|
One of my favorite congresswomen...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Not!
Nancy Pelosi, California's finest
| quote: | Nancy Pelosi loses control
Brent Bozell
May 26, 2004
Two comfortable institutions of the liberal media establishment, the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, have discovered once again that five times as many national reporters (34 percent vs. 7 percent) identify themselves as liberal than conservative. As for that broad middle of 54 percent that declares itself to be "moderate," just consider them liberals with an honesty problem.
For liberal tilt, look no further than this number: 55 percent of national reporters think they haven't been "critical enough" of President Bush. After the media's aggressive air war on the White House this year, the only way they could be tougher would be to physically beat the president with clubs and baseball bats. But that's precisely the attitude of the liberal media elite. Bush isn't a completely roasted turkey yet. Turn up the oven another notch.
Or perhaps the media bigwigs think they're wimps because they don't sound like Nancy Pelosi -- yet. The House Minority Leader, the woman aspiring to be the first female Speaker of the House, is so sputtering with Bush hatred that she needs a lobster bib. This is what she said last week: "Not to get personal about it, but the president's capacity to lead has never been there. In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none,'' she declared. "He's gone,'' Pelosi said of Bush. "He's so gone.'' No, nothing personal there.
But it grew only harsher. Pelosi also said Bush has American blood on his hands: "He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops, because he would not heed the advice of his own State Department of what to expect after May 1, when he ... declared that major combat is over,'' Pelosi charged. "The shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there.''
So where are the media, that institution so supposedly intolerant of uncivil speech and red-meat partisanship? After all, in 1995, when then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey inadvertently used the words "Barney Fag" to describe gay Congressman Barney Frank, it led the nightly newscast on CBS and had ABC opening the show wondering about Armey's "deep prejudice."
To believe that the press would now shine that civility spotlight on Pelosi would be to forget one important network-news rule: Democrats are incapable of gaffes. How much coverage did the big morning and evening news shows provide of Pelosi's reckless and mean-spirited remarks? ABC had none. CBS morning and evening stories buried the remarks in a story on Bush speaking to the GOP on Capitol Hill, and those took a less offensive snippet from Pelosi: "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back."
Credit Tom Brokaw, at least on this story, because his little anchor brief captured the essence of the remarks: "Especially harsh criticism today of President Bush by one of the leading Democrats in Congress. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California charged that the president's action in Iraq show what she called his incompetence and that his bad decisions have resulted in the deaths of American troops." But even NBC went from there to a full story on how Republicans like Speaker Dennis Hastert don't show enough love to John McCain -- and bingo, we're back to Republican haters again.
But the networks aren't the only media outlets that buried the Pelosi outrage. The New York Times submerged it into the bottom of a story on page A-18. The Washington Post also wrapped it at the bottom of an inside-the-paper story. USA Today didn't even notice in the same week, getting to a mention on the following Monday.
Mrs. Pelosi wants to be Speaker, and the liberal Democrats are trying to paint her as a president-in-waiting. In the new American Prospect magazine, Rep. David Obey called Pelosi "our Maggie Thatcher. She's tough as hell -- and has a very nice style to her." If Pelosi has such an impressive style, then why are the partisan media trying to stick her in the attic? Why not showcase this rhetoric for all of America to see?
The public deserves to hear the words, and see the face, of the hate-filled Left. |
|
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| and who says republicans aren't crybabies:p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Oh yes, the resounding cry of "liberal media" from the Conservatives. Oh how I love it. In a nutshell it comes down to the back -n- forth argument: liberals point out that the punditocracy, on radio, on cable TV and in most broadcast outlets is dominated by right-wingers, who don't do too badly on the op-pages either. Conservatives counter that reporters are liberals. Liberals respond that well, only on social policy, not economic policy, but anyway, owners are conservatives and that matters more. Blaa blaa blaa.
Here's a couple of counter examples, just to balance things out:
The Washington Post reported on a study of time allotted to both Bush and Sen. John Kerry by the cable news outlets. They found that from March 3, the day after Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, through April16, they devoted 12 hours and 11 minutes to live appearances by Bush and only 3 hours 47 minutes to Kerry.
The cable news executives offer all kinds of excuses about this, citing Bush's role as commander-in-chief, but as the newspaper points out, "When President Bush delivered a routine stump speech to a group of New Mexico homeowners on March 26, CNN and Fox News each carried his appearance for 35 minutes, and MSNBC for 33 minutes. Meanwhile, "when John Kerry gave what was billed as a major address on national security at George Washington University on March 17, he was knocked off the screen by a large explosion in Baghdad. CNN and Fox each dropped Kerry (who had been reduced to small box) after three minutes, and MSNBC never picked him up." It has long been true, in addition, that the cable networks they have long been far kinder to Bush than to any Democrat, and this predates 9/11, as previous studies have demonstrated.
Here's a couple of my favorite quotes:
"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of 'liberal bias' in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is "work the refs." Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’"
"The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes" -Bill Kristol
"I admit it..The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
-Bill Kristol New Yorker March 1995
Kristol is truly one of my favorite Neo-con Murdoch whores out there.
