Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Has Foxnews' Chris Wallace Questioned Bush admin. officials like he did to Clinton?

host · 09-25-2006, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

On a side note, this was in a thread when it came out a while ago but.....

One side has 'Media Matters'

the other has

UCLA

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Mmmmmmmm and the irony for all of you...

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

The problem I think is that some of you leftists are so far left you can't see the median anymore. I'm sure for you the press isn't liberal biased since they are not talking about HilterBush and calling for his impeachment on imaginary crimes. For YOU the press isn't liberal is down right conservative. Life must be different from the fringes.

For the voters of America, its biased, and biased to the left.

Ustwo, the "study" that you've reintroduced on this forum, is garbage. That's not just my opinion. It's a fact. The "clowns" who authored your study, quoted the POS who I have spent much time, lately, posting about on threads on this forum. What do you think it says about the authors of an alleged "study" on media "bias", who reinforce their argument that "though bias in the media exists, it is rarely a conscious attempt to distort the news", by quoting, of all people, L Brent Bozell III, the man who attacked the NY Times' editor, Howell Raines, for 9 fucking years, with a falsely contexted quote, which he, himself "doctored" the context and signifigance of, compared to the way it was positioned and intended, by Howell Raines in his 1993 book, so Bozell could falsely make it appear that Raines was dismissive of Reagan's intellectual abilities. I'm only a lay person, Ustwo, and yet, I know that you don't quote a partisan shill like Bozell, in a "real" media bias study. Bozell, the man who said, in a 1992 speech, to [imagine] <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL380.cfm">a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States.</a> 

The study you tout is flawed and unreliable, just as all of the "research" that Bozell has "distributed", since at least 1987, most especially his "Op" exposed here....to discredit the editor, and thus, the NY Times, is suspect. I know that you visit Bozell's newsbusters.org, and you have cut and pasted material from it, to support a post in your "the Plame Affair" thread. I've urged you to take stock of the extent to which the influence that Bozell's "efforts" of the last 19 years, have affected your own political, and social, POV, and for that matter, the way you "get" your "news". It is a fact that you post the same beliefs, almost verbatim, that Bozell telegraphs. I remind you to confirm whether....or not....this occurs only by coincidence. Bozell's "work" is a cancer on the collective of American conservative political opinion....and your study's authors quote him, to support their contention that the, "bias in the media exists, it is rarely a conscious attempt to distort the news". What a fucking joke....citing "confirmation" from the largest distributor of the false notion of a "liberal media"!

Quote:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm
....A Measure of Media Bias......

....We also believe that our notion of bias is the one that is more commonly adopted by other authors. For instance, Lott and Hasset (2004) do not assert that one headline in their data set is false (e.g. “GDP Rises 5 Percent”) while another headline is true (e.g. “GDP Growth Less Than Expected”). Rather, the choice of headlines is more a question of taste, or perhaps fairness, than a question of accuracy or honesty. Also, much of Goldberg’s (2002) and Alterman’s (2003) complaints about media bias are that some stories receive scant attention from the press, not that the stories receive inaccurate attention. For instance, Goldberg notes how few stories the media devote to the problems faced by children of dual-career parents. On the opposite side, Alterman notes how few stories the media devote to corporate fraud. Our notion of bias also seems closely aligned to the notion described by Bozell and Baker (1990, 3):

But though bias in the media exists, it is rarely a conscious attempt to distort the news. It stems from the fact that most members of the media elite have little contact with conservatives and make little effort to understand the conservative viewpoint. Their friends are liberals, what they read and hear is written by liberals.[20].......

Quote:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/bozellc...ol20020812.asp
Still Falling for Bill
by L. Brent Bozell III
August 12, 2002

.....But Merida and Fineman are only casual chroniclers of the Clinton "magic" compared to Howell Raines, the executive editor of the New York Times. PBS talk show host Charlie Rose recently asked him how history would judge the 42nd president. "Huge political talent. Huge political vision," Raines began. He said he wouldn't claim to know how the history books would turn out, but he did offer his own: "I think President Clinton's role in modernizing the Democratic Party around a set of economic ideas and also holding onto the principles of social justice, and presiding over the greatest prosperity in human history—those would seem to me to have to be central to his legacy," he gushed.

Every Clinton fan begins the historical review with Clinton's "huge political talent." There’s truth in that statement: he not only defeated an incumbent, and won re-election in a veritable landslide, but also was able to put the Republican Party on the defensive—in fact, on trial—with the American public after being impeached. But the manner in which he did so—lying about anything and everything while shamelessly destroying anyone in his path—is worthy of nothing but disdain from sober political analysts.

And where was this “huge vision”? For Clinton there was no vision, only strategies and tactics on the most basic political levels, and always geared toward self-advancement. I recall only one Clinton “visionary” statement, his State of the Union declaration that the “era of big government is over,” an interesting proposition given that just three years previously he tried to nationalize healthcare which would have socialized one seventh of the U.S. economy.

Perhaps Raines is most ridiculous in crediting Clinton for supervising "the greatest prosperity in human history." He had no space in his historical vision for the Republicans in Congress who foiled that potentially economy-strangling Hillary health nationalization plan and then backed him into welfare reform and balanced budgets.

Raines certainly had no room for Ronald Reagan’s vision after the Gipper left office having triggered the greatest peacetime economic expansion while winning the Cold War. Nine years ago on the same Charlie Rose venue, Raines complained that "The Reagan years oppressed me because of the callousness and the greed and the hard-hearted attitude toward people who have very little in this society." A decade ago, Raines wrote in the book he was plugging on PBS that "Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it." Today Raines slobbers over Clinton.

The media no longer dote on Clinton's every word – especially when they're ridiculous, as when the aging draft-evader claims he'd pick up a gun and fight and die for Israel. But the wistful tone of some media Clinton recollections sharply point out the need for vigilant reminders of the Clinton presidency in all its discouraging details......

Quote:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20030513.asp
Jayson Blair, Star Pupil
by L. Brent Bozell III
May 13, 2003

.....But the Times isn’t really taking responsibility for the Blair fiasco. Incredibly, publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger argued that only one person was responsible for this metastasizing tumor, this credibility canyon. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair. Let’s not begin to demonize our executives -- either the desk editors, or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."

The captain of this oil-spilling ship is Executive Editor Howell Raines, a partisan best remembered for his arrogant 1994 take on the best president of the last century: "Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it." Who looks incompetent now?.......

Then, in 2003, "author" Bernie Goldberg was observed using Bozell's "Reagan's shoelaces", quote, already "worn out", over nine years of spreading it, by Bozell, and later by Brit Hume, to bash Howell Raines and the NY Times:

("Bernie", is the "Goldberg", cited along with Bozell, by our esteemed "media bias study" authors

Quote:

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/CollegeRe...ns/013385.html
UCLA Confirms Media Bias

Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist, has just published a study revealing what most Americans already knew: the mainstream media carries a left-winged bias. And while Bernard Goldberg was the first really make a splashed with this argument (but published two New York Times Bestsellers: "Bias" and "Arrogance"), sometimes it takes a study from an actual university for people to finally take notice.

Give a click to the Seton Hall "college repub's" page, above. It's worth it to view the "other worldly" header referencing "« 71% of Iraqis Say "Life is good" (ABC News thinks otherwise)"
Sometimes, I suspect that Bozell, Goldberg, the college repubs, et al, are representative of a creature with many heads, but only one brain....

Quote:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111903.shtml
CONTEMPT (PART 3)! Bernie, pretending to quote Howell Raines, showed his contempt for your discourse:

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

A FISHER OF RUBES: How big a fraud is Bernie Goldberg? Let’s return to that puzzling “quotation” from his new book, Arrogance—the quote we discussed in yesterday’s HOWLER (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/18/03). In his chapter about the New York Times, Bernie Goldberg thunders and rails about liberal demon Howell Raines:

GOLDBERG (page 66): A lot of people—and not just conservatives—think [the Times] hit rock bottom in 2001, when Howell Raines took over as executive editor…

Raines was famously quoted as saying that “the Reagan years oppressed me.” He has also declared that Reagan, a man beloved by millions of his countrymen, “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”

In contrast, there was his view of Bill Clinton: “Huge political talent,” declared Raines when Charlie Rose asked how he thought history would regard Clinton.

Raines loved Clinton, and just hated Reagan: It’s a message the talk-show right loves to hear. And Bernie had the perfect quote—a quote that could make readers feel like real victims! Ronald Reagan was loved by millions—but Raines rudely said he couldn’t tie his own shoes! Pseudo-con readers could cry all day long when they read the rude thing Raines had said.

But was the “quotation” actually accurate? Did Raines say that Ronald Reagan “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it?” In yesterday’s HOWLER, we voiced our suspicions about the oddly truncated quote. From Google searches, we knew that Goldberg had taken the quote from the archives of the Media Research Center. And as we noted, the MRC is pathologically dishonest; the influential org holds every world record for pulling “quotations” out of any sane context. We could find no record of the full quote, but we did notice something which made us suspicious. We knew the quote came from Raines’ book, Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis. And, since reviews had said that the book dealt in part with the way different presidents fished and tied flies, we couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote had to do with Reagan’s skill on a stream. We knew, all too well, how the MRC works. We couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote might concern the way Reagan tied flies!

And sure enough! Let’s face it, readers—if there’s a way to commit fraud with a “quote,” the MRC will find it. Readers sent us to amazon.com, where you can now search a book’s contents. We called up Fly Fishing, and sure enough! The “shoelaces” quote is on page 84. And yes, it deals with Reagan’s fishing—and it isn’t even Raines who is speaking!

Who actually makes the disturbing statement? Raines is out in the boonies with the late Dick Blalock, a legendary Maryland fishing guide. Blalock has Raines on a fast-running stream—and he talks about fisherman presidents:

RAINES (pages 83-84): Even here in northern Maryland, we were still below the Mason-Dixon line and technically still in the South. More to the point, we were in hillbilly territory. In the nineteenth century, these people tended whiskey stills…Now their descendants still lived back in the hollows of the Catoctins, experienced poachers of deer and turkey and of the fat trout in the fly-fishing-only section of Hunting Creek. In short, Dick Blalock had brought me to one of the northernmost outposts of the Redneck Way.

“See that pool?” said Dick. “That was Jimmy Carter’s favorite pool when he was President. We’re only about a mile from Camp David. The Fish and Wildlife boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from the hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and give every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”

<h3>Amazing, isn’t it? But typical of the way Bernie Goldberg does business. In short, it was Blalock who made the statement, not Raines, as Bernie blusters to her misused, misled readers. And what was Blalock plainly saying? That Reagan didn’t know how to tie flies!</h3> That’s the actual context of the “quote” which the MRC has been flogging for years. And it’s flogged again in Bernie’s fake book, finally reaching a national audience. Bernie Goldberg is a fisher of rubes. And he’s reeling them in with this fakery.......

.....BRENT BOZELL, LYING LIAR: Who’s the Prime Faker behind all this slander? Yes, that’s right, it’s Brent Bozell, whose MRC has been faking “quotations” for years. How does it work at the MRC? Bozell keeps whipping up the rubes, feeding them all this fake, phony chatter. And leading “journalists” cadge from his work. For example, Ann Coulter did lots of cut-and-pasting from the MRC archives for her fake-phony pseudo-book, Slander. And here was inept-or-dishonest Brit Hume, bashing Raines on Special Report:

HUME (5/22/01): And now the most captivating two minutes in television, the latest from The Political Grapevine.

The New York Times has named as its new executive editor Howell Raines, described by the Times’ publisher as being the paper’s, quote, fire-breathing, take-no-prisoners editorial-page editor. Raines now has charge of the newspaper’s news coverage as well.

Presumably, the promotion will make him a happier man than he was during the Reagan years, a period he has said, quote, “oppressed him” because of the, quote, “callousness and the greed of the administration.” As for Reagan himself, Raines said, quote, “He couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”

As you see, Hume is quite good with the smart-ass remarks. What a shame that he can’t get his facts straight! But then, here was Bozell himself, two years later, slandering Raines for Sean Hannity:

BOZELL (6/5/03): Well, Howell Raines is also the man who said of Ronald Reagan, that he couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it and then accuses—

DAVID CORN: Get to the facts I gave you, Brent, please.

BOZELL: David, you asked me if they were liberal. I said a man who says of Ronald Reagan that he couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it is a liberal. To deny a liberal ideology when you come from that viewpoint, I think is disingenuous.

CORN: Just tell me—

BOZELL: The problem with Howell Raines is the arrogance of his liberalism, not his liberalism, his arrogance.

Weird, ain’t it? Five months later, here’s Bernie’s book, bearing precisely that title!

Why has this fakery lasted so long? At the end of the week, we might even ask. But how big a clown is Bernie Goldberg? Insect mating? Fishing techniques? Nothing’s so phony that Bernie won’t use it! Bernie just wants to reel in the rubes—and show his contempt for your discourse. ......

So.....what we have in my presentation here.....are the details of the exposure of the UCLA study's authors, using citations of support from Bozell and Goldberg....men who show their contempt for liberal media bias, by falsely and reptitively, over a nine year period, spreading a slanderous, bullshit story, to discredit the NY Times and it's executive editor, on TV, in articles, through Brit Hume, and in Goldberg's book, titled, "Arrogance".....and press the "buttons" of all the folks who share Bozell's dream that Reagan should be named, "man of the century" !

Above, I posted examples of Bozell's "Reagan's shoelaces" attacks, that appear on Bozell's mrc.org, and at townhall.com, and numerous other "conservative" outlets, and in the print media. They were not half heartedly "corrected", on Bozell's site, as this 1994 attack piece was, after dailyhowler exposed Bozell's "handy work". I wonder who "mirrors" Bozell, on "the left", in the minds of conservatives. Is it James Carville....or..?

The truth is, there is no "mirror", just as there is no "liberal media", or "liberal media agenda". I know where I get my "news"....from hundreds of places....as unfiltered as I can possibly find. I try to quote "dot gov" websites in my posts here, as much as possible. I prefer news reports, posted by the reporters who "go out and get the news". I research "period" reporting, from a news archive service of major newspaper articles of the last 40 years.

This is also helpful for obtaining "leads" for further searches:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bozel...e=off&filter=0
(Take out the word "Bozell", and type in your own "news worthy" key word.)

Ustwo, what are some of the sources of your "news" information stream?

Quote:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/notable...94/best4-6.asp
I Still Hate Ronald Reagan Award

First Place
"Then one day in the summer of 1981 I found myself at the L.L. Bean store in Freeport, Maine. I was a correspondent in the White House in those days, and my work -- which consisted of reporting on President Reagan's success in making life harder for citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy -- saddened me....My parents raised me to admire generosity and to feel pity. I had arrived in our nation's capital [in 1981] during a historic ascendancy of greed and hard-heartedness....Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it."
-- New York Times editorial page editor (and former Washington Bureau Chief) Howell Raines in his book Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis.
[Clarification, November 2003: It has come to our attention that while the sentence, "Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it,” appeared on page 84 of the book by Raines, it came in the midst of a multi-paragraph quote in a chapter in which he favorably recited the comments on things great and small (during a fishing venture to Hunting Creek near Thurmont, Maryland), from his companion on the trip, Dick Blalock. The other quotes attributed in the book to Raines are accurate and reflect his personal views.
The paragraph in full from which the quote came: "'See that pool?' said Dick. 'That was Jimmy Carter's favorite pool when he was President We’re only about a mile from Camp David. The Fish and Wildlife Boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from the hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and give every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.'"
We regret the confusion.]

Gilda also posted on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=98972

....in such a persuasive way, so as to make me wonder, even without the further impeachment of your "media bias study" which I've posted above, as to what you hoped to gain, by posting about it on our current thread.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

First problem with the study: What is the center? If your defined center is actually to the right, then a media outlet that is actually in the center would be defined as to the left. The whole study reports "left" and "right" as if these were in comparison to some objective scale, rather than in comparison to the mean of the US Senate. To establish that this comparison is valid, you'd first have to establish that the mean of the US Senate is the political center, and I see no evidence of that.

Second problem with the study: The person directing it openly criticizes the media outlets being studied:

He begins with a bias agains the media and media scholars.

Third problem with the study, and the biggest one:

There's so much wrong with this methodology that it boggles the mind.

Congressional speeches are openly political propaganda, opinion pieces, yet they're not compared to opinion pieces, which are actively excluded from the study.

Also, it declares a piece to be similar in political ideology to a speech merely for mentioning the same organizations, without reference to what's being said about them. I'd think that what's being said about something is as important as the fact that it's being talked about.

Problems abound here, to such a degree that I don't see how this study can be considered reliable.

Gilda