Bush's reversals: AP and CNN publish outright attack on the President as straight news

AP via CNN ^ | March 30, 2004

[rogueleader]

President Bush's decision Tuesday to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify publicly before the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks reversed earlier White House insistence that she would only appear privately.

[rogueleader]

There is no perspective given from any conservative in the piece.

Yes, the article states all true facts, but they are all taken deliberately out of context to shade the truth. For one thing, these are all extremely minor changes from GWB's positions. They are not "reversals." GWB has been one of the most consistent presidents in living memory.

This is not just biased. This is an overt attack, tantamount to a declaration of jounralistic war.

[facedown]

This is an overt attack, tantamount to a declaration of jounralistic war.

War was declared in the Reagan years.

[Williams]

Oh Fooey them. CNN in particular has very little firepower to bring to any "journalistic war."

[A CA Guy]

Gearge got some things in writing he didn't have, so that is not a reversal, I agree.

[Williams]

Oh Fooey them. CNN in particular has very little firepower to bring to any "journalistic war."

[BigSkyFreeper]

Journalism begun to lose credibility the moment Cronkite lied about the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Another case in point of the liberal media misrepresenting the facts, as I write this post, on NewsNight with Aaron Brown, the banner at the bottom of screen on CNN reads "White House Flip Flop", John King reporting on Condi Rice's decision to testify publically.

[PokeyJoe]

And CNN wonders why they lost 40% of the news junkies to REAL journalistm.

[familyofman]

"There is no perspective given from any conservative in the piece. "

This phony cry of bias is really too much - when has anyone here ever complained that Rush or Sean don't give enough of a liberal voice on their shows. Bias is natural, live with it. Pick the sources who have the same bias & let others have theirs. The battle of ideas & ideals will be won - that you can take to the bank.

[jungleboy]

AP + CNN = DNC

[PokeyJoe]

The difference being that Rush and Sean don't claim some elevated crown of "unbiased" news reporting.

so, how long have you been a troll?

[blam]

'Nuff said:

CNN Loses More Than Half Of 1Q'03 Audience

[Howlin]

Awhile.

[jungleboy]

What do you mean phoney cry of bias????

You say pick your sources? How many citizens get the choice of conservative bias at EVERY NEWS RADIO HOUR and EVERY NETWORK NEWS HOUR and EVERY NEWSPAPER in America???

It wasn't until the late 80's when RUSH came on the scene of America's National Media and called the Liberals out! America is in it's conservative infancy. And we should call out the bias at every turn!

btw - In the end we'll be able to thank algore's invention of the internet for the Liberal media's demise.

[familyofman]

"What do you mean phoney cry of bias????"

The bias is well known, do we have to hear about it all the time? Ideas & ideals - that is what is important. Not constantly crying over someone else's bias. Facts and ideas are the way to go. You can disprove a report more effectively by leaving out the 'cry' of bias which only leads to people turning you off because they know you're biased as well. At least, try to see that there are those biased on our side as well (you don't have to complain about them though).

Look at it from a strategic point of view. Taking the 'high ground' without proclaiming you've taken the 'high ground' will probably have more people paying attention to you - think of'fair & balanced'. That's the high road, not proclaiming everyone that disagrees with you 'the enemy'. Winning converts is easier when you use the carrot as opposed to the stick.

[plain talk]

I don't know. I think reporting these changes in position is fair. Bush has compromised on several of these issues under pressure in order to move on. So I have no problem with this piece. But there is indeed a big difference between reaching a compromised settlement than the opportunistic flip-flopping and pandering Kerry engages in. What's wrong is that the press does not do the same in reporting on Kerry's changes.

[Jorge]

This is one more weak attempt by the left to claim Bush is a flip-flopper just like Kerry.

There's a big difference between a negotiated political compromise under pressure,(all public servants do this) and flip-flopping political opportunism designed to appeal to changing audiences.

Liberals must think we're stupid.
They think we can't see the difference between Bush, a man of conviction and Kerry who is an unprincipled empty suit.

[Jorge]

Wow..great minds think alike. You beat me to it!

[KellyAdmirer]

The liberals are really just showing the effectiveness of the Bush team's attacks on Kerry when they pull stupid stunts like this. They tried this stuff in 2000, too, trying to compare Gore's wild exaggerations ("I discovered Love Canal" etc.) with Bush's more common ones.

Run, little liberals, run for your lives, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks for confirming that the characterization of Kerry as flip-flopper is drawing blood.

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt