I know why you supposedly voted for him. But if it wasn't for his conservative platform, you're not really in a position to assess his adherence to it. Bush is not as conservative as I would like, but he's doing a pretty good job considering the circumstances.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
How the media spreads and continues lies
"Bush led the list, compiled by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, for authorizing the National Security Agency to tap the phones of U.S. citizens who make calls overseas. The wiretaps were conducted without authorization from a federal court. The White House defended the warrantless wiretapping program as necessary to fight terrorism."
Please note that they left out the part about a terrorist connection is need to prompt the surveillance. Minor detail
Discussion is locked
31 - 60 of 63 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
which "fact" is left out?
The media made 2 points which I asked about. Both different sides of the arguement.
There's only 2 sides isn't there?
How many sides of the argument do you think the media should voice?
The admistration leaves certain facts/arguments out when they give press conferences, the media leaves certain facts/arguments out, the presenters of awards leave certain facts/arguments out.
- Collapse -
There's now good evidence that the Feds are using AI to scan ALL e-mails to and from certain countries, looking for suspicious "patterns." That's not targeted, and it's not based on probable cause, which is why they insist they have the right to avoid requesting warrants they know they'd never get: NSA spying broader than initially reported.
>> In what has been described as a large data-mining operation, NSA analysts have allegedly gathered large amount of routing information from network data and e-mail messages in search of patterns that may aid terrorism investigations, the New York Times reported.
In addition to questions regarding the privacy of U.S. citizens, details of the program also raise issues about whether the U.S government has the right to tap data that merely passes through the country. Media reports from earlier this year suggested that the NSA was being positioned to be the nation's traffic cop. <<
And now they want to extend it to within the US, again w/o warrants:
Gonzales: Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S.
(Washington Post login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)
>> Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States -- a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program. <<
First Amendment? Fourth Amendment? What are those?
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
... the current activity does NOT constitute "domestic wire tapping" as the media has been portraying it.
- Collapse -
how your topic is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent to government surveillance of citizens' communications.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
regarding the media, your post is just another example of such, and, therefore, you are correct in that your post has something to do with the topic.
You choose to post most often with links to the media sources that follow your line of reasoning.
Rob, and Evie, and DM, and EdH, and ......., chose to post most often with links to the media sources that follow their line of reasoning.
Isn't it amazing and interesting that when someone here posts a topic stemming from a media source they chose, that almost immediately someone else will post a response from another media source that refutes/conflicts with the original? It is to me. Not the idea that there will be two (at least) sides presented as fact, but that each "side" will believe their "facts" are the only truth.
As far as I'm concerned, DM's original subject title is the interest here in this thread. Why should I, or anyone else, believe one source over the other? Is one being ethical and the other not? If all the media sources were only printing/reporting the truth, wouldn't they all say the same thing?
The person(s) behind the media source decide what to print/report as ''truth''. No different than the reader/listener deciding which one to believe or not.
So, IOW, your source really isn't any more believable than any one else's in regard to a particular topic. It often just depends on what feels right for you.
.
- Collapse -
his has NOTHING to do with my post about the media spreading lies which this news story conclusively proves
- Collapse -
I was commenting on what he said in his message, not just his topic. The main difference is that the sources I generally quote, outside of their opinion pages and articles clearly labeled "analysis," try to be objective in presenting facts. Obviously they don't always succeed, but the standard is to seek objectivity. Places quote by the other side (National Review, Town Hall) make no effort to hide their agenda and bias; the ther favorite right-wing source, Faux News, claims to be "fair and balanced," yet is anything but! Occasionally (when the facts are so clear that even right-wing sources must admit them) I'll cite one of "their" sources to those here who are even further out of touch with reality than the sources they usually cite.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
You know, while reading your post, I had to smile (and believe me when I tell you I know you are being serious), because all that was left for you to do was say:
NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!
MY SOURCES ARE BETTER THAN YOUR (their) SOURCES!!
Also believe me when I tell you that for those of us (me, actually) that remains for the most part on the outside of such discussions, that is how it seems.
Take care, DK
--Marcia
P.S. My tree has little tiny buds on it. Won't be long before it "comes alive." I smile just thinking about it. 
.
- Collapse -
But no more and IMO less than CBS (one example) is left biased.
Sorry Dave, there is almost nothing I'd called unbiased reporting anymore. If you don't keep up with a bit of both of it, you'll only seeing one spin.
And if you watch or read 'the other side' only for examples you can lament as how wrong they are, you're still only getting one version of the story, and it ain't the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Roger
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
That Fox gives you the facts first, then editorializes AND they always at least give the other side a shot at giving the opposing point of view, which the major networks rarely do or only do in narrow doses on specific shows that most people don't watch.
- Collapse -
... when Tony Snow hosted Fox News Sunday. But he was pretty even handed and gave tough interviews to those supposedly favored by his bias. Their roundtable discussion always has two on each side of the aisle. The same cannot be said for MTP (and Russert has gotten progressively worse, IMO) and surely Stephanopolous over at ABC is far more biased to the right than Snow ever could be. Chris Wallace is pretty down the middle.
Evie
- Collapse -
Is the news beginning at 5:00 pm. Usually one of two people do the news -- Brit Hume, and some other guy whose name I can't immeditately remember. Then at about 5:45 or 5:50? He poses a number of questions, covering two topics to three people who give thoughtful (instead of thoughtless), sometimes insightful (instead of 'inciteful') answers.
If you go to a show like Hardball, I get the feeling he is throwing softballs to the left. I have the idea he is left leaning and doesn't read much beyond the headlines. He doesn't seem to remember what people say from one day to the next, because he asks the same questions.
- Collapse -
... but occasionally catch Mathews' Sunday show. I think his liberalism was masked somewhat in the 90's by his personal distaste for the Clinton's, but sometimes I think he's lost touch with even the appearance of objectivity. He seems more of a hyperventilating Moveon member than anything else. Laura Ingraham plays a lot of clips from Hardball -- granted a slanted selection, but there seem to be so many of them that Matthews seems to have "lost it".
Evie
- Collapse -
Is on the same wavelength, so people waying Fox is right-wing are making a generalization not applicable to all individuals on it.
- Collapse -
that Dave doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to Fox News (among many other things). Ironic that he can then claim THEY are biased.
- Collapse -
I remember when I first went to college (back in the dark ages 
); I was attracted to the idea of journalism as a major. I enjoyed writing, and thought this could be an interesting field to pursue. I became disheartened after only a couple of courses when I learned that "ethics" was based pretty much on the editor/publisher of any given media source, and that "ethics" per se was basically a "suggestion" rather than a rule.
Read the information from the Society of Professional Journalists, and notice the wording (e.g., "voluntarily")
http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.
More interesting information on Ethics in Journalism:
http://www.usinfo.pl/aboutusa/media/ethics.htm
The investigative journalism and the "watchdog" role developed by the American press in the 1960s and early 1970s gave way to increased attention to "journalism ethics."
One of the most important issues for American journalists, however, remains the conflict between two deeply held beliefs: the right to know and the right to privacy and fair treatment. It is not a conflict that can be resolved with a single formula, but only on a case-by-case basis. Although the First Amendment protects the press from government interference, the press does not have complete freedom. There are laws against libel and invasion of privacy, as well as limits on what reporters may do in order to get a story. Television news journalists operate under an additional restriction called the Fairness Doctrine. Under this rule, when a station presents one viewpoint on a controversial issue, the public interest requires the station to give representatives of opposing viewpoints a chance to broadcast a reply. The U.S. court system, state and federal legislatures, regulatory bodies, the public and the media will all continue to have a hand in shaping how such legal and ethical issues are handled.
- Collapse -
and the shift from a ''noble profession'' to just another way to become famous while making a living has dragged any professionalism in Journalism into the dirt.
And other areas that once were honored professions seem to have become more about hallowed bank accounts.
Now politics seem to always have been dispicable, in any history you read.
Roger
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
It seems thats the meat of the news, sometimes. I like to hear more about what's going on besides that narrow focus.
- Collapse -
After all, back in the olden days, they just had drums and smoke signals. They have puters and the Internet, now...
- Collapse -
is needed to prompt the surveillance. Minor detail
Would it a normal practice to present an award, and, (as a presenter) give a reason why the award should not be presented?
- Collapse -
Here's the POINT. If the media would be telling the truth, the award wouldn't be presented. Duh.
- Collapse -
And you know the presenters used the media (version of the truth) to determine the recipient of the award?
If the media would be telling the truth,
Which of these statements are true, and which are untrue?
The wiretaps were conducted without authorization from a federal court.
The White House defended the warrantless wiretapping program as necessary to fight terrorism.''
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
What facts are they leaving out?
- Collapse -
I'm not cliaiming they left any facts out.
duckman is one complaining facts are being left out, and I was asking him which facts he thinks the media should add to their article.
- Collapse -
You are complaining about the media not mentioning the terrorist connection in the news, This is the article you sited, there is reference to the terrorist connection.
RICHMOND, Va. -
President Bush and the Justice Department are among the winners of the 2006 Jefferson Muzzle awards, given by a free-speech group to those it considers the most egregious First Amendment violators in the past year.
"Bush led the list, compiled by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, for authorizing the National Security Agency to tap the phones of U.S. citizens who make calls overseas. The wiretaps were conducted without authorization from a federal court. The White House defended the warrantless wiretapping program as necessary to fight terrorism."
Isn't his mentioning THE TERRORIST CONNECTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
What are you complaining about?
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic