Posted on 09/07/2003 6:43:42 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
Immediately after the President's speech on Iraq, ABC radio went to its damage control and counterattack segment(under the guise of analysis). First up was a foreign policy 'expert', which they loudly trumpeted as working for the Reagan, Bush, and (suddenly mumbled) Clinton administrations, implying that he was oh so impartial. He immediately began to attack Bush's credibility, focusing on how there was no connection between Al Queada and Iraq. Said Bush wants badly to imply such a connection, while being careful not to actual state any proof, since "clearly there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda." I guess this supposed 'expert' had never heard of Salman Pak, never heard of the top Al Quaeda leader travelling to Iraq both before AND after 9/11, never heard of the Al Quaeda members captured in the north mountains of Iraq(Kurd territory) even while the war was taking place? Even leaving out the disputed meeting with Atta in Prague(which the Czech and other intelligence agencies stand by) how can one state that there is 'clearly' no connection if one has even halfway followed the Iraq situation the last 2 years? Either he is an ignorant buffoon(which is near impossible, given how long he served) or a flat out liar smearing Bush for political gain. Same goes for ABC news, which, and this does seem pretty clear, seems to have chosen this expert because he could be counted on to criticize Bush.
Next came Howard Dean. He rattled off the expected baloney. No problem there, good journalism would present the other side of the political argument. Except that their preceding guest had already presented that, under the false pretense of an objective analyst.
Then came former Clinton staff member George Stephanopolous. More baloney, and clearly piling on. This was a planned ambush by ABC radio from the get go. At this point I am practically screaming at all the lies streaming from the radio, so they turned it off before I ran us off the road! But it was almost the top of the hour, and I am nearly certain that there was no other guest brought on to present the GOP side. So Bush, then 3 liberals, and no rebuttal of the liberal lies. Nice job ABC, as usual.
And they will get away with it. What can one do? E-mail's will do nothing, it would be no different than e-mailing Hillary's office. There has been a clear agenda at ABC news for several years, no other network(not even CNN) comes close to their increasing level of bias and slant. Boycott would be nice(considering how ABC entertainment has publicly proclaimed for several years that they were trying to 'push the envelope', what they have done to Disney, and the questionable ethics/morals/innuendo that they have even infected the ABC Family Channel with), but it would never work, being too hard to formulate a simple grassroots message explaining the need for such.
But there is comfort knowing that if not in this life, they will get what is coming afterwards. Sorry, some may disagree, but I think some of the worst elements of the media do have real negative impacts, does influence major policy and political decisions, decisions that do produce major and long-lasting damage. How many lives were lost because a Clinton failed to act, while a George H.W.Bush or Dole might have changed the course of history? The myth of the 'worst economy of the last 50 years' did influence enough persons for a while to change history, and change it for the worse. There are blood on the hands of the accomplices. My thread title is somewhat in humor, yet I also believe it to be quite true for some people who advance evil.
Yep.
Good advice.
CNN was practically foaming at the mouth after the speech as well.
Losers.
I'm not sure about that. After a lot of searching, I found the ABC Radio feedback e-mail on their website and sent them a nasty gram about ten days ago explaining the difference between news reporting and editorializing. I referenced their "reporting" of deaths in Iraq coupled with a snide remark about Bush saying the heavy fighting was over, "more have died since", etc., etc. Every hour, for months, I listened to that drivel BUT I haven't heard it since.
I don't need somenody to tell me what I just heard or what was meant. If you need that, ABC needs to send somebody to your house to help you with your shoelaces.
I once called the radio station about something ABC was lying about that the local reader would repeat at the half-hour news- and that was stopped instantly (I don't remember what the issue was). The ABC report kept repeating the lie but the local reader would say just the opposite!
Complain to the local station, maybe they'll find another feed.
But I think Clearchannel has a super-cheap deal with Abc news.
I usually laugh, since the ABC station I listen to is 770 in NYC. They have wall to wall conservative shows on the air that have often already refuted some of the more outrageous stuff on the top and bottom of the hour news. ;-)
First up was a foreign policy 'expert', which they loudly trumpeted as working for the Reagan, Bush, and (suddenly mumbled) Clinton administrations, implying that he was oh so impartial.
The real problem is the dumbed down American public that will buy that. If people were properly educated and maybe a little more cynical, they might question why a 'career' civil servant is now a pundit.
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.