phyzix525

This was reported by the AP today.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/247/...ffers_bP.shtml

By Associated Press, 9/3/2004 13:57

WEST ALLIS, Wis. (AP) President Bush on Friday wished Bill Clinton ''best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery.''

''He's is in our thoughts and prayers,'' Bush said at a campaign rally.

Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.

Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath.

Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and ''the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president.''



Here is the audio from the speech this morning.

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/bush.mp3

Does not sound like boos to me. How can they get away with this?

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Dyze

Typical Republican audience. They booed him? Because Bush was showing some respect? C'mon guys...

phyzix525

listen to the audio don't just take what you read as truth

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

tecoyah

........boo

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

mrsandman

Bait taken...I didn't hear any "boos".

Typical liberal media.

__________________
Hail to ALL the troops and shadow warriors.

hammer4all

It appears the AP was egregiously wrong and they have corrected themselves.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3&sid=96378798

It's important to note though, the exception does not make the rule. I can show you a hundred more examples of just the opposite. The myth of the "liberal" media really implodes, however, when you start studying guest lists and think-tank sourcing.

irateplatypus

i doubt that. also, if that can be proven... why would you base the political orientation of the media based solely off the guests lists and think tank sourcing?

how about including the reporters who frame the argument and the editors who pick which stories run and which do not? guest lists really only pertain to cable news shows. how about newspapers? magazines? network news? guest lists are an easily quantifiable method, but cannot represent the media as it is experienced by citizens in totality.

there is a lot of compelling evidence that contradicts your assessment. i'm sure we could cite sources on TFP all day, but that only illustrates that it's not resolved as you'd like to think.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

MSD

The concept of a liberal media has been done to death. There has been no evidence put forth to convince me that the mainstream media (in the US) is anything other than an extension of the Republican Party's propaganda machine.

Mephisto2

I think arguments on "typical liberal media" bias, or "typical Fox 'fair and balanced'" medis are arguments doomed to failure.

Some media openly express their political leanings or make no apologies for sitting on a particular side of the fence. Fox News is a good example.

But the majority of the media play a constructive "anti-establishment" or oppositional part in today's society. That's they job.

Complaining about and making sweeping generalizations about the media in general is not really appropriate.


Mr Mephisto

ubertuber

I'm right there with you Mr. Mephisto. In fact, in some ways I am more comfortable with sources that are open about their bias - at least they are being honest, not to mention that you have a fighting chance of balancing your news coverage yourself. I like to read the op-ed pages and then track down information in the "news" about the items being commented on.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

phyzix525

OK fine, there is no biased media whatsoever, but seriously how do you get something so wrong?

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Zeld2.0

Uh, human error?

I mean hell, things get posted wrong and get fixed - I suppose now if you type something wrong, you're a liberal? Nope, everyone makes mistakes, and if they fix it, who cares?

phyzix525

there is no messing that up. You cannot get boos out of cheers. You either don't listen to it and write what you want, or you lie and type what you want. And it was changed without mentioning any mistake. For christ sakes this is the AP, don't they have proof readers?

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Zeld2.0

Eh, if you knew how the AP exactly worked, it's not that easy as proof-readers by any means.

Mistakes happen - hell, there have been articles out there I noticed up for 10 minutes then taken down for being wrong/false.

nanofever

"Oooohs" were heard to be "boooos". This mistake is an easy one to make since both words have a long "o" vowel sound in them, are single syllable and each has a single consonant; "b" and "h" respectively which sound quite similar in their lowercase form. Much like the mistake you made when you posted a sweeping statement about the media with evidence gathered from a single article composed of less than 180 words thus making a mountain from a mole hill.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Locobot

Personally I'd like to hear the next 30 seconds and see video before I swallow this one. There are a lot of things that don't get picked up by microphones or even the speaker in large auditoriums. The boos could have been localized near the reporter and not heard by Bush. I wouldn't expect Bush to quell the boos in any case, it's not a good time to browbeat his core constituency in a battlegroud state.

The Yahoo article does not serve as a correction or apology for the previous AP article. It does however report "ooohs" from the audience, something completely undistinguishable from "boos" in a large group.

Stompy

FYI - The media is not liberal In fact, pretty much quite the opposite.. I can flip through and see tons of Repub. propaganda being shoved down the throats of people.

For example, pretty much all news stations are doing the whole "play on the fear of others w/ terrorism" BS. That ... really isn't a liberal thing. That play on fear was created by Bush and his men.

If I'm wrong, please provide some links (non-biased ones) that I can read to correct myself.

__________________
I love lamp.

phyzix525

Umm to correct you, that fear was created by the few guys that hijacked those planes and flew them into buildings.

Apparently if you do not agree with what is being reported it is republican propoganda. As for the war on terror, well I think the 3000 people that died in WTC would agree with the republicans that there should be a healthy fear of terrorists. Not to the point of being scared shitless, just respecting the fact that they could attack and kill our people.

Aside from Fox news and a couple a shows I can not see how you could possibly say the majority of media is not liberal slanted. Tell you what, I don't have much time to look up examples so if you could do it for me, prove to me the media leans to the right. I am open to discussion, I just have never seen it before.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Stompy

Yeah, I "don't have time" either.. so if you could post the links, that'd be great.

__________________
I love lamp.

tecoyah

If indeed you have never seen it before....it is unlikely any number of examples will allow you to see it. Convention coverage alone should point out some of it.....but it is not as extreme as some would portray. The simple reality is, with a republican in the white house this is expected and normal. When a democrat was in power the media was far more liberal.
This is just the way it is....and it makes little difference to those of us who actually use multiple sources for information, and decide what is accurate thru deductive reasoning.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Stompy

...and you didn't "correct" me, phyzix.

Bush and his administration has been pushing this fear via the media, not the terrorists. It's now 3 years later and the terrorists haven't done shit despire the constant "terrorists will attack soon!" warnings we get each week. It's just there to rile up support for the president to insure his place in the up-coming elections.

If the media was liberal, I'm absolutely sure we'd see more anti-Bush related material. I see things with an open mind.. I'm not liberal, and I'm not conservative. The thing that gets me is when people blindly accuse the media of being liberal. A friend of mine does it and it irritates me because he never has proof to back it up, and when he does, it's always some piddly website or AM radio broadcast... as if THOSE make up our media as a whole.

If you wanna complain about the website, fine, but don't go off on some rant about "liberal media" because it's just not. There's no more easier proof than for me to say "watch tv and open your eyes". I mean, you want me to record a show and post it in this thread and point out each and every spot where I think it's NOT liberal? If you don't have time to find links, surely you wouldn't have time to watch WMVs of news broadcasts.

A few publications are liberal, yes, but compared to everything ELSE which is republican, would you really expect anything different?

There are SIX (was it six? Maybe 7.. i forget) corporations that control ALL of the media you see in this country. If it was liberal, you'd know.

Hm.. examples examples... ah, I have one. Remember the fall of the Saddam statue? CNN and EVERY news broadcast showed it in all its glory and made it look like a HUGE event despire the fact that it took place in a VERY small area with only a handful of people. They twisted the event to make it look like everyone in Baghdad was supporting that event. If the media was liberal and wanted to hurt the Bush administration or make them look stupid, they could've done so by showing the WHOLE area and the fact that no one else was there.

Trust me, it is FAR from liberal.

__________________
I love lamp.

Strange Famous

I dont know how the media is in the States, but I have heard and read the mainstream media tend to much less aggressive towards the govt than in the UK.

The BBC are seen as a bunch of leftist communists by the Right, and as a bunch of establishment stuffed shirts by the Left... they tend to attack all the political parties and make both Labour and Conservative accuse them of bias, and find some middle ground in that.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

rukkyg

Preface, The Problem of the Media: http://www.mediareform.net/mediaprob...TM-preface.pdf, pg 3/9

I've read about this in much less intellectual books as well. Basically all you have to do to learn that there is no liberal bias in the media is read a friggin book.

smooth

What's a book?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Ustwo

This has got to be the most amusing thing I've read all day.

Thanks!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

i'd like to point out that just because you don't see yourself as either liberal or conservative doesn't mean that you are necessarily open minded. similarly, if you are a liberal or conservative... it doesn't preclude you from having an open mind.

personal speculative observation: people who describe themselves as neutral and open-minded tend to be liberal in policy.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Zeld2.0

thats because, in general, liberal means "open to change" and if you're not open-minded, its tough to be 'liberal'

pan6467

This is where I truly have problems with the right. IF we are not to listen or read our press anymore because they are heavily Biased against you, IF we are not to trust public education because it is too liberal and biased against you and "values of US citizens", then whom are we to trust? Limbaugh????? O'Reilly? Hannity? Beck? Faux News? The 700 Club? for our press and what schools are we supposed to trust? Only those parochial and private religious schools, that not all kids can afford (especially middle class whose parents make too much for financial aid and not enough to pay tuitions?)

Perhaps the media does need an overhaul, but that is for the public to decide NOT a group that chooses to destroy them because the media doesn't kowtow to them.

Perhaps public education needs an overhaul, but that is started by sending out newer books, paying teachers more and getting kids to open their minds and find things in education they like. Growing up I went to a "liberal" school district but you know what? I didn't just learn about Darwinism, I learnt about Creationism and then I WAS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE.

It boggles my mind the right wants to destroy the 2 biggest things needed in a democracy a free press and a free public educational system. I have to ask why would anyone want to destroy the 2 most important elemants in society that keep democracy alive.

And we won't get into how they want to destroy the arts and make anything they deem as "not of their values and morals" illegal and hard to get.

Why is it so important to the right to disparage and destroy our rights?

The Left does not go unnoticed in the destruction either. It is because of many of their lawsuits to get everything so equal and politically correct and to destroy heritage by showing how evil history was (when NOT one of them were alive and because of the past we have a better society today). What purpose is there in showing Columbus as being this man who killed all the Indians he could? Or sue our government for slavery? What purpose does the Left have to homogenize and devalue citizens?

This is what we as a nation need to address. Not how biased a press is, but how we are destroying our country's freedoms because of our own biases.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

irateplatypus

true, but i think that fits much better in the realm of semantics than it does in practice. "open to change" is often shared with "desire to change" in many people, agreed? if that person desires change then perhaps that person is less open minded about the value of what has been?

i agree with you in many ways but i thought i'd offer that wrinkle to the discussion.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

smooth

you may have a point here.

I mean, you do have a point, and I may agree with it.

But that's probably my open-mindedness spiting my face! :O

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

roachboy

i have no patience with the claim that there is anything apporaching a left or "liberal biais" in television reporting of "news" broadly construed. there are any number of sources that you could look to in order to get a sense of the institutional infrastructure the right has assembled over the past 20 years or so and on the effects of the activities undertaken by that infrastructure in shifting the dominant media discourse to the right.

below is a series from disinfopedia--but a little reserach could diversify these sources quite easily:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...le=Think_tanks
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...elations_firms
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht..._organizations
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...iendly_experts

fact is that the right, in a general sense, understood the importance of tv better than did the left, such as it is in the sad scenario that is the states. they worked out a strategy for gaining and using access far better than the left, such as it is, managed. they developed more open-ended sources of funding to support these institutional efforts that did the left, such as it is. the simply outsmarted and out manoevered the opposition.
which i hate to have to have to say, but the facts are clear.

the above concerns infrastructure...the ways in which this infrastructure have worked to shift the dominant media discourse to the right (such that right assumptions about the world/economy etc. tend to function as a neutral frame of reference) varies to some extent by media outlet--but if you think about it, there is little in the claims concerning this effect that is open to any coherent counterargument.
this does not require that you point to absurd outlets like fox to make the case--fox is simply more obvious and reductive in their view.

cultural warfare on this level is not about particular outlets per se--it is about shifting the frame of reference.

as for conservatives who think television is tilted otherwise..this is more a psychologically complelling argument for you than it is an argument about the world. it functions within the right in more or less obvious ways: it structures a sense of martyrdom.

boo hoo, poor us, we have to deal with arguments from positions not entirely lined up with our own.
obviously we are being victimized in this.
boo hoo.
poor us.

but frankly, in the world that other people know about, i do not see what the right has to complain about.
except perhaps that the fact there is an opposition of any kind reminds conservatives of what they have to intuit at some level: the flimsiness of their arguments is their weakness--repetition does not equal logical or descriptve or political power---and any hegemony based on paper-thin arguments is weak. whence perhaps the sense of victimization--if you have paperthing arguments, you can only feel safe when you have crushed any opposition.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Stompy

When most people refer to "liberal" they refer to left wing, at least, that's how I take it.

I'm not exactly LEFT wing because I do share some right wing ideals.

When I say I'm neither and that I am open minded, I'm saying I don't strictly adhere to one policy over the other. The right has certain issues that I agree upon where the left has issues I agree upon.

Also, I don't feel the need to bash someone else just for their affiliation with one side or the other. Liberals without open minds will continually bash conservatives JUST because they're conservatives and vice versa. If a conservative has a certain problem with liberal beliefs, I will listen with an open mind provided they aren't just blabbering off about "bad liberal" this and that without anything to backup what they are saying.

This whole "liberal media" junk is just a cliche term from pissed off conservatives who happen to (god forbid) read something they don't agree with. Then they go off on this tangent and complain NOT about the publication/media outlet that published the material in question, but the media as a whole, which, based on the examples I gave, I feel isn't even CLOSE to being liberal. I mean.. take a look at who runs your most popular media networks, who owns which magazines and weekly newsbrief mags, etc..

The trail often leads up to very very rich individuals who are not liberal.

__________________
I love lamp.

Ustwo

The American liberal and conservative have very little in common with the dictionary definitions.

I think that should be apparent to anyone who follows US politics.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

The Conservative movement today has very little to do with Goldwater's (their supposed founder) ideas either. The Neo-Con leaders today have based their philosophies and policies on the economic and corporate elite and their morals and social visions on the 700 club and the Pat Robertson's. Goldwater would be turning in his grave because this is not a conservativism he taught. In theory, perhaps, but the leaders have much deeper agendas.

True conservativism is an efficiently run government with little red tape, answerable to the public, a laissez faire attitude towards business with some restraint and rewards to keep small businesses alive and thriving and allows for a strong educational system. Bush represents taking away rights (Patriot Act, Marriage Amendment, and so on), Bush represents big corporations destroying any competition, responsive only to those he deems to respond to, and a weaker educational system.

True conservativism is a good thing. Goldwater had some very good ideas, but don't portray what is being practiced by the GOP today as true conservativism. It's a very semi-fascist wolf in sheep's clothing.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

hammer4all

Guest lists show what view points get heard in a debate. When you consistently have moderates on one side and conservatives on the other, the whole spectrum of debate is limited. Same thing happens when think tanks are used from mostly one side of the political spectrum.

Reporters may have an affect, but I don't think it's as large as you think. They have to please their generally conservative editors and media owners who pay them their salary. Owners in tern have to worry about pleasing advertisers. I once again will quote Chomsky because he always says it best:
Funny you should mention that. It turned out later that whole scene was stage-managed by an Army psychological operations team. I think the Los Angeles Times was like the only mainstream news organization to report it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-02.htm

host

<b>Yeah....the press has a liberal bias....why....they're maligning our Resident!</b><p>
<i>"I'm the commander... see, I don't need to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." </i><b>--Woodward's BUSH AT WAR</b><p>
<b>Ohhh....but you do have to explain to WE, THE PEOPLE, Mr. Resident....
through our surrogates, the members of the press !</b><p>
Jefferson said:
<i>
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
</i>
<b>Do the sheeple in this country really think that Jefferson<br> would react to Bush's abysmal efforts to engage in an open dialogue with the press any differently than I am if,
in light of what he wrote above, he encountered this of the "sitting"
president ? Is this man facing the people "to set them right as to facts" ? I think not:</b><br>
<a href="http://www.theweekbehind.com/articles/liars.html">
(As of April 2, 2004.....)
The net-net of Bush's first three years in office is one of the most closed off -- but "on message" -- administrations in history. So far, Bush has held only 11 press conferences -- compared with 77 by his father in the first three years of his administation, according to Frank Rich in The New York Times. Even Richard Nixon, deemed one of the most secretive presidents of our time, held 23 over the same period.</a><p><br><b>
Because it is not pratical for individual citizens to engage the President in
question and answer sessions, unlike in the British parliamentary system, where<br> PM Tony Blair is regularly required to participate in sometimes heated
and unscripted Q&A sessions with members of parliament, in the U.S., the
task falls solely to the press. Demands by the press to regularly question the
President in an open and spontaneous setting on subjects ranging from policy,
the state of the country, and on matters relating to the President's previous
assertions, and on his integrity, are not a privelege, they are a right !
Previous Presidents.....including Bush '43's own father, recognized this and
responded in a proper way; by regularly meeting with the press and answering
questions put to them. No only does Bush not provide this access by allowing <br>the press to question him regularly, publically, and spontaneously, he restricts
all situations when he will be direct contact with citizens to pre-screened,
loyal audiences, and to numerous "public "appearances on military bases.<p>
He controls the White House Press Core with thr threat of diminishing access
to any reporter who reports negatively about him, or asks him a question in
one of his rare press conferences that he perceives as casting him in a bad
light. 40 year veteran and most senior White House correspondent, Helen Thomas<br> is no longer recognized when she attempts to question Bush, as
punishment, and as an example to other reporters. If the press actually had
a liberal bias, the issue of Bush's lack of press conferences ( 1/7 of those held by <br>his father in the same amount of time in office) this issue would be much
more broadly reported, if for not other reason than to try to sway the opinion
of the citizenry to put signifigant pressure on Bush to regularly and spontaneously <br>engage the press, since they represent the quest of the people to hold the President<br> accountable and to stay informed. Bush is
reduced to performing in a carefully scripted manner, as his aircraft carrier
landing and his campaign appearances demonstrate. There is no open government <br>and no effort by bush to meet the challenge to defend his policies and brief the country <br>in the manner of past Presidents and founding
fathers, such as Jefferson invisioned. And the "liberal" press raises only
feeble objection, and encourages Bush's unprecedented and un-American
reclusiveness!</b>