It's not a playground response. This wasn't a story at all and I find it completely irresponsible and asinine by the mainstream media to be jumping on this horse while completely ignoring it while their president was in office. I object to this program. The problem I have is that the media doesn't care about these types of things when their party has control of the country. Simple as that.
The problem I have is that I don't think "the media" has a party. All they really care about is a story. Bush is a story, Clinton was a story 10 years ago and was pounded hard by the press, as were his predecessors. Democrats will be back someday and they will be the media focus again. The "media" is a very broad category anyway. Hollywood movies are definitely liberal, but newspapers and TV news represent a broad range of views and is moderate on the average. Political books and talk radio "media" are clearly dominated by the right wing. "Media bias" is an urban myth and a useful smokescreen for those who don't have good responses to media questions.
He was pounded hard by the Republican congress, and mentioned in passing among the liberal media. It's kind of hard not to report when a president is impeached. Again, you haven't addressed the FACT that the Clinton administration's NSA proposed an identical program. Get off of Bush on this issue, amigo. You don't have a leg to stand on. two words: Dan Rather.
I realize you were young and probably watching Sesame Street, but the media criticised and reported the criticism on Clintons failed health plan, Whitewater, the "Black Hawk Down" incident, his bombing of Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Serbia, and many other issues including Monicagate. Sure I did, in post 88, where I made a link to the act in question and pointed out the differences between that program and Bush's program--court oversight. Then prove it. That's your evidence that the media is biased? :lol: OK -- Sean Hammity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, . . . the list goes on. The right wing is fully represented in the media. You just don't like hearing what the media reports about your guy, so you try to shift the blame.
Wow, resorting to the personal attacks. Don't you have a saying about those? It's still an invasion of our privacy and you should be against it. Court oversight or no, it's still a privacy-invading program proposed by the previous president's administration which necessarily invalidates any criticism heaped upon our current one. Done. When any of the above become news anchors on a Big 3 network or editors of a San Fran Chronicle then you can talk, compadre. Talk radio and 11:00 PM TV spots on Fox News don't count. Name one conservative anchor on CBS, NBC, or ABC, please. How about naming a conservative editor of a major newspaper in LA, SF, or NY? Bullchit. I don't like SELECTIVE reporting.
You call that a personal attack? I call it a cynical remark. We do need an emoticon for sarcasm, though. I am against it if it was abused and went around the required court orders. But that abuse wasn't reported. And it in NO WAY invalidates similar abuse made by the current administration. Where do you get that notion? That's your proof? Sorry, it wouldn't convince anybody. Oh, so you only count the media that is liberal as being biased. The conservative media don't count! :lol: And I must remind you that you haven't cited a single example of media bias from any current network anchors. CBS retired Dan Rather for his blunder, you know. But you didn't say "news anchors on a Big 3 network or editors of a San Fran Chronicle" are biased. You said the America media was biased. That would include all of the people I listed, who have cable networks, TV shows, books, and radio shows that recieve national attention. I think you are the biased one. But that's exactly what you are attempting to do. You are picking your "media" outlets completely selectively. FOX and CNN are totally in the league with the networks you cite--no unbiased analysis would leave them out. And you are far off base on newspapers. The Wall Steet Journal and the New York Post are conservative papers in NY. The LA Daily News is conservative. The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper (why leave out DC, Deek?) Rupert Murdoch owned papers are found in every state and they are all conservative along with many others.
i read the ny post and it is definjitely conservative. and the times is definitely liberal. the post is almost a joke paper though, the media respects the times, even though it is slanted, i guess because it appears more serious and scholarly than the post. what deek is saying was true but isnt so much anymore. now there are too many options. a few years back when the big three networks were more relevant than they are now, i would have said the medial dosentr really represnt the people. but now they are much closer to reflecting the people. i doubt they will ever perfectly represent us, becaue the type of personality who wants to be in media tends to be more liberal. but i dont have much of a problem with them now.
yeah because michael hayden is a fucking asshole. but now you trust him when he says laptop is russian disinfo?
