16 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, I'm curious now. What fiasco is everybody talking about? What are the 'Bush NG letters'?
If you would prefer I'll start a different thread on why the USA needs a national health care system like every other Westernized country has had for at least 50 years. I find this present thread not too revealing; assuming CBS news rushed to judgment on the Bush NG letters (which is likely) last I checked nobody got killed because of it; unlike the rush by some news media to believe that Iraq had a whole s**tload of WMD's!
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " If you would prefer I'll start a different thread on why the USA needs a national health care system like every other Westernized country has had for at least 50 years."
If you would prefer I'll start a different thread on why the USA needs a national health care system like every other Westernized country has had for at least 50 years. I find this present thread not too revealing; assuming CBS news rushed to judgment on the Bush NG letters (which is likely) last I checked nobody got killed because of it; unlike the rush by some news media to believe that Iraq had a whole s**tload of WMD's!
Great idea No1 ! I always wanted to know more about this particular subject.
16 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "Is there actually a liberal bias? I've seen plenty of conservative bias, especially on the cable news services (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) but no liberal bias."
Is there actually a liberal bias? I've seen plenty of conservative bias, especially on the cable news services (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) but no liberal bias. Perhaps I'm so liberal that I just can't tell; maybe it's a fish and water type thing ...[text shortened]... n the mainstream media (other than this Rather fiasco, of course)?
Of course you haven't because you agree with the OPINIONS expressed in the liberal media and you look upon them as being FACTS, because, in your view, these opinions are (objectively ?) true.
The same thing goes for conservative people. They don't see conservative bias in the conservative media because they agree with the OPINIONS expressed in the conservative media and also look upon them as FACTS, because, in their view, these opinions (Kerry sucks!) are true in the same way liberals look upon their opinions as being "true" (Bush sucks!).
Mistaking opinions for facts poses serious problems in trying to discover the truth. Consider this frequently heard statement: "I have my own truth" ..... No you don't, you have your own opinion.
A widespread disease not only to be observed among politicians .......
16 Sep 04
The "evidence" CBS was using to damn Bush were photocopies of photocopies. They don't have originals. Apparently someone expunged Bush's early records in national guard. You'll never get the originals. As for what really happened, it's easy to figure out. During the Vietnam war many people tried to get into National Guard so they wouldn't get their head blown off. Most couldn't because the line was so huge. Only people with pull got in. People like Bush. Since he was only in there to escape the draft, he had a lousy performance record. I know the background because I tried to get into National Guard and was told the line was too long. The war would be over before I got in. But all this isn't relative. Iraq (the new Vietnam) will destroy his reputation cause he hasn't the slightest idea how to extricate the country honorably.
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, to th extent that everything I have seen has been with my eyes, heard with my ears, felt with my fingers and deduced from my axioms, I have my own truth.
Bbarr: "Is there actually a liberal bias? I've seen plenty of conservative bias, especially on the cable news services (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) but no liberal bias."
Of course you haven't because you agree with the OPINIONS expressed in the liberal media and you look upon them as being FACTS, because, in your view, these opinions are (objectively ?) true. ...[text shortened]... your own opinion.
A widespread disease not only to be observed among politicians .......
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by richjohnsonHere is my view of the events, others can give their impressions of
OK, I'm curious now. What fiasco is everybody talking about? What are the 'Bush NG letters'?
the events. There are documents brought out as true by CBS that
says that Bush disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and so on.
The network ran with the story, and as it now known even though
some of their so-called experts said do not use these documents,
they were told there are issues that suggest they are not authentic.
The network was doing an investigation and didn’t have proof, until
someone faxes them these documents so they use them. Now instead
of admitting errors, it seems they are now claiming that even though
the documents may be false, the contents are true. Enough to give
you a great warm and fuzzy as far as journalistic integrity goes. It
seems they are saying we cannot prove this but trust us because we
have these fake documents. Another problem around this issue, in my
opinion is that many of those pushing the so called truth of the
documents are all Bush haters. The documents were supposedly
written by a guy who died a long time ago, even this guy's family
members are denouncing the documents and saying the people trying
to promote them are mistaken or at worse not telling the truth.
Others may be seeing this differently, or have other information to
share.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks, KJ.
Here is my view of the events, others can give their impressions of
the events. There are documents brought out as true by CBS that
says that Bush disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and so on.
The network ran with the story, and as it now known even though
some of their so-called experts said do not use these documents,
they were told there ar ...[text shortened]... truth.
Others may be seeing this differently, or have other information to
share.
Kelly
I was thinking that maybe there was some new evidence about the decision making process that led up to the Iraq war. I'm not a Bush fan myself, but come on, who really cares what he did or didn't do to get out of going to Vietnam? From what I can gather, a lot of kids in the U.S. tried just about everything to avoid going there.
I'll never understand why journalists and politicians go to great lengths to dig up decades-old dirt rather than looking for fresh dirt or simply discussing the policy differences between candidates.
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by richjohnsonI agree with you, this happened how long ago? The issue now is
Thanks, KJ.
I was thinking that maybe there was some new evidence about the decision making process that led up to the Iraq war. I'm not a Bush fan myself, but come on, who really cares what he did or didn't do to get out of going to Vietnam? From what I can gather, a lot of kids in the U.S. tried just about everything to avoid going there.
...[text shortened]... han looking for fresh dirt or simply discussing the policy differences between candidates.
that we seem to have a major news agency using fake documents
to promote a story line that would affect an election.
I like you dislike a lot of what is going on now, I believe American
rights are being taken away and that isn't an issue. Instead we are
getting this personal smear stuff.
If the new agency does not harshly respond to those responsible
they will be simply worthless as far as truthful source of news is
concern. It will reflect on everyone within that network, no one
within that network will be trusted.
I’m listening to talk radio now, and it is being discussed now that
some people believe the sources for this may have political
connections, what that means is hard to say. I’ll be curious how much
effort is going to be given to discovering the source of the documents.
The story was being looked at for about 5 years! Difficult to see how
they could miss they were being fake documents right before an
election.
Kelly
21 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakGo to the major news network home pages, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX,
Could somebody post an American media link which details what happened please?
D
and some of the major magazines and newspapers Chicago Tribune,
New Times. The story depending on where you go is on all of them in
some places. I do find the twist each of these places is putting on the
story telling. You can almost tell where they fall in political stances on
what questions they are raising and statements they are now making.
Kelly
23 Sep 04
Originally posted by richjohnsonJust a suggestion: because there is no such thing as a difference? Well, true, there are some microscopic differences about how best to take from the poor and give to the rich, but honestly, that seems to me like putting the american voters into the position of a rape victim watching the two going-to-be rapers discussing if it would be wiser to rip off the panties or the bra first.
I'll never understand why journalists and politicians go to great lengths to dig up decades-old dirt rather than looking for fresh dirt or simply discussing the policy differences between candidates.
The real questions of the USA (and not only the USA but every "first world democracy" for that matter) aren't even adressed. They are just avoided in a different way.
bakunin
23 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJaySurely you categorically stating (to a smaller audience of course) that the documents are fake, is in the same mould as CBS declaring that they are real.
The issue now is that we seem to have a major news agency using fake documents to promote a story line that would affect an election.
As far as I can see, its virtually impossible to state, without doubt, either opinion.
However, in making my own decision as to the legitimacy of the accusations, I would probably take into account Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes' signed and sworn affidavit to a Texas Court, from 1999, in which he testifies to the Air Guard fix -- which Texas Governor George W. Bush, given the opportunity, declined to challenge. Obviously, Bush thought that the media would do a better job of discrediting the claims than he could ever do through legal ways.
I think this is interesting...
here's what Dan Rather has to say on British television...
"It's an obscene comparison, but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here. You will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck." No US reporter who values his neck or career will "bore in on the tough questions."
"What is going on, I’m sorry to say, is a belief that the public doesn’t need to know -- limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war. It’s extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted, and I’m sorry to say that up to and including this moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current Administration revels in that, they relish and take refuge in that."
And here's what he had to say on American tv...
"George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where."
Interesting comment by Rather about being labeled unpatriotic if you dissent against the current regime in america. Reminded me of a show I watched once, where a comedian toured Stand Up clubs in America. One of the stand up comedians quoted dubya, and got heckled by numerous members of the audience for being a traitor. Brilliant.
I can see it now... 'And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your count....' TRAITOR!!!! lol.
D
26 Sep 04
1 edit
What i find really interesting is the discussion itself: when people buy a computer (or a car or whatever they buy) they don't expect the manufacturer to be devoted to the bettering of their lifes - they usually believe that the manufacturer, by producing the goods they buy, want to make as much profit as possible. That the car they bought is built to be reliable or comfortable or whatever is just a means to secure the customership and sell more cars, not because the manufacturer is interested in the customers satisfaction itself.
Now, out of the blue, when the business in question is not car manufacturing, but news and media, we begin to talk about "ethical values of journalism" and "free press" and such nonsense. Why should a newspaper company operate any diferent than any other company: they try to maximize profits, whatever makes them sell more they'll do, whatever is going to hurt their business they willl not do. "unbiased information for everybody" is on the same level of expecting Chrysler to build safer cars because its shareholders are genuinely interested in lowering the number of deathly incidents on streets.
Companies orient their decisions not on ethics, but on profit. Like it or not (and, personally, i find this disgusting), but this is the american dream, isn't it?
Wolf