Nope, no whitewater or Monica here… No siree…
One thing I’ll say for you, Starving Artist, you have a vivid imagination. I’m amazed at how you could pull all this out of thin air.
My impression was that the media pretty much reported what it had to with regard to Whitewater. And with Monica, it reported both salaciously and what it had to. But at neither time do I recall anywhere near the bald-faced anger and belligerence directed toward Bush in the famous ‘We demand that you acknowledge a mistake…some mistake…any mistake…’ press conference prior to the election, nor toward Scott McClellan over the one day delay in the press being notified about the shooting.
Regarding your post just before this one, certainly instances can be found here and there where the media either supported something coming from the right, or failed to balance it equally with something coming from the left or center. But over the course of my lifetime the media has been overwhelmingly liberal IMO, and it is in this context that I speak of it. Whether it supported Bush for two years between 1991 and 1993, or whether it publicized Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, really doesn’t count for much in the overall scheme of things.
The fact of the matter is that the media in this country has conducted itself in such a way so as to have been perceived as overwhelmingly liberal in both its sympathies and in how it presents the news for decades (this by way of dancing on the head of a pin so as not to trigger calls for cites), and it is the consequence of this very bias that has come home to roost in the form of Limbaugh, Fox, O’Reilly, etc. If the media had behaved responsibly and been truly unbiased over the years, there would have been no breeding ground for the conservatively-biased radio talk shows and Fox & Co. that liberals find so offensive now.
And on preview, Frank, if I might quote Dr. Phil: “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.” I have decades of experience watching the media at work so the imagination required is much less than you think.
Of course. That is a thought that I apply to your posts. When I read your posts I expect well-written, even eloquent posts that demonstrate an utterly abyssmal lack of critical thinking, and sometimes even ignorance. I am rarely disappointed.
Thank you.
I’m increasingly coming to believe that you were literally—and not just figuratively—on another planet for the whole of the 1990s.
It’s the only possible explanation for the extent to which your media “analysis” is divorced from any reality whatsoever.
I was talking about the second Iraq war, and by this time I have to say that the cool aid must be really tasty for you.
The war in Iraq, medicare, gays, abuses of power etc. are misreported by those conservative sources. It is just a case of Money talks bullshit walks.
Well, as long as we’re speaking in pure hypotheticals, I imagine a herd of 50 or more pink elephants decorated with Christmas lights, stampeding though these imaginary proceedings, trumpeting their support for Mr. Cheney. Now there would be a lively press conference.
In other news, Starving Artist agrees with Clothahump that the press is sadly neglecting its role as propaganda arm of the State, and man once again fails to bite dog, apparently.
'Scuse! There are two Iraq wars and two Presidents Bush, so perhaps my confusion is understandable. Still, the point remains: occasional and/or sporadic support at various times over the years in no way negates the overall pro-left, anti-right bias that the media has displayed for at least the last five or six decades.
And now, given that even I’m beginning to tire of my pontificating on this subject, I’ll back out and let you guys have at it…my cool aid is getting warm.
Diminished as many are noticing.
Coming from Central America I call hoey on that, Regan and then Bush senior got away with murder, it is true that they were critizised by the media but it was just softballs, I can tell you that even worse things were not reported at all by the mainstream in the USA. No matter how obvious the lies or how illogical the administration’s arguments, the media could not tell the truth in the long run:
Years later, forensic evidence showed what a stinky lie the administration committed.
While reporters are discredited and not suported even by the so called liberal media, worms like Elliott Abrams get jobs in the current administration. Minutes before his State of the Union Address of 2005, Bush announced that Elliott Abrams would direct the new global democracy campaign as well as overseeing Middle East policy in the National Security Council.
There was no mention at all in the mainstream media on how despicable this choice was.
No, Cheney has a small staff. That’s why he likes to hold big guns.
(Sorry - couldn’t let a straight line like that go by. No back to the regularly scheduled flaming. )
Originally posted by Starving Artist:
Oh, I don’t know. I think you’re giving too much credit for civilized behavior to the press. If he’d had his staff make the statement, the press would have criticized him for hiding away and letting his staff make it, and he’d have been hounded and dogged (there’s one for the Department of Redundancy Department) everywhere he went. I would imagine also that in a press conference scenario the next day he’d have been peppered with accusatory questions about not only the shooting itself, but with further accusatory questions regarding the war and the administration in general, as the press would have most likely perceived that he would be in a weakened state and that they could perhaps get him to make a careless or angry comment that they could capitalize upon.
Out of thin air, eh?
This then, for your further amazement:
As reported by Faux News: *Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he wanted to hear more from the veep. Schumer said Cheney was ducking the topic by granting an exclusive interview rather than holding a press conference.
“The vice president hasn’t had a press conference in three and a half years and he ought to have one to clear the air not only on this issue, but more importantly on the many other issues that have been shrouded by a veil of secrecy.”*
You may now split semantic hairs by claiming that I haven’t shown the press thinking that it could take advantage of a weakened Cheney (though this could certainly still be the case), but the main point – that of the press turning a Cheney press conference on the shooting into a free-for-all for accusatory, demanding questions on other topics – seems to have been borne out quite succinctly (and in the accusatory tone I alluded to) by one of your own.
Neither one, amigo.
I have the added advantage of being able to listen to his broadcasts. I apologize for not being able to provide you with transcripts; however, Edd Hendee has been discussing this in detail for the last few days. Since he was there, heard the report, saw the graphics, etc., I’m quite inclined to believe him.
Tagos, as long as you keep posting ignorant horseshit like that, a baby in diapers will outdo you in intelligence.
Keep the humor coming, amigo. I’m enjoying the laugh.
Yes, because Sen. Schumer is the man in charge of the liberal media. You’ve found us out.
Sigh. Let’s try this again. You were the one who dragged Clinton into it, so…
Cheney was involved in an accidental shooting. There was nothing accidental about Clinton dropping his drawers in the Oval Office.
Clinton lied out his ass about the Lewinsky thing and tried to cover it up, to the extent that he committed perjury and was impeached for it. Cheney has been straightforward about the entire incident. The Kennedy County Sheriff’s Office was notified of the incident within 15 minutes of its happening; they did not send someone out until the following day.
Nice try, but no cigar for you. Pun intended.
I’m sure we all are. ‘With’ and ‘at’.
The press loved the administration? That’s news to the rest of us. The press has been a continual big player in the “Bush stole the election(s)” game from 2000 onward. Given an opportunity to print something positive about Bush and his administration vs. the opportunity to print something negative, they go the negative route far, far more often than not.
Here’s just one example: as has been said before, the troops on the ground and the civilian contractors in Iraq overwhelmingly state that we are making solid progress and that things are nowhere as bad as are being reported. Why aren’t more of them interviewed by the mainstream media? Probably because they don’t want a repeat of the Matt Lauer incident, where he went over there, set up some interviews, asked questions loaded toward the negative and got handed his own ass by the troops on live TV. That was by far the best episode of “Today” that I have seen in years.
Instead, what do we get? Emphasis on roadside bombings, helicopter crashes, civilian deaths and up to the second detail every time Cindy Sheehan scratches her ass. Ah, yeah - that’s gooooood stuff, makes the administration look bad; put it as the top story on the 6:00 news.
Read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.
The facts are in evidence, my friend. The bias has been evident for years; Goldberg simply detailed it for all to see.
And I’ll paraphrase your line back to you: just because you keep repeating this
mantra - there’s no bias - doesn’t make it true.