Monday, September 26, 2005
That's what a lot of people were asking when W kicked John Kerry's ass last year. Well, a new documentary coming out will try to explain just that. I want to see this. Me thinks Mr. Wade doth protest too much. He's trying to just blow this off, but you know there's a little fear there. Here's a little tidbit I think you may like. Anonymous sources tell me that in the documentary, the Kerry camp lays some of the blame on The New York Times because of a picture they used of him. That's priceless, the most blatantly Liberal biased paper trying to thwart Kerry's bid for the White House. Put down the cheba boys, it's messing with your heads.
We Have Every Right To Dream Heroic Dreams.
Those Who Say That We're In A Time When There Are No Heroes, They Just Don't Know Where To Look.


Anonymous said...

Yeah... the media had such a liberal bias on the candidates.

The NY Times pulled the plug on the "Bush was using a wire in the debates" story because it (quote) "might affect the outcome of the election".

Honestly, this "liberal media" stuff is crap. It's only a "liberal media" because conservatives have been saying it is for the past 4 elections.

Here's a quote from a Washington Times reporter (John Harris) before 9/11 as to why Bush's life was "more pleasant than Clinton's ever was, even at the start of his presidency." He says "one big reason for Bush's easy ride: There is no well-coordinated corps of aggrieved and methodical people who start each day looking for ways to expose and undermine a new president." He goes on to say "There was just such a gang ready for Clinton in 1993. Conservative interest groups, commentators and congressional investigators waged a remorseless campaign that they hoped would make life miserable for Clinton and vault themselves to power. They succeeded in many ways. One of the most important was their ability to take all manner of presidential miscues, misjudgements or controversial decisions and exploit them for maximum effect. Stroeis like the travel office firings flamed for weeks instead of receding into yesterday's news. And they coloured the prism through which many Americans, not just conservative ideologues, viewed Clinton. It is Bush's good fortune that the liberal equivalent of this conservative coterie does not exist."

Stop and think for a moment. How many controversies, that really weren't much, were harped upon for weeks and weeks with Clinton? Now with Bush, the only stories that last are either things where thousands of Americans die (and even then, if it's not it doesn't happen in a single event it barely gets touched on), or the military breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

Liberal media my arse.

Anonymous said...

Shoulda proof-read that better:
Stroeis = Stories

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should check out the media research institutes data, Za.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should actually read what the papers actually say in their entirety instead of listening to what politicians say about them and reading specially highlighted opinion pieces.

I'm currently going through a book entitled "What Liberal Media?" which you should read. Author is Eric Alterman. It might make you realise the stupidity of attributing ANY sort of political bias on the media. The "anti-the-current-administration" side will ALWAYS seem more prevalent.