Thread: Does the US media have a liberal bias?

^Bob Woodward is having a hard time keeping his stories straight these days. Poor fellow is delusional. Probably getting senile.

It Would Seem That Bob Woodward Does Not Understand How The Constitution Works

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Bob Woodward is having a hard time keeping his stories straight these days. Poor fellow is delusional. Probably getting senile.

It Would Seem That Bob Woodward Does Not Understand How The Constitution Works

To state Obama tells lies is speaking literal truth.

Wonder when he'll fall victim to a fatal 'accident', eh?

They must figure there's safety in numbers:

“The folks who write the hit pieces on Bob Woodward in the coming days will be outing themselves as the administration’s favorite puppets.”

Well, they don't call it the Puppet Press for nothing, eh?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Probably getting senile.

don't know about that, but it seems like he clearly enjoys drama and the attention it brings him.

i've read and re-read the politico article where he lays out his case about this alleged threat, and i just don't see it. in fact, i don't see how anyone could reasonably take it as a threat.

^
You are possibly the only one who does not see these veiled threats for what they are.

Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth.

Update:

The senior White House official who told Bob Woodward in an e-mail that he would “regret” questioning the administration’s account of the impending sequester has been identified as Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the president.

Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

This is no tempest in a tea cup, folks. When the WH threatens a reporter it's big news.

George Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Update:

The senior White House official who told Bob Woodward in an e-mail that he would “regret” questioning the administration’s account of the impending sequester has been identified as Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the president.

Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

This is no tempest in a tea cup, folks. When the WH threatens a reporter it's big news.

Seriously? Did you actually read what you posted? Threat?

Here's an excerpt from Sperling:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Woodward, who would later profess to be unnerved by Sperling's email, replied very calmly:

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice.

Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening

Drama queen.

When someone says "You are going to regret this", it's a threat in anybody's book save perhaps a libtard's. Of course, Lanny Davis wasn't 'threatened' either according to your definition of a threat?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

When someone says "You are going to regret this", it's a threat in anybody's book save perhaps a libtard's. Of course, Lanny Davis wasn't 'threatened' either according to your definition of a threat?

Slowly. Think it through.' You are going to regret this' - implying that he will be shown to be in error and he will regret putting a story out there that will make him look like an idiot. What was the threat? What actions did he threaten.

Na,na,na,na,na.- you'll be sorry. Is that a threat?

Think before answering like a wind up doll.

Whiny drama queen

"So when they say "You'll regret this," they are not speaking abstractly. They have a plan they put into place when someone reports something they don't like."

There are several lies Woodward has exposed:

1. Obama, despite the media blitz to blame the GOP, actually conceived of and proposed the sequester.

2. Obama, despite now claiming that tax increases must be part of the deal to avoid the sequester, agreed last year that only spending cuts would constitute the plan to avoid the sequester. Thus, he's "moved goalposts" yet again.

3. Obama does not in fact have to release illegal aliens or cancel ship deployments due to the sequester -- he's doing these things by choice, for political purposes.

Sources here & here

While this sequester thing doesn't rise to the level of Watergate, there are very compelling parallels here.

Go Bob!

^false. The sequester was a bitter pill to force a negotions. There were never any preconditions about revenue being off the table as you assert.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

"So when they say "You'll regret this," they are not speaking abstractly. They have a plan they put into place when someone reports something they don't like."

That is certainly open to interpretation. If I was sitting across from you could form an opinion about menacing intent or lack of same by the tone of my voice. This was an email and you have to place it context of the the tone of the exchange which was clearly amicable and apologetic.

Bob Woodward in fear of his life, eh? It makes one wonder how crazies like Glen Beck, Limbo, Ann Coulter etc still dine in public.

What Bob Woodward said was stupid, just dumb. I suppose everyone is entitled to a slip every now and again, but as a veteran reporter he should know better. The President of the United States is not a totalitarian dictator, he reports to the law like every other US citizen.

Decent analysis from the Grauniad-

Bob Woodward, with one rant, expressing the core values of America's media class. The president is not constrained by law (contemptuously referred to as "this piece of paper"). He not only has the right but the duty to do anything - even if the law prohibits it - to project military force whenever he wants (even though the Constitution mandates as his prime duty not to Keep Us Safe but rather that he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and thus must swear as his oath "to the best of [his] ability [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"). The US must act as empire, dominating the world with superior military force if it wants to stay safe. Any reduction in military spending and deployment will endanger us all.

It's to be expected that these authoritarian and militaristic values shape political leaders and their followers. That these values also shape the "watchdog" media class, as embodied by one of their "legends", explains much about US political culture generally.

...the decades-old Woodward lore plays a critical role in maintaining the fiction of a watchdog press corps even though he is one of the most faithful servants of the war machine and the national security and surveillance states. Every once and awhile, the mask falls, and it's a good thing when it does.
Bob Woodward embodies US political culture in a single outburst | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

So much for liberal media bias. It is a convenient ruse, that is all. When politicians roll out the war drums, history has proven the so called watchdog media to be little more than shameless government propagandists, and outright liars.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
You are possibly the only one who does not see these veiled threats for what they are.

Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth.

This is an increibly valid point.

