BS: Fair and Balanced

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:39 AM

Yes, it could indeed...and that is exactly the point that worries me the most, Carol, aside from the possibility of a Third World War.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:31 AM

If, as some have suggested, Iran's response to the US attacking it would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for clamping down here at home, the whole idea of impeachment could become entirely irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:28 AM

Why on Earth should Bush care if he gets impeached? Even if he thought it possible.

What actual difference would it make to his life? Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials.

At present it appears that Bush is destined to be regarded as wonderful by a minority of Americans, and detested by a majority. How would impeachment change this in any significant way?
...................................
"It strikes me" is an alternative to "in my opinion". As such, of course, in strict logic, it is redundant, since writing something generally implies that it is our opinion. But it's a pleasant enough convention, adding those kind of touches.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:24 AM

Yes, Ron, we can agree to disagree. No harm in that. All any of us is doing is making our "best guess" about what may happen.

I don't think Bush fears impeachment at all. I do think, though, that there are bigger things than impeachment to fear in this life and that he may one day face some of them for the crimes he is presently committing.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 08:31 AM

since some believe Bush is crazy enough to make the hideous mistake of attacking Iran, and I do not believe he is--mainly due to fear of impeachment and conviction--

Of course he doesn't fear impeachment or prosecution. Look at all of the crimes he and his pals have committed so far, with impunity. "Signing statements," fercrhistsake, are the biggest imposition on the agencies and the legal system around. Yet Dubya approves things then rewrites them the way he intends to follow them, regardless of the stated law.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 08:06 AM

Therefore, since some believe Bush is crazy enough to make the hideous mistake of attacking Iran, and I do not believe he is--mainly due to fear of impeachment and conviction-- we can, as I said, "agree to disagree"--without any pejorative remarks just possibly directed at anybody---and leave it at that.

It would be a welcome change--and that is a general statement, supporting the idea that good tone can be sustained--even on political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 11:52 PM

Darned right the Iranians would come over the border into Iraq if they were attacked, Ron! That's why Mr Bush refuses to "take the nuclear option off the table". In other words, he is quite willing to initiate a first use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield and use them to kill one hell of a lot of Iranians. He has made that pretty clear. He probably assumes that the use of such weapons could stop any Iranian ground offensive in its tracks. I'm not entirely sure that it would, but I think that is what he believes. He also appears to believe that he has the right to do it, and that he can get away with it.

That there are other simply horrendous matters to consider if he were so reckless and irresponsible as to use nuclear weapons is, of course, a whole further issue, and Scott Ritter has made quite a bit of reference to it, as have others.

These are simply hypotheticals. I'm not saying you are WRONG about anything you have said, Ron, I'm simply discussing various possibilities. They are possibilities that have occurred to people far closer to the matter than you and I.

Now here is a very interesting talk given by Scott Ritter shortly before Bush's 2003 attack on Iraq...very interesting in hindsight, and quite prophetic as to what some of the results of an illegal war of aggression on Iraq might be too.

"Weapons of Mass Delusion"

Bush has made it clear again and again that he is "the decider" and that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks about his decisions. He is a type of purblind zealot, in my opinion, not a practical politician, and such people are capable of anything, given the power. Then there's Cheney, and I think he's even more dangerous in that respect than Bush will ever be.

Some of Iran's further reactions, aside from a major ground attack on Iraq, would be: determined air and missile attacks on the US Navy in the Gulf, determined attempts to stop seaborne traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, and massive launches of conventional explosive type missiles on the American bases in Iraq, as well as other important strategic targets in the Gulf. The probable results?

1. Very serious losses of American personnel
2. Massive American counter-response, probably including tactical nukes
3. Other states in the region being rapidly drawn into the conflict
4. And a rather likely eventual slide into a genuine Third World War with some other more important and much bigger participants entering the conflict in due course of time...and not on the American side.

Do I think Bush is crazy enough to make these mistakes? Yes, quite possibly. I think there's a good chance of him being that crazy. I don't know it is so. What I know is more like...that I am here in Ontario, sitting at my keyboard, and typing a message....

In other words, I KNOW about as much as what most people know. ;-) And I try and figure out what's going on like everyone else does...as best I can.

Both logic AND gut feeling play a part in everyone's analysis of the situation, Ron, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's how all human beings naturally deal with situations. They consult their head, their heart, and their gut feelings. And so they should.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:56 PM

Since the topic has been brought up again--though it obviously is thread creep.

"That strikes me..."--yet another gut feeling by a Mudcatter. Could we have a bit of logic?

Unless of course logic has been declared un-folk. I wonder if somebody would like to explain why, in response to an invasion or bombing of Iran, Iranian troops would not come across the border into Iraq. Look at the border.

That's the point--Bush, as Frank has noted, wants to "make his mark" and the only place to do that is Iraq--which he still imagines he can "win".

His military is telling him what will likely happen if he widens the war into Iran.

There is also the little matter of Congress--the public will not be backing an invasion of Iran as they did Iraq (which of course was only due to the brilliantly successful propaganda campaign.)

If anybody thinks being impeached, convicted and removed would not bother Bush, I'd like to suggest that that person is out of touch with US politics--which is obviously no sin in a Briton--but does mean his observations on the topic may not get great weight. Not that I would want to suggest that the poster is "slightly delusional".

And if Bush were to invade Iran just after the 2008 election--which will feature almost complete rejection of his policies--by both parties--you'd see a perfect political storm.

Might I suggest that, as has been suggested on other topics, this could be a topic on which reasonable people agree to disagree--without "slightly delusional" or other epithets being applied. Seems reasonable.

Unless of course, somebody would actually like to suggest a reasonable scenario which would avoid the above-cited reaction by Iran.

A pity, then, that the suggestion of "agreeing to disagree" is bound to be rejected--almost immediately--by one or another Mudcatter who will feel compelled to comment--- beyond an objective answer such as "I disagree"-- and without bothering to answer the question about Iran's reaction. And I suspect I can easily guess which ones will be champing at the bit. Let's see if I'm correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 08:51 PM

But that doesn't really help, because, like the rest of the world, we are in the hands of a public in the USA where evidently a great number of people do lap it up. God help us all.

Hopefully the internet will help to change that. Otherwise, I think we're all in big trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 08:08 PM

The perfect counterpart to an organ of Goebbels' propaganda ministry is what I would call Fox. They use all the same scare tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 07:44 PM

Pretty frightening video - as was the other Fox Attacks one that Little Hawk (I think) linked to later.

We have some pretty crappy media here, but nothing remotely close to that has ever been seen on our screens (unless you count Spitting Image) - and if Rupert Murdoch ever decided to start pumping it out on his Sky channels I can't see anyone taking it seriously.

But that doesn't really help, because, like the rest of the world, we are in the hands of a public in the USA where evidently a great number of people do lap it up. God help us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 07:05 PM

I'm surprised he hasn't been evicted, LH.


Just in case anyone is wondering what my original intent was in starting this thread, I just figured some people would probably want to see the video I put a link to in my opening post. That's all I had in mind. I don't usually get much discussion in the threads I start for that sort of purpose, so it's not one of the considerations I'm working with when I decide to start this type of thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:53 PM

Well, what I was thinking, Don, is we could discuss the media in general and reportage on the Middle East, Iraq, Iran...that sort of thing. But maybe we need a new thread?

Carol - He nails a variety of things to the wall. It varies. For instance, he likes nailing up mug shots of various gorillas and other lowlife characters that he's feuding with. Then he throws darts at them. When he's getting really morose, he will sometimes blast off a few rounds of .44 cal softnose at the pictures, and it makes a hell of a mess of the wall, I can tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:50 PM

Golly! Not only have I been screaming and nailing things to walls, but I've been beating things to a pulp! Not only that, I think I'm God!

But be it known that I have solemnly vowed to use my Super Powers only for Good.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:48 PM

What does Chongo nail to the wall when he can't buy whisky, LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:45 PM

Sounds good to me, Little Hawk! Let us let leave the matter of public broadcasting's accuracy, or lack thereof (having beaten the matter to a pulp), to the judgement of each individual, and return to the original subject, which, if I remember correctly, was Fox News Service.

What is there left to say?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:39 PM

Sounds like Chongo when it's getting close to the end of the month and he hasn't got enough money to pay the rent and buy the whisky...

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:36 PM

Beats me, McGrath. I'm just posting my opinions about stuff. Don says he's been screaming, though, and trying to nail stuff to walls, so maybe he's got something else in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:22 PM

My impression is, we already do agree on most of the essentials...as has just been suggested. ;-) Why not just move on and talk about the subject of the thread itself?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 06:01 PM

Yep, McGrath, I think you've got it. Really worth screaming at each other over, right?

I've given up trying to convince anybody of anything on this thread. I have suggested that we agree to disagree, but I find that even getting agreement on that is impossible.

. . . like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 05:36 PM

So have I got this right?

Carol says you can't trust to the accuracy of any of your broadcasters, even your NPR, and therefore people need to work on searching out more reliable sources of information if they want to get at the truth.

And Don, in total contrast, is saying that you can't trust to the accuracy of any of your broadcasters, even your NPR at times, but that NPR is a lot better than the others - and therefore people need to work on searching out more reliable sources of information if they want to get at the truth.

.......................

As for the suggestion that Bush in the run up to the scheduled end of his reign is going to be inhibited from attacking Iran because he is terrified of being impeached, which would just mean he had to go a little bit earlier - that strikes me as slightly delusional. (I rather suspect he might wait until after the actual election. Plenty of time to start a war before the new president takes over.)

I remember some people on the Mudcat reassuring us that there would not in fact be a war on Iraq, but that it was all a big bluff. That struck me as delusional too.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 04:36 PM

Yeah, I know. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 04:33 PM

I don't disagree with that, LH. By 'god', I just meant 'in a position to know what I am thinking and doing at all times'.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

Heh! Well, I can't help but just say just one thing in reference to that last speculation of yours, Carol... (about if Don thinks he's God or not)

I think we are all God in a certain sense, and I mean people, animals, plants, everything...    But when I say that we are all God, that doesn't exactly mean at the level of our combative personality and our fickle opinions about stuff. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 02:50 PM

And by the way, I don't know why you think you are in a position to know when I first became aware of Teilhard de Chardin, unless perhaps you think you are God.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 02:42 PM

Don, I dont have a side. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. YOU are trying to impose an entire identity onto me. I find myself in disagreement with some aspects of both (or really, all) of what you are calling 'sides'. And I find myself in agreement with aspects of both of them as well. I have never been consistently in agreement or disagreement with any of them. My posting history contains more than ample proof of this.

