The Today Show's One-Sided Review of W's Speech on Corporate Accountability

The Today Show

[governsleastgovernsbest]

To discuss President Bush's speech on corporate accountability, Katie's only guest was Arthur Levitt, Clinton's former SEC Chairman. And, surprise, surprise!, Levitt didn't think that Pres. Bush had gone far enough in proposing reforms. No one was invited from the Bush administration or from the securities or accounting industry to suggest that W had hit the right note.

Katie tried to egg Levitt on, suggesting that having Bush appointee Harvey Pitt as SEC Chairman was "like having the fox guarding the henhouse." Levitt didn't rise to the bait, flatly stating that Pitt was highly qualified.

Katie was clearly crestfallen, as she haltingly asked: "in other words he has your full support?"

More fair and balanced reporting from NBC.

[ContentiousObjector]

Levitt is right, he hasn't gone far enough.

Double the prison for corporate fraud, 0x2=0

They should be charged with economic plunder and locked away till they start to decompose.

No one in Washington has the balls to take on corporate corruption, we have nothing more here than a feel good tough speech that will have zero follow-up

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Your view was aggressively asserted by Levitt. But wouldn't it have been fair to have someone with a contrasting point of view?

[ContentiousObjector]

what is the contrasting point of view?
Corporate Fraud is the American Way?

We are dealing with absolutes here, there is no middle ground, corporate fraud destroys the lives of the average american. There is a differance between the risk that comes with investing in the stock market and losing your investment because of fraud.

The policy has to be is, if you defraud the American people of billions of dollars, you are never going to get out of prison.

If Bush was serious, the first thing he would do is fire the terminally useless Harvey Pitt from the SEC, that guy couldn't be less competant if he tried.

[E.G.C.]

So in other words, your viewpoints are neutral and any other viewpoints should not be allowed into the discussion?

Sorry, buddy but that kind of nonsense ain't gonna fly here on Free Republic.

[ctonious]

Katie was clearly crestfallen, as she haltingly asked: "in other words he has your full support?"

Even Hitler knew Eva was a dumb slut, and not to be trusted with Goebbels' job.

[ContentiousObjector]

What is the other viewpoint?

If they were talking about a murder, would you want them to bring someone up to defend the virtues of being a murderer?

[E.G.C.]

Now that's a stupid, idiotic, convuluded and short-sighted thing to say.

What you had best get into your thick skull is that your viewpoints are not neutral. Crime and business deals are two different things.

And while we're on the subject, I'd like for you and Katie to explain to all of us here on Free Republic about your buddy, Mrs X42 and her insider trading scam which netted her over $100,00 grand in cattle futures.

And then come over here and expect us to believe that the Clintons are as pure as the wind driven snow while the Republicans are criminals and anything they get is ill-gotten. Do you really expect us to believe that this kind of nonsense is going to fly here with the American public? Well, I have news for you. It ain't flying with the American public. There's a general consensus that a lot of these scandals have Bill and Hillary written all over them.

You need to rethink your stragedy about addressing this issue because it's just isn't flying with the American public and it sure isn't flying here at Free Republic.
Regards.

[klgator]

Somebody was watching?

[Dixie republican]

In many states, fraud isn't even a crime. Fraud has almost always been a civil action.

[ContentiousObjector]

What the hell are you talking about?

fraudulent business deals are criminal, and giving a tough speech without any meaningful potential for followup doesn't cut it with me, or the American people, There is a crisis of confidance in the American market, something serious has to be done about it.

The clintons being bastards doesn't give the Republicans a free pass on being incompetant. I don't think the Clintons are pure as snow, when have I ever defended the Clintons?

Lock them up too.

[E.G.C.]

Well, I've been reading some of your postings and in one of them, It says "I have less faith in juries than I do in the Clintons."

I know since I've been here we've seen some people defend the Clintons and try to explain away some of their mistakes. My beef is not so much with people addressing these things so much as it is people who are coming on to message boards and defending the idiots like Katie Couric and Dan Blabber and others and saying that those news outlets are fair and balanced. You know as well as I do they are not.

And then to go and add the murder analogy into this and place into the same category is absolutely stupid, idiotic and foolish. These news organizations ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE!!!!!! If they were, they'd be proving Bill and Hillary and their actions tooinstead of cozying up to them. I've been researching media bias for the last several years and the evidence of media bias is hard and very clear.

Surely, people like you would recognize that and would have a very different perception. The news and information consumers of this country are being done a tremendous disservice by NBC and the other established media organizations.

You should at least give some consderation to these things before you start carrying around this idea that your viewpoint is the only accptable one and any others are not acceptable and should not be allowed. his kind of attitude is unaccptable and is why people like myself do not watch NBC or any of the other establised news media outlets.
Regards

[smiley]

We've not watched this Today show since getting Fox News a couple of years ago...and our life has been much more sane! (Not to mention that we could never stand Katie).

[ContentiousObjector]

my comment on juries comes from my experiance serving on a jury, juries don't work in any trial more complicated than petty shoplifting. But that is another discussion. I have no confidance in the Clintons.

The media might not be friendly to conservatives, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The consequences of corporate fraud have to be so massive that no one would consiter doing, if a billionare knows he can lose EVERYTHING and spend the rest of his natural life in prison. What are the consequences of corporate fraud?

A slap on the wrist from the SEC and a share holder lawsuit that tort reform has made a moot threat.

Defrauding the American people of billions of dollars has no consequences, and the Bush plan is just more of the same.

oooh, depriving multi-billionares of their pay cheque and kicking them off the board of directors of publically traded companies. More time on the golf course and a tax write off, now that is going to bring them to their knees.

The probability of the Enron, Global Crossing and Worldcom executives seeing the inside of a court house let alone a jail cell.

If you know you can defraud the American people of billions and billions and billions of dollars and not face any material consequnces what is to stop the Ken Lays of the world from stealing from the American people?

[E.G.C.]

Well, your point is well taken. My impression of other posters here and at all the other starting web sites comes from reading other postings.

The only beef I have is when someone, conservative, liberal or otherwise comes up to a message board and says "what other viewpoint is there." the job of a news organization is to present both sides of an issue. NOT to be so one-sided in their ocverage of things.

It's quite obvious that Katie Couric and the Today Show does not know to how to cover issues in a fair and balanced manner.

As for this Bush issue, I just don't see this thing sticking quite frankly because after he sold it off the sotck went back up to twice the value it had when he held it so any ideas of improperities is really just not there.
Regards.

[TBall]

It will be interesting to see how many days the Today Show will lead off with the beating video. Man its hot out there today.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Yes, they were at it again today. Probably won't be happy till there's a riot, or at least until Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get to lead a big No Justice No Peace March.

[CedarDave]

Katie's wasn't the first network show to blast the speech. The alphabet network had non-other than Keating Five John McCain on Nightline, taking every opportunity to criticize the President. And the lead in was totally one sided -- talking about the how the President sold the stock before it tanked (no mention of how it recovered later) and showed a clip of Tiny Tom calling for total disclosure by Bush of all documents (How's your wife's portfolio doing, Tom?). I imagine the media watchdog folks will have fun analyzing the RAT-dominated networks' treatment of this story.

(BTW, the left side of McCains face, which was mostly kept hidden by the camera angle, was the size of a grapefruit. Has the cancer come back??)

[ContentiousObjector]

This lax policy might not cause Bush any direct trouble, but a depressed market caused by a complete lack of faith in the American market sure as hell would.

Enron and Worldcom are not unique, there are lots more to come

[E.G.C.]

I gues we'll just have to wait and see what happens with that.
Regards