Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Been watching our (local) coverage of the WTC in Miami this week. It has been very disturbing.

The media weeks before the conference broadcasted daily about the possibilities of riots here and what happen. During the week several times the media (TV News we watched ABC and CBS) openly speculated on the air why the protesters were not at (for example)such and such an address because a banquet/event that had key Trade Officials attending was going to be at (name of locality and address)starting at (named time)...and the protesters would REALLY NEED to be there. They announced every opportunity for protesters well in advance and often made statements that seemed designed to agitate any protesters har might be listening.

The coverage was extremely biased. The cameras focused on the protesters that were the most outlandish or violent and when ever they ran into one that tried to explain (intelligently) the reason for protesting (the conference) the newsperson cut them off. They then would switch to a protester that was wearing an ape suit or something outlandish and make the comment "Do they look intelligent?"

The biggest thing that was lacking in the coverage was an intelligent discussion of the issues pro/con. Why was there a conference? What did they hope to acomplish here? Why were these people against it? Anyone watching the News would never know. It was burried under nothing but Hype and sensationalism about the protests themselves.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I wouldn't call that "biased." Being biased means you focus only on one side of the story. Sounds to me like they're not focussing on either side of the story. They're just trying to incite a riot so they can boost their ratings.

Agreed except for one thing...

I do call it bias when the media concentrated on pictures and interviews of the extremists, repeatedly made comments about how stupid the protesters were and stayed away from anyone who tried to intelligently explain the real reasons for the protests as well.

By avoiding the actual issues, there was nothing negative to be said about the conference it'self. (What did they talk about? You would never find out if you listened to these reporters) There was not one interview with a Trade official about what was being discussed in any of the news casts we saw. In fact, what they were doing was completely burried by the protest coverage.

The end result was to paint a picture of the World Trade Conference as being people working for what was good for us and the protesters as being radical militant "anarchists" (a word they bombarded us with weeks in advance) that were just out to burn and loot. That is biased (by omision) reporting.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I agree with you completely. The news seems to exist today to "make news" instead of to "report the news". Your account sounds more like they were trying to incite a riot to me!--then they could get a story! I was listening to a middle of the road talk show a couple of days ago and 2 men called in who had just recently come back from Iraq. They both said that were being interviewed by a couple of the big 3 (abc, cbs, nbc) news agencies when they were in Iraq, and when they said that everything was fine, the news crew yelled cut and didn't want to hear any more about it. They were only looking for "bad" news, and didn't want to report that things were fine.

I really don't think they bother to check their "facts" either. I was in a union about 10 years ago and we were on strike for a couple of reasons (cost of living increase, and seniority rules). The media came and covered the situation, but they got every reason wrong! None of the reasons they listed on television or in the local paper were what the Union was asking for.

I know another general interest story the did about someone that had a pet cockatoo. Cockatua alba (Umbrella cockatoo) that they said weighed 10 lbs! (If you know anything about parrots, these birds weigh typically 400-500 grams, and a bird in the 1 1/2 lb range would be so obese that it probably wouldn't live long. A 10 lb. one would be impossible! Birds don't deposit fat on their bodies like mammals do. They deposit it internally and it displaces their air sacs and lungs until they eventually suffocate. There isn't enough volume inside that speicies of bird's body to hold 1/10 that much weight! Yeah, a 10 lb. cockatoo sounds sensational, but it's not true.

These are two stories that I absolutely knew the facts about and they got them (the pertinent facts) totally wrong. Yes, there was a strike and there was someone with a cockatoo, but other than that, it was all nonsense. And how is the public helped or "imformed" by such stories when everything pertinent is wrong? Is the purpose of the news to WOW people? If I want to be wowed, I'll go see an action flick!

(I also find it ironic how Bush's trip to the U.K. needed all the extra security and how few new agencies mentioned that the extra security was needed because of these violent peace activists. Nor do they mention that these same protesters are anti-British, anti-government, anti-capitalist, etc. They go on forever about how many protesters there are, and then there is a small 5 second blurb about 65% of British supporting the Bush and the action in Iraq. When was the last time you heard about a violent pro-war or pro-Bush demonstration? Now that'd be an interesting story! Examine why the peace movement is so violent and why the supporters are so placid. We had a problem here last year at the University of San Francisco when a mob of peace activists attacked a bunch of people who were there supporting the action in Iraq. Fortunately, news agencies were there to report on the peace movement and a number of people got it on tape so there was proof of who attacked whom. The local police had to create a perimeter around the supporters to protect them from the peace activists! It (the attack) didn't get nearly as much coverage as all the peace activists that were blocking traffic, defecating in the streets, throwing up, etc., or even as much coverage as the peace protest itself! I guess in the news business today, sensationalism sells, and it's more about ratings than balance or truth.)

Rodney

Now you got me going. LOL

and another thing. Most of those peace protesters in San Francisco looked to be homeless (dirty torn clothes, etc.), yet almost everyone of them had a video recorder! Many speculated that they were trying to incite the police so that they could take legal action against the city and the video equipment was to "record" the police action for proof. There was even evidence that these protesters were brought into the city by bus. If I was homeless, I don't know where I'd even be able to "plug in" my video equipment. Plus, I'd be more worried about my next meal than I would be about protesting anything! That'd be another good news story. Was this protest all a set up just to try and sue the city? Why did almost all those "poor" looking people have video equipment?

Rodney

Funny you should mention Videocams. Thursday night after things cooled down the protesters were showing "video tapes to their friends that they claimed as "Proof" of police brutality. Our police benhaved rather well. Still...on the other side, the media spent weeks explaining how oranges could become weapons (used in a slingshot) and showing every imaginable thing that could be adapted...before the protesters got here. Then after, it was show everything confiscated... Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Really Rodney?

This is more of the drivel you absorb so mindlessly from right wing radio isn't it? You have no reason to believe any of this, do you Rodney?
But you don't mind spouting such nonsense here, do you?

What facts do you have to back your claims?

Well, the only thing I have to back that up is that I saw them with my own eyes. (Sorry, no left wing publications to back up what I saw, and I didn't read it anywhere, so I can't give you any references this time.) (I live about 40 miles south of S.F. and drive up there about one to two times a month delivering animals, I saw them when making one of my deliveries.) Truly disgusting to see them defecating and vomiting in the street just to make it tough on the cops-and over 1/2 of them had video cameras and many were filming the whole time. They primarily had their cameras trained on the police that were arresting others in the group.

I did get to tape and view the O'Reilly show you were talking about. Interesting that they viewed a lot of the report with skepticism, but in the end they all said that they believed that there is an Iraq/al Qaeda link because of this memo and other facts they have---even the guy that argued against the memo said that. They also said some of the memo was questionable, not all, but with 50 different connections and multiple sources both domestic and foreign, what would you expect? Just because some parts of the memo aren't above reproach doesn't mean that every part is, or even that the questionable parts are positively wrong. Only one out of 50 has to be right to prove that there is a link.

Rodney

Since you doubt everything I post, until I give you references, (and then you go away). I though I should take a quick look and see what proof you might be happy with. I figured that since it was so sickening, and that I saw it, there must be articles out there about it. We all know how the news likes to report sensational stuff.

Here's a newspaper article I found doing a quick search:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2003/03/20/heaving.DTL

Don't believe that source, just go to any search engine and type in protesters and vomit or defecating and you will find a large number of liberal newspapers (since that is all you believe) that have articles stating the exact same thing. (try reading a conservative one and you will get the same story). Some of these sites even have pictures of these protesters doing their nasty deeds.

International Answer funded a lot of these protests, I understand. Maybe they even paid homeless people to protest and gave them cameras? I wouldn't put it past a group like them to do something like that.

Rodney

Rodney,
Its becoming clear to me that you have little grasp on reality. Take a look at your post - you claimed that many speculated the protestors were trying to incite the police so that they could take leagal action against the city, you claimed there was evidence these homless people (protestors) were brought into the city by bus. Then you went on to make assertions based on these statements.

When I called you on it you sent me to a newspaper article for "proof" but the article said nothing about any of your claims. Nice going "Ace".

I've posted the entire newspaper article below so you can verify your apparent loosing grip on reality, Ace.

Joe
=========================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco protesters stage a 'vomit in'

Bay City News Thursday, March 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

08:41 PST -- In a unique form of opposition, some protesters at the Federal Building staged a "vomit in,'' by heaving on the sidewalks and plaza areas in the back and front of the building to show that the war in Iraq made them sick, according to a spokesman.

Many of the approximately 300 protesters demonstrating at the building at 450 Golden Gate Ave. attempted to block building entrances.

Seven anti-war demonstrators were arrested at mid-morning as they sought to block a group of about 20 federal employees and other visitors seeking to enter the building, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Ron Rogers said.

Rogers said all seven were charged with creating a disturbance and two were additionally charged with resisting arrest.

Only the back entrance of the Federal Building on Turk Street was open this morning. People with business inside the building were required to wait outside and were allowed to pass through metal barricades at intervals. The seven arrests occurred during one of the intervals as federal police officers sought to lead visitors around the metal barricades into the building.

On the Larkin Street side of the building, demonstrators blocked the driveway that leads into a basement garage used by federal judges and other officials who work in the building.

Numerous officers from the Federal Protective Service and San Francisco Police Department, wearing helmets and other riot protection gear, formed lines around the building.

I have thought the same thing about you numerous times now. You ask for proof of something I have seen with my own eyes. I give you an article about the protesters vomiting and defecating in the streets, and now you say I have no grasp of reality because I said that many speculated about the cameras? (Seeing them with my own eyes is as close to reality as I, or anyone, will ever get.) How am I supposed to prove speculation? It was just something that I noticed, something that rearfang mentioned was going on in Florida, and something talked about on talk radio on numerous stations. (thus many speculated about).

Do you know the meaning of the word speculation? Again, get yourself a dictionary and learn how to read, learn deductive reasoning and logic, and we could possibly have a good, entertaining debate.

Here is short blurb from the Marxist group "International Answer" that organizes many of these anti-war, anti-america, protests.

"Organizers at International ANSWER, the group that coordinated the event, said at least 200 buses from more than 145 cities would attend the demonstration. Similar events were also planned for San Francisco."

Here's the URL if you want to read the entire article.-http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1008668/posts

I also heard on the radio that many protesters were seen entering busses after the event. (sorry, I can't prove something that I heard on the radio, but it confirms what even the organizers said they were doing).

Rodney

Rodney,

I guess I'll have to remind you of what you said. You have a surprisingly short memory.

Your first assertion:
"Most of those peace protesters in San Francisco looked to be homeless (dirty torn clothes, etc.), yet almost everyone of them had a video recorder! "

Your second assertion:
"Many speculated that they were trying to incite the police so that they could take legal action against the city and the video equipment was to "record" the police action for proof."

Your third assertion:
"There was even evidence that these protesters were brought into the city by bus."
Then you built on your false assertions with the following nonsense:
"If I was homeless, I don't know where I'd even be able to "plug in" my video equipment. Plus, I'd be more worried about my next meal than I would be about protesting anything! That'd be another good news story. Was this protest all a set up just to try and sue the city? Why did almost all those "poor" looking people have video equipment? "

And so I accused you of making stuff up. I suggested that you had no idea what you were talking about - I was questioning your credibility. You came back with a link to a news story that supported not a single one of your assertions - congratulations.

I called you on that fact, and you came back with a link to a story that says the protestors arrived by bus from 145 cities. Did that somehow get translated in your mind to the organizers bussing homeless people to the rally - maybe all a massive planned project whose real aim was to sue the city?

So you see what I mean when I say you might be loosing your grip on reality?

Joe

No, Joe, I don't see what you mean when you say I might be loosing my grip on reality?

I have a good memory. You are reading meanings into my words that just aren't there. I guess I will have to remind you what I said, with an explaination of such, so you comprehend it better.

(I guess the media bias test wouldn't work well with you because you don't seem to be able to honestly assess things, seing as how you read meaning into things that just isn't there.)

I said the protesters were vomiting and defecating in the streets as part of their "respectful" peace protest.--I saw them myself, and I gave you a liberal newspaper article as evidence that is exactly what they were doing,- when you called me on it.

I also said they were bussed in.-I gave you evidence by quoting what the organizers of the protest said they had done in another protest and were going to do in S.F, -when you called me on it.

Then I said they "looked" like they were homeless---they were very dirty and had torn clothes and such. I don't know if they absolutely, positively were homeless. I just said that is how they "looked" to me.

I said there was "speculation" on them trying to start a lawsuit because so many of them had cameras and that they were filming the police during the protest. I said that because I heard it on the radio. Then, later that night, I was specifically looking for cameras and I noticed a lot of them on the television news clips--most of them did in fact have cameras and they did "look" horrible to me! I wouldn't want to meet one of them in a dark alley!

