via the BBC World Service, have had extensive coverage of Durbin's response, and that of other democrats too.
Tomjoad, your observation is highly relevant in that it speaks volumes about how Americans are underserved by its media.
Those who watched Fox News (called "Faux News" by some on this site) were able to see the complete democrat response from Durbin.
"Democrat" is a noun. Durbin is a Democrat.
The adjectival form is "Democratic." The response of the opposition party could be characterized as the "Democratic" response. There is no "Democrat" party. Thanks.
Thanks for the clarification. So is it still OK to use the term "republican" for that party like it's used to describe the form of government we are guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution? "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
Just curious.
The Corporate Media are the enemy. They are part and parcel with BushCo, as surely as Halliburton is. This is why the internet, net neutrality, and sites like this one are so important.
Where is it written that when the President speaks there needs to be a response from the opposing side? I think it is ridiculous the President releases a copy o fhis speech before hand. If we wanted to truly know what the opposition thought then the they should hear the speech when we hear the speech.
If this was a Democrat President and networks ignored the Republican response I doubt you would have a problem.
Network TV is a buisness. People tuined in to see the Presidents address and would likely have tuned away if they cut into regular programming much more. Anyone that pays attention for five minutes already knew that Democrats in Congress disagreed with Bush's strategy, why listen to another 15 to 20 minute speech to hear what we already know?
On a couple of points.
First, I for one, even though being a registered democrat, if it were a dem president, I would rather like to see the republican response to his words. Contrary to what you believe, we do like to hear both sides of the story.
Second, it's not just congressional dems opposing the president on this move, or announced move. There are plenty of republicans going against as well. This isn't a partisan issue, as much as you'd like to make it out to be. There are no clear lines about who is for what right now. The majority of folks in this country oppose what the president suggested before he made his announcement, and oppose it more so after his announcement.
Of magnolias: - Insane-loki would be a happy camper in a country that outlaws opposing viewpoints. Like Hitler's Germany. But this is the good Ole USA!
If a Democratic President was at the Helm, and busy Escalating this God Forsaken War we would still be in favor of opposing viewpoints or equal time to denounce this war. You can talk yourself blue in the face but
I ASSURE YOU:
Insaneloki will never agree.
He's Sucking Up to his GOP.
I am an independent actually. I am not saying to not have the Democrat's response, I am saying it is not wrong for network TV not to air it. I am also saying they should not get a copy of the speech before hand so they make one of their own. The opposing response, no matter what side is making it, should be off the cuff and then we would see what they really think.
The main point of your argument that you made before is that "we wouldn't have a hard time with it if it was a democrat who was President and the republicans' rebuttal wasn't shown."
Or did you forget that part that you mentioned before?
I was responding to your accusation that I was sucking up to the GOP.
We are both Independents, BUT...
I believe it's very good, effective, convenient, fair, and balanced to have both views presented together.
So when ABC, NBC and CBS air the President they are obligated to the people to air equal time to opposing ideas. It's only fair. What on Earth is wrong about that?
Should it not be up to the people who own the station to decide what is fair? They pay the bills why not leave it up to them?
YOU SAID: <>Should it not be up to the people who own the station to decide what is fair? <>
ADOLF HITLER OWNED THE STATIONS.
His Clone, Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News!
Do really want to trust the Owners like the Hitler's and Murdoch's of our world to control the news on The Media Outlets including TV?
Edward R. Murrow said, "Television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us." Today Murrow would have NEW WORDS:
<>MISINFORM <> MISGUIDE <> LIE <> FOOL <> ETC.<>
YOU SAID: <>They pay the bills why not leave it up to them?<>
If you don’t know why by now that it’s unfair for owners to control the news and information on the Public Media Outlets, then I give up.
As previously stated in within these postings and in Media Matter's article FOX News carried the rebuttal. The individual affiliate stations made the decision to not carry the it not Rupert Murdoch.
Why is it you feel the need to insult Rupert Murdoch? Shouldn't your argument be able to stand on it's own without you having to resort to childish name calling?
I didn’t name call.
I simple made a truthful comparison. This isn’t the first time Murdoch was accurately compared to Hitler.
But you did name call, by saying that I'm a childish name caller. Don't worry I won't call you any names for that one.
Murdoch, for you information, has been publicly called Hitler many times. But it wasn't me. Ted Turner labeled him with that name.
But I agree with Ted. He is correct. It's not a childish comparison if it's true. I'd like to criticize you for voting for Bush 2 times, but I won't because you have the right to be wrong.
I'm kidding! You have the right to vote any way you like.
But when you make comments about letting the Murdock's of our world take control of the public media outlets, that is worthy of plenty of choice labels in the hope of getting all ideas aired in the marketplace of the public media.
You must be real worried about your man Bush. He's got our country in a real big mess. Are you still happy you voted for Bush two times?
This Hitler comparison is overused. Someone has to own the media outlets or else the reporter and on air personalities don't get paid. And if they don't get paid then they won't do it. Murdoch is nothing like Hitler and it is an insult to every who suffered under that man to compare a television network owner to him.
I do not regret voting for Bush either time. I believe he has made mistakes, more than he has admitted to. But I believe it is better than having Gore or Kerry in there who would likely cow tow to the UN.
YOU SAY: Murdoch is nothing like Hitler and it is an insult to everyone who suffered under that man.
AND I SAY: It's an insult to everyone who suffered under your man Bush, that you voted for 2 times.
BECAUSE:
Hundreds of thousands are dead and permanently maimed, needlessly!
He has led us to the brink of WW-III
Conservatives are even denouncing his war that should never have happened!
But your still happy with Bush?
Under Democratic leadership we wouldn't be in this huge mess that your man has created.
Most of our country strongly disagrees with your support of Bush and his war. But all you seem to be worried about is the UN and keeping the Fox News Propaganda Machine rolling along.
All you seemcontent on doing is furthering baseless accusations you cannot prove.
Your right on one thkng if Bush was not elected we would not be in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be in the Afghanistan. We would likely be at the negotiating table with Al Queada while they continued to attack our cities. As long as the fighting is over there it is not over here. There was terroism in Iraq before we got there. We are not increasing it and not encouraging more.
Hundreds of thousands were dead, maimed, and needlessly injured under the the Dictator Saddam, a man this country swore to help overthrow and then backed out and allowed the Sunnis to get slaughtered.
I feel badly for you and Bush. I really do! You and your man in the White House are lonely, lonely men right now. Our country has been badly damaged by Bush.
I'll venture to say and even guarantee the next President will not be of the Republican persuasion because of Bush and his war.
LoKee, I don't have the burden of proof here for anything. You and Bush are wrong and the whole world knows it.
The whole planet Earth knows that ANY other President would not have INVADED IRAQ. ANY other president would be busy fighting the REAL WAR ON TERROR. That includes Afghanistan but not Iraq! The whole world would be supporting the USA with money and armies.
Bush has created a brand new enemies in Iraq. And now he's sending 20,000 new American Citizens to be killed with the 3000+ that are already dead.
You, Bush and his other Suck Up defenders are suffering under an extreme case of delusion.
Hitler had the same illness. And I quote from a former Reagan Aide who has denounced Bush, "In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin."
LoKee, Will You Please apologize for placing Bush in the White House, not once, but you did it TWO TIMES?
What is wrong with people contacting the broadcast networks and expressing their opinion that both speeches should be shown? That is all this site is about.
O'Reilly calls himself an "independent" (among other things) as well. It's always amusing that the so-called "independents" are always dubyah supporters...except for the real Independents in the Congress.
I supported Bush yeah, I still do. Does not mean I agree with everything he does.
You cannot have it both ways either Independent is code for "closet Goper" or there are real independents.
...are probably not that meaningful, but I do think of someone who "support[s] Bush" but doesn't "agree with everything he does" as a Republican, or at least a right-winger.
For what it's worth I call myself a socialist...
if you support Bush you don't support the USA or the Constitution pal. I'll call you either cruel or incredibly ignorant. Any one that still supports Bush must have no concept of our history, or unwilling to recognize our heritage as a great nation. Thanks to Bush the Constitution has been compromised, our standing in the world has sunk to an all time low, our national security weakened severely by selling our future to the Chinese. If I were a Republican I wouldn't admit it either.
People make the outlandish claims like the ones above but where is the proof? I still have every right guaranteed by the Constitution. I think when Bush Sr. promised to help the Sunnis in their uprising and then reneged, resulting in a slaughter, that hurt our standing with the World far more. I believe our National Security could be stronger but weak is not the word I would use. And I do not think the Chinese have anything to do with it, I am more worried about the millions of illegals crossing our Canadian and Mexican borders.
>>"why listen to another 15 to 20 minute speech to hear what we already know?"<<
Everyone in the universe knew what Bush was going to say, so---to use your brand of "logic", why even air Bush's speech?
Your opposition to airing Durbin is based less on business or ratings issues and more on ideological differences. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be complaining about the Republican response not being aired. Why don't you just admit it?
I resent the implication of partisanship. I have continually said on this blog in other topics I am an independent and hold everyone accountable.
That is what I said everyone knew what the President was going to say. The speech should not be released to anyone prior to him making it. It is ridiculous.
For the President's speeches to be released to the members of Congress before he makes them. This is standard business, and everyone does it. It's all part of the game. Prez talks, opposition party rebuts.
I get the need to let the opposition reply to a speech made by the President. I applaud it and would defend it. What I am saying is the speech of anyone should not be released prior to them making it. If we truly y want to know what an opposition thinks their response should be off the cuff, not carefully thought and scripted.
Says who? Where are these "rules"? Why are you so obsessed over this feeble point?
I believe a prepared scripted response does not tell us what they really think about something. It tells us what they want their constituents to think they believe.
...a thought-out response than an off-the-cuff one, especially from an elected official.
Why don't you think politicians can lie just as easily unscripted as they do when they are scripted? I thought that was part of the job description...
You have a good point there. However, if they hear the speech for the first as it happens and immediately after have a camera shoved in the face and asked for a response they have less time to think of a good lie. We will get closer to their true views.
why you support Bush. At some point you have to think about things. I know it's painful. I'm all for "first thought, best thought." But that's best if you are a writer like Jack Kerouac. Not so keen to a do that if you represent several thousand people. Do some reading please.
The research and thought should be always happening. Not just when the President gives a speech and you are randomly chosen by your party to give the rebuttal.
I prefer my representative to be thoughtful in any public speaking engagement especcially rebutting the President. There are appropiate times for spontaneous debate. In the halls of Congress. You can still be genuine delivering a prepared statement. It's called civility. I see your point and think I know that you desire an honest gut response which I think we all do. On that we agree I think.
understanding something fully before spouting off? Oh I forgot your an "independent."
Then stop making partisan posts.
That I am being partisan.
I'm being partisan." An interesting statement. Partisanship is in the eye of the beholder. You may not claim to be a member of the GOP. But you sound like it. Your comments seem to be the same as the kool aid drinking conservative. It's a fair charge. Whether you know it or not, you are being partisan, not open minded or objective. You've rejected dam near anything mentioned instead of considered it, weighed the merit and posted an intelligent response.
Whether or not I consider things posted before responding. I am very open minded. All your post shows is how closed minded you can be.
How many of you so called indpendant voters will swear you did not vote for bush? I smell bush voters here
IN ARNOLDS Caly-Forn-ee-yah!
I'm a Independent who liked Ike, FDR, JFK, Carter, Ford, Clinton, Truman & Washington, Lincoln and Ross Perot.
I also like Republican and Democratic legislators who have been brave enough to lead the way on the war and other issues.
I'm an Independent who likes Legislators like (R.)Smith of Oregon, (R.)Brownback of Kansas, Murtha, Kennedy, Obama, and many others who are brave enough to take the lead on issues.
On the other side of the Coin. There are many who are not leading. They are just following. Mostly following Bush on his war. Clinton comes to mind. She waited and waited and then after the Escalation speech, she finally came out against the War.
I voted for Bush, twice. What does that have to do with anything? We are not discussing Bush issues here we are discussing Network news not airing a Democrat response.
I respect you rights to have voted for Bush two times.
