Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by John Corn, Aug 8, 2003.
Aint that the truth brudder.
I guess you think this was a responsible act also then:
When people tune in to listen to a "conservative talk show host" they know what they are getting and they know the slant. When someone tunes into a "news program" they expect to get balance, although this is rarely the case. If not for conservative talk show hosts the conservative point of view would rarely, if ever, be heard on the public airwaves.
We are talking specifically about what Katie had to say on the Today show, and whether it was a hatchet job.
It is your point of view that this was a vicious hatchet job. From your point of view anything less than adoring praise would have been a hatchet job. See my above post for reference.
And then it is also your contention that conservative talk show hosts have the right to say whatever they want, because that is what people expect. What a double standard. Balance from those you think are liberals, whatever they want to do from conservatives. Yeah, seems about the norm. :lol:
Actually, believe it or not, we are talking about some Democrat using the N word. I didn't know that you were the only one who could bring up different subjects. By the way, you were the one who brought up out of left field somewhere that Arnold hadn't had his life threatened. I don't think that anyone remotely connected to the Kennedy family had a big chuckle over the remark by California Democratic Party Spokesman Bob Mulholland. Gee, I wonder why this isn't all over the news.
Yes as long as it is true any one conservative or liberal can say/print any thing they want.
If Rush was the great liar you are painting him out to be then some one would have sued and won a liable/slander/defamation of character court case.
As of today that hasn’t happened yet.
And again I am sorry but the double standard is on the liberal side.
Hannity had Rangel D-NY on the show the other day and read to him a speech by the president.
It basically stated the need to go into Iraq outlining each item 1 by 1.
When asked for a response to the presidents remarks Mr Rangle went on a bush bashing spree. He basically shot down every single item from the president’s speech.
Ok here is the double standard:
The speech hannity was reading was Clinton’s speech he gave as we were bombing aspirin factories.
That same language was endorsed by Daschle Pelosi Rangel Lieberman and all the others for a dem prez.
It's the same rhetoric Bush is accused of.
It had me fooled I thought he was Quoting Bush but he wasn’t.
Rangel fell for it and abruptly had to go for pressing matters of state to attend to.
I wasn't quite awake when I answered this earlier, but your assertion seems to be that when people tune in to listen to conservative talk show hosts it is not a news show, but a talk show, with a different standard. But the morning shows are also not "news shows". My understanding is that they once were, but are no longer under the news dept. of the networks. They are "morning shows" or "talk shows". They have news segments, but they are not News Programming.
I have no idea what this has to do with bias in news programming and/or double standards in the same.
It has to do with what you posted above.
You skirted it as well as any politicain out there dem or rep.
Ever thought about running for office?
And what is your opinion of the way Rangle balsted words he thought were uttered by bush when they were in fact uttered by clinton?
What about your comments that conservitve talk is all lies?
Why hasnt any one sued Rush or Hannity?
And finaly what I wrote was very clear and to the point.
At least I think it was.
The last time I heard the "N" word was in Boston at a bar. One black man called another black man a "N". I bet you more blacks use the word today then whites.
Rush or Hannity haven't been sued because they talk about public figures. It's nearly impossible to make a case for libel or slander about a politician if it involves statements about a public official and stands they take on issues.
Why did Hannity blast Clinton back then if he spoke the truth as Hannity sees it now with Bush as Pres?
I don't think anybody thinks that he meant actual real lead bullets were going to come at Arnold. It's pretty clear to me that he was using bullets in a figurative manner to mean issues. When the real campaign starts, and Arnold gets a tough question, he won't be able to yell cut and get out of answering.
RichW, would that be dufuses or dufi in the plural?
Back to the topic at hand:
It's actually "doofus", plural "doofuses, you DOOFUSES!
And yes, the reference to "real bullets" was obviously used metaphorically and aimed(pun intended) at the movies where 10 billion bullets are fired at Arnold and he comes through unscathed. How thick are some of you guys? The newsmax piece(hatchet piece) never even inferred this was the meaning, instead implying it was a deliberate dig at the Kennedys. Talk about twisting a story.
It was an unfortunate and ultimately unthinking choice of words but it was intended for Arnold the candidate and not Maria the Kennedy sibling.
And yet newsmax articles are regularly presented to us here as fact, accurate representations of the truth. And the same goes for Hannity, Limburger and all those other rumor mongers and muck rakers on the right. But heaven forbid that Michael Moore takes a little artistic license with his films or cute Katie mentions that all the facts about Arnold might not be savory or could give him some trouble.
But then we're told Sean, Rush and the guys are just "commentators" or it's "just their opinion". Well, it's not presented that way, is it. And I doubt if anything close to half of their listeners view it as commentary and/or opinion either. And some of that majority is apparently on this board. Perhaps ALL "news" programs should have a disclaimer that it is ALL commentary and opinion and that you should investigate and decide for yourself. I can live with that. That's how I already view it. Everyone is biased. The honest admit it. The deceptive claim to be "fair and balanced". They're lying. At minimum to themselves.
As for the mainstream media favoring one side or the other, it's not even a meaningful field of inquiry. The major media favors whoever's in power because they are by, for and of the establishment. And so are the two major political parties. There is very little difference in substance between the Dems and GOP. The differences show up in peripheral details like abortion, drug policy or the exact mechanism by which drug and insurance companies will profit from our health care system.
I'm not a news junkie but I get my daily fill of CNN, MSNBC and even Fox News(Fox less because I perceive their anchors to be pompous and arrogant, telling me what the news is rather then just giving me the facts. Truthfully, the confident manner they deliver is probably a big part of their appeal.). There's very little difference between them though, and CNN and MSNBC don't leave much room for interpretation either. Most of the "news" is apolitical anyway, Lacy Peterson and Kobi Bryant. Who cares? I don't. And even the coverage of Arnold so far has mostly centered on his movie stardom(as has he). Today, only CNN covered the departure of Charles Taylor from Liberia live. The rest were still obsessing about Lacy and Kobi and Arnold. Now in the greater scheme of things, what's more important? A seemingly well liked murdered housewife? Possible unauthorized nookie by a basketball player? A movie star gubernatorial candidate? Or the fate of an entire nation and people? Of course that nation and people consist of the "N" word. That may explain our disinterest.
The cable news networks rarely interview or solicit opinion of the true left and neither do the major OTA networks. Charlie Rangel is thrown out as an example of radical liberalism. And he and Al Sharpeton are about as left as you'll see on any of the news shows. Well they're about as far to the left as Newt Gingrich is to the right, not really all that far. I can name at least one host or regular "commentator" on all three cable news channels far to the right of Newt, none to the left of Rangel or Sharpeton, in fact none even as far to the left. Ron Dellums and Paul Wellstone were probably the last true leftists in Congress. Maybe Cynthia McKinney too but then her own party arranged for her to lose. And even they in the end were mostly centrist. They had to be. McKinney found out what happens if you deviate from the center too far. You are crucified even by your own party.
Virtually all commentators and talking heads are centrist and right. The "think tanks" they tap for "expert opinion" are the same. The Brookings Institute is likewise thrown out as example of "liberal" balance. But Brookings is hardly "liberal". And even if they were, they would be drowned out by Heritage, Cato and ex-generals.
And the reason for this is that the ideas of the true left have been systematically excluded from the national dialog. Here is the true political incorrectness, the left. Leftist concepts are deemed as too dangerous to the establishment and so are excluded from mainstream discussion or ridiculed by major media as radical or un-American. When that fails there is the cliche analogy to COMMUNISM, flatly stated or implied. :bad_nono: There is no reasonable debate over nationalizing health care because that would be socialism or worse yet, the "C" word. Never mind that virtually ALL advanced CAPITALIST countries have had it for years without sliding into Marxist chaos. And surprisingly, a plurality of Americans, sometimes a majority(naturally on how the question is phrased), would like it considered as an option or at least hear more about it. But that's simply not allowed. Many Americans and most people around the globe share a concern about global warming and the environment and think something should be done about it, or again at least receive more information. But that might mean that people could not exploit the Earth as much as they'd like to. So we must allay this radical paranoia also. Not much in the news about that either. Mostly you see it on The Science channel or Nature. But that's because those shows are written and produced by the hysterical scientists who actually study such things.
Now we live in a country where free speech is guaranteed. The government can't arrest newspaper editors, throw them in jail and smash the presses, at least not yet. The means of control therefore is more subtle, but in the end even more effective. News organizations cannot be too critical and must present the views of the establishment(government and business) as the mainstream or they will be deprived of "access" or advertising dollars. And of course these outlets are mostly owned by the establishment anyway.(I really marvel how the ultimate establishment newspaper, The New York Times, is now somehow considered anti-establishment. They've REALLY got you guys snookered.):lol:
Since I've ranted too long already and no one will probably read this much less reply because the "liberal" media has taught you there's no need to and may even be "politically incorrect" to, I'll ramble on another paragraph or two.
