A long read but very interesting.
For those who stole which election?
(Edited to add that the above comment was in response to the original thread title, which said something like, “For those who stole the election”. Now, my comment just seems silly. Oh well…)
I just want you to read it, if you are interested. It seems like a sober, non-partisan analysis of what gets treated with the Big Lie theory, repeated ad infinitum.
Lots of info on that site, but the ACVR is not exactly a non-partisan organization. According to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) (in a [u]TomPaine.com[/u] article, so it’s not exactly non-partisan, either), the ACVR “was formed by a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney campaign and the notoriously anti-voting rights Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri”. (The lawyer was Mark F. “Thor” Hearne, II – the National General Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc.) And it does seem a bit too convenient that the ACVR report on the 2004 presidential election seems to find no evidence of Republican wrongdoing, but plenty of Democratic shenanigans. I suspect there was a good bit of fraud on both sides.
I went to the page, but didn’t read any of the articles. The skeptic in me wanted to know who this group is. A domain look up shows the site’s administrative contact as Jim Dyke. Is that the same Jim Dyke that was Communications Director for the RNC in the 2004 election?
Maybe not as non-partisan as it appeared. Buyer beware. Shucks! Title changed.
The report is propaganda which comes straight from barely disguised senior republican sources.
If a media outlet you listen to told you this was “non-partisan”, they were lying to you and to America. Even a cursory investigation would have been enough to uncover the real source of the report.
You might, in other words, want to reconsider the degree of credence you accord this source in the future, because they clearly have issues with partisanship, diligence, and honesty.
So does that mean that none of what is printed is true, or is it selectively chosen truth? And how are you so sure? I didn’t think it was thinly disguised. Is it just because it states that there was Democrat voter fraud or did you find some additional information on a “non-partisan” info source?
Heh. I’m just cynical enough to say, “Everyone’s truth is selectively chosen.”
that’s for sure, slude. Sorry for posting it, frankly, too late to delete topic. It does have the video testimony, fwiw. that wasn’t faked.
It’s actually just plain made-up. Or might as well be. If there’s any truth to it at all, it’s an accident or a coincidence.
That is the healthiest attitude with which to approach “news” these days. There is currently no law requiring that the thousands of statements designed by PR firms that are passed off as “news” have any basis whatsoever in fact, or that their partisan affiliations be identified.
I think Weeks was doing that already, and you’re coming off a bit high-horsish, here. Not that anybody asked me or anything.
[quote="s1m0n"they clearly have issues with partisanship, diligence, and honesty.[/quote]
I tend to think that there are very few organizations that don’t these days. Everyone has an agenda if you dig far enough.
So does that mean that none of what is printed is true, or is it selectively chosen truth? And how are you so sure? I didn’t think it was thinly disguised. Is it just because it states that there was Democrat voter fraud or did you find some additional information on a “non-partisan” info source?
How much credence did you give to reports out of the RNC or DNC absolving their own side and heaping blame on the other before this?
This one should be given exactly the credibility you’d give one from the RNC.
In other words, this is a report written by the republican party’s lawyer making their case. Like any other legal argument, it puts the best possible face on the facts which favour their side while putting the worst spin on facts or allegations unfavourable to the democrats.
I think this is a bit of an unfortunate attitude. We’ve stopped caring or expecting our media to attempt to overcome bias. We’ve dramatically lowered the bar.
Maybe this is for the better, because we no longer (in theory) have automatic trust in the words of Walter Cronkite, but this has had the effect that we’re accepting of a considerable amount of debased coin.
We used to demand that our media at least attempted to verify some facts, and that they’d be ashamed to publish blatant partisan spin–report on, yes, but repeat uncritically, no.
Now they–or rather many–don’t bother, and we don’t expect them to. If such partisanship cost them viewers, they might make it a little less blatant.
However, these days the opposite is true: stations such as Fox have made a lot of money by deciding that what viewers really wanted was to see news that reflected the viewers own opinions and preferences, rather than news which attempts to overcome them.
Include CBS in there, and the NY TImes and we can agree. Look at the Times latest antic, digging into private adoption records on Roberts. If they find something the least questionable, would it be to serve the agenda of many of their readers and editorial board in efforts to discredit him, or a diligent search for truth? For some reason, you only mentioned Fox…
Oh, I agree that it’s an unfortunate attitude. But what’s even more unfortunate is that it’s true. The media in general tends toward the sensational these days in order to sell their publications. There is always something underlying in what they telecast or write, and I find that to be appalling. I wish that caring would actually do something to change this, but I tend to think that the vast majority of people (at least here in this country) like things they way they are. Truth seems to be a relative thing with most people…if they person doing the reporting tends to agree with your point of view, than it must be accurate. There is a part of me that feels that the first Amendment needs to be amended, so to speak. The press shouldn’t have the right to report half truths and lies, and to dupe the public at large under the banner of “Freedom of the Press”.
That sounds like an agenda to me… 
I guess, but the Times at least falls both ways from time to time. For instance, the NY Times did a LOT of cheerleading in the runup to the war, and reported as fact an awful lot of misinformation about WMDs which the administration was feeding Judith Miller.
I understand that some parts of the right see the Times as massively liberal, but from here on the left it doesn’t look like that at all. Most of the time, the TImes is well to the right of what I’d see as liberal. Maybe the Times is just sloppy rather than sloppy and biased.
I understand that some parts of the right see the Times as massively liberal, but from here on the left it doesn’t look like that at all. Most of the time, the TImes is well to the right of what I’d see as liberal. Maybe the Times is just sloppy rather than sloppy and biased.
Actually, the NY Times seems to be the number one most oft-cited example of a news source that completely fails to offer anything remotely deviant from state-generated misinformation, according to this Chomsky book I’m reading.
He seems to think it’s rather far to the right.