"Librul Media" Strikes Again - LMAO!

[Troubadour]

This happens virtually every day, on virtually every major news site: Headlines and articles that appear barely a degree removed from a Republican Party press release, in publications deemed "liberal" by the right-wing Reality Dysfunction Machine. Well, here's just a case in point for your viewing displeasure:

From Los Angeles Times:

"McCain's record
on Iraq is mixed
By Bob Drogin
The senator backed a surge that may be working, but before the invasion he predicted quick victory."

Really? The surge "may be working"? So not only is this ambiguous but clearly favorable viewpoint expressed as a fact rather than a quote, but apparently the author failed to inform the enemy...

"Violence spikes in Iraq
By Alexandra Zavis | 9:03 a.m.
48 Iraqis are killed. The U.S.-guarded Green Zone is hit."

http://www.latimes.com/

(at 12:38 PM Pacific)

Oops. So is this the "may" part? Yet I seem to recall such body counts happening pretty frequently these days.

Yes, clearly the Librul Media is at it again: Pretending to make a critical analysis of McCain's Iraq positions while - aside from bizarrely declaring the "surge" he supports a success in the same breath 48 deaths are reported - conspicuously failing to make a point of the fact that he voted for the Iraq war in the first place. Do you think maybe his vote could be relevant, given that the leading Democrat opposed the war from the beginning? Of course not - that would cast a negative light on McCain, and the definition of "unbiased" is that Republican interests are served. Rather, the article compares him with "neoconservatives" in the GOP, without any attempt to explain exactly how his current positions aren't exactly the same as theirs, if not even bloodier, instead of comparing him with those who were actually right about Iraq - the ones who voted against allowing Bush to invade it.

Thank you, LA Times, for proving once again that the Republican Party owns the media - I couldn't laugh half as hard at conservative ravings about the "librul media" without your example in mind.

[NDNdancer]

This happens virtually every day, on virtually every major news site: Headlines and articles that appear barely a degree removed from a Republican Party press release, in publications deemed "liberal" by the right-wing Reality Dysfunction Machine. Well, here's just a case in point for your viewing displeasure:

From Los Angeles Times:

"McCain's record
on Iraq is mixed
By Bob Drogin
The senator backed a surge that may be working, but before the invasion he predicted quick victory."

Really? The surge "may be working"? So not only is this ambiguous but clearly favorable viewpoint expressed as a fact rather than a quote, but apparently the author failed to inform the enemy...

"Violence spikes in Iraq
By Alexandra Zavis | 9:03 a.m.
48 Iraqis are killed. The U.S.-guarded Green Zone is hit."

http://www.latimes.com/

(at 12:38 PM Pacific)

Oops. So is this the "may" part? Yet I seem to recall such body counts happening pretty frequently these days.

Yes, clearly the Librul Media is at it again: Pretending to make a critical analysis of McCain's Iraq positions while - aside from bizarrely declaring the "surge" he supports a success in the same breath 48 deaths are reported - conspicuously failing to make a point of the fact that he voted for the Iraq war in the first place. Do you think maybe his vote could be relevant, given that the leading Democrat opposed the war from the beginning? Of course not - that would cast a negative light on McCain, and the definition of "unbiased" is that Republican interests are served. Rather, the article compares him with "neoconservatives" in the GOP, without any attempt to explain exactly how his current positions aren't exactly the same as theirs, if not even bloodier, instead of comparing him with those who were actually right about Iraq - the ones who voted against allowing Bush to invade it.

Thank you, LA Times, for proving once again that the Republican Party owns the media - I couldn't laugh half as hard at conservative ravings about the "librul media" without your example in mind.


Thank you! That made me laugh....... :madlaugh:

[preservanation]

Here are two headlines which occurred in Time magazine...

1) Bush Motorcade Kills Cop.

2) Officer Killed Escorting Clinton

This is purposeful.

In both situations the cops lost control of their bikes and crashed.
Identical circumstances, but very different treatment in Time.

To read the first one you'd think Bush's car ran the cop over...probably while he was reading a children's book about goats.

While Clinton was being regally escorted.

No wonder the puddingheads who read this suffer from Bush derangement syndrome.
Bias is bad unless it is bias against Bush.

[brien]

"McCain's record
on Iraq is mixed
By Bob Drogin
The senator backed a surge that may be working, but before the invasion he predicted quick victory."

Really? The surge "may be working"? So not only is this ambiguous but clearly favorable viewpoint expressed as a fact rather than a quote, but apparently the author failed to inform the enemy...


I know Bob Drogin personally through his brother Dan, (we attended College together as room-mates) and Bob is no Conservative Republican. He recently published this book on Iraq and it "ain't no conservative spin" on the war. So if you are trying to say Bob is part of the 'Librul Media" you may want to sell this somewhere else because we all stocked up here on that bullya.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/books/review/Dickey-t.html

The Los Angeles Times national security correspondent Bob Drogin has taken a more focused approach. In “Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War,” he concentrates on a central question: How was it, precisely, that the administration convinced itself and the American public that there was proof Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Of course the hawks pushing for invasion believed this almost as a matter of faith, but their theology wasn’t going to be enough to mobilize hundreds of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars. So the W.M.D. threat became the most important of the many reasons given for going to war: “Simply stated,” as Vice President Dick Cheney put it, “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” This is a story of willful blindness masquerading as secret intelligence that is worthy of Somerset Maugham or Graham Greene, and Drogin rises to the occasion.

The reviewer of Drogin's book goes on to write:

The highest and lowest drama in Drogin’s book is the spectacle of administration evidence about Iraq’s weapons evanescing in the months before — and after — the invasion. The United Nations, responding to American pressure, forced Hussein to let inspectors return in late 2002, but they found there was nothing much to find, even at the sites Curveball had talked about. Secretary Powell clearly knew something was wrong as he prepared his speech to the United Nations just weeks before the war was due to begin. He threw out an incendiary and unverifiable draft prepared by Cheney’s office and did his best to force the C.I.A. to stand behind its information. (Indeed, Tenet was seated behind him at the United Nations.) The unseen “mobile biological labs” confected by Curveball came to seem “the most solid piece of intelligence,” said Powell’s chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.

In a real sense — and this is worth remembering as we listen to the drumbeat for military attacks against Iran today — doubts did not matter. The invasion of Iraq had been decided in 2002 and was going to happen in 2003 no matter what information came to the administration. “Under pressure to build the case for war,” Drogin writes, “the C.I.A. chiefs figured they’d get to Baghdad, find warehouses full of W.M.D., and no one would remember a bogus defector.” It turns out they were wrong about that too.

So before you attack an author, you should really do some research on his background. btw, how many well respected books have you published on Iraq?

[Troubadour]

Here are two headlines which occurred in Time magazine...

1) Bush Motorcade Kills Cop.

2) Officer Killed Escorting Clinton


Yes, that is pretty strange. However, while I was looking at the Time website, I noticed something else strange: Four distinct articles about Obama's pastor, and one praising McCain's foreign policy instincts. The photos of Obama had him in various pensive or even frowning, downward-looking poses in dim light; McCain was shown smiling in bright light. I wouldn't think much of it if it weren't typical of how MSM coverage differs between Democrats and Republicans.


This is purposeful.


No, it's anecdotal. Coverage is overwhelmingly skewed in favor of Republicans and the Republican agenda. Here are a few more examples, from today's edition of MSM websites:

MSNBC:



Is affirmative action passé?
Opponents of preferences based on race, gender are citing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as they seek to pass 'civil rights initiatives.'


A great big headline with "Affirmative Action" beside the pictures of Hillary and Obama - hmm. :ponder:


Obama's tax returns show leap in income


And an even greater leap in charitable giving, but you have to actually click on the story to see that part. Surely the "librul media" isn't trying to tarnish his populist credentials?

ABC News:


McCain: Collaborate More With Allies


In other words, it's news that he's saying what Democrats have from the beginning, but of course that isn't how they're spinning the story. The article has to be read to be believed. Listen to this:


Critics at home and abroad have accused Bush of employing a go-it-alone foreign policy in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when the administration spurned international calls for caution and led the invasion into Iraq. Democrats have derided McCain as offering the same foreign policies as Bush, whose support is at a low point as the public craves change.

But McCain, mindful of a need to lay out his own vision for the future and distance himself from the unpopular Republican president, voices a more collaborative approach.


Thanks for the McCain campaign commercial, ABC. They, naturally, fail to report that those "critics" are overwhelmingly Democrats, that John McCain voted for the war, and that he has said he wouldn't mind keeping us in Iraq for another 1000 years. Yep, "librul media." LMAO


Dems Fear Clinton's 'Tonya Harding' option


The story about McCain is that he's a visionary foreign policy leader seeking more collaboration, and the one about Democrats is about fear and loathing. Again, it would be inocuous if it weren't the same story EVERY SINGLE DAY. They don't even cover Bush that much anymore, because it might tarnish McCain.

[preservanation]

Good research Troubadour.
You make some good points.

McCain aside, recently the MSM are focused on the dems and have chosen sides.
This illustrates the bias they exert and the agenda they have, no matter what the issues are or who the individual is. However, agendas can change on a dime.

Unbiased reporting is their claim, but it seems we agree that it is not their practice.
We are at the mercy of their whims.
In short...they look more to shape the news rather than report it.
Being that most of the press are self described as left of center (lib) and vote Dem, it is of particular concern to the right.

[Deadshot]

You know, before FAUX News there was some abiguity in the news. But since it's debut and it's "We Report, You decide" and bullshit "Fair and Balanced" lines, I don't blame ANY news organization for pulling out the stops and going totally Liberal.

As a business model, FAUX News works. So let's give the Conservatives what they want and have the rest of the media do what FAUX News does, give up being journalists and begin to be editorialist!

[nevadamedic]

Here are two headlines which occurred in Time magazine...

1) Bush Motorcade Kills Cop.

2) Officer Killed Escorting Clinton

This is purposeful.

In both situations the cops lost control of their bikes and crashed.
Identical circumstances, but very different treatment in Time.

To read the first one you'd think Bush's car ran the cop over...probably while he was reading a children's book about goats.

While Clinton was being regally escorted.

No wonder the puddingheads who read this suffer from Bush derangement syndrome.
Bias is bad unless it is bias against Bush.


This guy is just a clown that the Liberal Mainstream Media has been spoonfeeding and he has bought it hook, like and sinker. It's sad to see how a lot of these Democrat's can be duped like they have been latley by the Liberal Mainstream Media.