Fox News does it again . . .

Six years ago? That's what you have? OK, if we're going to go back that far, then why not 10 years ago? How many of them told us to vote for four more years of lying under oath with Clinton? I'll bet you it's a lot more than 85. After the guy was impeached, disbarred and left in disgrace, yeah, some endorsed the challenger to his hand-picked successor.

 

Man. We may disagree on Manning and the NFL, but holy moley, you nailed that one.

And Lyman, I wouldn't expect you to understand what's gone unreported. To you, what's gone unreported is of no consequence.

 

New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, New York Daily News. I haven't even come close to breaking a sweat. And, of course, that's not even counting ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN -- where most Americans get their news.

 

Wow.

NYT et al are far left? That may be the funniest thing I've seen here besides the Caruso thread.

That would make the Globe & Mail a left wing rag and would put the Toronto Star into Pravda territory. Unreal.

If that's your definition of far left, you probably think the New York Post is centrist.

 

Not these days.

 

Aren't there more important things to argue about?

 

Or, in the case of Gerry Studds, they simply continued to call him Congressman.

 

Keep trying, tony:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1138808

Some newspapers endorsed Gore in 2000, but not nearly as many as did Bush. So, in tony's world, the fact that the Republican got most of the nation's endorsements for president -- as has usually been the case, for decades -- is proof of a liberal bias.

Unreal.

 

Of course, because the truth hurts your cause, you neglect to mention that endorsements have nothing to do with how editors on the floor (not editorial boards who refused to endorse a corrupt Clinton or his clueless VP) have always been what the point of contention is in media bias.

You can quote numbers from opinion pages all you want. But when news editors play good news for the left high and good news for the left in the briefs on Page 6B. An example I can recall from 2000 very easily is look at how papers played it when Gore named Lieberman as his running mate (across the top in 72 points) vs. when Bush picked Cheney (48-point heads below the fold). Compare how the Foley thing was played up vs. the William Jefferson scandal in Louisiana. A democrat is found with 90K in bribe money in his freezer and the media hushes it up to the point the guy gets re-elected.

If I didn't actually have a job and need to do it, I could spend the days finding thousands of such examples nationally, state-wide and locally across the nation where democrats are given a pass for just about eveything and republicans are crucified often for next to no reason at all.

Jack Abramoff had just as many democrats in his pocket. But nobody knows about them because the media does't want you to.

What was the percentage of journalists polled that voted for Kerry in 2004 again? Something like 85% if I recall correctly.

 

You'd think so.

 

There definitely are. But it's fun in its own way for some of us.

 

First of all, anyone calling the Daily News a liberal paper has cred issues from the get-go. And you are getting close to black helicopter territory.

And I think 85 percent of journalists voting Democratic, if true, would be less troubling than 85 percent of CEOs voting Republican.