Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 6, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

I fear that the day of the clear, concise, recitation of news is lost, forever lost, to our past. Douglas Edwards and Cronkite, in his early years, have been replaced by the “entertainment enlighteners” of the post-modern world. It does require one to stay on her or his intellectual toes to balance the “guano” and “ferret” the facts from the fodder.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Katie’s Debut: Too much Martha Stewart Zesting Lemons and not enough respect for what’s at stake.

She’s less offensive than Dan Rather, but she mugs more than him. Dan Rather’s face was a toilet. He made expressions while he delivered news that spun what he was saying. His eyes. His pie hole.

Pie hole. Dan Rather didn’t have a mouth. If a human mouth can be described as a pie hole, then Dan Rather is the living example. It’s a slit, not a orafice. He’d barely move his mouth when he talked. It drove me crazy. I hate Dan Rather. As I type these words I’m loosing control of my emotions right now. His facial expressions haunt me they were so offensive. Especially that last look he gave as he signed off. It was like he was trying to express, “Okay, it was grim news, but take heart, my fellow americans, and didn’t I do a good job, and aren’t I the bomb giving news like that, and because of me, isn’t it exciting and fun going forward into the future together with me and everything?”

I hate Dan Rather. He was on a Sunday Morning talk show this week and made a fool of himself. He would say, “Any reasonable man would approach the issue like this…”

Like he knew what any reasonable approach would be. I hate Dan Rather. He belongs far far away from a camera or a microphone.

Gads I hate Dan Rather. I hate Katie Courik too. In the seated interview portion of last night’s broadcast, which I didn’t watch in protest, she squinted her eyes as she asked, “How…”. It wasn’t enough that her voice was sorority sleep over, she had to reask the question with her eyes, it was unbearable. I’m very angry with Jim Wooten for making me remember it. OMG I’m out of control. Breathe. Breathe. Count to 10.

Torture. Sheer torture. I cant believe my life turned out like this. I cant even watch the news without hate. I hate. I hate! I hate!!!!!

By Van

September 6, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Do we tune in to watch the anchor or to learn what is happening in the world today?

In the early days the new national networks needed a personality to tie together this loose collection of stations.

Today, do we really need an anchor, no. What is it the anchor does? Do they report the news or just read it off the teleprompter?

Last night Katie Couric was okay, nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary, just like every other newscaster.

Actually, I couldn’t wait to see what was on the History Channel, but I wanted to see what the hype was all about, and it was, all hype, no substance.

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

People have already decided what “news” and “shows” fits their political leanings and they watch these and give no credit to any others. Just look at these blogs - people will link to articles from the NYTIMES and people who oppose these views will call the Times a liberal rag, and people who link to an article from FOXNEWS will get the same treatment from their opposition.

Your blog is a great microcosm of this phenomenon, people who agree with your POV support everything you write and those who don’t support your POV disagree with everything - in the weeks i’ve happened to peruse your blog I’ve yet to see one blogger or yourself be swayed by another’s POV (point-of-view).

The truth is a person’s perspective is used to determine if they belief news is unbiased - and this usually means the news aligns perfectly with their perspective.

It’s like driving on the highway - some people are going too fast and some are going too slow, but someone, you are always going the correct speed!

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

correction: but somehow, you are going the correct speed.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 6, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

To Honest Abe,

I must disagree with you, respectfully, with regard to your observation that no one’s opinion is EVER changed on this blog.

While I think you are correct 99% of the time, I do believe the rational arguments that are offered on here, at least “occasionally,” do impact some of our thinking.

Even Jim has a good idea from time to time!

By sct

September 6, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Its amazing to see conservatives cry about the “liberal” media.

If the “liberal” media had as much influence as conservatives give it credit for this country wouldn’t have a conservative President, Reublican House and a Republican Senate. Not to mention Georgia and its conservative government.

If you don’t like CBS news turn it off. If you don’t like FoxNews turn it off.

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

I suppose Miracles do occur sometimes - but as a general rule people who think Ann Coultier is fair don’t read the Times and peopl who love Michael Moore don’t watch FoxNews.

But MID-SOUTH, do you see a contradiction in Jim’s desire to want both unbiased new and a news reporter that pulls for America?

Anytime you pull for something aren’t you biased towards what you report? It’s like saying, I want a fair and accurate report of the Falcons game but I want the writers to pull for the Falcons. Won’t this bias what’s reported? Won’t they make excuses for sloppy play or blame officiating instead of looking inwards for problems?

And why the need for a cheerleader, anyway?

By Realist

September 6, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

For me, there came a time, probably in my late twenties that I stopped accepting everything I heard from “big” time news anchors as truth, and started scrutinizing the stories more. Once I started gathering facts for myself from multiple sources, and created my own conclusions about the story, only then did I realize how much boloney and veiled lies were being shoveled out. Its an indoctrination folks. Its on the tv news, hollywood movies, tv sitcoms, tv commercials, and its in our childrens classrooms and universities. Ive seen it at Boy Scouts and little league. They are obsessed! At least the left used to make a lame attempt to disguise it. But since the impeachment and disgrace of the liberal king Clinton, and the following close-call recount loss of Al Gore, the gloves have come off and it’s no holds barred. Rather got caught up in this. He let his political ideology and obsession with getting revenge for his party get in the way of integrity (which he obviously never had in the first place). Im glad to see Rather disgraced and bow out, and could care less about the talking air head Katey Couric. She in nothing but a teleprompter reader, and will read whatever the liberal writers and producers flash on the screen. Thank God the majority of voting America is too smart for these loons.

By Barbara

September 6, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Honest Abe, when Jim says he wants someone who will pull for America, I think he just wants a reporter who doesn’t demonize this country every time the President makes an international decision. Today’s press seemss, in large part, to be anti-American. It has become cool to disagree and speak out against our government and our country.

But Jim, to answer your question, I think reporters are more into the “entertainment” of their network, versus the news. Plus there are so many different sources that are readily available (on-line newspapers, internet news sites, on-line TV and Radio news, etc.) that I think reporters and networks feel they have to take a “slant” in order to be different enough to get attention. Today’s news reporting is so competitive that the one with the greatest shock value or controversy is the one that gets the most air time.

By getalife

September 6, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

If you want to see the media in action in Iraq, watch “Control Room” documentary on the Sundance channel to see how fake it really is.

By sct

September 6, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

When the media becomes a cheerleader for the government they create situations like the war in Iraq.

Just hang a “Mission Accomplished” banner and all is well. No need for any real reporting.

Go team, fight team, rah, rah, rah.

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Barbara, I think you make an excellent point about shows taking a slant to market towards a niche group.

I’d like to add that reporters are talking heads who are giving info and material from producers and writers, so a slant comes from the whole show and not just the anchor.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 6, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

To Honest Abe,

I concur with your thoughts on the issue of fair and balanced news. Much as I would like all stories to portray America in the best light, such would be dishonest…just as it would be dishonest to always portray America as the “great Satan.”

Given the nature of our society and culture, the sterile presentation of news would not appeal to any except a few “dinosaurs” like me, but I would like to see it tried, at least on a limited basis, again.

By getalife

September 6, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Interesting story out of Pakistan yesterday. They worked out a deal with the Taliban to stop the attacks in Pakistan and they will let OBL stay as long as he lives in peace.

If true, this means OBL will never be caught “dead or alive” and there will not be any more 9/11 attacks on our country.

Of course, the media does not cover this story.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

The choice of topics covered in a news broadcast is spin.

Who decides what’s newsworthy? The vast right wing conspiracy, that’s who. Katie Couric should sport a little hitler moustache. That would be reality.

We’re being snookered. In russia the female news anchors are topless. Thank god this aint russia. I’d rather see Dan Rather topless and bottomless than to see any more of Katie Courik.

Connie…connie…connie…connie….

By The Way

September 6, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

News and Entertainment have merged like Politics and Religion.

Reason? no

By timeout

September 6, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Anybody who thinks that the media is right of center is a nut. Anybody who thinks the media is being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is a nut and blind. Anybody who thinks the media didn’t lose it’s collective head after the 2000 election and getting word that Gore lost is a complete outcast of reality. Funny world we live in where the left sees the media right of center yet scracthes their hides wondering why foxnews is so successful and cnn keeps trailing behind.

By Hadden Knough

September 6, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

I think I could pick Couric out of a line up, but that’s about it. I haven’t watched the “Today” show since it was hosted by Dave Garroway - and that was only because he had a chimpanzee or something as a co-host for awhile. At least I think it was “Today”. I was kid at the time. Anyway, I have seen a few clips of Couric from “Today” and read some quotes. Something to do with colons rings a bell.

Nor have I watched network news during the lifetimes of many of the readers of this blog. Just got tired of someone telling me what to believe. At least it started seeming that way. Plus, they started becoming personalities; getting too familiar with us. Familiarity breeds contempt as someone once said.

Supposedly Couric suffers from a liberal bias. So do a lot of other people. I don’t pay them any attention either. But, so what? I have never understood the concept of people putting their beliefs aside so they can be objective. How do you just turn personal beliefs on and off to suit your audience? You believe what you believe or you don’t. Dan Rather couldn’t do it and it was obvious. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t even try, but he makes it plain he is speaking his opinion and not reporting the news.

So watch and read what you want. Just keep in mind that it is up to you to seek out additional sources and do the extra work to formulate your own opinion.

Anyone know for sure if it was Garroway that had the chimp? This is bugging me.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 6, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

To Hadden Knough,

It was, indeed, Dave Garroway that had the chipmanzee, J. Fred Muggs!

By JK

September 6, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

I miss Peter Jennings. For those of you squawking about the “lib’rul media,” give your tired whining a rest already. Today’s media is controlled, lips-to-a$$, by the executive officers of the corporations that own them. They care about bottom line, ratings, their big pharma and car co. advertisers, and their executive level & corporate tax breaks —period. They gave up caring about the truth and “news vs. titillating gossip” years ago. Even Jeff Gannon (aka Jim Guckert, former white house correspondent and internet gay male prostitute) said, “Most people become whores AFTER they get their journalism degree.” Snicker

By DLM

September 6, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

some feedback on Couric’s first broadcast……

In one word, horrid.

The introduction’s format reminds me of ‘Extra!’ or ‘Entertainment tonight.’ Not what I’d think many people look for in their evening news. Certainly not me.

Katie’s ‘sit down’ session in that one interview reminded me of something I’d see on ‘Today’ or another morning show. Again, not how I want my news delivered.

The ‘Free Speech’ thing is too ‘60 Minutes’-ish, reminding me of Andy Rooney. It just doesn’t seem like it fits this type of programming.

Overall, I will admit I think Katie Couric was a horrendous choice for the post. I find her bubbly, cutsie, and happy-go lucky personality and presentation annoying, and innappropriate for the evening news. I was horrified by her multiple attempts at play-on-words, “Yes, Suri….” (referring to a clip about Tom Cruise’s and Katie Holmes’ new daughter) stood out as the worst offense.

Her sign off, where she commented how she didn’t know how she would sign off yet was choreographed to the point it was ridiculous. Why bring that up? When you figure out what you want to say, if anything at all, then just SAY IT.

Then, as the camera faded out on the segment, she’s sitting on the desk with her legs crossed, giggling with a cameraman or something; unprofessional in my opinioin.

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw tonight’s news was that they may as well just give up now if that’s the way it’s going to be from now on.

By Talon News

September 6, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Time out is right. Its the libby lib media that is destroying our nation. We are being manipulated by the media left and left (certainly not left and right.)

Thank goodness we have a President who is not afraid to do things differently. Manipulate right back.

Bush uses tactics for the modern media world, even if you libs don’t like it.

Jeff….O~O

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Getalife - that was an interesting story, Pakistan conceded to the Taliban’s every demand. Be interesting to see if this appeasal works or just sets them up for more concessions in the face of violence.

It is disturbing to note that 80,000 pakistan troop were seemingly deployed without affect.

I also wonder if this pact doesn’t have larger geo-political reasons or is a sign of some sort of future coalition between the two goups.

By John

September 6, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Gee, what’s a TV newsreader? I haven’t watched one for longer than a couple of minutes in literally years. That also goes for babblebabble talk radio. What’s the point of tuning in? They’re all gonna make sure they don’t “offend” Zionists, who rule the nation. Any of you guys read the Mearsheimer/Walt Report? Perhaps it’d be a good idea.

By getalife

September 6, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Honest Abe,

ABC news did cover the story but ABC is pimping this propaganda

By Realist

September 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Today’s media is controlled, lips-to-a$$, by the executive officers of the corporations that own them. They care about bottom line, ratings, their big pharma and car co. advertisers, and their executive level & corporate tax breaks —period.

This is absolutely true without argument. However, these exec’s have little or no input over creativity or news content. Do some research and look at the backgrounds of the executive producers and creative executives. They arent out of Wharton, they are out of UCLA and USC.

By bushwacker

September 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Finally someone with some sense has spoken. It’s not just network news, but sports also has this misconception that the anchors and broadcaster and journalists are a huge part of the news or sports they are involved in.

We are not idiots out here and we know as much if not more about the subjects than the buffons on tv and radio.

They think they are as important as the the athletes and subjects they report on.

THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE!!!

By By out of your mind

September 6, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

What makes you think that people in there right mind care if a woman or man gives the News as long as they tell it like it is and be honest about it, you can’t find that on any station today,you have to research and find out for yourself, just look at what happened when they told us about this war we are in today,that had nothing to do with 9/11 and they still can’t find OBL,Now there saying the samething about Iran who will be next.Katie has to tell us what they want her to say.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Couric is just another sad ageing leftist joke shovelled before the unthinking peasantry to preen itself and puke up yet another 21 mins of leftist slanted news and media type celebrity gossip. This is just yet another fawning event slobbered over by self serving media pinkos trying to get folks to give a toss. Even a brief audience with Senor Limbaugh will make no long term difference to this trollope’s fate. Within a few days all the glitz will fade and the blip in the ratings will ooze back to normal and CBS - the most irelevant and anti-American of the three networks will be struggling for watching ageing proles to sell its crestor tabs to.

Hopefully Couric will be almost as successful as Dead Air America which is brought to you by the appeasing hate/blame America first crowd!!

The network news is a complete waste of time/airspace - they dont have the expertise or the time to cover a story properly in between commercials. Brit Hume covers politics and major stories better than anyone at the same time. The Fox Report following Hume is rather tabloidy but still better than anything the left offer. You simply cant trust the lefty cable news channels or the networks any more to actually be fair and balanced. News coverage in this country is purely about money and ratings/circulation. And look how badly most of the lefty channels/papers are doing. The multi culti pandering ajc cant boost its circulation when even virtually giving the paper away. The pinko media get what they deserve in their ratings/circuation figures with their far left lies and distortions.

The lefty media ALL LIED about Karl Rove -and got the irrelevant - of no consequence story about the leftist trollope Plame and her moronic partisan husband completely wrong. They were all drooling like rabid panting pinko dogs for well over a year about Rove and the TRUTH was that Mr Armitage was the source. The conspiracy theory lefty wankers have been humiliated yet again by the facts! Even the Wash Post said the other day that Wilson was more responsible than anyone else for the trail of leftist lies that unfrocked his nasty litigious wife!!

Time for the witless left, including Cynthia Tucker to APOLOGISE to Mr Rove!!!

By Hadden Knough

September 6, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Mid-South Philosopher - Yeah, J. Fred Muggs! You know, things haven’t really changed all that much when you think about it.

By Janine

September 6, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Mr. W. I think the news anchors you want have gone the way of the “feel good” movies, where the girl gets the guy {or vice versa } and the good guys come out on top!

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Getlife - I wouldn’t get worked up over that scene in the movie. People who already are predisposed to blame Clinton will and people who aren’t won’t.

It’s like Moore’s film, people who like bush called it completely inaccurate and saw what they wanted and people who dislike him called it gospel truth and saw what they wanted.

The footage doesn’t matter. The part where the preseident sat for seven minutes after hearing we were attacked is a great example of this: the anti-bush crowd saw bush as an incompetent, non-decisive, frightened leader - while the pro-bush crowd saw a pensive, calm leader who didn’t want to upset the schoolchildren.

Everyone saw the exact same footage but their personal prejudices and beliefs decided the interpretation.

By getalife

September 6, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Here you go Honest Abe

lies,

Do you know what Plame’s job at the CIA was before she was outed?

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

maggot brain

she was one of Clinton’s Monica stand ins!!

By The Way

September 6, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Suggestion for Katie’s sign off phrase: “We move on”.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Couric will soon start signing off with

“giggle giggle giggle DONT Y’ALL JUST LOVE ME giggle!!

By Van

September 6, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Hadden Knough,

One thing that has changed, beside the music, Muggs was believable

By JK

September 6, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Whoa whoa whoa whoa…. What? He sat for SEVEN MINUTES doing NOTHING? No, that can NOT be true! A US President in the nuclear (pronounced NU-klee-ar) age of push-button, nearly instant destruction, would NOT just sit there in a classroom staring at the wall upon hearing that our nation was under attack! NO WAY HOE-ZAY! A US President, if he were in a classroom when informed that the nation was under attack, would apologize to the children, and immediately run out of the room to start assessing the situation, the level of danger, and that the appropriate responses were underway. NO WAY will I believe that LIBERAL, BACK-STABBING LIE about our President! DAN RATHER MADE THAT UP, so you take it back!

By Rob

September 6, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Good thing i could flip over to CNN to get some news worthy news during the commericals….the whole thing was just to cutsie for me…she could sign off with, “And thats a look at todays news, which sure beats looking at my colon!!!”

By Hadden Knough

September 6, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

How about wearing a pair of those hypnotic spinning glasses while she repeats, “Obey”, in soft, cooing voice. Works for my wife.

By PoliticalMan

September 6, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

I sure hope that noone is under the illusion that “news” is anything but entertainment. Bring on the bunker-busting bombs, etc. Couric is a nice, pleasant lady. She knows her role: smile, be cheery - entertain.

