Right-wing blogs ignore facts to claim ‘liberal bias.’
Yesterday, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas announced that he “will become a Newsweek contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign.” Right-wing blogs Stop the ACLU and Newsbusters jumped on the news as proof of “liberal bias.” But in their haste to confirm their own assumptions, both blogs ignored the fact that Newsweek is “balancing” Kos with a yet-to-be named conservative:
But Newsweek is “balancing” me out with someone that should make heads on our side explode. Announcement on that name is still a couple of days off.
Somehow, even though this bit of information is contained in their posts, they are still trying to claim that Markos Moulitsas being “balanced” by a conservative writer is proof of liberal bias at Newsweek.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
83 Responses to “Right-wing blogs ignore facts to claim ‘liberal bias.’”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Well, we all know that Fair and Balanced is a sure sign of Liberal Thought….
November 14th, 2007 at 9:56 amWow — and they accuse OUR knees of jerking…
November 14th, 2007 at 9:57 amThe obvious guesses would be Malkin or Coulter but we’ll just have to see.
Interesting that Newsweek couldn’t get this deal done with both confidentially so as to announce the thing minus all the speculation and inevitable flaming…
Whoops. Right. Never mind…
November 14th, 2007 at 9:58 amI hope someday we realize that “fair and balanced reporting” is not the same as having a liberal and conservative point/counterpoint. As long as corporate media control the news agenda, they will never be fair nor balanced.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:00 amNewsweek is “balancing†me out with someone that should make heads on our side explode
Ha, thats a great quote.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:02 amWill the Conservaturd side be Billy Krisco?
Markos can hold his own with anyone. He’s a smart, passionate young man.
Krisco needs exposure. Not necessarily Larry Craig ‘exposure’, but his little opinions & mandates are becoming less newsworthy daily.
Good for Newsweek, btw. Two sided discussions have become far too rare in today’s media.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:03 amEvery blog has its own agenda and its own rights. Right wing blogs have the right to claim and decry “liberal bias”, just as the left wing blogs have a right to display their bias.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:04 amConservative sites like those mentioned hate pesky things such as facts and reality, so does their reaction really surprise anyone?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:05 amhits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:06 amRight wing blogs have the right to claim and decry “liberal biasâ€
Yes, yes they do. But if they claim it when a paper is hiring both a liberal and conservative to right editorials (or whatever it is they will be doing) then they would be wrong.
wanker’s whine, it is their job
November 14th, 2007 at 10:06 am7: More mindless drivel from the king of pontification.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:07 amSquegeeboo,
And you would judge them to be wrong? What about those folks who would argue they are correct? Would you call them “wrong” too? So what’s the absolute scale here? Have you really thought through your argument?
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:07 amhelenahandbasket,
But your post, however, is the exemplification of intelligence, correct?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:09 am12: And the mindless drivel keeps on spewing.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:09 am13: Where did you learn to be such a poser?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:10 amhits
What about those folks who would argue they are correct?
Well those folks would be incapable of rational, logical thought patterns in this specific case.
Bias: To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
So if you have 1 Con, and 1 Lib, you are giving equal coverage to the 2 sides, or in other words, not being biased.
Would you call them “wrong†too?
Yes, they are wrong.
So what’s the absolute scale here?
Displaying bias in this case, as opposed to not displaying bias in this case.
Have you really thought through your argument?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:10 amClearly not, because I decided to respond to one of your posts.
OT: Fearless leader is introducing our new AG.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:11 ambetter trolls please
November 14th, 2007 at 10:12 amSquegeeboo,
So folks who do not agree with your point of view are irrational and incapable of thought. Interesting point of view. Quite primitive as well. And of course, you always have the option of not being influenced by my opinions, and/or shrivelling down when faced with some logic.
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:13 ambetter trolls please
Comment by cha cha cha — November 14, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I believe your request is an oxymoron.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:14 amFearless leader is now explaining how Gonzo was a great AG.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:15 amBegs the question of why bushie jetisoned him.
I wonder if Newsweek is reaching out to someone who doesn’t already get a lot of MSM coverage, as Coulter and even Malkin do. Is there an equivalent blogger among the Wingnuts who doesn’t already have a column in a newspaper or magazine?
And I wonder if the two columnists will be allowed to engage one another, so Kos can respond to whatever whining b.s. is produced by the HeadExploder.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am19: Can you sound any more idiotic, drivel boy?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:16 ambetter trolls please
Comment by cha cha cha — November 14, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I believe your request is an oxymoron.
Comment by helenahandbasket — November 14, 2007 @ 10:14 am
I hope PLC is paying attention to the “debate”.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:16 amhits
So folks who do not agree with your point of view are irrational and incapable of thought. Interesting point of view.
In some cases no, in other cases yes.
If we were arguing about the practicality of string theory, different views would be welcome. If we were argueing about if 1+1 = 2, and the other point of view was that it equaled 3, well then they are incapable of rational thought in that case.
In this specific case, in regards to newsweek hiring a conservative and liberal to talk about the election cycle, having people claim that this shows a liberal bias, when they are hiring both a liberal AND a conservative, puts their views closer to the 1+1 = 3 side of things, rather than the string theory being useful/not useful side of things.
shrivelling down when faced with some logic.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:17 amWell use some actual logic, and then watch me shrivel like the waters really cold. Or in other words, put up or shut up, because currently all you’re saying is that people are allowed to say stupid things and other people shouldn’t be allowed to call them stupid for it.
gummitch
Is there an equivalent blogger among the Wingnuts who doesn’t already have a column in a newspaper or magazine?
They could give it to the guys who run ‘Little Green Footballs’ or ‘Right Wing News’ they don’t get that much main stream coverage. But I’m gonna assume they’ll give it to a better known right personality, better for circulation that way.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:18 amfrom our favorite hits: Right wing blogs have the right to claim and decry “liberal biasâ€, just as the left wing blogs have a right to display their bias.
And that still has nothing to do with facts, evidence and truth. Anyone can say it but if they don’t back it up they are just a glorified version of you.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:19 amSquegeeboo,
There are no “views” about string theory. There are hypotheses that get accepted into theories, and await dismissal when a new theory comes along. My point is that you claim to be an absolute arbiter in the case of this discussion - that alone and by itself negates a lot of what you say. If you separate your argument from your own bias, the argument will have coherence.
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:21 amI have to admit I haven’t read Newsweek in years. Time, either, for that matter. Finding news in a more unbiased, less ‘packaged’ format on the internet still excites me to this day. Judging by the numbers of bloggers, I would submit this ‘new media’ has done the same for many.
Newsweek may just be on to something here, though. I think most Americans would like to hear both perspectives on issues. That’s what scares Neoturds; if they can’t control or spin the message, it weakens their control of information significantly.
Neotruds, crying Wolf has become repetitious & annoying. Wise up. Americans are smarter than your backroom lawyers will ever admit.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:21 amThe trolls are accomplishing their mission: to hijack the thread and cause the progressive posters to try to one-up the trolls or provide facts to show how the troll is wrong. I suspect, as many have indicated, that it is the same two or three using different screen names, and, as others have also indicated, that the trolls are so active here because they are paid. There is really no point in more than one or two responses because they will not suddenly see the light, and other wingnuts are not even here. It wastes my time, so I am beginning to give up. I see no value in trading insults with the trolls and I skip their posts anyway.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:22 amhellinabucket,
Have you heard of something called “opinion”? That’s what I have posited, and that’s what the topic is about in the first place - opinions. Your declaration of someone as a liberal or a Conservative is a grand opinion in the first place.
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:23 amZimzone
Finding news in a more unbiased, less ‘packaged’ format on the internet still excites me to this day
You may need to get out more often… :)
November 14th, 2007 at 10:23 amLots of discussion here about the right- wing rant-bloggers and whether they are right or wrong.
This story is a good example of their tendency to work back from a conclusion and decide which facts they need to use to explain their supposed logic. On the very face of it, that is just plain wrong . . . and it is done daily by all sorts of rant-bloggers and rant-jockeys (FoxSnooze, Limpballs, Little Seanie Insanity, etc.).
November 14th, 2007 at 10:24 am32,
I’m not ashamed to be passionate about the forces & influences shaping our daily lives.
As far as ‘getting out more’, at least I don’t dance with Trolls!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:26 amAt the end of the day, that’s all you have is an opinion. And when it’s pointed out you can’t support your opinion with evidence and facts it becomes apparent you have a poorly formed opinion.
You are mistaken that I declared someone either a liberal or conservative. Trying to support your argument in your own head works in the mirror, but not with real people. You have a great gift of eloquence without substance and I tip my hat to you for your tiptoeing around proving any point. But your opinion doesn’t pass the test to become a consensus.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:27 amhellinabucket,
Neither do I seek to generate consensus. You are free to ignore and not be influenced by my opinions.
