Taro T Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Well let me ask you this..why won't Bush release ALL of his military records..including the time he was AWOL from 'Bama?And to this day NOBODY has ever proven the 60 minute documents as forgeries. 821683[/snapback] Are you for real? Would you mind listing other things you believe haven't been proven that are accepted as "facts" by the great unwashed masses? I'm assuming the list would include items like the moon landings, the Earth being round, and the Sun rising in the east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You must be the person they're targeting when they send out those Nigerian bank account emails. 821852[/snapback] No, that would be Cap'n McGillicuddy. He rules the seas, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 http://washingtontimes.com/national/200610...02955-3604r.htm 821834[/snapback] This doesn't mean that they are doing what they can to help Democrats win the election. In fact, what it means is that they are playing up the big story of this election time: Holy Jesus, the Democrats might actually win something! This is exemplified in this quote: The big question for all three networks is this: Why are the Republicans in trouble and how bad is it going to get? What, exactly, should they be reporting on right now as far as the election goes? Because the reporters agree with them. The vast majority of reporters today are liberal/democrats. 821852[/snapback] Except that the reporters don't have much power in the media industry. Just because the reporters are liberal/democrats doesn't mean crap honestly. Its why most of the studies that have come out show that news coverage on a whole is pretty centrist, while the editorial pages are far less centrist. The people that have the power are the owners of the media outlets. They're the ones that set the tone for the entire organization, and they do so for profit interests, which leads back to all of the things I posted above. The key is that the reporters don't have the power, the owners do. The owners are greedy bastards who want money, and make sure that their news outlets do everything possible to get money. Most of the long-term scholarly research shows that reporting by the major media firms is, on average, much more centrist then either party wants to believe. The studies have also shown that people will feel that media coverage is biased against their own side. You see that in this very thread, with you feeling that they do everything they can to help the Dems win, while the liberals in this thread feel that its very biased toward Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Except that the reporters don't have much power in the media industry. Just because the reporters are liberal/democrats doesn't mean crap honestly.822086[/snapback] Actually, it means a lot because: 1) Reporters grow up to become editors, and 2) More importantly, when there's such a uniformity of belief through a given group (about 80%, give or take, based on voting records), it introduces an unintentional bias. You look around you, see everyone thinking the same thing you do, and think "So this must be the way the world is." It's unconscious and subtle, but it's very easy to see if you know it's there. And the cumulative effect heavily effects how stories are reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Actually, it means a lot because: 1) Reporters grow up to become editors, and 2) More importantly, when there's such a uniformity of belief through a given group (about 80%, give or take, based on voting records), it introduces an unintentional bias. You look around you, see everyone thinking the same thing you do, and think "So this must be the way the world is." It's unconscious and subtle, but it's very easy to see if you know it's there. And the cumulative effect heavily effects how stories are reported. 822099[/snapback] It does - on the editorial pages. The accounts of the former journalism employees I've read, combined with the studies I've read, shows that the economic factors of media companies in this day and age play a much, much larger role in the reporting of stories then do reporters and editors personal beliefs. Most of them feel handcuffed into having to report stories certain ways in order to satisfy the bottom line (which has shifted from a business where profit was less meaningful in the 70s). Owner control and profit margins trump the current-day media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Kerry is an idiot, and here is why: he got pulled into a suckers fight in an election year. The Republicans have nothing to run on - nothing - nada - zip - goose-egg. They have only two real trump cards left: A terrorism incident Rerunning a past election Kerry - the dumbass that he is - has stepped in doggie poo - and handed the RNC a gift for the last week of campaigning. They will make the campaign about him and not anything remotely connected to reality. As an aside - this election year has proven that every politician in America hates the troops. Bush for getting us into this dumbass war. Kerry for some honor bull sh-- thingy. Others for some bill or other. They all hate the troops. Be glad troops - everyone is doing such a great job attacking those pooping on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Kerry - the dumbass that he is - has stepped in doggie poo - and handed the RNC a gift for the last week of campaigning. 822118[/snapback] And it's the gift that keeps on giving, as long as Kerry keeps responding to criticism with "I'm not apologizing, !@#$ you !@#$s!" Way to pour gasoline on that fire, John-boy. Even the Democrats are united in saying "John, we might actually win the House, and you're !@#$ing it up! Shut the !@#$ up already!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And it's the gift that keeps on giving, as long as Kerry keeps responding to criticism with "I'm not apologizing, !@#$ you !@#$s!" Way to pour gasoline on that fire, John-boy. Even the Democrats are united in saying "John, we might actually win the House, and you're !@#$ing it up! Shut the !@#$ up already!" 822151[/snapback] And the Dems are never united in anything. How long till Kerry claims that his plan was to unite the Democrats all along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And it's the gift that keeps on giving, as long as Kerry keeps responding to criticism with "I'm not apologizing, !@#$ you !@#$s!" Way to pour gasoline on that fire, John-boy. Even the Democrats are united in saying "John, we might actually win the House, and you're !@#$ing it up! Shut the !@#$ up already!" 822151[/snapback] Supposedly he's apoligised "Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it," Cheney said in a line meant to recall Bush's skewering of Kerry in their 2004 race for saying he had voted for war funds before he voted against them. http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/.../ap3137428.