Canadians want Fox News Now!

JustWonders wrote:

Eason Jordan lied. He then tried to say his remarks were taken out of context.

The only problem is there's a video tape of his remarks. He won't release it. It will prove he lied.

He just resigned as Chief News Executive of CNN.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=492860

Okay, you're not a journalist. You're just a Fox civilian so it's okay for you to jump to the conclusion that "Eason Jordan lied". I think that given how far this thing has moved along, "Eason Jordan could have lied", would somehow be more fitting.

As I've mentioned, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that this has some truth to it. It could have some truth to it. Not all US troops are , nor have they ever been, saints; history clearly tells us that much.

But, even if he has told this one lie, thousands have not died because of one potential lie; untold thousands and thousands have not be maimed for life because of one potential lie; billions of dollars haven't been spent because of one potential lie.

If Mr Jordan is found to have lied, the consequences for him will be enormous. He won't get a four year renewal on his contract, he won't have lavish parties thrown for him, ...

The hypocrisy is stunning; not just from you but from every person like you who is jumping on the bandwagon, including those talking heads and 'reporters' at Fox. The number of lies that issue daily from them is truly mind-boggling.

Quoting you but putting this in perspective; "The only problem is there are hundreds of video tapes of their remarks. There was a 9-11 Commission report to prove the lies. They wouldn't/won't release it. These things have proven/will prove they lied.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Exactly, Fox. It's going to change reporting the news as we've always known it. Eason Jordan should have realized that.

Honestly, I just wonder if the "blogs" had been around during Watergate, would they have been able to effect a different outcome.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote: JW absolutely I am aware that it was the internet that brought down Rather and he needed to be brought down.

Why did Dan Rather need to be "brought down", [and next, E Jordan], but not the Fox liars, the WH liars. Dan Rather was duped but the content was true.

Everyone should be held accountable for their mistakes. Why is it, JW and Foxfyre, that you only look left when there's a lynchin' in the air?

Please, no song and dance this time. Just address my question.

0 Replies

Heehee - O'Reilly even said, I believe, that he WOULD resign - or somesuch, I will need to look it up - if his pre-war propaganda (eg selling as undoubted truth things that were already being reasonably questioned in other media outlets) turned out to be false.

I believe he is still there?

(Edit: Oh - he said he would apologize - and he sort of almost nearly did:

"Before the war, O?Reilly issued a promise. "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?" This February, on ABC's Good Morning America, he offered an apology. "My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?" But he explained that his lack of skepticism wasn't his fault. "All Americans should be concerned about this, for their families and themselves, that our intelligence isn't as good as it should be." The next day, back on Fox, O'Reilly claimed the controversy over his apology was a plot by the "left wing press" who "used my words to hammer the President." Then he introduced his next guest on what he called "the no spin zone." "

He appears still to trust the Bush administration........)

Timber - if you don't want to "back and forth" on your column, why did you raise it?

Oh, I read you, Fox:

"(But then I said previously--was it in this thread?--that in my opinion liberals overall are more racist than conservatives overall because it is liberals who are so focused on race."

I am just not so impressed by your post hoc fiddle factor about shoes and such.

JTT - sadly, band-wagon jumping is a pursuit beloved of folk of both sides....

Ah - Timber - or whomever else was demanding a more rightwing piece from salon.com - here is one!

It is a book review - you are gonna LOVE it - believe me:

http://www.powells.com/sal/review/2005_02_11

0 Replies

Propaganda-Gate; Jeff/Jim Gannon/Guckert Still Does Not Get It

By Anthony Wade

http://www.opednews.com/wade_021105_propaganda.htm

There is only one story here and that is the continuing unraveling of the propaganda machine utilized by this administration. It is not "Gannongate", because Jeff/Jim does not deserve that much attention. It is about Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus.

It is about an administration that thinks it can massage the truth, frame the truth, buy the truth or create the truth. It is about a President that thinks that it is ok to have Karl Rove give an exclusive interview to Sean Hannity so he can pimp the social security scam, and call it journalism. It is the abhorrent practice this administration has in assuming that the American people are just too plain stupid to realize that they are being manipulated and lied to.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reality check time. Mirror the Mirror.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Eason Jordan lied. He then tried to say his remarks were taken out of context.

The only problem is there's a video tape of his remarks. He won't release it. It will prove he lied.

