News-Record.com

Perhaps I should start watching TV. I had no idea there were three shows with the President as a character. I have not seen a single episode of either one of the three.

Let's see...West Wing was developed for the sole purpose of brainwashing the viewers into accepting a a Democratic President prior to the Gore/Lieberman debacle. It didn't work. Actors on the show were heard each filming day saying, "He, he..we've got Bush now. Watch this next scene." Martin Sheen is just a bit to the left of Teddy Kennedy, and this is Sheen's unabashed effort at cramming his far-left political agenda down out throats.
Commander in Chief is championed by another far left Clinton-lovin' actor, Geena Davis. Guess what it's message is? Can you say H-I-L-L-A-R-Y??
This is subtle persuasion, not outright disrespect. Unfortunately, some are taken in by these suave shows and don't realize the political agenda behind each one.

Remember that for the first three (or was it just two) seasons of "24," POTUS was portrayed as a strong, morally upstanding character who acted in the country's best interests at all times. The new president on "24" is supposed to be a foil to the first president, hopelessly selfish, childish and flustered under pressure (and overacted by the actor).

And you wonder why people who read an editorial on your editorial pages immediately tie that to some bias on your news pages...

Are you trying to say that if there was ANY network where the president should be shown in a good light, it would be on Fox where some opinion programs on their NEWS network tend to give him an easy go of things?

JR, there are several problems with your premise, if that is indeed your premise (Just Asking, my butt, by the way...)

You first assume that Fox NEWS does play soft. It doesn't. Yes, there are a couple of more OPINION/TALK shows on the Fox News Network that do tend to present the other side in a somewhat favorable light. BUT, the news operation doesnt take that tact. (This is the same as you showing outright indignation whenever someone accuses you of having the views of someone on your opinion page.)

But, you take it a step further. You next assume that if Fox is gushing all over the president, that it MUST extend to the Entertainment network.

Yes, there is a grand conspiracy -- or there should be.

JR, I am sorry to disappoint. Yes, liberals work as a grand conspiracy -- and that is probably why you make all the assumptions you do.

But, I must say that conservatives don't... sorry

Re: West Wing

The episode on "The Supremes" was an interesting exercise in contrasts. In Bartlet's world (where the Twin Towers still stand), a very conservative Chief Justice dies. And wheels are turned and deals are made behind the scenes so that an aging Supreme liberal lion resigns . . . in order for another staunch conservative and another liberal lion (played by Glenn Close) to be jointly appointed to the Court. I cannot exactly recall "the speech" that the conservative candidate gave Bartlet during his interview in the Oval, but it spoke to the importance, in our legal system, of mutual respect and informed/passionate debate . . . and especially the roll of the dissenting view . . . the idea whose time has not yet come but deserves expression.

Of course, Bartlet's world is not real.

I am a fan of both West Wing and Commander in Chief primarily because they are 2 of the very, very few programs on television worth watching in the entertainment (sit back and let it flow) genre. Even WUNL (PBS) North Carolina version leaves a great deal to be desired since they offer decent programming only during pledge week.

As for the brainwashing value of these programs, Dear Lord get real! A case can be made for “brainwashing” using any type of communication, even your comment can be called brainwashing because you are trying to implant in my mind that these programs are designed to implant ideas into my mind. Relax, and enjoy, or turn on a sports station where you can watch a group of people mauling each other in the name of sportsmanship and good clean fun.

Uh-oh...Brenda's brain is already on spin-cycle.
I told you they would wash it!

Jim, check out the rest of the Internet sometime. Conservatives don't operate on conspiracy theories? Right. Then why do so many bloggers think the entire MSM takes marching orders from some secret Democratic office in New York?

This is Greensboro, folks. Let's keep it enlightened ... and real.

Gee Beau. Insightful as always.

Trying to change the subject away from the original point and protect and defend the N&R blindly the way you always do (for what reason I'll NEVER know..)

OK, let's just say you're right and we take that part about conspiracies out of the equation.

JR's first comment throws a lot of assumptions out there that JUST AREN'T true.

And, by the way, it IS possible to "just ask" a loaded question... That is what JR did.

So, let's talk about the real problems with JR's "just asking" of an "innocent" question.

Get real? Good try. We'll get real when an explanation comes along.

Maybe by broadcasting a "disrespectful" image of the president, the FOX network is practicing it's "fair and balanced" approach, since its news is skewed with deep respect for a man who has lost that same quality from the leaders and citizens of many countries in the world.

Thanks Matt. Of course, when the President of the United States starts running as Leader Of The World, then we'll start caring what other countries think.

Until then, we could give a ____ about France and what they think.

So, there goes THAT theory.

Matt, on what do you base your conclusion about President Bush's loss of respect in "many countries?" Have you traveled all over the entire world and done your own investigation?
I'm betting it's from the biased news you see in the mainstream media.

Jim, I give knee-jerk reactions against statements that are obviously wrong.

The funny thing is that if you read JR's post without your implicit assumption that he's Wrong About Everything, you see that his post actually DISCREDITS the notion of conspiracy. It's not a loaded question until you react so defensively.

I've actually done a bit of study on Rupert's business practices in comparison with Microsoft's. I came away a bit worried about News Corp/Fox, though not for any political reason. Here's why: He is a master of working cheap. If that means re-running "Dynasty" in Siberia, so be it. If that means starting a "news" channel that's mostly punditry, positioning it with a nod and a wink on the right *even though what little "news" there is closely resembles the "news" on other cable networks because it's all recycled wire reports*, so be it. Again, it has nothing to do with politics. He has sympathies to the right, but that hasn't stopped him from airing "The Simpsons" for a decade and a half or showing a bunch of potheads on "That '70s Show."

Try this. Treat JR as a respectable human being instead of a punching bag. Respond to a post like this in good humor. It's funny. It skewers our perceptions.

When you come in all angry and defensive, you accidentally give a lot of credence to the opposite point of view. If you're so defensive, it shows that JR struck a nerve, whether he intended to or not. (I believe "not.")

And where did this come from: "And you wonder why people who read an editorial on your editorial pages immediately tie that to some bias on your news pages ..."? Did JR and Allen Johnson switch jobs?

You're just operating under misperceptions here. That's OK. We're all human. Just bear in mind that others may point them out when you use them to attack people.

Jaycee -- Fair question. Fortunately, the Net gives you a chance to check out what the rest of the world is saying. What do you see there?

Beau..why do you feel compelled to answer my question to Matt? Shut up and let him speak for himself.
But...to address your answer...the internet does NOT reflect what the rest of the world is saying. It reflects what someone posts on the internet about what the rest of the world is saying. Do you understand the difference?
I've been throughout a helluva lot of this world in the last 7-8 years, including the Middle East, South America, several sets of pacific islands, the Caribbean, and Central America. I found only a small portion to be anti-American or anti-Bush. I actually talked to the people, I didn't read about them on the internet! But if I only went by what was on the internet or the not-so-mainstream-anymore media I'd certainly get the same impression as Matt.

Beau... I'm afraid I don't even know where to start.

First, JR's question STARTED with assumptions. If he didnt think that Fox had some reason to be kind to the President, then why did he ask???

YOU are missing the point.

He asked the question because the assumption would be that Fox -- of the three -- would have the KIND view of the President on 24! Why else would ANYONE ask that question?

Second, please (actually forget please)...

Let's just cut to what needs to be said: Why don't you take your Duke punk ___ and just not tell me how to think and how to react?

You have the NERVE to tell me not to be offended? Not to be the least bit offended when the editor of the newspaper -- with all the power that entails -- is making an assumption like he did with his "innocent" question? (Which wasn't funny!)

Obviously, JR struck a nerve. And, if he did WHY does that give "credence" to his point? Are you saying that showing emotion lends something to someone elses point of view? (oh wait, I forgot, you went to Duke, where everyone is like Spock. No one emotes except when at a Duke basketball game...)

Third, the editorial page comment came from JR repeatedly saying on his blog that he does not understand (or seems dismayed) when people connect news coverage slants with editorials on the editorial pages. The argument seems very relevant in this case. Do I have to spell it out?

Forget it, I will. Fox News' commentary is to Fox News NEWS content just as N&R Editorials are to N&R news coverage. (Forget that Fox ENTERTAINMENT'S division is even FURTHER removed from this whole thing.)

Fourth, about Fox and how evil they are. Who cares? The thing your grand research has not factored in is ratings. If Murdoch shows Dynasty re-runs in Siberia, who cares? If it's not worth watching, no one will! And, Murdoch won't make money! Unlike Newspapers, TV shows get rated and if you don't get good ratings, you don't get money. Revenue is CLOSELY tied to viewership.

With newspapers, the equation is more disconnected. It seems as readership goes down and penetration dives, advertising rates go up. Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

I'm sorry if I don't fit your "rules" of how to blog or how to "react" to very "funny" comments(sorry, not even comments "innocent" "just asking" questions.

I'm just an idiot -- and idiot who IS very much like the general public. The general public who is waking up and rejecting the kind of thinking that JR and you perpetuate.

Jim -- I don't buy the argument that much of the general public is like you. The Internet and cable news make it seem that way because they focus on people whose outrage blinds their common sense. Talk to people in real life, and they're more sensible.

Jaycee -- Yes, I do see that distinction, and I'm aware of the irony that I just made it myself. But I'd suggest that there are a handful of reputable international sources that give you honest depictions of what some (not all) people in their regions think. There are actually some opinion polls operating in other countries -- I'm sure some of them have a wider margin of error than others, but that's often easy to discern. None of those sources is perfect, and I'd only suggest that it would add to -- not replace -- your perceptions from traveling overseas.

I see a bit of pro-Bush sentiment and quite a bit of anti-Bush sentiment. If you followed the UK election, you probably saw quite a bit of vitriol directed at Tony Blair -- he won, but less convincingly that the once-iconic PM has in the past.

I will agree wholeheartedly that there isn't much actual anti-Americanism. I've heard indirectly of students protesting U.S. policy and then turning around and applying for visas.