the truthiness about bush
 

http://blogs.citypages.com/ctg/2006/04/ ... hiness.asp

(2 parts of video on link, other is one youbtube somewhere)

Thought I'd post for those who haven't seen it, Bush doesn't know whether to squirm or call secuirty, most of the audience ain't laughin either, awkward silences galore, hah

That comedian deserves some kind of medal

The correspondence dinner is supposed to be light hearted and comedic, colbert took it a bit further tho

Colbert has some fuckin balls, cracks me up. All those fake, up their own arse brainwashed tits in the audience looked so confused

Heres the audition tape, haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ0vv00p3MA

happy: so good

happy:

To bad the media isn't covering what Colbert did. Most of the blogs are saying how it just reminds them how much of a shitty job they've been doing..Good for Colbert though.

the media isn't covering what? that colbert took it too far? really? cause that was a headline on Drudge yesterday, they had a whole article about it...

I'm talking about CNN here. A larger medium that reaches a broader auidence then editor and publisher. Haven't found anything on reuters, associated press the large media outlets that produce print. Editor and publisher is the only company to produce reports..These are the only two I found. I guess if you can show that I am wrong by providing something from a well known outlet..

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1002425363

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1002425360

you know what, you're right, most of the mainstream news sources don't have much about it. They basically all just posted an AP article that only has one paragraph about Colbert. The paragraph was a quote from Colbert that depicted how pointed his jokes were, they jsut didn't say anything else about it. Then again, I don't think it's a very big deal, but you'd think people would be pointing it out to laugh at Bush

Hahaha, nevermind c312. Guess what news station picked it up? FOXXXXXXXXXX

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/01/colbert-fox/


ffs rolleyes:

ok, so now someone is talking about it? Why is it bad that it was fox news?

I guess you don't see the irony?

No, i don't see irony. Colbert took it too far and insulted the President to his face, it was a ridiculously awkward speech to watch. I can't beleive Colbert thought it would be ok to basically insult the President to his face at what is supposed to be a light hearted event. There's a time and place for that, and it's not at the correspondents dinner....

I'm not going to argue with you on this because the issues Colbert brought up speak for themselves and what he said, no matter how you look at it was none the less the truth. If you think he was out of line, well maybe your fine with your media bedding with the government...I'm done with this thread.

It was truth? Just because someone says something that you agree with politically doesn't mean it's fact..Almost everything he said had opposite sides to it that you could argue.

It just wasn't the place to bring it up, it was inappropriate. He already ridicules conservatives on his show, why does he have to do it to the President's face at a dinner that isn't supposed to be political in that sense.

And what does this have to do with the "media bedding with the government?" are you kidding me? most of the media is liberal, most television shows and newspapers are leftist, the only thing you can argue about the media being conservative is the fact that Fox news is watched more than any of all of the liberal channels combined and the dominance of conservatives in talk radio. All this media shit is just that, shit. You have got to be crazy if you think the media favors the current president...

I said I was finished with this thread but whatever. Firstly I only have to use only one argument to justify the bedding theory. The iraq war. FAIR did a study stating just how ignorant the press was in its reporting.

* Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.
* At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.
* Sources affiliated with anti-war activism were nearly non-existent. On the four networks combined, just three of 393 sources were identified as being affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than 1 percent. Just one of 267 U.S. sources was affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than half a percent.

http://www.fair.org/reports/iraq-sources.html

The report goes on to conclude many other mistakes. The corporate media was literally banging the drums for war, no objectivity was heard. It was all let's go to war to fight for freedom..no one even questioned the actual rationale for war. Another one of my favorite media stories was the Micheal Gordon - Judith Miller articles (work for NY times, the most liberal media outlet) They wrote stories that would later be pardoned by the editorial staff at NY Times, they literally told their readers "sorry we printed this stuff". The articles that were published were based on false facts and government sources that were told to leak info to the press. President Bush actually would quote the article in a press briefing at his ranch. Now this is only one example, I'd rather not go on because it's highly tedious and exhaustive and I know only a small fraction of American society can actually grabble the media theories. And that's fine I guess. And I always hear "the media is liberal" I've never seen hard facts...can you give me some studies or something I'm interested.

EDIT:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

don't need studies, just watch tv. Most major networks are clearly anti-Bush. Sometimes you don't need studies, just observations. Watch 4 hours worth of network news (other than Fox) and tell me they don't have something that is anti-Bush administration or critical of it, whether it's "truth" to you or not doesn't matter, it's there. It being "truth" or not is debatable, depending on which side you are on.

Also, right before the Iraq war, there was an extremely high approval to invade...I don't attribute that to the news as much as I do to the fact that at the time, we thought Iraq was a threat and the echo of 911 was still in everyone's ears. Not to mention most of our elected officials, both democrats and republicans stood up in congress and argued for war. The media wasn't the only one who wanted to go to war, almost everyone did.

Alright, let's drop the liberal media argument already because I find it utterly hard to believe there is one. And yes I wouldn't mind stats or some proof because the argument is highly weak. When I flick through the channels and see blizters the situation room I see both sides argued. I know they bring in a republican and democrat to debate each political issue..how on earth is that liberal bias. Do I see huge amounts of coverage of the outcry on the wiretapping issue from profs from gerogetown or ny university? No I do not. The media consistently covers topics that they want you to see. They'll show the daily bloodshed in Iraq which is reported horribly enough as it is. Then they will move on to political issues such as immigration maybe bring on a immigrant protestor and some right wing researcher at cato to debate. Chris matthews the host of hardball is a conservative. He is supposedly even running for congress..know how is that liberal bias? Well what about scarborough country.. the host is a former republican..see where I am going? To say the media is fully biased sounds like something you heard from a conservative pundit. The media in general is shit. And please don't even get me started on Fox News. I could write a nice formal essay on them.

Maybe I should do an experiment when my exams end. I'll watch NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS and I'll write down what I see.


Also, I've been thinking about those stats you posted earlier. Isn't it possible and even highly likely that the percentages of anti-war people who were on tv was proportionate to the amount of anti-war people in the population, meaning there were few of them on tv because there were few of them in the US population?

Probably a small minority because as the quote I have as my signature signifies..its not hard to pursuade the public. I can give you a perfect example here in Canada based on the election we just had. Everyone started raising support for the conservatives because they were going to cut taxes. In the papers I was reading only small paragaphs questioned if it would work. Later when they were elected economist pointed out it would only benefit the rich in Canada. When people see something that looks like it will work they'll go along with it. The public - a large majority of it - is so easily pursuaded by just about anything. The media morphs public opinion.