Liberal Press Bias, Part IV

[mattp]

We’ve seen several of our esteemed colleagues on this site argue ad nauseam that there is a liberal bias to NPR and other leftist powerhouses of the “mainstream media.” However, I watched PBS Newshour tonight and in the Republican v. Democrat debate, Lowry v. Shields, moderator Jim Leher seemed to repeatedly give the Repubican guy Lowry cover, or ask softball questions of him. For example, when Shields comes out of the gate saying that 60% of Americans say they believe Bush has misled American on the reasons for the war in Iraq, Leher turns to Lowry and asks “Why the outcry now? It was a long time ago and haven’t we held elections since then?”

 

At least twice in the conversation Lowry was able to say – more or less unchallenged – that we tolerate or even invite political dissent in this great nation but it is irresponsible or wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises or “rewriting history” now.

 

The real coup was when, toward the end of this segment, Lowry says “Bush didn’t lie – the CIA told him the WMD threat case was a “slam dunk” Lehrer then quickly changed the topic, so Shields didn’t get a chance to reply “CIA actually told him there was no effort to purchase Uranium in Niger.”

 

The transcript is available here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sl_11-11.html

 

 

So much for the liberal press.

 

(To make matters worse, in the following segment, Rick Steeves misidentified the Eiger in his segment on the Berner Oberland. I think our right wing brothers are right: the liberal press is the worst thing to happen to this country since Benedict Arnold.)

[JayB]

They've also clearly been obscuring the truth about the direct connection between the Bush administration's policies and the ongoing riots in France. Stunning omission.

[Peter_Puget]

At least twice in the conversation Lowry was able to say – more or less unchallenged – that we tolerate or even invite political dissent in this great nation but it is irresponsible or wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises or “rewriting history” now.

 

I share your distrust with NPR; however, I believe you are missing something in tonight's debate. Rich was merely saying that we tolerate and even invite political dissent in the US if it is honest and heartfelt. Clearly a dissent based on false premises or “rewriting history” is not an honest one and should not be encouraged. Debates should not be based on lies but rather honest differences of opinion, interpretation and of values. If those who authorised the war wish to raise a debate based on those differences and not on "false premises or rewriting history my guess is Rich would encourage the debate. Is it really so wrong for Rich to ask for a little honesty?

 

Anyway I hope this clears it up for you.

 

[foraker]

Debates should not be based on lies

 

Another beautiful theory confounded by the ugly fact that politicians lie.

[mattp]

(Ah, but Peter: perhaps you have forgotten our other thread where you declined to answer "yes" or "no" to my question: were Bush and his team misleading about the reasons they wanted to invade Iraq when they did? The dishonest debate took place in 2002 and 2003 and you - echoing the Republican party playbook -- refuse to acknowledge that point. I would agree with him if he were saying only that Hilary Clinton or John Kerry were self-serving to vote for the war powers then and attack the president on credibility now without acknowledging that they too were wrong, lying, or spineless then; but he is suggesting that - with the possible exception of Kennedy who he derisively notes voted against war powers and against the 87 billion - all who now suggest that Bush and Co. distorted or misrepresented their reasons for war are the real liars in this area and that is something quite different.)

 

Meanwhile, read the transcript I linked and see if you can argue how it was scripted for or by the "liberal press."

[Peter_Puget]

(Ah, but Peter: perhaps you have forgotten our other thread where you declined to answer "yes" or "no" to my question: were Bush and his team misleading about the reasons they wanted to invade Iraq when they did? The dishonest debate took place in 2002 and 2003 and you - echoing the Republican party playbook -- refuse to acknowledge that point. I would agree with him if he were saying only that Hilary Clinton or John Kerry were self-serving to vote for the war powers then and attack the president on credibility now without acknowledging that they too were wrong, lying, or spineless then; but he is suggesting that - with the possible exception of Kennedy who he derisively notes voted against war powers and against the 87 billion - all who now suggest that Bush and Co. distorted or misrepresented their reasons for war are the real liars in this area and that is something quite different.)

 

Meanwhile, read the transcript I linked and see if you can argue how it was scripted for or by the "liberal press."

 

At least twice in the conversation Lowry was able to say – more or less unchallenged – that we tolerate or even invite political dissent in this great nation but it is irresponsible or wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises or “rewriting history” now.

 

Certainly your quote in bold suggests not that Lowry was complaining of a debate in 2002/2003 but a debate now But I would argue that it seems reasonable that any debate over a false premise should be discouraged. I find it sad that you slam Rich for believing this.

 

You bring up an occasion when I tried to stay on subject and declined to answer a question you posed unrelated to the specific issue at hand. At the time I thought it was a tactic to avoid the issue and again it comes up. I will say it clearly: It is wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises now. You seem to be arguing that it is fine for those individuals to now be engage in a dedate based on false premises. I again say drop the false premises and debate honestly.

 

[mattp]

 

Let me know if you ever want real discussion. Two minutes research and you could have found ample argument for the opposite view of that interviewor the next two. I threw you a softball, Pete.

[Peter_Puget]

Sorry Mattp, just going by what you wrote. Now I am off climbing!

[Stefan]

I saw the discussion on PBS. I liked it. It appeared one time that Lowry got a little angry.

 

How come there has never been apology by the Bush Administration? I remember when Reagan apologized for the Iran-Contra thing even though he never knew about it or authorized it.

 

Apologizing for the actions of people who one supervises--a good manager.

[cj001f]

It is wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises now. You seem to be arguing that it is fine for those individuals to now be engage in a dedate based on false premises. I again say drop the false premises and debate honestly.

Honestly? If they were given false, misleading and erroneous information by the administration, and based on this false, misleading and erroneous information they voted to go to the war, don't they have a right to change their opinion now that the "truth" has been revealed? Is it revisionist to admit you made a mistake? Is it dishonest to change one's opinion if you were wrong? And if the people who feed you the information were dishonest, should you not repudiate them?

 

Good to see you and JayB acting like good little fascists PP. Protect the profits!