To ABC's surprise, Katrina victims praise Bush and blame Nagin
So, we see once again blatant media bias on ABC. I'm just so sick of this crap, but obviously things will never change. This type of crap is exactly the reason all these news channels are getting their asses kicked in ratings by Fox News. By the way, did you know that the O'Reilly factor holds 4 of the top 12 spots in the cable ratings for last week? Ha! None of the other news networks even have one spot in the top 20!!!!!!!
Anyways, following is an article from newsbusters.org. For the whole story and complete transcript of the ABC coverage, including video, click here.
By the way, Bush's speech was phenomenal. Definitely one of his best speeches ever. See the entire speech here.
To ABC's Surprise, Katrina Victims Praise Bush and Blame Nagin
Posted by Brent Baker on September 16, 2005 - 00:50.
ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials. Reynolds asked Connie London: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" She rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in.” She pointed out: “They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."
Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "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?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here.”
Reynolds pressed another woman: “Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."
posted by David @ 6:55 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
its funny that you would praise fox news and all, see as how numerous studies have been done that show that people who watch fox news on a regular basis are the LEAST likely to be able to correctly answer questions about current events, jokes on you
Well I guess then there's a lot of people in my same boat, because fox news is kicking the crap out of the other news networks in ratings, so...maybe the jokes on you....
I guess having the highest ratings for a news show in a country that barely has one third of the population voting and 95% can't name the leaders of our bordering countries is something to be proud of. Someone has to misinform all those people and god bless Fox news for being there to do it. At least when they're not doing real investigative journalism, like combing the beaches of aruba for one lost rich white girl.
Haha, and clearly fox news is to blame for all of this. LOL. Do you think those numbers have changed since fox news has come into "power." Hell no....its just like you damn lefties to criticize everything that doesnt go your way. It's clear the country (generally speaking of course) is sick and tired of the left wing liberal bullshit that the jokes of news networks like cnn and msnbc put out there...not to mention NY times, LA times, etc etc etc....
How about your party wins a damn election, then maybe ill take you seriously....
Who in the hell cares about canada anyways.
you know when you start talking about the "left wing liberal bullshit" from media outlets that have been shown to play more positive bush coverage than positive kerry/gore coverage, you sound pretty ignorant, just cuz your hypnotizers at fox news have you believing that there is a bias doesn't make it exist. The only thing that I know about the country(generally speaking of course) is that they approve of bush at a whopping 40%, having him lose an election to every president since jimmy carter. I guess when 1,000,000 more people slip below the poverty level in the last year, the federal govt bungles disaster relief, white house officials leak CIA agent names as part of partisan politics, all while a baseless war seeks to push a third world country to the brink of civil war, theres a lot of reasons why one might think that the media is leftist when it reports the facts
ps... bush, de lay and the rest of the GOP are election stealing frauds, the last elections was rigged with too many registration scams to count and we all know how the fenagled flordia away in 2000, but I know you are going to dismiss that cuz fox news doesn't report it. Its sad when a country loses the legitimacy of its elections in exchange for freedom fries and mini american flags that you can hang from your car windows
Haha, you are soooooo misguided. It's just interesting how you dont know the facts. The facts are: bush won the first count, bush won the first recount, bush's lawyers were continually denied their appeal to stop the recounts, so the recounts went on and on and on and on, and bush won, again and again and again and again, until finally over a month later the supreme court ordered a stop to all recounts.
Oh, and by the way, Kerry got his ass whooped last year...and if the damn liberals would have put up a halfway (just halfway) descent candidate, he/she probably would have won....seeing as how bush was apparently such a shitty president. Bottom line, the liberals have been getting their asses handed to them in the last five years, and will continue to do so until they change their ways. But, hey congrats for your kerry vote, at least you know where it went, right down the shitter.
first of, people like to claim bush one all the recounts, but as the washington post reports "Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots" see the thing is, the restricted recounts went to bush, true, but when the rejected ballots were factored in, ones where it was clear the intent of the voter, or ones that were denied through a voting error, gore was found to have enough for a slim margin of victory(almost 200 votes). And thats even before you consider the illegal butterfly ballots that caused so many problems in elderly jewish neighborhoods, or all the shadiness regarding Jeb and Katherine Harris' involement. So how about that as a universally accepted fact that you don't know, so who's misguided?!?!?!? by the way, the 2004 election was so rife with republican voter fraud that went completley unpunished, whether it was GOP groups that ripped up democratic voter registrations, or the governor of Ohio(the 2004 florida) demanding new registrations be on 11 pt. paper(might as well have been postcards) or the fact that throughout ohio conservative communities were walk in and walk out voting, while the heavily democratic population centers had lines around the corner due to lack of voting machines and vote workers. Don't try to deny the existance of voter fraud in these elections, especially when it is actually YOU who doesn't know the facts, your boy steals elections, face it.
