OT: More illustrations of the intellectual and moral superiority of left

Chris Guynn wrote:


>>"Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported
>>picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists,
>>from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to
>>1--but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a
>
> majority
>
>>(53%) called their political orientation "moderate," versus 28% liberal
>
> and
>
>>10% conservative."
>>*************************
>
>
> Impossible... that would indicate a left lean in the media and we all know
> that isn't true.

Why should it indicate a left lean? Most likely it just demonstrates that people who
work as reporters are better informed.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HIQie.24$lK.4958@news.uswest.net...

> Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia
> arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious
> beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators
> defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for
> fact-checking - before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss
> Christ."

How interesting that Newsweek missed an embarrassing story about Bush's most
trusted and faithful ally and friend, Saudi Arabia. Obviously this shows
that Newsweek has a right-wing bias.

NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!

by Ann Coulter

May 18, 2005

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly
sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with
an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek
decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The
Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual
encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness
and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge
got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones'
accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The
Washington Post - which owns Newsweek - decided not to run it. The American
Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that
actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American
interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit
on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers'
highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's
scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold?
I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more
accurate - and interesting! - than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek
should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia
arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious
beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators
defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for
fact-checking - before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss
Christ."

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run
the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports
from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press - "and in the
Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also
broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of
Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has
run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?"
(Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer
comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a
Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered - al-Jazeera has already run
similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky
bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems
that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out,
"I'll (expletive) kill myself."

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned
up Islamic savages into murderous riots in Afghanistan, leaving hundreds
injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who
stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and
who fly planes into American skyscrapers because - wait, why did they do
that again?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek
responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist
statues as outrageous provocation - though I was really looking forward to
finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea
for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I
wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of
a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls
of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills
Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and
obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or
well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the
media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

- A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason
for holding the Lewinsky story.)

- The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard
Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the
magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

- "We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why
"Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

- Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington
bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the
Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the
Israeli president on its front page.)

- Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation
turns out to be false.

- Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true
if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

- Protecting a reporter's source.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item:
"Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of
that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people
rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111; (816) 932-6600

Joe English wrote:

> Greg Mossman wrote:
>
>> "Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
>> news:477a$428befba$ce504822$386@allthenewsgroups.c om...
>>
>>
>>> Here is some of the vile crap, you compare Our President to, Greg:
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting comparisons.
>>
>>
>>> ``God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means ... even if
>>> armed infidels and unintended victims - women and children - are
>>> killed together,'' he said. ``The priority is for jihad so anything
>>> that slows down jihad should be overcome.''
>>
>>
>>
>> And George Bush, who is born again and divinely inspired, called Iraq
>> part of the Axis of Evil, clearly believing that God has put him in
>> the White House to vanquish the evil. Women and children are killed
>> together if they slow down the invasion. They're called "collateral
>> damage". Lancet estimates over 100,000 Iraqis killed because of the
>> invasion.
>>
>>
>>> The speaker, purported to be al-Zarqawi, also justified the deaths of
>>> fellow Muslims in attacks against U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies,
>>> saying jihad - or holy war - was too important to be hindered.
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Over 1,600 U.S. military deaths justified in attacks against
>> Iraqis in their own country and over 10 times that number seriously
>> wounded.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, this is very close to what Bush and the present administration
>>> has accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes indeed. Scary isn't it?
>>
> the real scary thing is your spin of the facts, no question!

the actual link - how you can compare these murderers to our
administration is absolutely beyond me, but then again I have been
reading your posts for several years - guess it shouldn't surprise me.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...p_news_zarqawi

"Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_ZTie.12050$yl6.4378804@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
>
> >>"Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported
> >>picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300
journalists,
> >>from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to
> >>1--but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a
> >
> > majority
> >
> >>(53%) called their political orientation "moderate," versus 28% liberal
> >
> > and
> >
> >>10% conservative."
> >>*************************
> >
> >
> > Impossible... that would indicate a left lean in the media and we all
know
> > that isn't true.
>
> Why should it indicate a left lean? Most likely it just demonstrates that
people who
> work as reporters are better informed.

Interesting. So, what you are saying is that, because they are better
informed, it's okay for them to be biased? Or, is it just because they are
biased to the left that makes it okay? The liberal mindset is becoming more
clear to me every day.

Give us the facts, let us decide for ourselves. Or, are we all to stupid
for that? Sorry, I guess it's actually only 51% of us who are too stupid
for that.

"Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:40e9c$428c7a83$ce504822$5562@allthenewsgroups .com...

> the real scary thing is your spin of the facts, no question!



Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:20 p.m. EDT

Clinton Praises Iraq Changes as Good for Region

Former President Clinton said Wednesday the political changes in Iraq,
including parliamentary elections in January, will help bring stability to
the region.

Clinton met with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and a number of
Danish lawmakers during his visit. The former president spoke with reporters
before flying to Jordan for a poverty conference.

"The Sunnis and the Shiites, the Kurds and all the various tribes can work
out accommodations that will allow them to build a stable society, I think
that will be good for Iraq and good for the Middle East," Clinton said at
the end of a two-day visit to Denmark.

In January, Iraq held the its first democratic parliamentary elections to
choose a 275-member National Assembly and provincial legislatures.

"There is no point living in the past," Clinton said. "Look at where we are
now. Everyone, all freedom-loving people would be better off with a
genuinely representative, effective, free government in Iraq whatever your
feelings are about what went on before."

Scott wrote:
> "Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
> news:40e9c$428c7a83$ce504822$5562@allthenewsgroups .com...
>
>
>>the real scary thing is your spin of the facts, no question!
>
>
>
>
> Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:20 p.m. EDT
>
> Clinton Praises Iraq Changes as Good for Region
>
> Former President Clinton said Wednesday the political changes in Iraq,
> including parliamentary elections in January, will help bring stability to
> the region.
>
> Clinton met with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and a number of
> Danish lawmakers during his visit. The former president spoke with reporters
> before flying to Jordan for a poverty conference.
>
> "The Sunnis and the Shiites, the Kurds and all the various tribes can work
> out accommodations that will allow them to build a stable society, I think
> that will be good for Iraq and good for the Middle East," Clinton said at
> the end of a two-day visit to Denmark.
>
> In January, Iraq held the its first democratic parliamentary elections to
> choose a 275-member National Assembly and provincial legislatures.
>
> "There is no point living in the past," Clinton said. "Look at where we are
> now. Everyone, all freedom-loving people would be better off with a
> genuinely representative, effective, free government in Iraq whatever your
> feelings are about what went on before."
>
>

Amazing! Two standards

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...50518C ADM102

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0T1je.1588$wb2.144@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...

> > Why should it indicate a left lean? Most likely it just demonstrates
that
> people who
> > work as reporters are better informed.
>
> Interesting. So, what you are saying is that, because they are better
> informed, it's okay for them to be biased? Or, is it just because they
are
> biased to the left that makes it okay? The liberal mindset is becoming
more
> clear to me every day.
>
> Give us the facts, let us decide for ourselves. Or, are we all to stupid
> for that? Sorry, I guess it's actually only 51% of us who are too stupid
> for that.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/