K. Rove the CIA Leak?

[Reuben Gant]

Shows your bias when you put down that I heard it on Rush.

 

Just think about it. The media went so far as to make up a fake memo to try to get Bush out of office. Do you think for a second that if they had proof that Rove did it they wouldn't have broadcast it 24/7? Plame was outed BEFORE the election.

 

375352[/snapback]

 

The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals.

 

I was informed of this fact by Rush Limbaugh. And Thomas Sowell.

And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. And Bill O'Reilly. And William Safire.

And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley, Jr. And George Will.

And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow.

And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow.

And Sean Hannity. And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt.

And Oliver North. And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin.

And Cal Thomas. And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson.

And Deroy Murdock. And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer.

And Stephen Moore. And Alan Keyes. And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke.

And Andrew Sullivan. And Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto.

And Matt Drudge. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And John Caldara.

 

They are all saying that the liberal media must be stopped.

[SilverNRed]

I think the fact that you can name all of the conservative voices in the media (and the average American has no idea who those people are) is proof that it's dominated by liberals.

 

Find one other profession where 90% of the people vote Democrat. You can't get 90% of the people in this country to agree on anything, but you can get 90% of reporters to agree on that.

[Reuben Gant]

I think the fact that you can name all of the conservative voices in the media (and the average American has no idea who those people are) is proof that it's dominated by liberals.

 

375613[/snapback]

 

So your proof is based on the average American that has no idea.

 

I can't argue with that logic.

[SilverNRed]

So your proof is based on the average American that has no idea.

 

I can't argue with that logic.

375617[/snapback]

I put it in parantheses because it was a side note, not the tip of the spear for my 'proof.' Whatever, though....

 

By comparison, everyone knows Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite and isn't terrible familiar with Andrew Sullivan and Sean Hannity. You have to go out of your way to pay attention to the latter pair.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals.

 

I was informed of this fact by Rush Limbaugh. And Thomas Sowell.

And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. And Bill O'Reilly. And William Safire.

And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley, Jr. And George Will.

And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow.

And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow.

And Sean Hannity. And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt.

And Oliver North. And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin.

And Cal Thomas. And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson.

And Deroy Murdock. And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer.

And Stephen Moore. And Alan Keyes. And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke.

And Andrew Sullivan. And Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto.

And Matt Drudge. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And John Caldara.

 

They are all saying that the liberal media must be stopped.

375605[/snapback]

 

I'm kind of a newcomer to the PPP board, but it seems to me that most posters here are slightly to the right of Fascist. They probably think that most of the above are too "liberal".

[Reuben Gant]

I put it in parantheses because it was a side note, not the tip of the spear for my 'proof.'  Whatever, though....

 

By comparison, everyone knows Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite and isn't terrible familiar with Andrew Sullivan and Sean Hannity.  You have to go out of your way to pay attention to the latter pair.

375622[/snapback]

 

You must be joking:

 

have a lookie, cable ratings for may:

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/may05ranker.pdf

[SilverNRed]

You must be joking:

 

have a lookie, cable ratings for may:

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/may05ranker.pdf

375638[/snapback]

Thanks for making my point. There's one conservative outlet - FoxNews - and that's where most of the names on your list appear. So if you have one conservative news outlet to compete with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, etc. and the country is just about evenly split between left and right, then yes the one outlet for half the country is going to have higher ratings than the split up ratings for the many outlets that serve the other half.

 

What is the equivalent to:

Dan Rather's fake document bonanza a month before the election.

The New York Times' trumped up "missing explosives" story a week before the election. (A self-proclaimed major story right up until they dropped it as soon as Bush was re-elected)

Newsweek's imaginary desecrated Koran nonsense

 

EDIT: Here's something hilarious. The New York Times put Abu Ghraib on the front page 32 days in a row in 2004. The story wasn't nearly relevant enough to be on the front page 32 days in a row. Link. They couldn't take one of those 32 days to have a front page article to put the whole situation in Iraq and the Middle East in perspective they way BiB does around here with ease each day? Hmmm...

[Gene Frenkle]

No, because even if it were him, he didn't. I can't believe that you are so far gone as to compare the two.

375462[/snapback]

You're right, if it's him, he only f---ed a CIA agent. No big deal, it's not like the anonymity of our secret agents is all that important to America or our nation's security. This is far better than simply reporting the truth about what was happening in Cuba.

 

On second thought, the outing of this agent was illegal, while the Gitmo story was not. So you're right, the comparison is actually unfair to Newsweek.

