The media bias is really...

[spiderman]

...getting out of control these days.

I usually try to stay away from this topic, but the coverage of the RNC is really making me want to puke.

For example,
Does anyone ever go on Boston.com???

Yesterday their headline was "Cheney takes dramatic negative tone!" or something like that.

Today if you go on there they have a picture of a bunch of protesters with a headline along the lines of "Thousands Protest during Bush Speech!"

When Kerry gave his acceptance speech did they have a headline that said "Thousands didn't watch or care!"

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
...getting out of control these days.

I usually try to stay away from this topic, but the coverage of the RNC is really making me want to puke.

For example,
Does anyone ever go on Boston.com???

Yesterday their headline was "Cheney takes dramatic negative tone!" or something like that.

Today if you go on there they have a picture of a bunch of protesters with a headline along the lines of "Thousands Protest during Bush Speech!"

When Kerry gave his acceptance speech did they have a headline that said "Thousands didn't watch or care!"

And for the flip side of the coin, go to the Boston Herald, which has been running a down and dirty smear campaign against Kerry.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
And for the flip side of the coin, go to the Boston Herald, which has been running a down and dirty smear campaign against Kerry.

So you are basically, putting the Globe (aka Boston.com) and the Herald on the same playing field?

The problem with what you are saying bideau is that a paper like, The Boston Herald, is labelled as having a conservative slant, much like say, the Washington Times. Whereas, The Boston Globe and the New York Times are supposedly just "the news".

So when I pick up the Globe I'm expecting impartiality, when I pick up the Washington Times I expect a conservative slant.

Instead, I go on Boston.com looking for coverage of Bush's speech and instead the focus is on the "thousands of protesters"...ridiculous They could at least be a little less obvious.

[Ballbustah]

If you think the Globe does not have a Republican slant you need some schooling.

Stop getting your nose all bent out of shape because someone says something you disagree with. It will continue through your entire life.

I have always voted republican... but maybe this year will be different... I think George W Bush may be a dumb dumb.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
If you think the Globe does not have a Republican slant you need some schooling.

Stop getting your nose all bent out of shape because someone says something you disagree with. It will continue through your entire life.

I have always voted republican... but maybe this year will be different... I think George W Bush may be a dumb dumb. I guess I need some schooling then, because I think they are about as liberal as the NY Times (who owns the Globe by the way).
________
marijuana (http://marijuanahemp.com)

[Ballbustah]

You just might....
Take a look at the headlines over the past millenium...

[bideau]

The Globe has a very solid reputation as a liberal newspaper. Have they ever endorsed a Republican?

They have one token conservative columnist (Jeff Jacoby, who is VERY far right).

[Ballbustah]

OK... I got them mixed up then....
But is the Globe liberal or just news?

[bideau]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
OK... I got them mixed up then....
But is the Globe liberal or just news?

Well, that was the point of Spider's complaint. He's assumed that the Globe was more middle of the road.

Now, compared to the Herald, they're definitely more moderate. The Herald is so over the top right wing, that only Gerry Callahan can read it (although the sports page is decent and not political, except for Callahan's articles).

But the Globe has always been left leaning. They just don't have screaming headlines like the Herald does. It's possible that the Globe could become less "moderate" in order to balance the Herald.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
The Globe has a very solid reputation as a liberal newspaper. Have they ever endorsed a Republican?

They have one token conservative columnist (Jeff Jacoby, who is VERY far right).

When I was a freshman poli sci major in college I was told to get my news from the Boston Globe, Washington Post, NY Times, and LA Times, now you're telling me that the Boston Globe is "liberal"???

That's my problem, for years these newspapers were passed off as "the news" whereas other sources, i.e. The Washington Times were described as the "conservative" news.

I guess I should be glad that you are adimitting that the Globe is the liberal news, but honestly, I really wish there actually was a paper I could read that at least TRIED to provide me with just "the news".

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by spiderman
When I was a freshman poli sci major in college I was told to get my news from the Boston Globe, Washington Post, NY Times, and LA Times, now you're telling me that the Boston Globe is "liberal"???

That's my problem, for years these newspapers were passed off as "the news" whereas other sources, i.e. The Washington Times were described as the "conservative" news.

I guess I should be glad that you are adimitting that the Globe is the liberal news, but honestly, I really wish there actually was a paper I could read that at least TRIED to provide me with just "the news".

There was a recent PEW Center Poll (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829) that showed that the press, in general, is more liberal than the average American.

This is not inherently bad, however, it does suggest that the reporting of news may have tilt to the left.

I'm not suggesting that Editors and reporters are making a deliberate effort to put a liberal twist on the news.

They must make judgments on what stories and what parts of a story are most important.

These will have prominent position in their reports and the other parts will have minimal or be left out due to time or room.

It is impossible for any human to totally set aside their own attitudes and beliefs when making these decisions.

[jim_vh]

the pew trust is a far right organization that probably thinks william buckley is too wishy washy. i am sick of hearing all the right wing whining about the so called liberal press, it sounds like you guys are a bunch of oakland fumble-whiners or indy pas-int whiners.

the people who read the news on the air are probably more liberal than the general public in foreign policy and cultural issues. but their economic interests are with the right.

if the press were liberal - or even neutral - you would be seeing them concentrate full time on w's performance during vietnam rather than kerry's, on w's business dealings where he swindled his investors, and on his drugs and alcohol days during his youth where he was juiced up and high on cocaine.

the right wingers want kerry's days in vietnam to be in the news full time and that is what they are getting. and they are doihng it with a bunch of slanderous garbage that all the evidence shows is false.

[dchester]

Originally posted by jim_vh
the pew trust is a far right organization that probably thinks william buckley is too wishy washy. i am sick of hearing all the right wing whining about the so called liberal press, it sounds like you guys are a bunch of oakland fumble-whiners or indy pas-int whiners. Well, I am sick of hearing the left wing whining about people pointing out that the press has a liberal bias, so there.
:D

the people who read the news on the air are probably more liberal than the general public in foreign policy and cultural issues. but their economic interests are with the right. I agree with you about them being liberal on foreign policy and social issues. I don't agree that they are with the right on economic issues, although the Sr. Mgmt (VPs, CEOs, etc.) may be.

if the press were liberal - or even neutral - you would be seeing them concentrate full time on w's performance during vietnam rather than kerry's, on w's business dealings where he swindled his investors, and on his drugs and alcohol days during his youth where he was juiced up and high on cocaine. Gee, how was it that you found out about all this without the aid of the press? I've seen plenty of articles about Bush's service in the Air Guard, as well as articles about his youthful indiscretions. I will admit that I haven't seen much about your claims that he swindled investors.

the right wingers want kerry's days in vietnam to be in the news full time and that is what they are getting. and they are doihng it with a bunch of slanderous garbage that all the evidence shows is false. Kerry's dilemma is that he was the one that initially made a big deal out of his service in Vietnam. He was the one that over sold it, and as a result, he has to deal with the backlash from others claiming that it wasn't all he said. However, Kerry's service in Vietnam is not a negative to me. It's what he did afterwards, talking about war crimes, that is my issue. Was he a war hero, as he says now (and since he served in war, I'm fine with that), or is he a war criminal, as he implied right after he left the Navy?

BTW, the war crimes speeches he made after he left the Navy, are why those Swift Boat people have so much venom against him. I take what the Swift Boat people say with a grain of salt, because it's clear they hate Kerry. I will say that the reason they hate Kerry is a pretty good one, as his war crimes speeches, besmirched their honorable service in Vietnam.
________
vaporizer review (http://vaporizers.net/)

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by jim_vh
the pew trust is a far right organization that probably thinks william buckley is too wishy washy.

The results they provided are the following.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/214-35.gif

Asking people if they view themselves liberal, moderate, or conservative strikes me as a very simple question.

I don't see how the political perspective of the questioner has any bearing on the topic.

[jim_vh]

Originally posted by dchester
Well, I am sick of hearing the left wing whining about people pointing out that the press has a liberal bias, so there.
:D

I agree with you about them being liberal on foreign policy and social issues. I don't agree that they are with the right on economic issues, although the Sr. Mgmt (VPs, CEOs, etc.) may be.

Gee, how was it that you found out about all this without the aid of the press? I've seen plenty of articles about Bush's service in the Air Guard, as well as articles about his youthful indiscretions. I will admit that I haven't seen much about your claims that he swindled investors.

Kerry's dilemma is that he was the one that initially made a big deal out of his service in Vietnam. He was the one that over sold it, and as a result, he has to deal with the backlash from others claiming that it wasn't all he said. However, Kerry's service in Vietnam is not a negative to me. It's what he did afterwards, talking about war crimes, that is my issue. Was he a war hero, as he says now (and since he served in war, I'm fine with that), or is he a war criminal, as he implied right after he left the Navy?

BTW, the war crimes speeches he made after he left the Navy, are why those Swift Boat people have so much venom against him. I take what the Swift Boat people say with a grain of salt, because it's clear they hate Kerry. I will say that the reason they hate Kerry is a pretty good one, as his war crimes speeches, besmirched their honorable service in Vietnam.

dubya = martha stewart only more so (http://tinyurl.com/4f476)

i don' think kerry oversold his service in vietnam. dubya used his connections to get out of service and hid out in the natl guard like dan quayle did. kerry volunteered for combat in vietnam, and then volunteered for dangerous duty when he was there.

when you see kerry testifying about war crimes, what you DON'T see is that he was quoting other vietnam vets who had testified that they had seen and committed war crimes. kerry did not personally accuse anyone of war crimes.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

the entire text of his testimony is here (http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp)

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by jim_vh
i don' think kerry oversold his service in vietnam.

http://www.rockwoodcomic.com/toons/04-0903.GIF

[spiderman]

Originally posted by O_P_T
There was a recent PEW Center Poll (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829) that showed that the press, in general, is more liberal than the average American.

This is not inherently bad, however, it does suggest that the reporting of news may have tilt to the left.

I'm not suggesting that Editors and reporters are making a deliberate effort to put a liberal twist on the news.

They must make judgments on what stories and what parts of a story are most important.

These will have prominent position in their reports and the other parts will have minimal or be left out due to time or room.

It is impossible for any human to totally set aside their own attitudes and beliefs when making these decisions.

I completely argree with this.

Bias is fine as long as they are making an effort to deliver the news "correctly". I'm not so sure that this is the case today.

[spiderman]

Here we go again.

The rehashing of whether or not Bush served all of his reserve time is rearing it's ugly head again.

And who's doing it? Some independently funded group like swift vets for the truth?

Why NO, it's ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, The Boston Globe, etc.


OH! THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!:rolleyes:

[jim_vh]

Originally posted by spiderman
Here we go again.

The rehashing of whether or not Bush served all of his reserve time is rearing it's ugly head again.

And who's doing it? Some independently funded group like swift vets for the truth?

Why NO, it's ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, The Boston Globe, etc.


OH! THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!:rolleyes:

so when some media actually does their job for a forking change and reports the news instead their usual pattern of taking handouts from the whitehouse all of a sudden they are *gasp* the liberal media?


http://tinyurl.com/4c3ju

Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service --
first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of
his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed
documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-
up to active duty.


i guess you prefer the "swift boat bush funded liars to win an election" type news full time. you ever hear of roger ailes? what do you think he is doing with fox news?

[O_P_T]

It might be appropriate if everyone followed the advice given in this speach.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

Who said this?

John Kerry (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004646) Feb. 27, 1992.

[spiderman]

Wait, you're telling me that John Kerry changed his stance on something???

:LOL:

That's me laughing at the people who compare privately funded groups like the swift vets to the mainstream press.

Oh and by "mainstream press" I mean "John Kerry propaganda machine".

I've always known that organizations like the Boston Globe were left wing, but for them to actually retaliate against a group like the swift vets is truly disgusting.

Somebody needs to remind these people that there job is to provide the American people with "the news" not "their agenda". I also have no respect for the people who are choosing to look the other way, because it may be helping their candidate.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by jim_vh
so when some media actually does their job for a forking change and reports the news instead their usual pattern of taking handouts from the whitehouse all of a sudden they are *gasp* the liberal media?


http://tinyurl.com/4c3ju

Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service --
first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of
his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed
documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-
up to active duty.
I can't believe a Kerry supporter would bother bringing this up. After all, after Kerry left the active service, he by the UCMJ, is required to give several years in the reserves. During that time, he met in Paris with the North Vietnamese delegation, which is a crime carrying a mandatory prison sentence (a petty officer meeting with the enemy without prior authorization.)

Also, considering that during the time in which he was required to be in the reserves he was heavily involved with VVAW or whatever, I wonder what his attendance record for his 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year was. Medals aside, I wonder what his Fitness Reports say? You know, the ones he won't release, that are actually reports from his COs about his performance as a petty officer?

NONE OF THIS MATTERS! What matters is who you think is better fit to guide the country through the next 4 years.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
NONE OF THIS MATTERS! What matters is who you think is better fit to guide the country through the next 4 years.

AMEN Brother - I couldn't agree with you more. I've heard so much of this claptrap from both sides that when something comes up about it on TV (commercials, news, etc.) I don't even really hear what they're saying.

If, God forbid, they ever start talking about what they are going to do if elected, then I'll listen. That hasn't happened too much though.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
I can't believe a Kerry supporter would bother bringing this up. After all, after Kerry left the active service, he by the UCMJ, is required to give several years in the reserves. During that time, he met in Paris with the North Vietnamese delegation, which is a crime carrying a mandatory prison sentence (a petty officer meeting with the enemy without prior authorization.)

Also, considering that during the time in which he was required to be in the reserves he was heavily involved with VVAW or whatever, I wonder what his attendance record for his 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year was. Medals aside, I wonder what his Fitness Reports say? You know, the ones he won't release, that are actually reports from his COs about his performance as a petty officer?

NONE OF THIS MATTERS! What matters is who you think is better fit to guide the country through the next 4 years.

This whole thing makes me laugh. But what is really funny, is that, most people don't know ANYTHING about GW's service. For example, my father-in-law thought that he served a few weekends and then disappeared. Which is exactly the way the Boston Globe is portraying his service. In fact, my father-in-law didn't even realize that GW ws a jet pilot. Unbelievable.

Anyways, this article states what has been bugging me about this whole thing. GW spent YEARS on active duty, and spent many, many days serving on reserve duty.

To imply otherwise is ridiculous.

http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

I do agree with you that we should be talking about the present. But you have to ask yourself, who keeps bringing up 30 years ago?

Hint: It isn't GW!!!

[dropKickMurphy]

I don't think Bush's military service is an issue. He never used it as a campaign issue, either in 2000 or 2004. He's running on his record as President, not on what happened more than 30 years ago.

Kerry, on the other hand, tried to define himself as a war hero during this campaign. The only things that people have heard from him are :

"Bush was wrong to go to war in Iraq" (even though Kerry voted for it when the polls showed him it was a popular position to take)

"The Bush Administration is curbing our civil liberties" (exactly what actions he would have taken...other than 'discussing it with France'... to prevent another terrorist attack, he never says)

"I'm a Real-Live War Hero...I even have the Home Movies to prove it!!!" (I guess we can let the record speak for itself).

The mainstream media branch of the Democratic Party, while condemning the "vicious attacks" of the Swiftboat veterans, have been falling over themselves to portray Bush's National Guard service as a campaign issue.
The irony is that that policy is about to explode in their faces. Not only do the American people not care about what GWB did or didn't do in the Guard; but CBS is now on the verge of a major embarassment. It's becoming apparant that the documents upon which CBS News based its Sixty Minutes expose on GWB's Guard service were forgeries. CBS is scrambling to cover their a$$es, but it appears they will be forced to issue a full retraction of the story.
Now how will they deny the political agenda of CBS News? It's clear that they were so anxious to bring down Bush that they ignored any standards of journalistic integrity. To run with this story without even bothering to check the authenticity of the documents, destroys the last remaining bits of their credibility.

[spiderman]

Dropkick,

The DNC has a new memo out that asks a bunch of questions about GW's service.

I took the time to answer them.

Why did George Bush say "I did my duty" when he missed months of duty in 1972, 73 and 74?

What does this have to do with 2004?

How did George Bush avoid getting called into active service for missing months of duty in 1972, 73, and 74?

What does this have to do with 2004?

Why did George Bush disobey a direct order to take his physical?

What does this have to do with 2004?

What standard did George Bush fail to meet when he was grounded for failing to perform at US Air Force/Texas Air National Guard Standards?

What does this have to do with 2004?

Why did George Bush go above his commander's head to ensure a favorable evaluation he had not earned?

What does this have to do with 2004?

Why did George Bush say he received "no special treatment" when Ben Barnes says he pulled strings to secure a Guard slot for him?

What does this have to do with 2004?

Who asked Bush family friend Sidney Adger to get Bush a slot in the Guard immediately after Bush graduated and at the height of the Vietnam War?

What does this have to do with 2004?

When will George Bush produce any credible witness who can attest to his service in the Alabama Air National Guard?

What does this have to do with 2004?

[Ballbustah]

Many people may not care about GWB military record.
Some may...
He may have used his father’s influence to steer clear of Vietnam. Not good when my brother was over there for 2 years risking his life.
My brother got a purple heart and as far as I can tell they do not give them out without due consideration.

I have voted Republican all my life. From day one when Ronald Rayguns gave me a 12% raise while serving my time in the military. I just turned 18 and had not yet voted. But I knew who to vote for in the future.
GW bothers me the way he makes decisions. He has put people in charge that are Bible thumping bureaucrats that are taking away our freedom and liberties. We are supposed to be growing as a people becoming smarter and learning from experience. But I feel like GW has stunted our growth in that area. It’s almost like we have to live up to his standards. No drinking… No Howard Stern on the Radio… No Janet Jackson Boobies.

I have no confidence in GW… I don’t really have much confidence in Kerry either but I might vote for him. We need to get GW out of the white house. Before he re-institutes the draft and pulls us all down with him.


In answer to what does this have to do with 2004?
If you shirk responsibility once... You can bet you will do it again.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
In answer to what does this have to do with 2004?
If you shirk responsibility once... You can bet you will do it again.

And if you lied about being in Cambodia when you weren't...You can bet you will do it again.


Fair enough?

[dchester]

I don't know if this would be considered media bias, or media incompetence, but it looks like those documents that CBS came up with that put Bush's service in question, are fake.

False Documentation? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html)

Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush?s Guard Service

Sept. 10, 2004 ? Questions are being raised about the authenticity of newly discovered documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Marjorie Connell ? widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the reported author of memos suggesting that Bush did not meet the standards for the Texas Air National Guard ? questioned whether the documents were real.

. . .

Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter.

The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available ? indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
________
Mazda G platform specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_G_platform)

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
He has put people in charge that are Bible thumping bureaucrats that are taking away our freedom and liberties.

How? No one that I have asked that of yet has been able to give a rational explanation.

I know the last administration attacked the 2nd and 4th amendments, repeatedly. I'd say that if you can point to specific amendments of the Bill of Rights you have a good argument so what rights are they trying to take away?

[spiderman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271922/

think CBS news will run a story on these guys?

[spiderman]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6477832?rnd=1096372363051&has-player=false


This is my favorite line:


I think that Fox News and the Republican right have intimidated the press into an incredible self-consciousness about appearing objective

So Bruce, pressuring the major media outlets into be "objective" is bad in your view? Or is it that you liked it better when agencies like CBS news could push there liberal agenda unchecked?

[Ballbustah]

Pretty quiet in here....
I can hear an echo.
I guess people stopped listening to the jibber jabber.