That Liberal Media, Doing It Again

Interesting how the liberal media:

1. Showed one hour of a 4-day convention in primetime on the major networks. (And Scarborough wonders why it was "rushed".)

2. Twice on ABC (in one hour) cut away from coverage to show the speech being broadcast on Arab television in Arabic. No mention of it being shown on British, Canadian, Mexican, French, German, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, etc etc TV, just the implied message "Kerry: The Terrorist's Choice."

3. Commentator on PBS coverage: David Brook(!).

4. First commentator cut to on CNN after Kerry's speech concluded: Ed Gillespie. First commentator on CNN after Edwards' speech: Ralph Reed

5. CNN leaving the mike open on Kerry's campaign manager after the speech "Where are the damn balloons?!"

6. MSNBC had Frank Luntz and a "focus group" of Republicans.

I can't be everywhere at once. What did anyone else notice about that dastardly liberal media?

Interesting note: I didn't watch it, but I heard the Fox News coverage was... restrained... by their standards.

Yeah, where are the damn balloons?

Drudge Report is showing his usual class and tastefulness.

Fuck you, CNN.

And if anyone thinks any major television production gets off without much cussing and panic amongst the stage hands and managers, they're living in Oz.

heh.. it is pretty amusing that ended up in the broadcast, though, Keith

Why did you think I put "C-SPAN" in the Democratic National Convention event on the SG homepage?

I didn't want to listen to those crazy spin doctors. You shouldn't have to, either.

I wanted to enjoy the convention unadulterated. That's the way it should be enjoyed.

If you don't have cable, though, you're outta luck.

I don't have it at home, or internet. I listened to the first two days on NPR, then watched the last two on PBS. Now I'm at work watching the CNN rerun and reading blogs (and blog comments).

[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 by Keith]

As long as we're being outraged here........
Should we have an intern staff that looks like America?



No justice, no peace. Keep hope alive. Help is on the way.

NPR and PBS would be the best way to go in your situation.

C-SPAN is on a loop as well, if you can get that there.

I'm sure that the administration will be just as diverse as the convention.

You can't judge an administration until it takes office--and, believe me, it will.

Bush is dead in the water.

Even NPR was interesting in their choices, because they had a guy from the Washington Post, and a guy from the Weekly Standard.

Why is it okay to have a guy from a moderate, mainstream paper, and a guy from a right-wing fringe rag, and think that's 'balanced'? Shouldn't they at least have a guy from like, The New Republic, or Air America, to balance out the guys from the Scaife and Murdoch and Mooney rags?

Imagine a see-saw. One guy is sitting in the middle, and the other guy is sitting on the end. Which way does it tilt?



[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by Keith]

The idea of a 'liberal media conspiracy' is its self a conservative conspiracy to discredit any news or information that doesn’t come direct from the Whitehouse.


it makes me very angry.

Yikes, this page puts THE LIB in liberal, but if you care to see streaming links to all the speeches, then cheeeeeeeeers……..

Just the facts, Maam'

The local news here in San Diego crawled through several points of interest in Kerry's speech, and then interviewed local Kerryites for their reactions. That optimistic, into-the-future-looking dem on the cover of USA Today. The Daily Show - lots of coverage. In other words I had no clue some thought the convention was being undercovered.

Dude, I can't excatly speak for Keith, but I do believe that there is some sarcasm intended in the thread title, as well as in the intial post.

Towards the end of Kerry's speech last night, Yahoo posted a headline along the lines of "Kerry Leaves Out Major Part of Biography," referring to the fact that he didn't talk about his protest of the Vietnam War after his service. That pissed me off to no end. Why choose THAT to make a headline?

(ed. for spelling error)

[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by MissTyrios]

That Stockula, always standing up for racial equality. Hey, way to cherry-pick the intern photos on Kerry's website.
Here are a couple others for ya:

I think they were talking about how he didn't go into much detail about his accomplishments in the senate. The fact that he prostested the war was mentioned by Max Cleland introducing him, in the biographical film (which actually mentioned and showed part of his "infamous" testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- y'know, the "How can you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" thing) and he mentioned it in his speech.

the liberal media...
the liberal media...
don't imagine a pink elephant while watching the news...

Yeah, I caught this, thanks.

I was commenting on the idea as a whole. Argued about it earlier that day. Fresh wounds and all. It didn’t occur to me that it might come across that I was criticizing the thread. Thanks.

...or the Republican National Committee?



Of course, the RNC does actually look like that, no lying necessary. And for my next trick I'll show you a picture of all of the Republicans in the CBC...

all politicians are full of shit. the media covering these shenannigans are also full of shit. i am nauseated by the way our country is run. no matter who is in office it wont change anything worthwile. FUCK THE VOTE!!!

the mature enlightened response. "it doesn't matter, it all sucks, so i won't partake." easy to shit on the process from a high height while the rest of us are down in it, isn't it?

and there is a liberal bias in the broadcast media. for examples see every liberal pundit or spin artist getting softball questions because they can't defend an issue without soundbites. unless its fox, where the same thing happens to conservative heads and pundits. its all bullshit more or less. my guess Keith would be that you're so left-leaning you can't detect any bias whatsoever. it is there, and it is there on both sides of the aisle. don't pretend that because its a bias you agree with its not there, or that because its a bias you disagree with its so wrong. everyones biast and everything is propaganda, its just an issue of how blatant and overt as opposed to subtle.

I was bouncing between Fox and CNN for alot of the DNC. Fox wasn't too bad, but Sean Hannity was his normal feisty self. All of them loved Obama speach, as did I.

I caught the segment on CNN where larry King, Giddeon Yeago, John Cuesack (spelling?), and some dude wearing a bow tie were discussing the effectiveness of Kerry's speach.

They both seemed pretty fair to me. They mostly focused on the stratigic impact of the speaches rather then the content....

A slight variation of the subject:
Hannity and Colmes pisses me fucking off. I always get the two confused, cuz it pisses me off when I turn it on so I shit myself and then I cant watch anymore cuz the couch might get dirty, but the liberal one (Colmes?) is a fucking idiot. I'm all for a show pitting an intellegent conservative vs. an intellegent liberal, but they didnt do that. At all. They pit an intellegent conservative vs. a kinda slow, stuttering idiot who just plain looks stupid. "CRAAAAAAAZY" curly hair, lame glasses, A FUCKING BOW TIE, and some nervous twitch. Of course they put that on the same screen as a good looking, calm, well dressed, well groomed opponent. Point being, smart LOOKING (cuz lets face it, unfortunately, your message depends heavely on how you present yourself) conservative vs. A fucking CLOWN of a liberal. Its ridiculous.

Anyway, on point, nobody can say anything about media coverage until we see how they cover the republican convention. So I guess now the masses sit, urgent to no fucking end.