Thank goodness for blogger fact checking...

Mainstream media is going to have to get cleaned up..

Published on December 27, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

If we learned anything last year with regards to the media and bloggers, it is that the days of ideologically driven "mainstream" reporting are numbered. When CBS tried to smear Bush with blatantly phoney National guard documents it blew up back in CBS's face as Internet users posted on-line how the documents were obviously forged.

Conservatives have had to grin and bear it for years as the mainstream media, led by the New York Times and followed by the network news stations, had a virtual monopoly on news distribution. NBC anchors could casually say "If we could get the NRA out of the way we could have a decent civilized discussion on the 2nd amendment" as if this were an established fact.

Books like Biased have warned for years that there was a serious slanting in the news - something most conservatives were painfully aware of. Unfortunately there was nothing they could do about it. If ABC's Nightline wants to run a full show smearing Pat Buchanan as being anti-semetic without any real evidence, what could he really do? What could anyone do?

And conservative statistic freaks could notice that stories on homelessness and the AIDS epidemic seem to greatly increase when Republicans are in office but die down if a Democrat is in office (apparently AIDS and homelessness went away during the Clinton administration but boom, now it's back with a vengeance and it's undoubtedly the fault of the "smirking chimp").

I am sure the folks in news rooms across America wish for the days when the only opposition to their ideological positions came from a fat man on AM radio. Now they not only have to deal with AM radio (gasp) but also cable news such as FOX and now the Internet.

Funny thing about the blog sites, the most popular blog sites are conservative. Not even a close call. There are a limited number of viable theories for that and none of them favorable towards liberals (a: Conservatives are more interested in discussing real world issues on-line or b: Conservatives don't find enough conservative info through traditional outlets are the two Occam's razor answers).

And so as we head towards 2005, I am very thankful that, at time goes on, the mainstream media won't be able to pass on poorly researched ideological bombs as facts and history as they did in the past. What happened with CBS this Fall wasn't unique, it was just that critical moment when the Internet had reached critical mass to be able to get the truth distributed out to counter the lies.

Comments (Page 5)

COL Gene

on Dec 31, 2004

whoman69

Bush had failed to provide policies that have resolved any of the major issues- security, economic, budget, trade, energy, health car, Social Security etc. Everything he has done has made the situation worse or has provided help to groups that did not need help.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 31, 2004

Col Gene, I took the liberty of reading some of your own blog earlier today. I wonder, how would you react if I was an NCO in your command and you found me speaking to the troops the same way you speak of your Commander In Chief??? I wonder if you would accept it as my freedom of expression.... just curious.

Daiwa

on Dec 31, 2004

There are some people for whom the glass is perpetually half empty. There is no point in debating you, Gene.

Cheers & Happy New Year.

Daiwa

COL Gene

on Jan 01, 2005

Parated2K

In answer to your question. Yes I would accept your talking about the President in a factual way. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you go into the military. I would however, require you to obay all lawful orders and regulations and would not accept you trying to get other members of the military to not follow the lawful orders they receive. The issue with Bush is basic. He did not obay the lawful orders and regulations he was to follow. If the military today did the very same things that Lt. Bush did, we would not have an effective military. In fact if the officers and NCO's refused to obey their orders, Bush and Rummy would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Daiwa

I believe the glass is half full. When policies are not moving from 1/2 to a full glass, it is time to change our policies. For example, Bush said he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2008. That is the wrong objective. We must eliminate the deficit and generate a surplus to repay the debt that we have built up and which will require large increases in interest that will take the money we need for other important needs i.e Social Security, education, Natiional Defense etc. The Bush soultion is rather than die fron cancer in 6 months he wants to give us a year. We need to cure the cancer and resore our strength i.e move to a full glass. If we used the tax cuts for the top 2% to help the low and middle income taxpayer we would stimulate demand to a far greater extent than the granting tax cuts to the wealthy and borrow the money to pay them tax cuts. CBO estimated $270 Billion of the 2004 deficit was because of the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush suppotrters confuse a "Strong Lerader" with a "Good Leader" A strong leader taking the country in the wrong direction is a BAD thing. Saddam was a strong leader- Was he good for Iraq? I agree with President Bush when he said we should judge by results. When you look at the deficit, trade, jobs, the Iraq War, energy policy, solutions for Social Security and Medicare over the past four years, the results are not good. Thus to move us forward we need more effective solutuins not to "Stay the Course" that has not been producing the desired results!

drmiler

on Jan 01, 2005

Reply #64 By: COL Gene - 1/1/2005 11:36:41 AM believe the glass is half full. When policies are not moving from 1/2 to a full glass, it is time to change our policies. For example, Bush said he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2008. That is the wrong objective. We must eliminate the deficit and generate a surplus to repay the debt that we have built up and which will require large increases in interest that will take the money we need for other important needs i.e Social Security, education, Natiional Defense etc

And you believe that all this could be acomplished in 4 years? Gee I want some of what your smoking.

COL Gene

on Jan 01, 2005

drmiller

Well Bush went from a $125 Billion dollar surplus in 2000 to a $420 Billion deficit in 2004. That is a shift of $545 billion in four years. In addition if you objective is only to cut the deficit in half ($210 Billion reduction) there is no way to solve the fiscal problem we have created. If Bush makes the tax cuts perminant and pays for his conversion of Social Security with more debt, how is he to cut the annual deficit in half? It is the biggest load of BS EVER! We have also not counted the added cost for the prescription drug card which begins in 2006. That is over $50 Billion more each year. Add the money not included in ther defense budget for Iraq and the increased maintenance cost on our military equipment because of the Iraq War and the prospect of reducing the current defficit is a Bush dream.

drmiler

on Jan 01, 2005

Reply #66 By: COL Gene - 1/1/2005 6:21:09 PM
drmiller

Well Bush went from a $125 Billion dollar surplus in 2000 to a $420 Billion deficit in 2004. That is a shift of $545 billion in four years. In addition if you objective is only to cut the deficit in half ($210 Billion reduction) there is no way to solve the fiscal problem we have created. If Bush makes the tax cuts perminant and pays for his conversion of Social Security with more debt, how is he to cut the annual deficit in half? It is the biggest load of BS EVER! We have also not counted the added cost for the prescription drug card which begins in 2006. That is over $50 Billion more each year. Add the money not included in ther defense budget for Iraq and the increased maintenance cost on our military equipment because of the Iraq War and the prospect of reducing the current defficit is a Bush dream.

Excuse me, I recall *you* specifically talking about 7 *trillion* dollars not 545 million deficit. And unless he's god (not happening) or finds a ton of gold that no one knew about (also not happening) then the junk your talking ain't happening either. In that case cuttting it in half would be considered in most books to be a good start. And if you don't recall talking about 7 trillion dollar deficit, go back back and look at your earlier posts.

Rightwinger

on Jan 01, 2005

Who gives a shit, people? That was over 30 years ago.....he's president now, fairly (and legally, I might add) elected. Get over it. If you want to bitch about something, make it something current, for God's sake. Something that can maybe be changed. Unless you've got a DeLorean with a Flux Capacitor, you're not going to change Bush's Guard status.

Alex Gottschalk

on Jan 01, 2005

million

No billion; that's a huge difference.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 02, 2005

In answer to your question. Yes I would accept your talking about the President in a factual way. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you go into the military.

COL Gene I guess in editing my question, I didn't make it clear. What I meant was, how would you react to me (if I were an NCO in your command) speaking about you to the troops, the way you speak of Prs. Bush.

My point is not to question you constitutional rights, of course, we both know we didn't give up those when we enlisted or accepted a commission. But I do wonder how you would accept someone in your command speaking of you the same way you speak of your Commander In Chief. In reading your blog I see much more than mere political differences between you and Prs. Bush, I see pure, unadulterated hatred.

I guess the question that would be more to the point would be, if you read a blog from someone in your command, that spoke of you with the same hatred with which you have for Prs. Bush, what would be the chances of them getting you support for promotion? Again, just curious.

whoman69

on Jan 02, 2005

The annual debt and the total debt are two different animals. We must start seeing black or we will see increasing amounts of money we pay out to pay off the interest on the debt. Bush and Reagan figured out that deficit spending helps the economy, but Bush Sr found out it only helps up to a point. The interest became so unmanagable in his administration that it worked the other way.

drmiler

on Jan 03, 2005

Reply #71 By: whoman69 - 1/2/2005 10:55:46 AM
Excuse me, I recall *you* specifically talking about 7 *trillion* dollars not 545 million deficit. And unless he's god (not happening) or finds a ton of gold that no one knew about (also not happening) then the junk your talking ain't happening either. In that case cuttting it in half would be considered in most books to be a good start. And if you don't recall talking about 7 trillion dollar deficit, go back back and look at your earlier posts.

The annual debt and the total debt are two different animals.

You are right. But that's NOT what he quoted to me before the election.

drmiler

on Jan 03, 2005

Reply #69 By: Alex Gottschalk - 1/1/2005 10:01:24 PM
million

No billion; that's a huge difference.

Your right my mistype.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!