There's been much talk about the "liberal media bias." Is there a general liberal or conservative bias to the mainstream media? Is it possible to look at its treatment of Clinton and Bush and draw any conclusions? And what about the open biases of the non-mainstream media outlets such as FSTV? What role do they play?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
2. Cellar Door - 2/21/2002 3:55:28 PM
"Liberal Media Bias" is an obsession of the Conservatives who run the media.
It's sort of a pocket version of the Stalin "show trial." "Former Liberals" like Tammy Bruce and Bernard Goldberg, confess their sins while denouncing others in stirring tones.
3. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 3:56:06 PM
Most of the reporters are pretty liberals. However, the media owners are not.
4. judithathome - 2/21/2002 4:05:31 PM
You must not watch FOX, Erin.
5. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 4:05:42 PM
That gets me, Erin. People assume that because the employees are liberal that what they report is also, but that doesn't necessarily follow, and at least here in AR, the editors are very conservative.
It also interests me what happened to the Arkansas Gazette, and I wonder if this has been a frequent practice. It was bought by a conservative corporation and neglected, then sold to its only rival, the conservative Arkansas Democrat.
6. thoughtful - 2/21/2002 4:06:06 PM
Nice topic Arky. I've been trying to find an objective source on the topic and have been unable to...but someone somewhere must keep track of this stuff. But it's sorta like judging skating...so much bias is in the eye of the beholder that it's questionable whether anyone can get an objective assessment.
Perhaps the assessment says more about the assessor than the media outlet....I think NPR is fairly balanced but my right-of-genghis-khan coworker views it as being left of marx. I view the NY Times (ex the editorials but including the op ed page) as fairly well balanced, but he says I'm crazy. Of course he views the Wall St Journal as centrist.
I would hope though that there are largely two areas where observers could agree on: 1) largely the placement of the media outlets along the spectrum (FOX is right of ABC; Wall St. Journal is right of New York Times) and 2) there has been growth in conservatively-biased media outlets, say, since Reagan.
7. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 4:12:49 PM
Thoughtful,
I agree about #2. Gannett had Nancy Reagan on its board.
I expect some bias in everything, but if pertinent stories are being reported with all the necessary facts it would seem the bias wouldn't matter as much. We hear claims from the left and right, however, of stories that are not being reported or that are being underreported or reported from only one perspective that are relevant, and people base their views on whether or not they accept them as reported, whether they've been substantiated or not.
8. Absensia - 2/21/2002 4:15:02 PM
I don't find the media terribly "liberal." CNN will often have these "left and right" forums, and I agree with Thoughtful's view. Likewise, CD, I think you are right on.
9. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 4:29:58 PM
I didn't say that the media is liberal; just the reporters.
10. judithathome - 2/21/2002 4:43:53 PM
???
How do you get that?
11. thoughtful - 2/21/2002 4:45:26 PM
One of the best reporters is Tim Russert. His meet the press is one of the best shows going for airing both sides of an issue. In addition to the fact that he asks important, insightful and challenging questions of people on both sides of an issue, you can actually hear the responses!
Unlike that McLaughlin group which I sum up as McL. makes a one word comment like "DEFENSE!" then 5 minutes of everyone talking at once. He interrupts the chaos by pointing at each in turn asking, "Yes or No!". Then follows up with next topic, "the Environment!" Lots of chaos, no enlightenment.
12. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 4:46:06 PM
The reporters may personally be liberal; I've seen studies to that effect.
But they really don't control what makes it to the mainstream.
13. AytchMan - 2/21/2002 4:48:11 PM
Almost all reporting is biased because people are biased.
I think that, regardless of the purity of one's motives, some bias inevitably slips through. Not so much because of an agenda but because one's political views influence what one considers to be the "objectively" central point around which one constructs one's reporting.
I often see reporters of all stripes deliver a seemingly objective report that fails to include an important argument from the other side. I think the omission is not deliberate. It simply didn't occur to the reporter as a reasonable opposing view.
Of course, without pure motives, the bias is far worse.
14. CalGal - 2/21/2002 4:49:47 PM
Thoughtful,
Russert isn't a reporter. Neither is anyone on the McLaughlin group these days.
I agree with Aytch; bias has many forms.
15. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 4:50:51 PM
WRT #12
That's why who owns the outlet and who they hire as editors is as important as the reporters themselves, imo.
McLaughlin Group fills my need for Jerry Springer-type entertainment while allowing me to feel like I'm maintaining my reputation.
16. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 4:53:38 PM
I'm taking "reporters" to be media spokespeople and presenters in general, particularly in TV. I figure that's what most everyone else is doing, as well.
17. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 4:57:28 PM
Arky,
I agree. What I also find upsetting is the lack of muckracking journalists out there.
18. ronski - 2/21/2002 4:57:51 PM
19. AytchMan - 2/21/2002 4:58:48 PM
If one were to commission a study, how would one determine media bias?
20. CalGal - 2/21/2002 4:59:05 PM
I'm taking "reporters" to be media spokespeople and presenters in general, particularly in TV.
Really?
So there is no distinction between John McLaughlin and Floyd Norris?
21. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:02:14 PM
If one were to commission a study, how would one determine media bias?
But surely first we have to define "media". (g)
1. Pick a subject.
2. Determine the complete range of informed opinion on the subject.
3. Assess the media's coverage of that range.
22. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:02:52 PM
No distinction? I don't think I said that.
If you put them under the umbrella of reporters or media people or whatever for a general discussion of the media it's fine until a distinction is necessary for a point, in which case I would suggest using the term that suits.
23. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:03:53 PM
Erin,
I also have a problem with the cheap imitation for muckrakers that is embodied in shows like 20/20 which take a shocking story and try to work it up into an issue.
24. thoughtful - 2/21/2002 5:04:04 PM
Ronski, relying on the cato institute? and it quoting the Media Research Center? The source confirms the conclusion without having to read the article.
25. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:04:13 PM
Arky--I agree that "media" has a wide range. I guess I just see "reporter" as a more specific term.
26. AytchMan - 2/21/2002 5:04:51 PM
But surely first we have to define "media".
Let's not go there. And...wait for it...please don't call me surely.
27. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:07:21 PM
Hey, you caught them both.
I totally agree about "media", hence the g. It was a lighthearted goof. But the 1-3 was a serious answer to your question.
28. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:09:03 PM
I could've sworn I posted about #3 on Cal's list. What I meant to ask was how you know you have a totally objective assessment.
29. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:09:35 PM
Can we call H surly?
30. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 5:10:09 PM
I think of a reporter as a person who makes their livelihood from researching stories, interviewing subjects, and writing the story.
I don't know that the network talking heads do that.
31. AytchMan - 2/21/2002 5:13:31 PM
Let me rephrase my "commission a study" question:
What would one accept as concrete proof of media bias by a news show or organization that one currently considers unbiased?
32. ronski - 2/21/2002 5:14:17 PM
thoughtful,
Trust me. Read the article. It makes a sound point that underlies the idea of this whole thread.
Remember, CATO represents views that are almost completely ignored by the media, i.e. libertarian principles, in lieu of liberal, centrist, and conservative (neo-con) ones, and thus is in a position almost to be objective.
33. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:14:31 PM
Good point, Erin. Are talking heads and reporters the two main groups? What about editors and columnists? Should those be four distinctions to make and are there any more major ones I'm not thinking of?
34. AytchMan - 2/21/2002 5:15:20 PM
arky--
I'll spare you the other really shopworn joke about calling somebody...
35. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:15:59 PM
Erin--yeah, that's what I meant. Some pundits interview, but they are generally biased--and they make their bias known. Hence, Krauthammer is a right of center journalist, Clift a left of center one. They are primarily analysts, at this point (although I'm sure they began as reporters).
I'm not trying to get hung up on definitions; it's just that "reporter" has very clear connotations.
Arky--I think the definition of the assessment would be debatable, but it could be managed.
There are a number of areas where the range of reporting is substantially narrower than the range of accepted and uncontroversial opinion as defined by experts.
36. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 5:19:04 PM
Kidnapped WSJ Reporter Daniel Pearl is Dead.
link
37. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:23:08 PM
You know, that really shouldn't go in this thread.
38. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:24:11 PM
That's a current event, PJ. Or are you wanting to discuss Drudge? He didn't get it first this time.
Why don't you repost what you posted about NPR in Suggestions?
39. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 5:25:15 PM
Wow. That's too bad.
40. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:25:46 PM
Incidentally, that's your call about topic and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just annoyed to see it posted here because the discussion is interesting and I'd hate to see it distracted by sad news just because PoJ has a one-track mind.
41. thoughtful - 2/21/2002 5:26:42 PM
Erin, perhaps not writing the story as TV reporters "air" them rather than "write" them, but certainly Russert researches and interviews and reports. He certainly "covers" stories. Would the point have been any different had I called Russert a journalist? A TV journalist? Perhaps I should have just referred to him simply as the best: Moderator, “Meet the Press”; Anchor, MSNBC; Anchor, CNBC's 'Tim Russert'; Senior Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief, NBC News. Or next time I'll just have to post his entire resume.
Now, if the discussion can't focus on the issues and move beyond the minutiae, I'm out of here.
42. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 5:27:55 PM
Touche. My creation has been taken over by the hens and I'll now fade away.
43. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:29:10 PM
That's fine, Cal. I welcome anybody to help keep the thread on topic.
I saw something in the Demorag the other day (ignore my media bias) on the front page about some young teen protesting Dr. Pepper because it left out "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance on its label. It struck me that it's biased just to put that drivel on the front page. If it goes anywhere it should be on the society page, imo. It wasn't like she'd had a major impact on the soda industry or that she found a rat in her DP.
44. Erin R. - 2/21/2002 5:30:08 PM
I use "write" almost interchangably with "report," which is what broadcast journalists do while on the air.
Why walk away in a huff? Reporter vs. "other" is an important discussion point when you're talking about the liberal media bias.
45. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 5:30:43 PM
Thoughtful,
I don't think it matters what you call them. If it gets to opinion vs reporting then a distinction might be needed.
46. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 5:48:53 PM
Captors made video of Pearl's murder which FBI has now. Supposedly it was gruesome.
47. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 5:50:02 PM
Two reasons he was killed--he was Jewish and he worked for the best newspaper in the world.
48. concerned - 2/21/2002 5:50:03 PM
PoJ -
How come you didn't sign on as moderator of this thread? Having arky and absensia do this is a little like packing the Supreme Court:)
49. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 5:50:51 PM
concerned--Because I once mentioned how heavy Ms. No might be.
50. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 5:51:44 PM
You know, like John Lennon singing about Yoko: "She's so heavy."
51. judithathome - 2/21/2002 5:53:49 PM
Oh grow up...
52. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:57:28 PM
He certainly "covers" stories.
I disagree. He "covers" opinions about stories, by asking questions of those who have opinions about stories.
It is entirely appropriate to call him a journalist, or a media figure. I was the first person who made the objection, and it was because I really think that "reporter" is a limited term.
I'm not sure that McLaughlin is even a journalist, much less a reporter. But most of the people on his panel are journalists.
53. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:58:14 PM
Arky--in regards to the Doctor Pepper story, I don't know if it is biased or put there for sales (I am assuming there is a difference). But the interesting question is which bias does it show?
"Look, a teen on the morally righteous path, objecting to unpatriotic behavior in pop culture!"
"Look, a teen who has been brainwashed into believing that 'under God' is a vital aspect of patriotism!"
or maybe
"Look, can you believe the bullshit that teens are getting upset about these days?"
54. concerned - 2/21/2002 5:58:47 PM
At this point, I won't claim the media forms a solid liberal block, since most talk radio and some print media clearly tilts conservative. But, as Bernard Goldberg, who has had The Dan first put the arm on him and then have him iced, has pointed out, the major broadcast networks, excepting perhaps Fox, clearly spin left, as does the Associated Press news service.
55. Absensia - 2/21/2002 7:40:38 PM
It seems to me that if someone presents a media source, they must or should link to it, so everyone can see it, compare it to any other sources they have, determine the spin and quality of the report.
Maybe looking at other sources that produced the article might be helpful for all of us, and not refuse to look because it's "too left" or "too right."
56. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 7:48:59 PM
Cal,
It showed the first of your spin examples, definitely. But the reason I think it reflects what I believe is unprofessional bias for a daily newspaper is that it was put on the front page, not that it was covered. If it were for sales, it would be to reduce sales of DP, since it sounded like this 14 year old was striking out against the God-less company, from the picture and the tone of the article. What made it a headline story I can't figure. Had it been on the inside as a human interest story of a girl taking action or any of the other possible spins you list, I doubt I would have noticed it. I guess I should have saved it, but I never buy the Demo. A friend brought it.
Concerned,
Why don't you provide some specific examples?
57. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 7:51:14 PM
Exactly, Abs.
I'll go look at the Demo website, but they're so dadgummed stingy with their articles I hardly go there. This was last weekend.
What about media sources that are openly biased? Does that, in and of itself, make them incredible?
58. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 8:00:19 PM
Hahaha. They think I'm going to pay $4.95 a month, not for their chintzy archives, but for daily articles. Yes. Of course.
59. CalGal - 2/21/2002 8:02:21 PM
Does that, in and of itself, make them incredible?
No, not at all. Weekly Standard and The New Republic are both opinion journals, but the assumption is that they will interpret facts, not manipulate or misrepresent facts.
I would guess that both of them have a higher reputation than, say, Fox News, in terms of their willingness to step outside their bias.
It showed the first of your spin examples, definitely.
I'd need to see it, because on your description it seemed that any of the three were possible.
60. CalGal - 2/21/2002 8:03:32 PM
I agree that it was a bad choice to put on the front page, btw. I wasn't focusing on that aspect.
But then, that's actually part and parcel with the whole spin on the article, no matter which way the bias cuts, isn't it? Clearly no one would put it on the front page unless they wanted to present it as more representative than it is.
61. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 8:05:48 PM
But then, that's actually part and parcel with the whole spin on the article, no matter which way the bias cuts, isn't it? Clearly no one would put it on the front page unless they wanted to present it as more representative than it is.
I hate to use "exactly" again so soon, but
exactly.
62. jexster - 2/21/2002 8:06:14 PM
Next time Rose of God yammers about "media bias" (anyone see that clown Goldberg on CNN deny there was anything like a media conspiracy?)
Remember Danny Pearl and the Snuff Film his killers sent to our Idiot Prince
63. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 8:12:43 PM
I'd need to see it, because on your description it seemed that any of the three were possible.
Well, for a mere $4.95 you can take a gander and share what you see.
That sarcasm isn't directed at you, btw. I do hate that rag. What kills me is that if it were there today we'd still have to pay to read it.
I did get to see enough of a today headline to know that AR Teacher Retirement only plunked $30 million into Enron, and when begged by them to put in $50 million more, refused.
64. Cellar Door - 2/21/2002 8:23:31 PM
If ronski can cite the Cato Institute then I'm sure you won't mind my provinding a link to this unabashedly Liberal website which keeps tabs on the REAL story, IMO.
65. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 8:28:51 PM
That's what I had in mind earlier when I referred to "open bias."
Hey Cellar, are you familiar with FSTV? If so, what do you know about it?
66. arkymalarky - 2/21/2002 8:30:37 PM
IOW, I know journals such as TNR have a bias, but I was thinking more of ones with an open agenda. That would have been a better word. Something like "Move On" or CATO.
67. Absensia - 2/21/2002 8:44:31 PM
some basic ideas....comparing a story or report on CNN and FOX...how did each handle the story. What to believe. Or comparing an article in the NYT and compare it to the Durge (or whatever ) report.
68. jexster - 2/21/2002 9:03:33 PM
Is Ronski still citing CATO?
I thought I'd cured her.
Portnoy's Complaint hey Ronsk?
69. Absensia - 2/21/2002 10:50:14 PM
I'm curious what people think of this story. Is it accurate reporting,oped, or a commentary? Is it biased? Has anyone see this report anywhere else? If so, please list it here.
SCIENTISTS RECOUNT U.S. BIODEFENSE LABS' SECURITY LAPSES
The Washington Post
Former Army scientist Richard Crosland kept scrupulous notes about the
frozen crystals he kept in his lab, and for good reason: The crystals
contained botulinum toxin, a biological poison so deadly a single gram
could kill a million people. For 11 years, Crosland carefully logged
each shipment of toxin he received and accounted for every molecule,
thinking somebody would want to know. But no one asked -- not once
during his career as an Army biodefense researcher, and not when he left
the job in 1997, hauling away boxes of personal effects that no one
checked.
Where are they now?
70. Absensia - 2/21/2002 11:26:54 PM
I'm curious what people think of this story. Is it accurate reporting,oped, or a commentary? Is it biased? Has anyone see this report anywhere else? If so, please list it here.
SCIENTISTS RECOUNT U.S. BIODEFENSE LABS' SECURITY LAPSES
The Washington Post
Former Army scientist Richard Crosland kept scrupulous notes about the
frozen crystals he kept in his lab, and for good reason: The crystals
contained botulinum toxin, a biological poison so deadly a single gram
could kill a million people. For 11 years, Crosland carefully logged
each shipment of toxin he received and accounted for every molecule,
thinking somebody would want to know. But no one asked -- not once
during his career as an Army biodefense researcher, and not when he left
the job in 1997, hauling away boxes of personal effects that no one
checked.
Where are they now?
71. ronski - 2/22/2002 12:26:54 AM
As usual, jexster relies on lewdness in place of any reasoned argument.
Thank goodness that Cellar bothers to present links to leftist sites that have an actual argument to make.
If the Mote dies, it will be because it has been hijacked by jexster's derangement.
I wish jexster had someone in his life. Someone who could monitor his meds.
72. ronski - 2/22/2002 12:37:33 AM
Would thoughtful, or anyone, please respond to David Boaz's very reasoned article on media bias?
Or is this thread simply hopeless, as so many others have become?
73. Absensia - 2/22/2002 1:02:05 AM
I've read Boaz's article, and before the thread came about. I was surprised. I usually consider CATO to tend to the right. I do think his analysis is reasonable, to a point. I think there are republicans, conservative republicans and far right republicans. Some of the far right point out they are far right.
As far as democrats, I think most are centrists, except for a few, but the "far left" doesn't seem to me to include the people he mentions.
Of course, I am a liberal. But I don't think a liberal or a conservative are incapable of clear analysis, without bias. How each then presents the information is another thing.
74. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:08:13 AM
Ronski, you're whining. That's so unlike you.
Are you really contending that word counts are proof?
75. ronski - 2/22/2002 1:09:37 AM
Abs,
Well thank you! How else can we carry on this thread if we cannot define our terms.
David's point (full disclosure: both he and his boyfriend are friends of mine) is that we must define what is centrist, left and right if we are to consider media bias.
I cannot figure out how people could call Democrats centrists and GOPers right-wingers, but we need to settle that issue before we try to identify media bias.
(And the new kitty's eyes have lightened to a dark hazel color, and he is the sweetest little guy on the planet.)
76. ronski - 2/22/2002 1:15:28 AM
Cal,
I think word counts have their limits, but I think David is on to something when he points out that GOPers are described as extremists twice as much as Democrats are.
I mean, I've spent virtually all of my life in or around the news media, and David's account strikes me as accurate, not petulant.
But if I am whining, beat me, as I suspect there is no greater crime.
77. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:20:14 AM
There's no question that the "far left" is almost non-existent in American politics. Strength of beliefs or slavish party hackery does not indicate distance from the center. The Democrats are barely left. They are certainly ideological, but they aren't left.
Also, as Abs notes, Republicans generally consider the term "conservative" a term of distinction, and aren't at all afraid to admit that they are right of center. Dems--justifiably--resist being painted as well left of center.
After all, what is so "left" about Democrats? Do they want a drastically increased income redistribution? Of course not--they wouldn't dare. Do they want socialized medicine? Not so's they'd admit it. Do they want to nationalize major industries? Haven't heard any calls for it.
The right of this country, on the other hand, are legitimately right of center, and openly speak of fairly radical changes to the status quo to achieve their goals.
Nothing is wrong with that. But it's asinine to pretend that the Dems are equivalently left, when they aren't.
Are the Dems slavish to their interest groups? Yes. Does the media portray this devotion? I'd say yes, they do. And that's far more representative of the Dems real flaw than any mindless counting of an inaccurate political definition.
78. Absensia - 2/22/2002 1:20:51 AM
Ronski...thank you for telling me about the kitty.
I think a lot of Democrats are centrists...some, as I said, are way out there, but not many in the party. The problem is that I don't consider issues like abortion, etc., left wing.
I guess I am not as in tune to these concepts, because I don't feel we need to spend a lot of time defining things. But the article is in accord with the issue Arky laid out.
I hadn't though of how one can find out with lexis nexis such things. I'm used to using Westlaw but I will see if I can get access to it.
79. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:21:40 AM
I mean, I've spent virtually all of my life in or around the news media, and David's account strikes me as accurate, not petulant.
I thought it was inaccurate, but not petulant. I was talking about your complaints of Jexter. I thought this thread has been interesting, and it's easy enough to avoid his rants.
80. Snowowl - 2/22/2002 1:23:34 AM
Unless I've missed the reference I don't see any information about how many times each party was referred to in total. If the figures are to have any meaning at all it seems to me that they should be expressed as percentages of total "mentionings" rather than as raw figures.
81. concerned - 2/22/2002 1:23:38 AM
After all, what is so "left" about Democrats? Do they want a drastically increased income redistribution? Of course not--they wouldn't dare. Do they want socialized medicine? Not so's they'd admit it. Do they want to nationalize major industries? Haven't heard any calls for it.
CalGal -
Conflating 'not wanting' and 'not daring' does not a point make.
82. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:23:55 AM
The problem is that I don't consider issues like abortion, etc., left wing.
Social views have no real connection to political terms like "right" and "left". Both the Dems and the Republicans are blithely inconsistent, demanding government interference or non-involvement whenever it suits them. They choose their social positions based on the consensus of the constituency that supports their economic positions.
83. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:25:12 AM
Concerned,
Most Dem politicians are hacks. If they can't have it, they don't have the intellectual fortitude to want it.
84. ronski - 2/22/2002 1:28:49 AM
This is the crux of the argument, indeed.
I, too, think a lot of Democrats are centrists. This is why I have spent most of my adult life as a registered Democrat, in New York.
But I think the idea that Democrats are in the center, and Republicans are on the right, is entirely without foundation.
And if we cannot agree on this, how can we even begin to discuss media bias?
(And Griswold is the cutest little guy God ever put on this planet, imo; but don't tell my other kitties I said that.)
85. ronski - 2/22/2002 1:38:11 AM
Democrats do not want to nationalize industries. But they do want income redistribution, and they certainly want gobs of increased regulation of industries, which is why any classical liberal worth his or her salt should oppose them at almost every turn.
We should applaud the Democrats for their (tepid) support of gay rights, however.
86. Absensia - 2/22/2002 1:38:35 AM
There are all sorts of sites discussing media bias. Some are conservative sites (by their own admission) and want to point out the liberal bias.
Others want to point out how the conservatives are putting a bias spin on things.
There are also some sites that just point out what the media overlooked, or say they are "watch dogs" of the media in general.
I will post the links tomorrow, assuming my compter is still working...it's been misbehaving.
87. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:44:23 AM
But I think the idea that Democrats are in the center, and Republicans are on the right, is entirely without foundation.
It's not. But nor does it mean that the Dems rae more in touch with the people or of a finer moral or political caliber.
And if we cannot agree on this, how can we even begin to discuss media bias?
Easily. You just have to get over the notion that word counts have anything to do with media bias.
88. CalGal - 2/22/2002 1:48:51 AM
But they do want income redistribution, and they certainly want gobs of increased regulation of industries, which is why any classical liberal worth his or her salt should oppose them at almost every turn.
Well, Republicans support all sorts of income redistribution, and you'll pardon me if I see such a huge chasm between "government regulation" and "nationalization" that I snicker at anyone who cites support for government regulation as "proof" of leftist notions. Regulations are pretty much a centrist's compromise. Americans argue over how much regulation is needed.
The one exception to that, recently, is the idiotic takeover of airport security workers. But that was more reaction than anything, and it took more than Dems to put that through.
89. Absensia - 2/22/2002 1:56:52 AM
I think there are some democrats who are at the central and there are also some republicans. They may stay at center or move to the right or left because of social issues and beliefs.
Okay, I'm going to sleep now!
90. ronski - 2/22/2002 1:59:18 AM
No. You cannot discuss what constitutes liberal or conservative bias if you cannot agree on what liberal and conservative even mean.
Cal and I have agreed on many specific issues. But clearly we cannot agree even on definitions of liberal and conservative.
That is the isssue that should be discussed, before media bias.
91. CalGal - 2/22/2002 2:03:12 AM
Oh, sure. I'm not saying that all Republicans are far right. I'm just saying that the left is not well represented in American politics, and certainly not much represented by the Democrats. The right, on the other hand, is well-represented by the Republicans.
92. CalGal - 2/22/2002 2:06:46 AM
91 is to 89.
You cannot discuss what constitutes liberal or conservative bias if you cannot agree on what liberal and conservative even mean.
Well, in the first place you said "media bias". Now you are adding "liberal or conservative" as adjectives. I think the media can be biased in all sorts of ways.
Besides, the media can still be biased towards the Democrats or Republicans. You just won't be able to prove it by nonsensical word counts, since "far right" and "far left" aren't equivalently represented in American politics.
93. CalGal - 2/22/2002 2:10:49 AM
An example of media bias that has nothing to do with politics: Nannygate.
No one made any fuss about it in the television or print media. After all, everyone has these pesky problems with their illegal nannies, don't they?
The media and Congress as a whole were caught flatfooted and surprised by the substantial public reaction--the public didn't know that they weren't supposed to care about a woman pulling down $600K a year and still being too cheap to hire a legal nanny.
That was certainly a case of media bias. But it had no political leanings.
94. concerned - 2/22/2002 2:12:38 AM
When betty weighed in about a week ago with the observation that the entire media was right wing, I knew any discussion with her regarding media bias, if it was even possible, would have been hamstrung by semantic differences.
However, I can now claim at cocktail parties that a real liberal put me in the same political ballpark as Dan Rather:)
95. concerned - 2/22/2002 2:15:34 AM
...real Lefty, that is....
96. Property of Jesus - 2/22/2002 9:04:19 AM
97. thoughtful - 2/22/2002 9:38:45 AM
#66, arky, I never viewed CATO as having an "open agenda".
ronski, #72, I suppose for me the test for a "think tank" is whether they ever publish an article that proved something contrary to their usual position. Had the CATO article not found a "liberal bias" in the media and reported it, that would have been surprising. I don't know, but let me just suggest one reason why there might be more references to "far right" in the press than "far left"...because the republican party has, not split...that's too severe..., but has experienced a rise in a vocal and politically powerful branch, to wit the Xtian coalition, that is right of the more traditionally centrist wing of the party and the press may feel a need to distinguish between speakers from the centrist branch vs. the more hardline branch of the party. The democrats instead seemed to have coalesced (as much as that party can) around a more centrist position so the far left voices of socialists/communists are seldom heard relative to, say, the 60s.
That, in and of itself raises an interesting question, if by "branding" (as in putting a brand name on, not a hot iron) the speaker of a POV the press adds bias or helps eliminate it by warning the reader of the political bent of the speaker.
98. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 10:02:13 AM
"I cannot figure out how people could call Democrats centrists and GOPers right-wingers, but we need to settle that issue before we try to identify media bias.",/i>
There's a historical basis for that, ronski, in that in my ifetime've seen the party shift further and further to the right. Nelson Rockefeller would be considered a radical leftist by the lights of many of today's Republicans. The adoption of what were once far-right -- like opp[osition to abortion -- issues by the party is merely the most obvious part of this shift. What's truly hilarious about the Boaz piece is his resentment that Republicans are being called right-wing. Why is that do you suppose?
Democrats are routinely referred to as "Socialists" by concerned and his ilk -- even when it scarcely applies.
If someone calls you right-wing, ronski, does that offend you?
99. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 10:07:30 AM
The Democrats don't "inhabit" the center, they merely loiter around it. It's a party of that lost all sense of what it stood for decades ago. Warren Beatty deals with this phenomenon in Bulworth, which I looked at again last night. It gets even better with age.
100. thoughtful - 2/22/2002 10:11:04 AM
toys
101. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 10:14:05 AM
Sorry about that.
Now here's something you'll really like.
102. Erin R. - 2/22/2002 10:15:33 AM
I love Bulworth.
The Dems have not been liberal in many, many years, not since maybe the Carter administration.
103. thoughtful - 2/22/2002 10:21:43 AM
arky, absensia, in looking for material for this thread, I recall maybe a month ago the topic came up in a thread (politics?) and someone but I don't remember who (jay?), posted the technique for doing content analysis. There are also web sites about it I'm sure. There is a step by step process where you take an article and examine it word for word to determine its level of bias. Might be fun to have some here try it on the same article and see what the results are.
104. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 10:23:45 AM
I agree with cellar. At this time, the Democrats are essentially a mild right party, and the Republicans are a further right party. But bias cannot be effectively tied to the media by using the ever-changing latitude of the parties, which hold positions on a mixture of principle and political expedience.
Thus, I don't really see any bias in the media that is overtly Democratic or overtly Republican.
Rather, the bias stems from a natural affinity for the causes of who you know, and the media knows non-religious, pro-choice people who live in New York, do not hunt, and did not laugh at Smokey and the Bandit once. The media knows people who are more afflicted by Epstein-Barr and anorexia than sickle cell and spotted tick. The media know people who clamor about each other and titter that George W Bush is "stupid". The media hang about progressive Democrats, so they have a sympathy and understanding of the concerns of those progressive Democrats.
The bias is cultural, not political. It is a bias anyone might evince.
That said, the media trumpets its objectivity and professionalism, which would suggest that coverage is shorn of such bias. It should be, but it is not.
So, you have a biased media, which is one third of the problem. Another third is that the media is largely populated by vacuous semi-intellects. The last third is that the media is controlled by advertising, thereby limiting responsible coverage in two ways: the media does not really go after its own corporate masters and the media must sustain itself on advertising, thus leaving some semi-literate blow-dried cream puff a mere 76 seconds to tell us why 60,000 people just died in Rwanda.
105. CalGal - 2/22/2002 10:25:53 AM
I agree with cellar.
Um, that would be me who said that, actually.
And your post neatly summarizes Bias, so now everyone can skip the book and give Bernie a few less days at the top of the best seller list.
106. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 10:28:43 AM
I only read the posts on the page that popped up.
107. CalGal - 2/22/2002 10:36:35 AM
Apparently.
108. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 10:45:16 AM
Oh good, the less said about Bernie the better.
"The bias is cultural not political."
True, save for the fact that these categories end to blur in this society.
You're quite right that the dependence of the meida on advertising is key. It underscores its ineffectuality in every instance.
Making matters worse is the fact that the media has become part of the Rich and Powerful Celebrity Soap Opera that its most comfortable in "covering."
Dickens didn't spend nearly as much time on the death of Little Nell as today's hacks have on the demise of Little Tina.
109. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 1:07:58 PM
110. glendajean - 2/22/2002 1:54:27 PM
Dominick Dunne keeps hinting in his monthly column in Vanity Fair that he knows more about the Levy murder case that is publicly known.
Who is little Tina?
111. judithathome - 2/22/2002 2:00:51 PM
Tina Brown who ran TALK magazine into the crapper...used to be editor at the New Yorker and Vanity Fair.
112. CalGal - 2/22/2002 2:08:16 PM
Dunne is convinced that there is a Hell's Angels connection, I think.
113. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 2:11:26 PM
Dominick Dunne is just so weird.Basically he's a celebrity gossip maven. But his daughter's murder has brought him into other arenas, some of whch he handles well, others of which he just becomes sob-sister.
He is, however, a perfect example of one of the major ills of the media -- confusing access with expertise.
Dunne knows people that's his value to his editors. When he's on his game he writes well too, but he's quite erratic. Still, on or off, he's a real writer. The same can't be said of TV "journalists" like Diana Sawyer or Barbara Walters. They're there because of who they know not what they know. cause basically they don't know shit -- either of them.
And then there are truly unspeakable creatures like Sally Quinn.
GACK!
114. CalGal - 2/22/2002 2:20:06 PM
I was just mentioning that to someone about DD the other day. I enjoy his writing tremendously, and if I'm ever going to be interested in stupid society murders, he's the guy who's going to do it.
But he is very erratic.
Good point about the difference between access and knowledge.
115. arkymalarky - 2/22/2002 2:23:12 PM
Thanks Thoughtful! I'll try to do some digging later for stuff and put it in the sidebar.
I'm just popping in and out. We're about to have company.
116. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/22/2002 2:30:03 PM
My vote for "unspeakable creature:"
117. glendajean - 2/22/2002 2:32:10 PM
Thanks Judith. I didn't make the connection. I know who Tina Brown is, but I hadn't thought of her as having a demise. She'll be around for a while, I reckon.
DD is strange, perhaps the most shameless of namedroppers, and a person who thinks all life revolves around his own interests and concerns. But it is hard to ignore his column.
There was a story on NPR this morning about a new book on network news. The authors showed Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokow video from their 1980s newscast and then the current newscasts. They asked the anchors to describe the difference, using it like a Rorshah (sp?) test.
Rather was the most frank in saying that he perceived a great decline in quality. Jennings was defensive of some changes and tried to explain why the changes occurred. Brokow thought the changes were all good and defended them strongly.
I may have said this before, but I swear Brokow has had his face botoxed. Everytime I heard him lately, I start to think he has either had a stroke or is drunk. It's the combination of a slur in his voice and the lack of any movement in his face.
118. judithathome - 2/22/2002 2:34:56 PM
I've always thought Brokaw spoke as though he had marbles in his mouth.
119. thoughtful - 2/22/2002 2:41:36 PM
I hate to say it, but I find the "news" on the daily show more informative and far more entertaining.
120. joezan - 2/22/2002 2:42:29 PM
I heard it again on NPR yesterday:
"...25 Palestinians killed since the latest wave of Israeli reprisals began..."
Not one word - not even a hint in the report - that there were 4 or 5 suicide bombings which killed many Israelis during the same period.
121. judithathome - 2/22/2002 2:50:38 PM
Why do I always hear people who call in to NPR say things about their pro Israeli bias, Joe? Do we listen to different NPRs?
122. glendajean - 2/22/2002 3:02:51 PM
Andrew Sullivan has been pushing NPR's liberal and anti-Israel bias a lot lately on his web site.
123. judithathome - 2/22/2002 3:08:49 PM
I guess I DO listen to a different NPR...
124. concerned - 2/22/2002 3:10:51 PM
I find it a bit strange that the extreme Left is the most sympathetic to Islamism, although they would be among the first classes to be destroyed as 'dhimmis'.
125. CalGal - 2/22/2002 3:16:37 PM
They apparently did boycott Emerson, which is pretty appalling.
126. glendajean - 2/22/2002 4:04:24 PM
Gosh, I'm out of touch. Who is Emerson?
127. judithathome - 2/22/2002 4:10:47 PM
Wait...do you hear those footsteps? It's Rosetta racing in to tell you all about Emerson.
128. judithathome - 2/22/2002 4:12:39 PM
129. CalGal - 2/22/2002 4:16:56 PM
Steve Emerson and the NPR boycott
130. glendajean - 2/22/2002 4:17:45 PM
Frankly, I've always enjoyed NPR's format. They figured out a way to use radio that is thoughtful -- while the announcers certainly have a specific style, it is one light years away from the old American radio style of high dramatic narration. They use sound well to tell their stories.
