The Press and Private Interests???

Discussion in 'Media' started by Bonnie, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2006/col20060706.asp
    by L. Brent Bozell III
    July 6, 2006




     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brent_Bozell

    Nah...no agenda here...:duh3:
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    No hidden agenda? Then why'd he try to skew a presidential election? I get your point, but the whining about the Times (not from you, per se) is a bit boring. If the Times were as biased as you say, why'd they publish all of Judy Miller's unadulterated propaganda pre-Iraq invasion? I particularly love how the Times and the WSJ publish the same thing and the right vilifies one paper and reveres the other.

    My point, though, is that the "liberal media" thing has been debunked over and over. Every media outlet has a "voice" and a readership with a particular mindset...it isn't limited to the left.

    So, when threads are put up complaining about the Wash Times and Fox, I think I'd find the complaints a bit more credible.

    BTW, I'm not real big on the Times except for the Sunday magazine section.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    I brought up WSJ regarding the SWIFT article. There is no getting around the bias and agenda of the NY Times, Keller admitted to the agenda. As for the Miller articles, were they so prowar? Just because the Times 'apologized' for such, doesn't mean it happened. Just publishing what Miller wrote in and of itself, doesn't mean the Times was backing the position. As stated, there is an agenda and an apology that says, "Whoops, we never should have said, Blah, now means we must load on what we really think..." can be another way of working that agenda.

    Did you catch the Q & A regarding the Path plot? Did you hear a reporter ask why they went public now? Did you catch the line from the FBI about asking the NY Times?
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Did you read Judy Miller's articles? They may as well have been wrapped in red ribbon and sent to GWB as a gift.

    Nope...didn't hear the Q&A. But I can tell you why they went public with year old information.... midterm elections are coming up and the numbers are in the toilet. So...what better way to get people all in a tizzy?
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Right. Then you also figure Bloomberg went ballastic on Homeland Security and the administration using the money as pork, instead of concentrating where the threats lie? Great strategy! (I happen to agree with Bloomberg btw).

    Jillian, you really do need to remove the bias of your own vision, it would be a lot more interesting. You slam all sites you deem 'right,' although you admittedly don't read them. I however usually do, especially if I think that someone has an open enough mind to debate something with. Stormfront? Nah, I wouldn't bother, then again that says something about both the poster and myself. On that front, I do not have an open mind.

    On the other hand, even RWA and a couple others, showed me where my blowing something off, without really reading more than a sentence and a glance, then making a faulty inference, caused me to be way off the other day.
     
  8. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Jillian.... the New York Times published classified information, what is it about that concept that you don't understand?

    You do understand that publishing classified information to parties that are not cleared and do not have a need to know is a federal offense, or don't you? They did teach that to you in law school, didn't they?

    At the very least, the government officials who leaked this and those journalists that knowingly published the information should be arrested and brought up on charges.

    In addition, the journalists that spilled the beans on the NSA wiretaps (which was also classified) should be brought up on charges. It doesn't matter what you think about Bush, these people broke the law.

    If I had done a similar thing at Lockheed, I'd be sitting in a jail cell! Oh yes, I think I understand now, if your name is Sandy Berger or if you're a journalist, that part of the law does not apply!
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10058
     
  10. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    So true, the bigger story here is not really the bias of the Times but the really questionable reason as to why they felt the "public" had a right to know how the administration is tracking terrorist money???
     

Share This Page