Likable but unfortunately Republican

Here’s an interesting read, and a perfect example of how the mainstream media with nothing else to do will treat a popular Republican Governor in an extraordinarily Democratic state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19737-2005Feb12.html

A few important things to notice….One is that they made sure that they let us know that he is the son of a car salesman. That’s critical for our making a decision about him obviously. Two, they make sure that the central excuse for the story and the headline is conncecting him to something an aide said on the Internet, and three making sure that anything he does that IS likable is simply portrayed as a cheap photo opportunity.

And the cool thing is that they do this all of the time, and it doesn’t work. Everyone still loves this guy. Sometimes I think that the Maryland governor and the Virginia governor (a Democrat) should just trade places.

Posted at 09:54 am by Logipundit

Posted by Rothell @ 02/14/2005 03:21 AM PST
LIBERAL MEDIA or fascist propaganda?

Although Butch didn’t write “liberal media” in his last posting, I gathered that that’s what he meant when stating how the “mainstream media” with nothing else to do will treat a popular *Republican* Governor. The article he’d referred to wasn’t accessible, but it seemed that Butch’s point was that once again the “liberal media” is attacking a Rebuplican good ol’ boy.

Now I’m going to go off.

Republicans ALWAYS whine when any criticism in the media goes their way. I’ve heard this bullshit so many times and it makes me sick. It is a fact that if somebody on tv, in a book, on the radio, etc., makes the slightest peep of criticism towards anything Republican it is not taken as criticism EVER but rather as the product of “liberal media.” Why? This idea of “liberal media” serves several purposes for the conservatives: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right.

The fact is that conservatives have powerful friends in the media: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These giant firms have been increasingly successful in bending the media’s message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative and pro-corporate agenda. (See below for examples.) Studies have shown that the media are silent on the issues most important to workers, consumers and other citizens adversely affected by corporate behavior. Conservatives respond to these charges with (old) polls showing that most journalists are personally liberal, but these polls are outdated. New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues.

Let’s plow on ahead…
Straight from the horses’ mouths:
“I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” -William Kristol

“I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked. … For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that.” -Pat Buchanan

“You know, I could run for governor but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that’s not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.” -W., 1989

My roommate made an interesting point: if the media is so liberal, why’d they point all their cameras at Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky “scandal”? Why would a “liberal media” scandalize a Democratic president to the extent that they did with Clinton? A liberal media wouldn’t and the U.S. media ain’t liberal, so stop propagating this myth.

Examples of a corporate media’s self-interests:
1) During a debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies.
2) Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC’s top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards. Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries.
3) Rupert Murdoch’s Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory. Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan.
4) A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers’ boards of directors are drawn from big business.

Posted by Emily @ 02/14/2005 08:34 PM PST
Speaking of “big business” Here’s an article about Big Business and it’s contributions to Political Parties:

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/02140004aaa027d2.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News

Rothell, do you have any dates on the points that you make?

Isn’t Big Business where people get jobs, raises and the like?

Posted by BP @ 02/20/2005 04:00 AM PST
he lives!

Posted by Johnny B @ 02/27/2005 03:52 PM PST
Interesting comment, Rothell. Reminds me of the old fecal roster. For the most part journalists vote democratic, but that doesn’t necessarily fit your definition of liberal. Bill Clinton was a democrat, and he supported NAFTA, so he must be a centrist, or something. Now with Fox news and all that you can pretty much find what you want, so it doesn’t make sense to whine about the media these days.
But just because it is on the fecal roster doesn’t make it not true. Sometimes, sometimes, everyone really is playing baseball and poor and homeless, etc. and can’t buy your books. Howard Dean was a media creation too, one that indicated where the hearts and minds of the media establishment were at the time. Fortunately, the Howard Dean fiasco truly symbolizes how powerful the media really is; a paper tiger, really.

Biting the hand…

Got this from a relative. Not sure of the source, but since most of you will know how much of a BIG FAN I am of the world’s savior for Peace and Prosperity, our illustrious UN, you’ll probably know how little this surprises me.

“How They Vote In The United Nations.

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations’ records.

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

Shocking, isn’t it? Is your blood boiling yet? Well, it gets worse, read on~!!!

US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States,
still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000
annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in
US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in
US Foreign Aid.

These countries alone add up to $2 billion, 343 Million, 234 thousand dollars.

Perhaps it is time to get out of the United Nations and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.”

Posted at 11:06 am by Logipundit

Posted by ElvenSarah @ 02/13/2005 04:24 AM PST
I think you mean voting differently, not against.

Posted by Seige @ 02/13/2005 07:05 AM PST
I don’t quite get it. Damn!

Posted by BP @ 02/20/2005 04:04 AM PST
good point, but not my words. However, you see the point; assuming the US is voting in its own interest, then voting “differently” is very often voting against US interests. Semantics.

Oh Thank God

Ted Koppell et alia on ABC’s Dateline is letting us know that the Social Security system is NOT in a crisis.

WHEW!!

I was worried for a little bit there. The fact that by 2018 the program will begin to pay out (immediately) more than it’s bringing in, but according to Ted, that’s OK.

Thank God. Lord knows we have to make sure if President Bush mentions alternatives to help preserve the SS, we shouldn’t really take him seriously. What would we do without Dateline telling us how to think.

Posted at 11:50 pm by Logipundit

Posted by ondavirg @ 02/09/2005 10:11 PM PST
Hello all…I only know one person who would come up with the name logipundit. I agree that the ‘media’ really is not to be trusted when make generalizations like that. But lets not stop there…lets put a gag order on actors and athletes while we’re at it. At least it is the media’s job to say things that occasionally require original thought on television.

Posted by BP @ 02/10/2005 12:27 PM PST
and who is that one person Doctor, pray tell?

I don’t recommend gag orders, actually. I say let them speak…because the more they speak, the more idiots of themselves they make–that goes for the actors and the media.

It’s no mystery that the ratings of the major media outlets are in the toilet.

Posting like mad.

I just couldn’t help it…Germany. Man, I want to go live in Germany. I mean the people are so much more “sophisticated” and “free” and they aren’t so darned “nationalistic” and “imperialistic” and…well…downright prudish, like us Americans.

Let’s face it…it’s fricking paradise. The modern excuse for “liberal” values prevail and look at the benefits that the people of Germany reap:

Posted at 09:25 am by Logipundit

Posted by Johnny @ 02/01/2005 10:06 AM PST
I saw this article too, via National Review. It is a harbinger to those who feel that legalization of illicit activities like prostitution and drug use is a panacea for society.

Ads are cool

Take a look at the film that is being advertised on our weblog today (I include the link just in case the ad is no longer there.) Take a look at this link and then look at the sources that the movie cites. I mean I don’t know about you guys, but I just can’t get my credit card out fast enough.

http://www.rushtowarfilm.com/

Expert sources interviewed in the film:

“a number of government officials, foreign policy experts, and journalists, including former Senator George McGovern, former ambassadors Joe Wilson and Peter Tomsen, Samantha Power (Harvard University), Zia Mian (Princeton University), Thomas Gouttierre (University of Nebraska at Omaha), and Mark Danner (UC Berkeley); nationally syndicated columnists Robert Scheer, Molly Ivins and Chris Hedges (New York Times). The film also includes commentaries from Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, former General Anthony Zinni and former Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke.”

Thank God none of these folks have ever been shown to have a political agenda.

Posted at 09:10 am by Logipundit

Posted by Jim Baxter @ 02/10/2005 09:39 AM PST
The HUMAN PARADIGM – Intro

Consider:
The way we define ‘human’ determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future.
Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image
is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely…
there are results.

Man is earth’s Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature’s God a creature of Choice – and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe.

See the complete article at Homesite:
“Human Defined: Earth’s Choicemaker”
http://www.choicemaker.net/

Posted by BP @ 02/10/2005 12:29 PM PST
Thanks for the scripture, Jim…you have a very interesting site. However, did you have a comment about the “Rush to War” film?

Posted by mishel @ 08/25/2005 07:39 AM PDT
Your blog is realy very interesting. http://www.g888.com

Inauguration…

Johnny B left a comment about his liberal friend who e-mailed him:

“One of my liberal friends (Nader Kerry voter, but preferred Dean and McCain) commented on the inaugural in an e-mail, “Everybody looked cranky and gloomy” etc. I figured it was just cold outside. What was your take? I think this warrants a separate post?”

I really don’t understand the cranky and gloomy…unless this person is looking at different pictures than the ones I posted. There are a total of maybe 3 faces that you can actually see in the pictures that aren’t either a) security (whose job it is to look cranky and gloomy) or b) cheering (in the motorcade shots). My take on it being there in person was that it was a little chilly (about 30 degrees), but people were willing to wait it out, and when the President spoke or drove by everyone was pretty excited. There were plenty of protestors, too, and I would call them excited more than gloomy, however cranky and excited would be a pretty fair assessment.

The funnest part, really, was all of the introductions in the beginning, and watching the camera focus on certain people that never matched what was on the screen (“Former Vice President Dan Quayle…” and Jimmy Carter would be on the screen grinning…or whatever). I was in the nosebleeds, so the screen was all we could see. When the camera stayed on a certain former Presidential candidate for about 5 minutes after the announced the “109th Senate of the United States”, someone yelled, “Hey! We have other Senators, you know!”

Did anyone else get a chance to go…?

Posted at 08:54 am by Logipundit

Posted by Johnny @ 02/01/2005 10:02 AM PST
My friend didn’t see your pictures, rather the live speech. I was going to send him to the blog, though.

Memri

Check out this website:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD85605

Either Zarqawi is a CIA agent perpetuating the propaganda myth that Islamism has set it’s sights on the US because of objections against democracy, or, well, see for yourself.

http://memri.org

Recommended regular reading, for those who don’t already know. Middle East Media Research Institute, they translate speeches and news reports from the middle east without watering them down.

Posted at 08:41 am by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 02/01/2005 09:01 AM PST
Is anyone getting the feeling that Scottie doesn’t love us anymore?