PDA

View Full Version : RW lies about "Gorelick Wall" and "Able Danger" not just debunked.... but shredded


jAZ
08-19-2005, 10:33 AM
Click the link below to see huge list of linked in-line citations that don't copy/paste well here...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007

Memo to NY Post, et al: So-called Gorelick "wall" could not have been responsible for military failure to share alleged Atta intel

In the past week, conservative media -- including two New York Post columnists and two Post editorials -- have falsely suggested that information obtained by military intelligence purportedly identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have been withheld from law enforcement officials because of a 1995 memo written by then-Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick. But the Gorelick memo and ensuing guidelines, which conservatives claim created a "wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials, had nothing to do with military intelligence -- those documents addressed communications only among divisions within the Department of Justice. Moreover, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Gorelick of enacting had been operative well before Gorelick -- or Clinton -- took office.

While the truth remains unclear, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer have recently suggested that Shaffer's classified military intelligence unit Able Danger identified Atta more than a year before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but was unable to relay that information to the FBI.

But if Able Danger did in fact identify Atta, the Gorelick memo and the subsequent 1995 Clinton administration guidelines based on it did not prevent the group from sharing that information with intelligence agencies or law enforcement officials. As former Attorney General John Ashcroft noted in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission, the Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines established by then-Attorney General Janet Reno that formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place. But, as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not a military unit established by the Defense Department:

SUBJECT: Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI [intelligence/counterintelligence functions] and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations

The procedures contained herein, unless otherwise specified by the Attorney General, apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that FI and FCI investigations are conducted lawfully, and that the Department's criminal and intelligence/counterintelligence functions are properly coordinated.

9-11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow also clearly noted during the commission's hearings that the "wall" applied only to the Justice Department: "Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."

As is evident from the language of the Gorelick memo itself, it didn't apply to Able Danger. But in response to growing misinformation on the topic in The Washington Times, former Republican senator Slade Gorton, a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented intelligence sharing about Atta in an August 18 letter to the editor in the Times:

The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

Some online commentators also observed that Gorelick's memo could not have blocked intelligence sharing by Able Danger. For example, Slate.com's Mickey Kaus noted on August 16 that "the 'wall' codified in Gorelick's famous 1995 memo didn't apply to the Pentagon, only to the FBI." Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

Hinderaker notwithstanding, numerous other conservatives led by two New York Post columnists and the newspaper's editorial board have falsely blamed the Gorelick memo for preventing Able Danger from sharing purported information about Atta. For example:

• New York Post editorial: [I]t's becoming clear that the commission's failure to delve into Able Danger has less to do with the unit's credibility than it does with protecting commission member Jamie Gorelick. Gorelick, then a deputy attorney general under Clinton, put into place the "wall of separation" that precluded sharing intelligence on terrorists with law-enforcement agencies. ["9/11 Omissions, Cont'd," 8/18/05]

• New York Post editorial: As a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, Gorelick wrote the infamous order creating a "wall of separation" that precluded intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law-enforcement agencies - the very "wall" that kept Able Danger from passing along the information it had uncovered on Mohammed Atta. ["The 9/11 Omission Commission," 8/15/05]

• New York Post Washington bureau chief Deborah Orin: Questions about the "wall" recently arose in regard to possible warnings from Able Danger, a pre-9/11 military-intelligence program. [Column, 8/17/05]

• New York Post columnist John Podhoretz: With nothing more to go on than Shaffer's name and his statement, I think it's appropriate to remain skeptical. Since we have heard that the list Shaffer tried to forward to the FBI contained 60 names, it is legitimate to question whether his memory and the memory perhaps of other Able Danger folks has been enhanced by knowledge learned later on -- whether the otherwise obscure name of "Mohammed Atta" might have become part of their recollections after the fact because it became so famous.

Which is to say, Shaffer isn't lying, and he isn't a scoundrel. He's someone who ran afoul of the hyperlegal mindset that kept the intelligence "wall" growing ever higher until it became a hiding place for Al Qaeda.

And that, once again, brings us back to ... Jamie Gorelick. 9/11 Commissioner. And the architect of the growing "wall" -- the same "wall" that the 9/11 Commission all but ignored, surely in deference to its walking-conflict-of-interest commissioner Gorelick." [National Review Online post, 8/16/05]

• Fox News host Bill O'Reilly: [I]t is now clear that Army intelligence had identified Mohammed Atta as a dangerous terrorist more than a year before Atta led the 9/11 attack. An Army group called Able Danger got the information, but did not pass it along to the FBI and tell the bureau that Atta was actually inside the USA.

Why? Because of a policy instituted by Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy Jamie Gorelick. The women erroneously believed that potential criminal activity could not be pinpointed by any U.S. military intelligence operation. That's insane.

Now, longtime Factor viewers will remember that I called Janet Reno the worst attorney general in history because the woman simply refused to aggressively pursue wrongdoing and was a political player, not a law enforcement officer in my opinion.

As for Miss Gorelick, who also served on the 9/11 Commission, she obviously made an enormous mistake. If she had done the right thing, 9/11 could have been prevented. [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 8/17/05]

• Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh: [T]his Pentagon source is a lawyer. Well he's not, he's a Defense Department intelligence official. And he's saying that it was the lawyers in the Pentagon who, well, of course that makes sense. That makes sense to me because it was the lawyers and essentially the Justice Department who created all this, these walls that prevented the exchange of information. And there's no denying the wall existed. And there's no denying that this Able Danger unit knew of Atta in the country. And there's no denying they couldn't tell anybody. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/16/05]

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette national security writer Jack Kelly: Able Danger was a military intelligence unit set up by Special Operations Command in 1999. A year before the 9/11 attacks, Able Danger identified hijack leader Mohamed Atta and the other members of his cell. But Clinton administration officials stopped them -- three times -- from sharing this information with the FBI.

The problem was the order Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick made forbidding intelligence operatives from sharing information with criminal investigators (Gorelick later served as a 9/11 commission member). [Column, 8/14/05; reprinted in The Washington Times, 8/15/05]

The Gorelick memo's procedures and the subsequent 1995 guidelines were not intended to prevent intelligence sharing -- the memo specifically noted that "the counterintelligence investigation may result in the incidental collection of information relevant to possible future criminal prosecutions." Rather, as the memo noted, it was intended as "a set of instructions" for intelligence sharing that would encourage more cooperation by alleviating concerns about improper coordination between law enforcement officials, who faced greater limits on their investigative abilities, and intelligence agencies, which worked under less restrictive intelligence gathering procedures. As Zelikow noted in the 9-11 Commission hearings:

ZELIKOW: New procedures issued by Attorney General Reno in 1995 required the FBI to notify prosecutors when facts and circumstances are developed in a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigation that reasonably indicate a significant federal crime has been, is being or may be committed. The procedures, however, prohibited the prosecutors from, quote, "directing or controlling," close quote, the intelligence investigation.

As Media Matters has noted, even Ashcroft acknowledged that it was actually a "culture" that developed from the memo, not the memo itself, that severely restrained intelligence sharing.

— A.S.

Uatu
08-19-2005, 10:40 AM
So Bush let 9/11 happen, gotcha.

Thank you, fair citizen, for shining the bright light of truth from the ever impartial media matters. That damned conservative media bias is apparently behind it all again. We need to find a final solution to this conservative problem.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 10:44 AM
The media has turned into a pile of worthless sh1t.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 10:45 AM
Here is a "tit," for your "tat..."

Here is the right wing's version of your propaganda:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050816.asp

In 2002, Network News Breathlessly Touted Charge That “Bush Knew” In Advance of 9/11 Plot

Interested in Connected
Dots or Blaming Bush?

Since June 27, Republican Congressman Curt Weldon has been sounding the alarm about a possible failure by U.S. officials to have thwarted the awful attacks of September 11, 2001. But the same news networks that in May 2002 hyped the notion that President Bush “knew” about the impending terrorist attacks have been slow to broadcast charges that civilian officials felt they could not take action when military intelligence officials fingered 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta as a potential al-Qaeda operative. Could the networks be flinching because this alleged lapse happened in 2000, when Bill Clinton was still in charge?

Last week, the broadcast networks finally picked up the story that a military officer says that his group, working on a project called “Able Danger,” had identified Atta and three other future hijackers. The CBS Evening News led with the story August 9; correspondent Wyatt Andrews, who interviewed the officer, said he “seemed like a very straight shooter,” (see box) but the Evening News has since ignored the story. The NBC Nightly News ran a story by Jim Miklaszewski on August 13, a newscast pre-empted in much of the country by NASCAR. ABC’s World News Tonight has so far skipped it, although news reader Bill Weir gave it two sentences on the August 10 Good Morning America.

Contrast the networks’ current aloofness with their eagerness to hype suggestions in May 2002 that the government should have been able to prevent 9/11 because President Bush’s daily briefing on August 6, 2001 talked about al-Qaeda’s desire to hijack an American plane:

■ Filling in as anchor of CNN’s NewsNight, Judy Woodruff told viewers on May 15, 2002: “President Bush knew that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack a U.S. airliner, and he knew it before September the 11th.”

■ The next morning on ABC’s Good Morning America, Charles Gibson promoted the cynical idea that Bush had faked his shocked reaction to news of the 9/11 attacks. “Was the President really surprised?” Gibson speculated.

■ All three networks led their May 16, 2002 newscasts with suggestions Bush had concealed vital information. CBS’s Dan Rather began: “The Bush administration spent this day trying to explain what President Bush knew about terror threats before the September 11th attack on America, [and] why the President never shared what he knew with the public.”

■ Two years later, after the text of the briefing memo was released, CBS’s Michelle Miller on the April 12, 2004 Early Show showcased a 9/11 widow who claimed her husband “might have escaped the 76th floor of the South Tower, she says, if key facts in the August 6th memo were released to the public.”

The actual text of that memo: “We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [censored] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of the ‘Blind Shaykh’ Umar Abd al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.” In other words, Bush was told of an old, unverified ransom plot, not a devilish scheme to use planes as guided missiles.

Three years ago, excited reporters implied that knowing al-Qaeda was interested in hijacking was a vital piece of the 9/11 puzzle. Weldon says the government knew who Atta was and that he was in the U.S. — a much bigger clue. So why aren’t the media as frenzied as they were in May 2002, when they thought “Bush knew”? — Rich Noyes

To comment on this item, go to NewsBusters.org

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 10:46 AM
Another you might be interested in, heh:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050719.asp

Networks Pile On With 58 Rove Stories in 10 Days, But Helped Bury Pentagon’s Abuse of Tripp in 1998

Media Now Roast Rove,
But Wouldn’t Fry Bacon

ABC, CBS and NBC are maintaining their relentless coverage of the CIA leak investigation, which ramped into high gear back on Sunday, July 10. Then, Newsweek published an e-mail showing that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper talked to Karl Rove about the fact that Bush critic Joseph Wilson — who in 2002 went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium from Africa — received that assignment from the CIA at least partly because his wife worked there.

Now the “outing” of Valerie Plame has been the main political story on the three network morning and evening news for nearly two weeks, as reporters find new ways to keep hyping the case. Last Tuesday, ABC’s Charles Gibson began Good Morning America by presenting Rove as certainly guilty: “The big question, will or should the President fire him?”

The next day, NBC’s Jamie Gangel treated Joseph Wilson to a softball Today interview that presented both Wilsons as victims: “Do you and your wife believe the perpetrators of this will ever be punished?” Just last night on the CBS Evening News, correspondent Gloria Borger promised fill-in anchor John Roberts that the case would end with a bang: “I'm told by somebody close to this investigation that it's going to be very messy when the truth comes out, John.”

MRC interns Kyle Drennen and Patrick Skeehan reviewed the three network morning and evening news shows from July 10 through July 19. They found that the networks ran 58 stories on the Rove-Plame-Wilson flap in just those 10 days, even though there’s been no indication from the special prosecutor that Rove is even the target of the investigation, which began in the fall of 2003. Even though the morning shows often eschew esoteric political stories, there have actually been 32 morning show segments devoted to Rove, compared with 26 on the evening newscasts.

Flash back seven years ago to the Lewinsky scandal, when the New Yorker ran an article attempting to discredit Linda Tripp by announcing that she had been arrested for shoplifting as a teenager, but hadn’t noted the arrest when she applied for a Pentagon security clearance (because the judge had expunged the arrest from her official record). Bill Clinton’s Pentagon spokesman, Kenneth Bacon, eventually confessed to leaking Tripp’s confidential personnel file to the New Yorker’s Clinton-friendly reporter Jane Mayer, but his “apology” could be described as less than contrite: “I'm sorry that I did not check with our lawyers or check with Linda Tripp's lawyers about this,” he said at a May 21, 1998 briefing.

But when the victim was an anti-Clinton whistleblower, the networks didn’t seem to care that a high-ranking government official had used an illegal leak (violating the Privacy Act) to a reporter in an effort to discredit a critic. From March 1998 to November 2003 (when Tripp was awarded $595,000 from the Defense Department), the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening shows ran just 13 stories on Clinton’s “Leakgate” over five-and-a-half years. Much of the coverage was downright hostile to Tripp, not those who violated her privacy. (See box.)

The media’s outrage over the supposed campaign to discredit Joe Wilson would seem a lot less contrived if they had shown the slightest bit of sympathy when Team Clinton used illegal leaks to malign Linda Tripp. — Rich Noyes



Also see this article from the October 5, 1998 MediaWatch: "Media Ignore Top Pentagon Spokesman's File Leak"

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 10:47 AM
It's cool how there are always TWO sides to a story, isn't there?

How's it feel lookin' in the mirror? :hmmm:

Taco John
08-19-2005, 10:48 AM
So Bush let 9/11 happen, gotcha.




I definitely don't believe that. It was just straight up incompetence from a fool in over his head.

Taco John
08-19-2005, 10:49 AM
"her" head if you count Condi.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 10:49 AM
It's cool how there are always TWO sides to a story, isn't there?

How's it feel lookin' in the mirror? :hmmm:I think it's stupid that biased journalist get into these battles of twisted info.

How can anyone believe anything? Everyone is going to go with the info that they want and the truth will forever be hidden.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 10:52 AM
I think it's stupid that biased journalist get into these battles of twisted info.

How can anyone believe anything? Everyone is going to go with the info that they want and the truth will forever be hidden.

That's my whole point. The credibility of both of these organizations, AND partisan ideology masquerading as "truth" on both sides....is enough to confuse most Americans, who aren't paying attention.

It's why Americans hate politics; and it's why this DC forum is devolving into a cesspool of propaganda, hyperbole, and "lies" spread by BOTH sides. :shake:

MOhillbilly
08-19-2005, 11:08 AM
I definitely don't believe that. It was just straight up incompetence from a fool in over his head.

hindsite is 20/20

Radar Chief
08-19-2005, 11:18 AM
I think it's stupid that biased journalist get into these battles of twisted info.

How can anyone believe anything? Everyone is going to go with the info that they want and the truth will forever be hidden.

In a way, I kind of appreciate it. Lets you know exactly where they stand.
I prefer to get news from several different sources anyway, look at where the facts line up with each other and draw my own conclusions from what is accepted / verifiable.
Doubt I’m the only one doing this either.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 11:22 AM
In a way, I kind of appreciate it. Lets you know exactly where they stand.
I prefer to get news from several different sources anyway, look at where the facts line up with each other and draw my own conclusions from what is accepted / verifiable.
Doubt I’m the only one doing this either.

I do that a lot too; but I'm a political junky like you seem to be.

Not many have the time and desire to wade through the partisan and ideologically slanted BS that is out there....that's why truly balanced and objective sources are so valuable, even if they are boring. Ideologically motivated half-truths, deceptions, and out-right lies are standard fare from both sides though.....because that's what we seem to want--to feed off of.

Unfortunately, sensationalism and polarized demagoguery (coming from both sides) is what gets ratings, its what sells. So that's what we get, usually.

Uatu
08-19-2005, 11:25 AM
this DC forum is devolving into a cesspool of propaganda, hyperbole, and "lies" spread by BOTH sides. :shake:

Yeah, pretty much every thread is propaganda. 90% of it is 'my side is perfect and yours is always wrong and to blame for everything bad in the world' like you get in this one.

Somehow, what amounts to a blog entry from a liberal interest group is supposed to amount to the death blow for the story. Excuse me if I don't think the matter is anywhere near settled yet.

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 11:37 AM
Jaz: is there going to come a day when you dont post a thread about Bush letting 9/11 happen? Just curious.

BIG_DADDY
08-19-2005, 11:45 AM
Yeah, pretty much every thread is propaganda. 90% of it is 'my side is perfect and yours is always wrong and to blame for everything bad in the world' like you get in this one.

Somehow, what amounts to a blog entry from a liberal interest group is supposed to amount to the death blow for the story. Excuse me if I don't think the matter is anywhere near settled yet.

Exactly

jAZ
08-19-2005, 12:51 PM
Here is a "tit," for your "tat..."

Here is the right wing's version of your propaganda:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050816.asp
It always amuses me when I see a MediaResearch (MR) column used as a retort to a MediaMatters (MM) column.

For anyone who is a regular reader of BOTH groups, you'll notice that there are a few similarities between the two oranizations' style and there is one clear difference.

Both groups clearly have a polar opposite political perspective. MM's articles support informing people about events and facts that support liberal issues. MR provides similar columns from a conservative perspective.

Attentively reading both sites can actually be very informative. There is no doubt that there are certain facts that are mis-reported that harm the Conservative cause. Similarly there is no doubt that there are certain facts that are mis-reported in the media that harm the Liberal cause. Each site attempts to serve that purpose, and it is and can be a valuable service to both sides of the debate and for the debate in general.

However there is also one very clear and distinct difference should be very clear in just reading the first two articles in this one thread.

MediaMatters makes a very concerted effort to report mis-information in terms of hard, citable facts. Clicking the MM's link I provided, you will see maybe 50+ links, basically 1 for each claim made in the article.

Click on the MR link, you'll notice that there are no such citations of fact. There rarely are in the MR articles. They typically tend ro retort what they see as mis-information in terms of "you draw your own conclusion (based mostly on a list of assertions we'll provide you)".

It's the difference between being "Fair and Balanced" and being "Accurate and Factual".

All that said, MR does sometimes provide actual watchdog services, and for that reason, it's worth reading. And if you read both sites regularly, you'll come away with 1 inescapable conclusion:
The media isn't so much liberally biased or conservatively biased... rather it's profitly biased. And as such, it gives greater energy to sensationalism over mundane factualism... because that drives ratings which drives profits. It also regularly refuses to spend the energy being "accurate", instead trying to be "first"... again chasing the ratings dollar.

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 01:09 PM
All that said, MR does sometimes provide actual watchdog services, and for that reason, it's worth reading. And if you read both sites regularly, you'll come away with 1 inescapable conclusion:
The media isn't so much liberally biased or conservatively biased... rather it's profitly biased. And as such, it gives greater energy to sensationalism over mundane factualism... because that drives ratings which drives profits. It also regularly refuses to spend the energy being "accurate", instead trying to be "first"... again chasing the ratings dollar.

Ummm...both sites are 501(c)(3), meaning they're non profit orgs. They dont get 'ratings dollars' they get contributions.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 01:16 PM
Ummm...both sites are 501(c)(3), meaning they're non profit orgs. They dont get 'ratings dollars' they get contributions.
Huh?

Read closer and key in on the words "the media".

Thanks.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 01:18 PM
I do that a lot too; but I'm a political junky like you seem to be.

Not many have the time and desire to wade through the partisan and ideologically slanted BS that is out there....that's why truly balanced and objective sources are so valuable, even if they are boring. Ideologically motivated half-truths, deceptions, and out-right lies are standard fare from both sides though.....because that's what we seem to want--to feed off of.

Unfortunately, sensationalism and polarized demagoguery (coming from both sides) is what gets ratings, its what sells. So that's what we get, usually.
You're right.

(can you believe we agree?)

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 01:20 PM
Huh?

Read closer and key in on the words "the media".

Thanks.

Forgive me, you're correct...I was scanning the post too quickly.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:25 PM
....1 inescapable conclusion:
The media isn't so much liberally biased or conservatively biased... rather it's profitly biased. And as such, it gives greater energy to sensationalism over mundane factualism... because that drives ratings which drives profits. It also regularly refuses to spend the energy being "accurate", instead trying to be "first"... again chasing the ratings dollar.

