Leftist media get it wrong again

[dphantom]

Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

Why is it when Bush makes up stories, tens of thousands of human beings have their lights permanently shut off?

When will this stop?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

You do know that the Newsweek blurb was by Isikoff right? And you do know that Isikoff was nothing more than a transcriber for every claim against Clinton right?

 

[irwincur]

You do know that the Newsweek blurb was by Isikoff right? And you do know that Isikoff was nothing more than a transcriber for every claim against Clinton right?

You do know that the editors at Newsweek would not allow Isikoff to run with the Lewinsky story - having it grabbed by Druge. Why? They needed more sources before they were comfortable running a potentially damaging story. In short: it broke their hearts to have to bust Clinton, so they waited as long as they could.

Fast forward a few years. The editors had no problem running this story with one less than trustworthy source. In short: they will take anything to beat up on Bush, the military, and America in general.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

Where is your outrage over the months of saturation coverage spreading disinformation, distortions, and often outright lies against Iraq by the so-called "liberal" media? Even your Op-Ed is a pro-Bush distortion of the real truth.

 

[Infohawk]

What part of this isn't a repost?

It's not even clear to me Newsweek had it wrong. Human rights orgs still have reports of this happening. NOt to mention it's hard to get outraged with all the 100% wrongs this admin. has done.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

Why is it when Bush makes up stories, tens of thousands of human beings have their lights permanently shut off?

When will this stop?

What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

Unfortunately, no democrat ever had the courage of his/her convictions to actually do what they said they would. Bush did to his great credit.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: irwincur

You do know that the Newsweek blurb was by Isikoff right? And you do know that Isikoff was nothing more than a transcriber for every claim against Clinton right?

You do know that the editors at Newsweek would not allow Isikoff to run with the Lewinsky story - having it grabbed by Druge. Why? They needed more sources before they were comfortable running a potentially damaging story.

Yes I do.

In short: it broke their hearts to have to bust Clinton, so they waited as long as they could.

Bullshit. There was not a media organization that held back one iota when it came to throwing out accusations against both Clintons and later on Gore and Kerry.

Fast forward a few years. The editors had no problem running this story with one less than trustworthy source.

Oh please stories about desecration of the Koran and abuse at Gitmo have been out there for almost two years. Isikoff hears about a story, confirms it from a source that has been right in the past and uses it in a short paragraph blurb. Not to mention when they went to the Pentagon for comment, there was no denial.

In short: they will take anything to beat up on Bush, the military, and America in general.

Bush has gotten a free pass compared to his predecessor or any of his opponents. The media has played right along with every lie, half-truth, and distortion thrown out there. And the few times that they have actually done there jobs properly, people like you scream "LIBERAL MEDIA'.


Yes I do.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

Why is it when Bush makes up stories, tens of thousands of human beings have their lights permanently shut off?

When will this stop?

What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: dphantom
What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

I find it interesting that you fault the source in one case, and the messenger in another case.

 

[Last Rezort]

Im sorry but Newsweek is has not been the only news org. that has reported on this topic.
There have been tons of scorces that colab with the newsweek story, but of course you dont care. on another thread, conjur provided like 7 links, look around. More and more stories of abuse come out of iraq and afganistan every day, but nooooooo, all lies hu?
Its ok that bush lied, he did, because he blames it on bad intel. when the newspapers say somthing that might have been from bad intel its the "leftist" conspiracy.

Ze germanz are commin!

 

[Last Rezort]

Wait, im sorry but when did newsweek become the leftist media outlet?

 

[Darkhawk28]

You do know that Newsweek cleared that story through the White House and the Pentagon and they didn't have a problem with it.

 

[Last Rezort]

The repugs dont care about if its true or if its wrong, only it it is right.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

Why is it when Bush makes up stories, tens of thousands of human beings have their lights permanently shut off?

Heh. Exactly. Perfect and sooooo true. Boom.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why is it that when a Republican President advances an agenda that the major media elite disagree with, these media types will seemingly go to any end to disrupt, distrot or otherwise sabotage an agenda to which they disagree. Even if it means false reporting or makeing up stories, when will this stop?

Editorial on Newsweek

Where is your outrage over the months of saturation coverage spreading disinformation, distortions, and often outright lies against Iraq by the so-called "liberal" media? Even your Op-Ed is a pro-Bush distortion of the real truth.

:thumbsup: Preach it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dphantom
What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

Links for your preposterous claims? And don't show me quotes from 1998.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: dphantom
What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

I can't believe that there are still people who haven't read this thread.

If it wasn't so old, I'd request a sticky for it. All I can do though is keep it bookmarked so I can easily show people where to find it.

Isn't it amusing that we still have apologists who say things like:
[*] "What stories?"
[*] "What lies?"
[*] "The Dems voted for it, too."
[*] "There was absolutely NO intel saying otherwise. Everything we had said he had them."

Here is a little snippet from that thread...
"Such statements had an impact on members of Congress. For example, Senator Bill
Nelson voted for the Iraq war resolution ?precisely because of the
administration?s UAV evidence.? He explained:

I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction] and
that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles,
but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq
and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting
them on ships off the eastern seaboard. . . . I thought there was an
imminent threat."

Now,if I'm correct, not everyone who voted for this resolution had access to the intel. They had to rely on what they were told.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: dphantom
What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

I find it interesting that you fault the source in one case, and the messenger in another case.

:thumbsup:

 

[glenn1]

major media liberal bias or an agenda???

Neither. There are plenty of news sources out there covering all possible points of the political spectrum, you're singling out one as if to make it universally applicable to the media. Calling it the "major media" is simply a right-wing code word used to disparage news stories they don't like. The conservatives are attempting to make "mainstream media" into a slur like they did with the word "liberal" or the democrats are attempting to do with "neo-conservative."

 

[Darkhawk28]

Bottom line is that the media is looking at the bottom line. News has become a business and that's it. The large corporations want canned and prepackaged news or news that is easy to digest and easy to report. The laziness in the media is what is killing the industry.

 

[MAW1082]

The mass media certainly does not have a leftist bias; however, it most certainly does have a pro-corporate bias.

This can be explained with the following logic.

1. The mass media is owned by large mulit-national corporations.

2. By definition, the sole purpose of corporations is to create profit for owners and shar holders.

3. The mass media is subservient to these large corporations, thus the sole goal of the mass media is to create profits for the owners and share holders of their parent companies.

Do you care to challenge this? I didn't think so . . .

If you see any element of truth coming from the mouths of any of the major media outlets it is because they would lose credibility and ratings if they did not. If these media outlets can get away with manipulating facts I can guarantee you that they would manipulate the data in a way that is benefecial to their parent companies.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: irwincur

You do know that the Newsweek blurb was by Isikoff right? And you do know that Isikoff was nothing more than a transcriber for every claim against Clinton right?

You do know that the editors at Newsweek would not allow Isikoff to run with the Lewinsky story - having it grabbed by Druge. Why? They needed more sources before they were comfortable running a potentially damaging story. In short: it broke their hearts to have to bust Clinton, so they waited as long as they could.

Fast forward a few years. The editors had no problem running this story with one less than trustworthy source. In short: they will take anything to beat up on Bush, the military, and America in general.

the other difference is that this is actually relevent to something.

Originally posted by: Last Rezort
Wait, im sorry but when did newsweek become the leftist media outlet?

i was thinking the same thing.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dphantom
What stories did Bush make up? If you are referring to the lack of WMD in Iraq, many other intel agencies, the Clinton administration including Senators from his own party stood up and said Saddam was a threat and had to go.

Links for your preposterous claims? And don't show me quotes from 1998.

Here you go.

Quotes

Want more??

 

[dphantom]

Ze germanz are commin![/quote]

They're already her. Look in the mirror.