A difference between the left and the right this morning (re: London attacks)

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the way into work this morning. He had a circle-jerk going on spouting off about appeasing terrorists and liberals are bad and Bush's ass must be kissed. It was disgusting listening to them.

Then I flip to NPR and they're on the phone with an eyewitness and discussing the rescue operations. They were actually offering up news and no partisan punditry.

Is it shocking that a news program is reporting the news, while an opinion/commentary program is giving an opinion and commentary on the situation?


This is a complete shot in the dark, but i think the financial shows are going to concentrate on the financial impact this will have.

Morning Edition is not a financial show:

Hosts Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne in Washington and Stan Cook in Louisville deliver what you need to complete your morning routine. The Morning Edition team of reporters, analysts and commentators take you all over America and around the world to explain what's happened around the globe and what important stories will unfold as the day progresses. We also prepare you for your day with the latest local news, weather and traffic.

Thats great and wonderful, but I don't mention Morning Edition, so why are you bring it up?

 

[shrumpage]

edited: double post

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the way into work this morning. He had a circle-jerk going on spouting off about appeasing terrorists and liberals are bad and Bush's ass must be kissed. It was disgusting listening to them.

Then I flip to NPR and they're on the phone with an eyewitness and discussing the rescue operations. They were actually offering up news and no partisan punditry.

Is it shocking that a news program is reporting the news, while an opinion/commentary program is giving an opinion and commentary on the situation?


This is a complete shot in the dark, but i think the financial shows are going to concentrate on the financial impact this will have.

Morning Edition is not a financial show:

Hosts Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne in Washington and Stan Cook in Louisville deliver what you need to complete your morning routine. The Morning Edition team of reporters, analysts and commentators take you all over America and around the world to explain what's happened around the globe and what important stories will unfold as the day progresses. We also prepare you for your day with the latest local news, weather and traffic.

Thats great and wonderful, but I don't mention Morning Edition, so why are you bring it up?

Duh. That's the show that's on in the morning on my local NPR station.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the way into work this morning. He had a circle-jerk going on spouting off about appeasing terrorists and liberals are bad and Bush's ass must be kissed. It was disgusting listening to them.

Then I flip to NPR and they're on the phone with an eyewitness and discussing the rescue operations. They were actually offering up news and no partisan punditry.

Is it shocking that a news program is reporting the news, while an opinion/commentary program is giving an opinion and commentary on the situation?


This is a complete shot in the dark, but i think the financial shows are going to concentrate on the financial impact this will have.

Morning Edition is not a financial show:

Hosts Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne in Washington and Stan Cook in Louisville deliver what you need to complete your morning routine. The Morning Edition team of reporters, analysts and commentators take you all over America and around the world to explain what's happened around the globe and what important stories will unfold as the day progresses. We also prepare you for your day with the latest local news, weather and traffic.

Thats great and wonderful, but I don't mention Morning Edition, so why are you bring it up?

Duh. That's the show that's on in the morning on my local NPR station.

I'm glad NPR can carry a show like Morning Edition - but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

It is a news program, that reported the news, your panties got in a bunch because a opinion/commentary show was giving opinion and commentary.

Shows with thw word "Wall Street" in it are coing to be concerned with the affect such news will have on trading, stocks, etc. Is that a hard concept to get?

I did not say Morning Edition was a finical show.

So what was your point about posting:

Morning Edition is not a financial show:

BTW - Morning Edition comes on pretty early here - i just catch the local news, and sometimes Fresh Aire brefore going to work.

Yes, I listen to NPR.........regularlly.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the way into work this morning. He had a circle-jerk going on spouting off about appeasing terrorists and liberals are bad and Bush's ass must be kissed. It was disgusting listening to them.

Then I flip to NPR and they're on the phone with an eyewitness and discussing the rescue operations. They were actually offering up news and no partisan punditry.

Is it shocking that a news program is reporting the news, while an opinion/commentary program is giving an opinion and commentary on the situation?


This is a complete shot in the dark, but i think the financial shows are going to concentrate on the financial impact this will have.

Morning Edition is not a financial show:

Hosts Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne in Washington and Stan Cook in Louisville deliver what you need to complete your morning routine. The Morning Edition team of reporters, analysts and commentators take you all over America and around the world to explain what's happened around the globe and what important stories will unfold as the day progresses. We also prepare you for your day with the latest local news, weather and traffic.

Thats great and wonderful, but I don't mention Morning Edition, so why are you bring it up?

Duh. That's the show that's on in the morning on my local NPR station.

I'm glad NPR can carry a show like Morning Edition - but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

It is a news program, that reported the news, your panties got in a bunch because a opinion/commentary show was giving opinion and commentary.

Shows with thw word "Wall Street" in it are coing to be concerned with the affect such news will have on trading, stocks, etc. Is that a hard concept to get?

I did not say Morning Edition was a finical show.

So what was your point about posting:

Morning Edition is not a financial show:

BTW - Morning Edition comes on pretty early here - i just catch the local news, and sometimes Fresh Aire brefore going to work.

Yes, I listen to NPR.........regularlly.

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the way into work this morning. He had a circle-jerk going on spouting off about appeasing terrorists and liberals are bad and Bush's ass must be kissed. It was disgusting listening to them.

Then I flip to NPR and they're on the phone with an eyewitness and discussing the rescue operations. They were actually offering up news and no partisan punditry.

Is it shocking that a news program is reporting the news, while an opinion/commentary program is giving an opinion and commentary on the situation?


This is a complete shot in the dark, but i think the financial shows are going to concentrate on the financial impact this will have.

That bolded part doesn't say "financial shows"?

Interesting


Anyway, the point was to show that the right-wing talking heads were politicizing the tragedy. But, they weren't as bad as FAUX Spews:

The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: And he made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah.

and

"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News' Brit Hume, 7/7/05

so...right-wing commentary shows *and* news channels were politicizing and mocking the tragedy.

 

[shrumpage]

ok let me spell it out again -

shows concerned with money - will focus how it will effect money.

replace the word money with: financial, stocks, bonds, etc- your choice.

That is all I said - I did not say Morning Edtion was a finical show, did I?

btw - i excpet ESPN to deal with sports.

Since 9-11 the issue of terrorist for the United States has become bigger issue. Am I shocked that there are people in our country who want get a more worldwide support to stop such random bombings and killing? No. Is it politicizing an issue to state that world leaders are changing their agenda to deal with those issues, and such a change would help our interests. No - seems to fall under the term 'fact.'

You see conjur, world events can and do affect us and people stating how those events are either harmful or helpful to a particlar country isn't politicizing, its dealing with reality.

I'm sure with the WTC came down there a few leaders in the world where wondering how this will affect them, and their countries. Will it upset the markets? Will trade with the States go down? Will the U.S. take a more isolationist policies? All of those are valid question, and it would have been foolish if world leaders ignored them.

I expect countries to be concerned with their interests, just like i expect our country to be concerned with our interests. And when world events affect those interests, I expect people to take note, wonder, ponder, study, plan, and state how those events will affect us.

It would be foolish not to.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: zendari
The true difference between the right and left:

The right strengthens our terrorist policy and goes after the terrorists before these things can happen.

Like when?



Daily Show with John Stewart (June 22, 2004)
Interview with Stephen F Hayes
Author, ?The Connection: How Al Qaeda?s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America?
Senior writer, The Weekly Standard

Hayes: ?I think the idea behind the Bush doctrine is that if you support or harbor terrorist we are going to come after you. We?ll consider you a hostile regime. I don?t think that frankly in the aftermath of September 11? I really don?t think that?s an unreasonable doctrine.?

Stewart: ?But here?s the problem. It?s not unreasonable, but it?s not the point. The point is? I?ll list you four things: developing weapons of mass destruction, inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, supporting and harboring terrorism, and oppression of their own people.

?Now here?s the problem with your doctrine. You can?t tell me which country I just named. And that?s a problem when you?re talking about war.?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor


What are you gonna say as a liberal against the war aimed at trying to stop the people conducting these attacks? That they got what was coming to them? Riiight. That this is a tragedy and the people responsible need to be brought to justice? :roll:

Which is the part of the war that is aimed at stopping the attacks? The creation of martyrs or the inspiration of new recruits?

Like the notion that NPR is liberal, endless repetition of the claim does nothing to outweigh the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway, the point was to show that the right-wing talking heads were politicizing the tragedy. But, they weren't as bad as FAUX Spews:

The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: And he made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah.

and

"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News' Brit Hume, 7/7/05

so...right-wing commentary shows *and* news channels were politicizing and mocking the tragedy.

And FAUX just keeps on spewing their bigotry, ignorance, and hatred:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080002

GIBSON: By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?

How Varney, Kilmeade, Hume, and Gibson still have jobs is beyond me. If these had been left-wing pundits/news anchors, it would be headlines right below the bombing investigation.

Fvck these pricks! Send *these* asshats to Abu Ghraib!

 

[kogase]

Is there perhaps a site or study somewhere that can demonstrate the liberal bias from NPR? I have not been able to find any while listening to it myself, and none of the regular posters here have been able to provide me with any examples.

 

[conjur]

Here's yet another piece of work from that right-wing "news" channel:

Fox News contributing correspondent Simon Marks distinguished between Arabs and "regular" Londoners, in reporting on the scope of the attacks, as the weblog Daily Kos noted. From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 9 and 10 a.m. ET:

MARKS: "It is an area that has a very large Arab population. Surrounding that station, a large number of Middle Eastern restaurants. So, it's a further indication, if in fact these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda-affiliated cells, that these people are, if necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London."