Flags at half staff issues

I am off to the mountains for a week, so have fun while I am away ....

 

o'reilly is such a small part of fox news, though...he's only on an hour a day. if you look at the whole channel, like from 6 am to 8pm, you'd see a stark difference between cnn and fox. fox literally 95% of the time has one guy from each side going at it, and they don't just ask softball questions to the conservatives as setups for their talking point tirades. they actively pit the sides against each other.

cnn is all one sided.

and fox crushes them in the ratings, so somebody must like it

 

I guess this is one thing I just don’t understand about this administration and you, it just looks like a lot of double speak.

Well, no, because I was talking about basic dirty tricks by this administration, there being so much of it on other issues. However Jessica had something to say about it:

Which point the one that the press did a poor job, that was my point in the first place or that FOX news sucks (yes I often have to set through it but not voluntarily)? I can’t believe you would fight either one of these because they are both so obvious.

Or is it that Karl Rove and this administration in general is a sleaze, which is why I stated “There has been just too much smoke around these issues for you to be able to successfully use the moonbat language and rolly eyes.” If that is it do you really want me to re-list them out, you can look them up yourself. (Hint an easy one to get you started might be the Yellow Cake and the fallout and convictions that resulted,)

 

Convictions? Libby is the only one I am aware of and that was for perjury. His memory differed from Tim Russert's and Russert contradicted himself several times on the stand. I am not saying there were not multiple convictions, but just am not aware of them and am curious to find out who else was convicted.

I keep hearing that the media gave the administration a pass, most recently from Bill Moyers, but Moyers' most recent taxpayer-funded piece at PBS left out dozens of examples of the media grilling the adminstration, including this one from Helen Thomas to Ari Fleisher of Bush: ""why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?"

If the media was guilty of not asking enough questions during the lead up to the war, I wonder why they are repeating the mistake now by not asking enough questions about what the fallout of the proposed withdrawal would be. I haven't heard many, if any, of those questions asked of the proponents of withdrawal. I think one thing we can all agree on is that the media is not doing their job.

 

Grace Grace Grace. I have the attention span of a 2 year old. Reading your response I mean Novel is murder!!! Can you dumb them down a bit with a short and sweet response so I can get the full effect?:mrgreen:

 

All your post did, Grace, is emphasize how biased the media is, and how clear it is that they are not doing their job. Server was absolutely correct.

A journalist's job is to report news without bias...not use the opportunity of a press conference with the President to push their own agenda and gain media exposure for their own personal opinions. The reporting of personal opinions is the job for columnists...not reporters. They are supposed to report the news...not their own opinions.

They should be asking relevant questions that will provoke answers that can be published in order to inform the reader of the issue at hand. Their personal "disclaimers" so blatantly placed before their questions are uncalled for, unethical, and should not be allowed period. I believe that these "reporters" should have their press credentials taken away and be disallowed from white house press conferences for such pompous behavior and abuse of their positions.

The fact is that these reporters have a voice that most American citizens don't have. When they are granted that voice via their press credentials, they are trusted not to abuse them. By using that voice to push their own personal political agendas at press conferences and such, they are indeed abusing that trust. When they do abuse them, they should be taken away.

 

I agree that reporters need to ask the hard questions, or they are not doing their job. They do a service to the public and to the administration as well when they ask tough questions, that allow the administration to explain themselves, not just let us assume that everything is fine & dandy.

Another complaint I have about the media is this: What ever happened to fact-checking? Are they supposed to be reporters or stenographers? If one person says the sky is blue and another says it is green, Why do they report both as equally valid statements, instead of stepping outside to take a look?

 

No problem with that. But you fail to acknowledge the ethical difference between simply asking the questions that need to be asked... and using your airtime as a reporter to speak your opinions and THEN following with a question.

For instance, there is a vast difference between:

"I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war?" (Unacceptable)

And

"I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, why did you go to war?" (acceptable)

1. There is nothing to prove that the President "wanted" to go to war. To ask him why he "wanted" to go to ware is to attribute a desire to the President that the reporter had no proof nor fact to support. Going to war is part of the job of the President. Just because he made the decision to do so does not mean he "wanted" to do it.

2. The President's decision to go to war did not "cause the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime." That statement is nothing more than the opinion of the reporter. The deaths and wounds were caused by the enemy.

3. "Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true." is a blatantly unproven and untrue statement in itself. It is in fact, nothing more than the opinion of the reporter.

I'm curious, Grace. Do you feel that every single Democratic Senator and Congressman that voiced his/her agreement that we should go to war in Iraq is equally responsible for these killings? You do know that they agreed with the President on the need to go to war, based on the same info the President used to make his decision, don't you?

Those that ask questions properly and without bias are answered with the utmost respect. Those that use their airtime unethically to setup questions with a basis that is comprised of their opinion only, should be pushed around. They should, in fact, be pushed out.

No one has stated she shouldn't be able to ask a question. What is being said, however, is that she should not be able to premise her question on her own opinion and promote her own opinion during press conferences AS she is asking her questions.

 

I am stating that with ANY administration the press should ask questions with the respect that is due the office of the President of the United States.

No one is being censored now. They are being shown that if you cannot do your job ethically and with the respect it calls for, then you will not be rewarded with the best seat in the house and the best chance to ask questions. Just as anyone should be treated when they behave as they should not.

And it's being done now because the show of disrespect for the office has never been more dispicable than it is now. It's that boundaries thing I speak of below. Liberals have lost their compass. They think that society is now a free-for-all and that no rules of decorum, tradition, nor ethics applies. Reporters talking down to the President of our nation as though he was just some guy down the street whose opinion they don't like. Congress critters being so pompous as to go speak on foreign policy with other countries (which is not within the scope of their responsibilities) - despite being asked not to by our Commander in Chief (who is in charge of foreign policy)...as though it's nothing. Liberals need to learn that just because you lose an election doesn't mean you can do what you want anyway. Damn...it's no wonder the kids in this country have no respect for authority...the liberal adults in this nation have displayed to them that authority and position don't mean squat if you don't like who is in that position of authority. They are teaching kids that if you don't agree with who is in charge, then you can be just as disrespectful as you want towards that authority figure, and go against their authority any time you please.

That is blatantly false. The ones who are allowed to take the time with their questions are the ones who premise their questions with facts, rather than opinion and emotion. Those who don't are shut down. It's all about ethics, rules of decorum, and reporters abusing their position.

The FCC is getting so involved in what we can and cannot hear, because there are too many liberals out there that are pushing the envelope because liberals think the rules aren't meant for them. They are crossing the line between what is and is not acceptable and that in itself is not acceptable. A healthy society must have boundaries and those boundaries are being crossed. It exposes our kids to that which they should not be exposed to and sends them the wrong messages on how to behave, act and what kind of person to be. The only way to stop this breakdown is for strong leadership to step in.

All wars, all defense of nations and all military actions against those who wish to harm innocent others involves death by friendly fire. It's inevitable due to the nature of war. Anyone who thinks it "should" be otherwise does not understand combat. And it's not "anybody" from the US that the people of Iraq are afraid of. Our US troops don't storm into homes and behead people. Our US troops don't take fathers away and kill them. Our US troops don't plant bombs in shopping malls. And the Iraqis know this. Do you need me to tell you who DOES do this and who the Iraqis are really afraid of?

All those Democrats who supported the war and agreed we should go knew the same things the President did. Do you leave them out of your blame game intentionally? May I ask why?

Can you prove this? Of course you can't. Admit it. That statement is nothing more than bitter sour grapes and an attempt to rationalize why you hate the man so much. You are a person against war, and you are angry that we are at war. That's understandable. These petty, pathetic attempts to place such silly motivators on something as serious as a decision to go to war, however, are so out in left field that they are beyond fathoming.

Polls show that while we all want our soldiers home and safe, the majority of Americans DO NOT want us to pull out of this war prematurely.

As for your friends, well that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? An intelligent person votes for the person that closest shares their values and ideals. To refuse to vote for anyone in the party that has shared your ideals with you prior,because you don't like what one man did...is nothing less than a temper-tantrum.

So...who will they vote for, considering Democrats voted for war too? :roll:

 

You don't want Ann Coulter heading the presidency. There would not be one Lib left. Wait!!! Maybe we do want her!!