![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiActually, let me rephrase that.
If this is the only article you read all year that isn't from a conservative paper, like one owned by Richard Mellon Sciarfe or the Reverend Moon or Murdoch... If this is the only article you read that hasn't been vetted by the hosts at Fox News...
Please, read this, gacked in its entirity from Al Franken's blog:
If this is the only article you read all year that isn't from a conservative paper, like one owned by Richard Mellon Sciarfe or the Reverend Moon or Murdoch... If this is the only article you read that hasn't been vetted by the hosts at Fox News...
Please, read this, gacked in its entirity from Al Franken's blog:
About a week ago on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity spewed a litany of lies about John Kerry being a flip-flopper and tax raiser, lies that came directly from the Bush campaign. Oddly, Alan Colmes did not respond. So we will. Hannity said:
Here’s a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it. Here’s a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq. Here’s a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it. Here’s a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it. No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it. Here’s a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he’s for it. The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times. What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles?
Let’s take these one at a time.Here’s a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it.
This is a lie. Kerry’s position has always been consistent on this. I disagree with him, but Kerry has always been against gay marriage. He is for civil unions. What Hannity is doing here is taking Kerry’s vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and deliberately misrepresenting it as a declaration in favor of gay marriage. But let me read you what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate about that vote.
“I will vote against this bill, though I am not for same-sex marriage, because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed….the results of this bill will not be to preserve anything, but will serve to attack a group of people out of various motives and rationales, and certainly out of a lack of understanding and a lack of tolerance, and will only serve the purposes of the political season.”
And on that, I totally agree with him. So, for the record: Kerry has been totally consistent on this. He has never flip-flopped. Sean Hannity is lying, and he knows it.
Next.
Here’s a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq.
Okay. This is just stupid. Kerry’s position on Iraq has been totally consistent. Yes, he voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. But voted for that in order for Bush to go to the UN and get the inspectors back into Iraq, which was a genuine triumph. But, the president acted in bad faith. Here is what Kerry said about it on Face the Nation on September 14, 2003:
“The president promised he would go to war as a matter of last resort. He didn’t. The president promised he would build a coalition and work through the United Nations. He didn’t. We’re paying the price for the reckless way in which this president approached this. It’s a failure of diplomacy, and today it’s a failure of leadership.”
Kerry was entirely consistent, and not only that, he was right.
Next.
Here’s a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it.
This is correct, but it’s not a flip-flop. Kerry voted for an amendment to the Iraqi appropriations bill that would have paid for the $87 billion by taking it out of the tax cut for the extremely rich. That amendment lost, 57-42, because Bush insisted that the $87 billion be added to the deficit. As we discussed with Paul Krugman last week, never in the history of this country have we had tax cuts while we were at war. Not only that, but Paul Krugman told me that he has yet to find any civilization in the history of this planet that ever had a tax cut during a war.
After the amendment went down, Kerry did vote against the final $87 billion supplemental appropriation, as a protest against the way Bush got us into the war and is conducting it. But he knew that the troops would have the support, because the bill passed 87 to 12.
You can support our troops, and still protest the president. If you can’t hold those two ideas in your head, you won’t enjoy my show, and I suggest you switch over to Rush right now.
Next.
Here’s a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it.
Well, here’s what Kerry said:
“I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.
"But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks. They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.”
In other words, he voted for the Patriot Act after 9/11, although he objected to parts of it. Bush has abused it in ways that were never intended by Congress when it was passed. If you can’t hold that in your head, you will love Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it.
This is an easy one. On this one, like all the others, Kerry’s position is consistent, and principled, and Hannity’s is dishonest. Kerry voted for the bill, which the president promised to fund. The president didn’t fund it, which created unfunded mandates on states and school districts across this country. As a result, classroom sizes are getting bigger, after-school programs are being dropped, teachers are being fired, and education is getting worse. Everyone in education across this country will tell you that. No Child Left Behind is the most ironically named piece of legislation since the 1942 Japanese Family Leave Act.
Next.Here’s a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he’s for it.
Actually, Sean’s right on this one. Kerry was against the death penalty before 9/11. And after 9/11, he now supports the death penalty for terrorists. Now, Bush—before 9/11, wanted to invade Iraq. And after it, wanted to invade Iraq. So maybe he was more consistent. Kerry was affected viscerally by 9/11. I’m not sure I’d call that a flip-flop.
Next.
The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times.
This is a disgraceful lie. It is a distortion of a phony statistic put out by the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign lists 350 of Kerry’s votes for, quote, “higher taxes.” Almost all of these are votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged, such as a 1987 vote against a repeal of the “windfall profit” tax on oil. Taxes would have remained the same if his side had prevailed. In other words, this was a vote against an irresponsible tax cut for the rich.
Let me make a side note. We need to pay for the government. Someone’s got to pay for it. And if you cut taxes for the rich, the burden gets shifted to everyone else, or their children.
Bush’s list even includes votes that Kerry cast in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts. On Bush’s list, there’s only one actual tax increase that Kerry voted for, which incidentally is counted twice. It’s his vote for Clinton’s 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which raised taxes on the top 1% and cut taxes on people at the bottom, and was followed by eight years of unprecedented growth.What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles?
The man who has no core values or principles here is a man named Sean Hannity. And you know who came up with all these lies? The campaign of a man named George W. Bush.
Look. The reason I took the time to go over all of this is you’re going to hear this garbage repeated over, and over, and over again from now until November. And we are not going to let them do it. We are not going to let them do to John Kerry what they did to Al Gore.
Kerry is not a flip-flopper. But Bush is a liar. And his shills in the media, like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh—they’re liars too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 08:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 09:21 am (UTC)My husband and I run our local Kerry website, so I wanted to find this to link to. The home page for the blog is http://www.ofrankenfactor.com/
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 09:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 08:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 08:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 08:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 08:34 am (UTC)Sorry, I saw the gauntlet in your response above
Date: 2004-07-28 08:59 am (UTC)*ahem*
Look what this silly woman thinks!
(YOU said it)
~A
Re: Sorry, I saw the gauntlet in your response above
Date: 2004-07-28 09:15 am (UTC)Now, I will throw one down. What is silly about what I posted?
Re: Sorry, I saw the gauntlet in your response above
Date: 2004-07-29 08:12 am (UTC)I don’t usually think anything that you post is silly (in the stupid sense; you do post whimsy). However, Al Franken is doing what I see you do frequently, mix analysis and assumptions. You present facts, but then you present your own interpretation as more fact. I happen to disagree with some of the basic assumptions being brought to the formulation of the conclusions drawn, and thus with the conclusions.
However, no, I don’t think you’re silly. I think Mr. Franken, and you, and I, and the rest of the 99.9% of us who must have subjective opinions, do the same thing: seek out and respond to others’ interpretations that agree with, or are based on similar, assumptions to your own. Nobody, except the very highest circles of governments and agencies involved, is in any way able to make objective assessments.
In other words, you already know what you believe. And I know what I do. And we are unlikely to alter the other’s viewpoint. I have no intention of even trying to refute anyone in political debate point by point. For one, I have no time. But for another, I find it pointless. I’m not in the market, and neither are you.
What I will do is admit I am subjective, for I believe one of my strong points is an ability to understand (if not agree with) other perspectives. And I believe this comes from an understanding of the assumptions I bring to the table. However, most of the political messages I have seen or your, or others’, LJs, don’t seem ready to admit anything of the sort. I can’t speak with certainty of the other authors; but many of you share a certain absoluteness of tone. Over the years I’ve gotten a sense of you personally, and I think that you honestly believe that your presentations are the one and only way to interpret things. This is probably why you’re a good lawyer, your confidence in the truth and singularity of your interpretations: your strength has always seemed to lie in collecting, marshaling, and presenting coherent, convincing interpretations as fact. Over the years, though, it has appeared to me that your confidence may stem from an inability to perceive where your facts stop and your assumptions begin. I think a lot of the political posters on LJ are in that position, but one must understand one’s own “filter” of perception before one can begin to appreciate another’s. In other words: they’re not in the market. They may not even realize there is a market.
So no, what you post isn’t silly. But I also think in many cases, it’s not true except as a view of how Heidi sees things, and I'm not sure you truly understand and accept that, or that you're interested in Amanda’s view.
Re: Sorry, I saw the gauntlet in your response above
Date: 2004-07-29 09:15 am (UTC)Well, it wasn't *meant* to be funny. I was completely sincere when I said it - I didn't mind if someone linked to the post, but I didn't want to give permission for someone to make fun of me somewhere off my LJ.
However, Al Franken is doing what I see you do frequently, mix analysis and assumptions. You present facts, but then you present your own interpretation as more fact.
Well, Al Franken's piece was, on its face, a combination of facts and analysis; it wasn't a charted-out list of facts. But there are facts contained in it - is it that difficult to parcel them out, and to see that it is a fact that Kerry didn't vote to raise taxes "consistently 350 times". And on other issues, like the death penalty, he explained why Kerry's position has changed over the years.
I didn't post it to convince every single person that Kerry deserves their vote; there is no way that will happen, not even on my flist. I posted it because I thought people had an interest in knowing more information, rather than less, about a candidate's position on things, so that if they want to vote against him, they can say, "hey! I'm voting against him because he thought the Bush administration was going to administer the Patriot Act for terrorism situations only! What an idiot!" or "Hey! I'm voting against him because I think it's fine to have a tax cut during a war!"
However, most of the political messages I have seen or your, or others’, LJs, don’t seem ready to admit anything of the sort.
Do you mean that I don't understand the assumptions others bring to the table, or that I don't understand the assumptions I bring to the table?
I don't really have any comprehension of why people think that there is something immoral or evil in using litigation to force corporations or individuals to refrain from being negligent or injurious especially when the laws have been altered and changed in the past decade or so to reduce the government's ability to force corporations or individuals to refrain from being negligent or injurious. I do not understand it at all.
I don't really have any comprehension of why people think that the war in Iraq is going well; I didn't understand why Bush thought the mission was all dandy and accomplished last year.
I don't really have any comprehension of why a NY Post reporter wrote today that Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech was filled with "new agey" ideas, and why that reporter quoted some of those "new agey" ideas - without having any clue that said "ideas" were directly quoting Abraham Lincoln.
I know what facts are. I know what interpritation is. And I have spent far too many hours in the past few days - and I know I am going to spend more and more hours in the next 98 days - fighting against assumptions and conclusions that have no basis in fact.
Re: Sorry, I saw the gauntlet in your response above
Date: 2004-08-02 06:57 pm (UTC)I'm just a casual reader of your journal, but I continue to read it because you do post information. And yeah ... sometimes the information is slightly skewed, but as an educated reader, I can read beyond the skew. Especially living in the red Midwest, it's nice to see information from the blue side sometimes. So thank you for the articles you post. It helps my lazy self stay slightly better informed than might otherwise occur.
~A
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 09:01 am (UTC)It makes my blood boil that so many people revere Bush for his "morals" and "upstanding character". HA! is all I have to say about that. And those who most need to hear this stuff, sadly, will REFUSE flatly, close their ears and turn around and walk away from you, cut you off, holler, spit and scream, friends, family even, rather than hear facts that contradict their misinformed opinions on our "holy President" (HA!)
Grr. Arg.
Thanks again.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:03 am (UTC)Not that I mean to suggest that a person can't pray honestly, or be honest and have faith in God. I just feel like Bush is a big example of the way Christianity can be abused--and unfortunately there's a lot of people who prefer this to the real thing anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:32 am (UTC)Bush, along with so many Christians, are perfect examples of what is wrong with Christianity. Their beliefs can be so naive and absolute that they refuse to see other points of view as valid. And they do not see parallels between themselves and the "heathan", you know? My mother-in-law is like this. She is so self-righteous that she won't even *listen* to you if you are saying something that contradicts her weird opinions...yet, she expects you to sit there on the phone or in person and listen to her ramble on and on, repeating herself about drivel, really. She is very hypocritical despite her "holier than thou" attitude that she speaks with God herself and this confirms, somehow, that Bush also "speaks to God". It is really quite scary sometimes. Extreme anything is not good.
And your last sentence? :D Yes.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 09:03 am (UTC)What's more disturbing to me is that Kerry consistently voted in such a manner as to give the President what he wanted with no guarantee of anything in return. I know this is politics, and it's not as if Ted Kennedy could come out of a back office with an IOU for better education funding written on a White House napkin. But even after Bush had proved his ability to say one thing and do completely the other, Kerry (and many others) extended him trust again, and again, and again, and again.
It's not a shock to me that Bush didn't go to the UN in full faith, nor that he didn't fund No Child Left Behind, nor that he enforced the Patriot Act in a manner unbecoming . . . and I'm an interested but inexperienced layperson. Why then were men and women who tout their experience in these matters so completely duped -- and why was there no learning curve?
None of this means I wouldn't rather see Kerry in the White House than Bush, or that I think he's a flip-flopper. But I do harbor series misgivings about the way Kerry's conducted himself on the key issues of the last four years.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 09:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 06:43 pm (UTC)Hm. Timing-wise, I'm not sure that the trust extended over a very long period. From my recollection, everyting after 9.11 through the authorization to go to war took place within about 14-16 months, and all of it was coupled with reports from Colin Powell, who has since said that he recognizes that he was misinformed, but who then was trusted to be telling the truth by members of both parties (I know he's one of the reasons I was vaguely leaning towards thinking Saddam had WMDs before the war, even though I thought that the UN should be allowed more inspection time and that we went to war without trying further, needed, diplomacy). They weren't trusting Bush and his neocon advisors; they sincerely thought that the CIA wouldn't distort, and that Colin Powell would tell the truth - and that Powell knew what the truth was.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 07:28 pm (UTC)But the trust issue is about more than the war. The Patriot Act was passed within 45 days of 9/11. While its effects have become ever more pernicious, it was quickly apparent that the administration meant to use it aggressively, and in ways that many congressional supporters had never considered. Certainly it was clear by the time the debate over No Child Left Behind came to a head (NCLB being signed into law late January 2002).
I'm unabashedly idealistic, and that's the source of much of my frustration. I cannot help but wish we had a nominee who'd stood up and said no the first time, instead of explaining and moderating his yes's after the fact. I sometimes think the biggest fight of this twelve months won't be to get Kerry into office, but to pull him back to his leftist roots when he gets there.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 09:53 am (UTC)Well, it helps that the current administration pisses me off routinely, enough to make me get off my butt.
But still. I blame you, Heidi. ::considers actually getting over her ten-year-long-aversion to political parties and actually declaring for the Dems. links.::
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 06:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:12 am (UTC)Why is it considered bad that he flip-flopped at all?
Americans seem to have this cultural prejudice against ever admitting that they were wrong. For some reason, people are expected to go through life with the same set of views, forever, and to change them is a grievous hypocrisy. We want leaders, cowboys who will go out and mold the world to our vision. And we get them.
Trouble is, most of the time that means we get the vision of adolescent. If you're expected to hold firm to principles from the moment you enter adulthood, then your principles will have the maturity level of...entering adulthood. Sometimes even earlier, as it seems apparent that our government believes that schoolboy bully tactics still work.
The glorious leader who holds the line on every issue isn't a hero. He's an idiot. I mean this in the most literal, tautological way. I define ignorance as not knowing information. I define stupidity as being unable to learn it. You can't honestly expect that a person can continue to learn throughout his life and yet never let what he's learned influence his beliefs. Ergo, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Google it.
IMHO, we'd be a whole lot better off if our leaders could say "Yes, I made a mistake, here's what I'm going to do about it." We'd do even better if they could say "I don't know. Let me find out" before they went ahead and declared war on half a dozen countries. But that seems to be political suicide in America.
I'd much rather that Kerry really did flip-flop on the issues, because then at least it'd show he's enough of a person to own up to his own mistakes and shortcomings.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:18 am (UTC)I've noticed often in fandoms people will ask whether anyone truly changed their minds on anything from arguing about it. It surprises me how often people seem to say no. I don't always change my mind about my position but I always listen to the other person's argument and concede when they are right and I am wrong about something. That might not lead me to change my mind about the issue entirely but sometimes it does. Why would this be seen as being wishy-washy? I want to be right, not just win the argument. You'd think when it came to something as important as the world people would think that way.
I guess this is why I could never be a politician!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 06:48 pm (UTC)Because flip-flopping has the imprimenteur of changing one's mind without reflection and without serious thought about the matter. Merriam Webster calls it "a sudden reversal", which again implies that it's a change in point of view or position that is not based on careful consideration - or, in fact, any real thought at all.
So yes, flip flopping is Not A Very Good Thing, IMHO.
Changing one's mind because circumstances have changed or on giving the subject extensive thought (like I did re the death penalty - I used to be 100% opposed, but I now believe in it where (a) there is DNA + a confession + a wish by the convicted person to die and no "incapacity" issue, or (b) in cases where one person causes the death of dozens of people, and there is DNA + a confession) is a good thing.
Changing your mind on something because Dick "fuck" Cheney said you should is stupid.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 10:53 am (UTC)Actually, I think Kerry is not a flip-flop, but rather indecisive at times. Lets see if he can bounce from the latest Bush-bashing.
~Shadafakup
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 06:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 08:36 pm (UTC)Like they said, once hooked, forever hooked. ;)
~Shadafakup
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-04 11:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 11:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 11:52 am (UTC)If Bush calls Kerry a flip-flopper one more time, I will have to strangle the person closest to me. If Kerry is a flip-flopper, what does that make Bush? Bush opposed an independent 9/11 commission before he approved it. Bush strongly advocated unilateral, preemptive invasion before asking NATO for assistance in Iraq. Bush derided nation building in the 2000 election, and now he has the fate of two volatile countries in his hands. Bush said, "I'm a war president," and months later, "I'm the peace president."
Talk about double standard. Sorry for the rambling, but Bush makes me very, very angry.
Signing off, V.M. Bell
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 12:17 pm (UTC)And there's absolutely no shame in being moved by a national disaster to change one's opinion. I don't agree with Kerry on the death penalty now that he's changed his mind, but I certainly understand how he could feel that way. I also don't understand what is so virtuous about maintaining a previously-held belief just on PRINCIPLE if you honestly think you made a mistake and want to go in another direction. Clearly Bush cannot admit he's been wrong about ANYTHING. I think the opposite attribute is a far more valuable one in a president.
As for giving Bush what he wanted and then finding that he was a big welsher--well, if Kerry is guilty of this then so are just about all of the Democrats. The reality of political life is that you have give and take. If you're a senator there are loads of times when you say, "All right, I'll vote for this on the condition that you go to the UN and act in good faith--and then you'll vote on that other thing I've been trying to push through..."
If you vote down everything on the principle that the other side are a bunch of big fat liars (stealing from Franken there, his title of the Rush Limbaugh book) then nothing ever gets done in government. Although at a certain point that may be necessary to keep enormous injustices from being perpetrated, such as upsetting the balance of power in the federal government (to take power away from so-called "activist" judges, who are only labeled that way when they do something the Fascists/Republicans don't like, such as preserving people's civil rights).
As an aside--did anyone catch Last Comic Standing last night? I loved Jay Mohr's jab at the Florida election results. Hopefully loads of people in every state in the nation will be vigilant about their civil rights in the November election. The last thing we need is to have another election stolen by the Republicans from the candidate who actually won the popular vote.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 02:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 03:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 04:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 06:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-28 11:23 pm (UTC)"If this is the only article you read that hasn't been vetted by the hosts at Fox News... "
I'm just wondering what this means? As an avid Fox News watcher I consider CNN and the rest to be sub-standard. What makes Fox News so bad?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-29 04:47 am (UTC)Now, here's just a few reasons why FOX's coverage is neither fair nor balanced (and let me note that it's fine for it to not be fair or balanced, but they shouldn't dupe people into thinking it is).
Every day, John Moody, Fox News’ senior vice president for news, presents a directive on how the stories of the day are to be covered. Here's one of his memos from earlier this year, which was incorporated into the documentary Outfoxed.
A friend of my grandmother's is a producer over at FOX; this mother will not talk about politics with her son, who she believes has been de facto brainwashed through his employment at the network.
Fairness & Accuracy in Media, a national media watchdog group, has confucted a study that found that conservatives accounted for nearly three-fourths of ideological guests on the network's marquee news program, ``Special Report with Brit Hume,'' between June and December 2003, and that Republicans outnumbered Democrats five to one.
And from commondreams.org's website:
You can also read a collection of the daily directive memos here.
If you really were unaware of all this, why are you watching FOX in the first place?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-29 02:05 pm (UTC)The reason I feel CNN is sub-standard is that they forget to just give the facts and give us their views of the news. The provide a "lens" to view the news through, by using key phrases or saying things that change the way we look at the news. And it isn't that Fox never colors the news, they just do so on a less frequent basis and in a weaker way. So of my Democratic friends have said, "Of course you watch Fox, it's the conservative one." This isn't necessarily the case. While Fox does seem to be more conservative than the other channels, it's only because they don't show only the liberal side of the story. They allow both conservative and liberal sides to be seen. And I am only talking about the news right now, opinion shows like Hannity and Colmes and Greta van Sustren don't always provide a fair view to both sides of the aisle. Orson Scott Card wrote a good column a few weeks ago about this subject, you can find it at http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 09:30 am (UTC)That last one, for example, could be written in a more neutral way, if it said, "The tax cut passed last night by the senate contains what some in the Administration deem important victories, even though it has less than half of what Bush originally proposed."
Do you see the difference? The way it was written made the determination that it contained important victories for the administration the view of the network; my way has that determination become the view of the administration. Or are they one and the same?
I'm not sure how you see what Fox does as something other than giving its views on the news; they do that regularly. Perhaps you should look at statements by former FOX staffers, like Charlie Reina?
You might want to look at David Brock's site's sections on FOX news which contain evidence of misstatement after misstatement by FOX news anchors, reporters and show hosts.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-30 06:32 am (UTC)<A HREF+'http://globalsecurity.com/media_and_war/survey_shows/survey_shows.htm">Here's an article if you can't open the PDF</A>.
If you're willing to question the myth of the So-Called Liberal Media, there are some excellent resources out there, starting with Alterman's <cite>What Liberal Media?</cite>, which concludes that the (non-Fox, non-alternative) media is right-center on some issues, slightly left-center on some issues, mostly tries with varying success to be objective, and primarily is concerned with profit and not ideology. Many, many studies back Alterman up.
Here's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002">more of those Fox News memos</a>, written by Moody as instructions to its journalists.
A few tidbits:
<cite>The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting.</cite>
<cite>let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine</cite>
<cite>John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign</cite>
<cite>It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day</cite>
Obviously it's easier to see bias going against one's own views that with. And I have no actual gripe with admitted bias -- I read some bloggers and newspapers witha clear ideological slant (on both sides), but which are all open about that slant. But from where I'm standing, Fox is excessively biased, misinforms its viewers, and lies about it.