« Diplomacy Uber Alles | Main | 48 hours... and counting »

Heads up

One of my favorite aspects of bias at the New York Times is that their editors write headlines which support their anti-Bush ideology, regardless of what the articles under the headlines actually say. I don't know whether this is because the editors are deliberately dishonest or just too lazy to read the articles.

Their review of Bush's speech? Headlined: Mixed Reaction to Speech. So what were those "mixed reactions?"

Jim Chamberlain would not call himself gung-ho, exactly, but he is relieved, almost, that the long buildup to war has ended, that the excruciating wait is over, that the diplomats will at long last step aside and allow the nation's military to do what needs to be done.
Keep in mind that this guy isn't actually responding to the speech; he was interviewed Monday afternoon, before the speech. But he supports Bush.
"The sooner we do it, the faster we do it, the better and safer the world will be," said Rodolfo Castillo, 40, a fashion designer, as he watched the president's remarks on a flat-screen television above the black marble bar at Le Méridien hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif. "The uncertainty of what is going to happen is the worst part of it."

Undaunted by the prospect of war, Mr. Castillo had been spending the day readying the gown and accessories that will be worn by the singer Anastacia at the Academy Awards ceremony on Sunday night. He had this to say about the president's performance tonight: "He made the case. He was straight to the point. He was coming from a position of power."

He supports Bush, and he gave the speech a positive review.
Standing nearby, David Siguaw, 36, the hotel's director for sales and marketing and the grandson of a war veteran of World War I and II, said, "President Bush pointed out quite clearly that the United Nations did not live up to its responsibilities."

"Finally, we as the American people have direction," Mr. Siguaw said after the speech. "He's announced directly to the American people a timeline of 48 hours."

So does he. 3-0, so far. Not "mixed."
"As far as supporting a war, I do, because I do think Saddam Hussein needs to get out of Iraq," said Alva Starling, 27, who is moving here from Texas and was having lunch with a friend and fellow dentist, Vanessa Dowdy, of Decatur, Ga.
He supports Bush also. And was also interviewed in the afternoon, before the speech.
"Having a daughter volunteer to be in the military and suddenly having her sent somewhere, I had to do a lot of thinking and re-evaluating," Ms. Reeves said. "I think there is a time when we have to say, `If we're not willing to fight for this, then what are we willing to fight for?' "
She isn't responding to the speech either, but she's supporting Bush. 5-0 in favor of Bush.
Ms. Breeden, who said she grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home, was scornful of President Bush's push for war. "I try to imagine him standing face to face with Jesus, with the traditional Jesus that a lot of Christians believe in," she said. "I just can't imagine Jesus saying, `Go for it, George."'
Finally! Someone who opposes Bush. She wasn't reacting to the speech either, of course. But at least we can finally call it "mixed." It's 5-1 in favor of Bush.
In tiny Bloomfield, Ind., however, Red Oliphant, 75, said he spoke for most of his neighbors in saying that he backed the president 100 percent. "I was hoping that Saddam would get the message and go into exile someplace," said Mr. Oliphant, a retired Air Force colonel who said he flew 250 air-to-ground support missions in Vietnam. "He's too obstinate."

Taking a break from cleaning up his lawn on one of the first warm spring days of the year in southern Indiana, Mr. Oliphant said he disagreed with those who said the administration should have done more to gain international support for war. "I think Bush has given them every chance to deal, and they won't deal," he said. "I've got no sympathy for the French or the Germans, either one."

He's not responding to the speech either. Did they just pull these quotes at random off some other newspaper's website? But he supports Bush, too.
In Richmond, Va., William G. Hamby, 54, a media consultant who says he still remembers the terror and anxiety of the Vietnam-era draft, kept clicking between his list of business contacts and a handful of news Web sites today for the latest on Iraq. "In some ways, it's suspenseful," he said.
He wasn't responding to the speech either, and I have no idea what his view actually is on Iraq. Call that one a tie.

So let's sum up: the "mixed reaction to the speech" consisted of two people who saw the speech both giving it high marks, and four of the six people who didn't see the speech giving Bush high marks, with only one person criticizing Bush. So what on earth is the Times talking about?

FOLLOWUP: The Times has changed this headline; it now says: "Wait Over, Americans Voice Relief and Anxiety." I guess that was too much, even for them.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (1)


The New York Times is a part of the larger media which, with exceptions few and far between, save FOX News Channel, is secretly and conspiratorially biased toward the irrational liberal left. The ignorance of a piece's facts and the selecting of a misguidedly biased headline is only one example of the ways in which the liberal media actually influences the minds of the susceptible masses, locally and globally, especially the ones in America which the liberal (read: democrat) politicians have manipulated into their "beliefs."

Another way the media influences the susceptible masses is by using subtle phraseology to "bend" the truth. Listen carefully, readers, to the WAY that writers, including those who write the material read by your local tv newscaster, change news facts to something that subtly (or not! so subtly in many cases) becomes something more, something almost editorial in nature, that is designed to influence the way that the reader/listener THINKS about the material presented.

I just want the facts, not the opinions of these "experts" who are only expert at reading copy. I pay very close attention to world civics, and I am well capable of opining. Shouldn't we all be thinking FOR OURSELVES?

Another example of the manipulative media is my local tv news channel's interviewing of ONLY democrats for a "balanced and bipartisan" response to President Bush's "48 Hours" speech: presenting sound/vid-bites of 3 democrat politicians to a big 0 interviewed republicans, independents or anyone from any other political party is not my idea of "balanced and bipartisan" reporting or interviewing at all, despite the broadcaster telling me - and trying to get me to think - that what I had just seen was in fact, "balanced and bipartisan," fair and balanced.

I've gotten pretty good at reading through the media's propaganda, regardless of which side they may favor (albeit overwhelmingly liberal since the ascension of king clinton and his band of treasonous cronies and prevaricators), and you can, too, ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys! Just start listening to what you hear from your media; learn to separate the facts from the opinions of the messengers. Only when you are armed with the facts, the truth, can you form an intelligent opinion of those facts, assuming you have an IQ higher than room temperature.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 18, 2003 6:02 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Diplomacy Uber Alles.

The next post in this blog is 48 hours... and counting.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31