Email from a Friend about Weekly Ezine #27
I got this email from a friend of mine in KC. He agreed to let me publish his note. One comment. I hope I wrote phony facade, not phone facade.
Larry,
I can agree with you up to a point [I have time to write this as I am waiting to see if the rain will stop. I had planned to attend the McCain-Palin rally as John Knox is only 3 clicks from our home]. You wrote:
"The people who work in the world of Journalism do that on our behalf. Their efforts give us the additional information we need to know to make an informed decision. They give us the other side we need to hear and expose the phone façade that keeps us from being fooled and making the wrong vote."
Well [that was a 'Reagan' well], you state that the Journalists are DOING that. I feel that, for the most part, they are betraying that trust. They are very blatently skewed (sends a tingle up my leg!?!) in their "doing" and "giving". Then I have read repeatedly that Fox News is in the tank for Bush and the Republican Party. I listen to Fox exclusively anymore.
Note: I used to only watch CNN.
But, understanding that Ted Turner WAS CNN, Fonda his wife - exploring all that is out there on Fonda and the Vietnam War, seeing Kerry there also, hearing the slant on the War, Reagan, Bush elder, Clinton, Bush younger, the Bagdad Bureau chief filing reports favorable to Hussein - then Cronkite coming out of the closet as a World view Liberal -
suffering thru many other blatantly slanted reporting on foreign affairs and policy, watching Clinton decimate the Military - - - on and on - - - I found Fox one day.
Whoa. Fairing balanced in reporting, seemingly truthful. Commentators with slants, yes - but fairly equal in strength and numbers on both sides of an issue. "We report - You decide" - and consistently doing so made me realize what a news channel SHOULD do [as you claimed above]. The clincher was that the Libs shouted that the Fox News network was in the tank for Bush. Well, I could see that they were not. In effect, Fox was the ONLY cable network that was not in the Libs tank and they were pissed about it.
Funny, how you can usually tell what is the truth by how much the other side of an issue decries the conveyor.
Watching the campaigns very closely this year, filtering all the BS, asking myself of the messages and the direction that each Party would lead America I come to the conclusion that I totally agree with Rove's assessment:
“When Republicans get our message and ideas past the Liberal media filter and directly to voters—we win.”
Larry, again I say, I live a very simple Political life. Conservatism is where I am at. It is so easy for me to see the threat that is the Democrat's ticket, and it allows me to easily pull the Republican lever - at least that way our Country's slip into ever increasing Socialism might be slowed.
Your friend as always,
G Dub
ps - sure hope the rain lets up
More on media bias:
“When Republicans get our message and ideas past the Liberal media filter and directly to voters—we win.”
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
What Palin actually said was this:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Well, Mr Gibson, that was not the exact words, and, in fact, your question completely changed the meaning of the quote.
Not everyone may be able to see the difference, but it is night and day between sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God and praying that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/021487.php
Part 2. I hear that Palin's weakest part of the interview concerned the "Bush Doctrine". Mr Gibson referred to one interpretation, one of many.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists--all of these things and more have been described as the "Bush Doctrine." It was a bit of a sham on Gibson's part to have pretended that there's such a thing as 'the' Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp#more
Just my opinion.
Reply to this