# Liberal bias in news headlines



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Three of 'em, up on cnn.com right now.

"Army bans privately purchased body armor"
Read just the headline and you'd get the impression that Bush and Rumsfeld don't care about the lives of soldiers and even want them to die, stripping them of armor they had to buy themselves, because we all remember that clip of Rumsfeld saying "you go to war with the army that you have." Read the article and find out that instead "the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor, and any soldier wearing it will have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear," which gives exactly the opposite impression. Why wasn't the headline, "Army requires authorized gear to protect soldiers"?

Next we have: 
"Rice cites 'thousands of errors' in Iraq"
Why was that the headline instead of another line from the same speech, such as "I believe strongly it was the right strategic decision"? Focusing on only the errors, and making that the headline, sounds like more liberal bias in the media. Why wasn't the headline, "Rice: Iraq war right strategic decision"?

Then there's "Ex-Nixon aide backs censuring Bush"
Why is John Dean's inane comparison of authorizing a burglary for one's own political purposes with listening to conversations of known terrorists in an effort to thwart future attacks even newsworthy? Except that any critic of the Bush administration is a friend of the mainstream media, as demonstrated by the New York Times running what was it, 47 front page stories about Abu Ghraib, and that bizarre nonstop 24/7 coverage of Ms. Cindy Sheehan's vigil in Crawford.

All of these headlines advance the same liberal storyline that we've heard again and again: Iraq was a mistake, Rumsfeld doesn't care if soldiers die, and Bush should be impeached.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

What's your point? To start a wee pissing match with the usual suspects? I'm sure the reverse claim was made during the Clinton presidency: "Conservative bias in media", etc, etc. The media just jumps on any potential for 'controversy', no matter how shaky the basis in fact, and I rarely notice much leftist or rightist bias, unless ignorance has a defined position on the political spectrum that I am not aware of...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Condi defending the administration is not news -- one would expect a member of administration to defend the administration. It is a "dog bites man" story -- expected, commonplace, boring. But a member of the administration admitting thousands of errors -- well, that is news. That is "man bites dog," as the newsroom cliche goes. It is not a matter of political persuasion but of stressing the extraordinary over the ordinary -- common practice on any story, even stories far removed from politics, such as sports or entertainment.

I get the feeling that you want headlines to reflect how you'd like the world to be, rather than how it is. The headlines are completely accurate. The problem isn't that they reflect a liberal point of view, but that they don't reflect your point of view and don't seek out the most positive way of portraying an administration that even many Republicans are now questioning.

There is not a whole lot of positive news available about this administration, and I suspect that deep down you know this. It is not a headline writer's job to focus on the one slightly positive snippet that some right-winger manages to ferret out of a basically negative piece. It's not bias, it is being significantly more connected to the real world than you seem to be.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Three of 'em, up on cnn.com right now.
> 
> ...


Well, read the whole thing, then.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> What's your point? To start a wee pissing match with the usual suspects?


You called?

Actually, this is too stupid for even me to bother with.

How about we re-headline this thread:
"Paranoid right-wing crybabies whine about imaginary bias"?

------------------


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I wake up every morning and listen to Amy Goodman on Pacifica Foundation radio. Later in the day I catch CNN and the BBC world report. Sometimes I catch Lary Elder, a conservative black commentator. I never miss Lou Dobbs or crossfire. From all of this and numerous periodicals I form my opinions. I have a thick, Sunday edition in the car constantly. It makes a splendid resource for emergencies; tinder, insulation, bandages etc. One never knows a lapse in attention can land you unseen down a canyon or a concealed bit of freeway shrubbery. I saw a man once at the Long Beach F1 race carrying a sign proclaiming THE END IS NEAR. I looked at the sky, my watch, tried to feel any unusually strong tremors through my feet and the general facial expressions of the crowd. Based on the immediate evidence I figured the race would finish first. It's only a headline


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

And your point is? As far as I'm concerned when Bush replaced Colin Powell with Rice it was comparable to replacing an Atomic bomb with a B B gun. What do you expect?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> Condi defending the administration is not news -- one would expect a member of administration to defend the administration. It is a "dog bites man" story -- expected, commonplace, boring. But a member of the administration admitting thousands of errors -- well, that is news. That is "man bites dog," as the newsroom cliche goes.


