Thursday, March 09, 2006

THE LEFT'S GONE FOX HUNTING


Wow. The far-left here in the US sure has a lot of hate to dish out. First and foremost of course they hate the president. Murderer, War Criminal, Liar, etc….we all know the talking points. You got nutty professors like Jay Bennish, going on inappropriate diatribes in his geography class, comparing Bush to Hitler, and this “geography” “teacher” got what he deserved. Good riddance. All you school kids, start taking your tape recorders to class, you hear?

The far-left will never like President Bush and will never understand or want to fight The War on Terror. There’s nothing we can do about that, so let’s just move-on .

The far-left also has it out for Wal-Mart. Actually Wal-Mart is representative of a greater evil to those on the far-left, that being American corporations and the free-market system. Fortunately most people understand how beneficial companies like Wal-Mart are to the US economy and for those families on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Therefore the mediocre Wal-Mart bashing films and store boycotts are mostly participated in by college students who will see the error of their ways in a few years and leave their pointless pursuit to the next batch of undeveloped minds that graces the halls of academia.

Of all of the things that the far-left is required to disdain in order to get their credentials in the mail from George Soros, a special amount of vitriol is reserved for The Fox News Channel. Since the network debuted in 1996, there has been a growing chorus among college professors, movie stars and liberal journalists implying that the network slants their news to the right and that they are little more than a mouth-piece for the Bush administration.

The chorus has caught on and the foot soldiers in the far-left movement have been echoing the sentiments for quite a while in their typical low-brow way. Here’s an example.

On the night that convicted murderer and founding member of the “Cryps” gang Stanley “Tookie” Williams was executed, Fox, like all of the other cable news networks, had a correspondent outside of San Quentin to cover the execution as well as the anti-death penalty protests which accompanied it. While the Fox correspondent was doing his report, a group of death penalty protesters surrounded him and began shouting things into his microphone, and holding up signs behind him while he was trying to do his job. They wrote “Fox Lies” on little slips of paper and held them up next to the reporters head. They yelled similar slogans at the camera and at one point a huge mean-looking black guy stood right next to the reporter and began staring him down as if he was about to kick his fair and balanced ass. Of course this guy was just a mindless thug who had probably never even heard of Fox News until tonight, but his fellow protesters did nothing to stop his intimidating tactics and instead continued their juvenile behavior. Fortunately, like most Fox News reporters, the guy was a pro, and was not distracted. He kept on going as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening until “Tookie” was finally put down.

Of course this is most likely an isolated incident, but it is a very good example of the mindset and behavior patterns of those who despise Fox News and who believe that it is more of a propaganda tool rather than a legitimate news outlet.

Now, unlike the folks on the left-wing blogs, I am going to attempt to be “fair and balanced” here and say this; Fox News as a network does lean to the right. Their most popular news analysts are conservatives. Guys like O’Reilly and John Gibson make no attempt to hide their conservative leanings and they have huge audiences, because they’re smart guys and people enjoy watching them. However it is important to keep in mind that they do not report hard news. It is “news analysis.” Sean Hannity is not a reporter, he is a right-wing commentator, but no one ever claimed he was a reporter. It is important to know the difference. CNN has news analysts as well and most of them lean to the left. But more on that in a moment.

The people who do the hard news for FOX, usually are not criticized, by the anti-FOX folks, due to the fact that they don’t interject their opinion into the news. They aren’t supposed to and guys like Shepard Smith and Carl Cameron don’t do it. They may indeed be conservatives off the camera, but when the camera’s rolling they do their job, and keep their opinions to themselves.

In fact, Fox has many high profile reporters who are well know liberals. For example, Greta Van Susteren, who consistently has the second highest rated show on the network, after O’Reilly, was known for her Democratic leanings before FNC even existed. Tabloid journalist Geraldo Rivera was a huge Clinton supporter, and despite what you may think of his tactics or reporting skills, there is no doubt that he is indeed a high profile member of the Fox News family.

So why all the hatred? Here’s why. For years conservatives and many moderates in this country have been bitching about the monolithic liberalism, which has been espoused by the press since the 1960’s. Poll after poll has been taken regarding the political leanings of those in the journalistic community over the last 50 years and these studies have consistently shown that generally three-fourths of reporters espouse political views that are considered liberal. In addition to this, journalists have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic candidate for president over the GOP candidate, in every election since 1960. This is still the case and anyone who denies it is either fooling themselves or they themselves are so liberal that to them, anything that doesn’t echo the sentiments of the Village Voice is considered a right-wing paper.

Before FNC became popular, the only thing close to a right-leaning national news outlet that conservatives had was The Wall Street Journal. Their editorial page was consistently right-of-center and was the only escape for the 50% of the country, who couldn’t stomach the obvious left wing slant of papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Boston Globe and USA Today.

It wasn’t just the op-ed section either. Anyone who was even remotely independent minded could see that the hard news coverage in these papers was slanted to the left in everything from the wording in articles to article placement.

This clear slant wasn’t just confined to newspapers either. The three major networks where most Americans still get their news today also leaned left. CBS replaced far-left leaning anchor Walter Cronkite, who still today makes his political leanings well-known to all four people who care to listen, with further left-leaning news anchor Dan Rather.

In cable news, Ted Turner, no neo-con himself, started CNN. The left loves to bag of FNC news analysts like O’Reilly, but how many of you remember Jesse Jackson’s short lived news analysis program. There are only two differences between the shows. The first are the host’s clear differences of opinion on important issues, and the second is the fact that O’Reilly’s show is the most popular show on cable news, while Jackson’s show failed miserably.

In addition to cable, the big three networks and all but one of the major national newspapers, the left also had control of the governments news sources. Liberal voices more than dominated on NPR, while Bill Moyer’s show was left-leaning standard bearer on PBS.

Add to this the BBC and there you have it. About 95% of all citizens in this country got their news from a source that overwhelmingly favored and wrote coverage favorable to the left-wing of American politics.

While those on the right could see this obvious lack of balance in the media coverage of the freest nation on earth, there was really nothing they could do about it except complain on talk-radio, the only media outlet that was dominated by conservatives. Even these shows however, had to break every hour for news updates from the networks that owned the stations which carried their shows, and usually these networks were one of the big three. Even talk-radio was infiltrated by the liberal media.

Things started to change in 1996 when Rupert Murdoch started FOX News. At first, the left paid little attention to the fledgling network. Cable news was dominated by CNN and to a lesser extent the uber-liberal MSNBC, and those channels were in no danger of being overthrown by the network which until now had been known primarily for The Simpson’s and Married with Children.

Then came the one-two media events of the Florida recount and 9/11. FNC, which had been gaining slowly for years, suddenly overtook CNN. When this happened the left went ballistic. They started an all out assault on FNC which included the constant bashing of FNC personalities as well as a poorly made, inaccurate piece of propaganda called Outfoxed

They set out on a mission to convince America that FNC was simply a tool of the right in their continuing efforts to brainwash people into voting for George W. Bush. Ted Turner started calling Rupert Murdoch names. Left wing blogs began giving examples of things said on FNC that espoused conservative viewpoints, usually given by news analysts, whose job it is to give said viewpoints. Editorial pages became even more liberal as if to try and counter O’Reilly, who despite his huge success doesn’t even come close to the circulation numbers for the New York Times or the viewer ship of The NBC Nightly News. The left was trying to make it seem as if somehow FNC was not a legitimate news outlet. That they were not playing by the rules. However their case was hurt by the fact that FNC remains one of the few news outlets which hasn’t gotten into huge trouble as of late for questionable news practices.

The New York Times was sent reeling when Jason Blair, a young affirmative–action hire, admitted to faking news stories. Dan Rather went forward and reported the bogus Bush National Guard story, which was based on fake documents. Newsweek claimed that soldiers at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to tick off detainees. No truth to that either. CNN’s managing editor Eason Jordan claimed that US soldiers in Iraq were intentionally targeting journalists, but never gave any evidence to back it up. He was subsequently sacked.

Meanwhile, FNC has stayed out of trouble and is yet to be accused any of these underhanded practices. The only thing that FNC’s critics can really say is that O’Reilly and a few other news analysts are conservative. So what? These analysts admit to their political leanings. No one’s trying to pass Sean Hannity off as an unbiased reporter.

Despite FNC’s success, the media is still dominated by the left. Most mainstream media outlets still outwardly refuse to run any stories that make the president look good, like the recent release of audiotapes in which Saddam Hussein discussed how to hide WMD’s from the UN, or any stories that make the left look bad, like when Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia and verbally attacked the President. It doesn’t matter to the MSM if the president’s reasons for invading Iraq were justified, or if the former VP is engaging in behavior that borders on treason. They are going to report, only what they feel like reporting. If it doesn’t jibe with their political slant, then you’re not going to hear about it.
To be fair, it’s not really their fault. Like in those in Hollywood, most reporters don’t even know how to view a story from a conservative angle. They are incapable of it.

Things are changing however. As the old guard of liberal journalists like Helen Thomas, Dan Rather and Judy Woodruff begin to fade; a new breed of journalist is emerging and since conservative journalists, who were previously rejected by other outlets, can now go to FNC without fear of retribution for political views which may differ from the top brass, a wider less biased array of voices is starting to come to the forefront of American media.

With the success of FNC other outlets also seem to have discovered that most of the population does not share the average journalist’s political leanings. MSNBC has hired conservatives like Joe Scarborough and papers like the New York Times and LA Times have begun admitting their past bias and attempting to gain back the public’s trust by adding balance to their news coverage and firing left-wing bomb throwers like Robert Scheer from their editorial staff.

CNN has had to adjust as well, now that they are consistently in second place. They have balanced out their coverage a bit, but have also tried to gain traction among liberals with left leaning commentators like Jack Cafferty. Similarly, MSNBC’s thinking about bringing back Phil Donahue.

You see folks. FNC was never that far to the right. It’s just that all of the other news outlets were so far to the left that people forgot what unbiased news coverage was supposed to look like. Because many of the analysts on FNC do lean right, to a ultra-liberal it seems as if they are out of the mainstream, when the truth is just the opposite.

FNC’s hard news coverage is as unbiased if not more so than any other news outlet out there, so it would be better if the left just learned to live with it and took some notes on how to run a successful media outlet. Because when Air America dies out, which will probably be very soon, and the daily newspapers go the way of the dinosaur due to the internet, the playing field is going to be more level than it has ever been before, and while this is not the optimal scenario for liberals, it is for the majority of Americans, who don’t want their news slanted to the left or to the right. They just want their damn news.

Sphere: Related Content

37 comments:

JannyMae said...

Great post, Daniel. I like your blog.

VE said...

Fox News does NOT just "give the damn news."

When the MTA went on strike back in December, Fox News' coverage of the incident always included a large graphic reading in bold, cocksure lettering - "THE ILEGAL TRANSIT STRIKE!!"
While I won't argue that this wasn't true - for it was ilegal for the MTA to strike, and they were fined appropriately - I will argue that such a graphic automatically, in subtle ways, attempts to tell people what to think. It tells people - don't question the legitimacy of this strike, don't question the struggles of the MTA worker, just know that unions suck and here's another example of why. Anti-union message. Leaning to the right.
Can't argue it.
Sure, maybe their reporters don't insert their opinion during the rare few hours when Fox News ISN'T focused on so-called "analysis," but often the graphics jump out.
"VICTORY IN IRAQ!!" read their scrolling graphic back in 2003 during the whole "Mission Accomplished" charade.
The message being sent via visuals was "Don't question this. We won. It's over."

It's interesting that whenever a newspaper reports anything that contradicts what a right-wing politician espouses, said paper is accused of "leaning to the left" rather than "reporting the facts" or simply - as my mother used to call it - "telling the truth."

Falling Panda said...

I don't think that those examplea that you give prove much. The transit strike was indeed illegal, by all accounts. Unless FNC gave no details as to why the strikers were picketing or what the arguments in favor of the strike were, then they were acting in a manner which was entirly appropriatte for a news outlet. It wasn't just a strike, it was an illegal strike, which shut down an entire city for several days.

As for "Victory in Iraq" You have to remember, this was a time before the insurgency, when victory was defined as toppling Sadamm's regime. This mission had in fact been accomplished. Remember the people dancing in the streets and the toppleing of the statue. In other words at the time, this headline was accurate. Since then history has been revised dramatically around the "mission accomplished" event. Somwhat unfairly I might add.

One of the points that I was trying to make in the posting was that we got our news with a liberal slant for so long, that the slant no longer seemed out of the ordinary for a lot of folks. Then, when an outlet arrived that did things differently it seemed strange and unusual for those people who had gotten used to their news with this slant.

In other words, if FNC was completely unbiased and gave the news directly from the political middle, it would still be to the right of where everyone else is used to getting their news from. Because these other outlets are so liberal it makes FNC seem more conservative.

VE said...

What the examples I gave prove is that Fox News often doesn't just tell people the "news," they tell them what to think about the news as well.

Yes, the strike was illegal. I already conceded that. But by ROTOscoping a huge "Illegal" over the "Transit Strike" logo, the graphic - while not a lie - was over-emphasizing one aspect of a very complicated issue. It was an attempt to get viewers to instantly make up their minds about how they feel regarding the situation without simply reporting what was going on and THEN letting viewers decide.
Rupert Murdoch does not run a "fair and balanced" ship. As I'm sure you know, he also owns the New York Post which is a right-wing paper full of pandering lowest-denomenator rag seemingly provided as an "alternative" to the New York Times, but it's mostly a bastion of partisan hackery and editorial disguised as reports.

It's also interesting that you start your article by saying "the left has a lot of hate." Right. Because Republicans aren't brutal, myopic, and ruthless in any way whatsoever.
You could've written the same thing about "the far right" during Clinton's years when everyone was pissed off over a blow job.
Personally, I'd rather a president that gets a little on the side than one who continues to support outsourcing of labor, selling ports, blindly repeating the same empty rhetoric (if I have to hear "we will stay the course" or "we will not waver" one more time, I'm going to eat my own face), and lying about his knowledge concerning Hurricanes. But that's just me.

Matthew said...

I'm still not convinced there was, is, or has ever been a liberal bias in reported news. Most polls I've seen have a slight majority of reporters being registered Democrats but also show that a clear majority of newspaper editors and owners are registered Republicans.

On the topic of hatred, Dan it seems that your posts on this blog have become consumed with hatred towards Democrats, liberals, and/or progressives. I would have an easier time giving your viewpoints a fair and critical study if they weren't coated in such demagogued vehemance.

Falling Panda said...

Bart, you just unknowingly proved one of my main points. Most of the maistream media has had it out for Bush from the very beggining and the "lying about his knowledge concerning hurricanes" is a perfect example.

The AP reported that Bush had been told that their had been a breach in one of the levee's therefore making it a lie when he said that no one expected that the levee's would breach. Only problem is, Bush was never told that. He was told that one of the levee's had "topped-off". There's a huge difference.

Of course the AP corrected the story the next day. I'm not suprised you didn't know about this, because most of the media buried it, now what does that tell you?

As far as the Right-wing being full of "brutal, myopic, and ruthless" individuals, I won't deny that, however, the rhetoric in our party was filled with far less vitriol and hatefull rhetoric agaist Clinton, than the left's rhetoric is now against Bush. It says something about how consumed with hatred the left has become since Bush took office.

Matthew, I have never seen a single poll as to how newspaper editors and owners vote, but if one exsists, I would love to see it, however you say "a slight majority of reporters being registered Democrats" no-no. It's a huge majority. The spread is like 30% and that's not even counting the ones who aren't registered as anything. It's not even close.

Oh and by the way, I don't hate liberals or progressives. I don't think they have any idea how to govern. I'd take a dumb conservative any day over a brilliant liberal, but there is certainly a difference between "hate" and policy difference. It has been exceedingly hard of late to not to get mean and nasty because of the kind of rhetoric coming out of the other side, however I stand by my arguments regardless of whether or not the tone is to your liking.

Oh and Bart, I think it's interesting that you feel that FNC is trying to tell people how to think. It's an interesting theory, but I'm just not seeing it with the Strike example. Perhaps you can give me another one and we can discuss.

Thanks for responding guys. It's been lonely over here in Panda-land.

Matthew said...

It's probably lonely because you never give any credence to a dissenting opinion. It's not very fun to attempt a discussion with someone who makes comments like "I don't think they have any idea how to govern. I'd take a dumb conservative any day over a brilliant liberal." Yeah sure I'll have a open and time consuming debate of ideas with you even though I already know you'll belittle my points or feel I have no ability to understand situations since as a liberal I obviously have no idea about good governance compared to your all knowing conservative self. That sure sounds like a fine way to ram my head into a brick wall over and over again.

Oh and by the way I believe Barton was talking about the recently released video of the briefing President Bush received the day before Katrina made landfall demonstrating that his disaster experts directly warned him that there was a strong chance that the levees would fail in a direct or near direct hit on New Orleans. So two or three days later when President Bush made the statement that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" he was lying as he had been directly briefed that his advisers had indeed anticipated that exact actuality.

I believe that is the issue Barton is talking about not the semiological difference between topped-off and breached. What I find it hard to believe is that being a news critic you haven't heard about this recently released video tape of that briefing. So if you had heard of that tape instead of inferring that Barton probably was referring to the much more publicized and recent event you belittled his argument by assuming he was talking about the "breached vs. topped-off" controversy.

I find your general tactic in a debate to be belittle and condescend. Maybe that's why it's so lonely in panda land.

Falling Panda said...

That video and the events following the video were exactly what I was referring to Matthew. They are one in the same, and the AP botched the story. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I can find and link the story and subsequent correction if you desire.

Matthew said...

Per the AP corrections as they were reported on Yahoo! News.

"The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun, or water flowing over the top.

But civil engineers understand that once a levee is "topped," floodwaters can rapidly erode the structural base of the levee and nearly always result in a breach, according to AP interviews with officials from the Corps of Engineers and others.

The White House's own "lessons learned" review of the federal response issued last month compared overtopping to a breach of a levee.

"Overtopping is a term used to describe the situation where the water level rises above the height of the levee or floodwall and consequently overtops, or flows over the structure. A breach is a break in the levee or floodwall. A prolonged overtopping can actually cause a levee or floodwall breach," the report said.

"In general, a breach can lead to more significant flooding than an overtopping since breaches take time to repair and until repaired continue to allow water to flow until the water level has receded below the height of the breach. Overtopping, on the other hand, will stop as soon as the water level recedes below the top of the levee or floodwall."

"Although the consequences are significantly different, from outward appearances, it is often difficult to differentiate a breach from an overtopping," the White House report said.

Charles Aubeny, an engineer at Texas A&M University, said that if levees are overtopped that "will usually erode out the levees." Breaches can also occur when the water seeps through the levees or if the water weakens the soil and a "stability failure" follows. Some experts say that this may take some time to happen — days, weeks or even months.

There's a long history to concerns about the reliability of New Orleans' levees.

In 1965, after Hurricane Betsy caused extensive flooding, Congress ordered the levees to be reinforced to withstand the equivalent of a Category 3 hurricane. In July 2004, FEMA sponsored a "Hurricane Pam" exercise that simulated massive flooding that could kill up to 60,000 people and destroy buildings and roads.

According to a GOP-written House of Representatives report released in February, the main reason for the Hurricane Pam exercise "was the well-known potential for levee failure and catastrophic flooding in the metropolitan area."

For years, the Army Corps of Engineers and others warned that New Orleans levees might not withstand a major storm, according to the House report. "Levees were designed for a 'standard' hurricane, not the most severe hurricanes."

As Katrina moved into the Gulf of Mexico last August, the
National Weather Service deemed it a Category 5 monster with 160 mph winds. By the time it hit landfall early Aug. 29, its winds had diminished somewhat, downgrading the hurricane's category. Experts disagree on just how strong the winds were at landfall, but some estimates put them as strong as 145 mph — still far stronger than the levees were built to withstand."

You say Tomato, I say Tomato...

You try to spin being warned about topped-off levees as not being as relevant as breached levees, Army Core of Engineers civil engineers say that "once a levee is "topped," floodwaters can rapidly erode the structural base of the levee and nearly always result in a breach"

Either way the latest Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll has President's Bush's approval ratings at 33%. You can try to spin Pew as being dominated by liberals but unless you're powers of spin are on par with Superman I don't think we'll ever see a time when President Bush's approval ratings hit 40%

Falling Panda said...

This is not about tomatoes. This is about fact vs. fiction. The facts are that the president was not told that the levees were in danger of being breached. In Every update, that Gov. Blanco gave the administration she informed them that the levee’s were in danger of topping-off, but were not in danger of being breached. She said this several times.

My good friend Bart asserted that the president lied and the president did not.

The left has been trying to convince America that the president is a liar for six years, when they have absolutely no evidence that the president has lied about anything. Not about WMD’s, not about Katrina, not about Iraq. The left can not prove that the president lied, but they continue to say that he lied anyway, even after their accusations have been debunked. i.e. The Katrina levee story.

The anti- Bush media has been complicit in this endeavor starting with the Florida Recount, through the Iraq war, into the Valarie Plame non-scandal, the bogus National Guard story and most recently, the AP’s irresponsible Katrina story. It is their motives and honesty that need to be questioned, as well as the honesty of those who continue to make accusations without having facts to back them up.

Aren’t they the ones who should be accused of lying and misleading the American people?

matthew said...

"the Valarie Plame non-scandal"

Non-scandal? The identity of an undercover CIA agent was released to the general public. Why do you have a pre-9/11 mindset?

Falling Panda said...

First of all, there is still some question as to whether or not she was even undercover or covert. Second, not a single indictment ever came down in relation to her being "outed" and yet the left is still running with the talking point that she was intentionally outed as retribution for her husbands anti-war position.
Her husband has gone around since his senate testimony, saying that he found no evidence of Saddam seeking nukes in Niger, when his own testimony to the senate contradicts that.
Everything about this "scandal" with the exception of Libby lying under oath, has been drawn out by the left. Fortunately they have drawn it out about as far as they can and like all wild goose chases it will most likely fade into history.

matthew said...

not a single indictment ever came down in relation to her being "outed"

Well except for that one against Libby for obstruction of justice...

You can check out the indictment that was directly related to Plame's outing here or by doing a simple yahoo search of "libby" and "indictment"

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf#search='libby%20indictment'

Covert vs. Undercover Dan is that what you're really basing your argument on? That's worse then trying to say a blowjob isn't really sex. Keep spinning Dan, keep spinning. It seems to be what you're good at, well that and making ignorant statements like "I don't think they have any idea how to govern. I'd take a dumb conservative any day over a brilliant liberal."

VE said...

Ha ha ha!
I just KNEW you two would get along!...

Dan - regarding spin - Dude - you can argue the nuances of topping levees or breaching levees just like some can argue the meaning of "sexual relations," "inhaling," and "yes there are WMDs in there," vs. "oh, turns out there's not." But to do so is - in this small piece of a man's opinion - just a way to avoid looking at the bigger picture.
Dude was briefed 18 hours before landfall. John Brown said repeatedly "this is the big one, people." Bush is on tape going, "We are fully prepared to handle this situation." Then three days after the Hurricane hits - at which point, thousands were still missing and/or without food, water, shelter - he goes on ABC and tries to play it off like no one could have predicted how bad the storm was going to be.
I would call this a kind of lie.

It's always been my opinion that 9/11 wasn't the breaking point for this country. It was the 2000 election and the debacle that followed. Again - we can argue what happened exactly, and we can both quote various news sources. Some will say "Oh, but the overseas votes were never counted," "Oh, but the military votes," "Oh, but the senior citizens in Palm Beach, with their dangling chads," etc. Personally, I'm willing to admit that we have no IDEA what went wrong and no IDEA what the real result was. I don't wanna make blind accusations but, damn - it SURE is weird that Murdoch's Fox News was the first to declare Bush the winner, that the recount problem happened in Jeb Bush's state, and that Catherine Harris is a neo-nazi (just kidding).
But all of that aside - The events of that winter did two things.

1) A lot of people in this country lost faith in the democratic process. The Republicans can sit back and mockingly call those that bitched and that continue to bitch "sore losers," but you can be pretty sure that if the opposite had happened, it NEVER would have been dropped (see Ken Starr for example), probably dragged out more than it was. The bottom line is that it shouldn't come down to one state's supposed slip-up. There should be a system with a little more fail-safe with something like choosing the leader of the Western World. That, and well - the fact that it was so close that it DID come down to one state showed us that this nation was divided. Which brings me to...

2. Cultural Civil War. I'm being a little hyperboloc here, but I think that's what's going on, or at least what we're leading up to. You never heard much about Red State Blue State up until the 2000 election. But now it's a common phrase in the politcal lexicon.
If I, as someone who, yes is more left than right, have "hate" for anything, it's the media. On Both sides, and I've said this before. Because these pundits and these news organizations have eaten this Red State Blue State thing up and taken it to the bank. It's all a ratings game, and as long as you tell people what they want to hear, you'll get the ratings and you'll sell the books. They pander to sides, and they encourage their audiences to do the same thing; pick a side. You're either with us or against us (and the left is guilty of this, too - believe me, whenever I've even slightly conceded to a right point of view at a bar with my liberal pals, suddenly I'm Joe Ford). There are only two ways - Our way or the wrong way.
Which brings me back to losing faith in the democratic process.

I would love to see how elections would turn out if key issues were stripped.

My ex-girlfriend's entire family (from Colorado):
"I don't like that Bush is spending all our money on the Iraq situation, and the economy's been real hard lately, but I just can't vote Democrat ever because I hate the thought of all those innocent babies being butchered before they get a chance at life."

Great. Tell that to Iraqi mothers.

Anyway. I've gone on enough for now.

Oh - You wanted another example concerning Fox News and manipulation. Maybe this doesn't count as much, but the other night, I was flipping through the news channels (as I do), and I came across this graphic - "Civil War In Iraq? A Good Thing?" Followed by this graphic accompanying a "report" about the growing problems in Iraq - "The Upside To Civil War In Iraq."
Seriously, I thought I was watching the Daily Show.
If that's not biased spin, I don't know what is.

