[Politics] Egg on Face....

[TheKOB]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13299727/

How embarressing. If you guys don't believe in liberal media bias, check this sentence out...."Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political strategist, will not face charges for his role in the leaking of the name of former CIA employee Valerie Plame, bringing relief to an administration that had feared further damaging fallout from the affair."

Will anyone apologize for their statements? Namely these people....

DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "[T]he truth is Rove betrayed the identity of an undercover officer fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. These actions are particularly egregious in a time of war." (Democrat National Committee, "What Did Rove Know And When Did He Know It?" Press Release, 7/11/05)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "Disclosing a covert officer's identity was a serious abuse of power. The Bush White House's arrogant stonewalling and ever-changing statements are unacceptable. Regardless of the results of the ongoing criminal investigation, if Karl Rove .. confirmed the identity of a CIA Clandestine Service Officer, they should be fired." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Pelosi Statement On Presidential Advisers And Classified Information," Press Release, 7/18/05)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "This is a cover-up. This is an abuse of power ... it is time for the White House to come clean." (Bennett Roth, "Senate Democrats' Measure Aimed At Bush Adviser Fails," Houston Chronicle, 7/15/05)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "I put it as plainly as possible: in the interests of national security, President Bush should fire Karl Rove. ... instead of protecting the American people from real threats to our security, this administration spends its time protecting Karl Rove." (John Kerry Email, "Rove Has To Go," 7/12/05)

FLASHBACK: Dems Have Said They Would Stand By Fitzgerald's Decision, Hailed His Credentials And Intelligence:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Do you have confidence in Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel who's investigated this leak?" Former Ambassador Joe Wilson: "Absolutely." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 10/31/05)

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Do you have total confidence in [Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald] either way, if he issues an indictment or decides no crime was committed?" Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "Yes, I do. I personally interviewed him for the job of the U.S. attorney for the Northern District after he was nominated by my senatorial colleague, and I came away very impressed. He is a professional prosecutor. He is not political in any way." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 10/26/05)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "[I] think Patrick Fitzgerald from everything I've ever heard about him, everything I've ever seen in talking with him strikes me as being somebody who is extremely competent, extremely thorough and extremely fair." (PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," 10/26/05)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "[T]he American people can, as a result [of Fitzgerald being in charge], feel more assured that there will be a full and thorough investigation, no matter where it leads." (Josh Meyer, "Ashcroft Steps Aside In CIA Leak Inquiry," Los Angeles Times, 12/31/03)

[stinisonfire]

So you're agreeing with not punishing Rove?

[TheKOB]

So you're agreeing with not punishing Rove?

If he didn't do anything to have a trial for, let alone convict him, why should I disagree?

All of those Dems had complete confidence in the person running the investigation as well....

If you've got any additional info, I'd suggest you contact the police though....

[zak]

So.... all politicians are lying bags of crap. Thats not new.

Again Im surprised at you KOB. OF COURSE every democrat/republican is going to go back on their word, exaggerate, spew out good sound bites. Its what they do. Id be more worried if the democrats didnt make a big deal out of this. This is the same old media-politician game thats been played for decades. Being a dirty scumbag is not a democrat/republican thing. Id happy to give you examples if you want, but i hope you get the point.

[WHEELAX2]

If he didn't do anything to have a trial for, let alone convict him, why should I disagree?

All of those Dems had complete confidence in the person running the investigation as well....

If you've got any additional info, I'd suggest you contact the police though....


ok.. but what if the story said he was going to get charged? so people who think he committed a crime are wrong?

I'm not sure you understand how our government works.

I mean you are all about dissing a kennedy who broke the "written statute".. where a crime is laid out and defined.. and certain punishments are established, but you scoff at the idea that someone accused of treason should get charged with a crime because certain people don't think it's necessary..

[Bobsch]

Rove should have been fired long ago. It just shows the corrupt nature of the Bush administration that he is still there.

[BuckWyld]

So you don't think that leaking Plame's name was a problem? About half of those quotes say that people should be punished if they did it.

What we know for a fact is

1 someone leaked Plame's name
2 Libby was involved with lying to Fitzgerald and trying to cover things up
3 Rove suddenly "remembered" new information and "found" documents when it started to look like he was in hot water.
4 theKOB is a partisan hack who rejoices in bad media for the Dems while claiming the media is out to get republicans whenever something comes up about them

I think the guy is a scumbag even compared to other politicians, and that is saying something. I am a little disapointed that they will not be sending him to jail, but we can only hope that Libby and Cheney will be prosecuted.

[WHEELAX2]

So you don't think that leaking Plame's name was a problem? About half of those quotes say that people should be punished if they did it.

What we know for a fact is

1 someone leaked Plame's name
2 Libby was involved with lying to Fitzgerald and trying to cover things up
3 Rove suddenly "remembered" new information and "found" documents when it started to look like he was in hot water.
4 theKOB is a partisan hack who rejoices in bad media for the Dems while claiming the media is out to get republicans whenever something comes up about them

I think the guy is a scumbag even compared to other politicians, and that is saying something. I am a little disapointed that they will not be sending him to jail, but we can only hope that Libby and Cheney will be prosecuted.


that's ok.. most white collared criminals don't see jail like they should.. and they commit crimes that do much more dammage than the common criminal.

[Frndlefire]

and Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob....

[xmangs3]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13299727/

How embarressing. If you guys don't believe in liberal media bias, check this sentence out...."Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political strategist, will not face charges for his role in the leaking of the name of former CIA employee Valerie Plame, bringing relief to an administration that had feared further damaging fallout from the affair."


I don't see the liberal bias in that statement. It simply says that Rove's role was not criminal and that the administration is relieved at not having more bad press. Has the Valerie Plame affair helped the Bush Administration? There have been far more biased statements made in the opposite direction, and no, I feel that all news is biased, but not specifically liberally biased. There is plenty of conservative bias in the media and the belief that has been perpetrated by Republicans that all media is controlled by liberals is an out and out lie.

P.S. KOB, please stop trying to be a conservative Enjoi, it doesn't fit you.

[TheKOB]

ok.. but what if the story said he was going to get charged? so people who think he committed a crime are wrong?

I'm not sure you understand how our government works.

I mean you are all about dissing a kennedy who broke the "written statute".. where a crime is laid out and defined.. and certain punishments are established, but you scoff at the idea that someone accused of treason should get charged with a crime because certain people don't think it's necessary..

I understand exactly how our government and judicial system works. If someone has a trial then there is some proof that that person is guilty. If they are convicted, (like the Kennedy in the other thread) then they are guilty.

There wasn't enough evidence to even have a trial (despite all the crap that has been posted on here). If there was a trial and anyone is found guilty, then they should serve their sentence of course, no matter which political party they are affiliated with (I've said this before).

As for who thinks it's necessary or not, if the prosecution doesn't charge someone for a crime (prosecution that both sides said was fair and balanced) then there doesn't seem to be a crime committed, no matter what political lean you may have, does there?

[TheKOB]

So you don't think that leaking Plame's name was a problem? About half of those quotes say that people should be punished if they did it.

What we know for a fact is

1 someone leaked Plame's name
2 Libby was involved with lying to Fitzgerald and trying to cover things up
3 Rove suddenly "remembered" new information and "found" documents when it started to look like he was in hot water.
4 theKOB is a partisan hack who rejoices in bad media for the Dems while claiming the media is out to get republicans whenever something comes up about them

I think the guy is a scumbag even compared to other politicians, and that is saying something. I am a little disapointed that they will not be sending him to jail, but we can only hope that Libby and Cheney will be prosecuted.

Partisan hack? Rejoices in bad media? First off, I didn't vote for Bush in this past election, and I'm not a registered republican. I also don't agree a lot with the republican party (immigration, for example). Rejoices in bad media? That was the only article I could find on that matter. If I rejoice in bad media, so does everyone who ever posted an article portraying either party in a negative light...at least by your definition.

You seem a lot more partisan than me (hoping people get indicted and appearing to know more about the situation than the people charged with investigating it) but I'll be mature and won't call names.

[TheKOB]

I don't see the liberal bias in that statement. It simply says that Rove's role was not criminal and that the administration is relieved at not having more bad press. Has the Valerie Plame affair helped the Bush Administration? There have been far more biased statements made in the opposite direction, and no, I feel that all news is biased, but not specifically liberally biased. There is plenty of conservative bias in the media and the belief that has been perpetrated by Republicans that all media is controlled by liberals is an out and out lie.

P.S. KOB, please stop trying to be a conservative Enjoi, it doesn't fit you.

If you don't see the bias, that just shows your own. If you're interested on the subject go ahead and read Bias, a book that talks about the liberal media bias. It's actually written by a self proclaimed liberal who worked for Dan Rather.

As for being a conservative enjoi, I don't call names, use immature language, and I provide facts for my sources. I'll admit though, perhaps I'm being a bit mean, since I've been out of country for two weeks and relieved to hear news in english again. For example, I found out about Zarqawi this past Sunday....

[TheKOB]

and Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob....
Clinton got impeached for lying in court. The subject matter of the lie doesn't (and shouldn't) make it more or less excusable in the eyes of the law.

Rove won't even go to court. There's a difference....

[xmangs3]

If you don't see the bias, that just shows your own. If you're interested on the subject go ahead and read Bias, a book that talks about the liberal media bias. It's actually written by a self proclaimed liberal who worked for Dan Rather.

As for being a conservative enjoi, I don't call names, use immature language, and I provide facts for my sources. I'll admit though, perhaps I'm being a bit mean, since I've been out of country for two weeks and relieved to hear news in english again. For example, I found out about Zarqawi this past Sunday....
Bernard Golderg is not a liberal. He is anything but, his book "110 people who are screwing up America" (a piece of trash by the way) is filled with considerably more liberals than conservatives (Michael Moore is #1, Howard Dean is on the list as is Hilary Clinton, Eminem, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, and Barbara Streisand, while anyone affiliated with the current administration is omitted). And please don't say, well maybe that's because liberals are screwing the country up because at this moment Republicans have a disproportionate amount of power meaning that liberals have very little power to do much of anything. Bernard Goldberg is a fairly good reporter on Real Sports, but an unintelligent hack when he's writing. I'm not saying this because he disagrees with what I say, I'm saying this because he feels that Barbara Streisand wields more power in the political climate than Rush Limbaugh (an actual quote). Oh, and he supported GW Bush in both elections, so calling him a liberal is quite incorrect, in fact he
has proclaimed himself a conservative. If you don't believe me that the man can't back up his arguments then look for his interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he gets eviscerated. (found it http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/29153/Jon_Stewart_Interviews_Bernard_Goldberg.html)

As to the "liberal bias in media" it is virtually non-existent. Conservative shows are EXTREMELY dominant on the radio (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc.), they vastly outnumber their liberal counterparts. As per newspapers, there are virtually an equal number of liberal and conservative affiliates. Finally for television, the two main national news outlets, there is 1 fairly liberal outlet, CNN and one very conservative outlet, Fox News. So how exactly is the news liberally biased?

[xmangs3]

i await my response

[TheKOB]

Bernard Golderg is not a liberal. He is anything but, his book "110 people who are screwing up America" (a piece of trash by the way) is filled with considerably more liberals than conservatives (Michael Moore is #1, Howard Dean is on the list as is Hilary Clinton, Eminem, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, and Barbara Streisand, while anyone affiliated with the current administration is omitted).

I had no idea that Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Eminem, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, and Barbara Streisand weren't screwing up America. Including 4 of them on any list seems like a prudent thing to do (Moore, for his plain lies, Sharpton, for sustaining a racial divide, Eminem and Streisand for their singing). Seriously though, I haven't read the book, but if you'd care to discount any facts, feel free.

And please don't say, well maybe that's because liberals are screwing the country up because at this moment Republicans have a disproportionate amount of power meaning that liberals have very little power to do much of anything. Bernard Goldberg is a fairly good reporter on Real Sports, but an unintelligent hack when he's writing. I'm not saying this because he disagrees with what I say, I'm saying this because he feels that Barbara Streisand wields more power in the political climate than Rush Limbaugh (an actual quote). Oh, and he supported GW Bush in both elections, so calling him a liberal is quite incorrect, in fact he
has proclaimed himself a conservative. If you don't believe me that the man can't back up his arguments then look for his interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he gets eviscerated. (found it http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/29153/Jon_Stewart_Interviews_Bernard_Goldberg.html)?

He proclaims himself to be a liberal in his book "Bias". He was, since it would be rather strange for Dan Rather to employ him if he wasn't. People change, and it seems that overall people get more conservative as they age (young whippersnappers and such). Also, if you don't think that someone in the popular culture (like streisand) who can change peoples minds vs Limbaugh who preaches to people who's minds already agree with him, than that's your opinion, but I'd disagree. Like I said, I didn't read the book, so I don't know if that is what he's getting at, but that would make sense to me...
Also, if you can show a clip on Jon Stewart and then in the next sentence say the media bias is virtually non existant, that just shows to me how off base you are. Watch an interview with him and a democratic pundit vs a republican pundit. The former he makes fun of the administration, GOP, conservatives, etc. The latter he argues with them, making a point and then retreating back to humor to prevent a counterpoint.

EDIT: Eviscerated? Can't back up arguments? Were we watching the same interview?

As to the "liberal bias in media" it is virtually non-existent. Conservative shows are EXTREMELY dominant on the radio (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc.), they vastly outnumber their liberal counterparts. As per newspapers, there are virtually an equal number of liberal and conservative affiliates. Finally for television, the two main national news outlets, there is 1 fairly liberal outlet, CNN and one very conservative outlet, Fox News. So how exactly is the news liberally biased?

Anytime a presenter says "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush", he is biased. Watch for that sometime...I didn't call President Clinton "Mr. Clinton". Prefacing with "President" is a matter of respect for the office itself and for the person the person elected. By saying "Mr." to me at least, that's just being petty. Also, if you think Fox News is as popular as CNN, you're kidding yourself. Also, don't mention Hollywood (for example), Dan Rather (not on CNN), Peter Jennings, etc. It's well known by anyone without their heads in the sand there is a bias by anyone telling the story. It's just that the people telling the story on the news are far more liberal than conservative.....

EDIT: you might want to watch out for the double posting, and not mock me because I wasn't online for 5 hours last night....the first might get you in trouble and the second because it's sad. Sorry if not checking email for updates means you're right and I'm wrong....

[xmangs3]

I had no idea that Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Eminem, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, and Barbara Streisand weren't screwing up America. Including 4 of them on any list seems like a prudent thing to do (Moore, for his plain lies, Sharpton, for sustaining a racial divide, Eminem and Streisand for their singing). Seriously though, I haven't read the book, but if you'd care to discount any facts, feel free.

First of all the fact that YOU FEEL they're screwing up America is because you have conservative views. I don't like Al Sharpton or Barbara Streisand, but I don't think they're screwing America up as much as say, Ken Lay. Curiously enough, the 4 people who you said you felt should be on the list are on the list for different reasons than you stated. I liken Michael Moore to being like the Ann Coulter of the left. The opposition hates them, they both exaggerate, and they're both wildly popular among their base.



He proclaims himself to be a liberal in his book "Bias". He was, since it would be rather strange for Dan Rather to employ him if he wasn't. People change, and it seems that overall people get more conservative as they age (young whippersnappers and such). Also, if you don't think that someone in the popular culture (like streisand) who can change peoples minds vs Limbaugh who preaches to people who's minds already agree with him, than that's your opinion, but I'd disagree. Like I said, I didn't read the book, so I don't know if that is what he's getting at, but that would make sense to me...

Ok, people may get more conservative as they grow older but....Bias was released in 2001, only 5 years ago and at this time Bernard Goldberg is 60. Most people don't suddenly switch from being liberal to pretty conservative in only 5 years. Aside from the fact that most people don't consider going from 55 to 60 a significant "growing older" stage (much more like going from 30 to 40-45). No, I don't think Streisand changes peoples' minds and there's no possible way you can think that she has a large impact on the political climate. She does exactly what you say Rush Limbaugh does, preaching to people who's mind already agrees with her. Yet she isn't ALWAYS talking about politics as Limbaugh is. The reason you stated is why Limbaugh has much more impact; anything he says is immediately believed by his listeners, he shapes the direction of their beliefs. And finally, No, obviously Goldberg was not trying to get at the power of popular culture because he includes numerous Liberal politicians and pundits while leaving off their conservative counterparts.

Also, if you can show a clip on Jon Stewart and then in the next sentence say the media bias is virtually non existant, that just shows to me how off base you are. Watch an interview with him and a democratic pundit vs a republican pundit. The former he makes fun of the administration, GOP, conservatives, etc. The latter he argues with them, making a point and then retreating back to humor to prevent a counterpoint.

What network does The Daily Show air on again? Oh thats right, it's on COMEDY CENTRAL. It is literally a show making fun of the news . I would not put it in the same category as newsmedia and Cable News outlets. Jon Stewart is entitled to his opinion because people don't tune into The Daily Show for an unbiased account of the day's events, they watch for jokes about current politicians. I have watched him interview a Republican pundit and a Democratic pundit (as you clearly have not ) and he does not simply make fun of the administration when a democrat is on, he asks the same challenging questions dealing with what they're talking about. He does not retreat to humor to prevent a counterpoint, it's simply that the interviewee can't make a counterpoint. I highly doubt you ever saw The Daily Show while Bill Clinton was in office, but Jon Stewart was doing the exact same thing, just to democrats. I acknowledge that his opinion is biased, but the show spares no party.


Anytime a presenter says "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush", he is biased. Watch for that sometime...I didn't call President Clinton "Mr. Clinton". Prefacing with "President" is a matter of respect for the office itself and for the person the person elected. By saying "Mr." to me at least, that's just being petty. Also, if you think Fox News is as popular as CNN, you're kidding yourself. Also, don't mention Hollywood (for example), Dan Rather (not on CNN), Peter Jennings, etc. It's well known by anyone without their heads in the sand there is a bias by anyone telling the story. It's just that the people telling the story on the news are far more liberal than conservative.....

You may not have called President Clinton "Mr. Clinton" but plenty of newscasters did. It's a typical thing for Mr. to be used on some occasions and usually does not indicate bias.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117918742?categoryid=1275&cs=1
Am I kidding myself? Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN and is the highest rated cable news outlet. It's alright though, I'll understand when you don't address this is your next post, since, you know, you were proved wrong. I agreed in my original post that all news is biased, however my point was that their is a fairly equal amount. I find it interesting that you didn't respond to my statement of equal bias throughout the media (radio. newspapers, etc.) and instead continued to focus on TV news. Might that be because there is an equal amount in newspapers and GIGANTIC conservative bias in radio news?

[Frndlefire]

um.....In terms of biasness I didn't ever think of CNN as having a bias or is this only when it's convenient for argument?

[TheKOB]

um..... or is this only when it's convenient for argument?

C'mon guy, if you think I'm going to lie just to try to make a point, you obviously don't have any idea about me. It might be because I never watched it (never had cable) and still don't (on both accounts), but I never did pick CNN as having a bias. It's only once I started getting more politically active/aware that I've found out about it, but I haven't really seen it for myself (goes back to never watching it...)

I thought you didn't have any politics though, you were only an observer?

[TheKOB]

First of all the fact that YOU FEEL they're screwing up America is because you have conservative views. I don't like Al Sharpton or Barbara Streisand, but I don't think they're screwing America up as much as say, Ken Lay. Curiously enough, the 4 people who you said you felt should be on the list are on the list for different reasons than you stated. I liken Michael Moore to being like the Ann Coulter of the left. The opposition hates them, they both exaggerate, and they're both wildly popular among their base.

Then maybe you should write a book, and I'll get to make fun of it online. Hey pot, you're black. Also, I've never read Ann Coulter. Have you, or are you just making wild assumptions?

Ok, people may get more conservative as they grow older but....Bias was released in 2001, only 5 years ago and at this time Bernard Goldberg is 60. Most people don't suddenly switch from being liberal to pretty conservative in only 5 years. Aside from the fact that most people don't consider going from 55 to 60 a significant "growing older" stage (much more like going from 30 to 40-45). No, I don't think Streisand changes peoples' minds and there's no possible way you can think that she has a large impact on the political climate. She does exactly what you say Rush Limbaugh does, preaching to people who's mind already agrees with her. Yet she isn't ALWAYS talking about politics as Limbaugh is. The reason you stated is why Limbaugh has much more impact; anything he says is immediately believed by his listeners, he shapes the direction of their beliefs. And finally, No, obviously Goldberg was not trying to get at the power of popular culture because he includes numerous Liberal politicians and pundits while leaving off their conservative counterparts.

That's what he said. In his book. In his other book, which you probably didn't read anyways (neither did I) he does have some conservatives. Did you even watch that Daily Show interview?


What network does The Daily Show air on again? Oh thats right, it's on COMEDY CENTRAL. It is literally a show making fun of the news . I would not put it in the same category as newsmedia and Cable News outlets. Jon Stewart is entitled to his opinion because people don't tune into The Daily Show for an unbiased account of the day's events, they watch for jokes about current politicians. I have watched him interview a Republican pundit and a Democratic pundit (as you clearly have not ) and he does not simply make fun of the administration when a democrat is on, he asks the same challenging questions dealing with what they're talking about. He does not retreat to humor to prevent a counterpoint, it's simply that the interviewee can't make a counterpoint. I highly doubt you ever saw The Daily Show while Bill Clinton was in office, but Jon Stewart was doing the exact same thing, just to democrats. I acknowledge that his opinion is biased, but the show spares no party.

So he's just as bias? You obviously haven't watched the show since Clinton left office. Also, it's stupid to say that it's only on comedy central...people respect his serious opinions, just like people respect the opinions of Ben Affleck, etc. Just because it's not billed as a serious source of news does not mean that people aren't influenced by it. It's kind of funny actually, you say how we shouldn't take it seriously, yet use it as a source....

You may not have called President Clinton "Mr. Clinton" but plenty of newscasters did. It's a typical thing for Mr. to be used on some occasions and usually does not indicate bias.

None that I ever saw, and not to the degree it's happening now. Nice try at a crazy make'emup argument though...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117918742?categoryid=1275&cs=1
Am I kidding myself? Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN and is the highest rated cable news outlet. It's alright though, I'll understand when you don't address this is your next post, since, you know, you were proved wrong. I agreed in my original post that all news is biased, however my point was that their is a fairly equal amount. I find it interesting that you didn't respond to my statement of equal bias throughout the media (radio. newspapers, etc.) and instead continued to focus on TV news. Might that be because there is an equal amount in newspapers and GIGANTIC conservative bias in radio news?

Yeah, I'm wrong. For 6 months, ending Feb. '05. My bad. Try this on for size, there are more liberally biased news channels (evening news, etc) than conservative. That, by the way, was my main point.

Also, may I make the wild unfounded guess that CNN is watched by more people that are middle of the road, since people have proclaimed near and far that Fox News is so obviously biased, and not to be trusted. Funny, haven't heard any jokes of that ilk about CNN...

I don't really listen to radio news, but maybe the reason that there isn't any liberal news shows isn't because of some conspiricy or whatever your looney reasoning is, it's because it doesn't survive. Didn't Al Franken try? I heard it fell right on its butt...

As for newspapers, I don't know, but feel free to run down the numbers for me...you can say you proved me wrong again if you want.

TV though is the most obvious and what is paid attention to the most...although I'm sure the influence TV has is elclipsed by the granduer of talk radio...

[ColtsLax]

since we are here, how about the Zarqauwi diaries they recovered from his home, where he says that the US is winning the war and it is getting harder and harder to opperate as a terrorist. He goes point by point on how we are winning and why we are doing so, if i can find it, its a great read.

[wolfie8914]

I havnt heard about those diaries...i havnt really been payin attention to the news the past week. You got a news link? Im interested.

[xmangs3]

Then maybe you should write a book, and I'll get to make fun of it online. Hey pot, you're black. Also, I've never read Ann Coulter. Have you, or are you just making wild assumptions?
Yes, I read "Treason" and what wild assumptions would I be making?



]he does have some conservatives. Did you even watch that Daily Show interview?
There's a difference between some and an equal amount. Liberals vastly outnumber conservatives on the list. And yes, I did watch the interview and I paid attention as Bernard Goldberg says, "Yes I think that's a good argument" when Stewart said there are many many less conservatives on the list




he's just as bias? You obviously haven't watched the show since Clinton left office. Also, it's stupid to say that it's only on comedy central...people respect his serious opinions, just like people respect the opinions of Ben Affleck, etc. Just because it's not billed as a serious source of news does not mean that people aren't influenced by it. It's kind of funny actually, you say how we shouldn't take it seriously, yet use it as a source....
Actually, I watch it every day. It's on Comedy Central, it is a comedy program, and yes, I agree, people take his opinions seriously but to a lesser extent than they would a serious politician. I use it as a source that Goldberg couldn't stand up to a slight argument.


None that I ever saw, and not to the degree it's happening now. Nice try at a crazy make'emup argument though...
I'm not making anything up, you provided no proof either.


Yeah, I'm wrong. For 6 months, ending Feb. '05. My bad. Try this on for size, there are more liberally biased news channels (evening news, etc) than conservative. That, by the way, was my main point.

Also, may I make the wild unfounded guess that CNN is watched by more people that are middle of the road, since people have proclaimed near and far that Fox News is so obviously biased, and not to be trusted. Funny, haven't heard any jokes of that ilk about CNN...

I don't really listen to radio news, but maybe the reason that there isn't any liberal news shows isn't because of some conspiricy or whatever your looney reasoning is, it's because it doesn't survive. Didn't Al Franken try? I heard it fell right on its butt...

As for newspapers, I don't know, but feel free to run down the numbers for me...you can say you proved me wrong again if you want.

TV though is the most obvious and what is paid attention to the most...although I'm sure the influence TV has is elclipsed by the granduer of talk radio...

Yes you are wrong but for much longer than 6 months. Fox News is still the highest rated cable news outlet.

No you can't make that aptly described guess. CNN is actually quite often referred to as the liberal counterpart of Fox News.
Radio is still dominated by conservatives, and AirAmerica is still successful so no, it did not fall on its butt.
I'm not going to list out all conservative and liberal papers but I can give you examples in two of the largest markets in the country. In DC the Washington Post is considered liberal while The Washington Times is widely regarded as conservatively biased. In New York, the Times is well known as liberal while the Post is conservative.

[ColtsLax]

Yes you are wrong but for much longer than 6 months. Fox News is still the highest rated cable news outlet.

No you can't make that aptly described guess. CNN is actually quite often referred to as the liberal counterpart of Fox News.
Radio is still dominated by conservatives, and AirAmerica is still successful so no, it did not fall on its butt.
I'm not going to list out all conservative and liberal papers but I can give you examples in two of the largest markets in the country. In DC the Washington Post is considered liberal while The Washington Times is widely regarded as conservatively biased. In New York, the Times is well known as liberal while the Post is conservative.

wellll, CBS, NBC, and to a lesser extent ABC and their offshoots are all considered liberal to some extent. So thats three major stations that are liberal leaning to the one conservative one, Fox.

as far as print, the major papers, NY times, Washington Post, LA Times, miami Herald are all liberal. You have to dig to find a conservative paper, maybe the NY Post, but thats almost like a tabloid, and the Washington Times is probally the best.

Radio is pretty even. Westwood one is the conservative radio, featuring such favorites as Rush, Hannity, Levine, and Laura Ingram. The Left counter is NPR and Air America. There is really only one conservative radio station, but it is syndicated across the country.

The fact of the matter is, media lends itself more to the liberal train of thought. the freedom of the press is best represented by the liberal interpretation, which is why hollywood also tends to be liberal.

[Frndlefire]

I thought you didn't have any politics though, you were only an observer?
well your previous claims of not believing in media bias seem pretty contradictory to your current position. Posturing would be one answer to that... it doesn't really matter to me either way since I stopped watching television news for the exact reason of bias. Not neccesarily political bias, but newsworth vs. unnewsworthy bias as well. In the Congo they are about to have their first democratic elections since we (US, France, and Belgium primarily) assassinated their last democratically elected leader in the 60s and installed a dictator so as to keep a hold on their 20 trillion worth of natural resources....5 million Congonese have been killed since 98'...do we hear about it? nope...what does America care about a couple million deaths in Africa.

I try to sample my news from here and there, primarily various places on the internet. Television news just tends to get to me..oh..and don't get me started on talk radio...Rush and Franken and the like...

[Frndlefire]

The Left counter is NPR and Air America.
While I agree that Air America is strongly left, I question lumping in NPR with it. While NPR may lean slightly left due to the fact that the news has historically been focused on questioning the status quo (which currently is right dominated), I think they put more effort than most to try to remain impartial. For example, when the whole wiretapping issue came to light they had one week with a guest explaining why the wiretapping is illegal and the next week with a guest explaining why it is not illegal. The host played devil's advocate in both situations not just throwing softballs to one side or the other. In my experience with it, NPR brings on all sorts of guests from a startling range of backgrounds to discuss. They may be left leaning, but I think to say they are a left counter to something like Rush is preposterous.

[laxdoc]

and Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob....


Clinton got impeached for that the same way that Al Capone got sent to prison for "income tax evasion."

[TheKOB]

While I agree that Air America is strongly left, I question lumping in NPR with it. While NPR may lean slightly left due to the fact that the news has historically been focused on questioning the status quo (which currently is right dominated), I think they put more effort than most to try to remain impartial. For example, when the whole wiretapping issue came to light they had one week with a guest explaining why the wiretapping is illegal and the next week with a guest explaining why it is not illegal. The host played devil's advocate in both situations not just throwing softballs to one side or the other. In my experience with it, NPR brings on all sorts of guests from a startling range of backgrounds to discuss. They may be left leaning, but I think to say they are a left counter to something like Rush is preposterous.

What are you kidding? Bach is a hippie. Have you seen his haircut?

I agree. I heard someone mention that, and in the heat of argument, I threw it in there.

I like to stick to local network news myself. The only biasness I have to worry about is the sports section when they talk more about Clemson athletics than USC....