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 problems."
Oh please! When he was in office?
And did this constitute anything other than a playful "Isn't it cute how he forgets things sometimes?" bit ?
317. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:58:45 PM
CalGal
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.
Enough with the patronizing attitude.
Show me where I've equated the Dems and the Nation. Of course they are different. The Dems, on average, are moderately liberal. Probably a 4.r on a scale of 1-10, where 5 is the average citizen. The Nation is more like a 3. Wacked out liberals, with rare example of lucidity.
318. dusty - 2/24/2002 1:59:28 PM
Sorry, 4.5, not 4.r
319. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:01:23 PM
What, praytell, constitutes "moderately liberal" to you -- as compared to those "Nation" wackos?
320. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:02:13 PM
And what gives you leave to divine where the "average citizen" stands on the "issues" as they're spoon-fed to us?
321. dusty - 2/24/2002 2:04:40 PM
Cellar Door
What in Goldberg is defensible? (as we're doomed to talk about the creep.)
His discussion of the fact that sitcoms have gravitated toward white audiences, almost to the exclusion of blacks.
(I confess I hadn't realized this, as I don't watch much prime time TV. I was stunned when Ms No listed the top shows on TV and how many were based upon white middle or upper middle class situations. Goldberg discusses this in one chapter.)
Just so we don't get into word wrangling, I don't think the practice is defensible, I think Goldberg's characterization of the issue is defensible.
322. dusty - 2/24/2002 2:06:47 PM
Cellar Door
And what gives you leave to divine where the "average citizen" stands on the "issues" as they're spoon-fed to us?
If you read Goldberg's book, you'd know. He explained it, and I repeated it upthread.
323. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:08:08 PM
His characterization of the "issue" is (I'm being REAL restained here) ill-informed.
Read Prime Time Blues by Donald Bogle for a more nuanced and historicallly-based understanding of African-Americans and television.
324. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:10:04 PM
The latest from MWO on Fund-O-Rama:
"By now many readers have heard about the arrest Saturday of the Wall Street Journal's John Fund for allegedly assaulting Morgan Pillsbury, his ex-girlfriend, ex-babysitting charge when he was dating her mother, and MWO advice columnist.
The latest reports follow the explosive revelations of several months ago, in which Fund was exposed as a hypocrite and cur when Ms. Pillsbury's taped conversations with him turned up on the internet, revealing manipulation by Fund that Pillsbury indicates resulted in her decision to abort their child. However, it should be noted that Fund was also heard on the tape clarifying that, with regard to his purported pro-life position, his view included "variations on that theme." (The tape also included Fund saying he enjoyed poetry, so MWO Readers sent him a few of their own.)
It goes without saying that Fund is presumed innocent of the latest allegations until such time that he is proven guilty. But as this story develops, we should all keep in mind a time not so long ago when, not only was Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal not afforded the benefit of that presumption by the likes of Fund when Mr. Blumenthal was the victim of a despicable domestic violence smear campaign by the right, but Fund was himself strongly rumored to be responsible for initiating and spreading the completely false allegations leveled against Mr. Blumenthal by the Drudge Report.
(continued)
325. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:10:15 PM
Mr. Blumenthal later sued Drudge, but ultimately injustice prevailed again, as a result of the bottomless pit of dirty money constantly pouring forth from wealthy conservative extremist crackpots like Richard Mellon Scaife and others, which makes it impossible for its many decent, victimized Americans to sustain a legal battle against the right-wing smear machine.
It will be most interesting to see how the Clinton-hating media handle one of their own being embroiled in a major scandal involving not an effort to keep secret an embarrassing consensual affair, but a serious, violent crime."
326. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:34:39 PM
330. CalGal - 2/24/2002 2:41:37 PM Well, that's weird. 331. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:42:33 PM You bet it is. What's going on in here? I lost my last two posts. 332. CalGal - 2/24/2002 2:44:41 PM Jesus, Cellar, you posted the same thing about fifty times, and badly at that. This is his post. 333. CalGal - 2/24/2002 2:46:15 PM Here is mine. (You put a single instead of a double quote in the link, Cellar) 334. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 2:48:53 PM Is he really to the right of Wellstone? Would he cave so reflexively on gay issues the way Wellstone has? I don't believe Teddy Kennedy signed DOMA (please correct me if I'm wrong) I know that Wellstone did. 335. dusty - 2/24/2002 3:19:17 PM Cellar Door 336. wonkers2 - 2/24/2002 3:25:13 PM Re Fund arrest: It couldn't happen to a nicer guy! 337. dusty - 2/24/2002 3:25:48 PM CG 338. dusty - 2/24/2002 3:27:39 PM Cellar Door 339. CalGal - 2/24/2002 4:18:06 PM I'm using the terms in the way that ordinary Americans mean them. 340. CalGal - 2/24/2002 4:25:55 PM Incidentally, Dusty, I don't much object to you using the term provided there are no more word counts. My post about the Nation vs. the Dems was to illustrate how completely out of synch the term was with reality, not to argue further with you. 341. CalGal - 2/24/2002 4:27:47 PM We are discussing the American media, and whether it is biased relative to the average American. 342. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 4:36:30 PM Goldberg likes to make nice pseudo-liberal noises ("See?I like negroes! I think Randy Shilts was heroic!") thinking it will mask his real agenda. 343. dusty - 2/24/2002 5:24:40 PM CalGal 344. dusty - 2/24/2002 5:30:44 PM Cellar Door 345. AytchMan - 2/24/2002 5:33:59 PM Word counts seem like one (and only one) indicator of possible bias. 346. mgleason - 2/24/2002 5:36:36 PM The statement 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" is very telling. 347. dusty - 2/24/2002 5:50:06 PM AytchMan 348. AytchMan - 2/24/2002 5:55:15 PM dusty-- 349. CalGal - 2/24/2002 5:58:07 PM Do those arguing against word counts believe they're meaningless? Would they be equally meaningless if the counts were reversed? 350. CalGal - 2/24/2002 5:59:13 PM They are an effective, and objective way to make a point. 351. CalGal - 2/24/2002 6:01:07 PM Cellar--again, I don't see social issues as having any meaning when discussing political spectrums. They are assigned almost randomly. 352. dusty - 2/24/2002 6:02:05 PM mgleason - 353. AytchMan - 2/24/2002 6:02:09 PM I've heard several people opine that the political spectrum in the US is skewed to the right. 354. CalGal - 2/24/2002 6:18:18 PM The world, US history, and how about the absolute political spectrum itself? Socialism and communism are left, yes? 355. mgleason - 2/24/2002 6:20:01 PM Dusty, 356. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 6:28:31 PM "It's forced the Democrats to abandon long-held beliefs and move to the center, or even center-right on some issues. " 357. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 6:32:14 PM I have seen "Liberal" become in my lifetime not a simple category but a label reserved for the most despised. 358. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 6:39:30 PM 359. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 6:50:31 PM 360. Al D - 2/24/2002 7:22:10 PM "It was frustrating watching Gore try so hard not to appear smart in the debates. Why not just say" 361. Al D - 2/24/2002 7:25:21 PM Rest of quote 362. dusty - 2/24/2002 8:00:58 PM AytchMan 363. dusty - 2/24/2002 8:07:16 PM mgleason 364. dusty - 2/24/2002 8:12:14 PM 365. dusty - 2/24/2002 8:16:16 PM No one tried my Bias Quiz. Please try it, even if you haven't read the book. Maybe it will convince you not to read the book. Maybe it will convince you that the people dissing the book haven't read it. Maybe it will convince you I'm not good at manufacturing quotes. 366. dusty - 2/24/2002 8:26:10 PM mgleason 367. mgleason - 2/24/2002 9:22:23 PM Yep, I've read it. Herman does use liberal and conservative in the sense of their current incarnations. His filter metaphor is part of the propaganda model, in which the ideology served transcends petty political distinctions which have neither the meaning nor the importance attached to them. It's a fascinating study. 368. judithathome - 2/24/2002 10:27:01 PM Dusty: 369. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 12:21:21 AM "Bile was the best I could expect" 370. concerned - 2/25/2002 2:40:32 AM For cllrdr, his 'genuinely liberal' website seems more or less intent on trashing GWB. They even are still hacking out articles claiming that Bore wuz robbed in the 2000 presidential election. 371. concerned - 2/25/2002 2:55:35 AM Well, I've already agreed that the media tilts slightly Dem--but not "liberal" in any reasonable meaning of the word. But again, since half the population tilts Dem, it's silly to say that they are biased in comparison to the average American. 372. concerned - 2/25/2002 3:06:02 AM I personally recall being hounded by network media for years, during the Reagan and first Bush administration, with the '3 million' homeless number which Goldberg points out is a total fabrication by a homeless activist, nearly an order of magnitude larger than the actual number. Yet network media knowingly disseminated this falsified information for a decade, only to suddenly stop when x42 ascended to the presidency. 373. concerned - 2/25/2002 3:18:41 AM Put more plainly, the 3 million homeless figure was an outright lie that the network media uniformly disseminated to spite Republican administrations and in order to advance a Liberal agenda that they were uncritically sympathetic to. 374. thoughtful - 2/25/2002 9:11:23 AM To the thread hosts, I went back and found Jexster's post about how to do content analysis over in amer. politics, post # 28955. You might want to link it here and have some posters rate the same article...I think the results would be interesting. 375. thoughtful - 2/25/2002 9:22:40 AM Let me also suggest that some check out vote view specifically the article on "the polarization of american politics". While not related to the media, it does show maps over time that illustrate the democrats have remained where they were politically, whereas the republican party has shifted to the right. It adds a little more objectivity to the discussion of the political background against which the media is operating...if the media has shifted right is it because it is following the political landscape? If the media has mentioned "left wing" less is it because there's no news there vs. the news around the changing republican party? 376. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 10:03:59 AM 377. ycmeehan - 2/25/2002 10:29:23 AM Cellar, Coulter once likened Clinton to a "common criminal". The woman is horrid to look at and her masculine Adam's Apple motion up-and-down on her girafe's neck gives me the willies. 378. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 11:37:36 AM Fan maile to MWO for picking Leslie Stahl as "Media Whore of the Week": 379. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 11:38:08 AM The “plain spoken” Mr. Bush and Ms. Stahl, along with all of the other presidential acolytes in the media, seem to believe that just by raising our voice, or perhaps just our eyebrows, the rest of the world will fall into line. If they don’t like what we say and do, they can…what? Altogether now…they can just get over it! 380. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 11:38:24 AM Diplomacy is not for the impatient, for the intellectually feeble, like those who currently lead our government and our media. What diplomacy IS is the coin of the realm in the successful settlement of international disputes. If at first it does not succeed, you spend more, and more, and more, until it finally brings about the desired result. Tough talk is a plug nickel that buys nothing but disaster. 381. concerned - 2/25/2002 11:53:31 AM Peace is achieved not through threats, but is rather the result of honest, good faith brokering, bargaining, give and take. 382. dusty - 2/25/2002 1:00:17 PM judithathome 383. dusty - 2/25/2002 1:12:24 PM thoughtful 384. CalGal - 2/25/2002 1:20:04 PM I think the entire country shifted right. Nixon and Ford in the late 60s and 70s would almost be Dems by today's standards. 385. dusty - 2/25/2002 1:32:54 PM 386. dusty - 2/25/2002 1:33:12 PM Ford's, too. 387. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 1:48:27 PM Which "ideas"? Getting elected on a platform that claimed you wnated to end the Vietnam war only to expand it into Laos, Thailand and Cambodia? 388. concerned - 2/25/2002 1:51:49 PM I don't recall Jimmuh Cahtuh getting us out of Vietnam, cllrdr. 389. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 2:10:34 PM I don't recall his expanding the war onto three additional fronts either. 390. concerned - 2/25/2002 2:12:42 PM The Democrat Congress of the era has Pol Pot on its collective conscience, unlike Richard Nixon. 391. dusty - 2/25/2002 2:52:55 PM Cellar Door 392. thoughtful - 2/25/2002 3:35:33 PM dusty, the map actual goes through 1998 if you watch it...does take some patience. 393. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 4:08:03 PM So to you it's all a matte of dollars and cents. Human life means nothing. 394. thoughtful - 2/25/2002 4:37:07 PM dusty, we were going to talk inflation down by wearing WIN buttons...Whip Inflation Now. The idea being fostered by those whacky rational expectationists that inflation was exacerbated by people expecting inflation in the future, causing them to buy now not later, driving demand up and prices up with it, causing demand-pull inflation. Same on the labor cost front where unions were contracting for anticipated inflation causing cost-push inflation. 395. concerned - 2/25/2002 4:39:58 PM x42 Defends $300,000/Speech Cliches 396. judithathome - 2/25/2002 4:42:38 PM Cliches? You want cliches that are costing so much per minute....try listening to #43 for half an hour. 397. concerned - 2/25/2002 4:43:26 PM excerpt: 398. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 7:15:46 PM An of course we all know what the chimp has done about world terrorism. 399. Al D - 2/25/2002 7:37:27 PM Dusty 400. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 7:46:05 PM What a pointless little game! Bias isn't The Fucking Bible! 401. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 7:46:52 PM meanwhile Further proof that we are now living under a corporate dictatorship 402. CalGal - 2/25/2002 8:22:52 PM Here is an example of media bias or angling that has nothing to do with US left/right politics: 403. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 8:42:00 PM Quite true. 405. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 9:50:54 AM You mean our Liberal Dominated media has been giving this cocaine-sniffing, pretzel-choking, born-again alcoholic nincompoop a pass? But how can that be? There's this LIBERAL BIAS that EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT. They should be hammering him day ater day after day! 406. Julius Caesar - 2/26/2002 10:21:17 AM The television media doesn't have the intellectual heft or the attention span to hammer any president, liberal or conservative, substantively. This, along with his self-inflicted psychosis, was Clinton's misfortune. No one ever understood Whitewater, but a blowjob from an intern and gooey DNA - ready-made both for news reports sandwiched in between commercials and discussion by anyone, no matter their credentials. Stars were born. 407. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 11:56:38 AM He's doubtless had several. 408. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 3:22:24 PM 409. AytchMan - 2/26/2002 4:34:57 PM dusty-- 410. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 5:57:06 PM 411. Property of Jesus - 2/27/2002 3:13:32 PM People are attracted to quality, especially when it's fair and balanced.... 412. judithathome - 2/27/2002 3:16:40 PM Yeah, well, people spend good money on N'Sync albums, too. 413. Property of Jesus - 2/27/2002 3:36:59 PM N'Sync can sing. Bad example. 414. robertjayb - 2/27/2002 4:42:29 PM I can't link today's pertinent column by Gene Lyons but as a courtesy to concerned and Miss Rosie, I'm gonna paste the whole thing from e-mail: 415. robertjayb - 2/27/2002 4:44:14 PM Lyons.... 416. robertjayb - 2/27/2002 4:45:45 PM Lyons.... 417. robertjayb - 2/27/2002 4:48:00 PM Lyons.... 418. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 5:01:17 PM robertj-- 419. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:12:56 PM Any defense of Democrats against OBVIOUS LIES is "strident"? 420. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:13:17 PM Only means we're winning, LOSER! 421. arkymalarky - 2/27/2002 5:14:04 PM Hahahaha! Thanks Robert! I was just about to sarcastically link to the Democrat and let y'all know what you could read for $4.95 a month. 422. robertjayb - 2/27/2002 5:17:23 PM stri·dent (strîd'nt) 423. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 5:22:31 PM Aytch- Lyons is on the op/ed side of things, so an opinion one way or the other is not surprising, right? Moreover, his point is that opinion and opinion shaping slops over into the "objective" side of the paper when the news side unquestioningly runs "fact" they don't bother to check. Cub journalism stuff here that many in the media don't seem to have time for these days. It isn't a media failing that is confined to a favorable slant to the left or right, more a systemtic illness which is creeping throughout the media. We have far more people "analyzing" the news than actually discovering and reporting it. I'd like to tatoo the old Joe Friday line on a few journalistic foreheads-"Just the facts, Ma'am." 424. judithathome - 2/27/2002 5:24:25 PM They scramble all over themselves to first with the story, who cares if it's true or not. 425. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 5:29:21 PM It seems so to me but the main point was my question about the thrust of the article. 426. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 5:29:58 PM Do you know the difference between a television reporter and a whore? 427. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 5:30:54 PM my 425 was to rjb. 428. thoughtful - 2/27/2002 5:31:02 PM How much of that is driven by corporate ownership of media outlets which holds them to the same profitabilty expectations as they do other business ventures. I recall over the past decade or so seeing many journalists lamenting the staff cuts, research cuts, globally closing news bureaus, etc. 429. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:31:48 PM Developing story on Bush selling White House Accesss 430. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 5:34:56 PM Atch-I agree that there is no uniform slant to the media, regardless of form. There are competing voices in each and as long as the topic of the battle is the issue or personalities being dissected, the combat is a free for all. But if the topic is an ethical failing of journalist, the voices suddenly sing from the same page in chorus. 431. thoughtful - 2/27/2002 5:35:41 PM I think the key is Lyon's statement, "There is simply no equivalent myth-manufacturing apparatus on the Democratic side." 432. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:37:12 PM Of course it's true. 433. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:37:45 PM SHOW me the Dem equivalent of Richard Mellon Scaife! 434. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:38:17 PM You can't -- because THERE ISN'T ANY!!!! 435. Property of Jesus - 2/27/2002 5:38:41 PM Ted Turner, et al. 436. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 5:39:35 PM jones et al-- 437. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:39:44 PM Oh Please! 438. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 5:40:57 PM The first time I had a court case that attracted local media attention was an eye opener for me. I wasn't surprised at the slant that the article had, I was well aware of the conservative bent of the local rag. What was shocking was how wholly clueless the local "crime beat" reporter was concerning the operations of the local criminal courts, the legal system in general, and police practices. This guy couldn't find his ass with both hands, a map, compass and a boy scout to work'em. 439. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:41:05 PM "There may or may not be a bias" 440. Property of Jesus - 2/27/2002 5:43:00 PM The only reason AOL/TIMEWARNER/CNN is hiring conservatives is because it's being destroyed by "fair and balanced" Fox News. 441. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:44:10 PM YAWN 442. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 5:44:32 PM jones 438-- 443. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 5:45:15 PM Not even reporting. The emphasis now is on kissing the chimp's ass. 444. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 5:54:29 PM thoughtful 431-- 445. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 5:55:57 PM Cellar- C'mon, fess up. We have to come clean and admit that there is a leftish myth-making machine. The reality is that it's generally limited in scope to a few university departments, and marginalized activist groups. The difference is that PETA, the horde of folks who converge on WTO meetings, etc. are generally not accepted as authoritative sources. 446. judithathome - 2/27/2002 6:00:05 PM That was great, Jones...you should work in Media. 447. AytchMan - 2/27/2002 6:07:48 PM jones 445-- 448. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 7:09:55 PM No dear. Concepts seen as centerist thirty years ago are now called "extreme Left." 449. concerned - 2/27/2002 7:24:08 PM Lookin like Lefties really fucked themselves up the ass in the '70's when they told Nixon to shove his workfare and health programs. 450. concerned - 2/27/2002 7:26:23 PM Sometimes the American Left is the best thing conservatives have going for them. 451. concerned - 2/27/2002 7:28:29 PM Ha ha ha, might I add. 452. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 7:31:00 PM It's all you ever talk about. You have no ideas of your own. 453. concerned - 2/27/2002 7:33:15 PM Self replicating robot mining and manufacturing in space is not an idea of my own? Multistage SDI out of my own little noggin isn't? I played those in the Fray years ago. 454. concerned - 2/27/2002 7:36:09 PM Face it. When the dingy 'Communism' was clearly shipping water in the '70's, idiot Leftist radicals were checking their brains at the drug counter so that they could join Uncle Joe in world revolution. 455. arkymalarky - 2/27/2002 7:39:32 PM I really thought "Clinton is the anti-Christ" was a Concerned original. 456. concerned - 2/27/2002 7:40:44 PM Isn't anti-Christ an Xtian term? 457. Absensia - 2/27/2002 8:18:20 PM #454 Concerned, 458. thoughtful - 2/28/2002 8:36:14 AM Story on Today show this a.m. that Bush pere got in "hot water" for referring to Marin county hot tubbers in reference to John Walker Lindh. People were up in arms over this (including the fact he mispronounced Marin) and GWHB issued an apology stating, "I will never use Marin county and hot tubbers in the same sentence again." Besides the fact that he just did, I couldn't believe they would give any air time to this story. It was so riduculous...consisted of interviewing someone at the Marin county paper at some site where there was a hot tub in the background and a woman soaking in it. Woman had spoken for 15 min with GHWB which she said he was very sincere and very nice. 459. judithathome - 2/28/2002 9:22:38 AM Last night on Nightline Ted Koppel did the story of H. Rap Brown, the student activist from the 60s who served time in prison and came out a Muslim and had been living peacefully in Georgia since. Seems he got into some sort of tussle with two policemen and one ended up dead, the other wounded. He is on trial for murder...what Koppel referred to as "the fight of his life" and is claiming it was a government conspiracy. 460. thoughtful - 2/28/2002 9:37:07 AM judithah, I have no idea, but it may be like the yates trial where there are gag orders in place so people can't talk about key aspects of the case...though rusty yates did anyway against judges orders. But if so, the story should mention that as well. 461. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 9:52:07 AM The real meaning of Pearl's death. 462. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 10:07:32 AM 463. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 10:11:34 AM 464. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 10:29:17 AM Why the Democrats are such wusses. 465. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 7:05:00 PM Dear MWO, 466. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 7:05:10 PM Color me amazed. First, that Goldberg's vision is so good that he can spot and identify someone on the street from a NYC hotel room. (He didn't mention what floor he was on, but my guess it wasn't on one of the lower levels where no one wants to be because of street noise.) Not only did he recognize this individual, but that he KNEW exactly what this man was doing -- rehearsing those off-the-cuff remarks. Couldn't it also be that the pundit was trying to remember what he needed at the pharmacy? Or maybe he was in prayer? Or maybe he was rehearsing his break-up speech with his lover? Or maybe his was in the throes of a schizophrenic episode. 467. wonkers2 - 3/1/2002 10:20:24 AM THE DUMBING OF AMERICA 468. Cellar Door - 3/1/2002 10:39:17 AM 469. judithathome - 3/1/2002 10:48:55 AM Well, that is just great...yes, Nightline may not always be wonderful but isn't there enough comedy going on in the White House? 470. AytchMan - 3/1/2002 3:13:50 PM Seems odd that ABC would dump Nightline. Must be the need for ratings because most news shows are relatively cheap to produce. Still, the ABC News organization (such as it is) would take a prestige hit, not that it matters much. 471. thoughtful - 3/1/2002 5:09:55 PM On cnn this a.m. they said koppel has more viewers than letterman, so I can only guess it's in the "wrong" demographic. 472. CalGal - 3/1/2002 5:18:53 PM I just linked an article about it in TV; couldn't remember where I'd read about this. 473. Property of Jesus - 3/1/2002 5:27:29 PM Goldberg made the remark about the pundit talking to himself memorizing a cute line when he was walking from Union Station, near Capitol Hill in DC to go to the C-SPAN studios. Other news operations share space in the same building, especially FOX News. 474. Cellar Door - 3/1/2002 8:21:06 PM More "Pop" than "Culture" coming to the "Arts & Leisure" section of the NYT under Raines. 475. Absensia - 3/1/2002 8:54:00 PM So which newspapers seem to provide the most well balanced source of news? Christian Scientist Monitor comes to mind,as does the WSJ, the Times of London and a couple of others. What about news souces? Reuters? AP? Does anyone really consider the FOX newschannel to be unbiased and a balanced source of news? 476. Property of Jesus - 3/1/2002 9:54:48 PM Sure. Millions of people are glad to have FOX NEWS available to get both sides of issues. 477. Cellar Door - 3/2/2002 12:03:43 AM I don't wail at all. I double over with laughter at the notion that Faux News presents "both sides." 478. wonkers2 - 3/2/2002 12:36:21 AM The New York Times provides the most complete coverage. The Christian Science Monitor used to be a good paper focused on serious news and no fluff. I haven't read it lately. The Los Angeles Times also provides good coverage, but is on the conservative side. Wall Street Journal has good news writers but it's coverage is much more limited than the NYT or LAT. And of course it's editorial pages are incredibly bad. Aren't the Boston Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer supposed to be good papers? I'm not impressed much by the San Francisco newspapers. The Financial Times provides good coverage of the UK and Europe and the international scene and a surprising amount of news U.S. business 479. wonkers2 - 3/2/2002 12:38:09 AM The NYT Sunday Magazine has degenerated from dealing with primarily serious issues to something akin to People. 480. Absensia - 3/2/2002 2:02:38 AM Wonks, what about Common Cause? If a newspaper provides balanced news stories, should it be written off as unbalanced because it has either liberal or conservative editorial page? Can't most people recognize editorials or op/eds for what they are? 481. concerned - 3/2/2002 2:14:29 AM I think the key is Lyon's statement, "There is simply no equivalent myth-manufacturing apparatus on the Democratic side." 482. concerned - 3/2/2002 2:17:50 AM I meant 'de vast (rw)ing' expose on GWB, heh heh. 483. concerned - 3/2/2002 2:45:00 AM Right at the moment, Daschole is about the biggest little liar with national prominence I see out there, although he doesn't really excel among the run of Democrats in lying. 484. concerned - 3/2/2002 2:46:32 AM Oops. I forgot Sen. Foghorn Leghorn. Talk about telling howlers. 485. judithathome - 3/2/2002 2:49:10 AM Daschole is about the biggest little liar with national prominence I see out there, 486. Absensia - 3/2/2002 2:50:20 AM Concerned, what newspapers, articles, tv, etc., do you watch to reach these conclusions? 487. concerned - 3/2/2002 2:50:53 AM Re. 485 - 488. judithathome - 3/2/2002 2:52:08 AM The Republican one..... 489. judithathome - 3/2/2002 2:53:58 AM Sorry...off to bed! 490. wonkers2 - 3/2/2002 2:56:47 AM Absensia, No. Accurate and broad news coverage is what counts most for me not the editorials. [However, in some cases the editorial slant creeps into the news.] But I am fond of informed op-eds like those of Paul Krugman and Anthony Lewis. The WSJ has good but somewhat limited news coverage. I usually skip the editorial page because it makes my blood pressure rise! Common Cause? I don't get anything from Common Cause, although I just made a contribution last week in lieu of one to the DNC. I returned an empty envelop to the DNC with a nasty note about their lack of sincere effort on campaign finance reform. 491. concerned - 3/2/2002 3:05:32 AM re. 486 - 492. Absensia - 3/2/2002 3:24:56 AM Thanks for telling me your sources...we (arky and I) want to put some of these sources on the butter scotch bar, so I'm trying to get feed back. 493. concerned - 3/2/2002 3:35:22 AM Re. 492 - 494. concerned - 3/2/2002 3:37:35 AM ..check out... it's getting late.. 495. Absensia - 3/2/2002 4:16:37 AM Thanks for telling me your sources...we (arky and I) want to put some of these sources on the butter scotch bar, so I'm trying to get feed back. 496. Property of Jesus - 3/2/2002 9:00:50 AM Duh, absentminded. Just do it. Your days are numbered as Arky's co-host if you don't get your act together. Others want the job. 497. Cellar Door - 3/2/2002 10:01:38 AM Billy Graham Apologizes For His Remarks to Nixon About Jews Running the Media 498. Property of Jesus - 3/2/2002 10:14:45 AM Of course the news media isn't controlled by the Jews. Look what they did to Bernie Goldberg? 499. Cellar Door - 3/2/2002 10:30:06 AM Frank Rich Rules! The ENRON connection to press censorship under the Chimp. 500. Property of Jesus - 3/2/2002 10:54:25 AM No one reading Frank Rich anymore. He's to fat and writes the same column (with a different opening graf to confuse his editors) every Saturday. 501. Cellar Door - 3/2/2002 10:56:48 AM ROTFALMAO!!! 502. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 2:17:12 PM I put up two links. AJR is getting a makeover and it's not up at the moment. If anyone else has ideas let me know, and I'll go back in a bit and find the link of Jex's that was suggested. 503. CalGal - 3/2/2002 4:09:00 PM Bill Carter writes about TV politics so well. 504. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 4:18:18 PM cal-- 505. judithathome - 3/2/2002 4:20:54 PM And it speaks volumes about how the advertising biggies rule the airwaves... 506. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 4:43:53 PM j-- 507. CalGal - 3/2/2002 4:47:16 PM Exactly. Advertisers react. You want someone to blame, bitch about the consumers. Old farts have more money, so why don't they spend more? They should put themselves in play. But it won't happen. Young folks are influenced by advertising, like what's hip, and are a valuable commodity. 508. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 4:50:14 PM How much of this is affected by the attraction of cable networks to young viewers? 509. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 4:53:55 PM arky-- 510. CalGal - 3/2/2002 4:54:20 PM Some, but overall I'd say it's just the massive loss of viewers, period. 511. judithathome - 3/2/2002 4:58:20 PM The content of what? Programming? 512. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 5:00:52 PM tangential factoid-- 513. judithathome - 3/2/2002 5:02:58 PM Yes, and someday slip over into the dreaded "fogie" catagory themselves...lovely. 514. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 5:04:21 PM H, 515. CalGal - 3/2/2002 5:10:03 PM It also says something about the failure of CNN or the other cable news networks to get a decent share of viewers. 516. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 5:17:43 PM That was a joke. 517. CalGal - 3/2/2002 5:22:34 PM That was a joke. 518. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 5:28:48 PM Right. That's been a fairly recent development, or at least I just heard it recently, but I don't remember where. Didn't H suggest in the TV thread that that was part of the reason for some of CNN's recent changes? 519. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 5:33:48 PM Yeah, much to my dismay, CNN has openly jettisoned its hard news approach. More "features" (read: lifestyle management and the like). Young eyeballs. 520. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 5:44:24 PM Warning: Blindingly partisan post to follow. 521. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 6:02:52 PM arky-- 522. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 6:14:28 PM As an example, consider an honorable reporter with conservative views. Even though he honestly attempts to deliver an objective report on some issue, I believe some amount of passive bias inevitably slips through. Choice of words, framing of arguments, omitted viewpoints (because they seem unreasonable), whatever. 523. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 6:16:56 PM Interesting post, H. Does a specific example of passive bias pop to mind for you? One that you truly believe was unintentionally biased? 524. arkymalarky - 3/2/2002 6:17:25 PM Haha. c-post. 525. mgleason - 3/2/2002 6:26:10 PM The News Hour had a segment on the ABC/Letterman deal and one on the 'lifestylization' of the news, focusing on the changes at CNN. Interesting stuff; just what's being discussed here. 526. Cellar Door - 3/2/2002 7:47:42 PM Aired March 1, 2002 - 22:00 ET 527. mgleason - 3/2/2002 8:01:58 PM That's just what Herman writes about: the mainstream media gets criticized by both the left and the right, puffs its chest out, and brags that it must be doing something right. 528. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 10:29:42 AM Gene Lyons is a National Treasure. 529. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 5:06:04 PM The Latest from MWO on Ann "Thrax" Coulter: 530. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 5:06:52 PM Coulter, who was, of course, one of the right wing plotters who manipulated the Paula Jones case and worked closely with Ken Starr's office of inquisition in order to destroy President Clinton's efforts at world peace, opportunity for all and social equality. 531. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 5:07:04 PM provided the public outrage mounts. 532. Property of Jesus - 3/3/2002 5:33:20 PM Translation: Pundit Ann Coulter gets the CNN gigs-- while CD ends up watching her on TV. 533. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 5:38:07 PM Translation: CNN run by right-wing hacks. 534. Property of Jesus - 3/3/2002 5:45:54 PM Ted Turner? 535. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 5:46:36 PM Ted Turner's the joke. 536. judithathome - 3/3/2002 5:46:58 PM CNN isn't run by Teddy anymore...wake up. 537. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 5:47:29 PM What"Liberal" would hire a racist, anti-semite? 538. robertjayb - 3/3/2002 7:18:44 PM Expatriate views with alarm from Norway...(Online Journal) 539. concerned - 3/3/2002 7:33:33 PM re. 530 - 540. concerned - 3/3/2002 7:34:21 PM re. 530 - 541. wonkers2 - 3/3/2002 7:52:31 PM I beg your pardon. My life is not pathetic, MG notwithstanding. 542. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 8:26:44 AM Ted Koppel Takes On ABC in Op-Ed Piece. Count the number of times he uses "I" in his 500 column 543. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 10:07:39 AM Coulter is a racist, anti-semite and homophobe. 544. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 10:12:20 AM And she's not a "lone nut". Here's the latest from MWO: 545. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 10:12:52 AM Comstock drove herself to more than distraction in her mad hounding of the Clintons. Like many on the right-wing, she was engaged in a disturbed case of projection--blaming others for her own problems. And her self-loathing led her to intensify her madness. In 2000, as head of the Bush campaign's opposition research operation, she constructed the weird tales about Al Gore's alleged lying, and successfully peddled them to the press. Now this deluded character is spinning for the unhinged Ashcroft and refuses to answer directly whether he--and she--believe that calico cats are inhabited by Satan. Or is she? 546. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 12:22:16 PM Brock lies then, and he lies now. 547. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 12:28:46 PM LOOKING FOR FIND A YOUNGER AUDIENCE, ABC PLANS CHANGES FOR ITS SUNDAY "THIS WEEK" NEWS PROGRAM 548. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 12:53:32 PM "Brock lies then, and he lies now." 549. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 1:56:07 PM It is a mystery. Just like you claiming to be "a communist." 550. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 2:11:07 PM It is a mystery. Just like you claiming to be "a communist." 551. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 3:15:37 PM 552. CalGal - 3/5/2002 4:01:07 PM Did anyone read Koppel's op-ed? I thought it was excellent. I saw him speak once, and more than most reporters he seemed aware of the commercial aspects of network television (in fact, my question to him had to do with that). I was surprised that most of the reports today ignored his extensive acknowledgement of that and instead focused only on his treatment of the "relevance" issue. 553. Absensia - 3/5/2002 4:08:39 PM I read it too, Cal. It was excellent, imo, and I've liked Nightline...to me it was very close to a nonbiased report on the major networks. Commercial aspects figure in everything these days, but one rarely hears talk of it, until the ratings are in. 554. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 4:23:38 PM I sense that the nets are now finally hitting the wall in terms of the ratings/advertiser/programming cost squeeze. 555. CalGal - 3/5/2002 4:26:04 PM Maybe get out of the content provision business entirely? Just rent out space? 556. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 4:29:44 PM Possibly. They've been moving in that direction for years. 557. CalGal - 3/5/2002 4:32:34 PM Not for news, though. What percentage of entertainment isn't made by the various networks? For example, is the Raymond show (produced by Letterman) a CBS owned show, or just leased? 558. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 4:37:46 PM $8-million-dollar-a-year-man Koppel has gotten lazy, working three days a week, and his program just isn't topical anymore. 559. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 4:44:13 PM I think they keep the news show in-house because they're cheap to produce. And to save face: the integrity thing, "we're a real network". But they've certainly been cutting back expenses in the news divisions. Even the Dateline-type shows increasingly use joint ventures with Court TV and others. 560. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 4:45:44 PM On the cable news front--edited from USA TODAY: 561. CalGal - 3/5/2002 4:46:02 PM My first gut guess was that same as yours--joint deal, etc. But wasn't it "NBC Pays Friends $1 Mill Each?" 562. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 4:50:15 PM cal-- 563. CalGal - 3/5/2002 4:53:20 PM True, and since it is popular, they probably don't want to offload it. 564. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 5:06:53 PM Oh, yeah. Seinfeld alone probably paid for every failure NBC had for ten years. 565. CalGal - 3/5/2002 5:13:56 PM L&O, Seinfeld, Friends, and Frasier are all syndicated NBC shows of the past 10 years. I wonder if they appear in the network balance sheets when they are discussing budgets? Or are they just a nice to have? 566. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 5:23:28 PM They must figure in heavily but in an odd way -- the same way blockbuster movies figure with the studios. Syndication is now the lifeblood of the bidness -- it pays for everything else. Few TV series are profitable without it. 567. CalGal - 3/5/2002 5:26:10 PM Does the network retain the right to syndicate shows that it buys? Does it buy shows, btw, or just rent them? 568. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 5:45:50 PM Depends on the deal. I think the nets probably use a semi-standard contract for the cannon fodder shows but the deals for the shows expected to hit big are unique. I suppose it depends primarily on product tie-ins and star power (points of ownership). There would be more value for T-shirts for a Madonna show than Seinfeld. 569. CalGal - 3/5/2002 6:49:24 PM I don't normally do this, but I just wrote a letter to ABC on Ted Koppel, and I thought I'd post it here, because it summed up my thoughts on the subject. 570. AytchMan - 3/5/2002 8:05:07 PM Hear, hear on the letter. I also like Koppel but I think he's taillights at this point. He's gone if Letterman makes a deal and probably still gone otherwise. He's taken a rather stiff one upside the head. 571. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 9:18:01 PM Warning: If you hit this link then Rosie O'Donnell will call you a Gay Nazi. 572. Cellar Door - 3/5/2002 9:44:59 PM 573. Property of Jesus - 3/7/2002 10:11:22 AM CNN has told its staffers not to do any talking about the new Jesse Jackson bio entitled SHAKEDOWN, according to Matt Drudge. 574. jexster - 3/7/2002 12:18:23 PM More Sludge...guess that the National Enquirer of US Politics missed Crossfire last night. 575. jexster - 3/7/2002 12:28:40 PM Do you think the media's coverage of the Whitewater scandal exhibited an anti-Clinton bias? Your answer to that question almost certainly depends upon whether you think Whitewater was much ado about nothing or genuinely scandalous--which, in turn, almost certainly depends on your opinion of President Clinton. It's easy, then, to fall into the epistemological trap of interpreting every news story that jibes with your ideology as obviously true and every story that doesn't as evidence of media bias. This isn't to say that everything is relative and that determining what constitutes prejudicial news is impossible. The point is that making judgments about media bias requires an Olympian detachment from one's own perspective. 576. Absensia - 3/7/2002 3:44:58 PM Interesting article. Thanks, Jex. 577. CalGal - 3/7/2002 3:49:31 PM Aytch--I've been trying to look up who owns what TV shows. It seems to be on the websites, but it's hard to dig up reliably. It's an interesting notion. 578. Property of Jesus - 3/7/2002 3:49:48 PM Absentminded, the leftist cheerleader, get her name in print. 579. Property of Jesus - 3/7/2002 3:54:49 PM Your link doesn't work, CalGal. 580. CalGal - 3/7/2002 4:00:39 PM Thanks. 581. Property of Jesus - 3/7/2002 4:07:10 PM It's amazing that NBC could have screwed up so with MSNBC. 582. robertjayb - 3/7/2002 4:14:51 PM Good career move, I'd say. Get all the loons on Fox. Might create a market for single-channel Tee-Vees. 583. Property of Jesus - 3/7/2002 4:22:29 PM Well, you'll always have Stone Philips and those wonderful magazine features. 584. wonkers2 - 3/7/2002 5:22:35 PM Fox is where Chris Matthews belongs. What an unpleasant character. 585. joezan - 3/7/2002 5:56:21 PM Get over it already, Clinton haters - Enron's GW's baby! 586. judithathome - 3/7/2002 6:03:41 PM Either you made a Freudian slip in that header or you're being sarcastic....naw, not Joe! 587. joezan - 3/7/2002 6:13:34 PM What's a Republican President to do? 588. joezan - 3/7/2002 6:19:13 PM Judith: 589. judithathome - 3/7/2002 6:21:41 PM Joezan if you think the only person in Washington Lay courted is Clinton, you are crazy. 590. joezan - 3/7/2002 6:30:52 PM judith: 591. joezan - 3/7/2002 6:33:26 PM BTW...I mentioned that little NPR bit of nonsense to a liberal, NPR-loving friend at work. 592. mgleason - 3/7/2002 6:36:43 PM Joe, 593. mgleason - 3/7/2002 6:37:07 PM What O'Neill proposes: 594. jexster - 3/7/2002 6:46:00 PM Let's see if I have it straight JoeZ. 595. wonkers2 - 3/7/2002 8:06:42 PM O'Neill is one of the few Bush appointees with a lot of integrity. 596. Property of Jesus - 3/7/2002 8:25:17 PM Bush has the best cabinet in two or three generations. 597. joezan - 3/7/2002 9:47:34 PM jex: 598. Cellar Door - 3/7/2002 10:47:17 PM Dubbya can barely decided how to tie his shoes. 599. Absensia - 3/7/2002 10:48:19 PM In reading a legal opinion, would you consider it's bias? How? In a case such as this, would it matter who appointed this judge? The opinion is very timely. 600. Absensia - 3/7/2002 10:51:24 PM Do you think this article can be said free of bias since the judge's decision is cited? 601. CalGal - 3/7/2002 11:26:28 PM Well, "stirring frustration" makes it sound more general, whereas one judge being pissed off is a bit less dramatic a reality. 602. Absensia - 3/7/2002 11:49:26 PM True...but, that judge, and other federal judges' opinions have some precedent depending on: 603. AytchMan - 3/8/2002 1:25:23 AM abs 600-- 604. Absensia - 3/8/2002 1:40:57 AM I agree but it's not even good analysis. There are often articles that say something like: "Yesterday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in XXXX v. Jones, reversed the lower court's decision, holding in part, "a contractor's bond must remain in place for twelve months after receiving the 'sign off' from the purchaser." (court citation here.) 605. AytchMan - 3/8/2002 1:50:11 AM Oh, I agree it's not good analysis. The Post publishes a lot of analysis articles -- one that even began to cover "Bush's view of secrecy" and the "frustrations it stirred" would require about a half-page in the Outlook section. 606. Absensia - 3/8/2002 2:57:51 AM True. Administrative law cases are not particularly exciting unless you practice admin. law, and there are different regulations for different agencies. This case is "newsworthy" because the issue of whether Cheney will turn over the info from those meetings, etc., has frequently been in the news. The result will be what is reported. The task is to get a headline that will get people to read the story. Few people, including many attorneys, are going to read the case (maybe a quick scan" so I think the duty to report is to inform the public...without bias. 607. CalGal - 3/8/2002 5:38:34 PM Jonathan Chait on "Bias" 608. concerned - 3/8/2002 5:44:19 PM I think a case could be made that it's not so much that people wouldn't want many of the governmental social services which are traditionally more associated with the Left. 609. concerned - 3/8/2002 5:46:51 PM Why haven't people in the US Left ever realized that mixing the methods and rhetoric of Revolutionary Communist Ideology which is meant to degrade and ultimately overthrow capitalist society just doesn't mix with social reform and improvement? 610. concerned - 3/8/2002 5:47:58 PM Correction: 611. concerned - 3/8/2002 5:52:26 PM Maybe I shouldn't have posted the last. Someone influential on the Left might read it and get a fucking clue. 612. concerned - 3/8/2002 5:54:55 PM Nah. Not to worry. The thought patterns of the Left have overwhelmingly fossilized into the 1970's Vietnam Era mold. Republicans still will be the only ones who can actually implement real workable reforms. 613. bubbaette - 3/8/2002 11:05:45 PM Don't worry, Connie -- there's no danger of anyone getting a clue from reading any of your posts. 614. PincherMartin - 3/8/2002 11:50:46 PM Hahahaha! 615. joezan - 3/8/2002 11:51:39 PM NPR Update: 616. arkymalarky - 3/8/2002 11:52:53 PM Leastwise him. 617. Property of Jesus - 3/9/2002 10:10:12 AM A great weekend of cable news programming on "We report, you decide" FOX NEWS. 618. Cellar Door - 3/9/2002 10:13:56 AM A great weekend of right-wing propaganda, you mean. 619. joezan - 3/9/2002 10:21:40 AM The perfect antidote to CNN. 620. Cellar Door - 3/9/2002 10:23:39 AM Not at all. You can get Ann Couler and William Bennett both places. 621. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 2:22:09 PM Troubled Times for Liberal Network Evening News by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post 622. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 2:24:53 PM Why Sully Hates Krugman. Krugman speaks the truth and Sully can't handle the truth 623. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 2:30:33 PM 624. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 3:26:23 PM If you think I'm going to give Sully a hit you're very much mistaken. 625. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 3:46:03 PM So it's come to that with you, CD? You're afraid of hits to Andrew Sullivan's successful web site. 626. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 5:41:18 PM 627. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 6:14:22 PM So it's come to that with you, CD? You're afraid of hits to Andrew Sullivan's successful web site. 628. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 6:54:52 PM Goldberg's BIAS is again #1 in the New York Times bestseller list, according to today's Book Review section. It was #1 for six weeks; then dropped to #2; now it's #1 again. The book has legs. 629. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 7:02:01 PM 630. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 7:03:45 PM BEST-SELLER FRAUD!! 631. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 7:06:14 PM The New York Times 632. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 7:06:27 PM 8 HELL TO PAY, by Barbara Olson. (Regnery, 27.95) Rabidly right-wing commentator, who died aboard a hijacked jetliner on Sept. 11, rips into Hillary Rodham Clinton. (+) 10 63 633. wonkers2 - 3/10/2002 7:13:28 PM Somebody said Barbara's last words to her hubby as the plane went down were "Get that SOB Clinton!" 634. Absensia - 3/10/2002 7:38:22 PM Now we can't even trust the NYT list of best sellers. I have to admit I never buy a book because it's on the top ten or whatever. The Sunday NYT Book section is often interesting and I read it. I read books because of recommendations of friends; who is the author; and what is the subject matter. 635. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 7:39:20 PM The last words from Barbara Olson to her husband was to ask his advise on how to take on the terrorists and saying, "I love you." 636. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 9:56:12 PM She was in love with the terrorists? 637. Absensia - 3/12/2002 1:47:14 AM I'm not sure where this belongs, so I'm posting it in Health and in Propaganda...errr, nope...so I'll post it here too. 638. Erinys - 3/12/2002 1:52:15 AM Oooh, I made the mistkae of self-diagnosing last time I called my dr's office. Were they snotty! And uncooperative, made me wait an extra day for an appt. I kind of understood, because of all the ads that tell people to call their doctor and ask for this med or that, but really. 639. Property of Jesus - 3/12/2002 3:30:35 PM WITH BIAS TOWARD ALL 640. Property of Jesus - 3/12/2002 4:16:21 PM Before I lose this link once more, here is. 641. Absensia - 3/13/2002 8:47:52 PM The Andrea Yates case has been in the news for some time now. Has there been any unbiased sources of news and print that you have seen? 642. judithathome - 3/14/2002 2:26:55 PM Here's an amusing story about our former home and how they seem to be a little too trusting of e-mail addresses... 643. betty - 3/14/2002 2:31:47 PM hehehehehehehehehe! 644. Cellar Door - 3/15/2002 1:30:15 PM The Wall Street Journal says Adam Moss is a "nice man." What do they really think? 645. jexster - 3/15/2002 9:30:32 PM you're not careful, you can squander an entire journalistic career swatting flies from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But sometimes resistance to temptation is futile. 646. Cellar Door - 3/16/2002 9:48:41 AM Frank Rich on the Nightline vs. Letterman business 647. Property of Jesus - 3/16/2002 10:18:13 AM Nightline is getting the message on ratings and being a Disney adult product. 648. wonkers2 - 3/16/2002 10:29:17 AM A family that watches porn together stays together. 649. Cellar Door - 3/16/2002 10:48:00 AM John Forbes Nash is going on "60 Minutes" this Sunday to tell Mike Wallace that he's not a homosexual. 650. judithathome - 3/16/2002 11:52:23 AM ...and looked uncomfortable. 651. wonkers2 - 3/17/2002 10:29:21 AM Okay, you can stay but you've got to get your eyes fixed. 652. Cellar Door - 3/20/2002 6:33:12 PM Bernard Godlberg lies like a rug. 653. wonkers2 - 3/20/2002 9:40:29 PM The cartoon originally linked in #65l just above showed Ted Koppel being told by the head of ABC, holding a folder labeled Greta Van Susteren, that he could stay but had to get his eyes fixed. 654. Absensia - 3/23/2002 9:45:51 PM Did Bush take any of the steps requested by Common Cause? 655. concerned - 3/26/2002 1:22:36 PM Bernard Goldberg talks about media reaction to his book, etc. -read it and weep, cllrdr 656. Cellar Door - 3/26/2002 2:38:22 PM "And Frank Rich is the kind of guy who has always been a slave to his master, willingly." 657. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2002 2:25:04 PM 658. Cellar Door - 3/28/2002 3:31:29 PM Ellen Goodman ROCKS! 659. CalGal - 4/1/2002 4:16:33 PM Aytch, 660. Absensia - 4/2/2002 12:14:39 AM Hmmm, interesting. I didn't know that at all. 661. AytchMan - 4/2/2002 3:53:41 AM cal-- 662. AytchMan - 4/2/2002 4:03:54 AM cal-- 663. AytchMan - 4/2/2002 4:07:31 AM But I did think that, even ten years ago, the nets were producing a higher percentage than they are now. That may not be the case. 664. AytchMan - 4/2/2002 4:17:50 AM Finally, there has unquestionably been a growing cross-marketing of properties within the media empires. Thus, ABC will, forever on, show an affinity for Disney productions (and products and advertising). But, even though ABC and Disney are now related, I don't consider Disney's TV productions as network-owned but, rather, the reverse -- outsider-owned. 665. Cellar Door - 4/2/2002 4:12:45 PM An observation of no small interest. 666. Erinys - 4/4/2002 1:54:55 AM That person is jaded, Cellar. 667. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 9:50:00 AM PLAYBOY PIMPS by Lenore Skenazy (exerpts) Detroit Free Press 668. Cellar Door - 4/5/2002 9:55:14 AM "A guy taking off his clothes is goofy." 669. CalGal - 4/5/2002 11:11:28 AM Much as I hate validating Cellar's media bias fantasies, I have news from that front. 670. Ms. No - 4/5/2002 11:37:20 AM We got a lot of this bias where I went to highschool. There were five main public highschools and of the five Enloe, the magnet school, had the least problems with student fights and riots, but because we were the "inner city" school anything that happened at all got splashed on the front pages of the paper. 671. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 12:26:11 PM Well, Cellar you have to admit that the Playboy idea for a pictorial of nude laid off Enron employees, male or female, was pretty cheesy. They may as well round up the crazies off the street in Georgetown or guys with work for food signs and pay them to take their clothes off for the camera. 672. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 12:31:02 PM Now, if they could get Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling and that young woman Harvard lawyer in a 3-way, that might be different. 673. Cellar Door - 4/5/2002 6:34:03 PM The Latest Chapter in the Saga of Steno Sue. 674. Cellar Door - 4/5/2002 6:46:15 PM Seattle Post Intelligencer Letters to the Editor. 675. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 9:38:54 PM Steno Sue Schmidt should be fired by the Post. 676. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 9:39:43 PM She probably should have been knocked in the head at birth. 677. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 9:48:28 PM I emailed the ombudsman at the WP as suggested by MWO. 678. CalGal - 4/5/2002 10:01:39 PM According to both Rentschler and the associate, Schmidt researched the domain names the e-mails were sent from and forwarded their e-mails to their employers. While both have avoided repercussions, they are furious about what they regard as unprofessional actions from a journalist. 679. uzmakk - 4/6/2002 9:22:53 AM Calgal: 680. judithathome - 4/6/2002 9:34:28 AM From Cellar's link upthread: 681. wonkers2 - 4/6/2002 10:13:12 AM She should be fired by the Washington Post. What she did was outrageous. Referring to the letters in a subsequent column would have been fair game or publishing them in WP Letters to the Editor would have been one thing but vindictively sending them to the writers' employers, unbelievable! 682. wonkers2 - 4/6/2002 10:14:04 AM Add "if the emails were sent with the understanding that they were for publication." 683. judithathome - 4/6/2002 8:43:02 PM Maybe it was Paul Begala's opening comments on the first day of CNN's revamped Crossfire that it was time to "kick a little right-wing ass" that angered Republicans. Or when cohost James Carville kept interrupting GOP Chairman Marc Racicot. Whatever, Republican leaders are blackballing the show. "The word is out: Don't go on; you'll get screwed," says a top Senate aide. Adds a House colleague: "It isn't a total boycott, but the show's last on our list to do." 684. CalGal - 4/6/2002 8:53:25 PM She could've replied in kind to them but instead, chose to try and make trouble for them. 685. judithathome - 4/6/2002 9:00:32 PM Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 686. CalGal - 4/6/2002 9:06:30 PM We weren't discussing "should". We were discussing whether or not it was unprofessional. She violated no journalism ethic. 687. judithathome - 4/6/2002 9:22:03 PM No, she violated a humanitarian one...she acted like a shitheel. 688. judithathome - 4/6/2002 9:24:48 PM And who are you to say what WE were discussing? You're getting awfully pushy lately...if WE aren't saying things exactly the way you think we should be saying them then it's off with our heads! 689. CalGal - 4/6/2002 9:36:53 PM You can discuss anything you like, and unless you can provide a quote in this exchange where I told you that you couldn't, you can begin your eternity of gratitude at any moment. You quoted from a piece that made the claim of unprofessional behavior, so I assumed that's what you were addressing. 690. judithathome - 4/6/2002 9:47:19 PM You're the one hung up on labels, Cal...Dem hack? Right wing conspiracy freak? Talk about unprofessional...oh, that's right, you aren't a writer so no need to adhere to those standards. You're just the one who tells us all how to respond and what we need to cite to be correct in our responses...telling Jex how to bundle his posts, telling whoever to stick to the topic, telling us all how to track... 691. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2002 10:36:54 PM I imagine that if Schmidt contacted their employers after tracing their IP addresses, then they were likely posting their views on company time and using company equipment. Presumably the letter writers had already identified themselves in the emails because otherwise with just an IP address it would have been pretty difficult to get a name without some kind of cooperation and even more effort. 692. arkymalarky - 4/6/2002 11:21:03 PM The question is whether it was unprofessional and unethical. It was obviously both. 693. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 9:57:19 AM Indiana, Do you realize what you just said--using company computers and time is unprofessional? You just wiped out 90 percent of the Mote. By your definition there are millions of unprofessionals all over the world! Just about everybody I know uses their office computer from occasionally to quite a bit for personal emails or checking the weather or stock market, just as they read newspapers during their breaks and use their office phone, also company property, for local telephone calls. This only comes "unprofessional" when it prevents the individual from gettin his job done. 694. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:11:07 AM The question is whether it was unprofessional and unethical. It was obviously both. 695. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:18:13 AM wonkers: I think it depends on what the office policy is, but sure employees are acting unprofessionally if they use company time and resources to do non-work, unsanctioned activities. After that, it becomes a question of degree. 696. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 11:11:42 AM Using company stationery is not only taking company property for personal use, it's representing the company with whatever you put on it and send elsewhere. 697. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 11:32:53 AM Indiana, What is ethical or professional depends to a large matter on custom. I belong to several organizations whose directories list names, home phones, office phones and email addresses. A very large percentage of the members list company email addresses and company phones. Please explain to me the difference between a personal phone call and a personal email. Both require the use of an employer's equipment. As you said it's a matter of degree. A secretary who spends a lot of time talking to her friends on the office phone should be asked to curb her use of the phone and perhaps given more work to do. All you know about the people who sent emails to Schmidt is that they sent a single email. You called this unprofessional without knowing whether they sent the email during time when they should have been working, during their lunch hour or at 8pm while they were putting in unpaid overtime. Maybe we should do a survey among moties and see how many are unprofessional by your definition. 698. Cellar Door - 4/7/2002 11:34:23 AM The bottom line is Steno Sue can dish it out but she can't take it. And neither can Pravda (aka The Washington Post) whoich has ignored charges from far and wide (not just MWO)that its Book Review assignment policies are ethically-challenged. 699. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:41:28 AM Using company stationery is not only taking company property for personal use, it's representing the company with whatever you put on it and send elsewhere. 700. judithathome - 4/7/2002 11:44:11 AM A personal phone call does not identify the speaker as a representative of the company 701. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 11:45:31 AM No, it isn't representing the company to send an email from your company email address. Using a paper letterhead with a logo that does represent the company is different. 702. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:53:06 AM No, it isn't representing the company to send an email from your company email address. 703. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 11:55:20 AM Say it all you want, dear. You're still wrong. Indicate specifically to me how they're both representing the company. One has the letterhead logo, one is your work email address at that company. Learn to defend your assertions with substance. 704. CalGal - 4/7/2002 12:04:30 PM Learn to defend your assertions with substance. 705. judithathome - 4/7/2002 12:06:51 PM Cal, by Caller ID, I meant the sort that shows up as the phone rings...not "tracing back". I can quibble over meanings, too. ;-) 706. CalGal - 4/7/2002 12:09:44 PM Judith, 707. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 12:10:28 PM It is my work address--how people communicate with me at work. That's my evidence. I didn't say what the company had a right to do with my emails, and I'm fully aware that they can read them and discipline me for them. I said that material sent from my work address does not represent the company as a letterhead with a company logo does. That you don't understand that point and my evidence supporting it is a failing on your part. 708. judithathome - 4/7/2002 12:12:19 PM Which is why I don't have caller ID...I like surprises! 709. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 12:15:48 PM Cal, you and Indy have it exactly wrong. People all over the world are using company computers for personal emails without anyone interpreting it as a communication on behalf of the comnpany. Smart companies encourage this because it is time saver compared to the telephone. Companies impinge in a thousand ways on employees such as daily uncompensated "casual" overtime, delayed or foreshortened lunch periods, changed vacation plans, sending emploeees away on business trips on spouse's birthday (all of which I experienced), etc. Allowing the use of company facilities for an occasional personal email is a small perk or recompense. Some companies share your cramped view of the world and adopt policies prohibiting personal emails. We don't know whether or not this was the case. More than likely not. One of my sons is a lawyer and the other works for Microsoft. Both make liberal use of their office computers for personal emails. 710. CalGal - 4/7/2002 12:20:04 PM It is my work address--how people communicate with me at work. 711. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 12:21:42 PM Cal, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me whether or not a call or email is personal would depend on the content of the conversation or message, not on who owned the phone or computer. I doubt that companies would be well advised to accept responsibility for personal calls or emails made on their facilities. Try and use a little common sense. How would a call or email home to let one's spouse know you were going to be late for dinner because of an emergency at work or to ask whether a stop at the grocery on the way was needed, be considered representing the company? Ridiculous! 712. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 12:23:54 PM No one said it was personal information. I said it doesn't represent the company as a paper letterhead with company logo does. You pulled in "legally" but it is not relevant to the point. It refers to the employee's responsibilities at work, not representation of the company. 713. judithathome - 4/7/2002 12:24:47 PM I agree with Wonkers...my son drops me a e-mail saying thanks for his birthday gift...am I to assume he's representing Lockheed/Martin by doing so? If that's the case, I expect a gift in return from them next month on MY birthday! And it'd better be big! 714. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 12:24:52 PM Touche, Wonk. 715. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 12:25:31 PM Cal, You are practicing law without a license. 716. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 12:45:37 PM arky (696): 717. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 12:54:38 PM Call it what you will. I emailed the WP ombudsman expressing my disagreement with Schmidt's action. I assume that is one of the purposes of the Post's ombudsman. There is no equivalency whatsoever with what I did and the outrage committed by Schmidt by whatever tortuous logic you may use. 718. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 12:55:50 PM No, it's not tattling. He didn't tell on her for something. He expressed an opinion on a public newspaper columnist. Had she communicated with him individually and he forwarded that communication to her employer in an effort to get her in trouble, that's unethical. 719. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 12:57:20 PM I do see your point about the blurring of lines that has come from the net, but I don't think that changes the basics of this particular case. 720. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 1:01:23 PM wonkers (697): You called this unprofessional without knowing whether they sent the email during time when they should have been working, during their lunch hour or at 8pm while they were putting in unpaid overtime. 721. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 1:04:41 PM Indiana, at least you are now getting to the merits of the case instead of silly arguments over the unprofessionalism or impropriety of sending a personal email over an employer's computer. Prevailing custom and common sense have rendered that argument moot. The only sensible restriction for an employer is against wasting too much company time and not getting your job done. So far as I know there is no incremental cost for an email, as there may well be for a phone call. Therefore, the only possible issue that I can imagine is wasting time. Of course, there is also porn on the screen which other employees may well find objectionable and which may subject the employer to a law suit. Wasting time and porn on the screen are, of course, legitimate concerns. 722. judithathome - 4/7/2002 1:05:35 PM then I think the case that a distinction between who is a professional pundit and who isn't is blurred. 723. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 1:11:28 PM In general, I think white collar workers just view themselves and what they're paid for differently than blue collar workers (who have the ever-present time clock). Because white collar workers have more power, they create many unwritten exceptions for themselves that aren't in fact supported by company or employer policy. 724. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 1:12:55 PM Not really...a professional pundit is paid for his/her opinion; someone writing in protest of that opinion is not. 725. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 1:17:39 PM I do want to make it clear that I don't have anything to say about what a company's policy should be. I'm only talking about Schmidt's actions. Two wrongs, and all that stuff. 726. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 1:18:42 PM Not necessarily. What you are saying is that Indiana did not approve. In my experience, most companies and even government agencies allow personal emails. (I have worked for one large employer, a federal agency, a state agency, and none prohibited personal emails. But they all prohibited accessing pornagraphy on the net or sending obsecene, racially offensive or other inappropriate materials over company facilities.) 727. judithathome - 4/7/2002 1:20:39 PM Not directly...otherwise, eveyone here who writes an insulting post or calls someone a flaming idiot while using their company computer is a professionally paid writer. That might come as a surprise to the person paying their wages since it might not be in their job description. 728. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 1:21:11 PM Employers can, withing the law, establish most any silly rule they want. Fortunately most use a little common sense. 729. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 1:26:55 PM Anyway, the original issue was, not company internet use policy, but whether or not Schmidt was a shit when she tried to get her critics in trouble. I say she was. She, on the other hand, as a columnist was fair game for criticism. The issue of using the company internet is a red herring which has nothing to do with the ethics of the issue. If that were the issue, her use of the WP internet facility was far more egregious than her critics of their employers' facilities. 730. judithathome - 4/7/2002 1:35:17 PM Wow, you're right...I'd almost forgotten what started all this. 731. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 4:21:27 PM [The issue was] whether or not Schmidt was a shit when she tried to get her critics in trouble. 732. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 4:44:50 PM Why is Susan Schmidt so touchy, anyway? 733. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 4:56:50 PM I see, they made a foolish mistake by using the office internet, assuming this was against the rules of their employer, thus making themselves vulnerable to reprisal? You have an instinct for the capillaries, i.e., focusing on the means by which the critics transmitted their criticism. Carrier pigeon would have been okay but not the internet. All they were doing was making a perfectly valid criticism of the Post columnist. In any event, despite Schmidt's evil attempt neither of her critics lost their job. Did either get in trouble with their employer? I'm not sure how it all turned out. 734. Two-Minute Hate - 4/7/2002 10:12:04 PM You have it all wrong, IJ, but it's not surprising that you'd side with the stalker. 735. arkymalarky - 4/7/2002 11:52:20 PM I was wondering what had become of you. 736. judithathome - 4/8/2002 9:05:13 AM At least he is limiting his hobby to two minutes at a whack. 737. Property of Jesus - 4/8/2002 10:37:52 AM Two-minute Hate is not moi. When was the last time I used the word comeuppance? ...Not that I don't understand his/her discomfort. 738. judithathome - 4/8/2002 10:41:20 AM I see you've not forgone lying as a hobby, either. 739. uzmakk - 4/8/2002 10:46:08 AM Just plugged the Mote on the radio today. Though I haven't been around much I am always thinking about you, my dear Motets. 740. judithathome - 4/8/2002 10:50:06 AM Wow, Uz, that's great...maybe we'll get some curious listeners dropping by! 741. uzmakk - 4/8/2002 11:06:07 AM I doubt it Judith, but I did give the address. Questions-- 742. uzmakk - 4/8/2002 11:06:57 AM Not that I have anything against dimwads, but they have to be nice dimwads. 743. judithathome - 4/8/2002 11:09:09 AM With our luck, the dimwads will come in droves and stay. 744. judithathome - 4/8/2002 11:11:56 AM Although with the number of times my name shows as last poster on the front page today, I guess you could say one is already here. ;-) 745. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/8/2002 12:45:04 PM An excerpt from Bill Moyers's commentary regarding the Bush push for secrecy: 746. Indiana Jones - 4/8/2002 4:06:43 PM wonkers (733): All they were doing was making a perfectly valid criticism of the Post columnist. 747. Indiana Jones - 4/8/2002 4:06:52 PM (cont.) 748. Indiana Jones - 4/8/2002 4:07:12 PM (cont.) 749. wonkers2 - 4/8/2002 4:39:24 PM My answer to your hypothetical question is no. A newspaper columnist is fair game for critics. In today's world critics, especially on the internet, frequently are impolite and over the top in the way they express their criticism. The publication or columnist has the right to ignore the criticism, reply to the person who sent it however they wish, or publish the criticism with or without a response. Trying to injure the critic by communicating with his employer is out of bounds, in my estimation. The columnist's response should be the same regardless of what means of communication the critic used, personal computer, employer email, or smoke signals. 750. Cellar Door - 4/8/2002 4:59:16 PM Lying Bloggers! 751. Indiana Jones - 4/9/2002 11:29:34 AM Not so much media-related, but this story addresses employer versus employee rights and email. 752. bubbaette - 4/9/2002 11:31:56 AM In Virginia, e-mail related to a public function is subject to FOIA, personal e-mail is not. 753. wonkers2 - 4/9/2002 3:54:17 PM I wish I had kept the the article about the dispute between some federal circuit court judges and their IT manager who was monitoring their Internet usage. He found everything from visits to porn sites to on-line chess to stock trading. The judges squealed like stuck pigs that their privacy was violated, equating the monitoring to illegal phone tapping. As I recalled they didn't get the IT manager fired but got his monitoring shut down. 754. Cellar Door - 4/9/2002 4:03:17 PM Sully unable to use capital letters even as he swats softballs from the usual sychophants. 755. Property of Jesus - 4/10/2002 5:38:38 AM terrific q&a. everyone should read it. 756. Cellar Door - 4/10/2002 12:45:29 PM in order to find out just how rapidly Sully's brain is deteriorating. 757. jexster - 4/10/2002 12:51:04 PM "Now, inescapable television pictures of the damage Israeli attacks are inflicting on people and places — often playing on screens around the [UN] building — are fodder for expressions of disbelief and condemnation from around the world." nyt 758. robertjayb - 4/10/2002 2:49:56 PM Bullies in the Crossfire...Joe Conason... 759. judithathome - 4/10/2002 2:53:38 PM I am watching Crossfire every night now that Begala and Carville are on; I think the program is vastly improved. 760. Property of Jesus - 4/10/2002 3:06:45 PM Inital ratings for the new CROSSFIRE are down. 761. jexster - 4/10/2002 6:44:00 PM 762. jexster - 4/10/2002 6:44:33 PM Sounds like Rosie's posts. 763. jexster - 4/10/2002 6:47:16 PM And CrossFire is excellent...the conservatives are whining & wailing as The Ragin Cajun & Begala take large chunks o lard out of Cutie Boy Carlson and Mister Republican Bob Novak 764. jexster - 4/10/2002 6:49:57 PM The Empirical Research That Bernard Goldberg and Rosie O Jesus Didn't Do 765. jexster - 4/10/2002 6:55:52 PM Turns out that Bernie Goldberg is dead wrong. 766. wonkers2 - 4/10/2002 7:38:30 PM Goldberg's "research" is not research but polemics. 767. jexster - 4/10/2002 8:19:10 PM Rosie O Jesus is never one to let facts get in the way of a good line of bullshit. 768. jexster - 4/10/2002 8:36:50 PM Right-wing commentator Barbara Olson's two calls to right-wing Solicitor General Ted Olson during the hijacking of Flight 77 instantly became legendary. Barbara's last words,hat do I tell the pilot to do?" were cited as the epitome of her courage and leadership. 769. arkymalarky - 4/10/2002 8:49:56 PM I tried to post earlier that Rosie's being sarcastic. He's a big "L" liberal. Trust me. 770. jexster - 4/10/2002 9:07:36 PM I might...its plausible. 771. arkymalarky - 4/10/2002 9:17:15 PM Who for? Me, Rose, or you? 772. arkymalarky - 4/10/2002 9:17:47 PM Maybe all three? 773. wonkers2 - 4/10/2002 9:20:20 PM Arky, Thanks for letting us know about Rosie. He had me fooled. 774. arkymalarky - 4/10/2002 9:23:24 PM C'mon, y'all. 760 is literally dripping with sarcasm. Look at his use of quotation marks. 775. Cellar Door - 4/10/2002 9:26:59 PM She was calling Lucianne Goldberg. 776. wonkers2 - 4/10/2002 9:27:44 PM Is it possible that rosie and jexter are actually one and the same person, like Jekyll and Hyde? 777. arkymalarky - 4/10/2002 9:31:21 PM Hmmm. I'll leave it to you to label which would be which. 778. jexster - 4/11/2002 12:33:22 PM If there is anything that modern conservatives hate more than fair taxation, it's a fair fight. The moment they encounter an equally aggressive opponent on a level field, the instinct of these bullying boys and girls is to run and hide and whine. That's why the Republican leadership, confronted by Paul Begala and James Carville on CNN's revamped 'Crossfire', are now loudly whispering about a boycott of the show. Those quiet directives emanating from the offices of the Republican National Committee, the Senate Minority Leader's office and other outposts of the right-wing establishment in Washington—leaked in order to intimidate the liberal Crossfire hosts and their network bosses—are a disgrace to the American ideal of free debate. So cowardly are these conservatives that they won't even voice their complaints on the record." 779. robertjayb - 4/11/2002 4:02:15 PM via bartcop.com: 780. judithathome - 4/11/2002 4:04:56 PM Poor Tim.... 781. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 4:07:59 PM Annnie is hot, and she doesn't want to kill all liberals. 782. judithathome - 4/11/2002 4:09:20 PM She can do that by undressing. 783. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 4:22:14 PM Why the only socialist journalist in the United States, Chris Hitch, is lumped with those faces, shows you how corrupt the Clinton Democrats have become. 784. robertjayb - 4/11/2002 4:30:03 PM Shame on the BartCop, who recently was arrested for lack of child support for his wife and kids. 785. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 4:30:45 PM Great photomontage from BartCop. Round up the usual suspects! It's really impressive when you get all those liberals together in one place! 786. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 4:45:25 PM robert: Get real and read www.theatlantic.com forums. It was a big deal there last month when the Marc Perkel, producer of bartcop.com, was arrested when he returned from a trip because his name was on the "watch list." 787. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2002 4:49:30 PM "BartCop" is not Marc Perkel. He uses Perkel's website. 788. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 4:51:04 PM hahaha 789. robertjayb - 4/11/2002 5:04:02 PM Ohio is correct, of course. 790. judithathome - 4/11/2002 5:10:55 PM They not only don't interfere with his story but he feels no compunction at all in passing along a story that's full of untrue "facts".... 791. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 5:20:16 PM All documented at Atlantic. Learn to swim. I ever saw the arrest document linked to the forum. 792. jexster - 4/11/2002 5:25:34 PM Rosie, 793. judithathome - 4/11/2002 5:44:12 PM Who wants to dredge the bilge at the Atlantic Politics folder, which thanks to you, is full of crap, to look for another of your threads dedicated to lies and misinfornmation? You should be spending all your time there protesting the use of your REAL NAME in one of the thread headers...like you constantly moan here about one incident. Feebe. 794. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 5:49:54 PM Too late, Judith. Thanks to my enemies at the mote (especially its management who refused to punish those responsible), my privacy has been violated. 795. judithathome - 4/11/2002 5:55:19 PM blah blah blah....poor you. 796. Cellar Door - 4/11/2002 10:05:43 PM "You should be spending all your time there protesting the use of your REAL NAME in one of the thread headers.." 797. judithathome - 4/11/2002 11:07:10 PM ;-) I don't know but bless his little heart! 798. Property of Jesus - 4/12/2002 8:03:16 AM Terror cannot coexist with peace 799. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2002 9:09:30 AM Perkel arrest 800. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2002 9:11:19 AM I don't know but bless his little heart! 801. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2002 9:16:04 AM Marc Perkel's guide to Escort Services 802. judithathome - 4/12/2002 9:23:21 AM Yes, IJ, I do...but life is full of contradiction. I can live with it just fine. I'm not some hard and fast woman of steel who sees life as totally black and white; believe it or not, there ARE shades of gray in most situations. 803. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 10:22:03 AM Indiana, I hope you or the Mote is getting a cut from Perkel! 804. betty - 4/12/2002 10:34:05 AM that's actually a pretty good guide to getting service. and i thought one of those John websites had been shutdown, but it jus moved. 805. Cellar Door - 4/12/2002 10:36:48 AM There's a major difference. 806. judithathome - 4/12/2002 10:50:05 AM Great article, Cellar...gee, if only I had money! (s)™ 807. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 11:10:42 AM These are people who are conditioned to be aggressive and egocentric. Their only concern is to feed their greedy compulsion to acquire more in the hope of reaching satiety. It has nothing to do with working harder and everything to do with fear and anxiety. 808. judithathome - 4/12/2002 11:19:17 AM I agree....the best things in life aren't things. 809. Absensia - 4/12/2002 1:50:22 PM Very good article CD. FWIW IJ, I saw a sub thread with POJ's REAL name, or so it appears, as host! He uses several names there, so who knows if the name was his REAL name or not, but in any event, who cares? 810. betty - 4/12/2002 2:25:47 PM Wiz, 811. Cellar Door - 4/12/2002 3:02:25 PM WORD, Wiz! 812. robertjayb - 4/12/2002 3:14:02 PM ...with thanks to Janis: 813. arkymalarky - 4/12/2002 5:56:41 PM I swear, seeing that sort of stuff just depresses me. Everyone has to decide for themselves what makes them happy, but I get the feeling that's not what all the accumulation is for for a lot of people and I could imagine looking back on it all and feeling like I hadn't really enjoyed my life in the end--the ultimate tragedy of middle class 21st century existence. 814. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 9:35:01 PM Janis was some singer. I saw her in her heyday belting out A Piece of My Heart in Detroit around 1969?. Before that, Joanie and Chuck Mitchell were mainstays here for several weeks. 815. Property of Jesus - 4/12/2002 9:37:21 PM It's Joni. 816. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 10:54:51 PM Thanks. I wasn't surprised when she made it big. 817. Property of Jesus - 4/13/2002 10:52:35 PM "Fair and balanced" FOX NEWS just gave author Gore Vidal 15 minutes to explain his conspiracy theory on how George Bush & his mob helped organize 9-11 in order to get U.S. troops into Afghan to build an oil pipeline. 818. Absensia - 4/13/2002 11:14:30 PM Poj....I think Arky is right. You do have a sardonic, wicked sense of humor. Most miss it, but clearly you are a democrat who loves to stir the masses. 819. Property of Jesus - 4/14/2002 7:01:27 PM Sorry, absenia. My heart belongs to another. And I would only break yours. Plus, men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses. 820. judithathome - 4/14/2002 7:04:57 PM That's okay...women in glasses seldom make passes at asses, either. 821. Absensia - 4/14/2002 7:05:13 PM I don't wear glasses, you silly boy. Oh well...it hurts, but I'll be brave...I didn't say I'd love you...just kiss you..ala that guy with the accordian fom Turkey used to say that at his webpage...it was so funny, even Diva still uses it. 822. Absensia - 4/14/2002 7:10:57 PM Hahaha, nice retort, Judith. 823. Property of Jesus - 4/14/2002 7:10:58 PM Notice how hot-typist Judy gets into the act to make a dig. You know Judith speaks 18 languages, and she can't say "No" in any of them. 824. Absensia - 4/14/2002 7:14:12 PM She doesn't have to...she carries a gun. Now, now..no personal attacks or I'll have to move your post to the Inferno....bwahahahahahaha, hahahahahah. ; ) 825. judithathome - 4/14/2002 7:24:49 PM Jeez, POJ, I can't help myself...you're just sooooo DIG-able! Har!!! 826. judithathome - 4/14/2002 8:01:48 PM Here's an old piece on media bias... 827. Property of Jesus - 4/14/2002 8:21:24 PM Another Judith special. Beware the pop-up, full-screen ad. It's a bitch to get rid of. 828. Absensia - 4/14/2002 8:22:54 PM That's very interesting, Judith. It's sad but true. We need some media that is not threatened by one party or the other and where both sides have a chance to air their views, on all political issues. 829. Cellar Door - 4/14/2002 8:30:57 PM Great link Judith -- filled with the truth that Rosie dare not read for fear he'll fall to pieces like Christopher Lee in the last reel of Horror of Dracula 830. betty - 4/14/2002 10:31:48 PM Abs, 831. Cellar Door - 4/15/2002 7:56:31 PM "It's so Meta," the "Dirty White Boy" said. 832. Property of Jesus - 4/15/2002 9:09:24 PM Exit, pursued by a bear. 833. Cellar Door - 4/16/2002 1:51:01 AM Not too close! 834. Property of Jesus - 4/16/2002 8:47:41 AM 835. Cellar Door - 4/16/2002 10:36:53 AM Actually the writer who truly despises Dunne is Gary Indiana. Gary's roman-a-clef "Resentment" dealt with the Menendi quite interestingly,taking swipes at a Dunne-like writer all the while. He thinks Dunne's a vulture. 836. robertjayb - 4/16/2002 2:40:39 PM Mr. Fisk, noted journalist, visits America: 837. CalGal - 4/16/2002 2:42:58 PM Well, bring him to the Mote. We'll give him the reception he expected. And deserves. 838. robertjayb - 4/16/2002 2:46:39 PM Now Cal Gal, Fisk has real nice things to say about you left coasters. He thinks you're smarter than other Americans. Of course it was a brief visit. 839. Cellar Door - 4/17/2002 10:01:01 AM 840. Property of Jesus - 4/17/2002 10:14:57 AM Another lesbian off the grassy-knoll reservation? 841. concerned - 4/17/2002 12:16:26 PM From Way Out in Left Field: Donahue as Liberalism's Savior? 842. Cellar Door - 4/17/2002 12:22:59 PM "grassy-knoll"? Who got assassinated? 843. Cellar Door - 4/22/2002 1:11:35 AM They can dish it out but they can't take it. 844. Cellar Door - 4/24/2002 2:26:13 PM 845. uzmakk - 4/27/2002 7:50:53 PM Are any of you familiar with talk-radio-forum hybrids? I've got a local one. 846. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 7:57:16 PM What goes on with it? 847. uzmakk - 4/27/2002 8:19:34 PM Lots of personal bickering, lots of criticism of the hosts and their half-baked thoughts(I do a lot of that), some discussion of issues, some discussion of the radio business. Sad really. Nothing like the Mote. 848. uzmakk - 4/27/2002 8:25:55 PM Anyhow, I think it is interesting. These guys get on the air everyday and can be subjected to some rather severe criticism. Most of the dolts who listen to the radio don't hear the criticism, but the folks in the forum sure do. I think there is more of an interaction between the radio hosts and the forum than there was between the wordsmiths at Slate and the forum. Interesting. 849. uzmakk - 4/27/2002 8:29:09 PM Imagine. They advertise the forum, and what does one find there but legitimate criticism of the talk show hosts. 850. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 8:34:51 PM Shocking! 851. uzmakk - 4/28/2002 11:03:02 AM Well, cellar, it is quite a while ago now, but I did quite a number on a chap a while ago and got a call from a reporter. Among the questions he asked me was, "Why do you think they leave your stuff up at the website." Upon consideration I would have to say, more controversy, more of what the people want. What do you think, you notorious homosexual you? 852. uzmakk - 4/28/2002 11:05:52 AM I am not using the word "notorious" in the canonical sense. 853. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:12:32 AM "More controversy" is supposedly what everyone wants, uz. But I'm not so sure. 854. betty - 4/28/2002 11:17:40 AM Does anybody know if mean magazine went under? I can't get onto their website and I can't find it anywhere...though it may just have to do with living in this shithole town...HELP! 855. uzmakk - 4/28/2002 12:35:23 PM betty: 856. betty - 4/28/2002 12:56:54 PM Uz, 857. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 9:30:00 AM 858. Property of Jesus - 4/29/2002 9:37:36 AM DID NBC "BLACKLIST" DAVID BROCK? 859. felch dupree - 4/29/2002 1:35:05 PM At Fox News, the Colonel Who Wasn't 860. CalGal - 4/29/2002 1:43:33 PM It seems that he was a good reporter and consultant--not to excuse it, but it's not like they were passing on lies as a result of believing his credentials. 861. robertjayb - 4/29/2002 1:45:01 PM I dunno about Fox. Don't watch it. But based on the military consultants that CNN employs I would suspect that the phoney colonel did as good as any of them. All I've heard is obvious observations peppered with military jargon and bafflegab. 862. Property of Jesus - 4/29/2002 1:54:56 PM 863. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 2:19:41 PM "It seems that he was a good reporter and consultant--not to excuse it, but it's not like they were passing on lies as a result of believing his credentials." 864. CalGal - 4/29/2002 2:38:39 PM Oh really? MY but you're naive. 865. AytchMan - 4/29/2002 4:58:57 PM why on earth don't people check credentials? 866. CalGal - 4/29/2002 5:05:14 PM But clearly embarrassment after the fact isn't enough of a penalty. What else can be done? 867. AytchMan - 4/29/2002 5:14:52 PM If such errors become frequent, embarrassment will indeed be enough. Scandal will ensue and heads will roll. 868. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 5:18:11 PM Oh it was just a clerical error I'm sure. It's not like lying about getting a blow-job from an intern. 869. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 5:23:58 PM Cap'n Dirty sez, "I'll take the blow job from an intern." 870. CalGal - 4/29/2002 5:35:01 PM No, it wasn't a clerical error. But I'm more focused on the media than the idiotic "consultant". They should be checking their sources. 871. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 12:23:39 PM It turns out the Fox News' "colonel" who wasn't, also did on-air work for ABC. 872. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 12:25:48 PM 873. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 12:41:50 PM Why "Crossfire" is So Much Fun! 874. OhioSTOPAS - 5/1/2002 12:53:21 PM "It turns out the Fox News' "colonel" who wasn't, also did on-air work for ABC." 875. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 12:56:27 PM Don't know, Ohio. I just heard this information this morning. It was reported on the IMUS's MSNBC program. 876. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 3:36:49 PM Very happy to read this. I used to work for Nachman. 877. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 8:09:11 PM Why am I not surprised? 878. Absensia - 5/1/2002 9:17:06 PM POJ mowed his lawn during the summer. 879. Property of Jesus - 5/2/2002 9:03:18 AM I always think it's funny the way egg-head Democrats make fun of working people. The very ones they claim to represent. 880. Property of Jesus - 5/2/2002 9:12:05 AM Also the fact that it's the host of the thread insulting one of the few people who add content to this thread is inappropriate. 881. Property of Jesus - 5/2/2002 9:16:58 AM But back to basics: 882. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 9:26:03 AM I always think it's funny the way insufferably smug "Conservatives" worship money and power and relate them to virtue. 883. Property of Jesus - 5/2/2002 11:32:07 AM haha...so says a Hollywood whore. 884. Property of Jesus - 5/2/2002 11:34:26 AM MSNBC's ALAN KEYS IS MAKING NO EXCUSES 885. Cellar Door - 5/3/2002 10:39:59 AM haha...so says an RNC whore. 886. betty - 5/3/2002 1:24:51 PM CD, 887. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:54:38 AM You're quite right, betty. 888. Property of Jesus - 5/6/2002 1:49:27 PM CD knows a lot about prostitutes, that's 4sure. 889. judithathome - 5/6/2002 2:03:30 PM If the axe John King, I'm gone.... 890. CalGal - 5/6/2002 2:54:59 PM I'm astonished they canned him. What the hell are they doing? 891. Property of Jesus - 5/6/2002 4:03:30 PM Getting rid of an objective reporter, obviously. 892. Absensia - 5/6/2002 8:59:18 PM The media can be dangerous for your parole: 893. Property of Jesus - 5/6/2002 10:28:16 PM Old news. Let's try to stay a little more current, k? 894. judithathome - 5/7/2002 3:47:51 PM How's THIS for current, then? Your icon O'Reilly can't even get on radio without payola! Ha! "Fair and Balanced" you say! 895. Property of Jesus - 5/7/2002 4:02:41 PM Another Drudge exclusive, judy. Happens all the time in commercial radio. 896. judithathome - 5/7/2002 4:14:58 PM Happens all the time in commercial radio. 897. Property of Jesus - 5/7/2002 4:58:52 PM The term is trade, Judy. AM stations in smaller markets give some a percentage of ad time on their stations back to the syndicator, who sells it nationally. 898. Property of Jesus - 5/7/2002 5:02:31 PM where federal taxpayers pay for excessives. 899. judithathome - 5/7/2002 5:19:00 PM Did you even read the article? 900. Cellar Door - 5/8/2002 1:02:02 PM 901. Property of Jesus - 5/8/2002 1:38:19 PM Stick to leftist, DNC-sponsored NPR, Judy. You know nothing about commercial radio. 902. Property of Jesus - 5/8/2002 3:17:43 PM O'Reilly, Imus Laugh Off Drudge's "Talkola" Allegations 903. Property of Jesus - 5/8/2002 11:10:26 PM Increasing personal, Matt Drudge ups the ante. 904. wonkers2 - 5/9/2002 12:08:00 AM Drude and O'Reilly deserve each other. 905. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 6:44:40 PM ...but mote doesn't deserve you. 906. betty - 5/9/2002 6:50:11 PM PoJ, 907. judithathome - 5/9/2002 7:02:35 PM You know nothing about commercial radio. 908. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 7:09:11 PM 909. judithathome - 5/9/2002 7:12:14 PM Old news. 910. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 7:16:04 PM Really? The fact that Bob Novak wants out of CROSSFIRE is old news? 911. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 7:31:03 PM Continue to be impressed with Andrew Sullivan's editorial web site. 912. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 7:51:29 PM Don't worry Props -- I don't carry concealed weapons. 913. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 8:09:48 PM Certainly that's "old news" from you, CD. One note pony, as Paul Simon sang. 914. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 8:37:35 PM That's one-trick pony, dear. 915. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 10:10:36 PM Brush up on your Shakespeare. 916. judithathome - 5/10/2002 11:21:30 AM The fact that Bob Novak wants out of CROSSFIRE is old news? 917. Property of Jesus - 5/10/2002 11:37:12 AM The Carlson kid was on C-SPAN this morning for an hour. 918. Cellar Door - 5/12/2002 1:21:01 PM Well what do you expect from C-Span. The RR thinks it owns the place. 919. judithathome - 5/12/2002 1:29:44 PM ...while on their knees and genuflecting, I'm sure. 920. Property of Jesus - 5/13/2002 1:00:03 PM 921. judithathome - 5/13/2002 1:12:12 PM If Bill were true to his image and positioning he'd be ranting about the suits who were so desperate to place him they resorted to reducing him to the level of vanity radio (that's where a host buys the time from a station to clear a program). Broadcast ministries and alternative medicine programs have enjoyed huge success buying access. 922. concerned - 5/13/2002 1:15:49 PM Re. 916 - 923. OhioSTOPAS - 5/13/2002 1:36:07 PM How can a buffoon like O'Reilly have a "tragic" flaw? 924. judithathome - 5/13/2002 1:50:56 PM The flaw is his ego and if you've ever watched his show, I think you'd agree it is tragic. 925. OhioSTOPAS - 5/13/2002 1:59:50 PM Big flaw, yes. 926. ronski - 5/13/2002 2:30:33 PM In the country's largest market, NY, there is no talkshow host who does not make me nauseous at times. 927. judithathome - 5/13/2002 2:50:36 PM Good reason to buy more CDs, Ronski. 928. ronski - 5/13/2002 2:55:34 PM Yeah. I'm wearing out my Ian & Sylvia's. 929. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 3:55:37 PM "I'm sure I would be put off by the Lefty attack chihuahuas, as Novak apparently is." 930. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 5:22:48 PM BUSH FAMILY ATTACKS NEW YORK TIMES! 931. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 5:23:03 PM Sullivan, beach bum pal of Drudge and Snitchens, was unceremoniously dumped over the weekend by the NY Times Magazine, where he was a contributing writer. 932. Property of Jesus - 5/13/2002 6:22:55 PM Cool, calm, refreshing water 933. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 9:42:16 PM I wouldn't call Old Milk Load Cool, Calm or Refreshing. 934. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 9:40:25 AM Howie Kurtz on Sully's canning (failing to mention one particular reason, needless to say.) 935. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 12:23:39 PM Of course he mentioned the reason. He criticized the leftist bias at the New York Times. 936. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 12:26:12 PM SUMMER SNEAK: FEMINIST ANN COULTER CRIES "SLANDER"; NEW BOOK DOCUMENTS DEEP MEDIA BIAS 937. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 1:49:14 PM Ordinarily I'd say "here come those tired old tits again." 938. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 1:50:01 PM And she's about as feminist as Leni Riefenstahl. 939. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 2:01:00 PM What would you know about women anyway, CD? Totally out of your league. 940. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 2:02:13 PM The Curious Canonization of Pym 941. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 5:06:38 PM Howell Raines gearing up for a Really Big Story. 942. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 10:49:01 PM TAP forums going under, as of June 1. 943. ronski - 5/14/2002 11:13:00 PM This may be proof that God exists. 944. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 11:18:50 PM Oh, God exists, Ronski, and we're all his children. 945. ronski - 5/14/2002 11:27:46 PM I agree. 946. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 9:39:12 AM Well you children should got to your room without supper. Especialy you, Props. Your antics on the TAP forum have kept it down for dyas at a time. You're trying to do the same thing over at Atlantic Monthly, but it's not working because too many people are wise to you. 947. judithathome - 5/16/2002 10:05:53 AM Makes me wonder what he's teaching his kids...some example he sets for them, acting like such an ass in public and trying to emulate hackers. He thinks it makes him look like a big man to cause so much trouble on forums but it only makes him look like a pathetic attention seeker. He needs serious therapy. Seriously. 948. Property of Jesus - 5/16/2002 1:25:48 PM I had nothing to do with TAP dropping their online forums. 949. jexster - 5/16/2002 2:41:31 PM Now that the Big Trifecta Lie has been exposed expect more from the Conintern like this... 950. Property of Jesus - 5/16/2002 5:05:57 PM Yipe, that's his kid. 951. uzmakk - 5/16/2002 5:21:52 PM Keep up the good work, POJ. 952. joezan - 5/17/2002 8:09:37 AM Dan Rather searches soul: Finds nothing. 953. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 8:59:59 AM Is this the same Dan Rather who said he was so patriotic after 9-11 that he wanted to re-inlist in the Marines to serve his country fighting the terrorists? 954. Absensia - 5/17/2002 10:51:32 AM All that's happening with the Catholic Church brings to mind the question of how the media has publicized the case. Are there any media groups that that reported "just the facts," and what groups go for the "sleaze" elements. I note in the Catholic Church thread that there has been an exposure of a reporter who hid the facts, and also hints that a Cardinal may be charged with child abuse. I read this a.m. that the Pope may retire if his heath gets worse. Great headline..."Pope may retire." But that was it, no other info. 955. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 10:59:53 AM Well that's because the Catholic Church, like the Bush adminsitration, is a closed shop. Nothing gets out save by force. It took the laity finally turning to the outside for help to find a crack in the Church hierarchy. Now everything's tumbling out. 956. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 11:19:28 AM If the press is being more balanced in their coverage of Bush, as CD states, it's because of all the heat they've been taking from their audiences about their liberal bias. 957. Absensia - 5/17/2002 11:26:53 AM More balanced? Hahaha. Just UNbiased would be nice. The Church is not entirely closed shop but those priests who have demanded true justice for such things, find themselves in obscure places in Africa, for their troubles. The laity is beginning to act like other parents...first there is denial, then there is fear of what their friends will think, then they worry about what will happen to their kid, then they get mad as hell and want something done about it. Not all Catholics are or have bought into the closed shop or think it's just fine for their kid to spend a lot of time with Father whoever. From the time he was two or three, I taught my kid NO ONE, no matter who it was, had a right to touch his body and make him feel uncomfortable. 959. Absensia - 5/17/2002 11:29:12 AM More balanced? Hahaha. Just UNbiased would be nice. The Church is not entirely closed shop but those priests who have demanded true justice for such things, find themselves in obscure places in Africa, for their troubles. The laity is beginning to act like other parents...first there is denial, then there is fear of what their friends will think, then they worry about what will happen to their kid, then they get mad as hell and want something done about it. Not all Catholics are or have bought into the closed shop or think it's just fine for their kid to spend a lot of time with Father whoever. From the time he was two or three, I taught my kid NO ONE, no matter who it was, had a right to touch his body and make him feel uncomfortable. 960. Absensia - 5/17/2002 11:29:48 AM oops, sorry. 961. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 12:01:18 PM Don't do an "oops". Just delete the posts. 962. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 12:05:42 PM "almost" 963. Absensia - 5/17/2002 12:09:27 PM It was worth reading twice, POJ...once for you, once for Rosetta, and you two will have to share with your other personas. 964. arkymalarky - 5/17/2002 6:05:27 PM The man is a loon. CBS made a huge mistake in not giving Walter Cronkite's job to Roger Mudd in 1981. 965. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 6:06:28 PM No better. 966. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 6:16:59 PM Hi, Arky. Have I told you recently that God loves you? 967. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 6:35:02 PM 968. jexster - 5/17/2002 11:13:45 PM My American Prospect study of press labeling continues to evoke responses from conservatives vexed by the finding that the press actually labels liberals more often than those on the right. 969. Property of Jesus - 5/18/2002 7:57:32 AM The creator/editor/publisher of lying in ponds was a guest on C-SPAN this morning. 970. judithathome - 5/18/2002 8:31:08 AM I'm leery of him solely on your recommendation. 971. Property of Jesus - 5/18/2002 8:40:26 AM Absolutely. I don't want you to link on to that site, Judy. You've never been good with numbers. 972. judithathome - 5/18/2002 8:52:52 AM Oh, I just feel sorry for you. 973. Property of Jesus - 5/18/2002 9:12:21 AM God, I get to go straight to heaven when I die, because I'm serving my time in purgatory right now. 974. judithathome - 5/18/2002 9:22:05 AM Ha! You poor man...how can I be following you when I am there first? Besides, everyone knows your heart belongs to Arky. 975. jexster - 5/18/2002 11:16:02 AM That would be lesbian sex. 976. Property of Jesus - 5/18/2002 1:10:55 PM ...always projecting, aren't you, jexster? 977. jexster - 5/18/2002 1:16:36 PM Yea Rosie dear...I've always wanted to have the Operation, but unlike you, haven't had the balls to try it - to speak. 978. jexster - 5/18/2002 1:16:50 PM Yea Rosie dear...I've always wanted to have the Operation, but unlike you, haven't had the balls to try it - so to speak. 979. judithathome - 5/18/2002 1:43:27 PM Not my fault if you lead a sheltered life and are frustrated by what you don't know, Rosie. 980. Property of Jesus - 5/18/2002 3:07:38 PM 981. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 3:26:13 PM Rush Limbaugh is a BIG FAT LIAR! 982. judithathome - 5/18/2002 3:42:29 PM That is hysterical, Cellar!! 983. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/18/2002 6:08:30 PM 984. judithathome - 5/18/2002 6:15:36 PM And so is that, Wiz! 985. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/18/2002 6:36:40 PM Thanks Judith--it's amazing how little makeup he needs to look like The Creature. 986. magoseph - 5/18/2002 7:14:05 PM Here it is, Wiz, 987. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/18/2002 8:58:06 PM Christ, what a planet! 988. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 9:12:26 PM Why Props posts on SO MANY boards. 989. Property of Jesus - 5/18/2002 11:03:52 PM Here's another rumor you can spread, CD. "PAUL IS DEAD!" Not John or George, but pretty paulie. Best clue is that he wasn't wearing shoes (or socks!) on ABBEY ROAD. 990. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/19/2002 12:48:25 AM Just so you know what a genuine media outlet should be talking about, 991. Property of Jesus - 5/19/2002 2:01:25 AM Bill Moyers? The man who lied repeated to journalists and others about Vietnam to protect America's international war criminal, LBJ? 992. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 10:11:13 AM And who lied to protect Richard Nixon, who was elected claiming he was going to end the war only to expand it on three new fronts? 993. Property of Jesus - 5/19/2002 10:17:16 AM Richard Nixon did end the war. We lost it. 994. PelleNilsson - 5/19/2002 12:05:02 PM Yes. The Republicans lost it. 995. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/19/2002 6:05:52 PM PoJ, you hypocritical fool! Moyers has owned up to his failings with regard to Viet Nam and LBJ; furthermore Kevin Philips was the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon's victory in 1968--if both men agree on the dangers of both parties' rampant corruption how can you still only see one side of the coin with that kind of journalistic balance? 996. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/19/2002 6:10:11 PM . . .and why don't you read the interview and tell us why their conclusions are wrong? 997. Absensia - 5/19/2002 9:01:33 PM Hi yourself Arky....sorry about Diva...will it make the news? 998. Absensia - 5/19/2002 9:09:24 PM CD...you are right,,,gee, a team leader for the gop and really "neat" stuff, too! 999. Absensia - 5/19/2002 9:11:42 PM arky, I think you are lurking. 1000. Absensia - 5/19/2002 9:12:17 PM or maybe not 1001. Absensia - 5/19/2002 9:13:26 PM Woo hoo...my first!!! Am I the only person who listens to CSPan when the British Parliament is all together arguing with Tony Blair? I usually can't understand a word they say, but it sounds wonderful and it's a hoot to watch Blair arguing with the Brit version of Congress. Can't see our Presidents doing that. 1003. arkymalarky - 5/19/2002 10:05:03 PM Congrats Abs! 1004. Property of Jesus - 5/20/2002 12:59:37 AM Of course I get paid to post, CD. Do you really think I would do this for fun? 1005. ronski - 5/20/2002 1:48:15 AM With Brit relatives, I understand the lingo, as a rule, except when a Scot from the ooterhebrides gets up to denounce absolutely everything. 1006. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 1:13:14 PM 1007. CalGal - 5/21/2002 4:23:03 PM TJ, 1008. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 4:32:37 PM Thanks Calgal. 1009. Cellar Door - 5/22/2002 3:59:28 PM 1010. concerned - 5/22/2002 4:19:13 PM Re. 983 - 1011. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 4:19:46 PM Kids don't want to think of their sports idols as being homosexuals. 1012. judithathome - 5/22/2002 4:44:50 PM This is for the O'Reilly loving Property of "Fair&Balanced" Jesus: 1013. thoughtful - 5/22/2002 5:02:00 PM I thought I heard a piece about 6 mos back on NPR about O'Reilly being on and the person interviewing him presenting him with incontrovertible evidence, despite his frequent claims to be unbiased, that he has been and continues to be a member of and strong supporter of the GOP and has voted that way consistently for many years. At which O'Reilly refused to respond and refused to return to NPR....or some such thing. 1014. judithathome - 5/22/2002 5:03:57 PM That wouldn't surprise me one little bit...the guy's a charlatan and a buffoon. 1015. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 5:08:23 PM Good to see a local producer looking for brownie points from his DNC bosses. 1016. concerned - 5/22/2002 5:11:35 PM Re. 1011 - 1017. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 5:20:42 PM Right, concerned. Last summer, we took our kids to see free Shakespeare in the Park in DC. Right next to us on the bench seating were two (maybe three) lesbians making out with each other. 1018. jexster - 5/22/2002 5:43:07 PM Bones belong to Levy. 1019. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 5:46:01 PM POJ, Has it occurred to you that gay kids might like to see a few gay sports stars? And that young, straight sports fans couldn't care less, because they aren't homophobics like their "icky" parents. 1020. concerned - 5/22/2002 5:49:05 PM How many gay nine year olds are you familiar with, wonkers; hmmmm? 1021. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 5:52:46 PM Under a hundred. 1022. robertjayb - 5/22/2002 5:55:06 PM A woman from NPR's "On the Media" program is the Slate diarist this week. 1023. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 6:06:49 PM Are you sure she's female? 1024. jexster - 5/22/2002 6:08:32 PM Has it occurred to you that gay kids might like to see a few gay sports stars? 1025. concerned - 5/22/2002 6:16:49 PM In the past, most sports stars tried not to let their social lives obtrude on their public image. To turn that on its head and insist that reference must continually be made to the gay orientation of some athletes, in the manner of the pervasive nature of Islam, is a disservice to all. 1026. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 6:24:31 PM Kids, especially boys, don't want to think of their sports heroes as homosexual. 1027. judithathome - 5/22/2002 6:43:58 PM I'm certain you've taught your kiddos to do so...and you really shouldn't throw Coke on leasbians, Rosie...use Pepsi. That way your kids can be happy they're using Britney Spears fave; I'm sure you approve of her. 1028. jexster - 5/22/2002 6:50:07 PM 1029. judithathome - 5/22/2002 6:51:53 PM I haven't missed one show of Crossfire since they took over...great show now!! 1030. concerned - 5/22/2002 7:04:41 PM The reptile and the degenerate. 1031. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 7:22:20 PM Your lack of good taste is showing, Judith. 1032. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 7:33:45 PM POJ, "Being gay is one of the worst insults for teens." 1033. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 7:34:59 PM Your comments are like bad breath--even your best friends won't tell you. 1034. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 7:35:39 PM Except in the MOTE! 1035. judithathome - 5/22/2002 7:41:36 PM I have excellent taste; ask anyone. I certainly have enough to recognize the lack of it you sport, Rosie. 1036. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 7:45:30 PM I guess we should be kind to the mentally and morally handicapped. 1037. concerned - 5/22/2002 7:46:43 PM Begala has that deranged look, particularly around the eyes; sort of like the Warner Bros. classic cartoon mad doctor character based on Peter Lorre. 1038. judithathome - 5/22/2002 7:52:18 PM Ha! And Novak doesn't, right? ;-) 1039. Cellar Door - 5/22/2002 7:58:57 PM 1040. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 8:15:18 PM Judy, I hate to sound cruel but you seem like a plain-Jane survivor who watches 10 to 12 hours of mindless TV each day out of boredom, and then needs to write endlessly about it. 1041. jexster - 5/22/2002 8:33:27 PM CrossFire is outstanding and of course the only substantial change has been the addition of a fire and a touch of intelligence to the mix.... 1042. jexster - 5/22/2002 8:34:29 PM TD..those ears of yours ROCK 1043. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 8:38:40 PM POJ, Re the teens--you like music. Do you perchance recall "Carefully Taught" from South Pacific? I suggest you play it and sing along once a day while looking in a mirror. Then meditate for ten minutes on the meaning of the lyrics. 1044. judithathome - 5/22/2002 8:40:49 PM Rosie, wnatever you want to believe...you poor little man. 1045. bubbaette - 5/22/2002 10:13:50 PM Oh No! Rosie o Jesus, a pathological liar and Internet Pariah who evidently spends 24 hours a day on the Internet has opined that Judith has poor taste and a sad life. To me, that opinion is high praise of JAH's discernment. Now if Rosie had praised Judith's taste she'd have something to worry about. 1046. Cellar Door - 5/22/2002 10:17:34 PM Have you checked out Rosie's posting in the Atlantic Forum? Hysterical! 1047. bubbaette - 5/22/2002 10:52:59 PM Cellar 1048. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 7:54:05 AM What does it take to be #1? 1049. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 10:36:25 AM The liberal Columbia Journalism Review calls Jonah Goldberg's National Review Online one of the best political websites on the internet. 1050. Cellar Door - 5/23/2002 2:57:59 PM CONGRTATULATIONS ERIC ALTERMAN FOR STICKING IT TO SULLY!!!! 1051. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 5:07:50 PM Type is too small to read, CD. No loss, really. 1052. judithathome - 5/23/2002 5:08:57 PM Word is that the reason for this is YOU...after all, you did it to Table Talk. 1053. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 5:15:49 PM Disinformation. 1054. judithathome - 5/23/2002 5:19:06 PM Everything you say is a bald faced lie. 1055. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 9:57:56 PM Dan Rather Relayed False Story Impugning AG Ashcroft 1056. joezan - 5/23/2002 10:35:32 PM The real reason for Ashcroft's use of private planes last year is old news. 1057. judithathome - 5/23/2002 10:41:29 PM Sorta like O'Reilly is doing for the right... 1058. joezan - 5/23/2002 10:56:58 PM Nobody (except O'Reilly) is holding up O'Reilly as any sort of paragon of non-partisanship, 1059. bubbaette - 5/24/2002 9:59:40 AM I pity the monitors at The Atlantic having to slog through that mess. And you, Rosie, with your countless spamming threads, are as much to blame as the other loonies both right and left who are crying as if this were the end of the world. The left and right wing whack jobs who have made the folder such a quagmire of bullshit and dysfuntional personalities act like babies and bufoons and then get all indignant when you're treated like babies and bufoons. I wouldn't blame the Atlantic for pulling the plug as the babysitting required outweighs any benefits of the forum in the first place. 1060. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 11:11:22 AM Exactly. Change is coming, and life will be better afterwards. 1061. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 11:36:05 AM As the NH audience for Imus boos him... 1062. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 12:52:48 PM It pains me to say this, but thank you bubba for your excellent post to Eric at ATLANTIC. 1063. bubbaette - 5/24/2002 2:34:46 PM If I'm absolutely correct then why don't you mend your ways? You're one of the worst offenders, as anyone familiar with your lying and whining ways would know. 1064. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 3:00:32 PM Incorrect. 1065. Property of Jesus - 5/25/2002 6:31:27 PM 1066. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/25/2002 6:44:29 PM Click on this image to see those Dastardly Democratics using the 9/11 tragedy for political gain . . . 1067. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/26/2002 2:55:17 PM 1068. Property of Jesus - 5/26/2002 8:21:51 PM 1069. Cellar Door - 5/26/2002 8:24:28 PM "CD is one of the worst offenders, BTW." 1070. Property of Jesus - 5/26/2002 8:29:03 PM Incorrect. I only have RS, CD. Honest. 1071. Property of Jesus - 5/26/2002 9:15:27 PM Maybe if CD had any real writing talent, he would start his own "blog" instead of wasting his time at MWO... 1072. Cellar Door - 5/26/2002 9:47:58 PM Blogs are an impediment to serious writers such as myself. 1073. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/27/2002 11:07:32 PM 1074. judithathome - 5/28/2002 8:35:06 AM i Incorrect. I only have RS, CD. Honest 1075. Cellar Door - 5/28/2002 2:43:28 PM Mike drop-kicks Drudge and Sully. 1076. Property of Jesus - 5/28/2002 3:50:59 PM Brian Williams is going to replace Tom Brokaw in 2004 on NBC, Fox reports. 1077. Property of Jesus - 5/28/2002 3:52:13 PM after the elections, of course. 1078. Property of Jesus - 5/28/2002 4:05:50 PM Very embarrassing for NBC that the announcement was first broken on FOX News. 1079. Cellar Door - 5/30/2002 10:34:25 PM 1080. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/31/2002 12:46:33 AM Cotton candy, Cellar . . .try some real food! 1081. Property of Jesus - 5/31/2002 8:32:12 AM Tastes like a week-old, half-frozen ham & cheese on rye sitting in the refrig too close to the fan, WoW. 1082. judithathome - 5/31/2002 8:41:32 AM daring to reply in kind to an arrogant, sarcastic, sideline sniper who'd tried for the uncountableth time to make him look bad! What on Earth can the Europeans think of such a thing? 1083. bubbaette - 5/31/2002 8:55:03 AM No kidding. Bush's taking umbrage at the french phrase reminded me of the louts in high school sitting in the back of the room snickering whenever anyone used a word of more than two syllables. 1084. judithathome - 5/31/2002 8:56:30 AM He's so afraid of being made to look a fool that he does the job himself. 1085. Property of Jesus - 5/31/2002 9:01:37 AM Eco duele. 1086. judithathome - 5/31/2002 9:02:51 AM I had no idea you read Umberto! 1087. judithathome - 5/31/2002 9:09:15 AM Eco duele 1088. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/31/2002 9:45:22 AM PoJ-"stick knifes into others"[sic] 1089. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/31/2002 10:01:02 AM Steinbeck on Bush - 'We have Elmer Fudd for president' 1090. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/31/2002 10:01:20 AM 1091. Property of Jesus - 5/31/2002 12:47:16 PM Just link the article, WoW, don't publish the whole thing. Much thanks! 1092. Cellar Door - 5/31/2002 1:40:00 PM I want to marry Eric Alterman! 1093. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/31/2002 2:40:17 PM PoJ- Did you write this? 1094. Cellar Door - 6/1/2002 9:19:23 PM Readers Spank Washington Post (aka. Pravda) 1095. OhioSTOPAS - 6/2/2002 8:19:28 PM Today's Columbus Dispatch printed a full-page glowing profile of Ari Fleischer by the Post's toothless alleged media critic Howard Kurtz. (Unfortunately it's not online at www.dispatch.com; maybe it was published previously in the Post.) 1096. Cellar Door - 6/2/2002 10:28:29 PM As is Craven Toadying. 1097. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 11:45:39 PM KURTZ: I don't think so. The VOA eventually did broadcast that interview with Mullah Omar, and its newsroom was outraged by what journalists there saw as a heavy-handed attempt at censorship by the State Department. A lot of people misunderstand the Voice of America's role and think that it is a propaganda operation, like Radio Free Europe. The VOA is supposed to operate as a legitimate news organization, and that includes airing interviews and comments from America's opponents, however distasteful they may be. LOL Kurtz does not think Voice of America is propaganda? LOL He should change the name of his show from Reliable Sources to Toad Hall 1098. concerned - 6/3/2002 12:53:14 AM Gee, and here I had become concerned that godless was perhaps so enraptured by the Cuban Socialist Paradise that he was never going to deign to post in the Mote. 1099. concerned - 6/3/2002 1:01:20 AM Re. the Atlantic: cllrdr wouldn't be the first Lefty to either destroy or force a reorganization of a net forum, IME. 1100. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 9:33:50 AM i posted this elsewhere re: NPR, but thought it might be of interest here: 1128. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 6:06:58 PM Yikes! Where did today's conversations go? Lot of it was on right-on topic. 1129. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 6:27:26 PM Gerald Levin was never been the same after his inner-city teacher son was murdered by a student in NYC. 1130. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 6:28:13 PM delete "been" 1131. godlessclif - 6/3/2002 7:06:53 PM Bill Cosby has seemed to handle the murder of his son quite well. I think Levin's departure had more to do with the 9/11 tragedy and ultra conservative AOL CEO, Steve Case's directives to make Time Warners, and CNN's content follow a more right wing bias. Liberal magazines like Vanity Fair and it;s editor Gerald Levin refused to fall in line with AOL's right wing policies. I think calling AOL executives like Moonies is an apt simile describing of the corporate culture. Also AOL has been unable to market Time Warner content to it's subscribers. I attribute this to political imcompatibility leading to the fall in the stock. You can't sell many copies of the Wall Street Journal at a Socialist website. 1136. jexster - 6/5/2002 3:27:08 PM Rush Limbaugh [reacting to the Bush Report on Global Warming] the conservative radio talk-show host, today called Mr. Bush "George W. Al Gore," 1137. Property of Jesus - 6/5/2002 3:46:10 PM Old news. Happened on Monday. 1138. joezan - 6/7/2002 7:17:54 AM From Drudge: 1139. Property of Jesus - 6/7/2002 7:44:45 AM Biggest mistake CNN made four years ago was not promoting Lou Dobbs to top management. 1140. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 12:12:39 PM Lou Dobbs ran off to run a dot com company during the dot com bubble. Management doesn't like promoting people who bail out like that. He is lucky they took him back. 1141. Property of Jesus - 6/7/2002 12:39:20 PM CNN was desperate to get him back. Huge bonus. 1142. Absensia - 6/7/2002 2:46:49 PM joezan, 1143. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 3:40:07 PM Drudge is Walter Winchel without the news scoops. 1144. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 3:41:58 PM I think it was more Dobbs going back hat in hand when his internet company went belly up when the bubble burst. Personally I prefer Ron Insana over at CNBC as a wise business/finantial news source. 1145. Property of Jesus - 6/7/2002 3:50:11 PM Dobb's internet website hasn't gone under. Hardly, it's connected to NASA and very popular. Link here 1146. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 7:04:51 PM Dobb's left Space.com in 2001 when the stock crashed. Ex-Astronaut Sally Ride is running it now. Dobbs is just a minority stockholder. I'm sorry but any guy right wing enough to win a Horatio Alger award does not impress me. He really started at the bottom, with a Harvard degree in economics. Too bad he did not learn anything from J.K. Galbraith. 1147. Absensia - 6/7/2002 7:14:31 PM Now that Shakel has been convincted, does anyone have anythoughts as to how the media reported it? I thought CNN was doing pretty good as far as keeping it balanced, though they kept throwing in the fact he is a Kennedy cousin. But then, today, they had to interview Mark Fuhrman...has anyone actually read Fuhrman's book about Shakel? 1148. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 7:14:54 PM Space.com is a pay site. Who is going to pay them for the priviledge of buying NASA tee-shirts. 1149. jexster - 6/8/2002 12:42:35 AM And Americans think the Washington Times sux! 1150. godlessclif - 6/8/2002 1:54:47 AM Actually he is only married to a Kennedy. He is a Kennedy like Arnold Swarzenegger is a Kennedy. I think the media used it to attack the Kennedy family. I think the whole thing was politically motivated as the next generation of Kennedy's climbs the politcal ladder and has become a p[olitical threat to some wealthy interests engaging in Class Warfare, like the people who just got inheritance taxes repealed. 1151. joezan - 6/8/2002 7:35:06 AM Message # 1142: 1153. jexster - 6/8/2002 11:44:49 AM Did you know that the mere act of asking what kind of warning members of the Bush Administration may have received about a 9/11-like attack is just clever hype by that sneaky liberal media conspiracy? 1154. jexster - 6/8/2002 11:45:10 AM toys 1155. godlessclif - 6/8/2002 1:55:21 PM Bush really knows how to supress a story. He has congressman Bily Tauzin, chairman of the Telecommunication subcommittee threaten the press with congressional witch hunt is they cross the Bush regime. If Republican lose the House of Reps. all hell will break loose since Bush will no longer be able to hold that witch hunt threat over the heads of the gutless networks. One dictat is no more exit polls since they reveal Bush voter fraud. 1156. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 1:17:26 PM To All Hosts: 1157. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/13/2002 11:27:47 AM CNN Gets a Whippin' 1158. glendajean - 6/13/2002 2:33:55 PM New York Observer article on Slate & Salon. 1159. CalGal - 6/13/2002 2:57:03 PM Interesting piece, GJ. I have been reading Slate more regularly lately. Never read Salon anymore. 1160. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 2:59:05 PM Biggest mistake I've noticed in the first page is that readers pumped in the additional cash to keep Salon.com going. 1161. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 3:00:16 PM It=Its 1162. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 4:27:58 PM STEPHANOPOULOSOULOSOULOSTEPHAN GETS FROSTY WELCOME FROM GEORGE WILL 1163. OhioSTOPAS - 6/13/2002 4:44:51 PM Anybody George Will doesn't like is okay with me. 1164. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 4:54:16 PM Oh, I'm sure that leftists will love him, Ohio, as the rest of us normal Americans turn to Fox News, the network that America trusts for fair and balanced news programs. 1165. OhioSTOPAS - 6/13/2002 5:00:58 PM Property of Jesus : "normal" : : Fox News : "fair and balanced" 1166. Property of Jesus - 6/14/2002 10:02:36 AM Singer Toby Keith speaks out on ABC censorship 1167. judithathome - 6/14/2002 10:17:12 AM Do you think singing about kicking (someone) in the ass is a good message for the patriotic, mostly family, celebration of July 4th? 1168. TabouliJones - 6/17/2002 9:15:00 AM R.I.P. Scott Shuger, Slate's original Today's Papers guru. He died Saturday, at the age of 50, in a scuba diving accident. 1169. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 9:24:40 AM Yeah, go out and kick an arab in the ass for Uncle Sam. Did we ahve this kind of thing in World War Two? I do remember seeing a wartime film by of all people Frank Capra that promoted hating the Japanese Italians and Germans during World War Two. They want patriotic songs they should get Charlee Daniels, not this no talent one hit wonder publicity chasing Bozo. 1170. Absensia - 6/19/2002 10:43:42 PM This site is called "Lying in Ponds" and is worth checking out if you haven't visited it. Biased Pundits? 1171. ronski - 6/19/2002 11:00:36 PM Before this thread dies, let me say that Stephanopoulos, sometimes known as the Second Butcher of Waco, has as much right to be a newscaster as anybody else. What about Moyers, Gergen, Russert, Matthews, and scores, if not hundreds, of others in the news media who worked for political candidates at one time or another? And Will himself came perilously close to shilling for Bush 41, as everyone in the media knows. 1172. arkymalarky - 6/19/2002 11:03:53 PM It'll be up a few days--two or three at least. 1173. Absensia - 6/19/2002 11:41:15 PM Thanks Arky....And one has to love the Monty Python reference too! 1174. godlessclif - 6/20/2002 7:47:32 AM And let me say the people who tried valiantly to rescue the Children of Waco from the religious violent and heavily armed child molestors who held them hostage in that compound deserve our heartfelt thanks. The Mote | Mote Archive
I think you should read what you quoted, since you got it exactly backwards. I have not said you've equated Dems and the Nation--quite the contrary, I pointed out the large gap between the two because I know you see a difference between the two, in order to demonstrate how far off base you are.
The Dems aren't "moderately liberal". The Nation is.
If you don't want to be "patronized", which is an odd way to put my disagreement, then understand that you can't call the Democrat party "liberal". It is factually incorrect.
Paul Wellstone is "moderately liberal", along with the Nation. Teddy Kennedy is to the right of Wellstone, which means he still qualifies as liberal, but barely.
The Democrat party has not even been "moderately" liberal since 1972.
Saying it better than I ever could. . .
Show me where I've equated the Dems and the Nation.
I think you should read what you quoted, since you got it exactly backwards. I have not said you've equated Dems and the Nation--quite the contrary, I pointed out the large gap between the two because I know you see a difference between the two, in order to demonstrate how far off base you are.
The Dems aren't "moderately liberal". The Nation is.
If you don't want to be "patronized", which is an odd way to put my disagreement, then understand that you can't call the Democrat party "liberal". It is factually incorrect.
Paul Wellstone is "moderately liberal", along with the Nation. Teddy Kennedy is to the right of Wellstone, which means he still qualifies as liberal, but barely.
The Democrat party has not even been "moderately" liberal since 1972.
His characterization of the "issue" is (I'm being REAL restained here) ill-informed.
For example?
If you want to call the Nation "moderately liberal" Go for it.
If you want to say that the Dems aren't moderately liberal, go for it.
But you impede discussion when you insist on assigning definitions to words that don't match what most people mean. Sometimes this is a good thing, but this isn't one of those times.
I'm using the terms in the way that ordinary Americans mean them. Not the way that wacked out leftists might mean them, or even Europeans might mean them. We are discussing the American media, and whether it is biased relative to the average American.
It is.
If you want to define some new terms and create a different discussion, go for it, but if you do it here, you will just foment confusion. Is that your goal?
I'm interested in discussing this subject.
Unfortunately, Cellar is dancing and won't discuss, and you are doing what you do best.
Maybe someone else is interested. If not, sayonara.
Goldberg thinks that the proliferation of white sitcoms is more a function of corporate greed than explicit racism.
What do you think?
Well, "ordinary" Americans aren't "moderately liberal", so I'd say it's not a good way to describe the party that half of them vote for.
Well, I've already agreed that the media tilts slightly Dem--but not "liberal" in any reasonable meaning of the word. But again, since half the population tilts Dem, it's silly to say that they are biased in comparison to the average American. That's an irrelevant comparison, of course. It only matters if they are biased.
As do you with your "ordinary Americans" remark.
Who gets to be "ordinary" in your America?
Incidentally, Dusty, I don't much object to you using the term provided there are no more word counts
What do you have against word counts?
They are an effective, and objective way to make a point. The statement 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" is very telling.
If someone can show that the "left-wing Democrats" counts are artificially low because the media also called them "wacked-out leftists" a couple hundred times, I'll be happy to reconsider. Somehow, I doubt it.
Lexis-Nexis word counts are a staple of Dan Seligman, who used to write for Fortune. I am sure people didn't like them, because they invariably pointed out the liberal bias, but I haven't heard a rational argument for dismissing them.
Goldberg likes to make nice pseudo-liberal noises ("See?I like negroes! I think Randy Shilts was heroic!") thinking it will mask his real agenda.
He did make some positive comments about Shilts.
So what is his real agenda?
BTW, are you ever going to answer a question?
I asked you to identify a problem in the book, and you refuse. I identify an issue in the book, and you obliquely say he is "ill-informed" without explication.
I ask you if you agree with a particular position of his and you try to change the subject.
If the book is such crap, why can't you identify something in it worth sriticizing?
Do those arguing against word counts believe they're meaningless? Would they be equally meaningless if the counts were reversed?
Yes, but what does it tell? That there is a conspiracy to make Republicans look like extremists? That there are more right-wing Republicans than there are left-wing Democrats? That more Republicans self-identify as right-wing than do Democrats as left-wing? That the right-wing of the Republican party is more news-worthy than the left-wing of the Democratic party? That the right is less splintered than the left, causing it to have more clout? That Democrats will go any distance to avoid being tarred with the left-wing brush while Republicans embrace the right-wing tag?
Word counts are useless out of context; doubtless their ambiguity adds to their allure among those with an agenda.
Word counts seem like one (and only one) indicator of possible bias.
I agree. They are better than anecdotes in that they are more (though not perfectly) objective. They are also inexpensive.
I'm open to better alternatives. Did you have any in mind?
better alternatives: do you mean in general or specific to investigation by Moties?
The reason I'm against word counts is that they ignore reality. Our country does have a major political party that encompasses a broad spectrum of conservative views on the right, including a few in the far right. Our country does not have a major political party that encompasses a broad spectrum of liberal views on the left--and none of the far left.
Thus a word count represents reality, not bias.
Now, if you want to review the context of those words, it might be useful. If "conservative" is regularly used to describe Arlen Specter, John McCain, or Richard Riordan, then it would certainly reveal bias. If it is used to describe the class of 94, as it is called, then it is accurate--and not derogatory at all, since they embrace the term.
What mgleason said.
They aren't objective at all. They are just counts.
I imagine Teddy didn't vote against DOMA, but I still think that Wellstone is to the left of Teddy on all economic issues.
Some good questions.
That there is a conspiracy to make Republicans look like extremists?
No.
That there are more right-wing Republicans than there are left-wing Democrats?
A reasonable question. My impression was that the appelation applied to the entire party as opposed to specific individuals, but the article doesn't make it clear. If it applies to the party as a whole, the question is moot.
That more Republicans self-identify as right-wing than do Democrats as left-wing?
That's easy enough to check with a poll, but I doubt it.
That the right-wing of the Republican party is more news-worthy than the left-wing of the Democratic party?
This could be true.
That the right is less splintered than the left, causing it to have more clout?
If it had more clout, we wouldn't have had the close to even division in voting over the past few years.
That Democrats will go any distance to avoid being tarred with the left-wing brush while Republicans embrace the right-wing tag?
And the media complies with the wishes of their targets? Is this a good thing?
Word counts are useless out of context; doubtless their ambiguity adds to their allure among those with an agenda.
Word counts can be enhanced with context. If the disparity was close, the context might even show a reversal compared to the raw numbers. But it will take a lot of "context" to overcome a more than 3-1 disparity.
But I seriously thank-you for joining in the discussion. I was giving up hope.
On what scale are you all measuring this? The world? The US public? Something else?
If [the right] had more clout, we wouldn't have had the close to even division in voting over the past few years.
I see the even split as a testament to the power of the right, and the potency of some of its messages. It's forced the Democrats to abandon long-held beliefs and move to the center, or even center-right on some issues.
That's what I meant by saying that most Democrats will go to any lengths to avoid being called left-wing. Think of the economic stances the party has abandoned - it may be OK to flirt with left-wing ideology on some (but by no means all) social issues, but death to do so on economic ones.
Aytch,
I've heard several people opine that the political spectrum in the US is skewed to the right.
That's my impression, which is reinforced by measuring today's 'mainstream' political discourse against that of the '60s and the current European left.
It's forced Democrats to sell their souls and slit the throats of their former friends and compatriots.
But that's not "right" enough for dusty.
"Conservative" has no such association. Yet the "Conservatives" who dominate "debate" (actually it's a monologue conducted with ventriloquit's dummies)cannot stop blathering about the demonic "Liberals" -- even when they've long-ago left the room.
or rather been thrown out it.
A quote by Sorkin taken off Drudge.
Where on the Mote should this go? It is media related, propaganda, political, etc.
We're a completely fictional, nonpolitical show,
Isn't that an amusing line?
We're a completely fictional, nonpolitical show, but one of our motors is doing our version of the old Mad magazine 'Scenes We'd Like to See.' And so to an extent we're going to rerun the last election and try a few different plays than the Gore campaign did."
better alternatives: do you mean in general or specific to investigation by Moties?
I don't think there is much we can do in terms of research. I was primarily thinking that you might have something in mind that may have been measured by others.
I see the even split as a testament to the power of the right, and the potency of some of its messages. It's forced the Democrats to abandon long-held beliefs and move to the center, or even center-right on some issues.
I see the even split as a testament to the power of the left. And the inadequacy of the libertarians to make our case better.
That's what I meant by saying that most Democrats will go to any lengths to avoid being called left-wing. Think of the economic stances the party has abandoned - it may be OK to flirt with left-wing ideology on some (but by no means all) social issues, but death to do so on economic ones.
As I mentioned before, this is one area where the GOP achieved success. By calling people liberals, who them split into those who decried the name-calling and those who tried to pretend it was a badge of honor.
Cellar Door
I have seen "Liberal" become in my lifetime not a simple category but a label reserved for the most despised.
"Conservative" has no such association.
The GOP normally blunders badly at marketing. How else to explain why Dems put their children in private schools, then rail against letting poor people do the same, and get the middle-class to vote against the poor people, and somehow the Dems avoid being stigmatized for cruelty.
For once, the GOP planned a marketing campaign and didn't shoot themselves in the foot. Bully for them.
(I shouldn't let you get away with avoiding my questions, but I didn't really expect you to answer. Bile was the best I could expect.)
BIAS QUIZ
Identify which of the following are actual quotes from the book, and which are made up:
In your link above the reviewer says:
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.
This sounds to me like he is disputing a liberal bias in the classical sense of the term "liberal"—an argument that the various filters limit the press from doing what we would want a free press to do—dig deep to report what is really going on, and not let profit pressures and the inertia of entrenched position dictate how the news is determined and delivered.
If that is Herman's message, I wholeheartedly agree. I suspect Goldberg would agree.
I don't see that the myth of the liberal press (as used by Herman) has to do with the way the term is used by Goldberg, or by armchair political observers. But I haven't read the book. Have you?
I think #6 is in the book.
Actually, I think all of them are in the book.
And bile is all you'll ever get.
Because it's only what you deserve.
"How else to explain why Dems put their children in private schools, then rail against letting poor people do the same, and get the middle-class to vote against the poor people, and somehow the Dems avoid being stigmatized for cruelty."
And of course all Dems are upper middle-class and can afford to put their kids in private schools.
Yes I know you're talking about the politicos, not (may I be permitted to use this term, teacher?) ordinary people but to callattention to the existenceof class divisins in this culture means --according to you and your cronies
CLASS WARFARE!!!!!
And we can't have that, can we?
Sure giveaways of the obvious bias of the author of that current article are that GWB 'had' the USSC hand him the election, while pretending that Terry Lewis would have reversed his earlier position (he never did) against allowing overvotes (which is the only way that the News Consortium which funded the 'final' unofficial recount several months later determined that Bore could have won Florida's electoral votes.)
It should go without saying that Lewis never did accept overvotes (which were routinely rejected in all previous elections) as being valid, and it's sad that some Liberals refuse to face reality in this matter.
This amounts to obfuscation. You wouldn't imagine, from what CalGal posts, that big network media do many of the things that Bernard Goldberg rightly accuses it of in 'Bias': in particular, adopt extreme leftwing agendas without providing any balancing perspective. But this is one of the central issues that Goldberg's book brings up and must be discussed with that acknowledgment if a sense of perspective is to be maintained.
This is also critical to one of the conclusions that Goldberg draws: that the decline in viewership of network news largely results from average Americans coming to expect and distrust the liberal tilt in these news broadcasts.
This is evidence of transparent liberal bias by network media, to put it politely.
The topic is not new, there has been a lot of study around this issue in journalism schools. I suspect that analyzing media bias is a rorschach test though...says more about the analyzer than what's being analyzed.
Dear MWO:
It’s hardly surprising that Leslie Stahl would be getting moist over the drugstore cowboy rhetoric of our appointed president.
Her career is in many ways a mirror image of his. This woman of meager accomplishment has been routinely promoted over the past 30 odd years, not because of any solid accomplishments but rather because of a certain indefinable “it” that exists only in the minds of network news executives (the same “it” that now propels the thinly-credentialed Ashleigh Banfield).
Now a face-lifted 60, this news diva finds herself (to borrow a phrase from Digby) emitting “maidenly vapors” over the would-be macho utterings of one George Walker Bush – that Andover cheerleader, that AWOL weekend warrior, that rancher who can’t ride a horse.
Again quoting Digby, “She says it's time we had a tough talking leader (oooh...) With Bush's hot (gasp...) rhetoric we're getting more respect and fear (oh yes...yes!).”
What in Ms. Stahl’s slim resume qualifies her for such a judgement? If its tough talk she likes, perhaps she could reflect upon the spectacular success of Israeli tough talk in quelling those pesky Palestinians lo these past 20 years.
This “just get over it” mentality is the glib posturing of arrogance. Peace is achieved not through threats, but is rather the result of honest, good faith brokering, bargaining, give and take. It’s based on the entirely sensible notion that you have to give up something to get something.
But diplomacy takes time, and patience is in short supply. Conservatives want everything fast…profits, peace, tax cuts…gimme gimme gimme NOW.
Their arrogance and impatience cause them to assume that we can simply dictate the rules and our opponents have no choice but to fall in line, to “get over it.” This kind of mindless hubris unavoidably leads to unpleasant outcomes, because it fails to take into account the human spirit. No matter how tightly you control, or think you control a situation, inevitably an opposition leader will come along, a man or woman whose message is so transcendant, so powerful that it cannot be silenced. Think Lech Walesa.
Rather than observing the world events that have played out before them in our generation alone, Ms. Stahl, Howard Fineman and so many others in the media have fallen sway to Bush’s “plain talk.” These same media courtiers would every one of the them fall to their knees and kiss the ring of Henry Kissinger, he of the famous shuttle diplomacy. But would Kissinger endorse such ridiculous tough talk from Bush? To do so would be a repudiation of his diplomatic career.
Unfortunately, we’re at a place in time where both our politicians and those in the chattering class are singing from the same hymnal. Pravda, Izvestia and Tass could not have duplicated the kind of media echo chamber that so fulsomely supports the current government in this country.
Leslie Stahl is just the latest cover girl for this media claque. A brazen, painted up, 60-year-old whore who has convinced herself that her lifetime achievements, few as they are, entitle her to step outside her objective reporter’s role and comment on the “respect and fear” that our resident in thief commands the world over.
I now propose a new corrolary to Murphy’s Law, as it applies to the media: every time you think it can’t get worse, it does.
Charlie Conley
Buxton, Maine
High flown rhetoric that takes a dive when it comes to the likes of Islamists, who would consider only the mass conversion of the world or their own suppression as alternative approaches to peace.
Now, wouldn't the hoity-toity Left look silly genuflecting toward Mecca five times a day and fasting during Ramadan? The ones who survived the purge, that is.
I think #6 is in the book.
Yes.
Actually, I think all of them are in the book.
No (although I wish I'd thought of that.)
The Vote View site is an interesting site. Thanks for linking it.
While not related to the media, it does show maps over time that illustrate the democrats have remained where they were politically, whereas the republican party has shifted to the right.
I haven't checked everything, but I didn't see this map. I see the map (the "polarization" map) covering the dates 1958 to 1980, which shows more movement by liberals than by conservatives. I also see the links to the updates, but didn't see an updated version of this map. Is there one showing a change in the trend after 1980?
I agree that some of Nixon's ideas were pretty wacky.
The Myth of the Liberal Media
No, Nixon's wacky idea that wage and price controls would control wages and prices, and Ford's even wackier idea that we could whip inflation by yelling at it (or something equally wacky, I forget the exact details because they were so lacking in economic reality).
Typical.
The former president said he would keep repeating a message of anti-terrorism and the need to better educate the world's children for the sake of the future.
A lot easier and more lucrative than actually doing something about terrorism, eh, 'toon-boy?
I feel so much safer knowing he's in office.
#1 and 5 are not in the book, the rest are.
But maybe to you it is, dusty.
As part of a Saudi charm offensive, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud responded to criticism over the country's ties with the U.S., Islam and Osama bin Laden during an exclusive three-hour interview with TIME Cairo bureau chief Scott MacLeod.
The opening clause is nothing but editorializing.
Now here's a column about media double standards
Meanwhile. . ..
No matter the job Bush has done or will do, his team has probably learned well that the simplistic foul-ups are their greatest threat.
I laughed the other day when I saw someone (here or elsewhere) announce, "What is Cheney hiding? After all, I saw a poll that says most people support his giving information to the GAO."
I'd like to see the poll of those same respondents as to what GAO stands for.
Now, if Cheney has another heart attack, we'll have 27 reports on Cholesterol and the Vice-Presidency.
But they won't be reported.
When he finally buys the farm they'll probably replace him with a replica, the way Siegfried replaced Roy.
You asked earlier about other alternatives to measuring media bias (besides word counts).
I know there have been at least a couple of attempts to somehow quantify bias. The name of one project escapes me but I believe it involved balanced teams of experts (whatever that means exactly) who reviewed news coverage and assigned various weights. The obvious criticism is the inescapable subjectivity of the team members.
Fox Doubles Viewership lead over CNN in February Ratings
Better would be hip-hop rap "artists" who sample great music, ruining it in the process.
When it comes to popular delusions, the myth of consistent
"left-wing bias" in the national press is right up there with alien
visitations and creation-science. How anybody who witnessed the
Clinton-Lewinsky debacle, followed by the Washington press's gang-bang
assaults on Al Gore during the 2000 campaign could believe that the
national press pimps for Democrats beggars my poor imagination. But
assuming purely for the sake of argument that persons buying into this
notion are actually capable of rational discussion, recent events offer
plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Particularly gratifying was the ignominious collapse of the Ken
Lay-in-the Lincoln-Bedroom canard. For readers who missed it,
Democrat-Gazette editors were forced to issue a correction Feb. 23 after
running a Washington Times article two days earlier making the specious
claim that the discredited Enron CEO had spent the night at the Clinton
White House in exchange for big bucks to Democrats. My column pointing out
that Lay's name didn't appear on published guest lists and that Clinton's
office categorically denied the allegation appeared on Feb. 13. (more)
If it's too much to expect editors who think the Moonie paper a
credible source to take my word for it, minimal skepticism would have
exposed the hoax. It must have taken me all of ten minutes to debunk it. A
bit more digging by The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby tracked the bogus tale
to its source: the infamous Drudge Report. Most likely tipped by Republican
operatives seeking to take the heat off President Bush, Drudge ran the
unsourced item on Jan 11. Two days later, it appeared as an unattributed
"fact" in the Chicago Tribune. Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes carried
it to Fox News; USA Today and the Washington Times took it from there. GOP
pundits parroted the falsehood on talk shows. Somerby found
similarly-worded letters to the editor in newspapers all over the country,
testifying, if nothing else, to the fable's propaganda value.
Drudge openly scorns traditional journalists' fussiness about
fact-checking, making his website ideal for disseminating political
disinformation. Rush Limbaugh can also be counted upon to broadcast
GOP-inspired buncombe from sea to shining sea. There is simply no
equivalent myth-manufacturing apparatus on the Democratic side. Drudge also
claimed that former Clinton chief of staff (and ARKLA CEO) Mack Mc-Clarty
was a paid member of Enron's board. That's false too, although the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch and USA Today bought it, and have had to print
retractions. Bill Clinton did play golf against Lay in 1993, as part of a
Democrats vs. Republicans matchup pitting him and Jack Nicklaus against the
Enron executive and former President Gerald Ford. Contemporaneous accounts
don't say who won.
The point is that once upon a time, it would have been shocking
that for more than a month, not a single editor or reporter exercised
minimal due diligence to determine if this too-good-to-be-true little
nugget had any basis in fact. Today it's business as usual. Indeed, had it
not been for the pesky activists at MediaWhoresOnline.com, it's not clear
the Lincoln Bedroom fable would ever have been corrected. The website posts
newsroom e-mail links and phone numbers, encouraging citizens to make pests
of themselves until journalists get it straight.
The week's second big Enron disinformation story was subtler piece
of work sponsored by the New York Times. Based on a leaked Enron memo, the
front page piece by Richard Berke claimed that the Houston-based
corporation "quietly drew up a plan to cultivate close political ties to
Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential race and tried to build
relationships with his inner circle." The key phrase is "tried to,"
because the article provides no evidence the scheme succeeded, nor even,
frankly, that it was seriously attempted. Corporations the size of Enron
generate a lot of memos.
Berke described the strategy as a "double-sided" one for insuring
Enron would have influence with whoever won the election. On cue, the
Republican pundits hit the airwaves. That same evening, Newt Gingrich cited
the Times article on FoxNews as evidence "that Enron and the Gore campaign
were plotting together all of last year." If Newt said it, you can bet that
Rush Limbaugh beat it like a gong.
But anybody who read past Berke's lead paragraph had to wonder
exactly what Enron's brilliant plan consisted of. The article documented
not a single meeting between Gore and Enron execs. "So how did they try to
build those close ties?" the Daily Howler asks. "By giving $614,000 to
Bush, and $14,000 to Gore! Of course! If THAT didn't bring the VP around,
then nothing would EVER achieve it!" Buried paragraphs deep into the Times
account, those are the actual numbers. If Enron hoped to curry favor with
Gore by giving his opponent 45 TIMES more campaign money, no wonder the
idiots went bankrupt. Yesterday, a videotape emerged of Ken Lay endorsing
Bush at an Enron employees meeting in October, 2000.
Thas all...thanks for your kind attention.
Regardless of whether there actually is a left media bias, your case is weakened, not strengthened, by quoting such a strident article.
Is it impossible to believe that a media biased in either direction could still level criticism at its own side?
adj.
Loud, harsh, grating, or shrill; discordant
Hardly.
I repeat, is it impossible to believe that a media biased in either direction could still level criticism at its own side?
-The whore will pretend to like you when she screws you.
Of course, then again there did seem to be a whole gaggle of "reporters" doing nothing but parking themselves outside of the 'hot' places waiting for the story to come to them, like the Ramsey house, like the OJ trial.
"The Washington Post" tries to cover the chimp's ass, but fails.
Watch this space.
Is it true?
My objection to the Lyons piece is his implication that left media bias cannot exist because there has been anti-left coverage of Clinton and Gore.
There may or may not be a bias but Lyons' reasoning proves nothing.
Right Ted Turner who just hired William Bennett!!!
Pull the other leg it's got bells on.
Blood may or may not course through your veins.
You may or may not have an asshole.
In the past they would have four liberals to Robert Novak in panels.
And, much to their annoyance, Novak still would win the argument.
As thoughtful points out, news coverage has changed greatly. It seems the emphasis now is on reporting, not getting the story. Two very different things.
I think it's true at present but it tends to cycle. Remember Camelot? Too much of politics is myth-making.
They are accepted merely as fodder for softballs served to the more conservative side of the story. Students Wholly Incensed at Nearly Everyon says that Nike uses child slave labor in making their shoes, reporter trots off to Nike's PR department, repeats simplistic version of activists accusation, VPPR says, "Nike loves kids and would never do this. SWINE is nutjob organization. Here, have some pix of our clean modern factory in ThirdWorldia, note our happy employees who make more wages than the rest of the entire national economy. By the way have you seen the Orphanage/Hospital/Wildlife Sanctuary/ etc we're donating tons of dough to in ThirdWorldia? Here's a testimonial from Minister Gotbux of ThirdWorldia on how wonderful a corporate citizen we are..." etc.
Of course, no one goes to ThirdWordia, talks to anyone from ThirdWorldia who's not currently on the Nike payroll, or does a damn thing to confirm either the accusation or denial. The rebuttal is not fact checked, it just stands there unquestioned to discredit SWINE's accusation. Case closed.
How much of this "marginalization of the left" is a result of the social and political change of the last forty (or maybe seventy) years?
In other words, has the American political center -- and media center, to stay on topic -- shifted such that many concepts seen as "left" years ago are now centrist?
None.
Cllrdr is now playing frickin' mind reader from the bizzarro demention.
Even as a fucked up teenager I realized how full of shit that was.
I have no idea what you mean. Could you explain, please. For instance, what "Uncle Joe," and shipping water in the 70's?
Rather than media bias, I'd file this under media idiocy which also seems to be a growth industry.
The program did a lot of coverage on his past life and very little on the crime; in fact, I didn't even understand how he got to the trial point, since they hardly explained the crime and arrest at all...I don't know if this was slanted or just sloppy journalism.
I caught an interview with Bernard Goldberg on C-Span Close-up Foundation yesterday. Not only does he deserve a whore-of-the-something for his thin little volume "Bias," but I think his performance on this C-Span show should receive a nomination of some sort. (Slut of the Minute?)
After spending the first portion of the interview patting himself on the back for his "courageous" tome, he then talked about how, though he has done some THREE HUNDRED radio and TV appearances to promote his book, he hasn't been asked to appear on ABC, NBC, or CBS. That poor bastard, he's only appeared on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, Bloomberg, and 246 other media outlets. Cry me a river. And since he slogged each of those three news organizations in his book, does he really think they're going to help him promote this book?
But that wasn't the really bizarre part, after Goldberg stated that, "Dan Rather . . . All those folksy sayings? . . . He writes them in advance. They aren't spontaneous." (Who cares? Does anyone think Dan is reading the news off the cuff?) But then Goldberg states, "This very morning, I saw, from my hotel window, a very famous pundit -- I can't say his name though you would all know him -- and this pundit was walking down the street murmuring something to himself." (Goldberg then closed his eyes and pretended to murmur, by way of example.) Then Goldberg asserted that, "I've no doubt that this pundit was, in fact, rehearsing his off-cuff remarks for later in the day."
Whatever.
I actually think this is beyond whoreage, it goes to the man's very credibility. He is willing to take an anecdotal incident and promote it as cant. I know this may seem like a trivial matter, but it really makes me acutely aware that the standards for journalism have sunk so low in this country that a third-rate hack like Goldberg can go on C-Span and be given nothing more than soft-ball questions by the interviewer while spouting the most astonishing bullshit.
To see his blathering:
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/idrive/e022002_closeup.rm
I know you have tons of nominees, but I just wanted to throw in my $.02.
Thanks,
Caroline Spector
ABC is trying to hire Letterman and dump Ted Koppel's Nightline after 22 years. [I have nothing against Letterman. I just don't like to see Koppel dumped.]
I loathe David Letterman so naturally, this is upsetting to me.
And as for Bernie Goldberg making remarks about people like Dan Rather preparing his off the cuff remarks: Goldberg used to do that very thing when he was on air. Please, enough with the patronizing. I'm shocked, shocked to learn that on air personalities don't just wing it on camera.
Nightline and Koppel still rate pretty high in my book.
Koppel does indeed get about the same amount of viewers, but they are in the wrong demographic.
ABC is very worried about the prestige hit, and Letterman is extremely sensitive to Nightline. Has said he won't even consider offers unless ABC has already decided to move Nightline.
Roger Ailes had a great line this afternoon about what's happening at ABC. When asked what Koppel is thinking, he said:
(paraphase)"Since he only works three days a week, he probably doesn't know yet."
Liberals, who are used to 3-1 on journalist panels, are shocked when it's actually 2 to 2.
Unfair, they wail.
Is it true?
Since Gene Lyons himself is quite culpable when it comes to manufacturing myths (the one which immediately comes to mind is where he was insisting that Kenneth Starr was acting primarily from a partisan agenda), and with erstwhile Lefty 'stars' such as pornographer and blackmailer Larry Flynt, the answer is that the Lefty myth manufacturing apparatus until recently behaved far more egregiously than any right wing counterpart.
I'm still waiting for his devasting expose on GWB. Or was that all just another Democrat myth?
Have you not heard of Tom DeLay?
So, what myth is he trying to propagate?
Mostly AP, Wash Post, NYT, WSJ, Wash Times, British papers, lots of local papers online. I don't watch broadcast TV or listen to talk radio to any extent.
You're aware, I hope, that Daschole is totally unconscionable in his partisanship, and of the ridiculous fabrications that Hollings has recently been responsible for.
Well, I sometimes also check our the Telegraph (British), & townhall.com (rw viewpoint).
Fox chief Ailes' joke was on topic. Deep-thinking journalist Ted Koppel didn't know what was happening at ABC (and was on vacation) when Drudge broke the story this week. He's really POed that he had to cut his sixth vacation within a year short to come back to meet with the Nightline staff.
TED STUNNED BY ABC COUP
The old bat must be on his deathbed.
And, Howard Kurtz with the DC perspective.
Ted Koppel Should Have Taken that Job at Clinton's State Department When He Had the Chance.
In your dreams!
ABC News Chief blindsided by Koppel story
In the world of network news, ABC's division is known as a particularly fractious place, where various fiefs reign, led by the anchors Peter Jennings, Ms. Walters, Diane Sawyer and Mr. Koppel. But it has been known to unite when its empire as a whole is threatened.
Media bias question: Is there any possibility that this story would receive any attention if it weren't for the fact that it hits journalists themselves in the gut?
I think so. While it certainly affects the journalists (so they naturally think it's big news), I think it's legitimate news as well. It's a fairly important story about the TV industry.
Up to a point. ABC is clearly trying to shift their demographics downward to raise advertising revenue. But the real ruler of the airwaves is the consumer. The advertisers only want to give us what we want...with ads.
Aytch, I agree it's a news story, as it was when Dave and Jay duked it out. I'm just not sure it'd get quite so much play. For example, the article mentions Babs having been bumped for Once and Again.
How much of what?
After all, didn't the Internet prove that there is no market for advertising dollars if competition exists? The only thing that keeps the networks in play is the fact that everyone doesn't have cable yet, and that they are still hooked to the notion that the content, somehow, matters. Every year they get closer and closer to figuring out that it doesn't.
I just read that, for the holy 18-34 age group, advertisers are willing to pay about three times the rate for the 34-50 group. For several reasons: brand loyalties are not yet established, younger consumers will live (and spend) longer, younger consumers spend at a far higher rate.
How much of the shift in focus toward younger viewers. Obviously a lot of cable networks direct their focus toward that age group as the money spenders, but it appears that they have been able to attract them with less money spent on programming than the networks have been able to, especially late night, when us old fogies aren't even watching.
It also says something about the failure of CNN or the other cable news networks to get a decent share of viewers. Maybe with less of an older demographic to fight over they're being spread too thin over all the news-oriented programming, both cable and network, and are being lured away by more enjoyable cable programming for adults such as the Discovery, History, and various leisure networks.
Also, since Clinton's out of office there's not a steady source of fascinating news to cover, so they have to milk every event until the people are ready to retch over the repetitive, incessant coverage.
(my own little editorial comment on why I particularly don't spend much time with the news programs)
It's not just CNN, which until recently had the largest share of the audience of all cable channels, not just news channels. Cable, for all of its collective impact, doesn't get anywhere near the numbers of networks. CNN didn't fail at all.
And I'm not really sure how you can say that the news media has had nothing to focus on since Clinton. Perhaps you missed the news about the Twin Towers? A bunch of thumper Islamists flew some 767s into them and they all fell down.
There has been plenty of fascinating news to cover, I'd say.
My point, which flew past evidently, is that they have even covered that, the most horrific event in America in living memory, repetitively, and have added little in the way of relevant news.
CNN has been doing poorly in overall ratings, but also in its share of the news market.
Missed it, sorry. It makes much more sense now. (g)
I don't watch network news much, but remember that CNN has lost out to Fox, and it's not because they did a poorer job of covering the news.
We get the news we want, and I worry about how much longer we'll get much of it for free.
I also wonder about the bottomless pockets of the people behind Fox and its ilk. I've too frequently lamented the demise of the Arkansas Gazette--widely recognized as far superior to the Democrat--which was bought out by Gannett Co. while Nancy Reagan was on the board, then shut down and sold to the Democrat. The Democrat, a much more conservative but also much less well written paper, had hung on as the less popular newspaper, not once turning a profit, under the ownership of a guy named Hessman, who threw free, unwanted papers in people's yards and used those figures to claim that number of readers. Do people like Moon and Scaife and Murdoch effectively use their money to influence the spin that affects the opinions of their viewers?
I think there are two general factors at work in media bias: active bias and passive bias.
Your post addresses, I believe, active bias. And I think it's the less effective of the two (whether it's Murdoch or anybody else).
What I worry about is passive bias. The unintentional bias that creeps in -- in spite of one's best intentions --based on one's political views. Again, this occurs on all sides.
It can take the form of unintentionally slanting a news article because of one's views OR omitting opposing points of view because one doesn't think of them or consider them relevant or reasonable. All of this is honestly done.
I think the sum total of passive bias far exceeds the harm of active bias.
Same on the left.
As I said, I think this effect outweighs the perpetrations of the actively-biased.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again, I'm Aaron Brown.
I think this is going to be a ride tonight. There are so many things I wanted to write about in this space, and every time I sat down to do it, I realized I was writing with my heart and not my head.
I have been besieged today, there is no other word for it, by e-mails from viewers and I gather they are friends also, for an utterly routine segment we did last night and a gaffe made by the president's press secretary.
"It showed courage to take on the White House," said one. Said another, "most of you creeps don't have the guts to take on the White House."
There were more than 50. I stopped counting at 62. A sort of organized campaign I gather by people on the left, who have come to believe that we slant the news to avoid criticizing the president.
I'd like them to meet their counterparts on the right. They have a mirror view of how these things work out. In any case, I realized I was happier with criticism than compliments. Well, perhaps compliments is a bit strong, since I was called "a media whore" about 20 times. It's been a day.
And all of it was made worse, I am sure, by the news that ABC News apparently, or ABC, is on the verge of killing off "Nightline," the best news program on broadcast TV. That's broadcast TV. We'll have more on that later, but this is so sad this news. The economics of the time may justify it, I don't know, but it is nevertheless sad, and it did nothing to make my day brighter.
And yes, this is a rant. I know that. And I know I kind of sort of promised not to rant anymore. But hey, when you are just another media prostitute, what's a promise anyway?
It's the propaganda model, boys and girls.
Right-Wing Darling Exposed as Hater of Jews! Just Like Bin Laden Career Crisis for CNN's Bigot Pundit
Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit and pin-up girl, stands exposed as a vicious anti-Semite.
In his new book, Blinded by the Right, David Brock writes that "a virulent anti-Semitism that I indulged her in for far too long punctuated Ann's private conversation. That she wanted 'to get away from all these Jews' was one of her gentler remarks."
Brock's explosive revelations come on the heels of an apology by the aging Billy Graham for his expressions of anti-Semitism during private conversations with Richard Nixon 30 years ago.
But it's now 2002 -- and Coulter's bigotry is, if anything, even more hateful than Nixon's was. And she, unlike Brock or Graham, has yet to apologize.
Yet she remains a featured pundit on CNN, as well as on the right-wing lecture-and-banquet circuit.
Coulter has actually ramped up her violent rhetoric in recent weeks.
In February, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, she called for execution of John Walker Lindh in order to "physically intimidate liberals by making them realize they could be killed too."
More recently, she said that she would revel in the assassination of Bush Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta:
"According to initial buoyant reports in early February, enraged travelers rose up in a savage attack on the secretary of transportation. Hope was dashed when later reports indicated that the irritated travelers were actually rival warlords, the airport was the Kabul Airport, and Norman Mineta was still with us."
Coulter went on to ridicule this distinguished Japanese-American's internment as a child in a camp during World War II and to demean his distinguished career: "He is given plumb government jobs solely and exclusively because he is a minority."
Amid those efforts, Coulter called First Lady Hillary Clinton a "prostitute."
Yet Brock reveals that Coulter was herself a gross sexual hypocrite, like so many other of the plotters:
"Ann herself hardly seemed well positioned to take up a moral brief against the Clintons...she carried on a relationship with Bob Guccione Jr., scion of a fortune made in publishing pornography, while he was fending off a sexual harassment lawsuit."
When Coulter's fringe-nut writing got her into trouble with her former editors at National Review, she dismissed the charges and denounced the NR editors as "girly boys," before taking up as a columnist at David Horowitz's ludicrous vanity website.
Coulter means a featured star at high-profile right wing rallies and fundraisers, as well as in the self-hating Horowitz's little capers.
This Sunday she appeared as a guest on CNN's Inside Edition as though she were just one more provocative commentator--not as the vicious anti-Semite and hate-monger she actually is.
But it looks as if, with the latest string of declarations and revelations, Ann "Thrax" Coulter's career may finally have reached the end of the road --
"Ann Coulter's recent attack on Norman Mineta is despicable," People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph G. Neas said last Friday. "It is outrageous to say that this long-time public servant hates America. But it is unfortunately not surprising, given Coulter's history of similarly rabid commentary. It's a sad and telling fact that this kind of rhetoric earns Coulter folk-hero status among right-wing conservatives and featured speaking roles at events like the recent Conservative Political Action conference."
CD's jokes keep coming...
The American press seems to have an incredible ability to not only overlook the ineptness and failings of its leading Republican characters, but it also doesn't hesitate to hold up these people as examples of heroic leadership and brilliant insight.
cllrdr -
Why is it that the Lefty whackjobs love it when the likes of Malveaux openly wish for Clarence Thomas's death or various 'Liberals' 'joke' about assassinating GWB, but the same hypocrites blow a gasket when Ann Coulter makes a veiled insinuation about Mineta?
You yourself think it's cute to wish for the deaths of political opponents, so I'd say that, yes, Coulter is out of line, but she has done nothing here that Lefty whackjobs wallow in every day of their pathetic lives.
cllrdr -
Why is it that the Lefty whackjobs love it when the likes of Malveaux openly wish for Clarence Thomas's death or various 'Liberals' 'joke' about assassinating GWB, but the same hypocrites blow a gasket when Ann Coulter makes a veiled insinuation about Mineta?
You yourself think it's cute to wish for the deaths of political opponents, so I'd say that, yes, Coulter is out of line, but she has done nothing here other than what Lefty whackjobs wallow in every day of their pathetic lives.
ASHCROFT'S BIZARRO WORLD
The Three Faces of Barbara
Multiple Personality Disorder At Justice Department
Deluded Comstock: "I am Hillary!"
Attorney General John Ashcroft's public affairs director at the Department of Justice suffers from a case of severe mistaken identity: her own.
Barbara Comstock, one of the most fanatic right-wing zealots, who labored for years to prove imaginary Clinton scandals, actually thinks she's Hillary Clinton--the target of much of her fevered "investigations."
According to David Brock's Blinded by the Right, Comstock and her side-kick, the late lunatic winger, Barbara Olson, were known on the Republican House investigative committee, where they worked as scandal rats, as "the Barbarellas," after "the 1968 movie starring Jane Fonda as a space-age vixen whose cosmic adventures take her to bizarre planets via rocket ships."
Let Mr. Brock tell the story:
"Late-night calls from Barbara Comstock were not unusual. She often telephoned with the latest tidbit she had dug up in the thousands and thousand of pages of administration records she pored through frantically, as if she were looking for a winning lottery ticket she had somehow mislaid. A plain woman with tousled reddish brown hair, she once dropped by my house to watch the rerun of a dreadfully dull Whitewater hearing she had sat through all day. Comstock sat on the edge of her chair shaking, and screaming over and over again, 'Liars!' As Comstock's leads failed to pan out and she was unable to catch anyone in a lie, the Republican aide confided that the Clinton scandals were driving her to distraction, to the unfortunate point that she was ignoring the needs of her own family. A very smart lawyer by training and the main breadwinner for her charismatic, happy-go-lucky husband and kids, Comstock remarked that maybe she couldn't get Hillary's sins off her brain 'because Hillary reminds me of me. I am Hillary.' In this admission a vivid illustration of a much wider 'Hillary' phenomenon can be seen. Comstock knew nothing about Hillary Clinton. Comstock's 'Hillary' was imaginary, a construction composed entirely of the negative points in her own life."
Why? To help sell his books.
That's not logically possible.
If he lied "then" that means that Paula Jones and the entire Ricahrd Mellon Scaife circus were lying.
If he's lying "now" by saying they were lying "then" that means that "then" he was telling the truth.
So which is it?
The reason why even the leftist media, like the Washington Post, downplay Brock's latest accusations is because the don't trust his statements.
Ah the tragedy of the humor-impaired!
In two years, when everything is finely-tuned to the 18-34's and they're cross-pitching every property that Viacom/Time Warner/AOL/Disney/FedEx/Proctor and Gamble owns, where will they turn?
I guess the Iranian hostage crisis is finally over.
I don't know the entertainment percentages but I'd guess most shows are either independent OR some kind of joint deal. I don't think the nets produce many shows 100% on their own hook anymore. But I don't know for sure. Interesting question.
"CNN is the newsgathering network. Fox News Channel is the opinion network. MSNBC is the confused network."
So says a report on the three cable news outlets by news analyst Andrews Teyndall for Terrence Smith's media unit at leftist PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.
As a ratings war rages among the three networks, featuring talent raids, publicity stunts, juggled lineup and insinuations of ideological bias, Tyndall examined a week's worth of prime-time programming in January for a report this week on NewsHour.
Tyndall's finding: #1-rated Fox brings "a bombastic, opinionated and breezy style to each of the formats of programming," while No. 2 CNN "is more committed to covering major stories and to reporting by correspondents," and its interview formats and guest selection "were less ideologically charged."
Although Fox often is accused of being the most right-of-center of the three networks, Tyndall says he thinks that prize goes to MSNBC, where former GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes hosts an hour-long program.
Yeah, but that show started 7 or 8 years ago. Today, they might well joint venture with Spelling/Disney/whoever.
I wonder how many? Does the value of a hit in syndication offset the many failures?
"It's too bad the media coverage of Mr. Koppel's excellent Times op-ed focused almost exclusively his mild complaint about the absurd "relevance" comment. Rarely mentioned was his realistic acceptance of network economics--or his matter-of-fact demonstration that he delivers a huge viewership and a whole lot of money to ABC's pockets. Mr. Koppel is no whiner, and it was nice to see the solid business case for Nightline laid out.
A year or so ago, Mr. Koppel gave a talk at the Herbst Theater in San Francisco, and I asked him a question about the difference between network and cable business models--specifically, how do the networks compete with CNN or HBO, given that they get their money primarily from advertising, not subscriptions? Mr. Koppel's response demonstrated his awareness of that difference, and provided an example of how Nightline develops other revenue sources. Nightline packaged their 2000 election coverage and sold it to PBS, giving PBS a great show at little development cost, and bringing in additional revenue to Nightline, paying for a job or two.
ABC could go a long, long time without finding the combination of hardheaded business sense, commercial success and oh, by the way, phenomenal journalism that Mr. Koppel represents. I realize that Late Night's ad revenue is sexy stuff, but Mr. Letterman has expressly said that he won't even discuss moving unless ABC has decided to do away with Nightline regardless of his decision.
ABC might want to read up on their Aesop before they commit to giving up Nightline. I seem to recall a tale about a dog, his bone, and a reflection."
What with This Week now apparently in rehab, ABC appears to have launched a major offensive for 19-year-old eyeballs. A few thousand letters from us graybeards won't put Jaguars in the marketeers' driveways.
What a difference a couple of hits on the WB makes.
The "Rev." Jesse Jackson works for CNN.
Embarrassing for the reputation of CNN. And they can't deny it because they put the threat to their staff in memo writing.
Victim Politics
Bernard Goldberg, author of the best-selling book Bias, is right that the media sometimes mistreats conservatives. Jonathan Chait says what he and his supporters don't recognize is that's only one part of a much larger story.
Alas, it is this very quality that Goldberg most obviously lacks.
Cable News Wars
This is the News Hour piece obliquely referred to by PoJ, above. It is outstanding reading, particularly the Andrew Tyndall interview. Tyndall was commissioned by News Hour to review CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, and his observations seem very sound.
An internal memo at CNN tells employees not to cover SHAKEDOWN, Kenneth R. Timmerman's best-selling expose about Jesse Jackson, according to internet reporter Matt Drudge.
Cable News Wars
Just heard Imus this morning badmouthing his own TV cable network programs, adding that Chris Matthews wants to get out of his contract at MSNBC and go to work for FOX.
You don't need a Greek lexicon to get the message here about the Clinton administration's extremely helpful hand in the rise of Enron. But you might need one — or maybe a secret decoder ring — to unscramble this same story from other news accounts. According to the Media Research Center (www.mediaresearch.org), a conservative media watchdog group, only one network reporter — NBC's Lisa Myers on Feb. 25 — has mentioned the Clinton-Enron connection, while the press has been barely more forthcoming.
The New York Times, for instance, presented the $1.2 billion worth of government loans and insurance as having materialized from two agencies — namely, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank — and not the administration that set policy for them. Not until the fourth paragraph does the name "Clinton" get attached to this government largesse. The Houston Chronicle buried the Clinton administration's support for Enron even deeper, tagging the subsidies as having come from "Uncle Sam" until the 16th paragraph.
Given this scanty or indecipherable coverage, it's little wonder one of my pen pals told me to nix the Clinton editorials ("past history") and turn to the real news of the day — such as the $1.2 billion in taxpayer-financed loans and insurance Enron received, as the letter-writer put it, from "the Overseas Private Investment Corp." Someone should try to break it very gently that this is a Clinton story, too.
Ken Lay is GW's baby...a tarbaby, so to speak.
Heard on NPR two days ago: An interview with the president of the Steelworkers' Union, warning (entirely unchallenged) that if President Bush didn't go ahead with the proposed 30% tariff on imported steel it would mean the end of the American steel industry, the net result being that countries will have been abetted by the current administration in exporting their unemployment to our shores, etc.
Heard on NPR this a.m.: An interview (entirely unchallenged) blasting President Bush for his "unilateralist" imposing of said tariff.
Ken Lay is GW's baby...
???
"The Clinton administration provided more than $1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron Corp. projects overseas at a time when Enron was contributing nearly $2 million to Democratic causes," this newspapers' Patrice Hill reported on Feb. 21. "In addition, the [Clinton] administration, which lauded Chairman Kenneth L. Lay as an exemplary 'corporate citizen,' granted about $200 million worth of insurance against political risks" for Enron projects in political hot zones, including the Gaza Strip.These
generous subsidies came courtesy of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., government agencies that have recently provided the Senate Finance Committee with documentation of their support for global Enron projects, including the notoriously defunct Dabhol power plant in India. (Worth noting is that neither the Reagan administration nor the first Bush administration granted any loans to Enron between 1985 and 1992; the first Bush administration provided insurance for an Enron project in Guatemala in 1992.)"
Read the article reeeeaaalllly sloooooooowly.
Then, read my posts.
Neither I nor the writer makes any such point. The point is, the Clinton connection is demonstrably down-played, while the Bush connection is trumpeted, especially in rags like the NYT. Note the use of the ambiguous "Uncle Sam" as the source of Enron largesse during the Clinton admin.
No such ambiguities are granted the present admin.
He replied (seriously!): "Well, they're giving both sides of the story. I don't see what your problem is with that."
Hahahahahaha!
Check George Will's column, 'Bending to Steel' in today's WP. I linked to it in Politics.
From BusinessWeek, 'O'Neill Has the White House Running Scared.'
As the famously hands-on CEO of Alcoa Inc., Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill was loath to miss a stray carpet tack, let alone an anomaly in his company's financial data. That's why, as the official charged with giving President George W. Bush a report in the coming weeks on Enron Corp.'s implications for corporate governance, O'Neill is talking tough. His big idea: requiring CEOs to sign a financial-health affirmation statement that would make them more liable for Enron-style misrepresentations, whether intentional or not.
O'Neill's desire to increase corporate accountability--outlined in a Feb. 12 interview with BusinessWeek and touched on in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on Feb. 25--is music to shareholder advocates' ears. But it has ignited a furious debate inside the White House, pitting the President's more ideological economic advisers against the pragmatic Treasury chief.
On one side of the spat is the plain-talking O'Neill, who is outraged by the insistence of Enron's top brass that they had no knowledge of--and no responsibility for--the financial shenanigans going on at the energy-trading giant. On the other is White House economic czar Lawrence B. Lindsey and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman R. Glenn Hubbard, who fear that O'Neill's efforts will cause untold numbers of frivolous investor lawsuits against "negligent" CEOs. Indeed, several members of Team Bush sport an ill-concealed hatred of trial lawyers, a group well-known for bankrolling Democrats
.
Another big concern is that O'Neill's outspokenness could risk boxing Bush in. Down the road, that could make it harder for him to spurn the Treasury chief's plan without being accused of caving in to CEO big shots.
(cont'd)
1. Liability: Executives who negligently allow investors to be misled could be held responsible. Currently, only those who do so intentionally or recklessly are liable.
2. Insurance: Companies would no longer be able to fully indemnify directors and officers against fraud lawsuits. Execs may have to cover the first $1 million, or a year's salary.
3. Certification: CEOs and their boards would be required to certify that they have told investors everything they need to know about a company's financial prospects.
I cite this story as an example of a magazine reporting against presumed bias.
The Moonie Times/JoeZ answer to Chenron is Clinton? First Lay was a Richards man now a Clinton man? What next the Man in the Moon?
I would think that the better line would be Enron as financial not a political scandal.
If though you are willing to concede the obvious, then I'm happy as a clam at a Kennedy Klam Bake for even more obvious is The Georgie/Kenny Boy love affair.
BTW...there's an open slot on the Pioneers list...
Shows his smarts to hire people who help him make the hard decisions.
Obviously you have been posting in headline-speak for so long, your language synapses are now permanently firing in Hyperbolis Extremis mode -even in the rare posts in which you are actually addressing others instead of talking to yourself.
I will gladly answer any questions you may have when you decide to drop the Brenda Starr routine.
"A federal judge has ordered a half-dozen federal agencies to release
within two months records of their involvement in an energy task force
headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Ruling in a case filed nearly a
year ago, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said Tuesday the agencies
have had sufficient time to collect thousands of pages of material from
its files.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1151/3-6-2002/200203061015413903.html
Read The Memorandum Opinion And Order
(Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dept. of Energy) [PDF]
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doe/judwatdoe030502ord.pdf
BUSH VIEW OF SECRECY IS STIRRING FRUSTRATION
The Washington Post
The federal judge who ordered the Bush administration to turn over some
records related to Vice President Cheney's energy task force wondered
"what in the world" the Energy Department was doing, acting at such a
"glacial pace" in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. . .
But while Kessler expressed amazement at the Energy Department's
response to information requests under FOIA, the 36-year-old cornerstone
law for government transparency, the reluctance to provide information
has become routine throughout the administration, liberal and
conservative public interest groups say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28109-2002Mar2.html
Read The Memorandum-Order (N.R.D.C. v. Dept. Of Energy) [PDF]
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/doe/nrdcdoe022102mem.pdf
the court level, ie, district court, court of appeals, and whether the opinion is published. A district court judge's decision is not binding on other in the state or DC where the case is heard.
If the government appeals that will open another door as far as what the DC court of appeals does.
I question the article's value as news rather than its bias. The body of the article refers only to the judge's amazement and displeasure, not any decision. The footnote leads to the decision. If the standard for news is judicial amazement and displeasure, the Post will have to add a new section.
Based on that headline, I think the article should be considered analysis, not news, and labelled as such. A "news" headline would have referred directly and specifically to the decision. That headline constitutes analysis.
To me, this goes to the heart of another issue: the modern-day substitution of "reporting" for news coverage. It's easy to talk to a couple of suits on the Hill and get a "story". It's harder to actually report the news.
It is interesting to see fairly unbiased newspaper columns in fairly unbiased news papers, with screaming, National Enquirer like headlines.
Reporters and pundits express their prejudices by classifying socially liberal, economically conservative positions as "centrist" or "moderate." Often this comes in the guise of bland horse-race analysis. How many times have you read in the news that Republicans succeed only when they eschew "divisive social issues"? "Divisive" social issues include even those, like school prayer and affirmative action, on which polls show wide majorities siding with the conservative position. Likewise, on many economic questions, the mainstream press habitually adopts conservative lingo, deriding efforts at redistribution of wealth as "class warfare" and defenses of retirement programs as "demagoguery."
Thus reporters define Republican Christine Todd Whitman--who dissents from GOP dogma on abortion and the environment--as a moderate, but they define Gary Bauer--who dissents on Social Security privatization and the minimum wage--as a hard-core ideologue. During the 2000 election Newsweek did a profile of a classic "swing voter" in Michigan. Even though she described herself as a pro-life Catholic who favored a more activist government, the article still proceeded to describe her as the prototype "fiscally conservative, socially moderate" swing voter--as if the trope were preprogrammed into Newsweek's word processors.
On the whole, this set of biases disproportionately benefits Democrats and liberals. The media's aversion to the cultural right is more pronounced than its aversion to the economic left, and, since reporters tend to label politicians according to their social views, they're more apt to consider Democrats moderate. This is the kernel of truth underlying Goldberg's hyperbolic screed.
It's more that American Lefties have shown themselves to consistently be fickle, extremist pressure group driven, brainless, selfish, corrupt, venal, dishonest and incompetent which has driven the US society to the right.
The US Left, simply put, is blindingly stupid.
Why haven't people in the US Left ever realized that mixing the methods and rhetoric of Revolutionary Communist Ideology which is meant to degrade and ultimately overthrow capitalist society with social reform and improvement just doesn't work?
The US Left, simply put, is blindingly stupid.
Cokie Roberts pontificating as to why all this flapdoodle about Senator Dashole's anti-War-on-Terror comments...
[Paraphrased, but damn close]
"Listen - Republicans are desparate to hang on to their slim majority in the house. They haven't found a way to grab onto President Bush's coattails on the war issue, and attacking Senator Daschle for his comments is one way to do that."
Hahahahahaha!
Oh yea - right!
It's not, "The Democrats are desparate to regain a majority in the house, so they try and attack Bush from any direction they can, and since the Enron debacle is obviously not gonna stick to him they're playing their last card."
Oh no - of course not.
For the record, Granda Lucianne's NewForum gets 1.5 million hits a day. Drudge averages over 4 million.
ROTFALMAO!
For the Record Stupid White Menis a HUMUNGOUS Best-seller!
Bias is land-fill. Right along with the anti-Hillary books.
That must drive CBS's "journalists" furious since they take that snotty insert list seriously.
Washington Post Writer Orders 17,000 Copies of Own Book and Returns Them!
What's Newspaper's Policy on Trickery?
Time To Look Into Right-Wing Manipulation
It's nothing new. Wonder how all those right-wing screed wind up on the bestseller list? Notice that next to many of them on the New York Times Bestseller List is a tiny dart signifying bulk sales. That means that the conservatives have figured out a system to buy these ideologically far right tracts through mass sales precisely to rig the bestseller list. Why? Because then the big chains stock and feature the bestsellers prominently.
In the case of the clever David Vise, the Washington Post needs to figure out what its ethical policy is for its writers who are authors.
Vise, the author of a book on CIA mole Robert Hansenn, was caught ordering 17,000 copies of his own title and trying to return them --in what looks basically like an effort to pump his work into the Times's all-important best-seller chart.
Vise has been caught, even though he has denied the charges.
Now the Times and other newspapers now need to investigate how the system as a whole is manipulated, especially by the right-wing. We're waiting...
On the Vise case, see:
http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline
In helping to spur the worlds of journalism and publishing to take a good look at how the best-seller lists gets rigged, MWO presents a list of recent Times hardcover non-fiction best-sellers who benefited heavily from the suspicious "bulk orders." (Note how many are published by Regnery.)
Is the right-wing rigging the system through bulk orders? Or has America truly been just dying to read the likes of David Schippers?
Time to find out!
Phony Right-Wing Best-Seller Lists
Top Sellers Since 1999
This
Week Last
Week Weeks
on List
1 BIAS, by Bernard Goldberg. (Regnery, $27.95.) A washed-up and embittered television journalist who worked at CBS for many years reports on "how the media distort the news." (+) 2 12
2 THE DEATH OF THE WEST, by Patrick J. Buchanan. (Thomas Dunne/St. Martin's, $25.95) The right-wing pundit and former presidential candidate argues that "immigrant invasions" threaten Western culture. (+) 1 15
3 ABSOLUTE POWER, by David Limbaugh. (Regnery, $27.95.) A right wing lawyer's critical evaluation of the Clinton-Reno Justice Department. Rush’s brother (+) 4 40
4 THE FINAL DAYS, by Barbara Olson. (Regnery, $27.95.) The Rabidly right-wing commentator, who died aboard a hijacked jetliner on Sept. 11, discusses ''the last, desperate abuses of power'' in the Clinton White House.(+) 5 18
5 SELLOUT, by David P. Schippers with Alan P. Henry. (Regnery, $27.95.)The former chief Republican counsel for the House Judiciary Committee and full-time paranoid presents a maniacal account of President Clinton's impeachment. (+) 8 86
6 THE CASE AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON, by Peggy Noonan. (Regan, $24.00.) The former Reagan and Bush speechwriter most famous for disastrous “Read My Lips” line gets catty and sanctimonious, all at once, about the former First Lady.(+) 3 102
7 NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO, by Christopher Hitchens. (Verso, $19.00.) A former Trotskyist-turned-Freeper icon, “saloon correspondent” for the American Spectator and Republican help-meet gives his inebriated view of the Clinton administration. (+) -- 110
(+) Indicates record of bulk-ordering by right-wing groups to inflate sales figures artificially and secure a place on the Best-Seller List.
Note: “This Week” and “Last Week” rankings and “Weeks on List” all highly arbitrary numbers. What’s true is that all of these titles were New York Times bestsellers thanks to bulk orders from right-wing groups
But there is a lot of bias in literature, obviously. And, sometimes it's hard to know the players, who go from left to right and back, without a program.
Personal stuff like that for an American hero-ette.
Leave it to a reporter/author from the media-savvy Washington Post to try to exploit the system, CD.
The last one to do it, and get caught, was the chairman of Gannett Foundation, who had his foundation buy a 50 copies of his book from 700 bookstores to get his book on the NYTimes list.
Why am I not surprised?
Medicine and Madison Avenue.
Interesting to see the bias in advertising over Medicine.
Hi Absensia.
Some 440,000 copies of Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS are now in print. Who knew that a complaint about news bias would become a runaway bestseller?
Where all disgrunted ex-CNN employees end up to bitch about the cable operation
Slate Gets Duped
In the famous New Yorker cartoon by Peter Steiner, a dog seated in front of a PC turns to his canine colleague and boasts, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
Although dogs have not logged onto the Internet in the numbers Web visionaries predicted in the early '90s, Steiner's lesson still stands: You can never be too sure that your fascinating e-mail correspondent isn't a barking imposter. Last week, Slate got taken by an Internet dog when it published the diary of "Robert Klingler," an individual who claimed in e-mails and on the telephone to be the CEO of BMW's North American operations.
I love Hoaxes!
This article was an attack on Democrats for opposing President Bush's nomination of Charles W. Pickering for a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. (The Senate Judiciary Committee killed the nomination later that day, on a party-line vote.)
The author was Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas...
Virginia Thomas is also "director of executive branch relations" at the Heritage Foundation, the well-known right-wing propaganda machine that masquerades as a tax-exempt nonpolitical research institution. ("Director of executive branch relations" is either a joke job or an amusing confirmation of Heritage's true nature.) That a Supreme Court justice's spouse could write this article, and the nation's most influential conservative opinion forum could publish it, illustrates that, for all the talk of the insular, unworldly liberal culture of Washington, there is now a conservative Washington culture large enough and insular enough for its members to live entirely within an echo chamber of their own views.
Deep Thoughts of CT's Bitch - Kinsley
Fresh episode last night with Koeppel as host. (He doesn't usually work on Fridays or Mondays)
Topic: High profits of airing pornography on cable, renting DVDs, the internet. But no high-brow boring interviews; just lots of soft porn.
I wouldn't have known about it except my son and some of his friends were watching it when I went through the house turning off lights--and looked uncomfortable.
Instead, we all watched it together.
Who was the last lying scumbag to go on "60 Minutes" and tell Mike Wallace that he wasn't a homosexual?
Hahahaha...most boys watching porn look uncomfortable when their parent walks in. Don't you remember?
The link has now metamorphosed into a more recent Anderson cartoon showing Operation Anaconda wrapping itself around and squeezing the press.
Judge for your self.
Which means, needless to say, that Goldberg is a leather submissive.
She's also spared me from having to write yet another piece about that stupid film and the phony "smear camoaign" crap cooked up by Terry Press of Dreamworks.
Back around Message # 559, you and I discussed network ownership of the shows they produced. Both you and I thought that the networks used to produce their own shows, but now use third parties.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
TV Networks Favor Pilots They've Made
The golden era that creators like Mr. Bochco describe came before 1995. Until then, federal regulations severely limited the number of shows that broadcast networks could create and own, on the assumption that without such rules they would monopolize program production. And so the networks relied on the creative output of powerhouse independent producers.
But in 1995, the networks convinced the Federal Communications Commission that the 20-year-old restrictions were no longer necessary — in part, executives said, because a network studio could never fill any network's entire schedule. The F.C.C. lifted the rules, freeing the networks to aggressively seek financial stakes in and ownership of films, dramas and sitcoms.
Fox was already part of the News Corporation (news/quote), which also owns the 20th Century Fox studio. ABC was taken over by Disney. Time Warner (news/quote) (now AOL Time Warner (news/quote)) started up its own mini-network, WB, as a forum for the shows from its studio, Warner Brothers Television. CBS was acquired by Viacom (news/quote), parent of Paramount, a film and TV studio.
And so it was probably inevitable that the great majority of pilots would soon be coming directly from the networks' sister studios or at least from co-production deals that gave the networks a share in any profits a show eventually made.
I'm still not sure we were wrong. As the article points out:
"...the great majority of pilots would soon be coming directly from the networks' sister studios or at least from co-production deals..."
I don't consider either the sister studios or co-production deals as part of the networks. If anything, the nets are part of the studios. Still, it's not as clear-cut as I had thought. Thanks for running it down.
The reason I think (perhaps incorrectly) that the trend has been the other way is that, at the end of every show, I seem to see a different production company credit (Worldwide Pants or Sit, UBU, Sit). It's a tough one to parse.
But certainly there has been an agglomeration of the nets into bigger media companies. I'd still like to see ownership stats on all shows for one network.
I should also point out that I'm looking back over a longer term. Going back to the '50's and 60's when TV really got started, I think the nets produced a high percentage of their shows. But, again, I know of no stats to back this up.
O right, leave J shool now all you hopefuls.
I think they need to live thru it.
Playboy: a magazine published by a prune in pajamas who actually believes those blonde twins think he's hot. In other words, a harmless diversion for the pathetic and deluded.
Then came the Enron offer: Any woman laid off by the corrupt corp was invited to apply for the "exciting opportunity" to pose for a pictorial
Wear a lot, earn a little. Wear a little, earn a lot.
On Monday, Playgirl launched a similar salvo, soliciting Men of Enron hunks and this just seemed like a great publicity stunt. Got us all giggling. A guy taking off his clothes is goofy.
But a desparate woman taking her clothes off is a much sadder, older story. In fact, it's pretty much the oldest story of the world's oldest profession. which is what makes Playboy's offer so gross.
"what kind of scavenger scum would say, 'Oh gee, I've got a great idea! Let's get the women who have just lost their jobs and life savings and give them a chance to pose naked?'" rails my friend Laura.
In the past Playboy's pictorials didn't focus on the downtrodden. They featured the Women of the Ivy League, Wall Street,IRS...What did these women have in common? Power.
Guys got a kick out of seeing these ladies naked because it turned the tables: Intimidating women were now submissive. The man was on top.
But the women of Enron are the opposite of powerful. They are out of work. Many have children to feed. Some may feel they have only one thing left to sell.
And Playboy's buying.
"We're not forcing them to do anything,," insists Playboy spokesman Bill Farley. And neither are the buys who come to starving villages offering cash for the cutest girls.
But there's a word for them, just like there's a word for the folks at Playboy: Pimp.
That's what HE thinks! Really stupid column.
"But the women of Enron are the opposite of powerful. They are out of work. Many have children to feed. Some may feel they have only one thing left to sell."
Can we have some Miklos Rozas violins behind this? So noble his coming to the "rescue" of all those poor innocent girls . Does he imagine men can't be similarly "exploited"?
Some people never leave high school.
Last week I posted a pretty appalling picture on a Seattle wilding. It won Photo of the Year, but hadn't ever been published before. 
I never heard of this event before the picture won. It hadn't received much national coverage, if any at all. The rioters stripped a girl naked when she refused to play along; the photographer was up on a fire exit and got the picture.
Michelle Cottle wrote, in Terps and Perps of the rioting that occurred after Maryland won--saying that it was fairly mild.
Trudging back to my car--which had fortunately been neither burned nor towed--I kept thinking back to something a young, black kid had muttered to a friend early in the evening. "You should have seen it here Saturday," he said in obvious wonder. "These white folks was out here just burning shit in the middle of the street." Like Officers Bert and Ernie, the kid was clearly amazed that young people would be allowed to run wild like that with virtual immunity. With the sounds of shattering glass and howled profanity echoing in the street behind me, I had to wonder the same thing.
No real mention of this in the national press that I could see.
But I'm just sitting around this morning, getting ready for work, and CNN breathlessly reports that there was a "Chicago schoolyard riot". All the people interviewed were black.
Well, at least the Seattle riot was multiracial.
The press was always talking about the "racial tensions" at Enloe because we were 48% black and 52% white, but in all the time I was there we only had two real fights. One was between two black guys and four white guys in the parking lot over who got too close to somebody else's car and the other was when some of our white soccer players got jumped by some other white soccer players from the uptown school.
Dare to criticize her and risk losing your job.
If U.S. defender reads news, why criticize malcontent?
In the March 31 issue of the paper I read a letter from Robert D. West objecting to the complaints of characters in the comic strip "The Boondocks" about America. He then suggests other places to live. The choices he offers are China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria and Cuba.
I wonder why he didn't also offer Germany, where the least amount of paid vacation any worker can expect is six weeks and a university education is free to any citizen who qualifies scholastically?
Or Switzerland, where the standard of living is higher than it is here and they have not been involved militarily in any war for more than 100 years?
Or Sweden, where some of the finest medical care in the world is guaranteed for every citizen without cost and traffic fines are based on your income?
Or the Netherlands, where unemployment is virtually unheard of and you won't get thrown in prison for smoking pot?
If West can show me how I might migrate to one of these countries I would be happy to move there tomorrow. Unfortunately, they do not recognize political asylum for Americans. Ironically my chances of becoming a citizen there would be better if I were from China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria or Cuba.
I find it sad that West finds it necessary to compare our life to life in the countries he names in order to make America look good. I am, however, extremely pleased to live in a country that allows me to point out what is wrong here and that to do so is not tantamount to being unpatriotic, as West seems to think.
Finally, I remind West that "The Boondocks" is only a comic strip. I suggest reading the rest of the paper to find out what the creator of the strip is talking about.
I'm not sure it is unprofessional. She owes them nothing. It was an email, not an interview.
re: Terps and Perps, Wilding
I was leafing through My Life Among the Thugs(?) by the editor(former editor?) of Granta. It concerns the culture of soccer hooliganism, and he waxes philosophical at some points. If I recall, he posits something like a "culturally accepted anticivilizationism". I take credit for the"nominal phrase butchery."
While Schmidt's actions break no hard-and-fast rules, it seems clear that journalists have a public interest obligation to not try to get people in trouble in their workplace for expressing their political views, however obnoxious they may be.
I agree...it's becoming increasingly difficult to even express one's views without being jumped on; I'd be willing to bet had these been letters of praise, she wouldn't have gone to the trouble of contacting their employers, she'd have just gushed to the writers in a reply e-mail. She could've replied in kind to them but instead, chose to try and make trouble for them. All because they had a different opinion and dared to express it in ways she saw as unacceptable...for this, she gets paid?
They Can Dish It Out But They Can't Take It
If she had, the recipients certainly would have published them if they served their purpose.
If the recipients wanted to make their views known to her professionally, they would have written a letter to the editor. That's public correspondence. They sent her a private email, and I think you can do anything you like with a private email except get paid for publishing it.
I'd be eternally grateful if you would allow people the luxury of self-expression.
Besides, there's nothing shitheelish about what she did. You'd be chortling in approval if she were a Dem hack outing a right wing conspiracy freak.
You can discuss anything you like, and unless you can provide a quote in this exchange where I told you that you couldn't, you can begin your eternity of gratitude at any moment.
I'd like to discuss anything I like but when I start to, you make statements like this one:
We weren't discussing "should".
which is the same thing as saying I shouldn't continue because I am doing it incorrectly.
You are testy...very much so! Relax...sometimes the best discussions are spontaneous and off topic.
Her behavior may be vindictive, but if the letter writers' use of company time and equipment to express their views was against policy, then their actions were not "professional" either. And if it was okay to write letters to journalists while "on the job," then the letter writers had little to fear from Schmidt's vindictiveness.
As far as being "jumped on" for expressing certain views, wasn't Schmidt being "jumped on" for expressing her own views?
If you're a columnist who can't endure being jumped on without resorting to immature and unprofessional efforts to get back at those who criticize you then you're in the wrong line of work.
John Robert Starr (dec'd) of the Arkansas Democrat was infamous for calling up people who'd sent critical letters to him and arguing with them over the phone. I know several people who had the pleasure of that experience. It didn't help his professional reputation and Schmidt didn't help hers.
If it was obvious, I don't think there would be much to debate. Where there is no clear code of ethics, then a violation is going to be a personal call. "Professionalism" is even grayer.
Consider had the situation been a paper correspondence. If a person sent such a letter on company stationary, would your reaction be the same?
Consider the people who are reporting that their email was forwarded. According to the story Cellar linked, "MWO blasted Schmidt as 'Steno[grapher] Sue Schmidt' and told readers to e-mail her, presumably to express their discontent with her reporting....Two MWO readers, at least, did just that, and allegedly received much more than they were bargaining for."
MWO (Media Whores Online) isn't something your average John Q. Public reads. And participating in email harassment campaigns isn't something an innocent bystander does either--and may be just a little more than "expressing" one's views. All we have our excerpts from the letters as given by the people who consider themselves aggrieved.
Obviously as a columnist Schmidt should expect more heat for her views than your normal citizen, but I doubt these were "normal" citizens either (one works for a college, one works for a law office, and more than that we don't know). But if they were writing from work on work hours, then either they were acting unethically and unprofessionally themselves--or like Schmidt, their jobs include as part of regular work activities expressing political views.
In fact the larger point of the article is how the Internet is blurring the lines between new and traditional media.
When you go one mile over the speed limit, you're breaking the speed limit. Do you deserve a ticket? Maybe, but as they say, (almost) everyone does it.
Similarly, if you call your bank at 4:55 from the office because the banks close at 5 but your employer frowns on personal calls, you maybe went a mile over the speed limit. If you're participating in places like MWO and yes, the Mote, you're probably driving a little faster. And the faster you go, the more careful you have to be to avoid radar traps.
It does depend somewhat on the job and your employer's attitude, though.
General ethics wrt tattling in an effort to get someone in trouble because they disagree with you is obvious to me, anyway. This is still a country with a first amendment protecting free speech and press. If people are reading at work when they're supposed to be working, that's between them and their employers and I've said nothing of the ethics involved with that, and in fact haven't addressed the ethical behavior of the emailers at all; but the ethics of a columnist trying to rat on people who disagree with her are crystal clear to me.
As far as the content of the emails, if they were threats or anything of that nature she should have reported the people to the proper authorities. Short of that, I can't imagine what would be in them besides critical content that would compel her to report them to their employers.
Using a company email is representing the company with whatever you put on it and send elsewhere.
Indy has it exactly right throughout, btw.
Wonkers,
Please explain to me the difference between a personal phone call and a personal email.
Gladly. A personal phone call does not identify the speaker as a representative of the company. An email does.
That said, "personal" phone calls on company time are only that until the company or recipient decides to trace the call back to you. At that point, it's not personal, either.
It does if they have Caller ID.
Yes, it is.
It does if they have Caller ID.
Which would be "the recipient deciding to trace the call back to you", as I said. But in any event, the point is that "personal" calls on company time aren't personal, either.
You've provided no more substance than I have. But then, I don't have to. No one with any knowledge of corporations and recent Supreme Court decisions would be idiotic enough to disagree.
Indicate specifically to me how they're both representing the company.
Indicate specifically how they are not. The burden is on you. An individual using the domain of a corporation is representing that corporation. The corporation has the legal right to record every single email and every single phone call you make from their equipment.
I know what you meant, and it was a perfectly okay distinction to make. But one doesn't have caller id unless one wants the ability to trace back. I see your point, though.
No you don't have to do anything, and I can, as I usually do, dismiss your pronouncements as insubstantial.
Yes. But legally, they are communicating with you as a representative of whatever school union you are a part of.
I didn't say what the company had a right to do with my emails, and I'm fully aware that they can read them and discipline me for them.
They can only do that because it is not personal information. It is, legally speaking, corporate information. That's why they can monitor it, and that's why it is completely indistinguishable, legally, from sending out a letter on corporate stationery.
I understood your point. I answered it.
No, you still don't get it, and if you do you certainly didn't answer it. Why am I not surprised.
General ethics wrt tattling in an effort to get someone in trouble because they disagree with you is obvious to me, anyway.
As I said, the larger point of the article is that the distinction between media professionals and bystanders is blurring because of the Internet. Hence, I think criticizing Schmidt's "tattling" while condoning the tattling of MWO and its frequenters--and basically it is a "tattle" site--requires an ethical definition that I just don't see. MWO exists to hold pundits accountable for their views and encourages its readership to harass and intimidate those pundits for expressing such views. It's true that the pundits make a living at what they do and therefore should expect flak, but when a so-called casual observer patronizes MWO, joins in one of its harassment campaigns, and does so on company time and using company resources, then I think the case that a distinction between who is a professional pundit and who isn't is blurred.
Do you consider what wonkers says he did in post 677 tattling? He doesn't elaborate on what he wrote to the Washington Post, but he says in post 681 that she should be fired. Suppose he did advocate to her boss she should be fired. Is it okay for him to write an angry letter to her employer asking that she be fired because basically he disagrees with her (and incidentally how she is spending her working hours) whereas it isn't okay for Schmidt to do the same to semi-professional political junkies?
Are you saying that no one has a right to conduct organized protests of a media columnist and her content? Do you think people have a right to organize write-ins of complaints? Boycotts? I think they do. I never saw it as outside the rights of conservatives to boycott Disney World any more or less than I had a problem with gays boycotting advertisers on the Dr. Laura program. That they do it on company time is something between them and their employers, but I certainly don't think tattling is professional or ethical on her part.
I said it was unprofessional if it was unrelated to work and unsanctioned by the employer. (I fail to see how writing letters to newspaper columnists can be considered putting in unpaid overtime, BTW--unless this is part of a job function.) Previously, I also had made the distinction as to how the employer reacted when informed of the activity. Don't you think what is professional or unprofessional is somewhat dependent on what the employer decides?
To be a professional bottom-line means you are paid for your activities. I think most employers would disagree that part of what they pay employees for is to send out non-work-related correspondence using the company network.
You also asked for a distinction between phone and email, but I think you answered that in the next couple of sentences in your own post.
If within the organization that these people worked for what they did was not an ethical or professional violation, then they had nothing to fear in Schimdt's contacting their employers.
Suppose instead of roasting Schmidt and defending Clinton, these two people were writing solicitation letters for the RNC. Would your opinion of their actions and Schmidt's be the same?
Not really...a professional pundit is paid for his/her opinion; someone writing in protest of that opinion is not.
I do know what the policy is within my company and that the letter writers could have been liable for dismissal for what they did, depending on, of course, the other usual factors (their overall performance record, whether their supervisors liked them or not, etc.). Any correspondence sent out via the company's network belongs to the company. Moreover, employees are expected to use a standard form of signature line on all such correspondence and that signature line includes the company name.
There is no way for us to know what the policy was at the places of employment in question, but the presumption that contacting the employers was a threatening action also carries the presumption that what the letter writers were doing was something of which the employers would not have approved.
If on company time they evidently are.
Well, in my initial post I said she was vindictive. Depending on the actual content of the letters, I'd perhaps also characterize her behavior as obsessive. That is, I can see some kinds of statements making a recipient want to know more about the sender and thus trying to identify him or her, but tracking down IP addresses--especially if the tracker isn't normally a computer geek--tends toward the fixated. However, a journalist should probably have some obsessiveness in her personality.
Spiteful and vindictive, yes. Unethical, no. I just don't see any ethic she violated. (An ethic against snitching or "tattling" is anathema to journalists. What is a whistle blower but a tattler?)
Unprofessional? A matter of opinion and one's own standards.
The issue of using the company internet is a red herring which has nothing to do with the ethics of the issue.
Of course it does. Unless you have an objective standard of ethics handy, it's perfectly legitimate to compare the relative ethical performance of the two parties involved. Plus, what you critique her for is "snitching" on her opponents. Without the employees' ethical violation, there can be no snitching.
That is, had they simply used their own resources and time to harass and attempt to intimidate her, she would hardly have been able to contact their employers as a reprisal.
Kurtz reveals the lengths to which White House aides will go to attack and discredit Clinton-bashing reporters. Sometimes, this means a personal Presidential rebuke of offending reporters. But in the case of Washington Post Whitewater reporter Susan Schmidt, it meant a ''frontal attack'' on her credibility ordered by Hillary Clinton, according to Kurtz. Although staffers bad-mouthed the reporter, the idea of an official White House report publicly critiquing Schmidt's stories was finally squelched by McCurry, who feared a media backlash.
Let's get more personal. How would you react if we had a big disagreement here on the Mote and I was able to trace one of your posts to your computer at the office, and I ratted you out to your employer in hopes you would lose your job?
I know what it's like to have someone try to silence your views by exposing real life information. Not just my employer either, but my home address, details of my family life, and my daughter's home telephone number. Unfortunately the person who did that to me never got his comeuppance and I was punished instead because the beautiful people all rallied to his defense.
I am one of the "beautiful people."
I mentioned our genesis: Slate's Chat room, Kinsley; but we are talking AM talk radio, don't forget. Have had University professors and lawyers call on occasion, but the dimwad factor is very high.
I am a dimwad and proud of it! Dimwads, Unite!
". . . It's always a fight, to find out what the government doesn't want us to know. It's a fight we're once again losing. Not only has George W. Bush eviscerated the Presidential Records Act and FOIA, he has clamped a lid on public access across the board. It's not just historians and journalists he wants locked out; it's Congress... and it's you, the public and your representatives.
We're told it's all about national security, but that's not so. Keeping us from finding out about the possibility of accidents at chemical plants is not about national security; it's about covering up an industry's indiscretions. Locking up the secrets of those meetings with energy executives is not about national security; it's about hiding the confidential memorandum sent to the White House by Exxon Mobil showing the influence of oil companies on the administration's policy on global warming. We only learned about that memo this week, by the way, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. May it rest in peace."
And . . .
NOW reports on the government’s efforts to curb the Freedom of Information Act.
Well, we hardly know what the content of the email was, other than the assurance that it didn't contain threats. And these excerpts: "fanatical obsession with Clinton," "someone who has sold their soul to the devil," [asked if she was being blackmailed], and "You sicken me. One last article filled with lies, distortions and blatant right-wing propaganda." Are those perfectly valid criticisms or just personal harassment? Remember, judith stated in this debate her objection to people being jumped on for expressing their views. I haven't read the Schmidt piece that incited these reactions, but I imagine it was more thoughtful and supported than the fragments of letters we have quoted above.
You compared receiving the email to more like a phone call than a correspondence. What recourse do people have when they receive harassing phonecalls but to contact the telephone company? Regardless of whether the individuals in question emailed her but once, they were part of a coordinated, incited harassment campaign by Media Whores Online--not just innocent critics of a journalist. The story admits that the two acted at the behest of MWO, plus the fact that they both then reported Schmidt's reaction to MWO reinforces the likelihood that they were playing intellectual paintball and drew a hoped-for reaction.
Leaving aside the telephone and dealing directly with email, it's perfectly standard behavior should you receive email you consider harassing to contact the ISP of the person or persons sending it. In this case, the ISP also happened to be the employer. That's the harassers' fault, not Schmidt's.
How would you react if we had a big disagreement here on the Mote and I was able to trace one of your posts to your computer at the office, and I ratted you out to your employer in hopes you would lose your job?
How I would feel and the ethics of your action are separate issues. First, by participating here you have agreed to abide by certain Rules of Engagement, so we have a much clearer set of ethics under which we operate. Both you and I have agreed to them, whereas any "agreement" between Schmidt and her readers is grayer--certainly not codified. In my opinion you would have clearly violated the ethics of the Mote in that the distinction between real life and Mote speech underpins everything in the RoE (no outing, no threats).
By posting here, though, I too enter into the covenant. Hence my desire to maintain anonymity and my use of a non-work email address for everything related to the Mote. But to the degree I involve my employer in my activities here, then I have to take responsibility for that, should it become a problem.
As far as how I would feel about you, since I doubt I'd post anything deserving that kind of response from you, I'd think you were a bad person to try to cause me to lose my job over something that would likely be inconsequential to us both. In Schmidt's case, however, her own livelihood was being attacked.
I think we've beaten this up pretty well, but one last question. Suppose a letter writer had said, "That a colored person like you is free to write what you did sickens me." (I use this example because you mentioned your company's policy prohibits "hate" speech.)
Would an African-American Schmidt have then been justified in contacting the letter writers' ISPs?
If so, then I submit that without knowing the content of the letters we can't totally judge her actions. Just knowing that they didn't contain threats isn't enough because "fighting words" don't necessarily have to be threats.
People like Dear Abby or Miss Manners frequently get highly critical comments from readers. Sometimes they print them, sometimes not. But I bet they would never think of doing what Steno Sue did. One option she could have used was to write a column on the criticism and MWO, possibly even mentioning the fact that she wondered if the critics' employers were aware that their employees were wasting their time at work on political crusades (without mentioning the names of the critics or the employers). Instead, she vindictively tried to harm or silence her critics instead of meeting their criticism head on with an above-board response.
(Can Rosie stand the shocking facts?)
I've also read that as far as government workers go, email is covered under various "Sunshine" acts as a government document, so that any citizen can demand access to it. Depends on the state, I think. Don't have a link handy.
What is it about Messrs. Begala and Carville that brings out the inner wimp among their opponents, who have been
perfectly happy to appear on Crossfire for so many years? Could it be their enthusiasm for the battle, as when
Mr. Begala confided that he was eager to "kick a little right-wing ass"? Might it be their unwillingness to back down,
as when Mr. Carville forced the Republican Party chairman to admit that he opposes campaign-finance reform?
Or is it just their insistence on factual discourse, as when Mr. Begala instructed conservative host Tucker Carlson
on the vastly greater number of Reagan administration aides indicted and convicted than in the supposedly corrupt
Clinton administration?
Even with nine million fewer households who can get the channel, "fair and balanced" FOX NEWS is winning big. 
Label Whores
Bernard Goldberg may not be wrong about the presence of bias in the media -- he's just wrong that it's "liberal."
"Goldberg is offering an empirical claim, even if he couldn't be troubled to back it up with any research"
Though I must concede that Novak is dead on about Israel.
There was a discrepancy in the frequency of labeling, but not in the way Goldberg -- or for that matter, I -- assumed. On the contrary, the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes Armey as a conservative. It labels Boxer almost twice as often as it labels Lott, and labels Wellstone more often than Helms. And the proportions of labeling of liberals and conservatives are virtually unchanged when you exclude opinions and letters to the editor. What's more, the discrepancy is almost as high even if you restrict the search to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, those pillars of the "liberal press."
The tendency isn't limited to legislators. For example, Goldberg writes that "it's not unusual to identify certain actors, like Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis, as conservatives. But Barbra Streisand or Rob Reiner . . . are just Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner." But that turns out to be dead wrong, too: The press labels Streisand and Reiner more than four times as frequently as Selleck and Willis. (Nothing if not careful, I screened out examples that might include references to Reiner's portrayal of "Archie Bunker's liberal son-in-law.") Warren Beatty is labeled more often than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Norman Lear is labeled more often than Charlton Heston.
