Stunning. CNN really is changing.

[Art]

It took a while and a Republican boycott of the station, but promised coverage changes are actually being witnessed. From the apology by CNN execs for playing the words of a homocide bomber's family but not the innocent Israeli victims family, to hearing responses from six conservative and/or pro-Israeli voices after the President's Middle East speech, to these two articles.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/28/vot.terror.five/index.html

Note here that they actually call the suicide bombers the terrorists they are. And they actually produce a story from the Israeli side of things.

Then this, disgusting piece demonstrating the twisted views of Palestinians....

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/28/baby.photo/index.html

Here, they even allow the Palestinian spokesman's voice to come AFTER the family admits to the "joke" and further demonstrates the nature of the Palestinian slant. Blame them for not understanding us and blame them for making stuff up even when the family says it's true.

This type of "joke" is similar to dressing the cutest baby up in Klan robes and wondering why anyone would find that distressing.

[Brave]

Nothing like getting your @ss kicked by the competition, in this case the more balanced Fox News Channel, to bring about a much needed change. What other way was there to go, really?

[redman]

So Commie News Network's finally coming around (a little)?

Art (or anyone else)-

would you mind posting the full text of the articles? The links aren't working on this d*mn work computer!

[Art]

Redman, here you are......

The baby one first:

Photo of baby suicide bomber called 'a joke'
June 28, 2002 Posted: 11:55 AM EDT (1555 GMT)

The IDF says it found this photo of a bomb strapped baby in a Palestinian militant's home.

HEBRON, West Bank (CNN) -- A photo of a Palestinian baby dressed as a suicide bomber that family members say was a joke has further escalated tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Israel Defense Forces released the photo Thursday, saying it was found during a search of a house of a Palestinian militant in Hebron.

The photo, which was shown on Israeli television and published in several newspapers, depicts a Palestinian toddler dressed as a suicide bomber with what appears to be an explosive belt around his waist.

The Jerusalem daily Maariv published the photo with the caption: "Terror in Diapers."

Erakat: Photograph a forgery
But members of the baby's family told a reporter from Britain's Sky News that dressing the baby as a bomber was "just a joke."

"The photograph was taken some time ago at a party when someone dressed up the cutest baby as a suicide bomber," a relative said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said it was another effort by Israel to demonize Palestinian children.

"This is a forgery. This is another Israeli attempt to discredit the Palestinian people," Erakat told CNN.

The IDF refused to disclose the name of the family or allow journalists to travel to Hebron, saying the city was a closed military zone.

The other here:

Israeli youth: 'I don't want to die today'
June 28, 2002 Posted: 9:45 AM EDT (1345 GMT)

Paramedics carry one of dozens of Israelis injured in the March 9 bombing at Jerusalem's Cafe Moment. Efrat Ravid has had 10 operations for injuries she sustained in the attack.

From John Vause
CNN

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Liat Margalit and her friends spend most of their free time at a Jerusalem mall, and not just so they can shop.

Tight security at the mall -- metal detectors, guards checking every car and searching bags -- can make it seem a safer alternative to what's outside.

"This is what we do for fun. The mall is pretty safe, and as you can see, the building is closed. ... Without putting your life at risk, this is what we do," Margalit says.

If they're not at the mall, they say, they mostly stay at home, behind locked doors, away from the threat of terrorist attacks. But safety comes with a price.

"Usual things that teen-agers do, we don't get to do. We don't get to celebrate our prom night, we don't get to celebrate our finals. We don't get to do anything really. It's like living in a cage," Margalit says.

Occasionally they still go downtown, they say, but they're always on guard.

In the early days of the Intifada, Margalit and her friends say they'd always feel safe heading out the day after a suicide bombing, because they figured there wouldn't be another attack for days, even weeks.

But that logic no longer applies, they say, because the terrorists now strike with such frequency.

"When we do go out, we are very afraid, and if we go to a restaurant, for example, we always think about, 'OK, do we want to sit next to the front or do we want to sit in the back?' Because a suicide bomber might come in, and I don't want to die today, because I am only 18," Margalit says.

Margalit says she feels torn when her parents urge her to stay home, warning it's too dangerous to go out.

"What should I do?" she asks. "If I miss my youth, what else do I have in life? I don't want to feel like my youth has been taken away from me."

'It hurts'
Efrat Ravid, who's turning 21, knows firsthand just how dangerous it can be to go out. She survived the March 9 bombing at Jerusalem's Cafe Moment, where a suicide bomber killed 11 people and injured dozens of others, including her.

The bones in Ravid's right leg were smashed, a major artery was severed and she suffered head wounds. She has had 10 operations, seven on her leg.

Now she goes to a local hospital three times a week for occupational and physical therapy.

"It hurts. Believe me, it hurts," she says.

Once a week there's trauma counseling, and every month she visits her doctor -- quite different from her old routine.

"I went out a lot. I went to coffee shops, and pubs and discos, like the situation in Israel was OK," she says.

She figured it could never happen to her.

"That was the reason why I got into this situation -- a cup of coffee," she says. "So I am not going to go on the same mistake again. I don't want the slightest chance that something can hurt me again."

Next month, Ravid will find out how the bones in her leg have healed -- whether she'll ever be able to walk without crutches. But right now, she's more worried about her upcoming 21st birthday, usually time for a big celebration.

"I can't do anything," she says. "Probably if I were healthy, I would go to a disco, drink a lot. ... But I can't do it. The only thing I can do is go to my friend's house and sit all the time."

Ravid says she used to be very independent.

"It's like they took my life," she says. "It's very hard."

On CNN television this week, watch for this and other stories.

[Park City Skins]

Agreed friend Brave. Though no matter how they change, I'm still watching Fox. (it can get real entertaining in this town wearing that Fox t-shirt). Quite frankly, the "joke", is just about one ot he most disturbing stories I've seen. Joke or not, it still reveals a very disturbing mindset. Yea. How about that Art? The family admits to dressing the baby up and the spokesman calls the photo a forgery. :gus: Redman, my mom was and is still calling CNN " Clinton News Network". :cheers:

[Art]

One thing I'll say for the very clear change in recent coverage by CNN is that they are so unaccustomed to presenting a non-liberal viewpoint that when they try to present the other side, it is likely that for some time, the network will overcompensate. It is improper for the network to have six conservative or pro-Israeli representatives responding to the Bush policy speech while having no one from the left or from the pro-Arab side.

Now, you can be very smart, as Fox is, and get that left or pro-Arab side to side with the right and then you are presenting balance. Fox is to be commended for how slick they are in getting people from both sides to speak. They are generally even pretty good at getting the opposite side of a story put forth.

I still remember my wife watching FOX News for the first time and about 20 minutes in saying to me, "What is this? I've never seen anything like this." When confronted with reporting that covers issues important to sides other than the liberals, it's a shock when first seeing and the immediate thought is it is as slanted as MSNBC or CNN has long been toward the other. CNN will become very right wing I'm betting for a few months before it starts to balance itself off some.

It should be good for the network in the long run, but they will get pounded for a while until they find the middle.

[redman]

Thanks Art.

Quite the joke. I think I'll dress up my kids as Charles Manson's and John Wayne Gacy's for Halloween.

And it would appear that the Palestinian mouthpiece, Erakat, failed to get the baby's family to toe the party line before they admitted that they had in fact dressed the baby as a joke. That severly undercut the response that this was an Israeli lie.

[Funkyalligator]

Would anyone here join the Israeli army? I have the option if I want due to the law of return.

[redman]

funky-

I wouldn't for a variety of reasons. I'm not Jewish, I'm not tied to the Holy Land the way that Jews or Muslims are, and I don't fundamentally view it as my fight over there. I'm in my country, recently got married, am near my (and her) family, and am invested in my life here.

I do support (almost entirely) what the IDF does in the fight, just not enough to join them.

[Kilmer17]

I wish Erakat would make himself a suicide bomber.

That guy is the leading terrorist in the world.

[SkinsHokie Fan]

Saying that any news organization in the world is pro-palestenian is just a joke. You can scan the last 10,000 articles on the Isreali- Palestanian confilct and over 80 percent, yes 80 percent are pro-Isreali. (I was actually involved in this process 2 years ago) Yeah occasionaly a couple of news articles come out showing the plight of the Palestenian people who wake up to tanks in their back yards clearly making the liberal hacks pro-palestanian.

[Funkyalligator]

As far as I am concerned all the Palestinians should just die, they all seem to support the suicide bombers so why dont they all go kill themselves

[SkinsHokie Fan]

Change in the Middle East will only happen once these governments are gone. I agree with everyone on this board who feels the governments of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and the PLO should be eliminated and replaced. Unfourtantley this will not happen through speeches made by our President, it will only happen if America can reach out to the young people in these countries (those 25 and under) who also cannot stand the governments they are forced to live under. It is pain staking but that is the way true change will happen over there.

[JackC]

You guys don't really believe the Fox News is unbiased do you? Please tell me you don't beleive that?

[gbear]

I actually liked Salmin Rushdi's (sp?) editorial in the Post today about how terrorism really won't stop until the Muslim people over there decide terrorism is worst than the U.S. It was a sad commentary on how we are viewed, but I think it definitely has some truth when it comes to evaluating what the U.S. really can do. Perhaps us as blind cyclops isn't such a bad analogy when it comes to our ability t oget after terrorists.

[Kilmer17]

I dont think Fox is neutral, but I do think it is more balanced than CNN ever was or could be.

I'd rather watch Hardball than either Fox or CNN

[JackC]

Kilmer,

Very respectable opinion. Can't argue with you. Thanks.

[Art]

Jack,

Being exposed to ideas you disagree with does not mean that Fox, as the sender of those ideas, is biased. Fox does present news that do contain the conservative side of things. But, they do not fail to similarly demonstrate the left's side. Too often media outlets report from one side. Fox remains pretty good about presenting comments from two, even if the story itself is would not generally be reported on by CNN. Like the Saudi story about broadcasting anti-Jewish statements. There's something you'd never see on a typical news outlet. That doesn't make Fox biased for showing it. Watch it for a few weeks. You'll start to see what I and the others who make Fox No. 1 see.

Funky,

I would be very torn on the issue. During the Persian Gulf war, I vowed to go fight, IF the war was still going on when I was done with school. So, when it came down to it, I didn't have the sack to ante up and fight. If you were living there now you'd obviously have a far easier choice -- or none at all actually :) -- but being that you are here, you should ask yourself if returning and fighting is more beneficial to your beliefs or is what you are doing with more than one interest in this world more beneficial. In your case, I probably would not go to Israel to fight, but that would be based on my thought that you are not Israeli first, but American first, and you have other duties.

[JackC]

Art,

I watch Fox all of the time. They are certainly biased to the right. Start with the morning show, the 3 stooges on are all ultra conservatives. The "question of the day" and guests almost always are derived from the conservative side of things.

In the evening OReilly and Hannity and Combs are clearly slanted in topic to the right.

Gretta Van Sustren is the token liberal at 10pm.


I don't see anything wrong with Fox being a conservative news network just like I don't see anything wrong with CNN being a liberal news station.

What I don't think is honest is when some liberals think CNN is not biased but Fox is biased or the reverse.

[Kilmer17]

I would bet that Alan Colmes would disagree with your opinion of his opinions.

[Art]

Jack,

Hannity and Combs is a "left/right" talk show design precisely similar to Crossfire on CNN. Crossfire is not a liberal or a conservative show. Neither is Hannity and Combs which has a host from each side debating issues of the day.

O'Reilly is clearly a right-winger and there's obviously no hiding that. But, he debates issues with people that very often have views opposite his. I don't call this a right or left show either. Anymore than I'd call Hardball, which is well done, a left show despite the fact that Matthews is a Democrat and former Carter speech-writer.

The charge that CNN or FOX is slanted can not come from opinion shows that are clearly left or right or double-sided. But, it comes from basic coverage of stories. It comes from interviewing the family of a suicide bomber while not playing words from the victim's family. It comes from covering a protest of an Israeli speech in the U.S. but not sending anyone in to cover the speech.

Bias is evident in the quotes of an article. The topic of the stories. This is where CNN has failed so badly. This is where Fox has done so well in covering stories the other networks won't touch because of a political leaning the other way. Fox clearly represents stories from the opposite political leaning, but, they do so in what is generally considered "fair" reporting in that both sides get to speak.

Not wholly, but generally. Despite the clear audience Fox brings in due to the coverage it provides, it is nothing like CNN has too long been in terms of slanted coverage.

[JackC]

Alan Combs can not hold his own on that show. He's just not good at countering the rude antics of Sean Hannity. Kind of like Tucker Carlson really can handle the antics of Carville or Bagella. (Novak might just be too old to argue anymore)

[Art]

Carlson is inept on Crossfire. He was perfect for Press, but, he lacks any bite against the new left lineup. But, that's irrelevant. You can't really hold your own in conversations with me but that doesn't make our conversations slanted to the right. When two sides speak there's no slant. Whether you think ill of Combs or ill of Carlson is irrelevant. You have a left and a right and you debate issues squarely from each side. The "winner" of these conversations doesn't make the conversation slanted to that side.

[JackC]

Art,

You are making my point. If you and I were on a discussion show it would surely be slanted to the right because everyone would understand what you are saying and everyone would miss all of my points valid or not.

[Park City Skins]

That still wouldn't be the fault of the network or the show itself. Simply the fault of the participant for not clearly stating their point. The slant would be perceived. More than likeley by those backing the "losing" side. And that's the fault of the viewer for not keeping up or paying attention.

[JackC]

The "show" should replace weaker members with stronger. I wonder if Bagella and Hannity would come to blows? Carlson and Combs might put us all to sleep.

[Brave]

"You guys don't really believe the Fox News is unbiased do you?" - JackC

I believe I described it as "more balanced," which in contrast to most of the other news channels before, it most certainly is.

[OrangeSkin]

The baby dressed as a suicide bomber is symbolic of the Palestinians mindset. Where all other peoples of the world would be celebrating birth, they're already thinking about how he can take out some Israelis. Evidence that these people are sick and need to be taught a lesson.

I always thought Fox was presented in a far more entertaining manner than CNN is. CNN is just dull. The graphics, the people, everything. The only shows I watch on there are Crossfire and Talkback Live, because those are the only shows that present unbiased opinion.

Speaking of Crossfire, did anybody catch is last night? The featured guest, I forget her name (Ann something, perhaps) was perhaps the most grating person I've ever seen. It was like she expected to be asked questions purely for the purpose of promoting her book. Whenever a question was asked about a specific quote in the book (like where she compared Kaite Couric to Eva Bruan (sp?)) she got defensive and claimed that they were totally misinterperting the quote.

I could practically hear the producers saying, "Who the hell invited her here?" She gave conservatives everywhere a bad name with her ridiculous agenda of uncovering a "liberal conspiracy" and comparing liberals to the likes of Stalin and Mussolini.

I, by no means am a liberal, but the woman clearly had an agenda, and a slightly maniacal one at that.

[Art]

Ann Coulter is a very strong conservative voice who was fired from National Review for comments that stated, "America should overthrow the governments of the Middle East and convert those people to Christianity." That's not precise, but it's close.

Her comments on Couric were that she is an "Affable Eva Braun" and that she's highly liberal leaning, which is fine, but she won't admit it, which isn't fine. Coulter is, also, if I'm not mistaking her with someone else, fairly easy on the eyes for a news gal :).

And, speaking of easy on the eyes, there was some stock reporter on Fox today during the Gibson show that must be a Miss America or something because I was thinking while she was reporting that what she was saying seemed so totally irrelevant, and yet, I wanted nothing more than to hear her speak :).

[skinsfan44]

I don't watch CNN anymore(Clinton News Network) so I didn't know they have changed. The way I look at it is you "can't teach an old dog new tricks" so CNN well never really change IMHO. Fox News all the way, baby.

[Romo]

Originally posted by gbear
I actually liked Salmin Rushdi's (sp?) editorial in the Post today about how terrorism really won't stop until the Muslim people over there decide terrorism is worst than the U.S. It was a sad commentary on how we are viewed, but I think it definitely has some truth when it comes to evaluating what the U.S. really can do. Perhaps us as blind cyclops isn't such a bad analogy when it comes to our ability t oget after terrorists.

