OMG! MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell is a big fat liar!

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, their senior international correspondent (or something to that effect) was just reporting on the US search for Iraq's WMD program. To paraphrase what she just "reported", she said that the US efforts would have more credibility if non-Coalition experts were allowed to test for the presence of WMD. She then said that the US wanted no part for its critics in Europe and elsewhere.

LIE!

The implication in her statement, which is well crafted to not explicitly say it, is that the US will exclude foreign experts from testing any possible WMD samples found. However:

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has stressed that any substances or weapons found to be containing banned agents will be tested not only by U.S. weapons experts, but by others across the globe to be sure of the results." From story regarding one of recent WMD site exploitations.

No, there's no media bias...
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
heh, i heard that and i thought the same thing. she threw in the UN part talking about government. I bet we'll get the UN inspectors in there as soon as it's safe enough to conduct.
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
They, the elite media, just can't stand the fact that this war of self defense and liberation is going better than anybody could have dreamed and that the administration may get some credit for it.

Where were the nattering naybobs of negativsm when their golden boy was bombing kosovo. The silence was deafening.
Don't get me wrong. I think what Clinton did in Kosovo was neccesary. The coverage of the two like events has been like night and day.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, their senior international correspondent (or something to that effect) was just reporting on the US search for Iraq's WMD program. To paraphrase what she just "reported", she said that the US efforts would have more credibility if non-Coalition experts were allowed to test for the presence of WMD. She then said that the US wanted no part for its critics in Europe and elsewhere.

LIE!

The implication in her statement, which is well crafted to not explicitly say it, is that the US will exclude foreign experts from testing any possible WMD samples found. However:

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has stressed that any substances or weapons found to be containing banned agents will be tested not only by U.S. weapons experts, but by others across the globe to be sure of the results." From story regarding one of recent WMD site exploitations.

No, there's no media bias...

You do know MSNBC had Joe something (GOP congressman) on yesterday as a host (by himself) of a NEWS show. The guy spent the whole hour gleefully bashing liberals and democrats.
So yes, there is media bias, but it's the other way around. MSNBC is so pathetic, they are trying desperately to outfox Fox by going even more rightwing.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You do know MSNBC had Joe something (GOP congressman) on yesterday as a host (by himself) of a NEWS show. The guy spent the whole hour gleefully bashing liberals and democrats.

Joe Scarborough. His show isn't "news", it's basically an on-air editorial...unlike Andrea Mitchell who apparently only to pretends to be reporting the news.

Think of Scarborough as the antithesis of Geraldo Rivera who expressed his love and support for Bubba every night during the whole Lewinsky saga.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
He wasn't editorializing. He was reporting news. And then all of the sudden he goes off on this rant about how liberals aren't supporting the war etc etc. If it's an editorial, they should have made that clear, but it didn't even identify on the nametag that this guy is a GOP congressman, and only once did I hear mention that he was a congressman at all.
And how can an unbiased news source give a GOP congressman a whole hour to "editorialize" without any opposing opinion expressed at all. He didn't even invite anyone to offer an opposing point of view, just a bunch of "yes" men. How can you say that a network that lets a congressman say his partizan drivel for a whole hour is liberal biased?
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He wasn't editorializing. He was reporting news.

Absolutely false. He is no different than Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman...the latter you might remember compared Ken Starr to Heinrich Himmler. Was that "news"? To quote from MSNBC regarding Scarborough's program: "providing on-air commentary and analysis, and his nightly ?Real Deal.?"


 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: SuperTool but it didn't even identify on the nametag that this guy is a GOP congressman, and only once did I hear mention that he was a congressman at all.

Chris Matthews was a speechwriter for Carter and an aide to Tip O?Neill. Does he need to mention that on every show?

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
the latter you might remember compared Ken Starr to Heinrich Himmler.
There's a slight similarity in appearance and they were both Lapdogs of Fanatical Parties but that's about it.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
"Asking if the media is Liberal or Conservative biased is like asking if Al Queada uses too much oil in their hummus."

-Al Franken
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He wasn't editorializing. He was reporting news.

Absolutely false. He is no different than Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman...the latter you might remember compared Ken Starr to Heinrich Himmler. Was that "news"? To quote from MSNBC regarding Scarborough's program: "providing on-air commentary and analysis, and his nightly ?Real Deal.?"

