PDA

View Full Version : Media Bias Question



dclary
11-10-2006, 01:50 AM
Ok... If possible, I'd like this to stay writing (ok, journalism) related, as much as possible.

Today, President Bush lunched with Nancy Pelosi -- a customary event after election day, regardless of who's in power. Pelosi and Bush have often butted heads, though, so some fireworks could have been expected, or at least hoped for.

The linked article for the AP is (supposedly) reporting on this event in what they consider a fair and impartial manner. Upon reading it, do you agree or disagree -- not with the article itself -- but with the assertion that there is no media bias in any direction? And if there IS bias, is it intentional or unintentional?

I'll let you know my feelings on it after I've heard a few of yours.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/D8L9NENO2.html

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 02:01 AM
This snippets give me cause for concern....


gave his Republicans a trouncing on Election Day

wish-list for the lameduck session

Vice President Dick Cheney sitting glumly

...right off the bat.

Kinda sets the tone of the article.

Thank you.

ETA: Cheney is glum 99% of the time.

Southern_girl29
11-10-2006, 02:02 AM
I tried to find this story on the wire at work, and while I found one sort of like it, it's not the exact same story, although it does have the same byline and parts of it are the same. Could this version you have be an unedited version?

dclary
11-10-2006, 02:05 AM
I tried to find this story on the wire at work, and while I found one sort of like it, it's not the exact same story, although it does have the same byline and parts of it are the same. Could this version you have be an unedited version?

It's certainly possible, I hadn't considered that. Does breibart post unedited feeds? I don't know.

Southern_girl29
11-10-2006, 02:10 AM
It's certainly possible, I hadn't considered that. Does breibart post unedited feeds? I don't know.




I don't know. That's actually the first time I've been to that Web site. But, your version is certainly biased, while the version I have isn't as bad. I don't know whether to post it or not, since I don't have a link. Let me see if I can find it at another source.

ETA: Can't find it right now, but I'm about to leave to go home. I'll try to find it later tonight.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 02:14 AM
There's nothing you can do about the bias.

Most journalists aren't conservatives and as much as they like to believe they have the ability to be fair and balanced, they are humans.

I ain't even angry wit dem.

They're humans. It's a rare human that can be fair and balanced against their primoridal urges and bias. The ones that can, I call legends.

Oh well.

Long live Fox!

robeiae
11-10-2006, 02:19 AM
I don't know. I don't think the article is particularly informative or well-written, so it's hard to know if any possible bias is just a short cut to get it written, or not.

dclary
11-10-2006, 02:21 AM
That's why I left open the possibility that it might be unintentional, Robeiae, and maybe just needed an "impartiality edit" before final post.

aghast
11-10-2006, 03:15 AM
how impartial do you want them to be? if a reporter reports 'cheney sat glumly' or 'hilary clinton farted' does that automatically make them biased? or unless they report everyone - and i mean everyone - in glowing light they cant possibly impartial? if they reported bush sr barfed all over japanese prime minsisters lap did it make them liberals?

SC Harrison
11-10-2006, 03:20 AM
It's certainly possible, I hadn't considered that. Does breibart post unedited feeds? I don't know.




I followed this link from AP's own website, and it looks the same:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=TNMEM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It was worded somewhere between news and editorial, but it doesn't take much manipulation to make our President seem a tad simple:

"We won't agree on every issue, but we do agree that we love America."

My heart is warmed. I wonder if he was genuinely surprised that she loves America, and is wondering if there could possibly be even more Democrats that love America.

I guess it could have been worse:

"I thought we were about to agree on something, but it turns out she hates America!"

robeiae
11-10-2006, 03:21 AM
how impartial do you want them to be? if a reporter reports 'cheney sat glumly' or 'hilary clinton farted' does that automatically make them biased? or unless they report everyone - and i mean everyone - in glowing light they cant possibly impartial? if they reported bush sr barfed all over japanese prime minsisters lap did it make them liberals?

Well, saying "Cheney sat glumly" is not a fact, it's an opinion. Saying Hilary farted is a fact (if she did). So if reporters are claiming to report facts only, that first line wouldn't work.

Another reporter could say "Cheney sat next to Bush looking thoughtful." Which reporter was right?

dclary
11-10-2006, 03:23 AM
how impartial do you want them to be? if a reporter reports 'cheney sat glumly' or 'hilary clinton farted' does that automatically make them biased? or unless they report everyone - and i mean everyone - in glowing light they cant possibly impartial? if they reported bush sr barfed all over japanese prime minsisters lap did it make them liberals?

The difference is in the adjectives used, Ghasty.

aghast
11-10-2006, 03:43 AM
glumly is an arguably subjective adjective but if cheney did pout, what should the reporter say, 'cheney sat and pouted' would work but it just means the writer wasnt really that good so instead of saying 'cheney slumped in his seat, slouched and pouted' she opted to say 'cheney sat glumly' - all it proves is that she is not very good writer ... i say 'arguably' because a writer reports what she sees and and not everything has to be black and white 'facts' such as 'fart' or 'pout' but if she translates 'pout' to 'glumly' does that really make her biased? because we writers use adjectives all the time, and journalists are writers - and even if she says 'cheney pouted' you may still argue 'how did she know it was a pout? maybe there was a piece of shrimp stuck on his lower lip' - so you can spin it anyway your want if you do believe reporters are biased - and none more biased than fox news by the way

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 03:44 AM
stoicly


thank you

dclary
11-10-2006, 03:44 AM
not everything has to be black and white 'facts' such as 'fart' or 'pout'.

The part that isn't is known commonly as "bias."

aghast
11-10-2006, 03:49 AM
call it bias then but i say its just sloppy writing, jk rowling style - aghast said glumly

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 03:53 AM
to me that came off as "angrily," aghast

aghast
11-10-2006, 03:58 AM
said billy, thrilly

dclary
11-10-2006, 03:59 AM
you mean thrillily.

aghast
11-10-2006, 04:02 AM
too many willy lillies ... anyway, to me, 'cheney sat glumly' is not a bias, just an interpretation and poor writing and probably because of word count because if the reporter had written 'cheney sat, his shoulders slumping, his hands dug deep in his pockets, his lower lip jutting out, his eyes drooping' she will be fired by the editor for using too many words - 'sat glumly will do fine, sugar' - now if she wrote 'cheney sat there looking like he was going to kill bush and then himself with a shotgun' i would say shes biased

blacbird
11-10-2006, 04:03 AM
"Cheney sat glumly" isn't bias, as much as it is just bad writing. It's redundant. Cheney does everything glumly.

caw.

aghast
11-10-2006, 04:09 AM
besides what do we expect? 'cheney jumped up and down and sang tomorrow, tomorrow from the show annie while hugging everyone in the hallway'?

Unique
11-10-2006, 04:10 AM
The first paragraph was kind of hinky. 'made nice' - doesn't sound very professional to me.


