Posted on 09/06/2004 6:34:37 AM PDT by mrustow
Bumpbackatcha!
It is biased, it is sloppy journalism and it is false...With an organization like AP or Reuters it is spread to many, many newspapers and carried over the internet...
It is very difficult to unring the bell..Using a headline like"Cheney Says Kerry Unfit" is false but the Washington Post did use it ...and were called on it by their omsbudsman...but the headline had gone out all over the net...
And you are resorting to personal attacks. I made no references to any conspiracy theories.
It is interesting to note, however, that they are becoming common among the left. Some examples: 1. Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing. 2. The war in Iraq is a conspiracy to reap profits for Halliburton.
You dont think purposefully sending lies as part of an AP story to all their subscribing news outlets isnt a conspiracy? Especially if your boss and all the rest of the MSM is in on it? I said you and all the others that believe this crap are conspiracy theorists just like the idiots that are always complaining about Halliburton or voicing that Bush knew crap. If you dont like being called a conspiracy theorist, then quit acting like one. You sound like Kerry when his Senate record is mentioned(another personal attack).
No. It only takes one person, the person who sent in the story, to lie. Their boss likes the story because it reinforces their opinion of the "extreme right". The rest of the MSM doesn't check it out because they are not critical of attacks on conservatives, which they see as justified. Why be critical of what you see as the larger truth?
This is not a conspiracy in the sense of what most people would see as a conspiracy because it doesn't take a conscious awareness of the "conspiracy", it doesn't take coordination and secret meetings and organizations.
All it takes is overwhelming dominance of the media by people who are fundamentally in step with a particular philosophical outlook. And that appears to be what was the case for several decades in what I now call the OldDominantLiberalMedia.
I would appreciate any thoughts on how this came to be.
bump
Dave S: No what I was attempting to say was this reporter had a bias for Kerry or against Bush or both and expected Bush voters to boo Clinton just as some freepers expect the MSM to constantly lie and mislead the public. If in fact he heard a few oohs or something similar or perhaps even one idiot nearby actually booing (say one out of a crowd of thousands) he could have mistakenly believed that much of the crowd was booing. That was not the case and he was obviously wrong. However, that doesnt mean that he invented the whole thing out of thin air. Through his liberal filter he may have thought one thing happened when in fact it didnt.
If he heard one boo out of a crowd of thousands, he could not possibly have believed that "much of the crowd was booing." That's not a matter of a "liberal filter," that's basic dishonesty, and means the reporter is in the wrong business. And yes, hearing one "boo" and claiming thousands booed is a case of inventing the whole thing out of thin air, since there's always going to be one knucklehead in a crowd of thousands. And after denying out of one side of your mouth that you are justifiyng socialist propaganda based on rightwing hysteria, you do just that -- again. The fact that some FReepers (and not that many, out of 100,000+, since most of the charges of media bias I read here are well-founded) are hysterical, is irrelevant, since they are not journalists or editors with the power to impose their hysteria. You're comparing apples with oranges, and saying they are both oranges.
What would be in it for him to purposefully lie? There were other press people there as well as TV cameras and most of all Karen Hughes. To purposefully lie would be to bring discredit upon himself and risk losing his Whitehouse credentials for the sole purpose of attempting to rescuitate the dying Kerry campaign. Liberals may be stupid and they may be arrogant but I dont buy it.
MarkTwain already gave a good response to you, but I'll add this. I don't have time, at the moment, to count all the hoaxes the press has already pulled, but here's a start: the hoax claiming that using touch-screen voting machines is a Republican conspiracy to rig the election through Diebold; Dick Clarke's lies about 911; Joe Wilson's lies about yellowcake, and claims that his wife was illegally outed and that she had nothing to do with his being sent to Niger; the New York Times' hoax claiming that white Florida state police detectives were trying to intimidate old blacks out of voting; and now, "Boosgate." None of those hoaxes has resulted in any "reporter" bringing "discredit upon himself" or losing his White House press pass.
You have a nihilistic lack of judgment, and sound like you are either very lazy about studying the matters about which you sound off, or a DU "sleeper."
1. To promote the end of the Bush Presidency.
2. To gain the appreciation of his boss, and the rest of the OldDominantLiberalMedia.
3. No reason to worry about getting caught, because things like this, that harm a Conservative, are done every day, and winked at. This would not have been caught ( and still has not been fully discredited) except for the internet.
The left is used to lying and getting away with it. They have done it for decades, which is why we are where we are today.
I'll bump to that!
You dont think purposefully sending lies as part of an AP story to all their subscribing news outlets isnt a conspiracy? Especially if your boss and all the rest of the MSM is in on it? I said you and all the others that believe this crap are conspiracy theorists just like the idiots that are always complaining about Halliburton or voicing that Bush knew crap. If you dont like being called a conspiracy theorist, then quit acting like one. You sound like Kerry when his Senate record is mentioned(another personal attack).
This hoax was not the work of a lone reporter. At least one editor and one technician was involved. The URL included the phrase "crowd boos." The whole point of the article was the one brief mention of the booing. All the rest was just window-dressing. The national editor had to okay it, and possibly the managing editor, as well; the technician who did the coding didn't come up with "crowd boos" on his own. That's at least three, and possibly four people.
Please see #130.
Bumpbackatcha!
AP-poplectic...
How many people were present? One, the reporter. The editor and the technician wouldnt know that no one booed unless the reporter or someone else told them so. I fail to see the conspiracy. Try again.
I love it!
American Pariahs.
As Tony would say, it's gr-r-r-reat!
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.