It's kind of odd. I make a number of statements. You come back with, "You are making it all up!" I then give you evidence by supplying source after source that confirms all the facts I have stated, and then you attack me because of something that I state was "speculated", "thought", "looked", "heard on the radio" etc. That is exactly what I was talking about when I said you needed to learn English better. Words like speculated, looked, etc. are just those words (by definition) because they are not absolute proof, that is why I used them! They are opinion, observation, or thought, nothing else. I'm sorry, that there is no proof for such things. If I could just go back in time, and bring my camera (observational proof) or record the "speculations" I heard on the TV and radio (thought proof), then maybe I could prove it to you. Just because I can't prove it, because I didn't record it at the time it was happening, and keep the tapes for eternity, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the fact that I have given you references to everything else that is provable, should make you give me the benefit of the doubt on the things that aren't provable. I am surprised that you are able to overlook all the other evidence that you called me on, that I have since proved, and then make the conclusion that I am making it all up.

There is nothing wrong with making statements, or further speculation, based on some facts and thoughts. I never represented many of my speculative statements as fact, especially when I followed a lot of them with a question mark! Isn't that obvious to you, or anyone else who understands a fair amount of English?

(and the statements I made were directed at rearfang, who's statements, observations, and speculation about a current protest in Florida, coincided with what I saw quite a while ago in S.F., Ca.)

Rodney

I don't think you are loosing your grip on reality. I just think that you are so blinded by your political views. You seem to read meaning into statements that just aren't there, and then you try to debate that "inferred" meaning because it disagrees with your political position.

Rodney

Add's up to the problem I posted awhile back. Nobody wants to accept anybodies references if they don't agree with what they are arguing.
It is the weakness of this forum that you can't lay your proof out in it's orrigional form...and if you try, you end up writing a biliography for every post. What you saw and I saw are only valuable if the readers of our posts is willing to accept us as a valid witness of the events or materials presented. Otherwise it is only "You said...or I said"...and then you are accused of making it up, or being mentally disturbed. Shoot...Next they expect you to justify your life for the sake of their winning an arguement.
This whole protest thing...Kind of takes me back to the Viet Nam protests...Seemed most people were willing to only accept one version (theirs) of what was going on...even when it was going on in front of them. Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Actually I don't think thats quiet fair. I would have been glad to accept Rodney's references if they even vaguely supported his assertions. But if you read through the posts you can see that they don't.

When I called him on his rather rediculous assertions he referred me to a newspaper article that in no way supported him. I pointed that you and he did the exact same thing again. I pointed that out aand he claimed iit was just his opinion and he was free, blah, blah, blah.

If one makes outlandish claims they have some responsibility to support them when challenged. Rodney has a history of outlandish claims here, beginning with his assertion that the environemental movement was all started by communists bent on world domination. Making those sorts of public pronouncments makes one suspect in the eyes of rational people of any political persuation. I know some very conservative people including a VP at a large energy utility who laughed when I suggested Rodney's perspective, so its not just a liberal bashing.

Rodney also has a an intense reluctance to accept the fact when he is in error. When I pointed out to him that the unprecidented security for the Bush administration in England was due to the potential terrorist threat, and not the crowds of protestors, he spent paragraph after paragraph trying to restate his answer so that it wasn't complety wrong.

Both of these attributes make a debate with him less than rewarding. Which is why I've decided not to engage him any longer. Although I reserve the right to jab him every once in a while when he makes a particularly crazy claim.

Pulatus

Whenever I post something that someone doesn't like, they attack me with "Where are your references?" (I usually don't post references because I don't think most people want to read them.) I then give them references to all the facts I posted and then they try to attack the veracity of the references themselves, or anything else they can about the post--other than the idea! (Opinions, etc.) I even see people attack other peoples grammar instead of challenging the ideas their posts talk about. I can understand attacking someone's grammar when something is unreadable, but a small mistake that is obvious? Why attack that?

I understand some people might want references, but why not just ask politely instead of attacking because they don't like the ideas presented?

Look at the Clean Air Act for instance. People have posted how it says that factories that upgrade have to also upgrade their pollution controls also. Doesn't anyone think anymore? Don't all the people that assume this is a wonderful thing because they heard about it from a liberal source that is tied to the "environmentalist groups", realize that it doesn't affect any new factories? Don't they realize that old factories that didn't upgrade before the act, because it was too expensive then, won't do it now when it is significantly more expensive with the new legislation? Don't they also know that, since it is an impotent piece of legislation, if Bush gives factories the option of upgrading without adding extra pollution controls, he is overriding something that currently does nothing? And then they attack Bush for opening up the flood gates for factories to pollute. When I point this nonsense out, I have been called names and such, but no one has argued about the ideas of this "fraudulent" environmental piece of legislation. No, it's not bad for the environment like some other "environmental frauds", but it doesn't really do anything either. And claiming it is great legislation and that it will save the environment, when air pollution levels have been going down every year for the past 30 years or more without it, is nonsense.

