Can idiots still claim that the US media is "liberal"? - GoFuckYourself.com

Rich · 02-16-2005, 05:32 PM

What do you think would happen, if there was a demoract reporter writing derogatory articles about a high ranking Republican, calling him gay, etc, and a democratic White House repeatedly gave him press passes and called on him to ask softball questions? Then, said reporter turned out to be not in fact a reporter, but a gay prostitute with a blog? There would be 24/7 coverage on every major news network, in fact it would be one of the biggest stories of the year.

Not to mention the fact that this gay prostitute was leaked the Valerie Plame documents, which was top secret government information that exposed an active CIA agent. (Wash Post reported that he had received these documents).

Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it.

If you can look at these two incidents, and still honestly say that any of the mainstream US media is biased against Bush, well, you have serious comprehension problems. Everything Americans watch on TV is controlled by 6 companies, and right now they're pushing the right wing agenda and legitimizing Bush's actions in ways that are quite obvious to any well informed viewer.

Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.

Nicky · 02-16-2005, 05:33 PM

Dont know, im sure Sleazy can comment on the idiots though

MrJackMeHoff · 02-16-2005, 05:33 PM

I dont think most gfy'ers know or care about anything around them..

Rich · 02-16-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrJackMeHoff

I dont think most gfy'ers know or care about anything around them..

Unfortunately I get the feeling that that's the attitude of a great majority of Americans. It's not necessarily their fault though, it's the philosophy of futility, these corporations have instilled in the American public a sense that what they do or say is meaningless, and what's going to happen will happen no matter what. They get people obsessing about meaningless things like fashion and celebrities, so they won't lift a finger while the government does things like reverse the new deal and rob them of their social security. As long as the media says it's ok.

Jace · 02-16-2005, 05:39 PM

i don't think there are many true liberal media outlets out there anymore....part of the definition of liberal is compassion and caring, and there aren't many caring media outlets....well, they care if they get their story, that is for sure

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 05:45 PM

BTW...does anybody know who owns malecorps.com? i'm dying to find out if guckert was an affiliate of theirs

Rich · 02-16-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by titmowse

haha

wargames · 02-16-2005, 05:55 PM

US Media is liberal in a good way.

Rich · 02-16-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wargames

US Media is liberal in a good way.

Care to explain?

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 06:00 PM

i'd post the pissing thumbs but that stuff creeps me out

DX · 02-16-2005, 06:04 PM

you're comparing a reporter hardly anyone ever heard of before this drama to Dan Rather running forged documents to try and effect the outcome of an election, and then portraying this nobody as some sort of a representative of the whole mainstream media?

Besides, when you toss this fuckup atop the heap other Bush fuckups, it seems kind of trivial.

FunForOne · 02-16-2005, 06:08 PM

Sure, there's no liberal bias in the media in the same year one of the top three lost his job because he tried to affect a presidental election to the liberal side.

Thats never happened before!!!!!!!

nofx · 02-16-2005, 06:13 PM

THE US MEDIA IS LIBERAL

FunForOne · 02-16-2005, 06:13 PM

Only Democrats can get mandates?
When the Republicans took over control of congress in 1994, Peter Jennings said that this was not really a "mandate for change" ..."It's clear that anger controls the child and not the other way around," stated Mr. Jennings. "The voters had a temper-tantrum...The nation can't be run by an angry 2-year-old." (The actual statement was said on a radio commentary in 1994, and reported again in the South Jersey Courier Post on November 27, 1994.) The Republican victory was also stated by Steve Roberts, a US News and World Report writer on CNBC's Equal Time - "They (voters) are not voting Republican...They are voting against a lot of unhappiness in their own lives."

Funny - the same media was hailing Clinton's 1992 victory as a "mandate for change" (with a whopping 43% of the vote) and that Republican ideas were dead, that the Democrat ideas were what the people wanted. So, when the voters vote Republican they don't know what they are doing, but when they vote for a Democrat they have more credibility?

power182 · 02-16-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

What do you think would happen, if there was a demoract reporter writing derogatory articles about a high ranking Republican, calling him gay, etc, and a democratic White House repeatedly gave him press passes and called on him to ask softball questions? Then, said reporter turned out to be not in fact a reporter, but a gay prostitute with a blog? There would be 24/7 coverage on every major news network, in fact it would be one of the biggest stories of the year.

Not to mention the fact that this gay prostitute was leaked the Valerie Plame documents, which was top secret government information that exposed an active CIA agent. (Wash Post reported that he had received these documents).

Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it.

If you can look at these two incidents, and still honestly say that any of the mainstream US media is biased against Bush, well, you have serious comprehension problems. Everything Americans watch on TV is controlled by 6 companies, and right now they're pushing the right wing agenda and legitimizing Bush's actions in ways that are quite obvious to any well informed viewer.

Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.

There are arguments both ways. For example lets take Iraq vs. Afghanistan. All you hear from Iraq is the suicide bombings, killings etc. Yet you hear nothing about Afghanistan because things are going relatively well there. The media is anti-Bush, make not mistake about that. I for one thing the media leans to the left, and I am not a Republican. However, Fox is right winged. So it really varies from reporter to reporter and station to station. By they way Rick - do you live in America (not a slam just a question)?

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Sure, there's no liberal bias in the media in the same year one of the top three lost his job because he tried to affect a presidental election to the liberal side.

Thats never happened before!!!!!!!

Rather's retirement was scheduled long before the memo scandal. A memo that contained factual information despite the alleged forgery.

JD Guckert isn't the only right wing media whore: Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus have all been paid to be sluts for the Bushies.

Rich · 02-16-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX

you're comparing a reporter hardly anyone ever heard of before this drama to Dan Rather running forged documents to try and effect the outcome of an election, and then portraying this nobody as some sort of a representative of the whole mainstream media?

No I'm not saying he's a representative of the mainstream media at all. I'm saying the fact that they are covering this up proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the media is not "liberal" or "anti-Bush", in fact it's quite the opposite, it's a mouthpiece for the White House. This guy was not part of the mainstream media.

Running forged documents and trying to effect the outcome of an election, geez I wonder where you heard that line. See how the media tells you that it was "liberal" Dan Rather intentionally trying to hurt Bush? The guy's been around for about 30 years, he uses one bad source, and all of a sudden it's a liberal conspiracy.

Damn liberal media.

Imagine what it would be like if this happened under Clinton. Do you honestly think it would be conveniently left out of the news? Give me a break, they'd be talking about it day in, day out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX

Besides, when you toss this fuckup atop the heap other Bush fuckups, it seems kind of trivial.

That's very true, but notice that they don't question ANY Bush policy until it gets proven a failure beyond a reasonable doubt? They parrot the White House line, Fox only exists to make the rest of them look unbiased or even liberal.

Take social security for example. Notice how no media outlet is questioning Bush's stance that it's in "grave danger" or a "crisis"? Yet the congressional study found that in it's current form, it will be fine until something like 2052. Notice how none of them mention that in 1978 Bush said that, without privatized accounts, SS will be bankrupt in 1988? Notice how they don't mention that the trillions wasted setting up these private accounts will be what bankrupts SS? Or the fact that republicans have wanted to get rid of social security since the day it was implemented? They know these things, they just don't report them. For a reason.

power182 · 02-16-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

What do you think would happen, if there was a demoract reporter writing derogatory articles about a high ranking Republican, calling him gay, etc, and a democratic White House repeatedly gave him press passes and called on him to ask softball questions? Then, said reporter turned out to be not in fact a reporter, but a gay prostitute with a blog? There would be 24/7 coverage on every major news network, in fact it would be one of the biggest stories of the year.

Not to mention the fact that this gay prostitute was leaked the Valerie Plame documents, which was top secret government information that exposed an active CIA agent. (Wash Post reported that he had received these documents).

Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it.

If you can look at these two incidents, and still honestly say that any of the mainstream US media is biased against Bush, well, you have serious comprehension problems. Everything Americans watch on TV is controlled by 6 companies, and right now they're pushing the right wing agenda and legitimizing Bush's actions in ways that are quite obvious to any well informed viewer.

Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.

Oh ya and for the record, I have heard a LOT about this story on Fox News (the most right winged of them all).

FunForOne · 02-16-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by titmowse

Rather's retirement was scheduled long before the memo scandal. A memo that contained factual information despite the alleged forgery.

bull pussy, dont believe everything stuart smiley tells you.

Webby · 02-16-2005, 06:23 PM

No question that US Media is liberal and the reason most international jounalists don't bother to make submissions to them - they don't want their articles hacked and edited by a liberal press.

On rankings... US Media may not be at the top, but just above the Hezzbollah Daily Herald for their extreme liberalism.

PS... Sarcasm is a word in the dictionary :-)

Loryn · 02-16-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nofx

THE US MEDIA IS LIBERAL

One station!!! hahaha

Please there are hundred and hundreds even thousands of opinions all over America coming at you in so many forms. Choose which one you like to listen to, or listen to them all, and make a decision for yourself!!! That is what makes America great!!!There is not one opinion or one TV station. You don't like one, CHANGE THE CHANNEL OR CLICK ONTO ANOTHER SITE!!! It's that really easy!!!

I am sure if you were in charge Rich, you would ban everything from TV that didn't agree with your opinions and beliefs!!!

Rich · 02-16-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by power182

There are arguments both ways. For example lets take Iraq vs. Afghanistan. All you hear from Iraq is the suicide bombings, killings etc. Yet you hear nothing about Afghanistan because things are going relatively well there. The media is anti-Bush, make not mistake about that. I for one thing the media leans to the left, and I am not a Republican. However, Fox is right winged. So it really varies from reporter to reporter and station to station. By they way Rick - do you live in America (not a slam just a question)?

Wrong, the don't mention Afghanistan because things are going incredibly bad there. War lords control most of the country outside the capital and the pipeline route, and the elections were a complete joke. Bush just denied 200 million in emergency funding for Afghanistan, while giving another 80 billion dollar handout to the war profiteers in Iraq. This is what you don't hear about that war, and why you don't hear it. Out of sight, out of mind. It's also why they don't report ANYTHING when America engineers a coup, like in Venezuela.

If you don't think the mainstream US media is glamorizing even the war in Iraq, try watching real news reports on international stations for a while.

vending_machine · 02-16-2005, 06:24 PM

The mainstream media is not liberal nor right-wing, it's wherever-the-money-is. If it will increase circulation or viewers by pushing either agenda, it will do so.

power182 · 02-16-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

No I'm not saying he's a representative of the mainstream media at all. I'm saying the fact that they are covering this up proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the media is not "liberal" or "anti-Bush", in fact it's quite the opposite, it's a mouthpiece for the White House. This guy was not part of the mainstream media.

Running forged documents and trying to effect the outcome of an election, geez I wonder where you heard that line. See how the media tells you that it was "liberal" Dan Rather intentionally trying to hurt Bush? The guy's been around for about 30 years, he uses one bad source, and all of a sudden it's a liberal conspiracy.

Damn liberal media.

Imagine what it would be like if this happened under Clinton. Do you honestly think it would be conveniently left out of the news? Give me a break, they'd be talking about it day in, day out.

That's very true, but notice that they don't question ANY Bush policy until it gets proven a failure beyond a reasonable doubt? They parrot the White House line, Fox only exists to make the rest of them look unbiased or even liberal.

Take social security for example. Notice how no media outlet is questioning Bush's stance that it's in "grave danger" or a "crisis"? Yet the congressional study found that in it's current form, it will be fine until something like 2052. Notice how none of them mention that in 1978 Bush said that, without privatized accounts, SS will be bankrupt in 1988? Notice how they don't mention that the trillions wasted setting up these private accounts will be what bankrupts SS? Or the fact that republicans have wanted to get rid of social security since the day it was implemented? They know these things, they just don't report them. For a reason.

Uh yes they are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb9.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/bu...cnd-green.html
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mor...5405261040.xml

Tons more where that came from. It?s not about being bankrupt it about the system, it?s broken. Do you know why the age of 65 was selected? That?s because that was the avg life expectancy at the time it was created. This system was created not to pay people. If you die before then you can not transfer the money or allocate it as you wish. I really don?t get why people are against this... if you are please let me know why.

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

bull pussy, dont believe everything stuart smiley tells you.

Which part? The part about Rather's scheduled retirement? That's public knowledge. Or do you mean the memo? Killian's own secretary said the contents were accurate.

BTW...how did that LGF blogger get a copy of that memo within minutes of the episode's airing? And why was it that when CBS submitted the memo to the WH before the program, they got no response as to it's accuracy?

power182 · 02-16-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Wrong, the don't mention Afghanistan because things are going incredibly bad there. War lords control most of the country outside the capital and the pipeline route, and the elections were a complete joke. Bush just denied 200 million in emergency funding for Afghanistan, while giving another 80 billion dollar handout to the war profiteers in Iraq. This is what you don't hear about that war, and why you don't hear it. Out of sight, out of mind. It's also why they don't report ANYTHING when America engineers a coup, like in Venezuela.

If you don't think the mainstream US media is glamorizing even the war in Iraq, try watching real news reports on international stations for a while.

I already do so and I would hardly call the elections a joke. That country is way better off then they were a few years ago. Progress is progress, its not going to become a superpower over night or even ever, they have little to no natural resources. The drugs where there before and they will remain there, they need a source of income and unfortunality its the only one right now.

FunForOne · 02-16-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by titmowse

Which part? The part about Rather's scheduled retirement? That's public knowledge. Or do you mean the memo? Killian's own secretary said the contents were accurate.

BTW...how did that LGF blogger get a copy of that memo within minutes of the episode's airing? And why was it that when CBS submitted the memo to the WH before the program, they got no response as to it's accuracy?

cant argue with someone who still believes that the memo was accurate and rather was doing the correct thing.

Even the dumbest democrats stopping beliveing that way before the election.

Hell, even CBS stop holding out hope for that.

Rather retired as somewhat of a self punishment, to lessen the chance of him going to prison for the felony he committed.

power182 · 02-16-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Wrong, the don't mention Afghanistan because things are going incredibly bad there. War lords control most of the country outside the capital and the pipeline route, and the elections were a complete joke. Bush just denied 200 million in emergency funding for Afghanistan, while giving another 80 billion dollar handout to the war profiteers in Iraq. This is what you don't hear about that war, and why you don't hear it. Out of sight, out of mind. It's also why they don't report ANYTHING when America engineers a coup, like in Venezuela.

If you don't think the mainstream US media is glamorizing even the war in Iraq, try watching real news reports on international stations for a while.

the US media is sugar coating the war there, but thats due to society here not the gov. People dont want to see their peers getting killed. But on the flip side the international community it show nothing but the bad side. Same shit, different story. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Rich · 02-16-2005, 06:30 PM

You guys are proving my point for me, I'm talking about this gay whore whom the White House used to feed propaganda to the American public, and all you can talk about is Dan Rather and how Fox News is the only right wing station. Talk about the deaf leading the blind...

power182 · 02-16-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

You guys are proving my point for me, I'm talking about this gay whore whom the White House used to feed propaganda to the American public, and all you can talk about is Dan Rather and how Fox News is the only right wing station. Talk about the deaf leading the blind...

They were pointing out other examples of the opposite behavior........ how is that blind? It?s applicable and you mentioned it in your first post (Rathergate)?? Don?t be so righteous, other perspectives are valid. If you don?t care to hear them don?t post your opinion on a public forum.

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

cant argue with someone who still believes that the memo was accurate and rather was doing the correct thing.

Even the dumbest democrats stopping beliveing that way before the election.

Hell, even CBS stop holding out hope for that.

Rather retired as somewhat of a self punishment, to lessen the chance of him going to prison for the felony he committed.

Okay. Well, I guess we're at a standstill. If you wish to ignore the truth that's okay by me.

Killian's secretary said the information in the memo was accurate:

"Marian Carr Knox told the Dallas Morning News after viewing copies of the disputed memos, "These are not real," and that "the information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones." She declined to be interviewed late Tuesday, but her son, Pat Carr, confirmed her comments."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...orgeries_x.htm

Rather was scheduled to retire as anchor for the evening news before the memo thang and would have retired earlier had it not been for 9/11:

"But according to Rather, he starting discussions with his CBS bosses in 1999 concerning when the right might be for him to leave the anchor desk.

"When 9/11 came, all talk of that ceased. For a year and a half, two years, the attitude was: `We have work to do. And we'll deal with it later."' Last summer, talks resumed. Possible exit dates included May or September 2005."

http://www.tampabaylive.com/entertai...24rather.shtml

BTW...you didn't answer the second part of the question

Rich · 02-16-2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by power182

the US media is sugar coating the war there, but thats due to society here not the gov. People dont want to see their peers getting killed. But on the flip side the international community it show nothing but the bad side. Same shit, different story. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

It's not due to society, it's due to pro government propaganda. If you're called media, you're supposed to report the news. Period. You're not supposed to portray some glamorized, candy coated tale of events because you think that's probably what your viewers would rather see. And it's not one network, it's all of mainstream American media. They have an agenda, and it's to create a bunch of dumbed down, war loving, complacent sheep who will go along with whatever war or scam they're selling next as long as they're entertained. I'm sorry if you disagree with me but I'm right on this.

Rich · 02-16-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by power182

They were pointing out other examples of the opposite behavior........ how is that blind? It?s applicable and you mentioned it in your first post (Rathergate)?? Don?t be so righteous, other perspectives are valid. If you don?t care to hear them don?t post your opinion on a public forum.

People are completely missing my point. This has nothing to do with this one guy, it has to do with the way the media is sweeping this scandal under the rug. Is Rather a liberal? Sure, probably. Does he control a news network? No. My point is that, the fact that this Gannon scandal is not one of the biggest stories of the year proves that the media is nothing but a mouthpiece for the government. I mean it's far from the only example, or even the best one, but this should be the most glaringly obvious one to most people at the moment.

I still find it hilarious that the media has determined that the biggest scandal of the past 5 years, and the only one worthy of a "gate", is a reporter who used a bad source. Torturing people? No problem, under the rug in 6 months, we won't even release one tenth of the pictures. Leaking the name of an active CIA agent? (talk about a crime) No problem, in fact we don't even need to investigate. Bush completely lied to whip up war hysteria so he could invade a defenseless nation that posed no threat to anyone? No problem, we'll tell the people that we were there to bring them democracy all along. lol, and so on, and so on, and so on. I swear to God Bush could rape an underage, mentally disabled child on the white house lawn and it would barely make the CNN ticker.

Rich · 02-16-2005, 06:57 PM

I mean they were so afraid of Howard Dean, because he's actually opposition unlike most modern democrats, that the media tore him apart. So he screams at a late night victory rally, is that really something that should be played over and over again along with questions about whether it's "Presidential" to act like that? I don't see them replaying Bush's answer to that "sovereign" question over and over again, I mean how fucking Presidential is that???

Rich · 02-16-2005, 07:00 PM

If the media were "liberal", or even unbiased, they'd certainly play that sovereign fuck up at least as often as they play the Howard Dean scream. Right? Well, my last count had the Dean scream played 12,244,534 times, Bush's explanation of sovereignty, 0. Things that make you go hmm...(or at least, should make you go hmm)

mardigras · 02-16-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I swear to God Bush could rape an underage, mentally disabled child on the white house lawn and it would barely make the CNN ticker.

The ticker would read:
"Bush spends quality time with disadvantaged youth, vows no child's behind will be left."

directfiesta · 02-16-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

cant argue with someone who still believes that the memo was accurate and rather was doing the correct thing.

Even the dumbest democrats stopping beliveing that way before the election.

Hell, even CBS stop holding out hope for that.

Rather retired as somewhat of a self punishment, to lessen the chance of him going to prison for the felony he committed.

Didn't Bush base his 2003 State of the Union speech on false documents?
Should he go to prison ?

I think you would have a GOP bus up your ass and would still say you can pass wind...

Rich · 02-16-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

The ticker would read:
"Bush spends quality time with disadvantaged youth, vows no child's behind will be left."

exactly

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 07:09 PM

Let's not forget that Gannon helped bring down Tom Daschle by linking him to a former editor of a South Dakota newspaper. Gannon wrote of bias:

"WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- South Dakota's largest newspaper has been rocked by recent accusations of bias in favor of Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and other Democrats. The Argus Leader has steadfastly refused to comment on the 35-year relationship of its star political reporter to the Senate Minority Leader.

The Talon News investigation of the claims made by Sioux Falls businessman Neal Tapio has uncovered a second link between the newspaper and Daschle."

http://web.archive.org/web/200306181...s_leader.shtml

Also notice how Talon has scrubbed their site clean of all Gannon's articles.

Rich · 02-16-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Didn't Bush base his 2003 State of the Union speech on false documents?
Should he go to prison ?

Don't go using logic on these people, you may as well be speaking Greek.

theking · 02-16-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

What do you think would happen, if there was a demoract reporter writing derogatory articles about a high ranking Republican, calling him gay, etc, and a democratic White House repeatedly gave him press passes and called on him to ask softball questions? Then, said reporter turned out to be not in fact a reporter, but a gay prostitute with a blog? There would be 24/7 coverage on every major news network, in fact it would be one of the biggest stories of the year.

Not to mention the fact that this gay prostitute was leaked the Valerie Plame documents, which was top secret government information that exposed an active CIA agent. (Wash Post reported that he had received these documents).

Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it.

If you can look at these two incidents, and still honestly say that any of the mainstream US media is biased against Bush, well, you have serious comprehension problems. Everything Americans watch on TV is controlled by 6 companies, and right now they're pushing the right wing agenda and legitimizing Bush's actions in ways that are quite obvious to any well informed viewer.

Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.

It was reported by the media...print and otherwise for several days...and made the rounds of all of the talking head shows. It got the coverage that the story deserved...and then some...but of course not enough coverage to suit some Canadian that is dumb as the Rock which he uses as the singular example of the "US Empire".

theking · 02-16-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Didn't Bush base his 2003 State of the Union speech on false documents?
Should he go to prison ?

I think you would have a GOP bus up your ass and would still say you can pass wind...

In answer to the question...no. His State of the Union address was based upon a variety of subjects...as are every President's.

tony286 · 02-16-2005, 07:18 PM

I cant believe how they defend W , Rathers mistake was he should of said. We found out the documents are forged but the information is true. Your President who is sending your husbands,wife ,sons and daughters off to die. Avoided serving in a war zone at all costs and lets look at the other members of his admin how they answered the call to serve. Since the media is corporate controlled it is not liberal , liberal media was started by Rush to give the fool listener a feeling its us against them. It was brillant .

Rich · 02-16-2005, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I cant believe how they defend W , Rathers mistake was he should of said. We found out the documents are forged but the information is true. Your President who is sending your husbands,wife ,sons and daughters off to die. Avoided serving in a war zone at all costs and lets look at the other members of his admin how they answered the call to serve. Since the media is corporate controlled it is not liberal , liberal media was started by Rush to give the fool listener a feeling its us against them. It was brillant .

I agree with you there, these people are extremely smart. Evil, but smart.

directfiesta · 02-16-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

In answer to the question...no. His State of the Union address was based upon a variety of subjects...as are every President's.

Such as:
- We know he is trying to acquire fUranium ...
- We have proof that he has STOCPILE of WMD
- We know he has the capability od delivering nuclear attack within 15 minutes
- he has acquired aluminium tubes for nuclear missiles ....

His " false documents", " false proofs" or " doctored reports " have caused:

- The death of 1500 US soldiers
- death of 10 of thousands Iraqi civilians
- 200 billion expense ( and growing) for the US.
- destruction of a sovereign country
- destruction of one of the most ancient civilisation ( america is pigshit: barely 300 years )

and so on ....

I can imagine the outrage and scandal if a gay male prostitute would have been feeding friendly questions to Kerry ...

Just look know to see how the media handles news:

- The UN oil for food scandal: everyday in the news as if it was someting new ( The US knew all allong and were closing their eyes, because , as you say so often, it served their agenda)

- the 20 billion $$$ lost or un-accounted for over the past yoear by the Brener administration in Iraq: no coverage

Anyway, America RULES...

theking · 02-16-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I agree with you there, these people are extremely smart. Evil, but smart.

Ahh..."these people are extremely smart"...which is further indication that your are not...and of course you would believe in the mythical "evil" BS...what with the voices in your head that tell you...you own three of the largest Casino's on the net and that you have three Degrees and that a Rock in the Ocean is the singular example to prove that the US is an "Empire". Yep you are dumb as that Rock...Richy boy. I suspect if you ever had a brain...you burned up to many cells...you know "This is your brain on drugs".

titmowse · 02-16-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Such as:
- We know he is trying to acquire fUranium ...
- We have proof that he has STOCPILE of WMD
- We know he has the capability od delivering nuclear attack within 15 minutes
- he has acquired aluminium tubes for nuclear missiles ....

His " false documents", " false proofs" or " doctored reports " have caused:

- The death of 1500 US soldiers
- death of 10 of thousands Iraqi civilians
- 200 billion expense ( and growing) for the US.
- destruction of a sovereign country
- destruction of one of the most ancient civilisation ( america is pigshit: barely 300 years )

and so on ....

I can imagine the outrage and scandal if a gay male prostitute would have been feeding friendly questions to Kerry ...

