Faux Noise Is About To Take A Dive

[Scalliwag]

It looks to me like they finally came out and showed their true colors to where even the color blind can see the rainbow. This story mentions how President of Fox News, Roger Ailles was once an advisor to Reagan and elder Bush, but he was also once head of the Republican National Commitee. The current spokesman, Snow (as in snowjob) came straight from Fox.
With this story http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/10/deb...eled/index.html everything now gets the spotlight put on them.

They have always mimmicked the republicans. For example GW stated that he would not call what was always referred to as "suicide bombings" by that name anymore. He calls them "homocide bombings'. Ever since that is the term Fox News uses.
That is just one of many republican talking points they have always used.
When Scooter Libby was convicted on four of the five charges against him on the news ticker at the bottom of the screen it showed that Libby was not convicted on whatever that one count he was not convicted of.
When Duke Cunningham was convicted they showed a picture of him and below it showed him as "Duke Cunningham-D"

All of their coverage during the Clinton Impeachment was about how lying under oath was not at all acceptable under any circumstances, but their talk now is that Libby should be pardoned because the investigation should have never gone that far.
Anyone that thinks that there are not conservatives in the mainstream media need to consider that Diane Sawyer was a speechwriter for Nixon. The mainstream media carried Bush's water for a long time glamourizing him as a Washington outsider after having ran a constant barrage of bad publicity against Clinton when we had Monicagate 24/7.

So at least in the mainstream there has been some balance, they have attacked both sides. Remember Chandra Levy and the news push that ousted the democrat congressman even though he had nothing to do with her murder? Remember the Gray Davis recall and the rolling blackouts that turned out to be a republican scandal (Enron manipulated the power grids)?

sure there is bad news 24/7 on repubs right now. But there are very strong reasons as to why Mark Foley, Duke Cunninghan, Bob Ney, the VA hospital, and on and on and on and on are in the news, because they are guilty as hell of very bad shit.
I have always said that given enough rope these guys would hang themselves. Ailles just stuck his head in the noose. Edwards threw out the bait and his dumbass took it. They are too damn dumb to just keep their stupid mouths shut
It will be fun to watch this play out.

[tingjunkie]

There is a documentary about Fox News that catalogs how awfully biased they are. It's called "Outfoxed." I highly recommend it.

In the past few weeks, ther have been several occasions where they have put a picture of Barak Obama up, but had "Osama" as the caption. Twisted bastards.

[Lakemonster]

LOL....

Fox News is has always been notoriously Neo-Con biased.


Why is there no calling out the other news networks for being blatantly Liberal?

Hey... if we are gonna poo-poo a network for "Spin" then lets get em all.

[Scalliwag]

I have heard about all the liberal bias as long as I can remember. The story usually starts and stops with that statement. I woul love to hear more detailed examples.
Every major news agency except for Fox has uncovered scandals in both parties. Why didn't the liberal media trash Ronald Reagan for being the first president that ever have been divorced? Why did they go after Gary Hart if they were so liberal? Why did they cover Monicagate non-stop beginning to end?
Which of the networks have ever had a head of the Democratic National Comittee or any type of democratic official or advisor?
I am all up to "out" whoever needs outing. But outing requires details and details can be debated. Just because Dan Rather ran a story based on a forged document the secretary of the official said while he did not write it that it did cover what he thought of GW. There was another forged document at the same time that were known to be forged and the Whitehouse itself ran with that story. No one was fired for that, as a matter of fact the person that blew the administrations cover on that story has been attacked and his wife outed. And every commentator at Fox has attacked the guy ever since.

I watch MSNBC and see Tucker Carlson and former repub congressman Joe Scarbrough. Fox has Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes and Colmes is a flipping weakling. I could rip Hannity's dumbass up one side and down the other and Colmes makes stupid weak arguments.

But I digress. This "blatantly liberal" media I would love to get more details on. No offense but to me it is something that always sounded real good but did not hold water. Who have Bob Ney and all the recently convicted repubs blame while the networks were reporting their crimes? The liberal media and democrats. But Bob Ney and all the repubs in the last few years that have plead guilty seemed to finally admit how they did wrong and failed etc. etc. etc.
They had rode that lame excuse out. Did the liberal media make Cunningham take kickbacks? He sure blamed them while he was being investigated.

Some people think it is funny as hell that Hillary blamed the rightwing conspiracy for Bill's problems. To me the repubs have been using that excuse for every crime they have ever committed. "Liberal media" sounds good. It riles the base and gets the constituents to circle the wagons. So far though I know every time I hear that term that it won't be long until a repub pleads guilty or is found guilty for whatever it was they were blaming others for.

[Lakemonster]

They arent going to cover up anything... it sells...they are just going to spin a bit.

Take for instance the following article where the anchor injects the notion that gun control has always been a "fight".... to me at least, its an obvious take of liberal agenda that gun control is not a right, but something negotiable.

NBC's Williams Highlights Pro-Gun Ruling Ignored by Other Networks

Posted by Brad Wilmouth on March 10, 2007 - 19:56.

Of the broadcast network evening news shows, on Friday the NBC Nightly News uniquely covered the "history-making" federal court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s restrictive gun control laws. While anchor Brian Williams made the story his show's lead item, with correspondent Pete Williams calling it "the most important gun control ruling in 70 years," the CBS Evening News and ABC's World News ignored the story entirely.

Pete Williams set up his report relaying the story of D.C. resident Tom Palmer, "who was once assaulted and wants a gun in the house for self-defense." A party to the lawsuit against D.C., Palmer argued that since "criminals don't obey the law," that "it's the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law." The report then featured opposing viewpoints in the form of soundbites from Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty and gun control advocate Paul Helmke complaining that the ruling could "weaken gun laws nationwide." (Transcript follows)

Notably, according to a January 2000 study by the MRC's Geoffrey Dickens on media coverage of gun issues, while all three major broadcast networks were found to be substantially biased in favor of gun control, NBC was relatively least biased compared to ABC and CBS.

Below is a complete transcript of the story that appeared on the Friday March 9 NBC Nightly News:

Brian Williams, in opening teaser: "The right to bear arms: Tonight, a major court decision on gun control that is sure to stir up passions on both sides of the gun fight."
...

Brian Williams: "Good evening. As long as there have been firearms and for as long as there's been a Constitution of the United States, there's been a debate in this country over the definition of the right to bear arms. Today in Washington, a federal court struck down the law that bans guns in the nation's capital. It is one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. And when this case is all over, that right to bear arms just might have a whole new definition. We begin here tonight with this history-making case involving an emotional topic. Pete Williams starts us off in our Washington bureau this Friday night. Pete, good evening."

Pete Williams: "Brian, good evening. This is the most important gun control ruling in 70 years because for the first time a federal appeals court has used the Second Amendment to strike a gun law down. Today's ruling is a victory for Tom Palmer, a Washington, D.C. resident who was once assaulted and wants a gun in the house for self-defense."

Tom Palmer: "The fact is that the criminals don't obey the law, and they do have guns. It's the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law."

Pete Williams: "He was one of six who went to court to challenge the city's strict gun law, passed as an anti-crime measure 30 years ago. It outlaws handguns or rifles, except for residents with permits, mainly police or security guards. But today, by a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the federal appeals court here said the law violates the constitutional right to bear arms. Washington's mayor says the ruling could put more guns in the hands of young people."

Mayor Adrian Fenty (D-Washington, DC): "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision. Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia."

Williams: "The ruling revives a long fight over the 27 words of the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates argue that the phrase 'well-regulated militia' means owning a gun is a group right subject to restriction. But the court today said the right to bear arms is an individual right for private activities, including self-defense."

Charlton Heston, holding up a rifle at a past NRA convention: "From my cold, dead hands!"

Pete Williams: "That's precisely the view the National Rifle Association has advocated for decades. Legal experts say today's ruling launches a huge battle."

Tom Goldstein, Legal Expert: "This is a monumental case that sets up the biggest fight over gun rights in the modern history of the United States."

Pete Williams: "New York and Chicago have similar strict gun laws, and a host of local and federal laws regulate gun ownership. Gun control groups fear if today's ruling stands, it could weaken gun laws nationwide."

Paul Helmke, Gun Control Advocate: "You're allowing any sort of a gun law, whether it's a waiting period, a background check, you leave it open to challenge."

Pete Williams: "The city says it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, Brian."



Its rather easy to defend a cause you feel passionate for.... but trust me, Im no Rep apologist.

What Im saying tis that they are all biased. Dems just found their meal ticket on the matter..... so run with it if you feel like it.

[Scalliwag]

I am just not seeing the spin and I am against gun control. both Ronald and Nancy Reagan were for the Brady bill so even the icon that repubs hold up as a great guy did not even hold their position in that area.
They even give the argument from both sides and I don't see any blatant spin. The best argument to me has always been that if guns are made illegal that only criminals will have guns. No matter how you try and spin on that if that is in the story it gets to the heart of the issue to me.

It is a fight, court battle after court battle. I have no problem with the verbage. When Fox gives a story like that they will use terms like leftwing etc. or "liberal views" but I have yet to hear them ever use the word rightwing unless in the context where they are saying something like "Hillary blames the rightwing....."
Then the second in charge at Fox says the democratic party in owned by the leftwingers at Moveon.org.
Fox should be sued for claiming to be "Fair and Balanced" because it is false advertising. They are the only ones not reporting what their boss and secind in command have said. They just report that the dems pulled out of the debate.
To me that is blatant. There is no reading between the lines or seeing or hearing what you want to hear in the argument.
They weren't spinning the stories like with Chandra Levy and Conditt in any favor for dems. If anything they spun it more against them.
Exact same case in the Gray Davis matter. The media railroaded the guy and got behind the recall and pushed for his outing. I don't ever remember seeing a repub come even close to getting shafted where they were not at all for the things behind their ouster. Give me any example. Davis was not responsible for the rolling blackouts, republicans were. Conditt was not responsible for the death of Chandra Levy, he had an affair with her. An affair just like Newt was having with his aide (at the same time actaully) he is now married to her.
So I can name democrats ousted from their positions because of media frenzy. Maybe I missed it but I cannot find where this has happened to a republican.

Like I have said before I am a moderate but I do not go off of ideaology. I go off of situations. GW did not get where he did and repubs did not get the power they got to having a horrible fight against a media that was so against them. The media has been part of the problem and a lot was not reported. But with a media that helped get us to where we are right now is no friend of any democrat. Ask Conditt, Clinton, Davis, how much spin they got. They are just now getting around to putting out some negative press on Rudy after 5 years of making him out to be superman.

[Lakemonster]

So I can name democrats ousted from their positions because of media frenzy. Maybe I missed it but I cannot find where this has happened to a republican.

Trent Lott? Ok ... so not an ousting... but damn close.

I will concede the point you make about media stir getting more Dems in the hotseat than vice versa. It is interesting that the real dirt on Bush was never touted in the media as much as Kerry's Purple Hearts are dubious achievments. Clinton was a complete draft-dodger.... and that was all over the news, yet DW going AWOL you have to read about on the net.

When I watch ALL news I pick up on "spin". If you dont, then you dont. To me its been no secret that Faux Snooze has been Rep. apologists. Its an ass-patting station for Neo-Cons and the gullible or those that just want to march in step. Thats what FOX has been. Is it really just now been discovered?

Another thing you need to know is that the term "Fair and Balanced" is a a form of commercial propaganda. Its known as a "vague generality". Fair and Balanced in reference to what? according to whose guidlines? See, its open ended. Just like the leading cigarette manufacturer used to put in their ads "Smooth and Refreshing"

[Zerodynamic]

I know that this isn't part of your debate guys, but personally, I like FOX news. I see CNN, MSNBC, Headline news... god damn everything that is on cable. Most of the media has a liberal bias. Fox news, I admit has a conservative bias.... but rather than slience the other side like those other networks do, they do allow that oppostion to speak and state their case. Granted, in any debate the other side (usually the hosts of the news program) will say they are wrong, but given the alternatives, I'll choose FOX anyday. The other liberal networks will only (I'm speaking generally here, they do rarely bring on people with differing views) broadcast guests that have the same view points.

So, I must ask then, why is it the Fox news is the most highly rated news channel out of them all? We all may have opinions, but the ratings don't lie, the viewing public are sick of hearing what the liberal media networks are saying and watching fox news now more than ever. Even stories like breaking news (i.e. plane crash, house on fire, etc) where political view point has nothing to do with the story, more people watch fox news.

Cross apply that to Bill O' Reilly. People dog him, hate him, and call him a conservative, blah, blah, blah. Yet his show has been the most watched cable television news program for the past 4 years.

So, in a nutshell, why is fox on top? Because most of America is conservative (or moderately so anyway) and they have no desire to watch crap that dogs America and promotes "idealistic" countries like France.

/End rant

[Scalliwag]

I strongly disagree with your synopsis and this is why. Fox News seems to be riding on the same wave as republican popularity. Both of their ratings have dropped drastically. I am not for ridding Fox News. You know what they say keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I want to know what they are saying. Plus I know that people like Bill Oh Really are only going to impact people that are in my opinion, not too damn bright.
I guess the reason I don't see the spin is that it is not as blatant as with Fox. I take in the story and take opinion for opinion or even something that is said that requires speculation.

[Scalliwag]

So I can name democrats ousted from their positions because of media frenzy. Maybe I missed it but I cannot find where this has happened to a republican.

Trent Lott? Ok ... so not an ousting... but damn close.

I will concede the point you make about media stir getting more Dems in the hotseat than vice versa. It is interesting that the real dirt on Bush was never touted in the media as much as Kerry's Purple Hearts are dubious achievments. Clinton was a complete draft-dodger.... and that was all over the news, yet DW going AWOL you have to read about on the net.

When I watch ALL news I pick up on "spin". If you dont, then you dont. To me its been no secret that Faux Snooze has been Rep. apologists. Its an ass-patting station for Neo-Cons and the gullible or those that just want to march in step. Thats what FOX has been. Is it really just now been discovered?

Another thing you need to know is that the term "Fair and Balanced" is a a form of commercial propaganda. Its known as a "vague generality". Fair and Balanced in reference to what? according to whose guidlines? See, its open ended. Just like the leading cigarette manufacturer used to put in their ads "Smooth and Refreshing"

Trent Lott was pretty much ousted by his own party. Bush would not even stand up for the guy. Lott is still pissed at the administration over it from things I have read. Unlike Conditt and Davis he actually said something really stupid that got the ball rolling. Davis got the supershaft and Conditt just had real bad luck on who he chose to boink. Lott kept his job and these guys got tossed.
The Bush administration was 100% responsible for ignoring the warning signs and not looking into the real reason behind the rolling blackouts. Because it was real convenient. Their party could gain a governorship while their friends got rich.

I never understood the way Kerry got railroaded while people pretended that Bush was not a glorified draftdodger.
The best excuse I heard from a glorified draftdodger was Dan Quayle saying he joined the Illinois National Guard to learn to weld So you have a guy that goes to Vietnam and goes into firefights yet the cowards seem to get a free ride.
I do think that stupidity plays in favor for some

Oh and BTW I am pissed that Jefferson (the guy with 90k in his freezer) was given a place on a commitee by Pelosi.

[Blue Midnight]

I watch MSNBC and see Tucker Carlson and former repub congressman Joe Scarbrough. Fox has Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes and Colmes is a flipping weakling. I could rip Hannity's dumbass up one side and down the other and Colmes makes stupid weak arguments.

Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I almost think that the whole Hannity and Colmes show is like some weird display of machoism/conservative dominism type thing manifested in talking head form. To me, Hannity is portrayed as representing a giant penis (ie taking charge and making forceful points, not taking any shit), while Colmes is the whiny vagina/liberal douche bag (ie getting pushed around, being semi-femine, etc.). Not trying to be sexist here, (and I really truly despise Sean Hannity), but for some reason when I watch the show this is just how I think things are being portrayed.

[sicklecow]

I watch MSNBC and see Tucker Carlson and former repub congressman Joe Scarbrough. Fox has Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes and Colmes is a flipping weakling. I could rip Hannity's dumbass up one side and down the other and Colmes makes stupid weak arguments.

Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I almost think that the whole Hannity and Colmes show is like some weird display of machoism/conservative dominism type thing manifested in talking head form. To me, Hannity is portrayed as representing a giant penis (ie taking charge and making forceful points, not taking any shit), while Colmes is the whiny vagina/liberal douche bag (ie getting pushed around, being semi-femine, etc.). Not trying to be sexist here, (and I really truly despise Sean Hannity), but for some reason when I watch the show this is just how I think things are being portrayed.

Also, the text they put at the bottom of the screen (not the ticker, the text that's part of the show) is almost always worded to agree with Hannity's viewpoint. And Colmes is often intimidated into silence by the guests.

[cypherkk]

whoohoo... lets check the stats: 1 conservative biased station that says's its not. Like, well... 10 liberal biased stations that say they aren't.

[Blue Midnight]

whoohoo... lets check the stats: 1 conservative biased station that says's its not. Like, well... 10 liberal biased stations that say they aren't.

Okay, well I think you are wrong. If it is in fact true that the entire media is liberal with the exception of Fox News, then why would the Clinton/Lewinsky thing have been covered relentlessly by all media, while truly evil, brutal, impeachable scandals that are right in the media's faces during the Bush years (ie Iraq war lies, spying on American citizens without a warrant, troops sent into Iraq without proper body armor, etc.) hardly even covered?

Also it is important to note that the "liberal media" was cheerleading this war from the get go. Your point is really without much suppoting evidence, me thinks...

[Scalliwag]

whoohoo... lets check the stats: 1 conservative biased station that says's its not. Like, well... 10 liberal biased stations that say they aren't.

Yet another example where someone pops off an opinion with zero evidence to support their claim. To me that is easy to do. Very seldom will I make a statement without supporting evidence. If you think you are right about something you should have more than just a point of view.
I think too many people are like parrots. They hear some statement that sounds good and just repeat it.

Case in point. Have you ever heard if you have a dream that you fall off a cliff and actually hit that you will die? I wanna know who the hell ever lived to tell about it. I don't give a shit how many seemingly educated people mimmick shit they have heard from seemingly intelligent people. The damn story has to more than sound good to be fact. Otherwise to me either the story is stupid or the person telling it is gullible.
ask how many people have heard the story about falling and ask the ones that have if they believe it. Then ask them why they believe it? Common sense will tell you if you think about it long enough that people have to tell you what they were dreaming and if they told you what they dreaned they obviously were not dead. People need to think a little deeper than the bullshit.
That is why we end up with an idiot like bush.

[Scalliwag]

Here was another thing the so-called liberal media did. Remember the Howard Dean scream? Remember how they played it over and over? They took the mic audio instead of the room audio. Anybody that knows anything about sound systems and recording knows if you single out any track by pulling out all the other tracks it will usually sound out of place. If you stripped all the tracks except vocals in Sweet Child of Mine Axel Rose would have sounded bizarre and it would not have got any airplay let alone top the charts.
The crowd was extremely loud and while he was a little over exuberant the media effectively played something completely out of context and made it seem more extreme than it was.

They played it over and over and over and failed to mention those details. Dean was one of the most liberal candidates in the field. So why in the hell did the liberal media want to take out their most promising candidate? How many strong conservatives has Fox News tried to take them out at the kneecaps?

So when someone wants to make out that Fox is the polar opposite from the so-called 10 liberal news channels I would like to see from solid evidence where Fox has done stories to embarrass conservatives like the 10 liberal news orgs plus Fox ran on Dean.

[Lakemonster]

Look. You want evidence.... ok

Lets take Ted Turner.... liberal puke...was married to Hanoi Jane. HE is a liberal. No question. Google his name plus the word liberal... plenty of reading. Owns CNN. CNN is a lefty piece of liberal trash.

OK then. Lets have a read of what Dan Rather has to say about the whole thing.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=54716


Dan Rather admits he blew it


By Joseph Farah

© 2007
"Stop The Presses!"

No, that's not a shameless plug for my new book.

I'm suggesting we have a news development that warrants stopping the run and replating.

OK, I know. This is the Internet. No paper. No ink. No presses. No replates. Everything is real time.

Nevertheless, I am overcome by nostalgia and excitement over a news development.

Here's the headline: "Dan Rather admits he blew it."

Did you ever think you would see the day?

Can the Lord's return be far off?

During an hour-long speech in Austin, the former CBS anchorman mused that too many of his colleagues had become lapdogs to power, rather than watchdogs.

Now, let me hit the pause button right there and ask the legions of Farah fans out there if that might sound familiar. Does it ring a chord with you? Have you ever heard anyone use those phrases before?

Whether you have heard me make this case on radio and television or read my words in previous columns, you will want to get my latest book – "Stop The Presses!" – for the full explanation and roadmap to renewing and revitalizing the central mission of the free press in America. But enough shameless self-promotion for now.

Back to Rather.

"I do not exclude myself from this criticism," he said. "By and large, so many journalists – there are notable exceptions – have adopted the go-along-to-get-along (attitude)."

He added: "In many ways, what we in journalism need is a spine transplant."

And here's what he said about the watchdog role of the press: "A good watchdog barks at everything that's suspicious. I submit to you, the American press' role is to be a watchdog."

I know Dan Rather has more time on his hands now. I was really wondering if he had by chance read an advance copy of "Stop The Presses!" Or maybe he was just scanning through my column archive.

For once in his life Dan Rather has it right!

That's why this is a "Stop The Presses!" moment.

As I have said countless times in this space: The central role of a free press in a free society is to serve as a watchdog on government and other powerful institutions – to root out our corruption, fraud, waste and abuse wherever they are found.

I wrote it just last week.

This is a constant theme for me – and, to be quite honest with you, ONLY ME!

As I like to explain, there is only one correct answer to this question: "What is the proper role of a free press in a free society." And it is the answer above.

It is incorrect if you answer: "To entertain and amuse."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To raise the self-esteem of oppressed minorities."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To further the interests of the state."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To make millions for my boss."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To achieve high ratings."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To further the cause of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered reporters and editors."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To make people aware of the impending threat of global warming."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To warn of the potential for consumer fraud."

It is incorrect if you answer: "To be fair and balanced."

It is incorrect if you answer: "Kenneth, what is the frequency?"

There is only one right answer.

The good news is that even Dan Rather has discovered the truth about his profession – even if it is a little late.


The other thing is that the liberal media right now is not reporting a true piece of news.... possibly to dodge having to report on a heinous race crime...kow-towing to the liberal minorities.... instead they are running this dog and pony show about a stupid dead whore (Anna Nicole). heres a link to some real news.

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=5930690

[tingjunkie]

Got to agree with just about everything Scalli has said here so far. Especially the parrot comment! Good on ya mate! Seriously though, the Dan Rather thing is ONLY ONE example. Need more please.

As I said, I highly recommend watching "OutFoxed." It's an eye opener.

And for the record, it is my personal opinion that Bill O'Reiley is a complete and utter pea-brained, reactionary, oversimplifying, jack ass, and I am embarrassed that he gives Irish-Americans a bad name. (But notice how I said this was my personal opinion, not a fact )

[Scalliwag]

Turner sold CNN to Time Warner in 1996 and was removed from management in 2000.
Sure he is a liberal, but are you saying that CNN never took part in reporting bad news in bad ways against liberals and democrats? I seem to recall them them behind the Gray Davis recall and playing the Conditt story 24/7 as well as Monicagate all the way down to the cigar story.

And there are many stories where Rather said he made a mistake. That was obvious because the documents were forged. He also said that he believed the story was still true. Even the secretary that said they were forged said that while they were forged that she remembers very well that it was true.
That does not defend the use of forgeries but I don't remember republicans wanting to find the source of the forgeries that got us into Iraq and got the Plame stench started.

They are also reporting plenty of news, the Libby trial, Plame testimony, the three cops that killed the unarmed guy on his wedding day. The link to the white kids killed by the black guys is a sad story.
There is a flipside to that as well. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8233195/ When was the last time you saw a story about a missing black student that got the coverage the Natalie Holloway case did? Or Laci Peterson? Or Chandra Levy? No black women ever turn up missing? Everybody knows Laci Peterson's name... how about Latoyia Figueroa?
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/figueroa801
So I just don't know why the liberal media and Ted's old company never made Latoyia Figueroa a household name?

[Blue Midnight]

You know what is really funny...is that I almost wrote my previous comment just to see if somebody would pull out the old Dan Rather defense. Works everytime.

Of course, real evidence requires more than one example of overzealous reporting from one reporter. They thought they had a breaking story, and it turned out to be garbage, plain and simple. I think, however, that all of the examples above that have been given more than negate Lakemonster's "CNN is liberal trash" nonsense. The facts just aren't with you, my friend. Look at all of the examples given above.

I think what it all ultimately boils down to is that the media reports whatever it is they think people want to hear. The country wants war? No problem, let's cheerlead this thing all the way. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. Every last one of them was on board with what is now widely derided as an utter and unmitigated disaster. Doesn't sound like a media with a liberal agenda to me. Sounds like a media that wants ratings and advertising dollars.

You admit as much yourself with the whole Anna Nicole Smith comment. If the media at large really did have a liberal agenda, then why is it that they aren't dedicating the time to the scandals that continually pour out this administration one after another? Look at the state of our country for god sakes, these guys commit impeachable offenses every other week. But I suppose a blowjob would be more important to a "liberal" media. You're going to tell me that a truly liberal media with an agenda is going to focus on a "dead whore" for weeks at a time? I mean, c'mon, your own comment proves the absurdity of your argument. Edited March 20, 2007 by Blue Midnight