Text 13215, 281 rader
Skriven 2008-03-19 15:44:21 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 13075 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
======================================
17 Mar 08 17:56, Jeff Bowman wrote to Roy Witt:
RW>> Just as I disagree that any of the *BCs are worth their salt. They
RW>> corrupt their news with their own personal opinions. Something that
RW>> riles me to no end.
JB> I used to watch CBS evening news actually, until Katie Couric took it
JB> over.
I did too, since it was the least tainted of liberal propaganda. That
isn't saying much, as they're all far left liberals.
JB> Many will say CBS is a joke, for "forging" those Killian
JB> documents and all that junk.
They didn't forge them, they took somebody else's word that they were
real. In fact, they received them in a FAX. Dan Rather: "we are told [the
documents] were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian's personal files"
and incorrectly asserted that "the material" had been authenticated by
experts retained by CBS.
JB> Many believe, and continue to say, they've been proven as forgeries,
JB> when in fact, they've never actually been officially proven false to
JB> this day, to my knowledge.
In repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what
I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired,
and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," and CBS
News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News
cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only
acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We
should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
JB> They simply have never been proven true.
I agree with Andrew Heyward, they shouldn't have used that material
without proof that they were authentic. Doing so is piss poor journalism.
JB> I hope Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS for getting rid of him over
JB> it pays off for him. I always felt he was a good news man, and
JB> deserved better than to leave under such shameful circumstances.
Mary Mapes, who along with Rather had been investigating for several years
the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the
National Guard, was "by her own account [aware that] many in the press
considered Burkett an 'anti-Bush zealot,' his credibility in question."
Mapes was fired too and deservedly so, IMO.
RW>> JB> And O'Reilly is infamous for cutting off mics and trying to
RW>> JB> intimidate people who he doesn't agree with, right there on his
RW>> show
RW>> JB> for all to see.
RW>> I've watched O'Reilly for ten years and have never seen that happen.
RW>> Somebody is pulling your leg if you think that is true.
JB> Then apparently you've missed all the times he's done so. O'Reilly
JB> is a bully.
You've watched him perhaps, once or twice, or you're repeating hearsay.
JB> When somebody says something he doesn't agree with, he tells them to
JB> shut up (literally).
No he doesn't. Never has.
JB> He cuts mics.
No he doesn't.
JB> He yells at guests.
Yeah, to those who are too stupid to live. e.g. a Democratic knucklehead
who comes on the show and won't stop talking. All they want to do is get
their ignorant statements aired and couldn't care less about the truth.
I've shut them off (remote mute button) long before Bill does.
JB> He tells outright falsehoods
Name one.
JB> and incorrect information
Spell it out.
JB> and refuses to admit it later even when called out on it by viewers.
You mean the 'pinheads'? That's why they're called pinheads.
JB> They rewrite transcripts to remove things that make them look wrong.
JB> I'm not just making this up to make him look bad. I wish I were!
You must be, as I've never seen any of this on the show.
JB> Just some examples of bullying + "shut up" + mic cuts, if you're
JB> interested in seeing it:
Ahh, you tube...yeah, like I'd believe anything coming from that liberal
website.
JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=vTkFU4MtubU
JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=NxMidi2TofY
JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=yDpIAqfWR2g
JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU
JB> Here's a particularly big example in my opinion of O'Reilly getting
JB> things seriously wrong and never admitting it, in this case placing
JB> Nazi war crimes on American solders:
JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=d0aAVifJqDE
Jesus! MSNBC, Olbermann...where the hell is Sirhan Sirhan when you need
him.
JB> That's an Olbermann clip, mind you, but I very much recommend
JB> watching all of it regardless of your possible opinion of him, since
JB> the clips from O'Reilly's show are all there.
Clips, which take the entire conversation out of context...Olbermann's
opinions aren't worth listening to.
RW>> JB> I don't see ex-employees, internal memos, or a lot of visible
RW>> JB> evidence showing heavy liberal bias for any of those networks.
RW>> Wanna bet?
JB> I would in fact look at anything you could provide to show the same
JB> sort of documented bias with networks like CNN as there's been with
JB> Fox.
LOL! You just made my point by outing MSNBC and Olbermann. That's all the
proof you should need.
RW>> MSNBC is the worst cable news channel out there.
JB> I don't actually watch it, I just feel like the degree of magnitude
JB> between the programs they air is something to notice in cases when
JB> bias is accused.
Then don't bother quoting it or providing links to youtube...
RW>> A Gallup Poll summed up Fox News this way. 'There is little
RW>> difference in the self-reportd use of cable news by partisanship.
