Is this article an example of liberal media bias?

[Red Harvest]

No just the mainstream liberal press as wel he should.



Thats pretty funny.



They havent? Consider their attacks upon Bush. Oh thats right you think they treat him to kindly.



Once more only the questions were announced the answers werent staged. This is standard operating procedure for the military. Heck when I was in bootcamp we had a show called operation entertainment come to the base. It was sort of a USO show that traveled around and entertained the troops and was broadcast weekly on tv. You wouldnt believe all the peperation they gave us just to watch.

PS did you think the same of all of Clintons staged events?


And if anything seems to be staged its the "free press's" response. How is it they all say the samething?

I'm sure Bush would be much happier in an autocratic state where he controls the press. The rest of us are not.

The press has given the guy far too much leeway. They have been TOO OBJECTIVE in the face of his continuous attacks on what is a very fundamental part of our freedom. Where the media has erred is in not taking him on directly in this regard. Show him for exactly what he is, dispense with his soundbites. He wants war with the press? Give him what he wants. Go out out of the way to balance every one of his propaganda events with a countering gaffe or embarassing behind-the-scenes look. The press has been too timid, when they should have been confrontational.

Despite your attempts to gloss over it, this is just another example of Dubya's team staging something while claiming it is spontaneous. Everyone knows nearly all of these Q&A events are staged. What differs here is the billing. Unfortunately, in a Whitehouse that has less credibility than Nixon, I'm not surprised that they don't get it. This is a case of the press pulling back the curtain, to show the "Wizard" in action.

The danger to our country is not the press, it is those that want to squelch dissent.

P.S. By the way, congrats on getting the Clinton reference in there, you are dependable in that regard. Good luck "fighting the last war" in a political sense--I don't think running against Clinton is going to work any longer, his popularity is likely greater than Dubyas.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm sure Bush would be much happier in an autocratic state where he controls the press. The rest of us are not.

Im sure every president would feel the same way.

The press has given the guy far too much leeway. They have been TOO OBJECTIVE in the face of his continuous attacks on what is a very fundamental part of our freedom. Where the media has erred is in not taking him on directly in this regard.

Again you have to be joking.

By the way, congrats on getting the Clinton reference in there, you are dependable in that regard. Good luck "fighting the last war" in a political sense--I don't think running against Clinton is going to work any longer, his popularity is likely greater than Dubyas.

Maybe it hasnt occured to you and other liberals that Bush isnt going to run again either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Presidents involved in staged media opportunities and pre-prepared interactions is old news. Some are more deft at it (Reagan, Clinton, JFK, FDR) while others look dumb trying (Nixon, Ford, Hoover) but its par for the course. I can't think of a President who did not do such things at least since Coolidge. Roman and Greek politicians probably planted questions from the crowd too.

As to the article, I think GC and myself are on track. It has its bias, but a competent reader can still draw the pertinent facts.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

Im sure every president would feel the same way.

No, I don't think they would. It is mostly those who have something or a lot of things to hide that villify the press.

Maybe it hasnt occured to you and other liberals that Bush isnt going to run again either.

First, I'm not a liberal. (Nor are you a libertarian, that much is obvious.)

Second, it probably hasn't occurred to you that Bush is still in office. Therefore he is fair game. His policies and the GOP leadership that passed his requests over "Democratic obstructionists" (as they were called) have brought us to the mess we are now in. Afterall, he has yet to veto anything they sent him--something that hasn't happened for 176 years. So you can claim that he and the GOP/conservatives are different animals, but the record shows they behave the same.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

First, I'm not a liberal

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.

Nor are you a libertarian, that much is obvious

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.

So you can claim that he and the GOP/conservatives are different animals, but the record shows they behave the same.

Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.

Second, it probably hasn't occurred to you that Bush is still in office. Therefore he is fair game.

Well Bill is in the news everday. Again why is it you all try to make it seem like hes gone? The guy never misses an opportunity to get some press. Plus he maybe the nations first Firstman. Perish the thought.

[Hurin_Rules]

I would have to say there is a bit too obvious a bias in that article.

