OT - U.S. Eliminates Annual Terrorism Report

[NoMyths]

Following the current report's findings that 2004 had more terrorist attacks than in any year since 1985 (the first year the publication covered), the State Department has decided to stop publishing it. Interesting.

Link: U.S. Eliminates Annual Terrorism Report (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html)

Quotes:
"According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades.

"The statistics didn't include attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror.""

Full Text:
Seattle Times: U.S. eliminates annual terrorism report
By Jonathan S. Landay

WASHINGTON — The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

Several U.S. officials defended the decision, saying the methodology used by the National Counterterrorism Center to generate statistics had flaws, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered the report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism," eliminated weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.

"Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal.

A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed that the publication was eliminated, but said the allegation that it was done for political reasons was "categorically untrue."

According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades.

The statistics didn't include attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror."

The intelligence officials requested anonymity because the information is classified and because, they said, they feared White House retribution. Johnson declined to say how he obtained the figures.

The numbers of incidents and fatalities in the report for 2003 were undercounted last year, forcing a revision and embarrassing the White House, which had used the original version to bolster Bush's election-campaign claim that the Iraq war had advanced the fight against terrorism. U.S. officials blamed bureaucratic mistakes involving the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the forerunner of the National Counterterrorism Center, created under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which Bush signed Dec. 17.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., among the leading critics of last year's mix-up, reacted angrily.

"This is the definitive report on the incidence of terrorism around the world," Waxman said. "It should be unthinkable that there would be an effort to withhold it — or any of the key data — from the public. The Bush administration should stop playing politics with this critical report."

The State Department published "Patterns of Global Terrorism" under a law that requires it to submit to the House and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a country-by-country terrorism assessment by April 30 each year.

A declassified version of the report has been made public since 1986 in the form of a glossy booklet, even though there was no legal requirement to do so.

The senior State Department official said a report on global terrorism would be sent this year to lawmakers and made available to the public in place of "Patterns of Global Terrorism," but that it wouldn't contain statistical data.

The official didn't answer questions about whether the data would be made available to the public, saying, "We will be consulting [with Congress] ... on who should publish and in what form."

One U.S. official who requested anonymity said analysts from the counterterrorism center were especially careful in amassing and reviewing data for 2004 because of the political turmoil created by last year's errors.

Another U.S. official said Rice's office was leery of the center's methodology, believing that analysts eager to avoid a repetition of last year's undercount included incidents that may not have been terrorist attacks. The U.S. intelligence officials said Rice's office eliminated "Patterns of Global Terrorism" when the counterterrorism center declined to use alternative methodology that would have reported fewer significant attacks.

[Dutch]

For a second, I thought the article was going to be about the administrations blatant use of the word "terror" to describe the insurgents and militants that blow up and murder civilians.

[NoMyths]

For a second, I thought the article was going to be about the administrations blatant use of the word "terror" to describe the insurgents and militants that blow up and murder civilians.I get the sense of what you're going for, but the logic is a little less forthcoming.

After all, the article makes it clear that there were at least 625 "significant" attacks of the type you mentioned, an increase of 450 over the previous year, clearly showing that the war on terror is proceeding as the administration claims.

[rexallllsc]

Why would we need a report on Terror? lol

[CamEdwards]

I get the sense of what you're going for, but the logic is a little less forthcoming.

After all, the article makes it clear that there were at least 625 "significant" attacks of the type you mentioned, an increase of 450 over the previous year, clearly showing that the war on terror is proceeding as the administration claims.

No, that's not actually what the article says at all. The article says there were concerns that incidents that were not terrorist acts were included because of fears by bureaucrats that the numbers were artificially lower last year.

In other words, last year's report was off on the low side, this year's report was off on the high side. If you're spending time and money on reports that two years in a row are worthless, you might conclude that perhaps it's time to end the report.

[NoMyths]

No, that's not actually what the article says at all. The article says there were concerns that incidents that were not terrorist acts were included because of fears by bureaucrats that the numbers were artificially lower last year.Actually, it's exactly what the article says, minus the addition of spin to make the jump seem less large that what it is. We have had an increase in "significant" terrorist attacks; more in the past year than in almost two decades. And for that matter, the jump probably isn't as large as the two-year comparison indicates, but it's still an increase, and that's something that's not supposed to be happening if we're making "progress".

In other words, last year's report was off on the low side, this year's report was off on the high side. If you're spending time and money on reports that two years in a row are worthless, you might conclude that perhaps it's time to end the report.That is certainly one conclusion that could be reached, and evidently was. That certainly isn't the only conclusion that can be drawn from the report, however.

I mean, shouldn't we be seeing a reduction in significant terror attacks?

[Buccaneer]

Shouldn't we being some noticeable reductions in the various federal govt "Wars" after all of the hundreds of billions spent?

But I guess that a significant portion of the population would say that as long as no major terrorist events happen in this country, it's worth it. So far something has been working right, it seems.

[timmynausea]

Maybe it's time to get out the mission accomplished banner.

[Glengoyne]

I'm soon going to start filing the "mission accomplished" people with the "No Blood for Oil" morons.

As for the topic, I think they should have let it come out, and if it did exaggerate the numbers, then expose it as Bureaucratic ass covering. I don't really see much of a defense for pulling it.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I take it this means that we have won the war on terror.

[JPhillips]

Unfortunately this is just another case of this administration deciding that the public should be kept in the dark. I'll debate policy with anyone, but this admin's reliance on secrets should be opposed by all of us.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Let us celebrate this occassion by adding coffee onto milk

[Flasch186]

Unfortunately this is just another case of this administration deciding that the public should be kept in the dark. I'll debate policy with anyone, but this admin's reliance on secrets should be opposed by all of us.

i agree, no matter who is in power, IMO transparency is key.

[Dutch]

If something were important enough for the public to be "kept in the dark", we wouldn't know about it--much less be able to debate why anyone was keeping it from us.

[Flasch186]

If something were important enough for the public to be "kept in the dark", we wouldn't know about it--much less be able to debate why anyone was keeping it from us.

I call BS

Many times stuff that was supposed to be kept private comes out and you and many others have agreed that it was silly, and looks awful that they tried to keep such tribvial PR bullshit private in the first place.

[Dutch]

I call BS

Many times stuff that was supposed to be kept private comes out and you and many others have agreed that it was silly, and looks awful that they tried to keep such tribvial PR bullshit private in the first place.

So was the Clinton Administration better or worse at keeping stuff from the public?

[Dutch]

Edit: This post follows JPhillips post....you would not have realized it had I not pointed it out.

So, besides the nightmarish PR, what benefit is it to Bush then?

[JPhillips]

According to the number of documents marked secret or higher the problem has been growing since the Reagan admin with each new President classifying more info. Bush2 has been worse than Clinton who was worse than Bush1.

That doesn't tell the whole story however. Bush2 has scrubbed EPA reports to eliminate data. Refused to allow department heads to testify to Congress. Has Cabinet Secretaries that are so dismissive of Congressional inquiries that Repubs like Warner have complained repeatedly. Threatened to fire an actuary if he told congress the real price of the Medicare drug bill. Ordered thousands of documents from his father scheduled to be released to be held indefinitely. Has removed data from NIH websites. Has refused to provide info regarding the energy bill meetings. Blacked out info in the 9/11 report critical of the Saudis. Has repeatedly changed White House transcripts to reflect what they wanted the President to say, not what he actually said. Has told departments to lean on the side of keeping documents secret in FOIA requests. Has used "emergency" budget requests to mask the real costs of governmental actions. Has changed budget projectoins from the traditional 10 year to a five year so as to hide the budget deficit's true numbers. And I'm sure there are others if I wanted to spend hours digging.

I'm quite certain the next President, whether Dem or Repub will be just as bad or worse. My point isn't that Bush2 is the worst ever, but that the public continues to allow our government to hide more and more information. A government by the people and for the people can't exist if the people are kept in the dark.

[Flasch186]

According to the number of documents marked secret or higher the problem has been growing since the Reagan admin with each new President classifying more info. Bush2 has been worse than Clinton who was worse than Bush1.

That doesn't tell the whole story however. Bush2 has scrubbed EPA reports to eliminate data. Refused to allow department heads to testify to Congress. Has Cabinet Secretaries that are so dismissive of Congressional inquiries that Repubs like Warner have complained repeatedly. Threatened to fire an actuary if he told congress the real price of the Medicare drug bill. Ordered thousands of documents from his father scheduled to be released to be held indefinitely. Has removed data from NIH websites. Has refused to provide info regarding the energy bill meetings. Blacked out info in the 9/11 report critical of the Saudis. Has repeatedly changed White House transcripts to reflect what they wanted the President to say, not what he actually said. Has told departments to lean on the side of keeping documents secret in FOIA requests. Has used "emergency" budget requests to mask the real costs of governmental actions. Has changed budget projectoins from the traditional 10 year to a five year so as to hide the budget deficit's true numbers. And I'm sure there are others if I wanted to spend hours digging.

I'm quite certain the next President, whether Dem or Repub will be just as bad or worse. My point isn't that Bush2 is the worst ever, but that the public continues to allow our government to hide more and more information. A government by the people and for the people can't exist if the people are kept in the dark.

And there you go Dutch...for every Pres. here on out, you cant continually blame Clinton....can you?

[JPhillips]

Dutch: It allows decisions to be made without the nagging problem of public input. It protects political allies. It changes science to match the beliefs of a powerful minority.

At the end of the day, however, I don't even care if any individual decision "hurts" the public or "helps" Bush2. I believe that we should always err on the side of being more open and accountable. The people in charge now believe we should always err on being less open and accountable. That's a recipe for tyranny.

I believe that the number of real national security secrets is far lower than any President wants to claim. The people should know what their government is doing no matter how politically inconvenient it may be for any particular President.

[Arles]

I think there's just a lot of paranoia out there with all the 24-hour media stations. Our government (primarily the Senate) has become very reactionary to try and save face. An example would be if a small report comes out about levels of arsenic in the water in some major city. The media goes bonkers and senators suddenly want hearings, both sides blame each other and a major issue arises. Of course, after two to three attemps at bills in congress and numerous namecalling/demigoggery, the dust settles and we come to find the the arsenic has been at this level for the past four decades and no one has been injured/harmed.

Repeat this cycle for every minor issue and you have the main reason why both parties are becoming more secretive. If they didn't, we would have major catastrophies on a daily basis as the 24-hour news networks continually try to justify their existance.

It's not all that complicated when you think about it. Regardless of party and political climate, the one constant in the increasing "secretive" nature of our government has been the growth of media coverage. Even small issues released by the administration often grows into that week's "national catastrophe". Put that level of coverage and scrutiny on JFK, FDR, Eisenhower,... and they would be just as secretive.

[JPhillips]

But that doesn't make it right. I don't want a few guys at the top of a poltical party deciding what I should and shouldn't know. Make the info public and let the chips fall where they may.

The current system says a few people at the top make better choices than the American public, mine says the opposite. Where you fall is a real comment on your belief in by the people for the people.

I'd also say there is a substantive difference between an arsenic report and strongarming a government employee into lying to Congress.

[Flasch186]

I think there's just a lot of paranoia out there with all the 24-hour media stations. Our government (primarily the Senate) has become very reactionary to try and save face. An example would be if a small report comes out about levels of arsenic in the water in some major city. The media goes bonkers and senators suddenly want hearings, both sides blame each other and a major issue arises. Of course, after two to three attemps at bills in congress and numerous namecalling/demigoggery, the dust settles and we come to find the the arsenic has been at this level for the past four decades and no one has been injured/harmed.

Repeat this cycle for every minor issue and you have the main reason why both parties are becoming more secretive. If they didn't, we would have major catastrophies on a daily basis as the 24-hour news networks continually try to justify their existance.

It's not all that complicated when you think about it. Regardless of party and political climate, the one constant in the increasing "secretive" nature of our government has been the growth of media coverage. Even small issues released by the administration often grows into that week's "national catastrophe". Put that level of coverage and scrutiny on JFK, FDR, Eisenhower,... and they would be just as secretive.


absolute garbage that you would defend being kept in the dark...god forbid we get some fascists up there. Ridiculous.

[gstelmack]

The current system says a few people at the top make better choices than the American public, mine says the opposite. Where you fall is a real comment on your belief in by the people for the people.
Mob rule is a great way to wreck a country. There is just no way the public can be completely informed on every issue. Congressmen and Presidents have large staffs devoted to nothing but researching these topics for them. The American public in general is very knee-jerk in their reactions, and the media providing them information is going far more for entertainment value than trying to present the truth. As a result, I think it IS in our best interests to let the people at the top make decisions, and we need to be careful about who we put there.

[JPhillips]

gstelmak: We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a blid trust in our rulers to always make the right decision is antithecal to our founders' wishes.

[Arles]

absolute garbage that you would defend being kept in the dark...god forbid we get some fascists up there. Ridiculous.
I'm simply explaining why it is happening. If you don't like it, so be it. But, if someone is running the government in today's media spotlight, expecting them not to be more secretive than days where presidents could sneak-in mistresses without being notice is incredibly nieve.

So, I fully expect administrations to be more and more secretive as the years go on, regardless of party. The total irony is that we probably know more about the actions of our government than any US society in the past 70 years - despite this new "secretive" practice.

[Flasch186]

I'm simply explaining why it is happening. If you don't like it, so be it. But, if someone is running the government in today's media spotlight, expecting them not to be more secretive than days where presidents could sneak-in mistresses without being notice is incredibly nieve.

So, I fully expect administrations to be more and more secretive as the years go on, regardless of party. The total irony is that we probably know more about the actions of our government than any US society in the past 70 years - despite this new "secretive" practice.

explaining is good, but I dont like the practice regardless of party...it kind of falls in line with the whole cant investigate unless a majority thinks so, but then you have a committee made up of 50/50...so Delay's shit stays secretive. Same theory in my mind....no matter party..should be transparent unless it has to do with impending war.


I mean look at how Japan is whitewashing their school books...we shouldnt stand for that just like the Japanese epople shouldnt. The only way to avoid repitition int he future is to know your past.

[Arles]

explaining is good, but I dont like the practice regardless of party...it kind of falls in line with the whole cant investigate unless a majority thinks so, but then you have a committee made up of 50/50...so Delay's shit stays secretive. Same theory in my mind....no matter party..should be transparent unless it has to do with impending war.
I have no problem with this attitude. Just bear in mind that the fact you know about many of these "secrets" shows some level of transparency in the system (even if it isn't desired by the leaders involved).

I mean look at how Japan is whitewashing their school books...we shouldnt stand for that just like the Japanese epople shouldnt. The only way to avoid repitition int he future is to know your past.
This will never happen as we have one thing Japan lacks - a free press. Having the above fears in a nation with a free press is pretty silly, IMO. The press has a fit everytime some old report that has outlived its usefullness is put to bed. I shudder to think of the mass hysteria that would occur in our national media if the government tried to "whitewash" school books.

Given the fact we have a national press that is extremely skeptical of the administration (again, be it either party) is exactly why most administrations feel the need to be more secretive than their predecessors. As the media expands its tenticles and coverage, the administration needs to reign in some of its information to keep the "hysteria" breakouts and media outcries to a manageable level. If any administration was completely candid with this current mass media culture, they would be spending almost all their time trying to put out the numerous fires set by the 24-hour news cycle - with many citizens in a constant frenzied state. And, again, there's no reason to have that from an administration standpoint.

[Dutch]

And there you go Dutch...for every Pres. here on out, you cant continually blame Clinton....can you?

You are barking up the wrong tree. For a Democrat, I thought Clinton was alright.

[Dutch]

gstelmak: We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a blid trust in our rulers to always make the right decision is antithecal to our founders' wishes.

One of the problems with today's receivers of information (our mass media) is that that have blindly sided with the Democratic Party. Every major newspaper (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angles Times), every major news network (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC) and every major news agency (Reuters, Associated Press) have endorsed the Democratic Party as their party. Something our founding founders were trying to avoid as well--namely--political association in media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... is antithecal to our founders' wishes.

1) Quick question -- what percentage of the population did the founding father's believe should vote?

2) Compare & contrast to today.

3) See if you can find why I don't have a problem with an increased amount of secrecy within the federal government (Hint: It has nothing to do with race or gender). (Hint #2 -- It is sort of comparable with my feelings about the quality of major league pitching today vs 35 years ago)

[Glengoyne]

...
The current system says a few people at the top make better choices than the American public, mine says the opposite. Where you fall is a real comment on your belief in by the people for the people.
...

Ah Democracy versus Representative Democracy. I absolutely believe that the right few people would make better choices than the masses. The problem is that we have very few of the right people at the top, at least in the legislative and executive branches.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Can you provide links for the endorsements you sight?

Its fruitless to wage yet another battle over the media, but "endorsed" the Democratic party?

Glen: I'm not really arguing for direct democracy. Its not practical in a modern world, although I don't share the fear in the masses that many do. I don't believe we can have an effective representative democracy when the voters aren't given the complete story. Remember, some of the things this admin has done to keep info controlled has been cited by the GAO as illegal. At some point don't we as the "owners" of our deocracy have to demand that our "company's" reports have to be honest?

[Dutch]

Dutch: Can you provide links for the endorsements you sight?

Its fruitless to wage yet another battle over the media, but "endorsed" the Democratic party?

Glen: I'm not really arguing for direct democracy. Its not practical in a modern world, although I don't share the fear in the masses that many do. I don't believe we can have an effective representative democracy when the voters aren't given the complete story. Remember, some of the things this admin has done to keep info controlled has been cited by the GAO as illegal. At some point don't we as the "owners" of our deocracy have to demand that our "company's" reports have to be honest?

Sure, but at what reward?

[JPhillips]

Exactly what I thought.

[Dutch]

No, I mean, if I told you the New York Times endorsed John Kerry, what would that do for you?

[JPhillips]

That's one out of nine.

[Dutch]

My point with the reward was, if I could show you the Democratic favoritsim, would it even matter?

hxxp://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.29.Kerry.Final.pdf

[Flasch186]

however, like much of America simply backing Kerry vs. another candidate doesnt mean that they are pro-Democrat....could be simply that theyre anti-Bush.

[Arles]

Kerry got 22 endorsements from papers with over 250K in circulation (including the top 4) - headlined by the New York Times, Boston Globe, The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Philadelphia Inquirer, St. Petersburg Times, Detroit Free Press, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), and The Star-Ledger (Newark).

Bush got 11, headlined by The Arizona Republic, Chicago Tribune, New York Post, Houston Chronicle and The Dallas Morning News.

Tell me which list is more influential ;)

For those of you thinking these weren't "for" Kerry, many newspapers hammered Bush but refused to endorse a candidate (LA Times, Tampa Tribune and others). The LA Times was a joke as their main editorial writer (Michael Kinsley) endorsed Kerry in Time Magazine but refused to do it "officially" in the LA Times. The Tampa Tribune's was interesting, to say the least - The newspaper said its "deeply conflicted" editorial board could not back Bush "because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a 'uniter not a divider' within the United States and the world.
But, hey, atleast they didn't endorse Kerry :rolleyes:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000683265

[Dutch]

Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush? Guess I was wrong on 1 out of 9. :)

[JPhillips]

And in 2000 it was close to an even split. Who the hell cares? This persecution complex that you both have is really ridiculous. Let's remember that the Repubs control the House. The Repubs control the Senate. The Repubs control the White House. The Repubs control the majority of statehouses. The Repubs control the majority of gvernors. The Repubs have placed the majority of federal court judges. The Repubs have almost cleared K Street of Dem lobbyists. The Rebups have held the White House for all but eight years out of the last twenty-four. Far more people identify themselves as conservatives than they do liberals.

And yet every time something comes up you always respond, "Liberal Media". Its not Delay's fault he's a crook, its the liberal media. Its not Bush's fault that he hides information, its the liberal media. Its not Cheney's fault that his poor health led to heart disease, its the liberal media!

I'm done arguing. Both Arles and Dutch will continue to deflect anything they don't like with the liberal media bias line. Enjoy your persecution.

[Arles]

I'm done arguing. Both Arles and Dutch will continue to deflect anything they don't like with the liberal media bias line. Enjoy your persecution.
It seems that you didn't believe that most of the major newspapers endorsed Kerry, asked for proof, and when it was provided you started your own deflection by going back to congress (when the question at hand involved the media).

It's hard to argue with a liberal bias in the media when 8 of the top 9 most influential newspapers supported the "liberal" candidate. And, let's not forget that while the 578,843 circulation Chicago Tribune did back Bush, the 486,936 circulation Chicago Sun-Times went strong for Kerry - basically helping to offset Bush's one major endorsement.

[NoMyths]

It seems that you didn't believe that most of the major newspapers endorsed Kerry, asked for proof, and when it was provided you started your own deflection by going back to congress (when the question at hand involved the media).Actually, I believe this was the bone of contention: Every major newspaper (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angles Times), every major news network (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC) and every major news agency (Reuters, Associated Press) have endorsed the Democratic Party as their party.I for one am still waiting on the evidence that any of those sources endorsed the Democratic Party as "their" party, as opposed to endorsing a candidate for election (one could probably find examples in those same editions of candidates from other parties being endorsed for other seats). Not to mention, of course, the "every major news network ... and every major news agency" bit, which I think we all realize is false.

[JPhillips]

I've never argued the point that more papaers endorsed Kerry. I still ask, so what? BUSH WON! Even if your tire argument is to be believed, what good does it do that the media has a liberal bias?

But remember that Dutch encluded ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Reuters and AP. Papers have always endorsed candidates, but Dutch's claim that broadcast news and wire services endorsed the Democratic party is ridiculous on its face. BTW- Dutch's original claim wasn' about Kerry but claimed that all of his cited media endorsed the "Democratic Party".

What does it mean that Fox, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The National Review, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, et al support Republicans? But of course they don't count because they don't fit in to your persecution complex.

[Arles]

I've never argued the point that more papaers endorsed Kerry. I still ask, so what? BUSH WON! Even if your tire argument is to be believed, what good does it do that the media has a liberal bias?
I think it's more the general tone of the news that people get. Over time, certain causes get shown in better light and certain candidates/political figures get routinely bashed. That does help shape the views of many people.

But remember that Dutch encluded ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Reuters and AP. Papers have always endorsed candidates, but Dutch's claim that broadcast news and wire services endorsed the Democratic party is ridiculous on its face.
TV and wire services are certainly a more subjective case, for reasons you cite. Still, I'd have a hard time making the case that Reuters supports Bush :p

What does it mean that Fox, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The National Review, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, et al support Republicans? But of course they don't count because they don't fit in to your persecution complex.
The Weekly Standard gets a circulation of about 65,000 - about the same as The Macon Telegraph. The National Review is about 150K - about inline with the Birmigham News. Neither hit even close to the number of people the top newspaper's reach. I'll certainly give you Fox News (but it's interesting you won't include CBS, CNN or NBC that include the same subjective line) and WSJ, but these two are in the distinct minority of cable and newspaper outlets.

As to talk radio, it's widely known that the main reason conservative talk radio audiences have ballooned over the past decade is because of the over-reaching majority the left had in print and TV, leaving the radio as the lone option for conservatives. If you wake up in the morning and see your opinions on the newspaper and see them once again reinforced when you get home from work and watch network news, you are much less likely to need an outlet during the day with which to express your views.

[Dutch]

Broadcast News and Wire Services would look silly to "endorse" one candidate or party over the other. It might give the impression they weren't reporting the news but making the news.

hxxp://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.29.Kerry.Final.pdf

[rexallllsc]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! THERE IS NO MORE TERRA!

[JPhillips]

Dutch: The last part of that study says 60% of characterizations of all candidates are negative! That means the majority of press for anyone running for President will be bad. The best you can over is that Keryy got it less bad? Hardly an endorsement of the Democratic Party.

The truth is far more complex than either of you will believe. I'll be more than happy to agree that we have a lazy, pack mentality press core. The ideas get set early and almost never change, hence Bush is still an idiot and Gore is still a liar. In general I think the press in the US sucks and while I'll agree that individual reporters are biased(how can humans not be?) the idea that every news organization is a tool of the DNC is ridiculous.

Our press is generally socially liberal and economically conservative. They are more educated and less religious than the average American. The ones at big institutions make good money and lead comfortable lives. They don't like to step out of their comfort zones and they don't like to have the "meme" challenged. They live for scandal as that makes reputations and leads to prizes and more money and dream of dreams their own cable show! Certainly this broad brush doesn't apply to everyone, but taken as a whole its a fairly good representation of our media.

Arles: I could cite more magazines and newspapers and "media watchdog" services and talk shows and pundits, but what's the point. I hear Al Michaels take a shot at Kerry flip-flopping and say, "Well I guess Al like Bush." You hear John Madden talk about the left tackle and scream about liberal media bias.

[Glengoyne]

....

What does it mean that Fox, The Wall Street Journal, Whoa. Your list of legitimate journalistic outlets ends there.

The Weekly Standard, The National Review, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, et al support Republicans? But of course they don't count because they don't fit in to your persecution complex. The rest of these are blatantly partisan and biased outlets. Some of them don't even come close to being considered journalists.

As for the list of biased outlets. Take a look at the article above, and tell me it isn't slanted heavilly.. The partisanship of the wire outlets and major media is much more subtle and insidious, but it is there.

[Arles]

The truth is far more complex than either of you will believe. I'll be more than happy to agree that we have a lazy, pack mentality press core. The ideas get set early and almost never change, hence Bush is still an idiot and Gore is still a liar. In general I think the press in the US sucks and while I'll agree that individual reporters are biased(how can humans not be?) the idea that every news organization is a tool of the DNC is ridiculous.

Our press is generally socially liberal and economically conservative. They are more educated and less religious than the average American. The ones at big institutions make good money and lead comfortable lives. They don't like to step out of their comfort zones and they don't like to have the "meme" challenged. They live for scandal as that makes reputations and leads to prizes and more money and dream of dreams their own cable show! Certainly this broad brush doesn't apply to everyone, but taken as a whole its a fairly good representation of our media.
I agree with pretty much everything you stated here. It's just that right now social issues are the rage so the press seems more liberal in its coverage.

Arles: I could cite more magazines and newspapers and "media watchdog" services and talk shows and pundits, but what's the point.
I guess I just don't buy into the comparisions that because the Weekly Standard, WSJ and Fox News are conservative leaning, it cancels out the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, most of the networks and CNN. The news a majority of people get everyday has a slant to the left and it is a legitimate criticism of the media. Now, that doesn't mean every member of the media is liberal or that the media is a shill for the DNC. But it does mean that conservatives start out a bit behind the 8-ball when compared to their challengers on the left. But, in the grand scheme of things, I don't see this as a major catastrophe for conservatives. It just means they have to make better arguments and try a little harder to make their points. Which, in the end, may be a good thing.

To get back to my original point on this thread though ;) The microscope our government/leaders have been put under by the increase in news cycles and coverage has prompted them to become a little more secretive than prior administrations. And, given the level of scrutiny each administration will receive from here on out, I don't think that will mean the "masses" miss out on much - outside of a little extra unneeded hysteria from time to time.

[KeyserSoze]

I think you are mixing things.

Private media and tv can say what they want, inside the law. They can support democrats, republicans, greens, the scienciology, the Hare Khrisna.... it´s their bussiness so let them do it their own way.

In the other hand, the State, the whole machine of State, work for their citizens (in the theory). In someway we all are small shareholders of the Company "State", so we make the decisions of the CEO and we have the right to demand the info.

The fact that a public organism hides information that seems no vital (you can hide a strike, but counting the number is not vital), seems to me a way to protect bad politics. It´s like all the Enron stuff.

So my point. While I dont mind about the opinion of private media(it´s their money), I feel that a goverment that hide information to protect ourselves is one step nearer to the absolutist goverments.

[Flasch186]

Like I had pointed out, it wasnt endorsements for Kerry....it was anti-endorsements of Bush.


Regardless, to he point of the thread...Transparency is better than secrecy. this admin has tried to hide more HOWEVER, like Arles pointed out, more slips out, than any admin. up to now. SO, their PR team needs to do a better job (I think we all agree on that) since the outcome(s) of these events (when a secret is revealed) is far more damaging than had they just talked about it in the first place.