Clinton and Media Bias

“"Not sure I understand that. Are you saying that all the other major news sources ARE liberal or that there are many other news sources that ARE NOT liberal?"

I was commenting on how the lefties here were slagging Fox as if there were NO big networks that were liberal.”

“Alright, first, go here:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=homepage

This is THE rag for the industry. It takes me back (wipes a tear from the eye....) Keep this bookmarked and you'll keep up on most everything you need to know about visual media.

The biased are clear on both sides. I think it is truly futile to agrue who is more now way or the other. It comes down to who owns the outlet, who running the show and whose watching/listening to said outlet. There ae VERY few outlets out there that are neutral, but those are labled as "radicals" or Liberial/Conservative by either side..LOL!”

“And the fact that an overwhelming majority of FOX viewers answer these three questions wrong is of no concern?:

• "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" (67% of FOX viewers wrong, 16% NPR and PBS listeners)

• "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" (33% of FOX viewers wrong, 11% NPR and PBS listeners)

• "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war?" (35% of FOX viewers wrong, 5% NPR and PBS listeners)

The survey showed that people who pay very little attention to the news had fewer misperceptions about the three above questions than did regular FOX viewers. In other words, the closer you watch FOX, the less informed you are about Iraq (perhaps other areas).”

“... annd that is a danger in a democracy...”

“• "Is it your impression that the U.S.A. SUCKS as a country and is the scourge of the world?" (92% of CNN listeners said yes, 96% of NPR listeners agreed, only 4% of Fox News listeners gave the nod)

• "Is it your impression, that given a couple more weeks time, that Saddam would have apologized to the world, sent a dozen Krispy Kreme® donuts to all the leaders at the U.N., and stepped down as leader of Iraq and become a kids soccer team coach?" (89% of CNN listeners said yes, 94% of NPR listeners agreed, compared to 2% of Fox News listeners)

The spin is amazing. These Bush-haters, geez, it reminds me of a joke I saw recently that shows, no matter what, Bush can't win with these angry people:

--------------------------
The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac . . . sailing on the presidential yacht, the Sequoia. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. The Secret Service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."

Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.

The next morning, the Washington Post carries a story, with front-page photos, of the event. The banner headline is: "Bush Can't Swim".”

“oops, sorry, that wasn't that big of a file on the site, sorry! Anyway to delete that?”

“lmao buck, you hosed it mang....”

“Look - they wrote one for Buck:

”

“I understand, ynamiynami, that willfully seeking out prejudiced opinion is a scary thought. But I’m not sure which is scarier, willful prejudice or willful ignorance. They seem the same to me. I try not to let that behavior scare me too much because it is so prevalent in human thought. Some “conservatives” believe that they have acquired enough information to justify unchanging opinions. Because closed-minded liberal is an oxymoron, some people who call themselves “liberal” believe they cannot possibly be closed-minded. Which is the more foolish mind-set? I know both “conservatives” and “liberals” who will actually walk out of the room when they hear opinions that differ from theirs. How do you have a rational discussion with a closed-minded bigot?

“An adult who ceases after youth to unlearn and relearn his facts and to reconsider his opinions…is a menace to a democratic community.”

Edward Thorndike


It amazes me, the amount of time and energy that some people spend trying to debunk the fact that there is a great deal of “liberal” prejudice in the media. Some don’t even understand that “talk radio” is not the sole province of “conservative” pundits anymore.

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

John Kenneth Galbraith

Some here have even implied that only “conservatives” have an ideological agenda to defraud, while “liberals” are objective professionals. How ridiculous is that contention? How closed-minded, how prejudiced, how bigoted is that type of thinking?


We should all be willing to change our opinions. But it appears to be very difficult for many people to even consider challenging their own prejudicial views.

“They defend their errors as if they were defending their inheritance.”

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)”

“It's interesting, I found myself talking to some Brits over the weekend who put forward a pretty strong case that the US media has a huge right-wing bias, and that that you would maybe just be talking of Fox simply being more right-wing that CNN. Makes the point that many make here that it is a subjective matter.

I think the Bush team has managed to control the media fairly well upto this point. It seems as though it could all break down from here on in though.”

“Don’t ask me why I am being FORCED to watch silly movies, but we just saw Bringing Down the House starring Steve Martin and Queen Latifah, and directed by Adam Shankman. After watching this movie, I am again forced to examine the contention that there is no “liberal” bias in the media.

I know that we have discussed Hollywood’s uncanny ability to detect the pulse of its audience through scientific marketing studies. In fact, some folks on this site have completely convinced me that Hollywood only responds to what the public wants to see. And that those Hollywood marketing geniuses finally discovered (scientifically of course) that the American public no longer was impressed with their shifless, lazy, Amos & Andy stereotype. They have determined that we all wish to watch the rich, stiff, snobbish, Republican white folk stereotype.

But how impressed I was with those fair and balanced, unbiased Hollywood moviemakers by the fresh new approach taken with this film. Sure we get the watch the rich, stiff, snobbish, Republican white folks who are shaken up by the poor person with the heart-of-gold. Sure we get to watch this poor person with the heart-of-gold teach the rich, stiff, snobbish, Republican white people how to loosen up and discover what is truly important in life.

But here’s the twist (and I was so impressed with their creative direction); the poor person with the heart-of-gold is a black woman! I have seen this same theme played over and over, ad infinitum, but I don’t remember a black woman in the unbiased role of poor person with the heart-of-gold. We have talked about fuzzy blue monsters, Latinas, and hookers, but nobody has ever said anything about a black woman in this role. It may have already happened, but I believe that this is a fresh new marketing concept.

I is sho nuff sorry ta see dem Amos & Andy folk done gone from dat dere big screen, but Lawdy-Lawdy aint dem rich, stiff, snobbish, Republican white folk funny?”

“Nice to see how the Repubs managed to shut down the Reagan pio-pic CBS was going to do.”

“So much for their aversion to ‘politically correct’ attacks on free speech rights.”

“cbs admitted the reason they are not gonna run the show is because it's not fair.


if 6 ultra conservatives wrote a movie about clinton and lied throughout the movie, you would have a big problem with it.

and it wasn't all repubs who were complaining. they outright made wtuff up, painted regan to be a bumbling idiot, and nancy as a raving #&%!$ who ran the country behind the scenes.

pretty rough stuff to a dieing man who can't defend himself. they never even mentioned the end of the cold war.


let's be objective and use critical thinking here people.....”

“non-sequitur, in my experience, rarely attacks so-called "liberal" thinking. wiley seems to enjoy his digs at conservatism.

also, i fail to see how being tolerant of criticism toward the government automatically makes one a liberal. there are plenty of us vaguely conservative types who recognize that criticism of the government is essential to a fre society. wiley's logic makes a bit of a jump.


and i don't subscribe to the Gospel of St. Reagan, but the accounts i've read sure do make it sound like the miniseries was a hatchet job. things get very dicey when you start mixing fiction into something that pretends to be a biography.”

“You're a very thoughtful person Tarbubble.”

“thank you Nigal. i try very hard to be as fair as i possibly can, to understand, and to learn the facts. i yearn for facts.”

“Isn’t it interesting that the TV mini-series, “The Reagans” got shelved? Apparently the two gay political activists who wrote the screenplay managed to create an even more untruthful “docu-drama” than is the usual fare from Hollywood.

And apparently the pressure came from “conservative political watchdog groups.” Don’t you just love that media created term? One would assume that “liberals” merely seek the truth when they censor politically incorrect speech. But “conservative political watchdog groups”, now that creates some wonderful images, don’t ya think?”

“If it was a mini-series slated for television, odds are it wasn't going to be very good anyway. History takes some strange twists when it gets translated to the big or little screen, for the most part. Just calls for a more discerning citizenry, I guess.”

“The reason they decided not to run the show was, because the advertisers threatened to pull out.”

“Innuendo!”

“"thank you Nigal. i try very hard to be as fair as i possibly can, to understand, and to learn the facts. i yearn for facts."

You shouls change your name to FOX because you're so fair and balanced. LOL! It is a shame in this day and age that politicly speaking people are expected to be hard left or hard right and anyone in the middle is considered a coward. I find myself floating more to the center these days.”

“And apparently the pressure came from “conservative political watchdog groups.” Don’t you just love that media created term? One would assume that “liberals” merely seek the truth when they censor politically incorrect speech. But “conservative political watchdog groups”, now that creates some wonderful images, don’t ya think?"
arclite
06:07:04 AM
11/05/03
You can almost touch the parnoia.

But here’s the twist (and I was so impressed with their creative direction); the poor person with the heart-of-gold is a black woman! I have seen this same theme played over and over, ad infinitum, but I don’t remember a black woman in the unbiased role of poor person with the heart-of-gold. We have talked about fuzzy blue monsters, Latinas, and hookers, but nobody has ever said anything about a black woman in this role. It may have already happened, but I believe that this is a fresh new marketing concept.

I is sho nuff sorry ta see dem Amos & Andy folk done gone from dat dere big screen, but Lawdy-Lawdy aint dem rich, stiff, snobbish, Republican white folk funny?"
arclite
06:13:26 AM
11/04/03

Yep - it's those poor persecuted rich white people again. They've got it real bad. Attacked from every angle with only their wealth and privilege to fall back on.

Really don't get what you're trying to say with your last quote there. Can you please explain it some more as I've never seen Amos and Andy?”

“If it's true --- it's not a slur, is it? LOL

What I keep hearing is that all these charges are being leveled by people who have never seen the show. It's all based on second-third-fourth-hand information.

Of course that didn't stop an army of talk radio idiots from instigating a mob to kill the show. I guess they heard that it wouldn't be the usual puff-piece worshiping at the feet of old what's-his-ass and that's all it took.

BTW, I heard Nachman say last night (on two different programs) that some Republican members of the Commerce Committee made calls to Viacom executives reminding them of all the goodies they got from their 'oversight' of the FCC... and supposedly making veiled threats that the gravy train might develop problems.

There's your 'shining city on a hill'.”

“White reperations! White reperations! White reperations! White reperations! White reperations!

I want my 40 achers and my mule!”

“oh please, Nigal. "fair and balanced" is a laughable slogan for FOX news. ha! they should just have the balls to say "conservative and in your face about it." they're an opinion network, not a news network. and yeah, i'm trapped in the center too. i juat flat out can't be a blind idealogue, i have to decide issue by issue.

about the miniseries: i read Patti Davis' column on it. she read the screenplay, and being Reagan's daughter i suppose she may have had some passing interactions with her parents (sarcasm!). she pointed out quite a few elements of the screenplay that were at total odds with her experiences, and seemed quite forthcoming about one of it's negative depictions of her (her addiction to methamphetamines). so i tend to believe what she says - she's not a blind worshipper of her parents and has made that clear in her past writings.

i have no doubt that the Reagan acolytes pulled some questionable strings to pressure CBS. i have no doubt veiled threats were made (FCC licensing and all that). but if the movie is as inaccurate as it seems to be, it's still irresposible to air it.

can someone else verify that the authors of the screenplay are gay activists? that would make a difference, as most gay activists will never forgive Reagan for not moving fast enough on AIDS.”

“oops. "ideologue."”

“Are the Reagan ass-kissers going after Showtime, now?”

“Oh no Dunadan, believe me, The Reagans is VERY interesting.

Isn't it ironic that while making every effort to deny "liberal" bias, the media can't help but prove it.


The Reagans- outrageously biased, bigoted, hate-mongering, bald-faced lying slander, or censorship of political propaganda masquerading as entertainment. YOU DECIDE!

November 5, 2003 -- Nathan Paul Mehrens: CBS, The New Fiction Network

CBS recently exhibited its ignorance and bias in a two-part report entitled, “The Dark Side of Home Schooling.” In an exercise showing total lack of journalistic ethics CBS equated home schooling with abuse. The faulty argument was as follows: Parents home school to keep their children at home out of the public eye so that they can be free to abuse them without getting caught. CBS ignored obvious facts, and somehow the incredible successes which comprise 99.999% of all home schooling families were ignored in order to focus on isolated incidents that had nothing to do with home schooling but merely happened in families who home school. The “report” was so awful 33 members of Congress took the unusual step of sending the president of CBS News a letter expressing disgust with the network’s conduct. The letter closed by stating, “Your report was unfair and indicative of both bias and ignorance. We sincerely hope reporting of this kind is the exception and not the rule at CBS.” Unfortunately it appears that the fears of these Members of Congress are well founded.
Not content to rest on its laurels after smearing the home school community CBS now has Ronald Reagan in the cross-hairs. On November 16 and 18 it will air a mini series on Reagan. Since Reagan was conservative you would think that CBS would use conservatives, few as they may be in Hollywood, to either produce the series or to serve as advisors. CBS instead handed the series to a pair of liberal producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan. They claim that their personal views didn’t affect the making of this series stating to the New York Times, “This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge.” Adding, “It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way. We all believe it's a story that should be told.” What exactly is “our honest sort of way?”

The essence of the series is Reagan was an unsure, weak, bumbling, incompetent, imbecile who half the time didn’t know where he was or what was happening. He is portrayed as an unwilling President, one who entered politics and ran for office not because of personal desire or political drive, but rather from manipulation by his wife and California Republicans. If your only knowledge of Reagan came from this series you conclude Reagan as unfit and unqualified for office, one who became President because he was hog-tied and forced into doing so.
First Lady, Nancy Reagan is portrayed as a psychotic, manipulative, driven wife who ruled over the White House via her iron fist. In one scene she screams at senior staff members for doing their job by talking to the President telling them no longer to talk to him but to go through her for everything. Hardly an accurate portrayal of the presidency, but then again facts are bothersome when telling a story slanted by a left-wing worldview.

In another scene Nancy pleads with Reagan to do something about AIDS and he tells her, “They that live in sin shall die in sin.” In reality, Reagan never made this statement, a fact acknowledged by the screen writer, Elizabeth Egloff. So why was the line retained? The screen writer while admitting that Reagan never made the statement claims that the statement is a plausible composite his views. Another case of facts getting in the way of what the producers wanted.
Reagan is shown as universally talked down to and generally treated as irrelevant and in the way. One scene shows the National Security Advisor towering over the President while the latter is seated in a reclining position appearing dazed and confused. The National Security Advisor speaks to Reagan irreverently in a tone of voice that only a sick person would use while poking fun at someone who is mentally retarded. This might be funny if it took place on “Saturday Night Live,” but the series isn’t advertised as an attempt to lampoon the Reagan presidency, it’s supposed to be a historically accurate drama.

I am privileged to personally know two persons who worked at the highest levels in the Reagan White House. Both of them have nothing but good things to say about Reagan. Many others echoing their thoughts have attested to the mental prowess of Reagan. Peter Robinson, a speechwriter who worked six years in the Reagan White House gives numerous examples in his book, “How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life” showing that Reagan was very involved in the formation and content of his speeches, a trait that many Presidents lack. Reagan engaged in extensive, personal correspondence during his Presidency with average citizens, mostly written in long hand. Many of these letters and the depth of Reagan’s intelligence they show are chronicled in the new book, “Reagan: A Life in Letters.”

With all the evidence showing Reagan to be powerfully intelligent how could CBS get it wrong? One word, bias. The network has clearly shown bias in the past. Unfortunately they choose genuine heroes to smear. Last week it was dedicated parents, next week it’s Ronald Reagan - it leads me to wonder, “who’s next?” The 343 firefighters that died in N.Y. City on 911? …




Questions About "The Reagans"
Jay Bryant
11/05/2003
In a Washington Post article by Lisa de Moraes, CBS President Les Moonves is quoted as saying about "The Reagans," that "There are things we like... . There are things we don't like... . There are things we think go too far... . So there are some edits being made trying to present a more fair picture of the Reagans."

Is "fair" a quantifiable quality? Or is it like "unique," which rightly repels all adjectives, particularly "more"?

And now that Moonves has cancelled the appearance of "The Reagans" on CBS, and made it available to poor relation Showtime cable network, here's another question: Will the version aired on Showtime be the "more fair" version as edited by Moonves, or the "less fair" version originally put together by producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron?

Or maybe Barbra Streisand, whose husband James Brolin plays the President in the film, will finance an even tougher remake.

My next question is prompted by the official CBS statement announcing the cancellation, which included this paragraph: "This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script." And the question is...Can you believe that?

Of course not. A similarly biased program about Richard Nixon or Calvin Coolidge would have breezed through its pro forma review by the network executives and lawyers, but CBS needs to maintain the fiction that it can't be bullied, so it lies.

Why was the controversy so intense? Because Ronald Reagan is a polarizing figure. When we think about polarizing politicians, we usually focus on the negative side of the pole - on the anger opponents feel toward the person - both Clintons and Bush the Younger (but not the Elder) are cases in point.

Many people have a similarly visceral hatred of Reagan - that's why films like "The Reagans" get made. But you're not a polarizer if you only attract haters. You're just hated. A magnetic pole has both a negative and positive end, and to be a polarizing politician you need people who are drawn to the positive end, people who will slay dragons for you, walk a mile across hot coals for you, go on Fear Factor for you.

Ronald Reagan has more fans, more rabid fans, than any other American politician, perhaps ever.

So when these dedicated souls learned that CBS was about to diss their hero and his valiant consort they went, in a phrase, "over the top."

A guy named Michael Paranzino shelled out $8.95 of his own money to buy a web address called www.boycottCBS.com and racked up over a hundred thousand responsive emails in less than a week, not counting those that never got through because of the two separate crashes the site endured.

And you thought Howard Dean cornered the market on the political use of the Internet.

Other people got into the act, too. Marc Christian, Rock Hudson's ex-lover, sent Moonves a letter protesting the characterization of Reagan as a virulent homophobe. Christian told how the President called the dying Hudson to voice his concern and offer his and Nancy's prayers.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie also wrote to Moonves to protest the historical inaccuracy of the film, or at least the script, parts of which had been released by Matt Drudge.

Nancy Reagan, who had also been given a copy of a seven-minute excerpt of the film (Nobody outside the studio has seen the whole thing, which is in any event still a work in progress, if Moonves is to be believed.) and was moved to call old family friend Merv Griffin to see if he could help in any way.

The fact that none of the critics had actually seen the complete film is being seized on by the film's defenders as an example of closed-mindedness. But there was no opportunity to see the complete film until it was too late, and there can be no serious reason to believe that any protesting Reaganite would, upon viewing it, have responded by saying, "Oh, gee, I guess it's not so bad after all."

The argument of closed-mindedness can be turned against the Reagan haters, too. How many of them, do you suppose, have read "Reagan, In His Own Hand," the marvelous collection of his letters from 1922 to 1994. Because of his prolific letter-writing, we have an almost unparalleled opportunity to glimpse the human being behind the actor...the Governor...the President. If you want to do a "fair" film about who he is, you would surely start here, where no news secretaries or spin-doctors intercede between the man himself and the friends, world leaders, constituents and (perhaps most of all) children to whom he penned page after page of insights, encouragement and advice.

It would be a hard-hearted hater indeed who could read this book and still believe Ronald Reagan was either ignorant or callous - the two charges his detractors most often make against him.

Streisand could do it, perhaps, but she probably won't read the book. If she wants to learn what kind of a person Ronald Reagan is, after all, she can simply wait for "The Reagans" to play on Showtime.



After reading those articles, I absolutely believe that some clueless individuals will still believe that The Reagans is an honest attempt to view a respected American President. That it is not some biased attempt by the media to influence political agendas. How dare conservative groups censor this fair and balanced portrayal? Who cares that the show contains a few honest errors here and there? All TV shows do that.”

“"oh please, Nigal. "fair and balanced" is a laughable slogan for FOX news. ha!"

I'm glad my sarcasm wasn't lost on you. 8)”

“Oh Arclite - those sources you quote wouldn't be "biased" "Opinion" pieces would they?”

“I dunno what was in the Reagan TV show, Tv docudrama's are often pretty inaccurate. It could have been as big a hatchet job as some say - I'll try to keep an open mind on it.

What I do know is that I can't countenance taking an article seriously when they use faut stats like "the incredible successes which comprise 99.999% of all home schooling families."”

“Well, I try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, Pedxing. Those two articles are opinion pieces. Not all of the stats are to be taken seriously. The 99.999% figure obviously shows the writer's bias. This is, of course, an opinion piece and does not masquerade as something else.

But, until someone can convince me otherwise, I think we can safely say that this would be accurate:

In another scene Nancy pleads with Reagan to do something about AIDS and he tells her, “They that live in sin shall die in sin.” In reality,

and this:

Reagan never made this statement, a fact acknowledged by the screen writer, Elizabeth Egloff. So why was the line retained? The screen writer while admitting that Reagan never made the statement claims that the statement is a plausible composite his views.

and this:

Marc Christian, Rock Hudson's ex-lover, sent Moonves a letter protesting the characterization of Reagan as a virulent homophobe. Christian told how the President called the dying Hudson to voice his concern and offer his and Nancy's prayers


I’m quite sure that Hollywood will do an unbiased docu-drama about Bill and Hillary. For a fair and balanced screenplay they should hire writers with different perspectives. How about someone from Right-to-Life and someone from the NRA? There are two different perspectives.

Hollywood will probably do this right after the NYT hires a Baptist to review Robert Maplethorp’s work in their art critique column.

Don’t you just love how the “liberal” media gives lip service to open-mindedness, inclusiveness, and diversity on the one hand, while practicing closed-minded divisiveness and bigotry with the other? It’s ALMOST funny to watch. But it seems so strangely similar to the radical religious far-right preaching love while practicing discrimination.


Here is another opinion piece that just happens to contain some interesting information as well:

Free Republic to Protest Rather “Fair and Balanced” Award
By Bob Johnson

This Monday the Museum of Television and Radio will be honoring Dan Rather at the Beverly Hills Hotel for his life long commitment to fair and balanced news reporting.
That’s right.
To anyone familiar with the CBS Evening News, this might come as a surprise. For decades, anyone to the right of John Kennedy is firmly aware of Rather’s outright bias and left wing manipulation of the news. The suggestion is at best, comical.
Of course, the Museum of Television and Film can honor anyone they want for whatever reason, it’s a free country. But don’t insult our sensibility by proclaiming Dan Rather fair and balanced.
Rather, an ardent abortion supporter, devoutly uses the terms “abortion rights” and “a woman’s right to choose” to portray the issue and refers to those protecting life as “anti-abortion” or “anti-woman’s rights.” He refuses to use the term “partial birth,” instead preferring the newspeak of those fond of this procedure, “late term.” He never missed an opportunity to declare it “rarely used”, that is until it’s frequent use was publicly admitted by supporters in 1997.
Another liberal cause held dear by Rather is affirmative action. When California voters eliminated portions of it with Prop 209, Rather described it as “…the big setback for affirmative action. The high court today upheld California's ban on programs designed to fight discrimination against women and minorities...” and called it a “counterattack against affirmative action.” Without shame he compared the passage of 209 with chemical experimentation on humans with this quip. “Earlier tonight, we reported the President's apology for medical experiments that allowed black Americans to die of syphilis. The President noted how badly this hurt public trust in government, especially among minorities. The same criticism is being made today on another score. As CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports, it's the fallout from California's voter-approved ban on state affirmative action programs.”
Rather’s assault on legislation aimed at ending what many believe to be a racial spoils system did not begin or end with Prop 209. He summarizes the 1995 Supreme Court ruling ending racial gerrymandering of voting districts as “…a ruling that will make it harder for African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities to win elective office and a share of political power.” Bill Clinton’s difficulties inserting militant left winger Bill Lan Lee to the nation’s top civil right’s enforcement post did not escape his attention. Rather attempted to smear Lee’s detractors as bigots stating “Lee's opponents cite his support for affirmative action, designed to fight discrimination against women and minorities.”
Socialists, democrats and Dan Rather have never met a tax they didn’t love and any attempt to reduce the power of the state is treated as heresy. Rather has been a good soldier in this battle, stoking the flames of class envy and chipping away at efforts to put a few bucks back into the pockets of taxpayers. Rather does not report on tax reduction proposals without sticking the phrase “give away for the wealthy” to them like a piece of Juicy Fruit to the bottom of our shoes. Reduce tax rates? Give away for the wealthy. Increase the child tax credit? Give away for the wealthy.

Ronald Reagan’s tax cut helped lift this country out of the mire of recession and rocketing interest rates, but is described by Rather thusly, “In America in the 1980s, what former President Reagan and those who support him call the Reagan Revolution put more money in the pockets of the rich. We already knew that. But a new study indicates that those who did best of all by far were the very richest of the rich.”
The word “richest” alone must have lost its punch.
When Democrats reside in the White House, recessions are a sign of prosperity right around the corner while Republican economic recoveries are quagmires spiced with conservative policy condemnations.
In not so subtle attempts to undermine public support for programs and legislation with which he personally disagrees, Rather routinely inserts derogatory comments from unnamed sources and “critics” of Republican efforts while spiking substantive facts from experts and even legislative sponsors themselves. Here’s Rather on Bush’s tax cut plan;
“On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled House voted mostly along party lines tonight to pass President Bush's federal budget blueprint. This includes his big tax-cut plan, partly bankrolled, critics say, through cuts in many federal aid programs for children and education.”
But Rather doesn’t stop at including Democrat comments and ignoring those from Republicans. In this 1997 broadcast Rather clearly inserts personal opinions into a summary of comments supporting a balanced budget.
“On Capitol Hill, the Senate voted overwhelming approval today for the big balanced budget blueprint. Supporters of the plan say it would balance the budget in five years, provide $85 billion in tax breaks mostly for families with children, cut the capital gains tax which would help immediately the wealthy, and save $321 billion out of Medicare, defense and other spending.”
Yes Dan, I’m certain supporters of balanced budget efforts would include the phrase “which would help immediately the wealthy” into their talking points.
We could go on and on but you get the picture. From campaign finance to global warming to gun control to health care, Rather never misses a opportunity to provide support and cover for left wing ideas and Democrat positions while bashing conservative ideas and proposals.
On Monday, members of the Los Angeles Chapter of Free Republic will be there to meet the Museum’s coterie of fans, supporters and Dan. I think I’ll stroll down to the Beverly Hills Hotel and let them know what I think of their 2003 Award recipient. Hey, it’s a free country.”

“How do you explain the recent Showtime "docudrama" on Chimpy McFlightsuit’s heroic response to 9/11 arclite? Kind of shoots a hole in the whole ‘liberal media’ theory doesn’t it?


Using a story about the Freeper’s views of Dan Rather as support for your argument is pretty desperate.”

“"oh please, Nigal. "fair and balanced" is a laughable slogan for FOX news. ha! they should just have the balls to say "conservative and in your face about it."

tarbubbIe
03:11:59 PM
11/05/03

Has tarbubble always spelled her name with an 'I'?

I assume whoever this is would expect ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR to proclaim they are "liberal and in your face about it."”

“I don’t see what the big deal is about the Reagan movie. CBS itself said they thought they were getting a love story with politics as the backdrop and what they actually got was a biased depiction of Ronny. They didn’t even like it.”

“I will have to judge it when/if I see it.

It does make me nervous to see a show shot down after a political campaign to block it - but that doesn't mean it was wrong to block it, or that it wouldn't have been shot down for other reasons.”

“How embarrassing is it for James Brolin to have his wife Babs have to come to his defense. I guess we know who wears the penls in that house…too bad it’s in the middle of her face. [bod-ump-bump]”

“There was an interesting show on the History Channel about the United States Special Forces last night. To illustrate a low point in their history (how they were misused by politicians), it was described how the US Government supported the right wing thugs in El Salvador, even as they murdered student demonstrators, labor reformers, priests, and nuns. US personnel were disgusted having to prop up those criminals.

I found it quite interesting that Reagan's name didn't come up in that discussion... it WAS His Policy, after all. I wonder if there was any mention of THAT as part of Reagan's Glorious Legacy?

And these Reaganites popping out of the woodwork now are concerned that people will think he used DIRTY WORDS???

Good Grief.”

“JOHN D. DINGELL
15TH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
RANKING MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CO-CHAIR
HOUSE GREAT LAKES
TASK FORCE
MEMBER
MIGRATORY BIRD
CONSERVATION COMMISSION

October 29,2003

Mr. Leslie Moonves
President and CEO
CBS Television
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019


Dear Mr. Moonves:

I write to you with regard to your upcoming mini-series "The Reagans." I share the
concerns expressed by others that it may not present an accurate depiction of the Reagan
administration and America during the 1980s. I trust that CBS will not be a party to a distorted
presentation of American history, and that the mini-series will present a fair and balancedl
portrayal of the Reagans, the 1980s and their legacy.

As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy,
please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will
make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable;
union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations;
trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an
illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein;
shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the
savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit
unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and
influence peddling.

I hope you find these facts useful in accurately depicting President Reagan's time in
office.

With every good wish,

John D. Dingell
Member of Congress


Source document”

“Yep, that Just About covers it, I'd say....”

“It sounds as though the series wasn't that well put together, but I don't agree with all the pressure that was put on to take it off the air. Let people see it and make up their own minds. I don't see why a former President should be off limits for anything that is critical.”

“These people seem to be all about silencing anyone they disagree with. And to light the candles on the cake of irony, they accuse others of being 'unAmerican'. It's astounding.”

“I knew Violin was a commie! How dare you post something so vile, disgusting and untrue! Why, that's just unAmerican!

Seriously tho, this is a bunch of crap! I didn't see anyone up in arms about the various JFK movies that outlined, or alluded to, him banging all kinds of chicks! To hold Regan as some sort of God is truely distrubing! I liked him back in the day. Thought he did some good things, but like my boy Dingal points out, he had his warts! Why must they feel that they have to "put some lipstick on that pig"? Let it be out there for the people to decide, if it's not a fair program, there's an off button. There over reaction to this situation shows that they are worried about anything negitive regarding "Das Party". I'm sorry to take a cheap shot like that, but things like this just gives more fuel to the people who feel they are "Orwellian" or a group of modern day Nazi's. They ddon't understand that they do more harm by doing this than if they let it play. Bad move!”

“hey laqtis~~~

sorry to bust in on this thread, but did you get my email?”

“Yep! I've been a little errant in get back to you. Trying to get this Revolution off the ground has consumed some of my free time..:)

When I gets home tonight, I'll give ya the snail mail, I promise!!”

“Yammie - Blam! Email sent!”

“I was glad Dingell referred to one of the great Whitewashes of the Reagan era. Its amazing how much grief Clinton gets for Somalia/Mogadishu (some of it deserved)... but Reagan took almost no grief for Lebanon.

I still remember one day US battleships are firing on the mountains of Lebanon and getting involved in the Lebanese civil war, and Reagan is saying the one lesson from Vietnam is you shouldn't fire a shot unless you are ready to finish the fight. Then the Marine barracks gets blown up and Reagan has the US turn tail and leave Lebanon.

Either: the US never should have started shooting, should have withdrawn its "peace keepers" or at least made them safer, or it should have stayed the course. Anyway you looked at it, it was a major goof - yet he caught almost no heat from anyone.”

“Alas, the liberal media is so inept that they can't even get their bias right.”