The media's spin is completely pro Republican

[ProSense]

Doesn't matter if you're in or out of the Washington loop, pro or against the Iraq war, left or centrist, veteran or non-veteran, if you're a Democrat, the media will use the GOP spin to frame you as the underdog along with whatever nasty GOP label exists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219754/site/newsweek/

Not related to this article: The only negative on the Republican side is an indictment, and even then the spin is to show how an indicted Republican can still recover.


American media that is!

By contrast, look at the lead to this story out of the UK that I posted in GDP:

There is a dramatic change of political mood in Washington DC about Iraq. Last week, John Kerry accused President Bush of orchestrating 'one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history', asserting that flawed intelligence was manipulated to fit a political agenda. Meanwhile, a Senate committee is launching an investigation into White House misuse of intelligence. President Bush's poll ratings continue to plummet.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1651818,00.html

[wisteria]

1. Newsweek has been against Kerry since before the election.

They took every opportunity to discredit him and continue to do so. This latest piece seems to be very pro-Hackett. Someone interesting to follow just to see what happens.
I didn't even have to read the second page to see that they decided to use this as an attack/critique on Kerry.It is obvious that they are trying to label him as weak so that he looks ineffective. This just pisses me off. I'm going to contact them and complain about this poor journalism and unfair assessment. Perhaps they would be interested in knowing that many people do not find Kerry week and unable to respond to attack.

[ProSense]

2. I still believe Kerry

represents the biggest threat so he's subjected to the harshest criticisms. But after the headline, the article reads basically says here's their best shot and it's a gamble, because the Democratic leaders (Kerry, Clinton, Clark, etc.) have problems. It's ridiculous.

[_dynamicdems]

3. The focus of our media is obviously skewed.

Whenever there is a story that involves scrutinizing something the Republican-led Administration or Congress does, it is viewed as a political grudge match between Democrats and Republicans rather than on the merits of the story itself. In other words, the story isn't about Tom DeLay being indicted and the web of political corruption surrounding him, but rather the story is about how Democrats go after Tom Delay and how Democrats have no message. How they manage to weave the "no message" into the DeLay indictment is actually quite creative if disingenuous.

The Democrats are being put on the defensive by our media. It is a new slant on the same tactic unethical prosecutors use in a rape trial: blame the victim. It is a Republican tactic, which has been employed quite effectively against opponents. It has proved especially effective against veterans, as the Newsweek article is quick to point out.

Why has our media adopted this Republican tactic when it should be their responsibility to scrutinize the wrongdoers? Why is the media scrutiny on the Democrats every time Bsh fumbles? The UK article takes on the issues much as our blogs do here in America. Our media doesn't take on the issue per se. They get into the politics of the issue. There is a huge difference in focus.

Are Republicans manipulating our media through a variety of nefarious means? It wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were far more extensive that most of us are willing to believe, but we have another problem that has, to a large extent, permeated even the most liberal of our media outlets. The "blame the victim" tactic is vicious and that is exactly why the media uses it and why people respond to it.

Another problem with our media is that it is largely beholden to the viewing public. Every time America votes Republican, our media becomes a little redder.

[CBHagman]

4. The media mantra goes like this.

First, a long list of Republican misdeeds, foibles, misjudgments, out-and-out felonies, or just plain incompetence is read. Then the pundit and/or anchor says, "But the Democrats' problem is..."

Watch Howard Fineman on Countdown on MSNBC and you'll see what I mean.

The other day The Washington Post ran an op-ed piece from Mark MacKinnon, who used to work for Bob Dole. MacKinnon too recited a list of Republican sins but implied that the party had convinced the American people it was the party of values, competence, etc. Uh, didn't he notice the divide in the voting results?

On top of that, he ended the article by saying that both the Democrats and Republicans were in trouble, though the GOP was in more trouble. :eyes: It's like a kid found out by a parent and trying to deflect the attention on to a sibling.

I won't even get into the eat-your-own mind-set of some Democrats and supposed Democratic allies. We all know how that goes.

[karynnj]

5. I'm not sure where Fineman really is

This morning on Imus he was talking about how -a case could have been made for the real reasons we went to war, but they were very convoluted. That Bush was now in trouble because they lied on the reasons.

This really bothers me because (at least per Kerry's Senate floor IWR speech) the Republicans specificly took out this type of reason and regime change from the resolution. To me that means that at the time the media is driving Democrats crazy asking them to disavow their vote, he is tacitly saying that from the point where they accepted these changes, they intended to misuse the IWR. No one is questioning the administration on this.

[LittleClarkie]

6. On the other hand, Fareed Zakaria appears to be alright

He said that of all the plans for Iraq during the primaries, Kerry's was the most viable.

And just now, as I was looking for the spelling of his name, I found an article that seems to tell it like it is. Narrow victory, no mandate. And no president has lost an election during wartime. Some have chosen not to run, but that's it.

Zakaria appears to have been wrong on one count though. Bush doesn't know how to be less arrogant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6399907/site/newsweek/

[Mass]

7. This article was last year, I think

A couple of weeks ago, Zakaria was saying that Kerry was changing his mind on Iraq because of 08 positionning. Then he went talking about Biden, I think.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Lovely, and I thought he was decent. Still for what it's worth

Here's a link to the article I was talking about. I wonder why he sorta turned on Kerry like that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709288/site/newsweek/

Aug. 23 issue - John Kerry isn't being entirely honest about his views on Iraq. But neither is President George W. Bush. "Knowing what we know now," Bush asked, "would have supported going into Iraq?" The real answer is, of course, "no." But that's just as true for Bush as for Kerry. We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Is Bush suggesting that despite this knowledge, he would still have concluded that Iraq constituted a "grave and gathering threat" that required an immediate, preventive war? Please. Even if Bush had come to this strange conclusion, no one would have listened to him. Without the threat of those weapons, there would have been no case to make to the American people or the world community. There were good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, but it was the threat of those weapons that created the international, legal, strategic and urgent rationale for a war. There were good reasons why intelligence agencies all over the world—including those of Arab governments—believed that Saddam had these weapons. But he didn't.

The more intelligent question is, given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject.

By the late 1990s, American policy on Iraq was becoming untenable. The U.N. sanctions had turned into a farce. Saddam was able to siphon off billions for himself, while the sanctions threw tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis into poverty every year. Their misery was broadcast daily across the Arab world, inflaming public opinion. America and Britain were bombing Iraqi military installations weekly and maintaining a large garrison in Saudi Arabia, which was also breeding trouble. Osama bin Laden's biggest charges against the United States were that it was occupying Saudi Arabia and starving the Iraqi people.

Given these realities, the United States had a choice. It could either drop all sanctions and the containment of Iraq and welcome Saddam back into the world community. Or it had to hold him to account. Given what we knew about Saddam's past (his repeated attacks on his neighbors, the gassing of the Kurds, the search for nuclear weapons) and given what we thought we knew at the time (that his search for WMD was active), conciliation looked like wishful thinking. It still does. Once out of his box, Saddam would almost certainly have jump-started his programs and ambitions.

[karynnj]

8. A few weeks ago Zakaria was absolutely hateful to Kerry

He claimed that Kerry's IWR was political as was his vote against the $87 billion and his "call for withdrawal" now was political. He and the others on the This Week panel claimed he voted against him conscience on the first two and that to do that with life and death is sick. (That Kerry's one vote wouldn't matter is neither here nor there.) At that point, I decided to trust NOONE from Newsweek.

[LittleClarkie]

9. So then what do you call what Bush did for political gain?

It's like they want to make the Dems more culpable than the Republicans for this war.

And they have no evidence or proof to say what they are saying about Kerry's vote. I think the man did his best. Disagree, but don't come that close to calling him sick, or I will have words with ye.

[TayTay]

11. That was awful.

Another one of those occasions when I wanted to reach into the TV and throttle someone. It was untrue, mean-spirited and dumb. I don't trust this guy's judgment anymore.

[ProSense]

16. Amazing!

Kerry the standard-bearer for purity. What about blatant opportunists like McCain and other politicians? The way they nitpick at Kerry's intentions, I'm starting to believe they all feel inadequate and attacking Kerry is suppose to signify that they too are intelligent. Kerry said a lot of things that were and are true, which they spent the past few years criticizing him for. Go ahead. Hold up all the BS these BS journalists have said about lauding Bush and criticizing Kerry and see what rings true today. Not a damn thing. If they're so damn smart, how come they still don't get it, even after Bush has screwed up the country right before their effing eyes all these a-holes can do is criticize Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Still getting back at him for BCCI and Iran/Contra, I reckon

He permanently damaged himself with those investigations. They will hate him forever.

[_dynamicdems]

22. Funny thing is that he always gets accused of playing it safe and of

being an opportunist. Yet his actions have always made him a big target. Wouldn't you think that anyone with a brain would realize that taking a stand is the exact opposite from anything that someone with those tendencies would do?

He makes enemies because he doesn't play it safe and never has. An opportunist, likewise doesn't want enemies. An opportunist doesn't make waves.

[LittleClarkie]

23. I can live with a bunch of Republicans not getting it. But when our side

goes after him, it kills me.

I wonder if anyone on our side has EVER given him his due, even right in the middle of his investigations. I suspect those investigations made him a leper to both sides, since if I recall correctly there were both Dems and Repubs with their hands in the cookie jar.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Those investigations

Are WHY a lot of the Dem establishment doesn't like him.

[LittleClarkie]

25. How ironic that the lefty freepers don't like him either

because they think he is ONE OF the Dem establishment.

Our poor Johnny Velcro. Gets it from all sides, doesn't he.

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. They're stupid and beneath contempt

I have no respect for lefty freepers who are too fucking ignorant to do an hour's worth of research into what John Kerry has done for this country. There are no more excuses for them to claim. They are detrimental to this country, and I say fuck them and they horse they rode in on.

[_dynamicdems]

26. I've never seen someone generate so much hate for just trying to do

what's right. He's always had it tough. Nobody ever made it easy for John Kerry. He's never been given his due. He's had to fight every step of the way. That is why I think people who underestimate his stamina are in for a big surprise. His history is one of a struggle against the tide. Whenever he loses, he comes back tenfold.

All these power-mad little peons in DU, sit their couch potato butts by the computer and critique our best and brightest. They are non-entities as far as I am concerned. Or as Vector has noted (more poetically, of course) they have tiny little...Cheneys. That goes double for the pundits and the columnists. They are a wormy breed. Maybe they used to be heroic knights slaying big dragons but not anymore. Today these folks are cowardly little jackals who feast on the bones of the fallen and nip at the ankles of those too strong to succumb.

[LittleClarkie]

27. It's just so weird how big the gap is between those who love him

and those who hate him.

And we bug the stuffins out of each other, as well. Our believing in the man scares those who think he is nothing but an empty suit, as if we were mindless worshipers. And their kneejerk reaction to him without ever giving him a fair shake or a proper look annoys us no end.

[ProSense]

30. I look at

how many bandwagons they've jumped on and creative ways they've come up with to attack Kerry. It's pathetic. They're searching for a hero and get mad because Kerry supporter's exist.

[LittleClarkie]

31. I was accused at Kos of being among a "flood" of Kerry supporters

Ya ever been to DailyKos? There is no "flood" of Kerry supporters. As one of the peeps from this group said as they defended me, what this person referred to as a "flood" was the fact that there were Kerry supporters on the site at all.

Yeah, ya gotta love how people will say "He has to apologize for his IWR vote for me to forgive him"

"He has."

"Well, he has to admit he made a mistake on his IWR vote"

"He has."

"Well, he should call for a pullout then."

"He did."

"Well... umm... it's not soon enough! Yeah, that's it! Kerry's a spineless wimp!!"

They sure do go out of their way, don't they. I know Kos does.

[_dynamicdems]

34. Pathetic is the word.

They want a hero but they will not recognize that being human is what makes a hero so heroic. Heroes aren't perfect, but they constantly strive to transcend the bounds of human limitation in order that they may better serve their fellow man. A hero is a work in progress. Many more bandwagons and much disillusionment awaits them because the thing they want most will always be just beyond their reach. They have learned to push away instead of reaching out. These people will never find a hero. And they will always envy those who do.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. Very well stated. Agree 100% n/t

[karynnj]

36. I think what they resent most is that there ARE many things in

Kerry's past you can point to to show he is a very unigue public servant who has taken the positions he has earned very seriously and has done consistently done what he thinks is right.

Their problem is that they have ruled Kerry out and are searching for a savior who will stand up for what they think is right. It was telling that someone posted that if we weren't pushing Kerry 08, they wouldn't bash him. But I really haven't seen any Kerry 08 stuff posted by us - it's usually people against us. While we're talking about Kerry's well thought out exit plan, Kerry's brilliant defense of his (and others) statement and clear case proving the Bush administration lied, and his amendment to at least get Congressional oversight on the clandestaine prisons and other real accomplishments, look what they have. I could list the things they list as the major accomplishments of their favorites, but most have done very little in the last year. An op-ed is not an exit plan.

[_dynamicdems]

33. When called upon, we produce a lot of facts for mindless worshipers.

It is always easy to attack. It takes no work whatsoever to bandy about garbage and slurs like "empty suit" and "live shot." They don't have to prove their case. They just sit back and fire away with cheap shots.

That's why I dislike people who behave like this. It isn't even about John Kerry. People like this are about tearing down and I'd rather be about doing something constructive. No wonder why we have so few heroes nowadays. The public eats them alive. This isn't simply a disagreement over the merits of an individual politician. We don't go into DU and start anti-Dean threads. We don't jump into pro-Clark threads and harp on his every mistake going back to kindergarten. We are not about that. It disturbs me greatly that there are so many people out there who would rather tear down than build up.

[ProSense]

28. Wow!

For a second, you made me believe I was in the wild.

:rofl:



Totally agree.

[_dynamicdems]

32. Welcome to the jungle! ; > n/t

[Dr Ron]

21. Zakaria: Why Kerry Is Right on Iraq

Zakaria never understood Kerry's position, but if he thinks Kerry's position is so sick, why did he have a previous column saying Why Kerry Is Right on Iraq:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5709288/site/newsweek

[Mass]

38. It was more than one year ago

Then, Kerry did not call for the troops to pull out (at least not in the next year).

Zakaria wants the troops to stay and fix the mess, for as long as it will take. He recognizes that Bush does not do that, but has not reached the point where he thinks that the presence of American troops is part of the problem.

[Dr Ron]

39. Maybe views change but that doesn't justify the comments quoted

If he said he Kerry was right then and wrong now we'd disagree but that at least could be seen as an honest disagreement.

It is harder to justify comments outright bashing Kerry as sick per quotes above when he previously said Kerry was right.

[Mass]

40. No disagreement here, Ron.

[jillan]

10. If you have a strong stomach

this is extreme republican bs regarding Kerry

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051128-114319-5357r

[TayTay]

13. OMG, these people are insane.

Look at the difference between the spokesman responses:

Kerry people -
"Instead of trying to continuously declare political war on fellow Americans and mischaracterize their positions, perhaps the speaker should put more of his energies into trying to win the real war that the Republicans and the president have entangled the country in and finding out the truth about the intelligence failures that were used to justify it," Miss Backus said.


Rethug hypocrites:
But Republicans said Mr. Kerry was far off target.

"John Kerry doesn't seem to care if we cut and run as long as you cut him a check," said one senior Republican aide who read Mr. Kerry's fundraising e-mail.


Oh no, people who would say something as totally awful, untrue and nasty as that would never say or imply that someone was a coward. Oh no. Lying hypocrites. What a bunch of bastards.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Oh, but the Republicans NEVER send out fundraising emails

Oh no.

What the hell are they talking about? All Kerry correspondence has the donation link in it. So?!

[karynnj]

17. and it's tiny and discrete

I didn't even really notice it. What I noticed was that he suggested LTTE etc to stop the hate campaign.

[LittleClarkie]

18. His truly fundraising emails are much more obviously for that purpose

as they have the link about 4 times.

Often they are for ads or billboards and the like. And we don't mind.

I was very nice and cheerful to a fundraiser telemarketer just last week. No money, and I'd already signed the petition, but he was surprised that I didn't even care what the petition was about. "If it's Kerry, then I'm there," I said. But it was the old Rove one.

[jillan]

19. Better than that is when you have a

bloated Cheney at a $$$$$$$$ a plate fundraiser
calling a decorated Marine (Murtha) a coward.

They are the party of the greediest (is that a word?) hypocrites.

I'm glad Murtha and Kerry has them running scared.

[karynnj]

15. Pretty biased

This was hateful - thanks for posting it. It's interesting that they could make such a big case of Kerry's email.

There explanation of swiftboating was special - seaman in nearby boats questioned some of his "decorations". I bet they honor silver stars when they aren't Kerry's.

How could anyone buy a Moonie newspaper?

[Mass]

37. The Washington Times - The Moonies at work.

Dont know much about World Peace Herald, but the Washington Times should be enough to make everybody pause.