Interesting thought. Anyone have any ideas on how to make Muslim people decide terrorism is worst then the US??

On a side point has anyone here read Rushdie's book that got the Iranians all fired up? **** cant even remember the name. Too much PS2 is making my brain go to mush.

[fansince62]

Art......has there ever been an offical explanation by the Israeli government as to why they attacked an American warship and killed/wounded over 100 American sailors? Look it up - the USS Liberty.all the news that fit to print!!!!

[Art]

Al,

I don't know much about the Liberty and the "conspiracy" around it. But, to me, it seems a pretty straight forward thing, does it not to you? A ship was sailing in a war zone during the Six-Day war and the words friendly fire comes to mind.

I did find this from James Ennes, the crypto officer on the Liberty:

"The United States made several serious, almost frantic attempts to move the ship. As the Liberty approached Gaza, the Joint Chiefs of Staff first sent a priority message ordering the ship to move 20 miles from the coast; the message was swamped by higher precedence traffic and was not processed until long after the crisis had ended. Hours later, a JCS duty officer phoned naval headquarters in London to relay an urgent JCS order to move the ship 100 miles from the coast; the telephone call was ignored, and Liberty's copy of the confirming message was misrouted to the Philipines before being returned to the Pentagon, where it was again misrouted, this time to Fort Meade in Maryland, where it was lost."

"Eventually, at least six critical messages were lost, delayed, or otherwise mishandled. Any one of those messages might have saved Liberty. None reached the ship."


Sounds to me like there may have been a communication error all around. Mistakes happen in war, as you well know. I presume you are as hopeful as I am that the American pilots who killed the Canadians who were training in Afghanistan will not be considered criminal in their mistake. Mistakes happen in war. Americans killed Americans in the Gulf War. A day before the Liberty attack, Israeli planes attacked an Israeli convoy on the ground.

In 1988, didn't we as Americans shoot down an Iranian passenger plane full of people? There is a controversy about that too, whether the plane was headed towards us or whether we just wanted to bag some Arabs. But, let me say this about the Liberty, whatever the real story.

I don't care if Israel went after the ship knowing it was ours and knowing precisely what they were doing. It was a tense time between the two countries at the time and there is no question that an American ship was in a war zone at the time. If Israel simply made a mistake or decided the ship was in the way and the Americans were told to get out of the way, I don't care. I also don't care about other events that may be crimes that happened in the past.

Tragic, no doubt this was, but, meaningless to any present day conversation it remains.

[Art]

P.S.

For the record I tend to believe Israel knew precisely what it was doing with the attack on the Liberty. I don't tend to believe stories of friendly fire and I don't tend to believe a lot. But, the anger here, in my view, should be directed at the U.S. Government for not standing tall and hitting back here, preferring to accept that version as historically relevant.

But, again, it is meaningless to conversations about today.

[Park City Skins]

it was Satanic Verses romo. A fictional book of all things. Here's a short blurb on the author and his books.

http://www.levity.com/corduroy/rushdie.htm

[fansince62]

art.....most professional military services routinely practice "recce" exercises. there is no way on earth the distinctive color schemes and planforms of US Naval warships can be mistaken. as for relevancy. a few points:

- we were not at war with the Israelis

- are you saying you still wouldn't care if it happened today?

- you have subtly shifted the discussion to "mistakes in war". there are others who have suggested that this was done knowingly by one of our allies: huge difference from the canadian mishap wouldn't you agree?

- again, by your reasoning, if an ally wanders into our territorial waters when we are at war with another nation (other than the ally), we are justified in attacking that vessel? you're absolutely sure that this is how maritime law/law of the sea is written?

- it also is meaningful to present day conversations. although historical events may be contradictory from a moral point-of-view, there is supposed to be some morel element and consistency to foreign policy. democracies also are supposed to conduct war with some measure of restraint and moral purpose. this shouldn't change over time to fit the needs of the momoent: otherwise, it amounts to nothing more than convenience. this is the larger matter at play and one which suffuses every discussion you will ever engage in on wars past, present and future. what are permissable actions? what is the rule of law? how do democracies conduct war?

- it is disturbing to think that an allied government knowingly approved an attack on a US warship. far preferable to argue as you have that this was an accident shrouded in the "fog of war"

- we are Israel's allies precisely because of what we collectively agree in our democracy to be our moral obligations. there are few, if any, economic or strategic arguments. do i agree with this moral argument? yes. i have many jewish relatives who perished during WWII. however, strike at the "home team" and the relationship changes. the moral conduct/status of an allied democracy perhaps comes into question.


while i'ld like to agree with your didatic comment that history is meaningless to present day conversations, i must respectfully disagree. there is no statute of limitations on accountability......... for all nations that undertake to wage war and kill people. americans are certainly held accountable.


note: as for the original thread, you stated: "Note here that they actually call the suicide bombers the terrorists they are. And they actually produce a story from the Israeli side of things." this provoked the thought "ah yes, i'm very much interested in the Israeli side of thing."

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by JackC
The "show" should replace weaker members with stronger. I wonder if Bagella and Hannity would come to blows? Carlson and Combs might put us all to sleep.

Hannity would kick Bagella's arse!!

[Art]

Al,

The Liberty appears to be an issue with you and that's fine. The fact is you asked if the Israeli government ever explained what happened and the answer is, yes, they explained what happened as an accident and they paid millions to reparations for the mistake they say they made.

You are not satisfied with this and that's fine. Our government IS satisfied with this and officially settled the deal with the Israeli government. If you are upset with what happened, it's not them you should be upset with. It's us. An incident that is 26 years old that has been apologized for, paid for and accepted by our government is not meaningful when discussing things that are happening today in Israel.

If you think they are, that's also fine, but, again, that's because this is a button pushing issue with you. You want some accountability from the Israeli government and you seem to think paying for and apologizing for the mistake they say they made isn't enough. You want more and I applaud you for it. But, yes, let me assure you if we were at war with the Soviet Union and our allies told us that no ship was within 100 miles of our coast line and we were, as the day before, dealing with shelling of our planes and cities from sea, we just might blow to hell any allied ship we came across without worrying about who it was.

We are not at war with the Canadians, and yet our airmen killed their men. So, while we weren't at war with the Israelis, the fact is they were at war, and we told them we weren't in the area, and they said they hit our ship in a mistake. Let me suggest to you that in 1988 when we shot down the Iranian airliner and killed nearly 300 people that democracies are to conduct war with some measure of restraint and moral purpose.

What we did then was a tragic mistake, or, a willful act. I don't know which and in 2002 I'm not sure I care. The Liberty was a tragic event and you don't like the official version of things. You should get Oliver Stone to make a movie telling how it really was. But, what else you want done I can't answer.

Do we have to apologize over and over for any particular massacre we may have conducted in Vietnam from the same time frame? Bad things happen during war time. When you get grunts with guns killing stuff, you'll ultimately have things happen that are very sad and not intended.

But, when we bombed the Chinese embassy and apologized for it in Yugoslavia saying we were accidentally using eight-year old maps, I laughed, because that wasn't at all what we did. We hit them on purpose. When we accidentally dropped a bomb on French interests when we were bombing Libya and they refused overflight, I knew it wasn't all that coincidental.

But, we said sorry and "our bad" and what can you do. Israel may or may not have done what they did willfully. They didn't say that's what they did and they've apologized and paid for it. I suggest we let that go.

[luckydevil]

Hey Art whats up with the fantasy football.

[mardi gras skin]

-democracies also are supposed to conduct war with some measure of restraint and moral purpose. this shouldn't change over time to fit the needs of the momoent: otherwise, it amounts to nothing more than convenience. this is the larger matter at play and one which suffuses every discussion you will ever engage in on wars past, present and future. what are permissable actions? what is the rule of law? how do democracies conduct war?

Having nothing to do with your reason for writing this paragraph, I found it very useful for current and future war. Britain felt this way about the guerilla tactics we employed against them so many years ago. We didn't line up and shoot at each other like civilized men and they found that repulsive. We did not restrain ourselves because it fit our convenience. So a superior army lost to a more adaptable one.

I'm worried that we may be seeing a similar shift in war presently. The enemy has changed the definition of war to include acts of terrorism. Unless we are prepared to lose, we may have to follow suite. Terrorism may be, at least for these enemies, the new definition of war that we have to adopt.

I know you are talking about an act between alies dozens of years ago, but the reasoning in this paragraph has a lot to do with how we deal with our current situation as well.

[Art]

LD,

I'm not sure what you mean. There will be a league with members of this board as the season approaches. Watch for updates on the main board to express your interest.

[JackC]

Did you ever notice that when the Fox news has a left and right view person on the right winger always gets the last word?

[Park City Skins]

So along with putting or selecting a "weaker" debater to represent the Left, (Colmes? ect...), they tend to let the individual on the Right have the last word? By design you think?

[JackC]

Park City,

Don't know if they are consciencely doing it or not. I don't really care because when I turn to the Fox News channel I expect right wing bias.

[Park City Skins]

Apparently you care enough to ask that question Jack. If you expect right wing bias from Fox, this would be one way to do it now wouldn't it? For that matter, why watch it?

[fansince62]

mardi gras...there is a disturbing tendancy on this board to characterize individual events as generalizations. during the revolutionary war we changed tactics. there was still a code of what was permissable/moral. there were constraints in play then as there are now. is anyone suggesting, for instance, that in any circumstance, it would be acceptable to "cook" pow's in vats of boiling oil? do atrocities happen in every war? yes. does that generalize to a universal that there are or should be no constraints on how war is conducted?

do you become a terrorist when you fight like one?

[Art]

Jack,

You expect right-wing bias because all you know is left-wing bias and hearing anything that doesn't appear to be the same seems so oddly different. Again, a political opinion talk show that has hosts and guests from both sides, is by definition not biased. It's a debate and debates can't be biased, though they can be one-sided if one side is simply better. I think you're confusing the two things.

Al,

Love you brudda. Not saying any more :).

[luckydevil]

Art thanks

[JackC]

Park,

I don't think it matters if they mean to be biased or just do it accidently. The point is they consistantly report with an extreme conservative bias. I watch it to keep up with the dark side. Know your enemy.


Art,

Maybe but I doubt it. Sean Hannity for example never wins any arguements on the facts. He just talks over the other person when they make a point and spews back "Clinton lied under oath" as his answer no matter the topic. The man argues like a 12 year old, too bad he doesn't have a opponent who will stand up to him.

[fansince62]

well....i figure i might as well add something that actually keeps to the intent of the thread: mrs carlson so often appears completely clueless. for that matter, most of these talking heads do. face it, they're paid money to come on television and comment on news events or instituitions that they are neither part of nor schooled in. make some phone calls, read a few articles, talk to people in the biz, have staff prepare point papers, develop a "feel"..........we should see these folks for what they are (on both sides of the fence).........hucksters making a living........inside the beltway political gossip columnists!!! if we kept a record logging how often their predictions and analyses were wrong we'ld soon run out of disk space (there simply aint enough petabytes)!!!

[mardi gras skin]

mardi gras...there is a disturbing tendancy on this board to characterize individual events as generalizations.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that the text I quoted was supposed to be specific instead of a general statement then I totally misunderstood you. It reads as a general statement for all democracies engaged in war. Nevertheless, the idea is one that I have been thinking about for a while. Do we change our code of honor along with our tactics?


do you become a terrorist when you fight like one?


Yes, I think you do. And I think that the term "terrorism" would then become something less vile than it is now. But understand, I hope to God that war is not evolving into something even more grotesque than it already is.

[fansince62]

mardi...the comment wasn't specifically directed at you. let me rephrase, perhaps more laboriously.........because an event is uncovered that seemingly counters a supposed principle, it doesn't necessarily follow that the principle doesn't hold. it may very well be the case that the event has causes that have nothing to do with the principle.

your read on the comment is entirely correct. in my muddled, tired mind i think i was pondering the example of the brits you raised and wondering whther it was germane.

[Romo]

Originally posted by Park City Skins
it was Satanic Verses romo. A fictional book of all things. Here's a short blurb on the author and his books.

http://www.levity.com/corduroy/rushdie.htm

Thanks PCS.