<< CORRECTION ~ MAIN ~ LINUS CORRUPTED BY INFIDELS >>
FORBIDDEN STORY MENTIONED
Liberal media? There’s no such thing, according to Danny Schechter:
What’s so liberal about a media environment that led Dan Rather himself to confess on BBC that he pulled punches in his post 9/11 coverage for fear of being “necklaced” (i.e. having a burning tire put around his head) if he strayed from the Bush war on terror mantra?
Hmm. Rather’s execution fantasy = no liberal media. Not exactly sure I get Danny’s point here. He continues:
Let’s ponder why it was that the Abu Ghraib story was never followed up relentlessly ...
For people new to the untold story of Abu Ghraib (a prison in Iraq), here’s a helpful Wikipedia entry.
Dan Rather had been ‘losing it’ for years and should never have been placed in the high position he held for too many years. He often slanted stories to fit his politcal views and was a disgrace to the great news men that he followed. Try NBC or CNN for your news coverage. Or the BBC even.
Posted by BrendaFayBowers on 2006 02 13 at 12:22 AM • permalink“The Abu Ghraib story was never followed up relentlessly”
Geez, in from late April until early June of last year, the New York Times ran an Abu Ghraib story on 34 of 37 days. I’d love to know what Schechter’s definition of relentless would entail!
Posted by Ed Driscoll on 2006 02 13 at 12:29 AM • permalink“Let’s ponder why it was that the Abu Ghraib story was never followed up relentlessly ...”
After Abu Ghraib broke, it was on the New York Times front page 34 times in 37 days.
Well, this little tidbit from that blog might explain some of Danny’s inability to connect with the home reality:
As editor of Mediachannel.org, a global media watch site, we have a thousand affiliates with no less a CBS luminary than Walter Cronkite as one of our supporters.
Walter supports Danny. With that level of moonbattishness around him, no wonder Danny is clutching for straws.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 13 at 12:34 AM • permalinkYou guys seem to really hate lefties.
Are you all members of the same club or something?
Danny Schechter is not winning any prizes for his journalism, and more importantly he is not really informing us very well, but why do you feel the need to misrepresent him?
Dan Rather apparently said he felt pressure not stray from the government’s line. Schechter says this indicates that the media might not be as liberal as it is made out. Surely that’s worth discussing?
Where does mere derision get you?
Posted by Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. on 2006 02 13 at 01:01 AM • permalinkFolks, this imaginatively named troll just signed up a few minutes ago.
Chum in the waternow go easy on the new guy.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 13 at 01:08 AM • permalinkYou guys seem to really hate lefties.
Are you all members of the same club or something?
Considering that we had to register to comment here, I suppose the answer is yes. Therefore, since you commented here, you are a member too. Welcome aboard!
Also, we are all supplicants to Karl Rove. Wronright will be around to sign you up shortly.
Dan Rather apparently said he felt pressure not stray from the government’s line. Schechter says this indicates that the media might not be as liberal as it is made out. Surely that’s worth discussing?
Except that this has been discussed before. In detail.
A classic example, detailed above:
Let’s ponder why it was that the Abu Ghraib story was never followed up relentlessly ...
Except that the story was pursued relentlessly. See here and here.
So where does Danny get this idea where the story was not pursued?
Answer: He is in serious denial, because facts support an opposite answer.
And as for Dan Rather…...just what post-9/11 government pressure? Was the FBI looking over his shoulder? Did someone beat him again, while asking him for the frequency?
Seriously. What facts did Rather offer for this pressure he felt? Couldn’t that have been sympathy? Anguish? Rage? Patriotism?
Nope. According to Rather, it’s pressure to follow the Bush Mantra™, Or Else™. Whatever “else” is.
So what we are discussing here is not a liberal versus not-so-liberal media, but a collection of liberals in the media who tell stories about how the media is not liberal….which is at odds with reality.
Hope this helps.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 13 at 01:16 AM • permalinkYou guys seem to really hate lefties.
Largely because they make it so easy.
Posted by HisHineness on 2006 02 13 at 01:16 AM • permalinkOh, and by the way…..
You guys seem to really hate lefties.
