mattp

Yo Trask - If you want to point to something us "liberals" would appreciate, check out today's story about the new rules regarding diesel-burning construction machinery. I bet GregW and his friends are not too happy with that one.

Sexy- I agree with you 100% but DDT is a poor example to use in converssing with someone like Mr. Goat who seems not to care much about the environment. I used to have a chemistry professor who, to prove a point, would actually eat the stuff in front of the class to demonstrate that things aren't as simple as they might seem. DDT was used so widely because it was thought harmless after it was shown not to hurt humans. It had not, however, been tested for its effects on birds.

Good morning campers. The "liberal" New York times has, as it's first headline displayed on the front page of the electronic edition the following: "Democrats Who Backed Tax Cut in '01 Balk Now." This headline appears under "business" news and is repeated again in the "Washington" section, a few lines down. Out of 25 headlines displayed, it appears twice. The headline most critical of the republican party or the Bush administration is the following: "Biowarfare: Military Says It Can't Make Enough Vaccines for Troops" This headline, too, is repeated twice. The following each appear once: "McCain and Lieberman Offer Bill to Require Cuts in Gases" "Bush Signs Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits" 'Just thought you'd want to know what our liberal press is forcing upon us today.

I know that. I was trying to poke a little fun at the tangent you and Mtn Goat took there.

JB You have fallen victim to the liberal media. Really those cars are safe and there is no reason that we should seek to conserve oil. Everybody should drive a Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer Edition but the New York Times is owned by somebody who drives a prius and wants to ram it down our throats.

Sorry for my contribution to the situation, Tex, but I for one enjoy having the opportunity to discuss politics with completely nutty viewpoints like those held by Fairweather and GregW, Peter Puget and Trask -- there is no other forum (some place where we didn't at least pretend to have some common interest in climbing though Trask may not quite apply here) where I'd be able to do so as easily.

It's too late.

For those who are late to this discussion, here is a synopsis so far : The press faithfully reports every speech and press release coming from the administration, and presents all that they say as fact. The press gives "equal time" to those who say greenhouse gasses are not contributing to global warming despite the fact that almost every scientist in this field now agrees that they in fact do contribute to it. Not long ago, there was some dispute but now there is not. In at least two instances, the press criticized George Bush prior to his election. The press reported on a "scandal" involving a country club admitting only women. The New York times reported that economic growth was "only" 3.1% where as the other papers said it was just plain 3.1%. The New York Times has staff editorialists who regularly write in criticism of the government. Mtn goat sucks. No JB sucks. What the hell is peer review? Other Western countries have more critical discussion of political issues in their press.

Peter- Again, I noted above that I see a distinction between what may arguably be a liberal editorial bias, and a bias in the presentation of news on page one. I return to my original examples re the war and the global warming and I note that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has really explained how the treatment of these or any other issue has been liberal slanted in the American mainstream press at large. The Augusta story may be your example but I don't get your point. Is it simply the fact that the times ran the story about Augusta the editorial bias of which you speak? How is it that you think they unfairly presented this story? As I said, I didn't pay much attention to it. So maybe I do deserve that "e" after all. Thge 3.1% story may also be your best example, but again I repeat my prior question. Was the significant story of that day that the economy grew by 3.1% or that it grew by ONLY 3.1%. I am not sure what would have been "balanced." The fact that three papers put it one way and one paper puts it another is not, to me, proof that the one way was imbalanced. It may show that on that story the NYT placed a different slant than the others, but which is even and which is slanted. ALso, I somewhat agree with Jim that more significant is that either way, they all ran the same story with the same "growth" statistic in the headline. My review of today's editorials just reflects one search - right now - in response to Shuksan's suggestion that the NYT is editorially against Bush. I said that on any given day I thought the times would show as many for as against the Bush administration and I just thought I'd check. Maybe I would have to perform the same count every day for a month to be sure, but my impression (though I generally skip the editorials when I read the paper) is not the same as yours. Yes, the New York Times is more critical of the Bush administration than some newspapers, but it is hardly what I would call "liberal media." After all of this about the NYT I want to ask: what about the rest of the newspapers that are nationally distributed and what about the TV? If on some "objective" scale the NYT exemplifies a liberal media, is the media at large also liberal?

Sorry Peter. I replied to you and to Shuksan in a single post and I guess this confused you. I know you did not originally comment on the editorials. Also, I don't know what the point about the omission of the editorialists' background was -- do you think they unfairly present the background of some commentators but not others? Or do you think the New York Times is just lame not to reveal that someone writing about an issue had an axe to grind? What would you like me to respond to? And what do I think about the Augusta fiasco? I'm not really into political correctness, despite my possible appearance to the contrary, and I didn't really pay much attention to it. Did I miss something really important? Can I please have at least a "c?"

Looking at (not reading) today's editorials in the New York Times, I see one that looks against and one that looks to be in support of the Bush administration: The Wrong Stimulant: The new package of tax cuts has less to do with the economy than the White House's belief that it needs to take action, any action, to show that the president cares. California Curbed The decision by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reduce water flows from the Colorado River to California's Imperial Valley and urban consumers in Southern California was right on the mark. I see one that is critical of Israel and one that is almost certainly pro-Israel: Israel's Misaimed Anger By preventing Palestinians from attending a meeting in London, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has effectively undermined Tony Blair's initiative to encourage Palestinian reform. After the Storm, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Here's a prediction: In the end, 9/11 will have a much bigger impact on the Arab and Muslim worlds than it does on America. I see one that is critical of democrats and one that is favorable about republicans: W. and Karl, Going to a Garden Party, By MAUREEN DOWD With Tom Daschle out, the Democrats don't even have seven dwarfs. They have six coifs and that's not counting Hillary. How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools, By GEORGE P. SHULTZ Considering the Nixon administration's commitment to desegregation of schools, it is lamentable that the Republican Party's stand on equal opportunity is being questioned. And one more: Chasing Campaign Dollars The ever-accelerating schedule of primary and caucus contests means that fund-raising must begin earlier too, even at the risk of the public's becoming more jaded than ever. So, on balance, the sum appears "centrist" as DFA postulated though it does have more republican-leaning editorials than those favoring the democrats. Oh -- PP. I'll have to read more about that fiasco. I wouldn't want to come as some uninformed, knee-jerk liberal.

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.