1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

That's it. The Media Bias For Kerry has Pushed Me Toward Bush

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Rileydog, Aug 3, 2004.

  1. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    I will agree with you that the truth was buried in a lot of spin, but I will again remind you that this is common for MOST media outlets and should be seen as the rule rather than the exception.

    Just out of curiosity, what gives you this impression? The Congress are the people who have been spending all that money, Bush just signed off on all the spending bills. Do you have anything that points to a new direction in fiscal policy?
     
  2. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,823
    Likes Received:
    41,295
    I read the whole article and didn't find it that deceptive.

    It prominently featured the Bush administration's denials that it was politically motivated in several paragraphs, and I was fairly clear that the information was discovered recently, though I knew that going in, as did most people, I thought.

    Under the paragraph "democrats cry foul", it features one throwaway quote, from a lowly D.C. City Council member. That's it.

    I could just as easily argue that the article is biased against democrats from that perspective.

    Anyway, it was your garden variety disjointed wire service article, typical, and not worthy of much comment IMO.
     
    #42 SamFisher, Aug 3, 2004
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2004
  3. nyquil82

    nyquil82 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'll agree that the article is deceptive, but as a PoliSci major, its hard to find an article that doesn't have some degree of inherant opinion, especially in our current day and age. I think, as an attorney, you should realize the flaws in the use of the English language when trying to convey specific points. As many others in this thread have mentioned, educated readers should be able to bypass the everday BS in the papers and look for the facts. If you've read Taiwan papers, this type of act should be obvious. If your're looking for unbiased media reporting, you won't find much in this country, let alone any others.

    Honestly, i think you're putting too much weight on crap that is plentiful and ubiquitous in newsland. Just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean the opposite is right.
     
  4. Rileydog

    Rileydog Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    6,967
    to the contrary, as an attorney, i know how people word things, phrase things in certain order, so as to mislead and decieve, yet be factually accurate.

    and that is exactly what this article is. and it is skillfully done. that's why it caught my eye.

    re the rest of your points, I agree about the rampant media spin. but the idealist in me just hates it. this was vastly more egregious than most.
     
  5. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    Riley, did you get totally pissed off when Bush and gang deceived you on the wmd?, the imminent threat from Iraq?, that it would cost us nothing as their oil would fund it all?, that the people would greet us with flowers and candy?, that the NYT quoted indiscriminately from biased sources like Ahmad Chalabi who hoped to become the leader of Iraq?

    Were you not equalled pissed when the threat was initially broadcast WITHOUT TELLING PEOPLE IT WAS BASED ON TALK BEFORE 911.

    If not you, really are a Bush voter and should vote for him.
     
  6. Rileydog

    Rileydog Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    6,967
    objection, argumentative. Subject to that objection, yeah, it ticks me off that the republican party lies. it ticks me off when other news sources lie.

    the fact that the initial broadcast did not tell everyone that it was based on evidence that may have existed before 911 did not bother me that much. even in retrospect, it does not appear as plainly calculated to deceive as does this particular article.

    finally, i can do without the inflammatory tone, the rabid advocacy, and frankly, the insinuation that i am a dumb farm animal that can be led around by the nose. As I said about the article, the manner in which things are written are just as important as its content. by the way, your style is doing a disservice to your party. Most swing vote types get turned off by this kinda stuff.
     
  7. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,411
    Likes Received:
    9,353
    Welcome to the D&D, fellow Bush voter...
     
  8. Rileydog

    Rileydog Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    6,967
    [edit - imadrummer, i totally goofed in my response to you. my "this" (below) is vague. it's a reference to what I was ticked about before, not to you. i didin't mean for it to sound like your post was "ridiculous." again, I was refering to the prior post response.)

    i guess i'm fairly new to this forum but this is just ridiculous. and if it gets directed at me, well, i'll respond. maybe some people will finally calm down and learn some manners. it's so damn easy to sit behind a keyboard and act all clever.

    (imadrummer, this is to clarify in response to your point. )
    "fellow bush voter?" i'm probably going to remain uncommitted until the 11th hour but the whole point of this thread was to note the complete deception in the msnbc article. it's impact on me may not last, but it has ticked me off for 1 afternoon.
     
    #48 Rileydog, Aug 3, 2004
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2004
  9. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    OK let me put it another way...

    skip past the bullcrap, figure out your most important issue (environment, war on iraq, economy, tax cuts, stem cell research) for which the two candidates have made a stand and cast your vote accordingly.
     
  10. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Rileydog seriously! Welcome to the D&D! It'll be nice to have the perspective of a true independent on the board. We don’t have very many.
     
  11. thadeus

    thadeus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    Isn't voting for Bush because you don't like the "liberal" media remarkably similar to invading Iraq because some Saudis/Afghans attacked you?

    ;)
     
  12. Rocket104

    Rocket104 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    4
    Rileydog - How do you feel about the media portrayal of Bush appointing an "intelligence czar"? Do you agree with the way headlines seem to indicate he is following the 9/11 commission's recommendations, when in reality he is not?

    And - perhaps the statistics about DNC airtime show that ALL THE F'ING NETWORKS SUCK. Why not show ALL of the speeches? It IS news, you know. Not the pundit reactions, but the news itself.

    Just because Fox is conservative doesn't mean that more airtime than Fox indicates the network/issue is liberal.

    PBS all the way.
     
  13. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    Riley you do realize that the title of your own post is infammatory and makes a charge that is highly doubtful? "That's it. The media's bias toward Kerry...."

    I don't think you have explained either why you take no offense at the releasing of the threat, with all the manpower expended, without explaining that the documents were several years old. Do you think that level of alert should be maintained indefinitely based on those old documents.

    I agree with Sam Fisher, the article is not that biased. Perhaps you should examine how perhaps your own bias that Bush gets a raw deal from the media might have effected your reading a text with political content.
     
  14. IROC it

    IROC it Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,629
    Likes Received:
    89
    Rileydog, you're correct... the careless skim reader would be easily deceived.... but we are not to question the depth at which we must swim to find the nuggets of truth.

    That would be patriotic of us. Just ask Michael Moore.

    It hacked me off a little, but I expect it now. I am more amazed if a slightly right of center story pops up in the mainstream.

    But, don't decide on the media alone. I concur on that point.
     
  15. cmiller

    cmiller Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    620
    Likes Received:
    1
    Rileydog,

    If you're curious and want a veteran's take on why you should vote for Kerry, send me an email. After all, it's not about the economy, etc., it's about folks I served with dying for absolutely nothing!!!

    Thanks!
     
  16. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    In Texas atleast , we can vote for Nader as vote against the two party system that fails to allow for a range of views on different issues. You get all the republican platform or all the democratic platform no matter how you fall on abortion, defense, deficit spending, personal freedom, the environment, healthcare etc. etc. I don't know if you can even define a liberal view or conservative view on all the issues much less say either party is representative of your view on all of them or even the 5 most important ones.


    And if Bush gets 51% of the texas vote, which he could even if he were filmed mooning down 6th. Street, all of the Texas electoral votes go to him anyway. It's kind goofy when you think about it, a 51% win has the same effect as a 100% win for a very large chunk of the total electoral votes. It gives a disproportionate view of the will of the people and renders moot any votes for Kerry in Texas.

    The two party system with an electoral college guarantess power to the power brokers.
     
  17. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Are you really counseling that it is advisable to cast your single vote on a lone issue? Isn't voting more complex than that?
     
  18. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Gene that may be true on a national scale, but I think it would effect state and local levels. People would have to take notice and it's a start!

    :)
     
  19. aghast

    aghast Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,329
    Likes Received:
    169

    If MSNBC is politically motivated, you've gotta admit they're trying like hell to balance themselves out. Remember Savage Nation? They hired the most homophobic, right-wing, hatred-spewing radio host in the nation to create a show, despite the protests and threats of boycott from many liberal groups. The dumped the liberal Donahue, but kept Weiner Savage on, spewing his filth, and only fired him after, on-air mind you, he told a gay man he hoped he caught AIDS and died.

    This is your liberal media?

    I've read many versions of the story you mentioned. Some suggest the information just discovered has been floating around for awhile, and the latest grab just confirmed it. Nevertheless, I will assume what you say is true, for the sake of argument. I would argue that the fact that the information is old, whether it was newly discovered or not, is the salient point here.

    Why the heck wouldn't Ridge at the Sunday press conference mention that the information recovered was three-four years old? Why didn't our government inform us fully of the threat we faced? It's a good thing they held a press conference; it's good that they released this information to the public. But wouldn't you agree that the more they released, the better-informed the public is, the less we'd have to irrationally fear?

    So the MSNBC item buried the lede? Are there really idiots out there who only read the headline of such an important story? (Rhetorical point: of course there are, but I would argue they don't deserve the truth, nor do they apparently care.) My point: journalists shouldn't have to tell us the nature of the intelligence; the government should. Wouldn't you admit the fact that this is largely old, recovered evidence is pretty important, needed to be mentioned to help allay fears and further elucidate the threat we face?

    If somebody shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I and the rest of the audience are going to go apes==t, running/trampling/screaming in all directions. But if a PA announcement sounds "Warning: There's a small conflagration in the southwest corridor, and it could spread to the southern entrance," and an usher points to the northern exit, "This way, everybody!" that widespread panic won't happen. There will still be a few paranoiacs out there who will, in their irrational fear, run right into the flames (or duct tape their windows and air ducts and suffocate themselves). But the majority of people will walk/run relatively calmly to the north fire escape, averting panic.

    I want the government to tell us as much as possible, including the nature, relevance (and this info is relevant, no doubt about it), and in this case age of the threats we face. In short, I want a fire marshall.

    To your other points: a Republican congress and Republican president were the ones that voted in these massive tax cuts and created such massive budget deficits. Sadly, the one area where I used to identify most with the Republican part, fiscal conservation, is no longer relevant. The best hope is in a divided government, a la Clinton, or, dare I say, a Democratic one. Certainly, if you look at their plans, Kerry is the more fiscally conservative of the two in this horse race. As for Cheney, do you really want the Madman theory to be back in force? Didn't work out so well for Nixon, as I recall. Kerry/Edwards has a heck of a lot more foreign policy experience than Bush when he was elected (and I would argue even today). Cheney's projected Hobbesian worldview, if it is real, is a heck of a lot scarier than any alternative. And Bush/Cheney pretty much abandoned Afghanistan to start a war with Iraq. That's not such great foreign policy, in my opinion. (Also, Cheney has had four heart attacks, the latest in 2000 as a result of the stress of the election. His first bypass surgery had a shelf life guarantee of twenty years; that expires in 2004. He has not sufficiently released his medical records in the past four plus years. Don't count too much on Cheney being the rock of experience for the entirety of a second term.)

    My vote in 2008 has changed, based also upon MSNBC's scandalous coverage of what must now be called a bona fides Kimbo Slice Green Party movement, combined with the turkey sandwich I just ate.. It is now a vote for Slice/Obama 2008: "That's how [guys] gotta eat!"
     
  20. Francis3422

    Francis3422 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    7,248
    My votes fer JEB.

    lol
     

Share This Page