I never heard of Keith Olberman. Who is that?
But the point is that this guy is a recent congressman, who is sitting there not opining, but pushing the GOP line without deviation and without any opposing viewpoints. It's basically a 1 hour GOP ad, Dubya lovefest and a campaign appearance all rolled into one.
To say MSNBC is left biased is absurd. Is GE left biased? Is Microsoft left biased, after Dubya let them off the hook? Why would a news channel wholly owned by these two companies be left biased?
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
While I cannot say this incident was an epiphany for me, it was striking because I had just finished reading the article I linked to when I went downstairs and turned the TV on. This really just doesn't matter with regard to a liberal bias as it's more about journalistic integrity (there's an oxymoron), and the requirement to broadcast something remotely resembling the truth. While it was only one statement, it was the end of her piece and therefore was the point which any listener would most likely remember -- "Damn, I can't believe the administration won't allow foreign scientists to test the WMD we find."

Here's a question though: Has there EVER been unbiased reporting in any medium? People point to the foreign press as being unbiased, but as regular reader of both BBC and Le Monde, I can attest that they have their own, albeit different, axes to grind. Do they teach ethics in journalism school?
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
Yeah MSNBC is definately gaining a conservative bias overall. Corporate profits are much more important these days.....then is integrity.

And the American public loves to watch people who like to bash other people......henceforth the huge popularity with conservative mediums.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
While I cannot say this incident was an epiphany for me, it was striking because I had just finished reading the article I linked to when I went downstairs and turned the TV on. This really just doesn't matter with regard to a liberal bias as it's more about journalistic integrity (there's an oxymoron), and the requirement to broadcast something remotely resembling the truth. While it was only one statement, it was the end of her piece and therefore was the point which any listener would most likely remember -- "Damn, I can't believe the administration won't allow foreign scientists to test the WMD we find."

Here's a question though: Has there EVER been unbiased reporting in any medium? People point to the foreign press as being unbiased, but as regular reader of both BBC and Le Monde, I can attest that they have their own, albeit different, axes to grind. Do they teach ethics in journalism school?

All media is biased. Everyone is. But amongst those, there are those who claim to be "fair and balanced" and "independent"
Those in addition to being biased are also hypocrites.
 

BaDaBooM

Golden Member
May 3, 2000
1,077
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: AndrewR
While I cannot say this incident was an epiphany for me, it was striking because I had just finished reading the article I linked to when I went downstairs and turned the TV on. This really just doesn't matter with regard to a liberal bias as it's more about journalistic integrity (there's an oxymoron), and the requirement to broadcast something remotely resembling the truth. While it was only one statement, it was the end of her piece and therefore was the point which any listener would most likely remember -- "Damn, I can't believe the administration won't allow foreign scientists to test the WMD we find."

Here's a question though: Has there EVER been unbiased reporting in any medium? People point to the foreign press as being unbiased, but as regular reader of both BBC and Le Monde, I can attest that they have their own, albeit different, axes to grind. Do they teach ethics in journalism school?

All media is biased. Everyone is. But amongst those, there are those who claim to be "fair and balanced" and "independent"
Those in addition to being biased are also hypocrites.

Actually being "fair and balanced" and "independent" are completely different than not having bias.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: BaDaBooM


Actually being "fair and balanced" and "independent" are completely different than not having bias.

If you say you're "fair and balanced", that would mean that you present both sides equally, not favoring one over the other, not having bias.
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
If you say you're "fair and balanced", that would mean that you present both sides equally, not favoring one over the other, not having bias.
No, fair and balanced means you tell the viewer the facts then let them decide what they will about it.
Most of what people complain about on these channels are opinion or debate shows like O'Reilly and Hannity/Combs.
The straight news that Fox and MSNBC do before primetime is for the most part just that, news.
Is Microsoft left biased
Decidedly so. Paul Allen is one of the biggest pinkos in the country.
Gates gives to quite a few groups who would be considered bent left just to look chic and trendy.
It's usually what happens when geeks who formerly couldn't get a date end up with a lot of money.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Tiger


Gates gives to quite a few groups who would be considered bent left just to look chic and trendy.
It's usually what happens when geeks who formerly couldn't get a date end up with a lot of money.
And you can support this notion how?

 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Tiger
If you say you're "fair and balanced", that would mean that you present both sides equally, not favoring one over the other, not having bias.
No, fair and balanced means you tell the viewer the facts then let them decide what they will about it.
Most of what people complain about on these channels are opinion or debate shows like O'Reilly and Hannity/Combs.
The straight news that Fox and MSNBC do before primetime is for the most part just that, news.

No it's not, it's not even close. Look at what stories they cover, look at the tone they take, look at what guests they have on. On Fox the slant, even in it?s straight news segments, is decidedly conservative. I can't speak for MSNBC because I don't watch it, but Fox isn't even close to being fair and balanced. They would have to take 5 steps to the left to even be considered moderate.