Well, if you go in the front, you'll get swarmed by NSF guards, but you'll be backed up by a few UNATCO troops, and Agent Navarre. But, the back way, through one of the open windows is always the best way, as you'll have the element of surprise. Don't forget to find the Ambrosia shipment in the kiosk in the middle. The code for the bolt-hole is 666. And give the kid some Soy Food.
Er, Citizen, not Castle. OK.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
"All your media outlets are belong to Bill. For great publicity!"
Truly, they can no longer reasonably deny that he is the media's special darling.
He's been out of office a year now, and he's still the focus of all this hype. You didn't see our other recent presidents get this kind of coverage after they left office. Oh, we heard about Bush's skydiving, and Reagan's Altzheimers, but that was pretty much it for them. This guy, he's somewhere every day. He's moving into Harlem, his dog dies, he had a bad case of the hiccups...
Fawn, fawn, fawn. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Rob and his "liberal media" crap surface again. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The media did cover the death of a DOG. They did write this article, and several other recent features. Do you deny these events? Do you deny the vast amount of coverage this man is receiving compared to other recent presidents? Or can you show me in-depth media coverage of George HW Bush's post-presidential life?
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
They also covered George W. Bush choking on a pretzel. Gee, I guess they must be a Conservative bias!
And how does focus on Clinton = liberal bias rather then "gee, we put Clinton in the news, EVERYBODY turns in to watch!" as opposed to "Gee, we put George HW Bush in the news, everybody switches stations!"
Interesting logic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
George W. Bush is IN OFFICE, yutz. It's news if he gets the flu. It's not news if Clinton gets the flu. His day in the sun is over.
As for your latter unfounded assertion, can you show that news ratings go up when Clinton is mentioned? Otherwise you're shooting your own foot.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Well, hey, you're apparently up to date on every post-office story they've done on him, now aren't you? And you're not exactly someone who should be talking about "unfounded assertations", since very rarely do you post in the Flameboard without making the same about the "liberal media" (and then using Clinton's dead dog as supporting evidence).
[ April 02, 2002, 18:37: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
At least I can back up my assertions with incidents. All I see you doing is trying to sidestep the issue.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Oh, please. Your assertation is "the media is liberal" and you're "evidence" is that they did a story on Clinton's dog. Woooooo.
Nevermind that the media has been very pro-Bush since 9/11. Nevermind that the media downplays everything about Ashcroft's destruction of Constiutional Ammendments. If that's not a Conservative bias, I don't know what is.
Does the media go around doing stories about the stupidity of a "war on terror", or wonder why George W. Bush only sees things as "good" and "evil" when nothing is ever that simple? Do you see the media blaming Reagan & Co. for funding bin Laden* in the first place, or just Clinton for not killing him? Do you see any mention of the FBI's anti-terrorist budget being tripled under Clinton's watch, or the GOP Congress shooting down his anti-money-landering legislation that would've hindered Al-Queda?
Oh, but the media did a story on a dead dog. So, obviously ... (and of course, the fact that the dead dog belonged to a sitting US Senator had nothing to do with it at all. No, none whatsoever).
There's a song by Harvey Danger you should listen too. Describes you to a t.
*Oh, and I know what you're going to say. "Reagan gave the money to Pakistan, he didn't know what they were going to do with it." It's your old line, and the fact that you can delude yourself to such a degree is ... well, delusional.
[ April 02, 2002, 19:21: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, this is going somewhere...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by U//Magnus: Well, if you go in the front, you'll get swarmed by NSF guards, but you'll be backed up by a few UNATCO troops, and Agent Navarre. But, the back way, through one of the open windows is always the best way, as you'll have the element of surprise. Don't forget to find the Ambrosia shipment in the kiosk in the middle. The code for the bolt-hole is 666. And give the kid some Soy Food.
Er, Citizen, not Castle. OK.
Deus Ex was a really great game! Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:Well, this is going somewhere...
It is. We're about to disprove Rob's "liberal media" theory he loves so much. Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
No, you aren't. Because it's a waste of all of our time and energy for you to attempt to conclusively prove something that is by its very nature contentious.
Either make this thread serve some kind of practical, interesting purpose, or I'll do my thing.
[ April 02, 2002, 20:37: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
George 41 is just so boring and Reagan is a vegatable, that is why they get no coverage. Sure Clinton is a media darling it is because people like him and care about what happens to him. George 41 never does anything or is just overshadowed by his son to the point that nobody cares. And Reagan will not make the news again until he dies. Carter gets the odd coverage when called upon to mediate something or when HFH needs money. Real answer Republicans = boring Democrats = exciting
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, there is a possible extention of that, i.e. that GOP presidents have a tendancy to stay out of the pulic eye for a while after leaving office, as is generally considered proper, whereas Clinton does't care about that...
But that's just a theoretical explaination for why Clinton got more attention, i.e. he wanted it. It still doesn't explain the specific instance of the story on the death of Clinton's dog AFTER he was out of office. That's just absurd.
Nevermind that the media downplays everything about Ashcroft's destruction of Constiutional Ammendments.
For which you have yet to provide any concrete examples.
*yawn*
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Fluff human interst piece. I bet that explains it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:For which you have yet to provide any concrete examples.
Examples have been provided, Omega, several times over. You just stick your fingers in your ears and scream as loudly as you can so your imaginary world can continue to spin.
quote:that GOP presidents have a tendancy to stay out of the pulic eye for a while after leaving office, as is generally considered proper,
Uh, eh? Carter didn't stay out of the public eye? Johnson didn't? Kennedy didn't? Oh, yeah, he got shot. You're just making those gross generalizations you're oh so famous for, nevermind that they (much like you) don't make any sense.
Gee, let's look at recent GOP presidents. Ya'll would've been screaming "fucking liberal media" if they'd covered Reagan, who has probably been stumbling around the streets buck-naked, being he has alzheimers. "How dare those liberal media jew assholes show him walking in his undies?" As for Bush, he lost the election in disgrace.
Now I'm not sure about Reagan, but I know Bush stayed busy after leaving office. He gave speeches (I saw that on the news). As for Clinton, of course he's still in the news. The Republican Party, bitter about so many embarassments, is STILL going after Clinton! And, oh, yeah, his WIFE is a US SENATOR. Think THAT might have something to do with it? I'm sure if Mrs. Reagan had joined the Senate in '88, Ron would still be in the news quite a bit.
Clinton? Let's see, got thwarted by the Republicans a lot of time (including that legislation that would've cut off funds to Al-Queda), got impeached by the Republicans, and to the delight of everyone, the Republicans got egg on their face time and time again (no doubt pissing them off, since they keep painting him as the Devil). Ok, sure, Gore didn't win the White House, but Clinton left on the top, and it seems to me you and Rob are still bent out of shape about it. Especially now that George W. is running this nation into the ground with his lies and agendas, and you Omega, who proclaim to love freedom so much, close your eyes and walk like a sheep to the slaughter.
Sorry for the rant. By the way, Omega, nice to see you finally recovered from your last blistering defeat in the flameboard and returned.
[ April 03, 2002, 09:49: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Jeff, might I recommend you stop confusing your milk carton and a toilet in the future? Your corn flakes will thank you for it.
[ April 03, 2002, 11:31: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
There was more than your average amount of flameboard bile in that one wasn't there.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, and the bile-to-rationality ratio was pretty abysmal, too.
Let's see...
quote:Ashcroft... [raving deleted] Bush Jr... [raving deleted]
What do these people have in common? They're in office.
Clinton is not.
And as for what Ashcroft and Bush Jr. are doing... what, you don't think the media is scrutinizing it? How else do you think you're hearing about all these things you and others have been ranting about, from the nuclear contingency plans to the so-called shadow government to the conditions at Guantanamo... the voices in your head?
