Bush or Kerry or ???

keydates

On a semi unrelated note...I'm not sure if the major media corporations are very liberal or conservative. PBS and BBC do seem at least left of center. However, according to a relatively old pipa.org study, it found that those who watched PBS were less likely to have misperceptions about the war in Iraq than those who watched Fox.

But the others (ie NBC CBS) I'm not sure. It could be that they are just obsessed with whatever violence is going on. They seemed quite interested in glorifying the weapons technology of the US during the invasion. Now they like to talk about the latest car bombing/roadside bombing/uprising in Iraq. If you look at what the media does and does not report, it seems like a significant amount is about some sort of violence going on in the world and little is about some sudden advance in peace somewhere. The basic message is: Violence gets ratings. High Ratings=good.

Babbar

This a very interesting statement. Of course, you know, it depends entirely on who is the one who decides what a "misconception" is and what a "misconception" is not.

PIPA, you know, is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland. I don't know much of the reputation of the COPA, but there is no way that you could classify CISSM, or almost anything associated with the ultra-liberal University of Maryland, as impartial.

The truth of the matter is the press, from day one, has been focusing on every little, picayune incident that would put the President, the soldiers, and the war against terror in the worst possible light. Were it not for organizatons like Fox News, good news in Iraq would never see the light of day.

On whether the owners of the broadcast media are conservative or liberal, that point is ridiculous on its face. First, Disney owns one of the major broadcast networks and there is no way you could call them anything but radically left.

Second, Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, which owns NBC, was asked after he retired how someone as conservative as he could allow NBC's news division to be so blatantly biased as had been charged.

The question was an obvious attempt to trap Mr. Welch into saying NBC wasn't biased. What he said astounded the questioner to such a point that the answer was almost suppressed, and would have been had not other reporter's from fair and balanced outlets been present.

Mr. Welch said as CEO of GE, his job was to make the maximum profits possible. His entire board of director's had the same goal. The news division of NBC, he said, was a very, very small part of his corporation and it made so little or lost so little money that it was not worth his time to worry about it.

Once and for all, the myth of "conservative" CEO's dictating news policy was blown out of the water. But, of course, the liberals refuse to accept this ironclad proof.

keydates

Didn't Disney block Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 from release in the US? He's as liberal as Rush is conservative.

And what were they asking Welch? Why does he let NBC be so liberal? Or so conservative?

limerickman

It is evident that the invasion of Iraq is becoming a monumentel
disaster.

You keep referring to the liberal media - the consensus against the american actions in Iraq is not confined to the "liberal" media
as you suggest.
The media coverage of the story at Abu Ghuraib has been followed and reported by all media across all political opinion here
in Europe - from the conservative "Sunday Telegraph" to "The Guardian - LeMonde etc".
You country's currency - in political terms - is being devalued day by day.

The whole set of lies - and it has been a tissue of lies from day one - is slowly being splintered.
WMD - Nuclear/Biological weapons - Al Qaeda - "imposing democracy" - each and every lie perpetrated to get this invasion
under way has been been found uncovered.

As I have said to you earlier - I have no problem with anyone expounding a Republican viewpoint but Bush's Republicanism is
not what I could ever espouse.

Take the systematic torture of prisoners - is not about getting information.
You say you support your country's military forces.
What should be done to England, Grainer and Co ?
Do you endorse their actions ?
Or do you think that they should be tried ?

Thw Washington Post today states that your top general may have actually witnessed the torture in those prisons.
To publish this accusation, the Washington Post must have some evidence to back up same.

As regards our goverments attitude to Kerry - I cannot say.
What I can say is that political pressure is now growing here in Ireland and Europe to withdraw the invitation to Bush to vist here.
It is being suggested that the summit should take place in USA.
I agree with this view.

limerickman

I cannot attest to the veracity of what Kerry claims or doesn't claim about Vietnam.
I have no knowledge of those specific events 34 years ago.

I do know that the USA lost the war in Vietnam.

What John Kerry may or may not have said 34 years ago - to me,
if I was voting in November 2004, would not impact my decision.

What does concern me is the lies that a president told to his people and the rest of the world and has cost approximately 800
military lives - over 8000 injured soldiers (according to chief physician at Walter Reed Veteran Hospital) and which has caused
widespread misery in a country which has had it's disproportionate amount of misery in the past 35 years.

Chaim

Kerry wants to bring in the Arab World to the negotiations table. They don’t want to come. Why?
The Arab nations, despite that the fact the US is protecting them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt), do not want to see a Democratic Iraq. It will create problems in there nations.
They prefer to see the US fail and enjoy the blending of US Military.

What is the basis for Kerry’s idea?

limerickman

Before answering this - you tend to forget that I live in Europe.
We are not exposed to your presidential ads on TV - nor have we
had much exposure to Kerry.
We know he's a democrat - we know that he campaigned against the Vietnam war and we know that he married a rich Heinz heiress.

News about the candidates and what they stand for - in most
US presidential races - starts to become "newsworthy" here in Europe from July onwards.

My claim about the importance of the US election affecting the free world is very pertinent.

I don't know if Kerry lied or did not lie - the fact that you are regurgitating stuff from 34 years ago is surprising.
In any election I know of - what someone did or did not do 34 years ago is irrelevant.
34 years is a life time ago.

I cannot tell you if he is a bigger liar than Bush or not.
What I do know is that he has indicated that he will chose politicians who are professional and competent in his cabinet unlike Bush and his cronies.
Richard Holbrooke for example is a very competent politician IMO.

Finally, I have to quibble with any one going to war.
HAVE I MADE THIS CLEAR TO YOU ?
I HAVE NO QUIBBLE WITH BUSH GOING IN TO AFGHANISTAN - ARE
YOU CLEAR ABOUT THIS ?
What BinLaden did was terrible.
But to try to knit Binladen to Iraq - which is what Bush did, was a
lie.
Iraq and this american war - was a lie.