Here's a report on examining the "liberal" media bias claim:
http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
| quote: | The findings include:
· On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
· Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
· The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues. |
As for the author's statements you posted regarding the 55% moderates, I do appreciate his labelling of "dishonest liberals" conjecture and slander with no supporting evidence.
If we take a look at the study:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214topline.pdf
| quote: | It states that among national news executives-- the people whose job descriptions involve setting policy at media outlets-- only 16 percent describe themselves as "liberal." Sixty percent call themselves "moderate", and 19 percent "conservative." With 79 percent of media bosses identifying with something other than "liberal", what happens to the myth of the "liberal media"?
It's also curious why this 79 percent (or 84 percent) of the bosses who are not "liberal" end up hiring a workforce that is 41 percent "liberal" (or "very liberal"). Could it be that they are confident that the institutions of media outlets will prevent these "liberals" from expressing viewpoints that their non-liberal bosses object to? Or could it be that there are so few qualified "conservative" journalists that the "moderate"-to-"conservative" bosses just can't find more than 7 percent to hire?
Finally, it's worth asking what journalists mean by "liberal." When people were asked to name a "liberal" outlet, the most common response was the New York Times. Think of the Times' most prominent "scoops" in recent years: Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, Judith Miller's reports on WMD. If this is what constitutes "liberal" reporting, than the fact that 41 percent of national reporters describe themselves as "liberal" is bad news indeed.
http://www.fair.org/views.html |
Speaking of that liberal journalist, Judith Miller, and that darned liberal newspaper, the NYTimes, one has to question all those darn liberal pieces she put out claiming about the stockpiles of WMD, and the gentle open-arm welcome our troops will receive from the Iraqi people. Sound familiar? Well perhaps it was because she, Rummy, Cheney, and the rest of the Neo-cons were using the same source of information - Ahmed Chalabi?
A NYTimes LIBERAL journalist having a lovefest with the same source of info. as our Neo-con Administration? No way! Couldn't be! Well, I guess the NYTimes felt the heat from all the criticism, and had to make an open-ended apology for their lack of journalistic integrity and fact-checking abilities (and not specifically naming Miller, of course):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/i..._NOTE.html?8dpc
Finally, I especially enjoyed this piece written in Jan. 2003 by Robert Parry. Puts things into a good perspective. Here's some excerpts:
| quote: | "The larger fallacy of the 'liberal media' argument is the idea that reporters and mid-level editors set the editorial agenda at their news organizations. In reality, most journalists have about as much say over what is presented by newspapers and TV news programs as factory workers and foremen have over what a factory manufactures...
"News organizations are hierarchical institutions often run by strong-willed men who insist that their editorial vision be dominant within their news companies. Some concessions are made to the broader professional standards of journalism, such as the principles of objectivity and fairness."
"But media owners historically have enforced their political views and other preferences by installing senior editors whose careers depend on delivering a news product that fits with the owner’s prejudices. Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far from the prescribed path can expect to be demoted or fired. Editorial employees intuitively understand the career risks of going beyond the boundaries."
"These limitations were true a century ago when William Randolph Hearst famously studied every day’s paper from his publishing empire looking for signs of leftist attitudes among his staff. And it is still true in the days of Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
Sorry, Opus--I don't have time to read it all now--I'm busy trying to lose money at work right now.
On another note, I just wanted to add that I really like Bill Kristoll as well. He strikes me as someone who is likable and watchable regardless of which side of the plate you're on.
And on another note--I couldn't help myself today--I tuned into Air America to see what it was like and I gotta say, it was pretty deplorable. Yeah, I'm sure you feel the same way about the guys on the right, but the stuff they were spouting out was just hate filled propoganda with no substance.
Example(I'm paraphrasing, and I don't know who the hosts were at the time):
Host #1: "Report out claims that Al Qaeda maintains over 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world..."
Host #2: "What it should say is that George Bush has 18,000 potential new workers..."
What the ? What did that accomplish? What are they trying to say? That's just a baseless insult meant to incite Bush haters. I have a sense of humor so I won't call it treasonous, but it's pretty spineless behavior no less.
Edit: I just tuned in again and got to hear a caller say, "George Bush comes from a family of carpetbaggers. This dude isn't a cowboy. He's a dude pretending to be a cowboy."
I mean, that's all well and good if you believe that, but where are the political implications? This is just pure hate slinging radio without any substance. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| Hehe, you won't get too much of an argument from me on that one (Air America). It's just one extremist group trying to balance out the other extremist group, nothing more. Haven't had time to listen to them lately. Besides, the way things are looking, I doubt we'll be able to listen to them much longer. Time will tell. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Pics or STFU!
:D
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Pics or STFU!
:D
[[[smoke]]] |
She's a scary one!
 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
She's a scary one!
|
Oh cut it out, damn you! You want me to post close-ups of Cheney's wrinkles and nose hairs? How 'bout Rummy?
How 'bout their wives? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Oh cut it out, damn you! You want me to post close-ups of Cheney's wrinkles and nose hairs? How 'bout Rummy?
How 'bout their wives? |
I was only doing what Smokeape asked, rather demanded!:p
These are a bit more flattering:
Posing with another of my favorite 'posers';)
 |
|
|
|
|
