OSOT Comes to Olympia

Navigation

User login

Online users

outlaw
systematist

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac
circular_ruins

OSOT Comes to Olympia

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 8:19am.

Yesterday, the weekly Friday night peace vigil and sign-holding event on Percival Landing (4:30 pm until 6 in the evening) had some special visitors. Members of Operation Support Our Troops showed up (for the second week in a row.) Peace activists have been vigiling regularly at that time and location for several years now. Are OSOT activists there to stay? Only time will tell.

Shelley Webber and Jeff Brigham were there. So was Tom Crowson, candidate for Thurston County Assessor. I had the opportunity to speak with him. I asked him whether or not Bush has lied to us about the war. Mr. Crowson said that he didn't think Bush has lied to us, or mis-led us, in regards to the war.

In my educated understanding of the run-up to the war, I am aware of several instances in which Bush and his administration peppered the public and congress with information that was inconsistent with the truth. In fact, lies and deception have become a hallmark of this executive administration.

So, where is the reality disconnect for OSOTers like Brigham, Crowson and Webber. Is it that they can't see the truth, or that they don't want to?

Robert Whitlock's blog
Login or register to post comments

What does it matter?

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 8:48am.

I love this quote:

"Control yourself, and let others be." very simple, and saying it to myself, even out loud at times, has saved me from opening my mouth and causing trouble. Who cares about their thought process, they are allowed to have it, and you aren't going to change their mind. Kill em with kindness and let them do what they are allowed to do.

it matters

Submitted by yogi woman on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 11:51am.

my guess would be that they watch a lot of fox "news". they are hoodwinked, bamboozled, & led astray. if an informed citizenry is a cornerstone in a democracy, then we are in big trouble because television & the mainstream media are feeding people a heaping helping of corporate-owned spin.

And the Enlightened shall

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 12:17pm.

And the Enlightened shall save us!

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."

Yeah

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 12:36pm.

What he said

And who's to say..

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 12:43pm.

that you have not been hoodwinked, bamboozled, and led astray? Shouldn't their news channel be their's to decide? Perhaps you have too much homegrown news without enough corporate spin? Is it just fox or abc, nbc and cbs also? Do you just dislike bill oriley or even the local fox news? Are folks within olyblog that trustworthy? Do we currently have a reporter based internationally? I'm tired of all of this fox news crap, and I don't even watch or read the stuff. People have every right to believe whatever the flock they want to believe. If I believe wearing a pair of boxer shorts on my head and never wearing pink is going to make me smart who the heck are you to tell me otherwise? Again, I return to my quote.

Give Me a Break!

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 2:43pm.

I here what you're saying Norm. But we all know the corporate bias of news media like FOX and more and more so, TV outlets like CNN and ABC and NBS and CBS.

This is about the facts on the ground. Those news corporations, and their set of talking heads, like the shameless and despicable Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Coulter et al. simply distort the truth. Ultimately, their influence is polluting public discourse.

The facts clearly show that the Bush administration used deception and trickery to fraudulently justify a war. The lack of justification for the pre-emptive attack on Iraq means that the war was one of aggression.

So who do we believe? Blogs

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 4:33pm.

So who do we believe? Blogs from the middle-east? Everyone is so convinced that the only problem these people have is watching fox news. It's bs, and you guys should know that. I find all three of the people you mentioned to be annoying, but that doesn't mean that I don't agree with them on some points. I don't watch fox news but I'm on here everyday disagreeing with all of you, so is my problem fox news? Is my problem news in general? or is it just the easy way out for you folks when someone doesn't agree with you to blame ann coulter?

Turn it around...

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 7:23pm.

...If the news media in general (an FOX in particular) had done their job and asked the right questions instead of jumping on the bus to war cheering all the way, do you think the Bush Administration would have been able to foist this disaster off on the American people? It is clear to me, and I'm not quite sure why it isn't clear to you too, that the answer is no. Watch this clip:

I have the movie if you'd like to borrow it.

To be fair, the responsibility also must also be assigned to the Democratic Party, which totally failed in its duty to present an alternative to the stark, raving madness that was (is) coming from the Republicans.

I watched Outfoxed (which is

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 7:50pm.

I watched Outfoxed (which is where I think the clip is taken).

Programs such as "Hannity & Colmes" and "The O'Reilly Factor" aren't news. They're programs with talking-heads with news stories as discussion.

It's meant to be entertaining and, yes, presented with a certain point of view in mind.

Now, one could certainly accuse Fox of adding more bells and whistles to the news but I've yet to see them make a story up.

Fox may not be making up

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 8:54pm.

Fox may not be making up stories, TFI, but it's exactly the bells and whistles you refer to that are the problem. More precisely, it's which stories they add bells and whistles to, and how they portray those stories.

I first started to realize that Fox news might be a bit of an outlandish, fringy kind of outfit when I noticed their adds on the sides of buses. They had combined advertisements for their news program and the Rush Limbaugh show. The slogan read: Fox - bring you the TRUTH.

I couldn't imagine putting, say, Noam Chomsky's photo on a newstation's ad and still expecting them to be "fair and balanced"... could you?

and you think that other

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:06pm.

and you think that other news stations don't have this also? I'm no fan of rush but his show is obviously popular and maybe he wanted that slogan and fox went with it? Is rush lying during his show? I honestly don't watch/listen to it so I wouldn't know. I do know that I caught john stossel doing a report on 10 myths inside america, and one of them was gun control. I'm pretty passionate about that subject so I tuned in ( I'm not normally a 20/20 watcher ) and it was great! He was later chastised for it, particularly by the "brady campaign" even though his numbers and interviews all seemed pretty kosher. So I'm thinking it works from both angles here, both left and right can yell back and forth. You can hate rush Limbaugh, and I'll hate rosie o'donnel and michael moore, ok? Oh, and the girls from "the view"

they all suck!

Submitted by yogi woman on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:15pm.

it's not about who is right or wrong or who you like or don't like. and what about the fairness doctrine? we don't need that anymore either? bs!

Um, may want to read this.

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:21pm.

Um, may want to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The point isn't about the

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:35pm.

The point isn't about the slogan that Limbaugh uses. The point is that Fox is advertising their news show with his face on it. Then they claim to be "fair and balanced". I'm reminded of something I said recently about a "bullshit meter"...

My point being newsmedia is

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:49pm.

My point being newsmedia is never fair and balanced. I remember being irate when I was in highschool because the local news, KOMO, was ranting and raving about a sniper in seattle. Their "sniper" was a guy with a revolver taking potshots in the street. It was so blatantly WRONG that I had to go outside and cool off. Of course a "sniper" sounds much cooler than, "some wacko with a six-shooter" so they used that tagline to get the media attention they craved. Same thing with the guy that shotup the house after the rave last year. They kept ranting about how gun control may have stopped that, had interviews with the chief of police and supports of gun control yet the killing took place with a pistol and a shotgun, which he had obtained legally. Now how would "common sense" ( they love that term ) gun control have stopped him? Outlawing shotguns will never happen, and as shown in this case, can do MUCH more damage than any pistol, yet the media ran with it. Is that fair and balanced? The media is currently running with this jon benet ramsey story, yet the man is not convicted or even charged with anything, and his ex wife says he couldn't have done it because he was home with her at the time, yet the media has already made him out to be hanging in the gallows. It's not just rush limbaugh, it's not just fox news. My bullshit meter is topping out at the moment :p

if we still had the fairness doctrine

Submitted by yogi woman on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 11:18pm.

you could have called them up & they would be required to allow the other side to be given a chance to speak. instead, the viewers are left with misinformation. there needs to be more accountability.

I agree

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 11:24pm.

and I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but as TFI pointed out most of what people seem to be complaining about is not news, but political talk shows. Are they held to the same standard? they are essentially the opinions of so called experts who argue back and forth with another person and/or the host/hostess. If they can let's slap that baby back in, maybe we could get rid of maury, oprah, jerry and the like.

Lame, it reminds me of the

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 8:52pm.

Lame, it reminds me of the bullshit that mike moore tries to shove down people's throats in bowling for columbine. Take a few stray comments, edit out what doesn't serve your purpose, then paint it however the hell you want it. Newsmedia is newsmedia, if you watch fox nightly news it's going to show the same recycled stories that cnn, abc news, and msnbc are all showing. If you watch bill oriley and his show it's no different than anderson cooper, or hardball with dave. It's a show, it's not meant to be news, it's meant to be a political talkshow. After 9/11 bush could have done whatever the hell he wanted, newsmedia behind him or not, and we would have gone along with it. Were we wrong? Sure, I really don't think we should have gone there in the first place, and this isn't the first time I've mentioned that on these boards. Now that we are there it's a mess and we'd better find a creative way of saving some face. Back to the original point though, people can be downtown, waving their signs, and disagreeing with all of you down at the port, and saying the troops need to be there, WITHOUT fox news, without any news. You can choose to blame it all on them, and lord knows newsmedia is terribly biased in this country ( I challenge you to look at coverage when it has to do with guns , and research how much of it is true ) but to blame it solely on that, and to blame differing opinions on that is ridiculous.

Norm,

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 11:24pm.

You can watch the video. I'll bring it on Monday. Then you can tell me how FOX is the same as all the other networks.

Here's a preview: polls done after the invasion of Iraq and the discovery of zero WMD showed that FOX viewers were the most misinformed of all. Now, you would think that a network would consider that as a problem, right. News is supposed to be informative. Without an informed public, democracy doesn't work so well, and is vulnerable to being hijacked by right-wingnuts whose only sole purpose is to steal your tax dollars. But FOX doesn't care about informing the public. They care about selling a product: patriotism. If you think that's all fine, then good for you. But, that's what I'd call kinda lame.

I'll tell you what

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 11:41pm.

click on to cnn.com and then click onto foxnews.com, just for a minute or two. Both have "annan: ceasefire violation", "iran tests short-range missiles", both have talk of the jon benet suspect, one has 71 taliban dead, the other has "scores" of taliban dead, oh, and the polygamist children defending their parents lifestyle. One has an earthquake hitting near the south pole, the other says in the ocean near antarctica, so that can be confusing. I'm not seeing a huge difference here. Are we talking about the political spin talk shows? I will say I'd trust something from larry king before I would bill oreilly but I don't watch either show, and neither of those shows is news. Now, if fox news is reporting things that differently wouldn't their top stories on the website be different also? Is it only in the past that they were selling patriotism? I'm glad you have polls about something but you are old enough, and have taught enough classes to know that polls can be made to show just about anything. Maybe the fox viewers were the most misinformed, maybe most of the midwest only gets fox news, I don't know. I'm not saying it's all fine, I'm saying I think it's blown out of proportion. Again, it's not JUST fox news that spews misinformation, the Olympian does too, is it one of fox's sister companies? So if you can explain to me, how foxnews.com is less informative than cnn.com you might win me over, as it is right now it seems like foxnews is slanted to the right and you folks just can't STAND that it's not slanted to the left. You can call whatever you like lame, but that video was dumb, it was sound-bites that amounted to crap, it was as lame as bowling for columbine.

I assume...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 8:11am.

...you mean the video clip was lame? Because I don't believe you've seen the video yet. Best not to comment until you've got the facts. In fact, the filmaker who made the video has lot of documentary evidence (memos) from Roger Ailes instructing news anchors (as well as everyone else who goes on air) about what to say and how to approach stories. There are also interviews with ex-FOX employees corroborating this practice.

The filmaker also had an army of volunteers watch EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of FOX News for about a year, so that he could compare what was said on air with what was coming down from the memos. He was also able to show how the language was identical across the network, suggesting a central authority.