Millie, Bush 1's dog and the only White House pet ever to 'author' a book, (and thusly far more newsworthy than Buddy) died in May 1997.
A google search (Bush Millie dies) shows no coverage outside a few minor pet publications.
However, googling Buddy (Clinton Buddy dies) immediately brings up news stories from CBS, ABC, MSNBC, Yahoo, Time, and Free Republic.
Pretty concrete.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
YOU are MISSING the DEUS EX JOKE that I MADE earlier. CONGRATULATE ME!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Examples have been provided, Omega, several times over. You just stick your fingers in your ears and scream as loudly as you can so your imaginary world can continue to spin.
Not on this board. At least, not that weren't totally absurd and shown to be such.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
quote:Jeff, might I recommend you stop confusing your milk carton and a toilet in the future? Your corn flakes will thank you for it.
SHIET MAN! ULTRA BURN!!! Posted by In the stars it is (Member # 417) on :
At least it wasn't Fruit Loops or Special K.....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm archiving this thread, so I can use it to slap certain right-wingers in the face by the time Dubyah's term ends. He'll remain a public figure --- wouldn't that be considered improper, Ommie? The shock! The horror! --- long after the next president has been installed, what with 9/11 et all.
Hypocrisy, you gotta love it.
[ April 03, 2002, 15:16: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Something tells me that the only thing concrete about doing your google search there Robespierre, is that you have done a google search.
I doubt that there is some overarching conspiracy lurking in the shadows.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
We'll see, when I have a day off and can get to the local P.L., what the RGPL has to say about the matter.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Well, Rob, if the media is so overwhelming liberal, how do you have ANY dirt on Clinton at all? Shouldn't we all be saying "Monica ... who?"
Oh, right, the dog. Forgot about that.
Omega: your head is so deep in the sand, it's not even funny. It's okay. Stay there. Honestly, you're a lot more tolerable with your butt up in the air.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I did find this FOT is it the same thing?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Shouldn't we all be saying "Monica ... who?"
Thanks, you walked into that one.
Most definitely we should.
Propaganda 101: "Straw man" + "Desensitization through repetition" = diversion.
You cover the weakest aspects of the story. The media portrayed the story as having to do with Clinton's sex life and the adultery issue. They pounded the sex scandal until the audience was sick of hearing it. Once the facts came out that Clinton and his aides suborned perjury and obstructed justice, the audience was desensitized to the subject.
Of course, all of the above is irrelevant, as it was a news story while Clinton was IN OFFICE, and now he is OUT, (this is where you seem to keep having brain-freeze... we're talking about POST-term coverage here) and you don't hear much about it anymore.
Grocka: well, sort of. It's a fan-produced page, so you expect intensive coverage of a single subject, but look at the amount of press coverage it was able to collect with a minimum of effort, all telling us about the perils of Clinton's ex-cat.
[ April 03, 2002, 17:45: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
And yet, Rob, I went to quite a bit of trouble not that long ago to post legal arguements why Clinton didn't commit perjury. Not that you or any other self-decieving Republican care for that sort of stuff (Omega's response was something along the lines of "who cares for legal speak" or somesuch).
Regardless, your assertion that the media is liberal is BS. Is FOX News liberal? Is AM radio liberal? Is The Washington Times liberal? If the NYT and TWP are liberal, why do they keep showering so much praise on the Second Grader in Chief?
Oh, yeah. Because the "liberal media" (or, as ya'll used to call it, the "liberal Jew media") is a figment of a defensive, aggressive Conservative imagination.
And the proof that you're right is, apparently, an article about Bill Clinton's dead dog.
What a crock.
And, just to completely and for all time blow this foolish idea out of your mind, Rob, here you go!
Enjoy ... (now, let's watch you run from this thread at warp seven)
[ April 03, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I too am waiting for some sort of answer by our more conservative members of the board to the above linked research.
[ April 04, 2002, 13:51: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I did not say the media was liberal. I said the media was obsessed with Bill Clinton, even though he was out of office.
That does not make the media liberal, it simply makes them jerks.
Citing single examples which exist doth not a 'trend' refute. Sure, you can say that Fox is conservative. But Fox is vastly outnumbered, stations and coveragewise, by CBS, NBC, and ABC. As for cable, conservatives weren't the only ones jokingly referring to CNN as the 'Clinton News Network.' (I don't know the editorial slant of UPN and WB, since aside from Star Trek shows, I never watch either of them.)
Goldberg may have been wrong about the labeling of 'Conservative' and 'Liberal,' but that's a fairly minor point in his argument. For Nunberg to pretend that a refutation of that point refutes the entire argument is intellectually dishonest... it's like saying you can disprove God's existence because you can show that Genesis isn't literally correct.
The article of the dog isn't my 'proof.' It's a tiny bit of evidence. Tahna's article is another tiny bit. We're just adding up the bits and seeing where the total leads us. Testing a hypothesis. Why are you objecting so strenuously? Is it that great a danger to your faith?
I still intend to check the RGPL and do an article count. If it shows that the post-term (say at a limit of one year, since that's how long BCs been out) article counts for Bush 1 and Clinton (and maybe, to extend the sample, Carter and Reagan) are roughly the same, I will admit my hypothesis of bias in this area to be in error.
If not, though, it will be confirmation that I am correct, and the media is riding Clinton like the Man Train, and I will wave it around like a Sizerian member.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So let me see if I got this.
A a not uncritical Newsweek article combined with speculation about the respective amount of ink spilled over presidental canine deaths are "bits of evidence" supporting the idea that the "media" is obsessed with Bill Clinton.
Wow. This I gots to see.
First though, what exactly do you mean by obsessed? Are you saying that no one in interested in reading about what the only 20th century president ever impeached is doing while out of office? Or could it simply be that you don't care and that this is your anti-Clinton "bias" showing though?
A more reasonable explanation would be the substitution of fluff pieces for actual hard news in the mainstream media as it becomes more news-tainment. But if that's what the market wants isn't that what the market gets? Afterall, if people were really so upset about seeing piece after piece after piece about Bill Clinton, wouldn't they just stop watching or subscribing? That would change the "media's" tune real quick since they are owned by large profit-driven corporations afterall.
Still, news-tainment is another probematic area which gives us the members of the press fawning over say, George W. Bush as well as expressing interest ing Bill Clinton's post-presidential fund-raising.
Oh, and another question. Which is it, a hypothesis of "obsession" or a hypothesis of "bias." You use the two as if interchangable in your post and we both know that they are not.
[ April 05, 2002, 16:55: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You are right.
I suppose, worded correctly, the hypothesis would be "The majority of the news media in ths country, for unknown or unspecified reasons, seems to be paying an inordinate amount of attention to the post-presidential life of William Jefferson Clinton, as opposed to previous coverage of other, similar figures in their first year out of office."
The dog story and the Newsweek piece are two of many bits, including his trip to the WTC (okay, as a new NY'er, one might expect him to simply show up, but I believe that there was more than that at the time), and other news bits.
After some consideration, I accept the possibility that my perceptions of this may be skewed by sensitization, much in the same way that when you buy a new car, you immediately start noticing all the other cars on the road that look like your new car.
This is why I'm still doing the research. To find out. Nobody objects to finding out, do they?
[ April 04, 2002, 17:48: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:including his trip to the WTC (okay, as a new NY'er, one might expect him to simply show up, but I believe that there was more than that at the time), and other news bits.
That and that Chelsea was in downtown Manhattan on 9/11 ...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
.....it seems to me, after reading all of this and seeing the news, that the media is sensationalising everyday things on an ex-Pres that had the most news coverage while in office. They, like television, will display what will sell, plain and simple.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)