CNN This Morning

[oilfanforever]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Oct 13 2005, 06:55 PM
So this morning I was watching CNN and it had a group of people from the militatry who were having a video conversation with good old GW, I normally keep my mouth shut about US politics because my knowledge is minimal on the subject, but this was just too over the top.


It begins with the military woman speaking who was obviously place to "show" that the army embraces their military woman, she then begins the ass kissing on Bush and of course old GW can't help by fumbling and screwing it up by cutting her off every few moments with "smart" remarks. Then finally she goes on the political push and says (more like reads of the teleprompter) about how she has seen such a vast change in the moral in soldiers and she feels that they are on the brink of putting a complete end on the terrorism, suprisingly Bush is quite shocked that she brought this issue up, which oddly enough he had a whole speech written up to back up this question.....what a surprise, is CNN always this bad with all the propaganda I almost wanted to puke when I watched this.

The sooner the US realizes that terrorism wont be quashed through military operations the better. IMO bush's deterrence agenda's will only hurt them in the long run, yet sparing the US from another attack during his term, cause that is what's important

[transplant99]

You are aware of how much respect Thomas had within the ranks of the White House Press Corps, right

I don't profess to be any kind of expert on the respect that individual journalists get from one another. though I find it odd, that the entire Press Corps seemed to take her "demotion" lying down.

It's not like she's some left-wing hack out to demonize conservatives; she certainly didn't get this kind of treatment at the hands of previous Republican administrations -- heck, Nixon even brought her to China (making her the only female journalist to report that historic visit, no less). What the Bush admin did to her is nothing less than a partisan censoring of the press.

And it's hardly been this bad forever. I don't remember Clinton refusing to allow questions from Fox reporters...

Maybe she shoudn't of written for all to see how much she "hates" George Bush. A public proclomation. Seems to me that could be categorized as "demonizing", especially to the leader of the country. Just my opinion I suppose.

Written in 2002. And published by MIT.



Veteran journalist Helen Thomas brought the grit and whir of a White House press conference to Bartos Theater on Monday evening, speaking with passion about the media's role in a democracy whose leaders seem eager for war.

Actually, the 82-year-old former United Press International reporter didn't just speak: she surged into her topic, giving everyone present an immediate sense of the grumpy wit and fierce precision that gave her reporting on American presidents Kennedy through Bush II such a competitive and lasting edge.

"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas, who is now a columnist for Hearst News Service. "Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Her short list of answers seems not to vary from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens, pretty much in that order.

And she should be afforded equal treatment why?

Because they're not even allowed to ask questions anymore! How is a journalist supposed to do his or her job if the only material they have is what Bush or McClellan spoon-feed them?

A good journalist, such as Helen Thomas, hardly needs a press briefing to uncover what she is after. What the hell would one expect to hear from the Presidents Press Secretary anyhow? When was the last time one of them spoke out against the very person that employs them??

Come on man....you know better than that!!. News gathering/in-depth reporting has NEVER relied on what is written and spoken from the White House pulpit.

This whole Karl Rove thing is a tremendous example of that.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 14 2005, 02:27 PM

How is this statement even possible? Bias is in the eye of the beholder, but if the beholder is not biased, the bias is now shifting right? Your premise defeats your conclusion in that I doubt you are unbiased.

Centerline has shifted genius. That means the media political lean has changed. I'll give you a numeric representation for example. The research is based studies of the guests programming had on and the number of pro-democrat or pro-republican comments made during a broadcast. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being 100% liberal biased and 10 being 100% conservative bias.

ABC... 5
CBS... 4
NBC... 5

Average... 4.6, or just a minor lean to the liberal side. The balance was provided through the Fairness Doctrine, and the media lived to that standard. Then came along the first cable news channels, and they had a pretty conservative leanings.

CNN... 6
MSNBC... 6

Average... 5.2, or just a minor lean to the conservative side. The Fairness Doctrine was struck down by a Reagan lacky, and that opened the doors for the Rupert Murdoch and Fox News to be born, skewing the media picture for good.

Fox News... 9

Average... 5.9, a big jump to the right for the centerline. To make matters worse, the other cable news netowrks are chasing Fox and becoming more conservative centric as well (giving the likes of Scarborough and Tucker free reign and no balancing opinion, much like Fox does). The centerline has shifted even further to the right as CNN and MSNBC continue their pursuit of Fox's numbers.

To add to all of this, the Bush administration is threatening to kill off PBS and NPR if they do not agree to a more conservative leaning themselves. And these two bodies still abide by the Fairness Doctrine, even though it was killed almost 20 years ago.

In short, the viewers bias impacts how they perceive the networks, but the scientific analysis of the media itself shows the center line for measuring bias has shifted more right in the past 20 years.

I can see how you and Tranny would get confused. Its a complex subject matter that is difficult to follow.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 14 2005, 02:40 PM
Agreed lurch

People love to trot out the "government controls the media" line all the time.

It simply and clearly isnt so.

Does the government try and control WHAT the media gets a hold of? Of course they do...EVERYWHERE. It's called damage control. All private businesses/citizens are quite adapt and capable of doing it as well.

To suggest that there is a massive conspiracy that allows some secret government agency to tell CNN or FOX or anyone else, what they can or can not broadcast, is so ridiculous it's funny.

A good jornalistic orginization is the one that goes deeper and uncovers the truth as supported by facts/memos/informants, and can substantiate what they say.

Too funny that anyone can get up in arms because a leader of a country was setting up a photo-op/staged scene.

It happens all the time, everywhere in the world. Hell, in Canada its a long living tradition.

Ask Martin about his "speech" when addressing the Gomery inquiry a few months back. It was so transparent it was ridiculous. The fact that media outlets covered it, doesn't make it any less so. It's what they do AFTER the fact that seperates the good from the bad.

Hey Tranny, care to comment on these gems?

* The Bush administration has been caught by the GAO repeatedly producing and placing propaganda in the media.

* The Bush administartion were caught planting a reporter in the press pool who tossed the President softball questions.

* Fox News' lead correspondent during the 2000 election, and assigned to cover Bush's every move, had his wife working in the Bush campaign at the time.

* Fox News is run by Roger Ailes, the same one who worked for Reagan and GHW Bush. This same Ailes instructed the White House how to handle the media after the events of 9/11 and through the Iraq war, while still running Fox News.

What you fail to comprehend is that journalism is disaray in this country. There is very little journalism being done as it is too expensive for the corporations to support. The local news bureas have been obliterated and have been replaced by repitition of the national feed. Soft news is all that the local stations produce any more, and that's all they are enouraged to produce. Journalism has been run over by corporate controls and the ideal of generating profits. The Fourth Estate is on life support in America.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by oilfanforever@Oct 14 2005, 11:33 AM
The sooner the US realizes that terrorism wont be quashed through military operations the better. IMO bush's deterrence agenda's will only hurt them in the long run, yet sparing the US from another attack during his term, cause that is what's important

Nobody likes war ...

but what's your solution. That's my thing these days. We shouldn't let people say things like ... "this war won't solve terrorism" with a period on the end.

What will solve or stop terrorism? Any ideas? I think questioning governments and authority is a very healthy part of democracy, but man I'm thiristing for any of these bomb throwers to come up with an alternate plan, a suggestion, a unique way of dealing with people that are committed to killing everyone that disagrees with their religion.

So?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 14 2005, 01:46 PM
I think questioning governments and authority is a very healthy part of democracy, but man I'm thiristing for any of these bomb throwers to come up with an alternate plan, a suggestion, a unique way of dealing with people that are committed to killing everyone that disagrees with their religion.

One way to start is to admit that they aren't motivated to kill simply to because we don't ascribe to their religion.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 14 2005, 07:55 PM
One way to start is to admit that they aren't motivated to kill simply to because we don't ascribe to their religion.

What?

They might have 637 reasons for wanting to kill us all. But the one Bingo mentions is the one that....

1. Won't change.
2. Is a catch all

How would it help to ignore that reason in favor of the others?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 14 2005, 01:59 PM
What?

They might have 637 reasons for wanting to kill us all. But the one Bingo mentions is the one that....

1. Won't change.
2. Is a catch all

How would it help to ignore that reason in favor of the others?

Maybe getting rid of a few of the other 636 reasons besides the religious one might make for less fanatics? I think so. Take away many reasons they hate us and you'll get less haters. You can't recruit tens of thousands of people on the sole basis that Americans aren't Islamic.

[Bingo]

So what's the plan then?

That's all I'm asking. I'm not personally a religious bigot (though I can't but get the feel from you in your reply that you must think I am), I'm a very tolerant person. But it seems to me that the terms "zionists", and "infidels" seems to come from one side of this little quarrel and not the other.

I'm not an extremist, so you're right it's likely not as simple as it looks from the outside, but the bottom line is they are extremists that want one part of the world's population dead.

How do you deal with them, if not going over there and getting them through force?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 14 2005, 02:35 PM


That's all I'm asking. I'm not personally a religious bigot (though I can't but get the feel from you in your reply that you must think I am), I'm a very tolerant person.

I'm sorry it came across that way, but it never even crossed my mind that you were a religious bigot.

I don't have a big master plan, but I know the crazies really hate the Saudi royal family. I don't like them either. George should stop holding hands with the king. That's a start.

And I know it's gone on forever, but someone please force the Israelis and Palestinians come to a fair compromise. That will take the motivation away, eventually, for millions of people to hate the West. There has got to be a solution somewhere.

Obviously these are overly simplistic, but you get the point I'm sure.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 14 2005, 02:43 PM
I'm sorry it came across that way, but it never even crossed my mind that you were a religious bigot.

I don't have a big master plan, but I know the crazies really hate the Saudi royal family. I don't like them either. George should stop holding hands with the king. That's a start.

And I know it's gone on forever, but someone please force the Israelis and Palestinians come to a fair compromise. That will take the motivation away, eventually, for millions of people to hate the West. There has got to be a solution somewhere.

Obviously these are overly simplistic, but you get the point I'm sure.

I know Bush had a peace plan in the works that pretty much went up in smoke ... and didn't Clinton almost have one worked out before Arafat pulled back?

Pretty hard to find that "compromise" when one or both sides won't reasonable.

But I agree ... that would help a lot.

I'm not a big war fan, but I'm a huge supporter of action in solving all problems in life ... they never go away if you just turn your back on them and hope they're not there when you turn around (Clinton). I think some big mistakes have been made, but I do think you have to go get these guys and deal with them as harshly as they seem to want to deal with you.

It would just be nice to see more critics with alternate plans instead of just out and out trashings with little to offer. Voters and people deserve better.

[Lurch]

Centerline has shifted genius. That means the media political lean has changed. I'll give you a numeric representation for example. The research is based studies of the guests programming had on and the number of pro-democrat or pro-republican comments made during a broadcast. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being 100% liberal biased and 10 being 100% conservative bias.

I just can't let this go - smarmy comments from someone who entirely misses the point drive me bananas. Lanny, you need a grasp on logic. The gist of the problem is there is no way to objectively measure bias, which apparently you agree with given your statement that bias depends on who is viewing. Despite the fact my genious does not rival your own, I can understand that the BIASED sources you quote as scientific studies support your belief that the bias has shifted. Again, this is a logically stupid argument to make, regardless of how fervently you believe it.

In short, the viewers bias impacts how they perceive the networks, but the scientific analysis of the media itself shows the center line for measuring bias has shifted more right in the past 20 years.

I can see how you and Tranny would get confused. Its a complex subject matter that is difficult to follow.

Thanks for enlightening me. Have you ever wondered why right-wing scientific studies show the opposite of your assertion that the media has slid left? Media studies are no more scientific than those in my specialty of economics, i.e. relativism rules the day. Just this morning, I read one 'scientific' economic study suggesting the US is heading for disaster economically with its debt issues, while others suggest it isn't a problem at all. Why don't you let me know which one is scientific and unbiased - it would make my job a lot easier!

For example, I just watched CNN for 15 minutes and the stories included Tom Delay's probelm, GW declining popularity and a multitude of car bombings in Iraq. You would say CNN glossed over the real issues and minimized the negative, reflecting right bias. Transplant, for the sake of argument, would say the media neglected to tell the positive stories about Bushy that are right there for the telling, reflecting Liberal bias. Where is this mystical arbiter of the middle that you are using to tell myself, the poor uniformed pawn of corporate media, that today's news was in fact biased to the right?

[MarchHare]

I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the US is targetted by Islamic terrorists while countries like, say, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and yes, Canada have thus far not been attacked.

Recently I read a story about a study done on the motivations of terrorists over the last 100 years. The conclusion was that with only a few exceptions, the terrorists saw themselves (or the people they were "fighting" for) as victims of an unjust occupation. I think there is some merit to that claim; the PLO attacking Israelis, the IRA vs. the British government, Chechens against the Russians, etc. Osama bin Laden's primary motivation against the US is his perception that American infidels were "occupying" the holy land in Saudi Arabia since 1990 as well as continued US assistance to the Israeli government and their "occupation" of Palestine. Even the post-9/11 terrorist attacks have followed this pattern by going after the countries that occupied Iraq, such as the UK, Spain, and Australia (indirectly through the Bali bombings).

So no, it's not just because Americans are Christian rather than Muslim that they're targetted by terrorists.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 14 2005, 12:46 PM
Nobody likes war ...

but what's your solution. That's my thing these days. We shouldn't let people say things like ... "this war won't solve terrorism" with a period on the end.

What will solve or stop terrorism? Any ideas? I think questioning governments and authority is a very healthy part of democracy, but man I'm thiristing for any of these bomb throwers to come up with an alternate plan, a suggestion, a unique way of dealing with people that are committed to killing everyone that disagrees with their religion.

So?

Maybe if the USA stopped going to war for their own selfish motivations it would give the terrorists less amunition. The war in Afghanistan seemed justiviable but the war in Iraq has caused more terrorism and looks like it will turn in to a fiasco.Iraq had no relationship with the El Quida before Bush moved in. It's looking more and more that Bush is earning the title of "idiot' or whatever he was labeled. Bingo,I don't think we will ever stop war and terrorism but I would say don't feed the animals.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 14 2005, 02:55 PM
I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the US is targetted by Islamic terrorists while countries like, say, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and yes, Canada have thus far not been attacked.

Recently I read a story about a study done on the motivations of terrorists over the last 100 years. The conclusion was that with only a few exceptions, the terrorists saw themselves (or the people they were "fighting" for) as victims of an unjust occupation. I think there is some merit to that claim; the PLO attacking Israelis, the IRA vs. the British government, Chechens against the Russians, etc. Osama bin Laden's primary motivation against the US is his perception that American infidels were "occupying" the holy land in Saudi Arabia since 1990 as well as continued US assistance to the Israeli government and their "occupation" of Palestine. Even the post-9/11 terrorist attacks have followed this pattern by going after the countries that occupied Iraq, such as the UK, Spain, and Australia (indirectly through the Bali bombings).

So no, it's not just because Americans are Christian rather than Muslim that they're targetted by terrorists.

Al Qaeda listed something like seven countries they would target a few years ago, and all but Canada have been hit.

It's likely coming.

The countries targeted don't include Switzerland, Belgium and Norway, but then that's not really a surprise is it? I don't remember the exact 7 but I think they're all G8 countries.

They justify through religion but I really think it comes down to order and standard of living. It's easy to take advantage of people that don't have the means or the information to obtain a better life.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Oct 14 2005, 03:36 PM
Maybe if the USA stopped going to war for their own selfish motivations it would give the terrorists less amunition. The war in Afghanistan seemed justiviable but the war in Iraq has caused more terrorism and looks like it will turn in to a fiasco.Iraq had no relationship with the El Quida before Bush moved in. It's looking more and more that Bush is earning the title of "idiot' or whatever he was labeled. Bingo,I don't think we will ever stop war and terrorism but I would say don't feed the animals.

Once again ... you haven't offered a solution ... just a rant with many many subjective opinions that some will agree with and some won't.

Basically my point.

What do you do when people plan to kill you? Kill them or hide?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 14 2005, 03:02 PM
Once again ... you haven't offered a solution ... just a rant with many many subjective opinions that some will agree with and some won't.

Basically my point.

What do you do when people plan to kill you? Kill them or hide?

Of course you kill them, but just because you've had a bad day [911] you don't go home and kick your dog [Saddam] because you are just causing more problems.

[Patek23]

Whats with the wole assumption that it says somewhere in the Muslim religion to kill people of other religions, because I can assure you it doesn't.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Oct 14 2005, 04:28 PM
Of course you kill them, but just because you've had a bad day [911] you don't go home and kick your dog [Saddam] because you are just causing more problems.

A bad day? I hope you didn't mean to come off as that insensitive. Over 3000 innocent people just going to work like you and I were killed that day.

Yuck.

Saddam was a wicked man that slaughtered his own people, ignored rules outlined by the UN, and was a vicious dictator in every sense of the word. Losing him as a nation's leader isn't a bad thing no matter how you look at it.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Oct 14 2005, 04:42 PM
Whats with the wole assumption that it says somewhere in the Muslim religion to kill people of other religions, because I can assure you it doesn't.

Who said that? How many times can I use the word extremists and not be misinterpreted for attacking a religion. KKK members are Christians and you won't see a whole lot of support from me.

Nut bars exist in every religion in the world I'm sure ... but if a very large contingent of such extremists are hell bent on killing as many people they disagree with as they can I'd be inclined to step up and do something about it.