Let's See Them Defend THIS

[Guest MikeSC]

WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. Pat Roberts said Democrats have undermined the inquiry he is leading into Iraq prewar intelligence by drafting a memo aimed at discrediting the Senate Intelligence Committee's work.

 

The Kansan is chairman of the committee. The memo was written by Democratic committee staff and wasn't finalized or circulated among members of the committee, said the panel's senior Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller.

 

Rockefeller acknowledged the document after news reports quoted excerpts from it. The memo spells out steps to make the committee's inquiry irrelevant by setting up an independent commission, and in the process attempt to "castigate" majority Republicans. It suggested "pulling the trigger" on the plan "probably next year."

 

Roberts said the memo stunned him.

 

"It's like a personal slap in the face," he said. "I'm very frustrated by it."

 

"We cannot politicize the committee," he said. "No member of the intelligence community wants to come up and testify before a committee that is whipsawed by politics. In addition, once this becomes public, or more public, every intelligence agency in the world will take note of it."

 

"And quite frankly, I think this will give some comfort to terrorists," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday evening. "We have to put back together some semblance of a bipartisan committee."

 

Roberts and Rockefeller have been overseeing an often rocky review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that the White House used to justify the war on Iraq.

 

The two men met Tuesday after Roberts learned of the memo. In a statement he issued afterward, Rockefeller dismissed the memo as "likely taken from a waste basket or through unauthorized computer access."

 

He added: "The draft memo was not approved, nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else.

 

"Having said that, the memo clearly reflects staff frustration with the conduct of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation and the difficulties of obtaining information from the administration."

 

He said that exploring or asserting the rights of the committee's Democratic minority doesn't politicize the process.

"The American people deserve a full accounting of why we sent our sons and daughters into war," Rockefeller said.

 

Democrats and Republicans alike have complained the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department have been slow to respond to requests for interviews and documents.

 

The White House missed a Friday deadline for complying, and while Roberts announced over the weekend the White House agreed to cooperate, he subsequently backed away and said he spoke too hastily.

 

Roberts called on committee Democrats to repudiate the strategy outlined in the memo.

 

"It's a purely partisan document that appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of pre-war intelligence," he said. "Instead, we should be focusing on how to make our country safer and how to improve our intelligence capabilities."

 

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/110503/kan...n_roberts.shtml

 

 

Using the Intelligence Committee as a political vehicle to bash the President? Man, THAT is low.

 

Can we get a few adults on that committee? I mean, it's bad enough the way they're handling the Judiciary Committee. This is worse.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

<Shrugs> If the economy keeps up, Dems have to find SOME way to attack Bush...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I might have cared if the people who intercepted it wasn't the most biased source in big media news.

[Justice 0]

I might have cared if the people who intercepted it wasn't the most biased source in big media news.

You know, they only broke the story. It isn't as though they wrote it the damn thing, Jobber.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You know, they only broke the story.

And thus I'm suspicious.

 

I'll eventually form a deeper opinion when I see how the whole thing plays out.

[Guest MikeSC]

I might have cared if the people who intercepted it wasn't the most biased source in big media news.

CBS didn't intercept it.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

You know, I'd like to just dismiss this as "politics as usual", but during these days, where we've had so many intelligence fuck-ups, do we really need the fucking Senate Intelligence Committee using their power / resources to form a political strategy to target the party in power?

[MrRant 0]

I might have cared if the people who intercepted it wasn't the most biased source in big media news.

OMG FAUX NEWS OPERATION MEMO PLANT 2003 LOL~!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What have I done?...

[Hoff 0]

I've always felt that FOX News gets seen as biased because they're not on the same wave as the rest of the media. Neither side is OMG SATAN or anything; Fox simply spins to the right, while CNN and co. spin to the left. All the networks are biased to varying degrees based on the anchor, newswriter, and all the other people that work on a specific show or story. That's why you can get a Hannity and Colmes type show on the same network that sings the praises of Ms. Ann Coulter. Even on the same network, there's varying degrees of bias.

 

Once you hear a story, check every source you can, and form your own opinion. But don't immediately write something off just because you don't care for the network that broke it.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I've always felt that FOX News gets seen as biased because they're not on the same wave as the rest of the media. Neither side is OMG SATAN or anything; Fox simply spins to the right, while CNN and co. spin to the left. All the networks are biased to varying degrees based on the anchor, newswriter, and all the other people that work on a specific show or story. That's why you can get a Hannity and Colmes type show on the same network that sings the praises of Ms. Ann Coulter. Even on the same network, there's varying degrees of bias.

 

Once you hear a story, check every source you can, and form your own opinion. But don't immediately write something off just because you don't care for the network that broke it.

In a word: no.

 

The entire media is actually centered closer to the right, with a few extreme channels, namely Fox News. Hell, you know Fox is centered way right when they just teamed with the Boston F'n Herald to do a story. (For those that don't know, the Herald is the big-time Republican scandal sheet here in the city). CNN, as much as everyone wishes it were liberal, is just barely center, emerging from an era in the early 1990s where it was the most conservative. Not nearly as much as Fox News 2003, but still conservative.

 

To show why the media is centered to the right, the greatest example of this would be everyone's favorite radio group: Clear Channel Entertainment. Clear Channel is owned by Lowry Mays, the most conservative man in America, as he likes to call himself. He gave over $40 million to the Bush campaign in 2000. He also has everbody's favorite drug addict on half of his stations: the Republican, Rush Limbaugh.

 

But why is the rest of the media conservative, and not liberal, as everyone else thinks it is? Because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In 1994, after the Republicans regained the House of Representatives for the first time in 30 years, they asked the media pundits (who generously donated millions to all of their campaigns) what would be good for them. The result: Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act is how Clear Channel got its start: it could own 5 radio stations in a single market. TV stations can also own a newspaper. Although Clinton (who was a moderate with a couple of conservative ideologies) signed the bill, it was the result of the Republicans who became lobbyists that pushed the bill through Congress.

 

The arguments go on and on: ABC uses Republicans 90% of the time on its news shows for interviews, Hardball is known for only attacking Democrats with difficult questions while ignoring the problems with Republicans. The media is not liberal. For more evidence, I suggest Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media? that shows the media slant during the 2000 Presidential elections, the four major media pundits, and how George W. Bush has not given an official press conference that allowed the media to ask questions spontaneously; rather, they all must be scripted in advanced and screened. Oye.

[Guest MikeSC]

I've always felt that FOX News gets seen as biased because they're not on the same wave as the rest of the media.  Neither side is OMG SATAN or anything; Fox simply spins to the right, while CNN and co. spin to the left.  All the networks are biased to varying degrees based on the anchor, newswriter, and all the other people that work on a specific show or story.  That's why you can get a Hannity and Colmes type show on the same network that sings the praises of Ms. Ann Coulter.  Even on the same network, there's varying degrees of bias.

 

Once you hear a story, check every source you can, and form your own opinion.  But don't immediately write something off just because you don't care for the network that broke it.

In a word: no.

 

The entire media is actually centered closer to the right, with a few extreme channels, namely Fox News. Hell, you know Fox is centered way right when they just teamed with the Boston F'n Herald to do a story. (For those that don't know, the Herald is the big-time Republican scandal sheet here in the city). CNN, as much as everyone wishes it were liberal, is just barely center, emerging from an era in the early 1990s where it was the most conservative. Not nearly as much as Fox News 2003, but still conservative.

 

To show why the media is centered to the right, the greatest example of this would be everyone's favorite radio group: Clear Channel Entertainment. Clear Channel is owned by Lowry Mays, the most conservative man in America, as he likes to call himself. He gave over $40 million to the Bush campaign in 2000. He also has everbody's favorite drug addict on half of his stations: the Republican, Rush Limbaugh.

 

But why is the rest of the media conservative, and not liberal, as everyone else thinks it is? Because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In 1994, after the Republicans regained the House of Representatives for the first time in 30 years, they asked the media pundits (who generously donated millions to all of their campaigns) what would be good for them. The result: Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act is how Clear Channel got its start: it could own 5 radio stations in a single market. TV stations can also own a newspaper. Although Clinton (who was a moderate with a couple of conservative ideologies) signed the bill, it was the result of the Republicans who became lobbyists that pushed the bill through Congress.

 

The arguments go on and on: ABC uses Republicans 90% of the time on its news shows for interviews, Hardball is known for only attacking Democrats with difficult questions while ignoring the problems with Republicans. The media is not liberal. For more evidence, I suggest Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media? that shows the media slant during the 2000 Presidential elections, the four major media pundits, and how George W. Bush has not given an official press conference that allowed the media to ask questions spontaneously; rather, they all must be scripted in advanced and screened. Oye.

My friend, you are insane.

 

And wrong.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Do you mind putting any proof along with that? Because I've given a lot.

[BX 0]

Don't bother. Mikey don't play that game.

[treble 0]

Well, there's no proof that he's not insane, that's good enough for Mike.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I might have cared if the people who intercepted it wasn't the most biased source in big media news.

CBS didn't intercept it.

