Teresa Heinz can't keep her mouth shut...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A press in Kerry's back pocket

www.foxnews.com

 

[Guest MikeSC]

A press in Kerry's back pocket

www.foxnews.com

 

Gee, almost makes up for

www.cbsnews.com

www.abcnews.com

ww.nbcnews.com

www.cnn.com

www.msnbc.com

www.cnbc.com

www.nytimes.com

www.washingtonpost.com

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

1) Fox News' latest ratings beat a whole bunch of those TV stations combined. What good is a bunch of outlets promoting one view if the one promoting the other view is getting all the eyes and ears?

 

2) Nobody has high standards for Fox, and they exploit that. Fox is really blatant about their partisan attacks and compensates by calling themselves the most balanced news on TV. The others are trying to actually put on a balanced program, which is why there's a massive cover story when someone fucks up hard like the 60 Minutes documents. If that aired on Fox, there would be no similar sized outrage. The most done on Fox was an amateurish movie interviewing several former staffers and a few media pundits. There is no liberal equivelant to Fox's flag-waving and conservative dick-whipping.

 

3) Some of those are more questionable than others. CBS, NY Times, okay sure. CNN, I don't personally believe it but there's enough people who disagree that I'll go ahead and let that one pass too. But CNBC? Washington Post? Eh? What did they ever do?

 

See, this is the problem. I can come up with cases that some sources have shown bias (Bush documents, Fox's partisan politics breaking out in the middle of a news program, and I guess Watergate if you really want to go that far.) But there's a rather crazy theory that almost EVERY mainstream news source, the ones that 80+% of America watches, is biased to approx 50% of the population. If the people they were supposedly biased against stopped watching these shows or reading these papers, they'd no longer be in their current positions.

 

So there's a disconnect somewhere. Either people are really stupid and will be fed news that is slanted against them, or perhaps not ALL of these sources are as biased as the others, and the feeling that they are has simply snowballed among political observers because certain people have repeated it so many times that those receptive to them now think it's true.

[Guest MikeSC]

1) Fox News' latest ratings beat a whole bunch of those TV stations combined. What good is a bunch of outlets promoting one view if the one promoting the other view is getting all the eyes and ears?

It beats NBC, CBS, and ABC?

2) Nobody has high standards for Fox, and they exploit that. Fox is really blatant about their partisan attacks and compensates by calling themselves the most balanced news on TV. The others are trying to actually put on a balanced program, which is why there's a massive cover story when someone fucks up hard like the 60 Minutes documents. If that aired on Fox, there would be no similar sized outrage. The most done on Fox was an amateurish movie interviewing several former staffers and a few media pundits. There is no liberal equivelant to Fox's flag-waving and conservative dick-whipping.

Oh, that is utter bullshit. Then again, the left bitches about EVERYTHING on FNC, so it'd be just another thing they'd gripe about. The Carl Cameron faked story was a rage --- until FNC apologized about it within hours of it breaking.

 

Let's just say that FNC doesn't have people directly tied to a campaign on any of their programs --- something CNN cannot begin to claim.

3) Some of those are more questionable than others. CBS, NY Times, okay sure. CNN, I don't personally believe it but there's enough people who disagree that I'll go ahead and let that one pass too. But CNBC? Washington Post? Eh? What did they ever do?

 

See, this is the problem. I can come up with cases that some sources have shown bias (Bush documents, Fox's partisan politics breaking out in the middle of a news program, and I guess Watergate if you really want to go that far.) But there's a rather crazy theory that almost EVERY mainstream news source, the ones that 80+% of America watches, is biased to approx 50% of the population. If the people they were supposedly biased against stopped watching these shows or reading these papers, they'd no longer be in their current positions.

Network news ratings have been plummeting and newspaper circulations have been crashing for a while now for a reason.

 

Why do you think major newspapers had a scandal about artificially inflating subscription numbers?

 

FNC is considerably more impartial than NBC (Kitty Kelley for three days on Today?), CBS, and ABC (you know, that whole "We need to hold the candidates to different standards" memo).