Nope. I wish they didn’t vote, reproduce, or otherwise inflict their stupid philosophies upon this tired old planet. But hate? Not hardly. If they want to live in La La Land and not bother the adult segment of the population, that’s fine with me.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 13 at 01:19 AM • permalinkCheney shoots hunting mate
It begs the obvious question: when will he go hunting with Bush?You guys seem to really hate lefties.
Nope, we don’t hate lefties, we treat them with the same benign indulgence we do with slightly dull-witted children.
Are you all members of the same club or something?
We are citizens of the Blair-osphere (southern hemisophere directorate of vast right conspiracy)
Danny Schechter is not winning any prizes for his journalism, and more importantly he is not really informing us very well, but why do you feel the need to misrepresent him?
You’re right. I’d never heard of this bloke before now but your summation confirms that the fellow is a fool.
Dan Rather apparently said he felt pressure not stray from the government’s line. Schechter says this indicates that the media might not be as liberal as it is made out. Surely that’s worth discussing?
Not if the pressure is between Rather’s ears.
Where does mere derision get you?
More frequent mocking miles.
Anything else?
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 13 at 01:38 AM • permalinkEd Driscoll,
Geez, in from late April until early June of last year, the New York Times ran an Abu Ghraib story on 34 of 37 days. I’d love to know what Schechter’s definition of relentless would entail!
Members of the Bush Administration and their staff dragged out onto the South Lawn and shot in the back of the head, apparently.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 13 at 01:42 AM • permalink#23 Did someone say something funny?
Damn, I missed it.
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 13 at 01:51 AM • permalinkAbu Ghraib not followed up relentlessly? Ay caramba! Long after it was too late to begin, I thought of keeping a log of the number of consecutive nights on which SBS TV ran the Abu Ghraib photos, on increasingly flimsy pretexts, or hell, no pretext. (“Here’s a story about England, and remember, someone called England was involved in Abu Ghraib, so here are those pictures again!”) It would easily have compared to the figure quoted by Ed Driscoll (#4) - 30s, probably 40s.
#27
It’s obvious what Danny meant - it wasn’t followed up relentlessly to the leftie’s preferred conclusion - ie the impeachment of Bush and his cabinet.Talk about never letting the facts stand in the way of a story…
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 13 at 01:58 AM • permalinkYou guys really have an us and them thing happening.
I don’t mind having a chat with you if you’re going to produce a genuinely independant viewpoint, but you’re not much more useful than the lefties you so gleefully deride if all you do is mock them.
Clearly the statements about the lack of coverage of Abu Graib don’t stand up.
It is interesting that No 15 above suggested patriotism as a reason for Rather’s insecurity. I’m not sure whether it was a serious suggestion but I reckon it must be a hell of a thing to see 3000 of your citizens killed. How does a journalist remain objective in those circumstances?
Posted by Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. on 2006 02 13 at 01:58 AM • permalinkAlmost every lefty peice I read these days has a fantasy or dream sequence of some sort in it.
Gotta remember, this is the “reality-based” community… you know, the way a drink with 10% or less real fruit juice is “fruit-juice based.”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 13 at 02:15 AM • permalink#29- Somewhere a village is missing their idiot…
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 13 at 02:31 AM • permalinkAbu Ghraib was depicted as the second Holocaust, flogged to death, dragged round the car park a hundred times then put on a twenty four hour media drip for six eternities. It then occasioned deeply nuanced treatises on the diseased soul of America and the West.
Though what happened in the prison under Father Saddam made Abu Ghraib II look like a tea party, the sequel was a better Bush-Basher. And there’s always plenty more where that comes from.
It is interesting that No 15 above suggested patriotism as a reason for Rather’s insecurity. I’m not sure whether it was a serious suggestion but I reckon it must be a hell of a thing to see 3000 of your citizens killed. How does a journalist remain objective in those circumstances?
What I said was:
Seriously. What facts did Rather offer for this pressure he felt? Couldn’t that have been sympathy? Anguish? Rage? Patriotism?
I never said “insecurity”. I said “pressure”. A horse of a different breed altogether. But I was quite serious. I doubt that he would admit to any sort of patriotism, but it is certainly possibly that he felt it. The pressure would come from not admitting his feelings. A guilty conscience is a terrible thing to have.
