....to defeat Republicans.

They are going to have the media take everything that happens in the world and either exaggerate it (deaths in N.O.) or take it out of context (Bennet's "abortion" comment) to paint the picture that Republicans are really the ones who hate blacks. Then they are going to call on their heavy hitters, Jesse "PUSH-my-baby" Jackson, Howard "Bill-Clinton-is-the-only-black-person-I-know" Dean, and Al "Has-the-best-clue-of-the-three-but-is-still-far-off" Sharpton to push the case that Republicans really do hate blacks.

I mean, if Kanye West said it, it HAS to be true.

Nevermind the true history of the parties with race relations (you know, that whole Civil-War-Democrat-Controlled-South thing).

9/30/2005 5:36:06 PM

so they finally figured out what has been working so well for the republicans?

9/30/2005 5:36:47 PM

GREATEST COMEBACK OF ALL TIME!!!

+10000^45 points!!!1

9/30/2005 5:41:05 PM

GREATEST THREAD OF ALL TIME!!!

+10000^45 points!!!1

9/30/2005 5:42:31 PM

Honestly, can you really not think of anything else to say?

Is it untrue that the death toll was greatly exaggerated?
Is it untrue that the media took what Bill Bennet said out of context?
Is it untrue that Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child with a woman who worked for him?
Is it untrue that Howard Dean isn't the best person to talk about race relations?
Is it untrue that Al Sharpton has the best clue of Dean and Jackson?

Kanye West....okay, I'll give you that one. What he said has to be true.

Is it untrue that the Democrats in the south following Reconstruction opposed equal rights laws for black people?

I mean, if that stuff isn't true, you have the opportunity to refute it.

Otherwise, I would say that your first post is the perfect example of what Democrats do: All talk and no substance.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 5:49 PM. Reason : your, not you're]

9/30/2005 5:49:12 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, can you really not think of anything else to say?"

Honestly, did you expect a serious reply to your thread?

9/30/2005 5:55:49 PM

kdawg...TWW is mostly democrats...they dont like truths that oppose their viewpoints

9/30/2005 5:57:32 PM

Yeeeeaaaaah...

Every morning The Media has a conference call with the Democrats.

AND THAT'S A TRUTH(C)



[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2005 5:59:21 PM

^ sssssssshhhhhhh you weren't supposed to tell

9/30/2005 6:00:58 PM

Quote :

"Is it untrue that the media took what Bill Bennet said out of context?"

uhm
thats pretty untrue
its completely horrendous even in context

9/30/2005 6:20:23 PM

NOT THAT I AGREE WITH KILLING BLACK BABIES

but the end result would be pretty cool.


Please explain what kind of context could make what he said better.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2005 6:24:18 PM

I heard John McCain had a mulatto child...

9/30/2005 8:37:04 PM

he didn't say it would have been pretty cool

he may have specifically picked it as the most offensive option he could think of, as he was arguing against the idea of using abortion to reduce crime being morally acceptable

9/30/2005 8:59:25 PM

well, at least someone gets what they are talking about in the other thread

9/30/2005 9:04:40 PM

Omg, the media's a big conspiracy designed to line the money of the political parties!!!

9/30/2005 9:42:47 PM

if only black people would think for themselves and do what is best for them and the rest of us

10/1/2005 3:31:47 PM

when was the last time someone thought for themself?




i dont care if its not a real word

10/1/2005 4:13:37 PM

Quote :

"Every morning The Media has a conference call with the Democrats."

The media is mostly democrats. Thats why they all hate Fox News, incase you couldnt figure it out for yourself.

10/1/2005 4:53:03 PM

Quote :

"Is it untrue that the media took what Bill Bennet said out of context?"

That is absolutely untrue.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/

You'll note that, when his remarks are first quoted, they are quoted in their full context (including his statement about how it would be "morally reprehensible").

By the way, I do think it's interesting that "President Bush 'believes the comments were not appropriate.'" Unfortunate; I'd have expected Bush to remain mum on this issue, but I guess it does help to take the wind out of the Democrats' sails.

(I don't see what "the media" has to do with your complaints, kdawg; it is true that the Democrats are trying to play the PR game like everyone else, but that's hardly specific to them ...)

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 5:56 PM. Reason : foo]

10/1/2005 5:55:28 PM

so, one article proves that NOONE in the media didn't provide full context? thx for that amazingly enlightening point...

but, lets give you the benefit of the doubt. lets try and think that this article was written without bias... lets look at the headline:

Quote :

"Bennett under fire for remarks on blacks, crime"

welp, there goes the idea that it didn't have REMARKABLE bias in it.

10/1/2005 11:05:28 PM

"How can blacks overcome..?"



"Get out and vote..?"


BZZZ, WRONG.


Even if Republicans were portrayed as racists, they'd still have their "man" in office.

10/1/2005 11:22:18 PM

Quote :

"so, one article proves that NOONE in the media didn't provide full context? thx for that amazingly enlightening point..."

Ok, this is what you (specifically, YOU) might call a STRAWMAN argument.

Your strawman position is that "SOMEONE in the media is taking Bennett out of context." That is a hopelessly stupid position for me to address, so why you're asking me to address it, is beyond me.

Dude, the article I posted was from CNN. They are a bastion of mainstream media if one exists.

Here's the one from ABC News, which is actually an AP wire article:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1173100

Its coverage is substantially the same as CNN's, quoting his full context in basically the same location in the article.

But I won't belabor the idiocy of your reply any further; you should shut the fuck up and respond with something halfway intelligent next time.

Quote :

"welp, there goes the idea that it didn't have REMARKABLE bias in it."

What the Hell is biased about that headline?

a) Bennett's remarks were, in fact, about blacks and the crime rate
b) Bennett was, in fact, under fire for them from Congressional Democrats (and the White House)

What would you prefer?

"Bennett said something, and someone didn't like it?"

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 12:05 AM. Reason : foo]

10/1/2005 11:59:45 PM

Quote :

"Bennett's remarks were, in fact, about blacks and the crime rate"

no they weren't his remarks were about ABORTION and crime. THATS the bias. His entire quote is about ABORTION AND CRIME. yes, he talks about black people, but he uses that to prove his point about ABORTION AND CRIME. the headline is supposed to tell you about the fucking story, so what you put there says alot about what you want the reader to take from the article. Thus, when you misrepresent the story in your headline, its a sure thing that you are trying to influence the reader.

Quote :

"Your strawman position is that "SOMEONE in the media is taking Bennett out of context." That is a hopelessly stupid position for me to address, so why you're asking me to address it, is beyond me."

nice strawman yourself. my point was that MANY in the media are taking it out of context and are blasting him. showing me ONE article, and one that I even pointed out is stupidly biased, doesn't prove your claim. And hey, look at the headline of the ABC article...

Quote :

"Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime"

wow, same thing! STUPIDLY FUCKING BIASED! The PROPER headline would be "Bennett: using abortion to combat crime is stupid." But that won't sell any papers or ads, much less make people think that republicans are racists and hate blacks.

10/2/2005 1:09:47 AM

the secret plan is to let republicans screw themselves.

10/2/2005 1:12:11 AM

Quote :

"showing me ONE article"

No, it was one article from _CNN_, the bastion of mainstream media. They're an authority, a representative sample.

And if that weren't enough, I cited the AP as well.

Quote :

"STUPIDLY FUCKING BIASED"

But that is exactly what Bennett said. There is no way to deny that he literally said and implied the truth of that statement. In fact, I am dead certain that assuming the truth of that statement, was necessary for the rhetorical position he was taking.

And, as such, that statement has:

* prompted a political volley from various members of the Congress
* prompted the White House to condemn his remarks as "inappropriate"

Therefore -- how could a journalist use any other statement as their headline, if they choose to paraphrase him?

Furthermore, the crux of your stupidity is thus: the headline is not the story. If someone reads a headline and draws a conclusion from it without reading the story, that is not an example of the media misleading someone. It is that person being a stupid, pig-ignorant jackass by failing to read the story that follows.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 2:35 AM. Reason : foo]

10/2/2005 2:34:59 AM

Quote :

"Furthermore, the crux of your stupidity is thus: the headline is not the story. If someone reads a headline and draws a conclusion from it without reading the story, that is not an example of the media misleading someone. It is that person being a stupid, pig-ignorant jackass by failing to read the story that follows. "

that is so stupid. By this reasoning the media could put anything they wanted in the headline of a story even if it had nothing at all to do with the actual story. Its like you are saying the headline can be biased as long as the story is not. If the media has the responsibility to make the story non-biased then the headline should be as well.

Of course we all know thats not what happens. The media knows that the vast majority of the people who see any headline will not read the actual story. So liberals just love to put things in the headline that are amazingly biased.

thats what has happened in the Bennett case.

10/2/2005 6:10:41 AM

You stupid Republican whores are just beyond ridiculous. According to your logic, if I were to say: "When you see a racist, and every Republican is one, you gotta fight them tooth and nail", then the only appropriate headline would be "MathFreak thinks racism is bad". Of course, your dumb asses would scream bias if you saw such a headline.

That the ends don't justify the means is a banality. Someone saying that isn't newsworthy. No news outlet is under any obligation to follow on that. Saying that by getting rid of black you could even hypothetically reduce crime is a far-going and obviously controversial statement. That statement, as Smoker4 pointed out (whether being ultimately right or wrong), is what caused the uproar on the part of the Black Caucus as well as the White House. That's obviously news.

10/2/2005 10:09:08 AM

you IDIOTS. When are you going to figure out that DEMOCRAT = REPUBLICAN ???

10/2/2005 10:50:43 AM

Quote :

"By this reasoning the media could put anything they wanted in the headline of a story even if it had nothing at all to do with the actual story."

Uh, no. Nothing about my reasoning implies that. Do you have a functioning brain?

My point was very simple: "the headline is not the story." Any bullshit ideas you extrapolate from that, are your fault.

Quote :

"thats what has happened in the Bennett case."

No, it very well isn't. You don't know the first thing about "the Bennett case." The headlines cited are JUSTIFIABLY representative of what he said, and of the comment that sparked a high-level uproar.

And keep in mind, I think Bennett has done no wrong. I've defended him in the other thread.

It would be irresponsible for "the media" to draw attention to anything BUT the comment that has led to the _White House_ reprimanding him in public. If you don't believe this, you have no clue what a journalist does or what the purpose of media is.

10/2/2005 1:40:04 PM

Quote :

"That's obviously news."

Right, and when the media reports on what ISN'T news, or draws attention to their own agenda -- that's yellow journalism.

In this case the media was tightly focused on a controversy that originated from the members of Congress. They didn't just come out of the blue and report on Bennett's remarks per se; they were reporting on the actual controversy surrounding them.

It'd be another thing entirely if the media had just decided one day to pick on him, but an authority in government -- the Congressional Black Caucus -- not to mention the NAACP, among others, publically derided his statements. The media has an obligation to report on that.

10/2/2005 1:46:02 PM