0
   

Liberial Bias from the NYT.

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:36 am
If she intentionally did something like that, it is reprehensible. But please compare that to the swift-boating of people like Kerry and Cleland, which is a thousand times worse.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:39 am
Advocate wrote:
If she intentionally did something like that, it is reprehensible. But please compare that to the swift-boating of people like Kerry and Cleland, which is a thousand times worse.


Cleland, I agree with you there.
What was said about him was reprehensible and waaaay out of line.

Kerry?
You might want to read this...

http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 10:27 am
The website you gave us is right-wing crap. It largely relies on O'Neill, who is a huge liar, and who was caught in a big one. He contradicted Kerry's statement that he was in Cambodia, saying none of the swiftboaters went there. However, the Nixon tapes have O'Neill telling Nixon how he was in Cambodia on a swiftboat.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 10:46 am
Advocate wrote:
The website you gave us is right-wing crap. It largely relies on O'Neill, who is a huge liar, and who was caught in a big one. He contradicted Kerry's statement that he was in Cambodia, saying none of the swiftboaters went there. However, the Nixon tapes have O'Neill telling Nixon how he was in Cambodia on a swiftboat.


The website I linked to is called mediamythbusters.
It is not a rightwing site at all.
http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

You may not like what they said,but that doesnt make them a "right-wing" site.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 10:50 am
First of all Mediamythbusters is a personal and biased web site.

It states

Quote:
The Swift Boat veterans presented much corroborated evidence and witness reports, and other researchers confirmed many elements.


I would love it if you could provide us with even one of those "corroborated witness reports".

This is meant to find errors in what the media reports?
Quote:
The major media, then till now, have mostly failed to investigate the charges or press Kerry for his claims or records, and some major venues collaborated with Kerry to squelch the charges.


If Mr Chris Muir wants to argue that failure to completely investigate is media failure then why does he only argue that about Kerry? Surely one could make the same unsubtantiated argument abut Bush's service and about Cheney's continued ties to Halliburton.



The piece about Dowd is really funny since Bush has on more than one occassion said that he no longer is concerned with Osama. This is from 2002
Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Now let's compare that to what Dowd quoted the president as saying..
Quote:
'Al-Qaida is on the run,' the president said last week. 'That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. . They're not a problem anymore.'"
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 11:01 am
So,what Dowd quoted is what the President said???
NO,its not.

Here is what the president actually said in Little Rock, Ark., on May 5

Quote:
"Al-Qaida is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al-Qaida operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem any more."


Now,compare that with what Dowd quoted...

Quote:
'Al-Qaida is on the run,' the president said last week. 'That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. . They're not a problem anymore.'"


When you use what Bush said,it makes a big difference.
Dowd intentionally eliminated some of his words.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 11:05 am
Are you saying that the President has been concentrating on capturing Bin Laden and Al Qaida?

The funny thing is he consistently tells us how Al Qaida is no longer a threat and you want to hang Dowd for implying the President has ever said that?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 11:07 am
errr, mysteryman - your president looks worse when you quote more of it.

He just doesn't seem to get it (the dangers of Al Quaida), and more of "doesn't get it" is not really better than "doesn't get it".
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 11:12 am
mysteryman wrote:
While I dont know about the particular ad you are arguing about,


Since that's what the thread's been about, why don't you look into it? Did you read the thread?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 12:25 pm
mysteryman wrote:
But since she writes opinion columns,its ok for her to change statements made by others, or to totally eliminate whole sentences, just to try and make a point?


Actually that's why 'Opionions' are called opinions ... you may look through archives back to 17th entury (even at the first printed newspaper from 1609) - you'll always find such.


Which certainly isn't nice - but, eBeth already said so above, the topic here is different.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 03:20 pm
ehBeth wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
While I dont know about the particular ad you are arguing about,


Since that's what the thread's been about, why don't you look into it? Did you read the thread?


Yes, I did read the thread AND the ad.

Did you see this, in todays NY Daily News...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_ny_times_admits_petraeus_ad_sold_to_move.html

Quote:
The old gray lady has some explaining to do.

Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.


Quote:
"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

Mathis said an advertising representative left the liberal group with the understanding that the ad would run that Monday even though they had been charged the standby rate.

The group should have paid $142,083 to ensure placement that day.


So apparently moveon.org DID get a rate that was cheaper then what they should have paid.

And the Public Editor from the NY Times says the same thing, that moveon.org got a special deal, one that other groups dont get.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html

Quote:
Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, "We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature." Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was "rough," he regarded it as a comment on a public official's management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.


So,apparently moveon DID get special treatment after all.
Now, since the NY Times is admitting it,how can you on the left continue to deny it?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 05:16 pm
Where is Parados to confess he was totally wrong all along?

MM says:
"Now, since the NY Times is admitting it,how can you on the left continue to deny it?"

I will be willing to bet that Parados will figure out a way. I have no clue what the defense will be or can conceivably be, but I will be mighty surprised if he doesn't concoct something.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:45 pm
mysteryman wrote:
So,apparently moveon DID get special treatment after all.
Now, since the NY Times is admitting it,how can you on the left continue to deny it?


i for one never claimed they didn't get a discount rate. rudy got the same figure.

so what's the beef ?

i love special rates. admittedly, my personal experience negotiating for print ads has been pretty much all national monthly magazines, but at least in that market, getting a discounted rate is usually based on either previous business volume or the expectation of volume future advertising of a similar footprint.

additionally, the article states that freedomwatch received a similar price, which you'll remember it passed on. as i said, my experience is with monthlies. even with a friend on the inside at a couple, i was never able to get any assurance as to what page our ad would appear on.

part of the determining factor in placement is "getting there first", i.e., okay the ad and put cash in the upward palm first.

another part is; client "a" is willing to pay full pop for a guarantee of placement in a certain section of the magazine. client "b" wants a guaranteed placement, but only wants to pay the discounted rate.

as advertising is the "business" aspect of publication, guess which client gets more of what he wants.

if the first section is where these types of ads are usually found, it's pretty logical that it is also where freedomwatch's ad would most likely be placed.

as far as "guarantee of date of publication", what lead time was involved ? that is, how many days previous to the desired date did freedomwatch attempt to contract? did they have cash on hand, or want to defer payment ?

had they advertised before? were they interested in future ads, or was this a one shot deal?

--

look, i feel like moveon could have made a similar statement in a different way. but for me, this isn't about what was said, but freedom of speech.

i won't get into the cleland and kerry thing again, but i will say that, as some of you may remember from back then, allowing the whole swift boat thing to go on with out condemnation was a sword that cut both ways.

i sure didn't hear anyone on the right complain about the smearing of decorated veterans back then.

and now the sword is cutting in the other direction.

how's it feel ?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:53 pm
DTOM, Mr. Kerry smeared the entire military, but somehow that was okay, but the Swiftees setting the record straight about Kerry is somehow a smear? Like when Kerry was in Cambodia and that was seared into his memory, although he was never there, just one example. Then he acts like a fool by driving a boat into Boston and making that clumsy salute, what a show?

Why do we have to keep replowing this same old pathetic ground.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 07:32 pm
okie wrote:
DTOM, Mr. Kerry smeared the entire military, but somehow that was okay, but the Swiftees setting the record straight about Kerry is somehow a smear? Like when Kerry was in Cambodia and that was seared into his memory, although he was never there, just one example. Then he acts like a fool by driving a boat into Boston and making that clumsy salute, what a show?

Why do we have to keep replowing this same old pathetic ground.


i'm unaware that he "smeared the entire military". what i did see and hear him say was that there was some bad **** going on. not by every soldier, but by a few.

or have you forgotten Lt. Calley ?

you also seem to have forgotten, as parados pointed out, that o'neill swore up and down that kerry couldn't possibly have gone to cambodia because swift boats didn't go there... and then he is clearly heard on a nixon tape affirming that he, o'neill, a swift boat commander, did go there.

so which one of o'neill's statements is a lie ?

but i really don't want to pursue this old news.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 07:43 pm
The only problem I see is a salesman didn't tell them it was a "standby" rate.

By the way, most ads in a paper are bought a week before they list. On Friday the paper would know what space it has available on Monday since there would be no sales over the weekend.

Because the "public editor" thinks they got a deal doesn't mean they did. It is one man's opinion and not the official opinion of the paper.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 08:21 pm
I wonder though....so what if move'on was left with the impression that the ad would run on Monday.

Just a few weeks ago I was on standby at the airport and I was talking to the counter employee and asked if he knew the odds of me getting in on the next flight, he kept repeating that "there shouldn't be a problem getting on the flight" I asked him for a 'guarentee' and he said he couldn't give one but that there was still 20 seats left and I was the only stand-by passenger. I was left with the impression that I would make my flight (and I did), it doesn't meant that he guarenteed that I would get on that flight.

What if the NYT said something similar to move'on which left them with the same impression that I got at the airport.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 08:24 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
okie wrote:
DTOM, Mr. Kerry smeared the entire military, but somehow that was okay, but the Swiftees setting the record straight about Kerry is somehow a smear? Like when Kerry was in Cambodia and that was seared into his memory, although he was never there, just one example. Then he acts like a fool by driving a boat into Boston and making that clumsy salute, what a show?

Why do we have to keep replowing this same old pathetic ground.


i'm unaware that he "smeared the entire military". what i did see and hear him say was that there was some bad **** going on. not by every soldier, but by a few.

...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."

He might as well have indicted the entire military, DTOM. And Winter Soldier was fraudulant, and anyone that had really been in combat in Vietnam would have known it. Kerry pertetrated a fraud upon Congress and the American people. To point that out is not a smear. It is Kerry that conducted the smear. The term "Winter Soldier Syndrome" is now being used for people that tell fraudulant stories, as Private Beauchamp has done in regard to Iraq.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/08/08/winter_soldier_syndrome

Quote:
or have you forgotten Lt. Calley ?
This was a special case, untypical, and highly unusual, and a subject unto itself.

Quote:
you also seem to have forgotten, as parados pointed out, that o'neill swore up and down that kerry couldn't possibly have gone to cambodia because swift boats didn't go there... and then he is clearly heard on a nixon tape affirming that he, o'neill, a swift boat commander, did go there.

so which one of o'neill's statements is a lie ?

but i really don't want to pursue this old news.

I don't either but I do like to set the record straight as opposed to the history revisionists. It is my understanding that Kerry being in Cambodia, the story kept changing to different versions, but he retracted his claim that he had been in Cambodia and under fire on Christmas, the memory that was "seared" into his memory. At least at Christmas as he had claimed, and that friendly fire from Vietnamese celebrating Christmas was part of it, then he changed it to January or February when it was pointed out he was 50 miles from Cambodia on Christmas, so now we are left to wonder why the Vietnamese were celebrating Christmas in January or February? In regard to Oneil, Parados took the statement out of context, as he said in a more detailed explanation in the next breath or part of the same sentence that "he worked along the border," which does not indicate being inside Cambodia.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:06 pm
okie wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i'm unaware that he "smeared the entire military". what i did see and hear him say was that there was some bad **** going on. not by every soldier, but by a few.

...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."

He might as well have indicted the entire military, DTOM.

might as well is not the same as "did".

Quote:
or have you forgotten Lt. Calley ?
This was a special case, untypical, and highly unusual, and a subject unto itself.

not really. bad **** did go down. and in a war that lasted that long be assured it went down more than once. some people wear down under the strain and make a mistake, some just lose it and don't care. it happens.

but ignoring it neither makes it go away or helps us figure out how to avoid it.


Quote:
you also seem to have forgotten, as parados pointed out, that o'neill swore up and down that kerry couldn't possibly have gone to cambodia because swift boats didn't go there... and then he is clearly heard on a nixon tape affirming that he, o'neill, a swift boat commander, did go there.

so which one of o'neill's statements is a lie ?

but i really don't want to pursue this old news.

I don't either but I do like to set the record straight as opposed to the history revisionists. It is my understanding that Kerry being in Cambodia, the story kept changing to different versions, but he retracted his claim that he had been in Cambodia and under fire on Christmas, the memory that was "seared" into his memory. At least at Christmas as he had claimed, and that friendly fire from Vietnamese celebrating Christmas was part of it, then he changed it to January or February when it was pointed out he was 50 miles from Cambodia on Christmas, so now we are left to wonder why the Vietnamese were celebrating Christmas in January or February?

never got a date wrong about something that happened 35 years ago, eh ? i remember a really great outdoor festival my band played at in 1972. it was sometime in the summer. people were setting off fire crackers. it might have been the 4th of july.

on the other hand, it could have just been people setting off fire crackers to celebrate a beautiful day outdoors having a great time.



In regard to Oneil, Parados took the statement out of context, as he said in a more detailed explanation in the next breath or part of the same sentence that "he worked along the border," which does not indicate being inside Cambodia.

i've heard the tape. several times. sounds a hell of a lot like a cobtradiction to me.

here. check these transcripts...

From Unfit for Command: Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. ... Areas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. [pp. 47-48]

O'Neill on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos: How do I know he's [Kerry] not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made-up story. [8/22]

As CNN congressional correspondent Joe Johns reported on the August 24 edition of CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, "O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river, and he claimed in an audiotape that his publicist played to CNN that he himself had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then-President Richard Nixon." CNN then aired the audiotape of O'Neill telling Nixon that he was, in fact, in Cambodia during the Vietnam War:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.




okay. can we MoveOn now? Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 07:44 am
How desperate does one have to be to use lying liar Michelle Malkin as a source?




http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/Michelle_Malkin2.gif
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 04:16:29