Blitzer and CNN join "Dewey Defeats Truman" blunder crowd

[Peter Fokes]

The continuing deterioration of the US media continues apace.

At least in the days of JFK's assassination there were legitimate
reasons for mistakes ...

but now?

So eager to be first rather than right.

Wolf and CNN blather on .......


Peter Fokes,
Toronto

[Anthony Marsh]

Concerning what? Reporting on what? Just bashing all media in general?
Context? Couldn't get it past the censor?

[Herbert Blenner]

On Jun 28, 11:26 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> The continuing deterioration of the US media continues apace.
>
> At least in the days of JFK's assassination there were legitimate
> reasons for mistakes ...

Lee Harold Oswald has been shot.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/hasbeenshot.wma

What was their excuse?

>
> but now?
>
> So eager to be first rather than right.
>
> Wolf and CNN blather on .......
>
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto

Herbert

[HistorianDetective]

Here's a pic regarding CNN's blunder.
http://imgur.com/jf4P2

And as you are well aware I'm sure, Warren was running a vice prez to
Dewey.

And as you are well aware I'm sure, Roberts is getting quite the heat
for his decision as did Warren for his Brown Vs Board of Education
decision.

JM/HD

[Peter Fokes]

On 28 Jun 2012 22:59:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-fox-make-health-care-headline-blunder/article/2500922


PF


>
>

[everet...@gmail.com]

Speaking of newspaper headline blunders, get a load of this horrifying Detroit News headline misprint on the day of JFK's assassination.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-JFK-John-F-Kennedy-Newspaper-KILL-KENNEDY-MISS-PRINT-ONE-OF-A-KIND-/120937103957?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c2869c255#ht_2198wt_1437

[Anthony Marsh]

It wasn't a goof. It was deliberate. The extreme rightwing media lying
about events to satisfy the Tea Party.

> PF
>
>
>>
>>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/28/2012 11:08 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0628-obama-health-care-dewey-truman/13003502-1-eng-US/0628-obama-health-care-dewey-truman_full_380.jpg

Already the Tea Party is calling for the impeachment or assassination of
Chief Justice Roberts.

>
> PF
>
>
>>
>>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/28/2012 11:08 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0628-obama-health-care-dewey-truman/13003502-1-eng-US/0628-obama-health-care-dewey-truman_full_380.jpg

Nice try, but terrible photoshop. Trivia question. What tablet is that
supposed to be which looks so big? Obviously Obama would see the news on
a real TV, but they need to show it on a tablet for the crowd so that
it's big enough for the audience to see.

> PF
>
>
>>
>>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/28/2012 11:01 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:26 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> The continuing deterioration of the US media continues apace.
>>
>> At least in the days of JFK's assassination there were legitimate
>> reasons for mistakes ...
>>
>> but now?
>>
>> So eager to be first rather than right.
>>
>> Wolf and CNN blather on .......
>>
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> Here's a pic regarding CNN's blunder.
> http://imgur.com/jf4P2
>

Is that the Windows 9 tablet from the future?
Is that a real screen gab from the CNN coverage?

[Ace Kefford]

I think the pic was a joke, intentionally transparent as based off a
Truman photo.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, but you didn't answer my questions.

[timstter]

On Jun 29, 9:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 11:08 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Jun 2012 22:59:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh

> > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 6/28/2012 11:26 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
> >>> The continuing deterioration of the US media continues apace.
>
> >>> At least in the days of JFK's assassination there were legitimate
> >>> reasons for mistakes ...
>
> >>> but now?
>
> >>> So eager to be first rather than right.
>
> >>> Wolf and CNN blather on .......
>
> >>> Peter Fokes,
> >>> Toronto
>
> >> Concerning what? Reporting on what? Just bashing all media in general?
> >> Context? Couldn't get it past the censor?
>

> >http://washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-fox-make-health-care-headline-blund...
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content...

>
> Nice try, but terrible photoshop. Trivia question. What tablet is that
> supposed to be which looks so big? Obviously Obama would see the news on
> a real TV, but they need to show it on a tablet for the crowd so that
> it's big enough for the audience to see.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > PF

It's rather hard to discern that Fokes and Marsh are of relatively
similar political persuasion, isn't it?

Given all the noise emanating out of Boston, that is...

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[John Fiorentino]

Peter:

I couldn't agree with you more. It's a very sad state of affairs.

Unfortunately, it is in line with the deterioration of just about
everything once held as important.

John F.


"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:vgtou7puk3p90or32...@4ax.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't seem to understand that it wasn't an accidental mistake.
It was a deliberate LIE to feed the Tea Party.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Supremely silly.
Wow.

Why lie when the truth is going to be evident to all in six minutes?
What sense does that make?

Marsh, you're not serious.

[Peter Fokes]

On 1 Jul 2012 17:32:00 -0400, timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's rather hard to discern that Fokes and Marsh are of relatively
>similar political persuasion, isn't it?

What prompted this remark?

My post was about a mistake made on CNN, and the general deterioration
in reporting on TV networks.

I have no idea what Marsh's political persuasion is. Nor do I care.

Nor do you have any idea of my political persuasion, if any. Nor I
yours. Nor do I care.

>Given all the noise emanating out of Boston, that is...

What?

Again, this comment makes no sense. I have never been to Boston.

Look, I am a moderator here. If you want to discuss my political
beliefs then email me privately.

My political beliefs have NOTHING to do with my interest in the JFK
assassination, nor my interest in history in general.

Your remark makes about as much sense as someone writing that "It's
rather hard to discern that Tim and Hitler are of relatively similar

political persuasion, isn't it?

And of course Tim supports torture and abuse, don't you?

I have no idea, but why not just throw it out there like you do, eh?

Given all the noise emanating from Australia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=4ZFf6NYTkrM&NR=1

>Concerned Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[Anthony Marsh]

It makes a lot of sense to feed raw meat to their animals.
The only other alternative is that only the Fox and CNN reporters were
too stupid to understand the ruling.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, but that's not hard to believe. It appears that these reporters
were confused by the first part of the ruling and because of their
impatience (and/or slow reading speed) didn't get through the whole
thing before shooting their fool mouths off.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

And they were so cock sure that their rightwing hero Roberts would tip the
typical 5-4 decision to the right.

[John McAdams]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:23:56 -0400, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:

>On 1 Jul 2012 17:32:00 -0400, timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's rather hard to discern that Fokes and Marsh are of relatively
>>similar political persuasion, isn't it?
>
>What prompted this remark?
>
>My post was about a mistake made on CNN, and the general deterioration
>in reporting on TV networks.
>
>I have no idea what Marsh's political persuasion is. Nor do I care.
>
>Nor do you have any idea of my political persuasion, if any. Nor I
>yours. Nor do I care.
>
>

I think Tim was assuming that you were attacking CNN from the left.
And yes, he has picked up that you lean left. It's unfair to imply
that you lean as far left as Tony, however.

But then, both CNN (liberal) and Fox (conservative) made the same
mistake. It wasn't an absurd mistake. Apparently, Roberts first read
that Obamacare didn't pass muster under the Commerce Clause, and the
media *assumed* that the Commerce Clause was the main issue.

So they (like a lot of other people) were surprised when it turned out
that Roberts and the liberals passed Obamacare under the taxing power
of Congress.

This wasn't as bad as some of the JFK assassination media blunders
(two cops shooting it out in a theater with Oswald, for example), but
it was a blunder.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 1 Jul 2012 18:52:51 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>Peter:
>
>I couldn't agree with you more. It's a very sad state of affairs.
>
>Unfortunately, it is in line with the deterioration of just about
>everything once held as important.
>

I think if you look at the long history of journalism in this country,
you'll see that things have never been as good as we like to believe.

How about William Randolph Hearst to Frederick Remington: "you supply
the pictures, I'll supply the war."

Or the boy who supposedly said to Shoeless Joe Jackson: "say it ain't
so, Joe." Made up, apparently.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/3/2012 9:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:23:56 -0400, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Jul 2012 17:32:00 -0400, timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's rather hard to discern that Fokes and Marsh are of relatively
>>> similar political persuasion, isn't it?
>>
>> What prompted this remark?
>>
>> My post was about a mistake made on CNN, and the general deterioration
>> in reporting on TV networks.
>>
>> I have no idea what Marsh's political persuasion is. Nor do I care.
>>
>> Nor do you have any idea of my political persuasion, if any. Nor I
>> yours. Nor do I care.
>>
>>
>
> I think Tim was assuming that you were attacking CNN from the left.
> And yes, he has picked up that you lean left. It's unfair to imply
> that you lean as far left as Tony, however.
>

Oh please. There could not possibly be anyone here as far left as I.

> But then, both CNN (liberal) and Fox (conservative) made the same
> mistake. It wasn't an absurd mistake. Apparently, Roberts first read
> that Obamacare didn't pass muster under the Commerce Clause, and the
> media *assumed* that the Commerce Clause was the main issue.
>

You mean he WROTE.
There is more to the story. Roberts originally was going to vote with
the conservatives to declare the law unconstitutional based on the
Commerce Clause. But then about a month ago he changed his mind and
looked for a way to save it and found the Tax clause. That's why the
first 3/4 of the dissent reads like the majority opinion, which he
helped write.
Then after he changed his mind and the majority became the minority they
had to add an addendum to object to his new opinion.
Only a couple of people know why he changed his vote.
Was he paid to change his vote? Can't tell. But maybe when the Koch
brothers were handing out suitcases full of millions of dollars to the
other justices Roberts was not there to pick up his and felt slighted.

> So they (like a lot of other people) were surprised when it turned out
> that Roberts and the liberals passed Obamacare under the taxing power
> of Congress.
>

But some commentators were not surprised because the Tax clause is what
made Social Security and Medicare constitutional.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/4/12 2:31 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Oh please. There could not possibly be anyone here as far left as I.

You're merely center-left, a liberal, from what I've seen.


/sandy

[timstter]

On Jul 3, 12:23 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

Hi Peter,

I might have got it slightly wrong.

I forgot about your distaste of all things US in assessing your original
post.

This PERHAPS puts you SLIGHTLY at odds with Marsh in what I perceive as
your similarly Leftist views, though only SLIGHTLY, from what I can see.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, please. That's not much of an insult.

>
> /sandy
>

[Peter Fokes]

No, you got it entirely wrong.

>I forgot about your distaste of all things US in assessing your original
>post.

On what tangeled webs you weave for yourself.

You forgot something that was never true. Of course, if you insist on
believing something "is" true despite its not being true, and then
compound your predicament by forgetting whatever it was you thought
was true, then I am simply left to stand as a perpelexed bystander to
your mental contortions!

Now, if you had said "I forgot about your ambivalence about some
things US" ... you would have come closer to the truth but still been
stuck in the deep muck of overgeneralization. But since you plunged
yourself into the muck in the first place by getting it wrong, and
then sank deeper squirming to escape by trying to remember your
incorrect assumption, I am afraid by now you must almost be up to your
neck in the muck.

>
>This PERHAPS puts you SLIGHTLY at odds with Marsh in what I perceive as
>your similarly Leftist views, though only SLIGHTLY, from what I can see.

Tim, I think your problem is very simple. You are trying to pin the
wings of two different species to the same template.

Truth be, Marsh is Marsh and Fokes is Fokes.

You see .. you really don't have a clue who I am, Tim.

For starters, I am fond of the classics. Not sure if that makes me a
classicist, but I do certainly appreciate the ambiguity of Hamlet, the
sublime beauty of art, and the awe evocated by good music. I rarely
think about the US ... in terms that you seem to think I do.

But alas, everyone needs to dress up their day with fantasy, and we
know how you dress up yours.

>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Peter Fokes,
Toronto


>

[timstter]

On Jul 9, 12:02 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

Pete, I think you're swamp posting here.

It don't look good...

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[John Blubaugh]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:10:44 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:23:56 -0400, Peter Fokes
>

I don't see CNN as liberal, I think they are about in the center where a
news network should be. Certainly Fox is absurdly conservative and MSNBC
is very liberal.

JB

[John McAdams]

On 8 Jul 2012 20:37:32 -0400, John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

But you are a liberal, and liberals don't see any bias in liberal
media.

Social scientists have a concept called "assimilation and contrast
effects."

That's what we have here.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course we do. Which is why we love MSNBC. There is even one magazine
that brags that it is the only place where readers can get that Liberal
bias.

[Anthony Marsh]

CNN started out as Liberal under Ted Turner then started turning to the
right when they got bought out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your tag line is swamp posting.

[timstter]

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> Your tag line is swamp posting.

Oh no, swamp posting is a different thing altogether.

Here is an explanation of the genre. Have a read:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/31ecf85f95194f08/69c23ae876cc178d?lnk=gst&q=swamp+posting#69c23ae876cc178d