Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Isn't the issue here the fact that Foxfyre does not cite sources?

Foxfyre did not rebut my posts and several other posters with any sources.

Just because you don't personally like what a source says about Bush and Karl Rove does not make it: (a)untrue, or (b) unqualified or questionable source.

Wikipedia is, at least, better than Fox TV - who certainly have an agenda.
Wikipedia just posts the facts. They have no political agenda.

Let's don't get sidetracked into a discussion about wikipedia. This thread isn't about that.

Bottom line: post your sources to back up what you say, or as one of you said - 'take your toys and go home'.

Exactly. College students shouldn't be citing the encyclopedia. He didn't say they shouldn't be citing Wikipedia. They shouldn't be citing any encyclopedia.

Later in the article he goes on to explain that nobody can depend on Wikipedia articles to be carefully researched, accurate, or complete.

But you can depend on anything BushCo says as carefully researched, accurate and complete?

I quoted as my sources about Bush/Rove: topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timetopics/people/r/karl/_rove/index
and www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

You have a problem with these too?

I have problems with anybody who writes politics of personal destruction without providing a single source or verifiable example to back up slurs and libelous statements. There was a time in my lifetime this was illegal to do. It still should be.

According to the source I gave, he meant the encyclopedia Wikipedia, not Britannica, Larousse, or any other: the students who email him were referring only - if he's quoted correctly - to Wikipedia.

If someone of my students used an encyclopedia source in a thesis, I only accepted it when nothing else from that author could be found or when she/he just pointed at some more general views/opinions. Otherwise ... thumbs down.

Correct. This thread is entitled "Bush supporters' aftermath thread".

You seem to spend a lot of time here. Are you a supporter of the president or have you just lost your way?

I didn't read it that way Walter. I read it as I believe he intended it. You are entitled to interpret any way you wish. But neither you nor Blatham have any authority to say that I or SierraSong is wrong about his intent.

And if you consider any encyclopedia an improper source for students to use in most cases, why would you think this writer sees that any differently and was not referring to the generic encyclopedia instead of Wikipedia?

Because he "invented" Wiki and not any other encyclopedia, because it was meeting only about Wiki, because he was talking about Wiki ...

But you are correct: he certainly must have used it generally.

This has moved into the unbelievable.

foxfyre said

foxfyre

Who is "he" in the first paragraph above?
Who is "he" in the second paragraph above?
Which "he" did SS refer to?

(it was the 'register' and not the 'telegraph', my error. And Walter is right to clarify that reference to only an encyclopedia would be problematic).

Getting the name of the newspaper wrong isn't the only thing you got wrong I think. But I give up. I've often suspected you two were hatched on a different planet, so I'll allow you to see things in your own strange little ways of seeing things. I'll stand by my assessment of what was said in the Register piece, however, and I'm fairly sure I got it right.

Well, fox, so do I, and that is precisly what you do. Again, where are your sources?

I don't write my own opinions without source(s) to back it up, as I have repeatedly pointed out and is evident right here with the two sources I quoted yet again.

Again, do you have a problem with the NY Times and The Atlantic?

Have you read these particular articles?
If not, how can you debunk them?

If they were libelous I should think Bush and or Rove would be suing for libel. The fact that they have not is rather telling. Might be more than a kernel of truth about the Nazi connection.

At any rate, I did not just quote wikipedia. But if three or four sources say the same thing, then I must accept it as truth until proven otherwise.

Politicians don't sue for libel, and I say nothing derogatory or criticial about any individual or group unless I am certain my facts are straight, and that has to be backed by something more than just how I feel about it. You have posted opinon pieces that do not cite any evidence for their opinions. And yes, I do have a problem with that. So sue me.

Politicians don't sue for libel? Another statement without quoting any sources. Can you back that up? Otherwise it's just another opinion.
I do use sources. Because you do not think they are valid is not my problem. Who owns the TV stations, ever wonder?

Who owns CNN? or MSNBC? ABC?
by systemfailure Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 1:43 AM
la.indymedia.org/news 2003/04/47530.php SOURCE


So ya think we have a "free press" eh? Check out who owns who, and who owns what you think.......

GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
The "MS" in MSNBC
means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.
==================================================

WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group) G. Bush, Sr. is a member of Carlyle Group.

Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
================================================================
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.
=============================================
DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.
======================================================

TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner-the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world's largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.
=======================================================
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
MEDIA HOLDINGS:
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
OTHER HOLDINGS:
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).

*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)* End Quote

This is why I don't use mainstream media sources, and also why you won't see anything derogatory about the Bush family, Rove, or Nazi ties, the real reasons for invading Iraq, etc. If you want to find the truth, you have to dig through a lot of material.

A very few control and shape the thinking of many.

GE, like any large corporation, is going to donate to both parties to ensure that they will have somebody's ear no matter who is elected. It is not unusual that a large corproation will donate the most to the party they believe will have the most clout following an election. They are prohibited from giving unusually large amounts to any presidential candidate, but I don't think they are limited on how much they can give a political party.

Having said that, Pachelbel, poke around these sites a bit. You might learn something:


Communications contributions to John F. Kerry
http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/analysis/InfluenceTracker.aspx?MODE=CONTRECD&RECIPID=1311

All Bush contributions 2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072

All Kerry contributions 2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

Communications/electronics contributions 2004 campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B&Cycle=2004

GE contributions
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000125&Name=General+Electric

I have many edits into wikipedia. Keep trusting it.

Thanks. Sure, I'll look at the sites. But you missed the point of my post. It was to show how so few control the thinking of so many. Read about Rupert Murdoch and ask yourself if that isn't biased news! Americans are not getting the whole story. Obviously. SOURCE:
www.americanprogress.org

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy

July 16, 2004

In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye.

Media Manipulator

In 2003, Rupert Murdoch told a congressional panel that his use of "political influence in our newspapers or television" is "nonsense." But a close look at the record shows Murdoch has imparted his far-right agenda throughout his media empire.

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp… In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now - I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03]

MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE: Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.C. opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]

MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

MURDOCH THE INTIMIDATOR: According to Agence France-Press, "Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of 'The Simpsons' over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stance…In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that 'The Simpsons' is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment. According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines like 'Do Democrats Cause Cancer?'" [Source: Agence France-Press, 10/29/03]

MURDOCH THE NEWS EDITOR: "When The New York Post tore up its front page on Monday night to trumpet an apparent exclusive that Representative Richard A. Gephardt would be Senator John Kerry's running mate, the newspaper based its decision on a very high-ranking source: Rupert Murdoch, the man who controls the company that owns The Post, an employee said yesterday. The Post employee demanded anonymity, saying senior editors had warned that those who discussed the Gephardt gaffe with other news organizations would lose their jobs." [NY Times, 7/9/04]

Far-Right Partisan

Just as Fox claims to be "fair and balanced," Rupert Murdoch claims to stay out of partisan politics. But he has made his views quite clear - and used his media empire to implement his wishes. As a former News Corp. executive told Fortune Magazine, Murdoch "hungered for the kind of influence in the United States that he had in England and Australia" and that meant "part of our political strategy [in the U.S.] was the New York Post and the creation of Fox News and the Weekly Standard."

MURDOCH THE BUSH SUPPORTER: Murdoch told Newsweek before the war, Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1…One senses he is a man of great character and deep humility." [Newsweek, 2/17/03]

MURDOCH THE BUSH FAMILY EMPLOYER: As Slate reports, Murdoch "put George W. Bush cousin John Ellis in charge of [Fox's] Election Night vote-counting operation: Ellis made Fox the first network to declare Bush the victor" even as the New Yorker reported that Ellis spent the evening discussing the election with George W. and Jeb Bush. After the election, Fox bragged that it attracted 6.8 million viewers on Election Night, meaning Ellis was in a key position to tilt the election for President Bush. [Source: Slate, 11/22/00; New Yorker, 11/20/00]

END QUOTE

Free and balanced press? Not anymore.

Thanks. Sure, I'll look at the sites. But you missed the point of my post. It was to show how so few control the thinking of so many. Read about Rupert Murdoch and ask yourself if that isn't biased news! Americans are not getting the whole story. Obviously. SOURCE:
www.americanprogress.org

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy

July 16, 2004

In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye.

Media Manipulator

In 2003, Rupert Murdoch told a congressional panel that his use of "political influence in our newspapers or television" is "nonsense." But a close look at the record shows Murdoch has imparted his far-right agenda throughout his media empire.

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp… In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now - I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03]

MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE: Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.C. opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]

MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

MURDOCH THE INTIMIDATOR: According to Agence France-Press, "Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of 'The Simpsons' over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stance…In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that 'The Simpsons' is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment. According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines like 'Do Democrats Cause Cancer?'" [Source: Agence France-Press, 10/29/03]

MURDOCH THE NEWS EDITOR: "When The New York Post tore up its front page on Monday night to trumpet an apparent exclusive that Representative Richard A. Gephardt would be Senator John Kerry's running mate, the newspaper based its decision on a very high-ranking source: Rupert Murdoch, the man who controls the company that owns The Post, an employee said yesterday. The Post employee demanded anonymity, saying senior editors had warned that those who discussed the Gephardt gaffe with other news organizations would lose their jobs." [NY Times, 7/9/04]

Far-Right Partisan

Just as Fox claims to be "fair and balanced," Rupert Murdoch claims to stay out of partisan politics. But he has made his views quite clear - and used his media empire to implement his wishes. As a former News Corp. executive told Fortune Magazine, Murdoch "hungered for the kind of influence in the United States that he had in England and Australia" and that meant "part of our political strategy [in the U.S.] was the New York Post and the creation of Fox News and the Weekly Standard."

MURDOCH THE BUSH SUPPORTER: Murdoch told Newsweek before the war, Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1…One senses he is a man of great character and deep humility." [Newsweek, 2/17/03]

MURDOCH THE BUSH FAMILY EMPLOYER: As Slate reports, Murdoch "put George W. Bush cousin John Ellis in charge of [Fox's] Election Night vote-counting operation: Ellis made Fox the first network to declare Bush the victor" even as the New Yorker reported that Ellis spent the evening discussing the election with George W. and Jeb Bush. After the election, Fox bragged that it attracted 6.8 million viewers on Election Night, meaning Ellis was in a key position to tilt the election for President Bush. [Source: Slate, 11/22/00; New Yorker, 11/20/00]

END QUOTE

I don't think you need to worry too much about Murdoch. His enterprises cover the entire political spectrum and he definitely spreads it around all over the map.

Consider this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

Ownership of the media is also less problematic since the power now rests with those of us on the internet. The media can't get away with distortions and misrepresentations like they used to. There are too many sharp eyed bloggers out there to catch them and call them on it.

Yeah, interesting site, Foxfyre, but I already know that.

Both Dems and Repubs have the same contributors because there is basically only one party in the US nowadays.

Left and Right wing are the A&B Team of the Capitalist Party.