Look -- I don't mind that Rupert Murdoch is a conservative, or that his network is biased (as you rightly point out, they all are). What I mind is the deliberate and cynical manipulation of the American people for the purpose of selling cars (or toothpaste, soda, chewing gum, etc...). Other networks have separation between news and corprate, a firewall to prevent contamination of the product from economic forces. It doesn't always work, but it is there for a purpose, and everyone knows it is there, and when it breaks, everyone sees it. FOX has no such firewall.

The film itself is interesting in that it was funded by presales. I, and many, many others, ponied up $20 each so that the film could be made. This is a different model of funding for documentaries, one that is inherently bottom-up, grass-roots, and free from corporate censorship.

I'm curious: how was Bowling for Columbine so lame? I thought Moore pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I know this about Moore's

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 8:25am.

I know this about Moore's movie: He presented Trey Parker in such a way that both Parker and Matt Stone have said they legitimately don't like him. Moore's "appearance" in Team America: World Police wasn't a cute way to acknowledge a friend.

I haven't seen Bowling in so long that I have forgotten the specifics of Moore's points.

I do remember, though, Moore having some sort of interview/conversation with a clearly dillusional Charlton Heston. You stay classy, San Diego.

Yes

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 8:36am.

I meant the clip was lame. The fact that it was sponsored by moveon.org doesn't impress me either. Doesn't that make anyone else think that it might be biased? As for Michael moore, it has been a long time since I have seen it. In particular his demonization of Kmart for selling ammunition and poor old charles heston. Plus his cut and paste scene involving banks, I had so many coworkers say, "Well now all a felon has to do is open a bank account and they can get a gun." after seeing that movie I wanted to scream. I don't remember many of the specifics but more than once I remember thinking that I would love to burn that dvd and report it lost to netflix.

Again...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 9:47am.

...Moveon.org is a grassroots organization that expresses the will of many, many people, so I'd be interested to know how you think that is "biased"? Bias (in the negative sense in which you used it) is something that stems from people with power using that power to enrich themselves or further their own personal agenda (a la Rupert Murdoch). When a group of people organize together to acheive political goals, it's called democracy.

The NRA, for example is a poltical organization. I don't agree with its mission, philosophy, or tactics, but I wouldn't dismiss it outright as "biased". I would argue against it.

I'm troubled by your equivocation on some of these points. The right and the left are not the same. Michael Moore is not the same as Ann Coulter. Michael Moore makes arguments and supports them with data. You can agree or not agree. However, Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin, Hannity, etc..., flat makes stuff up, name-call, and lie; they doesn't use arguments, they use emotions. There is no comparison. And if Moore draws attention to banks giving away guns, don't you think the appropriate response is to have the banks stop, not to get angry at Michal Moore?

The banks are doing nothing

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 10:08am.

The banks are doing nothing illegal, where is the harm in that? If they are going through a legal and legitimate process why would I ask the banks to stop as opposed to asking michael moore to shut his pie-hole? My point is that the way it is filmed gives false interpretation of what actually happend. By biased I meant that it could be one-sided, moveon.org is a left wing grassroots organization. Now if I don't agree with left wing idealogy wouldn't I think that moveon.org sponsoring something might not be something I could trust? Michael moore makes arguments and tweaks his data, and filming, to best serve him. Let's spin it around here, if you were to watch a documentary on say "blogs in america and their negative impact on society" and it was sponsored by the NRA, what would your impression be? I mean, if fox news can twist things around and make a huge amount of the population believe things that are untrue, why couldn't the NRA? or moveon.org for that matter?

It seems to me you are defending all of these things because they are on your side of the fence, and that makes them right. What happens when someone is on the other side though? or refuses to be on one side or the other? If we don't really lean right or left where do we look to? You mention that there is no comparison but for people like me I look at them all the same, michael moore is on the left and I don't believe his crap, ann coulter is on the right and I don't believe her crap. THAT is how they are the same. They are fighting to further their agenda and not the way of life for the rest of us that look at the issues and choose not to jump into one party or the other.

So, If I understand you...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 10:37am.

...you essentially agree with what I'm saying: FOX is a conduit for right-wing haters such as Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, etc..., who regularly appear on that network. When was the last time you saw Michael Moore on FOX? Or Howard Dean? Or any other powerful voice for liberal values such as tolerance, peace, understanding and social justice?

Also, I don't believe that Moore questioned the legality of banks giving away guns. I think he questioned its appropriateness. Just because something isn't illegal, it doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Oh yeah, I think you're

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 12:28pm.

Oh yeah, I think you're saying "fox news" as a channel, and not "fox nightly news" or whatever. I can certainly understand how someone may not like the messages that the right wingers spew. I'm not keen on it or the bullshit that some on the left spew. I actually find myself liking howard dean, although he has some interesting mannerisms that I'm not sure about. I've never seen michael moore on fox, but I don't watch fox news, I tend to read my news so I can decide what I want to be bombarded with. I also don't have cable =)

We definitely differ on the bank view. I think it's a great idea particularly in the community that the bank was in, small town, lots of hunters, why on earth wouldn't that be appropriate? The small town where I'm from the local store would raffle off a rifle every year to help pay for different causes, it was a lot of fun. Maybe it wouldn't work so well in downtown chicago but we can't say it's a bad idea nationally when it would only be a problem in a few select cities. Do we really want NY city, chicago, LA even seattle making decisions for the rest of the country? even the state?

C'mon, Rick, Michael Moore

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 12:10pm.

C'mon, Rick, Michael Moore is an entertainer, just the same as John Stewart and Rush Limbaugh. (At least Stewart, unlike the other two, isn't pretentious about his material.) I usually like Michael Moore, because I often (certainly not always) agree with his message. I dislike Rush Limbaugh, because I generally disagree with his views. Both are assholes. One only need listen to Limbaugh for about thirty seconds to get that about him; and Moore's "interview" (more like vicious attack on an old senile dude) with Heston shows his truer colors as well. But, hey, assholes are good at entertainment!

That's pretty much my point.

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 12:19pm.

That's pretty much my point. FYI I love john stewart and steven colbert is pretty funny too, although he gets old real fast.

Yeah, Colbert is funny, but

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 12:36pm.

Yeah, Colbert is funny, but his style and mannerisms are SO close to ol' "Papa O'Reilly" that he creeps me out sometimes. Actually, I just really want to sock him in the nose sometimes (figuratively, of course). I think that means he's doing his job well.

Look,

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 1:07pm.

If you are president of the NRA, you are fair game. I don't get what you find so offensive. He let Heston speak for himself. I find Moore actually has ideas in his head, which is quite different from the loonies on the right. For example, the thing that I took away from Bowling for Columbine was his point about fear, and the way that the media exploits it. Moore named it before 9/11 and the current administration's perfection of this technique.

The guy's a geezer, Rick!

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 2:35pm.

The guy's a geezer, Rick! The fact that the NRA props (literally, maybe?) him up as president doesn't change the fact that he belongs in a nursing home. It was clear from the film that Heston is in a pathetic state. But not as pathetic as Moore's pot-shots at him.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the NRA. But Moore was out of line.)

Phil,if the NRA wants him to

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 12:28pm.

Phil,
if the NRA wants him to represent them, so be it. If he's really too old to properly represent them, they should pick another spokesperson. Honestly, as unfair as it might have been, the responsibility for that falls on both parties.

I'm with Phil on this

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 12:50pm.

I'm with Phil on this one.

What point was Moore trying to prove? Couldn't he have spoken to Wayne LaPierre and accomplished much, much more?

Television: a Degenerative Influence on Society

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:26pm.

Now that we're on the subject, I would like to propose the idea that television, generally, is a harmful and degenerative influence on society.

Read up on it with Jerry Mander's Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.

His book, In the Absence of the Sacred... is a good read. Consider it recommended.

Aw, man, that guy REALLY

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 9:36pm.

Aw, man, that guy REALLY needs to change his name. :)

Yeah, Maybe he should give

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 7:16pm.

Yeah, Maybe he should give "Sal" a try, for a while.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: