In the Midst of a Storm?

Another good one.

Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break, John F. Harris, Washington Post, May 6, 2001:

�??Are the national news media soft on Bush? The instinctive response of any reporter is to deny it. But my rebuttals lately have been wobbly. The truth is, this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton. Take it from someone who made a living writing about those uproars.�??

We ain’t liberal enough, and that has cost the nation lives and billions…

Wednesday May 28, 2008 07:12 EDT
Scott McClellan on the “liberal media”
(updated below - Update II)

In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott McClellan, would forever slay the single most ludicrous myth in our political culture: The “Liberal Media”:

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the “liberal media” didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.

Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush’s own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being “too deferential” to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush’s ability to propagandize the nation on the media’s uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration’s falsehoods.

And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being “too deferential” to the right-wing Government “in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington”?

If one were to set about with the goal of debunking the “Liberal Media” myth – as Eric Alterman specifically did four years ago and other media critics have more generally done before that – one couldn’t dream up evidence more conclusive than McClellan’s admissions.

Blindingly conclusive evidence which would – for any rational person – forever negate the “Liberal Media” myth has been piling up for years. The extraordinary (though woefully incomplete) 2004 mea culpa from The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were “allowed to stand unchallenged.”

The Washington Post’s own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as “independent analysts” spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge.

And the media’s pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals – which led to his impeachment – stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.

Beyond all that, are there any reporters left who deny that the campaign-covering media in 2000 was gushingly enamored of George Bush and oozing with contempt for Al Gore?

Identically, their intense affection for John McCain is something they openly proclaim; as they shamelessly acknowledge, they’re his “base.”

And while some journalists undoubtedly harbor admiration for Barack Obama, the non-stop coverage of one anti-Obama narrative after the next – Jeremiah Wright, lapel pins, patriotism “questions,” “Bittergate,” “problems” with Jewish and white voters – simply has no parallel in any coverage of McCain.

Beyond that objective evidence, just look at the claims which “Liberal Media” complainers make to support their grievance. As examples of “liberal” journalists, they’ll cite people like Chris Matthews – who voted for George Bush, and did more than anyone to prop up his image as our Great War Leader and demonize Bush critics.

One of the leading examples of a biased “liberal” journalist is therefore someone who actually went on television in late 2005 and said this:

I like [Bush]. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left – I mean – like him personally.

Or they’ll point to “liberal” Tim Russert – Tim Russert – about whom Cheney press aide Cathy Martin said: “I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used. It’s our best format, as it allows us to control the message.”

That’s the same “liberal” Tim Russert who confessed that he operates by the defining law of the Government propagandist: "When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it’s my own policy – our conversations are confidential.

If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission." Those are the examples proving that we have a “liberal media.”

Or look at the recent “controversy” reported by the Associated Press over whether NBC News’ reputation as an objective news outlet is being tainted by virtue of the “liberal” commentators MSNBC features.

Nobody questioned whether CNN’s objectivity was imperiled by featuring the likes of Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, nor, for that matter, did anyone raise these questions about NBC when, for years, MSNBC shows were hosted by the likes of Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and Michael Savage.

But a single unapologetic Bush critic appears on the TV – Keith Olbermann – and this rarest of occurrence suddenly leads to controversy over whether the “respectability” of television news can survive while allowing a single “liberal” voice to be heard.

The New Republic’s Isaac Chotiner just wrote that he’s been watching MSNBC “for the novelty of seeing outspoken liberals on television.” What rational person can sustain the “Liberal Media” myth when seeing real liberals on the TV is a “novelty”?

The primary reason why this preposterous myth persists is because the media generally refuses to engage in any self-examination. The media blackout on the “military analyst” scandal continues; they still refuse to tell their viewers about what they did.

To the extent they admit that there was any media problem at all concerning war coverage under the Bush administration, they’ll dismiss it all as a “Judy Miller problem” – the malfeasance of a single bad reporter whose flaws were singular and isolated.

And just watch how McClellan’s mockery of the “deferential” press – piercing and humiliating as it is – will be ignored by media coverage of his book, consigned to the same dustbin where the “military analyst” story is kept.

Already today, The New York Times and The Washington Post both trumpet the fact that McClellan made statements harshly critical of Bush. But they completely ignore McClellan’s far more significant indictment of their “deferential,” Bush-enabling conduct.

Isn’t it rather self-evidently newsworthy that Bush’s own press secretary blamed the American media for allowing Bush to get away with all sorts of falsehoods because of how “deferential” they are?

Press secretaries of all types instinctively view the media as adversaries and typically feel besieged by what they perceive to be the media’s unfair hostility. So if even Scott McClellan recognizes the mythical nature of the “liberal media” cliche and sees political journalists as meek little handmaidens for government propaganda, how much longer can this myth be maintained?

UPDATE: In her NYT article on McClellan’s book, Elizabeth Bumiller does note, in passing, in the second to last paragraph, that McClellan “calls the news media ‘complicit enablers’ in the White House’s ‘carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval’ in the march to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003.”

Bumiller, who covered the White House, should know, as this is what she said about the Liberal Media’s behavior in the run-up to the war:

I think we were very deferential because . . . . it’s live, it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war.

There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.

There are many things one could call a news media that is “very deferential” and too “frightened” to “get into an argument with [the right-wing] President” marching the country to war. “Liberal” isn’t one of them.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Scott McClellan on the “liberal media”

<<<>>>

salon.com[/quote]

ROFLMAO!!!

Take a deep breath man it ain’t worth passin out over.

The mainstream broadcast and print media, overall, regardless of which department is responsible, engineers it’s presentation of words and events in such a way as to cast a favorable or unfavorable light depending on who they are covering at the moment.

I couldn’t care less about the technical details of the separation of industry duties, that’s what winds up before the public.

The existence of unicorns and leprechauns is more debatable than that statement. They’re not all as bad as each other, but it ranges from strained honesty to stark misrepresentation.

Face it, you’ll live longer

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Scott McClellan on the “liberal media”

<<<>>>

ROFLMAO!!!

Take a deep breath man it ain’t worth passin out over.

The mainstream broadcast and print media, overall, regardless of which department is responsible, engineers it’s presentation of words and events in such a way as to cast a favorable or unfavorable light depending on who they are covering at the moment.

I couldn’t care less about the technical details of the separation of industry duties, that’s what winds up before the public.

The existence of unicorns and leprechauns is more debatable than that statement. They’re not all as bad as each other, but it ranges from strained honesty to stark misrepresentation.

Face it, you’ll live longer[/quote]

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?

You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

That’s ridiculous. I’m in the “liberal media”, and let me tell you- the liberal media is hurting just as bad as everyone else.
[/quote]

Yet they continue to support the people that got us here and continue to alienate the American public. Brilliant.

Not enough to report on the real new and give honest assesment of the economy and the candidates.

You have got to be kidding me. The most popular papers in the country have turned almost completely into the editorial page. I may not know how the internal workings of an atom bomb work, but i know it will kill me. What does knowing how the media works have to do with recognizing a shit product?

How so. And if so, why. How about reporting on that? Nope, might make big gov’t look bad.

But they haven’t reported on the dangers of big gov’t, the Fed, who is really paying for those high taxes and bailouts. Their job is to educate the public, not scare the shit out of them and blame Bush.

The mainstream media is incredibly biased and any idiot who pay just a bit of attention can see it. What they don’t report on is just as damning as the slanted bullshit most of them report on.

CNN and Fox are probably the least full of shit on TV but still have a clear slant. USA today is ok for fluff news. Wallstreet Journal is decent. New York Times and Washington Post have gone completey to shit.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?
[/quote]

Not if you’re actually smart enough to read and comprehend what you are reading. Do you need to know who shit in your sandwich to know that you don’t like shit sandwiches?

[quote]
You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.[/quote]

Great post. Very insightfull and educational as usual.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?[/quote]

Not as much as I care about the end product. What difference does it make? I know what I see. I don’t really care how or why it got there.

McClellan is proof? And at salon no less? That level you won’t find me on.

[quote]
You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.[/quote]

There’s no need for all that. Go ahead and replay that tivo piece of his majesty’s convention speech. When you get that tingle up your leg you’ll know you’re healed.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?

Not as much as I care about the end product. What difference does it make? I know what I see. I don’t really care how or why it got there.

McClellan is proof? And at salon no less? That level you won’t find me on.
[/quote]
No, you can just say it- “I’ll dismiss any evidence to the contrary and see what I want.”

The website doesn’t matter- McClellan’s book came out and that’s where the quotes are from. I don’t know what more proof you need other than the literal republican shill saying, “I lied and they didn’t question it.”

[quote]
You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.

There’s no need for all that. Go ahead and replay that tivo piece of his majesty’s convention speech. When you get that tingle up your leg you’ll know you’re healed.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? At least my insults are clear cut and make sense.

This forum truly has gone downhill when there’s literally two conservatives here that can make any kind of argument that isn’t based off of fantasy and horseshit GOP lies. This may have become a republican rainbow party, but goddamn if you guys weren’t more educated back then.

It’s kinda makin me start to miss JeffR.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?

Not if you’re actually smart enough to read and comprehend what you are reading. Do you need to know who shit in your sandwich to know that you don’t like shit sandwiches?

You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.

Great post. Very insightfull and educational as usual.[/quote]

I will get to you tomorrow cunt.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?

Not if you’re actually smart enough to read and comprehend what you are reading. Do you need to know who shit in your sandwich to know that you don’t like shit sandwiches?

You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.

Great post. Very insightfull and educational as usual.

I will get to you tomorrow cunt.[/quote]

I’m curious here about the placement of a comma. Do you mean: ‘I will get to you tomorrow, cunt.’ or do you mean ‘I will get to you, tomorrow cunt’. Or did you really mean to have no comma?

Forgive my literary skills but you are a writer and I can’t quite figure this out.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The media always exaggerates. This is not news. The economy IS in bad shape. It’s not in as bad shape as the media portrays. So? What has no basis in fact are these ludicrous assertions Tiribulus has made that it’s all some liberal media conspiracy. There is no doubt some unconscious tilt and it’s unavoidable that political ideology of reporters will color how the issues are reported somewhat. There is no active conspiracy. And there is a mostly successful attempt to be fair. Your philosophy on the government’s proper fiscal role also has no relevance to a discussion about what the media reports. The media’s not orchestrating all the bailouts. It’s just reporting on them. The media has also been prety harsh on Democrats and Democratic leaders whenever there is something of import to report too. [/quote]

This is all pretty much horse shit.

The CEO of GE - you know, the company that owns GE has made a conscious effort to embrace its liberalness. Why? Money. Fox has been kicking the shit out of CNBC/MSNBC for 10 years.

Ted Turner is unabashed in his desire to give the liberal slant deference at CNN.

So whne you have the media heads pandering one particular slant over another - you are going to get bias.

I don’t give a flying fuck what Irish says. When the journalists are polled and it comes out that they vote liberal on the order of 5-1, how in the hell can you not know how the reporting is slanted.

But this is old news. The only people who still think that the news we get is unbiased are the same idiots who need to stay away from the polls on election day.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sometimes it works the other way too. Reporters are on guard against accusations against liberal bias so sometimes they tend to take things at face value and not challenge conservatives.

Scott McClellan bragged about this in his book, confessing to regularly and routinely lying to the media. And he described the contempt he felt for reporters who regularly reported his lies instead of telling the truth and investiating the truth, because they were cowed by the fear of an accusation of ‘liberal bias.’[/quote]

Good pair of posts.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

But this is old news. The only people who still think that the news we get is unbiased are the same idiots who need to stay away from the polls on election day. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with media bias because I know I’m very objective and am very good at sifting through biases.

I like CNBC because it’s the only channel you can get economic news 24/7 but I am smart enough to pick out why the hosts say what they do. They love government bail outs for the most part. I don’t.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

So you don’t care how a paper is made, who does it, what leanings they have at the time they do it, or how much proof to the contrary there is- t it’s still liberal media and a conspiracy?

Not as much as I care about the end product. What difference does it make? I know what I see. I don’t really care how or why it got there.

McClellan is proof? And at salon no less? That level you won’t find me on.

No, you can just say it- “I’ll dismiss any evidence to the contrary and see what I want.”

The website doesn’t matter- McClellan’s book came out and that’s where the quotes are from. I don’t know what more proof you need other than the literal republican shill saying, “I lied and they didn’t question it.”

You’re a fucking moron. My discussion with you is over dipshit.

There’s no need for all that. Go ahead and replay that tivo piece of his majesty’s convention speech. When you get that tingle up your leg you’ll know you’re healed.

What the fuck are you talking about? At least my insults are clear cut and make sense.

This forum truly has gone downhill when there’s literally two conservatives here that can make any kind of argument that isn’t based off of fantasy and horseshit GOP lies. This may have become a republican rainbow party, but goddamn if you guys weren’t more educated back then.

It’s kinda makin me start to miss JeffR.[/quote]

McClellan is a disgruntled ex employee who was a press secretary, not someone in the business of allegedly reporting the independent news. Even the assumption of 100% integrity on his part is irrelevant to whether the major “news” outlets largely dispense information in such a way as to favor the left.

I’m not arguing the right never lies and never have. I am no Republican apologist and am out of ways to make that clear. Both parties are populated with highly skilled bullshit ninjas.

You cannot communicate, it seems, without having an apocalyptic seizure when somebody is unimpressed with the persuasiveness of something you say. I thought I would help you calm yourself with some divine insight from the exalted one. After all Chris Matthew’s leg tingles when he hears Obama speak and presumably all his fears and insecurities are tamed. Forgive me for overstepping my bounds, just trying to be helpful.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

That’s ridiculous. I’m in the “liberal media”, and let me tell you- the liberal media is hurting just as bad as everyone else.

Yet they continue to support the people that got us here and continue to alienate the American public. Brilliant.
[/quote]

What people are we talking about? Bush?

Quote a source or fuck off with this one. You have no idea how much they have or have not.

No they haven’t. What I’m saying is that story size and pictures dictates where the thing goes, as well as what gives the ability to sell papers.

It’s not a damn conspiracy- hell, it’s still capitalism. We’re in the game to make money too.

Please show me where the media hasn’t reported on every company that’s going down and the reasons why. Please show me where they are protecting the government in any way.

You people act like at every paper there’s Joseph Goebbels sitting there twisting his mustache figuring out how to back up The Man, and yet when called, none of you have any sources or even bother to do anything except pop off in that same old way about the same old bullshit myths.

They’re not. In fact, I haven’t seen Bush blamed once for what’s happening.

If they reported on the “dangers of big government”, well, that goes on the damn editorial pages, because you’re espousing a specific viewpoint on one facet of the issue.

And believe me, there are plenty of people writing about that. GO look on Yahoo right now, and there’s a front page article about.

Tell me what they’re not reporting. Tell me what they’re ignoring, what massive fucking conspiracy is being completely shuffled under the table by the media.

Every fucking reporter, top to bottom, loves government scandals and lies, and has a compulsive itch to catch and find them. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be journalists. No one is skipping on a possible Pulitzer because the paper doesn’t want it printed.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

McClellan is a disgruntled ex employee who was a press secretary, not someone in the business of allegedly reporting the independent news. Even the assumption of 100% integrity on his part is irrelevant to whether the major “news” outlets largely dispense information in such a way as to favor the left.
[/quote]

You keep sayin it, but I’m not seeing proof. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.

The man said, “I lied, and they didn’t question.” Yea, I’ll just blow that off and believe your ass over someone who was there. With that kind of mentality, you don’t have to believe anything you don’t want to. Next you’ll be denying the damn Holocaust.

That’s politics. But stop spewing the garbage about how biased the media is to the liberal side.

However much of a bias you think there is in the favor of liberals, there’s just as much the other way in favor of conservatives.

This is also far more evident on TV than in the newspapers, who have to go through many lines of editors to get as objective a viewpoint as possible vs. someone just going off on a tangent on TV.

This is fucking politics. People seeking power leads to one of the ugliest businesses in the history of humans.

It’s not a goddamn tea party. If you’re another one that can’t handle the swearing or the anger about it, then you can fuck off too. Go sit in the beginner’s forum or some shit.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

What people are we talking about? Bush?
[/quote]

I think you know the answer to that one.

Quote a source for something not being reported? Quote a source for me not knowing what they have or have not reported. You demand sources and proof for observations that are blatenly obvious, yet you post absolutly nothing of substance. Unless you think accusations and name calling substance.

Just a few exsamples for you to chew on. There are swarms of people in Alaska digging up and reporting on everthing they cn find on Palin. Rightfully so, I beleive. I have see little to no real investigative journalism on Barak.

Where is mainstream media on his relationships with Ayers or Rezko? where are the stories on how we got in to the home mortgage mess? Where are the stories on the money Barak and other Dems got from Freddie and Fannie?

Where are the stories on Barak voting against protection for babies that are born alive during abortions? Where are the stories on Barak voting “Present” while in the state senate. Where are the stories on what exactly he has accomplished in the Sentate.

You’re doing a bang up job. Keep it up. I don’t beleive there is any grand conspiracy. The fact is that an obscene majority of jouralist, executives, and paper boys like you are Leftists and it shows. Do you actually read the paper before you toss them on peoples’ door steps?

show me where anyone is talking about who has recieved contributions from these failed companies. Who is pointing out where Barak’s finacial advisors came from? Who is talking about McCains warnings that went unheard?

What do think they mean when they say “This administration”. Are you saying noone is blaming “This Administration” for the economy? You can’t be that fucking stupid.

I am talking about mainstream media. NYT, AP, Wash Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. Actually we really only need to talk about the NYT and the AP. Everyone else just regurgitates what they report anyway.

We’ve already covered this above. You are not journalist, you are biased commentators and paper boys. You love gov’t scandals when they involve Republicans. You begrudgingly report as little as possible on scandals that include Democrats.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

McClellan is a disgruntled ex employee who was a press secretary, not someone in the business of allegedly reporting the independent news. Even the assumption of 100% integrity on his part is irrelevant to whether the major “news” outlets largely dispense information in such a way as to favor the left.

You keep sayin it, but I’m not seeing proof. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.

The man said, “I lied, and they didn’t question.” Yea, I’ll just blow that off and believe your ass over someone who was there. With that kind of mentality, you don’t have to believe anything you don’t want to. Next you’ll be denying the damn Holocaust.
[/quote]

Show me proof he wasn’t lieing about lieing. He already admitted he was liar but you believe what he wrote in his book. That’s pretty intelligent.

show me proof that they are not biased. You keep saying they are not yet you provide no proof.

Do they demand proof, call names, call people liars while provide absolutly no substance in the beginners forum? You have certainly mastered that. I can see why you believe you have graduated.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

What people are we talking about? Bush?

I think you know the answer to that one.

Not enough to report on the real new and give honest assesment of the economy and the candidates.
[/quote]

That’s your opinion. And that’s all it is.

Quote a source or fuck off with this one. You have no idea how much they have or have not.

Quote a source for something not being reported? Quote a source for me not knowing what they have or have not reported. You demand sources and proof for observations that are blatenly obvious, yet you post absolutly nothing of substance. Unless you think accusations and name calling substance.

Just a few exsamples for you to chew on. There are swarms of people in Alaska digging up and reporting on everthing they cn find on Palin. Rightfully so, I beleive. I have see little to no real investigative journalism on Barak.

Where is mainstream media on his relationships with Ayers or Rezko? where are the stories on how we got in to the home mortgage mess? Where are the stories on the money Barak and other Dems got from Freddie and Fannie?

Where are the stories on Barak voting against protection for babies that are born alive during abortions? Where are the stories on Barak voting “Present” while in the state senate. Where are the stories on what exactly he has accomplished in the Sentate.
[/quote]

The woman is under investigation currently for her actions, isn’t she? That’s a pretty big story when your VP candidate is already under fire for corrutpion.

The media made a massive spectacle over Obama’s stupid fucking preacher, and it lasted for how many months?

The rest of those stories are out there, ESPECIALLY the morgage ones. The fact that the situationed has worsened in the past week is why you haven’t seen it yet.

There has been plenty of writing all over about his perceived lack of experience, and his record. He has been questioned about Ayers.

You’re angry because what? McCain picked a VP who pisses people off, and Obama’s got less ghosts? Asinine.

ENGLISH, motherfucker, do you read it?

GIVE ME A SOURCE FOR THIS, OR STOP SAYING IT.

You can’t just make up sweeping general statements like this and expect me to give two shits about them. Back them up, or get out.

I don’t know, but why would you report on something that… isn’t fucking true? So now we should just make crap up to appease conservatives? Garbage.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html

Besides that, maybe they’re reporting it because… it’s… true?

GASP!

I don’t give a fuck who you’re talking about, every goddamn conservative columnist around is writing about that.

But on the front page, it HAS NO PLACE because it is not the reporter’s job to talk about the “dangers of big government.”

How dangerous a big government is (economically) is something that is not a fact, like you seem to think- it is an opinion. Therefore, it stays on the editorials and in the dittohead shows, like it should.

[quote]
The mainstream media is incredibly biased and any idiot who pay just a bit of attention can see it. What they don’t report on is just as damning as the slanted bullshit most of them report on.

CNN and Fox are probably the least full of shit on TV but still have a clear slant. USA today is ok for fluff news. Wallstreet Journal is decent. New York Times and Washington Post have gone completey to shit.

Tell me what they’re not reporting. Tell me what they’re ignoring, what massive fucking conspiracy is being completely shuffled under the table by the media.

Every fucking reporter, top to bottom, loves government scandals and lies, and has a compulsive itch to catch and find them. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be journalists. No one is skipping on a possible Pulitzer because the paper doesn’t want it printed.

We’ve already covered this above. You are not journalist, you are biased commentators and paper boys. You love gov’t scandals when they involve Republicans. You begrudgingly report as little as possible on scandals that include Democrats.[/quote]

And you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. The fact that the media is not making up scandals about Obama seems to irritate you.

Maybe we’ll slip it in the headlines tomorrow…

“OBAMA MOTHER COMES BACK FROM DEAD TO TELL US HE’S REALLY HITLER INCARNATE.”

The headline is too long but I’ll see what I can do. Make you happy Nancy?

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:

I like CNBC because it’s the only channel you can get economic news 24/7.[/quote]

And they have the hottest news babes. Julia Borstin, and that sexy ass Maria Bartiromo… Daddy want some Bartiromo…