The Democrats, or "liberals" if you prefer, are looking for a "liberal Rush" precisely because the media has taken a hard swing from the traditional center to the right. Because Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk passionately present their views as news and cloak themselves in God and the flag, many people believe their blathering IS the news. And I suspect for many it is their main source of "news". Although they were and are hardly radical leftists, I doubt Walter Cronkite or even John Chancellor would make the cut for anchor in the present atmosphere. Maybe Dan Rather too. At best the networks prefer the blandness of Brokaw and Jennings. And who's coming up? The likes of Matt Lauer and Brian Williams. Be still my liberal heart. :nono:
All this has not escaped the Democratic Party as dim and slow witted as they are. The core of the Democratic Party is still quite progressive as witness the current front runner, Howard Dean, who was essentially written off and ignored since day one of his candidacy by the media AND party establishment. Why? Because he has espoused positions that are slightly outside the current mainstream, more accurately, closer to the edge of the mainstream. And that is awful close to allowing progressive ideas back into the mainstream. And that cannot be allowed especially after years of the pounding of those ideas by rightist talk show hosts. The Democratic leadership would prefer someone like Lieberman or Gebhardt or Kerry, Bush Lite if you please. But rank and file Democrats don't want a kinder, gentler Bush. They're sick of it just as they were with Clinton/Gore, and it's why Nader got the support he did. Many true Democrats couldn't bring themselves to compromise ONE MORE TIME. Still, factoring out Nader, the Democratic candidate DID get more votes in 2000. But for the vagaries of Florida election law coupled with an antiquated Electoral College, we'd have a Democratic President today.
The Democrats are in a quandry. If they shove Lieberman or Gebhardt, or even Kerry down the throats of loyal Democrats once more, they risk losing even more of their core to third party candidates or frustrated apathy. OTOH, because they let the media swing so wildly to the right, the positions of someone like Dean are viewed by many as radical, almost extreme, when they are neither. And as usual, the GOP will have access to far more money then the Dems, ironically the imbalance will probably be more extreme then ever because of the recent campaign reform laws. It appears that McCain thought this through much better then Feingold. Damn Cheesehead!
As a Cheesehead myself, I can make that statement.
You keep trying to bring this thread back to "what it was really about." But that aspect of it was pretty well dealt with. We've moved on. If you have another aspect of that issue, point it out instead of reposting the original post.
I love the way direct questions are totally ignored. The bottom line is if a Democrat says it it is ok. Weather it is the N word or if it is bombing Iraq or if it is celebrating a self admitted segregationist. Why?? Because the mainstream media.
You're the one who objected to my responding to a subthread that you started. I just wanted to return to the original topic. I'll be sure to ask your permission next time.
All I can figure out is that you must object that someone agrees with my original thought on the subject, that being:
Maybe the "N" word statement would get more attention if it hadn't been 2 years ago when he said it. I'm sure it got some attention then in the liberal media. I don't think it's OK for Dems to use that word but I think it's being brought back now by people with an agenda to hurt the Dems in this election.
Hey Jonstad, lay off Feingold, OK. He's going to have a rough re-election.
How often do you use the word Negro? From the articles, particularly the many articles at the time it actually happened, Bustamante was reading a list of a number of groups active in the early days of Civil Right, when that was the acceptable term. Today, to a large extent because of the similarity between the word Negro and its derogatory cousin, Negro is seldom used. People realized it was to easy to slip. I would say it was just as likely that due to the lack of familiarity of using either word, it was a slip caused by trying to twist the lips and tongue around unfamiliar terms. Anyway, the event was settled by the people living in California some time ago. Why is it still a big deal to you. Are you a citizen of California, or a Negro?
Ok, just so you don't think I am ignoring your very important point.
This is an old trick. You read a speech that everyone is meant to assume was made by one person, and then...Wallah.....you pull back the sheet, and it turns out it was made by someone else. It's been done many times before. So what. Republicans read the riot act when Clinton bombed Kosovo and Iraq. Now it is the Democrats turn to criticize Bush for his acts. That's politics. Republicans today would rather not be reminded of what they said about Clinton a few years ago. Bush doesn't want to be reminded of how he criticized Clinton for "nation building," among other things. Of course there is a double standard. Like I said before, each side wants to hold its own people to a different standard. Big surprise. That's why I am an independent.