Slashdot Mirror

It was discovered that he was using an alias to get past White House security.

Uh, no. He was using an alias, but White House security requires you to give your name, address and social security # to get press credentials and access to CIA documents. They do a background check.

No, this guy did not "get past" White House security. He was a ringer, a shill, for the White House. A go-to guy when questions get tough.

How long had Talon news existed when "Gannon" got his press credentials? I just heard (have not yet confirmed) it was less than a week. And Talon News (Metatag: "Talon News is your source for unbiased news coverage and no-spin reporting. If you want the facts without all the slant, Talon News is the place to go for political, national, and international news.") is affiliated with who?

GOPUSA. How many of their 'no-spin' news stories were rewrites of GOP press releases?

Never mind that they've been paying off reporters to promote their agenda. Does anyone remember reporters Karen Ryan or Alberto Garcia from last year?

We can't trust the science. We are not told the truth until it's too late. Now we can't trust the independent reporting of what we think is the media.

Our country is in some deep trouble.

It was discovered that he was using an alias to get past White House security.

Uh, no. He was using an alias, but White House security requires you to give your name, address and social security # to get press credentials and access to CIA documents. They do a background check.

No, this guy did not "get past" White House security. He was a ringer, a shill, for the White House. A go-to guy when questions get tough.

How long had Talon news existed when "Gannon" got his press credentials? I just heard (have not yet confirmed) it was less than a week. And Talon News (Metatag: "Talon News is your source for unbiased news coverage and no-spin reporting. If you want the facts without all the slant, Talon News is the place to go for political, national, and international news.") is affiliated with who?

GOPUSA. How many of their 'no-spin' news stories were rewrites of GOP press releases?

Never mind that they've been paying off reporters to promote their agenda. Does anyone remember reporters Karen Ryan or Alberto Garcia from last year?

We can't trust the science. We are not told the truth until it's too late. Now we can't trust the independent reporting of what we think is the media.

Our country is in some deep trouble.

Sean Hannity

Bill O'Reilly.

Here's one example: Bill O'Reilly said that Bush did not oppose the creation of the 9/11 comission, which he quite unambiguously did oppose. So, since Bill O'Reilly is "fundamentally a pusher of opinion" is this not a lie?

Sean Hannity

Bill O'Reilly.

Here's one example: Bill O'Reilly said that Bush did not oppose the creation of the 9/11 comission, which he quite unambiguously did oppose. So, since Bill O'Reilly is "fundamentally a pusher of opinion" is this not a lie?

Sean Hannity

Bill O'Reilly.

Here's one example: Bill O'Reilly said that Bush did not oppose the creation of the 9/11 comission, which he quite unambiguously did oppose. So, since Bill O'Reilly is "fundamentally a pusher of opinion" is this not a lie?

http://mediamatters.org/ is a good place to start if you are interested in just how twisted our "unbiased" media has become.

This sounds a lot like one of those cases where it's strictly true but totally (and maybe intentionally) misleading. Like, if they were arrested while they were throwing rocks at lawyers' cars and making lawyer jokes, they could say they were "arrested while making lawyer jokes" and not technically be lying.

For instance, we've all heard of the case where the woman was burned by coffee that was "too hot" (so that she got third degree burns and needed extensive skin grafts) and won $XX million dollars in the subsequent suit (which was greatly reduced in later phases because it was much too high). So, you see, it's too easy to sue people, because you can win a big suit just because your coffee was "too hot"...

Another recent example was that a teacher in California was barred from distributing (Christian proselytization material along with) the Declaration of Independence (with references to God and religion underlined). So, you can say that "the school banned the Declaration of Independence." Those awful liberals are attacking our way of life!

Not that I really know if this is the case, but it would be pretty ironic if these guys were using lawyer-like word trickery to bash lawyers for their disingenuousness...

Biased, huh? What about this entry? It has a section on the alleged bias of the NYTimes as well as information regarding recent scandals at the paper.

So now I would ask you: in which direction is wikipedia biased?

This is exactly why I often find allegations of widespread bias in a given institution so lacking. For any given publication, I can generally find articles which are biased both to the left and to the right. For example, the Chicago Tribune is generally considered a conservative paper. However, last week, they ran a story on the Ohio presidential recount and declared in their headline "Ohio Recount Ends, Shows Vote Closer." This, after the recount turned up a few hundred less votes for Bush than for Kerry out of a 100,000+ vote difference. Many would consider this an instance of bias towards the Kerry campaign. Even so, taking the paper's historically conservative slant, I would never say the Tribune is biased to the left.

Now take a look at organizations such as the Media Research Center or Media Matters. Both of these organizations purport to be the exposers of media bias, the former of the media's left-wing bias, the latter of its right-wing bias. But, to me, what they really do is to cherry-pick articles which exemplify their point. The MRC hones in on any instance of left-wing bias they can find and MM hones in on any instance of right-wing bias they find. But neither organization is in any way objective as they never--NOT ONCE--expose an example of bias which goes against their pre-conceived notion of bias.

In other words, both organizations start out saying: "we know the media is biased, and we are going to prove it." Rather, shouldn't they be asking a question? Specifically, should they be asking, "IS the media biased?"

Anyone "prove" something by sorting through a bunch of information and pulling only the bits of information which support their pre-conceived theories. But that "proof" should never be considered valid. Where is the objective research? Where are the principles of the scientific method?

Taft

*shrug* I Could of listed off all the countries as well, but it would seem like I was trying scoreboard by who went to the most countries. I can only assume when you mean living you never actually bothered to check into more about the country you were living in.

Full of shit? Hardly. UK for example, Stories about the royal family (eg. Charles gay incident) and Blair (eg. childs suicide bid) are routinely censored despite the tabloid nature of the press there.

Ireland censors stories too. For example electronic voting was cancelled in Ireland because it couldn't be proven to be reliable. What wasn't reported about (but mentioned in a dail hearing) was that the company that won the contract to supply the machines was an ex member of the current party in government who won the contract which was millions over expected cost, not the cheapest quote and the company only existed a few months after it was announced they were going to use the machines.

". The USA has the free-est press in the world, full stop."

Any press reporter asking the president a question he doesn't like and they won't be invited back or allowed ask a question again.

In some cases it even gets petty like Bush being interviewed by RTE who went on to tell RTE they would never be allowed interview Bush or anyone again because he was asked a question he couldn't answer.

"I repeat: PRISON."

I REPEAT *DIFFERENT WAYS*.

Just because you don't get thrown into prison doesn't mean you can't be screwed over in the US for reporting something that the administration or media don't want you to. The same applies for other countries as well.

The US is the only country I know where a News Channel can sue for the right to lie and win.

"literally millions of alternatives out there and at the end of the day you're welcome to start your own blog and report what you will."

Having alternatives doesn't mean that your press is free. Generally the alternatives you speak about are outside of the country in question. As for blogs, they are hardly media outlets. Certainly a place to start researching a story for yourself but I wouldn't put them that far above say Fox as reliable sources of information.

Both of the aforementioned men are in the Navy, and our guest knew someone on the Lincoln that day. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was actually meant for the crew members of the ship - they had just finished their nine month stint away from home, and had "accomplished" their mission. It wasn't meant for Bush's visit.

Sorry, but this is one of those after-the-fact rationalizations that people have invented to justify the banner once it became clear just how ridiculous it was.

How so, you ask? Well, if it was a banner meant for the ship's crew, to celebrate the completion of their mission, why did the White House make up the banner and bring it to the ship? Not the sort of thing you would expect if it was just something the Navy does as a matter of course at the end of a long voyage.

The President and his people are saying that the banner was the "Navy's idea" so they don't have to take responsibility for their gaffe. But then blaming the troops for the Commander in Chief's screw-ups is something the GOP is getting pretty comfortable doing these days.

Go here and you can see the states getting called by each of the networks as it happens. It's been my favorite site to follow tonight...

We're running a real-time tally as each network (broadcast and cable) calls states for Bush/Kerry, and will update all night at:

http://mediamatters.org/election/

Disclosure: progressive/liberal org, but this is straight up facts with no analysis or room for editorializing.

NBC never said that the weapons were not there. They are making sure trolls like you know this now - go check it out. The 101st and 3ID never had a mission to search for the weapons - they just used that place as an assembly area before moving on.

You wish Kerry's October surprise just blew up in his face, the only problem is that your assumptions against him are wrong!

When they finally did get a chance to look for the explosives there, they were gone. Read this to see how W's FUD machine is trying to spin the blame from W to anyone else...

OMG are you seriously suggesting Fox news as a reliable news source? It is like the American version of Pravda.

You can read more about how Fox is more "Entertainment" rather then "news" channel at Mediamatters.org.

BBC offers a much balanced review, even biting the hands that feed them. Something that Fox doesn't do.

the CBC is far worse. It's basically anti-America TV

Mr A. C. is right! Canadians are a bunch of socialists, with their medicine and gun control! Me and A.C. know this, because Bill O'Reilly told us so, and he's from the only truly objective, balanced news channel, Fox News.

O'Reilly pointed out that because of their socialist ways, Canada is teetering at the brink of bankruptcy. O'Reilly even said he might declare a boycott of Canada, which would ruin their economy, just like his French boycott did to France.

Sorry - I accidentally posted this as an A.C. above.

the CBC is far worse. It's basically anti-America TV

Mr A. C. is right! Canadians are a bunch of socialists, with their medicine and gun control! Me and A.C. know this, because Bill O'Reilly told us so, and he's from the only truly objective, balanced news channel, Fox News.

O'Reilly pointed out that because of their socialist ways, Canada is teetering at the brink of bankruptcy. O'Reilly even said he might declare a boycott of Canada, which would ruin their economy, just like his French boycott did to France.

Here

and here

Nice looking MP4 of it at Media Matters for America

Forgot to include that in the previous post. And because the previous link wasn't hyperlinked,
http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/

According to one of those links, it was a doctored quote. Which was then accompanied by doctored video footage on FOX. Amazing!

For a country obsessed about bringing democracy to the world, it would be nice if they considered giving it a go at home.

After posting this, I found an excellent write up on the events after the 2000 debates at Media Matters. Take a read.

National sovereignty is a concept of international law. I know that you think it's a leftist, commie conspiracy, but it's actually a mainstream convention which is designed to try to prevent nations from invading other nations and looting them and burning them to the ground, as we are in the process of doing in Iraq. That article I recommended talks about how the recent handover of sovereignty was really a scam to evade international law with regard to privatizing state-run industries. It turns out that the occupying power is not allowed to make wholesale changes in state assets, but a puppet government is, and privatization was one of the great schemes which the neocons were so eager to try out in Iraq.

Unfortunately, their grand experiment has failed pretty spectacularly.

"ANSWER was a prime organizing force, but most of the marchers were not directly affiliated with them.

On what do you base that statement?"

If you went to the websites at the time, you would see the long list of participating organizations, all with disparate agendas. They came together solely to protest the Iraq war, much as you would like to believe that they were protesting to install Fidel Castro in the White House. Also I would have participated if it had been more convenient for me to do so, and I by no means agreed with all of ANSWER's politics. It's reasonable to assume that there were many more people like myself.

"I appreciate that you're scrambling to change the subject"

Sorry, just trying to help. Feel free to continue on in your ignorance. It's not like the Iraq disaster will ever affect you personally. It's only other people who have to die for the dumb ideas you support.

"This may or may not be true, but their failure to be equally critical of Move On and ACT is a disservice to the public."

Your equating the Swift Boat Liars with Move On shows how screwed up your thinking is. You seem to think that anyone who makes negative attacks is equally culpable, rather than my thinking which is that the liars are the ones who should be called out. There's nothing really wrong with negative attacks, if they are true. To my knowledge, nobody has caught Move On making false statements, wherease the Swift Boat Liars have been caught in a number of lies.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la- ed-swiftpress24aug24,1,2693113.story?coll=la-news- comment-editorials

National sovereignty is a concept of international law. I know that you think it's a leftist, commie conspiracy, but it's actually a mainstream convention which is designed to try to prevent nations from invading other nations and looting them and burning them to the ground, as we are in the process of doing in Iraq. That article I recommended talks about how the recent handover of sovereignty was really a scam to evade international law with regard to privatizing state-run industries. It turns out that the occupying power is not allowed to make wholesale changes in state assets, but a puppet government is, and privatization was one of the great schemes which the neocons were so eager to try out in Iraq.

Unfortunately, their grand experiment has failed pretty spectacularly.

"ANSWER was a prime organizing force, but most of the marchers were not directly affiliated with them.

On what do you base that statement?"

If you went to the websites at the time, you would see the long list of participating organizations, all with disparate agendas. They came together solely to protest the Iraq war, much as you would like to believe that they were protesting to install Fidel Castro in the White House. Also I would have participated if it had been more convenient for me to do so, and I by no means agreed with all of ANSWER's politics. It's reasonable to assume that there were many more people like myself.

"I appreciate that you're scrambling to change the subject"

Sorry, just trying to help. Feel free to continue on in your ignorance. It's not like the Iraq disaster will ever affect you personally. It's only other people who have to die for the dumb ideas you support.

"This may or may not be true, but their failure to be equally critical of Move On and ACT is a disservice to the public."

Your equating the Swift Boat Liars with Move On shows how screwed up your thinking is. You seem to think that anyone who makes negative attacks is equally culpable, rather than my thinking which is that the liars are the ones who should be called out. There's nothing really wrong with negative attacks, if they are true. To my knowledge, nobody has caught Move On making false statements, wherease the Swift Boat Liars have been caught in a number of lies.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la- ed-swiftpress24aug24,1,2693113.story?coll=la-news- comment-editorials

National sovereignty is a concept of international law. I know that you think it's a leftist, commie conspiracy, but it's actually a mainstream convention which is designed to try to prevent nations from invading other nations and looting them and burning them to the ground, as we are in the process of doing in Iraq. That article I recommended talks about how the recent handover of sovereignty was really a scam to evade international law with regard to privatizing state-run industries. It turns out that the occupying power is not allowed to make wholesale changes in state assets, but a puppet government is, and privatization was one of the great schemes which the neocons were so eager to try out in Iraq.

Unfortunately, their grand experiment has failed pretty spectacularly.

"ANSWER was a prime organizing force, but most of the marchers were not directly affiliated with them.

On what do you base that statement?"

If you went to the websites at the time, you would see the long list of participating organizations, all with disparate agendas. They came together solely to protest the Iraq war, much as you would like to believe that they were protesting to install Fidel Castro in the White House. Also I would have participated if it had been more convenient for me to do so, and I by no means agreed with all of ANSWER's politics. It's reasonable to assume that there were many more people like myself.

"I appreciate that you're scrambling to change the subject"

Sorry, just trying to help. Feel free to continue on in your ignorance. It's not like the Iraq disaster will ever affect you personally. It's only other people who have to die for the dumb ideas you support.

"This may or may not be true, but their failure to be equally critical of Move On and ACT is a disservice to the public."

Your equating the Swift Boat Liars with Move On shows how screwed up your thinking is. You seem to think that anyone who makes negative attacks is equally culpable, rather than my thinking which is that the liars are the ones who should be called out. There's nothing really wrong with negative attacks, if they are true. To my knowledge, nobody has caught Move On making false statements, wherease the Swift Boat Liars have been caught in a number of lies.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la- ed-swiftpress24aug24,1,2693113.story?coll=la-news- comment-editorials

You gotta love Oliver Willis and for that matter all of the Media Matters people.

A little too extreme at times, but overall a very down-to-earth and likable guy.

If you want to make them mad, you could say the people over at metafilter (currently down) make for a good political blog. (snicker)

Well, if lying openly in public is the norm for the current administration, then Bo'R (a bore however you spell it), is a prime candidate.

comparing him to Hitler

Get your facts straight.

If there's been somebody that's been throwing around Nazi Germany references it's the right wing, such as Bill O'Reilly who call Michael Moore and Al Franken "Goebbels" of propaganda and Michael Savage for example.

Boing Boing has another Disney story today. A Fox News interview went on the attack over the new Disney PC. In a strange conspiratorial twist, he linked Gay Days at the theme parks with the new Disney children's computer. I never would have put those two together myself.

Just to destroy your Anonymous Bushit Coward lies, I dug up the citation that debunks that pack of lies. Kerry never made the film you're helping to invent. Those "Swift Boat" veterans never served with Kerry. And of course your non sequitur connecting your imagined Kerry/Kennedy "Camelot" fantasy and Vietnam battles is total bullshit. You're a Bush zombie, quoting bullshit lies about Kerry, because you've got nothing else. Get back in your barracks, Gomer, while a real leader shows you how this country can run right with a real manager at the helm.

I've read the opposite

Could this censorship of PBS have anything to do with the new Bush donor appointees to its board? Or tie in with the addition of rightwing moutpieces to the PBS lineup?

On the same Rush Limbaugh program, minutes later, a caller who claimed to be an anonymous IT expert explained that schools will put together a $500,000 network when they could just purchase a $100 cable modem. This sounds like one of the usual idiots who sees that a T1 is 1.5 Mbits/sec, local cable provider offers 1.5 Mbits/sec, hey they must be the same thing! And what expenses could there possibly be apart from bandwidth?

The caller and host went on to agree that everyone could save a lot of money if we just got some of the "12- and 13-year old boys" in class to string up the network themselves. Rush isn't the most reliable source for information...