Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Why I care about the Cheney hunting accident


Predicto

Recommended Posts

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 completely agree with you BlueTalon that the internet has opened up the flow of information. Media organizations no longer have a monopoly on opinion as anyone can simply fire up the old PC and find more information from different viewpoints with a quick Google search. The problem is much of what you find on the internet is shamefully dishonest.

You bring up drudge as an example, which for my argument is perfect. You slam Newsweek for being slow on a story but have you considered there may have been a different reason? For example had Newsweek gone to print with Drudge’s Kerry is sleeping with an intern story, they would have been in some serious ****. Why? Because it was total unsupported bull****. It was the a Rather type career ender for a journalist that printed such a story. But what happened to Drudge? Nothing. He merely highlighted his piece of fiction and struck the delete key. No harm done.

If you want more examples of internet “news” look at newsmax or commondreams. Both hopelessly slanted dishonest news sources that folks firmly entrenched in ideology confuse with news. These places have no accountability at all. When they publish BS and call it news their writers don’t get fired. No one in the main stream press makes a stink for fear of lending them an audience. So they operate accordingly.

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.

You might be right BlueTalon and I wish I could agree with you but I’m a hopeless cynic. The way I see it your scenario is right in cases as general as the one you mentioned. The problem comes into play when you accept the reality that politics requires money. It is a necessary means to an end. So then I find it completely logical that a politician would look at what he has and think “how can I get more money” then pattern at least some of his opinions around stances that will gain him money. You can agree to help all sorts of groups from religious to unions. You can simply take their position on an issue and earn their donation. You can’t win without a great deal of money so there is no denying that the motivation is there for exactly this type of situation to occur all the time.

If you see a fault in my logic please feel free to point it out.

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.)
Sure, but again the problem is that Limbaugh is a liar as are all these talking heads that sell hatred on the airwaves. The claim to have the “facts” and if you believe them they convincingly destroy their political opponents position 8 ways to Sunday. However if you stop to think about it, if issues were as open and shut as they dishonestly claim them to be – we wouldn’t need political debate. We’d just roll that doc shopper into the white house and have him rule over the land and all would be peachy.

That is how he causes people to not think for himself. By presenting a dishonest case and claiming up and down that he has the facts. He even tells you the “facts” and assures you a billion times that they are 100% true…..all while not engaging in any honest debate and never once entertaining a question about the veracity of his numbers.

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.

It’s not Limbaugh’s job to do anything but make his conservative audience happy by stroking their egos. He isn't a newsman....he's a good news man for conservatives. There is a major difference.

Also please note that I'm only picking on Limbaugh because you guys brought him up. All the hate peddlers from both sides of the aisle are the same. They have their place providing differing points of view....but to rely on them for truth would be IMO a big mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

BlueTalon,

I agree with you on your general point about Limbaugh and about blogs. We are simply living in a world of increased specialization and professionalization, and we're going to get news to suit our individual tastes. The reason we get biased news is because we WANT biased news ... or rather that we all have different opinions on what "unbiased" news is, so the market provides us with news to suit our desires.

However, I think you miss an important point in this paragraph I quoted above. On the issue of guns, you will not be swayed by lobbyists. However, what is your position on the proper criminal sentence for trafficking in counterfeit marks? What about designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System? What about the agri-biodiesel tax credit? What about the number of members on the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority?

I bet you probably don't have a strong opinion on any of those issues ... would a lobbyist be able to sway your vote? Those are all pieces of legislation that were introduced on the House floor yesterday, and Congress is going to have to vote on them. The way the system works is not that lobbyists change peoples' minds on big issues like abortion or gun control. It is on the issues where politicians don't have strong opinions that money can have a corrupting influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

BlueTalon,

I agree with you on your general point about Limbaugh and about blogs. We are simply living in a world of increased specialization and professionalization, and we're going to get news to suit our individual tastes. The reason we get biased news is because we WANT biased news ... or rather that we all have different opinions on what "unbiased" news is, so the market provides us with news to suit our desires.

However, I think you miss an important point in this paragraph I quoted above. On the issue of guns, you will not be swayed by lobbyists. However, what is your position on the proper criminal sentence for trafficking in counterfeit marks? What about designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System? What about the agri-biodiesel tax credit? What about the number of members on the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority?

I bet you don't have a strong opinion on any of those issues ... but there is a group of people in America that does - would one of their lobbyists be able to sway your vote? Those are examples of legislation that was introduced on the House floor yesterday, and Congress is going to have to vote on them. The way the system works is not that lobbyists change peoples' minds on issuse where they have a strong opinion. The abortion lobby spends its money getting people elected, not changing their votes. However, interest groups like the Indian casinos that hired Jack Abramoff traffic in issues that have little to do with whether people get elected unless you represent Las Vegas or Atlantic City. It is on those issues, where politicians and voters don't have strong opinions, that money can have a corrupting influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Post of the year Bang, great one. . .

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Cheney had a beer around lunch time, and they went hunting some five or so hours later...I don't see any inconsistancies or disagreements in the statements concerning the alcohol at all. And the police said that it had nothing to do with it...so we can kind of forget that idea...please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the honest, sincere, single reason that I am still interested in this subject, especially on this message board. It reflects something scary that is going on in our country.

Follow along with me, please, and think about this.

1) The Vice President shot someone in the face while hunting over the weekend. I'm sorry, but this is undeniably News, with a capital N. I believe it was an accident, I do not suspect any excessive drinking or any illegal cover up or anything. Regardless, the incident is still News, and I do want to know exactly what happened. He is the Vice President - and he shot someone in the face.

2) Despite the fact that this clearly is News with a capital N, it is at first very hard for the press get much information out of the White House, which always wishes to "manage" the news as much as possible. We are still learning basic information about what happened, four days later. Fine, again, I'm not that surprised or outraged. This is the basic operating approach of this Administration - they are very calculated in how they allow information to be released. I'm not going to whine about it.

3) But this is the kicker for me - on Monday afternoon, the day after the incident was reported to us, guys like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others were spreading the message: "The Press is Out to Get Dick Cheney! Why are they hammering on this story?"

People right here on this board started popping up with posts on Tuesday morning repeating the message: "It was just an accident! Why can't the press let it go? Why are you obsessed with this?" The Conservative blogs and airwaves began filling up with this point of view.

Let me repeat: Within 24 hours of us learning that anything had happened at all, we were already being told that the obsessive liberal press, the "enemy within," was out to get conservatives once again, and the defensiveness and outrage began growing and growing.

On day was all it took to figure out the proper spin. Make this into a story about press excess and obsession and bias, not about the Vice President and guns. Put the liberals back on their heels - make the reporters justify WHY they are even interested in this, call them grandstanders. Question whether Clinton would get the same treatment, assert that he wouldn't. Attack people's motives, refocus attention on your percieved enemies, find a scapegoat - this is pure Karl Rove at his most effective.

And it began ONE day after this story broke.

Honestly, most people really just wanted to know what happened, how it happened. I know I did. (Maybe make a few jokes, because the potential for good jokes is certainly there, sure). But no one was calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney over this. Unfortunately, the immediate (and very effective) response of the Right has become to characterize every question or comment as an attack on Cheney, as a demand that Cheney step down or go to jail - then go on to attack the motives of the press or the posters here for being so outrageous and so biased and for jumping to conclusions without evidence.

It aggravates me to see this level of manipulation of the public, and it makes me scared to see how successful it is. I suspect most posters here don't even realise they have been manipulated. You are probably pissed at me for even suggesting it.

There is no way to escape it - our political discourse is poisoned. And that makes me sad.

Ok - that's it. Please, if you respond to this, explain to me why I'm wrong. I want to be wrong.

You hit the nail right on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This thread wasn't about the hunting accident. Recommend a re-read, or more than likely a "read", of the first thread.

