Of course there is, but spin in the selection and arrangement of the facts to present is one thing - but spin in an attempt to willfully distory facts to support one's ideological agenda is another, and it is my view that the right wing media is much more guilty of that than is the left.

It's groovy in Guantanamo!  Rep. Duncan Hunter says the detainees at Gitmo get Noodles Jefferson and two kinds of fruit.  He even showed a sample of their evening meal on TV.  It's a regular Club Med down there!

Senator Durbin was not saying Guantanamo is like a nazi death camp.  He merely said the FBI report on some interrogation tactics were reminiscent of nazi practices.
I wouldn't conjure the image of Auschwitz as Durbin did.  Whereas smart people are analytical enough to reconcile the difference between death camp and Gitmo and get Durbin's point, the right-wing plays on histrionics.  The Right spins the issue away from the mistreatment of detainees and to an erroneous conclusion that Durbin is comparing us to nazis.  Thus, Durbin made a rhetorical mistake.

The Geneva Conventions on human rights (which A.G. Alberto Gonzales called "quaint") were drawn up after the world got a look  incomprehensible cruelty of nazi death camps.  The signing nations decided it was morally evil to torture and starve captives.  Nations agreed amongst one another not to do it.  Thus, we all must be vigilent so we do not recede into the bad old days just because we're mad at our enemies and cruelty seems more facile than humane treatment. 

Chucky, I know we completely disagree on political views, however, you have just somewhat reinforced the exact point I am trying to make.  I'm sure you recall the way the news was reported after 9/11.  I don't recall anyone complaining about their books being destroyed.  Think back to Columbine.  I don't remember anyone mentioning books being ruined/lost/whatever.


has nothing to do with this at all.  nada zilch, I totally don't understand why you would even mention it.


If the detainees were being abused physically, deprived of food, etc, then why are these "wet books" newsworthy??  Why am I hearing about it every day on the news?  My guess is this:  many people are becoming "numb" to hearing news of death, physical abuse, etc.  From a media standpoint, it probably isn't controversial enough.  The "wet book" issue, however, is supposed to create an outrage among the religious.  Remember, outrage is what the media wants, regardless of it's politically correctness.


No need to guess why it's newsworthy.  Just need to think back more than two weeks.  Two months ago Newsweek ran an article that mentioned a government report mentioned desecration of the Koran as one of the things they've been doing to inmates at Gitmo (as Bush calls it).  Riots erupted when a popular figure in Pakistan repeated the allegation.  The neocons went nuts and claimed that Newsweek was inventing allegations and causing people to get killed over it.  When the US government agents basically confirmed it, they then downplayed it by claiming it was such a minor thing, and this book thing isn't so bad.  Of course they neglect to mention the other worse torture methods being enacted and witnessed by the military. 

So why are we focused on the Koran?  Because the neocons want the focus shifted from the real abuses, and Newsweek makes a convient scapegoat.  They can blame the "liberal press."  If the Koran thing might not be true, then they can question all the other abuses that were reported as well.  Even though abuse of the Koran is now confirmed, how much airtime did that get?  I still see the neocon appologists claim that it never happened.


Again, O'Reilly isn't a straight news show.  It's a talk show, based on opinionated testimony from both sides of the spectrum.  I have a much bigger issue with the spin on supposedly straight news.


Really? He claims to be fair and balanced.  Isn't that false advertising?  He presents both sides of the spectrum, he just distorts one side completely.

notice the earlier quote from Durbin?

here's the distortion from a newspaper on the issue.  not a talk show, not an editorial.

Gitmo called death camp
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050616-121815-1827r.htm

Nowhere in the original quote, did Durbin call it a death camp.  He talked about the torture methods being used.  That's intentional distortion of what has been said, a false claim.  Typical claim made by right-wing news sources.

Doesn't surprise me....  ::)

notice the earlier quote from Durbin?

here's the distortion from a newspaper on the issue.  not a talk show, not an editorial.

Gitmo called death camp
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050616-121815-1827r.htm

Nowhere in the original quote, did Durbin call it a death camp.  He talked about the torture methods being used.  That's intentional distortion of what has been said, a false claim.  Typical claim made by right-wing news sources.


its the Washington Times Chuck......while I know many people in Washington who do read it, its an openly right leaning newspaper. 

Though, even my democrat friends in Washington admit that sometimes they prefer it to the Washington Post

its the Washington Times Chuck......while I know many people in Washington who do read it, its an openly right leaning newspaper. 

Though, even my democrat friends in Washington admit that sometimes they prefer it to the Washington Post


oh, I know it's a right-wing rag, just like the New York Post.  I'm just pointing out another example of opinion parading itself as news/fact in a right leaning news source.

has nothing to do with this at all.  nada zilch, I totally don't understand why you would even mention it.



The reason I brought this up, is that back then injury and death were enough to stir up an outrage, therefore very newsworthy.  I'm actually surprised that everyone isn't in agreement on this Koran issue because really, it has nothing to do with which side of the spectrum we are on.  I'm sure the liberals are just as outraged as I am that people are being killed.  (The difference is that you guys blame Bush and I blame the insurgents)

Do you know that last night somewhere on the Northern coast of California, there was a 6.something earthquake in the ocean?  Nobody was injured, there was no damage whatsoever.  There was no tsunami siren.  I heard it on the news about 25 times in 1 hour.  Then in a nonchalant voice, "four more marines were killed in iraq today by suicide bombers..."  This bothers me.  And it should bother you too.

The reason I brought this up, is that back then injury and death were enough to stir up an outrage, therefore very newsworthy.  I'm actually surprised that everyone isn't in agreement on this Koran issue because really, it has nothing to do with which side of the spectrum we are on.  I'm sure the liberals are just as outraged as I am that people are being killed.  (The difference is that you guys blame Bush and I blame the insurgents)

Do you know that last night somewhere on the Northern coast of California, there was a 6.something earthquake in the ocean?  Nobody was injured, there was no damage whatsoever.  There was no tsunami siren.  I heard it on the news about 25 times in 1 hour.  Then in a nonchalant voice, "four more marines were killed in iraq today by suicide bombers..."  This bothers me.  And it should bother you too.


it bothers me that ANY American is even in Iraq.  Iraq didn't attack us, didn't posses weapons of mass destruction, no chemical weapons, none of the reason we invaded.  We shouldn't be there.  If we weren't there under the false pretenses sold to us by the Bush administration, no US soldier would die. I doubt the National Guard Reserves would be fighting OVERSEAS instead of defending the borders.  It's not news anymore that a US soldier died overseas, simply because it happens every day, and probably will happen increasingly more often as the failed policies of the Bush administration continue to be implemented. 

The outrage should be directed at the White House which claims that increasing violence is a sign of SUCCESS! Success is seeing more people killed more often.  I'm not disappointed that the media doesn't make a big deal out of the continuing deaths, I'm disappointed they didn't do their job in questioning the administration during the build up to the war, and after the "Misson Accomplished" rhetoric was over, when the administration displayed a complete lack of knowledge of what to do. 

The right wingers were complaining that the media only played up the deaths overseas, and none of the successes.  They claim they were turning the lights back on, and that the people were safer than ever.  Yet there's less people with electricity and running water now than after we first invaded.  Oil can't flow for more than a day before the oil lines are shut down.  Are the Iraqis better off now? Fox news and the president think so, the Iraqi people don't though.  Unless you interview the select few allowed into the green zone.

It's funny, the right wing complains if the media reports the deaths and plays up that angle (don't show the coffins coming home!), but then complains when the deaths go unrecognized.  Can't have it both ways.

it bothers me that ANY American is even in Iraq.  Iraq didn't attack us, didn't posses weapons of mass destruction, no chemical weapons, none of the reason we invaded.  We shouldn't be there.  If we weren't there under the false pretenses sold to us by the Bush administration, no US soldier would die. I doubt the National Guard Reserves would be fighting OVERSEAS instead of defending the borders.  It's not news anymore that a US soldier died overseas, simply because it happens every day, and probably will happen increasingly more often as the failed policies of the Bush administration continue to be implemented. 

The outrage should be directed at the White House which claims that increasing violence is a sign of SUCCESS! Success is seeing more people killed more often.  I'm not disappointed that the media doesn't make a big deal out of the continuing deaths, I'm disappointed they didn't do their job in questioning the administration during the build up to the war, and after the "Misson Accomplished" rhetoric was over, when the administration displayed a complete lack of knowledge of what to do. 

The right wingers were complaining that the media only played up the deaths overseas, and none of the successes.  They claim they were turning the lights back on, and that the people were safer than ever.  Yet there's less people with electricity and running water now than after we first invaded.  Oil can't flow for more than a day before the oil lines are shut down.  Are the Iraqis better off now? Fox news and the president think so, the Iraqi people don't though.  Unless you interview the select few allowed into the green zone.

It's funny, the right wing complains if the media reports the deaths and plays up that angle (don't show the coffins coming home!), but then complains when the deaths go unrecognized.  Can't have it both ways.



Actually, I don't think the right wing complains if the media plays up the deaths unless they are outright blaming Bush, since there are some of us who actually blame the suicide bombers and the insurgents.  Anyway, I have tried very hard (with the exception of my first post) to keep political views on the war out of my argument about the media.  The media will always try to create an outrage, whether it be against our own government or the other side.  Thus, the wet Koran to create an outrage among the religious, the "white cop killed the black thug" bit to create an outrage among blacks, the "gay guy killed by the straight homophobe" to create an outrage among gays... it just goes on and on.  Sure, the left is more likely to take the side of the religious, the black thug and the gay guy... so I could say that type of reporting is geared toward the left, and gripe about it.

