TVSquad

Gee Anna, I'm so surprised that PBS and Frontline are going to "explore" why Bush is so bad. I mean, they're so fair and even-handed, or do I mean slanted with liberal bias? Oh yeah, the latter.

I do believe a lot of this rhetoric started during the Clinton administration, but the difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that the liberals changed their minds about ridding Iraq of dictatorship when it became publicly unpopular.

It's easy to be liked when you follow the polls. Doing what's right is almost always unpopular at one time or another, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

I'm beginning to think Keith lied when he said this blog wasn't liberal or conservative. We get gushing over Olbermann, Colbert and Stewart and "analysis" of O'Reilly, 24, and "investigations" into the Bush White House.

Yeah Keith, it's a liberal playground. You should learn to tell the difference, or at least the truth.

Reply

[Gee Anna, I'm so surprised that PBS and Frontline are going to "explore" why Bush is so bad. I mean, they're so fair and even-handed, or do I mean slanted with liberal bias? Oh yeah, the latter.]

Of course, any criticism of Bush or his administration's tactics MUST be biased. He is, after all, the second coming of the messiah. Praise Him.

Reply

Look, the weblog posters are trying to conjur serious thoughts! Stick to Anna Nicole Smith, thank you.

Reply

ffs nick. if you think everything is a liberal conspiracy, then go somewhere else to wackoff to foxnews. it seems that anything that doesn't fit your narrow view has to be some sort of biased liberal conspiracy. seeing as there are no weapons of mass destruction, seeing as the war in iraq has been managed horribly wrong, seeing as the war in iraq was not questioned by the media, it seems that the frontline series on the media's reluctance to ask hard questions would be a very responsible thing to do.

but make ignorant statements of things you don't know about or aren't curious about. pretend that everything out there is the liberal bogeyman out to strike fear and 'disinformation' from your skewed reality. write ridiculous statements claiming to be wronged. just do it somewhere else. your lame arguments grow tiresome.

Reply

This "Frontline" four-parter looks like essential viewing. It's yet another reason to support public-funded television, and yet another reason why the Bush administration wants to silence it.

Reply

Well phats, if you don't like what I have to say just disagree, but this is a TV blog that never passes up a chance for a political statement, as long as it's a liberal one. There's really no excuse for the constant political-themed coverage since there's so much on TV that has nothing to do with politics, save for the fact that this blog, and AOL, has a liberal agenda. And you're right that the war was not questioned by the media, with the operative word being "was". They went along with it, just like the Democrats, as long as public opinion was for the war, too. As soon as the all-important-to-liberals polls began to swing, the media began to cover only what was wrong with the war.

Hell yeah, the was has been handled poorly, but that's even less of a reason to quit. A new direction for the military is a better alternative than leaving and giving the radical muslims a huge sign that we're defeated and weak.

I'm not surprised you'd want my difference of opinion to go away, that's what socialists usually want. They want everyone to be the same, get the same, etc. and celebrate diversity in name only. You people are tolerant only as long as what you have to tolerate fits your mold. That's why you socialists/liberals are so enamored with PBS, it fits your mold of being taken care of by the government. That's not the kind of thinking America was founded upon and it's bad for everyone, but you go on believing that and I'll continue to pity you.

Reply

Well I have to agree with nick in one sense, in that I think TV Squad tends to lean to the left when it covers political stuff. But I'm not one of those people who thinks "liberal" is a bad word, so I'm cool with it.

But I think other than the first part being politically charged, it sounds very interesting. I wondered about the whole embedding process, and how it seems like it'd be impossible to say a bad thing about the war when you're eating and sleeping with the troops. For one, you only see one side of things, and for another, you have to be aware that the troops are going to hear what you say. Your journalistic instincts be damned, if the lives of people you're bonding with (and your own life as well) depend at least partly on keeping morale up, you're going to have a tough time saying anything critical. So how does the press balance the increased access with the detachment they're supposed to have? And how you report on matters of national security without jeopardizing national security? Interesting questions.


http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com/

Reply

Oh, and just to throw that in there, while I do think of TV Squad as left-leaning, I don't think the word "agenda" applies, cause that makes it sound like this blog has some sort of political goals. Which it doesn't. Or at least, if it does, saying "Jon Stewart is funny," and "O'Reilly likes to hear his own voice," doesn't sound like a very good way to further that agenda.

http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com/

Reply

Bill,I have to admit that using the word "agenda" was a poor choice. That would imply that the bloggers at TVSquad have an organized goal of furthering a belief. I think that most of the bloggers are on the left, some far to the left, but they aren't coordinating efforts. The impression can be given simply because of the overall similar political tone of the writers.

I think coverage like Frontline is airing would be interesting if it were done fairly. I just don't trust PBS to be fair any more. In fact, I really don't know who could do a non-biased story of that sort in today's political atmosphere.

Reply

Firstly, I'm looking forward to this series and didn't know about it until I read about it here. So thanks for that TVSquad.

Now in response to, appropriately named, 'erroneous_nick' I'm wondering how invading a country to bring democracy is NOT similar in spirit to what you accuse the liberal/socialist of craving. That is "being taken care of by the government."

