OK, I read the article. You HAVE no point

Post #178,247 by ben_tilly 10/7/04 1:04:15 PM Reply	OK, I read the article. You HAVE no point The headline is, House GOP rushes draft bill to defeat. The opening paragraph is: WASHINGTON - Seeking to dispel suggestions that the war in Iraq could lead to reinstatement of the draft, House Republicans hastily brought the idea to a vote - with the express intent of shooting it down. In other words House Republicans rushed to vote it down. That is, they rushed the draft bill to its defeat. Which is EXACTLY what the headline was trying to say. They missed the ambiguity that you could read the same sentence to suggest that the Republicans rushed the draft bill through - only to meet with defeat. Newspaper headlines often have ambiguities like that. It comes with the territory when you try to condense the idea of a story into a (small) handful of words. It is furthermore very easy to miss those ambiguities when your brain knows what the sentence is supposed to mean. Some people take amusement collecting these mistakes, particularly ones with humerous misreadings. I've read collections of such - undoubtably you have as well. Looking at the story, I'd therefore say that there is no evidence that they wanted people to misread the headline. Don't assume malice and all that. Particularly not when the first sentence makes their intent clear quickly and directly. If I thought that there was bias involved, you know that I'd say it. But I really don't see any. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #178,248 by bepatient 10/7/04 1:14:10 PM Reply	Simple "They rushed to defeat a bill introduced by house Democrats to reinstate the draft." no mention of the democrats at all in the article, yet the bill was drafted and introduced by 14 democrats. Thats one hell of an oversight in my opinion. ESPECIALLY in light of the Kerry campaign's "hinting" that >>>Bush's<<< secret plan is to bring it back. LA Times can afford 4 words. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #178,271 by ben_tilly 10/7/04 2:53:17 PM Reply	They actually do mention the Democrats In the paragraph where they mention John Kerry's allegations about a draft. They close with a strong declaration by Bush that there will be no draft while he is President. So you're complaining about is that they left out one pertinent fact which strengthens the Republican position. And you claim that omission is bias. Given what most journalists are like, I'd be inclined to claim incompetence - the journalist who saw the summary of the story might not have even known who introduced the draft bill. Furthermore while the detail is pertinent, I don't think that it changes the overall story very much at all. Going further, if they included the detail that the bill was a Democratic one, you could then complain that they omitted the fact that Kerry promises to increase the size of the armed forces, while Bush does not. This fact by itself does not make a convincing case to me of bias. That said, the story was put out by the Los Angeles Times. That paper is known to lean Democratic. Just as The Wall Street Journal generally leans Republican. A single paper does not the media define. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #178,272 by bepatient 10/7/04 3:07:04 PM Reply	I may support inccompetence except that it was LAT...and then carried to others. But the ommission that the legislation was introduced by democrats still leaves questions in my mind because there is sooo much focus on making sure that the Republicans are specified. GOP in the title All quoted congresscritters were R. Kerry accused R's of having a secret plan. But...idiocy is also a good excuse ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #178,273 by Andrew Grygus 10/7/04 3:10:23 PM Reply	LA Times leans . . . . . um . . . even they aren't quite sure now. The LA Times was recently purchased by the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper with a conservative reputation. Since then the LA Times has put on a rabidly right wing political cartoonist (Ramirez), a hard core conservative cartoon strip (Malard Filmore) and a rabidly pro-Bush cartoon strip (Prickly City). Malard is the only real conservative in the bunch (he's particularly upset with Bush's fiscal policies) while the other two are more of the jingoist/fascist camp. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #178,254 by mmoffitt 10/7/04 2:03:35 PM Reply	Who was it? I can't remember who it was, but I do remember several Democratic Congresspeople trying to start up the draft before we invaded Iraq. Their reasoning was that the only reason anyone in this country supported the invasion was because those people knew that few, if any, of their own kids would be going (aside: a point made by Moore in F9/11 - going up to ask Congressmen who supported the war to sign up their own kids). I think the draft should be re-instated. Maybe that'd shut up all the chickenhawks. bcnu, Mikem "The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism." -Ted Grant
Post #178,262 by a6l6e6x 10/7/04 2:24:32 PM Reply	Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who gained national notoriety last week when he called on the Bush administration to reinstitute a military draft before making war on Iraq, admitted Thursday that he would not have supported the draft under President Bill Clinton. [link\|http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2003/1/2/180048\|Link]. Alex "If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
Post #178,265 by mmoffitt 10/7/04 2:35:18 PM Reply	I thought so. Thanks. I would have said him, but I couldn't remember. bcnu, Mikem "The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism." -Ted Grant
Post #178,269 by bepatient 10/7/04 2:46:38 PM Reply	Re: I thought so. Thanks. Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdraw If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #178,292 by mmoffitt 10/7/04 5:01:09 PM Reply	John Conyers - there is a class act. bcnu, Mikem "The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism." -Ted Grant

Welcome to IWETHEY!