but there is clearly a liberal bias in the ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR sources.
Really? Can you demonstrate that? Because the exact opposite seems to be the case - the news bends over backwards to avoid painting issues in a negative light for Republicans, especially the president; and equally bends over the other way to avoid presenting any news except in the form of a loss for Democrats.
Most recently, after several of his top aides indicated that they would testify against him on the subject of corruption, Tom DeLay announced that he would not run for re-election, essentially relegating himself to the role of a powerless lame-duck Congressman. Except this great victory for honest democracy, this first step to holding an incredibly corrupt and dishonets man accountable, was painted as a
loss by Democrats. That somehow Democrats came out the loser when their most vocal opponent took a dive. Amazing.
Or the coverage of Bush's National Guard service. The
very next day almost every network came out with the story that the memos were probably fake, even though there turned out to be absolutely no evidence of that, and several people who were close to the purported author verified that the memos contained statements that the author had made to them and were entirely consistent with his views, even though it turned out that all the typographic "analysis" was nonsense, even though we never ever uncovered the purported "forger", etc, etc, etc. Bending over backwards to avoid anything negative for the president.
There were maybe 2 networks that ran even one story on the Downing Street Memos that completely proved that the decision to invade Iraq anyway was made months ahead of the seeking of UN approval to force Saddam to re-admit weapons inspectors; which is naturally why we went ahead and invaded even after
Saddam completely complied with the UN. You never hear
that in the news, anymore - that Saddam actually had let the inspectors back in and given them total access weeks before we invaded anyway.
I haven't seen
one single story on any of the networks - and I do TIVO the news, so it's not like I'd have missed it - about how we now can prove that Ohio subverted it's own elections process and broke it's own laws by ignoring the fact that a large number of its reporting precincts failed to maintain a consistent count between the computerized election results and the random hand recounts. Instead, before the "official" random assay count, officials simply eliminated from consideration all precincts that had already reported, through a kind of pre-screening recount, a discrepancy between the computer and paper results. Then, they did a "random" sampling of all the precincts
that they knew were not discrepant and pretended like that proved the election was legitimate.
We
know Bush stole the election in 2000. We
know he stole it again in 2004. There hasn't been a legitimate presidential election in this country since 1996, but I haven't seen
a single story about that, even on NPR.
Liberal media? Please. We have a media of cowards, beholded to power. They're already bending over backwards to make sure your side gets as positive a press as possible, and your complaint is that they still don't favor your side enough? Unbelivable.
™ Version 4.2