CBS Anchor's Links to Green Group Criticized

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 7/23/02 | Marc Morano

[Mrs. P]

The objectivity of CBS News anchor Charles Osgood

Objectivity? I didn't know he had any. Must have missed it.

[pepsi_junkie]

"I think we all have tried to be cooperative and helpful with people doing good work and I think very seldom does that compromise you," said Osgood, who has won several Peabody Awards for his broadcasts.

"If you fail to do anything good because somebody might disapprove, I think that would be very inhibiting indeed," he added.

Why is it that news people who got into it because they want to "do good" to change the world into a better place ... in accordance with their leftist world view that is ... and who even act basically as advocates for causes that further that agenda can possibly say with a straight face that they are totally unbiased? Answer: because they beleive it! They beleive no matter how left they go that they are in the mainstream and everyone else (i.e. anyone to the right of Lenin) is a right wing kook.

[Fintan]

Weinstein defended the TNC's partnerships with the federal government, stating "we protect the land we acquire ... we can do it better in partnerships of all kinds."

Kind of the same mindset Castro had when he took over Cuba.

[OldFriend]

Sounds a lot like clinton justifying tax increases because he can do better things with our money than we can.

[brityank]

Osgood said he had no idea that anyone opposed the TNC's methods of securing land and water for natural preservation.

"I was not aware that there was anything controversial about that ... I didn't even realize that anybody was against that," he said.

The arrogance of wilful blindness.

PING

[Humidston]

Charles Osgood? Who's that?

Another good reason I never watch socialistic/alphabetic TV.

[hgro]

These environmental groups leaders are a case of trying to "Do Good" and end up doing very well.

[dep]

there are lots of people at cbs who are leftist pushers of an agenda, but charlie osgood is not one of them. i sat within 10 feet of him every day for years when i was at cbs; i've on several occasions discussed issues with him; i've been to his home; and he is simply *not* a liberal, raging or otherwise. if he were, i would have noticed, as i did in the case of numerous others there. this piece, while perhaps factually accurate, is contextually way off kilter. this is not like dan rather speaking at democrat fundraisers.

dep

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"For a reporter, that is deliberate ignorance,"

Guys, There is an epidemic of this "deliberate ignorance" among journalists and "reporters" in their deliberate efforts to keep the general public unaware and ignorant of "good" things that are the destruction of freedom for future generations. IMHO, such people should be called "ignore-ants". KT, Thanks for the post. Peace and love, George.

[Pharmboy]

"For a reporter, that is deliberate ignorance,"

My favorite was Dan Rather: "That was a demorat fundraiser I spoke at? You're kidding, right?

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"leftist pushers of an agenda"

D, Totalitarian government control, of property and rights, knows no "left", OR "right". It is a truly "bipartisan" thing. Just check the voting records in Congress on the land grab issues. Peace and love, George.

[mgc1122]

Memo to lefties - Another journo caught circle jerking with watermelons .. set spin to MAXIMUM. LOL!

[Fintan]

Sounds a lot like clinton justifying tax increases because he can do better things with our money than we can.

Yep. Same difference, eh?

[2Trievers]

It's hard to take any of these buffoons seriously. &;-)

[Ben Ficklin]

The media's job is to manufacture consent.

[IncPen]

I'm all for nailing media bias, but as environmentalist-wacko groups go, this one is pretty tame.

They raise money privately and then buy and preserve land. It's something most FReepers would probably endorse.

Check out The Nature Conservancy.

[HairOfTheDog]

My two cents:

The Nature Conservancy is exactly the type of environmental organization that conservatives should support.

This is not the kind of group that tells people what to do with their land without any investment in it... if they want to preserve a piece of land, they buy it with their own private donated funds. This is exactly what we should want environmental groups to do.

Sometimes they negotiate willing conservation easements with landowners without having to buy it, but in general, they purchase it.

I happen to think this it is a great concept. A group like them bought up all the property surrounding a small estuary near here, lot by lot, with their own money. I seriously considered donating money to it. I didn't because I didn't end up finding extra money, and the opportunity passed.

I believe there are a lot of lands that are worthy of being protected from development, and I also believe in private property rights... this concept is a perfect way to resolve the conflict between the two, and conservatives should not be so knee jerk anti-environmentalist that they pee on any attempt to preserve the natural environment. We always complain about landowners being told what to do by outside forces without being compensated for their loss of usable land. This group is an example of people putting their money where their mouth is.

As for Osgood supporting it, I don't see how that isn't in his rights. Who cares? Lots of people donate time and money to causes, some of them are journalists.

[HairOfTheDog]

Ahhh thanks... you posted while I was composing my thoughts above.