mattp

Shuksan and Peter - You might have me on the NYT editorials, exept that when I read it this weekend, I still think I will find at least as many editorials in favor as against (I only read it on weekends). However, even if I am wrong about this, editorial slant is different than news reporting. The fact that one good liberal commentator gets published in the editorial section does not, in my opinion, outweigh the portrayal of administration propaganda as fact. Of those who "read" the NYT, how many even look at the editorial page? 10% maybe? 25% As to the "growth" article, you may have got me again. Except that what is "balance" here? If 3.1% was "slower than expected," wouldn't it be imbalanced to simply state "grew by 3.1%" as if this was just plain good news?

Oh yes, I commented on the specific papers you mention, but what about editorials in other papers? In any of the major papers, don't the editorials in favor of Bush policies far outweigh those against -- every day of the week?

Now we'er getting somewhere. Some examples. The Nation and the American Prospect -- these are not mainstream media and have no circulation compared to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, or even the Seattle papers. I'm stalking about the national newspaper and tv media. As to "turning back the clock," I haven't seen what I would considered unbalanced reporting of the facts, except in SUPPORT of the administration. For example, the thing about global warming that I mentioned earlier. Can you cite a specific story about how they are turning back the clock where the facts were misrepresented in a manner that may have been contrary to the administration's message?

I thought you might be proud of this, another example of how Bush is smarter than Gore.

By the way, I do agree with the discussion of Gore v. Bush, though I would still rather have had Gore as president and he DID win the election. Part of my problem with the pathetic democrats is that they couldn't or didn't make any issue of the fact that Bush's team so blatantly defeated democracy.

Ice climbers are more worried about kicking a rope with crampons or striking it with their tools, either while climbing or while falling, than climbers are. Thus, the redundancy of two ropes is more important to them. Also, rock pro tends to be much more secure than ice screws, and easier to evaluate with visual inspection. The additional stretch (cusion) added by thinner ropes is much less of an advantage rock climbing.

What are you talking about, Goat? Perhaps during the election, but Mr. Bush has not been challenged by the press on anything since he has become president. They treat him with kid gloves. That was my point at the very beginning of this thread: the media is spewing Bush administration propoganda and the mainstream media of TV and newspapers are not presenting anything even remotely balanced. I think DFA's thesis may have some merit - that these media may be more centrist than rightist, but I did present some examples that I think show how the press has portrayed the "facts" with a conservative slant and nobody has presented similar examples of how the press may have portrayed anyting with a liberal slant. How is it - what stories can you point to - that gun control or tax matters have been misrepresented on national TV or in the newspaper?

Goat - Don't let Iain bug you. I think he may be right as to foreign policy, at least, because Rumsfeld wrote the book on it many years ago -- before your hero GW even thought about politics. But that doesn't address the question of whether he is smart. I am beginning to think there is a method to his madness, and he may not be as stupid as he looks. But c'mon -- "nucular?" He reeks of stupidity. Did you hear Tony Blair when he was interviewed on NPR two months ago? The difference was stunning.

I actually agree with you for once, Mr. Goat. The democrats and the liberal establishment (if there is one) have been rather pathetic lately. Like maybe 20 years or more.

I agree that the democrats are pathetic and this overview sounds quite plausible. Would this mean that, at least for now, there is no liberal press?

I agree that the democrats are pathetic and this overview sounds quite plausible. Would this mean that, at least for now, there is no liberal press?

Again - you may be right. But so far in this discussion, I think I have shown how two very important topics have been handled as our administration would want them handled -- without any balanced presentation of the facts -- while GregW has asserted that the media is liberal without citing any examples and Trask, who is a pretty intelligent and generally well-intformed guy can only say that he thinks a couple of TV channels have been "anti-gun." I'm not so sure if they have been unfair in their presentation of the facts, but it could be that they haven't given Charleton Heston and Ted Nugent equal time with the reporters who present the details of gun crimes. Any more examples?

There has been a temperature inversion on the West side, so it may not be freezing - or not freezing very hard -- at night on the likes of Mount Index or Big Four or Colonial, but over on the East side it has been colder.

Most of the time, the road is plowed to the trailhead above Ross Dam, so you can even drive past Colonial Creek and drive up the hill on the other side of the bridge for a pre-view of Colonial before you head up there.

Most of the time, the road is plowed to the trailhead above Ross Dam, so you can even drive past Colonial Creek and drive up the hill on the other side of the bridge for a pre-view of Colonial before you head up there.

Maybe you are right DFA. Does anybody have an example of how an issue has been consistently portrayed - in news stories and in headlines - with a "liberal slant" in major newspapers or on national TV?

I have to do some work now, but let me take a shot at this one. A certain former president called Nelson Mandela a "Terrorist" right up until the very day that he received the nobel peace prize. He was not criticized for this. Not at all. I agree with what Patty Murray said - she did not say that Saddam was a humanitarian. She said that he, and I believe she actually talked more about Bin Laden in this context, had helped build infrastructure and helped people to feed theirselves and that in so doing they had built some good will. These are true facts that our government wants to ignore in portraying these poeople as the agents of evil and portraying ourselves as the great white saviors. Gotta go, but I'll talk w/ ya later.

Trask: can you cite a single example of an issue that the TV and the Seattle newspapers have concistently presented with a "liberal" slant? I honestly can't. Take another example: Global Warming. Last week the paper had a front page article headlined "Global Warming Uncertain" - or something like that. What the story said, if you actually read the lengthy article, was that there had been a recent study of the complex ecological happenings that have resulted from global warming, not that there was anything uncertain about the existence of the phenomenon. But most people look only at headlines or read the first paragraph of such an article and then get bored and look for the latest footbal score. People like Mtn Goat, who still believe that the greenhouse gas thing is "junk science" will have their belief confirmed when they look at the newspaper even when the article in fact supports the opposite conclusion. In the context of the story about greenhouse gasses, the "opposition viewpoint" (the one the administration would like to present to us even though their own scientists admit is untrue) is given equal coverage and credibility. When the headlines and the content is so slanted in favor of the administration's message while over half the AMerican public disagrees, or when almost all scientists disagree, our newspaper is spewing propoganda at us along with the sensationalism that Greg complains about.

Greg- Do you care to address my argument or discuss my examples, or do you merely reassert that the press is liberal?

Just for the record, this is the first time I have ever posted this: Dan Larson SUX. Where the hell were you, Dan? And Peter Puget SUX too.

That's my point, Greg: The "liberal media" is a complete myth. Anybody with any opposition to the war is portrayed as a traitor. How "liberal" is that?

Freeclimb9 wrote that in another thread. Isn't the same true in the U.S.? The "box" is called a TV set. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and this morning I believe I heard a similar idea expressed on NPR but honest - I thought of it first. In the discussion of the war on terrorism, and particularly with regard the Iraq war, there has been absolutely no credible opposition in the mainstream press and absolutely nothing on television that would present the case against the war -- even though most of the citizens of this nation are either against it or have serious misgivings about it. Example: the president and his men says we are going there because they are going to get us if we don't get them first. He says we are going to fight for freedom. He says that if we fight this war against terrorism by invading countries like Afghanistan and Iraq we are going to be more secure at home. The TV and the newspapers parrot this message to us every day, with no attempt to give equal press or even significant press to any critical view of these ideas. Example: Somebody from the administration is on TV every day telling us about the latest terrorist threat that never seems to materialize, and about how our intelligence community is preparing to protect us. And there is no serious publicity of the idea that they may be alarmist or that the new security structures may not be very effective. Example: Saudi Arabia reverses their position on the U.S. use of their bases in any invasion of Iraq and it is reported with no background given and no follow up. This is probably the single biggest story in the middle east in the last two months and there are no questions asked about what actually happened. Clearly, there must have been some kind of background deal but the press asks no questions. Example: There has been no link shown between Iraq and terrorism. There was a reported meeting in -- where was it? East Germany or some place -- between some Iraqui official and al queda guys. bbut the Iraqi's deny it, Al queda denies it, and the German's deny it. It was asserted as fact, but all indications are that it never happened and there is no real discussison of how this appears to be blatant propaganda. You may agree with Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney or you may not. But clearly the TV set and the newspapers are only spraying propaganda. Anybody who criticizes the administration's rhetoric is portrayed as some kind of traitor like Sean Penn or Patty Murray and there is no serious discussion presented to the American public.

No. The term is straight out of Edelweiss' technical manuals. You can do your own field test and duplicate their results if you try to jumar up one or if you rappel to the very end of the rope, let it slide through your braking device, and let go.

What's up, Fairweather? Those evil dems getting you down?

I DO think they are worth the price. But yes, a play on your words was attempted.