"It included: spending bills funding government's continued operation "with strong fiscal discipline and without diminishing our capacity to fight the war on terror;" legislation retroactively authorizing his warrantless domestic surveillance of suspected terrorists; energy legislation; and congressional approval for a landmark civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with India and for normalizing trade relations with Vietnam."

There's a nice long sentence that doesn't say much, especially the part in quotes but I consider the source.

Bias? Not much. A few places where a better word choice could have been used and not nearly as biased as some articles I've seen.

Facts and just the facts hasn't been taught in J school in a long time. But don't take my word for it. Dig through Poynter Online (http://http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhjluo). 'Prof's study sure to delight... states a lot in the first paragraph.
YMMV
sorry to hijack back on topic. carry on.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 04:10 AM
besides what do we expect? 'cheney jumped up and down and sang tomorrow, tomorrow from the show annie while hugging everyone in the hallway'?

That's something you won't see everyday.

TheGaffer
11-10-2006, 04:30 AM
Democrats gave his Republicans a trouncing on Election Day

I don't have an issue with that. The GOP lost 29 seats. They didn't pick up any Dem seats in the House, Senate or governor seats. That's a trouncing.

I agree on the Cheney thing. Although he is glum 99% of the time. But if a person openly appears angry or confused or thrilled, you can't avoid all adjectives.

And "lame-duck session" is a pretty common term for "last 2 years of a president's term," so that's neither here nor there.



On an overall, though, Clary, I think you're incorrect. Most articles like this try to be straight-forward as possible. And one area where the right overreaches is to claim media bias in every last article that may have a criticism or state unpleasant facts about someone. It's one thing to claim bias on that CBS "Bush skipped out of the Guard" report (although faulty reporting and clinging too tightly to the thesis was more the issue there), but to dissect AP articles for subtle signs of bias? I don't see it. Occam's Razor, man. If you have to pick bias or sloppiness, generally you have to go with the latter.

The TV networks are more guilty of bias, depending on the theme that's running at the time. The "Democrats are weak" theme ran on and on for a long time without any real counterpoint; some of the networks have far more right-wing talking heads on than left-wing talking heads. On the other hand, I'd argue that the Virginia senate race probably stuck with the Macaca-racist-noose-in-his-office thing for quite a bit too long, and once that ball gets rolling, it's hard to turn it around, and the media just piles on.

I'm more disturbed by the media's penchant for playing up the horse-race aspects of every issue and playing every issue like it's political inside baseball.

"How will this play with soccer moms?" is like 55% of all the stories. Never mind that -- "how it will play" will be answered when the voters vote. Dear fluffy-haired anchor: You tell me the issue. I will respond to it in my way.

Or the articles that do the "How will the Iraq deaths affect Karl Rove?" Who gives a rat's *** how it affects Karl Rove? What about how it's affecting Iraq? America?

We need reporters to discern betwen one side and another, and to call bulls*** on things when they're out-and-out untruths, and lots of politicians mouth those things all the time. But for some reason now, maybe because of fear of being called biased, reporters don't come out and say, "Well, essentially you're full of crap." It's not a crime to do this. When a Rove type says "Democrats want to give terrorists flowers," and no Dem has ever said such a thing, it's fine for a reporter to write, "Mr. Rove, however, could not name any specific such incident in which a Democrat said this." You could say the same with Howard Dean and his comments on the emminent domain thing (robieae if you're there, see? I'm quoting you!) when he said "Bush wants to take your house away," and then point out, "But the people who voted for the decision were the traditionally more left-leaning members of the court."

The media's obligation beyond that, really, remains to document as much as possible, use anonymous sources judiciously but not shy away from it when it's needed, give both sides a chance to respond to charges and accusations, and put it as straight-forward as possible. But everything is all about the horse-race stuff, and it's annoying. TV really doesn't help this, and the shrill blowhards make it all the more worse.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 05:03 AM
I don't have an issue with that. The GOP lost 29 seats. They didn't pick up any Dem seats in the House, Senate or governor seats. That's a trouncing.

I agree on the Cheney thing. Although he is glum 99% of the time. But if a person openly appears angry or confused or thrilled, you can't avoid all adjectives.

And "lame-duck session" is a pretty common term for "last 2 years of a president's term," so that's neither here nor there.


Come on, I count on your for fairness.

Although it may be a trouncing(lets not get into that again)..although it may be a lame duck session and although Cheney may have been glum, please read the whole tone of the use of those terms that are uneccesary...

Could have said "who beat his Republicans"

Didn't even need to say 'lame-duck session.' Just an unecceasary shot.

Could say "Bush's last two years in office."

Come on, Gaffer..and it's fine, but don't tell me this writer wasn't getting some enjoyment as the article was written....

"A trouncing!!".....lol

"Sorry, the Mets got trounced, gaffer!"
Billy

"Sorry, the Mets lost, Gaffer."
Billy

Please. Thank you.

TheGaffer
11-10-2006, 05:31 AM
Sorry Billy. I don't see it the same way you do. I agree on the "glum" remark, which seems gratuitous. But again, as I said earlier, I think it's more running too far with a theme than it is a bias.

dclary
11-10-2006, 08:10 AM
On an overall, though, Clary, I think you're incorrect. Most articles like this try to be straight-forward as possible.

Actually, Gaffer, I think that for the most part the press DOES try to be impartial. It's just when they let their person opinions taint the adjectives, as in this case, that the flavor of the article shifts, even if just a wee bit.

That's why I raised the question. I didn't want to question the events themselves, or even media bias in general. Just, did there appear to be a little bit in this article or not.

Celia Cyanide
11-10-2006, 08:29 AM
Actually, Gaffer, I think that for the most part the press DOES try to be impartial. It's just when they let their person opinions taint the adjectives, as in this case, that the flavor of the article shifts, even if just a wee bit.

A per usual, I agree with Gaffer. I don't see how necessary it is to dissect articles like this. The true definition of "a trouncing" may be subjective, but is use of such a phrase really going to effect anyone's opinion of the GOP, or what happened on Tuesday? We all saw the numbers, and they won't change if you call it "trounced" or "won a few more seats." So you notice the flavor of the article shifting. Does it actually change anything, other than annoy Republicans?

aghast
11-10-2006, 08:38 AM
we have lived with all these years of fox news biases - whats a little associated press ribbing? so tell me, my fellow republicans, why are you not criticizing fox news and yet fussing over the word 'glumly'? btw, 'lame duck' is not biased - its a standard term to describe such an administration, whether dem or gop, whether clinton or bush... but 'trounce' is a poor choice of word in news, although 'defeat' - which pretty much mean the same thing - would be a word used by either party without bias - face it, republicans just dont like to see words such as defeated or trounced or lose...

dclary
11-10-2006, 09:01 AM
A per usual, I agree with Gaffer. I don't see how necessary it is to dissect articles like this. The true definition of "a trouncing" may be subjective, but is use of such a phrase really going to effect anyone's opinion of the GOP, or what happened on Tuesday? We all saw the numbers, and they won't change if you call it "trounced" or "won a few more seats." So you notice the flavor of the article shifting. Does it actually change anything, other than annoy Republicans?

As per the OP, I'm not dissecting it for political reasons. I'm looking at it from a writer's perspective, and the importance of choosing our words carefully.

dclary
11-10-2006, 09:04 AM
we have lived with all these years of fox news biases - whats a little associated press ribbing? so tell me, my fellow republicans, why are you not criticizing fox news and yet fussing over the word 'glumly'? btw, 'lame duck' is not biased - its a standard term to describe such an administration, whether dem or gop, whether clinton or bush... but 'trounce' is a poor choice of word in news, although 'defeat' - which pretty much mean the same thing - would be a word used by either party without bias - face it, republicans just dont like to see words such as defeated or trounced or lose...

a) by their own charter, within the scope of "news" journalists are denied the opportunity to "rib." That's what editorial and op/ed sections are for.

b) I don't watch tv news, so I can't really criticize something I haven't seen.

c) correct. lame duck is not biased. congratulations.

d) no one likes to see words like defeated, trounced or lose.

I like you aghast. You're way over your head here in the deep water, but you're sure trying. Keep up the good work.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 09:12 AM
we have lived with all these years of fox news biases -

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on a messageboard, not because you're wrong or right in your assesment of Fox, but because of the "we have lived all these years" part.

It's amazing how little perspective and scope you SEEM have on the issue of media bias during the 20th century.

Here you go....


Pew: Five Times More Journalists Are
Liberal Than Conservative


THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp#1


With the midterm elections upon us, is the mainstream media giving the American people a balanced picture of war in Iraq--or on the war against radical Islam--or the candidates running for office that will be making the life and death decisions?* Apparently not.* A study of the three major television networks showed that ABC, CBS, and NBC portrayed the Democrats in a favorable light 77% of the time while painting a negative picture of Republicans 88% of the time.* Even faced with this study, the liberal media is unapologetic.*

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24881&catcode=13

77% to 12%!! Hilarious.(Yeah, 'cause the Republicans suck, Billy, that's why 77 to 12! :eye roll: )

So, pardon me if I don't jump down Fox's throat for being the powerhouse counterweight to factualy proven, undisputable evidence of an overwhelming liberal media bias.

What I don't understand is what the big deal is in coming out and admitting it? It's common sense. There isn't a 50/50 split. The worlds an imperfect place. It's gonna tilt one way or the other. So, it tilts liberal.

I don't know. Does it make liberals feel less worthy of votes if the media is in their favor and want to believe it's because of their "ideas?"

I don't understand for the life of me why there are so few people who can just call it the way it is and have their positions so dug in that facts and common sense can't even escape for a moment. I'm not saying you specifically, aghast with that last statement.

Oh well.

That's their decision.

Thank you.
The Thrill

aghast
11-10-2006, 09:49 AM
great, youre citing data source from... right, media itself and conservatives no less - lots of credibility mr thrilly - give me some third party nonpartisan research data to back up your claim, man - and even if youre right that almost 80% of media are liberals (really far fetched) it still doesnt justify you saying 'oh liberal media is bad' but 'i have no problem with conservative bias like fox' - thats just partisan logic and excuse - so if you hate bias just come out and say cnn shouldnt be left-biased and fox shouldnt be right-biased - then maybe your argument will carry a bit more weight - right now you just sound like a republican kid whining 'oh its so not fair the other boys are not playing in my team' because if 80% of media is right-leaning i bet you wouldnt be saying anything is wrong with the picture - ah so who is biased now


So, pardon me if I don't jump down Fox's throat for being the powerhouse counterweight to factualy proven, undisputable evidence of an overwhelming liberal media bias.

i find the above funny especially since you quoted conservative news source - factually proven, undisputable evidence?

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 10:13 AM
great, youre citing data source from... right, media itself and conservatives no less - lots of credibility mr thrilly - give me some third party nonpartisan research data to back up your claim, man - and even if youre right that almost 80% of media are liberals (really far fetched) it still doesnt justify you saying 'oh liberal media is bad' but 'i have no problem with conservative bias like fox' - thats just partisan logic and excuse - so if you hate bias just come out and say cnn shouldnt be left-biased and fox shouldnt be right-biased - then maybe your argument will carry a bit more weight - right now you just sound like a republican kid whining 'oh its so not fair the other boys are not playing in my team' because if 80% of media is right-leaning i bet you wouldnt be saying anything is wrong with the picture - ah so who is biased now

A. Apparently you can't see the difference between non-partisan data and non-partisan data that happens to be in articles from a partisan website. That's okay. I understand why that would be confusing.(It's hard to find the non-biased studies on the liberal sites. I understand why)
B. Nowhere did I say that 80% of the media is liberal so ...:Shrug: I don't know how long we can continue if you just pull things from a hat.
C. Yes. It would be nice if no one was biased. Sadly, humans make up the media and humans are biased and that will never change, so I don't sit around dreaming impossible dreams. I see things as they are.
D. My team doesn't lose because of the liberal media. We rarely lose at all. We do fine even with the bias. That's because the country is a conservative country. Yeah, eventually the pendulum will swing the other way once in awhile. Big deal. I just find it amusing that liberals can't admit there's a liberal bias in the media. But whatever they need to sleep at night. The only thing that loses when we have biased media is the country and the folks.
E. I love when you divine what I would or wouldn't be saying. And then stating that as fact...."ah so who is biased now?" That must be fun... "Hey, I bet you don't like purple people! AHHH, who's a racist now!?" :ROFL: Don't wait for answer, just make the assumption and then judge the assumed position. That's another aghast classic.

Thank you.

blacbird
11-10-2006, 10:14 AM
A per usual, I agree with Gaffer. I don't see how necessary it is to dissect articles like this. The true definition of "a trouncing" may be subjective, but is use of such a phrase really going to effect anyone's opinion of the GOP, or what happened on Tuesday? We all saw the numbers, and they won't change if you call it "trounced" or "won a few more seats." So you notice the flavor of the article shifting. Does it actually change anything, other than annoy Republicans?

Dubya his very own self Wednesday morning called it a "thumpin'" (before he had his customary difficulty defining just what a "thumpin'" consisted of). It's all semantic nonsense. Facts are: House, 234-201 Dems, last I saw; Senate, 51-49 Dems and allies; Rumsfeld outahere; Hastert gone; John Bolton soon to follow. Pelosi will be House Speaker, Reid Senate Majority leader. Cheney probably is marginalized now, it will be interesting to see how invisible he becomes. I don't much care what semantic adjective anybody wants to attach to all this.

Democrats, at least initially, seem very conscious of not repeating the mistake of over-reaching that Newt Gingrich and his band of acolytes did with the "Contract for America" hundred days of glory back in 1994. We'll see if they can live up to that goal.

It's clear we ain't going to have any constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage anytime soon. There are a bunch of issues out there that don't split cleanly into standard conservative/liberal dichotomies, and might be ground for constructive address by the Pres and the Legislators, things like immigration, minimum wage, port security. Those would be good places to start making some things work.

And I guess I wouldn't mind finding out just who Dick Cheney entertained at that secret "Energy Summit" back in 2001. Henry Waxman is hinting at some serious Congressional investigation of that issue. You don't suppose Jack Abramoff was in the room, do you?

caw.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 10:21 AM
It's clear we ain't going to have any constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage anytime soon.

We were never going to have that.

We never will have that.

Its up to the states to decide.

Unique
11-10-2006, 03:49 PM
Okay. If you'd like to see an example of real media bias, look at this one:
Democrat Plans (http://tinyurl.com/yeo4u7)

I'd like to direct your attention specifically to these points:

1) Paragraph 3 - the word dinosaurs. Was that necessary? They aren't literally dinosaurs but they are long term statesman who have managed to get elected repeatedly in their respective states.

2)Paragraph 4 - Ms. Pelosi and her generals. Oh, is she in the Army now? Speaker or not, those are people with free will and the ability to make their own choices. To apply the word general as a perjorative is a diservice and an insult to those men and women who really are generals.

3)Paragraph 5 - "agenda" - their quotes, not mine. And their complaint of soundbites wouldn't be so apallingly laughable if the media itself weren't making the statement. Granted this is print media, but the media itself gave us 'soundbites' thinking the general public would rather have that than in depth reporting. Wrong. The people who don't care about the issues don't watch or read the news anyway.

4) Also in paragraph 5 - why is 'free America from dependence on foreign oil' in quotes? The rest of the list isn't. Is freeing America from oil dependence such an ignoble goal?

5) Paragraph 6 - complaining about the Democrats not fixing Social Security - again. I could remind the writer of this article that the Republicans didn't fix it either. Their idea about 'privatizing' SS didn't pass muster with the American people. If it had, it would be, but it didn't, so it hasn't. What to do about SS is a difficult and complex issue that needs to be adressed by the finest minds on BOTH sides. But I digress, that wasn't mentioned in the article so I'll move on.

6) Paragraph 7 - shoveling money at ordinary Americans. Hmm. The last time I checked, ordinary Americans weren't looking for a shoveful of money. They just want a chance to earn their wages and live their lives. That means quit outsourcing 'regular' jobs - among other things.

Now I could keep going - but I'll spare you. When you're looking for bias it isn't hard to find. But a good journalist will try to edit it out. A good editor will help him do it. I'll tell you upfront that I don't usually read the Economist but I followed a Yahoo link and there it was. Maybe all their articles are like this; again, I don't know.

But the little bit of bias in the first article contrasted to the slathered amounts of bias in the 2nd should be obvious. If it isn't, email me and I'll explain it again.
YMMV
>''<

robeiae
11-10-2006, 04:25 PM
And I guess I wouldn't mind finding out just who Dick Cheney entertained at that secret "Energy Summit" back in 2001. Henry Waxman is hinting at some serious Congressional investigation of that issue. You don't suppose Jack Abramoff was in the room, do you?
Come on. Get over it. It was a meeting. It could have just as easily occured at a Starbucks down the street.

Why do you think you need to know who was there? Why does Waxman and some of his fellow clowns think thay have a right to know? This may shock you bird, but people in government have many meetings that you don't know about.

Now, if representatives or leaders from foreign governments with questionable policies are having sleep-overs with people at any government address in DC, that's something we might need to know about. 'Course, we still can't frisk 'em down when they hop a plane for home...diplomatic immunity!

robeiae
11-10-2006, 04:28 PM
Okay. If you'd like to see an example of real media bias, look at this one:
Democrat Plans (http://tinyurl.com/yeo4u7)

But Unique, that story is clearly labeled as "news analysis." That means it's an editorial. It doesn't purport to be a simple news story.

Good read, though.

Unique
11-10-2006, 04:47 PM
You're right, Rob. It does say news analysis. I was really just addressing 'bias'.

But editorial or not, the word 'analysis' (http://www.answers.com/analysis)implies it looks at all sides of an issue, not just one.

If I thought I could find an article totally free of bias, I'd go hunt one down to compare and contrast. It's easier just to dig out a technical manual of some sort for a comparison; that's the only thing I can think of without bias.

Free from all bias is just difficult - no matter who's doing the writing. If the issue is important enough to make someone write about it passionately, then they probably have an agenda or at least an opinion. (Or a deadline. :tongue )

TheGaffer
11-10-2006, 05:52 PM
That's why I raised the question. I didn't want to question the events themselves, or even media bias in general. Just, did there appear to be a little bit in this article or not.

That's fair. Most of the time there are bits of things that slip through that are due to bias, carelessness or sloppiness, when someone writes something without checking, that kind of thing. The most fervent right-wingers will see that as bias everywhere, but generally it's not. Billy was right when he said "for the most part, they're just people." Of course, then he goes off the reservation later, but I can say this, Billy, most people who get into journalism (of which I am one) try their damnest to strip out their own personal feelings as much as possible (I dont write about politics, FWIW). And over the last several years the media, particularly CNN and the other networks, have taken a sharper turn to the right, and they've filled their days with talking heads who lean more to the right than to the left. Particularly between 2000 and about 2004, the narrative more often than not was of the strength of the president, regardless of potential mistakes being made.

Most journalists don't have the power to shape a narrative beyond the first draft considering it's going to be edited, time and again as it is. It's one thing to hold a personal view and it's another for a media organization to tilt a certain way -- Fox's mission is to present a conservative viewpoint, and that's fine, but CNN tries to be as middle-of-road as possible. But if there's anything we've seen over the last few years, as the airwaves are littered with constant appearances from Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, is that the media could do nothing but broadcast pronouncements from James Dobson, and conservatives would still call them biased. So it's a losing battle no matter what.

And another thing -- that Pew survey says 55% of the media identifies as moderates. So where does that fit into the view? In addition, the corporate managers at these places are frequently conservative, which clouds the situation further.

SC Harrison
11-10-2006, 06:38 PM
C. Yes. It would be nice if no one was biased. Sadly, humans make up the media and humans are biased and that will never change, so I don't sit around dreaming impossible dreams. I see things as they are.


I agree with this statement, right up to the part where you deny the "impossible dreaming" part. Sheesh, Billy. One of these days you'll "impossible dream" yourself into a happy coma. And when you do, I will sit at your bedside reading excerpts from the Communist Manifesto whilst sipping espresso with my legs crossed lady-style.

aghast
11-10-2006, 06:56 PM
i never said there was no bias in the media - i am just wondering what is the big deal of 'cheney sat glumly' or 'the republicans are trounced this time' but i am ticked off by the assertion that 'most' media are liberals - thats just absurd - i know plenty of right-wing or conservative media and if you dont like cnn you can always switch to fox news

Celia Cyanide
11-10-2006, 07:08 PM
As per the OP, I'm not dissecting it for political reasons. I'm looking at it from a writer's perspective, and the importance of choosing our words carefully.

