Go here.
You've probably heard a lot of spooky tales about "the liberal media."
Ever since Vice President Spiro Agnew denounced news outlets that were offending the Nixon administration in the autumn of 1969, the specter has been much more often cited than sighted. "The liberal media" is largely an apparition -- but the epithet serves as an effective weapon, brandished against journalists who might confront social inequities and imbalances of power.
During the last few months, former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg's new book "Bias" has stoked the "liberal media" canard. His anecdote-filled book continues to benefit from enormous media exposure.
In interviews on major networks, Goldberg has emphasized his book's charge that American media outlets are typically in step with the biased practices he noticed at CBS News -- where "we pointedly identified conservatives as conservatives, for example, but for some crazy reason didn't bother to identify liberals as liberals."
But do facts support Goldberg's undocumented generalization? To find out, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg searched a database of 30 large daily newspapers in the United States. He disclosed the results in an analysis that aired March 19 on the national radio program "Fresh Air."
Nunberg discovered "a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives -- but not in the direction that Goldberg claims." Actually, the data showed, "the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does."
When Nunberg narrowed his search to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- three dailies "routinely accused of having a liberal bias" -- he learned that "in those papers, too, liberals get partisan labels 30 percent more often than conservatives do, the same proportion as in the press at large."
And what about Goldberg's claim that media coverage is also slanted by unfairly pigeonholing stars of the entertainment industry? His book declares flatly: "If we do a Hollywood story, it's not unusual to identify certain actors, like Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis, as conservatives. But Barbra Streisand or Rob Reiner, no matter how active they are in liberal Democratic politics, are just Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner."
Again, Nunberg found, the facts prove Goldberg wrong: "The press gives partisan labels to Streisand and Reiner almost five times as frequently as it does to Selleck and Willis. For that matter, Warren Beatty gets a partisan label twice as often as Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Norman Lear gets one more frequently than Charlton Heston does."
The results are especially striking because the word "liberal" has been widely stigmatized, observes Nunberg, a senior researcher at Stanford's Center for the Study of Language and Information. "It turns out that newspapers label liberals much more readily than they do conservatives."
So, while Goldberg hotly contends -- without statistical backup -- that conservatives get a raw deal because they're singled out for ideological labeling more than liberals are, Nunberg relies on empirical evidence to reach a very different conclusion: "If there is a bias here, in fact, the data suggests that it goes the other way -- that the media consider liberals to be farther from the mainstream than conservatives are."
It's unlikely that factual debunking will do much to slow the momentum of those who are intent on riding the "liberal media" poltergeist. It has already carried them a long way.
Not surprisingly, President Bush displayed Goldberg's book for photographers at the White House a couple of months ago. For a long time, GOP strategists have been "working the refs" -- crying foul about supposed media bias while benefitting greatly from the efforts of an unparalleled national media tag-team that includes the likes of Rush Limbaugh, a slew of corporate-funded think tanks and plenty of rightward pundits in print and on television.
It doesn't hurt that -- during the last 70 years -- the Republican presidential candidate has received most of the daily newspaper endorsements in 16 out of 18 elections. How's that for "liberal media"?
But, like a ghost that long ago assumed corporeal form in the minds of millions, "the liberal media" cannot die. That's mostly because its image keeps being pumped up by huge media outlets.
In its first edition of this year, the Wall Street Journal published a lengthy lead editorial lauding Goldberg's new book -- even showcasing a photo of the cover at the center of the editorial, which declared that "a liberal tilt in the media" is among the "facts of life so long obvious they would seem beyond dispute."
Overall, Goldberg's book is a muddled hodgepodge. While bashing journalists as excessively sympathetic to the homeless, laid-off workers and poor people, he attacks the media establishment as elitist. With variations of faux populism, he expresses indignation that low-income people are rarely heard or seen in mass media -- yet he lambasts advocates for striving to widen the range of media coverage to include the voices of such people.
On bedrock issues of economic power, what passes for liberal-conservative debate in news media is usually a series of disputes over how to fine-tune the status quo. In the process, the myth of "the liberal media" serves as a smokescreen for realities of corporate media.
If this is an original essay, I must applaud your apparently well thought out and researched approach to the issue (Although I tend toward the conservative I use the word "apparently" not because I disagree with you, but because I am not familiar with either Goldberg's book or Nunberg's research, and feel unqualified to judge their conclusions or your understanding of them.)
If this is not an original essay, it is usually better, since the essay is probably copyrighted, to describe it briefly in your own words, quoting less than 10% of the whole and then linking to the original essay if it's on the web, or referencing it if it is not.
Brian,
"Liberal Media Bias" is what a conservative claims when he wants to salvage his psyche from the drubbing he is taking. It is more effective than, although similar in principle, a liberal citing "the vast right wing conspiracy". If the Republicrat mentions either one he knows he (or she) is losing. If it is your Aunt Edna or you are in a social setting, let up. If not, close for the kill.
How is it in the media's interest to tell the truth? It's run, after all, BY big business. And BIG BUSINESS (and rednecks who know no better, and the three honest to God conservatives that are out there) is what drives the Republican Party. Why has there been no fervor over anything good old George "Weasle" Bush has done? Becuase the news is owned by corporate America.
Anyone think that the media will tell the truth about the CBDTPA (formerly known as the SSSCA)?
Since it's the big media companies that are pushing this legislation, I doubt that we'll see anything about it. OK, let me rephrase, I doubt that we'll see anything negative about it.
Wes-
If I thought that you honestly and literally believed that, that you weren't using hyperbole -- deliberately exaggerating your own position to make a point, I would respond. But I refuse to rise to the bait. Instead I'll just remember the political adage attributed to Churchill, among others about different political positions at different ages and the heart and the brain, and wait until you reach the later age.
The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Truth? Boo!
Hehe, Electron.
Go here.
Well Tom, it really isn't "bait." We aren't allowed to bait people anymore, remeber. Wouldn't do that nayway. I was stating what I consider to be a fact.
I'll give a recent example. When Bush went to Japan a while back, he made a speech where he said something to the effect of "for over a CENTURY AND A HALF, we have been at peace with Japan." This is just stupidity, and nothing for the media to jump on. We all make mistakes, after all. However, the offical TRANSCRIPT of his speech is altered to say "for a HALF CENTURY..." This is inexcusable. THAT is probably what the speech said, but is not what he said. And a transcript should be HIS WORDS, what HE SAID. This is a minor exapmle. But if the media were as liberal as the conservatives would have us believe, would they not pounce on this? They SHOULD at least call him on this Orwellian action, but they haven't. Liberal? Methinks not.
I was stating what I consider to be a fact. Wes
...and the three honest to God conservatives that are out there
You believe it to be a fact that there are only three genuime conservatives in the entire Republican Party? I doubt it. That is the sort of thing I was referring to when I suggested you were using hyperbole.
Plus I wonder if rather than covering up Bush's misreading of his own speech, the press simply tuned him out, knowing that they could pick it apart in their leisure from their copies of the official transcript, which they recieved before the speech.
Okay, Tom. You win. There MIGHT be four. Seriously, you are quite right. I was more concerned with the main point that I was trying to make than with my ribbing of conservatives.
The press didn't cover anything up themselves; they've just ignored the coverup. The transcript was a White House issued one, not a media issued one. I think a TRANSCRIPT should be of what the president says, not what he's supposed to say.
Wes, Wes, Wes,
There are five.
"There are FOUR lights!"
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. Liberal bias exists. I've seen it.
If the Libertarian who got 12% to Rappaport's 13% in a race against Ted Kennedy (who got like 72% or something) is at every gubnitorial debate along with five democrats and an empty chair to signify Republican Mitt Romney's absence, but the Boston media never mention her, does she really exist?
Oh any defenders of the Boston Globe or its parent company The New York Times should know I'm going to ask if I should beleive them or my own eyes. If they can't get who is in the room right should I trust them on anything else?
Check out this article by columist Richard Roeper about Ann Coulter’s book Slander:Liberal Lies About the American Right. Between her and Bernard Goldberg (Bias) appearing on nearly one TV show nightly and Bill O'Reilly (who claims that his show is “the no spin zone” when considering the amount of right-wing spin he puts out it should be called “Spin City”) this liberal poltergeist seems to be crumbling like a house of cards.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep22.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep23.html
Paranoid thought that unfortunately might, with revisions, be correct. I don't think "they" are organized, yet. I don't know if "they" can be organized.
"They" is the mediaocracy. Think of campaign reform. No individual contributions over $1,000. (State laws vary for state posts.) No anonymous donors. No "concerned citizens groups" able to mention names 90 days before an election. All campaign budgets in the US, including presidential campaigns were, what $3 billion, $30 billion? (Note that is a "b" not an "m.") How much is the front page of every major newspaper worth? How much for the opening minute of ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox news? You might think any campaign finance reform is incumbent protection. You'd be wrong.
Unless the tree warden murders and eats half of his neighborhood, he won't be able to "force" the coverage. In each "media" outlet there is a backroom where shadowy figures decide what is relevant. They may even go "MWUHAHAHAHA" after they decide what the sheep will know.
OK, maybe I go over the top at the end there, but I'm not far off.
Take Ross Perot. (Please!) In 1992 he was powerful because he got in the debates. In 1996 "they" excluded him from the debates and he didn't come close to ten percent. "They" have the power to make or break a campaign and "they" are not elected.
In fact since most papers have long since been bought, "they" might not even live near you. The Boston Globe is owned by the parent company that owns the NY Times. The Boston Herald, last I checked, was one of Murdoch's papers. The New Bedford Standard-Times is owned by somebody called the Ottaway group.
Take John McCain (please!). He was a media darling. He was not perfect, but we rarely read about his imperfections as the media just gave him a free ride. His one issue was campaign finance reform. It would lessen the power of all except the media. I don't think McCain's teflonTM was the product many back room discussion with lots of evil laughter, but I do believe it crossed some minds in those rooms. I do believe that those people who thought that argued "let this scandal drop because it is old news and we should focus on McCain's availability..." a bit more forcefully than if their interest wasn't there.
This has slowly become apparent because I'm a Libertarian. Yes, we are partial to paranoid theories, but you know what? They can describe results perfectly and other than a head tilting quality that assumes dark motivations, they are very hard to disprove.
The Libertarian candidate for governor, Carla Howell, is seriously blacked out of Boston media. Seriously, I'm not just being paranoid. Besides the usual where they mention the Democrat and Republican as if there is no one else when they mention "third party" candidates they will not mention her name. It isn't a case where the mention no names, they will mention Jill Stein of the Green party and the Libertarian candidate.
It is not just her. The Libertarian for Senate, Michael Cloud, is so ignored that when the Republican failed to get enough signatures they regularly report that John Kerry has no opponent. When the crazy Republican millionaire who is running for treasurer decided to run a write-in campaign they did several humorous stories on his quixotic quest to give Kerry an opponent. Not even a "worthwhile" opponent; just an opponent.
If you don't believe me, feel free to go to the Boston Globe or Boston Herald web site and search for Carla Howell or Michael Cloud. I won't give you links because I've never read a word about them. (Even bad -- bad publicity is better than no publicity)
We Libertarians we've been doing the wrong thing. The magician makes meaningless gestures with his right hand while doing something with the left. Political offices are the right hand. We need to start newspapers and become the left hand.
Call me nuts but look at this list of who decides whom will speak at the debates.
Channel 2-WGBH (PBS)
John Carroll
Email: john_carroll@wgbh.org
NECN (New England Cable News)
Iris Adler
Executive Editor
Email: iadler@necn.com
Channel 5-WCVB (ABC)
Linda Polach
Email: lpolach@hearst.com
Channel 7-WHDH (NBC)
Ed Kosowski, News Director
(has no email)
Channel 4-WBZ (CBS)
Bob Dumas, Managing Editor
Email: rdumas@boston.cbs.com
The Boston Globe
Martin Baron, Editor
Email: baron@globe.com
This info is in the public domain. I got it from an e-mail asking me to e-mail them about "uninviting" Carla Howell. (The site and the PBS station invited her before they went back on their word.) If anyone wants to dash off a quick e-mail, thanks.
The Boston Globe is biased. Liberally
Man, is Michael Cloud's campaign blacked out by the biggest paper in Massachsetts.
My Father is die hard Republican. (Cut him some slack, I do.) He told me it is a shame what a useless shell the Republicans have become. Why they even let Kerry run unopposed.
I corrected him. "Dad, you mean there is no Republican candidate."
"Yup," he said. "No one at all is running against him."
I said, "What about Michael Cloud?"
He said, "Who?"
"The guy on the big red sign in your front yard," I said.
"Oh," he said, "he's running for State Senate. Kerry is in the US Senate."
Fortunately we were outside so I could point to the sign. "It says US Senate on top, Dad."
He went over to the sign because he is legally blind in his left eye while the right eye does not see too well. (Yes, he still drives.) "Well, who'd-athunk-it," he said and asked me if Michael was on the ballot.
"Remember signing his petition?" I asked.
"He made it?" he asked.
"Yes. I'm pretty sure he is on the ballot," I said.
"Why can't the Republicans do that?" he asked.
"I don't know, Dad," I said.
My parents don't talk to each other much. My Mother is such a Democrat she bleeds green but would never waste her vote like that. (Yes, she'll vote for Carla -- or at least says she will -- and "Yes" on Question #1.) She was decrying the general state of elections. As an example of un contested races she used John Kerry for US Senate. (Yes, she also signed Michael's ballot initiative -- See above about cutting my parents some slack.) We were inside, so I couldn't point to the sign. I asked how she knew that.
"It's in all the papers," she said. (They get the Globe and the New Bedford Standard-Times.)
"If you had proof that the papers were lying," I asked, "would you take whatever they say with a grain of salt?"
"Of course," she said.
"When you have a chance," I said, "read the big red sign in the front yard. If you still don't think Kerry has an opponent look at the ballot when you vote."
"Someone else is running? Who?" she asked.
"Michael Cloud," I answered.
"Why haven't I heard of him?" she asked.
Sometimes we have too much. Sometimes we are not 100% truthful. Sometimes we are not 2% truthful.
"It's a secret," I said.
"Why the big secret?" she asked.
"He's afraid people will vote for him," I said.
"Isn't that why he's running?" she asked.
"Nope, I said. The witness protection program was not good enough, so he figured they'd never expect him to run for senate!"
"But running for office isn't low profile. Isn't he calling attention to himself?" she asked.
"You never heard of him. I admit it sounds weird, but you can't argue with results," I said.
"What did he do? I don't think I want to help him," she said.
"Vote for him. Foil his nefarious plot. Force the harsh light of victory upon him. Foist him upon Washington. MWUHAHAHAHA!"
At the fake evil laugh she figured it out and asked, "Why haven't I heard of him?"
I could've asked her if she ever listened to me, but I was afraid of the answer. "Ask the Globe, Ma," I said.
How about this one. When the Senate wanted to examen Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich and Bush refused to turn over the documents. The media (not just Faux News but CNN and MSNBC too) debated why Bush would have done such a thing, because it was helping Clinton. Never once did anyone say the obvious Bush doesn't want to set a precident where a future democratic congress can investigate his secrets (Enron dealings, secret energy task force, real reasons behinhd the war on Iraq)
Or how come when the talking heads were reheashing Bush's Iraq speech they said he addressed all possible questions or objections that someone may have had. Not once did anyone mention big oil's influince on the whole thing. BTW I'm not saying Bush is wrong about chemical weapons but the consperacy of silence about even asking about econimic reasons.
Q: Why did Bush say Saddam Hussien is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction?
A: He can't pronounce nuclear.
BF,
The media is always right unless you were there.