I remember a late 1970s parody .... "Tonight on All Things Considered, Afghanistan poetry after the [Russian] invasion..."
It's not everybody's cup of tea, but then five part stories on wheat in the New Yorker isn't, either.
I particularly enjoy their audio diaries or essays by writers.
131. judithathome - 2/22/2002 4:19:48 PM
Cal's link is probably more rational than anything from Rosie...
132. judithathome - 2/22/2002 4:20:41 PM
I agree with you about NPR, GJ...no medium is perfect and I like more than I dislike about NPR.
133. glendajean - 2/22/2002 4:22:42 PM
Hmm...I've heard about him.
I wonder how big NPR's listening audience is. I've never thought about it much, but the media guy discussing his book on television news this morning said in describing the paltry audience for the cable news networks said that CNN's evening newscast were much smaller than NPR's audience.
134. thoughtful - 2/22/2002 4:23:04 PM
watch it glendajean...there is only one thoughtful™ in these thar threads. And thoughtful is never radio.
135. glendajean - 2/22/2002 4:23:35 PM
I mean to write that I had not heard about him.
136. CalGal - 2/22/2002 4:26:58 PM
GJ--this is probably best for another thread, but the Muslim organization's pursuit of anyone in the media who portrays them less than favorably is rather spooky. It is quite believable that they demanded NPR boycott him; it is reasonably believable that NPR boycotted him.
137. CalGal - 2/22/2002 4:28:09 PM
the Muslim organization's
Should have said organizations'.
138. glendajean - 2/22/2002 4:33:48 PM
Well, I hope they have been uncovered and this intimidation will be stopped.
It does feel as if we're in the beginning of WWIII, doesn't it, and we're just now figuring it out.
139. joezan - 2/22/2002 5:07:14 PM
Well, I've actually gotten used to NPR - dreary music, army of speech-impeded hosts and commentators, and all (because it is the ONLY news station I get at work).
And we must surely get different NPRs, judith -considering we're about 1,000 miles apart and about half of their programming (at least here) is local.
But most of the world news/features are, of course, nationally syndicated. And I have to say I can't see how you never noticed their anti-Israeli bias.
It's somewhat subtle, in that nothing real bad is ever said about Israel. After just a few weeks of listening though, it was real apparent to me that the pro-Israeli pov is not presented anywhere near as often as the pro-Pal pov.
140. Property of Jesus - 2/22/2002 5:52:33 PM
141. Absensia - 2/22/2002 6:22:33 PM
That's not subject for this thread poj, except as an illustration of right wing analysis in the media. It should probably be in American Politics.
142. dusty - 2/22/2002 6:25:51 PM
Message # 90 ronski
No. You cannot discuss what constitutes liberal or conservative bias if you cannot agree on what liberal and conservative even mean.
I agree. More after I eat.
143. Absensia - 2/22/2002 6:41:20 PM
I think we can discuss liberal v. conservative, although it has been discussed. I think it's helpful to discuss various publications and other media, perhaps with a specific article, and discuss if it is liberal or conservative. Maybe someone has a matrix for "liberal" or "conservative," but I think deciding such things is often subjective.
In posts #69 and #70 above, I linked to a Washington post article. The reason was to perhaps generate some discussion. Lots consider the Washington post a "liberal rag." I think the article is interesting for what it did not say, but what the author obviously wanted us to think.
Where did those samples end up? With the government or with the departing researcher? It definitely wants the Gov's security to look bad, but I was turned off because there was innuendo but nothing specific about the outcome.
144. Property of Jesus - 2/22/2002 7:16:08 PM
Of course it's a subject for this thread, absentminded.
The embarrassing picture of Clinton in 1993 with the caps on his binoculars while he was looking at the DMZ was never published then.
145. arkymalarky - 2/22/2002 7:46:05 PM
PJ,
Why don't you explain that stuff when you post it so we'll know what you're focusing on? That's what I was referring to yesterday when I was talking about sources that are so blatantly biased. Is something like that credible coming from Rush?
146. dusty - 2/22/2002 8:05:52 PM
As Ronski pointed out, it isn't easy to discuss whether there is a bias in the media toward a liberal or conservative POV without defining the terms.
"liberal" doesn't exactly equate with Democrat and "conservative" doesn't exactly equate with Republican. But we can measure Democrat and republican, so they serve as useful proxies.
The dictionary definition of bias is disappointing. I'll try to use it in a sense close to its mathematical sense. If the mean position of the reporters and commentators differs from the mean of the audience, then bias occurs.
Bias doesn't have to be political, or restrict itself to the liberal/conservative axis. But a substantial number of debates about bias are about that issue, and that's an issue I'd like to discuss. If I talk about bias without further clarification, please assume I am talking about political bias on the liberal/ conservative spectrum. (If someone wants to talk about some other aspect of bias, go for it, but it would be helpful to explain what other metric you are discussing.)
Defining the political center depends importantly on whether one is talking about the US, western civilization, or some other set of people. While I think Americans can be too insular at times, and need to become more aware of the POV of others, most of us are familiar with the American media. Consequently, if we talk about American media, we ought to measure bias against the American political center. The political center of europe is probably to the left of the American center, and I have little idea where the rest of the world would map.
147. Absensia - 2/22/2002 8:07:23 PM
Yep...if you had explained it, and the fact Rush or anyone had never published it before, then it is a good illustration? I would like to see the same picture published else where to see if it is credible.
148. dusty - 2/22/2002 8:12:30 PM
Message # 144 Property of Jesus
The embarrassing picture of Clinton in 1993 with the caps on his binoculars while he was looking at the DMZ was never published then.
I think you are wrong. My wife pointed this out to me the other day, and I am fairly sure I saw the Clinton picture before.
Absenia, I can't seem to open the site linked by POJ, but I did see a video clip of Clinton at the DMZ and Bush at the DMZ, where Clinton had failed to remove the lens caps (although the blame probably belongs on his incompetent handlers). I saw it on Fox news.
149. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 8:15:32 PM
We've got embarassing pictures of the chimp we're supposed to call "president" (even though he wasn't elected) every day of the week.
The latest featured his drop-seat mouth as he muttered regrets over murder of Daniel Pearl.
Thought he would have got off on a snuff video.
150. dusty - 2/22/2002 8:18:23 PM
Given that, I think the CATO article made a good point. Given the voting patterns of recent years, the center of American politics is roughly between the Dem and GOP positions, arguably slightly toward the GOP.
I fully understand that the American democrats aren't very far left in comparison to some European left parties, and aren't as far left as some hard left people in the US, but so what? The American media largely speaks to the American people, so we should use definitions of left and right relative to the center of the American people.
151. Absensia - 2/22/2002 8:19:23 PM
Hnmmm, CNN has a different story, but no pic:
"The last president to visit was Bill Clinton, who came to Korea three times. When he first visited in 1993, he strode onto the Bridge of No Return, where prisoners were exchanged after the 1950-53 Korean War, and peered through his binoculars at the shadowy silhouette of an enemy soldier. "I looked at him and he looked at me," Clinton recounted. "And I wanted to wave, 'Come on over."'
Who is right?
152. Absensia - 2/22/2002 8:23:24 PM
Dusty, if it's been shown other places, I feel it is more credible. Maybe the picture wasn't released earlier or how long did he "look" at things with the lens cap on? It's pretty easy to figure out the caps are still on. There really is no actual indication how long the lens caps were on. I am not defending Clinton in this, but questioning the accuracy in reporting. It's a lot like the Washington post artice I talked about in #69.
153. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 8:40:37 PM
"I fully understand that the American democrats aren't very far left in comparison to some European left parties, and aren't as far left as some hard left people in the US, but so what?"
So plenty.
There is NO political party of consequence in this country reflecting/addressing/dealing on any level whatsoever with Left thought or ideas.
One would swear that no one in America was on the Left.
That's because we Leftists are not to be confronted -- merely evoked.
The 8-year Clinton jihaad was the ritual stoning of the Left -- with Bill Clinton chosen for the role of the Left.
Even though there's nothing Left about him whatsoever.
(Enter the Mote Conservabots with their usual yowling to the contrary.)
What happened to him was supposed to serve as a warning to the likes of me.
Most amusing.
154. Cellar Door - 2/22/2002 9:02:46 PM
When will Frank Rich cease all this nonsense and marry me?
Read it and weep, connie.
The rest of you are advised to peruse this NYT Sunday magazine piece closely as well. There is, needless to say, a lot more to be said about this story. But it's absloutely central to this thread's topic, as what happened during Scaife-o-rama will be dealt with for many years to come.
155. judithathome - 2/22/2002 9:24:11 PM
I think Clinton was handed binocs with the caps on, thought they were ready to look through, the press took the photo, he recognized the mistake and took the caps off, probably laughing as he did so...years later, GW manages to do something right and suddenly, the Clinton photo is dragged out so GW can seem to be a genius and Clinton a buffoon...it says more about those who are gleefully posting this as an example of GW's being smart than it does about Clinton OR Bush.
156. Absensia - 2/22/2002 9:39:29 PM
CD, thanks for pointing out the article in the NYT. I'm not surprised at the content and retractions. I never believed that crap and the case they laid on Anita Hill was patently obvious and with no basis.
Seems to be a lot of retractions these days. I wonder why?
157. Property of Jesus - 2/22/2002 9:50:18 PM
No wonder they call you Error Message, Judy.
The DMZ photo of Clinton, which I've heard about but never seen before (and I would have, considering my obsession), is what it is.
As Rush says: "What is amazing is that Clinton knew obviously that the lens caps were on, but he had to fake it, because to be seen taking the lens cap off after having had the binoculars to his eyes would have have a good photo-op, and Clinton lives and dies by the photo-op. So the guy just continued to stand there and look through those binocs with the lens caps on!"
* * *
What I'm picking up already on my thread is that absent and calgal are telling me to not post items.
Two for two, sisters.
158. Absensia - 2/22/2002 9:56:16 PM
Poj, you know better. You are just stirring. No one objects to you posting here, but please point out it relates to this thread. Your post seems to basically be Clinton bashing...the question of why the photograph did not surface until recently, is, imo, much more relevant and interesting.
Now...stop making up things. No one is telling you not to post.
159. wonkers2 - 2/22/2002 10:20:53 PM
Did anybody catch the NPR expose today on Alexander Haig's PBS show "World Business Review?" The show is designed to appear to be educational business news, but the people who appear pay $50,000 to be featured on the show and be thrown slowball pitches by Al about their great company or product. Paying people on puported news shows apparently isn't kosher on PBS. Also, Al has been forced by Duke University to stop claiming that its business school uses Al's material in its MBA program. Apparently the show's producer distributed free tapes of Al's show to Duke, MIT and other schools and claimed falsely that the shows are a part of the schools' curriculums. The show was stopped by Duke from using the school's logo to promote the show. Some of the Haig tapes have gathered dust in the Duke library, rarely checked out by anyone. Well, he never was my kinda guy!
160. Absensia - 2/22/2002 10:51:02 PM
Oh yes...when Reagan was shot, Haig rewrote the Constitution Amendment and announed he "was in charge."
This is an interesting expose, especially since the facts seem to speak for themselves.
161. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 11:04:14 PM
Cellar
The earlier piece you linked about the replacement of a professional reportorial class for blowhards and chuckleheads on The McLaughlin Group is a more apt identification of the problems in the 90s than that given by Rich. The shrill moralism of the 90s was more light than heat, and Rich's consistent fault is that he is made to perspire more by floodlights than hearths. Rich is also conveniently myopic when it serves his parochial Manhatan worldview.
For example, Rich callously links the first true victim of the 90s sexual morality war - Clarence Thomas - with its uglier shock troops, neatly sidestepping that when it was in their interest, the Left was more than willing to couch alleged sexual peccadillo in it most mild form (a crude joke and porn tapes) to high crime and misdemeanor. Just as Livingston was the hypocrite judging Clinton and thereby gaining power, Kennedy and Dodd (who once sandwiched the same Capitol Hill waitress, so the story goes) were the sleazeballs looking noses down at Thomas, all in pursuit of ideological advantage.
