[goldylight]

Two links from two blogs with an interesting buzz…

From INDC Journal:

Cryptic Alert

Speaking of “lies,� keep an eye on the front page of the Washington Times this coming Monday.

UPDATE: It’s something that the Kerry campaign will be forced to address regarding a previous criticism of Bush’s foreign policy. That’s all that I’m saying.

And from Power Line:

We just Got a Tip…

…that a major newspaper will break a front-page story Monday morning that could create a serious problem for the Kerry campaign. We don’t yet have any details, but it relates to a foreign policy issue, and it will call into question—amazingly enough—John Kerry’s truthfulness.

We’ll watch for the story Sunday night and post it as soon as it becomes available.

[CDB]

Anything less than a picture of him getting gang banged by Hussein and Bin Laden won't change anything in my opinion.

[INFOHAZARD]

Thw Washington Times:

A Right Wing propaganda sheet that's run by a guy who had himself crowned Messiah in front of a bunch of shocked lawmakers. Some of them even denied being there later....

Yeah, that's a balanced and reliable source...

[Funny Monkey]

Originally Posted by CDB

Anything less than a picture of him getting gang banged by Hussein and Bin Laden won't change anything in my opinion.

lmfao

[wojo]

wow i would have never expected such a ploy..shakes head

[size]

Here is the story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0609-9428r.htm


From http://www.indcjournal.com/:
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

[VanillaGorilla]

A Right Wing propaganda sheet that's run by a guy who had himself crowned Messiah in front of a bunch of shocked lawmakers. Some of them even denied being there later....

Yeah, that's a balanced and reliable source...

And the news york times is? Bill Gertz is a great reporter who writes for wash. times.

[CEDeoudes59]

well lets see if the mainstream media covers it

[goes4ever]

will be interested to see if this is all over the news today or not

[PastorofMuppets]

Info, I think that outright dismissal of a source is really beneath you. Yes, the WT is shady, but how about addressing the article in question?

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

And the news york times is? Bill Gertz is a great reporter who writes for wash. times.

nyt has slipped recently and their opinions have sometimes escaped the editorial page, but they are still considered a high quality paper in terms of the reporters they have on the payroll, the stories they uncover and the quality of their fact checking (despite a few notable exceptions on this last point).

washington post too is considered a high quality, reputable publication. washington times on the other hand is not considered reputable. i have not seen cnn or foxnews pick this story up yet, and i doubt it'll do any damage to kerry because people don't really care about details like this that don't involve blowjobs or military service. at worst (if the story is true) kerry will say he made a mistake in that speech and that'll be that.

-5

[goes4ever]

first thing on the news this morning was this story

[VanillaGorilla]

nyt has slipped recently and their opinions have sometimes escaped the editorial page, but they are still considered a high quality paper in terms of the reporters they have on the payroll, the stories they uncover and the quality of their fact checking (despite a few notable exceptions on this last point).

The NY Times editorial page has now become it's news page. The reporterss are all liberal just like the Boston globe who has one token conservative writer. They are so liberal in a recent article they lambasted Kerry for not telling people that he would raise taxes even higher than he is all ready saying. It is considered the paper of record among liberals. The media use it as a template to decide what they will cover or not cover based on the times. Do they have a few talented writers working for them still? Yes but you can't out right dismiss the Washington times. As I said before Bill Gertz is a great reporter and he works for them. Do they have a conservative slant? Yes but it is not much worse than the NY Times. Another problem is there are only two conservative paper in America , the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. The rest of them are just like the NY Times.

[jboogie]

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...un-myung-moon/

[CDB]

Originally Posted by jboogie

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...un-myung-moon/

I am definitely in the wrong profession.

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by goes4ever

first thing on the news this morning was this story

i still don't see this on cnn.com or foxnews.com.

and i just don't see this becoming a big story, here's why. i've been watching the campaigns closely and especially during and after the debates both candidates have been lying their asses off.

they misquote and mischaracterize each other, they exaggerate numbers and often they just plain get their facts wrong. the media does some fact checking, but no one seems to really care. it's not news that a candidate got his numbers wrong, or didn't 'remember' some event correctly. i don't see how this one statement by kerry about meeting the guys at the security council is any different.

if however the press found out that kerry had visited a sex club with his wife or gotten a bj from an intern or something like that then he would be in big trouble.

-5

[VanillaGorilla]

i still don't see this on cnn.com or foxnews.com.

Why would you, they want him to win? All you have to do is compare the coverage the swift boat vets to Bush being AWOL from his national guard service. They worked for 5 years on the Bush story and simply dismissed the claims of the vets.

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

The NY Times editorial page has now become it's news page. The reporterss are all liberal just like the Boston globe who has one token conservative writer. They are so liberal in a recent article they lambasted Kerry for not telling people that he would raise taxes even higher than he is all ready saying. It is considered the paper of record among liberals. The media use it as a template to decide what they will cover or not cover based on the times. Do they have a few talented writers working for them still? Yes but you can't out right dismiss the Washington times. As I said before Bill Gertz is a great reporter and he works for them. Do they have a conservative slant? Yes but it is not much worse than the NY Times. Another problem is there are only two conservative paper in America , the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. The rest of them are just like the NY Times.

NYT is definately biased in Kerry's favor even beyond the editorial page, but they have some great guys working for them such as Seymour Hersh who uncovered the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib abuses in Iraq (here's a link to a good interview he gave on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3917659 ). So biased yes, but also high quality in terms of investigative reporting and a solid source for accurate information.

I'm also not convinced that the media is liberal on balance. The reason is that many of the liberal sources, such as NPR, offer high quality reporting and don't cover bullshit stories such as the O'Reilly scandal, nor will their reporters argue the case for Kerry.

On the right though, FOXnews on the other hand offers a platform for conservatives such as O'Reilly and Hannity, who often concentrate on meaningless stories such as the fact that Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter was gay, and since they have a huge audience they can force the mainstream media to pick up these stories. Similarly, these guys will passionately defend Bush's decisions whereas the mainstream (liberal) press will offer coverage that is slanted in Kerry's favor, but they stop short of outright defending his ****ups.

So it balances out. In addition, the mainstream press was on Bush's **** from 9/11 until his WMD claims were debunked, so I'd say they were slanted in his favor at the time. I think the current bias has little to do with liberalism and much more to do with the fact that most people in the press just don't like Bush irrespective of his party affiliation.

-5