mattp

You stick your head in the sand because you like the results. But if these "anomalies" had favored Kerry and he won, what would you say? Meanwhile, care to go over to the bias thread and offer some specifics of how you think there is a liberal bias in the media, or maybe an example of how the Republican party has become so dastardly liberal? Yesterday you said you didn't have time, but you apparently have time to call me names in this thread.

I WAS talking about 2004 ... and 2006 also. I actually believe that he did not win the 2004 election. I realize this has been discussed extensively and the Democrats chose not to challenge it and also that most commentators after the fact said there was no proof of election fraud throwing the election. The newspapers and magazines at the time reported, however, a systematic disenfranchisement of precincts overwhelmingly favoring Kerry, that the voting machines (both Diebold and some of the optical scanners) showed serious problems that generally if not exclusively favored Bush, and etc. etc. It cannot all be explained by incompetence. Whether you think Bush won by fraud or not, the fact that there was some serious effort in that direction remains.

Actually, the media DID report it. If you can't read the newspaper, it is not my fault.

He could have but he didn't. Are you going to answer my question in the other thread or reply to Bug's post and tell us how you think the Republican party has become so much more liberal over the last 50 years?

Clearly, they've done it in the last two presidential elections. Why wouldn't the bad guys manipulate the 2008 election results? movie about this

Powell fell on his sword and hasn't been heard from since. I don't blame him. If he is a man of character, as we are led to believe, he got screwed and can't have been left with a burning desire to participate in National politics.

It is a national embarassment that we would allow Diebold anywhere near the voting process, but what is to be done about it?

I asked for more information on this yesterday. Do you remember any details of what he said, or who the speaker was? My impression is that the Clinton administration was targetted much more aggressively by Congressional investigations,"watch dog" groups, and general flame throwing than Bush has ever been (especially considering the actual known felonies committed within the White House)and I'm surprised I haven't heard this before.

KJK is referring to the parties' stated positions on - what? - gay rights?

True that. It is not the temperature inversion that you are hoping for so much as a good solid high pressure stalled out overhead. That and it'd be good if it had not snowed much for at least a week before you go.

Typical snide retort there, Jay, but do you really think the newspapers and TV and Radio are presenting the present course of the war in a fair manner? We're both left to speculate about what is really going on over there because we both know we can't trust the media and, yes, two different consumers can draw twenty-two different conclusions -- but are you suggesting the coverage is either accurate or fair? I'm not quite sure you are or are not saying that. As to the climate change point (or distinction) you try to make, are you REALLY arguing that the mainstream media portrayal of this matter the last ten years has suggested that the question whether humans were causing climate change was settled and the only question was how fast? What have you been smoking? And then your last jab: you can do better, Jay. Clearly you and I both know that there have been plenty of "falsehoods" perpetrated or promoted by the media in this country in recent years, and perhaps throughout our history. In my opinion it is not so much a matter of a corrupt media (though I think there is some of that) as a tilted playing field and I think some of the others here who suggested that a sitting administration or the rich or the otherwise powerful can heavily influence our national dialog are certainly correct. Sometimes, too, I think the "liberal media" bends over backward to be "fair" in response to criticism of bias - to the point of erring the other way.

Question for Wolfie: DOes Rupert Murdock have any political agenda or is he simply a bottom line kind of guy?

I agree with your distillation of the reporting as to Iraq, Jay, in terms of the message one would derive if they were paying attention. However, I bet anyone who listens to the AM radio news, scans the newspaper without reading it carefully, or who watches TV news in Seattle while they are cooking dinner thinks that the war in Iraq, at least, is looking up -- and isn't aware of what you describe as the other side of that coin. Based on what I take to be your assessment that the results of the Surge remain to be seen, isn't it a little biased for our media to be giving the impression that the surge has worked? As to climate change, you misrepresent or misunderestimate my point entirely. I tried to specifically indicate throughout this discussion that the impact of CO2 emissions (I noted the human causation or something like that I think) IS finally acknowledged in the press. But anybody who knows anything about the matter and who wasn't on the payroll of some right wing think tank or working for an oil company knew this ten years ago! For the media to have told us there was any "debate" all these years is whacked. Do you think we are getting a "fair" presentation of what is or is not being done about it now, or what our options may be, or whatever else might inform the voting public as to what they need to know in order to vote wisely?

Jay: Over the past 8 weeks, have the Boston Globe and the local Boston TV and Radio stations spend as much time reporting on questions as to whether the Surge is working as they have presenting testimonials about how much better things are now than a year ago?

Good call on the google searches, Jay. As to those pieces on the Surge, the first page of results that you posted is largely foreign media and editorial pieces. I don't know about Boston, but here in Seattle there have been front-section full or half-page stories about the success of the surge at least 3 times a week for the past month or more. And the NPR stories I listen to when getting ready for work included one last week where the guy reported that we are apparently buying a reduction in violence by hiring many of the Sunni bad guys as security guards, which he said was an unsustainable program that hasn't changed any of the underlying instability, but my impression is there have been many more where there is a lengthy interview with Joe soldier Farhad Shopkeeper who tells about how things are so much better now. I'm not sure how your climate change surge says anything about the question of bias.

Details? And, if this is true, would you argue that the press coverage of the scandals of the Bush Administration has been unfairly scathing in a way that they were not toward the Clinton Administration? Is there a liberal bias at work here?

OK: I see how this works. You wanna spew some critique without stating any basis for it. You haven't stated whether reporting on the surge working is accurate or not, or how this may be connected with your secondary arguement that the reporting is in response to the Democrat's message. Any examples of how "stay the course" was mocked in anything like an unfair manner? Nope. A single example with even a basic explanation of how a conservative policy that has been unfairly portrayed as compared to the corresponding liberal one? Nope. You aren't going to spend hours .... Have a nice day, Mr. K.

I asked about 5 issues, you replied that you had some kind of position on 3 of them. Are you willing to state a substantive position, and better yet provide even an simplistic summary of your basis for it, as to a single issue? By the way, I agree with you that the American public doesn't seem to want real news reporting or analysis of current issues, but is that because we are all a bunch of losers and the media is helpless to do something different or does the media industry bear some responsiblity here? My own feeling is that the broadcast media, at least, is using public resources and therefore should be expected to serve the public interest -- which I think includes informing the votors about the issues they vote on.

OK, spell it out a little bit. You mention three areas where you say that the press has been biased toward a liberal view. Take global warming: WAS there really any debate about this when the media was presenting two sides to the issue? Has the media presented sufficient analysis, background, or menu of policy options? What is "fair" in your mind? How 'bout Iraq: did the media present the fact that Bush was lying about the war from the start in such a way that the average public knew it? MOre recently, your buddy Fairweather has admitted that he lied -- do you? And if so, did the media fairly cover this? How about the Surge: do you think the amount of fluff about how it is working (or maybe you don't think it is fluff) is proportionate to information about the dangers facing us throughout the region? What would be a fair presentation? The primaries: yes in Seattle, at least, there has been more coverage of the Democratic candidates. But is there coverage of their positions? Based on what I've read of polling data over the last several years, the average American supports more movement toward broader health insurance coverage and maybe even national health care than most of the candidates propose, the average American wants more movement toward getting out of Iraq, they'd support more environmental regulation, they are more pro choice... You name it. How does the "non-coverage" of these candidates' positions favor a liberal bias? Or the dearth of information on the relationships between lobbyists, the government, industry, and the press?

That is sound advice, TTK, but if you ignore those who are obsessed with bashing the "left coast" or who complain about birkenstocks you pretty much lose the entire right side of the argument around here.

I've used something similar to that when I forgot my sunglasses. I also once wore a gauze triangular bandage over my face and looked through it when I broke my sunglasses during a sunny July or August climb and ski of Mt. Adams. You should have seen the funny looks I got from all the other people there.

I asked what your position on these matters was. What would be a "fair" reporting on these issues in your mind? What we've had? Take a couple of the subject areas I listed above and ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Do you want to talk about anything other than how you dislike TKK and myself? IF we wanted to argue about whose an ass around here we could certainly do so -- and I'll put my record of taking nutty stands, ignoring "facts," or taunting and insulting those who disagree with me up against yours any day of the week.

DO you argue, KK, that there actually WAS a substantial basis to debate whether climate change was caused by human activity until as recently as last year? Do you argue that the Surge IS actually producing progress in Iraq that is sustainable or that the daily barrage of stories on this theme deserve more public attention than the deterioration in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Do you believe that the criminal conduct of Bush associates should be published as isolated stories that come and go and are forgotten? Do you think nobody is interested in how the economy is impacted by taxing and spending policies or what and whether our government actually CAN do anything to help us? Is your favorite Fox news channel informing you about the details of the positions taken by the candidates? What's your point?

Why can't the liberal media present real information about these issues? My impression is that polling data shows the public is on average far more "liberal" or at least slightly to the "left" if you view politics as a spectrum than the stated positions of most politicians or the press on all of the issues that I listed above.