He just resigned as Chief News Executive of CNN.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=492860

Compare this, to this,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502100010

... Eason Jordan, top news executive at CNN -- I mean, to me, this is absolutely incredible -- this guy says at a big conference in Davos that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting and assassinating American journalists. Huh? He still has a job, huh? You got a take on that?

COULTER: Would that it were so!

KUDLOW: Would what were so?

COULTER: That the American military were targeting journalists.

KUDLOW: Oh, no! Don't go there.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

then this,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040009

August 26, 2002: On Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh:

Ann Coulter:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

then this,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411170001

Posts on conservative website advocate violence against journalist

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And Ms JustWonders has failed to even consider that Mr Jordan could be on to something.

0 Replies

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,it expects what never was and never will be...The People cannot be safe without information.When the press is free,and every man is able to read,all is safe"
Thomas Jefferson.

"I am a firm believer in the people.If given the truth,they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.The great point is to bring them the real facts."
Abraham Lincoln.

"Whenever the people are well informed,they can be trusted with their own government.Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice,they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson.

This thread suggests to an outsider-
1-The above gents were naive optimists.OR
2-The People can no longer be relied upon because their reading skills are no longer congruent with modern political thinking.Which is tantamount to saying that they have been disenfranchised due to their lack of intelligence or lack of effort or both.
3-That the need to promote a semblance of significance has overwhelmed what the significance signifies.

0 Replies

I wanted to see what sort of counter argument might be presented, dlowan. That only an Ozzian would step to the plate was not somethin' I had expected.

Lookin' a t the correlation between the Eason and Gannon flaps, they both lied, they both deserve their respective defrockin's. On the other hand, only one of them slandered our troops and nation while4 on foreign soil during time of war, providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

And to those who go on about "The lies behind the war" - that some widely held - if disputed - expectations were unmet is all that happened. Ehe "Lie" is that lies or any other malfeasance were involved in the decision to end Saddam's intolerable 12 year defiance of international obligations and his predation on his own people, along with his threat to the stability of the region. I am confident those upset by US action in such regard are in for continued dismay and inconvenience as Bush the Greater continues and steps up the US commitment to bring liberty and self determination to the forefront of our foreign policy. The world is on notice the days of US irresolve in the matter are over. Iran, DPRK, and Syria, among others, along with those opposed to The Bush Doctrine, have plenty over which to be concerned. Their futures will be event-filled.

0 Replies

sp

You might recall, in the Melvyn Bragg interview shortly before Potter's death, that Potter said "The individual most responsible for the decline in British political debate was Rupert Murdoch". As you've observed, that same species of intellectual corruption is happening in the US, in spades. Murdoch is not the only culprit however and that's how things have gotten to the state you can evidence here.

The citizenry of America are no longer generally well informed, as Jefferson would have it, they are now very poorly informed and that is quite on purpose. Developed critical faculties are the very last thing totalitarian-leaning authorities desire in a 'governed' population. And totalitarian-leaning 'governments' are absolutely dependable as regards who they will attack and seek to disempower...an independent media, universities, labor unions, artists, opposition parties, an independent and non-partisan judiciary, and all those who decline the invitation to "your are with us or you are against us" nationalistic absolutisms. These characteristics are how we identify totalitarianism regardless of what it calls itself.

You refer to yourself, significantly, as 'an outsider' here. As am I. As is dlowan. As is nimh. As is ehBeth. As are many others engaged on the site. It is no exaggeration to claim that we are, each of us, and all of us, aghast at what we read daily on this site. Many in the US share our view, but they are all folded now under the heading of un-American, that is, liberal.

Timber is an old friend, but his post above is an abomination and I could not bring myself to even begin a discussion with him on it. Foxfyre and JW cannot, in their own particular ways, understand what you've quoted above and how it relates to them.

This is not a good time in America.

0 Replies

blatham, whether or not our politics jibe, I'm proud to number you among my freinds. I don't have to march in lockstep with somebody to admire and respect 'em. I happen to think the assessment of US political condition you share with others - regardless of identity or number - simply is wrong. History, of course, will judge. I'm not worried a bit as we await the outcome of that trial. Frankly, I see very little difference between the hostility directed toward Bush than that which was direced against Reagan - and note that, largely, the sources and the rhetoric are the same. The biggest difference I can see, in fact, is that the Democratic Party of today is doin' its damnedest to marginalize itself, which works quite to the advantage of the Republican agenda - again something with which I am largely content. So much for The New Deal and The Great Society; now dawn The Real Deal and The Self-Responsible Society, while The US globally honors her commitment to freedom and liberty for all (even those who might object to the US takin' concrete, effective steps in the interest of endin' tyranny and terror while fosterin' global peace, stability and prosperity) - and high time.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Okay, you're not a journalist. You're just a Fox civilian so it's okay for you to jump to the conclusion that "Eason Jordan lied". I think that given how far this thing has moved along, "Eason Jordan could have lied", would somehow be more fitting.

The man lied. He tried to back down from the lie once he realized he was being called on it and asked to provide FACTS concerning his lie. Too late. He then tried to ignore it in hopes it "would just go away". Too late, because he realized there was not only a transcript of his blatant lie, but a videotape of him lying, as well. The murder of 12 journalists by United States soldiers in a war zone would be huge "news", no? Yet there was absolutely no mention of it on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC or C-BS. If 12 journalists had been murdered by United States soldiers, you don't think the if-it-bleeds-it-leads NYTimes would have jumped all over it? Yet....not one word. Once Jordan realized CNN would either have to show the videotape of him lying or fire him, he resigned. Good riddance.

Quote:

As I've mentioned, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that this has some truth to it. It could have some truth to it. Not all US troops are , nor have they ever been, saints; history clearly tells us that much.

He didn't say "it's within the realm of possibility that United States soldiers murdered 12 journalists". He said they did it. Where are the facts to back this up? There are none. That is why he backed off and took the easy way out...he resigned.

Quote:

But, even if he has told this one lie, thousands have not died because of one potential lie; untold thousands and thousands have not be maimed for life because of one potential lie; billions of dollars haven't been spent because of one potential lie.

I won't play this game. Nor will I become involved in yet another discussion of the reasons we're In Iraq with yet another pacifist or anti-war notable.

Quote:

If Mr Jordan is found to have lied, the consequences for him will be enormous. He won't get a four year renewal on his contract, he won't have lavish parties thrown for him, ...

He says he resigned. I will always believe he was FIRED. Remember this is the same man who ADMITTED covering up the truth in Iraq because of pressure from Saddam (remember Baghdad Bob?) and because he wanted to protect the lives of his reporters. He admitted that the Iraqi government threatened, tortured, and murdered members of the press and that CNN had to suppress this news in order to retain their office there. Personally, I'd rather have no news than news that covers up the TRUTH and spreads lies...which is exactly what CNN did.

Quote:

The hypocrisy is stunning; not just from you but from every person like you who is jumping on the bandwagon, including those talking heads and 'reporters' at Fox. The number of lies that issue daily from them is truly mind-boggling.

Apparently I don't watch Fox News nearly as much as you do and to my knowledge the Easongate story was not reported by them or any other major news outlet. I suppose I could demand you back up your allegation of "lies" by Fox News, but I'm really not interested. We're discussing CNN's lies here. It's a shame some here can't participate in a discussion without labeling those with opposing viewpoints as "hypocrites". That an executive from a major news outlet blatantly lies about soldiers murdering journalists should outrage all, no matter if there's a "D" or an "R" following their name.

Quote:

Quoting you but putting this in perspective; "The only problem is there are hundreds of video tapes of their remarks. There was a 9-11 Commission report to prove the lies. They wouldn't/won't release it. These things have proven/will prove they lied.

The only videotape I'm interested in at the moment (Jordan lying about our military murdering journalists) will most likely never be shown. My only comfort, after years of having to read and listen to the lies and distortions of CNN (all in the name of their cowardice), is that Eason Jordan is gone and hopefully will have the good sense to pursue his next career far, far from anything even remotely resembling a news outlet.

0 Replies

The best thing that could come out of all of this is that maybe, just maybe, the news outlets will regain pride in professionalism, accuracy, verifiability, and competency again instead of the 'gotcha' machine, report now and figure it out later policy, and attempted social engineering mechanism that it has become. Of course some do not want it to change because it backs up their own narrow, polarizing, tunnel visioned, one-dimensional point of view. (Just look how they rail against Fox News that isn't following the old school format.)

The internet is proving to be an interesting animal however. Whoever would have thought it would be the watchdog over the Fifth Estate.

Question: What is a journalist?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
Lola wrote:
And McG, tell us why you chose your avie.

Lola, why did you choose your avatar?

Thank you Tico. You've illustrated my point perfectly.

Good for me. I've still no idea what your point was/is.

0 Replies

Conservatism...the desperate urge to toss off the oppressive shackles of liberty.

0 Replies

Quote:

Good for me. I've still no idea what your point was/is.

I know, dear. It's ok.

0 Replies

Conservatism...the desperate urge to toss off the oppressive shackles of libido.

0 Replies

Condescension - the Libruls' desperate urge to appear to know what's goin' on.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Okay, you're not a journalist. You're just a Fox civilian so it's okay for you to jump to the conclusion that "Eason Jordan lied". I think that given how far this thing has moved along, "Eason Jordan could have lied", would somehow be more fitting.

Quote:

JustWonders:
The man lied. He tried to back down from the lie once he realized he was being called on it and asked to provide FACTS concerning his lie. Too late. He then tried to ignore it in hopes it "would just go away". Too late, because he realized there was not only a transcript of his blatant lie, but a videotape of him lying, as well. The murder of 12 journalists by United States soldiers in a war zone would be huge "news", no? Yet there was absolutely no mention of it on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC or C-BS. If 12 journalists had been murdered by United States soldiers, you don't think the if-it-bleeds-it-leads NYTimes would have jumped all over it? Yet....not one word. Once Jordan realized CNN would either have to show the videotape of him lying or fire him, he resigned. Good riddance.

The crewmembers have been credited with saving at least 11 lives, but were long thereafter reviled as traitors. It was not until exactly thirty years later, following a television report concerning the incident, that the three were awarded the Soldier's Medal, the army's highest award for bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy.

JTT: Then go on to read "The Coverup" which clearly illustrates the possibility of something like this happening again. I've included a couple of the most pertinent sections here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Coverup

Colin Powell, then a young US Army Major, was charged with investigating the massacre. Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of the Massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public.

...

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March, 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Representative Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted. Eventually, Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. It was another two months before the American public learned about the massacre and trials.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Quote:

JTT:
As I've mentioned, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that this has some truth to it. It could have some truth to it. Not all US troops are , nor have they ever been, saints; history clearly tells us that much.

Quote:

JustWonders:
He didn't say "it's within the realm of possibility that United States soldiers murdered 12 journalists". He said they did it. Where are the facts to back this up? There are none. That is why he backed off and took the easy way out...he resigned.

How strongly he levelled the charges has no bearing on whether there is any truth in this or not.

The My Lai massacre happened: "the morning of March 16, 1968"

It hits the news: "Independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, after extensive conversations with Ridenhour, broke the My Lai story on November 12, 1969 ..."

21 months for this to make the news. Do you ever really just wonder, JustWonders? I wonder.

-----------------

"... but were long thereafter reviled as traitors."

It's deja vu all over again. Typical knee jerk reaction from Fox and their groupies. Now the same thing is happening in the Ward Churchill issue.

I actually watch [read] the "We watch Fox so you don't have to" channel.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Condescension - the Libruls' desperate urge to appear to know what's goin' on.

It only appears to be condescension, Timber because y'all make it so damn easy. Like shootin' fish in a barrel. Smile

0 Replies

I figure its more like the elitism, snobbery, and divisiveness just come so natural to some folks they think its easy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Foxfyre:

A: The best thing that could come out of all of this is that maybe, just maybe, the news outlets will regain pride in professionalism, accuracy, verifiability, and competency again instead of the 'gotcha' machine, report now and figure it out later policy, and attempted social engineering mechanism that it has become. Of course some do not want it to change because it backs up their own narrow, polarizing, tunnel visioned, one-dimensional point of view.

B: (Just look how they rail against Fox News that isn't following the old school format.)

Two diametrically opposed statements, A & B. See what I meant, Timber.

Note what happened when CBS made an error, Foxfyre. They had an investigation.

Lies, actual lies, pour out of Fox on such a regular basis that you've simply become inured to it. It's now being seen as the "truth".

Have you ever seen Fox deal with their lies, no that would be impossible. They'd have no time left to broadcast. Have you ever heard an O'Reilly admission of error. He uses them as a platform to further degrade the ones he lied about.

Question: What is a journalist?

It might be easier for you to grasp if I pointed out "what isn't a journalist";

Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Gannon or Gunther [plus the thousands of other little stooges they're turning out at that conservative '48 Hour School of Journalism' [see link below], Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, ... .

Have you noticed how many of these are Fox regulars?

This might also help.

http://www.opednews.com/wade_021105_propaganda.htm

0 Replies

Canadians want Fox News Now!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know