The Legislative Branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House.

[bluesdave]

tw, just out of interest, do Americans listen to any of the NPR radio stations, or watch Jim Lehrer on PBS? Sometimes I think that we get better coverage of US politics than you guys do. In spite of what you have said to me in the recent past, I do not watch Fox News (I cannot - I do not have cable). The great thing about NPR, and Jim Lehrer, is that they show *both* sides of an argument. They do not just "Bush bash", they try to tell a balanced story. They have been very critical of Gonzales, and he is one of the few cases where neither forum has been able to find anything positive to say.

GWB has had his problems, but you have to live with him until Jan 2009. I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq in the first place, but I fully support both of our governments in keeping our troops in there for the foreseeable future. Not everything that Bush does is wrong. That does not mean that you can't criticise him, but a blanket "bagging" of everything to do with the White House, is not productive.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

tw, just out of interest, do Americans listen to any of the NPR radio stations, or watch Jim Lehrer on PBS? Sometimes I think that we get better coverage of US politics than you guys do. In spite of what you have said to me in the recent past, I do not watch Fox News (I cannot - I do not have cable). The great thing about NPR, and Jim Lehrer, is that they show *both* sides of an argument. They do not just "Bush bash", they try to tell a balanced story. They have been very critical of Gonzales, and he is one of the few cases where neither forum has been able to find anything positive to say.

GWB has had his problems, but you have to live with him until Jan 2009. I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq in the first place, but I fully support both of our governments in keeping our troops in there for the foreseeable future. Not everything that Bush does is wrong. That does not mean that you can't criticise him, but a blanket "bagging" of everything to do with the White House, is not productive.

And that about sums it up. I find it interesting, and somewhat of a national talking point, that if you don't bash Bush you must get your information from Fox News. It has become a national response amongst the libs. I don't watch it much my self, except for O'Reilly, whom is not a newscaster as many like to paint him. He is a commentator. Same goes for Lehrer, which is a great show. But back to Fox, I never really considered Mara Liasson and Juan Williams to be very conservative.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

tw, just out of interest, do Americans listen to any of the NPR radio stations, or watch Jim Lehrer on PBS? Sometimes I think that we get better coverage of US politics than you guys do.

NPR and PBS (Jim Lehrer) advocate presenting facts and statements from all sides. But that is only part of it. Another is to provide more than superficial (executive) summaries. For example, we took a same story from two newspapers. The first from a tabloid. Then after a conclusion was reached, we had the same story from a serious newspaper. Second story was provided with details - longer report. Everyone then had a 180 degree different conclusion.

It’s not just 'balanced' that is required. In depth is also essential.

Some giants who did this were Walter Cronkite (CBS), Peter Jennings (ABC), and Ted Koppel (ABC). A news service that was completely gutted when Tisch(?) decided to increase profits rather than improve the product. As a result, Dan Rather had few if any good journalists. Another that is still doing good stuff is Charlie Rose (PBS) whose reports every night this week (and next) are chock full of facts - the details. That stuff costs money if obtained on the net.

Curious is what happened to two ABC News journalists who did good and balanced reporting - Chris Wallace and Jeff Greenfield. Both went to Fox News. Neither reports anything like what they did for ABC which demonstrates how much top management makes that happen. Both Wallace and Greenfield report so completely one sided that I would not recognize them without their byline (names).

I got curious recently about one month after the Walter Reed scandal were repeatedly front page news. Randomly asked 20 and 30 year olds what they knew about Walter Reed. None even knew what Walter Reed was. Then I asked if they know about wounded American soldiers lying in hospital beds even in their own urine. Some literally got indignant because they should not know about this - insisting because they don't watch news.

Zero for 29 is the number of 20 and 30 year olds that knew zero about the news. My surprise was how some were indignant when I asked about soldiers lying in their urine. It explains why so many believe myths about illegal immigrants creating crime waves and living on welfare - as one might expect from those who only read tabloids. It explains why so many are so silent about "Mission Accomplished" and Gonzales. So many don't even hear 22 minutes of network news since Entertainment Tonight (Hollywood gossip and Britney's underwear?) apparently has more interest. As one foolishly said, "The news is so depressing." (She said it without a Valley Girl accent.)

Getting both balanced and in depth news domestically is not easy especially with the loss of both Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel's Nightline. I cannot say enough about what Charlie Rose is doing both this past week and next.

Originally Posted by uryoces

tw, you have a particular slant on things, a bit left-leaning. It sounds like you are reading from someone's political playbook. I like to think I have a centered world view, but my view's pragmatic tendencies lean to the right. Hell I'm the guy that gets his war coverage from Comedy central's "Daily Show with John Stewart".

What I'm saying is that you don't have a privileged view, no matter how many times you bring up the Pentagon Papers. You've got a lot of great knowledge on subjects political, and I spend a great deal of time Googling the facts you bring to bear, but a lot of what you are stating is opinion.

Repeatedly heard is a significant number who get their news from "Daily Show" - a comedy show. Well time is a definer. uryoces posted that back in Mar 2003 back when I was suggesting things like an Iraqi insurgency, looting of the Iraqi museums (they lost 60% of their treasures and are still missing most of it), BBC reporter who found town after town unsafe to keep asking questions (people who welcomed liberation?), Al Qaeda not allies with Saddam, Saddam's missiles did not violate UN limitations, and how Saudis may have been inadvertently financing Al Qaeda. This stuff reported back in Mar 2003 by responsible news sources has proven accurate. That's why responsible and balanced news sources are so essential.

Is everything George doing wrong? No. For example, he wants to lift some ridiculous restrictions on immigration. But when it comes to big things such as what is killing American soldiers, he is wrong more times than anyone has fingers and toes; because decisions are based totally in political agendas. One information source that is 100% suspect everytime? George Jr government whose job is to spin rather than solve.

Let's demonstrate what responsible news sources are currently noting. About 2 million Iraqis have fled the country due to a country made so unsafe by Americans. Another 1.8 million that cannot leave may be hiding out in extreme regions of the country. These people need help. But Americans - even in the Green Zone - can only impede such help. Why? Help would acknowledge facts that are contrary to George Jr spin. Administration would have to admit Iraq has never been worse. So 3.8 million Iraqis are abandoned with the US even impeding UN assistance. Official US spin is that these massive refugee numbers do not exist. How many news sources bother to report such fundamental details? But it again demonstrates the contempt that this administration has for people due to their political agendas.

[bluesdave]

Thanks tw (I mean that).