Discussion:
What Liberal Media? (NDC)
(too old to reply)
GrtflMark
2004-08-31 01:10:50 UTC
Permalink
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml

Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says

(CNSNews.com) - A Reuters news service editor sent an e-mail to a pro-life
group last week, criticizing the group's stance on abortion as well as its
support of the Bush administration. The angry email has prompted the pro-life
group to question the editor's journalistic integrity.

According to the National Right to Life Committee, the email came "out of the
blue" from Todd Eastham, a news editor for Reuters. Eastham was responding to a
press release that the National Right to Life Committee sent to hundreds of
news outlets after a federal judge in New York struck down a ban on partial
birth abortion.

Eastham's email read as follows: "What's your plan for parenting & educating
all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay
for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when
you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been
earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?"

Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director,
called it "sad but revealing to see an editor for a major news service so
casually and gratuitously express such blatant hostility to both the Bush
administration and to the right to life of unborn children.

"Apparently, Mr. Eastham feels strongly that abortion is necessary to prevent
the birth of children who will otherwise snatch some bread from his mouth,"
said Johnson. "We can only wonder at how such vehement opinions may color Mr.
Eastham's reporting or editing on subjects such as abortion and the Bush
administration."

At the bottom of Eastham's email is a statement that reads: "Any views
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the
sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd."

That "boilerplate material" invites Eastham's readers to visit the Reuters
website, Johnson noted. Johnson said he did visit the website, where he found a
Reuters' editorial policy, which said, "Reuters journalists do not offer their
own opinions or views."

The press release sent out last week by the National Right to Life Committee
followed U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey's ruling last week on the
partial-birth abortion ban, which President Bush signed into law last year.

Casey struck down the ban as unconstitutional, based on a 2000 U.S. Supreme
Court ruling that said laws banning certain types of abortions must include an
exception for the health of the mother. Although Casey struck down the partial
birth abortion ban, he also called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric,
and uncivilized."

"Future appointments to the Supreme Court will determine whether it remains
legal to mostly deliver living premature infants and painfully puncture their
skulls," the NRLC's Johnson said in a statement last week.

"President Bush is determined to ban partial-birth abortion, but [Democratic
presidential nominee] John Kerry voted against the ban and has vowed that he
will appoint only justices who agree with him," he added.

Johnson pointed out that Kerry voted against passing the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act "every chance he got - six times." In contrast, President Bush signed
the bill on Nov. 5, 2003, saying that in partial-birth abortion "a terrible
form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth."


The Bush administration is defending the law in three separate legal challenges
in three different federal courts.Federal courts in both New York and San
Francisco have struck down the law, and a judge in Lincoln, Neb., has not yet
issued a ruling.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Send to a Friend
Mark {AntiParty)
2004-08-31 02:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml
Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says
<Big -ol- Snip of equally sad and equally revealing partisan political
tripe.>


Just where DID this, "Liberal Media" thing come from anyhow?

I don't watch the news very much (too depressingly annoying) any more,
but what I do see is MUCH more conservative than liberal. Not to be
confused (as I was) with Libertarian as I'm only NOW finding out thanx
to a kind poster in another thread in here. When I was a lot more pro-Bush
than I am now, I always felt better about being so after watching the news.
And I used to watch ALL the channels available on my cable service. That in
itself is pretty astonishing. Before 9-1-1 I'd sooner ram one of Mickey's
drum
sticks up my nose sideways than sit there bored to tears watching the boring
-ol- news & dull, lifeless talking heads. ;-)

But, "Liberal (small 'l') Media"?

I don't get it?

Peace,
Mark
--
Disclaimer:
---------------------------
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
If you require proof that there are stars in
the sky on a cloudy night, that is your problem.
If you want proof of something I said, find it yourself.
Neil Krueger
2004-08-31 02:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
Post by GrtflMark
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml
Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says
<Big -ol- Snip of equally sad and equally revealing partisan political
tripe.>
Just where DID this, "Liberal Media" thing come from anyhow?
I don't watch the news very much (too depressingly annoying) any more,
but what I do see is MUCH more conservative than liberal. Not to be
confused (as I was) with Libertarian as I'm only NOW finding out thanx
to a kind poster in another thread in here. When I was a lot more pro-Bush
than I am now, I always felt better about being so after watching the news.
And I used to watch ALL the channels available on my cable service. That in
itself is pretty astonishing. Before 9-1-1 I'd sooner ram one of Mickey's
drum
sticks up my nose sideways than sit there bored to tears watching the boring
-ol- news & dull, lifeless talking heads. ;-)
But, "Liberal (small 'l') Media"?
I don't get it?
The media as a whole is moderate. Liberals decry its conservatism,
conservatives decry its liberalism. The continual drumbeat of "The media is
liberal" comes from folks so conservative that moderate viewpoints look
extreme-left to them. But there is no doubt that the conservative viewpoint
is expressed far more often, and far more effectively by the media than the
liberal one.

FoxNews is a perfect example of a conservative, not a moderate, media voice.
The supposedly "Fair and Balanced" folks at FoxNews are run by Roger Ailes,
who was one of Reagan's highly effective political hatchetmen in the 80s.
You ought to take a look at the documentary "Outfoxed", it's very
illuminative about the tactics used by Fox. But even outside of Fox, the
views expressed at most other networks qualify as moderate, not liberal.
Unfortunately, there is no true liberal voice in cable to counterbalance
Fox. There are indeed several truly liberal newspapers out there, and many
conservative ones. But fewer and fewer people are getting their information
from newspapers; they are becoming irrelevant.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

Peace,
Neil X.
GrtflMark
2004-08-31 03:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: What Liberal Media? (NDC)
Date: 8/30/2004 9:44 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
Post by GrtflMark
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml
Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says
tripe.>
Just where DID this, "Liberal Media" thing come from anyhow?
I don't watch the news very much (too depressingly annoying) any more,
but what I do see is MUCH more conservative than liberal. Not to be
confused (as I was) with Libertarian as I'm only NOW finding out thanx
to a kind poster in another thread in here. When I was a lot more pro-Bush
than I am now, I always felt better about being so after watching the
news.
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
And I used to watch ALL the channels available on my cable service. That
in
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
itself is pretty astonishing. Before 9-1-1 I'd sooner ram one of Mickey's
drum
sticks up my nose sideways than sit there bored to tears watching the
boring
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
-ol- news & dull, lifeless talking heads. ;-)
But, "Liberal (small 'l') Media"?
I don't get it?
The media as a whole is moderate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Yesh, that's why a recent poll showed that journalists outside the DC Beltway
support Kerry by 3-to-1, and by 12-to-1 INSIDE the Beltway!!

That's why a previous poll showed that over 93% of journalists inside the
belway describe themselves as "liberal", and over 80% ourside the beltway make
the same claim.....

....they are liberal to a fault - more bullshit and spin from you, Neil - you
lie like a Clinton!!
Mark {AntiParty)
2004-08-31 04:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
Subject: Re: What Liberal Media? (NDC)
Date: 8/30/2004 9:44 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
Post by GrtflMark
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml
Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says
But, "Liberal (small 'l') Media"?
I don't get it?
The media as a whole is moderate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Yesh, that's why a recent poll showed that journalists outside the DC Beltway
support Kerry by 3-to-1, and by 12-to-1 INSIDE the Beltway!!
That's why a previous poll showed that over 93% of journalists inside the
belway describe themselves as "liberal", and over 80% ourside the beltway make
the same claim.....
Even if that were true it would still be irrelevant. Of those many
journalists, most
never get on the air themselves or have much of a say in what stories get
printed
and what stories are left out (Intentionally?) There's a big difference
between those
who *get* the news and those who *give* it to you and I.

Peace,
Mark
--
Disclaimer:
---------------------------
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
If you require proof that there are stars in
the sky on a cloudy night, that is your problem.
If you want proof of something I said, find it yourself.
Ray Lee
2004-08-31 14:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
Post by Neil Krueger
The media as a whole is moderate.
He's right, you know.
Post by GrtflMark
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Yesh, that's why a recent poll showed that journalists outside the DC Beltway
support Kerry by 3-to-1, and by 12-to-1 INSIDE the Beltway!!
You are aware that the informal 'poll' that you are referring to has
no scientific validity, and thus "showed" no such thing, aren't you?

As someone who has claims to have formal education in statistics, you
should be well aware of that fact.
Post by GrtflMark
That's why a previous poll showed that over 93% of journalists inside the
belway describe themselves as "liberal", and over 80% ourside the beltway make
the same claim.....
Cite your source.

For our viewing audience at home, here's an example of how Grtfl "I'm
being oppressed" Mark has incorrectly and grossly misrepresented this
Post by GrtflMark
it's been statistically documented by The Freedom Forum that 67% of all
Newspaper Editors classify their political orientation as "Moderate to
Liberal", as opposed to only 25% of Newspaper editors who classify their
political orientation at Moderate to Conservative.....for Washington D.C.
Editors and Journalists it's even more dramatic: 91% characterize their
political orientation as "Moderate to Liberal " - with 22% being far
liberal....as opposed to only 9% that characterize their political orientation
as "Moderate to Conservative"
Here's what GrtflMark is referring to, from The Freedom Forum's 1996
"Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress
& the Media" report:

________________________________

139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents
completed a 58 question survey by mail in November-December 1995... a
very similar survey was completed by 100 newspaper editors.

Washington reporter results are first followed by the editors in ():
Q: "How would you characterize your political orientation?"

Liberal: 22% (9%)
Liberal to moderate: 39% (23%)
Moderate: 30% (35%)
Moderate to conservative: 7% (19%)
Conservative: 2% (6%)

________________________________


Here's how, per his wording above, Grtfl "I'm being oppressed" Mark
incorrectly and grossly misrepresented the same stats:

"Far" Liberal: 22%
Liberal to moderate: 91% (67%)
Moderate to conservative: 9% (25%)

GrtflMark's incorrect and grossly misleading stats presented those who
characterized themselves as "Liberal" and "Moderate" to the "Liberal
to moderate" group (22% + 39% + 30% = 91%), but only added those who
characterized themselves "Conservative" to the "Moderate to
conservative" group (2% + 7% = 9%). In addition, GrtflMark's
presentation misleadingly substituted "liberal" with "far liberal".

Ray
Randy Stoner
2004-08-31 16:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
Yesh, that's why a recent poll showed that journalists outside the DC Beltway
support Kerry by 3-to-1, and by 12-to-1 INSIDE the Beltway!!
That's why a previous poll showed that over 93% of journalists inside the
belway describe themselves as "liberal", and over 80% ourside the beltway make
the same claim.....
....they are liberal to a fault - more bullshit and spin from you, Neil - you
lie like a Clinton!!
Wait, you mean that the people who get paid to find out what's going
on in the country support Kerry 3 to 1 and those who get paid to find
out what's going on in Washington DC support him 12 to 1. Maybe we
should pay attention to them instead of paying attention to those
people who are paid to spin the facts to support a candidate? You
know people like Rush and Roger Ailes and their ilk.
nantuckets finest
2004-08-31 17:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Date: 8/31/2004 12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by GrtflMark
Yesh, that's why a recent poll showed that journalists outside the DC
Beltway
Post by GrtflMark
support Kerry by 3-to-1, and by 12-to-1 INSIDE the Beltway!!
That's why a previous poll showed that over 93% of journalists inside the
belway describe themselves as "liberal", and over 80% ourside the beltway
make
Post by GrtflMark
the same claim.....
....they are liberal to a fault - more bullshit and spin from you, Neil -
you
Post by GrtflMark
lie like a Clinton!!
Wait, you mean that the people who get paid to find out what's going
on in the country support Kerry 3 to 1 and those who get paid to find
out what's going on in Washington DC support him 12 to 1. Maybe we
should pay attention to them instead of paying attention to those
people who are paid to spin the facts to support a candidate? You
know people like Rush and Roger Ailes and their ilk.
Here's an idea: we stop blaming the media for not fluffing/not fluffing our
guy/their guy, and we think for ourselves.

Imagine.

Mark
Mark {AntiParty)
2004-08-31 19:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
Date: 8/31/2004 12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Wait, you mean that the people who get paid to find out what's going
on in the country support Kerry 3 to 1 and those who get paid to find
out what's going on in Washington DC support him 12 to 1. Maybe we
should pay attention to them instead of paying attention to those
people who are paid to spin the facts to support a candidate? You
know people like Rush and Roger Ailes and their ilk.
Here's an idea: we stop blaming the media for not fluffing/not fluffing our
guy/their guy, and we think for ourselves.
Right!

That's like asking a tick to stop sucking blood, or preaching the evils
of the, "demon rum" to a practicing alcoholic just prior to rock bottom.

Not *quite* impossible though..... I figure there's a good:

.00000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000001% chance. So I
guess it *could* happen.

Peace,
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~GOT USENET?~~~~~~~~~

USENET is the *REAL* Internet.........>
The WWW is to the Internet, what the
Monkees were to Rock & Roll............>
Fluff and bubblegum...........................>
Flashy uselessness.............................>
Bells & whistles...................................>
Eye candy..........................................>
Snake oil............................................>
Tripe...................................................>

~~~~~~~~~~BYE NOW!~~~~~~~~~~
Walter Karmazyn
2004-09-01 03:47:32 UTC
Permalink
nantuckets finest wrote in message
Post by nantuckets finest
Here's an idea: we stop blaming the media for not fluffing/not fluffing our
guy/their guy, and we think for ourselves.
Imagine.
Mark
Watch it Mark, unpatriotic talk like that will get you in trouble;-)

W
nantuckets finest
2004-09-01 12:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Date: 8/31/2004 11:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
nantuckets finest wrote in message
Post by nantuckets finest
Here's an idea: we stop blaming the media for not fluffing/not fluffing our
guy/their guy, and we think for ourselves.
Imagine.
Mark
Watch it Mark, unpatriotic talk like that will get you in trouble;-)
W
I'm already a nitwit, what more could happen?

Mark
Mark {AntiParty)
2004-08-31 04:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
Post by GrtflMark
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml
Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says
<Big -ol- Snip of equally sad and equally revealing partisan political
tripe.>
Just where DID this, "Liberal Media" thing come from anyhow?
I don't watch the news very much (too depressingly annoying) any more,
but what I do see is MUCH more conservative than liberal. Not to be
confused (as I was) with Libertarian as I'm only NOW finding out thanx
to a kind poster in another thread in here. When I was a lot more pro-Bush
than I am now, I always felt better about being so after watching the news.
But, "Liberal (small 'l') Media"?
I don't get it?
The media as a whole is moderate. Liberals decry its conservatism,
conservatives decry its liberalism. The continual drumbeat of "The media is
liberal" comes from folks so conservative that moderate viewpoints look
extreme-left to them. But there is no doubt that the conservative viewpoint
is expressed far more often, and far more effectively by the media than the
liberal one.
FoxNews is a perfect example of a conservative, not a moderate,
media voice. The supposedly "Fair and Balanced" folks
I get a kick out of that title.
It's more like conservative damage control trying to counteract the
shots fired by liberals.
Post by Neil Krueger
at FoxNews are run by Roger Ailes,
who was one of Reagan's highly effective political hatchetmen in the 80s.
You ought to take a look at the documentary "Outfoxed", it's very
illuminative about the tactics used by Fox.
I will.
Post by Neil Krueger
But even outside of Fox, the
views expressed at most other networks qualify as moderate, not liberal.
Unfortunately, there is no true liberal voice in cable to counterbalance
Fox.
I get the feeling it wouldn't last long even if it were attempted.
You know how some of the things put out there by liberals thus
far to attack bush with have been considered by the Right to be
"Anti-American" or "UN-American". Hell, at one point *I* was starting
to believe it until stepped back and realized how dumb a viewpoint that
really
is. Real or imagined, no big tv stations and/or news networks are going
to risk being labled anti American. Sad eh? PC all the way.
Post by Neil Krueger
tried to There are indeed several truly liberal newspapers out there,
and many conservative ones.
I get one every morning. The Waterbury Republican. ;-)
Post by Neil Krueger
But fewer and fewer people are getting their information
from newspapers; they are becoming irrelevant.
#Right! Cable news and the internet are the most trust worthy
sources for accurate information about important world events.#
Post by Neil Krueger
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Thanx.

Peace,
Mark
--
Disclaimer:
---------------------------
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
If you require proof that there are stars in
the sky on a cloudy night, that is your problem.
If you want proof of something I said, find it yourself.
JimK
2004-08-31 04:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Mark {AntiParty)
Post by GrtflMark
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200408/CUL20040830b.shtml
Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says
<Big -ol- Snip of equally sad and equally revealing partisan political
tripe.>
Just where DID this, "Liberal Media" thing come from anyhow?
I don't watch the news very much (too depressingly annoying) any more,
but what I do see is MUCH more conservative than liberal. Not to be
confused (as I was) with Libertarian as I'm only NOW finding out thanx
to a kind poster in another thread in here. When I was a lot more pro-Bush
than I am now, I always felt better about being so after watching the news.
And I used to watch ALL the channels available on my cable service. That in
itself is pretty astonishing. Before 9-1-1 I'd sooner ram one of Mickey's
drum
sticks up my nose sideways than sit there bored to tears watching the boring
-ol- news & dull, lifeless talking heads. ;-)
But, "Liberal (small 'l') Media"?
I don't get it?
The media as a whole is moderate. Liberals decry its conservatism,
conservatives decry its liberalism. The continual drumbeat of "The media is
liberal" comes from folks so conservative that moderate viewpoints look
extreme-left to them. But there is no doubt that the conservative viewpoint
is expressed far more often, and far more effectively by the media than the
liberal one.
FoxNews is a perfect example of a conservative, not a moderate, media voice.
The supposedly "Fair and Balanced" folks at FoxNews are run by Roger Ailes,
who was one of Reagan's highly effective political hatchetmen in the 80s.
You ought to take a look at the documentary "Outfoxed", it's very
illuminative about the tactics used by Fox. But even outside of Fox, the
views expressed at most other networks qualify as moderate, not liberal.
Unfortunately, there is no true liberal voice in cable to counterbalance
Fox. There are indeed several truly liberal newspapers out there, and many
conservative ones. But fewer and fewer people are getting their information
from newspapers; they are becoming irrelevant.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Peace,
Neil X.
I wouldn't consider most of the media these days to be conservative,
liberal or moderate. The only thing that matters now is the ratings,
which dictate how much they can charge for commercials.

JimK
GrtflMark
2004-08-31 06:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: What Liberal Media? (NDC)
Date: 8/30/2004 11:50 PM Central Daylight Time
I wouldn't consider most of the media these days to be conservative,
liberal or moderate. The only thing that matters now is the ratings,
which dictate how much they can charge for commercials.
JimK
....while I disagree with your overall conclusions here - this is some of the
most right-on, accurate and honest stuff you've posted, the networks and news
services certainly put the highest level of importance on ratings - but the
dramatic shift towards the liberal bias is still there..... perhaps
"conservative" news is more boring and less sensationalistic than things that
favor the "liberal" side....
Chairman of the Bored
2004-08-31 02:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for posting, Murk. Good stuff.

Thank heavens for good conservatives like you and Ed Schrock.
2004-09-01 11:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Add this one to your media bias file, Mark. This is the Editor of Editor
and Publisher emploring the NP guys to embrace a pullout of Iraq.

When Will the First Major Newspaper Call for a Pullout in Iraq?
The once unthinkable suddenly becomes thinkable.
By Greg Mitchell
Editors and Publishers
May 07, 2004

After a month of uprisings in Iraq, an unexpected hike in U.S.
casualties, and a prison abuse scandal that shattered goodwill in the
Arab street, what do American newspapers have to say?

So far, not very much, at least in terms of advising our leaders how to
clean up or get out of this mess.

But then, they are not alone. Republicans have been cackling for weeks
over John Kerry's inability to distinguish his position on the war from
the president's -- after Bush agreed to bring into the picture the
United Nations, NATO and anyone else who might bail us out.

The two candidates also seem to agree that sending more U.S. troops to
Iraq might turn the tide. Most newspapers like that idea, too. Last
month an E&P survey revealed that the vast majority of America's large
newspapers favored this approach to Iraq: Stay the course.

There's no easy strategy for success, but the question is: are newspaper
editorial pages ready to sustain that position now? And if that means
calling for more troops, or remaining in Iraq at present levels
indefinitely, are they willing to accept responsibility (along with the
White House, Pentagon and Congress) for the continuing carnage and the
unmentionable expense?

This, of course, must also be considered in the context of whatever
other responsibility newspapers share for embracing the dubious pre-war
claims on weapons of mass destruction and endorsing the invasion in the
first place. In fact, one might argue that the press has a special
responsibility for helping undo the damage.

In a remarkable episode of ABC's "Nightline" last night, retired Army
Lt. General William Odom, director of the National Security Agency
during the Reagan administration, called for a phased U.S. pullout from
Iraq over the next six to nine months. And yet no major newspaper has
explored this idea.

That is not to say that calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq is the only
moral, rational or political choice. But if newspaper editors are not
going to endorse that -- then what is YOUR solution?

A month ago, few questioned that the U.S. ought to stay in Iraq. Maybe
we went to war based on lies and fabrications; but now we had to make
things right for the average citizens. As Colin Powell put it: we broke
it, we owned it, but maybe we could patch it up, or buy a better one.

Now this must be contemplated: After our military adventures of the past
month and, particularly, after Abu Ghraib, is the U.S. actually the
problem and not the solution? In other words, as hostile occupiers --
and, in some cases, torturers -- we are no longer facilitating but
possibly standing in the way of progress in Iraq.

If we are doing more harm than good, then all arguments about our duty
to stay (after we build a few dozen more hospitals and schools) become moot.

And an argument that has been out there all along -- that we should be
deploying our limited military personnel and resources against
terrorists elsewhere (who really can do us harm) -- becomes even more
pertinent.

No one should underestimate the impact of the prison torture scandal,
whether Donald Rumsfeld loses his job or not. Last month, when I
interviewed The Washington Post's Rick Atkinson for a column, he told me
that every war inevitably becomes corrupt. "Even righteous wars corrupt
soldiers," he said. Two weeks later, the pictures from Abu Ghraib appeared.

But what really got me to thinking the unthinkable -- a phased U.S.
pullout from Iraq -- was a letter that Bill Mitchell (no relation) of
Atascadero, Calif. wrote to his son's former commanding officer in Iraq.
His son, Army SSG Mike Mitchell, was killed in Iraq in early April, as I
documented in a news story last week.

In that letter, Bill wrote about the "irony" that his son "was killed by
the very people that he was liberating. This is insanity!!!" He added:
"I am having a major problem with being OK with his death under these
circumstances and I really do not believe that Iraq, the world, or the
lives of his family and friends are better due to his death." Imagine
the pain behind those lines.

Steve Chapman, in a Chicago Tribune column last weekend, played a cruel
game of logic. He applied it to Sen. Kerry's position on the war but he
could have been referring to the editorial positions of most American
newspapers.

Chapman summed up the "stay the course" predicament like this: "We can't
manage an increasingly turbulent Iraq with the forces we have. We don't
have many extra troops to send. We can't turn over security to Iraqis
because they can't be trusted. We can't get other countries to help us
out. And things keep getting worse."

Yet, he pointed out, "Democrats and Republicans agree that we have to go
on squandering American lives because we don't know what else to do."

So what do the editors of American newspapers think we should do?

Are you ready, now, to think the unthinkable? Who will be the first in
line to call for a phased withdrawal, not more troops? As with Vietnam,
one brave voice (remember Walter Cronkite on Feb. 27, 1968) may inspire
others.

And if that isn't your position -- what exactly is it?
Ray Lee
2004-09-01 20:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Add this one to your media bias file, Mark.
And how, exactly, is this an example of media "bias"?
Post by
This is the Editor of Editor
and Publisher emploring the NP guys to embrace a pullout of Iraq.
When Will the First Major Newspaper Call for a Pullout in Iraq?
The once unthinkable suddenly becomes thinkable.
By Greg Mitchell
Editors and Publishers
May 07, 2004
After a month of uprisings in Iraq, an unexpected hike in U.S.
casualties, and a prison abuse scandal that shattered goodwill in the
Arab street, what do American newspapers have to say?
So far, not very much, at least in terms of advising our leaders how to
clean up or get out of this mess.
But then, they are not alone. Republicans have been cackling for weeks
over John Kerry's inability to distinguish his position on the war from
the president's -- after Bush agreed to bring into the picture the
United Nations, NATO and anyone else who might bail us out.
The two candidates also seem to agree that sending more U.S. troops to
Iraq might turn the tide. Most newspapers like that idea, too. Last
month an E&P survey revealed that the vast majority of America's large
newspapers favored this approach to Iraq: Stay the course.
There's no easy strategy for success, but the question is: are newspaper
editorial pages ready to sustain that position now? And if that means
calling for more troops, or remaining in Iraq at present levels
indefinitely, are they willing to accept responsibility (along with the
White House, Pentagon and Congress) for the continuing carnage and the
unmentionable expense?
This, of course, must also be considered in the context of whatever
other responsibility newspapers share for embracing the dubious pre-war
claims on weapons of mass destruction and endorsing the invasion in the
first place. In fact, one might argue that the press has a special
responsibility for helping undo the damage.
In a remarkable episode of ABC's "Nightline" last night, retired Army
Lt. General William Odom, director of the National Security Agency
during the Reagan administration, called for a phased U.S. pullout from
Iraq over the next six to nine months. And yet no major newspaper has
explored this idea.
That is not to say that calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq is the only
moral, rational or political choice. But if newspaper editors are not
going to endorse that -- then what is YOUR solution?
A month ago, few questioned that the U.S. ought to stay in Iraq. Maybe
we went to war based on lies and fabrications; but now we had to make
things right for the average citizens. As Colin Powell put it: we broke
it, we owned it, but maybe we could patch it up, or buy a better one.
Now this must be contemplated: After our military adventures of the past
month and, particularly, after Abu Ghraib, is the U.S. actually the
problem and not the solution? In other words, as hostile occupiers --
and, in some cases, torturers -- we are no longer facilitating but
possibly standing in the way of progress in Iraq.
If we are doing more harm than good, then all arguments about our duty
to stay (after we build a few dozen more hospitals and schools) become moot.
And an argument that has been out there all along -- that we should be
deploying our limited military personnel and resources against
terrorists elsewhere (who really can do us harm) -- becomes even more
pertinent.
No one should underestimate the impact of the prison torture scandal,
whether Donald Rumsfeld loses his job or not. Last month, when I
interviewed The Washington Post's Rick Atkinson for a column, he told me
that every war inevitably becomes corrupt. "Even righteous wars corrupt
soldiers," he said. Two weeks later, the pictures from Abu Ghraib appeared.
But what really got me to thinking the unthinkable -- a phased U.S.
pullout from Iraq -- was a letter that Bill Mitchell (no relation) of
Atascadero, Calif. wrote to his son's former commanding officer in Iraq.
His son, Army SSG Mike Mitchell, was killed in Iraq in early April, as I
documented in a news story last week.
In that letter, Bill wrote about the "irony" that his son "was killed by
"I am having a major problem with being OK with his death under these
circumstances and I really do not believe that Iraq, the world, or the
lives of his family and friends are better due to his death." Imagine
the pain behind those lines.
Steve Chapman, in a Chicago Tribune column last weekend, played a cruel
game of logic. He applied it to Sen. Kerry's position on the war but he
could have been referring to the editorial positions of most American
newspapers.
Chapman summed up the "stay the course" predicament like this: "We can't
manage an increasingly turbulent Iraq with the forces we have. We don't
have many extra troops to send. We can't turn over security to Iraqis
because they can't be trusted. We can't get other countries to help us
out. And things keep getting worse."
Yet, he pointed out, "Democrats and Republicans agree that we have to go
on squandering American lives because we don't know what else to do."
So what do the editors of American newspapers think we should do?
Are you ready, now, to think the unthinkable? Who will be the first in
line to call for a phased withdrawal, not more troops? As with Vietnam,
one brave voice (remember Walter Cronkite on Feb. 27, 1968) may inspire
others.
And if that isn't your position -- what exactly is it?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...