What Rich sees in Brock is a summing up of a tawdry and little time, a former Nazi letting in on the dizzying allure of young, conservative stardom. But the truth that Rich can't face (and those slavish to the stars rarely can) is that it really takes so little courage to stand up to moral bullies. Clinton had his moment when yet another stripe of Washington "prevert" - Dick Morris - told him what the polls divined. He could have fessed up, having at that point only uttered falsehoods in a civil action (or maybe not, depending on how much you liken a deposition to Boggle). The President decided against it - choosing instead a finger-wagging theater and a deepening, laughable (given the meager goal) cover-up.
162. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 11:05:15 PM
So Clinton lied, continued to lie, and thereby hurt and cheapened most everything and everyone around him. And the little crime he sought to hide by so many larger crimes makes people like Rich mad. I feel for Rich, just as I felt for so many forced into contortionism during the Clinton era (okay, I didn't feel that much, but you can only gin up sympathy for self-flagellators so long).
Rich is so hurt that he creates a genre where none really exists. It takes a special talent to blame the apple for original sin. Rich lacks it.
Rich also distorts two prior pieces - one by Shelby Steele and one by the Weekly Standard.
Rich simplifies Steele, stating that the writer labeled John Walker an exemplification of ''a certain cultural liberalism'' to be found in Northern California. Steele, however, was nowhere near as broad in asking what many asked and still ask - "How does one get from Marin to the Taliban?" Steele identifies the following hallmarks of cultural liberalism - the permissiveness of his parents and schools; his wealth; relativism; disdain of traditional American history, culture and religion; their divorce. The whole shebang, really. In fact, what Steele does is what so many of us do when we see rotten kids - we look to any potential cause and shake our heads.
163. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 11:06:30 PM
Steele mostly misses the mark, but he hits some fine notes, especially when discussing Walker's conversion based upon reading The Autobiography of Malcom X. And Steele's condemnation of the "'hip' academics and intellectuals who--no sooner than the planes had struck--began to slash at their own country as if to keep it from gaining any victim's authority of its own" is dead on.
Steele's Piece
As an aside, Rich attempts to sting Steele when he writes "Steele also had to ignore the fact that Lindh had spent the first and more formative half of his childhood not in Marin County but in Takoma Park, Md., a Washington suburb, where he and his family were then regular Catholic churchgoers"; Rich doesn't know Takoma Park. Like Marin, It is Nuclear Free
Rich also mischaracterizes a Weekly Standard article ("the Standard piece tried to pin Lindh's defection to the Taliban on the alleged homosexuality of his father").
To the contrary, the piece (which clearly, Rich has not read) explores why the father's homosexuality was ignored and quotes none other than Michelangelo Signorile, who observes, "If Lindh had left his wife for another woman and his son were traumatized, it would certainly be discussed by the media. So if Lindh did leave his wife for a man and it affected Walker, it should similarly be reported on."
The Standard Piece
164. Property of Jesus - 2/22/2002 11:15:39 PM
Caesar: Excellent writing. Please cut and paste these posts and and place them in Rich Frank's thread in the NYTimes' Readers Opinion forum.
Hundreds of people will read it, include Rich.
New York Times
165. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 11:19:06 PM
POJ
Caesar thanks you and hereby authorizes you to perform the cutting-and-pasting on his behalf.
Adios.
166. thoughtful - 2/23/2002 9:18:58 AM
recommendation for the butterscotch bar, a page with links to media watchers from U of Iowa:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/media/mediawatch.html
167. thoughtful - 2/23/2002 9:32:55 AM
and/or this one: http://library.sau.edu/bestinfo/Majors/Masscom/masscrit.htm
168. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 10:03:14 AM
"He could have fessed up, having at that point only uttered falsehoods in a civil action (or maybe not, depending on how much you liken a deposition to Boggle). The President decided against it - choosing instead a finger-wagging theater and a deepening, laughable (given the meager goal) cover-up."
Same-old, Same-old. "If only he'd have come clean from the start"
BULLSHIT!
A pound of flesh was demanded by the Richard Mellon Scaife Tabernacle Choir, and pound of flesh was what they were going to get --no matter what. Had Clinton gone on Sally Jesse Raphael(the bottom of the barrel) and sobbed and "confessed" a la jimmy Swaggart, he would have still gotten the shaft.
"Steele mostly misses the mark"
Do tell! The Lindh screed marks him as the most noxious of the House Niggers, IMO. Though Brent Staples can be a lot worse if someone gives him half a chance (I've had dealing with Staples, and he's quite Piece of Work)
Over and above all (and this surprises me) I find you're missing Rich's sense of humor in all of this.
Finally : The Weekly Standard has no better understanding of same-sexuality than Props and Cygnus.
169. OhioSTOPAS - 2/23/2002 10:15:58 AM
The truth behind LensCapGate (Message # 140) revealed!!!
See Message # 29486 in thread 85.
170. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 10:16:06 AM
Cellar
Your vehemence does not rebut the obvious. The 90s were as much molded by Clinton as vice-versa. I'm a little disappointed that you refelct the time so well, looking for any body, worthy or not, to place on a manufactured crucifix. To your credit, you seem to believe it. Rich may as well, but I think only the deadline pressures of a column could victimize both Clinton and Brock.
On Steele, I did tell. It was basically a talk show catch-all piece, filled with the same vague, if well-written, presumptions aired by most Americans who want to know what happened to the American Taliban. I say a mixed piece. You say "House Nigger."
Like Rich, you generalize as to the Standard, which is too easy by half. I was more interested in your reaction to Signorile's observation. Do you agree? Or because it comes from The Standard, like a Baptist to sock hop, can you not judge danceability?
As for Rich's sense of humor, it is his saving grace in what is otherwise consistently parochial and obvious writing. Rich is clearly the champion of conventional wisdom irreverance.
But as I said, and more to the subject of this thread, the irrelevancies of the 90s, to include a focus on sexual indiscretion, owed a great to an unprofessional, lazy, salacious media that realized one presidential blowjob equaled cable talk for a year. Hooray. No real work.
171. judithathome - 2/23/2002 10:43:45 AM
Caesar thanks you and hereby authorizes you to perform the cutting-and-pasting on his behalf
Of course, you realize he'd probably already done this and used his own name as author...as he so frequently does with others work.
And please, everyone, read Message # 169 for Rush Limbaugh's own words about the photo and lies Rosetta posted....oh wait, lies is not the correct word since he believed it to be true. Maybe it falls within the definition of propaganda. Rush Limbaugh, coloring the truth? Surely not!
172. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 10:46:05 AM
Of course I agree with Michelangelo. We discussed this at length at the time. And if you consult Romenesko's "Media News" on a daily basis (as everyone here should) you'd know that I defended the "SF. Chronicle" reporter (and former colleague of mine) who mentioned Lindh senior's gayness to begin with. Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth! "How can you OUT this man?!?!!" But he's alrady out. Silence. They don't get it. And they never will.
173. dusty - 2/23/2002 10:46:42 AM
171 posts into a media thread, and the hot book on the topic has barely been mentioned. Only mentioned in the context of a "review" by someone who didn't read it.
Anyone interested, or has everyone decided to ignore it?
174. judithathome - 2/23/2002 10:49:21 AM
Dusty, do you consider Bias to be a definitive work on media?
175. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 10:51:23 AM
I don't see the 90's as "molded by Clinton" at all. Real history is made in spite of the makeshift scarecrows stuffed with mattress-lint that we're told to call "leaders."
The most important cultural figure of the 90's was the late Marjorie Gross -- the lesbian comedy writer who created Elaine on Seinfeld.
176. joezan - 2/23/2002 10:56:00 AM
Nonsense.
The 90s were molded by Joe Torre.
177. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 10:58:14 AM
Chaque a son 90s!
178. joezan - 2/23/2002 11:00:44 AM
...and Rudy Giuliani.
179. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:12:37 AM
...and Rudy Galindo
180. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:34:39 AM
Cellar
I don't see the 90's as "molded by Clinton" at all. Real history is made in spite of the makeshift scarecrows stuffed with mattress-lint that we're told to call "leaders."
It's a 50/50 split, but I do think Clinton is properly emblematic of the 90s. The media-ready, emotionally manipulative, quintessential victim, a E! ready rock n' roll president in his own Jerry Springer psychodrama.
The perfect god for a talentless and egocentric media, larded onto TV in bunches of five, to adore and revile.
Cut to William Hurt, as he makes himself cry.
181. judithathome - 2/23/2002 11:36:30 AM
Please don't dis William Hurt or I will have to get nasty.
182. dusty - 2/23/2002 11:38:08 AM
judithathome
"definitive"? Of course not.
Badly written, and anecdote based. Not an academic study at all. But it is an easy read, and it makes a point. I think it is a hard point to refute, but I'd be interested in hearing from those who don't believe the point.
183. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:39:57 AM
I was honoring his portrayal of a vacuous, if charming, newscaster who faked tears for a cutaway in Broadcast News.
You know, when you see Diane Sawyer or Ed Bradley tut-tutting away, as someone tells them their tale of plastic surgery woe.
184. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:41:54 AM
"The perfect god for a talentless and egocentric media, larded onto TV in bunches of five, to adore and revile."
Then we certainly treat our "gods" badly.
No, no. Clinton was appointed "whipping-boy" of what were supposed to be all our naughty desires.
And we all know who appointed him don't we?
185. CalGal - 2/23/2002 11:43:44 AM
Why not place the blame where it properly lies? It's all very well to fuss about the "talentless ego-ridden" media, but surely if everyone felt as you did, they'd be gone, egos or no.
Dusty, I thought we were discussing the book's subject, but I'm really surprised that you and Ronski would be so hung up on whether the media is "liberal" or "conservative". Like that's the only bias possible.
186. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:44:02 AM
Actually in that scene Bill Hurt (Professor Hobby) was looking forward to the vacuousness of Aaron Brown.
187. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:44:20 AM
Cellar
You're insistence on placing Clinton in the final scene of Spartacus, along with all the other rebels on that road, is where you go awry.
Clinton climbed up all on his own.
188. judithathome - 2/23/2002 11:45:30 AM
JC:
Okay then...just don't mess with him otherwise.
Dusty, I haven't read the book and doubt I will but I think a few people here have read it and will probably be willing to discuss it. One of those is Rose and one is Concerned so when you see them posting, bring it up and I'm sure they will have a lot to say.
189. CalGal - 2/23/2002 11:45:45 AM
And why, exactly, are we talking Clinton again? I thought the subject was bias, not excess.
190. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:46:26 AM
Cal
I've no problem placing the blame on the people, thereby placing journalists outside the professional class and in the category of carnival barker and pornographer. They give the people what they want.
191. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:47:55 AM
I thought the subject was the Media.
192. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:48:49 AM
Spartacus? LOL!
More like a cross betwee The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (with Clinton in the Betty Hutton role) and The Manchurian Candidate (with Newt as Laurence Harvey and Lucianne Goldberg as Angela Lansbury)
193. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:51:11 AM
"I've no problem placing the blame on the people, thereby placing journalists outside the professional class and in the category of carnival barker and pornographer. They give the people what they want."
NOW you're talkin'! have you ever seen <>The Half-Naked Truth with Lee Tracy and Lupe Velez?
But maybe we should save that for later and talk about THE movie that best relates to all of this -- Sweet Smell of Success
194. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:51:14 AM
Clinton is much more Bernie Bernbaum in Miller's Crossing, which was made - ta da! - in 1990.
195. CalGal - 2/23/2002 11:51:54 AM
Whatever, I just get tired of Clinton poseurs, pro and con.
thereby placing journalists outside the professional class
Really? You are saying that the entire field of journalism is no longer a profession because you find Diane Sawyer and kin repulsive?
196. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:52:51 AM
I haven't seen The Naked Half Truth, but I've seen The Sweet Smell of Success many times. And Clinton is more Curtis/Lancaster than Milner.
197. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:52:59 AM
Well Clinton IS a Coen Brothers character, but not from that movie.
He's Raising Arizona all the way.
198. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:53:42 AM
Really? I think of him as more Barbara Nichols.
199. Julius Caesar - 2/23/2002 11:54:19 AM
Ha ha ha.
Touche'.
Have a great day all.
200. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 11:55:07 AM
But the point of bringing that movie up -- and here we move, regretfully, away from Clinton (a big bowl of candy I know you find hard to resist), and onto the more complex arena of Media Process
201. dusty - 2/23/2002 12:41:48 PM
CalGal
Dusty, I thought we were discussing the book's subject,
On rare occasions we are. I never said we weren't.
but I'm really surprised that you and Ronski would be so hung up on whether the media is "liberal" or "conservative". Like that's the only bias possible.
If you read what I said, you'll see that I explicitly acknowledged other forms of bias, but said I wanted to talk about the liberal/conservative issue. If you want to discuss another form of bias, go for it.
202. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 12:46:10 PM
What is the book Dusty? I haven't read it and missed the post on it. I was gone most of yesterday.
203. mgleason - 2/23/2002 12:47:15 PM
I live on the outskirts of what passes for a major television market while providing the corniest, most lackluster news shows it has ever been my misfortune to receive. Most of my local news coverage is filtered through my husband, who likes to curse at the news readers for sport, but over the course of the past two weeks I've been catching the 4 p.m. Olympic update, and watching the news broadcast out of what must be sheer perversity, so the horribleness is fresh in my mind.
Tampa is a city beset with corruption, racial/ethnic tensions, and violent crime, yet for weeks the networks have been consumed with a crisis involving a tenth-rate football team and their half-assed search for a coach. They finally have a coach (a double for Chucky, the evil doll), so the next breathless installment featured the hurt feelings of the GM, whom the owners have dared to treat as if he were an employee. Last night the main 'news' item on the NBC affiliate consisted of a fawning five-minute interview by the moronic woman news reader who fancies herself a sports commentator, which revealed nothing that hadn't been stale for at least two days.
I find this approach infinitely annoying. There can be no bias, you see, if no news is actually presented.
204. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 12:48:00 PM
We noticed. How about fixing the host-name(s) problem.
205. CalGal - 2/23/2002 12:50:40 PM
Dusty,
I knew you acknowledged it. I said I was surprised you and ronski were so hung up on that specific point.
It's hard to take Ronski seriously when he proposes government regulations as "proof" that the Dems are "far left". So frankly, I'm not at all interested in a discussion unless we begin with an acknowledgement that many of the labels are accurate. Calling many Republicans "far right" is true. There are no "far left" Democrats.
So I'm all for debating whether or not the media supports Democrats or their causes. But nonsensical "proof" that involves use of largely accurate labels is not going to get anywhere, particularly if you, too, equate support for government regulation as equivalent to nationalization as equivalent to government control and therefore we are all communists.
206. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 12:52:07 PM
Awwww dry up and tell me why anything that comes from Rush Limbaugh should be viewed as credible news.
207. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 12:56:54 PM
Local news here is so pathetic and the readers so plastic that I barely watch it except for weather. The best tv program for state news is Arkansas Week on PBS, but I often forget to watch it. The main problem with it is that it focuses on one or two subjects in depth, which would be great if there were another source of television news to get the rest.
The Ardemgaz is decent for statewide news, but my principles won't allow me to give a red cent of my money to them. Luckily I get them free at work during the week to use in my social studies classes.
BTW, it's easy to blame the victim for the deplorable state of the media, but when there are no choices, or the choices are so similar as to be the same as no choice, there's not much to be done except not watch, and most people think bad coverage is better than none. It's like blaming the Soviets for how they voted in elections.
208. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 12:57:51 PM
Uh, I'm sure Cal knows that I was telling Rose to dry up, but just to make sure, #206 was to #204.
209. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:01:00 PM
One thing that was very funny about our state news (which is really the same as local news, since we have less than 2.5 million people in the whole state) when Clinton got elected was how much they fell over themselves seeking their fifteen minutes of national fame. I thought it made the AR media look like a bunch of jakes, but thankfully the rest of the country wasn't paying any attention.
210. judithathome - 2/23/2002 1:09:02 PM
Our NBC affiliate has as its news director a flaming Republican who is very well known all over town for being rude and obnoxious in public. A couple of years ago, he was suspended by the station for hosting a Republican fundraiser and talking about his hopes that he would be announcing the Republican winner on his newscast of whatever election was coming up.
I was surprised the station did this but glad they did...although anyone seeing the oaf act like a spoiled media darling in restaurants around the area would be foolish to think he had a brain for politics.
211. dusty - 2/23/2002 1:10:33 PM
Arky
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
Currently, or recently on the NYT Bestsellers list.
Excerpt from review:
Think the media are biased? CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN crying foul for years, but now a veteran CBS reporter has come forward to expose how liberal bias pervades the mainstream media. Even if you've suspected your nightly news is slanted to the left, it's far worse than you think. Breaking ranks and naming names, Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist Bernard Goldberg reveals a corporate news culture in which the close-mindedness is breathtaking, journalistic integrity has been pawned to liberal opinion, and "entertainment" trumps hard news every time.
For what it's worth, the review is a good example of propaganda, but that's a subject for another thread:)
212. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:17:11 PM
Thanks Dusty. Of course, it is CBS.
Y'know, there's a definite overlap with propaganda issues when discussing media bias in particular.
BTW,
Has no one heard of FSTV?
213. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:19:25 PM
Hmmm. It's very telling what the people who bought "Goldberg titles" also bought.
214. dusty - 2/23/2002 1:26:18 PM
Some people distinguish between reporting and commentary. The rough distinction being that reporting should concentrate on the facts, and commentary involves opinions.
How important is this distinction to people?
Do people here think that there should be a bright line between news shows and commentary?
Is commentary allowed on a news program if it is so labeled? Should programs doing primarily commentary not do news at all, or is it ok to cut to a clearly defined "news segment?"
For those that agree with a distinction between reporting and commentary, is it reporting or commentary to label someone "right-wing" or "left-wing"? The pro position might be that it is important for the viewer to understand the perspective of the speaker, and the reporter is providing a factual service by correctly labeling the person's politics. The con position might be that the reporter will be inevitably affected by their personal bias, and it would be better to stick to factual labels (the speaker is a spokesperson for XYZ organization), and let the viewer figure out (possibly with the help of commentators) the potential biases of the organization.
215. CalGal - 2/23/2002 1:27:04 PM
Goldberg's book--or at least his discussions on it--are less simplistic than his followers make it appear. I linked in a discussion he had with Kalb about it in the Propaganda thread--am running out now but if someone wants to look it up it's in the 500 range. Or I'll look it up when I get back. It is a very good discussion.
216. dusty - 2/23/2002 1:27:10 PM
arkymalarky
Thanks Dusty. Of course, it is CBS
Meaning what?
217. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 1:30:27 PM
Judith: Your news director sounds like Dan Rather, who just had to do a Texas Democratic fund raiser raising hundreds of thousands of dollars hoping that no one would notice.
His excuse was that his daughter was the campaign manager for the politician.
218. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:32:23 PM
How much has the emergence of CNN and other 24 hour news sources, in addition to the internet, affected the media? I felt like the emphasis became trying to make the next news headline, getting it first before getting it right, and bleeding a minor story in hopes of holding people's attention, rather than emphasizing relevancy--Chandra Levy and Jon Benet Ramsey pop immediately to mind.
It seems that the recent changes have contributed heavily to a trend in television, and to a large degree newspapers, that has made news journals and magazines much more important to being informed, which means much less of the general population has even the most basic understanding of major events and issues than it did a generation ago.
219. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:33:38 PM
Dusty,
It was a joke, meaning CBS is a hair away from communist anyway. Which I don't believe, of course.
220. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:34:38 PM
Dusty,Message # 214
I think the distinction is very important and the lines have become far too blurry.
221. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:36:42 PM
WRT your last paragraph, in general I think it's too plainly biased to put a label of "left-wing" or "right-wing" in a news report.
222. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 1:42:30 PM
God, you're patronizing, Arky. No wonder your students are constantly looking out the windows when you're teaching and look confused when you ask them questions.
223. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:46:34 PM
I'm just a plane above most folks PJ. It's difficult to engage with the masses and keep that always in mind.
Now what exactly did you find patronizing?
224. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 1:49:36 PM
Very good, very administrative. Exactly the way some people react to criticism. Turning the question around.
Just fix the hosts line, please.
225. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 1:54:31 PM
Witness another very valuable administrative technique: Passing the Buck.
That's not my purview.
In the meantime, where's your defense of Rush? I've been waiting two days.
I'll expect it when I return later.
226. judithathome - 2/23/2002 2:01:28 PM
What is wrong with the hosts line?
227. judithathome - 2/23/2002 2:13:43 PM
This is the discussion between Marvin Kalb and Bernard Goldberg that Cal linked to in Propaganda.
228. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 2:14:41 PM
Let me do an Arky: What isn't wrong with the hosts' line?
Now, think hard, our favorite senior citizen. Whose idea was it to have the Media Thread?
229. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 2:16:47 PM
I would hate to think that there is an anti-Christian bias here at mote, and that the name of Jesus can't be shown on a regular basis.
230. dusty - 2/23/2002 2:17:33 PM
arkymalarky
WRT your last paragraph, in general I think it's too plainly biased to put a label of "left-wing" or "right-wing" in a news report.
Goldberg argued that is was OK for reporters to do this. I mentioned this, not as a rebuttal (I don't agree with everything Goldberg says, and I am still thinking about my own position), but because some of those who "know" what Goldberg says and dismiss it, might be surprised at this position.
The Lexis-Nexis search found that "By the numbers, the news media labeled Republicans “right-wing” 373 times during their convention but found only 120 occasions to refer to “left-wing” Democrats during theirs."
What do you make of these numbers, if anything?
231. dusty - 2/23/2002 2:20:08 PM
hanks judithathome, that discussion is well worth reading.
232. dusty - 2/23/2002 2:22:14 PM
Property of Jesus
If you can't stay on subject, can you go to a thread, like suggestions or policy or nonsense, where you can be on subject.
233. judithathome - 2/23/2002 2:29:51 PM
Dusty, don't thank me...thank Cal...and the Pew Charitable Trusts. ;-)
234. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 2:34:16 PM
stay on subject
Which is?
Whenever I bring up a subject, I'm told it's off-topic. Even the fact that MSNBC didn't report on the death of WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl was poo, pooed.
Before it's cast in stone, I'm trying to get housecleaning to fix the thread headers.
235. Absensia - 2/23/2002 2:38:11 PM
Arky, what IS FSTV?
236. judithathome - 2/23/2002 2:38:45 PM
If you are waiting for them to put your name up there, it's a fool's pursuit. You know you're not allowed to host.
237. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 2:41:43 PM
I know of no such decision. When was it decided, and what are my appeals. Is it because of my weight comment? Or the fact that I use Jesus in my moniker?
238. Absensia - 2/23/2002 2:41:58 PM
Thanks Cal for posting it, and thanks Judith for linking to it here. Very interesting.
239. CalGal - 2/23/2002 3:13:15 PM
Some people distinguish between reporting and commentary.
I would even add a third--analysis.
Reporting should do its best to cover only the facts. Commentary is akin to editorializing, although editorializing is generally considered the view of the entire media outlet, rather than the individual. Analysis is informed review of the news (or should be, anyway), and ideally without bias.
Commentary: Charles Krauthammer, Peter Bienart, Nina Totenberg, Jack Germond, Michael Kinsley, Michael Kelly.
Analysis: Jeff Greenfield, David Broder
Reporters: Jim Lehrer, Wolf Blitzer, Peter Jennings. It's actually more difficult to know who reporters are in the print media, because they rarely go on television. Also, at the high end of reporting they begin to become analysts--Evan Thomas, for example.
Judith, thanks for digging up that discussion, I appreciate it.
240. judithathome - 2/23/2002 3:17:28 PM
Cal, have you seen much of John King? He's the senior White House reporter from CNN. I think he does a good job of being unbiased; he was there with Clinton and now with Bush and seems to stay unpolitical in his reports.
241. judithathome - 2/23/2002 3:18:03 PM
No problem on the link...I was doing laundry and had the time.
242. CalGal - 2/23/2002 3:19:56 PM
I think the distinction between the various types of journalism is extremely important. In terms of "bias" in the media, reporting and analysis are really the only thing that should be assessed.
is it reporting or commentary to label someone "right-wing" or "left-wing"?
Use of the word "wing" is a tad informal and therefore has the ring of an opinion. But it is not commentary to label a person's views, so long as the labelling is accurate.
This means it is almost always commentary to describe a Democrat as "left wing" or "far left", since no elected politician is anywhere near that point in the spectrum. Describing Arlen Specter as "far right" is commentary. Describing Jesse Helms as "far right" is not.
One other thing to remember: "conservative" is a badge of honor, so it is certainly not commentary to describe a politician as conservative if he himself welcomes the title.
243. CalGal - 2/23/2002 3:25:43 PM
Judith--yes, John King would be what I think of as a reporter and he was one of the names I was trying to think of.
I think there are many unbiased reporters, but they are rarely mentioned when people complain about the media. Also, to be fair, sometimes the reporters story is biased by a headling or an anchor presentation.
Lehrer Newshour reporters are outstanding; I've become a real fan of the show.
244. judithathome - 2/23/2002 3:29:34 PM
I like Lehrer Newshour, too. Certainly preferable to local kidnap-political-city-council-sports-teams junk it runs opposite here.
245. CalGal - 2/23/2002 3:35:07 PM
I never watch local news, and never watch network news. I do keep CNN on as background noise, but I find they have really deteriorated in the last year or more, as Fox's success forces them to try to be more "commercial".
They cancelled Jeff Greenfield for a rerun of Crossfire. I could weep.
246. judithathome - 2/23/2002 3:38:29 PM
I keep it on all day for background because I can't stand FOX and MSNBC is too clattery for me...plus I like TalkBack Live in the afternoon but that may end when Arthel Neville takes over as permanent host...talk about the FOXification of CNN!
247. PelleNilsson - 2/23/2002 3:42:39 PM
POJ
You won't host because you have repeatedly shown your incompetence in that respect (as well as in several others).
248. dusty - 2/23/2002 3:43:23 PM
One other thing to remember: "conservative" is a badge of honor, so it is certainly not commentary to describe a politician as conservative if he himself welcomes the title.
Not everyone would agree that it is a badge of honor, but the point is well-taken that those who believe themselves to be conservative should (and usually do) welcome the term.
This is why the Republican strategy to label the media and positions of Democrats as "liberal" was so brilliant. A few liberals staunchly insisted they were proud of the term, but most realized they'd been snookered, as the majority of the public realized it was not a compliment.
This is what makes the outcry over the claim that the mainstream media tends to be, on-balance, liberal, so funny. It is obviously true, those so labeled should be proud of the accurate label, yet they yell like stuck pigs at being so characterized.
I haven't figured out whether the major TV news reporters like rather are as clueless as Goldberg paints them out (seems hard to believe) or whether they are trying to pull off the Big-Lie campaign.
249. dusty - 2/23/2002 3:46:39 PM
judithathome
I keep it on all day for background because I can't stand FOX and MSNBC is too clattery for me...
By "it" do you mean CNN?
250. judithathome - 2/23/2002 3:54:35 PM
Yes, I was responding to Cal's post which stated she does the same...
251. Absensia - 2/23/2002 4:18:24 PM
I often keep CNN on in the background as well. I loved Greenfield at large and a despise Crossfire.
Perhaps it's just age or poor vision, but if I'm trying to listen to a CNN report or commentary, etc., there is no way I can keep up on the ticker tape running at the bottom or vice versa.
252. CalGal - 2/23/2002 4:22:07 PM
This is what makes the outcry over the claim that the mainstream media tends to be, on-balance, liberal,
But see, there you go. The media is not, on balance, "liberal". The media is, on balance, biased towards abortion rights, towards affirmative action, against capital punishment, and against "big business" as they perceive it--and this last leads to some laughable struggest at times.
None of that can be considered "liberal".
253. PelleNilsson - 2/23/2002 4:31:35 PM
You keep TV on "in the background"? How amazing.
254. dusty - 2/23/2002 4:33:30 PM
PelleNilsson
Why is that amazing? My wife does the same.
255. dusty - 2/23/2002 4:36:52 PM
judithathome
I confess I've given up on getting decent coverage from the evening news casts from ABC, CBS or NBC, but I try not to stick with a single source. I watch CNN, FOX, PBS, CSPAN, MSNBC, and a smattering of a few others.
How often do you view other sources?
256. dusty - 2/23/2002 4:39:16 PM
CalGal
But see, there you go.
Is it possible to have a discussion without this crap? It is irksome. Once twice, three times, I've ignored it. But enough is enough.
The media is not, on balance, "liberal".
Do you have any evidence to support this?
257. judithathome - 2/23/2002 4:47:32 PM
Dusty:
How often do you view other sources?
All the time...I don't keep it ONLY on CNN; I bounce back and forth and even watch other, non-news programming through the day, like on TLC or HGTV. In the evening, I flip from ABC to CBS to NBC and PBS...because I watch the cable stations during the day. And I listen to NPR for part of the morning, unless I sleep in, and always listen to it when I'm in the car.
I watch Jim Lehrer at 10pm and flip over to the cable stations and some of the local stations right before I go to bed. It's not like I get my news from only one source. I also read various newspapers on-line and my local paper, too.
Pelle:
Before 9/11, I rarely turned the TV on during the day until Jeopardy came on at 3pm; since then, I have seldom been without the TV tuned to some news station during the day.
258. seadate - 2/23/2002 4:48:40 PM
Definitely operating the remote with her left hand.
259. judithathome - 2/23/2002 4:49:22 PM
And the mouse with my right!
Hey, BB!! Howzit?
260. seadate - 2/23/2002 4:52:04 PM
settled in for another week or so. I sure enjoyed the pre-moteio dinner last week.
261. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 5:15:24 PM
John Fund in the slammner on assault charge.
262. CalGal - 2/23/2002 5:22:19 PM
Dusty,
I am not sure how I offended you with that comment. "There you go" meaning that you are again associating "liberal" with views that aren't "liberal". I meant no offense, I meant it as "there's an example", and I find it impossible to discuss it meaningfully until we can at least agree on examples.
But without the "there you go", my point still stands. I don't see the media as "liberal". I do think that the media has views more in lines with Democrats on a few--and only a few--social issues.
263. CalGal - 2/23/2002 5:23:50 PM
Ooops--I missed this:
Do you have any evidence to support this?
Well, I'd go the other way and say do you have any evidence to say that they are? Remembering that "voting Democrat" and "liberal" can be miles and miles apart. I should know.
264. dusty - 2/23/2002 6:34:28 PM
CalGal
I do think that the media has views more in lines with Democrats on a few--and only a few--social issues.
While I agree that the liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican identification isn't perfect, it is reasonably close.
In terms of objectively measuring how the mainstream media tilts, one either have to exhaustively list all issues and identify whether they are liberal or conservative before starting the analysis, or take a minor shortcut and analyze whether the mainstream media tilts toward the Democrats.
There was no doubt that the mainstream TV media (ABC, CBS, NBC,CNN) tilted to the Democrats when I watched it. I no longer watch it, so I cannot say based upon first-hand knowledge. But when insiders such as Goldberg tell me it hasn't changed based upon anecdotes, and CATO tells me it hasn't changed based upon analysis, I tend to believe it hasn't changed, especially when I nothing other than sputtering from any other source.
The Dem tilt is less obvious when all media is included. Radio has moved toward the conservative end (but not exclusively, unless they've finally dumped the goofy Hightower), and as the ideologically odd decisions of the formerly major networks cost them share, the newer outlets such as Fox are moving the balance toward the conservative end.
I asked for evidence. Do you have any?
The Goldberg book, despite its shortcomings is evidence. The Cato numbers despite their pedigree, also consitute evidence. What is the evidence to the contrary?
265. CalGal - 2/23/2002 6:55:12 PM
While I agree that the liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican identification isn't perfect, it is reasonably close.
I disagree. The "liberal" agenda has a strong economic component to it and it simply isn't represented in our political dialogue or representatives, much less the media's identification with it.
The Goldberg book, despite its shortcomings is evidence.
I disagree. The Goldberg book is evidence of exactly what I have already stipulated. It is not evidence of a "liberal" media.
take a minor shortcut and analyze whether the mainstream media tilts toward the Democrats.
If we can agree to discuss this, rather than whether the media is "liberal", and thus stay away from word counts of "right wing", "left wing" and so on, then great.
The only problem is that if we agree on those terms, we have nothing to argue about because I agree with you. I think the media does show a mild bias towards the Democrat social agenda. It's not the blatant bias that some people bitch about, but their coverage certainly tilts the dialogue.
266. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 6:56:10 PM
FSTV is Free Speech Television. It's the most unabashedly far-left liberal media source I've come across. I get it with Dish.
I like ABC News for its special reports and its tendency to cover recent studies, which seems to be more frequent than its competitors. That Peter Jennings looks sublime in white shirt sleeves has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I don't watch CNN any more because the repetition and beating even the most fascinating story into the ground drives me insane. I like NPR on the way to work and back. Really, TV and radio news for the most part is too vacuous and superficial and flashy for it to matter much whether it leans left or right. I think it just grabs onto whatever story blows by without much consideration of the spin, which is even worse, because it allows whoever gets the soundbites to do its spin for it.
So Dusty, the number of times conservative or right-wing is used more than liberal or left-wing doesn't matter as much to me as who's getting to make the general spin. For instance, you let DeLay get on all the talking-head shows and froth at the mouth about Clinton more often than the opposite, or better yet more memorably than the opposite, and it has much more impact than the words a reporter uses, imo.
Speaking of which, what about the talk shows? Do they have more impact than the regular "news" on public opinion and spin? They are, after all, not reporting, but analysis and commentary.
267. mgleason - 2/23/2002 7:36:40 PM
I don't think that this has been posted before, but please forgive me if it has: a review of The Myth of the Liberal Media, by Edward Herman, a counter to Bias.
Herman argues that despite the formal guarantees of a free press, journalists end up serving a propaganda function for the powerful in society. He uses the metaphor of filters, through which prospective news must pass before it reaches the public. Those filtering features include: ownership that is commercial and increasingly concentrated; advertising as the primary source of revenue; heavy reliance on elite sources; flak aimed at those who step outside the dominant framework; and an unchallenged anti-communism and “free-market” ideology.
Herman does not argue that in such a system no dissent from the powerful ever reaches the news, only that the system will tend to filter out the most serious challenges to the powerful institutions. Nor does he argue that any of this takes place through a nefarious conspiracy; it is a “guided market system” in which forces push the news toward the desired ends.
268. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 8:03:55 PM
Thanks for posting Herman. I was beginning to gasp for air.
"What is the evidence to the contrary?"
Would You accept ANY information from a non-right-wing source?
269. dusty - 2/23/2002 8:53:25 PM
CalGal
The only problem is that if we agree on those terms, we have nothing to argue about because I agree with you. I think the media does show a mild bias towards the Democrat social agenda
Works for me.
Now, if someone says "problem identified, let's move on to the solution", I say, "no solution needed". I can't get excited about the fact that the major networks show a liberal (for CalGal, read Democrat Party) bias. (Other than the intellectual discussion aspect.) They are losing market share, and will continue to until they wake up. Let 'em die. There are lots of alternatives.
270. dusty - 2/23/2002 9:04:14 PM
mgleason
Interesting article, thanks for linking it.
I don't see anything in it that refutes the points made by Goldberg, except for the (implicit) weak argument that it doesn't qualify as "systematic inquiry". I agree, but some questions don't require peer-reviewed academic studies to reach conclusions.
I think the point about filters is correct. And while they didn't explicitly say this, if they said that the filters work to exclude many opinions at the extremes, I would agree. The news as reported by the mainstream sources is more "homogenized" than the society at large. Not much of a surprise. This is why fringe folk need fringe media.
