Transparent Aluminium Baby

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:27 pm

I dispute it mainly because to me it seems more like an opinion rather than observation.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:17 am

i'll read bash's link when I have more time. Thanks for finally posting something.

Will, are you really taking that link seriously? I've personally seen more than 9 television shows covering the SBV--actually I've seen at LEAST 20, and over 30 radio programs. BTW, Rush Limbaugh is on the advisory board for that website. Nice source, lol. http://www.mediatransparency.org/search ... nt.php?203

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:36 am

Of course the complaint came from the right. Just like Hillary's "right wing conspiracy" complaint came from the left...
I take this one seriously because, as I said, the assertion matches my own observations.
I'm not seeing all these shows you are on the SBV's so I see where you don't share my perspective.

However, the content of the coverage weighs heavy in the comparison.
I seriously doubt you are seeing the same kind of coverage by any mainstream media like they provided on the Bush AWOL story.

It's one thing to mention Kerry's accusers but then devote the bulk of the segment to casting doubt on them as opposed to spending numerous manhours trying to get Bush to release records, repeating pure speculation by the DNC party chief as fact, turn the whitehouse daily press briefing into a one topic feeding frenzy...etc., etc.
How many people did they interview looking for someone to say Bush was AWOL compared to how many people they interviewed from the SBV's group? The press didn't interview ANY of the SBV's in the first week they were out. The AP attended their initial press conference but declined to report the story until it took legs on the cable/talk radio outlets!
Did they give Terry McCauliff and his unsubstantiated AWOL story the same brush off? Hell no, they started multiple investigations as quick as they could!
It's painfully obvious to see which story they want to develop and which one they want to go away.

Did you see the press conference I mentioned that took place Feb. 10th of this year?
You can google the text of it if you want it.
Can you sight me any similar event where the mainstream media so doggedly demanded Kerry release his records? Any demands at all even...No, of course not, not even a polite request.
Kerry claims he released all the documents which is completely untrue and they repeat his lies for him instead of challenge him on it!!

The Bush AWOL story was brought into the spotlight by Terry McCauliff DNC chairman and then echoed by Michael Moore. Don't you think their motives are questionable? Yet they are not mentioned as a questionable source each time the AWOL story is re-hashed. Certainly not the way the SBV's are even though none of them are Republican party chairman or self avowed anti-Kerry spin miesters.

The Democratic Party Chairman makes an accusation without any witnesses to the events or any evidence and his assertions go unquestioned and reported ad nasuem as a 'news story'.
60 vietnam veterans, many of them democrats, many who were there live on the scene, some of them on the boat with Kerry, commanding officers who give first hand testimony as to what was said....doctors who performed the examination give first hand testimony....these people challenge Kerry and yet they are somehow less credible in the eyes of the press than the DNC party chairman!?!?

Media bias, hell yes!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:09 pm

It's media bias if they put your boy in a bad light Will and it's good honest reporting if they make him look like the Messiah. Get a life man.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:12 pm

Will, I understand that potentially one argument may come from the right and one may come from the left and that in of itself doesn't discount the argument.

Rush Limbaugh IMO is not one for hard research. There are plenty of respectable republicans who do very good research! Rush Limbaugh isn't one of them.
Look at Milton Freedman, who I don't always agree with but does hard research.

Furthermore, I have PERSONALLY watched more than 9 shows about SBV on fox news alone. The link is just an outright lie.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:25 pm

Will's article link refers only to broadcast news coverage (ABC, CBS & NBC), not cable (Fox, CNN).

How this all relates to the actual topic can be found below:

[quote] According to a Kerry campaign source, senior campaign advisers tasked two Washington-based campaign staffers to vet the recently published Unfit for Command.

â??The purpose was to compare what that book had with what we had on file from Senator Kerry,â?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:58 pm

well, what are the cable numbers? whats the point of leaving those out? Slant.
I don't even know if i believe Limbaugh & co's numbers are necessarily right, but you can't claim bias while potionally selectively leaving out networks.

Bash, I agree Kerry's damage control team has been more like damage addition. Holy crap, what idiots! They've done nothing but make it worse.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:10 pm

I would speculate it's because broadcast is free and therefore presumably has more penetration and, arguably, more influence. Concentrating on one segment (with the most penetration) seems entirely appropriate for the conclusions it reaches since the article never makes the claim that every news outlet was tracked.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:31 pm

I see your point there, but there is no way to corroborate the study or view the results. How was it done? What was the definition of coverage? Does a few minutes in the evening news count? Local coverage count, or only certain programs they decided to include in the stats?

The stats are meaningless until those things are understood.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:44 pm

The results came from Lexis-Nexis search of headlines in major news papers (not editorial pages) and top stories on the big three networks.
You can recreate similar ratios for yourself without spending the money for Lexis-Nexis by googling Google News with the relavent keywords but that will give you lots of extraneous hits...although the overall 'buzz' each story generates on the internet does mirror the actual more precise Lexis-Nexis search.

It doesn't matter how many editorial type shows you see it on, they don't count as news to me.
I'm refering to the big three networks and the larger newspapers where real issues are supposedly given an *objective* eye by investigative reporters. The bias I speak of lies in the subjective nature in which the media has assigned credibility to the accusers in the two stories.

Yes of course there are tons of 'stories' on Hardball or Hannity and Colmes etc. but that is just opinion...left...right....spin away.

I think people still look to the 'Big Boys', the network anchors and the big newspapers, for their 15 second lesson in 'what's up today' and the rest of the lesser media outlets look there too, to see what they should cover.
What the Big Boys say to cover about Bush/AWOL is "Bush was AWOL...or we should hound him to prove otherwise" what the Big Boys say to cover about the SBV's was "First ignore it then attack the messengers but don't drag Kerry into it...".

Please consider the dissimilar criteria the two storys credibility was judged on. Don't just count the overall screen time as all being equal. Also, you haven't addressed the very different reception the two stories were given and the quality of the evidence I mentioned.
Why did the AP attend, then not report, the SBV's press conference when they announced their accusations? Do you think the SBV's accusations were lacking credibility in spite of their supporting evidence and live witnesses but Terry McCauliff's accusations somehow don't require even that level of substance? I'd love to hear that one explained away!

Do you really not see the double standard they have created here or are you too busy trying to dismiss me out of hand to open your mind to the specifics I raised?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:40 pm

someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this cuz I really am not sure. but wasnt the DNC covered on all the broadcast and many cable networks? I am seeing the RNC only being covered on a few cable newtworks and NONE of the broad cast networks. if this is the case then the media bias is in full force for all to see. I am really not sure on this matter someone let me know. thx

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:02 pm

It is not the case, most of the DNC was not covered on the main networks.

Kerry's speech was covered, so will Bush's speech.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:15 am

What did Kerry do while in service? Drive a Swift boat? Was he in charge of the one boat, or the whole platoon of boats?

I'm having trouble figuring out why anyone cares what a 19yo did in a war from 40 years ago. Like he was the first kid to get out with a self-sustained injury (If that was the case).

Assume for the moment that he deserved every medal. How does this say he can be a good president?
Now assume that he didn't. How does this say he would be a bad president?

yea..shiny object is right, Dedman. Thing is, who's holding the string? Not Dems..not Repubs..

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:53 am

Works like this Testi. He was a young swift boat captain who patrolled various parts of the Me Kong Delta with other boats. The hot topic of course, is the medal that he was awarded for heroic action under fire from the enemy. Apparentely, while traveling in a group of about 8? boats, one hit an underwater mine and blew apart...Kerry's story is that he went to the scene and pulled a special forces officer out of the water while under constant fire from the enemy. The dispute is that members of the other boats feel that Kerry played up the incident in order to get the medals for future political ploys. They indicated that nobody was under enemy fire and Kerry exaggerated it. There is plenty more to it, and of course I left some of it out and will be pointed out by the right members on this board, bash, Will, woodchip, and a slew of others.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:10 am

Z, why do you suppose John is currently incommunicado and refusing to release his records? How do you think he should address this dilemma?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:22 am

What do you mean incommunicado? He's in Nantucket on a one day vacation and then going to Nashville. What does he need to release for you to believe him? Is there anything? If it came from a conservative source you would believe it, or if it was videotaped right? What would it take for you to believe him? And what would it take for you to believe Bush was AWOL?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:20 pm

That's it?! All this BS spewing from both sides over...that? Who cares? It's no longer relevent! Why don't you argue his tenure in office to date?

Lemmings! All of you! (Except Dedman)

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:36 am

"Do you really not see the double standard they have created here or are you too busy trying to dismiss me out of hand to open your mind to the specifics I raised? - Will

Problem is, I haven't been watching much major network news. At this point i don't trust just googling to find out how much was shown. The only thing I would trust would be a scientific study that totalled up all major network news hours on both issues within the same time frame Swift BVFT has been going on and comparing them.

I read your article bash. It starts out with declaring liberal media bias is FACT, while only listing one study *done by conservatives*. Heh. Not really the most convincing argument you can put up. C'mon, is that all you got?

I'm just quite leary of all this *liberal media bias* crap. I hear democrats whine about fox and other things, then I hear conservatives with their own whines. In lieu of some comprehensive gigantic study, I don't see any clear answer on this issue. I'd say we know there is some liberal bias and some conservative, depending on what program you tune into or paper you read. But the argument for overall bias is a muddy one with no clear answer.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 2:43 pm

Testiculese wrote:It's no longer relevent!

It wouldn't be relevant except for the fact that Kerry keeps saying "this is why you should elect me!"

Like I said in another thread: Kerry has talked so much about Vietnam that "Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam" became a running joke on opinionjournal.com a year and a half ago. He's made it the centerpiece of his campaign, which makes it relevant.

If John Kerry thinks his Vietnam service is the best piece of evidence he has to show us he's fit to be president, it's our obligation to look into his Vietnam service if we want to make an informed decision.

But all of a sudden, it seems Kerry's supporters -- who beat the "Kerry served in Vietnam" drum endlessly a month ago -- no longer care about what he did in Vietnam. Heh. I'd say the SBVT ads are working.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:12 pm

Apparently the Navy feels it's relevant, too. An official inquiry into Kerry's medals is underway. John's reaction?

In an angry statement from Kerry campaign headquarters, senior Kerry adviser Michael Meehan condemned the navy inquiry as an expensive waste of Pentagon resources.

"The facts are clear," Mr Meehan said. "The navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star . . . and three Purple Hearts. This is a waste of taxpayers' dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... click=true

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:06 pm

Birdseye wrote:well, what are the cable numbers? whats the point of leaving those out? Slant.

Haha. Birds lost that point but refuses to yield gracefully.

If the accusation is bias on the part of network broadcast media, then data showing exactly that is the proof you asked for.

If you call someone's "bluff" and they turn out to have the goods, the hand is over. Move on to the next game.

- Sirian

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:15 am

Fox news had the highest rating of ANY station at the Republican National Convention.
I think asking for the numbers before concluding is not something to be frowned upon. When you assume statistics, you make an ass out of u and me!

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:13 am

FOX News had about 7 million per night during the RNC, about 5 million per night per broadcast network, and 5 million for the rest of cable news combined.

Broadcast News = 15+ million per night, Cable News = 12+ million per night. Still perfectly legitimate to cite broadcast news as the most watched source of television news, although this may not remain true forever.

Broadcast news has dealt with 527s with a most shameful degree of bias. It's blatant and they don't even seem to care any more. They just keep on ignoring the fact that the public has caught on and is fed up, and keep on watching more and more folks move to cable news in search of better news.

The days of Uncle Walter as the most trusted man in America are long behind us.

- Sirian

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:38 pm

"Still perfectly legitimate to cite broadcast news as the most watched source of television news, although this may not remain true forever."

Yes, but if you do a little math, cable could have changed the entire picture of the debate. Fox news is a republican-slanted news channel. Since it leads the cable guys, I'd wager leaving cable out MAY be intentional slant.

All I am asking for is complete numbers. Hell or SOME numbers. Did you see any on that site? I didn't. I just saw something Rush Limbaugh would talk about on his program that would make me suspect.

The arguments for a conservative or liberal overall media bias just aren't there. I haven't seen anything decent. Bash posts 1 conservative source with a study by conservatives. OH MY GOD REVELATION!!

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:35 am

You're confused if that's how you characterize the article and sources I linked to or else you're confusing what I linked to what Will linked. Either way, you're confused.

Anyway, contrast yesterday's/today's wide dissemination of the forged TANG memos as gospel by almost every MSM source against it's tardy and blame-the-messenger coverage of the SwiftVets' claims and all but the blind can see there's an obvious anti-Bush bias in news reporting.

If some anti-Kerry memos surfaced that were as equally bogus, no doubt we'd be hearing cries of *Watergate!*. As it stands, it won't surprise me if the kerfuffle gets buried fast and no further follow-up research is undertaken or publicized by the media.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:17 am

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search ... nt.php?203
Source for Will's link - Rush Limbaugh is on the advisory board for the SAME thing, the MRC. You're both quoting the same source. A conservative think-tank.

Quote from your link:
"and for tasting liberal bias in journalism, no one tops the Media Research Center. Founded by conservative activist Brent Bozell in 1987"
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realityche ... 040818.asp

Did you read my link about the "Media research center"? http://www.mediatransparency.org/search ... nt.php?203

"Opposes any traces of liberalism on TV or in films. Chairman L. Brent Bozell III publishes the newsletter TV, ETC., with an advisory board that includes Elliot Abrams, Mona Charen, Pete DuPont, and Rush Limbaugh"

We know rush.
Who is mona?
http://www.snapbug.com/cgi-bin/amazon-r ... le-us.html

All her books are anti liberal diatribes.
Who is Elliot?

Elliott Abrams was appointed to the National Security Council by George Walker Bush. He served as Assistant Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan.

Abrams was involved in Iran Contra and received a pardon. Ouch, should I go on about your unbiased source bash?

As far as I can tell, the Media Research Center is a conservative think tank. Way to find that liberal bias!!

As far as I can tell, my comments stand. What's next, are you going to cite Geraldo from Fox?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:36 am

The MRC gets one small mention at the end of that article to source which organization collected the less-than-impartial quotes that appear on page two and states clearly that the MRC is a conservative-founded media watchdog group (not a *think tank*). Hardly the *gotcha* you're making it out to be.

Are you claiming the MRC invented those quotes from MSM *journalists*? Railing against the MRC is a red herring anyway since the meat of the author's proofs lie in the Newsweek quote and the informal NYT poll (both left-of-center sources) which you seem to have intentionally overlooked.

btw, Media Transparency is a liberal equivalent of the MRC so if you dismiss one's credibility, you should dismiss both. As far as who is on MRC's board, it's annual report lists alot of folks but I find none of the names you've cited as your reasons to discredit it.