Newsweek Taps Bush Aide For Obama Reporting (Updated)

posted by Ari Melber on 11/17/2009 @ 09:32am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (195)

Subscribe Now

See if you can follow this logic.

A recent article in Newsweek states that Democrats could have won a "very significant number of Republican votes in Congress" for the stimulus -- had there only been a "meaningful tax-cut component." Political journalism is often imaginative, but this verges on delusion. After all, Obama labored to add about $280 billion in tax cuts to the stimulus -- over objections from many Democrats -- and still netted zero Republican votes in the House. Then, the piece asserts that Obama has no "coattails," based on 2009 elections, and reports "early signs of Obama fatigue are emerging." (Again, another observer might note that Democrats have won all 5 special congressional elections this year.) The article also predicts that gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey "will" make some Democrats "very nervous" about health care reform, which is a "political risk" for the party.

"We appear to be witnessing the beginnings of a significant Republican revival," continues the piece, bringing home its quirky counter-narrative. Lucky for struggling Democrats, however, this Newsweek item closes with some free political advice. "Liberals in Washington would do well to let go of the Republican breakdown narrative," notes the final sentence, "and pull back to the center--or suffer the consequences."

It's the kind of article that might leave you wondering if the author simply works for the G.O.P.

Newsweek's byline states that the writer, Yuval Levin, is "editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center." It all sounds quite journalistic and non-partisan. But Levin is also a former aide to President George W. Bush. (He served on the White House domestic policy staff as recently as 2006). If anything, this government experience makes Levin's political analysis more interesting. Why keep it from readers?

As it happens, Levin's first piece for Newsweek, back in March, was prominently billed as Obama analysis from "a Bush veteran." So I put the question to Newsweek, and spokesperson Katherine Barna shares their rationale:

Levin's previous article for Newsweek involved the issue of bioethics, his primary focus while at the White House. He disclosed his prior position in the body of that piece. His most recent article was not related to that topic. We believe our readers are aware of Mr. Levin's background, and are able to discern a reported news article from argument, which Levin's recent piece was. (Emphasis added.)

Really? Does anyone think most readers keep track of White House staff by name? Or that readers memorized Levin's affiliation from March? It's hard to tell if the magazine somehow believes this argument, or just doesn't care that it's not very believable.

And, of course, the whole point of a byline is to provide "background." Levin's article already lists two affiliations for background -- they are just less relevant than his affiliation serving in a senior position in Obama's opposing party, since Levin is purporting to advise "liberals in Washington."

While we're at it, Levin has also been leading the fight to squash Obama's health care plans. He coauthored a June column with another former G.O.P. official, Bill Kristol, declaring, "ObamaCare is wrong. It should and can be defeated." Levin fails to disclose that position during his Newsweek health care coverage, which argues that reform is a "political risk" for Democrats, (his political opponents).

Now yes, people may be so accustomed to paltry disclosure and conflicts of interest that this all draws a collective yawn. Surely there are bigger problems to blog today. And so on. But it is striking that, as public views of the press hit 20-year lows, major media organizations still will not take responsibility for giving their readers basic transparency and information about contributors. And it's especially rich when the proffered explanation is that readers already know.

Update: Since filing this piece, several other outlets have weighed in:

Newsweek defends ignoring Obama critic's ties to Bush, Raw Story

The Washington Post Company does not understand disclosure, Media Matters

Melber questions Newsweek disclosure for Bush aide, Politico

The Horror and The Outrage, RCP Blog

Comments (195)

Ari Melber says:

"....But it is striking that, as public views of the press hit 20-year lows, major media organizations still will not take responsibility for giving their readers basic transparency and information about contributors. ...."

Mr. Melber, by that do you mean that most of the contributors in the major media lean to the left? That most if questioned would identify themselves more as Democrats and that many have comments (in the course of their news work) that any objective person can see show a distinct leftward bias?

Are those the things you mean?

Or perhaps are you talking about how CBS News never mentioned (that I can remember) how one of their major "contributors", early in his career, broadcast from Dallas, Texas one day that elementary school kids had cheered when told they were being sent home early.......and thus the world got the impression that Southern kids were cheering the death of a Northern Democrat President......and how the station had to rush and get the principal of the school on the air to explain that the kids were not told why they were being sent home early, and how then the station manager of the local CBS affiliate contacted the network and told them to get that reporter, a Mr. Dan Rather, out of his newsroom, after he had performed in my opinion the worst act of "journalism" ever?

Is that what you mean, Mr. Melber?

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 09:52am
Well, no, sjchernek, that's not what Mr. Melber means.

Those are your thoughts dancing in your head, and have little to do with the substance of this article.

Posted by RickDesper at 11/17/2009 @ 10:21am
>>>as public views of the press hit 20-year lows, major media organizations still will not take responsibility for giving their readers basic transparency and information about contributors.<<<

As we see with healthcare, any media reform efforts to provide better disclosure and transparency will be quite a struggle in a Congress that takes money from the same people the MSM gets their money from.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM must be the "first" reform that enables all other progressive reform efforts.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 10:28am
sjchermak:

"...many have comments (in the course of their news work) that any objective person can see show a distinct leftward bias?"

How would a dittohead like you have any idea what an objective person can see? If you want to persuade an objective person of a liberal media bias, you're going to have to come up with a little bit more than a single anecdote from half a century ago.

Posted by miasmo at 11/17/2009 @ 10:52am
After all, Obama labored to add about $280 billion in tax cuts to the stimulus -- over objections from many Democrats -- and still netted zero Republican votes in the House. Then, the piece asserts that Obama has no "coattails," based on 2009 elections, and reports "early signs of Obama fatigue are emerging."

Those weren't tax cuts-nice Dem spin Ari.

they were refundable tax credits even if you had no tax liability-which means they were govt welfare for many.

Secondly, it now seems millions will have to repay those "tax cuts"

<Millions may have to repay part of Obama tax credit [Updated]

November 16, 2009

For more than 15.4 million people, the Making Work Pay tax credit enacted as part of the $787-billion economic stimulus package could turn out to be a Making You Pay Back tax credit.

That's the finding of a government watchdog report out today about the credit, which provides as much as $400 for individuals and as much as $800 for joint filers. It is the signature tax cut that President Obama promised in his campaign and was delivered with much fanfare in February.

In essence, the credit was "advanced to taxpayers through their wages by a decrease in federal income tax withholding" for the 2009 and 2010 tax years, according to the report by the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration.

If too much of the credit was advanced, a person would end up having to pay the extra money back. After analyzing 2007 tax return data, the Inspector General found that more than 15.4 million people could fall into that category this year. Among the reasons for having to pay back some of the credit are having more than one job or receiving pension or Social Security payments while still working.>

http://tinyurl.com/yh2hnc4

Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:56am
Levin. Hmmm... I think the name says everything.

Posted by gangpapist at 11/17/2009 @ 11:26am
Dear Antisocial(ist) -- The Google is our friend:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-21-obama-saturday_N.htm

Tax cuts, about $65 per month in take-home pay for the average American, NOT the tax credits you mention, were indeed included in the stimulus package. There were also some business tax cuts, as I recall, and other Republican talking points, but still not one Republican voted for the bill. Way to go!

Do you really think the Republicans wanted the stimulus to, you know, work? Dream on, right-whinger, dream on. The party of "No" has become the party of "NO, Damn it!" and is RUSHing toward, "NO, not over the dead bodies of every American (if I can help it)!"

From stalling on judicial appointments they agree on to stalling on the simple business of the Senate on non-controversial matters to doing their damnedest to keep the profit margins high for insurance companies even if it kills someone, you can count on the Grand Old Party to stand firm against the 20th Century (and parts of the 19th as well -- ask one his private views on the 13th Amendment sometime).

And what I can't figure out is what they think they can gain from it? With self-identification as a Republican hovering under 25% of the population, you'd think they would be open to politics (the art of compromise); instead, they are open only to open warfare with the rest of us.

Sigh. This will not be a pretty sight, the coming few years. Between the Tea Party and the old guard, it must be a trying time to be a Republican. Then again, I have always been for trying Republicans, and wish the administration would get around to trying a few more.

Ed

Posted by Ed_Drone at 11/17/2009 @ 11:39am
miasmo,

My "anectote" was an example of an irresponsible journalist....and how Mr. Melber's article discussed things like disclosure, and transparency from news organizations, and how CBS never seemed to try to make people aware that they had an irresponsible journalist on their staff (who became their main man, eventually) and CBS never explained why they continued to employ Dan Rather after November 22, 1963.

In this case (my second comment, about Mr. Rather) I was really not citing liberal bias so much, just irresponsible journalism.

As far as my first comment, about liberal bias, that has been documented beyond your ability to argue otherwise. Check out the Media Research Center website,and check out Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS.

So, to recap, you totally misunderstood my point about Mr. Rather, and you know now (if you didn't before) that there is a lot more than that one anecdote that support the fact there is leftist bias in the media.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am
"As far as my first comment, about liberal bias, that has been documented beyond your ability to argue otherwise. Check out the Media Research Center website,and check out Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS. "----Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

So it's been "documented" by an admittedly right-wing "watchdog group" and a reporter who's Sean Hannity's favorite guest.

Yeah...that pretty much settles it, doesn't it? Up next, Steve Forbes objectively proves that tax cuts for billionaires creates millions of new jobs....and detailed pain-staking years-in-the-making research and analysis by Glenn Beck proves once and for all that Obama is a Communist.

Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:00pm
"So it's been "documented" by an admittedly right-wing "watchdog group" and a reporter who's Sean Hannity's favorite guest."

yup, you can't argue otherwise. it's now official. the media is leftwing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:10pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:10pm

Sure....same as Sarah Palin's new book definitively proves how great Sarah Palin is.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:12pm
sjchermak, i have been studying the media for 15 years. i have an advanced degree in media studies.

and let me tell you something: i have never, ever met a colleague, professor or student who believed (or who was able to document through research) that the major news media had a left-wing bias. it's impossible.

unless of course, by "left wing" you mean "anyone to the left of george w. bush."

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:18pm
darladoon/Mask,

The Media Research Center and Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS contain concrete examples (in the MRC case tons of them) of leftward bias by people supposedly delivering straight news.

These are documented examples of things that actually happened in the news. You can see from the conduct and statements by the reporters the leftward bias.

Your declaring otherwise doesn't change that fact.

The MRC (the "watchdog" group) is "right-wing". Of course they are, who else do you think would document leftward bias in the media!! Duh!!

"Document" means exactly what it say. Actual examples of leftist bias documented.

On the MRC site, there are areas where the operators of the site offer up opinion, but much of it is documentation of actual media events.

In Darladoon's univeristy environment, the "colleagues" could not document leftist bias! Gee, why doesn't that surprise me?

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 12:30pm
media blackout on single payer healthcare:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3733

still "left wing" sjchermak?

and on the iraq war? same thing.

no anti-war guests in the run-up. just military professionals, chickenhawks, and centrists.

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:55pm
So, to recap, you totally misunderstood my point about Mr. Rather, and you know now (if you didn't before) that there is a lot more than that one anecdote that support the fact there is leftist bias in the media.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

I am certainly not going to defend Dan Rather's work during the JFK assassination, because his body of work over the decades has been, to put it mildly, brilliant.

The fact that you use an incident in which a young reporter (Rather) over 40 years ago, made a small error in reporting (as in he didn't give the whole story about the schoolkids) and paint him as some kind of terrible journalist, says more about you than it does about Rather. He was thrust into a horrible situation and did an amazing job of covering the very many angles during and after the assassination.

Now, 40 years ago, there MIGHT have been a liberal bias to the news, but as your side continually crows about Faux News' ratings, and the obvious point that Faux News is right-wing biased, I guess you can no longer say there is a "liberal" bias to the MSM, is there?

You can't have it both ways: a "liberal" MSM and the highest rated Faux News.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 12:30pm

SJ, would an example of "left-wing bias" in the Media be say, they talk about Global Warming as if it was "a fact" and not "still debatable" or "a hoax" as all "objective" people know?

BTW....

"The MRC (the "watchdog" group) is "right-wing". Of course they are, who else do you think would document leftward bias in the media!! Duh!! "

A NON-partisan group, perhaps? Of course, any group we could cite, like Pew or Annanberg...you'd say is "liberal", right?

Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:09pm
Stephen_Carver1,

There is no major network named "Faux" news.

There is NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, to name a few.

You declare that Fox is right wing biased. That is your opinion, clearly.

The facts that MRC has complied are what they are. Go to the website and review the various examples cited. Read the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. The facts are the facts.

You can not stand the fact that Fox does not lean leftward. That is one network out of many networks and/or newspapers who do lean leftward. Yet it drives you nuts that there is one, instead of none.

It goes flying over your head why Fox has the ratings it does. It is because most people want straight news, not straight news that is supposedly straight news but is presented often in a biased manner, which is what they get from the other news outlets.

As for Mr. Rather, no surprise that you would view his body of work as brilliant. I am sure you thought his work in 2004 was brilliant.

Fortunately for the country, it was not quite "brilliant" enough to bring home the victory for John F. Kerry.

Fortunately for the country, some bloggers on the Internet recognized that documents from (supposedly) years ago were in a typeface that would only have been present using Microsoft Word and not an ordinary typewriter, and Word was not available (nor were personal computers) back when the documents were supposed to have been created.

