Putting your money where your mouth is.

[minors]

I'll believe it when I see it. This is just another "turning point," just like the last 10 or 20 that the administration has touted....

 

 

There you go again with that liberal bias clouding your judgement if you really think that Killing Zarqawi and seeing the letters of desperate insurgency isn't a turning point then I don't know what will.

[Balta1701]

There you go again with that liberal bias clouding your judgement if you really think that Killing Zarqawi and seeing the letters of desperate insurgency isn't a turning point then I don't know what will.

All I'll say on this topic is this one item:

 

in 6 months, someone needs to bump this thread. Maybe even 3. Maybe even 1.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Balta1701

[Balance]

All I'll say on this topic is this one item:

 

in 6 months, someone needs to bump this thread. Maybe even 3. Maybe even 1.

Exactly. Let's look at this in three or six months.

 

If this is really a "turning point," then we're going to see a reduction in violence in Iraq. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Otherwise, it's just a bit of good news amidst a deluge of bad news.

[kapkomet]

Exactly. Let's look at this in three or six months.

 

If this is really a "turning point," then we're going to see a reduction in violence in Iraq. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Otherwise, it's just a bit of good news amidst a deluge of bad news.

So what if the war were spun the other way? About the 'good things' that are happening over there... what would you say then? Of COURSE it's all bad news over there, when you have the liberal media supporting the calls for the liberal congressman saying cut and run, change course, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

So what if the war were spun the other way? About the 'good things' that are happening over there... what would you say then? Of COURSE it's all bad news over there, when you have the liberal media supporting the calls for the liberal congressman saying cut and run, change course, etc.

Um... I think maybe the reason there is so much bad news is that... IT'S A WAR!

[YASNY]

Um... I think maybe the reason there is so much bad news is that... IT'S A WAR!

 

It's more than that. How many "Heroic Soldier" stories have you seen in the media? Do we not have any heroic individuals or squads over there? I'm sure we do, but you'd never know it based on media coverage. The liberal media does not want to glorify anything or anybody associated with the war in any way. Watch some WWII newsreels and see how the media portrayed that war effort, as compared to the current one. Compare the amount of coverage Abu Grahib received to the death of Zarqawi. The coverage is so liberal agenda slanted it's ridiculous. If you can't see it, it's because you don't want to.

[kapkomet]

Um... I think maybe the reason there is so much bad news is that... IT'S A WAR!

Yes, so the media needs to stop sensationalizing the bad stuff. It's going to happen.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's more than that. How many "Heroic Soldier" stories have you seen in the media? Do we not have any heroic individuals or squads over there? I'm sure we do, but you'd never know it based on media coverage. The liberal media does not want to glorify anything or anybody associated with the war in any way. Watch some WWII newsreels and see how the media portrayed that war effort, as compared to the current one. Compare the amount of coverage Abu Grahib received to the death of Zarqawi. The coverage is so liberal agenda slanted it's ridiculous. If you can't see it, it's because you don't want to.

 

 

Yes, so the media needs to stop sensationalizing the bad stuff. It's going to happen.

 

The WWII newsreels were actually designed, intentionally, to keep American positive about the war (and in fact were strictly monitored by the War department). The press in modern times doesn't serve that function, nor should they. When the press starts deciding what is good and bad for the country, they cease to be providers of news, and become propoganda machines.

 

This is a war. The news SHOULD be bad, and it is. If the government wants to promote the positives, it certainly has the resources to do so in many, many ways. And it should. It is their obligation, much like it is the press' obligation to report on the cold, hard facts of the war. Unfortunately, you have the press doing their job here, and the government failing miserably in their role in almost every aspect - marketing included.

 

I see death, and blood, and violence. I also have spoken with numerous folks that were and are over there, and guess what? That is what is there. There is little positive to report. Sure, there are heroic soldier stories, and I would absolutely like to hear them. And I guarantee that if the gov't and the military used their own press assets to promulgate those stories, they'd get out there too. And I'll read them gladly.

[kapkomet]

When the press starts deciding what is good and bad for the country, they cease to be providers of news, and become propoganda machines.

 

BINGO!!!! and what are they doing? How much money goes into the Democratic coffers from 'liberal media moguls'?

[Balta1701]

BINGO!!!! and what are they doing? How much money goes into the Democratic coffers from 'liberal media moguls'?

A lot of that depends on how you count the contributions. For example, do you total up the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that Newscorp and Rev. Moon lose on publishing the Washington Times and NY Post as contributions?

[kapkomet]

A lot of that depends on how you count the contributions. For example, do you total up the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that Newscorp and Rev. Moon lose on publishing the Washington Times and NY Post as contributions?

Yep. And everyone KNOWS that they represent the Repulican spin machine, while the 'MSM' likes to claim neutrality. Therein lies the difference.

[minors]

It's more than that. How many "Heroic Soldier" stories have you seen in the media? Do we not have any heroic individuals or squads over there? I'm sure we do, but you'd never know it based on media coverage. The liberal media does not want to glorify anything or anybody associated with the war in any way. Watch some WWII newsreels and see how the media portrayed that war effort, as compared to the current one. Compare the amount of coverage Abu Grahib received to the death of Zarqawi. The coverage is so liberal agenda slanted it's ridiculous. If you can't see it, it's because you don't want to.

 

 

Right on. Compare the number of bad things compared to the number of good thing that the soldiers have done. You sure do hear a lot of negative stories about soldiers but none about them rebuilding the towns, restoring order and making life better for the kids over there. If everything we did was so terrible why are the troops still there and not ran out of the country? Simple we are doing far more greater things than negative.

[Cknolls]

Exactly. Let's look at this in three or six months.

 

If this is really a "turning point," then we're going to see a reduction in violence in Iraq. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Otherwise, it's just a bit of good news amidst a deluge of bad news.

 

 

thanks to the MSM.

 

A lot of that depends on how you count the contributions. For example, do you total up the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that Newscorp and Rev. Moon lose on publishing the Washington Times and NY Post as contributions?

 

 

Your rose colored glasses are fading...

[Balta1701]

Right on. Compare the number of bad things compared to the number of good thing that the soldiers have done. You sure do hear a lot of negative stories about soldiers but none about them rebuilding the towns, restoring order and making life better for the kids over there. If everything we did was so terrible why are the troops still there and not ran out of the country? Simple we are doing far more greater things than negative.

So wait one second...wait just wait, I have to do this one. Wow. Now this one is impressive on Administration-levels.

 

Why are the troops still in Iraq? Because things are going so great over there! If things were really bad, they'd get out!

 

Wow.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yep. And everyone KNOWS that they represent the Repulican spin machine, while the 'MSM' likes to claim neutrality. Therein lies the difference.

I think your view of the MSM is skewed. I just don't see the type of widespread material bias that you, or others, do.

[minors]

So wait one second...wait just wait, I have to do this one. Wow. Now this one is impressive on Administration-levels.

 

Why are the troops still in Iraq? Because things are going so great over there! If things were really bad, they'd get out!

 

Wow.

 

They would have been forced out by the people of Iraq. So you are saying that are soldiers are murder's and we have done nothing good over there and that is all bad. I think your liberal views are clouding your judgment.

[kapkomet]

I think your view of the MSM is skewed. I just don't see the type of widespread material bias that you, or others, do.

Their bias is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Rex Kickass]

Yep. And everyone KNOWS that they represent the Repulican spin machine, while the 'MSM' likes to claim neutrality. Therein lies the difference.

Political Donations since 1978:

 

Roger Ailes (FOX) $6750, 0% Dem, 22% GOP, 78% Special Interest

Jeff Bewkes (Time Warner) $97,750, 36% Dem, 4% GOP, 60% Special Interest

Ben Bradlee (Washington Post) $250, 100% Dem

William F Buckley Jr (National Review) $35,601, 0% Dem, 79% GOP, 21% Special Interest

Tucker Carlson (MSNBC) $1,000, 100% GOP

Neil Cavuto (FOX NEWS) $1,000, 100% GOP

Anderson Cooper (CNN) $250, 100% GOP

Jim Cramer (CNBC) $264,000, 100% DEM

Walter Cronkite (CBS) $2,000, 50% DEM, 50% Special Interest

Bary Diller (USA/QVC) $376,483 86% DEM, 2% GOP, 12% Special Interest

Lou Dobbs (CNN) $1,000, 100% GOP

Matt Drudge (drudgereport) $2,358, 100% GOP

Malcolm Forbes (Forbes) $23,950, 4% DEM, 96% GOP

Steve Forbes (Forbes) $7,159,893 100% GOP

Tom Freston (Viacom) $96,775, 45% DEM, 4% GOP, 51% Special Interest

Danny Goldberg (Air America) $186,800 85% DEM, 15% Special Interest

Nancy Grace (CNN) $1000, 100% DEM

Sanjay Gupta (CNN) $8,200, 100% DEM

Mel Karmazin (Viacom, Sirius) $111,290, 49% DEM, 21% GOP, 30% Special Interest

John Kasich (FOX) $10,886 0% DEM 63% GOP, 37% Special Interest

Les Kinsolving (Washington Press Corps) $650 100% GOP

Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard) $7,250, 0% DEM 93% GOP 7%Special Interest

Ron Kuby (WABC) $3,250, 92% DEM, 0% GOP, 8% Special Interest

G Gordon Liddy (Premiere/Clear Channel) $7,000 100% GOP

Rush Limbaugh (Premiere/Clear Channel) $2,000 100% GOP

Chris Matthews (NBC) $1500, 100% DEM

Lowry Mays (Clear Channel) $302,226 6% DEM, 55% GOP, 39% Special Interest

Mark Mays (Clear Channel) $127,524 0% DEM, 41% GOP, 59% Special Interest

 

 

The list goes on. Most media personalities' donations appear to be relatively minimal. And its funny because the people who report the news seem to often have a different donation history than the people who pay for the people who report the news.

 

Greta donates to Dems, Roger Ailes doesn't for example.

[NorthSideSox72]

Their bias is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Now THAT I agree with.

[kapkomet]

Now THAT I agree with.

Of course.

 

But seriously, that's why the stories get more outrageous and the claims are worse in nature. Bad, horrific news sells, good and wholesome doesn't.

[Gregory Pratt]

The Party in Power, and Supporters of a War, will from now on always have to deal with the fact that the press doesn't like ANY war.

 

Just about every War, pre-World Wars, had a ton of negative coverage except for the Spanish American War (which very much fueled that war with their "Remember the Maine!" chants). When the Government began their Propaganda offices in earnest during those wars, it was an exception rather than a rule.

 

Clinton's Kosovo, Bosnia? Talks of Quagmire. "How soon is too soon to pull out? When will we pull out?" Clinton cracked a few jokes about it years later at his Correspondents dinner.

 

A visceral distaste for War and a willingness to criticize and run bad news front cover has been the media's modus operandi for hundreds of years with a minor break in the 1900s. Get over it if you're a Republican now.

 

Deal with it when Hillary Clinton decides to invade Peru.

 

This -- the manner with which the media covers Iraq -- is nothing new. Nothing new at all. It's completely consistent with history and, I suspect, with the future of War, too.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Of course.

 

But seriously, that's why the stories get more outrageous and the claims are worse in nature. Bad, horrific news sells, good and wholesome doesn't.

They're not necessarily liberal or conservative -- for the most part, they're just lazy.

 

Most stations just put two talking heads on who scream at each other for 10-20 minutes. Afterwards, nothing is resolved and both are thanked for their time.

 

Re: liberal media, I go back to an interview with Bill Kristol:

"I admit it", Kristol told the New Yorker, "The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

 

Rich Bond, former chair of the RNC said: "There's some strategy to it [bashing the liberal media]. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs. Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one." (to work the ref is to yell and scream about unfairness on every penalty so the ref will think twice before blowing the whistle)

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course.

 

But seriously, that's why the stories get more outrageous and the claims are worse in nature. Bad, horrific news sells, good and wholesome doesn't.

Amen, brother. Keep preaching.