-=Mike

You know, CBS is like the oldest and frumpiest of the Big Four Networks. I don't understand why you think they're so liberal when THEIR TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC IS OLD PEOPLE. Crikey, haven't you seen the dinosaurs hosting 60 Minutes recently?

[Guest MD2020]

Don't bother. Mikey don't play that game.

Says the guy who puts up a placeholder but never replies back to the thread.

 

 

 

Just busting your balls a bit.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I've always felt that FOX News gets seen as biased because they're not on the same wave as the rest of the media.  Neither side is OMG SATAN or anything; Fox simply spins to the right, while CNN and co. spin to the left.

I've seen leftist spin (I see it all the time in our Bay Area local news) but the spin from CNN is nowhere near that tilt, nor the tilt of Fox News. This is arguable at times, see the thread about CNN and an Arnold article, but that Arnold article is child's play compared to what the LA Times was doing.

 

Fox's bias issues is a one-two punch. It's not enough that they DO display bias and sensationalize almost as much as the National Enquirer do at times*, but that they wrap it up around slogans like Fair And Balanced, which they're so sure are accurate that they're willing to go to court over it. In other words, Fox will tell you straight-faced that they're the ONLY unbiased news source around. No, if you believe them, they're not biased at all, it's just truth that the Republican method is the correct method 90% of the time and that Bill Clinton can be blamed for almost anything.

 

Basically, Fox is "we're here for you" channel for those who really DO believe in the vast left-wing conspiracy that every mainstream TV channel, newspaper, magazine, radio station, and so on have all been taken over by the Democratic Party in this major sell-out of corporate media that nobody ever saw happen. Generally, I don't find these people to be so smart.

 

So, I guess my problem with Fox is that it caters to idiots.

 

 

* (remember when "IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPON PLANT FOUND" quiety became "IRAQI PLANT MAY HAVE BEEN USED FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS"? Remember when Iraq's first missiles hit Kuwait and Fox was declaring they were illegal SCUDs and they turned out to be short-range Al-Samouds? That was a /really/ bad time for them to do their usual crap.)

[NoCalMike 0]

The Clear Channel explanation is legit. I am suprised most hear haven't heard about it before. It isn't a "conspiracy" theory really, it is just that one huge corporation has control over a ton of media outlets, and the number it has control over grows everyday, not to mention clear channels control over the goverment when it comes to issues that help their quest out. The Clear Channel issue isn't really a conservative/liberal issue. I mean yes since the guy who owns the company is a strong conservative it makes it out to look like....."oooo the evil conservative" but I wouldn't put it past a whacko liberal to do the same thing if he was in control of such a powerful corporation, but people shouldn't write the clear channel hate off as....."wow you are looney" It is the truth. Just turn on your radio and marvel at why every radio station plays the same 10 songs over and over and over again. Or how radio as a whole is becoming more bland everyday, clear channel most likely owns every single station on your FM radio dial, and a good deal of the AM stations as well. This kind of thing is SUPPOSED to be illegal, however money goes a long way in the government.

 

Why do you think the latest FCC debacle involving Michael Powell giving clear channel ever more power and stranglehold went unreported by almost every major media outlet. No one would touch it, EVEN THOUGH democrats & republicans ACROSS THE BOARD were voicing their hostility and anger against it. You'd think an issue that pretty much both the left and the right agreed on, would make some kind of news, however no station even touched it, Gee I wonder why.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Hasn't ClearChannel been lobbying Congress to get the % of stations they own in a market increased from 10% to 12%?

[NoCalMike 0]

Hasn't ClearChannel been lobbying Congress to get the % of stations they own in a market increased from 10% to 12%?

Yes and it passed and/or was granted. Michael Powell granted that even though you would be hard-pressed to find any member of of the left/right openly supporting it.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yuck.

 

So let me guess that in another few years they'll be asking for it to increase to 15%.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

people shouldn't write the clear channel hate off as....."wow you are looney" It is the truth. Just turn on your radio and marvel at why every radio station plays the same 10 songs over and over and over again. Or how radio as a whole is becoming more bland everyday, clear channel most likely owns every single station on your FM radio dial, and a good deal of the AM stations as well.

Guess what, pal? NONE of the radio stations are owned by Clear Channel around here. They own a local TV station (that I can't even watch over DirecTV) but a huge majority of radio in my region is locally owned.

 

IT STILL SUCKS.

 

I'm not saying monopolies aren't bad, but I'm tired of Clear Channel getting so much crap for radio sucking. Go blame the RIAA for pushing so many one-hit wonders.

[NoCalMike 0]

people shouldn't write the clear channel hate off as....."wow you are looney"  It is the truth.  Just turn on your radio and marvel at why every radio station plays the same 10 songs over and over and over again. Or how radio as a whole is becoming more bland everyday, clear channel most likely owns every single station on your FM radio dial, and a good deal of the AM stations as well.

Guess what, pal? NONE of the radio stations are owned by Clear Channel around here. They own a local TV station (that I can't even watch over DirecTV) but a huge majority of radio in my region is locally owned.

 

IT STILL SUCKS.

 

I'm not saying monopolies aren't bad, but I'm tired of Clear Channel getting so much crap for radio sucking. Go blame the RIAA for pushing so many one-hit wonders.

Where do you live Jobber? Bay Area? Cause if there is ONE PLACE in the entire US that would possibly take a stand to ward clear channel off it would be the Bay area of CA. Meanwhile, I am just over an hour drive from you and virtually every FM station and the sportstalk station here are owned by Clear Channel.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, there's no proof that he's not insane, that's good enough for Mike.

Actually had a significantly longer reply with a point-by-point rebuttal --- but I got the usual board issues and I'm in no mood to re-do the stupid thing.

 

But, the mere fact that some here have such a hard-on for me --- God only knows why --- I'll let them continue as they wish.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Where do you live Jobber? Bay Area?

Yes.

 

Cause if there is ONE PLACE in the entire US that would possibly take a stand to ward clear channel off it would be the Bay area of CA. Meanwhile, I am just over an hour drive from you and virtually every FM station and the sportstalk station here are owned by Clear Channel.

 

Well, San Francisco proper has quite a few CC stations (I live in a pretty rural corner of the Bay Area though.) One of these CC stations is KNEW, an all-conservative talk station. See, it used to be that ABC Networks' KSFO was the one big right-wing talk station in this area, which makes that "liberal media" shit more pathetic. But anyway, Michael Savage got canned from KSFO and he threw a big hissy fit, so a few months ago Clear Channel pretty much made KNEW and have made Savage and The Media Whore (O'Reilly) their star players.

 

Also, CC is a small investor in XM Satelite Radio (which I've gotten because I don't get the big city's stations and I'm tired of these little local outfits I've been listening to 20 years) and airs a digital rebroadcast of Los Angeles' KISS FM station on there (which kind of defeats the point of XM as an FM alternative, oh well) as well as providing all of XM's talk content. Almost everything on XM's talk is right-wing.

 

XM's lesser-known competitor, Sirius, has "Sirius Left" and "Sirius Right" each one doing talk all day and rebroadcasts at nights. But at least it's both sides.

 

 

So it's not that CC isn't conservative. I noticed that a long time ago. But I really don't think they're so responsible for the poor state of radio. In my neck of the woods, the radio is locally operated and it's still the same crap. One station can't figure out if it wants to be love songs or adult contemporary, so they play Celine Dion and then Avril Lavigne even though that doesn't have any flow. The top 40 station is playing the same stuff you're hearing on CC. Ditto the country station, the only difference on those two is that their offices and people are centered locally, but aside from the morning shows you'd swear it's still the same crap.

 

The only FM station here that I really like is the classic rock.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't blame CC for bad music perse, however I do blame them for such media consolidation and the fact that the same music is played over and over again. I mean the RIAA controls the new crappy music that comes out, but Clear Channel controls what gets on the radio and what does not, that is not the RIAA. Clear Channel is basically the corporation that controls playlists and programming content. Remember after 9/11 the big "do not play" list...?

[NoCalMike 0]

http://www.liberationradio.net/articles/st...ements/raid.php

 

This was beautiful......

 

San Francisco Liberation Radio Raided!FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 16, 2003

 

SAN FRANCSICO -- Approximately 10 federal agents, 10 San Francisco police, and 5 FCC agents raided San Francisco Liberation Radio (SFLR) studios yesterday. The raid began at 11 a.m., and lasted for approximately 2 hours. They arrived equipped with battering ram and firearms, although neither was necessary. The FCC confiscated all equipment in the station at the time, including a 16 channel Mackie sound board, microphones, a computer, CD, record, and tape players, and so much more.

 

SFLR and its supporters view this attack within the context of media consolidation. Currently 10 parent companies control the radio spectrum. Viacom and Clear Channel alone control 42 percent of listeners and 45 percent of industry revenue. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act Clear Channel grew from 40 stations nationwide to 1,240. In 28 of the 30 major music formats, 4 companies control over 50 percent of listeners, and the same holds true for two thirds of the nations news radio listeners. A debate about media ownership, competition, localism, and diversity is currently raging in the halls of Congress, in the nations court systems, and on the streets. SFLR has contributed its view of grass roots media activism to this debate, and for this it has been targeted.

 

SFLR has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration policies regarding the war on terror in Iraq and elsewhere, as well as the California state and local policies including San Francisco's targeting of homeless people. The Bush administration has made every effort to silence criticism of the government. Dick Cheney, in a rare speech just several days ago warned against public dissent. Donald Rumsfeld has clearly insinuated that criticism of Bush administration policies is killing the American troops in Iraq. And yet the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Oakland continues on a daily basis. The next major anti-war demonstration is taking place on October 25th, and includes a major convergence in San Francisco. SFLR sees this unprecedented attack on the station within the context of these national and international events.

 

SFLR is a micro-radio station that has broadcast at 93.7 FM in the San Francisco bay area for the past 10 years. It was started in part to be an outlet and resource for communities that are underserved by the media mainstream. SFLR has garnered much public support for the work that it has done, including the August 19, 2003 passage of a resolution by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors supporting the station, media diversity in general, and directing the SF police leave the station alone.

[Guest MikeSC]

http://www.liberationradio.net/articles/st...ements/raid.php

 

This was beautiful......

 

San Francisco Liberation Radio Raided!FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 16, 2003

 

SAN FRANCSICO -- Approximately 10 federal agents, 10 San Francisco police, and 5 FCC agents raided San Francisco Liberation Radio (SFLR) studios yesterday. The raid began at 11 a.m., and lasted for approximately 2 hours. They arrived equipped with battering ram and firearms, although neither was necessary. The FCC confiscated all equipment in the station at the time, including a 16 channel Mackie sound board, microphones, a computer, CD, record, and tape players, and so much more.

 

SFLR and its supporters view this attack within the context of media consolidation. Currently 10 parent companies control the radio spectrum. Viacom and Clear Channel alone control 42 percent of listeners and 45 percent of industry revenue. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act Clear Channel grew from 40 stations nationwide to 1,240. In 28 of the 30 major music formats, 4 companies control over 50 percent of listeners, and the same holds true for two thirds of the nations news radio listeners. A debate about media ownership, competition, localism, and diversity is currently raging in the halls of Congress, in the nations court systems, and on the streets. SFLR has contributed its view of grass roots media activism to this debate, and for this it has been targeted.

 

SFLR has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration policies regarding the war on terror in Iraq and elsewhere, as well as the California state and local policies including San Francisco's targeting of homeless people. The Bush administration has made every effort to silence criticism of the government. Dick Cheney, in a rare speech just several days ago warned against public dissent. Donald Rumsfeld has clearly insinuated that criticism of Bush administration policies is killing the American troops in Iraq. And yet the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Oakland continues on a daily basis. The next major anti-war demonstration is taking place on October 25th, and includes a major convergence in San Francisco. SFLR sees this unprecedented attack on the station within the context of these national and international events.

 

SFLR is a micro-radio station that has broadcast at 93.7 FM in the San Francisco bay area for the past 10 years. It was started in part to be an outlet and resource for communities that are underserved by the media mainstream. SFLR has garnered much public support for the work that it has done, including the August 19, 2003 passage of a resolution by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors supporting the station, media diversity in general, and directing the SF police leave the station alone.

No offense --- but there is a SMALL chance that the source of this story might not be totally impartial.

-=Mike

..."Much public support"? You mean they've DOUBLED their audience to FOUR people?!?!?! WOW!!!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't blame CC for bad music perse, however I do blame them for such media consolidation and the fact that the same music is played over and over again.

But it is the labels that choose which acts get played over and over again! Witness American Idol. The winner gets an RCA contract and is pretty much guaranteed overplayed status on Viacom (MTV/Vh1), CC, Infinity, etc.

 

But let me give you an example of local radio not being much better. Remember the station that can't decide what format they are? Here's what they've played in the last hour:

 

Cher - Believe

Bryan Adams - Have You Ever Really Loved A Woman?

Patrick Swayze/Wendy Fraser - She's Like The Wind

Dido - Thank You

Bread - If

Savage Garden - I Knew I Loved You

Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)

John Mayer - Your Body Is A Wonderland

Hall & Oates - Sara Smile

Celine Dion - Because You Loved Me

Peter Cetera - Glory Of Love

LeAnn Rimes - Can't Fight The Moonlight (Remix)

Phil Collins - Another Day In Paradise

Elton John - Tiny Dancer

Cher - The Shoop Shoop Song

 

I would guarantee almost all of these things can be heard on a variety of those CC-like stations.

 

Remember after 9/11 the big "do not play" list...?

 

Remember me pointing you to an urban legends page debunking it as myth?