Since this has popped up recently, I thought I would discuss this topic in a little more depth.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, the major news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, LA Times) are all liberal mouthpieces.  This has been known for years, yet they still turn a blind eye to this fact.

As a good example, look at the recent scandal involving the NY Times, and how they handled stories, made up facts, and did shoddy research.

The thing is, this bias is very subtle.  They do not come out and say "Democrat Yes, Republican No".  Instead, they do this by the words they use and how they say things, in addition to what stories they cover, and which they do not.

A great example of this is something we hear a lot of recently:  Exit Strategy.

More and more recently, I hear the media talking about President Bush's "Exit Strategy" from Iraq.  Believe me, there is little more meaningless and insane then this discussion.  But by bringing it up over and over again, it helps to convince President Bush is wrong and a fool.

As a good example, look back 50-60 years.

It is now 1947.  Could you imagine somebody going up to President Trueman and asking "What is your exit strategy from Germany and Japan?"  Of course not!  THe truth of the matter is, we are still there!  59 years after the end of WWII in Germany, we are STILL there.  We are still in Japan, 58 years later.  ANd nobody is asking about an "Exit Strategy" from those nations.

40+ years after the Korean War, North Korea is still north of the 38th Parallel, yet we are still in S. Korea.  What is our exit strategy?  Come on, the job is over, briing our troops home.  The president (Trueman in both cases) obviously does not know what he is doing, because we are still there.

To me, looking at these 3 nations shows why we SHOULD still be in Iraq, and be there for as long as needed to ensure peace in the region.  People may complain we are in S. Korea, Germany, and Japan.  But guess what, NONE of those countries have been at war since our peacekeeping forces have been there.

The same thing happened in 1992.  Nobody in the news cared about "Universal Health Care".  But once Bill Clinton made it a major part of his campaign, it was everywhere.  The TV News, Newspapers, Time, Newsweek, etc.  THey all started to scream how needed it was.

AM Radio is dominated by Conservative Talk, because that is what the market demands.  If the market demanded Liberal Talk, that is how it would be.  ANd at least on shows like Rush, Michael Reagan, and Michael Medved, they readily admit the bias of their editorial comment, and they make no attempt to hide their bias.  That is the biggest difference I think.

80s Cheerleader has got it.  In spite of all the crowing about "liberal bias," you will find the major news outlets treat Democrats with much more scorn and skepticism than Republicans.  The only way ABC, NBC, CBS are "liberal mouthpieces" is if you don't know what a "liberal" or a "mouthpiece" is.
Right-wing news periodicals such as Murdoch's "Weekly Standard" or the Moon's "Washington Times" are insignificant compared to the mainstream "Newsweek" or "New York Times."  However, their influence is not.  That is why their respective paymasters keep them in business.  Brock cites the example of Clinton's 11/01 Georgetown speech in which the former President said the U.S. was still "paying for slavery."  "Washington Times" reporter Joseph Curl twisted the story to say Clinton meant the U.S. deserved 9/11 because of slavery, "CLINTON CALLS TERROR A U.S. DEBT TO PAST: CITES SLAVERY IN GEORGETOWN SPEECH," read the headline.
This distorted story went from the Times, to the "Drudge Report," to Brit Hume on FOX, and then to the rest of the broadcast media.  Trashing of Clinton by Fred Barnes and Mara LIARsson led to further distortions by Hannity, Horowtiz, and Coulter.
But there was no connection in the speech between "paying the price for slavery" and "9/11."  If the media cared at all about getting the truth, you'd think at least one of the big outlets would have gotten the transcript and read it for themselves.  The didn't, and another bogus "Clinton-the-monster" story went out for public consumption.  Bernard Goldberg's nemesis, Dan Rather didn't say "Hey, just a minute now..." 
In the right-wing media, as I always say, a lie goes around the world before the truth pulls his pants back up.
Gotta go 4 now...

Some interesting questions, Mushroom, but Bush claimed to have an exit strategy, and as I recall, denounced Gore and Clinton for their efforts at "nation building" which he derided as futile.  I would also point out that the examples you point to all need to be seen in the context of the cold war, which, unless I'm wrong, ain't no more.  I would suggest that Mr Bush needs to be held accountable for the mess he made.

As to the media, Max got it right, even the main stream are - right that is.  They are so concerned with not being accused of being liberal that they bend over to accomidate the half thruths and outright lies told (made up) by the right wing media, and they do so without checking on the facts.  The fact that a NY Times reporter made stuff up is bad news and unexcusable to be sure, but wasn't it The New York Times that reported the story, fired the dude, and apologised?  Never heard of a right wing rag doing that.  They just scream "left wing bias" and keep publishing their lies.

Mushroom is right no matter what some liberals will say.  According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, for the last year roughly 75% of all the stories about democratic candidate John Kerry have been positive; stories about President Bush have been over 60% negative!

Mushroom is right no matter what some liberals will say.  According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, for the last year roughly 75% of all the stories about democratic candidate John Kerry have been positive; stories about President Bush have been over 60% negative!


Maybe that's because there isn't much possitive to report about Mr Bush.

Maybe that's because there isn't much possitive to report about Mr Bush.


Maybe its because ABC, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, NPR, PBS, L.A. times, NY times, Air America radio and more are all working with the DNC and have always sided with the democrats even before Bush became president.

Maybe its because ABC, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, NPR, PBS, L.A. times, NY times, Air America radio and more are all working with the DNC and have always sided with the democrats even before Bush became president.


Prove it!

No matter what, "liberals" are going to call the media "Right biased" and the "conservatives" are going to call it "Left biased".  All it takes is 1 media outlet to report a story that goes against one's beliefs to make them think it's biased against them.


I agree.  But when you have a life-long Liberal like Bernard Goldberg who stands up and says "We are biased", and is then fired for it, that says something all to itself.  If you can't believe a CBS national reporter with over 20 years experience, who can you trust?

As for the earlier comment, LOCAL coverage tends to be much more conservative then the NATIONAL coverage.  This has always been that way.  And the bias is not always in what is SAID, but in what is NOT SAID.  As GW said, look at the positive coverage about Kerry compared to that of Bush.

Or even better, the NY Times reporter in 1972 who was amazed at the fact that Richard Nixon won by a landslide.  She said quite publically "Nobody *I* know voted for him!"  That shows how isolated they are from the mainstream American public.

I see a lot of news media sources as very centrist.  But when Republicans see anything that doesn't agree with their far right wing views, they immediately think of that as "liberal bias".  Now to be fair, sometimes I do detect what I call "moderate with left leaning tendencies" in the NY Times and CNN.  For instance Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson usually has Begala coming off best in the debates, no matter who he's matched up against.  I'm not sure if there is something else at work there or is it simply because Begala is liberal that can actually play Republican hardball and give as much as he gets.   But it's not as outrageously skewed one way as Fox News is.  Tucker Carlson seems to be a very competent conservative commentator that actually believes in his ideology, unlike Alan Colmes who is a hand picked idiot.  (I would love to see Paul Begala vs. Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, think of the ratings!)     

I see a lot of news media sources as very centrist.  But when Republicans see anything that doesn't agree with their far right wing views, they immediately think of that as "liberal bias".  Now to be fair, sometimes I do detect what I call "moderate with left leaning tendencies" in the NY Times and CNN.  For instance Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson usually has Begala coming off best in the debates, no matter who he's matched up against.  I'm not sure if there is something else at work there or is it simply because Begala is liberal that can actually play Republican hardball and give as much as he gets.   But it's not as outrageously skewed one way as Fox News is.  Tucker Carlson seems to be a very competent conservative commentator that actually believes in his ideology, unlike Alan Colmes who is a hand picked idiot.  (I would love to see Paul Begala vs. Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, think of the ratings!)     



I agree with you. It seems that some are so far right and anything even close to the center seems far left.

I think I have posted this once before that what I see is this nation being divided. And I really think that this Adminstration and the Media are at the cause of that split. "Either you are with us, or you are a terrorist." This country was founded on its differences. Different ideas, different beliefs, different opinions. However, when the info we are being fed is NOT the truth, people believe it. Why would the news lie to us? Why indeed? It is not a matter of a simple mistake. That happens. For instance, back when Reagan was shot, the anchorperson came on and said that James Brady had died from his gunshot wound. About 10 minutes later, he said that was wrong and that James Brady was INDEED still alive. Ok, an honest mistake. However, the media today makes up stories-maybe to get better ratings, I don't know. And if anyone calls them on it, they cry foul. Either it is conservitive bashing or liberal bashing. And then you are called "unpatriotic."

This country has a document called the Constitution that has something called the First Admendment. This lets us speak our minds without fear of being arrested. However, there are some limits, like crying "fire" in a crowded theatre or making false claims against someone-that is called "slander." But, shouldn't the news state the facts and only the facts? When they start making up stories, that is called fiction. If I want fiction, I will read a novel, or watch a movie or soap operas. When I want the news, I want the TRUTH! I really want to know what is going on in the world not the world according to....(fill in the blank). I really think that news programs should be held accountable for ALL stories they report-and check their facts before reporting it.




Cat

I've seen a time during the early GW days when the L.A. Times wrote an article in the news about how Bush didn't approve a certain needed law or accessory passed and the headline pointed it out as "Bush denies_____" (Whatever it was), when in fact, the truth to the matter was the SENATE had to vote to approve what was requested, THEY DIDN'T and the TIMES focused the story blasting Bush for not approving it!

I never bought the Times again!
I bring things like that up to the sellers of the paper constantly when I tell them they were leftwingers and shade the story against Bush.

I read whatever comes across as fair and balanced. If a right winger says something shaded, as wel, I speak up that makes me.....?....


Saverl
 

Mushroom is right no matter what some liberals will say.  According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, for the last year roughly 75% of all the stories about democratic candidate John Kerry have been positive; stories about President Bush have been over 60% negative!

Sigh.  "I can't help it, there you go again!" -- The Gipper.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife and his affiliated Foundations.  It has also received grants from the John M. Olin Foundation.  Both the Scaife and Olin organizations push a central prejudice which claims the media is biased and sets out to prove it.  They would not grant funds to a thinktank that might find otherwise.  Mellon-Scaife and Olin, for instance, were responsible for blustering PBS into hiring right-wing idealogues John McLaughlin, Morton Kondrake, and Fred Barnes.  If you want to know an organization's priorities always follow the money, always identify the paymasters.

Please analyse the sentence "Mushroom is right no matter what liberals will say.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like another sentence, "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts."

Mushroom wrote:
I agree.  But when you have a life-long Liberal like Bernard Goldberg who stands up and says "We are biased", and is then fired for it, that says something all to itself.  If you can't believe a CBS national reporter with over 20 years experience, who can you trust?
Why should I "trust" Bernard Goldberg? 
Fr'instance, Stanford researcher Geoffrey Nunberg ran the numbers on Goldberg's claim that "Conservative" was vastly more likely to appear in front a politicians name than "Liberal," as in "Conservative Senator Joe Blow," as opposed to "Liberal Senator Joe Blow"  Using 20 major U.S. dailies and 10 legislators (5 liberal, 5 conservative), Nunberg found the likleyhood was 30 times greater that a legislator would be labeled as liberal by these major dailies.
(The American Prospect, May 6, 2002)
The phrase "liberal media bias" has been pounded into the American consciousness.  As Nunberg found studying newspapers since for 10 years 1992, the word "liberal" appeared adjacent to the phrase "media bias" 469 times, whereas the word "conservative" appeared adjacent to the same phrase only 17 times. (ibid.)
Mr. Goldberg's book Bias, as Eric Alterman points out, is largely a screed against his old boss, Dan Rather.  Rather's name appears on more pages in Bias than not.  Of course Goldberg is going to assume the pose of a "liberal," for that's the quickest way to fend off charges of "conservative bias."  Unfortunately, Goldberg appears to have neither a liberal nor a conservative bias, but a nonsense bias and a big bullying blowhard bias!!!

Fr'instance, Stanford researcher Geoffrey Nunberg ran the numbers on Goldberg's claim that "Conservative" was vastly more likely to appear in front a politicians name than "Liberal," as in "Conservative Senator Joe Blow," as opposed to "Liberal Senator Joe Blow"  Using 20 major U.S. dailies and 10 legislators (5 liberal, 5 conservative), Nunberg found the likleyhood was 30 times greater that a legislator would be labeled as liberal by these major dailies.


While that is interesting, it actually proves NOTHING.

Goldberg's claim was about the TV News, not print media.  He was not making those claims about the Newspapers or the Magazines, but the big 3 networks, and CNN.

How about a similar survey done to CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN?  I am sure you will find the results much different.

Just last night, I heard the words "Moderate" used for John McCain, "Arch-Conservative Spokesman" in reguards to Rush, and "Conservative" when used about G.W. Bush.  No such appendment was made to John Kerry, Michael Moore, nor to George Stephanopolis.

And again, look at the stories they report.  I have commented in here before about the UN Oil For Food scandal, but you hardly hear it mentioned.  You hear about some things to death, but other things are ignored.  THIS was the point that Goldberg was trying to make.  The Bias is not up-front, but much more subtle.  And in fact, it is much less since his book came out.  Even though they deny it, the bias has slackened up a bit, but not totally.

I agree 100% Cat.

Something I found interesting, though, is that something like 66% of reporters are registered Democrats.  I would think it's rather hard to report 100% neutrally when that is the case.  Imagine having to report on something unbiased when it is something you are totally for/against.  ???


That is an interesting estimate, but the real question should be "what are the editors' politics, and more important still, the publishers'?  Is it a coincidence that Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Everyone is biased in one way or another, and should be.  There is an old debate in my profession as to whether a historian should simply "report" the facts or interpret them.  The first is impossible, since the selection of facts is itself an interprative process (did anyone ever read what Lee had for breakfast the day he ordered Pickett's Charge?).  The key is to desern the bias in the sources one uses and seperate the facts from the interpretation.  That's why its important to get more than one source, since each might provide facts the others left out, and why it is important to go to primary sources whenever possible.

While that is interesting, it actually proves NOTHING.

Goldberg's claim was about the TV News, not print media.  He was not making those claims about the Newspapers or the Magazines, but the big 3 networks, and CNN.
Good point.  Goldberg does focus on the big three networks.  Why didn't he call his book "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Television News Networks Distort the News."  In other words, he doesn't make it clear from the start that he's talking about the so-called Big Three.  The titles says "how the media distort the news."  He has talked of the "media" throughout his rounds on the pundit circuit.  He duck specifies the Big Three when called on it.  As Alterman points out, "Bias is more "Dan Rather Sucks" than anything else.

How about a similar survey done to CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN?  I am sure you will find the results much different.
When called on the network's right-wing bias, Bill O'Reilly says FOX's evening program is "news analysis."  Therefore, FOX anchors don't have to hold themselves to the standards of neutrality they wish to hold the Big Three, and the other cable news networks to.  Yet FOX presents biased commentary in the morning with FOX and Friends, and Wall Street worship starting at 4:00 pm with Neil Cavuto.  You may hear Dan Rather refer to "Moderate Republican Senator John McCain" on the CBS evening program, but you won't hear Dan Rather refer to "the dumb old U.N.," like John Gibson on FOX.  Nevertheless, Goldberg heaps praise upon FOX because that network courts him.
Many of Goldberg's claims of liberal bias have to do with network choices HE doesn't like.  Goldberg doesn't like how the news shows AIDS patients in stories about AIDS.  He would rather they show reckless gay men and druggie prostitutes.  He doesn't like it when the network news shows "blonde-haired, blue-eyed all-American families" when they do stories about homelessness.  Everybody knows the homeless are drunks, loonies, and people of color in the cities, right?  So, if journalists find whole families homeless in the white-populated heartland, they shouldn't show it because it doesn't conform to the homeless average?  What? 
The networks did tons of reports over the years on the causes of AIDS, of homelessness among the mentally ill, and the urban minorities.
In Goldberg's world, if you don't have a right-wing bias, you automatically have a liberal bias.

And again, look at the stories they report.  I have commented in here before about the UN Oil For Food scandal, but you hardly hear it mentioned.  You hear about some things to death, but other things are ignored.  THIS was the point that Goldberg was trying to make.  The Bias is not up-front, but much more subtle.  And in fact, it is much less since his book came out.  Even though they deny it, the bias has slackened up a bit, but not totally.

You won't catch me singing the praises of Dan Blather and the rest of the Big Three.  Progressives have been doing the same thing on their side that Godberg has been doing on his.  They've made many cogent criticisms of the corporate spin on network news.  While they may have under-reported the UN Oil for Food scandal, they also under-report stories of malfeasance in corporate America.  Goldberg, to his credit, acknowledges NBC treats its parent company, General Electric, with "kid gloves," but as David Brock points out, that isn't liberal bias at all.

I have a theory about Goldberg's point regarding the "conservative" appellation.  He the news networks consider liberals mainstream, and conservatives out of the mainstream.  I see a few possible reasons for this.  Conservative legislators and commentators are much more vehement in their conservatism than are liberals are in their liberalism.  To find a liberal corallary to the now-mainstream Republicans in congress, you have to refer to Dennis Kucinich, waaaay to the left of the average congressional Democrat.
The networks are run by stodgy old men.  Maybe they're a little behind the times.  Until recently, the kind of conservatism that passes today for "mainstream," you know, Limbaugh conservatism, WAS out of the mainstream.  Before the "Reagan Revolution," John McCain and Jerry Ford were mainstream conservatives.  Barry Goldwater and, say, Sen. Paul Laxalt (R-NV), were on the right-wing fringe.  Today it's the opposite.  McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Lincoln Chaffee of RI are moderate-to-liberal Republicans and the old Goldwater right-wing fringe is the mainstream.  Perhaps Dan Rather doesn't get it yet!
On the other hand, maybe "conservatism" is not nearly as "mainstream" among the American public as conservative cheerleaders say, especially social conservatism.  Remember, no one disputes that Al Gore won the popular vote.  I also believe millions of Bush voters voted Republican out of fear of taxes, and don't buy into the right-wing social agenda at all.
These are only pet theories of mine, however.

I am moving a post from the Nader topic to here, since this is more correctly where it belongs.


Actions speak louder than words, the cliche goes, and Tammy Bruce's actions show her to be a shill for the right.  She's a Girl Friday for FOX News, and his even filled in on Sean Hannity's program. She likes to prattle on about how she's a Democrat, a Feminist, and lesbian...then she does nothing but bash Democrats, feminists, and lesbians.  She's every bit as bad as that gay right-winger Andrew Sullivan.  Her latest book, The Death of Right and Wrong is more right-wing platitudes about our culture turning into Sodom and Gomorrah, it could have come from the charlatan pen of William Bennett for all it's really got to do with being a dissident feminist.

No self-respecting liberal can stand the company of Hannity, O'Reilly, or Bernie Goldberg for more than about 90 seconds.  Hey, what happened to Bernie Goldberg?  Weren't we talking about him?  Anyway, I can only conclude that Ms. Bruce is a shill for the Right.  It is one of the oldest tricks in the propaganda book to appear to co-opt members from the other side. 

CORRECTION: We were talking about Goldberg on the NEWS BIAS thread, things get kinda blurry.


I am curious to know, how long have you listened to Ms. Bruce?

Myself, I have known of her and listened to her for 10 years now.  In the early-mid 1990's, she had a radio talk show on KFI 640am in Los Angeles.  It was on every weekend, and I was a regular listener.

I would listen, sometimes with anger, sometimes with agreement, but always with an open mind.  She would often pick topics so far off of acceptability even for a Liberal.  I remember one in 1994 where she proposed disbanding the US Military.

I called her show many times, sometimes to agree with her, sometimes to disagree.  I even participated on her first march to protest the aquital og OJ Simpson.  All during that time, she was the President of the LA Chapter of NOW.

I find it interesting that you claim she says our "culture turning into Sodom and Gomorrah".  I wonder if you have ever actually READ any of her books.  Ms. Bruce is a pro-abortion feminist lesbian.  She is also a MODERATE.

I believe that a true moderate can listen to arguements by both sides of the political spectrum, and find almost as many things ON EACH SIDE they agree with.  I myself am a Moderate, with right leanings.  I may disagree with how some things are carried out on both sides, but I actually am rather neutral on a great many things.  I find it interesting that you hear of "Knee-Jerk Liberals", but I can't remember that last time I head of a "Knee-Jerk Conservative".

Once again, we ignore the content of the conversation, and attack the person that wrote it.  I love how people constantly prove Ms. Bruce, Mr. Goldberg, and others right.  When you do not like the message, attack the messenger.

I am moving a post from the Nader topic to here, since this is more correctly where it belongs.



I am curious to know, how long have you listened to Ms. Bruce?

Myself, I have known of her and listened to her for 10 years now.  In the early-mid 1990's, she had a radio talk show on KFI 640am in Los Angeles.  It was on every weekend, and I was a regular listener.

I would listen, sometimes with anger, sometimes with agreement, but always with an open mind.  She would often pick topics so far off of acceptability even for a Liberal.  I remember one in 1994 where she proposed disbanding the US Military.

I called her show many times, sometimes to agree with her, sometimes to disagree.  I even participated on her first march to protest the aquital og OJ Simpson.  All during that time, she was the President of the LA Chapter of NOW.

I find it interesting that you claim she says our "culture turning into Sodom and Gomorrah".  I wonder if you have ever actually READ any of her books.  Ms. Bruce is a pro-abortion feminist lesbian.  She is also a MODERATE.
I had not heard of Ms. Bruce until a few months ago when the right-wing media began courting her.  The Murdoch--Mellon-Scaife--Moonie triumverate does not seek out a pundit unless the pundit is going serve the right-wing political cause.  You don't see her on FOX, on Heritage and American Enterprise panels, or on talk radio because she is a feminist, a lesbian, pro-choice, or a "moderate," "liberal."  There are scores of women writers better qualified than Bruce on these fronts.  The right-wing media courts her because she claims to be the aforementioned things AND she likes to trash "liberals."  The right-wing media is interested in nothing other than ratings and promoting their ideology.
Why does Dennis Miller get his own primetime talk show and Al Franken does not?

I believe that a true moderate can listen to arguements by both sides of the political spectrum, and find almost as many things ON EACH SIDE they agree with.  I myself am a Moderate, with right leanings.  I may disagree with how some things are carried out on both sides, but I actually am rather neutral on a great many things.  I find it interesting that you hear of "Knee-Jerk Liberals", but I can't remember that last time I head of a "Knee-Jerk Conservative".
Me neither, but you sure as heck ought to!  If the shoe fits...

Once again, we ignore the content of the conversation, and attack the person that wrote it.  I love how people constantly prove Ms. Bruce, Mr. Goldberg, and others right.  When you do not like the message, attack the messenger.

Wait a gosh durn minute!  How have I proved Ms. Bruce or Mr. Goldbeg right? (unless you mean right-wing!)
I prefer Lenny Bruce to Tammy Bruce,
and Whoopie Goldberg to Bernie Goldberg!

Why does Dennis Miller get his own primetime talk show and Al Franken does not?


Al Franken does not have his own show?  Heck, he owns his own radio network!!!!!!

http://www.airamericaradio.com

If you check, Al gets 3 hours a DAY.  He has more air time in 2 days then Dennis Miller gets in a week.  Add to that, his show is repeated on weekends.  That makes 7 days a week of Al, for a total of 21 hours.  Compare that to 5 hours of Dennis a week.

Al Franken does not have his own show?  Heck, he owns his own radio network!!!!!!

http://www.airamericaradio.com

If you check, Al gets 3 hours a DAY.  He has more air time in 2 days then Dennis Miller gets in a week.  Add to that, his show is repeated on weekends.  That makes 7 days a week of Al, for a total of 21 hours.  Compare that to 5 hours of Dennis a week.

;D
Well, I guess I stepped in there!  Yeah, he sure does have his own radio network.  I forgot, I've never actually listened to Air America.  They don't broadcast in my area, and it's inconvenient for me to listen online.  I don't think Air America is going to survive.  Of course, it's very hard to start your own ideologically driven network.  Joe Coors teamed up with Roger Ailes in the '70s to found a right-wing Evangelical network, Television News, Inc., in New York City.  It flopped.
The reason Al Franken isn't making it is not because there isn't an audience, it's because of the struggle of starting a radio network from scratch.  The reason I mentioned Al Franken regarding Dennis Miller is Franken has had two-best selling books in the past couple of years, and when he tours, it's standing room only everywhere.  Dennis Miller is a washed-up has-been who clings onto conservative coattails for attention.  Celebrities who kiss up to the right-wing media are duly rewarded.  Franken and Co. had to go found there own network to get their points across.

Al Franken does not have his own show?  Heck, he owns his own radio network!!!!!!

http://www.airamericaradio.com

If you check, Al gets 3 hours a DAY.  He has more air time in 2 days then Dennis Miller gets in a week.  Add to that, his show is repeated on weekends.  That makes 7 days a week of Al, for a total of 21 hours.  Compare that to 5 hours of Dennis a week.


Seems to me that this is a silly comparison.  You haven't added in Rush's air time, or the entire Fox "news analysis" air time, or all those other con, neocon, neo-fascist clods that hoard the radio waves.  Get real!  The right has an almost total monopoly on AM radio, and a big chunck of cable TV to boot, even if you count the three networks as "liberal", which they are not.

Seems to me that this is a silly comparison.  You haven't added in Rush's air time, or the entire Fox "news analysis" air time, or all those other con, neocon, neo-fascist clods that hoard the radio waves.  Get real!  The right has an almost total monopoly on AM radio, and a big chunck of cable TV to boot, even if you count the three networks as "liberal", which they are not.

The notion that all other news networks except FOX have a flagrant Left-wing bias is just a fantasy.  It's so ridiculous, it's off the charts!
I reiterate, it's a difficult and risky operation in the current market for any group to start their own broadcasting network.  Rupert Murdoch didn't found a brand new network for FOX, he bought out an existing one.  The right-wing radio jocks were adopted by giant national radio networks, such as Westwood One, or corporations who bought out existing radio networks, ala Clear Channel.  Corporate radio courts right-wingers from Libertarians, such as Neal Boortz to Christian authoritarians, such as Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, because the Right is always more friendly to corporate interests than the Left.

You want your liberal stations..check out NPR...
It's a start...

You want your liberal stations..check out NPR...
It's a start...

If you listen to NPR, you will not hear the same one-sided partisan polemics you hear on right-wing talk radio.  I listen to a lot of both.  National Public Radio does not do the same thing as Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O'Reilly, Dr. Laura, or Dr. Dobson.
Frankly, the comparison is ludicrous.

You want your liberal stations..check out NPR...
It's a start...


NPR?  Liberal?  If moderate and attempting objective is "liberal" ok, ya got me.  But from my perspective "right wing Democrate" mighth be a better description, or "left wing Republican" if there is such a thing any more.  Give me a break!!!

Somehow my last response was lost:

I would think NPR would welcome a format that viewed the other side as Rush or Dr. ??

Yes it takes money, some liberal supporters should have that, or there should be a set of liberal advertisers that would.

Air America ,I heard had to assemble their group pretty quickly and what did they come up with?
Why isn't it lasting?
Don't ask me. ????

Somehow my last response was lost:

I would think NPR would welcome a format that viewed the other side as Rush or Dr. ??

Yes it takes money, some liberal supporters should have that, or there should be a set of liberal advertisers that would.

Air America ,I heard had to assemble their group pretty quickly and what did they come up with?
Why isn't it lasting?
Don't ask me. ????

I agree with Don Carlos, I find much of NPR's programming to be cautiously liberal on social issues, and moderately conservative on economic issues.  Of course, compared to FOX, talk radio, and the current Republican legislative leadership, NPR might as well be Radio Havana!
It has never been NPR's mission to broadcast fist-pounding partisan polemics all day, Left or Right.  As part of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, their charter required public not partisan service.  Commercial stations technically have the same requirement under their FCC licenses, but they're not called to the carpet for being one-sided.  CPB IS!
CPB was founded in 1967 and almost immediately incurred the wrath of the Nixon Administration, who blocked its funding for running documentaries critical of them.  Nixon hated the press, and doubly hated Public Broadcasting.  In the '70s and early '80s, CPB was relentlessly threatened by powerful righ-wing idealogues such as Reed Irvine, Robert and Linda Lichter, and David Horowitz.  Under constant fear of budget cuts, CPB caved into pressure to include Rightie programs such as Buckley's "Firing Line," and the "McLaughlin Group."  CPB also had to offer equal time for Rightie responses to their documentaries.
The "Fairness Doctrine," which made partisan media monopoly impossible on commercial media was repealed in 1987.  This planted the seed for Rush Limbaugh.  However, since CPB is partially publically funded, Congress can hold them to "fairness" standards to which it cannot hold commercial media.  If they CPB doesn't cooperate, bye bye funding.
Remember, NPR is part of CPB, that's why it couldn't become a left-wing answer to Rush even if it wanted to.

I've just been watching and am now listtening to Paula Zann's CNN special filmed at Camp Leuzaune (SP).  I absolutely support the mutual support network wives have established, and have absolutely no problem with the training troops are getting, or any other of the measures she is highlighting.  My only issue is with one of the first interviews.  When asked about WHY I think a Lt. talked about "protecting democracy and bringing freedom".  Those are the political proclamations used to JUSTIFY what these people are being asked to do.  If I were that slodier I would have responded, "well, I can't comment on the political issues.  My commanders have given me what I believe are legal orders, and I carry them out.  I will not comment on the politics of this."  Of course in that case, Ms Zann would have found someone else to interview.  My answer would have been unacceptable to the gung ho show she was doing.  Don't get me wrong.  Most of it was on how people cope and support each other and all that (not to be cynical) touchy feely stuff.  Fine, just keep the (pro admin)  political commentary out of it.  Just another example of right wing bias in even the "liberal" media.

And by the way, if this admin really wants to support veterans, why is it cutting the Veterans Administration budget, and not evan offering them free flags instead of the benefits they so richly deserve?  More Republican hypocracy.

Seems to me that this is a silly comparison.  You haven't added in Rush's air time, or the entire Fox "news analysis" air time, or all those other con, neocon, neo-fascist clods that hoard the radio waves.  Get real!  The right has an almost total monopoly on AM radio, and a big chunck of cable TV to boot, even if you count the three networks as "liberal", which they are not.


The thing being challenged was comparing Al Franken against Dennis Miller.  So that was all I addressed.

ANd yes, Conservatives do control most of AM radio, jsut as Liberals control most of FM radio.  So what?  And oh yes, we have such a lock on Cable.  CNN, Comedy Central, the ones owned by Ted Turner.

Ted Turner's company owns a LOT of the chanels, as does MTV.  Can you imagine EITHER of those companies letting "Conservatives" control their shows?  Heck, Ted is so liberal he divorced his wife when she became a Christian.

If you listen to NPR, you will not hear the same one-sided partisan polemics you hear on right-wing talk radio.  I listen to a lot of both.  National Public Radio does not do the same thing as Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O'Reilly, Dr. Laura, or Dr. Dobson.
Frankly, the comparison is ludicrous.


You call NPR Moderate then?

Then why have a great many people called it "National Peoples Radio" since at least the mid 1980's?

A big difference is that on Conservative radio, they admit their bias.  They present their views as commentary, and you know where they are comming from.  NPR hides it's view 90% of the time.

And by the way, if this admin really wants to support veterans, why is it cutting the Veterans Administration budget, and not evan offering them free flags instead of the benefits they so richly deserve?  More Republican hypocracy.


Well, it is a far cry better then how the LAST administration treated veterans.

I saw so many hospitals and clinics close during Clinton's term, it is not even funnny.  Long Beach, Carson, Oakland, Van Nuys, and those are just in California.

I saw a program for retraining veterans with no civilian jobs available for their military experience (like mine, Infantry) turned over to Civilian Aerospace workers!  I remember waiting in line after I was discharged, only to be told there was no money left.  And while I was there, I was talking to Aircraft designers and technicians getting computer training.  In fact, the program was pushed so far over budget, Congress cancelled it.

The farce here is, we all knew that within 1-3 years, those people would either get more jobs in aerospace, or find other jobs they were qualified for.  But veterans like myself or those in other combat arms (like artillery) could not get needed training to get regular jobs.

Luckily, after 3 years of crappy jobs I was able to retrain myself.  I now make a decent living in computers.  But my job is constantly in jeopardy, because I got into the field 10 years late.  I often wonder where I would be in the industry now if I had continued in it after High School, instead of spending 10 years in the military.

BTW, the VA budget was not cut.  It got the usual COLA increase the last 2 years.  It gets more then it did in 2001.  It simply did not get the budget it requested.

The thing being challenged was comparing Al Franken against Dennis Miller.  So that was all I addressed.

ANd yes, Conservatives do control most of AM radio, jsut as Liberals control most of FM radio.  So what?  And oh yes, we have such a lock on Cable.  CNN, Comedy Central, the ones owned by Ted Turner.

Ted Turner's company owns a LOT of the chanels, as does MTV.  Can you imagine EITHER of those companies letting "Conservatives" control their shows?  Heck, Ted is so liberal he divorced his wife when she became a Christian.

Ted Turner ought to be committed to a psychiatric facility.  He gave $10 billion to the U.N.  I think he's lost his marbles.  Anyway...
CNN is consistantly pro-Wall Street, and pro-Business.  For me that's the litmus test.  I don't give a hoot what their commentators think about gay marriage or something like that.  CNN is center-right, as far as I'm concerned.  Comedy Central's Daily Show hits the right-wing harder than the left.  Why? Because it's comedy.  The right-wing, especially the Bush Administration, are SUCH EASY targets.  Also, humor works better when it's aimed at the powerful.  If you have a sense of humor, you will notice how bad it fails on right-wing media.  That's because the elements of satire don't work when it's the king mocking the peasants.  Dennis Miller comes off as the angry spoiled brat that he is.
If you've watched The Daily Show lately, they have a lot of fun with Kerry, believe me!
What follows The Daily Show? Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn.  He's no liberal.  As a matter of fact, I've nominated Quinn "the new Archie Bunker."  Tough Crowd seems like a spoof on mean and impotent middle-aged guys who listen to Limbaugh.

Liberals dominate FM radio?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Howard Stern isn't a Liberal.  He just hates the Bush Administration for trying to shut him up.  Stern has always seemed like a Libertarian creep to me.  You will find talk expanding onto the FM dial in many markets.  In Boston, we have 96.9 WTKK.  The entire line-up is every bit as right-wing as any AM talk.  Programs include Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly.  We've also got on WTKK an openly racist, paranoid, hate-monger of a Libertarian called Jay Severin.  This guy broadcasts on the Boston station, but lives in Oyster Bay, Long Island.

How can you claim FM is dominated by the left when almost all stations nationwide right of 91.9 are owned by Clear Channel and other predatory corporations?  I find the assertion a bit silly.

You call NPR Moderate then?

Then why have a great many people called it "National Peoples Radio" since at least the mid 1980's?

A big difference is that on Conservative radio, they admit their bias.  They present their views as commentary, and you know where they are comming from.  NPR hides it's view 90% of the
A great many people also called FDR a communist.  So what?  Anybody who would call NPR "National Peoples Radio" has the IQ of a fencepost (I don't mean you, 'coz you don't call it that).  It just shows they don't listen, and they don't analyse.  They have a visceral reaction against any point of view that isn't a screaming right-wing diatribe and that's the end of it.
National Peoples Radio, yeah, I WISH!
As far as this "NPR hides its view 90% of the time," I don't buy it.  NPR call-in shows, such as "The Connection," and "Talk of the Nation" are much more neutral than anything you hear on AM talk.  The host is there to facilitate the discussion.  Whether the host is a liberal or a conservative doesn't matter because the program is determined by the topic, the guests, and the callers.  More callers to NPR programs tend to be liberal, but conservative callers are accorded respect.  They are not ridiculed by the host, and they're are not cut off using bomb-bursting or toilet-flushing sound effects!
That's more than I can say for your AM hosts when they even allow liberal callers to get on the air!
NPR can also facilitate more involved discussions because the don't have to interrupt every five minutes so some jellybean can hawk SUVS and retirement funds!

Liberals dominate FM radio?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Howard Stern isn't a Liberal.  He just hates the Bush Administration for trying to shut him up. 


When and how did the Republican's try to shut him up?

I know that is his claim, but that has been shown to be so much coprolite.

I find it interesting that he screams about Bush, and wished that Gore had won the election.  Never mind that in the 1980's, I remember quite clearly Gore's attempt to make a large segment of records and tv/radio shows illegal!

Anybody else alive might remember AL and Tipper's attempts to censor the media.

What Stern fails to mention is that even before Clear Channel dropped him, his show had shrinking rateings, and many other stations were dropping him.  It is just that Clear Channel was the largest single drop in the history of his show.

At the highest, Mr. Stern only had 70 stations that carried his show.  He is now at 34, less then half his all-time high.  This has been a trend for many years, not a sudden attack by Bush or anybody else.  Basically, a lot of stations are dropping Syndicated shows, in favor of more local shows.  "The Big Show", "John And Ken", "Handel On The Law", "Dr. Dean Edell", and a great many other syndicated shows suffer similar problems.  A great many of them have switched to "Syndicated Delayed" format, where they pre-record most of the show, and allow local stations to air it whenever they want.

This helps the station to fit it into their schedule where they want it.  Most of the national syndicated shows with a large audience now are either late night like Michael Reagan and "Coast To Coast" (formerly "The Art Bell Show"), or during the middle of the day like Rush, Dr. Laura, and Michael Medved.

Mr. Stern is simply suffering from low ratings, and trying to get free publicity.  What I find interesting is that the FCC Commission is a 5 person panel.  Of the current 5 members, 1 is appointed by Clinton (Michael Powell), and 2 were former high level administrators for prominant Democrats (Jonathan S. Adelstein was senior legislative aide for Tom Daschle, and Michael J. Copps was Chief of Staff for Senator Ernest Hollings).

What is sad is that so many people just take what Mr. Stern says at face value, with not even an attempt to see if it is true or not.  And without checking what his ratings were doing, even BEFORE the fines were levied.  His record has shown that as more stations dropped his show, he became even more outrageous in an attempt to gain publicity (and hopefully replacement stations).  You would figure that is THAT many people really wanted his show, SOMBODY would have picked it up in the regions where it has been dropped.  If money is as important as many people claim, they would not care if they get fined or not.  Heck, I am sure that even after the fines, Clear Channel made a profit from his show.  They simply choose to try and put on shows that made even more profit.  That is the American Way after all.

When and how did the Republican's try to shut him up?

I know that is his claim, but that has been shown to be so much coprolite.

I find it interesting that he screams about Bush, and wished that Gore had won the election.  Never mind that in the 1980's, I remember quite clearly Gore's attempt to make a large segment of records and tv/radio shows illegal!

Anybody else alive might remember AL and Tipper's attempts to censor the media.
I'm no fan of the Gores.  I didn't support the Tipper stickers.  Nor do I care one whit about Howard Stern.  Remember though, the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was not trying to "censor" music, they were trying to set up ratings and age restrictions.  However, Tipper, as a naive 30-something Washington wife ended up in bed with far-right maniacs like Phyllis Schlafly and the Christian Right.  There was an air of paranoid religiosity about the whole thing.  Also, the ratings system as proposed was a threat to the distribution viability of many artists. 


What Stern fails to mention is that even before Clear Channel dropped him, his show had shrinking rateings, and many other stations were dropping him.  It is just that Clear Channel was the largest single drop in the history of his show.

At the highest, Mr. Stern only had 70 stations that carried his show.  He is now at 34, less then half his all-time high.  This has been a trend for many years, not a sudden attack by Bush or anybody else.  Basically, a lot of stations are dropping Syndicated shows, in favor of more local shows.  "The Big Show", "John And Ken", "Handel On The Law", "Dr. Dean Edell", and a great many other syndicated shows suffer similar problems.  A great many of them have switched to "Syndicated Delayed" format, where they pre-record most of the show, and allow local stations to air it whenever they want.

This helps the station to fit it into their schedule where they want it.  Most of the national syndicated shows with a large audience now are either late night like Michael Reagan and "Coast To Coast" (formerly "The Art Bell Show"), or during the middle of the day like Rush, Dr. Laura, and Michael Medved.
Hey, if Americans switch off Howard Stern, that's a sign of human intelligence.  If only they'd switch off the political pornography proffered by Rush, Hannity, Medved, and others, we might start making some progress again!  Too bad about Dr. Dean Edell, I kinda liked him.  I've got no use for "Coast to Coast," it's all UFO crazies and cockamamie conspiracies.  They're not even interesting or amusing, it's always the same inane sh*t on "Coast to Coast."

Mr. Stern is simply suffering from low ratings, and trying to get free publicity.  What I find interesting is that the FCC Commission is a 5 person panel.  Of the current 5 members, 1 is appointed by Clinton (Michael Powell), and 2 were former high level administrators for prominant Democrats (Jonathan S. Adelstein was senior legislative aide for Tom Daschle, and Michael J. Copps was Chief of Staff for Senator Ernest Hollings).
So...the Dems aren't my party right or wrong.  I think most of 'em are pr*cks.

Reading through news articles about Sandy Berger case today brought to my attention an interesting commentary.  It reminded me of this thread from a few weeks ago, and it might deserv to be revived.  Here is the link to the text, and a copy of it:

http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=331678&pagecontent=opinion&feed_id=60

Webb's World: Media Bias

Tedd Webb - Clear Channel, Tampa

Every week we could document a case of media bias, either by what is written, or by what is omitted.

The mainstream media has gingerly sidestepped the Sandy Berger case, with the exception of CBS, Dan rather was all over himself defending Berger, even going as far as to say the part of Sandy sticking classified documents into his socks and pants was just rubbish from Republicans.

Joseph Wilson was proven a liar. The French, British and American investigations proved Saddam was indeed trying to purchase Uranium from Africa. Wilson also lied claiming his wife Valerie, a CIA spook, had nothing to do with his assignment to Africa to verify the claim. A memo produced by the 911 Commission proved other wise.

Have you read about this in the newspapers, or heard of this on the 6 O’clock news? I didn’t think so.

Oh by the way, Wilson was a consultant to the Kerry campaign, and Berger was Kerry’s National Security consultant. Neither were mentioned by those who covered the stories.

Thank God for talk radio and the internet, or you wouldn’t hear of these atrocities by the media.

That’s How I See It!

**********

This is what I was trying to say earlier.  Quite often, the "Bias" is not as much as what is said when something is reported, but what is even reported at all.

Reading through news articles about Sandy Berger case today brought to my attention an interesting commentary.  It reminded me of this thread from a few weeks ago, and it might deserv to be revived.  Here is the link to the text, and a copy of it:

http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=331678&pagecontent=opinion&feed_id=60

Webb's World: Media Bias

Tedd Webb - Clear Channel, Tampa

Every week we could document a case of media bias, either by what is written, or by what is omitted.

The mainstream media has gingerly sidestepped the Sandy Berger case, with the exception of CBS, Dan rather was all over himself defending Berger, even going as far as to say the part of Sandy sticking classified documents into his socks and pants was just rubbish from Republicans.

Joseph Wilson was proven a liar. The French, British and American investigations proved Saddam was indeed trying to purchase Uranium from Africa. Wilson also lied claiming his wife Valerie, a CIA spook, had nothing to do with his assignment to Africa to verify the claim. A memo produced by the 911 Commission proved other wise.

Have you read about this in the newspapers, or heard of this on the 6 O’clock news? I didn’t think so.

Oh by the way, Wilson was a consultant to the Kerry campaign, and Berger was Kerry’s National Security consultant. Neither were mentioned by those who covered the stories.

Thank God for talk radio and the internet, or you wouldn’t hear of these atrocities by the media.

That’s How I See It!

**********

This is what I was trying to say earlier.  Quite often, the "Bias" is not as much as what is said when something is reported, but what is even reported at all.

Thank God for Clear Channel, eh?  These under-represented voices in the underdog media really save the day!  Even the "National Review" is gonna ditch the Berger story, so you better hope Rush and Hannity have the guts to keep it alive in their own modest and, um, "unbiased" manner.

Remember, let's show John Kerry to be the ruthless thug that he is and insure that the GOP, the party of motherhood, apple pie, and nice people everwhere holds onto all three branches and keeps our country out of trouble!

Thank God for Clear Channel, eh?  These under-represented voices in the underdog media really save the day! 


But the thing is, YOU MISSED THE POINT!

The pint is not if CC can get it's word out, it is WHY the TV media ignored a story which was covered on radio and in print.

Almost no TV stations covered the story, until Berger made his statements, admitting to the incident, and apologizing.  Up till that point, they were happy to not even cover it at all.  *THAT* is the bias.

True, not-true, that is not the point.  The point is that charges of this importance SHOULD have been covered.  Remember several years ago after that State Department guy was accused of spying?  There was a parade of reporters following him for weeks.  And the guy suspected of mailing anthrax.  The same thing happened to him.  Even OJ and Scott Peterson had parades when they were not even accused of anything.

The fact that a story of this importance is NOT covered says a lot to me.

But the thing is, YOU MISSED THE POINT!

The pint is not if CC can get it's word out, it is WHY the TV media ignored a story which was covered on radio and in print.

Almost no TV stations covered the story, until Berger made his statements, admitting to the incident, and apologizing.  Up till that point, they were happy to not even cover it at all.  *THAT* is the bias.

True, not-true, that is not the point.  The point is that charges of this importance SHOULD have been covered.  Remember several years ago after that State Department guy was accused of spying?  There was a parade of reporters following him for weeks.  And the guy suspected of mailing anthrax.  The same thing happened to him.  Even OJ and Scott Peterson had parades when they were not even accused of anything.

The fact that a story of this importance is NOT covered says a lot to me.


I would respectfully suggest that it is YOU who miss the point.  If journalists reported every hair brained accusation made by every right wing ideolog before the truth of the matter was verified they would be engaging in exactly the same kinds of witch hunts that lead to 26 executions in Salem 1n 1692 and the blacklistings and other damage that rresulted from the MacCarthy  and HUAC hearings of the early '50s.  Retractions of unverified but published stories get little attention, and the damage remains.

I would respectfully suggest that it is YOU who miss the point.  If journalists reported every hair brained accusation made by every right wing ideolog before the truth of the matter was verified they would be engaging in exactly the same kinds of witch hunts that lead to 26 executions in Salem 1n 1692 and the blacklistings and other damage that rresulted from the MacCarthy  and HUAC hearings of the early '50s.  Retractions of unverified but published stories get little attention, and the damage remains.


Well, since Mr. Berger has since come out an apologized for the actions, that pushes them WELL past the "it never happened" theory.

If they never happened, then why the apology.  Myself, I really doubt that he actually tried to do anything decietful.  While he probably was trying to make the administration he was a part of look more favorable (which is only natural), I do not think he was KNOWINGLY being evil or decietful when he did these actions.

More then likely, I think he was probably getting information to be used by Sen. Kerry.  He has been working on his campaign for months, and was probably going to be appointed as NSA again if he won ellection.

A lot os people have been commenting for months on the intelligence Mr. Kerry has recieved.  And Sen. Kerry has refused several opertunities to be briefed by President Bush's own security advisors.  Rumors have been going around for a while now that he was getting "under the counter leaks" of information by Mr. Berger.

Myself, I see no problem in this.  I really doubt that either Berger or Kerry will go running around spilling truely classified information.  But the taking home of actual intelligence is a big no-no.

I would not deny Mr. Kerry from having access to the intelligence.  As a Candidate, he needs to be informed.  And if he does win the ellection, then he *HAS* to know what is going on.  To me, it is more an issue of both appearance, and the way it may have been done.

Remember, I did not start this topic as a "Look, Berger is evil and is trying to decieve people" conversation.  I was simply trying to bring something up that I do not think is being talked about enough in the press.  That he took them is no longer a question at all.  But what amazes me is that some people still try to pretend that it did not happen at all.

Myself, I wish that this had stayed a secret.  Airing this kind of mishandeling of classified material is *NOT* in the best interest of the country.

For those that still say it never happened, then how do you explain this?

"I made an honest mistake. It is one that I deeply regret."    Sandy Berger, 20 July 2004

And I also agree with the following conclusion to a commentary from the Indianapolis Star:

"In the meantime, Berger's successor as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, should brief the public on the report's basic conclusions. Let the people decide for themselves if the Clinton administration had something to hide."

Here is the full context to the commentary:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/164237-6842-021.html

Well, since Mr. Berger has since come out an apologized for the actions, that pushes them WELL past the "it never happened" theory.

If they never happened, then why the apology.  Myself, I really doubt that he actually tried to do anything decietful.  While he probably was trying to make the administration he was a part of look more favorable (which is only natural), I do not think he was KNOWINGLY being evil or decietful when he did these actions.

More then likely, I think he was probably getting information to be used by Sen. Kerry.  He has been working on his campaign for months, and was probably going to be appointed as NSA again if he won ellection.

A lot os people have been commenting for months on the intelligence Mr. Kerry has recieved.  And Sen. Kerry has refused several opertunities to be briefed by President Bush's own security advisors.  Rumors have been going around for a while now that he was getting "under the counter leaks" of information by Mr. Berger.

Myself, I see no problem in this.  I really doubt that either Berger or Kerry will go running around spilling truely classified information.  But the taking home of actual intelligence is a big no-no.

I would not deny Mr. Kerry from having access to the intelligence.  As a Candidate, he needs to be informed.  And if he does win the ellection, then he *HAS* to know what is going on.  To me, it is more an issue of both appearance, and the way it may have been done.

Remember, I did not start this topic as a "Look, Berger is evil and is trying to decieve people" conversation.  I was simply trying to bring something up that I do not think is being talked about enough in the press.  That he took them is no longer a question at all.  But what amazes me is that some people still try to pretend that it did not happen at all.

Myself, I wish that this had stayed a secret.  Airing this kind of mishandeling of classified material is *NOT* in the best interest of the country.

For those that still say it never happened, then how do you explain this?

"I made an honest mistake. It is one that I deeply regret."     Sandy Berger, 20 July 2004

And I also agree with the following conclusion to a commentary from the Indianapolis Star:

"In the meantime, Berger's successor as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, should brief the public on the report's basic conclusions. Let the people decide for themselves if the Clinton administration had something to hide."

Here is the full context to the commentary:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/164237-6842-021.html


A good editorial, and I agree with much of what you said about it. I am especially gratified that you are willing to give Berger the benefit of the doubt.  My problem is that this incident is being politisized by republicans, who are mute on the exposure, apparantly by a white house insider, of Valarie Plame.  Why has Bill Novak not been questioned, and held in contempt or charged with obstruction of justice if he fails to identify his source?  And, by the way, this question, it seems to me, has nothing to do with the accuracy of her husband's report or even how he got the assignment.