OMFG!!! ABC and CBS PWN Bush!!!

[Ming]

Remember folks... discuss the topic... NOT THE POSTERS!

[Ned]

GePap's post is consistent with the Democrat talking points today -- change the subject. Let's talk about the issues..., and so on and so on.

Pathetic.

[Mr. Harley]

Ned, you are ignoring the fact it's not a liberal media, just a lazy one.

[chequita guevara]

Let's face it, if the story were true, and I now doubt that it was, it was too major a scoop not to go after. I'm really surprised though, at the fact that they didn't figure out that the documents were forgeries before hand. In retrospect, it seems pretty obvious. CBS was looking at $$$.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


I have one laughing at Ned, a few on his silly anti-Disney rant, and mainly a discussion with Ogie about the quality of the bloggosphere vs. real media. The only thing that even comes close to discussing the topic is that, and even then it isn;t about these memos.

I'll accept with that and also agree you have mentioned numerous times that the crux of your posts was not so much about the issue at hand but more over the validity/bias of the new sources. Which for the record is also my point and if I have read correctly in the past Drakes. Also for the record I have stated this is in no way an endorsement for Bush on my part but moreover a condemnation of the bias of establishment media.

That being said Bloggosphere has pwned big time in the last month biased Demovision & Demoprint media forms.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Excuse me, all you left-wing media conspiracy types. It's not a left wing media conspiracy, it just the bastards are lazy. Look at Rumsfeld getting away with telling Congress several months ago that he had no idea he's need extra troops in Iraq. Of course he didn't, he censured General Kinseki (google it if you don't recall the name, I'm pretty sure I got the spelling right) when he told them, BEFORE they went into Iraq, that they would need over 200,000 men. The media let Rumsfeld get away with that brazen lie. They are not left-wing, just lazy. Since I got to bury one of Rumsfeld's mistakes, I take that very personally. The day Bush fires that incompetent jerk who seems intent on proving he learned absolutely NOTHING from Vietnam is the day I might consider not basing my vote on "Anybody but Bush". Try burying a family member and then listen to the bastard lie about why it happened, while the media stays silent. A competent leader admits to mistakes, and fires his underlings who are incompetent. That's a minimum standard of competency, and Bush doesn't meet it.

The're not lazy. They don't want to make powerfull people mad, because they want access to them. The public cares more about access to the rulers than they do the truth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned, you are ignoring the fact it's not a liberal media, just a lazy one.

I would tend to agree with that except the post from Drake indicates that 60 minutes had knowledge that the piece was of questionable nature and ran with it anyway.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned, you are ignoring the fact it's not a liberal media, just a lazy one.

Maybe that's their excuse. But if so, they are sloppy only in one direction. Any smear of Bush is reported without corroboration. Any smear of Kerry is not reported until fully corroborated.

[GePap]

To DanS: I know, thank you. You, on the other hand, are not.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I would tend to agree with that except the post from Drake indicates that 60 minutes had knowledge that the piece was of questionable nature and ran with it anyway.

Yeah, cuz scoops mean $$$. All news media organizations are corporations. They are dedicated to making money. Thus, they chase after anything which will get them ratings, because ratings mean more advertizer $$$.




Ever notice how advertizer and fertilizer kinda sound alike?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Maybe that's their excuse. But if so, they are sloppy only in one direction. Any smear of Bush is reported without corroboration.

Untrue, the media didn't report the issue of Bush going AWOL for more than three years after it first surfaced in the Boston Globe. It didn't touch the issue of the Aug 6th memo until this year, even though I'd first mentioned it here on Poly in 2002.

You are so blind to anything that doesn't fit your ideology.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Maybe that's their excuse. But if so, they are sloppy only in one direction. Any smear of Bush is reported without corroboration. Any smear of Kerry is not reported until fully corroborated.

I thought the issue for you was that the "corrobaration" was faked, not that none existed?

[Mr. Harley]

Uh, Ned, did you google Kinseki? Then go and get a transcript of Rumsfeld claiming he didnt' know he would need extra troops to Congress just a couple of months ago. In that case the laziness benifitted the Bush adminstration very nicely, you didn't have the headline Rumsfeld lies to Congress, tries to claim did not know about lack of forces since he fired the General who tried to warn him or however it would be headlined. Or, since there is no five word easy headline or 30 second soundbite that generates quick money, plus it really would get alot of people pissed, maybe that's why it didn't get covered. Plus, reporters are people to, and can be just as lazy as the rest of us.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its one thing to be lazy when reporting the local dog catcher was caught drunk with a prostitute, quite another when talking about the Prez or potential prez.

Different scopes require different levels of scrutiny.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Its one thing to be lazy when reporting the local dog catcher was caught drunk with a prostitute, quite another when talking about the Prez or potential prez.

Yeah , just look at Fox with Kerry

Different scopes require different levels of scrutiny.

Certainly- matters of war and peace and military policy require lots of resources. The goings on of candiddtaes 30 years before, no, they don't.