I agree mostly with Seamus. I would add that the use of the adjective 'gushed' is unwarranted and polemical. Also, the juxtaposition of Bush's statements that there is massive support for the troops at home with the statistics about Bush's handling of the war. Bush was right here: there IS massive support for the troops themselves. Many people disagree with Bush's policies and handling of the war and still support the troops.

So yes, IMHO, the article does show too much liberal bias. I wouldn't use it as an example to show a left-wing media conspiracy, however; many articles by Fox 'News' are just as or even more biased towards the right. But fair is fair, and this article isn't.

[Redleg]

I would have to say there is a bit too obvious a bias in that article.

I agree mostly with Seamus. I would add that the use of the adjective 'gushed' is unwarranted and polemical. Also, the juxtaposition of Bush's statements that there is massive support for the troops at home with the statistics about Bush's handling of the war. Bush was right here: there IS massive support for the troops themselves. Many people disagree with Bush's policies and handling of the war and still support the troops.

So yes, IMHO, the article does show too much liberal bias. I wouldn't use it as an example to show a left-wing media conspiracy, however; many articles by Fox 'News' are just as or even more biased towards the right. But fair is fair, and this article isn't.

Well for another time - I agree with Hurin.

[Red Harvest]

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.

I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation. It isn't libertarian, it is a case of conservatives masquerading as liberatians. I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."

Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.

Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.

Claim what you like, but the House and GOP leadership were working tightly with the President to work in lockstep. The GOP conventions were a farce. Now they want to show dissenting views. Too late, they sold out and the nation is finally catching on.

I'll tell you one thing: While I've had a mix of views that have kept me firmly in the "independent" camp in the past. I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings. Moderate or independent are not dirty words, despite conservative attempts to paint them so. (Yes, I've seen MANY examples of that here.)

[Aurelian]

This isn't an example of liberal media bias.

I've seen the video with the soldiers being coached. It's real. The event was staged. The soldiers knew the type of questions that would be asked beforehand, and they knew who was to answer each question, and in what order.

That being said, where is the bias? If you read bias into the piece, it's likely to be because your own bias for the Bush team leads you to be defensive when an article suggests that his team "staged" an event. It's an accurate description of what happened, but "staged" carries an implicit negative connotation for most people.

However, Bush's events are usually staged. What would be the purpose otherwise? His PR team uses these events to create an image that they hope will resonate with the viewing public. They don't take chances and randomly pick people to ask him questions (or answer his questions). If somebody asked him a tough question, or gave a negative answer, the coverage of their 'media event' would be dominated by the slip-up. Their job is to keep on message, so they make sure all the participants keep on message.

As an example of just how staged and calculated these events are, Bush's people cancelled a Texas appearance that he had scheduled a few weeks ago during hurricane Rita because the venue was too sunny. You see, they didn't want sunny because their message was that he was in Texas to deal with the hurricane. Sun does not equal hurricane in a visual image. So, they cancelled the event.

President Bush doesn't communicate through town hall meetings, his team prefers to operate under controlled conditions where they can ensure that the people who interact with him are loyalists.

If you don't like that, then your problem should be with the Bush team and not with a reporter who accurately portrays their methods.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Just because conservatives are going out of style doesn't mean the media is bias

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

[Vykke]

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that an article can contain no falsehoods, yet still be biased. Bias can be shown in which facts are presented, and where, and how.

In addition to some of the word choices mentioned already, it's interesting to note that they spent about 1/3 of the article emphasizing the choreographed nature of the "conversation," even including that little excerpt of the preparations. This seems to imply that it's exceptional and newsworthy that a political leader planned an event like this ahead of time (after all, articles don't usually spend that much space discussing the planned nature of such an event). But it's not exceptional at all, they do it all the time.

So, I'd have to say that this article is biased, though I agree with Hurin that there's plenty of examples of conservative bias too.

[Idaho]

The US media is probably the most stayed, tame and controlled media in the western world. US politicians are the most controlling, rehearsed and closed in the western world.

The US people are a lovely bunch* who deserve better


*exceptions exist