[Gene Frenkle]

I think the fact that you can name all of the conservative voices in the media (and the average American has no idea who those people are) is proof that it's dominated by liberals.

 

Find one other profession where 90% of the people vote Democrat.  You can't get 90% of the people in this country to agree on anything, but you can get 90% of reporters to agree on that.

375613[/snapback]

How about professions where 90% of the people vote Republican...

 

1. NASCAR Driver

2. Baptist Minister

3. Televangelist

4. Moonshine Distiller

5. Country Music Roadie

[Reuben Gant]

Thanks for making my point.  There's one conservative outlet - FoxNews - and that's where most of the names on your list appear.  So if you have one conservative news outlet to compete with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, etc. and the country is just about evenly split between left and right, then yes the one outlet for half the country is going to have higher ratings than the split up ratings for the many outlets that serve the other half.

 

What is the equivalent to:

Dan Rather's fake document bonanza a month before the election.

The New York Times' trumped up "missing explosives" story a week before the election. (A self-proclaimed major story right up until they dropped it as soon as Bush was re-elected)

Newsweek's imaginary desecrated Koran nonsense

 

EDIT:  Here's something hilarious.  The New York Times put Abu Ghraib on the front page 32 days in a row in 2004.  The story wasn't nearly relevant enough to be on the front page 32 days in a row.  Link.  They couldn't take one of those 32 days to have a front page article to put the whole situation in Iraq and the Middle East in perspective they way BiB does around here with ease each day?  Hmmm...

375667[/snapback]

 

Oh, I thought that you meant nobody in America knows who Sean Hannity is.

 

Or was your point that FOX is not part of the mainstream media?

 

I don't think you can downwardly define holding political power to

account as a "liberal media bias."

 

More often than not, and I don't expect you to agree with me on this, but it is how I would answer your question about equivilency, is that there is tremendous amount of omission in the mainsteam media:

 

1. Downing Street Memo - non-story

2. Robin Cook's resignation - non-story

3. US sponsored coup in Haiti - non-story

4. full exposes on prewar intelligence - soft story

5. Valerie Plame -soft story

6. Body Counts in Iraq for non-americans -non-story

 

These are just ones that come to mind. What you find in the media

are two very conservative forces, and that is careerism, and consumerism.

The media, for its part, should be challenging the claims of government and not providing an echo chamber: in the words of Michael Hoyt:

 

"When a Republican former treasury secretary publicly parts company with his president on economic policy, that's a legitimate story fit for national discussion. Ditto for a book by a top antiterrorism expert who seriously argues that the administration is blowing the war on terror. Ditto for the need for some attention to the work of Woodward, a quality reporter on the insider perspective (and whose book on the run-up to the war was carefully balanced). An effort to map the young George Bush's record in the Guard, unknown to this day? That's legitimate, too -- if, of course, it's done right. Abu Ghraib? It was an insult to America's commitment to morality that, if anything, has been undercovered. One can have a legitimate debate about the weight that ought to be given to stories such as these but to suggest they should not be aggressively reported is to slip away from the world of real discourse."

 

When things are going right, the media and government should have an adverserial relationship. What passes as balance these days is a bashing about from a Republican and Democratic Senator. To not see this idea of balance as a powerful and conservative filter is to have a very different idea about the media's role than me.

[UConn James]

How about professions where 90% of the people vote Republican...

 

1. NASCAR Driver

2. Baptist Minister

3. Televangelist

4. Moonshine Distiller

5. Country Music Roadie

375680[/snapback]

 

Ooooo.... Low blow.

[Cripes]

Shows your bias when you put down that I heard it on Rush.

 

Just think about it. The media went so far as to make up a fake memo to try to get Bush out of office. Do you think for a second that if they had proof that Rove did it they wouldn't have broadcast it 24/7? Plame was outed BEFORE the election.

 

From some editorials I have read it was sort of common knowledge that she was CIA.

375352[/snapback]

 

If no harm done, and it was such common knowledge...then explain why John Ashcroft launched the investigation, and subsequently recused himself?

[SilverNRed]

Oh, I thought that you meant nobody in America knows who Sean Hannity is.

 

Or was your point that FOX is not part of the mainstream media?

375806[/snapback]

Fox *is* part of the mainstream media and so if the Wall Street Journal, but they are basically the only two representatives, in TV and print respectively, for conservatives in the mainstream. The rest that you named are columnists, bloggers, and radio hosts - all of whom are easy to miss if you aren't looking for them. The establishment - almost every TV news outlet as well as NYT, Boston Globe, Washington Times, LA Times, etc. - is firmly liberal.

 

I don't think you can downwardly define holding political power to

account as a "liberal media bias."

 

More often than not, and I don't expect you to agree with me on this, but it is how I would answer your question about equivilency, is that there is tremendous amount of omission in the mainsteam media:

 

1. Downing Street Memo - non-story

2. Robin Cook's resignation - non-story

3. US sponsored coup in Haiti - non-story

4. full exposes on prewar intelligence - soft story

5. Valerie Plame -soft story

6. Body Counts in Iraq for non-americans -non-story

Also omitted: any and all stories about progress/success RE: the GWOT. You have to go out of your way to find that information (or be lucky enough to know someone like BiB).

 

And I'd rather have the occasional non- or soft-story than the trumped up, fake news items that I mentioned (timed to affect U.S. elections, of course).

[IUBillsFan]

How about professions where 90% of the people vote Republican...

 

 

Good job the Key word is profession Unlike the welfare roll that vote more than 90% dem...

[Gene Frenkle]

How about professions where 90% of the people vote Republican...

Good job the Key word is profession  Unlike the welfare roll that vote more than 90% dem...

375885[/snapback]

When they actually vote...

 

 

Thought of a few more:

 

6. Oil Tycoon

7. Old, Rich White Guy

8. KKK Grand Master

9. Fat, Pill-Popping Radio Talk Show Host

10. Chickenhawk

11. Duke Of Hazard

[Ghost of BiB]

If no harm done, and it was such common knowledge...then explain why John Ashcroft launched the investigation, and subsequently recused himself?

375847[/snapback]

 

Games people play.

 

Thank GOD these people don't know what goes on at the AO level. Politics suck, but in an offhand compliment, some are aware, and get out of the way before it can really get ugly. They got their airtime, and made their point to the Hotpockets. Face time on TV. It's what's for dinner.

[Reuben Gant]

Fox *is* part of the mainstream media and so if the Wall Street Journal, but they are basically the only two representatives, in TV and print respectively, for conservatives in the mainstream.  The rest that you named are columnists, bloggers, and radio hosts - all of whom are easy to miss if you aren't looking for them.  The establishment - almost every TV news outlet as well as NYT, Boston Globe, Washington Times, LA Times, etc. - is firmly liberal.

Also omitted: any and all stories about progress/success RE: the GWOT.  You have to go out of your way to find that information (or be lucky enough to know someone like BiB).

 

And I'd rather have the occasional non- or soft-story than the trumped up, fake news items that I mentioned (timed to affect U.S. elections, of course).

375860[/snapback]

I'm surprised you included the Washington Times in there -

 

As far as success goes in Iraq, or Afghanistan, my take is this. All good news is public, nobody, especially the administration is sitting on much good news, they want it out there. The bar was set pretty high by the administration: Osama will be brought to justice, the Anthrax guy will be brought to justice, a free Iraq will transform the region. So whatever you define as progress beyond that is pretty hard. The media also have a vested interest in not getting killed to report these stories, as well as the drive to keep newsrooms profitable, which greatly reduce the efficacy of reporting foreign news and keeping foreign news bureaus open.

 

I have found that John F. Burns reporting for the New York Times to be pretty ballsy stuff, and he is very practical about what is knowable. If you are a regular reader of the NYT then you know most of their columnists and editorial policy has supported the war, and at least they have protected their sources in this Valerie Plame mess, Hell, they broke Whitewater for that matter. I still find their reporting too conservative.

 

I am often getting the idea that anything that is not lauditory, or praiseworthy, or at least flattering to the Neo-Conservative orthodoxy is called liberal. If that is what you think is liberal, then yeah, it is the "liberal media." I think looking back on this era ten years from now the story will be how soft media reporting got.

Especially in the transformation from an age of written media, the literate age, to one of sound and image.

 

just my two cents.

[Wacka]

Good job the Key word is profession Unlike the welfare roll that vote more than 90% dem...

375885[/snapback]

When they actually vote...

Thought of a few more:

 

...

 

8. KKK Grand Master

...

 

375922[/snapback]

 

You mean Robert Byrd is a Republican??!

I always thought he was a democrat!

 

 

Note: for some reason the above won't quote correctly.

[SilverNRed]

8. KKK Grand Master

375922[/snapback]

Sen. Byrd is a Democrat.

[SilverNRed]

I'm surprised you included the Washington Times in there

375945[/snapback]

I meant to say Washington Post.

 

I appreciate the rest of your thoughts even if I'm not going to agree.