Liberal bias in the mainstream media has been pretty well documented. But even with that as a backdrop, I can't see Peter Jenning's recent interviews with Iraq's Taq-Aziz as anything other than treasonous.

Isn't giving one of the top leaders of a country we are on the verge of war with a platform to spread his lies and deceit a form of treason? Isn't allowing him to use our own airwaves to try and undermine our government's policy aiding the enemy?

Is it time to deport Peter Jennings?

I don't know where to begin!

Liberal bias in the media, first of all, is not well documented at all. Various people have opinions about it, but I'd love to see your documentation, perhaps in the liberal media thread which already exists.

Even if you are right, how could his interview be treasonous? Isn't this the United States of America?

There's nothing to debate here, because

1. There is already a thread about Media Bias.

2. The constitution allows for the freedom of the press. If you would like to debate that freedom, please say so.

I disagree. That is one of the advantages of Freedom of the Press.

I don't like the lies that the Iraqi VP spreads but if Peter Jennings wants to interview him, hey...why not?

Barbara Walters interviews Castro....that's not treason is it? She just wants a cool story: Interview one of the oldest dictators in International History

What threatens you about having both sides of a story? Are you afraid that people won't be able to listen to them both and be able to seperate facts from allegations and rhetoric? Granted, a lot of people can't. But not everyone is stupid. You can't have a government representative of the people if the people have no information in which to make decisions on. That is why the constitution thought it important enough specify there needs to be a free press.

Do you also support going into library's and banning books? Who are you or the government to decide what can be said, who can be heard, and what can be watched? I find it completely offensive that an American would be touting censorship especially regarding something as important as this country or any other going to war. We need facts not rhetoric or the opinion of Washington alone. In case you haven't notice, the people have not been sold on the need for war. If Bush can't convince us maybe the other side can. If they are such lying murderers let us hear what they are saying and see it for ourselves. Let us make up our own minds.

[QUOTE]

The difference is clear....we are not on the verge of war with Cuba.

[quote=Musing from the Middle,Feb 21 2003, 07:56 AM] [quote=goamerica,Feb 20 2003, 10:47 PM]

I don't like the lies that the Iraqi VP spreads but if Peter Jennings wants to interview him, hey...why not?

Barbara Walters interviews Castro....that's not treason is it? She just wants a cool story: Interview one of the oldest dictators in International History [/quote]
[QUOTE]

The difference is clear....we are not on the verge of war with Cuba. [/quote]
Not really. Even if we were in the middle of a war, the press would still have the constitutional right to interview an Iraqi official. It would not be treasonous. Not in the least. You may find it distasteful, and not watch it, but treason would never enter the picture, unless Peter Jennings or whomever were giving the guy military intelligence or some such.

The time for hearing both sides has long ended. The debate was held and a vote taken back in late 2002. Congress authorized the use of force.

For the media to use its power in an effort to undermine our government's policy in time of war is tantamount to treason...period.

This is not about freedom of the press. Would you say that Tokyo Rose was merely avowing herself of freedom of the press?

The Tokyo Rose situation is different than this one because she DID have access to intelligence information. I'm quite comfortable in guessing that Mr. Jennings does not.

The media has been used for a LONG time in this country to spread dissent against the government. Anyone remember that troublemaker Thomas Paine and his pamphlet, "Common Sense"?

Dissent IS the American way.

So would you rather then only have the opinions of those in your own country - surely it is important to get a balanced view of a situation ie - both sides of the story - its then down to you as an individual to decide who and what to believe.

I respectfully disagree.



I think the media (corporate anyway) has been a valuable mouthpiece for this administrations messages. Luckily, if our news won't give us all the information we can easily access it for ourselves from around the world thanks to the internet. At least for now. Only the reports that disagree with the Government are considered treason, is that right?



I think it's exactly about freedom of the press. As a matter of fact I don't think our press goes far enough in their duties at times.

I agree whole-heartedly. I want Bush investigated by the media for the rest of his Presidency in addition to his entire cabinet. Of course, this will never happen because of the conservative media. A long time ago, perhaps the media could have been considered liberal, however, in these times, media outlets have realized that there is more money to be made if they stick to the party line and never dissent. Dissent brings controversy and controversy makes sponsors advertise elsewhere.

I don't think it is treasonous at all. While I agree with you that there is a liberal bias in the media, I don't think this interview is an attempt to sabotage the war effort. Most Americans are intelligent enough to realize you can't trust much of what comes out of the regime in Iraq. Even those who are against the war admit that Saddam is a brutal tyrant.

This is nothing more than a chance for a good interview.

I would agree with you that members of the media were treasonous, if for example, detailed American plans for invasion had been leaked to the media, and they ran the story. Nothing like that has happened in this case.

Danya, you miss my point. I agree that the media needs to conduct in-depth investigations and to follow though with unbiased reports. No argument from me about that.

My point is that time has passed for debating this issue. Once the debate has been had and our government votes to use force, then it is our duty not to undermine that decision. Doing so is dangerous and only serves to enbolden the enemy. Saddam himself has said as much. He says all he has to do is buy more time to allow dissent to break down the coalition and the will of the US.

Why do you think he is buying time?

Putting your analysis to the test of world history I would have to disagree. For instance, what if the enemy isn't who our government says it is...but the government itself? I am not taking the position that this is presently the case. Only pointing out why as a rule this kind of thinking does not work.

We have a Constitutional right to correct power gone awry. Freedom of speech and press are an important tool for keeping power in check. The founders of the Constitution knew governments were notorious for becoming corrupt if given the chance or temptation to do so. History is full of cruel, irresponsible, or self serving leaders. Voting alone does not give voice to society. There are great temptations that come with excessive power and people should always be on guard against it rising up as it has before. There should be no fear of information, ideas, or opinions from a government that is acting in the best interest of it's people.

Our military is the strongest in the world. Freedom of expressing or hearing alternate opinions does not diminish our power; it only helps to ensure it's not abused.

Could you show me where in the first amendment it says there is a time limit on press freedom? What country do you think you're living in, Iraq?

Last evening, our present leadership took upon itself to manipulate the so-called liberal media to air a speech from our President. The promise was that we would get information about post-war Iraq.

Instead, we got a speech. Not a very good one at that. And delivered to a roomfull of loyal followers with lots of flags in the background.

This is the first time in all my 50 years that such a blatant manipulation of the free press has ever happened.

It was embarassing. Not for me--for Bush and all his believers. These folks made me feel like I was in some ME country watching government television.

No. Stop. Propaganda is not the way. Do press conferences. Do question/answer sessions. Do not preach to me, and don't you ever accuse the media of having a liberal bias. You got your free, preemptive air time. You abused your bully pulpit. I have other words for your type, but civility stops me at this point. You ought to be ashamed.

The President of your country wants to speak to the nation on the eve of war and you find something wrong with this? Maybe we should have just tuned out and waited for Rather's interview with Saddam?

Press conferences are being held all the time, by those whose job it is to answer questions for the administration. That's how it works. How it has always worked. Rep or dem administrations, peace or war time, conservative or liberal issues...works the same way.

A reaction likes yours says a lot about what you really feel about this country and it is disheartening to see.

I refrained from commenting earlier when you portrayed the anti-America rally you attended as a gathering of your average run-of-the-mill citizens. Coupled with your current rant though, it is clear where your loyalties lie.

The shame belongs to you.

MusingfromtheMiddle - you are coming awfully close to personally attacking AuthorMusician. Please refrain from that.

We are starting to stray from the original topic a bit -

Let's stay there. The president's speech could easily be a new debate if you all are interested in discussing it.

All I got to say is I agree.

And was it just me, or did Mr. Jennings look like he was a tad nervous? Maybe afraid of asking the wrong question and getting his head blown off?

Just to clarify, Hercules, those were not my words, they were MusingfromtheMiddle's. I was just reminding everyone of the original topic.

Jaime,

I take no offense from MusingMiddle. MM is right--my loyalties are to the Constitution of the United States, rule of law, and the truth about what the Bush administration is up to in the ME. Not to the Bush administration itself.

Sorry for inviting the subject drift. It was my slip.

I've only lived 44 years, and I have seen it many, many times. Where were you in the LBJ,Nixon,Ford,Carter,Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton eras?

hugo,

I was there, and the manipulations were sure there too. What struck me on this one was the technique used. I've never seen this before.

First, I start watching the 6 o'clock news. Then I got distracted, and Lydia asked if I was going to watch the President's speech. Speech? I should have heard about a speech a lot earlier. Oh, this one is preempting the news because a hot tip had been given that something really important would come out.

Then I learned that this speech wasn't your typical holy-mackeral-something-big-is-going-on type of speech. It was a speech being delivered to a conservative think tank, not the general public! Wow, now there's a precedent (pun intended) being set.

As the speech went on, I got angrier and angrier. This isn't anything like what the tip indicated! Nothing new was coming out. Hey, this is just one of those stupid political tricks, like illegally using parking meter socks so you can set up trucks painted with Republican campaign stuff outside polling places (this actually happened last election season).

No former president has ever done this to us. We, and the media, were played for fools. Upon waking up the next morning, I was Royally ticked. But now I'm over it and onward we go.

The thing about stupid political tricks is that they tend to work only once. Ha ha, joke's on us.

I respectfully disagree with you Musing from the Middle.

It is not the duty of a conscious, aware and patriotic citizen to meekly agree with whatever policy
the government hands down. Not if in that one individual's heart he or she feels the policy is wrong, flawed, dangerous, or whatever their moral objection is.

That is why we have people refuse to fight in a war due to their religious faith. That is why so many of us are worried and frightened by The Patriot Act (and here comes Patriot Act II). That is why civil disobedience and peaceful protest exemplifies the best of America (and yes, sometimes the worst as well).

Before putting over 200,000 American soldiers in harm's way, many citizens want to be darn sure it's for the right reason. The fact that so many are not persuaded by the Bush Administration even at this late date, speaks volumes in how poorly they have sold this war.

I've been skipping the news and reading alot. The last two books I've finished were about Jews that survived the Holocaust.

I suppose it was in the nations best interest that the German's who disagreed with the war just keep quiet and say nothing. Good thing this isn't Nazi Germany and we can speak our minds.