kallend 2,108 #26 September 12, 2003 QuoteMore evidence of the connection: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97063,00.html I have a nice bridge I can sell you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #27 September 12, 2003 QuoteQuoteThey probably just tell you what you like to hear You're right, I usually like to hear "Fair and Balanced" reporting. But are you sure it is not a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hillary believes in those and we all know she is the most intelligent woman in the world. I love that comedy station Fox News - I watch it every night for a few laughs. I can't remember which program it was on Fox, but the host talked about a Harvard Media study that came to the conclusion that Liberal Media/Newspapers are more likely to be critical of the left and have no problem endorsing views from the right - they would also be open to supporting GWB, and were known to openly take jabs at Clinton. They also found that Conservative Media/Newpapers never support opinions on the left and always support views on the right, plus they would never support a candidate on the left, nor have they taken any jabs at GWB. The Harvard study concluded that the Liberal media was more open minded and more likely to be a neutral and reliable source for information and opinions. The guests on this show were stunned when the host asked "so, do you think this is true?" One of them asked the Fox host - wow, your contract negotiations must be going bad. bwahahah!_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 September 12, 2003 Quotethose of us who watch FoxNews and hear quotes (such as the above) know that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Sure, sometimes Fox bashes the right. In fact last night I saw O'Reilly actually say that Bush made a bunch of mistakes in the invasion of Iraq, but then went on to say that it was necessary anyway even with the mistakes. That's what they do on Fox. Yes, they report about bad things regarding the right. Typically facts that are too obvious to be denied. But then, they temper that with opinionated commentary that supports the right. When they report on factual info against the left, they then push further with opinionated commentarty that further bashes the left. They're experts at what they do. They report about factual information, and then slip in commentary. But it seems that all the commentary (or at least a lot of it) is in favor of the right, and bashing the left, no matter what the topic. So, yes, you'll here them report about problems with the administration, when it would be ludicrous to deny facts. But when it comes to them expounding on the facts with their opinions, it leans heavily one way. That's not fair and balanced. That's not reporting and letting me decide. That's slant. And you know what. I'll say that CNN and NPR do the exact same thing in the other direction. But I recognize that. I think you're the one letting your personal opinions skew your interpretation. I can see that both the left media and right media do it. But you think that only the left does it, and Fox is fair and balanced. It just isn't true. For further evidence, see the previous thread about this where I listed all the guests of their news shows over a period of time and their political leanings. It was hugely weighted in favor of the right. Sure, maybe they argued with those guests, or questioned them on issues to make it look like they were playing devil's advocate. But the fact is they provided much more airplay for those on the right to get their views out to the public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #29 September 12, 2003 QuoteFox is quite threatening to your template. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No not at all. They are a threat to good journalism because they are in the business of propaganda (and good at it). I remember that the communists in Europe always told us that they were factual and balanced....But let us not start another Fox news thread. We have done that recently. And you think the other networks are not? I hope not. That would be just a little naive. There have been a few discussions here reguarding Fox, and the others. It depends on the way that you want to interpret what was reported. If you want to believe that there is no connection and [Insert Network Here] reports that there has been no connection found, then you believe it. And the opposite is true. For the most part, it is difficult to sway people from what they "Believe" and impossible to report pure facts. After all, facts don't make news, sensationalism does.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #30 September 17, 2003 What can we call this? full retreat? From todays media: WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said. He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge." ------------------------------------------------------------ So do you at least believe your friend "rumsy"? (and he has first hand knowledge of SH - they used to be pals in the 80's )--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #31 September 17, 2003 damn it mikkey, you keep confusing the issue with these pesky facts. stop it already......namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #32 September 17, 2003 >The Democrat candidates Tuesday night certainly were very sure of > themselves that there is/was no connection. Apparently the administration thinks so too. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday the Bush administration had never accused Saddam Hussein of directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Her statement, in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's "Nightline," came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks. Democrats have accused the administration of creating a "false impression" at the heart of a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks. "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice said when asked about the public perception of a link. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 September 17, 2003 Quote"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice said when asked about the public perception of a link. That's true, they never did. Fox News did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #34 September 17, 2003 To me, O'Reilly is rude; that's by far the most objectionable thing. ----------------------------- Ofcourse he is rude, doesn't let the liberals spin issuse on his show, exposes their liberal lies on the spot and forces them to answer his questions or turns their microphone off if they attempt to spew unrelated liberal babble. How dare he!!!If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #35 September 17, 2003 Quoteturns their microphone off if they attempt to spew unrelated liberal babble. Last night, I was watching Dan Abrams. He turned off the mikes to some of his guests, too. Abrams' show is on MSNBC. I suppose the point is simply that others turn off mikes, as well, and aren't called rude for it (not saying you did, Wendy, just drawing a parallel). Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #36 September 17, 2003 Just an opinion here but regardless of the show and channel the guests have an idea what they're in for as do the viewers. I'd like to see something like "Question Time" on the BBC. Get a panel of politicians (they are the ones that vote after all) and a few well informed others that can debate and have an impartial chair. Sit them down in front of 100 folks who have questions and just see where it goes. May not work with the system of government that is preset in the US but it'd be entertaining as hell. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #37 September 17, 2003 >I suppose the point is simply that others turn off mikes, as well, and aren't called rude for it . . . Never seen Dan Abrams. The reason I think O'Reilly is rude is due more to how many times he tells his guests to shut up. Not that there's anything wrong with that; heck, people listen to Howard Stern for the outrageousness of it. Just not what I want in a show that's supposed to be a forum for discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #38 September 17, 2003 QuoteJust not what I want in a show that's supposed to be a forum for discussion. Which is precisely why I don't watch O'Reilly (or for that matter, Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh and the like...)...I don't want to. Simple and easy to watch something else. And if there's nothing else to watch, some music or a book is always available... Since I don't watch them, I really can't offer criticisms on their style, their accuracy, their rudeness or politeness, or their content. And I certainly don't waste my time watching them to find something wrong with them, you know? Should I be in need of something, a quick search on the 'net yeilds tons of sources to find out what I want to know (and often begins a multi-source research project that can, at times, lead to very interesting places...sort of like a word-walk in the dictionary.) And yes, Kiltboy, I agree...it's pretty hard to believe that neither the guests nor the viewers know what they are in for... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #39 September 17, 2003 QuoteJust an opinion here but regardless of the show and channel the guests have an idea what they're in for as do the viewers. David That is accurate. Now as for the reason why that is. People who go on the O'reilly factor do so knowing he will not let them spin the issues. Its about credibility and how much the guest believes in his position. Does he believe enough in it that he does not feel uncomfortable going on a show that will not allow him to dodge the questions. Or some simply will try to go on there and spin anyway and gain sympathy points. But for the most part his audience which is the largest audience in a cable network does not offer up any sympathy.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #40 September 17, 2003 Hi, Mikkey... O.K., a question. In your post (which you didn't source except as today's media, btw, can you source it please? Thanks...), you quote a story with the sentence... ""I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said. ".... Having run several searchs, I can't find where he said definitively that SH was connected to 9/11. I also can't find a place where GWB did, or Rice did. My search technique may not be as advanced as yours, however...so can you link for me where they did indeed say it? Really curious. Not saying they didn't...just can't find where they did. Again, it could be my search techniques are inadequate (likely that). I'd appreciate it! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #41 September 17, 2003 QuotePeople who go on the O'reilly factor do so knowing he will not let them spin the issues. In one direction, at any rate.A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #42 September 18, 2003 >I also can't find a place where GWB did, or Rice did. They never did. They just pushed that sense as hard as they could, that we were going to war to punish the terrorists, terrorists that pulled off 9/11. As a result, 70% of the people in the US believed that Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. As I recall, you were suggesting a link between the 9/11 attacks and Hussein via Ramzi Youssef. Some examples: 2003 State of the Union Address: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Cheney: “If we’re successful in Iraq… we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” Bush, in letter to congress: Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. ------------------------------------------------- Several months ago, I complained that no one had established any connections between Hussein and 9/11, yet we were going to war on that pretense. Your reply to me was: "I mean, Bill, what would you consider a connection? What would you consider proof? And in what form? From what source?" So the question I would ask is - what did _you_ consider proof? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #43 September 18, 2003 Quote(which you didn't source except as today's media, btw, can you source it please? Thanks...), Copied from Fox News web site QuoteHaving run several searchs, I can't find where he said definitively that SH was connected to 9/11. I also can't find a place where GWB did, or Rice did. Billvon is anwering your question in another post. The way this was done is called "spin" - quite common in politics.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #44 September 18, 2003 QuoteThe way this was done is called "spin" - quite common in politics. But...but...I thought FOX news was a "no spin zone?" A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #45 September 18, 2003 Quote>I also can't find a place where GWB did, or Rice did. They never did. They just pushed that sense as hard as they could, that we were going to war to punish the terrorists, terrorists that pulled off 9/11. As a result, 70% of the people in the US believed that Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. As I recall, you were suggesting a link between the 9/11 attacks and Hussein via Ramzi Youssef. Some examples: 2003 State of the Union Address: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Cheney: “If we’re successful in Iraq… we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” Cheney is right, remember Iraq was directly funding the families of homicide bombers. Given time, a calculator and bank transactions, there's every reason to believe there were dozens of back channel funding of terrorist organizations either directly or indirectly engaged with Al Qaeda, Hamas, et al...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #46 September 18, 2003 QuoteCheney is right, remember Iraq was directly funding the families of homicide bombers The organisations SH was supporting with money were Hamas and a couple of others in regard to supporting suicide bombers in Israel. However - and we are now back to "facts" vs. "Spin" - Hamas and other suicide bomber squads are "local" terror organisations fighting against Israel and not directly affiliated with Al Qaeda who are working globally. It is Al Qaeda and its affiliates in e.g. South East Asia (Jemaah Islamiah) who are the biggest danger to US and allied interests. Not that we shouldn’t fight Hamas, it is just an issue that is not directly related to 9/11.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #47 September 18, 2003 >Cheney is right, remember Iraq was directly funding the families of homicide bombers. Yes, and if he had not said "especially on 9/11" I would have agreed with his statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #48 September 18, 2003 Thanks, Mikkey and BillV. I had never heard them say it, nor could I find it in speeches and transcripts. Several times people have ascribed things to others which were not said...they spun things, I suppose you could say. I tend to look at source material, and have never said our war with Iraq was in revenge of 9/11, despite what has been alluded to. There is a phrase I use. It's called "already always listening". I guard as heavily as I can against it. It basically contends that people will always hear what they want, not hear what is being said, and are already hearing it before the speaker says it. Because I know this happens, I look for sourcings of things, and read in context what actually was said. I then make my own decision about the subject at hand, generally after much more research and digging. Sometimes, though, this doesn't happen. People repeatedly quote things which weren't said in the first place, until, if they are loud enough and say it long enough, someone thinks it was actually said...makes for some interesting reading and researching. BillV... [Quote ] So the question I would ask is - what did _you_ consider proof? What did I consider proof of what, exactly? And why did you edit out your Ramzi Yousef question? Weren't you interested in the answer? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #49 September 18, 2003 alright, I brought this question up in another thread & never got an answer. if I don't get an answer now, I will have to start a new thread. A lot of people have been pulling this number out of their ass about 70% of people believing that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks on the USA. My questions are: when was this poll taken?? On 9/11/2001 or what?? How was the question worded?? My understanding was that no one, not even the other terrorists on the plane (other than the four men who were to pilot the planes), were let in on the plan, so why would they leak the news to Iraq?? And if this is a Washington Post poll, why is it that I, who have lived in the DC area since 1994, have yet to encounter a single person who believes that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?? Where the fuck is that 70%??? I can understand that Saddam Hussein may have been supporting people or organizations that in turn had links to Al Quaeda, but that is an entirely different thing. Not even the Taliban in Afghanistan were let in on the 9/11 attacks until after they happened. Could someone explain to me why it is big news now that the Bush administration is saying that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, even though there has never been any evidence that they ever were??? For the life of me, I can't think of a single person I know who ever thought this. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #50 September 18, 2003 I don't know the whole answer to your question, but I can tell you that the only reason why this is news is because the press is letting it be news. Bush recapped on some words that Rumsfeld noted this past weekend where they were reiterating that Al Qaeda and Iraq have had some kind of relationship, but they never claimed that Iraq, or specifically Saddam had any control in the events of 9/11.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
