Re: Towing [sic] the Party line

Post #153,829

5/5/04 10:04:45 AM

The Party Line for this extravaganza goes something like this:

    The Nightline show was pandering to the Anti-Bush\n    segment exclusively; it was never designed as a patriotic\n    or memorial display; it was simply to increase Ratings\n    (even though the people at ABC said ahead of time that they\n    expected a decrease in ratings for the show).\n\n    PBS and NPR are the bellwether for the vast Left Wing\n    Liberal Bias in the Media, and therefore their funding \n    should be cut or eliminated; we don't want to spend \n    Taxpayer Money\ufffd to promote such anti-American tripe as \n    what they routinely broadcast.

How'm I doing so far?

I think you'll find a rather high correlation coefficient between this and your own expressly presented sentiments here in this thread.

As far as the numbers go, I completely made them up. (Never let it be said that I can't learn from our leaders in Washington ;-) ) The numbers are a red herring, as we both know (and at least I will readily admit); the point is not the numbers, the point is the sentiment. One can take a snapshot of any one of these exchanges in this thread, and say "No, I didn't say that", and they'd be right. It's called taking something out of context. Overall, Bill, you have expressed the Party Line listed above quite clearly. And you complain about counterbalancing.

jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

Post #153,837

by bepatient

5/5/04 10:56:14 AM

You certainly are stretching to get there.

I mentioned nothing regarding NPR beyond the fact that there are people cutting that funding that are outside of your "evil empire" sphere of influence. Further, I support their continuing coverage of the war and their continued funding (one of the places I part ways with my Libby brethren...another is antitrust).

The ONLY reason I gave for the change in timing of the show was because the timing made it DEBATEABLE. (Hence this thread, started by someone other than myself I might add). The timing of the show, regardless of whether or not they >said< it was gonna be a dud in the ratings, made their motives suspect. The creation of an "anniversary" around a suspect action of the CIC and his misuse of a flight suit makes the timing even MORE suspicious. BUT IN THE END, THEIR MOTIVES ARE NOT THE POINT!!!

Furthermore, I have stated from my very first post that I SUPPORT THE BROADCAST! (sheesh, how anti-party line can you get?)

There would have been none such suspicion about motive, nor any of the pushback against the show had the timing been more in line with the use of Memorial Day to backdrop the show. My only point in this entire "creation" of my viewpoint.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #153,841

by jb4

5/5/04 11:26:47 AM

Point(s) taken

However, do you really think that Sinclair would have not blocked the transmission of the same show, done the same way, with the same amount of PR, had the show been broadcast on Memorial Day as you suggest? (Remember, that Sinclair blocked the broadcast was the original point of this thread...)

Post #153,857

by imric

5/5/04 1:43:41 PM

I do, at least.

Blocking a memorial of soldiers on Memorial Day would have looked EXTREMELY bad.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #153,859

by jb4

5/5/04 1:47:07 PM

Really?

According to Sinclair, the program is "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." That motivation isn't going to change by postponing the program by 30 days, now is it?

Post #153,872

by imric

5/5/04 2:39:46 PM

You wouldn't think so, but

That would be akin to saying that Memorial Day was unpatriotic.

Not even President Boob could get away with that.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #153,874

by bepatient

5/5/04 2:48:47 PM

Is he going to make that argument?

For a Memorial Day broadcast I think not. I think Sinclair's determination was based on the timing of the show and the creation of the "anniversary".

Even conservative talk radio would have been forced to blast him had he raised the same challenge on a Memorial Day broadcast. That would have been something to see, actually :-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!