READER COMMENTS ON
"'Won on Substance?' What Substance?"
(8 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 1:08 pm PT...
Key point last night - Kerry/Edwards are against marriage for two homosexuals!
Bush speech today in PA was brilliant and the Bush that we love.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 1:12 pm PT...
So the Bush that you love isn't the *real* Bush ? You know, the one you saw in the debate.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 1:31 pm PT...
Paul, what's your point? That Cheney won that debate on "substance" because --- at one time --- he was in favor of a "legal union" between Gays? Are you now supporting same?
Either way, I gave you the links to the transcripts, please demonstrate the substantive win displayed by Cheney on that (or any other) point. Unexplained, and unsupportive, partisan propoganda is not what I'm asking for here. I look forward to your substantive points.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 2:32 pm PT...
let's go to the analysis:
One would think that the fact that Cheney had to outright lie to make points would put himis a less than favorable position. However, to cover up for Cheney's untruths, have they yet even been a focus?, Fox "news" has a cute little "fact check" link on the debate. Low and behold they discovered that both candidates stretched the truth. Apparently the claim that Iraq's ties were "tenuous at best" (Edwards) is materially different from what the American intel reports are claiming. Two paragraphs later Fox then says that the contacts between iraq and al Qaeda did not amount to a relationship. The 9/11 commission said there was no collaborative relationship. So they werent working together but had some contacts. In other words Fox found Edwards wanting because he chose an incorrect adjective. Fairly unbalanced.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 10:00 pm PT...
Why the "news" John? Its Fox News, not Fox "news." They do cover their news in a balanced way, perhaps more conservative than other networks, but balanced nonetheless. You just don't like them because of their opinion and editorial people. Hannity and O'Reilly aren't the whole network.
Brad, as for the substance - (I'm getting this from a recent AP story in the Detroit Free Press)
First Cheney said they never met. I'll agree that it is false, but will point out that the purpose of Cheney's comments hit home and pointed out the attendance of Edwards.
Edwards' claim about the troops with no body armor, was also false. The troops did have body armor...Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 40,000 troops did not have the brand new, improved armor but, "every soldier and Marine on the ground had body armor."
Edwards also falsely stated that the Bush Administration was for the outsourcing of jobs - something that neither Bush or Cheney has ever said. The comment was taken out of context from a quote from Labor Secretary Elanie Chao.
Finally, Edwards stated that the Administration had lobbied to cut comabat pay for the troops. This was due to the increased allowances for troops being set to expire soon. However, what wasn't told was that the Pentagon said it would make up any shortfalls through incentive pay or similar means.
Source - Associated Press
By the way, John, not to sound rude, but is there any chance you can make your comments more organized. The one giant paragraph makes it very cluttered. Perhaps its just me.
Have a nice evening everyone...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 11:04 pm PT...
Too late to reply in too much detail to Troll (I'll try to do so in the morning, unless someone else beats me to it). But I couldn't let this one go by even for now!
"Why the "news" John? Its Fox News, not Fox "news." They do cover their news in a balanced way, perhaps more conservative than other networks, but balanced nonetheless."
Not even CLOSE to balanced, Troll. Which is why what they do is so insidious. Please stop by Media Matters and poke around. Do a search for Fox News or any of your favorite folks over there (like Brit, for example) and see what you find.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, however. Search here at the BRAD BLOG for "Fox News" as well, and see what you find. Frankly, I make notes all day, but just don't have the time to blog all the bias that I find at FNC from every facet of their operation (from the News Crawl, to the chirons, to the choice of guests, topics, questions, etc. etc. etc.)
I will applaud, however, your efforts to look into what I'm saying above here and decide for yourself. But as I mentioned in reply to one of your recent Emails, would *you* even begin to believe that a station owned by George Soros and run by James Carville would be "Fair and Balanced"?
If not, why would you believe one owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ailes would be?
But all of that is largely off-topic on this post. I'll try to reply to your "substance" thoughts in the morning unless someone beats me to it.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 10/7/2004 @ 5:11 am PT...
i will tell you why "news". Look at what i cited. On their claim that Edwards stretched the truth they basically agree with his description of Iraq but feel it necessary to say his description stretched the truth.
Also, in case you didn't know, Newscorp defended itself in a lawsuit filed by investigative reporters with the following defense: we have no obligation to the public to tell the truth. That's why "news" Troll. Moreover, by any objective measure, Fox "news" has the most ill informed viewers of ANY of the networks. This doesnt say much for the other networks because the MOST informed Americans are viewers of THE DAILY SHOW, a fake news show. At least Stewart admits it.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 10/7/2004 @ 2:33 pm PT...
Perhaps I'm just being partisan then. I don't see it any different as that of other outlets with leanings to the left.
John - I must say however, although The Daily Show can claim the "most informed" viewers, they aren't the most informed due to watching it, but rather because they are open to other ideas. I believe that many of us are the same way - for instance, I disagree with many of the views Brad has, yet I come visit his site, because I like an opposing viewpoint. I suspect that he has similar tendancies.
As the old saying goes, "know thy opposition"
Unless you know what makes people tick, you can't look at things objectively. I feel the same way with Radio. Each day I'll attempt to listen to "The Dave and Laurel Show" (An extremely liberal talk show where Dave constantly bashes Bush) from 6-9 in the mornings. Then "The Glenn Beck Show" will come on. (Not so much pro-Bush as he is conservative. He constantly talks about right-wrong instead of right-left.) Thats on from 9-12, and then I listen to Rush from 12-3. If I'm at my computer, I'll listen to Hannity from 3-6, since he is tape delayed here. Now, I don't take everything any of these host say as complete fact always without looking it up. I know this probably isn't completely on the topic, but I feel it is important. There are a couple of other liberal talk shows I'll listen to, but they are few and far between. As we all know, talk radio is a place for conservatives. I really need to get XM.