Last Post!

All ye who whine about the "liberal media" doing their best to cover things up...

Looks like Rather is your only target ;)

-= rei =-

LOL, worldcitizen, I never thought about it quite that way, but I guess cartoons are more educational than what passes for journalism these days. The tag should be "obvious"...think corporate power doesn't control news at the level that Rather is at? Watch "The Insider" (speaking of CBS news). Great farking movie, BTW.

Diogones, how can this story be covered any more short of Chandra being found? Okay fine, this Condit guy is like Clinton lite, banging everyone he sees. Turn on the Fox News Channel and it's the Salem Witch trials...those guys are the real jerks.
Ok, end of rant. Must get coffee.

Didn't we see this scene in 'The Insider' only in reverse?

of course, the irony is that Condit is one of the highest rated Dems by the Christian Coalition for his votes. I guess if Congressman Condit knocks you up, he will make you keep the baby.

This ain't Ted Kennedy with a missing woman, this is a CONSERVATIVE democrat with a missing woman.

RF

wow! did you guys check out the related link for media bias on the bottom of that page? They are nearly all about Rather. Me thinks someone has it out for old Dan. Not that I'm a big fan of danny boy or anything, but its just odd to see so much written about him.

i think the problem isn't that Dan is ignoring gossip
but that he's being forced to report on it !

Media Monopolies already exist, read this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/


"the revolution will not be televised"

Mike:

yeah... trying to avoid an intern story is admirable.. I'm 100% sure he'd do it if the intern was linked to a Republican.

Right right..

Does anybody really give a shiat anymore? When there's some real news, then I might take notice and give a damn, but until then, I beg the media .. SHUT THE FARK UP ALREADY! When we have someone charged with something, or when some concrete evidence is found, tell us. If Chandra is found, alive or dead, then tell us. If anybody admits to doing anything to her, or to keep her hidden, or to help her hide, then tell us. But otherwise, can we please stick to actual news?

Who knows how many countless number of people, men and women, go missing every day? But we have to hear it day in and day out about Condit & Levy? Why? Is she somehow more important now that she's boinked a senator? If Ms. Levy doesn't want to be found, she won't be found. If she's a corpse somewhere, she's not going anywhere most likely. Either way .. I'm getting farking sick of it already!

*steps down off the soapbox* I'm fine. Really I am.

Democraps stick together like the boys in blue.

this has shed light on the Hypocrisy of Condit, a man supposedly linked to as many women as Clinton. Including 18 year old pastor daughters and 15 year old girls.

IRONY OF THE DAY: Condit voted for the Defense of Marriage act.

The whole point is that the media companies *forced* the discussion of the issue. If there really was a liberal-controlled media, they'd be forcing the suppression of it. Instead, the condit case floods our tv sets and drowns out real news, like how Bush got the Chinese and Russians to sign a ballistic missile alliance against the US by shoving the SDI down their throats. (two countries who wouldn't ally with each other during *the cold war* - that took skill on Bush's part!).

Though, on that later topic, a friend of mine last night was saying how she thinks that's a good thing. The reason the US economy has done well over this century has been that we have resources and a good tech and labor base, and elsewhere in the world places with huge consumer markets but not the resources or not the tech and labor base - thus, we expanded to fill them. Well, Russia has a good tech and labor base, and resources. China has a potentially huge consumer market. This could pave the way to building a new economic superpower to compete with the US, in addition to the EU.

Hopefully :)

-= rei =-

I remember Watergate being heavily covered and everyone assumed Nixon was guilty, but he hadn't been convicted of anything either, it was "THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW".
Well I guess we don't have the right to know when it is a democrat in question, at least not in Dan's news. But there is no double standard or anything, news men used to do a lot of investigative work, no longer, today they just ape the party line.

Dan Rather is my hero.

Dan Rather's still alive? I thought that buzz-cut robot on the evening news was some kind of Industrial Light and Magic creation.

As a member of the Fark Irony Definition Faction (For the Unethical Treatment of PETA), I hereby protest the use of the "IRONY" tag on this article on the grounds that it does not apply.

MEAT! MEAT! MEAT! And BEER!

No, Rei, they forced him to cover it because they look like idiots and they are losing viewership. It's the economy, stupid. It's no longer an option to continue supressing the story, no matter how much they would prefer to do so.

Maxmpower,
whose line did you just ape?

It's funny how Rather all-of-a-sudden has morales and ethics. He had no problem publically crucifying Clarence Thomas during the Anita Hill public lynching.

It's ok to assume Republicans are guilty, but hey, let's give the Democrats some reasonable doubt.

Makes me sick...

and Black Republicans are totally by themselves, the more racist side of the party tolerates them if they stay in line and the other black people (90%) dislike them for staying in line.

RF

As a member of FIDFUTPETA I agree with Demosthenes. Improper use of irony tag!

MEAT! MEAT! MEAT, AND BEER!

(and BOOBIES too)

Bejamin:
You miss the point. The point was: They forced coverage of the issue. Of a worthless news story. The point? News media covers what is *sensational* - democrat or republican. Even if an anchor has an objection.

RobbieFal:
We're Standing For The Truth That Negroes Can Change

(a parody of an ex-Gay ministry's publication)

-= rei =-

Several things have happened in the past 8 months to ruin the battle cries that Republicans yell about:
1.) Liberal media. Rush Limbaugh just got a 250 million dollar deal to tow the GOP party line for another 6 years. Dan's not poor, but he ain't making 20% of that.
2.) Supreme Court Activism. The Supreme Court stepped in to an area that they didn't belong. (Forget the results, they Dubya won anyway.) They had no business ruling on this.
3.) States Rights. The Supreme court also took away Florida's right to count their votes, the way they saw fit.

It is weird that Dan Rather chose to ignore the Levy story. I tend to think she is buried in his back yard.

3. The way they saw fit? do you think the law should have been enforced? if so, then nothing new should have happened since you can't pass laws after an election and hold the last election under those laws.

No, I didn't miss the point. You attempted to debunk the "liberal media bias" myth and implied that their coverage of the story belied a conservative influence.

If there really was a liberal-controlled media, they'd be forcing the suppression of it.

If I misunderstood that comment, please feel free to correct me, but don't attempt to change tacks halfway through the argument. Stick to one point and try to defend it. If you want to debate the journalistic value of the story, I can do that too.

benjamin

There is not a liberal media bias. There is a media bias towards ratings. If they think a story can get big ratings for their news, they cover it alot more than some other story.

The Media is biased to money, what a shock!

Florida has to count votes the way Federal laws tell them to. Florida laws conflicted with Federal laws and Federal laws have supremecy.

Benjamin:
All of my relevant points of my posts together:

------------------
All ye who whine about the "liberal media" doing their best to cover things up... Looks like Rather is your only target ;)
------------------
The whole point is that the media companies *forced* the discussion of the issue. If there really was a liberal-controlled media, they'd be forcing the suppression of it. Instead, the condit case floods our tv sets and drowns out real news, like how Bush got the Chinese and Russians to sign a ballistic missile alliance against the US by shoving the SDI down their throats.
------------------
You miss the point. The point was: They forced coverage of the issue. Of a worthless news story. The point? News media covers what is *sensational* - democrat or republican. Even if an anchor has an objection.
------------------

A) *Where* did I imply a conservative influence? Ok, thank you very much. I implied a *neutral* media which shows sensational stories, regardless of party, throughout. *And*, even if someone tries to use party-affiliation as a base for what stories to show, such as Rather may have been doing, they are *overridden*.

B) *Where* did I change the point I was arguing for? Please, please explain that one to me.

Now, please quit attacking me baselessly, quit the dodging, and actually look at the point for once.

-= rei =-

P.S. - Even if I *had* used to arguments, that's wouldn't make your point any more valid.

"to" -> "two".

(sorry for the tone, I've been a bit moody lately).

-= rei =-

Mike_3486:

Florida has to count votes the way Federal laws tell them to. Florida laws conflicted with Federal laws and Federal laws have supremecy.

Federal laws leave most of the discression to the states. Then, we have hardcore states-rights people like Rehnquest. The 5 people who voted against the Florida Supreme Court - did you know that those 5 people once voted against granting a temporary stay on a man's execution, after deciding that the man's case had merit - because, in their words, the supreme court could not justify interfering with a ruling from the state, even when a person's life was at stake, even to delay it briefly to have a hearing? And, these same 5 people managed to somehow find it justified in their mind to interfere with a legislature-designed, court ordered recount, for the sole purpose of "not discrediting Bush's presidency" with what numbers may come back? Rehnquist - Rehnquist who never shuts up, who never has declined to write an opinion on any ruling before this - wrote nothing on the ruling in this case. It goes against every other ruling on states rights he has ever made, to the T. In reality, if you look at histories of this supreme court, it would indeed have gone 5-4 - the other way. Both sides completely negated their stances on this issue, to back their party. Sad, really.

Our system of selecting supreme court justices is seriously flawed - they are generally selected for adherence to the party line, and not on their judicial record. Many of our supreme court justices have been very poorly accredited (look at Thomas for an example). We seriously need to adopt a system more like Israel's, where the justices are appointed by judicial scholars, law professors, etc, based soley on judicial merit - how fair the whole of the legal profession judges their rulings were. Israel has one of the highest citizen-confidence ratings on their judicial system, btw. Our system, where justices are appointed by the person who is probably one of the most partisan figures in American politics, is seriously flawed. At least go to a popular election, people!

-= rei =-

because this is America and not Germany

Rei-

do you believe the State has the power to usurp and decide how a federal election will end by how they count their votes? no matter if the way of counting votes is not reliable...

This would be a states right issue if it involved counting the votes for a STATE race, not for a federal election.

Popular elections are even more flawed.. at least the system we have now can decide a winner, under a popular vote, it could be up in the air for awhile. Plus there would be incentive to stuff the ballotboxes in LA, Chicago and New York to get a Prez candidate a popular win.

RF

Gee, Dan Rather gets to decide what's news and what isn't? Just who is he trying to protect? The American people can tolerate the truth (Watergate, "I didn't have sex with that women . ., Vietnam death tolls). What we shouldn't have to tolerate is some old geezer (Dan R.) deciding what is news and what isn't. Just tell us the facts as they now look, leave the editorials to the editorial pages.

I am no fan of Bush, nor of Gore. 4 years of Bush would be more interesting.

Mme.Mersault: LMAO you beat me to it!

Rei and Benjamin: You are both partially wrong and both partially right.
First of all, the story stopped being sensationalistic when Condit lied to investigators.
Second, it was only Rather that was supressing the story. He's a known left wing supporter and he has his own agenda. We don't know what that is and may never know. He could be trying to protect the democratic party. It could be that CBS got scooped by the other networks and is taking a holier than thou high road. It could be for other reasons.
Benjamin, it's not about the economy or viewership. CBS Evening News has been in last place in the ratings book for a while now. They aren't losing any viewers. They sure aren't gaining any, but they aren't really losing any. (I got the overnight ratings through my industry trade mag "Variety".
All news anchors for the BIG 3 nets have a lot of clout, but don't run the show. Rather answers to the Executive Producer as well as various presidents/vice pres, etc..
Rather was going to go on the Imus show and try to defend something that not only was undefenceable, but was something that was his own choice. That's where the brass stepped in. Imus would have rooted out Rather's agenda eventually. It would then look like Rather dictates the news for his own personal interests (which is exactly what he was doing) and that would really put a hurting on CBS. That's where the viewership would go down the tubes. Not for the supression of the story, but for the Rather using a very powerful medium as a tool to further his own personal agenda.
So this isn't about "liberal media" verses conservative media. (That's where Rei is correct).
It's about the brass at CBS not stepping in earlier to stop the supression of this story. The story got out of hand and they stand to lose a lot of face if it turns out that Rather is protecting the Democratic party or Condit himself. If that is the case it will be the biggest lawsuit in history and CBS will pay dearly.

My point was that on those three issues, the Republicans need to shut their pie-holes. Election laws belong to the states not to a Federal Court. If the uniform counting of votes was the issue, then the whole election should be thrown into question because each vote was counted under different laws. State and county Laws. Republicans only believe in States rights when it is convenient.
And their is no Liberal Bias in the media.
They wouldn't be paying the bloated Rush Limbaugh A-Rod kind-of-money if it were.

RobbieFal:
The federal election is a state issue. This is denoted in the constitution. Even if it had been a partially federal and partially state issue, it still would have been completely against Rehnquist and the others' histories to support federal rights. Being an almost completely states issue, they had to completely backtrack to vote the way they did. The other 4 also reversed their stances to suddenly support states rights, but at least they had more ground in this issue to do so.

And, I don't care what they say, refusing to grant a stay on a man's execution after determining the case has merit because of states rights, but granting a stay on counting votes on a state issue because it may hurt a reputation - there's not even a remote reconcilation between that. And it explains why, for the first time, Rehnquist didn't have anything to say.

-= rei =-

And their is no Liberal Bias in the media.
They wouldn't be paying the bloated Rush Limbaugh A-Rod kind-of-money if it were.

So you're saying there is a baseball bias in pro sports coverage?

benjamin

The Constitution provides that the states have the power to set their own election laws, but it stipulates that those laws must be in place BEFORE the election.

The SCOFLA attempted to circumvent existing FL law and legislate from the bench by providing a new framework for the recount. They were pulling sh*t right out of their ass and SCOTUS slapped them down. Twice. And quite appropriately.

benjamin

The election is being held for a federal office, so it is not a state election. Sure, the electors are sent off but these are party hacks and not independent voters. They are enforcing the will of the votes of their state in a federal election. The Florida supreme court was messing with the will of the votes in Florida therefore possibly delaying the end of a FEDERAL election. The Supreme Court thought the state of Florida was counting votes that can't be all true votes and put a stop to that. Remember that you all were in a no win spot. If USSC voted against you, you won't win. If they voted for you, the Florida legislature would still send 25 republican electors.

I recall one decision in this being 5-4 and one being 7-2. Some partisan bias, eh?

Remember that the liberal crybabies brought this up. None of you can get over it either. The Supreme Court did not rule that a Gore lead was invalid and gave it to Bush, Bush was in the lead when the decision was made.

"They wouldn't be paying the bloated Rush Limbaugh A-Rod kind-of-money if it were"

How often do you see Rush (who is much lighter, haha Rush fatjokes != Funny) on NBC, ABC or CBS? he is bring fat alot because he draws an audience to his show. The Bias is in news, Rush is not news, it is commentary.