Talk to ya soon!

Falling Panda said...

One last word on this. There are no "nuances" to examine between "topping-off" and a breach. It seems very cut and dry to me. If your bathtub tops-off, you clean it up using towels. If your bathtub breaches, it's a much bigger problem, depending on the size of the bathtub. In grander terms we are talking about a easier problem to deal with if the levee's "top-off" vs. the destruction of a city if they breach.
You can spin what Bush said or what he was thinking or what he knew and when he knew it anyway you want to, but the truth is that he most likely was suprised, when the levee's breached, because no one had told him that it was likely, including the governor of the state.

Matthew, I wasn't comparing covert to undercover I was using them in an either or situation. Whatever you want to call it, the jury is still out on whether she was either of the two. As for Libby, he was not indicted for the outing of Plame or anyone else, he was indicted for lying under oath. That's what I meant when I said he was not indicted in relation to the actual "outing" of Plame.

Finally Bart, you have used the "either your with us or your against us" quote multiple times, in multiple posts but I really don't think it's appropriate when referring to politics in general. If you want to use it in regards to the War on Terror, that's one thing. In that case, I agree with the president completely, if you want me to explain why I will. However, it's very hard to find any Republican or conservative that agrees with the president on everything, and always supports his agenda. I certainly don't. I don't think the "Your either with us or against us" thing works to define party loyalty in most cases. It's far too simplistic and not the kind of thing I'm used to hearing in conservative circles.

You have to remember that Red and Blue is not a completely accurate portrayal of where the country is right now politically. The independants and moderates who decide elections are still portrayed using varying shades of purple, however, in recent elections, they tend to lean Red.

Finally, YOU look at FOX as the first network to call the election for Bush. I look at FOX as the first network to call the elction CORRECTLY, as was proven in every subsequent recount. Either way, they all called the state back so I really don't think the actual call was very relevant in the long run.

matthew said...

Hey Dan I challenge you to write a positive post for once.

So far all four of your posts have been attack pieces against the left. You say you don't hate the left but so far 100% of your posts (not including the introductory welcome to the blog post) have been anti-left rants. Now I know you don't have anything positive to say about the left but why don't you use the energy you put into dragging one side down into articulating the positive steps your party has taken, is taking, or will realistically take in the near future. No spin. No bombast. Just an honest discourse on the conservative action plan to make this country better.

Until you're ready to elevate your discourse beyond simple liberal bashing are you really better then the liberals you're bashing?

Ed Murray said...

I've got stuff to do, so I'm going to take out things gradually, nailing a few points at a time.

First off, the notion of an 'illegal' strike is ridiculous. As a New Yorker, I was just as frustrated as anyone, and I certainly wasn't empathizing with the union or the city ... but saying a strike is illegal is nonsense ... that's like calling a protest illegal ... these are things that Americans have had the historic right to do when they feel that they are being treated unfairly and are fighting for change. This is the only alternative to violent protest.

You can't make a strike 'illegal' by saying a group can't strike ... that's antithetical to the school of a labor protest in the first place.

Dan said:

"As far as the Right-wing being full of "brutal, myopic, and ruthless" individuals, I won't deny that, however, the rhetoric in our party was filled with far less vitriol and hatefull rhetoric agaist Clinton, than the left's rhetoric is now against Bush. It says something about how consumed with hatred the left has become since Bush took office."

Wow, Dan ... what is wrong with you? You can't be a complete idiot, but you need to sop up the drool from your chin, ape-boy.

First of all, this isn't a game, alright?! This isn't the Dems this and the Repubs that ... 'Yeah, we're mean, but you're a lot meaner to us than we were to you!' GROW UP! Are you joking?

QUIT LISTENING TO THESE NEWS OUTLETS MAKING YOU THINK THAT THIS IS AN "US" VS "THEM" GAME!!!!!

You can't think for yourself, and you just proved it ... how? By aligning yourself with a party sticking its tongue out at another party ... are you a party, Dan?

Do you really think along these lines?

And by the way, douchebag, Clinton (who I personally don't support, so don't try playing that card) was pushed to the brink of impeachment, so I think that counts as something MORE significant than 'hateful rhetoric.'

SO.
YOU.
ARE.
JUST.
WRONG.
:)

Dan said:
"The AP reported that Bush had been told that their had been a breach in one of the levee's therefore making it a lie when he said that no one expected that the levee's would breach. Only problem is, Bush was never told that. He was told that one of the levee's had "topped-off". There's a huge difference."

Here's the link to the video from msnbc that shows that what Bush was actually told was "... [we don't know] whether the levees will be topped or not, but obviously, that's a very, very grave concern."

Grave, Dan. Screw the semantic debate between breached and topped-off, he was told that the concern is GRAVE ... and if a levee is topped, then it becomes breached, quit mincing words at look at the reality of the situation! GRAVE. GRAVE, DAN. SAY IT WITH ME. GRAAAAAVE.

Now ... WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT A WARNING?!

Watch it again!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/

You think that this doesn't count as a lie when Bush then says, "I don't think anyone could've expected this ..."

Really, Dan?
REALLY?

Are your loyalties to a phantom group really more important than your own spine as a free-thinking man?

Look, who cares that Bush lied? Do I? Maybe. Maybe not.

But quit choking down everything they're telling you. He did lie. And yes, Clinton lied about a blowjob.

So what? But you can't say he didn't lie. Unless you're committing to pure lemminghood.

Requote of Dan: As far as the Right-wing being full of "brutal, myopic, and ruthless" individuals, I won't deny that, however, the rhetoric in our party was filled with far less vitriol and hatefull rhetoric agaist Clinton, than the left's rhetoric is now against Bush. It says something about how consumed with hatred the left has become since Bush took office."

Because this one is just too good, I could spend all day talking about this one, but I'll close this round (I'll be back to pick apart your entire blog posting ...) by saying that

Clinton didn't:
Have warning of a major potential terrorist attack ... and then have said attack happen.

He hadn't logged in the most vacation days of any President EVER ... in his first 8 months in office.

He didn't invade another country under flawed information.

He didn't have advanced warning of one of the largest national disasters in American history and then released an appalling slow response.

Have 5 major members of his cabinet/intelligence divisions resign ... this shows a lack of confidence that should be pointed out by the media.

If it really matters to you why the left is so 'mean' to Bush ... (HA! Playground time, children ...) there's your answers ... but don't come back with Clinton did this and this and this and this ...

A) Because WHO CARES?! This isn't about elephants versus donkeys, you jack-ass.
and
B) I only point out these points because you asked a question ... that you already knew the answer to ... which shows that you're an idiot following someone else's drum.

De-idiot-ize yourself.
Pick up a book, Dan.
Turn off the TV.

Realize that your country is falling apart because people are brainwashing you into thinking that there is a contest afoot. There is no contest. This country will be bankrupt in 40 years unless people like you wake up.

Ed Murray said...

Another quickie:

You KNOW that Wal-Mart is trying to start their own bank ... and if you didn't know that, you need to read more.

You KNOW that corporate America doesn't hold itself accountable ... so the largest corporation in the world opening a bank to handle its own finances behind closed doors ...

... if any corruption were exposed there (a distinct possibility ... yathink?!) it could be paralyzing and a potentially permanently crippling blow to the American economy. That's just fact.

So ... some people are against certain Wal-Mart practices, oh, um ... because it makes sense as a citizen to be concerned, Dan.

It's not about a leftist or rightist concern, it's not about tree-hugging, or saving the Alaskan refuge, or "Wal-Mart is Evil!" or any of this nonsensical mindset that you're being told 'everyone else (i.e. 'they')' believe and want and will stop at nothing until they get it. It's about a REALISTIC concern.

If Wal-Mart were to go under a la Enron or WorldCom ...

GO PANDA, READ, READ!

Ed Murray said...

Last thing:

There aren't 'sides' here.

If you think there are sides in this country and you need to align yourself right down the party line with one of them ... you're a lemming. Don't kid yourself.

Bush did lie. (Just like Clinton.)

There. If we say they both lied, does that make the first statement true now?! Can you accept that?!

Quit playing on the monkeybars. Quit pretending there are sides.

There is only fact and spin.

You need to separate one from the other, and divesting spin of fact means seeking out motive ... who has the most to gain by an action?

Get out of Liberal v Conservative.

It's a construct created to distract and divide.

It's only Fact v Spin.

Falling Panda said...

Your right Eddie, it isn't us vs. them. It's people like me vs. people like you. And your condescending and profanity filled post proves just about everything I've been saying about a certain section of America to be absolutely true.

Falling Panda said...

By the way if anyone is interested in reading some of the wacky net-born 9/11 conspiracy theories on Eddie's blog here's a link.

http://thirdevolution.blogspot.com/

matthew said...

Regardless of your fight with Eddie my challenge still stands.

Falling Panda said...

Noted.

Ed Murray said...

Noted ... good retort.

Alright, this is my last go-round, so I'm going to make this definitive, beat by beat.

Dan said:

"Your right Eddie, it isn't us vs. them. It's people like me vs. people like you."

If that's what you believe, that's pretty unfortunate, and I pity you.

"And your condescending and profanity filled post proves just about everything I've been saying about a certain section of America to be absolutely true."

A) There was no profanity ... hmmm ... another inaccuracy ... unless you consider 'douchebag' to be profane, douchebag. When people refuse to grasp logical means of discourse, they need to be condescended to in hopes that they will be embarrassed enough to take responsibility for their refusal to represent themselves with coherent, legitimate perspectives.

Sorry, that's just how it goes ...

B) How does it prove anything you've said ... everything you've said on this blog is incomplete at best.

C) I LOVE HOW YOU GO FOR THE 'CHARACTER' ANGLE INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING ONE SINGLE POINT OF FACT.

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION AND YOU PROVE THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN BY REFUSING TO ADDRESS FACT WITH COUNTER-FACT.

YOU BREEZE OVER IT, AND FOCUS ON OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

Dan said...

"By the way if anyone is interested in reading some of the wacky net-born 9/11 conspiracy theories on Eddie's blog here's a link."

... how is it 'wacky' and 'net-born?' Again, incomplete info on a film documentary, thanks for trying to have an opinion, factless one ... oh, but I forgot, you enjoy incomplete information and rash conclusions ... which will more often than not, prove to be false.

Again, just tell me real quick ... how is it wacky? Can you do that? For me?
Please?

Below you will find something that you will never have the capacity to argue: enjoy.

A Complete Deconstruction of Dan's Blog,
Paragraph by Paragraph,
Done in my Sleep.

By Edward Murray

Genre: Long … approx 6500 words

(Note: Let me say that I doubt that anyone, Dan included, will get through this entire thing. Feel free to bail out at any time. Any comments that are not FACTS refuting claims should be considered worthless. For those of you who can complete the reading … congratulations. Good luck, everybody!)



We'll put Dan's words in italics. (PS, Dan, you're just an example, any myopic lemming's name could be inserted here … so don't take this personally.)

Dan said: " Wow. The far-left here in the US sure has a lot of hate to dish out. First and foremost of course they hate the president. Murderer, War Criminal, Liar, etc….we all know the talking points. You got nutty professors like Jay Bennish, going on inappropriate diatribes in his geography class, comparing Bush to Hitler, and this "geography" "teacher" got what he deserved. Good riddance. All you school kids, start taking your tape recorders to class, you hear?"

Here Dan starts off with a thesis that the far-left has a lot of hate … let's forget that, historically, it is right-wing contingents that have been against broad civil rights movements for people of different races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations; we're forgetting this because it's a given FACT.

If you want to argue this, you're an idiot, and need only to look at the states that harbor the most exclusive forms of legislation (mostly, but not solely, in the southern parts of the United States) and who heads up the congressional posts in these states, as well as taking a look at their state legislatures and legal histories … this is the obvious that we're forgetting because (insert media regurigator's name here) forgets it.

We're going to address that specifically, here Dan points out the far-left's hateful philosophies and then presents the evidenceof , a teacher in Aurora, Colorado, Jay Bennish, a "[from Dan's quote] " geography" "teacher" who compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Jay Bennish was a "teacher" … oh, wait, no, he WAS actually a 'teacher' … wait, single quotes, no quotes, double quotes … hmmm … no, I guess if the "man" is "employed" as a "teacher" then there is probably little doubt that he is a 'teacher.'

Hm. Maybe Dan was just quoting someone and forgot to cite his source.

PS, Jay Bennish was "re-instated" to his "position" on "March" 11, "2006" "."

I'm glad that people like ______ are concerned with issues like this, because it makes me wonder, Person X, do you think the far-right contingent that is trying to pawn off Creationism in the "classroom" … do you think the "teachers" who are a part of this movement, are they "getting what they deserve?"

Or do you actually believe that God created the world in 7 days and that these people are heroes?

Seems like one should be a little more concerned about, oh … I don't know … THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE AS WE KNOW IT … as opposed to a teacher throwing out his political opinion … don't you think there are much bigger issues at stake right now?

But I'll stop there … because I know your little brain hasn't been told what to say about this … because it doesn't look good for the side that you think you're on.

It's much easier to denigrate others than to find fault within one's self or within groups that one has sworn blind allegiance to … by the way, I know you're going to blow over a lot of this … but I would like to know:

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CREATIONISM BEING TAUGHT IN LIEU OF EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

And

WHAT POLITICAL GROUPS ARE PUSHING TO GET THIS CURRICULUM APPROVED? WHO ARE THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED WITH THIS AND HOW DO THEY ALIGN THEMSELVES POLITICALLY?

Why … I think these crazoids align themselves with you … and believe a lot of similar things … SHOULDN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING?! PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT HOW THIS COUNTRY IS BEING RUN!!!!!!

Use your brain, and your opposable thumb, and figure out that if you've got people like this voting the same as you, believing the same political tenets as you … then maybe you're just as much of a moron as they are.

"The far-left will never like President Bush and will never understand or want to fight The War on Terror. There's nothing we can do about that, so let's just move-on."

The far-left, the far-left ... again, less than 1% of all voters can be considered far-left and many moderate lefts will never like President Bush just as many moderate rights are now having severe criticisms of the Bush administration ... a lot of people do not and will never like President Bush ... so, what's your point? Our President is unpopular? (You want to deny that? I know you've seen the polls. Or are you just pointing out the blatantly obvious?)

Dan, yes, the far-left will never like President Bush … because he's destroying this country. Great … and moderate, wanna-be, neo-cons like you will never take your tongue out of that man's pants. So we're agreed, right? Fine.

As for The War on Terror, I love how you believe in that … have you ever heard of The War on Illiteracy? The War on Poverty? How about The War on Drugs?

You've probably only heard about the last one because you can remember it a bit … every decade our government picks a "War on …" in order to distract citizens from relevant issues at hand that require immediate attention and allow lawmakers in power to enjoy corrupt, bloated lifestyles.

You're a rube if you disagree.

Then, I want you to watch this documentary … will you, please? No, of course you won't. I'm just asking you to watch a movie for the sake of assimilating new information, and no … you won't even do that, that's sad … but in case you want to surprise me:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

And now … your assignment is very simple:

I WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN USING FACTS.

F-A-C-T-S … AND I WANT YOU TO CITE SOURCES.


I don't want to hear about how 'all liberals are crazy and have nutso opinions about our government, bla bla bla …' You are hereby banned from your own madness if you say 'This crazy ultra-liberal sent me this insane conspiracy link … look what these idiots believe!' [addendum: as of this posting, Dan had already done so, proving himself oh so predictable ...] I want you to refute the facts presented WITH FACTS, not on government information or pundit/your opinion(s.)

Personally, I'm pretty sure you can't do it. Actually, I know you can't, and you're not going to watch it, so it's a moot point.

Well, I hope that if I needle you enough, you WILL watch it and then eat your own fist in a fit of anxiety-ridden rage once you have confronted your own inability to debunk any of the facts presented with counter-evidence.

Rebuttal: Dan.

I'll address this ... even though I already did ... and, guess what ... Dan had NO RESPONSE!

"The far-left also has it out for Wal-Mart. Actually Wal-Mart is representative of a greater evil to those on the far-left, that being American corporations and the free-market system. Fortunately most people understand how beneficial companies like Wal-Mart are to the US economy and for those families on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Therefore the mediocre Wal-Mart bashing films and store boycotts are mostly participated in by college students who will see the error of their ways in a few years and leave their pointless pursuit to the next batch of undeveloped minds that graces the halls of academia."

Wal-Mart running their own personal financial centers as a palpable and extremely disconcerting vulnerability to this country's financial infrastructure. And PS …

WHO IS THE 'FAR-LEFT'? CERTAINLY NOT DEMOCRATS. ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD THINK THAT MANY DEMOCRATS IN OFFICE ARE ANYTHING BUT A GROUP OF EASILY MANIPULATED, MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD CORPORATE PUPPETS … not all that dissimilar from the Republican in office. So, Dan … when O'Reilly says, I mean, when you say 'far-left' … who are you fighting against?

I think we can all agree that the anarchists, socialists, and heavy pro-labor contingents in this country (those who could be accurately classified as 'far-left') represent an extremely marginalized percentage of the population and have very limited voice.

So … who are you talking about when you say far-left? And why are you using a group that receives less than 1% of the national vote every Presidential election so much creedence? Why are you using this group as a shroud for the validity of your own opinion?

Oh, I know why, because you're saying 'far-left' when you really mean 'moderate Democrats' and you're thus trying to paint a picture of the Democratic Party as a group of volatile, dangerously unstable group of politicians.

You're spinning.

You're lying to yourself if you think you're not.

You're spinning and you're believing in spin.

And if you know you're spinning, then you're just an evil prick.

QUIT SCARFING DOWN LIES.

And for the love of tequlia shots, please quit throwing them back up like a sorority girl on her 21 st birthday.

Of all of the things that the far-left is required to disdain in order to get their credentials in the mail from George Soros, a special amount of vitriol is reserved for The Fox News Channel. Since the network debuted in 1996, there has been a growing chorus among college professors, movie stars and liberal journalists implying that the network slants their news to the right and that they are little more than a mouth-piece for the Bush administration.

Again with the "far-left" …

The chorus has caught on and the foot soldiers in the far-left movement have been echoing the sentiments for quite a while in their typical low-brow way. Here's an example.

On the night that convicted murderer and founding member of the "Cryps" gang Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed, Fox, like all of the other cable news networks, had a correspondent outside of San Quentin to cover the execution as well as the anti-death penalty protests which accompanied it. While the Fox correspondent was doing his report, a group of death penalty protesters surrounded him and began shouting things into his microphone, and holding up signs behind him while he was trying to do his job. They wrote "Fox Lies" on little slips of paper and held them up next to the reporters head. They yelled similar slogans at the camera and at one point a huge mean-looking black guy stood right next to the reporter and began staring him down as if he was about to kick his fair and balanced ass. Of course this guy was just a mindless thug who had probably never even heard of Fox News until tonight, but his fellow protesters did nothing to stop his intimidating tactics and instead continued their juvenile behavior. Fortunately, like most Fox News reporters, the guy was a pro, and was not distracted. He kept on going as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening until "Tookie" was finally put down.

Of course this is most likely an isolated incident, but it is a very good example of the mindset and behavior patterns of those who despise Fox News and who believe that it is more of a propaganda tool rather than a legitimate news outlet.

Now, unlike the folks on the left-wing blogs, I am going to attempt to be "fair and balanced" here and say this; Fox News as a network does lean to the right.


I'm addressing everything above here … um yeah … there was a protest vs. a news station. So? That's an American right to exercise a protest … but to say that "Fox ... does lean to the right" is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard because it is such a gross understatement.

John Ellis, the political advisor hired by Fox to heard their election coverage in 2000, is George Bush's first cousin. If Hillary Clinton's first cousin was hired as an editorial advisor of The New York Times … would you think it would be accurate to say that the NYT 'leans' to the left?

Shut up.

No, you wouldn't think it would be accurate … you would say that the NYT is CLEARLY a leftist organization based on their hiring practices and who they have placed in positions of editorial authority. Don't argue with me, I'm right.

I also like how you labeled a protest against an execution, a clear exercise of both freedom of speech and freedom of protest, as "… juvenile behavior."

Beware the man who tries to convince you that exercising your right to be free is gauche, lacking in class, rude, juvenile, or otherwise un-cool.

Freedom is much bigger than showing proper etiquette.

Their most popular news analysts are conservatives. Guys like O'Reilly and John Gibson make no attempt to hide their conservative leanings and they have huge audiences, because they're smart guys and people enjoy watching them. However it is important to keep in mind that they do not report hard news. It is "news analysis." Sean Hannity is not a reporter, he is a right-wing commentator, but no one ever claimed he was a reporter. It is important to know the difference. CNN has news analysts as well and most of them lean to the left. But more on that in a moment.

Actually, no, Dan, people like you are clearly swayed by political commentary, which is why it is a powerful tool. These companies would not be spending millions of dollars on their programming unless it worked … by working, it creates an opinion in the public … it does not reflect the opinion of the public, it creates it.

How do I know? This is logic, come on, it's a fun ride … because here's a point where we can agree … most of America isn't informed enough to have an educated opinion on a majority of political issues … the people who are informed go on television, state their opinion, and then the public takes that opinion as their own or refutes it.

THE MEDIA, WHETHER IT BE COMMENTARY, ANALYSIS OR HARD NEWS CREATES OPINION. THAT IS THE MEDIA'S JOB. IF YOU THINK THE MEDIA'S JOB IS SOLELY TO 'INFORM' YOU'RE AGAIN LYING TO YOURSELF.

If the media's job were simply to inform, then each network would have thorough analysis of all facets of every situation (because in this day and age, we are privy to fountains of information) however, this is not the case.

Media networks caters to advertisers who attempt to convince consumers to buy products. So therefore, it stands to reason, that the media must show consumer-friendly opinions, which are most easily devised in the creation of simple, byte-sized, easily digestible bits of one-sided information, whether it be right- or left-leaning.

Fox News is not presented as political commentary bereft of factual full disclosure … it presents itself as a news station … do you want to disagree with me that FOX NEWS Channel doesn't present itself as a NEWS source?

The people who do the hard news for FOX, usually are not criticized, by the anti-FOX folks, due to the fact that they don't interject their opinion into the news. They aren't supposed to and guys like Shepard Smith and Carl Cameron don't do it. They may indeed be conservatives off the camera, but when the camera's rolling they do their job, and keep their opinions to themselves.

This is exactly how it should be, and is exactly what is done by the major anchors for every news show, both network and cable … what do you want to do, give Fox a cookie? Fine, give them a macademia nut one … one of those Otis Spunkmeyer ones from Subway, they're so good …

In fact, Fox has many high profile reporters who are well know liberals. For example, Greta Van Susteren, who consistently has the second highest rated show on the network, after O'Reilly, was known for her Democratic leanings before FNC even existed. Tabloid journalist Geraldo Rivera was a huge Clinton supporter, and despite what you may think of his tactics or reporting skills, there is no doubt that he is indeed a high profile member of the Fox News family.

See, now … are you equating Greta Van Susteren and Geraldo Rivera with the 'far-left'? I don't think you are, which deflates your entire argument thus far, rendering it impotent … let me show you why.

You said that the far-left hates FOX … well, they do, and the far-left couldn't care less about Van Susteren and Geraldo, who you now, at this point in your post, refer to as "liberals." Ahhh … where did the label of 'far-left' go … what happened to that? So, now you're telling me that the far-left is inaccurate in their hate for FOX because FOX has "liberals" on their network?

See how now you're mixing "liberals" with "far-left" equating the two … earlier, the problem was with the far-left … so why now are we talking about a politically moderate group known as 'liberals.'

Your flaccid argument is tantamount to saying that white supremicists (far-right) shouldn't have problems with the NAACP (a traditionally left-leaning organization) because one of the members of the board of directors was a Republican (conservative.)

So why all the hatred? Here's why. For years conservatives and many moderates in this country have been bitching about the monolithic liberalism, which has been espoused by the press since the 1960's. Poll after poll has been taken regarding the political leanings of those in the journalistic community over the last 50 years and these studies have consistently shown that generally three-fourths of reporters espouse political views that are considered liberal. In addition to this, journalists have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic candidate for president over the GOP candidate, in every election since 1960.

Yep … liberals have a modern tradition of reading while conservatives enjoy staring at TV screens … no argument there. The print media in the last 50 years has had a liberal bias, and that is quickly changing … and over the last 15 years, the TV media has had a conservative bias.

This is still the case and anyone who denies it is either fooling themselves or they themselves are so liberal that to them, anything that doesn't echo the sentiments of the Village Voice is considered a right-wing paper.

Wow … you are just a dilettante on repeat. When was the last time you read The Village Voice? What an obscure reference … one that reeks of an out-of-touch pop-culture mindset. Only the most brain-dead of idiots would ever consider The Village Voice to be a legitimate source of news … and only the most tired, knee-jerk automotan would think about slamming it as a news source in the first place … as if it were an issue to be addressed. Way to really show 'em who's boss!

Before FNC became popular, the only thing close to a right-leaning national news outlet that conservatives had was The Wall Street Journal. Their editorial page was consistently right-of-center and was the only escape for the 50% of the country, who couldn't stomach the obvious left wing slant of papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Boston Globe and USA Today.

It wasn't just the op-ed section either. Anyone who was even remotely independent minded could see that the hard news coverage in these papers was slanted to the left in everything from the wording in articles to article placement.

This clear slant wasn't just confined to newspapers either. The three major networks where most Americans still get their news today also leaned left. CBS replaced far-left leaning anchor Walter Cronkite, who still today makes his political leanings well-known to all four people who care to listen, with further left-leaning news anchor Dan Rather.


Do you really think that Dan Rather has been a vocal political presence?