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Except that the reporters don't have much power in the media industry. 822086[/snapback] Yeah, they're just the ones who do the writing in the papers and the talking on the television. And as BJ pointed out, they're also the ones who become the editors and the ones who run the networks. Do you really think the owners of the newspapers and television channels go through every story and newsbroadcast and then fax over notes on how to make things more conservative? Of course not. A bunch of the shows on CNN and MSNBC led their broadcasts last night quickly trying to explain what Kerry "meant to say." I had no idea it was their job to go to the mattresses for the guy. Why not start with what he said, the response, and then his response to that response? They basically started their shows with Kerry's explanation as solid fact. Susanne Malveaux (CNN) even let the mask slip and literally said on air that "we hope this whole things blows over tomorrow." What the hell kind of reporting is that? And that's not to mention the complete opposite treatment that was given to Trent Lott (for his compliment to Strom Thurman at the old geezer's friggin' birthday party), George Allen (somehow "Macaca" was more offensive than what Kerry said), and even Rush Limbaugh. In context, what Rush Limbaugh said wasn't that bad but did even one reporter on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, or CBS go out of their way to explain what Limbaugh "meant to say"? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 No, that would be Cap'n McGillicuddy. He rules the seas, you know. 821874[/snapback] Arrrrgh! Aboard the USS Kittenpaw shrimpboat vessel. Sadly, the captain passed away in a shipwreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Yeah, they're just the ones who do the writing in the papers and the talking on the television. And as BJ pointed out, they're also the ones who become the editors and the ones who run the networks. Do you really think the owners of the newspapers and television channels go through every story and newsbroadcast and then fax over notes on how to make things more conservative? Of course not. A bunch of the shows on CNN and MSNBC led their broadcasts last night quickly trying to explain what Kerry "meant to say." I had no idea it was their job to go to the mattresses for the guy. Why not start with what he said, the response, and then his response to that response? They basically started their shows with Kerry's explanation as solid fact. Susanne Malveaux (CNN) even let the mask slip and literally said on air that "we hope this whole things blows over tomorrow." What the hell kind of reporting is that? And that's not to mention the complete opposite treatment that was given to Trent Lott (for his compliment to Strom Thurman at the old geezer's friggin' birthday party), George Allen (somehow "Macaca" was more offensive than what Kerry said), and even Rush Limbaugh. In context, what Rush Limbaugh said wasn't that bad but did even one reporter on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, or CBS go out of their way to explain what Limbaugh "meant to say"? Nope. 822344[/snapback] Well the same news teams lead the news with the President of the United States publicly demanding an apology from John Kerry. Is not it fun to look back at the substance of our last presidential choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 It does - on the editorial pages. The accounts of the former journalism employees I've read, combined with the studies I've read, shows that the economic factors of media companies in this day and age play a much, much larger role in the reporting of stories then do reporters and editors personal beliefs. Most of them feel handcuffed into having to report stories certain ways in order to satisfy the bottom line (which has shifted from a business where profit was less meaningful in the 70s). Owner control and profit margins trump the current-day media. But its not just in the editorial pages. Read the National and Local articles in the NY Times vs. the NY Post. Totally different perspectives and slants on the same stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Holy Jesus... 821704[/snapback] And of course, like the rest of the right wing blogosphere that started the whole 60 minutes charade, you over nothing to disprove they weren't faked documents. Keep believing whatever you want....as long as it looks good for your man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And of course, like the rest of the right wing blogosphere that started the whole 60 minutes charade, you over nothing to disprove they weren't faked documents.Keep believing whatever you want....as long as it looks good for your man. 822372[/snapback] Hey, everybody! I'm a conservative today! Remember when I was a liberal? Seems like it was just yesterday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Arrrrgh! Aboard the USS Kittenpaw shrimpboat vessel. Sadly, the captain passed away in a shipwreck. 822354[/snapback] I'm not so sure of that. I think we were all duped. I bet he's living the high life in Nigeria that lucky bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hey, everybody! I'm a conservative today! Remember when I was a liberal? Seems like it was just yesterday... 822379[/snapback] And once again, like most of the people here who scoff at the Bush Air Guard documents they offer nothing to disprove their validity. No doubt the same people who decided it would just be a plum dandy idea to invade Iraq over 3 years ago and started pounding the war drum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And once again, like most of the people here who scoff at the Bush Air Guard documents they offer nothing to disprove their validity. 822389[/snapback] How about you prove their validity instead? Burden of proof is on the accuser, usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 How about you prove their validity instead? Burden of proof is on the accuser, usually. 822394[/snapback] They're valid because Dan Rather said they were. Or at least he was pretty sure they were. Look, they were faxed to him from a Texas Kinkos so that's pretty valid to me. If we go by the "Joey Balls" version of how to determine if something is true or not, Dan Rather could claim that 10,000 years ago space aliens fought a war over planet earth (or as it was called then "Xyrewzewyu") to determine the future of mankind, and it's a fact. We really can't prove it didn't happen....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And of course, like the rest of the right wing blogosphere that started the whole 60 minutes charade, you over nothing to disprove they weren't faked documents. 822372[/snapback] Because I'm such a swell guy, here are at least SOME of the reasons why those documents were fake. Link Take your time, read it all, and follow the links. Try not to feel too embarassed about being over two years behind everyone else in the world on this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts