| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/5 |
| 2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30055 Activity:high |
5/6 What's UN hiding?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119116,00.html
\_ If you're gonna troll, you have to find a halfway believable
news agency.
\_ This is no troll you you half-wit. Do you think the U.N.
Doesn't have anything to hide? Like most
Americans, this story is probably not the kind of thing
you have the attention span to pay attention to.
\_ Show me something you didn't find on foxnews or freepnet,
and we'll go from there.
\_ Fox News is a believable news agency. Their editorial page is
right-leaning, not the straight news.
\_ I guess if you believe that you'll believe anything. Anyone
who reads, say, the NYTimes even casually will notice the
editorial bias in the regular news. On the right wing side,
the same goes for the WSJ in recent years (tho before 1995
they were a little better about it). The "wall" between
hard news and editorial doesn't really exist.
\_ I should have put a sarcastic smiley in of course. My
point was this is what people keep saying about the NYT,
yet no one describes NYT as not being "halfway believable".
\_ Bias is an inherent part of human nature, I think. The
key is get your news from lots of sources and take
everything with a grain of salt.
\_ http://www.fair.org/activism/white-house-vandalism.html
Fox News reports or wholly fabricates stories about departing
White House staffers
http://csua.org/u/77c Fox News makes its own news by unmasking
Richard Clarke.
\_ Massive corruption of course. |
| 4/5 |
|
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119116,00.html The letters came from the office of Undersecretary-General Benon V. Sevan ( 21 search), though aides signed the letters on his behalf. Annan has said his son Kojo stopped working for the company before the Cotecna contract was awarded. The second letter, dated April 27, was provided to Fox News with the company name hidden. The source who provided the letter said it was one of the hundreds of companies authorized to do business with the oil-for-food program. Both letters -- as well as a third one made public earlier this week to Saybolt Corp. But a senior congressional aide involved in the investigation said that the longer the United Nations clings to these confidentiality agreements, the more it will suffer potentially irreparable credibility problems. He has maintained in the past that he did nothing wrong, and would cooperate fully with the Volcker investigation. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
| www.fair.org/activism/white-house-vandalism.html Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration. An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. I've got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. The same was true for "Special Report with Brit Hume," which aired a brief report on the GSA's findings (5/18/01). Guest anchor Tony Snow could not have been less specific in his opening comments: "Remember those accusations in the media that outgoing Clinton administration staffers trashed the White House when they left? ACTION: Please contact Fox News Channel and encourage them to conduct a self-examination of why anonymous reports backed with no evidence became a major focus of their transition coverage. |
| csua.org/u/77c -> www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A25176-2004Mar25 So this week, his aides turned the full power of the executive branch on Richard A. Clarke, formerly the administration's top counterterrorism official, who charges in his new book that Bush responded lackadaisically in 2001 to repeated warnings of an impending terrorist attack. Bush's aides unleashed a two-pronged strategy that called for preemptive strikes on Clarke before most people could have seen his book, coupled with saturation media appearances by administration aides. They questioned the truthfulness of Clarke's claims, his competence as an employee, the motives behind the book's timing, and even the sincerity of the pleasantries in his resignation letter and farewell photo session with Bush. The barrage was unusual for a White House that typically tries to ignore its critics, and it was driven by White House calculations that Clarke would appear credible to average viewers. Bush's advisers are concerned that Clarke's assertions are capable of inflicting political damage on a president who is staking his claim for reelection in large measure on his fight against terrorism. A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found significant public interest in Clarke's criticisms, with nearly nine in 10 of the 1,065 Americans surveyed saying they had heard of them. In their effort to undermine Clarke, Bush's aides departed from some of their most cherished practices. They invited reporters into West Wing offices where they rarely tread, for on-the-record interviews with top officials. They released an e-mail from Clarke to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that they say is at odds with the account Clarke gave during his testimony to the independent panel investigating the Sept. They said he was disgruntled because his application to be deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security had been rejected. An official also read reporters an e-mail that Rice had sent Clarke chastising him for skipping several of her morning staff meetings. Perhaps most surprising, aides who routinely spar over such distinctions as "White House official" and "senior administration official" allowed Fox News to unmask Clarke as the anonymous briefer in an August 2002 White House conference call that highlighted the administration's efforts in the war on terrorism. The administration's allies say Clarke's statements that day conflict with allegations in his book. Clarke said Wednesday that as an administration official delivering the background briefing, he focused on positive developments but left out the administration's failings. Officials from both parties said it would be at least a couple of days before it is clear whether the offensive succeeded in eroding Clarke's credibility or whether the public, and especially independent voters, would wind up viewing him as a courageous whistle-blower. Republicans said the blitz could backfire if more facts emerge to bolster Clarke's version, and if the public views him as a sympathetic figure because of his apology to the victims' families. Joe Lockhart, a press secretary in the Clinton administration, said the White House may pay a price for focusing more on Clarke as a person than on the substance of his contentions. Two hours before airtime, the White House released the text of a rebuttal interview that deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Richard Clarke" listing what aides said were contradictions in his new and past statements. Administration officials were so intent on mobilizing every possible argument that some of their points seemed contradictory. Collectively, they said Clarke was responsible for counterterrorism but out of the loop, claimed he was obsessed with which meetings he could attend but refused to go to some meetings, and argued both that his book was published too soon and too late. |