Washington Post Endorses Kerry

  1. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Washington Post Endorses Kerry


    washingtonpost.com
    Kerry for President



    Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B06

    EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years.

    The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.

    But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.

    The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.

    In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.

    We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.

    These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.

    ON THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have governed as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts.

    Which brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims on the nation's resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of circumstances.

    But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.

    In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, though, he has been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew closer. He championed a huge new entitlement for Medicare without insisting on the cost-cutting reforms that everyone knows are needed.

    SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.

    Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals if funds don't suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.

    On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.

    None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America's image -- but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.

    We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.

    Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.

    We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.

  2. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    You could have just posted a link and portions that you felt were significant.

    Does this make the Washington Post biased?
  3. Board Supporter
    Funny Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    360
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by size

    Does this make the Washington Post biased?
    Uhhh yeah I think that does. I dont see how someone could argue it didnt
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    PastorofMuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    257
    Answers
    0

    BREAKING NEWS:

    WATER FOUND TO BE WET!!!!

    sorry couldn't resist.
  5. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Yes, it's called "editorializng" which is a standard function of a newspaper. Obvious, I know, but it's for those who never read papers (like Bush).

    Most paper's editorial departments endorse one candidate or another. Kerry is kicking Bush's ass in endorsements. Here are a few more:

    • The New York Times: "We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry’s wide knowledge and clear thinking — something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. . . . He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core."

    • The Boston Globe: These are challenging times for any leader. On the signal issues of this campaign — the Iraq war and terrorism — Kerry is up to the challenge. . . . He is best suited to heal our painful rifts now — not just with the community of nations but within this nation, rent by social, ideological, economic and religious diversions. . . . We are confident a Kerry presidency will restore both unity and strength."

    • The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette: "The current administration seems to have a domestic policy based on one underfunded education initiative, a rollback of crucial federal regulation and a transfer of wealth from the middle class to those with the highest incomes. . . . We think Kerry’s vision, both internationally and at home, is the more mature one. More important, we believe he is the candidate most likely to restore unity to a fiercely divided nation."

    • Honolulu Advertiser: "We believe that this former Navy officer and prosecutor will fight for the safety and well-being of Americans, at home and abroad, in the right way, at the right time."

    • The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Va.: "We do not doubt George Bush’s good intentions. We doubt his judgment. . . . John Kerry has demonstrated the personal courage and intellectual stamina to put the nation on a sounder course."

    • Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune: "It’s time to remove Bush from the White House, and Kerry emerges as a reasonable alternative."

    • Duluth (Minn.) News Tribune: "Sen. John Kerry is the best hope for regaining America’s promise, offering the country a fresh start internationally and a return of the presidency to an office of stature and respect."

    • Dayton Daily News: "John Kerry is a credible, prepared, likely choice for a nation that should expect more sophistication, more skill, less failure and more focus on the problems of the American mainstream than George W. Bush has offered."

    • Akron Beacon Journal: "He would be a sound steward, replacing a cowboy ethic with a welcome pragmatism, advancing American interests and values, seeking to reverse a careless course abroad, just as he would at home."

    • St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "America needs a leader who sees the world as it is, who knows how to rebuild international alliances, who focuses on threats to homeland security, who runs the government for the benefit of all Americans."

    • The Philadelphia Inquirer: "John Kerry isn’t perfect. He has things to learn. One thing Americans should have learned by now, though, is that the incumbent lacks the realism, judgment and ability to adjust to events that the United States needs in its commander in chief."

    • The Oregonian, Portland, Ore.: "Kerry has some chance of rebuilding the international alliances that Bush and his people have shattered. . . . He possesses a deep, nuanced understanding of the central domestic issues of our time."

    • Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "This endorsement is based not only on President Bush’s failings — which are manifest — but also on the conclusion that Kerry can succeed where Bush has failed."

    • The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Too often, Bush has seemed to disdain rational analysis of a situation in favor of a rigid, unbending ideology that recognizes no shading of gray. . . . Kerry has shown the ability to look at a complex problem honestly, listen closely to the input of experts and then take the course that sounds most reasonable."

    • Nevada Appeal, Carson City, Nev.: "(The) cause of fighting global terrorism was mislaid. At home, Bush has consistently favored the rich and powerful."

    • The Albuquerque (N.M.) Tribune: "Kerry embraces transparency, consensus and compromise. As does our Constitution, he will seek to include, not exclude."

    • Star Tribune, Minneapolis: "Kerry’s approach (to Iraq) demonstrates maturity, nuance and thoughtfulness. Those qualities don’t always play well in campaign sound bites. But they will serve America exceedingly well in the Oval Office."

    • The Miami Herald: "The debates have placed a spotlight on the skills and abilities of the two contenders, with the president getting the worst of it."

    • Detroit Free Press: America needs a new direction, and that can begin only with new leadership. Kerry is not a perfect candidate, but he is a promising alternative to things as they are. The Massachusetts senator is certainly more thoughtful than Bush, more open to new ideas and more sensitive to the issues confronting the middle and working classes.

    • The Kansas City (Mo.) Star: "John Kerry . . . is a man of obvious intelligence, compassion, patriotism and courage whose presidency would be guided by a clear understanding of what went wrong in the last four years and what needs to be done in the next four."

    • Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader: "Kerry’s most difficult challenge as president would be cleaning up after Bush in Iraq. Kerry at least has a shot at getting the rest of the world to help."

    • St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times: "The best evidence of the poverty of the Bush administration’s record is the Bush re-election team’s incessantly negative campaign against John Kerry. . . . The cynicism and illogic of those attacks — nobody can be a flipflopper and a left-wing ideologue at the same time — should be obvious."

    • Bradenton (Fla.) Herald: "Kerry brings to the job of president more than 20 years of Senate leadership, a personal knowledge of war and hope for a new approach to end the Iraqi nightmare and address the nation’s domestic problems."

    • Daytona Beach (Fla.) News-Journal: "Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, appreciate that alliances on a global scale are the most effective weapons against terrorism and conventional war."

    • San Francisco Chronicle: "Sen. John Kerry is the clear choice for voters who care about protecting the environment, advancing gay rights, preserving abortion rights, maintaining a transparent government when developing an energy policy or a vast database on its citizenry — and appointing federal judges within the mainstream of American values on those issues."

    • The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, Fla.: "Issue by issue, Sen. Kerry has laid out a better, fairer, more progressive agenda. . . . John Kerry is not in denial about Iraq or any of the other problems Mr. Bush will have left him."

    • The Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo.: "Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, would revive national debate on issues too long neglected during the war on terrorism."

    • Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald: "John Kerry’s assurance that he will not support the Central American Free Trade Agreement clinches his endorsement here. CAFTA is a looming danger to the Red River Valley’s sugar-beet industry."

    • The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee: "Voters have plenty of reasons to deny Bush a second term, but two stand out. Consider the twin centerpieces of the Bush presidency — the war in Iraq and tax cuts."

    • Newsday, Long Island, N.Y.: Kerry "is a serious man with strong analytical skills. He is the one candidate who can begin to heal the deeply bitter divisions in the nation."

    • The Hawk Eye, Burlington, Iowa: "The surpluses are gone, replaced by record deficits. . . . The nation is in a seeming endless war in Iraq draining our financial resources and killing American soldiers. . . . It’s time for change."

    • The Free Press, Mankato, Minn.: "For the last 20 years Kerry has built coalitions, worked with both parties to get things done and been able to communicate in a way that instills confidence in voters and colleagues."
  6. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Yes, I understand the point of editorials. However, I have noticed that whenever a post from a source is posted contra to your perspective, you imply it as being biased or rightwing fanatics and hence unworthy.
  7. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    Yes, I understand the point of editorials. However, I have noticed that whenever a post from a source is posted contra to your perspective, you imply it as being biased or rightwing fanatics and hence unworthy.
    No source is perfect. Some sources are far more balanced than others (on both sides of the fence). The balanced ones are getting quite rare, though.

    Limbaugh, Coulter, AirAmerica, Pacifica and Buzzflash at least overtly admit their bias, and can be seen in that light. Their accuracy tends to be relatively poor, though.

    NY Times and a lot of mainstream press try to maintain a bit of balance, but never totally successfully. NY Times is generally considered to be slightly Left of center, but has also had problems NOT asking the hard questions of George Bush before the war, so they can be off to the Right as well. They do eventually correct aggregious errors.

    There are also papers like the WSJ that has a really conservative editorial board, but a reputation for very accurate news reporting.

    Then there are the rags that are grossly biased and won't admit it- like the Washington Times, O'Riley and Drudge (Or worse yet, potitical attack ads). These are dangerous sources, and they will lead astray.

    When quoting something as a reference, you do better to quote authoratative sources (whitehouse.gov, scientific literature, etc), reputable sources or at least multiple sources.

    If all you got is something from the far Left or Right, it just won't hold much water by itself. Come up with corraboration (not the echo-chamber effect, though), and the believability gets better.
  8. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Odd you say that about Drudge. Reason being that a study on media bias led by Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago found "Drudge Report" to be the most centrist news outlet in their sample. Included in the sample were the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.

    A Measure of Media Bias
    Tim Groseclose Department of Political Science, UCLA, and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Jeff Milyo Harris School of Public Policy University of Chicago

    Here are some pieces from study:
    As before, these results show a strong liberal bias among the media. When we use citations as our level of observation, all media outlets except Fox News’ Special Report are left of center. When we use sentences as our level of observation, all media outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Drudge Report are to the left of center. And, depending upon how one defines center, even the Drudge Report is to the left of center. Only if one defines the House mean as the center, is the Drudge Report right of center. If instead one uses the House median, Senate median, or Senate mean, the Drudge is to the left of center.
    Digression: Defining the “Center?
    In discussing left- or right- wing biases of the media, one should be careful how he or she defines center. We think the most appropriate definition refers to a central voter, as opposed to a central member of Congress. Accordingly, we think that it is more appropriate to compare media scores to the House as opposed to the Senate, since the Senate disproportionately represents small states. Next, we think it is more appropriate to use the median House member, instead of the mean. One reason is that, because of The Median Voter Theorem (Black, 1957), one should expect policy to be at the median instead of the mean.

    Results: How Close are Media Outlets to the Center?
    Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News’ Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.




    If you would like to review the research, I can link you to it. I would like to know your opinions on the research.
    Last edited by size; 10-25-2004 at 05:52 PM.
  9. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    Most paper's editorial departments endorse one candidate or another. Kerry is kicking Bush's ass in endorsements. Here are a few more:
    You are trying to say that because all of the papers in the country are supporting Kerry that means he is the better candidate. In reality what you have done is made the point the press is extremely biased. The reason " Kerry is Kicking Bush's ass in endorsements is that they are all liberal not because Kerry is better candidate.
  10. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    NY Times and a lot of mainstream press try to maintain a bit of balance, but never totally successfully. NY Times is generally considered to be slightly Left of center, but has also had problems NOT asking the hard questions of George Bush before the war, so they can be off to the Right as well. They do eventually correct aggregious errors.

    There are also papers like the WSJ that has a really conservative editorial board, but a reputation for very accurate news reporting.
    The point is the WSJ is the only main stream paper. There is also the Washington times but they don't have enough of a distribution.The NY times is not slightly to the left it's to the far left as is most of the other papers in the country. They generally correct errors but burying it in the last page of the paper and printing it so small you need a magnifying glass to read it.
  11. Registered User
    jboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    59
    Answers
    0

    Heh, remember that time his hometown paper didn't even endorse him?

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...436EDT0576.DTL
  12. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    Odd you say that about Drudge. Reason being that a study on media bias led by Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago found "Drudge Report" to be the most centrist news outlet in their sample. Included in the sample were the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.

    A Measure of Media Bias
    Tim Groseclose Department of Political Science, UCLA, and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Jeff Milyo Harris School of Public Policy University of Chicago

    Here are some pieces from study:
    As before, these results show a strong liberal bias among the media. When we use citations as our level of observation, all media outlets except Fox News’ Special Report are left of center. When we use sentences as our level of observation, all media outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Drudge Report are to the left of center. And, depending upon how one defines center, even the Drudge Report is to the left of center. Only if one defines the House mean as the center, is the Drudge Report right of center. If instead one uses the House median, Senate median, or Senate mean, the Drudge is to the left of center.
    Digression: Defining the “Center?
    In discussing left- or right- wing biases of the media, one should be careful how he or she defines center. We think the most appropriate definition refers to a central voter, as opposed to a central member of Congress. Accordingly, we think that it is more appropriate to compare media scores to the House as opposed to the Senate, since the Senate disproportionately represents small states. Next, we think it is more appropriate to use the median House member, instead of the mean. One reason is that, because of The Median Voter Theorem (Black, 1957), one should expect policy to be at the median instead of the mean.

    Results: How Close are Media Outlets to the Center?
    Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News’ Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.




    If you would like to review the research, I can link you to it. I would like to know your opinions on the research.

    Drudges links are centrist, and I resd it regularly. What makes him a GOP operative are the theing he reports on that aren't links. Perhaps 20% of them are outright black propaganda. This makes him extremely dangerous. These links get picked up by Limbaugh and 20 other right wing sites, and befor you know it, it's being cited as fact. It then disappears from Drudge's site and people forget where it came from.
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200410130006
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170013
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240005
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200406240005
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020004

    All that leverage and the people studying it might never pick up the strategy in their analysis because it's subtle and distributed among a lot of other sites.
  13. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    You are trying to say that because all of the papers in the country are supporting Kerry that means he is the better candidate. In reality what you have done is made the point the press is extremely biased. The reason " Kerry is Kicking Bush's ass in endorsements is that they are all liberal not because Kerry is better candidate.

    The Orlando Sentenel has endorsed every Republican for the past 40 years until this year. I think it was the St Petersburg Times (or tampa trib- one of those big papers) that has always endorsed the GOP candidate in past. They couldn't bring themselves to endorse Kerry, but they absolutely made it clear that they dis-endorsed Bush. First time in forever.

    Could it be that it's not just Liberal bias, but that people with eyes can see that Bush has been a miserable failure?

    ANd all that before the news that despite the UN's warnings, they failed to secure hundreds of tones of high explosives in Iraq. That is just their trademark: to be blindsided by reality.

    911, N. Korea nukes, Iran nukes, No WMD, the Iraqi insurgency, Abu Ghraib, no OBL cpature, the persistently weak economy. All on their watch while they were out creating their own reality.
  14. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Infohazard........the website you linked obviously has an agenda(as I am sure you are aware) and hence I do not think it compares to the information I provided. You are ignoring the results from that study. Data collected was reflective of the comprehensive information.
  15. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    Infohazard........the website you linked obviously has an agenda(as I am sure you are aware) and hence I do not think it compares to the information I provided. You are ignoring the results from that study. Data collected was reflective of the comprehensive information.

    The site has an OVERT agenda. It does a really good job at it, too.

    That has nothing to do with the point I made as to the problem with your source's analysis (and with the Drudge site at critical times) that I brought up.

    I read Drudge all the time because he typically is centrist. But when he plants grey and black propaganda, it's really heinous.
  16. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October:
    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000685127

    "In the overall sample (which included four newspapers, two cable news networks and the four leading broadcast networks), more than half of all Bush stories were negative in tone, during this period. One-quarter of all Kerry stories were negative, according to the study"
  17. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    The Orlando Sentenel has endorsed every Republican for the past 40 years until this year. I think it was the St Petersburg Times (or tampa trib- one of those big papers) that has always endorsed the GOP candidate in past. They couldn't bring themselves to endorse Kerry, but they absolutely made it clear that they dis-endorsed Bush. First time in forever.

    Could it be that it's not just Liberal bias, but that people with eyes can see that Bush has been a miserable failure?
    No it couldn't. You listed two papers. There are 50 times that that have endorsed Kerry. No offense but can you provide any links to what you said that isn't a left wing propaganda web site?
  18. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October:
    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000685127

    "In the overall sample (which included four newspapers, two cable news networks and the four leading broadcast networks), more than half of all Bush stories were negative in tone, during this period. One-quarter of all Kerry stories were negative, according to the study"
    I'm sure this is true, but the real question is whether the media is anti-Bush because they are liberal, or because Bush deserved it. The media certainly didn't go easy on Clinton, nor on Gore after his debates with Bush in the last election. I'm not convinced that they just want to help out the democratic candidate. If Arnold or McCain was the republican candidate and Gore was the democrat, then I think the results could be very different.

    Now if someone had a study which showed that the media has run more anti-Republican news stories than anti-Democrat stories in the last 10 elections, then it would be interesting.

    -5
  19. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    I'm sure this is true, but the real question is whether the media is anti-Bush because they are liberal, or because Bush deserved it. The media certainly didn't go easy on Clinton, nor on Gore after his debates with Bush in the last election. I'm not convinced that they just want to help out the democratic candidate. If Arnold or McCain was the republican candidate and Gore was the democrat, then I think the results could be very different.

    Now if someone had a study which showed that the media has run more anti-Republican news stories than anti-Democrat stories in the last 10 elections, then it would be interesting.
    There is a difference in bias and propaganda.If Gore was stupid enough so say things that aren't true during a presidential debate that are easily check out, they are going to call him on it. If they didn't they would look even worse than they do now. The media did go easy on Clinton. They turned a blind eye or went easy on him on such issues of rape charges, illegal campaign contributions, giving china nuclear technology, giving North Korea nuclear technology, being in possession of FBI files of their enemies, alleged cocaine use, using police officers as pimps, perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, and still give him a pass on being the first president of the united states to be impeached.
    The media treated Ronald Regan in a similar way as they do W. He often though of as a stupid cowboy who was going to start world war 3.
    Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 11-02-2004 at 11:48 AM.
  20. Registered User
    MarcusG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,237
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October:
    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000685127

    "In the overall sample (which included four newspapers, two cable news networks and the four leading broadcast networks), more than half of all Bush stories were negative in tone, during this period. One-quarter of all Kerry stories were negative, according to the study"
    From the same page -

    "While bias could be a factor, there are other possible explanations. Fully 40% of stories logged by the researchers this October had to do with the debates, where Kerry was generally seen as "winning" or doing very well, especially in debate number one. Another 9% concerned Iraq, with many setbacks during this period for the United States forces, which would drive Bush's negatives up unrelated to the campaign. In fact, nearly one in four stories on Bush was related to Iraq."
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Washington Post: Kerry may want to run in 2008
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Politics
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 01-20-2005, 05:17 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-31-2004, 02:41 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-28-2004, 09:47 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2003, 01:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in