You mean like a few years ago when the Washington Post had information that senator packwood had sexually harrased 20 women and HELD it until after the election?
Then when they released the story AFTER the election his constitutes went ballistic and asked why didn't they release the story before the election so they could make a BETTER informed decision?
Was the washinton post not "honestly practicing journalism" then?
Stories break before elections ALL the time. Sometimes they hurt democrats and sometime republicans. If Auuuhnold had not have sexually battered so many women then there would not have beed a story to put out huh?
I heard a 1000 people canceled their LA Times subscriptions. Good for them. Less trees have to be killed so that fewer people will then NOT believe the news stories printed on it anyway...
I feel sorry for those people. Whenever they look into themselves and examine their life frustrations them immedialty jump to the tired deflection of the truth...
Wasn't the whole "troopergate" story on Clinton from the LA Times?
Yeah I thought so. Papers do expos?s on politicians all the time... are we going to claim they're conservative everytime they do a unflattering story on a democrat?
I think that if the LA Times was trying to win it for Davis they would have come out alot sooner with the Grope stories... they had to check the stories and facts...
They were doing their job.
Now Califronia has a governor with a history of being hmmm... I don't even know what to call it... Stupid? Insulting? Childish? Degrading? Offensive? to women...
At least the voters got to vote for him anyway... Uberoth would have been a better choice. But they went for mr. personality instead. goodluck
My explanation, FWIW, FNC knew (or had a really good idea) who the winner would be. So why not camp out where the party was going to be? It's simply anticipating where the news story is going to be and being there when it arrives. Would you do any less?
You mean like a few years ago when the Washington Post had information that senator packwood had sexually harrased 20 women and HELD it until after the election?
Then when they released the story AFTER the election his constitutes went ballistic and asked why didn't they release the story before the election so they could make a BETTER informed decision?
Was the washinton post not "honestly practicing journalism" then?
Stories break before elections ALL the time. Sometimes they hurt democrats and sometime republicans. If Auuuhnold had not have sexually battered so many women then there would not have beed a story to put out huh?
I heard a 1000 people canceled their LA Times subscriptions. Good for them. Less trees have to be killed so that fewer people will then NOT believe the news stories printed on it anyway...
I feel sorry for those people. Whenever they look into themselves and examine their life frustrations them immedialty jump to the tired deflection of the truth...
It's the Liberal Media!
I think it is.
Here's an interesting story on how the LA Times gave Davis the kid gloves on a story. Funny how this didn't break ever in the LA Times
Quote:
Stewart recounts her own reporting on Davis, which appeared in 1997 in the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles:
Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office. He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him. . . .
Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs. The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!' "
Stewart writes that while she was researching the New Times story (which is reproduced here), she "crossed paths" with L.A. Times reporters looking into the same allegations. But the Old Times never published the story. "When I spoke to a reporter involved," Stewart recounts, "he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources. Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger." The Times may turn out to have done more damage to its own reputation than to Schwarzenegger's.
Let's pretend that Fox is the big bad neocon bullhorn and everything else is good reporting
So Opinon pages is the same as story the front page of a major newspaper?
If you are going to quote the WSJ i think you need to find something that is on the news side of the paper not an opinion piece since the editorial section of the WSJ is rabiddly anti-liberal democrat - cute kittens. you might have well linked to fox news or newworldorder.org
the guy you posted to is still arguing whether or not "she" was "covert" or not.. for krisakes...And i saw jill stewart on tv and she yet to prove her story.Jill comeback when you got the facts that a real newspaper will print on a front page because its been researched, vetted and the truth.If the story was true then why didn't the news side of the wall street journal print it? Must have something to do with the ownership of ethics on their part.
Quote:
Let's pretend that Fox is the big bad neocon bullhorn and everything else is good reportin
And if you believe that you never read what i think media. do a search when i had to about a dozen times explain it to poster that insisted that katie couric was part of a vast liberal media conspiracy...
I explained my position clearly. short answer. I don't go around saying all the media is conservative every time i see a story i think is not fair or seems biased...
Uhh Ooohh. They posted a story stort about a repeat sexual batterer thats running for govenor. Of course its not auuhnold. it must be the liberal media!
And if you believe that you never read what i think media. do a search when i had to about a dozen times explain it to poster that insisted that katie couric was part of a vast liberal media conspiracy...
You didn't do a search did you?
Quote:
Please let's not contend that there is a "conservative" media and deny there's a "liberal" one.
For once we are in agreement. Do a search and you will find my previous opinions on this because i'll be stuffed before i go down "yelling in the wind" road again..especially with someone that takes pride in describing himself as a "Royal Pain in the Ass"
And just for the record, was the LA Times, the very same paper that broke the auuhnold story, part of the "conservative" or the "liberal" media when it broke the "troopergate" story that accused President Clinton of selacious things?
Bill Bradley of the LA Weekly suggests that there may be a journalistic scandal lurking behind the Los Angeles Times' late hit on Schwarzenegger:
According to a well-informed source at the paper, the story, which hit the political world with a thunderclap, never appeared on the paper's internal or external publication schedules. Indeed, project editor Joel Sappell and the three reporters working on what the Times has described as a seven-week-long investigative project were very tight-lipped about both the scheduling of the piece and its contents. They discussed the story only with the paper's senior editors. Although the story did not appear on the schedule, it was reportedly placed in the "write basket," in which other Times editors and reporters can look at upcoming pieces, after hours last Wednesday night, just a few hours before it appeared on the Times Web site.
Even with utmost secrecy surrounding the piece, senior Democratic strategists with long-standing ties to Davis knew not only when the story was coming but also the particulars of what was in it. These strategists felt that the story held the possibility of tipping the election away from Schwarzenegger and of defeating the governor's recall.
The Angry Left has of late been pushing the idea that the "liberal media" are a myth, and in fact the media are too conservative. A new Gallup poll suggests that this is a fringe view. Forty-five percent of those polled said the media are "too liberal," vs. just 14% who say they're "too conservative"; 39% said "just about right." Eighteen percent of self-described liberals said the media are too liberal; only 30% of liberals, 15% of moderates and 9% of conservatives said they are too conservative.
This organization did a study that examined the beliefs of people who watch different news sources.
First, they found that people who supported the war had certain misperceptions that tended to favor the Iraqi war:
1. "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks."
2. Since the war with Iraq has ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraq weapons of mass destruction?"
3. "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?"
Percent of people who supported the war:
With none of the above false beliefs: 23% supported the war
With one of the above false beliefs: 53%
With two of the above false beliefs: 78%
With all three of the above false beliefs: 86%
Second, they found that Fox News watchers were most likely to have those misperceptions, and NPR/PBS watchers/listeners were least likely to have those false beliefs.
Percent of people with one or more of the above misperceptions supporting the war:
>Here's another log for the fire. The LA Times is clearly a wing the DNC.
Yes. Yes. As it turns out, the reason why they did not continue to post stories like "troopergate" (which defamed president clinton<----big time democrat btw) in 1998 was that in 1999 they let their dues lapse for the RNC.
At that point they decided to join the DNC (since the beach club privileges were much better is the rumor) and then post hit pieces against undeserved republicans such as our sexual serial batterer soon to be governor...
Memos were sent to all, maybe some where lost in the mail...
Their demographics skew very college educated... and News coverage tends to be very comprehensive and detailed... versus screaming pundits every night.
What falsehoods would that be? I'm sure there's some... but nothing they get from the mainstream media.
Oh there's tons. Here's some off the top of my head.
1) US gave money to Taliban before 9-11.
2) Us funded Bin Laden at some point in the past
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
I'm sure if you polled any NPR listener on the above statements they would think they were true. NPR repeats #3 over and over again. I even had to email a correction to them.
But ... ignorance is bliss. "Conservative" Fox news watchers are morons and NPR listeners are smug intellectuals that have complete command of all the facts.
Comments
Then when they released the story AFTER the election his constitutes went ballistic and asked why didn't they release the story before the election so they could make a BETTER informed decision?
Was the washinton post not "honestly practicing journalism" then?
Stories break before elections ALL the time. Sometimes they hurt democrats and sometime republicans. If Auuuhnold had not have sexually battered so many women then there would not have beed a story to put out huh?
I heard a 1000 people canceled their LA Times subscriptions. Good for them. Less trees have to be killed so that fewer people will then NOT believe the news stories printed on it anyway...
I feel sorry for those people. Whenever they look into themselves and examine their life frustrations them immedialty jump to the tired deflection of the truth...
It's the Liberal Media!
Is that what you would call good journalism?
LA Weekly
and this
I read the 2 links and i don't see the part where "LA Times was in direct collaberation with Gov. Davis' campaign in releasing the story. "
I read that a lot of democratic strategists and former colleague that might have known about the story but i could not find what you mentioned.
BTW! are you supposed to be a lawyer?
Yeah I thought so. Papers do expos?s on politicians all the time... are we going to claim they're conservative everytime they do a unflattering story on a democrat?
I think that if the LA Times was trying to win it for Davis they would have come out alot sooner with the Grope stories... they had to check the stories and facts...
They were doing their job.
Now Califronia has a governor with a history of being hmmm... I don't even know what to call it... Stupid? Insulting? Childish? Degrading? Offensive? to women...
At least the voters got to vote for him anyway... Uberoth would have been a better choice. But they went for mr. personality instead. goodluck
Originally posted by keyboardf12
You mean like a few years ago when the Washington Post had information that senator packwood had sexually harrased 20 women and HELD it until after the election?
Then when they released the story AFTER the election his constitutes went ballistic and asked why didn't they release the story before the election so they could make a BETTER informed decision?
Was the washinton post not "honestly practicing journalism" then?
Stories break before elections ALL the time. Sometimes they hurt democrats and sometime republicans. If Auuuhnold had not have sexually battered so many women then there would not have beed a story to put out huh?
I heard a 1000 people canceled their LA Times subscriptions. Good for them. Less trees have to be killed so that fewer people will then NOT believe the news stories printed on it anyway...
I feel sorry for those people. Whenever they look into themselves and examine their life frustrations them immedialty jump to the tired deflection of the truth...
It's the Liberal Media!
I think it is.
Here's an interesting story on how the LA Times gave Davis the kid gloves on a story. Funny how this didn't break ever in the LA Times
Stewart recounts her own reporting on Davis, which appeared in 1997 in the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles:
Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office. He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him. . . .
Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs. The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!' "
Stewart writes that while she was researching the New Times story (which is reproduced here), she "crossed paths" with L.A. Times reporters looking into the same allegations. But the Old Times never published the story. "When I spoke to a reporter involved," Stewart recounts, "he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources. Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger." The Times may turn out to have done more damage to its own reputation than to Schwarzenegger's.
Let's pretend that Fox is the big bad neocon bullhorn and everything else is good reporting
If you are going to quote the WSJ i think you need to find something that is on the news side of the paper not an opinion piece since the editorial section of the WSJ is rabiddly anti-liberal democrat - cute kittens. you might have well linked to fox news or newworldorder.org
the guy you posted to is still arguing whether or not "she" was "covert" or not.. for krisakes...And i saw jill stewart on tv and she yet to prove her story.Jill comeback when you got the facts that a real newspaper will print on a front page because its been researched, vetted and the truth.If the story was true then why didn't the news side of the wall street journal print it? Must have something to do with the ownership of ethics on their part.
Let's pretend that Fox is the big bad neocon bullhorn and everything else is good reportin
And if you believe that you never read what i think media. do a search when i had to about a dozen times explain it to poster that insisted that katie couric was part of a vast liberal media conspiracy...
I explained my position clearly. short answer. I don't go around saying all the media is conservative every time i see a story i think is not fair or seems biased...
Uhh Ooohh. They posted a story stort about a repeat sexual batterer thats running for govenor. Of course its not auuhnold. it must be the liberal media!
Originally posted by keyboardf12
So Opinon pages is the same as story the front page of a major newspaper? ...
Can you read and understand? I don't think so. They quote a news story from another paper.
LA Times sat on the Davis story for a very long time. They then blasted all Arnold tripe they could rake up.
Please let's not contend that there is a "conservative" media and deny there's a "liberal" one.
And if you believe that you never read what i think media. do a search when i had to about a dozen times explain it to poster that insisted that katie couric was part of a vast liberal media conspiracy...
You didn't do a search did you?
Please let's not contend that there is a "conservative" media and deny there's a "liberal" one.
For once we are in agreement. Do a search and you will find my previous opinions on this because i'll be stuffed before i go down "yelling in the wind" road again..especially with someone that takes pride in describing himself as a "Royal Pain in the Ass"
And just for the record, was the LA Times, the very same paper that broke the auuhnold story, part of the "conservative" or the "liberal" media when it broke the "troopergate" story that accused President Clinton of selacious things?
Just wondering....
Scandal at the L.A. Times?
Bill Bradley of the LA Weekly suggests that there may be a journalistic scandal lurking behind the Los Angeles Times' late hit on Schwarzenegger:
According to a well-informed source at the paper, the story, which hit the political world with a thunderclap, never appeared on the paper's internal or external publication schedules. Indeed, project editor Joel Sappell and the three reporters working on what the Times has described as a seven-week-long investigative project were very tight-lipped about both the scheduling of the piece and its contents. They discussed the story only with the paper's senior editors. Although the story did not appear on the schedule, it was reportedly placed in the "write basket," in which other Times editors and reporters can look at upcoming pieces, after hours last Wednesday night, just a few hours before it appeared on the Times Web site.
Even with utmost secrecy surrounding the piece, senior Democratic strategists with long-standing ties to Davis knew not only when the story was coming but also the particulars of what was in it. These strategists felt that the story held the possibility of tipping the election away from Schwarzenegger and of defeating the governor's recall.
The Angry Left has of late been pushing the idea that the "liberal media" are a myth, and in fact the media are too conservative. A new Gallup poll suggests that this is a fringe view. Forty-five percent of those polled said the media are "too liberal," vs. just 14% who say they're "too conservative"; 39% said "just about right." Eighteen percent of self-described liberals said the media are too liberal; only 30% of liberals, 15% of moderates and 9% of conservatives said they are too conservative.
First, they found that people who supported the war had certain misperceptions that tended to favor the Iraqi war:
1. "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks."
2. Since the war with Iraq has ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraq weapons of mass destruction?"
3. "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?"
Percent of people who supported the war:
With none of the above false beliefs: 23% supported the war
With one of the above false beliefs: 53%
With two of the above false beliefs: 78%
With all three of the above false beliefs: 86%
Second, they found that Fox News watchers were most likely to have those misperceptions, and NPR/PBS watchers/listeners were least likely to have those false beliefs.
Percent of people with one or more of the above misperceptions supporting the war:
Fox watchers: 80%
CBS watchers: 71
ABC watchers: 61
NBC watchers: 55
CNN watchers: 55
Paper readers: 47
NPR/PBS listeners: 23
So, watch Fox News -> get stupid -> go to war!
What falsehoods would that be? I'm sure there's some... but nothing they get from the mainstream media.
Yes. Yes. As it turns out, the reason why they did not continue to post stories like "troopergate" (which defamed president clinton<----big time democrat btw) in 1998 was that in 1999 they let their dues lapse for the RNC.
At that point they decided to join the DNC (since the beach club privileges were much better is the rumor) and then post hit pieces against undeserved republicans such as our sexual serial batterer soon to be governor...
Memos were sent to all, maybe some where lost in the mail...
NPR/PBS are the least misinformed.
Their demographics skew very college educated... and News coverage tends to be very comprehensive and detailed... versus screaming pundits every night.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
HUH? Is that how you're spinning it?
What falsehoods would that be? I'm sure there's some... but nothing they get from the mainstream media.
Oh there's tons. Here's some off the top of my head.
1) US gave money to Taliban before 9-11.
2) Us funded Bin Laden at some point in the past
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
I'm sure if you polled any NPR listener on the above statements they would think they were true. NPR repeats #3 over and over again. I even had to email a correction to them.
But ... ignorance is bliss. "Conservative" Fox news watchers are morons and NPR listeners are smug intellectuals that have complete command of all the facts.
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
Can't think of what to say. Scott just admit that Fox News is conservative. If not most of the media, then just at least specifically Fox News.
Am I wrong on those three points you quoted?