In today's world, anyone who exposes corruption and wrong doings by the government is punished. The people who are exposed get away with it, and the media spins it all so that the people (trying hard not to say sheelple) believe that the whistleblower needs to be hung for treason.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

anyone who exposes corruption and wrong doings by the government is punished

Anyone who exposes corruption in high places full stop, should have a good insurance policy. But where is the corruption here? Corruption would be if Obama were to ignore the pending sequester- a result of infantile Congess' inability to come to some sort of deal, yet again- and spend money he is not legally entitled to spend, just the same. That is a Dictator, not a Potus- although frankly the US government would perform much better if the House of Congress were burnt down, with those contemptible rats inside it. Sad to have to say it, but right now the US political system would function much better as a Whitehouse dictatorship. Unfortunately, Obama- with his PhD in Constitutional law from Harvard- is not the guy to assume those powers. He happens to believe in the same laws that limit his powers.

even fox news' bret baier is highly skeptical---and is looking for an explanation from woodward

"If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White House for four years — received emails like this," Fox News host Bret Baier said on Andrea Tantaro's radio show today. "It was a cordial exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day."
“I’m not saying the White House doesn’t pressure reporters all the time and put the heat on reporters covering the White House. I’ve heard many, many stories that they do," Baier continued. "But this particular incident and this particular email, I’m not sure that characterizing it as a threat -- I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do about that characterization.”

Press corps to Woodward: Really? - POLITICO.com



also....here's a tip for the "fast and furious, solyndra, benghazi" crowd.....this woodward threat story has essentially disappeared from drudge. IOW, the echo chamber is telling you to stand down and await further instructions on the next 'scandal' it gins up.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by pseudolus

anyone who exposes corruption and wrong doings by the government is punished

Anyone who exposes corruption in high places full stop, should have a good insurance policy. But where is the corruption here? Corruption would be if Obama were to ignore the pending sequester- a result of infantile Congess' inability to come to some sort of deal, yet again- and spend money he is not legally entitled to spend, just the same. That is a Dictator, not a Potus- although frankly the US government would perform much better if the House of Congress were burnt down, with those contemptible rats inside it. Sad to have to say it, but right now the US political system would function much better as a Whitehouse dictatorship. Unfortunately, Obama- with his PhD in Constitutional law from Harvard- is not the guy to assume those powers. He happens to believe in the same laws that limit his powers.

Sure - no corruption here. It's a general point that the western governments and press attack whistleblowers now and protect those doing wrong.

^ where is the corruption in this instance?

Has anyone seen fit to question the absurdity of some anonymous bureaucrat working in the Whitehouse actually threatening Bob Woodward?

I can only assume bob is locked in a hermetically sealed NBCD bunker with some NRA members, for his own safety. Clearly, he will no longer be able to live the high life in his plushly appointed Georgetown pad, with his publicly listed telephone number, and every concierge in town in his Blackberry. Poor sod.

Let's take a break from Bob Woodward and his troubles to examine another example in a long line of media bias:

Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Vs. Elana Kagan: In 1987 and in 1991 when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were respectively nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, both men were utterly destroyed by the press. In the case of Bork they were successful in preventing his nomination, not so in the case of Thomas. It was so bad for Robert Bork that a verb was made of his name. After the press and Democrats succeeded in ruining his career and reputation the term “Borked” gained cache. On the other hand, when Elana Kagan was nominated by Obama to serve on the highest court in the land, the media went out of its way to ignore key factors in her career in order to facilitate her ascension to the court. Just for one for instance, when running as McCain’s VP, Sarah Palin the media reported that she engaged in “book banning” when she was mayor of Wasilla. But Elana Kagan actually ruled that book banning was OK and the media ignored the story during her confirmation hearings. Liberal media bias 101."

Any questions?


The Media had a very different response to Elena Kagan than they did Robert Bork

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Any questions?

Yes. Don't you think it is a little soon to be rewriting history, after the megahype surrounding the nominations of Kagan & Sotomayor to SC, and Chuck Hagel to SoS? It's ridiculous, and every party is guilty booner. To the media, it is just a feeding frenzy- regardless of who is stirring up the hype.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Any questions?

Yes. Don't you think it is a little soon to be rewriting history, after the megahype surrounding the nominations of Kagan & Sotomayor to SC, and Chuck Hagel to SoS? It's ridiculous, and every party is guilty booner. To the media, it is just a feeding frenzy- regardless of who is stirring up the hype.

Who is re-writing history here?

Just reporting the facts, Ma'am!

Was Judge Bork, borked or what?

No sideshow involved here but a man who is fed up with the thugocracy that has become the Obama Administration. Woodward exposed Nixon's shenanigans with the help of Deep Throat and the parallel now is thru Deep Threat, he's exposing Obama's corruption.

"Newspaper editor and book author Bob Woodward continued his battle with President Barack Obama’s administration on Thursday, saying the White House is playing the “old trick” of attacking the messenger because he accurately reported the president’s reversal on the upcoming sequester."

“They got caught and — this is an old trick — make the conduct of the press the issue rather than their conduct,” Woodward told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday night. “The biggest story in Washington is the town itself. What a craze it has become.”

“We live in a hyper-partisan era — extreme partisanship. There are also a group of people — MSNBC — a lot of people who support Obama, who believe he can do no wrong,” Woodward said. “I believe in the First Amendment, and we need to bring this back to the center so we can have a reasoned discussion about it.”

Source

Well, we won't get it back on track until we rid Washington of the Obama Thugocracy.