I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Uh oh.
This could hurt the book sales of Slander and Bias.
Isn't it obvious?
O'Reilly is LYING again!
the one time O'really says something true.
Found this. Makes sense.
http://www.rense.com/general38/18.htm
Posted by Muscles, Age 18
Feel free to spread the following rant everywhere, it makes for a good arguement against some idiotic Bush supporter....
In a country where the poor and old cannot afford health care, in a country where the economy is falling apart, in a country where 44 million people live on less than $12,000 dollars a year, in a nation where 5 million people are homeless, in a country where the entire media system is owned by only six media mega conglomerates, in a nation with the highest crime rate, in a country with the world's largest prison population, in a society where 60% of marriages end in divorce, in a country where 25% of kids under 12 live in poverty, in a country that cut 25 billion dollars out of veterans benefits to help pay for a new war, in a country where the gulf between the rich and poor is growing everyday, in a nation that supports dictatorships in Saudi, Egypt, and Turkey, in a country where the government is full of corruption, in a country with the world's highest teen suicide and stress rates, and you're telling me our biggest problems are TERRORISM and DRUGS?
BULLSHIT!
And he has a point, doesn't he? Some of us ARE upset that we don't set the media agenda. If we did:
* Harken energy would have gotten the same coversage as Whitewater.
* The GOP-Chinese spy scandal would get the same coverage as the Gore Bhuddist non-fund-raiser event.
* Ken Lay and the entire ghoulish crew of Enron would get as much ink as Martha Stewart.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Sorry to change the subject, but I just got back after a week away from computers, and everything is all changed around. What's the deal?
Father Dick
All the hundreds of thousands of poor people who migrate to the US legaly and illegally every year, must not realize how much better off they would be if they migrated to the socialist paradise of Cuba.
No, they're just passing through the US on the way to the socialist paradise of Canada.
goodbye,
up is down.
in is out.
O'Reilly tells the truth.
War is peace.
hello.
I was actually blown away by what O'Reilly did on his show last night. He was interviewing Gingrich about WMD, and after Newt proudly spouted the tired line, "Well, I don't see Saddam, but I know he exists, therefore WMD must exist too...", O'Reilly actually stopped him in this tracks and left him speechless by pointing out how that was just more right wing spin! I swear, for the first time in history, Newt could not think of what to say...check the transcripts...
...that does't mean that I now think O'Reilly is no longer a bigotted fascist...just for the record...
Remember now, we are talking about the great O'Peabody and should do so with all due respect.
MAC:
Atrios has some people subbing for him until his full-time return from vacation.
He posts every now and then when time permits.
I hope that is sufficient?
MYOB'
Nice one, Richard. Reminds me of "If you don't like it, go to Russia." I am tired of pointing out that, just because we have a lot of room for improvement in this country, that doesn't mean that there aren't worse places to live. I believe that such reasoning (or lack thereof) is referred to as the either-or fallacy. However, since said fallacy is now stated US foreign policy, I can see how it might be more attractive. Still as useless logically, but attractive.
But it is concentrated...
Here's a little tidbit for you all. AP released a story this morning on a retired official claiming we distorted the evidence for war, and I was curious whether FOX NEWS or CNN were covering it.
So I was poking around, couldn't find it, just the older story of the DIA (which now seems like a cover diversion in anticipation of the Newsweek article which is partly the source of this AP item), and decided to try over at ABC News.
They had it! So I posted on it, and then went back to ABC News and noticed that, in the interim minutes, the headline had changed, not to mention some of the content and tone of the original story!
Hmmm. If you're curious, all the details, including the link to the Newsweek article, from the hyperlink above, and also don't miss, if you haven't seen it yet, this on CNN's FindLaw about lies and impeachment (just follow the link in the post).
Actually, it appears that they are two different stories. The one from which you quote on your site is the actual NewsWeek article, whereas the story currently being carried by ABC News and is from the AP.
That doesn't explain your experience of apparently having a NewsWeek article show up at ABC, of course.
Related: Bill Clinton loves Alterman's book: "During his tour of the Boston Capital offices, Clinton spotted a copy of Eric Alterman's well-received 'What Liberal Media? The Trust About Bias in the News' and added that it was one of the two best books out right now."
