NY Time/Boston Globe endorse Kerry

[Cowperson]

For those interested, more newspapers stepping to the Kerry side, this time the New York Times and Boston Globe, the latter owned by the former, endorse John Kerry this morning, their comments summarized in this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/...ents/index.html

The NY Times editorial which requires registration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/...l?oref=login&hp

The Boston Globe editorial endorsing Kerry which doesn't require registration.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial..._for_president/

Also, the New York Times Public Editor with a two part series examining if the New York Times carries a systemic Liberal bias as argued by the right. Amusingly, he says, "Hell yeah we're Liberal" and says its reflective of the community. You may have to register to read:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...Public%20Editor

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinre...l?oref=login&hp

And just for Lanny this morning, the Washington Post examines the impact of Karl Rove on the Bush Presidency:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6262475/

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Aren't the Boston Globe and the NY Times government controlled media??

Why would they come out against their head honcho if this is the case?

Lanny?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 17 2004, 03:06 PM
Aren't the Boston Globe and the NY Times government controlled media??

Why would they come out against their head honcho if this is the case?

Lanny?

Lol, clearly hedging their bets because they believe Kerry will win, and want a head-start on being 'government-controlled'

[Cowperson]

Come to think of it, has anyone found a daily newspaper in a large USA metropolitan area that has endorsed Bush yet?

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 17 2004, 04:41 PM
Come to think of it, has anyone found a daily newspaper in a large USA metropolitan area that has endorsed Bush yet?

Cowperson

What about that Murdoch group you guys are always yakking about, hasn't it gone for Bush? (seriously, I have no idea).

Pretty surprising if it's true that no major paper has come out for Bush.

Damn liberal media!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 17 2004, 04:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 17 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 17 2004, 04:41 PM
Come to think of it, has anyone found a daily newspaper in a large USA metropolitan area that has endorsed Bush yet?

Cowperson

What about that Murdoch group you guys are always yakking about, hasn't it gone for Bush? (seriously, I have no idea).

Pretty surprising if it's true that no major paper has come out for Bush.

Damn liberal media! [/b][/quote]
It's obvious the New York Post will come out for Bush.

I wouldn't say its so obvious the Chicago Sun-Times and the Boston Herald would. Those are the other two major Murdoch papers in the USA.

We're still early in the endorsement season so it may well be that other newspapers will favour Bush. I just can't recall any to date off the top of my head.

In all honesty, I don't think networks actually endorse candidates via a direct announcement of an editorial stance but I might be wrong about that.

Cowperson

[Flame On]

I think the Chicago Tribune has, if I heard correctly on CNN this morning (actually from late edition last night), endorsed Bush.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 17 2004, 06:35 PM
I think the Chicago Tribune has, if I heard correctly on CNN this morning (actually from late edition last night), endorsed Bush.

Indeed, the Chicago Tribune today endorses GW Bush. Their rationale:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...ll=chi-news-hed

Two interesting things about that - The Tribune is the competition for the Murdoch owned Chicago Sun-Times and secondly, the Tribune was the source of the rabid anti-Bush neo-con article Lanny posted a few days ago.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Even Bush's home town newspaper has endorsed Kerry.

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Ed...editorial39.htm

[sjwalter]

Wasn't that paper downplayed and ads pulled from it after they did it?

http://www.plastic.com/article.html;...09/30/05564647

Thought so, if this article is legit then i can say, what did the paper expect to happen, Bush Country to all of a sudden turn over to Kerry Country?

They have balls to do that.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 17 2004, 03:06 PM
Aren't the Boston Globe and the NY Times government controlled media??

Why would they come out against their head honcho if this is the case?

Lanny?

Wow, a BOSTON paper comes out and endoses the MASSACHUSETTS Senator for President? Holy smokes, what a shock!!! I sure didn't see that coming. Next thing you know Goober and Ellie Mae from the Ashville Citizen will endorse "the God fearing christian gentleman" from the pulpit at their local church. Will wonders never cease?

And Tranny, where were you when the government admitted they were indeed limiting the flow of information and trying to get more "positive" stories coming out to help out the President's re-elction campaign? Oh, you must have missed that day.

You are aware that the government doesn't have to tell the media what to say, and print, to control it? If you can control the media's access to information you can control what they can report. If the military does not clear the footage leaving Iraq (which has been going on) the media cannot air the clip and report their story. If you can limit the media access to interviews, you can prevent the media from getting the needed second verifiable source (a legal requirement that the management for most large media outlets demands). If information is deemed key to national security it becomes non-consumable for the general public and non-releasable. If information stores are restricted, or even slowed by bureacracy or "search errors", that contributes to the ability to control the flow of information. All of these contribute greatly in the government's ability to limit the medias ability to report the facts.

Another tool that the government has working for it, at this time is the vast network of corporate owned partisan media outlets (FoxNews and Sinclair for example). FoxNews builds its broadcast day around talking points supplied by those diretly connected to the Republicans and those in government. Sinclair is unabashed in their support of the Republican cause and extremely pro-government. When you have two large organizations like this working for your cause, it is very easy to have an obvious lie (say, Kerry thinks terrorism is a nuisance) to be accepted as fact. The public is very sussceptable to accepting information from the media as being true, espceially if it is repeated more than a few times. This is why FoxNews has a limited n umber of stories and talking points they focus on and they beat to death during their broadcast day. Repetition makes it true. It also makes the other networks chase those that carry the talking points. Its a very effective strategy that works well in a competitive news marketplace that needs the government "leaks" to make news.

Its all there for you to see. You just have to open your eyes. What are the two most embarassing situations for the government in regards to Iraq? Abu Grahib and the Inspection reports. Both happened because of sources that the government lost control over. Beyond that, Iraq has gone swimmingly for the government when you consider how badly it is going. Consider that. Think on that and try and convince me that the Bush administration is not controlling the media and having a great level of success at that.

[Cowperson]

Excellent summary below from Associated Press of which newspapers have announced endorsements for each candidate.

Kerry endorsements come in spite of access to facts controlled by Bush. Their numbers include: Philadelphia Daily News, the Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Arizona Daily Star, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, New York Times, Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Dayton (Ohio) Daily News and nine other daily newspapers which endorsed Bush in 2000 but switched sides in 2004.

In addition, these mindless papers which have been operating in the dark thanks to the Bush control of facts "announced their support for Kerry over the weekend:" Seven Florida newspapers, two Ohio dailies and four Minnesota papers

Endorsing Bush because he controls the facts and they obviously fell for it are The Chicago Tribune, The Carlsbad Current-Argus, Carlsbad, N.M., Omaha World-Herald, Omaha, Neb., Rocky Mountain News, Denver, The Arizona Republic, The Dallas Morning News and The [San Antonio] Express-News.

The San Antonio paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

A summary of comments from each endorsement is contained here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268250/

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

And here's some more endorsements. The majority of them are in swing state Florida.

Florida not quite up for grabs?

[transplant99]

Wow, a BOSTON paper comes out and endoses the MASSACHUSETTS Senator for President? Holy smokes, what a shock!!! I sure didn't see that coming. Next thing you know Goober and Ellie Mae from the Ashville Citizen will endorse "the God fearing christian gentleman" from the pulpit at their local church. Will wonders never cease?

Nice stereotype.

On top of that, I would be stunned silly if the local paper (Citizen-Times btw) does anything but endorse Kerry.

And Tranny, where were you when the government admitted they were indeed limiting the flow of information and trying to get more "positive" stories coming out to help out the President's re-elction campaign? Oh, you must have missed that day.

So the government doesn't give the media every single bit of information it has...what a shocker. Its been happening since the beginning of print media Lanny...this is nothing new and certainly doesnt mean that government "controls" media. It means that real journalists have to dig deeper to get facts and prove theories, again, nothing new here.

You are aware that the government doesn't have to tell the media what to say, and print, to control it? If you can control the media's access to information you can control what they can report. If the military does not clear the footage leaving Iraq (which has been going on) the media cannot air the clip and report their story. If you can limit the media access to interviews, you can prevent the media from getting the needed second verifiable source (a legal requirement that the management for most large media outlets demands). If information is deemed key to national security it becomes non-consumable for the general public and non-releasable. If information stores are restricted, or even slowed by bureacracy or "search errors", that contributes to the ability to control the flow of information. All of these contribute greatly in the government's ability to limit the medias ability to report the facts.

Nothing, and i mean nothing, is stopping independant news groups from going out and filming whatever they want, where ever they want, except for the danger involved. I see images from Iraq on my TV every single day that include blown up buildings/cars, etc. Individual netorks decided long ago, that dead and dismembered bodies are not proper images for public consumption. I dont disagree. Nothing I want to see on a regular basis.

Its all there for you to see. You just have to open your eyes. What are the two most embarassing situations for the government in regards to Iraq? Abu Grahib and the Inspection reports. Both happened because of sources that the government lost control over. Beyond that, Iraq has gone swimmingly for the government when you consider how badly it is going. Consider that. Think on that and try and convince me that the Bush administration is not controlling the media and having a great level of success at that.

Iraq has gone swimmingly?? What station are you watching? Its been a disaster since Baghdad fell...most everyone agrees. They report American casualties each and every day. They have talking head after talking head describing how badly many parts of Iraq finds itself. Each and every news source in this country has many detractors from the Iraqi effort. Its interesting you state the government just "lost control" of two sources. Nonsense. It happens ALL the time, that the government has bad news reported about it. Again, its happened this way since long before you or I were put on this planet.

[Cowperson]

The Washington Post, its eyes covered by the blindfold of the Bush administration, has endorsed John Kerry today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Oct17.html

Cowperson