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.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ready, fire, aim--just like Iraq. That's why its a good story! The the get-tough policies of the gang that couldn't shoot strait has given us discusting pictures of torture in US-run prisons, dead bodies rotting in the streets of New Orleans, massive tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor, nukes in Iran and Korea. The whole thing is a shooting accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/cheney/index.html

"CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (CNN) -- Harry Whittington, the 78-year-old man shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a weekend hunting accident, was being discharged Friday from a Texas hospital.

"We all assume certain risks in whatever we do," Whittington said. "Whatever activities we pursue and regardless of how experienced, careful and dedicated we are, accidents do and will happen. And that's what happened last" Saturday."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whittington explained why you and every political opportunist were wrong in person today.

But, hey, it made you feel all warm and fuzzy for a "few" days anyhow.......

I tried to be straightforward in my initial post. I explicitly said that I did not think this was anything more than an accident. I tried to explain what my more specific concern was.

I guess it's just megadittos as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gichin13
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.

Day 1. Started to reply. Deleted. Edited. Deleted again. Closed browser. Went to bed.

Day 2. Slept on it. Started reply again. Delete. Start again. Delete. Realized once again there was no point to replying. Closed browser again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to be straightforward in my initial post. I explicitly said that I did not think this was anything more than an accident. I tried to explain what my more specific concern was.

I guess it's just megadittos as usual.

"Megadittos" ????

The problem with your original post is that this shooting was a private matter between two parties. The fact that one person was the Vice-President of the United States is secondary to the fact that a human accidentally shot a friend.

The immediate gut reaction of the liberal media was to pounce on this as a sensational news story and trump it up with unfounded political accusations. If anything the conservatives that are allowed to say what was on their minds had every right to chastise the political response to this.

Your conclusion is ill founded because you fail to see the human element to this. The element that Cheney is indeed **gasp** a human like you and me who puts his pants on one leg at a time. He is/was devastated by the accident and I am sure for a short while immediately after the shooting did not know if Whittington was going to die.

My conclusion about you concern for "poisoned political discourse"? When will the media start "reporting" the news and not trying to "create" the news?

The liberals, and you, just don't get it. Just admit it, liberals are desparate for a political win any way they can get it. Because for the past fifteen years or so the liberal "wins" have been coming few and far in between.

But, hey, it made you feel all warm and fuzzy for a "few" days anyhow.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Megadittos" ????

The problem with your original post is that this shooting was a private matter between two parties. The fact that one person was the Vice-President of the United States is secondary to the fact that a human accidentally shot a friend.

The immediate gut reaction of the liberal media was to pounce on this as a sensational news story and trump it up with unfounded political accusations. If anything the conservatives that are allowed to say what was on their minds had every right to chastise the political response to this.

Your conclusion is ill founded because you fail to see the human element to this. The element that Cheney is indeed **gasp** a human like you and me who puts his pants on one leg at a time. He is/was devastated by the accident and I am sure for a short while immediately after the shooting did not know if Whittington was going to die.

My conclusion about you concern for "poisoned political discourse"? When will the media start "reporting" the news and not trying to "create" the news?

The liberals, and you, just don't get it. Just admit it, liberals are desparate for a political win any way they can get it. Because for the past fifteen years or so the liberal "wins" have been coming few and far in between.

But, hey, it made you feel all warm and fuzzy for a "few" days anyhow.......

Awesome post. :cheers:

What I found truly pathetic about this whole episode was the way the national media, as well as others on the left, tried to take advantage of a tragic accident to score political points. It was obvious after seeing Cheney's interview that he was truly shaken up by the incident. His initial reaction to what happened was normal: he hoped and prayed that his friend was OK and he had the incident reported to the local authorities immediately after the accident. The fact that the national media wasn't alerted 5 minutes after his friend was shot is just too bad. I really feel sorry for them. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it's funny that the liberals in Congress demanded that Cheney go to the media to explain what happened. The new balance of power: Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Media. :doh:

And it's just fine that the Dems demand that the VP go to the press to explain his mistake before it was made public. I assume they'll play by the same rules, right? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I found truly pathetic about this whole episode was the way the national media, as well as others on the left, tried to take advantage of a tragic accident to score political points.

Y;know, there have been comparasons (including by me) between this event and Chappaquidick.

I've thought of a different comparason.

Suppose Tom Cruise shot somebody.

How many people think that "the media" would have completely abandoned the story 4 days later?

Now, suppose that Tom, one day after the shooting, had publicly announced that the media was being unfair to him by "taking advantage" of an accidental event, and announced that clearly, this attention he's getting is part of the mainstream media's continuing effort to show their anti-Scientology bias. If one day after the event, Scientology talk show hosts begin publicly announcing the same statement (the only reason this story is on TV is because all media is anti-Scientology).

Four days after the shooting, he decides to "come clean" by appearing on The Scientology Channel to announce that he's sorry, and now the media should go away. In the day following the interview, every single host on The Scientology Channel (with no co-ordination at all) announces that the media should immediatly ignore the story because after all, Tom wasn't acting when he shot that guy, and therefore it's completely unrelated to his professional life.

If, one day after he shoots someone, Tom Cruise is complaining that those bad old reporters are picking on him, and they're attacking him because of his religion, I'd bet that about 95% of the folks 'round here would conclude that he's a spoiled, narcisistic Holloywood brat. And over 80% would agree that he needs to see a doctor about that raging paranoia.

But let Dick Cheney yell "liberal media", one day after he shoots someone, and there's a chorous of "Yep. That's the only possible reason it hasn't died in one day. Everybody's picking on poor widdle Dick."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y;know, there have been comparasons (including by me) between this event and Chappaquidick.

I've thought of a different comparason.

Suppose Tom Cruise shot somebody.

How many people think that "the media" would have completely abandoned the story 4 days later?

Now, suppose that Tom, one day after the shooting, had publicly announced that the media was being unfair to him by "taking advantage" of an accidental event, and announced that clearly, this attention he's getting is part of the mainstream media's continuing effort to show their anti-Scientology bias. If one day after the event, Scientology talk show hosts begin publicly announcing the same statement (the only reason this story is on TV is because all media is anti-Scientology).

Four days after the shooting, he decides to "come clean" by appearing on The Scientology Channel to announce that he's sorry, and now the media should go away. In the day following the interview, every single host on The Scientology Channel (with no co-ordination at all) announces that the media should immediatly ignore the story because after all, Tom wasn't acting when he shot that guy, and therefore it's completely unrelated to his professional life.

If, one day after he shoots someone, Tom Cruise is complaining that those bad old reporters are picking on him, and they're attacking him because of his religion, I'd bet that about 95% of the folks 'round here would conclude that he's a spoiled, narcisistic Holloywood brat. And over 80% would agree that he needs to see a doctor about that raging paranoia.

But let Dick Cheney yell "liberal media", one day after he shoots someone, and there's a chorous of "Yep. That's the only possible reason it hasn't died in one day. Everybody's picking on poor widdle Dick."

The issue isn't that the accident was covered by the media. The issue is HOW it was covered by the national media. The behavior of the reporters at the White House with Scott McClellan was down right childish and embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue isn't that the accident was covered by the media. The issue is HOW it was covered by the national media. The behavior of the reporters at the White House with Scott McClellan was down right childish and embarrassing.

"The behavior of the reporters at the White House with Scott McClellan" was that a reporter asked a question, and Scott accused the reporter of grandstanding (with the cameras off). And the reporter got offended at being insulted because he asked a quesion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The behavior of the reporters at the White House with Scott McClellan" was that a reporter asked a question, and Scott accused the reporter of grandstanding (with the cameras off). And the reporter got offended at being insulted because he asked a quesion.

Reporter being accused of grandstanding???? NEVER........ :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...