posted March 04, 2006 08:58 PM            

Reeeeal journalists don't attempt to influence the political process or shape public opinion.

Reeeeal journalists report the facts...who, what, when and where and let the public decide what to think about the facts.

Reeeeal journalists get their facts straight before publishing stories. There may be as many as 20 Reeeeal journalists left in the United States. The rest are political hacks masquerading as journalists.

If you think the AP..or any of the other leftist press organs would have printed that retraction voluntarily, without the pressure of being denounced for the liars they are then you're just the naive leftist true believer in the leftist press I said you are.

posted March 04, 2006 10:21 PM              

ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE?

posted March 06, 2006 11:23 AM            

Where you seem to be confused with regard to this story is that you think that a Democrat in office would have curtailed that story ever being printed in the first place. I guarantee you that story would have been run regardless of the person in office because the government reaction was so poor. When it comes to screw ups, it doesn't matter who's in office it'll still be reported.

And once more I remind you, that lecturing me on journalism doesn't quite fly with me considering the news sources you use.

posted March 06, 2006 12:39 PM            

There was no way what was said to Bush could be interpreted as a warning of a possible breach of the New Orleans levee system.

The lie was deliberate and was intended to damage the President.

Only in the little fantasy world of radical leftists, of which you are a part, is no apology for deliberate lying unnecessary.

posted March 06, 2006 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Credibility ratings for the major broadcast and cable television outlets have fallen somewhat in recent years, due in large part to increased cynicism toward the media on the part of Republicans and conservatives. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=838

---

It's the very first line of the whole article. You can continue to try to distort Pew's findings, but I don't see what purpose it serves.

With regard to AP and their supposed need to issue an apology, has AP also stated that they misrepresented the facts in the article Petron posted?:

quote:

---

A White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, said President Bush and his top aides were fully aware of the massive flooding and less concerned about whether it had been caused by levee breaches, overtopped levees, or failed pumps. All three were being reported at the time. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/10/28_agencies_reported_levee_woes_day_katrina_hit_documents_show/

---

Besides that, there were known reports for quite some time that the levees were unstable. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

posted March 06, 2006 01:37 PM            

All these little bullsh*t arguments and attempts to make this a Bush failure and lack of concern and foresight on the part of Bush are going nowhere.

When the full story of the state and local incompetence, foot dragging, failure to heed the President's repeated warnings, failure to declare a MANDATORY EVACUATION as Bush asked for and failure on the part of the Governor..Blanco to federalize the relief effort until the 4th day of the Katrina disaster get into the public discourse, you're going to see a lot of egg on a lot of faces. Those with egg on their faces are going to include the leftist press who have attempted to cast this as a Bush failure.

The AP already has a large portion of egg on it's face...from a lying report they published and then were forced to retract.

Density is not a virtue acoustic. The same Pew poll shows only 31% of democrats believe all or most of what the Times prints. So those low credibility numbers are NOT due to loss of press credibility among only Republicans.

posted March 06, 2006 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

The same Pew poll shows only 31% of democrats believe all or most of what the Times prints. So those low credibility numbers are NOT due to loss of press credibility among only Republicans.

---

Two things. You realize that that's nearly a third of Democrats are willing to give the Times a full endorsement? That's a pretty astoundingly positive number. That's more than Republicans gave to FoxNews you'll note.

The other thing is that people, even Democrats, are conservative by nature, especially where polls are concerned. That's why Column 3 is so well-populated in our other chart. Most people feel that opining in the extreme is going too far, so instead of voting something a 10, they vote a 9 or 8 instead. This poll only had four options. Most people voted for the 3 column, which states that they trust the source, but still choose to leave the realistic possibility that there may be flaws occasionally.

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

As to your Kool Aid reference, I really don't understand how you choose to live in a world of attempted put downs and innuendo. I can't think of a less effective way of trying to make a point. Do you think that I'm going to buy your label? Have I ever? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Sincerely,

Loony, leftist, commie, radical, jihadist, Kool Aid drinking, saddam loving, traitor, dimocrat AG

posted March 06, 2006 04:56 PM            

Second acoustic, if the press is going to tell lie, after lie after lie, after lie about the President and attempt to intervene in political elections, then the press should expect to take some heat for their lying. The fact these lying leftists are so thin skinned they can't stand any criticism of their lying reporting style is an indication they are not able to defend or support what they report with facts.

Conservatives get p*ssed when someone tells lies about them. Leftists get p*ssed when someone tells the truth about them.

As for PBS...the government tax supported network, they can tell their lies on their own dime. I sent my Senators and Congressman letters requesting their government funding be revoked...because of the leftist Bill Moyers and other leftist liars just like him on PBS.

The PBS code of balanced reporting is 3 fringe radical leftists and a liberal on a panel.

posted March 06, 2006 05:21 PM            

All the conservative Democrats have switched parties acoustic. All that's left in the democrat party are the fringe radical leftists. The party Moveon.org bought acoustic and I know so because Moveon.org says so. I know so from listening to the constant leftist blather coming off the democrat party...some of it treason and the leftist groups and press organization which serve them.

MOST means the majority of, the greatest amount. That's it acoustic, so anyone placing themselves in categories 3, 2 or 1, by definition, believe less than MOST or what the Times reports.

Should you desire to use that designation in your closing and signature acoustic, you have my hearty endorsement to do so. You might want to make that a small g though..a very small g, thus Ag.

quote:

---

Sincerely,Loony, leftist, commie, radical, jihadist, Kool Aid drinking, saddam loving, traitor, dimocrat AG

---

posted March 06, 2006 06:24 PM            

How many ways and on how many subjects can you be wrong acoustic? So many that it's impossible to count.

In the real world acoustic, words have meanings and when those meaning are well defined...like the word MOST, they mean what the definition says they mean.

No amount of evasion, no amount of bobbing and weaving is going to make them mean anything different. When you talk with your merry little band of leftists, use whatever definitions you want. When you're in the real word, stick to the common, well defined dictionary definitions of words because that's what flies on planet earth. Otherwise, you sound like you're in a fog and babbling And indeed, you are.

posted March 06, 2006 06:29 PM              

the testerone level must have gone up..
let's say 50% of the people see it your way Ag, and 50% of the people see it your way jwhop..

posted March 06, 2006 07:03 PM            

quote:

---

Credibility ratings for the major broadcast and cable television outlets have fallen somewhat in recent years, due in large part to increased cynicism toward the media on the part of Republicans and conservatives.

Partisan Divisions Drive Credibility Slump

The falloff in credibility for these news sources is linked to a growing partisan tilt in the ratings. Republicans have traditionally viewed the overall media more skeptically than Democrats and this has long translated into lower credibility ratings from Republicans for most news sources.

But Republicans have become even more negative about the media's believability, widening the partisan gaps and driving down the overall ratings of several major news organizations. In 1998, 44% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans gave CNN very high ratings for believability. By 2002, the partisan gap had widened significantly: 45% of Democrats and 32% of Republicans gave CNN the highest rating. In the current survey, CNN's rating among Democrats remains at 45%, while falling further among Republicans (to 26%).

More surprising is the sharp decline among members of both parties but especially Republicans in ratings for the Wall Street Journal. In 1998, Republicans were more trusting than Democrats of the Wall Street Journal by a margin of 48% to 42%. That was still the case in 2002 when 35% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats gave the Journal a very high rating for believability. Today, Democrats are actually more trusting of the Journal 29% give it a high rating vs. 23% of Republicans.

Ratings for the NewsHour and the Associated Press also have changed dramatically among Republicans. As recently as two years ago, fairly comparable percentages of Democrats (28%) and Republicans (24%) gave high credibility ratings to the PBS news program. Today, about the same proportion of Democrats (29%) give the NewsHour high marks for believability, compared with only 12% of Republicans.

Even C-SPAN, the non-profit, public affairs network has seen its ratings become more politicized. In 1998, Republicans were slightly more likely than Democrats to view C-SPAN as highly believable. By 2000, the balance of opinion had shifted, though Republicans and Democrats still had fairly similar views about C-SPAN. Today significantly more Democrats than Republicans give C-SPAN high marks for believability (36% vs. 23%, respectively).

Credibility ratings for the major news networks have not changed as dramatically in recent years, largely because they have long been divided along partisan lines. In the case of NBC News, the partisan gap is as large as it was in 1998 (13 points), and partisan differences in evaluations of ABC News have grown only marginally. But ratings for CBS News have become more partisan: currently, 34% of Democrats and just 15% of Republicans view CBS News as highly credible. The network's rating among Democrats is about the same as it was six years ago (33% in 1998), while its credibility among Republicans has fallen eight points (from 23%).

Opinions of the believability of Time and Newsweek also have become more partisan. In 1998, 34% of Democrats vs. 23% of Republicans gave Time a high believability rating. Today, 30% of Democrats and 15% of Republicans view Time as highly believable. A similar pattern can be seen for Newsweek.

Fox's vitality comes as a consequence of another significant change in the media landscape. Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public's news viewing habits. Since 2000, the Fox News Channel's gains have been greatest among political conservatives and Republicans. More than half of regular Fox viewers describe themselves as politically conservative (52%), up from 40% four years ago. At the same time, CNN, Fox's principal rival, has a more Democrat-leaning audience than in the past.

The public's evaluations of media credibility also are more divided along ideological and partisan lines. Republicans have become more distrustful of virtually all major media outlets over the past four years, while Democratic evaluations of the news media have been mostly unchanged. As a result, only about half as many Republicans as Democrats rate a variety of well-known news outlets as credible a list that includes ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report.

---

posted March 06, 2006 09:44 PM            

Democrats and Republicans BOTH question the reliability of press reporting. Republicans more so but only 31% of democrats believe all or MOST of what the Times prints as news and of those 31%, far fewer believe ALL.

posted March 07, 2006 12:55 AM            

I still haven't even exploited the fact that we're discussing people's opinions versus the actual product. You can say that everyone believes the world to be flat, but it doesn't make it true. You can continue this propaganda campaign that Rove set you on, or you can realize that you can't disprove the overwhelming majority of what is printed in these publications you try to discredit. It's as simple as that.

posted March 07, 2006 01:37 AM            

If Pew isn't lying, then the charts aren't lying and they tell the story of diminishing press credibility and from an already low level of credibility.

People are simply fed up with the lying tactics the press has used and is using to shape public opinion and influence elections.

I can understand your angst since the radical leftist press attempts to help your leftist candidates and protect them from the fallout from their decisions and asinine comments.

The constant drumbeat of negativity from the press is akin to the Chinese water torture, drop, by drop by drop but unlike those being tortured, the American public can turn the water off...and they are, by tuning the leftist press out.

Yes acoustic, I know that in the same way Republicans called Clinton to account for Commander Corruption's "alleged" affair with Monica, calling the leftist press to an accounting for their lying reporting is a "vast right-wing conspiracy".

posted March 07, 2006 01:43 AM              

GgodNight Y'all

posted March 07, 2006 02:20 AM            

quote:

---

People are simply fed up with the lying tactics the press has used and is using to shape public opinion and influence elections.

---

What an ironic thing to say considering that Bush won despite the press twice! Only the gullible would ever need worry about being unduly affected by what the press has to say.

quote:

---

If Pew isn't lying, then the charts aren't lying and they tell the story of diminishing press credibility and from an already low level of credibility.

---

If Pew isn't lying, then they're stating verbatum:

"Credibility ratings for the major broadcast and cable television outlets have fallen somewhat in recent years, due in large part to increased cynicism toward the media on the part of Republicans and conservatives."

It doesn't get any more plain than that. If some of the Republican paranoia and cynicism has rubbed off on their democratic counterparts, it's just because there is a segment of society that IS wishy washy and the Republican propaganda machine is so large at this point that it actually affects society to some degree.

It still doesn't prove or make Republicans ideas about the press accurate, and it still hasn't resulted in a new, maverick, coldly analytical, strictly non-partisan news media, has it? Republicans have the money to make something like that happen. Unfortunately your party is more about trying to get even than it is about trying to get right. You want apologies, and being nice when you ought to be proactive in creating the standard by which others news medias are judged. This is why the AP and the NYT are going to be absolutely fine despite your best efforts.

Why don't you put a timeline on these news services disappearing? Then if we still know each if it actually ever happens then you can say, "I told you so." Until then, it's just a futile, transparent effort on the part of your party to try to change reality to some fantasy-land where Republicans are never criticized.

Would you prefer a press that kept us in the dark regarding constitutionally questionable activities of the government?

Would that be helpful?

posted March 07, 2006 02:35 AM            

The NY Times and the AP will never be accepted as reliable and truthful dispensers of news again. Their credibility ratings are even lower than Congress...which is lower than the President's.

I'd like to see a poll showing the job approval ratings of the various news services. They sure as hell wouldn't like the numbers.

CNN was at one time a highly rated news network...and then, CNN became the Clinton News Network. They never recovered and are not likely to do so.

I suppose there will always be an audience for leftist news but whether that audience can support the expenses of a news organization is a different matter.

posted March 09, 2006 09:47 PM            

In many cases, attitudes toward the performance of the news media are at or near their low points in Pew trends dating back to the mid-1980s. This is especially the case in opinions regarding the press's patriotism, bias, and fairness.

Just 42% say news organizations generally "stand up for America;" about as many (40%) believe that news organizations are "too critical of America." That represents a significant shift since July 2003, when a narrow majority (51%) said that news organizations stand up for America, while 33% said they were too critical.

The percentage who say news organizations are too critical is only slightly below the level reached in February 1999 (42%), during former President Clinton's impeachment trial.

Other measures assessing the basic values of the press also have become more negative. Six-in-ten see news organizations as politically biased, up from 53% two years ago. More than seven-in-ten (72%) say news organizations tend to favor one side, rather than treat all sides fairly; that is the largest number ever expressing that view. And by more than three-to-one (73%-21%), the public feels that news organizations are "often influenced by powerful people and organizations," rather than "pretty independent."

Partisans Differ on Press Problems

Partisanship has long been a major factor in these attitudes. Even so, there has been a startling rise in the politicization of opinions on several measures­ especially the question of whether the news media stands up for America, or is too critical of America.

The partisan gap on this issue has grown dramatically, as Republicans increasingly express the view that the press is excessively critical of the U.S. (67% now vs. 42% in 2002). Over the same period, Democratic opinions on this have remained fairly stable (24% now vs. 26% in 2002).

Republicans are now closely divided as to whether the press protects or hurts democracy; 40% say it protects democracy, while 43% believe it hurts democracy. Two years ago, by a fairly sizable margin (44%-31%) more Republicans felt that the press helped democracy. Democratic opinion on this measure has been more stable. In the current survey, 56% say the press protects democracy while just 27% say it hurts democracy.

Views on whether the press is politically biased have been more consistent over the years. More than seven-in-ten Republicans (73%) say the press is biased, compared with 53% of Democrats. Perceptions of political bias have increased modestly among members of both parties over the past two years.

Democrats Chide Bush Coverage

Generally, Democrats are much more positive in their assessments of press values and performance than are Republicans. But increasingly, Democrats are showing dissatisfaction with press coverage of the Bush administration. A majority of Democrats (54%) say that press coverage of the Bush administration has not been critical enough; that represents a sizable increase from May 2004 (39%).

An increasing number of independents also believe the press has not been critical enough in its coverage of the Bush's administration's policies and performance (38% now vs. 25% last year). A consistent majority of Republicans say that press coverage of the Bush administration has been too critical; 58% express that view, no change from May 2004.

Press's Influence Waning

In past surveys on the press, criticisms of the news media were accompanied by a widespread perception that the power of news organizations was expanding.

But that has changed, largely owing to a major shift in perceptions among Republicans. Overall, more Americans still believe the influence of the press is increasing rather than decreasing (by 49%-36%), but the margin has narrowed. Two years ago, 55% said news organizations were growing in influence, while just 29% felt their influence was declining.

In the past, Republicans by wide margins said that news organizations were growing in influence. But in the current survey, as many say the press is losing influence as say it is expanding in influence (45% vs. 43%). Attitudes among Democrats and independents have been much more stable.

Questioning Press Motives

While there are deep differences about the press's power and performance, most Americans agree that news organizations, when deciding what stories to report, care more about attracting the biggest audience rather than about keeping the public informed.

Majorities in every demographic and political group express this opinion, but it is especially prevalent among conservative Republicans (90%).

However, even two-thirds of liberal Democrats (67%) say the news media is more motivated by a desire to expand audience than informing the public.

People who have attended college are more likely than high school graduates to say that the press mostly seeks to attract the biggest audience.

And 85% of those who cite the internet as a main source believe that news organizations are mostly motivated by a desire to expand their audience, rather than to inform the public.

Conflicting Views of Watchdog Roles

Beyond the rising criticism of press performance and patriotism, there also has been significant erosion in support for the news media's watchdog role over the military. Nearly half (47%) say that by criticizing the military, news organizations are weakening the nation's defenses; 44% say such criticism keeps the nation militarily prepared. The percentage saying press criticism weakens American defenses has been increasing in recent years and now stands at its highest point in surveys dating to 1985.

By contrast, public support for the news media's role as a political watchdog has endured and even increased a bit. Six-in-ten Americans say that by criticizing political leaders, news organizations keep political leaders from doing things that should not be done; just 28% feel such criticism keeps political leaders from doing their jobs. Two years ago, 54% endorsed the press's role as a political watchdog.

The long-term growth in the view that press criticism weakens the military has mostly come among Republicans. From the mid-1980s through the end of the Persian Gulf War in March 1991, minorities of Republicans felt that such criticism weakened the military. Currently, two-thirds of Republicans (67%) express that opinion. Attitudes among Democrats and independents have been far more stable.

While the public has been more consistently supportive of the press's adversarial role in politics, there has been some partisan movement reflecting the changing balance of power in Washington. In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, Republicans were somewhat more likely than Democrats to say that criticism of political leaders was worth it because it could prevent wrongdoing.

Since then, Democrats have become much more supportive of the news media's political watchdog role, and Republicans less so.

Neutral Terror Coverage Backed

While the press is taking more heat for its patriotism and performance, the public continues to decisively reject a shift to 'pro-American' coverage of the war on terror. By nearly three-to-one (68%-24%), Americans believe it is better if coverage of the war on terror is neutral rather than pro-American.

The preference for neutral coverage of the war on terror is shared by majorities across the demographic and political spectrum. However, about four-in-ten conservative Republicans (39%) favor pro-American coverage, the largest percentage in any category.

Split Over Anonymous Sources

The recent revelation of the identity of the press informant known as Deep Throat from the Watergate scandal brought the issue of confidential news sources back into public view. Americans are divided on the general question of whether it is acceptable for news organizations to use unnamed sources in their reporting.

About half (52%) say the use of such sources is too risky because it can lead to inaccurate reports, while 44% say it is okay because it can yield important news that they otherwise wouldn't get. People who say they paid very close attention to the Deep Throat story are much more positive about the use of confidential sources than those who paid less attention to this story (60% vs. 41%).

People with college degrees are more apt than the less educated to say the use of confidential sources is acceptable (56% among those with at least a B.A.; 37% among high school graduates), and more Democrats than Republicans say it is okay (51% vs. 36%). Younger respondents are more opposed than older ones to the use of confidential sources, with fully 68% of those 18-24 saying the use of such sources is too risky.

posted March 10, 2006 12:13 PM            

More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla.

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

"You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

"People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

"While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him — and them — politically.

"When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win," said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

"We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said. "People vote for change and hope for the best."

___

Associated Press writer Will Lester and AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com
------------------------------------------