EagleTribune.com : Blogs : The Soapbox

Encore!! Encore!!! I love it . POINT VERY WELL TAKEN, KEEP UP THE TELLING IT LIKE IT IS. I APPLAUD YOU

John Stewart (basic cable much better than mainstream) on the Daily Show was pretty funny about this last night, in the same way that he was funny about this McCains Pakistan/Afganistan, Somaila/Sudan gaffes, Iraq/Pakistan border gaffes.

Come on now, you have to cut the old guys some breaks, they're not as quick as they used to be, maybe the networks know this?

You don't suppose that what's being made fun of here is the biased treatment by the mainstream press of the relative merits of the two VP candidates?

What's entertaining (at least to me) is that people still find these gaffs shocking or at least surprising. Watch 20 minutes of C-SPAN and you'll see - marvel at how clueless most of Congress appears...about 'anything'. House members Frank(MA) and Dodd(CT) who both served as senior members of the house banking committee contributed more legislation that propagated predatory loans than anyone else, yet they appear these past few days as 'champions of the American taxpayer'...trying to make the $700B bailout taxpayer 'safe'. Oh Goody.

Mr. Crossfield, you are right of course , but before the liberals cast doubt on your whole message because of one mistake (they love to do that), Chris Dodd is a Senator from Connecticut not a Representative.

carlson--

isn't this entire post based on the author casting doubt on biden's "whole message because of one mistake"? not that i would expect you to notice that. you don't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Crazy, pardon me I don't usually call people I don't know by their first name. No I stick by the question I posed in post #4.
As to your statement regarding my intelligence, I usually have enough of an edge to cut up peanut brains, especially those that don't know the rules of capitalization.

Crazy Alice --

I don't usually agree with Mr. Carlson, but I applaud him for taking a stand in this space time and again. Questioning his intellect is just plain below the belt.

I'll answer your question, Jim. You are correct. I also understood that this post was meant to highlight the inequities of the lame stream media's reporting.
Heaven forbid if that statement had been made by Palin, McCain, Bush, or any other republican.

Let's see, as of 8/08, Senator Obama has been the cover story of Time magazine 8 times, and Senator McCain has been the cover story twice.

US Weekly magazine 6/19/08 cover story: "Michelle Obama, Why Barack Loves Her". Sweet, smarmy, article.
US Weekly Sarah Palin cover story: "John McCain's Vice President Sarah Palin, Babies, Lies and Scandal" nothing sweet and smarmy there.....
BTW, US Weekly publisher Jann Wenner is a prominent Obama donor. No bias there, though.........

I could continue, but I have to go to work now and start paying for the Wall St. bailout.....Thanks, Barney! /sarc off/

OK, I'm ready to be called names now...bring it on, I can take it!!! LOL

You've uncovered the Great Liberal Conspiracy! They're using BLATANT LIBERAL BIAS in celebrity magazines.

Have you ever noticed that they just happen to LOVE the evening gowns worn to the Oscars by women who have spoken out for abortion rights? If you're pro-choice wearing a simple black Oscar de la Renta, they'll slice you up like a doctored birth certificate.

I'm sorry, Jason.
I didn't realize Time magazine was a "celebrity" magazine. I was laboring under the impression it was a respected news magazine.

Second, Mr. Armerding's blog did not distinguish between "celebrity" and news magazines. I was merely pointing out examples of media bias.

But don't let the facts get in the way....
:-)

On Thursday night 9/25, CBS anchor Katie Couric began a short news update on Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska by immediately highlighting his party affiliation: "The senior Republican in the U.S. Senate went on trial today for corruption..." Stevens was appointed to his seat in 1968. But the night before, in an item on ethical questions surrounding Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, a House veteran elected in 1970 who is Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Couric failed to inform viewers he's a Democrat.
Source:Media Research Center www.mrc.org

And another....
On Monday night 9/29, CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric announced her day "on the campaign trail with Governor Palin" won't air until Tuesday, but CBS still made room for an excerpt of her time Monday in Ohio with Sarah Palin and John McCain in which Couric repeatedly pressed the two about an overheard comment Palin made Saturday about Pakistan, badgering them with five follow-ups before moving on to Palin's "reaction" to criticism of her answers during her previous Couric session. But a week-and-half-ago, when Couric's day on the campaign trail story with Joe Biden was delayed by news on the financial front, CBS ran video of Couric cuing up Biden on what he and Obama would do to resolve the crisis followed by one challenging question with no follow-up. At a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday a man demanded: "So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?" Palin answered: "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should." Couric pounded away: "Is that something you shouldn't say out loud?" and "Are you sorry you said it Governor?" When McCain called it a "gotcha soundbite," Couric retorted: "It wasn't a 'gotcha.'" Couric turned to Palin: "What did you learn from that experience?" Palin: "That this is all about 'gotcha' journalism."
Source: Media Research Center www.mrc.org

Is that better Jason? Ms. Couric is allegedly a "journalist" working as an anchor for a major network.
Oh, wait a minute, maybe Ms. Couric is still too "celebrity" for you....How 'bout this one???

On Monday, 9/29, the Today show, NBC's Andrea Mitchell loved Tina Fey's parodying of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live so much that she played a clip the 30 Rock star mocking Palin's inexperience while simultaneously airing an actual clip of Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric, as Mitchell charged: "The reviews have been withering for her interview with Katie Couric, only her third since nominated." However Mitchell didn't bother to air clips from SNL that mocked the Democratic side, most notably one that made fun of Barack Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko. And proving the old adage that the best way for a Republican or conservative to get air-time in the liberal media is to criticize a fellow Republican, Mitchell underscored so-called conservative critiques of Palin: "Palin's critics now include some conservatives commentators. On the National Review Web site, Kathleen Parker called on Palin to drop out."
Source: Media Research Center www.mrc.org

Oh, and let's not forget Saddleback....Totally ungrounded, unconfirmed accusation perpetuated by Ms. Mitchell that Senator McCain had over heard the questions to Senator Obama and therefore was more prepared to answer the questions from Pastor Warren. Ms. Mitchell claimed Senator McCain wasn't in the "cone of silence" and must have over heard the line of questioning, when, in fact, McCain hadn't even arrived at Saddleback at the time Senator Obama was being interviewed.

Andrea Mitchell is the NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and is married to Alan Greenspan. I wouldn't classify her as a "celebrity".

OK, so throw the "Fox News is right wing biased" argument at me..../sigh/
;-)

The point is, the media will do anything to get their candidate in office, journalistic ethics be damned. After all, the end justifies the means, in liberal minds. They think they know better than the rest of us, the unwashed masses, and I, for one, am tired of it.

/rant off/

Mr. Brenner, thank you for the comments. You are a gentleman.
Bilge Rat: Once again thank you for providing heavy research in support of statements I have made I suspect Mr. Amerding appreciates it too. If I ever run for President, I will ask you to be campaign manager.(have no fear, I am 70 years old and i have no energy or inclination to run for anything)
For my liberal antagonists, (nothing to do with this post) as a true conservative I firmly believe in individual choice and so favor a woman's right to abortion. As to any possible conflict with when life begins, that will be God's decision, not that of any human being.

Sorry one other thing, Bilge Rat, I am very happy you are tired of the liberal balderdash and name calling. This country needs an awakening to some famous words "I'm sick and tired of it and I'm not going to take it anymore."
VOTE YES ON QUESTION ONE
vOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS

I appreciate the kind words, Jim. Although I am very conservative, I do believe, as do you, that women have the right to choose, individual's rights, and the right of free speech also.

One of my favorite quotes ever:
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
-Howard Beal

For the youngsters out there who don't know who/what that quote is from, it's from a 1976 movie directed by Sidney Lumet, called "Network". Anyone who hasn't seen it should check it out. Even as far back as the 70's, it shows how far the media will stray from journalistic values to get a story and ratings.

Works nicely with the subject of Mr. Armerding's blog.....

Bilge Rat:
Freedom of choice and to make a choice is a cornerstone of true conservatism. Some conservatives have lost their way on this and have confused their religous beliefs with their political/economic beliefs

So I make a joke about a comment that includes a reprimand of US MAGAZINE for having a liberal bias. I didn't defend anyone, nor did I try to claim that there is no bias in other media outlets.

I think you must have read my mind; I am the lucky recipient of a fantastic bilge rat rant, including letting the liberals know what's going on IN THEIR OWN MINDS. If only I could learn that parlor trick.

I agree that the liberal media has been doing whatever they need to do to get their candidate in office. And it's been WORKING for so many years now!

Why so serious, Jason? Did you leave your tinfoil hat at home today? Mr. Armerding's post was about media bias, therefore I posted examples of such, celebrity and mainstream.

Would you have preferred I went off the deep end and began name calling? I know that's a tactic that many liberals find appealing.

I apologize if I projected any sort of anger or animosity towards your response. That was not my intention.

Also, I have no idea what you mean that I am telling liberals what is in their own mind...what exactly are you talking about? I wouldn't even begin to think what goes on in a liberal's mind because I am genetically unable to do so, being a conservative and all....

:-)

No worries, I know there was no anger or animosity there.

My point is just that I didn't make any sort of defense that there is no liberal media bias, yet you directly address me in comment 13.

Then you say that in liberals' minds, the end justifies the means. (At the end of comment 13)

I just think we're all in danger of sometimes drawing conclusions based on incomplete information, or making broad generalizations on others' mindsets, since it's so hard to know what others are really thinking, when they haven't explicitly commented on it.

Jason, your last point is spot on.
It's very easy to generalize what someone thinks another person's views are based on tidbits of information posted on a small blog. While it may be wrong, in an online forum such as this, there really is no other way to "know" a person. It's not like bloggers meet face to face, after all. Someone may hold fiscally conservative views, yet lean more towards the center or left when it comes to social policy, therefore one can't be branded with a label such as conservative or liberal.

It's interesting, however, to actually see the differences in people's views based on age, income levels, gender, and life situatutons. I'm not saying you're younger or older than me, because obviously I know nothing about you from a demographic standpoint. The reason I said this is I'm taking a philosophy class right now (ugh) and when certain issues are discussed there is a clear line between my younger classmates and the, shall we say, more "mature" classmates. Their views also break down along lines of income, employment, and lifestyle. It's really funny. Again, not to paint with a broad brush, but the majority of twenty somethings in class are socially and fiscally liberal. They still live at home and haven't experienced the real world, so to speak. Then there are the older individuals, some married, some divorced, some with children. They generally seem to lean conservative, both fiscally and socially.

Anyhow, my point being in this drawn out post was that while we shouldn't claim to know the views of someone based on a few postings, it is easy to fall into the trap of generalization.

One last quick thing...I addressed you in my post because you pointed out that US Weekly was a celebrity rag, not a legitimate news source. I took your post to mean that US Weekly is not a publication to be taken seriously in repsonse to the media bias examples. No personal attack was intended, and I do apologize if it appeared that way. I was pointing out examples of bias in the mainstream media, legitimate and other.
:-)

Ok, I'm going to go off-topic here, but this is very scary yet interesting and effects each and every one of us...taxpayers, that is.....

Regarding the Wall St. bailout, the following excerpt is from Forbes.com 9/23/08 issue. Has anyone wondered where the 700 billion dollar figure came from?

"In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy."
"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Just wanted a really large number???? Are you kidding me???????? I think the next time I ask, no, DEMAND, a raise at work I'll ask for a "really high number"......Hello, reality check, anyone??? Anyone??? Bueller??? Bueller???
And these jackasses expect the american public to go along with this quietly????? Sure, go ahead, pick a number out of a hat, let the poor saps who pay taxes worry about it!

I say hats off to the legislators who voted against the bailout. We need to see real numbers before committing such a mind boggling sum of money to the very same people who lost it to begin with!

I'm not saying we shouldn't bail out Wall St., because I think something does need to be done. But I have yet to see the doom and gloom that was predicted over a week ago happen. The bailout did pass the Senate last night, so I guess it's pretty much a done deal, unfortunately.

My suggestion, simplistic as it may be, is to take the 700 billion and divide it among each and every american citizen who files taxes. Let us decide how our own money should be spent. It would stimulate the economy if people had a few extra bucks to buy that new TV they have been saving for, help people get out of debt by paying down a bill or two, maybe save for their childrens education, do a few home improvements, etc....

Anyhow, that's MY idea for a Wall St. bailout....

thoughts, anyone?

Hey Taylor........this "Ditz" has more brains in her glasses than you could ever dream of. this is if you have enough too!