Must remember </a>, must remember </a>...
Incidently, CSPAN-2 is rebroadcasting that O'Reilly-Franken thing tommorrow, 5:30pm Eastern
Clue, I didn't explain myself well. The original story is from the AP wire, and is being carried by a bunch of outlets from Drudge to ABC News.
Nearly every headline, including ABC News original headline, is something like "Retired Offical Says U.S. Distorted Iraq Evidence". Poke around, that's what you'll see.
But around noon or so, ABC News, who had been carrying the story for awhile, changed their headline from the above to the more ambiguous "Questions Linger About Iraq Weapons Claims". Here, you don't even know what claims, or who is making them.
The Newsweek article, accessible through MSNBC, is a completely different article, but the AP story is riding off of it.
I've got all the information on it if you follow the link in my above post, or just go to my site, but basically Fox and CNN aren't covering the new story, and ABC News got pressured for some reason or another, from someone, to change their headline, and also massage the story to be less condemning toward the administration.
The story on the Defense Intelligence Agency now seems to me to be a cover story, a diversion, in anticipation of the release of the Newsweek story, and AP stories riding off of it.
More info.
As Fox News still had the DIA story as a headline, and CNN covered it, but has treated the latest AP wire story as a non-story, or untouchable for some reason.
I mean, Fox is still headlining the DIA story from yesterday, while the latest story from a respectable source is unmentioned.
Combine that with ABC News changing their headline and rearranging the content of the AP wire story, but still citing it as the AP wire story, and you have some weird stuff afoot.
Poke around to the Drudge link to the Washington Post story, and try Google search on the news on this story, and you'll find that the ABC News version of the story if pretty lite.
"Father Dick
All the hundreds of thousands of poor people who migrate to the US legaly and illegally every year, must not realize how much better off they would be if they migrated to the socialist paradise of Cuba."
In some senses that is true. A study was done and they discovered it was easier to get rich in the 1930's than it is today. Cuba has a larger educated class and better medical treatment than the US.
Maybe you should do some research into US statistics of today. Remarkable how bad ceratin areas are.
For being the worlds richest nation and only superpower.
" O'Reilly actually stopped him in this tracks and left him speechless by pointing out how that was just more right wing spin! I swear"
Al Franken at work. Remember when he toured with Arianna, before the 2000 elections? Recall the two of them in bed on Politically Incorrect?
After that she turned liberal.
Franken got another maybe.
Seems like both ABC News stories are back up. The original was pulled from the headlines, and replaced by the whitewashed version.
Original http://abcnews.go.com/wire/
Polit...030607_134.html
Revised
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/
Polit...030607_706.html
This gets more bizarre by the second. Now the revised page seems dead, and the original live.
Weird.
There's a 3rd version of the story now here. The difference between the 2nd and the 3rd version is just the headline, everything else is the same.
Apparently, the AP keeps resending this story, it's not an ABC News thing, so ABC deserves kudos for covering the issue. It seems the story has changed a lot from version 1 to version 2, with only a headline the difference between 2 and 3.
I'm not following the media like this anymore. I don't understand it, and I'm not sure I want to know.
Wow. Sorry I misunderstood the earlier post--obviously this has been hard to follow.
So everything I said about ABC News, I take back. It's about the AP, and why they keep resending this story. At least the last headline, "Bush, Blair Face Heat Over Iraq Weapons", is better than the 2nd, "Questions Linger Regarding Iraqi Weapons Claims".
Of course, the first was the best, "Retired Official Says U.S. Distorted Evidence For War", but that definitely seems to be a different story. The 2nd and 3rd are not worded nearly as harshly, and are identical except for the headline.
Maybe the final headline should actually read, "Bush, Blair Face Heat Over Lack Of Iraqi Weapons".
For your dose of irony today, here's a link to Fox's story on Lies, Damn Lies and PC.
Are we all living in one of Kafka's nightmares?
Incidently, CSPAN-2 is rebroadcasting that O'Reilly-Franken thing tommorrow, 5:30pm Eastern
If you can't wait to see it, CSPAN has it on it's website. Tom Tomorrow at the This Modern World website has a link to it. Speaking of the O'reilly/Franken fracas, I just finished watching it. It was priceless - It was great to watch O'reilly get slapped around a bit (figuratively speaking) and have no choice but to sit there and take it. I found myself saying "Yeah! You go Al!!". O'Reilly's a punk who can dish it out but can't take it.
For your dose of irony today, here's a link to Fox's story on Lies, Damn Lies and PC.
Read the article. It's just about what I expected from Fox News - the usual rightwing drivel about political correctness dressed up as a critique of so-called truth in journalism.
"...the usual rightwing drivel about political correctness dressed up as a critique of so-called truth in journalism."
And couldn't you just feel the concern and outrage.
Yawn.
Mac,
Next time, keep on the damn path and don't step on the farkin butterfly!
Uh, apart from the article appearing on foxnews, I don't understand your complaint. I guess I agree with the guy.
If the name is the Redskins the paper should report it as such. It's not the paper's job to rename the team, it's the team owner's job to pick the name. It's the paper's job to inform the public. The public can write letters or boycott or what have you to convince the owner's to change the name. And in fact, for the paper to report their own cleaned up name and log makes it too easy for the team owners to do nothing.
Would you explain your upset to me?
Thanks,
Eric Burns, Faux news reporter, who penned that extended whine about a newspaper not refering to the DC football team by its name that offends many who are descended from the pre-European conquest peoples, is going to die in the Duck Pit someday.
I've got a rant about the media up on our blog right now, if anyone is interested...
Constantly trolling for readers - Internet marketing at its best...
stinging-nettle.blogspot.com
Thanks
jerry, the irony is that Fox News has still not reported the news from the AP wire today on more damning evidence of distortions and lies from the Bush Administration in justifying the war.
It's only come across the wire 3 times now, even getting a little less vindictive the 2nd and 3rd times. So they should report it.
Why don't they? PC. Political correctness. The last thing Fox News wants or needs is a serious scandal in regards to justifying this war. They'll have their easels handed to them.
Uh, apart from the article appearing on foxnews, I don't understand your complaint.
I'm not sure to whom you were addressing your comment, so if you don't mind, I'll take a shot at it. First of all, the article's title "Lies, Damn Lies, and PC" gives the reader (at first glance, anyway) the impression that the article would be dealing with the dearth of factual information which is being passed of as news (in fact, Jayson Blair's name comes up, very early on in the piece). However further reading reveals that the article is nothing more than a rehashed version of "WaHHHHH! Those nasty liberals want to change the name of my football team!! Wahhhhhh!" "Goddamn political correctness!! Wahhhhhh!" This is a tired old argument which has come up before. Why shouldn't you call a team "Redskins"?? Well, for the same reason you can't call it the Blackskins - it is a racially tinged name. Got it?
How many times does AP have to run the story before Fox and CNN run it? Maybe they're playing a game with these two, seeing how long it takes them to pick it up.
They certainly can't say they haven't noticed it. Unless they're asleep at the printer.
Here's a headline that should scare the bejabbers outta you:
Lobbying Starts as Groups Foresee Supreme Court Vacancy
Here.
Okay thanks then.
Gene, but should the newspaper be the ones that rename the team or the team owners?
Or as the articles suggests is the newspaper doing more harm than good by refusing to call the team by the name the owners and public call it?
Speaking of redskins, just finished reading Peter Pan to my 3 & 5 year olds. That book has "redskins" used all over it. I felt okay changing the term to Indians (but should I used "native Neverlandians?", or just "natives", or "indigenous peoples"). I felt it was okay to change what was being said as there was a lot of transcription from 19th Century to 21st Century kiddieism that had to take place anyway.
But I did feel a twinge. I don't think Huck Finn should be censored, and I assume you don't either.
Why should every media outlet run all the stories *you* want them to run?
Fox is a crock of shit. Let them run only what they want to run. Eventually people will get it. Eventually, even to that other crock of shit known as Michael Powell, it will become clear why media consolidation is a bad thing.
But I did feel a twinge. I don't think Huck Finn should be censored, and I assume you don't either.
No, Jerry, I don't think Huck Finn should be censored (same for "Uncle Tom's Cabin and other such works). Those works were written in a particular style at a time when such a style was generally accepted. As such, literary works serve as a valuable source of insight into the minds of the people who lived at that time, therefore, the original text should not be altered or changed. That's quite a bit different from the sight of people in 21st century America (people who should know better) cheering on a team called the "Redskins" or doing the "tomahawk chop" at a baseball game. These are nothing more than white distortions of Native American culture,even if we don't see it that way. I don't see anything wrong with someone pointing that out to the media.
More on the Redskins thing:
Why aren't there any sports teams called, say, "the Wetbacks" or "the Darkies?" I'd say that, even though Hispanics and African Americans are still not the political equals of whites in the US, these two large ethnic minorities have, at least, some small bit of political power: the huge group of indigenous peoples known collectively as "Native Americans" have relatively very little political power.
In other words, there is really not much of a consequence when news organizations simply repeat team names like "the Braves" or "the Redskins." I don't know what a newspaper should do in this case. It's a pretty awkward situation. At least the Star Tribune has been trying to do something. Now, it appears, they've changed their minds.
That's probably not a good thing.
I once had a great poster. It had some thing like the phrase "How would you fell about teams with these names" across the top and then logos for teams like the Kansas City Jewboys, the Cleveland Negroes, and the Washington Honkies. I'm always amazed when I hear someone defending these team names, logos, and mascots. Can't they see just how offensive the Cleveland Indians logo is?
BW, The 1987 Richard Chamberlain film, "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" was on in the background when I was doing some work earlier today. I couldn't believe some of the dialogue. The heroes kept calling people "camel jockeys" and "towel heads."
I'm not going to fight with you Jerry. It's not about me, what I want to see on the news. It's in the news already. On the AP wire! Ran at least 3 times! (I haven't checked lately)
It's big news. War is big news. People die, and not just conscripted soldiers and evil leaders (are any these leaders dead by the way).
Little kids have lost their limbs, families and dreams, if not lives, along with hundreds if not thousands of other innocent civilians.
There is mass suffering and discontent over there, and we're going to spend billions of dollars on this whole enterprise when it's all said and done.
That's @#$#@ news! And so is lying about it if that is indeed the case!
Patriotboy, I have never seen Allan Quatermain, and I suspect it's not a very good movie. But assuming it is a period movie AND that in that period those terms were commonly used, what would you have them say instead? I don't know if either assumption is valid.
On a related note, what's the story with Glenn Reynolds being such an avid finder of anti-semitism? He doesn't strike me as Jewish. I'm Jewish. But he doesn't strike me as Jewish.Maybe I am just ungrateful and a self-hating jew. But I find it kind of creepy and feel used.
I heard Molly Ivins tell Bill O'Reilly that she was not "the left", she was Molly Ivins, she was not "those liberals", she was Molly Ivins. I am concerned that in finding fault with Eric Burns article, we are really just being angry with Fox in General, and turning a big gray issue into a simple black & white issue. If we do that, it is easy to fall into a trap of our own making.
freelixir, I'm glad we're not going to have a fight. I don't like fights.
I do support arguments in the finest Monty Python sense, "a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition, and not just the automatic gain saying of everything the other person says." ("Yes it is." "No it's not.")
I always heard and believed that the cure for free speech is more free speech. It is news. Iraq may become Vietnam. It may be an incredibly corrupt mechanism to enrich certain companies and various Iraqis. But I say let Fox decide what it is Fox wants to air. They can't air everything, so let them decide what to air.
Of course they have a bias, but as Heisenberg and Hunter S. Thompson assure me, everyone has a bias. So I'd rather encourage them to make their bias obvious to everyone. Let them air only what they want to air. Take away their oxygen and their ability to complain about being overly regulated. They'll hoist themselves on their own petard. Either the FCC or their viewers or both will eventually realize how biased they are.
But do support NPR and Pacifica, micro stations, and the Internet. And point out the bias, which is now more obvious, and use that to keep the other media honest and to help educate your friends and lovers.
Patriotboy, I have never seen Allan Quatermain, and I suspect it's not a very good movie.
From what I could tell, you are correct, Jerry.
But assuming it is a period movie
It wasn't.
AND that in that period those terms were commonly used, what would you have them say instead?
If the movie required those words for accuracy, I'd have no problem with it. In this case they were obviously used for cheap laughs. I should have made that clear in my first posts.
This might not be kosher to say around here but O'Reilly really does seem a little bit more reasonable than the regular neocon crowd you see on FOXMSNBCNN - such as Gingrich. I'm not saying he's not a winger, but he's sufficiently far away from the Beltway crowd that once in awhile he'll say something fairly reasonable.
wow:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/0...lysis.dean.wmd/
an article on whether lying about the war is an impeachable offense (clearly it is!)
He's not a wingnut, he's just a farking opportunist. An attention whore out to make a buck. Yuck.
...let Fox decide what it is Fox wants to air. They can't air everything, so let them decide what to air. Of course they have a bias, but as Heisenberg and Hunter S. Thompson assure me, everyone has a bias. So I'd rather encourage them to make their bias obvious to everyone...Either the FCC or their viewers or both will eventually realize how biased they are...
Are you really this naive? Fox is surely not going to just present their bias in an easily digestible admission. Hate to tell you, but most Fox viewers actually believe that whole "fair and balanced" bit. Most Americans get their news not from the Internet, not from newspapers, and certainly not from blogs, but from network news. Most people will somehow magically realize Fox's bias? Hell, 40% of Americans still think Iraqis were involved in 9/11. I wonder where they got such an idea? And why haven't they noticed the rather transparent media bias so far?
The racist slurs in Huck Finn served to highlight the wrongness of pervasive racial stereotypes in 19th C society. Can something similar be said of racist sports-team names today? Or of the racism in Peter Pan? I didn't think so.
So fcc, what's your alternative?
Let's try something easy like Peter Pan. What should be done about the problem to society that is Peter Pan?
(BTW, no one here is arguing for racist sports-team names, the question is if the newspaper should call the teams something other than what the team is calling itself, and if the newspaper should make up a logo that the team does not use itself.)
But again, having just read Peter Pan to my kids, I am curious, what would you have society do with Peter Pan?
And then tell me what should be done about Fox....
Thanks!
Shouldn't that be Clenis Pan?!? Sorry, I don't know how to do the superscript TM.
Shouldn't that be Clenis Pan?!? Sorry, I don't know how to do the superscript TM.
Um, I think to a certain extent there's some oversensitivity at work here regarding the team names. I can see where "Redskins" is offensive, since it is a term that was used as derogation, and additionally refers to a superficial racial characteristic. It's a bit like having a team called the "Coons". But I fail to see how "Braves" is offensive, since it has never been used as a term of derogation - it simply refers to warriors of a Native American extraction. If you're offended by "Braves", you should also be offended by "Vikings", which refers to warriors of Scandanavian extraction. Then there's the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame, and I'm sure lots more I haven't thought of since I don't really follow sports.
I think it's fairly easy to carry this to ridiculous lenghts. I felt the same way about the complaints over the Taco Bell commercials - chihuahuas are a Mexican breed of dog, and a Mexican breed of dog was speaking English with a Hispanic accent to promote a restaurant selling (quasi) Mexican food. Where's the offense? Should I be offended by the Bush's Beans commercials where a dog speaks in a southern white boy accent to promote a food popular in the South? I suppose I could, but there are plenty of things that actually affect my life for me to be outraged about.
For those who don't want to sit through two hours of video -- an abridged version of the O'Reilly/Franken spat (with lots of screenshots) is posted here.
Oops. Looks like Haloscan doesn't like '_target' tags in comment URLs.
This link to the O'Reilly/Franken spat page should work better...
"During his tour of the Boston Capital offices, Clinton spotted a copy of Eric Alterman's well-received 'What Liberal Media? The Trust About Bias in the News' and added that it was one of the two best books out right now."
Gee, I wonder what the other one was?
Elias, Thar beating that Al Franken put on O'Reilly must of messed him up.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
