Friday, March 11, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. We'll get to the Michael Jackson (search) madness in a moment.
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in "The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of abuse.
News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics, Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials Say."
Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been reporting. It's as simple as that.
Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without hard evidence.
"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n. Everybody got it?
One more thing: There's a chance that Admiral Church didn't get the situation correct. There's a chance someone high up in the military at the Defense Department did condone or cover up abuse. That possibility exists. But responsible news organizations do not hype stories and headline innuendo on a possibility.
The crux of the Church report is that no one in the administration or at the Pentagon ordered anyone to be abused. "The New York Times," once again, buried the headline and went with more descriptions of alleged abuse. So you tell me, who is doing honest reporting on this issue?
And that's "The Memo."
============================
and more
Surprise! The NY Times Doesn't Like Bush's Judicial Nominees
Friday, March 11, 2005
By John Gibson
The battle is heating up again over President Bush's nominees to the federal courts. Ultimately this war will be fought over Bush's nominees to the United States Supreme Court, but these warm-up matches are a good indication how that war will be fought.
Friday, The New York Times opined on three nominees to the appellate courts which President Bush has re-nominated after they were blocked by Democrat filibusters in the recent past.
This is how The Times described the three nominees who have returned for a second go before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"The three nominees who had hearings this month ? a mining and ranching industry flunky, a much-reversed judge with an antipathy for individual rights, and a lawyer with a bad habit of not following the rules for practicing law ? show why Democrats should stand firm."
The New York Times described one ? now this is a federal judge, mind you ? as a flunky. Why? Because he once let a mining company go ahead and dig when environmentalists were claiming an Indian burial ground was present at the mine site and could not be disturbed.
My Dad worked on the Shasta Dam in far Northern California before the war ? the big one, World War II ? and they moved hundreds of Indian burial sites, respectfully, without a huge uproar. But, all of a sudden, if a judge orders the same thing and The New York Times says he's a mining industry flunky?
One of the other nominees didn't renew his driver's license, or sorry it was his law license, and The Times says that disqualifies him? Didn't The Times fail to renew its "truthfulness license" for a while there?
And the other nominee is reversed too much for The Times' taste. Funny, you don't hear them complaining about the 9th Circuit in California ? the "no God in the Pledge of Allegiance" bunch. But, oh, that's right ? when the ninth is reversed every other day, The Times views it as a horrible miscarriage of justice. But when a Bush nominee is reversed it proves he's incompetent.
Lets face it: The Times wants liberals. Bush wants conservatives.
Now, let's see ? who won the last election? Was it George Bush or The New York Times?
Let me look that up.
That's My Word.
By Bill O'Reilly
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. We'll get to the Michael Jackson (search) madness in a moment.
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in "The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of abuse.
News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics, Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials Say."
Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been reporting. It's as simple as that.
Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without hard evidence.
"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n. Everybody got it?
One more thing: There's a chance that Admiral Church didn't get the situation correct. There's a chance someone high up in the military at the Defense Department did condone or cover up abuse. That possibility exists. But responsible news organizations do not hype stories and headline innuendo on a possibility.
The crux of the Church report is that no one in the administration or at the Pentagon ordered anyone to be abused. "The New York Times," once again, buried the headline and went with more descriptions of alleged abuse. So you tell me, who is doing honest reporting on this issue?
And that's "The Memo."
============================
and more
Surprise! The NY Times Doesn't Like Bush's Judicial Nominees
Friday, March 11, 2005
By John Gibson
The battle is heating up again over President Bush's nominees to the federal courts. Ultimately this war will be fought over Bush's nominees to the United States Supreme Court, but these warm-up matches are a good indication how that war will be fought.
Friday, The New York Times opined on three nominees to the appellate courts which President Bush has re-nominated after they were blocked by Democrat filibusters in the recent past.
This is how The Times described the three nominees who have returned for a second go before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"The three nominees who had hearings this month ? a mining and ranching industry flunky, a much-reversed judge with an antipathy for individual rights, and a lawyer with a bad habit of not following the rules for practicing law ? show why Democrats should stand firm."
The New York Times described one ? now this is a federal judge, mind you ? as a flunky. Why? Because he once let a mining company go ahead and dig when environmentalists were claiming an Indian burial ground was present at the mine site and could not be disturbed.
My Dad worked on the Shasta Dam in far Northern California before the war ? the big one, World War II ? and they moved hundreds of Indian burial sites, respectfully, without a huge uproar. But, all of a sudden, if a judge orders the same thing and The New York Times says he's a mining industry flunky?
One of the other nominees didn't renew his driver's license, or sorry it was his law license, and The Times says that disqualifies him? Didn't The Times fail to renew its "truthfulness license" for a while there?
And the other nominee is reversed too much for The Times' taste. Funny, you don't hear them complaining about the 9th Circuit in California ? the "no God in the Pledge of Allegiance" bunch. But, oh, that's right ? when the ninth is reversed every other day, The Times views it as a horrible miscarriage of justice. But when a Bush nominee is reversed it proves he's incompetent.
Lets face it: The Times wants liberals. Bush wants conservatives.
Now, let's see ? who won the last election? Was it George Bush or The New York Times?
Let me look that up.
That's My Word.