So there's a disconnect somewhere. Either people are really stupid and will be fed news that is slanted against them, or perhaps not ALL of these sources are as biased as the others, and the feeling that they are has simply snowballed among political observers because certain people have repeated it so many times that those receptive to them now think it's true.

Hate to break it to you, but neither Rush nor Coulter reach enough people to create the mass dissatisfaction with the press.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It beats NBC, CBS, and ABC?

No, but it beats the other 24 hour news broadcasts. The people who watch Brokaw do so because they don't want to watch 2 hours of news to find out what's going on in the world.

 

Stuff like the Nightly News has another issue, which also affects CNN Headline News: When you only have 30 minutes, it's pretty hard to fit in any healthy doses of bias. Now maybe Dan Rather is innovating some ways, I don't know.

 

Oh, that is utter bullshit. Then again, the left bitches about EVERYTHING on FNC, so it'd be just another thing they'd gripe about. The Carl Cameron faked story was a rage --- until FNC apologized about it within hours of it breaking.

That got press only because it was sent out onto the internet somehow. The fact that Cameron had a heart-to-heart with Bush prior to an interview talking about his WIFE organizing campaign rallies never got that level of rage. I've barely seen any mention of it other than Outfoxed and a few political blogs.

 

Let's just say that FNC doesn't have people directly tied to a campaign

 

Look at the response to my last quote.

 

Network news ratings have been plummeting and newspaper circulations have been crashing for a while now for a reason.

Mainly because people don't care. 24 hour networks aren't exactly profitable either. Fox is breaking some records but prior to that taking off they were basically a money sink that some manager at each media conglomerate decided they needed to have so that they don't feel one-upped by the other conglomorate.

 

Jerry Nachman, when he was head of MSNBC, expressed disbelief once that the 24 hour networks are getting so much ink because they aren't exactly a booming business.

 

FNC is considerably more impartial than NBC (Kitty Kelley for three days on Today?)

 

I've almost never watched Today and don't know who Kitty Kelley is, sorry. Well, I remember she once made a Nancy Reagan book when I was a young thing who prefered watching The Disney Afternoon cartoon block instead of Meet The Press, but that's about it.

 

ABC (you know, that whole "We need to hold the candidates to different standards" memo).

 

I'm still going to stand by my opinion of that as Drudge crap, since the memo scan is so illegible. I'm always suspicious of Drudge exclusives, and I get doubly so when the story never makes the rounds outside of NewsMax and the Washington Times.

 

Hate to break it to you, but neither Rush nor Coulter reach enough people to create the mass dissatisfaction with the press.

 

Rush: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Hannity: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Coulter: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Savage: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Drudge: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Novak: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Fox News: There is a liberal bias in the media! Watch us instead.

Average American: Hmmm. You know, I think there's a liberal bias in the media.

 

I didn't even get into the B-list radio hosts and pundits like Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Bill Bennett, but they're there too just with a smaller audience.

 

Point being, if you repeat something often enough, people will think it's true.

[Guest MikeSC]

It beats NBC, CBS, and ABC?

No, but it beats the other 24 hour news broadcasts. The people who watch Brokaw do so because they don't want to watch 2 hours of news to find out what's going on in the world.

 

Stuff like the Nightly News has another issue, which also affects CNN Headline News: When you only have 30 minutes, it's pretty hard to fit in any healthy doses of bias. Now maybe Dan Rather is innovating some ways, I don't know.

 

Unfortunately, their audience is still a few times larger than FNC's.

 

And, what they choose to cover indicates a lot. Heck, NBC Nightly News gave AIR AMERICA a nice little piece on their 30 minute nightly newscast on its debut. Not a short one, either.

 

Did any conservative show get that? Were there no other stories that day they could have covered?

 

Why has CBS given virtually every Bush critic ton of press --- but when some like Wesley Clark got COMPLETELY debunked, they chose to ignore that?

 

How many times has the Oil-For-Food scandal been mentioned? Yup, not terribly often --- and it's only the biggest charitable scam in history. If Kerry feels we need their OK to do things (in 1994, Kerry stated that dying under the UN flag in Bosnia would be OK, but dying under the American flag would not be), we need to know WHY they opposed us. And that scandal is a MAJOR reason.

