posted on August 18, 2005 12:12:12 PM new
Linda, I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
Don't you think that showing pictures of the positive things happening in Iraq would boost Bush's image by showing more balance to the war than the killing and destruction?
posted on August 18, 2005 02:41:13 PM new
KD - What I think is that IF the left owned MSM [media] just started writing about their successes and accomplishment that would be enough to give the citizens a much more clear and balanced picture of what's actually going on over there.
But...they choose NOT to do so. They don't want the public to learn/hear about what's being accomplished. Doesn't meet with their anti-Bush anti-war agenda.
Papers like the NYT and the WA Post have never supported our military while we're at war. They've been excellent at blocking news that tells all sides....they've turned more into one huge op-ed paper.
So no...pictures aren't needed....just fair and balanced reporting. Because then, imo, the American people can decide for themselves if the 'good news' outweighs the 'bad news'.
As it is all the regular media ONLY focus on the numbers as has been admitted in the articles I've linked here.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 18, 2005 02:51:55 PM new
Thanks for answering, Linda. So, do you think there are pictures and news footage of the good things but they're just not shown because the media is controlled by liberals who don't want anything good to be said about Bush or the Iraq war? Or are you saying there's no need for footage, just more balanced reporting? ... that (in your opinion) Americans will settle for this?
posted on August 18, 2005 02:53:05 PM new
And here's another example of the NYT NOT writing about things that don't fit their left-wing agenda.
I think it's their mind-think that if they don't write about things that could hurt the left....then no one's going to hear about it.
But that's the OLD media thinking. Now we have the NEW media which is reporting on what the NYT avoids as long as it can. IF this same thing had happened by a supporting group from the right....the NYT would have it on their FRONT PAGE for WEEKS!!!
Again from www.timeswatch.org - today
NYT Ombudsman Chides Paper for Being Slow on Air America Uptake
Times ombudsman and loyal company man Barney Calame (who's making predecessor Daniel Okrent look like a profile in courage) finally finds something to criticize his paper about in his latest web journal entry: The paper's almost nonexistent Air America coverage. (Hat tip to MediaCrity.)
Calame admits: "Readers of The Times were poorly served by the paper's slowness to cover official investigations into questionable financial transactions involving Air America, the liberal radio network. The Times's first article on the investigations finally appeared last Friday after weeks of articles by other newspapers in New York and elsewhere.
The Times's recent slowness stands in contrast to its flurry of articles about Air America in the spring of 2004, when the network was launched. 'Liberal Voices (Some Sharp) Get New Home on Radio Dial,' read the headline on The Times's article the morning of March 31 when the network went on the air.
The article noted that the network had a staff headlined by comedian Al Franken and hopes of establishing a counterpoint to conservative radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh."
Calame makes the same points many conservatives have made: "Yet The Times was silent as other publications reported that city and state investigators were looking into whether the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club in the Bronx had made improper loans of as much as $875,000 to Air America. Mr. Cohen, it turned out, had served simultaneously as a top executive at Air America and as the club's development director.
And since the club operated largely with grants from government sources, any money passed to Air America may have come from the public till. It has become clearer in the past week or so that Air America hasn't yet fully repaid the 'loans' from the club, and its financial condition remains murky even in The Times's article Friday. So the future of the radio network seems to be a key question for The Times to answer."
He gets associate managing editor Rick Berke to say: "We were slow in the first place and need to do more."
Calame asserts, with a nod to "conservative bloggers": "But it seems to me that this story is still unfolding, and The Times, for the sake of all its readers, needs to get to the bottom of any improper conduct and assess Air America's future.
There's another reason to get to the bottom of the scandal. It's the perception problem -- a perception of liberal bias for which I haven't found any evidence after checking with editors at the paper. Failing to cover the story until late last week has led numerous readers, especially those who seemed inspired by conservative bloggers, to write in saying that a liberal bias in the newsroom caused the paper to downplay the budding scandal.
One reader put it this way: 'If a conservative radio network had been started with money improperly 'borrowed' from a charity like a boys and girls club, it would be front page news for weeks in your paper. Once more, your left-wing bias is showing.'"
In this case, Calame is actually fulfilling his role as a reader advocate, not merely defending the integrity of the paper while acting insulted by criticism. The acid test: Will Calame bring up his Air America concerns in his actual biweekly column for the dead-tree version of the paper?
For the rest of the newly caffeinated Calame, click here.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 18, 2005 02:58:23 PM new
KD, sometimes you are soooooo frustrating to talk to because it appears you don't read links that are provided.
On one of my links....the meeting of the Editors board SAID that most of our news media get their news from the AP. The AP, in defense of themselves says that's hard to do when they're pretty much locked up on the 5th floor of a hotel in Baghad. Do you understand NOW why getting pictures MIGHT be a little difficult?
And NO, I don't think pictures are necessary to prove anything or change peoples minds. We haven't dumbed down THAT much as a Nation. People will believe the good news IF they get a chance to hear it/read about it. They don't now.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 18, 2005 03:02:42 PM new
Linda, you are very uninformed about The Washington Post and the New York Times, two of the Nations most reliable newspapers. Neither newspaper is considered "Liberal" today. In fact, they have been given credit for the re-election of George Bush and support of his political agenda.
I can understand how you might think they are liberal -- -from your radical perspective, anything would be liberal.
From Wikipedia....
Today the The New York Times is probably the most prominent American daily newspaper, sometimes being referred to as America's "newspaper of record". It has traditionally printed full transcripts of major speeches and debates. The newspaper is currently owned by The New York Times Company, in which descendants of Ochs, principally the Sulzberger family, maintain a dominant role.
The Times has won 90 Pulitzer Prizes--the most prestigious award for journalism in the US, presented each year by Columbia University--including a record 7 in 2002. In 1971 it broke the Pentagon Papers story, publishing leaked documents revealing that the U.S. government had been painting an unrealistically rosy picture of the progress of the Vietnam War. This led to New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), which declared the government's prior restraint of the classified documents was unconstitutional. In 1972, the Times exposed the Tuskegee experiment, in which African Americans suffering from syphilis were surreptitiously denied treatment over a period of decades. More recently, in 2004 the Times won a Pulitzer award for a series written by David Barstow and Lowell Bergman on employers and workplace safety issues.
The Washington Post is the fifth largest paper in the United States. It gained worldwide fame in the early 1970s for its Watergate investigation by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, which played a major role in the undoing of the Nixon presidency. It is generally considered second only to The New York Times in stature among American daily newspapers.
As of 2005 the Post had been honored with 18 Pulitzer Prizes, 18 Nieman Fellowships, and 368 White House News Photographers Association Awards, among others.
posted on August 18, 2005 03:41:10 PM new
Oh but helen.....you've just GOT to keep up with the news. Like the FACT that both the NYT and the LATimes have continually been LOSING subscribers. There's a reason for that. Imo, lack of trust for accurate reporting AND internet news availability.
Here's an old article from Jan of this year....sure you can find one more current....as THEIR PROBLEM has gone away....it's getting WORSE.
The Future Of The New York Times
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has his hands full: Weaker earnings. A changing media world. A scandal's aftermath. He also has an ambitious business plan
Since 1896, four generations of the Ochs-Sulzberger family have guided The New York Times through wars, recessions, strikes, and innumerable family crises. In 2003, though, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the current proprietor, faced what seemed to be a publisher's ultimate test after a loosely supervised young reporter named Jayson Blair was found to have fabricated dozens of stories. The revelations sparked a newsroom rebellion that humiliated Sulzberger into firing Executive Editor Howell Raines. "My heart is breaking," Sulzberger admitted to his staff on the day he showed Raines the door.
It turns out, though, that fate was not finished with Arthur Sulzberger, who also is chairman of the newspaper's corporate parent, New York Times Co. (NYT ). The strife that convulsed The New York Times's newsroom under the tyrannical Raines has faded under the measured leadership of his successor, Bill Keller, but now its financial performance is lagging. NYT Co.'s stock is trading at about 40, down 25% from its high of 53.80 in mid-2002 and has trailed the shares of many other newspaper companies for a good year and a half. "Their numbers in this recovery are bordering on the abysmal," says Douglas Arthur, Morgan Stanley's (MWD ) senior publishing analyst.
Meanwhile, the once-Olympian authority of the Times is being eroded not only by its own journalistic screw-ups -- from the Blair scandal to erroneous reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- but also by profound changes in communications technology and in the U.S. political climate. There are those who contend that the paper has been permanently diminished, along with the rest of what now is dismissively known in some circles as "MSM," mainstream media. "The Roman Empire that was mass media is breaking up, and we are entering an almost-feudal period where there will be many more centers of power and influence," says Orville Schell, dean of the University of California at Berkeley's journalism school. "It's a kind of disaggregation of the molecular structure of the media."
So...helen....come back from the past and get current on the facts about the NYT.
Oh, and helen, since you AGAIN repeat you don't see the NYT or the WA Post as being liberal enough for your tastes, which newspaper/site DO you think meets YOUR definition of liberal? LOL I'd sure like to hear your answer to this one. But you haven't been willing to answer it before.
Is there a reason you're scared to let us know what media source you DO accept as being liberal?
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 18, 2005 03:49 PM ]
posted on August 18, 2005 03:59:45 PM new
Sorry helen....but that answer is what my question is seeking an answer for.
which paper do you believe is liberal. originally I had asked you which American newprint you saw as being liberal....but i'd settle for just which source you find liberal.
Say what you read....or saying a couple you read and then being vague on the rest....doesnt cut the mustard.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 18, 2005 04:14:59 PM new
Sorry helen....but that answer is what my question is seeking an answer for.
Again, you are not making sense, linda. Your question above is unintelligible. I won't play nasty games with you, Linda. If you refuse to discuss this topic in a civil manner you can carry on with someone else.
Most newspapers today are not liberal. I read the NYT and The Washington Post because they are the highest regarded newspapers in the United States. Other than op-ed writing, news coverage is generally the same from paper to paper. Of all major papers, you will see little difference or bias in the coverage of news events.
Now, I answered your question so in the game of fair play, you should answer mine. What newspaper do you consider fair?
posted on August 18, 2005 05:01:37 PM new
ahhh The National Enquirer????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golfer:Stop checking your watch all the time,its too much of a distraction.
Caddy:Its not a watch, its a compass
posted on August 18, 2005 05:15:39 PM new
Here, the Washington Post is catching a little hell from other journalists for it's support of the Bush administration. So how do you see it as Liberal, Linda???
The American Journalism Review
AJR at a Glance
American Journalism Review is a national magazine that covers all aspects of print, television, radio and online media. The magazine, which is published six times a year, examines how the media cover specific stories and broader coverage trends. AJR analyzes ethical dilemmas in the field and monitors the impact of technology on how journalism is practiced and on the final product. The magazine is owned by the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.
AJR publishes exciting features, strong opinions, lively articles and profiles. Every issue is packed with valuable information, continuing assessment of news and industry issues and much more. AJR will keep you informed with its in-depth reporting, incisive analysis and thought-provoking criticism of the news behind the news. It is written and edited by respected journalists.
The Post Backs Off
But it never should have gotten itself involved with the Pentagon’s Freedom Walk in the first place.
By Rem Rieder
Rem Rieder is AJR's Editor and Senior Vice President.
What was the Washington Post thinking?
How could it seriously consider, let along to commit to, cosponsoring an event sponsored by the Pentagon? Last time I checked, the Post covered the Pentagon.
What's next, teaming up with the White House?
In announcing that the paper was bailing out of Freedom Walk, an event planned for next month to honor both the victims of 9/11 and American troops in Iraq, Post spokesman Eric Grant--presumably with a straight face--said that "there seemed to be an increased possibility that the event could become politicized."
Let's see, a Bush administration rally linking the utterly disconnected terror attacks and the administration's very own war in Iraq, featuring country singer Clint Black, of "Iraq and I Roll" fame--that didn't sound a little political from the get-go?
It's particularly ironic that it's the Post, of all papers, that got itself involved in this mess. This is the same Post whose executive editor, Len Downie, is so concerned about being nonpartisan that he famously doesn't vote.
The Newspaper Guild, which is to be commended for urging the Post to cut its ties to Freedom Walk, pointed out that the paper's staffers "are subject to disciplinary action for participating in political activities that may be perceived as revelatory of personal opinions or bias."
As the Guild suggested, the paper itself should be held to these eminently sensible standards.
There's another reason the Post should have stayed away. This is a paper whose editorial page campaigned as lustily for the war in Iraq as the most redblooded of neocons. This, of course, is a war launched on what turned out to be a totally bogus rationale--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
As for news coverage in the run-up to the war, the Post hardly covered itself with glory. While the fury of the antiwar crowd has been concentrated on jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the Post--like the rest of the news media--published no shortage of overly credulous stories on WMD.
At the same time, it gave short shrift to pieces poking holes in the administration's case. In his dissection of his own paper's shortcomings on the issue, Post media writer Howard Kurtz quotes Pentagon reporter Thomas Ricks as saying, "The paper was not front-paging stuff. Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday."
So if I'm a Washington Post executive, I'm not sure I'd want my paper too closely linked to an event whose headliner proclaims:
Now it might be a smart bomb,
They find stupid people too.
If you stand with the likes of Saddam,
Well one might just find you.
It's good that the paper--barraged by criticism, some from its own newsroom--finally saw the light. It's a shame it wasn't thinking more clearly from the start.
posted on August 18, 2005 05:40:53 PM new
I have proven to you that your information about the Washington Post and the New York Times is bogus and biased...a right wing effort to intimidate both papers and of course you bought into their lie.
I don't know a newspaper in the United States that is considered liberal today.
posted on August 19, 2005 05:51:31 AM new
If you want to complain about news that does not get covered in Iraq, you should ask why there so little coverage of injured and wounded U.S. soldiers.
The press fails to mention non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds. Since the beginning of the war, over 2,000 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq...many severely wounded.
Is it your intention by the focus on "good" news to squelch reporting on the horrific costs of this colossal failure. When the White House banned news coverage and photography of dead soldiers homecoming on all military bases did you object? NO, because that's "just war", as you say.
It's the obligation of journalists to report the news...not as "GOOD" or "BAD" but as news! In other words, news should NOT be determined by how it fits with the Bush administration or what that administration wants Americans to see.
posted on August 19, 2005 10:30:13 AM new
I agree helen....fair and balanced reporting of the NEWS not their own political biased positions.....like the NYT and the WA PO do.
The NYT has admitted itself that they ARE liberally biased.
And one GREAT way to prove their bias, as a news source, imo, is the FACT that the NYT has not endorced/supported a republican candidate for president in 50 years.
Now why would that be IF they are so 'balanced' and unbiased? It's because they aren't.
And the WA PO is famous for [I say they should win an award for] all the 'anonymous sources'. If there were a contest for not naming who they get their biased views/news articles/stories from, they would win hands down.
They are BOTH America's MOST liberal MSM news reporting media.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 19, 2005 10:32 AM ]
posted on August 19, 2005 10:44:09 AM new
Dam, linda you can't let a single fact penetrate your small head.
As much as I usually, disagree with Parklane64, he wrote a gem on another board that so applies to dealing with you.
"I fail to see where discussing anything with an ignorant person will do anything, but bring me down to their level. Then they have home field advantage."
AMEN
It's the obligation of journalists to report the news...not as "GOOD" or "BAD" but as news! In other words, news should NOT be determined by how it fits with the Bush administration or what that administration wants Americans to see.
posted on August 19, 2005 10:59:51 AM new
Okay helen...you've implied something here that I'd find hard to believe....but want to be sure I'm completely understanding what you've just said about parklane.
Was he/she speaking about Linda_K?? To me?
About me, mentioning my name? Or to something a liberal poster may have said over there?
I know how you twist so many things around....I just want to clear it up if he was referring to me?
Or if you have once again....borrowed a statement and turned it around to be OTHER than the original statement was intended - BECAUSE you can't THINK for yourself and come up with your OWN statements?
fess up you twister of words.... LOL
And you not being willing to accept THE FACTS as they are: that the NYT NEVER, in 50 years has NOT supported a republican candidate for president, pretty much says you refuse to take your head out of your xxx and realize that is them saying....."we lean very much towards the left" just further shows the TOTAL denial you constantly live in.
shame on you.....stuck rigidly in your denial.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 19, 2005 11:05 AM ]
posted on August 19, 2005 12:57:20 PM new
oooooooohhhhh hellllllllennnnnnn
where did you go? Another question that's too hard for you to answer?? LOL
Or if you have once again....borrowed a statement and turned it around to be OTHER than the original statement was intended - BECAUSE you can't THINK for yourself and come up with your OWN statements?
posted on August 20, 2005 02:06:55 PM new
So Linda, you want everyone to answer your questions but yet you still havent giveen an answer about which other countries besides the US should have nuclear weapons.
Since you refuse to give your answer, I would have to guess your answer to that question would be no other country. Which would be a very arrogant statement on your part.
You keep promoting that Bush should do whatever it takes to protect America but you don't allow other leaders to do the sae for their country. Why is that Linda?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 20, 2005 02:16:18 PM newI would have to guess your answer to that question would be....
LOL....yep, you're one who obviously NEVER learns anything. So far everytime you've 'GUESSED' what my answers would be....you've been very, very wrong.
You'll learn to quit it someday when you realized that ASSUMING things only makes YOU look like a fool.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 20, 2005 02:26 PM ]
posted on August 26, 2005 01:02:57 PM new
"I read the New York Times and the Washinton Post every day. In addition, I read the LA Times and several others throughout the world."
you have waaaay too much time on your hands..dont you have a job???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golfer:Stop checking your watch all the time,its too much of a distraction.
Caddy:Its not a watch, its a compass
IF this same thing had happened by a supporting group from the right....the NYT would have it on their FRONT PAGE for WEEKS!!!
