Comments on: CBS Reporter Was “Not Interested” in Cindy Sheehan’s Use of Term “Freedom Fighters” to Describe Terrorists

By: krazy kagu

krazy kagu — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:25:09 +0000

I suppose this dizy dame will call the terrorists who crash those plane load of inocent victims freedom fighters just how far out in left feild is she?

By: performance appraisal example

performance appraisal example — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:28:29 +0000

1-26-06

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:42:29 +0000

The Cindy Sheehan thing is not really so much about what she supposedly said or did not say. ( I really dont know what she did or did not say but I dont doubt for a moment this administration and its allies would not hesitate to make up stories or misquote her.) Cindy Sheehan is about a much larger problem.
The problem is a sitting President and his administration who attacked another country for reasons now shown to be false and who has not been held accountable and the vast army of those who dont care or are willing to lie and smear to cover up what is one of the worst administrations in history. Dont bother with lame excuses like “every other country thought there were WMDs” ( Not true) or “Hey S_ _ _ happens!” The buck should stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave but apparently it doesnt. When confronted with the awful quaqmire this President has created due to his arrogance and ignorance and desire for war, the answer has been more smear and more cleverly staged photo -ops.

Cindy Sheehan is confronting the President with the question ” What is so noble about this war?” And if he had an answer or if she had a large campaign contribution, you know he would have met with her long ago.

My friend was in the Marines and he says this is a classic Psy Ops campaign. They have spent hundreds of millions on psychological research and know exactly which words to use and which buttons to push to create fear, hate and division here at home in order to further their ruthless agenda. I thought I saw this long ago when I was in the USAF in the Vietnam Era but this administration makes those lies pale in comparison.

Ever look at photos of people in some faraway country cheering for some killer or thug who is in command and wonder how they could be so blind?
Well as Jesus asked ” How is it you see the speck in your brothers eye and not the stone in your own?” Good question.. and 2000 years later still unanswered. Cindy Sheehan wants America to take off the blinders. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen soon enough.

By: Black Jack

Black Jack — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:58:46 +0000

Patterico,

You continue to give MSM reporters the benefit of the doubt: If Knoller says he simply wasn’t interested, you take him at his word. Perhaps you have good reasons for doing so, but on the anniversary of Dan Rather’s Memogate scandal, it might be wise to read John’s comments at Power Line.

“My own impression, though, is that, far from having ameliorated since last year, the liberal bias of the MSM has, if anything, worsened. I think the fact that alternative media now exist has prompted some reporters and editors to abandon even the pretense of objectivity.”

Now, you’re a smart guy and surely entitled to call it the way you see it, but on this one, I’m with the Rocket Man.

By: God

God — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:15:52 +0000

You’re welcome.

By: patd95

patd95 — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:31:41 +0000

Don’t worry. Katrina has made Sheehan irrelevant! Thank God!

By: Craig R. Harnon

Craig R. Harnon — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:14:11 +0000

True Blue, heh! That’s a good one. She wanted all of those cameras on her so she could grieve in solitude. You should be on Leno. He’d love ya!

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:57:23 +0000

I believe Knoller’s explanation that he simply wasn’t interested. This is how media bias works.

Paterico:

I’m not so sure Knoller was expressing the kind of disinterest you seem to think he was - the “I don’t think this is news” disinterest. To the contrary, I believe he understood that reporting that comment would work against something he believes in and he didn’t want to risk harm to Sheehan’s credibility. If so, he isn’t guilty of bias - he is guilty of outright dishonesty. To me, there is a big difference.

But to be fair, we really don’t know what he meant, or what he was thinking. I guess I am just plain jaded when it comes to the media.

By: true blue

true blue — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:41:40 +0000

I wish people would leave Cindy alone. All she wants to do is grieve her beloved son in solitude.

By: Black Jack

Black Jack — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:58:07 +0000

Mark Knoller’s interest in Cindy Sheehan, her statements and her activities, seems to have reached far enough so long as Bush Bashing was on tap, but he strangely claims to have no interest in reporting her actual words when they might reveal her motivations.

Clearly, Knoller’s excuse for sanitizing Sheehan’s image by refusing to portray her accurately reveals his biased agenda. Simply put, he’s not an objective reporter, he sees his job as a facilitator of propaganda for the Left.