comment #1

Terry McCarty says ...

The Greenwald piece in SALON is certainly interesting, but what people seem to be missing about the McClellan book is that a trend seems to be emerging where George W. Bush is being portrayed as someone "misled" by advisors--a partial rehabilitation/re-evaluation of sorts (see also the Bush bio by SLATE's Jacob Weisberg).

At this rate, I can imagine 2009 and 2010 being filled with Bush doing Nixonesque post-Presidency interviews to spin a "history will give me an A" fairy tale--perhaps with Anderson Cooper or Katie Couric playing the David Frost role.

comment #2

mizerock says ...

"are there any reporters left who deny that the campaign-covering media in 2000 was gushingly enamored of George Bush and oozing with contempt for Al Gore?"

I am curious as to how much of this can be blamed on the poor strategy / image control choices made by the Gore team. It's certainly not 100%, but it's not 0% either. Are both factors considered in "Recount"?

comment #3

Richardson says ...

The only thing 'Recount' blames on Gore is that he didn't fight hard enough soon enough, and even that is blamed more on Warren Christopher.

At the end, Denis Leary pays lip service to the idea that any of a thousand things (including stuff like what you mention) could've matter, but the movie definitely creates the impression that, if only Kevin Spacey had been unshackled at the beginning to fight off the evil Republican lawyers who had the laws on their side, Gore would've been president.

comment #4

dinther says ...

I've always wondered why it was that some Republicans derided the media as "liberal." To me, "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless appellations, excuses for someone to ignore the substance of an argument.

I think the reason that some Republicans complain about a "liberal" press is not because a reporter has a particular viewpoint, but rather, because a reporter is interested in fact-based arguments. Reporters need details, empirical, sourced evidence to push forward a story. The Republican ontology is bulit upon slogans and aspirational, vague ideas; their preference is to ignore or suppress facts that do not cohere with their wishful worldview.

So Republicans complain when media report on homelessness or poverty or the real victims of an economic downturn, because it upsets their insulated, cul-de-sac vision of the world - which is built upon the core premise that we really don't need Government, and that if you gave businesses a lot of money, everyone will prosper. When the facts undermine this premise - as they consistently do - Republicans would rather launch ad homs against the messenger than admit that their ideas are inadequate and wrong.

comment #5

Indeed says ...

dinther, the common sense displayed in your first paragraph is unfortunately absent from the other two.

Our current political "system" involves nothing but ad hom attacks from both sides of the aisle. They both take the Al Gore Global Warming approach:

"Im right. If you disagree, you obviously dont have all the facts or are too stupid to understand."

This sucks simply because its folks like you and me who suffer from this partisan bickering and lack of any type of forward progression.

Thinking that there is some difference between modern Republicans and Democrats (as far as how they go about "doing their jobs") is just absurd.

comment #6

dinther says ...

eh, no argument that there is an absence of civility and substance in a lot of public discourse today, or with the idea that democrats and others launch unnecessary ad homs.

But I think the core policy arguments of democrats - or the way that they make these arguments - are much more empirically-based than those advanced by republicans. Democratic candidates often get stuck in the weeds of policy and lack the ability to convert their ideas into simple-to-understand themes. Which is why republicans are so much better at politics, IMO - they take simple ideas (i.e., lower taxes) and repeat them, facts be damned.

comment #7

jghoward says ...

The failure of the media regarding the rush to war doesn't mean the media isn't liberal ... only that it is incompetent.

comment #8

bb says ...

Wow, all it takes is a lame rant by Greenwald to retire a debate. The debate is over and anybody who disagrees is a liar.

For whatever reason, there is a segment of society that continues to think that if you say a debate is over long and loud enough, that you will cow others into silence. That is how children think.

Fox News has been vilified since the day it started broadcasting for being conservative. Whether that is true or not, the rest of the media is open to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism whether Mr. Greenwald likes it or not.

I would suggest that the media's liberal bias is only exceeded by their cowardice. That would explain their eagerness to follow public opinion in the buildup to the war as well as their wariness to show Mohammed cartoons today.

comment #9

dp4m says ...

The media (other than perhaps Fox News) is not "conservative" or "liberal" -- the media is whatever will sell papers, advertising, commercials, ratings, etc.

When Hillary was the "presumptive nominee" the media was against her; now that Obama has all but sewn-up the nomination (and was on a roll to get there early) the media was against him. Why? Because a lack of conflict sells no papers...

Conflict, angry opinions, etc. is what sells. It's like Iron Man!

comment #10

MDOC says ...

The liberal media argument has jumped the shark. Make no mistake, it was a brilliant strategy that essentially allowed any negative news story about the right to be dismissed as "slanted". How do you argue against that? It put a lot of pressure on the media.
I know most of you would much rather burn it, but if you ever get a chance, Bernard Goldberg's book Bias is an insightful read. Chapter 5, how Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness is eye opening.

comment #11

Indeed says ...

dinther, I see what you mean. Now, of course we can start arguing about how lower taxes actually increases tax revenues (I also am a big believer in smaller Federal government...but have no issues with universal health care, etc if its done state by state based upon what works best for their particular situation. I think the one thing California has done right in the past 10 years is stepped up and legalized gay marriage for themselves) but it would probably be easier to agree to disagree before we even get into it.

comment #12

Mr. Buckles says ...

Folks, I think that the need to label and categorize as "liberal" or "conservative" misses an essential point. It would seem as though the media news desks really search for the enterainment value, those angles that are sensational, as they sell.

Notice how 90% of all stories about politics tend to be about process (he said, she said rat a tat) than policy analysis?

It is easier to rile the people up than to get into the weeds of policy. In fact, who really wants to read that stuff, it's boring, no?

So just take your helpings of blow jobs, and gay marriage as sodomy, flag pins, bowling, and bitterness and be thankful. The news could be so much more boring.

comment #13

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Greenwald hath spoken. It must be true.

Rick Ellensburg says so.

comment #14

dangovich says ...

Every day I open my newspaper and see the sour faces of Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg staring back at me. I turn on the TV, and there's Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter blathering on about which Middle Eastern country we need to attack next.

Why doesn't Greenwald have a column in a major newspaper? He writes better than the likes of Goldberg and Kathleen Parker and Victor Hansen. And he is right far more often than they are.

comment #15

p.Vice says ...

Forget convervative & liberal tags, folks. The issue here is that the media is severely FUCKED. Journalism is an enterprise that was built on ethics. And as the media shifts away from tradition by downsizing and so forth it's losing its grasp on the priciples it needs to survive. They're doing what they need to do to make their dollar just like everyone else... and if it means throwing ethics under the bus to print a bunch of Bush's rubbish propaganda and sell some newspapers then they'll damn well do it. Season 5 of The Wire had some good observations of this downward spiral.

Ultimately our country really has only one political party... the Capitalist Party. That's the tune the media is dancing to.

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

Recount reminds us that when the person in charge of the ballots is head of the state's elect Bush campaign, you're going to constantly get screwed.

There do need to be laws to prevent such conflicts of interest.

It doesn't matter who really won Florida - the loser is the American who believes his ballot is somehow a sacred right.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Indeed: "I think the one thing California has done right in the past 10 years is stepped up and legalized gay marriage for themselves"

They didn't legalize it. They banned it, and the ban got overturned, and now they're trying to make it constitutional.

comment #18

SaveFarris says ...

Corey3rd, since you watched Recount, I'm sure you remember Bob Butterworth, the guy who wrote the other advisory opinion on how to tally chads. What Recount FORGOT to mention was that Butterworth was ... Gore's State Campaign chair. I guess HBO, Strong and Roach considered that to be an "Inconvenient Truth".

comment #19

Walter Sobchak says ...

Why does Fox News get singled out for being so conservative when apparently the rest of the news media is also in the tank for the Republicans?

Another question... How many times do liberals have to have it explained to them that there is a difference between NEWS and COMMENTARY? It's not the New York Times commentary section that angers conservatives, it's when their bias creeps into, (or rather obtusely stomps into) their news section.

Again...(for the billionth time).... the front page of the New York Times is NEWS.... the column by Charles Krauthammer in the Opinion section is COMMENTARY..... Brian WIlliams reports the NEWS.... Sean Hannity provides COMMENTARY...
it's really not that hard, people....

In other news.... ABC News Washington correspondent Linda Douglas has quit her job in order to go to work on the Barack Obama campaign.... but hey, that doesn't mean anything... she could've just as easily gone to work for McCain... I mean, it's just another gig, right?

comment #20

supertaster says ...

...as though most people could pick scott mcclelland out of a crowd, or had even heard of him 24 hours ago...and now he's some authority? glad to see some folks recognizing the fallacy of such an argument...

...and pretending there are significant differences in the ways liberals and conservatives promote and defend their morality is intellectually dishonest. There are certainly ideological differences between the two sides, beyond that both are rife with contradiction and compromise.

comment #21

Josh Massey says ...

"The Republican ontology is bulit upon slogans and aspirational, vague ideas..."

Yes we can!

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Walter: "Why does Fox News get singled out for being so conservative when apparently the rest of the news media is also in the tank for the Republicans?"

I think it's because while they were all propaganda outlets, FOX managed to lower the bar further on the concepts of debate and information.

taster: "..and now he's some authority?"

Everyone's an authority, next to Bush.

"There are certainly ideological differences between the two sides, beyond that both are rife with contradiction and compromise. "

Except the Republicans have more contradictions which prevent them from compromising.

Josh: "Yes we can!"

At least it's more unifying than "activist judges"....

comment #23

SpinDozer says ...

"...as though most people could pick scott mcclelland out of a crowd"

What does this have to do with anything? What kind of "fallacy" does "most" people's ADD expose?

'...and pretending there are significant differences in the ways liberals and conservatives promote and defend their morality is intellectually dishonest.'

There are massive differences in style and content, to pretend otherwise is to obfuscate via stupidity.

comment #24

supertaster says ...

in this day if you can't identify someone, you shouldn't be quoting them...i'm sure wells never heard of this guy before yesterday, and suddenly he's enough of an authority to declare with certainty this or that about the media?

...and I never implied "content" was the same, nor style, so strike two...but liberals and conservatives as we identify them today are extremely conflicted (and of course, conflicting) ideologies. Anyone who doesn't recognize this is not in a position to discuss this intelligently.

Liberals, for instance, are for individual freedom and public protection...leave me alone, but save everyone else...stay out of my bedroom and away from my body, but you must do this for your fellow man (or in order to ensure his protection, must not do that)...

...conservatives say they stand for minimal government, but then generally favor legislating morality...so which is it?

those who have honestly assessed their positions will find, in most cases, they have elements of both (perhaps leaning more one way than the other), and will hesitate to shackle themselves with terms as obtuse as liberal or conservative.

comment #25

SpinDozer says ...

"i'm sure wells never heard of this guy before yesterday"

You are? We're talking about the press secretary here.

'I never implied "content" was the same, nor style, so strike two' >pretending there are significant differences in the ways liberals and conservatives promote and defend their morality is intellectually dishonest

There are "significant differences". You may have found and identified 'ways' that you have evaluated as moral equivalents, but that is hardly the same thing. Not too sure you have captured any distinguishing marks of liberal or conservative in your examples either.

comment #26

supertaster says ...

sorry, can't respond now...olbermann is on in 25 minutes!

comment #27

Josh Massey says ...

"...conservatives say they stand for minimal government, but then generally favor legislating morality..."

No, true conservatives stand for minimal government and abhor legislating morality (I count myself as one of those folks). Republicans are the people you described, and that's why real conservatives are so sick of them.

And liberals, by the way, are for anything but individual freedom. There is no such thing as the individual in liberal politics.

comment #28

Josh says ...

The media isn't liberal??? I guess no one sent the memo to Dan Rather, MSNBC, George Stephanpolous, CNN, Couric, Brian Williams, etc

Why lie and say you are being objective? Why hide it?

comment #29

supertaster says ...

in other words...liberal positions are just as conflicted as conservative positions (today, Josh, as the word "conservative" has been tainted by Repubs...I agree a true conservative philosophy--a traditional one--is consistent)...being empirical when it suits the cause or emotional when being empirical doesn't suit the cause...both sides are like this and the commonality is emotion...emotion that drives 95% of what people think and do on a daily basis--liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever.

comment #30

SpinDozer says ...

'liberal positions are just as conflicted as conservative positions'

Well, so long as you define "liberal" or "conservative" with a brush tailored to generate this specific outcome, yes. Even if you came close to defining each of these two philosophies adequately (which you have not) and successfully provided something approaching demonstrable predictable practices (which you have not), what's your point?

comment #31

PeterSmith says ...

Oh, no! I can't agree with this point. Look at Eastern counties. It's not our main problem. custom essays

comment #32

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability architecture