B-Man Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) No, he wasn't exposed to media scrutiny so he had nothing to complain about there, but he complained a lot about the way he was treated after becoming president. That is the correct answer. and it was rather obvious bd. but, I am aware of how you defend your responses. A quick reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw . . Edited November 10, 2015 by B-Man
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) That is the correct answer. and it was rather obvious bd. but, I am aware of how you defend your responses. A quick reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw . . http://www.salon.com/2015/11/09/ben_carson_barack_obama_and_bias_unraveling_the_rights_liberal_media_security_blanket/ Already we’re grappling with a spectacularly dumb premise. The mainstream media gave Obama “a pass,” argues Fund, as demonstrated by the fact that ABC News (a longstanding pillar of the mainstream media) broke the Reverend Wright story in the middle of the Democratic primary as opposed to the beginning. I’m not even sure what the supposed “bias” is supposed to be here – if there was interest in going easy on Obama, wouldn’t ABC have just sat on its hands instead of sending their chief investigative correspondent to poke around? And the network broke the Wright story just eight months before Obama would have to face John McCain in the general election. Fund has transformed a TV network’s explosive and damaging Wright scoop into an act of bias in favor of Barack Obama, and his only evidence is that the Wright story didn’t end Obama’s candidacy as it might have under different circumstances It doesn’t make any sense, and it actually does a better job as an indictment of the conservative media than anything else. Outlets like National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and the like exist because conservatives feel the mainstream media can’t be trusted to report the stories that really matter – stories like Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. If the “easily obtained” Wright tapes had the potential to end Obama’s candidacy and were just sitting there waiting to be exposed, then why didn’t John Fund or any other conservative reporter track down the hot scoop? Why did they wait for ABC to dig it up? This gets to a key contradiction in the right’s obsession with “liberal bias” in the media – many of the stories they accuse the media of ignoring to protect Obama were dug up by the “mainstream media” to begin with. When those stories failed to destroy Obama as a political figure, the only explanation available to conservatives was that the same outlets that broke them also somehow covered them up.It doesn’t make any sense, and it actually does a better job as an indictment of the conservative media than anything else. Outlets like National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and the like exist because conservatives feel the mainstream media can’t be trusted to report the stories that really matter – stories like Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. If the “easily obtained” Wright tapes had the potential to end Obama’s candidacy and were just sitting there waiting to be exposed, then why didn’t John Fund or any other conservative reporter track down the hot scoop? Why did they wait for ABC to dig it up? This gets to a key contradiction in the right’s obsession with “liberal bias” in the media – many of the stories they accuse the media of ignoring to protect Obama were dug up by the “mainstream media” to begin with. When those stories failed to destroy Obama as a political figure, the only explanation available to conservatives was that the same outlets that broke them also somehow covered them up. Edited November 10, 2015 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 http://www.salon.com/2015/11/09/ben_carson_barack_obama_and_bias_unraveling_the_rights_liberal_media_security_blanket/ Already we’re grappling with a spectacularly dumb premise. The mainstream media gave Obama “a pass,” argues Fund, as demonstrated by the fact that ABC News (a longstanding pillar of the mainstream media) broke the Reverend Wright story in the middle of the Democratic primary as opposed to the beginning. I’m not even sure what the supposed “bias” is supposed to be here – if there was interest in going easy on Obama, wouldn’t ABC have just sat on its hands instead of sending their chief investigative correspondent to poke around? And the network broke the Wright story just eight months before Obama would have to face John McCain in the general election. Fund has transformed a TV network’s explosive and damaging Wright scoop into an act of bias in favor of Barack Obama, and his only evidence is that the Wright story didn’t end Obama’s candidacy as it might have under different circumstances It doesn’t make any sense, and it actually does a better job as an indictment of the conservative media than anything else. Outlets like National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and the like exist because conservatives feel the mainstream media can’t be trusted to report the stories that really matter – stories like Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. If the “easily obtained” Wright tapes had the potential to end Obama’s candidacy and were just sitting there waiting to be exposed, then why didn’t John Fund or any other conservative reporter track down the hot scoop? Why did they wait for ABC to dig it up? This gets to a key contradiction in the right’s obsession with “liberal bias” in the media – many of the stories they accuse the media of ignoring to protect Obama were dug up by the “mainstream media” to begin with. When those stories failed to destroy Obama as a political figure, the only explanation available to conservatives was that the same outlets that broke them also somehow covered them up.It doesn’t make any sense, and it actually does a better job as an indictment of the conservative media than anything else. Outlets like National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and the like exist because conservatives feel the mainstream media can’t be trusted to report the stories that really matter – stories like Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. If the “easily obtained” Wright tapes had the potential to end Obama’s candidacy and were just sitting there waiting to be exposed, then why didn’t John Fund or any other conservative reporter track down the hot scoop? Why did they wait for ABC to dig it up? This gets to a key contradiction in the right’s obsession with “liberal bias” in the media – many of the stories they accuse the media of ignoring to protect Obama were dug up by the “mainstream media” to begin with. When those stories failed to destroy Obama as a political figure, the only explanation available to conservatives was that the same outlets that broke them also somehow covered them up. I have no particular opinion on this (other than I don't believe in guilt by association, and Wright wasn't running for president.) I just want to balance out all the **** I give you (justifiably) with a compliment on a cogent, coherent argument.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 I have no particular opinion on this (other than I don't believe in guilt by association, and Wright wasn't running for president.) I just want to balance out all the **** I give you (justifiably) with a compliment on a cogent, coherent argument. can't take credit for the phrasing but the thoughts did independently come to mind. of course, the answer to this writers hypothetical is clear: these aren't so much journalistic news organizations but selective disseminators of the news (drudge being the worst example). they employ few if any true journalists that do investigative work. I suspect in part due to their disdain for the profession in general.
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 can't take credit for the phrasing but the thoughts did independently come to mind. of course, the answer to this writers hypothetical is clear: these aren't so much journalistic news organizations but selective disseminators of the news (drudge being the worst example). they employ few if any true journalists that do investigative work. I suspect in part due to their disdain for the profession in general. Fox does some. People don't notice, or deprecate it, because their editorial programming is so over-the-top. The other mainstream networks are no great shakes at investigative reporting either. I caught the OPM/FIS and LHC stories on 60 Minutes this weekend, and having professional-level knowledge of both subjects, I'm hard pressed to call them anything but shallow, incomplete, and misleading. The sad fact is that journalism is dead, and particularly investigative journalism. Fox may have caused that, but they're hardly the only perpetrators of it.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Fox does some. People don't notice, or deprecate it, because their editorial programming is so over-the-top. The other mainstream networks are no great shakes at investigative reporting either. I caught the OPM/FIS and LHC stories on 60 Minutes this weekend, and having professional-level knowledge of both subjects, I'm hard pressed to call them anything but shallow, incomplete, and misleading. The sad fact is that journalism is dead, and particularly investigative journalism. Fox may have caused that, but they're hardly the only perpetrators of it. and I will again direct you to pbs, npr. they do amazing things with relatively small budgets. AP, reuters, wash post , NYT, economist, and yes, even CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC, BBC, CBC employ real journalists. but of course they mostly went to one of those liberal universities for their degrees and are not to be trusted by anyone more right wing than jeb bush (which appears to be the vast majority of the current republican party).
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 and I will again direct you to pbs, npr. they do amazing things with relatively small budgets. AP, reuters, wash post , NYT, economist, and yes, even CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC, BBC, CBC employ real journalists. but of course they mostly went to one of those liberal universities for their degrees and are not to be trusted by anyone more right wing than jeb bush (which appears to be the vast majority of the current republican party). That's funny. I specifically referenced CBS (60 Minutes), and you direct me there as a counter-example. Then throw up a ridiculous straw-man "but...liberals!" that had nothing to do with anything I'd originally said. I was really hoping you wouldn't end your two-post streak of coherence and rationality. I'm disappointed.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) That's funny. I specifically referenced CBS (60 Minutes), and you direct me there as a counter-example. Then throw up a ridiculous straw-man "but...liberals!" that had nothing to do with anything I'd originally said. I was really hoping you wouldn't end your two-post streak of coherence and rationality. I'm disappointed. you put up 60 minutes. it's the equivalent of o'reilly: pulp for the masses. their actual news shows are fair to middling and they do actually employ degreed journalists. Edited November 10, 2015 by birdog1960
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 so why mention the story in his autobiography and then in an interview with Charlie rose if he didn't think it an important event in his life? an important event to readers and voters? if it's that important, isn't it equally important that he be accurate about the circumstances? if anyone manufactured something here, it was carson. I never said that Carson meeting Westmoreland wasn't an important event in his life. Obviously it was if he mentioned it several times. I'm just wondering why people think it was so far-fetched for Westmoreland to offer to Carson what appeared to be a scholarship to West Point and Carson being a liar because he couldn't remember the exact details about something that happened some 40 years earlier in his life.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 I never said that Carson meeting Westmoreland wasn't an important event in his life. Obviously it was if he mentioned it several times. I'm just wondering why people think it was so far-fetched for Westmoreland to offer to Carson what appeared to be a scholarship to West Point and Carson being a liar because he couldn't remember the exact details about something that happened some 40 years earlier in his life. and I would expect that if he were to repeat the story recently (Charlie rose) that he'd go back and check his facts and obtain a better understanding of the formal admissions and "scholarship" processes at military academies.
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 and I would expect that if he were to repeat the story recently (Charlie rose) that he'd go back and check his facts and obtain a better understanding of the formal admissions and "scholarship" processes at military academies. Does it really matter? To anyone not desperate to find anything to discredit him, I mean?
keepthefaith Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Carson's point on the West Point thing is that he passed up a great opportunity to pursue medicine. That's gotten lost in all this. He never pursued an opportunity to go to West Point. However, he would have served himself well if he had said that he never pursued a possible appointment.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Does it really matter? To anyone not desperate to find anything to discredit him, I mean? yes, it matters. I speaks to his sincerity and integrity. and also unfortunately, either his poor regard for his readers' intelligence or his personal lack of intelligence regarding how repeated inaccuracies would be perceived. Carson's point on the West Point thing is that he passed up a great opportunity to pursue medicine. That's gotten lost in all this. He never pursued an opportunity to go to West Point. However, he would have served himself well if he had said that he never pursued a possible appointment. except that he could have done both. he could have gone to west point pre med (free, on a "scholarship"), gone to a civilian med school (paid for by the army) and then done a civilian or military residency. then paid back his time as an officer. I know cuz I almost chose the same path (x I never met daddy Westmoreland) and was actually accepted into the air force program for it. Edited November 10, 2015 by birdog1960
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 yes, it matters. I speaks to his sincerity and integrity. and also unfortunately, either his poor regard for his readers' intelligence or his personal lack of intelligence regarding how repeated inaccuracies would be perceived. This is hilarious, coming from a Barry supporter.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 This is hilarious, coming from a Barry supporter. americans ultimately made a decision on this in regards to Obama. they're still forming one on carson. let's see how it plays out.
keepthefaith Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 americans ultimately made a decision on this in regards to Obama. they're still forming one on carson. let's see how it plays out. Yes, but the majority of Americans never had the full set of facts on Barry because most don't pay attention or their loyalty to their "team" trumps all else. His re-election is even more evidence of that.
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Yes, but the majority of Americans never had the full set of facts on Barry because most don't pay attention or their loyalty to their "team" trumps all else. His re-election is even more evidence of that. The majority of Americans knew he was 1) black, and 2) not Bush. That was enough.
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 The majority of Americans knew he was 1) black, and 2) not Bush. That was enough. And 3) not running with Palin.
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Yes, but the majority of Americans never had the full set of facts on Barry because most don't pay attention or their loyalty to their "team" trumps all else. His re-election is even more evidence of that. so back on topic, doesn't carsons explanation of his choice of medicine over west point appear disingenuous to you given that he could easily have done both?
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 so back on topic, doesn't carsons explanation of his choice of medicine over west point appear disingenuous to you given that he could easily have done both? I read it as "I didn't want a military career". When you sign up for the military, you're a soldier first. I believe Carson was more interested in being a doctor first.
Recommended Posts