June 08, 2006
MSM Mourns Loss of Ally in War on Bush
While the average American is celebrating news that al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, mainstream press reaction to the news of Zarqawi's death has been panic. The story, too big to simply ignore, endangers the carefully constructed memes of Iraq as a Vietnam-like quaqmire and President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as ineffective leaders in the War on Terror.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
In response, major news outlets are desperately trying to portray Zarqawi's death as a minor development that will have little or no effect on fighting in Iraq and the greater struggle of the War on Terror. If Zarqawi's death does have an impact, the MSM predict, it will be to increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency.
Update: comments have been temporarily suspended while we deal with a mentally ill individual trying to vandalize the site. We apologize for the inconvenience, but point out that this incident validates our points about the Left. They are not on our side in this fight.
Posted by: Bluto at
09:34 AM
| Comments (82)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And why would it have an affect on the war on terror? There are a line of muslim fanatics to take Zarqawi's place.
Time will tell..
Posted by: Splatter at June 08, 2006 09:53 AM (rtnQC)
2
Splatter, how would it have an effect? Of course as it wont end the war we should have just left him to carry on cutting heads off and bombing innocents. Killing him wont have any effect at all cept its one less bastard willing to cut peoples heads off, if it was you he captured and he got killed before he got his hands on you, you would damn well think that a difference had been made, so fuck him, I truly hope he burns in hell. The BBC news here is really pissing me off, he is now referred to as an extremist and not the mass murdering barbarian that he was.
Posted by: dave clarke at June 08, 2006 10:37 AM (VdBwc)
3
>>>fuck the corpses of our slain soldiers
Bluto,
please leave that vile post up. Folks need to see exactly what kind of enemies Bush has made.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 10:55 AM (8e/V4)
4
I think the two, long posts are surplus to our needs.
The part about using two women to collect intel is almost as good, considering the "chastity" bit. "Women out of the house?!?!"
Posted by: Phillep at June 08, 2006 11:16 AM (OpGpa)
5
Bluto,
just crop them down to size and leave it up. It's good stuff, and useful to our side. Karl Rove couldn't do a better job than this guy.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:22 AM (8e/V4)
6
Why doess it matter?
Becuase there are only so many leaders who are able to convince others to blow themselves up while they sit back and drink another beer.
Because they can only say they are immune to the power of the allies for so long, until they are dead. Then the redshirts start to wonder if it really is worth all the trouble and what other things they have been lied too about.
Because the media need a poster-child to dangle for higher ratings. Blood for advirtising. (I kid you not, always remember that is their sole reason for existance)
And finally, because its just like the FBI vs. the Mafia. Keep cutting off the top and only the s**t remains to take controll.
Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 11:53 AM (sYpwq)
7
Rich, I like that:
No blood for advertising!
Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 11:57 AM (ULAbo)
8
Oyster,
Thanks. Its even better when I spell advertising right.
But it is so true and you have to always remember that conflict and tension will always be the MSM's goal because it oushes up ratings. Maybe sometimes the Moonbats have it right when they keep refering to the corporate media. heck, tehy detest them just as much as the right sometimes.
Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 12:16 PM (sYpwq)
9
LOL my ass. I'm retired not dead. I kept my notes too.
Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 12:53 PM (D3+20)
10
Would killing Hitler during WWII by the Allies been a good thing? What if Stalin had been killed by the Germans in 1941? Ho Chi Minh by the US? Stephan Harper(PM of Canada) by the Islamofacists? Of course killing the leader of the enemy is a damn enjoyable thing and sometimes its a game winner. I could care less about the corporate media, organized crime or other relentlessly irrelevant thoughts, the fact is, the leader of al-Qaeda is dead and Islamofacists everywhere are in a deep funk. We Americans ought to enjoy the moment, then get on with the business of killing more al-Qaeda leaders.
Posted by: changehappens at June 08, 2006 01:47 PM (Bmhbf)
11
So, changehappens, it sounds as though you advocate the murder of Stephen Harper. Is that really your opinion?
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at June 08, 2006 02:24 PM (USZUJ)
12
Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!!
Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:28 PM (ZucvC)
13
Bluto, this is ridiculous. No one in the American MSM
is "mourning" this death. Their JOB is to report the
story. They report how Bush treats it, and go to talk
to other people. Just because some people are
minimizing this accomplishment, doesn't mean the MSM
agrees with it. They have a professional obligation
to be skeptical about all government claims. You will
not be able to find one MSM outlet that is mourning
this. The evidence you have is a quote from Berg, a
quote from Zarqawi's brother, and some badly worded
polls, and the use of the word "slain". If that's
mourning, you don't know what the word means.
You hurt the national unity in the war on terror when
you tell lies about some people supporting Al Qaeda.
I personally think that this is an important
accomplishment, but I want to hear what other people
think. That's what the MSM does--bring diverse views.
Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 03:09 PM (aqTJB)
14
Bluto your hatred of the American media is ever present. Likewise I believe that you hate all of your fellow citizens who read,watch,buy or support it in any way. You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal. I would never be allowed to post anything like this on YOUR blog, differing opinions are not allowed to be posted there. As for the MSM predicting this will increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency, my opinion after following this for 3 years is that NO ONE will be able to accurately predict anything. I have heard pundits predicting turning points so many times I scoff at all of them
Posted by: john ryan at June 08, 2006 03:56 PM (TcoRJ)
15
Damn well said, JR. There have been so many turning points in Iraq, it's a dodecahedron at this point: Mission accomplished, Bremer arrives, council appointed, elections held, Bremer turns over, Allawi brought in, Saddam captured, Uday and Qusay killed, Insurgency in "its last throes", elections held again, constitution written, Jafari put in, Maliki put in...and now this.
Hope they aren't blowing smoke, hope this time it really is a turning point.
Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 04:06 PM (aqTJB)
16
Thank you to the US Army, Airforce etc, for ridding this world of this pig waste.
It is indeed a good day.
Posted by: MathewK at June 08, 2006 04:44 PM (pVHqF)
17
jd., the MSM does not tell the truth, nor do you. This moon god worshipper was in Iraq before 9-11, yet where is the MSM on the stroy. The economy is going like gang busters, but the MSM report how it will be bad soon. Always, the wrong direction for people to really understand what is going on in the world.
But, that is the real point isn't it? Bush said something was wrong, and according to you lefturds there is no right, or wrong. Sounds New Age, and sounds like Europe. Go ahead boys, bugger each other in the ass. There is no G-d.
Posted by: Leatherneck at June 08, 2006 05:22 PM (D2g/j)
18
>>>Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!!
Ingnorant jackoff,
I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany had a seemingly endless supply of generals and leaders to replace the ones we killed. But killing them was still a cause for celebration. This would be the equivalent of killing Albert Speer or Goebles. And if some dufus reacted to their death the way you are reacting to Zarqawis death, I think people would rightfully conclude they were dealing with a traitor. You would immediately be put under surveillance as a threat to national security.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 05:36 PM (8e/V4)
19
You people would probably consider me a little left of centre - but I have to say, I did a little happy-dance when I heard that this loathsome little insect had been squished. Having observed the videos of his handiwork circulating on the internet, I cannot see how any rational being could conclude his (hopefully painful) demise is anything but a cause for profound joy. Maybe it will affect the situationin Iraq, maybe not - either way, he richly deserved what he got.
For the record, I'm from the UK. But to briefly quote from 'Team America' -
"America - *f$$k yeah!*"
Good job, boys 
Posted by: dave at June 08, 2006 05:46 PM (+nY9I)
20
I don't understand JD. The Islamofacists are against gay marriage.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:19 PM (4Ospb)
21
>>>You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal.
john,
Libs are obviously off base because you can see and hear with your own eyes and ears how estatic conservatives have been about Zarq's death. So while Lib rhetoric is baseless (as usual), I don't see where Bluto is off base at all. Most of you are acting like it's your mom's funeral. All you have to do is read Splatter's comments and see for yourself. Or read a little bit of Sonic's. Or the dude that got his comments deleted because they were so vile in slandering our troops. Just look at how unwilling the MSM is about reporting this without making it seem like more BAD news. Just admit it, you people are TERRIFIED of any good news coming out of Iraq. You refuse to deviate from your narrative even for one day of celebration. Even the Iraqis are celebrating, so why all the long faces coming from you Libs?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:48 PM (8e/V4)
22
Listening to NPR this morning was enlightening. They expounded on Zarqawi's hatred for the Jordanian government saying it was because they had put him in prison a couple times, but never said why he was put in prison. They just left it up to the listener to imagine the reasons. Jordan's not exactly the 'model' government and one is left with the impression that maybe they put him in prison, as so many other Middle Eastern governments do, on trumped up charges or because he was merely a dissident. In fact, it was was rape and conspiracy. They didn't let anyone in on that though. The very worse thing they said about his growing up years was that he was a thug.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:32 AM (YudAC)
23
Did you see the Army Briefing today Carlos? The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast. They also asked whether we gave him medical attention. How Zarqawi survived the blast is a mystery. He died of his wounds later.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 07:46 AM (CnDtU)
24
I don't see any defenses here of the claim that the media is "mourning" Zarqawi. You can't point to a single slice of evidence of that, because it doesn't exist. So, instead of admitting overstatement, we just change the topic and move on.
It's a lie. But it makes you feel better. Neither liberals nor the media regret this death. He was a waste of flesh, an evil and vicious killer. He richly deserved the death he was given by our brave forces. But the media MUST ask questions: what does it mean? There are differing opinions about it.
And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:05 AM (DQYHA)
25
Hey I'm not a far right guy. That's Carlos' department. It just makes me sick that people were concerned about Zarqawi's well being when he beheaded Nicholas Berg and Olin Armstrong.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM (CnDtU)
26
George--I don't think that asking whether he survived the bombing raid, and if he was offered medical attention, means that the questioner was worried about his health from the standpoint of "gee, I love this guy, hope he lives!" Rather, it is an attempt to get the full truth out to the people, which is the media's job. It would be newsworthy if the man survived the raid, and was allowed to die, just as it would be newsworthy if he survived and was later shot. I don't think either thing happened, I think our forces would be smart enough to keep him alive for intel purposes, as we have done with other al qaeda figures. But let's suppose that someone killed him or allowed him to die by mistake? That's news.
I know of NO ONE who isn't glad this puke is dead. Not any American, anyway. He was an enemy of civilization generally. This achievement belongs to all Americans, and we are all glad about it. There is no need to politicize his death. For once, let's be united as Americans, as we were on 9/12.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:23 AM (DQYHA)
27
>>>The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast.
George,
When you were a kid didn't your mommy tell you not to believe everything you saw on T.V.?
And even if it were true that he was shot, so what? Did we just drop two 500 pound bombs on his house? Means we wanted him dead, and I wholeheartedly approve. The last thing we need right now is another poster child for Amnesty International and the anti-American Left.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (8e/V4)
28
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
29
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
30
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
31
Amen JD.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)
32
Sorry for the quadruple posts. The comment section is slow. Anyway Carlos didn't your mommy ever tell you to pay attention when I'm talking. I don't give a crap if the guy was shot. He wasn't Genius. I'm just telling you that the far left media is insinuating that we shot him dead after he was wounded when we didn't. Wise up man. I'm glad the piece of shit is dead.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:30 AM (CnDtU)
33
Oh and Carlos. Please don't hate my guts. Maxie who has disappeared already hates my guts. I want to have a fair debate with you. I don't know you so I don't want to insult you. I'm a moderate like Bill O'reilly. Not a liberal. I'll see you around.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:41 AM (CnDtU)
34
No, I don't think many are sad he's dead. Not even the media, but the way some in the media are downplaying his role suddenly does leave one to wonder why they're doing it. Afterall, if there was a boosting of his role (as some accuse the Bush administration of doing) the media have been just as guilty of it that as well. I don't believe his importance was ever played up too much.
Although, I have read on some lefty blogs that outright killing him was wrong and he should have been captured alive and been given the right to a trial and why is it right for some and wrong for others and all that swill. Most of us have a sense of right and wrong and are glad we aren't being subjected to the moral obscenity of another trial in Baghdad for this monster.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 08:56 AM (ULAbo)
35
Oyster, can you tell me which leftwing American blog said we should have captured him because he had a right to trial? That killing him was wrong?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 09:51 AM (DQYHA)
36
Here's one:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/8/75854/67368
"Who are the experts who have determined Zarqawi's guilt? What is the criteria they used, and how did they come to their conclusions?
If you agree with this killing, do you also agree with lynchings because people "knew" the person was guilty and should be put to death? Also, do you support the death penalty? I don't, but at least those people have been put on trial. Why should it be different for this person?"
Yes, he's merely asking questions, but they're obviously rhetorical and reflect his opinions. Even after so many comments displaying glee at Z's death.
I'll be back with more, but I'm really busy at work today.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 10:24 AM (ULAbo)
37
And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.
So Bush's intelligence of where the Zarkman was located on that particular occassion, was rock solid then JD? just all the intelligence after that was wrong?
How was it again, that one of the first military operations in Iraq was to assault the Al-Sunna camp he was believed to be training?
You guys pick and choose what intelligence Bush was right/wrong on, almost like you're flipping a coin...
Posted by: davec at June 09, 2006 10:44 AM (CcXvt)
38
Oyster, thanks for backing up your comment. Let me say this: I've never read the Kos comments page before, as I almost never go there. I think I'll start; there's a lot of stupid things said there, a lot of afactual assertions and poor logic. However, let's be clear--the quotes above were not from the blog itself, but from the comments. As you and I both know, one has to be careful to judge a blog by its comments. If I wanted to judge Jawa by its comments, I could easily say this is a blog that endorses genocide against Muslims, and mass murder of liberals, and the idea that ALL liberals are treasonous cowards who are mentally ill. The majority of responders that I saw on the website you gave did not say anything like "gee, too bad he couldn't have gotten a trial". There was a healthy degree of skepticism towards the administration, and many people saying this was very good news.
Do you think the majority of reporters and leftists are mourning the loss of Zarqawi, as Bluto says?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:45 AM (DQYHA)
39
>>>and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.
jd,
and that little whopper is just nonsensical on its face, given that attacking Zarq's camp would have BOLSTERED Bush's reasons for invading, not taken away from them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)
40
Whatever the truth of this debate, my point in raising the issue is to shoot down the idea that the MSM didn't report that he was there before the war. THEY DID. Agreed?
And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)
41
>>>And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right?
jd,
you've got blinders on, and that's the only way to explain how you can't see what's evident to us. Would you agree that people wear blinders sometimes? This is one of those times.
Every headline they put out is purposely designed to dampen the good news lest it positively impact Bush and the Iraq war. Every story states as fact that it won't make a difference in the war on terror-- AS IF THEY FUCKING KNOW. But they state it as fact. yippeee!!! And then when one reporter was called out on it-- he was asked, how do you know it won't impact the insurgency-- the reporter fumbled around and said, "you're right, I don't know." In other words he was talking OUT OF HIS ASS. They don't report the news-- they establish the agenda. The MSM is AGENDA driven. It goes beyond mere bias.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:51 AM (8e/V4)
42
I agree people wear blinders. In fact, I've been begging Bluto to read an academic study on a documented psychological phenomenon called "the Hostile Media Effect" in which strong partisans of both sides perceive the media as deeply biased, even when it is not. I'm always open to the idea that I'm getting it wrong. I frequently do. Here's what I see when I read the media on this: many media outlets are asking legitimate questions about what this means. The ones I have read are not CONCLUDING that this means nothing. They are asking knowledgeable people what they think. Some, like the WH and some outside experts see this as a major turning point. Some are skeptical. I'm in the middle. I think that's where the media is--waiting to see what happens. There is a brilliant piece up on NRO by Rich Lowry stating that it is just too soon to tell whether this will work. I agree. We've had SO many turning points that it would be irresponsible of the media not to be skeptical. That's their job.
Do you think you might have blinders on?
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 12:33 PM (DQYHA)
43
jd,
I do agree that the Far Left also feels the MSM is too conservative. And by their wack standards they're probably right. Even moderate Liberals are too conservative for their tastes. But that speaks to how far out on Left field they are, not to how conservative the MSM is.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)
44
ps., in other words, the MSM is too cold for the Far Left, just right for moderate Libs, and too hot for moderate conservatives.
Think of it this way, if -10 is the Far Left, and +10 is the Far Right, with Zero being non-ideological, the MSM is a -5. The only people they can please are you NPR Lib types.
Which is fine. Bias is almost unavoidable. But bial and agenda are two different things. And the NPR Libs have crossed the line into agenda.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:39 PM (8e/V4)
45
Interesting study done a year ago. they asked people three factual questions:
Have WMD been found in Iraq?
Was Saddam Hussein involved in planning 9-11?
Did most of the world support our invasion of Iraq?
Guess what? Your likelihood of getting all three wrong was directly related to what media you consumed.
Those listening to NPR were most likely to know the correct answers to these FACTUAL questions (the first two have been conceded by Bush before the survey was done, the third is just too obvious to contest).
Those most likely to get all three wrong? Fox News viewers.
Those getting it from CBS,ABC, NBC television were better than Fox, worse than Newspapers.
Perhaps NPR's liberal agenda is in fact, accurate reporting, which is what you perceive as bias.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 03:58 PM (DQYHA)
46
jd,
that's not a surprise given that NPR would go out of it's way to hammer that home, while Fox wouldn't. It's in NPR's agenda to hammer that home. Not Fox's. That doesn' mean Fox is deceivig folks, it just means they chosen to hammer other stuff home-- the answers to which Libs would get wrong because they only listen to NPR, not Fox.
But if you're going to conduct a study, who gets to choose the questions? What do you think the results would be if that study instead asked:
1) Did Congress authorize the invasion of Iraq?
2) Did America "go it alone" in invading Iraq?
2) Are there U.N. resolutions authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein?
My guess is most Libs would get all three of those wrong, and that conservatives would get them all right. But I'm guessing Libs don't get quizzed the way conservatives do. Gee, I wonder why.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 04:42 PM (8e/V4)
47
jd,
that's a pretty good example of the blinders you're wearing. It didn't even occur to you that the questions used in that study are examples of Lib bias. To you, Lib bias is default setting, it's as things should be in the universe. It's no more controversial than the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. You don't even perceive it as bias BECAUSE YOU'RE IN IT. Yet I can see it because I'm not. The MSM is in the business of managing perception. They have thoroughly succeeded with you. Dude, I used to be a Lib not more than 6 years ago. I know what it's like in that bubble. I know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 06:05 PM (8e/V4)
48
carlos, that is the best answer I've read here ever. You've really made an excellent, logical point in regards to the nature of the questions. Until they repeat the study with questions similar to the ones you propose, the claims made are not nearly as strong as they should be.
Bravo for a very thoughtful response.
Incidentally, I used to be a Republican. Bush made me a Democrat. First one I ever voted for (for president) was John Kerry. One of the things I truly believe is that Bush isn't even a conservative. He doesn't believe in the conservative values of Barry Goldwater, that's for sure.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:03 PM (DQYHA)
49
You sum up the condition perfectly. What a shame it is. I wonder if the decent, honorable Democrats will ever regain control of their party.
Americans who cheer for the defeat of our country can not reasonably be trusted to govern us.
Posted by: pete at June 09, 2006 08:18 PM (bW9IA)
50
jd,
again you shame us with your intellectual honesty, lol! Kudos for that.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:26 PM (8e/V4)
51
Pete wins.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 09:09 PM (4Ospb)
52
Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind. I mean, it only takes an average of 100,000 years and six tons of matter to witness a single proton decay....if you're lucky.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 06:41 AM (DQYHA)
53
>>>Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind.
jd,
our minds are all made up, that's why they call us 'conservatives'. lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:15 AM (8e/V4)
54
jd,
but you're at a natural disadvantage on a conservative blog, just as I would be if I went to a Lib blog. The posts here go to conservative strengths, while the posts at Lib blogs go to Lib strengths. It's stuff we care about the most, and what we're most well-versed in, and vice versa at Lib blogs.
Your choice of ideologies isn't who's the smartest or right most of the times, it's which ideology stresses the things you consider most important. We think killing terrorists and winning in Iraq is the single most important cause today, you folks think killing Tom Delay and winning back the White House is the most important issue of the day. That's why Lib blogs are so boring, and ours are so compelling.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:45 AM (8e/V4)
55
Nice theory, Carlos, but I was making a different point. Even assuming you are right about the broader questions (I deeply disagree), you will not always marshall the right arguments, you will make mistakes. Why? because you are human. What I fail to see here at Jawa is debates in which learning takes place. I offered up evidence, you replied with a thoughtful analysis of what I put forward, I read it and agreed that my evidence on this point had been deeply weakened. Try to get Bluto to admit the slightest error. Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error. The conblogger main arguing tactic is attack attack attack. If you find yourself caught out on facts, never admit it. Go on to different ones, and admit nothing. That's not learning. But it sure reminds me of Bush. He and Rummy seem to think that if they admit a SINGLE error of significance, the entire superstructure of their world view will collapse. This is a sign of deep intellectual insecurity. A confident thinker and a confident movement learns. They admit mistakes. They explore why they made them. Gingrich did that. Goldwater did that. Bluto never does. Howie did a little. Instead of reading posts for learning, people here tend to read posts for ways to remain fixed in their views. Any feeble point will do, so long as you have to concede nothing. I'm proud that several times here, I've admitted to changing my mind. To learning from other people's logic.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:31 AM (DQYHA)
56
Death Could Shake Al-Qaeda In Iraq and Around the World By Craig Whitlock Saturday, June 10, 2006; A01 BERLIN, June 9 -- The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could mark a turning point for al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, according to terrorism analysts and intelligence officials. ... It is unclear which of 39-year-old Zarqawi's lieutenants, or deputy emirs, will attempt to fill his role...For recruitment efforts, the importance of Zarqawi's death "cannot be overestimated," Germany's foreign intelligence chief, Ernst Uhrlau, told the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Guido Steinberg, an expert on Islamic radicalism at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said other groups of foreign fighters that kept a loose alliance with Zarqawi, such as Ansar al-Sunna, might turn away from al-Qaeda in Iraq now that he is gone. "It's a great loss for the these jihadi networks," said Steinberg, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to Gerhard Schroeder when he was chancellor of Germany. "I don't think there is any person in Iraq able to control this network the way Zarqawi did. It's very decentralized. He was the only person in Iraq who could provide the glue. "By losing Zarqawi, they run the danger of losing Iraq as a battlefield to the nationalist insurgents and others who aren't interested in bin Laden or the global jihad."
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:38 AM (DQYHA)
57
I've just posted excerpts from an article that does exactly what Bluto said the MSM does NOT do: report Z's death as good news for us. It is almost uniformly positive. Please, here's a test for you conservatives: read this, and answer me this: is Bluto right or wrong in his original post? The conclusion if you read this article is inescapable, but who will have the courage to say so? Surely not Bluto. Anybody else? He said the MSM would portray it as a "minor development". This article in a "liberal" paper does NOTHING of the kind. Who will admit it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902040_pf.html
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:43 AM (DQYHA)
58
>>>Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error.
I can admit to the slightest errors, no problem. Didn't I concede that not all Libs despise christianity? Did I not concede that the spaniards sometimes used violence to force their religion on the indians? People on this blog will attest to the fact that I often concede on points of fact.
The problem is that folks like Bush and Rummy have no good reason to admit to the slightest mistakes because they know that the people demanding they admit it are intellectually dishonest partisan wolves intent solely on exploiting their admissions for the purpose of destroying them. Do you think they would say to Bush, "cheers to you for being honest! Let's report back to the American people how honest our president is!" ROFLMAO! No, they would use those admissions to destroy him. Bush would be fool to admit even the SLIGHTEST mistake to those assholes.
In fact now that you mention it, even the fact that you Libs are demanding that Bush "admit his mistakes" is RIDICULOUS. What purpose does it serve? None. It's a political gimmick, nothing more.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 10:57 AM (8e/V4)
59
At this point in his presidency, you may be right. But I thought the contrast between him and Blair was deadly. Blair, asked about mistakes, said disbanding the army and too aggressive debaathification. Bush said "Bring 'em on". Bush's error was rhetorical, not policy.
What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist. It sends the wrong message to our military. No problems, no mistakes, everything going as planned, when in fact, it is SNAFU and FUBAR as far as the eye can see.
If Bush had not spent a year trying to confuse the issue on WMD before finally admitting it, we would have been able to put more resources into anti-insurgency. If Bush had been able to admit errors, he would have been a more effective diplomat at bringing in the nations his secdef had insulted (actually, firing Rummy would have done a lot). How about this: GIVING MEDALS TO TENET, FRANKS, and BREMER? After Cheney and Rummy, the very architects of this FUBAR? Tenent--slam dunk on WMD. Franks: no need for more troops to prevent total breakdown of civil society, Bremer: disband the army and debaathy radically. Each of those decisions and acts resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans.
And this president, unable to say mistakes were made, gave them the highest honor of the nation.
Despicable.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:05 AM (DQYHA)
60
Carlos--when you "conceded" on liberals was that you meant your comment to mean the leadership of the party hates Christians. You didn't say that members of the leadership are committed Christians, which is true. Can you admit that the statement itself was wrong, not that your meaning was misinterpreted? I think there are aggressively secular people in the leadership of the Democratic Party who treat fundamentalist Christianity with great disdain, and who have grave doubts about religion generally. They are not the leadership. They are just a part of it.
As for Spaniards: ok, you got me. You did go from saying no one was converted at swordpoint to saying that some people were. I withdraw my comment about you as wrong.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (DQYHA)
61
The parallel comment would be: the Republican Party is a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who oppose abortion and gay rights. That woudl be ignoring the diversity within the Republican Party, which still has libertarian strains, Jewish members, etc. (and closeted gays in high positions, but whatever).
Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong?
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)
62
>>>What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist.
I don't buy that. You see, "admitting mistakes" isn't about forcing a change in policy for the better-- given that the policy has already long shifted by the time you get Bush to "admit his mistakes." It's simply gotcha politics-- making him feel pain for mistakes that are obvious only to hindsight. It's like a backseat driver warning about stuff in the rearview mirror. Wouldn't you just turn around and tell the guy to shut his big fat hole? Yes, our civilian planners make mistakes. But Newflash! They are infinitely further ahead of the curve than the schmucks in the media and the Democrat leadership, who are only experts because of hindsight. Their calls for "admitting mistakes" is pure gimmickry.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:26 AM (8e/V4)
63
>>>Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong?
That was a great article. The tone was pitch perfect. But I wouldn't make too much about it. It's the exception, not the rule.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:28 AM (8e/V4)
64
Then you are, in effect, saying that Bluto was wrong when he said the MSM reports only negatively about Iraq? that EVERY story follows that "meme". That they sought, in EVERY story to portray the murder of Z as a non-event?
Go ahead, say he was wrong. You disagree with him, without saying so. Lack of testicular fortitude?
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (DQYHA)
65
Well given that 1 out of 10 journalists are conservative, chances are that not EVERY single article is going to be a Leftwing hit piece. So if that's what Bluto meant, he was obviously wrong.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)
66
I think your numbers are suspect, Carlos. If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates? In fact, the Pew Research Center (one of the best, non-partisan centers in the country) has this to say of a large study of journalist ideology.
Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.
About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.
***
1-9 con-lib sounds really extreme. Do you have a source for that? 7-34 (12-23 at local level) con-lib seems much more accurate, and helps explain why I could find MANY examples of Bluto being dead wrong about the media and Z's death.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:32 PM (DQYHA)
67
>>>If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates?
Let me correct those numbers. Liberal journalists outnumber conservatives by 9-1. That's more accurate.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 04:58 PM (8e/V4)
68
Also, are you sure you mean "liberal"? I've seen a few studies (a Lichter one) that shows something near that in voting by national reporters. But that was 1992. Clinton was not running as a "liberal". He was from the moderate wing of his party, the DLC. He had many conservative positions (end welfare, pro-death penalty, pro free trade, etc). Votes are not perfect measures of ideology to say the least. Also, consistently since the question was studied, two key facts stand out--that national reporters are more liberal than local ones, and that editors are less liberal, and publishers trend conservative.
Also, national reporters aren't lockstep liberal even when they are "liberal". On social issues, VERY liberal. On issues like taxes, and particularly free trade, pretty conservative. I'll never forget an MSNBC segment where a reporter made it sound like lowering the mort. exemption to homes valued 300K or less was stalinism--she almost said no one had a house valued that low. National reporters are aloof from the economic concerns of the working class. this gives them a conservative bias on several issues, including things like taxes and free trade. It is also one reason they don't agree with many americans on immigration. It is MUCH more complex than many people here realize.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:10 PM (DQYHA)
69
A large study by Rozell of Virginia journalists also shows they are more secular than the American norm, altho again other studies show this is more national than local. Wealthy, highly educated Americans tend to be less religious generally, and national reporters are, compared to the median family income, pretty well paid. One big change since the early years of mass media journalism is that journalists today almost ALWAYS have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees. Graduate degrees are associated with lower levels of religious faith, as well. It is possible that journalists are not more secular than people with similar income and education.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:14 PM (DQYHA)
70
Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000? Yes, endorsements are made by editorial boards, and sometimes by the publisher, and sometimes by the combination. But IF the MSM is as biased as you people think, why don't the owners do something about it? And if, as you have said, the editors are the worst of it...how do you explain these endorsements?
Give it a shot, folks. See if you can square these facts with your beliefs.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 09:00 AM (DQYHA)
71
>>>Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000?
hmmm, that's intriguing. Do you have a credible source for that allegation?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:01 AM (8e/V4)
72
This is from Salon, which you probably don't trust, but the study is from editor & publisher, which you probably do:
Since 1940 when industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.
In 2000, the overwhelming trend toward Republicans continued. According to estimates, candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore. On the eve of the election four years ago, Editor & Publisher spelled out the newspaper love affair with Bush in a Nov. 6 article: "The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally."
E&P's results come from industry-wide surveys it conducted among 800 top newspaper executives one week before the election. Asked how they were going to vote in 2000, 59 percent of newspaper publishers signaled they were voting for Bush, compared to just 20 percent for Gore. And even among newsroom editors, Bush won support among 33 percent, compared to just to 24 percent for Gore.
****
Does it matter? Well, it kind of destroys the whole uniformly liberal media crap. Please note that editors, who someone here said were the most powerful, voted for Bush more than Gore...perhaps one reason why even conservative Robert Lichter said that Gore got screwed by the media in 2000.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:06 PM (DQYHA)
73
BTW, Carlos, if your source for 9-1 lib-con is Lichter's survey of journalists and how they voted in 1992: first, votes in 92 are not measures of ideology. Second, that survey has vast errors in it, that have been documented by several academics.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:08 PM (DQYHA)
74
Oh, and a countervailing fact: if you add up the circulations, as opposed to the number of newspapers, Gore does significantly better than he does by number of newspapers. This is because (shocking) newspapers tend to (but not always) reflect the views of their market, and urban areas lean Democratic, while rural ones lean Republican. But a counter-countervailing trend: one study I've read suggests that rural newspapers are more influential on their readers. This may be because they are more opinionated, with less professional separation between news and editorial. Or it may be that their readers are easier to sway.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:38 PM (DQYHA)
75
votes in 92 are not measures of ideology.
What's that supposed to mean? Libs voted Democrat in 92, just as they do in every election. If there were errors in that study to account for the 9-1 ratio, they would certainly have to be pretty VAST errors.
So when you say the publishers endorsed Bush, is that the bigwig capitalists who actually own the newspapers? If so, I don't think that necessarily reflects on joe blow journalist just out of NYU. One's worldview is tempered by the reality of running a business, the other one is an idealist trying to "make a difference." In fact, one might conclude that but for the publishers and people trying to turn a profit (including the editors), the papers would be even more Leftwing than they are now.
Interesting about the newspaper endorsements, but do you think it's material?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)
76
Sure, I imagine that most liberals (say the overwhelming majority) voted for clinton. But the converse statement is not true: all Clinton voters were not liberals. In fact, if you look at the National Election Study data, a non-trivial number of liberals voted for Bush, and conservatives for Clinton. Happens every year. But the more vital number is the number of moderates who voted for both men. Thus, the 9-1 figure of voting is NOT the same as saying that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by 9-1. If (and there are HUGE criticisms of Lichter's methodology) his data is accurate that 9 reporters (and his study was just washington reporters, not even national) voted for Clinton for every 1 who voted Bush, that doesn't mean the 9 were libs (or the 1 con). They are correlated, but not the same.
As for the EP. ABSOLUTELY it's material. It's not just the endorsements--it's the EDITORS voted for BUSH. Think about it. Earlier in this thread and also elsewhere when people talk about the liberal bias in the media, they say that editors are at least as powerful and force the liberal bias into the media. Well...if more voted for Bush...that suggests that they are probably more moderate than you realize.
And publishers are not the only ones who determine endorsements. Sometimes they are the only voice. Sometimes they participate with the editors. Sometimes they let the editorial board do it. AND--if I own a newspaper, and I'm a conservative, and I see obvious bias (which is what you all think it is)--well, I'd take action. Unless these owners are just dumb...
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:39 PM (DQYHA)
77
Interesting pattern though. Why did you ask for a source if you didn't think it was impressive evidence of the non-liberal nature of the media?
C'mon, give a little.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:40 PM (DQYHA)
78
jd,
I can give a little, but agreeing with you that newspaper publishers are representative of most reporters isn't a little. I've always believed that the folks who run the newspapers run it as a business, and as long as the journos are selling papers, the tycoons don't get involved in the micromanagement. Why would I change my mind about that now? I asked for your source because I admit I thought it odd that newspapers were endorsing Bush more than Gore. But when I saw that the endorsements were mostly from the money bags in charge, it all made sense again. There is too much info out there confirming what I can see with my two own eyes-- that the MSM are all a bunch of NPR Libs-- to concede the issue based just on publisher endorsements.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:50 PM (8e/V4)
79
I NEVER said publishers were representative of reporters, did I? Nice straw man. What I said was: look at editors voting. You didn't. Why? And many cons have said, hey, the media is leftwing, that's why Fox is gaining viewers and MSM losing subscribers and viewers. So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective?
The MSM doesn't see Zarqawi as an ally. They don't mourn his death. They don't twist stories against our troops as a rule. I think they could do a better job sometimes showing the accomplishments of our troops, but the media has a well-established bad news bias. If it bleeds, it leads. If the bleeding hurts liberals or conservatives, it doesn't matter.
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 06:41 AM (adM2O)
80
>>>So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective?
dunno. That does throw a wrench into the mix, and I admit I don't have a good answer to that. I'll have to think about that one.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 12, 2006 08:56 AM (8e/V4)
81
Fair enough. It is a complicated subject. I'm certainly open to the idea that the media has a liberal bias on certain issues. It is very tough for fundamentalist Christians to get a fair shake from the national media. The national media is pro-gay rights (along with most similar people of their education and income level) and pro-choice. I just don't think they are anti-American in covering foreign policy at all--in fact, much the opposite (good book showing that is Lance Bennett's News: the Politics of Illusion, if you can't bear to read Chomsky's flawed but important Manufacturing Consent). CNN's coverage is far more pro-American spin than it was in 91-2, thanks to competitive pressure from Fox. They are often selling patriotism. Whether that is bad or good depends on your own views on what the media should do, but it is afactual to argue that they are anti-American. They've become so pro-Am that they now have two coverages, one for domestic, one for foreign, because if they'd shown the world their American coverage during the iraq invasion, they'd have lost viewers, and if they'd shown the Americans their international coverage, they'd have lost viewers. That's how pro-Am their domestic broadcast is.
Even more so the national media sometimes takes a conservative viewpoint on trade issues and general economic issues. No reporter is afraid of an illegal immigrant taking their job for half salary.
The national media also isn't as sympathetic to the poor on health care, because most members of the national media HAVE health care. They aren't part of the 45 million Americans who don't.
One other issue they don't cover fairly--the plight of newspaper delivery people (seriously!).
The media has biases and blind spots. They just are uniformly liberal. That's why more editors voted for Bush than Gore.
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:28 AM (aqTJB)
82
Not that anyone who's reading wouldn't realize it, but just in case: the penultimate sentence should have an "aren't" not an "are"!
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:29 AM (aqTJB)
77kb generated in CPU 0.0236, elapsed 0.1783 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1639 seconds, 331 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1639 seconds, 331 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