Once, again, clearly misguided comments....did you actually know that reports of democratic voter fraud were much more prominent after the election than republican voting fraud? Hmmm, consider that one. Also I think its funny that for your source of information you use one single (from the washington post for that matter) newspaper headline. Personally, I find it laughable that you choose to use a headline instead of the actual text (aka, the facts). I also find it laughable that in that very title it says MIGHT. Hahah....but nice try.
Also, notice the fact that you said conservative communities, and heavily democratic population centers. Ok, quick lesson....when there are more people in an area to vote, there are typically longer lines, got it? I would also like you to give me 150,000 instances (the number of votes bush won by) in which democratic voters where either turned away or left because the line was "too long" I'm sorry, but you just wont be able to find that....so dont give me this voter fraud bullshit.
Also, please learn your grammar....when you are talking about someone "winning" the proper past tense of that is "won"....not one. One is how you say the number 1, got it? good.
yeah, first of all the voter fraud thing, you are waayyyyyy off. voter fraud was wayyyyyyy more prominent among republicans that democrats, not to mention voter REGISTRATION scams, which were done not only by republican motivated private groups, but also done by people in power to avoid a fair lead up to the election. From the morals and values party no less. And there is nothing more un-democratic than using the excuse that since there are more people in large cities it is reasonable for the lines to be unreasonably long. A functional and fair election is paramount, without it there is no legitimacy in our leaders, and it is unbelievable that we would hold an election without competancy. No one should have to wait in line for over an hour (which a lot of people did) to vote when most people aren't even allowed that much time away from work. And since you haven't quoted a source, don't insult mine. Especially since it comes from one of the most reputable print sources in this country. By the way, if you wanted to see what the story said, you know check the facts you could've looked it up. I Gave you the headline, its not hard.
ps. if you really want to know how your beloved fox(aka your idea of a reputable news source) works from within why don't you see what an ex-worker would say. or don't you wouldn't acknowledge it either way.
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/02/column.1002-SH-A3_CMK35541.sto
oh and bush's new approval rating is 37%
To call the Washington post one of the most reputable print sources is laughable. Let me guess, its right there behind the NY times? haha.
I also think its quite funny that you give me an article about a guy who currently works for MSNBC. Give me a break, if thats not an unbiased source for your information then nothing is.
And about the poll numbers...before the election last year his numbers were around 45%. In every other election since 1950, presidents under 50% have lost....hmmm, how'd that election work out for ya last year?
actually his numbers were 47% before the election, and if anything that just goes to show that the election was probably(as it was) fraudulent, but I digress. And you know, you can't just call a news source biased and just leave it at that. I gave you an article involving an ex-insider at fox news saying exactally what everyone else says about them and all you can say is, "MSNBC" Biased. thats bullshit. Fox news has been proven to be one of the least informative news sources (see pew research center surveys) and has been non-stop criticized for providing the most biased right wing pandering while having a news wing that was set up and run by a GOP insider. Not to mention their number one show features a staunch conservative (hannity) exchanging blows with a self described moderate (colmes) while passing itself off as a fast trigger left vs right show. You know you like to laugh about the post and the times, but their reputation is sterling compared to the crap fox news puts its name on.
Actually, kerrys numbers were consistently lower than bushes, but thats ok, continue to whine and bitch about how he "stole" the election. Whiners do just that while winners pick up the pieces and focus on next time....
And you call chris matthews an unbiased moderate? haha, riiiiiiiight.....
please as if chris matthews hasn't berated his fair share of liberals. You have no concept of the actual slants of the media. And that whole winners thing is bullshit. I guess in your opinion, whinners puropsefully attempt to degrade the democracy of our elections.
Actually, its not bullshit. Oh and by the way, in a recent poll, only 32% of people approve of the job the democrats are doing in congress. Faaaaaaaaaaar below bush's numbers.
guess what!!!!!! republicans had the same rating 32%!!!! and their disapproval was 4 points higher!!! and comparing congress to the president is pretty stupid. Approval ratings for congress are rarely over 50% whereas presidents almost always have an approval rating over 50%. So either you are too dumb to know this, or you are trying to quote a poll and misrepresenting what the numbers actually mean. Being that you are GOP through and through, I'll guess the latter.
Actually, I didnt know that, but thank you for informing me. Theres no doubt in my mind that the reps numbers are that low mostly because of the delay ordeal, but thats another story. The point though is this...if bush really is as bad as some people make him out to be, the opinion of the democrats SHOULD be going up. However, this is not the case, which means that the dems really have no plan and dont do anything for this country
just because bush goes down doesn't mean dems go up. The country is in a shitty state right now, so for the most part, people are gonna have a negative opinion of the way things are being handled.
Thats interesting because everyone uses bush's poll numbers to say he's doing an awful job, but then when the democrats have numbers just as bad its "well the countrys in a bad place right now" Bottom line is that if the reps are so bad, the dems should be able to easily step in and gain popularity
thats a stupid assumption. Did the reps get any kind of boost when clinton had a lull in approval during the lewinsky scandal? No, actually their numbers went down.
Post a Comment
<< Home