There is a strange parallel in both these stories about Bush &v Blair not being reported by the mainstream media. I tried to start threads on two major UK news forums about the Blair story, and both were pulled after mere minutes ! Positively a very freaky experience !!
Anyhow going back to the Bush story, I found this;
If the article is on the net then there's going to be umpteen links to it, but not one I've seen is from a reputable source.
I don't think its very freaky at all that the thread you tried to start was pulled. It's an old story and I'm sure it was already beaten to death in forums back in the day, so no surprise there at all I'd think.
We're dealing with 2 news stories here from 2003 and 2004 and some are trying to find some big hidden reason why you all didn't hear about it earlier or thinking there's some conspiracy with why it wasn't published on popular media, and I'd say the reasons have been beaten to death in this thread, just some don't choose to see it for what it is.
that does pretty much cover the facts - pointing out that it's not whether the case was valid or not, but that the mainstream media completely ignored it regardless. It makes me wonder how many other cases like this there are if it is just a case of her being disturbed as many seem to suggest.
“The issue of whether or not Bush is guilty of the acts detailed in the lawsuit seems almost negligible compared with how effortlessly the issue has slipped beneath the media's radar. It's almost inconceivable that in a political climate that demands every whisper of sexual misconduct by any public figure be placed under a microscope and scrutinized, a story of Schoedinger's magnitude has gone completely ignored by everyone except the local newspaper of the town in which she died. While a search for "Schwarzenegger" on CNN.com returns well over five stories on the first five pages about alleged harassment or lewdness, "Schoedinger" is nowhere to be found. Everybody in the country can recall the lurid details of every one of President Bill Clinton's White House transgressions, which pale in comparison to the crimes Bush was accused of.”
Sorry Lucky, this story may or may not have been debated to death on Internet Forums, the point is that it was & still is deliberately ignored by all the mainstream media, which is unbelievably odd, no matter what you actually think of the story. I would have expected the story to be both ridiculed or used to embarrasses Bush, or even for the lower market tabloids to feast on the sexual allegations, as the above extract states.
David Kelly's murder/suicide was splashed all over the tabloids. Not very sensitive for his kids and family. I could give you many examples of where the media has wayed in on someone but i wont bother. I will just stick to one.
Remember that lovely, freindly 8 year old boy who they wanted to take away from his family because he was overweight? What did he do to deserve the media circus that surrounded him and the public debate about was his mum who obviuosly loved him and cared for him was guilty of child abuse. Politicians came on tv to talk about it, every channel on tv, every newspaper all week long.
You might agree with me that episode was all wrong. Fine.
But Butcher Blair and his family when they chose public office, while they buy their five house's at the expense of me and you the taxpayers are all in the public domain. Blair's son when he was out boozing and smoking weed was widely reported. But that was in the early days. New Labours control of all the media now has become like Orwell's ministry of truth.
I deplore the treatment at the hands of the media of that 8 year old innocent child. And i believe Katherine Blair should have been reported as news. sympathetically. why should the rich and powerful be private citizens and a poor single parent from up north be cannon fodder for the media.
I mean look what happened today. Taxes went UP but the media all say TAX CUT it is an absolute joke the media today. I repeat Orwell's ministry of truth.
I was just going over the thread and saw this post for the first time (skimming is always a bad move) - nice one Karl. Though I did see one headline today that called the tax-rises as they were - it was either the Scotsman or Herald...
Why is it that this one news paper is the only one out there that decided to publish this story? That makes the article a bit more fishy to me.
There are plenty of other papers in the world that would have done an articles like this. So why did this one choose?
ok i would guess that the only reason this paper ran with it was because she was black and the paper is black orientated
Just like her local paper ran with it
IRiSHMaFIA wrote:
If this story held all this paper said as fact, it would have been splashed on every major newspaper and mag and every single news channel all over the globe.
It just doesn't wash with me.
karl you have to see the logic that if this was indeed fact it would have been picked up on in a massive way.
well we would like to believe that
but it really is a case that the internet is the only free media now
Murdoch - news corp, Sumner Redstone - viacom, AOLTimewarner, bbc, 99% of media in the uk and usa is in a handful of mega hands. Most of them advertise with each other and buy and sell shows from each other.
I dont know if you guys heard but they just made a law in the us to say that bloggers are going to be fined if they post certain comments? I will post this up if you want.
Now lets turn the argument on its head.
If this story was lies.
Why didnt they sue the living daylights out of the daily nation, pravda, and anyone else who did publish?
They called her a nutter.........mmhh
[video width=400 height=350][/video]
Now lets turn the argument on its head.
If this story was lies.
Why didnt they sue the living daylights out of the daily nation, pravda, and anyone else who did publish?
They called her a nutter.........mmhh
Because if they did then it would bring the story into mainstream media.
Thanks for the video of him picking his nose by the way lol
Aja bets that not only does Karl Pick his nose .... but he picks his Arse too
Aja i dont know who you are but you either are clairvoyant or just a lucky guesser. Because you are absolutely right. Do you think i need help? But i bet you pick someone elses dont you.
If this thread is related to freedom of the press, the following should be of interest (since it goes to identify that a child of a politician is handicated). The points by the PCC are interesting.
Press watchdog rejects Kelly complaint
By Gavin Cordon, PA
Published: 26 March 2007
The Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly today failed in her complaint against the Daily Mirror over a report about her decision to send one of her children to a private school for pupils with learning difficulties.
The Press Complaints Commission rejected Ms Kelly's complaint that the article intruded into the private life of her child in breach of the newspaper Code of Practice.
In its ruling, the PCC said the issues raised in the article were "a matter of considerable public interest".
"The fact that a Cabinet Minister - who had previously been Secretary of State for Education and Skills - had elected to remove her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate," it said.
"Even if Government policy included an acceptance of private schooling for those with special needs, the fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs (including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling)."
Ms Kelly said she was "very disappointed" by the PCC ruling.
"I have always accepted the scrutiny, both personal and political, which comes with being a politician and minister," she said.
"But this case was not about me but about a nine-year-old child. I brought the complaint because I do not see why the protection that the code rightly gives to children in general should not extend to the children of politicians.
"My sole intention throughout was to protect my son."
In its ruling, the PCC said Ms Kelly's concerns about the effect that publishing the article would have on her child were "entirely understandable".
It said that in reaching a decision on her complaint, it had to decide whether the newspaper struck an "appropriate balance" between avoiding unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of the child and publishing a story which served the public interest.
"While there was unquestionably an intrusion felt by the complainant and her child, it was clear that the newspaper had taken steps to limit the nature of that intrusion by omitting the name of the child, his school and precise details of his condition," it said.
"Had further details been included, the Commission may well have considered the intrusion to be unnecessary.
"It judged that the naming of the complainant herself - even though it carried with it an implicit identification of her child - was necessary in the context of the story and enabled a fuller, legitimate discussion of the issues at stake, including whether the State in general and Tower Hamlets Council in particular was able to offer appropriate schooling for children with special needs."
Daily Mirror editor Richard Wallace welcomed the ruling.
"It was most regrettable that a complaint was made to the PCC in the first place, over a story that was quite clearly of the highest public interest," he said.
"However, the Commission's unanimous decision to reject the complaint - and its decision that naming Ruth Kelly was 'necessary' in the context of a story which was 'a matter of considerable public interest' - is gratifying.
"As the Daily Mirror said at the time, when it comes to important issues the public has a right to know whether politicians are as sound in deed as they are in word."
"The fact that a Cabinet Minister - who had previously been Secretary of State for Education and Skills - had elected to remove her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate," it said.
It's cut and dried - and I doubt very much that the child in this case would be affected in any way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
lol
