ChasingBlueSky 0 #26 January 25, 2007 Quote Stein was a speach writter for Nixon and Ford. He has a JD, A trial lawyer for the FTC, he TAUGHT about civil rights and securities law. [ And that puts him into a spot to say the media shouldn't be on the opposite side of the fence as the President? Did he go after Fox news or any of their shows for doing the same to Clinton or the dem's over the years? All Stein did was find a very lengthy, verbose way of claiming "the leftist media" is staging a movement against the GOP._________________________________________ 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
idrankwhat 0 #27 January 25, 2007 Quote So I think a guy that taught law and finance know more about the state of the economy than a guy that has a GED and a rap sheet. EDIT: I like his music, but I'd rather have Stein handle my money and value his opinon on legal matters more. If anyone is interested in what the show was about: January 24, 2007 · Following the president's State of the Union address, we'll move past the political analysis and punditry and hear from innovative thinkers and creative minds about their view of the state of the country. Guests: Nora Ephron, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter of When Harry Met Sally, Silkwood and Sleepless In Seattle, which she also directed; author of I Feel Bad About My Neck Elizabeth Nunez, author of Prospero's Daughter; distinguished professor at Medgar Evers College at City University of New York Merle Haggard, singer-songwriter Kwame Anthony Appiah, author of Cosmopolitanism, professor of philosophy at Princeton University Frank Miller, comic book artist Ana Marie Cox, Washington editor of Time.com Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission You can even listen to it if you want. I don't think any of these guest are throwing their hats in the ring for the 2008 election. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7002481 edited to add:Stein's article might have sounded a bit different if he had listened to Frank Miller's take on the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #28 January 25, 2007 I think the point Mr. Stein was making was that ALL the coverage was negative. Has it always been the norm for news anchors to immediately critique the President's performance after his SOTUA. I seem to recall a number of addresses that the media gave a recap of the speech, without analyzing his performance. NPR is an interesting beast. Their basic top of the hour news is pretty good, although I do recall back in '04 listening to about 5 minutes of Kerry's day on the campaign trail, followed by "Today, President Bush gave a speech in Sioux Falls. Next on NPR..." I think what gives NPR the lefty label is that on their other programs, where the topic has political implications, they consistently lean left. Often, it's a matter of omitting keys points of a story. I sit there waiting for them to address that big ole fly in the ointment,... but the segment ends, giving the listener a particularly one-sided take. I still think you can get objective reporting in this country. It's just a lot harder than it used to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #29 January 25, 2007 QuoteI think the point Mr. Stein was making was that ALL the coverage was negative. Has it always been the norm for news anchors to immediately critique the President's performance after his SOTUA. I seem to recall a number of addresses that the media gave a recap of the speech, without analyzing his performance. If the reaction is 100% negative that is a red flag that something is very wrong with the administration. If the people that elected them are reacting poorly they should be concerned. There has ALWAYS been negaitve feedback to the SOTUA no matter who has done it. There is always a panel of speakers that represent one side or the other and they either pound their fist or speak their mind for/against what was said. Nothing is new. My thoughts are that NPR also had Bush supporters on that show by Stein wanted to slant his story to further his opinion.....which is just more politics._________________________________________ 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
NCclimber 0 #30 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think the point Mr. Stein was making was that ALL the coverage was negative. Has it always been the norm for news anchors to immediately critique the President's performance after his SOTUA. I seem to recall a number of addresses that the media gave a recap of the speech, without analyzing his performance. If the reaction is 100% negative that is a red flag that something is very wrong with the administration. If the people that elected them are reacting poorly they should be concerned. QuoteWASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than three-quarters of Americans who watched President Bush's State of the Union address had a positive reaction to it, although the reaction was muted from that in past years, according to a poll released Tuesday. QuoteThere has ALWAYS been negaitve feedback to the SOTUA no matter who has done it. There is always a panel of speakers that represent one side or the other and they either pound their fist or speak their mind for/against what was said. Nothing is new. There has always been a response from the opposing party, but having a "panel of speakers" as a follow up is new. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 January 25, 2007 QuoteThe problem is that the 'take' still isn't even... those patrols in Bagdad where nothing happens aren't 'sexy' enough to be reported on... so the overwhelming majority of what people see on the news are the battles and troops being killed, and they think that is all that is happening over there. The reality is the same on the evening news in Podunk Iowa... Who got arrested... whos house burned down... who died in a car accident....who is doing what in the legislature.. its called NEWS... Some stations throw some fluff in there.. you know the good stuff that is all around us happening day to day.. but MOST people willnot watch it. I think the RIGHT at this point would rather not see the bad stuff.. and is doing EVERYTHING it can to lessen the impact of the war... I mean we cant see the flag draped coffins of our dead returning home...that in itself.. speaks volumes about where the priorities are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 January 25, 2007 QuoteI think the point Mr. Stein was making was that ALL the coverage was negative. Has it always been the norm for news anchors to immediately critique the President's performance after his SOTUA. I seem to recall a number of addresses that the media gave a recap of the speech, without analyzing his performance. I watched the SOTUA on Fox News.... and it was a perfect lovefest with Brit Hume....and went on and on about all the people who were getting autographs... including Dennis Cucinich.... getting more exposure time than he has gotten in 4 years... as Brit said... They did not delve into what was said very much at all.... interesting.... Fair and Balanced... get Bush off air as soon as you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #33 January 25, 2007 QuoteThere has always been a response from the opposing party, but having a "panel of speakers" as a follow up is new. I grew up watching panels on Nightline after the SOTUA, its nothing new. Remember in 1993 when the GOP was booing Clinton during the SOTUA? That was a major topic afterwards. During the Regan years there was much discussion afterwards on unemployment and homeless people during the late 80s, etc_________________________________________ 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
NCclimber 0 #34 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteThere has always been a response from the opposing party, but having a "panel of speakers" as a follow up is new. I grew up watching panels on Nightline after the SOTUA, its nothing new. I was talking about immediately afterwards... during prime time. It's no biggie. Quote Remember in 1993 when the GOP was booing Clinton during the SOTUA? No. But I remember the Dems booing two years ago. I guess you're not going to offer up any follow up on your - "If the reaction is 100% negative that is a red flag that something is very wrong with the administration." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #35 January 25, 2007 QuoteI was talking about immediately afterwards... during prime time. It's no biggie. back then Nightline was on right afterwards. Programming has changed, "special news departments" are created, etc. Different name, same bag of opinions. QuoteI guess you're not going to offer up any follow up on your - "If the reaction is 100% negative that is a red flag that something is very wrong with the administration." I said "if" I didn't say it was 100% negative. It was just something I tossed out there. However, Mr Stein acted as if everyone was negative, nor do I remember him spouting a def for the POTUS in the past either when it was Clinton up there taking a beating (instead it was Pat Robinson defending him)._________________________________________ 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
billvon 3,132 #36 January 25, 2007 >so the overwhelming majority of what people see on the news are > the battles and troops being killed, and they think that is all that is > happening over there. A few years ago the right wing was crying "the media is lying about Iraq! Things are going really well! Schools are open! It's peaceful almost everywhere! You'll see!" They were saying that the media was presenting a false picture of increasing violence; the reality was that things were going well. History has proven them wrong, yet many of them say the same things today. The old adage about crying wolf comes to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #37 January 25, 2007 Quote>so the overwhelming majority of what people see on the news are > the battles and troops being killed, and they think that is all that is > happening over there. A few years ago the right wing was crying "the media is lying about Iraq! Things are going really well! Schools are open! It's peaceful almost everywhere! You'll see!" They were saying that the media was presenting a false picture of increasing violence; the reality was that things were going well. History has proven them wrong, yet many of them say the same things today. The old adage about crying wolf comes to mind. Know what I found really fun to do....go back and reread the previous GW State of the Union speaches. Then hit up google and read the responses in the media to them._________________________________________ 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
billvon 3,132 #38 January 25, 2007 >Then hit up google and read the responses in the media to them. Eh, why bother. The replies will be: You misquoted me! You're twisting my words! Why don't you post the ENTIRE post, and who I was replying to, and what he was replying to. Yeah, well Clinton . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 January 25, 2007 Quote>Then hit up google and read the responses in the media to them. Eh, why bother. The replies will be: You misquoted me! You're twisting my words! Why don't you post the ENTIRE post, and who I was replying to, and what he was replying to. Yeah, well Clinton . . . Hell, this is what you do to me all the time!!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #40 January 25, 2007 QuoteKnow what I found really fun to do....go back and reread the previous GW State of the Union speaches. Hint; do NOT look for them on www.whitehouse.gov, they've been removed, white washed and expunged from the web site.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteKnow what I found really fun to do....go back and reread the previous GW State of the Union speaches. Hint; do NOT look for them on www.whitehouse.gov, they've been removed, white washed and expunged from the web site. I found direct links to the ones from 2006 and 2005, and the press release to the one in 2003. His first four are presented only as pictures from him practicing for them. Luckily there are plent of places on the web to find the ones from the first four years (the 'cache' option on google is an amazing option). But I did find it interesting that the first four were removed._________________________________________ 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
DaVinci 0 #42 January 26, 2007 QuoteAnd that puts him into a spot to say the media shouldn't be on the opposite side of the fence as the President? It puts him in a better position to talk about the economy and legal issues that a song writter, or play write. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteKnow what I found really fun to do....go back and reread the previous GW State of the Union speaches. Hint; do NOT look for them on www.whitehouse.gov, they've been removed, white washed and expunged from the web site. I found direct links to the ones from 2006 and 2005, and the press release to the one in 2003. His first four are presented only as pictures from him practicing for them. Luckily there are plent of places on the web to find the ones from the first four years (the 'cache' option on google is an amazing option). But I did find it interesting that the first four were removed. Yeah. I couldn't find them, either. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #44 January 26, 2007 Yea, but the "whoring America" picture of W and Laura is still there Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
