In case you missed last night's excellent program on PBS, you can watch it here or read the transcript. It's quite a report.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Just a hypothetical here. Indulge me RW, since everyone has played the hypothetical "If Gore were President, we wouldn't be in this mess."
What if Al Gore were the President and the exact same thing had played out with Iraq and WOT as it has under President Bush. Do you think Fox would be looking for and exploiting every single mis-step or set-back?
Do you think Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann would be cheering on the war and talking about how all this is necessary? Would Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi be trying to drum up even more funds for the war, while budget hawks like Coburn try to cut funding? Would Liebermann have been shunned by the Democratic party for expousing his own independent beliefs?
299,999,999 (give or take a few) Americans all have their opinions, yet one man was faced with the final decision on what the appropriate response was to threats to our national security and foreign interests. I'm thankful I'm not in his seat right now, or back when these decisions were made.
Don't you think this war has run predictably along party lines ever since the '04 election?
I don't do hypotheticals.
It's utterly pointless to speculate on something that didn't happen. You can't go back in the past and change what happened. I'm just not a "If I had to do it over again" type of guy. That's just the way I am and the way I live my life. The best you can do is learn from mistakes.
I don't think the war's been run that predictably since 2004. You have Republicans like Chuck Hagel who have been critical of the war, and Democrats like Lieberman who've been supportive. You've got a Republican presidential candidate (McCain) who's been critical of the war. Heck, you've even got people in the administration (Condi vs. Dick) who've been warring over the direction of Middle East policy.
Sure, the war's been mostly along party lines, but what issue isn't? Except for immigration, it's a most splintered issue I can think of.
Did you watch the program? Your questions are, ahem, considerably off-topic.
No surprise that you watched this little contrived piece of lefty journalism. You're one of about 10 others.
And Bill Moyers...please. You do know that as president he personally oversaw a half-million dollar transfer of funds from the Schumann Center Foundation to Media Matters don't you?
He's a partisan hack and poisoned the well of unbiased journalism long ago.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
In case you missed last night's excellent program on PBS, you can watch it here or read the transcript. It's quite a report.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Had no desire to watch, but I'm confident Moyers presented a fair and balanced documentary, having representatives from both sides of the discussion.
NOT!
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I don't do hypotheticals.
That's what Bush says. [;)]
I hope to read that article over lunch. I dont have time atm so I must with hold comment. But had to float the 'no hypotheticals' thing at you. (jab jab).
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I don't do hypotheticals.
It's utterly pointless to speculate on something that didn't happen. You can't go back in the past and change what happened. I'm just not a "If I had to do it over again" type of guy. That's just the way I am and the way I live my life. The best you can do is learn from mistakes.
I don't think the war's been run that predictably since 2004. You have Republicans like Chuck Hagel who have been critical of the war, and Democrats like Lieberman who've been supportive. You've got a Republican presidential candidate (McCain) who's been critical of the war. Heck, you've even got people in the administration (Condi vs. Dick) who've been warring over the direction of Middle East policy.
Sure, the war's been mostly along party lines, but what issue isn't? Except for immigration, it's a most splintered issue I can think of.
Did you watch the program? Your questions are, ahem, considerably off-topic.
Hardly OT considering your citation of Moyers focuses on how the war was sold to and via the media.
Since you are an independent, I figured you might be willing to chime in on the partisanship aspect. Especially since people take commentators like Matthews and Hannity as purveyors of hard news, when they are basically spokesmen for their own respective political factions.
I didn't watch it. But...
The mainstream media gave Bush a pass on scrutiny leading up to the Iraq War. It's only when you get into 2005, and 2006 (when the War appeared to be endless), that the media picked up the ball. They didn't ask questions, or give significant air time to decent in the run up to the Iraq War.
With FOX it's understandable, it's how FOX makes it's money, playing to a conservative niche. The mainstream media is supposed to ask questions, and find the answers. Not just repeat what the Administration is saying, and assume that's valid or even factual.
It doesn't make it right necessarily, but I do believe that the "mainstream media" is in ways a reflection of society. While the majority of people supported the war, so did the media in general. When supporters drifted toward a minority, the media increased the tough questions.
Well, Hannity is a rightie. I honestly don't know what faction Matthews represents, except maybe just Washington insiders. I think he's all over the place.
And, iplaw, did you bother to watch the program or read the transcript before criticizing it? You could at least give it that common courtesy. Frankly, you remind me of the fundies during my youth who picketed the theater that screened "Life of Brian" near my hometown who didn't even bother watch it to realize it was 1) satire; and 2) thought-provoking.
I see Media Matters as an oversight tool. Ditto for any blog that catches inaccuracies in the media, no matter where it's from. Oversight is a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I see Media Matters as an oversight tool. Ditto for any blog that catches inaccuracies in the media, no matter where it's from. Oversight is a good thing.
An oversight tool only if you are interested in the left's bias of the news.
Here's the first paragraph of their mission statement:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
What about liberal misinformation in the U.S. media, or is that not important if someone wants the truth?
Problem with the media these days is the line between commentary and true reporting has become increasingly blurred. Istead of factual-based stories, there are a lot of interpretations blended with a few facts which support the author's own views.
MPO, is that it's very hard to get anything which hasn't gone through the bias filter before it hits the air.
<Conan wrote:
What about liberal misinformation in the U.S. media, or is that not important if someone wants the truth?
<end clip>
There are tons of conservative blogs out there that have been doing it for years. Plus, you have the Rushes, the Hannitys, the O'Reillys and the Becks who have their own bully pulpits do skewer the media if they wish.
Back to topic: The Moyer report analyzes why so many media outlets got the story about WMDs wrong when Knight Ridder got it right. The reason: Knight Ridder wasn't as cozy with so-called "insider" sources in Washington and got the story from the grunts in the military, intelligence community, etc.
The point is, questioning the media's role in the run up to the Iraq War is non-partisan. It should be questioned, this isn't the USSR, the media is independent and had a duty to question the gov't. And when they're wrong, they have a duty to question themselves.
It would be very misleading to say that the mainstream media was initially opposed to the Iraq War. Of course, most of this thread is so far off topic, I'm not sure anyone said exactly that.
quote:
The point is, questioning the media's role in the run up to the Iraq War is non-partisan.
I think you meant "should be non-partisan" and if you did I agree with you. The fact that Moyers is the one ram-roding the story ensured that non-partisanship was DOA.
For anyone interested, here is the damning piece of journalism that Knight Ridder (//%22http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11922692.htm%22) published before the Iraq war. Not exactly earthshaking, as most of the commentary discussed doubt over Saddam's nuclear program.
For them to have "gotten it right", I would assume that they would have published multiple stories in the run-up to the war to justify our beatification of them now. But they didn't. We have one story.
This one story against the weight of intelligence from the CIA, FBI, MI6, Mubarak in Egypt, Putin, France, etc...
This is just wishful hindsight by Moyers. I wonder how long it took for him to dredge out this one story?
Moyers doesn't bother me much, of course I didn't see it. The mainstream media as a whole or in part isn't going to weigh themselves, and present the results publically. They're primary business is now, not yesterday.
The motives of the gov't and the gov'ts credibility are always questionable. The media, for all of it's percieved downside, is supposed to be there to help question gov't statements and actions. A defense mechanism, similar to bearing arms.
Even though I was never initially for the Iraq War, and I really disliked the lack of investigation and reporting on the part of the media, I don't blame the media. In a weird way, it's reassuring to know that in the "mainstream media", similarly to FOX, it's all about money.
It's a catch-22, for me anyway.
Do you think though, if it were a non-partisan attempt at examining it, someone other than Moyers would have produced it?
Moyers is hardly impartial and very bitter.
Quote following the '02 mid-terms:
"The entire federal government – the Congress, the executive, the courts – is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
"Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture....
"So it's a heady time in Washington, a heady time for piety, profits and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. Don't forget the money....Republicans out-raised Democrats by $184 million and they came up with the big prize: monopoly control of the American government and the power of the state to turn their radical ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price."
– Bill Moyers' commentary at the end of his PBS show Now on November 8, the Friday after Republicans won control of the Senate in midterm elections."
I agree that the media should investigate claims from any administration and scrutinize them. The problem is, I think they did.
Those media outlets who are falling on their own swords now, I think are doing so because it 1) damages the administration and 2) makes them look humble. The NYT publishes half truths all the time and never accepts responsibility, but they suddenly feel obligated to take one for the team on this issue, pffffft.
That's why all the major media outlets reported in such synchronous manner. Knight Ridder, other than that singular piece of material, went right along with the other media, but it was nothing to criticize them for.
