(OT) The fox hunt
 

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:43:51 -0400, JohnH wrote:


******************************************** To me, this was pretty good
news. It showed the Iraqi police doing something besides running scared. I
looked for the story on the other major networks and could find nothing. I
found nothing in the Washington Post.

No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news
should be somewhat upsetting.

The story was carried, but not widely. I read it on the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3890473.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-arrests_x.htm

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1087373703017

(OT) The fox hunt
 

(OT) The fox hunt
 

Chuck, have you seen this story on any news other than Fox? The paste is from
Al
Jazeera:

Well, there you go. Fox and Al Jazeera.
That's two, right off the bat. Al Jazeera isn't exactly pro Bush, is it? :-)


No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news
should
be somewhat upsetting.


John H

Surely you don't believe that every major news source must report everything
that goes on, anywhere in the world, every day?

Even your beloved Fox doesn't do that. There's a big wide world out there that
goes well beyond the latest pro-Bush rally and sunshine reports from "Our
Historic Triumph in Iraq".

(OT) The fox hunt
 

JohnH wrote:

On 14 Jul 2004 19:55:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, have you seen this story on any news other than Fox? The paste is from
Al
Jazeera:

Well, there you go. Fox and Al Jazeera.
That's two, right off the bat. Al Jazeera isn't exactly pro Bush, is it? :-)


No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news
should
be somewhat upsetting.


John H

Surely you don't believe that every major news source must report everything
that goes on, anywhere in the world, every day?

Even your beloved Fox doesn't do that. There's a big wide world out there that
goes well beyond the latest pro-Bush rally and sunshine reports from "Our
Historic Triumph in Iraq".


Check out thunder's post, Chuck. Seems that some other sources are carrying it.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


And "some other sources" don't carry news items that appear
elsewhere...so what's your point?

(OT) The fox hunt
 

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:13:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:




The difference is that liberals deny that the mainstream news has any
bias. Conservatives, rather than deny it, acknowledge it, and offer
their counter perspective to provide balance.

Dave


How wonderful it must be for you, Dave,to go through life as
Simple-Minded Simon.


I take it then that you disagree? Surely someone who tries to pass
himself off as a thinking intellectual could come up with a better
rebuttal than an ad-hominem attack?

Dave

(OT) The fox hunt
 

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:22:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

...a group of people who's... interesting.
...who's idealogue... interesting.
...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
...a group...their agendas... interesting.
...a group...suddenly have... interesting.
...other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I
type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my
full attention to grammatical detail.

Dave



Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or
ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue
and ideologue.

And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects
and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems.

A group of people whose
whose idealogy
whose idealogy has been infiltrating
a group...its agenda
a group ....suddenly has...
other side...in its own...

Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would
have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F.

I doubt that you ever taught English. You reasoning is haphazard and
weak. There is no issue with my verbiage, even if I occasionally make
small spelling errors. You logic is flawed, your debate skills
non-existant. I'd have given you an F....

Dave

(OT) The fox hunt
 

On 14 Jul 2004 16:13:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The difference is that liberals deny that the mainstream news has any
bias. Conservatives, rather than deny it, acknowledge it, and offer
their counter perspective to provide balance.

Dave

You should try to avoid repeating "talking points", they demean your argument.

Not if those talking points are the truth.

Many of your right wing news outlets *are* the mainstream media. Check the
ratings.

It's true that for a period of time, Fox News was at the top of the
heap as far as ratings. I am unaware of any other major media outlet
that has been identified with a conservative slant. The "big 3" (CBS,
NBC, ABC) as well as CNN, are all leaning to the left to some degree,
some more than others. This is well documented, from many sources.

Did you know that there are entire communities in the US where every local
radio station, as well as the local newspaper, are owned by Clear Channel?

So you allege that Clear Channel is conservative biased in their news
reporting? Last time I checked, Clear Channel does not run TV
stations.

Excusing the blatant spin and emotionally
charged propaganda with "we're the little underdogs and we need to rely on
these techniques to get our message noticed in the face of the onslaught from
the mainstream media", is preposterous.

The truth is that the conservative voice in the media is only now
beginning to exert any real influence. For many years, liberals have
infiltrated those positions of mass media and education, so that they
could be in the position to "color" the judgements of the population
of this country. It's worked too, to some degree, as evidence by the
sheer number of people who now question each and every bit of the
Iraq war, including tactics that would never have been given a second
thought during WWII.

The outcry against Fox News, is little more than a blatantly obvious
attempt to cry "foul" by those same liberals who have been operating
by similarly biased principles for years. I'd find it comical, if it
weren't so pathetic.


Dave

(OT) The fox hunt
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:22:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

...a group of people who's... interesting.
...who's idealogue... interesting.
...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
...a group...their agendas... interesting.
...a group...suddenly have... interesting.
...other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I
type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my
full attention to grammatical detail.

Dave



Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or
ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue
and ideologue.

And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects
and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems.

A group of people whose
whose idealogy
whose idealogy has been infiltrating
a group...its agenda
a group ....suddenly has...
other side...in its own...

Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would
have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F.

I doubt that you ever taught English. You reasoning is haphazard and
weak. There is no issue with my verbiage, even if I occasionally make
small spelling errors. You logic is flawed, your debate skills
non-existant. I'd have given you an F....

Dave



"You reasoning," eh? Thank you.

(OT) The fox hunt
 

On 14 Jul 2004 19:55:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, have you seen this story on any news other than Fox? The paste is from
Al
Jazeera:

Well, there you go. Fox and Al Jazeera.
That's two, right off the bat. Al Jazeera isn't exactly pro Bush, is it? :-)


No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news
should
be somewhat upsetting.


John H

Surely you don't believe that every major news source must report everything
that goes on, anywhere in the world, every day?

Even your beloved Fox doesn't do that. There's a big wide world out there that
goes well beyond the latest pro-Bush rally and sunshine reports from "Our
Historic Triumph in Iraq".


But this example underscores the rationale behind the selective
sorting of the news and which stories to run. Those services which
lean to the left consistently run stories of soldier deaths, tactical
issues, insurgent uprisings, and any other item which gives the
impression that the occupation of Iraq is not going very well. There
are many positive stories as well, but other than Fox, you'd have to
go to an international news service to see them.

Sort of the same bias which showcases John Kerry's "brave" military
service, but fails to cover the story of the men (both fellow soldiers
and commanders) who served with Kerry, and who feel that he's stabbed
his fellow servicemen in the back, and who's actions immediately after
the war define him as someone who should not be in charge of the
military.

http://swiftboatsbrotherhood.com/

http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/

Now you might be quick to dismiss this as exaggerated propaganda and
smear, but there is enough of these similar accounts that it surely
deserves a closer look, but not one of the news media outlets are
taking the baton. Yet these same news outlets are STILL beating the
dead horse over Bush's military records. If this is not enough to
convince you that if not outright bias, that a clear double standard
exists, I don't know what will.


Dave

(OT) The fox hunt
 

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:15:39 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

As a Democrat, for example, I frequently am annoyed by the toughness
with which Kerry is treated by the general media, and the relatively
free ride Bush gets, no matter what he says or does. As an example, Bush
should have been excoriated by the editorial writers and commentators
for his gay bashing (over the definition of marriage bull****) via
Congress while the country is facing so many serious problems. But, for
the most part, he hasn't been. The tight-wing outlets, on the other
hand, have been jumping up and down in their praise for Bush (and in
news reports, not just commentary) on this issue.

That's funny, I see totally the opposite. The CNN reporter yesterday
just could say it enough times that the republicans have failed to
make the votes to pass the change.

And, as another for instance, why is the liberal press still trying to
make hay out of Bush's irrelevant military records, while Kerry's post
Vienam antics, including an admission that he took part in the
"burning of villages", is pretty much a non-issue? Why are the growing
numbers of anti-Kerry Vietnam vets, each with a compelling story to
tell, not being given an audience?

The gay marriage exclusion is an important precedent in the
preservation of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has its roots in
religion, and that transcends secular interpretation.

This cannot be handled at a state level. You can't have one state
legalizing gay marriage, and a neighboring state not recognizing them.
What if a "legally" joined gay couple wants to move into a state which
does not recognize their marriage? This needs to be handled at a
federal level.

I, and most other conservatives have no problem with gay people
entering into civil unions for the purpose of gaining the legal
benefits (and liabilities) that other married people currently enjoy.
But don't call it a "marriage".

Dave