So we go from Al’s recorded transcript on CNN where he states I took the initiative in creating the Internet. To your interpretation ..the Internet would not exist as we know it today were it not for Al Gore.The internet would not exist as we know it today without a great multitude of people. Not the least of which the American tax payer via R&D research grants to the private sector.As I posted in God Bless John Paul II thread:Al Gore was not yet in Congress in 1969 when ARPANET was started or in 1974 when the term Internet first came into use. Gore was elected to Congress in 1976.You can mince words as much as you like, but those are the facts. I found humor in his CNN interview with Blitzer because of the facts listed above and the incongruity of Al's straight faced delivery.This message has been edited by Monk, Sun, 04-03-2005 09:12 PM

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

You know its funny. When believers are accused of interpretating the Bible rather than defending direct quotes, they are lambasted for twisting its meaning to suite their particular needs. But it seems ok for atheist, such as yourself, to do it outside of the Bible.But I must thank you Rrhain for the joy and laughter you bring to me with your Al Gore post. As I have said previously, keep saying to yourself what sounds good in your mind, avoid the facts, and it will sound better each time.Ok let’s try another chant; Al won in 2000, Al won in 2000.... keep saying that and maybe the results will change.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

True, I should have linked to my thread number 15 in God Bless John Paul II, but the UBB code on how to do that escapes me at the moment.Anyway, in that thread I referenced the CNN interview where Al says that he took the initiative in creating the internet. There was a reference in that thread regarding Al saying he invented the internet which Rrhain correctly noted he did not say. I simply added the reference as to what Al actually did say.As I noted in that thread, I saw the interview myself and thought it was humorous in light of the facts. Al Gore was not yet in Congress in 1969 when ARPANET was started or in 1974 when the term Internet first came into use. Gore was elected to Congress in 1976.So when Al says: I took the initiative in creating the internet, it sounds bombastic.Since then, Rrhain has made it his cause to interpret what Al did or did not intend when he said those words.I believe contracycle summed it up best when he said:

quote:

---

He claimed creation, but what he gave was belated support. This claim has rightly damaged Gore's credibility, because it looks far more like bombast than that he knows what he is talking about. If I claimed to INVENT the telephone, you would expect me to have invented the telephone, rather than to have merely said it was a good thing.

---

That’s how it struck me when I saw the interview.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

The thread I was referring to was Here beginning at Rrhains message 11

Problem? I don't see a problem

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

Irrelevant. Depending on which ideology you support, the Norc data can show Gore won or it can show Bush won.It carries as much weight as the "Rrhain Report"

Actually, what should be clear is that politicians exaggerate, mince words, and spout gaffes. They ALL do it. The difference is that when it is done by a candidate that supports your particular ideology, it must be defended and placed in the context of a larger meaning.But when it is the opposition’s candidate then it is easier (and more fun) to ridicule.

No, you are wrong and you stubbornly refuse to let this go. As I said previously, the NORC report assembled the data and various new organizations interpreted that data. NORC did not. Troy posted a CNN link with the following headline.

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Here is the full story, again LinkI assume you don’t believe CNN to be a right wing neo con organization do you?The CNN article further states:

quote:

---

In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

---

The NORC report was instructive but not definitive, hence irrelevant in determining a winner. This is one story by CNN who used the NORC data. You can find accounts by other news organizations that declare Gore the winner, it all depends on how the results are interpreted. And that includes your own subjective interpretation for the Rrhain Report.If you visit the NORC website you will find the following stated goal under General Project Info

quote:

---

The goal of the project is not to declare a winner, but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida. Link

---

NORC’s stated goal was to assess the reliability of the ballot systems, not declare a winner. Get it?

We? who are you speaking for and what is your point?

Here are a few quotes from the story. The only contradiction is in your head.

quote:

---

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

---

quote:

---

In releasing the report, the consortium said it is in no way trying to rewrite history or challenge the official result — that Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

---

quote:

---

If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

---

quote:

---

The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

---

Ok, that's your opinion. I would say CNN is more middle of the road.This message has been edited by Monk, Sun, 04-10-2005 07:57 AM

In that particular message, I was talking about politicians

quote:

---

Actually, what should be clear is that politicians exaggerate...

---

quote:

---

CNN used to be pretty middle of the road-leaning, but they have seen the success of Fox News in creating "brand loyalty" and have been moving rightward, along with MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream news networks for a while now.

---

I don't believe that.And FAIR does have a political bias, they lean to the left. Just as AIM (Accuracy in Media) leans to the right.

My opinion is based on my years of observations of the media you have listed. Based on this I believe that CNN is still neutral as far as political bias. They have an equal share of both conservative and liberal journalist and that's why I consider them to be middle of the road.I can provide articles as evidence showing CNN to be a left leaning organization and I'm sure you can find other evidence showing CNN's so called move to the right.But what will that accomplish? Political bias in the media is relative to the competition. CNN is to the left of Fox but to the right of Democracy Now. I didn't say it was incorrect or inaccurate. It seems you are using a definition for partisan that is different from mine. Leaning with a left or right bias is the meaning of partisan. I didn't say F.A.I.R. is inaccurate or misleading, only biased.

quote:

---

Well, that's not really much, is it?

---

It is to me

quote:

---

It's many people's opinion that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", too.

---

That’s true

quote:

---

What I was actually looking for is perhaps some kind of objectively gathered data, rather than just your opinion.

---

My opinion was offered because that’s what was asked.

quote:

---

If all we ever did on this board was trade opinions, rather than require and provide facts and data, then what would be the point?

---

That’s true. I suppose I would be more willing to debate and provide facts and data in support of my opinion if the topic were less subjective. But political bias in the media is in the eye of the beholder.

quote:

---

They have an equal share of both conservative and liberal journalist and that's why I consider them to be middle of the road.

​

quote:

---

Well, why don't you list them? Then we can really see if your factual claim is true. Please list all of the journalists at CNN and what their political leaning is. While you're at it, why don't you list the political bent of all of the editors at CNN, who are the people who get to decide which stories run. I also think it would be good to include the political leanings of the people at Time/Warner who oversee CNN, too.

---

---

Hmmm... That’s a lot of time intensive research. You should initiate this research yourself to prove your assertion that CNN has moved to the right.Yes, I know, you provided one story about the former head of CNN, Walter Isaakson, who had one meeting with republican lawmakers 4 years ago. Since then Isaakson has left CNN and been replaced with Jim Walton.Do you suggest that CNN is still leaning to the right based on this one meeting by a former CNN chief. Doesn’t the new head of CNN news steer the ship his own way?Walton is cognizant of the rise of Fox News and their increasing market share and has an uphill challenge. His approach seems to be to reaffirm CNN as an international organization.

quote:

---

Since CNN's new chief, Jim Walton, took over last winter the network has reaffirmed its role as an international news network. It is the only one of the three cable-news networks without a flag on its screen now.

​

Link

---

You said:

quote:

---

I have provided quite a few showing that CNN has made moves rightward in order to attract more conservative viewers.

---

I only saw the Isaakson article in this thread.

quote:

---

Then why do you discount it? The new president of CNN met with conservative lawmakers in congress to find out how he could appease them. Doesn't that sound like a shift to the right to you?

---

It’s past history, 4 years old. Times change, Isaakson isn’t there any moreI said:

quote:

---

It seems you are using a definition for partisan that is different from mine. Leaning with a left or right bias is the meaning of partisan.

---

Your response:

quote:

---

No, being partisan means you support a particular political party.

---

As I said, it’s roughly the same thing. Here is the dictionary.com versionDevoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

quote:

---

Well, FAIR indicates quite convincingly that CNN has been moving to the political right.

---

I wouldn’t describe one obsolete 4 year old article as convincing.

quote:

---

If you cannot point out how they are misleading us or presenting inaccuracies as fact, then you must agree that CNN has, in fact, been moving rightward.

---

Well, to begin with media bias can be more that just presenting inaccuracies. I think Wikepedia does a good job of explaining the various forms. But if you must have some examples of CNN liberal bias then go to Media Research and search for "CNN bias".Also, here is an article from AIM, a conservative media watch group, discussing the general and persistent trend of left bias in the media.

quote:

---

Why should I believe your personal opinion over FAIR's facts?

---

I suppose you don’t need to believe my opinion. There are many media watchdog organizations and each one invariably has an ax to grind. Wikepedia again does a good job in my opinion of describing bias and in particular labels FAIR as a liberal site whose purpose is to expose conservative bias. Here are a few other links from Wikepedia. Each site contains many articles supporting their left or right point of view. Media Research Center (conservative site which claims to expose liberal bias) Fairpress.org - Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media (conservative site which claims to expose liberal bias) Pew Research Center For the People and the Press (non-partisan organization which studies attitudes towards the press) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal site which claims to expose conservative bias) Media Matters for America (liberal site which claims to expose conservative bias)