Mass Media's pathological hatred of Bush

[GarfieldJL]

Okay, there was an article that New York Times took another shot at Bush.

 

New York Times Blames Housing Financial Crisis on Bush

 

They are referring to this article.

 

Newsbusters used among other sources:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

 

And:

 

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

 

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. [...]

 

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

 

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

-- New York Times, September 11, 2003

 

That is just one of several New York Times articles that contradict the new hit piece made by the New York Times.

 

Looks to me that this is latest attack by the New York Times is nothing more than a typical left-wing media smear job.

[jrrtoken]

Your point? All that I'm hearing is more liberal name-calling.

[jonathan7]

<snipped for brevity>

 

Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

[Litofsky]

Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

 

QFT.

 

Even if the Media has some liberal bias, if we compare the current state of America (under Bush) and the beginning of his term, America's in a pretty bad state. We're in two wars and a recession, as compared to the budget surplus that Clinton left us with.

[GarfieldJL]

Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

 

jonathan7, if you were alive during 1861-1865 you would say the same thing about Abraham Lincoln. I took a course concerning Constitutional History and my liberal professor pointed out the similarities. And Lincoln restricted rights more than President Bush.

 

Furthermore, these last few years we've seen journalism literally die in America. I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about blatent dishonesty on the part of the media. I'm not accusing them of bias, I'm accusing them of journalistic fraud.

[jonathan7]

jonathan7, if you were alive during 1861-1865 you would say the same thing about Abraham Lincoln. I took a course concerning Constitutional History and my liberal professor pointed out the similarities. And Lincoln restricted rights more than President Bush.

 

Lincoln, I trust as he has a brain and integrity - I know bush doesn't have much of the former, and I don't know enough about the man to comment on the latter. Further more I'd argue that Lincoln's war was a just war, where as I don't think you can call Iraq that (though Afghanistan is).

 

Furthermore, these last few years we've seen journalism literally die in America. I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about blatent dishonesty on the part of the media. I'm not accusing them of bias, I'm accusing them of journalistic fraud.

 

Well that's true, look at the build up to the Iraq war, I can't remember any descenting news reporting from the American media.

[jrrtoken]

jonathan7, if you were alive during 1861-1865 you would say the same thing about Abraham Lincoln. I took a course concerning Constitutional History and my liberal professor pointed out the similarities. And Lincoln restricted rights more than President Bush.

lol, you're trying to compare Lincoln to Bush? They're complete opposites. Besides, that was the Civil War, where the conflicts took place on US soil. anyways, I'm still loling.

Furthermore, these last few years we've seen journalism literally die in America. I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about blatent dishonesty on the part of the media. I'm not accusing them of bias, I'm accusing them of journalistic fraud.

Welcome to America, journalism has been like that for decades. Ever heard of Pulitzer and Hearst?

[Adavardes]

Common sense =/= pathological.

 

Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

 

Agreed, totally and completely. The man sank us into a war we really had no business starting, putting us trillions of dollars in debt, based on intelligence about WMDs that never existed. Period.

 

Not only that, but what has he been doing to stem the tide of this financial crisis? ****ting around and going to parties, football games, and unveiling a picture of himself. Please, if you do one thing, Garfield, do not try to convince me that Bush was worth those 8 years. Because he was horrible. Bar none.

[GarfieldJL]

Lincoln, I trust as he has a brain and integrity - I know bush doesn't have much of the former, and I don't know enough about the man to comment on the latter. Further more I'd argue that Lincoln's war was a just war, where as I don't think you can call Iraq that (though Afghanistan is).

 

We can argue about Iraq till we're blue in the face, fact is the Iraq War was due to bad intelligence (and I would be willing to blame Cheney and Rumsfeld too). Pulling out of Iraq irresponsibly though only makes the situation worse.

 

Lincoln had a more stringent version of the patriot act, where he suspended habeous corpus.

[ForeverNight]

Lincoln had a more stringent version of the patriot act, where he suspended habeous corpus.[/Quote]

 

Source

 

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.[/Quote]

 

Read it. READ IT!!!!!

 

Habeas Corpus can be suspended when Invasion, Rebellion or Public Safety may require it.

 

It is NOT a right.

 

I don't care if you yell 'till you're blue in the face, it isn't a right, it's a privilege, and The Public Safety has been deemed in danger enough to warrant suspension.

 

So stop beating that war drum, I'm sick and tired of this always being brought up when it isn't an issue.

 

Note: This goes to both sides of the debate

[Jae Onasi]

Posts on Ayers were moved to the Ayers thread.. Please keep the Ayers love contained in that thread. Thanks.

[GarfieldJL]

Posts on Ayers were moved to the Ayers thread.. Please keep the Ayers love contained in that thread. Thanks.

 

Jae, I'm going to request you move those posts back, because I'm talking about the fact the New York Times wrote a sympathetic article towards the actions of a terrorist that got released on 9/11/2001, and that there was a huge public backlash that scared the mainstream media for about a year or so.

 

Request denied. Ayers posts stay in the Ayers thread. You are free to continue and/or rewrite the portions of posts that don't include Ayers here, however. PM either jonathan7 or me if you wish to discuss this further. --Jae

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Jae, I'm going to request you move those posts back, because I'm talking about the fact the New York Times wrote a sympathetic article towards the actions of a terrorist that got released on 9/11/2001, and that there was a huge public backlash that scared the mainstream media for about a year or so.

Garfield I'm going to request that you stop dragging Obama and Ayers into everything in an attempt to smear anyone to the left of you politically (read: everyone).

 

On topic, Bush has been the worst president in US history, he's gotten us into an unjustified war, ruined the economy, and set back environmental policy by years.

[mimartin]

I actually find the charge that the media is the reason for President Bush's problems laughable.

 

I guess the American people are bias too, seeing how President Bush had the highest disapproval rating in the history of Gallup.

 

Let us also remember December 2003 when Bush had 63% the highest approval rating of any president since LBJ had a 74% at the end of 1963 (one month after the death of JFK). Seems the media was not too bias back in 2003.

 

I do not blame the media. I believe Clinton was bashed more by the media and leaks from the Kenneth Star investigation than George W Bush ever was. I believe all of the Bush administration problems are self-inflicted. If anything I blame the press and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress for not questioning Bush’s policies back when his approval rating were high and before over 4,000 American Military Personal were killed and over 30,000 wounded.

 

The only way I would put George Bush and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence is it was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that George W Bush made one of biggest blunders when he told the American people “Mission Accomplished.” That was May 1, 2003. Seems his number stated going down after the American people figured out he was a little wrong with that assessment.

[EnderWiggin]

Okay, there was an article that New York Times took another shot at Bush.

 

Don't think that this is a pathological hatred, just a reporting.

 

I actually find the charge that the media is the reason for President Bush's problems laughable.

 

I guess the American people are bias too, seeing how President Bush had the highest disapproval rating in disapproval rating in the history of Gallup.

 

Let us also remember December 2003 when Bush had 63% the highest approval rating of any president since LBJ had a 74% at the end of 1963 (one month after the death of JFK). Seems the media was not too bias back in 2003.

 

I do not blame the media. I believe Clinton was bashed more by the media and leaks from the Kenneth Star investigation than George W Bush ever was. I believe all of the Bush administration problems are self-inflicted. If anything I blame the press and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress for not questioning Bush’s policies back when his approval rating were high and before over 4,000 American Military Personal were killed and over 30,000 wounded.

 

The only way I would put George Bush and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence is it was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that George W Bush made one of biggest blunders when he told the American people “Mission Accomplished.” That was May 1, 2003. Seems his number stated going down after the American people figured out he was a little wrong with that assessment.

 

Thanks for this insight, mimartin. I just hope it was received by the parties who need it.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

The situation is that the media was scared after the New York Times' 9/11/2001 fiasco in which the public reacted to their article's sympathy to a terrorist calling for a boycott of New York Times among other things.

 

Also to get to the MSNBC situation, there have been accusations that MSNBC gave Code Pink protesters their press passes so they could attempt to disrupt the Republican Convention and I do know that the Code Pink People did have press passes.

 

I'll try to find more sources but here is one: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/05/blogger-says-mccain-speech-protestors-had-msnbc-badges

[Adavardes]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/05/blogger-says-mccain-speech-protestors-had-msnbc-badges

 

OH MY! NEWSBUSTERS! THAT MUST MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

 

[mimartin]

OH MY! NEWSBUSTERS! THAT MUST MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

 

Well Newsbusters once printed a blog that Santa Claus was not real when all the other pro-Santa media outlets pandered to those evil Santa believers. Yes the bloggers were right once and the real media outlets made a mistake, ergo Newsbuster is better than all media outlets. With the exception of Fox News that is allowed to make mistakes, because anytime they make a mistake it is due to the great mainstream media conspiracy.

[Achilles]

I actually find the charge that the media is the reason for President Bush's problems laughable.

 

I guess the American people are bias too, seeing how President Bush had the highest disapproval rating in the history of Gallup.

 

Let us also remember December 2003 when Bush had 63% the highest approval rating of any president since LBJ had a 74% at the end of 1963 (one month after the death of JFK). Seems the media was not too bias back in 2003.

 

I do not blame the media. I believe Clinton was bashed more by the media and leaks from the Kenneth Star investigation than George W Bush ever was. I believe all of the Bush administration problems are self-inflicted. If anything I blame the press and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress for not questioning Bush’s policies back when his approval rating were high and before over 4,000 American Military Personal were killed and over 30,000 wounded.

 

The only way I would put George Bush and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence is it was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that George W Bush made one of biggest blunders when he told the American people “Mission Accomplished.” That was May 1, 2003. Seems his number stated going down after the American people figured out he was a little wrong with that assessment.

With 8 days left, I nominate this for Post of the Year.

[Q]

I would tend to agree with Garfield had I not watched an interview that with Katie Couric that Bush gave a couple of years ago. He looked right at her, with that stupid, smug smile on his face and said, point-blank, that "...it's not torture."

 

And I've despised the man ever since.

 

In all fairness it's not to say that the media and the Obama campaign haven't cultivated and then capitalized on all of the Bush-hate for their own purposes. They have, yes, but it's also not to say that Bush hasn't generously provided them with a ton of ammunition from the beginning.

[GarfieldJL]

Don't think that this is a pathological hatred, just a reporting.

 

I suppose giving press passes to CODE PINK in order to disrupt the Republican convention is just reporting too...

 

Well Newsbusters once printed a blog that Santa Claus was not real when all the other pro-Santa media outlets pandered to those evil Santa believers. Yes the bloggers were right once and the real media outlets made a mistake, ergo Newsbuster is better than all media outlets. With the exception of Fox News that is allowed to make mistakes, because anytime they make a mistake it is due to the great mainstream media conspiracy.

 

Okay I'm going to be blunt and tell you to source what you're saying, even Jae has pointed out that Fox News is on the up and up when they report the news.

 

I would tend to agree with Garfield had I not watched an interview that with Katie Couric that Bush gave a couple of years ago. He looked right at her, with that stupid, smug smile on his face and said, point-blank, that "...it's not torture.".

 

Source please... Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.

 

In all fairness it's not to say that the media and the Obama campaign haven't cultivated and then capitalized on all of the Bush-hate for their own purposes. They have, yes, but it's also not to say that Bush hasn't generously provided them with a ton of ammunition from the beginning.

 

I suppose them wearing Obama shirts at the Democrat Convention and chanting his name is proper behavior for journalists.

 

Furthermore, anyone else remember Rathergate?

[Astor]

Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.

 

Every news outlet does that, so I don't see why it's a crime for CBS to do it.

 

Furthermore, anyone else remember Rathergate?

 

I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?

[jrrtoken]

This is about Bush, not about Obama, okay?

 

Source please...

I believe that this is the one the Q was referencing to.

[Adavardes]

I suppose giving press passes to CODE PINK in order to disrupt the Republican convention is just reporting too...

 

Source other than Newsbusters, please.

 

Okay I'm going to be blunt and tell you to source what you're saying, even Jae has pointed out that Fox News is on the up and up when they report the news.

 

He asked for sources on sarcasm.

 

Source please... Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.

 

New rule: unless you yourself have actually given sources that aren't completely hollow and baseless, or only present twisted truths to suit the conservative bias, you aren't allowed to ask for sources. Source for proof against CBS. No Newsbusters please.

 

While I appreciate your frustration with sourcing issues, we on the staff will set the rules. Thanks. --Jae

 

I suppose them wearing Obama shirts at the Democrat Convention and chanting his name is proper behavior for journalists.

 

Because liberal journalists show pride in their preferred candidate winning the presidential election, and it's immediately uncouth behavior for proper journalists, but Conservatives are allowed to belittle the man with absolutely no factual basis for argument, and for Fox News, which you seem particularly fond of, it is completely acceptable to pick constantly on the one Liberal voice on their station, Colmes, who is now retiring. No, seriously, they pick on him like snot-nosed toddlers, shining flashlights in his eyes, calling him names, etc. Tells you what kind of behavior conservatives expect from their journalists.

[GarfieldJL]

Every news outlet does that, so I don't see why it's a crime for CBS to do it.

 

It is when they are editting it to try to advance a political agenda. Furthermore, not every news station does it. Fox News only split up Bill O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary, Obama, and McCain on seperate nights because it wouldn't all fit in one show, but they aired the entire interview.

 

 

I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?

 

It was a scandal that brought down CBS's host Dan Rather because he used fraudulent documents to try to smear President Bush during the 2004 election.