Posted on 12/13/2001 2:05:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:36:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I'm no Brent Bozell or Bernard Goldberg, but I know undisclosed media bias when I see it.
After reading Newsweek's hit piece on Attorney General John Ashcroft, it occurred to me that the publication should consider changing its name to Opinionweek. Or is that name taken?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My brother lives in Liberty, MO, and he tells me that most people he knows are a little embarrassed about how they got emotionally caught up in the election a year ago and put what's-her-name in office.
Bump for an excellent piece by David Limbaugh.
I'll bet. What you've written here is a particularly nauseating example.
Can't someone question what Ashcroft is doing without having some hysterical statist screaming 'liberal!' at him?
By the way, even if there is bias in this piece, that would be completely acceptable, and not because I happen to agree with the author and you don't. The fact is, Limbaugh is a commentator, and his articles are opinion pieces. Newsweek's work was presented as objective news reporting.
Or fascist?
if you will. That will not necessarily even get you flamed here. But the author of the piece is not so much arguing with the substance of the piece he reviews as condemning the argumentative tone of the journalism involved. You see, people around here have the quaint notion that if you proclaim yourself an "objective journalist" then your political proclivities should not be visible in what you write.
It's an absurd notion, I agree, but one that is drummed into our heads by a lifetime's worth of propaganda--so much so that even I have to catch myself and mentally shift gears in order to clear my head of it. The truth is that you will learn more from someone who openly declares their frame of reference than from the hypocrite who claims to have none. David Limbaugh is a conservative and makes no other pretense; what he is really complaining of is not what is actually said (tho he strongly disagrees with it) but the subtext of it--the hypocritical presumption of objectivity underlying the (otherwise legitimate) hit piece.
Mr. Limbaugh is complaining of a magazine article, which is literally part of "the press" protected here (quite properly in my view) by the First Amendment. His complaint is likewise in print, and therefore is likewise unambiguously protected. Now if either the article Limbaugh complains of, or the Limbaugh response, were broadcast by government licensees there could be said to be a Constitutional problem which might be taken to court.
==========================================
I know undisclosed media bias when I see it.
Newsweek's hit piece,
It reads more like a brief written by Mr. Ashcroft's opponents.
the authors sneak in a quote
this is intended to conjure images of a Puritanical John Ashcroft
They don't just smear Mr. Ashcroft by association
This is a cheap shot
their conveniently anonymous sources
After knocking Mr. Ashcroft down they proceed to kick him
There are many other jabs at Mr. Ashcroft in the article
Godspeed, Mr. Ashcroft.
Limbaugh gave examples of similar expressions of opinion by Newsweek, but in a news reporting piece. That is improper bias.
Surely you don't want to take the opinion that Newsweek maintains objectivity and does not tilt towards one end of the political spectrum in their reporting. Do you?
An objective statement. You and I also know bias when we see it.
"Newsweek's hit piece, "
Characterization of an article by a commentator. That is, someone who is paid to write his opinions.
"It reads more like a brief written by Mr. Ashcroft's opponents."
Both factual and legitimate commentary.
"the authors sneak in a quote "
A delicious piece of commentary.
"this is intended to conjure images of a Puritanical John Ashcroft "
Factual presentation of context.
"They don't just smear Mr. Ashcroft by association "
Factual presentation of context.
"This is a cheap shot "
Factual presentation of context.
their conveniently anonymous sources"
Fact
"After knocking Mr. Ashcroft down they proceed to kick him "
Good writing and good commentary.
"There are many other jabs at Mr. Ashcroft in the article "
Fact
"Godspeed, Mr. Ashcroft."
Ditto.
I do disagree with Byron's analysis, but the flame was supposed to have some comedic value.
Come off it, Hugh. What assaults?
The facts are that for years the FBI and the CIA spent billions on all their fancy eavesdropping equipment, Carnivore, Echelon and the rest. And they were blindsided by a tiny bunch of terrorists operating on a shoe string budget. In any other comparable situation it would be, "where the hell where you guys?!?" But since 9/11 that question's barely been asked, due (IMO) to rampant fear in the US of appearing unpatriotic. 'Tell that to Mike Spann's wife, buddy!' And surprise, surprise, steadily building in the vacuum, has been the spin of 'we could have protected you. But we just didn't have enough money and resources.' And who dares question that, in the current climate? Me? Newsweek? Ashcroft?
So don't give me any of this 'Ashcroft under assault' stuff, my friend. From memory, 67% of Americans want more surveillance, more intelligence funding, more security checks, ID cards etc. My view is that an America with the Constitution in one hand and the Ten Commandments in the other can withstand any assault ; fascism, communism, Islamic militancy. Any real threat will always come from within. It is not good enough to say, 'Ashcroft and Bush are good men and can be trusted with these extra powers.' Because the powers will be there to be abused when both of them are dust.
....and I don't need to take posting advice from someone who watches way too much Python.
Cheers, B.
"News"week (and its main competitor Time), like most of the rest of our media, are populated by leftists who have adopted the standards of Pravda over genuine journalism.
Limbaugh was pointing out all the different complaints and assertions and smears which have been leveled at Ashcroft, particularly of the variety that says civil liberties have been trampled, and you think that is justified because of some budgetary spin that you don't agree with?
Not if the authors are demonstrably flaming pathetic liberals.
Remember the word News?
What where why and how?
Neutral descriptive words are one thing, this kind of juvenile verbal tantrum in disguise is another entirely.
It was the fault of the Clinton-era demagogues that our intelligence agencies became castrated, impotent bureaucracies more concerned with image than substance. My understanding is that the CIA agents spent more time in “sensitivity training” classes than gathering intelligence. Hardly the fault of Ashcroft.
Ashcroft has been going after people who by and large are foreign nationals, many of whom are here ILLEGALLY, and/or are suspected to be involved in ILLEGAL activities. It’s his DUTY to detain them, since many are BREAKING THE LAW. The problem here is that a political smear is being disguised as reporting the facts. Does the author cite one incident where Ashcroft actually abused his authority? I think not. Instead he tries to imply Ashcroft is a right wing zealot who couldn’t defeat a dead man in an election. The author is scared because with men like Ashcroft running the show, we might ACTAULLY WIN this war on terrorism. The political left in this country has been handed two major defeats in the past year that have at least delayed their plans to topple our Constitutional Republic. The first was losing the 2000 presidential election; the second was September 11th. And as a result they are very angry. I expect the smearing to only get worse.
Funny to hear criticism of our Attorney General, President, etc., coming from a country that has disarmed its populace, and like the rest of the United Kingdom, is running roughshod over civil liberties in an attempt to control spiraling crime. Seems like your problems are much worse than ours are. Better make sure your own house isn’t on fire before you go looking for smoke in ours.
How can crime possibly be spiralling when all the guns are now gone? You mean Britain and Australia aren't crime-free? I wonder what went wrong.
</sarcasm>
for years the FBI and the CIA spent billions on all their fancy eavesdropping equipment, Carnivore, Echelon and the rest. And they were blindsided by a tiny bunch of terrorists operating on a shoe string budget. In any other comparable situation it would be, "where the hell where you guys?!?" But since 9/11 that question's barely been asked, due (IMO) to rampant fear in the US of appearing unpatriotic. 'Tell that to Mike Spann's wife, buddy!' And surprise, surprise, steadily building in the vacuum, has been the spin of 'we could have protected you. But we just didn't have enough money and resources.' And who dares question that, in the current climate? Me? Newsweek? Ashcroft?We know all too well, of course, that the "guys" were for the past 8 years under the supervision of people who were only worried about "a vast right-wing conspiracy" to learn and publish the truth about them. And who pardoned unrepentant terrorists for partisan--indeed, personal--political gain.
an America with the Constitution in one hand and the Ten Commandments in the other can withstand any assault ; fascism, communism, Islamic militancy. Any real threat will always come from within. It is not good enough to say, 'Ashcroft and Bush are good men and can be trusted with these extra powers.' Because the powers will be there to be abused when both of them are dust.. . . but would an America which had the Ten Commandments in one hand elect and re-elect the previous administration? Sigh . . .
And indeed, given the precedents Ashcroft is setting it is entirely possible that some futuer administration will trample the rights--even the right to life--of a religious sect, or will get a fraudulent warrant from a friendly judge in the middle of the night and will kidnap and arbitrarily send out of the country a child whose mother died to get him here. </sarcasm>
I'm afraid the tyrants have show their claws already;
Beaver biscuits, Katana.
I've read tens of thousands of US news articles in my four years on FR, and there's barely a one that doesn't have some kind of spin. That's the way of modern 'reporting.'
Actually, we haven't 'disarmed our populace.' And we're not part of the United Kingdom.
But if these things were true, they would mean my opinions would carry more, not less, weight.
Actually, we haven't 'disarmed our populace.' And we're not part of the United Kingdom.
But if these things were true, they would mean my opinions would carry more, not less, weight.
Actually, we haven't 'disarmed our populace.' And we're not part of the United Kingdom.
But if these things were true, they would mean my opinions would carry more, not less, weight.
"Reading comprehension problems are commonly associated with the academic struggles of children and adolescents. However, thousands of adults struggle daily to support themselves and their families while dealing with comprehension difficulty. Adults can have comprehension problems that range from mild to severe."
http://www.understandmore.com/i-adults.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.