search this site: search the web:

result #77525 - WHY AREN'T THE 'LIBERAL MEDIA' DOGGING BUSH THE WAY THEY DOGGED NIXON 30 YEARS AGO?

user ballots

would you : political :

WHY AREN'T THE 'LIBERAL MEDIA' DOGGING BUSH THE WAY THEY DOGGED NIXON 30 YEARS AGO?


[+] ballot by mojo
created Sun Jul 17, 05
Back in 1972, Nixon had his helpers break into Democratic headquarters to obtain information on their campaign. For that and the subsequent cover-up attempt, he was threatened with impeachment and decided to resign.

The initial event that raised suspicion against Nixon was almost laughably trivial. On June 17, 1972, a security guard was making his rounds at the Watergate Hotel, which served as the Democratic National Committee Headquarters, when he noticed a piece of duct tape affixed to the latch of a stairway door. The tape prevented the door from locking. The guard ripped the tape from the door and continued his rounds. By the time he circled back, a new piece of tape had been affixed to the door, arousing his suspicions. He called in the police, who found a group of five burglars on the sixth floor of the building. The police arrested the burglars at gunpoint, igniting what would become the Watergate scandal, which was front-page news for at least a year and a half.

If the media are so liberal, why aren't they dogging Bush the same way, 30 years later? There are stories that the media have failed to run with - stories that have much more punch than the initial Watergate one. For example, the Downing Street Memo, a dated document which seems to indicate that the Iraq war was based on lies; the disappearance of the black boxes at 9/11 ground zero (discovered by 2 firefighters who wrote a book about it); and now Karl Rove's outing of a CIA operative to a journalist. None of these stories has merited much attention - especially if you compare this with the kind of relentless coverage the Watergate scandal received.

So, if the media are so 'liberal' in the new millenium, why are they being so nice to George W. Bush?

The media aren't 'liberal' any more. 6
Corporations dictate what the news should be 5
Cowardice 4
The media, however liberal, can't touch someone who is pure and innocent like angels. 0

Ballot #77525: has 15 total votes.
invite people to vote on this ballot!

Comment:

content @ BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:



email this ballot link to friends
You can also reach this ballot at :
http://BestAndWorst.com/key/Why_aren't_the_'liberal_media'_dogging_Bush_the_way_they_dogged_Nixon_30_years_ago?



COMMENTS:
They're all worn out from dogging Bill Clinton about his blow job.

by weebles48 on Sun Jul 17, 05 9:28am [+]

Mainstream media is owned by mega-corporations now. The same wasn't as true back then.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Sun Jul 17, 05 10:13am [+]

Modern American media has a conservative bias.
by cranky on Sun Jul 17, 05 10:22am [+]

Because the 'liberal media' are a load of craven cowards who roll over and pee at the slightest provocation?
by xxxxxxxx on Sun Jul 17, 05 11:38am [+]

Why didn't they mock Jimmy Carter for saying "nuc-u-lar"?
by Bostonian on Sun Jul 17, 05 7:50pm [+]

^Trivial.

As for "liberal media," watching the media attack Clinton relentlessly and just turn a blind eye to Bush renders that term not true.
by xxxxxxxx on Sun Jul 17, 05 11:11pm [+]

OOH! Some quotes I just found...

"It's a better Senate than it was then and we have the media now." -- Ann Coulter, just last week.

"It was because of our coverage that it all happened. We've become so influential now that people watch us and they take their electoral cues from us. No one should doubt the influence of Fox News in these matters." -- Brit Hume, on GOP success in the 2002 election

"The traditional liberal media monopoly doesn't exist anymore." -- Rush Limbaugh

Liberal media my ass.
by xxxxxxxx on Wed Aug 03, 05 8:26pm [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved