NationStates Jolt Archive

So about three days ago, John Solomon of the Associated Press published this "story" (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?page=full) (and I do use the scare quotes deliberately) about how Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supposedly violated some ethics rules by accepting free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission while they were lobbying him to stop the push toward federal regulation of the boxing industry. He voted against their interests, a little factoid that was never mentioned in the story.

The second half of the story tells of another supposed breach in ethics involving Native American interests, because he took campaign contributions from them, and again, failed to vote for them. At least the story mentioned that he didn't do what the lobbyists wanted, although it did try to tar Reid with the Abramff brush.

But back to the first story because it's the really interesting one, and because it shows just how pathetic the US media has become. I give you Paul Kiel of TPM Muckraker (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?page=full) who is quoting a story from the Las Vegas Review Journal:
The crux of Solomon's story was that Reid acted wrongly by accepting free boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission. In particular, Solomon focused on a title bout in September 2004 that Reid and McCain both attended. "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight," Solomon wrote.

But it turns out that it would have been illegal for Reid to reimburse the commission for the seats. That's because these weren't actually tickets - they were credentials with no face value given to V.I.P.'s. And according to the boxing promoter who awarded those credentials to Reid, it is illegal for the commission to accept payment for them. Despite that, McCain insisted on paying, and so the commission simply gave his check (written for a seemingly arbitrary amount) to a charity since it couldn't accept it.

What's more, that same promoter says that in other cases where Reid and McCain received tickets that could be reimbursed, Reid paid. That's a key fact which, if true, was left out of Solomon's article....
[Marc Ratner, then executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission] said Tuesday the seats Reid and McCain got weren't tickets available to the general public but "credentials" the commission gives only to public officials hoping to observe the commission's activity.

Skip Avansino, current chairman of the athletic commission and a commission member since 2002, said Reid, McCain and the athletic commissioners sat on folding chairs in a small, cramped area, not in the posh ringside seats for which pricey tickets are sold....

Boxing promoter Bob Arum said Reid and McCain also sat in ticketed seating at about three matches each but paid for their tickets "invariably." Arum said McCain and Reid's seats at the Hopkins-de la Hoya fight, on the other hand, were credentials from the commission, not tickets from Arum. But McCain, who brought his wife to the fight, sent Arum a check for the price of two ringside seats.

Arum said he didn't know what to do with the money.

"Those credentials cannot be sold," he said. "There's no price on them. (They are given to) governors, attorney generals, boxing commissioners of other states. ... It's illegal to accept money for a credential."

Arum said he couldn't accept McCain's money but McCain wouldn't take it back, so Arum donated it to Catholic Charities.

So understand what this means--the original reporter accused Harry Reid of being unethical because he followed the law.

Take the poll.

damn that corrupt harry reid and his following of the rules

for shame

Typical muck slinging tactics.
Throw the story out, it'll be picked up and repeated endlessly on Fox making all other news agencies follow suit (for fear of missing the boat on a political scandal), and then quietly retract it a few days later, after all the damage has been done.
When retracting, make sure you don't apologise and be sure to use words like 'apparently' and 'alledgedly' so ppl can infer that the defence is a load of hooey.


Brace yourself: Over the next few months, leading up to November there's going to be a lot of these stories coming out. Disproportionately against the Dems too, for some reason.

I believe that most intelligent Americans (believe me, there are very few of us around these days) will be able to dismiss these sort of stories for what they are. Nothing more than political mudslinging that accomplishes nothing.

You know Ray Bradbury warned us about his :(
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fahrenhiet+451

The America depicted in this book is the America today only instead of burning books we're hiding all good laws under red tape. :mad:

I believe that most intelligent Americans (believe me, there are very few of us around these days)...

There are many intelligent Americans. The problem is that they either are too busy with other aspects of their life to give that intelligence to genuine political and social awareness or too apathetic to do anything about it.

I believe that most intelligent Americans (believe me, there are very few of us around these days) will be able to dismiss these sort of stories for what they are. Nothing more than political mudslinging that accomplishes nothing.
The longer I stick around the more I come to believe that anything that needs to be explained will lose out to something that can be accused.

I might be getting overly cynical.

I don't think the media is liberal, nor do I think it is conservative. Factions of the media (Fox, NPR, AirAmerica) all lean certain ways. The media is polarized, just like the rest of us. But that's media, they pander to what we want. I don't think we need to judge them for it.

And clearly, Americans don't want information in their TV broadcasts. We have American Idol, for Christ's sake, to prove it. We simply do not seem to care enough about being informed citizens. And by 'citizens' I mean 'citizens of the United States'. For all non-Americans out there, I don't know if this applies.

I don't think the media is liberal, nor do I think it is conservative. Factions of the media (Fox, NPR, AirAmerica) all lean certain ways. The media is polarized, just like the rest of us. But that's media, they pander to what we want. I don't think we need to judge them for it.
This is exactly what Nazz said in another thread, about how when confronted with an unsavoury truth, the right attempt to justify by pretending things are partisan.
Tell me - what examples have you got to show a major mainstream media outlet is as left-wing as, say, Fox is right-wing?

You know Ray Bradbury warned us about his :(
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fahrenhiet+451

The America depicted in this book is the America today only instead of burning books we're hiding all good laws under red tape. :mad:

No, we're definitely burning books too. All the ultraconservative fundamentalists, remember how THEY reacted to Harry Potter?

More often, though, we're simply killing books by ignoring them and satiating ourselves on the vapid, colorful images that constitute television. All television is mind poison, except the Simpsons and SNL.




The real problem with the media is that they're too chickenshit to actually call anybody on anything. I pray for the day that we see a headline, "Bush Full of Shit" or "Iraq still fucked up, after three years of US occupancy"

Frankly, this article doesn't bother me in the least. I've seen it's like before, and I'll see it again many times to come.

What really vexes me is the idea that ANYONE can believe that "the media" is liberal.

Oh sure, there are plenty individuals who work at news corporations who are liberal...indeed, I believe a majority identify themselves as such.

The simple fact remains that news corporations are just that...corporations. They are among the most conservative institutions around, owned by rich fat-cats who would never be caught dead voting for a Democrat.

The fact that some rant about "the liberal media" only serves to illustrate two very valid reasons for WHY the media appears liberal.

1. The ownership of any major media outlet can certainly see that Bush is no fiscal conservative. Clearly, if these people were supportive of Bush's economic policies, there would be more favorable stories regarding those policies in the news.

That fact that there are almost NO stories that regard Bush's economic policies favorably indicates to me that there are few (if any) people in the upper levels of the media who believe that Bush's policies are right for this country, OR their companies.


2. Media outlets are buisnesses, just like any other, and their bottom line is MONEY.

All one has to do is look at the media during the Clinton administration, especially during the impeachment proceedings, to see that the Media long ago learned that there is no money in supporting the party in power.

Hence, the percieved "liberal" bias...they've been making their money by being "liberal" for over six years now, and most people have short memories.

A little off topic, but there it is. :p

I hate to gravedig (and double post), but nobody has a response to my little rant?

...and I thought it was a pretty good rant too. :(

the Media long ago learned that there is no money in supporting the party in power.
Tell that to Rupert Murdoch.

All one has to do is look at the media during the Clinton administration, especially during the impeachment proceedings, to see that the Media long ago learned that there is no money in supporting the party in power.

To be fair, Faux news makes money, and they're pretty pro-government.

I'm thoroughly tired with the word "teh". It's teh retarded and really needs to stop being used.
As such, I didn't vote in the poll, which made no fucking sense.

Teh media is teh Lunatic Goofballs! :D

Or at least it ought to be. I know how to entertain and inform, dammit!

You don't believe me? Gimme a chance! Le me attend the next three White House Press conferences and ask the President some questions. I guarantee you will be entertained and informed! :D

So about three days ago, John Solomon of the Associated Press published this "story" (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?page=full) (and I do use the scare quotes deliberately) about how Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supposedly violated some ethics rules by accepting free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission while they were lobbying him to stop the push toward federal regulation of the boxing industry. He voted against their interests, a little factoid that was never mentioned in the story.