The idea that a major media corporation is actually going to go beyond the superficial is absurd. Also the idea that the news is “liberal” is even more ridiculous. A huge business will follow and promote business values - period. Any “information” will be presented as non-threatening to the corporate way. They aren’t stupid.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

we’re back to the moronic Bush hate already!!!

By Red Seedless

September 6, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

I realised last night while watching the ‘perk with advanced anchor butt’, that I had’nt watched anything on the big three in years except the local fallen tree updaters and the fooled you again weather reports. Nice to know all the little chidren in South America have crayon pictures of themselves now. I really only watched to see the ‘perk’s’ teeth implants and bang me pumps. I will watch to see RUSH Thursday, but then I’m done with her.

By Honest Abe

September 6, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

Watched the actual broadcast - that is pretty big news. However, not big enough to bump the Braves’s wives baby shower or Vermont bans Nudity or Pricey High Schhol and garner front page status.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Bush was reading “Mein Pet Kampf” to an assembly of Hitler Youth on 911. His Goose-stepford wife, Laura, was there too.

By getalife

September 6, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

lies,

Ignorant as usual. Look it up wingnut.

Honest Abe,

At least they could get the facts right and consult with the people involved

By Dusty

September 6, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Ah, Jim,

love your closing lines about pulling for America. Seems like we wouldn’t have to remind Americans that pulling for your country is the way to go. But we do.

As to Katie Couric, didn’t watch her. My source for overall news is the “Newshour with Jim Lehrer” which tries hard to present accurate and balanced opinions. They call in experts from all sides. One of their Friday night commentators is David Brooks. I like the way they present the news.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Katie Signoff Phrase: “and tomorrow awaits”.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Dusty pulls. But not for America. She pulls fingers and waits for the blast of hot air. Dutch ovens are made for people like Dusty.

By Hal Todd

September 6, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

In Albany, Georgia in the early 1960’s when Martin Luther King was marching, I watched CBS report the “news”. To my amazement and dispair, they distorted much of the news. I protested to CBS, who sent me a transcript. Further objections to the “facts” were poo-pooed my objections and said the reporters “told it as they saw it” facts not withstanding.

By abathens

September 6, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Nice nostalgia piece. I bet you hated when they switched to color tv.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Hal

now you know how Bush felt after those pathetic lies by the ignorant partisan NOW FIRED - BIG SMIRK Rather and his ignore the truth attack squad at CBS!! They’ve been lying for years at CBS!!

By The Way

September 6, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Clinton will appear on the “free speech” portion of Katie’s Koffee Klutch news program next friday. I’ve seen a copy of his speech: “The whole Lewinski affair was a paradox: If Monica had stayed quiet, I’d have gotten out of that mess, yet on the other hand, if she had a bigger mouth, I wouldn’t have stained her dress. Go figure.”

Today’s news Question: Is that irony? or burlesque?

By zeke

September 6, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

No anchors do not matter, except, they inject their personal and politcal opinions instead of simply reporting the news! They report the news as it suits their political agenda and try to influence the listeners to convert to that agenda! Not good!

By bonzo

September 6, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Who has the time to watch the evening news? Noone I know, given the ATL traffic patterns, is home by 7 or 7:30, notwithstanding the fact the cable channels do a superior job with larger bureaus these days. Brian Williams is pedestrian. Gibson is OK, but doesn’t have the gravitas of Peter Jennings or even the late Max Robinson. Katie? Who knows? You can’t make instantaneous judgments. The tripartite evening news royalty has long since been deposed and I don’t think anyone really cares…the best writing is on the web and at Comedy Central.

By Liberal

September 6, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Somewhere down the line, disagreeing with Bush became synonomous with hating America. Nothing p** me off more than that p** poor assumption. The man didn’t found this country, he didn’t write the constitution, and he is not the king or dictator. I don’t like his policies and I never voted for him. We all root for America. In fact, some of us love America so much that we want a more competent president. I don’t hate the man…I just don’t think that he is a good president.

As far as the battle between the media and the Bush administration, it’s amazing that many in the press have not caught on to the administration’s skill at exploiting the least bit of discrepency in a news report and spinning that into martyrdom. Members of the press, especially editors and commentators who disagree with the current administration, need to be more cognizent of this.

By itsme

September 6, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

I don’t know what the big deal about Couric is anyway. Elizabeth Vargas beat her to the history books, even if she didn’t stay long. As for the “trust” factor, I’d choose Charles Gibson over Couric any day. No one can match the likes of Douglas Edwards, but then no one is looking to get the news from just one source any more. With more options, we have become more savvy news consumers.

By Jim Wooten

September 6, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Janine’s 10:28 and Hadden Knough’s 9:55 may have my taste in anchors pegged. I do want them to be serious about the news without being overly-familiar, just as I don’t want food servers to be overly familiar by engaging me in conversation about what I did or didn’t eat on my plate. In any event, as Janine suggests, my type of anchor has gone the way of the feel-good movies.

By sct

September 6, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Yes, lets all tune in to FoxNews. Where we can learn that Karr had shrimp for dinner on his flight to the US. Also, another blonde could go missing any day, so pay attention!

Good news from Iraq, a soldier gave a kid some candy!!!!!!

AND we can hear ad-nausem how we are in the midst of WWIII. After that 15 Fox correspondents will tell us how the Lebanon war lead to an all out Mid-East war.

Oh yea, Karr also used a cloth napkin!!!!!

(And don’t forget, everything is Clinton’s fault)…

By Realist

September 6, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Liberal, I dont think its so much as saying if you hate President Bush you hate America. I do think its absoluteyly clear that millions of Americans are letting thier hatred for Bush get in the way of seeing what is best for the country and our safety and interest. I know the liberals have a plan for defending America, I know they arent as weak as some want to paint them, but they are letting the hatred overshadow thier desire or ability to defend this country. It will be their downfall AGAIN.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

And JK, are you drinking before noon again? That was about as childish a rant as ive seen you go on here. Its ok hon, it’ll all be ok. Just calm down and make another margarita and leave this big ol nasty politicin to us men…..

By Middle America

September 6, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

I agree with Wooten that anchors don’t matter anymore, not because they are somehow more biased now than they were in Wooten’s younger days, but because Americans 1) can’t get adequate worldwide/national coverage in 30 minutes (18 if you subtract for commercials) and 2) with the advent of 24 hour news channels where you can get the news tilted your way (left on CNN or right on FoxNews) and the retirement and death of the three anchors that pre-dated 24 hr news channels a person doesn’t get the kind of one on one time in which to foster that trust and relationship that people once had with “their anchor”.

On a personal note, I really miss Peter Jennings. I don’t know what kind of opinion Wooten holds on Jennings (he likely hated him too, just as he hates anything that isn’t 1950’s conservative, repressed America), but Jennings certainly had my respect. Katie Couric may turn out okay as an achor, but right now she is no more than window dressing, not because she’s a woman, but because what relevant experience does she have that makes her worthy of that post? She hosted a morning fluff show, the highlight being a tour of her colon and she has nice legs. Peter Jennings was a real news correspondent who saw real historic events first hand. He cut his teeth in the middle east, a place that has real relevance to almost every news story of today. And he was a neutral deliverer of the news. I never felt like he was trying to influence me in any way other than to make me take an interest in the world. And he was also human. He was Canadian born, but after September 11th, he finally became an American citizen, not as a stunt. He just said after those events, he felt like an American. If that wasn’t “pulling for America” I don’t know what is. But Wooten needs to realize that being pro-American doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything our government does. Edward R. Murrow is a perfect example of that.

By Liberal

September 6, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Realist,

You proved my point. The GOP has been good at spinning minor statements into full-blown hatred of Bush and the Democrats still haven’t caught on to this. Also, the Democratic Party remains largely unorganized and divided, which may lead to a defeat in 2008.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Yeah sct, those missing persons stories really chap my a* too. I mean do they think we Americans really give a rats a* about somebodys daughter being found before they get a* raped and beheaded or gutted like a fish by some lunatic? Dude you are the biggest moron that ever ventured into this blog.

By sct

September 6, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

The news media changed when the big corporations like Viacom, Disney and GE took over the networks. It used to be that the network news departments were allowed to run in the red. Now they must add to the bottom line. They have slashed the budgets to the point that there is very little real reporting is being done. World wide news bureau’s are a thing of the past.

Just look what big media has done to local news. A total waste.

The problem is not liberal, its corporate.

BOTTOM LINE.

By Rod

September 6, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

What a funny comment by Jim. He stated: “The opinionated Rather failed to recognize, or at least to acknowledge, his own biases.”

Uh, Jim, when’s the last time you acknowledged your own biases when you blame everything on the liberals?

By Liberal

September 6, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

SCT,

Your 11:28 post is dead on.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

The news media changed after the 2000 election where they looked like complete fools, gloating in their rush to call Gore the winner, only to end up eating crow and declaring the cowboy from Texas the real winner. They along with the rest of the lunatic fringe have been obsessed with slandering, under-cutting, and embarrassing this administration ever since.

