The press distorts, the media decides...

Media watchers sould check out the Daily Howler at:
http://www.dailyhowler.com

This is an historically liberal watchdog who do nothing but publish media innacuracies and point out when public figures and politicians overtly lie.

Check these out:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071503.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071603.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071803.shtml

Great articles detailing how the press simply has the State of the Union flap dead wrong.

A choice selection:

Here at THE HOWLER, we're still amazed by that Harold Meyerson piece from yesterday's Washington Post (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/17/03). Amazingly, it only took a couple of days to reach this point"”to reach the point where the Post was running a high-profile piece which is almost bizarrely inaccurate. (It will be interesting to see how the Post handles the matter. The statements about Cheney are blatantly false.) But that's the way the press tends to work when it starts creating a Perfect Storm, as the mainstream press corps has been doing in the case of those "16 words." Our readers continue to shake their fists, insisting that the coverage is all quite appropriate. But, whatever a real probe of Bush-on-Iraq might show, this particular event has indeed been spun. Let's start again with Meyerson's claim that Bush's 16-word statement was "baseless."

"Baseless?" It's a strange word to choose for a short, simple statement which carried an explicit citation. As we all know, the basis for Bush's statement was noted; the statement was explicitly cited to British intelligence, and British intelligence stands by its assessment, as Tony Blair said again yesterday. That doesn't mean that the British assessment is accurate; it doesn't mean the assessment should have been in the speech. But readers, it's hardly shocking to see an American. president cite an assessment by his country's top ally.

Like our own Rat boy, the press has decided to try and sell the public on a simply false allegation, while ignoring the unrefuted claims of the administration. It would be pathetic, if it weren't a baseless part of an orchestrated campaign to discredit the President.

You don't want the country making decisions base on lies? Then stand up against the lie that the President didn't trust his own case for war.

Define ''the press'', what newspapers, television stations, internet sites or other media outlets do you see as prominent members of the press? I mean the ones that make the difference?
How is it possible that some of these outlets (some of them owned by big American companies), whose stake obviously is to avoid alienating large groups of americans, present such an allegedly ''liberal'' bias?
Where does the creation of this bias start? Is it at journalism class, where they learn the wrong skills and traits, is liberalism inherent to journalism? Maybe news media has a tradition of anti-conservatism, who knows, but where did it start?
I know your primary point here is to prove the president hasn''t lied about anything but hey, presidents come and go, policy fades away and even the war in Iraq will slowly disappear from out collective memories. I think the allegations of a liberal bias in the media are potentially far more grave than any current political ''crisis'' outside the ever-important war on terrorism. From the way you make it sound, the citizens of the free world are being lied to everyday, elaborate.

I think the allegations of a liberal bias in the media are potentially far more grave than any current political ''crisis'' outside the ever-important war on terrorism. From the way you make it sound, the citizens of the free world are being lied to everyday, elaborate.

Well, to begin with, 90% of journalists in the US have voted Democrat in the last 4 or 5 presidential elections, which proves nothing, but sure adds context to the discussion. Also, 4 of the top 5 newspapers are decidedly liberal in their editorials.

And, no, I don''t think that the media lies to the public, as much as they filter all news through their ideology before giving it to the American people. The media provides the information that supports their world view, even if it means not providing context or ignoring things that contradict their ideology.

A perfect example of this is the debate going on about ''Bush lying''. There is no reason to go into this, as I think it has been beaten to death in other threads. Or you can look at the way that the current deficit is portrayed in the media - largest in history, without context of what actually causes the deficit to be that large (social programs) or that it is not as large a percent of the total budget or GDP as deficits were under Jimmy Carter in the 1970''s.

Look at how the media portrays the tax cuts as benefitting only the ''rich''. They never point out that high income is very different than high wealth. Wealth is how you measure ''rich'', not income. They also never mention that after every major tax cut, total tax receipts increased because of the benefits to the economy. They talk about how much less the ''rich'' pay as a percentage of their income, but not the fact that the ''rich'' pay an ever increasing percentage of the total tax receipts, even with a tax cut.

Look at gun control. The media continually repeats that the United States has a much higher murder rate than some countries with more restrictive gun control laws. But the media remains silent about the fact that there are other countries, such as Russia, which have more restrictive gun control laws than ours but have far higher murder rates than the United States. Or that there are countries that have higher rates of gun ownership, such as Switzerland, and have a fraction of our murder rate.

The members of the media have obviously made a decision that restrictive gun control laws are desirable, which they have every right to do. It is when they try to make up other people''s minds by filtering out information to the public that their opinion become a bias in doing their job.

Or, look at abortion. the pro-choice media prefers the term ""fetus"" to the more disturbing ""unborn."" Stories in the media are never told from a pro-life standpoint. The rights of a father in making an abortion decision are never discussed.

In the early 90''s, the liberal Los Angeles Times admitted abortion media bias:

""Most major newspapers support abortion rights on their editorial pages, and two major media studies have shown that 80 percent to 90 percent of U.S. journalists personally favor abortion rights. Moreover, some reporters participated in a big abortion rights march in Washington ... and the American Newspaper Guild, the union that represents news and editorial employees at many major papers, has officially endorsed ''freedom of choice in abortion decisions.''... Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play.""

What about homelessness? The Wall Street Journal''s OpinionJournal.com, after George W. Bush''s election, began publishing the ""Homelessness Rediscovery Watch."" Why? When Republicans assume power, the media seems to suddenly rediscover homelessness.

The Media Research Center tracked interest in homelessness during the latter part of the Clinton administration. From an MRC report:

""Homelessness -- one of the media''s favorite tools to portray the alleged downside of Ronald Reagan''s ''80s prosperity -- was a more serious national problem during Bill Clinton''s 1990s. ... Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless admitted ... ''Definitely, we saw more homelessness in the 1990s than we did in the 1980s.'' But we saw far less homelessness on TV sets during the Clinton years.

""During the first Bush administration,"" according to the Media Research Center, ""morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN ran an average of 53 stories on homelessness annually, compared to less than 17 per year during the Clinton administration. ... The expanding homeless population was out of sight during the Clinton years but just three short weeks after George W. Bush assumed office, ABC won the race to be the first network to rediscover the homeless. On Sunday, Feb. 11, 2001, ""World News Tonight Sunday"" anchor Carole Simpson intoned: ''Homelessness, which is estimated to affect from two and a half to three and a half million people, is again on the rise.''""

I could go on, but I think I have made the point.

You make a strong case so fair enough, let''s for the time being establish that the media''s alledged liberal bias exists. Where did it start, do you see any historical tendencies towards this bias? Does it, as I have suggested before, start at the point where journalists gather most of their basic knowledge on journalism i.e. their study? Are the major media outlets they work for traditionally more liberal orientated companies?

Well, this is pure conjecture on my part.

I assume that most people who become journalists do so to ''make a difference''. And ''making a difference'' is what the liberal vision is all about. Both are groups of people that have a vision of an idealized society, which is both noble and impossibly unrealistic.

You also encounter this mindset of an idealized world among the intelligentsia and acedemic elite, so these natural tendencies are reinforced along the way.

Reporters try to encapsulate a ''problem'' in the form of a single example that can be aired on the news. The difficulty with that approach is that sometimes the ''problem'' doesn''t exist in the manner portrayed or is so unbelievably complex it can''t be solved. But that doesn''t stop our intrepid do-gooders from trying to ''make a difference''.

Now, I don''t find fault in the majority of reporters. They are trying to do a job they believe in, and should be commended. However, when they cross a line and try to ''make a difference'' by framing a story a certain way, or try to pass judgement on a situation they are singularly unqualified to discuss, it is a serious problem.

Plus, they worry about making their stories ''accessible to the audience''. Which means dumbing down the subject matter and making it palatable. For example, when reading about homeless people in the media, they always seem to interview the nuclear family of father out of work, mother worried about her two kids that have fallen on hard times. They never seem to interview the junkies or mentally ill people, even though 90% of homeless people got there because of either mental illness or poor life choices.

The reality is that people with the the ''noble vision'' desire to change the world, based on the wisdom of the few. And they naturally drift towards those professions that allow them to do that, regardless of all of the evidence that contradicts the plausibility of that vision.

All right, explain FOX News. Are they trying to be the ""balanced"" version of the press or are they a blatant conservative racket to ""counter"" the other ""liberal"" media outlets.

Ahh Rat. I wondered when you would chime in. I''ve missed you.

