Enron

[Thomas]

I would have choosen Dan Rather over Walter Cronkite.

Dan Rather played the side at the time which was winning the war,and thru out the years he use the back door more than once to his advantage.
Yes Walter Cronkite did tend to be a tad wishy washy,but he told you like it was.
Daivd Brinkley...he will tell you where the bear poops in the woods for sure. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[Bayrat]

By today's standards, most of the old TV icons were less /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif bias. Todays "reporters"/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif and talking heads are a side show for the left wing. But you have to put it all into perspective according to the times. Jack Kennedy offered and provided for tax cuts and defense spending. He was considered a liberal democrat at the time. In reality, I would compare him to the W. Bush of today. He did have a slightly seedy personal side but he was a good leader and certainly the better of the Kennedy's in politics. Unfortunately for us common folks, it is dollars and power that drive the news media today. I of all people give them that right to earn as much as they can, but don't help usurp the freedom of citizens doing it. Since they are granted the rights to use public airways, the real "news" should be just that. Say what happened and don't embellish upon it with your personal agenda. Balance the news, if you run a story showing a shooting with an "automatic weapon" (you know, the ones banned from the public in the 30's), also show how the person arrested for the crime was coddled by the judicial system in previous arrests and is probably out on probation for another armed robbery or murder and possesed the weapon illegally to begin with.

 

[Wingnut]

I'm staying out of this one just to prove I can .... but I will say that unbiased reporting would be extremely easy to recognize .... "just the facts, ma'am" ... haven't seen that in a great many years!

(Right)WingNut

 

[Chuck52]

Bayrat, I would agree with you that most of the mainline news anchors seem to be on the liberal side, which I find particularly irritating, because they also aren't very bright. They don't represent what you might characterize as <font color=blue>my</font color=blue> liberal attitudes/views very well. On the other hand, I think the balance of "talking heads" must work out better. At least I find myself really PO'd fairly often when they get going; i.e. judging by my blood pressure, there must be quite a few conservative talking heads out there. I remember thinking during some exchanges between a few of these folks that the conservative ones must go to some kind of school for talking heads that teaches them to never allow the liberal talking head they are debating to finish a sentence.

Chuck

 

[PitbullMidwest]

<font color=blue> (Right)WingNut </font color=blue>

/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[Chuck52]

<font color=blue>(Right)Wing Nut </font color=blue>

AH HA! One finally comes out!

Chuck

 

[Egon]

Somewhere I have read that western media is controlled/ owned by approximetly 10 groups.

Egon

 

[Thomas]

I agree about your view on news coverage!!
The top 4 tv stations I believe are worried about one thing..rateings..so maybe thats where the go be on whats needed.

 

[Bayrat]

/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gifFunny you should say that Chuck! That is my experience only in reverse. Again, perspective plays a big part here. I believe most people in the media and MANY in politics are just plain overbearing and obnoxious. It is a required major in reporting/debating school/w3tcompact/icons/clever.gif. My personal experience with them is limited to emergency scene reporting and corporate reps...in both cases the theory holds true. What has amazed me is they can be given specfic facts for a particular incident and when you watch it on the news or read it in the paper you honestly wonder /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif if they were at the same disaster as you. And I mean this happens <font color=red>every time</font color=red>.

 

[TerryinMD]

Bayrat,

There is a very simple reason for the "hows" of the reporting. It doesn't fit the adopted formula and the reporters views. As Thomas pointed out, ratings are one of the key factors for the "news" programs today.

Why do all of the national and local stations have to advertise their news programs with promos? Hint-hint.... /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif

Terry

 

[Chuck52]

Bayrat,
I've got a real good example of how the facts can go astray. My son is on the JFK, and my siblings let me know when they've heard anything about the ship. We're in the middle of some home remodeling, part of which will be the addition of a "home entertainment" area of some kind. Anyway, I've put off getting a dish, our only TV option, until we get all that settled. So, a couple weeks ago, I get a somewhat concerned call from my sister about the accident the JFK had. Seems it was reported on CNN (?) that the aircraft carrier had a collision with it's refueling ship and that several sailors had received burns. Then I got e-mail from my brother saying more-or-less the same thing. My boy had resisted getting e-mail for some reason, so we hadn't heard from him for a while. Finally he called, and was surprised I had even heard of the incident. Turns out there was no collision. They were refueling in high seas and had to do an "emergency" disengagement....apparently not all that uncommon. The burns were rope burns some of the sailors got while casting off lines.
More recently, my brother saw a report on the news with pictures of the JFK and some of the crew. The report said the JFK had been out longer than any other carrier. As it happens, I think what they meant was that the Roosevelt, which the JFK was late in relieving, had been out that long. Of course, it may be that my brother got this one wrong and the report was correct. Same thing, I guess, though he isn't paid to get it right!

Chuck

 

[Jugger]

cp1969,

Oh, about 14 years ago or so, George W's father and President Reagan both claimed senility or whatever, and failed to take responsibility for the arms that had been sold to Iran. I distinctly remember the good soldier Ollie North take much of the heat (although he did manage to survive intact).
Seems to me you speak in a hypocritical tone, one that is reminiscent of many conservo-republic evangelists who speak from the pulpit while they rob the congregation.
As for Clinton, he lied about an extra-marital affair, which was nobody's business. Lying = Wrong, yes. But Clinton is not the only alpha male president who has had a sleazy side ( either politically such as Nixon, Reagan, George W, or personally)
We should at least be honest "and take responsibility" for our political bias when commenting on anything other than tractors, sports and the opposite ***.

 

[Alan L.]

Whats the connection? A company contributes to politicians. Company misleads investors with bad accounting. Company executive shoots self. What does any one of the politicians have to do with The Company? Did they cause it go go broke. Did they recommend the bad accounting? I don't quite get it.

 

[Alan L.]

Reaganomics caused a real estate decline in the mid to late 80s, but is the underlying cause for the many years of economic growth thereafter.

 

[TerryinMD]

Alan, Alan, Alan....

You need to fast forward a few years.... President Carter had a bigger negative effect on the economy than President Reagan. Don't you remember the home interest rates being in the teens.... horrible!!

An administration (past, current, or future) is either blamed for a terrible economy or takes credit for a booming economy or recovery. Just the way it is. It's all smoke and mirrors. All should have credit and all should take blame.

Terry

 

[Chuck52]

Terry, Terry, Terry,......no wait! I agree. Darn.

Chuck

 

[Bayrat]

Jugger,

I beleive my political "bias" is quite obvious, I want government out of my life. As far as Clinton's only indescretion being an extra-marital affair, that is absurd. I wouldn't particularly care about that. It is the perjury and deceit and treasonous acts that bother me. Referring to me as a hypocrite /w3tcompact/icons/mad.gif, I would expect that type of comment from a liberal.

 

[StoneHeartFarm]

Re: Enron and California

The other day I read that Enron, through it's power company subsidiaries, is suspected of causing California's power problems last year. Or at least, with making them worse to increase profits. Also, on Geek.com there was an article stating that Enron was a major player in RAM memory and was working to shift prices favorably. (Favorably for Enron, that is.) Anybody else pick up on any of this and think about the implications?

SHF

 

[bgott]

Re: Enron and California

California caused California's power problems. You have to remember, California is liberal and like liberals everywhere, t'ain't never their fault!

 

[Bayrat]

Re: Enron and California

SHF,

I am heavily involved in the utility business, including being as up to date on de-regulation in the US as I can be. The utility business in California was de-regulated by the state gov't under the guise of lower rates for customers, it being a monopoly. In their infinite wisdom, state legislators insisted the utilitities SELL /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif their power generators to independents, so as not to give them an "advantage" when competetion began. The state also froze the rates, so that no matter what it cost to purchase electric, the utility could charge only what the state says. Result...the owners of the generation {ENRON may have been involved, would have to look that up} sold to the highest bidders and drove the price of the wholesale electric up. Now the utility is selling electric for less than it pays for it, and soon goes bankrupt. Also, there were brown-outs mandated because the electric is in short supply. Not only that, the envoirnmentalists in California had pressured politicians not to allow the construction of any new power plants in that state for a number of years. Our tax dollars bailed the state out for now. The California legislature had to step in and save the utilities by allowing rates to raise with supply costs, pretty simple economics. I could go on...just glad they crashed before NY did the same thing!!