Everytime I bring up Fox News or any other site, I get you saying it is biased. Then you post a liberal link and expect me not to say the same thing? I have posted facts from government sites that have posted facts and have bene told they are biased and unfactual. Government sites. Once again I call you on your biased site and you ask why they are less factual? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If my so called "biased" sites show unfactual information then I think the same applies for your information don't ya think?

 

you don't have to be caught reporting something factually incorrect to be a biased jackass. not that bill o'reilly isn't one (a biased jackass), but he is something entirely different than dan rather. for one, he isn't the same kind of news anchor as dan rather is. his show isn't an 'evening news' type of show. it's more about political commentary, and less about strictly reporting the news. i see him, and fox news using him as a magnet for attention, strong language and controversy. he might be full of shit, but he fills that role perfectly.

dan rather was suppoed to be a moderate, unbiased, mainstream news reporter.

 

Really? I never noticed that before :dunno:




















:rick:

 

very good point. Bill O'Reilly is a host of a political talk show, not a news anchor. He gives his opinion and argues it with liberals whereas Dan Rather's job is to report the news. (Not make it up). The liberals have their own share of Bill O'Reilly's.

 

why do you always come rollin into politically based threads cryin who gives a shit? obviously, you do! if you didnt, why would you continuously come into them?

 

Okay, I've been staying out of political threads a lot lately, but I just couldn't stop myself from posting here.

The article is from the Associated Press. As in, a national news wire service. The article linked to in the original post in this thread is in carried by The Washington Post. The Washington Post is known to be even more liberal than The New York Times. (That's why I like it so much. ) It's so liberal, The Washington Times was created specifically to have a conservative-slanted newspaper in the same market. And yet, even the most uber-liberal newspaper in the country with any sort of wide circulation picked up the story from the AP (which I might point out, has also been criticized as being an EEEEEVIL liberal media outlet itself, even though it's nothing more than a wire service).

But I guess since all of the other EEEEEVIL liberal media outlets are running the story and CNN is not, that makes CNN even more EEEEEVIL liberals than they were before, and all the other EEEEEVIL liberal media outlets are still EEEEEVIL even though they just so happen to be running the story that the people doing the calling of things EEEEEVIL liberal want to see run.

Excuse me while I scoff at thee.

 

I give a shit about politics, i just don't think people should whine about biased media. A better topic for this is "is al sharpton a crook" or something.

I try to avoid political threads nowadays, but sometimes it gets the better of me h:

 

Mike you are a great student of liberal schooling. You totally avoided the topic. Thanks for one of your stimulating responses that we have all grown to love

 

:chuckles:

text text text cant break rules.

 

I don't think the national cable news media and major print media are as liberal as you guys think -- they're just not aggressively anti-liberal, and thats probably whats bothering you.

For what its worth, here's a link to a story from Feb 27 of last year that refers to John Kerry as "trolling for votes" in Florida. Thats unflattering language, to say the least.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html