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:29 amhits
My point is that you claim to be an absolute arbiter in the case of this discussion - that alone and by itself negates a lot of what you say. If you separate your argument from your own bias, the argument will have coherence.
Newsweek is hiring a conservative and a liberal to do election coverage pieces.
Show me the bias, or admit that the right wing blogs made an absurd statement about this showing bias. That is my argument. That is my absolute statement. Like I said, put up or shut up.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:31 amToday’s Troll shedule:
a.m.: hits
p.m.: beefeater
late night: TCDon
This is our schedule until further notice. Please pick up your checks on Friday at the front desk of the Wall Street Journal.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:32 amExcellent point about choosing a true “blogger” as opposed to already syndicated columnists who blog.
Possibly Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds? I don’t find him abrasive or insipid at all, even if I often disagree with him. Plus his output is prolific to the level of superhuman sometimes.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:36 amSquegeeboo,
Can you prove to me that the conservatism of the conservative and the liberalism of the liberal hired by Newsweek perfectly balance each other out? If you cannot, why would you prefer to assume that there is no bias?
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:37 amThe conservatism of the conservative and the liberalism of the liberal…
LOL
November 14th, 2007 at 10:44 amI think the neocons are freaking out because they know their followers will never read a “librul rag” like Newsweek. No matter who is hired, to balance out Markos, the little “con lap dogs” won’t ever read the words of “the balancer”. I think the “righttard blogs” are upset because they will now have to read Newsweek on behalf of all the little tards.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:46 amhits
As the general bias is split by -
Far left: A fat guy who thinks that maybe some questions on 9/11 need answering.
Far right: A woman whose take on the widows of 9/11 criticising Bush’s anti-terror measures is to call them “The witches of east Brunswick”
The left is likely to make more sense while the right will be represented by a total nutter that you guys will instantly proclaim right, despite the fact that the few arguments he will present will be, well, stupid or based on lies.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:47 ami think we all know that balance has a well known liberarl bias.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:49 amCan you prove to me that the conservatism of the conservative and the liberalism of the liberal hired by Newsweek perfectly balance each other out? If you cannot, why would you prefer to assume that there is no bias?
Hits
Ha Ha! That is great. Hits is right. We should have some sort or conservo-meter which indicates how liberal or conservative someone is. We can test every “journalist” to ensure we have a perfect balance.
However, since this is impossible, we will just have to assume the media has a liberal bias (hey so do the facts). As for me, I’m going to throw away my latest copy of National Review. God damn liberal rag!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:50 amComment by Bruce Gorton — November 14, 2007 @ 10:47 am
I wouldn’t bother with hits, he doesn’t actually try to make any points, only to cast uncertainty on yours using his freshman-level knowledge of philosophy. Eventually the argument will be, “well how do you know the conservative and the liberal exist at all…how do you even know that you exist?” If I were you I would save some time and disengage.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:51 amComment by dim wit — November 14, 2007 @ 10:50 am
But who will represent the greater truthiness?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:51 amBruce Gorton,
Your simplistic comparison makes sense under the extremes. In reality, most people fall somewhere in between and so, your argument breaks down.
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:52 amerock,
Your post, however, is the epitome of the arguments relevant to the topic at hand?
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:53 amConservative Existentialism - you saw it here first…
November 14th, 2007 at 10:54 amToday’s Troll shedule:
a.m.: hits
p.m.: beefeater
late night: TCDon
This is our schedule until further notice. Please pick up your checks on Friday at the front desk of the Wall Street Journal.
Comment by Zimzone — November 14, 2007 @ 10:32 am
tcdon can’t make it. he has a prior commitment (klan rally). ul will be taking his place. ul promises he will be using only brand new material and not recycling “the usual crap” a la hits. we’ll see about that!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amhits
Actually my argument is that your assertion that this shows a liberal bias is based on the fact that if they hired anybody even vaguely sane to counter Markos, you would claim liberal bias.
You are just another rightwhinge whiner who, in the face of the overwhelming failure of your ideology, needs a liberal media to use as a scapegoat.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amHuh. *Their* idea of “fair and balanced” means that *we* all have to STFU.
*eyeroll*
November 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amEvery blog has its own agenda and its own rights. Right wing blogs have the right to claim and decry “liberal biasâ€, just as the left wing blogs have a right to display their bias.
Comment by hits — November 14, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Who ever said they didn’t? Just more proof that hits is only here to advance rightwing ignorance, and is failing miserably.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amYou are free to ignore and not be influenced by my opinions.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 14, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Yes, indeed.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amComment by dim wit — November 14, 2007 @ 10:50 am
But who will represent the greater truthiness?
Comment by hellinabucket — November 14, 2007 @ 10:51 am
that would hits, right?
i mean his “talking points” and colbert’s “talking points” are so similar one might even be encouraged to accuse hits of plagiarism.
eh?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:58 amHits sez:
Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner. Time for Wapner.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:58 amLefty Patriot,
You claim to agree with my statement and then declare it to be “ignorance”? Why then do you continue to be influenced by my opinions?
Hits
November 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amSo, the conservative media is starting to fear for its pocketbooks? That’s the only reason Kos would be invited to write for a wingnut rag like newsweek, because they fear their demise, and are trying to appear “relevant” in the face of the destruction of the GOP and the imprisonment of all of its high officials.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amThen, of course, there is the utterly ridiculous notion that a publication has a duty to “balance” their contributers according to political affiliation. If they were printing articles, or statements, by the politicians, they would be obligated to provide equal coverage.
What’s really interesting is that Newsweek announced that they would “balance” Markos, yet, the wingnuts are freaking out anyway. How sad is it that the Right has so little faith, in the American public, that they can’t allow a publication to set it’s own editorial policies?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:01 amWhy then do you continue to be influenced by my opinions?
Hits
Comment by hits — November 14, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Heh. Nobody is influenced by your opinions, and it’s about time you stated that your crap was just that: your opinions, uniformed by fact, borne of bias. Thanks for admitting your irrelevance except as my punching bag. that’s all I’ve ever used you for, as a convenient and easy target to destroy the bullshit “ideas” of the moronic right that you represent so perfectly with your shallow, selfish whining. Thanks for the entertainment.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:02 am“tcdon can’t make it. he has a prior commitment (klan rally).”
November 14th, 2007 at 11:04 amComment by joe cantwell
It appears that TCDon may have been voted off the island. Everything he posted yesterday was removed. Maybe if enough of you flagged hits, he could end up joining TCDon in exile.
You are free to ignore and not be influenced by my opinions.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 14, 2007 @ 10:29 am
but what about you hits? are you free to ignore and not be influenced by your own opinions? is your wife? your children? your parents? your boyfriend? just how wide ranging and influential are your opinions? or do they just disappear into the ether and, like your farts, leave behind nothing but a disagreeable odor?
hits, your thoughts?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am“tcdon can’t make it. he has a prior commitment (klan rally).â€
Comment by joe cantwell
It appears that TCDon may have been voted off the island. Everything he posted yesterday was removed. Maybe if enough of you flagged hits, he could end up joining TCDon in exile.
Comment by troll buster — November 14, 2007 @ 11:04 am
you may have a point.
“You are free to ignore and not be influenced by my opinions.” is a cut and paste from yesterday’s comments. he’s stealing from himself. can’t imagine how he didn’t expect anyone to notice.
hits, do you have anything to say for yourself young man?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:11 am“Balanced”, to them, means everything on their side of the teeter-totter.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:13 amAny media source is going to be labeled “liberal” if they dare to present any viewpoint not in lockstep with rightwing dogma, even when it is presented in conjunction with right wing dogma - get used to it.
Being indignant about this fact of life is kinda like continuing to be amazed at how indifferent georgejr is to the will of American people; and the ongoing criminal enterprise called the Federal government. In the world of bush & the wingers, only their point of view has any validity, the rest of us are to be ignored.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amArt
What they would term balanced, normal people around the world term “Batzchit insane”
November 14th, 2007 at 11:24 amAnother bunch of useless comments where everyone focuses on the moron hits and what he/she has to say. Don’t complain about trolls if you’re intent on feeding them. Just hand over the keys and say “you won”. All a troll is interested in is misdirection, not discussion and you’re buying right into it. This thread is useless.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:28 amthe rest of us are to be ignored.
Comment by judyinnm — November 14, 2007 @ 11:21 am
I wouldn’t mind if they ignored dissenting opinions. It’s the effort to criminalize dissent that makes my blood boil.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:28 amI hope PLC is paying attention to the “debateâ€.
Comment by gummitch — November 14, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Unfortunately, I wasn’t (or fortunately). It didn’t take hits long to devolve, did it. I still stand by my opinion that hits seemed to start the day off without trolling and I still think we should always give the troll the opportunity to change. But after two or at most three troll posts, they should be ignored or talked about behind their back only. hits has certainly met the criterion for today.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:36 amThe obvious guesses would be Malkin or Coulter but we’ll just have to see.
Comment by FearandSmear — November 14, 2007 @ 9:58 am
That would be very good for the progressives if Newsweek got a flaming nutcase to represent the conservative side. And since conservatives actually support people like Maklin and Coulter, they wouldn’t be able to complain when the readership of Newsweek sees a racist lunatic next to a rational progressive.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:37 amComment by Dave C — November 14, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
I don’t understand why everyone complains about the trolls. Its the trolls that make this place interesting.
Could you imagine what the threads would look like without the trolls? I imagine it would be awful boring with everyone agreeing with each other and such.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:38 amI hope that Newsweek will not only let them both write opinion pieces, but have a line of questioning presented to both. Let both answer the same questions and present their answers side by side so all who read can easily see the differences and decide for themselves instead of each side crowing about their own talking points.
Let them decifer each debate with the same questions and see where they fall.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:44 amAnother bunch of useless comments where everyone focuses on the moron hits and what he/she has to say. Don’t complain about trolls if you’re intent on feeding them. Just hand over the keys and say “you wonâ€. All a troll is interested in is misdirection, not discussion and you’re buying right into it. This thread is useless.
Comment by Dave C — November 14, 2007 @ 11:28 am
i think you’re missing the “fun factor”. no on likes trolls but you can have fun messing with their heads (it’s easy!) and besides if you want to push past their bullshit do it with better ideas and opinions. whining about “useless threads” is useless. you’re smarter than they are (everyone is). start acting like it.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pmSquegeeboo, I have come to the point where I just ignore everything “hits” posts. However, I found your conversation with him really entertaining. Maybe I’m being childish, but I think it’s just because you’re one of our very few rational dissenting voices, and “hits” is one of our most irrational trolls.
The altered dynamic is what I found entertaining. That, and your clearly-voiced rebuttals of virtually everything “hits” posted, rebuttals he was unable to comprehend, evidently.
Well done.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pm73 - Now *that* would be interesting!!
Maybe even woodenheaded conservatives could recognize batchit crazy if it were snugged up against rational thought…
Or not…
November 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI don’t understand why everyone complains about the trolls. Its the trolls that make this place interesting.
Could you imagine what the threads would look like without the trolls? I imagine it would be awful boring with everyone agreeing with each other and such.
Comment by dim wit — November 14, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Good point, dim, and I suspect this conflict-driven added activity is what leads TP to keep the trolls around.
The problem is, they’re like junk food. A few Doritos makes a tasty addition to a sandwich plate, but if you eat nothing but Doritos, you’re going to feel very ill very quickly.
That’s what uber-trolls like “hits” and “Usual left Tit” and TCDon represent: an entire meal of Nacho cheese Doritos, force-fed. Empty calories. Wasted effort.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:22 pmReally Dumb Question:
If news media is so liberal biased, why is it that the Bushies have worked so hard and steady to allow a single person or corporation to own more and more stations (see Murdoch, see the current move to allow the video media to own the paper media) ???
I mean if media were so liberal, it seems like the Neocons would want to limit current media folks from buying up more outlets.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:24 pmSo.. let me get this straight… The argument is over balancing the news with both liberal and conservative views? This takes 80+ comments? Did it ever occur to anyone that the liberals will cry conservative bias when the news doesn’t say what they want and the conservatives will cry liberal bias when the news doesn’t say what they want, and nothing and no one is going to change that by hiring the same number of conservatives and liberals.
How about hire people who tell the truth?
Screw balance. Balance is not what we need in the media. Honesty and integrity is.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pmralph the wonder llama
but I think it’s just because you’re one of our very few rational dissenting voices
Well thank you, but I don’t know that I would go so far as to call me ‘rational’
November 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pmLet’s keep in mind that the management of Newsweek knew first hand before the last presidential election that the Bush administration was lying about a national security issue. Cooper’s testimony at the Libby trial was that he and his bosses knew that members of the administration had disclosed Plame’s identity and position. So, Newsweek knew that Bush was lying about the Plame affair BEFORE THE ELECTION and chose not to disclose that fact to the American people. This is hardly the sign of a liberal publication.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pmswordsbane: “Screw balance. Balance is not what we need in the media. Honesty and integrity is.”
As long as politically connected large corporations run an unregulated media, honesty and integrity will be hard to come by. Large corporations are about profit, not public service.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pmRight-wing blogs ignore facts to claim ‘liberal bias.’
And this is news because…. ?
November 15th, 2007 at 3:04 am