The Official Presidential debate thread

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I really like Cynthia - she has a very nice way about her, her cadence, manner, effect, etc.

As for Diane - she is okay, but can you say the Michael Jackson interview

I just can't stand Gibson. He makes me nervous with all that shaking he does.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As for Diane - she is okay, but can you say the Michael Jackson interview

And how about that Dixie Chicks interview?

Hillary

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

Along with Lynne Cheney's latest lesbian opus.

Hey, if that does it for you

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

You know, theres a fairly good possibility this thread could reach 10 pages before the debate tomorrow...

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No way. I will not even attempt to dissect the CBS controversy because they were completely wrong, but there are no media watchdog reports from before the document scandal that suggests that they were liberally biased in the past year.

Faux is GOP swill, always has been.

True, but the producer (a big wig at the network) has according to all sources never been shy about making it obvious she wanted to take Bush out. And - Rather has yet to admit the doc.'s were frauds and contained fraudulent information. He just said he was sorry they used them without validating them (I mean really).

So, yes, CBS was not invented to be the liberal mouthpeice a la Fox News (conservatism) - but clearly CBS is just that.

So, the beat goes on

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True, but the producer (a big wig at the network) has according to all sources never been shy about making it obvious she wanted to take Bush out. And - Rather has yet to admit the doc.'s were frauds and contained fraudulent information. He just said he was sorry they used them without validating them (I mean really).

Yes, but for some people denile is not just a river in Africa...

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Alex - this could beat that 20+ pager we had about a year ago AND it is on the same topic!!!!

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Alex - this could beat that 20+ pager we had about a year ago AND it is on the same topic!!!!

OMG! Remember that one?! lol!!!!

Serious nostalgia here!

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True, but the producer (a big wig at the network) has according to all sources never been shy about making it obvious she wanted to take Bush out. And - Rather has yet to admit the doc.'s were frauds and contained fraudulent information. He just said he was sorry they used them without validating them (I mean really).

A producer for 60 Minutes II does not a big-wig make. I think what you meant to say was that she was a big-wig when it came to that particular program, not the whole news faction of the network.

Roger Ailes does not hide his conservatism.
Ted Turner did not hide his liberalism.
Why should this producer for 60 Minutes II hide her political leanings? The majority of TV news people do not hide their beliefs from the public, Jason. You're going to ahve to explain to me what the big deal is over this particular producer. Yes, she was wrong in pushing a story simply because it would make Bush look bad. But that's it. Show me other 60 Minutes II segments she produced that were liberally biased. The pundits and investigators haven't found any so far.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, yes, CBS was not invented to be the liberal mouthpeice a la Fox News (conservatism) - but clearly CBS is just that.

Hardly. One producer for 60 Minutes II does not make CBS a liberal mouthpiece. Again, show me the studies that suggest CBS was a liberal mouthpiece before this scandal. I submit you cannot and you know this.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

Yes, but for some people denile is not just a river in Africa...

~Alex

You, as a Republican, should know.

[strandinthewind]

My whole thing with CBS is, unlike the people you mentioned, they are claiming to be unbiased. When Fox does it, people scream BS. So, I think after this, when CBS does, it is the same BS. Again, Rather has not denied the information in the document, which I just cannot believe and for which there is no rationale explanation IMO Moreover, they have not fired that big wig (all reports I read suggest she is a high level person). I mean she called the Kery campaign and alerted them to this source and did so in an effort to help get another reluctant source to come forward and provide different information. I do not think she extended the Bush campaign the same courtesy and let them know what she was using her network to do. Then, the only reason CBS fessed up is the other networks crucified them. Are we really expected to believe CBS "suddenly" discovered the questionable integrity of these docs, which Rather, again, has yet to denounce as fraudulent, despite almost all experts agreement that they are. So, to me, that screams bias!!!!!!

So, I am just saying that both networks are guilty of the same thing in my eyes. Does Fox do it more? Probably - who can say for sure IMO. But, CBS can really no longer claim it does not at all - at least not as long as those two are still there. But, I suppose people will see it differently and I really do not want to get into it for the next five pages because I am never gonna change my mind, etc.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

My whole thing with CBS is, unlike the people you mentioned, they are claiming to be unbiased. When Fox does it, people scream BS. So, I think after this, when CBS does, it is the same BS. Again, Rather has not denied the information in the document, which I just cannot believe and for which there is no rationale explanation IMO Moreover, they have not fired that big wig (all reports I read suggest she is a high level person). I mean she called the Kery campaign and alerted them to this source and did so in an effort to help get another reluctant source to come forward and provide different information. I do not think she extended the Bush campaign the same courtesy and let them know what she was using her network to do. Then, the only reason CBS fessed up is the other networks crucified them. Are we really expected to believe CBS "suddenly" discovered the questionable integrity of these docs, which Rather, again, has yet to denounce as fraudulent, despite almost all experts agreement that they are. So, to me, that screams bias!!!!!!

So, I am just saying that both networks are guilty of the same thing in my eyes. Does Fox do it more? Probably - who can say for sure IMO. But, CBS can really no longer claim it does not at all - at least not as long as those two are still there. But, I suppose people will see it differently and I really do not want to get into it for the next five pages because I am never gonna change my mind, etc.

But I find fault with your whole premise. She was not a high-level person in CBS News. One rogue producer for a rather lowly rated show does not speak for the entire CBS news organization. It's as simple as that. There is a clear distinction between what that one producer did and what Faux News does. CBS does not send out memos that instruct their staff on how to make a candidate look bad. Faux does. The list goes on, Jason. While I am with you in that what this producer did was abhorrable and completely undermines the profession of journalism, I don't think you can even begin to make such sweeping generalizations about CBS like "They're a liberal mouthpiece." The evidence does not support that conclusion. What does it support? That this one producer for 60 Minutes II decided to greenlight a suspect story in order to make Bush look bad, thereby making 60 Minutes II her liberal mouthpiece. That's it.

The Bush campaign was called about the story and refused to comment; this comes from Scott McClellan's own mouth. Personally, I don't give a **** whether Bush or Kerry was called first. The Kerry campaign didn't want anything to do with it when they were called about it. Again, they were called by the staff of Sixty Minutes II under the direction of the producer. Why has Rather not denounced the content of the documents? Because the while the documents were unverified and probably fakes, numerous sources have corroborated the content of them.

So, while I agree that there was a bias, it was on the part of the producer of the segment, not the institution that is CBS News. To say that there was is ridiculous and unsupported in reality. CBS News, up until this scandal, was the ONLY news organization that was truly doing a decent job in covering the news, along with the WaPo.

[estranged4life]

I will be missing it since it is scheduled during the ONLY TV time I seem to enjoy these days (South Park). Maybe I could record it with my new DVD burner, But nahh...The burner is for music trading purposes only!

Btw, The Oklahoma Democratic US Senate candidate Brad Carson is pulling way ahead in the latest polls over Repub Tom Coburn (Which could be major since this election could give the Demos control of the US Senate)...Kinda funny, But Coburn is going to lose for only one reason, He's from Muskogee...Hehehehe, Nuff said (I grew up there...We OKIES are ALL LOSERS!!!)

Hell, Even Kerry-Munster has reduce the 40% gap to a mere 31% with Shrub within a weeks time.

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Perhaps true, but with the CBS scandal, it appears CBS is biased the other way. So, yin and yang to me!!!!!

Well...

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-niger.html

ACTION ALERT:
60 Minutes: Shelving a Story to Boost Bush?
CBS puts Niger expose on hold as boss endorses Republicans

September 28, 2004

In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times, 9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

The 60 Minutes segment was ready to air on September 8, but was bumped in favor of the now infamous report that relied on supposed National Guard memos whose authenticity CBS now says it cannot confirm. The furor over the Guard memos has created a situation where CBS executives say "the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents" (Newsweek online, 9/22/04).

Of course, what's really inappropriate here is CBS allowing its PR problems to suppress a news report on an important issue until after it no longer matters. The shelved 60 Minutes story deals with the origins of documents purportedly showing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger-- documents that turned out to be forgeries. The story, according to the Newsweek online report, asks "tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech."

Though such questions are clearly relevant to a presidential campaign that largely revolves around Bush's decision to invade Iraq, CBS intends to keep the answers to itself until the election has passed. Could there be more than the embarrassment over the Guard story behind this decision?

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry... but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people.... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):

"There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."
According to a write-up by Forbes (9/23/04)-- the sponsor of the conference where Redstone issued his endorsement of Bush-- the CEO asserted that "he never gets involved in any aspects of the network's news coverage." But that claim, hard to believe when made by any media industry chief executive, seems particularly dubious given Forbes' report that ''Redstone said he has been talking daily to top CBS officials and to Viacom board members about the controversy'' over the Guard memos.

It is journalistically indefensible for CBS to withhold a story due to embarrassment incurred by another, unrelated piece. It is particularly unacceptable when the shelving of a story benefits a candidate that CBS's boss has just publicly endorsed. If CBS wants to restore trust in its news judgment, it can begin by applying journalistic standards, not political calculations, to the decision on when to air its report on the origin of the forged Niger documents.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[strandinthewind]

Just more proof that CBS is run by dishonest people - IMO.

I mean if "they" had gotten away with the forged and fraudulent docs. they got busted on, they would be running these other stories in a second. So, this is damage control. Of course, CBS could have been relying on unauthenticated docs. in these stories too

Thus, I reiterate that I get that it was one person and the HEAD of CBS news - but I say where there is smoke there is fire and CBS should go down for this. But, others disagree - HOW I will never know