In cable news, Ted Turner, no neo-con himself, started CNN. The left loves to bag of FNC news analysts like O'Reilly, but how many of you remember Jesse Jackson's short lived news analysis program. There are only two differences between the shows. The first are the host's clear differences of opinion on important issues, and the second is the fact that O'Reilly's show is the most popular show on cable news, while Jackson's show failed miserably.

What's your point here?

In addition to cable, the big three networks and all but one of the major national newspapers, the left also had control of the governments news sources. Liberal voices (voices? Analysts? Reporters? Garrison Keillor? Who are these 'voices' you're hearing, Dan?) more than dominated on NPR, while Bill Moyer's show was left-leaning standard bearer on PBS.

I KNOW you didn't just call PBS a major news source ...

Add to this the BBC and there you have it. About 95% of all citizens in this country got their news from a source that overwhelmingly favored and wrote coverage favorable to the left-wing of American politics.

Could we have some specifics? Or, um ... maybe just one? I'd settle for one.

One specific instance (for the love of God! Just one!) where a piece of hard news was, during this time of liberal-dominated media from the 3 major networks or NPR or PBS or the one major newspaper ... a piece of news that was shown to be unfairly favorable to the left-wing of American politics.

When most hard news, not analysis, as you have noted the difference, is from sources like AP, UPI, and REUTERS ... where does the liberal bias in actual news come from?

While those on the right could see this obvious lack of balance in the media coverage of the freest nation on earth, there was really nothing they could do about it except complain on talk-radio, the only media outlet that was dominated by conservatives. Even these shows however, had to break every hour for news updates from the networks that owned the stations which carried their shows, and usually these networks were one of the big three. Even talk-radio was infiltrated by the liberal media.

Infiltrated? Isn't this, ostensibly, a free market system? What is the issue here with differing viewpoints on different shows?

Things started to change in 1996 when Rupert Murdoch started FOX News. At first, the left paid little attention to the fledgling network. Cable news was dominated by CNN and to a lesser extent the uber-liberal MSNBC, and those channels were in no danger of being overthrown by the network which until now had been known primarily for The Simpson's and Married with Children.

Then came the one-two media events of the Florida recount and 9/11. FNC, which had been gaining slowly for years, suddenly overtook CNN. When this happened the left went ballistic. They started an all out assault on FNC which included the constant bashing of FNC personalities as well as a poorly made, inaccurate piece of propaganda called Outfoxed


What is inaccurate about Outfoxed?

You can't just call it inaccurate without showing ... ba-ba-da-bum ... the F-word: FACTS!

They set out on a mission to convince America that FNC was simply a tool of the right in their continuing efforts to brainwash people into voting for George W. Bush.

Which, clearly, with the appointment of John Ellis, it wasn't ...

Ted Turner started calling Rupert Murdoch names. Left wing blogs began giving examples of things said on FNC that espoused conservative viewpoints,

Are you including blogs as ammo in the mighty arsenal of the liberal media? WHAT?!

... usually given by news analysts, whose job it is to give said viewpoints. Editorial pages became even more liberal as if to try and counter O'Reilly, who despite his huge success doesn't even come close to the circulation numbers for the New York Times or the viewer ship of The NBC Nightly News. The left was trying to make it seem as if somehow FNC was not a legitimate news outlet. That they were not playing by the rules. However their case was hurt by the fact that FNC remains one of the few news outlets which hasn't gotten into huge trouble as of late for questionable news practices.

Yay, congrats. I consider putting Ann Coulter on the air a questionable news practice ... but that's just me ... and my 'right-ness.'

The New York Times was sent reeling when Jason Blair, a young affirmative–action hire, admitted to faking news stories. Dan Rather went forward and reported the bogus Bush National Guard story, which was based on fake documents. Newsweek claimed that soldiers at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to tick off detainees. No truth to that either. CNN's managing editor Eason Jordan claimed that US soldiers in Iraq were intentionally targeting journalists, but never gave any evidence to back it up. He was subsequently sacked.

I like how you note "Jason [sic] Blair, a young, affirmative-action hire." Wow. Any evidence on this? Or did I just hear some blatant … what do you call it, um … oh, that's the word, racism!

You prick.

First of all, Jayson Blair, spelled with a 'y' … I know they sound the same on TV … graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Maryland, interned at The Boston Globe and The Washington Post while a student there, and upon his graduation, was an intern at The New York Times. Does this record make it sound like he might have been appropriately qualified as a hire?

What here makes you think that he was a token affirmative-action hire? You are an ignorant fool … and you just called a man who was qualified in his field to be initially hired an AA hire … wow …

Unless, of course, you can show some evidence that he was an AA hire … then you'd be all set …

SEE WHAT I DID, DAN? I GAVE YOU SOME FACTS … CAN YOU SHOW SUFFICIENT COUNTER-EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM? IF NOT, YOU ARE LYING RIGHT HERE WHEN YOU CALLED JAYSON BLAIR AN AA HIRE. AND THE PROBLEM IS, ONCE YOU DELIBERATELY LIE AND REPRESENT MIS-/INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ... YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT FAILS DUE TO LACK OF A VALID PERSPECTIVE, AND THE COLORING OF YOUR MOTIVES AS SUSPECT.

"Oh, no … that's just my opinion, I'm analyzing, right now …" you might say … well, UNLESS YOU CAN BACK IT UP WITH FACTS, YOUR ANALYSIS IS FLAWED AND YOUR OPINION IS WRONG.

I've already addressed the other points in this section by pointing out how Fox NEWS Channel presents their analysis as NEWS. Even so … yeah, they're attacked by many left-leaning individuals. So what? The print press is often attacked by many right-leaning individuals. Who cares? Shut up …

Meanwhile, FNC has stayed out of trouble and is yet to be accused any of these underhanded practices. The only thing that FNC's critics can really say is that O'Reilly and a few other news analysts are conservative. So what? These analysts admit to their political leanings. No one's trying to pass Sean Hannity off as an unbiased reporter.

I agree … so what. The problem arises when people like you take things like O'Reilly's opinion at face value, and assimilate them as fact … which so far, your post shows that you do. Moving on …

Despite FNC's success, the media is still dominated by the left. Most mainstream media outlets still outwardly refuse to run any stories that make the president look good,

What? He won two elections because he didn't have enough press on his side? Well then what did he spend 274 million dollars on? Cheese doodles? Kerry spent 253 million, was the press against him, too?

Please, anyone that spends that much money has enough press on their side, quit fabricating this notion. (For anyone else still reading this, isn't it interesting to note that the $$ spent on the 2004 election breaks down almost exactly to 1 million per electoral vote …?)

...like the recent release of audiotapes in which Saddam Hussein discussed how to hide WMD's from the UN,

Probably because we don't care anymore … in 3 years, we haven't found any, Dan … we're supposed to have the most advanaced technology in the world, I doubt that the weapons could still be hidden … and if we did find them, we're keeping them for ourselves.

Who cares about hearing him talk about it … apparently it's not all that significant because it doesn't offer any new information on the actual LOCATION of WMDs ... it's a hypothetical as far as anyone knows

… and, actually ... I saw that on the news, and read it on newswires. Apparently, the liberal media was sleeping that day in their vigilant fight to keep this information away from the masses ...

… or any stories that make the left look bad, like when Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia and verbally attacked the President.

Who cares about "making the left look bad" or "verbally attack[ing]" anyone? How on earth does this transparent nonsense bring valid evidence to your argument? Why doesn't the press make the left look bad … what kind of crying is this?

The press shouldn't make the left or right look bad, both sides should be exposed by the press for their own beliefs and be held accountable by their actions.

You just whined about something so insignificant … look past this … please!

It doesn't matter to the MSM if the president's reasons for invading Iraq were justified,

Wait, what …? Can you walk me through this one? Can you show me evidence that we have seen since the invasion that has justified the President's actions. Oh, I guess I should specify … can you show me with FACTS?

… or if the former VP is engaging in behavior that borders on treason.

… criticizing your government is treason? Dan, you're an idiot.

You should look up the definition of treason … well, nevermind, I know you like to be spoon-fed, so open wide, here comes the choo-choo!

trea·son [ trz'n ] (plural trea·sons)

noun
Definitions:
1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.

This is from Encarta … can you show me how Gore's actions bordered on a "violation of the allegiance owed … to his … country"?

Here's the catch, though … you have to PROVE through FACTS that his actions bordered on a VIOLATION … which means you have to state what he VIOLATED … can you do that for me? Again, using only FACTS, please. Thank you.

For those still around, here's what Gore said … funny, I got this from AP … doesn't seem like this was kept under wraps all that well:

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001 , attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

(Me:) What a traitor!

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

(Me:) Hmm … ok, still waiting for the treason here … sounds like a man stating his opinion which has a lot of factual evidence to back it up …

… hey, Dan, just out of curiosity … what about the reports from Guantanamo and Abu Gharib … have you read any of those? Just wondering … because how can reiterating information that has been released and has, thus far, failed to be discredited … how is that considered un-American?

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States ."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

(End Gore) Explain to me the problem with these words of Gore's? Gore's statements are based on facts, investigative reports, pictures, and videotapes … again, just tell me the problem, please. Using FACTS.

… They are going to report, only what they feel like reporting. If it doesn't jibe with their political slant, then you're not going to hear about it.
To be fair, it's not really their fault. Like in those in Hollywood, most reporters don't even know how to view a story from a conservative angle. They are incapable of it.

Things are changing however. As the old guard of liberal journalists like Helen Thomas, Dan Rather and Judy Woodruff begin to fade; a new breed of journalist is emerging and since conservative journalists, who were previously rejected by other outlets, can now go to FNC without fear of retribution for political views which may differ from the top brass, a wider less biased array of voices is starting to come to the forefront of American media.


See how you're mixing terms again? You're talking about "liberal journalists" and saying "conservative journalists" can now "come to the forefront of the American media."

Ok, cookie, here's the deal: journalists who report hard news and factual evidence … it doesn't matter what their political alleiance is … their words are based on FACTS.

Why would it matter if someone stating the facts, especially on the 23 second avg. that each news story gets during straight reporting, is liberal or conservative?

Why does it matter that there is now a forum for conservatives to speak … when they're reporting facts, not speaking their own opinions.

Or are you talking about the political analysts again? Or do you know what you're talking about anymore?

With the success of FNC other outlets also seem to have discovered that most of the population does not share the average journalist's political leanings. MSNBC has hired conservatives like Joe Scarborough and papers like the New York Times and LA Times have begun admitting their past bias and attempting to gain back the public's trust by adding balance to their news coverage and firing left-wing bomb throwers like Robert Scheer from their editorial staff.

"Left-wing bomb throwers" …? Are those guys similar to the "Right-wing abortion clinic assassins?"

CNN has had to adjust as well, now that they are consistently in second place. They have balanced out their coverage a bit, but have also tried to gain traction among liberals with left leaning commentators like Jack Cafferty. Similarly, MSNBC's thinking about bringing back Phil Donahue.

Gain traction with political analysts ... you mean the same thing that FOX NEWS does?

You see folks. FNC was never that far to the right. It's just that all of the other news outlets were so far to the left that people forgot what unbiased news coverage was supposed to look like.

I just threw up in my own mouth and choked on it, laughing ...

Because many of the analysts on FNC do lean right, to a ultra-liberal it seems as if they are out of the mainstream, when the truth is just the opposite.

If, indeed as you say "… all of the other news outlets were so far to the left …" then that represents the mainstream, correct? This statement contradicts your next statement "… to a [sic] ultra-liberal it seems as if they [FOX NEWS] are out of the mainstream, when the truth is just the opposite."

So … the left is the mainstream. Or wait … lefties are saying that FOX NEWS is not the mainstream … which is false … even though the left is the mainstream … which is why FOX NEWS is being marginalized … even though FOX NEWS is the mainstream … along with the left … FOX NEWS must be left-leaning …

I'm glad we got that cleared up. I'm going to watch nothing but FOX NEWS now since I only ingest information that has been approved with a seal of mainstream media. Thanks, Dan!

Also … let's again show how you're spinning. You said "… people forgot what unbiased news coverage was supposed to look like. Because many of the analysts on FNC do lean right …" nothing more need be said.

You just said that unbiased coverage was being offered by a group with a political agenda and specific slant.

Your rhetoric doesn't even subscribe to rules of logic. Are you feeling ok? What's wrong with you?

FNC's hard news coverage is as unbiased if not more so than any other news outlet out there,

One cannot be MORE unbiased than another, it is a binary condition, something is either unbiased or it isn't. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part of the word 'bias.'

… so it would be better if the left just learned to live with it and took some notes on how to run a successful media outlet.

Ah, yes, a successful media outlet, as I already pointed out, and I think we can all agree is based on either subscribers or advertisement revenues … which really has nothing to do with being beholden to reporting the truth, as long as people enjoy what you're doing or are buying the products that support the soabox.

Because when Air America dies out, which will probably be very soon, and the daily newspapers go the way of the dinosaur due to the internet, the playing field is going to be more level than it has ever been before, and while this is not the optimal scenario for liberals, it is for the majority of Americans, who don't want their news slanted to the left or to the right. They just want their damn news.

Right … so, then, most Americans don't want FOX NEWS because, by your own admission, the network slants to the right. Did I get that right?

Dan, this isn't a game. This isn't a war between left and right, I've said that to you before, and it's a shame that there are still people out there like you wearing a certain colored shirt, chant the right fight song, and just love 'winning.'

You shouldn't feel any sense of 'victory' when Air America dies out. That means a counter-point is lost, which means that a well-rounded opinion has been pushed one step further from your grasp.

There are no sides here … again, it comes down to Fact v Spin. When FNC does well in the ratings (are you kidding? We care about ratings from our news networks? STOP IT!!!) you don't come out as a 'winner.'

As you buy into this battle, you expose your loss. You're losing. You're losing your country. You're losing the ideals and fundamentals upon which this country was built … all in exchange for the warm fuzzy feelings you get when you're on the winning dodge ball team.

Dan, I'll pick you first next time if you open your eyes, read a bit, please read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman … don't worry, it can't be interpreted as left-leaning … it's simply a fact-based analysis on the power of media and it is devoid of any political agenda.

Wait … do you read anything besides bestsellers?

In closing, let me say that I have deconstructed your argument using nothing but FACT and LOGIC.

How simple it was, because, after all, telling the truth is the easiest thing in the world. Your thoughts, once placed under the scrutiny of the slightest amount of rational analysis, proves to be contradictory, misleading, and in certain cases, absolutely false.

I don't know what the far-left hates as I am not on the far-left. I am, however, one who uses all of the facts present to create a rational conclusion, and I do hate, Dan.

I hate ignorant, small-minded, ego-driven, myopic, racist, irrational, deliberately manipulative, weak-willed, and easily controlled nimrods like yourself.

You deserve to have your ability to think critically completely removed because you do not take advantage of it.

You do not deserve an opinion or free speech … if I had my way, my ultra-right, left-leaning, middle-of-the-road, anarchist, fascist, moderate Wobby-state would not allow idiots like you to speak aloud until you can prove that you can create a strain of independent thought.

Unquestioning sheep like you are the plankton of the human race.

Dan, I would like to post this on my blog as well, complete with your inanely nascent observations, arbitrary opinions, dearth of factual evidence, and misleading conclusions, (all appropriately credited) so feel free to leave comments there.

Since you believe in your words, certainly you wouldn't be averse to a further distribution of your post along with a critical analysis of it's contents. You shouldn't have any problem with that, right?

I am posting it because I think that it's important that as many people as possible see, what I believe to be, such egregrious affronts to the opposable thumb, like yourself, for the mindless drones that you are … not because I want you to be exposed to public hatred, and not because I want to expose you to malicious ridicule, because I don't want any of that.

I just think it's important to unearth arguments and bring them to opposing viewpoints so that we may all come to a consensus. It's all in the name of opening up free discourse.

Thank you for exposing your herd mentality.

Love,
Kittens

Falling Panda said...

Ok Eddie. I appreciate your post. It's very heart-felt and at times quite funny.
What I'm going to do so you don't have to spend such a big chunk of next weekend responding to my post is give you my response bit by bit. It'll be fun here goes."


"Here Dan starts off with a thesis that the far-left has a lot of hate … let's forget that, historically, it is right-wing contingents that have been against broad civil rights movements for people of different races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations; we're forgetting this because it's a given FACT."

If you want to argue this, you're an idiot, and need only to look at the states that harbor the most exclusive forms of legislation (mostly, but not solely, in the southern parts of the United States) and who heads up the congressional posts in these states, as well as taking a look at their state legislatures and legal histories … this is the obvious that we're forgetting because (insert media regurigator's name here) forgets it."

We're going to address that specifically, here Dan points out the far-left's hateful philosophies and then presents the evidenceof , a teacher in Aurora, Colorado, Jay Bennish, a "[from Dan's quote] " geography" "teacher" who compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Jay Bennish was a "teacher" … oh, wait, no, he WAS actually a 'teacher' … wait, single quotes, no quotes, double quotes … hmmm … no, I guess if the "man" is "employed" as a "teacher" then there is probably little doubt that he is a 'teacher.'

Hm. Maybe Dan was just quoting someone and forgot to cite his source.

PS, Jay Bennish was "re-instated" to his "position" on "March" 11, "2006" "."




All right, let me ask you this. During Clinton's presidency , did you ever see or hear "angry" Republicans, comparing Clinton to a dictator? Be honest with yourself. Did you ever witness the same type of rhetoric and behavior among the GOP's conservative base ( by this I mean the 35% of voters that consider themselves conservative) as you have over the last 6 years by the Dem's Liberal Base (the 15% or so that consider themselves "liberal")?

I don't remember GOP activists comparing Clinton to Stalin or Mao. Or calling Clinton a terrorist even though he helped North Korea get nukes or allowed Al Quaeda to grow in ferocity for 8 years, and did almost nothing about it. Not to mention his cozy connections with the Chinese.

Are you seriously going to sit their and say that Conservatives are as loud and hateful in their rhetoric against blacks and gays as liberals are against conservatives and more specifically against this president?

Jay Bennish was indeed a teacher, my putting his job-title in quotes was an attempt at sarcasim which based on you post is something that you are clearly somewhat familiar with.

Based on what we heard on the taped recordings however, Bennish was not teaching very much geography. He was supposed to, but was instead devoting a large portion of his time bashing America and the president. He was not doing his job. This kid called him on it and his reputation has been signifigantly damaged as a result.

And he deserved it. If he was giving a lecture to a bunch of adults who were on equal footing with the guy and not a group of impressionable teenagers I would have no problem with it. But, he instead chose to take advantage of his stature and give opinion, rather than fact. Teachers, especially at the high school level are payed by parents to deal in fact.

Bennish is indeed still employed, but things will never be the same for him. Parents will wish to have their students opt out of his class in the future and he will forever be viewed as am extreme left-wing ideologue who is anti-American, by many people. Teachers are going to have to start being more careful about political indoctrination in the classroom, cause they're going to get recorded, and parents are going to get furious because political commentary is not their job.

Next:
"The far-left, the far-left ... again, less than 1% of all voters can be considered far-left and many moderate lefts will never like President Bush just as many moderate rights are now having severe criticisms of the Bush administration ... a lot of people do not and will never like President Bush ... so, what's your point? Our President is unpopular? (You want to deny that? I know you've seen the polls. Or are you just pointing out the blatantly obvious?)

Dan, yes, the far-left will never like President Bush … because he's destroying this country. Great … and moderate, wanna-be, neo-cons like you will never take your tongue out of that man's pants. So we're agreed, right? Fine.

As for The War on Terror, I love how you believe in that … have you ever heard of The War on Illiteracy? The War on Poverty? How about The War on Drugs?"

Ok so you don't believe that were fighting a war on terror?

This is what I mean when I say "far-left" This insane position, that we are not at war against Al Quada, and other radical Islamist elements in the world right now is a postition which is exclusivly held, by the far-left.

This is why, if you put 20 college graduates of equal intellligence in a room, showed them the facts and argued that our military forces are not trying to destroy terrorism, 17 of those folks would laugh you out of the room, while the 3 on the far-left would agree with you very loudly so as to try and compete with the majority of folks, who actually have clue about what's going on.

Just wondering. How are we not in a war on terror? I'd love to try and hear you back this one up, because I've heard people say it before and I never once heard a resonable explanation to back up this absurd theory.

Speaking of absurd theories, I know about some of the now debunked conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. There's the "hole in the building isn't big enough for a 757" theory. The "no airplane debri near the Pentagon theory" (This ones total BS and especially offensive) and of course the creepy "no skidmarks" theory. Wooooooooooooooh!

Here's an article pretty much destroys all of these black helicopter theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

I understand the devotion that you have to some of these conspiracy web-sites and video's but let me ask you this. Can you think of a single individual of note, meaning respected journalists, politicians, former politicians, members of the military, anyone credible who believes this stuff?

Your unsubstantiated theory that the media just wont report it due to the idea that:

" the media must show consumer-friendly opinions"

shows that you not only know very little about journalism and journalists, but that you also have a very undeserved elitist attitude which stems from things like "loose-change" that you see and hear on-line. This movie was made by a bunch of kids and your drinking it like grape Kool-Aid.

You see Eddie, if you watch stuff on-line and then automatically assert it as fact, because you saw it on a screen, then you deserve to be ignored by society, just as you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists out there are.

It's the same deal with outfoxed which I will tear apart later.

Finally Eddie, you, more than anyone have backed-up my theory of the angry lefty. Not only are you an angry lefty, but you an angry lefty who denies that he is a lefty. (Just so it's clear, I'm talking about that 15% which I referred to earlier. You know? The ones who control the machinery in the modern Democratic Party) Here are some of my favorite venom filled quotes from your response to my post:

"Dan, you're just an example, any myopic lemming's name could" - Hmmm "Lemming"? Classic.

"If you want to argue this, you're an idiot...."

"Great … and moderate, wanna-be, neo-cons like you will never take your tongue out of that man's pants." - Very nice, fellatio reference.

"You're a rube if you disagree." - "rube" wow! It's like I'm blogging on an episode of Happy Days!

"Wow … you are just a dilettante on repeat."

""Left-wing bomb throwers" …? Are those guys similar to the "Right-wing abortion clinic assassins?" - It always comes back to abortion with you folks doesn't it?

"You prick." - You think you scored here by pegging me as a racist in this segment and I'll make my case on Blair's AA hire next time, but what's so fascinating here is that you not only called me a "prick" but you also played the race card! Soooooo predictable. Sooooo typical.

"You are an ignorant fool …"

" hate ignorant, small-minded, ego-driven, myopic, racist, irrational, deliberately manipulative, weak-willed, and easily controlled nimrods like yourself.

You deserve to have your ability to think critically completely removed because you do not take advantage of it.

You do not deserve an opinion or free speech … if I had my way, my ultra-right, left-leaning, middle-of-the-road, anarchist, fascist, moderate Wobby-state would not allow idiots like you to speak aloud until you can prove that you can create a strain of independent thought.

Unquestioning sheep like you are the plankton of the human race."

-Here's a tip. If you want people of sound mind to take your postings seriously, DON'T DO THIS!
I'm going to respond to you becuase I'm agood guy and I enjoy debating, but almost anyone else who see's this at the conclusion of your post is going to think your just an angry jerk and not waste their time with you.

"mindless drones ......blah, blah, blah.....Thank you for exposing your herd mentality."

- I find it so ammusing that every time someone agrees with a position popular with the right, one of their opponant's primary rebuttals is accusing the individual of simply regurgitating information that they heard somewhere else. And yet, this talking point is one of the most widely used counterpoints among left-wing bloggers. But I'm sure they all came up with this assumption of how an individuals thought process works completely on their own right?

Just like I simply assume that you came up with the condescending terms "cookie" and "kitten" when reffering to me, and that you never even knew that Dennis Miller used to use these terms in the same way. Of course I'm sure you never thought of that.

So what do we have left?

Jayson Blair, WMD's, Al Gore, and of course my explanation as to how media outlets skew the news.

You're up.

- Dan

Ed Murray said...

This point-by-point thing is good, I like how it works, Dan is in italics:

DAN: All right, let me ask you this. During Clinton's presidency , did you ever see or hear "angry" Republicans, comparing Clinton to a dictator? Be honest with yourself.

ME: Of course I didn't ... because Clinton didn't commit such forceful acts that could be compared to a dictator ... but, look, forget I even said that, that's an opinion, so let's put that aside.

That's not the point ... the point is that just because people didn't compare Clinton to a dictator, that has NOTHING to do with people doing that to Bush now ... don't you see?

Comparing Bush now to whomever (I am not a Clinton/Bush supporter) has to be taken as it's own isolated incident.

What I did see during the Clinton reign was him being touted as the symbol for failing morals in America ... so he was painted quite poorly in many, many media circles and was one senate ratification away from being ousted from office.

Clinton got his balls busted, so to speak, as well ... but why would that even matter?

Clinton wasn't compared to anything, no ... he was called, well, what he was, an adulterer ... and that didn't sit well in the eyes of many, and people still look back at that as one of the major reasons for the GOP taking control of the Exec/Legislative branches ... so he got slammed in the press as well ...

That has nothing to do with the media's treatment of Bush right now. Maybe the media is valid right now. Maybe they were valid during Clinton ... maybe they're not valid now ... but these items cannot be connected if one is HONESTLY interested in discovering what is true here.

Did you ever witness the same type of rhetoric and behavior among the GOP's conservative base ( by this I mean the 35% of voters that consider themselves conservative) as you have over the last 6 years by the Dem's Liberal Base (the 15% or so that consider themselves "liberal")?

I don't remember GOP activists comparing Clinton to Stalin or Mao. Or calling Clinton a terrorist even though he helped North Korea get nukes or allowed Al Quaeda to grow in ferocity for 8 years, and did almost nothing about it. Not to mention his cozy connections with the Chinese.


Nothing to disagree with here ... but that doesn't somehow validate Bush's actions today. It doesn't invalidate criticisms of his actions.

Attacking Bush is NOT lauding Clinton. Two separate actions.

Are you seriously going to sit their and say that Conservatives are as loud and hateful in their rhetoric against blacks and gays as liberals are against conservatives and more specifically against this president?

Historically, the conservatives have been the ones responsible for putting up roadblocks against civil rights. That is true. However, no, I never once compared such treatment with how 'liberals' are currently attacking 'conservatives.'

Again, these are 2 separate issues ... I brought up this point because you were talking about 'hate' specifically. There is a lot of hate going around amongst both parties ... one cannot be singled out today.

And by the way ... I DO think that supporting a ban on gay marriage (something that isn't legal in the first place) and blocking legislation to make it legal IS a more disturbing attack on the gay community than the liberal rhetoric being thrown at conservatives ... because rhetoric is just talk ... legislation controls actions.

Jay Bennish was indeed a teacher, my putting his job-title in quotes was an attempt at sarcasim which based on you post is something that you are clearly somewhat familiar with.

Based on what we heard on the taped recordings however, Bennish was not teaching very much geography. He was supposed to, but was instead devoting a large portion of his time bashing America and the president. He was not doing his job. This kid called him on it and his reputation has been signifigantly damaged as a result.

And he deserved it. If he was giving a lecture to a bunch of adults who were on equal footing with the guy and not a group of impressionable teenagers I would have no problem with it. But, he instead chose to take advantage of his stature and give opinion, rather than fact. Teachers, especially at the high school level are payed by parents to deal in fact.

Bennish is indeed still employed, but things will never be the same for him. Parents will wish to have their students opt out of his class in the future and he will forever be viewed as am extreme left-wing ideologue who is anti-American, by many people. Teachers are going to have to start being more careful about political indoctrination in the classroom, cause they're going to get recorded, and parents are going to get furious because political commentary is not their job.


This is all opinion which I can't argue with ... I happen to agree ... but even if I didn't, opinions can't be debated.

Ok so you don't believe that were fighting a war on terror?

Do you believe that we were fighting the War on Drugs in the 80s?

Do you believe that we are not one of the major funders and controllers of the drug trafficking industry in the world? As the most powerful consumer, with a basic knowledge of business, do you really think we have nothing to gain by manipulation of our power when it comes to drugs?

The War on Terror?

Where did Al-Qaeda get their weapons from? Where did Iraq get their military from?

These were all allies of the US throughout the 80s and early 90s ... how can we be fighting a war on terror when we created, equipped, and trained these guys in the first place?

You don't think the second Iraq is fully trained and equipped we won't have the same problems 'controlling' them?

This is what I mean when I say "far-left" This insane position, that we are not at war against Al Quada, and other radical Islamist elements in the world right now is a postition which is exclusivly held, by the far-left.

Are you familiar with The Lavon Affair? Look it up, it's really interesting. In 1945, Israeli agents, fully supported by the United States were caught planting bombs in a US diplomatic facility. They left evidence at the scene to frame certain Arab factions.

This happened, it was proven and has been very deliberately forgotten in American history. It was an attack on a US facility funded by the US in order to justify conflict with Arab groups.

L. Lemnitzer, chairman of the joint Chief of Staff under Kennedy submitted a proposal in order to fabricate a reason for going to war with Cuba which included attacking several US targets. Kennedy fired him once he submitted this proposal.

These are facts that you can look up.

So ... a war on Terror? Yeah, we're at war with terror ... we're at war with the weapons industry which is making billions of dollars hand over fist right now jacking up our national debt to 9 trillion dollars.

They're banking on being able to pay it back with oil profits.

This isn't a war on terror, it's a war for $$.

Get out of the spin cycle ...

Let's say that we are at war with 'terror' ... this amorphous, omniscient concept ... what does fighting certain militant Islamist factions have to do with invading Iraq?

We still, as the American people, have yet to receive a clear link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. What we DO know is that Hussein used to be a US ally who shrugged off the US in the late 80s, went after Kuwait (which was, originally, a part of Iraq), fought Bush Sr, and then allegedly attempted to assassinate Bush, Sr.

Those sound more like the undeniable reasons for going to war with Hussein ... but again, WE armed the guy in the first place ...

If we're going to war ... it's only after we arm these people. Don't you see a problem with that?

This is why, if you put 20 college graduates of equal intelligence in a room, showed them the facts and argued that our military forces are not trying to destroy terrorism, 17 of those folks would laugh you out of the room, while the 3 on the far-left would agree with you very loudly so as to try and compete with the majority of folks, who actually have clue about what's going on.

Wait, what? This is some sort of hypothetical, arbitrary experiment of yours ... this is just an opinion made to sound as if it has some sort of scientific basis ... give me 20 college kids, give me 20 high school kids, give me 50,000,000 voting adults, and I'll show you 50,000,000 who have BIG problems with America's fight against terrorism right now.

So ... there's nothing valid in that phrase.

Just wondering. How are we not in a war on terror? I'd love to try and hear you back this one up, because I've heard people say it before and I never once heard a resonable explanation to back up this absurd theory.

Already addressed ... would love to hear a rebuttal.

Speaking of absurd theories, I know about some of the now debunked conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. There's the "hole in the building isn't big enough for a 757" theory. The "no airplane debri near the Pentagon theory" (This ones total BS and especially offensive) and of course the creepy "no skidmarks" theory. Wooooooooooooooh!

Here's an article pretty much destroys all of these black helicopter theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

I understand the devotion that you have to some of these conspiracy web-sites and video's but let me ask you this. Can you think of a single individual of note, meaning respected journalists, politicians, former politicians, members of the military, anyone credible who believes this stuff?


This is a good article, Dan. Guess who was the senior researcher responsible for this article over at Popular Mechanics? His name is Benjamin Chertoff … cousin of Head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

I’m not saying this makes it a conspiracy … but don’t you find that just a LITTLE strange? Coincidental? Don’t you think there’s probably a conflict of interests here that doesn’t serve the purpose of seeking the truth through full disclosure?

And by the way … your tone belies the pretense that you go on information … talking about 9/11 questions in terms of “BS/offensive/creepy …” tones shows that you have already made your conclusion and that there is no room for new information. Open your head … if there is no threat to the truth, then there is no threat to new facts.

Your unsubstantiated theory that the media just wont report it due to the idea that:

" the media must show consumer-friendly opinions"

shows that you not only know very little about journalism and journalists, but that you also have a very undeserved elitist attitude which stems from things like "loose-change" that you see and hear on-line. This movie was made by a bunch of kids and your drinking it like grape Kool-Aid.


Is this an attempt at humor? Again, Dan … this paragraph has no substance … you’re just insulting without any factual basis … how does it show that I know little … or have an elitist attitude … or … your Kool-Aid comment is just inconsequential …

You see Eddie, if you watch stuff on-line and then automatically assert it as fact,

Which I didn’t … I watched the documentary and researched many of the facts myself after viewing it in order to verify them …

because you saw it on a screen, then you deserve to be ignored by society, just as you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists out there are.

Right, I agree here.
Now, do you think you’d have an opinion if you didn’t watch FOX NEWS for 2 weeks? I haven’t claimed anything other than the fact that there are NUMEROUS unanswered questions about 9/11 … so I’ve actually retained my critical thinking skills and haven’t adopted automatically that anything was a fact … until I researched them further.

If you go back and actually READ my post … you’ll see that I talk about unanswered questions … and I DO sayit doesn’t prove that 9/11 was an inside job … so your claims here are again, incomplete, and therefore, false.

This is also coming from someone who does nothing but spout soundbytes, I can clearly hear your opinion coming through that of popular political analysts … do you REALLY believe them so much that you never have a difference of opinion? I just wonder where your individual thoughts are …

… by the way, you REALLY need to go back and see that I did qualify Loose Change as something that brings up questions … the fact that you don’t even mention that in a response … and obviously didn’t assimilate it while reading it … Jesus … you need to pore over those things more carefully before you respond … otherwise your stances are inherently flawed.

It's the same deal with outfoxed which I will tear apart later.

Finally Eddie, you, more than anyone have backed-up my theory of the angry lefty. Not only are you an angry lefty, but you an angry lefty who denies that he is a lefty. (Just so it's clear, I'm talking about that 15% which I referred to earlier. You know? The ones who control the machinery in the modern Democratic Party)


I’m an angry lefty?
Hm … well, I guess if you consider the fact that I am for state’s rights, I am a lefty. Oh, wait, no, that’s a typically conservative stance. Oh, ok, how about that I’m for curbing of government spending and putting the $$ into the hands of its citizens … that’s a typically conservative mindset, too … even though the current administration is racking up a record debt … Hmmm ... maybe I'm a lefty because I agree that Bennish's actions in the classroom were inappropriate ... no, wait, that doesn't make sense … ok, wait … I KNOW how I’m a ‘lefty’!

I’m pro-choice! Yeah! That makes me a lefty!

Look, Dan, I’m sorry, but some people are neither aligned with left/right, Dems/Repubs … and that doesn’t mean one falls into the only other class: ‘anarchist’ … which you described me as earlier.

There are free thinkers who agree with conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints and viewpoints that can’t be classified as either …

Here are some of my favorite venom filled quotes from your response to my post:

"Dan, you're just an example, any myopic lemming's name could" - Hmmm "Lemming"? Classic.

"If you want to argue this, you're an idiot...."

"Great … and moderate, wanna-be, neo-cons like you will never take your tongue out of that man's pants." - Very nice, fellatio reference.

"You're a rube if you disagree." - "rube" wow! It's like I'm blogging on an episode of Happy Days!

"Wow … you are just a dilettante on repeat."

""Left-wing bomb throwers" …? Are those guys similar to the "Right-wing abortion clinic assassins?" - It always comes back to abortion with you folks doesn't it?

"You prick." - You think you scored here by pegging me as a racist in this segment and I'll make my case on Blair's AA hire next time, but what's so fascinating here is that you not only called me a "prick" but you also played the race card! Soooooo predictable. Sooooo typical.

"You are an ignorant fool …"

" hate ignorant, small-minded, ego-driven, myopic, racist, irrational, deliberately manipulative, weak-willed, and easily controlled nimrods like yourself.

You deserve to have your ability to think critically completely removed because you do not take advantage of it.

You do not deserve an opinion or free speech … if I had my way, my ultra-right, left-leaning, middle-of-the-road, anarchist, fascist, moderate Wobby-state would not allow idiots like you to speak aloud until you can prove that you can create a strain of independent thought.

Unquestioning sheep like you are the plankton of the human race."

-Here's a tip. If you want people of sound mind to take your postings seriously, DON'T DO THIS!
I'm going to respond to you becuase I'm agood guy and I enjoy debating, but almost anyone else who see's this at the conclusion of your post is going to think your just an angry jerk and not waste their time with you.

"mindless drones ......blah, blah, blah.....Thank you for exposing your herd mentality."


Yeah, I don’t apologize for any of these … and I’m not really concerned with you taking this post seriously or not based on my tone, I’m only concerned with the facts, as I think everyone else should be.

If someone presents something EXTREMELY RUDELY … they should be taken seriously if what they’re saying is true … this is another way that items are spun … focus is put on the tone, etiquette, class … things like these, which are absolutely meaningless in the face and pursuit of the truth.

The sooner everyone stops putting a premium on politeness … the sooner we can all reach the truth.

- I find it so ammusing that every time someone agrees with a position popular with the right, one of their opponant's primary rebuttals is accusing the individual of simply regurgitating information that they heard somewhere else. And yet, this talking point is one of the most widely used counterpoints among left-wing bloggers. But I'm sure they all came up with this assumption of how an individuals thought process works completely on their own right?

Just like I simply assume that you came up with the condescending terms "cookie" and "kitten" when reffering to me, and that you never even knew that Dennis Miller used to use these terms in the same way. Of course I'm sure you never thought of that.


Uh … are you REALLY comparing my use of the terms ‘cookie’ and ‘kitten’ as regurgitated tidbits on par with your entire philosophies, statements, and perspectives?

So what do we have left?

Jayson Blair, WMD's, Al Gore, and of course my explanation as to how media outlets skew the news.


Don’t forget creationism … I’d like to hear your views on how a man touting political viewpoints in the classroom is more of a danger to our children than teaching creationism in lie of evolutionary theory.

And yes, the media skews the news, that’s what we’re talking about!!! BOTH SIDES, LEFT AND RIGHT, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE … they are ALL seeking to SKEW and SPIN! You can’t say that one side doesn’t spin just because you agree with their opinion! Well, you can do whatever you want, but if you go for that, you fall under the myopic.

Your turn … and ps, just so you know … I haven’t seen Outfoxed … so when I ask for evidence from you on why it’s bunk …

… that’s me REALLY asking. I don’t have an opinion yet because I have ZERO information … which is how things work. Any new information, as long as it is fact-based, is welcomed and needs to be assimilated in order to create an greater understanding of the entire picture.

Which is why I have no tolerance for people, left/right who refuse to consider facts which they cannot disprove simply because they conflict with one’s own pre-conceived notion.

Don’t pay attention to my tone.

That’s how spin garners power.

Ed Murray said...

PS,

Calling the Democratic base the far-left is laughable. The political spectrum goes beyond the elephant and the jackass ...

Does this mean that the 35% of voters at the conservative base are far-right? Perhaps a small faction, but read a book every now and then, the political spectrum runs from anarchy to fascism.

This is further evidence that you seeing these issues through a disturbingly limiting scope.

Falling Panda said...

capability and reasons to aid and abet these terrorists before they were able to strike again.

Iraq fit this description. The entire world believed that Saddam had WMD's, including governments that opposed the war and we saw no reason as to why he would hesitate in handing these weapons off to terrorists, Al-Qaeda or otherwise. His tendency to hide these weapons and evade inspectors is well documented and is once again alluded to by his own aides in the newly released ABC audiotapes.

Iraq had multiple connections with Al Qaeda including, but not limited to their association with Ansar Al Islam in the North and the refuge given to Al Zarquawi after the toppling of the Taliban.
While it can be argued that no proof exists that Saddam had any knowledge of this it is very hard to swallow and making a connection between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda does not necessarily require a meeting between Saddam himself and the terrorists. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Saddam didn't know about it and his statements in the newly released ABC recordings in which he talks at length about terrorism coming to America and how WMD's could be used in an attack makes me even more suspicious.

I'll go even further. Joe Wilson mislead everyone when he went around the country playing down his findings in Niger as unsupportive of the presidents claims. The truth is, that in his testimony to the Senate select committee on intelligence, he told senators, that he had met with the nations former prime minister, who had informed him that he had been contacted, by members of Saddam’s regime who were interested in obtaining WMD's.

Now the administration sold the war to the public based on the belief that Saddam had WMD's and we had every reason to believe that he did. The major goal of the war however was to install a Democracy which was friendly to the US in the Middle East. The idea was that Iraq's location bordering the unfriendly regimes of Iran and Syria would not only give us a strategic location to deal with these rogue nations, but could also lead to Democracy spreading into these nations as well as others, thus making them less prone to support terrorism and to commit terrorist acts. That was the idea. Will it work? I don't know. I hope it does. The citizens of other nations need to see Democracy and its benefits before they take the risk of demanding it and based on the violence in Iraq right now it doesn't look too promising. However, if the violence is quelled, this domino effect may take effect.

One other benefit of being in Iraq is the fact that Al Qaeda is streaming into Iraq from around the Middle East. While this puts our troops and the Iraqi people in danger, it also gives us an opportunity to kill them, without having to search for them in areas in which they control the high ground and hide out in caves. That would be a bloodbath ten times worse then Iraq.

I think this administration has made numerous mistakes in the running of this war, but I understand the strategy, and if I was in Bush's position, it is likely that I would have taken the same course of action in perusing military action against Saddam's regime.

You make the point that we were the ones that armed Saddam in the first place, and that's true. That does not in any way effect the situation which I laid out for you above. It is completely irrelevant, in fact. Different enemy, different decade.

Some people want to say that the Iraq strategy has already failed, some want to say that Bush lied to get us there. Both of these concepts are baseless and I believe that the motives of many who espouse these views are suspect in that they are politically motivated statements, made by those who have a vested interest in seeing the president fail. I can't stand that and every American should condemn these individuals.

As far as Chertoff’s cousin being involved in the Popular Mechanics article, it is only a problem if the information he is presenting is false or if he had not provided adequate sources. The magazine presents the reader with a huge list of what appear to be highly credible sources. It’s the same as the John Ellis deal over at FNC. Unless you can prove that he abused his power in some way it is simply guilt by association and does not bring anything useful to the debate.

You then go on to say “open your head….if there is no threat to the truth, then there is no threat to new facts.”

You have to understand that the internet is teeming with misinformation posing as truth. I could go all over the web, visiting every site that claims to have the unheard truth about an important issue which poses “no threat” to me, but it would take me years.

In an age where we have more sources of information than ever before, the media serves as a filter so that the general public doesn’t have to spend their entire lives figuring out what information is true and what isn’t. If you think that there are certain things that journalists are not reporting due to government pressure or on orders from the top, then you are more of a conspiracy theorist than I thought. Prove it.

You go on to say that I do nothing but “spout soundbytes” again this is that weak accusation typically made by those on the left, when they can’t refute what the person is saying. You don’t know me Eddie. You don’t know where I get my facts from. My opinions are my own and everything that I have said in my blog postings and in my responses to you is my opinion which I personally crafted. Perhaps it is shared by someone on the news or in a news paper, but your opinions and ideas probably are as well. I’m not going to assume that you stole your ideas or are blindly regurgitating ideas and opinions presented by your sources. You shouldn’t assume it about me, because its not true.

As for creationism, I don’t believe in it, nor do I think it should be taught in science class. I believe in God and I believe in science and to a certain extent I believe in intelligent design, but not in the literal way that many of those people who have been driving the recent debate do.

Finally, when I refer to far left or liberal or far-right or conservative, I use them as terms to describe a certain-belief or set of beliefs. Like it or not, you seem to have beliefs that are synonymous with those which are exclusive to people on the left side of our nations political spectrum. While I hold some liberal beliefs and some moderate ones, one wouldn’t be wrong in describing me as a conservative. It’s the political philosophy which best describes me. So far your views on the War on Terror and your disdain for the president, place you to the left of most moderate voters in this country. That’s all I’m saying.
The money and the most popular candidates among Democratic Primary voters these days, fall to the left of the more centrist elements of their party. Anarchy and facism may very well be places along the political spectrum, but they remain fringe elements whose members hold no power in our nation today. The scale I am using does not include them. Therefore it is completely accurate when I say that those who make up the Democratic base right now are far to the left of the average american.

Falling Panda said...

Oh, and by the way Eddie:

One of your previous postings:

"First of all, Jayson Blair, spelled with a 'y' … I know they sound the same on TV … graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Maryland, interned at The Boston Globe and The Washington Post while a student there, and upon his graduation, was an intern at The New York Times. Does this record make it sound like he might have been appropriately qualified as a hire"

"SEE WHAT I DID, DAN? I GAVE YOU SOME FACTS"

Well it turns out that Blair did not graduate from the University of Maryland. An understandable error. Just make sure you're "facts" are correct, before accusing someone else of presenting misinformation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33419-2003May23?language=printer

Falling Panda said...

Eddie: "I'm addressing everything above here … um yeah … there was a protest vs. a news station. So? That's an American right to exercise a protest … but to say that "Fox ... does lean to the right" is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard because it is such a gross understatement."

and

Eddie: "I also like how you labeled a protest against an execution, a clear exercise of both freedom of speech and freedom of protest, as "… juvenile behavior."

These are a few quotes found in Eddie's response to the segment of my blog in which I describe some protesters and their behavior during a FNC reporters broadcast from the Tookie Williams trial.

I'd like to think that you simply misinterpreted this part of the posting, but due to you lack of fact-checking regarding the Jayson Blair statement, i'm begginnig to think that you're manipulating the post in order to bolster your own opinion.

You say "there was a protest vs. a news station." There wasn't a protest vs. a news station. the protest was regarding Tookie williams execution as you seem to understand in the other quote that I have listed.

In your next qoute you claim that I reffered to the execution protest as "juvinille behavior", which I did not. I was reffering to the behavior which they were exhibiting when surrounding the reporter, which included heckling and physical intimidation as "juvinille."

I'm beggining to think that maybe your doing the same thing which you have accused me of doing so many times. That is spinning information and facts so it suits your argument.

I know that you have posted your thoughts on my blog on your My Space profile and I hope you have the guts to post corrections to your Jayson Blair statement and clarify this one, otherwise your lack of credibility is going to start becoming a problem and I'm not going to continue responding.

Ed Murray said...

ugh ... Dan ... most of this I responded to on my blog ...

I think we're just going to have to agree to completely think the other person is a raving ball of nonsense.

See, here's the thing, Dan ... there's a lot of info pro-Iraq was justified and con-Iraq was justified.

To staunchly believe in only the pro- is unfair to the logical mind.

To see so much con-, the logical mind must then place the entire situation under scrutiny.

This is not a cut-and-dried situation, so the man who backs it fervently and without question, is ... well ... someone who does not question.

Dubious information makes the entire premise suspect. That is rational ... and through analysis, one can come to a firm conclusion supporting the original premise ... but to do so without acknowledging even THE POSSIBILITY of manipulation or inaccuracies ... well, that's just silly.

On Jayson Blair ...:

My bad, he attended U of Maryland and was editor of the school paper ... I'm not trying to manipulate anything here, Dan.

I'm not making a case for Blair, my point was, that on paper, this guy seemed like an appropriate hire for any major newspaper.

So, my question still stands, what qualifies him as an affirmative action hire?

But, yeah, I'll definitely post a correction on the myspace blog, absolutely.

Dan said:
You say "there was a protest vs. a news station." There wasn't a protest vs. a news station. the protest was regarding Tookie williams execution as you seem to understand in the other quote that I have listed.

Dan ... christ, you are splitting hairs, here ... yeah, we've got to end this here, just let me say, that I KNOW it was a protest against the execution ... but you were pointing it out because some of the protestors were also protesting FOX there ... correct? That was the significance, correct? So: AT THE PROTEST VS. THE EXECUTION, SOME PEOPLE ENGAGED IN ANTI-FOX PROTESTS ...

Is that better? It doesn't really matter, what would be my big reward in manipulating this? This is such an insignificant part of the whole equation here ... and the juvenile behavior falls under that, as well ...

Ok, so you don't say protesting is juvenile behavior, but you say certain behaviors during a protest are juvenile behaviors ... man, so what? Let people protest the way they want, let them drop their pants if they need to, it's still a protest, and thus to attempt to reduce its relevance and power by belittling it as juvenile, is, indeed calling the protest itself, juvenile ...

Again, there's no grand benefit here to attempt to manipulate this sort of language, these are really nit-picking semantics you're talking about here ... there's much bigger arguments at play here.

I don't quite understand why you would focus on such mintuae.

It's like the creationism thing, I'm glad to hear you don't think it should be taught in schools ... my point is that we should then be on the ball of fighting that ... it seems like that's much more important than one teacher's political opinion.

As for far-left ... that's powerful language, in my eyes, maybe it's not to you, but although we have an extremely limited political spectrum in this country, historically, and globally, far-left and far-right don't mean liberal and conservative, they mean much more severe things.

These terms evoke strong feeling, so to use the term far-anything ... it is an attempt (the media, both sides, do this all the time) to elicit a strong response of contra- or 'they' or a 'vs.' mentality. It's just something to look out for, that's all.

The dems and repubs are all pretty middle-of-the-road for the most part.

And yeah, my views on questioning America's policy under this administration fall under 'liberal' items ... but that's a minor part of my entire perspective, so I think it's limiting to subscribe to a pre-fab label for the sake of easy generalizations.

... because those generalizations are often wrong, marginalzing, and are used (again, by all 'sides') to create negative images of the other for personal gain.

Ed Murray said...

PS,

Dan, throughout all of this, I have developed some strange sort of informational affection for you ... to which I will point out my 'raving ball of nonsense' comment was meant in the best way possible ...

... whatever that is.

matthew said...

So Dan what's your take on the Ben Domenech scandal at the Washington Post.com?

Falling Panda said...

Matthew -

I have been following the Domenech thing since it broke and I think his writing and specifically his reffering to Mrs. King as "communist" goes to the very heart of what I've been talking about in all of my postings.
No writer, should throw around weighted terms like these so freely or should resort to name-calling.

Domenech showed clear disregard for the kind of journalistic ettiquette that we should expect from our major publications, even blogs associatted with those publications. It also shows poorly on those conservatives for whom the blog was set up in the first place. This is unfoutunate.

I don't think the guy is ready for prime-time and at his age the Post should have known this.

matthew said...

There's also the fact that before he was willing to admit to the plagarism Domenech defended himself by trashing his detractors stating on redstate.org "the leftists shifted their accusations to ones of plagiarism. You can find the major examples here: I link to this source only because I believe it's the only place that hasn't yet written about how they'd like to rape my sister."

Of course he offered no proof that anyone had threatened to rape his sister.

Next time you write a post on how citizens who are one step or greater to the left of center are lowering the level of discourse I hope you'll include an equal opportunity section on conservative authors as well.

You claim your posts speak about all writers but in all fairness you do have to admit that you tend to spend most or all of your time finding faults with the left of center writers.

Anonymous said...

Yawn. Time to change the subject. The current exchange between Angry Eddie and the Panda Man is getting pretty tiresome. What are your thought about censuring Bush, Panda Man? What's your take on the John Dean testimony? Do you think the president(any president) has too much power in this area? Should the "rules" apply equally in war and in peace?

NDwalters said...

Nice blog, and I too saw OUTFOXED, that was the perfect thing to help clear my bowels of any obstructions. Seeing that made me wanna purge my system.

Ever watch 24?