Oh, that is utter bullshit. Then again, the left bitches about EVERYTHING on FNC, so it'd be just another thing they'd gripe about. The Carl Cameron faked story was a rage --- until FNC apologized about it within hours of it breaking.

That got press only because it was sent out onto the internet somehow. The fact that Cameron had a heart-to-heart with Bush prior to an interview talking about his WIFE organizing campaign rallies never got that level of rage. I've barely seen any mention of it other than Outfoxed and a few political blogs.

Who's the CNN newscaster whose husband is directly tied into the Kerry or Edwards camp? You know, that Christiane Amanpour Muslim terrorist apologist and her husband, Rubin.

 

What, no outrage about that? Shocking.

Let's just say that FNC doesn't have people directly tied to a campaign

Look at the response to my last quote.

And you can show that she works FOR Bush/Cheney?

 

I can prove that Begala and Carville work for Kerry and that Amanpour's husband does as well.

Jerry Nachman, when he was head of MSNBC, expressed disbelief once that the 24 hour networks are getting so much ink because they aren't exactly a booming business.

Well, since his never made a dime, I can see why he's unimpressed.

FNC is considerably more impartial than NBC (Kitty Kelley for three days on Today?)

I've almost never watched Today and don't know who Kitty Kelley is, sorry. Well, I remember she once made a Nancy Reagan book when I was a young thing who prefered watching The Disney Afternoon cartoon block instead of Meet The Press, but that's about it.

It helped get her thoroughly debunked bush on the Bushes to the top spot of the NY Times Bestseller list.

ABC (you know, that whole "We need to hold the candidates to different standards" memo).

I'm still going to stand by my opinion of that as Drudge crap, since the memo scan is so illegible. I'm always suspicious of Drudge exclusives, and I get doubly so when the story never makes the rounds outside of NewsMax and the Washington Times.

Ah, the old "If my sources don't cover it, it didn't happen" mentality. Got it.

 

And you question the power of the biased MSM.

 

Well, if memory serves, you doubted that the CBS memos were fake for a while, too.

Hate to break it to you, but neither Rush nor Coulter reach enough people to create the mass dissatisfaction with the press.

 

Rush: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Hannity: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Coulter: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Savage: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Drudge: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Novak: There is a liberal bias in the media!

Fox News: There is a liberal bias in the media! Watch us instead.

Average American: Hmmm. You know, I think there's a liberal bias in the media.

 

I didn't even get into the B-list radio hosts and pundits like Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Bill Bennett, but they're there too just with a smaller audience.

 

Point being, if you repeat something often enough, people will think it's true.

It's quite helpful when the press makes the case for us.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Here's another gem by Mrs. T.

 

Link...

 

PITTSBURGH -- Teresa Heinz Kerry on Thursday called attacks on her husband's foreign policy views "Neanderthal."

 

The comment was made at the Democratic presidential campaign headquarters in Downtown, where Heinz Kerry met with about a dozen current and former Republicans who said they plan to vote Sen. John Kerry for president.

 

"The perpetration of certain myths that diplomacy and alliances are a sign of weakness is Neanderthal," Heinz Kerry said. "I never heard of teaching a child to make enemies so they can get along in the playground."

 

Heinz Kerry spoke to the group after listening to several people talk about their disillusionment with President George W. Bush.

[BX 0]

I'm going to love having this woman as our First Wife.

[AndrewTS 0]

So she's admitting Kerry's view of how well he's going to do with the U.N. is childish?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why has CBS given virtually every Bush critic ton of press --- but when some like Wesley Clark got COMPLETELY debunked, they chose to ignore that?

It's time for a DELAYED RESPONSE~ because I appearantly forgot about this thread.

 

It's not like they've never covered the people who praise Bush. 60 Minutes, though clearly not a bastion of smart journalism, did a rather long piece on Bill O'Reilly once. I remember it distinctly because they went into the absurd amount of money he makes.

