Who thinks that? We supplied arms to the Fedayeen to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Which became the Taliban.
2) Us funded Bin Laden at some point in the past
??? Never heard that one before... the Bush's are cozy with the Bin Laden Family however.
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
Nope he claimed they tried to buy it from africa... but the "proof" that Powell waved at the UN was supposedly from Niger... and proven a forgery.
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
What does... "We cannot wait any longer." mean? Bush didn't want to wait for inspectors or the UN to try to get tough with Saddam... because??? Their story was that uranium could fall into his hands or that he might give bio weapons to terrorists SOON... but in the end the BUSH deadline was arbitrary.
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
There's alot of people on the left AND the right that are saying that... including the military.
Fox watchers aren't morons... just ill-informed.
NPR listeners may be ill informed in ways too... but they also happen to get their news from other soources too.
The point is that if you don't filter the information you get with a bit of skepticism... like apparently Fox Viewers... which you agree is pretty much a one note news source...you're bound to believe things that just aren't true.
Oh there's tons. Here's some off the top of my head.
1) US gave money to Taliban before 9-11.
Maybe this is a false belief, but it's not beamed into my house.
Quote:
2) Us funded Bin Laden at some point in the past
A few threads ago I already pointed out that the US directly funded a tunnel project (yes, those tunnels) in afghanistan and bin ladin was the contractor.
But this also hasn't been beamed into my house or repeated endlessles on any network
Quote:
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
Spin it all you want. You just sound like an idiot.
Quote:
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
I believe his words were 'imminent threat.'
Quote:
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
Even wolfowitz conceeded this.
Quote:
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.
That's because it's true. You can contort your interpretation all you want, but it's true nonetheless
Maybe they just wanted to be where the news story was going to happen?
There's no way to can slam Fox for setting up shop at Arnold HQ and then be mute about the LA Time actively colluding with the Democrats to slam Arnold with slander while at the same time hiding Davis's very bad press.
Just because Davis started blowing the GROPE horn AFTER the LA Times article in no way shows they were in "cahoots".
LA Times is not a newspaper. It's a propganda machine for the democrats. But let's keep pretending Fox is the real problem. Someone should shut them down!
A little review of this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Here's another log for the fire. The LA Times is clearly a wing the DNC.
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.
be mute about the LA Time actively colluding with the Democrats
Show me the collusion.
So far all you have linked to is a right wing WSJ opinion page with a link to a "american-reporter" site that claims the article (written by the only reporter that claims this BTW) is the article. fine enough.Let's assume it is the same article. (edit: and a bunch of hear say from the Bill Bradley story)
Have you read an issue of the "New Times Los Angeles"? I think you mentioned once, you mentioned it you live in the middle part of america and it was an LA weekly newspaper. Don't know if you have. It was a "free" "alterntive press" "also ran" that failed against the more dominant weekly. I've read it. They had some colorful stories. Somehow i think their story standards and research resources where not quite as high a major metro paper.
So basically your proof is a sole story in a failed also ran with a history of colorful stories. If that's what you are basing this whole tirad then you keep listing to those voices in your head. Its a free country.
You'll have to excuse me if i wait till a real news organization shows collusion.
And while we are on the subject of being mute,
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Was the LA Times in "collusion' with the RNC and the Repulican Right when they printed this story?
LA Times is not a newspaper. It's a propganda machine for the democrats.
If you honestly believe that there isn't much we can say to you to prove our point. Your comment was beyond the pale.
Yes. Scott. They are. The are ALLLLLL against us "right" thinking people. Katie Couric is the the head of the liberal media btw... You can send angry letters to her....
LA Times is not a newspaper. It's a propganda machine for the democrats. But let's keep pretending Fox is the real problem. Someone should shut them down!
A little review of this thread.
Scott,
I've been reading your posts in this thread and have resisted posting several times but this one sent me over the edge.
You are delusional. This broken record isn't even worth discussing.
Don't forget that the American public loves the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free (!)
