Discussion:
what liberal media?
(too old to reply)
Bourne Identity
2005-05-25 11:32:33 UTC
Permalink
*******************
if the Post is so "liberal" why do they move stories critical of dubya and the
war from the front page to page 26? could it be because they're not really
"liberal" as you wing-nuts like to believe?
*******************

Washington Post Buries Page 1 Sunday Story on Iraq Intel Doubts to Page 26!
Original Headline Softened as Story Quietly Moved Overnight!
Incident Adds Yet More Questions About WaPo's Timid Coverage of News Critical to
Bush Administration.

5/23/2005

A Washington Post article exposing the specific details of several pre-war
doubts by Bush Administration aides and anlaysts in the lead-up to war
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474_pf.html]
ran on page A1 in the early Saturday editions of WaPo's Sunday paper. By Sunday
morning, however, the story had its headlined softened and was subsequently
buried on page A26.

The story, by WaPo staff writer Walter Pincus, details the doubts of the
administration's own intelligence analysts concerning WMD, Munitions Plants and
Saddam Hussein's Unmanned Aerial Vehicles program, all of which were widely
trumpeted as justifications for going to war by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney,
Colin Powell, and others within the administration during the build-up to the
War on Iraq.

Pincus' Page 1 item, which originally ran in Saturday afternoon editions of the
Sunday paper and on the front page of the WaPo website was headlined "More
Evidence of Bush Aide's Doubts on Iraq -- Analysts Questioned Most
Intelligence".

By Sunday, however, the article had been pushed back to page 26 with the softer
headline, "Prewar Findings Worried Analysts".

The Washington Post has come under fire lately by critics decrying the lack of
news coverage critical to the Bush Administraton. It was nearly two weeks before
WaPo even mentioned the appearance of the "Downing Street Memo"
[http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502] which some have cited as
a "smoking gun" demonstrating that George W. Bush lied to the American People
and Congress during the build-up to war in Iraq. Several sources have called the
information included in the memo as evidence of "an impeachable offense".

That memo, written in July 2002 -- a full eight months before going to war --
describes the Administration as already having decided to topple Hussein through
military means and that the intelligence was being "fixed around the policy".
Several days after 89 U.S. Congressmen sent an inquiry to Bush asking about the
information in the memo, WaPo finally ran their first news item to mention the
memo. On page 18.

A source at the Washington Post has commented that it's not unusual for stories
to move off of page 1 between the Saturday and Sunday editions of the Sunday
paper. Yet the move all the way back to page 26 and the softened headline
certainly raises questions.

The Page 1 version of the story, originally linked to by the Internet news site
RAW STORY early Saturday evening, retained the same URL on the WaPo website as
the move was made and the headline and page number changed. The bulk of the
article was unchanged as the move was made, though there were a couple of minor
changes made to the text with little effect on the story itself.

The BRAD BLOG has contacted both Walter Pincus and his WaPo editor, Scott Vance,
for comment and/or explanation for the move. We will update this item with
additional information if and when we hear back from them.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001411.htm
Clay
2005-05-25 11:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Bourne Identity is what's knows as "leftwing nut" <LOL>:
.
Post by Bourne Identity
*******************
if the Post is so "liberal" why do they move stories critical of dubya and the
war from the front page to page 26? could it be because they're not really
"liberal" as you wing-nuts like to believe?
KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO

-C-
Cory Bhreckan
2005-05-25 13:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
.
Post by Bourne Identity
*******************
if the Post is so "liberal" why do they move stories critical of dubya and the
war from the front page to page 26? could it be because they're not really
"liberal" as you wing-nuts like to believe?
KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO
How articulate you are. Your mother must be proud of you.
Post by Clay
-C-
Jim Alder
2005-05-25 16:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.

Loading Image...
--
"'The American President' - In this movie, Michael Douglas plays Bill
Clinton as Clinton would like to be - handsome, thin,courageous, liberal
and widowed." - Ann Coulter in "How to Talk to a Liberal"
Jeff Welch
2005-05-25 16:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
What's liberal about that?

-Jeff
Lamont Cranston
2005-05-26 13:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
No, I think you mean this one:

www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
http://www.fair.org

Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim
Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage

Press Release (6/1/98)

Executive Summary

The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions:
(1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame
news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous
research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the
validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research
project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying
Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy
at US outlets.

The findings include:

# On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and
Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative
than the general public.

# Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

# The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more
likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to
identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

# Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily
newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues,
while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

I. INTRODUCTION

The idea that the mainstream media have a "liberal bias" has long been
conventional wisdom. At various times, public figures from Richard Nixon to Newt
Gingrich have all taken refuge in the claim that the "liberal" media were out to
get them. A legion of conservative talk show hosts, pundits and media-watch
groups pound away at the idea that the media exhibit an inherently "liberal"
tilt. But the assertion is based on remarkably little evidence and is repeatedly
made in the face of contradictory facts.

In particular, the conservative critique of the news media rests on two general
propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2)
journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left
perspectives. Researchers and analysts have discovered persuasive evidence
against the latter claim. Content analyses of the news media have, at a minimum,
shown the absence of any such systematic liberal/left tilt; some studies have
found a remarkably predictable press usually reflecting the narrow range of
views of those in positions of power, as well as a spectrum of expert opinion
that tilts toward the right.

But even some progressives have been willing to cede to conservatives the first
point: that journalists' views are to the left of the public. Professionals in
general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there
is no reason to expect journalists to be any different. However, they have also
argued convincingly that the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful
corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news
content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo. You
don't understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the
personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes. Ideological
orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the organizational
hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward and punish. Working
journalists, despite their sometimes high visibility, usually do not call the
shots in the nation's media corporations. (The documentary "Fear and Favor in
the Newsroom" provides vivid illustrations of this situation.) Consequently, the
private views of individual journalists often matter little.

Such an analysis of organizational dynamics is fundamental to understanding the
news process. It, indeed, is a crucial argument that kicks the legs out from the
conservative critique and gets at the more fundamental structural elements that
set the news agenda. Still, this approach begs the question: are journalists
really to the left of the public? This element of the conservative critique has
not been adequately addressed; it's one reason why the "liberal media" charge
gets repeated without serious scrutiny.

The small amount of current data on this issue may be due, in part, to
journalist's resistance to answering surveys lest results somehow compromise
their professional stance of objective "neutral" observers. This presents a
challenge for researchers. Still, despite the methodological hurdles, this
question is an interesting one and this report describes the results of one
effort to examine this essential underpinning of the "liberal media" claim.