 

How many times has the Oil-For-Food scandal been mentioned?

 

FNC was basically banging that drum over and over.

 

Yup, not terribly often --- and it's only the biggest charitable scam in history.

Spare me. It simply proved once and for all that the UN deserves better than Kofi.

 

Who's the CNN newscaster whose husband is directly tied into the Kerry or Edwards camp? You know, that Christiane Amanpour Muslim terrorist apologist

What the hell was that about?

 

And you can show that she works FOR Bush/Cheney?

 

She doesn't. She doesn't have to. You see, it's not that she's campaigning for Bush and Cheney or, in my mind at least, even if she worked FOR Bush/Cheney. The point is that Carl is letting his wife's connection as a campaigner influence his job as an interviewer. That's the point when I cry foul. Not that I expect them to behave like bitter enemies, but do you really expect a reporter to not throw a softball interview when before the cameras are on they start a Mutual Admiration Society? And that Bush seems to be so knowledge about Cameron's family?

 

I can prove that Begala and Carville work for Kerry

 

The two guys that are paid to be partisan and take sides? Unheard of!

 

Ah, the old "If my sources don't cover it, it didn't happen" mentality. Got it.

 

And you question the power of the biased MSM.

 

Well, if memory serves, you doubted that the CBS memos were fake for a while, too.

 

I doubted it because CBS has integrity to risk. The other publishers have integrity to risk. Drudge does not have integrity. The talking points folks don't have integrity. The blogs and their near-anonymous authors don't have integrity.

 

Newsweek dumped the Lewinsky scandal because it would be a blow to their integrity if it turned out to be false, and Drudge jumped on it and made himself almost relevant because he had no integrity and had little to lose if it turned out to be wrong. Even though the story turned out to be true in that case (and the integrity he gained from that has since been pissed away on false stories and stupid shit like Kerry/Edwards homophobe photos and publishing the private numbers of people he doesn't agree with) , the reason Newsweek wouldn't publish it was because they weren't sure enough it in it to risk their standing in the country.

 

And that's why I initially believed the CBS thing, because I figured if CBS was willing to run with them and not sweep them under the carpet and put their integrity on the line, the chances that it was true VS FreeRepublic and their utter lack of integrity (or civility, or hygiene) it seemed like CBS had more to lose and so I trusted them until it became obvious that I no longer could. Since then, I've lamented how absolutely stupid they were in their process leading up to running it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why has CBS given virtually every Bush critic ton of press --- but when some like Wesley Clark got COMPLETELY debunked, they chose to ignore that?

It's time for a DELAYED RESPONSE~ because I appearantly forgot about this thread.

 

It's not like they've never covered the people who praise Bush. 60 Minutes, though clearly not a bastion of smart journalism, did a rather long piece on Bill O'Reilly once. I remember it distinctly because they went into the absurd amount of money he makes.

Hmm, but no mention of the ridiculous money guys like Joe Wilson made for making false charges. Odd.

How many times has the Oil-For-Food scandal been mentioned?

FNC was basically banging that drum over and over.

Yup, not terribly often --- and it's only the biggest charitable scam in history.

Spare me. It simply proved once and for all that the UN deserves better than Kofi.

There has never been a charity scam to this level in history. Nothing approaches it. We had Saddam paying for the inspections, bribing countries to oppose the sanctions --- and WE, somehow, were the bad guys for not joining in on the fun.

 

This is a MASSIVE scandal --- but I guess because it's the UN, it's perfectly acceptable.

Who's the CNN newscaster whose husband is directly tied into the Kerry or Edwards camp? You know, that Christiane Amanpour Muslim terrorist apologist

What the hell was that about?

She's a Muslim apologist for their terrorist actions. And she's married to somebody directly involved in the Presidential election. But, still, no problem with that, apparently. No chance of that impacting her reporting.

And you can show that she works FOR Bush/Cheney?

She doesn't. She doesn't have to. You see, it's not that she's campaigning for Bush and Cheney or, in my mind at least, even if she worked FOR Bush/Cheney. The point is that Carl is letting his wife's connection as a campaigner influence his job as an interviewer.

Which differs from Amanpour's situation in what way, precisely?

That's the point when I cry foul. Not that I expect them to behave like bitter enemies, but do you really expect a reporter to not throw a softball interview when before the cameras are on they start a Mutual Admiration Society? And that Bush seems to be so knowledge about Cameron's family?

And, again, that differs from Amanpour, who regularly reports on everything, in what way?

I can prove that Begala and Carville work for Kerry

 

The two guys that are paid to be partisan and take sides? Unheard of!

Don't see FNC with guys who directly work for campaigns hosting shows...

Ah, the old "If my sources don't cover it, it didn't happen" mentality. Got it.

 

And you question the power of the biased MSM.

 

Well, if memory serves, you doubted that the CBS memos were fake for a while, too.

I doubted it because CBS has integrity to risk. The other publishers have integrity to risk. Drudge does not have integrity. The talking points folks don't have integrity. The blogs and their near-anonymous authors don't have integrity.

That is actually bullshit because when they make a mistake, they are PERSONALLY called on it and are more than easy to communicate disdain with. When they screw up, unlike the MSM, they suffer direct confrontation.

 

What costs are borne by the MSM when they mess up a story? Thus far, CBS hasn't fired a soul, hasn't taken a soul off assignment, etc. Sure, their ratings suffer, but they've been tanking for about a decade straight now.

Newsweek dumped the Lewinsky scandal because it would be a blow to their integrity if it turned out to be false, and Drudge jumped on it and made himself almost relevant because he had no integrity and had little to lose if it turned out to be wrong.

He's more accurate than the Times and CBS have been this year.

Even though the story turned out to be true in that case (and the integrity he gained from that has since been pissed away on false stories and stupid shit like Kerry/Edwards homophobe photos and publishing the private numbers of people he doesn't agree with) , the reason Newsweek wouldn't publish it was because they weren't sure enough it in it to risk their standing in the country.

You don't list these false stories --- and the Kerry/Edwards stuff was simply a joke.

 

Funny, the Times has no problem running a major story on Monday about missing explosives, when nobody can actually state that

a) they were stolen after we arrived there and

b) how much stuff was stolen.

And that's why I initially believed the CBS thing, because I figured if CBS was willing to run with them and not sweep them under the carpet and put their integrity on the line, the chances that it was true VS FreeRepublic and their utter lack of integrity (or civility, or hygiene) it seemed like CBS had more to lose and so I trusted them until it became obvious that I no longer could. Since then, I've lamented how absolutely stupid they were in their process leading up to running it.

Sad that the FreeRepublic site you hate so much has more integrity than CBS. They wanted the Times to hold off on this absolutely fraudulent missing explosives story until after they ran a story two days before the election. The story getting leaked killed their plan --- and gave people enough time to show how full of shit it was.

 

When historians look back at the press' behavior in this campaign, this will be known as the election where the myth of press impartiality died.

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Mike, if you truly believe Drudge is more accurate than the Times and CBS, please take a vacation. You've obviously got way too much invested in this 'evil liberal media who wants to rape America and sell us all out to the French and dirty Muslims' and need to get away from all things political for a while.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, if you truly believe Drudge is more accurate than the Times and CBS, please take a vacation.

They ABSOLUTELY are. It's not even close.

You've obviously got way too much invested in this 'evil liberal media who wants to rape America and sell us all out to the French and dirty Muslims' and need to get away from all things political for a while.

No, just somebody who recognizes that when the MSM takes lies (the draft), forged memos, year+-old stories with few concrete facts, ignores key stories (SBVT), etc --- there is a problem.

 

This has been an unbelievably horrendous year for the once-proud MSM.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OK, I want this cleared up. When we do the "Drudge is more accurate than the NY Times" are we talking about articles exclusive only to Drudge or the articles linked to the site?

 

Oh, and Big Media don't want to sell us out to the French and Dirty Muslims. They want to sell us out to the U.N. And if I'm to be sold out to a Muslim, I'd rather be sold to one that showers: "those people" smell bad enough...