Proof that the press is NOT sympathetic to

Liberals or Democrats

Clinton officials rip ABC’s ‘The Path to 9/11’.

If the “liberal” press were truly sympathetic to liberals then this “dramatization” would have shown a bias toward’s Clinton et at. But it didn’t do that, it did the opposite, i.e., it made up stories trying to create a false impression that Clinton wasn’t dealing with terrorism effectively, when we know the opposite was true.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger."

Now why would Limbaugh get an advanced copy of this? Could it be that the media is now owned & controlled by right-wing organizations that favor right-wing media? I think so.

And why would ABC be releasing this “show” now? Geezz - could it have something to do with the elections in several months? I think so.

There is clear proof that the media is run by the right-wing now, and it has been for quite sometime. Slowly but surely they’ve gotten rid of all the reporters who dared question the government, like Dan Rather. Very few media people dare question the government any more because if they do, they know that will be attacked on all fronts.

We live in dangerous times.

The story you posted looks to be a sympathetic mouthpiece for the left. Where was the right-wing opinion represented in the story?? Plus, how do we know that IFP Clinton’s allegations are true that the advance copies were not sent to liberal reviewers??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 07 2006,11:44)
And why would ABC be releasing this "show" now?

ummmmm...because it's Sept, five years on....perhaps?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Where was the right-wing opinion represented in the story??

The right-wing opinions are the distortions portrayed in the film about what really happened during the Clinton administration.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Plus, how do we know that IFP Clinton’s allegations are true that the advance copies were not sent to liberal reviewers??

Well they didn’t send one to Franken/Air America. That’s proof enough for me.

Richard Clarke, who now works for ABC, says that the “docudrama” is not accurate.

From what I can tell from what people who have seen the film have said, it misportrays things that happened under both presidents. No surprise. It’s a work of fiction, after all.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 07 2006,12:55)

The right-wing opinions are the distortions portrayed in the film about what really happened during the Clinton administration.

Perhaps, but where is the right-wing being represented in the news story?? Further, following your logic, why would a right-leaning media bother to publish the complaints of a former liberal president in the first place??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 07 2006,12:55)

Well they didn’t send one to Franken/Air America. That’s proof enough for me.

How do you know this to be true?? Do you have access to Franken’s mailbox??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 07 2006,12:55)
Richard Clarke, who now works for ABC, says that the “docudrama” is not accurate.

Quote or link??

From the MSNBC story…
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."

ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate.

Letters of protest
Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative, told Frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates "the frequent opportunities the administration had in the '90s to stop bin Laden in his tracks – but lacked the will to do so.“


Yes, the screenwriter may be impartial, but by association probably is far from it.

Let’s backtrack a little…
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws (Thansk to KF for this, from another thread.)

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Further, following your logic, why would a right-leaning media bother to publish the complaints of a former liberal president in the first place??

Did they? Please post a link. The press has to play the “be fair” game to an extent, otherwise they would be attacked by both sides. The press has the real power by the stories that they pay attention to, and what they report. Bias as you well know, is a tricky thing to spot sometimes (although you claim to be an expert at it - correct?).

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
How do you know this to be true?? Do you have access to Franken’s mailbox??

No but I listen to his show.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Quote or link??


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
In a posting on ThinkProgress.org this week, Clarke disputed another scene that had Clinton officials refusing to give the go-ahead to American agents in Afghanistan who were in position to capture Osama bin Laden - then abruptly hanging up the phone on them.

It’s a shocking occurrence. Presumably Clarke, now an ABC News consultant, will have a chance to reiterate his argument that it never happened when he appears Monday on ABC News’ “9/11/06: Where Things Stand.”