Here's where "dipaspoliticalboard" is getting the articles he/she cuts and pastes:
Now if you want to read the originals, just clink on the link. But do that after you put him/her on "Ignore"
Just a Measly $400,000,000,000
Dan Rather: �Millions of seniors are now expecting President Bush and Congress to deliver on promises of some prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Lawmakers are still working out details, but as CBS�s Joie Chen reports, the plan may wind up falling far short of what Medicare recipients were hoping for.�
Joie Chen: �When you start to look at coverage levels, you�ll see what�s referred to as the �doughnut hole� � that�s the point at which there�s no coverage. Participants would have to pay the entire cost of their prescriptions before they reach the level of catastrophic expense when the plan would pay for most of the drug costs....So why is there a doughnut hole at all? Well, with only $400 billion to spend, there just isn�t enough money to fix it.�
� CBS Evening News, June 24.
Upset by People Buying Own Pills
�Let me ask you about this doughnut hole in coverage....If I�m a senior and I�m paying my, my monthly, you know, premium, why should I have to then fork over all the money during that, that gap period?�
� NBC�s Matt Lauer questioning Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Today, June 26.
Gov�t Handouts Not Big
ABC's Rooney: �Ironic� GOP Pushing Recall
Over a Deficit
ABC News reporter Brian Rooney delivered a bit of editorializing during a story on Saturday night about the recall effort in California against Democratic Governor Gray Davis. Rooney declared it �ironic� that Republicans would lead a recall effort spurred by a large budget deficit when �the Republican majority in Washington is running the biggest deficit in the history of government.�
In the middle of Rooney's story on the June 14 World News Tonight/Saturday viewers heard Rooney argue:
�Davis's opponents say he won re-election while misleading voters about a looming $38 billion budget shortfall. That Republicans would spearhead a recall over a deficit is ironic, considering that nearly every state government is in trouble and the Republican majority in Washington is running the biggest deficit in the history of government.�
Of course, those pushing for the recall are more upset about being misled about the deficit than its size which is surely bigger as a percent of the state budget than the federal one is of the federal budget, to say nothing of how the federal deficit is not the largest in history either in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars or as of percent of GDP.
But none of that should have to be pointed out since an ABC News reporter should not be making such blatant polemical points in a news story.
Time's Gibbs Pressed About Assuming VRWC
Don Imus pressed Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs about whether her question to Hillary Clinton -- �Is the 'vast, right-wing conspiracy' bigger than you thought when you brought that term into our vocabulary?� -- presumed that Time has decided �that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.� Gibbs went on and on, but never really answered Imus's question.
For more on the Time magazine interview with Hillary Clinton conducted by Nancy Gibbs, see the June 9 CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org
On Thursday's Imus in the Morning radio show simulcast on MSNBC, MRC analyst Jessica Anderson noticed that Imus asked Gibbs about her very leading question. In the 6:30am half hour of the June 12 show, Imus asked Gibbs on the phone:
"There's another kind of interesting question, 'is the vast' -- here's the way the question is written in Time magazine -- 'is the vast right-wing conspiracy bigger than you thought when you brought the term into our vocabulary?' So have you all at Time decided that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy?"
Gibbs' meandering reply: "Well, that's why it's in quotation marks, but before we were talking about that, she was answering a question that suggested that, about this, sort of the huge machinery that has been operating to try to bring down her husband, and then talking about, right now I was asking her about President Bush and his policies, and she talked about this effort to basically, as she said, dismantle the federal government, this very radical agenda, and that they're very, you know, open about it, and she seemed to be describing, once again, but in even broader terms, what she originally called the vast right-wing conspiracy, so I said, so what, you think it's even bigger than it was before? And she says, you know, yes, it's hard to imagine the scale, and of course she says it's not a conspiracy, it's all out in the open. That's it, that's not an artful choice of words, she says, but yeah, the notion that there's a very organized effort in parts of the media, and she quoted some statistic to me that on any given day, there are 229 conservative or right-wing radio outlets, she says, and about four that are from the other point of view. And so she starts running through these numbers about, just to document how broad the vast right-wing conspiracy is. This is still very much, in her universe, the way she sees the world. I think she still sees this as a very big orchestrated, well-funded, powerful entity that she's doing battle against. That was the impression I got as she talked about it, that it looms very large for her."
That ranting from Hillary, however, did not make it into the excerpts run in the June 16 Time.
Imus and Gibbs went on to discuss his opinion of why liberal talk radio hasn't taken off before Imus tried again on Time's assumption about the VRWC: "Well, when you ask the question 'is this vast right-wing conspiracy bigger than you thought?' -- well, it's in quotes, and when you write it out, but it's not, unless you do those little cocktail party quote things with your fingers or you phrased it somehow, I mean, it sounds as though you're suggesting that there is a right-wing conspiracy. I think that's a fair observation, don't you?"
Gibbs: "That that's what the question implies that we think?"
Gibbs: "You know, it's meant to see what she thinks. I don't think, who cares what we think? I mean, they shouldn't care what we think, they should care what says, so -- I was curious about, you know, whether she had changed her view about how all of this works since becoming a, you know, public figure herself in her own right and seeing what she sees now. No, she still sees the world operating with these kinds of mechanisms and talked about how well-funded and well-organized they are."
CNBC's Sawyer Questions Assumption of
CNBC's The News with Brian Williams ran the same skewed David Gregory story from the NBC Nightly News quoted in item #1 above, about how �the flap over� the Bush administration daring to doubt the liberal environmental line on global warming, �gives new ammunition to administration critics, both here and abroad, who contend the President has ignored the threat of global warming to appease corporate polluters opposed to more environmental regulation.�
But substitute anchor Forrest Sawyer, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth noticed, went where Brian Williams never would have: After Gregory's piece aired, Sawyer pressed a liberal environmentalist about his assumptions.
Sawyer asked Jon Coifman of Natural Resources Defense Council:
-- "The White House, as you heard David say, suggests that you really need to be careful about what you say here, and the reason you have to do that is because there is nothing definitive about what we know that what is going to happen to the environment. Therefore, we have to be clear, we have to say that we don't know it definitively."
-- "But Jon, you know that this is a huge system, this planetary climatological system is enormous. And you know that there are some scientists who say we can't be certain exactly what causes it, it might even be methane from cows, for heaven's sake. So therefore you have to be a little bit careful about your language."
-- "And you obviously believe that the White House is playing fast and loose with this information. Now, why do you think they're doing that?"
-- "Well, Jon, you clearly believe that the White House is very smart and savvy when it comes to politics, yes? ... So why not, if they were entirely political about their goal, simply leave this language in? It probably wouldn't have gotten noticed by too many people. It wouldn't have been front page news, and they could have just driven on."
-- "You heard David Gregory ask Governor Whitman, 'Is this a political document or is it a scientific document?' And she, who has, who has crossed swords with the White House a few times, says it is absolutely a scientific document, and when you have the opportunity to look over it, you will see solid science in there. Shouldn't you wait until you see it before you start complaining too loudly?"
-- "But Jon, Jon, follow my question. Shouldn't you see the entire document before you complain too loudly?"
A very good question for all of the network producers and reporters.
It looks like this is a bot, programmed to post articles randomly chosen from the media research center archive in response to posts from specific individuals on this board. That would explain why a response appears almost immediately but has nothing to do with the topic being responded to. It is, in short, a particularly annoying form of pop-up ad and should be blocked with the "Ignore" button.