« Ugly architecture | Main | Stem-cell research »

February 21, 2006

Cheney accident

First we read the administration’s denial that the shooting was Dick Cheney’s fault. Then Cheney acknowledges that he in fact was responsible. Why were they trying to cover up?

This is so typical: Blame the other person, agency, country to see how it plays out. Only then start the slow march to the truth.

Judy Beyer
Lee’s Summit

Comments

Ray Seay

Cosmos;;

Just my opinion but abot 2/3 of major media is liberal, 20% conservative.

I will check some of your links and get back on fairness in media.

GCYL

"Please read 'What's Wrong With the News?' http://www.fair.org/"

I read Fair's "About Us". They've been around since 1986 and they don't like the whole current media set up. They want a much more independent, non-profit source. It's a good chance that they'll get both conservative and liberal media bent. It's a stark difference to MM's stated agenda. It is so different that I call one "About Us" and the other a "stated agenda".

Ray
"They are clearly biased, though this does not mean they are wrong."

Cosmos
"It's very easy to find out if they are wrong -- just fact-check their fact-checking."

But that's the point I'm trying to make cosmos, since MM is seen as being clearly biased very few independent voters will even take the time to fact check them. To many sources of information, to many websites, to little time, if they appear to be clearly biased one way or another, skip it and move on.

To be honest, I did not take the time to read "What's Wrong With The News". Why? Because you're tring to use it to justify MM stated agenda. You're saying "No, really, this is why I list my family as fact checkers.".

"Your repeated complaints that MM's "agenda" proves it lacks credibility are unpersuasive."

It was not my intent to take away any credibility of MM because of their stated agenda. I was trying to say that a lot of independent voters may never take the time to judge MM's credibility after reading their stated agenda. (As I did.) They'll just list it with FOX and move on. If I've confused the two then I'm sorry.

I would like to think that, with some variations, I would have had the same discussion with someone linking to FOX as their credible source.

Clearly you may link to MM as you see fit. I may be wrong on this subject and the link may serve you well with other independent voters. In which case, good for you cosmos. Thanks for your time.

cosmos

Ooops, typo -- [liberal] should be ["conservative "NEWS""] in
Do you want to argue that ALL of these "U.S. media" are "liberal"?

cosmos

Ray, CONSERVATIVE: Def. 2 "tending to preserve established institutions, etc; opposed to change. (Synonym: old-fashioned)

"They [MM] either think liberal media are perfect or they are targeting only conservative "NEWS".

You should read your own post more carefully. "...correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Do you want to argue that ALL of these "U.S. media" are "liberal"? http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/networks_outlets

"They are clearly biased, though this does not mean they are wrong."

It's very easy to find out if they are wrong -- just fact-check their fact-checking.

GCYL: "It [MM] has found a mission in life, oh yes only lying conservative news agencies will pay."

See post to Ray above. Please read 'What's Wrong With the News?' http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

GCYL

"GCYL, MM's 'customer' is media, and the "sale" is asking them to be more accurate. They ask concerned citizens to help make the 'sale'."

As Ray's post has all ready pointed out, MM does not have a 'customer'. It has an agenda. It has found a mission in life, oh yes only lying conservative news agencies will pay. They're stated agenda and writing style will turn off a lot of independent voters before they even attempt to understand MM's presentation of the corrected "facts".

Besides that, I'm talking about YOUR customers, YOUR sale, YOUR efforts to support YOUR point of view with a more neutral 3rd party source. You like MM. Others like Fox. I will continue to view both as quoting yourselves. I fear that a lot of independent voters will view it the same way.

I've agreed with you many times that, for what ever the reason, currently conservatives get their "word" out better than the liberals. I'm not going into why or how, I'll just state one more time that the Reps appear to be winning the PR war for the last 8 years or so. If your view this to be generally ture, then it is up to the Dems to change. If they do not wish to change their ideology then they MUST change their presentation. Listing your family as a source for fact checking is not a change in presentation, it's being silly.

Ray Seay

Cosmos;

"Media Matters… progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
….to — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda “

PROGRESSIVE
Definition 3. favoring social or political progress or reform; liberal. Synonyms liberal(3) , reformist Crossref. Syn. liberal
MM HAS DEFINED THEMSELVES AS LIBERAL AND STATED THAT THEY CHECK ONLY CONSERVATIVE NEWS.
They either think liberal media are perfect or they are targeting only conservative “NEWS“
They are clearly biased, though this does not mean they are wrong. It is like asking VP Cheney how the republicans are doing.

cosmos

GCYL, MM's "customer" is media, and the "sale" is asking them to be more accurate. They ask concerned citizens to help make the "sale".

"When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future."

Your repeated complaints that MM's "agenda" proves it lacks credibility are unpersuasive.

GCYL

"It's not about "agenda", it's about "facts"."

When you're pushing a "product" it's about "sales" cosmos. Your political view is a product you want others to buy into/agree with. The stated agenda of "we hate those lying scum" will interfere with your sales presentation of the "facts".

Politics is a lot about selling. There are trigger words to be avoided when trying to make a sale. Strongly worded agendas are to be avoided in my opinion.

I'll give points to mediamatters for being upfront for their whole reason to live. It's just that the agenda sounds like the typical talking points (form either side) that a lot of independent voters quickly tune out. You can't make the "sale" if the "customer" is no longer listening.

cosmos

GCYL:
"Maybe you should link to the other sources used for cross checking MediaMatters."

Why waste space? MM usually provides relevant links, such as to the WH transcript at http://mediamatters.org/items/200602160003 And it's easy to Google, to cross-check, or find other references.

It's not about "agenda", it's about "facts". If you believe MM is no different than Fox, and other media they analyze, you're welcome to fact-check MM.

GCYL

"GCYL -- Opinions are "beliefs". Facts are "something that has actually happened", or "truths", and cannot be changed by opinions (or ideology)."

Sadly, if this were an operational fact cosmos then the whole discussion we've had would not have occured as all news agencies would be reporting the same in tone and content. The fact that reporting on "something that has actually happened" or "truths" is all in the eye of the beholder these days.

"The "agenda" of MediaMatters does not automatically prove they're not credible. I've previously checked their facts on issues I'd carefully researched, spot-checked some other issues -- they were accurate."

I fear that the same could be said about Fox. The stated agenda of MediaMatters does in fact taint in your efforts to use them as a credible 3rd party source. If MediaMatters statement of agenda was more neutral rather than a "those consertives are lying" I'd view it differently. Maybe you should link to the other sources used for cross checking MediaMatters. Linking to MediaMatter is like saying "I'd like to quote myself.". People use Fox the same way.

cosmos

GCYL -- Opinions are "beliefs". Facts are "something that has actually happened", or "truths", and cannot be changed by opinions (or ideology).
The "agenda" of MediaMatters does not automatically prove they're not credible. I've previously checked their facts on issues I'd carefully researched, spot-checked some other issues -- they were accurate.

GCYL

"Please provide a credible link"

Then in all fairness cosmos you should reevaluate your use of:

mediamatters.org

From thier web site:

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."

With such a stated agenda using any of their "unbiased researched facts" would be of little use in a debate. I'm sure Fox could help Engineer with your request, but for some reason I don't see you accepting that as a credible link. It's not that I find one link better than the other. It's that I find both about the same, highly opinionated in their view of the "truth".

cosmos

Engineer,
When an interview omits numerous obvious questions, I call it a "puff piece".
Please provide a credible link proving all her info was "already a year or so out of classification".

Engineer

cosmos
The interview may not have been as agressive as you would have liked, but it was no "puff piece" no matter what other Media outlets may say. Little sour grapes on their part?
No one had to "declassify" Valerie Plame, she was already a year or so out of classification. That is why, after getting close to three years of investigation, no one has been indicted for identifying her.

cosmos

RLL: "People are given the authority to classify... Nothing new here."

What's new is that on March 25, 2003, the April 1995 Executive Order was amended -- to in effect, give the vice president the power of the president in dealing with classified materials.

Engineer: "The more that's declassified, the more the public knows."

Like maybe Valerie Plame? It also allows the VP to "classify" materials -- the public knows less.

Engineer: "...sure didn't see where it was a "puff piece".

It omitted video of his comment re beer, and Hume didn't ask some obvious questions.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602160003

Ray Seay

Jack;;

But in an interview on FOX News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.

Engineer

jack
RLL seems to have the correct story on the Cheney/Fox interview. At least that is the way I heard it. Also, it seemed like a pretty straight forward interview, sure didn't see where it was a "puff piece".
In any event, it seems as if you would be all for "declassification". The more that's declassified, the more the public knows.

RLL

"Cheney claims he has the right to unilaterally declassify anything he wants, any time he wants to."

Actually, he said that there is an executive order that gives him authority (not a "right") to declassify information. He did not get into the scope of the authority.

This is the way classification / declassification works. People are given the authority to classify / declassify information due to holding a particular office, position, or by something like an executive order, etc. Nothing new here.

"This is so typical: Blame the other person, agency, country to see how it plays out."

Judy seems to be confusing this with the antics of the previous administration.

jack

This all has worked out well for the Administration. Seems like no one noticed that in his puff piece interview on Fox Cheney claims he has the right to unilaterally declassify anything he wants wants, any time he wants to.

This seems far more important to me than the great Texas shoot out.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright