Irresponsible reporting

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

GC, if the media is controlled by the Bush administration, who controlled it before his administration? Is it a new phenomena? if they do control the media, how then does this story get published? Are you suggesting outlets such as the NY Times are friendly to Bush and his administration? I see so much negative press about the Bush administration out there (whether deserved or not isn't my point) that I cannot bring myself to believe that the media is being controlled by the Bush administration.

I think if an administration has enough money, they can control the media. I think Clinton did it before him and Bush Sr. before that. It is not a new phenomena.

I think a story like this gets published because it really happened. I believe that Rove, someone, got to Newsweek and told them to back track on the story because they knew of the backlash it would cause. I mean, for awhile, it looked like they weren't going to retract it. Why not?

I think the NY Times isn't friendly to Bush but they have let him get away with a lot. The whole lead up to the war, they didn't question him nearly hard enough. That goes the same for NPR as well. I'm equally as frustrated with the left and right media. I don't trust any of it.

Bush deserves his negative press. There'd be more if the media actually honestly covering his administration accurately. Which they aren't. They're terrified of being labelled anti-Bush therefore anti-American.

How do you get everyone to be on your side anyway, if you're Bush? Label the media as 'liberal'. All of the media as 'liberal'. Give them a label and they'll remember the label not the organization. There is no liberal media. There was prior to 9/11. There isn't one now. There's even a move right now to get rid of PBS because they're too left leaning. Never mind that they're being funded by people who agree with what they are saying.
Click here.

If the media actually did its job, everyone would know the name Jim Guckert aka Jeff Gannon and the scandal surrounding him and the Bush admin. Google him and find out... But no one knows anything about the gay male prostitute that was given money to lob soft questions at McClellan at press conferences. Why? Because the media is covering it up to protect Bush.

[wendybeth]

I am with GC on this one. Too close to the CBS thing, and smells like Rove, or his ilk. We'll see.

This administration is far more involved in the manipulaton of the press than most realise. They've pretty much got their own 'news' site- fox, and they have repeatedly been snagged for paying reporters to push their agenda: CS Monitor article .

I'm reading online now that the Whitehouse is refusing to accept a mere apology for this fiasco, never mind that we are supposed to give them a pass for acting on trumped up/erroneous reports themselves. Their actions have hurt far more than this story has, and God help them if anyone from the inner circle is implicated in this.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by gemini cricket

I think a story like this gets published because it really happened. I believe that Rove, someone, got to Newsweek and told them to back track on the story because they knew of the backlash it would cause. I mean, for awhile, it looked like they weren't going to retract it. Why not?

Perhaps the administration was attempting to verify it themselves? It is not possible for every action taken throughout the military or intelligence community to be known by those in charge. If I'm in the administration and this story comes to me, I'm making calls and talking to people who were there trying to find out if there is any validity to it.

Bush deserves his negative press. There'd be more if the media actually honestly covering his administration accurately. Which they aren't. They're terrified of being labelled anti-Bush therefore anti-American.

I suppose that depends on your political point of view. I personally believe that more honest coverage of the administration would end up in stories much more positive of what his administration has done. For one example, there is not nearly enough press about how well Iraq is going. Still some violence and things to deal with? Certainly. But it is going better than anyone expected it to. Just over 2 years since the invasion and the new government is functioning.

a move right now to get rid of PBS because they're too left leaning. Never mind that they're being funded by people who agree with what they are saying.

I could be mistaken, but isn't PBS partially or primarily funded by tax money with some contributions from viewers to boost their budgets? I don't follow PBS at all, so it is possible I am wrong.

If the media actually did its job, everyone would know the name Jim Guckert aka Jeff Gannon and the scandal surrounding him and the Bush admin. Google him and find out... But no one knows anything about the gay male prostitute that was given money to lob soft questions at McClellan at press conferences. Why? Because the media is covering it up to protect Bush.

I thought that story was well publicized - all over the media outlets I see, such as cable news evening talk shows, etc. For the most part, the public is not informed about such things because the public, at large, is ignorant. A poll I heard about today contained that only somethin like 14% of people could identify freedom of the press as gauranteed in the first amendment. Pretty sad.

As we all have our political leanings, I doubt that any of us will ever be satisfied with the slant of given news stories. We will always be outraged over lack of coverage of something we think important.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I'm reading online now that the Whitehouse is refusing to accept a mere apology for this fiasco, never mind that we are supposed to give them a pass for acting on trumped up/erroneous reports themselves.

