DC Rally this Saturday?

Rather, Jennings and Brokaw - all hanging out on the left. Name three equivalent names from each of the traditional three networks, with their nefarious "large corporation" ownership.

 

Shouting matches by nature are conducted between TWO opposing sides.

 

CNN was virtually Bill Clinton's press department during his darkest days.

 

The NYT's OpEd section has become irrelevant and more humorous than anything else.

 

I cannot think of a more shrill and downright evil looking person than James Carville yet he keeps getting work despite his penchant for yelling.

 

All major media outlets have reported Carter's opinions about the curent situation despite his total irrelevance. Don't get me started on the peace prize...

 

Like a true liberal Robert, you resort to name calling in the face of a losing hand. Calling me a liar, how petty.

 

The Fox Networks is a beacon in the night (not that I'm a regular watcher - I still watch Jennings), but has the advantage of a lower level of competition for the more conservative audience that watches cable news and therefore a higher rating than their more established, left leaning competition.

 

CBS chooses Clinton vs. Dole - talk about stacking the deck. I mean there are certainly more capable combatant on the right, as there were better candidates to run in '96. If Viacom were so concerned about having a conservative perspective prevail (or have a fighting chance to do so) they would have done a fairer job in representing the counter-Clinton position.

 

Hmmm...whats more influential TV or radio? Rush Limbaugh has 3 hours a day (Hannity is weak) and even that's probably closer to 2 hours factoring in ads. But again, why do people flock to a guy like Rush? Because he represents a rarely broadcasted opinion.

 

So neither you or Eric Alterman are going to convince me of a "vast right wing conspiracy".

My last comments were meant to be directed at John, not Eliot. Apologies to Eliot.

 

John, I don't expect someone like you to be persuaded by uncomfortable facts and logic. Anyone else, however, who is interested in the subject of media bias would likely find Alterman's book extremely enlightening.

Robert - the facts and logic are what I have laid out and what you have proved yourself incapable of providing.

Another futile post (since no one ever changes his mind):<P>

If you think that asking where the war protesters' signs against Saddam is such a critical question, let me ask you this: Why is Iraq the primary target when North Korea already has nuclear capability and an equally-ruthless and more-unstable ruler? How long until the US goes marching into NK? When will China take the top spot?<P>

 

I can see many legitimate reasons for opposing a war with Iraq. I also see many legitimate reasons for wanting to remove Saddam Hussein from office. The possible answers I can think of for why Iraq is currently the primary target are all very troubling.

John,

 

The fact that you consider Fox News to be a "beacon of light" merely makes my point that the mainstream media slant to the right. By the standards of any other industrialized nation, Fox would be regarded as being far to the right of center, but in the US, conservatives regard it as being at the center of the political spectrum. To use an American football analogy, it's as though the line of scrimmage has been moved from the 50 yard line to the 20 yard line, but one team insists that it is still the 50. Now, even the actual 50 appears to be near the other goal line. Out of this kind of distortion comes the ludicrous notion that CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN are actually liberal. In the recent debate over Iraq, all 5 networks have been beating the drums of war furiously, and Fox's coverage has been little more than thinly veiled propaganda. Coverage of the anti-war movement has been miniscule.

 

At the present time, I can think of only one unabashedly liberal program on American television: "NOW with Bill Moyers." It is a weekly PBS program, whose audience is probably less than 5% of Rush Limbaugh's daily program. And Rush has lots of company in the form of an estimated 300 other conservative radio talk shows that seem to run non-stop. As far as I know, there is not a single liberal radio talk show on commercial radio. I'm not saying that this is illegal, but it is undeniable evidence that the mainstream media are not liberal.

 

Whoa, gotta stop now and head off to a peace rally.

Mike,

 

Are you willing to change your mind?

 

"Why is Iraq the primary target when North Korea already has nuclear capability and an equally-ruthless and more-unstable ruler? How long until the US goes marching into NK?" That's a quote of your question.

 

Spokesmen and women for the Bush administration (Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, etc) as well as those from the Democratic party such as Biden, Levin, etc have both responded that if N. Korea tries to export a nuclear device they will consider that unacceptalbe. Reading between the lines, I'd say that would give one answer to your question. I'm pretty sure if N. Korea militarily makes an adventure against S. Korea or Japan you would also see a response. I can see many other situations.

 

Why are you so concerned that the US is trying diplomacy and patience with N. Korea? For the past 10 years the US has been trying to change Iraq by adhering to and enforcing UN resolutions. Time's now up. 10 years is long enough. Rob Appleby is right. The world has changed since 9/11. The anti war crowd doesn't think so, but ten years is ten years.

 

Someone in an earlier thread said Iraq poses no threat the the US. Tell it to the pilots enforcing the UN sanctioned and sponsored No Fly zones. Every time Iraqi radar locks on to a plane, a US or Brit plane, I'm certain the pilots feel threatened. Pilots are people too. I take care of them.

 

I agree with you entirely about one point. Red China should be exerting much much more influence on their immediate bordersharing nuclear neighbor and puppet stalinist state. Funny they seem so indifferent. Hence their non chalance re. Iraq.

"And Rush has lots of company in the form of an estimated 300 other conservative radio talk shows that seem to run non-stop."

 

Robert, you are wrong about the major news media, in this country they are significantly to the left of the American public - almost always pro-Democratic and anti-Republican. Dan Rather is one of the worst (just check out the website ratherbiased.com for some of the more egregious examples). CNN, which might well stand for the "Clinton News Network", is also one of the worst offenders. If your own point of view is further left than the networks, you may think of them as being conservative, but in no sense is this true.

 

As far as talk radio, be aware that this is really commentary not news, but there is a history here. Conservative talk radio started out as a grass roots movement in the 1980s precisely because conservatives/Republicans were sick and tired of viewing news and commentary through the liberal filter of networks like CBS, CNN, PBS, and papers like the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. etc. The liberal bias is the raison d'etre for the talk radio movement.

 

There are not really 300 conservative radio hosts - there are a handful of nationally syndicated hosts with daily shows (these are the only ones with access to a very large audience): these are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage - a few other conservatives are paired with liberals, like Curtis (conservative) and Kuby (liberal). A few have only weekend shows (Glen Beck). There have been liberal radio talk hosts that have failed to generate an audience and had their shows cancelled (sorry, but radio is a business): Mario Cuomo (former governor), Jim Hightower, Lynn (forgot her last name).

 

The reason there aren't more liberals on the privately owned radio stations (and there are on NPR, subsidized by taxpayer dollars) is that they haven't been as entertaining as the conservatives. If you listen to Rush, Hannity, and Savage, they are showmen - very entertaining. Talk radio like everything else is based on ratings. Get some liberal hosts who are also entertaining and they will be successful on talk radio. But a show is not an entitlement, you have to be able to generate and maintain an audience.

"CBS chooses Clinton vs. Dole - talk about stacking the deck."

 

John, I hate to be in the position of defending CBS, because Dan Rather et al. are among the most biased newsmen working today. But I understand that CBS was interested in other younger conservatives to debate Clinton. These included Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and a few others all vetoed by Bill Clinton. I understand that Rush was a non-starter, Clinton wouldn't even consider.

 

It shows that the Clintons of the world are cowards, they refuse to debate unless the deck is stacked in their favor. And CBS ought to be ashamed for letting Clinton get his way. They should have just cancelled the show.

Eliot, that was Lynn Samuels (sp?). She was a laugh riot and her delivery was awesome.

 

And Robert, you are once again mis-representing my views. I said that I wasn't a viewer of Fox - the beacon of light reference was meant to illustrate how some people regard them.

I give you that Eliot, they are entertaining, and thats about all. People like Rush are not interested in honest debate. That is probably why the liberal talk show hosts are so boring. No wonder Clinton didn't want Rush, or any other of the radical right hate mongers. The one decent voice that the Republicans had, they silenced - McCain. Keep in mind more often or not you hear the liberal side dealing with the administration as opposed to the right resorting to name calling and innuendo.

 

And for its worth the Washington Post, that liberal paper, came out in support of war with Iraq.

 

The shame of it is, the "liberal" press is treating the prelude to the war like Red Carpet time at the Oscars.

If you were to actually listen to, believe or follow liberals, you'd have to think that we live in a terrible country. What a shame.

Chip. The Clintons are cowards who shun honest debates and insist on situations in which they have the advantage. Bill Bennett and Newt Gingrich are honorable individuals, not hate mongers: Bennett was a former Education Secretary and has written a number of books, Gingrich is a former Speaker of the House. Either would have made a good choice but Clinton said no.

 

Rush is anything but a hate monger. If you think so, it is only because you haven't listened to him. It is fair to say he doesn't like Clinton, but political opposition is not the same as hate. Listen to Rush and call in to the show: liberal calls get priority, because he likes to debate liberals, and he is polite to them. I hear much more shrill tones from the left than the right.

Eliot and John, would you care to comment on the fact that MSNBC recently cancelled the liberal Phil Donahue Show and hired the rabid right-winger, Michael Savage? Donahue's ratings had been steadily rising, and he was outdrawing Chris Matthews at the time. An internal NBC memo indicates that Donahue was canned because the network thought it unseemly to give voice to an anti-war viewpoint at the same time that all the other networks are riding the war bandwagon.

 

Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you tell us if Savage qualifies as a hate-monger?

To be fair Eliot I haven't listened to Rush for about 2 or 3 years. When I did liberal who were given air time were not treated with the same respect that conservative callers were.

 

Without taking this thread down even further to roads that will lead to flames and ruins, lets just say that both of the individuals you mentioned have religius views that are very different from mine. While we were founded as a christian nation, and the majority of the population are considered christian; there are a growing percentage of people in the US that are not. And lets leave it at that so as not to take this too far. I just wanted to explain why I have issues with those two individuals.

 

Just to let you know that in Virginia we have open primaries. And I voted for McCain, and would have done so in the elction against Gore. Some of us look at the stands of the man, rather than the party.

Michael Savage is full of vitriol. I'm as conservative as they come but I don't like him. All shock, not much message. Kind of a Howard Stern type of guy.

 

Yet I don't think he's any less hateful than the not so reverend adulterer hypocrite Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson or the patently racist Al Sharpton and Louis Farakhan.

 

Jackson and Sharpton get loads of media play. Much more than their share. Much more than their message deserves.

Attend the rally today (surprise!) Hope to soup some of the shots tomorrow and get some up in the next day or two. In the mean time to try and bring things back to the topic of photography. Don't know if I should start a new thread on this or not.

 

Walking trough the crowds, ran into a guy that noticed my Leica gear. He mentioned that he had gotten an M3 when he was stationed in Germany after WWII. He had joked that he wish he had kept one of the Luftwaffe Leicas from captured German pilots. He introduced me to his son and grandson. He had served in WWII and Korea, his son in Vietnam, and his grandson in Gulf War I. He and his son had over 40+ years between them in the military. They had brought with them the medals they had earned through their years of service to our country (this came about when I asked about why they were at the demostration <duh>; given their long history in the military). I asked them if I could take their portrait, holding their medals out in their cases. They declined. I accepted them for their word, even though I offered to send them prints.

 

My question, how do you deal with reluctant subjects? Maybe it was that I didn't have a media badge. Maybe it was a private thing for them to share thoughts but not images. I was struck by their openess to talk with me, but yet not enough (despite the Leica connection!<g>) to allow an image to be made. At least in my mind it would have been a powerful image, 3 generations that dedicated a good portion of their lives serving our nation, demanding peace as opposed to war. Thoughts?

My thoughts, Chip, are that you should start a new thread - this one is unpleasant, and I imagine most have given up on it altogether. I hope you do start another thread, as I have a few ideas to share on the question you ask.

David,<P>

I'm not willing to change my mind in the sense that I will blindly accept one side's views and dispute the validity of the others. As I noted in my earlier post, I'm quite ambivalent. I am willing to consider reasons and views that I haven't encountered before.<P>

<i>Why are you so concerned that the US is trying diplomacy and patience with N. Korea? . . .</i><P>

My point was that diplomacy has been the method of choice with NK for nearly 50 years, but what is presented as a failure of diplomacy with Iraq for 10 years is adequate grounds for a military invasion. There seem to be motivations for attacking Iraq immediately which have little or nothing to do with liberating an oppressed people, "stabilizing" the region, or combatting terrorism.

Maybe something in the Cheney Energy meetings that are deemed private?

Thanks Doug...

Robert. I don't really know why Donahue was fired. I thought it was because of ratings, but the suits at MSNBC don't let me in on their thinking. :-). Fact is, Donahue was very highly paid and they may have expected better ratings after 6 months.

 

BTW, the conservatives gave Donahue a lot of help. Prominent conservatives appeared on his show regularly and provided spirited debate, which could only have helped his ratings. I believe was was only second or third in his time slot among the cable stations. My recollection is that the order was FNC, then CNN, then MSNBC for that time slot. Maybe MSNBC expected better. I can't see that he would be fired because of being anti-war, makes no sense; didn't MSNBC know his political views when he was hired? Why would they have hired him in the first place if that were true. Something doesn't track here.

 

Michael Savage, whatever else you think of him, is very entertaining. Even my sister, who is a NYC liberal, though he was funny when he went off on one of his rants. He entertains people. I have to say he's more conservative than I am. And that's saying something.

 

The point about NK is that it is a very different situation. We can win in Iraq, and we can free the Iraqi people from the tyrant. NK has a one million man army, and the major population centers of S Korea (40% of the population) are literally within artillery range of NK. Moreover, NK already has nuclear weapons, according to reports at least two bombs. The US has 37,000 troops in SK. We would need at least 500,000 more troops to even have a credible conventional deterrent. We have relied for these 50 years on the threat of nuclear retaliation to prevent an invasion into the South by NK.

 

You see, there is no military option in Korea that would not involve massive civilian casualties, not by the US but by an NK attack on the civilian population of SK. Seoul is just too close to the DMZ. The Bush administration knows this, just as every previous administration knew it. Fact is we can rid the world of one of its worst tyrants in Iraq, we can't do it in NK. But eventually the NK regime will fall just as the Soviet empire fell.

So it's about being able to have another Gulf War, or Afghnaistan then? As long a war is winnable then it is Ok? Even some of the vets I talked today said that they felt this was the first war that the US would be involved in that we did a first strike (or pre-emptive strike). They also questioned what appears to be a lack of effort to bring Irag to the table since 2000, when Bush came into office. They even questioned the Summitt Confernce this weekend where the Iraqi's wren't even asked to attend.

 

In regards to Michael Savage, "his best-selling book he writes that "a minority of feminist zealots rule the culture" causing America to be "both feminized and homosexualized to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic."

 

And the Jan. 8, 1996 San Francisco Examiner quotes Savage as saying, "Fat lesbians are anti-family."

 

If that is not hate mongering I don't know what is....

 

 

 

I'll admit that one group did remind me of the Cheney Energy summitt that has yet to see the light of day of teh Sunshine Laws.....

Chip. Don't blow a gasket, you need anger management. :-)

 

Yes, you don't start a war and commit American lives unless it can be won. Saddam is an evil man, a killer, a monster, and I can't for the life of me understand why some people are so dead set against ridding the world of this man, before he obtains and uses a nuclear bomb, dirty bomb, anthrax, smallpox, sarin gas, and god knows what else.

 

Edmund Burke said the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. We have the opportunity to get rid of this evil man. The President is committed to it. I don't care that there are other evil tyrants in the world, we can get rid of this one, and that is a good thing. I'm sorry, but in this instance George Bush and Tony Blair are on the side of the angels, while France, Germany, Russia, and all of the anti-protesters are not. These anti-war protesters are just on the wrong side of history and the wrong side period. This is not the Vietnam War. Thius time our leaders are right and the anti-war movement is wrong. If you don't believe me, just ask any Iraqi after Baghdad is liberated.

Perhaps if there were a "pre-emptive strike" against Cambodia, Pol Pot would not have been able to murder half of his people. The whole world stood around and watching him do it. Saddam Hussein is Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin; he is as bad as any of these evil men. He just doesn't have the means to kill as many people as Stalin or Hitler, but give him time to obtain a few nuclear boms and you will see what he can do. Yes, if it takes a pre-emptive war to get rid of a man like Saddam, I am in favor of it.

At the risk of this becoming the Eliot and Chip thread....

 

No gasket blown here. Life is too short to worry or get truly upset over things that you and I both have no control over (lets say that I am in a Zen state0. I guess it is NOT the Republican/Conservative way (no offense intended or meant) to mass in the streets to protest. If they had then maybe I and others could see just how evil Saddam is and how all this money now and later is money well spent. The gentleman that I mentioned in a previous post even stated that he wished he could have gone to Afgahanistan after 9-11. Though he has yet to see compelling evidence that the US has a place in Iraq in 2003. I did ask him if he were of age to be active duty would he serve. In typical military fashion (or at least with my experience with my Dad), he said yes. For it would be his duty to serve as the Pesidient felt nescessary. Would it be right? No not in his opinion. But it would be his job.

 

I know that this is extreem. But if others feel as you do, then maybe we need a military of ALL ages that can fight this war that the administration (notice I didn't use the "B" word. As one person said to me today, maybe we need an Army of the Republicans/Conservatives to show us what is right.

 

One of the things that I went out to accompish today was to try and see why some were respondng the way they were, taking to the streets (not all the time was spent behind the camera). I do admit that I tried to strike up up conversations with those that appeared more main stream (or dare I say conservative). Some were opposed to seeing commrads (fellow Marines, Army, and others) come in harms way. Some were opposed to what they considered was an atatck against a foe that has not CLEARLY (their feelings) attacked the US or its DIRECTLY (their feelings again); that this would be the first attack in their opinion that that the US made without a direct (as in 9-11 or Pearl Harbour) attack.

 

The counter protests that I came across used 9-11 as an excuse (or reasoning). But much like the administration they offered no concrete evidnce that Saddam offered a threat to the US. They did bring up the security of Isreal. When I tried to ask them about the rhetoric (not the word that I used with them) that you and others have mentioned in previous posts (all due respect given to you and others); I was met with what I consider hosility One even went as far as saying that my dad should have died in WII (I do look the age) before having a Commie/Leftist.'

 

Mind you; despite my comments here; I tied to go with an open mind. I went to try and gather images that in future history would provide a record (right or wrong) of what was happening in 2003. And believe what you may I did go looking for ansewers as t how how the people viewed teh current situation.

 

One thing that I am thankful for is that you and I (as much as we are are oppposite sides of the fence; have been able to keep things civil (for the most part).