Sure, no media bias

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jimnyc, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Numbers Indicate Media Bias on Richard Clarke Story

    (CNSNews.com) - While hundreds of news reports mentioned Richard Clarke's criticism of Bush administration, relatively few of those reports also mentioned documents contradicting key elements of what Clarke said.

    A search of the NEXIS news database shows that from March 24 through March 26, there were 872 news reports mentioning the name Richard Clarke.

    Clarke is the former counterterrorism official who expressed support for the Bush administration when he worked at the Bush White House -- then blasted the Bush administration when he left.

    Clarke's new book, saying that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration, came out this week, apparently timed to coincide with Clarke's appearance on Wednesday before the commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11.

    Hundreds of news reports from March 24-46 discussed Clarke's contention that the Bush administration did not do all it could have done to protect the American people from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    A NEXIS search of "Richard Clarke/Fox" and "Richard Clarke/Fox News" turned up only 130 stories, however.

    A search of Richard Clarke/Chris Shays and Richard Clarke/Christopher Shays turned up 10 stories.

    And a search for Richard Clarke/Fox/Chris Shays turned up only 2 stories.

    The two-day search of the NEXIS news database was conducted at 7:10 a.m. EST Friday.

    Fox News transcript

    Fox News on Wednesday -- with White House permission -- released a transcript of an August 2002 White House background briefing, at which Richard Clarke described the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    "There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke told reporters in August 2002.

    Clarke also said the Bush administration, in its first eight months in office, adopted a "new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." He said the Bush administration ordered a five-fold increase in money for covert action before Sept. 11, 2001.

    And Clarke told reporters that in March 2001 -- months before the 9/11 attacks -- President Bush had directed his staff to "stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem" -- that problem being how to deal with al Qaeda.

    On Wednesday, in his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Clarke seemed to contradict what he said at the August 2002 background briefing: "[M]y impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting Al Qaeda, in particular, was an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly, there was no higher priority," Clarke said on Wednesday.

    Clarke also testified on Wednesday that terrorism was "an important issue but not an urgent issue" for the Bush administration.

    Shays letter

    In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) told panel members that "Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."

    Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism -- and Richard Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."

    "When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.

    Shays noted that "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."
    http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

    Shays also released a copy of a letter he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.

    And Shays released a January 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. "During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.

    "This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote.

    http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200403\POL20040326b.html
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Anybody who doesn't know there's an extreme bias towards the left among the elite media needs to wake up. Just look at the pictures with the articles. Articles about "The Passion of the Christ" showed pictures of protesters claiming it's anti-semitic, while all articles on the gay marriage issue showed either happy, smiling couples who had been married in San Fran or the teary eyed faces of those who got turned away when those stopped. There was even a meeting of many media moguls who got together with John Kerry to coach him on how to get elected.
     
  3. winston churchi
    Offline

    winston churchi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    640
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    As far as news, I watch Fox which seems to be the only news organazation I find that is most accurate.

    To me , most of these organizations are nothing more than glorified National Enquirers....gossip, juicy bits, inaccuracy...
    what is the difference between them anyway?

    ....and speaking of Passion of the Christ, a funny thing about a lot of these so called reporters - made very negative statements about the movie - once they realized it made no difference on the American public (their opinons are worthless anotherwords) a lot of them stated they would retract their comments. How on earth does one do that?

    It does become irritating - and furthermore as far as Clarke is concerned - his resignation letter to Bush clearly opposes any statements he made afterwards. One would have to ask - why all of sudden he jumped ship and began Bush bashing with everyone else? Could it be - because he wrote a book?
     
  4. Awbrodeur
    Online

    Awbrodeur Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I dont know what you guys are talking about. The media is the most reliable source we have in order to obtain information on our countries issues. Do you guys have personal realtions with the president and gather your information from him? I think not. The media is the proper place to turn to get reliable political information.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    The media might be the most reliable place for the average citizen to get information from, but that doesn't mean their isn't a bias in many of those outlets.
     
  6. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I think it is nearly impossible to just report facts with no spin, due to inherent human nature !
     
  7. Awbrodeur
    Online

    Awbrodeur Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The whole political race caters to the average citizen. It is these people who will, unlike the lower class, vote and most often hold swinging opinions...........hence making them the most important to the race, the swing voters. The media should then cater to the average citizens to supply them with information which they will actually use and consider while the elite citizens, with their strong political ideas/values remain cemented in their position.
     
  8. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    For a response to this article, see the Al Franken passage on how to lie with Lexis-Nexis, which is something Ann Coulter is famous for. There is NO massive liberal bias in the media. The reason the media reported this story the way it did has NOTHING to do with politics, the Clarke story was good for sales and ratings. That's all, that's it. The media will do what it can to create scandals because scandals sell papers and get ratings. Fox News, btw, is openly right-wing biased as are the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and many other major media outlets. In fact, the great majority of newspaper editors in the country are conservative, Bush was endorsed nearly 2 to 1 by newspapers in the country in 2000. This is well documented. The media will report stories however it will best sell newspapers, get ratings, and in general make them more profitable.

    acludem
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Sure, just because you say so. :rolleyes:
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533

    That the overwhelming majority of executives and broadcast journalists at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and MSNBC are registered Democrats, has never been questioned. Why is the fact that the reverse is true at one network-FOX- such an ominous portent of evil?

    I, for one, regard FOX news as a lone, but welcome, voice in the wilderness. Judging by FOX's success, many, many Americans agree with me.

    I will concede that, despite the fact that we disagree on many issues, you are probably a fair and honest person. Will you concede that the reason you hear no liberal bias in the media might be because what the mainstream networks are saying sounds reasonable to you?
     

Share This Page