|
05 Jan 06 - 12:16 PM (#1642067) Subject: BS: LA TIMES From: GUEST,G File this under; It all depends on who presenting the news and who is writing the bylines. LA Times - January 05, 2006 "Republicans Try to Outrun Scandal" "Republicans rushing to return funds from disgraced lobbyist" After leading off with Republicans who received funds, the article includes; Bill Frist,R-TN, Senate Majority leader returns $2000. Harry Reid, D-NEV, has declined to give back the $60,000 he received. The other byline? "Dems hope corruption tars GOP" |
|
05 Jan 06 - 12:23 PM (#1642074) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: GUEST,G Oh yea, Harry Reid, D-NEV, is the Senate Minority Leader. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 12:38 PM (#1642085) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: Alba deary me G you are jumping on anything and everything to do with Dems today...Having a bad Dem are you? Bit premature with the outlook me thinks. Corruption is a deep thing and digs in. You know doubt will have a few more Dems when all is said and done. There is another thread listing those who have received and are said to be returning the monies they got via Abramoff. Approx 45 Reps and 11 Dems so far. The President is also on that list. Why not wait till we see who got what and why and what they are going to do with it. Tis early days on this one..very early days. May all involved in wrong doing regardless of their Political persuasion be outed and prosecuted. Time to air the dirty Laundry in DC. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 12:55 PM (#1642099) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: GUEST,G My post had absolutely nothing to do with political parties, more to do with bias in the media, don't you think? |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:09 PM (#1642117) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: katlaughing Remember the headlines when Clinton was in office? Talk about conservative bias. The GOP wanted to divert attention by focusing on his sexual activities. That's all the press reported on, instead of such things as a balanced budget for the first time in years. Any attempts on his part to improve the lot of the common people were quickly shouted down and reported with a definite conservative bias...universal health care? Why NO, NOT some secret socialist agenda of that uppity bitch he's married to! Payback's a bitch, huh? |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:19 PM (#1642127) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: Wesley S But Kat - When a president gets a blow job from someone who ISN'T a CEO of a Fortune 500 company - well - that's NEWS !! |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:22 PM (#1642131) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: pdq This is from the AP (Associated Press): L.A. Times Prints Quote From Fake Release Wed Dec 28, 7:05 PM ET GREEN RIVER, Wyo. - A quote in a fake news release that was intended as an April Fool's joke ended up in a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times. ADVERTISEMENT The story in Tuesday's editions of the Times noted how successful the reintroduction of wolves had been 10 years ago, but said the predators remained controversial. "In Wyoming, for example, Gov. Dave Freudenthal last April decreed that the Endangered Species Act is no longer in force and that the state 'now considers the wolf as a federal dog,' unworthy of protection," the story read. The Times printed a correction Wednesday, acknowledging that the news release was a hoax. "The reporter saw it on the Internet and had talked with the governor in the past, so she was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes that she thought it sounded authentic, and she didn't check, which she should have," Times Deputy Metro Editor David Lauter told the Casper Star Tribune. "We hate when this kind of thing happens, and we correct it as quickly as we can," Lauter said. The fake press release was put together by Maury Jones, an outfitter in the community of Afton, as a joke for April Fool's Day. "I never thought I'd get this kind of reaction," he said. "But it's got some legs." |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:23 PM (#1642133) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: Rapparee Hillary Clinton returned about $2,000, if I remember rightly, just yesterday by donating it to charity. So have other Democrats. See the "House that Jack built" thread. I posted a list of Dems and Repubs there. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:24 PM (#1642135) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: GUEST,G Kat, how soon we forget. I would go back and review the reporting with regard to WJC, ignoring the sexual activities, and you will see there was still a left leaning bias. Of course, when one eliminates the sexual activities, one is not left with a whole lot to review. Universal health care? Not one Senate Democrat was in favor of it. Not a "payback" by any stretch of the imagination, most people are used to the media bias. Well, at least those who are capable of recognizing it and willing to admit it. IF you can show me overall conservative bias in the likes of the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times and even the Chicago Trib, I will personally reward you with $1000. I take humbrage with your description of Hillary Rodham as "an uppity bitch". She does not have enough class to act that way. I will agree, however, that she is a "power hungry bitch." |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:31 PM (#1642143) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: GUEST,G pdq, I never intended to imply the LA Times was intelligent, just biased. And one more time, it is not about doing what you might consider the 'proper thing', it is about reporting style. I could less who returns the money and who doesn't. That part of it is basically business as usual. By the way, Rapaire, I heard it was $12,000 for Ms. Rodham Clinton. But, I wasn't looking for defensive posturing on the part of Dem supporters, (or Repubs), simply illustrating report style. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 01:58 PM (#1642173) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: pdq Yes, Guest,G but stupidity, ignorance and bias go hand-in-hand. Here is more "LA Slimes" bias: LA Times Last Minute Smears Will Lead to Supreme Court Striking Down Campaign Finance Reform 317y | October 7, 2003 | 317y Under the McCain-Feingold bill, "issue ads" are banned within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. But how are the last minute anti-Arnold smears published by the LA Times any different from such ads? The McCain-Feingold contains a huge loophole allowing left-wing newspapers to incessantly attack candidates in the final days of a campaign while at the same time banning ordinary citizens from doing the same. The LA Times flagrant abuse of this advantage clearly demonstrates how assinine and unconstitutional this law is. The only other remedy would be to ban the publication of newspapers within 60 days of an election. Does anyone think the left wing media would ever agree to this? The anti-Arnold smears highlight the current inequities in McCain-Feingold in a vivid manner. If giant media conglomorates can publish last minute "attack ads" on their fron page, ordinary citizens must have at least the right to respond. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 02:03 PM (#1642179) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: Alba "The only other remedy would be to ban the publication of newspapers within 60 days of an election. Does anyone think the left wing media would ever agree to this?" Come on PDQ..and the Right wing Media would be right up there saying ok, no problem. I doubt that very much. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 02:11 PM (#1642187) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: katlaughing Guest,G, one is not left with a whole lot to review....so the balanced budget is only of minor importance, huh? Good point, Wesley!**bg** G, one blow job does not a country destroy; Ken Starr et al made sure nothing else dominated the news but that one incident, so perhaps you missed the balanced budget and other good which he did. As to Senator Clinton, that was a bit of irony on my part. I am NOT calling her a bitch of any sort. Do you have a problem with assertive women? The GOP sure did with her. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 02:28 PM (#1642205) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: CarolC IF you can show me overall conservative bias in the likes of the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times and even the Chicago Trib, I will personally reward you with $1000. LOL If you can show me a single conservative in the entire Bush administration, I'll give you a... well... maybe I won't laugh quite so hard at your posts. |
|
05 Jan 06 - 05:05 PM (#1642298) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: Bev and Jerry The McCain-Feingold contains a huge loophole allowing left-wing newspapers to incessantly attack candidates in the final days of a campaign while at the same time banning ordinary citizens from doing the same. Gee, PDQ, we thought it allowed all newspapers to publish the news, not just "left-wing newspapers". We think your bias is showing. Bev and Jerry |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:08 PM (#1642832) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: JohnInKansas pdq - the state 'now considers the wolf as a federal dog,' unworthy of protection A "literate" editor would have suspected that "federal dog" was a bit of a joke, if that's the way it was originally released. Or is a misquote of "feral dog?" Even most state governors (a bare majority maybe) should know the difference. John |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:18 PM (#1642842) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES From: GUEST,G Kat, the appearance of a new, fresh group of Repubs in 1992 with the treatise entitled "Contract for America" was the real reason for a balanced budget. Go back and check. The President always gets the credit for stuff, sorta' like GWB is today. 75% of the "Contract for America" was completed or place into operation in its' first year of introduction. CarolC, once again, this has nothing to do with the position of political parties, it is about the media. Okay? And laughter is okay, it refreshes one soul. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:37 PM (#1642860) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES (coverage of lobbyist payments) From: CarolC I'm just saying... |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:39 PM (#1642862) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES (coverage of lobbyist payments) From: Ebbie I'd prefer it to be mine, rather than yours. :) |
|
06 Jan 06 - 01:07 PM (#1642872) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES (coverage of lobbyist payments) From: pdq JohnInKansas, Here is something we both understand: if the story deals with science, the average reporter will butcher it. This is because almost all reporters are liberal arts majors and their goal is "to change the world", not report news. Also, when someone knows nothing about a subject, he/she cannot see mistakes no matter how glaring they are. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 01:23 PM (#1642878) Subject: RE: BS: LA TIMES (coverage of lobbyist payments) From: CarolC This is because almost all reporters are liberal arts majors and their goal is "to change the world", not report news. This may have been true at some point in the past, but it certainly is not true at this point in our history. The goal of the vast majority of reporters in the US today is to make a lot of money and become famous. And this is why they'll say whatever they're told to say by their corporate bosses. |