the Liberal Media should be held accountable
henry jakala
our Philanderer in Chief and his motley crew of assorted liars
and cons were packaged and sold by the Liberal Media to the
people of the United States.
as such they had much face to lose
should the truth be known about the goings on in the Klinton
administration - as such they are accomplices to his crimes.
it's quite abvious at this point that
they've actively pursued a policy of not reporting and
investigating the various scandals which have come forth.
case in point is their continuous downplaying of whitewater
by constantly reporting it as insignificant and politically inspired.
imagine their dismay when the convictions came in - they're
claims evaporated much like morning fog burned away by the sun.
now they see the writing on the wall - the inescapable conclusion
that the american public will realize that the media sold them this
"bag of goods" know as William Jefferson Blythe Clinton - a pathological
liar.
as a result they are now slowly but surely reporting on the same
topics we've been discussing and bringing to light for months and yes
even years at this point. reporting on these topics as though they
are TODAY's NEWS when in fact they are YESTERDAY'S NEWS.
yes folks - these charlatans in the liberal media will now throw
their beloved icon Klinton to the wolves to be torn to shreds so that
they may save their own despicable asses. and they'll take part in the
bringing down of Slick and then they'll take credit for having
exposed him.
the Liberal Media giveth Klinton the presidency and they will help
take it away - not because it's the right thing to do but because
they need to cover their asses
so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
Joe Marx
In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>, henry jakaka (jak...@netcom.com)
says...
>
>
>
> our Philanderer in Chief and his motley crew of assorted liars
> and cons were packaged and sold by the Liberal Media to the
> people of the United States.
>
[Most of the hooey deleted]
>
> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
"I admit it--the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole
thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
failures." --William Kristol, "The most listened to Republican
strategist on the hill," and editor of Rupert Murdoch's
soon-to-be-launched reactionary weekly 'The Standard'.
'New Yorker', 5/22/95.
-joe m.
Ed Redondo
In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
[snip the BS]
> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they disagree
with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
From a Republican.
==============================================================
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
credibility. And vice versa.
Religious practice is an individual's right; *not* a right
of the public to be imposed on other individuals.
====================================== Ed Redondo ============
mdb
And then to make things worse, j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx)
wrote:
>>
>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>"I admit it--the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole
>thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
>failures." --William Kristol, "The most listened to Republican
>strategist on the hill," and editor of Rupert Murdoch's
>soon-to-be-launched reactionary weekly 'The Standard'.
>'New Yorker', 5/22/95.
>-joe m.
So you're saying the answer is Clinton?
mdb
"Do you follow the path that so many tread?
Are you among the blind so easily lead?"
- Anno Mundi
Black Sabbath
Extremely Right
> the Liberal Media giveth Klinton the presidency and they will help
> take it away - not because it's the right thing to do but because
> they need to cover their asses
>
> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
IF elections can be PRE-DETERMINED by media manipulation, there would be
no need to vote. Voting would merely be a formality to assuage the
oppressed at the coronation. This sacred trust is being trampled and at
least a few have enough sense to quit wasting time listening to the spin
doctor boobs in the tube. Truth is being lost to personal opinions and
opinion polls which are subjective and conveniently defensible. Objective
reality is being assaulted. Young people trained in non-linear new age
touchy feelie Goals 2000 don't even know the difference between facts and
opinion. This treason could result in the demise in the country when we
find ourselves plundered and penniless, and no-one sounded the alarm. Who
would have mercy on the scum bag liars.
The media is third in line at the guillotine behind the legisTRAITORS and
lawyers. ########extra#####8up
Gi...@theloonybin.com
jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
> our Philanderer in Chief and his motley crew of assorted liars
> and cons were packaged and sold by the Liberal Media to the
> people of the United States.
> as such they had much face to lose
> should the truth be known about the goings on in the Klinton
> administration - as such they are accomplices to his crimes.
> it's quite abvious at this point that
> they've actively pursued a policy of not reporting and
> investigating the various scandals which have come forth.
> case in point is their continuous downplaying of whitewater
> by constantly reporting it as insignificant and politically inspired.
> imagine their dismay when the convictions came in - they're
> claims evaporated much like morning fog burned away by the sun.
> now they see the writing on the wall - the inescapable conclusion
> that the american public will realize that the media sold them this
> "bag of goods" know as William Jefferson Blythe Clinton - a pathological
> liar.
> as a result they are now slowly but surely reporting on the same
> topics we've been discussing and bringing to light for months and yes
> even years at this point. reporting on these topics as though they
> are TODAY's NEWS when in fact they are YESTERDAY'S NEWS.
> yes folks - these charlatans in the liberal media will now throw
> their beloved icon Klinton to the wolves to be torn to shreds so that
> they may save their own despicable asses. and they'll take part in the
> bringing down of Slick and then they'll take credit for having
> exposed him.
> the Liberal Media giveth Klinton the presidency and they will help
> take it away - not because it's the right thing to do but because
> they need to cover their asses
> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
Henry, you are absolutely correct in your apraisal of the Libdrool
media, it is almost comical how the media covers for anyone or
anything they deem worthy of their great wit and wisdom.
They are not in the business of REPORTING the news anymore for many
years now. They are " Journalists " that report their libdrool opinon
of what is newsworthy to munipulate the ignorant masses who can bearly
read or comprehend what is being said or done in the real world,
thanks to the libdrool NEA.
Example, The Rodney King beating, only a small part of the entire tape
was overplayed and overplayed so many times that the libdrool media
caused the mass hysteria which contributed to the riots in South
Central L.A. creating more news for themselves, deaths and lots of
distruction also giving a reason for federal military intervention
into a U.S. city. And for Maxine Waters to spend millions of our tax
dollars to appease the libdrool masses who distroyed there own
neighborhoods. BTW most of the targeted stores were Korean owned,
sounds like the riot had more to do with racism against Koreans to me.
But as usual this was not reported by the libdrool media, it wouldn't
look good for the libdrools, since they can't be, racist ? ? ?
Gizmo
Death to the U.N. and all who support it !!!
Mr. Sam
In <4qahv2$gfo...@cs1.electriciti.com>, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com
(Ed Redondo) wrote:
>In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>
>[snip the BS]
>
>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>
>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they disagree
>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>
>From a Republican.
Sorry to confuse you with facts, but the people in the media themselves admit
to being liberal. To the tune of 80-plus percent. What would you expect us
to do? Ignore that fact, just to spare your pristine feelings?
--
Mr. Sam: member, talk.politics.misc troll patrol
channel operator, #Sci-Fi - Undernet IRC sci-fi/fantasy channel
http://www.cyberstorm.com/~rockd/sci-fi.html
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
Joe Marx
In article <31cca3b7...@news1.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
(mr...@concentric.net) says...
>
>In <4qahv2$gfo...@cs1.electriciti.com>, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com
>(Ed Redondo) wrote:
>
>>In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
>> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>>
>>[snip the BS]
>>
>>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>>
>>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they disagree
>>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>>
>>From a Republican.
>
>Sorry to confuse you with facts, but the people in the media themselves admit
>to being liberal. To the tune of 80-plus percent. What would you expect us
>to do? Ignore that fact, just to spare your pristine feelings?
>
I am going to repeat what I posted earlier, partly because it was ignored and
Mr. Sam doesn't like us to ignore things:
"I admit it--the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole
thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
failures." --William Kristol, "The most listened to Republican
strategist on the hill," and editor of Rupert Murdoch's
soon-to-be-launched reactionary weekly 'The Standard'.
'New Yorker', 5/22/95.
So, what do we have: a poll where the majority of reporters asked described
themselves as "liberal"; a statement from one of the most prominent and
influential conservatives in the U.S. that the liberal media were never very
powerful. The logical conclusion is that the poll results are irrelevant (if
they are accurate). Now as to the subject of the thread - according to Mr.
Kristol, the liberal media actually have nothing for which to be held
accountable.
-joe m.
Matt Alexander
8up@ooicu812 (Extremely Right) wrote:
>The media is third in line at the guillotine behind the legisTRAITORS and
>lawyers. ########extra#####8up
Say Ex... What exacly does "8up" mean? Is that anything like "88"?
-><- Matt Alexander
"Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor. It's
the other way around. They never vote for us."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 1988
Brad Levine
In <DtI8J...@tron.bwi.wec.com> j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx)
writes:
I have yet to see this quote in print. Regardless, anyone who
agrees withthe above statement is either blind, or has been living in a
cave for the past twenty years. You don't think the media is powerful?
Take a look around you. Take a look at the gun control movement, which
was considered a joke until the late seventies and early eighties,
right up until the gun control-loving media stepped in. Take a look at
the media's stance on abortion and how it has affected the American
public's opinion on this issue (FTR, I'm very pro-choice, but honest.)
I know many 'Christians' who are pro-choice now.
Every day I listen to people banter ideologies, opinions, and
false 'facts' handed to them by the media. There is complete truth in
the statement 'the pen is mightier than the sword.'
Anyone who really doesn't think the media is all that powerful
should crawl back to that nice little cave and continue ignoring the
truth.
>So, what do we have: a poll where the majority of reporters asked
described
>themselves as "liberal"; a statement from one of the most prominent
and
>influential conservatives in the U.S. that the liberal media were
never very
>powerful. The logical conclusion is that the poll results are
irrelevant (if
>they are accurate). Now as to the subject of the thread - according
to Mr.
>Kristol, the liberal media actually have nothing for which to be held
>accountable.
>
>-joe m.
That's laugable. Ever notice what the left-wing media reports? And
what it fails to report?
How 'bout, ummmm: Brady, the AW ban, South Africa, how bad the
death penalty is, certain Republicans screwing up the spelling of
certain foods, etc.
Brad
DJFl...@ix.netcom.com
homepage: http://www.ix.netcom.com/~DJFlight/
Joe Marx
In article <4qnq6e$1...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, Brad Levine
(djfl...@ix.netcom.co) says...
>>thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
>>failures." --William Kristol, "The most listened to Republican
>>strategist on the hill," and editor of Rupert Murdoch's
>>soon-to-be-launched reactionary weekly 'The Standard'.
>>
>>'New Yorker', 5/22/95.
>
>
> I have yet to see this quote in print. Regardless, anyone who
>cave for the past twenty years. You don't think the media is powerful?
The quote doesn't state that the media are not powerful. It refers to
liberal media never being that powerful. Mr. Kristol is quite a successful
power-broker for a blind man who has lived in a cave for twenty years.
Where do you find the left wing media? - Certainly not the GE network,
Westinghouse network, nor the Disney network. Are you referring to Rupert
Murdoch's TV? No? Maybe it's the print media ( not nearly as influential as
TV or conservative-dominated talk radio). C'mon, Brad, that cave that you're
posting from must be pretty dim, indeed.
> How 'bout, ummmm: Brady, the AW ban, South Africa, how bad the
>death penalty is, certain Republicans screwing up the spelling of
>certain foods, etc.
These sound like "excuses by conservatives for conservative failures".
-joe m.
mdb
Was it evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com (Ed Redondo) who once said,
>[snip the BS]
>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they disagree
>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>From a Republican.
Is it okay if I call Clinton slime and a liar?
mdb
Beware of those who distort providence under the guise of science.
Under the guise of development, we find waste after waste.
Under the guise of culture, we find desolation of the human heart.
It is time to repent for all sins.
Mr. Sam
>In article <31cca3b7...@news1.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
>(mr...@concentric.net) says...
>>
>>In <4qahv2$gfo...@cs1.electriciti.com>, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com
>>(Ed Redondo) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
>>> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip the BS]
>>>
>>>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>>>
>>>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they disagree
>>>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>>>
>>>From a Republican.
>>
>>Sorry to confuse you with facts, but the people in the media themselves admit
>>to being liberal. To the tune of 80-plus percent. What would you expect us
>>to do? Ignore that fact, just to spare your pristine feelings?
>>
>
>
>I am going to repeat what I posted earlier, partly because it was ignored and
>Mr. Sam doesn't like us to ignore things:
>
>
>"I admit it--the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole
>thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
>failures." --William Kristol, "The most listened to Republican
>strategist on the hill," and editor of Rupert Murdoch's
>soon-to-be-launched reactionary weekly 'The Standard'.
>
>'New Yorker', 5/22/95.
>
>So, what do we have: a poll where the majority of reporters asked described
>themselves as "liberal"; a statement from one of the most prominent and
>influential conservatives in the U.S. that the liberal media were never very
>powerful. The logical conclusion is that the poll results are irrelevant (if
>they are accurate). Now as to the subject of the thread - according to Mr.
>Kristol, the liberal media actually have nothing for which to be held
>accountable.
First of all, would you please explain how all of that has any relevance to
the point I was making - that the media itself admits to being liberal? I did
not comment in any way whether the mainstream media's documented liberal bias
amounts to much. And, since the media admits to being generally liberal, I
guess, according to Mr. Ed's musings, the media is derogatory to itself.
Now, as far as your statement goes, I think you misinterpreted Mr. William's
point. First of all, it would be silly to assume that when Mr. William uses
the term "never", he meant a period of history going back to the beginning of
time.
Of course, not.
It is much more logical to reason that Mr. William was describing a more
contemporary period of time, i.e., the past couple of years, or so. The '90s.
And, as far as the '90s goes, I have to agree with Mr. William, the media has
been completely impotent (and, that acknowledged fact has absolutely nothing
to do with my previous statement). If the media had any weight at all, the
outcome of the '94 elections would've been far different than it was. The
arrogant elitist liberals in the mainstream media, being the willing
accomplices of the Democrat Party, scoffed and sneered at the Contract With
America, went out of their way to lie and distort the issues and facts
surrounding the Contract. They were a part and parcel (however the saying
goes) of the Democrat Party, yet, everyone of them had veeeeery long faces,
come election night.
Now, what were you saying?
Mr. Sam
>Was it evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com (Ed Redondo) who once said,
>>In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
>> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>
>>[snip the BS]
>
>>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>
>>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they disagree
>>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>
>>From a Republican.
>
>Is it okay if I call Clinton slime and a liar?
How about a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, flag-burning philanderer?
get it RIGHT N. Jonker
sar...@nando.net (mdb) wrote:
>Is it okay if I call Clinton slime and a liar?
>
>
>mdb
>
>Beware of those who distort providence under the guise of science.
>Under the guise of development, we find waste after waste.
>Under the guise of culture, we find desolation of the human heart.
>It is time to repent for all sins.
>
Though it may be true that Clinton is slime and a liar you
should not say these things. It is very negative and we don't
want negative politics. We want issues and Clinton being
worthless is not an issue!
Issues like the welfare reform Clinton promised then didn't
deliver, but will promise again in this election.
Issues like Tax reform that Clinton promised then didn't
deliver, but will promise again.
Issues like downsizing government that Clinton promised then
didn't deliver, but will promise again.
Issues like F.B.I. files that Clinton didn't see, and
apoligises for.
Issues like the rich slime that steal from our government for
personal gain. Clinton should prosecute whitewater criminals
personaly.
Issues like morality. What? What mmorals?
Promise everything. Deliver nothing. Why would you want to call
this great man slime?
Promise everything. Deliver nothing. Why call him a liar.
Hey lets stick to the issues. O.K.
Joe Marx
In article <31cf40c9...@news.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
(Wyle.E...@SuperGenius.Acme.com) says...
>
>In <DtI8J...@tron.bwi.wec.com>, j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx) wrote:
>
>>In article <31cca3b7...@news1.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
>>(mr...@concentric.net) says...
>>>
>>>In <4qahv2$gfo...@cs1.electriciti.com>, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com
>>>(Ed Redondo) wrote:
>>>
>>>> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip the BS]
>>>>
>>>>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>>>>
>>>>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they
disagree
>>>>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>>>>
>>>>From a Republican.
>>>
Nowhere is it documented that the mainstream media are liberal. There was
reference to an unspecified poll that claimed that reporters are liberal.
Most reporters work for conservative organizations. The organizations are the
media. I would not attempt to claim that reporters' biases have no influence
on what they write, but we should all recognize that editorial control has
more influence than do reporters personal feelings.
>
>Now, as far as your statement goes, I think you misinterpreted Mr. William's
>point. First of all, it would be silly to assume that when Mr. William uses
>the term "never", he meant a period of history going back to the beginning of
>time.
>
>Of course, not.
I would like to thank-you for redefining "never", however, I believe that Mr.
Kristol does know the correct meaning of the word and used it correctly.
>
>It is much more logical to reason that Mr. William was describing a more
>contemporary period of time, i.e., the past couple of years, or so. The
'90s.
>And, as far as the '90s goes, I have to agree with Mr. William, the media has
>been completely impotent (and, that acknowledged fact has absolutely nothing
>to do with my previous statement). If the media had any weight at all, the
>outcome of the '94 elections would've been far different than it was. The
>arrogant elitist liberals in the mainstream media, being the willing
>accomplices of the Democrat Party, scoffed and sneered at the Contract With
>America, went out of their way to lie and distort the issues and facts
>surrounding the Contract. They were a part and parcel (however the saying
>goes) of the Democrat Party, yet, everyone of them had veeeeery long faces,
>come election night.
Well, you have at least agreed with Mr. Kristol that the liberal media were
not able to influence anything for the last six years. (Note that this also
includes the election in 1992). I am curious as to just what you include in
the "liberal media". Could you specify?
>
>Now, what were you saying?
>
Something you have not yet been able to refute.
-joe m.
Mr. Sam
They admit it themselves.
> There was
>reference to an unspecified poll that claimed that reporters are liberal.
That 'unspecified poll' was widely publicized last month.
>Most reporters work for conservative organizations. The organizations are the
If you work in a "conservative organization" (whatever it is), please explain
how that fact will prevent you from speaking your mind.
>media. I would not attempt to claim that reporters' biases have no influence
>on what they write, but we should all recognize that editorial control has
>more influence than do reporters personal feelings.
And the editorials are written by liberals as well. In that light, your
complaint that organizations are "conservative" makes no sense, since, over
here, you are indicating that what matters is the editorial policy, not the
owner's policy.
>>
>>Now, as far as your statement goes, I think you misinterpreted Mr. William's
>>point. First of all, it would be silly to assume that when Mr. William uses
>>the term "never", he meant a period of history going back to the beginning of
>>time.
>>
>>Of course, not.
>
>I would like to thank-you for redefining "never", however, I believe that Mr.
>Kristol does know the correct meaning of the word and used it correctly.
I find your suggestion that Mr. William has been discussing things that
happened before he was born to be completely hillarious.
>
>>
>>It is much more logical to reason that Mr. William was describing a more
>>contemporary period of time, i.e., the past couple of years, or so. The
>'90s.
>>And, as far as the '90s goes, I have to agree with Mr. William, the media has
>>been completely impotent (and, that acknowledged fact has absolutely nothing
>>to do with my previous statement). If the media had any weight at all, the
>>outcome of the '94 elections would've been far different than it was. The
>>arrogant elitist liberals in the mainstream media, being the willing
>>accomplices of the Democrat Party, scoffed and sneered at the Contract With
>>America, went out of their way to lie and distort the issues and facts
>>surrounding the Contract. They were a part and parcel (however the saying
>>goes) of the Democrat Party, yet, everyone of them had veeeeery long faces,
>>come election night.
>
>Well, you have at least agreed with Mr. Kristol that the liberal media were
>not able to influence anything for the last six years. (Note that this also
>includes the election in 1992). I am curious as to just what you include in
>the "liberal media". Could you specify?
Ummm... I include the New Yawk Times, the Chicken Noodle News Network, the
Washington Compost, Atlanta Urinal/Constipation, e.t.c. You get the idea.
>>Now, what were you saying?
>>
>
>Something you have not yet been able to refute.
Not quite. It's something that didn't make any sense whatsoever. The
nonsense _was_ irrefutable, though.
tera...@mail.az.com
are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media? How does it
change anything?
The best part is that while they're sure that it affects everyone else,
they themselves are above such trickery.
Feh.
mdb
>My favorite thing about those who decry our "liberal media" is that they
>are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
>What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media? How does it
>change anything?
Well popularity polls are a good part of it. And if you lead off the
nightly news every night for a month saying "Newt is going to cut
medicare" (yes, that's an exaggeration, but barely) then people will
think Newt's cutting medicare as opposed to raising it only twice the
rate of inflation as opposed to three times, increasing spending by
only a percent or two less than democrats, a difference of maybe a
dollar a day.
>The best part is that while they're sure that it affects everyone else,
>they themselves are above such trickery.
It affects people who don't pay close attention. My roommate didn't
know Dole was handicapped, I could tell you thirty things about his
life. Some people think republicans want to cut taxes only for anyone
making more than 500K a year, I know they want to cut everybody's
taxes.
>Feh.
Indeed.
dark...@epix.net
> My favorite thing about those who decry our "liberal media" is that they
> are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
> What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media? How does it
> change anything?
>
> The best part is that while they're sure that it affects everyone else,
> they themselves are above such trickery.
>
> Feh.
The media has been effective at swaying peoples attitudes over time. If one
is continually fed a certain slant on a subject a certain percentage of people
will start to believe that slant no matter what the truth really is.
By example look at the drastic change in peoples opinions about the Anita
Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. When the hearing concluded the vast majority of
people polled felt that she was lying but now most feel she wasn't. To what
would you attribute this drastic change? Nothing new has come out since the
hearing, but the press continues to this day to bash Thomas.
The main element in brainwashing is repetition, the press and the Democrats
have made this an artform. Look at how many times the say the "mean spirited"
"starving children" and "right wing extremists" exactly as if from a script.
Also look at Clinton he repeats over and over that he is for welfare
reform, but has taken no action on it since taking office, the same goes for
Social Security and campaign reform. He knows that all he has to do is
continually repeat that the is for these thing and a lot of people will think
that he has actually done something about them.
That's all the time I have for know.
Later Day
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The shortest distance between two points is under construction
Brad Levine
>
>My favorite thing about those who decry our "liberal media" is that
they
>are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
>What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media? How does
it
>change anything?
>
>The best part is that while they're sure that it affects everyone
else,
>they themselves are above such trickery.
>
>Feh.
You want to know how media bias affects us? Answer: gun control.
Answer: abortion (of which I am in favor.) Answer: South Africa.
Answer: Bill Clinton. Answer: media violence.
If you don't think media bias affects us, you don't need your head
examined - it's already too late.
Horrigan
Brad Levine said:
>Answer: South Africa.
The racist apartheid regime in South African fell apart of its accord,
with little or no aid from the liberal media. The liberal media might
have helped keep the economic sanctions in place, but the pre-Mandela
South Africa was able to continue to be a rich country even without direct
access to the global economy. Indeed, the sanctions may have slowed the
collapse of apartheid, by reducing the influence of the multiracial
cultures of the US & Britain, and by lowering the standard of living of
the black majority (thus giving them less leisure time to devote to
fighting back against their political oppression.)
>Answer: Bill Clinton.
Bill was _not_ the most liberal candidate in the 1992 Presidential field.
Also, he got a lot of flack from the media, who tried to sink his
candidacy before it even got out of New Hampshire.
If the media determined who won the Democratic nomination, Paul Tsongas
would have won. If the media picked the most classically liberal
candidate, Tom Harkin would have won.
Now, in the general election, Clinton _was_ aided by the media's refusal
to expose Ross Perot's madness, but on the other hand, the media helped
George Bush by pretneding that he was actually making a credible run for
re-election, even as Bush faded from view altogether.
--Tim Horrigan <horr...@aol.com>
gary addis
On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:53:40 GMT, j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx) wrote:
+In article <31cf40c9...@news.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
+(Wyle.E...@SuperGenius.Acme.com) says...
+>
+>In <DtI8J...@tron.bwi.wec.com>, j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx) wrote:
+>
+>>In article <31cca3b7...@news1.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
+>>(mr...@concentric.net) says...
+>>>
+>>>In <4qahv2$gfo...@cs1.electriciti.com>, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com
+>>>(Ed Redondo) wrote:
+>>>
+>>>>In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
+>>>> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
+>>>>
+>>>>[snip the BS]
+>>>>
+>>>>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
+>>>>
+>>>>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group, they
+disagree
+>>>>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
+>>>>
+>>>>From a Republican.
+>>>
+>>>Sorry to confuse you with facts, but the people in the media themselves
+admit
+>>>to being liberal. To the tune of 80-plus percent. What would you expect
+us
+>>>to do? Ignore that fact, just to spare your pristine feelings?
+>>>
Know how this latest round of media-bashing got started? James Glassman, who
writes for the "liberally biased" Washington Post, made the claim in one of his
"liberally biased" articles. In it, he quoted the results of a poll published
in--now get this-- 1986. The poll's results: 54% Liberal, 19% Conservative and
the remainder told the questioners to mind their own business. Not the 80%
Gingrich claims. Besides, relying on the conclusions of Mr. & Mrs Lichter to
prove "liberal bias" is a little like depending on the Unabomber to prove the
evils of technology. A 1992 Lichter "study," for instance, related criticism of
South Africa's Apartheid to blanket condemnation of American foreign policy.
Glassman blames affirmative action for the liberal bias, because "Blacks and women
who enter the media tend to be more liberal than white men." Wonder why...could
it be because they have been stepped on so long as a group that their sympathies
lie with victims of smear campaigns conducted by rabid-dog Limbaugh and Gingrich?
Turn on your television, people; read a couple of newspapers. George Will's
columns appear in hundreds of daily newspapers and at least one magazine. Is
Glassman himself a Liberal?--despite his claims, he is and has been for a very
long time a Conservative. Is the editorial page editor of the Washington Post a
Liberal?--Hardly: Ms Greenfield aligns herself publicly with the UltraRight. Joe
Klein, editor of Newsweek, has defended the Conservative agenda on CNN. Is PBS's
John McLaughlin a Liberal? How about Bill Buckley?
Rupert Murdoch, who contributes heavily to Gingrich and Dole, owns Fox
Broadcasting, scads of radio stations, and by now probably a zillion newspapers.
Billionaire Rupe doesn't tolerate independent thought among his staff--if he
suspected one of his reporters of liberal bias, you can bet your ass he'd be fired
in a heartbeat.
Y'all can't win this argument. If there's any bias in the media, it's
Conservative in nature.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes another's.
--Jean Paul Richter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gary addis
On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:53:40 GMT, j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx) wrote:
+In article <31cf40c9...@news.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
+(Wyle.E...@SuperGenius.Acme.com) says...
+>
+>In <DtI8J...@tron.bwi.wec.com>, j...@oce216.bwi.wec.com (Joe Marx) wrote:
+>
+>>In article <31cca3b7...@news1.concentric.net>, Mr. Sam
+>>(mr...@concentric.net) says...
+>>>
+>>>In <4qahv2$gfo...@cs1.electriciti.com>, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com
+>>>(Ed Redondo) wrote:
+>>>
+>>>>In article <jakalaDt...@netcom.com>,
+>>>> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
+>>>>
+>>>>[snip the BS]
+>>>>
+>>>Sorry to confuse you with facts, but the people in the media themselves
+admit
+>>>to being liberal. To the tune of 80-plus percent. What would you expect
+us
+>>>to do? Ignore that fact, just to spare your pristine feelings?
+Something you have not yet been able to refute.
+
+-joe m.
+
Joe, allow me to present the true facts, which you will undoubtedly ignore.
The present round of media-bashing was instigated by James Glassman, who writes
for the "liberally biased" Washington Post. In his column he referred to a poll
that was conducted in 1986. The poll's results: 54% of those questioned admitted
that they were Liberal, not that they gave anything a liberal slant. Besides,
trusting the poll's authors to report on Press bias is akin to asking the
Unabomber to express an unbiased opinion of technology. In a 1992 "study," Mr. &
MS. Lichter equated criticism of S.African Apartheid with condemnation of American
foreign policy.
You want to play the numbers game? If the Press is so Liberal-biased, why then is
the Heritage Foundation the most frequently cited "expert" on any discussion of
what's right or wrong with America?--Conservative think thanks (I apply the
expression loosely) were quoted 5,298 times in 1995; Liberal think tanks were
cited less than a thousand times.
George Will expresses his opinions in 100's of daily papers, a television show and
at least one mass market magazine. Is he a Liberal? The editorial page editor of
the Washington Post sure as hell isn't--Ms. Greenfield has publicly aligned
herself with arch Conservative Pat Buchanan. And what about Bob Bartley, who
writes editorials for the Wall Street Journal? Or Newsweek's Joe Klein, who has
defended Bob Dole on CNN? Then there's The New Yorker's Mike Kelly, Safire of The
Times, and John McLaughlin and Bill Buckley of PBS.
Glassman blames affirmative action for the liberal bias. "Blacks and women
reporters tend to be more liberal than the men." If true, perhaps it's because
women and black people know what it is to be stomped when they're down.
But what the hell does a journalist's private opinions have to do with reporting
the news? I'm a journalist myself; in university I and my classmates were taught
to keep our private thoughts and feelings private (except when posting to
newsgroups, of course). But what good would it do us if we wanted to spread
political doggerel? Rupert Murdoch owns Fox Broadcasting Network, hundreds of
newspapers and an ungodly number of radio stations. Over the years, he has
contributed millions of dollars to Right Wing politicians. He's a frigging
billionaire; he doesn't take "no" for an answer, and he's a hands-on kind of guy.
If one of his reporters expressed an opinion he didn't agree with, the guy or gal
would be out on his or her ass within ten minutes of the broadcast--he's done it
before.
So abandon this inane argument before we bombard you with examples of
*Conservative* bias.
________________________________________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
--Elbert Hubbard
____________________________________________
Thomas Searing
gad...@southwind.com (gary addis) wrote:
It is the basis of every journalist class and that is to report the
facts not their opinions. Today we journalist infusing not only their
opinion but holding little civic lessons in their own beliefs. That is
why the major news media ratings are falling and will continue. A
recent poll conducted by the media (CNN) showed that the major
deficency in the media is just giving the facts and not their opinion.
If giving facts is their main task, then the media has failed.
Tom
DC
tera...@mail.az.com wrote:
>My favorite thing about those who decry our "liberal media" is that they
>are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
>What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media? How does it
>change anything?
>The best part is that while they're sure that it affects everyone else,
>they themselves are above such trickery.
>Feh.
So, in other words, you can tell the difference when someone is trying
to snooker you, but we cannot?
Denny Church
Brad Levine
>+>>>>> so which is the greater evil ? Klinton or the Liberal Media ?
>+>>>>
>+>>>>Neither. It's people like you who call anyone, or any group,
they
>+disagree
>+>>>>with "Liberal" or any other term they deem derogatory.
>+>>>>
>+>>>>From a Republican.
>+>>>
>+>>>Sorry to confuse you with facts, but the people in the media
themselves
>+admit
>+>>>to being liberal. To the tune of 80-plus percent. What would you
expect
>+us
>+>>>to do? Ignore that fact, just to spare your pristine feelings?
>+>>>
>
>Know how this latest round of media-bashing got started? James
Glassman, who
>writes for the "liberally biased" Washington Post, made the claim in
one of his
>"liberally biased" articles. In it, he quoted the results of a poll
published
>in--now get this-- 1986. The poll's results: 54% Liberal, 19%
Conservative and
>the remainder told the questioners to mind their own business. Not
the 80%
>Gingrich claims. Besides, relying on the conclusions of Mr. & Mrs
Lichter to
>prove "liberal bias" is a little like depending on the Unabomber to
prove the
>evils of technology. A 1992 Lichter "study," for instance, related
criticism of
>South Africa's Apartheid to blanket condemnation of American foreign
policy.
>
>Glassman blames affirmative action for the liberal bias, because
"Blacks and women
>who enter the media tend to be more liberal than white men." Wonder
why...could
>it be because they have been stepped on so long as a group that their
sympathies
>lie with victims of smear campaigns conducted by rabid-dog Limbaugh
and Gingrich?
>
>Turn on your television, people; read a couple of newspapers. George
Will's
>columns appear in hundreds of daily newspapers and at least one
magazine. Is
>Glassman himself a Liberal?--despite his claims, he is and has been
for a very
>long time a Conservative. Is the editorial page editor of the
Washington Post a
>Liberal?--Hardly: Ms Greenfield aligns herself publicly with the
UltraRight. Joe
>Klein, editor of Newsweek, has defended the Conservative agenda on
CNN. Is PBS's
>John McLaughlin a Liberal? How about Bill Buckley?
>
>Rupert Murdoch, who contributes heavily to Gingrich and Dole, owns Fox
>Broadcasting, scads of radio stations, and by now probably a zillion
newspapers.
>Billionaire Rupe doesn't tolerate independent thought among his
staff--if he
>suspected one of his reporters of liberal bias, you can bet your ass
he'd be fired
>in a heartbeat.
>
>Y'all can't win this argument. If there's any bias in the media, it's
>Conservative in nature.
Bullshit. Typical from a flaming left-winger. Ooops, I meant
'Progressive.'
At any rate, the media shows an astoundingly left-wing bias. The
George Wills and the Calvin Thomas' are few and far between among the
Molly Ivins, Mary McGrorys, William Raspberrys, Michael Kinsleys, the
David Broders.
I see it every day in the misleading and usually selective
reporting of the media. Take notice how anytime a story is done
regarding abortion, they paint the anti-abortionists as foaming-at-the
mouth radicals (FTR, I'm pro-choice and pro-abortion.) Take notice how
television and newspaper editor love to editorialize against the death
penalty - even though, far and away, the majority of Americans are in
favor of it.
As far as Rupert Murdoch and Fox goes, the fact is that Fox is
also as much left-wing rag like NBC, ABC, and CBS, Time, Washington
Post, etc. Murdoch may own Fox, but he evidently does not control the
content as Fox News is decidedly left-wing and you need only watch for
a few minutes to hear or see liberal swipes at conservatives in the
entertainment. I remember someone - I have no idea who - who praised
Murdoch for being able to poke fun at conservatives and himself.
Evidently, he let's his company poke a LOT of fun at them.
Here is another perspective. I remember my first journalism class.
I am not sure what my teacher was trying to teach us: how to write
news or how to bash conservatives effectively. Even though I dislike
George Bush immensely, he had an ol' bullseye painted on his head as
far as that class was concerned.
The point of all of this is to say that anyone who thinks the
media is conservative is either living in fantasyland, or is so
unbelievably left-wing that the Unabomber looks like a conservative.
Brad
DJFl...@ix.netcom.com
homepage: http://www.ix.netcom.com/~DJFlight/
P.S. This message was not intended to be a swipe at liberals - I share
many ideologies with liberals - but anyone who considers the media
'conservative' is so far gone they are beyond hope. It's scary that
people can be that out of touch.
Van Matre
djfl...@ix.netcom.com(Brad Levine) wrote:
<snip - long diatribe using the Newtism, "astoundingly left-wing bias of the
media" and discussing how FOX is a left-wing rag>
>P.S. This message was not intended to be a swipe at liberals - I share
>many ideologies with liberals - but anyone who considers the media
>'conservative' is so far gone they are beyond hope. It's scary that
>people can be that out of touch.
Spoken like a true Limbite! By the way, when the camera pans the audience on
Mr. Limbaugh's show, there is a spooky sameness about them. Among other
things, they all have this goofus, cockeyed grin on their face and while
they're clapping they kind of hunch their shoulders and bounce up and down.
Do they have springs up their ass, or what?
Van
*******************************************************************
'Step Aside or Get Run Over! Look out
Mickey and Goofey! Here comes Joe Camel'
(Joe sez, Dole for prez in '96)
*******************************************************************
eda...@cts.com
In <4ragae$i...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@netusa1.net (Van Matre) writes:
>djfl...@ix.netcom.com(Brad Levine) wrote:
>
>
>
><snip - long diatribe using the Newtism, "astoundingly left-wing bias of the
>media" and discussing how FOX is a left-wing rag>
>
>>many ideologies with liberals - but anyone who considers the media
>>'conservative' is so far gone they are beyond hope. It's scary that
>>people can be that out of touch.
>
>Mr. Limbaugh's show, there is a spooky sameness about them. Among other
>things, they all have this goofus, cockeyed grin on their face and while
>they're clapping they kind of hunch their shoulders and bounce up and down.
>Do they have springs up their ass, or what?
As opposed to when a bunch of libs get together under Jesse Jackson
and shout in unison "Hey Hey Ho Ho Sibilisations Gots to go".
Edmond Dantes
eda...@cts.com
PGP public key and resume (I'm always looking for work) are available at:
http://www.free.cts.com/crash/e/edantes
Jeff Thorson
> tera...@mail.az.com wrote:
>
> >My favorite thing about those who decry our "liberal media" is that they
> >are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
> >What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media?
A short list(starting with Roosevelt):
Roosevelt's health -- consequence a very sick tired man was
negotiating the shape of the post war world with uncle Joe.
Examples under Johnson:
The press -loved- Johnson in 64, 65.
Lack of scrutiny on Gulf of Tonkin -- consequence - Vietnam.
Lack of scrutiny on Great Society -- consequence - we now have
more poverty than they said would occur if we did nothing.
Break in at Goldwater headquarters -- press knew.| From "Firing Line"
Use of CIA during '64 campaign -- press knew. | report on book
> > How does it change anything?
Are you saying that the skin color of reporters is more important than
what they think? By your logic, if newsrooms are nothing but whites why
bother with affirmative action since "How does it change anything?" if
they diversify?
--
Jeff Thorson | The two secrets to life are:
jtho...@execpc.com | 1. Never tell everything you know.
Pewaukee Wisconsin USA |
Brad Levine
In <4ragae$i...@news.netusa1.net> jv...@netusa1.net (Van Matre) writes:
>
>djfl...@ix.netcom.com(Brad Levine) wrote:
>
>
>
><snip - long diatribe using the Newtism, "astoundingly left-wing
bias of the
>media" and discussing how FOX is a left-wing rag>
>
share
>>many ideologies with liberals - but anyone who considers the media
>>'conservative' is so far gone they are beyond hope. It's scary that
>>people can be that out of touch.
>
audience on
>Mr. Limbaugh's show, there is a spooky sameness about them. Among
other
>things, they all have this goofus, cockeyed grin on their face and
while
>they're clapping they kind of hunch their shoulders and bounce up and
down.
>Do they have springs up their ass, or what?
>
Limbites are simply people who have had it with 3+ years of
Clinton and 30+ years of his shtick.
Internaut Capt Jack
What the press should really be focusing on is what happens to the
children who she just put out of a job. She supports people with 12
years of US education, and every advantage in the world maintaining
their skills at the level of an uneducated Honduran child. This is a
terrible waste of resources, and forces the consumer to pay for their
unwillingness to upgrade their job skills. Face it, if an uneducated
Hounduran child can put you out of work, then that is your problem,
not the consumer's. Put these children back to work, and get the US
worker living up to their potential. We can remain on top of the world
in std of living if we waste our resources competing for low/no profit
industries that do not use the 12 years of free education all of us
are given. If you want to work in a sweat shop, move to Honduras,
otherwise use your head, get higher training, and get a job that
doesn't require Kathy Lee protecting it.
Matt Alexander
Wyle.E...@SuperGenius.Acme.com (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>>Most reporters work for conservative organizations. The organizations are the
>
>If you work in a "conservative organization" (whatever it is), please explain
>how that fact will prevent you from speaking your mind.
It's called an "editor".
-><- Rev. Matt Alexander
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew
them like applesauce they taste more like prunes than a rhubarb does.
Now, uh.. Now you tell me what you know." -Marx
ZB
The only problem is how does one avoid competing with such
"uneducated" people in third world countries. When we export
manufacturing jobs to worker in these countries at a wage rate of
$2.00/day or whatever, it can represent a tremendous increase in their
standard of living, resulting in a happy, reliable and productive
worker.
ZB
Dittoheads are educated beyond their intellectual
capacity.
Mr. Sam
In <4rd6mu$5...@tribune.concentric.net>, Dro...@cris.com (Matt Alexander)
wrote:
>Wyle.E...@SuperGenius.Acme.com (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>
>>>Most reporters work for conservative organizations. The organizations are the
>>
>>If you work in a "conservative organization" (whatever it is), please explain
>>how that fact will prevent you from speaking your mind.
>
>It's called an "editor".
So, you are saying that liberal editors are letting their ideology interfere
with their work? I'll buy that.
Van Matre
ga...@zipnet.com (ZB) wrote:
Maybe the U.S. can get totally out of manufacturing in this country. Surely
we can convince the third world countries to make *all* our junk. Except for
those in service work and sales, the rest of us could just diddle our time
away as we please. We could all own stock in multi-national companies and live
off dividends and appreciation. With no production we could drastically
reduce OSHA and the EPA and the local environment should clean up nicely.
Ahh...if a man be king....
--
EandorY
Jeff Thorson wrote:
>
> > tera...@mail.az.com wrote:
> >
> > >My favorite thing about those who decry our "liberal media" is that they
> > >are unable to identify a consequence of that allegedly biased press.
> > >What happens when there is (alleged) bias in the mass media?
>
> A short list(starting with Roosevelt):
>
> Roosevelt's health -- consequence a very sick tired man was
> negotiating the shape of the post war world with uncle Joe.
>
> Examples under Johnson:
> The press -loved- Johnson in 64, 65.
> Lack of scrutiny on Gulf of Tonkin -- consequence - Vietnam.
> Lack of scrutiny on Great Society -- consequence - we now have
> more poverty than they said would occur if we did nothing.
> Break in at Goldwater headquarters -- press knew.| From "Firing Line"
> Use of CIA during '64 campaign -- press knew. | report on book
>
Jeff;
Don't forget the press' rabid prosecution of Hooker at Love
Canal. After distorting/disregarding the facts, they helped Congress
pass CERCLA (Superfund), which is a monumental drain on our pocketbooks
and inner-city industry.
More examples where the press acquiesced in some bogus scheme:
Alar scare - apples become more expensive (marginally, but still...)
Agent Orange - Extra income for every vet who can say "Charlie"
Eric
mdb
Oona goota, djfl...@ix.netcom.com(Brad Levine)?
> At any rate, the media shows an astoundingly left-wing bias. The
>George Wills and the Calvin Thomas' are few and far between among the
>Molly Ivins, Mary McGrorys, William Raspberrys, Michael Kinsleys, the
>David Broders.
I would like to point out to all in this thread (and particularly the
liberals who invoke the names of Will, Buckley, et al to show
conservatives are part of the media) that in naming examples, the
media includes more than the opinion columnists where you would expect
a left/right balance. The media includes reporters, writers, editors,
and anchors.
89% voted for Clinton and they *knew* the recession had bottomed out
in the summer...
It means you're a loser and a failure and you'll never
amount to anything and you can't do a thing to change that.
-Tom Servo of MST3000 fame
Joe Marx
In article <31d74df4...@news.nse.com>, gary addis (gad...@southwind.com)
says...
Republican insider who said that "the liberal media were never really that
powerful". I don't think that we are in disagreement here.
-joe m.
>The present round of media-bashing was instigated by James Glassman, who writes
>for the "liberally biased" Washington Post. In his column he referred to a poll
>that was conducted in 1986. The poll's results: 54% of those questioned admitted
>that they were Liberal, not that they gave anything a liberal slant. Besides,
>trusting the poll's authors to report on Press bias is akin to asking the
>Unabomber to express an unbiased opinion of technology. In a 1992 "study," Mr. &
>MS. Lichter equated criticism of S.African Apartheid with condemnation of American
>foreign policy.
>