All the news that fits their opinion: NY Times

The New York Times ^ | 4-16-04 | The Asociated Press

[FreedomFighter1013]

Again, on a day of important news, including major revelations about the Saddam-French oil-for-Bordeaux scandal and possible caches of weapons in Jordan, the old grey nag chooses to promote Woodward's new book. What's more, it's announced that Woodward will appear on 60 minutes this Sunday. That follows Dick Clark and Paul O'Neill's tell-all. Simon and Schuster should be called Streisand and Schuster.

[My2Cents]

What's more, it's announced that Woodward will appear on 60 minutes this Sunday.

The bias of the Imperial Media is so baldfaced, it's laughable. I'm convinced that most Americans (just bearly) can see through the agenda-driven attempt of the news media to manipulate American public opinion, but it is still exasperating. The NY Times, 60 Minutes, Today Show, Chris Matthews, are completely unaccountable to anyone, and hence are as irresponsible as they wish to be.

[God luvs America]

Actually no...it should be called "Schiester & Schiester".

Here's something to chew on...look at this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/04/16/iraq.woodward.ap/index.html

Is there any irony that the publishers name Simon & Schuster (or as I like to call them Schiester and Schiester) has obviously been embolden for everyone to see?

Now...who owns Schiester and Scheister? Viacom!

Who owns CBS- 60 Minutes?? Viacom!

Who published the Gizard Clarke book? Schiester & Schiester!

Whose campaign has M. Sumner Redstone (CEO of Viacom) genorously contributed to thus far???....I'll let all of you fill that one in!

If any of the above is wrong please correct me...thanks

[Casloy]

Let's not forget, FOX news draws two to three times the audience of all the other cable news stations. That should tell us something. Either liberals don't watch the news or most people know the other news channels are heavily tilted to the left.

[mcg1969]

Far more people get their TV news from the major networks than from the cable networks.

[dirtboy]

And Don Hewitt, reacting to critism for failing to mention that the parent company of CBS, Viacom, also owns the publisher of Dick Clarke's book, said this same fact would be mentioned about Bob Woodwards's book. What was hilarious was that Hewitt asked how he was supposed to know that Free Press was owned by Viacom. I do agree it would have required substantial research - he or an associate would have to read the ENTIRE Free Press logo to discover this information:

[Dog Anchor]

"These newspapers, owned and edited by these men, although free from the repulsive vulgarity of the yellow press, were susceptible to influence by the priviledged interests, and were almost or quite as hostile to manliness as they were to unrefined vice...they favored the removal of tariff on works of art; they favored all the proper (and even more strongly all the improper) movements for international peace and arbitration; in short, they favored all good, and many goody-goody, measures so long as they did not cut deep into social wrong or make demands on National and individual virility. They opposed, or were lukewarm about, efforts to build up the army and the navy, for they were not sensitive concerning National honor; and, above all, they opposed every non-milk-and-water effort, however sane, to change our social and economic system in such a fashion as to substitute the ideal justice towards all for the ideal of kindly charity from the favored few to the possibly grateful many."
- Theodore Roosevelt

[FreedomFighter1013]

Unfortunately, they do. That's why the Dems are smug: ABC, CBS and NBC are all on the DNC train, unwilling to admit it, however.

[artios]

"Imperial Media" - I like it! Nice phrase - it really captures who they think they are and how they act. Kinda like the "elitist" phrase...

[kcvl]

CNN (Commie News Network)'s Larry King Alive, had BOB SCHIEFFER, Deface the Nation host, on last night with SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE discussing GEORGE BUSH's handling of IRAQ (fair & balanced).



BIDEN: Larry, what I think is that we did not level with the American people the outset. Many of us within the administration, outside the administration, in the Senate, pointed out that this was going to take hundreds, several hundred thousand or at least well over 100,000 troops for at least several years. It was going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and we were going to be there for a while. Then what happened was we go there, things turn out to be as we predicted, the vast majority of us, in spite of what Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Cheney said.

Now you have families bewildered, going to bed at night with a pit in their stomach wondering whether or not we have a plan, whether or not we'll bring their loved ones home safely, how long they're going to stay and they're surprised by it. They basically were led to believe, although this was going to be a hard fight, it's kind of counterintuitive when the largest tax cut in America is given on the eve of going to war, when we say they only need X number of troops so they just weren't leveled with.

KING: Are you saying they read it wrong or they weren't leveling?

BIDEN: They weren't leveling. I don't think they were leveling, and I think one of the reasons why they weren't leveling, and the reason I say that, by the way, the president's own national security council, along with General Susechi (ph) inside the administration, said we'd need 300,000 to 500,000 troops after we won to win the peace. That wasn't just Joe Biden and the chairman of the foreign relations committee at the time saying that. It was in fact inside the administration, but it just wasn't accepted.

KING: Bob Schieffer, don't you see that as a pretty strong charge?

BOB SCHIEFFER, "FACE THE NATION": I think it is a strong charge but I think there is some validity to it, quite frankly. The administration, from the beginning, said it would take fewer troops to do this and some of the generals were saying and testifying up on Capitol Hill, and I think what happened, Larry, is this. We went into Iraq believing two things would happen, that some of the Iraqi troops would stand and fight. And that we would defeat them easily, and that others would simply surrender, but they didn't exactly surrender. Rather than surrender, they melted back into the civilian population and took their weapons with them, and because there were so many of these unguarded ammunition dumps that John McCain was talking about awhile ago, the country was sudden awash in weapons.

They were there. If you needed some rockets there was a place to get them. If you needed some rifles, there was a place to get them. It appears in retrospect that we simply did not have enough troops on the ground at that time to guard those ammunition dumps. So this may be -- we may be reaping some of what we sowed in those early day of the invasion it seems.

KING: Senator, does June 30 concern you?

BIDEN: Well, it concerns me in the sense, Larry, that we don't have a plan. The president made a very forceful assertion, and did it well as to what is at stake and why we're going to not yield, but he did not offer a plan. Look, John McCain talked about, and I, along with John McCain and Jack Reed of Rhode Island and others, supported legislation increasing the United States military by two divisions. That's going to take a long time. One of you guys asked, John, whether or not we had enough forces and he said no.

Folks, there's one two of things. Either we get other people to come in and help us or we put ourselves in a position of overextending in the extreme the national guards of this country in a way that no one ever anticipated, and what's the president doing? There is no willingness to go to the major powers in the world, to convene them, to get in the plane and go to NATO and say, look, this is what we need. We need you involved, and why would they do that? Because they have a great deal at stake here, a great deal at stake.

KING: Bob Schieffer, why do you think there's not a willingness to try that?

SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm not sure I know why but one of the things I'd like to ask to Senator Biden about -- it's kind of a follow-up to something we talked about on "Face the Nation." We were talking, the other Sunday, Larry, about bringing in foreign troops, getting NATO involved, and I think a lot of people would like to do that, but some people say well, does NATO want to be involved. Senator Biden said that he had actually talked to President Chirac of France who said at one point if the situation was right, if they could set the rules in a certain way, he would be willing to send French troops in. Now, we didn't hear too much about that before, and I'd like to just follow up on that. What were the conditions, Senator Biden, under which President Chirac of France said he'd be willing to send troops into Iraq?

BIDEN: Well, Bob, I actually have a copy of the letter here, the memo I sent to the president of the United States after I met with President Chirac, and I'll be happy to make a copy available to you. The bottom line is this -- he said, Chirac said he would immediately be prepared to vote to have NATO go in. I asked him whether or not he would contribute French troops. He said it would depend on the conditions and the political circumstances, meaning who was going to succeed Bremer, who was going to be calling the shots politically.

He was not in any way willing to send French troops under the political, not the military, the political command of a, essentially a procounsel, and he wanted to know what the circumstances would be, and I might add, by the way, what most people don't know and I know you guys know, French troops are fighting side by side, as I speak with you tonight, with American forces in Afghanistan in the most dangerous region of that country, seeking out Osama bin Laden. So it's not like these guys aren't willing to fight.

KING: Let me get a break and we'll be right back with our remaining moments. Wish we had a lot more time. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We, I said we, it's not American forces, it's coalition forces and innocent Iraqi citizens, by the way, have encountered serious violence in parts of Iraq. The different factions, former Saddam loyalists, some foreign fighters, Sadr is a radical cleric and his gangs have a common goal, they want to stop the march to democracy in Iraq. The idea of a free society really bothers them. Freedom is something they can't stand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let's get in one call at least before we wind things up. Mobile, Alabama, hello.

CALLER: Hello. It's obvious that our troops will need more military backup for the long haul ahead of them. Is it time for President Bush to reinstate the draft and would that be a risk to his re-election?

KING: Senator Biden?

BIDEN: No, and yes. It's not time to reinstate the draft, and it would be, I think, difficult for his re-election. I think we can -- I think it's time to engage the international community so that we take an American face off of this, and get more help.

I actually have that quote from Chirac. Chirac said "in the new atmosphere if France can do something it will. The change in November 15 showed a more positive attitude. I have no objection to giving the military mission to NATO. If NATO must act, I will not object. If we are asked to do something, we will, but it can't just be anything. Schroeder and I have already told Powell ready to help train the army and police, et cetera."

KING: Pretty definitive, Bob Schieffer, don't you think?

SCHIEFFER: Well, yes. I think that's very, very interesting. The fact is, Larry, we simply have to find some way to share these casualties. This has to be a worldwide fight. If this is a worldwide war an terrorism, then we've got to bring the rest of the world into it. We cannot have this be America against the Muslim world. That's not going to work and that's not what we want.

KING: You're a communicator, Bob. Has the administration done a poor job in communicating its message? SCHIEFFER: Well, I must say, some of the time, I think they have. I think some of the time they have not made it clear that this is a worldwide fight. We had such a spirit in this country after 9/11, when people were pulling together, when people in every walk of life said, we're all in this together. We've got to fight this and we've got to win. But somehow, if the administration is at fault in anything, I think it is in letting some of that spirit slip away.

KING: What's that going to mean in November, Senator?

BIDEN: I don't know what it's going to mean in November, Larry, but I know one thing. If the majority of the Iraqi people, as I believe they do, share our vision of their future, that is a participatory democracy, they -- we have to create the conditions to let them step up and fight for it.

If they do not, there's not anything we're going to be able to do to win. So we have to change the conditions that allow moderate Iraqis, the vast majority who say they want a participatory democracy, to come forward. And to do that, we have to provide more security and more legitimacy to what we're doing in Iraq, and that requires international community, major powers to get involved.

KING: Going to get worse, Bob? do you think? We're running short on time.

SCHIEFFER: I don't see any lights at the end of the tunnel quite yet, Larry.

KING: Do you, Senator Biden?

BIDEN: I think it requires presidential leadership, Larry. This can be done. If the president doesn't act, in my view, things are going to deteriorate. If we turn this over to a new super ambassador and the largest embassy of the world on July the 1, being an American, I think it's a prescription for failure.

KING: Thank you both very much. Thanks to our earlier guests as well. Bob Schieffer, the anchor and moderator of the CBS news "Face The Nation." How long has it been on now, Bob?

SCHIEFFER: It will be on 50 years on November 7 of this year. It started in 1954, Larry.

KING: It will never last.

BIDEN: Bob, you're not that old.

[vanmorrison]

With all of the alternatives I now have to keep abreast of the news, including cable, satellite, and the internet, it has been literally years since anyone in my entire family watches the national networks for anything other than their ridiculous escapism, like Survivor or American Idol. These networks are tuned out otherwise. And there is no need to rely on any particular newspaper, like the NYT or USA Today, for information, either. I suspect that a growing number of Americans have the same experience.

I think that today, more than ever, advocates of the left and right are basically "preaching to the choir". There is little meaningful dialogue between the two camps, just shrill slander and invective.

And, of course, its all the left's fault. Really...

[My2Cents]

Now you have families bewildered, going to bed at night with a pit in their stomach wondering whether or not we have a plan

Other than the Jersey Girls, I wonder who else goes to bed each night with a pit in their stomach. I, for one, go to bed with a pit in my stomach whenever I hear crap like this from a guy like Biden.

[My2Cents]

How about "the elitist imperial media..." Too redundant?

[FreedomFighter1013]

under which President Chirac of France said he'd be willing to send troops into Iraq?

BIDEN: Well, Bob, I actually have a copy of the letter here, ...The bottom line is this -- he said, Chirac said he would immediately be prepared to vote to have NATO go in. I asked him whether or not he would contribute French troops. He said it would depend on the conditions and the political circumstances, meaning who was going to succeed Bremer, who was going to be calling the shots politically.

He was not in any way willing to send French troops under the political, not the military, the political command of a, essentially a procounsel, and he wanted to know what the circumstances would be, and I might add, by the way, what most people don't know and I know you guys know, French troops are fighting side by side, as I speak with you tonight, with American forces in Afghanistan in the most dangerous region of that country, seeking out Osama bin Laden. So it's not like these guys aren't willing to fight.

Incredible, if I had watched that I would have had an aneuyrism. Biden's too smart to buy what Chirac was selling. This is part of the Democrat's-win-at-any-price, American-lives-be-damned-strategy.

Thanks for the post. Did you read the revelations about oil-for-bordeaux. Here's an interview on Frontpage mag: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021 and on this very site: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1118514/posts

[DCPatriot]

I'm convinced that most Americans (just bearly) can see through the agenda-driven attempt of the news media to manipulate American public opinion..."

You underestimate the "ignorance" of the average American that votes. And I don't mean that in a totally negative light. I'm speaking "ignorant" by definition.

If all they watch and/or read and/or listen to are the mainstream media...then they will be voting Democratic.

It's a travesty that the Liberal spin is spewed as the gospel news while the Conservative view is spun as "extreme" and out of touch.

[CyberAnt]

Speaking of the 2-3 times draw of Fox - it was noted that Fox had a viewership of over 5 mil, while CNN had less than 1.5 mil. CBS rates below CNN so that should tell you something about how many people will be watching.

They might pull in more because it's a scandal against Bush .. and the rabid will be salivating. However, I don't think it's going to be the hit piece people are expecting.

[CyberAnt]

Sorry .. I forgot to mention the numbers were taken for the President's press conference.