And thus Mr. Rather's reputation went down into the place it belonged, down the toilet.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 1:39pm
"It goes flying over your head why Fox has the ratings it does. It is because most people want straight news, not straight news that is supposedly straight news but is presented often in a biased manner, which is what they get from the other news outlets."

it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who believes this, much in the same way it is impossible for someone, like myself, to have a conversation with someone who doesn't believe in evolution.

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 1:39pm

You are obviously a right wing ideologue if you believe that Fox News is actually "unbiased." Bernard Goldberg, who I once respected, has also obviously swallowed the right wing kool-aid.

Both sources you site, the MRC and Goldberg, are right wing sources. They say a thing, and you, being the ideologue, agree with what they say and call it "fact." I could just as easily point out to you that Eric Alterman, who posts on The Nation and elsewhere, wrote a book entitled "What Liberal Media?" which includes numerous carefully researched sources and examples within it that prove to anyone with a brain, that there is no general liberal bias to the news that Americans get on a daily basis; rather the news Americans receive has a distinctively conservative, almost neo-con bias to it.

The Sunday talk shows for example, are almost 2:1 conservative guests/talking heads to "liberal" or even "centrist" points of view. That's just one example.

Your hatred for Dan Rather is obviously fed by the right wing media machine which has hated Rather for decades. This is the same machine that manipulates small-minded people like you into believing that Fox News is unbiased, and that there is a liberal media. It's simply not true and if you were to actually do the research yourself, you'd find that your "facts," such as they are, are simply right wing talking points and have been for decades.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm
sjchermak, i have been studying the media for 15 years. i have an advanced degree in media studies.

and let me tell you something: i have never, ever met a colleague, professor or student who believed (or who was able to document through research) that the major news media had a left-wing bias. it's impossible.

unless of course, by "left wing" you mean "anyone to the left of george w. bush."

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:18pm

Reminds me of another time in our history.

"I don't understand how Nixon one. None of my friends voted for him".

Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:07pm
correction: "how Nixon won"

Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:07pm
Stephen_Carver1,

Checkmate.

You lose.

I read the Eric Alterman book.

He declared Bernard Goldberg's book invalid without offering any examples why.

The point you make is flawed. You cite the talk shows. Alterman went on and on about that.

The major bone of contention that Conservatives have with the liberal bias in the media is with what is supposedly straight news. The regular news broadcasts that are not talk shows or roundtables or "analysis" but supposedly just the description of the major events of the day.

The MRC and Bernard Goldberg offer up example after example of how this "straight" news gets tilted left.

Liberals argue that the political Right has a large prescense in the media. But they cite talk shows and talk radio and and Alterman even pointed out that The Nation has allowed Conservatives a voice on it's pages.

But when people watch/read talk shows or magazines that are "discussing" and analyzing the events of the day, they know they are getting an opinion or "take" on the events.....not just a description.

The straight news is supposedly just that...but unfortunately it is not....some stories are beaten to death on the news while other things aren't even mentioned at all.....the context that things are put into and the coverage it receives does matter.

Bernard Goldberg started out as a newsperson at CBS...in his book he said that in the privacy of the voting booth he tended to have leaned Democrat.....his book is about what he observed in the newsroom, which he did not like seeing, and not just things he was spitting out after drinking "right wing kool aid"...

I guess you respected Bernard Goldberg until he told the truth about what he saw.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 3:05pm
Stephen_Carver1,

By the way, stop lecturing me about facts.

Go to the MRC website. Read Goldberg's book.

They contain concrete examples of stories the networks covered that demonstrated leftward bias.

They contain concrete examples of comments over the years by many of the major newspeople, and show how they demonstrated leftward bias.

Take those examples and prove those events did not happen.

Take those examples and demonstrate to me why each example is not an example of leftward bias.

Get busy, and stop lecturing me about facts.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 3:11pm
I read the Eric Alterman book.----Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 3:05pm

Out on a limb maybe, but...I call

lie.

I seriously doubt a robotic regurgitator of Limbaugh talking points actually read Eric Alterman's book. Excerpts?...maybe. But SJ would never spend an evening or two reading a book by an "avowed leftist".

Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 3:32pm
Levin is also an ace AIPAC asset.

Posted by sloper at 11/17/2009 @ 3:37pm
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:00pm

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, MASK rules out listening to anyone who he disagrees with when he demands proof of media bias. Nice world you live in there fella.

Posted by pontificus at 11/17/2009 @ 3:56pm
sjchermak, fox news is not biased? Fox news is straight news? You have got to be kidding me, indoctrinated much? sheesh.

Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 4:19pm
Nice work, Mr. Melber. Not that anyone smarter than a screwdriver is surprised that Newsweek is turning into an even more blatant neocon / zionist rag than it's always been..... and the Washington Post, lil' sister, is as bad or worse these days. What's mind boggling is the associated arrogance of the 'Post Companies' to think that no-one will notice. The neocon-zionists must either not care what intelligent people think, or are just plain desperate. Maybe both.

Posted by DejaVu at 11/17/2009 @ 4:43pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 3:05pm

This isn't a game and I neither win, nor lose.

I'm glad you read Alterman's book. Evidently, you didn't get much from it, which makes me wonder how much of it your actually absorbed.

As for Goldberg, I lost respect for him when he started working at Fox. I have no respect for anyone who works in such an obviously slanted organization. Just because it's slanted towards the right, doesn't mean it's not slanted, except to people like you, who are so far to the right as to make Fox News LOOK "Fair and Balanced."

As to lecturing, I am simply offering my opinion, based upon how I view the world, the various influences upon me (not all of them liberal), and what I see in the media, as well as what I read. I have no desire to read Goldberg's book for the reason stated above. Just as I have no desire to read Palin's book, either. I really don't think I'm going to learn anything new from her. And her book has been out less than 24 hours and already numerous lies and misrepresentations have been discovered, including some about her running mate and head of the ticket, John McCain.

You have the audacity to mention certain stories are "beaten to death" and then proclaim Fox to be your network of choice? PLEASE...did they or did they NOT beat to death the story of Obama's birth certificate? THAT was a non-story. And that's only ONE example in the past few months.

The fact that you read my postings and believe them to be lectures perhaps indicates that you should be lectured, seeing as your so called "facts" are biased. But, you obviously don't have any independent thinking capabilities, so any lecturing would probably be wasted on you anyway.

Your learning disabilities are really none of my concern and not worth my time.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 4:56pm
The neocon-zionists must either not care what intelligent people think,

Posted by DejaVu at 11/17/2009 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Oh but they do! That is the main reason there is no catering to the leftist biased myopic idealouges as they do at the nation, kos, and huffpost where intelligence discourse rarely rises above the gutteral vulgarities of miscreats and purposely misdirected blog subject matter!

Posted by BigPasture at 11/17/2009 @ 6:17pm
What I don't get is...

...why the increasing SHRILLNESS by our rightie/neocon friends here, from SJ to BP (albeit with his own brand of gas).

Things are going, essentially, your way out there right now.

A President mired in two wars he didn't start, being whipsawed by his generals, you know you dig that shit; Palin back on the campaign trail, from what I can see; labor unions smashed, with their lowest levels of bargaining power and membership in modern times; Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas warming the bench.

And you're bitching about the media.

My blue collar ass has gotta get back to WORK.

Try it sometime.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/17/2009 @ 7:22pm
Go to your local library & pick up a copy of Newsweek. No wonder they're hiring former Bush aides. Ad revenue has descended to the eventual necessity of running "personal" classifieds. This rag is now the size of a rural community newsletter on annual recipe submission day.

Give em five years at most. Maybe they'll merge with People.

Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2009 @ 8:52pm
As for Goldberg, I lost respect for him when he started working at Fox. I have no respect for anyone who works in such an obviously slanted organization. Just because it's slanted towards the right, doesn't mean it's not slanted, except to people like you, who are so far to the right as to make Fox News LOOK "Fair and Balanced." As to lecturing, I am simply offering my opinion, based upon how I view the world, the various influences upon me (not all of them liberal), and what I see in the media, as well as what I read. I have no desire to read Goldberg's book for the reason stated above.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 4:56pm

Oh, come now Stephen. What are you afraid of? Losing your (liberal) religion? Go on, read Goldberg. Expand your mind. You have nothing to lose but the chains around your mind. Just read the first section, about the smarty-pants, dismissive news report on Forbes' flat tax plan.

Posted by twillie at 11/17/2009 @ 9:57pm
could the media possibly liberal when it never explores class issues? when it never investigates the real sources of anti-american hatred? when it convinces americans that there is some doubt about waterboarding? when it convinces americans that not getting wiretaps is harmless? why tax cuts are good? etc, etc??

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 10:33pm
Oh, come now Stephen. What are you afraid of? Losing your (liberal) religion? Go on, read Goldberg. Expand your mind. You have nothing to lose but the chains around your mind. Just read the first section, about the smarty-pants, dismissive news report on Forbes' flat tax plan.

Posted by twillie at 11/17/2009 @ 9:57pm

Twillie, liberals like Stephen have no intention of expanding their minds. They have difficulty enough just maintaining all the leftist lies that fill their heads.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:42pm
@ sjchermak, other FOX <3ers

As a dutiful NPR listener, i like me some straight news... FOX is definitely not. Please see the Liberal Viewer (the name is a double entendre...) FOX News Bias playlist (containing over 100 videos and hundreds of examples of bias.) His astute analysis is all the proof you need that FOX consistently distorts/misreports facts that either favor republicans or harm democrats. A quick perusal will yield you far more information than either 0f the aforementioned books by Goldberg and Alterman.

Please don't write me back until you've at least watched some of them. Take an hour, watch what you can, listen to what he has to say and then get back to me.

Posted by Trickatrog at 11/17/2009 @ 10:57pm
"liberals like Stephen have no intention of expanding their minds"

liberals' only interest is in....expanding their minds.

why do you think most artists, musicians and scientists are liberal?

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:23pm
This is all Ari has???

What about the "Magical Mystery Tour" that has taken the Obamanation away where he scrapes and bows before Asian regimes unlike any President of the U.S.A. in 200yrs? Wasn't his foolish tour of apoligetics for being an American enough in Europe and his praise for Islam and Muhammod the "Prophet of Doom" enough for him in Cairo?

He is still trying to reframe the "Islamic Terrorist" attack at Ft. Hood as some sort of failed law enforcement action!

Funny how the leftist web sites still ignore the idiocy of Obamanation , and power grabs of the Demoncrat congress clinging desperately to their failed totalitarian rule which totally ignores the real unemployment of 17% and over 15,000,000 jobless Americans.

Having bilked American taxpayers out of $787,000,000,000. to reward their Demoncrat supporters in the last election and buying auto companies for some of their failed union friends do they really think we will support their rampant socialistic power grab of healthcare?

That koolaide is getting staler every day isn't it?!

Posted by BigPasture at 11/18/2009 @ 05:04am
Take those examples and prove those events did not happen. Take those examples and demonstrate to me why each example is not an example of leftward bias. Get busy, and stop lecturing me about facts.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 3:11pm

fact:

gays and allies march - no coverage on Fox. Tea Partiers march - its the revolution and get ready

bias?

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 08:13am
"Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:14am EST

BEIJING, Nov 18 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession."

This is definitely good news and bad news. The good news is he realizes that spending trillions we don't have is bad for the economy. The bad news is, he probably needed a poll to convince him, and his solution is going to be trillions in new taxes, unfunded mandates, and accounting gimmicks ala California. That's coming next year, I presume, and it is contrary to what any economist will tell you about how to handle a recession.

Who knows, maybe even the left will figure out one day that there is no Santa Claus?

Posted by pontificus at 11/18/2009 @ 08:20am
Mask,

You say, above:

"....Out on a limb maybe, but...I call

lie. ...."

Ok, Mask so you made a call.

Now, if you follow football, you will see you have somthing in common with Bill Belichick.

You both made the wrong call!!!

Stephen_Carver1,

You say you lost respect for Mr. Goldberg when he started working for Fox.

You know, don't you, that his documentation of liberal bias was written long before he worked at Fox?

You say I didn't absorb Alterman's book. I told you the flaw in it, so I did "absorb" it.

You would think that if you are so contorted and bent about Fox being (according to you) biased to the right, then you would also be concerned about the rest of the media being biased to the left. Apparently not.

You say you are not lecturing me, but in fact you are lecturing me because in your postings you point out I have learning disabilities, etc....so you are going beyond just discussion...and that is typical behavior because you have no credible arguments to fall back on.

I did not see in any of your postings an analysis of the facts in Bernard Goldbergs' book or the MRC Website. The documented instances of leftist bias in what is supposedly the straight news, and your discussion of why the various incidents cited are not examples of leftward bias.

Did you post it and somehow the server deleted it? If so, please post it again.

You say my "facts" are biased. How so? Detailed analysis from you, please. Go to the incidents cited of bias (and there are plenty of them) and point out how they are flawed.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 08:22am
Typical phenomonon here - Mask contends that I a liar when I say I read Eric Alterman's book. Mask forgets I am not Bill Clinton, so I am not a liar.

But the implication is that people on the right are supposed to read stuff leftists write, to show an open mind and "learn".

But in the other direction, open minds are not required. Case in point, from Stephen_Carver1:

".......I have no desire to read Goldberg's book for the reason stated above. Just as I have no desire to read Palin's book, either......"

Stephen_Carver1, as a lib, knows everything there is to know already, or at least everything that matters. He also "knows" that things written by people on the right are by definition (lib definition) "wrong", and not worth his time.

This is normal, you see this all the time from many libs. Amazing how enlightened libs are.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 08:27am
sjchermak,

i'll say this one more time: i have never met a colleague, professor or student who could persuasively argue that the major media are left-wing. and i'm not talking "democratic," i'm talking about left-wing/liberal.

the major media are owned by enormous multinational corporations, with stakes in other goods and services. with stakes in the defense industry, agribusiness, electricity, textiles, etc.

that these massive corporations would print/broadcast in a way which would threaten or disrupt the status quo, aka their hold in all of these pots of gold, is absurd. it is anti-thetical to their interests, and as such, cannot happen in any meaningful or widespread way.

goldberg's examples are like drops in a bucket compared to the major issues of the day.

like i said, take any major issue: iraq, healthcare, afghanistan. most of the major players in the debate are either centrist or republican.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:15am
Posted by pontificus at 11/17/2009 @ 3:56pm

Ponti, if "The Nation" declared something biased to the Right....I would point out that their "Right" might be centrist. Same for Media Research.

Why would I consider Brent Bozell anymore "non-partisan" than Katrina vanden Heuvel???

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:17am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 08:22am

What's interesting, SJ...after stating several things that I supposedly "said"...

you did NOT deny my original charge.

That being that you did NOT read Eric Alterman's book and your claim that you did was false.

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:19am
Sure....same as Sarah Palin's new book definitively proves how great Sarah Palin is.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:12pm

Jenna Jameson came off as more erudite than Sarah Palin on Oprah this week.

Metaphors abound...

-----------

Will Jeff Gannon get a new by line with a "left wing biased" journal, will NRO hire him or more likely Jenna Jamesons Mens Only video take him on as a "consultant"?

-----

-------

October 14

* The Dow Jones Industrial Average breaks through the 10,000 level for the first time in a year. The index has risen 52.9 percent since a 12-year low in March.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:24am
Posted by pontificus at 11/18/2009 @ 08:20am

Still have that head firmly lodged up your patootooie I see.

where were you when Bush ran up the deficit? I remember you cheering it on.

"June 11, 2003

The latest budget projections from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that one out of every three dollars the federal government spends this year outside of the self-funded Social Security system will be paid for by borrowing. This will be the highest share of deficit-financed spending since World War II

President Bush's return to huge deficit spending represents a sharp break from the recent past. During President Clinton's second term, the government actually ran on-budget surpluses and began paying down the national debt. The new level of deficit spending exceeds the previous records set during the Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush administrations, when on-budget deficits averaged 25 percent and 28 percent of on-budget spending, respectively." http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm

But, Bush was One of the Top Ten Greatest Presidents EVER, until he was unmasked as a Secret Liberal by FOX...in 2009, after it was revealed that the real power was President Paulson of Treasury, a neo-liberal Socialist Castro protege' appointed by the Savior of the Middle East, Bringer of Peace and Winner of Wars, GWB.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:30am
why do you think most artists, musicians and scientists are liberal?

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:23pm

Most scientists aren't liberal. provide evidence to prove that.

And artists and musicians are liberal because they can't get real jobs.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:37am
"Why would I consider Brent Bozell anymore "non-partisan" than Katrina vanden Heuvel???"

because KVH is actually........intelligent?

you can be a total partisan and yet still make persuasive arguments.

bozell is moronic.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:38am
So, tell us SJ and PONTI, how does the "liberal media" compare to the Bush White House granting "news" credentials to a gay prostitute (while speaking of Family Values) who would then ask soft ball misleading questions of the president at the very few news conferences given by Bush, and using tax payer money to create propaganda via the Education Dept? Was this accepted by you two because of your belief in the "liberal media" owned by VIACOM, GE, Cumulous, Gannet and Knight Ridder?

Why is it OK to attack THIS president while he wages war, while it was helping Al Qaida when Bush was waging two wars? Still waiting for answers to that question, as I have asked it numerous times and received zero response.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:24am

Only one key test of Sarah Palin's intellect, crab.

What she does in 2012. If she doesn't run, parlays her fame and adoration among the Hard Right into more "Coulteresque" books and a "The View" style show on Fox and as "king-maker" campaigning and raising money for other Repubs....she's smart.

If she thinks she can win the GOP nomination, much less the Presidency....she's as dumb as many think.

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:39am

Looks like she may go with "talk show hostess".

Gee, what this country really needs is more right wing hate and obfuscation from the airwaves from someone that kept an eye on Putin from her back deck. We can clearly see how the country has benfitted from the likes of Rush, Sean, O'Really(?) and Bob Novak. Just look at how with their help the republican right balanced budgets, won two wars, criminalized abortions, kept an eye on Wall Street and made sure that KBR was not allowed to rip off the tax payer like ACORN did.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:44am
And artists and musicians are liberal because they can't get real jobs.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:37am

Gee, really Rev Liar?

Why then was I, a self employed artist, working for the Federal Reserve Bank of Manhattan the last two weeks...for pay?

I suppose that Billy Joel and The Bruce are also on The Dole? As well as Jasper Johns and Gore Vidal.

stick to your misrepresentations of Biblical metaphor, leave reality to the rest of us.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:49am
fact: gays and allies march - no coverage on Fox. Tea Partiers march - its the revolution and get ready

bias?

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 08:13am

A CNN exit poll during the 2008 elections found about 4% of the voters to be gay or lesbian.

That being the case, how much coverage do you suppose one of their rallies should get? Should the amount of coverage be equal to that of the Tea Parties, or more commensurate with their overall numbers in society?

"According to an April 20, 2009 Rasmussen poll, 51% of Americans polled viewed the protests favorably and 32% of these viewed them "very favorably." About one in four people polled knew someone who had attended a Tea Party protest."

I seriously doubt 1 in 4 people know somebody who attended a gay pride march or rally, so no, I wouldn't expect any network to cover the two different rallies equally. It wouldn't make sense to, plus, it would unfairly give the impression that one was equal in prominence and support to the other...when they are clearly not equal.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 09:51am
fact: gays and allies march - no coverage on Fox. Tea Partiers march - its the revolution and get ready

bias?

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 08:13am

A CNN exit poll during the 2008 elections found about 4% of the voters to be gay or lesbian.

That being the case, how much coverage do you suppose one of their rallies should get? Should the amount of coverage be equal to that of the Tea Parties, or more commensurate with their overall numbers in society?

"According to an April 20, 2009 Rasmussen poll, 51% of Americans polled viewed the protests favorably and 32% of these viewed them "very favorably." About one in four people polled knew someone who had attended a Tea Party protest."

I seriously doubt 1 in 4 people know somebody who attended a gay pride march or rally, so no, I wouldn't expect any network to cover the two different rallies equally. It wouldn't make sense to, plus, it would unfairly give the impression that one was equal in prominence and support to the other...when they are clearly not equal.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 09:51am
BTW, how cool was it walking around a building holding $200,000,000,000 in gold carrying a crow bar?

Very cool!

Almost as cool as it was replicating work done by another artist from the 20's, who clearly could not get a "real job", Samuel Yellin.

puff puff, preen preen.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:53am
Why is it OK to attack THIS president while he wages war, while it was helping Al Qaida when Bush was waging two wars? Still waiting for answers to that question, as I have asked it numerous times and received zero response.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:39am

In that case, you certainly deserve a response.

Criticism of Obama over his handling of war/terrorism from the Right comes in the form of, "You aren't doing this right. That decision or course of action will not achieve victory."

That isn't "helping" al Qaeda. That's criticism aimed at achieving victory. It may not even be correct or "right" advice or criticism, but one cannot say it is aimed at anything other than trying to win.

Liberal criticism of Bush during his office was often not of that tone. In fact, it very often seemed to resemble this:

http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

So that's the difference.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 09:57am
Why is it OK to attack THIS president while he wages war, while it was helping Al Qaida when Bush was waging two wars? Still waiting for answers to that question, as I have asked it numerous times and received zero response.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:39am

In that case, you certainly deserve a response.

Criticism of Obama over his handling of war/terrorism from the Right comes in the form of, "You aren't doing this right. That decision or course of action will not achieve victory."

That isn't "helping" al Qaeda. That's criticism aimed at achieving victory. It may not even be correct or "right" advice or criticism, but one cannot say it is aimed at anything other than trying to win.

Liberal criticism of Bush during his office was often not of that tone. In fact, it very often seemed to resemble this:

http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

So that's the difference.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 09:51am

How much coverage should be given to people protesting a Commander in Chief while he tries to fight two wars?

I recall people doing that in 2003 being called "traitors", not "patriots" by your chosen news source.

What changed?

Many quislings are still committed to helping AQ achieve the end to gay rights, divorce, abortion and the dread disease of secularism.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:58am
You are saying coverage wasn't given to people protesting Bush?

You mean aside from that period of time we went through when it seemed to be nothing but Cindy Sheehan 24/7? Even on Fox?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 10:01am
You are saying coverage wasn't given to people protesting Bush?

You mean aside from that period of time we went through when it seemed to be nothing but Cindy Sheehan 24/7? Even on Fox?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 10:01am
Mask,

I did answer your question, you idiot.

You made a "call" (a charge).

I said you made the wrong call.

Thus, I did deny your charge.

I have read the book.

That is why I said you made the wrong call.....because you called it that I lied and I was saying you were wrong I did not lie.

I realize that your "calls", "charges", questions, etc. are just a bunch of BS and nonsense and typical stuff from you, but my response was blatantly obvious.

Or maybe you don't live in New England or Indianapolis and are not either ticked off about Belichick's call or happy about the call, or perhaps you don't know or care who Bill Belichick is, and I guess there is no reason to since the six time Winners Steelers will win the Super Bowl again this year, and thus you did not get my point.

I noticed something-

You are fixated on whether I read Alterman's book but I did not notice any postings from you calling Stephen_Carver1 to task for being closed minded and refusing to read Bernard Goldberg's book or Sarah Palin's book.

You would have done that, of course, and somehow it got dropped off of the server and you need to re-post it.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 10:04am
Did Bush "achieve victory"?

I must have missed that part.

oh, yes, he toppled Saddams paper tiger empire.

But, had the "liberal Bush" achieved victory, Obama would not be open to criticism from the group that gave Bush everything he asked for (including record deficits) as both wars would have been OVER.

tell that to:

Spc. Tony Carrasco Jr.

Chief Warrant Officer Mathew C. Heffelfinger

Chief Warrant Officer Earl R. Scott III

etc, etc....

Were the Tea Baggers really protesting tactics and strateegery? Really?

Or, were they protesting a "non-American" "half-rican" president?

I tell ya'll, it was glorious being off news grid for 2 weeks. What I did notice is that those that do not get Dianne Rehm on the radio are grossly misinformed.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 10:01am

No, I am saying that you right wingers were aghast at the coverage of the Sheehans of the world and wanted it to stop...because we WERE AT WAR.

Now all of a sudden you have changed your tune, just like you changed your tune on deficits, Family Values, experienced VP candidates, giving the CiC the benefit of the doubt and time and a myriad group of other policy issues. You are guilty of being what you accused "liberals" of being from 2003-2008.

Have a nice day all. Missed the clown fish... a little.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 10:11am
citizen-carrier--

hey, what % are tea partiers in the greater population?

there were only 40,000 at the latest townhall.

but fox had wall-to-wall coverage of it.

and nothing of the LGBT rally.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:12am
hey, citizen-carrier---

african-americans are only like 8-12% of the population, should we ignore them too?

"You mean aside from that period of time we went through when it seemed to be nothing but Cindy Sheehan 24/7?"

are you suggesting that our media was actually informing the american people about the absurdity of the iraq invasion/occupation BEFORE we went in?

was the media telling people how much it would cost? how many lives would be lost?

oh, right. they didn't.

and those protestors? they were right. and the media could have cared less.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:17am
darladoon,

You say "....are you suggesting that our media was actually informing the american people about the absurdity of the iraq invasion/occupation BEFORE we went in? ...."

I guess one learns something every day.

I did not know, but I do now, that the job of the news media is to broadcast your opinion as the straight news. I learned this from reading your post, and the inference contained therein.

I guess the news media needs to be consolidated into one organization, DBS. (Darladoon Broadcasting System).

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 10:48am
"Now all of a sudden you have changed your tune, just like you changed your tune on deficits,"

No, never been a fan of those. I suppose I could protest by registering as a Libertarian or a Natural Law party member, but I prefer to win elections every now and then. The only candidate I will agree with %100 of the time will be me...should I ever hold office.

"Family Values,"

What event suggests I no longer support traditional values?

"experienced VP candidates,"

You mean Palin? She did have executive experience. More than Biden and The Teleprompter combined. They are obviously substituting political ideology in place of experience...and it shows.

"giving the CiC the benefit of the doubt and time"

I never had any doubts about Obama or the worldview he picked up amidst 1980s campus radicalism, members of the Weather Underground, Chicago machine politics, or Reverend Wright's church. I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to somebody in which I harbor no doubts.