Yeah, except that they didn't really act on trumped up/erroneous reports. They just pretended that they were the victims of faulty intelligence.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Just over 2 years since the invasion and the new government is functioning.

Just over 2 years since the invasion and they still haven't succeeded on what was billed as goal #1, the most important post-invasion goal, build a stable, effective police force that can control the violence and isn't masacered on a near daily basis.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A poll I heard about today contained that only somethin like 14% of people could identify freedom of the press as gauranteed in the first amendment. Pretty sad.

That is very sad. I'm thinking not enough people in our country read newspapers either.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

As we all have our political leanings, I doubt that any of us will ever be satisfied with the slant of given news stories. We will always be outraged over lack of coverage of something we think important.

Or the over-coverage of something we don't give a dang about. I mean, Michael Jackson? That's not news. Just tell me the verdict and we'll all move on...

I don't know the answer about PBS. I will look into that.

Now the following isn't mean to be a slam or a snide remark: What good has Bush done for our country? Besides holding certain big business CEOs accountable for fraud, I'm stumped.

I do have to disagree with you that Iraq is going well. I can't even imagine what the Iraqi death toll is. I physically hurt when I hear about someone dying over there. All for nothing...

[scaeagles]

I completely agree with you regarding over coverage of certain things. Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson......ridiculous. It doesn't bother me much because I am able to turn it off.

I hesitate to go into what I think Bush has done that has been good for our country. Not because I don't have strong opinions about it (I also have strong opinions about what I think he has NOT done well or at all), but because the thread is about irresponsible reporting, and I'm not interested in changing this into a debate of me against most of the population of the LoT, especially considering it has all been hashed out before with me and Sac, GD, Scrooge, et al, during the election season.

(Not intending to discount the intelligent contributions of MickeyLumbo, Nephy, Kevy, (insert name here) to the conservative point of view, just pointing out the primarily left leaning politics of those who post here.)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I was just thinking today that there hadn't been a good political debate here in a while. Pleasant surprise! And good points made by all. Granted, the line about Iraq going well almost made me choke on my sandwich but...

Concerning the OP, I agree with those that have said that it really boils down to it all being about ratings and money and getting the story first. The idea of a "liberal media" though is a myth invented by the neo-cons, an easy way to discredit any bad news that happens to come out. It's a pretty ingenious tactic.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Perhaps the administration was attempting to verify it themselves?

I find this unlikely. The Pentagon responded to Newsweek when they were verifying their story, but they made no mention of the Koran charges.

After watching this administration, I find it more likely somebody saw the need to throw up chaff in light of the increased attention the media is giving to the Downing Street minutes.

As Conyers wrote in his letter to Scott McClellan today...

The question is: are you categorically denying that the mistreatment of the Koran occurred, or are you simply denying the Newsweek report is accurate on hyper technical grounds?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If I'm in the administration and this story comes to me, I'm making calls and talking to people who were there trying to find out if there is any validity to it. It is not possible for every action taken throughout the military or intelligence community to be known by those in charge.

It should be known by the Pentagon, should it not? This was after all a Pentagon investigation we're talking about.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I personally believe that more honest coverage of the administration would end up in stories much more positive of what his administration has done. For one example, there is not nearly enough press about how well Iraq is going.

*rubs eyes*

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But it is going better than anyone expected it to.

HUH?

Seriously, that's REALLY reaching.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I could be mistaken, but isn't PBS partially or primarily funded by tax money with some contributions from viewers to boost their budgets? I don't follow PBS at all, so it is possible I am wrong.

Partially, not primarily. PBS receives give or take about 85% of its funding from non-government sources.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For the most part, the public is not informed about such things because the public, at large, is ignorant

Isn't it nice we can always find something to agree on. I'll end with that.

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I could be mistaken, but isn't PBS partially or primarily funded by tax money with some contributions from viewers to boost their budgets? I don't follow PBS at all, so it is possible I am wrong.

But its still the peoples money being spent on the programing, if it is from taxes or from contributions by viewers like me. The govt is just a trustee of the tax monies it collects, it still belongs to the people, as that is what the country was founded on, a govt of the people, for the people, by the people, and all that jazz. But I'm tired(physically, as well as tired of all the left vs. right stuff, lets just have a celebrity death match and decide this once and for all). Namaste.