Git your facts straight!

[pawclaws]

Damn this is going to hurt!! Buzz, you have made some very valid points. Unfortunately for Mr Bush, a large part of the voting population will come to many of the same conclusions you have drawn. For the record I am expressing agreement only with your conclusions; based on generalperceptions, not your opinions or beliefs. The things that are most worrisome to me are these facts: just days before the start of the invasion there were 40 60 foot semi trailers convoyed from Baghdad into Jordan without interception. These could have contained virtually anything. Iraq didn't need to develop anything; just buy it from former Soviet block nations, France, or Pakistan. We now know that Pakistan has transferred nuclear grade plutonium to at least one other nation and my bet is that Iraq was in there pitching a bid as well.

 

[BHR]

Yea Buzz,

We will find out in November. As of today, the Democrats are having trouble picking a man in their campaign for "anyone but Bush". I think that many are starting to wonder if Kerry is a smart choice. My opinion is that Edwards would give Bush a much tougher challenge then Kerry. I hope Edwards gets the nod.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

If Edwards gets the nod, I may get to vote for a candidate! I'll have to start some research.

 

[pawclaws]

Edwards I would characterize most closely as "The Jimmy Carter" of the 21st century. Although he has no glowing traits; I could tolerate him as President.

 

[Erik in AK]

Thanks for the Kudo's guys...every once in a while something comes out of my mouth(or keyboard)that isn't assinine rambling. BTW my last post was not directed at you Buzz, it was just a general continuation of my 2 cents on this issue.

I think its important to remain mindful of the media's impact on this particuar issue.
Bush was enjoying widespread popularity and opinion polls across the demographic spectrum showed that even people who disagreed with or disliked him felt more secure. So we had a situation where the sitting president was teflon coated and bullet-proof in the public's eye as the opposing party geared up their run for the White House. There was no great issue to focus on, no obvious chink in the Bush armor, unless you count a request for 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq. So Chris Matthews stepped up his one man war against GW. (BTW did anyone see him shove his head up Hillary's ass last year on the Hardball College Tour...very objective...not)

So back to the media for a moment...did anyone else see Wag the Dog? The news media, especially TV, can and does manipulate public opinion. They can do this because they control the content, flow and accuracy of the information the public uses to make up "it's" mind. The dupe lays in the simple human fact that people believe themselves to be objective and more importantly smarter than the system. They believe they can divine the truth from whatever they see on TV despite any bias. The news is packaged with due consideration of that. CNN and NBC have Psychologists and Sociologists on staff in their marketing departments. Why? To craft a message that factors in and therefore pre-empts public cynicism.

So how does this affect GW and WMD. Well, short of an outright "conspiracy", the media which is liberal because its run by liberally minded people, is naturally sympathetic to liberal politicians. Liberals are and have always been attracted to journalism and academia. Two worlds where where theories and ideas outweigh achievement and concrete results. Besides Dean's "anger" early on, the Dems had nothing to galvanize support for their run. They needed an issue. A flag around which to rally the party faithful, and hopefully something negative about the president that they could use to generate a buzz and more importantly something they could use to present themselves as the alternative to. They weren't going to win a character battle so they needed a policy issue.

I think that this president "knew" and believed that ultimately, taking out the Saddam regime was the right thing for moral, political and economic reasons. WMD was chosen as the selling point because like (democratic) politics everywhere, wide spread public support is the lever one uses to pry political support out of one's opponents. Bush made the case in good faith based on bad or at least weak intelligence. When he closed the sale on the war he created a political imperative that WMD be found.

Bush further painted himself into this corner by coming out in support of Tenet in the 9/11 aftermath. In so doing he took upon himself the responsibility for any further CIA screw-ups.
Now the republicans are playing spin-control, a game that they happen to suck at, and as we see every night at 6, they're losing.

As this administration continues to doe-cee-doe with the CIA and WMD they also continue to lend credibility to the Democrats' (I think)preposterous assertion that Bush knowingly and deliberately lied to the whole country just so he could play general. He has certainly dicked up the domestic PR game on the follow up, but lied, maliciously? I seriously doubt it.

We conservatives find it too easy to groan about "liberal bias" in reporting, which I believe does in fact exist. The problem is that eventually the groaning and not the bias becomes the issue. This has the effect of making that bias all the more influential on public perception because the criticism get ignorred as more "right-winger ranting".

So what do we have:

9/11 happens due to, and highlights, systemic failures in the CIA

Bush backs his Director

Success in Afghanistan is parlayed into an publically acceptable excuse to take out now, a guy we figured we would have to take out eventually.

WMD offered up as the primary reason

"Victory" in Iraq and no WMD found

Democratic challenge kicks off in earnest

Months into rebuild and still no WMD

The GOP's own ineptitude at this type of politics creates a "blood in the water" scenario

The Dems are handed their issue and the sympathetic media keeps it in the forefront.

[ 02-19-2004, 20:09: Message edited by: Erik in AK ]

 

[BuzzH]

Erik, again I aint trying to get your pluck up or nothing but you said, "We conservatives find it too easy to groan about "liberal bias" in reporting, which I believe does in fact exist."

Really, you think the media is that "liberally biased"?

Hmmm??? I found a tidbit that you may find of some interest. This is from the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism. This Project for Excellence comes from the top-rated Columbia School of Journalism. These numbers came from a study they completed examining 1,149 stories from seventeen leading news sources. This is in regard to the 2000 election on articles involving the Bush/Gore campaign.

Positive articles for Gore 13%, Neutral articles 31%, negative articles 56%

Positive articles for Bush 24%, Neutral articles 27%, Negative articles 49%

Does that look like liberal bias to you?

Also, take a look at the conservative ranters on TV/radio these days, theres Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rushbo, Reagan, etc. etc.

This bunch rant and rave hard-core conservatism every day on talk shows THEY HOST.

Now, name one liberal who hosts a similar show and rants and raves the greatness of liberalism....

I can think of one...Alan Colmes, but the problem is he sits there like an idiot and lets himself be run over by his side-kick.

I just dont buy that the media is dominated by liberals, and until I see some damn convincing evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that.

 

[dgibson]

Buzz, I work there, and I can tell you it's true to a great extent. I can't provide you with figures and facts at the moment, but I've seen it too often.

The thing about O'Reilly, Hannity, et al. is that they're in-your-face about it, whereas the "mainstream" media is very subtle. Their bias is shown in what they DON'T say--the sound bite they omit, or the interview they leave out, or even their choice of interviewees.

A good semi-related example is the fact that guns have been proven to prevent crime much more often than they are used to commit them...but the positive events don't get reported by the media.

A local example of what's going on in the national arena just took place with a city's race for mayor. The news media (including my own station) all but campaigned for the Democrat candidate, running positive stories and sound bites about him one right after the other throughout the campaign. The only thing they ever ran about the Republican candidate was negative stories. You might think that there wasn't anything postive to say about him, but that wasn't the case...both had their ups and downs. It's just that the media darling got all the love. In his concession speech, the Repub candidate even flat-out stated that the local newspaper did a "great disservice" to the city by running their smear campaign.

Stuff like that happens all the time. We have conservation-related banquets around here (raising money for habitat or whatever), they get ignored...can't show the rednecks looking good! But let some little old lady organize a walk for some cancer society or homeless shelter and the media's all over it. It goes on and on.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by dgibson:


A good semi-related example is the fact that guns have been proven to prevent crime much more often than they are used to commit them...but the positive events don't get reported by the media.

Have you seen the movie "Bowling for Columbine"? It is a great movie, and well worth the $2.99 to rent at the local Blockbuster.

I haven't found the proof to his assertation, but in the movie he keeps going back to the question of why the US has MORE gun deaths than any other country (I think excluding war torn countries created by Dubya

).

Michael Moore is the MOST liberal in Hollywood/Media (where do you put Documentaries?? ) But, he makes you think on the subject of guns in a America and the question "Are we as a nation gun nuts or are we just nuts?"

