- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- More from the Liberal media
More from the Liberal mediaFollow
I'm pretty sure the power was always in the peoples hands.
varrussword wrote:
Debo,
U in luck white boy...forget regulating just be aware of what's going on. Thanks to the internet, talk radio, blogs, and stations like Fox we do have the oppurtunity to hear both sides of the story. If you hear both sides of the story then it's up to you decipher the truth of it. The power is back in the peoples hands and despite the large liberal media network they can't control the exchange of information like they once did.
Quote:
And who should be regulating what is and is not said in the media?
U in luck white boy...forget regulating just be aware of what's going on. Thanks to the internet, talk radio, blogs, and stations like Fox we do have the oppurtunity to hear both sides of the story. If you hear both sides of the story then it's up to you decipher the truth of it. The power is back in the peoples hands and despite the large liberal media network they can't control the exchange of information like they once did.
So there should be no control over who gets to print what? That it's up to the people to make their own informed conclusions? While at the same time ******** that the liberal media has too much control?
You just contradicted your own argument. You started out claiming that the major liberal news networks aren't giving enough clear, unbiased information; then claim that they don't need to be regulated and people should find the information themselves.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
So the Drudge Report is your "source"? And you think THAT'S an example of balanced, unbiased reporting?
Excuse me...your rampant illogic is causing my brain to bleed.
Yes, of course the media should filter out irrelevent information when reporting a story, or no story would ever end. Each one would be novel-length by the time every single factor contributing to it had been included and analyzed. Sheehan's actions, and Bush's reactions to them, are the topic of the story. And that is what was reported on. Twice.
It's the media's job to report what happens. They did that. Furthermore, they gave enough background information to give the current events a context (Sheehan's son died, she met with Bush, she didn't feel she got her point across, so she decided to do something more proactive.) That's all they are required to do. Anything else is just wasted print space, because it's not actually relevent to the events being reported.
If the story had been a human-interest story specifically about Sheehan's feelings, then the change of heart she allegedly had would have been pertinent data and covered in the story. But that wasn't what the story was about. It's about her protest in Texas. That's quite properly the focus. Anything else deserves a mention if it's relevent, and nothing more.
Excuse me...your rampant illogic is causing my brain to bleed.
Yes, of course the media should filter out irrelevent information when reporting a story, or no story would ever end. Each one would be novel-length by the time every single factor contributing to it had been included and analyzed. Sheehan's actions, and Bush's reactions to them, are the topic of the story. And that is what was reported on. Twice.
It's the media's job to report what happens. They did that. Furthermore, they gave enough background information to give the current events a context (Sheehan's son died, she met with Bush, she didn't feel she got her point across, so she decided to do something more proactive.) That's all they are required to do. Anything else is just wasted print space, because it's not actually relevent to the events being reported.
If the story had been a human-interest story specifically about Sheehan's feelings, then the change of heart she allegedly had would have been pertinent data and covered in the story. But that wasn't what the story was about. It's about her protest in Texas. That's quite properly the focus. Anything else deserves a mention if it's relevent, and nothing more.
varrussword wrote:
Her stance isn't the issue...
The liberal medias obvious disregard for the prior meeting in pushing this story is the issue.
The liberal medias obvious disregard for the prior meeting in pushing this story is the issue.
Last week, on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/mom.protest/index.html
Quote:
Sheehan said hers [her family] was one of a group of about 15 families who each met separately with the president one day last June.
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."
Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered.
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."
Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered.
From the same day, in a different Iraq article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/07/iraq.main/index.html
Quote:
Other developments
A mother whose son was killed in Iraq said that she is prepared to remain camped outside President Bush's ranch through August until she is granted an opportunity to speak with him. Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad's Sadr City in April 2004. She said she met with the president shortly after her son was killed, but that she was so distraught she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered.
I'd get a few more from different sources, but my office network is running pretty crappy and this is getting tedious.
Here's a mention on Foxnews yesterday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165449,00.html
Quote:
Change of Heart?
Speaking of Sheehan, earlier this week we told you that some of her recent criticism of President Bush seemed to be a change of heart, based on what she had told her local paper, The Reporter in California. Well, now the paper is rushing to her defense, reporting — under the headline "Anti-war position not new" — that, "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then."
That may be true. But just after meeting Mr. Bush last year, she told the paper, "I now know [the president is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
Last weekend she said, "He acted like it was a party. He came in very jovial— like we should be happy that ... our son died for [the president's] misguided policies."
Speaking of Sheehan, earlier this week we told you that some of her recent criticism of President Bush seemed to be a change of heart, based on what she had told her local paper, The Reporter in California. Well, now the paper is rushing to her defense, reporting — under the headline "Anti-war position not new" — that, "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then."
That may be true. But just after meeting Mr. Bush last year, she told the paper, "I now know [the president is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
Last weekend she said, "He acted like it was a party. He came in very jovial— like we should be happy that ... our son died for [the president's] misguided policies."
These news sites are mentioning the previous meeting; just not in 40-point bold typeface on the front page.
the little v wrote:
I only scan cnn and msnbc a few minutes in the evening and check the site now and then.
Probably why you missed it. Ever look past the headlines?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
The more I think about it, the more I think it's not really surprising that Sheehan had a "change of heart" between the actual day of her meeting with Bush and now.
When you are experiencing something, when there is hustle and bustle and high emotions and you really don't know what to think, you tend to go on auto-pilot. You say the things you think you are supposed to be saying and react the way you think you are supposed to be reacting. It might not be until hours or days or even weeks later, after you've had a time to process the memories of the experience, you realize that there were things about it that should have caught your attention at that moment but didn't.
So, on that day in Washington State, when Bush referred to Sheehan's son as "the loved one", it might not have occurred to her that the reason he was doing so was because he didn't know her son's name. It might not have occurred to her that his levity was out of place. There would be more "omigod I'm meeting with president" and "okay, that secret service guy wants us to stand over here" and "these other families of the other soldiers sure are nice to be with" going on. It might not have been until sometime later that, removed from the chaos of the event, the insult began to set in.
So it's not at all surprising that her interview about the event the day of the meeting differs greatly from her stance a year later. That's not an opportunistic backpedal. It's human nature.
When you are experiencing something, when there is hustle and bustle and high emotions and you really don't know what to think, you tend to go on auto-pilot. You say the things you think you are supposed to be saying and react the way you think you are supposed to be reacting. It might not be until hours or days or even weeks later, after you've had a time to process the memories of the experience, you realize that there were things about it that should have caught your attention at that moment but didn't.
So, on that day in Washington State, when Bush referred to Sheehan's son as "the loved one", it might not have occurred to her that the reason he was doing so was because he didn't know her son's name. It might not have occurred to her that his levity was out of place. There would be more "omigod I'm meeting with president" and "okay, that secret service guy wants us to stand over here" and "these other families of the other soldiers sure are nice to be with" going on. It might not have been until sometime later that, removed from the chaos of the event, the insult began to set in.
So it's not at all surprising that her interview about the event the day of the meeting differs greatly from her stance a year later. That's not an opportunistic backpedal. It's human nature.
Recent Visitors: 190
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (190)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- More from the Liberal media
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC