It goes without saying that few people in America are aware that a former head of the ACLU in Virginia was arrested last week and charged with possession of child pornography.
Why might that be?
Well, America’s media chose not to report it, and according to Bill O’Reilly, it’s because “journalism in this country is at a low point.”
*****Update: video available here.
On Monday, the host of Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor” took issue with this tremendous double standard concerning obvious omissions in reporting by the press when stories go counter to their prescribed liberal agenda. O’Reilly began:
Covering the news the left wing way, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." On Friday, we reported that 51-year-old Charles Rust-Tierney, an attorney and former head of the ACLU in Virginia, was arrested and charged in federal court with possessing child pornography. Agents found videos in his home of little girls being violently raped by adults.
We said we'd report back to you today on which news organizations covered the story and which did not. The two biggest left-wing outfits in the country, "The New York Times" and NBC News, ignored the story entirely. CBS News, CNN, and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest. ABCnews.com and the Associated Press did cover. And because it happened in their backyard, "The Washington Post" ran a brief story in its second section, essentially burying the entire thing.
O’Reilly continued:
Now the failure of most media outlets to cover this colossal embarrassment to the ACLU contrasts vividly with the coverage of preacher Ted Haggard, which embarrassed conservative Christians. You remember when Haggard was accused of immortality by a male prostitute, the story was all over the place.
"Talking Points" is not surprised that NBC News and "The New York Times," who's motto is "all the news that's fit to print" ignored the child porn bust. These news agencies are no longer objective. They exist to push secular progressive agendas and disparage traditional points of view. We proved that over and over again.
And continued:
This is yet more proof that the American press is corrupt. And it pains me to say it. But journalism in this country is at a low point. And it comes right before one of the most important presidential elections in history.
Much of the mainstream media now invested in promoting ideology at the expense of providing honest information. The folks are being short changed.
O’Reilly ended with a fabulous crescendo:
We in the press have been granted special privileges by the Constitution. Those privileges are now being abused by corrupt editors and TV executives.
If "The New York Times" and NBC News can explain why they didn't cover the ACLU debacle, I'd like to hear it. If not, all Americans should turn away from them.
I couldn’t agree more, Bill. What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
Covering the news the left wing way, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." On Friday, we reported that 51-year-old Charles Rust-Tierney, an attorney and former head of the ACLU in Virginia, was arrested and charged in federal court with possessing child pornography. Agents found videos in his home of little girls being violently raped by adults.
We said we'd report back to you today on which news organizations covered the story and which did not. The two biggest left-wing outfits in the country, "The New York Times" and NBC News, ignored the story entirely. CBS News, CNN, and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest. ABCnews.com and the Associated Press did cover. And because it happened in their backyard, "The Washington Post" ran a brief story in its second section, essentially burying the entire thing.
Now the failure of most media outlets to cover this colossal embarrassment to the ACLU contrasts vividly with the coverage of preacher Ted Haggard, which embarrassed conservative Christians. You remember when Haggard was accused of immortality by a male prostitute, the story was all over the place.
"Talking Points" is not surprised that NBC News and "The New York Times," who's motto is "all the news that's fit to print" ignored the child porn bust. These news agencies are no longer objective. They exist to push secular progressive agendas and disparage traditional points of view. We proved that over and over again.
When NBC News analyst William Arkin called U.S. forces mercenaries, elements over there actually supported Arkin. And to this day, NBC News has not condemned Arkin's remarks, although parent company General Electric did condemn that.
The same thing happened when John Edwards refused to fire two anti- Christian bloggers he had hired to work on his campaign. NBC News didn't cover it, nor did CBS or ABC.
In fact, Edwards appeared on "The Today Show" shortly after his bloggers were forced to quit. He wasn't even asked about it.
This is yet more proof that the American press is corrupt. And it pains me to say it. But journalism in this country is at a low point. And it comes right before one of the most important presidential elections in history.
Much of the mainstream media now invested in promoting ideology at the expense of providing honest information. The folks are being short changed.
We in the press have been granted special privileges by the Constitution. Those privileges are now being abused by corrupt editors and TV executives.
If "The New York Times" and NBC News can explain why they didn't cover the ACLU debacle, I'd like to hear it. If not, all Americans should turn away from them. And that's the "Memo."
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Comments Policy
Beyond a Doubt
February 27, 2007 - 18:46 ET by allanfWe could go on and on. No stories about O'Bama's Muslim roots. Lot's of stories about Romney's Mormon roots. No stories about Harry Reid.
Yet members of the liberal "Intolorantgensia" continue to maintain there is no liberal bias.
For sure we could go on and o
February 27, 2007 - 19:00 ET by HumanEventsFor sure we could go on and on. Substitute the NRA for ACLU and suddenly the MSM would deem the child porn story "fit" to print.
The United Nations? Oh we have to make them look good so therefore we'll ignore the oil for food scandal.
