Liberal Media's Job - Bash Pres Bush

[red states rule]

Once again, a liberal reporter fesses up to the truth


Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President'
Posted by Tim Graham on February 5, 2007 - 18:09.
On Friday night's edition of Inside Washington airing locally on Washington PBS station WETA, the first topic was whether the media's been unfair to President Bush, given his abysmal approval ratings. NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said Bush received a "free ride" for years, so now the worm has turned and the coverage is fierce. Then the host turned to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who was frank in his assessment of the media's role:

Gordon Peterson: "What do you think, Evan? Are the mainstream media bashing the president unfairly?"


Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --"


Peterson: "But unfairly?"


Thomas: "Mmmm -- I think when he rebuffed, I think when he just kissed off the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, there was a sense then that he was decoupling himself from public opinion and Congress and the mainstream media, going his own way. At that moment he lost whatever support he had."

The message in that is very simple: the president must never "decouple" himself from the "mainstream media," because they are the key players in maintaining public opinion. Remember, Thomas also believed this "mainstream" media would be worth "maybe 15 points" to John Kerry in 2004, which didn't exactly work out. But Newsweek's polling clearly demonstrates Newsweek's desire to throw him out, in appearance if not in reality. Their end-of-January poll questions included:

-- "In general, do you think George W. Bush will have enough support over the next two years to make a difference in getting things done in Washington, or not?"

-- "Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?"

-- "At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"

Now try to imagine Newsweek asking anything this anti-Clinton in its polls in 1999. From there, Thomas went on to make excuses for the congressional Democrats for not having a position, as Charles Krauthammer begged for a "second idea" on Iraq. NPR reporter Nina Totenberg drew a harder line of disgust at the Democrats for being too easy on the freedom-depriving Bush administration:

Thomas: "The Congress has never been comfortable about leading the way on war, since the Spanish-American War when they got McKinley. Since then, they basically follow the executive branch…."


Nina Totenberg: "They got suckered on the war, there was no W.M.D., It was in the aftermath of 9/11 they gave up huge amounts of their power and our freedoms, in my view, when they did that, and opened up the administrations hands to take even more power, and now they're stumbling around. I have somewhat limited sympathy for them, because they don't want to take back some of the powers that they could take back more easily."


Then they discussed the Scooter Libby trial, but Thomas seemed to clam up pretty quickly:

Gordon Peterson: “Evan, tell us about it.”

Evan Thomas: “I think it’s impossible for a normal person to follow. I can barely follow it and I’m supposed to know something about it.” Nina Totenberg: “You should try writing about it. It’s really hard.”



Thomas: “It’s – we’ve long since lost what this thing was all about.”




Colby King: “Didn’t you get an honorable mention also in the trial?”




Nina: “Yeah, yeah. They didn’t reach him. They tried to reach him where he could be a witness. If they reached you, you might be a witness. (Evan shrugged and deferred to Krauthammer).


Did someone see this and call him in? Thomas grew cryptic in the 6:30 am half hour of Imus In The Morning on MSNBC's simulcast Monday morning:


Imus: “The Scooter Libby trial. Just jumping around here because we have to cover a bunch of stuff. I didn’t have any interest. I read Frank Rich yesterday and Frank made me think maybe I should have an interest in it because it's gonna, you know, pry the lid off all of these lies about why we went got into the war, but then don't we already know that. Or what’s your view of that?


Thomas: “Uh, you know, I really can't talk about it because I might have to testify.”


Imus: “Really?”


Thomas: “Yeah.” [Awkward pause for several seconds]


Imus: “Wow. What did you do?”


Thomas: “I can't talk about it, I might have to testify.”


Charles McCord, joking: “Going to jail?”


Thomas: “I'm not going to jail.”


Imus: “I didn't know – I didn't know you were involved in all this.”


McCord: “No, I didn't, either.”


Thomas: “I'm barely involved. But I may have to briefly testify this week.”


Imus: “How cool is that?”


Charles: “That's great.”


Thomas: “Not cool, but I just can't talk about it.”


Imus: “It makes it cool that you are involved with it, like russert. So we know if you are involved in this, we know that you are a player, not some chump on the periphery.”


Thomas: “You don’t want to be a player in the Scooter Libby trial.”


Imus: “But I like the fact you are going to be in there under oath.”


Thomas: “I may be.”


Imus, ending interview: “All right, well, thank you very much.”


http://newsbusters.org/node/10631

[Gaffer]

The libby trial is a waste of time and effort, and may turn out to hurt the dems more than the reps.

imus in the mornig, that's whinis in the morning, never saw such a big crybaby as that guy. Last time I watched him was back in 1999. I would say I watched his show three times. That man shouldn'r even be breathing my air. what a waste and wimp.

Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --" That's ALL they do, ALL the time. And their job is NOT to bash the president their job is to REPORT the news.

[krisy]

With the media today,it will always be personal. They can deny all they want,but it is. For anyone to think that their personal opinions don't leak into their reporting is just being blind. Most of them hate Bush,hate the war,and have their own agendas that they must get across.

After that scandal last year,with the doctored pics, I completely gave up on most of them. It's a sad day for "journalism" when you can't even trust the pictures they are showing you.

[krisy]

The libby trial is a waste of time and effort, and may turn out to hurt the dems more than the reps.

imus in the mornig, that's whinis in the morning, never saw such a big crybaby as that guy. Last time I watched him was back in 1999. I would say I watched his show three times. That man shouldn'r even be breathing my air. what a waste and wimp.

Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --" That's ALL they do, ALL the time. And their job is NOT to bash the president their job is to REPORT the news.

They have NO objectivity. Most are blinded by their hatred of him. So badly they cannot even report the good things the military is doing in Iraq. That might reflect in a good way somehowon George Bush.



Oh gosh,I flipped on local channel 12 to see if my son's school would be dismisssing early. The View is on. They are spewing about Guliani and some pic of him with his "other" woman. They are saying that you don't do that in the Republican party. They are supposed to be the party of values!!

I trul;y loathe these women. They make me SICK!!!! SOmeon shut Rosie and that redhead up...pleeeeaase!

On O'Reilly last night they were showing a clip of Bush calling Obama "articulate". Some stupid writer actually found a way to pick that apart....amazing. They are just blind.

[red states rule]

AP Journos Ignore AP Stylebook, Parrot Dems' Talking Point About GOP 'Blocking Debate'
Posted by Ken Shepherd on February 6, 2007 - 17:22.
This was one of the topics discussed at a conservative bloggers briefing that I attended this afternoon: the media are complaining that Senate Republicans are shutting off a debate on Iraq war policy by, well, voting against shutting off debate.

"What?!" you say. I feel ya. So did Townhall.com blogger Mary Katharine Ham, who argues that reporters guilty of this sin of commission need to get religion and read up on the journalist's bible, the AP Stylebook:

Now, why is Fox the only outlet reporting that the "Democratic majority failed to shut off debate" instead of the Republicans succeeded in blocking debate. I am no parliamentary expert, that's for sure, but I do know cloture ends debate. So, how do Republicans voting against ending debate get accused of ending debate?

Since, I'm no parliamentary expert, I went to the AP Stylebook to check myself. After all, maybe I was wrong about the definition of cloture:

cloture: Not closure, for the parliamentary procedure for closing debate. Whenever practical, use a phrase such as closing debate or ending debate instead of the technical term.
Um, so what's with all the leads on these stories? Even AP doesn't know its own definition, apparently:

Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.
Did they, now? Perhaps there's a different AP Stylebook for when Democrats are in the majority-- an edition I have yet to be issued, which changes the definition of cloture to the exact opposite of what it is.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10659

[trobinett]

I just hope this bird comes home to roost, and these liberal ass wipes look back on these times with regret, and self regret.

[theHawk]

When have liberals ever looked back on their mistakes with regret? Simply blame everything on "the right-wing". History has shown that they will only come back again with more ferocious attacks and lies.

[red states rule]

This is another example of how the liberal media is slanted. This from a creep who NBC is still protecting. He is still a NBC "News Analysist"




William M. Arkin on NaI've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."

"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.

Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

By William M. Arkin | January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET | Category: Domestic Role of the Military , Iraq

tional and Homeland Security

[red states rule]

Chris Matthews is really losing it............


Out of Control: Chris Matthews Drops F-Bomb In MSNBC Rant Against Bush
Posted by Rich Noyes on February 7, 2007 - 09:35.
"Hardball" host Chris Matthews lurched even further off the deep end on Wednesday’s "Imus in the Morning." After praising the “great job” Rudy Giuliani did in cleaning up New York City — which Matthews again suggested was done with just “a pinch” of fascism — the MSNBC star went on a rant declaring how he’s “sick of southern guys with ranches running this country.”

Losing control, Matthews dropped the F-bomb on national television: “I want a guy to run for President who doesn’t have a fucking — I’m sorry, a ranch.” As host Don Imus began to snicker, Matthews plowed ahead with his Democratic talking points: “Wouldn’t that be good, Don, a guy who wasn’t on the ranch during Katrina, he was on the street corner answering questions?”

Video clip (1:25): Real (2.32 MB) or Windows Media (5.39 MB), plus MP3 audio (409 KB)

Radio listeners were spared Matthews’ cursing, but no such luck for those watching the MSNBC simulcast. After saying goodbye to Matthews about three minutes later, Imus and his crew mocked their MSNBC colleague. MSNBC's on-screen file photo of Matthews was altered to include a black censor bar over his mouth. Executive Producer Bernard McGuirk suggested Matthews was the sort who would “put on a diaper and drive 900 miles to abduct Dick Cheney or somebody,” and someone else offered that “he’s crazy.”

Imus was the diplomat: “But isn’t that what we like about him? I love his energy, his passion.”

Here’s the transcript of Matthews’ comments, which happened at about 7:45 ET.

“We love good mayors because we love our cities and Giuliani is the city guy, and I’m so sick of southern guys with ranches running this country. I want a guy to run for president who doesn’t have a fucking — I’m sorry, a ranch. Wouldn’t that be good, Don, a guy who wasn’t on the ranch during Katrina, he was on the street corner answering questions?”

http://newsbusters.org/node/10671

[red states rule]

Bush Can't Make A Joke Without WashPost Lamenting Rude 'Canned Crack'

Posted by Tim Graham on February 8, 2007 - 07:04.
President Bush visited a Micron Technology factory in Manassas, Virginia on Wednesday, about 35 miles from the White House. The Washington Post wouldn't have found much use to cover the visit -- unless there was something embarrassing. The caption on the front of the Thursday Prince William Extra section had it: "Bush made a canned crack about potholes in Manassas, despite arriving by helicopter at the Micron campus."

Bush joked with the mayor of Manassas about fixing the potholes, a throw-away gibe. But reporter Christy Goodman spent a good chunk of her article on the Micron visit focused on Bush's rude "canned wisecrack." The mayor told the Post he wanted to tell Bush "we don't have potholes in Manassas." Baloney. I live about a mile west of the Micron plant, and a year or two ago, I lost a tire due to a pothole near that factory at the intersection of Wellington Road and Godwin Drive (pothole since fixed). Here's how Goodman chronicled Bush's insensitivity:

And he acknowledged a few dignitaries in the audience for their work, including Manassas Mayor Douglas S. Waldron (R).

Then he told Waldron, "Just fill the potholes. That is all I can say."

Potholes?

The night before, Waldron had mentioned that he, Bush and former president George H.W. Bush are Yale alums. Waldron said he had met the president and his father during one of their visits to the university. "I hope to have a moment to have a brief conversation" with him, Waldron said.

What he got first was a canned wisecrack from the president.

"I had to resist the urge to raise my hand and interrupt the president and say, 'Mr. President, we don't have potholes in Manassas,' " Waldron said later Tuesday afternoon.

City Manager Lawrence D. Hughes agreed.

"I spent millions of dollars making sure we don't" have axle-jarring holes in city streets, Hughes said. "And it was local money. No federal money goes into potholes."

The city's street maintenance crews were out as recently as Monday fixing four potholes, said Russ Graham, Manassas's superintendent of streets. [So much for "we don't have potholes in Manassas." Russ Graham is no relation.] Graham was at Micron Tuesday morning when the president arrived but was unable to hear Bush's speech. He had been helping the Secret Service and local police move concrete barriers around the Micron campus to limit access on the parking lots and create makeshift helipads in an area where contractors normally park.

"He came in by helicopter. He's got good eyes if he saw a pothole," Graham said. Unless the weather keeps his crew from filling the road craters, "If we know of any, we fix them," he said.

After the president finished selling the $2.9 trillion budget he presented to Congress on Monday, he made sure to reach out and shake as many employees' and other guests' hands as possible.

One of those hands belonged to the mayor. Waldron got his brief conversation.

"He hoped I didn't mind the crack about the potholes. I told him the two things we need to get right are trash and elections. He appreciated that," Waldron said. "Truly it was an honor that President Bush would visit the city of Manassas and Micron."

At least Goodman noted Bush was also self-deprecating on the tour. Just before the long pothole passage, Goodman reported:

Bush toured Micron Technology's $3 billion microchip plant before speaking to about 200 of the company's employees. He thanked his guide for explaining "all the big machines." After allowing for a few chuckles, he said, "I played like I understood."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10694

[Gaffer]

With the media today,it will always be personal. They can deny all they want,but it is. For anyone to think that their personal opinions don't leak into their reporting is just being blind. Most of them hate Bush,hate the war,and have their own agendas that they must get across.

After that scandal last year,with the doctored pics, I completely gave up on most of them. It's a sad day for "journalism" when you can't even trust the pictures they are showing you.

It's not the war they hate its just Bush. The war just givesd them more ammo in their hatred. No matter what he does they are going to be against it.

[red states rule]

It's not the war they hate its just Bush. The war just givesd them more ammo in their hatred. No matter what he does they are going to be against it.

The thing Pres Bush does that really pisses off the liberal media, is when he draws a breath

[Gaffer]

The thing Pres Bush does that really pisses off the liberal media, is when he draws a breath

So true.

[red states rule]

Cronkite's Continuing Crusade
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on February 8, 2007 - 21:12.
This isn't exactly news since he's been saying the same thing to anyone who'll listen for the past 20 years, but Walter Cronkite is a very upset man. You may have heard this before so I've taken the liberty of translating the former CBSer's remarks to keep it interesting:

Pressures by media companies to generate ever-greater profits are threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon, former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warned Thursday.

In a keynote address at Columbia University, Cronkite said today’s journalists face greater challenges than those from his generation. No longer could journalists count on their employers to provide the necessary resources, he said, “to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often did not want exposed.”

Translation: Journalists are no longer as able to spout leftist talking points and pass it off as news like they did in the days of Egbert "Edward" Murrow.

Instead, he said, “they face rounds and rounds of job cuts and cost cuts that require them to do ever more with ever less.”

“In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever,” he told journalism students and professionals at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism. “It’s not just the journalist’s job at risk here. It’s American democracy. It is freedom.”

Translation: Bush will kill us all. I am certain of this as my life is boring.

Cronkite said news accuracy has declined because of consolidations and closures that have left many American towns with only one newspaper. And as broadcasters cut budgets and air time for news, he said, “we’re all left with a sound bite culture that turns political campaigns into political theater.”

The former anchor urged owners of media companies — newspapers and broadcast alike — to recognize they have special civil responsibilities.

“Consolidation and cost cutting may be good for the bottom line in the short term but that isn’t necessarily good for the country or the health of the news business in the long term,” he said.

Translation: Media companies need to realize it's their civic duty to propagandize on behalf of world government liberalism.


http://newsbusters.org/node/10716