So very true.

But then you've got whole networks devoted to conservative blogs like Fox. C'mon, let's get honest here. Who's doing the whining?

Why, you are Chris. Honestly, why post here if you don't agree with us 100% you little whining bitch!

Chris,

It's not whining. It's stating facts. The media cannot continue to maintain it is not liberal if it only seeks commentary from liberals.

You guys have a problem with Fox. I actually think Fox does a better job of getting both sides of the story, but let's put that aside for the moment.

What annoys you about Fox is what annoys us about just about every other media outlet.

The thinnest rolledex in the world is a CBS News producer's rolledex of commentators and experts.

I find is REALLY fricken funny that ONE conservatively bent network looms so large in the minds of liberals. It is enough to overshadow just about every other media outlet (print included.) And, I don't remember the exact stats, but when they polled the employees (not just the on-air guys, but everyone) ... it wasn't *that* conservative.

>>>>But then you've got whole networks devoted to conservative blogs like Fox. C'mon, let's get honest here. Who's doing the whining?

Wow, a whole cable news network for us. That only leaves pretty much the whole rest of the media against us.

I don't mind that they're biased. What bothers me is they don't seem to realize they're biased. They live in a world where 90% of the people voted for Kerry.

Ha, that gave me a thought. Can you imagine if we lived in a world where 90% of journalists voted for Bush? Look how mad liberals get about ONE conservative network. If we dominated the media the way they do, hey wouldn't just be shrieking about how unconstitutional it was, they'd be filing lawsuits left and right and creating federal departments to enforce "fairer" newsrooms.

You know, if CBS (or other MSM outlets) put a little effort into it, and actually contacted somebody like Blackfive or Citizen Smash for their side of the story, it would even things out much better.

But then you've got whole networks devoted to conservative blogs like Fox. C'mon, let's get honest here. Who's doing the whining?

I love it. For decades, liberals have been (and still are) in charge of the three major networks, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Sun-Tribune, two out of three cable news networks and the entertainment industry.

Then ONE network slants conservative, and liberals scream bias. Cripes, what sissies.

Plus they have those pussys at the BBC. But get ready you lefty pukes - we're coming to eat your lunch! Today FOX, tomorrow ...eh...FOX...eh...(cough)…er…in Canada! Yeah, in Canada you dirty lefty tool holder!

Bawhahahahah!!!

The daily online poll today on www.myway.com asks "who will be the next dan rather". The highest percentage answer is "I don't care" with 46% of the vote. The next highest is Stone Phillips with 15%.
Ouch,
Heh,
and
Indeed.

Not only Fox but MSNBC is also pro-conservative. And I meant to refer specifically to Fox news, pardon the error. I should also point out that CNN isn't far behind. I'm referring specifically to Larry King and Wolf Blitzer. You point out several liberal newspapers, but there are an equal number of conservative papers, such as the Washington Times. I try to seek out the middle, cause that's where I'm at, and it's hard to find a middle source to draw news from.... Now, here's something no one here should tolerate and that's personal attacks and obsenity. I don't appreciate being called a bitch Philip. It's obvious you're not a very nice person. I believe I can post here without agreeing 100 percent with everyone. Or do you only like hearing yourself talk? Aren't all blogs an invitation for discourse? I'd appreciate it if Ace would send a letter to Philip stating that his posting priveleges are at risk of being revoked. Or, Ace, please let me know if my comments aren't welcome here. I'm happy to keep looking. Thank you

I can name about a half-dozen liberal newspapers off the top of my head. Beyond the Washington Times and possibly the NY Post, I defy you to name any more.

On second thought, never mind. If you think MSNBC and CNN slant to the right, you obviously have no clue.

Oops, I erred. I forgot to add "conservative papers" above. My bad.

I was speaking specifically (see above) of Larry King and Wolf Blitzer, not the network, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. There are also plenty of conservative hosts in the last two years such as Dennis Miller. Then of course there's O'Reilly and Rush on the airwaves. I love a challenge. Ready? Here we go: The Wall Street Journal, The Jewish Times, The Weekly Standard, the National Review. Again, I'm looking for the middle road, where is it. I agree, not at the NYT or the WP. But are you saying it's at the WSJ or the Washington Times or the Weekly Standard? It's not. Also, on staff at liberal papers is: Bob Novack over at the Chicago Tribune, not a conservative paper of course, but he like Safire at the NYTimes is free to write his opinions. Ann Coulter gets more than enough play. The media is no where near as liberal as it used to be. That's the main point I'm making.

Chris,

Do you REALLY think Wolf or King voted for Bush? Unlikely.

As Ann Coulter noted, "Conservatives are almost always from-the-right polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth."

To make my point a little clearer:

Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. are polemicists, not journalists.

Meanwhile, for decades 90% of journalists vote Democrat.

I hear you on the statistic. I'm talking about finding information from sources that aren't slanted either way, left or right. I don't like reading the National Review or The Nation. I don't like listening to Coulter or Carville. I think of them both as opportunists, actually. I've read, though I can't back it up, that it's the editors at papers who are conservative, while the reporters are primarily liberal. I do think they both voted for Bush. King is a family friend, also a family friend of the Reagan's, he's pro Israel. Blitzer said "we" during one interview with Gillespie (sp?). Perhaps just a misspeak, but I dunno??? I don't trust either of them for accurate, balanced reporting. I think they, like O'Reilly and Scarborough, have agendas that outweight the public need to know. Mainly, keeping their jobs by being able to operate and get info. from higher up Republicans. Maybe this sounds fanciful, but it's my opinion. Bob Schaeffer, btw, golfs with Bush. I wasn't happy to see him hosting the second debate. I want more non-partisan news reporting. Am I crazy? Chris