NationStates Jolt Archive

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=10&aid=920084540_5310_lead_story (http://)

Once or twice, this can be excused, but geez, this is ridiculous. I guess some can take comfort in that he hasn't flip-flopped.

Kinda like posting a link that can't open. Oops, you did it again.

Copy it into the address bar and it works.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=10&aid=920084540_5310_lead_story

Once or twice, this can be excused, but geez, this is ridiculous. I guess some can take comfort in that he hasn't flip-flopped.
so easy to edit

Good thing I'm not President.

At least the media is focusing on the important issues :confused:

I dunno, when a major leader consistently and wilfully misleads his population you might start to think something's going on.

I dunno, when a major leader consistently and wilfully misleads his population you might start to think something's going on.

He's still learning English! Those Arab names just confuse him :p

Wow....this is news? It is a real stretch to call this an issue.

Wow....this is news? It is a real stretch to call this an issue.
It's all they really have left tho.. everything else has been beaten to death
::whinney::
Cant you hear that horse?

I dunno, when a major leader consistently and wilfully misleads his population you might start to think something's going on.

Sigh. With the kind of anti-Bush people we have in the mass media, President Bush would be totally unable to, as you put it, "consistently and wilfully mislead his population." Do you think for a moment that the killer attack-dogs of the left would let him get away with "wilfully" misleading the American people when they won't even let a mispronunciation slip by without pouncing on it?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially since I'm just as human as the next person. So far, no one here, or in the mass media, or in John ( "I voted for it, before I voted against it" ) Kerry's Kommando Korps has had a sufficiently firm grip on reality to convince me that President Bush is other than what he seems: an honest man who sometimes makes mistakes.

Sigh. With the kind of anti-Bush people we have in the mass media, President Bush would be totally unable to, as you put it, "consistently and wilfully mislead his population." Do you think for a moment that the killer attack-dogs of the left would let him get away with "wilfully" misleading the American people when they won't even let a mispronunciation slip by without pouncing on it?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially since I'm just as human as the next person. So far, no one here, or in the mass media, or in John ( "I voted for it, before I voted against it" ) Kerry's Kommando Korps has had a sufficiently firm grip on reality to convince me that President Bush is other than what he seems: an honest man who sometimes makes mistakes.
Except those mistakes are costing lives. And when a 'mistake' happens 10 times in a desperate attempt to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, it's not an 'honest mistake': it's an outright lie and attempt to (again) deceive the public. The Bush camp has taken a leaf right out of Goebbels election and public opinion manipulating technique book. A few quotes from the 'great' man:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.
BTW Can anyone tell me what the difference between the Bush Administration's approach to informing the public and the above quotes? Just curious.

Also, what 'killer attack-dogs of the left'? I hope you're not refering to the American media. Because that's borderline delusional thinking they're even slightly 'left' (except Dan Rather but he may have just proved himself to be a fool).

Finally: Another quote, but this time from Josef Stalin:
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
I guess Bush must have seen that one before Florida 2000!

Also, what 'killer attack-dogs of the left'? I hope you're not refering to the American media. Because that's borderline delusional thinking they're even slightly 'left' (except Dan Rather but he may have just proved himself to be a fool).
• ABC’s World News Tonight would not mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at all until Kerry attacked them as liars on August 19. But on Wednesday, ABC immediately showed excerpts of a “Texans for Truth” ad claiming Bush failed to report for duty. “For opponents of President Bush, it’s payback time,” reporter Terry Moran rationalized.
• CNN’s NewsNight, which avoided the Swift Boat veterans for 100 days, immediately touted the attacks on Bush's National Guard service. CNN's Aaron Brown framed the debate exactly as Kerry's spinners: “One guy went to Vietnam, the other guy didn't.”
• NBC Nightly News. On MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning yesterday, NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory doubted the new Bush revelations were much of a story: “I don't know that it's going to strike people as big news.” But last night Tom Brokaw wondered, “Did he fulfill his obligations?” before reporter Andrea Mitchell cut loose with a story detailing the Democratic charges. A month earlier, Mitchell hated the Swift Vet ads, devoting an entire story not to their substance, but to deploring the “loophole” that allowed them to publicize their message.
• 60 Minutes: Rather interviewed former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, who says he’s “very sorry” he helped young George W. Bush get preferential treatment to secure a spot in the Air National Guard. Rather noted in passing that Barnes is a lifelong Democrat who’s hard at work raising money for John Kerry, but he still gave Barnes a prime time venue to level charges that the first President Bush branded a “total lie” in convention interviews last week. Presuming Barnes really did help Bush, Rather asked, “Did you have long talks with your conscience? Did you say to yourself, ‘I’m a little uncomfortable with this’?”

But if Barnes’s partisanship was a minor detail, CBS acted as if the Swift vets were the dirty-tricks arm of the Bush campaign. “Others allied with the Bush campaign attacked Senator Kerry today more directly and more personally,” Rather grumped on May 4. “Their tactic was to depict Kerry — a wounded, highly-decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who eventually became a vocal opponent of that war — as unpatriotic and not a worthy leader.”
• "Bill Clinton says President Bush's 1988 Willie Horton crowd is smearing him with new campaign dirty tricks.... In the presidential compaign, Democrat Bill Clinton says Bush-Quayle re-election forces are using a smear campaign to constantly raise issues about his past." Dan Rather, introducing a Feb 12, 1992 Evening News story about a letter from Clinton thanking his ROTC commander for "saving me from the draft"

Comments?

The best way to look at how left most media has become is to look at the recent success of Fox news. As the only right favoring news media, it has been truncing all competition. Why is that? Because people like to hear the news given in a slant that matches their beliefs. Sad but a true fact. And while the nation is sharply divided right now, all the right side watches Fox, but the left side has a wide array of news sources that their patronage has been divided amongst.

[Demented Hamsters #12]Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
Sigh. With the kind of anti-Bush people we have in the mass media, President Bush would be totally unable to, as you put it, "consistently and wilfully mislead his population." Do you think for a moment that the killer attack-dogs of the left would let him get away with "wilfully" misleading the American people when they won't even let a mispronunciation slip by without pouncing on it?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially since I'm just as human as the next person. So far, no one here, or in the mass media, or in John ( "I voted for it, before I voted against it" ) Kerry's Kommando Korps has had a sufficiently firm grip on reality to convince me that President Bush is other than what he seems: an honest man who sometimes makes mistakes.


Except those mistakes are costing lives. And when a 'mistake' happens 10 times in a desperate attempt to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, it's not an 'honest mistake': it's an outright lie and attempt to (again) deceive the public. The Bush camp has taken a leaf right out of Goebbels election and public opinion manipulating technique book. A few quotes from the 'great' man:

Quote:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.



Quote:
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.



Quote:
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.


BTW Can anyone tell me what the difference between the Bush Administration's approach to informing the public and the above quotes? Just curious.

Also, what 'killer attack-dogs of the left'? I hope you're not refering to the American media. Because that's borderline delusional thinking they're even slightly 'left' (except Dan Rather but he may have just proved himself to be a fool).

Finally: Another quote, but this time from Josef Stalin:

Quote:
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.


I guess Bush must have seen that one before Florida 2000!


The inherent and necessary pathology of "the leftist" is paranoia.

They simply cease to exist without it.

Which is why, once they grow up a bit (NOT a function of age BTW) and have more to do than ruminate on their object-of-paranoia, they heal somewhat.

I would think that the "Goebbels" principles would have been enumerated quite some time before "The Idiot Goebbels". The same with the Stalin statement.

I would also think that Kerry's rambling nonsense would equally qualify as another "Big Lie" and "Social Steering" that you ascribe to Bush.

[Grebonia #14]The best way to look at how left most media has become is to look at the recent success of Fox news. As the only right favoring news media, it has been trouncing all competition. Why is that? Because people like to hear the news given in a slant that matches their beliefs. Sad but a true fact. And while the nation is sharply divided right now, all the right side watches Fox, but the left side has a wide array of news sources that their patronage has been divided amongst.

Very good observation..! :)

This is probably the best "proof" of left-ward bias in the "all but Fox" news media I've come across.

Excellent job..!

• ABC’s World News Tonight would not mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at all until Kerry attacked them as liars on August 19. But on Wednesday, ABC immediately showed excerpts of a “Texans for Truth” ad claiming Bush failed to report for duty. “For opponents of President Bush, it’s payback time,” reporter Terry Moran rationalized.
• CNN’s NewsNight, which avoided the Swift Boat veterans for 100 days, immediately touted the attacks on Bush's National Guard service. CNN's Aaron Brown framed the debate exactly as Kerry's spinners: “One guy went to Vietnam, the other guy didn't.”
• NBC Nightly News. On MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning yesterday, NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory doubted the new Bush revelations were much of a story: “I don't know that it's going to strike people as big news.” But last night Tom Brokaw wondered, “Did he fulfill his obligations?” before reporter Andrea Mitchell cut loose with a story detailing the Democratic charges. A month earlier, Mitchell hated the Swift Vet ads, devoting an entire story not to their substance, but to deploring the “loophole” that allowed them to publicize their message.
• 60 Minutes: Rather interviewed former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, who says he’s “very sorry” he helped young George W. Bush get preferential treatment to secure a spot in the Air National Guard. Rather noted in passing that Barnes is a lifelong Democrat who’s hard at work raising money for John Kerry, but he still gave Barnes a prime time venue to level charges that the first President Bush branded a “total lie” in convention interviews last week. Presuming Barnes really did help Bush, Rather asked, “Did you have long talks with your conscience? Did you say to yourself, ‘I’m a little uncomfortable with this’?”

But if Barnes’s partisanship was a minor detail, CBS acted as if the Swift vets were the dirty-tricks arm of the Bush campaign. “Others allied with the Bush campaign attacked Senator Kerry today more directly and more personally,” Rather grumped on May 4. “Their tactic was to depict Kerry — a wounded, highly-decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who eventually became a vocal opponent of that war — as unpatriotic and not a worthy leader.”
• "Bill Clinton says President Bush's 1988 Willie Horton crowd is smearing him with new campaign dirty tricks.... In the presidential compaign, Democrat Bill Clinton says Bush-Quayle re-election forces are using a smear campaign to constantly raise issues about his past." Dan Rather, introducing a Feb 12, 1992 Evening News story about a letter from Clinton thanking his ROTC commander for "saving me from the draft"

Comments?
A few immediately spring to mind:
Because These News organisations don't comment on partisan adverts attacking a Presidential candidate, that 'proves' they're left? Do you expect your News organisations to comment on every ad they show?
"Coming up on Sixty Minutes! The new Kraft Peanut Butter ad! Is it as crunchy as they say?"
(Sadly, this'd probably be better and more in-depth than the crapola that usually passes for investigations these days).
Focusing on just the Swifty ads is too narrow for my liking. Too easy to ignore too much other data in order to prove your point.
I wuld like to know that during the same period, how many favourable news reports were made on Moveon.org or any of the other Dem 527's? And how many positive GOP reports vs positive Dem reports were there? How many negative?
That would be more telling as to their leaning status. I'd be interested in knowing.

What made the claims the Swifties making newsworthy? Not a lot, until a Presidential candidate attacked them. Then they became newsworthy.
And that quote:“Their tactic was to depict Kerry — a wounded, highly-decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who eventually became a vocal opponent of that war — as unpatriotic and not a worthy leader.”
Well, what of it? THAT was their goal, wasn't it?
Was Kerry wounded? Yes.
Was he highly-decorated? Yes.
Did he become a vocal opponent of the war? Yes.
Are the Swifties trying to paint him as unpatriotic and not a worthy leader? Yes.
So where's the bais?

And what was wrong with quoting Clinton in a report about him?
Anyway, this was Dan Rather, who I already mentioned is obviously a Dem supporter. Having him employed, doesn't prove CBS is though.
Also, don't you think it looks a little pitiful to have to drag up a news report more than 12 years old to 'prove' CBS is left-leaning?
With this in mind, I'm going to drag up a news report 65 years old that proves Germany are a fascist state and are winining World War II! The States had best get ready to attack them!

The handling of the SBVfT adds wasnt the issue, it was the difference between the handling of their adds vs the handling of the Texan's for Truth adds. That is what shows the left leaning.

Their treatment of Texan's for Truth is the example of their treatment of 527's you asked for.

As for it being "pitiful" for bringing up a news article from 12 years ago... it was to show the difference between handling of 2 (remarkably) similar incidents. The Democrat is given a pass, while the Republican is taken to task.

There is no denying the left leaning of most major news outlets, except for those who choose to keep their heads in the sand.

There is no denying the left leaning of most major news outlets, except for those who choose to keep their heads in the sand.
Oohhhhhhh.....Now you're reduced to insulting me. I feel real contrite.
:rolleyes:

Oohhhhhhh.....Now you're reduced to insulting me. I feel real contrite.
:rolleyes:
Im sorry, I didnt intend to insult you or anyone. If you took it as such, I appologize.

I was simply attempting to point out that some people seem unable to accept that there is a bias in the media. Statement of fact, not trying to insult anyone.

I don't know how many times this has to be said but the media in the US is definately not "left-winged", "liberal", or whatever Rush Limbaugh calls it. The fact is that the top media corporations in the US are few in number (infact there are only 6: ABCDisney, ViacomCBS, AOLCNN, MSNBCGE, FOX, and Clear Channel.) and make a shitload of money!! You must be somewhat stupid if you think that those media corporations won't do whatever it takes to protect their "investments". Republicans are for big business. They promote laissez faire economics (which means no government intervention in business). Knowning this, of course the media corporations are for the Republicans because as long as they are in power the media corporations can do anything they want, make as much money as they want, and pay their employees however much they want. Anyways I encourage you to go out and look at how much each of these mega-corporations really own athttp://www.humorisdead.com/whoownsyou/
or
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

or even

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html

and then say that the media is left...

I don't know how many times this has to be said but the media in the US is definately not "left-winged", "liberal", or whatever Rush Limbaugh calls it. The fact is that the top media corporations in the US are few in number (infact there are only 6: ABCDisney, ViacomCBS, AOLCNN, MSNBCGE, FOX, and Clear Channel.) and make a shitload of money!! You must be somewhat stupid if you think that those media corporations won't do whatever it takes to protect their "investments". Republicans are for big business. They promote laissez faire economics (which means no government intervention in business). Knowning this, of course the media corporations are for the Republicans because as long as they are in power the media corporations can do anything they want, make as much money as they want, and pay their employees however much they want. Anyways I encourage you to go out and look at how much each of these mega-corporations really own athttp://www.humorisdead.com/whoownsyou/
or
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

or even

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html

and then say that the media is left...
Who owns what is really immaterial. Do you think that people who are "left leaning" dont own, or run corporations? Do you think that people who are "left leaning" dont work for or in corporations? You assert "Republicans are for big business" yet do you believe that Democrats refuse to work for or do business with big business?
Time and time again, examples of liberal bias has been brought forward, and to quote you "you must be somewhat stupid if you think that those media corporations won't do whatever it takes to" advance their ideology if it doesnt hurt their "investments".

It's all they really have left tho.. everything else has been beaten to death
::whinney::
Cant you hear that horse?
:rolleyes:

Also, don't you think it looks a little pitiful to have to drag up a news report more than 12 years old to 'prove' CBS is left-leaning?


No, it could suggest an attempt to widen the sampling area, thus increasing the chances of scooping up a pattern of behaviors.

It could also, however, simply be an attempt to find SOME usuable quote in a spin-war, which is what the whole of American politics has disintegrated into.

But I do believe that the majority of TV and radio news organizations produce some sort of slant, because that is part of their business objective: to produce a sensational story to capture audiences. Also news organizations know their audience and, as any good producer of literature, target this audience. Through this their audiences get increasingly and increasingly one-sided. I know this is a slippery slope argument and it might seem t obe alarmist, but maybe I should add that I also beleive that there is a contrary force (credibility) which limits the ammount of twist news organizations can add to their stories. Thus we approach a limit where the news organizations are truly biased, but unable to be "proven" as such. Like an orbit around the Earth of Truth, with the centrifugal force pushing them outwards towards spin, and gravity keeping them close enough to the truth so they cannot be discreditted.

I don't like this. Why pay the price of objectivity to the middle men of news?

There are a few somewhat reliable sources of information. I think the AP and Reuters are pretty fair, they're too widespread and have too diverse an audience to afford not to be. I'm not sure the newpapers that publish the AP and Reuters articles are necessarily unbiased (as testified by the Seattle Times, I believe), but I think the reporters that initially write the stories are actually interested in reporting things, giving the facts, transferring information. Not in the sensationalism that so many of the TV and radio news organizations seem fixated upon.

Anyway, that's my slice of the orange.