Please critique my LTTE on media bias

[NewJeffCT]

I'm responding to a person who disagreed with a previous letter of mine showing media bias tilting Republican.

In response to “Not So Liberal,” nice try. If you are going to use statistics, don’t go to a liberal Web site to get them. Why didn’t you just go to MoveOn.org for your information? Media Matters is run by a liberal and the site is used as a conservative bashing forum against people such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. When it comes to bias, the networks, CNN and company have a major left-leaning bias. All you need to do is compare the Alberto Gonzales situation with Janet (Waco) Reno’s firing of 12 times as many U.S. Attorneys. The liberal media has run hundreds of times more stories than when Reno did it. No liberal bias? Please!

here is my letter (should be under 150 words, and I'm at 149, I think)

In response to “It was a Nice Try,” I should note that progressives argue with things like “statistics” and “facts,” while conservatives just accuse anybody who disagrees with them as having a liberal bias, irregardless of the facts. Fact: The head of CBS was on record as wanting Bush to win in 2004 and did not air a miniseries on the Reagans because one line of dialogue was of questionable accuracy. Fact: ABC aired a 9/11 miniseries that was rife was outright fabrications that denigrated Bill Clinton, yet ABC’s parent, Disney, earlier refused to distribute a completely factual movie that was critical of Bush. Fact: The former head of GE and NBC, Jack Welch, is a huge Bush supporter who donated big money to Bush and the GOP. Ronald Reagan once said that, “facts are stubborn things,” and these stubborn facts say that the media has a Republican bias.

[PixieDust]

1. Nice response

However, irregardless is not a word. Use regardless.

[madokie]

2. just in case, check this out

'that was rife was outright fabrications'

[NewJeffCT]

4. huh?

what do you mean? shorten the sentence?

[Little Wing]

5. no, it doesn't make any sense

take a break, you'll see it after not looking at the screen for awhile

[NewJeffCT]

11. thanks

I got it. I'm getting old - never used to make mistakes like that.

[SharonAnn]

3. Change "irregardless" to "regardless". Are you sure of your "facts"?

Do you have any corroboration? I'm not sure of everything you said.

I know it's frustrating dealing with these people, but your tone might still be a little too argumentative. They think that just because they don't like something, it must be "liberal".

[NewJeffCT]

7. yes, I am sure

Do a google search on Sumner Redstone (head of CBS) and George Bush and you'll find the quote on him rooting for Bush. CBS backed away from airing "The Reagans" miniseries because it was an honest portrayel of Reagan that contained one line that could not be verified...

Jack Welch, former head of GE, was in the highest category of Bush donor (Ranger? Pionoeer?) - and don't forget, NBC also canned Phil Donahue when he was MSNBC's highest rated show because they were afraid that Donahue would have on anti-war guests.

The documentary Disney refused to distrubute was "Fahrenheit 9/11" - which was well documented. "Path to 9/11" was riddled with outright lies and distortions and was still aired despite a storm of protest.

[PreacherCasey]

6. regardless, not "irregardless"

Your adversary also seems unable to draw simple distinctions (firing all 93 USAs at the beginning of a term as opposed to firing 8 mid-term). As it has been said many times, only 3 USAs have been fired mid-term in the last 25 years. His LTTE is purposefully misleading and I would call him on it.
Great letter!

[BOSSHOG]

8. If ya can squeeze in that great colbert quote

"truth has a liberal bias."

Telling the truth is conservative bashing? That's how conservatives have changed the tone in America. And pray tell, why are all the right wing noise makers so deathly afraid of the return of the "fairness" doctrine?

I could ramble on but I won't. Give em Hell!

[bryant69]

9. Great response - I would add in a line dealing with his accusation directly

Make the point that the firing of these 9 attorneys wasn't standard operating procedure.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NewJeffCT]

14. Already sent one in on that topic

it's anonymous, but I only have two computers to send it from... one response was details on the US Attorney scandal. This is my 2nd response.

If you want to put together your own response, it is anonymous. Just put in a town from Northeast CT (like: Manchester, Mansfield, Rockville, Stafford, Somers) and send it to:

http://remindernewspapers.com/speakout/speakout.php

[Prophet 451]

10. Nice reply but...

...it won't make any difference. As far as their concerned, anything that disputes or disagrees with their version of things is "liberal" and therefore, cannot be trusted. It wouldn't matter if your stats came from Media Matters, FAIR, the PTC or the Pope; if it doesn't agree with them, it's "liberal" and can therefore be ignored. Noble effort but it's like herding cats.

[NewJeffCT]

12. Thanks but

it will take time - Republicans started their movement 35 years ago to start framing the debate & influencing the media. We've only been at it for a few years... so, hopefully by the time I'm 75 or so, it will be more balanced again.

[Prophet 451]

17. I admire your optimism n/t

[Jim__]

13. I'd respond to the assertion about the firings of the US Attorneys.

It's true that Clinton fired all 93. I believe Bush also fired all or most on his first taking office - but I'd check that. The issue over these 8 firings is that they were fired for refusing to base prosecutions on purely political grounds. Cite the Wisconsin case wehre the 7th Circuit released a Decomcrat from prison saying the case was "very thin" - the case came up during the 2006 election.

[Make7]

18. Here's a good article on the history of replacing US Attorneys:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/la-na-talking23mar23,1,1044289,full.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines&ctrack=3&cset=true

[EstimatedProphet]

15. I think you should address his points

You start out by saying that liberals use statistics and facts, then ignore what he's bringing up. Refute them, or it may fall flat for some people. For example: Reno didn't fire all the attorneys in the middle of the term. She fired them when the office changed, just like everyone but Gonzales has done. So the stories are appropriate, and he's full of shit for bringing that point up.

Also, I think you might bring up the fact that attacking Limbaugh and Coulter is simply a matter of good taste, kind of like fumigating your house when you find roaches.

[NewJeffCT]

16. I did that in another submission

see my above post - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=619349&mesg_id=619505