The second half of the story tells of another supposed breach in ethics involving Native American interests, because he took campaign contributions from them, and again, failed to vote for them. At least the story mentioned that he didn't do what the lobbyists wanted, although it did try to tar Reid with the Abramff brush.

But back to the first story because it's the really interesting one, and because it shows just how pathetic the US media has become. I give you Paul Kiel of TPM Muckraker (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?page=full) who is quoting a story from the Las Vegas Review Journal:


So understand what this means--the original reporter accused Harry Reid of being unethical because he followed the law.

Take the poll.

I guess this means that Harry Reid is wrong now, because he said that taking the tickets was indeed wrong, and that he would never do it again, because it would be unethical.

So, are you calling Harry Reid wrong?

Teh media is teh Lunatic Goofballs! :D

Or at least it ought to be. I know how to entertain and inform, dammit!

You don't believe me? Gimme a chance! Le me attend the next three White House Press conferences and ask the President some questions. I guarantee you will be entertained and informed! :D
You'd probably be shot by his bodyguards when you attempt to tackle him (he is a Bush, and you are on record as stating you like tackling bushes) and then tickle him.

Which would be fun for the rest of us to watch but how would you to explain that to your wife?

Teh media is teh Lunatic Goofballs! :D

Or at least it ought to be. I know how to entertain and inform, dammit!

You don't believe me? Gimme a chance! Le me attend the next three White House Press conferences and ask the President some questions. I guarantee you will be entertained and informed! :D
In an alternate universe, you rule the world. Sometimes, I wish I lived in that universe. This is one of those times.

The media's not liberal, if anything its slanted to the right. They dont ask any tough questions of the administration and just spit back the administrations talk points when they "report". For instance, why has no one asked, "Mr. President you claim to support freedom in democracy around the world, it is now an excuse for why we are in Iraq. however, if this is true, why do you support and fund undemocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, China and others?" Id love an answer to that one.

I guess this means that Harry Reid is wrong now, because he said that taking the tickets was indeed wrong, and that he would never do it again, because it would be unethical.

So, are you calling Harry Reid wrong?Go back and parse out the updated article, pal. Reid's admission was that he misunderstood the specific Senate rule that applied to this, not that there was anything unethical about accepting the passes--not tickets. Tickets have face value. What Reid and McCain received didn't have face value. I'm sure that's simple enough for you to understand the difference.

I'm thoroughly tired with the word "teh". It's teh retarded and really needs to stop being used.
As such, I didn't vote in the poll, which made no fucking sense.

I blame the neo-cons for dimming down of the world's brightest young minds by putting "teh" in the mouths and keyboards of liberals. It is Teh dum kun spear-a-C.

Go back and parse out the updated article, pal. Reid's admission was that he misunderstood the specific Senate rule that applied to this, not that there was anything unethical about accepting the passes--not tickets. Tickets have face value. What Reid and McCain received didn't have face value. I'm sure that's simple enough for you to understand the difference.

They played Reid's statement on the local news this morning, and he admitted it was an ethical violation and he wouldn't do it again.

They played Reid's statement on the local news this morning, and he admitted it was an ethical violation and he wouldn't do it again.

The conservative media has brainwashed him. It's the only possible explanation

So far Fox News and that other bastion of neo-con-ness the New York Times agree with DK

snip... rich fat-cats who would never be caught dead voting for a Democrat.

Ted Kennedy is a "rich fat cat." I wonder if he ever votes for a Democrat. :D

Ted Kennedy is a "rich fat cat." I wonder if he ever votes for a Democrat. :D

He likely hasnt been sober enough to vote in the last 10 elections

They played Reid's statement on the local news this morning, and he admitted it was an ethical violation and he wouldn't do it again.
Ought to be online somewhere--enough people on the right have a vested interest in crowing over this. Find it.

Ought to be online somewhere--enough people on the right have a vested interest in crowing over this. Find it.

Fox News and the New York Times both have the story.

You need to register with NYT to read their version


http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02reid.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=2df57695Q2Fj-3ujQ3EDUCvDDQ5EMjM11Tj1Tj1Mj-)CQ51Q24lOQ5EDlj1Mv3Q24Q3ERQ51Q5EQ206

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197878,00.html


Never Again

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid says he didn't do anything wrong, but he won't do it again. He's talking, of course, about accepting free tickets to boxing matches from the Nevada Athletic Commission, which at the time was trying to influence his action on legislation.

A spokesman says Reid has no regrets about taking the tickets, but merely "wants to err on the side of caution... to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," adding, "In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future."

For the record, Reid took a position against what the state athletic commission wanted.

Fox News and the New York Times both have the story.

You need to register with NYT to read their version


http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02reid.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=2df57695Q2Fj-3ujQ3EDUCvDDQ5EMjM11Tj1Tj1Mj-)CQ51Q24lOQ5EDlj1Mv3Q24Q3ERQ51Q5EQ206

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197878,00.html


Never Again

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid says he didn't do anything wrong, but he won't do it again. He's talking, of course, about accepting free tickets to boxing matches from the Nevada Athletic Commission, which at the time was trying to influence his action on legislation.

A spokesman says Reid has no regrets about taking the tickets, but merely "wants to err on the side of caution... to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," adding, "In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future."

For the record, Reid took a position against what the state athletic commission wanted.
That's what I'm talking about. DK says Reid admitted it was an ethics violation--I'm saying he admitted nothing of the sort, and in my original post showed reports that said Reid couldn't have reimbursed the commission for the tickets because there were no tickets for which they could have been reimbursed. When McCain wrote a check to the promoter Bob Arum for the price of two ringside seats, Arum donated the money to charity because he couldn't legally accept it.

I'm thoroughly tired with the word "teh". It's teh retarded and really needs to stop being used.
As such, I didn't vote in the poll, which made no fucking sense.


nothing makes any fucking sense here. Unless you're on acid or something...

I guarantee you will be entertained and informed! :D
I don't want to know what sort of informationg you might dig up....:eek:

So about three days ago, John Solomon of the Associated Press published this "story" (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?page=full) (and I do use the scare quotes deliberately) about how Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supposedly violated some ethics rules by accepting free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission while they were lobbying him to stop the push toward federal regulation of the boxing industry. He voted against their interests, a little factoid that was never mentioned in the story.

The second half of the story tells of another supposed breach in ethics involving Native American interests, because he took campaign contributions from them, and again, failed to vote for them. At least the story mentioned that he didn't do what the lobbyists wanted, although it did try to tar Reid with the Abramff brush.

But back to the first story because it's the really interesting one, and because it shows just how pathetic the US media has become. I give you Paul Kiel of TPM Muckraker (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?page=full) who is quoting a story from the Las Vegas Review Journal:


So understand what this means--the original reporter accused Harry Reid of being unethical because he followed the law.

Take the poll.


So whatever happened to the Jackson guy who had 90,000 in his refridgerator ?

and why did the FBI do the wrong thing by raiding him ???????????????


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ????????

were is that dang liberal media when ya need it ????

BTW did YOU mention Reid admitted he was wrong and would no longer accept tickets ?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ?????????????????:D :D :D :D


Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaathetic.........

So whatever happened to the Jackson guy who had 90,000 in his refridgerator ?

and why did the FBI do the wrong thing by raiding him ???????????????


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ????????

were is that dang liberal media when ya need it ????

BTW did YOU mention Reid admitted he was wrong and would no longer accept tickets ?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ?????????????????:D :D :D :D


Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaathetic.........
Point one--the guy you're talking about is named Jefferson, not Jackson, and he has nothing to do with this thread. If you'd read the other threads on that subject, however, you'd see that I thought the FBI was justified in the raid since they'd gotten a warrant.

As to your second point, when I posted the thread Reid had admitted nothing, and to this date has admitted only that he misunderstood the actual Senate rule, not that he'd done anything wrong. He said later that he would avoid accepting tickets in the future to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

But I guess nuance is lost on you. :rolleyes:

Tell that to Rupert Murdoch.

To be fair, Faux news makes money, and they're pretty pro-government.

The exception...not the rule. :)

Ted Kennedy is a "rich fat cat." I wonder if he ever votes for a Democrat.

I'm pretty sure he does (what if he doesn't? :eek: :p ), but there's two differences there...

1. He's a Democratic congressman, not a board member of a major company.
2. He's a Kennedy. :p

The exception...not the rule. :)
Unfortunately, since Murdoch owns about 1/2 the worlds media (feels like it), he is the rule, not the exception.

I guess this means that Harry Reid is wrong now, because he said that taking the tickets was indeed wrong, and that he would never do it again, because it would be unethical.

So, are you calling Harry Reid wrong?
No, you are.
Because, unsurprisingly, you're pulling things out of your arse and calling them facts again.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid says he didn't do anything wrong, but he won't do it again. He's talking, of course, about accepting free tickets to boxing matches from the Nevada Athletic Commission, which at the time was trying to influence his action on legislation.

A spokesman says Reid has no regrets about taking the tickets, but merely "wants to err on the side of caution... to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," adding, "In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future."
But why let what the man actually said get in the way of what you would like him to say?

So whats the point of this thread anyway ?

To defend Reid ? I for one could care less that he went to fight and used free tickets...he has went to fights and the fact that he is a fan is well known...and 1500 .00 bucks worth of tickets are supoposed to " influence ' him...get real it would cost much more than that .

So the press called him on his HIGHLY VISABLE apperance ...and right before he was to consider a related matter....THEY the press ..are supposed to do that..AND he was initially DEFIANT until the AP slapped him down with eethics rules that REID misquoted...he does'nt know ETHICS rules ? Again is that so suprising ?

So what did the PRESS do wrong...LIBERAL or otherwise ?

WASHINGTON May 31, 2006 (AP)— Reversing course, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.

The AP reported Monday that Reid accepted the free seats from the Nevada commission as it was trying to influence his support for legislation to create a federal boxing commission. The state agency feared the legislation would usurp its authority to regulate fights and wanted to convince Reid there was no need for a federal body.



Use all the semantics you care to ...he admited he was wrong..to accept the tickets..:rolleyes:


At any rate I would love to hear the explanation as to why the PRESS was wronhg in this case in ANY WAY .

And JEFFERSONS case is just another example so its got just as much relevance in this thread .

Where is the in depth investigation from the PRESS on JEFFERSON and why he's accused of taking bribes ?


ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.

ADVERTISEMENT

At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.

As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" according to the affidavit.




I guess this coverage and the FBI raid are wrong ?

So whats the point of this thread anyway ?...


At any rate I would love to hear the explanation as to why the PRESS was wronhg in this case in ANY WAY .Go back and look at the original post. Look at the way the original article was written and the mistakes that were in it, and the deliberate way it went about attempting to equate Reid's following of the law with the current multiple issues going on inside the Republican congressional caucus, and then explain to me how this "liberal" media gets it so wrong when they're going after one of its own? Reid's the metaphor for a larger discussion on the myth of the liberal media, a discussion you don't seem to want to take an honest part in.


And JEFFERSONS case is just another example so its got just as much relevance in this thread .

Where is the in depth investigation from the PRESS on JEFFERSON and why he's accused of taking bribes ?

I guess this coverage and the FBI raid are wrong ?
There's been plenty of coverage on Jefferson, and has been for months now. This isn't exactly a new story--remember, Jefferson is the scumbag who commandeered National Guard vehicles after Katrina flooded New Orleans so he could get papers out of his home. The New Orleans press has been all over Jefferson--which is expected since that's where he serves--for long before this scandal. This scandal first received national attention when the video was released and then exploded over the search. That you've somehow missed all this coverage only shows how little you pay attention to things you claim matter.

Oh c'mon Nazz, you know the media is liberal.. I mean just look at them all..

Lou Dobbs..oh right, he's a conservative..Okay well how about Joe Scarborough, he's the average Joe.. oh right, also very conservative.. Okay I have one.. Chris Matthews! Damn another conservative.. okay.. I know, I got it.. Paula Zahn.. Oh right she was honored at a Bush ceremony and also happens to be a conservative.. hmm thinking.. Bill O'Reily. nope, Just count Fox news out all together. Wolf Blitzer? right another conservative..

Well, at least the liberals have Jon Stewart! :)