271. dusty - 2/23/2002 9:05:47 PM
Cellar Door -
Would You accept ANY information from a non-right-wing source?
Certainly, but I am looking for information with content, not just yammering.
272. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 10:05:29 PM
And the Cato Institute and Bernie Goldberg aren't yammering? Please.
You mistake superficial politesse for restraint. They want blood on the floor and they want it now.
And so, I strongly suspect, do you.
273. Cellar Door - 2/23/2002 10:06:02 PM
Are you going to start a "Free John Fund" campaign, perchance?
274. dusty - 2/24/2002 8:53:58 AM
Cellar Door
Were you serious in your request, or just yammering?
I don't see that you have provided any information.
275. mgleason - 2/24/2002 9:07:38 AM
Dusty,
You'd have to read the essays in The Myth of the Liberal Media to understand just how facile and ultimately meaningless Goldberg's claims are. As the review says,
the right-wing’s argument that the news media are liberal is (1) unsupported by any systematic inquiry; (2) dependent on the view that the personal biases of individual working journalists are more important rather than the structural factors outlined in the propaganda model; and (3) based on definitions of liberal and conservative in which a sell-out centrist such as Bill Clinton is seen as left-wing.
While it's true that 'some questions don't require peer-reviewed academic studies to reach conclusions,' it is a rather strange rationale to offer in continuing to accept anecdotal accounts and word counts rather than scholarly analysis.
276. Julius Caesar - 2/24/2002 9:52:40 AM
The following points apply only to television news--
I'm not sure the inquiry lends itself to scholarly analysis. Better, Goldberg's point will soon be irrelevant as network news becomes the sole province of the geriatric and the lonely, and cable news becomes further inundated with print reporters vying for a regular spot near Chris Matthews' spittle, victims of plastic surgery, and gun-wielding former Bette Midler lovers.
Most television reporters are Democrats. Most are liberal. Most network execs could care less about their increasingly unimportant news divisions. Newscasts scramble for ratings and advertising dollars and therefore, whatever they emphasize - liberal or conservative - they emphasize it in an ever-shortening window.
It is the facile nature of network television news that makes any "bias" profundity. Given the few minutes with which a John Quninones has to work, he will go to where the soundbite is given easiest, he will use the people he knows, he will cover the stories that energize him, he will be both cynical and outlandish in his approach, and he will ultimatley have to rely on the writing of wits at half his own speed on his next alar or bulimia or tax cut for the rich story. With less time, you go with what you know.
As for cable network news, CNN is one head giving ticker-tape events, which is fine. The rest of cable news is ugly magazine and newspaper writers jockying for an opportunity to holler at one and other regularly.
The only trustworthy news, and perhaps a stronger indictment of network and cable news than anything Goldberg has written, is John Stewart's The Daily Show.
277. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 9:55:22 AM
I concur on your last point, Caesar.
These days parody is the best so8urce of serious news.
278. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 9:58:01 AM
At the moment I'm interested in talking about infoirmation dissemination in the news process.
Forexample the last few days we've been infomred of the death of DanielPearl.There is a video of his murder that I doubt any of us will get to see (thank goodness), but apprently others have.
Who are they?
Knowing who they are, how they came by the video and what decisions were made about disclosing its contents are the most important aspect of the news process today.
279. Julius Caesar - 2/24/2002 10:00:32 AM
Cellar
You get the basic information and a solid laugh to boot.
Television nes if the one occupation that I can comfortably condemn in one sweep, with the exception of PBS, which may be liberal (or "biased") but is so thorough that it is worth the slant. As one writer for the New York Times observed about bias in teaching, he was less interested in whether children learned that Columbus discovered a New World or Columbus exploited and raped a world new only to him. What mattered was that children had an ndiea that Columbus got here at some point.
280. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 10:07:25 AM
Rule#1 of Modern Pseudo-Journalism: It's Always Clinton's Fault
281. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 10:10:26 AM
"which may be liberal (or "biased") but is so thorough that it is worth the slant."
And thereby lies the tale. I judge the worth of a news source by how much information it offers me. It's up to ME to sift through it all and decide what's really what. Bernie Goldberg's book isn't about that. It's one long moan of "Now I own the block and I STILL can't get no respect!"
282. Julius Caesar - 2/24/2002 10:19:10 AM
I have to read the book, but I will say this. I saw Goldberg on some question-and-answer, and his argument struck me as a great deal more nuanced than presented. Since dusty has said it is a qucik read, I may add it to the pile.
283. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 10:21:20 AM
The pile that includes Hell to Pay, Partners in Power and all the other, uh "studies" of the last administration? Quite a lot of kindling, Caesar
284. Julius Caesar - 2/24/2002 10:25:01 AM
No. My present pile is nowhere near as exciting. I'm just finishing The Complete History of Jack the Ripper and Sugden has yet to implicate Clinton. Though I just started Motherless Brooklyn, a crime novel about a thug with Tourette's, and he is somewhat Carvillesque.
285. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 10:40:42 AM
I'm sure I've mentioned this before in another thread, but no discussion of the media is complete without reference to Chicago by Maurine Watkins. In 1997 the Southern Illinois University press pubished an edition of this 1926 play, complete with the "Chicago Tribune" stories that inspired it -- which were also written by Watkins.
It should always be underscored that Chicago inspired The Front Page and not vice versa.
Read it and see how virtually nothing has changed about the press.
The film version of Fosse's musical (with a script by Bill Condon) is due later this year.
286. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:16:48 PM
Here's another website for GENUINELY Liberal news None of the "mainstream" news orgs accused of being "slanted to the Left" by the whiny babies of the Right dare to cover stories in this fashion. If you ever see them do so, then and only then, will accusations of "left-wing bias" make any sense.
287. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:28:05 PM
Meanwhile. . .
I think this would sound great put to music, don't you? Maybe Sondheim might be interested in John Fund: The Musical
288. dusty - 2/24/2002 12:51:29 PM
Cellar Door
There is a video of his murder that I doubt any of us will get to see (thank goodness), but apprently others have.
I've talked to some of the people who have seen it (I think). As they beheaded him, and then paraded the head around, I'd just as soon not see it, thank-you very much.
It is interesting that this hasn't been widely reported, although maybe I am behind in my news watching.
289. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:53:05 PM
No, I've seen reports of that.
290. dusty - 2/24/2002 12:53:20 PM
Cellar Door
Bernie Goldberg's book isn't about that. It's one long moan of "Now I own the block and I STILL can't get no respect!"
Did you actually read the book? That doesn't sound like the book I read.
291. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:54:34 PM
The real story is how that bit of information may or may not be utilized in the future.
292. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:55:21 PM
Yes I did, and that's what it says.
293. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:55:44 PM
The book is CRAP. Pure, unmitigated CRAP!
294. dusty - 2/24/2002 12:56:11 PM
OT
Odd, I just checked, and my closing HTML is in the offending post above. I wonder what happened.
295. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 12:58:11 PM
If the media is so slanted to the lfet, then why wasn't the onset of Reagan's Alzheimer's reported, eh? Answer me that, smartass!
The lying scumbags covered for him and covered for him and covered fro him LONG after they all knew his brain had turned to junket!
Hinckley allowed for some recontextualization -- to the great relief of said lying scumbags.
296. CalGal - 2/24/2002 1:02:53 PM
No, it was Cellars post that had the toy problem, and he closed it in the one after yours.
Cellar, isn't The Nation the most mainstream of the publications that could be truly considered "liberal"?
297. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:06:17 PM
What do you mean by "mainstream" in this context?
If it's Liberal it's out of the "mainstream" IMO.
298. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:08:58 PM
Now HERE'S a "mainstream" journalist for you! And such a sad tale he has to tell too. (We need violins with this.)
299. CalGal - 2/24/2002 1:10:16 PM
I agree. Hence "most" mainstream. It (hopefully) demonstrates to people like Dusty and JC how big a gap between their description of "liberal" (ie, in line with Dems) and true "liberal"--The Nation, which is really not taken all that seriously.
300. judithathome - 2/24/2002 1:10:46 PM
John King is sitting in for Wolf Blitzer today on Late Edition.
301. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:38:55 PM
BIAS QUIZ
Identify which of the following are actual quotes from the book, and which are made up:
302. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:41:52 PM
And anyone who thinks I'm going to rise to this bait has to get up a whole lot earlier in the morning!
303. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:42:19 PM
Cellar Door
If the media is so slanted to the lfet, then why wasn't the onset of Reagan's Alzheimer's reported, eh? Answer me that, smartass!
Of course it wasn't reported. No one knew about that, until you just announced it to the world. Nice scoop. (Although I would have sworn I had read about it a long time ago.)
304. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:45:10 PM
Cellar Door
The book is CRAP. Pure, unmitigated CRAP!
I hope you can forgive me for not simply taking you at your word.
I'm tempted to take you literally, and assume you think it is all crap. In which case I should be able to select anything in the book, and ask you to show why it is crap. But I'll assume you are in your typical hyperbolic mode, so why don't you give me a couple specific examples.
305. CalGal - 2/24/2002 1:45:27 PM
He's talking about Reagan's problems while still in office. His staff certainly knew. I think it likely that reporters knew. But then, his memory lapses and other problems were often reported--if not in the context of Alzheimer's. The public didn't seem to care.
306. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:47:01 PM
Cellar Door
And anyone who thinks I'm going to rise to this bait has to get up a whole lot earlier in the morning!
You claim you've read it, you haven't offered a single scrap of evidence to support your claim, and when i give you a chance to prove it, you chicken out.
And please tell me again why I should ever take you seriously?
307. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:50:34 PM
"Of course it wasn't reported. No one knew about that, until you just announced it to the world. Nice scoop. (Although I would have sworn I had read about it a long time ago.)"
I was working for the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner back then.No "scoop"on my part would have made it past the copy desk. Everyone knew and they were hanging on to the hope that the public would never find out while Regan was still in office. "Luckily" the shooting came along to divert everyone's attention. When he said "There was no arms-for-hostages deal" he was correct insofar as he had no memory of it. Or much else.
Having the news is one thing. Disseminating it is another. And only a few have the power to perform the latter.
As for Goldberg, you brought him up, you supply the quote. I'm really fucking tired of being forced to talk about that preening scumbag.
308. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:50:43 PM
Cellar Door
What do you mean by "mainstream" in this context?
I mean ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN tv. NYT, WP, WSJ, USAToday newspapers.
And try thinking before erupting.
309. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:51:54 PM
And in said context "The Nation" plays no role whatsoever.
310. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:52:51 PM
"And please tell me again why I should ever take you seriously?"
You never have so the point is moot, no?
311. CalGal - 2/24/2002 1:54:15 PM
Right. I agree with Cellar on that, which is why I brought up The Nation. It is the "most" mainstream of the publications that could legitimately be described as liberal, and it's simply not a player.
312. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:54:17 PM
Cellar Door
As for Goldberg, you brought him up, you supply the quote. I'm really fucking tired of being forced to talk about that preening scumbag.
I wasn't the first to bring him up, but that's a detail. I re-reaised the issue in this thread because it is cetral to the discussion.
I did supply quotes.
You are the one claiming the book is Crap. I'm asking you to deliver. If you don't want to talk about, don't talk about. But don't come in here dropping crap all over the place and then whine when you are asked to defend it.
313. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:54:19 PM
"The public didn't seem to care."
The public was IGNORED.
That's why they have polls and "focus groups."
314. CalGal - 2/24/2002 1:55:49 PM
The public wasn't ignored. They didn't care. You cared, and I'm sure all your friends did. I did, for that matter. But it's no use pretending that it was a secret kept from them. The press regularly hinted at Reagan's memory problems.
315. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:56:37 PM
"But don't come in here dropping crap all over the place and then whine when you are asked to defend it."
I'd hardly call screaming at the top of my lungs a whine.
I don't play games, dusty.
What in Goldberg is defensible? (as we're doomed to talk about the creep.)
316. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 1:58:22 PM
"The press regularly hinted at Reagan's memory prob