yeah Roy…its pretty entertaining!;0)
Goldberg - is this a lie?:
Slater: “Governor, were you ever arrested after 1968?”
Bush: “No.”
–From Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Criticize the source if you must, but the above quote is taken directly from an interview Bush did with Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News before his drunk driving arrest had been released. He was arrested in '76. I post this as an example of a clear cut LIE!
In response to the continued mention of the liberal media, I offer these study findings, also reported in the aforementioned Franken book, but conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism:
“Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush” (Media coverage for each candidate during the 2000 campaigns:
Positive Ads: Gore-13% Bush-24%
Neutral Ads: Gore-31% Bush-27%
Negative Ads: Gore-56% Bush-49%
And I’ll remind you, despite this media slant to the right, more people voted for Al Gore than they did for GWBush.
I’m not from Florida, I just live here and notice that things are different. Right down to the traffic lights. Control freaks, no doubt.
Roger and Me was good. Now days he’s a douche. He wants to make money and be a big progressive culture hero and he’s good at it. Peter Jackson made Dead Alive. Dude that movie was awesome. Ted Kennedy is a cocksucker. He should have been killed in prison years ago. White Pride.
Lucid wrote:
" and the Day after Tomorrow is factually impossible. "
dude, the makers of the movie said themselves it is impossible. I watched it with my own 2 eyes on one of the news networks- I watch them all and cant remember which one. I repeat THE MAKERS OF THE MOVIE SAID IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
Now dont you feel a little silly?
Lumpy,
Positive Ads: Gore-13% Bush-24%
Neutral Ads: Gore-31% Bush-27%
Negative Ads: Gore-56% Bush-49%
Pay attention. These are ads. Ads are paid for by political parties, groups, etc. to get their message across. These are not representations of journalistic coverage, merely a count of ads placed in an open advertising space available on networks. This is a poor indicator as to whether the media prefers one candidate over another.
As to the reporting, if a journalistic piece examines Gore?s poor performance in a debate, is that positive coverage or negative coverage? It?s neither. Reporting that Al Gore sucked in a debate is not an endorsement of George Bush. It?s a report. Bias surely creeps in a bit, but the reporting I watch on television is largely neutral from all networks (if it wasn?t, it?d be committing financial suicide).
?There are a whole slew of people covering this story, but not the so-called Elite Liberal Media (maybe they’re not as liberal as you think).?
Or, perhaps they actually prefer to stick to credible stories with credible resources. If all this conspiracy was true, would it not be the greatest scoop of the century, perhaps the greatest newsbreak since Watergate? Journalists would slobbering over themselves at such a dramatic story. Oh, and to show you a more current view of those who call themselves journalists:
?At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184
Now just imagine that this group of professionals, assuredly no fans or friends of the President, suppressing a story about spooky relationships with the Saudis in order to give Bush a hand at re-election. Your navel-gazing conspiracies just don?t add up.
Rep. Kennedy pans Moore film editing
Kevin Diaz, Bureau Correspondent
June 4, 2004 KENN0604
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
“I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face,” said the Minnesota Republican. “He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror.”
Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.
But to Kennedy’s annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).
“The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words,” Kennedy said. “It’s representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole story, and he’s a master of the misleading.”
A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.
A transcript released by the film’s producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that “there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq.” He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others “to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.”
Kennedy replies, “I’d be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.”
To which Moore replies: “I appreciate it.”
Politics interst me, and I would liek to see this film. Does that make me a liberal or “anti-American.” Of course not.
I see Mike as the Anti-Limbaugh. I’m sure if you mixed the two together, you would get some sort of explosion! 
Now Jeff, THAT is funny! Rush should invite him to be a guest on his show some time. his show would break all ratings records on that day!
And about Prescott Bush’s alleged Nazi ties.
Upon review of the holdings and the enactment of the Trading Act, it was no more than a divestiture of assets.
I had a mutual fund that held Enron as a holding - am I complicit in their criminal activities?
The Anti-Defamation League is convinced Prescott Bush was no Nazi sympathizer.
Btw, Franz Thyssen, a Bush colleague and anti-Communist German industrialist whose realtionship spawned all this nonsense, was imprisoned by Nazi Germany in the early 1940’s.
No charges were ever filed against the US investment bank’s directors - so much for criminal activity.
As usual, the lemmings follow the latest internet conspiracy fad right off the cliff of sober investigation and common sense.
Yes, I suppose Michael Moore has won in a way, because I know who he is. The only other propagandist on this scale that I know by name is Joseph Goebbels, who also tried to to pass off his films as “documentaries” despite their lack of fact. Not a good person to be associated with.
On to media bias – anyone catch the study that came out yesterday that found that 7% of national newspeople were conservative?
Here’s a story from when my best friend interned at NPR’s national news desk outside of Washington DC. Every week, his managing newsroom editor would seat the entire staff around the table, and say (this is a direct quote): “OK, how can we screw the Republicans today?” This was not an editorial staff, by the way, this was the NEWS room editor.
This happened once a week, all summer. I don’t know, does this make you re-think anything? I can’t possibly think of a closer source than that.
Regardless of whether you believe me or not, it happened.
I don’t buy any kind of conspiracy thing, but having been a journalism major in college I am not surprised that the majority of national journalists are liberal. Why would a conservative try to get a job as a reporter at NPR, or ABC, or CBS? Why put yourself through that day in and day out? More might be thinking about it now though with the dominance of Fox News…
Da Man - it seems that your post agrees with your exerpt of Lucid’s. Am I missing something? - Why should he feel silly?
If anyone has any doubt about the liberal bias of the media, businessweek has a BRILLIANT little article this week on a study done by a U of Chi and U of Cal professor. If anyone has a subscribtion they should post the article here.
Pansy
I really did not think liberal bias existed, but… now after reading your story about your friend, well mine eyes have seen the light! Dude do you really think stories like that can’t be told from the Weekly Standard, from the offices of Fox news. I hate when somebody gives a pissy little example like that and expects everybody to act like it was some big revelation.
Elk
"Positive Ads: Gore-13% Bush-24%
Neutral Ads: Gore-31% Bush-27%
Negative Ads: Gore-56% Bush-49%
Pay attention. These are ads. Ads are paid for by political parties, groups, etc. to get their message across. These are not representations of journalistic coverage, merely a count of ads placed in an open advertising space available on networks. This is a poor indicator as to whether the media prefers one candidate over another."
–>This is my fault. Ads is the wrong word and is not used in the piece I cited it from (I added it in place of nothing, by mistake). Those numbers do not consider advertisements, but media coverage. Sorry for the mistake, I realize it was a big mistake.
But I’m curious as to how you now respond?
And, I’m Right Side Up, not Lumpy.
Elk,
Did you know that every single news story that Fox puts out, costs George H.W. Bush another million dollars? I mean, he has to bribe all of them for actually reporting the news. No more liberal filter is a very expensive process. Can you imagine if he bribed NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, CNN, The New York TImes? My God, man his debts from paying off all of our Iraqi supporters, every single George Bush voter, his continuing support for Yale and Harvard (wink, wink we know how George got his grades), paying off the military for planting WMD shells in Iraq, paying off all of those Texas voters for electing him twice, paying off Tony Blair for supporting the War in Iraq, don’t forget bribing the Polish National Congress, he damn near bribed the Turks into sending ground troops (but he didn’t count on the fact that they have over 430 congressmen), don’t forget paying off Halliburton for exploiting Iraq’s oil. Can you imagine what kind of debt he must incur?
Jeff
P.S. His debt to me alone could launch the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush (which, incidentally, he also paid for)
Hey Elk,
Every hey Daniel Shore on NPR?
Case made. Democrats are hypocrites.
Jeff
P.S. George H.W. Bush has now started bribing Daniel Shore. From now on, his editorials will be strictly neutral. Can you imagine the price?
Sorry RSU, got mixed up.
My response echoes what I said earlier - what is negative coverage?
Take Al Gore’s debate performances in 2000. They were generally bad. That’s non-partisan; he didn’t do well, especially considering how good of a reputation he had for extemporaneous debating (witness how he thrashed Bill Bradley in the Democratic primaries - Gore was sharp as hell).
If a network reports Al Gore did poorly, is that negative coverage? No. If the news reports Bush has DUI on his record, is that negative coverage? No. Most coverage avoids making value judgments like that, because then it’s not reporting.
I’d have to read the report to better understand it (if you shoot me a link, I’ll review it), but I suspect the definitions of ‘coverage’ are not good. If they are referring to editorials, then that’s a different matter, but that’s not the same as journalistic coverage.
Rep. Kennedy pans Michael Moore film editing
Kevin Diaz, Bureau Correspondent
June 4, 2004 KENN0604
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
“I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face,” said the Minnesota Republican. “He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror.”
Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.
But to Kennedy’s annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).
“The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words,” Kennedy said. “It’s representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole story, and he’s a master of the misleading.”
A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.
A transcript released by the film’s producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that “there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq.” He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others “to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.”
Kennedy replies, “I’d be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.”
To which Moore replies: “I appreciate it.”
Ray Brabudy in an interview of Michael Moore
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/06/02.html#a5394
Ray Bradbury: “Michael Moore is an asshole”
Michael Moore stole the title to his fictuous documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” from author Ray Bradbury (picture), who in 1953 wrote his dystopic scifi classic “Fahrenheit 451.” So what does Ray Bradbury, now 84 years old, think about Moore using his book title for his Bush-bashing movie project?
The answer is, as journalists in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter found out when they called the author, that he is mighty pissed off. Here’s my translation of the juicier bits of the interview.
"Michael Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case. He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission.
Have you spoken to him?
- He is a horrible human being. Horrible human!
That Ray Bradbury thought Moore could take his Palme d'Or from Cannes and stuff it was extremely clear, even if he never expressed himself with those words, when DN reached the author in his home in Los Angeles. [...]
Do you disagree with his opinions...
-That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title, that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions.
Bradbury said that he had tried to discuss the issue with Moore, but that the director avoided him.
- I called his publisher. They promised he would call me the same afternoon, but he didn't.
When was that?
- A few months ago, when his plans about the movie was first made known.
The conversation touched politics when Bradbury mentioned that Moore had ruined general Wesley Clark's chances to become the democrat's presidential candidate. Like several American commentators Bradbury means that Moore's support to Clark was a kiss of death when Clark did not distance himself from Moore's claim that Bush deserted from his military service.
- He slandered the president to general Clark, and Clark allowed him to do it. Clark should have said: "Don't say that. It is not true." That day Clark lost his chance to become president.
I understand. And you supported general Clark?
- No. I support honesty.
According to Bradbury others have asked him about Moore's use of his title, but "I don't want to make a big story out of it."
- I detest all paparazzi journalism that is so common these days. If I just could make him change his title silently, that would be the best thing.
Do you think that is possible, I mean the movie is very famous under that title now?
- Who cares? Nobody will see his movie, it is almost dead already. Nevermind, nobody cares.
But it won the Palme d'Or in Cannes?
- So what? I have won prizes in different places and they are mostly meaningless. The people there hate us, which is why they gave him the d'Or. It's a meaningless prize.
Ray Bradbury was very clear that he considered Moore a dishonest thief, but refused to answer if he would press charges in any way.