Anyone who thought that WMDs didn't exist before we went in was pulling it out of their a##. There were no sources which claimed he didn't have them from any intelligence agency, anywhere in the world. They all thought the same thing and for good reason. Saddam claimed those weapons and never accounted for them.
To think (and I'm not saying you are asking for this) that any media outlet could have gotten this one right would have been to ask for the impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Moyers doesn't bother me much, of course I didn't see it. The mainstream media as a whole or in part isn't going to weigh themselves, and present the results publically. They're primary business is now, not yesterday.
The motives of the gov't and the gov'ts credibility are always questionable. The media, for all of it's percieved downside, is supposed to be there to help question gov't statements and actions. A defense mechanism, similar to bearing arms.
Even though I was never initially for the Iraq War, and I really disliked the lack of investigation and reporting on the part of the media, I don't blame the media. In a weird way, it's reassuring to know that in the "mainstream media", similarly to FOX, it's all about money.
It's a catch-22, for me anyway.
Point taken on the now v. yesterday, but they have sold a lot of commercials re-treading WMD ad nauseum.
How is the money issue reassuring? Since 1981 (or whenever CNN debuted) news has been turned into entertainment. In the rush to provide entertainment, truth often gets mangled in pursuit of producing good stories on short notice which will keep people tuned in long enough to improve the ratings.
Hannity, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Dobbs, Matthews, Scarborough all take news, put their own spin on it (I always laugh at the "No Spin Zone")- which makes it a commentary, but unfortunately there are a lot of people who mistake it for news.
I'm just as guilty as the next person in participating in media voyeurism as my TV is usually parked somewhere between Ch. 41 and 55 from 9pm to mid-night just about every night. It's the kind of entertainment I like.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Moyers doesn't bother me much, of course I didn't see it. The mainstream media as a whole or in part isn't going to weigh themselves, and present the results publically. They're primary business is now, not yesterday.
The motives of the gov't and the gov'ts credibility are always questionable. The media, for all of it's percieved downside, is supposed to be there to help question gov't statements and actions. A defense mechanism, similar to bearing arms.
Even though I was never initially for the Iraq War, and I really disliked the lack of investigation and reporting on the part of the media, I don't blame the media. In a weird way, it's reassuring to know that in the "mainstream media", similarly to FOX, it's all about money.
It's a catch-22, for me anyway.
True enough. The lamestream media couldn't care less about the war, civil rights or any other issue facing America today, Bill Moyer included. They all sell time, not news. Whatever they perceive as being on the minds of the viewing public is where they will draw their line in the sand. If it sells ads it will be published, true or not, evidence being Dan Rather to name one.Bill Moyer did not publish or produce his work free. He is being paid a handsome sum for it or he would not do it. I might add that PBS is a taxpayer funded media so Bill Moyer is being paid with our tax dollars whether we agree with him or not. For Bill Moyer to come across with this holier than the rest of the media attitude is just silly and very transparent to anyone with enough since to recognize that it's the money, not the news.
And yes, I read the article. I found it typical Moyer, anti right, pro Moyer and very self serving.
I do find it interesting that Moyers is pro-choice. He is (or was) an ordained Baptist minister.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How is the money issue reassuring? Since 1981 (or whenever CNN debuted) news has been turned into entertainment. In the rush to provide entertainment, truth often gets mangled in pursuit of producing good stories on short notice which will keep people tuned in long enough to improve the ratings.
The last several years, there has been a concerted attempt to paint every media outlet that is not "conservative" (anything that's not FOX, or a blog, or right-wing radio) as being "liberal". To me, this obliterated that case. That's a relief. It's about money, and what people will watch.
To a lesser extent on FOX. FOX doing it's thing is understandable, they're group is large enough and probably won't evaporate. All other cable and TV news outlets have to compete with all other outlets. Vying for the majority of people who don't or won't watch FOX.
Got through chapter 1 on the internet. I see how Moyers could "rub one the wrong way," I thought that first press conference Moyers shows was way too obvious though. The press didn't even try. Couldn't try, something like that.
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
True enough. The lamestream media couldn't care less about the war, civil rights or any other issue facing America today, Bill Moyer included.
Beyond deciding what will pay off, should the mainstream media "care"?
Even FOX, which I wouldn't call mainstream, does what it does to make money.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I do find it interesting that Moyers is pro-choice. He is (or was) an ordained Baptist minister.
No big stretch. The Dean of Emmanuel College, a theology professor (Don Cupitt)is an avowed atheist and an ordained member of the Anglican church. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
True enough. The lamestream media couldn't care less about the war, civil rights or any other issue facing America today, Bill Moyer included.
Beyond deciding what will pay off, should the mainstream media "care"?
Even FOX, which I wouldn't call mainstream, does what it does to make money.
Out of curiosity. What makes a media outlet "mainstream?"
At least by public perception anymore, there really isn't. It's either mainstream liberal or conservative.
Naturally it's all about money, altruism doesn't pay the bills. That's my point, journalists seldom let facts get in the way of a sensational story these days.
It's just like the Newsweek op-ed piece that Swake posted on the "surge" thread. The headline and first paragraph were compelling. If you didn't read any further, you'd figure there was a top aide who is dissenting on the war. Read the whole thing, and you discover it was full of fluff, supposition, and unverifiable ghost sources.
Just like Washington is all about power and money.
The reason I've stuck with the WOT and the administration is the Democrats have had far more to gain by trying to discredit the war than the Republicans have to gain, at least stateside, by pulling out the troops.
A lot of the anti-war stuff surfaced during Kerry's campaign. IMO- It would have been closer to a 60%-40% margin in favor of Bush if Kerry had said the war was going well and we were doing the right thing there. There would not have been one iota of political gain for him in standing by his decision to vote for the war.
It was a no-brainer for the Dems to ratchet it up for the two years leading to the '06 MT. Republicans stood to lose and did.
I'm very skeptical and somewhat cynical when it comes to the intentions of politicians as long as they are beholden to special interests. I'm just erring on the side that shows more concern about national security and has the most to lose, rather than gain by sticking with the WOT.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Out of curiosity. What makes a media outlet "mainstream?"
Probably, "chasing public opinion".
FOX News has a large, near unchanging, viewer base. While pretty much all other media outlets are chasing public opinion, FOX is holding on to it's POV. That POV is shared by a certain segment of society, which also makes up their constituency. They have no reason to change, like all other media outlets do.
That's not to say that at times FOX can't be on the same page as mainstream media, it's just not always. But FOX has a niche group that makes it easy for them to stay where they are.
quote:
FOX News has a large, near unchanging, viewer base.
I think the same can be said for NPR, NBC and the NYT...their constituency seems to be fairly unchanging as well.
quote:
While pretty much all other media outlets are chasing public opinion, FOX is holding on to it's POV.
Can you give me some examples? Also note that it's important to balance the hard-core news reporting of Fox with its more ideological editorial programming. CNN, NBC via MSNBC have the same dichotomy. Having the Factor on Fox is no different from NBC having Olbermann on MSNBC.
Comparing "The Factor" to Olbermann (assuming that Olbermann is liberal) is a slight stretch. Primarily because of the surrounding cast. Being surrounded by conservative Carlson, and Republican Scarborough, and Chris Matthews who I've always figured for a Republican, makes it a little different.
Though, I actually like Scarborough (Pat Buchanan is way more rational than I'd have ever thought), Matthews, and to a lesser extent Carlson. There are plenty of conservatives out there, who were once in favor of this war, who are not real happy about it now one way or another.
And MSNBC's editorial folks came to their conclusions over time, they haven't always said things that were in opposition to the war. As opposed to FOX which simply doesn't allow more than that strange fellow Colmes, who apparently is only on the show to set up targets for Hannity.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Comparing "The Factor" to Olbermann (assuming that Olbermann is liberal)...
Are you serious? Assuming Olbermann is a liberal? I think that is a really safe assumption.
I am one of the few people, if any, responding to this thread that apparently actually watched the "Buying the War" broadcast. I felt it was an excellent show, very well produced. I don't want to get into any nasty political discussions, but I haven't read much on this thread to prove anything broadcast on this show to be an outright lie. I think the show was spot-on, and told the truth, however ugly. But that is just my personal opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Out of curiosity. What makes a media outlet "mainstream?"
I am referring to network news, cable outlets (CNN, Fox news MSNBC etc...)and print media such as NY times or the Tulsa World. I do not consider the internet mainstream, yet I do think it is rapidly becoming that way because many of the above mentioned outlets are using the internet. Sites like this one, blogs etc. far outnumber mainstream websites so in my view the internet has a long way to go before it is mainstream. News organizations all tend to polarize themselves either left or right. I think most folks listen too, watch or read from those that most reflect their views, at least I do.
FOX NEWS CHANNEL: The Official Newsroom for the GOP.