j_b

yes. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14839 pretty tough questions. I don't have the answers, only some ramblings and the knowledge that something ought to be done.

you have got to be kidding: what control do you think parents have over what their children do? I am not sure if you have kids, but anyhow I'll break it out to you, the parents word does not amount to much relative to TV or school peers, especially if the parents don't favor out of hand consumerism .... and there is nowhere to hide. In fact advertisers apparently have a word for it, it's called the nag factor. So what is it that you value most: a good relationship with your child or your common sense.

I assume this is rhetorical on your part, but SUVs are several time more lethal to those inside due to high rollover rates and of course many more times lethal to those on the outside not driving in an assault vehicle. Consumers also have to be well informed before making a purchase which most SUV buyers apparently are not since they claim greater safety to be their motivation in purchasing the vehicle.

mostly through education to drive the bad apples out of business. Force full disclosure in advertising. Apply car regulations to SUVs. I don't know but if people knew how dangerous SUVs are they would not buy them "because of the kids, you know". Perhaps, I'd consider vehicular homicide for those using unwarranted heavy vehicles with high bumpers among regular size cars (half joking on this).

my knowledge of these cultures through travel and while living abroad. My reading of the world press on the net in several languages. Anyway nobody else underwent McCarthyism and the demonization of anything left of center the way it happened here.

I agree with most of what you said. Kids control a significant fraction of the disposable (and not so disposable) income and advertisers know it very well.

US media is conservative when compared to the spectrum of media in most other industrialized countries. In a global sense the NYT is conservative.

whew! I am supposed to answer all of this? I don't think I need to and this is getting nowhere anyway.

I am not sure why I should acknowledge such low attempts at distorting my point of view. Go find your peer reviewed articles. And to find them you'll have to learn what peer reviewed means.

yeah, calling them unamerican during a war build up is just so light hearted. Or having our kids choose between MCD and DQ, is not imposing the laws of profit onto them. Or justifying gas guzzlers or child labor in the name of whatever principle is not imposing your value onto others. Give me a break. In the meantime, I have work to do, so I won't be able to answer your bile for a while.

why don't you provide your evidence? this is usually the way it works: you assert something and you back it up. And it is not: you assert something and others have to prove it is wrong. No wonder you have such difficulty understanding that providing references is critical to being credible.

classic. We are talking about the press not what the dems said. I don't define what peer review is. As I said I don't know all the peer reviewed publications in the field, so you are on your own for this. Although you apparently still don't know what peer review means.

hey watch out because anyone reading this, can plainly see who is using morality/values to castigate.

so far what we have is hear-say from you, not references. So I am still waiting on this as well as the references from prior exchanges on various topics.

only if they truly are attempting to change. Just claiming to see the light at the last minute does not count. he is/was not challenged on substance. Please find multiple references in major news outlets that truly challenge Bush on major issues (prior to ~a month ago). Until then I'll consider the discussion closed. cut the crap. I find it actually quite fitting that righteous conservatives found a figure head in someone with apparently so little spine/moral fiber. Especially after all the morality bashing they played during the Clinton years.

Now you are adding insult to injury. Coverage of this kind, if any, is minimal.

this is what Robert Fisk has to say about the US press: http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=9637&repository=0001_article#

most, if not all of these stories are just plain not true and on the contrary show how anti-Gore the press was. neither is being a heavy substance abuser or not having done anything valuable with oneself by the age of ~50.

totally irrelevant. His being stupid or not is not going to change squat (well except to our image as a nation)

as far as Gore is concerned you are quite mistaken: http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/24/waldman-p.html Bush's problem is that his shortcomings are very 'graphic' which is the most important mode of conveying a message today. The press could not, not ask whether he was capable considering his poor media performance. And he never was challenged on substance anyway.

You have it turned around, the press made GW popular. He has been a media darling from the start.

the pocketbook matters in term of whether they *appear* to be veering to one side. Since the bias is mostly expressed through omissions of relevant facts, the reality they portray does not appear to be veering anywhere but simply staying the course.

since when, regurgitating the party line without checking other widely available sources, amounts to walking the tightrope down the middle?

whatever Saddam may be, let's not forget we supported him until it suddenly was not in our interest anymore. We have supported equally worse in the past and will continue to support equally worse in the future. So please, spare us the hypocrisy.

"As for Gore's assertion that the Washington Times and Fox News hew to the marching orders of the White House's Mayberry Machiavellis (in the memorable phrasing of the very former Bush adviser John Dilulio) – where is the debatable point in that? Tony Blankley, the Washington Times' opinion editor, has made much of his ties to Republican activists on the Hill, even used them as sources in editorials. And need we remind anyone that John "Let Me Call Florida" Ellis, the head of Fox's election coverage in 2000, is Dubya's cousin? Even more troubling, if equally apparent, than the White House calling the shots at Fox, is Fox calling the shots at the White House, a matter raised almost tangentially in the Bob Woodward play-by-play, "Bush at War." Woodward reports that in the days after 9/11, Fox chairman Roger Ailes – who had worked as a media adviser for the president's father – wrote Bush a note on how to proceed. "The American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible," Woodward writes, describing Ailes' memo. "Support would dissipate if the public did not see Bush acting harshly." " http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14789