Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/4045" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/node/40 45</a> >>Maybe you've heard about former Vice President Al Gore accusing the United States of "terrible abuses" that include "indiscriminately round[ing] up" Arabs and holding them in "unforgivable" conditions. Oh, yeah: The remarks were made on Sunday on foreign soil in Saudi Arabia. If you have heard about this story, it wasn't from a print edition of the Los Angeles Times, who has failed to publish even one word about the episode (as of February 14, 2006)! Yet the Times has found room for two front-page, above-the-fold headlines in the last two days on the Cheney hunting story. Get this: The headline in today's print edition (Tuesday, February 14, 2006) is, "Cheney Lacked $7 Hunting Credential." That's right. "Cheney Lacked $7 Hunting Credential" merited an above-the-fold headline on page A1 of the LA Times. Yet there is nothing on a former Vice President (who came awfully close to becoming President) criticizing his country on foreign soil? Yikes.<< And folks claim there is no Media Bias.... <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/3630" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/node/36 30</a> >>By now, we've all heard about Hillary Clinton's bombastic "plantation" remark at an MLK Day event at a Harlem church yesterday (Monday, January 16, 2006). One place you won't hear about it is in today's print edition of the Los Angeles Times, who failed to find room for even one word about the statement. Remarkably, earlier this month, the Times was able to find room for three items on Pat Robertson's bizarre Ariel Sharon remark (Jan6: here, Jan12: here, and Jan13: here). Why is the Los Angeles Times turning its back on Hillary malfeasance? As we reported here and here a while back, the Times did not publish anything about the $35,000 fine imposed on a Hillary campaign group for underreporting hundreds of thousands of dollars at a 2000 fundraiser in Hollywood, the Times' backyard. By the way, the Times also put an odd twist in reporting on New Orleans Mayor Nagin's interesting "chocolate" comment yesterday. Claimed the Times' Miguel Bastillo in today's paper (emphasis mine), "He [Nagin] also spoke of New Orleans becoming 'chocolate' again — an apparent reference to 'Chocolate City,' the 1970s funk recording by Parliament that called on blacks to fill the urban void left by white flight." Uhhh. Well, Nagin made no reference to the recording group in his apology today. I guess it wasn't that "apparent." Nice try, Miguel.<< <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/3497" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/node/34 97</a> >>Today's (Friday, January 6, 2006) print edition of the Los Angeles Times found room in their paper for: ... 2315 words and two articles on tonight's Book of Daniel TV show, ... 1431 words for an article about Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars, ... 182 words on Pat Robertson's Ariel Sharon remarks, ... 1477 words on the effects of the decline of the popularity of tennis (on page A1, nonetheless). Amazingly (or maybe not), the Times could not find one syllable to report, "A campaign fundraising group for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to a $35,000 fine for underreporting hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000" [AP link] (emphasis mine). The fundraiser was in Hollywood, mind you. It's hard to imagine if the fine was related to, let's say, Arnold Schwarzenegger that the Times would be silent.<< But we still got the editorial from the LA Times regarding the changes to Pirates....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And of course, If Senator Clinton was in an accident, the media would cover it just as much as VP Chaney, right? <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/4046" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/node/40 46</a> >>America’s media have been falling all over themselves with outrage concerning this weekend’s quail hunting accident involving the vice president. Yet, when a van containing Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) rolled through a checkpoint at the Westchester County airport in 2001 injuring a policeman, the press paid virtually no attention. A LexisNexis search identified only six reports on this subject in the two weeks after it happened, with one being an October 16, 2001 Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.) article: “A Westchester County police officer was treated for a minor injury after a Secret Service agent with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's motorcade tried to cruise past a security checkpoint at the county airport. The incident - which police and Secret Service chalked up to miscommunication - happened at 10:30 a.m. Sunday as Clinton was headed to an airport hangar to catch a flight for a Democratic rally in Syracuse.†The article continued: “County police Detective William Rehm said the Secret Service called the police that morning to arrange for an escort through a newly installed terminal checkpoint. The police told the Secret Service, which oversees security for the former first lady, to meet an officer in a marked patrol car at the airport entrance on Route 120, and to follow that officer through the checkpoint. “But when the two-car convoy arrived, the Secret Service drivers blew past the officer and headed down the airport's access road. Seconds later, when the motorcade came upon the checkpoint, the Secret Service drivers continued through, ignoring signs and several officers gesturing for the vehicles to stop.†According to a Washington Times report the same day: “Officer Dymond, 47, said Mrs. Clinton's van approached the checkpoint at about 35 mph. The driver, he said, was talking on a cell phone as he yelled for him to stop, but only after the police officer threw his shoulder into the van while banging on its side did the vehicle come to a halt about 100 yards beyond the checkpoint. He described the agent driving as ‘quite agitated’ when asked to show his identification. The officer was taken to a hospital for treatment of bruises.†The incident was determined to be an accident, and a misunderstanding. However, besides the Journal News and Washington Times, according to LexisNexis, only the Boston Herald, the National Journal, the Bulletin’s Frontrunner, and the Hotline did reports on this incident. Compare that with the furor over a hunting accident this weekend: though an imprecise measurement, LexisNexis identified 649 reports since Monday containing the name “Whittington.†As an aside, according to Monday's NewsMax report on this issue, neither Hillary nor anyone from her office bothered to apologize to the officer, or check in to see how he was doing.<<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy O'Reilly was talking about this and has a poll which story was more important.. Algore talking about America mistreating Arabs while overseas.. or Cheney and his hunting accident The mainstream press sucks....
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau---------I must say last night I was talking to the tv watching the factor with my wife saying "You're wrong on this one Bil" The two guests both said that the Cheney story was more important because he is the Vice President of the U.S. while Gore is not. The vp shot a man so it has to be more important. It was one of the few times that Bill appeared really obdurate when BOTH guests were against him. No one is perfect. P.S. I wonder what his poll will show tonight?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe We can fluff off Gore as a wannabee leftist, but Cheney is our vice president mele, and he should be accountable. For cring out loud he shot a man!!!
Originally Posted By mele Well, yes, he should be held accountable for what happened but everyone is making way more out of it than necessary. Accidents happen, sometimes out of stupidity or carelessness. Jokes are to be expected but the media are acting like he held up a 7-Eleven. (I don't even like Cheney.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And of course, If Senator Clinton was in an accident, the media would cover it just as much as VP Chaney, right?<< But Darkbeer, she wasn't driving the car. Dick Cheney fired the weapon. And since he's next in line to be president should something happen to George Bush, it's a bit larger story. Fishing for a story about Hillary and equating it with the sitting Vice President in a hunting accident is yet another stretch. And considering it happened a month after 9/11, I imagine there were bigger stories in the news at the time. It's almost as if you are biased.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I think this is getting blown out of proportion too. Do I think an acting Vice President needs to be out quail hunting? No. But to each his own. Cheney probably doesn't consider a trip to Disneyland to be very relaxing for fun either. The reporters are getting disgusted because Bush's Press Secretary is such a jerk all the time. He has that same smug, arrogant, 'haven't I answered this question once before' attitude that the President has.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Well I was right and millions of people were right. He is going on tv to explain. If tv existed back then, Aaron Burr would have to go on tv too.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy P.S. I wonder what his poll will show tonight? I predict 80% will say Al Gore being a traitor was a bigger story than Cheney's accident.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Jim, I am a Disney fan and I don't consider Disney World to be relaxing. I can see how hunting would feel that way...even though I'm not a hunter. That said, this story is much bigger than it should be...unless the guy, God forbid, dies.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Let's face it> It would have been a non-story if Dick did a quick little Brit Hume 4 days ago.
Originally Posted By SuperDry My goodness. Posts #1 - #3 really take the cake. Do you do really believe that the mainstream media attempts to manipulate public opinion by its choice of relative emphasis (or choosing which stories not to cover at all) anywhere near the amount that the noise machine does? I really didn't know anything about newsbusters.org prior to seeing the links in this post. I could only assume that it was some sort of "media watchdog" group. Looking at their home page, it says "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." Can you not see the irony in using a site whose mission is to "expose and combat liberal media bias" to point out the one-sided coverage of the mainstream media? Regarding #2, the notion that the Vice President shooting someone (by accident) causing major injuries including a heart attack should be compared to a situation where a Senator was riding in a car AS A PASSENGER that hit an officer causing minor injuries is really quite amazing, especially when one of them happened in Oct 2001 (if you remember, there was quite a lot going on at the time). Of course, the purpose of the linked story is not to provide a balanced comparison, but just to provide a hook upon which someone that wants to believe in liberal media bias can hang their coat. Regarding #3, I find it interesting that someone that has been very concerned about the accuracy of "rigged polls" would talk about the results of an O'Reilly poll. To compare the results of a scientific poll of the general population to a non-scientific poll where Bill O'Reilly literally gives people talking points on his opinion then directs them to his website to vote on the matter is beyond ridiculous.
Originally Posted By SuperDry BTW, I predict a rash of noise machine coverage on how the "mainstream (liberal) media" manipulates public opinion by the choice of stories to emphasize or de-emphasize over the next couple of weeks. Funny thing about it is that at least online, I've been monitoring this very issue with Drudge Report vs. mainstream sites over the last few months, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Drudge does this more than all the others combined.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Rich Galen, Republican pundit, had a good column comparing the two VP's. <a href="http://www.mullings.com/" target="_blank">http://www.mullings.com/</a>
Originally Posted By cmpaley IMO, this is one of those threads on such a non-story that we should let sink to the bottom and into oblivion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Of course, the purpose of the linked story is not to provide a balanced comparison, but just to provide a hook upon which someone that wants to believe in liberal media bias can hang their coat.> Oh man, that was well said. Well done. As for Cheney - obviously I'm not a fan, but unless there's something we don't know, this does seem much ado about very little to me.
