If you're interested in a well researched if somewhat dull book on media bias, check out Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. It's got a different ideological bent to what you're probably used to but the ideas it has about how exactly media bias is reflected in story selection and the like are fascinating.

Back on topic... She sounds like a bit of a whiner to me. It's a bit melodramatic to both repeat yourself continuously and then raise a hand to your head. I bet she's quite funny to be around though if she overreacts in that way all the time.

Back on topic... She sounds like a bit of a whiner to me. It's a bit melodramatic to both repeat yourself continuously and then raise a hand to your head. I bet she's quite funny to be around though if she overreacts in that way all the time. Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful

Yes, if you have never seen her in action, I highly recommend it. She is the same 88 year old woman who asked Clinton during his glory days, "Why is everything going down the drain?" However, do not discount her influence; she is highly respected.

check out Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

I will check into that, and thank you for the recommendation.

source: NewsMax.com

i always enjoyed helen's questions--at least as much as those who had to answer appeared to hate them. admittedly she's a curmudgeon and over the top as quoted here.

newsmax.com is generally a shaky source for anything...especially media bias.  sorta like the skillet commenting on the condition of both pot and kettle.  

newsmax.com is generally a shaky source for anything...especially media bias. sorta like the skillet commenting on the condition of both pot and kettle.

The article was mine. The quotes were made by Helen to a newsmax reporter. The media bias thing was my own creation.

newsmax.com is generally a shaky source for anything...especially media bias. sorta like the skillet commenting on the condition of both pot and kettle.

So I've been told.  Yet, I have not heard of any of their stories being reported as being false.  Have you?

Now CBS on the other hand........

You have provided zero evidence of media bias. Reporters are free to express their opinions outside of their columns. Having an opinion does not equate to bias. Show me a biased story and I'll believe your claim.

Regarding hate and labels: hate is a sufficiently vague term to include lots of stuff and I wish the left and right would stop using it inappropriately. Where is the word 'hate' contained in this article? Maybe you are OK with your government lying your country to war but some peole find it abhorrent and would be quite correct at directing animosity towards President Bush. Actions have consequences.

I think the word fascist gets thrown around too much too, but there is no denying Bush (and especially his supporters) display several characteristics that are precursors to fascism i.e. anti-intellectualism, extreme nationalism, disconnect with reality, The Great Leader Who Can Do No Wrong, warmongering, etc.

The claim that C. Rice is a liar is factually accurate. Please see my blog where I have catalogued the lies the administration told in duping America into war in Iraq. Ms. Rice told 7 lies, not little white lies or mischaracterizations but instances where it is proven she knew one thing and said another.

Calling a spade a sade does not equal hate. Labels are often effective in describing the world around us. On the whole, when I see Bush supporters using the word 'hate' they generally are using it in a nebulous and incorrect way to deflect legitimate criticism of the left.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins

The claim that C. Rice is a liar is factually accurate. Please see my blog where I have catalogued the lies the administration told in duping America into war in Iraq. Ms. Rice told 7 lies, not little white lies or mischaracterizations but instances where it is proven she knew one thing and said another.

That is your opinion, not factually accurate.  ANd calling her a liar is not racist or hate filled.  Calling her an Aunt Jemima is racist and hate filled.

And the author did provide you with examples of the left wing bias.  You just refuse to believe them.

Doc, do you know the difference between opinion and fact?

o·pin·ion Audio pronunciation of "opinion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

fact Audio pronunciation of "fact" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Pay attention to the part above that says 'demonstrated to exist or known to have existed'. Can we demostrate that there 'exists' lies that Rice told when hyping the Iraq invasion? Yep:

E. National Security Advisor Rice
Ms. Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16
separate public statements or appearances.
Of the 29 misleading statements by Ms. Rice, 17 concerned Iraq’s efforts to
develop nuclear weapons; 6 overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons
capacity; and 6 misrepresented Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
Some of the misleading statements made by Ms. Rice included the following:
• “We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear
weapon.”128
• “We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for
instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high quality
aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,
centrifuge programs.”130
• “[T]he declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get
uranium from abroad.”131
Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false — 8 — than any of
the other four officials. Many of these statements came in June and July 2003
of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa. Ms.
Rice repeatedly stated during this period that no one in the White House was
informed of the doubts about this uranium claim. For example, she stated:
• “We did not know at the time — no one knew at the time, in our circles —
maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our
circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a
forgery.”132
• “[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence
in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of
Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”133
These statements were simply false. As explained above, the CIA had repeatedly
communicated its objections to White House officials, including Ms. Rice.134

VI. CONCLUSION
Because of the gravity of the subject and the President’s unique access to
classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President
and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in
describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and
National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq. To the
contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the
threat posed by Iraq. In 125 separate appearances, they made 11 misleading
statements about the urgency of Iraq’s threat, 81 misleading statements about
Iraq’s nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq’s chemical and
biological capabilities, and 61 misleading statements about Iraq’s relationship
with al Qaeda.

To summarize, it is a very well documented fact, not opinion, that Rice and other officials lied about Iraq.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins

To summarize, it is a very well documented fact, not opinion, that Rice and other officials lied about Iraq.

Repeating bad intel is not lying.  You have to make a conscious decision to misstake the truth to lie.  You can be wrong in a statement without lying.  IN which case you were merely ill-informed.

I repeat, she did not lie.  As this debate will never be resolved as liberals refuse to beleive that anyone other than themselves can base decisions on bad information.

Bill Clinton Lied.  Not when he accused Iraq of having WMDs, but when he stated he did not have sexual relations with lewinsky.  That was a lie.  The other was just bad intel.

OK Doc, I'll try to explain one more time. If necessary I can do a PowerPoint handpuppet show to help drive the point home.

I concur that parroting bad intel is not lying. But I've listed two examples above where the administration knew one thing and said another. That's lying.

Some of the misleading statements made by Ms. Rice included the following:
• “We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear
weapon.”128
• “We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for
instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high quality
aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,
centrifuge programs.”130
• “[T]he declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get
uranium from abroad.”131
Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false — 8 — than any of
the other four officials. Many of these statements came in June and July 2003
of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa. Ms.
Rice repeatedly stated during this period that no one in the White House was
informed of the doubts about this uranium claim. For example, she stated:
• “We did not know at the time — no one knew at the time, in our circles —
maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our
circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a
forgery.”132
• “[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence
in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of
Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”133
These statements were simply false. As explained above, the CIA had repeatedly
communicated its objections to White House officials, including Ms. Rice.

She lied. The CIA says they told her, she denies it. What do you find so unbelieveable about a politician lying? Here's another good one, I've got lots more:

Vice President Cheney made perhaps the single most egregious statement about
Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, claiming: “we know he has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted
nuclear weapons.”
He made this statement just three days before the war. He
did not admit until September 14, 2003, that his statement was wrong and that he
“did misspeak. Oops. At no time did the CIA relay credible intelligence to the administration stating that Iraq posessed nuclear weapons; it's a big fat lie Cheney told to get congress to approve a bullshit war.

The database cited above notes the following: 'The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made'

Find something else to argue about Doc because it's pretty well documented how badly Bush & Co. lied about Iraq.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins

Reply #10 By: David St. Hubbins (Anonymous) - 11/22/2004 11:20:58 AM OK Doc, I'll try to explain one more time. If necessary I can do a PowerPoint handpuppet show to help drive the point home. I concur that parroting bad intel is not lying. But I've listed two examples above where the administration knew one thing and said another. That's lying. Some of the misleading statements made by Ms. Rice included the following: • “We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”128 • “We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”130 • “[T]he declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad.”131 Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false — 8 — than any of the other four officials. Many of these statements came in June and July 2003 of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa. Ms. Rice repeatedly stated during this period that no one in the White House was informed of the doubts about this uranium claim. For example, she stated: • “We did not know at the time — no one knew at the time, in our circles — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.”132 • “[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”133 These statements were simply false. As explained above, the CIA had repeatedly communicated its objections to White House officials, including Ms. Rice. She lied. The CIA says they told her, she denies it. What do you find so unbelieveable about a politician lying? Here's another good one, I've got lots more:

The CIA is full of it. That may be what they are saying NOW! But that's NOT what they and the REST of the planet was saying then. So, in fact *Dr.Guy* is on target with it being *false* info. For Christ's sake even the British intel was saying the same thing.

Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain's assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it." Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Washington Post - July 15, 2003 - By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writers Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false. Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction - The Assessment of the British Government EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under Saddam Hussein Iraq developed chemical and biological weapons, acquired missiles allowing it to attack neighbouring countries with these weapons and persistently tried to develop a nuclear bomb. Saddam has used chemical weapons, both against Iran and against his own people. Following the Gulf War, Iraq had to admit to all this. And in the ceasefire of 1991 Saddam agreed unconditionally to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Much information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is already in the public domain from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors. This points clearly to Iraq's continuing possession, after 1991, of chemical and biological agents and weapons produced before the Gulf War. It shows that Iraq has refurbished sites formerly associated with the production of chemical and biological agents. And it indicates that Iraq remains able to manufacture these agents, and to use bombs, shells, artillery rockets and ballistic missiles to deliver them. An independent and well-researched overview of this public evidence was provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) on 9 September. The IISS report also suggested that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months of obtaining fissile material from foreign sources. As well as the public evidence, however, significant additional information is available to the Government from secret intelligence sources, described in more detail in this paper. This intelligence cannot tell us about everything. However, it provides a fuller picture of Iraqi plans and capabilities. It shows that Saddam Hussein attaches great importance to possessing weapons of mass destruction which he regards as the basis for Iraq's regional power. It shows that he does not regard them only as weapons of last resort. He is ready to use them, including against his own population, and is determined to retain them, in breach of United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR). Intelligence also shows that Iraq is preparing plans to conceal evidence of these weapons, including incriminating documents, from renewed inspections. And it confirms that despite sanctions and the policy of containment, Saddam has continued to make progress with his illicit weapons programmes. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has: continued to produce chemical and biological agents; military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them; command and control arrangements in place to use chemical and biological weapons. Authority ultimately resides with Saddam Hussein. (There is intelligence that he may have delegated this authority to his son Qusai); developed mobile laboratories for military use, corroborating earlier reports about the mobile production of biological warfare agents; pursued illegal programmes to procure controlled materials of potential use in the production of chemical and biological weapons programmes; tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons; sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it; recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programme; illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km, capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads; started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile, and has used the absence of weapons inspectors to work on extending its range to at least 200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km imposed by the United Nations; started producing the solid-propellant Ababil-100, and is making efforts to extend its range to at least 200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km imposed by the United Nations; constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of reaching the UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus and NATO members (Greece and Turkey), as well as all Iraq's Gulf neighbours and Israel; pursued illegal programmes to procure materials for use in its illegal development of long range missiles; learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and has already begun to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors. These judgements reflect the views of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). More details on the judgements and on the development of the JIC's assessments since 1998 are set out in Part 1 of this paper. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are in breach of international law. Under a series of UN Security Council Resolutions Iraq is obliged to destroy its holdings of these weapons under the supervision of UN inspectors. Part 2 of the paper sets out the key UN Security Council Resolutions. It also summarises the history of the UN inspection regime and Iraq's history of deception, intimidation and concealment in its dealings with the UN inspectors. But the threat from Iraq does not depend solely on the capabilities we have described. It arises also because of the violent and aggressive nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. His record of internal repression and external aggression gives rise to unique concerns about the threat he poses. The paper briefly outlines in Part 3 Saddam's rise to power, the nature of his regime and his history of regional aggression. Saddam's human rights abuses are also catalogued, including his record of torture, mass arrests and summary executions. The paper briefly sets out how Iraq is able to finance its weapons programme. Drawing on illicit earnings generated outside UN control, Iraq generated illegal income of some $3 billion in 2001.

Link

The CIA is full of it. That may be what they are saying NOW! But that's NOT what they and the REST of the planet was saying then. So, in fact *Dr.Guy* is on target with it being *false* info. For Christ's sake even the British intel was saying the same thing.

 

Thanks DR, but I quit arguing with him.  He cannot discern opinion from fact.  So it is useless.

Bill Clinton Lied. Not when he accused Iraq of having WMDs, but when he stated he did not have sexual relations with lewinsky. That was a lie. The other was just bad intel.

Very good explanation through example.

This was fascinating to read. I like the comments better than my article. Thanks Dr. Guy and drmiller. Oh and you, too, David St. Hubbins for the stubborn approach.

This was fascinating to read. I like the comments better than my article. Thanks Dr. Guy and drmiller. Oh and you, too, David St. Hubbins for the stubborn approach

I understand he was once a member, but got banned.  Even if stubborn, he does seem to be polite now.  I was not around, or at least reading his comments when he got the boot, so I dont know what he did.  But he is persistant!

Oh and you, too, David St. Hubbins for the stubborn approach

Lol, you must be new here, iamheather. The correct response to a St. Hubbins blogalogue is to quickly delete my posts and say I made a vicious personal attack on you.

Rookies. Pffft.