![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weaktwosThis was acquired from Media Matters here:
Is this standard practice? I know people criticize both parties for being dishonest, but this is ridiculous. And once again, I say, liberal bias in the media, my ass.
Oh, and are you kids hearing about the conspiracy theory of Bush being wired during the debate. It wouldn't surprise me. But given Bush's performance in the first debate, it didn't help him. Or maybe it did. We'll see if he "does" that again.
Salon's War Room '04 reported:
It looks like the White House pulled a fast one on the 24-hour news channels this morning as President Bush grabbed 50 minutes of free, uninterrupted TV airtime one month before Election Day. News outlets were told in advance Bush would give a substantive speech addressing key policy issues, which is why they agreed to carry it. (They're not in the habit of running stump speeches in their entirety.) Days ago, the speech was billed as an address on medical liability reform. Then on Monday, White House aides announced the speech would address the "war on terror" and the economy.
[...]
Instead, the address, in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., was nothing more than a raucous Bush pep rally as the president unleashed his most sustained and personal attacks on Sen. John Kerry to date, portraying him as an out of touch liberal who cannot be trusted to defend America, while Republican loyalists in the crowd booed and jeered each mention of Kerry's name.
[...]
The question is, why did all three news channels cover the attack speech for nearly an hour? In the past, they have occasionally cut away to both candidates' stump speeches for five or ten minutes, but certainly never for 50 minutes. When it became apparent that Bush's policy speech was not going to be as advertised, but was instead a tirade against Kerry, did that still constitute news? And the more pressing question for the cable outlets is: When are they going to give Kerry nearly an hour of uninterrupted time to ridicule and mock Bush's record?
Is this standard practice? I know people criticize both parties for being dishonest, but this is ridiculous. And once again, I say, liberal bias in the media, my ass.
Oh, and are you kids hearing about the conspiracy theory of Bush being wired during the debate. It wouldn't surprise me. But given Bush's performance in the first debate, it didn't help him. Or maybe it did. We'll see if he "does" that again.
Salon's War Room '04 reported:
It looks like the White House pulled a fast one on the 24-hour news channels this morning as President Bush grabbed 50 minutes of free, uninterrupted TV airtime one month before Election Day. News outlets were told in advance Bush would give a substantive speech addressing key policy issues, which is why they agreed to carry it. (They're not in the habit of running stump speeches in their entirety.) Days ago, the speech was billed as an address on medical liability reform. Then on Monday, White House aides announced the speech would address the "war on terror" and the economy.
[...]
Instead, the address, in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., was nothing more than a raucous Bush pep rally as the president unleashed his most sustained and personal attacks on Sen. John Kerry to date, portraying him as an out of touch liberal who cannot be trusted to defend America, while Republican loyalists in the crowd booed and jeered each mention of Kerry's name.
[...]
The question is, why did all three news channels cover the attack speech for nearly an hour? In the past, they have occasionally cut away to both candidates' stump speeches for five or ten minutes, but certainly never for 50 minutes. When it became apparent that Bush's policy speech was not going to be as advertised, but was instead a tirade against Kerry, did that still constitute news? And the more pressing question for the cable outlets is: When are they going to give Kerry nearly an hour of uninterrupted time to ridicule and mock Bush's record?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 05:13 am (UTC)and the media is liberally biased, one incident even if true does not change a general slant or feel of newspapers or journalists. Funny i never even believed that or got into it until i started watching the news for this election. but they do slant it that way, possibly because people get into journalism "to make a difference" they are all idealistic and liberal and all. or that is what the new yoprk times was debating about it's own staff personally on Bill O'reilly last i saw.
Doesn't matter, smart people already know you can't trust everything you see and read and if youw ant ot be informed you have to search multiple sources and dig out the facts of truth from the spin and the things left out.