You speak as though profit-motive and political bias are mutually exclusive of one another. That is a flawed premise.

Sure, being obvious and transparent in one's bias can certainly lead to loss of profit--especially if one is pretending to be objective and balanced (like FOX--the reason FOX succeeds is they are the only "game" in town for many conservatives who don't access cable or the net, regularly)

However, subconsious and subtle biases can and do shape what reporters report: and that bias, indisputably, tends to be liberal. In fairness, the public does exert enough pressure the media is forced into reluctant admissions and balance, but certainly not always. Especially when most Americans don't really follow the stuff closely anyway, until it becomes a MAJOR story.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 01:32 PM
You speak as though profit-motive and political bias are mutually exclusive of one another. That is a flawed premise.

Sure, being obvious and transparent in one's bias can certainly lead to loss of profit--if one is pretending to be objective and balanced (like FOX.) However, subconsious and subtle biases can and do shape what reporters report: and that bias, indisputably, tends to be liberal. In fairness, the public does exert enough pressure they are often forced into reluctant admissions and balance, but certainly not always. Especially when most Americans don't really follow the stuff closely anyway, until it becomes a MAJOR story.
If was ever a liberal media bias historically, since the mid-80s deregulation of the media and removal of the fairness doctrine, there has been a dramatic shift away from political bias and to ratings bias. Which lead to sensationalism of stories (see the Clinton sex scandal).

After 9/11, the tone that attracted viewership was "patriotism". And this administration and its media mouthpieces tried to make "patriotism" synonomous with supporting Bush. It worked... for about 4 years.

If there ever was a liberal biased media, there hasn't been for a long, long time. Feel free to ask conservative pundits Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol or James Baker.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:35 PM
If was ever a liberal media bias historically, since the mid-80s deregulation of the media and removal of the fairness doctrine, there has been a dramatic shift away from political bias and to ratings bias. Which lead to sensationalism of stories (see the Clinton sex scandal).

After 9/11, the tone that attracted viewership was "patriotism". And this administration and its media mouthpieces tried to make "patriotism" synonomous with supporting Bush. It worked... for about 4 years.

If there ever was a liberal biased media, there hasn't been for a long, long time. Feel free to ask conservative pundits Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol or James Baker.

That's not what Walter Cronkite, Dan Rathers, and even Bob Woodward have said on numerous occasions. I've matched your three with three that have said otherwise....so what?

Three quotes by three individuals (conservative, or not), out-of-context....are as pointless as most of the threads over here these days.

ChiefsGirl
08-19-2005, 01:37 PM
Three quotes by three individuals (conservative, or not), out-of-context....are as pointless as most of the threads over here these days.

What's the proper context?

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:42 PM
What's the proper context?

I'd like to see the entire discussion....what was the context of the quotes. Quotes, isolated from transcripts of the actual question and discussions, aren't worth much IMO.

What ELSE was said....before and after those quotes? :hmmm:

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 01:44 PM
I'd like to see the entire discussion....what was the context of the quotes. Quotes, isolated from transcripts of the actual question and discussions, aren't worth much IMO.

What ELSE was said....before and after those quotes? :hmmm:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

The premise is that since the advent of the alternative media sources, the Liberal Media isnt what it is today. I agree with that, however, it doesnt mean it's gone, it just has to become more hysterical in it's reporting.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 01:44 PM
That's not what Walter Cronkite, Dan Rathers, and even Bob Woodward have said on numerous occasions. I've matched your three with three that have said otherwise....so what?

Three quotes by three individuals (conservative, or not), out-of-context....are as pointless as most of the threads over here these days.
You haven't matched anything. Throwing out 3 names and quoting nothing is far from "matching". Please!

You are smarter than this.

Provide those quotes you think exist and well see if they refute ANYTHING I've said.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:45 PM
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

Thanks.

In Nation? Yeah....heh.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:47 PM
You haven't matched anything. Throwing out 3 names and quoting nothing is far from "matching". Please!

You are smarter than this.

Provide those quotes you think exist and well see if they refute ANYTHING I've said.

I don't waste any substantive time on you or Duhnise anymore--other than to respond directly to your nonsense; Rather's quote was on Larry King, Cronkite's has been cited ad naseum and is well-documented, and Woodward in at least two of his books admits as much....knock yourself out with google, if you want to call me a liar.

RINGLEADER
08-19-2005, 01:48 PM
How did I know a mediamatters link would be your source Jaz?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Radar Chief
08-19-2005, 01:51 PM
You haven't matched anything. Throwing out 3 names and quoting nothing is far from "matching". Please!

You are smarter than this.

Provide those quotes you think exist and well see if they refute ANYTHING I've said.

Like you did? You threw out three names without quotes, links or any context. He threw out three names in the same fashion. :shrug:

jAZ
08-19-2005, 01:53 PM
Like you did? You threw out three names without quotes, links or any context. He threw out three names in the same fashion. :shrug:
Duh.... notice anything?

I'll help...

||
\/
||
\/
||
\/

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:53 PM
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

The premise is that since the advent of the alternative media sources, the Liberal Media isnt what it is today. I agree with that, however, it doesnt mean it's gone, it just has to become more hysterical in it's reporting.

Those quotes seem to be in the context of a Nation editorial column, on Alterman's piece....what about the ORIGINAL context? :hmmm:

I'd agree cable, talk radio, and the net have certainly "leveled" the playing field some, but the "mainstream" media outlets (broadcast, major urban Newspapers, and more traditional outlets) remain left leaning.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 01:55 PM
I don't waste any substantive time on you or Duhnise anymore--other than to respond directly to your nonsense; Rather's quote was on Larry King, Cronkite's has been cited ad naseum and is well-documented, and Woodward in at least two of his books admits as much....knock yourself out with google, if you want to call me a liar.
I can't call you a liar, because you refused to be pinned down by actaully saying anything. You're pulling a MediaResearch by telling me what the facts are and hiding the evidence.

You spend an awful lot of time around here to not have the time to finish the assertions you want to make without being cornered by a pesky quote.

homey
08-19-2005, 01:58 PM
You spend an awful lot of time around here to not have the time to finish the assertions you want to make without being cornered by a pesky quote.
Just let him think all the media outside Fox leans left. It's easier on them that way, they don't have to think. You know this.

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 02:00 PM
Those quotes seem to be in the context of a Nation editorial column, on Alterman's piece....what about the ORIGINAL context? :hmmm:

I'd agree cable, talk radio, and the net have certainly "leveled" the playing field some, but the "mainstream" media outlets (broadcast, major urban Newspapers, and more traditional outlets) remain left leaning.

I dont know...that was my quick google on the subject.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 02:05 PM
As I suspected, you are not a liar, but you are full of sh!t... or as Dan Rather put it "bullfeathers":

http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2003/08/27/cronkite-admits-media-liberal
"We are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased."
-- Walter Cronkite, explaining that the media isn't liberal even if many reporters hold liberal views


http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp

"Well, my answer to that (question of liberal bias) is basically a good Texas phrase, which is bullfeathers.... I think the fact that if someone survives for four or five years at or near the top in network television, you can just about bet they are pretty good at keeping independence in their reporting. What happens is a lot of people don't want independence. They want the news reported the way they want it for their own special political agendas or ideological reasons." — On CNN's Larry King Live, Mar. 11, 1996.

(I've been unable to find any bob woodward quote on bias)

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:06 PM
...You spend an awful lot of time around here to not have the time to finish the assertions you want to make ....

I prefer to spend the majority of my time here, conversing with reasonable....rather than ideologically motivated mouthpieces for one party or the other--something I'd been doing for a while, but fallen back into my old habits of arguing with Moonbats the last few days. :hmmm:

Thanks for the wake-up call. :)

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 02:09 PM
Dan Rather...the personification of the thing that Jaz loathes--the rush to ratings for profit (see Memo gate). Yet, defends him at every stop.

:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:10 PM
As I suspected, you are not a liar, but you are full of sh!t... or as Dan Rather put it "bullfeathers":

http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2003/08/27/cronkite-admits-media-liberal
"We are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased."
-- Walter Cronkite, explaining that the media isn't liberal even if many reporters hold liberal views


http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp

"Well, my answer to that (question of liberal bias) is basically a good Texas phrase, which is bullfeathers.... I think the fact that if someone survives for four or five years at or near the top in network television, you can just about bet they are pretty good at keeping independence in their reporting. What happens is a lot of people don't want independence. They want the news reported the way they want it for their own special political agendas or ideological reasons." — On CNN's Larry King Live, Mar. 11, 1996.

(I've been unable to find any bob woodward quote on bias)

I heard them with my own ears, dude. ROFL

If you want to take the word of the interent over my own ears, be my guest. All three have admitted it--I have heard their own words. What part of that don't you understand? That some websites want to deny, cover-up, or bury it.....doesn't surprise me in the least.

Sorry I didn't record the interviews I'm referring to. I assumed it was a given, with most reasonable people.

Radar Chief
08-19-2005, 02:11 PM
Duh.... notice anything?

I'll help...

||
\/
||
\/
||
\/

That you’re a whiny hypocrit? Yea, but I learned that long ago. :shrug:

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 02:14 PM
As I suspected, you are not a liar, but you are full of sh!t... or as Dan Rather put it "bullfeathers":

http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2003/08/27/cronkite-admits-media-liberal


LOL...This link is to an write up titled: "Cronkite Admits: Media Liberal" and Jaz posts it as proof that he didnt say it.

jAZ
08-19-2005, 02:15 PM
I prefer to spend the majority of my time here, conversing with reasonable....rather than ideologically motivated mouthpieces for one party or the other--something I'd been doing for a while, but fallen back into my old habits of arguing with Moonbats the last few days. :hmmm:

Thanks for the wake-up call. :)
I think its funny that you hate everything that the DC has become, but somehow you spend nearly all of your energy here. And at a similar pace to what you did during the election. No let off from you, even though the football season has begun, school has started again, and the election is over.

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:19 PM
I think its funny that you hate everything that the DC has become, but somehow you spend nearly all of your energy here. And at a similar pace to what you did during the election. No let off from you, even though the football season has begun, school has started again, and the election is over.

ROFL

Eh....think again. Stats would not back up your claims, except during the last two or three days (can you tell I'm stuck "monitoring" activities, behind a computer as my summer comes to a close.... :( )

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:19 PM
LOL...This link is to an write up titled: "Cronkite Admits: Media Liberal" and Jaz posts it as proof that he didnt say it.

You noticed that too, eh? ROFL

go bowe
08-19-2005, 02:26 PM
hey, c'mon now jaz...

kotter multi-tasks with the best of them, and has times in his schedule when his presence is required, but not his attention (e.g., study hall)...

and he can post between classes...

so, school isn't an issue...

in fact, it seems like kotter is posting less than he did during the mouse shit episode, but about the same as he always has (since i came here, but then i'm a newbie)...

the election is over for you too, my friend...

and as far as football, the season hasn't begun, it's only preseason and when there is a football thread i usually see kotter sooner or later...

so, lighten up already... :D :D :D

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:29 PM
hey, c'mon now jaz...

kotter multi-tasks with the best of them, and has times in his schedule when his presence is required, but not his attention (e.g., study hall)...

and he can post between classes...

so, school isn't an issue...

in fact, it seems like kotter is posting less than he did during the mouse shit episode, but about the same as he always has (since i came here, but then i'm a newbie)...

the election is over for you too, my friend...

and as far as football, the season hasn't begun, it's only preseason and when there is a football thread i usually see kotter sooner or later...

so, lighten up already... :D :D :D

Thank you, counselor. :)

Besides, 60% plus of my posts of last six months have been in the main forum....except for my re-lapse of the last three or four days. :banghead:

jAZ
08-19-2005, 02:47 PM
(WTF happened to my reply to this?)
LOL...This link is to an write up titled: "Cronkite Admits: Media Liberal" and Jaz posts it as proof that he didnt say it.
(Anyway... to post it again...)

I'm glad you noticed the contradiction between the words Cronkite spoke and the way they are paraphrased by RWNJ's like Kotter. That's exactly why I picked that source. Though I doubt Kotter noticed the same.

It proves my point which is, always ask for the direct quote and never trust someone who demands to paraphrase it for you. RL loves to do this, and Kotter has apparently found it a useful tactic as well. MediaResearch makes a living doing that much of the time.

God forbid we provide quotes and sources for our assertions!

:shake:

jAZ
08-19-2005, 02:48 PM
Thank you, counselor. :)

Besides, 60% plus of my posts of last six months have been in the main forum....except for my re-lapse of the last three or four days. :banghead:
If that's the case, then forgive me. I hadn't noticed you over there at all. Accept my retraction of that statement and my apology.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:51 PM
If that's the case, then forgive me. I hadn't noticed you over there at all. Accept my retraction of that statement and my apology.

It's true; I can't say an exact figure...but it's only the last few days I've fallen off the wagon and posting more over here.

No harm, no foul. I actually came here, and stay here....because of the Football. This place is just like a bad addiction I need to kick.... :banghead:

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 02:55 PM
(WTF happened to my reply to this?)

(Anyway... to post it again...)

I'm glad you noticed the contradiction between the words Cronkite spoke and the way they are paraphrased by RWNJ's like Kotter. That's exactly why I picked that source. Though I doubt Kotter noticed the same.

It proves my point which is, always ask for the direct quote and never trust someone who demands to paraphrase it for you. RL loves to do this, and Kotter has apparently found it a useful tactic as well. MediaResearch makes a living doing that much of the time.

God forbid we provide quotes and sources for our assertions!

:shake:

Dude, you are quoting a NATION (one of the foremost Moonbat publications) editiorial/column which quotes a partisan publication and website of THE Eric Alterman.....yet you maintain you are quoting the ORIGINAL context of those interviews? :rolleyes:

Wrong. :shake:

jAZ
08-19-2005, 03:02 PM
Dude, you are quoting a NATION (one of the foremost Moonbat publications) editiorial/column which quotes a partisan publication and website of THE Eric Alterman.....
First of all, I'm not quoting from a Nation article. Those same quotes appeared in that article, but that wasn't my source. I think the source was something posted over at my old AATalk website. But don't let that stop you from making more baseless assertions.
...yet you maintain you are quoting the ORIGINAL context of those interviews? :rolleyes:

Wrong. :shake:
Good, doesn't look like it did stop you. More lies.

Do have any ability to reconize facts anymore? You've become the guy who actually makes up things whole-cloth just to make your case... that's sad.

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 03:03 PM
I'm glad you noticed the contradiction between the words Cronkite spoke and the way they are paraphrased by RWNJ's like Kotter. That's exactly why I picked that source. Though I doubt Kotter noticed the same.

It proves my point which is, always ask for the direct quote and never trust someone who demands to paraphrase it for you...

In an odd way, this proves my point somewhat. As a liberal you are incapable of seeing it in the way that a conservative would. As such, you dont think those words are an indictment of a subtle and subconscious bias based upon his own ideologies.

Again, stating the mainstream media has a liberal bias doesnt mean it's inherently wrong or subversive.

I just want them to be open about it. There's no way to completely remove your bias from a story that you are writing or reporting. It's just not possible and for the mainstream media to pretend they arent is laughable.

I would hope, Jaz, that you could admit you're liberal...if not, well, the irony is complete.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:09 PM
You noticed that too, eh? ROFLnoticed what?

that the article's title is not a direct quote from cronkite?

that cronkite's quote only indicates that many media types hold liberal beliefs, but that despite that, the goal of journalists is to deliver accurate and unbiased news reporting?

that many in the media hold personal beliefs that can be described as liberal and that somehow makes objective factual reporting biased?

it's why judges are supposed to be able to make decisions in accordance with existing law regardless of their personal beliefs...

people can be objective despite their personal bias, even if they are journalists...

and the actual facts (as opposed to opinions or reports of someone's opinion) that are reported in the media are almost always verifiable and accurate...

if by "media" you mean individuals who work in the media, then cronkite said many/most journalists are liberals...

but not that the "media" (cbs, nbc, fox, newspapers) present facts and events that are innacurate and biased...

to the contrary, he's saying that despite their personal opinions, journalists try to be objective and accurate and unbiased in their reporting, which i think is for the most part true...

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:12 PM
Thank you, counselor. :)

Besides, 60% plus of my posts of last six months have been in the main forum....except for my re-lapse of the last three or four days. :banghead:there you go again, throwing around wild estimates and passing them off as "facts"... ROFL ROFL ROFL

and you probably might maybe want to avoid the use of the word "relapse"... ROFL ROFL ROFL

|Zach|
08-19-2005, 03:13 PM
to the contrary, he's saying that despite their personal opinions, journalists try to be objective and accurate and unbiased in their reporting, which i think is for the most part true...
A friend of mine is a professor of journalism at Missouri St. He runs a site called rhetorica.net that deals with journalism, new media, bias...etc. Its pretty interesting...your post reminded me of this. Its kind of funnier if you know the guy because I could see him saying this stuff but...
[Warning: Stop reading Rhetorica. I intend you harm. As a liberal, I cannot be trusted. Everything I write here is intended to persuade you to be a liberal, too. Any mention I make of an academic ideology is merely a ruse.]

We've come to dangerous place in civic discourse: The idea that one's political ideology trumps all other ideologies. That's the thinking behind adding two ombudsmen for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--one conservative and one (less clearly) liberal. And now the Organization of News Ombudsmen has denied full membership (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/business/media/30paper.html) to Ken Bode and William Schulz.
I see the disastrous effects of this idea in my classes--much more so now than five years ago. Some students will now ask me outright about my politics early in the semester. And when I utter the L-word, I can see the conservatives among them throw up defensive shields, as if what I intend to do is convert them to my way of thinking. I have no such intention.

I have enjoyed some of my best relationships with conservative students. Some of them come to understand that I have much to teach them that they can really use, and that I absolutely do not grade or otherwise evaluate them on their ideology. But winning them over is getting ever more difficult as the culture teaches them that I (by definition as a liberal college professor and--strike two!--a former journalist) intend to change their beliefs. (I certainly intend to challenge them as I challenge all students no matter what they think.) That I intend them harm. That I intend to persuade them to my way of thinking. That intend to insult their beliefs.

Can an ombudsman operate with an ideology that is stronger than political ideology? (I wonder if some citizens today are even capable of understanding that ideology isn't just about politics.) Can a professor teach with an ideology that is stronger than political ideology? Can a honey-dew dipper clean septic tanks with an ideology that's stronger than political ideology?
Yes.


http://rhetorica.net/archives/004069.html

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:14 PM
Thank you, counselor. :)

Besides, 60% plus of my posts of last six months have been in the main forum....except for my re-lapse of the last three or four days. :banghead:and don't call me counselor!!! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

i don't go around saying mean things about you...

er... well, maybe sometimes... o:-)

KCTitus
08-19-2005, 03:16 PM
o the contrary, he's saying that despite their personal opinions, journalists try to be objective and accurate and unbiased in their reporting, which i think is for the most part true...

It may be true that they 'try' to be objective, but I dont believe that it's entirely possible to keep everything out. Most of the time it's subtle things that point to bias.

Examples include:
The way questions are posed to those you agree with vs. those you dont.

When reporting on an issue, citing research or expert opinions from groups you agree with rather than experts from both viewpoints.

Identifying a group/person as 'conservative/right wing' while not identifying a person/group as 'liberal/left wing'.

I think it's gotten better, they've had to in order to keep their audience from totally tanking, but it still goes on.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 03:18 PM
First of all, I'm not quoting from a Nation article. Those same quotes appeared in that article, but that wasn't my source. I think the source was something posted over at my old AATalk website. But don't let that stop you from making more baseless assertions.

Good, doesn't look like it did stop you. More lies.

Do have any ability to reconize facts anymore? You've become the guy who actually makes up things whole-cloth just to make your case... that's sad.

Dude, cite the ORIGINAL context....or just STFU---because you know that's what I'm getting at....these evasive measures are tedious and boring.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:25 PM
A friend of mine is a professor of journalism at Missouri St. He runs a site called rhetorica.net that deals with journalism, new media, bias...etc. Its pretty interesting...your post reminded me of this. Its kind of funnier if you know the guy because I could see him saying this stuff but...
. . .Can a professor teach with an ideology that is stronger than political ideology? Can a honey-dew dipper clean septic tanks with an ideology that's stronger than political ideology?

http://rhetorica.net/archives/004069.html omg...

did that professor just compare himself to a dipper that cleans septic tanks? ROFL ROFL ROFL

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 03:27 PM
...if by "media" you mean individuals who work in the media, then cronkite said many/most journalists are liberals...

but not that the "media" (cbs, nbc, fox, newspapers) present facts and events that are innacurate and biased...

to the contrary, he's saying that despite their personal opinions, journalists try to be objective and accurate and unbiased in their reporting, which i think is for the most part true...

Yes, personally journalists...like teachers and lawyers, FTR, tend to be liberal.

Yes, they can be objective to a degree; and some actually try very hard to be. What I'm saying is it is virtually impossible, to keep personal bias completely divorced from one's "work." Some do an admirable job; others not so much.

They may "try" to be objective, but headline language, word choice, adjectives, the 'angle' the story takes, placement within the news broacast or in the newspaper (is it the "lead" story, or is it pushed back to page 5 of section D of after viewers have tuned out).....and the growing presence of "investigative" pieces (that are often agenda driven), and use of "confidential" sources (to frustrate a reader's ability to determine credibility), are all examples where even subtle biases creep into thier work.

Bravo for those who are genuinely able to rise above it; in my view, they are just more rare than they should be.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:38 PM
It may be true that they 'try' to be objective, but I dont believe that it's entirely possible to keep everything out. Most of the time it's subtle things that point to bias.

Examples include:
The way questions are posed to those you agree with vs. those you dont.

When reporting on an issue, citing research or expert opinions from groups you agree with rather than experts from both viewpoints.

Identifying a group/person as 'conservative/right wing' while not identifying a person/group as 'liberal/left wing'.

I think it's gotten better, they've had to in order to keep their audience from totally tanking, but it still goes on.of course those examples are true in some cases...

and of course, it's impossible to be totally objective in the strictest sense of the word...

but people can be objective, within the range of the human experience (or put another way, reasonably objective)...

for example, all judges are actually quite objective in their conduct of trials and in their decisions...

really...

i know you're laughing now, but really...

ok, take referees...

when they call it our way, they're objective...

when the refs call it against us, they're biased...

when, in reality they are objectively calling them like they see 'em...

well, except for when we play denver, huh stevie?

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 03:42 PM
It may be true that they 'try' to be objective, but I dont believe that it's entirely possible to keep everything out. Most of the time it's subtle things that point to bias.

Examples include:
The way questions are posed to those you agree with vs. those you dont.

When reporting on an issue, citing research or expert opinions from groups you agree with rather than experts from both viewpoints.

Identifying a group/person as 'conservative/right wing' while not identifying a person/group as 'liberal/left wing'.

I think it's gotten better, they've had to in order to keep their audience from totally tanking, but it still goes on.

Excellent point. You said, better, what I was tryin' to say.

stevieray
08-19-2005, 03:44 PM
well, except for when we play denver, huh stevie?
Damn straight Big John.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:44 PM
Yes, personally journalists...like teachers and lawyers, FTR, tend to be liberal.

Yes, they can be objective to a degree; and some actually try very hard to be. What I'm saying is it is virtually impossible, to keep personal bias completely divorced from one's "work." Some do an admirable job; others not so much.

They may "try" to be objective, but headline language, word choice, adjectives, the 'angle' the story takes, placement within the news broacast or in the newspaper (is it the "lead" story, or is it pushed back to page 5 of section D of after viewers have tuned out).....and the growing presence of "investigative" pieces (that are often agenda driven), and use of "confidential" sources (to frustrate a reader's ability to determine credibility), are all examples where even subtle biases creep into thier work.

Bravo for those who are genuinely able to rise above it; in my view, they are just more rare than they should be.i understand what you are saying, and i agree that not enough journalists do rise above it, as you put it...

and i can't argue with the examples you offered, all of those can be and frequently are examples of bias...

but i disagree that people can't be objective because of their personal bias...

judges (ok, i know you're laughing again) and refs...

i'm sure there are other examples, but i'm too lazy to think of them right now...

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 03:45 PM
of course those examples are true in some cases...

and of course, it's impossible to be totally objective in the strictest sense of the word...

but people can be objective, within the range of the human experience (or put another way, reasonably objective)...

for example, all judges are actually quite objective in their conduct of trials and in their decisions...

really...

i know you're laughing now, but really...

ok, take referees...

when they call it our way, they're objective...

when the refs call it against us, they're biased...

when, in reality they are objectively calling them like they see 'em...

well, except for when we play denver, huh stevie?

I think judges and referees, generally, do better at keeping their biases out....in part, because they are more directly accountable. Same with lawyers and teachers--although they are accountable to a lesser degree, on average I suppose.

Journalists can write some pretty outlandish stuff (from both sides of the isle) and, depending on whom they work for and who reads what they have written, they can get away with it.

stevieray
08-19-2005, 03:46 PM
i'm sure there are other examples, but i'm too lazy to think of them right now...
puff puff pass...

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 03:47 PM
i understand what you are saying, and i agree that not enough journalists do rise above it, as you put it...

and i can't argue with the examples you offered, all of those can be and frequently are examples of bias...

but i disagree that people can't be objective because of their personal bias...

judges (ok, i know you're laughing again) and refs...

i'm sure there are other examples, but i'm too lazy to think of them right now...

As I just said, accountability is the difference in my mind:

Judges & Refs are more accountable; journalists, less so....depending on circumstances. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 03:48 PM
puff puff pass...

go bo's my buddy, Elvis.

I think you forgot a smiley, heh. ;)

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:58 PM
I think judges and referees, generally, do better at keeping their biases out....in part, because they are more directly accountable. Same with lawyers and teachers--although they are accountable to a lesser degree, on average I suppose.

Journalists can write some pretty outlandish stuff (from both sides of the isle) and, depending on whom they work for and who reads what they have written, they can get away with it.of course journalists can write some pretty outlandish stuff, and they frequently do just that...

but in the reporting of events or statements by important people, the facts that are reported are generally verifiable and accurate representations as to what happened...

condi rice is the secretary of state and she did visit the me since she became sec. of st., fact...

and the events surrounding her visit were reoprted accurately; and she did say the things that you heard her say in the sound bites...

my point is that when journalists are reporting facts and events, they are being reasonably objective and presenting objective and verifiable facts regarding events and what people have said...

is their some degree of personal bias expressed in the media, in terms of how facts and events are reported on air? sure...

but the facts and events presented are objective facts, verifiable and confirmed by independent reports (sorta like scientific studies, once replicated and thereby confirmed, the facts presented are objectively true)...

this is taxing my brain...

can't we argue about flaming fags or something more interesting?

go bowe
08-19-2005, 03:59 PM
puff puff pass...hey, don't bogart that thing, pass it over here... :D :D :D

|Zach|
08-19-2005, 04:01 PM
hey, don't bogart that thing, pass it over here... :D :D :D I have not heard that term in a long time...I need use that more.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 04:05 PM
of course journalists can write some pretty outlandish stuff, and they frequently do just that...

but in the reporting of events or statements by important people, the facts that are reported are generally verifiable and accurate representations as to what happened...

....

is their some degree of personal bias expressed in the media, in terms of how facts and events are reported on air? sure...

but the facts and events presented are objective facts, verifiable and confirmed by independent reports (sorta like scientific studies, once replicated and thereby confirmed, the facts presented are objectively true)...

this is taxing my brain...

can't we argue about flaming fags or something more interesting?

If average Americans were as discerning as you or I, or any number of posters her (from both sides of the isle, I might say)....then I'd agree. The problem is most Americans don't care about politics, let alone credibility and accuracy of reporting, so they can be sloppy. And dunderhead average Americans often won't know any difference....

It's the same phenomena I'm beginning to see in the classroom: people see a movie like Pear Harbor, or JFK, or Nixon....hell, even Farhenheit 9/11.....and they accept it, not as the fiction and the distorted and inaccurate propaganda/trash (in some instances) they are, but rather they accept them as ACCURATE historical accounts.

As an educator, it's maddening. It's like some people who believe everything they see on television....or read on the internet.

Irresponsible journalists with an agenda can do much harm....IMO.

Nah, I'm done with the gay marriage thing.....sorry. :p

go bowe
08-19-2005, 04:06 PM
As I just said, accountability is the difference in my mind:

Judges & Refs are more accountable; journalists, less so....depending on circumstances. :shrug:man, tell that to dan rather...

if journalists report falsehoods (or make claims that cannot be substantiated, and thereby are unconfirmed by definition), other journalists or pundits or politicians are going to call them on it...

in terms of the facts and events being reported, journalists are very accountable...

as to presenting opinions and arguing a point of view - yes journalists do that all the time...

but (i don't want to be elitist but i can't think of how else to say it) most educated people can tell the difference between objective reporting and editorializing...

go bowe
08-19-2005, 04:08 PM
go bo's my buddy, Elvis.

I think you forgot a smiley, heh. ;)actually, stevie, i think you did forget a smilie: :bong:

ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
08-19-2005, 04:16 PM
If average Americans were as discerning as you or I, or any number of posters her (from both sides of the isle, I might say)....then I'd agree. The problem is most Americans don't care about politics, let alone credibility and accuracy of reporting, so they can be sloppy. And dunderhead average Americans often won't know any difference....

It's the same phenomena I'm beginning to see in the classroom: people see a movie like Pear Harbor, or JFK, or Nixon....hell, even Farhenheit 9/11.....and they accept it, not as the fiction and the distorted and inaccurate trash (in some instances) they are, but rather they accept them as ACCURATE historical accounts.

As an educator, it's maddening. It's like some people who believe everything they see on television....or read on the internet.

Irresponsible journalists with an agenda can do much harm....IMO.

Nah, I'm done with the gay marriage thing.....sorry. :pyeah, isn't that weird?

whenever i see a documentary or read about some historical event, like the alamo or the custer massacre, i still am startled to see what actually happened, because i saw john wayne at the alamo and i thought i knew what happened (because i had seen the movie when i was young)...

movies can have that effect on people...

btw, of course you're right about irresponsible journalists and all...

yoswif
08-19-2005, 05:24 PM
I'm not sure what Able Danger has to do with the Justice Dept. It's reported that Pentagon lawyers shot down Able Danger info transfer. However, Jamie Gorelick was top lawyer (general counsel) at the Pentagon in 93-94 and some of her Wilmer/Hale law firm associates (Stephan W. Preston and Stephen W. Ogden) succeeded her when she left for Justice. It's likely that Gorelick made her "wall of separation" policy applicable throughout government law enforcement and terrorist fighting organizations. With her links to the Pentagon general counsel's office, she could be directly involved in decisions like those involving Able Danger.

NewChief
08-19-2005, 06:39 PM
It's the same phenomena I'm beginning to see in the classroom: people see a movie like Pear Harbor, or JFK, or Nixon....hell, even Farhenheit 9/11.....and they accept it, not as the fiction and the distorted and inaccurate propaganda/trash (in some instances) they are, but rather they accept them as ACCURATE historical accounts.


Do you really think this is anything new? Fiction shapes our view of reality (or unreality). I'd say that most people's view of heavenly conflict and Satan is far more shaped by Milton's Paradise Lost (which is only a work of fiction) than by the Bible (which is considered canon). Similarly, most people's views of the endtimes are based on the Left Behind series rather than any true understanding of the Book of Revelations. For one more example, many people's concept of spiritual warfare is molded by Peretti's Darkness books instead of canon. Now, I'm picking on one particular viewpoint right now, but the point is that people always rely on artists to interpret and shape reality for them. That's what much of art does.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 06:42 PM
Do you really think this is anything new? Fiction shapes our view of reality (or unreality). I'd say that most people's view of heavenly conflict and Satan is far more shaped by Milton's Paradise Lost (which is only a work of fiction) than by the Bible (which is considered canon). Similarly, most people's views of the endtimes are based on the Left Behind series rather than any true understanding of the Book of Revelations. For one more example, many people's concept of spiritual warfare is molded by Peretti's Darkness books instead of canon. Now, I'm picking on one particular viewpoint right now, but the point is that people always rely on artists to interpret and shape reality for them. That's what much of art does.

Certainly not new, but increasingly prevelant.

NewChief
08-19-2005, 06:45 PM
Certainly not new, but increasingly prevelant.

I suppose as media becomes increasingly "real", it becomes increasingly representative of reality to people. Part of our duty as teachers in this day and age is to make kids media savvy enough that they don't get suckered in. That's why teaching media awareness makes up part of just about every state's frameworks for education. At least it constitutes an entire strand in the Arkansas frameworks, so I'd assume it's in most other states as well.

stevieray
08-19-2005, 06:46 PM
, but the point is that people always rely on artists to interpret and shape reality for them. That's what much of art does.


:)

KC Dan
08-19-2005, 06:47 PM
:)
Yeah, especially those really skewed ones!

stevieray
08-19-2005, 06:51 PM
Yeah, especially those really skewed ones!

I know what you mean, I've met that type... ROFL

Logical
08-19-2005, 07:59 PM
I think it's stupid that biased journalist get into these battles of twisted info.

How can anyone believe anything? Everyone is going to go with the info that they want and the truth will forever be hidden.Pretty much how I feel as well. You really can no longer seemingly trust any news source completely. One must seek out the truth hidden in the stories.

stevieray
08-19-2005, 08:04 PM
Pretty much how I feel as well. You really can no longer seemingly trust any news source completely. One must seek out the truth hidden in the stories.

This an American condition, having nothing to do with party affiliation, other than taking life when Kennedy was assisisnated.

The social skills and relationships in our country are deteriorating.

whoman69
08-20-2005, 03:38 PM
hindsite is 20/20
For the Bush admin, foresite is 0/20