Dick Morris presents a lie on Fox News, goes unchallenged

Thorgrim · 11-17-2006, 07:09 PM

For a brief history on Dick Morris, check out the WP:
WashingtonPost.com: The Hooker, Line and Sinker

On FOX NEWS last night, Dick Morris called Murtha an "ultra-liberal"

Murtha is the 16th most conservative Democrat in the House, and the 3rd most conservative non-southern Democrat in the House
ProgressivePunch : All issues / Murtha, John P.

I don't know why Fox News loves Dick Morris so much, but despite his constant inaccuracies...his flip-flop on the connecticut race in two different articles, his "solid" prediction that bush would gain "at least" 10pts from the british bomb plot (not one poll gave him such a boost), he changed his prediction at least 3 times on who would gain the house, and the general political climate...I can't think of one intelligent political analysis of forecast he has made in years

However, this is the latest example, for the people who still trust him, a word to the wise: Don't...if you want a conservative to trust, go with Robert Novak

JaJae · 11-17-2006, 07:35 PM

Calling someone "ultra liberal" is subjective to one's opinion. You can't lie about a subjective opinion. And many people would call his recent actions to be ultra-liberal.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-17-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Calling someone "ultra liberal" is subjective to one's opinion. You can't lie about a subjective opinion. And many people would call his recent actions to be ultra-liberal.

That hit the nail on the head.

Also when a progressive site lists someone as "conservative" I have to question their definition of conservative.

Thorgrim · 11-17-2006, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

That hit the nail on the head.

Also when a progressive site lists someone as "conservative" I have to question their definition of conservative.

They have a complete list of his voting record, and an opinion can be a fact

See
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co
497 U.S. 1
"expressions of 'opinion' may often imply an assertion of objective fact."

He is implying an untrue fact that he clearly is not:
John Murtha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want a more detailed list...well i already provided a link to his ENTIRE VOTING RECORD

motivez · 11-17-2006, 11:13 PM

It's

..did you expect them to challenge someone using the word "liberal" as some sort of insult?

Diamond Cross · 11-17-2006, 11:26 PM

Like CNN would challenge the word "conservative like it's some kind of insult?

motivez · 11-17-2006, 11:44 PM

Fox is the most overtly partisan network there is. The New York Times is a close second.

CNN and the other channels may have a left slant to may, but no where near the degree of Fox ~~Republican Propaganda Network~~ News

Diamond Cross · 11-17-2006, 11:57 PM

I don't agree.

Thorgrim · 11-18-2006, 12:08 AM

I don't agree as well, the NYTimes has shown itself to be a willing piece of the Bush Administration in the Iraq War, a true "liberal" newspaper would have questioned any Republican Administrations actions on all levels

Fox News, no matter how much ratings it would generate them, would never be a mouthpiece for the Clinton administration

(If you bring up editorialists, I'll just say that Friedman is despised by liberals for his weakness in regards to trade and the iraq war, Brooks is a conservative republican who is just as partisan as they comes, and Tierney is a conservative libertarian...thats about half their editorialists)

To say its a "close second" is IMHO buying into common culture rather than being objective

Diamond Cross · 11-18-2006, 12:10 AM

Well, I should clarify myself, I don't agree that CNN isn't biased against conservatives when it is, but I don't know anything about the NY Times.

Dumpy Dooby · 11-18-2006, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Fox is the most overtly partisan network there is. The New York Times is a close second.

CNN and the other channels may have a left slant to may, but no where near the degree of Fox ~~Republican Propaganda Network~~ News

Do you consider yourself a liberal?

Vietvet · 11-18-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Calling someone "ultra liberal" is subjective to one's opinion. You can't lie about a subjective opinion. And many people would call his recent actions to be ultra-liberal.

That's the problem with labels. Murtha is a guy who has been pro-military his whole time in Congress. He's supported all kinds of weapons systems, military spending of all kinds, the first Gulf war, etc. He has always been considered one of the biggest hawks in Congress, on either side of the isle. Yet now that he's against the war in Iraq, and siding with about 2/3rds of the people in the US, he's magically become a "flaming "liberal. Over one issue. And the right, naturally, buys right into it. Typical. So, go ahead and call him a liberal. These days, most people would probably rather be called liberal than conservative anyway, if it has to come down to that. Whether the label is true or not. To me, "progressive" vs "regressive" is more accurate. The only thing that really matters is common sense, a commodity that is sorely missing on the far right,and has been for quite some time now.

motivez · 11-18-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Do you consider yourself a liberal?

No

motivez · 11-18-2006, 12:54 PM

Every news outlet was acting the same way after 9/11. Judith Miller doesn't = the entire newspaper organization, and so I don't think using that one example makes THAT big of a difference.

Thorgrim · 11-18-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Every news outlet was acting the same way after 9/11. Judith Miller doesn't = the entire newspaper organization, and so I don't think using that one example makes THAT big of a difference.

It does when the NY Times editor gives her the headline news spot for month after month

And this wasn't just right after 9/11, some of the NY Times most influential stories (which helped us into this war) were in March of 2003