Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Major (Score:3, Insightful)

    The White House changed the headline "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" to include the word "Major" before "Combat".

    This is absolutely true. However, the second headline was entirely accurate, while the first headline was false. Bush never said that combat operations in Iraq had ended, he said MAJOR combat operations in Iraq had ended. They fixed an error, because the headline said Bush said something he never said. That hardly qualifies as revisionist history. I can find
    • I stand corrected about the White House site changing the headline. I did some research on the speech and you are correct, though it makes me wonder why they had an erroneous headline in the first place. Since so many people merely scan headlines, it's easy to paint a false picture and then later claim "that's not what was said". I've often had fun reading articles and seeing how closely they match the headline. Frequently they don't and I think that is also a form of dishonesty.

      I also agree that poli

      • Political parties suck.

        That's the truth. So why wring your hands over their perpetual failure to
        deliver democratic control of society? Just admit that capitalist republics
        don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.
        • Just admit that capitalist republics don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.

          I can't admit that because I don't believe it. From my perspective, there are three major things wrong with the US system: money, media, and machines (political ones, that is). The media is an obvious problem. The yellow journalism of Fox News is just the most obvious example. Make the media truly competitive or, better yet, permanently publicly fund the media as a public resource (rather than forcing the

            • I'm still astonished at those who believe that huge mega-corporations are spewing liberal propaganda.

            I'm still astonished that people don't see the liberal propaganda being spewed by the mainstream media. The media writers, reporters and producers are overwhelmingly liberal, just ask them. Polls always indicate a far left bias in the opionion of media workers.

            There may be some examples of corporations influencing the media content, but the mega-corporations run the risk of this becoming widely known a

            • It's been a long time since I picked up Bias and leafed through it, so I honestly can't tell you what my objections were at that time. However, the media watchdog group "FAIR" has an interesting piece about Golberg's book [fair.org]. I routinely check what FAIR has to say about a topic because they have impressed me with the thoroughness with which they research material. In this particular case, they did not go through on a point-by-point basis, but I felt that there points were relevant.

              For opposing views, look

                • I routinely check what FAIR has to say about a topic because they have impressed me with the thoroughness with which they research material.

                FAIR thorough and well researched? FAIR is hardly a "media watchdog", but rather a reaction to AIM (Accuracy In Media), Reed Irvin's group that started criticizing liberal media back in the 70s.

                I challenge you to find even a single example of any FAIR issue that is critical of the media for having a liberal bias. You would think that a balanced watchdog group could

                • OK, I thought about responding to your points, but you and I will not see eye to eye on many issues and I'd be wasting my time. I did, however, note that, while you didn't assert that AIM was reasonable, I suspect that this might actually be your point of view (though I certainly hope not).

                  From AIM's FAQ [aim.org]: We encourage members of the media to report the news fairly and objectively--without resorting to bias or partisanship.

                  Hoo boy. That's a real howler. From their article with the completely non-alar

                  • by jordan (120) on 2003.12.20 10:14 (#26719) Homepage Journal

                    • OK, I thought about responding to your points, but you and I will not see eye to eye on many issues and I'd be wasting my time.

                    I guess you are either saying that I'm a narrow minded idealogue or that you are, I'm not sure which. In any case, while we may have hardened positions, and I recognize that, I often join these "debates" for the benefit of those reading here. If I was interested in only persuading you, I'd take it to email

                    • I did, however, note that, while you didn't assert that AIM was reasonable, I suspect that this might actually be your point of view (though I certainly hope not).

                    Now, what could possibly lead you to believe that? I stated, quite clearly to anyone who actually read my post (rather than just read into it what they want to believe) that:
                    ...AIM (Accuracy In Media), Reed Irvin's group that started criticizing liberal media back in the 70s.

                    It's clear from the above that I'm labelling AIM as a partisan group.

                    So, rather than addressing any of my points, you launch into attacking this strawman. Talk about "fair and objective"...

                    Face it, when you post these diatribes against the Bush administration, you are just as guilty of partisanship as a group like AIM. You act as if the Bush Administration was the first ever to try and put a different spin on past events or to influence the Executive Branch scientific organizations for political reasons.

                    Because the media paints the debate this way, it seems that anyone left of center believes that Bush is a far-right monster who must be stopped at all costs, even if it means using distortion or gross exaggeration. Ignored in all of this is his bipartan history in Texas and his adoption of many center-left positions like the greatest expansion of Medicare ever and Campaign Finance reform.

                    All this overheated hyperbole does the country no favors. I wonder if you even noticed that Ted Kennedy called the Bush judicial nominees Neanderthals the other day, Neanderthals... right. Can you imagine Bush calling the black Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court and other highly regarded jurists like Estrada such a name? A name that's evocative of being sub-human? I know you hate Fox News as "yellow journalism" (without actually ever citing any examples) but I agree with Tony Snow from FoxNews Sunday where he was paraphrased as saying: [newsmax.com]


                    Noting that Bush nominees Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada are African-American and Hispanic, respectively, Republicans have seized on Kennedy's "Neanderthal" remark, complaining that he was getting a pass for using words that would have been career-ending for a member of their party.

                    It's absolutely true. You claim that the press is so conservative, but can you imagine a Republican Senator being ex-KKK as Robert Byrd is? Can you imagine a Republican Senator using such emotionally heated language as Ted Kennedy did above and it not being front page news every day until he was hounded out of office. No...

                    While you seem to think that FoxNews is dangerous and a reason for seizing control over the media by the "public", they are the only ones pointing out this hypocrisy.

                    Al Gore's father voted against both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act, and yet I never recall once him being asked about this. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenneger had to answer repeatedly for the views of his father in the California recall election.

                    Wake up. The press is far left, or at the very least Anti-Conservative and anyone who even tries to be objective could see it.

                    • The mainstream press is mainstream corporate -- that's where the advertising
                      money comes from. They don't rock the boat, in general. Just as you won't find
                      the NY Times advocating land redistribution (giving land back to small-scale
                      farmers, for instance), or pointing out the human cost of drug patents, you also
                      won't find them working overtime to dig up corporate malfeasance or official
                      corruption.

                      Not rocking the boat goes both ways. So "anti-conservative" might apply, if by
                      "anti-conservative" you mean "opp
                      • They don't rock the boat, in general. Just as you won't find
                        the NY Times advocating land redistribution (giving land back to small-scale
                        farmers, for instance)

                      If you are saying that the media in this country is not of a Marxist bent, I would agree. That's completely in line with the fact that Socialism is pretty much unpopular with the American people in general and the media is no exception.

                      • or pointing out the human cost of drug patents

                      If you are referring to the fact that there would be no miracle dr

                    • As an example -- in my opinion, any "objective" newspaper would have been running a headline every day for the last couple years saying "The Government is obviously making all this shit up as they go along."

                      I'm sorry, I think you mean s/objective/opinionated/. Or maybe s/objective/crap I happen to believe is true/.
                    • Face facts. The media has an irrational hatred of Bush and will spin everything to the disadvantage of the Republicans, while giving the Democrats a complete pass.

                      I wish you had put this part at the beginning, so I didn't have to waste time reading the rest. Who is "the media"? Does every single member of the group have this "hatred"? Is it always (or necessarily) irrational? Does "everything" get spun, and do all Democrats get a "complete" pass? I suspect we disagree on the underlying politics, but