I find the Democrats to be just as reprehensible in their own way as the Republicans. I find people who call themselves 'liberals' to be prone to the same kinds of limiting thought processes as people who call themselves 'conservatives'.

What I see people doing (and I've seen you do it as much as anyone else) is that people form a sense of identity around certain cultural considerations, like their political affiliation, their particular 'right/left' orientation, the news outlets they prefer, and sometimes their religious orientation. I know for a fact that the public networks actively encourage people to do this with regard to them during their pledge drives. I've seen and heard them do it many times. They tell the listeners/viewers what sort of people listen to or watch their network. They do it in a way that promotes the idea that people who watch or listen to their network are smarter, more discerning, more educated (sometimes even funnier) than the kinds of people who don't.

Outlets like FOX promote the idea that their viewers are smarter, stronger, more mature, have more common sense, and are more patriotic and better citizens. The alphabet networks market themselves to people who see themselves as 'normal'.

If we allow our sense of identity to be shaped by people who are marketing a product, we end up with the situation we're stuck with today. And evidence of the effects of this are there for anyone to see in the myriad threads here in the Mudcat between people who identify with one side or another telling everyone what people on the 'other side' are like (conservative vs liberal, FOX vs public outlets, etc.).

We need to break free of this way of thinking if we're ever going to make any of the changes this country so desperately needs. We don't need to all agree on the issues or on what we see as solutions to those issues. We just need to stop pitting ourselves against each other in opposing camps and arguing about what makes us different from the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 01:51 PM

Geez, Don....calm down. It's more important to find some common ground here than it is to keep fighting over what someone else thinks you or someone meant when they said whatever they said about what someone else just said. It ends up going around and around forever like a dog chasing its own tail.

I've just spoken up in your defence here, and I'm suggesting that both you and Carol try being less reactive to each other.

As for "taking sides"...sure...we all have a viewpoint. That's natural. The thing is, one must avoid allowing one's viewpoint to turn one into someone who judges other people negatively in the blink of an eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 01:39 PM

". . . he's satisfied with what he gets from the public news outlets in the US."

I never said that. I'm not going to repeat what I did say because I've already written it above, and you have either not read it carefully or you are deliberately trying to distort what I said. When you distort what others say, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you.

And as to taking "sides," you most certainly have a viewpoint on things, including very strong feelings about them. You may use whatever verbal chicanery you wish, but you most definitely have a "side," as anyone who has read your posts can attest. Your sudden embrace of Teilhard de Chardin, with whom I have been familiar for some time, doesn't ameliorate that fact.

Having a "side" in the context of this discussion means such things as taking a stand against needless wars, torture, genocide, oppression, neglect or total disregard of the welfare of one's own citizens, and a whole litany of atrocities that groups of human beings visit on each other. And this includes using the press and the media to try to manipulate the populace into going along with these things. Therefore, I am not satisfied with what I get from the public news outlets. However, as I have made abundantly clear, I find that the public news media does a better job of alerting me to people and events that merit further checking than the commercially sponsored ones do.

And furthermore, as I have said repeatedly on this thread and which you keep brushing aside (trying to imply that this is not what I do), you must listen with your brain in gear and not just accept what you read or hear. Think about it. Check it out. Go to a variety of other sources and compare.

I learned this years ago, in my late teens and early twenties. I had a radio with a variety of short-wave bands. When the Korean war ("police action") was on, I used to listen to the domestic news, then I would listen to newscasts from other countries (including Radio Moscow) and compare. What the American news services were calling a "rout," Radio Moscow would report as "a strategic retreat." Then I would listen to the BBC and other news broadcasts and compare their reports with what the American and Soviet news said. I got quite adept at sifting the real happenings from the propaganda.

And I continue that practice today.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:35 AM

ABSOLUTELY, Carol!!! That is what I have been saying for a long, long time on this forum, and it is why I sometimes come to the defence of people here whom I would generally disagree with about politics, for example.

We have got to get past this unthinking business of dividing up into opposing "sides" and believing the divisive "us and them" stuff that is foisted upon us all the time.

Every single ordinary person out there would like to see a more peaceful, more prosperous, more honest, and more fair society...and world. We have so much in common. It's just ridiculous how people are getting manipulated by their leaders and the media into fighting with each other continuously over trumpled-up political/racial/religious/and gender-based issues and excuses when they all ultimately want the same basic things out of life in order to be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 04:10 AM

CarolC

I hate it when I agree entirely with your posts!

29 Oct 07 - 02:58 AM is absolutely valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 02:58 AM

This is something I probably should have responded to earlier, and perhaps if I do so now, you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from, Don...

Whether you like it or not, you and I are on the same side!

I'm not on any side. For me 'sides' are an irrelevance and a distraction. Because from my perspective, this taking sides thing is what's killing our country. People who have control of the media (all of the mainstream media), are pitting us against each other. They're using the time honored method of divide and conquer, manipulating us into taking one side or the other and battling it out. This is not only a waste of our time, energy, and resources, it also allows the people who are using this method against us to do whatever they want, with our help!

We need to stop doing that. We need to stop seeing the other person (the one who watches FOX news, for instance) as being fundamentally different from ourselves. They have the same needs, wants, and desires. They just have been manipulated (as everyone who sees it in terms of 'sides' has) into thinking it's the FOX network that has their best interests at heart. And the people who trust the alphabet networks think it's those outlets that have their beset interests at heart. And the people who trust the public news outlets think the same about them.

But we are all being conditioned (relentlessly) to believe that the other guy, the one who gets their news from a source we don't like, that guy represents all that is wrong with our country.

Well he or she doesn't. What's wrong with this country is that we've let them manipulate us into seeing each other in that way, and we devote our energies to fighting each other about it instead of all getting together and making the people who are manipulating us in this way stop what they're doing.

Can you imagine what this country would be like if we all got together and held these people accountable for what they've been doing? Personally, I think it would be a much better place.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 02:13 AM

I'm not quite sure what point he was trying to make, then, LH. We knew early on in this thread that he's satisfied with what he gets from the public news outlets in the US. I'm not sure what he was trying to communicate by saying that the only place he'd ever heard Scot Ritter was on NPR. Looks like more of the old argument to me.

At any rate, some people are satisfied with NPR and PBS. Some people are satisfied with the alphabet networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), and some people are satisfied with FOX. And some people (like you and me, I guess), don't trust any of those people and prefer to get their information from other sources. Different strokes, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 09:17 PM

I don't think Don was suggesting at all that Scott Ritter can ONLY be heard on NPR, Carol. He was saying that NPR is the only radio or TV show that he has heard Scott Ritter on lately, that's all, and that correlates with what my Mother said about not seeing Scott Ritter on TV in the last 2 or 3 years.

We see Scott Ritter on the Internet because the Internet cannot yet be regulated for content in the way radio and TV are. It's an open forum. It speaks well for NPR that they have given Scott Ritter some airtime, since NPR is a media forum under centralized control by whoever runs it, and therefore CAN be regulated.

I don't think there's really any reason for you and Don to be arguing about what he said in that post. Whether NPR is "the best" source for whatever...well, who knows? That's just a matter of individual opinion and individual taste...often based mainly on familiarity.

What I'm saying is...there's little point in seeking new arguments here with Don when there isn't much ground for them, simply because of past arguments one has had with Don....

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 09:00 PM

Carol, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I said that I have heard him only on NPR, and, I believe, once on Now, with Bill Moyers on PBS some time back. People like Scott Ritter are heard much more often on public broadcasting than anywhere else I know of, and as a matter of course, without having to go hunting for him specifically. I am also aware that he has several books published, and I have read quite a bit of his writings.

The fact is that I first heard of him on NPR, and I have never heard him on any other broadcast media outlet, with the exception of audio or video links suppied by e-mail newsletters such as AlterNet Headlines, to which one must specifically subscribe to receive.

Kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 08:39 PM

Don, You are suggesting that Scott Ritter can only be heard on NPR. This is obviously not true, since several videos of him talking have been posted to this thread, and none of them come from NPR. I congratulate NPR on having interviewed him, but that is hardly the only place one can hear him. And it is also possible to read what he has to say in numerous places (that are not a part of any mainstream media).

You go ahead and keep listening to NPR. Nobody's telling you that you shouldn't. But to try to suggest that it's the only place to get such information, or even necessarily the best place to get such information, is simply wrong. It's the source you prefer, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 08:19 PM

[Whispering]

Yup. National Public Radio.

Whether they "lie" or not, I am introduced to more good stuff on NPR than anywhere else in the media, including the internet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 07:38 PM

Speak up, Don1 I can't hear you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 07:33 PM

Good! That is excellent. What is "NPR"? Is it "National Public Radio"?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 07:29 PM

As I lie here, bruised and bleeding, I really hesitate to raise my head and say anything again, but I might just mumble softly that I have heard Scott Ritter being interviewed a number of times on NPR. There, but nowhere else. . . .   

Sorry! I'll shut up now. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 05:52 PM

Yeah... ;-)

He's an absolutely brilliant man. I've read some of his books and watched videos of talks he's given.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 05:22 PM

He seems like an interesting guy, LH. His hair is a bit frightening, though. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

Great stuff, Carol! He's onto a powerful truth there, I think, and I believe it will come to pass eventually.

You would probably enjoy reading some of Gregg Braden's material. Look it up here:

Gregg Braden - Uniting science and spirituality

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 12:05 AM

The noosphere is sort of the opposite of the 'new world order' (like the yang to the new world order's yin). Pierre Teilhard de Chardin postulated it, and I think he was prescient in doing so, because the internet seems to be creating the very thing he postulated back in the first half of the 20th century. Here's some information about it...

http://www.gaiamind.com/Teilhard.html

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 10:23 PM

That would be good. I hope you're right. What is the Noosphere?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 09:41 PM

There's hope, LH. The internet is beginning to perform the service that a free and independent media is supposed to perform - the service that the mainstream media in our countries is supposed to perform, but doesn't. That's why I don't think threads like this one (in thousands upon thousands of internet fora all over the world) are just wheels spinning, and debate for the sake of debate. I think there's a lot of important information people are putting in them. Information that people couldn't get through the traditional outlets.

I see it as a paradigm shift, away from the kind of parent/child sort of relationship people have traditionally had with their governments and their news media, to a more egalitarian situation in which individuals become more responsible for knowing what they need to know on their own, and becoming more confident about forming their own opinions instead of having their opinions shaped by others.