As to a journalist remaining objective…..Ernie Pyle did a fair job in WWII. Other reports have followed his example. Objective has a specific meaning. In this context, I offer these:
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
{snip}
adj 1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; “an objective appraisal”; “objective evidence” [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective]
{snip}
3: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation; “objective art”
But objectivity in the media has died away, to be replaced with soundbytes in search of higher ratings. Good news doesn’t make ratings; the media is another form of amusement. “If it bleeds, it leads”, muck raking, sensationalism, and so on, ad nauseum. Terrorism fits nicely into that category.
Add in the fact that a majority of journalists, through several polls, have admitted to being “liberal” or “progressive”, and it’s a reciepe for a liberal media to exploit situations that profit both their companies and personal agendas.
Where I have a problem with this silly post by Danny Schechter is that he is not objective. He has prejudices that shine through his rhetoric. Yet he maintains an air of objectivity, while sneering at “...one-time liberal turned renegade Bernie Goldberg…”. The gap in his thinking is wider than the Grand Canyon.
And that’s the Main Stream Media™ for you. Unobjective as hell.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 13 at 02:35 AM • permalinkCan Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. pl;ease direct me to the nearest website dedicated to newsreaders who have been “necklaced” in the US?
What was he going to do? Claim the CIA did it or something?Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 13 at 02:47 AM • permalinkDid a little 6 month survey and fact-check on ABC’ (the Australian one) foreign affairs ‘news’ back in 2004. Three sources had to independently verify each fact. Roughly 30% of the facts reported were accurate (minimum 3 independent verifications). Roughly 30% were gravely flawed (2 independent verifications of 3), and 40% were completely false, no trustworthy independent verification could be located. Bias analysis showed that it was relentlessly left wing (90% or thereabouts).
My little local newspaper here in Canberra had a vastly better record, 100% right on local matters, becuase anyone could drive down and see that yes, a new roundabout was indeed being built at the intersection. Bias analysis showed negligible levels of bias.
Conclusion. On foreign affairs matters the MSM are lazy, staggeringly incompetent, and would rather just make shit up than check their facts. Above the level of local news and sport, the MSM is simply not worth buying or watching.
Thank God for the internet.
MarkL
CanberraAbu what?
Never heard of it.
Something Middle Eastern, I suspect.
Anyway, this “Bullshit” person raises some… really provocative points. I think we should all take this person very seriously, and give him/her/it due consideration in our responses.
So let’s begin.
You guys seem to really hate lefties.
Hate works best the fewer it is applied to. Therefore, I hate Islamofascists who saw people’s heads off, I hate Jimmy Carter, and a few other people.
But that’s it.
The rest of you lefties are just annoying insects.
Are you all members of the same club or something?
No no no no no—that’s SANE Club.
Hope that helps.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2006 02 13 at 04:48 AM • permalinkYou guys seem to really hate lefties.
Are you all members of the same club or something?
No, we’re just afraid that Cheney will shoot us! ROFTL :) :)
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 02 13 at 04:54 AM • permalinkEvery time I see Dan Rather’s name, I see that wonderful “flashing memo” that graced Little Green Footballs for ages, and sank the lying forger and his career into the abyss.
“Fake but accurate” has entered the English language.
Anything he says now is tainted and cannot be believed, but amazingly, there are people out there who still deny reality, and the derisive laughter of the world’s internet citizens continues.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 02 13 at 05:14 AM • permalinkNo, we’re just afraid that Cheney will shoot us! ROFTL :) :)
That’s the source of the “pressure” Dan Rather felt—he was afraid he’d be invited to one of Dick Cheney’s “hunting” trips. Sure, they’re “hunting” trips, but what’s hunted goes on TWO LEGS!!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 13 at 08:02 AM • permalinkYou people are wasting your time trying to answer the Schechterities with facts. These leftoids have no respect for such mundane things as facts. FALSE BUT ACCURATEis their motto. However, they do respect a threat to kick their asses to oblivion as shown by their response to the I-Slam baring of teeth in their direction.
I guess I should have used my “[sarcasm]” tags.
PS: hey, that red lettering? It’s a link to a supremely paranoid leftie moontard website. You’ve got to read it—it’s hilarious.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 13 at 09:19 AM • permalinkThe Wikipedia link is now SOL. Looks like it was changed so often in the last hour or two that Wiki is now telling people to go pound Google’s cache.
“Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project’s noble fundament. If I don’t like it, why don’t I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don’t have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn’t exactly a compliment.
“Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don’t know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.
“The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you’ve proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn’t exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.”
- Tycho from Penny Arcade
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 02 13 at 09:38 AM • permalinkWhen I think of Dan Rather being necklaced, I’m humming “When I was twentyt-five, It was a very Goodyear…”
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 02 13 at 10:16 AM • permalinkCheney shoots hunting mate
It begs the obvious question: when will he go hunting with Bush?From the article:
The victim, identified as Harry Whittington, 78, is reported in good condition in a Corpus Christi hospital after being hit with buckshot on Saturday while hunting quail with Mr Cheney.
Wow, they must breed huge quail in Texas!
re: #45, stats, it’s not a waste of time. There’s always some newbie lurking about, reading both sides of the discussion. Even if BS_Man is full of it, the effort is worthwhile to present both sides of the story.
Y’know, one rational (ours), and one not rational (theirs).
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 13 at 10:40 AM • permalinkHunting with Cheney…
“Two men enter, one man leaves…!”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 13 at 10:54 AM • permalink#49, that piece you quoted (it would have been nice if you linked to it, but no big deal) is spot on, especially:
a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn’t exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
Which perfectly sums up the main problem with Wikipedia: it’s simply unreliable, especially on controversial subjects. I use Wikipedia a lot, but as a kind of ‘enhanced Google’, not as the ‘final authority’ on anything.
Schecter wrote an op-ed for Newsday (I gave them five years after Murray Kempton died, even if it meant Jimmy Breslin) declaring that the most important day of the year wasn’t Christmas, it was Election Day. Even Karl Rove isn’t that soul dead.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 02 13 at 12:17 PM • permalink#14 Also, we are all supplicants to Karl Rove. Wronright will be around to sign you up shortly.
Now you all know by now I hate it when you say stuff like that. I don’t process “new applicants” anymore. I haven’t for years. That’s a MINION job.
(takes sip of Coca Cola, tries to remove bad taste from mouth)
I also don’t:
1. send out decoding equipment
2. issue faxes, fake or otherwise
3. clean up after weekend parties at homes in which the owners leave for rightwing meetingsI do PLANNING. And EXECUTION. Well not Richard Cheney style execution, but I execute the carrying out of plans.
I am a henchman. Not a minion.
(takes another sip)
Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 13 at 01:39 PM • permalinkCheney’s hunting buddy: “The last thing I remember was saying, ‘You know, this Cindy Sheehan person really does make a lot of sense…’”
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 02 13 at 02:01 PM • permalinkwronwright, if you do EXECUTION, how come Cheney had the shotgun? Huh? Huh?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 13 at 02:42 PM • permalink61 Wronny honey, in THAT dress, you’re a hench-WENCH, if anything. Now team-play a little bit, just this once, and go sign up Mr Han Man before he gets bored and wanders away. And change into something more ... more conservative first!
I’d do it myself, but uh I have to inventory the font cabinet. It’s a mess!Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 13 at 04:31 PM • permalinkJust goes to show how far removed from reality those two Danny-boys are.
If you lived in NYC, in the post-9/11 period, you were waiting for the next shoe to drop—the next terror attack. That’s the fear that surfaced in the wake of AA flight 587 that crashed shortly after takeoff from JFK, two months following 9/11.
The fear of being necklaced, even as rhetorical hyperbole, demonstrates a self-centered infatuation that should embarass an adolescent.
Retailing such stories is further evidence of paranoia. For those with their sanity intact, the passage of time—and four years is more than enough time—reasoned contemplation and reflection allows one to divorce themselves from the irrational thoughts and fears that arise out of such tragedies.
Re-telling stories about one’s feelings is appropriate in an encounter session with your therapist, not as a years-later objective narrative.
It seems that many of the contributors here are too quick to assume that anyone who doesn’t mimic the arrogant wannabe tory rhetoric that Michael J Fox did to death as Alex P Keaton 25 years ago, must be a leftie or a liberal.
It is difficult to pin down what people mean here when they say liberal and leftie.
FD Roosevelt for instance was a liberal but not a leftie. I suspect that some of the contributors don’t know that there is a difference and now that they do, it still won’t matter to them. Of course that won’t stop some keyboard hero puffing out his chest and diplaying what he remembers from 1st year politics.To begin with, I merely observed that the tone of the contributions was extremely parochial. I also observed that the content of the criticism amounted to no more than mere derision. Finally, I suggested that whatever one thought of Schechter’s journalism, and I didn’t think much of it, the issue he raised was important if true.
