"Support the Troops"

[pegwinn]

However, the liberal media also will ignore any news that does fit their agenda of failure

Dude, you really need to learn to apply your philosophy to reality. There is no such thing as an unbiased media source in my experience. It may be true that "the liberal media" will ignore that which doesn't meet it's agenda, but so does the "right wing media" as well.

BTW discussing things from a reality viewpoint is more interesting than simply defending a partisan opinion. And it allows you to change your mind as the facts change without being a hypocrit.

 

[red states rule]

Dude, you really need to learn to apply your philosophy to reality. There is no such thing as an unbiased media source in my experience. It may be true that "the liberal media" will ignore that which doesn't meet it's agenda, but so does the "right wing media" as well.

BTW discussing things from a reality viewpoint is more interesting than simply defending a partisan opinion. And it allows you to change your mind as the facts change without being a hypocrit.

Considering most of the media tilts left - there is not much of a right wing media

There is progess in Iraq but you would never know it based on the main stream liberal media who like the Dems, have based their future on the militaries failure in Iraq

 

[Superlative]

Considering most of the media tilts left - there is not much of a right wing media

Not much of a right wing media? Who do you think taught you all the propaghanda you memorized?
Whatever comes out of a White house press conference is right wing, everything Bush says is right wing, Cheney has stipulations entailing whenever he stays in a hotel the TV be on, and turned to Fox News when he arrives.

 

[red states rule]

Not much of a right wing media? Who do you think taught you all the propaghanda you memorized?
Whatever comes out of a White house press conference is right wing, everything Bush says is right wing, Cheney has stipulations entailing whenever he stays in a hotel the TV be on, and turned to Fox News when he arrives.

As I proved on another thread, Fox News has more liberals on its shows - the CNN and MSNBC have conservatives COMBINED. It bugs libs Fox News tells both sides and the viewers choose to watch Fox and not CNN or MSNBC

MM was forced to list Republicans covered in news pieces and one on one interviews to try and boost his numbers

In survey after survey, most of the "reporters" are Democrats and they voted for Kerry (before that Clinton)

It is getting to the point where you cannot tell the difference from the opinion [age and the front page

 

[pegwinn]

Not much of a right wing media? Who do you think taught you all the propaghanda you memorized? Source?
Whatever comes out of a White house press conference is right wing, Source?
everything Bush says is right wing, Source?
Cheney has stipulations entailing whenever he stays in a hotel the TV be on, and turned to Fox News when he arrives.Source?

Are you debating or discussing? If debating then you have four assertions you need to prove. IF you are discussing something then you don't have to actually prove your statements, but I hope you are prepared to discuss how you came by those opinions.

 

[red states rule]

Not much of a right wing media? Who do you think taught you all the propaghanda you memorized?
Whatever comes out of a White house press conference is right wing, everything Bush says is right wing, Cheney has stipulations entailing whenever he stays in a hotel the TV be on, and turned to Fox News when he arrives.

Next you will accuse "24" of being a right wing show since whenever their is a shot of a TV screen the news is being delivered by Fox News

 

[Superlative]

"There is a popular conception that the media will present a picture of the world which defends and inculcates the economic, social, and political agendas of the priveleged groups that dominate the domestic economy, and who therefore also largely control the government.

According to this "Propaganda Model" the media serve their societal purpose by things like the way they select topics, distribute their concerns, frame issues, filter information, focus their analyses, through emphasis, tone, and a whole range of other techniques like that.

This should also suggest that the media always will agree with state policy, at any given moment. Because control over the government shifts back and forth betweeen various elite groupings in our society, whichever segment of the business community happens to control the government at a particular time reflects only part of an elite political spectrum, within which there are sometimes tactical disagreements.

What the Propaganda Model in fact predicts is that this entire range of elite perspectives will be reflected in the media--its just that there will be essentially nothing that goes beyond it.

There's a very significant tradition among elite democratic thinkers in the west which claims that the media and the intellectual class in general ought to carry out a propaganda function-- theyre supposed to marginalize the general population by controlling whats called "the public mind"

This view has probably been the dominant theme in anglo american democratic thought for over three hundred years and remains so right until the present.

Back in the 1920's, the major manual of the public relations industry actually was titled Propaganda (in those days, people were a little bit more honest.)

It opens saying something like this: the concious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is a central feature of a democratic system-- the wording is virtually like that.

Than it says: it is the job of the "intelligent minorities" to carry out this manipulation of the attitudes and opinion of the masses.

And really thats the leading doctrine of modern liberal-democratic intellectual thought: that if you lose the power to control the people by force, you need better indoctrination."



NOAM CHOMSKY.

 

[red states rule]

"There is a popular conception that the media will present a picture of the world which defends and inculcates the economic, social, and political agendas of the priveleged groups that dominate the domestic economy, and who therefore also largely control the government.

According to this "Propaganda Model" the media serve their societal purpose by things like the way they select topics, distribute their concerns, frame issues, filter information, focus their analyses, through emphasis, tone, and a whole range of other techniques like that.

This should also suggest that the media always will agree with state policy, at any given moment. Because control over the government shifts back and forth betweeen various elite groupings in our society, whichever segment of the business community happens to control the government at a particular time reflects only part of an elite political spectrum, within which there are sometimes tactical disagreements.

What the Propaganda Model in fact predicts is that this entire range of elite perspectives will be reflected in the media--its just that there will be essentially nothing that goes beyond it.

There's a very significant tradition among elite democratic thinkers in the west which claims that the media and the intellectual class in general ought to carry out a propaganda function-- theyre supposed to marginalize the general population by controlling whats called "the public mind"

This view has probably been the dominant theme in anglo american democratic thought for over three hundred years and remains so right until the present.

Back in the 1920's, the major manual of the public relations industry actually was titled Propaganda (in those days, people were a little bit more honest.)

It opens saying something like this: the concious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is a central feature of a democratic system-- the wording is virtually like that.

Than it says: it is the job of the "intelligent minorities" to carry out this manipulation of the attitudes and opinion of the masses.

And really thats the leading doctrine of modern liberal-democratic intellectual thought: that if you lose the power to control the people by force, you need better indoctrination."



NOAM CHOMSKY.

So this is why libs want to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Libs must be very worried about the few conservatives who are getting their views out - and how the liberal media is watching their readers/listeners/viewers choose to get their information from other sources

 

[Superlative]

Why hasnt Aljazeera International been permitted on any cable or satellite companies in the US?

 

[red states rule]

Why hasnt Aljazeera International been permitted on any cable or satellite companies in the US?

Besides the Bush haters, - who would watch it?

Cable companies choose networks that people will watch and pay money for

 

[Superlative]

Bush haters?

Its news, News specifically not from the North American Region, it cant be silenced and doesnt conform to what big business wants them to broadcast.

If you cant control the news through advertising the way the US does, then it can report whatever it wants, which alot of the time ends up being a different opinion, which the US wouldnt enjoy at all,

having their citizens exposed to another perspective on whats going on in the world.

April 11th 2004 Senior Military Spokesperson Mark Kimmitt stated, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies."

On April 15th Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing."

On April 16th 2004, during the first siege of Falluja, Thirty marines were killed when local geurillas attempted to deny the US in capturing the city, and estimated 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside Falluja, showing images to the world.

The network gave graphic eveidence disproving denials from the US that it was killing civilians.

 

[red states rule]

Bush haters?

Its news, News specifically not from the North American Region, it cant be silenced and doesnt conform to what big business wants them to broadcast.

If you cant control the news through advertising the way the US does, then it can report whatever it wants, which alot of the time ends up being a different opinion, which the US wouldnt enjoy at all,

having their citizens exposed to another perspective on whats going on in the world.

April 11th 2004 Senior Military Spokesperson Mark Kimmitt stated, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies."

On April 15th Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing."

On April 16th 2004, during the first siege of Falluja, Thirty marines were killed when local geurillas attempted to deny the US in capturing the city, and estimated 600 Iraqis dies, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside Falluja, showing images to the world.

The network gave graphic eveidence disproving denials from the US that it was killing civilians.

Who needs Aljazeera International when you have CNN?


CNN’s Aneesh Raman Hails the 'Precision' and 'Sophisticated' PR Campaign by Iran
Posted by Matthew Balan on April 6, 2007 - 16:15.
The mainstream media unabashedly continues its soft-touch approach with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

On Thursday's "American Morning," CNN foreign correspondent Aneesh Raman gave a report from Amman, Jordan on the release of the 15 British sailors and marines by Iran. He began with the describing the P.R. conducted by Iran and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of "precision." Later in his report, Raman then described the P.R. campaign as "sophisticated." These are hardly adjectives CNN employs for American officials.

Though Raman does state that Iran "used the media to its advantage" and that its broadcasts of the British sailors and marines making statements were "staged confessions," it's unsurprising, to say the least, that the CNN correspondent would use such glowing terms for the Iranian regime's propaganda coup. It was only a few months ago that Raman's colleague at CNN, Suzanne Malveaux, asked President Bush for a show of respect for Ahmadinejad.

A full transcript of the report:

(CNN Caption: "Staged Release? Iran Frees Brits After 13 Days")


KIRAN CHETRY: Yes. And as you said, to be a fly on the wall. Especially, what was going on in Iran at the time? What made the regime turn on a dime and decide to release those sailors? And what role did the president of Iran play in that as well?


To find out more, we are going to talk to Aneesh Raman. He has talked with President Ahmadinejad before, and he joins us live from Amman Jordan, today. Hi, Aneesh.


ANEESH RAMAN, CNN MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kiran. Good morning.


This was vintage Ahmadinejad, precision P.R. yesterday, with the Iranian president front and center.


RAMAN (voice over): It was a moment made for TV. One by one, the pardoned British military personnel voicing gratitude to a man often vilified by their government.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to thank yourself and the Iranian people.


RAMAN: For his part, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seemed to relish the moment, and a final chapter of a sophisticated P.R. campaign.

MARK FITZPATRICK, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS EXPERT: President Ahmadinejad and the country he represents comes off today as rational, reasonable, someone you can deal with - a smiling man. And I think Iran was rational all along, but many of the statements by President Ahmadinejad were not rational or reasonable at all.

RAMAN: From the very beginning, Iran used the media to its advantage. First, broadcasting this video of the seized British military personnel just days after their capture, showing them in what appeared to be good condition on an Arabic language state-run channel.


DAN PLESCH, DIRECTOR, CENTER OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES & DIPLOMACY: In terms of Arab and domestic opinion, they come out looking quite good because they have taken 15 military personnel from, you know, the former imperial power, tweaked the lion's tail.


FAYE TURNEY, BRITISH SAILOR: They explained to us why we have been arrested.


RAMAN: From Britain, though, came anger over the staged confessions shown on television, first of Faye Turney, then of others. It prompted a warning from British Prime Minister Tony Blair.


TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We have had, if you like, two very clear tracks on this. One is to try and settle this by way of peaceful and calm negotiation, to get our people back as quickly as possible. The other is to make it clear that if that's not possible, then we have to take an increasingly tougher position.


RAMAN: The standoff finally ended on Wednesday, with a very public presidential pardon. And from a man known for his provocative statements, a hint of humor.


MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): So a kind of compulsory trip that you were on?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I wouldn't look at it like that, but you could call it that.


RAMAN: Some awkward laughter there.


The message from Iran, from the president, diplomacy works. A not-so-subtle hint, Kiran, as to how Iran thinks the nuclear dispute with the West should be resolved. But from the world there is a sense still that diplomacy doesn't work without international pressure -- Kiran.


CHETRY: All right. Aneesh Raman, thanks so much.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11887

 

[Superlative]

CNN comes form inside the states, and its reporting reflects American views, and American standpoints, god forbid you have multiple viewpoints and have to decide for yourself.

Aljazeera has sharing agreements with CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, BBC, Japan’s NHK, and Germany’s ZDF, all of which regularly use Al Jazeera’s reports and footage

Why not allow them to broadcast 24/7 on network TV and or Satellite?

OH, because the american networks pick and choose the stories from AJI they want to broadcast, leaving out anything that doesnt suit them. and anything that might reflect them in a negative light.

and why watch CNN? I personally dont understand how ANYTHING that pertains to Anna Nicole Smith can be considered breaking news.

But CNN thinks so, oh maybe because they want to broadcast "news that people will watch and pay for", the real important stuff like Anna Nicole Smith.

 

[red states rule]

CNN comes form inside the states, and its reporting reflects American views, and American standpoints, god forbid you have multiple viewpoints and have to decide for yourself.

Aljazeera has sharing agreements with CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, BBC, Japan’s NHK, and Germany’s ZDF, all of which regularly use Al Jazeera’s reports and footage

Why not allow them to broadcast 24/7 on network TV and or Satellite?

OH, because the american networks pick and choose the stories from AJI they want to broadcast, leaving out anything that doesnt suit them. and anything that might reflect them in a negative light.

and why watch CNN? I personally dont understand how ANYTHING that pertains to Anna Nicole Smith can be considered breaking news.

But CNN thinks so, oh maybe because they want to broadcast "news that people will watch and pay for", the real important stuff like Anna Nicole Smith.

Your precious Aljazeera had its own booth at the DNC convention (not at the RNC however) that tells you alot about the libs

Libs love Aljazeera since they broadcats news the way libs wish they could here in the US - one sided, controlled, slanted, and with no competition to challenge them on their facts


CNN continues to show their loyality to the left


Time's Ware Snarls At Hugh Hewitt: Al-Qaeda, Al-Zarqawi the "Winners" in Iraq

During the 11pm hour of the March 21 Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper moderated a discussion on the media’s coverage of Iraq. Among those featured in the debate was Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, Michael Ware, who asserted that the "main winners" in Iraq were al-Qaeda and "superstar of international jihad" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Cooper started off the debate by asking conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt why he believes that the public is only hearing bad news out of Iraq. Hewitt slammed the media:

"Anderson, I think the coverage of the Iraq invasion right from the start, all the way through to the present day, has been abysmal in the mainstream media...A lot of new media that goes to Iraq, whether it’s Michael Totten, whether it is Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, whether it’s Victor Davis Hanson or Laura Ingraham or, especially, Robert Kaplan, whose book, Imperial Grunts, is must reading on this, report back enormous progress being made in the country."

Ware sounded defensive as he went after those who dared to criticize the media:

"All of these critics who are saying that we’re not telling the good news stories, I’d like to know just how many of them have spent any time here on the ground? Or any of these people who are reporting the good news from within the belly of the U.S. military, how much time have they spent on the Iraqi street?"

Ware continued his rant: "I mean, what do you think ordinary Iraqis are talking about? Do you think they’re talking about the unfurling of the flag of democracy or that they’re grateful that the Americans have unveiled a new electricity plant, when they have not had electricity in their house for four days? When they have to queue at a gas station for two days. When the marketplace is blowing up with car bombs. When their cousins are showing up dead in the morning as a result of, of sectarian death squads through the night. What do you think is the refining experience for an Iraqi family?"

Hewitt, who acknowledged that Iraq remains a dangerous place, challenged Ware to say whether Iraqis are worse off today than under the regime of Saddam Hussein:

Hewitt: "Five years ago, we did not know what the quality of life for the Iraqis was. But it was a dismal, totalitarian regime, from which escape was not possible. And so while ‘the boom’ matters, and while those conditions are certainly desperate, in many parts of the country, and Baghdad is a dangerous place, compared to what, Mr. Ware? Compared to Baghdad under Saddam? Are you arguing that Iraqis are worse off today than they were four years ago?"

Ware did not fail to disappoint those eager to hear the United States is losing in Iraq.

Ware: "Yeah, well, I think if you asked a lot of Iraqis, I think you’d be surprised by what the answer is. A, a lot of them say, what, this is democracy? The joke is, you call this liberation? And, ok, let’s look at the context, as you suggest. Let’s look at the even bigger picture. What is the bigger picture? Who’s winning from this war? Who is benefitting right now? Well, the main winners so far are al-Qaeda, which is stronger than it was before the invasion. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a nobody. Now he’s the superstar of international jihad. And Iran, Iran essentially has a proxy government in place, a very, very friendly government. Its sphere of influence has expanded and any U.S. diplomat or seeing a military intelligence commander here, will tell you that. So that’s the big picture."

Ware finished by asking sarcastically: "Where’s that being reported?"

Cooper then asked CNN correspondent Nic Robertson how difficult it was to move around Baghdad. To his credit, Robertson admitted that while traveling around Iraq is more difficult now than immediately following the invasion, it is still a better situation than when Hussein was in power.


Nic Robertson: "If I go back to my days here under Saddam Hussein, when we would sit around waiting days to go out anywhere because we wouldn’t be given permission, it’s better."

http://newsbusters.org/node/4573

 

[Superlative]

Cooper then asked CNN correspondent Nic Robertson how difficult it was to move around Baghdad. To his credit, Robertson admitted that while traveling around Iraq is more difficult now than immediately following the invasion, it is still a better situation than when Hussein was in power.


Nic Robertson: "If I go back to my days here under Saddam Hussein, when we would sit around waiting days to go out anywhere because we wouldn’t be given permission, it’s better."

http://newsbusters.org/node/4573

Your little NewsBuster article is from 2006,
and im not sure what it proves,
Other than that the north american media are reporting what the north american government wants them too. And someone is complaining.

Why isnt the below article front page?
Sure when Mccain went and walked around, he was on the cover showing how safe it is there, cause thats what the government wants everyone to believe, that everything is going well and working out properly.

McCain Says He Erred on Iraq Security

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 6 — Senator John McCain has issued an apology of sorts for his remarks after visiting a Baghdad market last weekend, saying he misspoke when he declared that his ability to walk freely around the marketplace was a sign of a significant improvement in security in Iraq.

He led a Congressional delegation through the Shorja market under tight security, with 100 heavily armed American troops guarding the group and attack helicopters and snipers watching over them. Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and another member of the delegation, Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, said the conditions showed that the decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional American forces to Iraq was having the intended effect.

Baghdad residents expressed astonishment at Mr. McCain’s rosy remarks, saying that he visited the marketplace, the scene of numerous deadly bombings, under unrealistic conditions. Democrats and antiwar bloggers ridiculed him for blindly supporting the administration’s so-called surge policy.

Mr. McCain, in an interview to be broadcast on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday, acknowledged that his critics were right. “Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future. I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that’s just life.”

On Feb. 28 on the “Late Show With David Letterman,” Mr. McCain criticized President Bush’s management of the war, saying, “We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives, over there.” He apologized the next day for the word “wasted,” saying he should have said “sacrificed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[red states rule]

Your little NewsBuster article is from 2006,
and im not sure what it proves,
Other than that the north american media are reporting what the north american government wants them too. And someone is complaining.

Why isnt the below article front page?
Sure when Mccain went and walked around, he was on the cover showing how safe it is there, cause thats what the government wants everyone to believe, that everything is going well and working out properly.

McCain Says He Erred on Iraq Security

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 6 — Senator John McCain has issued an apology of sorts for his remarks after visiting a Baghdad market last weekend, saying he misspoke when he declared that his ability to walk freely around the marketplace was a sign of a significant improvement in security in Iraq.

He led a Congressional delegation through the Shorja market under tight security, with 100 heavily armed American troops guarding the group and attack helicopters and snipers watching over them. Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and another member of the delegation, Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, said the conditions showed that the decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional American forces to Iraq was having the intended effect.

Baghdad residents expressed astonishment at Mr. McCain’s rosy remarks, saying that he visited the marketplace, the scene of numerous deadly bombings, under unrealistic conditions. Democrats and antiwar bloggers ridiculed him for blindly supporting the administration’s so-called surge policy.

Mr. McCain, in an interview to be broadcast on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday, acknowledged that his critics were right. “Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future. I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that’s just life.”

On Feb. 28 on the “Late Show With David Letterman,” Mr. McCain criticized President Bush’s management of the war, saying, “We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives, over there.” He apologized the next day for the word “wasted,” saying he should have said “sacrificed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Of course the "objective" reporters at CNN never miss a chance to show how they really feel - then they deny it when caught


CNN Reporter Michael Ware Heckles Senators in Iraq
[See update at the end of post and link to new information. The Drudge Report quoted below was taken down without explanation and video appears to show Ware was not "heckling" during news conference.

**Scroll down to end for additional update. An AFP report mentions a reporter giggling in response to a McCain comment.]

Drudge is reporting:

During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct "outrageous," saying, "here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter."

Senators McCain and Graham flew into Iraq and drove into Bagdad, making stops at an open market and a joint Iraq/American military security outpost before appearing at the press conference.

This is not the first time Michael Ware has taken issue with Senator McCain's comments about early progress in Iraq. Last week, after Senator McCain told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he needed to catch up on the news coming out of Iraq, Michael Ware responded, saying:

"I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad."

Michael Ware has also publicly expressed his views on the war last year in an interview with Bill Maher, saying, "I've been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck ... I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here ... In fact, I'm drinking now."

Ah, maybe it is time for CNN to find a reporter that can function sober. CNN should be able to find someone to replace Ware -- unless his type of reporting is exactly what they want.


Update: Rodger at This isn't writing, it's typing has video and a great roundup of blogger reaction, including the following from Ace of Spades. "He seems to be heavily invested in mocking any war-supporting politician who suggests the surge is working. Which, you know, it is, at least for now. But I guess Michael Ware has trouble seeing that from the lounge at the Intercontinental Hotel."

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has a few words for Ware.

I don't have any evidence that Michael Ware was ever hinged, but he is certainly Unhinged now. I covered his recent tour bleating on the cable news shows in the Friday Freefly, but he seems to have decided to become a one man clown car. The very idea that a media jackal would feel empowered enough to sass a US Senator and war hero is sad. Michael Ware may have four years lying drunk under his bed in his Green Zone hotel, I don't think the Hanoi Hilton, and the other lovely places John McCain spent five years suffering in had room service.

It is sadly unsurprising that the senior member of CNN's "News" team in Baghdad is such a blatant advocate for defeat. But you'd like to think there is someone left at CNN who at least wants to pretend at impartiality. I just wonder whether Ware thinks the folks he is rooting for will keep him supplied with booze, probably right up to when they saw his head off his shoulders. Idiot!


Hot Air had this story days ago.

Update II: I had forgotten that it was Michael Ware that brought us the Iraqi sniper video.

Update III: See updated post "Ware Doesn't Appear to Have Heckled, but Shows Bias in CNN Interview."

Update IV (4/3 7:09 p.m.): As far as I can tell, Drudge has not posted anything additional on his "heckling" story, but Glenn Reynolds and Power Line link to this AFP report that says "one reporter giggled at the back" in response to one of McCain's statements. From Scott at Power Line:


I don't know if giggles equal laughter and mockery, or if Ware was the giggler. But it seems to me that the AFP story provides evidence that tends to support Drudge's account. According to the Raw Story report and accompanying screen capture, Ware was sitting "in front of the camera," i.e., "at the back."
So, maybe the "giggler" wasn't Ware, but another reporter. Or maybe Ware giggled, but it wasn't captured on camera and in his mind giggling is not the same as laughing and mocking. Unless the AFP story is wrong, there was at least one reporter in the room giggling in response to McCain's comments. Giggling during McCain's press conference, joking on Bill Maher's show about having to get drunk to report from Baghdad -- whoever the reporter was, it sounds more like a middle school kid than someone taking their job seriously.

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/04/01/cnn-reporter-michael-ware-heckles-senators-in-iraq.php

Of course this is the same reporter who admits he drinks on the job
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/whats_wrong_wit.html

 

[Superlative]

Of course the "objective" reporters at CNN never miss a chance to show how they really feel - then they deny it when caught


I don't have any evidence that Michael Ware was ever hinged, but he is certainly Unhinged now. I covered his recent tour bleating on the cable news shows in the Friday Freefly, but he seems to have decided to become a one man clown car. The very idea that a media jackal would feel empowered enough to sass a US Senator and war hero is sad. Michael Ware may have four years lying drunk under his bed in his Green Zone hotel, I don't think the Hanoi Hilton, and the other lovely places John McCain spent five years suffering in had room service.

It is sadly unsurprising that the senior member of CNN's "News" team in Baghdad is such a blatant advocate for defeat. But you'd like to think there is someone left at CNN who at least wants to pretend at impartiality. I just wonder whether Ware thinks the folks he is rooting for will keep him supplied with booze, probably right up to when they saw his head off his shoulders. Idiot!

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/whats_wrong_wit.html

What exactly does this prove?

Beside the fact that when a reporter disagrees with what the American Government says they will slander him and call him a drunk and an idiot?

 

[red states rule]

What exactly does this prove?

Beside the fact that when a reporter disagrees with what the American Government says they will slander him and call him a drunk and an idiot?

The "reporter" admited hs drinks on the job and he editorializes instead of reports the news

This is really what libs want from the MSM and not objective reporting

Of course it is not just Ware who editorializes on the air



Cafferty Claims Bush Would Use Detaining of British Soldiers as Pretext to Invade Iran
Posted by Scott Whitlock on March 27, 2007 - 17:00.
According to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, President Bush would jump at the opportunity to use the kidnapping of 15 British soldiers as a pretext to invade Iran. On the Monday edition of "Situation Room," Cafferty asserted that he hoped U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn’t ask George W. Bush to join a coalition of the willing whose goal it is to free the captives.

Jack Cafferty: "Let’s hope British Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn’t ask the United States to join a coalition of the willing to invade Iran and get its hostages back. My feeling is President Bush would be on that like a bird on a worm."

The CNN host also saw scary implications in the fact that the U.S. Navy is just off the coast of Iran:

Jack Cafferty: "Meanwhile, and this is scary, the U.S. Navy has begun large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf today, one of the biggest shows of force since the invasion of Iraq, with some U.S. Navy warships just miles off the coast of Iran. Here’s the question: ‘How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and Marines from Iran?...It’s a little frightening what’s going on over there right now, Wolf."

Perhaps Mr. Cafferty joins Rosie O’Donnell in theorizing that this whole incident is the second coming of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 4:07pm on March 27, follows:

Jack Cafferty: "Let’s hope British Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn’t ask the United States to join a coalition of the willing to invade Iran and get its hostages back. My feeling is President Bush would be on that like a bird on a worm. To borrow a phrase from the British, the seizing of 15 sailors and Marines last week in the Persian Gulf presents a bit of a sticky wicket for the Prime Minister. And today, Mr. Blair warned Iran that negotiations to get the Brits back will, quote, ‘move into a different phase,’ if diplomacy fails. Iran won’t say where its holding the captors, won’t allow British diplomats to see them. Some hardliners in Iran want to charge them with espionage. The dispute all goes back to whether or not these 15 soldiers and Marines were in, or sailors and Marines, were in Iranian territorial waters or Iraqi territorial waters. When it comes to holding hostages, Iran is a country with a PHD. Remember the ‘70s? Iran held Americans hostage for 444 days. Now, the U.N. voted this last weekend to lay some heavy duty sanctions on Iran because it refuses to stop enriching uranium. So, the holding of these British sailors and Marines could represent an international game of tit-for-tat. Meanwhile, and this is scary, the U.S. Navy has begun large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf today, one of the biggest shows of force since the invasion of Iraq, with some U.S. Navy warships just miles off the coast of Iran. Here’s the question: ‘How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and marines from Iran? E-mail your thoughts to [email protected] or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. It’s a little frightening what’s going on over there right now, Wolf."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11668

 

[pegwinn]

Bush haters? That would be those that hate Bush

Its news, News specifically not from the North American Region, it cant be silenced and doesnt conform to what big business wants them to broadcast. No, it specifically conforms to what its' backers wants them to broadcast. So what if it isn't our big business? Just like any outlet, they are owned.
If you cant control the news through advertising the way the US does, then it can report whatever it wants, which alot of the time ends up being a different opinion, which the US wouldnt enjoy at all, awww scroll up. Reread.

having their citizens exposed to another perspective on whats going on in the world.

April 11th 2004 Senior Military Spokesperson Mark Kimmitt stated, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." 'Twas a true statement.

On April 15th Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing."

On April 16th 2004, during the first siege of Falluja, Thirty marines were killed when local geurillas attempted to deny the US in capturing the city, and estimated 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside Falluja, showing images to the world.

The network gave graphic eveidence disproving denials from the US that it was killing civilians. Uh, no. The keyword is "intentional" while the deaths of civilians are minimised they haven't been denied. The USA as an institution does not intentionally target women and kids. That is unlike the cowardly animals who condone/practice/support terrorists

Just like pols, there are no truly unbiased media outlets.

 

[Superlative]

Uh, no. The keyword is "intentional" while the deaths of civilians are minimised they haven't been denied. The USA as an institution does not intentionally target women and kids. That is unlike the cowardly animals who condone/practice/support terrorists.

I think you could potentially categorize the margin of 65,000 to 655,000 to be quite the dicrepency as far as casualties go.

It could be looked at, as a sort of denial, maybe even a twisting of the facts to suit whomever is broadcasting.