The Democrats took over the House and Senate by winning contested races with moderate and conservative candidates. After four, Ben Merens and his guest political scientist talk about the return of the “Blue Dog” Democrat.
Guest: Cal Jillson, professor of political science, Southern Methodist University.
After five, Ben Merens talks with media critic Dave Berkman for his assessment of media coverage of the 2006 election.
Guest: Dave Berkman, media pundit/political commentator
posted by At Issue with Ben Merens @ 12:08 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I am stunned and saddened to hear Ben Meren's "performance" on today's show. Truth telling is the goal of the media and only when the American public started to demand it did the corporate owned media start to comply with deeper questions that, if asked earlier, our country could have been spared its world wide, general respect and not be crushed in deaths and deficients. I am so sorry that Ben displayed his right leaning politics.
PLEASE have Dave Berkman on as often as possible. His is the most honestly journalistic voice that I have heard on WPR originating news talk since Matt Joseph.
Although I have respected Mr. Berkman in the past, his behavior on the show today was unbecoming of a gentleman. By cutting off both Ben and the first caller, he showed that he was unwilling to engage in civilized discussion on his topic. This type of behavior is just as damaging to society as covering up the truth with blatant lies.
Oh my gosh! This show was a hoot! That Merkmen guy should have his own show. It was awfully refreshing. I couldn't stop listening and laughing.
I disagree with Anonymous 1. He needs to lighten up.
Just a quick note concerning the callers who claim that the media has a liberal bias because they don't report the story about Oreo cookies being thrown at Michael Steele in 2002. The reason the major media didn't jump on the story is because it never happened.
The story is a fabrication of Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich to paint Steele as a victim of some sort of white liberal prejudice. Those who have looked into the claims know it is a fabrication, but, on the theory that repeating a lie makes it true, we have to suffer these callers.
Ehrlich has changed his story several times. Five days after the event in which Ehrlich later claimed that Oreos were tossed at Steele, he first told the press that Oreo cookies were distributed among some in the audience. That story was in fact carried by the Baltimore Sun on October 1, 2002.
By the end of the month, Ehrlich's story had dramatically changed. Now audience members threw Oreo cookies at Steele. Ehrlich told this story to a gathering at a Jewish school and it was reported the audience gasped in horror. The governor said it so it must be true.
The lie has only grown since then. Three years after the “fact,” in 2005, Ehrlich describes the incident in terms that made it sound as if a mob launched a hail of cookies at Steele. Steele was "pelted by Oreos." Ehrlich even claims that his father was hit in the head by a cookie!
But the Baltimore Sun - suspicious of Ehrlich’s evolving claims - investigated and found two Morgan State officials who told the paper that they were there and it never happened. “It didn't happen here,” said the manager of the building where the debate was held. “I was in on the cleanup, and we found no cookies or anything else abnormal. There were no Oreo cookies thrown.”
Not only were no cookies throw, but it appears there were no cookies at all. Must be a conspiracy by liberal Democrats to hide the evidence. Maybe liberals threatened witnesses with physical violence to keep them quiet.
What about Steele? He has admitted that he was never hit with an Oreo cookie.
Conservatives inventing stories like this is all too typical. Remember the “war on Christmas”? Conservatives who attack higher education invent the same type of “facts” to paint universities as suppressing conservative opinion. It's an old trick by the other side. It's my policy to always doubt what these people say.
Post a Comment
<< Home