I haven't seen anyone discuss these two events, so I figured I'll throw it up here...
But here's the thing.... I'm reading various news feeds/streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive government cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial.
Most of the networks are not even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing.
This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?
Ugh, I can't wait for the Arias trial to be over. The only channel on the break room TV is HLN, and they've been talking about that bullgak for months now. I'm tired of it. How can someone say that stabbing someone 27 times, slashing their throat, and then shooting them in the head is self-defense. I'm so done with it!!!
Lets talk more about Blues hockey and Cards baseball
The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?
Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now. It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.
Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.
mega_bassist wrote: Ugh, I can't wait for the Arias trial to be over. The only channel on the break room TV is HLN, and they've been talking about that bullgak for months now. I'm tired of it. How can someone say that stabbing someone 27 times, slashing their throat, and then shooting them in the head is self-defense. I'm so done with it!!!
I hear ya... I generally stick with CNN and they're just as bad...
Lets talk more about Blues hockey and Cards baseball
Cards just beat the Cubs today! And LETS GO BLUES! (they're playing tonight)
The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?
Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now.
Eh... I wouldn't say that... the Clintons made their career being "teflon".
It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.
Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.
I completely agree with you there... that's why *I* was pissed that Bush kept Rumsfeld around after Abu Gharib.
Back to OP: The media and Democrat leaning pundits (I repeat myself): Bush/Rumsfeld personally reponsible for midnight shift at Abu Gharib which necessitated numerous media attention... but, Obama/Clinton not responsible for their politically-motivated actions on 9/11/12? Not so much...
djones520 wrote: Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now. It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.
Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.
Yup. They kicked the ball into the long grass so they wouldn't have to worry about it during election time, now that they might be compelled to explain any inconsistencies etc. there aren't any real ramifications for some of those higher up.
Back to OP: The media and Democrat leaning pundits (I repeat myself): Bush/Rumsfeld personally reponsible for midnight shift at Abu Gharib which necessitated numerous media attention... but, Obama/Clinton not responsible for their politically-motivated actions on 9/11/12? Not so much...
Did the entirety of the "media" claim that Bush and Rumsfeld were personally responsible for Abu Ghraib, or do you just feel that way?
Back to OP: The media and Democrat leaning pundits (I repeat myself): Bush/Rumsfeld personally reponsible for midnight shift at Abu Gharib which necessitated numerous media attention... but, Obama/Clinton not responsible for their politically-motivated actions on 9/11/12? Not so much...
Did the entirety of the "media" claim that Bush and Rumsfeld were personally responsible for Abu Ghraib, or do you just feel that way?
whembly wrote: I haven't seen anyone discuss these two events, so I figured I'll throw it up here...
But here's the thing.... I'm reading various news feeds/streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive government cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial.
Most of the networks are not even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing.
This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
What you've done there is decide, personally, that Benghazi is a really big deal, and then use that as evidence that the media must be biased because it isn't covering it.
Reality is that Benghazi isn't being covered because it just doesn't rate. The Republicans have utterly failed in convincing the population that the people in charge did anything really wrong in any kind of shocking manner*, or that it has any relevance to their lives.
I mean, think about this. Remember the Clinton blow job trial. It was some stupid, irrelevant bs, but that was covered 24/7 for years. Anyone trying to claim evidence of anti-Democrat bias in the media then would be as wrong as you are now - that issue was lurid and exciting in a way that splicing apart sentence by sentence transcripts of what people said about Benghazi just isn't. The media runs with what's exciting. And so the Arias thing gets a run, and Benghazi doesn't.
I mean, right now I think the real issue of the day is the unbelievable stupidity of austerity, on both sides of the pond there remains dangerous numbers of politicians and influential people pretending there's any merit to austerity at all. But you see basically no media coverage of that at all. I could claim that's because there's a massive bias towards austerity in the media, or I could recognise that highly technical academic arguments, even when they have more of an effect on people's lives than anything else going on today... just don't get popular media coverage, because that isn't how the media works.
So stop looking for this liberal media bias. It isn't there, and looking for it is getting you confused about what the media actually is and how it operates
*I mean yeah, some people played with words in misleading ways. Like politicians do daily, especially when they're trying to control on-going situations. It's both not that big a deal and really damn boring.
whembly wrote: I haven't seen anyone discuss these two events, so I figured I'll throw it up here...
But here's the thing.... I'm reading various news feeds/streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive government cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial.
Most of the networks are not even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing.
This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
What you've done there is decide, personally, that Benghazi is a really big deal, and then use that as evidence that the media must be biased because it isn't covering it.
I disagree... on the one hand you have a really brutal murder case that is sensationalized in the traditional media. Right?
On the other hand... 4 American died on what seems to be at best, incompetence somewhere in the administration, and at worst an active cover up in order to protect Obama's reputation during his re-election campaign.
Reality is that Benghazi isn't being covered because it just doesn't rate. The Republicans have utterly failed in convincing the population that the people in charge did anything really wrong in any kind of shocking manner*, or that it has any relevance to their lives.
IMO, I think you're wrong. Check out the transcripts in today's meeting. Here's some bullet points:
1. Two "stand-down" orders were given while the Benghazi attacks were in progress.
2. The "protest" about a YouTube video was a complete fabrication by the Obama administration.
3. Cheryl Mills, Clinton's lawyer at the State Department, told witnesses not to speak to House investigators.
4. Democrats came to rebut the eyewitnesses with talking points. Seriously, read up on that... they very rarely asked any direct questions to the witnesses.
5. One of the witnesses was actually demoted after questioning the administration's response.
6. Let me reiterate again, The whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.
7. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on-the-ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.
8. Again, the highest ranking Libyan diplomat (Mr. Hicks) on the ground was "was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed,” after hearing the ensuing response.
To emulate Biden: It's a big fething deal!
I mean, think about this. Remember the Clinton blow job trial. It was some stupid, irrelevant bs, but that was covered 24/7 for years. Anyone trying to claim evidence of anti-Democrat bias in the media then would be as wrong as you are now - that issue was lurid and exciting in a way that splicing apart sentence by sentence transcripts of what people said about Benghazi just isn't. The media runs with what's exciting. And so the Arias thing gets a run, and Benghazi doesn't.
I really think you don't get the American Media much in Oz... do you? Because that does just jive man.
I mean, right now I think the real issue of the day is the unbelievable stupidity of austerity, on both sides of the pond there remains dangerous numbers of politicians and influential people pretending there's any merit to austerity at all.
Yeah, that's dumb...
But you see basically no media coverage of that at all. I could claim that's because there's a massive bias towards austerity in the media, or I could recognise that highly technical academic arguments, even when they have more of an effect on people's lives than anything else going on today... just don't get popular media coverage, because that isn't how the media works.
Say wut? Isn't the Sequestration a form of austerity? (even though, it's technically not). But, we're getting gak ton of coverage of the problems in EU.
So stop looking for this liberal media bias. It isn't there, and looking for it is getting you confused about what the media actually is and how it operates
Seriously... SERIOUSLY?
r
Let me try something simple... okay?
So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
Conversely, the CIA correctly stated that Benghazi was a TERRORIST attacked, yet somehow, by SOMEONE, the talking points were edited to place blame on some anti-Islam youtube director. MEDIA response? OMG, we need to get this youtube director!
Honestly, don't you see a difference? I really think that your hatred/disgust of the Republican party is blinding you of what's going on here.
*I mean yeah, some people played with words in misleading ways. Like politicians do daily, especially when they're trying to control on-going situations. It's both not that big a deal and really damn boring.
So you really think it's "okay" that politics was involved on how they handled Benghazi? That's the real issue... WHO made the decision to blame that youtube director? Why was this the major deflection for more than two weeks after the fact?
So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
You're confusing a political slogan thrown around at rallies with a "media response". The media almost unilaterally bought into the Iraq war hype, and very few people in the media accused the administration of having been deliberately deceptive. It took several years for the truth to come out that there was never any concrete evidence.
Yes, I was even attending a college where everyone that was politically engaged* actually did blame Bush for everything. And while a great many media outlets did personally blame members of the Bush Administration for Abu Ghraib it was hardly a unified front, nor is it ever, as the "media" is not a singular organization.
I mean, I don't deny that Abu Ghraib received far more media attention than Benghazi has, but recall that it wasn't a significant story until graphic images of the conduct of the relevant soldiers became public. Images that involved the explicit mistreatment of prisoners, not just the remains of a building. It is much easier to sell a story predicated on images of US soldiers forcing prisoners to masturbate than it is to sell one based on what is essentially indistinguishable from any other image of rubble. As I've said before, Benghazi isn't getting significant media coverage any longer because it simply isn't a compelling story. Indeed, the comparison to the Arias trial is apt, because that isn't getting much coverage either.
*As in everyone except the 11 people (including myself) that were members of the College Republicans.
whembly wrote: I disagree... on the one hand you have a really brutal murder case that is sensationalized in the traditional media. Right?
On the other hand... 4 American died on what seems to be at best, incompetence somewhere in the administration, and at worst an active cover up in order to protect Obama's reputation during his re-election campaign.
You keep just asserting that there is this absolute, unquestionable reality that there was incompetence that led to those deaths, and likely a cover up afterwards. And I put it to you that that is not the public perception, and for that reason
Now, if you disagree, well then it's up to you to put it in a way that's clear, concise and actually believable. And when you do it, send that stuff right over the Republicans leading this inquiry, because they've utterly failed to do it, and that's why no-one gives a gak.
And yeah, you posted a series of bullet points, but each is either debatable claims, nothing like the smoking gun you need to actually make this relevant, or just fething pointless (seriously, claiming the video was related after the fact doesn't change one fething thing about what actually happened).
I really think you don't get the American Media much in Oz... do you? Because that does just jive man.
We do actually. We get a bunch of ABC news and a whole bunch of stuff like Meet the Pess on free to air, and on pay TV we get CNN and FOX. And it's all viewable on-line.
And more to the point - you don't think that sensationalism drives the American media? fething seriously?
Say wut? Isn't the Sequestration a form of austerity? (even though, it's technically not). But, we're getting gak ton of coverage of the problems in EU.
Yeah, sequestration is related to austerity, in that most of the people driving it through are doing so out of the mistaken belief that the deficit is primary issue in the US economy right now.
And yeah, there's plenty of coverage of Europe's economic problems (and here in Oz we're also getting plenty of coverage of your on-going economic malaise as well). But the point is that just describing the blow by blow events (GDP in someplace goes down, bailout package some other place rejected etc) is so superficial as to be almost entirely pointless.
The real story here, the one that really matters, is that faced with the recession, the leaders of Europe listened to a bunch of advisors who made a series of predictions and so put in place a number of policies... and every one of those predictions turned out wrong, and those policies have only made the recovery harder. And having seen that, the response has been to carry on with those policies.
So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
Uh, actually there was a great deal of interference of the Bush admin in those CIA reports. You had Rove and Cheney actually going in to the offices of junior analysts and asking what elements of images could possibly be evidence of WMD facilities.
In fact, the reporting of the investigations in to all that in the wake of the failure to find WMDs is the classic example of a huge story that got nothing like the media attention it deserved. And it got nothing like the attention it deserved because ultimately it was just a lot of people going on record, saying their little bits and pieces over the course of months, even years, until finally the full story is known long after the whole thing is, in the mind of the public, done and dusted.
And that, simply in terms of the number of dead Americans, was miles more important than Benghazi, and yet it was such a media non-issue you seem entirely unaware of it to this day. Now there's two competing explanations for why it might have happened;
1) The whembly 'liberal media' theory... which runs in to problems when you consider this was a story that made the Bush admin look terrible. 2) The sebster 'exciting stories get covered, and that means stuff that's immediately understandable and shocking and not stories slowly pieced together over a year of testimony, to reveal something we're still not completely sure about' theory... which accounts pretty well for why the Clinton blowjob impeachment shambles and the kid who was pretending to be in the weather balloon ran 24/7, and also accounts for Benghazi, and the CIA WMD story didn't.
So you really think it's "okay" that politics was involved on how they handled Benghazi? That's the real issue... WHO made the decision to blame that youtube director? Why was this the major deflection for more than two weeks after the fact?
Do I think it is okay? No, political interference is never okay. Do I think it's meaningfully different than the kind of thing that goes on every single day? Unfortunately not really.
I mean, what about Pat Tillman? That guy left pro football to serve his country and fight in Afghanistan, where he was tragically killed by friendly fire. The military covered up the friendly fire incident, and instead ran with a story that claimed he died facing intense enemy fire. This bs story included telling other men in the unit to lie about the incident to Tillman's family at the funeral. And yeah, plenty of intimidation from higher ups to junior staff about what they were allowed to say to the media then as well.
And yet that story didn't run 24/7. And years later it's basically forgotten.
And at this point you can keep shouting 'liberal media' or you can start to realise that the media just runs what we want to hear, and ultimately stories of murky, complex 'kind of sort of' cover ups just don't rate that well.
The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?
Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now. It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.
Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.
I agree completely on both counts. Having said that, the election has occurred. Lets bring it to light, leanr the lessons, wack anyone still in employ, and move on. We're still in the Great recession and the politicians are dancing around playing "don't pay attention to this, pay attention to that" BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE CLUE HOW TO FIX IT.
So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
You're confusing a political slogan thrown around at rallies with a "media response".
Eh... okay, I went overboard there I'll admit... it was sloppy of me.
The media almost unilaterally bought into the Iraq war hype, and very few people in the media accused the administration of having been deliberately deceptive. It took several years for the truth to come out that there was never any concrete evidence.
It took several years to confirm that... but I disagree with the "media almost unilaterally" bought into the Iraq war hype bit there Ragnar... sure, the media was all over reporting (supportingly) during the inital War (what 2-weeks?). But, when we started the "occupation", that's when it turned ugly.
Yeah, I have to agree with Sebster, overall.
It's cool to have discourse... We all have differing opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: SHould have thrown in Obamacare to. I do believe a nightmare about to happen.
whembly wrote: I disagree... on the one hand you have a really brutal murder case that is sensationalized in the traditional media. Right?
On the other hand... 4 American died on what seems to be at best, incompetence somewhere in the administration, and at worst an active cover up in order to protect Obama's reputation during his re-election campaign.
You keep just asserting that there is this absolute, unquestionable reality that there was incompetence that led to those deaths, and likely a cover up afterwards. And I put it to you that that is not the public perception, and for that reason
That's the fething POINT I'm trying to make! Public perception isn't what's driving the mainstream media. Let me reiterate in my original OP: This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
Now, if you disagree, well then it's up to you to put it in a way that's clear, concise and actually believable. And when you do it, send that stuff right over the Republicans leading this inquiry, because they've utterly failed to do it, and that's why no-one gives a gak.
I'm sorry... so you believe beyond the shadow of doubt, that everything is honky-dory?
And yeah, you posted a series of bullet points, but each is either debatable claims, nothing like the smoking gun you need to actually make this relevant, or just fething pointless
Those whistleblowers were on the fething GROUND in Libya and are UNDER OATH. The have just a little bit credibility and deserve as much than you outrightly dismissing them.
(seriously, claiming the video was related after the fact doesn't change one fething thing about what actually happened).
I beg to fething differ. Politico (warning... a generally centrist website), had this to say on just that very issue:
Spoiler:
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.
You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail today if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.
n the weeks after the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration claimed the terrorist assault had been the outgrowth of a demonstration against the Nakoula video. The administration ran public service announcements in Pakistan featuring President Barack Obama saying the U.S. had nothing to do with it. In a speech at the United Nations around this time, the president declared — no doubt with Nakoula in mind — “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
After Benghazi, the administration was evidently filled with a fierce resolve — to bring Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to justice. Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son’s body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
Lo and behold, Nakoula was brought in for questioning by five Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies at midnight, eventually arrested and held without bond, and finally thrown into jail for a year. He sits in La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas right now, even as the deceptive spin that blamed his video for the Benghazi attack looks more egregious by the day.
Two things must be said about Nakoula upfront. One is that his video, made with an $80,000 budget, can barely be called a video. Even Lindsay Lohan would hesitate to appear in it. The thing is low-down, low-rent, and should be offensive, not just to Muslims, but to all people of goodwill.
The second is that he has a history of fraud. A few years ago, he was sentenced to nearly two years in jail on bank fraud charges. He has more aliases than P. Diddy. Using a false name, Nakoula gulled actors into appearing in his video on the pretense that it was a desert epic and then went in afterward and dubbed in the anti-Muhammad lines. He is not going to win any good citizenship awards and violated the terms of his probation by using an alias (something Nakoula admits).
A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula.
This wasn’t a case of nailing Al Capone on tax evasion. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute points out, Al Capone’s underlying offense was racketeering and gangland killings. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.
His case has symbolic significance in the ongoing battle over whether the Muslim world will embrace modernity, and the panoply of freedoms associated with it, or whether it will continue to slide backward by adopting blasphemy laws punishing expressions deemed offensive to Islam. The administration has been dismayingly willing to accommodate the latter tendency. Nakoula’s jail time appears indistinguishable from what the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, devoted to pushing blasphemy laws around the world, calls “deterrent punishment” for “Islamophobia.”
His video, which did spark violent protests in the Muslim world by the kind of people who are looking for an excuse to protest, should have been an object lesson in freedom. Obama should have explained that our culture is full of disreputable film directors and producers. Some of them are even honored by the Academy.
Instead, Nakoula ended up the patsy in a tawdry coverup. The State Department Operations Center reported to Washington immediately that the the Benghazi attack was an assault carried out by Islamic militants. The falsehoods about Benghazi weren’t a product of the fog of war; they were the product of the fog of politics. Desperate to minimize the attack and deflect responsibility, Team Obama evaded and obsfucated.
Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard notes that even the politicized anodyne talking points left over after the administration’s spinmiesters had thoroughly edited the CIA’s original talking points about Benghazi didn’t mention the Nakoula video. During her infamous Sunday show circuit, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice nonetheless said, “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.”
Nakoula’s character is sketchy and his work is execrable. Yet the First Amendment applies to him all the same, even if he might have reason to doubt it as he serves out a sentence that never would have come about if he hadn’t offended the wrong people.
I really think you don't get the American Media much in Oz... do you? Because that does just jive man.
We do actually. We get a bunch of ABC news and a whole bunch of stuff like Meet the Pess on free to air, and on pay TV we get CNN and FOX. And it's all viewable on-line.
Interesting... cool. Sorta off topic, but why ya'll call Australia "Oz"?? Is it because of how ya'll enunciate that "Aust"-ralia as "Oz"? o.O
And more to the point - you don't think that sensationalism drives the American media? fething seriously?
Of course some sensationalism drives it... but, seriously, you're not paying attention. You want examples? Fine.
Where's the media on the Gosnell trial, that's just now starting to get a little bit attention? Remember, he was arrested in 2011. Oh, right... it deals with one of the major Democratic planks... abortion.
Sandy Hook? From day fething one, it was used to push for major Gun Control... why? Because it fits the narratives...
I can go all day long where SOME sensational news are pushed daily (see the Arias trial) and SOME sensational news are downplayed (see Gosnell trial and the Benghazi hearings).
Let's further expound the Media's coverage of the Gosnell trial shall we? When the major news network were called into question about that, it was responded by saying "it's a local news". Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
Say wut? Isn't the Sequestration a form of austerity? (even though, it's technically not). But, we're getting gak ton of coverage of the problems in EU.
Yeah, sequestration is related to austerity, in that most of the people driving it through are doing so out of the mistaken belief that the deficit is primary issue in the US economy right now.
And yeah, there's plenty of coverage of Europe's economic problems (and here in Oz we're also getting plenty of coverage of your on-going economic malaise as well). But the point is that just describing the blow by blow events (GDP in someplace goes down, bailout package some other place rejected etc) is so superficial as to be almost entirely pointless.
The real story here, the one that really matters, is that faced with the recession, the leaders of Europe listened to a bunch of advisors who made a series of predictions and so put in place a number of policies... and every one of those predictions turned out wrong, and those policies have only made the recovery harder. And having seen that, the response has been to carry on with those policies.
Yup... no problem this statement.
So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
Uh, actually there was a great deal of interference of the Bush admin in those CIA reports. You had Rove and Cheney actually going in to the offices of junior analysts and asking what elements of images could possibly be evidence of WMD facilities.
In fact, the reporting of the investigations in to all that in the wake of the failure to find WMDs is the classic example of a huge story that got nothing like the media attention it deserved. And it got nothing like the attention it deserved because ultimately it was just a lot of people going on record, saying their little bits and pieces over the course of months, even years, until finally the full story is known long after the whole thing is, in the mind of the public, done and dusted.
Hey... don't you see how the media took the time to investigate that, with gumption on that very issue? Now where was that same effort to Benghazi? I don't see it.
And that, simply in terms of the number of dead Americans, was miles more important than Benghazi, and yet it was such a media non-issue you seem entirely unaware of it to this day. Now there's two competing explanations for why it might have happened;
1) The whembly 'liberal media' theory... which runs in to problems when you consider this was a story that made the Bush admin look terrible.
I don't see the problem...
2) The sebster 'exciting stories get covered, and that means stuff that's immediately understandable and shocking and not stories slowly pieced together over a year of testimony, to reveal something we're still not completely sure about' theory... which accounts pretty well for why the Clinton blowjob impeachment shambles and the kid who was pretending to be in the weather balloon ran 24/7, and also accounts for Benghazi, and the CIA WMD story didn't.
You keep bringing up the Clinton thing... you do know why he was impeached. That actually happened... because he lied under oath. I don't think you're supporting anything everytime you keep bringing up Clinton's impeachment.
So you really think it's "okay" that politics was involved on how they handled Benghazi? That's the real issue... WHO made the decision to blame that youtube director? Why was this the major deflection for more than two weeks after the fact?
Do I think it is okay? No, political interference is never okay. Do I think it's meaningfully different than the kind of thing that goes on every single day? Unfortunately not really.
Glad you feel that way... that's why I feel like it's important to have sunlight on the Media's coverages to keep them honest... because, really... the Media does most of the watching on our politicians to keep them honest.
I mean, what about Pat Tillman? That guy left pro football to serve his country and fight in Afghanistan, where he was tragically killed by friendly fire. The military covered up the friendly fire incident, and instead ran with a story that claimed he died facing intense enemy fire. This bs story included telling other men in the unit to lie about the incident to Tillman's family at the funeral. And yeah, plenty of intimidation from higher ups to junior staff about what they were allowed to say to the media then as well.
And yet that story didn't run 24/7. And years later it's basically forgotten.
Say what? See... that's why *I* question how you get US news in the land of Oz...
Pat Tillman was ALL OVER THE fething NEWS and the media kept investigating (as it should). It's NOT a forgotten story... gak, we hear it all the time whenever the St. Louis Rams play the fething Arizona Cardinals (Tillman's old team).
And at this point you can keep shouting 'liberal media' or you can start to realise that the media just runs what we want to hear, and ultimately stories of murky, complex 'kind of sort of' cover ups just don't rate that well.
"If it Bleeds... It Leads" is NOT how it's done anymore. Which was my original point.
The reason why Benghazi hasn't caught on is because there is nothing there to catch on.
Were mistakes made? Sure. Was it a huge scandal bigger than Iran-Contra or Watergate? Not even close. I question if it is even any size of scandal or if it is just "Fog-of-War" type stuff, with a political circus tacked on after the fact.
whembly wrote: Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
Should it? If I went through that, I'm not sure I'd want it held up for the entertainment and titillation of millions of people. I don't see what benefit it provides the victims. It doesn't even seem to provide a particular benefit to society. It's covered because the media outlets think people want to see it.
It seems like this is exactly the problem you should be railing against, in line with what sebster said: news media acting as an entertainment provider rather than a news one. Important issues are deemed to be too boring, so they're dropped in favour of more (supposedly) interesting ones.
whembly wrote: Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
Should it? If I went through that, I'm not sure I'd want it held up for the entertainment and titillation of millions of people. I don't see what benefit it provides the victims. It doesn't even seem to provide a particular benefit to society. It's covered because the media outlets think people want to see it.
It seems like this is exactly the problem you should be railing against, in line with what sebster said: news media acting as an entertainment provider rather than a news one. Important issues are deemed to be too boring, so they're dropped in favour of more (supposedly) interesting ones.
Everything is news... it's an industry. Report it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: The reason why Benghazi hasn't caught on is because there is nothing there to catch on.
Were mistakes made? Sure. Was it a huge scandal bigger than Iran-Contra or Watergate? Not even close. I question if it is even any size of scandal or if it is just "Fog-of-War" type stuff, with a political circus tacked on after the fact.
So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
You're confusing a political slogan thrown around at rallies with a "media response". The media almost unilaterally bought into the Iraq war hype, and very few people in the media accused the administration of having been deliberately deceptive.
Well, they were probably too busy being deceptive themselves. Case in point, Whembly - The NY Times would probably be, in your opinion, the mascot for "liberal bias"; yet I can't think of any media figure who banged the "we better attack Iraq drum" longer or harder then Judy Miller. Quite the opposite of the "Bush Lied" slogan, to be frank.
TL;DR - the GOP can't make fetch Benghazi happen despite near milhousian efforts to make a meme happen; but the lack of media coverage has more to do with the fact there wasn't a single white woman in trouble then bias.
Well, they were probably too busy being deceptive themselves. Case in point, Whembly - The NY Times would probably be, in your opinion, the mascot for "liberal bias"; yet I can't think of any media figure who banged the "we better attack Iraq drum" longer or harder then Judy Miller. Quite the opposite of the "Bush Lied" slogan, to be frank.
Actually, the Times is fine during any non-election years. They're a major outfit after all... it ain't like they're Mother Jones!
TL;DR - the GOP can't make fetch Benghazi happen despite near milhousian efforts to make a meme happen; but the lack of media coverage has more to do with the fact there wasn't a single white woman in trouble then bias.
Erm...what? o.O
I saw this info on my twittah feed:
One possibility of a cover-up, is an email from Hillary's spokeswoman Victoria Nuland specifies the why: The email says that her "superiors" are concerned that the CIA's talking points suggest that Hillary overlooked warning signs in Benghazi.
The smoking gun evidence of a cover-up is this: The demotion of a whistleblower, retaliation against Gregory Hicks, for telling the truth about the talking points.
Because this point is all but unspinnable -- the media's all-too-common tactic of late: Silence.
tl; dw During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that lead to 13 deaths yet only garnered 3 hearings total and zero outrage from conservative media, as opposed to this one attack getting multiple hearings and constant coverage of 'maybe something happened, lets hope we find something out'.
tl; dw During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that lead to 13 deaths yet only garnered 3 hearings total and zero outrage from conservative media, as opposed to this one attack getting multiple hearings and constant coverage of 'maybe something happened, lets hope we find something out'.
No matter what political views or opinions you hold, who you vote for, the end is the same - you vote them to do the job, and to be open and honest as your representative. If something goes wrong they should be accountable for it, and honest with the reasons why.
Those are the fateful words Republicans have been trying to hang around former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's neck since she first uttered them at a January congressional hearing. But it is also the question facing the Benghazi investigation itself.
Can the inquiry into the attacks on the US consulate in Libya yield meaningful new information? Can it unearth facts that reveal the Obama administration to have been mendacious, incompetent or just understandably confused amidst the fog of war? And will the public care?
For months, the Benghazi story was safely ghettoized in the conservative press (save for some dogged reporting by CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson). But Wednesday's hearing rekindled broad media interest, as the former deputy to murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens gave testimony that repeatedly undercut administration claims.
Gregory Hicks testified that everyone knew early on that the consulate had been the target of a terrorist attack, not a protest over an anti-Muslim YouTube video. He said that when he objected to the official talking points, administration praise turned into an effective demotion. Hicks added that Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills forbade him from talking to a Republican investigator, in a somewhat intimidating fashion.
Whistleblowers claimed that a US armed force in Tripoli was twice instructed not to deploy to Benghazi. They told Congress they did not know who gave the "stand down" orders or the reasoning behind the decision.
After the attack, the wounded ambassador was taken to a hospital controlled by the Islamists responsible. Hicks testified that Americans didn't go get him because they were being set up. "We suspected we were being baited into a trap and so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush," he said
As the New York Times reported,
"If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration's response to it, it vividly illustrated the anxiety of top State Department officials about how the events would be publicly portrayed."
Some might go further and say that the hearings raised serious questions about both the security situation in Benghazi and the veracity of the administration's initial public account. Hicks called Ambassador Susan Rice's early explanations "stunning" and "embarrassing".
Did the White House want to avoid any perception that a terrorist attack, launched on the anniversary of 9/11, was mishandled as President Obama was running for reelection? Was there too light a military footprint because the earlier campaign for regime change in Libya was sold to the American people as requiring no boots on the ground? Who even knew what, when?
Republicans have raised similar questions with mixed results since the incident. GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney assailed Obama's response to the Benghazi assault during a debate. The exchange was so widely viewed as disastrous for Romney that the White House still cites it when pushing back against Republican critics.
The main target of the investigation at this point isn't Obama but Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The findings could have an impact both on her legacy and her reputation for being able to field that 3am phone call featured prominently in a 2008 Clinton campaign ad.
But the more Benghazi looks like an anti-Clinton fishing expedition, the less likely the inquiry is to permeate the consciousness of the ideologically uncommitted.
Terrorism happens. No serious person is hammering the Obama administration over the Boston Marathon bombings, which happened on US soil. No government can be omnipotent in protecting the public from harm, much less diplomats stationed in dangerous areas of the world.
But political leaders can be as transparent as national security will allow about their responses to such assaults. In this case, the obvious inadequacy of the security and the appearance of a cover-up warrant further investigation – as does the country's duty to four dead Americans.
Disciplined Republican questioning and critical witness testimony returned Benghazi to the headlines. But the broader questions remain: Who was giving the orders regarding security? What did the president know and when did he know it? And how about the ex-secretary of state, who may want to be our next president?
The answers will tell us what difference this makes.
whembly wrote: I've said it before, there's a distinction.
There really isn't, but if it helps you to sleep at night to rationalize it in such a superficial manner, then go for it. It isn't like anyone can stop you. This stopped being a 'search for truth' a long time ago, and for once most of the public isn't buying into the witch hunt. That is probably why the story has shifted from "we don't have any real information that makes the point that we wish we could make" to "why won't anyone pay attention to us conjecture about the point that we wish we could make, but have evidence to back up". If you can't dupe the people into your outrage, try to get them outraged that no one is outraged.
whembly wrote: That's the fething POINT I'm trying to make! Public perception isn't what's driving the mainstream media. Let me reiterate in my original OP: This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
]
I don't know how many more times I can explain this. Either you believe as you do, that the media avoids stories for political reasons and will leave out a potentially high rating story in order to pursue it's collective hive mind political beliefs.
Or you can believe that the media, being a very competitive industry that chases ratings wherever it might appear, simply follows the viewing numbers. And that means when a story doesn't rate, it doesn't get shown.
I'm sorry... so you believe beyond the shadow of doubt, that everything is honky-dory?
No, I didn't say that. Read what I'm saying please, and don't just make up nonsense to make things easier for yourself.
Those whistleblowers were on the fething GROUND in Libya and are UNDER OATH. The have just a little bit credibility and deserve as much than you outrightly dismissing them.
Who have I outright dismissed? What are you even talking about?
Interesting... cool. Sorta off topic, but why ya'll call Australia "Oz"?? Is it because of how ya'll enunciate that "Aust"-ralia as "Oz"? o.O
You know how you guys abbreviate everything in to 3 letters. ATF. FBI. EPL.
We just take the first syllable and use that, and maybe add a 'y' or 'a' after. We're really lazy like that.
Sandy Hook? From day fething one, it was used to push for major Gun Control... why? Because it fits the narratives...
What the fething ballsack?
That's a narrative? We're in this stupid thread, one of approximately 17 trillion threads about Islamic terrorism, talking as if that is one of the biggest things affecting people's lives... when you compare US deaths to Islamic terrorism since 1980 (about 3,500) to US deaths by firearms (about 1,000,000).
And you want to talk about what fits the narrative?! You seriously need some perspective.
Let's further expound the Media's coverage of the Gosnell trial shall we? When the major news network were called into question about that, it was responded by saying "it's a local news". Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
You don't see the sensationalist angle in the story of three women kidnapped and held as sex slaves for 10 years? You don't see how that is, basically, a very exciting crime story?
Hey... don't you see how the media took the time to investigate that, with gumption on that very issue? Now where was that same effort to Benghazi? I don't see it.
Given the extent of the interference in Iraq, and the fact that it led to a war where several thousand US troops and hundreds of thousands of others died, the media response to the way the Bush admin manipulated the CIA was very muted.
Now by your theory that was because of liberal bias, and therefore Bush was a liberal or something. Or its because stories about long running inquiries that drag out little bits of information over months and years just don't rate that well, and thereby don't get covered in the media.
Now, you can use that to conclude that mainstream media ends up covering trivial, sensationalist stuff and misses the stories that really matter, and I'd agree. But I'd then point out that what they do and don't cover cuts both ways, important but pointless stories that serve both the right and left are missed, in order to talk about whatever celebrity just went in to rehab.
You keep bringing up the Clinton thing... you do know why he was impeached. That actually happened... because he lied under oath. I don't think you're supporting anything everytime you keep bringing up Clinton's impeachment.
The 'he lied under oath' thing is just as misleading... at least my simplification was pithy
I mean, if you really want to go in to it, you start with the conviction of Starr and a small number of Republicans that there was some great scandal at the bottom of the Whitewater mess, and that the Clintons would be brought down by it. And then you watch that conviction churn through millions of dollars while uncovering exactly nothing, and then to justify that waste of time and money you watch that morph in to an investigation of Clinton's sexual actions because there was actually something there to uncover, which ultimately led to Clinton being brought in to be questioned on a matter that bore simply no relation to his political actions. And ultimately, whether a lie under oath is a lie under oath, or it only matters if the lie was about something relevant to people other than Clinton and his wife... well that was answered both in government, by the failure of the impeachment, and by the people, in Clinton's continued popularity.
I thought it was easier just to say blowjob that type all that out.
Glad you feel that way... that's why I feel like it's important to have sunlight on the Media's coverages to keep them honest... because, really... the Media does most of the watching on our politicians to keep them honest.
Oh, I think its very important to discuss the ways the media works and how the stories they select have a real and meaningful impact on political discourse.
But I believe very strongly that the 'liberal media' and 'media bias' drumbeats simply aren't true, and actually distract from how the media really does report these matters.
Say what? See... that's why *I* question how you get US news in the land of Oz...
Pat Tillman was ALL OVER THE fething NEWS and the media kept investigating (as it should). It's NOT a forgotten story... gak, we hear it all the time whenever the St. Louis Rams play the fething Arizona Cardinals (Tillman's old team).
All over the news? You gonna claims it's gotten the coverage Benghazi got? Seriously?
Rented Tritium wrote: We can all agree that the Arias trial is stupid and isn't really national news, though, right?
Yes but it had a cutie and taped naughty conversations. Naughty naughty STABSTABSTABSTABSTABSTABSTAB!
Don't tell me men are the only crazy killers out there
Yeah, i don;t connect Petraeus's Fall and Benghazi at all. Sorry.
That's like saying the suicide of that Clinton advisor in the 90's (Vince Foster?) was somehow linked to Whitewater.... oh wait... I think the some people did say that!
Yeah, i don;t connect Petraeus's Fall and Benghazi at all. Sorry.
That's like saying the suicide of that Clinton advisor in the 90's (Vince Foster?) was somehow linked to Whitewater.... oh wait... I think the some people did say that!
I wasn't exactly being serious on the whole sex thing...
Well... it's catching on at least. Better late than never.
NBC's Lisa Myers said this morning on TV that Democrats have been calling her to attempt to undermine the testimony of Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks:
"There is something called Benghazi going on," said Myers. "And I think the Democrats now are starting to worry about it. I started--I got calls from a number of Democrats yesterday trying to undermine Greg Hicks's testimony, saying he wasn't demoted, etc. So I think they feel that some damage was done by those three witnesses on Wednesday."
Acting Deputy State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell says that is not true.
"The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks," said Ventrell. "As he testified yesterday, he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, in part due to understandable family reasons, and he has followed standard employment processes."
Ventrell says Hicks has had neither a reduction in pay nor in grade and is free to compete with other foreign service officers for his next posting.
Seems like Mr. Hicks just feels like he's being hung out to dry, but according to his superiors, he has not experienced a reduction in pay or grade.
Acting Deputy State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell says that is not true.
"The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks," said Ventrell. "As he testified yesterday, he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, in part due to understandable family reasons, and he has followed standard employment processes."
Ventrell says Hicks has had neither a reduction in pay nor in grade and is free to compete with other foreign service officers for his next posting.
Seems like Mr. Hicks just feels like he's being hung out to dry, but according to his superiors, he has not experienced a reduction in pay or grade.
Awesome. Both are now on record. Therefor one has committed perjury and should go to jail. Lets appoint a special prosecutor and drop the dime on someone.
State's going to take the hit, not the administration.
On Politico at the moment: "Report: Terror references removed from Benghazi talking points"
Highlights:
Politico wrote:Talking points on the attack on the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had been extensively revised before she received them by the State Department to remove references to terrorism, according to a report on Friday.
ABC News, which acquired 12 different drafts of the talking points, disclosed that the State Department requested that the CIA scrub references to an Al Qaeda-linked group, Ansar Al-Sharia.
A State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, specifically asked the CIA to delete a paragraph citing prior attacks that could’ve been warning signs because that “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” according to email reviewed by ABC. The paragraph was struck entirely.
...
The report also appears to contradict repeated assertions from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and others that the talking points were a product of the nation’s intelligence agencies and were crafted without political interference.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community,” Carney told reporters at a White House press briefing in November. “They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.” Carney said the only outside edits were “stylistic.”
whembly wrote: That's the fething POINT I'm trying to make! Public perception isn't what's driving the mainstream media. Let me reiterate in my original OP: This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
]
I don't know how many more times I can explain this. Either you believe as you do, that the media avoids stories for political reasons and will leave out a potentially high rating story in order to pursue it's collective hive mind political beliefs.
That's what I'm say'n brah!
Or you can believe that the media, being a very competitive industry that chases ratings wherever it might appear, simply follows the viewing numbers. And that means when a story doesn't rate, it doesn't get shown.
That's part of their operating strategy... they've become more adversarial and practical advocates.
I'm sorry... so you believe beyond the shadow of doubt, that everything is honky-dory?
No, I didn't say that. Read what I'm saying please, and don't just make up nonsense to make things easier for yourself.
Sorry, you're giving that impression.
Those whistleblowers were on the fething GROUND in Libya and are UNDER OATH. The have just a little bit credibility and deserve as much than you outrightly dismissing them.
Who have I outright dismissed? What are you even talking about?
Responding your response, here, I'll help:
sebster wrote: And yeah, you posted a series of bullet points, but each is either debatable claims, nothing like the smoking gun you need to actually make this relevant, or just fething pointless
Interesting... cool. Sorta off topic, but why ya'll call Australia "Oz"?? Is it because of how ya'll enunciate that "Aust"-ralia as "Oz"? o.O
You know how you guys abbreviate everything in to 3 letters. ATF. FBI. EPL.
We just take the first syllable and use that, and maybe add a 'y' or 'a' after. We're really lazy like that.
Heh... good to know.
Sandy Hook? From day fething one, it was used to push for major Gun Control... why? Because it fits the narratives...
What the fething ballsack?
That's a narrative? We're in this stupid thread, one of approximately 17 trillion threads about Islamic terrorism, talking as if that is one of the biggest things affecting people's lives... when you compare US deaths to Islamic terrorism since 1980 (about 3,500) to US deaths by firearms (about 1,000,000).
And you want to talk about what fits the narrative?! You seriously need some perspective.
You missed the point. o.O
Let's further expound the Media's coverage of the Gosnell trial shall we? When the major news network were called into question about that, it was responded by saying "it's a local news". Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
You don't see the sensationalist angle in the story of three women kidnapped and held as sex slaves for 10 years? You don't see how that is, basically, a very exciting crime story?
I noticed how you're not engaging me on the gosnell trial... that has sensationalism galore.
And yes, the 3 kidnapped women ARE big news... that's why I used that example. Gosnell? Not so much... why?
Hey... don't you see how the media took the time to investigate that, with gumption on that very issue? Now where was that same effort to Benghazi? I don't see it.
Given the extent of the interference in Iraq, and the fact that it led to a war where several thousand US troops and hundreds of thousands of others died, the media response to the way the Bush admin manipulated the CIA was very muted.
Now by your theory that was because of liberal bias, and therefore Bush was a liberal or something. Or its because stories about long running inquiries that drag out little bits of information over months and years just don't rate that well, and thereby don't get covered in the media.
Now, you can use that to conclude that mainstream media ends up covering trivial, sensationalist stuff and misses the stories that really matter, and I'd agree. But I'd then point out that what they do and don't cover cuts both ways, important but pointless stories that serve both the right and left are missed, in order to talk about whatever celebrity just went in to rehab.
Seb...it's been my assertation that Benghazi is NOT trivial.
You keep bringing up the Clinton thing... you do know why he was impeached. That actually happened... because he lied under oath. I don't think you're supporting anything everytime you keep bringing up Clinton's impeachment.
The 'he lied under oath' thing is just as misleading... at least my simplification was pithy
I mean, if you really want to go in to it, you start with the conviction of Starr and a small number of Republicans that there was some great scandal at the bottom of the Whitewater mess, and that the Clintons would be brought down by it. And then you watch that conviction churn through millions of dollars while uncovering exactly nothing, and then to justify that waste of time and money you watch that morph in to an investigation of Clinton's sexual actions because there was actually something there to uncover, which ultimately led to Clinton being brought in to be questioned on a matter that bore simply no relation to his political actions. And ultimately, whether a lie under oath is a lie under oath, or it only matters if the lie was about something relevant to people other than Clinton and his wife... well that was answered both in government, by the failure of the impeachment, and by the people, in Clinton's continued popularity.
I thought it was easier just to say blowjob that type all that out.
Whatever the reasons are... He. Lied. Under. Oath. Thusly, he was truly impeached, but not removed from office as they're two separate events.
This my shock your very soul, but during the Clinton years and during the bruhah of the trial, I was on Clinton's side.... until he 'fessed that he lied.
Glad you feel that way... that's why I feel like it's important to have sunlight on the Media's coverages to keep them honest... because, really... the Media does most of the watching on our politicians to keep them honest.
Oh, I think its very important to discuss the ways the media works and how the stories they select have a real and meaningful impact on political discourse.
Yep... hence my post!
But I believe very strongly that the 'liberal media' and 'media bias' drumbeats simply aren't true, and actually distract from how the media really does report these matters.
And I strongly disagree with you.
Say what? See... that's why *I* question how you get US news in the land of Oz...
Pat Tillman was ALL OVER THE fething NEWS and the media kept investigating (as it should). It's NOT a forgotten story... gak, we hear it all the time whenever the St. Louis Rams play the fething Arizona Cardinals (Tillman's old team).
All over the news? You gonna claims it's gotten the coverage Benghazi got? Seriously?
Yep. Tillman was national and local news here. Another reason why I question the American news exposure you get in Oz. We're SATURATED with it here.... o.O
Maybe I'm totally wrong... let's ask some ex-pats if they've notice anything different...
@MGS @Dreadclaw
Am I way off base? (re: US media exposure)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Seb... so what does the WH do when accusations are flying about an attempted cover up and a disinterested, collusive media? It’s holding an off-the-record briefing?
whembly wrote: Maybe I'm totally wrong... let's ask some ex-pats if they've notice anything different...
@MGS @Dreadclaw
Am I way off base? (re: US media exposure)
This is my own personal opinion on the US and how it differs from other reporting.
The TV news media is a lot different to what I'd see in N.I. There it was mainly BBC and Channel 4 news that I watched. I'd read the Guardian, which is a really left leaning rag which is getting worse by the day, because it was one of the few sites not blocked at work. The Guardian is pretty much anti-American, and anti-Israel. It had columns posted by someone accused of spying during the Cold War, members of terrorist organisation, and they think that Pravda and Electronic Intifada are reliable sources. Their comment section is a hive of bile for the most part. The BBC is pretty neutral for the most part, which Channel 4 was left of center.Usually both their correspondents would be from the UK, but living in the US. They did a decent job of explaining global ramifications of events.
Over here though there is a lot of difference in the media and its reporting. You can usually see an author's bias early in the articles they publish, shows they host etc. I remember watching Fox News and MSNBC during the election run up and it was a different experience listening to them call out their counterparts and their views live on air, as well as that sometimes I was wondering if I was watching the same broadcast that they were based on their coverage. Given the recent coverage of gun ownership and immigration it does look more apparent that there is a bias there - emotion over facts, incorrect information surfacing at a rate which is shocking for professional journalists, hiring of aides from the current administration being largely brushed under the carpet etc.
One thing that is consistent on both sides of the pond though is that Piers Morgan should not be employed
Rented Tritium wrote: We can all agree that the Arias trial is stupid and isn't really national news, though, right?
Yes. I have yet to read a single news story on her, and in fact only tangentially even know who this is because of the news being on in the break room at work when I'm getting a soda or tea or whatever. But, White Woman in trouble always rates.
Valion wrote: A State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, specifically asked the CIA to delete a paragraph citing prior attacks that could’ve been warning signs because that “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” according to email reviewed by ABC.
I'll take "politically driven motivations only a fool would actually document in writing" for 500, Alex.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: One thing that is consistent on both sides of the pond though is that Piers Morgan should not be employed
I tried watching clips of his show on youtube and they were just bad. Not even bad-but-good-enough-for-a-laugh, but watching someone with entitlement issues spit his dummy out when he wasn't getting his way like a spoiled, petulant child. Every question was loaded, and people shouted down when trying to make a point he disagreed with.
Some of his exploits include;
Morgan was fired as Editor of the Daily Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.[16] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs
In 2007 Morgan was filmed falling off a Segway, breaking three ribs. Simon Cowell and others made much of Morgan's previous comment in 2003, in the Daily Mail, after former U.S. President George W. Bush fell off a Segway, that "You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you, Mr. President?
Morgan appeared as a guest on the satirical news quiz Have I Got News for You in an episode transmitted on 24 May 1996.[49] In it, show regular Ian Hislop accused Morgan of having him followed and having his house watched. The conflict escalated and at one point the host, Angus Deayton, asked if they wished to go outside and have a fight. Later on, guest panellist Clive Anderson confronted Morgan commenting "the last time I was rude to you, you sent photographers to my doorstep the next day", to which Piers Morgan retorted, "You won't see them this time." The audience responded loudly in favour of Hislop.[50] "'We're about to start exposing the moon-faced midget'", Morgan was quoted as saying in 2002, to which Hislop responded "'all he's been offering for information about my private life is a £50 reward. My friends think that's not nearly enough.'"[51]
In 2007, Hislop chose Morgan as one of his pet hates on Room 101.[52][53] In doing so, Hislop spoke of the history of animosity between himself and Morgan and revealed that after their exchange on Have I Got News For You (which was shown as a clip), Morgan's reporters were tasked with trying to get gossip on Hislop's private life (including phoning acquaintances of Hislop), and photographers were sent in case Hislop did anything untoward or embarrassing while in their presence. Neither the reporters nor the photographers succeeded. Hislop also revealed that Morgan had attempted to quell the feud in an article in The Mail On Sunday, saying, "The war is over. I'm officially calling an end to hostilities, at least from my end. I'm sure it won't stop him carrying on his 'Piers Moron' stuff."[54] Hislop, who had been engaged in work on a First World War documentary at the time, responded by asking "Is that an armistice or an unconditional surrender?" Although the show's host Paul Merton agreed to put Morgan into Room 101, he was comically rejected as being "too toxic", even for Room 101
In October 2003, journalist and television personality Jeremy Clarkson reportedly emptied a glass of water over Morgan during the last flight of Concorde.[56] In March 2004, at the British Press Awards, Clarkson punched Morgan three times in a clash over The Mirror's coverage of his private life, and accusations that Clarkson did not write for his column in The Sun himself.[56] Morgan reported on a rapprochement with Clarkson in the epilogue of his book, Don't You Know Who I Am?.
whembly wrote: Responding your response, here, I'll help:
I think you've got a really strange idea of how much of a smoking gun one whistleblower is. I mean, we all see the movies where the brave witness takes to the stand in the last act and the case is won, but in reality these people are just yet another person brought before the committee, and they give a bunch of answers that don't in and of themselves prove anything, requiring us to have people spend months working over testimony and evidence to give a best judgement call on what really happened.
It's why the invasion of Iraq, which again was a much bigger deal than this, basically just petered out over time.
You missed the point. o.O
No, I just made a point you didn't like. You wanted to bring guns in to a conversation about narrative that already included terrorism, without realising that US narrative on guns looks completely flying rodent gak insane when you put it up next to terrorism.
And yes, the 3 kidnapped women ARE big news... that's why I used that example. Gosnell? Not so much... why?
That's a fair question, and honestly I think it is a significant blindspot in media coverage. Far more than Benghazi.
Seb...it's been my assertation that Benghazi is NOT trivial.
Yeah, I know dude. And my point, made quite a few times now, is that thinking the media just covers matters based on their importance, except when liberal bias enters the frame is just wrong.
The media covers stuff based on whether there is exciting footage to show, whether the subject is exciting or thrilling to the audience, whether it can be explained in the 30 seconds to a minute of the story's run time and all kinds of other stuff.
Whether something is actually of national importance to the people... well just think about the weeks of coverage given to Michael Jackson's death.
Whatever the reasons are... He. Lied. Under. Oath. Thusly, he was truly impeached, but not removed from office as they're two separate events.
And like I said, for some people 'he lied under oath' is the beginning and the end of the matter, while for others the issue on which he was being questioned was ridiculous, and makes the whole issue just disappear.
And he was impeached by the House of Reps, but his trial rejected by the Senate. I don't know the technical terms as to whether that makes him impeached or not, but instead just re-read my summary of the events and tell me if I got anything wrong.
This my shock your very soul, but during the Clinton years and during the bruhah of the trial, I was on Clinton's side.... until he 'fessed that he lied.
And it may shock you, but for a time I felt that a lie under oath was a lie under oath. But then I got older, lived, and learned a lot more about what happened.
And I strongly disagree with you.
And you're wrong.
Yep. Tillman was national and local news here. Another reason why I question the American news exposure you get in Oz. We're SATURATED with it here.... o.O
Seriously? You're seriously telling me you think Tillman got more coverage in total than Benghazi? Seriously, and for true? Because maybe I saw maybe two pieces on Tillman in the whole time it was coming out, and I see something on Benghazi like every week... and I was following US news a lot more closely back then.
“This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong,” Kucinich began, blasting the Obama administration for helping to take out Qaddafi. “And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.”
Fox host Chris Wallace asked, “So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?”
“Of course they were,” said Kucinich. “Come on, are you kidding? This is one of those things that you have to realize were in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. they weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go in to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions being raised.”
At least the IRS is getting scrutiny by the Media... I seem to remember that this started with that "Joe the Plummer" incident.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the fatal attacks on American diplomats in Benghazi could lead to President Barack Obama’s impeachment during a radio interview Friday.
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said during a discussion of Benghazi on “The Rusty Humphries Show.”
Continue Reading Text Size
-+resetMcCain: Benghazi 'a cover-up'
Latest on POLITICO
Bloomberg bids farewell to Walters
Poll: GOP angriest about Benghazi
Baucus pledges Senate IRS hearings
Schiff: Broad probe of IRS
Rubio: Obama should fire IRS chief
Tea party groups want IRS inquiry
“I-word meaning ‘impeachment?’” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe said.
Humphries pointed out it was unlikely the Senate would vote to convict Obama even if the GOP-controlled House voted to impeach.
(Also on POLITICO: Collins: No impeachment over Benghazi)
“I understand that,” he said. “I’m not talking about it now. This is something that could last until after the 2014 elections. This is not a short story. … This is clearly an orchestrated cover-up.”
Republicans have been musing, with varying degrees of seriousness, about impeaching Obama almost since his first day in office. Most recently, Reps. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and Trey Radel (R-Fla.) suggested impeaching the president over his use of executive actions to advance gun control.
Inhofe zeroed in on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearance on the Sunday political talk shows following the attack as the impetus for the scandal. During those appearances, Rice acknowledged the presence of “extremists” at the diplomatic compound in Libya, but fingered a poorly made and offensive viral video as the root of the violence.
“They knew that it was a cover-up at that time, the time that it happened,” Inhofe said. “To send Susan Rice out to lie to the American people is one thing that’s going to go down in history, that’s never going to be forgotten.”
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the attack. Republicans have spent the past week building up Benghazi as a scandal after the issue faded from the scene in recent months. The House Oversight Committee held a emotional and lengthy hearing on Wednesday and documents outlining the development of Rice’s talking points were leaked to ABC on Friday morning.
(WATCH: Hicks recounts Chris Stevens phone call)
Like other Republicans in recent days, Inhofe has taken direct aim at then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claiming her famous clash with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) at hearing in January was essentially staged by the former First Lady.
“I think that she has gotten by with that sort of forceful attitude,” he said. “It’s something you’re not really accustomed to or hear from women as much as you do men. And she came out so forcefully, and you could tell that it was orchestrated at the time that she said it.”
Considering lots of people were using "impeach" as a result of their perceptions of Obama:
Being atheist
Being a Muslim
Not being Christian
Not being Christian enough
Being Kenyan
Not being Kenyan but definitely maybe not being American
Not being white (thanks YouTube)
Being half white (thanks again, YouTube)
Being a communist
Being a fascist
Being the antichrist
Working for the Illuminati
Working for the Lizard People
etc. etc.
Honestly, I think at this point whenever a Republican suggests a Democrat be impeached, it carries about as much weight as someone's crazy old grandparent suggesting someone do something about all the *insert arbitrary outdated racial noun here*.
That hinges on what Obama does Whembly...Ole Jay Carney was shot to pieces on the press Q&A....Obama credibility a bit shot but then he got his 2nd term...so does he take the salvo's from the investigations or pass the buck eh
If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).
There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.
So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!
d-usa wrote: If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).
There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.
So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!
Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.
The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.
d-usa wrote:If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).
There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.
So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!
I think Hillary would make a better VP on a ticket.
...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?
whembly wrote:The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.
d-usa wrote:If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).
There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.
So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!
I think Hillary would make a better VP on a ticket.
If she runs...it's for Prez, not VP.
...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?
As Prez... Hillary would curb stomp any GOP candidate imo. The political Sith powers the Clintonias are legendary.
whembly wrote:The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.
Oh, I'm sure FoxNews will find a way.
Honestly... I don't see how. Congress critters don't have much to say (other than the laws/funding they pass) in the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch.
d-usa wrote:If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).
There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.
So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!
...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?
There were a few of the early contenders that would have probably had a decent shot. I think Gary Johnson would have been a decent candidate, and if I would have lived in any state other than Oklahoma he would have gotten my vote. Jon Huntsman would have had a good shot as well I think. Both are pretty dang low on the "crazy Republican" scale.
But honestly, Mitt Romney had every shot at winning this thing if it would not have been for the "anybody but Romney" tactics by the Republican machine at large. You can't spend the entire primary season destroying your own Republican candidate and then think he is going to pull of the win.
Through parts of 2011 I honestly thought "Obama did good, but economy is crap, so nothing he can do will be good enough. Romney will get the nomination and win." Of course that was before "Republican Primary 2012" became a 6 month Jerry Springer show.
The thing is here, one of my best friends worked for about 10 years in "the Media", and he know many to most of my political leanings. Here is the gist of what I've gotten from him, in talking about the media in general:
-The "news" reports what sells. This goes from national level all the way down to local. He had a local affiliate want to run a story on an auto manufacturer and some of its major failings with recent models. Well, that same manufacturer was one of the primary advertisers during that block of shows, and threatened to pull their ads if the story was run.
Long story short, they pulled the story, and kept making money.
-Journalists have a code of ethics, and most of them actually pride themselves on following that code. There are even some places where you may not get hired, if someone even THINKS that you haven't been entirely faithful to that code.
-Where most of us "uninitiated" see bias, he sees the spin that makes a story sell. What makes a story catch our eyes is not necessarily the whole truth, because quite honestly, the whole truth rarely sells.
Media, like auto manufacturing, beer brewing, or shipping, is a business, and it is there to make money. They make most of this through advertising, and ratings... So, therefore, you MUST sell a good product in order to stay in business. This is partially the reason why places like Fox News and CNN run shows that feature good looking blondes sitting in front of the camera.
One of my friends is an editor for a news & radio station in Oklahoma. They are one of the big 4 local TV news and soundbites of the news get condensed down and send to a lot of the regional radio stations.
In 2010 there was a big Tea Party protest, the people organizing it called it a protest and it was advertised as a protest. When the news ancher was taping his segments he initially refered to it as "a Tea Party protest at the capitol". He decided that he didn't like the sound of that and rerecorded it as "a Tea Party rally at the capitol". Only reason I know about the change is that my friend screwed up and send the first soundclip to the radio stations and he still has not heard the end of it from that anchor.
But it is a good example of media spin and bias.
Tea Party protest brings to mind an angry and pissed of mob of protesters, ready to take down the government. "Protest sounds mean and angry".
Tea Party rally brings to mind a nice peacefull demonstration, people coming together for a common cause and rallying for change.
A simple change of one word that changes how the event was reported.
azazel the cat wrote: ...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?
There were a few of the early contenders that would have probably had a decent shot. I think Gary Johnson would have been a decent candidate, and if I would have lived in any state other than Oklahoma he would have gotten my vote. Jon Huntsman would have had a good shot as well I think. Both are pretty dang low on the "crazy Republican" scale.
But honestly, Mitt Romney had every shot at winning this thing if it would not have been for the "anybody but Romney" tactics by the Republican machine at large. You can't spend the entire primary season destroying your own Republican candidate and then think he is going to pull of the win.
Through parts of 2011 I honestly thought "Obama did good, but economy is crap, so nothing he can do will be good enough. Romney will get the nomination and win." Of course that was before "Republican Primary 2012" became a 6 month Jerry Springer show.
Huntsman, on a national stage, I honestly think couldn've taken down Obama. If ever there was someone who got primary'd, he's the guy.
And I loved that 6 month sideshow. It made for great TV, and I sincerely hope for a Trump/Cain ticket someday.
Thjis will not hurt Hilary as the base doesn't care about Banghazi, and actual support her flip out that Repubs are looking at the wrong thing with Benghazi.
Easy E wrote: Thjis will not hurt Hilary as the base doesn't care about Banghazi, and actual support her flip out that Repubs are looking at the wrong thing with Benghazi.
The base doesn't matter yet. She needs to build up a 'war chest' of money and rich donors to get her through a primary and then the actual election. If this taints her as a candidate in the minds of the money folks it will greatly hamper her ability to run.
Frazzled wrote:Dear God its not even even 2014. Lets give the Presidential horse race thing a freraking rest already and run the country for at least a week or two.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah but we live in hope. The election results had barely been confirmed last time before the pundits started the guessing game
They need to keep their talking heads jobs. They have no other skills and thus would be faced with a cold, unforgiving world if they didn't immediately try to make themselves relevant again.
whembly wrote: Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.
You know how I've been saying Benghazi really isn't that big of a deal, and you've been disagreeing.
Well hopefully now, with an actual real and proper scandal revealed in this IRS matter, you can see the difference between the two, yeah?
The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.
Most voters aren't inclined to draw subtle distinctions like that. While there are certainly exceptions, on the whole people vote elephant or donkey, and so a bad donkey president will impact the whole of the party. Just like in 2008 the Republican brand was so toxic that Republican candidates found their approvals went up considerably when they put GOP on their flyers rather than Republican... despite those Republicans having nothing to do the Bush presidency.
That said, we're a long way from election, so a lot depends on how big this is and how deep it goes, as to whether its still in the minds of voters in 2014, let alone 2016.
CNN’s Jake Tapper has managed to get his hands on the critical White House email suggested as the proof that the White House was more interested in removing references to possible terrorist attacks in the now infamous Benghazi talking points than they were in telling the truth to the American public.
The actual email, written in the days following the Benghazi attack, reveals something else entirely. We now know that whoever leaked the contents of the email to various media outlets last week seriously misquoted the document, choosing to paraphrase the content in a way that made it appear that the White House was focused on protecting the State Department’s back and covering up information.
No Dirty Politics In IRS Investigations Of Tea Party Rick UngarContributor
The Benghazi October Surprise-Death Blow To Obama Administration Or Survivable Spin Miscalculation? Rick UngarContributor
Recall that ABC News fueled the GOP cries of a White House cover-up when suggesting that the twelve drafts of the talking points were done with White House participation as part of an effort by the Obama Administration to back up State Department requests that references to terrorist groups be omitted from the talking points.
Here is the relevant portion of the ABC story:
“In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. -three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed. (ABC then quotes the email as saying…)“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
The thing is, it turns out that the actual email tells a very different tale.
Here is the actual content of the email, as written by deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes—
“All –
Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.
“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”
You can read the actual email here.
Obviously, the email reveals absolutely no effort on the part of the administration to whitewash the message regarding the possible involvement of organized terrorist groups. The email further does not, in any way, seek to support any efforts by the State Department—or anyone else—in terms of favoring one set of message points over another, including any suggestions of removing references to known terrorist groups in the region.
What the email does do is highlight the importance of countering the misinformation that had been circulating and getting all involved on the same page when it comes to sharing what was known to be accurate information.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
Or, should I say, does anyone other than Congressman Darrell Issa, Speaker John Boehner and all of those who wish to manufacture a scandal in the effort to harm this White House have a problem with that?
As Jake Tapper notes it in his article, “Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.”
Because A) The admin apparently released some (all?) of the email to the media. B) IN a few minutes, Obama will be having a statement on the IRS scandal.
With the email thingy... it's all kinds of confusing.
Psst... I think that's their strategy .
So, we know that Steven Hicks told Hillary that it was a terrorist attack on the night of the attach... then, why did the whole administration blame the event's on the youtube video for the following two weeks?
Here it is again: We know that Steven Hicks told Hillary that it was a terrorist attack on the night of the attack... then, why did the whole administration blame the event's on the youtube video for the following two weeks?
whembly wrote: Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.
Did you read Nate Silver's Five Questions that can help decide if a scandal has staying power?
Because those five questions might finally get you to realise the actual reasons why Benghazi isn't getting any real public interest.
1. Can the potential scandal be described with one sentence, but not easily refuted with one sentence?
2. Does the scandal cut against a core element of the candidate’s brand?
3. Does the scandal reinforce a core negative perception about the candidate?
4. Can the scandal be employed readily by the opposition without their looking hypocritical, risking retribution or giving life to a damaging counter-claim?
5. Is the potential scandal occurring amid an otherwise slow news cycle?
whembly wrote: Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.
Did you read Nate Silver's Five Questions that can help decide if a scandal has staying power?
Because those five questions might finally get you to realise the actual reasons why Benghazi isn't getting any real public interest.
1. Can the potential scandal be described with one sentence, but not easily refuted with one sentence?
2. Does the scandal cut against a core element of the candidate’s brand?
3. Does the scandal reinforce a core negative perception about the candidate?
4. Can the scandal be employed readily by the opposition without their looking hypocritical, risking retribution or giving life to a damaging counter-claim?
5. Is the potential scandal occurring amid an otherwise slow news cycle?
He does make a good point and supports my gut feeling how the IRS, rather than Benghazi, will leave a more lasting impact.
I'm just not willing to ignore what happened during Benghazi and I really believe it's a big deal... whether or not the media treats it so.
Well look ee there!
The MEDIA is now jumping on this "scandal" bandwagon only after it's been reported about what the DoJ did to the AP. Imagine that! When one of their contemporaries get smacked around a bit, now they're ALL banding together.
Now... all media can't ignore the IRS, Bengahzi, and AP scandals.
Then, there's the IRS illegalling obtain health records.
Then, there's news report about the AP issue... that some House of Representative was included in that search. <--- remains to be seen if true. But, if true... that's baaaad "ju-ju" for the DoJ.
February Polling:
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?
Favorable...... .......49%
Unfavorable..........42%
Not sure..................9%
Polling after this week's Benghazi "firestorm":
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?
Favorable...... .......51%
Unfavorable..........43%
Not sure..................6%
Newabortion wrote:Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!
Would that be the unelectable-on-the-national-stage-because-of-crazy-fundamentalist-pandering-at-state-level Marco Rubio?
Erm... what did you think Rubio did at the State level?
If anying, he'll be ding'ed for his stances on Illegal Immigration.
Here are three things that will take Rubio out of serious national contention, and my explanation:
"I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries." source
Rubio also addressed how his religious views have shaped his other policy positions. He said he believes that homosexuality is a sin, but pointed out that the Bible also calls a number of other actions sins and that no one is entirely free of them. He is opposed to same-sex marriage. source
"The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather," Rubio said on Fox and Friends, as part of a series of interviews on the morning shows following his response Tuesday. "Because, for example, there are other countries that are polluting in the atmosphere much greater than we are at this point -- China, India, all these countries that are still growing. They’re not going to stop doing what they’re doing." source
The first quote makes him seem toxic to anyone who isn't a Young Earth imbecile. And while he backtracked on that statement after realizing that it would cause him to get primary'd, once someone makes a comment like that, he will forever be placed into the "Liars for Jesus" camp when he hits the national stage, and torn into like low-hanging fruit in order to easily scare away the middle 2-3% of moderates & undecideds.
The second quote, I feel, is going to be a major issue in the next election. I believe 12-13 states have now have already legalized gay marriage; and I would be very surprised if it didn't become a national issue during the next political cycle, as by the time that starts up, likely about 20-30 states will have recognized and legalized gay marriage. I suspect that if the number is less than 25, then it will remain a "sanctity of marriage and values" narrative, whereas if it is more than 25, the narrative will change to a "states' rights" issue. And of course, we can pretty much guess which states will be the holdouts; likely getting the "hard men of the right" to just chomp at the bit in hopes of employing the Southern Strategy again (which will likely be a death knell of any GOP campaign going forward) based off of gay rights issues.
The third quote represents an issue that is already causing problems amonst the GOP and I think could factor quite heavily into the next election, because 1 in 3 middle-ground or undecided voters considers climate change to be a serious issue. And if it does in fact become a significant election issue, then the deniers are going to get hammered on it, simply because the scientific community is so overwhelmingly one-sided against them, and it is really tough to use lies, bad scienec and spin-doctoring to deny climate change when the majority of the election dogfights will occur during hurricane season.
So anyway, I think Marco Rubio's already said too many things that will kill his chances on the national stage. I mean, he's exactly the guy the GOP wants and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lineup around the block to heap praise on the guy at FoxNews, but if the GOP puts him forward as their candidate for 2016 then I think you're going to see a 3rd term for the Dems. At present, I think Christie would be the only GOP guy to have a chance (and right now would likely destroy whoever the Dems offer up),
Newabortion wrote:Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!
Would that be the unelectable-on-the-national-stage-because-of-crazy-fundamentalist-pandering-at-state-level Marco Rubio?
Erm... what did you think Rubio did at the State level?
If anying, he'll be ding'ed for his stances on Illegal Immigration.
Here are three things that will take Rubio out of serious national contention, and my explanation:
"I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries." source
Rubio also addressed how his religious views have shaped his other policy positions. He said he believes that homosexuality is a sin, but pointed out that the Bible also calls a number of other actions sins and that no one is entirely free of them. He is opposed to same-sex marriage. source
"The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather," Rubio said on Fox and Friends, as part of a series of interviews on the morning shows following his response Tuesday. "Because, for example, there are other countries that are polluting in the atmosphere much greater than we are at this point -- China, India, all these countries that are still growing. They’re not going to stop doing what they’re doing." source
The first quote makes him seem toxic to anyone who isn't a Young Earth imbecile. And while he backtracked on that statement after realizing that it would cause him to get primary'd, once someone makes a comment like that, he will forever be placed into the "Liars for Jesus" camp when he hits the national stage, and torn into like low-hanging fruit in order to easily scare away the middle 2-3% of moderates & undecideds.
I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Having said that: I don't have a problem with the first quote... in fact, this is the important part:
I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.
Why would you have a problem with that?
The second quote, I feel, is going to be a major issue in the next election. I believe 12-13 states have now have already legalized gay marriage; and I would be very surprised if it didn't become a national issue during the next political cycle, as by the time that starts up, likely about 20-30 states will have recognized and legalized gay marriage. I suspect that if the number is less than 25, then it will remain a "sanctity of marriage and values" narrative, whereas if it is more than 25, the narrative will change to a "states' rights" issue. And of course, we can pretty much guess which states will be the holdouts; likely getting the "hard men of the right" to just chomp at the bit in hopes of employing the Southern Strategy again (which will likely be a death knell of any GOP campaign going forward) based off of gay rights issues.
It's not THAT hot of an issue...
I'm mean, I support SSM... I think if he keeps this even kiel and don't say anything dumb like what Akin said about rape... he'll be fine.
The third quote represents an issue that is already causing problems amonst the GOP and I think could factor quite heavily into the next election, because 1 in 3 middle-ground or undecided voters considers climate change to be a serious issue. And if it does in fact become a significant election issue, then the deniers are going to get hammered on it, simply because the scientific community is so overwhelmingly one-sided against them, and it is really tough to use lies, bad scienec and spin-doctoring to deny climate change when the majority of the election dogfights will occur during hurricane season.
The Climate Change hysteria is just that... if anything, the average GOP voters denounce any Government mandated "climate change" legislations like those carbon-tax proposals.
So anyway, I think Marco Rubio's already said too many things that will kill his chances on the national stage. I mean, he's exactly the guy the GOP wants and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lineup around the block to heap praise on the guy at FoxNews, but if the GOP puts him forward as their candidate for 2016 then I think you're going to see a 3rd term for the Dems. At present, I think Christie would be the only GOP guy to have a chance (and right now would likely destroy whoever the Dems offer up),
Three things:
1) Rubio has likely said things that'll make him an unlikely GOP Presidential candidates... but, I for none of those reasons. I think he'll get hammered during the Primary process with his stance on immigration.
2) I actually like Christie... but, he's a NE Republican... the last NE Republican lost to Obama as well, because he got hammered during the primary process. I would foresee the the samething happening to Christie.
3) I'd still say this... if Hillary runs, no-one would be able to beat her.
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
I'm surprised that you got that interpretation. My reading of it was that whembly was saying that he may not be following US politics closely, but instead he may have been getting his information from a source with a bias.
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
I'm surprised that you got that interpretation. My reading of it was that whembly was saying that he may not be following US politics closely, but instead he may have been getting his information from a source with a bias.
Based on the number of "unbiased articles" that Whembly posts here, I'm not sure he can really make that statement in regards to someone else.
Goliath wrote: Based on the number of "unbiased articles" that Whembly posts here, I'm not sure he can really make that statement in regards to someone else.
That is a fine example of playing the player, rather than the ball. Just because someone posts links from one perspective does not mean that he does not read widely.
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
I'm surprised that you got that interpretation. My reading of it was that whembly was saying that he may not be following US politics closely, but instead he may have been getting his information from a source with a bias.
Based on the number of "unbiased articles" that Whembly posts here, I'm not sure he can really make that statement in regards to someone else.
There is no such thing is "unbiased" viewpoints these days.
Just like that recent IRS snafu... I posted something and steamdragon challenged the article, because it was very close to being derogatory to Federal Employees in general. However, he did say that the thrust of the article "that being why the IRS is hostile towards tea party/conservative groups" still needs to be investigated.
