Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Humor: scrutinizing the candidates

  1. Jul 8, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 8, 2004 #2
  4. Jul 8, 2004 #3
    Unfortunately for the Democrats the Wahl "Male Grooming Survey" determined that President Bush has the best hair style of the candidates. Kerry is wrong again.
     
  5. Jul 8, 2004 #4
    That would make a great ad contrasteed with something Kerry said just a day ago. Someone asked him something about his ticket compared to Bush's, he outlined differences, then added "And we (Edwards and him) have the best hair!" and then did that retarted laugh of his.
     
  6. Jul 9, 2004 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think, if you were to give out team scores Team Kerry-Edwards would beat Team Bush-Cheney.
     
  7. Jul 9, 2004 #6

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So, when quantifying DIck Cheney's hair, is it indeterminate, or undefined?

    Njorl
     
  8. Jul 9, 2004 #7
    It comes effortlessly. After he did his whinny, did you detect any cracks in that horse face of his?
     
  9. Jul 9, 2004 #8

    amp

    User Avatar

    LOL, funny comic strip, it does illuminate - in the commentary - the uneven, (unfair?), lopsided way the 'conservative' media chooses to portray Mr. Kerry and President Bush.
     
  10. Jul 9, 2004 #9
    I don't even think most Liberals believe that President Bush is given the better treatment between the two candidates. The media isn't exactly kind to Republicans.
     
  11. Jul 9, 2004 #10

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    Then you would be thinking wrong.

    I and most other liberals do indeed believe George Bush has been given better treatment by the media.

    While Bush made any statement he wanted about Iraq, with no critical analysis from the press, the press was hounding John Kerry about expensive haircuts and Botox.

    CNN runs Bush's campaign adds during news segments over and over. They claim it is analysis. Then they don't do any analysis!

    Even after being president for over three years Bush is still benefiting from his "underestimation". No measure of competence is expected of him, so criticizing him is just mean.

    Papers try to be "fair and balanced", even if this means they have to overlook Bush's blunders and make things up about Kerry. Papers are so terrified of the "Liberal media bias" tag that they would rather be inaccurate.

    Njorl
     
  12. Jul 9, 2004 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, look at all the scrutiny given to every single thing said by Kerry, even 30 years ago. Want to guess what Bush was saying and doing at that time ?

    A friend of mine has heard reminiscences from a professor at MIT, who was a close buddy of Bush during their Yale years. If you're Republican, you don't want to know what they were doing then !
     
  13. Jul 14, 2004 #12

    amp

    User Avatar

    I'm independent, Goku43201, old friend do tell what this professor said, do tell indeed.
    BTW, there is a NEW documentary film out called 'OUTFOXED' which gets into the outrageous favoritism of just one media giant.

    Right, THEY (for Jdubya - the military or Bush cronies) even (Accidentally?) destroyed payroll records (done in triplicate as well as stored on micro film) that could have shed light on Bushs' military service.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2004
  14. Jul 14, 2004 #13
    Who are THEY?

    I find it laughable that Ted Turner would go out of his way to support George W.

    No critical analysis? The media has trumped up the NO WMD spiel from Day One. Do you really consider having Ted Koppel read the names of American dead on Nightline as pro-Bush?

    I'll give you Fox News. But the rest of the news outlets have been heavily critical of the Bush Administration.
     
  15. Jul 15, 2004 #14

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I was talking about the build-up to the war. No mainstream press analyzed the Bush case for war in any meaningful way. It was the single most important issue in our country in the last 25 years, and the press accepted everything the administration said without critique. There is every reason to believe that they had genuine doubts, but they refused to act on them. They became a partisan organ of the Bush administration.

    Sure, after the war, when the administration's lies became manifestly obvious, the press could hardly continue to support them. But even now the so-called-liberal-media expect more honesty and intellectual rigor from Michael Moore than they do from George Bush. Have you seen the interviews of Moore? No administration official has ever faced questioning like that. I admit that Moore is a hack. Shouldn't we expect more from our president then we do from a hack? Not according to the "liberal media". They still write articles that they feel sorry for poor Dubya being bullied by Moore.

    Njorl
     
  16. Jul 15, 2004 #15
    Excellent point.

    Even after evidence for all of the Bush justifications for the war have been shown to have been lies or based on errant information, Bush still pretends that he was right, and a great many people do not seem to care about the lies and misinformation.
     
  17. Jul 15, 2004 #16
    Moore is an artist. It pops out ineluctably out of its subject and bias. View the film in abstract, as if it were a rediscovered vestige from an earlier age. Let the other side try to make something equal to it.
     
  18. Jul 15, 2004 #17
    poles say Bush is ahead

    Next week they are going to ask the latvians.

    {it works better as a spoken gag}
     
  19. Jul 15, 2004 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A recent poll (Newsweek, I think) said that Bush's chances were best with Powell as Veep. Fat chance, that happening !
     
  20. Jul 15, 2004 #19
    First of all, I don't want our side to stoop to producing such films.

    Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2004
  21. Jul 15, 2004 #20
    "stoop"? I guess that means you don't think the idea good.

    What is there to explain away? What is "mere" about being an artist? Oh, the Motion Picture Academy votes based on what the members like, whatever their reasons for it.
     
  22. Jul 16, 2004 #21
    His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct? And if it was, he is not merely an artist.

    Moore is a propaganda film maker, distorting the truth in order to further a political agenda.

    Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.
     
  23. Jul 16, 2004 #22

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For a minute there, I thought you were taking about FOX News...but I guess not, eh ?
     
  24. Jul 16, 2004 #23

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Simple - its an Oscar.
    You're assuming a criterion for the award which does not exist.

    The best description of the type of movie I've seen is "mockumentary."

    In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.
     
  25. Jul 16, 2004 #24

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Moore is nothing like Limbaugh. Moore very rarely tells outright lies. He certainly tells them less frequently than the president. The worst he does is juxtaposing controversial statements that lead one to come to a false conclusion. Hard to condemn him for that since it was the Bush administration's primary mode of operation to get us into Iraq.

    Rush Limbaugh knowingly lies on a constant basis. Generally he has several blatent, defamatory lies per hour.

    People have been tearing Moore's movie apart looking for lies, and they just are not finding them. There is some chance he may have lied about when the Bin Laden's were flown out of the US. Yes, there is stupid innuendo like implying we went into Afghanistan for a pipeline (though he doesn't come out and say it), but the majority of the movie is solid. Is it one sided? Yep. It is a documentary, and like all documentaries, it is one sided. When questioned about the one-sidedness of his movie, Moore responded that the entire press had been on the other side of the issue, so his one-sidedness did not account for much.

    Njorl
     
  26. Jul 16, 2004 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Maybe I shouldn't have brought Limbaugh up, but if you can substantiate that (outright lies), I'd appreciate it.

    Propaganda is the art of getting people to believe that which is not true. In the US, it requires deception, but not outright lies - for some reason people think deception is ok. Moore is a master at it.
    The problem is that people aren't paying enough attention (in a movie, thats easy because the director/editor controls the pace), they don't realize that they are taking the inuendo and finishing the sentence/providing the implied answer. You (the audience) provide the lies for him! His talent/skill really is impressive, but I consider that type of deception to be just as bad as an outright lie. A fact can be checked and verified. An inuendo cannot.

    I found http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm to be informative. I'm currently reading his latest book ("Dude, Where's my Country") and it appears to be what the movie is based on. There are some things in the book that you can't do with a movie though - like overloading it with citations for the appearance of credibility and to shift th burden of proof.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook