PBS, NY Times In House Watchdogs Bark at 'Soft' Wright Coverage

[aquapub]

"...PBS ombudsman Michael Getler criticized the soft approach of Bill Moyers in his interview with Wright: 'Inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged' and 'there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft...New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt [then expressed] disappointment in the paper for putting a review of Wright's performance in appearances ahead of checking what Wright contended against the reality, scolding his employer: 'It was a performance strangely lacking in energy at a potential turning point in the election.'"

NC NBCer: 'Smart' Not Bothered by Wright, But Conservatives... --5/6/2008-- Media Research Center

 

[niftydrifty]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

"...PBS ombudsman Michael Getler criticized the soft approach of Bill Moyers in his interview with Wright: 'Inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged' and 'there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft...New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt [then expressed] disappointment in the paper for putting a review of Wright's performance in appearances ahead of checking what Wright contended against the reality, scolding his employer: 'It was a performance strangely lacking in energy at a potential turning point in the election.'"

NC NBCer: 'Smart' Not Bothered by Wright, But Conservatives... --5/6/2008-- Media Research Center

the thread title says something about Obama. the post says stuff about Wright.

Barack Obama is running for President, not Reverend Wright.

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

the thread title says something about Obama. the post says stuff about Wright.

Barack Obama is running for President, not Reverend Wright.

Would anyone here like to make any relevant distinctions?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Would anyone here like to make any relevant distinctions?

How is the fact that they are not the same person, that Obama is running and that right is his former and condemned pastor NOT relevant?

What is your standard for relevance?

 

[Middleground]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Would anyone here like to make any relevant distinctions?

Niftydrifty just did.

You know, why do you extreme Repubs always look for cheap ways to dismiss Democratic nominees? You know, the Dean scream, the Kerry Swiftboating and now Obama's past reverend.

What's so bad about attacking their policies and ideas?

BTW, what did Michael Getler say about the Moyer's interview? I'm interested in hearing the quote.

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

How is the fact that they are not the same person, that Obama is running and that right is his former and condemned pastor NOT relevant?

What is your standard for relevance?

How is it possible that there are three different people in this thread who can't grasp that the treatment of Wright in question here is in reference to his role with Obama?

Wright not a flaming anti-US bigot and paranoid hysteric = Obama not an extremist for being his protoge.

The reasoning is obvious here and shouldn't have to be spelled out like this. :roll:

 

[jallman]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Wright not a flaming anti-US bigot and paranoid hysteric = Obama not an extremist for being his protoge.

That is completely unfair. I have been an staunch defender of the legitimacy of the Wright issue since it was made public. Obama showed some very poor judgment in remaining tied so closely to this man. However, to call Obama his "protoge" is an exaggeration of Obama's acceptance of Wright's rhetoric.

 

[Middleground]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

How is it possible that there are three different people in this thread who can't grasp that the treatment of Wright in question here is in reference to his role with Obama?

Wright not a flaming anti-US bigot and paranoid hysteric = Obama not an extremist for being his protoge.

The reasoning is obvious here and shouldn't have to be spelled out like this. :roll:

What has Obama done in his personal and professional life that reflect the sound bite dialogue that we all watched on YouTube? If Wright is such a huge influence... to the point where it seems to dominate the news, what Obama action/words would give us pause to vote for him?

 

[aps]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

I will never understand why anyone takes aquapub seriously. He has shown that he is so blinded by his partisanship that he is incapable of making rational conclusions from facts involving any and all Democrats.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

I will never understand why anyone takes aquapub seriously. He has shown that he is so blinded by his partisanship that he is incapable of making rational conclusions from facts involving any and all Democrats.

Some of us believe in the power of reason and have hope for our fellow man... yes even for pubby....

 

[jallman]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Some of us believe in the power of reason and have hope for our fellow man... yes even for pubby....

You truly have the patience of a saint, then.

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

why do you extreme Repubs always look for cheap ways to dismiss Democratic nominees?

Why do you Democrats keep nominating fanatics for president? Perhaps if you would put up someone with anything vaguely resembling a moderate voting record (Kerry-most liberal in all the Senate, Obama-most liberal in all the Senate, Gore-extremely liberal plus a crackpot global warming conspiracy theorist), we wouldn't have to "look for cheap ways to dissmiss" them like pointing out how extreme they are.

By the way, as I always say, there are 3 Democrat responses to intellectual confrontation (i.e., defeat):

1) You're mean (this would be the devastating counterpoint you've selected here)

2) You're stupid.

3) You're a homo.

Thank you for demonstrating. :applaud

You know, the Dean scream,

That was a primary between Democrats. Try again.

the Kerry Swiftboating

Scores upon scores of Vietnam vets who served with Kerry disputing his claims about what went on there isn't an example of Republicans "looking for cheap ways to dismiss Democratic nominees." It's an example of Democrat nominees being exposed as cowards, traitors and liars.

and now Obama's past reverend.

Republicans can't even criticize the left's racist affirmative action policies without being smeared as racists, yet Obama is allowed to spend 20 years as the protoge of a flaming anti-US bigot, putting money in his collection plates, citing him in the opening of his book, having him perform the wedding of his daughter and...no harm, no foul.

This is not a witch hunt. It's about not wanting an extremist in charge of the free world. Next off-topic smear please.

An actual example of making up irrelevant BS to avoid a debate you can't win (red herring) would be more like the Bush-coke lie, the Bush-National Guard lie, the "Bush stole Election 2000" lie, the "Bush declared the mission accomplished" lie, the non-stop, bogus partisan scandals invented against Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Lewis Libby, and Alberto Gonzales, etc.

What's so bad about attacking their policies and ideas?

She says as she avoids the topic to hurl smears. Pot meet kettle. :lol:

BTW, what did Michael Getler say about the Moyer's interview? I'm interested in hearing the quote.

Um...yeah, it's right there in the intro.

I will never understand why anyone takes aquapub seriously. He has shown that he is so blinded by his partisanship that he is incapable of making rational conclusions from facts involving any and all Democrats.

And you have demonstrated an inability to win or even stay on course during debates, case in point. Off-topic smears won't get you past the obvious reality destroying Lachean and Middleground's argument here: admitting a pro-Wright bias is admitting a pro-Obama bias as long as Wright is the central factor in Obama's candidacy.

Not rocket science. :roll:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Can't stop till I get enough

You truly have the patience of a saint, then.

Well, considering that I do not value a "saint" above any other human, I cannot take that as a compliment. However, I understand the sentiment, and to that I can only say that in this world we can settle our disagreements through either reason or violence.

Over the internet, the latter is not an option, so one must either persist with the former or begin to give up on individuals. If I started to give up on posters due to their obtuseness or disregard for logic then I would quickly be left with few reasons for staying at this forum.

Instead I regard the NP's and pubbies of the board as archetypal characters, representations of factions who do in fact exist outside of my social circles, and this place is the my only opportunity to confront what they actually believe, or to at least try and understand their ignorance.

Many people IRL may hold his positions, few voice them.

EDIT: Wait a minute, What the deuce?... a kind word from jallman? Has hell frozen over? Dost mine own eyes deceive me or have I actually been removed from ignore?

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

That is completely unfair. I have been an staunch defender of the legitimacy of the Wright issue since it was made public. Obama showed some very poor judgment in remaining tied so closely to this man. However, to call Obama his "protoge" is an exaggeration of Obama's acceptance of Wright's rhetoric.

When someone is your mentor, you are his what? Protoge? :roll:

 

[jallman]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

When someone is your mentor, you are his what? Protoge? :roll:

No. Protoge implies a great deal more than student teacher. Here, let me help you out since you seem to be a bit confused:

Protoge

: one who is protected or trained or whose career is furthered by a person of experience, prominence, or influence

Obama is neither protected nor trained by Wright except in religious instruction which is not Obama's career. Obama's career is politics. If Wright were a politician, you would have something but it's not, so you don't.

I think the Obama-Wright issue is bad enough without gross exaggerations that do nothing but detract from the real issues. All the cutsie little eye-rolling emoticons in the world are not going to create legitimacy for your dishonest portrayal of their relationship.

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

What has Obama done in his personal and professional life that reflect the sound bite dialogue that we all watched on YouTube? If Wright is such a huge influence... to the point where it seems to dominate the news, what Obama action/words would give us pause to vote for him?

Would you even bother to ask this if the situation were reversed:

Imagine finding out that John McCain, while having the most extreme partisan voting record in all the Senate and ties to an unapologetic abortion clinic bomber, had spent twenty years attending the sermons of his ultra-nationalist mentor who regularly preached white supremacy.

What has McCain done to actually reflect the views he's spent his whole life espousing?

That aside though, to answer your question, his book is filled with irrational race hysteria, he has the most extreme voting record in all the Senate, hs is on the record taking the nuclear deterrent off the table and pledging to negotiate with terrorists.

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Obama is neither protected nor trained by Wright except in religious instruction which is not Obama's career.

Right, so Obama is Wright's protoge...even if it's only from the pulpit...the pulpit Wright uses to peddle his conspiracy theories and anti-US, racist hate-mongering. Thanks for validating my use of the word.

:2wave:

Obama's career is politics. If Wright were a politician, you would have something but it's not, so you don't.

Translation: Who cares if PBS and the New York Times even admit to being biased in favor of softening the image of the flaming anti-US bigot at the center of Obama's electibility issues...that has nothing to do with Obama. :notlook:

I think the Obama-Wright issue is bad enough without gross exaggerations that do nothing but detract from the real issues.

Exagerrations like...portraying openly admitted media bias in favor of Wright having nothing to do with Obama. :roll:

All the cutsie little eye-rolling emoticons in the world are not going to create legitimacy for your dishonest portrayal of their relationship.

Who ever said they create legitimacy? I just use them for emphasis and because liberals are so ridiculously intimidated by them. Thanks for demonstrating. :applaud

 

[jallman]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Right, so Obama is Wright's protoge...even if it's only from the pulpit...the pulpit Wright uses to peddle his conspiracy theories and anti-US, racist hate-mongering.

Wrong. Their relationship is not that deep. As a member of the congregation, Obama enjoyed a group instruction that does not single him out as being particularly elevated to such a status. Wright and Obama don't even share the same profession and goals...how can Obama be his "protoge"? He can't and you were simply trying to inflate an already bad situation out of hyper partisan motives.

Translation: Who cares if PBS and the New York Times even admit to being biased in favor of softening the image of the flaming anti-US bigot at the center of Obama's electibility issues...that has nothing to do with Obama. :notlook:

:applaud Congrats. You just proved here that you are more interested in debating yourself than you are in debating the actual points presented to you. Of course, this is something we ALL already knew when we saw who the opening post was from.

Exagerrations like...portraying openly admitted media bias in favor of Wright having nothing to do with Obama.

:applaud Congratulations, you just proved you can't carry a thought from one paragraph to another. The exaggerated issue I took exception to was falsely portraying Obama as Wright's protoge. Next time, do try to keep up and take notes if you can't keep the line of thought intact.

Who ever said they create legitimacy? I just use them because liberals are intimidated by them. Thanks for demonstrating.

:applaud And again, your hyperpartisan rabidity overrides your ability to read and comprehend. In your mad dash to throw a political philosophy out as a specious insult, you made yourself look like an idiot. I'll let you figure out how; though I have a feeling letting you sort it out yourself would be as entertaining as putting you in a round room and telling you that the corner is reserved for conservatives only. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

Wrong. Their relationship is not that deep.

How deep? Deep enough to receieve instruction from Wright? Isn't that the basis for the definition of "protoge" you just got done providing for us? :lol:

As a member of the congregation, Obama enjoyed a group instruction that does not single him out as being particularly elevated to such a status.

And since Obama was admittedly far more than just another member of a group with Wright, this point is completely invalid.

Wright and Obama don't even share the same profession and goals...how can Obama be his "protoge"?

Like I said and your own definition verifies, Obama was Wright's protoge, as he was Obama's mentor and Obama received religious instruction from him both privately and from the pulpit...the pulpit Wright uses to peddle his conspiracy theories and anti-US, racist hate-mongering.

I did everyone here the courtesy of skipping past all your PMS personal attacks and addressing only your on-topic nonsense. You're welcome, everyone.

:2bow:

 

[jallman]

Re: PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias

How deep? Deep enough to receieve instruction from Wright? Isn't that the basis for the definition of "protoge" you just got done providing for us? :lol:



And since Obama was admittedly far more than just another member of a group with Wright, this point is completely invalid.



Like I said and your own definition verifies, Obama was Wright's protoge, as he was Obama's mentor and Obama received religious instruction from him both privately and from the pulpit...the pulpit Wright uses to peddle his conspiracy theories and anti-US, racist hate-mongering.

I did everyone here the courtesy of skipping past all your PMS personal attacks and addressing only your on-topic nonsense. You're welcome, everyone.

:2bow:

Okay, so we arrive at this conclusion: you and I speak different languages. You speak hyper-partisanese and I speak English. Enough said.

 

[donsutherland1]

Moderator's Warning:

The title was edited. The earlier title "PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias" was inconsistent with the article on which this thread was based. The article did not state that either PBS or The New York Times had 'admitted' pro-Obama bias. Therefore, the earlier thread title was misleading.

 

[jallman]

Re: Can't stop till I get enough

EDIT: Wait a minute, What the deuce?... a kind word from jallman? Has hell frozen over? Dost mine own eyes deceive me or have I actually been removed from ignore?

Sad as it is, a common foes is often the impetus for mending bridges. :2wave:

You've been off ignore for a while. I am just a stubborn bastard.

 

[Middleground]

:clap: Congratulations, jallman, for hanging in there. Me, I decided it was not worth it. :applaud

 

[aquapub]

Moderator's Warning:

The title was edited. The earlier title "PBS, NY Times Admit Pro-Obama Bias" was inconsistent with the article on which this thread was based. The article did not state that either PBS or The New York Times had 'admitted' pro-Obama bias. Therefore, the earlier thread title was misleading.

I'm fine with you changing this title, especially if we're only supposed to title a thread by the same name as the article it's based on if it's based on one, but I don't get how it's misleading to call admitted bias in favor of the guy at the center of Obama's electibility issues "pro-Obama." It's more accurate actually. They aren't doing it because they just love Wright so much...it's clearly about Obama.

Whatever. :shrug:

 

[aquapub]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about what the title should be, the point of this thread is, PBS and the NY Times have now admitted that they are biased in downplaying Wright's extremism...i.e., they're misrepresenting things for Obama.