A VC« A Ghost Is Born (Continued) | Main | Lollapalooza Cancelled »
Balance in the Media
Jeff Jarvis has a long and angry post on Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't seen it. I am going tonite. I may blog it, but i won't know if i want to until after i see it.
But what I want to know is why Jeff doesn't blog every show that O'Reilly, Rush, or Hannity does. They do the exact same thing that Michael Moore does. Every day. And they have been doing that for years.
I may not agree with Moore and probably won't. But i think its about time that the left is playing hardball at the same level that the right has been for years. Rush created the audience for Moore.
Comments (14) | | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e5502217cb8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Balance in the Media:
Posted June 24, 2004 in PoliticsComments
I've blogged about ridiculous things O'Reilley and Rush have done. I've blogged with particular anger about Rush the hypocrite. I don't blog everything they do anymore than I blog everything Moore does.
I used to be a Moore fan.
I am a liberal and a Democrat.
I am not a Bush voter.
None of that stops me from saying what I think about Moore, which is that he's full of crap. It's an insulting work and I say so.
Moore, as I say, is just the Bizarro Rush.
Posted by: Jeff Jarvis | Jun 24, 2004 11:20:23 AM
I'm too lazy to put up links but a sampling of Rush posts at Buzzmachine on:
- 10/02/03
- 10/03/03
- 10/13/03
- 10/14/03
- 11/25/03
- 01/06/04
- 03/07/04
Posted by: Jeff Jarvis | Jun 24, 2004 11:31:42 AM
You're joking right? Show proof that Rush or Hannity engages in the same crap Moore does. There's a difference between someone you disagree with like Limbaugh, and an outright liar like Moore....
Typical leftist morality.
Posted by: shark | Jun 24, 2004 12:25:30 PM
Clarification, I'm not saying that's necessairily YOUR morality, but it sounds too much like what I hear on the left
Sorry to have beenn unclear
Posted by: shark | Jun 24, 2004 12:27:34 PM
Check out the URL I've pasted - there are 15 lies and distortions from Hannity for your reading pleasure. Does Jeff Jarvis know about these?
Posted by: Alan Colmes | Jun 24, 2004 12:36:43 PM
Alan Colmes (lol)
I'm not even bothering to look at something from the American Center for Progress. We all know what dog they have in the fight after all.
Please get me info from a source a bit less biased...
Posted by: Shark | Jun 24, 2004 2:46:05 PM
So, if I understand you correctly, you think that Rush (who you disagree with) is a lying sack of shit, and that Moore (who you agree with) is also a lying sack of shit.
And, for some reason, you think it's a GOOD think that Moore is a lying sack of shit.
Is this because you realize that your side is so pathetic that they simply can't win an honest battle?
It's my experience that people who think the truth is really on their side prefer their side to stick to telling the truth. Thus the fact that you cheerfully embrace a liar like Moore tells us clearly what you think about your own side.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: Greg D | Jun 24, 2004 2:47:59 PM
But I'll fisk anyway:
You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)
You're right. Saddam NEVER had WMD. Those Kurds died from something though... And even according to the UN instectors, Saddam did not account for the WMD he had declared and he did not give full cooperation to the inspectors. Hannity is RIGHT
Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (9/19/03)
Youch. A nit-pick of the highest order. Powell DID have a piece discussing the immense progress made in Iraq. I'll dismiss this as hyperbole
"And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)
Even the heads of the 9/11 panel declared that Saddam DID have links to AQ (though not regarding the 9/11 arttacks) Zarkawi was in Iraq prior to the war. Hannity was RIGHT
HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)
Ok, Hannity was PARTIALLY WRONG, because leaked Dem. memos showed that the Dems wanted to wait to pull the trigger on an investigation so they could damage Bush with it
HANNITY: "First of all, this president -- you know and I know and everybody knows -- inherited a recession...it was by every definition a recession" (11/6/02)
Absolutely TRUE. The evidence may not have been tallied until 2 months after Bush was sworn in, but the info were numbers of previous quarters UNDER CLINTON. Hannity was RIGHT
HANNITY: "The Hispanic community got to know him in Texas. They went almost overwhelming for him. He more than quadrupled the Hispanic vote that he got in that state." (9/16/03)
Fair enough, he got this one WRONG
I gotta say, if this is the best the ACP can get on Hannity, he's doing a great job. They have squat...
Posted by: shark | Jun 24, 2004 2:55:19 PM
Lying isn't hardball.
It discredits those who lie by implying that there are no valid arguments in their favor.
Examples: The NY Times' blatant misrepresentations about Bush allegedly liberating Iraq because of an "imminent" WMD threat, and its double misrepresentation about the 9/11 commission allegedly contradicting Bush by allegedly finding "no links" at all between Al Queda and Sadaam. It's impossible to debate when one side won't pay any attention to the actual facts.
Posted by: Leland | Jun 24, 2004 3:49:40 PM
I think there is something somewhat more perverted with what Moore is doing, due to the previous street credit he's "earned" as a *documentary* film maker. While documentary film making does not preclude opinion, slant and bias, there's an aura of "credibility" that surrounds this art form. But most documentaries I've seen try to tell the whole story. As far as I know, Moore thrives to scope 9/11 and Iraq to this, and only this administration, which I personally believe is asinine.
What I'm seeing as very dangerous is that people will go see his movie thinking it is a "documentary", versus what it really is, one man's *opinion*. As far as I know, the press has billed Moore as a documentary filmmaker. Throw into the mix gut-wrenching images and scenes, presidential bloopers, while taking your audience onto an emotional roller-coaster ride, and you've got the basic aspects of what could be a mild form of brainwash.
On the other hand, shows hosted by O'Reilly, Rush and Co. are, in my opinion, more easily billed to the average American as that particular show host's opinion. Those shows are named after their hosts: "O'Reilly Factor". They don't claim to be documentaries, or factual reports, they're clearly heavily-biased and twisted debates. Then again, they're on TV, people like to believe anything they see on TV, so who knows.
I think people need to start thinking for themselves, and I hope this is what will influence their vote, not some documentary, or some smear ad-campaign.
But I do agree with you, that for once liberals are playing hard-ball. I really wish Moore wasn't their spokesman, as talented a filmmaker he may be, I believe this guy has zero clue about foreign policy.
To scope my above rant, right now I'm looking to vote for Kerry. Had Dean won the primaries, I would likely have voted for Bush.
Posted by: Chris Holland | Jun 24, 2004 6:07:08 PM
But i think its about time that the left is playing hardball at the same level that the right has been for years. Rush created the audience for Moore.
Whitewater and the ensuing "hardball" against Clinton for 8 years was simply payback for actions by Democrat inspired circuses on the following:
Clarence Thomas
Robert Bork
Douglas Ginsberg
John Tower
Ed Meese
"October Surprise"
Iran Contra
Silverado S&L
Bob Packwood
The idea that the left "hasn't been playing hardball" ignores the lessons of the left's actions for the 2 administrations. GHW Bush enacted a tax increase that Democrats wanted, and was similar to the Clinton tax increase and gets excoriated for his efforts while no Democrat is attacked for supporting the tax increase.
Posted by: h0mi | Jun 24, 2004 6:31:51 PM
h0mi:
Uh, could it be that Democrats are expected to support a tax increase ? That wasn't a democrat I saw back then on "Nightline" attacking Bush I - it was Newt Gingrich. The same Newt Gingrich who went after Jim Wright and brought him down. Also: I think we're talking about the right-wing media -not the dirty tricks politicians have been playing on each other since time immemorial.
Posted by: boonie | Jun 25, 2004 3:03:56 AM
Well, I don't think using foul language in the comment section of someone else's blog is ever justified. Ever.
Posted by: hugh macleod | Jun 25, 2004 11:05:24 AM
Posted by: rape-free-pic-2033 | Mar 4, 2005 10:44:25 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