By sct

September 6, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN

By Markus

September 6, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

You know it’s a slow news time of year when one of the biggest headlines out there is a new anchor, who also happens to be the first woman to host the evening broadcast news, and does so. One would have thought this was the Second Coming the way all the media outlets drooled over this. So what? Who cares? Does the mainstream media these days, not the least of which is the evening broadcast news, not realize that they are on their way out of existence?

There is the New Media out there now. Why? What happened? Going back from even the early 1980s, all people had to choose from was three evening broadcast news shows and the printed media for their information. We didn’t know any different at that time that there may be other sides to a story. We believed what we were told and it went unquestioned, especially from the media God Walter Cronkite. Very few people in those days challenged the big dogs in media.

My how times have changed. No longer are people contained to listen to a journalist giving his/her leftist interpretation of a story. No longer are people forced to sit or read through nauseating blatant subjective liberal biases like Dan Rather’s lifelong contempt for Republicans, which in a swift swing of the irony sword, became his downfall. Katie Couric is one of worst examples of a flaming liberal journalist not afraid to show which side of the isle she comes from.

Whatever happened to plain objective reporting? It’s been LONG gone. There is a reason FoxNews is killing everyone in ratings, but liberals still don’t get it. Actually, liberals DO get it, they just don’t want to admit it. Liberals don’t see liberal biases in the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, seeB.S., CNN, et. al. Of COURSE they don’t: these outlets portray the news from a LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE! HELLOOO??? All FoxNews does is show BOTH sides of an issue, yet liberals raise bloody hell over it and start foaming at the mouth. Just look at the liberal pit bulls in the AP White House press room for God’s sake! David Gregory about has a coronary when dealing with Tony Snow, and old dried up liberal walrus Helen Thomas can’t help but show her animosity towards any Republican administration.

Then you have the “shadow party” with the likes of extreme leftist billionaire George Soros of who’s ilk vehemently hates America’s power in the world realm and who fund media outlets like Moveon.org and Air America (liberals won’t ever bring up HIM when talking about big money). When you hear idiot liberals saying the mainstream media is owned by right-wingers, just remember what kind of mentality you are dealing with: liberal deniability. Saying that the media is owned by right-wingers and therefore must be biased right is about as logical and saying if GM owns XM satellite which plays Air America, GM must therefore be a liberally biased company. A totally IDIOTIC mindset, blatant biases notwithstanding of course.

The “new media” is talk shows. The new media is new cable news outlets like MSNBC and FoxNews. The new media is the internet and blogs (which helped expose the fraud of seeBS). Out with the old, in with the new. People are sick and tired of wretched biases in news gathering, analysis, and reporting. The New York Slimes circulation is way down. seeBS is dead last in broadcast ratings, all three of which are behind CNN, all four of which are well behind FoxNews in ratings. And don’t think for one second the Democrat party doesn’t want these “alternative” media outlets shut down. Just like the damned Nazis or USSR communists.

When the internet came online publicly in the early 1990s, I began seeking alternatives to CNN and the broadcasts. Watching Wolf Blitzer analyze Gulf War I was nauseating, but not NEARLY as nauseating as watching Christianne Amanpour throw her own appeasement leftist biases in a war she clearly didn’t agree with back in 1991 (GET THAT OIL!). Jackasses. I surmise that’s about the equivalent of what it would have been like watching Cronkite report on Vietnam helping to turn the tide of public opinion, and politics, against the war. How much different has the media changed from 1971 to 1991 to 2006? Not much except being more blatant in leftist bias. The major change is that there are more alternatives out there now to the usual liberal claptrap crap, thank GOD.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Liberal

the reason why the demoncrats haven’t caught onto this is their Bush hate. And I’m actually not joking here. You dont see it because you cant/wont as a liberal. Disagreeing with Bush is fine and perfectly proper - its the Bush hate that is unremitting from virtually all the left that’s doing the damage. Its the hate that is now so mainstream in your party of Bush hate that is seemingly unstoppable. Not by all liberals of course but the majority subscribe to it - especially in the treasonous senate!

Assuming the GOP put a decent candidate up in 08 they’ll win again. HiTllary’s camp actually flagged the possibility that it wont run in 08 and will look to be the minority leader in the senate - this was in the Times - the real one - published in London over the weekend. Seems the real politick of Shrillary’s huge national negativity is hilariously coming home to roost. Guiliani will walk it in 08 if?? he can get the GOP nomination.

By Liberal

September 6, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

TFTT,

What’s the difference between some liberals making sweeping allegations against Bush and some conservatives making sweeping allegations against Clinton?

By sct

September 6, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Its obvious that conservatives would rather have a Soviet style Pravada news agency.

Bush picks a Foxnews correspondent as his Press Secretary. Cheney insists that FoxNews is on when he checks into a hotel. Bush hires fake reporters to ask questions in press conferences. Bush hires reporters to spin his initiatives. Bush hires Iraqi newspapers to spin things his way. Bush stands behind “Mission Acomplished” banners. Conservatives turn “liberal media” chant into marketing stategy.

NO DISSENT ALLOWED!!!!

By Realist

September 6, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

See TFTT, there you have it. Its “you guys impeached Clinton (even though he lied under oath and deserved impeachment) so we are going to dish it back times 100”. Great, just great. And you wonder why people question your patriotism?

By Markus

September 6, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Liberal:

“What’s the difference between some liberals making sweeping allegations against Bush and some conservatives making sweeping allegations against Clinton”

We weren’t at war with islamofascists back then because Clinton wouldn’t admit they were our enemy. Today, we have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed around the ME trying to squash this threat, and those goons are hanging on to every word the RAT party says against what Bush is trying to accomplish, and the troops take it in the end. Just ask Iran’s Mahamoud or Saddam.

By Red Seedless

September 6, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

If the news people would just stop reporting on each other, maybe we could get some real news for a change. And, personality story’s belong in the grocery check out line for Fat women buying cake and ice cream.

By Middle America

September 6, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Markus, I remember quite vividly that the media was all over Bill Clinton during his presidency. I doubt very seriously you were chanting how unfair the “right wing media” was in dealing with him. And I seem to remember that Dan Rather was raked over the coals by all the media outlets, other than CBS for his debacle. Any time a republican doesn’t like the facts, they claim liberal bias and try to deflect attention from the truth. And the truth is that the media report facts, but when one media outlet gets something wrong, it gets vetted and corrected by the rest of the media world. That’s checks and balances. The Congress should take note. They’re supposed to keep the executive branch from overstepping its authority, regardless of what party each belongs to.

Last time I checked Vietnam was a huge mistake. Not sure how you can criticize Walter Cronkite for telling the truth. I guess what it comes down to is that the war hawks of the Vietnam era are no different than the current war hawks. Both think that they could be successful if only the media weren’t in their way. But the truth is, thinking you are militarily superior does not actually win you the war. You have to bring a winning strategy as well. In both cases, Vietnam and the current Iraq war, the war planners tried to win it with the minimum effort. In 1990, there were 500,000 troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to oust Saddam from Kuwait. And even with that large a force, George H. W. Bush decided, correctly, that invading Iraq and taking down Saddam wouldn’t be a wise move. Now his son, and Rumsfeld tried to do it with 130,000 troops. If you’re going to do it, do it right with overwhelming force. In other words, WWII veteran, CIA director decides not to do something with 500k troops, but “C” student, failed oil man, baseball team owner, never served in combat (or any of his top advisors) decide to do it with 130k and we’re all supposed to eat it up and be happy about it. Sorry, that’s got nothing to do with liberal media bias. It’s just plain incompetence.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

sct-

You continue to prove why you are a liberal idiot:

“Bush picks a Foxnews correspondent as his Press Secretary.”

Most of your beloved AP White House staffers are flaming leftists like David Gregory and Helen Thomas, so as far as I’m concerned, that’s just a MEETING OF THE MOUTHS. Scott McClelland just wasn’t sharp enough or didn’t have the nads to fire right back at the AP goons. You’ve got your voices, so do we.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Liberal

its not the allegations - its the unremitting hate by the shrill left … I knew you wouldn’t see it. Its not just in the USA either - in all the EU media Bush bashing is unremitting. they equate the US with the Bush admin so any thing is fair game - just read what passes for the BBC News web site every day and you’ll get the drift!! Any negative story/spin/photo etc they can find on Iraq/Bush they use.

Clinton was loathed by the right, mostly as a corrupt sexual predator - but not the way Bush is by the left. No one produced a movie about killing sick Willie or the sneering play in LOndon, all the books, cartoons etc. its way more obsessive about Bush than sick Willie.

do a google search using madness and george bush - its incredible the bile you find about a democratically elected (twice) leader.

By JK

September 6, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Hey sct, here’s a hypothetical question for you: Suppose for a minute Clinton is president and the Repubs control Congress. Now suppose the Press Secretary is first-naming it every week with an unknown WH correspondent who ask questions like, “How do you work with the Republicans when they’re so unreasonable?” Now, say the other reporters finally say, “Who IS that person?” Now, hypothetically, we find that person is (a) not a journalist per se, but writes for the Daily KOS, (b) working under an assumed name, (c) IS A PROSTITUTE, and (D) has logged nearly 200 visits to the White House on days when there were no press conferences.