It goes on. Goldberg claims that former Circuit Judge Robert Bork is always called a conservative whereas Laurence Tribe is identified merely as a Harvard law professor. But it turns out that Bork is labeled only a bit more frequently than Tribe is. And columnist Michael Kinsley gets a partisan label more often than either William Bennett or Jerry Falwell.
But as time goes by, Ted keeps changing his story. On 9-11, he told CNN and the NY Times that she called him from her cellphone. On 9-12, he told the London Telegraph, "She called and said she was locked in the toilet." On 9-14, the Telegraph wrote: "She had locked herself in the lavatory and had to call 10 times before she could persuade the operators to accept the call charges." But on 3-5-02, Ted told the Telegraph: "She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats. I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect..."
>St. Babs - A Wingnut Myth
Someone's got to believe me.
In which case would someone call St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital?
How 'bout the whole Mote?
Wignuts Living in Fear of Carville/Begala 
Just the bad ones.
Shame on the BartCop, who recently was arrested for lack of child support for his wife and kids.
Really? Please give us the details...
Two days in the slammer before bail was raised.
At first, everyone thought it was the evil Bush conspiracy, attacking one of their opponents.
It turned it was a family affair, with non-payment of child support.
As Judith knows, a divorcee can be one mean lady.
But stick to your guns, POJ. Don't let facts interfere with your story.
It turns out that the Bartcop aka Perkel also makes his living selling porn websites.
No wonder he defends Clinton and Reno, two politicans who make the industry legit in the 1990s.
Since its now been scientifically established in
I can live with that. But the fact that CharlieL published my address and daughter's phone number is unconsciousable.
Now WHO could have done such a thing!?!
5' 8", 210 lbs.?
Maybe he should become SaladBarCop.
And you don't see any contradiction between your position on this and on the Susan Schmidt story?
It makes for a more realistic approach to life and living for me but I can understand how some might be made uncomforable by the notion.
Steno Sue stabs people in the back.
I always endeavor to do so in their chests.
Meanwhile. . . .
Here's a rather nice piece on how the "mainstream" media turns us all into street urchins with our noses pressed against the glass window of life.
I think this sort of stuff makes people so disatisfied with their lot in life...longing for things they can never have. Of course, it might make them work harder and aspire to achieving a place in life where they can get those things but realistically, that's a pretty remote possibility for most of us.
Smell the flowers Judith; we are wealthy--much more so than the shallow trendoids who are driven to exploit and acquire out of a desperation for joy and love.
Unhappy people with money buy more, so make 'em feel inadequate if they don't have something that makes us rich!
What some Moties has said to me, he outed himself a few years back, anyway.
here, here!
Oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends
So oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz
Oh lord won't you buy me a color TV
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me
I wait for delivery each day until 3
So oh lord won't you buy me a color TV
Oh lord won't you buy me a night on the town
I'm counting on you lord, please don't let me down
Prove that you love me and buy the next round
Oh lord won't you buy me a night on the town
Oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends
So oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz
Well, I'm living like I really love to live, and if amassing stuff is truly a fun trip for others, more power to them. I just can't relate.
On our tourbus in Europe we took turns singing songs and that was the one I sang. Don't know why I chose it, since I don't even like Janis Joplin that well, but they all loved it. Most of the people on our tour were from India or Singapore, for some reason.
Didn't agree with much of what he said, but enjoyed hearing it said anyway.
I kiss you! ; )
Dyb-dyb-dyb.
I posted my Message # 16222 in thread 31before I read your Message # 818, and I suddenly realize i am not alone in this world.
Stage direction. The Winter's Tale, III-3
(thanks for the promotion, CD. I'll check tomorrow about getting six tickets for some of the family.)
Actually he's become something of a buffoon. Quite sad, especially because I thought at first that he was really going to have some interesting things to say about crime and social justice in the wake of the murder of his daughter and the monstrous way her killer got off after serving a bare minimum of time for it.
Fear and learning in America...
As an outspoken critic of US policy in the Middle East,
Robert Fisk expected a hostile reception when he paid his first visit to the American Midwest since 11 September. He couldn't have been more mistaken.
Time to attack anyone who doesn't follow the party line.
I thought you were a European. Am I wrong, or do you live in a shithole in Europe?
flattery will get you everywhere my dear...Alas, I am not an European...I am an american Hill Billy by birth, but an Euro wannabe by choice.
New York Times (requires registration)
The Fox News Channel thought it had found an asset when it hired [Joseph A. Cafasso,] the gruff, barrel-chested former military man, as a consultant to help in its coverage of the fighting in Afghanistan. He claimed to have won the Silver Star for bravery, served in Vietnam and was part of the secret, failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980.
For more than four months, Mr. Cafasso assisted and shared tips with reporters, producers and on-air consultants. Then on March 11, he abruptly left Fox amid complaints that he had overstepped his bounds and had become an annoyance. Soon afterward, Fox News, and many associates of Mr. Cafasso, learned that his office style may have been the least of his problems. The real story, many people say, was that he was not who he said he was.
People at Fox News had taken his credentials at face value. So had the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan, for which he was an organizer …. But records indicate that his total military experience was 44 days of boot camp at Fort Dix, N.J., in May and June 1976, and his honorable discharge as a private, first class.
But why is it that it's so damn difficult to check up on people?
Hi, felch. Welcome, if you're new.
Oh really? MY but you're naive.
He was cast as Colonel who would spout the party line. And that's what was of paramount import -- spouting the party line.
As for the facts in the case, in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan "Facts are stupid things."
Not naive; the NY Times apparently made an effort to determine this. If he lied about that as well it wouldn't surprise me.
But the main brunt of my objection was why on earth don't people check credentials?
You already know the answer -- it's the same reason many newshounds simply regurgitate those Pentagon briefings: sitting is easier than digging.
Basically, Fox (in this case) didn't check a fact it reported. Everytime they quoted this guy as "a former lieutenant colonel", they were incorrectly spreading information that they hadn't confirmed.
Short of that, well, resume-stuffing abounds and humans make mistakes.
Fox has that media show on once a week--I can't remember what it's called. CNN has Reliable Sources. I hope both of them call for all "expert" resumes to be confirmed.
Somehow the NYTimes missed stating that in its article.
By "ABC", do you mean WABC Radio?
MSNBC'S MR. BIG
Somehow they think it's an insult to be considered the salts of the earth.
It was only through political connections that you were given the honor of hosting this thread with the ever-gracious Arky.
MSNBC PICKS NEWS VETERAN AS TOP EDITOR
Jerry always loved The Lou Grant Show
please! don't dirty the good names of whores by relating them to Republicans.
The Central American prostitutes, whose appearance (along with their pimps) in the parking lot of the Century Plaze Hotel in century City here in Los Angeles is a sign that Republican bigwigs are in town (that's the only time they're there), are considerably more honorable than the Republican bigwigs they service.
No wonder CNN is going down the tubes
And on another netork we get...
A baby Bill Moyers
BROTHER OF BLAKE'S SLAIN WIFE ARRESTED IN CALIFORNIA
Reuters
The brother of actor Robert Blake's slain wife has been arrested for a
Florida parole violation after authorities there saw him being
interviewed on national television in connection with the sensational
murder case, police said on Thursday. Florida authorities contacted
police in San Diego after Joseph Bakley, 36, appeared on ABC's "20/20"
program last week to discuss his sister's shooting death and the case
against Blake, San Diego Deputy District Attorney Robert Locke said.
http://news.findlaw.com/entertainment/s/20020502/crimeblakebrotherdc.html
Did David Brock lie About Appearing on Fox?
Riiiiight...like Rush had to pay people to run his show.
Doesn't happen in the NPR world, were federal taxpayers pay for excessives.
In a dramatic reversal from normal radio practice stations are being paid big bucks to carry Bill O'Reilly's new nationally syndicated talkshow, the DRUDGE REPORT can now disclose.
O'Reilly's radio flagship in New York City, WOR-AM, alone is being paid $300,000, according to sources, just to carry the cable star's radio program, which launches on Wednesday.
There is no mention of advertising trade-offs...
Media Silent on Pipe Bomber's Leftism
that punk fucker is a crackpot and didn't do it nearly as artfully as the Unabomber. trying to blow up Postal Workers. He's a dumbass.
I never claimed I did...I was just quoting your all time fave Matt Drudge. Take it up with him.
And that Imus interview just proves how pathetic O'Reilly really is...
Particularly his series of items criticizing the New York Times on its PC coverage of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch homosexual conservative politician who was murdered last week by "an environmentalist."
Even though our Attorney General thinks I should.
Sully's safe from me. But he's not safe from the ravages of HIV.
Witness Kevyn Aucoin.
Of course your web site is nothing but out-of- focus bw pictures of has-been whatevertheyare.
My website is merely a hobby. Sully's is apparently his entire existence.
No, that is excellent news!
He evidently couldn't stand the heat...the heat of being exposed as a fool every night.
Nothing but criticism from callers about the new Jerry Springer CROSSFIRE.
"Thank you for C-Span," they say --like a prayer.
If a Paul Begala, James Carville, or Strobe Talbot were caught in the controversy Mr. No Spin Zone is in now, O'Reilly would be ripping them a new sphincter in the middle of their chests.
'Nuff said.
I haven't watched Crossfire for a while; I'm sure I would be put off by the Lefty attack chihuahuas, as Novak apparently is.
Tragic flaw, no.
Only flaw, no.
He can dish it out but he can't take it.
Unlike you, connie.
Backs Fired Sullivan; Trashes Times Editor
Character Assassin Sully Smeared Times's Krugman
In the immediate wake of Andrew Sullivan's removal from the New York Times, Bush family political point man John Ellis has issued a full-throated defense of Sully and a nasty personal attack on Times editor Howell Raines.
Ellis, a cousin of George W. Bush's, first gained notoriety on election night 2000, when as director of the Faux network's political operation, he spoke repeatedly with Dubya and Li'l Brother Jeb, and wound up calling the election -- prematurely and outrageously -- for the family idiot. Ellis's little gambit, which helped force the hand of other networks to call the election for Bush, had an untold impact on the subsequent conduct and success of the Bush family coup.
Ellis, the Bush family's point man on the web , not only praises Sully for his vanity blog. He smears Raines as a would-be Sun God -- "The Great Leader surrounded by adoring sycophants."
The firing came after Sully had conducted a vicious personal campaign for several weeks against the Times's formidable economics columnist Paul Krugman -- a campaign that showed Sully know even less about economics than he does about journalistic ethics, if such a thing is
possible.
Can the London Times, which now has a new editor, be far behind in dumping him as its only columnist reporting from America, one of the looniest setups in world journalism?
Silly Sully has lied and distorted his way across the landscape, doing everything he can to draw attention to his utterly conventional right-wing conservative views, which he tries to present as daring and original because he's gay. He plays the gay card to distract from his ideologizing on behalf of reactionary causes. He has indulged in smears against truth-teller David Brock, aligned himself with the race-baiting and smearing of David Horowitz, joined Drudge in smearing the movie "A Beautiful Mind" -- quite apart from his ugly and hypocritical (and utterly failed) anti-Krugman campaign.
(Luci Goldberg recently had an item on her site identifying Paul Krugman as "ground zero" for conservative commentators. Now why could that be..? It seems that what with the lib-rul media and all, there should be lots and lots of "ground zeroes." But there's one. Hmm. That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Mr. Krugman is the only one at the Times not going along with Karl's Kool Kids club-issued fictional narratives, would it?)
But she doesn't have any.
Minus the talent of course.
Grim Prospects
How is Bill Moyers' pet mag (TAP) like Enron? by Mickey Kaus
Bill Moyers' liberal foundation money is running out.
The publication is running out of foundation money and their online staff (two people) are going on to other DNC projects.
Their Quick Response Teams are quite adept at getting tabloid slime out.
Why just this morning, even as Jimmy Carter exposed Bush as the captive of Coke Sniffing S. FLA cuban wacks, the Globe's cover features "Jimmy Carter's Love Child"
"Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the
toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the
tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do
not except myself from this criticism."
One wonders what it was that kept him from asking the tough questions a few years back, when the politics of those in power matched his own.
The man is a loon. CBS made a huge mistake in not giving Walter Cronkite's job to Roger Mudd in 1981.
It's different with Bush in that the press is in his pocket. Atleast upto now. Questions are being asked, but regretfully.
You have the power, moderator.
Secretary Rumsfield takes on the perky Katie Couric of NBC TODAY over Democrat smears
DOD releases entire transcription of interviews almost immediately to keep misquoting by journalists. Smart move.
When PJ posts something I agree with, I for some reason feel compelled to point it out. Except in the Music thread, where it usually goes without saying. I don't know how much better Mudd would have been, though.
THOUGHTS FROM CHAIRMAN ROGER
In a lot of cases the objections are pure bluster. For example, Andrew Sullivan writes:
I ignored Geoffrey Nunberg's piece in the American Prospect in April, debunking the notion of liberal media bias by numbers, because it so flew in the face of what I knew that I figured something had to be wrong. (And I was too lazy to do all the enormously laborious number-crunching to refute it. So sue me.) But then you're always hearing people plead physical laziness by way of justifying intellectual laziness.
Still Unbiased: Closing the case on media labeling
Great guy, interesting site.
BTW, for someone who encourages others to ignore me, you sure don't do it yourself.
And I read the site before I posted...it's actually pretty good but hardly as "balanced" as you'd like. To be as fair and balanced as you'd like, it would have to be as slanted as FOX.
I do just fine with numbers...I've got yours.
There is nothing worse than a jealous, broken-hearted woman following me around the internet.
Get it straight, judy. I only kissed you on the cheek once. Not even first base. Please leave me alone.
And please, stop this nonsense about kissing; I haven't had my breakfast yet!
Although, if my memory serves me well, Judith was the first woman I've ever read on the internet to write about oral sex. At the time, I thought that subject was taboo (should be too).
NPR and PBS: Taxpayer Dollars Down The Drain
Scroll down for the real story about his "I'm going deaf," scam. 
By the way, I couldn't find the "going deaf" article in that link.
A report that Limbaugh had lost his hearing generated press for his program but failed to increase ratings.
Limbaugh dropped the deafness act when investigators began searching for his operation records and logs of hospital stays.
The investigations turned up records of minor plastic surgery and a liposuction procedure. (5/8)
[Thanks mags.]
The real thing----
How embarrassing for CBS News.
WHITE HOUSE RELENTS SOMEWHAT (CBS quotes Washington Post as saying that "President Bush was informed in 1998!)
P.S. After Drudge made a stink about it on his website this evening, the network fixed its inaccurate report.
Are his liberal foundations and phony, new-age religion able to wash the blood off his hands, wizard?
Playing the partisan game doesn't work with 'Nam.
My link remains a genuine example of balanced journalism while you only expose your ignorant bias and stupidity with your post.
Wake up, you git!
I've watched it with Thatcher. Don't remember what circumstances, since I don't think CSpan was around, and if so I certainly didn't have it.
It's fun, but it doesn't really amount to much in the long run.
Still, I'd love to see Bush answer some narky questions from the floor. That would be a hoot.
Return to Roots Loses Readers for Los Angeles Times
The newspaper, the flagship of Times Mirror before that company was acquired in 2000 by the Tribune Company, catered to a growing crowd of conflicting ambitions. Its leaders wanted it to have national and international scope. But locally, they wanted all the disparate areas in its five counties — a region with 16 million people, more than all but three states — to feel that the newspaper belonged uniquely to them.
There was one Times in the Los Angeles basin, another in the San Fernando Valley to the north and another in Ventura County to the northwest. The biggest and most independent edition was in Orange County, to the south. On many days, up to 75 pages, about half its total, were unique to the Orange County edition or redesigned specifically for it. Articles written downtown were "Ora-fied" to reflect the preoccupations of Orange County's three million residents.
No more. After three decades of experimenting with various local identities, The Los Angeles Times has ceased to style itself as Your Times. It is now its own Times, with national, international and regional ambitions. Its leaders say, with regret, that they cannot fulfill these ambitions while publishing a collection of interlocking newspapers, each with its own staff, vision and local accent.
You made me laugh there, WoW.
It's icky.
O'Reilly's Invite:
From ARUN RATH, Senior Producer, "On the Media":
I'm forwarding this at the urging of my staff; I'd been reluctant since I wrote it in anger, not intending it for a wider audience... but since O'Reilly continues to rant about NPR's bias and how we won't let him on our air, I'd like to get this challenge out there. Our invitation for him to come on On the Media still stands.
-----Original Message-----
From: Arun Rath
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:38 PM
To: 'oreilly@foxnews.com'
Subject: your fantasy world
Bill, I'm sick of hearing you say you can't get on NPR. Our own Mike Pesca reported a long piece all about you last year, although you later denied ever hearing of him (odd that you spoke with him over an hour on tape, had him in your office and around while you were taping and later developed amnesia) AND you've turned down the requests to be on our show since then. We would still love to have you on OTM. Your claim that you can't get on NPR is self-serving bull. So put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
awaiting your response,
Arun Rath
Senior Producer, NPR's On the Media
WNYC
Being on a local "public" radio station is not the same as being on the NPR network.
Everyone knows that.
True. The only athletics most kids are concerned with are out in public.
We ignored them, but after a while, someone behind us threw a cup of coke on them to get them to cut it out.
It worked.
Nationwide manhunt for Rosie of God now underway.
I know LMC sure would.
In fact, being called "gay" is one of the worst insults they level on each other. 
But...
everyone knows that.
True for some teens, thanks to homophobes like you who are fixated on the subject of sexual orientation.
If you don't believe me, ask Arky. ;-)
So, no, I don't think you have good taste.
and James Carville has so thoroughly charmed MoneyBags Dobbs (I callin him "sweet Lou" did it) that Lou invited JC to plug his new book on MoneyLine with Lou Dobbs.
Who preps him for this stuff?
L. Brent Bozell, I'll bet.
It's only morbid fascination that draws me to the politics folder at The Atlantic. Both the right and the left wings in that forum seem a bit nutty to me.
The other day I was leafing through some business publications when I catch this big, full-page ad for Lou Dobbs.
Congratulations, Jonah and supermom Lucianne Goldberg!
RED MEAT & FLYING MONKEYS
BTW, thanks for screwing up THE ATLANTIC. Because of you (no one needs to see your fantasy penis over and over again), ATLANTIC is hiring moderators to actually read the political threads.
Do you honestly think anyone here doesn't believe me over you? They've seen you in action, buddy boy.
If Rather was not flat-out lying, then he isn't worthy of anchoring the local news in Kenosha.
But he has certainly been going out of his way of late to cement his place in lefty mythology as the nation's pre-eminent dispenser of truth and fairness.
JudithI-just-posted-another-zinger@home. And even he admits he's a conservative, and that his is an opinion show.
Dan "what's the frequency" Rather, on the other hand, is happy to walk around with no clothes on. Only, with him, everybody knows he's got no clothes on.
He's an exhibitionist with his bias, and he's daring anyone to prove it.
What he thinks he's proving with this nonsense is beyond me.
DAN RATHER: AG ASHCROFT IS OUT TO GET ME
You are absolutely correct.
I'm lobbying for generic political thread headlines in ATLANTIC like what they have at the NYTimes. The use of vanity personal-attack headers to insult is what's ruining its Politics folder. CD is one of the worst offenders, BTW.
Generic headers will force people to actually interact with each other.
Do you know how many Pseuds Props has over in the Atlantic?
We've lost count.
That's the reason why they've got to clear out the Politics Forum. What they need to do is establish a system whereby he can't keep creating pseuds.
ATTACK OF THE BLOGS
How can any editor trust the originality of a writer's work if he or she has a Blog?
Lies...and on a Sunday, too. Tsk, tsk....
Everyone knows it's going to a blowout for the Republicans.
Get used to it!
Everyone knows that ambitious people love to stick knifes into others. Some people are only happy when they see others unhappy.
A better choice, by far...
Nouveau Slander
They think he is a fool...a very astute observation. You think insulting a man for knowing a foreign language is the height of dignity? Yeah, I suppose you do. But actually it is the sign of a petty and crabbed little mind.
Bush is not the only one doing the job himself: ecce signum
You only hear echoes of your own prejudice--if you had seen that press conference, you would have realized that Bush lost his temper and was manifestly petty and petulant because of his own considerable shortcomings.
The British article remains the nutritious source of informed journalism and Freeper-madness still mistakes the menu for the meal.
Keep gorging on bile and vitriol, Poj and you'll remain the loyal stunted dwarf that Bush INC. counts on to dupe.
by Brendan McDaid
May 31, 2002
AMERICAN AUTHOR, John Steinbeck, predicted in 1952 that Derry's River Foyle would some day turn blood red because the people had been pushed too far, his son, Thom, has revealed.
THE SON of literary giant John Steinbeck, speaking in Derry this week, likened US president George Bush to cartoon character Elmer Fudd.
Thom Steinbeck also said that September 11 had acted as a wake up call to America after years of remaining untouched by conflicts throughout the world.
He added that it might take further tragedies fore the vast nation to realise that the mass patriotism since the attacks last year was the wrong path.
Commenting on President Bush, Thom Steinbeck alleged that he bought his way into power with a little help from the corporate giants of the US.
"In America Big Business has now suppressed the people. It is the Microsofts, the Banks of America who rule and America is one of the last countries on earth where you can still buy your presidency."
He added, "Unfortunately that money has now brought us Elmer Fudd as a president. I blush every time he opens his mouth.
"He was put there by the very people who won't fund healthcare, education for the poor. They find their purpose in making money and as that continues the anger of the people grows."
Thom said his father would have hated the manufactured patriotism of America in the wake of September 11.
"People are being manipulated and then armed. Since the war of 1812 America has not suffered in conflicts. September 11 was a wake up call.
"Americans thought they were different and remained oblivious to the sufferings of the rest of the world. Americans have been particularly damn oblivious to everything that happens outside their own self interest."
Thought "were superior"
Commenting on society since the September 11 attacks he said,
"Things have changed dramatically in America now. September 11 put a scare into them and it is about time. I regret the loss of life and I wish they had chosen Disneyland rather than the World Trade Centre as a symbol.
"Now we are coming out of a long dream and the sense of superiority, the thought that we are better than everybody else. It will take a while yet and possibly some more tragedy."
...for example (double link if you don't want to read any upsetting comments)
NPR should "shut up and stop whining" (especially when everyone knows the agenda of Some Things Considered). 
"Bush's Trip to Europe
Was Not An Embarrassing
Disaster For America, So Stop Saying That!"
The subtitle is "Reporters respect Fleischer's talents." I guess brazen lying IS a talent of sorts.
Of course, when I briefly looked at it a couple of weeks ago, I was a hair disappointed by the overall juvenile tone and personal nature of some of the threads there.
NPR has always been dominated by conservatives...people just think they're leftist because they offer more in-depth discussion than standard network news. apparently, if you talk about a subject for more than 2 minutes, you must be a leftist.
on the other hand, the more distressing thing about NPR was its stance against low-power-FM microbroadcasting. it supported initiatives by the FCC to essentially destroy the possbility of local, inexpensive, and community-run radio stations that may offer commercial-free programming. NPR figures that since most people who want more "intelligent" programming will come to them (i mean, most other radio is moronic at best) but with more options, they'll lose listeners.
for a good site regarding Low Power FM, check out:
Prometheus Radio Project
i know pete tridish, founder of the project, and we worked together on both radio mutiny in philly (he and i were on the first broadcast together) and then later on radio volta. the Prometheus Project is very informative and is a great resource for people interested in learning about creating their own radio stations.
Next time, prune, pumpkin.
TED TURNER REPORTEDLY SPARKED EXIT OF AOL TIME WARNER CEO
(Really, try to keep up with the grownups, jexster.)
CNN star Lou Dobbs hit maximum controversy after calling for a 'War Against Islamists.'
Dobbs made the comments Wednesday evening during the opening segment of his MONEYLINE program,
which airs worldwide on CNN.
Dobbs: "The government and media for the past nine months have called this a war against terror. So have we here. But terror is not the enemy. It is what the enemy wants to achieve. So on this broadcast, we are making a change... in the interests of clarity and honesty. The enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists. That's why we are abandoning the phrase, "War Against Terror". Let us be clear. This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them. If ever there were a time for clarity, it is now. We hope our new policy is a step in that direction."
The comments immediately ignited angry phone calls to CNN, according to insiders.
With stunned viewers from Arab countries registering strong complaints.
The Dobbs comments -- which were not labeled commentary --remained intact during reruns of
MONEYLINE.
You GO, Big Lou!
I must admit it's very heartening, all this recent news about CNN finally deciding to go the right way. Lou does seem to have outgrown his britches lately, but maybe he can influence the rest of the team there to also seek some moral clarity.
Then, when MSNBC starts tanking, perhaps Chris Matthews will start refering to the WOT as the 21st Century Crusade --- this could be fun!
It might have kept CNN in the #1 position, rather than a distant #2 behind Fox News, the network America trusts for fair and balanced news.
They are at rock bottom, with only softball-interviewer Larry King as a notable.
This is scary...I was wondering where you were, and voila...you show up. How are you, btw? Saying there should be a war against Islamists is stupid...few know he means extremists who are terrorists...his "headline comments" will linger on, but not his specific comments from the non labelled "commentary." However, I don't find Drudge a non-biased media source.
Just not worth hundreds of million dollars.
NBC did make a huge mistake investing millions into it, most of the money, dissappearing into IPO/Wall Street ether.
Readers of the Beijing Evening News learned earlier this week that U.S. lawmakers were threatening to leave D.C. for Memphis or Charlotte unless they received a new, state-of-the-art Capitol building. According to the Los Angeles Times, a reporter for the newspaper lifted the item from a U.S. paper without checking out the story.
Unfortunately, that paper was The Onion, where the story ran next to an item warning that "Sexual Tension between Arafat, Sharon Reaches Breaking Point."
From Slate.
Hey, Abs!
I've been around here and there - been very busy in the evenings playing ball, church, daughters' activities, etc, etc...so, not much time to post. I'm doing well, thanks. How about yourself?
Anyway...to your comments:
...few know he means extremists who are terrorists...
Exactly. But as he said, his intention is to provide clarity. He is drawing a distinction between Islam as a religion, and radical Islamists as a supremacist, murderous subset of that religion. How can that be a bad thing?
I don't find Drudge a non-biased media source.
Well, neither do I, actually.
Neither do I find Dan Rather to be --- but when Dan tells me about something someone said - reports it verbatim, as a matter of fact - and I don't particularly care for what that person said, I can hardly chalk that up to Dan's bias. Now, Dan may (and does) editorialize and add a spin to the story I don't necessarily agree with - as does Drudge. But if memory serves me, there was no editorializing in the Drudge story. He basically just reported Dobbs's own words, and reaction from someone at CNN.
Don't shoot the messenger, Abs.
So goes the argument of the regular National Review seat on Communist News Network liberal media program, Reliable Sources. Recently, host (and Washington Post media reporter) Howard Kurtz decided to fill the chair not with his favorite guest/source, NR editor Rich Lowry, or the much-invited NR Online editor, Jonah Goldberg, but with the relatively obscure NR managing editor, Jay Nordlinger. Nordlinger explained, "The story is surprisingly slight," blown up by a liberal media fearing Bush was getting "a free ride."
Give the man points for consistency. The Bush White House's exploitation of 9/11 to fatten Republican coffers via the sale of the President's photo that fateful day--scurrying from safe location to safe location--was also, in Nordlinger's view, "another almost nonstory."
Nordlinger's complaint echoed the even stronger contention of another Kurtz favorite, Andrew Sullivan. The world-famous gaycatholictorygapmodel took the amazing position that potential warnings about a terrorist threat that would kill thousands and land us in Afghanistan was "not a story" at all. Sounding like a Karl Rove/Mary Matalin love child, Sullivan contended, "The real story here is the press and the Democrats' need for a story about the war to change the climate of support for the President."
Stop the Presses: The Conspiracy Continues....[Eric Alterman]
I regret to inform you that the privelege of changing thread titles at will is now revoked until further notice. Most of you this will not affect at all so I apologize for the interruption to your thread.
" . . . It must be true, because results of a DNC study of the shameful performance of CNN between January and March of this year show that CNN carried 157 live events involving members of the Bush administration and seven events involving senior Democratic officials. So you can see, Whip is right--96% coverage of the right-wing agenda compared to a burgeoning 4% coverage of the left is just not acceptable... "
Not so. Only about 30,000 people paid $50 to become Premium readers. It online forum, TT has less than 700 subscribers, including CalGal, Dusty & ChucklesL. I think they pay $5 a month
The additional $$$millions came from leftist/liberal Silcon Valley fat cats.
Of course, it's their money and they can do anything they want with it.
Slate is completely dependent on MS.
Can't argue with that analogy.
Really, the press are such pompous asses sometimes, no, almost always, and the American people know that.
Abs, that's a neat link and would go well in the Politics butter bar once this one's retired, imho, especially with elections not too far away.
back to top