The stupid liberal media. Yeah, keep concentrating on those 16 words. We’ll get really far, won’t we? C’mon, no one will ever be able to prove that Bush deliberately tried to mislead the public with those 16 words. Instead, concentrate on the things that people really care about (duh!):
-Talk about what Bush predicted our deficit would be, and then compare that to what it really is. And talk about how the forecast keeps changing and growing.
-Talk about the real $ costs of the war. Mention that Bush fired the person who predicted that the cost would be significantly higher than Bush said. Mention that the person was right!
-Show how there is no relation between Saddam and 9/11. Most people, apparently, still think that there is.
-Break down the tax cuts. Show who they really help. Show how they will lead to slower economic growth for the future. Talk about how everyone’s children and grandchildren will have to work to pay for these.
-Talk about unemployment.
-Talk about his vacations. He’s such a slacker!
-Talk about the environment!
-Talk about theconstitutional rights that he wants to take away! (Except the 2nd amendment, of course)
And there’s so much more. This guy gives so much ammo, and the darn media chooses not to use it. The big media can shoot this guy down faster and easier than any president in history. There isn’t a thing that he’s done right. Why do they keep letting him slide? Paul Krugman should be advising all of big media!
I think he’s refering to the phrase that has been coined by the conservatives, “liberal media”. And pointing out that they aren’t as liberal as those on the right claim. Some good points. Some lame, but some good.
He’s saying that the liberal media isn’t doing a good enough job roasting Georgie Jr. given the amount of ammo. . .they aren’t picking the right battles (harping on, I guess, the speech about Iraq trying to buy uranium or whatever instead).
Much of what you list has been reported over and over in major news outlets which anyone with access to the internet or a library can get for free.
Why these things do not seem to bother most people is a mystery to me. The interesting thing is that the plain old “silent majority” middle class, which is getting a royal hosing at the hands of Bush et al, seems to be his strongest base of support. I wonder how much longer this is going to continue. What was that thing Lincoln said about fooling people?
I think the main reason why the media doesn’t criticise Bush is because it tries to be impartial. It wants to simply report on other people criticising Bush on those things. Unless Democrats start to really attack Bush on those things the media certainly wont.
My opinion is that most of the respectable media people in this country are liberal. But out of fear of being tagged as “liberally-biased”, editors choose to ignore Bush’s failures. Perhaps they’re waiting until we’re closer to Election Day. Or perhaps they’ve realized that patronizing conservatives makes for higher revenues. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch has won the war.
All I know is that Clinton was torched for his minor failures, while Bush seems to maintain a nice tan.
Oh yes, and the 16 words refer to Bush’s comment in the State of the Union Address in which he claimed that British Intelligence had evidence showing that Saddam tried to acquire nuclear bomb-building materials from Africa.
Who was Clinton torched by? Republicans. Meanwhile, when Bush wanted to start wars and take away civil rights and stuff, what did the Democrats do? Shout about it, and then go along and vote for what Bush wanted anyway.
This web site is not exactly neutral but it does reference a neutral study which shows conservative papers are just more harshly partisen than liberal ones. This kind of supports what I have always suspected and that is that the liberal media is simply more pragmatic than the conservative one.
/Quote/
A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages [of the Wall Street Journal And the Washington Times] are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages [of the New York Times and the Washington Post] are to take on a Democratic administration. [The study] examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable… The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time. The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time. One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time. /quote/
Listen up. There is no such thing as unbiased news. News is created by human beings. There is no such thing as an unbiased human, therefore there is no such thing as unbiased news.
Commericial news is biased by it’s desire to sell papers or attract viewers. Stories that bore readers and viewers are dropped or under-reported. If the public isn’t interested in a story, the media can’t force them to listen. All they can do is attempt to present the story in an interesting way.
And non commercial news is responsible to the people who fund it. Al-jazeera is funded by the Emir of Qatar. The BBC is funded by the British government. NPR is funded by sponsors and the public. And most small news and opinion magazines are funded by angels. While non-commericial media aren’t always slavish lapdogs of their sponsors, they still have a bias. They are funded because someone thinks that they should be funded, usually for some partisan or philosophical agenda.
While news is always biased, it can be FAIR…meaning they try to tell the truth, they don’t intentionally publish misleading information or lies, and they make explicit the philosophical or partisan reasons for their existance. An explicit right wing or left wing magazine will often be more fair than a supposed “balanced” magazine.
A Google News search for “president bush” and deficit yielded 2,600 hits. I don’t know how many thousand hits you would need to qualify as talking about the deficit. I just note that a Google News search would turn up items only from those sources that Google can access in an online format.
A Google News search for “president bush” “cost of war” yields 178 hits for starters. This, of course, excludes any story that did not use the precise phrase “cost of war.”
As for the implied claim that he fired an unnamed person because he or she was right, you’ll have to supply a cite.
So you want the media to get into the business of forecasting the future and then reporting it as fact?
So in addition to predicting the future, you want the media to take up and promote a partisan view of tax cuts? And if they don’t, then you think that’s actually a problem!?
You could have competing sides give their views, pro and con, on his economic package. But that wouldn’t fulfill your criteria giving one-sided predictions about the future.
While you are at it, could you provide us with statistics on how many journalists have actual training in economics? After all, if you want them to comment, you want them to be qualified.
And you are trained in economics, I assume? If so, that’s good. I wouldn’t want you to be blindly parroting whatever party line has been spoon fed to you.
A Google News search for “president bush” and environment gave 1,510 hits.
“president bush” and unemployment: 2,640 hits.
“president bush” and vacation, 1,140 hits.
A Google Web search for “president bush” “take away your rights” yields an immediate hit.
It’s on a PBS site.
Big. Fucking. Surprise.
Translation: If the media are not constantly anti-Bush, they are at fault.
P.S.: I would not expect any intelligent discourse to emerge from a same source that would make an absurdly blanket statement such as “There isn’t a thing that he’s done right.” If someone said this about even Warren G. Harding or Andrew Johnson, it would indicate they are not yet ready to leave the kiddie pool.
The sixteen words are:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”
A Google News search for this exact phrase yielded 1,780 hits. That’s just for sources trotting out the quote at full length.
I remember once hearing a whacko feminist talk about how she would accept studies on gender only from reputable scientists. And who were the reputable scientists? Only those who came up with results feminists liked. Anyone else was per force, not reputable.
As with you and your “respectable media.”
The BBC is funded by a license fee (approx £100 pa) which is mandatory for all TV sets capable of receiving broadcasts via aerial, cable or satellite. You don’t have to pay for TVs altered to only play videos or computer monitors.
The government does, I believe still appoint the Director General of the Beeb but has no direct control of it. If it did, the whole “sexed-up report” affair would not have happened would it. There was talk a while back of removing even this from the government’s control but I don’t know what’s come of it.
Not saying the BBC is bias free, but lets at least get the facts straight.
Not to nitpick, but no, it isn’t in the bald sense that you suggest here.
Take a look at this link: http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/fundingthebbc.html for a basic outline. The BBC is funded through the license fee, which is a kind of tax, but this tax does not go to the Government and can not be used for anything else.
That said, there are politics involved in funding the BBC, such as the fact that the head honcho, the Director General is appointed by the Prime Minister. I’ve always thought that this was not A Good Thing but recent events re. disputes between the BBC and the Govt have given me more faith.
Needless to say, the Govt in power at any time always accuses the BBC of being biased against them anyway…
