Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Dick Cheney's Hunting Accident and the Media

Rarely has so-called "main stream" media bias been in more stark relief than in the treatment of Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

A media which treats seriously and with respect a far-Left Senator who failed to report to authorities a fatal traffic accident until more than eight hours later is now complaining because the White House didn't see fit to report to them (the media) an apparently minor hunting accident.

19 comments:

Willis said...

Well, Cheney didn't report it until over a day later.

James Young said...

It's nice to see that you know your Herr Goebbels, willis. Keep telling those big lies! Obviously, it works for those who vote Democrat!

James E. Martin said...

hey put a bullet in the man's heart and he may die, minor hunting accident; give me break!

Willis said...

James and his myopic view.

"Rapture rapture, here we come!!!"

Hirons said...

Join the call for NBC News to Fire David Gregory. Please find some who can report the news - not make the news.

Anonymous said...

Huge difference between Kennedy and Cheney. I'm not surprised you are incapable of seeing it, Willis.

Kennedy didn't notify the POLICE for 8 hours that someone DIED.

Cheney didn't notify U.S. CITIZENS for 24 hours.

Lightyears of difference.

If Cheney had failed to notify the POLICE for 24 hours, then you'd have a valid comparison.

SouthoftheJames.com said...

How does media reportage of the Cheney hunting mishap have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of his not reporting it? This need to bait-and-switch people by throwing in red herrings like Ted Kennedy and blaming hte media for reporting the news (hello, the VP shot a guy!) is a move that too many conservatives/Republican engage in to deflect from the real issues.

VP Cheney shot a man. Accident or not, and it looks bad and unethical for him to cover this up. Even Scott McClellan hinted at that. If this is really a non-issue, then why not talk about it openly and honestly?

I'm no Kennedy defender, but I dare say that if a similar event happened with a sitting politician, today's media (esp. Fox News, WSJ, etc) wouldn't let it slide. I think that it's a bit of a stretch to compare the mainstream media of 1969 (which didn't report liberal or conservative politicians transgressions) with the mainstream media of 2006.

Willis said...

Cheney refused to talk to the police for over 24 hours after the accident occured.

I guess that will make you eat your words, anon??

Anonymous said...

I have seen no report that Cheney refused to give information to the police. Provide a credible source.

IF it is accurate that information was not given to the police immediately, then that is completely unacceptable.

Willis said...

The police came to question Cheney on the night of the incident, and Cheney told them to come back tommorrow.

This is part of the public record.

Anonymous said...

And yet -- no link.

I'm sure it's in a credible news story SOMEWHERE with an attributable quote - if it happened - so I'll I'm asking is WHERE??? Until then, I don't believe you - you've proven yourself to be "untrustworthy" in the past, IMO. Maybe it DID happen - not saying it didn't - but until I see proof - YOU are NOT who I choose to believe.

Willis said...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602150014

Cheney refused to talk to police right after the incident, and didn't talk until 14 hours later.

This is likely because he was intoxicated, or feared that he might be.

James Young said...

David Brock's outfit?!?!?!

Isn't it funny how Brock is "credible" when trashing Conservatives, but is not credible when he wrote that Anita Hill was a "little nutty and a little slutty"?

Willis said...

He provides sources, James. That's better than almost any other media resource out there.

He's right on the money on this one.

Anonymous said...

Well, if that counts as credible then so does this:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0216061cheney1.html

This indicates that the sheriff made NO ATTEMPT to speak to Cheney that night. He spoke with several witnesses, the secret service, determined that everything indicated that it was accidental and then didn't attempt to speak to anyone about the incident until Sunday.

So there.

Willis said...

I don't even care. This issue isn't worth arguing about. But for those of you who were up in arms about Ted Kennedy's thing back IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES, you can't give Cheney a pass on this one just because he scratches your back.

David said...

It's not exactly a secret why James thinks that David Brock has no credibility, is it?

James: more punctuation next time.

Willis said...

Brock is a homo-lover. That is simply inexcusable in fudgepack mountain's world.

criticallythinking said...

Willis, here is the issue with Ted Kennedy:

He crashed his car into the water, not into a tree. He was alive and swam out of the car. His passenger was also alive, and he left her IN the car. She lived for several minutes in the car, eventually dying of DROWNING.

If he had immediately reported the accident, it is possible they could have got her out of the car, and maybe (if the water was cold enough) they could have revived her.

He could also have tried to get her out himself.

We will never know if she could have been rescued, because Ted Kennedy didn't report the incident until the next day, AND he told lies such that her friends who were looking for her thought she had gone home and so didn't call the police who might have found her and saved her.

Cheney shot a man in front of witnesses. The man was loaded into a waiting ambulance and taken immediately to a hospital, his arrival was public knowledge as was the ambulance run and the police report. If a reporter had followed Cheney and used a police scanner they would have had the story immediately.

Cheney SHOULD have had the white house release the story -- politically that was the right move.

By not telling, he saved the family a load of grief from the vultures of the news media. But he hurt the President.