Look at the photo they picked of John Roberts. How appealing, eh? I don't think if he was a democrat, they would have made this sort of selection. I should think not.
Yes. Because every photo of Clinton was ripped from the pages of Esquire, Janet Reno was perpetually portrayed as a Claudia Schiffer clone and Tom Daschle, why, talk about a hunka hunka burnin' manmeat!
Do you even think about what you're writing?
CNN had a funny headline today but it wasn't there for long. Said "Hell has Frozen Over"...And when you clicked on it to took you to Bushs apology article. Was only up for less then 2 hours. Umm not bias by a long shot hmmm?
Given that not only had Bush never accepted responsbility for any prior failings under his administration, that Bush's previous brush with accountability had been to declare Donald Rumsfeld the best Secretary of Defense after Abu Ghraib, and that as far as anyone knows "accept responsibility" is almost explicitly contrary to Karl Rove's political playbook -- and no, tennyson, that's not in the slightest bit sarcastic -- yeah, I was a little surprised too. Might've even expressed it in a snarky headline. Since the apology appears to have been vacuous, however, I'm sure Hell is doing just fine.
Also, if you're going to cite an example of bias perhaps you should do so with one that isn't self-contradicting: as you yourself say in this paragraph, they took the headline down within two hours
. Again, do you even bother to think about what you're writing?
Finally, since I don't have the stomach to explain the difference between "spinning" and "sensationalism" to you, let me just note this:
Oh my then we have a little show on in the mornings called "The Today Show" with Katie Couric and Matt Lauer. I call them the tag team of the democratic party. Katie and Matt lean very far to the left, they need a wall the hold them up.
Good grief. Why on earth should anyone bother to take you seriously after a clownish (tm Bob Somerby) paragraph like that? "I call them the tag team of the democratic party"? Who gives a crap? I don't care what twee little insults you can think up -- I mean, I'm sure you think it's cute, which reflects rather poorly on you I might add -- I'm interested in what the truth is. "Lean very far to the left"? Do you have the slightest idea what the left edge of the political spectrum comprises? Have either Katie or Matt advocated, say, nationalizing the heavy industries? Income caps and subsequent redistribution? Good grief, have they even publicly supported universal health care?
[I actually don't know the answer to the last one, but I'm pretty sure I can answer the first two. In my sleep.]
As it happens, my understanding is that Couric and Lauer are liberalish in their politics. [Probably center-liberal, but it's awfully hard to tell since they both assiduously try to keep to the script. And yes, I've read MRC and yes, they're full of crap.] So what? FOX News by itself emits more GOP bias per minute -- and again, tennyson, I mean that quite literally (albeit averaged) -- than Couric and Lauer do per show. That doesn't prove anything in a vacuum; you need to bolster your argument with, y'know, facts and stuff.
On which note, if you're going to bold specific sentences, perhaps you should do so with ones that support your point?
"Will this storm hurt President Bush's ability to accomplish his second term agenda and what impact will it have on his legacy? We'll talk with a top historian about that."
Let's see; Bush's polls, quoth Pew and others, went down approximately 2 points during Katrina and her aftermath. [Which is itself extraordinary because Presidents almost never
lose in the polls during an emergency or catastrophe; it's the whole "rally around the flag" effect.] And you're holding this particular question up as somehow "biased"? Bollocks. It's a legitimate question -- question
, not proclamation -- and one that deserves answering.
Couric: "How hamstrung might this President be when it comes to accomplishing things on his legislative agenda, for example, social security reform and other measures that he wants to complete as part of a second term?"...
Couric: "So you think it will hurt the Republican Party in general or do you think they can bounce back from this?"
Again, these are perfectly legitimate questions. The GOP took a political hit during Katrina; it's only natural to turn to the nearest expert and ask how much damage would result in the long-run. The only way it could be illegitimate would be for someone to declare that any unsanctioned disapproval of the GOP was off-limits in public discourse... and, well, if that's what you're trying to say then I suggest you do so openly. Might save everyone a lot of time.
One last bit of insanity here:
Couric: "And real quickly, Tim. I had several officials say to me when I was covering the story, 'Katie this is a clear indication that this country is not prepared for another terrorist attack.' Is that a fair assessment and will action be taken to make sure that the response to a terrorist attack is going to be better than the response to Katrina?"
Russert: "Katie, Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker, said exactly that. And if you talk to people privately they are deathly afraid that if there is another terrorist attack or another natural disaster we just don't have our act together at the local, state or federal level. It is something of grave concern here in official Washington."
You realize that people are saying this in public
, right? You realize that, in fact, the shocking mismanagement of the Federal response actually proves
-- not in a "this is my opinion, pm me if you want to burst my bubble because I can't bear to have my feelings hurt" kind of way, but in a "this is what's happening in the real world" kind of way -- that we're unprepared for a major terrorist attack? You realize that, well, if there weren't grave concern in Washington about the travesty we'd be in a f***load of trouble, right?
Good grief. I'd ask you once again if you thought about what you were writing, but since you didn't write this I guess I'll have to content myself with asking whether you bother to read what you're cutting and pasting... and from the looks of it, the answer's rather obviously no.
Edited by Anarch, 15 September 2005 - 11:26 AM.