Democrats and Republicans: Do Different Standards Apply?
Not being much of a fan of late-night television, and a person who usually doses off by 11:pm (Bush and I do have something in common, after-all, you see), I am not someone who is awake to watch T.V. at midnight. The other night, however, I had a rare opportunity to catch the Bill Mahar show. This is a man with quick wit, intelligent humor, and a great mind. If I can ever manage to stay up past 12:am, he will become someone I watch again and again.
None other than the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, on as a satellite guest on Maher's show. (technology at its finest, I might add.) The topic of lies, and how they are handled in policies today come up and the question churned around in my mind: Are Republicans given more free speech in the media than Democrats?
Let us look at the state of the facts as they exist. Bill Clinton, who was notorious for being unable to keep his dick inside his pants, got caught, and a huge political scandal was made regarding his conduct. The hatchet-men were out in full swing, blazing axes and biggest guns. (no meanness meant here for you men, please it is not necessary to cross your legs yet)The no-spin zone is whirling around so fast it can make someone dizzy. Ultimately, President Clinton, was determined to be a liar, and ended up being impeached, the primary conclusion being that he lied about having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
Fast forward to 2003-05. Here we have President Bush, first in an election with John Kerry, and then invading Iraq. The fundamental premise upon which the invasion was based was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction available to them. This of course, from what we know today, turned out to be a lie. Then we have the scandal at Abu Ghraub, and the infamous Donald Rumsfeld coming forward, with that smirk (have you notice how his eyes become smaller and smaller lately when he is addressing the press), and making statements about what the administration knew or did not know about the issue at Abu Ghraub. Lies began to emerge once again. And just last week, we find out that Pat Tillman, the well known football player, turned soldier, who enlisted to fight for his country, had actually died weeks before the true facts were made known to the public. Untruths found out again being made public by the media.
John Kerry, someone who fights in the war, is made to look like a war criminal. Bush, on the other hand, who uses false statements to begin a war is made to re-elected to a second term.
Every time a Democrat does something that is slightly untrue, or unworthy, all the hatchet-men and talking heads come to life, taking the spinning around facts and churning out double talk about these events, consequently turning the lies into something which we should either ignore or conclude as something misunderstood, and then, of course, forget about it completely.
Is the media to blame? Are Republicans given more freedom of speech than Democrats?
You be the judge.
Thank you for your minds.
None other than the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, on as a satellite guest on Maher's show. (technology at its finest, I might add.) The topic of lies, and how they are handled in policies today come up and the question churned around in my mind: Are Republicans given more free speech in the media than Democrats?
Let us look at the state of the facts as they exist. Bill Clinton, who was notorious for being unable to keep his dick inside his pants, got caught, and a huge political scandal was made regarding his conduct. The hatchet-men were out in full swing, blazing axes and biggest guns. (no meanness meant here for you men, please it is not necessary to cross your legs yet)The no-spin zone is whirling around so fast it can make someone dizzy. Ultimately, President Clinton, was determined to be a liar, and ended up being impeached, the primary conclusion being that he lied about having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
Fast forward to 2003-05. Here we have President Bush, first in an election with John Kerry, and then invading Iraq. The fundamental premise upon which the invasion was based was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction available to them. This of course, from what we know today, turned out to be a lie. Then we have the scandal at Abu Ghraub, and the infamous Donald Rumsfeld coming forward, with that smirk (have you notice how his eyes become smaller and smaller lately when he is addressing the press), and making statements about what the administration knew or did not know about the issue at Abu Ghraub. Lies began to emerge once again. And just last week, we find out that Pat Tillman, the well known football player, turned soldier, who enlisted to fight for his country, had actually died weeks before the true facts were made known to the public. Untruths found out again being made public by the media.
John Kerry, someone who fights in the war, is made to look like a war criminal. Bush, on the other hand, who uses false statements to begin a war is made to re-elected to a second term.
Every time a Democrat does something that is slightly untrue, or unworthy, all the hatchet-men and talking heads come to life, taking the spinning around facts and churning out double talk about these events, consequently turning the lies into something which we should either ignore or conclude as something misunderstood, and then, of course, forget about it completely.
Is the media to blame? Are Republicans given more freedom of speech than Democrats?
You be the judge.
Thank you for your minds.
17 Comments:
Sorry but i beg to differ if you read the main stream media they seem to be playing by the democrat playbook.
When is the last time they mentioned mass graves in Iraq even thought they recently found some more of them bring the total of men, women, and even children found in them to be over 300,000.
The main reason I support the war in Iraq and still do is because of the genocide directed at the Kurds. Saddam committed real tourture when he had control of Abu Grabe 10,000+ of people were murdered there when he had control of the place but all the biased media can talk about is women's panties put over some terrorists head. When the terrorist murdered Mr. Berg it was mentioned for a day or two. I guess lossing one's head is not as bad as getting it covered up.
Frankly i could careless that President Clinton had the libedo of a jack rabbit what I do care about was that he did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
To me NEVER AGAIN means never again to anybody not just my own people. And on this President Clinton was a dismal failure.
for photo's of what saddam's genocide looked like.
http://www.beyan.net/halabja/
I do not disagree with you: Etnic cleansing, no matter where it occurs, albeit Africa, Iraq, or anywhere in the world is wrong. We Jews had to learn this horrible lesson the hard way, resulting in the terrible loss of 6 million of our people.
But the point I make here is not about genocide. It is about politicans and lies, and how the media handles these issues today.
To me, there seems to be a vast amount of hyprocricy in saying that it is one thing to lie about sexual matters (a blow job) and another about about taking our country into a war on a fundamental premise which turns out to be completely false, i.e. that there are weapons of mass destruction.
Again, I think the issues boil down to ones of morality,at least for the Christian right, which,and in my humble opinon, honesty ranks high in the food chain. Seemingly, they do not understand that point.
This is an empirical question. My colleagues have studied it, in fact. The verdict, arrived at via analysis of thousands upon thousands of news narratives over several decades? The "liberal media" is a myth. But so is the "conservative media." When you gather all the messages together you end up with...
*THE MODERATE MEDIA*
Yep. Not surprising, though, is it, from a market-based standpoint? In this country media outlets are owned by corporations. There is a tremendous consumption ethic. Since the country is pretty much split down the middle into red and blue factions, you'd better believe the media messages are going to average out to solid purple. On the aggregate level, a bias one way or the other would be stupid commercially. "Maintain the consumption ethic" is a battle cry of network owners and producers. It's why it took forever and a day to get AIDS PSAs on American television. There's a tremendous fear of driving away viewers.
Of course there are news and opinion programs that lean heavily toward one side or the other, but again, on the aggregate, things balance out right in the middle. Conservatives who whine about the "liberal media" (which, incidentally, is often a thinly veiled euphemism for the "Jew-owned media") can readily point to left-leaning programs to make their point. But liberals who want to whine about conservative programming can easily find examples of right-leaning media.
One, two, three, 10, even 100 shows do not a pattern make. You have to gather large samples of programming and code their political leanings in a rigorous, objective, and systematic way (my people call it "content analysis") to get the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is... moderate.
That said, I hate Rush Limbaugh.
Well, I disagree with your opinion, but I enjoyed reading it anyway. All presidents should be skewered for mistakes they make. It comes with the job. I don't agree that Abu Graib is Bush's doing or his fault. I don't think Bush lied, but I do think that he made some decisions based on bad intelligence. Clinton did lie outrightly, but I don't hold things against him that he did not do directly. Some conservatives want to blame him for anything and everything, and they are wrong to do that. Kerry is just like Bush and Clinton, in that he has done good and he has made mistakes. I judge past presidents by their affectiveness not their party. Bush will live or die by the sword he has set in motion. I will judge him when his term is over.
Interesting to hear how the media effects this issue. I suppose there is some relief to know that we are really in the middle. I question the middle of what, however, in some instances.
As blaming one President over another, this is not the point I raise. We hear over and over in the media, by those hatchet men, that there was bad intelligence, but what does that really mean, and who was responsible for it? Are those buzz words so that people can feel confortable with the decision that we went into Iraq and invaded, or is there real meaning behind them? Again, to me this is part of the spin, where conservatives can do one thing, have it said one way, and then it goes away for them.
Since Democrats do not respond in the same way, the issues to not go away, but becomes something that they were not. For example, Kerry served his country, went to Viet Nam, but, by the time the media was finished with him, he became somewhat of a 'war criminal.' Ashcroft, and Bush, for that matter, never served, but their lack of service was understood if you will, because of the power of speech and how this was effected and played out in the media and by their administration.
Lying is lying, and it is un-Christian, at least from what I know. I do not understand how the Christian majority can get away with it most of the time. It truly baffles me!
SORRY to burst your bubble but even on Fox news the reporters gave more money to the democrats than the republicans.
And on CBS the home of RATHERGATE it was not even close. And the ratio at jourialism schools between conseratives vs liberals is 10 to 1 in favor of the liberal political view point.
A recent study gave fav. press coverage to Kerry on the t.v. media was 70% positive For president Bush it was 30% positive.
Barbara, I hope you're not gathering facts from these comments.
I'm sure you remember the stated reasons the US invaded Iraq - the false connection to 9/11, the false claim of weapons of mass destruction. Lies. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 1600 American citizens killed - thousands more disabled for life - for lies and for profit.
I'm sure you know that the US has supported genocidal regimes all over the world when it's convenient for US business interests.
And I'm sure you know that the "liberal media" is beyond myth: it's hoax. If there's a "moderate media", it's because the center has moved so far to the right that conservative is now moderate.
You could start here or here, just to pick a few myth-busting sites.
Why would anyone need more time to judge George W Bush? There isn't enough on record already? Tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, a ballooning deficit, constant attacks on the environment - including the National Parks, constant attacks on civil liberties, full scale intrusion of government into the private lives of citizens and a war started under false pretences. What more do you need?
1-girl:
I do not need convincing! I've been there for a few years now.
Thank you so much for those resources.
I'm glad. And I knew that. But somehow I felt the need to speak out to some of the comments.
I must say, I admire your willingness to participate in discussion and debate on these topics. I can't do it. Or I can only in rare instances where people seem really open to new ideas. If not, I become too angry - and then useless!
Thank you l-girl.
I have learned, perhaps in my experience with one or two discussions, that I must accept everything as it is, not as I want it to be. This does not mean I must agree with it. (see my new post today.)
If we begin with the premise of agreeing to disagree, our own sernity becomes at its best, and we can say what we desire.
Thank you for your support.
I don't know that the main stream media is so much liberal or conservative as it is neutered.
For whatever reason, be it corporate ownership and the money making machine or a fear of seeming too liberal/conservative, our media has become completely useless for finding out what is going on in the world.
We are inundated with stories about Michael Jackson's trial and the runaway bride but do we ever hear about the machinations of Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio or the British MI6 document that was leaked right before the UK election? Do we ever hear about the opinions of the rest of the world, except in passing and often in a joking way?
Not only has our media been neutered, it has had all it's teeth pulled out too. Being an informed person at this point in our country requires time and effort and diligence. You have to get your information from conservative sources and liberal sources, examine the ulterior motives of those who give you information and then look for the truth somewhere in the middle. Sad but true.
That being said I do think that conservatives have more freedom of expression if you will. Dick Cheney dropped the F bomb in congress and it barely made a ripple. Can you imagine if Senator Kennedy did that? And can you imagine if Hilary Clinton had made jokes about Bill jerking off a horse? With the Republicans it can all seem like innocent naughtiness or a case of righteous indignation but if a Democrat does something like that it is assumed that there really is some dirty, horse-jerking secret that must be exposed.
Brillant points, Godless mom...I really like your thinking!
Sitting here thinking about Hilary making that point about the horse, and its effect on the neutered media (love this expression) makes me laugh out loud, with a twist of fear attached!
You are right on. It is amazing what Americans find so thought provocating today: Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson trials, Paris Hilton. Forgot about genocide in Africa, the Aids epidemic, a new rise of anti-semitism. We MUST concentrate on Paris Hilton's and Britnnay's new clothing, as if they were emperors, but with less to show!
thank god Israel took out Saddams nuke plant before he could get the bomb.
the question is not did Saddam have WMD's as he used them on his own people.
http://www.beyan.net/halabja/
the question when did he get rid of them?
So far they have found mass graves with 300,000 bodies of men woman and children even babies.
some of the terrorists who are behind the bombings in iraq now were the same people that filled the mass graves.
My opinion is that the "media" is a mess, multi-layered, noisy, some truth, some lies, a lot of speculation and distraction and gossip-mongers. I don't think it leans to either side, but I do find that bulk is unreliable and hyper-focused on BS (do we all really care THAT much about the runaway bride?). In order to get a good picture of what's going on in the world, you need to read, listen to, a variety of resources. No single media source can shed the ultimate truth on anything.
Again, a mess.
One of the things that the M.S.M. covers rather badly is Israel war with terrorism. Some of the reports that are treated like fact border on anti-semitism. An example was how the whole battle in Jenin was covered.
There was a photo of a jewish american boy who had been attacked by an arab mob. It was identified incorrectly on the front page of the New York Times the correction turned up on the 10 page in small type.
Adriana,
Absolutely true!
Unreliability combined with gossp, does thwart and limit the nature of the information we receive. I guess it all goes back to winterwheat's point: that what we hear and see is really somewhere in the middle.
I am all for watching many different types of programs, including Fox News!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home