Bush Jr.'s speech does not matter. Before Pesti or anyone asks if I'm nuts let me ask if they want me to rehash all the lies his Daddy told before Iraq I. (Incubators, anyone.) If he said the sky was blue I wouldn't take his word for it. It is sad that I trust John Major more than him.
Fitzie: No, to type it right it's gotta be Faux News and M$NBC. You need that dollar sign or the joke loses it's punch.
but than what is CNN Dude?
Use a cents sign for the "C".
In his most recent speech, President Bush pronounced nuclear correctly every time.
Mike,
'bout time his advisors got on the ball there. It started in the primaries.
By the way, who favors the blank check Congress gave him. Should we call it Gulf of Tonkin II?
How about we call it part of the same blasted war we've been fighting since last year?
Mike,
In naming the coming war I prefer "Nancy."
Seriously, before we call it an extension of the war on terror I want irrefutable proof that Bin Laden and Saddam have connections. Saddam is a secular dictator. I don't put it past him, but I do think the "true beleivers" would have a problem with him. Would they still take a nuke from him and use it on, say Orlando? Yup. Would he give one to them? Only on the condition they use it against someone he doesn't like (long list).
My problem with the Congress abdicating their RESPONSIBILITY to declare war is the likelyhood of W. doing it for them. You are either at war or you are not. You can not be pregnant if the doctor decides you are.
(Yeah, MarkN, I'm yelling. I'm surprised no one else is so I gotta make up for lost volume.)
No, it should be "Betty"!
ScottN,
Did Enter the Fist trade mark that.
Aha! That's why I think it's Kung Pow, and you think it's Enter the Fist!!! I just checked IMDB, and it's Kung Pow: Enter the Fist!
Actually I knew of the "Kung Pow" part but I couldn't spell it Tcung Pau: Enter the Fist just didn't have the same ring. Is there an exclamation mark on it?
Reading material: (No it is not liberal bias, just plain old bias protecting Republicrats. Greens, Reformists, Independents, Socialists, Natural Lawists, etc. may be interested)
http://www.realcampaignreform.org/willis_test.html
How's this for bias:
When Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat and prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently told a radio interviewer that the Bush Administration had advance notice of the Sept. 11 attacks and did not "warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered," she was roundly – and deservedly – criticized in the political-media world for peddling unproven conspiracy theories. But when a senator took to the Senate floor and said the Sept. 11 attacks were retribution from God in response to U.S. policy toward Israel, a similar firestorm did not ensue.
Here's the whole artical:
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=562
Here's what Sen. James Inhofe said on the floor of the US Senate:
One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America," Inhofe huffed, "is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
"Because God said so ... Look it up in the book of Genesis ... In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: the Lord said to Abram [later known as Abraham], 'Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you I will give it, and to your seed forever ... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.'"
Inhofe maintained the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is "not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true."
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said similer stuff back in 2001 but Inhofe's case is a bit different. He's no TV preacher; he's a lawmaker. And his remarks did not come in the emotionally chaotic days following the attacks; his comments were made after he had months to reflect.
This is a joke, right? I hope. No one is $tupid enough to actually elect that genius, right? Anyone here from OK want to explain why you send crazy people are in the senate. (In Massachusetts we've had the chance to send crazy people the capitol but we prefer to stick with drunk driving murderous letches [You know, the evil of two lessers])
You know the Bee Gees did a song called 'Massachusetts', right, Blue? Maybe you could do a spoof version of it, eh?
I never heard the original. In Massachusetts running for office is usually a Libertarian, and sometimes a Republican, but always an incumbent Democrat. (Before a resident Republican gets upset, in Massachusetts there are more Libertarians on the ballot than Republicans.) BTW, this is the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
The hay-fever capital of America - Mass-atchoo-setts! (Sorry, that one crying out to be made)
I read "Bias" and thought it very interesting. You brought up an good point, though--perhaps it not bias, but just plain insensitivity (the exploiting of homeless, AIDS scenario, etc.). The lesson is to take anything you hear on the news with a grain of salt.
I do think though that there is a "bias" instinctive to the media. I don't know a word for it other than "lecturing." It seems that a topic isn't an important topic unless the news media says it is. And Goldberg does get in some good jabs on Dan Rather, so that's cool.
Check this link out:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2
Here's some highlights:
Social scientists talk about "useful myths," stories we all know aren't necessarily true, but that we choose to believe anyway because they seem to offer confirmation of what we already know
Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party............noted during the [1992] election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc., no sensible person can dispute the existence of a "conservative media." The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the notion of a "liberal media." It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared with its conservative counterpart, but it does exist.
BF,
I believe it. There is no liberal bias. It is a status quo bias.
Quote:Sure, the press isn't as liberal as Eric Alterman and the guys at The Nation would like it to be, but then again the Democratic party isn't as liberal as The Nation would like it to be. In other words, if you think Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry are too right-wing, of course you're going to think the New York Times isn't liberal. -Jonah Goldberg
Does it?
Jonah Goldberg is an idiot. Need some evidence? Look here.
What "liberal elites" on Canada's east coast is he talking about? Would they be from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland?
You call that evidence? I have read the man for five years, I have heard him speak, and I have met him in person. Jonah Goldberg is not an idiot, unless you define idiot as meaning "Disagrees with my opinions." Being a writter and a student government member myself, there is a difference between being able to take a leisurely few hours to do research and type out an article, and being in a debate on a show like Crossfire. Sometimes people get facts wrong on impromptu live television, and there is no backspace key.
Ann Coulter's remarks were in response to those peace loving Moslems in Palestine who were jumping on cars and dancing and singing at the news of the deaths of thousands of Americans. I can't possibly why a resident of New York and Washington would be a tad upset about that. It's too bad we can't be like you tolerant Canadians who can't even find proper it to ban Hizballah until three months ago.
Probably the Liberal elites in Ottowa and Toronto who dominate your Government? Or are you claiming no difference exists between the political views of West Canadians and East Canadians? Or are you just playing nitpicker's word games again? It's a nice opening argument, but as the only part of your criticism, "How dare he not know our geography?"
Oh, and Mr. Goldberg's central argument that Canadians can only define themselves as how they are not Americans seems to hold true, else y'all wouldn't care this much.
Matt,
I have not read either of the articles. Don't find it funny (funny interesting) that people who are mentioned in the article are upset? I find the level of anger increases with how close to right you are.
Want to see JoshG. blow a gasket? Do you know those wacky Canadian elite think wheat should be a controlled substance.
Let's look at what Goldberg said:
"It's a remarkably undemocratic country. Yeah it is... Actually the Senate is entirely appointed by the prime minister."
And the Senate has no pratical power.
"Is Britain an undemocratic country?" Carville demanded. "How is Canada less democratic than Britain?"
Last time I checked, Canada has never had a house of parliament with hereditary members.
"Well, look, if you want me to get my comparative government textbook out ...," "They deregulated the House of Lords in Britain. In the Parliament, you can have free votes and you can have members of Parliament ... actually break with your party. In Canada, you cannot break with your party. It's a total party rule."
MPs break with their party often enough. And "party rule" exists in Britain and every other parliamentary state. As for the House of Lords, the reforms simple make it like our Senate. And Britain is a unitary state without judicial review. Is that less democratic? Maybe - depends on whether one defines "democracy" as a precise set of institutuions or as a more general framework.
You call that evidence? I have read the man for five years, I have heard him speak, and I have met him in person. Jonah Goldberg is not an idiot, unless you define idiot as meaning "Disagrees with my opinions."
No, he's a moron who can't do proper research.
Being a writter and a student government member myself, there is a difference between being able to take a leisurely few hours to do research and type out an article, and being in a debate on a show like Crossfire. Sometimes people get facts wrong on impromptu live television, and there is no backspace key.
Well, as a political scientist who knows how ridiculous Goldberg's comments were, I have little sympathy for a guy who should keep his mouth shut instead of exposing his ignorance.