Then might I ask why you posted it in a political forum, and not one of the many forums about writing? I'm not denying that the article is political, but if your intentions are not, does it still belong here?

robeiae
11-10-2006, 07:34 PM
Yes, because we (meaning Mac, me, and others) want this forum to morph slightly into one that includes writing discussions and book discussions related to politics/political theory/current events.

It's kind of a fantasy...:)

Hi Celia!

aghast
11-10-2006, 07:38 PM
that's a wrong use of ellipses

Unique
11-10-2006, 07:42 PM
that's a wrong use of ellipses

:e2smack:

dclary
11-10-2006, 09:21 PM
What Robeiae said. I know this is the political forum, and especially in election season, politics is at the top of everyone's minds. But we're still writers. It's our livelihood, our passion, what makes us tick. We become better writers exclusively by writing, reading, and analyzing others' writings.

Unique
11-10-2006, 09:25 PM
I love TIO. I love watching the debates. I'm more of an instigator than a debater ...er...
but I've read more history, more memoirs, more political & philosophical type books than I ever have in my life -

since I've started watching you guys fi - debate.

Keep up the Good Work. (Robeiae was getting tired of talking to himself)

C.bronco
11-10-2006, 09:33 PM
"his warrantless domestic surveillance of suspected terrorists"

Warrantless? Warrantless?????
This is an editorial. It is not straight reporting.

TheGaffer
11-10-2006, 09:43 PM
Warrantless? Warrantless?????
This is an editorial. It is not straight reporting.

Um, no, it's not. The Administration did surveillance on people without getting a warrant as required by law. This is not disputed. That means "warrantless."

Not "warrantless" in "unnecessary," but in the police definition of "acting without a warrant."

C.bronco
11-10-2006, 09:53 PM
Most people say "without a warrant," but now that I think of it, the word would have been unwarranted as opposed to warrantless.

Even so, the politics of the writer are markedly apparent. That's no surprise. A large portion of the U.S. media comes from either New York or California, two very liberal states.

It may not be possible to separate a reporter's bias from his perception. As long as we understand that while we're reading the paper, I think we'll fare just fine.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 09:54 PM
but i am ticked off by the assertion that 'most' media are liberals - thats just absurd -

:ROFL:

"The sky is blue."

"That's absurd! That ticks me off!"

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 09:59 PM
i know plenty of right-wing or conservative media and if you dont like cnn you can always switch to fox news

Yeah. That's right. Thank god for Fox news. Where conservatives feel they can get a fair shake.

No one said the right wing has been SHUT OUT in the media.

Thank you.

C.bronco
11-10-2006, 10:02 PM
ABC, CBS and NBC = liberal. It's simply true. FOX is conservative. Most newspapers are indeed liberal, with a few exceptions.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 10:13 PM
ABC, CBS and NBC = liberal. It's simply true. FOX is conservative. Most newspapers are indeed liberal, with a few exceptions.

Thank you. It's simply true. I guess democrats just fight it and fight it because they want to believe that it's a level playing field and if you win the game and it wasn't a level playing field somehow that takes away from your victory. And I guess it does in in a way, but so what? You need the advantage if you have no ideas. I'm spotting you 10 points and we'll play to 21.
:D

And you know what ...and I appreciate this....ABC news Political director Mark Halperin admitted it and actually wants to do better....

Click video...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610250012


Appearing on the October 23 broadcast of Fox News host Sean Hannity's nationally syndicated radio program and on the October 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, ABC News political director Mark Halperin claimed that the "old liberal media" -- the broadcast networks, CNN, and major newspapers -- are "too focused on being more favorable to [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA], say, than [former House Speaker] Newt Gingrich [R-GA]." Halperin told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that ABC and the rest of the "old liberal media" have "a chance in these last two weeks" before the midterm elections "to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances," and that "[w]e should use this last two weeks as an opportunity to help rebuild our reputation with half the country." He added: "[A] failing of the press is not doing enough to explain to people what Nancy Pelosi's liberal views are like." Halperin made a point of distinguishing ABC from the rest of the "old liberal media" during his appearance of The Sean Hannity Show, however, stating: "I'm proud of where I work, where we understand that we've got to not be liberal, we've got to not be perceived as liberal."

Halperin's claim that the media are "too focused on being more favorable to Nancy Pelosi say than Newt Gingrich" echoed a prediction in the October 23 edition of ABC's political newsletter The Note, co-authored by Halperin, that in the two weeks leading up to the November midterm elections, the "(liberal) Old Media" will "[g]lowingly profile" Pelosi, but "fail to describe her as 'ultra liberal' or 'an extreme liberal,' which would mirror the way Gingrich was painted twelve years ago."


A fair, decent man.

I'm gonna check out ABC for my nightly news from now on.

C.bronco
11-10-2006, 10:16 PM
What happened to Colmes?

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 10:18 PM
What do you mean?

C.bronco
11-10-2006, 10:21 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/
This show. I guess Hannity is going solo now. Oh wait, different network. I didn't realize he was on ABC as well, but I seldom watch that channel.

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 10:24 PM
No. Hannity has a radio show that he does by himself. The show is still Hannity and Colmes on Fox at 9PM EST, 6PM PST.

Excellent show. Excellent guests.

C.bronco
11-10-2006, 10:26 PM
Okie dokey. I stay away from talk radio in general.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 10:27 PM
Fox news is BIASED?

:Jaw:

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you....

TheGaffer
11-11-2006, 12:19 AM
And you know what ...and I appreciate this....ABC news Political director Mark Halperin admitted it and actually wants to do better....

The media's been trying to do better for a long time. But ABC's been a panderer for a while, particularly Halperin. The job of the media isn't to try to pander to someone else's greivances, it's to report things as straight as possible. The liberal bias stuff has been overstated for a long time. It may have been the case once, but it isn't now (and I'm not just talking about the existence of Fox News). But believe what you want. That the game is always stacked against you, even though you had control of the government, the media's major talking points, and the national agenda for the last several years.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 02:14 AM
But believe what you want.

I believe fact like Pew Research.

I guess you believe it's some miracle 50/50 ideological split and somehow "It may have been the case once, but it isn't now" ....the ship has now completely balanced out. It's a miracle! It used to be 70/30 liberal, then 60/40 and now we've reached our zen center.

You believe what YOU want despite factual evidence FOR DECADES of surveys of the media and their political slants.

I guess Pew Research is in the pocket Karl Rove. I guess all the surveys were.

Maybe they are.

Maybe they are.

Maybe we've reached perfect divine symbiosis in the media world. 50/50. It's a beautiful thing.

TheGaffer
11-11-2006, 02:32 AM
Whatever Billy. You believe surveys that back up an established opinion you have already, one that already says 55% of journalists describe themselves as moderate. I know what I know from doing this for 10 years. I can find surveys of my own, too. But I'm not interested, ok? So whatever. It's not worth a discussion.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 02:42 AM
Whatever Billy. You believe surveys that back up an established opinion you have already, one that already says 55% of journalists describe themselves as moderate. I know what I know from doing this for 10 years. I can find surveys of my own, too. But I'm not interested, ok? So whatever. It's not worth a discussion.

So, why are you still talking?

Moderate what?

Do you mean "independent?"

Then Pew Research must have gotten it wrong and all the other surveys were flawed and Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, god rest his soul, Walter Cronkite, Katie Couric, Bryan Williams are independents with no personal biases. They're opinionless robots.

But you're right, it's not worth a discussion.

But for the life of me, I still don't know why a liberal can't just admit it.

It doesn't make your ideology less worthwhile to have the majority of the media in your pocket. It makes it a little easier to sell and a little easier to win elections, but obviously the right pays no attention to the barrage of negativity in most cases and we still do fine in the elections. Did I say we lost because of the liberal media? No...I don't even think it has that much of an effect anymore. Because we do have Fox and we do have conservative voices telling it like it is.

I can't imagine what it would have been like to be conservative 30 years ago. Not a voice anywhere.

We're moving in the right direction, Gaffer. And I respect a Halperin who wants to get us there.

Fair and balanced across the board.

I would hope you would help us get there. But like I learned during my fourth trip to rehab, you have to admit there's a problem first.

Oh well.

TheGaffer
11-11-2006, 03:03 AM
It doesn't make your ideology less worthwhile to have the majority of the media in your pocket.

But this is the thing. This is an outmoded thinking, particularly considering the direction the media has moved, and the ingrained theme that seems to come from the major corporate media these days.

As for Halperin, he's a bullsh***r, pure and simple, to be honest. The Note is generally regarded as right-wing spin, and has been for a long time. I don't get what he's talking about with Pelosi, because he hasn't cited any evidence, and a term like "extreme" liberal is one that can't necessarily be quantified ("liberal" is enough, just as "conservative" is enough for Gingrich).

The media's job is not to be "loved" by anyone in particular, which is what he wants, and he's full of it. And no matter how far to the right the media moves, the conservatives will never be satisfied with it, which is what we've seen in the last few years. The NYT has made serious errors of tacking too close to the administration in recent years -- Judith Miller, for one, Adam Nagourney for another (who wrote in the pre-election-day coverage about how any gains for Dems could end up being a "failure").

I'm not saying more journalists aren't liberal. To an individual man? Yes, they are -- they lean more that way than not. So I agree with you there. OK? I can't deny it.

The best thing the best ones (and most of us, really) try to do is to supress as much of that as possible to be as partial as possible, even though, as you've said, we all have human failings.

And in past decades I can also accept the media was more liberal in terms of reporting on certain subjects and giving less of a measure of balance, particularly with the following issues: abortion, gun control, and religion. It's much less the case now. But the media has arguably also been more conservative in the last 15 years when it comes, say, to economic issues.

But this isn't the same as saying an entire media organization -- or the media establishment in total -- is in "the Democrats' pocket." The last 10 years, if anything, should easily show that this is not the case. Some, such as the NYT and CNN, have bent over a long long way, and yet it remains "liberal bias liberal bias liberal bias." It's too convenient a catch-all now. I rarely hear any real evidence for a bias of an entire organization -- just that it's there, period, and that it's the reason for your woes, blah blah blah.

And remember, I'm not talking about opinion types. Keith Olbermann is a liberal; Rita Cosby a conservative, Sean Hannity, NYT Editorial page, et. al.

As I said before, the best the media can do is this:
--call people on their BS (conservatives in power seem to have a major problem with this -- the administration in particular)
--make sure that those being written about are given the opportunity to comment on all allegations
--write in a straightforward manner.

That's it. Sometimes there's carelessness, sloppiness, or going down the rabbit hole on an idea that doesn't hold water. And it's certainly not perfect, by any means.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 03:09 AM
I'm not saying more journalists aren't liberal. To an individual man? Yes, they are -- they lean more that way than not. So I agree with you there. OK? I can't deny it.

The best thing the best ones (and most of us, really) try to do is to supress as much of that as possible to be as partial as possible, even though, as you've said, we all have human failings.


That's all I'm really saying. And thank you for agreeing on the only point I needed agreement on.

And I agree with much of what you said in the rest of your dissertation.

See?

We always seem to work it out somehow.

I really hope you're the minority leader of the House when I'm President.

TheGaffer
11-11-2006, 03:11 AM
That's all I'm really saying. And thank you for agreeing on the only point I needed agreement on.

And I agree with much of what you said in the rest of your dissertation.

Good. Because that's the part I really needed you to agree on.

And I really do hope you'll serve as my Interior Secretary when I'm running things.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 03:12 AM
I don't know anything about furniture.

Sorry.

dclary
11-11-2006, 03:28 AM
That's all I'm really saying. And thank you for agreeing on the only point I needed agreement on.

And I agree with much of what you said in the rest of your dissertation.

See?

We always seem to work it out somehow.

I really hope you're the minority leader of the House when I'm President.

Has there ever been a minority minority leader?

blacbird
11-11-2006, 08:14 AM
Come on. Get over it. It was a meeting. It could have just as easily occured at a Starbucks down the street.

If it had happened at the Starbuck's down the street we would all know who had been there. It was a meeting to set national energy policy. No Democrats were invited. It was secret. Cheney has not to this day said who was present. Why? What's the problem with that? It's the Vice-President of the United States, universally acknowledged to be the most influential Vice-Pres in American history, designing a national energy policy in secret meetings with (almost certainly) a coterie of major energy company executives. Oh, and his previous job, of just a few months before, had been Chairman of one of the two biggest petroleum industry service companies on the planet. One of the few things leaked about this meeting has been that they examined maps of the oil fields in Iraq, which were embargoed at the time (and remember, this all took place prior to 9/11). Why? You don't think this is a matter the American public has an interest in and a right to know about?

Go for it Henry. Subpoenas, I'm all for 'em.

caw

clintl
11-11-2006, 10:47 AM
I can't believe you conservatives are complaining about "glumly", "lame-duck session", and "trouncing" as evidence of media bias. The media has used essentially the same terms to describe Democrats in similar situations on many occasions. "Lame-duck session", in particular, is a stock term trotted out every two years, regardless of which party it applies to.

greglondon
11-11-2006, 11:24 AM
In the NY Senate race of 2000, Lazio came in at a respectable second place, while Hillary Clinton barely managed to finish second to last.

dclary
11-11-2006, 01:13 PM
I can't believe you conservatives are complaining about "glumly", "lame-duck session", and "trouncing" as evidence of media bias. The media has used essentially the same terms to describe Democrats in similar situations on many occasions. "Lame-duck session", in particular, is a stock term trotted out every two years, regardless of which party it applies to.

Actually, as the OP, I wasn't complaining at all. It was a question, open to debate on both sides.

MacAllister
11-11-2006, 01:15 PM
I sort of think media bias is a smaller problem than general media incompetence.

dclary
11-11-2006, 01:28 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. Especially when the "face" of the news today are empty-headed idiots who can barely read the cue cards and muster fake camaradarie, let alone have any sense of historical context about the events they're reading to us.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 02:29 PM
Actually, as the OP,

Only because I'm drunk and like Superman I never lie....

I dont know what the **** OP stands for.

OP as in office party I get...

OP as in this....:Shrug:

And admittedly, I'm lazy, so I don't even sit there and go..."O.....P.....what does that say... Offical Poster...huh?"

I just do :Shrug: and move on...

but i'd like to know...

OP =

Opty
11-11-2006, 02:33 PM
= original poster/post

MacAllister
11-11-2006, 02:35 PM
Original Poster.

You were very close, Billy.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 02:36 PM
= original poster/post

Yeah?

Well, quite frankly, that's just awful.

Do we need that?

I'm contacting the NMBLA tomorrow.

MacAllister
11-11-2006, 02:39 PM
You'll be lucky if you shower and get dressed, tomorrow.

Monday, maybe, you'll be up to using the phone.

robeiae
11-11-2006, 04:44 PM
If it had happened at the Starbuck's down the street we would all know who had been there. It was a meeting to set national energy policy. No Democrats were invited. It was secret. Cheney has not to this day said who was present. Why? What's the problem with that? It's the Vice-President of the United States, universally acknowledged to be the most influential Vice-Pres in American history, designing a national energy policy in secret meetings with (almost certainly) a coterie of major energy company executives. Oh, and his previous job, of just a few months before, had been Chairman of one of the two biggest petroleum industry service companies on the planet. One of the few things leaked about this meeting has been that they examined maps of the oil fields in Iraq, which were embargoed at the time (and remember, this all took place prior to 9/11). Why? You don't think this is a matter the American public has an interest in and a right to know about?Who told you there was a meeting? Do you remember? And how do you know what was discussed at the meeting? Maybe they were just laying out the upcoming year's quail-hunting schedule. And while you may believe all energy company executives are devils, they're still private citizens. You have no right to involve them in legal troubles, or media anal probes, without some kind of evidence that they did something wrong, simply because you don't like Cheney. And BTW, suppose the meeting was just a conference call, instead. You wouldn't even know about it. This fishing expedition is so absurd--but I expect nothing less from Waxman and the like.

Perhaps we should subpoena everyone who has ever stepped foot in the Whitehouse or talked to admin officials on the phone in the past fifty years and find out exactly what was said...

aghast
11-11-2006, 05:52 PM
i wouldnt mind having those subpoenas to be honest especially everything leading up to march 2003 - if bush, cheney and company have nothing to hide they shouldnt be afraid or care about any subpoenas and investigation but the americans especially the families of those almost-3000 dead soldiers have to the right to know once and for all

MacAllister
11-11-2006, 05:57 PM
You have no right to involve them in legal troubles, or media anal probes, without some kind of evidence that they did something wrong, simply because you don't like Cheney. And BTW, suppose the meeting was just a conference call, instead.The good news is, if you're the president, you don't need to worry about those pesky warrant-thingies--you've got the NSA and they can run out and do any eavesdropping you care to send 'em to do. You don't need any evidence of anything--just cuz you don't like GreenPeace is plenty of reason.

:D

robeiae
11-11-2006, 06:05 PM
The good news is, if you're the president, you don't need to worry about those pesky warrant-thingies--you've got the NSA and they can run out and do any eavesdropping you care to send 'em to do. You don't need any evidence of anything--just cuz you don't like GreenPeace is plenty of reason.Well, I don't like GreenPeace. But I'm still waiting for something like this to happen. The one problem with this theory is the idea that everyone involved in such an act would happily go along with narry a word. The story would be on page one of the NYT, before the phone was even tapped. But that reality isn't as much fun as imagining the world is populated by evil spooks who live and breath James Bond-style espionage.

In that light, it really is quite amazing that the principles involved in the top-secret energy meeting are still unknown. I would have thought several leaks would have sprung by now...

aghast
11-11-2006, 06:08 PM
this administration is leak-free "eyeroll: then again its not that leak-free since some knew this 'secret' meeting took place

robeiae
11-11-2006, 06:21 PM
Rob, I think if you look at history, e.g. Stalin, you will find that rule through secrets = paranoia, which = abuse and absolute control. Stalin used the "Soviet vs. Soviet" spy system to crush free-thinking and of course, bolster his iron-fisted regime. It's happened, and we should be very wary of it.But that system was predicated on a ground-up structure wherein all agents of the government had as much to fear as their potential targets/victims. Our bureaucracies weren't created in this manner and it's going to take a lot more than eight years to restructure them to the point that things could even approach a Stalinist system. A lot more.

robeiae
11-11-2006, 06:26 PM
That's why it needs to be nipped in the bud now. Agreed?Well, I don't think it's all that much of an issue, now. And I don't see the potential for it to become such. So nipping it in the bud by overstating what it is and what it could become doesn't work for me.

aghast
11-11-2006, 06:28 PM
it doesnt work for you and your subjects in wyoming but it would work for a lot of other people outside your kingdom

robeiae
11-11-2006, 06:39 PM
it doesnt work for you and your subjects in wyoming but it would work for a lot of other people outside your kingdomAin't it the truth. And it's a methodology all too common in today's world, a methodology created and perfected by Marxist radicals and the like. Ask Ralph Nader about it and read up on his campaign against the Corsair.

SC Harrison
11-11-2006, 07:04 PM
Who told you there was a meeting? Do you remember? And how do you know what was discussed at the meeting? Maybe they were just laying out the upcoming year's quail-hunting schedule. And while you may believe all energy company executives are devils, they're still private citizens. You have no right to involve them in legal troubles, or media anal probes, without some kind of evidence that they did something wrong, simply because you don't like Cheney. And BTW, suppose the meeting was just a conference call, instead. You wouldn't even know about it. This fishing expedition is so absurd--but I expect nothing less from Waxman and the like.

Perhaps we should subpoena everyone who has ever stepped foot in the Whitehouse or talked to admin officials on the phone in the past fifty years and find out exactly what was said...

The way I see it, his refusal to divulge information about this meeting means one of these two things:

a) if the subjects discussed and/or individuals present became public knowledge, there would be a public outcry that would (have) seriously eroded the effectiveness of the administration, or

b) there was nothing about the meeting that was out of the ordinary and Cheney just decided to say, "F**k you, I can do anything I want without having to submit to oversight."

Neither of which is acceptable. And I don't give a rat's patoot if those who attended are private citizens. They took part in a discussion with an elected official to formulate public policy that could determine the usage of billions in taxpayer dollars. For the Vice President who also presides over the Senate to refuse to even reveal who attended the meetings is (imo) an impeachable offense.

I think we've figured out what the first order of business should be for the new Democrat-controlled Congress.

robeiae
11-11-2006, 07:15 PM
And I don't give a rat's patoot if those who attended are private citizens.So any conversation you have with a public official should be, by rule, public knowledge. I can think of quite a few subpoenas I'd like to issue.

They took part in a discussion with an elected official to formulate public policy that could determine the usage of billions in taxpayer dollars.You don't know that. And even if they did, so what? If they gave their opinions on potential energy policies, those opinions don't magically transform themselves into laws.

For the Vice President who also presides over the Senate to refuse to even reveal who attended the meetings is (imo) an impeachable offense.How so?

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

TheGaffer
11-11-2006, 08:21 PM
I sort of think media bias is a smaller problem than general media incompetence.


I agree wholeheartedly. Especially when the "face" of the news today are empty-headed idiots who can barely read the cue cards and muster fake camaradarie, let alone have any sense of historical context about the events they're reading to us.

Exactly. The simplest explanation -- incompetence, short memory, being an easy mark for whomever is whispering in your ear at that moment -- is the correct one here.

SC Harrison
11-11-2006, 08:29 PM
How so?

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Food for thought:

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor4.html

Bribery was, and remains, well understood, then and now --- namely, the intention to corrupt or influence, particularly public policy, by offering, or a government official accepting, something such as money or favor, quid pro quo, his vote or support in a particular public policy matter.

Which brings us to "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): "The derivation of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached," but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.

Indeed, in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."

And, in The Federalist Papers (No. 70), Hamilton further explained: "Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment."

In short, one of the aims of the constitution was to ensure that virtuous men would become the nation's leaders, and impeachment was merely the remedy for those public servants whose misconduct resulted in betrayal of the public trust:

As with many elements of the Constitution, I believe the spirit of the wording has a great deal to do with ensuring the balance of powers. It is my opinion that this administration has far surpassed the boundaries the founding fathers envisioned for the Executive, and, in the absence of a vigorous corrective action by the Legislative branch, a paradigmatic shift may occur that may be difficult to even recognize in the future.

blacbird
11-11-2006, 09:58 PM
Maybe they were just laying out the upcoming year's quail-hunting schedule.

Of course they were.


And while you may believe all energy company executives are devils, they're still private citizens.

So was Jack Abramoff.

caaaaaaaaw!

robeiae
11-12-2006, 12:54 AM
Food for thought:
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor4.html
I think the author plagiarized a grad paper I wrote...(no he didn't--I'm just kidding)

And while I would happily applaud the extension of such a standard, it would empty the halls of Congress, so I'm not sure who would be around to bring a charge of impeachment. Of course, I would also add that it is this very standard that was used to justify the Clinton impeachment. I thought that went a little too far, myself.

Seriously, Madison understood exactly the meaning of the language he used. Go with what he said.

Still, that will require some serious case-building to make this one issue fit Madison's description. First and foremost, you would have to show Cheney's meeting was almost unprecedented in U.S. history. Is it?

And again, the legislative branch has a great deal of house cleaning to do. Never mind the last round of elections--that didn't even touch the real dirt in Congress. But that dirt is pretty caked in, so I'm not sure what it will take to clean it out.

robeiae
11-12-2006, 12:54 AM
So was Jack Abramoff.

caaaaaaaaw!Point?

whistlelock
11-12-2006, 01:20 AM
I say it's biased, and that we have the bastard shot for it.

whistlelock
11-12-2006, 01:23 AM
and if that's too harsh, I say Life in Prison.

whistlelock
11-12-2006, 01:25 AM
And if that's too harsh, I say we accept that bias is unavoidable and might even be desirable.

I suggest that a biasless report would make for very dull reading. While I'm not saying that journalists shouldn't make an effort to remain neutral, I am saying that the voice of the journalist is what keeps you coming back to them.

Opty
11-12-2006, 02:14 AM
I'm contacting the NMBLA tomorrow.

You forgot the "A."

;)

SC Harrison
11-12-2006, 02:43 AM
Seriously, Madison understood exactly the meaning of the language he used. Go with what he said.

Alright for now, but I reserve the right to jump to other founding fathers, and not be hemmed in by a Madison-only debate.:)

perfidy
1592, from M.Fr. perfidie, from L. perfidia "falsehood, treachery," from perfidus "faithless," from phrase per fidem decipere "to deceive through trustingness," from per "through" (see per) + fidem, acc. of fides "faith" (see faith). The adj. perfidious is attested from 1598.

peculate (v.)
1749, from L. peculatus, pp. of peculari "to embezzle," from peculum "private property" (see peculiar).

In the absence of voluntary aquiescence by Cheney to reveal this information, especially after being asked by Congress, I think Madison would want to make sure no perfidious peculation had taken place.


Still, that will require some serious case-building to make this one issue fit Madison's description. First and foremost, you would have to show Cheney's meeting was almost unprecedented in U.S. history. Is it?

This type of argument simply reinforces my worries about us "growing accustomed" to nefarious behavior. Just because others have done it in the past and weren't caught/punished/censured, it doesn't follow that it is no longer wrong.


And again, the legislative branch has a great deal of house cleaning to do. Never mind the last round of elections--that didn't even touch the real dirt in Congress. But that dirt is pretty caked in, so I'm not sure what it will take to clean it out.

Congress is riddled with individuals who are corrupt and mainly there for earmarks and peddling their votes to the highest bidder. But there are 535 (?) of them, and they can only do a lot of damage if the President signs everything that crosses his lap, and there's nothing to stop him from doing that if he gets to write a "This doesn't apply to me" letter to tack onto it.

My intent in giving these examples was to show the spirit (originally) behind the impeachment clause, that being a loss of public trust. Of course it would be extremely unlikely a 2/3 majority of Congress would vote to impeach Cheney, but (for me) that's really beside the point. I expect Congress to monitor the excesses of the Executive and take steps when necessary, and that ain't been happening for some time.

blacbird
11-12-2006, 04:02 AM
My intent in giving these examples was to show the spirit (originally) behind the impeachment clause, that being a loss of public trust. Of course it would be extremely unlikely a 2/3 majority of Congress would vote to impeach Cheney, but (for me) that's really beside the point. I expect Congress to monitor the excesses of the Executive and take steps when necessary, and that ain't been happening for some time.

There's a lot of things Congress could do short of the extreme unlikelihood of an impeachment proceeding. And it sounds like there might now be movement in such directions.

caw

blacbird
11-12-2006, 04:03 AM
Point?

Game. Set. Match.

caw

robeiae
11-12-2006, 04:35 AM
Game. Set. Match.

cawFor who? Not you. Or maybe you're playing a different game...

blacbird
11-12-2006, 04:58 AM
For who? Not you. Or maybe you're playing a different game...

. . . at love.

I serve, therefore I am.

caw.

SC Harrison
11-12-2006, 09:18 AM
More reflections from James Madison:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0893e.asp

The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty
by James Madison, August 1793

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .

[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .

The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. . . .

A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.

The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

blacbird
11-12-2006, 10:18 AM
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

Of course, we no longer "declare" war in any formal sense, haven't done so since 1941. We simply give wars a name ("War on Terror"), or, conversely (as in the early days of Vietnam) just deny that the thing is a "war" and call it by some euphemism ("police action" is a good one). Thereby abrogating Madison's argument.

caw

dclary
11-12-2006, 10:55 AM
I say it's biased, and that we have the bastard shot for it. I like where your head's at, sir.