"I stopped watching it some time ago," the ex-network news boss writes in today's Los Angeles Times. "The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me." I'd love to see this on billboards everywhere.
1 posted on
01/13/2005 6:35:27 PM PST by
wagglebee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
To: wagglebee
.
...If SAUTER tells us thru the Los Angeles Times that LIBERAL DAN RATHER is a LIBERAL...
...then why does the Los Angeles Times own Media Critic DAVID SHAW still tell us that:
RATHER's work 'Shoddy, Slipshod' not LIBERAL..?
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227809/posts
.
48 posted on
01/13/2005 8:47:14 PM PST by
ALOHA RONNIE
("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
To: wagglebee
When this guy, who was the President of CBS News, says there is a bias and even he doesn't watch it anymore you know Bernard Goldberg is telling the truth and the old networks are truly dinosaurs.
To: wagglebee
But that could lead to "a lot of scrupulously impartial . . . news sources, managed by research-driven executives who find it a good marketing approach." Ultimately, says Sauter, "banality will trump opinion."
I think that what people really want from their newscasters is a return to common sense -- and that's sorely lacking in CBS and other members of the MSM. Here's a perfect example: Not long ago, Reuters, AP, and other news organizations (including CBS) made the decision that they were going to stop using terminology that could be construed to mean taking a position on a particular news story. For example, to stop using the term "terrorist" and start using "insurgent". Now, I don't know about you, but it's fairly obvious to the average person that an individual who intentionally targets and kills innocent civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them is a "TERRORIST", not an "insurgent". This notion is neither liberal nor conservative. It's reality. The fact that it happens to be held by our government seems to trouble the mainstream media -- and there's the rub. The media refuses to take a position held by the government -- even when that position is dictated by common sense -- merely because to do so would mean they supposedly aren't objective. What a ridiculous mindset. It will continue to result in people switching to more sensible stations such as Fox. The morons at CBS can't seem to understand this.
51 posted on
01/13/2005 9:00:41 PM PST by
Bush2000
To: wagglebee
I would vote for former CBS News president Van Gordon Sauter as an ACTUAL unimpeachable source.
To: wagglebee
They abhor the media and perceive it as an escalating threat to the society. Mea culpa.
62 posted on
01/13/2005 10:16:21 PM PST by
Seaplaner
(Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
To: wagglebee
Any liink to the actual story--or was this a letter to the editor?
64 posted on
01/13/2005 10:20:00 PM PST by
wildbill
To: wagglebee
"They abhor the media and perceive it as an escalating threat to the society."I resemble that remark. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
67 posted on
01/14/2005 6:30:16 AM PST by
Faraday
To: wagglebee
Sweet. The best part: this quote will get back to cBS and Blather. Sure, they'll dismiss it but they know they are over. They have a legacy now that they did not envision. Sweet....
68 posted on
01/14/2005 7:24:33 AM PST by
eureka!
(It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson