Sigh.

[ACPlayer]

Gore on Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/gore.bush/index.html)

Makes me wish I had voted for Gore.

[Clarkmeister]

I would have voted for Gore instead of Bush had I known how things were going to transpire. Good read.

[brad]

perhaps you didnt see the post i made where barbara bush says anyone badmouthing her kids 'is dead', but it remeinds me.

some of the more out there websites (but still with some credibility, or vestiges ) said that gore was threatened with the deaths of his children.

not that i really believe that

but

with wellstone death (perfect timing) , b. bush above making what looks like threats (main thing is that she must know she is so completely untouchable to even say such a thing think how out of touch she must be, and also how common it must be around bushes to say things like , hey dont f with me or 'youre dead'.), etc. , i have to put such a wild statement at a nonzero probability.

so maybe thats why he wont run even though he would be front runner. probalby though just waiting for 2008.

also i heard he and clinton werent on too good of terms, but that bushes and clinton were. so maybe even though usually everybody at top when they fight its just good cop/ bad cop, maybe in this case al gore really is against say bush and must factor in the <1% chance of assassination / family tragedy though really i doubt it.

[Wake up CALL]

AC you can have the next best thing and vote for Dean.

From the article:

"Moveon.org's goal is to "bring ordinary people back into politics," according to a statement on its Web site. It claims more than 2 million online activists.

One of its components is a political action committee that contributes money to candidates' campaigns. Earlier this year, it held an online primary in which former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean finished first. "

Gotta love an unbiased audience! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Well, being one of the many people who have on average given $77 to that campaign, there is a good chance he will be getting my vote.

[adios]

Think Al's going to get in the race? I'm probably wrong but I think he will announce soon. I don't think there's much doubt that he's a much more viable contender than the current crop of Democratic candidates.

[ACPlayer]

It is a possibility in my mind, specially if it continues to be apparent that there is wide spread disapointment in Bush's policy.

There was a petition drive underway in Central Park during the Dalai Lama's visit where groups were taking signatures.

[nicky g]

...of your conspiracy theories:

Was Paul Wellstone Murdered? (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14399)

Note the complete lack of actual evidence. Still, would make me think again about getting on a light aeroplane.

As for a biased audience, since when were audiences supposed to be impartial? I thought that was the job of the media, and that audiences could be partial to whomsoever they fancied?

[adios]

"I thought that was the job of the media, and that audiences could be partial to whomsoever they fancied? "

Which implies media outlets that more or less pander to their audience. Perhaps pander is too strong a word. Slants their coverage of news to what their audience wants to observe. That's why a I giggle a little bit at the complaints about Fox News being biased. At least they provide television shows that present both sides of issues. They're no more biased than CNN is. The idea that there are unbiased media outlets is a little silly I think. I mean today anybody can get the slant on news they desire to get and they can get many slants if they so desire. There was a time when news sources were limited but that's certainly not the case now. So I'm not sure that unbiased media outlets are a necessary or even desirable thing.

[nicky g]

"The idea that there are unbiased media outlets is a little silly I think."

To an extent I agree, but I think it's more or less possible to at least attempt to report events without editorialising or using language that favours one side. Obviously analysis and discussion are separate from reporting, but that's where balance comes in; for instance it isn't balance to have the interviewer/chair of a debate openly support one side agains the other, as was the case in the O'Reilly show under discussion the other week. I don't think a predominant audience bias necessarily reflects bias on the part of the outlet or story. Some stories or focuses lend weight to causes without necessarly being biased. If you start a monthly newsletter on North Korea it's almost certain to provide grist to, and be read by, anti-communists, simply because there is little favourable to report about North Korea; it doesn't necessarily make the newetter biased against the regime.

"I mean today anybody can get the slant on news they desire to get and they can get many slants if they so desire."

True. But many people want unslanted news as well; at least, I would like to think so.

[adios]

"But many people want unslanted news as well; at least, I would like to think so."

Then perhaps there's a significant market for that isn't there i.e. there probably is a significant audience for "unbiased" news? I think the problem people have with Fox News is the slogan not the content. If a news organization purports itself to be unbiased and they slant the news, then they're being disingenuous but I would think that they would lose those viewers that wanted unbiased reporting. I'm rambling a bit here but my point really is that the idea that news outlets must be totally unbiased in their programming and reporting is an outmoded idea. At one time that was probably a very good idea. Now I don't think it's really necessary. But I certainly say that a news organization that purports itself to be unbiased should make every attempt to be that way. I think the complaints about the news organizations only reporting bad news about Iraq are silly complaints.

[John Cole]

Tom,

I don't think it's really a case of whether or not the media choose to be biased. A certain amount of bias will exist in even what seems to be the most objective presentations. We could theorize that even a position that aims for ideological neutrality reflects an inherent bias. Overall, though, I think the news media try to be fair, even if they misrecognize or fail to understand their bias.

John

[nicky g]

I agree that if they're open about it, that's fine; but I can't imagine anyone saying "Here's the news from the perspective of our right-wing owner" or "Here are the left-wing headlines of the day; take them with a grain of salt". Or maybe I can. I don't know. I think the British model of quality newspapers that do their best to report objectively, but have editorial and analysis pages with a definite tilt, is a good one, and works quite well. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that model being extended to televison, but then the US broadcasting market is a lot bigger than the Brithsh one and can probably handles more diverse views. The problem with giving up the pretense to objectivity in reporting (and I think Fox from what I've seen of it is a step in that direction), as opposed to analysis/editorialisng, is that you're no longer a credible news outlet, you're a political outlet. But if that's made clear and there are alternatives, I suppose it's not a problem.

[MMMMMM]

From the link you provided we can now clearly see where Gore stands: on the planet Neptune. He hasn't left our solar system just yet, but he's well on his way.

'"It makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden," Gore said.' http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/gore.bush/index.html

So according to Al, we launched an invasion of Iraq to get at Osama bin Laden. Hello, Al, are you still with us? hellooooo.........helllloooooooooooo? Al?????

Thanks to Neal Boortz for pointing this out.

[adios]

Yeah I agree about the model of unbiased news but I find very little of it in the USA IMO. I really can't prove it but IMO on this side of the pond anyway, I think people gravitate towards news coverage that supports and reinforces their viewpoints especially on TV. I also think that network sponsors have a great deal of influence on what a particular news outlet will and will not show. Can't prove that either though.

[adios]

Al went "over the top" in that speech. Basically he accused Bush of impeachable offenses with he doesn't support IMO. Saw an interesting interview with Gephardt last night where he more or less supported the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq.

[ACPlayer]

His speech, though political, was far less over the top then statements like:

1.Opposing the was is the same as supporting Saddam.
2.Criticizing the president in a time of war is treasonous.
3.We support the Powell doctrine (regarding exit strategy) - our exit strategy is we will be done when we are successful.
4. Republicans are working hard at the people's work, democrats are playing politics (or vice-a-versa).


It was a typical political speech, 90% truth 10% spin and rhetoric. The numbers are my opinion, you are free to attach your own percentages. Even MMMM's quote he lambasted stands up to scrutiny (the sentence structure leads one to the conclusion that the statement is true).

[MMMMMM]

"His (Gore's) speech, though political, was far less over the top then statements like:

1.Opposing the was is the same as supporting Saddam.
2.Criticizing the president in a time of war is treasonous.
3.We support the Powell doctrine (regarding exit strategy) - our exit strategy is we will be done when we are successful.
4. Republicans are working hard at the people's work, democrats are playing politics (or vice-a-versa)."

And the above statements are "far less over the top" than...(fill in the blanks), which are "far less over the top" than...fill in the blanks))...



"Even MMMM's quote he lambasted stands up to scrutiny (the sentence structure leads one to the conclusion that the statement is true)."

What are you saying here, ACPlayer: that Gore was correct in saying we invaded Iraq to get at Osama bin Laden? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ACPlayer]

Read the sentence again. He was offering a comparison of two statements.

Both parts of the statement are false so the over all comparison is correct. Whoever Boortz is he likes to pick things out of context and reports them.

[MMMMMM]

I believe it is highly irresponsible, and find it particularly galling, that reporters deliberately slant their news reports to reflect their personal opinions. They supposed to be REPORTING, not COMMENTING, when they are REPORTING. Bastards.

[MMMMMM]

"It makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden," Gore said.'

Yes, he is offering a comparison of the two statements, as you say, ACPlayer, but Gore said "did" not "would have made." Thus he is clearly referencing something he believes occurred as stated.