Bill Clinton? Ditto. So we'll give a total pass on Juanitta Broddarick's rape allegation. (But if a woman ever claimed Bush raped her? Headline news forever, regardless of if her claim smacks of legitimacy or fraud. Because the template for Bush is the opposite of the ACLU, Clinton, and UN templates - the MSM want to make Bush look bad).
And since we're on the topic,
February 27, 2007 - 21:04 ET by GregEAnd since we're on the topic, how much press did the Utah mall shooting get? Alot. How much did you hear mention that he was Muslim?
What if he were a professed Christian? Plaster that info all over the place boy!
Darn right, Greg. And how abo
February 27, 2007 - 21:25 ET by HumanEventsDarn right, Greg. And how about when Matthew Shepard, a homosexual, was brutally beaten and murdered. This sickening crime was HUGE msm news, and rightly so. But.... how did the msm react to the equally horrific murder of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising by two homosexual men who tortured and raped him first? Like this -> zzzzzzzzzzz!
Clearly the former was BIG news because a homosexual was the victim and the latter was no big deal because the homosexuals were the killers.
2 innocent people's lives were brutally taken in both cases. How sick of the liberal media to politicize them for their own pro homosexuality agenda.
oreilly
February 27, 2007 - 18:51 ET by ZmeademanThat was a great TPM.He also had Michele Malkin on the program , with Kieran Gentry? Whom didnt believe this was a concern because said defendant was not elected or in control of a large flock of church goers.
Not in charge of a flock?!?
February 28, 2007 - 10:19 ET by The Wicked ConservativeWho are they kidding? This abomination is a high priest in the church of liberalism. This guys perversion sheds some pretty clear light on why the ACLU takes up the cases it does.
Anti Christian Lawyer Union: No wonder they hate Christianity and our narrow minded views on child rape. Typically I try not to take any joy in knowing someone is going to hell, but in your case Charles I'll make an exception.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
Gee, thanks, Bill. O'Reilly
February 27, 2007 - 18:53 ET by balboaGee, thanks, Bill.
O'Reilly as a pundit is just as unproductive as bad reporters are as journalists.
Unproductive? I doubt that'
February 27, 2007 - 19:09 ET by mattmUnproductive? I doubt that's the word you wanted.
As for the content of this particular commentary, O'Reilly is dead on. Unless you can explain how the ommission of the ACLU child porn story by the NYT and NBC is not a blatant example of Liberal media bias and just plain bad or non-existent journalism, especially when you contrast it with the stories they do cover and the extent to which they exaggerate them.
Maybe unproductive isn't th
February 27, 2007 - 19:14 ET by balboaMaybe unproductive isn't the word. I don't think O'Reilly's show serves much purpose other than to give him a chance to yammer on about how he's right about everything.
I can't explain the omission. I admit the press has flaws. But Bill is not in some ivory tower of journalistic perfection.
I'm not a big O'Reilly guy my
February 27, 2007 - 19:22 ET by mattmI'm not a big O'Reilly guy myself, but the mainstream media is far more than just flawed, and this story is a monumental example of that fact, regardless of who is pointing it out.
Well, then, that makes the no
February 27, 2007 - 19:22 ET by Chris NormanWell, then, that makes the non-coverage all right. See, by turning the subject around, Balboa makes it go away. He's a magician!
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Um, Chris....What subject?
February 27, 2007 - 19:25 ET by BlondeUm, Chris....
What subject?
I never said it was all rig
February 27, 2007 - 19:26 ET by balboaI never said it was all right, did I?
As of 6 PM Eastern Time Tuesd
February 27, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Del DolemonteAs of 6 PM Eastern Time Tuesday, a Google News search still has more stories about Gore's Oscar than they have about the attempted bombing of Cheney. Yet they have less than 20 stories about the ACLU guy. That's definitely spiking the story.
You Can't Explain The Ommision?
February 27, 2007 - 19:28 ET by emjem24Bal...
I'm very disappointed about your recent comments. Do you or don't you think that there is media bias? What would be your take on Olbermann then? Do you not think he is not worth much either if your assessment (of what value it truly is) of Bill is that of a pundit? Wouldn't that also qualify for Chris Matthews, Russert, Jack Cafferty, et. al?
Yes, Bill doesn't live in an ivory tower. Neither do you or I. What's your point? I would like someone besides Bill or Hannity or Limbaugh to stick up for the military and give a damn about me, a military spouse. I don't see that you give a flying leap about the bias, the disdain, the utter hatred that is the MSM. All you care about is that they have "flaws."
Why do you bother posting here? Why do you defend the MSM? Why do you even care? You, like most of the ignorant American people, only see what's in the mirror in the morning and that's about it.
Spare me your whole attitude because it isn't worth 2 cents...
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
My point is that I have a har
February 27, 2007 - 20:05 ET by balboaMy point is that I have a hard time listening to Bill O'Reilly talk about the state of journalism, even if he's right. It's like listening to Rob Schneider complain about the poor quality of movies.
