Posted on 10/04/2004 6:21:08 AM PDT by jamfull
Tom Brokaw Calls for Political Jihad Against Infidel Bloggers
NBC's Tom Brokaw has called for "a kind of political jihad" against infidel bloggers and critics of CBS' Dan Rather.
Brokaw said the infidel bloggers had no right to assail Mr. Rather. Brokaw quipped "Dan, like me, is one of the top three prophets of the Main Stream Media. How dare they question Dan's credibility even if the memos were forgeries or Dan tried to sway a Presidential Election".
Brokaw then hinted if the bloggers didn't show more respect and subservience to the Main Stream Media's all knowing news reports, the big three prophets would consider issuing a "political fatwa".
Brokaw's political fatwa would consist of calling the infidels bad names such as "partisan pajama pansies" and "bloggers with big boogers".
www.fiberalmedia.com
This MUST be a joke?
Is this for real?
Bring It On Brokaw and Shove It!!!!!
It's satire people, goofing on some underlying truths.
Well, if that's true, then Bush should have no problem winning Florida this year.
I talked to a numbr of top conservative journalists following the debacle of 2000 and asked them about the effect of the early call. One told me that his organization looked for evidence that the early call cost Bush dearly. He said they found no evidence. This was the general consensus of those I spoke with.
Bill Gertz's anecdotal evidence in his book "At any cost" doesn't prove a thing, either. It borders on the sensational if you ask me, and yes, I like Bill Gertz....alot.
I'm just spoofing too....sort of...maybe...could be...
Are we to consider this a threat?
Threat? Only if I'm a blogger in pj's with big boogers :)
Browkaw is just another media elitist without a clue. Guys like this have been marginalized by the internet an simply refuse to face reality.
Go away Brokaw, Rather... we don't need you anymore!
Red
The only people who listen to the news anchors are those who have no computer access.
I don't think Brokaw, Jennings or Rather realize that no one is listening to them any longer. They're just 'background noise' anyway.
By the time the 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock news comes on, most people already know what's going on because they've checked their computer news urls.
The days of Edward R. Morrow are fading away.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
FUNNY! But not as funny as GWB leaving our Southern Border unprotected. That is a real joke, on US
PLEASE put an Adolph Hitler mustache on Rather in this pix. His hairline and megalomaniac "look" are screaming for it! (I don't have such capabilities!)
One? And his methodology was? It would seem me self-evident, as it should to any thinking person, that the call cost Bush at least SOME votes, and even if it was a few hundred rather than tens of thousands, that was a serious matter in such a close election . . . indeed, in any election. Keep in mind that NBC worked in concert with the Clinton-esque "Voter News Service," now defunct, and went by its bogus numbers in making the call. There was considerable discussion at the time of an orchestrated effort to steal Florida. Given what CBS tried this past month, I am not someone who will EVER give the "mainstream" media the benefit of the doubt.
The thing is, as bad as the early call was, it is not certain that Bush lost a net ammount of votes from the early call.
What you have is circumstantial evidence and a few anecdotes from people who felt it was pointless to bother to vote after the early call. Note that the key word is "evidence". It's knida like Starr's replacement for Whitewter who said he didn't have enough evidence on Hillary that would lead to a conviction. He didn't, however, say he didn't think she was guilty.
Indeed, it isn't difficult to imagine that it had an effect, and no one is denying that it probably did. But is there real evidence that it mattered? No. Simply an educated guess.
He's supposedly leaving Dec 1st.
Brian SunStroke Williams slated to take his place.
Besides, if "anecdotal evidence" means so much as ten people saying that they did not vote because of it (and I saw at least ten such interviews at the time), then that is sufficient. The "probablity" remains that there were far more than ten. Far more.
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.