Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 26, 2004 CBS has stated they won't release the results of their investigation into the memo story because they didn't want to impact the elections. However, if the LA Times is to be believed, CBS planned on running the now-completely debunked missing-explosives story on 10/30. And, please remember, this story broke --- IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR. Why it's considered news now is a little baffling --- Nat'l Review Online's Corner has an interesting theory, but they cannot begin to prove it (though the reasoning makes sense) --- but it's not a new story and CBS planned on doing a 60 Minutes piece 3 days before the election. They ALSO plan on reporting a story --- on the death of Emmett Till. Yes, from 1955. Can anybody explain away that desire of theirs, outside of blatant and obvious bias? So, CBS, apparently, doesn't want to do anything that might impact the election --- well, on Bush's behalf. If it'll hurt Bush, they'll have no problem reporting it. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2004 At least it's CBS -- the smallest out of the Big Media Network TV Division... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 26, 2004 At least it's CBS -- the smallest out of the Big Media Network TV Division... Isn't it sad that the best fiction from CBS is coming from the news division? -=Mike .."Next, on CBS: Wrestling is real and we have the proof..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2004 They ALSO plan on reporting a story --- on the death of Emmett Till. Yes, from 1955. Can anybody explain away that desire of theirs, outside of blatant and obvious bias? Could it possibly be because the case was reopened for investigation in April of this year, and that investigation's currently underway? Or that scholarly and historical interest in the particulars of the Till case is at an all-time high, most notably personified by the excellent documentary PBS produced on it last year? Or that it's a historical piece that has nothing to do with the presidential election, and you'd think they could run it in October without someone having a shitfit? Not *everything* is about hating on the president, you know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2004 Not *everything* is about hating on the president, you know. No, but it happens more often than not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 Yeah, too bad cBS was planning to run this just a day or so before the election. I'm shocked they would try such a thing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 Yeah, too bad cBS was planning to run this just a day or so before the election. I'm shocked they would try such a thing... To repeat what a Kerry campaigner has said, CBS "better hope we don't win". Bring back Ken Starr! I want him to investigate Dan Quixote and Sancho Mapes! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 27, 2004 They ALSO plan on reporting a story --- on the death of Emmett Till. Yes, from 1955. Can anybody explain away that desire of theirs, outside of blatant and obvious bias? Could it possibly be because the case was reopened for investigation in April of this year, and that investigation's currently underway? Or that scholarly and historical interest in the particulars of the Till case is at an all-time high, most notably personified by the excellent documentary PBS produced on it last year? Or that it's a historical piece that has nothing to do with the presidential election, and you'd think they could run it in October without someone having a shitfit? Not *everything* is about hating on the president, you know. And they couldn't run a race-baiting piece (and, yes, I fully expect a race-baiting piece) one week later? The news is going to change dramatically in ONE week? -=Mike ...I should also ask why Edwards and Kerry are running with an already-discredited story, when they have bashed Bush for a LONG time for "ignoring" intelligence about Iraq... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 They ALSO plan on reporting a story --- on the death of Emmett Till. Yes, from 1955. Can anybody explain away that desire of theirs, outside of blatant and obvious bias? Could it possibly be because the case was reopened for investigation in April of this year, and that investigation's currently underway? Or that scholarly and historical interest in the particulars of the Till case is at an all-time high, most notably personified by the excellent documentary PBS produced on it last year? Or that it's a historical piece that has nothing to do with the presidential election, and you'd think they could run it in October without someone having a shitfit? Not *everything* is about hating on the president, you know. And they couldn't run a race-baiting piece (and, yes, I fully expect a race-baiting piece) one week later? The news is going to change dramatically in ONE week? -=Mike It's not 60 Minutes' job nor is it anyone else's to do a week entirely of fluff news about nothing just so Bush and Kerry don't get offended. This has nothing to do with either candidate or political party. I don't know what sort of reporting you'd find acceptable for this week if this doesn't cut it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 27, 2004 They ALSO plan on reporting a story --- on the death of Emmett Till. Yes, from 1955. Can anybody explain away that desire of theirs, outside of blatant and obvious bias? Could it possibly be because the case was reopened for investigation in April of this year, and that investigation's currently underway? Or that scholarly and historical interest in the particulars of the Till case is at an all-time high, most notably personified by the excellent documentary PBS produced on it last year? Or that it's a historical piece that has nothing to do with the presidential election, and you'd think they could run it in October without someone having a shitfit? Not *everything* is about hating on the president, you know. And they couldn't run a race-baiting piece (and, yes, I fully expect a race-baiting piece) one week later? The news is going to change dramatically in ONE week? -=Mike It's not 60 Minutes' job nor is it anyone else's to do a week entirely of fluff news about nothing just so Bush and Kerry don't get offended. This has nothing to do with either candidate or political party. I don't know what sort of reporting you'd find acceptable for this week if this doesn't cut it. 60 Minutes has done nothing but attack Bush all year. An anti-Bush book coming out? Rest assured the author will get an interview (and, in the case of Wilson, when they get discredited, that won't get mentioned). CBS wanted to release the fraudulent "missing explosives" story two days before the election (this is AFTER they already suffered a black eye for the forged memos --- that, mind you, they will NEVER actually investigate). 60 Minutes has a LONG track record of blatant partisanship. I don't want to hear ANYBODY criticize FNC for being biased when you have CBS peddling fake stories REPEATEDLY in an attempt to bring down Bush. But, unlike Kerry, Bush is not likely to seek payback. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 Don't forget who the publisher was for the people cBS interviewed on 60 Minutes... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Gabe 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 The odd thing about CBS' Bias to me is that George Bush is BETTER for big Media then Kerry would be, Bush is all for further deregulation, allowing the media companies to expand, while Kerry has stated he would roll back media deregulation. So, it's an interesting quagmire and possibly a glimpse into the power of Dan Rather behind the scenes at CBS, but also, before the 60 minutes Bush =Deserter piece I always pegged Rather as a Conservative who supported Bush, as I remember many pro-leadership comments during the beginning of the Iraqi invasion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 I always pegged Rather as a Conservative who supported Bush Which is why nobody takes your posts seriously here, or at least the posters that matter. I'm sure INXS loves you... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2004 I always pegged Rather as a Conservative who supported Bush Which is why nobody takes your posts seriously here, or at least the posters that matter. I'm sure INXS loves you... Oh come, on the guy was only refering to an impression he had about Rather, not that he still believed it. Bitter conservatives. I guess Mike just wants the bitching about the FNC to go away cuz Dan Rather is dolt. Or maybe he just wants it to go away so their POV is the only one heard. Hey how bout that NBC eh? Owned by GE, who make WEAPONS!!! Hmmm. War President + Weapons INC. =... ... .... I'll have to get back to you on that one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 Cool -- my previous remark can apply to two posts in this thread... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 28, 2004 Cool -- my previous remark can apply to two posts in this thread... Well, I was going to be nice and not mention that --- but ignoring truth is painful. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 You know, before the Clintons got into office, I thought that Rush Limbaugh guy called it straight down the middle. And how about that Rage Against My Ween? Pure bipartisanship... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 28, 2004 I thought Sean Hannity was a liberal. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 He's not?! But Neal Boortz calls him the Baby Jesus, and we all know Jesus was a liberal who performed back-alley abortions for women that couldn't get affordable health care... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 I thought Ann Coulter was further left of Hillary Clinton. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 No way, facist... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 28, 2004 I thought Ann Coulter was further left of Hillary Clinton. I thought Michael Moore was an impartial, and insanely svelte, filmmaker. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 You forgot "thin" -- it's been a while since I ruined a thread. Feels good. EDIT: Oh nuts, I thought you were talking about little fish in your last post. Off to bed I go... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 You forgot "thin" -- it's been a while since I ruined a thread. Feels good... I was delighted to hear anything that Michael Stipe, Warren Beatty, Barbara Streisand, and Robert Redford had to say about politics... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 28, 2004 You forgot "thin" -- it's been a while since I ruined a thread. Feels good... Gabe beat you to that. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 Nah, Gabe just provided the canvas. OK, NOW I'm going to bed. And my one cat is afraid of pumpkins... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SideFXs Report post Posted October 28, 2004 You know this fraud in the media might have worked 12 or even 8 years ago, but thank God algore invented the internet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Gabe 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 Wow, I was agreeing that Rather had a bias, and you flame me for my previous assumptions even after they have changed? Using, mind you, half of a quote to make me look like a fool. You boys like to bicker back and forth, and I had respect for KKK and Mike's opinions because you two actually had conviction about your beliefs, but to flame me for agreeing with you is something I don't understand. what is it, exactly that spurred you to flame me? Was it the fact that I had shown liberal tendencies in my previous posts? Well, in any case, consider me surprised by the lack of respect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2004 and I had respect for KKK That's your first mistake. you two actually had conviction about your beliefs That's your second. but to flame me for agreeing with you is something I don't understand FLAMING?! That post was considered "flaming"? Was it the fact that I had shown liberal tendencies in my previous posts? Yep. I hate all liberals at this place. Eh, I probably misread the meaning of the post in question. Would a bj make you feel better? EDIT: Yeah, I did misread is -- Rush and Hannity are conservative, Teke is a hippie, Mikey Moore is fat, and Gabe provides me with jack shit. Is this retraction good enough?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Gabe 0 Report post Posted October 29, 2004 yeah, thanks. Gabe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