II. METHODOLOGY

In consultation with the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia
Commonwealth University, a 24-question self-administered survey was sent by mail
to Washington-based journalists (n = 444) as specified below. The initial
mailing was followed by a reminder postcard. A second copy of the questionnaire
was later sent to non-respondents. Finally, reminder phone calls were placed to
remaining non-respondents and replacement surveys were mailed as requested. Data
was gathered from late February through April 1998.

A. The Survey

Journalists were asked a range of questions about how they did their work and
about how they viewed the quality of media coverage in the broad area of
politics and economic policy. They were asked for their opinions and views about
a range of recent policy issues and debates. Finally, they were asked for
demographic and identifying information, including their political orientation.
(Complete survey questions and summary results can be found in Appendix B.)

B. The Target Population of Journalists

This survey was targeted at Washington bureau chiefs and Washington-based
journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US national
and major metropolitan outlets. The intent was to represent the breadth of
available media outlets, while realistically focusing on the largest and most
influential of these national and major metropolitan outlets.

The journalists surveyed (who were not bureau chiefs) were chosen based on the
following criteria:

1. They were listed in the Spring 1998 News Media Yellow Book.

2. They were listed in the "Assignment Index" portion of the Yellow Book under
one or more of the following categories: "Congress," "federal government,"
"national affairs," "politics," "White House," "business," "consumer issues,"
"economics," or "labor."

3. They were based in the Washington, DC area as indicated in their Yellow Book
listing by a telephone area code of either 202 (Washington), 703 (northern
Virginia), or 301 (Maryland).

4. They worked for a national or major metropolitan US news organization that
potentially reaches the general public.

The bureau chiefs surveyed in this project were chosen based on the following
criteria

1. They were listed in the Spring 1998 News Media Yellow Book.

2. Their position was listed as "bureau chief" or its equivalent.

3. They were based in the Washington, DC area as indicated in the Yellow Book
listing by a telephone area code of either 202 (Washington), 703 (northern
Virginia), or 301 (Maryland).

4. They were at a US news organization that potentially reaches the general
public and that has a listing in the Yellow Book with at least 10 staff people
(including the bureau chief). These criteria yielded a targeted population total
of 33 bureau chiefs and 411 other journalists (total n = 444). Questionnaires
were mailed to the entire targeted population.

C. Media Organizations Represented

The targeted population represents a broad range of news outlets, while at the
same time focusing on the largest and most influential of these outlets. The
criteria used for targeting journalists meant that smaller and less influential
news outlets were not over-represented, a problem found in earlier research on
Washington-based journalists. The criteria outlined above were successful in
both generating significant breadth (journalists at 78 different news
organizations were surveyed) while keeping the emphasis on the largest and most
influential media (half of the surveys were sent to journalists at 14 news
organizations).

The 14 news organizations that received more than 10 surveys each were (in
alphabetical order):

1. ABC News /ABC Radio
2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
3. Bloomberg News
4. CNN
5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
6. Los Angeles Times
7. NBC News
8. New York Times
9. Reuters America, Inc.
10. Time
11. USA Today/USA Weekend
12. Wall Street Journal
13. Washington Post
14. Washington Times

Appendix A contains a list of all media organizations to which surveys were
mailed. For confidentiality reasons, exact numbers of surveys mailed are not
indicated, but ranges are listed to give the reader a clear sense of the final
distribution of surveys.

D. The Respondents

Of the 444 questionnaires mailed, 141 were returned for a response rate of 32%.
In terms of type of position held by the journalist, type of media outlets, and
general size of media outlet, there was no statistically significant difference
between respondents and non-respondents.

As Table 1 shows, the percentage of bureau chiefs, editors/producers, and
journalists among the respondents was similar to their percentage in the
targeted population as a whole. Thus, each level of the organizational hierarchy
was adequately represented among the respondents.


*Some individuals hold more than one title. They were classified in the response
numbers based on their self-identification (see Question #18). They were
classified in the sample numbers by the "higher" of the positions in their
title. (For example, an "editor and chief correspondent" was classified as an
editor.)

Similarly, as summarized in Table 2, there was no significant difference between
the types of media outlets (the news organization at which the journalist
worked) represented among the respondents compared to their percentage in the
targeted population as a whole. Thus, each type of media outlet was adequately
represented among the respondents.



Finally, because of their larger staffs, larger news organizations had more
journalists who received surveys than did smaller news organizations. The number
of journalists receiving a survey at a particular news outlet serves as a rough
indicator of the size of that news organization. Based on the rough breakdown
used in Appendix A and summarized in Table 3, there was no significant
difference between the respondents and the targeted population in terms of the
size of their news organization.



These results indicate that, on the dimensions examined here, there is no
statistically significant difference between respondents and non-respondents.
Thus, the respondents are a good representation of the targeted population as a
whole.

Other demographic characteristics of the respondents include:

# Male journalists (66%) outnumbered female journalists (34%) by about two-to-one.

# 89% of respondents were White, 5% Black, 3% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 2% chose
the category "other" when describing their race.

# Only 5% of the respondents were not college graduates. 50% had bachelor's
degrees, 14% had some post-graduate training, and a full 31% had post-graduate
degrees.

# Only 5% of respondents reported annual household incomes under $50,000. 43%
had household incomes between $50,000 and $99,999; 21% were between $100,000 and
$149,999; 17% were between $150,000 and $199,999; and 14% had household incomes
of $200,000 or more.

III. RESULTS

This section reviews select results of the survey, including some comparisons
with previous surveys of the general public. A full summary of results may be
found in Appendix B. For a summary of results comparing journalists' responses
to the public's response on similar policy questions, see Appendix C.

A. Views on the Quantity and Quality of Media Coverage

Journalists responding to the survey report high levels of satisfaction with the
amount and quality of economic policy coverage provided by their own news
organization. A full 76% of the journalists thought that their news organization
provided "excellent" or "good" quality coverage in terms of giving the public
information they need to make informed political decisions (Q#3a). Another 14%
thought it was "fair" and 9% said it was "poor." A similar majority—75%—thought
their own organization provided "about the right amount of coverage" of economic
policy issues and debates, while 23% thought there was "too little coverage" and
only 1% thought there was "too much" (Q#1).

Their assessment of other news media, though, was more varied (Q#3b). "Business
oriented news outlets" received the highest grade for the quality of the
information they give to the public; 80% thought it was "excellent" or "good."
"Major daily newspapers," too, received a positive assessment, with 65% saying
their coverage was "excellent" or "good." However, for every other type of media
less than half of the respondents rated its coverage as "excellent" or "good."

A full 92% of responding journalists said the quality of economic policy
coverage on broadcast TV networks was only "fair" or "poor," with just 6% saying
it was "good" and not a single respondent saying it was "excellent." (Even of
those journalists working in television, a full 83% rated broadcast TV networks
as "fair" or "poor.") Cable news services were judged by 63% of journalists to
provide only "fair" or "poor" coverage of economic policy issues. (As a whole,
journalists were still uncertain about internet sources with over half of them
saying they didn't know or were not sure about the quality of their coverage.)



Choosing from a list of possibilities, journalists thought that business
misconduct (58%) was the topic to which the media overall paid "too little"
attention (Q#2). This was followed closely by international trade agreements
(53%) and labor misconduct (50%). The stock market (22%) was the item that
journalists most often cited as being covered "too much."

B. Work Routines and Information Sources

Technology changes have clearly had an impact on the work routines and
information sources of journalists. With contemporary technology, the news cycle
is quite short for a large number of journalists. More than a quarter of them
(26%) reported having a deadline more than once a day (Q#4). Another 55% usually
had daily deadlines.

Electronic data services have become a staple source of information for
journalists. 72% reported that they consulted Internet or other on-line services
during a typical work day (Q#5). This was surpassed only by wire services (94%)
and cable TV news (79%).



Responding journalists rely most often on government officials and business
representatives as sources for their stories on economic policy issues (Q#6).
Labor representatives are consulted far less frequently than business
representatives and consumer advocates are even less likely to be consulted.



Most journalists (70%) said they had never been cut off from communication by a
source upset because of something they or their news organization had reported
about economic policy issues (Q#7a). Within the minority who had been cut off,
it was government officials (76%), followed by business representatives (55%),
and then labor representatives (32%) who were most likely to have given them the
silent treatment (Q#7b).

C. Economic Policy Issues: Comparing Journalists' Views and the Public

Journalists were asked a series of questions regarding recent policy debates.
Most questions were taken from, or very closely modeled after, questions that
had been asked in national random surveys of the general public. That way, rough
comparisons could be made between how journalists and the general public saw
these issues.

1. Political Orientation

One of the basic findings of this survey is that most journalists identify
themselves as being centrists on both social and economic issues. Perhaps this
is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in
large numbers. Clinton's centrist "new Democrat" orientation combines moderately
liberal social policies (which brings criticism from conservative anti-gay,
"pro-life" and other activists) with moderately conservative economic policies
(which brings criticism from labor unions, welfare rights advocates and others).
This orientation fits well with the views expressed by journalists.



When asked to characterize their political orientation on social and economic
issues, most journalists self-identify as centrists (Q#22 and Q#23). Of the
minority who do not identify with the center, most have left leanings concerning
social issues and right leanings concerning economic ones. This is consistent
with a long history of research on profit-sector professionals in general. High
levels of education tend to be associated with liberal views on social issues
such as racial equality, gay rights, gun control and abortion rights. High
levels of income tend to be associated with conservative views on economic
issues such as tax policy and federal spending. Most journalists, therefore,
would certainly not recognize themselves in the "liberal media" picture painted
by conservative critics.

2. State of the Economy

The Washington press corps has often been accused of being an "elite" that is
out of touch with mainstream Americans. As reported in the methodology section,
journalists responding to this survey certainly did have very high household
incomes, with over half living in households with $100,000 or more in income,
and one-third in households with $150,000 or more income. Perhaps it should come
as no surprise, then, that journalists have a much more positive assessment of
the state of the economy than the general public (Q#9). Choosing from a list of
options, 34% of journalists said they thought economic conditions were
"excellent" and another 58% said "good." Only 4% saw it as fair, and 1% rated it
"poor."

When pollsters ask the same question of the general public—where the benefits of
economic growth have fallen unevenly—far different views are found. A March 1998
Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll discovered that only 20% of the general public see
economic conditions as "excellent," while 46% say "good." A full 27% describe it
as "only fair" and 7% believe it is "poor."

3. Economic Priorities

When asked about a series of possible economic priorities for the federal
government, 56% of journalists saw the need to "reform entitlement programs by
slowing the rate of increase in spending for programs like Medicare and Social
Security" as "one of the top few" priorities (19% said it should be the single
highest priority) (Q#10b). Only 35% of the public felt similarly when polled by
Greenberg Research Inc. in November 1996 (just 10% of the public saw this as the
single highest priority.).

Instead, 59% of the general public identified the need to "protect Medicare and
Social Security against major cuts" as "one of the top few priorities" (a full
24% of the public saw this as the single highest priority). Only 39% of
journalists felt the same (with 13% identifying it as the single highest
priority) (Q#10a). While 12% of the public put reforming and slowing Social
Security and Medicare "toward the bottom of the list," only 4% of journalists
did (Q#10b). Journalists' emphasis on slowing entitlements contrasts sharply
with the general public's emphasis on protecting entitlements.

When it came to health insurance, 32% of journalists felt that requiring
employers provide health insurance to their employees should be "one of the top
few priorities," while a larger 47% of the public did (Q#10d).

By far the biggest gap between the public and journalists, though, came with the
issue of NAFTA expansion (Q#10c). Of journalists, 24% thought it was among the
"top few" priorities to "expand the NAFTA trade agreement to include other
countries in Latin America." Only 7% of the general public agreed. Indeed, a
whopping 44% of the general public—compared to just 8% of journalists—put NAFTA
expansion "toward the bottom of the list" of priorities.

In these issue areas, the claimed economic centrism of journalists is belied by
a series of economic priorities that are actually to the right of the public,
and which would bring opposition from groups on the left: labor unions, health
care advocates, senior citizen advocates.

4. Environmental Laws

The one area in the survey where journalists could be considered slightly to the
left of the general public was regarding environmental regulation (Q#11). When
asked to choose between whether stricter environmental laws and regulations
"cost too many jobs and hurt the economy" or "are worth the cost," 79% of
journalists said such laws were worth the cost, while 21% disagreed. However, in
an October 1996 poll by the Pew Research Center, only 63% of the public said
such laws were worth the cost, while 30% disagreed. This result may not be very
surprising since the economic cost of environmental regulation is often
perceived to be carried by workers in the form of lost jobs—a problem which may
not be of immediate salience for professional journalists.

5. Corporate Power

The general public is more critical of the concentration of corporate power in
the United States than are journalists. When asked whether they felt "too much
power is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies," 57% of the
journalists agreed, while 43% felt they did not have too much power (Q#12). The
numbers were quite different, though, when the Times Mirror Center asked the
same question of the general public in October 1995. A full 77% of the public
felt that corporations had too much power, with only 18% feeling that they did not.