Only thing I'm thinking is if that's the way you vote, then why don't you consider yourself a Conservative.
I agree with the other Poster who said he smells a Bush Voter. We both knew from your comments that you must be Conservative?
Most Conservatives are Republicans so why are you Independent?
I do not agree with every ideal of the Republican party. Some Democrat ideals I agree with as well. I am a Conservative Independent. I will not be apart of a political party I do not agree with every ideal.
I didn’t name call.
I simple make a truthful comparison. This isn’t the first time Murdoch was compared to Hitler.
But you did name call by saying that I'm a childish name caller.
Murdoch, for you information, has been publicly called Hitler many times. But it wasn't me. Ted Turner labeled him with that name.
But I agree with Ted. He is correct. It's not a childish comparison if it's true. I'd like to criticize you for voting for Bush 2 times, but I won't because you have the right to be wrong.
I'm kidding! You have the right to vote any way you like.
But when you make comments about letting the Murdock's of our world take control of the public media outlets, that is worthy of plenty of choice labels in the hope of getting all ideas aired in the marketplace of the public media.
You must be real worried about your man Bush. He's got our country in a real big mess. Are you still happy you voted for Bush two times?
Now I do like that your a Conservative Independent. I wish everyone would think things out on their own.
So many party dwellers suck up to the party line and throw many of their own ideals away.
I wish you would give some serious thought to the issue on this thread. If the Democrats keep taking more power your going to wish for equal time on the media outlets.
We the people must protect our public information media outlets from powerful owners who have been taking control of the media and promoting your man at the White House and his war.
You must know this?
You must be for it?
sinner, do you repent? if so ye shall be gorgiven. I don't find it reasonable that anyone could still support someone who's failures are so many. What has he done right really? Abstinence only education, no child left behind, social security, 9-11, where's Osama bin Laden, what weapons of mass destruction, what nuclear program, the nut who runs North Korea has nukes, the dollar is in the toilet, we're owned by China, our civil liberties compromised, we went from being supported by the world to reviled in 2 short years, war profiteering, deficits, more impoverished, Katrina. What am I missing? I don't think the moron has done anything good for the country at all. Oh yes, we are more ignorant, more in debt, more partisan, divided, bitter and bigotry is on the rise. We are more dependent on foreign oil, our highways are being purchased by foreign nations, we're not safer and there is a group of cowardly paranoid people willing to accept torture and the killing of innocent civilians in their name that support Bush. Bush couldn't stop the hijackers of September 11th, or chose not to do anything. We were treated to Orange Alerts, strip searches at the airport and the acceptance that privacy was no longer an option. So repent, sinner.
"Abstinence only education" Is the only proven effective way to prevent the spread of aids and pregnancy. All other controls are only marginaly effective in comparrison.
"no child left behind" We still have yet to know the full effect fo this program. Something like tis won't show benefit or full scale failure for years.
"social security" Was in trouble long before Bush. The concept in itself is anti-capitalist and the nation should embrace private accounts. If it is good enough for my elected officials it is good enough for me.
"9-11" Don't tell me your one those freaks who believe Bush was in some way involved in mass conspiracy in 9/11! And where is Osama that just it no one knows. He is cut off, and not in control.
"what weapons of mass destruction" In Syria. And I seem to remember a couple of Senators exposing the fact that we found WMDs in Iraq. PLus we still havn't stoped searching. Saddam Hussein had massive networks of tunnells some we have not even found yet.
"he nut who runs North Korea has nukes" Minimal yield with no delivery system. Kim Jong Il is like a child throwing a tantrum, he is controllable.
"the dollar is in the toilet" Yes, but the stock market is at record highs, the price of a barrell of oil is below $54, unemployment rate is at an all time low, and the homeless population is only .3% of the population.
"we're owned by China Evidence?
"civil liberties compromised" I have the same civil liberties today I had 7 years ago.
"we went from being supported by the world to reviled in 2 short years" Muslim extremist, France, Germany, and Russia already disliked us before Bush. World opinion means nothing.
"war profiteering" Proof?
"more impoverished" I will refer you to the previous answer about the economy under "the dollar is in the toilet".
"Katrina" Bush was not responsible for Katrina. The relief effort was one of the most corrdinated efforts in American history. The levees were woefully inadequate, something the state of LA knew for decades. Something that could have been taken care of in at least 4 presidencies. [link to www.popularmechanics.com]
"more partisan" Democrats are the ones who complain every time they loose. Who go to court ver it. Democrats have been the reason the past 6 years we have been more partisan.
The rest of your assertions do not deserve a response.
The only reason the Euro is beating the Dollar is because it is a combination of all the member states economies into one currency. It does not say how weak the Dollar is it says how strong it is. It took the meber states of the EU combining into a CO-OP to beat the Dollar.
[link to www.breitbart.com]
>>"If this was a Democrat President and networks ignored the Republican response I doubt you would have a problem."<<
If that situation ever happens, it would be your right--and obligation--to bring it to everyone's attention, exactly as Media Matters is doing here.
And if pigs ever fly you can assure they are subject to FAA regulations
Because it isn't a big deal. If someone truly cares about what the opposing response is they can tune into a channel that will play it, or look it up. It is not the end of the World if the opposing response is not aired. Nor does Network TV have that responsibility.
...that Durbin's response was nowhere near 15 - 20 minutes. I doubt it was even 5.
It doesn't take that long to say, "Bush bad. Democrats good. Let's cut and run."
that Democrats are good. Bush makes himself look bad, and what other option do we have at this point but cutting and running?
We can stay and win. If we don't Iraq becomes a haven for Terroist and Iran already has plans on invading once we leave.
that we react like you do. That is the lamest argument in the book. Democrats are not without fault and some do the same dirty tricks that republicans do but the "I know you are but what am I" excuse is dead. Look up liberal and conservative in a dictionary. Liberal, open minded, willing to hear other view points and considerations. Conservatives, followers. Ideologues who refuse to listen or consider anything outside their narrow scope. The airwaves are not owned by the networks but are the publics. When we had a fairness doctrine they all would have carried the Dems response. It wasn't that long ago and the media was much much better.
Why do we need more laws to do something we could do ourselves? We can hold the Network and Cable stations accountable. We don't need more laws.
Clams,
You wrote, "...Durbin's response was nowhere near 15 - 20 minutes. I doubt it was even 5."
You're right. It just seemed like 20. Durbin, let's face it, is an uncompelling spokesman at best. It was a blessing in disguise that the major outlets didn't carry it. Those viewers who preferred the opiate of "regular (entertainment) programming" to confronting the major issue of our time got their fix. Those who wanted to pursue the story could hit the remote. Anyone who went to PBS got an earful of substantive response, interrupted by Durbin's mirror image of Shrub's woeful performance. Most tellingly, Generals Trainor (USMC, Ret., co-author of Cobra II) and Odom (US Army, Ret. commander of "Pacification" program in Vietnam) responded to Shrub's speech in rational, apolitical, pragmatic terms. They eviscerated it. If you can stream it from PBS.org, I would highly recommend doing so.
Durbin is an oratorical giant.
"an" giant? Wow...
Perhaps this is less media conspiracy or tendency to discredit Democrats than it is a sign of the times, where fewer and fewer people really care what the President has to say, much less those who care what the opposition has to say.
I'm 28. It's probably been a decade since I've watched a Presidential address live. I've never liked the fact that we need 10 stations to air one guy saying the same thing on every channel, simultaneously, and I have to think that there are MANY people in this nation who agree with me.
When you have a populace in which the majority of the people have become so cynical that they don't believe a single word that comes out of the President's mouth, there is little point in plastering his lies across the airwaves for 15-20 minutes straight.
HE is the President and whether you like him or not he deserves your Respect.
Loki
Bernard Malamud (I think) once wrote, "Respect is what you have to have in order to get."
The person who dodged tough questions in 2000 with the line, "I trust the American People. . ." and when in office immediately took unprecedented steps (way prior to 9/11) to keep those People and their representatives from knowing what their government was up to, has shown scant respect, and is reaping what he's sown.
BUCH WORKS FOR US
He must earn our Respect!
I feel badly for you and Bush. You and your man in the White House are lonely, lonely men right now. Our country has been badly damaged by Bush.
I will venture to say and even guarantee the next President will not be of the Republican persuasion because of Bush and his war.
LoKee, I don't have the burden of proof here for anything. You and Bush are wrong and the world knows it.
The whole planet Earth knows that ANY other President would not have INVADED IRAQ. ANY other president would be busy fighting the REAL WAR ON TERROR. That includes Afghanistan but not on Iraq! And the whole world would be supporting the USA with money and armies.
Bush has created brand new enemies in Iraq. And now he's sending 20,000 new American Citizens to be killed with the 3000+ that are already dead.
You, Bush and his other defenders are suffering under an extreme case of delusion.
Hitler had the same illness. And I quote from a former Reagan Aide who has denounced Bush, "In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin."
LoKee, Will You Please apologize for placing Bush in the White House, not once, but you did it TWO TIMES?
Have been created. If a person is going to become a terrorist they will use any excuse.
Again with the Hitler comparisons. No one is like except Hitler and you are insulting the people who have suffered under the man.
I have nothing to apologize for. Your right no one would have invaded Iraq other than Bush. I think the invasion was correct. I do not think it was done correctly but it was the right decision and still remains the right decision.
LoKi, You Said To Me :
<>Your right no one would have invaded Iraq other than Bush.<>
Well Thank You Very Much For Admitting The Truth!
Now will you please explain WHY ONLY BUSH AND NO ONE ELSE would Invade Iraq. A sovereign country. Don’t you dare lie about that faulty intel that Bush was told was not reliable. That is all very well documented from the intelligence people involved.
A country with no WMD's, no attacks on us, they didn't like Osama Muhammed Awad bin Laden and they were keeping Iran in check for us.
Plus our country is not about running around the planet hellfire bent on forcing Democracies on unwilling countries. That comment is from former Republican President Gerald R. Ford.
So will you please explain why Bush Invaded Iraq, based on all the accepted evidence that we all know to be true?
There were not one but two Al Quada training camps in Northern Iraq. Saddam Hussein continually funded terroist by giving money to suicide bomber's families. Also after the first Gulf War we peomised the people of Iraq that if they rose up against Hussein we would help them. We broke that promise and thousands of people were needlessly slaughtered as a result of our unwillingness to live up to our word. There were 18 UN resolution threatning military action against Iraq if they did not comply fully with the terms, they did not. So you could say we were just enforcing the UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein forced his people to live in poverty while her profited with the Oil for Food program. The US was the only permanent memeber of the UN Security council not benefiting from that scandal, which is the real reason no one else in the UN would support the military action. IRan is the biggest supporter of terroism in the World, we needed a staging ground to fight them when the time comes.
LoKi, Thanks, but you did not explain the only question I asked?
I told you that no President, Republican or Democrat would ever have invaded Iraq.
You Said To Me :
<>"Your right, no one would have invaded Iraq other than Bush."<>
So I’m asking you to please explain WHY ONLY BUSH AND NO OTHER PRESIDENT would Invade Iraq?
The big four did not air Durbin because of ratings simple as that. PBS and the cable news networks did their job like they are supposed to.
What about the folks who don't have cable? And therefore did not get to see the democratic response? This is what you all seem to be forgetting. Not everyone has cable, and if you didn't, all you got to see was the President, and no follow up. That's the problem. If you're going to be a responsible broadcaster, show the address, show the rebuttal, and then go back to mindless reality TV shows.
There are other avenues a person can take to get the full story about something even if they do not have cable. If they choose not to pursue them that is their own fault not Network TV's fault.
Back in the day before cable one would expect to hear the other side. So while my statement saying the news guys did their job is essentially correct, the big four did not do their bottom line duty. Operate on behalf of the public interest. Certainly not the "custodians of the airwaves."
Maybe the Democrats should consider bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in the first 100 hours.
counter to conservative opinion capitalism has never been the measure of good governance. The airwaves which the networks use are public. The Fairness Doctrine once made it the rule that the media had to give rebuttal opinions. The airwaves are still public and this is a good reason why. Ratings come after the public interest. Like capitalism comes after the public's interest.
Fox affiliates didn't air the Durbin response but Fox News did. I assume Fox News broadcasted the Durbin rebuttal in bobble head vision and tossed pies at the screen while he spoke; nevertheless, it represents some progress.
note, the stations that stayed with it are dedicated news channels... they are not under the same pressure to wrap it up as the others, which are broadcast networks who answer to advertisers and to ratings... still, give us both sides, people...
Whew!!! I thought you were going to suggest that taxes be raised to insure every houshold has cable.
For those of you who are likewise disgusted with a babbling American media that passes off as "news" the rancid opinions of the same old Beltway pundits (Dem & GOP alike) and celebrity interviews with the Judds and Angelina Jolie, please try listening instead to the BBC World Service, which you can access online.
You will be very pleasantly surprised by the superior quality of the BBC's news programing and reporting compared to its American counterparts. Even its occasional celebrity profile -- such as its recent interview of David Bowie on the occasion of his 60th birthday -- is interesting and informative, and studiously avoids the tawdry tabloid-style "gotcha!" tactics so prevalent on American TV nowadays.
With the notable exception of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the Los Angeles Times, I now pretty much refer to British sources like the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, etc. almost exclusively for my information.
WLS-TV carried Durbin's response immediately after Bush's speech. It was definitely a local decision, as it was introduced by the local anchors. Probably has something to do with Durbin being from Illinois.
Affiliates made their own decisions whether or not to show the Democrat response. I am sure many of you are disappointed that it was not some mass conspiracy that goes all the way up to Rupert Murdoch.
YOU SAY: Murdoch is nothing like Hitler and it is an insult to everyone who suffered under that man.
AND I SAY: It's an insult to everyone who suffered under your man Bush, who you voted for 2 times. And your still happy?
Because:
Hundreds of thousands are dead, still dying and permanently maimed!
He has led us to the brink of WW-III
Conservatives are even denouncing his war that should never have happened!
But your still happy with Bush?
Under Democratic leadership we wouldn't be in this huge mess that your man has created.
Most of our country strongly disagrees with your support of Bush and his war. But all you seem to be worried about is the UN and keeping the Fox News Propaganda Machine rolling along.
It should not be up to the network affiliates. It is in the public interest to give both view points. The Fox News Netwrok should atone for it's sins for blatantly doing the opposite most of the time. The one sided and un-aired rebuttals the media has given us created an ignorant electorate. There are still people who actually think Saddam had something to do with 9-11. This is another example of the myth of "free" markets. By allowing our media to merge. no thanks to Clinton, and allowing the bottom line become the driving factor, we have a land full of sheep who have no concept of what objectivity means. Can I get a Witness!?!
At the very least, the refusal by many to not air the Democrats response displays the fallacy of the liberal media bias. I've read the excuse that they did it for ratings, so what? So what?!?! This is how jaded we have become. That capitalism trumps everything. They could make a buck not airing it because who cares anyway? We don't care because they don't air it. Media is money driven and we are worse off for it. The anti-tax, anti-government, anti social programs of any kind crowd put the buck before all else. Sad.
"PBS and cable news networks CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all aired Durbin's response."
Hmmm. So what is it that you guys always say about Fox News? That it's just a right wing propaganda network? But yet they were one of only four stations that aired Durbin's response? Why would a right wing propaganda network air Durbin's response? Maybe we should thank Media Matters for pointing out that Fox News at least makes an attempt to be fair and balanced. That's more than can be said for the liberal propaganda networks CNN and MSNBC.
There was a time when the local affiliates would air these types of things with the knowledge that you shouldn't have to have cable to hear it. It should be free. Fox news is incredibly one sided and unforunately as MMfA points out there is no truly progressive counter punch. It is my belief that every "news" network have standards. Because FoxNews has an extremely ill informed viewership. That's just a fact. And it's because their viewers aren't exposed to a rebuttal. If they lived up to the fair and balanced label they would have point and counter point view points. The Sean Hannitys, Gibsons, and O'Reillys wouldn't be able to flat out lie if there were. Ignorance is not bliss, capitalism comes after public interests.
of course. They are obviously not on cable.