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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (18525)	12/3/2003 5:00:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793883

It doesn't matter that I can factually point to numerous instances of clear media bias. Why? I'm not disputing the examples you provide. You're probably right about most of them. I'm only saying that it happens on both sides. You only see the ones that touch your hot buttons and the ones that touch different buttons on different people slide right past you. And I'm also saying that I don't think it's as partisan as you seem to think it is, rather just a difference in orientation. The liberal media outlets I mentioned falsely attributed that Bush claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat" directly or showed Democratic politicians repeating this lie. Not one retraction on this outrageous distortion from any of them. I will speak to one of your examples because I was paying very close attention to the rationale for the war and I know what I heard. I don't know that Bush, himself, ever used those exact words. But I do know that he and his spokespersons stressed the point that Iraq was developing WMD and was close to being able to use them against us so we'd better strike now before it was too late. I don't know that that equates to "imminent," but it's close enough that it is not reasonable to call it an "outrageous distortion." Anyone who didn't hear something close to that wasn't paying attention. If the liberal media were reporting "imminent threat" and the WH thought that mischaracterized their argument, they had plenty of opportunities to say, "well, wait a minute." But they didn't. They didn't because they were trying to sell the war. And they sold it to most people. Job well done. I know people who supported the war mainly because they were afraid of an attack. Likewise, surveys showed that most people thought that the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis. I didn't notice the WH making a point to correct that misimpression. It wasn't in their best interest to do so. Whether the imminent/soon threat message that was conveyed was hyperbole or deliberate deceit or unintentional misdirection I don't presume to know. But I do know they never corrected the misimpression that was widely reported. I think you're way off base complaining about that one.