Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, by the way, over 700 arrests of protestors at this point, and what does the NYT have to say about it?

"Until now, the organized protests that have drawn hundreds of thousands of people have proceeded mostly without violence."

Tell me - which side does this misstatement serve?

How is this a misstatment? Or how is it inconsistant with your assertion that 700 protestors have been arrested? Were they all arrested for being violent? Or were some of them film crews using the protests as a backdrop? At least one appears to have been arrested for attempting to correct a misunderstanding regarding a co-worker (see prior cited story).

I'm not saying it's not biased to say that the protests have proceeded mostly without violence, but no more biased than to mention 700 arrests without mentioning that most of them are not for violent acts, but rather for (non-violently) protesting in manners not approved, such as sit-ins.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, by the way, over 700 arrests of protestors at this point, and what does the NYT have to say about it?

"Until now, the organized protests that have drawn hundreds of thousands of people have proceeded mostly without violence."

Tell me - which side does this misstatement serve?

Even though Bill Maher ignominiously encouraged rioting in the streets this week,* I am unaware of such riots having occurred. Most of the press I've read has commented (though anecdotally) on its surprising peacefulness, though admittedly I'm a slave of sissified liberal media.

Can you direct me to the true news stories detailing the violent arrest of the angry mobs?

Thanks,
Gattigap

"[T]onight, I am urging all the protesters in New York next week to riot! I'm talking about good old-fashioned rioting, the kind that made whitey move to the suburbs. Look, protester, you spent two weeks making that papier-mâché Dick Cheney mask. Now light it on fire and torch the nearest GAP store. Two lesbians with a “Lick Bush” sign is not going to make the “Nightly News.” Pick up a garbage can and throw it through a Starbucks window! I don't want to see a candlelight vigil. This is New York ; there's a body count at Simon and Garfunkel concerts.

"If anything with Trump written on it is standing after September 3 rd , you're a bunch of pussies who aren't worth the hemp in your Timberland shoes.
I want to see cab drivers so nervous they stop picking up the white people. We're Americans, damn it! We burn cars over basketball games. Let's make some noise. Let's kick some ass. If I want to turn on the TV and see nothing, I'll keep watching the Olympics."

Perhaps it sounded funnier on TV than it does in print, but you get the idea.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ummm. Would you concede that maybe not all of those arrested were violent? That maybe some of them were arrested for peaceful demonstrations outside of the free-speech zones, rather than for being, well, violent?

I don't know. I (finally) hooked up to coverage last night on a streaming site, and saw some shots - quite a lot of shots, actually - of some very violent action on the protesters' behalf. I saw people running past other poeple waiting in a line and smacking them and yelling things at them. I saw tons of people fighting cops. I saw a parade float burning. Overall, my impression was that there was a very significant amount of violent demonstration going on. But, even watching a work TV today, with just network channels, this is being downplayed.

Bias? I don't know for sure. What I do know is, some sites are showing video, and those videos show a great deal of violence. Other sites and stations are talking about how peaceful everything is, and interviewing Grandmas for Kerry. This dichotomy nicely matches how I would classify them based on a lib-conserv continuum. If the cons were simply saying "wow, look at the violence", I might be suspicious. But, unless they're faking the vids, well, they're showing me things that the lib-associated media aren't bothering to show me.

I'm back to the Andy Rooney thing - why is it that, when a supermarket scanner screws up, it's always for a higher price?

[Shape Shifter]

I haven't really been following for a while. Did I miss anything?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let me take a shot:

• Ashcroft Orders the Arrests of Thousands of Democrats; Decries them as Felons and Demands their Names removed from Election Rolls

Ooooh. This is fun. Can I try FNC?

• Thousands of Kerry Campaign Workers Arrested for Mass Conspiracy to Disrupt Republican Convention and Destroy Freedom.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Maher
"[T]onight, I am urging all the protesters in New York next week to riot! I'm talking about good old-fashioned rioting, the kind that made whitey move to the suburbs. Look, protester, you spent two weeks making that papier-mâché Dick Cheney mask. Now light it on fire and torch the nearest GAP store. Two lesbians with a “Lick Bush” sign is not going to make the “Nightly News.” Pick up a garbage can and throw it through a Starbucks window! I don't want to see a candlelight vigil. This is New York ; there's a body count at Simon and Garfunkel concerts.

"If anything with Trump written on it is standing after September 3 rd , you're a bunch of pussies who aren't worth the hemp in your Timberland shoes.
I want to see cab drivers so nervous they stop picking up the white people. We're Americans, damn it! We burn cars over basketball games. Let's make some noise. Let's kick some ass. If I want to turn on the TV and see nothing, I'll keep watching the Olympics."

Damn. I thought he was a Dem!

[bilmore]

Maybe I'll have to revise my thoughts on Kerry's chances.

Last week, I saw him at 80%.

This week, after the Swifties, I dropped that to 70%.

Today, the major story everywhere* is the huge Kerry camp shakeout. Sounds like the Clinton mafia is pulling a coup, knocking out Mary Beth from her coup-won slot.

When a campaign remakes itself this close to the election, it's not good news. (For them, at least.)

So, I'm down to 65% for Kerry.


(*Everybody is covering it except the NYT, of course. Not a mention there.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I'm saying that, when one purports to deliver news, one should not sneak partisan cheerleading into the effort, no matter what side you're on.

I think you're changing the discussion somewhat from your prior post, but ok.

I think it's pointless to say anything other than we are never going to have the perfect world of bias-free news. FNC realized this and has made some good money capitalizing on it. In the same way, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that a publisher would keep printing what you would call liberal cheerleading if it was cutting into the paper's profits. I agree with AG's earlier point, that story selection is a function of what interests our (depressingly Springerized) news consuming public. Do you think all of the NYT's readership are Dem true believers? As I said to Hank, read some of Bumiller's stuff and see if you find it so outlandish.

My local paper keeps talking about the "discredited Swiftboaters". It speaks as if the subject has been closed. It simply does not quote any of the rather conclusive evidence the other way, and, in fact, walks very lightly around how Kerry has admitted that his Cambodia stories were "not quite accurate".

I'm not here to defend the Minnesota Daily Worker. I would just posit that there are many open minded people out there who do not find the evidence in the Swiftvets favor so conclusive. Like me for instance (well, except for the open minded part). But yes, to simply dismiss them as discredited at this point doesn't seem accurate.

It certainly never speaks of how the central points that Kerry was trying to make as he attempted to sway US policy depended on the very anecdotes that he now dismisses as mere details.

Similarly, I am pretty furious at the press for failing to adequately address the the innuendo coming from the admin that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, when there was no proof of that link. That is, until polls showed that 2/3 of the country thought there was a link. Anyway, before that realization I got the real info from other outlets, just like you do with the Kerry stuff.

I don't doubt that if I lived in a one-paper town somewhere in Bush country I'd probably feel the same way as you do. But to say that the press are liberal liars I think skews the debate a little bit. Then again, where would this board be without hyperbole every now and again...

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Damn. I thought he was a Dem!

He is certainly a Bush critic, but enjoys stirring the shit on both sides of the aisle.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I'm saying that, when one purports to deliver news, one should not sneak partisan cheerleading into the effort, no matter what side you're on.

My local paper keeps talking about the "discredited Swiftboaters". It speaks as if the subject has been closed. It simply does not quote any of the rather conclusive evidence the other way, and, in fact, walks very lightly around how Kerry has admitted that his Cambodia stories were "not quite accurate". It certainly never speaks of how the central points that Kerry was trying to make as he attempted to sway US policy depended on the very anecdotes that he now dismisses as mere details.

So, yes, dishonest.

Oh, by the way, over 700 arrests of protestors at this point, and what does the NYT have to say about it?

"Until now, the organized protests that have drawn hundreds of thousands of people have proceeded mostly without violence."

Tell me - which side does this misstatement serve?

Here's a local TV example -- one of our local political reporters at the Convention last night (a well known liberal) breathlessly at the end of his report "broke" a story that Michael Moore was being "thrown out" of the convention during Giuliani's speech and was "surrounded" by 20 or so Secret Service agents for no apparent reason. This morning we find out that Moore left on his own to go to another engagement and that venue security and his own escorted him out as a courtesy... don't hold your breath for a correction.

Also reports on the Air and Water Show here last week focused inordinately in the leads of their stories and headlines on the 100 or so peace protestors who complained the event promoted militarism -- as opposed to the 2 MILLION people who just watched the show and had no problem with it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
When a campaign remakes itself this close to the election, it's not good news. (For them, at least.)

The Kerry campaign was about to go belly up in January. I'm not quite sure how they did it, but they managed to rally considerably with a reorg. Shake ups are a fact of life for we Dem types. We're used to it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't know. I (finally) hooked up to coverage last night on a streaming site, and saw some shots - quite a lot of shots, actually - of some very violent action on the protesters' behalf. I saw people running past other poeple waiting in a line and smacking them and yelling things at them. I saw tons of people fighting cops. I saw a parade float burning. Overall, my impression was that there was a very significant amount of violent demonstration going on. But, even watching a work TV today, with just network channels, this is being downplayed.

If it weren't your ox being gored, you'd see how utterly circular your argument is. The NYT says the demonstrations have "largely proceeded without violence," and you point to some occassions of violence to show that's a falsehood and proof of an agenda? What is the NYT to do if what you viewed is not, in fact, numerically representative of the protests in general, and that hundreds of thousands of the protesters hadn't raised a hand against another?* You would prefer that NYT readers see evidence of violence and come to a conclusion based on that alone? News doesn't exist in a vacuum. People who are there have to report the news to people who aren't there.

News without context is simply data. Journalism involves employing context to give perspective. When we lack that perspective, we aren't getting the news. So you don't see that as Orwellian, let me give an example: I know firsthand that people on the East Coast thought the entire city of San Francisco was engulfed in flame on October 17, 1989 because the news helicopters kept rotating between the Bay Bridge, that one house in the Marina, and the Cypress Freeway. Not being able to recognize these landmarks as they kept appearing on screen, non-San Franciscans were convinced the entire city was devastated. Locals knew better, because they recognized they were seeing different angles of the same thing. If CBS Evening News had told Easterners "The city is remarkably free of chaos and destruction following so large a temblor" would that have been misleading, even though it's mathematically true? If you think they should have said "Only .34% of the city is actively burning," go establish your own network and good luck with that.

At the end of the day, this whole fight is about the fact that our metro papers are more reputable, popular, and profitable than your papers --- so much so that you doubt their competitors' existence. I'm telling you that millions of people in red states read red papers, but they're provincial and shitty** and don't have national readership. Draw your own conclusions. Try to do so without invoking vast left-wing conspiracies, because you've still come up with no coherent reason why the successful mainstream media allegedly displays such "obvious" bias, yet succeeds in a nation in which you claim the center.

*What, Bilmore, what? Sorry, had to be said.

**This is both gratuitous and true. In recompense, the SF Chronicle is provincial and shitty and liberal.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Here's a local TV example

I have yet to meet a local television reporter who wasn't a hack and a camera whore. Apologies to any of you who might be married to anchors.

Also reports on the Air and Water Show here last week focused inordinately in the leads of their stories and headlines on the 100 or so peace protestors who complained the event promoted militarism -- as opposed to the 2 MILLION people who just watched the show and had no problem with it.

STOP THE PRESSES! "Millions Enjoy Air Show." Meanwhile, Bilmore sees evidence of some violent protesters and complains they didn't get enough attention. Journalism involves making a call about whether what you're seeing is newsworthy. No matter which way you ultimately decide, that decision will be second-guessed first by your editor, and then the GOP.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore

Today, the major story everywhere* is the huge Kerry camp shakeout. Sounds like the Clinton mafia is pulling a coup, knocking out Mary Beth from her coup-won slot.

I agree with your conclusions except the Clinton thing. On the one hand, they were pushing Kerry over Dean. They're on his team, right?

On the other hand, they were pushing Kerry over Dean. Of the two, who made you and other conservatives (and now the middle and swing voters) cringe more? The Clintons are playing for themselves and they want to set up a Clinton comeback in 2008.

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
I agree with your conclusions except the Clinton thing. On the one hand, they were pushing Kerry over Dean. They're on his team, right?

On the other hand, they were pushing Kerry over Dean. Of the two, who made you and other conservatives (and now the middle and swing voters) cringe more? The Clintons are playing for themselves and they want to set up a Clinton comeback in 2008.

Wasn't Clark the Clinton's boy?