US view of Islam declining

[WCSox]

Sorry for the piling on, but, what you would like to see reported from Iraq? 

 

How is it not news whan US Servicemen and Servicewomen die in a military action?

 

So, when news media with blatantly-liberal columnists/reporters saturate their papers/newscasts with these stories day after day after day, they're only reporting the news and are not at all attempting to dictate policy?

[NorthSideSox72]

So, when news media with blatantly-liberal columnists/reporters saturate their papers/newscasts with these stories day after day after day, they're only reporting the news and are not at all attempting to dictate policy?

I don't see how you can consider the reporting of a soldier's death a liberal saturation of the news. It would be reported regardless of who was in office, guaranteed.

[WCSox]

I don't see how you can consider the reporting of a soldier's death a liberal saturation of the news.  It would be reported regardless of who was in office, guaranteed.

 

Most liberal media outlets are anti-war and anti-military. Most of the major ones in this country are also anti-Bush.

 

Walter Cronkite going on the 6:00 news and flat-out lying to millions of Americans about what happened during the Tet Offensive tells you all you need to know about liberal media bias during a time of war.

Edited March 9, 2006 by WCSox

[kapkomet]

YAS,

 

I'm going to disagree here. I don't think that showcasing violence in Iraq - of which there is plenty - is done to push a liberal agenda. The fact is that when people get killed, its news. When people are attacked, its news. Especially when it happens as often as it does in a place where we are supposed to control the security of this country.

 

That makes it news. No agenda necessary.

So why aren't the 100's of killed every day IN THIS COUNTRY from violence covered with the same fury?

[Controlled Chaos]

So why aren't the 100's of killed every day IN THIS COUNTRY from violence covered with the same fury?

 

In 2004, the last year for which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has complete statistics, there were 16,137 reported murders in the United States.

 

Iraq Casualties by year

2003 486

2004 848

2005 846

2006 126

 

Total 2306

Edited March 9, 2006 by Controlled Chaos

[NorthSideSox72]

In 2004, the last year for which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has complete statistics, there were 16,137 reported murders in the United States.

 

Iraq Casualties by year

2003 486

2004 848

2005 846

2006 126

 

Total 2306

2306 plus tens of thousands of Iraqis. That does tend to add to the impact.

[NorthSideSox72]

Most liberal media outlets are anti-war and anti-military.  Most of the major ones in this country are also anti-Bush.

 

Walter Cronkite going on the 6:00 news and flat-out lying to millions of Americans about what happened during the Tet Offensive tells you all you need to know about liberal media bias during a time of war.

You didn't answer the question. How is reporting combat deaths of thousands of American troops not news? Or otherwise worded, how is that politically biased?

 

Walter Cronkite 40 years ago is your example?!

 

The "MSM" as some like to call it will report what people read/hear/see. If they fail to do that, they fail to exist. If they choose to not report certain things, other networks will, and again, they will fail to exist. Its not politics - its business.

[NorthSideSox72]

So why aren't the 100's of killed every day IN THIS COUNTRY from violence covered with the same fury?

Now THAT is a good question.

 

I think that is less about politics than it is about the sociology of American society. It it was political, they'd cover the murders too, and blame that on some politician. Murders are everyday, and they seem to the average American as unavoidable. How can you predict murder or change the path away from it? That is a difficult task. War, on the other hand, is a choice. A murder is a person's choice but beyond the country's control. War is a choice we have a voice in, in a democracy. I think that is your answer.

[Rex Kickass]

So you're saying there's a war in Iraq? Funny because I thought we were in charge of an occupation in Iraq. One does not make for the other.

[WCSox]

You didn't answer the question.  How is reporting combat deaths of thousands of American troops not news?

 

The deaths of our troops in Iraq is no more news-worthy than the deaths of the hundreds of people in our nation's poor neighborhoods. Why don't the major media outlets report that? Why aren't they reporting the deaths of homeless people from starvation and drug addiction?

 

Here's why: There's no political gain in doing so!

 

Walter Cronkite 40 years ago is your example?!

 

OK, how about Dan Rather's fake story about Bush's military service record, conveniently aired right before the '04 election? Is that current enough for you?

 

So why aren't the 100's of killed every day IN THIS COUNTRY from violence covered with the same fury?

 

Because that news won't get a liberal into the White House!

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, how about Dan Rather's fake story about Bush's military service record, conveniently aired right before the '04 election?  Is that current enough for you?

 

I addressed all your points in an earlier post, except this one above.

 

First, the story wasn't fake. The letter may have been, but there was other evidence besides the letter. And having seen the other evidence, I'm not sure Bush didn't in fact skip out.

 

Second, they also reported a ton on the Swift Boat nonsense. There too, there were multiple pieces of evidence, but nothing terribly concrete. So how is that different? They were both covered in the news, both talked about plenty. Where is this supposed bias?

[mr_genius]

This is going to fillibuster now for obvious reasons... enjoy.

 

 

suprised it wasn't just started there

[mr_genius]

First, the story wasn't fake.  The letter may have been, but there was other evidence besides the letter.  And having seen the other evidence, I'm not sure Bush didn't in fact skip out.

 

 

 

 

whoa...i know you aren't defending the use of forged documents, in an attempt to sway public opinion, on a national news telecast directly before a presidential election? the "well it was probably true anyways" argument is a very bad one.

Edited March 9, 2006 by mr_genius

[WCSox]

I addressed all your points in an earlier post, except this one above.

 

I disagree with you there as well. Murder is not "beyond our country's control." That's why we have the police and the FBI. The news media isn't interested in removing crime from our inner-city streets. They're interested in embarrassing the Bush administration and putting liberals in positions of political power.

 

First, the story wasn't fake.  The letter may have been, but there was other evidence besides the letter.  And having seen the other evidence, I'm not sure Bush didn't in fact skip out.

 

The letter was the most important piece of evidence and it was determined to be not authentic by multiple experts. The document, supposedly written on a typewriter in the '70s, was determined to have been written on a computer with Microsoft Word! And Dan Rather happily declined to attempt to authenticate the document before reading it on the air to tens of millions of registered voters. No time for the truth, there's an election coming up soon!

 

Second, they also reported a ton on the Swift Boat nonsense.  There too, there were multiple pieces of evidence, but nothing terribly concrete.  So how is that different?  They were both covered in the news, both talked about plenty.  Where is this supposed bias?

 

The Swift Boat campaign was indeed nonsense. The obvious difference was that it was organized by a grassroots organization and not a major media outlet. On the other hand, Mary Mapes' unathentic documents were presented on air by Dan Rather of CBS News. There's bias everywhere, the the MEDIA bias in this case was definitely on the liberal side.

Edited March 9, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

The Swift Boat campaign was indeed nonsense.  The obvious difference was that it was organized by a grassroots organization and not a major media outlet.  On the other hand, Mary Mapes' unathentic documents were presented on air by Dan Rather of CBS News.  There's bias everywhere, the the MEDIA bias in this case was definitely on the liberal side.

How does the fact that it was organized by a "Grassroots organization" (which oddly enough was funded by the same grassroots folks that funded Bush's anti-McCain ads in 2000, or even Bush 1's Willie Horton ad in '88) change the fact that they were on the air spouting complete nonsense? Every single network ran stories on the Swifties...their ads got tons of free air time on the Cable networks, and they stayed in the news despite repeated reports which proved unequivocally that they were lying at every turn.

 

CBS got what it deserved for running those documents. Rather is out of a job, their network took a ton of disgrace, etc. Yet all of the networks which ran the swift boat pieces got George W. Bush in the White House.

[Balance]

The Swift Boat campaign was indeed nonsense.  The obvious difference was that it was organized by a grassroots organization and not a major media outlet.  On the other hand, Mary Mapes' unathentic documents were presented on air by Dan Rather of CBS News.  There's bias everywhere, the the MEDIA bias in this case was definitely on the liberal side.

The Swift Boat nonsense was treated as actual news, however. If the news was so liberally biased, it wouldn't have been brought up day after day after day after day. It never would have gotten the coverage it got.

 

The same is true for the Al Gore "I invented the internet" issue. He never said that. But the so-called liberal media allowed it to be twisted into that to make Gore look like a liar.

 

If you think that the fake memo is all the evidence, or even the most important evidence, that Dubya skipped out on his national guard duties, then I really don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise. Nothing I can say will change your mind.

[Balta1701]

If you think that the fake memo is all the evidence, or even the most important evidence, that Dubya skipped out on his national guard duties, then I really don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.

It is really amazing how lucky Bush got with that...as the moment CBS was proven to have run forgeries, suddenly every single question about Bush's guard duty dried right back up, as no one wanted to be connected with that embarassment. From that moment on...it was totally off limits...it couldn't even get used in response to the Swifty lies.

[WCSox]

How does the fact that it was organized by a "Grassroots organization" (which oddly enough was funded by the same grassroots folks that funded Bush's anti-McCain ads in 2000, or even Bush 1's Willie Horton ad in '88) change the fact that they were on the air spouting complete nonsense?  Every single network ran stories on the Swifties...their ads got tons of free air time on the Cable networks, and they stayed in the news despite repeated reports which proved unequivocally that they were lying at every turn.

 

CBS got what it deserved for running those documents.  Rather is out of a job, their network took a ton of disgrace, etc.  Yet all of the networks which ran the swift boat pieces got George W. Bush in the White House.

 

The Swift Boat story campaign was presented as an opinion and it was obviously a very partisan one. Anybody with two functioning brain cells knew that their motives were political. On the other hand, Rather is supposed to be an objective anchorman. His job is to read the news, not offer commentary or opinion. He presented what was supposed to be an official military document (a FACT, not an opinion) to the American people that was later shown to be unathentic.

 

I agree that what the Swift Boat Veterans did was low and I think that it actually hurt Bush more than it helped him. But the way they presented their case and the way that Rather and CBS presented theirs were very different.

 

The Swift Boat nonsense was treated as actual news, however.

 

No, it wasn't. It was a bunch of old war veterans who thought that Kerry didn't deserve some of his medals. It was an obvious smear campaign.

Edited March 9, 2006 by WCSox

[mr_genius]

It is really amazing how lucky Bush got with that...as the moment CBS was proven to have run forgeries, suddenly every single question about Bush's guard duty dried right back up, as no one wanted to be connected with that embarassment.  From that moment on...it was totally off limits...it couldn't even get used in response to the Swifty lies.

 

there was as much evidence pointing in the direction of "he did serve in the guard" as "he got special treatment, didn't need to show up".

Edited March 9, 2006 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

whoa...i know you aren't defending the use of forged documents, in an attempt to sway public opinion, on a national news telecast directly before a presidential election?  the "well it was probably true anyways" argument is a very bad one.

No I'm absolutely not - let me be clear there. They didn't check into it nearly enough, and failed in their journalism.

 

But I don't think it was a liberl athing - I think it was "Get this dirty laundry into the news ASAP", and it would have been the same for Kerry. And it was - Swift Boat appeared in the MSM plenty.

[WCSox]

If you think that the fake memo is all the evidence, or even the most important evidence, that Dubya skipped out on his national guard duties, then I really don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise..

 

Oh, did you have evidence to prove otherwise?

 

I'm all ears...

[NorthSideSox72]

I disagree with you there as well.  Murder is not "beyond our country's control."  That's why we have the police and the FBI.  The news media isn't interested in removing crime from our inner-city streets.  They're interested in embarrassing the Bush administration and putting liberals in positions of political power.

 

Not what I said. Read my post. Most Americans do not see a way to stop a murder - it is easier to pick one person they think caused many deaths. That could be Bush, or Islam, or the Iranian Premier or whomever. That is what I am getting at.

 

Of course we can do things about murder generally, and we have. Murder rates are down nationally, and have been on that trend for a decade or more.

 

The letter was the most important piece of evidence and it was determined to be not authentic by multiple experts.  The document, supposedly written on a typewriter in the '70s, was determined to have been written on a computer with Microsoft Word!  And Dan Rather happily declined to attempt to authenticate the document before reading it on the air to tens of millions of registered voters.  No time for the truth, there's an election coming up soon!

 

It was key, and as I said in my reply to Mr G, it was shoddy journalism. But there was other evidence, much like the evidence used in the Swift Boat nonsense. And just the same, they were both covered in the news.

[WCSox]

No I'm absolutely not - let me be clear there.  They didn't check into it nearly enough, and failed in their journalism.

 

But I don't think it was a liberl athing - I think it was "Get this dirty laundry into the news ASAP", and it would have been the same for Kerry.  And it was - Swift Boat appeared in the MSM plenty.

 

The Swift Boat and Rathergate situations are not comparable because the Swift Boat Veterans MADE THEIR OWN CASE. Sure, they were on TV, but their argument was being made by them, not the network. O'Reilly has left-wing nutcases like Al Sharpton on his show all of the time, but that doesn't mean that he's promoting their ideas.

 

On the other hand, Dan Rather and CBS were the ones who directly presented the case about Bush's military record.

[WCSox]

Not what I said.  Read my post.  Most Americans do not see a way to stop a murder - it is easier to pick one person they think caused many deaths.  That could be Bush, or Islam, or the Iranian Premier or whomever.  That is what I am getting at.

 

Of course we can do things about murder generally, and we have.  Murder rates are down nationally, and have been on that trend for a decade or more.

 

American troop deaths have been down significantly since World War II. What's your point?

[Balance]

Oh, did you have evidence to prove otherwise? 

 

I'm all ears...

How about the reward offered to anyone who could prove that they served with Dubya in the guard, and could prove it? No takers.

 

How about the numerous articles about how Dubya was helping with a political campaign in Alabama when he was supposed to be on duty with the Guard?

 

Need more? You got Google. Use it.