).
It's neither surprising nor inexplicable, it's simply one of the pitfalls of creating and slanting stories for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration.
1
haha! Their bushitler hatred is killing them. BDS.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 01:32 PM (8e/V4)
2
The guy who wrote the original article, Nicholas Confessore, was the same person who later blamed the Times for not checking thoroughly enough into her story?
What a crock!
Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 01:44 PM (g9UJq)
3
ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED
A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.
John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.
"If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained.
The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.
A friend of Green's at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News."
Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9ab.htm
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 01:51 PM (8e/V4)
4
Another "smoking gun" on media bias? How many more actual non-forged documents will it take?
Posted by: Chief RZ at March 23, 2006 02:16 PM (iNTGz)
5
Where is John Ryan and the noise? Surely they can explain this "mistake" on the part of the NYT. Surely!
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 03:16 PM (rUyw4)
6
you dumb neo con sheep,everything charlie sheen said is the truth,silverstein admitted they "pulled"the building.a demolition takes weeks to plan for,not an hour!wake up,
you sheep will beleive anthing!!!
Posted by: dale at March 23, 2006 03:22 PM (fM9Xc)
7
Begs the question -- who can trust anything you read in their newspaper.
Do you think their stock price will be zero before Bush retires? They announced earnings reduction and revenue shortfall just yesterday and their bonds are teetering on junk. Gonna be close.
Doubt they will figure out what the problem is.
Posted by: 10ksnooker at March 23, 2006 03:34 PM (7evkT)
8
Dale forgot his medication again.
Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 03:39 PM (MkwVi)
9
>>>everything charlie sheen said is the truth,
how sad.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 03:58 PM (8e/V4)
10
DPB: I read the story and the retraction...you have to look pretty hard to find the "creating and slanting stories for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration" angle to it. Sounds to me like lazy journalism on a routine Katrina story -- unless every story written about a Katrina victim has no news value and is merely another attempt to damage the administration of course.
Posted by: Eric at March 23, 2006 04:13 PM (UHKaK)
11
dale, how would you be in a position to know these things? Just curious.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 04:20 PM (rUyw4)
12
Eric, why do you think NBC has carried a Katrina story every night since the hurricane, that's what, more than six months of spots? Certainly their viewers are tired of it, so there must be another purpose. I wonder what that could be?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 23, 2006 04:41 PM (RHG+K)
13
Isn't it obvious JJ? Dale gets secret coded messages through his tinfoil hat.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 23, 2006 06:31 PM (0yYS2)
14
In Morse Code, IM, or in the super secret alien script?
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 07:12 PM (rUyw4)
15
The DaVinci code, most likely.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 24, 2006 06:11 AM (0yYS2)
16
DPB;My reference was to the Times story, don't really watch NBC so can't really comment. But isn't NBC a holding of GE, a major vendor to the War? Why would they cut their own throats with the admin ... unless someone is still listening?
Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2006 08:39 AM (UHKaK)
17
Eric, the news division operates on its own; it doesn't receive stories from above. Leftward bias in the mainstream media isn't decided at the corporate level, it's a soft conspiracy that continues because of a lack of ideological diversity at every level of journalism.
Look at the outrage among liberals because Fox tries to be politically neutral. It's as if one of THOSE families were buying a house in an all-white neighborhod.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 24, 2006 09:01 AM (RHG+K)
18
The NEW YORK TIME is like the horns of a steer A POINT HERE A POINT THERE AND A LOT OF BULL IN BETWEEN
Posted by: sandpiper at March 24, 2006 09:44 AM (nMpEK)
19
DPB; That's probably where you and I differ: ideology has no place in journalism, left or right. And insisting upon more of a rightward slant to combat the perceptions of a leftward one does more to damage journalism than it does to "balance" it. Balance? What about truth? Your model implicitly agrees there are no objective truths, merely differing agenda-driven viewpoints. Can any kind of truth ever be derived from such a system?
If we end up with the kind of news that lobs televised softballs to their ideological counterparts in the government, but holds the feet of the other guys to the fire, that's not news. That's PR.
Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2006 10:11 AM (UHKaK)
20
Eric, you and I certainly agree that the ideal journalist ignores ideology when reporting, however, that's not how it works now in practice. In fact, most journalism schools acknowledge bias, though it isn't called that.
That's why I've posted numerous times on the "evolution" of modern journalism: from interpretive reporting, which begat advocacy journalism, which is begetting agenda journalism, which is being legitmized by supposed experts in the field. See the blog PressThink, written by a journalism professor, which often plays with the idea of bias as a
good thing in journalism.
Since truly professional, unbiased journalism seems unattainable in today's America, we must ensure, at least, a healthy balance of ideology. Otherwise we're left with the way things were since Vietnam - with a journalistic elite who self-identify as "progressive" deciding what is news and how that news will be presented.
Much of talk radio and half of the blogosphere are challenging this de facto monopoly.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 24, 2006 11:58 AM (RHG+K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