Go rent the movie and then start a thread....

Michael Moore is an outlandish spokesperson for many liberal positions. He supported Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader, mercilessly lampoons George W. Bush every opportunity he gets, and considers Bill Clinton "one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had" (Stupid White Men, p. 211). His acceptance speech at the Academy Awards last year, where he received the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature for this film, was audacious and very anti-Bush. I'm not sure, but his speech may be the reason that my regular video store isn't carrying his video. I happen to agree with most of his political views, as far as I know them. But regardless of whether you do or not, you need to rent (or buy) Bowling for Columbine. It's examination of gun violence in America is disturbing, enlightening, frequently humorous, and even poignant at times. Like any good movie, you'll spend more time discussing it after it's over than you spent watching it in the first place.

snipped from a review.....

 

[cjcj]

Here is a "prime" example of media liberal bias, hundreds of news articles/ print and tv refering to "illegal aliens" as "undocumented immigrants" then as Dgibson says [what they don`t say] think of how many crimes are committed in AZ,N.M.,Cal.,texas. etc by people who are in this country illegaly? why don`t the headlines SCREAM another U.S. citizen robbed/ raped/ murdered by an illegal alien! I have not even seen this one single time WHY? instead the story will get no press, or buried in a small section of the paper, and 99% of the time, they never even say undocumented [illegal]? Why if its the truth shouldn`t it be told? The fact is the press goes out of its way to avoid the "whole truth" Why does the press help go after a judge who refuses to get rid of the ten commandments, But says or does nothing about a Mayor [S.F.] who marries gays, which is against state law. If the press was/wanted to be fair and balanced why wouldn`t the take the A.C.L.U. to task for going after the judge[moore] and not the mayor? why in the hell is the press trying so hard to bee politicaly correct instead of telling the plain truth. Thats easy they are mostly liberaly biased and thats a fact jack. With the exeption of "talk radio" it`s a liberal media no doubt about it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

CJ,
I have no idea where you read the "news", but I assure you the mayor of SF is in all the papers I have seen in the last 4 days. How can you make a statment like
"But says or does nothing about a Mayor [S.F.] who marries gays, which is against state law"

And CJ, do Undocumented Immigrants commit robbery/rape/murder in frequency greater than Documented Immigrants or Citizens? If not, then it is likely not news, the fact they are Undocumented. The news is the Murder, not the citizenship of the killer.

 

[Erik in AK]

Buzz do you recall Election Night 2000?

Dan Rather (the father of the recount fiasco IMO) "called" the election for Gore at 7:08 EST...thats 4:08 Pacific Time (can you smell where this one's going?) California had Gore up by 12 points with 4 hours left. The commuter vote had just started their way home.

I've read your posts, you're a smart guy. Smart enough to know about the political phenomenon known as the "band wagon". Why is it that so many people, right now, today, will fiercely assert that they've been Patriots fans for years? Cuz they won the Stupor Bowl thats why. Same thing in politics. Fence sitters will and do cross party lines to back a winner.

Ol' stone face, above reproach, icon of journalism Dan is as liberal in his personal politics as the day is long and the world knows it. IMO Dan called the election for the guy he wnated knowing full well his power to influence public opinion.

The media went after Catherine Harris' clothes, make-up and hair instead of telling us that the reason the third recount extension was denied is because it DID NOT COMPLY WITH FLORIDA'S ELECTION LAW. She was a Republican and so she MUST be trying to sabotage a Gore presidency. The media down-played the Gore camp's law suit to have all(thats ALL) oversees military absentee votes thrown out. They reported it but they packaged(CNN-I watched) it as a de-facto GOP assisted assault on Gore due to the (minor) political reality that military votes are usually skewed in favor of the GOP.

Leslie Stahl came to Prudhoe Bay to interview my Governor about ANWR. 15 minute interview and Q&A. 7 seconds of partial answers taken completely out of context is all that made it onto 60 minutes.

If a kid shoots another kid its national news. If a home owner uses a gun to defend his or her home and family it rarely gets past your local station.

Buzz your wrong on this. Like Darren said(well) and like I said (not so well) the liberals are sneaky about their mis and dis information campaign. By the way, Columbia University? You list Columbia (one of thee most liberal instutions in the history of mankind) as the source of a study on bias in journalism?

Good evening folks, this is the fox reporting to you live from the henhouse. It's a grizzly scene here, feathers everywhere. Oh the hen-manity! It seems something, or someone is eating these chickens. Whats that? Sounds..like..barking. Yes, its barking. Definately a dog barking. So we have a dog in the vicinity of the crime and its a well known fact that dogs have been known on occasion to eat a chicken or two. As always, we at Channel Zero, your #1 vested self-interest News Station, will continue to keep you up to date on this potentially canine related tragedy as the story develops. Back to you Kitty.

 

[dgibson]

Gunner, I think you've seen enough documentaries to know that "Bowling for Columbine" is not one. If you honestly buy that drivel, well, I'm sorry for you. Really.

 

[BuzzH]

Erik,

You'll never hear my argue in defense of either side of the media bunch. In my personal opinion, they're all a pretty slimmy bunch looking for the greatest shock value they can find. Further, they'll pounce on anything they think will capture the headlines...republican or democrat.

For the most part, they are all insensitive, take things out of context, and in many cases fabricate what they cant prove, ALL of them.

But, from what I see, there is enough liberal and conservative news and associated shock jocks to balance each other out. To say the news slants more one way than the other...well, I think its selective hearing on the viewer/listeners part...

 

[dgibson]

How can you selectively not hear what wasn't said?

 

[BuzzH]

dgibson, be honest, how much effort has your group went through to make the news with their conservation program?

In all the places I've lived conservation efforts make the news, its an important issue in the West.

If you wait for the media to come to you...you might wait a long time, unless you own a humidor and like interns....

 

[dgibson]

Most around here don't bother trying any more, you're right about that. They've been brick-walled so many times that they have given up, which is a damned shame. But it's not just locally we're talking about. The RMEF was recently awarded one of (or THE?) largest legacies ever recorded in the form of that land in NM or wherever it was. That's pretty significant news, and an excellent win for the wildlife in that area...how much of that story did you see in the mainstream news media?

You're right about them going for sensationalism, though. If they think they can shock the viewers with a story it'll lead for sure.

 

[cjcj]

Gunner you have to be kidding me, Where have you seen anyone in the tv/print media calling for the arrest of the mayor of San. Francisco? He has violated the law Right? in fact he went "overboard" to break the law by ordering mass gay marriage, but where is the ACLU ? the press shows the mayor and the gays getting married [thats true] but isn`t it their "responcability" to stress that it is against the law? They didn`t stop from showing judge Moore as a lawbreaker on the ten commandments issue did they? he was even removed from the bench right? Shouldn`t we have equal justice for all? Why procecute judge Moore and not the mayor of Frisco? Its the same way the press presents "hate crimes" white on black/or any minority it`s a "hate crime" but the other way around and it`s not.

 

[Ten Bears]

Good write ERIK, CJ.

 

[MarlandS]

A couple of weeks ago one of the big three news agencies had an article on their website admitting to a liberal slant to their stories , I hope I can find it...

 

[MarlandS]

I haven't found it yet but here's a quote from Tom Brokaw http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1057627/posts
Brokaw suggests there is no such thing as liberal media bias ... and then asserts that liberal bias is an "obligation" of journalism. Journalists should "represent the views of those who are underrepresented in the social context, or the political context, and to make sure that they're not overlooked, and that their wrongs get the bright light of journalistic sunshine."

John Stossel on ABC's website.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/John_Stossel_QA_040126.html

Several others, just need Google and the parameters "liberal slant", networks or "liberal bias" , networks to find information from both sides of the debate, unfortunately for the liberals the hardest facts come from their own kind.