Yet more proof of the media bias

[Backtothemac]

The USAToday had hired Ann Coulter to do the reporting on the Democratic national convention. They fired her before the convention though because they said she was to rash and controversial.

Yet, they have hired Michael Moore to do the republican convention.

What a joke!

[trebblekicked]

The USAToday had hired Ann Coulter to do the reporting on the Democratic national convention. They fired her before the convention though because they said she was to rash and controversial.

Yet, they have hired Michael Moore to do the republican convention.

What a joke!

yes. usa today is, in fact, a joke. ;)

but honestly, quote for quote, ann coulter is much more controversial than michael moore. i will say that she is at least twice as attractive as michael moore, though.

[mactastic]

The fact that the networks are giving more time to the GOP convention than they did the Democratic convention is proof of media bias too. ;)

[Leo Hubbard]

The fact that the networks are giving more time to the GOP convention than they did the Democratic convention is proof of media bias too. ;)
I believe you mean they are spending more time on GOP protestors than they spent on DNC protestors.

[toontra]

I believe you mean they are spending more time on GOP protestors than they spent on DNC protestors.

Erm, could that be because there are more of them, like at LOT more!!!

[mactastic]

No Leo. Stop putting words in my mouth. You have no idea what I meant.

[Thomas Veil]

Not the first time Ann Coulter's been canned from an assignment because of her mouth. "Slander" isn't just a book title to her, it's a way of life, and media outlets are naturally uncomfortable with that.

Moore says things that the radical right doesn't want to hear, but that's a far cry from some of Coulter's nutso pronunciamentos.

[Ugg]

The USAToday had hired Ann Coulter to do the reporting on the Democratic national convention. They fired her before the convention though because they said she was to rash and controversial.

Yet, they have hired Michael Moore to do the republican convention.

What a joke!

USA Today is extremely conservative and cares only about money. The joke is your attempt to wring "left wing conspiracy" from a right wing rag. I'm sure there's more to the story than we're being told but in the end I'm sure it's about who is going to sell more papers and ads than about politics. If anything it should tell you that the misogynistic Coulter is well past her sell date and the RNC can't afford her negativity now that they know in their rotten ole hearts that gw isn't going to win.....

[SPG]

Although I can't seem to find it now, I do recall reading mAnn Coulter's column that got **** canned from USA Today and I couldn't believe that she seriously thought for a second that any newspaper in the world would run it. The piece was just a bile filled venom spewing screed. The response from the editor to what were supposed to be witty observations was "I don't get it". The response from the rest of the editorial board was a unanimous decision to switch to any other conservative they could find, I think they settled on Jonah Goldberg (or Sullivan?).
There are plenty of partisan pieces running in any number of newspapers every day, but what they have at least on the surface is some semblance of intelligence whether the view is from the right or left. You may not like Michael Moore, but at least he will deal with the facts even if the conclusions made are a bit sketchy for some to accept. I haven't read his column yet, or maybe it's not out, but I don't think it will be nearly as insulting as mAnn Coulter's.

[SPG]

Found it...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-08-30-moore-gopamerica_x.htm
The GOP doesn't reflect America
Michael Moore, Filmmaker

NEW YORK — Welcome, Republicans. You're proud Americans who love your country. In your own way, you want to make this country a better place. Whatever our differences, you should be commended for that.

But what's all this talk about New York being enemy territory? Nothing could be further from the truth. We New Yorkers love Republicans. We have a Republican mayor and governor, a death penalty and two nuclear plants within 30 miles of the city.

New York is home to Fox News Channel. The top right-wing talk shows emanate from here — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly among them. The Wall Street Journal is based here, which means your favorite street is here. Not to mention more Fortune 500 executives than anywhere else.

You may think you're surrounded by a bunch of latte-drinking effete liberals, but the truth is, you're right where you belong, smack in the seat of corporate America and conservative media.

Let me also say I admire your resolve. You're true believers. Even though only a third of the country defines itself as "Republican," you control the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and most state governments.

You're in charge because you never back down. Your people are up before dawn figuring out which minority group shouldn't be allowed to marry today.

Our side is full of wimps who'd rather compromise than fight. Not you guys.

Hanging out around the convention, I've encountered a number of the Republican faithful who aren't delegates. They warm up to me when they don't find horns or a tail. Talking to them, I discover they're like many people who call themselves Republicans but aren't really Republicans. At least not in the radical-right way that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Co. have defined Republicans.

I asked one man who told me he was a "proud Republican," "Do you think we need strong laws to protect our air and water?"

"Well, sure," he said. "Who doesn't?"

I asked whether women should have equal rights, including the same pay as men.

"Absolutely," he replied.

"Would you discriminate against someone because he or she is gay?"

"Um, no." The pause — I get that a lot when I ask this question — is usually because the average good-hearted person instantly thinks about a gay family member or friend.

I've often found that if I go down the list of "liberal" issues with people who say they're Republican, they are quite liberal and not in sync with the Republicans who run the country. Most don't want America to be the world's police officer and prefer peace to war. They applaud civil rights, believe all Americans should have health insurance and think assault weapons should be banned. Though they may personally oppose abortion, they usually don't think the government has the right to tell a women what to do with her body.

There's a name for these Republicans: RINOs or Republican In Name Only. They possess a liberal, open mind and don't believe in creating a worse life for anyone else.

So why do they use the same label as those who back a status quo of women earning 75 cents to every dollar a man earns, 45 million people without health coverage and a president who has two more countries left on his axis-of-evil-regime-change list?

I asked my friend on the street. He said what I hear from all RINOs: "I don't want the government taking my hard-earned money and taxing me to death. That's what the Democrats do."

Money. That's what it comes down to for the RINOs. They do work hard and have been squeezed even harder to make ends meet. They blame Democrats for wanting to take their money. Never mind that it's Republican tax cuts for the rich and billions spent on the Iraq war that have created the largest deficits in history and will put all of us in hock for years to come.

The Republican Party's leadership knows America is not only filled with RINOs, but most Americans are much more liberal than the delegates gathered in New York.

The Republicans know it. That's why this week we're seeing gay-loving Rudy Giuliani, gun-hating Michael Bloomberg and abortion-rights advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As tough of a pill as it is to swallow, Republicans know that the only way to hold onto power is to pass themselves off as, well, as most Americans. It's a good show.

So have a good time, Republicans. It could be your last happy party for awhile if all the RINOs and liberal majority figure it out on Nov. 2.

[IJ Reilly]

That was pretty horrible. The man ought to be ashamed of himself.

[SPG]

That was pretty horrible. The man ought to be ashamed of himself.

Who? For what?

[IJ Reilly]

Who? For what?

Moore. Just being sarcastic.

[Thomas Veil]

Anyone catch Peter Jennings late last night, covering the convention?

Rudy Giuliani had stated during his speech on Monday that the future of the Republican Party shined as brightly as that of the New York Yankees.

Jennings wryly noted that on Tuesday evening, the Yankees lost to the Cleveland Indians, 22-0, in the worst defeat in Yankees history.

Media bias! Media bias! :D

[Taft]

The USAToday had hired Ann Coulter to do the reporting on the Democratic national convention. They fired her before the convention though because they said she was to rash and controversial.

Yet, they have hired Michael Moore to do the republican convention.

What a joke!

You want to see a joke? Check out the column that Coulter wrote for USA Today. It is absolutely incredible that Coulter thought ANY mainstream newspaper in this country would run this column. Of all of the horrible pundits I've heard over the years, Coulter is the one I would choose to silence, if I was given the opportunity. She truly does a disservice to our country.

From: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2004/072604.htm

USA Today
Put The Speakers In A Cage
July 26, 2004

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

How's that for journalistic integrity? Ha! :rolleyes:

Taft

[zimv20]

by sticking to anecdotal evidence, i can "prove" that blacks shoplift and the chinese run the drycleaning industry.

bttm, if you really want to prove a liberal media bias, you're going to have to produce a reputable study. i've looked, and you won't find one. all the studies i've seen point towards a conservative bias.

sadly, i won't be able to see Leo's response that it's all a left-wing conspiracy.

[Thomas Veil]

<Ann Coulter rant>
Holy crap.

That woman is nuts. I'm not being flip; I'm completely serious. I've seen some of her stuff, and this has to rank as the worst of the worst. She needs some heavy-duty mental help.

It's a wonder that even her publisher doesn't cut her loose. Guess all that pretty money coming in from the other head cases that buy her books is too lucrative to give up.

[Taft]

It's a wonder that even her publisher doesn't cut her loose. Guess all that pretty money coming in from the other head cases that buy her books is too lucrative to give up.

Bingo. It amazes me that so many Americans would listen to her ramblings as to send her to #1 on many book lists. God help them, for they listen to a fool.

Taft

[themadchemist]

Let's compare the Moore and Coulter articles. Moore, though he is sarcastic, prefaces his barrage with what appears to be a genuine sentiment that we all love America. Coulter, on the other hand, calls Democrats the Spawn of Satan.