The perceived facts about the Iraq war by the American public were determined to a huge extent by the mainstream, and their unquestioning and obedient parroting of Bush administration lies and misrepresentations. Even CNN, usually labeled "liberal" (because of Ted Turner's past involvement) were so biased during the run up to the run-up to the war that in stark contrast to the many hundreds of interviews with pro-war/pro government people, they only permitted some 3 or 4 people to present the opposite viewpoint....and the personality to which they gave the token airtime was Janeane Garofalo, a Hollywood actress of course (although when she hosted Crossfire a few weeks ago, she demolished her opposite number, Tucker Carlson). I really wanted to see some middle east experts...but all we got was a bunch of armchair generals toeing the Pentagon line.
Does anyone recall Fox News' promotion of the hysterical fearmongering stories concerning Saddam's fleets of sophisticated unmanned drones with ranges of 10,000 miles, delivering Sarin and bio-weapons over American cities, when the reality was a couple of balsa-and-string 'model airplanes' equipped with 'lawnmower style engines' and a range of 3 miles, with no means or intent of weapons delivery? Anyone recall the mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq...trumpeted at infinitum all over the US media, when the reality was two trucks sold by the British to Iraq to generate hydrogen? Anyone recall the constant wall to wall "disarm Saddam" commentary? Remember the reasons blared all over the US mainstream to justify the war, none of which have panned out as reality?
The government lied, the US mainstream media dutifully lied (Fox was the most blatant offender of the lot) and the American public, most of whom just don't have the time to study the issues, was rounded up like so many obedient sheep. When the media is hidebound by the requirements of corporate "culture" (excuse the oxymoron), reality will be compromised far more than when it is "liberal", namely enjoying the freedom to be able to publish material of which government/big business might disapprove.
The UK has some mainstream liberal newspapers such as The Guardian or The Independent as do most western industrialized nations. In the US, the liberal media is limited to small-circulation boutique publications such as Mother Jones or The Nation. In liberal media outlets journalists have the editorial liberty to pen stories of, for example, crime and human rights abuses by multinational corporations, an area of reporting which is notoriously absent (almost verboten) in the U.S. mainstream.
Examples of non-liberal media are the old Soviet official newspapers such as Pravda and Isvestya, where "journalists" were forced to parrot the Kremlin line: they had no choice. In a similar fashion, hidebound by agenda, is Fox News. The "liberalness" of media is defined not just by what stories they cover, but to a large extent by what stories they refuse to cover. The "liberalness" of the media is also defined by the political leanings of the corporations that own the media, and those that finance the media, namely their advertisers.
Who is offended by a liberal media anyway, and why? What is so dangerous about dissent or controversy, and why is the Bush administration in particular so paranoid of it? Why is patriotism now being falsely equated to unquestioning obedience? Why are Americans who express opposition to this administration being targeted by federal agencies...etc etc etc? there's the tip of the iceberg. Whoever controls the media controls the perception of the public.
Ted Turner (billionaire media mogul himself) said this: ?There are really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It?s not healthy.?
It's obvious that people disagree with that, or think its just fine for our media to have become so concentrated and monopolized. Why is this? Who's running America these days anyway? The original intent was we the people but now it's they-the-elite. Why is this a good thing?
Lest we doubt that Fox is Fair and **xxxxx, they've apparently just recently hired Saddam's second-in-command from his Information Ministry:
Quote:
The second-in-command at the information ministry, who spent his days reading the reports the minders wrote about visiting foreign journalists, has been employed by Fox News.
Does anyone recall Fox News' promotion of the hysterical fearmongering stories concerning Saddam's fleets of sophisticated unmanned drones with ranges of 10,000 miles, delivering Sarin and bio-weapons over American cities, when the reality was a couple of balsa-and-string 'model airplanes' equipped with 'lawnmower style engines' and a range of 3 miles, with no means or intent of weapons delivery? Anyone recall the mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq...trumpeted at infinitum all over the US media, when the reality was two trucks sold by the British to Iraq to generate hydrogen? Anyone recall the constant wall to wall "disarm Saddam" commentary? Remember the reasons blared all over the US mainstream to justify the war, none of which have panned out as reality?
The worst one I saw was about 'bunkers.' It was some saturday in the run-up to the war and Fox had some 'expert' running through 3D renderings of saddam's palaces. The had these color-coded underground rooms that they labeled 'bio-weapons lab' or 'chemical storage.' They did this for 3 or 4 specific palaces. Each one had a unique underground map.
AT NO TIME DID I EVER HEAR THEM SAY THIS WAS SPECULATION.
It was presented as cold hard fact. Each rendering had unique detailed bunkers, and they would say 'Now this is an undergreound chemical lab. It has this, this and this in it.' This went on for at least 15 minutes.
I was so in shock I immeditely went to thier website hoping that maybe they weren't just lying and instead actually had some new info. Nothing. And now we know it was all a lie.
Now maybe briefly at the beginning they said this is all speculation, but I never saw it. It was presented as nothing less than detailed fact.
If I have some time I'll try to find the transcript on lexis-nexis.
Then there was that time they reported that some solders were killed based on the statements of someone not in a position to know ... oh wait that was the NYT.
Well there was that 7 (?) page retraction from Fox ... oh wait that was the NYT.
Then there was that time they reported that the US gave the Taliban money ... oh wait that was the LA Times.
Then that one time when they misquoted the president and refused to correct it ... oh wait that was the NYT Op-Ed page.
Then there was that time Fox lied and distorted the case of Wen Ho Lee and slandered him with little evidence ... crap that was the NYT again.
Scott, that's great that all you can say is, 'Everybody's doing it.' But there is a difference.
I'm just as pissed off as you are about the Times running columns by one particular reporter stating lies on the front page making false accusations against Iraq during the war. I'm just as pissed off as you are that MSNBC panders to morons. And we all know CNN made money of the war, so it's no wonder they didn't work to expose the truth about Iraqi WMD.
You and I can now work together to let more people know how the major media has been dishonest about Iraq WMD.
The difference with Fox is that there is a consistency, and, in the area I am concerned with, there was consistent lying to start a war. The incident I cited was a deliberate and calculated attempt to make viewers believe something false in order to get support for a war. A war.
Fox functions solely off of untruths, contorted interpretations and meanspritedness. Even though you and I can find parts of major news outlets that are not honest, none of the majors compare to Fox in deciet, though MSNBC wishes they were. Deciet over an incident is one thing. Deciet over a situation is certainly very serious. But deciet that changes history and the political face of the globe is unacceptable.
Fox functions solely off of untruths, contorted interpretations and meanspritedness. Even though you and I can find parts of major news outlets that are not honest, none of the majors compare to Fox in deciet, though MSNBC wishes they were. Deciet over an incident is one thing. Deciet over a situation is certainly very serious. But deciet that changes history and the political face of the globe is unacceptable.
Hate to be picky, but how can you work in a library and mispell "deceit" that many times in one place?
...and Sammi Jo, do you still believe that Ahhhnold is a hardcore Nazi sympathizer? You never answered the question last time.
Scott, that's great that all you can say is, 'Everybody's doing it.' But there is a difference.
I'm just as pissed off as you are about the Times running columns by one particular reporter stating lies on the front page making false accusations against Iraq during the war. I'm just as pissed off as you are that MSNBC panders to morons. And we all know CNN made money of the war, so it's no wonder they didn't work to expose the truth about Iraqi WMD.
You and I can now work together to let more people know how the major media has been dishonest about Iraq WMD.
The difference with Fox is that there is a consistency, and, in the area I am concerned with, there was consistent lying to start a war. The incident I cited was a deliberate and calculated attempt to make viewers believe something false in order to get support for a war. A war.
Fox functions solely off of untruths, contorted interpretations and meanspritedness. Even though you and I can find parts of major news outlets that are not honest, none of the majors compare to Fox in deciet, though MSNBC wishes they were. Deciet over an incident is one thing. Deciet over a situation is certainly very serious. But deciet that changes history and the political face of the globe is unacceptable.
Keep it spinning dude! LA Times controlled by the DNC but Fox viewers are the real problem! Shut them down!
Hate to be picky, but how can you work in a library and mispell "deceit" that many times in one place?
...and Sammi Jo, do you still believe that Ahhhnold is a hardcore Nazi sympathizer? You never answered the question last time.
I *did* reply...in that other thread. Sorry if it wasn't enough. To repeat: I put up a link in which someone (not me, I repeat, not me) suggested that Schwarzenegger admired certain qualities that Hitler had...as revealed in a 1975 interview. To repeat again, I never expressed any belief, one way or the other, that A.S. is/was a Nazi sympathazer.....and where does your "hardcore" twist come from? Thats a new take altogether. To repeat one more time: I put up a link to a place on the web, just like we all do on this BB. No words of mine were on that link.
Regarding my own personal take on whether Arnold is a Nazi supporter: it's really neither here nor there...but for what it's worth, Mr. Schwarzenegger's father was (apparently) in the S.S., so it is conceivably possible that some "Nazi friendly ideas" entered Arnold's young and impressionable mind during his upbringing. That's quite possibly the source of Arnold's pro Hitler ideas which surfaced in that interview. Who knows for sure...only Arnie...and I'm sure he's not telling.
Back to the "liberal media":
Arnold Schw. is all over the headlines in the mainstream media. Of course he is...he has just been elected governor of CA.
This fascinating and detailed story reveals the sordid background behind the recall and California's energy "crisis" of recent years. Does this stuff ever get a fair wind in the mainstream corporate media, which comprises 90% of what Americans see, hear and read, and is controlled by five consolidated conglomerates? Absolutely not a chance, because this story is all about corporate malfeasance and serial crime (on a massive scale) and it shouldn't be ignored that there are a number of fantastically wealthy and powerful people who share directorships in both media and energy corporations. Directors, incidentally, have some say in the direction of the company/companies they direct. No? Don't forget that these serial frauds were perpetrated on the people of California (who voted mostly for Al Gore in 2000) by close associates of many in the Bush administration, including the president himself, and virtually *nobody* has been brought to justice. (Ken Lay himself conducted interviews in the White House itself, I recall, when Bush was assembling his cabinet...thats how close those two were (are?). This kind of crap is what happens in autocratic, plutocratic regimes where nepotism reigns supreme: if you have the money and the connections you will *always* be safe from the not-long-enough-arm-of-the-law. Ask the members of the bin Laden family who were shielded from the FBI by officials of...you guessed it...the Bush administration. (Osama, btw, has never really been a black sheep...he was actually seen at a bin Laden family wedding not 6 months before 9-11).
I scanned all the networks and there is not a peep about this highly topical and newsworthy item re. the recall. Why is it that only Palast and the small "boutique" liberal media have the guts to air these stories and similar? Actually, it's really not too hard to fathom that one.
Seriously all, who in their right mind would vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger considering he "admired Hitler"?
This strikes me as a bit more condemning than just an innocent link posted FYI w/o any "expressed beliefs". I just wanted to restate your penchant to take liberties with contexts in your posts. Carry on... Did you really mean "admire Hitler" for everything he stood for or "admire Hitler" for a specific quality that united a nation? Really, your statement seems more along the lines of rejecting Schwarzenegger outright since he has any admiration over Hitler at all. If you meant otherwise, then you could have phrased it better...or better yet, not mention it at all since you allegedly have no opinion over it altogether. Of course, that doesn't add up now, does it? (rhetorical)
Now that was just one sentence by you. Now we go back to the considerably longer post you have in this topic. Careful, people.
Comments
Who thinks that? We supplied arms to the Fedayeen to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Which became the Taliban.
2) Us funded Bin Laden at some point in the past
??? Never heard that one before... the Bush's are cozy with the Bin Laden Family however.
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
Nope he claimed they tried to buy it from africa... but the "proof" that Powell waved at the UN was supposedly from Niger... and proven a forgery.
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
What does... "We cannot wait any longer." mean? Bush didn't want to wait for inspectors or the UN to try to get tough with Saddam... because??? Their story was that uranium could fall into his hands or that he might give bio weapons to terrorists SOON... but in the end the BUSH deadline was arbitrary.
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
There's alot of people on the left AND the right that are saying that... including the military.
Fox watchers aren't morons... just ill-informed.
NPR listeners may be ill informed in ways too... but they also happen to get their news from other soources too.
The point is that if you don't filter the information you get with a bit of skepticism... like apparently Fox Viewers... which you agree is pretty much a one note news source...you're bound to believe things that just aren't true.
Originally posted by Scott
Oh there's tons. Here's some off the top of my head.
1) US gave money to Taliban before 9-11.
Maybe this is a false belief, but it's not beamed into my house.
2) Us funded Bin Laden at some point in the past
A few threads ago I already pointed out that the US directly funded a tunnel project (yes, those tunnels) in afghanistan and bin ladin was the contractor.
But this also hasn't been beamed into my house or repeated endlessles on any network
3) Bush claimed in the State of the Union that Iraq tried to by Uranium from Niger.
Spin it all you want. You just sound like an idiot.
4) Bush "rushed" to war under the guise of an "eminent threat".
I believe his words were 'imminent threat.'
5) Bush under estimated post war Iraq.
Even wolfowitz conceeded this.
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.
That's because it's true. You can contort your interpretation all you want, but it's true nonetheless
But ... ignorance is bliss.
Well, this is the one area you have expertise.
Anchors their coverage of the recall election from Schwarzenegger's campaign HQ. When are they going to admit they have a conservative lean?
Did they really set up camp in arnold HQ? OMG!
Its like they are not even TRYING to pretend to be objective anymore...
There's no way to can slam Fox for setting up shop at Arnold HQ and then be mute about the LA Time actively colluding with the Democrats to slam Arnold with slander while at the same time hiding Davis's very bad press.
Let's all pretend Fox is the real problem.
he even said "where there's smoke there's fire"
Just because Davis started blowing the GROPE horn AFTER the LA Times article in no way shows they were in "cahoots".
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Arnold admitted it... how is that slander?
he even said "where there's smoke there's fire"
Just because Davis started blowing the GROPE horn AFTER the LA Times article in no way shows they were in "cahoots".
LA Times is not a newspaper. It's a propganda machine for the democrats. But let's keep pretending Fox is the real problem. Someone should shut them down!
A little review of this thread.
Originally posted by Scott
Here's another log for the fire. The LA Times is clearly a wing the DNC.
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.
be mute about the LA Time actively colluding with the Democrats
Show me the collusion.
So far all you have linked to is a right wing WSJ opinion page with a link to a "american-reporter" site that claims the article (written by the only reporter that claims this BTW) is the article. fine enough.Let's assume it is the same article. (edit: and a bunch of hear say from the Bill Bradley story)
Have you read an issue of the "New Times Los Angeles"? I think you mentioned once, you mentioned it you live in the middle part of america and it was an LA weekly newspaper. Don't know if you have. It was a "free" "alterntive press" "also ran" that failed against the more dominant weekly. I've read it. They had some colorful stories. Somehow i think their story standards and research resources where not quite as high a major metro paper.
So basically your proof is a sole story in a failed also ran with a history of colorful stories. If that's what you are basing this whole tirad then you keep listing to those voices in your head. Its a free country.
You'll have to excuse me if i wait till a real news organization shows collusion.
And while we are on the subject of being mute,
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?
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?
Was the LA Times in "collusion' with the RNC and the Repulican Right when they printed this story?
LA Times is not a newspaper. It's a propganda machine for the democrats.
If you honestly believe that there isn't much we can say to you to prove our point. Your comment was beyond the pale.
Yes. Scott. They are. The are ALLLLLL against us "right" thinking people. Katie Couric is the the head of the liberal media btw... You can send angry letters to her....
Originally posted by Scott
LA Times is not a newspaper. It's a propganda machine for the democrats. But let's keep pretending Fox is the real problem. Someone should shut them down!
A little review of this thread.
Scott,
I've been reading your posts in this thread and have resisted posting several times but this one sent me over the edge.
You are delusional. This broken record isn't even worth discussing.
It's the Liberal Media!
Don't forget that the American public loves the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free (!)
The perceived facts about the Iraq war by the American public were determined to a huge extent by the mainstream, and their unquestioning and obedient parroting of Bush administration lies and misrepresentations. Even CNN, usually labeled "liberal" (because of Ted Turner's past involvement) were so biased during the run up to the run-up to the war that in stark contrast to the many hundreds of interviews with pro-war/pro government people, they only permitted some 3 or 4 people to present the opposite viewpoint....and the personality to which they gave the token airtime was Janeane Garofalo, a Hollywood actress of course (although when she hosted Crossfire a few weeks ago, she demolished her opposite number, Tucker Carlson). I really wanted to see some middle east experts...but all we got was a bunch of armchair generals toeing the Pentagon line.
Does anyone recall Fox News' promotion of the hysterical fearmongering stories concerning Saddam's fleets of sophisticated unmanned drones with ranges of 10,000 miles, delivering Sarin and bio-weapons over American cities, when the reality was a couple of balsa-and-string 'model airplanes' equipped with 'lawnmower style engines' and a range of 3 miles, with no means or intent of weapons delivery? Anyone recall the mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq...trumpeted at infinitum all over the US media, when the reality was two trucks sold by the British to Iraq to generate hydrogen? Anyone recall the constant wall to wall "disarm Saddam" commentary? Remember the reasons blared all over the US mainstream to justify the war, none of which have panned out as reality?
The government lied, the US mainstream media dutifully lied (Fox was the most blatant offender of the lot) and the American public, most of whom just don't have the time to study the issues, was rounded up like so many obedient sheep. When the media is hidebound by the requirements of corporate "culture" (excuse the oxymoron), reality will be compromised far more than when it is "liberal", namely enjoying the freedom to be able to publish material of which government/big business might disapprove.
The UK has some mainstream liberal newspapers such as The Guardian or The Independent as do most western industrialized nations. In the US, the liberal media is limited to small-circulation boutique publications such as Mother Jones or The Nation. In liberal media outlets journalists have the editorial liberty to pen stories of, for example, crime and human rights abuses by multinational corporations, an area of reporting which is notoriously absent (almost verboten) in the U.S. mainstream.
Examples of non-liberal media are the old Soviet official newspapers such as Pravda and Isvestya, where "journalists" were forced to parrot the Kremlin line: they had no choice. In a similar fashion, hidebound by agenda, is Fox News. The "liberalness" of media is defined not just by what stories they cover, but to a large extent by what stories they refuse to cover. The "liberalness" of the media is also defined by the political leanings of the corporations that own the media, and those that finance the media, namely their advertisers.
Who is offended by a liberal media anyway, and why? What is so dangerous about dissent or controversy, and why is the Bush administration in particular so paranoid of it? Why is patriotism now being falsely equated to unquestioning obedience? Why are Americans who express opposition to this administration being targeted by federal agencies...etc etc etc? there's the tip of the iceberg. Whoever controls the media controls the perception of the public.
Ted Turner (billionaire media mogul himself) said this: ?There are really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It?s not healthy.?
It's obvious that people disagree with that, or think its just fine for our media to have become so concentrated and monopolized. Why is this? Who's running America these days anyway? The original intent was we the people but now it's they-the-elite. Why is this a good thing?
This broken record isn't even worth discussing.
Agreed jimmac, it seems some people live to argue the silliest of sides.
How sad for them....
The second-in-command at the information ministry, who spent his days reading the reports the minders wrote about visiting foreign journalists, has been employed by Fox News.
[**removed at the request of Fox Legal]
Originally posted by sammi jo
Does anyone recall Fox News' promotion of the hysterical fearmongering stories concerning Saddam's fleets of sophisticated unmanned drones with ranges of 10,000 miles, delivering Sarin and bio-weapons over American cities, when the reality was a couple of balsa-and-string 'model airplanes' equipped with 'lawnmower style engines' and a range of 3 miles, with no means or intent of weapons delivery? Anyone recall the mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq...trumpeted at infinitum all over the US media, when the reality was two trucks sold by the British to Iraq to generate hydrogen? Anyone recall the constant wall to wall "disarm Saddam" commentary? Remember the reasons blared all over the US mainstream to justify the war, none of which have panned out as reality?
The worst one I saw was about 'bunkers.' It was some saturday in the run-up to the war and Fox had some 'expert' running through 3D renderings of saddam's palaces. The had these color-coded underground rooms that they labeled 'bio-weapons lab' or 'chemical storage.' They did this for 3 or 4 specific palaces. Each one had a unique underground map.
AT NO TIME DID I EVER HEAR THEM SAY THIS WAS SPECULATION.
It was presented as cold hard fact. Each rendering had unique detailed bunkers, and they would say 'Now this is an undergreound chemical lab. It has this, this and this in it.' This went on for at least 15 minutes.
I was so in shock I immeditely went to thier website hoping that maybe they weren't just lying and instead actually had some new info. Nothing. And now we know it was all a lie.
Now maybe briefly at the beginning they said this is all speculation, but I never saw it. It was presented as nothing less than detailed fact.
If I have some time I'll try to find the transcript on lexis-nexis.
Well there was that 7 (?) page retraction from Fox ... oh wait that was the NYT.
Then there was that time they reported that the US gave the Taliban money ... oh wait that was the LA Times.
Then that one time when they misquoted the president and refused to correct it ... oh wait that was the NYT Op-Ed page.
Then there was that time Fox lied and distorted the case of Wen Ho Lee and slandered him with little evidence ... crap that was the NYT again.
I'm just as pissed off as you are about the Times running columns by one particular reporter stating lies on the front page making false accusations against Iraq during the war. I'm just as pissed off as you are that MSNBC panders to morons. And we all know CNN made money of the war, so it's no wonder they didn't work to expose the truth about Iraqi WMD.
You and I can now work together to let more people know how the major media has been dishonest about Iraq WMD.
The difference with Fox is that there is a consistency, and, in the area I am concerned with, there was consistent lying to start a war. The incident I cited was a deliberate and calculated attempt to make viewers believe something false in order to get support for a war. A war.
Fox functions solely off of untruths, contorted interpretations and meanspritedness. Even though you and I can find parts of major news outlets that are not honest, none of the majors compare to Fox in deciet, though MSNBC wishes they were. Deciet over an incident is one thing. Deciet over a situation is certainly very serious. But deciet that changes history and the political face of the globe is unacceptable.
Originally posted by giant
Fox functions solely off of untruths, contorted interpretations and meanspritedness. Even though you and I can find parts of major news outlets that are not honest, none of the majors compare to Fox in deciet, though MSNBC wishes they were. Deciet over an incident is one thing. Deciet over a situation is certainly very serious. But deciet that changes history and the political face of the globe is unacceptable.
Hate to be picky, but how can you work in a library and mispell "deceit" that many times in one place?
...and Sammi Jo, do you still believe that Ahhhnold is a hardcore Nazi sympathizer? You never answered the question last time.
Originally posted by giant
Scott, that's great that all you can say is, 'Everybody's doing it.' But there is a difference.
I'm just as pissed off as you are about the Times running columns by one particular reporter stating lies on the front page making false accusations against Iraq during the war. I'm just as pissed off as you are that MSNBC panders to morons. And we all know CNN made money of the war, so it's no wonder they didn't work to expose the truth about Iraqi WMD.
You and I can now work together to let more people know how the major media has been dishonest about Iraq WMD.
The difference with Fox is that there is a consistency, and, in the area I am concerned with, there was consistent lying to start a war. The incident I cited was a deliberate and calculated attempt to make viewers believe something false in order to get support for a war. A war.
Fox functions solely off of untruths, contorted interpretations and meanspritedness. Even though you and I can find parts of major news outlets that are not honest, none of the majors compare to Fox in deciet, though MSNBC wishes they were. Deciet over an incident is one thing. Deciet over a situation is certainly very serious. But deciet that changes history and the political face of the globe is unacceptable.
Keep it spinning dude! LA Times controlled by the DNC but Fox viewers are the real problem! Shut them down!
Originally posted by Randycat99
Hate to be picky, but how can you work in a library and mispell "deceit" that many times in one place?
...and Sammi Jo, do you still believe that Ahhhnold is a hardcore Nazi sympathizer? You never answered the question last time.
I *did* reply...in that other thread. Sorry if it wasn't enough. To repeat: I put up a link in which someone (not me, I repeat, not me) suggested that Schwarzenegger admired certain qualities that Hitler had...as revealed in a 1975 interview. To repeat again, I never expressed any belief, one way or the other, that A.S. is/was a Nazi sympathazer.....and where does your "hardcore" twist come from? Thats a new take altogether. To repeat one more time: I put up a link to a place on the web, just like we all do on this BB. No words of mine were on that link.
Regarding my own personal take on whether Arnold is a Nazi supporter: it's really neither here nor there...but for what it's worth, Mr. Schwarzenegger's father was (apparently) in the S.S., so it is conceivably possible that some "Nazi friendly ideas" entered Arnold's young and impressionable mind during his upbringing. That's quite possibly the source of Arnold's pro Hitler ideas which surfaced in that interview. Who knows for sure...only Arnie...and I'm sure he's not telling.
Back to the "liberal media":
Arnold Schw. is all over the headlines in the mainstream media. Of course he is...he has just been elected governor of CA.
Here is one link, this one is CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html
Here is another link, to Greg Palast's website.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=0
This fascinating and detailed story reveals the sordid background behind the recall and California's energy "crisis" of recent years. Does this stuff ever get a fair wind in the mainstream corporate media, which comprises 90% of what Americans see, hear and read, and is controlled by five consolidated conglomerates? Absolutely not a chance, because this story is all about corporate malfeasance and serial crime (on a massive scale) and it shouldn't be ignored that there are a number of fantastically wealthy and powerful people who share directorships in both media and energy corporations. Directors, incidentally, have some say in the direction of the company/companies they direct. No? Don't forget that these serial frauds were perpetrated on the people of California (who voted mostly for Al Gore in 2000) by close associates of many in the Bush administration, including the president himself, and virtually *nobody* has been brought to justice. (Ken Lay himself conducted interviews in the White House itself, I recall, when Bush was assembling his cabinet...thats how close those two were (are?). This kind of crap is what happens in autocratic, plutocratic regimes where nepotism reigns supreme: if you have the money and the connections you will *always* be safe from the not-long-enough-arm-of-the-law. Ask the members of the bin Laden family who were shielded from the FBI by officials of...you guessed it...the Bush administration. (Osama, btw, has never really been a black sheep...he was actually seen at a bin Laden family wedding not 6 months before 9-11).
I scanned all the networks and there is not a peep about this highly topical and newsworthy item re. the recall. Why is it that only Palast and the small "boutique" liberal media have the guts to air these stories and similar? Actually, it's really not too hard to fathom that one.
Originally posted by sammi jo
http://story.news.yahoo.com...link abreviated
Seriously all, who in their right mind would vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger considering he "admired Hitler"?
This strikes me as a bit more condemning than just an innocent link posted FYI w/o any "expressed beliefs". I just wanted to restate your penchant to take liberties with contexts in your posts. Carry on... Did you really mean "admire Hitler" for everything he stood for or "admire Hitler" for a specific quality that united a nation? Really, your statement seems more along the lines of rejecting Schwarzenegger outright since he has any admiration over Hitler at all. If you meant otherwise, then you could have phrased it better...or better yet, not mention it at all since you allegedly have no opinion over it altogether. Of course, that doesn't add up now, does it? (rhetorical)
Now that was just one sentence by you. Now we go back to the considerably longer post you have in this topic. Careful, people.