Hmmm...

Didn't realize I was that popular. It's cleaned out now. I'll actually get around to reading the end of the thread sometime. It's theatre (Hairspray -- although I already saw it in NY last night) and kids visiting weekend.

I pretty much agree with this -- especially regarding Coulter vs. Franklin. Neither carries much weight with me.

As for Boy George and his alleged power to block network interviews, etc. Bull.

It just don't work that way. Any producer who allowed himself to be "rolled" like that would be gone in a heartbeat.

I still find Clarke at least as credible as the White House employees who have been assigned to besmirch his reputation. I might have felt differently if he hadn't worked for three Republican administrations (and one Democrat).

As for the timing of the book -- two thoughts.

If it were politically motivated, wouldn't September or October have been a better time? Pleople do tend to forget stuff like this over long periods.

Second, he's been off the Federal payroll about 18 months, I think. It takes time to write a book.

Oh come on you guys! (Said with a smile & good nature)

DA-As for Boy George and his alleged power to block network interviews, etc. Bull.
Just one little flaw with you're thinking on this.

If the political agendas align, then it's rather easy to be agreeable to a suggestion. ESPECIALLY when the majority of your viewers will either buy it or eat it up. I think there are more than enough incidents of bias on CNN alone to support this. 60 minutes??? Wow, that's a real serious news reporting source. Of course, FOX is accused of the same thing to their slant. Sorry, but I DO think Clarke is lying.

Yeah, I've posted before that Ann Coulter can really get to me, but to post Clarke's word on HIMSELF is not the best source either.

I think the last thing Hillary was guilty of...oops blamed for, was "moving" those darn files! Oh I'm wrong again...didn't it have something to do with the demise of Vince Foster?
No mean responses.:)

JAM,

Until the advent of FoxNews, there is no way that any major national electronic news organization would have done that.

The reason began with the now replaced Communications Act of 1934 which legislated equal opportunity and "fairness" from broadcast journalists. The TV networks and stations were bound by that law, because otherwise they could lose their license. Given that the Federal Communications Commssion is generally controlled by the party in power, nobody was willing to take that chance.

The so called, "Fairness Doctrine" which, although much misunderstood, dictated equal time or equal opportunity in stories and editorials was dropped in an update of those rules in the late 1990's, but the basic tenants of fairness in coverage remain.

In the beginning, the cable news networks followed suit because they had US broadcast companies as their founders. The fact, though, is that the FCC has little or no control over cable -- because the don't broadcast over the "Public Airwaves." (Sorry, I know I've been through this before.)

Fox broke the mold because it's owner (in the beginning) was not an American Citizen. In fact, he had to become one in order to buy US broadcasting facilities before he could have on air stations. I'm talking, of course, about Rupert Murdoch, owner of The News Corporation. I contend that if you look at his local on-air stations, you will find a much more balanced editorial philisophy -- at least at those who do newscasts, which many don't.

(This whole thing becomes blurred since the majority of people receive all of their video sources from cable and don't know what is an on-air and what is a cable programming source.)

I used to chuckle when I heard about the "Liberal" (or conservative) Media. Every station I've ever worked for kept phone logs, and are required to keep written (letters and now e-mails) comments from viewers for their FCC Public File which is a part of their license renewal committment.

In EVERY controversial story I can remember, the comments in favor of one side or another were within a couple of percentage points of being dead even. This is/was particularly true of political stories, because the oversight was so strict.

That indicates to me a pretty fair and impartial system. The thing is, of course, that depending on your leaning, a balanced story leans one way or another in your mind, depending on whether you agree or disagree. You hear or read into reportage what you want to hear. If I am absolutely down the center, politically, and you are somewhere on the right -- I'm still left of you. And vice versa.

At least historically, I really do believe that broadcasters were pretty fair because they were the only journalists upon which the government could influence some amount of control.

Print journalists aren't licensed.

No matter how any Executive Producer or line producer aligns politically, there was (is still in the case of on-air media) a higher authority who must guard the station license -- because without one, the station cannot remain a viable business.

If George S. (not going to try to spell his name), who works for ABC, was able to quash a story or duly influence it one way or another, it was most likely because the story (or book) was wrong.

Newspapers and other print media have/had no such control and historically have been tagged as leaning heavily to the right or left -- even to the point of the "Yellow Journalism" of the past.

All of the above is the reason that I dislike the cable networks so much. Their strict standards of professionalism and fairness aren't the same as the ones of the journalists of the past who were the "most trusted," (ala Walter Cronkite) people in America.