Please understand, the above argument is one I made based on logic and the statements made by "environmentalists" in previous posts. I was arguing with their statements that directly contradict themselves, not the veracity of the clean air act itself. Without a lot of data, that I don't have, I can't really argue for or against it. But I do know nonsense and illogical statements when I hear them!

Goes back to the "dumbing" down of the American public. (I better say that "dumbing" isn't a word or I will get attacked for that too!) Most people on this board don't even know how to logically argue points, like you I and I did earlier. People even see words that I didn't write, and attack me on those unwritten imagined words too! It was a lot more fun debating with you than it has been lately. So sad.

If you want to attack Bush, that's fine. Just make a good argument for it. (like he is spending too much money or something). When your own arguments defeat themselves, don't make them!

Fortunately, I have a lot of work to do with winter and the holidays coming, so you probably won't hear from me for a while. but, .... I'll be back! ..and, hopefully debate with some people that understand logic better!

Rodney

Rodney,

Do you really think the extra security in England was designed to protect the president from the protestors? I'm continually amazed at your inability to grasp reality.

Joe

Let's see, Bush goes to the UK. Huge protests are planned to coincide with his visit so that he will see them. Yeah, I think that is why they added the extra security. There are a lot of crazies in the world. And from what I have seen, I large percentage of them are protesters.

Why do YOU think they had to add all the extra security? We have left wing radio here saying that the U.S. should have to pay for the UK's added security expenses because Bush's trip caused it, thus we are responsible for it.

I can't wait to hear why you think they needed the extra security all of the sudden.

Rodney

It was out of concern for a terrorist attack Rodney...you sad man.
Didn't Rush tell you?

Joe

Joe, Joe, Joe, how do you come up with this stuff?

I state that they needed all the extra security because of Bush's visit and the protesters, and you say, "It's not because of that, it's because of terrorists!" Don't you understand that that is exactly where a terrorist could be, in the crowd of protesters, just like I said. If it was only because of terrorists, and not the protesters, why wouldn't they always have that much security? No one ever knows when a terrorist will strike! It is because of Bush's importance, his presence there, and all the protests that they had to increase security. If there weren't so may protesters because of Bush's visit, security wouldn't have to watch so many potential terrorists in the crowd of protesters. And you say I have no grasp of reality? What are you going to argue next? The meaning of the word is?

I guess the heightened security will stay there long after Bush is no longer there, since it is there only for the terrorists and not due to the protesters. (We all know that the British are as big a target as the Americans are.)

(Once you know how to read, and comprehend what you are reading, logic would be a good thing to learn next! )

Rodney.

Sorry Rodney, you loose.

You said protestors, the incredible levels of security were to thwart potential terrorist actions. Sorry man.

Joe

Logically, I have to disagree again.

I only see 2 ways to look at this.

1)Bush always has a certain level of security. The country he goes to will also provide a certain level of security. If that level of security is significantly raised because of a terrorism possibility, then the threat of terrorism must be extremely heightened all of the sudden. While that's possible, there is no evidence to support it, that I am aware. They have been running extra security on the president since 9/11 (so that heightened level would be considered a normal level of security at this point in time), but nothing near this magnitude.

or:

2)Bush always has a certain level of security. The country he goes to will also provide a certain level of security. If that level of security is raised because of an extraordinary event, like a large organized protest, then the extraordinary event caused that rise in security.

We absolutely know that the one thing different about this trip is an unusually large protest. We don't know of a huge increase in a terrorist threat. So, to claim that all the extra security is because of a change we don't know about, while ignoring an event that we do know about, isn't very logical. (And it reminds me of some of your other arguments!)

While I do agree that the security is looking for terrorists, these high numbers or security personnel are needed because one of the places they are looking is in the large group of protesters-besides everyone else in the presidents vicinity. Eliminate the protesters from the equation, and there are a lot less people for the security to scrutinize as potential terrorists. Do you really think there would be 700 secret service guarding the president if the protest wasn't being held? Do you think 700 men (just our security, the British are supplying a lot too) are needed whenever Bush visits another country because of terrorist threats? Do you really think that adding an extra 100,000 protesters to the equation doesn't mean that a lot of extra security is needed? Do you have some evidence that the terrorism threat has increased so much that many extra security personnel are needed all of the sudden, solely because of that increased threat?

Sorry, but you argument just doesn't make any sense at all to me. I guess maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Rodney