Let me get this straight. Governments should only concern themselves with military invasions and forcibly bringing democracy but they could never be trusted with health care/education/etc. Cause well, golly gee that's crazy commie talk!!

Beautifully consistent. Kudos to PBS for running a story that the international media has been running for YEARS now. Course nick wouldn't know about that since he so obviously never reads non-American media.

Oh and that wasn't meant as a dig against PBS since they need to worry about federal funds and so need to be perceived as coddling those American myths about it's supposedly enlightened military actions in foreign countries.

Anyway I'm from Canada and we're all commies (actually our Bush-loving Prime Minister just went from calling Kyoto a 'socialist conspiracy' to accepting the need for caps on emissions - so there's hope for people like erroneous_nick).

Reply

"Let me get this straight. Governments should only concern themselves with military invasions and forcibly bringing democracy but they could never be trusted with health care/education/etc."

Absolutely! The Constitution outlined explicit powers of the federal government, some of which are collecting taxes, regulating commerce, coining money, maintaining armies and a navy. The founding fathers never intended the federal government to provide us health care, homes, hold our hands when we're lonely, etc. Being from Canada, I can see how you have trouble understanding that, but the less the government intrudes into our lives, the better. There has been almost nothing a government can do better than private enterprise.

Reply

Erroneous_nick, if you've actually READ the Constitution -- which I tend to believe you have not -- the federal government does have the duty to "promote the general Welfare." It was somehow left out of your little diatribe about the "explicit powers" of the Constitution. Interesting. And idiotic.

Reply

McGee, let me set you straight.

The difference between "general welfare" and "social programs" like national healthcare, etc. is that social programs redistribute a larger amount of income from those that have it to SPECIFIC individuals that need it. Put plainly, those that make more will pay more for the benefit of those that make and have less because the "haves" don't need to take advantage of such programs. That's SPECIFIC welfare. On the other hand, "general welfare" would be things like strong national defense which would protect the GENERAL population all equally.

The phrase in the preamble, "promote the general welfare" meant that the federal government was never to favor particular classes of people or interest groups. It's patently obvious that our government has already gone way beyond that line and further social programs you mistakenly assume are promoting general welfare are actually helping specific individuals at a greater cost to those that have more. That describes a socialist state, and the last time I looked we were still supposed to be a representative republic with citizens free to pursue that elusive "happiness" with all the benefits of success or perils of failure granted in a free society. That's the country I was born in and I intend to do whatever I can to keep it that way and I'm damned proud and happy to live in a society where I'm free to sink or swim based on my own actions and efforts.

It all boils down to personal responsibility and you seem to want the government to handle your responsibilities. If that's what you really want, there are plenty of other countries you could move to so you don't have to be self reliant at all.

So, while my name may be "erroeous_nick" you are the one with the erroneous assumption about my reading of the constitution. You are the one erroneous about the meaning of the constitution and most importantly about the meaning of "promote the general welfare". I'm glad I could shed some light on the true meanings of freedom for your dark and scared socialist mindset. And thanks for only calling me "idiotic", you could've resorted to much worse.

Reply

erroneous_nick,
Read a book. Try Dickens, Twain and Dostoevsky to start.
Your understanding of the world is akin to a 5 year old's. Better yet lose your fear and travel outside of the US and meet people that don't share your narrow, black-and-white view of the world.
I know you don't represent all Americans but what it is about that country that creates so many who think as you do?

Perhaps this Frontline series will shed some light on that.

Reply

Justin,

What is it about people like you that think America should take cues from other countries as to how to run this country? Don't fret, that's really a rhetorical question and I'll explain the answer to you. You see, people like you are embarassed by America's independent attitude. People like you either forgot, or more likely never really understood, that this country was founded by people who realized that taking a unique course was what was needed to form a new, and truly great, nation. I'm sure that if you ever travelled outside the USA you're probably almost apologetic to others for being an American and you're so wrong that you'll never understand that. The United States was founded by rebels who knew they could do better by doing things differently, and they were right.

It's only been in the last several years that our national pride has slipped because of misguided, uninformed sheep who try and tame real Americans into believing they should also be sorry to be citizens of this great country. They try and set themselves up as "worldly and informed" by making references to international travels and great literature, when it's all just silly posturing to cover their own lack of understanding of the basis for the creation of the United States of America. The most obvious sign of this is when one of these well-intentioned, but misguided souls use other countries as examples of what we should do. You're a perfect example of what's been going wrong. Had the founding fathers followed this template, we'd probably still be the colonies of european countries wallowing in mediocrity instead of setting a standard which other nations strive to approach.

So, what is it that creates so many that think as I do? Simple. It's people who really understand the history of this country's creation, people who live with the same pride in this nation as our founding fathers did and people who understand that the USA needs no other countries to show it how to be great.

It is not apologist sheep like yourself...

Reply

You just proved my point better than I ever could but Samuel Johnson puy it best, "Patriotism is the last refuge Of scoundrels."

Anyway this Frontline series is getting some attention up here in my country* but I had heard about it here first. Thanks again TVSquad!

* Canada

Reply

"...up here in my country*
* Canada"

ROFL, that explains everything.

Reply