Actually, Bal,Listening to BO
February 27, 2007 - 20:11 ET by BlondeActually, Bal,
Listening to BOR decry the current state of the media is perfect. Particularly if you think of his media "opposite"....the one whom BOR won't name....
If Keith Olbermann is to be considered part of the "media"....BOR has nailed it, square on the head.
Sorry if you don't like it....why don't you just go back to watching your girlfriend, the ever-perky and oh-so-insignificant K. Couric? She of the sinking ratings.
Sorry, I get my news from the
February 27, 2007 - 20:15 ET by balboaSorry, I get my news from the Daily Show, remember?
Dumped your girlfriend, huh?
February 27, 2007 - 20:20 ET by BlondeDumped your girlfriend, huh?
Eh, she's getting crabby late
February 27, 2007 - 20:24 ET by balboaEh, she's getting crabby lately. Something about "ratings," blah blah blah...
You Don't Have The Answers Bal
February 27, 2007 - 20:22 ET by emjem24It's more likely you have a hard time diverting your attention from the MSM. Have you ever seen him? I've also noticed you haven't answered my questions. They were far from rhetorical.
It's strange how you think you're a judge of "journalism" but you can't answer simple questions about "journalism." As usual, your response is typical. You offer nothing to the dialogue except that journalism has "flaws" and BOR isn't to be believed. Give me a break. You really are a credit to libs everywhere. No substance, no answers.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Here's your break: Do you o
February 27, 2007 - 20:29 ET by balboaHere's your break:
Do you or don't you think that there is media bias? I do.
What would be your take on Olbermann then? He's the liberal version of BOR.
Do you not think he is not worth much either if your assessment (of what value it truly is) of Bill is that of a pundit? Not much. He's a bit of a windbag, like BOR.
Wouldn't that also qualify for Chris Matthews, Russert, Jack Cafferty, et. al? That qualifies nearly every pundit on earth.
Yes, Bill doesn't live in an ivory tower. Neither do you or I. What's your point? Answered earlier.
I don't see that you give a flying leap about the bias, the disdain, the utter hatred that is the MSM. All you care about is that they have "flaws." Is that a question?
Why do you bother posting here? Because I like to feel closer to you.
Why do you defend the MSM? Because I don't think it's nearly the trainwreck / antichrist that some make it out to be.
Why do you even care? I like debate.
You, like most of the ignorant American people, only see what's in the mirror in the morning and that's about it. Hardly. I came to this site to understand the right more. I've learned more here than I could have bargained for. It's been a great experience.
Why do you defend the MSM? Be
February 28, 2007 - 01:52 ET by Chicago RepublicanWhy do you defend the MSM? Because I don't think it's nearly the trainwreck / antichrist that some make it out to be.
Again, Bal my friend, I disagree. I'm sure you are not surprised.
The most important thing (I say this with clinched teeth) to preserving a free and open society, on that is TRULY progressive, is the diligent work of a free media, one that, irrespective of party affiliation, seeks to expose injustice on every level. We have that to some extent. The MSM (Useful Idiots that I refer to them as) of this country, with this charge, have for the MOST part no interest in exposing the injustice and hypocrisy of the Democrats. They often bury good news as it relates to the decisions that Republicans make, overplay successful decisions of Democrats. Need proof? Harry Reid's land deals and the Limbaugh story I tell on this thread. But, let a Republican pay a speeding ticket late and the wrath of hell fire rains down. That's why this site is here.
You, like most of the ignorant American people, only see what's in the mirror in the morning and that's about it. Hardly. I came to this site to understand the right more. I've learned more here than I could have bargained for. It's been a great experience.
Hopefully, Bal, you will learn that the things that your Democrat buddies have said about us are completely false. But, if you only get your info from pop culture and the Useful Idiots, I'm not holding my breath.
That being said, my friend, you are in my opinion the most graceful Democrat on this site. Keep participating, we'll have you voting for Rudy before you know it.
**************
Support the Spread of Open Society and Capitalism around the World. Do it for the Children.
Thank You But You're Still Full Of Hogwash
February 28, 2007 - 10:27 ET by emjem24You know, while I thank you for your "attempt" at answering my questions I had to laugh at one of your comments. The comment:" Because I don't think it's nearly the trainwreck/antichrist that some make it out to be. So, I guess you think that the MSM coverage of the war and the military hasn't been a "trainwreck?" This military wife and the military in general would disagree with you.
When you say stuff like you did in your last comment, you don't come off sounding anything but somebody who is a reflection of media bias. I have some huge problems with the Republican party and Pres. Bush as others do but you and other libs tend to want to portray NBers as in lockstep with them
BTW, you've learned more about "us" and more than you bargained for. If that is your way of saying that you truly understand media bias, conservatives, or somebody like me, try try again. You came off sounding condescending (which most liberals I've dealt with my entire life have treated me). Liberals misunderestimate people A LOT. Especially conservatives. I think you're one of those people. You've learned jack about conservatives as evidenced in your posts. If you think you've learned anything, you've only scratched the surface.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
IMO, O'Reilly comes off as
February 27, 2007 - 19:35 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIMO, O'Reilly comes off as pompous and full of himself. I disagree with some of his arguments--he takes up the "there oughtta be a law..." side of an issue too much. However, on the ACLU story he is correct.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean Gene,BOR is occasionally
February 27, 2007 - 19:38 ET by BlondeMean Gene,
BOR is occasionally amusing.
I like how he lets his cogent guests (even if they're whacked leftists) carry on, as long as they have a point of some sort. Anyone who spews talking points gets cut off rudely, which is kind of cool.
I have to admire O'Reilly on his big push with Jessica's law, as well hounding the horrible judges around the country.
Don't get me wrong...I'm no huge fan, but BOR is his own brand....good for him!
I do watch him if I happen
February 27, 2007 - 19:44 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI do watch him if I happen across FOXNews when he's on but, there are times when he starts travelling down the populist trail which is dangerously close to socialism, and I just can't stand for that.
He does make some great points and voices them well. I too find him occasionally amusing.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
I agree with a lot of both of
February 27, 2007 - 19:56 ET by HumanEventsI agree with a lot of both of your sentiments on O'Reilly. I think he is right on target with a good portion of things. Other things I disagree with him on, and even cringe. But the appealing thing about him is he is his own man, speaking his own "no spin" mind.
Similarly, with talk show hosts such as Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, and the former host Bob Grant. I agree the big majority of the time with these guys (and more often than I do with O'Reilly). But even when I disagree, at least they are totally being themselves and telling it exactly as they see it.
And that's something we see so little of in today's MSM, Democrat Party, and even Republican Party (What a novel idea - a politician speaking his honest mind and heart!).
HE,Exactly.The little lib tro
February 27, 2007 - 20:23 ET by BlondeHE,
Exactly.
The little lib trolls here all believe we are in love with BOR and Fox News.
Hardly.
We conservatives seek out numerous sources of news and information.
I must congratulate BOR, though, on carving out his own niche. Just like Rush Limbaugh has done. That is what I find the most impressive. Not that I agree with all of their opinions....but the fact that they've both managed to stake out an important slice of the discussion is impressive, IMO.
Flaxen Hair - don't forget th
February 27, 2007 - 20:31 ET by FastEdFlaxen Hair - don't forget that they will say what is wrong with something - getting the abuse from thsoe who they are supposed to be preaching. When was the last time anyone here remembers hearing anything positive from the msm (Lsm) with regard to the president. I guess it has to do with the agenda driven "ideals" that the losing media hold.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I Agree HumanEvents
February 27, 2007 - 20:34 ET by emjem24While I don't agree with BOR on certain things like having the National Guard at the border, I agree with his take on bankrupt journalism, Jessica's Law, and corrupt judges. This is why he's the ratings king and the Odd Man Out of PMSNBC will only ever be a hapless hat boy.
I think certain members on this blog are a bit overly critical of Bill. Yes, he can be overbearing, confrontational, and rude. However, when you're dealing with the freak show that is the liberal media, DNC, anti-war idiocy, et. al., you need to have a pair (if you know what I mean).
We need more journalists (and that's what he is not a pundit) like Bill. Would we have heard about VA's ACLU's former president who turned out to be a porn deviant wacko?
We do need this independent thought more in politics. Sometimes, I do feel that Bill is a giant fence sitter (as most independents seem to be...look who they voted in in 2006). He's a powerful voice for an America that used to exist. He exposes the freaks, the deviants, the people doing wrong that should know better, pretty much the people who are destroying the US from within.
Who'd ya rather have, BOR or Odd Man Out taking on what's wrong with journalism?
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
On BOR
February 28, 2007 - 08:22 ET by UnsaneI take issue with BOR's understanding of economics (in regards to his crying about oil companies' "price gouging").
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I Don't Know What To Think Of The Oil Industry
February 28, 2007 - 10:43 ET by emjem24Unsane...
You have a point here...I did say I didn't agree with everything BOR says. However, I do think that sometimes the gigantic profits from oil companies don't always filter down to the consumer (which I think is unfair). I think it's outright speculation that's controlling the price of oil. It's a shame when traders think more of playing games with the market (like George Soros) then actually making money the honest way.
I think Bill was mad as hell about this and sometimes he flies off the handle...he doesn't like the little guy like you and me to suffer. I think that's why he takes way too much upon himself on his show. I wonder what his blood pressure and cholesterol are like (LOL). He's a crusader and I like that...even if he's wrong on an array of issues.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
emjem24,Our federal and sta
February 28, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Loveemjem24,
Our federal and state governments make more "profit" on oil and gasoline sales than the oil companies do from the taxes they levy against all oil/gasoline sales. Between fed and state taxes in some states the government makes over $.60 per gallon, while oil companies make profits of around $.11 per gallon. Where's the outrage over that? Gasoline is so "expensive" in the U.S. (BTW still cheaper than the rest of the world) because of the government's greed.