"and a myriad group of other policy issues."

Many of which Obama criticized as a Senator, but now hungrily protects as POTUS?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 10:11am

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 10:56am
"Now all of a sudden you have changed your tune, just like you changed your tune on deficits,"

No, never been a fan of those. I suppose I could protest by registering as a Libertarian or a Natural Law party member, but I prefer to win elections every now and then. The only candidate I will agree with %100 of the time will be me...should I ever hold office.

"Family Values,"

What event suggests I no longer support traditional values?

"experienced VP candidates,"

You mean Palin? She did have executive experience. More than Biden and The Teleprompter combined. They are obviously substituting political ideology in place of experience...and it shows.

"giving the CiC the benefit of the doubt and time"

I never had any doubts about Obama or the worldview he picked up amidst 1980s campus radicalism, members of the Weather Underground, Chicago machine politics, or Reverend Wright's church. I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to somebody in which I harbor no doubts.

"and a myriad group of other policy issues."

Many of which Obama criticized as a Senator, but now hungrily protects as POTUS?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 10:11am

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 10:56am
And artists and musicians are liberal because they can't get real jobs.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:37am

Gee, really Rev Liar?

Why then was I, a self employed artist, working for the Federal Reserve Bank of Manhattan the last two weeks...for pay?

I suppose that Billy Joel and The Bruce are also on The Dole? As well as Jasper Johns and Gore Vidal.

stick to your misrepresentations of Biblical metaphor, leave reality to the rest of us.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 09:49am

I would think that given the nature of 90% of your posts, you would have recognized hyperbole when you see it.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 11:04am
and nothing of the LGBT rally.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:12am

that's because most Americans have no interest in seeing a group of homosexuals protesting.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 11:06am
"african-americans are only like 8-12% of the population, should we ignore them too?"

Nope. But do you believe coverage of their political activities and culture is equal to or greater than their representative numbers in the population? In your opinion, should it be greater than, equal to, or less than coverage given to some group (whoever it might be) that represents a larger portion of the population?

That's the point I was raising. Crabwalk complained that Fox News didn't give equal coverage to a gay protest on the level it did a much larger, much more politically relevent, simultaneous nationwide protest. To which I replied that it would be politically disingenuous to give each equal weight.

"are you suggesting that our media was actually informing the american people about the absurdity of the iraq invasion/occupation BEFORE we went in?"

You wrote this after my comment about Sheehan's coverage? In response to it? Her coverage happened after the fact, not before.

"was the media telling people how much it would cost? how many lives would be lost?

oh, right. they didn't."

Actually, they did. You weren't paying attention. All the media outlets that predicted how many soldiers we would lose overestimated by several thousands.

"and those protestors? they were right. and the media could have cared less."

You are seriously suggesting Bush protestors weren't covered adequately? By who? Who was it that didn't give them air time?

And it shouldn't matter if "The Media" thinks protestors are right or wrong. That is no "The Media's" job. They are just supposed to go there, observe, then come back and tell us about it and let US decide if we think the protestors are right or wrong.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:10am
"african-americans are only like 8-12% of the population, should we ignore them too?"

Nope. But do you believe coverage of their political activities and culture is equal to or greater than their representative numbers in the population? In your opinion, should it be greater than, equal to, or less than coverage given to some group (whoever it might be) that represents a larger portion of the population?

That's the point I was raising. Crabwalk complained that Fox News didn't give equal coverage to a gay protest on the level it did a much larger, much more politically relevent, simultaneous nationwide protest. To which I replied that it would be politically disingenuous to give each equal weight.

"are you suggesting that our media was actually informing the american people about the absurdity of the iraq invasion/occupation BEFORE we went in?"

You wrote this after my comment about Sheehan's coverage? In response to it? Her coverage happened after the fact, not before.

"was the media telling people how much it would cost? how many lives would be lost?

oh, right. they didn't."

Actually, they did. You weren't paying attention. All the media outlets that predicted how many soldiers we would lose overestimated by several thousands.

"and those protestors? they were right. and the media could have cared less."

You are seriously suggesting Bush protestors weren't covered adequately? By who? Who was it that didn't give them air time?

And it shouldn't matter if "The Media" thinks protestors are right or wrong. That is no "The Media's" job. They are just supposed to go there, observe, then come back and tell us about it and let US decide if we think the protestors are right or wrong.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:10am
And artists and musicians are liberal because they can't get real jobs. Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:37am

nutjob, entirely unhinged from reality. pay no mind to the mindless one.

which artist? Jeff Koons?

which musician? Jay Z?

and that Bono, traveling all over the world, can't get a real job as insurance salesman or selling trinkets by the pound?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/18/2009 @ 11:21am
the real money is in being a DEAD artist. vide Warhol's "200 one dollar bills" just changed hands for $43 million.

Warhol quit his real job, illustrator, in the early 60s to concentrate on becoming the world's most famous artist, and a darn good one at that.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/18/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 10:04am

Sorry...just not buying it.

Just don't see somebody who mouths the Limbaugh talking points like "liberals teaching kids that 2+2=5 is okay" and makes up cutesy "lists"....

sitting through 322 pages of "liberal propaganda trying to deny media bias."

All the way through an Ann Coulter book or Mark Levin rant....sure. But not a "left-wing book."

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 11:58am
"They are just supposed to go there, observe, then come back and tell us about it and let US decide if we think the protestors are right or wrong"

and this is why i got an education in media studies, and you didn't.

this is NOT the role of the media.

i rest my case.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:03pm
"They are just supposed to go there, observe, then come back and tell us about it and let US decide if we think the protestors are right or wrong"

and this is why i got an education in media studies, and you didn't.

this is NOT the role of the media.

i rest my case.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:03pm
Criticism of Obama over his handling of war/terrorism from the Right comes in the form of, "You aren't doing this right. That decision or course of action will not achieve victory."

That isn't "helping" al Qaeda. That's criticism aimed at achieving victory. It may not even be correct or "right" advice or criticism, but one cannot say it is aimed at anything other than trying to win.

Liberal criticism of Bush during his office was often not of that tone. In fact, it very often seemed to resemble this:

http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

So that's the difference.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 09:57am

OK, CC, since you're answering questions for the rightwing, could you answer this one (which I (and others) have been asking for years): what does "victory" look like in Afghanistan and Iraq and when will we know we've achieved it and all our boys and girls can come home?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:14pm
Twillie, liberals like Stephen have no intention of expanding their minds. They have difficulty enough just maintaining all the leftist lies that fill their heads.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:42pm

OMG! Larry didn't call me a marxist! Just a liberal! I am making headway!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:18pm
Oh, come now Stephen. What are you afraid of? Losing your (liberal) religion? Go on, read Goldberg. Expand your mind. You have nothing to lose but the chains around your mind. Just read the first section, about the smarty-pants, dismissive news report on Forbes' flat tax plan.

Posted by twillie at 11/17/2009 @ 9:57pm

twillie,

I am much more of a free thinker than you ever will be with your Republican talking points always at your side. I read a wide variety of books (I am after all, paid for writing), both conservative and liberal. As stated before, in some ways, I am more conservative regarding fiscal policy than liberal, but I am very much a social liberal and damn proud of it.

I do not believe that government is the solution to all things, but neither is it the major problem. Government has its uses and its purpose, but as long as greed runs the Republican (and many Dems), I will continue to advocate a strong federal government to not only fight that kind of corporate fraud and corruption, but to also include basic human rights, such as the right to marry, to EVERYONE in our society, not just WASPS. We have many horrible issues facing us, the economy first and foremost, and while you Repubs bitch about Obama's policies, you don't even realize that if he had NOT done what he did, our economy would be MUCH WORSE than it is, because of the runaway capitalism that your side allowed to happen over the past eight years, as well as an illegal trillion dollar war (Iraq) and a mismanged multi-billion dollar war (Afghanistan), NONE of which any neo cons have taken responsibility for on this forum.

So, I think it is YOU who needs to open your mind. I have nothing to fear; your side is the fearful side.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 08:22am

Already told you I have no intention of reading Goldberg's book, nor looking at the MRC site, yet you ask me for analysis of the same.

Evidently, you have a reading disorder, too.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:30pm
Stephen_Carver1, as a lib, knows everything there is to know already, or at least everything that matters. He also "knows" that things written by people on the right are by definition (lib definition) "wrong", and not worth his time.

This is normal, you see this all the time from many libs. Amazing how enlightened libs are.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 08:27am

Just curious, in the two days that Palin's book has been out, many MANY people have come out stating that most (if not all) of it is based on lies and purposeful misrepresentations. If there is so much to "learn" from her book (such a font of wisdom she has proven to be!), why would so many people say those things, including John McCain and most of his campaign staff?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:33pm
this is NOT the role of the media.

i rest my case.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:03pm

No, it is not the role the media has taken on for itself, if that is what you mean. But I know that is not what you mean. Pray tell, what did they tell you in college that the role of the media is? Keeping in mind that I also took journalism and worked as a reporter for a weekly paper before going active duty military?

Ideally, the role of the media would be to cover events and then come back and tell the rest of us who weren't there to to see it for ourselves about those events.

Leaving out as much of the writer or reporter's personal bias to the greatest extent possible, because I want a media that tells me what happened far more than I want a media arrogant enough to presume I want them to tell me what to think.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:34pm
this is NOT the role of the media.

i rest my case.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:03pm

No, it is not the role the media has taken on for itself, if that is what you mean. But I know that is not what you mean. Pray tell, what did they tell you in college that the role of the media is? Keeping in mind that I also took journalism and worked as a reporter for a weekly paper before going active duty military?

Ideally, the role of the media would be to cover events and then come back and tell the rest of us who weren't there to to see it for ourselves about those events.

Leaving out as much of the writer or reporter's personal bias to the greatest extent possible, because I want a media that tells me what happened far more than I want a media arrogant enough to presume I want them to tell me what to think.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:03pm

And before you "rest your case", you actually have to make a case upon which to rest.

Merely stating that you went to college and they told you the proper role of the media is not the same thing as demonstrating why your position is correct. That's called making a convincing argument...something else you may or may not have been exposed to in school.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:03pm

And before you "rest your case", you actually have to make a case upon which to rest.

Merely stating that you went to college and they told you the proper role of the media is not the same thing as demonstrating why your position is correct. That's called making a convincing argument...something else you may or may not have been exposed to in school.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:37pm
Mask,

You say you are not buying it.

It does not matter whether you buy it or not.

It is what it is, I read the book, if you don't "buy it" I don't care.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 12:39pm
that's because most Americans have no interest in seeing a group of homosexuals protesting.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 11:06am

And yet, if it is the duty of news organizations to present the simple facts (without bias) and a hundred thousand people protest on the Mall in DC, isn't it the responsibility of every news organization to cover such stories regardless of what the people "have an interest" in seeing? I mean, after all, the tea baggers were only 40,000 (max) and received around the clock coverage on Fox, which means the gays outnumbered them more than 2 to 1 and received no coverage.

So, are you saying that Fox news decided what Americans should or shouldn't see, regardless of the facts of the story? If so, does that not make Fox news biased by definition?

I'd love to see a response to that question from any unbiased conservative.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:41pm
Stephen_Carver1,

In the court of lib opinion, your refusal to look at other perspectives and things that potentially refute your beliefs plays well and makes sense (to other libs of like mind as you).

But what do you do when you go out into the real world? (assuming you need to do so from time to time)......

How do you explain to people that your mind is closed like a steel trap?

Also, you say you get paid for your writing?

You have got to be kidding me.....who in their right mind would fork over good money to purchase something you wrote?

You should be paying people who read your stuff some kind of damage award for the pain and suffering they have to endure as a result, or for the inconvenience of experiencing uncontrollable laughter.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 12:45pm
OK, CC, since you're answering questions for the rightwing, could you answer this one (which I (and others) have been asking for years): what does "victory" look like in Afghanistan and Iraq and when will we know we've achieved it and all our boys and girls can come home?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:14pm

I've been asked this before. But I can only answer what victory would look like for me.

Essentially, we've achieved it for all intents and purposes in Iraq. Their democratic election structure will probably survive our departure. They have free media outlets now of widely varied viewpoints. They have courts that operate under the rule of law rather than the capricious whim of an unaccountable ruler and his thugs. Their new military, while not perfect, is not Saddam's. Nor are their cops, who now dress like cops and act like cops...rather than paramilitary soldiers. Their economy is likely to keep improving. No reason why it shouldn't that I can think of. In short, success or victory in Iraq has always meant to me an Iraq that no longer needs us to be there. And they've had the option of asking us to leave whenever they've wanted to. That is stated U.S. policy. Always has been.

Naturally, one must set the sights lower for Afghanistan. Victory for me would mean the Taliban broken and al Qaeda chased out. These are the guys who throw acid into little girls' eyes for learning to read and beat women for making too much noise when they walk. Killing guys like that is just fine by me. I almost don't even care what it costs, as it is a public service to mankind. Other than that, I believe Afghanistan will always be a backwards, tribalist, corrupt failed state and no amount of money will change that.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:49pm
OK, CC, since you're answering questions for the rightwing, could you answer this one (which I (and others) have been asking for years): what does "victory" look like in Afghanistan and Iraq and when will we know we've achieved it and all our boys and girls can come home?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:14pm

I've been asked this before. But I can only answer what victory would look like for me.

Essentially, we've achieved it for all intents and purposes in Iraq. Their democratic election structure will probably survive our departure. They have free media outlets now of widely varied viewpoints. They have courts that operate under the rule of law rather than the capricious whim of an unaccountable ruler and his thugs. Their new military, while not perfect, is not Saddam's. Nor are their cops, who now dress like cops and act like cops...rather than paramilitary soldiers. Their economy is likely to keep improving. No reason why it shouldn't that I can think of. In short, success or victory in Iraq has always meant to me an Iraq that no longer needs us to be there. And they've had the option of asking us to leave whenever they've wanted to. That is stated U.S. policy. Always has been.

Naturally, one must set the sights lower for Afghanistan. Victory for me would mean the Taliban broken and al Qaeda chased out. These are the guys who throw acid into little girls' eyes for learning to read and beat women for making too much noise when they walk. Killing guys like that is just fine by me. I almost don't even care what it costs, as it is a public service to mankind. Other than that, I believe Afghanistan will always be a backwards, tribalist, corrupt failed state and no amount of money will change that.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:49pm
I'd love to see a response to that question from any unbiased conservative.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:41pm

I suggest that Fox's coverage of people protesting Obama is fueled in part by the Obama Administration's adversarial stance against Fox to begin with.

Or did you miss that story where the White House held a 5 minute press conference with a financial official, but pointedly said everyone but Fox was invited? And how all the other members of the press corps boycotted that decision until Fox was allowed in?

Or various spokesmen for the Administration, many of them on the taxpayer dime, taking time out to publicly attack Fox?

Yeah, I'd say Fox News probably does cover Obama protests a bit more than do the other networks. Then again, the Administration sure does like to complain about "biased" coverage...in a world where MSNBC exists, yet goes uncommented upon.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:55pm
I'd love to see a response to that question from any unbiased conservative.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:41pm

I suggest that Fox's coverage of people protesting Obama is fueled in part by the Obama Administration's adversarial stance against Fox to begin with.

Or did you miss that story where the White House held a 5 minute press conference with a financial official, but pointedly said everyone but Fox was invited? And how all the other members of the press corps boycotted that decision until Fox was allowed in?

Or various spokesmen for the Administration, many of them on the taxpayer dime, taking time out to publicly attack Fox?

Yeah, I'd say Fox News probably does cover Obama protests a bit more than do the other networks. Then again, the Administration sure does like to complain about "biased" coverage...in a world where MSNBC exists, yet goes uncommented upon.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 12:55pm
"In the court of lib opinion, your refusal to look at other perspectives and things that potentially refute your beliefs plays well and makes sense (to other libs of like mind as you)."

++So because I choose to not read the book of a rightwing hack (Goldberg) and an obvious rightwing organization, or the book by a former beauty queen, means that I "refuse" to look at others opinions? You evidently can't read, because I already stated that I look at many different viewpoints, conservative and liberal. I simply choose not to look at the garbage you want me to look at? Well, as any five year old can say, "You're not the boss of me."

"But what do you do when you go out into the real world? (assuming you need to do so from time to time)......

How do you explain to people that your mind is closed like a steel trap?"

++No one, and I mean NO one (not even my conservative family members - and they know me a hell of a lot better than you do), has ever accused me of having a closed mind. You're the first. Congrats.

"Also, you say you get paid for your writing?"

++Yes. I do not get paid for my political opinions - there are other forms of writing, you know.

"You have got to be kidding me.....who in their right mind would fork over good money to purchase something you wrote?"

++Several multi-billion dollar corporations for one. Numerous State and local governments, for another, and the Federal govt as well.

"You should be paying people who read your stuff some kind of damage award for the pain and suffering they have to endure as a result, or for the inconvenience of experiencing uncontrollable laughter."

++Ah, writing jokes is an art form. If people are laughing at what I write, perhaps you SHOULD be paying me.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 12:45pm

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 1:11pm
Crabwalk complained that Fox News didn't give equal coverage to a gay protest on the level it did a much larger, much more politically relevent, simultaneous nationwide protest. To which I replied that it would be politically disingenuous to give each equal weight Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:10am

I think i brought this up.

Not to 'complain' per se, but just to wonder.

interesting, though: a rally about, essentially, shifting taxation policy is "larger, more politically relevant and nationwide" But a rally about affording rights and equality to an entire class of Americans? Just pedestrian local politics, that.

And Fox covered one and not the other entirely because of your percentages? Not ideology? hmmm.

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 1:12pm
Funny, but to me information is not all that different from food. For good health, it is important to ingest a wide variety of different food groups.

That applies to information. To have a balanced understanding of the truth, you need to consume opinions and data from a wide variety of sources.

Too bad the leftists here are adverse to opposition voices. It explains the ignorance, defensiveness and incessant victimization evident in their postings. What's really funny is they can't even perceive their own ignorance. My, what good little socialist soldiers.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 1:33pm
Stephen_Carver1,

As has been explained to you, Bernard Goldberg did not start out as a "right wing hack". His book cronicled what he saw (and did not like) in the newsroom.

The MRC might be "right wing" but who else would be chronicling leftist bias? It doesn't render the chronicling of factual events invalid. The incidences of leftward bias are too numerous for you to credibly ignore, but you do anyway. By not looking at the evidence, you are relieved of the embarrassment of having to admit you are wrong.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 1:38pm
"Pray tell, what did they tell you in college that the role of the media is?"

the role of the media is not just to "report, and you decide," it's role is as 'watchdog' over the government, over corporations, over nations, and indeed, over itself and its role in shaping public opinion.

you're pretending as if journalists aren't actively engaged in the process of shaping public opinion. they are. so in a sense, i'm all for bias, just informed bias.

for instance, that there was even a debate about torture proves that the media was literally disengaged from their role: there is no debate about waterboarding, and the media should have told its viewers that from the beginning.

waterboarding is torture. it is a fact.

but the media pretended as if it wasn't, and just presented it as a "he said/she said" scenario. that's called 'stenography', not reporting. that's listening to what some official says, writing it down, and telling your viewers what the official said. and then finding an official with a different opinion, and so on.

reporting would be telling the viewers: a) waterboarding is torture under at least two different international treaties, b) we prosecuted japanese soldiers for waterboarding americans, c) etc

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 1:44pm
Darla, I disagree. I think the media was very clear on the waterboarding is torture issue.

You are referring to public opinion, which was and is, unlike the media, very divided on the issue of waterboarding being torture without context.

As usual you are disingenuous on the subject.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 1:38pm

I am neither wrong, nor right. On this forum, I mostly post my opinion, based on my viewpoint of the world, combined with my experiences of this world. Evidently, you don't understand when I say: I READ BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT POINTS OF VIEW. I AM WELL ROUNDED IN MY READING, BUT DO NOT WISH TO SUBJECT MYSELF TO GOLDBERG, THE MRC, AND PALIN.

Does putting it in all caps help you understand? Just because you supposedly read Alterman's book, does not mean I must read Goldberg's. I read right-biased news all the time. I read the Wall Street Journal, about as right wing as one could get.

As for the leftist media, I leave it up to Walter Cronkite (also a Texas alum like me): "I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."

Goldberg (on his website) on Cronkite: Goldberg went further in the tank, declaring that "after he left CBS Cronkite was playing deep left field. Yet virtually none of the leftie stuff made it on the air."

So, I read something your beloved Goldberg wrote. Are you HAPPY now?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:05pm
darladoon says:

".....i'm all for bias, just informed bias. ......."

To translate from darladoon-speak to the English language, when she says "informed" she means liberal. (or "progressive"), or compatible with her own opinion.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 2:05pm
There is no debate about waterboarding? Sorry, but there was a debate. Heated ones. Especially the part where Pelosi wasn't told about anything, but was quite obviously briefed. You declaring the issue undebateable does not make the debate go away.

And sorry, but the role you are describing for journalism, in my opinion, is not journalism. It's advocacy.

For the record, I'll go ahead and say that waterboarding is torture. Where you and I differ is that I won't lose any sleep when the admitted, confessed architect of 3000 people murdered on 9/11 is treated to waterboarding. The man possessed information vital to saving innocent American lives.

To what extent would you go to get that information? Or would you put a limit on it? Like you'll only resort to that if it saves 500+ lives from being blown up in shopping malls and movie theaters, but anything under 500 victims...you can live with.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 2:08pm
There is no debate about waterboarding? Sorry, but there was a debate. Heated ones. Especially the part where Pelosi wasn't told about anything, but was quite obviously briefed. You declaring the issue undebateable does not make the debate go away.

And sorry, but the role you are describing for journalism, in my opinion, is not journalism. It's advocacy.

For the record, I'll go ahead and say that waterboarding is torture. Where you and I differ is that I won't lose any sleep when the admitted, confessed architect of 3000 people murdered on 9/11 is treated to waterboarding. The man possessed information vital to saving innocent American lives.

To what extent would you go to get that information? Or would you put a limit on it? Like you'll only resort to that if it saves 500+ lives from being blown up in shopping malls and movie theaters, but anything under 500 victims...you can live with.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 2:08pm
Stephen_Carver1,

No conversation with you leaves me "happy" but I am talking to someone who has their mind made up and it is what it is.

You contend there is no leftist bias, it seems.

The MRC and the Goldberg book, are two places where a considerable number of incidences of leftist bias are discussed and chronicled.

To disprove the leftist bias exists, you would need to take apart a considerable number of those examples and explain why they do not demonstrate leftist bias. You are not going to do that.

What I see from you and other libs is the following:

1. You contend leftist bias doesn't exist because Fox News does not lean left. As though one network wipes out all the rest.

2. You contend that corporate America owns the media and thus controlls the news the media puts out, and you contend that is not left-leaning because of the media ownership. You overlook that some businesspeople do lean left. Slick Willie let his buddy Bernie Schwartz, CEO of Loral and campaign contributor to Slick, sell missile technology to Communist Chinese - now the Chinese missiles can reach our west coast, they couldn't before - not all business people are Conservative.

3. You contend that with talk radio and the large number of Conservative pundits in magazines and talk shows, the media has a rightward tilt...forgetting the main problem is with what should be straight news.

4. You contend the media did not delve into the supposed "wrongs" about going to war in Iraq prior to the war, does not advocate liberal causes, covered all the trials and tribulations of Slick Willie, etc. and thus that supposedly demonstrates the media is not leftward.---forgetting the job of the news media is till to report news, not advocate liberalism.

To be continued

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 2:15pm
the role of the media is not just to "report, and you decide," it's role is as 'watchdog' over the government, over corporations, over nations, and indeed, over itself and its role in shaping public opinion.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 1:44pm

What you are suggesting seems to be that it isn't enough for the media to go observe the government or corporations and then come back and tell us what they saw.

That's all I said.

Apparently, that is not the "role" of the media, because it leaves to much to chance that the Public will "decide" on something completely different from what the media intended for them to decide. They may make a judgement contrary to the approved media narrative.

That is obviously a situation that worries and horrifies you. Individuals making up their own mind without a biased filter. The same filter that duly "reported" after Katrina that our subsequent hurricane seasons would be as bad or worse because of global warming, for instance. The same filter that stopped showing images of 9/11 victims committing suicide by jumping because "passions might get out of hand" (i.e. people would get pissed off), but just a few years prior fueled a destructive riot by treating us to images of Rodney King night after night after night...

I have a "watchdog". A rottweiler. Just a pup of about 8 weeks right now, but I seriously doubt my watchdog will come to me and tell me what to think about an intruder. He'll tell me he's there, but I will decide what to think about him. I consider that to be close to an ideal arrangement.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 2:08pm

Let's see, a group of skinheads kidnaps Obama's wife and daughters and threatens to kill them. One of the skinheads was captured.

Naturally Darla would fight to protect the civil rights of the kidnappers and abhor any thought of advanced interrogation of the captured skinhead in an effort to save the President's family?

HAHAHA! Notachance.

Darla's high horse regarding "torture" is nothing more than a calculation against her opposition. Waterboarding? Hell, in the example above Darla would have a knife blade on the skinheads' scrotum.

But I think we all agree, waterboarding is torture.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:20pm
that's because most Americans have no interest in seeing a group of homosexuals protesting.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 11:06am

And yet, if it is the duty of news organizations to present the simple facts (without bias) and a hundred thousand people protest on the Mall in DC, isn't it the responsibility of every news organization to cover such stories regardless of what the people "have an interest" in seeing? I mean, after all, the tea baggers were only 40,000 (max) and received around the clock coverage on Fox, which means the gays outnumbered them more than 2 to 1 and received no coverage.

So, are you saying that Fox news decided what Americans should or shouldn't see, regardless of the facts of the story? If so, does that not make Fox news biased by definition?

I'd love to see a response to that question from any unbiased conservative.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:41pm

Every network news organization, every cable news organization, and the print media all make decisions every day on what is newsworthy to those who either purchase or otherwise constitute their viewing/reading audience.

THEY ALL DISCRIMINATE ON WHICH STORIES TO AIR/PRINT.

For television views, that's why we have remotes-makes it easier to choose. You can read a conservative newspaper in CA like the OC Register or a leftist paper like the LA Times.

That is part of the freedom of an open society.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 2:20pm
Stephen_Carver1,

The news media still has to report the news or NOBODY would watch, but the MRC and the Goldberg book chronicle how they report straight news in a leftist manner.

(Note: when I say "you" in items 1-4 above it is a collective "you" -- you and other lefties such as Darladoon)

It seems the main contentions of the left that the media is not biased center around hypothetical analysis of who owns the media, the presence of Conservatives in punditry, and what the media does not do in pushing leftist causes that only leftists view as truth.

But the bone of contention of the Right is that the main problem is with the news that is supposedly straight news, not with pundrity or media ownership.....and that the news is delivered in a biased manner.....and this is backed up with example after example after example that show the leftward tilt....

The news media can't go promote liberalism or nobody would watch...it still has to cover the news....but in a biased manner ........and you would have to delve into what Conservatives cite as evidence of media bias in order to try and prove the lack of same.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 2:22pm
While we're at it, why just focus on the news? Liberal bias is overwhelmingly evident throughout the culture. Watch any current program on TV. Every preacher, priest, religious person is depicted as creepy, weird or confused. Flashforward, V, Two and a Half Men, heck, you name the program! And virtually every homosexual is treated with compassion, sympathy, good humor and respect. Flashforward, Glee, etc. (By the way, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all religious are good and gay's shouldn't be depicted in a positive light at all. I just want to point out these depictions are NOT accidental.)

I suppose this is the "informed bias" Darla refers to, but it is a simple carryover from the media template.

So it goes. It is just up to all of us to use our own wisdom and experience in our viewing of the world around us.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:32pm
"Darla, I disagree. I think the media was very clear on the waterboarding is torture issue"

(quote of the day, primarily because it was followed by this whopper:

"You are referring to public opinion, which was and is, unlike the media, very divided on the issue of waterboarding being torture without context)

gee, i wonder why public opinion was "divided"? it couldn't be because.......the media led people to believe that waterboarding isn't torture. or that liz cheney appeared on tv every day for a month. nah.

"Naturally Darla would fight to protect the civil rights of the kidnappers"

we are a nation of laws, are we not?

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 2:41pm
"There is no debate about waterboarding? Sorry, but there was a debate"

that's my point, you moron!!!!!

that there WAS a debate about it is......ABSURD.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 2:44pm
BTW, just to clarify-

Is the argument the Right is making about Fox News that it ...

(A) is NOT biased or has no agenda?

(B) it is biased but "why not? the rest of the Media is liberal?"

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

(A) a/o (B) depending on the day, time, subject, mood, etc.

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 2:59pm
(A) a/o (B) depending on the day, time, subject, mood, etc.----Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 2:59pm

Usually the first...then the second. Along these lines-

"Fox is balanced, look, here's a study from Media Research proving it!"....blah, blah, blah, blah...."Okay, so what? You libs have All The Other Media...why shouldn't Fox offer the other side?"

Pretty standard. Problem for them is, when they get to "B", they both contradict themselves AND Fox itself which claims to be "fair and balanced."

Now that I've revealed the trick...not going to happen on this thread...but watch for it in other discussions. Really quite predictable.

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 3:07pm
like with climate change, it's any of:

1. not happening 2. happening, not human 3. happening, human, good thing

depends on the audience/target.

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/18/2009 @ 3:07pm
we are a nation of laws, are we not?

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 2:41pm

But are you respectful to our being a nation of laws when you break the law and smoke pot Darla? Or, as you contend by your very actions, are some laws actually 'selective' in your eyes?

Or are we actually a nation of morals? Which I suspect is the greater fear to you.

Wasn't it morality that ended slavery? Wasn't it morality that broke the laws of segregation in our country? Because at their times they were BOTH the law of the land.

Nation of laws... What does that mean to an avowed socialist like you? You are full of crap Darla. The whole torture "debate" form your perspective is only valuable in the sense it can undermine the United States.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 3:09pm
"But are you respectful to our being a nation of laws when you break the law and smoke pot Darla?"

i can legally smoke/eat pot in california. i have a license to do so, as well as grow and sell.

"The whole torture "debate" form your perspective is only valuable in the sense it can undermine the United States"

there is no "debate". torture is torture. and it is illegal, under domestic and international law.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 3:52pm
Crabwalk complained that Fox News didn't give equal coverage to a gay protest on the level it did a much larger, much more politically relevent, simultaneous nationwide protest. To which I replied that it would be politically disingenuous to give each equal weight Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:10am

i did no such thing.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2009 @ 5:53pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 2:22pm

Just for the sake of argument, please list Alterman's top five points regarding the supposed Left Leaning Media.

It's the end of the day and I really don't feel like refuting your every point. I am not conceding the point, I am simply tired of going back and forth with you when we both know you will never agree with me and I will never agree with you.

Aren't we lucky?

However, when I say I read right wing news and views, you should believe me. Evidently you believe that just by reading it, I would be "magically" (for Happy) convinced that your sources are correct and mine are wrong. It's all opinion-based anyway, so there are no actual facts; only spin, and I acknowledge that my side spins. Do you, yours?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 6:01pm
That is part of the freedom of an open society.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 2:20pm

So Larry, if Fox News (or any other network) puts on opinion pieces and calls it "news," then that's just part of the journalistic tradition, right?

WRONG!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 6:03pm
That is part of the freedom of an open society.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 2:20pm

So Larry, if Fox News (or any other network) puts on opinion pieces and calls it "news," then that's just part of the journalistic tradition, right?

WRONG!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 6:03pm

As I've said before, I don't watch and don't like Fox News. But you don't seem to have the same problem with the leftist MSNBC which I used to watch daily (up until about 6 weeks ago-when I removed it from my satellite choices). There is little fact and a lot of opinion for news on that station. Yet somehow, you don't find any problem with them.

At least I'm willing to say that Fox isn't worth watching for conservatives and MSNBC is just as bad on the left.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 6:34pm
As I've said before, I don't watch and don't like Fox News. But you don't seem to have the same problem with the leftist MSNBC which I used to watch daily (up until about 6 weeks ago-when I removed it from my satellite choices). There is little fact and a lot of opinion for news on that station. Yet somehow, you don't find any problem with them.

At least I'm willing to say that Fox isn't worth watching for conservatives and MSNBC is just as bad on the left.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 6:34pm

Actually, I don't discuss MSNBC because I don't watch it. I will sometimes click on a link to Rachel Maddow or somesuch, but the fact is that, thanks to lucrative deals with major media organizations, MSNBC is seen on less than half of the cable comapnies than is Fox News. Go into any airport, do you see MSNBC? No, you see Fox.

I think if Fox were actually fair and balanced, they would get my eyes. But they're not fair and balanced at all.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 6:46pm
"At least I'm willing to say that Fox isn't worth watching for conservatives and MSNBC is just as bad on the left"

msnbc is "leftist"? what about joe scarborough and the entirety of their news programming?

scarborough just creamed in his jeans at the prospect of cheney running in 2012.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 9:44pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 6:01pm

I think "suddenly" we'll learn that SJCHER "gave away his copy" of Alterman's book....or "didn't buy it, got it from the library"....or he's at the library right now.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 07:28am
Not much about the actual meat of this article, that Newsweek, a supposedly "liberal" magazine, has hired a Bush Crony to offer "opinion" without really alerting their readers that he is a former Bush official. Reading the quotes given here, they appear to offer "facts" about the "failure" of the Obama admin. Of course, Obama "failed" after 2 weeks in power according to most right wing nuts, and they have no desire to get behind their president during war, something they complained about the left for 8 years!!!!

Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2009 @ 08:06am
What is holding the economy back, considering Bush's tax cuts have been left virtually untouched under the Marxist/socialist reign of Barak Obama? According to many of our cons, clintons economic success was actually due to Reagan tax cuts. Would it not follow that Bush's cuts would have increased investment and therefore job growth in the first year of Obama, followed by decline as Obamas policies took effect?

Or, did it just bleed the coffers?

DOW. Nov 28,2008 = 8,829

DOW Nov 18, 2009 = 10,396

Not that the DOW has any impact on much of our lives, but the "producers" seem to find it important. It appears that the "producers" are finding good things in Obamas Marxist takeover of the USA.

==============

scarborough just creamed in his jeans at the prospect of cheney running in 2012.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 9:44pm

Cheney/ Palin 2012-2013 1/2, cuz she ain't a quitter!

Have you all noticed how Sarah Palin has the same mantras on all of her appearances? she has been well coached and does not deviate from her script. That is the difference between 2008 and 2009. She quit her job as governor to go out and make money, not to influence ANY policy

Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2009 @ 08:21am
"At least I'm willing to say that Fox isn't worth watching for conservatives and MSNBC is just as bad on the left"

msnbc is "leftist"? what about joe scarborough and the entirety of their news programming?

scarborough just creamed in his jeans at the prospect of cheney running in 2012.

Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 9:44pm

Maddow, Olbermann, Schultz, Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Mika Brzezinski, David Schuster, Dr Nancy Snyderman (probably the most leftist physician on TV), Ariana Huffington, just to name a few are all libs.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/19/2009 @ 11:34am
wow if mika and andrea are leftists, then anti clearly has no concept of leftism whatsoever.

"probably the most leftist physician on TV"

meaning: the only, actual physician on TV.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 11:42am
anti thinks chris matthews is a leftist too.

the same guy who fawned all over bush in his flightsuit

yeah, serious lefty.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 12:12pm
Amy Goodman is a right winger compared to Darla.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 12:36pm
"Amy Goodman is a right winger compared to Darla"

palin is intelligent compared to freiheit.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 12:39pm
Stephen_Carver1,

Just for the sake of argument, please list Alterman's top five points regarding the supposed Left Leaning Media.

I take issue with three main things:

1. As I have stated before, including pundits and news analysis in the mix, which Alterman places a lot of importance in, is not relevant......the main bone of contention is the behavior of the people delivering the straight news.....

2. With regard to that.....it seems Alterman doesn't spend time refuting the large volume of examples of newspeople behaving in a biased manner.

3. Alterman has a lot of theory and discussion, and that is like not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way. This theory includes dwelling on external events that frame what the media covers, such as Slick Willie's shenanigans. If certain things happen to public people, whether through their own behavior or not, the news media is obligated to cover them because their job still is to do the news...thus extensive coverage of what happened to Slick Willie can't be avoided even by a left-leaning media. This item kind of ties together with my item 2, the book is long winded and theorizes and discusses but Conservatives offer up concrete examples that don't need a lot of disucssion......a particular person in the newsroom has acted a certain way or made statements or remarks while doing the news and the bias is there and obvious and doesn't need much more explanation. It is what it is.

Here is an example, from the Media Research Center, of what I mean:

CBS's Smith Sees No Left-Wing Agenda in NYC Terror Trials By: Kyle Drennen November 19, 2009 11:58 ET http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/ 20091119010318.aspx

I don't see Alterman analyzing stuff like this in his book.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 12:41pm
typo,

In my first sentence above, I meant to indicate that it was Stephen_Carver1 who asked me to list 5 things, with my response following that.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 12:43pm
"CBS's Smith Sees No Left-Wing Agenda in NYC Terror Trials"

the crime was committed in manhattan; ergo, the trial occurs in manhattan.

pointing that out is *not* left wing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 12:47pm
this little video w/ herman, chomsky, lewis demolishes the strategy of right wingers (and employed by goldberg, et al) to "prove" that the media is liberal.

and it's only 5 minutes.

sjchermak, if you want more, let me know.

you should also read chomsky's book, manufacturing consent. or anything by herb schiller or dallas smythe.

whether journalists are left wing, or vote liberal, proves NOTHING. as chomsky points out, they could all be maoists. but it still would mean nothing.

the media corporations only broadcast or print what is generally deemed acceptable or conventional by 'institutionalized' standards. and these standards are always and already in place: news organizations cannot possibly upset the source of their energy: wealthy, business interests.

you can deviate slightly (see: maddow), but ultimately, whether maddow is liberal or not, means NOTHING.

the only thing that really matters is: the bottom line. keeping the status quo. keeping the acceptable realm of opinion somewhere between republicans and democrats (who are not left wing). this is how we got into iraq; how we voted bush twice; how we ignore single-payer in the healthcare "debate"; how we think terror trials in NYC are "left wing"; etc, etc.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 1:00pm
it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who believes this, much in the same way it is impossible for someone, like myself, to have a conversation with someone who doesn't believe in evolution.

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:47pm

Yes indeed. It's like trying to talk to a Christian, Muslim etc. about whether or not there is or is not a God. They immediately go to their chosen book for guidance. One book was written by a self appointed god and the other by self appointed prophets.

It's really quite amazing that people will kill other people over some jackasses that died many centuries ago. They'll kill for people they don't know, have nothing in common with and take everything those people wrote as complete fact. They'll refuse to use reason in such a stubborn fashion that they'll actually deny reality sitting right in front of them in favor of a fable.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2009 @ 1:03pm
wow if mika and andrea are leftists, then anti clearly has no concept of leftism whatsoever.

"probably the most leftist physician on TV"

meaning: the only, actual physician on TV.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 11:42am

Right Darla, because there are no leftists or leftist sites for me to use as a barometer?

They are leftist. It's just that people like yourself are so far to the left that these people seem like moderates to you.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/19/2009 @ 1:13pm
darladoon,

You said the "crimes" occurred in Manhattan.....

Acts of war occurred against the United States.

There should be no terror trials in civilian court to begin with....military tribunals should be held at Guantanamo.

Believing acts of war against the U.S. were "crimes" to be dealt with in civilian courts is definitely a "left wing" position.

Here is the first part of the story. Trials in civilian court are the issue here, not the location of the "trial":

========================

On Thursday's CBS Early Show, after Rudy Giuliani suggested the Obama administration was trying to "satisfy left-wing critics" by trying 9/11 terrorists in civilian court, incredulous co-host Harry Smith saw no such connection: "But Hang on. So it's � so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?"

Smith began the interview with the former New York City Mayor by skeptically wondering: "You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it � do you think it's a political decision?" Giuliani responded: "Well, it's a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics....After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder's law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda."

Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 1:26pm
"It's just that people like yourself are so far to the left that these people seem like moderates to you"

thanks for proving chomsky's point. it matters very little what andrea's or mika's position on political spectrum is, or how they vote, or even how they *present* the news. they are there to keep the acceptable range of opinion within strictly insitutionalized parameters. this is why amy goodman is not on the major news networks and why moyers is on PBS.

both moyers and goodman address class, race and gender issues. they have a slant, as everone does, but they do stray from those accepted norms upheld by mika and andrea.

but mika and andrea must not cross over into the realm of criticizing her bosses, or her any political figures with whom she aligns herself with (see: palin, whom she admires, or even dick armey).

btw, conservatives outnumber "liberals" and "centrists" on sunday talk shows by a factor of 2:1. when you pit conservatives and centrists against liberals, it jumps to 3:1.

anti, tell me how, say, andrea mitchell has a liberal slant?

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 1:42pm
"Believing acts of war against the U.S. were "crimes" to be dealt with in civilian courts is definitely a "left wing" position."

yet even MORE evidence that the media is not left wing.

giuliani, who praised the moussoui trials back in 2006, is now suddenly against....the same trials.

now, holder actually backtracked and now has to defend his refusal to not try EVERYONE at guantanamo in civil court.

after all, these guys were not picked up on battlefields. they do not represent any government.

how is this an "act of war", sjchermak? did congress even declare war?

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 1:45pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 1:26pm

So being skeptical of a right-wing politician's attack proves you're biased to the Left.

So Smith should have...what? Nodding approvingly like the guys on Fox & Friends? To prove how "fair and balanced" he was?

Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 1:50pm
darladoon,

Would you say Pearl Harbor was not an act of war?

Congress had not declared war when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

How are the attacks at 1 and 2 World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 different from Pearl Harbor? Are they or are they not?

If they are not different, and if you say the attack at Pearl Harbor was an act of war, then how were the attacks on September 11, 2001 not an act of war against us.

Or if you say the attack on December 7, 1941 was not an act of war, why not?

And remember, the issue here was Harry Smith's behavior...his leftist bias.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 1:55pm
palin is intelligent compared to freiheit.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 12:39pm

Haha, well, I should certainly hope so! She's a lot more intelligent than you are too!

Oh, wait, when's your national best selling book tour kicking off again Darla? And I've already forgotten, what state were you governor of again?

Cheer up though! Maybe Newsweek will do a story on the early stages of human evolution and you'll be on the cover!

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 2:00pm
Mask,

Mr. Smith has a proven track record in lib bias:

CBS's Harry Smith: A Profile in Bias By Rich Noyes (Bio | Archive) August 11, 2009 - 13:13 ET http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ rich-noyes/2009/08/11/ cbs-s-harry-smith-profile-bias

(link may contain extra spaces after pasting into your browser)

Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 2:04pm
anti, tell me how, say, andrea mitchell has a liberal slant?

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 1:42pm

Andrea Mitchell is a lifelong liberal Democrat.

Every time she opens her mouth, it has a liberal slant to it. But here are a few examples.

Who did MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell feature to respond to Michael Steele's Tuesday speech about the future of the Republican Party? Chris Shays, the liberal, former Republican congressman with a lifetime American Conservative Union score of 44, appeared on "Andrea Mitchell Reports" to critique the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

After Shays insisted that Dick Cheney shouldn't be deciding who is and isn't a solid member of the GOP, Mitchell complimented, "Chris Shays, a good Republican."

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090520050242.aspx

Mitchell denies there are any liberals at NBC, CBS, or ABC

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070108.asp#7

Mitchell joins with Keith Olbermann to attack Vietnam Vets against Kerry

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040807.asp

Posted by antisocialist at 11/19/2009 @ 2:23pm
"I never had any doubts about Obama or the worldview he picked up amidst 1980s campus radicalism, members of the Weather Underground, Chicago machine politics, or Reverend Wright's church. I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to somebody in which I harbor no doubts. "

---CITIZEN

Get a frickin clue. The things you cite are talking points created by pundits and political hack to keep you from thinking. Apparently it works.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2009 @ 3:01pm
poor, poor right wing extremist cons, under attack from all sides, while at the same time claiming they speak for "most Americans".

Poor sad sacks.

Is there a reason so many people hate your ideology?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2009 @ 3:08pm
"Mitchell joins with Keith Olbermann to attack Vietnam Vets against Kerry"

"attack" = "pointing out the swiftboaters were wrong"

how liberal of her!

"How are the attacks at 1 and 2 World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 different from Pearl Harbor?"

of the 17 hijackers, i think 17 were saudi. so by your logic we should attack saudi arabia.

no wonder you're just an irrelevant blogger.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 3:11pm
Is there a reason so many people hate your ideology?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2009 @ 3:08pm

Crabster, I rest my case. I guess they figure that they don't have to think....wise people like Glen Beck, Rush Limpjohnson and Sarah (I'm cashin in on while I can) Palin do their thinking for them.

These people prefer to be cheerleaders and sit on the side and echo their heroes rants.....they would never actually challenge what their heroes say. The only common denominator I see in their philosophy is to oppose anything that would hinder the wealthiest people's efforts to get wealthier....even at the their own expense. Why they stand up for people who would screw them for a penny is beyond me, but their ignorant loyalty to their money gods is almost admirable. Kind of like a dog that gets beat and kicked by it's owner and keeps coming back hoping that next time the dog won't beat it and kick it. The dog never learns, but it is loyal all of the way to it's demise.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2009 @ 3:21pm
Rich Americans deserve something to cry about, they never been richer - supposedly they create jobs. They never been richer and they never created fewer jobs. Rich Americans are un-patriotic, they bankroll the Conservative Authoritarian movement, they bribe our representatives to thwart American interests. Rich Americans produce NOTHING, Rich Americans are LAZY AND INCOMPETENT. Because of Rich Americans, we have this f---ing recession. Rich Americans are aginast health care, Rich Americans whine about not getting respect. Rich Americans created Conservatism, now what they created is bad for business and they can't control it. Rich Americans have done NOTHING for the overwhelming majority of Americans, Rich Americans didnt want us to have the 40 hour work week. Rich Americans believe in polluting American land and getting the Government to bail them out. Rich Americans corrupt our economy and our government and they should be SLAUGHTERED. F--- Capitalism - it didn't f---ing work - admit the facts - Captialism has failed every bit as much and more so than the USSR

Posted by DPGrassley at 11/19/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by DPGrassley at 11/19/2009 @ 3:34pm

You are truly an idiot. Why don't you relocate to Venezuela?

Posted by antisocialist at 11/19/2009 @ 3:38pm
Posted by DPGrassley at 11/19/2009 @ 3:34pm

Hahaha! That's a good rant! But so amazingly off the mark it is a real keeper.

I think your anger should be directed at Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and Congress. If you knew the facts you would know our financial system is already socialistic, not capitalistic. The Federal Reserve itself is a banking cartel designed to privatize profit and socialize risk.

Sure, america has a lot of rich people who are anything but lazy and incompetent. Quite the contrary. In fact, the majority of income taxes in my state, California, are paid by just roughly 43,000 people. And of course you see capitalism as a failure. That's what you are being taught to believe. Be angry at Bernie, certainly not your Congressional representation!

The sad thing I see, DPGrassley, is that you are so blinded by your ignorance you are completely marginalized to do anything about the true status quo supressing us. Even sadder, you've been put there on purpose. Good luck with that.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 3:52pm
"the majority of income taxes in my state, California, are paid by just roughly 43,000 people"

and this is a problem?

"is that you are so blinded by your ignorance you are completely marginalized to do anything about the true status quo supressing us"

still believe the media is liberal, frei?

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 4:04pm
frei goes on and on about the Fed, etc, but if a democratic president appointed an economic team to design a new system of regulating it, of making it more transparent, frei would cry SOCIALISM.

can't have it both ways, dude.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 4:12pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 4:04pm

No, it's not a problem, per se, that under 50,000 individuals pay the majority of taxes for the Millions of Californians. I see the problem in how that "revenue" is managed by our politicians. I cited it because it is a fact that somewhat opposes his claim rich people don't contribute anything. His claim is his problem in my view.

Yes, Darla, the media is extremely liberal. But beyond that, it is manipulated. I see no real difference between Fox News and MSNBC. They are owned and run by the same people. They create their own opposition. What better way is there to control us? so for truth, we all really need to dig.

The media is overwhelmingly liberal because liberals are stupid and the plutocracy needs us to be stupid. Liberals are incapable of questioning their own authority, and make the perfect useful idiot. As you so well demonstrate.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 4:19pm
AntiSocialist - relocate your head out of your a--, Conservative. I don't mind arguing with stupid people, but try making a f---ing point next time.

Freiheitz, guess what, we have a Capitalist system in America. guess what, we have a Capitalist system in America. guess what, we have a Capitalist system in America. guess what, we have a Capitalist system in America. Look it up. If we have bailouts, then we have them under CAPITALISM. If we have a depression, then we have one under CAPITALISM. If we have failure and corruption, then we have it under CAPITALISM. If Rich F---ing pieces of sh-- aren't creating jobs with all their un-precedented wealth, then that is happening under CAPITALISM.

You're like the Marxists who say the USSR wasn't real Communism - full of sh-- - because guess what Conservative - the USSR WAS COMMUNIST and the Marxists OWN their f---ing failure - just you you f---ing Capitalists OWN yours.

Posted by DPGrassley at 11/19/2009 @ 4:26pm
[SIGH] Darla, I want the Fed ABOLISHED!

Please, would you PLEASE educate yourself.

Just by writing something as stupid as, "if a democratic president appointed an economic team to design a new system of regulating it, of making it more transparent, frei would cry SOCIALISM" you PROVE you don't even know what the Fed is!

You don't know the truth.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 4:27pm
We don't have Capitalism in America, yeah right - whatever you f---ing Conservative.

Posted by DPGrassley at 11/19/2009 @ 4:28pm
So, our fractional reserve monetary system is run by a central banking cartel backed 100% by the force of government. We have effectively privatized profit, socialized risk and institutionalized inflation.

The failure you claim as being capitalism, DPGrassley, has nothing to do with capitalism. Our financial markets haven't been 'capitalism' since December 1913. They've been and remain a cartel.

That's why financial markets "failed". Or maybe you can explain to me the capitalist principles at work when Congress allocated $1trillion to Wall Street?

You remain a marginalized idiot.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 4:51pm
We don't have Capitalism in America, yeah right - whatever you f---ing Conservative.

Posted by DPGrassley at 11/19/2009 @ 4:28pm

an idiot and can't read either. Neither Freiheit1 or myself claimed that we don't have capitalism in America.

Why do you hate nearly half of Americans?

Posted by antisocialist at 11/19/2009 @ 4:57pm
With regard to DPGrassley....I think what has happened is that the nurses at the sanitarium were trying some new meds on Phil McCrevice (notice he hasn't been heard from lately) and Phil created a new screen name DPGrassley and is posting in under that name now.

It is obvious those new meds aren't working either...the nurses need to go back and start over.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 6:04pm
'During 2008-2009 Newsweek undertook a dramatic restructuring of its business. Citing difficulties in competing with online news sources to provide unique news in a weekly publication, the magazine repositioned its content towards opinion and commentary beginning with its May 24, 2009 issue. It shrank its subscriber rate base, from 3.1 million to 2.6 million in early 2008 (down 500,000), then to 1.9 million in July 2009 (down 700,000) and will shrink to 1.5 million in January 2010 (down 400K); for a decline of 50% in one year. During this period the magazine also laid off some of its staff. While advertising revenues are down almost 50% compared to the prior year, expenses are also diminishing in a planned strategy that the publishers hope will return Newsweek to profitability.' [13]

Wiki

Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2009 @ 6:15pm
"Please, would you PLEASE educate yourself"

speak for yourself, mr. "the media is extremely liberal"

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 6:16pm
look, everyone, frei wants everyone to know what the Fed controls your lives.

and.....he wants everyone to know this, because every natural phenomenon can be traced back to the Fed.

it all goes back to the mighty Fed.

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 6:17pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 6:17pm

:-) Natural phenomenon? haha, pity that's all you can come up with. Even bigger pity is you aren't interested in the truth.

Darla, you have no idea how the Fed was established, do you? You can't name just three of the main players back in 1913. You can't cite the changes, or even the number of changes in the legislation since 1913... Christmas Eve 1913, by the way, Darla, that's when the bill was snuck through. The Nation magazine actually opposed it at the time. It was one of the few in the "media" of the day that did. Learning that is what brought me to these blogs for the first time.

Anyway, go ahead and remain ignorant. You are more entertaining that way.

Oh, hey, you know what is really funny? I came across the truth during my efforts to prove you and people like you wrong about the invasion of Iraq. I never dreamed we could BOTH be so wrong!

The difference between you and me? I want the truth. You just want to be right.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/19/2009 @ 6:37pm
alterman:

"Even if the Politico editors are not interested in what may have happened in the past eight years to cause some of the deficits with which the Obama administration is forced to deal, we are. And here are just a couple of examples we found: The Bush tax cuts: When the Bush tax cuts sunset at the end of 2010, the previous administration will have left the government holding the bag for well over $2 trillion in lost revenue. The extraordinary debt and deficits accrued during Bush's tenure have been compounded by the implosion of the financial system. In addition, the estimated eventual costs of the costly, unnecessary, and counterproductive Iraq war are now in the trillions to say nothing of the costs of more than six years of failure in Afghanistan. What have they done for America?

As The New York Times' David Cay Johnston recently noted, based on data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, by the time the Bush tax cuts expire next year, people in the top one percentile of annual household incomes will have received 23.5 percent of all the savings in the cuts. The combined savings of the bottom three income brackets was less than that"

read it and weep!

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 11:22pm
alterman....

"In 2004, Peter Orszag, the current director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote extensively on the costs of the Bush tax cuts as a fellow at the Brookings Institution. He explained that the only way to make the tax cuts permanent and fill the budget gap would be to make enormous cuts in vital government services or to institute new regressive taxes.

Were the cuts paid for, the burden would fall on those in the lower income brackets in both spending cuts to services and increased taxes. Up to this point, the Bush tax cuts have not been paid for in either significant cuts in spending or tax increases--merely with increased debt. David Johnston pointed out that the interest on that debt equals "a month worth of income taxes paid to the government by individuals.""

Posted by darladoon at 11/19/2009 @ 11:25pm
"David Johnston pointed out that the interest on that debt equals "a month worth of income taxes paid to the government by individuals"

Gosh, I wonder where that interest payment ends up?

Oh, and this: "In addition, the estimated eventual costs of the costly, unnecessary, and counterproductive Iraq war are now in the trillions to say nothing of the costs of more than six years of failure in Afghanistan. What have they done for America?"

Darla, are you trying to say these wars are planned for America's good?! Don't you understand the waste of money is the GOAL, not just the result?

Here you go. Not a trick question. Who financed both sides of the cold war?

Oh never mind. Go ahead and blame Bush. That's your comfort zone.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:07am
Why do you hate nearly half of Americans?

Posted by antisocialist at 11/19/2009 @ 4:57pm

The real question is, why do you hate 70% of Americans liver?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2009 @ 07:01am
Who financed both sides of the cold war? "---Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:07am

All: Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do! We do!

Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?

Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps?

Alien: We do! We do!

All: Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star? We do! We do!

Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight?

Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night?

All: We do! We do!

"The Stonecutters Society Song"---The Simpsons

Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 07:20am
check out Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS

Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

haven't read it, i must admit. But here's a quote from Goldberg (as seen on Daily Show Nov. 18):

(context was 'why Libs hate Palin')

"When she was put on the ticket, a disease broke out in libeal America: Palin Derangemant Syndrome. She has 5 kids. Liberals don't have 5 kids. One of them has Downe's Syndrome. Liberals certainly don't allow that to happen."

uhh... i think i'll take my lessons on BIAS elsewhere.

Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/20/2009 @ 07:58am
Another right wing myth crashes upon the rocks of reality. A few months ago it was the myth that State workers make more than private sector workers...crashed under the weight of reality. Now the myth about the top pulling their share is dashed as well.

"Most of Michigan's income and local taxes come from the state's poorest residents, resulting in a regressive tax that "no one" would intentionally design, according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.

While non-elderly residents who make less than $15,000 per year typically pay about 9 percent of their income toward taxes and those who make between $32,000 and $54,000 pay nearly 10 percent, the very rich pay about a third less, said the study...

The rich, defined as those with average annual incomes of $1.1 million, typically pay about 6.4 percent toward taxes, the study said.

...and the Republican-controlled Senate wants to make it even worse yet by freezing the Earned Income Tax Credit for the lowest-income residents of the state while eliminating the surcharge on the Michigan Business Tax. "

-http://tinyurl.com/ybunv2a

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 07:20am

Wow, coming back with Matt Groening! Well, you certainly showed me. I feel really foolish now.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 09:54am
"Oh never mind. Go ahead and blame Bush. That's your comfort zone."

i don't recall a democratic president instituting sweeping, egregious tax cuts in 2001-2002.

or getting us into iraq.

i'm not defending the democrats, either, as they gleefully followed the idiot-in-chief.

but bush certainly steered the ship, not the democrats.

and please, frei, i don't care about "the big picture" in this particular instance. i don't have any fantasies about some utopian, tax-free, Fed-free america, either.

Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 11:23am
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 11:23am

Since you don't pay any taxes, DARLA, it's hardly surprising that you would characterize pretty much any tax cut as 'egregious', because it probably cuts into your share of other peoples' labors. You should feel proud, you are the core of the Gimmecratic Party.

Posted by pontificus at 11/20/2009 @ 12:37pm
OK, CC, since you're answering questions for the rightwing, could you answer this one (which I (and others) have been asking for years): what does "victory" look like in Afghanistan and Iraq and when will we know we've achieved it and all our boys and girls can come home?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:14pm

Just reading through this thread and I came upon the above gem.

Here's my answer. We bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan when the professionals in our military instruct the politicians that there no loner is a threat to our and our allies security, both in terms of terrorist threats and threats of disruption of vital resources (OIL), and of course the always threat of our enemies to procure WMD. In other words, WHEN THE JOB IS DONE.

Note, we still have troops in S. Korea and Germany among other places. How advisable would it have been for the U.S. to go all weak-kneed after Iwo Jima or Okinawa? Or maybe we should have brought the guys home after D-Day because it was going to be too cold to fight the Battle of the Bulge.

In my view, liberals have no understanding at all of what it takes to preserve freedom and our way of life.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:48pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/20/2009 @ 12:37pm

And there you have the real threat to our country, bankruptcy to keep the freebies coming in exchange for votes.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 09:54am

FREI, I gave your post the exact amount of serious consideration it deserved.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 12:56pm
and please, frei, i don't care about "the big picture" in this particular instance. i don't have any fantasies about some utopian, tax-free, Fed-free america, either.

Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 11:23am

Well of course you don't Darla. How could you? You can't even comprehend the truth.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:48pm

So as soon as a concensus of professionals in the Pentagon says we can leave Afghanistan...you'll support it?

Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 12:58pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/20/2009 @ 12:37pm

But, is it OK that those that make over 1.1 mil pay a lesser % than those that make chump change?

Where is the job creation from the Bush tax cuts?

If the Reagan tax cuts lead to the Clinton years of prosperity, not Clinton's economic policies, should it not follow that Bush cuts would lead to a post Bush prosperity?

"Obama inherited huge messes." - Byron York, Dianne Rehm Show 11/20/2009.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2009 @ 12:59pm
In my view, liberals have no understanding at all of what it takes to preserve freedom and our way of life.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:48pm

What utter self serving BS.

One part of what you are suggesting is that NO MATTER how corrupt and inept the govts of Afghanistan and Iraq are or become, you want to keep spending tax dollars supporting freebies for those governments.

In post WWII Japan and Europe, corruption existed, at far less rates than exist in the ME, but when found, justice was meted out with meaning.

And, to tie the two conversations together, are you in favor of tax rates similar to that of the era during and following WWII? If not, would I be on safe ground saying that you " have no understanding at all of what it takes to preserve freedom and our way of life."?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2009 @ 1:05pm
And, GUN, being a Finger Fighter for Freedom puts you in the same camp as the "liberals"...at home, whining about your Commander in Chief during wars that need bodies.

When you goin'?

Pontificus won't go, will you take his place?

Barring putting your life on the line to protect Maliki, would you be willing to pay more in taxes so that the next generation won't have to pay for Malikis protection?

If you both unwilling to go to the ME and fight, or pay more in federal tax, what exactly are you doing to protect our freedoms and way of life?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2009 @ 1:11pm
"Since you don't pay any taxes, DARLA"

oh, so now i don't even pay taxes. ok.

"In my view, liberals have no understanding at all of what it takes to preserve freedom and our way of life"

so in order to preserve freedom and our way of life, we must spend trillions of dollars on two invasions and occupations of dangerous, unstable, foreign countries? on a bloated domestic security apparatus (homeland security), and at least two maximum security prisons?

Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 1:19pm
so in order to preserve freedom and our way of life, we must spend trillions of dollars on two invasions and occupations of dangerous, unstable, foreign countries? on a bloated domestic security apparatus (homeland security), and at least two maximum security prisons?

Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 1:19pm

See, there is hope for you. A glimmer of light came on even if it was sarcastic.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 1:29pm
FREI, I gave your post the exact amount of serious consideration it deserved.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 12:56pm

Haha, yeah, all in good fun. I still know you have no true concept of central banking Mask, so I can't really argue with you.

Hey, you know what's really weird? I have NEVER seen an entire episode of The Simpsons on television. Not one. That family is so integrated into our culture. I've seen countless ads for the show on TV. I've seen them used in corporate advertising campaigns, Posters, billboards, in the comix. Seen clips sent to me in eMails from friends, etc.

I just couldn't be less interested. But I can sure see why they'd capture your imagination Mask.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:41pm
"I still know you have no true concept of central banking Mask"

but frei has prodigous understanding of central banking. after all, he read it on the internets.

Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:55pm
but frei has prodigous understanding of central banking. after all, he read it on the internets.

Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:55pm

Haha, actually Darla, you'll notice I have on occasion recommended book titles and some copy/paste, but not posted a single URL to support my view. (URL is, um, a Web address to you Darla. You know, the little http:// thingy.) Try recalling a single link I've posted.

Sure, I have done Internet research, but your implication with your prejoritive "the internets", attacking my intelligence - although appreciated for its humor - is really a swing and a miss. And as for my technical acumen, I've held the title of Senior Web Architect at my company. So I bet I've forgotten more than you know about how "the internets" actually works... In much the same way I know more than you about central banking. And, wow, there is so much to learn and understand.

But you've already expressed your lack of curiosity and interest in the truth. Now you seem determined to simply showcase your narrow-mindedness. You harp on and on about taxes and the rich, but I bet you have no real idea how money is created by government and the 'banks' and enters the 'economy', do you?

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 3:41pm
When I claim the Federal Reserve is basically a Wall Street Banking Cartel, do you have a clue what that means? If you don't know what the Fed is, or does, how can you even comment, of course, other than to call ME stupid?

Sarah Palin, John McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, George Bush...

QUICK! Guess what they all have in common - other than being carbon based!

They all supported TARP. Doesn't that strike you the least bit interesting Darla? Or are you actually naive enough to believe no coercion existed there?

This is not some dark, secret conspiracy issue Miss Doon. It exists in the full beam of your ignorance.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 4:08pm
Oh, right, sorry, I'm wrong. TARP saved the economy, my bad.

Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 4:10pm

I read least week that Obama was considering applying unspent 'stimulus' funds towards deficit reduction - presumably to demonstrate his commitment towards fiscal sanity. If anyone had told me ten years ago that a politician would propose a program for spending a trillion dollars we don't have - then claim credit for fiscal responsiblity by NOT spending it - and people would actually believe him...well, I guess I just didn't anticipate the Age of Obama. Really, no one could write stuff this bizarre.

Posted by pontificus at 11/21/2009 @ 08:15am
Really, no one could write stuff this bizarre.

Posted by pontificus at 11/21/2009 @ 08:15am

Except you...

we won the war!!!!

Keep em there!!!

Spend away...

whine about deficits...

Posted by crabwalk at 11/21/2009 @ 08:30am
"This is not some dark, secret conspiracy issue Miss Doon. It exists in the full beam of your ignorance"

it is.....if you can't explain it.

you keep going on and on and asking questions like:

"They all supported TARP. Doesn't that strike you the least bit interesting Darla?"

well, why is it "interesting" frei? tell us why all those people supported it.

you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, frei.

you say there's a conspiracy, but yet you can't seem to explain it.

Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 10:46am
i don't doubt that the fed needs auditing.

but if you can't explain how the fed works, then you can't just say, "it's a huge banking cartel" unless you can explain the players, the numbers, etc.....

otherwise, it's (literally) a conspiracy theory.

Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 10:47am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)
Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)
D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)
Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)
Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)
Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)
Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)
Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)
Kai Wright (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)
Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)
Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)
Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Newsweek Taps Bush Aide For Obama Reporting (Updated)

posted by Ari Melber on 11/17/2009 @ 09:32am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Kai Wright (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Notion

» The Beat

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Newsweek Taps Bush Aide For Obama Reporting (Updated)

posted by Ari Melber on 11/17/2009 @ 09:32am

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Kai Wright (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Notion

» The Beat

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!