Why is the media wasting so much time on this?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Barnes admits his bias, you don't admit yours. Objective analysis and opinion doesn't seem to flow from your supposed "centrist" position.

I can't help it if you color my commentary.

The vast left wing media conspiracy thing is a joke . . . an obvious one feeding off of Hillary Clinton's nonsensical "vast right wing conspiracy" which was supposedly serious objectivity.

I don't understand this.

His point was, not that juornolist had a vast conspiracy to smear conservatives by calling them racists (ONE of their members suggested it and that may have resulted in shutting the group down), but that they had gotten together as a "group" with the intention of aiding Obama, rather than being traditionally "independant" journalists.

Nice try at misinterpreting Barnes' article.

It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.

He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I can't help it if you color my commentary.

The "color" of your commentary exists without my help.

I don't understand this.

The article title referring to a "Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy" is a tongue in cheek fueled by Hillary Cinton's accusation of a "vast right wing conspiracy."

It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.

I am not familiar with the existing non-story so have no ground to dispute what you say. What, in Barnes misrepresentation, is untrue?

He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.
-spence

I didn't see the "color" or hear the "tone" of "scandal" in Barnes' piece. What he said is either true or it isn't. What do you mean by "little" in the way of facts? How "big" does the way require? The drama could be silly, or funny, or sarcastic, or true, or false. I don't claim to know if what he says is true. You, obviously, have some facts in a big way that what he says is untrue. What are they?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What are they?

All of the "experts" agree with Spence...facts are created and dismissed on a whim, like our President...it's pathalogical at this point...but funny