Probably the Liberal elites in Ottowa and Toronto who dominate your Government? Or are you claiming no difference exists between the political views of West Canadians and East Canadians? Or are you just playing nitpicker's word games again? It's a nice opening argument, but as the only part of your criticism, "How dare he not know our geography?"
See? You don't even have any idea that what the Liberal Party stands for (there isn't much to it ). Moreover, neither Toronto nor Ottawa are on the "east coast."
As for the "difference that exists between the political views of West Canadians and East Canadians," you simply don't understand this country. Are you implying the West is more "conservative" than the "liberal" East? You just don't get the complexities. (Should I mention that Manitoba and Saskatchewan both have social democratic goverments? Or need I explain about the history of regional protest movements?)
Oh, and Mr. Goldberg's central argument that Canadians can only define themselves as how they are not Americans seems to hold true, else y'all wouldn't care this much.
Keep on believing that. You seem to enjoy telling others they actually define themselves as nations.
Oh, and for not knowing our geography, that, in itself, demonstrates Goldberg's ignorance.
As for the issue of Canadian identity, I'm insulted that a fool such as Goldberg would have the hubris to inform me - and 30 million other Canadians - how I define my political and civic identity.
As you watch Faux News tonight, this should give a good idea of their credibility...
http://eyeteeth.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_eyeteeth_archive.html#89615173
Lies, •••• Lies. And Milk. A Florida judge (gee, in Florida, what a shock ;-).) decided recently that it's technically legal for the media to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
The decison reversed a $425,000 jury verdict in favor of TV journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who sued WTVT-TV, a Fox affiliate in Tampa, for firing them because they refused to air false reports about the presence of synthetic bovine growth hormone (or BGH) in the area milk supply. The husband-and-wife reporting team asserts that Monsanto, maker of BGH, pressured WTVT to edit the story to be less damning to the company (some of the changes would've undermined the credibility of scientists and studies that link BGH in milk to cancer). Akre and Wilson refused, despite repeated attempts by the station to have the story altered and an offer to terminate them with full pay if they never spoke of their BGH findings. Finally, says Akre, when they threatened to report the station to the FCC for falsifying news, they were canned. The lawsuit was settled in August 2000 with the finding that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH" and that Akre's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination. The station appealed and prevailed, the judge citing that there is no FCC rule or regulation that specifically makes it illegal to mislead, distort, or falsify the news. The FCC's "news distortion policy," says Judge Casaneuva, isn't enough.
To download court documents see New World Communications of Tampa v. Akre or visit Akre's website.
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=LL&Date=20030216&Catego
ry=NEWS&ArtNo=302160395&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
http://foxbghsuit.com/
http://www.2dca.org/february1403.htm
Brian Webber,
decided recently that it's technically legal for the media to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast -- Brian Webber
That decision will apply to Mother Earth News, The Free White Only Press, Pravda, the Ledger.com, and Eyeteeth.com . It means freedom of the press applies to those that own one. So?
Maybe Peter and constaze were right. Government obviously works on principles that cannot be explained in simple terms of everyday items. Maybe everyday items use Einsteinian principles but Government uses quantum principles. Perhaps someone can fire stream of electrons at a legislature with two houses. (Someone will get it.)
If I ate 12 candy bars a day and increased my candy bar total by four bars each fiscal year I could elect a Republican to watch what I eat. Then I can eat 13 candy bars and say I cut down by the three I was going to eat. (I call it the Mitt Romney diet!) I guess I’m foolish for comparing the world of high government finance cannot be compared to candy bars and dieting.
I’m writing this because the Massachusetts budget was “slashed” from $22.73 Billion to 22.86 Billion. To my untrained eye that looks like it went up by $0.13 billion. (I guess it decreased by negative one hundred and thirty million.)
Massachusetts, like many states, uses much of its budget as aid to cities and towns. The cities and towns come to rely on it, so when a “crisis” of this magnitude arises the cut backs are local. In my paper today there were pictures of librarians getting laid off. The mayor already closed one fire station.
Now for the media bias angle:
The liberal paper, The Boston Globe, and the conservative paper, The Boston Herald are both silent on this Orwellian math and its “crisis”. Perhaps Brian Webber and Matt Pesti can explain the lack of bias to me in the big conservative and liberal papers. (It may not be “liberal” bias, but my untrained eyes think it is bias.)
Perhaps someone can fire stream of electrons at a legislature with two houses
Not only will the streams interfere with each other, but they will cause the legislature to interfere with the citizens' rights!
Disclaimer, this is not unusual. ANYTHING will cause a legislature to interfere with citizens' rights.
Oh, and Blue, I hope you were referring to the subatomic particle, and not our friendly poster from Germany!
The major news outlets aren't Liberally biased or Conservtaively biased. They are $$$$$ biased. In other words, they put out what they think will sell the most copies. Look at alledgedly liberal M$NBC. if they're so Liberal, why did they can Donahue in favor of an extra hour of Fanatical Nazi-esque "Let's Bomb Iraq" flag-waving? If that's Liberal, I shudder to think what guys like Peter and Pesti would do if they actually saw any TRUE Liberalism. Probably would kill 'em the way my Wizard Slayer's +6 Long Sword kills Zombies, Skeletons and Shadows (that's my D&D reference for the day).
I think as someone said, the news outlets are elitist based. They will always criticize.
One participants shirt is so beige it might be brown
Left me yelling "PENCIL" whenever he said "we" should have rules to address the needs we don't know about. (Yes, NPR is the home of Brown Shirt Radio!)
Blue-
It does not really matter where the pencil marks are. What matters is where the pen is -- the pen that the governor or president uses to sign a bill into law.
You can have a Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) if you willingly do something that you know (or ought to know) "society" believes to be evil, but you are completely free, legally, to do it as long as no one has taken a pen and signed into law (or a court order, etc.) a legal prohibition.
Currently you are free to indulge in the following evils: "sodomy"/adultery/fornication, pornography, hate speech, abortion and many individual small vices. Additionally, society's stand on banning the evils of drug use/abuse, prostitution, and euthanasia are in flux, and the time may come when they, too are no longer illegal.
This does not mean that society itself will not continue to blue-pencil these evils, simply that society has decided that it is not the responsibility of the government to police these activities with mandates of law.
(Canada debate, sorry for the Delay)
So your point comes down to,
"Because Goldberg has limited knowlege of Canada, he is an idiot"
First, I must point this out. Americans care little about Canada. It's not a world power, it's not a threat, it's not that interesting to us. American History never deals with Canada, and when it does, it deals with the British. My knowlege of Canada is above average, merely because I can name all the provinces and can sketch a brief history, and know they fought in the WW's. So for JG not to know the interacies of Canadian Politics is not a sign of stupidity, merely ignorance.
Second, your concern about the Buffer State with the Soviets aside, what does that half to do with his assertion that if you think the Democrat party isn't liberal, then you are not going to think that the Media is liberal? If let's say, Brian Webber thinks the Democrat party is nothing more than a corporate machination, then he's not going to think the Media is liberal.
Webber: "True" liberalism? Do you mean something about Adam Smith, or the screaming people who prefix everything they don't like with "Racist, sexist, antigay", consider humanity lost without the Nation, are obessed with Chile and Florida, find conspiricy theories about the CIA more belivable than Bush not being retarded and think one Republican Presidency is a greater evil than Marx, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin and Mao all combined? If by that, you mean those true liberals, and not just the pedestrian version that assume your mental facilities are defcient because you hold a different opinion than they do, than my weapon of choice is "Verti lux."
(Canada debate, sorry for the Delay)
So your point comes down to,
"Because Goldberg has limited knowlege of Canada, he is an idiot"
No, he's an idiot because he presumes to draw sweeping, smug conclusions about Canada based on his own skewed, ignorant understanding of Canadian politics, geography, history, you name it.
First, I must point this out. Americans care little about Canada. It's not a world power, it's not a threat, it's not that interesting to us. American History never deals with Canada, and when it does, it deals with the British.
Irrelevant. Goldberg presented himself as some sort of "expert" who was fit to criticize our political system when in fact he knows nothing about it.