6. Taxes

The centrist orientation of journalists comes through clearly when assessing
Clinton's 1993 economic plan which modestly raised tax rates on the wealthy,
countering the trend of reduced tax rates that they had enjoyed in previous
years (Q#13). Nearly half (49%) of journalists thought this policy was about
right, while 14% thought it went too far, and 18% thought it didn't go far
enough. In stark contrast, when the public was asked a similar question in an
ABC News/Washington Post poll in April 1993, 15% of the general public felt
Clinton's policy went too far and a huge 72% felt it didn't go far enough. (10%
volunteered that they thought it was about right.) Here again, the relative
economic privilege of the Washington press corps may partly explain this
contrast with the public.

7. NAFTA and "Fast Track" Authority

Compared to the general public, journalists have a distinctly more positive
assessment of NAFTA's impact and are more likely to support granting the
President "fast-track" authority to negotiate new trade agreements. 65% of
journalists feel that NAFTA has had more of a positive impact on the United
States, while only 8% feel it has had more of a negative impact (Q#14). But in a
Hart-Teeter/NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in July 1997, only 32% of the
public thought NAFTA's impact was more positive, while 42% felt NAFTA's impact
on the country has been more negative.

Perhaps as a result of these differing assessments of NAFTA's impact,
journalists are more likely to favor granting "fast track" authority to the
President to negotiate new trade agreements—authority opposed most forcefully by
unions (Q#15). A full 71% of journalists favor such a policy, while only 10%
oppose it. According to an October 1997 Hart-Teeter/NBC News/Wall Street Journal
poll, the rate of opposition to "fast-track" amongst the general public is over
five times that of the rate amongst journalists. Only 35% of the public says it
favors "fast-track." A full 56% oppose it. In the debate over trade, most
journalists tend to agree with the corporate position on the issue, while most
members of the public side with the critical views of labor and many consumer
and environmental groups.

8. Medical Care

As indicated above under "Economic Priorities," journalists are less interested
than the general public in requiring that employers provide health insurance to
their employees. Journalists are also less likely than the public to believe
that the federal government should guarantee medical care for those who don't
have health insurance (Q#16). While 43% of journalists felt that the government
should guarantee medical care, a similar 35% felt that this was not the
responsibility of the government. In contrast, a February 1996 New York
Times/CBS News poll found that the general public supports government guaranteed
medical care by more than a two-to-one margin (64% to 29%).



IV. CONCLUSION: BEYOND THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" MYTH

This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that
journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national
journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and
trade—issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than
social issues like gay rights and affirmative action.

The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded
flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal
views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting
the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues.
In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify
themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative
critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center"
are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to
social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in
the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it
comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the
right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the
central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be
merely sleight of hand.

This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally
false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the
core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the
situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold
"liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. Most of all, though,
they can be broadly described as centrists. This adherence to the middle is
consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore
serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy
"debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.

Which brings us back to the conservative critique. It is based on the
propositions that: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the general public,
and (2) that these views influence the news content that they produce. Having
now exposed the first point for the myth that it is, we are left with the issue
of personal views influencing news content.

There are two important responses to this claim. First, it is sources, not
journalists, who are allowed to express their views in the conventional model of
"objective" journalism. Therefore, we learn much more about the political
orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than
journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials
and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when
covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at
the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For
example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and right-wing think
thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are
those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; left-wing think tanks are often
invisible. When it comes to sources, "liberal bias" is nowhere to be found.

Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is
crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the
broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of
producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The
large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country—not
surprisingly—tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their
corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers.

It is here, at the structural level, that the fundamental ground rules of news
production are set. Of course, working journalists sometimes succeed in
temporarily challenging some of those rules and boundaries. But ultimately, if
they are to succeed and advance in the profession for any length of time, they
must adapt to the ground rules set by others—regardless of their own personal views.

Appendix A: Media Organizations Where Journalists Received Surveys

News organizations with more than 10 journalists receiving questionnaires (n=
223; 50% of total)

ABC News /ABC Radio
Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
Bloomberg News
CNN
Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
Los Angeles Times
NBC News
New York Times
Reuters America, Inc.
Time
USA Today/USA Weekend
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Washington Times

News organizations with 5 to 10 journalists receiving questionnaires (n= 152;
34% of total)

Baltimore Sun
Boston Globe
Bridge News (formerly Knight-Ridder Financial News Service)
Business Week
CBS News/ CBS Radio
Chicago Tribune
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report/ CQ Monitor
Copley News Service
Cox Newspapers/Cox Broadcasting
Dallas Morning News
Dow Jones News Service
FOX News Channel/ FOX News Sunday
Gannett News Service
Hearst News Service
Investor's Business Daily
National Journal /Congressional Daily/Government Executive
National Public Radio
NET-Political NewsTalk Network
Newsday
Newsweek
PBS
United Press International /UPI Radio
U.S. News & World Report

News organizations with 3 or 4 journalists receiving questionnaires (n= 23; 5%
of total)

Christian Science Monitor
C-SPAN /C-SPAN 2
Newhouse News Service
Scripps Howard News Service
UNIVISION Television Network
Washingtonian
Westwood One

News organizations with 1 or 2 journalists receiving questionnaires (n= 46; 10%
of total)

American Publishing Corp.
American Spectator
American Urban Radio Networks
Black Entertainment Television, Inc.
Capitol News Service
Chicago Sun-Times
Columbus Dispatch
Congressional Digest
Conus Washington/Communications
Cook Political Report
Daily News (New York)
Detroit Free Press
Evening News Broadcasting Company/Willis News Service
Fairchild News Service
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
The Hill
Houston Chronicle
Human Events/Eagle Publishing
Inside the New Congress
Jack Anderson Confidential/Muckracker's Inc.
Marketplace/USC Radio
McClatchy Newspapers
McClendon News Service
The Nation
Public Interest/National Affairs, Inc.
Roll Call Inc.
Rolling Stone
St. Petersburg Times
Southern Political Report
SRN News
Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Biz Net
Village Voice
WTOP-AM/Evergreen Media

Appendix B: Complete Survey Questions and Summary Results

A Survey of Journalists on Media Coverage of Politics and Economic Policy

Questions About News Coverage of Economic Policy Issues

1. When it comes to economic policy issues and debates, do you think your news
organization provides too much coverage, too little coverage, or about the right
amount of coverage?

1% Too much coverage
23% Too little coverage
75% About the right amount of coverage
1% Don't know/not sure

2. Do you think the news media overall pay too much attention, too little
attention, or about the right amount of attention to each of the following?



3. In terms of giving the public information they need to make informed
political decisions, how would you rate...

a. ...the quality of your news organization's coverage of economic policy issues
and debates?

29% Excellent
47% Good
14% Fair
9% Poor
0% Don't know/not sure

b. ...the quality of economic policy coverage provided by each of the following
sources?



Questions About How Journalists Do Their Work

4. Usually, about how often do you have deadlines?

26% More than once a day
55% Daily
11% Weekly
2% Monthly
6% Other

5. In a typical work day, which of the following resources do you consult, if any?

[percentage who said "yes" to each]
94% Wire services
79% Cable TV news (CNN, MSNBC, etc.)
36% Cable business networks (CNBC, Bloomberg, etc.)
59% C-SPAN
26% News/talk radio
72% Internet or other on-line services
48% Fax services

6. How often do you talk to the following sources in your work on economic
policy issues?



7.a. Have you ever been cut off from communication––even temporarily––by a
source upset because of something you or your news organization reported about
economic policy issues or debates?

27% Yes
70% No
3% Don't know/not sure

b. If "yes," which of the following sources cut off communication?

76% Government officials
55% Business representatives
32% Labor representatives
3% Wall Street analysts
0% Consumer advocates
0% Think-tank analysts
5% University-based academics
5% Other

8. In covering economic policy issues, how often is your news organization's
reporting, story assignment, or story selection influenced by coverage in a
national "paper of record" such as The New York Times or Washington Post?

43% Often
42% Occasionally
12% Rarely or never
3% Don't know/not sure

Questions About Journalists' Assessment of Economic Policy Issues

9. First, how would you rate economic conditions in this country today?

34% Excellent
58% Good
4% Fair
1% Poor
2% Don't know/not sure

10. Here are a few issues facing the country. How high a priority do you think
each one should receive from Congress and the President? Use the following scale
in responding:

1 = Single Highest Priority
2 = One of Top Few Priorities
3 = Near the Top of List
4 = In the Middle of List
5 = Toward Bottom of List
8 = Don't Know/ Not Sure



11.a. Which of the following statements comes closer to your own views?

21% Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the
economy

b. Do you agree strongly or not with the statement you chose above?

8% Agree strongly
13% Agree, but not strongly
0% Not sure/don't know
79% Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost

b. Do you agree strongly or not with the statement you chose above?

32% Agree strongly
43% Agree, but not strongly
4% Not sure/don't know

12. a. Which of the following statements comes closer to your own views?

57% Too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies

b. Do you agree strongly or not with the statement you chose above?

24% Agree strongly
32% Agree, but not strongly
1% Not sure/don't know
43% The largest companies do NOT have too much power

b. Do you agree strongly or not with the statement you chose above?

12% Agree strongly
30% Agree, but not strongly
1% Not sure/don't know

13. Do you think President Clinton's 1993 economic plan went too far or not far
enough in raising taxes on the wealthy?

14% Went too far
18% Didn't go far enough
49% Was about right
18% Don't know/not sure

14. So far, would you say that NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement
passed in 1993) has had more of a positive impact on the United States or more
of a negative impact on the United States?

65% More of a positive impact
8% More of a negative impact
27% Don't know/not sure

15. President Clinton sought "fast-track" authority on trade agreements,
allowing Congress to vote only up-or-down on agreements. Do you favor or oppose
Congress granting the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate new free
trade agreements?

35% Strongly favor
36% Somewhat favor
7% Somewhat oppose
3% Strongly oppose
18% Don't know/not sure

16. Do you think the federal government should guarantee medical care for all
people who don't have health insurance, or is that not the responsibility of the
federal government?

43% Yes, the government should guarantee medical care
35% No, that is not the responsibility of the government
22% Don't know/not sure

Demographic Questions

17. Which of the following best describes your current news organization?

26% Large newspaper (circulation over 350,000)
12% Medium-sized newspaper (circulation from 100,000 to 350,000)
1% Small newspaper (circulation under 100,000)
7% Newspaper chain
14% Wire service
11% National news magazine
1% Other national periodical
10% National broadcast television network
7% Cable television channel
6% Radio network or news service
5% Other

18. Which of the following comes closest to describing your job title?

6% Bureau Chief
13% Editor
73% Reporter/Correspondent
6% TV/Radio Producer
0% Columnist
1% Other

19. What is your gender?

34% Female
66% Male

20. Which of the following best describes you?

89% Caucasian/White (not Hispanic)
5% African American/Black (not Hispanic)
3% Hispanic
2% Asian
2% Other

21. What is the highest level of schooling you achieved?

0% High school
5% Some college
50% College graduate
14% Some post-graduate
31% Post-graduate degree

22. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?

11% Left
64% Center
19% Right
5% Other

23. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?

30% Left
57% Center
9% Right
5% Other

24. For classification purposes, into which of the following ranges does your
annual household income fall?

5% under $50,000
27% $50,000 - $74,999
16% $75,000 - $99,999
21% $100,000 - $149,999
17% $150,000 - $199,999
14% $200,000 or more
Jim Alder
2005-05-26 16:33:48 UTC
Permalink
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.gw
what liberal media?
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
No, I don't. I do enjoy, however, how the liberals like to give
themselves such high sounding names. And how other ones think cutting and
pasting the same crap over and over is the same thing as thinking.
--
"'The American President' - In this movie, Michael Douglas plays Bill
Clinton as Clinton would like to be - handsome, thin,courageous, liberal
and widowed." - Ann Coulter in "How to Talk to a Liberal"
Rich Travsky
2005-05-29 05:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with? How about Faux News
going to court to be able to lie about the news?



"I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful. The whole
thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
failures" -- William Kristol, editor of The Standard, Rupert Murdoch's
conservative weekly.
Jim Alder
2005-05-29 15:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current events
so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
--
"'The American President' - In this movie, Michael Douglas plays Bill
Clinton as Clinton would like to be - handsome, thin,courageous, liberal
and widowed." - Ann Coulter in "How to Talk to a Liberal"
Rich Travsky
2005-05-30 03:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current events
so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
You must be the only one who doesn't know about this:


http://www.rense.com/general35/MEDIA.HTM

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing
illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press
organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television
management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false
information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any
law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a
television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that
Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to
broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about
the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute
the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story
to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well
as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of
three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no
hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The
attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First
Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news
reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal
Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy,"
not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
...
Jim Alder
2005-05-30 08:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Just the closest example I found.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.

"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into my
head when you made your vague reference?

"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds
there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of
the news."

Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained by the
courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague and hard to
prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.rense.com/general35/MEDIA.HTM
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
...
--
"'The American President' - In this movie, Michael Douglas plays Bill
Clinton as Clinton would like to be - handsome, thin,courageous, liberal
and widowed." - Ann Coulter in "How to Talk to a Liberal"
Rich Travsky
2005-06-02 03:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into my
head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its import. Faux
News' final appeal was in 2003

Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less relevant.
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds
there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of
the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained by the
courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague and hard to
prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the news!
This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.rense.com/general35/MEDIA.HTM
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
...
Jim Alder
2005-06-02 06:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into
my head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its
import. Faux News' final appeal was in 2003
Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less relevant.
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing spin
of it.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained
by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague
and hard to prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the
news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-05 02:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into
my head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its
import. Faux News' final appeal was in 2003
Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less relevant.
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing spin
of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained
by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague
and hard to prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the
news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
Jim E
2005-06-05 02:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into
my head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its
import. Faux News' final appeal was in 2003
Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less relevant.
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing spin
of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained
by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague
and hard to prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the
news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-05 08:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't
really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in, that's it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into
my head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its
import. Faux News' final appeal was in 2003
Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less relevant.
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing spin
of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained
by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague
and hard to prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the
news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?

RT
Jim E
2005-06-05 14:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't
really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in,
that's
it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the
news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into
my head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its
import. Faux News' final appeal was in 2003
Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less relevant.
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing spin
of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate
occasions,
in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most
logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained
by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague
and hard to prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the
news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
You just have to distort the findings, don't you.
The finding was that they did not distort the news.


Jim E
Rich Travsky
2005-06-07 04:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Subject: what liberal media?
This one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/newsweekjptoenglish.jpg
That's it? That's all you could come up with?
Hell, no, Travesty. He didn't ask for ALL of them. You don't
really
expect anyone to produce EVERY example of liberal media bias, do
ya?
Oh, I wasn't referring to *quantity*, but *quality*. As in,
that's
it?
Just the closest example I found.
Like I said ;)
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
How about Faux News going to court to be able to lie about the
news?
How about you stop paraphrasing your own warped view of current
events so the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about?
Oh, I'm sure I must be. I'm the only one not reading rense.com.
"On August 18, 2000..." - Gosh, now WHY didn't that pop right into
my head when you made your vague reference?
The Fuax News case is not dependent upon the date - but rather its
import. Faux News' final appeal was in 2003
Dred Scott was in the 1800s, that does not make that case any less
relevant.
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing spin
of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate
occasions,
in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most
logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be restrained
by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with a more vague
and hard to prove defense of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in the
news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
You just have to distort the findings, don't you.
The finding was that they did not distort the news.
Actually, that is what it amounts to.

Here's the ruling:

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
...
Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation”
under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's
statute.

Which means, you can distort the news all you want.

RT
Jim Alder
2005-06-05 15:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on
the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against
deliberate distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the
most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they went
with a more vague and hard to prove defense of proving why they
really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying
in the news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more
here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and can't say.
That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand, tho I have my
doubts.
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-07 04:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate
occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on
the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against
deliberate distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the
most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they went
with a more vague and hard to prove defense of proving why they
really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying
in the news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more
here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and can't say.
That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand, tho I have my
doubts.
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.

Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can and
can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc. (Remember Geraldo
being kicked out of Iraq?)

RT
Jim Alder
2005-06-07 06:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate
occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out
on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule
against deliberate distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be
the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they
went with a more vague and hard to prove defense of proving
why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting
lying in the news! This is not a freedom of the press issue.
Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and can't say.
That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand, tho I have my
doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you 'translate'
my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."

Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how liberals like
you stay stupid.
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can and
can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo
being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA agent Plame?
No.
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-07 06:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate
occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out
on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule
against deliberate distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be
the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they
went with a more vague and hard to prove defense of proving
why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting
lying in the news! This is not a freedom of the press issue.
Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and can't say.
That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand, tho I have my
doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you 'translate'
my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."
Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how liberals like
you stay stupid.
And lo and behold, it went right over your head! Congrats! Your case of
Rice A Roni is on its way.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can and
can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo
being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA agent Plame?
No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...

RT
Jim Alder
2005-06-07 18:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three
separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed
out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written
rule against deliberate distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be
the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they
went with a more vague and hard to prove defense of
proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting
lying in the news! This is not a freedom of the press
issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and can't
say. That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand, tho I
have my doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you
'translate' my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."
Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how liberals
like you stay stupid.
And lo and behold, it went right over your head! Congrats! Your case of
Rice A Roni is on its way.
Jesus H Christ, Travesty? Is that all you got? You say something stupid
and get your head handed to you, and it's because *I* didn't get it?? You
take 'lame' to all new dimensions!
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can and
can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo
being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA agent
Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-09 04:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three
separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed
out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written
rule against deliberate distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be
the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they
went with a more vague and hard to prove defense of
proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting
lying in the news! This is not a freedom of the press
issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and can't
say. That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand, tho I
have my doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you
'translate' my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."
Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how liberals
like you stay stupid.
And lo and behold, it went right over your head! Congrats! Your case of
Rice A Roni is on its way.
Jesus H Christ, Travesty? Is that all you got? You say something stupid
and get your head handed to you, and it's because *I* didn't get it?? You
take 'lame' to all new dimensions!
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.

Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're taking the
rice a roni back...
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can and
can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo
being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA agent
Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html

The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's covert
CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any suspect who
might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to columnist Robert Novak,
who published the leaked information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush
Administration sources - who may be high-profile.
...

Investigation - ONGOING.

RT
Jim Alder
2005-06-09 15:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three
separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case
tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and
written rule against deliberate distortion of the
news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would
be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot
be restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer
they went with a more vague and hard to prove defense
of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and
supporting lying in the news! This is not a freedom of
the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and
definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and
can't say. That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand,
tho I have my doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you
'translate' my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."
Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how
liberals like you stay stupid.
And lo and behold, it went right over your head! Congrats! Your case
of Rice A Roni is on its way.
Jesus H Christ, Travesty? Is that all you got? You say something stupid
and get your head handed to you, and it's because *I* didn't get it??
You take 'lame' to all new dimensions!
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're taking
the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of the above,
I see no need to do so twice.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can
and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your laughable
idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use the word 'fuck'.
Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would see that as government
censorship.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info?
Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA
agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's
covert CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any
suspect who might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to
columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked information, the
suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration sources - who may be
high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is obviously
guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-13 02:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three
separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case
tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and
written rule against deliberate distortion of the
news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would
be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot
be restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer
they went with a more vague and hard to prove defense
of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and
supporting lying in the news! This is not a freedom of
the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and
can't say. That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand,
tho I have my doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you
'translate' my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."
Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how
liberals like you stay stupid.
And lo and behold, it went right over your head! Congrats! Your case
of Rice A Roni is on its way.
Jesus H Christ, Travesty? Is that all you got? You say something stupid
and get your head handed to you, and it's because *I* didn't get it??
You take 'lame' to all new dimensions!
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're taking
the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Admitting you hang with preteen girls? You one of those sickos?
Post by Jim Alder
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of the above,
I see no need to do so twice.
You did? Snicker - oh, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can
and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your laughable
idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use the word 'fuck'.
Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would see that as government
censorship.
You're basically admitting my point...a station whose newscaster did that would
face fines at the least.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.
Wow, I knew you were DUMB...
Post by Jim Alder
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
Why was Geraldo kicked out of Iraq?

So, if you had secret military info, you'd see nothing wrong with giving it
to our enemies because it's free speech? HAHAHAHHAH
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA
agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
You make us laugh with your stupidity.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's
covert CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any
suspect who might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to
columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked information, the
suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration sources - who may be
high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is obviously
guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
Duh, WHO leaked it? DUH? And then arrest them because it's a possible
felony? DUH?

RT
Tempest
2005-06-13 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim E
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three
separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case
tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and
written rule against deliberate distortion of the
news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would
be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot
be restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer
they went with a more vague and hard to prove defense
of proving why they really did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and
supporting lying in the news! This is not a freedom of
the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
See, the court got it right, finally.
That it's ok to make up the news?
No, dumbshit. That it's illegal, unconsititutional and
definitely NOT
"ok" for the government to tell the news media what it can and
can't say. That should be simple enough for even YOU to understand,
tho I have my doubts.
Post by Rich Travsky
Translation - it's ok to make up the news.
And lo and behold, "my doubts" prove correct after all. You ARE too
stupid to understand what I thought was a simple point, so you
'translate' my "No, you're wrong" reply back into "Yes, you're right."
Congratulations! You have in one sentence demonstrated how
liberals like you stay stupid.
And lo and behold, it went right over your head! Congrats! Your case
of Rice A Roni is on its way.
Jesus H Christ, Travesty? Is that all you got? You say something stupid
and get your head handed to you, and it's because *I* didn't get it??
You take 'lame' to all new dimensions!
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're taking
the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Admitting you hang with preteen girls? You one of those sickos?
Well, he is a Republican.

Stop Republican Pedophiles
www.armchairsubversive.com
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of the above,
I see no need to do so twice.
You did? Snicker - oh, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it can
and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your laughable
idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use the word 'fuck'.
Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would see that as government
censorship.
You're basically admitting my point...a station whose newscaster did that would
face fines at the least.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.
Wow, I knew you were DUMB...
Post by Jim Alder
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
Why was Geraldo kicked out of Iraq?
So, if you had secret military info, you'd see nothing wrong with giving it
to our enemies because it's free speech? HAHAHAHHAH
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA
agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
You make us laugh with your stupidity.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's
covert CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any
suspect who might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to
columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked information, the
suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration sources - who may be
high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is obviously
guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
Duh, WHO leaked it? DUH? And then arrest them because it's a possible
felony? DUH?
RT
--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
Jim Alder
2005-06-13 06:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're taking
the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Admitting you hang with preteen girls? You one of those sickos?
Travesty, don't you get tired of playing the idiot? We all live for the
day when you really try, and we can all quantify just exactly how stupid
you really are.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of the
above, I see no need to do so twice.
You did? Snicker - oh, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Bite me, you little punk.

QUICK, HOLMAN! Change your name again!!!
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it
can and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your
laughable idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use the
word 'fuck'. Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would see that
as government censorship.
You're basically admitting my point...
No, you dimwit moron! Jesus! Only you can look at "You're utterly and
totally wrong!" and see "I guess you're right!"
Post by Rich Travsky
...a station whose newscaster did
that would face fines at the least.
All ya gotta do is say it, Travesty, and everyone will believe you.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.
Wow, I knew you were DUMB...
NO, you don't, Travesty. You don't know diddly about squat.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;
Why was Geraldo kicked out of Iraq?
Because he was a security risk by virtue of his stupidity.
Post by Rich Travsky
So, if you had secret military info, you'd see nothing wrong with
giving it to our enemies because it's free speech? HAHAHAHHAH
Sigh.... Why do you pretend to read things I didn't say and refuse to
see what I actually did say? Like I said, why do you play the idiot when
you can certainly be an idiot without pretense?
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA
agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
You make us laugh with your stupidity.
Laugh it up, numb nuts. You can't seem to do anything else.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie
Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public
revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak.
Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked
information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration
sources - who may be high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is
obviously guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
Duh, WHO leaked it? DUH? And then arrest them because it's a possible
felony? DUH?
One guilty party (according to you) is still free and still publishing
articles every week. Why isn't he in jail? Why isn't he even charged? Why
are you such a dipshit?
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-15 04:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're taking
the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Admitting you hang with preteen girls? You one of those sickos?
Travesty, don't you get tired of playing the idiot? We all live for the
day when you really try, and we can all quantify just exactly how stupid
you really are.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of the
above, I see no need to do so twice.
You did? Snicker - oh, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Bite me, you little punk.
QUICK, HOLMAN! Change your name again!!!
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what it
can and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret documents
constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage of the
Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your
laughable idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use the
word 'fuck'. Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would see that
as government censorship.
You're basically admitting my point...
No, you dimwit moron! Jesus! Only you can look at "You're utterly and
totally wrong!" and see "I guess you're right!"
Post by Rich Travsky
...a station whose newscaster did
that would face fines at the least.
All ya gotta do is say it, Travesty, and everyone will believe you.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our troop
positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.
Wow, I knew you were DUMB...
NO, you don't, Travesty. You don't know diddly about squat.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;
Why was Geraldo kicked out of Iraq?
Because he was a security risk by virtue of his stupidity.
Post by Rich Travsky
So, if you had secret military info, you'd see nothing wrong with
giving it to our enemies because it's free speech? HAHAHAHHAH
Sigh.... Why do you pretend to read things I didn't say and refuse to
see what I actually did say? Like I said, why do you play the idiot when
you can certainly be an idiot without pretense?
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of CIA
agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
You make us laugh with your stupidity.
Laugh it up, numb nuts. You can't seem to do anything else.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie
Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public
revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak.
Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked
information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration
sources - who may be high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is
obviously guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
Duh, WHO leaked it? DUH? And then arrest them because it's a possible
felony? DUH?
One guilty party (according to you) is still free and still publishing
No, by his own admission he published that info. *Who* gave it to him is
the focus of the investigation.
Post by Jim Alder
articles every week. Why isn't he in jail? Why isn't he even charged? Why
are you such a dipshit?
Why are you an idiot?
Jim Alder
2005-06-15 08:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're
taking the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Admitting you hang with preteen girls? You one of those sickos?
Travesty, don't you get tired of playing the idiot? We all live for the
day when you really try, and we can all quantify just exactly how
stupid you really are.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of
the above, I see no need to do so twice.
You did? Snicker - oh, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Bite me, you little punk.
QUICK, HOLMAN! Change your name again!!!
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what
it can and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret
documents constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage
of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your
laughable idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use
the word 'fuck'. Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would
see that as government censorship.
You're basically admitting my point...
No, you dimwit moron! Jesus! Only you can look at "You're utterly and
totally wrong!" and see "I guess you're right!"
Post by Rich Travsky
...a station whose newscaster did
that would face fines at the least.
All ya gotta do is say it, Travesty, and everyone will believe you.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our
troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.
Wow, I knew you were DUMB...
NO, you don't, Travesty. You don't know diddly about squat.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press;
Why was Geraldo kicked out of Iraq?
Because he was a security risk by virtue of his stupidity.
Post by Rich Travsky
So, if you had secret military info, you'd see nothing wrong with
giving it to our enemies because it's free speech? HAHAHAHHAH
Sigh.... Why do you pretend to read things I didn't say and refuse to
see what I actually did say? Like I said, why do you play the idiot
when you can certainly be an idiot without pretense?
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of
CIA agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
You make us laugh with your stupidity.
Laugh it up, numb nuts. You can't seem to do anything else.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie
Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public
revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak.
Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the
leaked information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush
Administration sources - who may be high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is
obviously guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
Duh, WHO leaked it? DUH? And then arrest them because it's a
possible felony? DUH?
One guilty party (according to you) is still free and still publishing
No, by his own admission he published that info. *Who* gave it to him
is the focus of the investigation.
Post by Jim Alder
articles every week. Why isn't he in jail? Why isn't he even charged?
Why are you such a dipshit?
Why are you an idiot?
You lose. Now get lost.
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-19 03:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Hello? The case found distorting the news - aka lying - is NOT a crime.
Hello? Does the significance of this escape you Addled? We're
taking the rice a roni back...
Even preteen valley girls stopped saying "Hello!?" some time ago,
Admitting you hang with preteen girls? You one of those sickos?
Travesty, don't you get tired of playing the idiot? We all live for the
day when you really try, and we can all quantify just exactly how
stupid you really are.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Travesty. And since I've already explained the INsignificance of
the above, I see no need to do so twice.
You did? Snicker - oh, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Bite me, you little punk.
QUICK, HOLMAN! Change your name again!!!
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Yes, the government can and DOES tell the news media what
it can and can't say. Obscenity laws, fraud, war info, etc.
No, it doesn't. The news prints 'leaked' top secret
documents constantly. Obscenity laws? Try reading coverage
of the Jackson trial.
How many newscasters say "fuck" on the news?
Until you make the evening news, they won't have to, dumb fuck.
Your dodge noted.
Oh, are you another of those puffed up liberals who likes to "note"
things, as if it is going on my permanent record? Spare me your
laughable idiocy. Normal people in polite conversation don't use
the word 'fuck'. Only YOU, being neither polite nor normal, would
see that as government censorship.
You're basically admitting my point...
No, you dimwit moron! Jesus! Only you can look at "You're utterly and
totally wrong!" and see "I guess you're right!"
Post by Rich Travsky
...a station whose newscaster did
that would face fines at the least.
All ya gotta do is say it, Travesty, and everyone will believe you.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
(Remember Geraldo being kicked out of Iraq?)
And was the idiot prosecuted for telling the enemy our
troop positions?
He could have been.
No, he couldn't have.
No penalty for endangering troops and revealing military info? Astounding.
Only to you, Travesty.
Wow, I knew you were DUMB...
NO, you don't, Travesty. You don't know diddly about squat.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press;
Why was Geraldo kicked out of Iraq?
Because he was a security risk by virtue of his stupidity.
Post by Rich Travsky
So, if you had secret military info, you'd see nothing wrong with
giving it to our enemies because it's free speech? HAHAHAHHAH
Sigh.... Why do you pretend to read things I didn't say and refuse to
see what I actually did say? Like I said, why do you play the idiot
when you can certainly be an idiot without pretense?
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
No. Was Bob Novak prosecuted for revealing the identity of
CIA agent Plame? No.
The investigation is ongoing, you know...
What investigation? He printed it. What's to investigate?
Sigh. I dare you to be more stupid.
Why? Are you feeling lonesome?
You make us laugh with your stupidity.
Laugh it up, numb nuts. You can't seem to do anything else.
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie
Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public
revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak.
Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the
leaked information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush
Administration sources - who may be high-profile. ...
Investigation - ONGOING.
That's an investigation into who leaked it TO Novak, who is
obviously guilty as sin. I repeat, what's to investigate?
Duh, WHO leaked it? DUH? And then arrest them because it's a
possible felony? DUH?
One guilty party (according to you) is still free and still publishing
No, by his own admission he published that info. *Who* gave it to him
is the focus of the investigation.
Post by Jim Alder
articles every week. Why isn't he in jail? Why isn't he even charged?
Why are you such a dipshit?
Why are you an idiot?
You lose. Now get lost.
Says the dope who didn't know who the investigation was looking for...

RT
A***@LoonyRighwing.com
2005-06-19 03:41:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:22:45 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
You lose. Now get lost.
Says the dope who didn't know who the investigation was looking for...
Poor ALDERLOON

He's fast approaching Dana Raffaniello's credibility.
Post by Rich Travsky
=================================================================
Post by Jim Alder
Yeah, that will really soothe the families of the 1600+ dead, the
15,000 maimed and wounded who will now face VA cuts, lost jobs and
"backdoor drafts".
"Hey, as long as it pisses off leftwing America haters like you
'

Jim Alder
2005-06-05 15:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing
spin of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
No one says they lied. (Except whiney little you, of course)
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with
a more vague and hard to prove defense of proving why they really
did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in
the news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Nowhere near enough to listen to your idiotic rants while you ignore
what I'm trying to tell you.
--
Logic is not everything. But it is something--something which can be
taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some
degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live.--
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical
Thought, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 306.
Rich Travsky
2005-06-07 04:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
It's not the case which is irrelevant. It's you and your leftwing
spin of it.
The only spin is you making excuses for Faux News lying.
No one says they lied. (Except whiney little you, of course)
That's what their suit covered.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Rich Travsky
Post by Jim Alder
"Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news."
Since they were being charged with lying, that would be the most logical
legal defense, since a free press by its nature cannot be
restrained by the courts. You of course would prefer they went with
a more vague and hard to prove defense of proving why they really
did fire her.
Sigh. Rightards. You're actually condoning and supporting lying in
the news! This is not a freedom of the press issue. Read more here
Sigh... Leftwits. No.
Remain stupid and ignorant then (your natural state).
Nowhere near enough to listen to your idiotic rants while you ignore
what I'm trying to tell you.
Like I said...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...