RW>> There has been a good deal of focus on what is perceived to be a
RW>> conservative orientation of the Fox News Channel, but ... we are not
RW>> able to distinguish any partisan differeneces in the use of the
RW>> specific cable news channels.'
JB> It's just as easy for them to say that though as it is for you,
JB> because it comes down to opinion in large part. People like myself
JB> do see heavy bias. Nobody is persuading me to think that way. I
JB> watch the clips, and sometimes the channel, enough to think it on my
JB> own.
As do I and those who think like me, after watching the crap put on by the
liberal media outlets.
JB> I used to actually watch Fox News all the time, as a matter of fact.
JB> All the flashy graphics probably helped draw me in, compared to the
JB> more drab appearance of CNN. It was during the 2004 election that I
JB> started to truly notice things myself that seemed odd compared to the
JB> other channels' coverage, like giving credit of one state to Bush way
JB> before the other channels would confirm it. I was naive enough back
JB> then to not assume any news channel would have political bias. From
JB> that point on, I learned otherwise.
Those things that you supposedly experienced are exactly what I got out of
CNN and the alphabet soup news channels. By comparison, watching Fox and
C-SPAN was to me, more truthful reporting than I found elsewhere.
RW>> Recently Gallup asked this question. "Do you think news
RW>> organizations get the facts straight, or do you think that their
RW>> stories and reports are often inaccurate?"
RW>> An astounding 58% of Americans answered that they believed the news
RW>> delivered to them was often flat out wrong.
JB> Wrong, and intentionally wrong, are a different story.
Yeah...like the Killian papers story...we're not wrong, we just had the
wool pulled over our eyes and took a zealot's word for it.
JB> I know sometimes they (a in everyone) do get it wrong. But the
JB> majority of news channels likely report things accurately. It's what
JB> they choose to report, or how to report it, where much of the bias
JB> tends to come in.
JB> As for polls in general, you can get pretty much whatever answer you
JB> want depending on how you ask, as this pretty much sums up my opinion
JB> of:
Of course you can...and there are other polls taken that prove that.
JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c
No thanks...I don't watch liberal propaganda.
RW>> JB> Some of the more recent examples are completely disregarding
RW>> people
RW>> JB> like Ron Paul,
RW>> Why not disregard him...he's an also ran, just like AlGore.
JB> He deserved just as much time as anyone else.
No he didn't. He needed to have more support than he was getting in order
to stay in the running. If every person running for president were given
equal time, we'd never be able to hold an election. A line has to be
drawn in the sand.
Not to mention that what Ron Paul was saying was whacko...as in mentally
ill whacko.
JB> Just like Mike Gravel and Kucinich on the other side. The way all
JB> media (debates in particular) focused on certain candidates is dirty
JB> pool.
I don't think so. When a candidate talks about seeing flying saucers, that
has what to do with a political debate?
RW>> Actually, I always thought he verged on the edge of insanity.
JB> I just think he has ideas that the established parties don't like to
JB> hear.
He has weird ideas that don't fit. In last years session of congress, he
voted Yes on two occasions. The rest of the time he voted No or didn't
vote at all. That's a yes vote on 2 out of 16 major bills. 16 No votes
or no vote on such items as food safety, drug safety, job creation,
minimum wage, employment discrimination, pell grants, etc..
JB> Not that I'd have necessarily ever voted for him, but I did like to
JB> hear what he had to say. More importantly, I felt candidates like
JB> himself and the two Dems I mentioned helped keep the forerunners
JB> honest, since they'd call them out on bullshit.
Most of what the remaining candidates are saying is bullshit.
RW>> As well he should. He's not the conservative he says he is.
JB> Most elected Republicans these days aren't anyway.
They're a lot more conservative than any liberal...
RW>> That's the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr's fault...if you go to that
RW>> church for 20 years and hear that man's insanity, don't you think
RW>> you'd be influenced by it? You can't listen to that kind of hatered
RW>> and not form some kind of opinion and deny it while still attending
RW>> those services.
JB> Full agreement here, I already mentioned this in another post. I
JB> don't know how much influence it had on him, but as both you and I
JB> seem to agree, you don't go to someone's church for 20+ years if you
JB> dislike what they have to say.
Nor do you defend him after he's been found out.
RW>> JB> There have been so many documented accounts of Fox News
RW>> mistruths
RW>> JB> and bias that I honestly can't see how someone could have missed
RW>> JB> them.
RW>> If you listen to those who claim that, they either have something to
RW>> hide or be ashamed of...
JB> I've seen it myself, combined with all the claims from others,
JB> documentaries like "Outfoxed", etc, which all reinforces my opinion.
Oh well. I'll just keep you in the 'lost soul' list...
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|