My knowlege of Canada is above average, merely because I can name all the provinces and can sketch a brief history, and know they fought in the WW's. So for JG not to know the interacies of Canadian Politics is not a sign of stupidity, merely ignorance.
It's a sign of stupidity and ignorance. He has called Canada a "remarkably undemocratic country." To draw such a conclusion from a position of utter ignorance is a sign of stupidity, dimwittedness, dishonesty, and idiocy.
Now, why do I take such offense? Well, it's quite simple: Goldberg's comments are the sort one might expect in an intro politics course from a complete novice. He's a snotty, self-important idiot.
And here ends my attack on him.
I think Webber meant the forward thinkers. The guys who don't want to use the Bible to set policies. Isn't he the guy with the gay sister after all? That'd turn YOU Liberal, Pesti. Or at least I'd hope it would
Dude,
No, Pesti's would ask his sister to join the Log cabin Republicans.
(Sorry, Matt, the joke was screaming to be made.)
He has called Canada a "remarkably undemocratic country."
<snerk> Yeah, tell that to ex-PM Joe Clark, whose own party swept him out in a vote of non-confidence. I'm sure he'll be retroactively thrilled.
Fact is, Canadians practice a fierce, in-your-face brand of democracy in which it's assumed that each voter has a social conscience and knows how to use it.
Oh, and Mr. Goldberg's central argument that Canadians can only define themselves as how they are not Americans seems to hold true, else y'all wouldn't care this much.
--We have to care. As Pierre Trudeau once put it, living next to you guys is more or less like 'sleeping with an elephant - one is aware of every twitch and grunt.'
Now, that's not an excuse for knee-jerk Anti-American jingoism. I'm just sayin'...if you'd spent most of your existence first defending yourself against and then coping with overwhelming cultural pressure from the superpower next door...you might develop a bit of an obsession, too.
First, I must point this out. Americans care little about Canada. It's not a world power, it's not a threat, it's not that interesting to us. American History never deals with Canada, and when it does, it deals with the British.
Yeah, we know, we know. All we ask is that you refrain from going on national TV to expose that ignorance, eh?
We're not Americans with odd speech patterns, guys. Being an expert on Canada involves a bit more than knowing who Wayne Gretzky is.
Hey Dude, Pesti would surely reply thus; first he would say "By that by that logic, if my sister was a drug user, I would support drug legalization, or if my sister was convicted for murder, I would support abolishing the death penalty, or if my sister was pedophiliac, I would support the legalization of Adult Child sex, or if my sister was an abortionist, I would support abortion et cetra (Note my intellegent use of Latin). Now, at this point, let's discuss the nature of unconditional love. Based on the Actions of God in the Bible (Not a comic book, a alternate newspaper or a fantasy novel) unconditional love means always loving a person, no matter what they do in any circumstances. However, it does not require you to approve of their actions, no matter how much they want you to, so they can ease their conscience. It would be a very hateful and cruel act to approve of something wrong, after all. Of course, this may be an alien concept to you; Family and politics are two seperate issues, politics just isn't important enough to dominate my life. But for liberals, to whom politics is an all consuming creed and "the personal is political" this concept will appear bizzare, if not alien." although, that's just speculation, wait, he would also say "Now, let's flip the tables, if your sister were to join an Christian Identity movement, would you suddenly support domestic terrorism? Please don't assume my views on politics are based around justification for my families behavior. For that matter, being gay doesn't automatically make you support the agenda of the Gay Left, and doesn't have a little -D stamped by your name for life." Yeah, that's what he would say, and you would know fear, on behalf of Webber, of course. ;)
Now that made no snese.
MikeC,
I see the emoticon after your post. I just wanted to highlight it.
Canada is hardly alone in being mistreated by the media. A few years ago, when I was up there, I saw a Canadian made movie on TV that took place in "Atlanta, Georgia". Thats in quotation marks because the city was very much NOT Atlanta, and, in fact, looked suspiciously like Toronto. The people were shown (in the CITY) as mainly wearing overalls, swaggering, and talking like Jeff Foxworthy. Despite the fact that a large part of Atlanta's population is from the northern states, a very large percentage of Georgians do not talk with much of a Southern accent, and its mainly farmers who wear overalls. There are some Georgians who speak like Foxworthy, and wear overalls, and swagger, but they are a small percentage. There are Canadians who make the "oo" sound and the media will always show them as being the majority of the population. Oh, and the movie was a drama.
I've heard that about Georgians, that they don't actually have much of a traditional Southern accent - ironic that 'Atlanta' and/or 'Georgia' does seem to have become shorthand in a lot of Northern minds for 'Deep South.' Mus' be Gone With the Wind Syndrome.
Merat, I don't doubt your memory about the movie for a second, but do you by any chance remember the name? And was this a CBC tv-movie? 'Cause if so, it sounds very much like what you saw there was a Royal Canadian Air Farce skit rather than an actual drama.
(I'm not sayin' that we're never guilty of stereotyping Americans - not by a long shot...just that your average Canadian-made tv-movie tends to make The Seventh Seal seem like Don't Worry, Be Happy in terms of solemn pretentiousness.)
I live in metro Atlanta and can tell you that most residents don't have the accent (people from rural GA are another matter.) Let me guess the Canadian representation of Atlanta didn't include many minoritys either.
Nope, no minorities. And Brian, I live in Athens, Ga.
Kerriem, I don't think it was a skit, just a REALLY dumb movie.
Really, so does my sister, she goes to UGA. I actually live in Acworth and work in Kennesaw.
I also go to UGA. Fourth year junior
The nations best political commentator speaking of media accuracy
A very interesting documentary dealing with the events surrounding the failed 2002 coup in Venezuela: The Revolution will not be Televised.
check this one out.
Basically it says that the more TV news people watch the more likely to believe things about the world that are not true, and Fox news viewers are the worst offenders.
<i>Asked "Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda"? 68 percent of Bush supporters replied affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said no.
But news sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [their] news''. Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media.
Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks - NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far.
Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.
CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception.
As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.
PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.
Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it.</i>
Cuts both ways. Could be that NPR peopele believe things that are not true, and the Fox viewers are the best informed.
DISCLAIMER: I am merely pointing out a flaw in the argument. I am not advocating either way.
No the arguement is not flawed. They asked people questions with factual answers.
1. Did the US find weapons of mass distructions in Iraq?
2. Does US intelligence believe that Saddam had a hand in the planning of 9/11?
Things like that.
They also asked people how much news they watch and which sources they used.
People who got the questions wrong (i.e. Of course we found WMDs, Sure the CIA believes that Saddam planned 9/11 {something even president Bush denys}) were more likely to be heavy Fox News viewers than others. People who got them right were most likely to be NPR listeners or readers.
CBS has decided to pull "The Reagans" miniseries. Any comments? I think it's a good idea; it's poor taste to do a rather unflattering film against a target that can barely defend himself. Ronald Reagan was an amazingly complex and interesting figure and is certainly deserving of a film, but from all reports I've heard, this miniseries is not the best way of handling it.
MikeC: I've spoken with some Democrats who served in Congress during the Reagen years, as well as some people who were alive during his two terms (such as my grandmother), and they beleive the miniseries was actually accurate. How is it in poor taste to tell the truth? So far the only people I ehar moaning about this miniseries are those hardline conservos who seem to think the man who sold weapons to terrorists in the 80s belongs on Mount Rushmore.
P.S. CBS didn't drop it per se. They just sent it to Showtime which really stinks since I don't get Showtime (which is why I never got to see SG-1 until Sci-Fi picked it up).
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20031104/en_nm/leisure_reagans_dc
I guess I'm just bothered about a film that portrays a man in a very unflattering and inaccurate light who has no way of defending himself. I think it's just in poor taste. The line about AIDS victims strikes me as emblematic of a hatchet job.
Indeed - the argument is sound simply because there are actual "true" answers to these questions.
Well it's rather fitting that showtime is the place it's going. Earlier this year they were accused by the left of showing a {http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2003/dc911.shtml, 9/11 TV movie} that distorted the facts into a "Vote Bush 04" campaign commercial. No one can accuse them of taking sides now.
I do agree though that CBS muffed up. If they showed the film or dropped it completely, I would have admired them for taking a principled stand. Here they just caved. Blinded by the All-Mighty Dollar.
I think known Reagan hater Barbara (sic) Streisand had more to say about the content of the film than she lets on. It stars her husband, James Brolin, and was produced by a couple of her (IMHO) syncophants. Not that I'm a die-hard Reagan conservative. Even Lee Iacocca said in his book Iacocca, "Reagan lives in the past." I also think that CBS caved into the almighty dollar, and pulled the movie as sponsors were probably deserting in droves. I do have Showtime, but they won't show "The Reagans" until next year. (In what cut remains unclear.)
I wonder if there will ever be a movie called "The Clintons," showcasing Bill Clinton's extracurricular activities and Hillary's alleged bad temper (she reportedly threw a lamp at her husband.) Or, maybe a miniseries about a Hollywood prima donna who sulks on movie sets until she gets her own way (doesn't that describe a lot of them, not just one???)
Also, too many people complain about films or shows they've never seen. This not only goes for The Reagans but for Mel Gibson's self-financed movie about Jesus Christ The Passion, which had trouble finding a distributor. Even the Catholic Church complained about the 1977 NBC miniseries Jesus Of Nazareth before it aired.
Adam: They did it to Kevin Smith's Dogma too. On Smith's View Askew website he posted his personal favorite hate mail letters. just to show how little homework the Catholic League really does, one letter chastised Disney, miramax, and SMith for a scene that NEVER EXISTED in which Jesus is said to have had an oedipal relationship with Mary. Such a thing was never in ANY draft of the script, nor was it even done as an ad-lib during filming. This Coulter-esque letter writer pulled his assertion diretcly out of his ass.
I wonder if there will ever be a movie called "The Clintons," showcasing Bill Clinton's extracurricular activities and Hillary's alleged bad temper (she reportedly threw a lamp at her husband.)
Well there was Primary Colors where Jack Stanton (who looks and acts like Bill Clinton) has rummors flying that he had sex with a minor and his wife hits the roof but not because he cheated on her but because it could cost him in the polls.
Also check out with Richard Roeper said about it:
Hard for any film to separate Reagan fact from fiction
November 5, 2003
BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
One of the valuable lessons we learned in the great debate over the Ronald Reagan TV miniseries is that many conservatives, including the chairman of the Republican National Committee, think you're ••••••.
Yes, you. And you. And everybody out there in TV Land. They think you can't tell the difference between James Brolin, who played Republican presidential candidate Robert Ritchie on "The West Wing," and Ronald Reagan, who was president of the United States for eight years. They believe you can't figure out that a mini- series starring the Australian actress Judy Davis as Nancy is not a documentary, but a "docudrama."
Before CBS announced Tuesday that "The Reagans" would be delayed until 2004 and shifted to the Showtime network -- and here's hoping it doesn't steal air time from that documentary series about the porn czar known as "Seymour Butts" and his wacky family -- RNC chairman Ed Gillespie said that historians should be allowed to screen the docudrama in advance, or the network should run a "crawl" at the bottom of the screen letting viewers know that they're watching a work of fiction.
Great idea! Perhaps the crawl would have been along the lines of: "DEAR IDIOT: THIS IS NOT A COLLECTION OF SCENES FROM THE SECRET WHITE HOUSE MULTI-ANGLE HOME VIDEO LIBRARY. IT'S A DOPEY TV MOVIE, WITH LOTS OF MADE-UP STUFF IN IT. ALSO, THAT PORTLY GUY ON 'THE KING OF QUEENS' ISN'T REALLY MARRIED TO THE UNBELIEVABLY HOT LEAH REMINI. THEY ARE BOTH ACTORS. HOWEVER, IT IS TRUE THAT EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND ..."
Great. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
It's Showtime, folks!
"We live in a culture today of reality TV," said Gillespie. "Lines between fact and fiction get blurred. I am concerned that the portrayal of [Reagan] and his wife is not historically accurate."
Gillespie's got a point about the blurring of lines between fact and fiction, especially when it comes to Reagan's presidency.
For example, there was that time in 1983 when Reagan pulled out the wrong set of 4-inch by 6-inch cue cards when meeting with a foreign leader. (Knowing that their leader would rather watch movies such as "The Sound of Music" than peruse briefing materials, Reagan's staff regularly supplied him with cue cards to help him navigate the political waters.)
Then there was Reagan's habit of repeating the "true" story about a heroic bomber pilot in World War II who sacrificed his life and went down with his plane because his wounded gunner couldn't bail out -- a tale culled not from the history books, but from the 1944 movie "A Wing and a Prayer."
And who can forget Reagan co-opting the "Dirty Harry" quote, "Make my day," or his schtick about the supposed Cadillac-driving welfare queen from Chicago? The man had a way with fiction.
Any resemblance ...
Of course, the GOP's concerns weren't about Reagan's blurring of fact and fiction when he was president, but with a TV miniseries that reportedly distorts Reagan's views on homosexuality and AIDS and portrays Nancy in a harsh light as well. Kudos to the super-conservative New York Times for breaking this story!
(Full disclosure: As film critic for WBBM-Channel 2, I'm on the payroll at Viacom. And I'm with the Sun-Times, and we're rivals with the Tribune, and Trib. Co owns WGN-Channel 9. And I used to work at Fox. And "Ebert & Roeper" airs in Chicago on WLS-Channel 7. Oh, and I get union scale when I'm on the "Tonight Show," which airs on NBC-Channel 5. So whenever I write about anything on Channels 2, 5, 7, 9 or 32, there's no hope for objectivity. Besides, I have a supersecret evil liberal agenda, as part of the Great Media Conspiracy Act of 1994. Just so you know.)
There's also the question of whether it's appropriate for a TV movie about the Reagans to air as the 92-year-old former president suffers from Alzheimer's disease. It does come across as unseemly.
These are legitimate gripes, and one can't blame the GOP for staging a preemptive strike to kill the movie. After all, the Democrats have acted in a similar manner, whether it's been a concentrated effort to derail the theatrical release of "Primary Colors," in which a fictionalized Billy Clinton impregnated a black teenager, or the many boycotts over the years of all those salacious docudramas about the Kennedys.
Two years ago there was a cable movie about Bobby Kennedy in which he had conversations with his dead brother JFK. Good thing the Dems put a stop to that!
Oh wait. That movie aired. Same with questionable dramatizations such as "America's Prince: The John F. Kennedy Jr. Story," "Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis" and "Jackie, Ethel, Joan: Women of Camelot." These and many other Democrat-unfriendly TV movies have been broadcast largely without challenge.
Hmmm. I guess conservatives are just a lot more thin-skinned about this sort of thing than their liberal counterparts
Thanks, Brian, for reminding me about Primary Colors. Must be old age setting in, as I did mention the pic elsewhere on Nit Central. Also, maybe Lee Iacocca was right about Reagan.
... I read in today's paper that Howard Stern has turned his morning radio show into an anti-Bush platform (since Clear Channel dropped 6 of his stations)... it's probably the only good thing Stern's done!
The way I heard it (I don't get Stern here in ATL) he had been talking some anybody as pres is better than Bush stuff before Clear Channel did and that's the real reason why they dumped him. Clear Channel is a corportation with a strong Republican bent (they financed pro-war rallies and dixi chicks CD burnings.)
They said they ditched him for obscenity while their own in house DJs are having publicity stunts like "obscenity weekend" where they push the limits of good taste just as much as Stern ever did.
Sean Hannity for President in 2008!!!
NGen: Ugh. I'd rather have Bush than Hannity. And coming from me that's saying a lot.
Brian, what's scary is that apparently Hannity is being groomed by somebody (Roger Ailes?) to run for office at some point. I just read something where somebody, maybe it was Newsmax, compared him to Reagan. I don't like where that's headed...