OK. Yeah. Mmhmm. :rolleyes:

[takao]

Let's compare the Moore and Coulter articles. Moore, though he is sarcastic, prefaces his barrage with what appears to be a genuine sentiment that we all love America. Coulter, on the other hand, calls Democrats the Spawn of Satan.

OK. Yeah. Mmhmm. :rolleyes:

must...resist...to...post..picture...

http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/gun.jpg

ahh sorry

[alexf]

must...resist...to...post..picture...

http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/gun.jpg

ahh sorry

Thanks, that says it all right there!

Anybody who is at all savvy knows that the media is ALWAYS biased.

In this country, however, it is always right of center.

I gave up on the American media long ago - nothing but a big (and sad) joke.

[stubeeef]

OVERVIEW:

In February 2003, The Gallup Organization polled 1,002 adult Americans about the media’s accuracy and objectivity. The results were released in March, 2003, in "News Media Get Good Marks for Terrorism Coverage; But public generally skeptical about media accuracy and objectivity." According to Gallup, a "the poll also shows that, more generally, Americans are skeptical about the...objectivity of the ‘fourth estate.’" Archived Gallup polls are only available to subscribers.


KEY FINDINGS OF THE GALLUP POLL:


By three-to-one, more Americans say that the media are too liberal (45%) than too conservative (15%).



63% of conservatives think the news media are too liberal, as do 43% of moderates and even 18% of liberals.



*


OVERVIEW:


In the summer of 2003, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a poll of 1,201 American adults regarding the media for The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. Pew released the report, “Strong Opposition to Media Cross Ownership Emerges: Public Wants Neutrality and Pro American Point of View” on July 13, 2003.


KEY FINDINGS OF THE GALLUP POLL:


Twice as many Americans believe news organizations are liberally (51 percent) rather than conservatively biased (26 percent).



Not only do a majority of Republicans (by three-to-one) and independents (by two-to-one) see the news media liberally biased, Democrats do as well. Forty-one percent of Democrats perceive the media as liberally biased compared to 33 percent of Democrats who see it as conservatively biased.

A very good link (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#public)

[blackfox]

Stu...<sigh>...

I am sure more children believe there's a Santa Claus than don't, that doen't make it so.

A majority of people once thought that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, which is obviously false. A fair percentage still think that, despite the reality.

Was it sooo hard not to just talk about the relative merits of the elimination of certain deductions in a hypothetical tax plan, regardless of it's nature as a hypothetical?(in the other thread)

[stubeeef]

Stu...<sigh>...

I am sure more children believe there's a Santa Claus than don't, that doen't make it so.

A majority of people once thought that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, which is obviously false. A fair percentage still think that, despite the reality.

Was it sooo hard not to just talk about the relative merits of the elimination of certain deductions in a hypothetical tax plan, regardless of it's nature as a hypothetical?(in the other thread)

The subject here is media bias, not santa. But if you must, most people believe in God as well. Most people in the US don't want gay marrage, Most people in the US don't like higher taxes.

Maybe you can start a "what most people believe" thread. I am sure it will be VERY entertaining.

[IJ Reilly]

There's no Santa Clause? :(

[Lyle]

There's no Santa Clause? :(There is if you count that Tim Allen movie.

[IJ Reilly]

Or the Marx Brothers. ("And then there's the sanity clause...")

[Thomas Veil]

A recent Gallup poll showed that 78% of MacRumors members don't believe in bringing back threads that have been dead for three months.

[Lyle]

Or the Marx Brothers. ("And then there's the sanity clause...")More proof that you liberals are just socialists in disguise: You never miss an opportunity to bring up Marx.

[kilpajr]

Thanks for bringing this thread back Thomas. I hadn't read this one. I watch Fox regularly and I think Ann makes a lot of valid points that I usually agree with. However, that article of hers is ridiculous. Moore's article is interesting but I think he misses the real reason many people are what he calls "RINOs". As the election showed, many people vote on their moral values over other issues. Unfortunately, voters have to choose the lesser of two evils.

I used to watch Hannity and Colmes fairly regularly but now I can't hardly stand to watch the whole show. When Hannity talks to a person he disagrees with, many times he won't even let the person talk. Colmes is annoying because it seems most of the time he just tries to portray conservatives as hypocritical. Whenever conservatives complain about what liberals have done or said, he just says, well, conservatives did or said such-and-such and they didn't complain about that. I have started to watch Bill O'Reilly now, instead. His show is balanced and entertaining IMHO.

[stubeeef]

A recent Gallup poll showed that 78% of MacRumors members don't believe in bringing back threads that have been dead for three months.

You MUST support all facts with links....remember! :p

[stubeeef]

There's no Santa Clause? :(

Blackfox/grinch? Could they possibly be the same creature?

[IJ Reilly]

More proof that you liberals are just socialists in disguise: You never miss an opportunity to bring up Marx.

[Taft]

The subject here is media bias, not santa. But if you must, most people believe in God as well. Most people in the US don't want gay marrage, Most people in the US don't like higher taxes.

Maybe you can start a "what most people believe" thread. I am sure it will be VERY entertaining.

You do realize that you didn't respond to the point blackfox was making, right? He was making the point that just because people PERCIEVE a situation in a certain way, doesn't make that reality. It's an issue of perception vs. reality. Because perception can be influenced by a variety of factors (advertising, personal experiences and bias, fear, etc.), it cannot be trusted as a gauge of reality. I'm not saying what the reality of the situation is in this case (liberal bias or not), but I do know that the opinion of the American people on the matter is a horrible way to measure it.

I just have to ask: what the point? Why should we try to converse with you when it is obvious you aren't even listening to what we are saying?

Give me one good reason any of us should ever respond to you.

Taft

[stubeeef]

It's an issue of perception vs. reality. Because perception can be influenced by a variety of factors (advertising, personal experiences and bias, fear, etc.), it cannot be trusted as a gauge of reality. I'm not saying what the reality of the situation is in this case (liberal bias or not), but I do know that the opinion of the American people on the matter is a horrible way to measure it. Taft

Noted, So things like American opinion is a horrible way to measure it, how about the war on Iraq, is it a horrible way too? Or, could it be, is it that you want American opinion when it fits your needs? Or is perception reality?

I would also stipulate that evolution is perception vs reality, prayer, and every other single issue that is discussed here, gravity may not be gravity it may be actually, idscabob.

[zimv20]

tired of this crap. ignored.

[pseudobrit]

tired of this crap. ignored.

Join the club. I still see enough nonsense when others quote it though. I wish everyone would just ignore him; he's an intermittent troll (see sig).

[Thomas Veil]

Message received.

(However, just for the record, kilpajr, I didn't bring back this thread; stubeeef did.)

[IJ Reilly]

"Sanity is statistical." I think George Orwell said most of what we need to know about the value of public opinion.

[Taft]

Noted, So things like American opinion is a horrible way to measure it, how about the war on Iraq, is it a horrible way too?

Well, the majority of Americans DID support the Iraq war when we invaded. And the majority of Americans DID think that Saddam had WMDs. So, yes, I would say the American public is not a good place to go for intel on WMDs or decisions to go to war.

I would also stipulate that evolution is perception vs reality, prayer, and every other single issue that is discussed here, gravity may not be gravity it may be actually, idscabob.

You don't even make sense. It is incredible. What the heck does "evolution is perception vs. reality" mean?

Listen, you seem to be missing the point. Public opinion is used, and will continue to be used, as a way to run our government. That called democracy. But the fact remains: opinion and fact are two different things. If 98% of the population started to think the sky is yellow, would the sky suddenly become yellow? Does reality change to match public opinion?

BTW, I find your lack of respect for others arguments appalling. Your sig illustrates my point nicely. "Beware Political Forum is Mass Hallucination zone. Venture in when ready for mind control and liberal indoctrination."

Its like one big personal attack against the whole forum! Why don't you take your temper tantrums to a right-wing forum? I'm sure you'd get a lot of slaps on the back for statements like these.

Taft

[pseudobrit]

BTW, I find your lack of respect for others arguments appalling. Your sig illustrates my point nicely. "Beware Political Forum is Mass Hallucination zone. Venture in when ready for mind control and liberal indoctrination."

Its like one big personal attack against the whole forum!

I wonder where this Beware version of the Political Forums are.

I wonder why trolls bitch about how biased the ol' "liberal snakepit" is but keep coming back.
And then I remember, "oh, yeah, it's because they're trolls."

[Taft]

I wonder where this Beware version of the Political Forums are.

I wonder why trolls bitch about how biased the ol' "liberal snakepit" is but keep coming back.
And then I remember, "oh, yeah, it's because they're trolls."

I gotta agree, though I resisted for some time. Why come back if you aren't going to engage in conversation but rather just to throw out unsupported one-liners? All you are going to do is piss everyone off.

I say engage in conversation, or get the heck out.

Taft

[solvs]

Maybe you can start a "what most people believe" thread. I am sure it will be VERY entertaining.
Considering this is the point you're arguing, I'll bite.

A thousand years ago, everyone knew the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew the Earth was flat. Wasn't too long ago that most people in the US were against civil rights for women. Let's not even start with how we treated black people. Doesn't make it right. If you're going to argue that might makes right, and what's popular is always what's right, I'm going to have to disagree with you. In other words, just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I keep hearing about this Liberal media, but where was it when Bush first wanted to abandon the hunt for Bin Laden to go get Saddam. Not all of us fell for it, but a lot of the media did. And even if they didn't, does that automatically make them Liberal. Especially when these same people also criticized Clinton for his indiscretions.

Calling everyone who has a problem with the current administration's mistakes a Liberal doesn't help your case. Not all of us have to be put into a category. The world is not black and white, and a lot of us are a healthy shade of gray. Your idea of America is not the America I know and love.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.fair.org/activism/nbc-socialsecurity.html)

NBC Short on Social Security "Crisis" Critics

January 12, 2005

The debate over George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security seems to be heating up, and some media outlets are beginning to notice the flaws in the White House's argument that there is an imminent "crisis" in the decades-old government program. On the January 11 NBC Nightly News broadcast, anchor Brian Williams seemed to be addressing that issue, introducing a segment by noting that "critics say he's exaggerating the problem to sell his plan, while not yet talking about big cuts in future retiree benefits."

But the report that followed included no such critics of the administration's "crisis" rhetoric. There was certainly room for such opinions, considering that NBC quoted Bush making a glaring exaggeration in describing the plan: "So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust." None of the projections of Social Security's future contend that the system will be "flat bust"; even by the Social Security trustees' pessimistic assumptions, the system will always be able to pay more to future retirees than current recipients get (Economic Reporting Review, www.cepr.net, 12/6/04).

But NBC correspondent David Gregory failed to check Bush's comment, following up only by mentioning that "before settling on a final proposal, aides say the president needs more time to define the problem, one he calls a crisis." One would hope that a journalist would be more interested in pointing out that Bush's attempt to "define the problem" as a "crisis" apparently involves wild exaggerations.

NBC did include comments from one worker who was worried about future benefit cuts in Social Security. His fears were balanced by a soundbite from David John, billed by NBC as a "Social Security Analyst" and one of the "supporters of the benefit cut." Left unmentioned, however, was Johns' institutional affiliation: He works for the conservative Heritage Foundation, one of the most active pro-privatization think tanks in the country.

It's good that NBC is at least referring to the existence of "criticism that the president is exaggerating the need for change." But NBC would better serve its viewers by actually including those views in its reports.

[solvs]

It's a cop out, plain and simple. Even if what you want to do is wrong, lie about it, find evidence to support your claims (even if the opposing evidence is overwhelming), attack those who criticize you no matter how vaild your point, and when the truth comes out, change the reasons for doing it.

FUD. M$ does it successfully all the time.

[mactastic]

Linkypoo (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280001)
Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon, who accused his colleagues in the press corps of "work[ing] off of the talking points" provided by Democrats, has used Bush administration and Republican National Committee (RNC) documents and releases in his Talon "news reports" verbatim and without attribution. In at least two of his articles, Gannon lifted more than half of the text directly from GOP "fact sheets." Moreover, as Media Matters for America has pointed out, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Gannon repeated a fabricated assertion of Limbaugh's in asking a question at President Bush's January 26 press conference.

From the January 27 edition of "Jeff Gannon's Washington" radio show on the conservative Internet radio website RIGHTALK:

GANNON: But what was very interesting, in his answer, was that -- that he's going to go to the American people. That was the first thing out of his mouth. That "Well, I'm going to take my case to the American people." Which told everybody in that room that not only was he not going to reach out to Democrats anymore, he was also going to go around [B]the press corps, which, of course, deserves to be gone around because they're not telling the truth about Social Security reform. They continue to work off of the talking points provided them from the opposition. And I know that because I have seen some of my colleagues -- let's say one or two that I've actually witnessed -- read from DNC [Democratic National Committee] talking points on Social Security.

Following are three examples of Gannon lifting extensively from an RNC "Fact Sheet," a White House "Fact Sheet" and directly from President Bush in his "news reports."

Click the link to read the three examples...

Talk about irony.

[LethalWolfe]

I wonder where this Beware version of the Political Forums are.

I wonder why trolls bitch about how biased the ol' "liberal snakepit" is but keep coming back.
And then I remember, "oh, yeah, it's because they're trolls."

Hey, some of us are rubber neckers filled w/morbid curiousity, not trolls. ;)


Lethal