Oh my, you mean it is possible for a news organization to have an agenda????

The only difference between Murdoch, and the NYTimes, WaPo, NBC, ABC, CBS, et. al., is that Murdoch has the decency and honesty to admit what everyone already knows.

I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

You get more fanatical by the minute, N.

I find FOX often too liberal…

Compared to what? Your well-tumbed copy of The Turner Diaries?

CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC , the NYT and 99% of the other MSM are no more than Propaganda Ministries…

So let me get this straight—you’re telling me that Time-Warner (CNN), General Electric (NBC, MSNBC), Viacom (CBS), and Disney (ABC) are secretly Socialist cabals.

Dig this, N: multi-billion dollar media conglomerates are not socialist. Multi-billion dollar media conglomerates are capitalist.

I read BIAS, or rather about 2/3s of it before I just got disgusted. -Don Myers

…and that was just the title!

The man [Bernard Goldberg] is, quite simply, a hack with a grudge.

Funny how nobody thought that until after he wrote his expose on CBS!

If the data was false or forged, do you think maybe Billy Jeff gutting the Intelligence services of the United States played any role in that little matter? Further, despite your attempts at revisionist history on this point, and no I am not being sarcastic, as far as Bush knew the intelligence data was new, including might I add British Intelligence and that of virtually every other intelligence service in the world. Add the fact Saddam had opposed every U.N. Resolution against him and made the inspections very difficult, he gave every appearance of having something to hide. He knew we would invade and yet coming clean would have stopped us in our tracks, so he appeared to be hindering inspections and hiding the WMD’s we absolutely knew he had at one time – remember he used them more than once.

In hindsight we can all look very smart, but Bush had to make a decision then, he was supported by Tony Blair and several other world leaders and might I add most Democrat and Republicans in Congress in his assessment of the intelligence data; intelligence data most of them had access to and he needed to strike then or not at all. Had Saddam had those WMD’s and used them against any United States interest after all the intelligence data said he did have them, he would have and should have been impeached for failing to protect and defend the United States and all our interests, including our Embassies, Israel and our oil supply.

Everything else you said was not based on objective, documentary evidence of wrong doing or ill motives on Bush’s part, but your hatred of him and the Republican Party.

Saddam and the Ba’athist regime gave substantial support to any terror group that asked for it. So says Interpol and the UN. Go chatter at them, the debate is over, the war goes on.

Chris: You offered a well thought out, rational response in a civil manner, but we will continue to disagree because we view the world from diametrically opposing world views.

“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.” Former President Clinton During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” July 22, 2003

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.” President Clinton Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

“It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.” Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq March 17, 2003

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members… It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a “final reckoning” with Iraq, describing the country as a “virulent threat in a class by itself” and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein. The New York Times Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a ‘Final Reckoning’ With Iraq February 13, 2002

“His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”
President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998

I could offer a mountain of such quotations, but my point is that even those now opposing President Bush agreed with him about the level of the threat posed by Saddam, they agreed he needed to be removed from power and that their information came directly from available intelligence data, they were not deceived by Bush. In hindsight, being the opposition party it is a sad political strategy to attack the President and even undermine our efforts in Iraq; but the President made a reasonable decisions based on the available data, a position not opposed by these and others above. The balance of your statements are your wholly subjective opinions, made long after the the critical time when a decision had to be made and there is no evidence whatsover that it was not an honest, honorable decision made in the best interest of America and the world.

Sometimes we need to stop all the hand wringing, get on our horse and go shoot the bad guys, so God Bless John Wayne!

Chris: I fear it is impossible to reason with you, though I find you always civil and striving very hard to prove your views.

1. If Billy Jeff had not dealt with Saddam and other terrorists like a law enforcement problem to be treated with negotiations and appeasement, perhaps 9/11 would never have happened at all. No one knows for sure, but with terrorists, especially these Islamic fanatics the only thing they understand is overwhelming brute force. That is something the Left refuses to acknowledge, they believe a little appeasement goes a long way, while our enemies take what we give them, start killing again, take the next gifts and on and on.