In any case, I don't disagree with you that there is spin in the news.  The only thing I am questioning is why, out of all the media outlets, you would choose a political talk show to accuse of being biased.  Yes, I know he calls his show fair and balanced, based on the fact that he gives conservatives and liberals equal time to debate the issues.  It's not like he only has conservatives on the show.  And he doesn't claim to be a straight news source.

it bothers me that ANY American is even in Iraq.  Iraq didn't attack us, didn't posses weapons of mass destruction, no chemical weapons, none of the reason we invaded.  We shouldn't be there.  If we weren't there under the false pretenses sold to us by the Bush administration, no US soldier would die. I doubt the National Guard Reserves would be fighting OVERSEAS instead of defending the borders.  It's not news anymore that a US soldier died overseas, simply because it happens every day, and probably will happen increasingly more often as the failed policies of the Bush administration continue to be implemented. 

The outrage should be directed at the White House which claims that increasing violence is a sign of SUCCESS! Success is seeing more people killed more often.  I'm not disappointed that the media doesn't make a big deal out of the continuing deaths, I'm disappointed they didn't do their job in questioning the administration during the build up to the war, and after the "Misson Accomplished" rhetoric was over, when the administration displayed a complete lack of knowledge of what to do. 

The right wingers were complaining that the media only played up the deaths overseas, and none of the successes.  They claim they were turning the lights back on, and that the people were safer than ever.  Yet there's less people with electricity and running water now than after we first invaded.  Oil can't flow for more than a day before the oil lines are shut down.  Are the Iraqis better off now? Fox news and the president think so, the Iraqi people don't though.  Unless you interview the select few allowed into the green zone.

It's funny, the right wing complains if the media reports the deaths and plays up that angle (don't show the coffins coming home!), but then complains when the deaths go unrecognized.  Can't have it both ways.


RIGHT ON CHUCKY

You hit the nail on the head.  It wasn't that long ago that "Admin spokespersons" were basing the media for focusing on the deaths of US personnel and accusing it of "negativity" for ignoring the positive, yet the election was well covered (not that it mattered much in ending the insurgancy no matter how impressive it was).  And why is it that the Admin refuses to allow photos of all those coffins coming home (a rhetorical question)?




In any case, I don't disagree with you that there is spin in the news. The only thing I am questioning is why, out of all the media outlets, you would choose a political talk show to accuse of being biased. Yes, I know he calls his show fair and balanced, based on the fact that he gives conservatives and liberals equal time to debate the issues. It's not like he only has conservatives on the show. And he doesn't claim to be a straight news source.


O'Reiley does have both liberals and conservatives on his show, and the few times I have seen it, he has NOT given equal time.  Rather, he has shouted down the "liberal" guests and given the conservatives wide latitude.  If I were treated like that in a "debate" I would just get up and leave.

In any case, I don't disagree with you that there is spin in the news.  The only thing I am questioning is why, out of all the media outlets, you would choose a political talk show to accuse of being biased.  Yes, I know he calls his show fair and balanced, based on the fact that he gives conservatives and liberals equal time to debate the issues.  It's not like he only has conservatives on the show.  And he doesn't claim to be a straight news source.


O'Reilly gives liberals equal time?  Is that before or after he shuts off their microphones, or cuts their segments from running on the show (it's not live, it's memorex).  Not to mention, that he generally gets the lamest liberals he can find to be on his show. I doubt very much, that anyone with any kind of reputation on the left would ever step foot on his show, after having seen it once.

O'Reilly is just one example.  What about the link to the Moonie rag I posted after that.  Or how about Frist repeating the lies of that Washington Times story in Congress today?

He also tends to get mad and yell at guests, and cut off their interviews if they don't agree with him.

I am glad that I don't watch Fox News or O' Reilly for that matter, Tucker Carlson (when he was on CNN) is no better.  ::)

how about Drudge and Hannity... these guys are inventing news as well

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/19.html#a3534

Since we all know Clinton cheated on his wife (and last week according to Drudge, he raped her when he conceived Chelsa), it only seems to reason he's cheating on her again right?  Why not just photoshop an image of Clinton at a rally and concoct a story around it.

O'Rielly is so damned predictable.

Whenever he goes into his "I oppose extremism on both sides," that means one thing.  He is going to slam the left.  He never trashes the right with this lead in.

O'Rielly is so darned predictable.

Whenever he goes into his "I oppose extremism on both sides," that means one thing.  He is going to slam the left.  He never trashes the right with this lead in.

In O'Reilly's world:
Right-wing extreme = Timothy McVeigh
Left-wing extreme = Hillary Clinton

That's right, he opposes extremism on both sides!
::)