1
   

Validating our Opinions: Media Bias

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 04:20 pm
Cyclop, I will agree that the media does seem to be more interested in 'gotcha' than in printing the facts, both good and bad. And, again, if the Rasmussen poll is anywhere near accurate, however, they are far more likely to print a 'gotcha' concerning Bush than they are Kerry. <-- Fox

I think the primary reason for this is because Bush has more opportunities to screw up on more issues, because he's in charge currently.

That, and the fact is that his advisors make him look bad. Remember, in many cases, his advisors - Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al - are the ones behind the majority of the policy decisions (much like any presidency). I'm against Bush's staff more than I am against Bush himself, by far.

Find one thing Kerry stood for from the start to finish that was of a true benefit. <--- Baldimo

How about finding out the truth behind Iran Contra? Kerry was a key senator in that process.

That's one. For more, look for yourself:

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm

It has every bill with Kerry's name on it listed.

Now, is he pivotal in his senate role? Not really. But it's not like he did nothing at all. A good counterexample would be Cheney - he had 2 bills total.

Compared to Bush's record before he was elected president, Kerry looks busy as hell....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 04:29 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
While I do believe Fox's base is the political and social conservative, to their credit they do not withhold negative stores to protect Bush or the GOP.


LOL!!! If one were to understand the policies behind FOX news, one would immediately understand that they are mearly an arm of the GOP.

http://mediamatters.org/


If Fox is an arm of the GOP then CBS is an arm of DNC and that makes Rather the head cheer leader.

Did you know that they have now come out and said that the Bush doc's they "reported on" are fake! Incrediable that CBS would do this "reporting" with out further investigation of their own is amazing. If this were 10 years ago, before the internet, then this would not have been caught for the crap that it is. Thank God for the internet.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 04:31 pm
The media is more interested in 'gotcha" politics because it sells. It's the bottom line that counts. Discussing Kerry's voting record would be incredibly boring to an American populace more atuned to sound bites than to in-depth analysis. And besides, the neoconservatives HAVE been talking about Kerry's voting record. It just hasn't been making much of a difference.

This race will be as tight November 2nd as it is today.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 04:34 pm
Quote:
Thank God for the internet.


And thank god for CBS and Dan Rather to admit when they're WRONG.

The same cannot be said for either FOX news OR George W. Bush.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 04:57 pm
Cyclop writes:
Quote:
Compared to Bush's record before he was elected president, Kerry looks busy as hell....


Did you read the list? Did you see how many of those bills made it out of committee? You couldn't have missed that the vast bulk of what did pass were window dressing or 'recognition' bills that had nothing to do with policy. Did you note that there were maybe two bills of any substance at all in twenty years that John Kerry was instrumental in initiating and/or passing?

But I will amend my previous post. I did find two bills on the list that I thought had both substance and merit. So I was incorrect in saying that he had sponsored or cosponsored no bills of substance.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:01 pm
I would think that the common theme of conservative thought was that government should always be less, not more. With that understanding, and Kerry's history in the Senate, he should be a shoe-in as a Republican nominee.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:05 pm
Oh don't misunderstand me. I am always delighted when there is one of those government shut downs when they hit a major impasse. I love it when Congress isn't doing anything to us. But you have a point, Dys, doing nothing is a major accomplishment. But unfortunately, because he did nothing, all he has left is his voting record. And that won't win him a lot of votes if people pay close attention to it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:05 pm
Fox,

Your criticism of Kerry is fair.

But I stand by my line, which you quoted. Compared to Bush, Kerry was pretty busy in politics.

Bush was governor (and a miserable one at that), and... that's about it. Oh yeah, he ran the Texas Rangers for a while. Oh, and a bunch of companies that went bankrupt. Several.

That being said... the media is relatively silent about Bush's history as well; if they wanted to, you don't think they could make a huge deal out of his past?

Cycloptichorn

P.S. it's nice to see ya back.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:15 pm
Foxfyre:

As Cycloptichorn pointed out, it would seem that Kerry was much more involved working in the Senate than George W. Bush could ever have hoped to be in his role as Governor, National Guardsmen, Yale Student, and/or the Ranger's owner.

Now, if we could bear witness to the transcription of Kerry's statements in the Senate, vs. Bush's statements while Governor of Texas, I believe it would be most telling in regards to which man actually used his own personal resources to further their career. Bush WAS a miserable governor, and he had to win by smearing Ann Richards and accusing her of being a "lesbian."

This is the only way Bush can win. It's the only way he's EVER won in office.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:20 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Foxfyre:

As Cycloptichorn pointed out, it would seem that Kerry was much more involved working in the Senate than George W. Bush could ever have hoped to be in his role as Governor, National Guardsmen, Yale Student, and/or the Ranger's owner.

Now, if we could bear witness to the transcription of Kerry's statements in the Senate, vs. Bush's statements while Governor of Texas, I believe it would be most telling in regards to which man actually used his own personal resources to further their career. Bush WAS a miserable governor, and he had to win by smearing Ann Richards and accusing her of being a "lesbian."

This is the only way Bush can win. It's the only way he's EVER won in office.
Care to provide proof of your statements? You don't think Richards tried to smear Bush as being AWOL? Don't ever forget that it goes both ways and your lib friends are not only kings of smear but the king of lying smear. CBS and its cohorts.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:25 pm
I just ignore those who blithely throw out the baseless accusations such as liars and AWOL figuring that's how they feel and it's what they want to believe. If they put out the evidence, then it can be discussed.

And I'm sorry, based on the Senate record Cyclop put out there, I can't see Kerry as any kind of leader or more than a Ted Kennedy pawn in the Senate. That plus his vacillating and indecisveness on all the issues does not inspire confidence as a leader for me.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:32 pm
Bah. Bush had no more leadership of any kind; the vast majority of companies he ran failed. The state he was elected Gov. started with a surplus and ended up with big defecits and terrible healthcare and education. You know I'm not happy with his Administration and I know you really aren't either in a lot of ways. So there aren't many examples of quality leadership on either side of the table here.

I'm in a different boat when it comes to Bush; he's pretty stable on a bunch of issues, just not in the direction I'd like him to be.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:34 pm
Baldimo:

CBS and its "cohorts" just APOLOGIZED. I guess you must have missed that.

The phrase "I believe" does not require proof. But if you want proof of the dirty politics of George W. Bush, well...

Quote:
"Chuck McDonald, who as Ms. Richards' spokesman blamed the Bush campaign [for smear tactics] in 1994, said that he sees some parallels with the McCain episode. Mr. McDonald said Bush political operatives have a history in which supporters spread stories while the candidate stays above the fray. "The Bush campaign in 1994 effectively used surrogates to spread any campaign message the campaign thought needed to be carried," said Mr. McDonald, now a political and business consultant in Austin. Political scientists and consultants say hardball tactics are common as candidates seek to win an advantage over opponents. But Mr. Bush has sought to set his campaign apart, saying he won't engage in that. Mr. McDonald said the architect of Mr. Bush's political campaigns is Karl Rove, a longtime strategist with an aggressive style. "Clearly, Karl Rove has a formula, and everything in 1994, in 1998 [Mr. Bush's re-election] and this year fits within that formula," said Mr. McDonald. Mr. Rove, a colleague of the late GOP consultant Lee Atwater [who is considered the father of political smears and directed the Poppy Bush campaign featuring the Willie Horton ad], got his start in Republican politics while a student in college. In 1973, Mr. Rove organized conferences that instructed young Republicans on campaign dirty tricks, such as going through a rival's garbage to obtain inside memos and contributor lists. As a Republican consultant in Texas over the last two decades, Mr. Rove has worked for most major GOP candidates seeking statewide office. [For example,] as consultant to Gov. Bill Clements in his 1982 re-election bid, Mr. Rove distributed a mock newspaper suggesting that Democratic challenger Mark White was drinking while driving when he had a wreck as a college student." (DMN, 12/2/99)


Quote:
There are smoking guns on the Bush campaign team, primarily, Bush, himself, and his sidekick political guru Karl Rove. It's generally agreed that Bush backers blitzed South Carolina with deceptive advertising and dirty tricks against John McCain, angering the Arizona Senator to this day, and Bush never specifically separated himself from those ads. In fact, he was overheard by a reporter telling a backer that while he can't "get" McCain on TV, the attack will be "under the radar," and it was, with racist radio ads, pointing out that Mac had adopted a little girl "of color." One was reminded of similar ads by Bush backers during his first gubernaorial campaign, when Governor Ann Richards was criticized for "appointing avowed homosexual advocates" to state jobs. Other than Bush, the connection, of course, between the two campaigns of bigotry was political strategist Karl Rove.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:39 pm
Well Dookie, I'm sure the writer of those pieces holds the content as his/her convictions, but I don't see that they are any more than typical partisan mud slinging and they offer little or no means of verification, not to mention you didn't provide either your source or a link.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:45 pm
And Cyclop, so far as Bush's busyness is concerned, the people of Texas really did give him a pretty high approval rating so he must have been doing something right. And I don't know of ANY poll out there on leadership qualities that does not rate Bush higher, usually substantially higher, than Kerry. He's been pretty darn busy as presidents go. And I think we should be rating him on his performance as president anyway since that's what he is running for, and I think Kerry's senate performance is fair game for scrutiny too as that is the only thing he has going for him to qualify him to be president.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 07:33:13