2. It was clear Bush took us into Iraq to deal with a real and present danger to our national security, that was the primary and urgent reason for going in; but he and other so-called NeoCons, which is a pejorative (I could call most on the Left today NeoComs) saw a greater vision that held the promise of a way to change the Middle East forever for the good of the people there yearning to breathe free.

Once Ted “I kill my dates” Kennedy, I believe he was quoting Robert Frost, said of his assassinated brother Robert: “Some people see things as they are and ask why, others dream of things that never were and say why not.” The Democrats looked at the Middle East, especially Israel and the Palestinians and asked why shouldn’t we force Israel to give in to the Palestinians so we can have peace at any cost. Bush saw Iraq as a chance to help create a stable democracy in the Middle East that might give hope to others in that area of the world to have a voice in their own affairs and he said, ‘why not, since we must go in there anyway in defense of our national security and the world, why not use this opportunity to spread liberty in a region of the world that has never known it?’

If this current surge works and we leave Iraq a stable and democratic state, even liberals will have to admit that Bush was a man of vision and courage in the face of terrorism and the other enemy the Democrat Party; and he accomplished a great thing because he dared to dream. Yes, if he fails he’ll be condemned for dreaming and trying such a grand move; but that is what courage is all about – it is being willing to try something great and fail in the attempt. Better that than the cowards (Democrats) that will risk nothing to change their world, no risks and no pain and no great deeds.

Remember, I am not saying Bush started out to help establish a Democracy there, before his election he said he was opposed to nation building; but when faced with an urgent and dangerous task, he was willing and courageous enough to make a bold move. Yes, we all think he made some serious strategic mistakes, mostly in my view by not dealing harshly enough and treat this like real war versus a politically correct military exercise. But, I still respect the fact he was willing to risk so much to reach a greater goal than anyone imagined before, versus Billy Jeff’s timid and feckless foreign policy.

I compare all the above to Reagan who dreamed of ending the Cold War, stood agsinst the American hating Democrat Party and MSM, and ended the Cold War. The jury is still out on this effort by Bush, but in my book, mistakes and all I admire a man of courage and vision more than people like the Crown Prince of Appeasment, that anti-Semite Jimmy Carter or that Whore Monger, rapist-in-chief and thief Billy Jeff.

Oh, one last note about Saddam and Al Queda, remember among the people of this region of the world, ‘an enemy of their enemy if their friend,’ even if they usually hate them. Saddam was no friend of Al Queda but they were enemies of America and that made them uneasy allies.

chrisie was lied to, chrisie was lied to, not gonna stop the war, not gonna stop the war, nana nana na na.

That ought to make it’s head pop!

We certainly didn’t invade because of any new information regarding Saddam’s intentions or capabilities. Most evidence against him was already 15 years old by 2003. Most “new” evidence was false or forged. We also didn’t invade because he posed an immediate threat to the US (or at least any more of a threat than the last 2 decades). You may try to prove the contrary, but you would be using information that was old even in 2003.

Even though Clinton and even Bush Sr said that Saddam was a threat, they didn’t invade. Bush Sr had actually warned against invading in order to avoid bogging the country down in civil war and endless confrontation, and there’s documentation of him saying so. Clinton was tempted to invade, and the neocons had pushed him for such actions, but in the end he didn’t do it, partly because of strict opposition from both the dems and repubs, and plus he probably thought about the consequences.

It was the idealism of establishing democracy that drove this war, not the evidence of any immediate threat.

One point aside is that, the one thing we knew about Saddam was that he was a secular socialist that didn’t tolerate religious extremism. He was probably the last strongman in the Middle East that would stand up against the very global jihad that we’re at war with. It’s ironic that we got rid of him, don’t you think?

Murdoch has always been open about his support for the GoT, and about attempting to influence US policy. What is new here?

I think that the us government invaded afghanistan for murdoch because of the teleban. with the rubbish that comes from this scumbags media is it any wonder people are going to other sources. it is probably directed at 12yr olds who will swallow it without thinking.

Don,

I think the problem is the mistaken assumption that corporate owners exercise any sort of serious editorial control in a media conglomerate… Mr. Murdock not withstanding.

Any capable executive would treat each media property, and in the case of the broadcast networks, each show, as a profit center. But from all I can recall reading, network news programs are pretty much a loss leader anyway.

N:

All you have is bile and insults. Imagine my surprise!

Their News Divisions are operated and ruled by damnable Democrats/Socialists…

So you’re saying the the owners of multi-billion dollar media conglomerates are incapable of shaping the content of their own networks? Is that what you’re saying?

Do you even know what you’re saying?

Ken:

In all seriousness, here’s what I’m trying to say: BIAS is a rotten book. It is poorly written, spurious in its arguments, faulty in its conclusions, and a powerful bore. No reputable publisher would touch it, so he went to Mr. Regnery, a white power nutcase who will publish anything that says liberals are poopyheads.

Am I being clear enough?

Are you sure, proof?

Yep! Saw him on the news many times…back when I watched network news.

Are you sure, proof? I thought he worked there in an off-air job, but I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, the idea that Viacom—whose CEO Mr. Redstone is a major Bush contributor—is some kind of socialist cabal is just ludicrious on its face!

Um, let me get this straight –

The heir to the Regnery publishing empire is supposedly a racist . . . therefore Bernard Goldberg’s assertion that there is bias in media is impossible to believe?

Does that make sense to anyone other than Don Myers?

Bernard Goldberg tells how they think in his books about bias and arrogance in the media–they just don’t know any better.

I read BIAS, or rather about 2/3s of it before I just got disgusted. The man is a terrible writer—whiny, repeative, and flat. No wonder he got fired by CBS. The man is, quite simply, a hack with a grudge. Nothing more.

380 pages of “boo hoo hoo, Dan Rather was mean to me.” What kind of idiot wades through this shit and takes it seriously?

The only publisher that would touch it is Regeny, an incredibly biased publisher with ties to the White Power community.

Chris: You are expressing a wholly subjective liberal opinion for which you cannot provide any objective, documentary proof in its support. I am not going to rehash all this crap; but your demi-god Billy Jeff said Saddam was a threat before and after 9/11, that he had WMD’s, that he would use them and that he needed to be taken out; so did Madame Hillary, Kerry, Biden and on an on. Bush did not rely solely on CIA reports, he also had virtually the entire world’s intelligence services and most chiefs of state saying exactly the same thing about Saddam having WMD’s, that he was seeking nuclear technology for weapons systems, he was a deranged mad man having proved on multiple occasions that he was a threat to the region; and, remember comrade he invaded Kuwaiit and used chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians. A threat to Israel and the region as a major source of our oil and gas made Saddam a direct threat to our national security, a real and present danger to our economic engine and losing that energy supply we would face another and worse depression.

To that other liberal moron: It is without any question that the news anchors have great power in selecting stories and deciding what information gets on their broadcats. Cronkite was and is now an extreme Left wing liberal, as was Rather. Jennings was loyal to Canada not the United States and he shared their socialist, anti-Christ views and on the news and specials he made those views clear. Katie Couric 45 minutes after 9/11 accused Bush of causing the attack because of his Israel and Palestinian policies, causing the Arab world to hate us. I could go on and on and demonstrate how virtually every mainstream broadcast network, including PBS have demonstrated their extreme Left wing leanings and hatred of everyone and everything not supporting their socialist agenda. Only a damn fool could assert otherwise. I certainly could spend days demonstrating how most of our news publications, dailies and peridodicals are dominated by an extreme Left wing ideology.

Of course neither of you can see the truth because you share those extreme Left wing beliefs and are thus unable to discern between the truth and lies of the Left.

So Murdoch and FOX are in good company. Is that the question here?

Bias in the media? Of course. The liberal/left wing people have no clue that they are out there–they eat/sleep/talk only to their kind–they think everyone is like them except for a few righties. Bernard Goldberg tells how they think in his books about bias and arrogance in the media–they just don’t know any better.

OOPS! My bad!

That last sentence should have read:

The only publisher that would touch it is Regnery, an incredibly biased publisher with ties to the White Power community.