I don't care how much profit the oil companies make, because it always filters down to the consumers. Oil companies make "huge profits" because of the sheer volumes of the goods they sell. We need their product and we use their product. You voluntarily pay for the product, if you think the price isn't worth it your free to not purchase their product. I never care how much profit someone is making off of my voluntary purchases because by purchasing the product I have basically agreed that the price was worth it.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
I Give Mean Gene
February 28, 2007 - 12:12 ET by emjem24Mean Gene,
I'm not against the oil industry. I say let's have more refineries, and more drilling ANWAR, the Gulf , and CA. If we did that, we wouldn't be putting money in the terrorists or Saudi hands.
We're taxed on everything since the feds no longer get as much of our income taxes. I'm not saying gas is expensive...I know it's extremely expensive in Europe because they regulate everything...they tax everything too. They also use diesel which may be more environmentally friendly but is much more expensive. I'm glad I'm paying what I'm paying. I'm sorry if I didn't mention it.
I mainly blame the volatility of the oil industry on its speculators. I think if we built more refineries and didn't depend so much on foreign oil the oil would be even cheaper (just my opinion not fact here)
I see where you're going but I"m no environmental weenie or apologist. The environmentalists have made it more difficult for all of us in the US to have even more affordable gas. Until politicans stop pandering to the Sierra Club and their other fellow environmental activists, we'll get no where in fixing the volatility of the industry. I've never said there's anything wrong with the oil industry but that I wish somebody would look into why it's so volatile with all the speculation that goes on. I'm a big skeptic about any industry that makes that kind of money when you really don't know where those profits go. I'm also a big skeptic of why the federal/state governments are taxing every thing we purchase. We're just getting hosed every time we buy anything like gas or shoes.
Speaking of shoes...I know I'm getting taxed on my cute Enzo's and it infuriates me. They're Italian too..they're already expensive why do you have to tax me some more?
Your point was well-taken, Mean Gene. Thanks for that perspective 'cause I didn't think of that.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
emjem24, Soros, FYI, is a currency trader.
February 28, 2007 - 12:01 ET by acaiguanaemjem24, Soros, FYI, is a currency trader.
I don't like the guy or his politics, but let's stay on fact here. Spot market traders and futures traders in oil do influence the market price; but there are limits to their ability to control any pricing.
The 'gigantic' profits of Oil Corporations filter first to their capital investment requirements; second to their shareholders; and finally to their consumers who only benefit in that the Oil Companies try to limit their ROI. Otherwise, Oil Companies would be charging $5 a gallon. Would they not? There is a competitive force in the market place that Liberals won't admit (because it destroys their anger at capitalism to do so), and this competitive aspect would mean that other Oil companies cut their prices to attract business.
Oil Companies are probably the most perfect Corporations to study in terms of the Corporate complex interrelationship with consumers. The reality is that after the great anti-Monopoly thrust against Standard Oil, all corporations were forced to realize they exist within and not apart from societies.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Okay ACA I Stand Corrected
February 28, 2007 - 12:29 ET by emjem24ACA...
I stand corrected. I didn't know what kind of trader Soros was...sorry. Don't beat me up about it. I'm not here to say that capitalism is wrong or the Oil Industry is wrong.
Look, I'm not an economist nor do I pretend to be. I was just pointing out at certain things that trouble me about the industry. I wasn't trying to say that they don't have a right to exist or that someone like Hillary should lockbox their profits per se.
The Oil Market is very, very competitive. I'm just troubled why we don't have as many refineries as we used to. Something has drastically changed since the '60s and '70s. Our oil consumption has gone up because of the fact that our economy is expanding and growing. It's all a wonderful relationship.
Believe me, I'm glad that the great monopolies have broken up and that they should stay that way. I hope the telecommunications industry heeds that warning as well. However, even though we live in the era of the "big merger" such as Exxon/Mobil they're always going to be vulnerable to attacks from the left such as liberal tax and spenders and environmentalists.
The Oil Industry needs to explain what they do with their profits more. People (maybe even me) thinks there's still a lot of mystery and deception that surrounds them (like they're part of the whole war for oil reason of the war that's used or that they're perceived as the big evil because they're so successful as seen by far left loons). Maybe they need to be more transparent as BP does with their commercials about how they invest in green technology (I know it's all PR).
I'm sorry if I came across as anti-capitalist because I'm not. It's that many Americans don't trust them, BOR reflects that distrust, and I'm merely saying that perhaps if we looked at exactly how we arrived at the daily gas prices at each gas station (given that a certain amount of that price will be state and federal taxes which I find ridiculous), then perhaps the American public would lose the hysteria already. Perhaps, all of us in America could use your economics lesson.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
emjem24; Oil company financials are easily obtained.
February 28, 2007 - 12:52 ET by acaiguanaemjem24; Oil company financials are easily obtained.
They explain how their funds are distributed.
You don't come across to me as anti-capitalist. You will find that the lack of refineries is directly proportional to the number of legal issues with the environment and zoning and NIMBY and ...
So, hang in there.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
emjem24...Oil Companies are a
February 28, 2007 - 12:56 ET by vrwc13emjem24...Oil Companies are as transparent as any other publically traded company. I work in the Oil and Gas industry and there is not much "mystery" about them. They are companies devoted to making a profit just like any other non-profit business and they are highly accountable to their owners = stockholders. Their explanations of what they do with their profits are public record. Most of it goes back into exploration, and upgrading their facilites. The rest goes to the shareholders in dividends etc.
Your concern about refineries from the 60/70's in well founded. This country has not built a new refinery since that time. Now the ones still in operation are constantly repaired, upgraded, modified and expanded (that's what my company does). But you are right, we have not built any new ones (that's what my company would like to be doing) for years. Alot of that is due to environmental constraints, who wants a refinery in their neighborhood. Surprisingly, I believe I once heard President Bush say (anyone help me here?) that we could build new ones on old military bases. That makes a lot of sense to me.
face piles of trials with smiles
Speaking of oil companies....
February 28, 2007 - 20:54 ET by BlondeSpeaking of oil companies....
I was out of town last week....and out of touch as well (no news, no NB).
So what's the deal with the increase in the price of a gallon of regular gasoline by $.24? I was shocked when I pulled up to the pump today.
Bal, just because you do not
February 27, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Roger the ShrubberBal, just because you do not like O'Reilly, it doesn't mean he wasn't on the mark on this topic.
I guess your admission of the press having "flaws" will the closest thing we can expect from you in regards to admitting the existence of media bias.
Luckily for us, you are able to see past your dislike of the messenger and are able to hear the message. Whew.
Rog, I'm more than willing to
February 27, 2007 - 20:46 ET by balboaRog, I'm more than willing to agree with the message. Just can't stand the messenger.
So, all this energy you are d
February 27, 2007 - 20:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, all this energy you are devoting on this thread accomplishes......
Just voicing an opinion that
February 27, 2007 - 20:54 ET by balboaJust voicing an opinion that I don't like to get pronouncements on the state of journalism from Billy Boy, master of the filafel.
You just hate to admit it whe
February 27, 2007 - 21:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou just hate to admit it when O'Reilly is correct. You can't even compose a post without an O'Reilly insult included. You have ODS: O'Reilly Derangement Syndrome.
GUILTY!
February 27, 2007 - 21:36 ET by balboaGUILTY!
Balboa,Gotta jump in here whe
February 27, 2007 - 23:05 ET by NeoConfirmedBalboa,
Gotta jump in here when you start messing with my boy Bill. He's had the number one show on cable news for years. And there's a good reason. He's entertaining and he challenges his guests. ALL of his guests. He's right about this recent obvious collective 'turn your back on the story' by the MSM as he is most of the time. I suggest that you read one of his best selling books.
BTW, I know that you hate O'Reilly. I'd be interested to know who's show you would rather watch besides Comedy Central's two-headed transplant.
Bill needs to learn that if y
February 28, 2007 - 11:25 ET by BruzillaBill needs to learn that if you want to be seen as David Brinkley, you have to be David Brinkley all the time. You can't be Geraldo Rivera most of the time to drive up your ratings, then be David Brinkley when you get mad about something, and expect to be taken seriously.
BTW, I know that y
February 28, 2007 - 11:30 ET by balboaBTW, I know that you hate O'Reilly. I'd be interested to know who's
show you would rather watch besides Comedy Central's two-headed
transplant.
Nobody's. Pundit shows are obnoxious.
Bal, okay, you don't like to
February 27, 2007 - 22:42 ET by MikeBBal, okay, you don't like to get pronouncements on the state of journalism from O'Reilly. But, the thing is, why would he have to make this pronouncement in the first place? Instead of not liking O'Reilly, why aren't you asking, "why wasn't this being covered by the 'fair and balanced' news media? Why don't the news programs give us news without spin and save the editorializing for a commentary segment? Why are Republican scandals covered so heavily and Democrat scandals covered up? Why the difference in coverage of Foley and Studds, for example?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Bal, don't make this about O'
February 27, 2007 - 23:51 ET by Chicago RepublicanBal, don't make this about O'Reilly's imperfection. I think he's a crusty old man and never watch his show. Don't really care for him, to tell you the truth. And I really am disappointed with his reference to his enemies (my word) as "progressive". I think being Progressive is a very good thing. I hate when the Left in this country and in old Europe (not to be confused with NB's Old Europe) refer to themselves as "Progressive", because they are NOT.
That being said, he is right on the money here. If this was the head of some Right-of-Center organization (as Noel notes here) we'd have this shit rammed down our throats ad nauseam. Being wrong is being wrong, period. And the Useful Idiots, with minor exceptions in this case of ABCnews.com and the AP, don't seem too interested.
Rush Limbaugh admits to being hooked on presciption painkillers that were prescibed to him after a surgery. Oxycontin, last I checked, was the target of a class action lawsuit because of the drug's addictive nature. Limbaugh admits to the addiction on national radio, and is absolutely crucified by the Left to this day, despite undergoing successful rehab and never being very outspoken on illegal drugs to begin with. This jackal is a mouthpiece for the ACLU and we hardly here a word about a MUCH more disgusting transgression.
That is the very reason Newsbusters exists, otherwise, who would hear about these double standards??
**************
Support the Spread of Open Society and Capitalism around the World. Do it for the Children.
Wow Bal, is that theLiberals
February 28, 2007 - 00:23 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWow Bal, is that theLiberals answer to every criticism of your sacred cows? So-and-so is not perfect, and therefore has no right to criticize? Do you know what that is? That, my friend is called a logical fallacy and specifically 'Ad Hominem Tu Quoque'.
Nice try though. Please, when you criticize what the man says, try and find fault with the premise, not the person. And finding fault with the premise based on the person does not count as that still is an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy.
As Friday once said.."Just the facts"
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
Like I said, I don't think he
February 28, 2007 - 00:39 ET by balboaLike I said, I don't think he's wrong; I just don't like him. It would be like your reaction to Bill Clinton criticizing people for making a mockery of the institution of marriage.
You assume too much. You cann
February 28, 2007 - 04:31 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYou assume too much. You cannot justify or validate your argument on a position you think that I might have on an event that has not, and likely will not occur. Another logical fallacy.
But agreeing with what he said is a small step into the light... just hope you can make the full transition from those that hide from the truth, and those that recognize the difference between truth and subjective opinion being passed on as truth.
What O'Reilly said was revealing, by not running the story, these publications are showing what they're made of. Because it is NEWS and they are supposedly supposed to report the NEWS. But if they start cherry picking what to report and what to ignore, especially a story of that size... then there must be a reason. What comes after is pure speculation. They have a leftist agenda which cannot be derailed by the facts. So, stories about record snows don't automatically generate speculation that maybe, just maybe the global warming scare might be a tad hyped, and stories of former ACLU presidents having child porn don't rate very high on the importance meter either... it's a puzzle to put together, and one that they need to debunk with proof that O'Reilly is wrong... or accept that they've been exposed.
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
You assume too much. You ca
February 28, 2007 - 15:00 ET by balboaYou assume too much. You cannot justify or validate your argument on a
position you think that I might have on an event that has not, and
likely will not occur. Another logical fallacy.
It's a hypothetical, but I don't think I'm assuming too much. Whether it has occurred or not doesn't matter. You would be just as quick to poo-poo Clinton if he made comments like that.
I think you make an excellent
February 28, 2007 - 11:20 ET by BruzillaI think you make an excellent point Balboa. I used to watch O'Reilly's show all the time, but then I got tired of hearing stories about cheerleaders gone wild, seein Jenna Jameson over and over, and hearing him support every kid and their parents who are bashing schools for any reason.
I agree that O'Reilly's making an excellent point here, but what good does it do once you've sacrified your credibility as a serious commentator just so you can find a way to get stories about naughty cheerleaders into your show?
"Journalism at a low poi
February 27, 2007 - 19:01 ET by mattm"Journalism at a low point" is a gross understatement.
There is hardly any journalism around anymore, at least not in the MSM. It's the same with Education in the public (government-run) realm.
In the universe of Liberalism (and this has been the case for decades) journalism has been usurped by propaganda, education has been replaced by indoctrination, freedom of thought has been outlawed by political correctness, etc. etc. etc.
O'Reilly is spot on with this, albeit a bit understated...
There is more to this than me
February 27, 2007 - 19:06 ET byThere is more to this than meets the eye. The main-stream media probably does not want more to come out about the ACLU.
The ACLU is no stranger to promoting child porn. They defended "Virtual" child porn: http://www.debrajmsmith.com/acluvschildren.html
Excerpt:
Virtual Child Pornography:
A Case Between
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, et al., (Petitioners) v THE FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al., (Respondents)
What is the Free Speech Coalition? Think PORN and click here:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/index.asp?action=preview
The ACLU defended "Virtual Child Pornography." The ACLU supported the respondents, in the Ninth Circuit Court Brief, stating:"The Government cannot outlaw speech based on the assumption that it may cause some viewers to act illegally:" http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACF8690.pdf
It also said: "The Evidence Does Not Support a Connection Between Virtual Child Pornography and Actual Harm to Minors."Free Speech Coalition's comment on winning the case: "In 2002, FSC views were upheld in the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the so-called VIRTUAL CHILD PORN case, which has been described by no less than the ACLU as "the most important victory for the First Amendment in decades."
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCview.asp?coid=87#history
MSM Covers ONLY What They Want To Cover
February 27, 2007 - 19:15 ET by emjem24Well, I would have to agree with Bill's take. He's a former teacher and has worked for some of the MSM like ABC and CBS. He knows the industry. It's a sad thing too. It really saddens me when our press has become like the European press, who are nothing but yellow journalists.
This didn't have to happen. The American people have only ever askd for their journalists to report "news" (do their jobs) and politicians to represent their constituents (do their jobs). What we've got from both sectors is corruption and an utter lack of honesty.
This is why I don't watch any of the Network News and take with a grain of salt what they and politicians say. What do the MSM and politicians have in common? They lie. MSM + Politicians = Lies and Corruption.
Perhaps this will turn around. Perhaps it will get worse before it gets better. However, I think that MSM and politicians should be put on notice. We (the American people) will be watching you (NB and Fox News) and we'll know whether you really care about this country or not. You hear that MSM, liberal politicans and RINO's?
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
“journalism in this count
February 27, 2007 - 19:24 ET by Dave R“journalism in this country is at a low point.”
Not nearly as low as it is going to get.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
You're right on with that o
February 28, 2007 - 14:31 ET by RowaneYou're right on with that one Dave, just wait until the '08 elections season starts.
Rowane,Yeah, I think the MSM
March 1, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Dave RRowane,
Yeah, I think the MSM is going to be sinking to lows unknown between now and the next election. The dems picking each other off is going to be fun to watch, but the real lows will start once the candidates have been selected.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Another example (this ACLU/ch
February 27, 2007 - 19:26 ET by SMGalbraithAnother example (this ACLU/child pornography horror) of the old saying: "The problem with the media is not that they tell you want to think; the problem is that they tell you want to think about."
Or, in this case, what not to think about.
And isn't it funny how O'Reilly is loathe - absolutely loathe - to mention Olbermann's name? He always refers to "far left persons at NBC" (or MSNBC). I'm sure that just drives Mr. Murrow, Jr. nuts - a short trip, to be sure.
he is a giant of our times.
February 27, 2007 - 19:31 ET by buddyche is a giant of our times. sometimes he falters when he gets into detail, but his secular progressive war is RIGHT ON. it is a war the sp's have been winning for 30 years. it will take 10 x 10 more o'reilly's to beat them. so far he is a lonely voice. he is what you expect on a 60 minutes type program but don't get. i
t is not complicated. facts are facts and opinions are opinions and in journalism they should not be mixed. beyond that journalists by their own stated and approved ethical standards claim to believe in being unbiased. ha!
i fear for o'reilly. they are out to get him. who knows where they will stop.
O'Reilly is spot on here, alt
February 27, 2007 - 19:50 ET by Del DolemonteO'Reilly is spot on here, although he only mentions "corrupt editors and TV executives." He fails to mention "corrupt media owners and reporters". The anti-American leftist leanings of NY Times owner Punch Sulzberger are well-documented, but far fewer people know that the gigantic news organization known as Associated Press is full of Democrats-their Board of Directors is a Who's Who of the drive-by media, and a couple of their reporters, especially Jennifer Loven, are known to have well-known ties to the DNC. Ms. Loven's husband was a senior advisor to Jean Carry in 2004, and her own bias in writing for the AP has been well documented at this site in the past.
Did the Network Nightly Snooz
February 27, 2007 - 20:26 ET by nicksmith112Did the Network Nightly Snooze make mention tonight of Al Gore-Energy Hog.
Surely a Republican would have been hammered hard.
I watched that segment last n
February 27, 2007 - 20:30 ET by spiderdanI watched that segment last night. Felt good, too.
Liberals are pond scum. That feels good to say, write, or carve into the forehead of left wing puppets and their enablers in the Dummycrat Party.
Just take a cursory glance at the septic tank escapees crowing about the attempt on Vice-President Cheney. If ever there was a time to load up on baseball bats and do some head knocking, I can't recall one better than now.
O'Reilly is spot on and every legitimate American knows it.
Hey Spidey, don't hold back.
February 28, 2007 - 03:11 ET by Right Wing Attack DogHey Spidey, don't hold back. Go ahead and open up and vent, let us know what you're really feeling! Can I be your Homey?
wood v.s. aluminum bats
February 28, 2007 - 03:21 ET by Carpareustechdiff will try again immeedjetlee.
I prefer wood
February 28, 2007 - 03:25 ET by CarpareusWhile I prefer wood 'cause it has a better feel with a baseball I'm wondering if you prefer aluminum for this purpose as it's a lot less likely to break and doesn't stain as easily.
Yeah, but the "ping" when you
February 28, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Uncle JohnYeah, but the "ping" when you connect with an aluminum bat isn't nearly as satisfying as the "pop" you get from a Louisville Slugger...
Save the environment. Chop down a liberal.