Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Michelle Malkin :: Townhall.com Columnist
The rumor-mongering media
by Michelle Malkin
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


You will not read one of the most significant stories of the week out of Iraq on the front page of The New York Times. CNN will not make it headline news. The Associated Press has yet to touch it.

That's because the story exposes the media's own widespread malfeasance in reporting on the war on terror -- and its refusal to be held accountable when challenged by "amateur" bloggers investigating fishy sources and claims recycled recklessly by "professional" journalists.

One of the most sensational news items over the Thanksgiving holiday came from the Associated Press, which reported on six Sunni civilians burned alive as they left Friday mosque services. The shocking dispatch received global coverage. The front cover of the Philadelphia Daily News blasted:

"WORSHIPPERS BURNED ALIVE: Capping deadliest week of war, 6 Sunnis doused with kerosene, set afire as Iraqi soldiers reportedly stand idle." The Chicago Sun-Times blared: "Sunnis burned alive in revenge." The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia headlined: "Shi'ite militia burn Sunnis alive in revenge attacks." The Calcutta Telegraph in India echoed: "Shias burn Sunnis alive."

The Washington Post announced: "New savage twist to violence in Baghdad." The lead paragraph reported: "Revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers, drenched them with kerosene and burned them alive, and Iraqi soldiers did nothing to stop the attack, police and witnesses said."

The story continued: "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein said Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in the burnings of Sunnis carried out by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia, or in subsequent attacks that torched four Sunni mosques and killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same northwest Baghdad area."

Just a few small problems with the massively publicized story:

1) "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein" is an unreliable, unauthorized spokesperson whom the military has warned the Associated Press about before.

2) The incident cannot be verified.

Newspaper readers around the world who carried the story have not been informed of any of this by the Associated Press or any other mainstream media outlet. But those who follow the blogosphere have been unraveling the story over the past week at lightning pace. Curt at the Flopping Aces blog (http://floppingaces.net/) has led the way, first raising questions on Saturday morning about "police Capt. Jamil Hussein's" account. He noted an official Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I) statement in response to the AP report that "neither we nor Baghdad Police had any reports of such an incident after investigating it and could find no one to corroborate the story."

Next, he published a bombshell e-mail from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq (which CENTCOM also confirmed to me). Since September, Multi-National Forces in Iraq (MNF-I) have worked with a group of retired police officers there to verify the legitimacy and employment of Iraqi Police (IP) and Ministry of Interior (MOI) "spokesmen" quoted in the media. According to the military, the Associated Press has been warned previously about these unreliable sources who have not been established as bona fide employees -- but "they have pretty much ignored us."

The list includes the following sources, many of whom have appeared in countless AP stories: police Lt. Ali Abbas; police Capt. Mohammed Abdel-Ghani; police Brigadier Sarhat Abdul-Qadir; Mosul police Director Gen. Wathiq al-Hamdani; police Lt. Bilal Ali; Ali al-Obaidi, a medic at Ramadi Hospital; police Maj. Firas Gaiti; police Captain Mohammed Ismail; Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman (a.k.a. Police Brigadier Abd al-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Abdel-Karim Khalaf); Mohammed Khayon, a Baghdad police lieutenant; police spokesman Mohammed Kheyoun (a.k.a. Police Lieutenant Mohammed Khayoun); Lt. Thaer Mahmoud, head of a police section responsible for releasing daily death tolls; police Lt. Bilal Ali Majid; police Lt. Ali Muhsin; police 1st Lt. Mutaz Salahhidine (a.k.a. Lieutenant Mutaz Salaheddin); Col. Abbas Mohammed Salman; and policeman Haider Satar.

And that's a partial list.

After Curt's inquiries, CENTCOM sent a request for retraction to the Associated Press. Public Affairs Officer Lt. Michael Dean of the MNC-I Joint Operations Center wrote:

We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team . . .

. . . Also, we definitely know, as we told you several weeks ago through the MNC-I Media Relations cell, that another AP-popular IP spokesman, Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq, supposedly of the city's Yarmouk police station, does not work at that police station and is also not authorized to speak on behalf of the IP. The MOI has supposedly issued a warrant for his questioning. . . . Unless you have a credible source to corroborate the story of the people being burned alive, we respectfully request that AP issue a retraction, or a correction at a minimum, acknowledging that the source named in the story is not who he claimed he was. MNC-I and MNF-I are always available and willing to verify events and provide as much information as possible when asked.

The Associated Press has yet to respond to queries from both Curt and me regarding its reporting on the incident. As of Tuesday afternoon, I could find no retraction, correction or reference to the shady spokesman angle in any Associated Press report. The silence from AP (and the rest of the media, for that matter) comes as no surprise. This is, after all, the same organization that sat on the news for five months that one of its Iraqi-based stringers, Bilal Hussein, had been and remains in detention after being captured by U.S. military forces with an alleged al Qaeda operative.

At least we know how to get the blabbermouth media to clam up now: Just start asking them questions and a mammoth hush will fall over newsrooms faster than you can press "mute."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Thanks Michelle
for a look behind the scenes. The old saying regarding news "Believe nothing of what you read, and half of what you see." Seems to hold true. I'm sure that the MSM running this story as 'fact' got everyones attention. Now I'm left with the questions, Did it happen at all? Or just more Mid. East propaganda?

MSM Accomplices
It's like we're under a seige of lies and the general population puts its trust in the MSM accomplices. It is so frustrating!

If a confirmed liar makes statements that support a MSM agenda, the MSM will treat it like gospel - spreading it to the ends of the earth. Just ask prophet Jamil or Bill.

When the lie is uncovered it's in the MSM's best interest if few people learn of their complicity. Remaining silent is the best way to kill the truth. It also forces those with the knowledge of the truth to have to expend extraordinary resources to get the word out because the MSM isn't in the business of informing the public - it's in the business of magnifying anything that supports their position on any issue and minimizing anything with which it disagrees.

Information
is a delicate thing. Even when it comes from a trusted, reliable source, it is delicate. I talked to my son, who is serving in Iraq, and, being me, wrote up what he had to tell me -- excerpted thus:

http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/11/thanksgiving.html

*****

Intel said it would be a wire fence that he’d just have to cut through. It is a wire fence, but it’s on top of a three meter concrete wall. Not promising. Rather than scrap the mission he has his men climb onto his shoulders. ...

And they are in.

It is dark and still and quite inside the compound. They move across a wide open space toward the nearest structure. Intel said there would be no dogs. There are dogs. Big bald snarling Iraqi dogs slobbering like a dozen Cujos. It is a silent mission. The dogs are dispatched silently.

Now they are in a long narrow alley. He moves to the end, his men following. Clear. They move out. From around a corner twenty meters to the northeast a guard steps out and opens fire.

A roving guard. Intel said the guards were stationary. The guard carries an AK. Intel said the guards were unarmed.

He and his men open fire all at once. ...

One of his men moves into his line of fire. Time has never moved so slow. His finger pulls away from the trigger -- then pulls in again when the man is passed. There is no thinking involved. Training. Other soldiers on other missions have made a mistake at this point. The training didn’t take. That’s when friendly fire takes its toll. But his training takes. ...

Mission blown. He calls for transport. It hasn’t left the area yet and is back in a few minutes.

Mission blown. A mission is only as good as the intel. But no mission is a failure, that has no casualties.

That’s how he spent his Thanksgiving. ...

*****

The point? Intel is provided by people who are careful and who care. But they can get it wrong, and lives can be lost. How much more, from liars?

So: In which camp shall we place the MSM?


J
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com

Yippee
for the Associated [with terrorists] Press.

And I thought Agence France Presse was bad.

THAT'S THE WAY IT IS
To echo an old chestnut from "the most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite. After our military completely destroyed and rendered useless, the primary military arm in South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, this man went on national television to tell the US public the war was lost.
I seem to remember another little tidbit that is making the rounds in the MSM,it's a "civil war."
NBC, in its hatred of the Bush Administration has taken this path. Without any military confirmation - except for the retired experts they parade out on 'Countdown',there has been no proof to these allegations. Even the BS they put out there every night shows no evidence of this.
Blinded in their hatred and euphoric in their glee that 'their people' have finally attained 'control' they will put out any and every piece of nonsense they hear from any 'Iraqi source' be it a soldier, taxi driver or goat herder. Methinks this is just another ploy on their part because in the final analysis, they have no 'plan' either.
That's the way it is.

That's enough.
...Just take the AP's credentials to be in Irag.Without on the scene reporters their value to all the news media that use them becomes nil.The Iragi government,along with US military recommendations can withdraw any credentials from any foriegn media.This has the added benefit of setting the example to those that remain.A report from Abu Dhabi is not the same as a report from Bagdhad.We need testicles in the White House.

This Is Important
Ms. Malkin's column is important because we need to be all over the mainstream media's biased, bad "reporting." The left wing mainstream media is misinforming people. By exposing how the mainstream media misbehaves, its creedibility is undermined so that a Walter Cronkite-type defeatism does not take hold.

Phil Byler
"...its creedibility is undermined so that a Walter Cronkite-type defeatism does not take hold."

I hate to say this but it already has.

Truth Is Massaged
We have a Radical Communist Left press, this is true of the AP, UPI, and Reuters. Their story line is reported all over the world and becomes the front page news stories on every newspaper in America. That by lazy collusion creates a MSM that has the same political leaning as the feeder information provider(AP,UPI,Reuters).The result is a vast network of papers called the Main Stream Media (MSM) that are by association and ideology Radical Communist and Left. It would be nice if these papers were being duped and were actually more diverse in their true political leanings. They are not being duped--they share the Radical Communist dogma of the 3 major wire services. Our MSM does not want facts; they want stories that support their ideology.

More truth in tomatoes
In his autobiography, "Gaily, Gaily", Ben Hecht tells of his job as reporter on the Chicago Tribune around the turn of the twentieth century. He states, "There is more truth on the label of a can of tomatoes than in your average daily newspaper." And that was in a time way before the Truth In Labeling Act.

1st Amendment in Peril
I don't know how it will happen, but if the newsies continue to use their immunities and privileges to spread lies and propaganda, they will lose them. That would be a tragedy for this country.

Desperation
Malkin's fuming is part of a desperate attempt by conservatives to discredit the messengers as the wheels come off this tragic venture in Iraq. The AP's credibility versus the ravings of partisan bloggers? No contest.

Why does this surprise anyone
I understand that the MSM has withdrawn almost all of its on-the-ground journalists from Baghdad. What remains are vignettes from "sources" that are transmitted through green zone "reporters" to the home offices in the United States where they are massaged according to the political bias of the media handler. This substitutes for investigation and verification of sources that once was a capstone for honest reporting.
Expect more of this...

Yo Rusty Guns
So because she "uses" the msm for a living, she forfeits the right to call them out when they misrepresent facts and refuse to make the necessary corrections when they are called out? If any responsible person who wants "agendaless" facts had the info she did, they would do the same as she in reporting on the agenda driven stories in the msm. What am I missing here?

Sue the MSM
I think the families of our murdered troops should start suing the MSM for endangering all of us by minimizing or omitting the news. I'm sure some attorney could come up with an appropriate lawsuit.

Half The Reason They ARE Liberal

is that they get their "news?" from Dan Rather and others of his ilk.

The other half of why they are liberal is that their ability to ratiocinate has atrophied due to excessive sucking on the sugar-teat of emotion.

Michelle and her great work??
What info exactly does Malkin have that is not readily available to the rest of us. She readily admits that it was Curt at the Flopping Aces that broke the story . I would advise people here to forget about Malkin and view flopping aces for well researched reporting

Rusty Guns
points out the joke behind the whining of Malkin, Limbaugh, and all these right wing "news" sites. All of them are parasites that feed on the mainstream media--quoting excerpts and then trying to knock them down based on nothing more than personal opinion and
White House talking points. If the so-called "MSM" were to disappear tomorrow, most of the conservative noise machine would swiftly follow.

The Only Time I Watch ABC

is for Sunday Night Football. Madden and Michaels.... Now THERE are two competent, believable guys in the MSM.

Hillary is the Queen of Screech, Kimberly. Where have you been?

That you believe the MSM carries water for GWB just goes to show how waaaay out there you really are.

AP
Last time I knew for sure - the AP is owned by newspaper editors. Things may have changed, but if they haven't - in whose interest is it to report sensational news whether verified or not?
AP credibility versus bloggers? NO contest!

Kimberly ever heard of the UN
They just stated that if it continues in Iraq, it will BECOME a civil war. That means that even that most leftest of all groups the UN has stated that it is NOT a civil war yet. Don't let the facts keep you from your stupid rants!!

The voice of experience
I think I can speak from the voice of experience. I had over thirteen years of service prior to being discharged for disability and that service covered a rather large chunk of the globe including 'areas of conflict' to use the PC terminology as is the case with the rest of my family and many of my friends. Not once has the media ever accurately what happened where I or my family and friends have been involved. Not once. This is as true now in Iraq as it was in any previous operation anywhere in the world that we've been involved in since World War II which is about the last war where they at least got some of the facts right and passed them on to the reader.

Kimberly, eagle, rustyguns, continue to live in your fantasy world. I deal with the real world, the world where I've actually been there, done that (and burned the t-shirt). I seriously doubt any of you have even been out of the country let alone in a for real war zone.

I'm always amazed
at the level of venom Michelle Malkin brings out in the wang nuts.

She has shown, rather convincingly, that the primary sources for these stories are not who or what they claim to be, which any reasonable person would consider cause to at least question their accounts.

But rather than admitting that perhaps we are being misled by people with an agenda that has nothing to do with the truth, the Left simply throws mud at the messenger and offers, a la Kimberly, yet another questionable source made up of self-proclaimed witnesses to an act no one has yet been able to prove ever took place.

This all sounds very much like the Jenin massacre of a few years back, but then Kimberly probably still believes in that lie too.

RE: rustbucket, Kimberly
Based on your highly intelligent, fact filled missives I should assume that the parts of the memo from Public Affairs Officer Lt. Michael Dean of the MNC-I Joint Operations Center is a rumor?

Or should we put the story/rumor sited today under the MSM column as true even though the documents and/or the source are questionable or counterfeit?

Informative, Michelle,
but not uncommon. The press for the most part are philosophically democrats, that is to say they're diametrically opposed to anything the Bush Administration does and will go to any lengths to diminish the war effort and ingratiate themselves with the political weasels in the democrat party.

Kimberly--AP retraction
Kimberly

Look at the date and time of the article. Sources should be verified BEFORE the story is run.

I figured it out


If the NY Times says it it's the truth, if the NY Post says it its's a lie.

Couric..truth Malkin.... Lie

You get the pattern.

That is, if you beleive the MSM.




AP ownership
Amended post. To set the record straight about ownership of the AP (from their website):

"2. Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative."

Now I wonder who's on the board of directors. If you're curious I suppose you could find out, but I know all I need to know about them...

Rusty Brains
Don't be a dimwit.

I never said Michelle did not spew venom of her own from time to time.

I merely noted on the level of venom she brings out in the wang nuts like you.

The only real difference is that Michelle at least bothers to make an argument, with facts and everything. I may not always agree with her, but at least I can follow what she is trying to say.

You and Kimberly, on the other hand, simply throw mud, and not very accurately at that. Nothing to back you up beyond more unverifiable rumor stories and outright lies.

Laugh all you want, Rusty. Every village needs an idiot.

Keep pounding
Michelle, we need a relentless pursuit of accountability of the enemy of america; our own free press. It seems the 4th branch of government really has no oversight body to keep it honest.

Get with your higher profile coleagues with media access, interview the reporters themselves, if they have any stones they will be glad to make a statement, one would think.

11h

justpaul
Couldn't agree more. These bastions of sexual equality really hate it when a female like Malkin or Coulter flee the liberal reservation. Talk about venom!

A story like this always reminds me of Drudge reporting that John Kerry had a secret girlfriend-can you blame him? The MSM and Fox would not touch it claiming they need a verified story before they ever report anything-Rrrrright!

Confirmation?
Witnesses detail Iraq burning deaths
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 28, 8:54 PM ET

...

Seeking further information about Friday's attack, an AP reporter contacted Hussein for a third time about the incident to confirm there was no error. The captain has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions. The captain, who gave his full name as Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, said six people were indeed set on fire.

On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses who independently gave accounts of the attack. Others in the neighborhood said they were afraid to talk about what happened.

Those who would talk said the assault began about 2:15 p.m., and they believed the attackers were from the Mahdi Army militia loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He and the Shiite militia are deeply rooted in and control the Sadr City enclave in northeastern Baghdad where suspected Sunni insurgents attacked with a series of car bombs and mortar shells, killing at least 215 people a day before.

The witnesses refused to allow the use of their names because they feared retribution either from the original attackers or the police, whose ranks are infiltrated by Mahdi Army members or its associated death squads.

Two of the witnesses — a 45-year-old bookshop owner and a 48-year-old neighborhood grocery owner — gave nearly identical accounts of what happened. A third, a physician, said he saw the attack on the mosque from his home, saw it burning and heard people in the streets screaming that people had been set on fire. All three men are Sunni Muslims.

The two other witnesses said the mosque assault began in earnest about 2:30 p.m. after the arrival of the four vehicles filled with arms. They said the attackers fired into the mosque, then entered and set it on fire.

Then, the witnesses said, the attackers brought out six men, blindfolded and handcuffed, and lined them up on the street at the gate of the mosque. The witnesses said the six were doused with kerosene from a 1.3-gallon canister and set on fire at intervals, one after the other, with a torch made of rags. The fifth and sixth men in the line were set afire at the same time.

The witnesses said the burning victims rolled on the ground in agony until apparently dead, then the gunmen fired a single bullet into each of their heads.

balconesfault
This still confirms...none confirmation. Who are the 3 other witnesses?

gunnyg
Coulter's "references" consist of mainstream articles that don't contain a hint of what she says they do, and citations from other right-wing polemicists. Malkin's consist of ravings from like-minded bloggers, White House talking points and her own opinions. Neither of these ladies would know a "fact" if if bit them on their undernourished butts.

Hold Press Accountable
If the left does not believe there is a bias, here is one more example. The flight to Phoenix that the 6 Imams were pulled off of. If you listen only to the MSM, you would get the impression that these peace loving Muslims were pulled off a flight merely for praying. You would think that this was just another anti-Muslim attack. Sheila Jackson Lee wants to introduce some sort of anti-profiling on planes legislation.

This is just scary. It is not profiling if there is sound reason for suspicion of a person or group of people. As Ann Coulter so eloquently states, almost every major terrorist act has been committed by Muslim males between the ages of 18-45. So ignore them and go do a cavity search on Grandma! This Political Correctness will cost lives, I just hope it's not me or my family.

Back to the MSM. Why do I have to listen to alternative media outlets to get the full story? Because the MSM either doesn't report everything or omits facts. These peace loving Imams were shouting Allah before boarding the plane. The six did not sit together. They all had one way fares. They sat in the exact areas that the 6 hijackers on each plane on 9/11 sat. They stood and prayed on the plane. They asked for seat-belt extenders, tucked them under their seat, and did not use them. With these FACTS, it would be gross negligence not to throw these guys off the plane and go over every inch of their bodies and luggage. If you don't believe how soft the MSM is on this, check out Paula Zahn's softball interview. Yeah, Kimberly, the MSM surely has no agenda. Rrrrrrrright!

rumor-mongering Malkin
rustyguns,

So what is your point other than to display your dislike of Michelle? And why? Is she wrong? Did the reporting by the MSM reflect fairness? Accuracy?

How about you eagle? Do you not want to know when things are reported inaccurately? Don't you want to know the truth?

Doesn't truth and fairness count anymore? Can you see that that is what is eating at the fabric of our society today? Everyone is too defensive about THEIR agenda to be concerned with AMERICA. Instead of destructive criticism, how about some destructive criticism?

And if the MSM is being "fair and balanced" why are there no stories about how good our economy is and that unemployment is at record lows?

Why can't people see that the MSM is spoon feeding the public what they want them to think about. Journalism where are you?

Simon Potter

rumor-mongering Malkin
Correction:
"Instead of destructive criticism, how about some "constructive" criticism?."

Simon Potter

hold press accountable
All of the things you cite were reported thoroughly in the mainstream press. One of the ways the Ann Coulters take advantage of gullible readers is by convincing them to ignore mainstream news outlets. That way, their foolishness and dishonesty are never exposed, and they're able to promote themselves as the sole source of "true" reporting.

gunnyg
You make a great point on Coulter's books. They are the most footnoted books I have ever read. Eagle just doesn't appreciate detail and facts. Franken and his minions went through one of her books and came up with the "lie that she named someone as a "father" rather than "grandfather." Great catch Al. I remember watching that idiot, Jon Stewart (while flipping channels). I think he had on Eric Alter. He actually complimented that biased lefty without asking a tough question and added that he is unlike Ann Coulter because she never backs up what she writes. What? There are so many footnotes in Coulter's books that I find it distracting.

One last thing. When a conservative writes a book, they rarely get on the MSM. And when they do, there is usually some goon on with them to argue with the author along with the biased hosts. When Franken and his comrades write a book, they get hearts and flowers and 2 days to talk about their books unchallenged. But their is no left wing bias right rustyguns? Rrrrright!

simon potter
The "truth" is not to be found in biased polemics of the left and right. Partisans like yourself distrust the media because they cannot be trusted to tailor information to your worldview. As for the economy, what you report was front page news, and led all the network newscasts. Where do you think you heard it?

gunnyg
Drudge did cause quite a stir-outside the MSM. They ignored the story just long enough for the woman, her friend, and boyfriend to be silenced-bought off?

Let me give another example of why we need the alternative media. I have a very liberal colleague who is very vociferous with his opinions on the world. I will never own a gun but I do appreciate FACTS. He brought up how terrible guns are. I told him I have no bias because I don't own a gun. However, studies show that almost every city that allows conceal and carry, violent crime goes down. Places like London that ban guns, see violent crimes rise. I know it FEELS good to oppose guns. But when presented with these facts, he said he never heard this and did not believe me. By the way, Eagle, he also hates Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, etc., yet does not know the simplest of facts. Because he is a slave of the MSM where they either slant, lie, or omit to fit their agenda.

Objective reasoning could win out here.
Or maybe at least give pause to consider what might be the truth?

CONFIRMATION? Is quoted as the facts.

It came from a reporter who cannot provide names of witnesses, but somehow identifys one as owning a bookstore and one a grocery. Most likely in the neighborhood of the mosque. How hard will it be to find these folks if you don't like their story, that being the reason not to identify them?

And some bloke named Hussein gets ink even after the Iraq government repeatedly says the guy is a fake.

Six men are torched alive with 1.3 gallons of kerosene. That is just under 1 quart each. Yes it would burn but does that bring out the flaming image you once had when hearing of the torching? And the torched are dispatched with a shot to the head? Why? For humanitarian reasons? Give me a break.

The torched rolled on the ground until they died, then they were killed again with the gunshot. The common wisdom if you catch fire is to roll on the ground to put the flames out. We were all taught this as children.

I cannot tell what the level of truth is in the reports, from either camp, but this story has some holes in it. Like why didn't the reporters view and comment on the site of the alleged burnings, surely there would be physical evidence on the ground, at least burn marks and blood from the head wounds?

The "witness" Hussein, who has visited the reporter in his office, which proves what? How was it that this man has been at apparently numerous locations of violence for two years but is not a police employee? What were his "bona-fides" as the 0ld Pirate would ask, placing him at the mosque for those special minutes during this attack?

I just keep thinking of the Israelie bomb that blew up a house and one man kept carrying a dead child from camera to camera to make it on the news. And the bomb scene was littered with childrens toys and even a pacifier, none of which were dirty or chared or damaged as you would expect from an explosion great enough to level a brick house, by the time the press got on scene.

Eagle
I was very left wing until the early 90s. My father was conservative, my mother middle of the road. I started to examine what made me so left-wing. The only conclusion was the media and school. I finally started thinking, rather than feeling. I started listening to friends and my father and doing a little more in-depth reading. It has been a very long journey from far left to conservative. And this was well before the columnists and bloggers from the right reaching any kind of prominence. So no, I did not have my mind made up for me by like-minded people. I was not convinced by the likes of Coulter to stay away from the MSM. They drove me away in search for greater depth and detail.

I wish I could credit this to the correct pundit, but I can't remember. He said that one could easily shield hmself from conservative opinion but the opposite is an impossibility. He was right. I can't avoid liberal points of view even if I want to-NYT, Wash Post, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS-that Couric hire certainly wasn't of someone proven as far left, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC... We get a few outlets Limbaugh, Fox) and the whining is unending.

Kim, poor misguided Kim
Poor Kimmy provides for us the ultimate example of a liberal: she uses statements of a biased press to prove that criticism of the biased press is unwarranted. Pull your head out of your nether regions, Kimmy. If you truly believe that the MSM is biased towards the current administration, or even neutral, there is no hope for you. Ever.

cookie
I'm sure you are sincere about your intellectual journey from left-wing to right-wing. (Though Eric Hoffer and many other experts on political sociology would argue that the journey is very short.) But does it ever occur you to wonder--given that your worldview is overwhelmingly not represented in the most respected and broadly used and trusted organs of news and information--if something might be wrong with it?

Franken and Coulter
Coulter's book "Slander" was such an effective undressing of left media bias that Harvard University gave Al Franken a grant and 14 research assistants to refute it.

Franken's resulting effort, "Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" was lame at best and, given the resources at his disposal, thoroughly incompetent.

Coulter's 200 pages laid bare the politically motivated malfeasance of those who called themselves the MSM. Franken couldn't find enough "coreections" on Coulter's work to even fill a whole chapter. And even after he got onto the the cases of Goldberg, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh he was forced to include a fantasy chapter ("Operation Chickenhawk") and another chapter in which he and a research assistant perpetrated fraud to infiltrate Bob Jones University so that could mock it in order to get enough material for a book.

It is revealing that when Franken's cover was finally blown during his Bob Jones caper he was treated with far more courtesy by those he had presumed to mock than he had ever extended toward them.

In all, Franken's response to "Slander" was so lame that no conservative felt it necessary to do a book detailing all of the falsehoods in "Lies". Thus Franken's status as a political ankle-biter was confirmed.

Respomd to "MSM" Lies and ...
... left wing bias by refusing to buy their garbage. I mean "buy" lieterally; refuse to pay for the privilege of being lied to.

To paraphrase Nathan Hale, "I regret that I HAD but one subscription to cancel for the sake of the truth."

eagle
I agree that the "'truth' is not to be found in the biased polemics," but did it ever occur to you that partisans like yourself trust the media because they can be trusted to tailor information to your worldview?

The mainstream media are overwhelmingly controlled by the biased polemics of the left. You say you don't see this very simple fact because you are blinded by your left-wing ideology. I thank God Almighty for watchdogs like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Brent Bozell, and Rush Limbaugh who expose the bias and lies of the AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC (and all its barely-watched little networks), CBS, CNN, PBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, et. al.

cookie
"So's your old man" won't cut it. I am not a partisan nor in any way a left wing ideologue. I did spend 38 years in journalism, from small town newspapers to network level television news, and I can tell you for a fact that the notion that mainstream American media are "controlled by the biased polemics of the left" is nonsense. Journalists are the most apolitical people you'll ever, and are "controlled" by their desire to find a good story. If you ever made an attempt to visit a newsroom, you'd soon realize as much. And they're owned by big corporations like General Electric, hardly hotbeds of left wing politics. As for those "barely watched little networks, that's delusional, Cookie. On a bad night they draw close to 30 million viewers--on a good night Fox gets 2 million.
Bottom line: Rush and all your heroes live off the mainstream media. Without them, they'd die.

Shrinque & Eagle
Shrinque,couldn't have said it better myself. Studies have shown that around 90% of journalists vote democrat. Is it not possible that they are shaping the news (to your liking) to your world view? I do not strive to be insulting, I am more in line with Bernie Goldberg. Yes there are malicious people on both sides. However, as Goldberg points out in "BIAS," it is not always a conscious effort to shape the news. The world view they have and the bubbles they live in dictate a naturally left leaning reporting of the news. One of the most telling excerpts was when Goldberg asked a colleague at CBS why she always went to NOW when she wanted a female opinion rather than some of the larger, right leaning groups. Her response-"What right leaning women's groups?" Take Walter Cronkite. After leaving CBS, he has pretty much admitted that he is a flaming liberal. You don't think that shaped what he reported and how? Or which stories he chose to not report on (omit).

What??
--But does it ever occur you to wonder--given that your worldview is overwhelmingly not represented in the most respected and broadly used and trusted organs of news and information--if something might be wrong with it?--

Given that in the 2000 election 89% of the reporters polled voted for AlBore and about the same during the 2004 election voting for The French Poodle and the Breck Girl, no, I'd say that it doesn't prove they are right and I'm wrong at all. All it proves is that the mass media is so blatantly left leaning that you have to fight it.

Eagle
Do lemmings plummiting over a cliff wonder why following majority opinion has led them to such an end? When I was a young liberal, our mantra was, "question authority." Now as a mature conservative, I'm pleased to question the liberal press bastion.

MSMs Propaganda, &Outright Lies
In the past week we have seen the MSM lead Russert, Stephee, Schiefer,Wolf, Mouth Matthew and Chris Wallace espouse an out right lie about the Iraq War. Each of them has stated that "the Iraq War Has Lasted Longer than World War Two." That is a flatA$$ed Lie. The Iraq War has been going on for approximately 3 years. WWll began December 7, 1941 and ended April 28, 1952, when the peace treaty with Japan was signed. the signing of that treaty officially ended World war two. WWII Lasted 11 Yrs 4 Months and 21 Days. Normally, I would give most people a spare, and say they just made a mistake. But these people are supposed to research their subject before reporting it as fact. Therefore, I must take it that they indeed knew better and elected to go with the lie. In this day and age, the MSMs mendacity in reporting is as such, that they cannot be believed no matter what they are reporting on. Americans must wake up before they destroy us and demand that their broadcasting licenses be striped when they are caught lying.

Eagle
Almost sorry I tried to be nice. Will I ever learn. I have dozens of examples of what I call "The disparate treatment of similar situations." Let me give you a couple.

Robert Byrd uses the N word twice on national television. Nary a peep from the MSM. Be honest. If this was a Republican, they would have run him out of office. Not to mention he was voted the Leader of the Senate by his colleagues despite his KKK history. Wow, just let the republicans try that. Comapare that to Trent Lott giving a verbal pat on the head to an old man celebrating his 100th birthday. The media twists and turns and extrapolates that into saying Lott is a racist and wishes we still had lavery-similar situations, disparate treatment.

Mark Foley e-mails a few underage Pages. No physical contact. No proof of wrongdoing. Not only does the MSM crucify him, but they crucify Hastert, hounding him to resign. Compare to the treatment of Gary Studds. HE ACTUALLY HAD SEX WITH AN UNDERAGE MALE PAGE!!! He gets re-elected 6 more times and is given leadershiop positions by House democrats. Press reaction-YAWN. And, I know you are going to say that is 20 years ago. Ah Ah AH, not so fast. He just passed away and many of his colleagues that served with him in the House, went to the funeral and heaped praise on this pedophile. MSM reaction-Yawn. If you have an honest bone in your body, you know this is clear bias.

Profblog
Well said. Let me add one more thing we should question. In one of Coulter's books, she proved via the Verona Papers released in '96 that Joseph McCarthy was right about almost everything and everyone. One of FDR's main advisors, instrumental in disastrous dividing up of Germany, was proven to be a Russian spy. Eagle, please site for me the MSM reports on these facts. Yet the press is allowed to continue this canard and scream McCarthyism when it suits them. Clooney is praised for making a one-sided movie that happily ignored the elephant in the room-the Verona Papers. Once again Eagle, let a conservative do a movie with a hole you could drive a truck through and see if it gets 3 or 4 stars.

Eagle tries to eat Cookie
OK, I could care less about the accuracy of Malkin's article, but Eagle, I seriously doubt you have spent "38 years in journalism". Your statement "Journalists are the most apolitical people you'll ever [meet]" is laughable and flatly false. Yes, some are apolitical (in the sports or society sections, for example), but so many in the MSM may as well register as Democratic campaign consultants or lobbyists.

All reporting is biased to some degree. That is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as you know it and can identify the bias. If I were to report, I would be biased toward liberty. It is a human impossibility to be completely unbiased. So, when I read the news I look for the bias of the reporter. If I can detect a bias I have a guage by which to measure the accuracy of the information. I also like to look for first sources if it is available. I also look for consistency, especially over time. I believe most posters can think of examples where the MSM have contradicted their own reporting or have vociferously defended a position opposite one which they equally defended in previous years. Example - Bush's "unauthorized" war in Iraq and Clinton's adventures in Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia/Kosovo, which were not authorized by Congress. (BTW - What was the "collateral damage" count in Kosovo? Hmmmm. Never reported. It was a "good" war, no, "campaign".)

I suggest readers to find a little book written in the '50s called, "How to Lie with Statistics." It provides a good model for analylzing information, which can also be applied toward detecting bias or misrepresentation in the news.

I have also had much experience with the press, both local, state and a little national. In all cases, misquotes or erroneous information appeared in the coverage and at times personal opinions were injected as fact. Most have been clueless about the subject on which they reported. Many are also supreme egotists. They usually have to insult their opponents to feel superior.

Now, your insult to Cookie: "But does it ever occur you to wonder--given that your worldview is overwhelmingly not represented in the most respected and broadly used and trusted organs of news and information--if something might be wrong with it?"

This is typical of someone who is losing an argument. Insult your opponent and elevate yourself as an "Authority", not to be questioned. Sorry, but when someone plays that kind of power trip on me they have only weakened themselves in my view and I start looking for ulterior motives. It is a typical attitude of the elitist mentality of so much of the MSM.

Sure, I grew up in the '60s so I mistrust those who set themselves up as "experts". They are always after something of mine.

So, go ahead. Insult me. When you lust for power, that's what you do.

eagle...
"I am not a partisan nor in any way a left wing ideologue."

- that's an opinion. yours.

"I did spend 38 years in journalism, from small town newspapers to network level television news, and I can tell you for a fact that the notion that mainstream American media are "controlled by the biased polemics of the left" is nonsense."

- that makes you suspect. either you believe it and you're naive, or you don't and you're disingenuous. dan rather and cbs ring any bells? forging documents, fabricating a story to damage a sitting president, and releasing said story the weekend before an election is not the work of a nonpartisan.

"Journalists are the most apolitical people you'll ever, and are "controlled" by their desire to find a good story. If you ever made an attempt to visit a newsroom, you'd soon realize as much."

- see above comments. and feel free to tell us which position you hold - believer or snake charmer.

"And they're owned by big corporations like General Electric, hardly hotbeds of left wing politics."

- either you don't understand how corporations work, or you're again being disingenuous. the only thing GE expects from NBC is a big fat profit. they don't tell NBC how to run their business. i've worked in fortune 100 companies for 20 years now - including GE. they are all the same in this sense.

"As for those "barely watched little networks, that's delusional, Cookie. On a bad night they draw close to 30 million viewers--on a good night Fox gets 2 million."

- this is false and misleading. avg. nightly news viewership for the alphabets is now under 20 MIL for all 3 combined. That is less than half what it was in 1980, and down 22 MIL from what it was in 1990. And still declining dramatically.

"Bottom line: Rush and all your heroes live off the mainstream media. Without them, they'd die."

- no proof + no point = yawning irrelevance.

oh yeah, almost forgot that line...
the one about...what was it...

"But does it ever occur you to wonder--given that your worldview is overwhelmingly not represented in the most respected and broadly used and trusted organs of news and information--if something might be wrong with it?"

Does it ever occur to you iggle, that the level of 'respect' given to a particular worldview says nothing about the validity of that worldview? But of a more interesting nature - is this what validates a given position for YOU? Personally, I don't look to any media source for that kind of validation. There are better indicators to go on than what another humans political flavor of the moment might be - subject as it might be to a demand for ratings, advertiser demo/psychographic demands, etc... Funny to hear that from you though, given how often conservatives hear what mindless media-led trolls they are.

who is more dangerous? the MSM?

right on.... the terrorist should sit back, watch and laugh.

they have the MSM or the ASSociated press working for them.

eagle
You pose the thought that if all the media tells the same story that story must be true and anything else is questionable. Does the same thing go for those in countries like Cuba and Russia, where the press is tightly controlled by the government. If the majority of what is read by these oppressed people is left wing propaganda, it must follow that it is true according to your thinking.

eagle
You don't deserve to use the screen-name *eagle.* You are a disgrace to us Honorable *Birds Of Prey* that take care of ourselves and our own!

For those of you who don't understand my meaning. Let me explain. I am an American born in 1937. I became a Falconer from the age of 15 and have been involved with 'birds of prey' these many years. The training and understanding of Eagles, Falcons, Hawks, Owl's etc. Has taught me one thing. There is no more dedicated, stubborn species in the world than the "Birds of Prey!" Any Falconer out there will know exactly what I'm talking about.

The title *Birds Of Prey* is misunderstood by most. And they tend to look at the species as vermin. Nothing could be further from the truth! The Birds Of Prey do exactly what they were designed to do. Exist on their own under the hardest of conditions! Sure they kill to eat! But don't humans? The difference is, a Bird Of Prey relies on it's own abilities to survive and protect it's own and you can't change them no matter how much training you apply. A true American is like that!

Liberals, like screen name *eagle* make me mad! Liberals are the true vermin of our society! Even Vultures have more honor! Vultures are created to clean the left-over carnage. Liberals create the carnage and live off others! In my mind, there is nothing more disgusting than a Liberal!

eagle! If you are questioning my screen name 'Goshawk' do some research! The "Goshawk" is the most fierce, dedicated bird of all Birds Of Prey! It can and will kill an Eagle with ease if it gets out of line.! A true American! I use the name "Goshawk" proudly!

I Just Boycott the MSM
I cancelled my newspaper subscription last year after the paper published a negative story about the military on Veteran's Day. That was the last straw for me. I had only kept my Sunday editions coming for the grocery coupons but I finally had to cancel for my own peace of mind.

I already refuse to watch any of the major network newscasts and will only tune in to watch a sports broadcast.

My dream is to hear that the NY Times is filing for Chapter 11. That would be an awesome Christmas present!

What does AP stand for? Associated Proletariats?

6 Iraqis killed
It is even Fox News that does this. I heard a story this morning that was headed "Six Iraqis killed in a roadside ambush".

"Gosh, we killed innocents" is what I thought. Then the story went on. Our troops were defusing a roadside bomb and they came under fire from a building nearby. They assaulted the building and found (or made) 6 dead. There were arms and armaments in the building. All were adults. Sounds to me like the "Iraqis" killed were insurgents. Compare "Six Iraquis killed" in impact to "Six Iraqui Insurgents Killed".

Different story, no?

Stargazer, Homer, & Eagle
Thanks for the defense guys, let me make a point to Eagle. First he attributes a quote to me I never used-"barely watched little networks." Some great eye for detail for someone who worked in Journalism for 38 years. A relative must have hired you initially. By the way, your "old pal" Bernie Goldberg was certainly pushed out of the MSM organization once he stopped toeing the company line. Real diverse thinking and tolerance there with your "colleagues." It's a shame I couldn't have a real exchange with you. I tried to answer your feelings and statements from personal observation with facts detached from my personal life. Sorry you are so unskilled at some light debate. I gave you many concrete examples. It would have been nice to see you try to at least refute one with something other than feelings and personal experience. One's personal experience does not hold as fact universally. But you are a liberal partisan. All you need do is feel, thinking is not mandatory.

Stargazer, let me repeat something to reinforce your point. I went to a pro-military rally just before the Iraq invasion. The main reason I went was to counter the disingenuous protestors likely to be there. All the hurdles they expected Bush to jump were never put in front of Clinton and Kosovo. And no one can seriously argue that Milosevic was a more serious threat to the US than Saddam. So where were those protests in the 90's? Where were the international protests? Oh that's right. It was a liberal waging war so that is just fine then. Oh Eagle, just another of my irrefutable points from my "disparate treatment of similar situations" by the MSM. Please point out my flaw in this argument and tell me again there is no bias in the MSM.

Goshawk
A noble bird, indeed. And an interesting history as a falconer. As a lifelong birder I'd like to have met and talked with you. When I lived in a downtown highrise, we had a pair of peregrine falcons nesting on the roof. Beautiful birds, and surprisingly tolerant of humans, though they'd sometimes give us a good scolding. Each night they'd go out to catch dinner and we'd find the leftovers the next morning. On occasion they'd catch a coot. What a mess. Not neat eaters.

Husker Jeff
Great catch. Reinforces many of our points. Bias is also in the wording of a headline or certain ommissions in a story.

Some Thoughts...
"The common wisdom if you catch fire is to roll on the ground to put the flames out. We were all taught this as children."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression a gasoline fire is not as easy to put out. Also, if you're on bound, shot and on fire, you may not have the presence of mind to do that. I'm not saying the story is true, I'm simply saying that I don't think this is a particularly good arguement for it being a fabrication.

"Mark Foley e-mails a few underage Pages. No physical contact. No proof of wrongdoing. Not only does the MSM crucify him, but they crucify Hastert, hounding him to resign. Compare to the treatment of Gary Studds. HE ACTUALLY HAD SEX WITH AN UNDERAGE MALE PAGE!!! He gets re-elected 6 more times and is given leadershiop positions by House democrats. Press reaction-YAWN. And, I know you are going to say that is 20 years ago. Ah Ah AH, not so fast. He just passed away and many of his colleagues that served with him in the House, went to the funeral and heaped praise on this pedophile. MSM reaction-Yawn. If you have an honest bone in your body, you know this is clear bias."

No one is condoning what Studds did, though we should note that it was revealed 10 years AFTER the fact, not nearly as recently after as with Mark Foley's scandal was.

Also keep in mind that the Studd's page was NOT UNDERAGE. The relationship was legal because it was consensual and because 17 (his age) was the legal age for consent at the time. The reason why it was a scandal in 1983 was because it "presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates".

Foley approached underaged pages and sent explicit emails to them, not all of which desired this attention from him. Furthermore, there are refrerences in emails where Marc Foley suggests providing the minors alcohol and drinking at his place so they woulnd't get in trouble. He also mentions "missing" a certain page since they had last been together, and though no sexual contact has been proven, it's certainly not out of the question. Foley even showed up drunk at the page's dormitory.

Some would argue that the bigger problem with the Foley scandal was the concerted efforts by other members of our government who knew of the incidencts to COVER THEM UP. That's why People like Hastert are being attacked in this situation. And the attention focused on him is not unfounded, in my opinion.

Masochism?
Rustyguns and Kimberly,

A question:

If you hate all things conservative, and in particular Malkin's column (which seems to draw your ire as reliably as the rising sun), why do you insist upon spending time here? It strikes me as more than a bit masochistic.

Just in case you haven't noticed, your proselytising has yet to make even a single convert in this neck of the woods. Perhaps it's time to find another street corner.

Just a suggestion.

However, if you insist on continuing to grace us all with your highly enlightening (cough) comments, you may want to enhance your flagellation experience by surrounding yourself with the proper stereotypical sounds and smells as well. I'm told you can download daily podcasts of Rush and Hannity for a small fee. And, although I know of no distinctly conservative fragrance to complete the atmosphere, perhaps Hoppe's gun cleaning oil as a sort of "Second Ammendment aromatherapy" would do the trick.









Super Mario
The main male in the Foley scandal was also of age in DC. The more racy IMs sent to him when not a page were when he was at least age 18. If you have proof of a cover up, bring it on. There is evidence that dems knew about this way beforehand. And, be honest, if he had been dealt with more sternly, republicans would have been accused of gay-bashing. And, if the dems weren't condoning it, then why the high praise at the funeral? I repeat, he actually had sex with someone under 18 and a page. Whatever happened to that "disparity of power" argument the left liked to enforce against executives? Oh that's right! It is now been invalidated because the left and NOW didn't want to enforce this against Clinton. Wow. Talk about disparity of power. Easily the greatest disparity of power in history. The most powerful man in the world and an unpaid intern. Let's see your verbal gymnastics and logical leaps to explain why this argument was suddenly shelved when it involved someone who supported their agenda.

Masochism?
Rustyguns and Kimberly,

A question:

If you hate all things conservative, and in particular Michelle Malkin's column (which seems to draw your ire as reliably as the sunrise), why do you insist upon spending time here? It strikes me as more than a bit masochistic.

Just in case you haven't noticed, your proselytising has yet to make even a single convert in this neck of the woods. Perhaps it's time to find another street corner.

Just a suggestion.

However...

If you insist on continuing to grace us all with your highly enlightening (cough) comments, you may want to enhance your flagellation experience by surrounding yourself with the proper stereotypical sounds and smells as well. I'm told you can download daily podcasts of Rush and Hannity for a small fee. And, although I know of no distinctly conservative fragrance to complete the atmosphere, perhaps Hoppe's gun cleaning oil as a sort of "Second Ammendment aromatherapy" would do the trick. For snacks, may I suggest pork rinds and long-neck beers to complete the stereotype and stimulate all the senses.

eagle..
Your response surprised me. As a falconer, I would like to know more about you. If you do have a true understanding of what I was speaking of. I can't understand your Liberal bent. I mean, it doesn't fit. Your description of the Peregrines enhances my interest in that you seem to have basic understanding.

If you are indeed a life long birder as you say, please contact me at my e-mail address, rg2k1@sbcglobal.net. Yes I know, we are not supposed to give out out e-mail address. But I don't care because I am also a computer programmer and can handle anything that comes at me.

Media Bias
It is next to impossible for anyone biased to the left to find such bias in others because that bias is accepted as the norm. The liberal bias of the MSM is invisible to those who subscribe to a liberal viewpoint because the liberal believes that every rational person agrees with their viewpoint.

On the other hand, conservatives tend to be suspicious by nature and have a need to verify the truth. Conservatives regularly question and find fault with other conservatives. A conservative may agree with a viewpoint but demands proof to support it.

What??2
--But does it ever occur you to wonder--given that your worldview is overwhelmingly not represented in the most respected and broadly used and trusted organs of news and information--if something might be wrong with it?--

Good thing that Copernicus and Galileo didn't hold with "everyone else believes the sun revolves around the earth"!

how not to fight a war
It should be evident to us by now that you cannot fight a protracted war with the MSM constantly whipping up opposition. So, my question is this - if you actually got an old-fashioned Declaration of War through Congress, would the president have more powers to actually control this propaganda aspect of the war?

Uphill in the snow, both ways
I'll admit it, I'm and old f@rt. To get to school I used to have to fight my way through dinasours, going uphill in the snow, etc.

When I was in school what was taught was that because of the first amendment the american press was the world's best. My indoctrinator went as far as to say that the press, in response to not being controlled by the government, printed the truth. Boy was I ever disappointed.

Rustbucket, the problem is that most of us only want the truth from the MSM. If it's bad or embarrassing news we can take it because we are adults.

If the MSM is printing bad stuff about our guy it's ok as long as it's the truth, unlike your side that considers an unflatering truth an attack.

For the factual examples you want let's look at New Orleans. Reporters got prizes for reporting fiction. They placed more blame at the feet of the Federal government than state or local governent. (In a disaster the first responders are the locals and state because it takes the feds a few days to get organized and moved.)

There were the reports about Karl Rove organizing the outing of Valery Plame. When the real "outer" finally surfaced were there any appoligies or retractions or corrections?

During the elections there was a multitude of stories about Bush's military service, alcohol problems and drug use, some of them even backed up by counterfeit documents. Where were the big stories about Gore's drug use or his military assignment as a journalist, with a bodyguard?

How many front page headlines were there involving Tom Delay's indictment? Did the front page stories prominently include that he was indicted on a charge that wasn't ilegal when the alleged violation took place? Did the front page stories prominently include that a grandjury nobilled him on the same allegations? Will there be an equal amount about the rogue prosecutor in Austin when he is acquitted? If you get a chance, ask Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson about him.

How much ink and airtime was spent on the recent Foley embarrassment? How much was spent on Harry Reeds questionable business habits?

Let me repeat in simple terms. All we ask for is that the facts get reported honestly. We're adults, we can handle it.

Someone READ this to GunnyG
My point still is, she would have NO career at all without invoking the the big bad MSM swill, some of you love.
I dare anyone to count, from just this year,the total number of times Malkin pulls that rabbit out of her ???


To all true Conservatives!
I think we should start our own pole of the the most ignorant, unintelligent, posters on this site!

My first nomination is for...rustyguns!

Cookie...
"The main male in the Foley scandal was also of age in DC. The more racy IMs sent to him when not a page were when he was at least age 18."

But the relationship began when he was underage, correct? And some of the other pages involved were also underage, correct? There was no underage pages involved with Studds.

"If you have proof of a cover up, bring it on."

Ah, yes. Seeing as how this particular article attacks the validity of many media outlets, I'm walking right into the fire on this one, but I'll continue anyway. It was reported by multiple sources that Foley had been warned about his contact many times... The Washington Post, for example. Of course, this is will probably never be conclusively proven (but the ethics committee is investigating it extensively, so we'll see). Still, it is interesting that multiple people, such as Kirk Fordham, Foley's former Chief of Staff, and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl and have testified to this, though, isn't it?

"There is evidence that dems knew about this way beforehand."

I would like to see proof of this because despite republicans claiming that there may have been dems who knew, not a single name has been linked or testified against, as far as I can find. This sounds to me like Republicans trying to take the dems down with them, and so far, not even Hastert's own investigation has come up with any proof the democrats had anything to do with covering this up. Please show me if you have information to the contrary and we can discuss it further.


"And, be honest, if he had been dealt with more sternly, republicans would have been accused of gay-bashing."

That's an outrageous, ridiculous statement.

Which is more likely/realistic: That republicans were afraid of coming across as gay bashers and that's why they didn't stop Mark Foley?

OR that republicans were afraid of the scandal that would accompany any real action against him, and THAT'S why they didn't make a big deal out of it?


"And, if the dems weren't condoning it, then why the high praise at the funeral? I repeat, he actually had sex with someone under 18 and a page."

The age of 18 is irrelevant to this argument because he was 17 years old (LEGAL) at the time. We must evaluate the situation based on the laws that existed at the time, don't you agree?

Also, the man made a mistake, and he was actually defended by the page he had the relationship with. It was a CONSENTUAL RELATIONSHIP. I agree, it shouldn't have happened and as I said before, the big scandal part of Studd's relationship was the question of misuse of power, which was the whole reason behind the censure. Studds admitted he made a mistake (a VERY BIG mistake), and he and the rest of the house moved on. The American people obviously forgave him as well. That's why people were praising him at his funeral. Is one mistake that wasn't actually illegal worth ruining someone's life over?

"Whatever happened to that "disparity of power" argument the left liked to enforce against executives? Oh that's right! It is now been invalidated because the left and NOW didn't want to enforce this against Clinton. Wow. Talk about disparity of power. Easily the greatest disparity of power in history. The most powerful man in the world and an unpaid intern. Let's see your verbal gymnastics and logical leaps to explain why this argument was suddenly shelved when it involved someone who supported their agenda."

I thought Clinton was impeached? Phew, I'm glad to hear he got out of that scandal completely unscathed! Clinton didn't get away with anything. What happened was a scandal, but it was consentual and legal, too, I might add. Again, the underlying issue with Clinton was that he lied about it to the grand jury (how ridiculous was it that a grand jury was investigating his extra-marital activities? A GRAND JURY? But, I digress...).

I love how whenever someone with a liberal point of view is discovered, the conservatives bombard them with "Clinton this!" "Clinton that!" as if he was our God and by attacking him, you're hurting us. Clinton made a mistake, too, and while he ultimately didn't have to leave office, it's not as if he got away scott free.

Rustyguns/Kimberly: still curious
My question remains. If you are in such an apoplexy about conservatives in general and Malkin in particular, why do you spend your time here? It really is a curious form of masochism.


HappiR
States
"So, my question is this - if you actually got an old-fashioned Declaration of War through Congress, would the president have more powers to actually control this propaganda aspect of the war?"

As Will Rogers said. quote:

"Take the diplomacy out of war and the thing would fall flat in a week."

Rustyguns...
looks dull.
can't shoot straight.
frequently jams.
likely as not to hurt self.

I do want to clarify,
I'm not defending Studds or letting him get away with anything, I'm just suggesting that it's inaccurate to compare that scandal to the current Foley one, that's all.

Just curious
rustyguns posts a link so we can see his responses to GunnyG. So being naturally curious, I looked and found all his postings there deleted? Perhaps this could be explained?

The faulty media
Having served as a machine gunner in the sunni triangle, I can honestly say that Iraq is not one-third as bad as it's protrayed on tv.All we get on the networks are regurgetated casualties figures from centcom followed by a bunch of empty talking heads trying to sustian hour long shows on 3 minutes worth of hard news.This country needs to examine the media industrial complex and how the news is gathered just like we investigate the tobbacco companies, Haliburton,Exxon etc.Knowingly printing false or misleading news should be a crime and or considered mal practice.

Voting
Excellence in drive by posting: Kimberly
Excellence in bovine excretement: rustyguns

Still thinking of other categories, any suggestions?

What scandal Mario?
Neither man has done anything illegal Mario? What scandal then exists?

Hello Homer!
Not so fast, though... Foley did do something illegal: He sent sexually explicit internet messages to minors. He also openly talks about getting them drunk. Of course, the full details of his contact with them are not yet known; Foley denies ever having sexual contact with them, but the emails suggest that may not be the case. Also, we have the fact that Foley came to the Page dorms drunk, and we must wonder what he was intending to do there?

Scandals, however, don't have to be exclusively based on legality, either. It could be simply defined as "a discraceful act" (per my good friend, dictionary.com) Both Studds and Foley engaged in questionable moral practices, especially for men in their positions. That could be considered a scandal as well.

Super Mario
He did not break any law's, quit reading the liberal drivle, and do your own homework.
The page was not underage!
Now prove it wrong.

aryling
I'm not sure what is happening to some of the posts that are disappearing. I know these comment sections are monitored... so perhaps some poster(s) was becoming too vulgar which earned them some "banishment" time. I know a couple of posters (conservatives, I might add) who were denied access for a couple of weeks due to having written something considered unacceptable.

By and large though... TH is 1,000 PERCENT more tolerant than what you would find at DailyKos and other leftie sites. For as soon as you identify yourself as a conservative... you are history!

Like you, however.... I hope TH isn't starting to pull the trigger a little too fast on some of our liberal friends.

ANYBODY KNOW??
Do any of my fellow posters know who monitors these comments and how to reach he or she? It would be interesting if we could get a comment on how/why posts disappear or people get removed from posting. Are their any official policies written somewhere?

Thanks,
- Primus54

romor mongers GRRR!

disaperin' posts
The last time I saw a post dissapear was my own on democrats.org

disaperin' posts
The last time I saw a post dissapear was my own on democrats.org

Laughter works.
aryling writes:
Shame on people to resort to such low tact.
This is CENSORSHIP


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

Take it up with the people that own this site.

You know CBS won't give me equal time to refute Dan Rather. My rights are being trampled.

Solar:
"In 2004, Foley sent five e-mails to a 16-year-old former page from Monroe, LA[21] sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). They were the first messages to be made public in the scandal.[22][23] Among other things, Foley asked for a photo of the page, his age and birthday, and what he wanted for a birthday present. Foley observed that another male page (to whom he had also written) was "in really great shape... i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey..." The page forwarded the e-mails to a colleague in Alexander's office, saying "this really freaked me out," and repeating the word "sick" 13 times to describe the photo request. The page asked "if you can, please tell Rodney [Alexander] about this," and in addition, mentioned a female page who had been warned about a Congressman who "hit on" interns.[24][25][26]

ABC News reported on October 5 that in 2002, Foley e-mailed one page with an invitation to stay at the congressman's home in exchange for oral sex. The page, who was 17 years old at the time, declined the offer. The same report stated that he e-mailed another with a request for a photograph of his erect [CENSORED DUE TO POSTING RESTRICTIONS].[1] Another former page reports that he saw sexually explicit e-mails sent to one page from his page class of 2001-2002, and learned of "three or four" pages from that class who received similar e-mails.[27]"

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

Citations are included there.

Gunny,
Can you show me proof that Studds had sex in Morrocco with an underage teen? I'd like to see an article from a legitimate source on the subject, because my searches have only turned up comments such as yours posted on blogs, and I haven't seen any solid proof of this happening. I'm open to whatever you have to show me.


If, however, the teen he had sex with was the only page from the scandal, then, as I stated earlier, he was of the legal age for consent when they had their affair, thus the term "underage" does not apply.

I've found websites that seem to confirm
That the teen in Morocco was the one he was having the relationship with. The LEGAL one. I'm not making a moral judgement on this case (though if I were, I'd say Studds misconducted himself sexually. Such relations are not appropriate, no one is arguing that) I am talking about this in a legal sense, and legally, he is far less at fault than Mark Foley.

Mario...
Has Foley been indicted and we missed it?...

No indictment, no verdict. No verdict = presumption of innocence.

And based on what you posted yesterday - about 'law' being man's standard of 'good' - who needs God and all that? - Foley and Studds are both clearly 'good' by your prescribed standard - the standard of man.

Unfortunately that drivel runs into a problem when it gets splattered all over reality. Both men are clearly immoral. But 'immoral' isn't a quality of concern addressed by your secular standard. It can't be as it only deals in legalities.

Do you expect a consistent application of logic that conforms to your real world experiences or not? In this case there seems to be a clear disconnect between what you expect and what you get.

Now if you want to argue that secular morality is what informs those laws fine - but then you're really over the cliff as far consistency goes as what is ultimately 'right' or 'wrong' is simply a matter of the opinion of the current regime in power. Leading to: is something 'wrong' just because person A, B or C says it is? And if the new boss - person D - says the opposite a few years down the road does that then make it true? Or do 'right' and 'wrong' in fact transcend the opinion of any given man or man made system? In the real world I mean?

Super Mario
You do realize that Wiki is not taken seriously when it come's to politics and religion, only hard scieince, is given credence.
Anyone can submit to Wiki.

aryling
He probably insulted a few too many people, and he got flaged as offensive, TH probably decided to boot him for it after all he is a Moonbat, only here to cause problem's, not to engage in intelligent discussion.
You won't see him for a week or two.

Personally, I like to shread the mental midget.

Solar,
That's why I mentioned the citations. I know how Wiki works, but it every point had multiple citations to news sources.

Super Mario
So where is the warant for his arrest?
Where is the indictment from a grand jury?
Don't you see the hipocracy?
If this guy really broke any law's, it would still be headline news.
Belive me, all those storie's were a stretch of the actual event.
I have not found one valid news story that show's he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or he would be awaiting trial today, this is mostly heresay.

GunnyG
He's just a troll.
I searched real hard, and there just isn't a single law broken.
Granted Foley is scum, but that isn't illegal, if it were all the Dems would be up on charge's.

aryling...
I guess rustyguns has been blocked for awhile for offensive content. Although I haven't been hanging out here too long (only off and on for about a week), I'm quite confident that his temporary ostracism has nothing to do with his political opinions...and everything to do with the manner in which he expresses them. As far as I can tell...all opinions are welcome and posted by the TH moderator (whoever that is)...but pottymouths are not.

But I will say this in rg's defense...

At least he hangs around to respond and return the volleys...even if his style is infantile.

Kimberly, on the other hand, is a truly world-class "drive by."

Whenever she posts I have this mental image that I just can't shake: A '72 Pinto racing away with the gas pedal all the way to the mat...the clang of a loose hubcap as she squeals around a corner, muffler dragging and sparking, coat hanger for an antenna, broken tail light winking beneath the duct tape. Yes, it's quite a sight as all of its 63HP propels it away in a cloud of gray smoke...with its driver off to pack another grenade thats all sound and no shrapnel.

It's better than anything on cable.




Solar & Gunny
Which brings us back full circle to my original point-the disparate treatment by the MSM of similar circumstances. Even if we agree that both are terrible, plausible, though I think Studds is worse, the media didn't touch the Studds affair/tributes for a pedophile at his funeral. By the way Super M, I believe Studds was censored at the time so he must have done something wrong, like break House rules on interaction with a subordinate. Yet we get wall to wall coverage on Foley.

We all agree that Foley did inappropriate things. However, our side is capable of feeling shame. We get caught, we resign, even go to jail. Your team welcomed back Studds. You have a KKK guy who actually ran the Senate-elected by his peers. Your side gives great deference to a law school cheating (kicked out), drunk driving, hypocritical (check the Kennedy's estate tax history), cowardly (Chappaquidik) man. A man with $100 K in a freezer. Took as many junkets if not more than the Republicans but the press keeps that quiet. A senate leader with questionable land deals and hand outs to the firms of his lobbyist sons.

One last thing you never addressed. Do you have an answer to whatever happened to the disparity of power argument used against so many execs merely engaging in consensual relationships? My point was not to bash Clinton, my point was that when it applies (in spades) to your side, it gets ignored. Or as a leader of NOW so eloquently put it, we now have the one free grope rule.

MSM
Just in case any Liberal gets curious as to why Conservatives do not trust the MSM.
Think back a moment and try to recall the last time you saw anything on MSM that a Conservative would consider "good news"? Never?
Common sense would dictate good things for Conservatives must happen sometimes.
This fact is enough to PROVE beyond any doubt that MSM censors news.
Conservatives look elsewhere to find what MSM censors out and we learn MSM doctors photos, stages news events, colors news events and just plain out & out FABRICATES news events.
If you want to know what is censored out, try;

http://www.mrc.org
http://www.hotair.com
http://www.foxnews.com
http://www.cnsnews.com
http://www.newsmax.com
http://www.ynetnews.com
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.newsbusters.org

I'm not trolling, though
I doubt anything I say will convince you guys otherwise. This article says Studds was censured, which I have said multiple times, yes, but for sexual misconduct because he was a representative and the page was a page, not because the boy was underage. The relationship was consentual and legal, wrong as it may be. The article doesn't mention Morocco. I'd like to see where Studds is quoted speaking about it.

If Foley never had sex with any of these kids, it wasn't for lack of trying (and he absolutely had cybersex with one page, in the middle of a voting session, no less, though he lucked out there because the page had turned 18, six-weeks prior.

So yes, I think he's more guilty because he was basically a predator of these pages, many of whom have were underage and have openly said that his emails were explicit and unwanted. These kids were warned to be wary of him, too! He became the exact same internet predator that his own law was put forth to stop. He's no better than the guys you see on those dateline specials, caught with their pants unbuttoned at the doors of teenagers. Mark Foley was that guy, remember. Drunk at the pages dorm... He just wasn't turned in then. Studds had a consentual relationship with someone of legal age. How are his actions worse?

There is no warrant because investigations are still underway. We have yet to see if anything will come of it. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

You speak of resigning and feeling shame, but are we really going to pretend that Foley is taking real responsibility for his actions? First thing he did when the scandal broke? He checked himself into REHAB. He blamed an alcohol addiction that those around him have been quoted as saying they never noticed. That's as bad as Mel Gibson blaming his racist rant on alcohol. Alcohol doesn't make you become a different person with totally different morals, as anyone who's ever had a drink can attest. It's a way of justifying unjustifiable behavior. There's nothing noble about hiding from the world in rehab and blaming alcohol.

As for my "team" embracing Studds, it wasn't just my party, it was a majority of the voters in the next election, as well. Perhaps that says something about Studds quality as a leader? Obviously the people didn't feel too badly about this consentual relationship.

And Mercury:

"And based on what you posted yesterday - about 'law' being man's standard of 'good' - who needs God and all that? - Foley and Studds are both clearly 'good' by your prescribed standard - the standard of man.

Unfortunately that drivel runs into a problem when it gets splattered all over reality. Both men are clearly immoral. But 'immoral' isn't a quality of concern addressed by your secular standard. It can't be as it only deals in legalities....

...Now if you want to argue that secular morality is what informs those laws fine - but then you're really over the cliff as far consistency goes as what is ultimately 'right' or 'wrong' is simply a matter of the opinion of the current regime in power. Leading to: is something 'wrong' just because person A, B or C says it is? And if the new boss - person D - says the opposite a few years down the road does that then make it true? Or do 'right' and 'wrong' in fact transcend the opinion of any given man or man made system? In the real world I mean?"

What I said yesterday was that man was capable of creating a system of laws and morals that worked without God telling them what to do.

Laws of this country can not be changed just because we have a new leader. "Person D" wouldn't have any real power to make any drastic changes in our society as the new boss, and that's the way it should be. In a perfect government, one person would not be able to determine right and wrong.

All this isn't to say that a legal system can't be moral as well. After all, morality is just a code of conduct. You don't need God for that. That was my point yesterday.

I don't understand how you are getting that I think either man is a "good" man. Both men broke the laws (warrant or not, can you honestly say that Foley is not guilty of sexual misconduct?). Both men made mistakes. By my "system" that makes them guilty and wrong. I'm simply of the opinion that what Foley did was worse. There are degrees of crimes, you know.

And cookie, as for disparity of power, I don't understand how Clinton didn't get in trouble for this. The man was impeached, wasn't he? It's not like nothing happened to him. Also, could you give me some examples of these execs who are being attacked using this argument?

For the record, I'm really not trolling, just trying to have a discussion. Doesn't seem to be working out too well, though.

Cookie
Goodjob!
And that was most likely off the top of your head.
The list goe's on and on.
There are so many scandal's on the left, I can't keep track of them, but let our side have one' and the MSM run it so long, it begin's to sound like we have one right after the other.

I wonder how one would go about searching for a list of comparitive corruption RE: left vs. right.

I have a new project, yet I think I will start with the right, if I start with the left, my comp. will explode.

I don't think you're trolling...
just inconsistent. as far as i'm concerned your presence here is more than acceptable. it's welcomed.

i also think you're still missing my point.

you say moral. i ask what defines moral? what justifies it? these are existential questions.

from your present position you must be willing to argue either:

a - there is no good or evil/right or wrong.
b - there is good and evil/right and wrong as defined by man.

by definition IF A - then there is no morality - can't be such a thing. A is an intrinsic requirement of morality.

IF B - then which man defines it and when? and if to each (man, culture, tribe) as it strikes him, then can a 'standard' exist? whether delivered by bloated corrupt govt. bureaucracy, town mayor, or tribal chief, it is and always will be the opinion of one man versus my own - and because each has a man as its origin - of equal validity. (man)

What got us into this yesterday was my assertion that our founding fathers understood this very well. This is why they went to all the trouble to name as the source for all of our rights, a sovereign origin for them that transcends the mortal. And further that it matches up with reality in that its an inescapable logical syllogism, and that we constantly find ourselves arguing about a standard many say doesn't exist, while in the same sentence saying someone's comment was too mean, or unfair, or hateful or the like. (If there is no standard of fairness other than what another man says, then there is no 'unfair' despite our feeling or saying so for example.)

This moral standard or system you claim is the enterprise of man is more complex than you make it I'm afraid. Your explanation for how and why it exists, what it's justification for existence is, the depth to which we are bonded to it - all of these things should synchronize in observed reality. Mine do, and I'll propose that the fact that yours (at the moment) don't is not only no coincidence, but is likely to continue. That's not meant as an insult either - as I said - I bear you no ill will.

Such a poor forum for such a difficult (abtract, conceptual, philosophical and theological all in one) discussion...sorry bout that.

Super Mario
You wrote:
As for my "team" embracing Studds, it wasn't just my party, it was a majority of the voters in the next election, as well. Perhaps that says something about Studds quality as a leader? Obviously the people didn't feel too badly about this consentual relationship.

Gee' I guess that's the difference between our two partie's.
Morals

We get rid of our scum, yet the Dems. relect them.

Here is a link just for kick's.
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

Oh by the way, I appreciate your demeanor on TH. I hope you stick around.
You out class ALL the libs on this site, hand's down!

Super M, Solar
Super Mario, I think the age of consent in DC is 16. Does that change your view? But once again, it is not my point. If we allow both guys are bad and they are close to each other in culpability (you have to admit having a relationship with a 17 year old, same sex underling is pretty bad), my point is that the press goes overboard with one and nary a whisper with the other. Look how the MSM treated Lott for verbally patting an old man on the head on his 100th birthday. Could we not compare that MSM response to their lack of reaction to the Gary Studds testimonials at his funeral. If Lott had given that testimonial, they probably would have accused him of supporting pedophiles.

BTW, I am still waiting for someone to refute or tell me where that disparity of power argument went once it became inconvenient to a liberal icon.

Solar, I have dozens of these examples. Allow me to entertain you with another. During her first Senate campaign, Hillary Clinton went on a Buffalo radio station and was asked if she had an affair with Vince Foster. The guy got fired and the press lectured us that one's personal life was just that, personal, and was out of bounds to ask about. Not a month later, the press discovered the worst kept secret in the country, Rudy Guiliani had a girlfriend. Well, we all know what happened. The press forgot their own lecture, and the feeding frenzy on Rudy proceeded-for weeks.

And yes Solar, our guys leave and feel shame. A Democrat gets to ignore it, the press go away, and everyone pretends nothing happened. Take Harry Reid. Lame explanation-accepted. Where is the pressure? Where is the nightly reports? Where is the investigative reporting to really get to the bottom of this land deal?

Lastly, SM. Mel Gibson and Foley are just steling a play from the liberal playbook. Say you have a problem, go to rehab, return to normal life. Jim McGreevey darn near reached hero status for this-never mind the illegal hiring he did while in office. Hollywood (left) has done this for years. You have to admit that was a real cheap shot since those you support wrote the book on this move.

Cookie
Cookie Excelent job of lighting the dark cave of hypocracy.

I don't remember seeing you around before.
Are you new?
If so ,Welcome' if not, glad you're back. ( :

nevadamistermom
Hey' I love your 72 Pinto analogy, you cracked me up.
That is a excelent description.
I alway's had an image of someone on Cops, where the officer say's, mam can I see some id. and, she just keep's babling some uninteligable statement...MAM I need your ID. she say's blah blah.....
The upside, they take her away...( :

Annnnd I'm back
and exhausted. I apologize if this is incoherent.

All of our disagreements stem from our totally different viewpoints (a real duh statement, I know). You see the republicans as victims, I see them as the victimizers.

McGreevy didn't blame his mistakes on alcoholism, did he? I can't remember, but if he did, I doubt he was the first to ever do so. In reality, there's no way to prove who was the first person ever to use the "I'm sorry!! I'm going to rehab!" play, so there's no point in claiming it's from one team's playbook or the others. Do you feel like going back to the first scandal/rehab push, ever? I certainly don't. I do, however, think it's a despicable move. Anyone on either side who uses it is just as despicable... Period.

As for one side being favored over the other, again, it's so totally a matter of opinion that we're sort of at a stalemate. Both sides have had scandals. Both sides have been critisized, embarassed, attacked. I think, on the whole, reps are more corrupt, while you think dems are. I can appreciate that.

The problem is one that lies at least partially with the media (almost on topic here... a first). Everyone has a bias. Michelle Malkin included. So much so that it's hard to ever get the full truth on anything. I can quote a news story claiming Mark Foley clubbed a baby seal, and you could quote one saying that he killed a seal in self defense (I have no idea where this example came from), and there's no real way of finding out exactly what happened. It's frustrating. You're suspicious of everything I find, just as I am of your examples and websites. And perhaps we should all be suspicious. Who can you trust, anymore?

If the age of consent in DC is 16, then Foley didn't do anything illegal, just immoral. No warrant will be put forth... no arrest... nothing. My opinion on the issue changes simply because I was always arguing about breaking the law with these two. Foley didn't break the law in this case, though he still could (and should) be censured for sexual misconduct.

I have to admit, I was exactly -1 years old in 1983. Being non-existant had it's downsides, one of which was me being totally unaware of current events. I don't know how long and how hard the media attacked Studds before the issue slowly faded away, so I can't compare Foley's fallout vs his. You can bet it popped up again around election time again, though.

And for all the claims that Mark Foley has been overly attacked, I find it interesting that the news has been pretty much Foley-less for quite some time. Scandals, on both sides, are like that. The splash is big, but the water calms itself again before you know it. I find it hard to believe that Foley's been ridden that hard simply because it's a non-issue anymore. Sure, he resigned, and people still remember it, but we'll see if, years from now when Foley dies, people don't say nice things about him at his funeral, too. After all, that's kind of a tradition at funerals, isn't it?

I don't know if any of you are, but I'm willing to admit that the truth lies somewhere between my point of view and yours. Some of what I claim is right (gasp!), while some of what you claim is right. None of us have all the answers, and sorry to say, no party is 100% right or 100% guiltless. I don't think mine is. You sure as hell shouldn't think yours is.

Not that we have to meet in the middle, because come on, that'd be too easy. But maybe recognizing that fact might make discourse a little smoother.

(I know...)
The above declaration is a bunch of hippie, liberal, gobbledegook. I guess I just can't help myself. It's a curse!

Get a clue!!!!!
When will we finally recognize that ANYTHING OUR JOURNALISTS SEE, HEAR, OR ARE TOLD IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS 100% FALSE?!! Remember, these are the same "people" that Photoshop pictures, stage civilian bombings, and shoot journalists. The Arab media was saying for months the America was getting butchered in Iraq and committing mass suicide. They were the ones saying that we poisoned food we air-dropped to Afganistanis. Even in Europe, the media claimed that the Pentagon was shot by a satellite-launch missile on September 11, 2001. With that kind of misinformation, need we wonder just why the whole world hates us????

Democrat Media is as bad as Terrorism
Democrat Media has been a threat to US democracy for a long time. In the 1930s, the NY Times lied about Stalin's Soviets as well as giving President for Life FDR coverage for his pseudo dictatorship. They failed to report how FDR/Truman mismanaged WW II into the Cold War. They failed to report JFK's Dad using the Mafia to win the 1960 election. They failed to report JFK using the White House as his batchelor pad & his real family "values." They turned Nixon Administration "spin" into Impeachment with the Watergate Coup. They campaigned for Carter so that he could turn Iran over to the Mullahs. They attacked Reagan for trying to protect American interests in Latin & South America. They are ignorant, stupid & unprinicpled Democrat scum who will sell their country for the politics of their Democrat Pols.

Super Mario
Nicely said. I was born in 60 and when I was 23, I probably would have written in nearly the same style with the same sentiments. I'm not going to repeat my long journey from where you are today (as was I) to where I am now.

The reason I'm so passionate about media bias is because I began really studying it. I realized I had been fed my ideas by the educational system and the media-it's the only explanation. I would love to talk to you in 20 years and see where you are at. If you haven't changed significantly, I'd be surprised but I'm certain you'll still be a very good person as evidenced by your writing style and demeanor.

Solar
I'm newer. Been reading a lot. Had a couple of slow business days allowing me to dive in. Thanks for the kind words.

cookie
The stories you cite may sound similar, but to a reporter they are very different when it comes to judging whether they're newsworthy. A couple of examples:
Trent Lott's comments at the Strom Thurmond party were news because of their context: both were leaders in a party with an acknowledged history of appealing to anti-black sentiment, and Lott's comments, whether he meant them that way or not, appeared to be endorsing Thurmond's openly segregationist presidential campaign. A major political blunder like that is news, no matter who makes it.
Senator Robert Byrd's segregationist past, by contrast, is old news. He repudiated it decades ago, and has long been highly respected in the African-American community. To a reporter, it's not politics, but apples and oranges.
Same goes for the Hillary Clinton/Rudy Giuliani stories. The Hillary interview in Buffalo made news, because the interviewer's question about Vince Foster transformed what would have been a routine campaign trail interview. Many in the press criticized Tom Bauerle's questions, but many others defended them, and he was invited onto the Today show and other network programs, where he spoke strongly in his own defense. He was not fired, as you state, but left his station when they changed to an all-sports format, and is now a successful and popular host on another Buffalo station.
The Giuliani story was much more than the mayor having a girlfriend. Everyone knew that. What made it news was the weeks-long, ugly public standoff at the mansion, in the heat of a political campaign.
In each case, the judgments had nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with basic questions of what is and isn't news. What's unusual here? What's new? Which story would the average person find most interesting?
I'm not trying to change your mind. Just thought you might be interested in how the process works.

eagle
And you don't think Byrd using the N word anew a couple years ago was news with his background? But it is news going back 58 years to Thurmond's run and being a segragationist and extrapolating that all onto Lott? I'm sure we could find where Thurmond also apologized along the way. Where is his absolution. With Lott, you have to read into it and associate him with another person. With Byrd, it's his own history and his own words!

As for Guiliani, it was already a feeding frenzy which then led the strife in the Mansion. One event precipitated the other but the press was already way overboard.

And if you've read anything on the Foster incident, whether you believe the different theories surrounding his death and the aftermath with his office being locked and then cleaned out, you can't deny that he is an interesting topic.

Eagle
By the way, Byrd fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act of '64. Actions speak louder than words. I'll take a guy who believed in segragation over a guy who was in the KKK. Not just segragation advocated, but actual lynchings and unwaranted killings. But you are right about one thing, there is no comparison.

Malkin DOES have diversity of topics...
Someone earlier (might have been rustyguns) had a comment here (I think it has since been removed) that essentially said "Malkin is a band that only plays one song...if it weren't for the MSM she'd have nothing to write about...every single column is a diatribe against the MSM." The poster then said something to the effect of "just check...you'll see I'm right."

Well, I did. And whoever the poster was, he/she was wrong.

You'll have to excuse me for not plowing through every weekly column that Malkin has posted for the last several years...so I just tried to pick a representative sample size and randomly chose her columns for the first quarter of 2006. That's 13 weeks.

And guess what I found. Out of 13 columns, precisely TWO were centered on a critique of the MSM. That's 15%.

If somebody wants to do a tally of all her columns for the last several years, be my guest. But I suspect that those percentages will be about right. In other words, for every 10 columns she writes, only 1-2 deal with the MSM.

Dang. Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of your rant?

For the record, I like Malkin. And based on the votes her columns get here, so do the majority of folks on TH. While her worldview is consistent, her choice of topics is not.


nevadamistermom
Nice research but I did not see this response-Who cares? What's the point? If that's what she decided to do for a living, so what!!! How about plaintiffs attorneys who live to basically take money from the successful while contributing nothing to society? How about Al Gore living off this Global Warming theory?-by the way, where are all the hurricanes? Basically, it's none of my business what they do. I can't comprehend animal rights activists whose sole purpose in life is helping animals while ignoring abortion, and the suffering of live human beings. But, it's none of my business. If that makes them feel fulfilled, so be it. By the way, it was Rusty Guns who kept up that ranton Malkin.

Solar!
You really need to read a book on the proper use of apostrophes! Ay-yi-yi... ;o))

Cookie...
I don't really care either. It's like saying movie critics wouldn't have a job if the film industry ceased to exist. That doesn't invalidate the role they play. And if it were really true that all Malkin did was critique the MSM, it would still be a valid and much-needed role.

My real point was this: Many (perhaps most) of the liberal posts I have read in the short 1-2 weeks I've been hanging around here adhere pretty closely to the 80/20 rule when it comes to substance. 80% emotion and conjecture, with just an occassional pseudo-fact (say 20%) thrown in for cosmetic appeal.

I just thought I'd check to see if the claim had any merit...or if it was just another rant, screamed with so much volume that the writer would once again delude him/herself into thinking that decibles trump facts.

As expected, it was all bun and no beef.

Cookie...speaking of global warming
You might enjoy the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Tackles this whole issue in a most entertaining way.

Interesting to see one of Hollywood's own tackle one of their sacred cows head on. It is the first novel I've ever read with a 21-page bibliography of sources that helped the author arrive at the conclusion that global warming is a figment. Admittedly, the novel is a bit corny, but the premise is meticulously researched and documented.

cookie
Thurmond's segregationist past was not the point. Like Byrd, he had long since renounced his racist past, and was highly popular with African-American voters in South Carolina.
What made it news was a top current Republican leader seeming to praise his past, at a time when the national Republican leadership had just apologized for past racism, and vowed to reach out to black voters.
Byrd's use of the expression "white n****r" in 2001 was in fact big news, but the story quickly faded because Byrd apologized for his choice of words, West Virginians accepted, and Byrd's record of colorblind service over 60 years saved him from any organized protests.
The Giuliani story sparked a "feeding frenzy" because the wife of the mayor of New York was publicly refusing to leave the mansion because of his philandering. If that's not a big story, I don't know what is.
The controversies surround Vince Foster's death are real enough and definitely an interesting topic, as you say. But to a reporter, they're irrelevant to the controversy over the Hillary interview. It was news because the talk show host asked the question in public, and she objected to it.

nevadamistermom
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Crichton was pre-disposed to believe and prove the Global Warming theory.

eagle
Colorblind? Do you have an answer then to his actions on the Civil Rights Act? And what WV citizens forgive or not is not the point. It is the MSM reaction to an event. Look at Kennedy. With his background, and the good people of MA just keep sending him back. Nothing I can do but doesn't mean I and the MSM (though they ignore) can't have an opinion.

And it was a feeding frenzy on Guiliani before the wife/ mansion issue that just continued the feeding frenzy.

Super Mario...Studds and Foley et. al.
Neither side (libs or cons...dems or repubs) has a monopoly on moral failures. But that isn't really the point here. The point is in how those failures are ultimately spun by the media.

The big discrepancy I recall in the way the Studds' situation was handled versus the Foley situation is that Studds was treated with the predictable "what he does in his personal life is his business...it has no bearing on his performance in the public arena." And this is the typical response whenever a liberal is caught with their pants down...sometimes quite literally in the case of Clinton. It was the argument used to excuse Clinton's behavior. It was the argument used to excuse Gary Hart (although you are probably also too young to remember that one). And I'm sure a bit of research could cite quite a few more examples than just these. In most cases, the liberal is quickly spun as a victim of sorts. "Poor guy...can't he have a little privacy...sure, we may not condone that type of sexual behavior...but it's really none of our business...we need to keep the TV cameras out of his bedroom...he's just a humble public servant...don't judge...let him among us without sin cast the first stone...yada yada yada."

With Foley, on the other hand, it couldn't just be treated as a moral failure. Of course not. He's a conservative. Therefore, there must be a conspiricy. That (the whole cover up angle) was the majority of what I was in the MSM: who knew...when did they know...why did they cover it up...etc.

So it isn't really a question in my mind of whether one (Studds or Foley) was worse than the other. That point has already been debated here and I doubt there will be any resolution...some will always see Studds as brave for "coming out" and castigate Foley as a spineless hypocrite. But if we want to measure "badness" based on who actually broke the law, I think Studds probably gets the blue ribbon. And by the way, I'm not excusing the behavior of either one of them.

But I digress.

As to the matter of coverage time: It really isn't so much an issue of how much press time was devoted to Studds versus Foley.

The real difference is in where the emphasis was placed during that coverage. Conservative? Must be a consipricy in there somewhere. Liberal? Just an unfortunate lapse in integrity. No harm, no foul.

cookie
I gave you the answer. He acknowledged decades ago that he had been wrong to oppose the
Civil Rights Act. And the fact that WV voters forgave him is very much the point. They're the ones who decide whether he stays in office.
As for Kennedy, if you think his troubles over the years have not been reported on and commented on and often condemned over and over again, that's just crazy. Again the voters saw it all, and have made their choices clear.
Again, yes, Giuliani's romantic problems were a big story for years. Why not?
You seem to be saying that because you don't approve of Byrd and Kennedy and do approve of Giuliani, press coverage should reflect your opinions. The point I'm trying to make to you is that news people don't think that way. They cover stories. Sometimes they cover them badly, sometimes they overcover them, sometimes they don't cover them enough. But just because you don't like a story or the subject of a story doesn't mean that it was slanted. It just means you don't like it. It's not the news media's job to reflect your opinions or mine back to us. Their job is to report the news.

Chrichton and Global Warming
Cookie: No, Chrichton is actually quite outspoken in his belief that global warming is a crock. I encourage you to read the book. I'm sure it is in most local libraries.

Chrichton just heppned to choose a 603-page novel as his way of making the point. And that was probably a shrewd move on his part. A lot more people are likely to expose themselves to his viewpoint if it is wrapped in popular fiction as opposed to presented as a paper in some stuffy academic forum.

I realize you can't equate his work of fiction with a scholarly refutation of global warming, but it serves a very good purpose: it uses entertainment to open peoples' eyes to the possibility that what we've been sold as "scientific fact" may not be...and that science is never immune from the influence of political correctness. Just ask Copernicus.

That's what the book did for me. When I finished it, I started exposing myself to the other side of the debate, rather than just accepting global warming as a de facto truth. So, in a sense, the book was responsible for helping me change my beliefs on this topic. When I checked Chrichton's claims against the available data, his stood up to the scrutiny. The global warming hypothesis did not.




Cookie...one more on Chrichton
As to your question on whether Chrichton was pre-disposed to side with the global warming theory...I don't know.

If he changed his own mind as a result of his research, it makes it all the more satisfying to me...because it parallels my own experience. When someone starts out with a hypothesis...and actually lets the data speak for itself...and then they are brave enough to change their hypothesis accordingly...it takes a certain amount of integrity and courage. To admit you were wrong...if only to yourself.

So, I don't know if Chrichton changed his mind via his research, or simply confirmed an already-held belief.

Regardless, I like his writing. And I have no idea what his overall political persuasion might be.

Persnickety Moon bat Alert'
If you were an actual blogger,you would recognize a signature, when you see one,I use certain trait's that only I would recognize.
This is my signature, one particular is my constant use in the placement of a capitol letter, or spelling.
This way if someone were to write a post in my name as an attempt to discredit me, I can prove differently.
What a freakin' Moonbat,Grow up and get a life!

Or attempt a post with more than one sentence.

Super Mario
Im impressed!
Do yourself a favor, save your post's.
You are well on your way to becoming a conservative, and that is a compliment.
My only suggestion would be, to take in alternative new's sources, such as MyOpine listed. cnsnews.com is an excelent source of news you will not see on the MSM.

I say all of this, because you have a grasp of right and wrong, most libs are willing to overlook their conviction's, if it mean's saving one of their own, we do not.

Just keep an open mind and study the Federalist papers and understand the Constitution.
It is not a living breathing document, as the left would have you believe, it was the rules set forth by our founding father's, it is the left that keep's amending it.

An unbiased eagle?
The problem I have with most journalists is what Frankie Shaffer called "the myth of neutrality" in a book he wrote by the same title a number of years ago. There is this sort of underlying smugness they (journalists) carry that somehow -- because they were taught in school that they ought to be unbiased -- they automatically *became* unbiased as a result.

It's ridiculous.

I don't fault journalists for being biased...I just fault them for claiming they are "above that." Fox doesn't claim to be unbiased...they simply claim to be balanced. Whether they are or not is debatable...but I like the fact that they don't necessarily present themselves as unbiased...but merely that they try to present both sides.

There are a myriad of ways that journalistic bias comes out every day. I'll cite just two:

- word nuances...things like referring to the two sides in a debate as "pro choice" and "anti abortion". One has positive, open-minded connotations...the other negative, restrictive connotations. The bias is evident, and yes...it works both ways. "Pro life" and "Pro Death" can be equally polarizing and make the reporter's bias quite evident. Or how about calling them "insurgents" instead of "terrorists?" Or maybe "kill" vesus "murder"? I can think of hundreds. The point is, the reporter...perhaps even subconsciously...will often choose words that reflect their particular worldview.

- Inclusion/exclusion. The people that report the news, contrary to their shrill assertions, DO decide what is / is not newsworthy. They don't just report the news, they - in a very real sense - make the news. They decide what goes on page 1, what leads off the 6:00 newscast, what today's topic will be on the call-in show, etc. To claim that this is a purely objective process is denying reality.

Nevada, Eagle
Let me give you one more that is not subject to interpretation because there is no comparison. Go back to the Clinton impeachment. As the Senators entered the chamber, Republicans were introduced with label. Far right, Ultra conservative Bob Smith of New Hampshire, etc. Oh, and there is Ted Kennedy. No label. there's John Kerry-fine fellow. Eagle, as I have written before, I don't believe it is always a conscious bias. However, one's true colors eventually leak out-90% vote for democrats. That bias has to and does show up somewhere, sometime. It does play into what they find worthy of reporting.

But, if you don't think that if a Republican had been in the Klan years ago, voted against the Civil Rights Act in the 60's, and then used the N word on National TV, that it wouldn't have been a big story, there is no more to say to you. We both know, you know in your heart, there would be wall to wall coverage, constant hounding and requests for resignation if Byrd had been a Republican.

nevadamistermom
That was my point on Crichton. I believe he had a left, more liberal point of view going into his research which would make his study of Global Warming all the more powerful. I am not certain and I welcome correction if my memory is wrong on this.

Burned bodies is a hoax!
The biggest problem with this story is the fact that it happened in the Suni triangle, where virtually everyone is armed, yet no one stopped them...

Despite AP Denials, Iraq Gov. Says Body Burning Source a Fake
Posted by Al Brown on November 30, 2006 - 00:30.
The "police captain" that the Associated Press used as the source for their story about six Sunni men dragged from prayers and burned alive by Shiite militants is not a policeman and does not work for the Iraqi government in any capacity, according to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.

CENTCOM had warned the AP about Hussein and other questionable sources they were using, but was rebuffed by the wire service organization. The AP's sensational story of the burning Sunnis was cited by NBC as a reason they decided to start calling violence in Iraq a "civil war." The source, "police captain Jamil Hussein," has been quoted in wire service stories since April of this year.

Eagle and others...
I am still waiting for your answer to what happened to the left's and feminists' disparity of power argument. Once again, if you cannot refute that it disappeared with Clinton's behavior, then it proves my point about the media, again! They took great joy on foisting this on executives to get around the thorny, consensual relationship problem. The left wanted to punish those they wanted to punish and had to find a way to ignore what were consensual relationships. The media obediently shelved this argument when their boy, Clinton, violated this rule with the largest disparity of power in history-President and unpaid intern. Oh and Eagle, you can't say the MSM did not find this theory newsworthy, they loved it previously. So don't tell me that aspect was not newsworthy. The MSM will protect their own.

nevadamistermom
Congratulations if you're a "mister mom." It's the most important job I know.
With all respect to Dr. Schaeffer, he's wrong. Journalism students are not taught to be unbiased--nobody is unbiased. What they're taught to strive for is accuracy and fairness.
Choosing words to describe groups on various sides of controversial issues is tough. There are no easy answers. Journalists try to find the terms that are at once most accurate, and least apt to sound as though the reporter were taking sides. "Anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" aren't perfect, but they do come closest to accurately portraying the pro-life movement--which since its founding has been dedicated to fighting abortion--and the other side, which does promote choice for pregnant women. Again, neither is perfect--pro-lifers argue strongly that there's no "choice" for the fetus. And you yourself noted the problems with "pro-life" and "pro-death." But for the most side, both camps seem to have accepted the terms commonly used.
The same debates go on with words like "insurgent." News organizations use it because Centcom and the military command do. As you note, it's not perfect, but it works. But the bottom line is, reporters don't use those words because they flatter their personal politics--they use them because they are the accepted style at the papers and stations they work for.
As for journalists choosing what stories make the 6 o'clock news, well, yeah... Making news judgements is what they do. I did it for 38 years, and it ain't easy. But somebody has to do it. You might have made different choices than I did over the years--or you might have made the same ones. But somebody has to do it. And trust me, it's not easy, and using political criteria would make it even tougher. It just doesn't happen.

Eagle, one more, Nevada-join the fun
CNN happily shows tape from terrorists murdering our soldiers. Real propaganda when you consider how many of their own they kill but on this tape PRETEND to show concern for Iraq citizens. However, CNN not showing tape from the Pentagon, our side, saying it amounts to propaganda. Just a mere decision on what is deemed newsworthy or a conscious or sub-conscious effort to embarass an administration they don't like in a war they oppose? I think, no I know we all know the correct answer deep in our hearts.

another example of bias lite
Remember how we all used to pronounce the word
"Ha rASS ment"
But after clinton got caught, the word had a miraculous change in it's pronunciation,
"Harris ment"
A much softer word.

cookie
I watched and produced much of the coverage of the impeachment hearings, and I can assure you your memory is faulty--no anchor or reporter ever called any congressman or senator "far right." They may have said "conservative," because it was House and Senate Conservatives--as opposed to moderates--who were the leaders of the impeachment movement. And nobody called Ted Kennedy a "fine fellow"--he was described as a democratic senator from Massachusetts.
What would have happened had Senator Byrd been a Republican is interesting to speculate about, I suppose, but we don't know, because he's not.
And the "disparity of power" argument was made constantly against President Clinton. David Broder, Jack Germond, Kathleen Parker and many other columnists roasted him for taking advantage of a young intern, even if she was technically of legal age. I think you're letting your ideology cloud your memory.

more cookie ( I feel like Sesame Street)
CNN did not "happily" show the sniper tape--they debated it for days, and consulted a lot of outside experts, in and out of the military. It was a tough call.
I'm not aware of CNN or anybody else ever refusing to use tape from the Pentagon. Networks use it all the time. I cut hundreds of Pentagon-supplied stories in my last few years in the business. It's not propaganda--you just have to label it as provided by the Pentagon.
I don't know what you know "deep in your heart," but reporters and editors don't go around trying to find ways to undermine wars or administrations. They're too busy doing their jobs.

Eagle
Bob Smith was called the Very conservative Senator...by Peter Jennings.

Fine fellow was editorializing by me. You're right, did not happen. Thought you'd know I was joking.

My point on disparity was where were the feminists, the creator and biggest proponent of this. Press never called them on thier hypocrisy. Just let us keep killing babies up to 8 and a half months in the womb and we'll keep our mouths shut. I may have missed or forgotten a measly few columns but I know I would have remembered it if it had been done with the usual intensity when it is a republican offender.

Eagle
I have said coscious or unconscious. If they do not have a bias, please explain the pass Clinton got going into Bosnia. He didn't have to go to the UN and get permission. Compare that to the hoops Bush was criticized for not jumping through. And not even you could argue that Milosevic was a greater threat to the U.S. than Saddam.

If you kept your bias out of your job, great. But there is tons of evidence on your colleagues to the contrary.

cookie
You're just throwing out political opinions now, Cookie. And you're entitled to have them. But I don't see what they have to do with the facts, or with biased news. Many feminists did criticize Clinton, and their criticisms were well publicized. I don't understand the abortion reference at all.
Bosnia and Iraq were two entirely different situations. President Clinton didn't need UN approval for Bosnia, though he did consult with the UN. President Bush sold the war as a move to enforce UN sanctions. Naturally, that required getting UN support.
Not everything that sounds alike is alike, Cookie. And again, with respect, the fact that you didn't like the way a story was covered does not mean that the reporting was biased--it just means that you didn't like it.

solar
Do you really imagine that busy journalists spend their time thinking about things like that?

Yes, a real mister mom
Eagle,

Yes, I'm a single parent...and I quite agree: it is job #1. If I could quit my day job to simply raise my son, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But staying at home doesn't pay the bills very well. So, I'm left to tackle two full-time jobs simultaneously. And as a male, I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to single-parent situations.

And now back to the journalistic bias topic...

It has been so long since I read the Shaffer book (20+ years ago) that I can't recall the exact terms he may have used...I believe "neutrality" was the term he most often employed rather than "unbiased." And I perhaps gave the wrong impression. He wasn't suggesting that journalists were taught or encouraged to have neutral feelings or worldviews. In other words, if they could be personally neutral and dispassionate about all issues, they'd automatically reflect this in their reporting. I think we all know that just isn't part of the human equation.

His point was that journalists want you to *think* they can divorce themselves entirely from their personal beliefs and opinions when it comes time to report, prioritize, and deliver the news. And as such, you can just accept at face value that what you read, watch, hear, etc. is "just the facts."

Increasingly, the evidence is that it is not.

Cronkite used to close with "...and that's the way it is" which, as I think about it now, was really quite arrogant. It would have been far more fair and accurate to sign off with "...and that's what we've chosen to tell you."

Studds and Foley
Foley resigns, we probably will not hear a lot more about him. Studds is a hero and re-elected by a party with his morals. Glory be.

Knowstradamus out......................

eagle
"Do you really imagine that busy journalists spend their time thinking about things like that?"

YES!
It is blatantly obvious that someone started the New pronuciation.
To harass, emphasizes the word A$$, which Monica had in ample supply.
Which is also something Clinton was in constant pursuit of.

You live in a world of your own reality, as to believe differently. Geeez!

nevada
My best wishes to you. Sounds like your priorities are in all the right places.
I taught at two Big Ten journalism schools, and never encountered the kind of thinking you ascribe to Dr. Shaffer. You can't "entirely" separate who you are from your work, and wouldn't want to, but professional journalists do the best they can. In my experience, journalists bend over backwards to be fair in stories on which they may have a strong point of view; in fact, I and others have often bent over too far the other way. I begged off a big story once about a child murder in Maryland, because I was afraid I was too angry at the suspect's loudmouthed father to be fair. It happens. It's just part of being a professional.
"That's the way it is?" Well, of course it is what we choose to report. Our responsibility is do tell it as fairly and accurately as we can.

solar
Yeah, that's the trouble with working in the real world of news reporting. You know too much about how things are done.
Your level of paranoia is a new one on me.

FDR4Rushmore
I'm so sorry, but when I was talking about how the "people" who shoot journalists and stage civilian bombings, I was refering to the Middle-Eastern political groups, not American journalists. Next time I will try to be more specific.

eagle
Do you really believe your bias is kept in check, when working on a story?
LOL
Like I said, you create your own reality.
I got so tired of the bias, that I no longer watch TV at all.
I have a unique perspective where I live, I can view San Francisco tv and also Sacramento networks.
And both are very bias, but guess which one is by far more liberal..... oh and they also have a paper called the Chronicle.
Believe what you will, but you're not fooling one single person here.

solar
Look, pal, all I can do is tell you what I saw over 38 years working in the real world. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. If it makes you feel better to imagine something else, dream away.

Simply Irresponsible
I am so glad we have other avenues of news. Irresponsible news report should always result in outrage and embarrassment to those who produce them.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.