The liberal news media has selective appeal to different groups, usually when a problem that is being highlighted has personal relevance to the viewer. And the viewer, much like the reporter shows little concern for the trade-offs involved in trying to ''solve'' the problem that applies to them.

However, the vast majority of people in the country are conservative by nature and apply common sense to their daily lives. I think that Fox news originates from the same source as conservative talk radio. It typically has an element of common sense that is missing from the liberal-leaning press.

Where it came from? From Rupert Murdoch noticing that there was a liberal leaning in the media and figuring he could make money by presenting news from a more conservative bent.

Objectively, are they as far right as the mainstream press is left? I don''t think so, but they look that way in comparison. How could they not? Is the Wall Street Journal ''blatantly conservative''?

Saying that the other media is as liberal as FOX is conservative is a bad comparison. During the war, FOX''s intro from commerical graphic was a bald eagle morphing into a F-15 which blasted the crap out of the screen. I don''t recall the other cable outlets having a dove of peace morph into a rainbow to the tune of ""Give Peace a Chance.""

Saying that the other media is as liberal as FOX is conservative is a bad comparison.

Very true, which is why I didn''t say that. The only thing on TV that is as conservative as the rest of the media is liberal is the 700 Club.

Fox might be a little right of center, but the majority of the mass media is quite a ways into the left. I said that Fox only appears to be ultra-conservative in comparison to the mainstream media.

And intro graphics don''t mean anything. Stop trying to change the subject with meaningless statements. The discussion is about the liberal distortion of the mainstream press. Where do you think it starts? Can it be fixed?

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

And intro graphics don''t mean anything.

Packaging how one presents the news is as important as what news one chooses to present. Media presented with the American flag waving in the foreground has a different effect than media presented without it. How one phrases a headline has an impact. You don''t think a bald eagle morphing into a F-15 means anything about the editorial slant of FOX News?

The discussion is about the liberal distortion of the mainstream press. Where do you think it starts? Can it be fixed?

I frankly don''t see it. I assume you are targeting CNN and the NYT with your statements. Guess what the page one headline in tomorrow''s edition of the NYT will be? Are they liberal when they report the death of the Hussein Sons?

I think your problem is that you think that they''ll ""let"" the uranium story ""die."" Journalists have a duty: report the news and ask questions. They''re doing just that. This story is driving itself without any artificial stimulus spurred on by the press. Joe Wilson started it on July 6. Ari Fleishcher, George Tenet, and the rest of the Administration kept it going during the week with Democrats weighing in as well. Yesterday''s revelation was once again made by Joe Wilson.

Now, where you may have an argument is in the UK with the BBC and Dr. David Kelly''s suicide.

You also say that this discussion is about the liberal distortion of the news; is not fair to also bring up the conservative distortion of the news as well, since it would be the same problem?

Answer this: was the inclusion of the ""Iraqi perspective"" in several news outlets during the war a liberal move?

Edit: And answer these:

* Was Woodard and Bernstein''s investigation into Watergate a ""liberal distortion""?

* Were investigations into the Iran-Contra scandal ""liberal distortions""?

* Were investigations into Dick Cheney''s meetings with energy companies ""liberal distortions""?

* Is the current investigation into the 9-11 intelligence by both the press and Congress a ""liberal distortion""?

You also say that this discussion is about the liberal distortion of the news; is not fair to also bring up the conservative distortion of the news as well, since it would be the same problem?

Well, I used examples of gun control, the lack of context regarding the deficit, abortion and homelessness as cases. Please show me conservative distortions on these issues from the mainstream press.

Answer this: was the inclusion of the ""Iraqi perspective"" in several news outlets during the war a liberal move?

Yes, because they interviewed people that put the war in a bad light without showing the viewpoints of the majority of Iraqis that support our being there.

* Was Woodard and Bernstein''s investigation into Watergate a ""liberal distortion""?

Of course not.

* Were investigations into the Iran-Contra scandal ""liberal distortions""?

No, but focusing exclusively on that and the ''Reagan deficits'' without talking about the overall benefits to the economy and the impact that strengthening our military had in the collapse of the Solviet Union is.

* Were investigations into Dick Cheney''s meetings with energy companies ""liberal distortions""?

Absolutely.

* Is the current investigation into the 9-11 intelligence by both the press and Congress a ""liberal distortion""?

The investigation by Congress isn''t, but the spin put on it by the press likely will be.

