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.

Revisionist History 14 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • Major (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pudge (1)
    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

          • Re:Major (Score:1)

            by jordan (120) on 2003.12.19 16:05 (#26710) Homepage Journal
            • 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 and trashing their credibility.

            The only times I remember the media being pressured, and the media folding under the pressure, recently was when CNN's Eason Jordan [scripting.com] admitted to slanting coverage in Iraq to please Hussein.

            CNN has been guilty of stilted coverage elsewhere. From Mona Charen's 2003 book Useful Idiots pgs. 184-185:


            In 1997, CNN became the first Western news organization to open a bureau in Havana. Those who hoped for an accurate glimpse of what life is like for ordinary Cubans were disappointed. As the Media Research Center reported after studying five years' worth of dispatches from Havana, CNN reported on political prisoners and dissidents only seven times. As Brent Bozell, MRC's president, told the National Press Club, "that's fewer than half as many stories as CNN produced in just the first three months of 2002 about phony claims of human righst abuses [committed] by the United States against those held at is base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." CNN also gave spokesmen for the Cuban regime six times as much airtime as noncommmunist spokesmen like church leaders or dissidents. Similarly, wehn CNN presented the views of ordinary Cubans, they broadcast six interviews with those who supported the regime for every one with those who did not.

            Dissidents inside Cuba have attempted to use CNN's cameras to publicize their plight and their cause-often with disappointing results. Though members of the press expend great efforts on behalf of their fellow journalists who face persecution in other parts of the world, Castro's repression of speech is permitted to go on in darkness. Several hundred protestoers gathered in November 2000 at the home of Jose Orlando Gonzalez Bridon, a leader of the illegal Cuban Democratic Workers' Confederation, a would-be trade union. A CNN reporter and camera crew were present, yet CNN never aired the footage. CNN denied that their reporter had ever promised to televise the protest, but hte protesters who had risked a great deal to be there and who took that risk only for the chance to see their cause elevated by CNN, were bitter. Later, many of those who attended the protest were beaten and jailed.


            Yeah, those sound like the actions of conservative mega-corporation controlled media to me...

            You should read Mona Charen's book, or Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, which you criticized in another discussion without saying exactly why, for more examples of obvious liberal slant of the media.

            • ... better yet, permanently publicly fund the media as a public resource (rather than forcing them to kowtow to the dollar ...

            Sure, if we just gave control of all media over to the public, well, things would be sooooo much better. Instead of media kow-towing to the dollar they'd be kow-towing to powerful politicians. To hell with opposing viewpoints, the Government would decide what was true and blast that all day long.

            • Money is insidious only in that it corrupts politicians, even those with good intent.

            Yeah, money corrupts, right. Look, when I give my money to a PAC or an interest group or even a political party, it's because I want to exercise my rights to free speech, I want my opinions to be known. Sorry, more opinions and free speech are not the problems, corrupt politicians are the problem.

            As it stands, there is nothing that can protect us from politicians who will be bribed. Sorry, nothing, well, short of throwing them out. Why don't we do that? Well, oftentimes it's because they are being bribed by us, that's right, through our Unions, advocacy groups and contributions, we donate money to aid their campaigns. All money isn't corrupting and only corrupt politicians accept money that is.

            Give up your hope that laws can keep politicians honest, because politicians control the laws. The only thing that has a CHANCE of protecting us is a media that's as independent as possible from Government (read: public) control and you want to throw that away.

            I would be in favor of full disclosure laws that revealed where all the money to publicize opinions came from. Heavy funding by unpopular groups could actually be used against certain politicians. That's what we need, more information rather than less.

            • 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


                    • 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 reason
                    • 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

                • I thought I had gone to perl.com, but apparently this is some political site. Sorry, I'll go away.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.