Whether I am a leftie, liberal or something else shouldn’t matter. Should it? The left of politics has produced some great leaders and implemented important social change. Would you dare deride a leader like John Curtin? Liberals were the founders of modern democracy and we are the beneficaries of their achievements. How can you possibly dismiss the left and liberals so easily?
The problem for conservatives, and I am one, is that we are often confused with those who play at being rightwing but are merely just caricatures of stereotype boarding school prefects who can talk tough about how much they hate lefties but have no commitment to any real ideas themselves.
If you want to contribute to a public discussion then do so. If you merely want to barrack in some attempt to confirm your own identity by aligning yourself with what your perceive as the hard side of politics, your’e wasting your time, and more importantly, mine.
Posted by Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. on 2006 02 13 at 10:40 PM • permalinkBullshit_Mr_Han_man,
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ok Mr. Conservative, fill out this paperwork, send it back in triplicate. Type it on computer. Not a Air National Guard typewriter. Send a money order in US Currency, none of that Euro shit.
I’ll process it. And then we’ll be running a check on you. If you wake up in the middle of the night and you find a team of, oh, 20 to 30 men in white lab coats rifling their your papers, your sock drawer, your wife’s lingerie drawer, just relax. It’s standard procedure.
If everything goes normal, I’ll get back to you about the next stage to joining the Evil Death Cult Known as Conservatism. That stage I probably shouldn’t mention at this time. You’ll be glad I don’t.
(visibly shudders)
Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 13 at 10:54 PM • permalinkIt’s possible Mr. BS is a conservative. He may be one of Pitchfork Pat Buchanan’s followers, like that swinish, antisemitci, Greek playboy Taki. The Paleos sound so much like the lefties and liberals nowadays, since they’ve all taken to rubbishing Bush for being a slave of those nasty Neo-cons (that is us). That’s if the Democrats can still be considered liberals, what with most of their leadership having to kiss up to the likes of Markos Moulitsas and the Daily Kossacks.
Concerning Dan Rather’s fantasies, here is the man who abused his position as a news anchor to perpetrate a lie, one fabricated out of whole cloth and intended to further the success of political candidate he favored in a presidential election, and he has the unmitigated gall to sit there and claim he feared a nonexistent retribution for straying from some imaginary White House line? Dan Rather lives in a perpetual lie of his own fantasies and paranoia. His paranoid imaginings bear no relationship to the outside world. What disgusting slander.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 02 14 at 01:22 AM • permalinkThe Paleos sound so much like the lefties and liberals nowadays
Yeah, but it’s hard to imagine them saying:
FD Roosevelt for instance was a liberal but not a leftie.
The left of politics has produced some great leaders and implemented important social change.
Liberals were the founders of modern democracy and we are the beneficaries of their achievements. How can you possibly dismiss the left and liberals so easily?
Paleos may side with the left, they may sound just like the left, but they hate the left almost as much as they hate neocons, and that’s a lot.
I missed this when I first read BMHM’s last comment:
If you merely want to barrack in some attempt to confirm your own identity by aligning yourself with what your perceive as the hard side of politics, you’re wasting your time, and more importantly, mine.
Nobody is wasting your time here but you. Don’t pretend that you came here seeking intelligent and reasoned debate (I’ll save you some time on your reply: ‘Well, I certainly didn’t find any here’. Yeah, whatever). At best, you are an arrogant fool who came to enlighten us poor benighted sheep. At worse, you’re just another pathetic troll.
Go away and don’t come back, no one will miss you.
you’re wasting your time, and more importantly, mine.
That’s an argument I seem to be hearing a lot lately. There was a caller on Limbaugh last week who called up to harangue about something or other, Rush basically gave him an open mike to state the liberal position on whatever it was. To which the response was: “I’m a busy man, and you’re wasting my time!”
...
Remind me again, who called who?
You forgot to say I might be French.
There is no political content in any of my early posts. You assume there is because I didn’t engage in the same mindless abuse you do. That sort of thing belongs in the letters page of the Herald Sun.
Posted by Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. on 2006 02 14 at 08:15 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Almost every lefty peice I read these days has a fantasy or dream sequence of some sort in it. their all loosing their minds