Bill Clinton Acknowledges Democrat Media Bias

Allies in truth.

 

As Talk Radio Wavers, Bush Moves to Firm Up Support

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president.


For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended.


The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past.


STORY LINK


It would appear that the right has it's own leaders/follwers also. And it would seem that the White House and Bush are pulling out all stops to try to get the right winger radio shows to help them win this election.

So, given the left has it's radio stations/talk shows and the right has their's what's the big deal?

 

Problem is, there are a limited number of stupid people in America. So appealing to talk radio hosts to help Bush out seems like a lost cause.

 

It wouldn't be Bushes first mistake...

Jamie

 

There is no difference. Each party has it's own set of people be it in the Media or else where that helps drive their party to election.

It's called "politics as usual" Everyone that knows anything about politics knows this. To try and point out that one side has a lock or more control of the media is crazy.

The republicans get banged for more stuff because they are in charge. Look back and see when the democrats were in charge you will see they got the hits.

The party in power will obviously draw more punches.

 

In this same article, Clinton also said:

"While the Foley and Allen episodes burned Republicans, Clinton said in an interview earlier this year that he thinks the proliferation of media outlets, as well as the breakdown of old restraints in both media and politics, on balance has favored Republicans."

 

You're said that Kerry believed that the media defeated him on the bogus statements of the "swift boat" Republicans. And then you go on to say that the Media supports Democrats. Non-sequitur.

 

The MSM basically ignored the Swift Boat Vets as long as they were able to, until Kerry came out with his counter-attack against them.

According to the Media Research Center, ABC, CBS, and NBC had done a total of 9 stories on the Swift Boat Vets before Kerry went ballistic on them. By comparison, the networks had done, up to that point, 75 stories on the allegation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.

After Kerry’s bombast, the Washington Post ran three opinion pieces and an editorial on the Swift Vets, and all the other papers followed suit. And in general, they all repeated Kerry’s charge that Bush was behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The media had no use for the actual vets who had served with Kerry.

It’s a shame the papers had to quit using that ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ story. It was such a good one.

 

All the ones, but one, who had actually served with him on his supported him as did the Republican he rescued.

The media reported the story but few commented on the veracity (or lack thereof).

 

Actually there are no alot less "stupid people" than there used to be. We no longer accept at face value that what the liberal establishment media chooses to tell us is the truth and the whole truth. Seldom do you find out and out lies now. But you still find bias in the amount of emphasis and time given to stories as well as what stories and details are "newsworthy".

"Stupid" are the people who actually believe the NYT, AP, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc news organizations aren't effected by the predominant personal bias within that "professions"- liberalism. The guy who wrote "Bias" hit it pretty close. There isn't a conspiracy but rather a paradigm... a shared worldview that inevitably colors what liberals in the media see as "newsworthy" and how they choose to report.

Want to check this? Please show me the last time an establishment media source wrote that government should be shrunk and should do less. Tell me the last time when liberal gov't action was pointed at as a contributor or exacerbator to a problem.

One commentator said that these journalists go through their education and careers thinking that their calling is to make a positive difference... not to simply report the truth. They see it as a necessary part of their mission to prompt someone, usually government, to "do something" about the "problems and injustices" they expose.

 

No. I don't think so. They simply share many ideals and a basic premise- the function of media and government is "to do good". They differ often as to what "good" is though not as drastically as they disagree with those of us who look to the Bible for standards and principles. However, they don't differ on the notion that gov't not only has a right but a responsibility to protect people from themselves even when it means restricting freedom... unless of course you are talking about the freedom of the liberal media or liberal elitists/politicians.

Liberals in America really only differ from the old Soviet communists by degrees, not by principle. Both hold that certain elite leaders are smart enough to run the lives of the rest of us, both want a monopoly on "free speech", both want to use the educations system for indoctrination, both want to suppress/ridicule religion out of the public forum, both want centralization, both want erosion/denial of private property rights, neither see one's earned or inherited wealth as personal and secure in nature but rather a "public" asset that can be legitimately confiscated for the "good of the people", both want to shape and control opinions, both refer to those who argue for individual rights and liberties as enemies of the common people, etc.

I picked up an old John R Rice book from the 70's that discussed the anti-biblical nature of communism and socialism. The similarities between the Democratic agenda and the planks of communism are striking.

 

Their ally, Dan Rather,'s truth didn't seem to help their guy get elected.

 

During an interview with the Boston Globe on July 4, 2001, ABC Anchorman Peter Jennings stated, "Those of us who went into journalism in the '50s or '60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do. Save the world. Conservative voices in the US have not been as present as they might have been and should have been in the media."

During an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on October 21, 2004, Peter Jennings stated that his father, Charles Jennings, used to say, "You try to be objective, but it's more important that you be fair." "Objectivity is hard. (As a journalist), you train yourself to put your biases over there on the side, but let's never pretend we don't have them."