Why I care about the Cheney hunting accident

[Destino]

Did Cheney do this? Or did the Sheriffs dept decide when to interview? I have heard both stories, can anyone confirm either?

I heard a press conference where the reporter stated as part of his question that the cops claimed they were denied access to Cheney by the secret service.

[visionary]

If you wouldn't mind being a bit more specific I'd be glad to respond.

I was just talking about making conclusions and analysis based on facts. You implied, I think, that this would be part of sticking to just the facts, and so even sticking to the facts would and has been not good enough for people complaining about the media, according to you. But I think that a lot of those people would disagree and say that that is still going beyond just reporting the facts.

I'm not sure where I stand on this argument about what the media should report, but I was just pointing out that your argument may be somewhat flawed, because a lot of people may not agree with your definition of what is sticking to the facts and what is commenting and driving the news and such.

And this is not because of what they want to hear, but because of a simple understanding of what the job of the media ought to be or what facts are and are not. (though I think it is officially true that a lot of this would be covered and in play when one uses the term, factual matters)

On a side note, I do think that the media should try not to show bias.

[Destino]

I was just talking about making conclusions and analysis based on facts. You implied, I think, that this would be part of sticking to just the facts, and so even sticking to the facts would and has been not good enough for people complaining about the media, according to you. But I think that a lot of those people would disagree and say that that is still going beyond just reporting the facts.

I'm not sure where I stand on this argument about what the media should report, but I was just pointing out that your argument may be somewhat flawed, because a lot of people may not agree with your definition of what is sticking to the facts and what is commenting and driving the news and such.

And this is not because of what they want to hear, but because of a simple understanding of what the job of the media ought to be or what facts are and are not. (though I think it is officially true that a lot of this would be covered and in play when one uses the term, factual matters)

On a side note, I do think that the media should try not to show bias.

I sort of see what it is you are saying but that's in line with my point. People will not agree.

Let's use Cheney as an example. If the media reported that it was an accident and followed it with the where and when. That isn't journalism. All that is, is taking what they told you and passing it along.

Finding out what the truth is, means that there is some fact checking and related questioning involved. Thus when a reporter asks what is plainly an obvious question - "why was there a delay between the shooting and meeting with the police?" that is indeed fact finding and it will immediately lead to cries of bias.

Thus my conclusion that people don't want facts. They want safe news reports that don't damage their political affiliations.

I would agree that adding "was it because the VP was drunk" to the end of the before mentioned question is out of line. That's speculation and wrong if passed off as "news".

[BlueTalon]

Also free press is a right, not an entitlement. He doesn't have to answer but we certainly have a right to the news.

There is nothing in this entire story that implies the free press is not a right. The problem as I see it is that the Washington press corps, particularly the White House press corps, are there because they've put in the time and climbed the ladder or whatever and now they have these posh jobs... and their egos have inflated accordingly. So it's not just the right of the free press at issue, it's the right to have information spoon-fed to them and to be treated like nobles. And so when they aren't spoon-fed information, or are treated like normal people, they throw hissie-fits.

When they all learned they'd been scooped by a Corpus Christi newpaper, they were out for blood -- Cheney's and Scott McClellan's. Watching those press corps Q&As with McClellan reminded me of a bunch of spoiled brat kids crossed with a pool of hungry sharks. I for one am glad McClellan started giving their **** back to them. Predicto, that behavior was the genesis of the Limbaugh/Hannity accusations of the press being out for Cheney.

I've heard a number of people insist that because the release of the news was delayed, it equates to a cover-up. Cheney explained that the delay was out of respect for the family's privacy at that critical time, and the desire to make sure what was reported was accurate. That makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps one of you who thinks delay = cover-up can explain it?

[Bang]

Well, I've read thru these five pages, and what I see is once again, things degenerate to partisan bickering.

What I read in the original post was a damnation of the media being manipulated, with all of us ultimately paying the price.

We know Predicto's personal politics, and truthfully, I didn't think that entered into his original post, even though the crux of it was the Cheney shooting.

What I gathered was something I've noticed and commented on ad-nauseum in these forums,, we are basically being led along by our noses by huge propaganda machines that would make Josef Goebbels proud.

The fact that this thread has mostly ignored that and dropped into the usual sniping should serve to show just how true this is.

We ARE manipulated, and both sides are very guilty of it. The right manipulates with attacks and smears, the left manipulates with passive aggressive appeals to reason (their own brand of reason, of course.)

As it is now we have two news networks seemingly devoted to propagandizing their own particular agenda, Fox and CNN. Of course, fans of each will argue otherwise, but what is, is.

to me, Fox is particularly heinous, because the values of the right that they espouse and the morality that goes along with it completely flies in the face of their entertainment network.

I mean, on one hand they show us the most ridiculously exploitative tripe on television, (such as the Paris Hilton / Nicole Richy bimbo-fests, the wifeswapping shows, etc...there are a few fine exceptions like 24) and on their news network they rail against the effects of such programming and attitudes on the country.

anyway, the point made was that we are all subjected to this. It's time we stop taking the bait. remember, propaganda only works if you swallow it. I'm not saying people shouldn't be republicans or democrats or be passionate about it. I'm saying, and I think Predicto was saying is we must be vigilant, to be aware that this is indeed what is happening.

Saying "Oh yeah, well THEY do it" isn't a good excuse. We the people deserve better. People like Rush Limbaugh are bad for us because they cause us to not think for ourselves. If he offered opinion and conjecture and discussion it would be one thing, even if he had a definite lean to his thinking. It's his right. But to engage in manipulating the news media like they do is to do us all a disservice. By treating the media as the enemy, they have made enemies of the media. Now, we're subject to being spoon fed what will further an agenda, rather than informing us of the facts.

The news is our right. To know is our right. Our government was set up to be of the people, for the people, with nothing to hide. Now, I'm not so foolish to think that we SHOULD know everything, absolutely not,, it's rather easy to figure out what not to report... such as wartime secrets, etc.

As citizens we should demand our government be straight with us. And when they aren't, it is we who suffer.

Truth and fairness only comes if we demand it, and as we all know, sometimes the truth hurts, so we must be willing to see the faults in those we support should they exist.

As I've said a hundred times before in a hundred different threads, UNITE.

~Bang

[HOF44]

Bang's Post

:notworthy:applause::applause::applause::applause::notworthy

Edited to comply with forum rules ~ihs

[PleaseBlitz]

What Bang said

You guys should check out the view from the middle. Its remarkable.

[JimboDaMan]

I heard a press conference where the reporter stated as part of his question that the cops claimed they were denied access to Cheney by the secret service.

That's how I heard it too. But today I read someplace - cnn.com I think - that the Secret Service had originally reported denying the deputies access, now they changed their tune to say the deputies had only come to offer help that first night and the Secret Service turned them away. Take that for whatever its worth.

[BlueTalon]

People like Rush Limbaugh are bad for us because they cause us to not think for ourselves. If he offered opinion and conjecture and discussion it would be one thing, even if he had a definite lean to his thinking. It's his right. But to engage in manipulating the news media like they do is to do us all a disservice. By treating the media as the enemy, they have made enemies of the media. Now, we're subject to being spoon fed what will further an agenda, rather than informing us of the facts.

The news is our right. To know is our right.

No, to know is not your right. It's your right to publish and broadcast and read and listen. The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about knowing.

I think you have it backwards. The major media weren't made into enemies by people like Rush Limbaugh. The major media made themselves enemies of the people they alienated by tilted reporting/non-reporting. Having alternative sources of information is not a bad thing, it's a very good thing. For example, when that guy on a college campus in Virginia started started shooting people about four years ago, and was stopped by three other guys, the alternative media is what let it be known that two of those three other guys had their own guns, because it sure wasn't being reported in the mainstream media.

And I don't know anyone, liberal or conservative, who stopped thinking for him/herself as the result of listening to Limbaugh or any liberal equivalent. As a matter of fact, I think a better case can be made that people who get their information exclusively from the mainstream media tend to not think for themselves. Especially if that White House press corps is any indication.

[dreamshatterer]

He is the Vice President - and he shot someone in the face.

That's the best part of the whole story.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Guest Gichin13]

Problem is, people were saying this immediately, before we even knew anything at all. Do you really think there was not a deliberate and immediate effort to "turn" the story from the incident to the conduct of the press? On this board, people were saying "drop it, old news!" on Monday, and by Tuesday had become fully convinced that the liberal press was hounding Cheney.

I guess on my end the WH spin is so obvious, I take it for granted that their initial line to just about anything potentially negative is going to be the liberal media is out to get them. That does not mean their point does not have some truth.

I apparently have a different reaction to this story. I got trapped in Juffy Lube's waiting area for more than two hours yesterday. The entire time, I was overdosed with Wolf Blitzer and others hammering this story for hours straight to the exclusion of all else. That is ridiculous to me and says a lot of sad things about the attention span and priorities of our country. I now am so totally overdosed on this story, and I was pretty sick of it to begin with.

At the end, I have to say I think the WH spin has got some legs to it. The press is utterly jumping onto a story that really is pretty irrelevant. I think the hearings about Google and Yahoo either helping or harming Chinese oppression are far more meaningful, interesting, and worthy of discussion. I think Iran's continuing antics, or even this story about control of security of our ports, are way more important but are getting shoved aside.

Yes it is "news", and in a sense I do not blame the networks for being capitalistic and jumping on the story and sticking with what sells. Unfortunately, to me the story is "news" for the same reasons that I-95 North has back ups when there is a wreck in the southbound lanes. Me, I just keep driving.

[Guest Gichin13]

I'm saying, and I think Predicto was saying is we must be vigilant, to be aware that this is indeed what is happening.

Saying "Oh yeah, well THEY do it" isn't a good excuse. We the people deserve better.

~Bang

I agree 100% with you and Predicto on this.

[Chopper Dave]

As usual, Bang comes in and hits is right on the nose.

[Bang]

No, to know is not your right. It's your right to publish and broadcast and read and listen. The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about knowing.

I think you have it backwards. The major media weren't made into enemies by people like Rush Limbaugh. The major media made themselves enemies of the people they alienated by tilted reporting/non-reporting. Having alternative sources of information is not a bad thing, it's a very good thing. For example, when that guy on a college campus in Virginia started started shooting people about four years ago, and was stopped by three other guys, the alternative media is what let it be known that two of those three other guys had their own guns, because it sure wasn't being reported in the mainstream media.

And I don't know anyone, liberal or conservative, who stopped thinking for him/herself as the result of listening to Limbaugh or any liberal equivalent. As a matter of fact, I think a better case can be made that people who get their information exclusively from the mainstream media tend to not think for themselves. Especially if that White House press corps is any indication.

These are fair points, altho I think it's a bit naive to think that Limbaugh (and believe me, he is only who I used for an example, he's extremely well known and clearly pushes the propaganda. he's not the only one, to be sure.) don't cause folks to not think for themselves. They may think, but people by and large are much more easily swayed than folks think. Drilling the same messages over and over to a willing audience makes it very easy. Any good salesman can lead. The overwhelming majority of people are followers.

the reason I don't like what he and others do is that rather than retrain the media into being what it should be, a tool of the people to stay informed of the doings in the world, these "pundits" have chosen rather to further make them an enemy, to actively undermine them depending on which side of the story is, or isn't being explained.

When you say "alternative sources of information", could you elaborate as to some examples of such? I'm not sure i follow there. Blogs and such?

I agree in principle, but these mavericks have to follow the proper ethics, or their credibility is easily damaged. I'm all for alternatives to the packaged commercial news. I hope that it will hold itself to a higher standard.

~Bang

[PleaseBlitz]

By treating the media as the enemy, they have made enemies of the media. Now, we're subject to being spoon fed what will further an agenda, rather than informing us of the facts.

The major media made themselves enemies of the people they alienated by tilted reporting/non-reporting.

Just so long as everyone can agree with the fact that the current media is the enemy, then we are in good shape.

[DeanCollins]

I agree 100% with you and Predicto on this.

what he said about what Predicto said :psyche:

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm not sure what the direction of this thread is anymore but I think the issue comes down to one main point. We live in a world with 24 hour news stations, and there isn't 24 hours worth of news that we care about.

To me this story was pretty simple...

I heard Sunday morning that the VP shot someone Saturday afternoon in a hunting accident. The man was taken to the hospital with what appeared to be minor injuries. The Secret Service notified local law enforcement and the incident was determined to be an accident.

Now, what more was there to the story until whenever the guy had a heart attack? Was there anything else to it? What else did everyone want to know?

Was the "right" justified in spinning up the defense? I would say they were just as justified as the "left" was in jumping on the offense. And from my vantage point they both happened at about the same time.

In my mind the media fouls up all kinds of news, not just political. A recent event being the WV coal miner incident.

I'm with you guys that wish we could have a normal, civil debate. I don't want to agree with you, I want to have a civil debate.

As far as I'm concerned, extremists on each side can keep pulling as hard as you can in each direction, it really doesn't have much of an effect on those of us near the middle. I would thank you all by name but would hate to be accused of calling anyone out.

[nelms]

The bottom line is the liberal national media (93% of whom voted for Clinton in 1996) got all whiny and pissy because Cheney dissed them. See David Gregory.

[BlueTalon]

These are fair points, altho I think it's a bit naive to think that Limbaugh (and believe me, he is only who I used for an example, he's extremely well known and clearly pushes the propaganda. he's not the only one, to be sure.) don't cause folks to not think for themselves. They may think, but people by and large are much more easily swayed than folks think. Drilling the same messages over and over to a willing audience makes it very easy. Any good salesman can lead. The overwhelming majority of people are followers.

When you say "alternative sources of information", could you elaborate as to some examples of such? I'm not sure i follow there. Blogs and such?

I agree in principle, but these mavericks have to follow the proper ethics, or their credibility is easily damaged. I'm all for alternatives to the packaged commercial news. I hope that it will hold itself to a higher standard.

~Bang

Examples: Blogs and other internet venues, talk radio, and FOX would be the main ones, I suppose. (And for what it's worth, their credibility would be determined by accuracy, not ethics.) Mostly the internet, because you can hear about something on the radio and then do a search on it to find out more. A big example would be the Drudge Report -- he's the one who broke the Monica Lewinski story after Newsweek decided you didn't need to know about it.

I again disagree with your assertion that people in general don't think for themselves when listening to a Limbaugh or whoever. And to explain why, I'll use campaign finance as an illustration. Many people think that money in politics corrupts, and that campaign donations "buy" a candidate. While certainly there are people who are corruptible, in general that argument doesn't hold water.

I am decidedly pro-gun. If I was running for office and my opponent was anti-gun, it is only reasonable to expect that money from the gun industry would flow more toward my campaign than to my opponent's. But would that money buy or corrupt me? No, it would simply come from people who are already aligned with my positions.

Likewise, Limbaugh/whoever isn't going to cause people to not think for themselves, if by that you mean they are going to mostly agree with Limbaugh/whoever's positions and points. Instead, Limbaugh/whoever is going to attract an audience who is already predisposed toward agreeing with the majority of their views. (Now, one could make an argument that the majority of people on the other side of the isle don't think for themselves, but it wouldn't be true, and it certainly wouldn't be caused by Limbaugh/whoever.)

The reason I don't like what he and others do is that rather than retrain the media into being what it should be, a tool of the people to stay informed of the doings in the world, these "pundits" have chosen rather to further make them an enemy, to actively undermine them depending on which side of the story is, or isn't being explained.

It's not Limbaugh's job, nor anyone else's, to retrain the media into being what it should be. They wouldn't listen to him, anyway. Ever since Walter Cronkite started twisting the news from Viet Nam, the media has had its own agenda. That's the only reason Limbaugh ever got any traction to begin with. So in a sense, you can blame him on the media.

The media wouldn't ever be undermined if they behaved and reported in a way that wasn't underminable.

[georgiaredskin]

I agree with the essence of your post. It seems most politics get summed up with catch phrases - pro-life, pro-choice, red, blue, conservative, liberal, affirmative action. Say any one and you're liable to set somebody off.

Speak out against President Bush or his administration and you're a tree-hugging liberal. Stand up for President Bush and you're a card-carrying NRA lunatic that might accidently shoot someone in the face :laugh: (sorry had to do it). It's a shame that things have detoriorated to the point where issues cannot be discussed on merit but come from dumbed-down catch phrases.

VERY well put. :notworthy :applause:

[BlueTalon]

Multiple posts due to...

[BlueTalon]

... gremlins.

[Bang]

I agree with you on blogs and such, but I don't see Fox as anywhere near alternative, I think they have a clear agenda, and they are a huge profitmaking company. They are establishment.

As to whether or not it's Limbaugh's job to re-train the media, I think it's everyone's responsibility to demand they adhere to what their original intent is. Ethics and accuracy go hand in hand. If you report fairly and report the entire story, your ethics are intact. If you are a reporter and force a single side of a story to promote an ideal, then your ethics are not at all intact.

Limbaugh and others are in a position to try to make that difference, but they'd prefer to push an agenda, because they would rather their side of the news be heard above the other. News should be neutral. Granted, Limbaugh and these pundits are opinionists and not reporters, so they have no responsibility to present anything but the side they have an opinion on. However, to say, "the media is biased" and then proceed to do the exact same thing, but with reverse ideaology is hypocritical and irresponsible at best.

You and i will disagree on how easily people will nod their heads in unison when told to do so. I've had plenty of opportunity to speak in public and do some heavy sales pitches, and if you're good and you can push the right buttons, you can get a hell of a lot of folks to believe in your words and agree. Aside from that, history has shown time and time again how people are led down paths and do unspeakable things. Large numbers of people, entire populations. There's a ton of books on how to do it, and how it's been done.

If people are willing to go down the paths they have in the past, there is no reason to believe that as a whole they're any smarter for it now, especially in the modern world. Right now there's thousands of people marching in streets, burning buildings, killing each other over a couple of cartoons. And it's been reported that during these demonstrations, it is obvious that there are leaders pointing the mob, inciting the mob, and leading them into complete insanity. And they don't even have the same mass media capability as is available here.

What happens here is subtle, sort of. Everyone swears that THEY are the ones telling the truth, and the other guy is lying, no matter WHAT the issue is. No one ever wants to admit they've been manipulated, even to themselves. People in Germany swore they had no idea that the death camps were there, even though they worked in the shadow and stench of them.

~Bang

[NoCalMike]

To get this thread back to the Cheney hunting accident....

By now it should be obvious what probably took place. Cheney was drunk or at least buzzed on alcohol, and accidently shot his hunting buddy. Not wanting to be caught drunk with a gun in his hands, he ordered his people to turn sheriff's away until the next morning when he would be sober.

We already have conflicting reports on whether Cheney was drinking or not, as the owner of the ranch said No, Cheney said "I had a beer" and his hunting buddy said "well we didn't drink DURING the hunt" key word, being "During" So basically they could have been all liquored up prior to the hunt, like getting loaded during lunch.

[JimboDaMan]

Yes, because hunting accident happen all the time in the US. If it is deemed an accident and the person didn't die from the injuries you didn't break any laws.

Hunting accidents in Texas, in 2004, occurred at a rate of 2.7 per 100,000 licenses issued. That, my friend, is not "all the time".