Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lawdog who wrote (26552)	7/30/2000 11:58:21 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769667

Another blow to Gore...Article... Buchanan Removed From Ballot capitolhillblue.com Jul 29, 2000 9:12 PM DALLAS (AP) - Reform Party leaders voted unanimously Saturday to remove Pat Buchanan's name from the party's presidential ballot amid allegations of campaign fraud and disregard of party rules. Buchanan was ``hijacking the party'' and thus had eliminated himself as a legitimate candidate, Reform Party Secretary Jim Mangia told colleagues at a meeting at an airport hotel. ``We are a party that was created on the principles of reform - integrity and accountability,'' Mangia said. ``It's astounding ... these kinds of dirty tricks.'' Seven of the 10 members on the party's executive committee attended the meeting - the majority of whom are supporters of party founder Ross Perot. They discussed Buchanan for about two hours before voting. Buchanan spokesman Brian Doherty dismissed the effort as frivolous and called the allegations ``false and outrageous.'' ``They're just doing everything they can to obstruct us or impede Buchanan's nomination,'' Doherty said Saturday before the vote. ``They can't defeat us legitimately, so they go about it trying to defeat us in other ways.'' Even though the committee's decision places Iowa physicist John Hagelin as the party's presumed candidate for president, the vote is not binding. Under party rules, the 164-member national committee will review the executive committee's decision when it meets Aug. 8 in Long Beach, Calif. By a two-thirds vote, members could reverse the executive committee's decision. ``Anything the executive committee does today is a publicity stunt if anything,'' said Bob Belcher, the party's Alabama state chairman and a professed neutral. Buchanan left the Republican Party last October to seek the Reform nomination. Buchanan and Hagelin are competing for the party nod in the primary, which is a mail-in vote for party members and others who have asked for a ballot. Hagelin and Perot loyalists accused the Buchanan camp earlier this week of illegally padding the lists of ballot recipients with people from his Republican donor lists. At stake was control of the party apparatus and $12.6 million in federal election funds that go to the party's nominee.

To: lawdog who wrote (26552)	7/30/2000 12:04:52 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I'm not surprised to see you use those terms to describe any news source which isn't mainstream. hmmm, let's see how unbiased the so-called mainstream sources of news are.... The Slant of "So-Called" Reporting By L. Brent Bozell III July 28, 2000 cnsnews.com In a recent online discussion, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz acknowledged that the national media present a liberal media bias on abortion, homosexuality, and religion, but emphasized: "The idea that most reporters are Democratic activists who slant their stories to help the party was always bogus." Perhaps. Perhaps all these left-leaning journalists are just unanimously, unconsciously prejudicing readers in an utterly uncoordinated wave of "socially responsible" spin control, absent any whiff of party politics. No matter: the end result is political. We've seen how reporters like to label conservative groups as conservative or extremely conservative ("hard right," "far right," and the like). Meanwhile, liberal groups are assigned sugar-coated, positive, noble, universal labels ("women's groups," "civil rights groups," "environmentalists"). Then there's those deadly adjectives, like "so-called." Dan Rather can't mouth the words "Christian Coalition" on TV without preceding it with "so-called," since apparently the Christians of Rather's acquaintance would rise up as one and object to being lumped in with Pat Robertson. But there was hardly a soul in journalism that felt the need to describe the nearly beatified John McCain's campaign bus as the "so-called Straight Talk Express." Take a little stroll through a news database like Nexis, searching just for the term "so-called" in network newscasts. Some uses of the word are appropriately negative (calling professional wrestling a "so-called port"), or introducing a new concept (the sale of "so-called conflict diamonds" to finance wars in Africa). Some offer a back-door method of praising the less than praiseworthy (Hafez Assad, the "so-called Lion of Syria"), and some are indirect insults using the liberals' own terms (another failure of the "so-called Star Wars defense system.") But you will also discover that when the ten-foot poles of attribution are pulled out to describe legislative proposals, the "so-called" terminology in dispute is usually conservative. The most common media resistance to conservative terms comes with "so-called" partial birth abortions. Reporters fall into all sorts of contortions trying to distance themselves from pro-life terminology, regularly preceding the term partial-birth abortion with clumsy clouds of disqualification about "a certain late-term procedure which abortion opponents call 'partial-birth abortion.'" As Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin explained online, "abortion rights groups hate the term 'partial-birth abortion' because they see it as politically damaging." Apparently, pleasing these lobbyists' whims is Objective One. One network anchor recently asked if a Bush vice presidential nominee would need to have a "very strong so-called pro-life stance." If we ever heard a network star describe the "so-called woman's right to choose," we'd faint dead away. This subtle distancing from traditional values can seep into less political coverage. One TV reporter recently risked offending convening Southern Baptists by describing the controversy over their "so-called Statement of Faith." If those poor, uneducated, and easy-to-command Baptists were to decide to get with these hip modern times, renounce that silly Bible, and condone adultery and homosexuality as lifestyle choices, their new Statement of Faith would lose the warning label. A current fad is journalistic references to the "so-called marriage penalty," an odd phrase since the so-called married reporters apparently have not done their own so-called tax returns to discover they probably pay more when they're married than they would if they were so-called single. Now let's imagine some usages of "so-called," but placed squarely on the other foot. These sentences would be scorned for their lack of objectivity: * "Trial lawyers today urged Democrats to step up the effort to allow them to sue HMOs with their so-called 'patients' bill of rights.'" * "Al Gore today pledged his campaign would continue to support so-called 'affirmative action' programs that favor minorities." * "President Clinton said today he would uphold the ban on so-called 'assault weapons.'" * "Congress again failed to pass a bill restricting political speech, or so-called 'campaign finance reform.'" * How about Dan Rather intoning, "In honor of the National Coming Out Project, Vice President Gore spoke last night at a gathering of the so-called 'Human Rights Campaign.'" * Or Peter Jennings reporting: "We begin tonight with the Supreme Court's decision on partial-birth abortions, which was cheered by the so-called National Organization for Women." If you ever heard these, you'd probably unplug your TV and take it in for repairs. But the exercise underlines just how the media favor the liberal issue agenda in ways that can seem quite subtle, whether the reporter is consciously or just subconsciously declaring his or her opinion. Reporters really ought to fix this attribution problem. It's running rampant all over the pages and video screens of the so-called news media.