Unhappily, that has changed pretty dramatically in the past several years.

(part of that is because of political parties propaganda efforts, but I'm not even going to get into that.)

Re: Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
 

How is that any more telling than John Kerry using his Vietnam War footage in his ads?

Re: Re: Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
 

President Bush used pictures of Firefighters and rescue workers during the actual rescue effort. The President was not part of that effort. Had he used pictures of himself giving his speech a couple of days later, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The only footage I've seen of Kerry was of himself and his boat crew.

I think that's a big difference.

First-Several news sources have pulled up recorded statements by Condoleza (sp?) Rice 11 months prior to 9-11.
Her statement included that the biggest threat she saw was the
(existing-my word) lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. She said this was a priority because they didn't want to wake up one morning and find Al Qaeda in our own neighborhood.
I guess that's lie number one since Clarke said, "From the look on her face"-loosely- it appeared she had never HEARD of Al Qaeda...
Jim Angle, Fox reporter< pulled out of his files a recording of Clarke giving GLOWING accolades to Bush on his terror stance and plan. So, THAT again makes Clarke a liar or... a butt kisser. He didn't get the job-CR did so he tries to make her look stupid when she may be the most brilliant person in the White House!
Second, shall we remember that due to the Florida fiasco, Bush wasn't even allowed to set up his cabinet or use the time to make the transfer of power smooth? Add to that the lengthy time it takes to investigate and orientate new positions.

Now to reporting-I don't know 1/100000000% of what you know about the framework. I do know that false reports about cars and products have been presented to the public in a "news format". I know there's a bit of controversy from serious journalists-and competitors-about NBC using their "news" show for The Apprentice-Their justification is it's "Pop Culture" news. I know election results have had to be restated-I know that slant does exist and it's more powerful than words and rules on a piece of paper. It's very similar to the letter of the law Vs the heart of the law. I probably looked at all news, cable and network, under the same rules, so I learned something today.(Should go post it in Tom's thread)

The way I see this, CNN, 60 min. and all the other liberal news slanters are just burying the evidence that Clarke is out to sell a book. Of course that is my opinion, and I am interested to see how the hearings turn out. I don't think what Fox did was biased, I think they came up with a seriously vital Clarke transcript. I am glad they released that transcript, it is an important part of the story...

i'm all with JAM on this one....esp since i was watching some program (forgive me for not remembering which one exactly as it has been several days) where it showed clarke's resignation letter....saying nothing but positive things to the Prez and about his administration...how it was "a joy" to work with him, etc. etc hmmm.....don't you think if he had all this info concerning Bush bein a wacko that his letter would have been at least less than so praising? just....seems.....odd......

Well, every time I've written a resignation letter I've said good things about the boss. As a very sage friend once told me, "Never burn any bridges -- you never know who will be running the gate house at the next one you need to cross." It's just good form to thank a previous employer -- whether the experience has been good for you or not. By the way, guess who that next prospective employer is going to check with, whether you use the old boss as a reference or not?

As for reporters and programs, nobody is perfect. There have been notable breaches in journalistic ethics in the past. Most have been punished by loss of job and no opportunity to work in the industry again.

However, take the number of news stories that appear in media on any given day or in any given year, and consider how may of them turn out to be false or fabricated. It's kind of like an airline accident -- huge news when one happens, but also incredibly rare given the number of flights there are.

And, I will repeat one thing from above. If my politics and beliefs are absolutely straight down the middle (as if that were possible), and you don't believe exactly as I do, I will seem "liberal" or "conservative" to you.

The truth is, that media appears to me MUCH more conservative today than a few years ago -- due in large part to the Fox's, Rush's etc. And my guess is that I'm a lot more centerist than most of the posters here.

Someone told me that Clark's book would have had to be approved by the White House before it was published. Can anyone confirm if this is true? And if it is, why would the White House approve it if it were indeed lies?

Clark is claiming that the book needed White House approval.

The book needs approval to make sure that it does not expose national security information. The government is allowed to that, but it is not allowed to prevent a book from being published based on lies.

I read in the paper today that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Independent commission investigating the Sept.11th attacks said they would ask Codoleezza Rice to testify under oath on the penalty of perjury. good idea or bad idea?

GOOD IDEA

Is there a way to testify under oath without the penalty of perjury? Also, does anyone testify before a government entity, and not do so under oath?