Master Index of Archived Threads


What is wrong with the news media???

cooby May 13 2006 11:31 PM

We've got old people that can't buy their prescriptions, millions of people without health care insurance, our kids are getting killed in Iraq, the price of gas is $3.00 a gallon, and they're talking about f**king telephone records for three straight days!! It's no wonder he's not getting anything done, he has to keep dodging bullshit like that! And oh yes, I do know what the issue is with telephone records, but I am sick of hearing about little piddly crap like that when there are some really big problems out there to be solved, boys.

OlerudOwned May 13 2006 11:38 PM

Colbert at the White House Dinner wrote: But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! Stupid lazy media.

metirish May 13 2006 11:46 PM

]It's no wonder he's not getting anything done, he has to keep dodging bullshit like that! I assume you are talking about Bush, it's because of him and his lies that the young people are getting killed in Iraq, and the phone records is a big issue, this country is becoming a police state.

DocTee May 13 2006 11:49 PM

]Bush, it's because of him and his lies that the young people are getting killed in Iraq, and the phone records is a big issue, this country is becoming a police state. I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter half is a bit of a stretch, even for a bleeding heart leftist like me.

cooby May 13 2006 11:53 PM

Oh believe me metirish, I am not defending him, I think he is the most pathetic president to ever come down the pike. I realize that checking phone records to see whether we are calling Al Qaeda is probably an important part of homeland security, but I am thinking most Americans are probably a lot more up in arms about other things, so why aren't we hearing the press take him to task for them?

TheOldMole May 14 2006 12:27 AM

The thing is, this is news right now. There have been stories on the prescription drug problem and the health care crisis, but there have been no new developments on those issues in the past few days. And if you look at [url=http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-13,GGGL:en&q=gas+prices]Google news right now[/url]. you'll see that there are actually still a lot of stories running about gas prices. And the telephone record story is important.

HahnSolo May 14 2006 10:54 AM

It's better this than 24 hours non stop of the Duke Lacrosse story, which we were getting.

Elster88 May 14 2006 11:56 AM

I want to hear more about Barry Bonds.

TheOldMole May 14 2006 08:21 PM

I guess no white girls missing this week.

Frayed Knot May 14 2006 09:50 PM

"What is wrong with the news media???" In general? -- Lots On this particular issue? -- Not so much It actually makes more sense to tackle issues where there's a specific gov't policy or action involved as opposed to those where the media pretends that the gov't and its' office-holders have a lot more influence than they actually do.

RealityChuck May 15 2006 09:12 AM

cooby wrote: Oh believe me metirish, I am not defending him, I think he is the most pathetic president to ever come down the pike. I realize that checking phone records to see whether we are calling Al Qaeda is probably an important part of homeland security, but I am thinking most Americans are probably a lot more up in arms about other things, so why aren't we hearing the press take him to task for them? Because their audience has a short attention span. After a couple of months, even the biggest issue becomes "old news" (as though that dismisses it as an issue). Once it becomes old news, the public doesn't care.

Sandgnat May 15 2006 11:49 AM

The biggest problem I have with the media is they don't just report facts anymore. Every story has an agenda embedded in it. The end result is you don't get the facts from the media which you could then use to form your own opinion on issues. Instead you get reports from the media that shape your opinion for you. The fact that the wiretapping issue is back in the media is a joke. Please tell me what new fact has come out about this subject since it was last reported months ago? Nothing. The New York Times had this story for over a year before they originally reported it in the first place and ran it only when the Senate debate on the Patriot Act renewal was set for that week. Now they reintroduce the story, not when there are new facts about it, but when Hayden is announced? I am not a blind Bush supporter by any means, but it seems to me that the media hates this president and does whatever they can to discredit him at every step.

sharpie May 15 2006 12:06 PM

Actually the NSA compiling phone logs is a new story, broken by, of all places, the USA Today. Fox News, Wall Street Journal, most local newspapers, most talk radio --seems to me that the Bush Administration is getting plenty of favorable coverage. The news media is supposed to be adversarial, they are supposed to question motives -- they hadn't been doing that much during the first years of the Bush Presidency and they are starting to do it now that it doesn't seem so invincible. Compare that to the way the press treated the Clinton Presidency, or even most other Presidencies since the beginning of the Republic.

Sandgnat May 15 2006 03:34 PM

]Actually the NSA compiling phone logs is a new story, broken by, of all places, the USA Today. Actually, the New York Times reported that back in December of 2005. ]Fox News, Wall Street Journal, most local newspapers, most talk radio --seems to me that the Bush Administration is getting plenty of favorable coverage. I think your examples are the exception rather then the rule. All of the major network media, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc. IMHO all go out of their way to disparage the President. In fact, it has even recently been quantified: [url]http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664[/url] The point is, there is way too much bias in today's media on either side and that is what I believe to be the biggest problem with the media today.

sharpie May 15 2006 03:53 PM

The Times in 12/05 broke the wiretapping story (despite sitting on the story for over a year - prior to the 04 election - at the White House's request) not the compilation of non-foreign phone logs. Um, how are the networks biased against the White House? I mean, more than any other White House? The NY Times broke the Whitewater story against Clinton and employed Judith Miller and, through her, swallowed the WMD line. The "liberal media" line is bunk these days. At one time, maybe, but not any more. As far as too much bias on both sides, again, I would argue that it is the media's job to be skeptical of those in power. Right now the Republicans are in power and so they should be questioning everything they say. They should do the same whenever Democrats are in power again.

Willets Point May 15 2006 04:24 PM

That whenever is a big if. I personally think the Democratic Party is near death as a national party. Probablly will retain influence in some pockets of municipal and state government though.

Frayed Knot May 15 2006 05:02 PM

Reports of the Demo Party's death are being greatly exaggerated. Democrats controlled the House for over 40 years (and the Senate for most of that) at majorities sometimes approaching a 2-1 ratio and teh White House for all but 8 of the years from 1932 thru 1968. And yet the Republicans managed to survive and even bounce back from decades of being almost totally marginalized. I think the Democrats can overcome this mere 10+ year run of being on the short end of (usually around) 52/48 splits and losing Presidential elections by slim - or in some cases non-existant - margins. History-wise this is a blip on the radar screen even if it seems forever to those who rarely knew a time when they didn't rule.

Sandgnat May 16 2006 02:02 PM

]not the compilation of non-foreign phone logs. Go online and read the article if you have access to Times Select. The headline speaks for itself: "DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE: THE PROGRAM; SPY AGENCY MINED VAST DATA TROVE, OFFICIALS REPORT ] The "liberal media" line is bunk these days. At one time, maybe, but not any more. Guess you didn't use the link I posted. It quantitatively shows quite the opposite of your opinion. ] I would argue that it is the media's job to be skeptical of those in power. Right now the Republicans are in power and so they should be questioning everything they say. Agreed. They should question everything, but they don't question anything. Instead they argue against it. ]Reports of the Demo Party's death are being greatly exaggerated. Probably true. The problem with the Democratic Party is that they don't have a platform of ideas and solutions. Instead, their entire platform is based on complaining about what the President and GOP controlled Congress is doing without offering an alternative. Sadly for them, that is the only thing that the current head of the DNC knows, so unless there is a change at the top I don't see them fixing this problem.

TheOldMole May 16 2006 06:20 PM

You can prove anything you want to with selective examples. It is just as easy to prove that the media is dominated by conservs as it is by libs. The study you quote reinvents the typewriter,but makes it POIUYTREWQ. Looking for references to think tanks is hardly a new technique. Libs have been using it for years to prove that the media is conserv dominated. And with that, I retire from this post. I come over her to get away from discussions about politics. I will, however, discuss chicks, beer and pizza.

Willets Point May 16 2006 06:54 PM

TheOldMole wrote: I will, however, discuss chicks, beer and pizza. Ooh, three of my favorite things. Start a thread.

Sandgnat May 16 2006 08:06 PM

TheOldMole wrote: You can prove anything you want to with selective examples. It is just as easy to prove that the media is dominated by conservs as it is by libs. The study you quote reinvents the typewriter,but makes it POIUYTREWQ. Looking for references to think tanks is hardly a new technique. Libs have been using it for years to prove that the media is conserv dominated. Whether or not the media is liberal or conservative is a tangent. Again, my problem with the media is everything is an op-ed piece now. There is no reporting.

Willets Point May 16 2006 08:17 PM

Definitely no investigative reporting these days.