'xactly.

On the body armor article, I don't read what you're saying the headline suggests, and the headline's factual. The "Army requires authorized gear to protect soldiers" headline is just too fluffy and obvious for anyone to read further into the story... it sounds like a press release from the Army.

"Army bans use of privately bought armor" - that's almost identical. It's what the Stars and Stripes, the paper the military overseas read, went with (AP story, but they would write their own heads.)


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But if I'm supposed to read the whole thing, why does Headline News exist? I'm going to start the Preconceived Notions Network, PNN, so that people don't even have to read or hear headlines. You'll just know I'm broadcasting what you want to hear so you won't have to watch and the print version will simply be a blank sheet of paper. Haven't figured out how I will pitch this to advertisers, but that is a minor detail.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The headline's purpose is to make you want to read the article. The more controversial it is the more likely you are to read on. The more emotion the headline arouses and the more bare fact it hides the more effective it is.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Rich:

It was a joke, not to be taken seriously. Headline News is a cable news show, and not to be "read" at all.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Someone recently had a good thread on which newspapers you read. 

One of the problems is that many of us want instant news without going to the trouble of reading an article indepth. Thus, USA Today, AOL news blurbs when you open the site, etc.

Also, the same people that write the article, don't write the headline. If you really want to be informed, there seems to be no substitute for reading the whole article.

Witness the recent flare up regarding DPW. I had a lot of people that are significantly smarter than I am say something like "what do you think of turning our port security over to the arabs?"

If you care, there seems to be no subsitute for reading at least a couple of journals with different political slants, and understanding that even the best in tv journalism can't give you much in 30 seconds on any subject, other than tomorrows weather.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Rich:
> 
> It was a joke, not to be taken seriously. Headline News is a cable news show, and not to be "read" at all.


Sorry, didn't know that. Seriously though, headlines are distorting our view of the real world. Anything that starts with "Army bans..." - in fact anything with "ban" in it - is sure to attract readers' attention. Who was it said "bad news is good news"?.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Forget the news (except for the _FT_ markets section). Spend your time reading a chapter or two of a good history book. Your life will only be better for it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In my opinion the concept of a liberal bias in the media is rather passe. Do I believe that it existed in the "main stream media" at one time? Yes I do. Do I believe it exists now? No I do not. 

Just as in other biases Western society has acknowledged in the 20th century, this one has been neutralized. By this I mean counterbalancing mechanisms have developed, such as Fox News, conservative radio talk shows, etc. One can now access main stream media outlets that are decidely not liberal. This is not to say certain other outlets are not decidely liberal, but they no longer dominate media sources, hence the bias is counter balanced by other voices. Just my opinion.

Warmest regards


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the average dunderhead with an attention span in negative numbers; usually the same person decrying "liberal bias in the media"

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

A WONDERFUL COUSIN
HUNDREDS LEAVE ALIVE

The performance of _Our American Cousin_ on Friday evening at the Ford Theater was wonderfully performed and very entertaining. Hark Hawk's performance as Asa Trenchard was poignant, yet hilarious. Although there was a minor disturbance when Hawk uttered those famous words, "Don't know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old galâ€"you sockdologizing old man-trap.", the house laughed heartily. After that, (and I do hate to bring this up, really) a Mister John Wilkes Boothe jumped to the stage brandishing a knife. But, he quickly left by the backstage door and things went smashingly well after that. Well, pretty well except for just one person in the Presidential box, and once again I hate to mention this, but Mister Boothe apparently shot Mister Lincoln in the back of the head. But enough with that, I am happy to report that hundreds of other people in the theatre on Friday evening were NOT shot and they went home after only a short delay.

Weasel News - Equitable and Equivalent.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, doesn't this comment tie in perfectly with the thread about how liberals think conservatives are stupid and/or evil, but conservatives think liberals are perfectly intelligent but either wrong, misguided, or well-intentioned but working from a completely different set of assumptions.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Android: Beautiful Post!

The rest of you: You're all correct. There is absolutely no disputing that there is an unquestionable liberal bias in the mainstream media. The only question is, "why do we need a thread to discuss the obvious?".

Rojo: A thread like this is only going to get you all the usual suspects spouting all the usual liberal talking points. Why bother? Face it: Trying to teach a pig to sing will yield nought but a very annoyed pig and an extremely frustrated you.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Thanks Alex!

Oh, and isn't a woman, any woman, actually admitting mistakes news?


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> Thanks Alex!
> 
> Oh, and isn't a woman, any woman, actually admitting mistakes news?


YES! Headline material!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The old joke was that if the world ended tomorrow the headline in the NY Times would be "World ends tomorrow: Republicans try to escape blame", in the Washington Post it would be "World ends tomorrow" Women and Minorities to suffer most" and the Wall Street Journal's headline (and my favorite) would be "World ends tomorrow" Markets down."

Karl


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> A WONDERFUL COUSIN
> HUNDREDS LEAVE ALIVE
> ...


This was hilarious! Well done!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Anyone who thinks the NYT has a liberal bias has an exteremly short memory. I guess you have forgotten their cheerleading pre the Iraq invasion with Judy Miller providing a direct line from the Whitehouse to the front page.

Or their savage coverage of Clinton's Monica escapades.

Those paranoid loons on the right who see liberal bogeymen behind every shadow _really _need to get a life.........

Now, I think Fox News is dumb and their constant cheerleading of anything Bush says or does is ridiculous. But fair play to them, they do provide a platform for liberals to refute them. At least until O'Reilly pulls the plug on their mic because the truth makes his ears bleed - but that is a different story......

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> Well, doesn't this comment tie in perfectly with the thread about how liberals think conservatives are stupid


Not stupid, just kooky. I have friends and family who are conservatives. I like them, I just wish they'd seek psychiatric help or at least stop listening to the radio and Fox TV. I don't think the fact that their views often conflict with mine is what qualifies them as mentally ill, I think the fact that their faces contort with rage and their spittle goes flying in a Pavlovian reaction every time they hear the word "Clinton" is what qualifies them as, to use the techical term, totally bonkers. Getting that upset about something as absurd as politics or CNN headlines is _just not normal._ With proper medication -- of course, making it affordable to _all_ Republicans -- perhaps this nation can get back on the right path!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> Getting that upset about something as absurd as politics or CNN headlines is _just not normal._ With proper medication -- of course, making it affordable to _all_ Republicans -- perhaps this nation can get back on the right path!


Hey, I'm a moderate Republican and I keep my spittle to myself! I promise I'm not bonkers. 

I also worked as a journalist for many years.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> ...


And we see a flashing headline on Andy's website: "World ends tomorrow: AAAC members dress for the last day."

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by GentleCheetah_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All Sales Final!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Some of it is regional. I recall that back in October there was a young boy whose friend was attacked by a pitbull. This was up in Boston... anyway the kid found a bat and whacked the dog over the head to make it release his friend. The dog died but the kid lived.

Anyway, a reporter for the Boston Globe ran down to interview the lad about it and they talked about it. He noticed the bat and said "How does this sound? 'Young Sox fan saves life of pal!'?"

"Well sir, actually I am a Yankees fan"

So the reporter tries "Heroic Kerry fan rescues friend from certain death!"

"Well, Sir... Actually I am more of a George Bush fan"

The next day the headline read:
"Outrage!: Evil Republican bastard murders beloved family pet!!!"

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:
> Not stupid, just kooky. I have friends and family who are conservatives. I like them, I just wish they'd seek psychiatric help or at least stop listening to the radio and Fox TV. I don't think the fact that their views often conflict with mine is what qualifies them as mentally ill, I think the fact that their faces contort with rage and their spittle goes flying in a Pavlovian reaction every time they hear the word "Clinton" is what qualifies them as, to use the techical term, totally bonkers. Getting that upset about something as absurd as politics or CNN headlines is _just not normal._ With proper medication -- of course, making it affordable to _all_ Republicans -- perhaps this nation can get back on the right path!


I find the opposite - when the faces redden and the foam appears at the corners of the mouth among my friends and family it's the libs who have neglected to take their meds.

Cousin Dave: Have you seen my car keys?
Cousin Liza: The Evil Bush stole them and gave them to the Evil Cheney so he could run over helpless children in the mean neglected streets of our once-great nation.
Dave: What, again?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> I find the opposite - when the faces redden and the foam appears at the corners of the mouth among my friends and family it's the libs who have neglected to take their meds.
> 
> ...


You ever try to give a conservative driving directions?

"Whaddya mean go up two blocks and turn left? That's the whole problem with this country--it's turning to the left! Why doesn't anyone ever tell you to turn right? *(&@&^$*@&^$ liberals must run the media _and_ the street departments! I'm turning right. Stupid liberals always trying to tell other people how to live their lives. I mean, no right turn on red--you know what red stands for don't you, communism, that's what!"

"Ummmm...maybe...but if you go up two blocks and take a right you end up in the ocean."


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had never considered the symbolism of the phrase "No right turn on red" before. Now I am going to go jump off a cliff.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:I had never considered the symbolism of the phrase "No right turn on red" before. Now I am going to go jump off a cliff.


 Aw, gee, Patrick. We're gonna miss ya. 

Now, moving rapidly onward, perhaps you could give your password to that wonderful kid with the baseball bat before the long fall? 

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will be wearing Zimmerli underwear, of course. I might be smashed to bits but I won't be embarrassed.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But conservatives go completely spastic. I genuinely fear that they are having seizures or possibly reaching orgasm (the latter being unlikely for a conservative, I realize). It is almost as if they were speaking in tongues. Even when unprovoked by some misperceived slight, they walk zombielike chanting "ditto, ditto, ditto." Ah, well, as the great man used to say, "Nothing that a little Oxycontin can't help."


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

As you can tell if you read this forum for a couple of days, there are more than plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum that go bonkers when confronted with the ideas of the other side.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Article on Standardised Testing Bias, from _The Onion_:


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> The rest of you: You're all correct. There is absolutely no disputing that there is an unquestionable liberal bias in the mainstream media.


Seeing things from the other side of the pond, I have always had a rather hard time to find a factual basis to that (mainly right-wing) clichÃ©.

If I take the biggest nespapers, they are mostly centrist. The New-York Times might be construed as slightly more liberal, alhtough their coverage of the Irak war did not give me that impression ; the Washington Post is rather conservative. On the whole, a rather balanced landscape.

If I take news networks, I don't think CNN is so liberal. Not as liberal as Fox News is conservative, in any case, from what I have seen.

If I take the radio, I don't know it as well, but from what I have seen there are more conservative radio talk shows than there are liberal ones.

On the whole, the landscape appears, if anything, tilted to the conservative side nowadays, and yet the clichÃ© lives on.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

The problem with bias in the media is that it is mainly dependent on your own point of view.

Consider the old joke: 'the BBC attacks Labour and the Conservatives equally: they attacks the Conservatives from the left, and they attack Labour...from the left.'

Remember also that newspapers are all about selling themselves by having articles that confirm and strengthen one's own prejudices. Conservative papers peddle the usual 'immigrants taking all the jobs' style stories, and left-wing papers trot out the 'evil corporations poisoning the planet' stories on a regular basis.

Papers will always create drama and controversy where it needn't exist, viz the old joke about if there had been newspapers during the time of our Lord, instead of the headline 'Son of God Walks on Water' it would have been 'Jesus Can't Swim'.



For all your pantomime requirements visit www.pantomimesonline.co.uk
'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

and fox has a liberal bias as well[]

I read and heard news reports on the body armor story...maybe this body armor is better, so why not fast track it for testing instead of coming out on the defensive, just test the darn stuff. Maybe it is not from their preferred vendor, too darn bad...a better moustrap that may save lives needs to be looked at fast, liberal bias or not....so what is your point.

Can you tell me that Russ does not report daily a neocon bias, that FOX is not a conservative viewpoint machine....sorry, there is much not to like in the media, bias may be one of these things, but do more than listen to the talk show hosts, read papers, listen to both sides. I listen to rush everyday so I know what he is saying...do I ever agree with him, no I don't, but many folks do and I need to know what he is saying and if it has any validity. Having said that I am not a bleeding heart liberal, maybe moderate, I look at all both sides, more than both as there are many opinions. I will not hang my hat on one post, it may not fit me when I take it off.

guit


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I'm a fan of NPR news, it seems to be the most thorough radio news outlet available, along with the BBC which is also carried on my local NPR station.

They do, however, have a noticable slant. In one broadcast, they mentioned "Republican Lobbyist" Jack Abramoff, although he wasn't exclusivley lobbying Republicans in office (OK, it was mostly Republicans, but still.) In the same broadcast, it was mentioned that James Carville had gotten into trouble for doing something rather shady, though he was referred to as a "Political commentator" with no mention of his close ties to the Democratic party.

It seems that, on NPR at least, when a Republican gets in trouble, they are "Republican Representative John Smith." When a Democrat gets in trouble, they are simply "California Representative Frank Jones." A small quibble, but there nonetheless.


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## jcbmath (Jan 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> "Army bans privately purchased body armor"


What, precisely, would you replace this headline with? It seems to me to be an accurate, brief, description of the situation. I don't think "Army bans privately purchased boday armor --- but you know its not really bush doing this and they're doing it for a good reason" would fit in the headline. I just don't see any bias here.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> They do, however, have a noticable slant. In one broadcast, they mentioned "Republican Lobbyist" Jack Abramoff, although he wasn't exclusivley lobbying Republicans in office (OK, it was mostly Republicans, but still.) In the same broadcast, it was mentioned that James Carville had gotten into trouble for doing something rather shady, though he was referred to as a "Political commentator" with no mention of his close ties to the Democratic party.
> 
> It seems that, on NPR at least, when a Republican gets in trouble, they are "Republican Representative John Smith." When a Democrat gets in trouble, they are simply "California Representative Frank Jones." A small quibble, but there nonetheless.


That's an interesting example, and worth somebody's time in digging in. In the first specific case, I wonder if that really slants things further than they already are. Abramoff's whole MO seems to have been to plug his clients into the Republican machine. And while it may be an omission to identify Carville as a Democrat, anyone who is even slightly familiar with his work should have no doubt of his partisan loyalties.

In the second case, I've seen a few of those, but also seen many when it didn't happen or went the other way. Without a head count it's hard to draw any firm conclusions. When sifting anecdotes for evidence, people tend to draw the conclusions they expect. That's been my experience, anyway.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Concordia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Carville is a political commentator so no party connection need be made, unless we're going to start listing party connections for all political commentators, e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter etc.


In the broadcast I was referring to, he was acting as a campaign advisor for a candidate in a foreign country. I belive he works for, or is in partnership with, a company that specializes in running campagins. With no other frame of reference given in the piece, it sounded like he was a television "talking head" turned political advisor. I know it can be assumed that most people know Carville's background, but it seems like sloppy journalism to not fill in at least a little history about the subject of a news item, especially for the normally thorough NPR.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

On the specific issue of labeling someone "conservative" or "liberal", I believe there has been research demonstrating that Republicans are more likely to be labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" than Democrats are "liberal" or "left-wing". Can't recall the specific source, but it entailed counting the frequency of said terms.

Given the frequent surveying which has repeatedly demonstrated reporters generally vote Democrat, and align themselves personally with causes and issues deemed "liberal", this should really not be a topic of much debate. While I, myself, would be labeled "conservative", I am not one to restrict my news intake. Well researched commentary, labeled as such, offers more useful value than that masquerading as news. 

If the NY Times is liberal, so what. I just wish they could admit as such and get on with it. Regardless, I still scan both the Times and the WSJ. It never ceases to amaze me how bright, intelligent people insulate themselves from news they'd rather not hear. This is not a "conservative" phenomenon only, with Rush fanatics and the like. Read the letters column in the NY Times. Readers too often display a disdain for SUV drivers/Red State voters/etc. that rivals many forms of bigotry.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Guess this is another of those liberal headlines:

Homeland Security official caught in child porn sting

By Mimi Hall and Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
MIAMI â€“ A Homeland Security Department spokesman was stripped of his security clearance and put on unpaid leave Wednesday, a day after he was arrested on charges of trying to seduce what he thought was a 14-year-old girl in sexually explicit Internet conversations.

Deputy press secretary Brian Doyle was arrested Tuesday night at his home in Silver Spring, Md.

"The department is cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation," Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said in a statement. "We take these allegations very seriously."

Doyle was arrested as part of a sting by the Polk County, Fla., sheriff's office. He sent 16 pornographic videos and photos of himself at work to a detective posing as a 14-year-old girl, according to the sheriff's office.

In messages, he told her to perform a sexual act while thinking of him and described "explicit and perverse sexual acts he wished to have with her," the office said in a news release.

Spokeswoman Carrie Rodgers said the sheriff's department has two full-time computer crime detectives who pose online as teenagers.

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

The Media? You say that like it's one outlet for god's sake. How many radio stations, newspapers and cable nnetworks are out there?

Yet folks insist on lumping it all together and calling it the Media. And usually liberal to boot. It's like refering to all shirtmakers as republicans...Uh that's probably not a good example but you get the point.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote: Guess this is another of those liberal headlines:
> Homeland Security official caught in child porn sting


 No this is a headline about an (allegedly) disgusting, sexually deviant human.

Here's another.

*D.W.I. Senator Leaves Woman To Drown; Abandons Accident Scene*

One of those conservative headlines? Or just one about a disgusting, criminally deviant human?

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Neither - just more proof that leprechans exist, and that they aren't very pretty.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

"Albert Camus, the brilliant and versatile young French novelist, playwright and critic, who was also the editor of Combat , a Paris daily, once had an idea for establishing a 'control newspaper' that would come out an hour after the others with estimates of the percentages of truth in each of their stories, and with interpretations of how the stories were slanted. The way he explained it, it sounded possible. He said, 'We'd have complete dossiers on the interests, policies, and idiosyncrasies of the owners. Then we'd have a dossier on every journalist in the world. The interests, prejudices and quirks of the owner equal Z. The prejudices, quirks, and private interests of the journalist, Y. Z times Y would give you X, the probable amount of truth in the story., he was going to make up dossiers on reporters by getting journalists he trusted to appraise men they had worked with. 'I would have a card-index system,' he said. 'Very simple. We would keep the dossiers up to date as best we could, of course. _*But do people really want to know how much truth there is in what they read?*_ _*Would they buy the control paper? That's the most difficult problem.'*_ Camus died without ever learning the answer to this question. His energies were dissipated in creative writing and we lost a great journalist."

A.J. Liebling, from the forward to "The Press", 1961

(Emphasis mine.)


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Re: Liberal bias in the media.

What is the largest market in the U.S. in which the # 1 news source is not corporate owned?

While we hear that the majority of reporters are dems why don't we hear anything about the political affiliation of editors? publishers?

Why doesn't a liberal media trumpet these statistics?

EDIT: spelling

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:While we hear that the majority of reporters are dems why don't we hear anything about the political affiliation of editors? publishers?


Do the papers not endorse candidates? What business a news outlet has endorsing a political candidate Ill never know, but it happens every election.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

More liberal bias!

(Or is that GOP implosion?)

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
Published April 6, 2006, 11:59 AM CDT

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks -- a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

