I don't think the kerry can push these veterans around..

[u2sarajevo]

What is the MSM? Media silence machine? I am often baffled and confused when dude makes that mention. If someone could clear that up I would greatly appreciate it.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
What is the MSM? Media silence machine? I am often baffled and confused when dude makes that mention. If someone could clear that up I would greatly appreciate it.

MSM = MainStream Media

[dude1394]

It's certainly a free speech issue of the most basic kind. A political speech in fact which is what the first amendment was specifically for.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
What is the MSM? Media silence machine? I am often baffled and confused when dude makes that mention. If someone could clear that up I would greatly appreciate it.

Specifically reserved for the NYTimes, WashingtonPost, LATimes, ABC, NBC, CBS. The same media that is losing their long held liberal monopoly. Ain't it grand.

[dude1394]

Ah the party of tolerance and law abiders.

unfitforcommand

BARNES & NOBLE SWIFT BOAT VETS BOOK - HACK OR INSIDE JOB?

Human Events magazine reported today that the BarnedandNoble.com web site was "hacked" - accessed by unathorized persons - and that an image of a bookcover, a book critical of John Kerry, was replaced with a different image. The title of the book "Unfit to Serve" was changed to "Fit to Serve" and the photo on the cover was changed from a recent photo of Kerry gesturing during a speech with a photo of Kerry with his Swift Boat crewmates taken during the Vietnam War.

[dude1394]

U2...this is another example of the MSM at work.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Northwestern Univ. law professor Jim Lindgren emails:

What strikes me about Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" story is not that Kerry almost certainly repeatedly told falsehoods (whether intentionally or not) but that the mainstream press is barely covering the story. If Bush were caught lying about his service in the National Guard, it would be leading the TV news. This is not just a hypothetical. The network news repeatedly led with charges that Bush MIGHT not have been present when he said he was during his National Guard service. Once the pay records were released, it turned out that the charges were false, but few news organizations bothered to correct the earlier false rumors they spread.

This press coverage follows the pattern. Kerry almost certainly falsely stated that he resigned from Viet Nam Vets Against the War BEFORE the fateful meeting at which the plot to assassinate several pro-war US Senators was debated. Yet when both FBI records and some of his supporters verified that Kerry had spoken forcefully against the proposal to murder Senators (to Kerry's credit at the time), most of the press did nothing. Can you imagine if Bush had been caught in such a falsehood, saying that he didn't attend a meeting where others were proposing to murder US Senators when he had been present and helped to persuade them not to do it?

Just yesterday it was revealed that when Kerry heard about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center, he admitted that he was too stunned to think clearly for quite a while. This contrasts with among Bush's first statements to his aides that we are at war (i.e., moving out of the "criminal act" mode of the Clinton administration). Bush was praised for being among the first to understand that the world had changed. Then Kerry had the nerve to criticize Bush for acting calmly in the initial minutes after the attack. If Bush had done this--criticizing Kerry for not thinking clearly when he had admitted that he was paralyzed in shock--the press would crucify Bush. But Kerry will get another pass--just wait and see.

Likewise, the statements that Bush lied about the foreign intelligence reports regarding uranium: It was a big story when the press thought that Bush might be lying, but it was mostly a non-story when it turned out that he wasn't.

If one were just watching the network news, one would think that Bush was the one with the honesty problem. Why doesn't the press just cover the stories on both sides and let the voters decide whom to vote for? Frankly, I find the press bias this year pretty frightening, not because Kerry as president will be so terrible (I doubt that he will be), but for what it says about the future of democracy in a world where traditional media still dominate public discourse. Kerry would not stand a chance if the press bias were reversed.

I think that the press will choose the president this year; I hope that they have chosen wisely.

[LRB]

Frankly, I find the press bias this year pretty frightening, not because Kerry as president will be so terrible (I doubt that he will be), but for what it says about the future of democracy in a world where traditional media still dominate public discourse. Kerry would not stand a chance if the press bias were reversed.

I think that the press will choose the president this year; I hope that they have chosen wisely.

Great article Dude, but I have to disagree with the author on a couple of points. 1st, I think that Kerry would be a horrible president. He's lacks moral courage and would almost assuredly lessen the pressure on Al Queda and our other terrorist enemies. I feel that a president is extremely limited in how much he can help the economy, be he has lots of power to wreck it to hell. In other words, if the economy is doing poorly the president can't do to much to help it, however if it is doing well or recovering the president can do lots to make it go south with ill advised programs. I fear that Kerry's misguided economic attempts will strangle the recovering economy and that would be tragic. Kerry will also bring back the US international reputation for being a pushover which was earned with the hard work of the eight year Clintion administration. Sure France and Germany might like us more, but that doesn't mean that they'll respect us as much. Right now everyone knows that when we say that we'll take action that we will back that up. With Clinton, nobody really thought much would come of it. Even when Clinton took action it was at best half assed or worse. Most times the only action Clinton took was with interns. Kerry hopefully doesn't have the intern addiciton, but he strikes me as a moral fence sitting coward with his inability to take a strong position on most of the issues.

Now my 2nd issue is that the press will determine the next President. While they will certainly have more an effect that they ethically should and will make this race much closer than it should be, ultimately I believe they will fail. We have too many outlets for the truth to get out now for the MSM to totally squash it. Also too many of Americans are too jaded about the press to blindly believe them as in years gone by. And finally, Kerry just doens't have anything that makes people want to change from the status quo. He's the democratic equivalent of Bob Dole when he ran against Clinton. All Kerry and Dole really had to offer was that their opponent was bad. At least Dole was right. Both Kerry and Dole are to put it mildly, boring as hell. I will say that Bob Dole deserved his medals, especially his purple heart; the jury is still out on Kerry.

[Drbio]

Kerry hopefully doesn't have the intern addiciton, but he strikes me as a moral fence sitting coward with his inability to take a strong position on most of the issues.

I'd much rather have him nailing interns and have a backbone than not. But I completely agree with you. Kerry is just not presidential material.