[spence]

Originally posted by RIJIMMY When the swift vets ads appeared, the media tore it apart....that’s a good thing.

I don't know if I would agree with this. FOX News treated the SwiftVets as gods, and the rest of the cable media gave them plenty of air time with little counter. They took it much harder in the print media, but this has much less exposure. There were good sub-plots in this story that would have greatly discredited the group and O'Neil, but these wern't covered much at all.

I want to hear both sides of the issues. When the GWB papers broke, CBS did not tear it apart. The source of the documents was a known anti GWB person and once doubt was raised, CBS stood by the story, blindly without any grounds.

Amen on hearing both sides, and CBS deserved all the heat they've taken over this.

I think a very interesting parallel is with the Administration's connections to Achmed Chalibi as a source of Iraqi intel. Here's a guy who's a known criminal and scam artist with a clear agenda, who walks into the Pentagon and tells the Administration exactly what they wanted to hear...oh yea, he made it all up also!

I don’t believe in a liberal conspiracy, but the media has a strong liberal bias. That’s not from the conservatives, but is a generally accepted fact by most of the moderate observers. Can you honesty say the Boston Globe is NOT a liberal media outlet? CNN? Cargill and Begala are on the staff and managed Clinton's entire career as well as advised Buhs, they're not biased?

The liberal media conspiracy is a fabrication by conservative pundits to make their rhetoric seem more centrist. The real liberal progressive left has little to no representation in mainstream media outlets aside from the coverage of Michael Moore who's seen as a wacko by most. Many overlook his dubias methods because he's the only one putting up a fight.

A lot of what's percieved as liberal bias in the media really isn't. Covering a story on poverty is usually seen as liberal, when it isn't really, unless it twists facts to present a biased view. Conservatives need to care about things like hunger and liberals need to care about things like the economy. Don't belive me? "Liberal Patriot" ...does this look strange? If so you've been duped.

Just because a paper has a more liberal editorial staff doesn't make it a liberal paper. Even the NYT which takes a lot of heat from conservatives has ran thousands of front page stories that are clearly not "liberal". I'm sure there are examples of editorial decisions being made here or there that are biased, but that still doesn't necessarily make it a liberal paper or discount the quality and accuracy of the reporting.

I want the media to tear apart the GWB admin, but it has to work both ways.

The media is terrified of the Administration. They allow so little access to the President there's too much risk in getting shut off. If there really was a liberal media conspiracy Buhs would have gotten smoked in November.

Look how they treat Bill Clinton, the interviews are like he is some kind of poor mis-guided soul. They feel bad for him. An ex-American president can not even be a trial lawyer for a parking ticket because he broke the law, as a lawyer and a president. The guy is a criminal and a scumbag.

There certianly is a bit of empathy for Clinton. I was never a huge fan, and I lost a tremendous amount of respect when he lied...bbbbuuuuutttttt....you have to admit that Whitewater was a complete witch hunt that cost the taxpayers millions and was completely unjustified. The whole Lewisnky affair certianly didn't warrant the disruption to the US Government and the cost.

Clinton actually does have a list of positive things he did under his 8 years, and his approval rating at ~57% upon his exit is quite amazing considering he was impeached!

Want another example? After this election, the evening news reported that "Moral issues" were a major factor, roughly 20% of voters said in the exit polls. The media blew this all out and led the public to believe that Evang. Christians won the vote for %$%$%$%$. Well, in reality..... in 2000, the % of voters who cited moral issues was over 40% and in 96 it was around 30%. Soooo, this election year the moral vote was way less than previous years. No bias? Why didnt they report this? The media was looking to once again divide and blame by only telling 1/2 the story.

Again I don't agree. The media latched on to the "moral values" story because they were looking for a scoop. You know how they will jump at anything...then drop it later. A lot of this is being feed by the GOP as well...there were gay marriage amendments on 11 state ballots, a failed constitutional amendment...the GOP did make a clear play for the religious vote...when the media realized the story wasn't going anywhere it went away...doesn't mean this was bias.

-spence