Just look know to see how the media handles news:

- The UN oil for food scandal: everyday in the news as if it was someting new ( The US knew all allong and were closing their eyes, because , as you say so often, it served their agenda)

- the 20 billion $$$ lost or un-accounted for over the past yoear by the Brener administration in Iraq: no coverage

Anyway, America RULES...

16 words:

""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

a bold-faced lie to the American people

theking · 02-16-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Such as:
- We know he is trying to acquire fUranium ...
- We have proof that he has STOCPILE of WMD
- We know he has the capability od delivering nuclear attack within 15 minutes
- he has acquired aluminium tubes for nuclear missiles ....

His " false documents", " false proofs" or " doctored reports " have caused:

- The death of 1500 US soldiers
- death of 10 of thousands Iraqi civilians
- 200 billion expense ( and growing) for the US.
- destruction of a sovereign country
- destruction of one of the most ancient civilisation ( america is pigshit: barely 300 years )

and so on ....

I can imagine the outrage and scandal if a gay male prostitute would have been feeding friendly questions to Kerry ...

Just look know to see how the media handles news:

- The UN oil for food scandal: everyday in the news as if it was someting new ( The US knew all allong and were closing their eyes, because , as you say so often, it served their agenda)

- the 20 billion $$$ lost or un-accounted for over the past yoear by the Brener administration in Iraq: no coverage

Anyway, America RULES...

Blah...blah...blah. BTW...was it the media where you learned about any un-accounted for $$$ or was it one of your inside sources within the US Government? FYI...all major intel agencies in the world concurred about Iraq's WMD/WMD materials. The new head of the CIA admitted that there was a major breakdown on the Analysis of collected intel...and not just within US intel agencies.

theking · 02-16-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by titmowse

16 words:

""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

a bold-faced lie to the American people

That is what the British intel reported to there PM...so it was not a lie.

power182 · 02-16-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

It's not due to society, it's due to pro government propaganda. If you're called media, you're supposed to report the news. Period. You're not supposed to portray some glamorized, candy coated tale of events because you think that's probably what your viewers would rather see. And it's not one network, it's all of mainstream American media. They have an agenda, and it's to create a bunch of dumbed down, war loving, complacent sheep who will go along with whatever war or scam they're selling next as long as they're entertained. I'm sorry if you disagree with me but I'm right on this.

No, you think your right, there is a difference; and your apology is far from necessary, I think on my own as well. The media is a business, and like any other business you target your audience. If society wanted something new, that void would be filled; it?s called a free market, not government funded and controlled channels. Everybody has an agenda and will use the tools they have at they have available to them to push it. I don?t care where the source is, in the states or not, that will always hold true. I personally blame the government school system for breeding the individuals you speak of and many of the opposite extreme; the media merely feeds them what they want. Go look at the 56 billion we spend on education annually and revamp it, the media will follow the masses. Remember, people will always use the tools they have available to them to push their agenda; your children are the tools. This is killing America far faster than the media or Bush could ever dream of, they only wish they had that power.

02-16-2005, 05:32 PM	#1
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	Can idiots still claim that the US media is "liberal"? What do you think would happen, if there was a demoract reporter writing derogatory articles about a high ranking Republican, calling him gay, etc, and a democratic White House repeatedly gave him press passes and called on him to ask softball questions? Then, said reporter turned out to be not in fact a reporter, but a gay prostitute with a blog? There would be 24/7 coverage on every major news network, in fact it would be one of the biggest stories of the year. Not to mention the fact that this gay prostitute was leaked the Valerie Plame documents, which was top secret government information that exposed an active CIA agent. (Wash Post reported that he had received these documents). Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it. If you can look at these two incidents, and still honestly say that any of the mainstream US media is biased against Bush, well, you have serious comprehension problems. Everything Americans watch on TV is controlled by 6 companies, and right now they're pushing the right wing agenda and legitimizing Bush's actions in ways that are quite obvious to any well informed viewer. Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.

02-16-2005, 05:33 PM	#2
Nicky Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 30,069	Dont know, im sure Sleazy can comment on the idiots though __________________ gfynicky @ gmail.com

02-16-2005, 05:33 PM	#3
MrJackMeHoff Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: LOLLIPOP ISLAND =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Posts: 4,569	I dont think most gfy'ers know or care about anything around them.. __________________

02-16-2005, 05:45 PM	#6
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	BTW...does anybody know who owns malecorps.com? i'm dying to find out if guckert was an affiliate of theirs __________________ I still love everybody

02-16-2005, 05:55 PM	#8
wargames Kliris Join Date: May 2003 Location: ca Posts: 10,423	US Media is liberal in a good way. __________________ ICQ 212-115-582 Email Steve at Vas Media Group .com

02-16-2005, 05:39 PM	#5
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	i don't think there are many true liberal media outlets out there anymore....part of the definition of liberal is compassion and caring, and there aren't many caring media outlets....well, they care if they get their story, that is for sure

02-16-2005, 06:00 PM	#10
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	i'd post the pissing thumbs but that stuff creeps me out __________________ I still love everybody

02-16-2005, 06:04 PM	#11
DX Feed me coffee. Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Massafuckingchusetts Posts: 1,128	you're comparing a reporter hardly anyone ever heard of before this drama to Dan Rather running forged documents to try and effect the outcome of an election, and then portraying this nobody as some sort of a representative of the whole mainstream media? Besides, when you toss this fuckup atop the heap other Bush fuckups, it seems kind of trivial.

02-16-2005, 06:08 PM	#12
FunForOne Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 8,704	Sure, there's no liberal bias in the media in the same year one of the top three lost his job because he tried to affect a presidental election to the liberal side. Thats never happened before!!!!!!!

02-16-2005, 06:13 PM	#13
nofx Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Virgin Mary's womb Posts: 16,826	THE US MEDIA IS LIBERAL __________________ Often times I wonder why There's love and hate, theres live or die. When sickness comes I must decide: When feelings go, theres suicide.

02-16-2005, 06:23 PM	#20
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	No question that US Media is liberal and the reason most international jounalists don't bother to make submissions to them - they don't want their articles hacked and edited by a liberal press. On rankings... US Media may not be at the top, but just above the Hezzbollah Daily Herald for their extreme liberalism. PS... Sarcasm is a word in the dictionary :-) __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

02-16-2005, 06:24 PM	#23
vending_machine Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,062	The mainstream media is not liberal nor right-wing, it's wherever-the-money-is. If it will increase circulation or viewers by pushing either agenda, it will do so.

02-16-2005, 06:30 PM	#29
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	You guys are proving my point for me, I'm talking about this gay whore whom the White House used to feed propaganda to the American public, and all you can talk about is Dan Rather and how Fox News is the only right wing station. Talk about the deaf leading the blind...

02-16-2005, 06:57 PM	#34
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	I mean they were so afraid of Howard Dean, because he's actually opposition unlike most modern democrats, that the media tore him apart. So he screams at a late night victory rally, is that really something that should be played over and over again along with questions about whether it's "Presidential" to act like that? I don't see them replaying Bush's answer to that "sovereign" question over and over again, I mean how fucking Presidential is that???

02-16-2005, 07:00 PM	#35
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	If the media were "liberal", or even unbiased, they'd certainly play that sovereign fuck up at least as often as they play the Howard Dean scream. Right? Well, my last count had the Dean scream played 12,244,534 times, Bush's explanation of sovereignty, 0. Things that make you go hmm...(or at least, should make you go hmm)

02-16-2005, 07:09 PM	#39
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	Let's not forget that Gannon helped bring down Tom Daschle by linking him to a former editor of a South Dakota newspaper. Gannon wrote of bias: "WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- South Dakota's largest newspaper has been rocked by recent accusations of bias in favor of Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and other Democrats. The Argus Leader has steadfastly refused to comment on the 35-year relationship of its star political reporter to the Senate Minority Leader. The Talon News investigation of the claims made by Sioux Falls businessman Neal Tapio has uncovered a second link between the newspaper and Daschle." http://web.archive.org/web/200306181...s_leader.shtml Also notice how Talon has scrubbed their site clean of all Gannon's articles. __________________ I still love everybody

02-16-2005, 07:18 PM	#43
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I cant believe how they defend W , Rathers mistake was he should of said. We found out the documents are forged but the information is true. Your President who is sending your husbands,wife ,sons and daughters off to die. Avoided serving in a war zone at all costs and lets look at the other members of his admin how they answered the call to serve. Since the media is corporate controlled it is not liberal , liberal media was started by Rush to give the fool listener a feeling its us against them. It was brillant .