Sociology > Education > Why Bush Doesn't Read the Papers - It's the same reason that America watches FoxNews over CNN, Bush wants news, not a bunch of whinnying
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"CB" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2003 08:14:10 PM |
| Object: |
Why Bush Doesn't Read the Papers - It's the same reason that America watches FoxNews over CNN, Bush wants news, not a bunch of whinnying |
Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2003
Why Bush Doesn't Read the Papers
President Bush says he doesn't bother reading newspapers. He prefers instead
to learn what's going on from people who know what they're talking about.
When asked by Fox News anchorman Brit Hume during an exclusive interview how
he gets the news, the president said he glances at the headlines "just to
get the kind of flavor for what's moving." But "I rarely read the stories."
He gets "briefed by people who have probably read the news themselves."
This, he said, has been his practice since taking office.
"I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid
democracy because of good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of
times there's opinions mixed in with news."
(Actually, our republic is not a "democracy," but this appears to be a
losing battle.)
Bush is obviously familiar with the likes of the New York Times and the Los
Angeles Times, where it's hard to determine where the news stops and the
opinions begin, even if he has the good sense not to read those biased
leftist newspapers.
"I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news," he told
Hume. "And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the
most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's
happening in the world."
CB
George W. Bush on Supreme Court + Constitution
No litmus test; just strict constructionist interpretation
Q: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the
Supreme Court will be pro-life?
BUSH: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any
other issue. The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench,
people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the
bench to write social policy. I believe in strict constructionists.
GORE: Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome.
I don't favor litmus tests, but I know that there are ways to assess how a
potential justice interprets the Constitution. I believe that there is a
right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. When the phrase "strict
constructionist" is used, those are code words for saying that the governor
would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Q: What code phrases should we read by what you said?
GORE: It'd be very likely that [my appointeees would] uphold Roe v. Wade.
But I do believe it's wrong to use a litmus test.
Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000
________________________________
All Gore is a fool and as 'is' Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Bush Doesn't Read the Papers - It's the same reason that Americawatches FoxNews over CNN, Bush wants lies |
23 Sep 2003 09:05:53 PM |
|
|
CB wrote:
Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2003
Why Bush Doesn't Read the Papers
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing
illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press
organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television
management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false
information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any
law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a
television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that
Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to
broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about
the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute
the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story
to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well
as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of
three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no
hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The
attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First
Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news
reports on the public airwaves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
