PDA

View Full Version : Storm Victims Reject ABC's Script



Fran Crimi
09-26-2005, 01:31 PM
Storm Victims Reject ABC’s Script

Reporter Dean Reynolds: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”
Hurricane victim Connie London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”
Reynolds: “And they weren’t?”
London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn’t. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”
Reynolds: “...Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that’s nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”
Hurricane victim Brenda Marshall: “No, I didn’t.”
Reynolds: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here....”
— Exchange with hurricane evacuees now living in a Houston shelter, during ABC’s coverage following the President’s speech from New Orleans, September 15.

eg8r
09-27-2005, 04:48 AM
LOL, I bet Dean Reynolds boss was none too happy with his choice of interviewees. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Pretty clear he had a motive with his questioning and it was definitely no bi-partisan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
09-27-2005, 05:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Storm Victims Reject ABC’s Script

Reporter Dean Reynolds: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”
Hurricane victim Connie London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”
Reynolds: “And they weren’t?”
London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn’t. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”
Reynolds: “...Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that’s nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”
Hurricane victim Brenda Marshall: “No, I didn’t.”
Reynolds: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here....”
— Exchange with hurricane evacuees now living in a Houston shelter, during ABC’s coverage following the President’s speech from New Orleans, September 15.

<hr /></blockquote>

It's pretty bad when ABC can't even get a sound bite from one of the victims to help them promote their vendeta against Bush. Someday maybe the media will figure out that the majority of the people in this country don't see things the way they do.

SnakebyteXX
09-27-2005, 05:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Pretty clear he had a motive with his questioning and it was definitely no bi-partisan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Not sure if I fully agree with you here eg8r. I'm thinking that news broadcasts are all about selling soap just like they've always been. The more people that you can get to read/watch your news presentation the more soap you sell for your sponsors. Meaning that they will focus on whatever subject they think will hold the attention of their audience.

Example: Some Boy Scout troop leaders are electrocuted in a bizarre accident at the National Jamboree. The news is catchy and gets the attention of the national wires. Extra cream? The troop leaders dies because they pitched their tent in a highly dangerous spot - kind of anti-Boy Scout training manual stuff in a big way.

The news catches people's attention and the news purveyors are instantly aware that it has. The next thing we see are follow up stories unrelated to the original incident but somehow milking the original incident about lost Boy Scouts and drowned Boy Scouts and Boy Scout this and Boy Scout that.

In my opinion the ABC 'script' reflected the Networks attempt to further milk what had already become a huge worldwide attention getter - essentially, "Did the Feds drop the ball in NOLA? - fueled by the general consensus that appears to say, "Yes, they did."

So... they want to talk and ask questions about 'Feds dropping the ball' in all its many flavors until the horse they're beating finally dies a natural death and yet one more bar of soap gets sold.

I would have considered it an expression of bias on the part of the ABC folks if the Federal response to the NOLA crisis had been the opposite of the lame, awful, sad expression of governmental dysfunction and incompetence that it truly was and they were using their soapbox to try and prove otherwise. What I see here instead is nothing more than business as usual – gotta give the public what it wants and no matter what happens keep selling that soap.

Snake~~~ Thinks news media, right wing, left wing or centrist, are ALL liars, whores and thieves.

pooltchr
09-27-2005, 06:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Storm Victims Reject ABC’s Script

Reporter Dean Reynolds: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”
<font color="red"> Better question: How did you feel about the response of the Federal Government? </font color> Hurricane victim Connie London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”
Reynolds: “And they weren’t?”
London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn’t. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”
Reynolds: “...Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that’s nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”
<font color="red"> Better question: What was your reaction to what he said?</font color> Hurricane victim Brenda Marshall: “No, I didn’t.”
Reynolds: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here....”
— Exchange with hurricane evacuees now living in a Houston shelter, during ABC’s coverage following the President’s speech from New Orleans, September 15.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wording of questions is often designed to get a specific response. It's an old trick the polsters have used for years. I guess it would be expecting too much to expect the news media to try and ask questions in an unbiased manner.
Steve

Fran Crimi
09-27-2005, 08:23 PM
Admissions of Liberal Bias

“There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous. That’s different from the media doing it’s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.”
— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.


“I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.”
— Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.


“I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.


“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.


Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”
— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.


“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.


“The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.”
— Newsweek’s chief political reporter, Howard Fineman, “The ‘Media Party’ is over: CBS’ downfall is just the tip of the iceberg,” January 11 , 2005.


“Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don’t drive pickup trucks, most of them don’t have guns, most of them don’t go to NASCAR, and every day we’re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.”
— ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry’s concession speech on November 3, 2004.


“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.


“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.


The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz: “You’ve said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as ‘young and dynamic and optimistic,’ that that’s worth maybe 15 points.”
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: “Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I’m not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don’t think it’s worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say.”
Kurtz: “Is it worth five points?”
Thomas: “Maybe, maybe.”
— Exchange on CNN’s Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004.


Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham: “The work of the evening, obviously, is to connect George W. Bush to the great war leaders of the modern era. You’re going to hear about Churchill projecting power against public opinion....”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “But Iraq was a popular cause when he first started it. It wasn’t like Churchill speaking against the Nazis.”
Meacham: “That’s not the way the Republican Party sees it. They think that all of us and the New York Times are against them.”
Matthews: “Well, they’re right about the New York Times, and they may be right about all of us.”
— Exchange shortly after 8:30pm EDT during MSNBC’s live convention coverage, August 30, 2004.


“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

eg8r
09-28-2005, 05:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if I fully agree with you here eg8r. I'm thinking that news broadcasts are all about selling soap just like they've always been. The more people that you can get to read/watch your news presentation the more soap you sell for your sponsors. Meaning that they will focus on whatever subject they think will hold the attention of their audience.
<hr /></blockquote> With that paragraph alone, you basically do agree with me. A nation would not be captivated by a news broadcast in which the guy is stating the Pres did everything perfect. However, many more will chime in when someone is on there badmouthing him.

I don't think your example works in this situation because I am referring to news with a political spin. The boy scouts did not.

A good example for you would have been one where the reporter is leading his questions in an effort to show Bush as the good guy. Good luck trying to find that.

eg8r

Qtec
09-28-2005, 07:10 PM
As usual, you are way off the mark! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Did it ever occur to you that if they were truly bias, they would have just cut that clip? They didnt have to show it.
Dont you think they could have found someone to criticize GW if they had really wanted to?
Doesnt the fact that they showed this clip actually show they are NOT bias?

I know, its a tricky one.

Q..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
09-29-2005, 04:41 AM
Wrong again. The majority of this country think Bush is doing a lousy job all around, and that the Federal Emergency response failed miserably.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
09-29-2005, 05:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that if they were truly bias, they would have just cut that clip? <hr /></blockquote> No it did not occur because that is a ridiculous statement. In this day and age, they don't run around gathering a bunch of clips and then choose what they want to show. For the most part they show what they have filmed (as long as something drastic does not happen). This incidence is clearly proof because it made the news guy look like an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
Dont you think they could have found someone to criticize GW if they had really wanted to?
<hr /></blockquote> No Q, you are the only bright light bulb. I think they thought they did find someone. If Gayle's rant were so true, then would not need to search anyone out, according to her everyone hates Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesnt the fact that they showed this clip actually show they are NOT bias?
<hr /></blockquote> Obviously you have missed the point. The fact that they showed this clip proves they had nothing else and bit the bullett. They are bias given the questions that were asked.

[ QUOTE ]
I know, its a tricky one. <hr /></blockquote> Thank goodness, now it is clear why you stumble over the easy stuff.

eg8r