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: Lane3 who wrote (20530)	12/19/2003 7:06:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793896

For those who complain that the media don't refer to liberals as liberals: I almost never watch the news on TV, but I was just flipping through the channels testing my new VCRs and I came upon Peter Jennings talking about the fellow who ran the 9/11 fund. He referred to him as a "liberal Democrat." Right away I thought of y'all... FWIW

To: Lane3 who wrote (20530)	12/20/2003 1:13:19 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793896

Karen, the bias is in the focus. It's not about the millions celebrating his capture in Iraq, it's about the small percentage who are demonstrated against it, or about those who feel bad that he was captured. You would have to be brain dead not to see how disproportionately represented the supporters of Hussein are in Iraq. So, why focus your headlines and stories on that small percentage of people, when the entire nation (and most of the world), are celebrating his capture? Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.... Let's say the Redskins beat the Cowboys in the Super Bowl (I know a serious improbability these days, but go with me here), and the Washington Post ran story after story the next day in the paper about how sad some Washingtonians, who were Dallas fans, felt the next day. Here's the headline "Some Washingtonians grieve Skins victory". Would it be true? Sure, but is it really the story? Is it really reflective of the vast majority of Washingtonians? Of course not. So why present the opening lines of a story that way? Those reports fail to recognize they are coming from American television stations (who I would hope believe we should win this war as rapidly as possible to save American lives), they fail to recognize that Americans believe in democratic principles, believe in the moral rightness of capturing a madman who tortured women and children, and who murdered on a genocidal scale of sickness rarely seen in modern times. They also fail to understand the vast majority of Iraqi's support and celebrated Saddam's capture. Then the question becomes one of why would they focus on the minority who support a madman and not the vast majority who celebrated his capture? The answer is, one demonstrates support for a Republican President and the other does not. I have very little doubt if the President had been Bill Clinton, or some other Democrat, the focus of their stories would have been completely different. Here is what Dan Rather would have said instead. "Iraqi's hail capture of Saddam, and vow to end the violence from radical elements of society"