I believe you are not a follower of the saying "follow the money" and its implications.

I think this perception you have inferred is not accurate may be rooted in truth. After all we look at motive for lying. As we know in history people will and have done unspeakable things for money. and that if there is one thing though out history money/wealth absolutely drives these unspeakable tasks. So what would you do or allow others to do as a CEO for 100k a year? for 10 million a year, for a billion a year. As we see the destruction harm to mankind by is thus limited to a degree by environmentalists et al who do not have a money in their pocket motivation. as far as the non-profits if they are funded by the oil industry yes there is a direct influence to greed/money. their sole objective is to maximize the money in their and their shareholders back pocket.

and this is far reaching to ownership of the media, you as a defense contractor can keep off the news stories of billion dollar projects that went no where. and nothing delivered. In fact I was just reading about the new generation of spy satellites that this just happened to, we spent about 4-10 billion dollars and we have nothing. and where is the media coverage of this theft of money by a defense contractor.

Did I mention that Bill Moyers when interviewed on liberal NPR and asked directly what influence GE’s Jack Welch had on the news said ZERO inventor. That’s right ZERO.

So is your liberal buddy a liar?

As you are so good at doing Ted, I'm sure you can provide a link to the Moyers interview - that is, after we've extracted the information as you kick and scream. Maybe someday we won't have to ask or maybe a kindred spirit will do your homework for you. Seems fair enough.

A, "liar?" You are also good at calling names. I guess you couldn't work Senator Kennedy in on this post.

Gee and here I thought the Bush administration appointed the board overseeing public tv/radio. Didn't one of them resign under violation of the law allegations? But seems strange that Jack Welch would be directing NPR via GE. I guess Bill Moyers just does not know everything and did not take orders or work with Jack.

But does Bill Moyers think the media is biased by the right corporatist? well here is a little blurb from Wikipedia.

Ted, I was hoping by now to this this link to the interview also. Please post it....

................................................................................
....

Next I received an email that seems to be going out to democrats, I got a copy that was forwarded seems to many people. It points out what we are discussing and it is an excellent point, here are three of the democrats on the committee in charge of investigating the impeachment issue brought byu I thinkl Kricinich. But the media will do nothing about it. See on a persoanl matter the media was all over a dem but here on matters of national importance and world security the press will not do a thing.

Let me get this straight, the so called liberals who the right wing claim are the media would spend 6-8 years on Clinton on a matter that liberals considered personal in nature and a waist of time, but in a thing liberals consider exponentially more important to the lives and security of the world they will not write about. gee if that is not the strangest thing....

Where is that liberal media when you need one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=132x3839561



http://wexlerwantshearings.com/


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=259835

Or, just maybe, because an investigation into the "crimes" of the "Bush Administration" would be likely to turn up evidence that the Democrats themselves (and particularly, their darling Hillary Clinton) aren't exactly pure as the driven snow. Remember, there are a lot of Clinton holdovers in the Bush Administration, so it's not likely that Bush could get away with too much without the Clintonistas at least being fully aware of it, if not active participants.

If the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives want to bring articles of impeachment against Bush or Cheney, they could do so at any time. There is nothing the Republicans could do to stop that and the media doesn't have a say in the matter. So, tell you what, inventor. Put on that ole thinking cap of yours, you know which one and what it's made of, and compose a letter to your congress person and demand they impeach. That's how it works in the real world.


Aquilla

While I would like you to start a thread and support your allegations with facts and I will join your debate once you post your facts that you allude to.

Now to me you missed the entire point. This is a media thread, the clintons do not own the media. Gee wouldn't that be something if the clintons owned the media and they did those 6-8 years of attacks, do you really think the Clintons would have kept them working. After all I have posted before a example where a award winning editor was handed the job of editor of the Atlanta constitution Journal, he ended up getting fired because he had/allowed his journalist to investigate Coke's practices, I think in the developing nations. He was called in by the owner and fired. See the owner is good friends with top brass at Coke, you know how that works don't ya? So the fallacy in my book of your basic premises /your argument is that Clinton's and dems do not have media ownership, so your claim the investigation likely turns up evidence on the dems would stop the media from putting this front page center is just not backed in any reasonable fact. IE the media is not told by the dems what to do.

As I said, if the media was so liberal why would they have played the attack pit bulldog kill Clinton for 8 years or so. Over an issue that was a nothing to liberals? and this issue of impeaching Chaney is something real liberals would like to get done with the facts that have been exposed. Please rectify this logic so I can see your perspective.

They went pretty easy on Clinton, all things considered. The "attacks" focused mainly on the sex scandal, because sex sells, and sells big. Ideological bias does have its limits when the bottom line comes into play.

Now since you're talking about who "owns" the media, wouldn't it be something if the Republicans owned the media and yet:

- there's been no reminding people of how Clinton launched an attack on an aspirin factory in Sudan based on the most shoddy intelligence just so he could get Monica off the front pages (oh I forgot - that whole thing was just "personal in nature")

- there's been no serious questioning of how Sandy Berger got off so easy, and in particular how it is that his "prosecutor" lowballed the recommended penalty so much that the presiding judge actually felt compelled to increase it by a factor of five, from $10,000 to $50,000 (and you're disputing that the Bush Administration is rife with Clinton people?)

- Norman Hsu isn't a household name, especially in light of Whitewater

- the public has been allowed to forget about Whitewater in the first place

- not to mention Filegate, among other "gates"

Do you think a Republican-owned media would have allowed any of us to forget about his disbarment from practicing law in Arkansas, or miss the fact that the entire Supreme Court (including his own appointees) boycotted his last State of the Union Address in apparent protest against his contempt for the rule of law?

I find it interesting that Sandy was just slapped also, I have no idea why but my guess is the information he tried to protect maybe preserve or get out to the public was so damaging to the republicans that there is no way they wanted it released. Thus they did not want a court battle where it could be released. As we noticed via the rovian ways Rove ordered his federal prosecutors to be political over crime. IE forget about serious crime the billions disappearing and go after dems about 2 to 1 was the number I heard and any people that could be found to have voted more than once to damage voters rights. Yet we had billions that have disappeared and have not been investigated, and the media will not go after these billions or the government for not investigating it. . Rove wanted blood of the dems at any cost, to the point of firing if you deviated from his political rovian objective.. so it is certainly worthy of speculation that Sandy had some information that the right did not want released, I can not think of any other reason for the rovian in-justice department to have backed off, can you? certainly not afraid of Sandy... It to me would indicate the possibility that this information was so powerful a deal needed to be done by the rovian executive branch in charge of prosecution. As we know the dems have no ability to influence the political branch known as the in-justice department. We know that several republicans did contact the in-justice division to hem expidite and release information on dems which is considered to be illegal. And none of these republicans were charged/investigated by the in-justice division and the media is not jumping up and down every day to get a special council.

OK sex sells. what ever happened when Bush1 was starting to be questioned about his "alleged affair" with with a female was it officer, which would have lead her to a court marshal. No that is a juicy one... the media went after that about one week or so. but according to you sex sells? hmmmm amazing how the media had a field day with Nixon as he must have been having sex with who John Dean, according to your postulate. Ever listen to them nixon tapes? I have listened to the one that is condensed, if you want to hear some real crimes listen to his ordering payoffs using his Arab friends. Again these were his real words and the media did not have these tapes. I would still be playing those tapes if I owned the media... Next the media began attacking clinton from the get go, remember Monica testimony was late in the second term, and if you remember this was the second right wing independent council, the first said he found no wrong doing. Seems the media was used to get a second one. Yep a second one who had given Paula legal advice/counciling/strategy years before, shouldn't he have recused himself. Or should he have recused himself when the tobacco lobby started paying him a million dollars a year while he was independent council. Oh he did refuse the money after about the 4th year as he finally admitted it would look a bit improper.... Gee where was that media putting it front of Americans 24/7/365 that the independent council was getting over a million a year when he did not have to do anything for them..... not one billable hour. oh that liberal media educating the public... How many people know the media owner Scaife was the funder of the majority of clinton attacks. We know that Sorros is a cheer of the right, but why don't people know of scaife, Olin, Bradleys, Coors and so on who have spent much more and for many more years than Sorros. Funny how sorros is a household word via the media but Olin, or Scaife who knows?

Anyway your points only back up my contention, look at the trash and even the first right wing independent council concluded Clinton did nothing wrong. after all even the second one could not even get a grand jury to indict Clinton over one single thing, and getting a grand jury to indict after 6-8 years 70 million is easy..... the burden is very low for a grand jury to indict. Now where was the liberal media making that point...

Now the aspirin factory you are talking about. It is amazing that the media attacked Clinton for this forever, as we now know it was not to keep Monica off the paper, as you infer... as we know the republicans in the intelligence committee knew why Clinton went after Bin Laden and potential weapons factories and yet the republicans damaged america by not telling the world it was not wag the dog. Yep the right played the wag the dog card knowing that would damage the credibility of the president to the max, making it harder for him to go after OBL in lessor circumstances with this media attack.
You don't hear the media blasting Bush for the announcement the day before 9-11 his crew announced they were cutting/not increasing counter terrorism funding levels over all. gee what was that historical document in august 6th before 9-11, that Bush did absolutely nothing about. Amazing how the main media does not hammer on a daily fashion for calling that a historical document and fighting to keep it classified, what about ti needs to be classified... I will tell you the only liberal media AAR does hammer Bush on these issues. they are the only liberal media

Actually I heard it on satellite radio. It was Bob Edwards interview with him.

Not sure you can find it but you may try – or just don’t believe it because you disagree – you chose BoF.

And you are right – dirt bag Teddy K would agree with you – see I got him in for ya.

First of all, inventor, your post contains plenty of assertions that could stand to be corroborated, and which I have a hard time taking seriously until they are. I won't go through your whole post, but I will deal with certain points.

For one thing, I don't know exactly what your point is in bringing up Nixon, but if you think the media somehow let him off easy, that's a pretty bizarre viewpoint. Practically every schoolchild in America equates the name Richard Nixon with official malfeasance of the highest order.

Your theory about Berger's light treatment being of some kind of benefit to the Republicans is interesting (in a stoke-one's-imagination sort of way), but when you get into bipartisan conspiracy theories, which this one essentially is, then all bets are off as to which "side" the media take, because if it's true, then the two "sides" are in cahoots with each other, and we're just watching the political version of a professional wrestling match. If you're not willing to go that far, then we'll just have to take this affair at face value, which is that a Democrat got the softball prosecution of the century, and no one in the "Republican-owned media" is asking questions. The effect is a public image of both parties that is skewed more against Republicans than is justified by reality.

As for the aspirin factory, if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck... What else do you call it when he launches an attack on a known pharmaceutical plant, on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, whose known design specs made it extremely unlikely that it was brewing chemical weapons, all on the same day that Lewinsky was called back to testify in front of a grand jury? Shouldn't this provoke just a little bit of curiosity at least?

And finally, the media did go after Bush about that notorious August 2001 memo. At least, they milked it for all it was worth, which wasn't much, seeing as how it only told us what was already known, which is that bin Laden wanted to attack us. It couldn't give us any specifics, and in fact was pointing us in the wrong direction, seeing as how it seemed more focused on federal buildings than on airplanes. Maybe if human intelligence hadn't been gutted during the previous decade - hey, maybe there's something else the "Republican-owned" media could look into...

I would like you to back up your claim that clinton cut the human intelligence's. I say he across the board increased the funding and tried to increase it more but the republicans blocked his funding requests. I am assuming the media did not educate you that the Bush administration the day before 9-11 was in essence cutting funding to counter terrorism. IE they were freezing any increases to parts of it. this is a cut.... This was because they, the right thought Clinton was spending too much money on counter terrorism.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b45491.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2...0325shbstop.htm

And here is a chart of increase and actual spending. If you knotice there was a decrease in funding requested by the Bush administration.
http://www.footnotetv.com/f911chap5-3.html


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/03/b39039.html


I am waiting for any other reason Berger was treated so lightly by the federal prosecutors which were in complete control of the republican party. IE the president and Rove.

Nixon was let off easy by the press so much so that he was able to be elected a second time. How does one get elected again if the press brought out the truth.

Please show me a warning by any agency pre bombing the asprin factory, that made it to Clinton. It is not like the state of the union where the CIA specifically said pull the Niger stuff out. Hat one we have specific notice to the president. Again Clinton gave the intelligence community of the government open book to go after these thugs. Do you now say he should not have given the power for them to go after bin Laden related terrorism activities.

This is from a documentary study of the history of terrorism against us:




Do you have evidence that the press knew of the tapes prior to the '72 election?


If they didn't then they didn't do their homework at all (despite all the devoted support the Clinton Administration supposedly gave to them), or maybe weren't given much of a chance to, seeing as how, uh, other considerations likely were what determined the date and target. The fact is, there was ample evidence that the building was not used for chemical weapons production, and plenty of ways in which the matter could have been dealt with other than bombing even if there were legitimate concerns. I refer you to this 1998 article by Christopher Hitchens for the full details.

http://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml



and why you asked for the tapes as the issue I do not understand. the media did not do their job, as I said this information was known quite well before Nixon was elected a second time.

So as far as your argument of the use of bad people for intelligence, all I can say is good thing we no longer train, arm and support people like Osama Bin Laden like the republicans use to do. We do not need anymore Pol Pots, Osama Bin Ladans, Shaw of Irans out there. I am glad the CIA can no longer use and train these types of people. Now as I said the money had increased under Clinton, and the republicans rejected even more increases. In essence we had enough data to stop 9/11 with the testimony of the Counter terrorism head during that time , he could NOT get Bush to even allow a meeting on terrorism. No one countered and denied that Clarkes testimony was not the truth. Not one republican went on record to say Clarke was not telling the truth when he requested top level meetings. and that the Bush administration denied them. As far as it states this causes us to rely on foreign sources, well who cares if they get us the information, which they did,. That was why there was a PDB of August 9th that the bush administration calls historical in nature, it warned specifically of these kinds of events. What did Bush do when told Osama Bin Laden to attack with hijacked planes in the USA, well he did nothing and asked for nothing to be done, he continued his vacation. Did he call Richard Clarke? anyone? No... and where is the press about hammering these do nothings that Bush did... why don't we hear how Bush did not call one meeting when told Bin Laden to strike in the USA? where is that press????


Now as far as your source, you showed me no document that shows anyone told Clinton that it was an Asprin factory. Thank you again for proving my point. Again show me where the right wing US intelligence community told him otherwise. So you again disagree with his attempt at the same time to take out Bin Laden I assume.

I don't know what point you're making here, but what becomes clear from your timeline are two things: 1. The "right-wing" New York Times and Washington Post got the ball rolling by publishing stolen classified information during wartime, and 2. The press didn't hide anything from anyone about the unfolding case, and the people made their choice.


I didn't say anything about training or otherwise helping anyone. My cite was about the use of informants, the same way police routinely use informants who may or may not be guilty of crimes in order to get information on criminal organizations.


Of course there were denials. And Clarke's credibility isn't exactly stellar, given that he was promoting a Qa'ida-Iraq link before he later decided it was fashionable to deny it, and that he supported the weak-as-water evidence against the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.


The memo mentioned hijackings as only one of several uncorroborated possibilities, and was highly unspecific all around. In other words, it didn't tell the administration anything it wouldn't have already been generally aware of.


I showed you how he had no excuse not to have been able to find out the truth had he been interested in it, and that bombing the place as a matter of first resort was easily as reckless as anything Bush has done.

First and foremost, funny how condi and company would not go on record in testimony on the issue, not one time did they under oath as I was insinuating did they deny what he clarke who did not refuse to testify under oath. I listened to almost all testimony that was live.

Funny how Condi and so on would not co-operate to the fullest extent. But no Condi would did not under oath say Clarke was lying about anything, she has a shrill doing her talking for her. and funny how the head of counter intelligence was in Chaneys words not in the loop... How pathetic that Clarke a life long republican who served many presidents who was the head of counter intelligence was out of the loop. Shame on these idiots for keeping the head of counter intelligence out of the loop. But they did such a good job keeping him out of the loop..... But as I said note Bush would not testify under oath and Chaney would not, and not even separated from one another even talk. even Paiul O'Neils book shows how Bush was obsessed with Iraq before 9/11. I listened to this book on tape and if I remember correctly it was stated in one month of Bush taking office O'Neal remembered Bush asking for ways to get at Saddam.

The point of the time line is the rest of the media did not do their job because only the two so called liberal newspapers would go after Nixon it seems, or was that just another liberal conspiracy by the liberal wackos out to get Nixon????? again it was known to a degree and the media did not get to the bottom of it and the republican was a massive criminal. And the gal of the right to pardon the creep. And the media allowed this pardon. He needed to do jail time. Just listen to his own tapes, this is a despicable human trash, that needed jail time.

The informants you talk about are listed, some as terrorists... so you support paying and using terrorists? I just listed one terrorist, OBL the US CIA had payed before for his help.

The listed Aug 6th PDB was a specific warning, do you believe PDB's are a joke also? not to be acted on. As we know Clarke testifies and said that whenever he sounded these server warnings with the Clinton administration as Clarke said they took them seriously and allowed Clarke to hold high level meetings, that he credits why the Y2K one was stopped. But as Clarke said the Bush administration did not act on his pleadings for action to be taken. That Bush et al in essence did not consider it a serious priority. As he notes that not one meeting was allowed on the subject before the pdb of aug 6th, though he requested several. listen to his testimony under oath...

Wow we can always find out more, the issues is what information was he specifically given, in the case of Bush he was told NOT to use the yellow cake issue. As you know he did use it.

Dr. Rice did testify under oath, and this is what she had to say:


That seemed to go against Clarke's allegations that no one in the Administration was taking him or terrorism seriously.

Now maybe in the final analysis Clarke is right about what happened, but it's not a slam-dunk, given his own credibility problems. Just to remind you of what this discussion is about, you're alleging that the media are biased in Bush's favor because they weren't constantly trumpeting Clarke's testimony uncritically, even though we heard plenty about that August 2001 PDB.


Your timeline doesn't make the case that they didn't get to the bottom of the story to the extent that they were able. Indeed, it seems to show the opposite. So what are you basing this on?


I wasn't aware they had veto power over presidential pardons. All this time I've been laboring under this quaint notion that their job is to report the news.


You got some pretty solid evidence of this? Because that notion is, at best, disputed.


Actually, as I explained, it was highly nonspecific. If specificity is what you're after, what specific actions was Clarke saying should have been taken in response to that PDB?

one thing we know is the CIA will lie to us.... remember during this time frame the CIA had over 400 reporters on their payroll. do you think these reporters quit their day jobs yet? CIA claims to not know of him before 1996 hahahahahahah what liars....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...n/etc/cron.html

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/binladen1.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....osama_bin_laden
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanis...IA_Taliban.html


http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...67;t=002327;p=1
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/08/acovfri.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...,551971,00.html
"Delighted by his impeccable Saudi credentials, the CIA gave Osama free rein in Afghanistan, as did Pakistan's intelligence generals.
Bin Laden and a man named Mustafa Chalaby, who ran a jihad refugee centre in Brooklyn [New York, U.S.A.], were both protégés of Abdullah Azzam. A formative influence on bin Laden, the charismatic Azzam was killed in a car-bomb in 1987: according to some rumours he was killed by the CIA. Others claim he was himself a CIA agent.
At the Farm and other secret camps, young Afghans and Arab nationals from countries such as Egypt and Jordan learned strategic sabotage skills. Passed down to the younger jihad generation which filled the ranks of the Bin Laden organisation, these skills would come back to haunt the United States."
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/america...10914_1_n.shtml
"Osama bin Laden was one of many US beneficiaries in its war against Moscow. He spent years in the mid-1980s travelling widely to raise funds and recruit thousands of Muslim youths to fight the Soviets.
The rise of Al-Qaeda
In 1988, with US knowledge, Bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries."

Yes I am aware of Dr Rices testimony not conflicting with the statements Clarke said that she would not allow meetings like Clinton allowed. and yes I am aware that she finally allowed herself to testify under oath after much fighting to not do it. After all it was not in her mind or the presidents a very important issue that needed to be investigated. After all the president would not allow himself to testify under oath, gee why would that be the case. What did he have to hide?????? Oh boy she increased counter terrorism to Uzbekistan??? what a joke she is, what does that have a flying you know what about Bin Laden, he was not in Uzbekistan. Of cource Clarke had meetings with secretaries for years, daaaaaa when bush was not president he was allowed too... that is the point, once Condi was there he was not allowed to... daaaaaaa

Here is another example of the media bias. I have been told but did not search or verify that this organization is started and run by partisan republicans, kind of a swift boat operation. Seems they could not camouflage this info better, my bet is it is actually worse than reported.
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
Titled “ Election Study Finds Media Hit Hilary Hardest"
Where is that liberal media when you need one….

Then here is another one, the political joke tally, seems Bill Clinton, the right wing medias biggest target, even bfore the Lewinski scandal which again to a liberal would have been as much time as Bush 1, affair in the media was if it was a liberal media.
http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/02mayjun.pdf

there would not be a huge number of attacks if the media was biased liberal.

Did you even read this??

While Hillary "suffered" under a 42/58 positive/negative ratio, the BEST Republican ratio is 1 to 1 (Huckabee at 50/50). Obama had 61/39 and Edwards was at 67/33.

On Fox News (poster child of your position), Democrats were 51/49 positive/negative while Republicans were 49/51. On the broadcast media Democrats were 47/53 and Republicans were 40/60.

None of this is evidence of a bias against Democrats. If anything, it seems to be balanced or slightly against Republicans.

why thank you for asking,

see when I hear that a source is highly partisan and then I see on their site they claim neutrality..... well here they go again.... that claims neutrality on an issue of a bias in the media on their site... I assume that they they are sicko liar partisan idiots and only use the data that they have done the best to slant their own way but just could not do it well enough. So I only consider if they can not with their own slanted biased money come out clean there is much more dirt under the rug. so when a right wing liar rag says the media by their formula is attacking a liberal more you have to assume it is more to exponentially more....

Here is a quick check on this right wing center.

http://media.eriposte.com/3-3.htm


http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=626095


I find their statements about the media to be on par.

So, you post links assuming they are "sicko liar partisan idiots" and expect us to read them and (presumably) draw the opposite conclusions?

Thanks for clearing that up....

see I post specifically I am very liberal and vote democrat.

I do not post on my website I am un-biassed and I study media issues of bias. Do you not see the hypocrisies and stupidity of that one.... In my book they are absulote scum of the earth, no better than the KGB propagandists. Same with Ruppy and his lie of fair and balanced... tooo funny that people actually believe that. Even conservatives in the survey about 20% of them think Fox is liberal.

here is another decent perspective on these partisan pigs who claim objective neautraility...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1972


seems this partisan has been taking money for writing trash from gee trust fund kid hater scaife. and Olin money too. gee such a unbiased so stated organization. so we have it all he is a paid righty shrill, , and in the so called liberal university umbrella as a professor. what a great example of human trash.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405280002

I want to take a look at one example of biased media reporting. If you look at this list of stories covering the same event, you will notice an extreme example of bias. I will let you read through the 295 different stories and come up with your own conclusions, but I only found 12 articles that pointed out the fact that this shooter was approached and subdued by students that were armed. That to me is a very important point to be made, however your "conservative-biased" media did not think it was important. Now if the media was right-leaning, don't you think more articles about this incident would have promoted gun rights and held the students that subdued this guy after confronting him with their guns drawn in a brighter light to help promote a conservative issue?

out of curiosity had he run out of bullets? oh he put the gun down as he walked out of the building on his own with his hands in the air? then when he saw the guy with the gun he went at him unarmed? these snipets were not clear.

But no, the issue was to insight more fear, make people say if we were only armed, ie that gun ownership solves all ill. If they would have said he was able to shoot as many people as he pleased even though there were armed students on campus does not work well for the right wing gun platform/argument..

But did like your out of the box type thinking.. but if the complete details are shown as I have listed it appears this is a perfect example of media fear mongering, inferring that if campuses had guns on every hip things would be safer.


And back to the hanabel Lichter character from CMPA....

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=459481


http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipient...recipientID=413
George Mason University
and the
George Mason University Foundation, Inc.


http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/7198/

Is There Bias in the Classroom?
September 27, 2005

By Maura Kelly

First of all, you've provided no evidence that Peter Bergen is or was ever on the CIA payroll. Secondly, of the sources you've used to bolster your point that bin Laden was a CIA asset, all but two are far-left publications with their own axe to grind, so any general claims of fact from them would need to be independently verified somehow, or at least backed up by specifics. As for the remaining two, only one of them (the Jane's piece by Rahul Bedi) contradicts Bergen's claim that the CIA didn't know of bin Laden before '96. So basically it's his word against Bedi's. But assuming Bedi was correct, all this still proves is that the CIA knew about him, not that they trained him.

As it is, there are a few problems with the idea that they did train him. One is that the CIA had very little if any direct contact with the anticommunist fighters in Afghanistan, as U.S. aid was funnelled through Pakistan's ISI. The other factor is that there was no need to train Arabs, since there were plenty of Afghans in Afghanistan who were perfectly able and willing to fight. Wealthy Arabs like bin Laden who flocked to the country to fight usually had independent sources of funding. Probably the most that could be definitively said at this point is that CIA support for Afghani militias had ancillary benefits for bin Laden and like-minded Arabs, as they would have trained with the militias and built up experience fighting alongside them. But this point we're a few steps removed from the CIA.

Bear in mind what led you to bring up bin Laden: it had to do with my post citing new Clinton-era rules regarding CIA informants. None of those pieces you cited alleged that the CIA was using bin Laden as an informant, so bringing him up at all had nothing to do with my point there.


I didn't see in Clarke's testimony where he specifically stated that Clinton allowed meetings that Bush wouldn't. All I saw was his general subjective impression that Clinton took terrorism more seriously than Bush did. The fact that he stated this under oath is really irrelevant, since subjective impressions can neither be proven nor disproven objectively. And considering Clarke's own credibility problems, those impressions should probably be taken with a grain of salt.


When do sitting presidents ever testify under oath at investigative hearings? If he had testified under oath, that would have been unusual.



That's some pretty fast-and-loose reasoning there. If you can make the case that their credibility is lacking and that they're biased to the right, then the most you can assume is that what they're describing isn't as severe as they make it out to be. You can't draw any further conclusions beyond that. But as it is, they haven't lied, as far as you've been able to show. Thay haven't claimed to be neutral, only non-partisan. There's a big difference. Non-partisan only means not being affiliated with any political party. It does not mean not having a point of view.



That's an interesting link. True it is that that there were more jokes at Clinton's expense than anyone else's in the political arena, but the devil is in the details. Some excerpts from your link:

"During the 1992 campaign George Bush took the lead with 364 jokes, followed by his rival Bill Clinton with 271. The rise in the number of jokes reflects Leno taking the helm of the Tonight Show in May. Now onstage five nights a week, Leno's topical focus put politics front and center."

"Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole finished second at the polls but first in the monologues in 1996, with 665 jokes vs. 570 for Clinton, as his age and dour demeanor became grist for the comedians' mill."

"Only campaign 2000 knocked Bill Clinton out of the top spot, which went to George W. Bush (660 jokes to 623 for Gore)."

So to sum up, a big reason for the spike in jokes for Clinton is that Leno, who took over in '92, was on more nights per week than his previous hosts. And furthermore, during election seasons the jokes were always more at the Republicans' expense than at the Democrats'.



Actually this is an extremely sound analytical technique. Explicit statements of opinion have much less influence on people's perceptions than a pervasive slant in the way news is reported. If Rush Limbaugh is going on about some subject, those listening to him at least know where he's coming from and will immediately realize that all they're listening to is his opinion, whether they agree with it or not. A news organization that bills itself as objective, however, will ensnare many more people if it in reality isn't objective. So when it does things like constantly identify conservatives as "conservatives" (and occasionally "ultraconservative") while seldom if ever referring to liberals as "liberals" (with "ultraliberal" not even being in their lexicon at all), it creates a distorted view of reality that people can easily succumb to without even realizing it unless they're actively aware of that bias.



Speaking of "out of the box thinking"... If reporting that the students who subdued him were armed would make the pro-gun argument look bad, you'd think gun control organizations would be highlighting this story with all the details. But as it is, it's beyond dispute that the major media are anti-gun. Among many other indicators of this, one stands out loud and clear. For some background, let's first at look at how they treat the subject of partial-birth abortion. They never use that term without comment, but always put it in quotation marks and distance themselves from it. A typical sentence of theirs would read: "The bill would ban a type of abortion procedure that opponents refer to as 'partial-birth abortion'." Sometimes they would go on to emphasize that this is not a term used by medical professionals. All well and good. Now compare that to their treatment of the term "assault weapons". That's also a term coined by political activists. It's not used by weapons experts, and it in fact has no clear meaning at all. It's a pure propaganda term. Yet the media (even Fox News) always repeat the term uncritcally, without quotation marks or any of the song-and-dance associated with partial-birth abortion. This is just another example of what I was talking about in my previous paragraph.

It isn't clear if he ran out of bullets, but what seems to be the consensus is that he still had his gun in his hand as he left the building and stepped onto the campus grounds where students had been flooding to from the building the gun shots were coming from. Many of the reports said that he had the gun above his head, some said that he still had the gun when he was wrestled to the ground. It appears you only read a couple of the 295 stories. The majority of them report him having the gun in his hand until a student ordered him to drop his weapon. What most reports fail to mention is that the student that ordered him to drop his weapon had a gun himself. You bring up the point that he was apparently out of bullets. Answer me this one question. When someone is holding a pistol in their hand, how can you tell if the weapon is out of bullets? How do you know he does not have more fully loaded clips in pockets? Just because he was out of bullets doesn't mean that everyone else knows that. How on earth does not reporting the affectiveness of private law abiding citizens carrying weapons insight more fear? I also have not made any claim that gun ownership solves all ill. I will claim that removing the right of the law abiding citizen from arming himself will cause more violent crime victims. Laws only affect law abiding citizens. But that is for another debate. You completely missed the point of my post. The point is that only 12 media reports, out of 295 pointed out that armed students stopped this man from continuing his shooting rampage. It is not clear if he was on his way to his car where he had more bullets, or if he had more on him. These armed students stopped what could have been much worse. Only 4% of the media reported this. That shows a liberal slant by not pointing out the validity to supporting the 2nd Amendment, which would be considered a conservative viewpoint. I don't know how you construe this to be media fear mongering, but please educate us on your abstract line of thinking.

Scubatim, that was a fun exercise.

Three executions for the gunman. Not a shot fired from the law-abiding gun owner. That's how it's done thousands of times every year by law-abiding gun owners across the country.

I'm sure we'll hear the Brady Campaign moaning about how students have guns in their cars, and completely ignore the factual evidence that society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed.

Perhaps we should explore why a foreign student had access to a gun. THAT isn't legal.

inventor

PBS fights for ratings too, and those guys at greenleft.org in Australia are always bastions of fair and balanced centrism on American politics, right?

The bias is the channel you choose. If you like it leftist, CNN. If you're a righty, Fox News. Bias is the newspaper you read. If you're a leftist, the New York Times is great. If you're a righty, then... well, I can't think of one right now, but they exist. The bias is the radio program you listen to. If you're a leftist, you have Air America and more progressive stations popping up. If you're a righty, then your local affilliate will broadcast what is most profitable.

Profit is the bottom line. Michael Moore can make a "documentary" full of half-truths (and thus, half-lies), call it the truth, and a certain segment will happily go out and buy a few tickets on opening day. Why? Because he gets richer every time he does it. If you want "Fair and Balanced", then what you're saying in your argument, inventor, is that you need to include a few gu