I disagree. I said before on several posts that Michael Schiavo and his crowd gave their side of the story to the media. What I said was the the Terri Schiavo supporters who are now decrying the media coverage were the very ones who brought them into the fray. It wasn't Michael.
Public sentiment. "Aw, the poor guy. He has been taking care of his wife all these years and now he just wants to honor her wishes." Seems he garnered a lot of that, so he had plenty to gain.
Doesn't make any sense. Yes, after the Terri crowd brought in the media and created a circus atmosphere and making Michael out to be Hitler personified, of course he wanted media coverage to tell his side of it. But before that, he had absolutely nothing to be gained by the media. The Terri crowd had everything to gain.
Again with my 'side'. LOL So I point out that the liberal media did their usual thing, and you are talking about my 'side'. So I take it your 'side' thinks the liberal media is wonderful and you believe every word they say.
I refer to "your side" as the Terri supporter side, since you have argued with me about every single thing I have said here. I told you that the Terri supporters got more coverage than did the Michael S supporters. I said that the coverage seemed accurate at it reflected what the Terri supporters were actually doing. You ignore all that and simply say the liberal media did their usual thing. Perhaps you could explain what that means. Do you have some specifics? As for "my side", I was on the side of the rule of law, not the rule of mobs. Does that make my a patsy for the liberal media? If so, color most conservatives patsies.
Okay, but in your post, you seemed to be indicating that I was part of some 'side' other than the 'pro-Terry' side, and I knew you were not implying that I was on Michael's side.
Doesn't make any sense.
Of course it does. Arousing public sentiment was exactly what he tried to do, and as we all know, he succeeded with a great number of folks.
But before that, he had absolutely nothing to be gained by the media.
That's true. He was wanted to quietly have his wife starved to death. I never claimed he actively went after the media. I only claimed that he used the media to his benefit.
The Terri crowd had everything to gain.
The only thing they were trying to 'gain' was saving Terry's life. But of course, the media wanted to present them as a bunch of kooks, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
I refer to "your side" as the Terri supporter side
In the post where you brought up sides, you implied that mine was a different 'side' from the Terry supporters (see your post #69). Seems as though you make a misstatement in that post and have now clarified what you were trying to say.
I told you that the Terri supporters got more coverage than did the Michael S supporters.
Your original claim was that they used the media, they brought the media in. My counter claim was that that no one had to 'bring them in.' The media chose to make that their 'issue of the week' (and they showed they had a political agenda to promote, but that's no surprise).
I said that the coverage seemed accurate at it reflected what the Terri supporters were actually doing.
And I said that you seem to place your faith in the media to tell the whole story to you, and that you buy what they say hook, line and sinker.
You ignore all that
LOL I didn't ignore anything. You just didn't like my responses.
Perhaps you could explain what that means.
You don't know what 'the liberal media did their usual thing' means? Good heavens, everyone on FR knows that the liberal media promotes their own political agenda in every way possible. How could you be a member of FR and not know that? Well, let me help you. The media promotes their own political agenda by hiding some facts while revealing others and, at times, simply making things up. Some members of the media have been fired when they got caught by conservatives doing such things. Maybe you forgot about that.
I was on the side of the rule of law, not the rule of mobs.
Given the evidence presented, there was no clear cut proof that Terry wanted to be killed. So the claim that you were on the side of the 'rule of law' is shaky at best. Sure, the judge agreed with your view, but as everyone on FR knows, judges often use their positions to promote their political agendas as well. (And if you'd read previous Terry threads, you know this particular judge was involved in so called 'right to die' organizations. From a legal ethics position, he should have recused himself from the case.)