The reason why there are more stories about homeless people know is because the number has risen. It's noticeably different here in New York than it was in 99. Makes sense with regard to the economy. Bad economy = more homeless. I like your suspension of disbelief. THe Plame affair is not a "scandal", it's a crime. Multiple felonies were committed by individuals within the Administration for political gain and the special prosecuter is in the process of bringing charges against them, and the President has retained counsel. The fact that this isn't more highly publicized is surprising to me and undercuts claims of media bias.
I am shocked by this also. It's even more shocking when the people who don't find it a scandal are the ones who preach loudest for a strong defense and national security and are worried that Kerry will make the country weaker. Yet when somebody leaks the name of an operative from an agency which is perhaps the most actively engaged in the war on terror, we hear silence. During a time when our troops are in the field and terrorists are actively plotting to bring destruction on the U.S., it's allies, and resources, somebody within the President's administration commits a felony by leaking the name of intel operative. These people who claim to worry about national defense so much don't seem troubled that a felon with top security clearance is still loose and in a position to do more harm to nation's defense. It is shocking.
Sure.....right. She wasn't an intel officer or under any "deep cover" as you folks would try to say. Besides, when did you on the left, who have a nasty of history of slashing intel budgets and hampering our intel agencies with restrictive and moronic regulations (Church Committee hearings, Clinton's various tinkerings), care about this sort of thing anyhow? Only when you guys are using it to score cheap political points.
Actually it is said that Plame did indeed have contacts in the field and was someone who's identity was to remain covert. As for slashing intel budgets, you haven't seen Kerry's proposal which calls for an increase in intel spending and operations.
As a person who works in the media, I hear this stuff all the time. Viewers will call me and go off on how I'm a left-wing Kerry-lover who will do anything to see Bush out of office. I hear daily how I'd be happy if Gore was in office. People out there actually think that all the media gets together in a room and looks for ways to spin some sort of political agenda. There is no secret conference room. There is no discussion of how to get Bush out of office when discussing how to go about a story dealing with how cute puppies are. It's just not there. When Clinton was in office, all I ever heard was how conservative the media was and how we were all trying to get him out of office. The thing is, people are nuts. Completely nuts. If person A doesn't agree with something on the news, the media must have an agenda to rid someone of something. Seriously, it's insane what people come up with. I got about 500 calls the night Bush made a speech last week. People were furious that my network (or any other network) didn't air it live. We all just wanted to "keep the truth" from the public or were looking for ways to get Bush out of office. They kept telling me "the public has the right to know." I told them to watch CNN. Fact is, the White House never asked the networks for air time. If they had, it would have been on. The callers didn't like that excuse...they said we should have been looking out in the best interest of the public and pre-empted season finales for it. Like I wanted to take the calls from people pissed that they didn't see the end of their favorite show. Please, if you see something you don't like on the news, do not call a TV station and complain to someone on the phone...they really don't care, they didn't do it. Also, don't call a local TV station about a national issue (i.e.: the presidential election). They aren't the ones who are doing the coverage on that, so don't yell at them for something they had no control over. There are some media folks out there that do have a bias...and there are lots of magazines/papers/shows geared to people who believe certain things. But as a whole, the media is not out on some mission to spin an election. It doesn't matter if a republican or democrat is in the White House, we tend to get the same amount for commercials and that's all we really care about.
While I've never called to complain, I would've been pissed to have the shows I watch pre-empted for a speech from the President. I've never understood why Presidential speeches have to be shown on so many channels. Something like the state of the union can end up being shown live on a dozen or more channels. How many different channels do I need to have it shown on? I really only need one. If I ran a network, we'd never play such speeches (and I wouldn't allow the shows to be interrupted to tell viewers that it's raining. My viewers can see it's raining by looking out the window. Nothing pisses me off more than watching a show and have it get to: "And the murder is..." only to have David Finfrock break in to tell me it's raining in Hunt County).
well said, news is a business, making money is their agenda if airing dirty stories on Bush (or Kerry) 51+% of the time maximizes profit, then that is what they are gonna go
Funny thing is Most Media people I've spoken too are so Jaded because they know ALOT MORE than they can report [not what ya know. . but what you can prove] Rocket River
What do people consider the media? I mean is Clutch Fans part of the media? Clutch reports news about the Rockets others on this forum post news reports on a variety of topics and even sometimes report news. It just seems to me that with all of the available news sources out there there really isn't one media that is biased either way but many medias with all sorts of biases.
About seven giant conservative corporations own the vast majority of the media. It doesn't mean dick if reporters are liberal or conservative. Their CEO bosses are the ones calling the shots. Who has more say on what is covered: a cub reporter making $18K a year, or Rupert Murdoch? I'm still floored that *anybody* would trust the corporate media.
Yeah, I'm sure George Hearst edits each story before it gets placed on the page at the Plainview Herald. People that I've known who worked for newspaper chains noted that they hardly ever heard anything from the home office concerning the content of the paper. It was all pretty local (and, for that matter, the editors themselves had to rely to some degree on their reporters to let them know what the stories were, etc. I don't know how the corporate honchos to these large media companies could control the content even if they wanted to). Last I read, too, Time Warner execs were the 3rd largest contributors to the Kerry campaign. I'd have to look up where the others might be. EDIT: Though here's something I found about Disney: Disney and its employees are among the biggest donors in American politics, having contributed nearly $8 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Two-thirds of that total has gone to Democrats. But like a lot of donors, Disney and its employees have sent an increasing share of their contributions to Republicans since the mid ‘90s, when the GOP took control of Congress. Disney’s donations were split more evenly than ever immediately after Bush won the last presidential election. The company and its employees sent 53% of their contributions to Democrats and 47% to Republicans in the 2001-2002 election cycle. So far in the current cycle, slightly more than 60% of contributions from Disney has gone to Democrats, versus 40% to Republicans. http://www.business-journal.com/FamilyFeudatDisneyGroundedinPolitics.asp
No, "George Hearst" doesn't edit every story. But he hires the people who do. And those people hire people, and they hire people. And each of those people answer to their bosses, who aren't just twiddling their thumbs all day. They're there to protect the corporation's interests. How is it in the corporation's best interest to cover (and I mean *really* cover) issues that could undermine their stock value? Why would NBC cover any General Electric issue? Or any issue that could conceivably undermine GE stock. I doubt NBC is running many stories that criticize the administration's energy policies, which were practically written by GE. I doubt NBC was very objective in covering Bush's tax cuts, either, which gave millions to General Electric. It serves their corporate needs better if they only run stories that endorse (or at least don't undermine) policies that enrich their coffers. That's great for their stock value because their media creates a worldview that keeps their interests in the spotlight. But that's not objective journalism. You simply cannot trust the corporate media.
Exhibit A would be how the Chronicle works. They certainly did Elmer Fudd's bidding back in the day of the arena referenda.
Quick analysis of an AP article written by Sonya Ross: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001954647_reaganforeign12.html World leaders pay their final respects By SONYA ROSS The Associated Press WASHINGTON — As they often do when one of theirs has fallen, world leaders converged for the state funeral of Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president some credited with steering the Cold War toward a peaceful end. Those who sat with Reagan in the world's elite power clique 20 years ago perched somberly in Washington National Cathedral, their sad eyes cast on the flag-draped coffin of the former president who died last weekend at age 93. "With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world," former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in a videotaped eulogy. "And so today the world ... mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer: 'God Bless America.' " Seated near the front was Mikhail Gorbachev, former leader of the Soviet Union, who worked with Reagan as both an ally and an adversary. "Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? That's not serious," Gorbachev said Thursday night during a gathering at the Russian Embassy. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. ... We only won when the Cold War ended." After the ceremony, scores of foreign guests climbed into black limousines and went to the State Department for a reception. They snacked on lamb, cheese and, in a special touch, Jelly Bellies — Reagan's favorite candy. Also among the grieving were the current American president, George W. Bush; his four living predecessors, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford; and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 167 ambassadors, 25 current leaders, 14 foreign ministers and 11 former heads of state. "It is appropriate that the German chancellor says, 'Thank you,' and that is what I'm doing," said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. In his country, unified by the fall of the Berlin Wall after Reagan left office, flags were lowered to half-staff at federal buildings. While many leaders came here in affectionate remembrance, some were drawn here despite bitter memories of the Reagan era. Grenada, for one, which was invaded at Reagan's order, was represented by Prime Minister Keith Mitchell. South African President Thabo Mbeki — who was working with an outlawed anti-apartheid group when Reagan held office — attended yesterday's services because the ties between his and the current president's administration are strong, said his spokesman, Bheki Kumalo. Even Cuba — one of communism's last strongholds — retracted a harsh statement that said Reagan was "forgetful and irresponsible" and "forgot to take his worst works to the grave." Cuban leader Fidel Castro ordered that statement replaced with a softer one that called Reagan "a tenacious foe of the Cuban Revolution." In some parts of the world, anger lingers. In Libya, Moammar Gadhafi expressed "deep regret because Reagan died before facing justice for his ugly crime," air strikes in retaliation for a disco bombing in Berlin. The U.S. attack killed 37 people, including Gadhafi's adopted daughter. Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company ************************************* 1. Ross provides no evidence (such as a poll) that the people of Granada have "bitter memories" of the invasion. 2. Ross provides no evidence that the Prime Minister of Granada has "bitter memories" of the invasion. 3. So, who exactly has "bitter memories", perhaps Ross?
exactly, I am surprised people actually think the media is liberal. It just shows how ring wing this country has become. two words: corporate media heres another word conglomerate put those three words togather and what you have is a very corporate-centric media. you'd be surprised what is not reported and what is reported. In my opinion, CNN is probably the less conservative of the big news network and when you compare CNN to BCC, you'd be surprised how conservative CNN is. Before television, the church served as a window of ideals and way of life. Nowadays, the media has replaced the church. Everything that Americans view...is through eyes of a rich old white men.
Yes, that one throwaway line in one of countless puff pieces and breathless encomiums to the celebrated optimism and remarkable, awe inspiring legacy of the great, great Communicator and the Gipper whose dead body ("currently on the 101 freeway, traveling north, as you can see from our helicopter") we were enrapt with for an entire week indicates a deep left wing media bias. Did your TV work last week gwaynie?
"According to a search of the Nexis electronic database, looking for stories, columns or TV transcripts that contained at least six mentions of the former president during the week that followed his death on June 5, we found the Boston Globe ran 33 items, the Dallas Morning News made room for 50, the New York Times churned out 59, while the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran 62, the Washington Times 65, the Chicago Tribune 71, and the Los Angeles Times 72. USA Today printed 88 items..The Washington Post..published approximately 108 items..National Public Radio aired 105 segments..the exact same number as Fox News. The NBC news family -- NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC..was able to squeeze in 125 segments. But the Reagan title holder was clearly CNN, which somehow managed to produce 180 segments. Just imagine what the Reagan coverage would have looked like if the press didn’t have a liberal bias." --Eric Boehlert, salon.com http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