Brian, that was a joke.
No disrespect intended, but I think Hannity is the biggest A-hole on tv.
Prime example: On one show, his very first words to Robert Reich were; "Let me just tell you, your liberal views nauseate me"...Not "Hello, welcome to the show", but that load of bile.
Of course, Reich intelligently ignored that and stated his views.
I find every cable news station has some worthwhile programs. Even FOX News. One show on that channel I enjoy is Fox Newswatch. It presents a roundup of the week's news events as seen from both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints. Usually, Jane Hall and Neal Gabler make some excellent observations ( Just to let you know, not all of Fox is blowhards like Mr. Hannity ). I like Anderson Cooper on CNN too. CNN Presents on the weekends often is quite absorbing.
Both Fox and MSNBC focus too much on crime stories such as the Scott Peterson case. CNN seems to present a better balance of international news.
A nasty conservative radio talk show in the Boston area recieved national attention for a comment made last week. Jay Severin suggested that America should kill Muslims and not try to befriend them. An article in The Boston Globe criticised him for his bigoted remarks. His response today was to cut off and insult Arabic callers. He suggested America should "turn Iraq into a parking lot" if another American soldier is killed (totally ignoring the huge number of Iraqi civilians killed in Cheney's Iraq war). This radio bigot has also suggested nuking Mecca.
Last Wednesday, his phone-in poll question was "Who has a fatter ass, Hilary Clinton or Ted Kennedy?"
...just an example of the daily bile dished out over the airwaves by right-wing radio talkshow hosts.
Guys, its Radio. Radio is a medium where 100 people compete for one job, and the only way to stand out is to have some gimmick, and rudeness is the one that has been proven to work by Howard Stern. Say whatever you will about their fortunes, neither Stern nor Limbaugh strike me as happy men.
It makes perfect sense to drop Stern (aka the best and the biggest) for Clear Channel. You show Congress you are willing to take on obscenity. You show your other DJ's you are serious and ratings and money cannot save you. You generate loads of publicity about your tough stand. This should be clear, they took some minor incident and used it as pretense to drop him. Heck, they will probably bring him back at a latter date, once the heat's off.
Stern has been around long past his "sell by" date. His act is truly tired; he should give it a rest...but it still makes too much money to do that. His E show features such tired 'shocks' as a woman vomiting on a man, masturbation, and endless insulting evaluations of naked women. It would be a service to the public to take his show off the air.
I disagree but that's not the point. The point is do you want media companies taking people off the air becuse they are affraid of what the government might do about it?
Should vulgar garbage stay on the air just because it's making someone a pile of money?
Who decides what's "vulgar garbage"? You? Me? Jerry Falwell? Larry Flint?
Yes it should. Ever hear of the free market? besides its not like anything gets to stay around no matter what.
Remember The Greese Man, the radio DJ who made some racist about black people being dragged behind trucks, he was taken off the air because of public outcry (the free market not the government).
Same thing with Opie and Andy who encouraged a couple to have sex in a church over the phone.
Or Michael Savage who was fired from MSNBC after telling a gay caller to just get aids and die.
Or Anne Coulter who was fired from MSNBC for telling a paralized viet nam vetern that guys like him are the reason we lost that war.
I don't listen to talk radio or talk TV, although Bill O'Reilly gives me a good chuckle now and then.
Baba-Booiey!
Isn't everyone being a little harsh on Lyndie England and her Iraqi vacation photos?
Sometimes a girl just wants to have fun.
Milburn: Would you be saying that if it were an iraqi women smiling and poitning at humiliated and naked American men? No, your response would be something akin to "Nuke the •••••••!"
From now on, in accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, all sarcasm must be clearly labelled, so that the sarcasm-impaired can understand it.
Last night on MSNBC, Oberman made quite a big deal about a Playgirl contest for "Tv's Sexiest Male Journalist". Sean Hannity was in the lead by far. Do others agree with this?
I don't know, considering that being a male, I don't keep a good track of that. But Elizabeth Vargas is the Sexiest Female Journalist without a doubt.
Sean Hannity said he wouldn't pose nude if he won. He doesn't have to worry, no one wants to see him nude except for Anne Coulter. Those two always engage in a nauseating lovefest when she guests on his show.
I'm partial to Ashleigh Banfield myself.
I've never noticed Hannity's body but to me his face always looked like the devil meets a warewolf.
I never much cared for those glasses Banfield wore, but that's just my personal bias in eyeware, and not a reflection of her actual physical appeareance.
"appeareance"
Nice typo.
One of my local papers has been printing gushing articles on how women find Edwards so sexy. Please. I want him and Kerry to win the election in November, but don't assume every female has the hots for him. He's very average looking. Now, compared to Bush, he's a babe ( I don't care if Rosanne Barr said Bush is a "babe"...he's most definately not. He's a mean spirited grinch).
Frankly the whole "Kerry is a hottie" has been floating around for a few years. Apparently rich heiresses see something in him ;-D
Every time I've seen Ann Coulter speak, at least one guy askes her out or proposes. Granted, those were National Conservative Student Conferances, but still...
Several famous actresses such as Morgan Fairchild have also dated Kerry. Apparently, power is an aphrodisiac.
WOuld then absolute power be an absolute aphrodisiac.
Also I would like to congraduate Common Cause for their clever complaint agaist Fox News. They won't win, as it is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and their only evidence is a "documentry" based on disgruntled employees, but they can claim that the FCC is biased. In any case, it works out for them in any way.
...but it is fun that they annoyed O"Reilly!
Okay, I have to respond to the BS on the front page message:
It's typical that you Dems would be a fan of "Boondocks"...as it's written by an anti-white racist.
Actually, I know the guy. He's not a racist.
Nice strawman, btw.
Then again, that type of bigotry is so accepted by Democrats. Al Sharpton for President proves that.
A black man running for President is racist? What the hell?
What's with all the ganging up on Ann Coulter?
She's f-ing insane, possibly? And she spews bigotry and hatred.
Wiki on Coulter
*considers contacting phil about part of the message*
However, within the past year or so, Boondocks has committed the cardinal sin of comics.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
Much like Doonesbury.
Anyway, the message at the front of the board is supposedly an example of "what not to post." I think we've gotten the point now and should be no longer subjected to such a post, but there you go.
Slightly off topic (going with the print media idea), but what syndicated columnists do you read?
PEOPLE I LOVE
Kathleen Parker--witty, conservative, but not right-wing. Has a pleasant "tell it like it is" style.
William F. Buckley--I wish he would change his picture so it doesn't look like he's picking his nose, but Mr. Buckley is one of the most intelligent columnists I have ever read.
William Safire--Another strong columnist. I might eventually forgive him for working for Agnew.
Clarence Page--I liked Page on "The McLaughlin Group," and he always presents an intelligent, challenging column.
John Leo--Okay, he occasionally picks on way too easy targets, but the guy's funny and iconoclastic.
PEOPLE I CAN'T STAND
Molly Ivins--Can we say full of yourself? She's at least not as bad as:
Maureen Dowd--In his book "Arrogance," Bernard Goldberg did a savagely funny parody of Dowd's columns, mainly about how she seems more interested in being hip and making funnies than actual real commentary.
Linda Chavez--She just seems way too cold and intimidating. Her columns usually are something along the lines of "Clinton is Evil." A sense of humor could help.
Michele Malkin--Ditto for her.
Doonesbury not funny? Heck, it's nearly twice as funny as Zippy the Pinhead.
Doonesbury seems purely designed now as a long joke against George W. Bush. Some of the jokes are pretty funny, but must every strip be about the Administration?
Not every strip is. One of the great things Doonesbury has done lately is the continuing saga of B.D. losing his leg, with all the rehab physical and emotional rehab that entails. It's a great telling of one of the Iraq war's least-reported sides.
On the whole, the strip is rarely laugh-out-loud funny, but I think it carries a subtle sense of humor that serves it well. Concerned about the politics? Well, it is an election year.
Also, I'd like to close by saying that anyone who worries about Trudeau's "liberal bias" was obviously not paying attention during the Clinton years, especially the beginning of same.
The times Doonesbury sinks into graphic editorials (ie no jokes, or jokes only liberals get) it's bad. Most of the rest of the time, it's merely uneven.
Well, let's see, Trudeau mocked Clinton for being a waffler who caved in to the conservative right. Not exactly showing non-liberal bias. In fact, I don't care that Trudeau has a liberal bias; after all, he's a cartoonist, not a journalist. I'd just prefer that he be less blatant about it (a lot of times the non sequitur Sunday strips are just plain rants--in fact, one time, Trudeau began a Sunday strip by saying it was going to begin a rant, and then had Mark assail the Bush administration).
I do enjoy the B.D. in Iraq saga; B.D. has always been one of my favorite characters. In fact, the best parts about Doonesbury have been the character development--Mark getting in touch with his dying father, the great Duke epic, the sickness and death of Lacey Davenport, etc.
I agree that he can come on strong. It's a little ironic, in that his lack of subtlety is a fault that I would also use to characterize Bush. Indicative of the times we live in, perhaps?
Just a quick question (without reading most of the recent posts, I admit...)
If the news media isn't Liberal, how come:
When serin (sp.) gas was found in Iraq, all we heard from the news that day was Gay marriage in Massachusets?
The major networks covered at least an hour a day of the Democratic National convention, but refused to carry the republican convention, including Rudolph Guliani and John McCain? (And for that matter, failed to mention the over 500 arrests of protestors, including 9 arrested for felony-level assualts against police officers?)
When the group Moveon.org announced a rally nearby to "protest the war in Iraq" (a.k.a. wave anti-troop sign directly in front of troops shipping out to iraq for a year) and their orginization drew 50 members, while a counter-rally by "support our troops" members at the same time drew 5,000 people (of which I was one), the "fair and balanced" news media reported the groups in equal numbers?
Now, this may be OT, it may be old news, and you may not agree that such a bias exists. But it certainly is food for thought...
When serin (sp.) gas was found in Iraq, all we heard from the news that day was Gay marriage in Massachusets?
What saring gas? The only places I've heard about this from are from Right Wing news outlets like Fox. Sorry Zarm, but if any real evidence backing Bush's rationalization for this war was found, the mainstream press would interupt anything to show it to us. You see, you may have been told that the mainstream media is Liberal, and that it's only airing anti-war stories. This is a lie, a lie that can be exposed just wathcing 30 minutes of CNN.
The major networks covered at least an hour a day of the Democratic National convention, but refused to carry the republican convention, including Rudolph Guliani and John McCain?
You must be mistaken there Zarm, because I saw it on TV. ABC News no less. I had to wait an hour for the season opremiere of Scrubs beucase of NBC's coverage.
When the group Moveon.org announced a rally nearby to "protest the war in Iraq" (a.k.a. wave anti-troop sign directly in front of troops shipping out to iraq for a year) and their orginization drew 50 members, while a counter-rally by "support our troops" members at the same time drew 5,000 people (of which I was one), the "fair and balanced" news media reported the groups in equal numbers?
Anti-Troop? OK, you may not be aware of this, but that is disengenuous at best. BEign anti war doesn't make you anti-troop anymore than being anti-death penalty makes you anti-justice. Also, where did you get these numbers? I remember in the elad up to the war, the major networks would gloss over anti-war rallys where thosuands of people attedned, but would give tons of camera time to 20 or so people carrying mean spirited signs like "Hollywood Traitors Shut Up," and "Support Bush Or Move To Iraq!"
No go back and read those posts you admit to not reading if you want some more "food for thought."
You are correct, Brian, in that the Republican Convention was aired last night. But it wasn't aired AT ALL on mainstream TV Monday night, which featured Rudy and McCain. The Democratic convention got at least one hour of coverage a night and even four years ago the Republicans got some coverage each night as well.
Also, do I think that the mainstream press only shows anti-war stories? No, no, heavens no. But is it liberal? Yes, and I welcome any attempts to prove otherwise.
Brian, they did find Sarin.
Here's a CNN link. Google came up with Fox News first, but I know you wouldn't trust it.
However, Zarm, it appears to have been an old shell -- but it does put the lie to the statement that Saddam never had WMD.
The statement never was that Saddam never had WMD. The statement - backed among others by the UN inspectors themselves, who had spoken out before when access was denied and they didn't know the full amount, who spoke out just as forcefully before the start of the war - was that Saddam had no longer operational WMD, since they had all been destroyed.
MikeC, how about when this war started? Remember the crowd that tore down the statue of Saddam being all a staged event and the reporters knew it but didn't report that fact?
The democratic convention got only 3 hours of coverage same as the Republican Rudy G and McCain probably didn't get covered because neither is running for president this time around.
Even some Republicans admit that the liber media bias is a bit of BS.
Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."
BTW if Fox news is fair and blaanced and everyone else skews left home come statistically Fox News viewers are the least informed viewers in TV news while NPR listeners (supposedly the most left skewed one) are the best informed?
Look, I don't think the media deliberately sits down and says "Let's be biased, shall we?" I'm just saying that it is a fact that most of the people in the media business are left-wing in their politics. Thus, as much as they try to be objective, there is going to be more of a liberal product produced than a conservative project.
My major problem with the major news media is not a pure and straight "liberal bias," it's just sort of the feeling of condescension, like it will tell you what to believe in (this can be both on liberal and conservative issues). The media can make and break what issues are important and not--hence, things outside the actual substantial issues dominate the campaign--what did Kerry do in Vietnam? Did Bush ever serve in the Guard? What about his DUIs? Can Dan Quayle spell? Did Teresa tell someone to shove it? You know what I mean?
I agree that more individuals in the media are liberal. I'm sure that I'm going to be seen as arrogant for saying this but it only makes sense to me. They are people who's job it is to gather as many facts about something as possible, add to that the fact that many consider themselves defenders of the people (Bob Woodard anyone?) The bigger problem today is that the bosses are more likely to push an addenda that is in the best interest of the rich and powerful, not everyone else.
check out who owns everything these days this isn’t a free marketplace of ideas this is a cartel that controls everything.
I agree that more individuals in the media are liberal. I'm sure that I'm going to be seen as arrogant for saying this but it only makes sense to me. They are people who's job it is to gather as many facts about something as possible, add to that the fact that many consider themselves defenders of the people (Bob Woodard anyone?) The bigger problem today is that the bosses are more likely to push an addenda that is in the best interest of the rich and powerful, not everyone else.
check out who owns everything these days this isn’t a free marketplace of ideas this is a cartel that controls everything.
I was going to say something along the same lines in answer to MikeC's statement. I was going to say, "The anchors and copy writers and the corporate suits?"
Most anchors and copy writers are indeed liberal; I don't think Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and the like would deny that.
The corporate suits on the other hand are not liberal.
Thus, in my opinion, what ends up happening is something called "safe liberalism." Will we do hard-hitting stories that will expose corporate greed and really shatter government? No. Will we perhaps denigrate easy conservative targets (NRA, flat tax)? Yes. I've read Bernard Goldberg's stuff and while I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I do agree that media people will not go the extra mile on many issues--they instead try to relate it to them.
Goldberg uses the examples of homelessness and AIDS. These are problems. But the media seemed to only see it in light of how it affected a mainstream middle-class society. It was "safe liberalism."
The other thing that affects media is what I mentioned above, the tabloid element of it, that is not unique to a liberal media.
Moderator, this board is 130K.
I would say that the news media is indeed broadly conservative, but not in an ideological sense. Rather, the mainstream media tends to reinforce the status quo, seldom acting to challenge established conventions. That's left to more ideological elements, be it the National Review or the Nation.
In other words, they promote institutional conservatism as opposed to ideogloical conservatism.
Luigi: Yes, although what would you define political correctness as?