How would the Republicans react to THAT? And hypothetically, how would the “liberal media” cover THAT story if it were a Republican in the White House?

By Hadden Knough

September 6, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

You know, sitting here thinking about it (when I should be working), the media has not become more liberal over time. Instead, we (those who don’t watch network news anyway) have become more and more skeptical of being spoon fed the news from the nightly TV news or daily paper. Were the likes of Cronkite or Helen Thomas any less liberal just because they pre-dated dirt? He may have seemed like “Uncle Walter” but the man used his pulpit to sway public opinion about Vietnam 35 years ago. No, the media is no more liberal than it ever was. The difference is that people are smarter about how they are being informed.

By Woodie

September 6, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

The anchor person is meaningless. A talking head. I focus on the story. This is no different than reading a book. You do not focus on the type and page texture. You absorb the ideas. Couric making anchor is not newsworthy, nor should anybody care except herself and her family. Hooray for Katie. Whatever. Now if she screws up the news, that might be newsworthy. But seriously guys (in the media), do not waste our time with these banal news items.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

REalist

this is just one of dozens of published poisonous tomes … it seems the leftist pond scum are getting rich off Bush

and they have the unmitigated cheek to complain about Ms Coulter!!

http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=248

By sct

September 6, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Its amazing that conservatives want respect for their leaders, but give none to their opponents. i.e….Demoncrats, Dean Scream, AlBore the Internet inventor, Hitlery, RAT party, seeBS, NYslimes………….

By Realist

September 6, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

So Im reading that Dan Rather has buddied up and partnered with uber-capitalist pig Mark Cuban? Thats a pretty un-liberal thing for him to do dont you think? And if thats not enough, now he just donated $2M to Sam Houston State College, which is an obvious move to offset a huge tax burden on some substnatial income he recieved leaving CBS or his HDTV deal, or both.

I suppose his hipocrisy knows no bounds…..

By Facts my rear end

September 6, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

The media reports the facts, hah?

Fact: Iraqi men standing in line to join the military and police were killed when a bomb exploded near them.

Liberal bias: Iraqi men standing in line to join the military or police, so they can put food on the table to feed their family in this war torn country, were killed when a bomb exploded near them.

Conservative bias: Iraqi men, eager to defend their new found freedom, were killed when terrorist exploded a bomb next to them in an effort to derail their hopes of freedom.

Almost all we saw was the liberal bias and look at our resolve.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

sct

its HiTllary you silly liberal!! you cant anything right!! (pun intended)

By Realist

September 6, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Hey Markus, I remember quite vividly that the media was all over Bill Clinton during his presidency.

And do you mean to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Bill and his first “lady” didnt bring this attention and scrutiny on themselves!! Puh-lease!

By Markus

September 6, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Middle America-

Hey Markus, I remember quite vividly that the media was all over Bill Clinton during his presidency.

What, like they are “all over Bush” today? You’ve GOT to be kidding me. Do you remember the media casting EVERYTHING that Clinton’s administration did in a negative light? Do you remember the media bashing the war in Kosovo or Somalia and why we didn’t need to be there? Me neither.

“And I seem to remember that Dan Rather was raked over the coals by all the media outlets, other than CBS for his debacle.”

Dunno what planet you saw that on, but all I saw was the mainstream media from the New York Slimes to CNN circling the wagons and laying claim that it was just the evil Republicans trying to bring him down.

“Any time a republican doesn’t like the facts, they claim liberal bias and try to deflect attention from the truth.”

“Facts” like Bush “lied” while TOTALLY ignorning what the democrats said about Iraq dating back to freaking 1998? “Facts” like “undocumented sources say…?” Is THAT the “truth” you are referring to sir?

“Last time I checked Vietnam was a huge mistake. Not sure how you can criticize Walter Cronkite for telling the truth.”

We could have easliy won Vietnam, but it became a political war, not a military war, and the media were all too happy to stop it. Remember, when we started bombing the hell out of Hanoi, they came to the table.

“but “C” student, failed oil man, baseball team owner, never served in combat (or any of his top advisors) decide to do it with 130k and we’re all supposed to eat it up and be happy about it. Sorry, that’s got nothing to do with liberal media bias. It’s just plain incompetence.”

Nice liberal talking points. No, the war right now is not being managed properly. I will not deny that. HOWEVER, what is the media doing along with the democrats? Not offering alternatives in Wolf’s War Room, not having roundtables on how Bush & Co. can do things better, and not doing anything OTHER than saying we should cut and run and have Bush impeached and show negative after negative after negative and ignoring the positives. No, that’s not only liberal bias and cowardess, it’s blatant negligence and irresponsible journalism all for an agenda.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

sct

its HiTllary you silly liberal!! you cant GET anything right!! (pun intended)

By sct

September 6, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

JK, if the Jeff Gannon episode was created by a Democrat we would have had more impeachment hearings. That was a HUGE lie.

By Curious Observer

September 6, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

I would much rather hear newscasters who read news constructed without the spin. Let’s acknowledge that Lou Dobbs, with his “war on the middle class,” and Bill O’Reilly’s spinning everything as an anti-liberal attack are exactly the kind of news we don’t need. Whatever happened to reporting the news events without having CNN’s “the best political news team on television” and the legion of Fox analysts interpret those events for us?

And whatever happened to journalism? When I was taking journalism classes in college back in the sixties, the prevailing credo was objectivity. Now, people won’t watch a newscast unless it’s presented with a slant that favors their political beliefs—in which case it’s seen as “objective.”

The fact that a morning show hostess was chosen as the lead newscaster for a major network tells me everything I need to know about the state of broadcast news today. We want to be entertained and mollified in our biases, not informed. Shame on the networks, and shame on us.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

I got it TFTT. It was brilliant, but over his head Im sure.

By norcrossx

September 6, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Katie is a great anchor for the evening news… If you don’t like her, just watch the boring NBC or ABC or choose another network, because there are tons to choose from…

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

sct is not the sharpest liberal (tool) in the treasonous toy box is he Realist?

By Markus

September 6, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

sct-

“Its amazing that conservatives want respect for their leaders, but give none to their opponents. i.e….Demoncrats, Dean Scream, AlBore the Internet inventor, Hitlery, RAT party, seeBS, NYslimes………”

How the hell are we Republicans supposed to react to these statements by that ahole your hero Howard Dean?

“I hate the Republilcans and everything they stand for.”

“Republicans are evil.”

“Republicans have never worked an honest day in their lives.”

Oh that’s REAL nice talk there, isn’t it sct? What, are we supposed to just sit back and take horsesh!t like that on the cheek? Excuse me, but I DON’T FREAKING THINK SO.

By getalife

September 6, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

My goodness.

The media is owned by the corporations who own the government.

It is corporate bias stupid!

By Realist

September 6, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

JK, You are particularly ramblesome and rant-ish today. What gives?

By the way, I hope those are real words. I sometimes throw in words not sure of thier correct meanings. I hope that is platypus with everyone.

By Hadden Knough

September 6, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Say what you want about network reporting, you can always count on the local outlets to headline with either a shooting or an apartment fire (or both) in DeKalb County. Which is odd, because I’ve lived in DeKalb for twenty-six years and haven’t been shot at once. What are the odds?

By stumpy

September 6, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Personally, i’d rather see Steve Irwin deliver the news. it’d be something like, “aw’rowite mate, that sheila (katie) is a bit of an ol’ hag, but with the roite injection of botox to ‘ah face she may eventually hang with the loikes of Jaquetta Williams or Jovita Moore! Krikey, just look at ‘em! They’re beauties!!! Who ca’es about tha noowse, just look at ‘em!”

By AtlantaNative62

September 6, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Jim,

Sadly, you are correct. Anchors no longer matter. Frankly, I believe the news from most outlets doesn’t matter anymore either. The bias is so skewed it has become comical. It appears that news people only want to be considered “in” with the liberal crowd. If they must provide “opinionated” news, at least I would appreciate it if they would do so based on their own personal views. They don’t. They seem to be more interested in being “liked” by the liberals that they will do and/or say anything regardless of the hurt it causes to our country. It has become so transparent that my 11 year old son recently commented about a story we were listening to on the radio. Even he was able to pick out the bias. While my son may be bright, it is tragic to me that he is learning to spot garbage at this age rather than learning about what is truly going on in the world. He has already lost his innocence to the news media and its pathetic attempts at manipulating anti-American bias. At least I was in college before I realized how untrustworthy and self-contradicting the mainstream media has become. They claim to be patriots. They claim they are for the soldiers serving in Iraq. Yet, their actions clearly demonstrate they are neither. Maybe that is what has made the anchor no longer matter. People have tired of the contradictions between their words and their actions.

By Middle America

September 6, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Only a fanatic can read what I wrote and call it liberal talking points. The original Bush was a good man, a real conservative and he knew better. But somehow his son doesn’t, and if I disagree that makes me a liberal.

A true liberal media would not have brought the fake documents that Rather used in his report about George W. Bush to light. But I guess that fact doesn’t fit well in your “us against the world” scenario.

Bill Clinton didn’t do all he could to stop Osama bin Laden. He dropped the ball. But they did send cruise missles into Afghanistan and Sudan to destroy terrorist training camps after the embassy bombings in Africa. And what was the story? Clinton is using this military action as a distraction from his scandal. A “wag the dog” type scenario they said. A liberal media would have lauded this display of strength to build up their liberal hero.

We could have won Vietnam, huh? So let’s say we did. What would that have meant? We did exactly what the Soviets wanted us to do. Sink a ton of money and lives into a worthless piece of jungle and for what? In the end, the Soviets did the same thing in Afghanistan, only worse, and it (not some words Reagan said at a stupid wall) is what destroyed the USSR.

By jbmlaw

September 6, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon all. Anchors are irrelevant, for reasons other than the obvious leftist bias. I think “itsme” at 11:07 was close to the real point. The world has changed. There was a time when television was a significant source of news; it is now relegated to a position less important than the morning paper (no offense intended.)

Some of us read the morning papers as a refresher and as a starting point – the human reset button. Because of the internet, however, we no longer close our day with the news; we now have a 24-hour cycle. If there is a great story brewing, we now go to Drudge or Google News, rather than waiting to see if channel 11 will run a scroll across the bottom of the screen.

Certainly there was a time when the seven sisters (ABC – NBC – CBS – AP – UPI – NY Times – Washington Post) controlled the news – they determined what we heard, and how we heard it. Since Drudge reported the Monica story, we now have a free market in information. From a conservative view, that’s not a bad thing.

By JK

September 6, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Please note the absence of comment by Mr. Wooten and the conservative bloggers on the presence of a GAY MALE PROSTITUTE in the Bush White House Press Corp, making Scotty McClellan look bright, writing for a right-wing website under an assumed name, who had dozens of visits to the White House on non press conference days.

Again, a hooker posing as a journalist for the Clinton WH? Screeeeech! Screeeeeech! The President has a p-nis! Screeeeech! When it’s a Republican that the MALE PROSTITUTE posing as a journalist visits? Er… good guy. Er… just reporting the truth. Free press. No scandal here. Move along.

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

September 6, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Ahh, the whole Woo-ten KKKlan is out in force today, including Markanus, and his flaming red a*******cheeks. Nobody is buying your propaganda about what a great American you are, Markanus, you silly chickenhawk. Just the other retards.

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

September 6, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

JK, ever notice how there are more homosexual men in the GOP power structure then there are women?

By Middle America

September 6, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

JK,

Who cares? That is about the most useless, unimportant story. There are REAL issues to talk about.

Markus,

Here’s some alternatives for you: Let’s take the 130,000 troops that are in Iraq playing referee between two blood thirsty groups to no avail, and put them in Afghanistan to actually defeat the Taliban, instead of just sweeping them to the side and forgetting about them. And also put diplomatic/economic pressure on Pakistan to give up Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants that are hiding in the border region. Anybody who has been paying attention knows that in any terrorist story, a common line of intersection is Pakistan. Every terrorist travels to or thru Pakistan at some point or another. How is that possible if Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror?

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

The question is about the drugging of america via network news sponsors.

That’s the real story. War on drugs? Who would buy Percoset if they could smoke a joint?

Drug companies also would pull their ads if they didn’t have censorship over what gets reported. Dan Rather talks about that all the time. How he never caved in.

Pulling for America? No, Drugging for America.

Oh! the colors!

By getalife

September 6, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Today’s reversal on prisoner’s allowed conditions set my the Geneva convention shows the total disregard of the laws w tries to get away with. Secret CIA prisons are now a matter of public record.

The Supreme Court stopped this flagrant violation of international law. People should look at this flip flop and wake up to the reality of this reckless administration.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Drug Companies are the Senior Editors of all the news we get on the networks.

Is that pulling for america?

By Monarch Hames

September 6, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

News can not be believed as long as it is continued to be spoken by priveleged for the priveleged. K. Couric is just another in the long line of these types who pretend they are for you but whose deeds are not matched by their words. The victims of the levees were used for gains in dollars but they suffer to this day while K. Couric speaks the news.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Dammit, Getalife, if attaching electrodes to Ahkmed’s scrotal sacs is the only way to prevent another 911, then I’ve got only one thing to say: red goes on positive, and black goes on negative.

Getalife, you must be a neo-con posting as a liberal because you always say the wrong thing.

Dont post. Just lurk. that’s a win win,

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Monarch, cocoon.

By what a tard...

September 6, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

^^^ What a tard ^^^ Rednecks are Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda?? Huh?? Go back to your Katie Couric with the streamed-in liberal worldview. No, wait… thats the worst thing you could possibly do. Even I wouldn’t wish that upon you. Just throw away your TV. Yeah, a much better remedy to your nonsense.

It brings me some consolation that at least liberals are dying themselves off into extinction. Conservatives continue to have more babies than liberals. And studies have consistently shown that the children of conservatives usually become conservative themselves. I feel better now.

By George Clements

September 6, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, you must be very pleased to have put together such an extraordinary mental health support group. I jest, obviously, but this clearly is prime material for a research paper on why social misfits must hide behind a keyboard and hurl insults. What would it take to assemble — and manage — an AJC blog that promotes civil discourse? Most of the time I do not agree with your predictable “against” positions on issues, but I admire your ability to stir the political pot. Now, if you could just find a mechanism to stop the smutty namecalling, you might have a real winner. Maybe, Mr. Wooten, it’s time to start filtering the comments.

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

September 6, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Flies and bacteria have high reproduction rates too, tard. You stoopid redneck.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

JK, I agree. I totall agree with you. Because you are correct, if the roles were reversed, we would be having a field day with that story. But then again, we dont have to worry about alienating a large portion of our constituency by making a huge issue of a queer in the whitehouse. Obviosuly the left would love to make an issue of this, but alas, they cannot becuase they depend on those “queers” for votes. booo hoooo

By JK

September 6, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Middle America, point taken. I gave in to the urge to blast myth of the liberal media, when we SHOULD be asking questions about Pakistan, and why OBL’s good buddies there receive no attention from our government. Sorry.

The Way, you’re right about big pharma bucks. They OWN Katie’s a$$. I’ve seen her whore for them many times on “Today” without the slightest attention to the side effects of all those “great” drugs you can take, the cost, or what happens when you quit taking them.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

News and Entertainment……Politics and Religion…..Pharmaceutical Companies and Medical Insurance Companies……and we were upset about gay marriage….boy they sure diverted our attention on that one…..whatever issue is reported on the news, be sure that the real story is 180 degrees away.

We’ve been grifted since 1776. I’m sick of it. I say we get our country back that we never got in the first place. It’s a commercial empire, not a republic. That’s the painful truth that we all must understand first and foremost or we’ll never get control of our governing processes.

By Monarch Hames

September 6, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Calling out racist names can not stop me from speaking. It can only show you up for what you try to hide.

By Shawn

September 6, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Who care’s….???? Just deliver the news. She’s like the rest of them. A vessle it come’s through that’s all…. It’s about the news anyway. Not who’s saying it. We all could think of many others we would love to see tell us what’s going on out in the world and she would not be on the list…..

By sct

September 6, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

JK, I think your post on Gannon was right on topic, excellent point.

By JK

September 6, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the acknowledgement, R. Like you said, the double standard is as American as cheez-whiz on a hot dog! (Especially when it comes to issues of the p-nis.)

By Redneck Convert

September 6, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

At my trailer, it’s Fox News or nothing. I don’t want plane old news. I want the guy telling it to me to blast the libruls while he’s doing it. It upsets me when I come home and see some guy on TV blasting Bush. He’s my presadent and shouldn’t be critacized. Clinton was an awful presadent. Sure, the world was at piece and I had steady work and was putting a little money away, but he was up there with some girl on her knees. What’s more important?

I may be out of a job because somebody has hired the Mexicans in my place, but I know it’s the libruls fault. And its also the libruls fault that my wages has gone down and the world is in such a mess, what with the war on terrists and such. I don’t want my news given by some librul.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Dan Rather torpedoed Connie Chung years ago. Could Connie have been behind the Bush National Guard documents that torpedoed Rather?

Thank you Connie, if it was you. I’ve got a ruler like Ludacris. They dont make a ruler big enough for me, connie, if you get what I say this day.

Ludacris was in the audience once when I went onstage at an all black comedy club about five years ago. Just after 911. Now I usually tore that room apart, but because 911 was so fresh, (november), I felt I had to do an Osama Bin Laden impersonation. Leno had done some bits about what a dolt osama was, so I dont know, I just felt it would have worked. I lasted maybe thirty seconds before I was booed off the stage. My big chance with Ludacris gone forever. It’s been hard to get happy ever since.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

So JK, you have ranted all morning about the Scott McClellan situation. I gave you your answer, which was obvious to anyone with half a brain. So now you are appeased, are you not? Your rant is over and you on to the next rant which is apparently Pakistan and big pharma? Go ahead and ask your next question and me or one of my colleauges will be glad to assist you.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

I say we get our country back that we never got in the first place. It’s a commercial empire, not a republic. That’s the painful truth that we all must understand first and foremost or we’ll never get control of our governing processes.

Was that taken from oratory of Jefferson Davis? Sounds good to me…..

By JK

September 6, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

You’re so bossy & paternalistic today, R. Do you know how CUTE that is? It’s totally turning me on. Dadgummit all though, I have a meeting this afternoon.

By PoliticalMan

September 6, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

I agree with “By the Way” and “Monarch.”

News in this country as it is presented will not stray far from the interests of the privileged and business interests. It really is all entertainment in some form. And it for sure is not liberal. I thought rednecks liked entertainment. You know, NASCAR, Superbowl, reality TV, etc. “News” is just more of the same. Hurricanes, floods, bombs dropping, mayhem, etc. Great TV.

By the way, don’t all the hyperventilating conservatives recall Clinton bringing in NAFTA, changing welfare, and the like. And he’s a liberal?

By Realist

September 6, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

No JK, its not a double standard. Its two totally different opinions on morality and propriety. While we surely will acknoledge that there are those among even our own party with a preference for the c**, we will not cater to them politically for votes as the dems do.

By Monarch Hames

September 6, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

The Way, are you afriad and like a woman like Couric to speak and call names but not act like a man when called upon?

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Realist

the way feminazi JK still continuously snuggles up to you on here after all the hateful misandrist abuse she’s hurled your way is most promising for you. Its still on for tonite if you give her the codes to your gated community and tell the security chaps a cyclist is coming to call. I reckon she’s just another cynical gold digger and this liberal bollux she keeps posting is just a specious front until she’s finds a wealthy conservative type!!

By jbmlaw

September 6, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Dear George Clements @ 1:16, while I share some of your disenchantment with the name-calling on the blog, please understand that censoring is anathema to conservatives, generally. Every day we usually have a couple of threads running here, one with all of the trash talk, a second with some thoughtful discourse (MidSouth Philosopher, Southern Democrat, Susan (not here recently), and Barbara are a few always worth reading.) Suggest you skim over the junk – the real thinking will pop out for you.

As a second suggestion, don’t feed the spewers – just ignore them, they will keep to themselves. I opened noting I share “some” of your disenchantment – there is some true wit among the short-posters (notably Pete and Harold.) Time for the Truth may be one you would call a spewer, but I enjoy TFTT’s command of language, and there is usually some substance in TFTT’s posts.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

What I dont get about Katie Courik is why that afghanistan reporter didn’t grab one of those machine pistols that was lying on the ground during the Taliban’s group prayer, and let them have it. She could have wiped them out, and didn’t. This is what happens when you let a woman do a mans job.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

political man sure is stuuuuupid or just deliberately forgetful

sick Willie was forced kicking and screaming into welfare reform by Newt and the lads. sick Willie actually stole/adopted a number of GOP policies back then - before he was deservedly impeached … I’ll say that again - its just so cool … before he was deservedly impeached …

By Realist

September 6, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I think there is hope for her TFTT. She just hasnt had the “right” man in her life to bring her out of the darkness and into the light. That man surely isnt me, because I married a sweet little southern sorority girl who’s daddy is as rich as cresus and almost as old! I do like JK’s style sometimes though. Damn devil woman.

By @@

September 6, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Do news anchors matter? Only if you’re looking for something to weigh you down in a sea of bs.

With the money they’re paid, how can they be objective. Look behind the scenes to see whose viewpoint is being put forth by the “newsy boob tubers.” They’re a plant in the window.

I don’t watch much news. If I do, I watch CNN & Fox. Somewhere in between my ears, I can discern wherein the truth lies. I do like the news panelist discussions though. It’s pretty clear on Fox that there are liberals amongst them. I really like Brit Hume and the Fox panelists, especially when Krauthammer is on. He rocks, he’s a common sense kinda guy. I like that.

I’m a reed, reed, reed kinda girl on the internet. A reed blowing in the wind. Dylan knew…”The answers my friend, are blowing in the wind…the answers are blowing in the wind.”

Catching a breeze.

By Lyrazel

September 6, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Being one with rabbit ears we generally watch the channel has the clearest reception that night and do not begin any TV viewing until late evening 9pm. Missing the headlines, the anchors as well as news’: 5 minutes for news/20 minutes of infomercial stories/sports/weather/special events and commercials I can only conclude the best news anchor is Jim Learher who not just reads news understands what he is reading. Given the liberal bias of PBS news we generally shut off the set after watching FOX to learn about all the rapes, murders, sensational tidbits they muster up nightly. Katie is just too perky for me…in a nauseating sort of way.

Anchors do matter—they can keep viewers away, Jim.

By CBF

September 6, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Hello, Jim! This column would make a great TV phone-in talk show. You and some of your regular “posters” would make a lively program! One nation indivisible!

By Realist

September 6, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Its a sad day when our commander in chief has to go on national TV and justify in great detail how we interrogated TERRORIST who want to kill Americans. Unreal. I hope you limp-wristers are proud of yourselves. Its disgraceful what you have forced us to do, and just as disgraceful that we allow it.

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

you are much too chivalrous Realist - must be those classy KA manners and breeding emerging. I think JK is a closet gun owning conservative who is eagerly awaiting the chance to vote GOP again in 08. I’m convinced she’s just a lame moderate troll who swings right politically but is much too scared to admit it on here. Just look at how timid and diffident her Bush hate is. Its clearly very contrived - which is usually the case with those who voted twice for Bush and are just trying to be cool rather than principled!

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

its all gone very quiet on here - even the lefties are listening to Bush’s excellent speech … see they’re not ALL traitors :)

By Michael wilson

September 6, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

I don’t watch TV newscasts anymore. I mostly get my news from the internet. I worked in a local station news department. Most of the anchors are just full of themselves. They think that what they say we should just kneel down and bow. At least most of the people on the internet are real.

By Howard

September 6, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Jim…you can have the “Big Three” and you can even have the cable news, including Fox News…which is by far the best of the news outlets. I read my morning paper, skipping anything submitted by AP, New York Times, etc., because any of those organizations are by far anti-USA, anti-Bush, anti-GOP, etc. I just listen to Rush every day and get the news the right way. Katie Couric can take her three-mile wide grin and over sized teeth and stick it. Give me Rush any time, any place over the lieks of her and others in the “drive-by”, mainstream media!!!

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Howard is mostly right, especially about Rush’s vision - but FNC is well worth watching for the real news coverage in the evenings, not the tabloid like all day repetition and fluff.

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

September 6, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

What kind of moron thinks Rush is news - why the Woo-ten KKKlan morons, that’s who…

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

September 6, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

a new subtitle for Wooten’s blog -

Covers Dixie Like The Doo

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Nice to see Club Gitmo is expanding - more room elsewhere for other towel head terrorists. Doubtless the party of hate and blame America demoncrats will oppose all that they can in the Presidents war on terror agenda (announced today) but the ordinary folks see them for the appeasing craven scum they mostly are and thus will yet again dutifully rise above such mindless partisan treasonous provocation and vote GOP in Novemeber 06 and 08.

Allah himself arranged for the richly deserved defeats of the Albore and Kerry!!

Allah can be kind of cool!!

By The Way

September 6, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Wanna hear something scary? I went out to my mailbox and the short yellow bus drove by and the only one wearing a helmet was the driver. No joke. I dove into some bushes but I think he saw me. Now what am I gonna do?

By Realist

September 6, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

I love that in Bushs plan he put the onus back on Congress to let them come up with what standards they deem appropriate for the treatment of detainees. Lets watch the liberal side of the isle hang themselves right before the American voters on that one.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Here’s the liberal side of Realist’s misread of the Bush treatment of detainee issue: If attaching electrodes to a jihadist’s scrotal sacs will prevent another 911, then the Democrats have only one thing to say: red goes on positive, black goes on negative.

Realist argues after the point is moot. Realist wont be happy until the jihadists are fighting us here instead of over there. He distracts the CIA and the FBI from finding terrorists because he posts with as much hate-speak as a terrorists would, thus he’s always showing up on CIA word screens and taking up time to eliminate him as just another head case. You’re a traitor, Realist, and you belong behind bars.

When Realist posts, the terrorists win.

By Realist

September 6, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Your’e a liar The Way. Trailers dont even have mailboxes.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

TimeForTheTruth is RIGHT!!!! OMG!!!

He’s right, You know, Osama demanded after 911 that we remove all our troops from Saudi Arabia. The Democrats appeased him and those troops are gone. The Democrats actually were so afraid of Osama that they ordered all US troops to cut and run from Saudi Arabia. Timeforthetruth, I humbly apologize to you for being an a*sshole. I am in your corner now. I’m actually just jealous of your talent, and I’ve got to work on that. But better late than never. You da man. I’m a readin’ your blog, and I’m a likin’………what? you mean the republicans are in power….and Bush appeased Osama after 911 by ordering the troops to cut and run from Saudi Arabia?????

Say it aint so, timefortruth, you tell ‘em. You tell they’re lying, truth. Tell em. TELL EM. TELLLLLEEEMMMMMM!!!!!!

what a clod.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

hey redneck, I know what I’d like to cover the Dixie Chicks with: the doe ray meeee

That natalie mains is so hot, man.