Have you ever read anything about the Noosphere, LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 09:20 PM

Thanks, Carol. This is the stuff you will not hear reported on TV. I wonder why? (no, I don't really wonder....I know why)

My mother is a TV news junkie. She watches CNN and all kinds of political shows every day. She says she hasn't heard a peep about Scott Ritter on her TV for a long, long time. Yet he is on the Internet, and saying the things that you will not hear on TV. That's because of who owns the TV stations, and who they are in cahoots with. It's Orwellian control, from the top down, like the eye of the pyramid on the dollar bill, and it works...because the average American consumer's vague and fearful impressions of reality are mostly formed by brief soundbites on his TV screen, soundbites which will not tell him the inconvenient truth about Iran...but only play on his fears and his ignorance. There is, in my opinion, virtually no hope for waking up a population which only gleans its understanding of the world from mainstream network news reporting in the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 02:11 PM

Here's another good one from Ritter, LH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZByQU-JxtY

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 08:05 AM

Carol, that link you provided about the Canadian government's collusion in persecuting people on the USA's "list" is pretty disturbing, and it says a lot. There has basically been an effort on the part of the Anglo nations: USA/Canada/UK/Australia...to work together in this so-called War on Terror which is really a war to dominate and rule the entire world (through mercantile means and military supremacy). They are all complicit in it. They hope to get the European nations and Japan to either go along with them as active allies or else to stand aside and not interfere.

I don't know if they'll succeed in regards to Europe and Japan. I hope not. If they did it would be very much against the wishes of the majority of people in those countries, and indeed even in most of the Anglo countries.

It's an extremely bad situation. I'm glad I'm not 20 years old now. I have already lived most of my life, and it's been mostly in peacetime and in a reasonably good society, so I've been rather lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 07:33 AM

Hell, Ron, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who know more than I do. ;-) Maybe millions!

What has been happening on this thread of late is just the usual nasty little ego battles that arise between people on the forum..."Well, you said...na, na, na, na, na....carp...bicker...snipe....and that proves that you are exactly what you say I am...na, na, na, na..."

It's vain and useless. Let's just stop and discuss the actual subject of the thread instead. Sound like a plan worth tackling?

I do think Bush is irrational enough to attack Iran, but I don't know it for sure, and I have no way of proving it. I merely consider it a strong possibility. You consider it a weak possibility. Fine. I don't see that difference of opinion as a problem, so why should you? I am not asking you to prove and of your opinions, and I never will. That's not how I talk to people when discussing a matter of mutual interest about which we both have...necessarily...only partial and fragmentary knowledge.

Some interesting links have been provided, and that's more important than "proving" which one among us or more or less fair and objective than which other one.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 02:07 AM

Here's some background on Leo Strauss, who is the guy who shaped the neocons' political philosophy...

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935?page=1


I find this part to be particularly telling...

According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 01:59 AM

Ya, what's different? They didn't care about the US electorate when they started the last war either. No suprize here. As far as I can see we the people are good for cannon fodder & corporate slavery as far as they're concerned & we can go to hell if we don't like it!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 01:02 AM

Thanks, Don.


On the subject of the current administration waging war against Iran, this guy is saying that the Bush administration really doesn't care how the US electorate will feel about such a war, because they want the war as a pretext for setting up a military form of government (dictatorship) here in the US. Interesting interview. (It should automatically scroll down to the right place - it's the interview with Francis Boyle)...

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=394177#394177

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 12:22 AM

Fine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:54 PM

The fact is, Don, there isn't a single thing they report on that I can't get more accurately and better from other sources. I much prefer to use those other sources than to waste my time on people who I can't trust to tell me the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:34 PM

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:32 PM

This one's good...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18596.htm


Have you heard about this, LH?

http://www.canadians.org/action/2007/05-Oct-07.html

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:53 PM

Fascinating, watching myself being dissected here!

I would prefer that folks actually read what I posted, not rely on what people say I posted. I am not, as accused, insisting that anyone agree with what I've said. I do, on the other hand, insist on being able to say what I have said (for which, again, please read what I said, not what some say I have said). Clear?

Contrary to accusations, I have not tried to muzzle anyone here. I am totally in favor of free discourse, in the interest of promoting what Thomas Jefferson said was essential to the preservation of freedom and democracy:    an informed electorate. And no matter who wishes I would just stuff a sock in it, sorry, but I cannot—I will not—oblige you.

Regarding NPR's and PBS's alleged bias, all I suggest is that people who are displeased with the usual news coverage but have never or rarely listened to these two news services, give them a listen and see for themselves how they compare with what else is out there. I never at any point said they are perfect. But I don't think they deserve the bum rap some folks here are trying to give them by lumping them together with Fox News Service.

I might also suggest that one pay attention and be aware of what is coming from NPR/PBS and what is coming from their local NPR/PBS affiliate. This can make a substantial difference, and one should not blame the network for what may actually be an editorial bias of the local station. Or vice versa.

Living where I do, I have a wealth of broadcast news outlets. I have the regular Big Three (ABC,NBC, CBS), the cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC (Keith Olbermann), ESPN (were I so inclined), CNBC, and, of course Fox News Service. CSPAN and CSPAN-2 are also available (where you can watch the sausage being made), and I can also get CBC on cable. There are two PBS affiliates in my area. They offer some of the same programming, but they also offer different network feeds, and each station has its own programs. There are also three NPR affiliates available here. There, too, they duplicate each other to a degree, but they also select different programs offered, including feeds from Public Radio International and other available services, plus they each offer locally produced programs. I also get CBC radio.

And then, of course, through my broadband computer connection, I can listen to streaming audio (and read on-line newspapers) from all over the world, which I often do. Most interesting to compare the similarities and differences in what is being offered, both here and abroad!

But with all of this richness of available information, one must—one MUST—(as I have said several times on this thread) listen with one's brain in gear!

The same with material that one reads, be it books, documents, newsletters, et al, and certainly no less with what one encounters on internet websites, blogs, and such.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:48 PM

By the way, LH , I've read your Scott Ritter article. It was definitely worthwhile, but doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know--we have to stay vigilant lest Bush show any signs of this "higher father" garbage. But I think he's rational enough to realize what a disaster his "voices" got him--and the world--into last time. And, realizing the--very good--chances for impeachment and conviction--he won't be trying that again.

But obviously we can assume nothing.

The only thing I think is clear about this time is there is no way Congress will give him a figleaf of justification. So the impeachment chances increase dramatically.

YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:38 PM

Here's another good one...

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM

LH--

All of a sudden it's a "petty verbal victory". So sorry it offends you to be asked for evidence of a cherished belief around here. That only makes it clear that you have no evidence. But maybe somebody else does.

It's only a quest for "victory" in your mind. Not every question is a contest--though it may be for you. That attitude shows more about you than about anybody else.

I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but sometimes people actually would like to learn something about a world issue--in fact I would--and as I've said, I don't claim to have all the facts. I've learned a lot on Mudcat--including from you.

So perhaps you could just let it go and see if somebody else has more evidence than you.


Frank--

I would agree there are many who see shades of gray--but Don's observation is valid for some Mudcatters. Obviously not you--as anybody who reads your posts can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

You are being selective about which part of that sentence I quoted you are willing to address, Ron. And I don't blame you, I'm sure you know as well as I do that the sentence, taken as a whole, is a negative value judgment about people who disagree with him on this subject.

If Don was willing to allow others to form and have their own opinions on this subject, he wouldn't be making comments that serve no other purpose than to ridicule those who don't share his opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 07:57 PM

Check this one out, LH...

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:55 PM

Don says:

"As far as I am concerned, NPR and PBS are about the only truly "fair and balanced" news sources this country has........... They at least try to be honest journalists, which is more than can be said for most of the "info-tainment" programs that pass for news these days."

Don, there has been a distinct turn to the Right on NPR and PBS. They no longer reflect
a balanced programming. It is true they offer Bill Moyers and Now but that's about it.
Who knows who is trying to be an honest journalist or trying to cover their ass to keep their job?

From: Ron Davies - PM
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:23 PM

" What arguments does anybody have, aside from the contention that Bush is mentally unstable, that he will attack?"

One is from his own admission that he wants presidential "capital" from Iraq. Iraq is not going well so Iran may be his next acquisition. Also, he doesn't answer or respond to the law at this point. He will be out of office soon so he may try to make his mark.

There are plenty of reasons that Halliburton, Blackwater, Carlysle and other military
corporations can make more money with a protracted Mid-East war. Bush has already ignored the protestations of the American public on Iraq. What makes you think he will consider them regarding Iran? He is beholden to his cronies.

You say:
"It seems to be a common phenomenon on Mudcat--either we're with you 100% or we're part of the enemy."

I think that this dismisses many members of Mudcat who see shades of gray in the issues.
I don't think that this statement is true.

Carol says:
"I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced."

NPR and PBS may have some decent journalists but they are in the minority at this point.
There is pressure on these stations politically to suppress all the facts about current issues that have unpopular views. These are not the best news sources today for information.
A cross-referencing of blogs, periodicals, books, etc. is the best approach. Faux-News
is a complete travesty and it has weakened the ability of the American public to make informed decisions, hence you have an apologetic NPR and PBS.

Don says: "You think NPR and/or PBS "lied" to you about the Camp David negotiations"

I think that it might be possible that journalists were pressured into accepting information that may not be true. Whether this is lying or not is a matter of opinion. Dan Rather was pressured by CBS and is now engaged in a lawsuit maintaining that his reportage on Bush's AWOL stance was correct. Why is it not possible that PBS and NPR are subject to the same
political pressures?

We don't have the necessary unbiased information about the politics of the Mid-East because there is a news blackout on such matters by the mainstream media. AIPAC
has their spin which gets regularly reported and has been given too much weight. We don't know the true facts about Arafat but there is information available out there that
is not so biased. Dar Jamahl has unembedded reportage. There are other sources as well.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:48 PM

Ask Scott Ritter that question, Ron. I'm sure he's better informed than me or Carol, and he appears to believer there's a very serious risk of Mr Bush attacking Iran and using nukes, and he gives reasons. He must base his rationale on something.

Scoring an imagined petty verbal victory (in your own mind, I mean) over anyone else on this forum by saying "prove it to me" means nothing, Ron. It means less than nothing. It's superfluous. Like I said before, it doesn't win you a gold star, and it has no effect on the world at large either.

We are simply some ordinary people talking, and we all have a right to our own opinions here.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:29 PM

Carol

"To cut oneself off..." is not a requirement that anybody believe what the speaker says--just an appeal for looking at various sources of information.   Sounds reasonable to me. Hell, I'll read anything--and try to sift out the likely facts. In my opinion you need to read sources you know you probably don't agree with---the WSJ editorials fill that niche admirably for me--and see where the holes in logic are.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:23 PM

Well, I've given some good reasons why Bush, being despicable but rational, will not attack Iran. What arguments does anybody have, aside from the contention that Bush is mentally unstable, that he will attack? Since so many are convinced he will, there must be some evidence somewhere--or at least a plausible argument that he will.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:17 PM

Here's another good one from Scott Ritter, LH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:04 PM

"Fair and balanced" is no longer possible in this country... Boss Hog has mastered the ***divide and conquer*** trick and what is left is a terribly polorized and militarized nation with winners and loosers and not too many in between...

Our country is not only with others but with itself...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:41 PM

All the evidence you require will be revealed, Ron...just wait and see. Bush is not going to be in office forever. Sometime between now and when he leaves is when your questions will be answered. He'll either attack Iran...proving that he is completely out of touch with reality...or he won't.

Till then our respective opinions are merely what they are. Opinions. This isn't a competition to win a gold star on Mudcat Cafe for having the most ironclad opinion of the lot...though I keep seeing people acting as though that were the case! ;-)

We would all sincerely like to see more evidence to support our opinions. There's a lot of information out there, but it's very difficult to determine how reliable any of it is, so we each do the best we can with sifting through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:39 PM

Speaking of those who don't agree with him about the public news outlets...

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.


A gratuitously insulting comment, that serves only one purpose - to ridicule those who don't agree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:39 PM

In fact, Carol, from my reading of the thread, it seems Don agrees with me that it's unclear who if anybody is to blame for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. There seems to be evidence on both sides--maybe even more than 2 points of view.

So it's an open question. Neither he nor I am trying to insist on any particular belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:33 PM

Wrong. Don never stated you had to believe what he believes. If you think he did, let's have chapter and verse.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:31 PM

As I've said before, I believe Bush is a worthless bum, an eternal embarrassment to the US--and a virtual war criminal for the Iraq war----but rational enough not to want to be impeached and convicted due to the aftermath of an invasion of Iran.

And I'm still waiting for--any-- evidence---as distinguished from the gut feelings of various Mudcatters--that my take on it is wrong.

I'd sincerely like to see some evidence--I don't claim to have all possible information on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:27 PM

but since your mind is set in stone on this issue, you think everybody with any sense must agree with you 100%

Ron, I suggest you take the time to learn how to read. I will repost this for the third time...

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

It is your buddy Don who is insisting that I agree with him, and not the other way around. I am happy to allow others to hold their own opinions, but Don is not, and neither are you.

I have no problem with Don believing what they say at the public news outlets, or even with him believing that the public news outlets are fair and balanced. What he believes or doesn't is his own business. But, as I said before (another post of mine you seem not to be able to read), I don't share his opinions, and that is my right. Don believes I do not have that right and that I must agree with his assessment about those news outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:19 PM

If Bush and Cheney were genuinely rational people, Ron, I can think of all kinds of good, practical reasons why they would not attack Iran.

Trouble is, I don't think they are genuinely rational. I think they are delusional.

We'll have to wait and see. I keep hoping that they will not be able to get all the necessary ducks in a row in time to do it before the next election. Got my fingers crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:05 PM

Don Firth is exactly right, Carol. You provide some good information, but since your mind is set in stone on this issue, you think everybody with any sense must agree with you 100%.   I'm with Don--and Ebbie--and probably others. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you think. That was evident just from the range of sources Don provided--which he never claimed to be an exhaustive list.

It seems to be a common phenomenon on Mudcat--either we're with you 100% or we're part of the enemy.

Recent case in point:   I have made it clear that I believe Bush is the worst president ever in the history of the US, and that, for starting an unnecessary war under false pretenses, and by means of a despicable propaganda campaign, he belongs in the circle of Hell where the Austrian corporal resides.

But because I did not subscribe to the part of the catechism which states that Bush is self-destructive enough to invade Iran when the likelihood is this would cause his impeachment and conviction, I'm "delusional".

But these individuals for some reason take umbrage at being labelled as "on the Looney Left". Gee, can't understand it--they can dish it out, but have a bit of problem taking it. I wonder why that is.


And when asked for actual evidence that contradicted my reasons why Bush will not invade Iran, they had none.

Not complaining--it's actually sadly amusing.

Attitudes like the "delusional" --and yours--make it a miracle that Kerry did as well as he did. The vast majority of Mudcatters are anti-Bush. But the "100% or nothing" attitude which Don notes is definitely a fact--and tends to drive people away from your position.

You guys are truly expert at "friendly fire".

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 03:45 PM

By the way, the tactics I've just described are exactly the same tactics that FOX news uses on people who articulate different opinions than the ones they deem acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 03:44 PM

I guess it all boils down to one thing... some people cannot accept other people forming and holding their own opinions. They want to be able to dictate what opinions others are allowed to hold. And if they don't get their way, they will attempt to bully and taunt the others into submission, and if they don't succeed on their own, they'll get their buddies to come along and help them bully and taunt the others into submission, as we can see right here in this thread.

We seem to have passed the bullying stage, and we're into the taunts now, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:33 PM

"It's my party and you'll sing what I want you to...."--or isn't that the way it goes?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

Boy, that card is really spinning!! (In-joke)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:44 PM

HOWEVER -

I have just as much right to post my opinions in any thread as he has. I have as much right to challenge his posts as he has to challenge mine. The fact that I have told him that he should expect to be challenged in this thread is perfectly within my rights. The fact that I have told him that I will not challenge him if he starts a thread of his own on the subject, I think, shows a hell of a lot more grace than he has been willing to show toward me in any context.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:29 PM

Stilly River Sage...

You are the one who needs to get over yourself. You think you can throw your weight around and bully people who see things differently than you.

The fact is that my first response to Don was simply to say that I don't share his opinion about the public news outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:39 PM

I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced.

But that wasn't enough for him. Because he, like you, will accept nothing less than full compliance with whatever you think you are entitled to do to others to bully them into accepting your views.

I am not going to be steam rollered by either your or him.

I tried to politely express my disagreement with his viewpoint. I also told him he is entitled to his viewpoint. But like you, he will not accept polite disagreement. He and you both need to impose your opinions on others.

Sorry, STILLY RIVER SAGE, but I'm having no part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:08 PM

Instead of all this back and forth personal sniping to prove who is the "wrong" person here on this thread and why...why not just read this instead? It makes a nice alternative to Fox.

article by Scott Ritter about Bush admin's Iranian policy...

Or watch this:

Target: Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:55 PM

". . . if we were in general agreement, but we didn't agree on absolutely every detail, they tracked me all over the room, cornering me, and trying to convince me that I had to be simple-minded if I didn't agree with them—on that one point! People like this seem to consider you in the camp of the enemy unless you agree with them on everything. The result is that they wind up losing more converts to their cause than they gain."

You're doing an absolutely marvelous job of proving what I just said, Carol.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:17 PM

I know that NPR and PBS lie. The lies they spread harm people. Innocent people. I will not be a part of shilling for them in any thread that I have started.

If you want to start a thread singing their praises, you go right ahead, and I promise you I won't post to it.

Hoewever, I started this thread.

I knew it would reach this point, I predicted it.

Get over it, Carol. You start a thread here and it goes where it will. Unless someone is being abusive or predatory, there really isn't a way to control what is posted, and then it takes a clone to fix it. You don't own it. THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM. You want a private thread, start a moderated list somewhere else.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:46 PM

Whatever you want to call it, Don, please don't expect to be able do it in my thread and not be challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:45 PM

I said I wouldn't be back, but I have one more comment to make.

I am shilling for no one.

Lady, you are quite a piece of work!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:36 PM

Here's the deal, Don.


I know that NPR and PBS lie. The lies they spread harm people. Innocent people. I will not be a part of shilling for them in any thread that I have started.

If you want to start a thread singing their praises, you go right ahead, and I promise you I won't post to it.

Hoewever, I started this thread. And I didn't start it so you could shill for the public news outlets. I started it because I wanted to share the video that I posted a link to in the opening post. I thought it might be of some interest to some people.

You have decided to use my thread as a way to promote a news source that I feel is behaving unconscionably, and I'm telling you that I'm not going to sit by in my own thread, and not challenge it.

Go start your own thread if you want to do that. Don't make me complicit by using my thread to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:32 PM

The TV news media is largely a consensus organization. They don't differ on much.

The only solution to getting reliable information is to cross-reference various sources.
There is so much info available in books, government-issued pamphlets, blogs, internet commentaries etc. that it is easy to consolidate this information and make an informed decision.

Fox News relies on ad-hominem attacks on individuals, misleading quotes and statements that can easilly be cross-referenced and obnoxious personalities as pundits.

Fox was responsible for the 911=Iraq misinformation and the huge lie that UNSCOM
inspectors were not allowed in by Hussein. They perpetrated the "yellow-cake" garbage too.

There are so many biased remarks made by Fox bobble-heads that you might want to consult your local astrologer as more reliable.

BTW, Hillary is getting support from corporations such as Anchor-Hocking. Corporate
sponsorship is being done for most of the candidates these days. That fact is easilly checked. Pelosi said that she was going to do away with lobbyist funding for campaigns.
How is that working out?

I've noticed that Bill Moyers and Keith Olbermann are not exactly household names compared to the GOP megaphone on most TV news outlets.

As to the veracity of news, can you really trust anything that this corrupt administration has to say? If so, pass the Kool-Aid.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:20 PM

Carol, I posted those links as examples of the range of information than can be found on the internet, good, bad, and indifferent—not as support for what I believe myself. I could have posted an even wider range, but as I have said, I have other things to do. One can find support for just about anything one wants if one keeps looking until one finds it—even Flat-Earthers.

I agree with most of the things you post. I thank you for posting the link at the top of this thread. And the ones for Dennis Kucinich and Naomi Wolf. Whether you like it or not, you and I are on the same side!

But—you are exhibiting the same kind of self-defeating behavior that I encountered when I attended my neighborhood Democratic Party caucus prior to the 2004 election, and continue to encounter in a percentage of people who have an active interest in politics. That is, if we were in general agreement, but we didn't agree on absolutely every detail, they tracked me all over the room, cornering me, and trying to convince me that I had to be simple-minded if I didn't agree with them—on that one point! People like this seem to consider you in the camp of the enemy unless you agree with them on everything. The result is that they wind up losing more converts to their cause than they gain.

You think NPR and/or PBS "lied" to you about the Camp David negotiations, and because of that, you try to put them into the same box as Fox News. I don't see it that way (and I do speak with some direct experience with news departments). On this matter, I think you are wrong. And you think I'm wrong. We do agree on many things. But not on this.

I believe this is one of these issues where we must agree to disagree and let it go at that.

I will not be back to this thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:16 PM

"exquisitely ironic", eh? Glad to oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:09 PM

You see it as gratuitously insulting because you agree with him, Ebbie. I happen to see it as a perfectly legitmate point.

However, I find your comment to be exquisitely ironic, considering your track record when it comes to making gratuitously insulting remarks to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:40 PM

"If this is the way you gather information, I guess I don't find it at all surprising you would not see the lies that the public news networks are feeding you." CarolC

If no one has ever told you that gratuitously insulting remarks are impolite and counterproductive, CarolC, you have been done a disservice.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:24 PM

It's all there, complete with links to the relevant reports. Other folks can look at it and decide this one for themselves.

It's hardly all there, Don.


Re: the Slate article - it begins its analysis from the assumption that Arafat walked away from the Camp David negotiations, but it provides no evidence that he did so. It only discusses the relative merits of the various "proposals" made by the Israeli negotiators, which we know from the high level negotiators whose essay I have already provided, Israel never, in fact, made. The Slate people are using smoke and mirrors.


Jude Wanniski in the Al Jazeera article is clearly lying. He is promoting the lie of the "generous offer" which we now know is was not only not generous, it was not an offer. This is not in dispute. Neither Clinton, nor the two eye witnesses to the negotiations who wrote the essay I provided (and also the one you put in your third link) support the lies Mr. Wanniski is promoting.


Your third link is to an article by the same two authors who wrote the essay I provided earlier. Those two people say that Arafat did not walk away from the Camp David peace negotiations.


If this is the way you gather information, I guess I don't find it at all surprising you would not see the lies that the public news networks are feeding you.
Had Arafat walked away from the peace process at Camp David, there would never have been a Taba round of negotiations. We know for a fact (nobody is disputing this) that there was a Taba round of negotiations. Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying, and we have more than ample proof of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 10:25 PM

Don--

Thanks for all that information on the topic. It's certainly not cut-and-dried-----and, as usual with international issues, does not lend itself to simplistic pronouncements.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:39 PM

It's all there, complete with links to the relevant reports. Other folks can look at it and decide this one for themselves. As I said, I have other things to do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:24 PM

Oops. That is what this discussion is about. My "that's not what this discussion is about" comment should have been put at the end of my last post directed to peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:11 PM

"But when he unfolded a map that showed a Palestinian state made up of several unconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli troops, Arafat walked away."

The simple fact is, he did. Mike Shuster's report is accurate.

The NPR piece says this about Arafat:

Walked away from Camp David negotiations in 2000

He did not 'walk away' from the Camp David negotiations. He may have walked away from someone during a particular conversation, but that is hardly the same thing as walking away from the negotiations. And anyone who would use that kind of misleading wording has a hidden agenda.

But that's not the subject of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:02 PM

Peace, in what way do you think the question of whether or not Arafat was corrupt or whether or not he stole any money is relevant to the question of whether or not he was the one who ended the peace process?

You always throw that one out anytime anyone mentions the name Arafat in any way other than totally demonizing him and everything he ever did. In the context of this discussion the only reason you could possibly have for doing that would be to deflect attention away from what was done by members of the Israeli government that is even worse that what you are saying Arafat did.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:41 PM

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Understanding_Palestinian_Poverty.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:39 PM

"ARAFAT'S CORRUPTION

But checks to terrorists are small change compared to Yassir Arafat's record of personal theft. Over the course of his 'revolutionary' career, Arafat has siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars of international aid money intended to reach the Palestinian people.

Estimates of the degree of Arafat's wealth differ, but are all staggering. Last year, Forbes magazine listed Arafat in its annual list of the wealthiest 'Kings, Queens and Despots,' with a fortune of 'at least $300 million.' Israeli and US officials estimate Arafat's personal holdings between $1-3 billion. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, arrives at a figure of $1.3 billion and laments:

This money is enough to a) feed 3 million Palestinians for 1 year, b) buy 1,000 mobile intensive care units, c) fund 10 hospitals for a decade, and d) would still leave $585 million to fund other social projects."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

"The IMF report "Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions," released in September 2003 in Abu Dhabi, was based on the same PA documents that the Israeli government had earlier provided to the European Parliament. The report concluded that $900 million in PA revenues from 69 commercial enterprises belonging to the PA in the West Bank, Gaza and abroad, "disappeared" between 1995 and 2000. The report also found that the 2003 budget for Arafat's office, which totaled $74 million, was missing $34 million that Arafat had transferred to pay unidentified "organizations" and "individuals." Furthermore, the report revealed that at least 8 percent ($135 million) of the PA's annual budget of $1.08 billion is being spent by Arafat at his sole discretion - and does not even take into account Arafat's control of 60 percent of the security-apparatus budget, which leaves him with at least $360 million per year to spend as he chooses."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:35 PM

"Last time you made that specious remark, Peace, it was only three million, not three hundred million. The story changes with each telling, I see."

You are so full of shit, Carol. I said $300,000,000 numerous times. And you know he stole the cash.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:06 PM

Sorry. Goofed up my second link above.

THIS should work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 04:22 PM

"But when he unfolded a map that showed a Palestinian state made up of several unconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli troops, Arafat walked away."

The simple fact is, he did. Mike Shuster's report is accurate.

As I said—and as NPR reported—the intransigence of both sides led to the breakdown of the talks. Since they had reached an impasse, one of the two sides was going to blink first, and it was Arafat. But the NPR reports made it very plain that Arafat was not solely to blame for the breakdown of the talks. It was the bull-headedness of both parties.

In an interview with Bob Edwards, Shuster goes on to say, "Over the past century of conflict, it has always been hard for the two sides to perceive a path to peace. The great irony of the past decade is that almost like equal poles of a magnet, the closer the Israelis and Palestinians came to each other, the more violently they pulled away."

Now, did Shuster "lie?" Or did he give a pretty accurate report?

One might peruse THIS.

A rather telling paragraph here, excerpted from THIS analysis:

These compromises notwithstanding, the Palestinians never managed to rid themselves of their intransigent image. Indeed, the Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own. In failing to do either, the Palestinians denied the US the leverage it felt it needed to test Barak's stated willingness to go the extra mile and thereby provoked the President's anger. When Abu Ala'a, a leading Palestinian negotiator, refused to work on a map to negotiate a possible solution, arguing that Israel first had to concede that any territorial agreement must be based on the line of June 4, 1967, the President burst out, "Don't simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good. Give me something better!" When Abu Ala'a again balked, the President stormed out: "This is a fraud. It is not a summit. I won't have the United States covering for negotiations in bad faith. Let's quit!" Toward the end of the summit, an irate Clinton would tell Arafat: "If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything. These things have consequences; failure will mean the end of the peace process.... Let's let hell break loose and live with the consequences."

And then, there is this from aljazeera.net archives.

And then again, there is "CAMERA: the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America." [You can look it up yourself. I'm getting tired of making links, and I do have other things to do with my time.] They take the administration (any administration) and all of the American news services, including NPR and PBS, to task for their "blatantly pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian bias."

If you give an accurate report of what really happened, you're bound to tick somebody off.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:55 PM

Last time you made that specious remark, Peace, it was only three million, not three hundred million. The story changes with each telling, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:51 PM

"Perhaps the deal was already dead so he walked away."

He didn't walk away alone. He took $300,000,000 with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:51 PM

Ebbie, Begin was a different peace process. This one is the one where Barak was intransigent, and then Sharon after Barak was unseated. (And of course, Netanyahu was intransigent in between Begin and Barak, effectively trashing the Oslo accord that Begin signed.) But in 2000, it was Barak.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:46 PM

KB, he didn't walk away from it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:14 PM

Those who hold the whip in their hand are usually more intransigent than those who don't. That's because they speak from a position of greater power.

Note the intransigence of the Bush administration, for instance, in regards to the rest of the world...

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:13 PM

Upon a podium made of pork with a pitcher of pig blood by his side
Arafat addressed the crowd in Muslim hell
"My fellow suicide bombers..."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:07 PM

Jimmy Carter early on made it clear that it was not Arafat but Begin who was intransigent at Camp David.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:01 PM

Arafat is currently attending a suicide bomber convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:47 PM

That quote does not say that Arafat walking away is what killed the deal. Perhaps the deal was already dead so he walked away.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:11 PM

I didn't have to work hard at all. It was one of the top four hits on my first search. It doesn't really matter how old it is. It's a lie, I heard it repeated many, many times. It was (probably still is) the standard orthodoxy among the major media, including the public media.

If they lie, they have a hidden agenda. I get much better information with the kinds of sourced I use now than I ever got from the public news sources. You can continue to use them if you want, but I can't see any reason to use them myself.

You're not entitled to expect everyone else to subscribe to your view of the world, SRS. You're entitled to choose which sources you'll use for getting news. You're not entitled to tell me which sources I should use for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 11:07 AM

You worked really hard to find a five-year-old story with one line of eight words that you disagree with and call it a lie and consider it as something that NPR would sustain on some warped news-reporting kowtow to entities you hate. You use this to indict the entire operation forevermore.

Get a grip. No one is perfect. The majority of their news is excellent and accurate. If you disagree, you are welcome to write to them about it. They read letters every Thursday on their programs. I don't see any of the other networks doing that.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 12:23 AM

Here you go, Don. They're still doing it. (Or rather, they haven't corrected the lie they told all those years ago.)

Just one example...

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history6.html

"Leader of Palestine Liberation Organization from 1969 to present. Believed to have been born in Cairo, Egypt. Attended University of Cairo, becoming a civil engineer. In the late 1950s he helped form Fatah, one of the Palestinian groups created to fight the state of Israel. Launched guerrilla operations against Israel in 1965. Tried but failed to organize insurrection against Israel's occupation of the West Bank after Six Day War in 1967. Spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of Palestinians in 1974. Established base in Beirut, but was ousted by Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Sent into exile in Tunisia. Supported Iraq's Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War, but agreed to compromise with Israel after Iraq's defeat. Signed the Oslo Agreement with Israel in 1993 and was co-recipient of Nobel Peace Prize along with Shimon Peres, Israel's then foreign minister. Returned to Gaza and was elected president of Palestinian Authority in 1996. Walked away from Camp David negotiations in 2000. Now under siege in Ramallah by Israeli army.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 11:25 PM

That was nigh most seven years ago, so it's hard to be that specific now (I don't tape everything that comes over the air!), but I heard a number of different reporters and commentators on several programs, including "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." They were following the progress (if it could be called that) of the negotiations, reported what people said (giving the proper attributions to each quote), then, in the end, offered the opinion (it might have been Daniel Schorr, but others as well) that each side insisted that the other make concessions that they were unwilling to make, and the failure of the talks was due to the intransigence of both sides. There was similar coverage on Jim Lehrer's evening news telecast.

I never heard anyone say that it was all Arafat's fault because he walked out—other than that there were some who thought that, but that was the opinion of some folks other than NPR personnel, and were properly attributed to the people who voiced that opinion.

Neither NPR nor PBS was pushing any agenda. They were reporting the news.

Okay. I showed you mine. Now you show me yours.

But beyond that, I don't care to continue this discussion. I've tried to explain to you how news services work and how attribution is always given and opinion is always labeled as such—save for Fox News, which is not news, it is a propaganda organ for the Bush administration. This labeling and attributing by legitimate news services is not just to be nice. It has legal implications. News services can be, and sometimes are, sued for libel unless those labels are rigorously applied. It reduces the legal liability of the news service.

So I've explained it yet again. If that's not good enough for you, well then, you're on your own. I'm getting tired of having to explain the same thing over and over again to someone who refuses to get it because it might mean that they said something in error without really knowing what they were talking about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 09:19 PM

Which program(s), Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:16 PM

But I did.

Goodbye.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:38 AM

It's good that you were reading a wide variety of sources, Don, because you wouldn't have gotten that information from the public TV and radio networks.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:36 AM

SRS, I have already said that others are entitled to their opinions. And that I am entitled to mine. You seem to think that others are entitled to tell me what my opinions ought to be. I happen to disagree with that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 12:58 AM

From everything I have been able to find out--from a wide variety of sources--it was the intransigence of both parties that caused the talks to break down.

But partisans on both sides don't like that judgment. They're just as intransigent.

I'm outta here, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 11:26 PM

I'm familiar with a lot of this, Carol. I think the Palestinians got a horrible deal. You could refer folks to read some of the writings of the late Edward Said to get some thoughtful and balanced discussion. NPR and PBS are the next best thing to scholars like Said, hands down.

That said, this will be my last post on this thread. Because what I see here is Don and others bending over backwards trying to politely engage you in a discussion in which you will not move one jot. Not one tittle. You dismiss anything that isn't exactly your view of the world. (I can be accused of this also, but I make sure to cite some damned good and authoritative sources to keep me company, not this vague dismissal of everything--like we need to take your word for it that what you know is "fact.") And we all know what happens when people openly challenge you on your opinions. You go ballistic and the thread goes down the drain. You and I agree on many things, but your methods of arguing points are as closed-minded as anything O'Reilly can come up with, you're like mirror opposites in many ways. Which makes your arguments as hard to swallow as his.

Okay, I just carried this match into the firework stand. And I'm outta here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 10:18 PM

Well then, Don. Explain to me please why you were unfamiliar with the fact that Arafat was not the one who ended the talks, if your source of information is so good.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 09:54 PM

From the book "The Best War Ever" by Rampton & Stauber:

"At the time of the Iraq war, Fox News had just 1,250 full-time and freelance employees and seventeen news bureaus, only six of them overseas, with operating costs of about $250 million. By contrast, CNN had four thousand employees and forty-two bureaus, thirty-one of them overseas, at a cost of about $800 million. In the Middle East, Fox had only fifteen correspondents, compared to at least one hundred apiece for ABC, CBS, NBC and BBC. As U.S. tanks rolled on Baghdad, Fox was forced to purchase video footage of Baghdad from Al Jazeera, the Arab network."

"We don't have the resources overseas that CNN and other networks have. We're going in with less money and equipment and people, and trying to do the same job. You might call it smoke and mirrors, but it's working." --Rick Leventhal, Fox correspondent

Fox News also alleged that France had actually assisted in smuggling Saddam out of Iraq. The accusation was made by Fox military stooge, Paul Vallely, a retired general. "Let me stop you," said billo, "Do you really believe there's going to be conclusive proof, General, do you believe there is going to be conclusive proof that France helped Saddam Hussein and his thugs escape? Do you believe that will come out?"

Vallely replied, "Absolutely. There is enough information, Bill, that I'm getting coming out that is going to bury and break the Chirac government."

"Wow!" exclaimed billo, eight months before a filthy, exhausted Hussein was found cowering in a spider-hole near Tikrit. Apparently, Saddam found France so not to his liking that he decided to return to his hometown.

Fox interviewed all kinds of conservative military and govt people to present the pro-war viewpoint but only interviewed celebrities as Susan Sarandon and Janeane Garofalo for the antiwar view. Tony Snow asked Garofalo if she thought Saddam was trying to obtain WMD. She replied that he probably did only because many leaders would like to have them. She pointed out that there was no evidence that Saddam actually had them however--that out of countries as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan, Saddam was the least likely to have them or be able to get them. She disagreed with Rick Santorum that the war would be cheap. "This is going to be economically devastating for us," she said. She also stated that it is action in Iraq rather than inaction that will make us less safe.

Despite Fox's attempts to paint antiwar people as a bunch of liberal democratic pantywaists who listen to know-nothing celebrities, Garofalo proved herself more knowledgeable than the White House and Pentagon put together. And they have Fox News to thank for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 09:36 PM

My apologies.

My mistake. In a post above, I mention Carol's link to the address given by Naomi Wolf at the top of this thread. That is not correct. It's the first post in the thread entitled "RE: BS: Naomi Wolf - The End of America."

By all means, listen to what Naomi Wolf has to say.

HERE

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 09:21 PM

There is the all-important matter of attribution. It is standard practice for the news reporter to attribute comments or statements of opinion or belief to the person who made the statement. For example, "According to President Clinton, the cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself." If the reporter simply said, "The cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself," he or she is not reporting, they are editorializing. Now just because they report what Clinton said does not mean that they are biased or that they are lying. They are reporting a fact:   this is what Clinton said. Now, if someone contradicts that, the reporter will report that, too—and tell you who said it.

This is basic journalistic practice, and I never hear PBS or NPR news people departing from that practice.

When someone has a strong opinion about an issue, sometimes this can blind that person to what the reporter is saying, especially if they disagree—and they miss the fact that the statement is attributed to some source and is not necessarily the opinion of the reporter. Or of the news service he or she is working for. Or they fail to distinguish between who is a reporter and who is a commentator. If Daniel Schorr, for example, said, "The cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself," there should be no problem with that, because what Schorr says on the air is clearly labeled as commentary, or "news analysis," which is the same thing. However, you will never hear Dan Schorr say anything that flat-out. He would say, "In my opinion, the cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself."

As long as the reporter says, "According to. . . ." or the commentator says, "In my opinion. . . ." or words to that effect, to characterize the entire news service as "lying" is neither reasonable nor realistic.

Don Firth

P. S. Sometimes this sort of thing can go to extremes. I recall an incident on my first radio job. The station was "easy listening:" elevator music. With a two minute news and weather break at the top of the hour. Not brilliant radio, but it was my first broadcasting job as an announcer.

One afternoon I was reading the very brief headline version of the four top national news stories, freshly ripped off the AP wire service teletype. One of the stories gave the American casualty figures in Vietnam for that week (you don't hear anything about the weekly casualty figures in Iraq these days—except on PBS and NPR).

A few moments after finished the local weather report and started the next record, the phone rang. An irate listener. He was very upset—with me! How could I read those casualty figures and simply move on to the weather report without saying something about the death of these brave men? Without some sort of eulogy? Well, it seems his son was one of those figures, and in his grief, he had to lash out at something or someone. I was it. I was a cold, heartless, unfeeling son-of-a-bitch and he was going to have me fired! As far as he was concerned, my expressing my sympathy and condolences to him at that point was too late! I should, he shouted, have done it when I was on the air! And he reiterated what he thought of me before he slammed down the phone.

I knew that a) it would be out of place for me to say anything beyond matter-of-factly—but somberly—reading the copy I had in my hand; and b) for me to have made any comments on my own about the story would be editorializing, and would just get me into trouble with some other listener. I told the program director about it and he said, "Yeah, that sort of thing happens. Better get used to it."

If he's still around, I'm quite sure that grieving father still thinks I'm a cold, heartless, unfeeling son-of-a-bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:32 PM

They had some catchy slogan on the gates of Auschwitz too. I think it was "Work Makes You Free".

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:12 PM

NOT to defend FOX, but showing examples of well known opinionated hosts acting, well, opinionated, weakens the argument that there is nothing fair and balanced on FOX. If the Youtube cut distinguished between those representing themselves as journalists and those who run 'shows' it would make its point stronger.

"Fair and Balanced" on FOX is a kind of trademark like that erstwhile village in the orient named "usa" so it could be marketed as "made in usa".

I have long felt that there is only one thing about Fox TV that is fair and balanced: The Simpsons.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:10 PM

I get my news every day on the Net and in the newspapers, Bill. I find the reporting a lot more indepth when it's in print, and I don't have to suffer through three minutes of obnoxious commercial interruptions for every five minutes of actual program, like on TV. I get the program, period. No commercials.

I frankly can't understand why anyone would want to watch the TV for their news, but then, I can't understand why they all want to drink coffee all the time either or why people buy movie magazines that are obsessed with slagging Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie... ;-)

I'm just a conscientious objector to modern marketing techniques, Bill. Like you are to religion. We all have our quirks.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:07 PM

There is nothing about this that I don't understand, Carol.

Of course there is another narrative to those events.

There always is. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Ignorance is NOT bliss, although it may ease one's mind. 'Tis my notion that when one wilfully cuts off avenues of information that others have access to one is deliberately blinkering oneself.

It is why, for instance, I make myself listen to Bush and/or read the text of whatever speech he has made. I must say that I rarely listen all the way through a Fox News show but when an issue comes up I do search archives. And when the likes of O'Reilly or Coulter show up on one of the talk shows, I listen alertly- and take notes.

To create wide blanket statements and cast them as though they were presenting the accurate view(s), to me, is not only cynical but dangerously naive. Sorry, George, much as I am discomfitted by the heresy your take on many political matters strikes me as shallow and superficial.

Far from being bliss, ignorance can kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:47 PM

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.

And yet I find myself more informed on many of the important issues of the day than a lot of people who watch and listen to these outlets. So this one doesn't wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:34 PM

. . . And I watch and listen to all of this with my brain engaged, which is what public broadcasting is all about. They expect you to think, not just swallow everything like a baby bird.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:34 PM

Like I said, Bill, I check in every now and then to see if things have changed (ever hopeful for some silly reason), but they never have.


Don, I don't know which part of "all of them" you don't understand. The premise that Arafat rejected the peace process is the standard orthodoxy in all of the major news media (or at least was for several years... so that's several years worth of lying). All of the anchors and commentators promoted this idea. They never had any guests on who refuted this idea (or at least they never did while I was watching, and believe me, I used to watch and listen to those networks a lot).

A real journalist would not only have reported the version of events that Clinton and Barak were asserting. A real journalist would have also asked what the Palestinians had to say about it, and reported that with the same frequency as they reported the other version. They did not. The fact that they did not even acknowledge that there might be another version shows that they had no interest in real journalism, and were simply supplying propaganda to people who were willing to believe whatever they said without ever bothering to check it out.

The fact that so few people (possibly no people) who watch or listen to the public networks are even aware that there is another narrative of those events, is more than ample proof of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:28 PM

I've been watching KCTS-TV (PBS affiliate) and listening to KUOW-FM (NPR affiliate) since these stations first got started in the 1950s. I had an even more intimate relationship with KCTS-TV in 1959, because I did a series of television programs on folk songs and ballads, called "Ballads and Books" and funded by the Seattle Public Library on KCTS. KUOW was a charter member of NPR when it first formed in 1970. It is the second most listened to radio station in the Seattle-Tacoma market and the most listened to news radio station in the state. It is a service of the University of Washington. I know some of its on-the-air personnel and I know them to be dedicated journalists and people of integrity. As interviewers, they often ask the tough questions.

I've already mentioned programs like "NOW, with David Brancaccio," "Bill Moyers' Journal," "Frontline," and "POV." These programs deal with stories in depth, usually with lengthy interviews with the people involved. "Washington Week in Review" covers (as the name implies) what's been going on in Congress and other very current issues (a discussion, with a moderator and several reporters, each covering a specific beat), and "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" every evening. For those who don't know, this is hour news program beginning with a news summary followed by (usually) three stories in some depth, often with interviews with the parties involve. Then, a brief but usually fairly polite conversation between a conservative commentator and a liberal commentator. This is a substantial cut above the relatively slap-dash news coverage (half-hour in length) offered by the commercial networks.

On my NPR affiliate, in addition to programs like "Alternative Radio," on which you hear some notable person speak or be interviewed, and it's up to you to decide whether they are crackers or right on the mark, I have heard interviews with authors such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Helen Caldecott, Richard Clarke, Michelle Golberg (before I learned that she's Charlie Noble's niece), Naomi Wolf (the interview I heard was on the morning of the day she spoke in Kane Hall at the U. of W.—Carol's link at the beginning of this thread), John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), Paul Woodruff (First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea), Lee Iacocca (Where Have All the Leaders Gone?), and, just this morning, Helen Caldecott again, followed by Hans Blix. These and many, many more. Lengthy interviews with people, some of whom I may have never heard of had it not been for NPR.

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.

Don Firth

P. S. And I might also mention programs they do other than politics, for example, "Masterpiece Theatre," "Mystery," other drama programs, science programs like "Nova," and the arts, such as "Live From Lincoln Center" and many others on PBS. And the interviews and previews that my local NPR affiliate, KUOW, does with people in the arts (theater, opera, ballet, local musicians of all genres, and musicians passing through, writers of fiction and poetry).

You can't find programming of that breadth and quality on commercial television and radio!

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 05:48 PM

The author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James Loewen, was on a local NPR radio talkshow at noon today. A wonderful line he pronounced and I scribbled down was:

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion but you don't have a right to your own facts."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 04:20 PM

Funny how the slamming of the news media in general is being done by Carol, who admits she seldom listens to it anymore, and Little Hawk, who admits to not owning a TV.

There is a well-known admonition to "know thine enemy", and IF you are unhappy with some aspect of news coverage, it seems to me it behooves you to follow it well enough to keep track of what they are doing!...maybe YOU can provide some details about where they have gone wrong.

"They ALL lie and distort and their goal "is to mould them, condition them, and direct them"...".... seems like hardly a clear accusation that *I* can follow up on.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 03:14 PM

Those folks who say things like "All the news media are nothing but a government propaganda" or "They're all the same, so it doesn't make any difference who you vote for," are a) extremely cynical (whether they think so or not) and b) not really paying attention.

It's an easy way avoid a citizen's responsibility to participate in the political system. One can just throw up one's hands and say "Why bother? What's the use!??"

This is a way of saying "Let George do it." Well, here's a news flash! George is doing it!

I don't think sitting back and "viewing with alarm" while trying to remain smug and aloof is helping the situation much.

Don Firth

P. S. (Not addressed to anyone specifically, but those who fit know who they are) Are you going to your party caucus to argue for the candidate of your choice? Oh! That's right! All the candidates are the same, so what's the point? Besides, you don't belong to a party.

"I'd rather just sit HERE and grouse."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 03:01 PM

It is an interesting and sometimes enlightening pastime to sift through the News, because one can definitely find some accurate and useful information there, Don. The more outlets one consults, the better, if that's what you're after. In a system so enormous and complex as our present social order it's simply not possible for those intent on establishing a dictatorship to control everything and everyone. In fact, it's far from possible. There are too many individuals involved, and individuals are unpredictable, they have free will, and some of them have high moral and ethical standards too.

This must worry Bush and his people, and I'm sure that they are working on ways to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 02:48 PM

To say that NPR or PBS "lied" is a bit unspecific, considering the nature of the kind of news coverage these services do. They have reporters in the field, they have readers, reporters, and interviewers in their studios in Washington, D. C. and other places, and commentators and news analysts, such as Daniel Schorr and Ted Koppel, whose remarks are clearly labeled as "commentary," not "hard news." Some individual reporter or commentator may make an inaccurate statement (often caught and corrected in a later broadcast), but it is certainly not a matter of editorial policy.

To claim that NPR or PBS "lied" is much too general a statement. What is required is identifying who made the statement that one disagrees with. Was it a reporter? Was it a commentator? Or was it a guest being interviewed?

Among other things, both NPR and PBS air programs and interviews that other news services wouldn't touch—for whatever reasons.

This morning, on my NPR affiliate station:

I heard an hour-long interview with Helen Caldecott discussing the dangers of nuclear power plants and their contribution to environmental pollution. There was also a side discussion in which she talked about the Pentagon's hush-hush program to militarize space, despite treaties we have signed.

Following that was an hour-long interview with Hans Blix (interview taped on Friday, played this morning) about the resurgence of the arms race and America's role in restarting it.

That, in the first two hours following "Morning Edition" this morning.

A few days back, I heard an hour-long interview with Naomi Wolf, discussion her book, The End of America.

Where else?

Certainly not Fox News Service, where their main talking head tells guests to "SHADDAP!!" whenever they say something he disagrees with or when they even approach a subject he doesn't want talked about. And although they occasionally do a bit of hard news from time to time, their selection of what to report and what to omit, is, in itself, a form of propaganda.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM

Hmm. Can't resist elaborating, can I? Okay...

The purpose of "the News" as it exists now is not to inform the people, it is to mould them, condition them, and direct them in order that they will do what the $ySStem wants them to do, cooperate, and remain largely ignorant of what is actually occurring. It is also a form of daily entertainment for minds seeking something to chew on, of course...but that's secondary.

The News is crafted to maintain compliance and manufacture consent. It is also crafted to keep alive and foment various hostile divisions between different groups (such as Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics...or Republicans and Democrats...or liberals and conservatives...or religious people and atheists...or straights and gays). A public constantly divided against itself is a public that can be more easily controlled from the top down, and their anger and frustration can then be periodically directed against each other rather than against the $ySStem...and the $ySStem can impose increased "security" measures and augment its police powers to deal with those outbreaks, thus extending its overall power and control.

As Boss Tweed said, "You can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half for you." If it gets out of hand, you send in the army and declare martial law.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 01:00 PM

Another concern is what's not being reported, what agencies have either choosen or been told what to leave out of the news. Will we one day wake up to the headlines telling US that we live under a new system of government & wonder why we are now just hearing of his. We stilldon't know who drafted up uor energy policy does anyone think that we'll be completely informed about news that could change the course of ouur nation? I do believe that NPR & PBS do try but they are not privy to all sources & they can be kept out of the loop when there's the need.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 12:50 PM

To keep it brief, I agree with everything Carol has said on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 12:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs&mode=related&search=Fox%20News%20Neil%20Cavuto%20Rebecca%20Gomez%20Boobs%20Strippers%

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 12:03 AM

Yes, they are probably more so. But not enough so for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:48 PM

I am quite adept at news gathering and checking sources.

What I'm trying to establish is what, exactly, you mean when you say "source material." Some folks mean Wikipedia or any of a number of e-mail newsletters.

Naturally I don't accept any newscast or news commentary at face value. Not even NPR and PBS. But of all the broadcasting services, I have found them (after thorough checking) to be the most accurate and reliable of all the available services. Also, by far the most thorough. Lengthy interviews with parties representing all sides of an issue rather than the usual 30" sound-bite.

As an example of the kind of thing I can get from NPR, I was put onto Naomi Wolf's book just a few days ago when she was interviewed on NPR.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:29 PM

Don, source material comes in many forms. It can be official documents, like for instance UN resolutions, or government documents. It can be memoirs and autobiographies, it can be papers, essays, articles and books written by participants giving accounts of their direct experience, eye witnesses accounts. It can be scientific papers or journals, legal documents, treaties, correspondences between people (for instance, letters from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington would be considered source material). Source material is what journalists are supposed to get their information from. It seems to me that if you are familiar with the process of gathering news, you ought to know this.

Here's an example of source material. It's an essay written by two of the high level negotiators in the peace process that included Camp David in 2000 and ended after Taba. It has not passed through the filter of any news media. It comes directly from the source...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15502

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:52 PM

Carol, I did read what your said, but that doesn't answer the question. You say you go to "source material." That's pretty vague.

I'm asking you--what source material is that? And where do you find it?

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but I worked for some years in the broadcast industry, mostly "on the air." I have some acquaintance with broadcasting news departments, including having been the news director at a network affiliated station.

So I get prettty skeptical when someone refers to "sources," especially when they seem reluctant to specify them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

But that's not what this thread is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

Actually, Spaw, I became incredibly disillusioned with Bill Clinton, because early on, he actually was silent, and even complicit in the spread of that lie. And he did it to help Hillary get elected to Congress. But there were other witnesses to that event who challenged this version, and he has eventually come around to being more honest about it. I used to see him in a very different light, but now I see him and Hillary both as political opportunists who will tell any kind of lie to gain power. People say that the difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Bush lied, people died. Well, when Clinton helped to promote this lie, a lot of people died.

But it is a fact that Barak was the one who ended it (to spend more time campaigning to stay in office), and Arafat is on record as wanting to keep the process going.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:59 PM

Well ya' know.......I am still a Bill Clinton fan but he has not always been a beacon of truth in every case, often just bending things a bit, but still an untruth is an untruth. Yet you are willing to take his word on this.   He may be correct and truthful, but can you verify it?

Too often the truth is so subjective and is simply the perceived truth of each individual which is the truth we each know. The actual truth may be and often is something different that matches nothing you or I believe it to be.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

See my 20 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM post, Don. I've already answered that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:26 PM

Fair enough. But I'm still curious to know where you get news and information that you consider to be reliabls. If I need enlightenment, then please enlighten me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

What news or information sources do you use--that you consider reliable?

I already answered this one. Please read the thread.

and HOW do "We now know that that" Arafat did not "walk away"...etc?

Bill Clinton says so in his book, My Life, and before that, some of the other high level negotiators in that process have said so.

Which peace negotiations did—NPR? PBS? Which? Or both?—say Arafat walked away from, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords, or the 2000 Camp David Summit?

Camp David (2000) and Taba.

You asked for an example. I provided one. It's a big one, because all of the people on the public broadcasting networks did it when the subject was being discussed. And it's one that was ongoing for a very long time (years, and may even still be going on). If you can't refute this one, why are you asking for others?

Yes, I have stopped watching and listening to the news on the public broadcasting networks, for the most part. From time to time I will check in to see if anything has changed. Every time I do that I find that they have not. I don't keep a log of the lies when I hear them so that I can come here and list them for you. I used to value the public broadcasting networks' news programing quite a lot. I don't value it at all now. The reason is because they lie.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

Which peace negotiations did—NPR? PBS? Which? Or both?—say Arafat walked away from, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords, or the 2000 Camp David Summit?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:18 PM

Carol, you cite one instance that you consider to be a lie (which I will check out for myself) and then you issue a blanket condemnation and simply write them off, saying that they do it all the time.

"All Indians walk in single file. At least, the one I saw did."

I echo Bill's question:   What news or information sources do you use--that you consider reliable?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:04 AM

'they'? 'their'? Are we back to Fox news...or is this now an indictment of ALL the media?

I am confused...if you don't watch them any more, what are you using for comparision & information?

   I am perfectly aware that news has to be double-checked and often 'taken with a grain of salt', but "they ALL lie....Chronically"???

and HOW do "We now know that that" Arafat did not "walk away"...etc?

As I said, it is hard work to sort out the facts from the propaganda and half-truths and just plain carelessness. I cannot see how anyone can be so sure that 'X' is true...or not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:51 AM

For a long time they were saying that it was Arafat who 'walked away from' (their language) the Middle East peace process. We now know that that is far from the truth. And they all did it. Everyone in the public tv news arena, and everyone in all of the major media did it. They're probably still doing it, but since I don't watch them any more, I couldn't say for sure. That's a pretty striking example. But it's a chronic problem with them as well as with all of the major media. They all lie. Chronically.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 12:08 AM

Carol, I'm not trying to be confrontational. This is an honest question. Can you tell me what lies specifically? Which programs and which newspersons or commentators?

I would really like to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:44 PM

Her stance on health care benefits the insurance industry, and not the consumers. Considering that her candidacy is being supported by the insurance industry, this is hardly surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:15 PM

from this page>




"In Mrs. Clinton's complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

"Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No," said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign.

"But," Mr. Mauro added, "was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes."

(why I find it so hard to make decisions based on short bursts of data)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:07 PM

hmmm... Hillary on the board of Wal Mart? Let me look....


Ok...I see. She was in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart started..
but...
February 3, 2006
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gathered checks from Hollywood friends, John Kerry's wife and even a former Republican congressman, but records filed Friday show she returned cash from an even older ally -- Wal-Mart...

Clinton returned $5,000 to the political action committee of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company with long ties to the Clintons dating back to their days in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation's largest retailer.

But the senator signaled a new stance on the company's business practices in a speech last week, when she told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the company should provide better worker benefits."


------------------------------------------------------------------
The more one investigates, the more confusing it gets. With the internet to read, there are 27 positions and opinions on every issue. What IS a sincere voter to do in order to make an informed decision?

For some reason, lots of people are liking her...and yes, almost as many dislike her strongly. I have seen her roundly put down because she is *gasp* "ambitious"!! I don't believe I have seen any of the male candidates accused of that. Curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:03 PM

Well, I'm neither conservative nor liberal, and I can see from the perspective of someone who hasn't got a vested interest in either alignment. I don't like it when people lie to me. I don't care who they are. PBS lies, just like all the rest of them lie. Their lies may not be from the same slant as those of FOX news, nor as numerous, but lies are lies. And they're completely unnecessary unless someone's got a hidden agenda, which I would suggest all of the major media do have, including the public broadcasting networks.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:46 PM

Programs like the aforementioned, plus "Frontline," "NOW, with David Brancaccio," "POV," and others regularly cover stories that the corporations and the conservative minions would rather the Americam public not know about. They are the only major news services in the country that do.

Conservatives complain that NPR and PBS are "the worst of the liberally biased media." Hard-charging liberals complain that NPR and PBS aren't liberal enough to suit them, and theorize that they must be part of the corporated-influenced media.

Nobody's happy with them. So they must be doing something right.

But as I said, I don't take any of it as gospel. I listen and view with my brain engaged and often check other sources. And I keep my brain in gear while I'm checking those other sources, as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM

BillD, that's who is funding her campaign, and she's getting more money from them than anyone else. And already, her agenda is very much in line with theirs, as we can see from her health care plan.

pdq, good point.

mg, I worry about that also, and I figure that's also part of why Murdoch likes her.

I don't rely on any news sources for facts, SRS. If I'm going to state something as a fact, I prefer to go to source material if possible. If that's not possible, I will remain open to the possibility that what I'm reading or hearing is not true. Frequently, if I am subsequently able to get access to source material, I find out that what I had heard or read in the news was not true, or was presented in a way that was misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:50 PM

But I catch them telling lies all the time, even on Washington Week in Review. I used to love the public broadcasting news, but now they just piss me off.

So where do you consider the news to be most accurate, and how do you know which news is "correct" and which is bogus? You haven't disclosed that here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: mg
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:47 PM

I would worry far less about Hillary being influenced by the corporoscopy or whatever it was than being bought by other countries with interests not totally convergent with those of the US. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:41 PM

"...she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy,..."

Manpulated by the corporatcracy? Hell, she is part of the corporatocracy, having served on the board of directors of many large companies including banks and even Wal-Mart.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:24 PM

"...she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy,..."

But why would this be so? Nothing in her speeches or record that I have read leads me to believe she is in bed with those folks. Could "most likely" still be 'not very likely'?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:37 PM

I think it's possible to ask questions for which there is a 100 percent probability of accuracy, pdq. If I can find the study, I'll post it here.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Murdoch is backing Hillary. Of the Democrats, she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy, and I imagine Murdoch, as well as a lot of the other neocons, realize that a Democratic president is probably inevitable this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:14 PM

" People were asked questions to learn how much of what they had been told by their preferred news source was misinformation."

It is absolutely impossible for people to know what percent of their news is bogus. Knowing that would require a reference source that was certified 100% accurate by people who are both omniscient and 100% honest. {insert laughter here}

Fox owner Rupert Murdoch has been publicly endorsing Hillary for at least the last two years. Fox employees have routinely stated that stories (true or not) that might embarrass Ms. Clinton are spiked.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:56 PM

My own opinion is that the public broadcasting people are also a part of the propaganda machine, and are not at all independent from the pressures that the rest of the major news media are subjected to. I think they are marketed to people who want more details and the appearance of having more in-depth coverage, and that's what they provide. But I catch them telling lies all the time, even on Washington Week in Review. I used to love the public broadcasting news, but now they just piss me off.

I saw a study quoted not too long ago (wish I could remember where). People were asked questions to learn how much of what they had been told by their preferred news source was misinformation. It showed that while people who watched FOX news had about 75 percent misinformation, the people who get their news from the public broadcasting people have about 25 percent misinformation. This may not seem like much, but it's a lot to me, especially if that 25 percent is really critical information, which in my opinion, it often is.

However, having said that, 25 percent is definitely better than 75 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:11 PM

Programs like "Washington Week in Review" and "Bill Moyers' Journal" notwithstanding?

I didn't say they were "liberal," what I said was that they are about the only "fair and balanced" news services this country has right now. At the very least, they try. I also get much of my news from foreign sources, and no matter what the source (including NPR and PBS), I listen with my brain in gear.

But I'm not going to argue the point.

I wouldn't credit a blatantly liberal news service any more than I would credit a blatantly conservative service. News is supposed to be as unbiased as human journalists can keep it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:00 PM

EVERY news person has a viewpoint. If they don't express it directly, it comes out in simply the items they choose to cover and the amount of time they give them....and often in the guests they invite and the words they use to explain the story.


That being said, I can tell the difference between Daniel Schorr and Bill O'Reilley.
   Fox is merely a propaganda machine, with a vested interest in conscious distortion and ignoring certain areas. NPR, BBC, and others at least TRY to get the facts right, a a minimum, even if they have their views about interpreting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:39 PM

I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:32 PM

As far as I am concerned, NPR and PBS are about the only truly "fair and balanced" news sources this country has. I am fully aware that our more conservative brethren with snort at that statement. Nevertheless, on any objective scale of correspondence between what goes on in the real world, and the reporting of what is going on, these two services come the closest. They at least try to be honest journalists, which is more than can be said for most of the "info-tainment" programs that pass for news these days.

And as far as Fox "News" Service is concerned, they are a blatant and obvious propaganda organ for the Right Wing. It's mind-boggling that some folks here can't seem to see the obvious.

Thanks for posting that, Carol. Out of their own mouths. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:17 PM

memo to self......think twice before accusing BBC of "bias" again.

Subject: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:03 PM

I'm sure that after watching this video, everyone here will join me in describing FOX news as the most fair and balanced of all the news organizations, and the one with the highest of journalistic standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo