White House Has Bigger Credibility Problem Than CBS [Archive]

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 04:09 AM

White House has bigger credibility problem than CBS
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

By Sally Kalson

What happens when you base a big project on questionable information?

Well, if you work for CBS News, you get a pink slip. If you work for George W. Bush, you get a promotion or a medal.

It's telling that this should be so, given that the stakes in the cases at hand are so wildly uneven.

The use of unverifiable documents for a story about Bush's National Guard service 30 years ago was a huge blunder, to be sure, and CBS did what it had to do for the sake of its damaged credibility. It sought an outside investigation by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press President Louis Boccardi; the network adopted their recommendations and also fired the four people it held most accountable.

Yet in the hierarchy of screw-ups with serious repercussions for the country, that incident pales next to the bad intelligence and flawed assumptions that have informed our war in Iraq and all the fruit of its poisoned tree.

That would include 1,352 U.S. soldiers killed and 10,252 wounded in action so far; the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib; the Rumsfeld doctrine of going to war with too few soldiers and too little armor; the depletion of the National Guard; the back-door draft of the military "stop loss" policy; and the "de-Baathification" of Iraqi forces that experts believe has fueled the insurgency.

On a damage-to-America scale of one to 10, I'd have to rank the second scenario as a bit more critical than a badly sourced news story -- especially when that story was essentially an old one that viewers had either accepted or rejected many months earlier, based largely on their political predispositions.

It was news to no one that Bush used family connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid combat in Vietnam. In the partisan atmosphere of the 2004 campaign, nobody was going to vote for or against him based on whether he'd complied with all his military requirements at that time.

Thus, if the producers hoped to sway the outcome by rushing to air with the "smoking gun" memo right before the election (and the outside review said there was no evidence of a political agenda), they risked their careers for nothing. The story was essentially a big yawn.

Still, it did great harm to the integrity of CBS, and, by extension, the news media at large. Heads had to roll, and they did.

One might wish for the president of the United States to admit a fraction of the responsibility for his administration's mistakes, to hold his war architects and advisers at least as responsible as CBS has its producers.

Instead, Bush honored former CIA Director George Tenet with a Presidential Medal of Honor -- this to the man who called it "a slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed those missing WMDs. He nominated Alberto Gonzales, author of the infamous torture-justification memo, to be his next attorney general. And he continues to laud Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for doing "a great job," despite the secretary's callous comment to front-line soldiers in Iraq that their equipment was substandard because "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want."

What accounts for this contrast in responsibility-taking? The answer is one I've argued in this space before: Americans demand a higher standard of truth from the news media than they do from their political leaders. They expect politicians to lie, mislead and dissemble, and they expect the news media to catch them.

But even when reporters uncover such transgressions, it doesn't necessarily translate into changes in policy or admissions of guilt. That has certainly been true of this president, who values loyalty above competence and evidences not the slightest inkling of his own fallibility. Now that the voters have seen fit to re-elect him, the nation can expect the same, only more so.

We can only imagine what kind of report Thornburgh and Boccardi would assemble on the administration's conduct of the war. Five'll get you 10 they'd find a lot more guns smoking in the White House than they ever did at CBS.

---

Post-Gazette.com (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05012/440801.stm)

Hook Dem

01-12-2005, 10:24 AM

It's gonna be a miserable 4 years for you isn't it Dan? :lol

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 10:26 AM

What happens if you botch a news story? People get angry.

What happens if you don't take threats seriously? People get killed.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 11:50 AM

Whether you agree or disagree with either, each has a completely different set of responsibilities and priorities than the other, so the comparison is a stretch.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 01:05 PM

Whether you agree or disagree with either, each has a completely different set of responsibilities and priorities than the other, so the comparison is a stretch.

Aren't both ultimately responsible to the people they serve though? CBS has admitted it's mistakes and taken corrective action to insure that this sort of thing is less likely to happen again. However, With the nomination of Yes-men White House Counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, isn't W setting up the likely hood that this will happen again?

Where is the disingenuous disgust and moral outrage from the right?

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 01:10 PM

Aren't both ultimately responsible to the people they serve though? CBS has admitted it's mistakes and taken corrective action to insure that this sort of thing is less likely to happen again. However, With the nomination of Yes-men White House Counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, isn't W setting up the likely hood that this will happen again?

Where is the disingenuous disgust and moral outrage from the right?

Two things Dan,

1. The responsibilities of both entities are entirely different. I think that Spurm covered that. Does CBS serve the public or do they serve their advertisers?

2. Does someone who agrees with you or has similar principles a yes man? Why wouldn't the president appoint people who thought like him or held his parties values and ideals?

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 01:24 PM

The responsibilities of both entities are entirely different. I think that Spurm covered that. Does CBS serve the public or do they serve their advertisers?

Not since CBS uses the free public airwaves to distribute its product. Both entities have responsibilities to the public they serve to be as truthful and transperant as possible.

Extra Stout

01-12-2005, 01:28 PM

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 01:29 PM

Does someone who agrees with you or has similar principles a yes man? Why wouldn't the president appoint people who thought like him or held his parties values and ideals?

That's just it, Gonzales has never not disagreed with W on anything. (I know a double negative, but hey live with it). His memo on torture and prisoner abuse set the tone by the administration in the Abu Gharib scandal and the yet to be clearly unveiled abuse at Guantanamo and Diego Garcia.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 01:35 PM

That's just it, Gonzales has never not disagreed with W on anything. (I know a double negative, but hey live with it). His memo on torture and prisoner abuse set the tone by the administration in the Abu Gharib scandal and the yet to be clearly unveiled abuse at Guantanamo and Diego Garcia.

Don't mean he has never disagreed with him? Why the extra "not"?

If you would look back to what I was saying again. Can two people not agree on things the same way? Maybe he is a yes man, maybe he was chosen just because he thinks the same way. Is the president supposed to pick people who have totally different political agendas than him? I don't think it's that big of a deal to surround yourself with people who have similar beliefs.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 01:38 PM

Well, Americans had an opportunity to decide whether or not to hold President Bush accountable, and pretty much everyone, excluding the most delusional on the left, has accepted that the public, by a narrow but decisive margin, chose to retain him despite their reservations about his performance.

CBS, on the other hand, has been hemorrhaging ratings for its newscasts.

Perhaps the problem is that far too many of us are too stupid to understand the enlightened leftist perspective you broadcast to us. Perhaps I could suggest finding a more suitable country in which to live.

Did Americans really decide to keep W or did the voting machines utilized in the election decide for us? Since there is no verifiable paper-trail I guess we will truly never know, right?

I bet if right-wing radio had been beating the administrations lack of credibility over and over again like it has beating the war-drums against CBS and Dan Rather, more people would place these two incidents in more proper prospective. CBS's misjudgments didn't get anyone killed, W's did.

What is it about right-wingers that they are always decrying their own mental incapacities? Envy maybe?

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 01:42 PM

If you would look back to what I was saying again. Can two people not agree on things the same way? Maybe he is a yes man, maybe he was chosen just because he thinks the same way. Is the president supposed to pick people who have totally different political agendas than him? I don't think it's that big of a deal to surround yourself with people who have similar beliefs.

If I'm CEO of a company, which is essentially what W is, I would want opposing views to make sure that I am pursuing the best direction possible for my company. It's one thing for everyone to be on the same page, but totally another for opposing views to be silenced by threat or intimidation.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 01:43 PM

Not since CBS uses the free public airwaves to distribute its product. Both entities have responsibilities to the public they serve to be as truthful and transperant as possible.

What does free public airwaves have to do with anything? I can go outside and yell a bunch of bullshit to people who walk by and not have any responsibility to the truth or the people who hear it. We don't hold elections for news anchors. They do not pass laws that govern us. Their existence relies totally on revenue generated by selling product to consumers. Those consumers are the people who run those adds, not me and you at home.

The goverment's true responsibility is to serve us it's constituents. The news media's goal is to simply attract us to their forum.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 01:56 PM

What does free public airwaves have to do with anything? I can go outside and yell a bunch of bullshit to people who walk by and not have any responsibility to the truth or the people who hear it. We don't hold elections for news anchors. They do not pass laws that govern us. Their existence relies totally on revenue generated by selling product to consumers. Those consumers are the people who run those adds, not me and you at home.

The goverment's true responsibility is to serve us it's constituents. The news media's goal is to simply attract us to their forum.

If you don't think that CBS has a responsibility to the public then you are living in La-La land and there is no need to carry on this debate any longer. The only leg network news has to stand on is its credibility to the public. Broadcast regulations and standards are set by the FCC, so your comparison to someone simply shouting out things in public is intellectually dishonest at best.

Extra Stout

01-12-2005, 01:56 PM

Did Americans really decide to keep W or did the voting machines utilized in the election decide for us? Since there is no verifiable paper-trail I guess we will truly never know, right? I don't see the throngs pouring out into the streets to protest this allegedly stolen election. Despite George W. Bush being the absolute mostest worstest leader ever in all the history of the world, now with the election over, Americans -- even most of those disappointed with the result -- are just going on with their lives. I guess there is not much outrage. People accept the result.

Not that I would expect there to be much outrage. In most of the world if people really believe elections are stolen, they raise arms. They fight back. Leftism in America is predicated upon not having to fight for anything or believe in much of anything. It's built primarily upon maintaining a sense of moral superiority and victimhood, and doing whatever it takes in one's own mind to rationalize that, such as posting conspiracy theories on Internet message boards about black boxes and paper trails.

Only the very selct few who are mentally unhinged see the black helicopters. Yes, I am calling you mentally unhinged. You are like a walking caricature of what the Right would like to convince voters that Democrats are really like.

I bet if right-wing radio had been beating the administrations lack of credibility over and over again like it has beating the war-drums against CBS and Dan Rather, more people would place these two incidents in more proper prospective. CBS's misjudgments didn't get anyone killed, W's did.

What is it about right-wingers that they are always decrying their own mental incapacities? Envy maybe?Right-wing radio openly admits that it is right-wing. It is partisan. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be an impartial observer. If right-wing radio drove down the middle or tried to be objective, it wouldn't be right wing, now would it?

Nobody was complaining about Air America because it makes its partisan intentions clear. CBS News tries to maintain the pretense that is a impartial mainstream news organization. That pretense is false.

I understand how important it must be to you to label everyone who is not a far-leftist as a neocon or a right-winger or whatever. You need to maintain a sense that you are smarter, wiser, and morally superior to those around you, and that they must really be jealous of you, in spite of evidence which demonstrates that their reactions alternate between disinterest and derision. It's all you have, really. Reattachment to reality could plunge you into a deep, deep depression.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 01:58 PM

If I'm CEO of a company, which is essentially what W is, I would want opposing views to make sure that I am pursuing the best direction possible for my company. It's one thing for everyone to be on the same page, but totally another for opposing views to be silenced by threat or intimidation.

Um, there are a lot of CEO's who don't want opposing views. They believe they are in that position because they are capable of making the decisions that are required of that position in their company. Some CEO's do follow what you are saying. I know this may be hard to swallow, but did you ever think Bush believes he is going about things in the right way? Is it possible he is choosing people who will aid him because they hold his same views. I'm sure he is aware of opposing views to his own. I can't believe he would not weigh such things before making a decision.

Extra Stout

01-12-2005, 02:04 PM

Um, there are a lot of CEO's who don't want opposing views. They believe they are in that position because they are capable of making the decisions that are required of that position in their company. Some CEO's do follow what you are saying. I know this may be hard to swallow, but did you ever think Bush believes he is going about things in the right way? Is it possible he is choosing people who will aid him because they hold his same views. I'm sure he is aware of opposing views to his own. I can't believe he would not weigh such things before making a decision.My guess is that Bush had advisors with opposing views in his first term, and that he needed that because he wasn't yet certain which course to plot with his foreign policy. Following 9/11, he decided the direction he wanted to go. With the stakes so high, the opposition among his advisors got to the point where it impeded getting things done.

Having been re-elected, Bush feels vindicated enough to execute his policy vision with like-minded people who won't step on each others' toes. The good thing it that it will be easier to get things done. The bad thing is that if he chooses the wrong thing, there is no nobody to mitigate the damage. If it goes to crap, he will suffer for it in the 2006 elections.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:04 PM

I don't see the throngs pouring out into the streets to protest this allegedly stolen election. Despite George W. Bush being the absolute mostest worstest leader ever in all the history of the world, now with the election over, Americans -- even most of those disappointed with the result -- are just going on with their lives. I guess there is not much outrage. People accept the result.

Not that I would expect there to be much outrage. In most of the world if people really believe elections are stolen, they raise arms. They fight back. Leftism in America is predicated upon not having to fight for anything or believe in much of anything. It's built primarily upon maintaining a sense of moral superiority and victimhood, and doing whatever it takes in one's own mind to rationalize that, such as posting conspiracy theories on Internet message boards about black boxes and paper trails.

Only the very selct few who are mentally unhinged see the black helicopters. Yes, I am calling you mentally unhinged. You are like a walking caricature of what the Right would like to convince voters that Democrats are really like.

The only reason large-scale election inconsistencies and voter suppression aren't a bigger issue is because our MSM has been bought out by corporate interests who are looking out for their own interests and pocket-books before those of the public they are supposed to serve, even so far as to turn their backs on democracy. Governmental checks and balances that are supposed to protect us against this sort of thing have been broken down by one-party rule and political indimidation by the Domininist.

Here we go with the black-opts again... :lol

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 02:06 PM

If you don't think that CBS has a responsibility to the public then you are living in La-La land and there is no need to carry on this debate any longer. The only leg network news has to stand on is its credibility to the public. Broadcast regulations and standards are set by the FCC, so your comparison to someone simply shouting out things in public is intellectually dishonest at best.

Um, CBS chooses what stories to run does it not? It chooses those stories based not on which ones are the most true, but which ones will garner the most attention or ratings. CBS might choose to air a Michael Jackson story over one about world hunger even though the latter story is of much greater significance or importance. They are not serving the public, they are serving their advertisers who PAY them to get our viewship.

The only reason large-scale election inconsistencies and voter suppression aren't a bigger issue is because our MSM has been bought out by corporate interests who are looking out for their own interests and pocket-books before those of the public they are supposed to serve, even so far as to turn their backs on democracy. Governmental checks and balances that are supposed to protect us against this sort of thing have been broken down by one-party rule and political indimidation by the Domininist.

Here we go with the black-opts again...

You just stated exactly what I've been saying. CBS is part of your MSM. They don't serve us the public. They serve the people who pay them, who own them. Now that might draw similarities to campaign contributions, but that is regulated, and not the same type of relationship.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 02:09 PM

Let's come up with some other ideas for stock Bush-bashing columns using non-related current events.

War in Iraq Worse than Pacers-Pistons Brawl
Ron Artest was suspended from the NBA for charging someone in the stands for supposedly throwing a cup of beer at him... But why don't we hold the President to the same standards for invading Iraq without an attack on the US?

Is Dubya Worse than Scott Peterson?
Scott Peterson received the death penalty for killing his wife and unborn child, yet George W. Bush gets to keep his job after killing thousands of innocent Iraqis. Where's the justice?

Refusing to be distracted by the Red Sox World Series victory
The Cardinals lost in the World Series, but when Dubya invaded Iraq, we all lost.

Dubya should be punished as severely as Martha Stewart
George W. Bush led the United States into a war under false pretenses and has been reelected to serve as Commander in Chief. Meanwhile, Martha Stewart serves time for insider trading, which killed nobody. Where is the justice?

BALCO investigation dwarfs Iraq Failures investigation
While so much time is spent to find out whether or not Barry Bonds has played baseball using illegal steroids, George W. Bush continues the flawed War in Iraq with little resistance.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:13 PM

Right-wing radio openly admits that it is right-wing. It is partisan. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be an impartial observer. If right-wing radio drove down the middle or tried to be objective, it wouldn't be right wing, now would it?

Nobody was complaining about Air America because it makes its partisan intentions clear. CBS News tries to maintain the pretense that is a impartial mainstream news organization. That pretense is false.

I understand how important it must be to you to label everyone who is not a far-leftist as a neocon or a right-winger or whatever. You need to maintain a sense that you are smarter, wiser, and morally superior to those around you, and that they must really be jealous of you, in spite of evidence which demonstrates that their reactions alternate between disinterest and derision. It's all you have, really. Reattachment to reality could plunge you into a deep, deep depression.

First of all, comparing Air America to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and company is not a fair comparison because Air America doesn't have the backing of a behemoth like Clear Channel Communications backing it up. I'm sure that if AA got half the market saturation from CCC that they give these right-wing political hacks, they too would be argued against more vigilantly by the right.

I don't label people to feel intellectually superior, I let my arguments stand on that. I simply call them as I see them and so far the only opinions I have read from you are like a echo chamber from right-wing conservative radio.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 02:16 PM

Clear Channel owns several Air America stations.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:21 PM

You just stated exactly what I've been saying. CBS is part of your MSM. They don't serve us the public. They serve the people who pay them, who own them. Now that might draw similarities to campaign contributions, but that is regulated, and not the same type of relationship

Hey genious, reread my post again. I was decrying what the relationship between network news and the responsibility to the public has become, not cheering on that all of our MSM has been corrupted by the same entities they are supposed to be helping to protect all of us from.

travis2

01-12-2005, 02:22 PM

First of all, comparing Air America to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and company is not a fair comparison because Air America doesn't have the backing of a behemoth like Clear Channel Communications backing it up. I'm sure that if AA got half the market saturation from CCC that they give these right-wing political hacks, they too would be argued against more vigilantly by the right.

CCC doesn't give anyone market saturation. By proving to advertisers that the money they spend results in higher sales, the shows in question earn market saturation.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:25 PM

Clear Channel owns several Air America stations.

Yes they do, but where is the market saturation that they gave Hannity and Rush when they were getting started? It's like OAI running 24-7 right-wing radio during the week and then giving a progressive voice like Lionel a Saturday spot that is consistently interrupted by sports and then calling that fair. Yeah right.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 02:28 PM

If Air America's ratings improve, they will pop up on other CC stations.

As anyone who does any business with CC can tell you, they don't care about anything but money. Rush and Hannity have huge ratings and enough support from sponsors to be a financially beneficial endeavor for CC. Air America does not have either right now. Air America is also relatively new, and if it remains a relevant enterprise, Clear Channel will likely switch more of its stations to their format over time.

Clear Channel does not feel a moral duty to give equal time to all political ideologies, nor should they. They rely on advertiser revenue, which is based on ratings. They're not NPR.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 02:34 PM

I should also point out that many advertisers are hesitant to sponsor talk shows of this sort... Rush or Franken... due to fears of consumer backlash. However, Rush and Hannity have such good ratings in certain key demographics that enough sponsors find it too good to resist.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:34 PM

CCC doesn't give anyone market saturation. By proving to advertisers that the money they spend results in higher sales, the shows in question earn market saturation

Your understimating the power of radio. These right-wing hacks are given a voice by stations owned by CCC, but by not giving opposing views equal time these stations are not serving the public's best interest - they are putting profits before corporate responsibility. Independent broadcasters like Thom Hartman and Lionel are every bit as informative, entertaining and enjoyable as many of the lesser known right-wingers on OAI, but since they don't represent views consistent with the political views of the owners of the station, do you honestly think they are ever going to give these to two fine gentlemen equal time? Hell no.

travis2

01-12-2005, 02:37 PM

Your understimating the power of radio. These right-wing hacks are given a voice by stations like CCC but by not giving opposing views equal time these stations are not serving the public's best interest. Independent broadcasters like Thom Hartman and Lionel are every bit as entertaining and enjoyable as many of the lesser known right-wingers on OAI, but since they don't represent views consistent with the political views of the owners of the station, do you honestly think they are ever going to give these to two fine gentlemen equal time? Hell no.

Read my lips. No one is given anything.

The power is in advertiser dollars and in listener ratings (which drives the income of dollars).

When Lionel and Thom Hartman bring in ratings like Rush and Hannity, they'll get the time.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 02:41 PM

Independent broadcasters like Thom Hartman and Lionel are every bit as informative, entertaining and enjoyable as many of the lesser known right-wingers on OAI, but since they don't represent views consistent with the political views of the owners of the station, do you honestly think they are ever going to give these to two fine gentlemen equal time? Hell no.

And the Flaming Lips are more talented musically than Hillary Duff. So what?

MannyIsGod

01-12-2005, 02:50 PM

Why left thumb is more talanted than that twit.

Anyhow, back to your debate.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:52 PM

Read my lips. No one is given anything.

The power is in advertiser dollars and in listener ratings (which drives the income of dollars).

When Lionel and Thom Hartman bring in ratings like Rush and Hannity, they'll get the time.

Your argument simply doesn't hold any water. Your saying that a up-start like right-wing ideologue Jeff Bolton is more popular and profitable for CCC than nationally syndicated liberal shows like Thom Hartman and Lionel. I say that's bullshit.

Extra Stout

01-12-2005, 02:57 PM

Air America started up like a year ago and already has 41 affiliates. Its growth is spectacular despite the missteps by the original leadership.

And yes, when Air America's saturation gets to the point where they start influencing the political landscape, I can almost guarantee that right-wingers will be complaining about the unfairness of it all, because that is how the game is played.

so far the only opinions I have read from you are like a echo chamber from right-wing conservative radio.That's because when you are a sand gnat, a mouse might as well be a buffalo.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 02:59 PM

travis2

01-12-2005, 02:59 PM

Your argument simply doesn't hold any water. Your saying that a up-start like right-wing ideologue Jeff Bolton is more popular and profitable for CCC than nationally syndicated liberal shows like Thom Hartman and Lionel. I say that's bullshit.

(a) Bolton came here from another market, where he had already made his mark.

(b) You're making the assertion. Prove it. Numbers, please.

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 03:00 PM

Led Zeppelin and Britney Spears are never on the same station.

Conservative talk radio and Liberal Talk radio are completely different formats. They attract completely different demos and advertisers.

Bandit2981

01-12-2005, 03:09 PM

If not CCC and OAI
ok, ive seen this numerous times from posters before on this board, i guess im out of the loop here...why do you leave the W off of WOAI?

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 03:17 PM

ok, ive seen this numerous times from posters before on this board, i guess im out of the loop here...why do you leave the W off of WOAI?

There's really nothing to it, but when you say OAI your being a little ambiguous and it's a way to protect yourself from over-scrupulous corporate hacks who have figured out how to use Google. OAI certainly never leaves W off, that's for sure.

SpursWoman

01-12-2005, 03:35 PM

*rimshot*

MannyIsGod

01-12-2005, 03:38 PM

SpursWoman

01-12-2005, 03:39 PM

GoldToe

01-12-2005, 04:09 PM

It is clear that Bush won't take responsibility for any of his actions.
But I guess we must go with the President we have, not the one we want.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 04:34 PM

Hey genious, reread my post again. I was decrying what the relationship between network news and the responsibility to the public has become, not cheering on that all of our MSM has been corrupted by the same entities they are supposed to be helping to protect all of us from.

Look I'm that last person to bring up punctuation smack here, but if you are going to call me stupid at least spell genius right. Genius!!! :lol

Here are your own words:

Quote: Originally Posted by Nbadan

If you don't think that CBS has a responsibility to the public then you are living in La-La land and there is no need to carry on this debate any longer. The only leg network news has to stand on is its credibility to the public. Broadcast regulations and standards are set by the FCC, so your comparison to someone simply shouting out things in public is intellectually dishonest at best.

Then you stated this:

The only reason large-scale election inconsistencies and voter suppression aren't a bigger issue is because our MSM has been bought out by corporate interests who are looking out for their own interests and pocket-books before those of the public they are supposed to serve, even so far as to turn their backs on democracy. Governmental checks and balances that are supposed to protect us against this sort of thing have been broken down by one-party rule and political indimidation by the Domininist.

Here we go with the black-opts again...

So you say in one quote how network news has a responsibility to the public, then in the next quote you state that MSM has been bought out by corporate interests and are looking out for their own interests before those of the public. Why the contradiction Dan? Is CBS not main stream media? Please explain it me.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 04:42 PM

It is clear that Bush won't take responsibility for any of his actions.
But I guess we must go with the President we have, not the one we want.

Has Bush denied that he sent troops into Iraq? What has he not taken responsibility for?

You may not want him as president, but a majority did.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 04:57 PM

If not CCC and OAI, then someone, anyone, must give the progressive voice equal time...

BRATTLEBORO — A southern Vermont-based radio station will trade in the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts for the liberal commentary of Air America next week.

WKVT-AM 1490 in Brattleboro will replace four of its weekday syndicated conservative talk shows on Jan. 17 with programs from the fledgling liberal radio network Air America, which launched in March.

The station will be the second in Vermont to broadcast Air America programs, which include shows hosted by comedian Al Franken and actress Jeanne Garofalo.

The Brattleboro area is highly liberal in its political beliefs and the Air America shows will be a better fit for the station's listeners than the conservative programs hosted by Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, said WKVT program director Peter Case.

more…

This is exactly what everyone here is talking about Dan. The station wants listeners so it's going to change it's format to suit it's audience. Why? Because it needs an audience to make money from advertisers. If every station and media outlet were going to serve the public under your terms, BET would be showing Dawson's Creek marathon, Galavision would have Law and Order, and CBS would have Soul Train on constantly. Different views don't always get equal time. If that were the case MTV would actually play music. Anyone remember what type of music 102.7 used to have on? And now?

Here's an idea Dan, get XM or Sirus radio. I'm sure they have an "All Black Helicopter" radio station.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 05:35 PM

You're making the assertion. Prove it. Numbers, please.

Prove it how? There are no syndicated Progressive radio shows on San Antonio's radio dials, that's my whole point, but look at how SA votes in any election. A majority of the inner-city residents are progressives but are not served by any of SA's major AM radio stations, and certainly not by the two major media conglomerations - Infinity or CCC.

Extra Stout

01-12-2005, 05:54 PM

Prove it how? There are no syndicated Progressive radio shows on San Antonio's radio dials, that's my whole point, but look at how SA votes in any election. A majority of the inner-city residents are progressives but are not served by any of SA's major AM radio stations, and certainly not by the two major media conglomerations - Infinity or CCC.Just because they vote Democratic doesn't mean they are politically aware or activist. Would they listen to political radio like many right-wingers do? Do the inner-city residents have any money to purchase advertisers' products?

If I'm expanding a nationwide liberal radio network, SA is maybe fourth or fifth on my list in Texas, and there are a lot of places I will go before I hit Texas. Texas is a synonym for "Hell" in a lot of leftie circles.

Nevertheless, I would be surprised if AA is not in Austin by the end of this year or next. If it hasn't happened, maybe then I could entertain the notion of political censorship by Texas radio conglomerates.

Nbadan

01-12-2005, 05:54 PM

Talk radio is horrible overall. I wish both sides would go away. They do nothing but muddy the damn waters with their endless rehtoric and spin then act like angels when you call them on it.

In short, they are all full of shit. You see, NBA Dan and Yonivore are the talk show hosts of this forum.

If I am a left-wing extremist and Yoni is a right-wing extremist, then Manny is the worst kind of extremist of all, the middle-of-the-roader who polls people first before taking a position on anything. Look at topics Manny starts in the forum, rarely does he take a position on anything before feeling out how the rest of the forum feels about the topic first. In the war of political extreme debate, middle-of-the-roaders are the kind of politicians that we love to loathe most of all.

.

ididnotnothat

01-12-2005, 05:57 PM

You mean...like a flip-flopper?

Spurminator

01-12-2005, 06:04 PM

Look at topics Manny starts in the forum, rarely does he take a position on anything before feeling out how the rest of the forum feels about the topic first.

Total and utter bullshit.

Useruser666

01-12-2005, 06:08 PM

Uh Dan? Why don't you respond to my post questioning your stance on what you stated earlier? If your stance is middle-of-the-road and you stick with it, it's still your stance.

OMG! Somebody's chasing their tail now! :lol

Extra Stout

01-12-2005, 06:10 PM

Yoni is a right-wing extremist,...Umm, the Republican Party goes WAAYYYYYYYYY to the right of Yoni. I'm not sure he's even in the more conservative half of the GOP. He just uses fiery rhetoric a lot.

Would Yoni maybe qualify as a right-moderate libertarian pro-defense extremist?

travis2

01-13-2005, 07:38 AM

This is exactly what everyone here is talking about Dan. The station wants listeners so it's going to change it's format to suit it's audience. Why? Because it needs an audience to make money from advertisers. If every station and media outlet were going to serve the public under your terms, BET would be showing Dawson's Creek marathon, Galavision would have Law and Order, and CBS would have Soul Train on constantly. Different views don't always get equal time. If that were the case MTV would actually play music. Anyone remember what type of music 102.7 used to have on? And now?

Here's an idea Dan, get XM or Sirus radio. I'm sure they have an "All Black Helicopter" radio station.

Dan. Read. Learn.

Oh, and User, since I'm older than you are, I do remember what 102.7 used to play...a long time ago. And no I didn't listen to it! :lol

MannyIsGod

01-13-2005, 07:53 AM

If I am a left-wing extremist and Yoni is a right-wing extremist, then Manny is the worst kind of extremist of all, the middle-of-the-roader who polls people first before taking a position on anything. Look at topics Manny starts in the forum, rarely does he take a position on anything before feeling out how the rest of the forum feels about the topic first. In the war of political extreme debate, middle-of-the-roaders are the kind of politicians that we love to loathe most of all.

.

:lmao

That's about as much as I'm going to dignify that.

Extra Stout

01-13-2005, 11:23 AM

Nbadan's world is interesting. If you oversimplify and rank people 0-100 on political views, with increasing numbers being more conservative, Manny is like a 30 and Yonivore is maybe a 65. Yet Manny is "middle of the road" and Yoni is a "right-wing extremist."

In order to have that kind of extreme myopia, one seriously has to be so far out on the fringe as to be in danger of falling off the edge. Nbadan's opinions are about as relevant to the political debate on the left as Fred Phelps is on the right.

Useruser666

01-13-2005, 11:29 AM

Dan, please come back and answer my question.

JoeChalupa

01-13-2005, 11:48 AM

I thought Yonivore was a libertarian?

I consider myself a conservative liberal democrat.
That is why I like Henry Cuellar.

Extra Stout

01-13-2005, 12:01 PM

I thought Yonivore was a libertarian?

I consider myself a conservative liberal democrat.
That is why I like Henry Cuellar.Well, yeah, he is. Libertarians are a branch-off from mainstream conservatism, but I humbly suggest it's fair to say he's to the right of John McCain but to the left of Kit Bond.

Isn't "conservative liberal" an oxymoron, like "hawkish dove," or "big-government fiscal conservative," or "pro-life abortionist?"

JoeChalupa

01-13-2005, 12:46 PM

Well, I have some liberal views but I'm also not a left-wing whacko either.
Like this not being able to pray at the Alamo. WTF is up with that!?

I don't think we need to go and remove any religious symbols from federal buildings or anything like that but I also don't agree with a judge dropping a ton of rock to display the ten commandments is necessary either.

Maybe I'm a liberarian and don't know it?

I just don't consider myself one label or another. If I'm pro-choice does that mean I can't be a conservative republican like Arnold or Rudy?

Extra Stout

01-13-2005, 12:56 PM

Well, I have some liberal views but I'm also not a left-wing whacko either.The word for that is "moderate."

If I'm pro-choice does that mean I can't be a conservative republican like Arnold or Rudy?Those guys are moderate Republicans.

There is more than one kind of conservatism.

Fiscal conservatism promotes a smaller government with lower spending and lower taxes.

Economic conservatism promotes less government involvement in business practices and the national economy.

Social conservatism involves government promotion of traditional social values.

Foreign policy conservatism covers a wide range from Buchananite isolationism to Kristolite interventionist neo-conservatism.

And even I am oversimplifying.

bigzak25

01-13-2005, 01:31 PM

dan, you have no business starting credibility threads....

Hook Dem

01-13-2005, 01:38 PM

Extra Stout

01-13-2005, 02:05 PM

I consider myself as a moderate Republican but often get labled a neocon because those far left individuals love to label anyone being a Republican as a neocon. In my mind Ted Kennedy is a far left liberal and Joe lieberman is a moderate liberal.I think we have about three-fourths of the country where political debate occurs within a general consensus about what America is and what it is supposed to stand for. Disagreements are about ideological differences stemming from agreed-upon American values, and upon particular issues. However, some of the most strident people are those extremists who deep down don't like America very much, and want the country to be fundamentally different.

On the left, that is the extreme leftists who don't like that America is capitalist, that it is at least nominally Christian, that it does not follow Europe's cultural example, and most of all that it is very powerful. They want a Marxist, rigidly secular, weakened America that follows Europe's lead, and detest the American people because most of us reject that.

On the right, that is the hyper-fundamentalists who don't like that America doesn't mandate fundamentalist Christianity, that their churches cannot dictate policy, that America has any secular culture at all, and that it does not go out and either kill the heathens in other countries or force them to convert. They want a Dominionist, rigidly theocratic, conquering America that follows Biblical law as interpreted by the fundamentalists, and detest the American people because most of us reject their religious views.

The most liberal member of the Senate does not fall under my definition of "extreme leftist," nor does its rightmost member qualify as "extreme rightist."

But in terms of political rhetoric, those are the groups that have us all screaming at each other. And the Democrats are hurt more by their extremists because they feel like they have to kiss their asses more for whatever reason.