Text 13235, 222 rader
Skriven 2008-03-19 22:43:05 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
  Kommentar till text 13215 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Re: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
==========================================
RW>JB> I used to watch CBS evening news actually, until Katie Couric took
RW>JB> it over.
 
RW> I did too, since it was the least tainted of liberal propaganda. That
RW> isn't saying much, as they're all far left liberals.
 
Some actually accuse CBS as one of the more heavily biased.  I thought you
might be one, but you've surprised me again.
 
 
RW> I agree with Andrew Heyward, they shouldn't have used that material
RW> without proof that they were authentic. Doing so is piss poor journalism.
 
I also agree that they should have had more backing for such a major
accusation, just to prevent this very sort of thing.
 
 
RW> Mary Mapes, who along with Rather had been investigating for several
RW> years
RW> the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the
RW> National Guard, was "by her own account [aware that] many in the press
RW> considered Burkett an 'anti-Bush zealot,' his credibility in question."
 
RW> Mapes was fired too and deservedly so, IMO.
 
Journalists make mistakes, and while that one was a big mistake, it was lame of
CBS to cave to Republican pressure like they did.  Had the story been
completely wrong and proven false, the firing might have been justified.
 
Though of course I've heard many Republicans who wholeheartedly believe that
every aspect of it was proven false, and refuse to believe otherwise.  I know a
couple of them, in fact.
 
I honestly hope one day they are proven one way or another, because it's
something important that should be known about Bush.
 
 
RW>JB> Then apparently you've missed all the times he's done so.  O'Reilly
RW>JB> is a bully.
 
RW> You've watched him perhaps, once or twice, or you're repeating hearsay.
 
I don't have to sit through a whole episode to see him be a jerk to people.
 
 
RW>JB> When somebody says something he doesn't agree with, he tells them to
RW>JB> shut up (literally).
 
RW> No he doesn't. Never has.
 
Yes he has, several times, as you would have seen had you watched the clips I
sent.
 
 
RW>JB> He cuts mics.
 
RW> No he doesn't.
 
Yes he has, several times, as you would have seen had you watched the clips I
sent.
 
 
RW>JB>   He yells at guests.
 
RW> Yeah, to those who are too stupid to live. e.g. a Democratic knucklehead
RW> who comes on the show and won't stop talking. All they want to do is get
RW> their ignorant statements aired and couldn't care less about the truth.
RW> I've shut them off (remote mute button) long before Bill does.
 
Bill interrupts the people he disagrees with and sometimes tries to put words
into their mouths or generalize what they're saying, so I don't blame most of
his guests for interrupting him.  If he doesn't want them to air their
opinions, why does he bring them on?  So that he can berate them, of course.
 
 
RW>JB> He tells outright falsehoods
 
RW> Name one.
 
I did, and provided video proof.
 
 
RW>JB>  and incorrect information
 
RW> Spell it out.
 
Did so.
 
 
RW>JB> and refuses to admit it later even when called out on it by viewers.
 
RW> You mean the 'pinheads'? That's why they're called pinheads.
 
I'm actually referring to loyal viewers.
 
 
RW>JB> They rewrite transcripts to remove things that make them look wrong.
RW>JB> I'm not just making this up to make him look bad.  I wish I were!
 
RW> You must be, as I've never seen any of this on the show.
 
Or you chose not to see it.
 
 
RW>JB> Just some examples of bullying + "shut up" + mic cuts, if you're
RW>JB> interested in seeing it:
 
RW> Ahh, you tube...yeah, like I'd believe anything coming from that liberal
RW> website.
 
Yeah, because a website that allows anyone to post anything is obviously
liberal.  No Republicans allowed!
 
 
RW> Clips, which take the entire conversation out of context...Olbermann's
RW> opinions aren't worth listening to.
 
You didn't even watch the Olberman clip, apparently.  There's no way the things
O'Reilly said about Malmedy could ever possibly be taken out of context in any
way whatsoever.  He was extremely wrong, twice.  A viewer of his pointed it out
in a letter, and he totally lied about what he had originally said.  Right on
the air.  For everyone, including someone like yourself who has supposedly been
watching him for 10 years, to have seen. They then edited the transcripts to
remove that bit.  It's not opinion, it's blatant fact.  Fact you can go and
confirm yourself, if you were at all interested in seeing O'reilly was guilty
of any of the stuff I've been saying.
 
I honestly don't know why you're so opposed to accepting that O'Reilly might
have done those things. 
 
 
RW>JB> I would in fact look at anything you could provide to show the same
RW>JB> sort of documented bias with networks like CNN as there's been with
RW>JB> Fox.
 
RW> LOL! You just made my point by outing MSNBC and Olbermann. That's all the
RW> proof you should need.
 
Olbermann, like O'Reilly, shouldn't be used to represent what the station's
general bias is.  No more than any of the other opininated discussion show
hosts should be, like Glenn Beck.  I was asking for documented proof of Fox
News-level of bias on average news for channels like CNN, which you claimed
exists, and I would be happy to look at.
 
 
RW>JB> I don't actually watch it, I just feel like the degree of magnitude
RW>JB> between the programs they air is something to notice in cases when
RW>JB> bias is accused.
 
RW> Then don't bother quoting it or providing links to youtube...
 
How exactly does me not watching all of a particular program affect its
relevence to the discussion?  I don't read all of the newspaper, but that
doesn't mean the things I did read aren't still useful.  As I mentioned before,
I watch interesting bits from Olbermann on Youtube or wherever, because I have
no interest in watching his entire show no more than I do to watch all of
O'Reilly.  Which, believe it or not, I do watch clips from as well.  Once in
while he actually says something I agree with, regardless of my opinion of him.
 Other times I watch just to see what sort of shenanigans he's been up to
against his guests.
 
 
RW>JB> As for polls in general, you can get pretty much whatever answer you
RW>JB> want depending on how you ask, as this pretty much sums up my
RW>JB> opinion of:
 
RW> Of course you can...and there are other polls taken that prove that.
 
RW>JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c
 
RW> No thanks...I don't watch liberal propaganda.
 
The "liberal propaganda" in that video tells about the notorious pollster Frank
Luntz.  A man who admits openly that you can get any answer you want by
phrasing things a particular way.  A man who even demonstrated this on the
street himself.  A man who has been reprimanded and censured in the past for
his actions regarding such work. And a man who Fox News uses for political
polls.
 
 
RW>JB> He deserved just as much time as anyone else.
 
RW> No he didn't. He needed to have more support than he was getting in order
RW> to stay in the running. If every person running for president were given
RW> equal time, we'd never be able to hold an election. A line has to be
RW> drawn in the sand.
 
By your line of thinking, the only candidates who we'd ever see are the ones
who have a ton of money to get the support in the first place.  Which
unfortunately is how it ends up anyway, since only one or two candidates get
all the air time everywhere, and so those become the names everyone remembers. 
Nobody wants to put their money on the horse last out of the gate.  Even if
that one might really be the fastest runner.
 
 
RW> Not to mention that what Ron Paul was saying was whacko...as in
RW> mentally ill whacko.
 
He still had equal right to say it, even if you or I didn't agree with all of
it.  I'd support your right to run for president just the same.
 
 
RW>JB> Just like Mike Gravel and Kucinich on the other side. The way all
RW>JB> media (debates in particular) focused on certain candidates is dirty
RW>JB> pool.
 
RW> I don't think so. When a candidate talks about seeing flying saucers,
RW> that has what to do with a political debate?
 
Nothing, just like a lot of other stuff that's brought up in interviews.
 
 
 
RW>JB> I've seen it myself, combined with all the claims from others,
RW>JB> documentaries like "Outfoxed", etc, which all reinforces my opinion.
 
RW> Oh well. I'll just keep you in the 'lost soul' list...
 
I'm pleased to make it into anyone's lists!

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)