watch FoxNews as being less informed of the trutch than people who listen to
NPR or watch PBS?
2. I don't see a liberal or left bias so much as a negative analysis of the
Bush foreign policy and handling of Iraq. Yes that may also be a type of
bias, but I don't see it as right or left.
3. Because I acknowledge that I do get most of my news from NPR I may not
see the flaws, so can you please indicate where what is presented is
patently false? For instance, from my understanding:
> "Increasingly it seems the Bush administration's foreign
> policy is running into trouble.
An assertion that is outlined in the following points, so if the following
are true then the assertion must be taken as true.
>The post-war picture in Iraq and
> Afghanistan is highly unstable.
True. We went in with no clear plan for reconstruction and our troops are
facing more resistance than expected and we are fighting with the UN just to
get help to make it more stable.
>The road map to peace in the
> Middle East is in tatters.
True. The finger pointing of blame can go wherever you like, but it is still
true.
>There's growing unease over the
> possibility that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear
> weapons.
True. Though the phrase "growing unease" is a bit fluffy and allows for a
lot of fudge.
>Friends of the United States are not supportive.
True. France and Germany aren't exactly rushing to help clean up our mess.
>Overall,
> the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around
> the world.
True. Most european countries aren't very happy with the US approach, and I
think it's pretty obvious to say that most countries in the middle-east are
less than impressed and are looking over their shoulders.
>The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military
> action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under
> scrutiny more than ever."
True as is evidenced by our difficulty getting support in the UN.
At least that's my interpretation of that passage. I know there's more, but
I'm interested to see how you see it from your POV.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:10 AM
Subject: Re:fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
> Found this and thought it seemed appropriate:
>
> Does anyone see the bias in this piece that I do?
>
> Piling on the negative about how President Bush's foreign
> policy is ruining the world. On Friday's Morning Edition, NPR
> anchor Bob Edwards, who in a speech last April denounced Bush
> policies from the left and decried the media for being too soft on
> Bush, put his personal views into NPR news coverage as he
> delivered this loaded set-up to an eight-and-a-half-minute-long
> piece on the Bush administration's foreign policy:
> "Increasingly it seems the Bush administration's foreign
> policy is running into trouble. The post-war picture in Iraq and
> Afghanistan is highly unstable. The road map to peace in the
> Middle East is in tatters. There's growing unease over the
> possibility that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear
> weapons. Friends of the United States are not supportive. Overall,
> the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around
> the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military
> action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under
> scrutiny more than ever."
>
> NPR reporter Mike Shuster's piece, matched Edwards and was
> nearly all negative, ranging from the derogatory to the
> condescending, as Shuster recited a litany of complaints from
> liberal analysts.
>
> Twice, Shuster conceded possible up sides to the Bush policy,
> but then quickly added a caveat to undermine any positive
> achievements. Shuster reported at one point: "Ivo Daalder finds
> much to admire, especially the President's bold vision and
> decisiveness. But, says Daalder, those policies are failing."
> Later, Shuster asserted: "Despite all this, Michael Mandelbaum
> believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as with the
> destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, has made the U.S. safer,
> even if it has alienated allies and friends."
>
> Some highlights from the October 17 story, which Shuster
> began: "President Bush's approach to foreign policy has been
> nothing less than groundbreaking. That is the view of many experts
> including Ivo Daalder, co-author of the just published America
> Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. The President's
> preferences for unfettered and, when necessary, preemptive
> American action, the use of America's military might, and the
> daring to change foreign governments viewed as dangerous to the
> United States. In that, Ivo Daalder finds much to admire,
> especially the President's bold vision and decisiveness. But, says
> Daalder, those policies are failing."
> Ivo Daalder, on phone: "The problem with the Bush revolution
> is that it has misunderstood the world we live in, and it is the
> reality of that world that is now coming foursquare in contact,
> and, in some sense, overwhelming that very revolution."
> Shuster: "In the recent weeks, the President and his
> administration seemed to acknowledge that when they chose to
> return to the United Nations to seek international support and the
> Security Council's seal of approval for the American occupation in
> Iraq. But the compromises the U.S. was willing to make have been
> minimal, and although the Security Council voted unanimously
> yesterday to support another U.S. resolution in Iraq, it appears
> that little will change. Recently the President and key advisors
> made public speeches that seem to underscore they are sticking to
> the principles that have gotten them this far, despite a chorus of
> criticism from around the world."
>
> After clips of Bush and Vice President Cheney, Shuster
> continued: "One of the key assumptions of the Bush foreign policy
> is that if the U.S. believes it is right and uses its strength to
> carry out policies, other nations, both friends and enemies, will
> be forced to follow even if they disagree. That is a misreading of
> how nations act, says John Mearsheimer, author of The Tragedy of
> Great Power Politics....The Bush administration believes that
> other nations, even adversaries, would be forced to jump on the
> American bandwagon. Mearsheimer says, instead foreign nations have
> joined forces to balance against the U.S....
>
> After a second Mearsheimer soundbite, Shuster explained: "At
> least some leaders in both North Korea and Iran appear to have
> decided that the way to avoid Iraq's fate is to acquire nuclear
> weapons as a deterrent against possible attack. In order to
> confront these challenges, the Bush administration has been
> forced, unwillingly it seems, to seek help from other nations and
> try the multilateral route through six party talks on North Korea
> and pressure from the much maligned International Atomic Energy
> Agency on Iran. It is an approach that many in the administration,
> including Vice President Cheney, view with obvious distaste."
>
> Following a Cheney bite, Shuster continued: "Although much has
> been made of the Bush administration's endorsement of preemptive
> action to thwart imminent threats toward the security of the
> United States, it seems safe to say now, that without the presence
> of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that was not the nature of
> the U.S. war there. Johns Hopkins professor Michael Mandelbaum
> agrees. He's the author of The Ideas that Conquered the World:
> Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the 21st Century. But the
> threat was not imminent he says. Public support for the ongoing
> U.S. operation in Iraq may not last....
>
> After a clip of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and
> of Daalder asserting that, "If it turns out that you fight a war
> and launch a war of choice and the intelligence information that
> you were using publicly and privately to justify that war was
> wrong, as it appears to be the case in Iraq, our ability to
> justify preemptive action in the next case when, perhaps the
> intelligence information is better or more accurate, will be
> undermined," Shuster acknowledged: "Despite all this, Michael
> Mandelbaum believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as with
> the destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, has made the U.S.
> safer, even if it has alienated allies and friends."
> Mandelbaum opined: "The international community as a whole was
> never going to endorse a war against Iraq. Moreover, I think that
> the international community was never going to send troops in
> serious numbers or money in serious amounts because they didn't
> regard it as being as grave a threat as the United States did."
>
> Shuster managed to find yet another line of attack: "There is
> one other factor that experts point to in faulting the Bush
> administration's foreign policy, especially in Iraq. Because the
> Bush team insisted on the benevolence of the U.S. war in Iraq
> because they see the current phase as liberation and not
> occupation. John Mearsheimer who teaches at the University of
> Chicago says they underestimated the role of nationalism in
> Iraq...."
>
> Shuster worried: "The U.S. may not be able to make the
> corrections necessary to turn a troubled post-war Iraq into an
> American success. That's why, according to Ivo Daalder, UN
> involvement and a broader international role are not just fig
> leaves, but necessary conditions for turning Iraq around.
> Daalder: "To the extent that the occupation is regarded by
> Iraqis as an American occupation which lacks international
> legitimacy, opposition to that occupation, and therefore the
> difficulty of staying the course, will increase. Because it is us
> acting alone, it is becoming more difficult for us to achieve the
> objectives that we try to achieve in Iraq and elsewhere."
>
> Shuster concluded his lengthy polemic: "To be sure, much can
> still happen in Iraq, the Middle East, and in the war against
> terrorism. The administration may well succeed in the long run
> where its current policies look like they are in trouble. If it
> doesn't succeed, the revolution in foreign policy that President
> Bush brought about will almost certainly be seen as, in large
> part, the cause of the failure. Mike Shuster, NPR News, Los
> Angeles."
>
> NPR's page for the October 17 Morning Edition, with a link to
> Shuster's story, which you can hear via either RealPlayer or
> Windows Media Player:
> http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&prgDate=17-Oct-2003
>
>
>
>
> >The Czech reports of meeting between Al Qaeda and an Iraqi intel officer
are
> >pretty damned near perfect and the reports about the Czechs denying them
> >were false. Their government has said that the meet happened. It's that
> >simple. Remember also, Al Qaeda isn't the only game in town. Iraqi
support
> >of terrorism was a fact. Did they have a hand in 9/11, probably not, but
> >they had plenty to do with supporting groups with funds and training
> >worldwide.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:55 AM
> >To: CF-Community
> >Subject: RE: fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
> >
> >
> >
> >Actually, our esteemed VP Dick Cheney, as recently as two weeks ago,
again
> >said there was overwhelming proof of Saddam-Al Qaeda links.
> >
> >Don't you watch Fox News?
> >
> >=)
> >
> >Jerry Johnson
> >
> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/17/03 05:02PM >>>
> >Don't blame it all on the outlet; you also have to blame the person.
> >
> >We know there were relationships between Saddam and terrorists, not al
> >Qaeda, mind you, but we all knew Saddam gave 20k to the family of any
> >Palestinian bomber.
> >
> >They have found things that would allow Iraq to create chemical weapons,
and
> >they did find some chemical stuff at a terror camp in northern Iraq, some
> >ricen IIRC.
> >
> >I don't know where the idea that people in other countries agreed with
the
> >war, but again, I would place the blame on the person, not the news
outlet.
> >
> >My point is, people hear bits and pieces of the story, and they finish
the
> >rest in their head. Long before we went into Iraq Bush and the rest of
the
> >government said there was no connection between Iraq and the Sept 11th
> >attacks, and there never seemed to be a connection between Iraq and al
> >Qaeda.
> >
> >These guys almost all report the same stuff, some of them do manage to
show
> >it in a different light than, however the news the report is almost
always
> >the same. I can't speak for the commentators these different networks
have,
> >but if we accept what these guys say as fact, then shame on us.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:54 PM
> >To: CF-Community
> >Subject: fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
> >
> >More from the Post Op-Ed piece:
> >
> >In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers
> >discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly
> >fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent
> >of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence
> >demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and
> >al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of
> >mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in
> >other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein.
> >Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these
> >bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.
> >
> >The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went
> >to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey
> >concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most
> >misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one
> >of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71
> >percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15
> >percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts
> >of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of
> >these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.
> >
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html
> ><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html>
> >
> >I knew there were some positive reasons why I listen to NPR news.
> >
> >larry
> >--
> >
> >Larry C. Lyons
> >
> >========================================================
> >Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
> >========================================================
> >Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