Fox might be a little right of center, but the majority of the mass media is quite a ways into the left.

I find it surprisingly funny how you categorize profit based free enterprises as being ''quite a ways into the left''. The left - right really isn''t the only conflict that exists in politics, hell, I''m willing to state that the only existing stand-off left is between authoritarian and libertarian policy. With the advent of the free-market economy there hasn''t really been very much questioning about which economic system is the best. Inherently, capitalism has most advantages. Todays political stand-offs mostly consist of conflicts between authoritarians and libertarians, be them members of ''left'' or ''right'' parties. I would even dare to say that real left politics have ceased to exist in the US and the rest of the western world. The ''third way'' like social democrats you see in our countries really have very little in common with the traditional ideas of socialist governing. The free market has won the century lasting battle between the ideologies, calling any majority party or group ''leftist'' these days is just hollow ranting.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Yes, because they interviewed people that put the war in a bad light without showing the viewpoints of the majority of Iraqis that support our being there.

Proof? And I was talking about during the war. For example, the children injured by errant bombs and falling AAA fire. Asking people what they think of Americans in Iraq is legitimate. There have also been reports on life in Baghdad to contrast with the recent protest. Are you saying that reporting on the protest from the other day is a ""liberal distortion""?

Are you saying that the inclusion of all perspectives is counter to what journalism is about?

Of course not.

Really? Read further.

No

Thank you. That non-related tangent was unecessary to answering the question.

Absolutely.

How? How is it any different than the two investigations above that you said you thought weren''t?

The investigation by Congress isn''t, but the spin put on it by the press likely will be.

Now you''re just letting your bias cloud your judgement. Look at the reports coming out about it now. They say that the FBI deserves a lot of the blame for not seeing the intelligence; how is this a liberal spin, especially since this is what is being reported by Congress? How is raising questions about a ""foreign government"" (Saudi Arabia is implied) being ""shielded"" by the White House (the Administration asked for the references to be deleted from the report) a liberal bias? It is a legitimate question about the War on Terror and it is as legitimate as asking about Nixon''s involvement with the Watergate break-in and the Reagan Administration''s deal with the Iranian terrorists and the Contras.

Todays political stand-offs mostly consist of conflicts between authoritarians and libertarians

It''s not nice to refer to Democrats as ""authoritarians"". Just because they are the thought-police doesn''t mean we should point it out...

"JohnnyMojo" wrote:

Well, I used examples of gun control, the lack of context regarding the deficit, abortion and homelessness as cases. Please show me conservative distortions on these issues from the mainstream press.

Prove me wrong.

"Koesj" wrote:

I''m willing to state that the only existing stand-off left is between authoritarian and libertarian policy. With the advent of the free-market economy there hasn''t really been very much questioning about which economic system is the best.

Yeah, when I talk about left vs. right I am not talking about economic systems. The free market, when applied with the rule of law, is unbeatable as an economic system.

I am talking about the ideology for implementing social change. The ''left'', as I am using the term (and as most conservatives do), profess a vision of social change, implemented by the wisdom of the few (i.e. them).

The left typically believes that what is lacking in the implentation of social change is will and power, not knowledge. The right typically believe that there is an inherent nature of things, which if it can be altered, humans don''t have the knowledge or the wisdom to do so yet.

To touch on a few of the ideological differences:

The left believe that policies don''t fail because of a faulty pretense for the policy, but instead because the plan was not implemented properly. You can see this when looking back over the failures of the war on poverty and the criminal justice reforms of the 1960''s. The policies put in place failed miserably by any objective standard, and yet they are defended by saying that the measurements aren''t fair because the policies weren''t executed according to the vision. The right typically believe that common sense and systemic change are more effective for creating lasting social policy, and that the ''unfairness'' that might result from those policies are unfortunate but unavoidable.

The left believe that there are ''solutions'' to problems, such as crime, poverty, the environment, etc. These solutions are waiting to be put into place, and all that is lacking is the political power. The right recognizes that problems will never go to zero, and that any fix is inevitably a trade-off that might cause problems in another area. It boils down to which answer is the least distasteful.

The left believe that social correlations are proof of social causation; for example, loan rejection discrepencies for minorities are directly indicative of racism. The right believe that incentive structures within a system provide the basis / remedy for observed social phenomena. To use the previous example, if minority loan rejection is systemically occuring, there would be a lower level of profitability for banks who are rejecting otherwise qualified applicants. Similarly, this creates opportunities for banks to address this (underserved) niche because of the oppty for super-normal profits.

The left typically believe that economic costs in implementing policy is incidental. Ends justify the means especially when economic costs are concerned (e.g. ""save the environment"" = eliminate DDT, eliminate asbestos, etc.). The right believe those economic costs are crucial to the decision making process. The cost of ""changing over"" to a new system is critical in determining the value of the new system. (e.g. before DDT was eliminated, malaria had almost been eradicated. Within two years of the elimination of DDT, countries where malaria was endemic saw malaria cases rise back to or exceed previous levels. All of this when there was and is no conclusive proof that DDT was dangerous)

At the end of the day, the left vs. right discussion boils down to ''good intentions'' vs. ''results, in the face of imperfect knowledge''

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

They never seem to interview the junkies or mentally ill people, even though 90% of homeless people got there because of either mental illness or poor life choices.

They really should do this. Mentally ill belong in a hospital, not on the street.

Hey I saw Dan Rather weep when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1998.

To be fair he also wept after 9/11 on the David Letterman show. Maybe he''s just an emotional guy.

Rather also started to cry as he recited John Denver lyrics to commemorate Jessica Lynch coming home.

Ahh, the sounds of silence...

Rat,

You asked if the press investigations into the intelligence failings of the Bush White House are proof of a liberal bias. By themselves, perhaps not. But taken in the comparison to the investigations into the intelligence failings of the Clinton White House, it paints a clear picture of favoritism.

For example:

Last week, Katie Couric pressed former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey over how CIA Director George Tenet should have properly vetted the 16 words. She asked if he had vetted Clinton''s SotU''s. Woolsey responded that Clinton didn''t speak about intelligence in his first two State of the Union speeches. Woolsey then added that when Clinton launched the strike on Iraq in the summer of 1993:

""not only did I not vet the statement, I did not know the strike was going to occur until it was in the process of occurring. We hadn''t been invited into the meetings to make the assessments.""

Now, where was the media outrage and investigation then?

When Clinton attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan three days after admitting the Lewinsky affair, Ted Koppel found it ""unthinkable"" to question Clinton''s actions and mourned ""the times we live in"" that some people did not believe the White House line. Not one network asked where Clinton received his intelligence -- if any -- even after it came out that the alleged chemical-weapons site was an asprin factory and the U.S. government paid damages to the Sudanese owner. Where was the outrage over intelligence failures?

From the Media Research Center:

In 1999, Clinton dissembled in his State of the Union address: ""We will defend our security wherever we are threatened, as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden''s network of terror."" The August 16, 1999, U.S. News & World Report published an investigation by reporters Warren Strobel and Kevin Whitelaw that painted a different picture on the bombing at the Sudanese site of El Shifa. They found that ""virtually everything the administration said publicly about El Shifa in the days after the attack has turned out to be wrong."" And: ""The decision to bomb El Shifa was made by fewer than a dozen top U.S. officials. This meant that experts on both Sudan and chemical weapons were not consulted about the government''s evidence.""

Hmm. I don''t seem to recall a public outcry after that news story broke. No record of the major media calling for the heads of the Administration...

In Clinton''s 1996 SotU, he stated: ""North Korea has now frozen its dangerous nuclear weapons program."" Yep, no intelligence failures there.

So, when looking at the utter lack of outries from the major media during the Clinton era, and the continuous investigation into the intentions behind a factually true statement, yeah...I think there is a media bias.

In Clinton''s 1996 SotU, he stated: ""North Korea has now frozen its dangerous nuclear weapons program."" Yep, no intelligence failures there.

Indeed, it was only a couple of years afterwards that they defrosted their program in response to US stalling of the two light water reactor contruction programs.

The US stalled the construction programs because North Korea failed to live up to its end of the deal. Not the other way around.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Woolsey then added that when Clinton launched the strike on Iraq in the summer of 1993:

""not only did I not vet the statement, I did not know the strike was going to occur until it was in the process of occurring. We hadn''t been invited into the meetings to make the assessments.""

Now, where was the media outrage and investigation then?

You really have a bad memory if you don''t remember why those strikes were launched.

When Clinton attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan three days after admitting the Lewinsky affair, Ted Koppel found it ""unthinkable"" to question Clinton''s actions and mourned ""the times we live in"" that some people did not believe the White House line. Not one network asked where Clinton received his intelligence -- if any -- even after it came out that the alleged chemical-weapons site was an asprin factory and the U.S. government paid damages to the Sudanese owner. Where was the outrage over intelligence failures?

And if those strikes killed bin Ladin, you''d still bitch because he is Clinton and you are Republican.

From the Media Research Center:
In 1999, Clinton dissembled in his State of the Union address: ""We will defend our security wherever we are threatened, as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden''s network of terror."" The August 16, 1999, U.S. News & World Report published an investigation by reporters Warren Strobel and Kevin Whitelaw that painted a different picture on the bombing at the Sudanese site of El Shifa. They found that ""virtually everything the administration said publicly about El Shifa in the days after the attack has turned out to be wrong."" And: ""The decision to bomb El Shifa was made by fewer than a dozen top U.S. officials. This meant that experts on both Sudan and chemical weapons were not consulted about the government''s evidence.""

Hmm. I don''t seem to recall a public outcry after that news story broke. No record of the major media calling for the heads of the Administration...

In Clinton''s 1996 SotU, he stated: ""North Korea has now frozen its dangerous nuclear weapons program."" Yep, no intelligence failures there.

So, when looking at the utter lack of outries from the major media during the Clinton era, and the continuous investigation into the intentions behind a factually true statement, yeah...I think there is a media bias.

a.) How many US soldiers died in the ''98 attack on Afghanistan and Sudan?

b.) Why didn''t the Republican Congress call for inquiries? Maybe they didn''t have a problem with a bunch of ""A-rabs"" getting killed?

Ahh. Yet another post from the ''I like pie'' method of debate.

To spell it out clearly: my post was illustrative of the fact that during the previous administration, which was run by a Democrat, the predominately liberal media didn''t raise a stink over any intelligence failures, even when it cost American dollars or lives.

Yet during the tenure of a Republican president, 16 factually accurate words are being cast as a blatant attempt to deceive the American people to satisfy the bloodthirsty greed of a warmonger (an exaggeration, but not by much).

This is yet another in a long line of examples that show that a liberal leaning bias does in fact exist in the mainstream media.

Now, what part of that is unclear?

The part where your accusations hold any water.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

The part where your accusations hold any water.

No. You just refuse to accept what most people already admit. Look at the Fruitcake comment that the Democrat made, if a Republican made that it would be huge news.

The bias is there. However, people can get alt. sources of news and skirt the bias.

As I said a dozen posts ago:

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Well, I used examples of gun control, the lack of context regarding the deficit, abortion and homelessness as cases. Please show me conservative distortions on these issues from the mainstream press.

If you don''t see it, it is because you have drank so much of the kool-aid.

Dig around here for a while and tell me with a straight face that the media is ""liberal."" I do not think the media is liberal. For example, a liberal media would have had a different take on the war than the one presented. Sure, they had token reports about Iraqi civilians, but most of what you saw was focused on the military campaign: tactics, equipment, soldiers, talking-head generals. The media liked the war, I''m sorry to say; they all viewed it as a chance to grab ratings. Now they see the other kind of crisis that traditionally grabs headlines: political scandals. And you expect them to leave it alone, even though the full truth has yet to be told?

Edit: Show me a website or news service (al-Jazeera doesn''t count here) that has concluded in a main, front-page article that the Administration lied.

Rat Boy: Liberal != Far Left. Talking about the military campaign doesn''t mean the media isn''t liberal, it is reporting the most important news to the country.

I think you''re trying to dig up straw men.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Talking about the military campaign doesn''t mean the media isn''t liberal, it is reporting the most important news to the country.

Thank you. Glad you agree.

Edit: And let me just add that your searing hatred of Clinton has probably clouded your judgement. Your kind blames everything from the economy to reality TV on Clinton; get over yourselves.

Edit: Show me a website or news service (al-Jazeera doesn''t count here) that has concluded in a main, front-page article that the Administration lied.

It is much more subtle than that.

Obviously not subtle enough for you to conclude that:

Press covers Democrats raises legitimate questions over Iraq = liberal

Press covers Republicans not raising legitimate questions over Sudan but instead obssessing about Monica = liberal