Life could be a dream. sha na na na

By jbmlaw

September 6, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

@@ @ 1:53, Lyrazel @ 1:54, Michael Wilson @ 2:19, and Howard @ 2:21, in their disparate posts, prove the irrelevancy of the modern anchor. @@ listens to CNN and Fox News, which are stylistically more akin to the ancient news ticker than to any of the grand broadcasters’ shows; her reference to Krauthammer rings for me, I also think he is smarter than the average bear. Lyrazel is clearly alienated by the tenor of the broadcast news, without regard to ideology. Michael Wilson, at least partly due to seeing how the sausage is made, speaks like a recent vegetarian, swearing off the tv news entirely. Howard is the first to mention Rush today; certainly Rush is a vital and valid source of news for a large part of the population, although Howard may actually listen due to Rush’s sense of humor. I’m surprised that Comedy Channel’s “Daily News” has not been mentioned.

By jbmlaw

September 6, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

I barely remember Douglas Edwards; seems like that was when the network newscast was only 15 minutes long, and the local broadcast was also 15 minutes. I’m not entirely certain I prefer emasculated newscasters, just some balance would be nice. Irascible David Brinkley was around as late as 1996; who can forget his hilarious and pointed comments about the re-elected chief executive that November. I wish I had the audio.

By five o'clock somewhere

September 6, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Hoo boy. W spilled the beans on some terrorists and sort of where we are keeping them. Libbies are up in arms because these terror gargoyles who want us as killed dead are sent to prison camps off US soil. The horror! I swear one of these monsters Khalid Sheikh Mohammed looks just like porn star Ron Jeremy. “If Geneva doesn’t fit, it must be legit! If it’s not on US soil, the constitution isn’t in turmoil! Get your hands up everybody! Getem’ up get ‘em up! Somebody said heeeeyy, hooooo, libbie appeasement has got to goooo!”

mental note to self: this is why libbies shouldn’t be in charge of national security

mental note to self v2: the only person on this blog that need to be monitored due to hate by the FBI are redeck’s al qaeda

By Amanda

September 6, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

her reference to Krauthammer rings for me, I also think he is smarter than the average bear.

When you look like a Chernobyl victim, you damn well better be smart.

By deegee

September 6, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

The 30 minute network news shows are aimed at people that are only interested in headlines and have a limited attention span of about 2 minutes. I think that the networks are trying to change their format in order to retain those viewers and keep them in front of the TV for Wheel of Fortune and Entertainment Tonight. People that are serious about the news don’t give a flip about Katie Couric or any of the other talking heads. They are inured to the spin whether it be spun by Fox, CBS, CNN or any other network.

By The Way

September 6, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

…and just what is wrong with Wheel of Fortune, sir?

By Emily Lewy

September 6, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

What happened to the column for Tuesday, Sept 6? That was the best column I have seen.
Why do we continue to allow development when infrastructure to support it is not provided? Our local governments need support from the legislature to just say “no” when neither the developer nor the taxpayers want to pay for infrastructure. Let’s hear more about that one!

By The Way

September 6, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Hey mental note to mental headcase: Libbys weren’t in charge on 911. You Neo-wipes were.

If a dittoheadwound could tell the truth just one time….in a galaxy far far away…..do klingons get circumcized?

By time for the truth

September 6, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

@ the unhinged way

you proffer such profoundly asinine sartorial sarcasm bubbaturd, indeed your virtually rapier like wit could induces real fear in a noctambulistic home schooled four old who other wise would read and effortlessly critique your lickspittle marxist like bollux. the average four year old - which is at least two years in advance of your most recently measured functioning age - is only intellectually intimidated by your crass imbecility. they’ve been told that there are genetically inferior things out there lurking in cyber space and now you’ve proved to them that the demoncrat boogey man does exist. for that you deserve a hearty kick in the bollocks (assuming you still have any) - ask your local plod to administer the accolade!!

By Jim Wooten

September 6, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Emily Lewy, thanks for the kind words, but to be honest I have no clue about the posting of that column. It got sidetracked in the holiday shuffle. That was a first.

By deegee

September 6, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Nothing wrong with Wheel of Fortune. My Dad’s gerontologist suggested he watch and play along every day.

By On the other hand:

September 6, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

The first time I remember seeing Douglas Edwards, I was about four or five years old, I thought he was the father of our country. He knew everything and told it with such authority. I miss him. Frankly, knowing that Katie Couric was sitting at the helm of the news was not even relative to females everywhere like it may have been twenty five years ago. Too much hoopla about nothing. Just read the news Katie and don’t add your twist on anything. I don’t want it.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Speaking of the media, everyone take note how quickly they jumped on the story that Pakistan said ‘they wouldn’t capture Osama if he remained peaceful.’

As usual from the liberals in the mainstream media who are so quick to say, “See! Bush is failing in the war on terror and doesn’t want Osama captured! SEE! He’s allowing Pakistan to let Osama go. SEE!! RIGHT HERE!! LOOK

Oops. Apparently whoever the psuedo hotshot reporter was, s/he forgot to dig a little deeper before broadcasting the lie:

“In response to a question, Major General Shaukat Sultan stated that foreigners settled in the area would be allowed to stay there on the condition that they live peacefully and abide by law. At no stage during the conversation he said that this was applicable to Osama Bin Laden.”

RIGHT THERE is why the mainstream media is crap and untrustworthy. And if you go back up in this blog today, you’ll see where at least one limpwristed liberal mentioned this topic and bought into the latest BS from the AP.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/pakistan.afghanistan/index.html

By The Way

September 6, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Sounds to me like Markus needs to buy a vowel.

So far, the message to markus reads: STF_.

What vowel you gonna buy, Markus?

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Hold on to your hats! ABC is going to show a mini-series on the events that lead up to 9/11 including going clear back to the first attack in 1993 that happened under Clintoon’s watch. Uh-oh! It’s got the liberal demoncrat’s pretty pink nightgowns in a static snafu!

One of the funniest comments from a leading democrat:

‘A statement from Samuel “Sandy” Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him “complete fabrications.”’

HAH! Old “National Archive 9/11 Document Five Finger Discount Stocking Stuffer” Berger says something is fabricated. Oh boy, I can’t wait to see what. I wonder if it has to do with him lifting originals (not copies) of documents that have never been recovered that had handwriting on them that the copies didn’t.

Funny how the stupid liberals want disclaimers on this, but stay dead silent on calling for disclaimers on Farenlie 9/11, Conventient Lies, etc. Idiot hypocrites.

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20060905-111623-5746r

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

The Way-

MAKE me shut up, liberal PIG.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

The Way-

This is a CONSERVATIVE blog, pig. Don’t you DARE tell any one of us to shut up, PIG.

By Monarch Hames

September 6, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

I have still not gotten the answer as to why some people can call other people known racists names and not be challenged for his behaivior.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

The Nutty Professors:

“Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries”

Now I know how much danger our colleges and universities are in around the nation of radical islamoliberalfanaticism. Too bad we can’t send these traitors to Club Gitmo. What a disgusting bunch of vile creatures.

By Repub Senators Hate America

September 6, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference. But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures. One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives “a phony issue.”

By The Way

September 6, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

So you bought a “U”?

By STFU Markus

September 6, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

STFU Markanus

By Bill Tried; Repubs Denied

September 6, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

“What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don’t let it overcome the areas of agreement,” he said.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Monarch-

I’ll see your call and raise you:

Why is it ok for liberals to use homosexuality as an insult to conservatives, yet when conservatives say they are against gay marriage, they are “bigots” and “hate-filled homophobes?” (As if being against gay MARRIAGE has anything to do with being against the GAY lifestyle in general).

Why is it ok for liberals to insult black conservatives like Condi Rice as Uncle Toms or whitie wannabe sellouts, yet when conservatives say something about Jesse just being a simpleton idiot, we’re all RACISTS?

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

AGAIN, MAKE ME YOU LIBERAL COMMUNIST PIG.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Yeah that’s right liberal trash! I’m not going anywhere and you can’t do a damned thing about it!

By getalife

September 6, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

Lose your job Markus?

Why so angry coward?

By It's a conspiracy

September 6, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Markus, why did building seven fall? Burning jet fuel doesn’t get hot enough to melt steel beams, and no plane hit building seven. You have to ADD stuff to the beams (like at the bottom) to make a building fall into its own footprint. But you go ahead and stick your head back up Georgie’s budgie hole, mmmm-kay?

By Markus

September 6, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

Oh great multiple ID one:

“Lose your job Markus?”

You don’t see me posting here all day, do you pink nightgown-wearing liberal?

“Why so angry coward?”

I’m not angry. I’m Howard Scream passionate, that’s all. Coward? Tell that to the punk who jumped me downtown last year thining he’d get my wallet.

All you are is an emotional and ideological coward. You are so cowardly you can’t even stay with one ID. COWARD.

By Markus

September 6, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

It’s a conspiracy-

Oh great Harvard-educated structural engineer, read up, JACKASS:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

By Markus

September 6, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

Yeah that’s what I thought liberal freaks!