| Author | Message | ||
     CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 206 Registered: 6-2003 |
Okay, maybe I missed something - Clinton has an affair and lies about it and it is on the news everynight, front page coverage in NYTimes and every other paper for weeks on end. No excuses for his behavior but the press certainly didn't give him a free ride - the liberal media that is. Bush sends us to war because Sadam HAS weapons of mass destruction. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, well golly gee, the inspectors didn't find anything. Turns out that there never were WMD there in the first place. Other than a brief mention on the news, not much else being said. Is this not a scandal? Even if you think Bush truly believed that there were WMD, isn't this as big an issue as a President lying about an extra marital affair and worthy of a little more attention by the media? Alright conservative, anti media Bushies, how can you justify the claim of a liberal media when it is so apparent that Bush is getting a free ride after being responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12970 Registered: 10-2001  |
Please enjoy the next four years. And then in '08, get ready for McCain. | ||
| jerkyboy Citizen Username: Jerkyboy Post Number: 18 Registered: 12-2004 |
Here is the difference: Clinton lied. Bush did not. It is that simple. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 198 Registered: 8-2003 |
Thanks for that pithy analysis, Jerkyboy. | ||
| jerkyboy Citizen Username: Jerkyboy Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2004 |
mustt mustt You are mostt mostt welcome. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 300 Registered: 9-2004 |
Borrowing from the quotes of notehead… Jerkyboy, hush. The grownups are talking | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 476 Registered: 8-2004 |
Cagey , this WMD issue got plenty of press before the election. The coverage of the Kay report and testimony concentrated entirely on the " We were all wrong" statement. There was part of the Kay report that was supportive of the President , but the press didn't report this. Next came the Deulfer Report on the same subject. This report contained information that supported the president's decision to invade Iraq. Again the press only concentrated on the "no stockpiles" angle. The coverage of both reports was intended to hurt Bush since only one aspect was played up. It became general consensus after the Deulfer Report that major stockpiles were unlikely to be found in Iraq. The American public knew this and still re-elected GWB. The press reported the story , but knew there was no reason to play it up since the election was over and it really wouldn't hurt Bush. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1130 Registered: 9-2001  |
Exactly. Everyone knows Bush lied (or at least wilfully ignored reality, or was grossly mislead by his advisors) so there is no story there anymore. The news was greeted with a "ho hum, we know that already" response. With Clinton, the lie was not admitted to for quite some time, and so the issue played out in the press. Lesson to future Presidential liars--admit it and ignore the consequences; fight it and be fried forever. Amazing, really. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 302 Registered: 9-2004 |
Hmmm, Possibly the media is excusing Bush? The poor guy is intellectually, and judgementally challenged  He's just barely a C student, so it's expected of him. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and should've known better. Of course I'm just being sarcastic here.  | ||
| CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 207 Registered: 6-2003 |
Mark "Everyone knows Bush lied (or at least wilfully ignored reality, or was grossly mislead by his advisors) so there is no story there anymore" Then what does this say about us as a nation? We unjustly invade a nation, destroy their infrastructure and kill thousands because of faulty information. Now the general response is " yeah, we were wrong, really never was a reason to invade, oh well what's happening on Survivor this week". No one is being accountable by the press or by the President, in fact Bush gave a medal to the guy who oversaw the intelligence on Iraq. How do you think the rest of the world perceives us now- as liberators or indifferent bullies? No amount of spin can help us now. When Bin Laden attacks us again because he considers us a threat to his way of life should he get the free pass Bush is getting - Tsk, tsk Ossama, you "willfully ignored reality or ignored your advisors" the Americans actually weren't the threat you thought they were. You really shouldn't have attacked them and killed thousands of them but hey, it's really not a story anymore - let's move on and see what's happening these days with Paris Hilton. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1131 Registered: 9-2001 |
CageyD--couldn't agree with you more. That is why I ended my post with "amazing, really." Forget Reagan being the Teflon President--Bush is like Teflon coated with industrial lubricants. What does this say about us as a nation? I think Phenix is close, even with his sarcasm. The majority do have different expectations of Bush. So long as he tells us everything will be okay, there seems to be a willing suspension of disbelief. That is how he was elected the first time, and it has continued despite the fact that even cons now are saying the war is failing (James Baker is counseling pulling out, along with Powell). Some mass pop-psychology: the country is still reeling with insecurity post 9-11. We are looking for certainty in a world that has become more unstable. We hear what we want to hear, and refuse to listen to anyone that spreads doubt about our course. Bush says stay the course; Kerry said basically change course (which he did, frequently, as an exercise in symbolism). | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1132 Registered: 9-2001 |
By the way, that is a generic "we"--I know all of us MOL'ers are so much smarter than the rest of the electorate. Please don't flame me on that one. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3008 Registered: 8-2003 |
Baker is not 'counseling pulling out' despite what the Liberal Media spins it as. As reported in the SF Chronicle he said we shouldn't look like a permanent occupying force and withdraw AFTER the security situation improves and is run by Iraqis. The headline and the spin doesn't match the substance of what he said. That is Bush's plan and always has been. SF Chronicle tries to put Baker on the same page with Starks, Lee and other liberals calling for full-scale retreat. Here's the headline: Aide to Bush's father urges pullout James Baker proposes phased withdrawal of troops - Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer And here's what doesn't fit: "Baker couched his remarks by saying that any such withdrawal should happen only if the security situation improves and once Iraqi forces are ready." | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 478 Registered: 8-2004 |
CJC, another example of Liberal Media. Mark the Media has misled you countless times more than you could imagine Bush ever has. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1135 Registered: 9-2001 |
Guy: It is actually a conspiracy between the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations to control the press. I read about it in the latest John Birch Society newsletter. Besides, when Bush mislead America we got involved in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 479 Registered: 8-2004 |
Mark , that slogan didn't work too well for last guy to use it. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1137 Registered: 9-2001 |
But it is true. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 480 Registered: 8-2004 |
Mark, Some people think it is true, others don't. Supporters of removing Saddam will say that he was a threat and in the post 9-11 world the status quo in the middle east could not be tolerated. Opponents will point to no stockpiles of WMD's therefore he wasn't a threat. History will be the judge. This is worth a read. http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011405.html | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1139 Registered: 9-2001 |
Thanks for the link, Guy. Sort of a glass half empty or full issue. Hoover Institute sees it as half full. Iraqi's seem equally bifurcated on their view of the war. If you can trust the State Department surveys in Iraq (hard to trust because they are being done under such extreme circumstances--how do you do adequate sampling?), the majority believe that Iraqi forces should be protecting them, yet the majority simultaneoudly believe that they would be less safe if the coalition forces immediately withdrew (except for those in Fallujah and Samaria). The majority cite street crime and street bombs as the biggest risk to an Iraqi citizen (sectarian violence is a distant threat at about 6% of respondents), but they point to sectarian violence as far and away the biggest threat to Iraq as a nation. All in all a very muddled and muddied situation. I take the view of the glass being half-empty, but I would be more than happy if you and Hanson are correct and a vibrant democracy eventually arises in Iraq, although it sure won't look like ours. You can find the State Dept survey at: http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf This is part of a larger survey of security indices by the Brookings Institution. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 200 Registered: 8-2003 |
FAIR-L Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism http://www.fair.org/press-releases/cbs-memogate.html MEDIA ADVISORY: CBS 'Memogate' Fallout: Selective punishment shows media's true bias January 12, 2005 From the media interest surrounding CBS's investigation into "Memogate," one would think that the credibility of 60 Minutes' report on George W. Bush's National Guard service was the most pressing media issue facing the nation. Shortly after the report about Bush's National Guard service aired on 60 Minutes (9/8/04), right-wing commentators and bloggers claimed that the documents supporting the CBS report were fraudulent and pointed to the episode as evidence of "liberal media" bias. In fact, the CBS review, headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh (an appointee of Bush's father) and former Associated Press president Louis Boccardi, was not able to state conclusively whether the documents were forgeries or not. The report also found no evidence that political bias was a factor in the network's journalism. Instead, the report documented a series of misjudgments on the part of several CBS staffers, most notably producer Mary Mapes. CBS's investigation did document serious failures in 60 Minutes' efforts to check its source's claims-- an endemic problem in commercial news. If "Memogate" had called attention to the general issue of credulous journalism, it would have performed a valuable service for the public. But the media discussion of the incident generally treated it as either an aberration or as an emblem of left-wing media bias. The hours of coverage of the Rather episode managed to ignore what should have been the central question: Did George W. Bush, in reality, properly fulfill his National Guard requirements? On September 14, FAIR noted that CBS was only one of several media outlets to release important reports about documented discrepancies in Bush's service record. Because of the focus on the CBS documents and the accompanying right-wing accusations of media bias on the issue, those stories-- and the important questions they raised-- were quickly dropped by a cowed press corps. The claims that this controversy proves that CBS, or the media as a whole, have a liberal or anti-Bush bias, are ludicrous. When CBS staffers got caught taking shortcuts on a story critical of Bush, it cost them their careers. By contrast, other reporters have received much less scrutiny and punishment for offenses of far greater magnitude-- and with much more significant consequences to society. The New York Times, for example, published numerous allegations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that turned out to be false-- such as one source's claim that "all of Iraq is one large storage facility" for WMD (9/8/02). Those stories, many of which were splashed on the paper's front page, did a great deal to sell the White House's bogus case for war against Iraq. While the Times has admitted (5/26/04) that some of its WMD reporting was "insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged," the reporter most responsible for those stories, Judith Miller, was never sanctioned by the Times-- and indeed still continues to report on Iraq for the paper. Ironically, after MSNBC's Hardball finished its discussion of CBS and journalistic responsibility on January 10, the show turned to a discussion of Iraq featuring... Judith Miller. The lesson of "Memogate," then, is that journalists may be punished for bad reporting-- if they have offended the wrong people. If they have merely helped steer the country into war under false pretenses, their careers can continue unimpeded. |
