New Approach

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I just listened to one of the reporters last night on C-span talking about the ordeal. He basically stated that the current administration has been terribly hostile towards the press, including the incident in which he is awaiting an appeal.
I dont think the Bush adminstration cares one way another what happens to these reporters or revealing sources. It is true that "they" could have put a CIA operative in danger of being killed, but this adminstration is not crying over the reporters going to jail. I dont think the adminstration is worried about any trail leading back to someone important at this point. At least that is the clear feelings of the male reporter who will not reveal his source(s) and very well could end up in jail.

My big problem is reporting that is so biased as to be laughable. CNN "reporting" the news thru Lou Dobbs (these are editorials). And Fox... bad.
Actually I listened to Fox this morning and they actually grilled Cheney to the point he did not answer questions. I thought they would just give him the Soap Box, but they did not. Cheney appears to have a different agenda than the president and they pointed this out with lots of back tape. I officially declare Cheney out of touch after that interview. I cant see how the military can work with this guy after the way he came off today. His own words, thats what I want. Good solid interview. Very rare.

For years there has been a huge liberal bias in the media. Now there are actually some stations that lean to the right. What's wrong with that? There should be a balance. If practically all the stations lean to the left, I don't see a problem with a station that leans to the right.

By the way, some of my most liberal friends are actually watching Fox News these days. They actually prefer it over CNN. They think CNN is terrible.

Why would you have a problem with CNN having Lou Dobbs? That would be like me complaining that Fox is too liberal since they have Allan Colmes.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

For years there has been a huge liberal bias in the media. Now there are actually some stations that lean to the right. What's wrong with that? There should be a balance. If practically all the stations lean to the left, I don't see a problem with a station that leans to the right.

By the way, some of my most liberal friends are actually watching Fox News these days. They actually prefer it over CNN. They think CNN is terrible.

Why would you have a problem with CNN having Lou Dobbs? That would be like me complaining that Fox is too liberal since they have Allan Colmes.

There should not have to be a balance in the first place. I hate Dobbs because he does not report the News. He reports his opinions on the news.

The best listening comes on Sunday where one gets to listen straight from the mouth of people in charge. And most of the time its garbage because people in charge dont answer the questions they are asked. Today on Fox, they actually got Cheney to say some very interesting things that I found very insightful. Charlie Rose sometimes gets some very interesting interviews when he is not asking his Hollywood friends to come on.
Its the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times for me for the most part.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

There should not have to be a balance in the first place. I hate Dobbs because he does not report the News. He reports his opinions on the news.

The best listening comes on Sunday where one gets to listen straight from the mouth of people in charge. And most of the time its garbage because people in charge dont answer the questions they are asked. Today on Fox, they actually got Cheney to say some very interesting things that I found very insightful. Charlie Rose sometimes gets some very interesting interviews when he is not asking his Hollywood friends to come on.
Its the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times for me for the most part.

Journalists are human. They are not robots. Most of them have at least a slight bias at the very minimum. Even when they try to be impartial, there is still often times a slight bias.

The newspapers you mentioned both have a bias. The Walstreet Journal is notoriously conservative. The NY Times is notoriously liberal.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Journalists are human. They are not robots. Most of them have at least a slight bias at the very minimum. Even when they try to be impartial, there is still often times a slight bias.

The newspapers you mentioned both have a bias. The Walstreet Journal is notoriously conservative. The NY Times is notoriously liberal.

You can always read between the lines. The importance is that both of these papers have very good writers and can get to stories because their tendrils reach deep into the political soil, and they have so many foreign correspondents. Most papers just dont have the man power to go out a get basic information.

NY times has a great Science section also. They actually have people that know their stuff. Very comforting, to me anyway.