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: steve dietrich who wrote (325525)	12/4/2002 12:12:46 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Brent Bozell December 4, 2002 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/ Al Gore's awful media gaffes Al Gore has promised if he runs again for the presidency, he's not going to hold back his opinions. He's going to "let 'er rip." If what he's been saying recently is any indication of the reinvented Gore, the campaign should be loads of fun to watch. Exhibit A: In an interview with The New York Observer, the man who would be leader of the free world declared the political press includes "major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party." He cited Fox News, The Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh, sneering that some of these are "financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media." So far, Gore sounds like a 1998-vintage Clinton White House argument Xeroxed from a Sidney Blumenthal memo. But he got nastier. "Most of the media (have) been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks -- that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective as stated by the news media as a whole." Imagine what would have been the media's reaction were Richard Nixon to talk about the conspiracy of media forces slanted against him? At the very least, it would have been seen as bad manners (the rantings of a sore loser who never accepts blame for his own flaws) and bad politics (antagonizing major media outlets is never seen as smart, and is often portrayed in menacing undertones as thinly disguised hatred of a free press). More likely, the press would declare him a paranoid nutcase. But days after Gore's artless (and mindless) rant, in the very demonized studios of Fox News, there were Mara Liasson and Juan Williams attempting to explain how there's "some truth" in the future candidate's talking points. Is there "some truth" in Gore's "fifth column" accusation? Webster's Dictionary defines the term as "a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders." Calling your enemies a "fifth column" is saying they are not merely misguided, but a very unpatriotic guerrilla army arrayed against the United States. I'd like to hear Liasson or Williams try to identify the "truth" hidden inside that bizarre insinuation. Sadly, Gore is serious, and the more he tries to explain his position, the weirder he gets. As our possible future president sees it, first, a talking point begins inside RNC headquarters. Then Fox, the Washington Times and Rush "create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they'll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they've pushed into the zeitgeist. And then, pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these RNC talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist." What (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) this man talking about? Let's insert here any too-painfully-accurate portrayal of Gore in the last election cycle and see how it works. Al Gore told Wolf Blitzer on CNN, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The television networks ignored this bold-faced lie for weeks. (Blitzer sat through it nodding.) Then, when the RNC hammered on it, the allegedly "less objective" press failed to turn down the volume. Gore didn't want his truth-bending arrogance "woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist." He wanted the entire media to nod along with Wolf. But perhaps the most embarrassing Gore mangling of reality is his grand theory of recent journalistic history. The arrival of talk-radio and the Internet, he told The New York Observer, has lowered the media's standard of objectivity. "They're selling a hybrid product now that's news plus news-helper. Whether it's entertainment, or attitude, or news that's marbled with opinion, it's different." Only on Planet Gore could you find a news media more objective in the Nixon era or the Reagan era than during the Clinton years. This statement is simply a ridiculous joke instead of serious media history. It should be greeted with the same credibility as the notion that newspapers are made out of sugarplums and fairy dust. But perhaps former Columbia journalism professor Gore isn't really attempting to observe reality here. That was never the point in the Clinton White House. The Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy theory was deliberately designed to nudge naturally liberal reporters into more partisan liberal reporting. Gore knows he isn't going anywhere in 2004 if the supposed caricatures of the 2000 zeitgeist aren't ripped from the minds of the electorate. Thus the man who reinvented government now reinvents himself. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a TownHall.com member group. ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: steve dietrich who wrote (325525)	12/4/2002 12:28:06 AM
From: cfoe	Respond to of 769670

Re: Dan Rather is a newsman. What is your definition of a newsman? Is it someone who is biased in their reporting and doesn't know it? Have you read the book Bias by someone who worked with Rather at CBS?

To: steve dietrich who wrote (325525)	12/4/2002 12:35:50 AM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

>>Rush is a talk show host more akin to Jerry Springer.<< Your right, in fact Rush's show today was about mothers sleeping with their daughters husbands. You're about as close to fact as Clinton was to telling the truth when it closed in on his sorry butt. I guess that's all we can expect from you guys is truth distortion (we call it lying). John McCain was exposed by Limbaugh, so his response is irrelevant, as is yours. Jim

To: steve dietrich who wrote (325525)	12/4/2002 1:16:34 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Rather is as biased a old fart as anyone on tv...good grief. At least Rush admits he is a conservative...Blather just homespins his way through his liberal bias.

To: steve dietrich who wrote (325525)	12/4/2002 1:23:42 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

Rather is a moron, as are all "establishment media" talking heads. Rush got where he is because the vast majority of Americans AGREE with him, and wanted a voice. That voice gets stronger every year, and if the Marxist/Leninist enemy wants to dwell on him, that will only make their final downfall occur sooner. You really think the lefties on this thread would ever have a following? ROFLMAO!!!!

To: steve dietrich who wrote (325525)	12/4/2002 10:14:26 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thomas Sowell December 4, 2002 Media bias about media bias After Senator Tom Daschle created a stir by attacking Rush Limbaugh and other conservative voices in the media as somehow responsible for death threats to politicians like himself, his total absence of any evidence made him look ridiculous. However, this charge was followed within days by another attack on the conservative media by former Vice President Al Gore. Gore named Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Washington Times as being "part and parcel of the Republican Party" and "a fifth column in the media," which apparently is otherwise politically unbiased. This might be a joke, given the well-documented fact that 90 percent of media journalists vote for Democrats in presidential elections and that four of the top five newspapers in circulation are solidly liberal in their editorials. But Al Gore's ability to say ridiculous things with a straight face -- and without a shred of evidence -- is one of his most effective political talents. The newspapers with the five highest daily circulations are USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. The only conservative editorial page among them is that of the Wall Street Journal. But Al Gore projects a wholly different picture. According the former vice president, "something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others." What Al Gore is objecting to is not simply the fact that some few media outlets express views that differ from the views expressed in the rest of the liberal media. He is claiming that there is a real conspiracy -- apparently with Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes of Fox News humbly taking orders from some Republican Party functionaries. It does boggle the mind. When Rush Limbaugh replied with the obvious and often-documented fact that the bulk of the media is liberal, suddenly it was he who was accused of having a conspiracy theory. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN News asked Limbaugh if he thinks reporters on the New York Times "have their marching orders" and are not "independent professionals" who "think for themselves." One of the incredible feats of media journalists is denying that there is media bias by equating it with conspiracy theories. When people share the same bias, they don't need a conspiracy. The harm comes from the fact that most of the public gets to see only that part of reality which has been filtered through the same preconceptions shared by 90 percent of those in the media. For example, it has been endlessly repeated in the media that the United States has a much higher murder rate than some countries with more restrictive gun control laws. But the media pass over in utter silence the fact that there are other countries, such as Russia, which have more restrictive gun control laws than ours but have far higher murder rates than the United States. The media have obviously made up their minds that restrictive gun control laws are desirable, which they have every right to do. It is when they try to make up other people's minds by filtering out information to the public that their opinion become a bias in doing their job. When vicious, sadistic murders are committed by whites against blacks, or straights against gays, that news is trumpeted throughout the media. But when similar atrocities are committed by blacks against whites, or gays against straights (including children), there is again utter silence in most of the media. Instead of learning that some terrible and vile things have been done by human beings of every race, color, creed, national origin, and sexual orientation -- in countries around the world -- the message of the media is that some groups are victimized by American society. That is media bias, made more insidious by the fact that it is not expressed openly as editorial opinion, but by corrupting the reporting of news. Anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh knows that what he is saying is his own opinion. But people who listen to the news on ABC, CBS, or NBC may imagine that they are getting the facts, not just those facts which fit the ideology of the media, with the media's spin. ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.