collapse

* Recent Posts

2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 01:02:54 AM]


45 minutes ago at the Dallas Westin by MuggsyB
[Today at 12:19:24 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 12:10:57 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by CountryRoads
[Today at 12:05:42 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Don_Kojis
[Today at 12:04:21 AM]


Where is Marquette? by marqfan22
[March 28, 2024, 09:29:52 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Daniel
[March 28, 2024, 08:47:22 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it  (Read 18461 times)

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23355
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2007, 08:18:34 AM »
I wish some of these liberal journalists would make their way to my local paper.   Makes Fox news look tepid.
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2007, 11:51:07 AM »
I'll add the BBC study as well

19) A year long investigation and study of its internal policies and procedures concluding it "has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff.”


Source:  BBC   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2007, 12:00:14 PM »
Chico's ... none of thoise examples, except the first (which has been widely discredited) and the third claim to have found actual bias. Rather, they state that some members of the media tend to have more liberal personal viewpoints than conservative viewpoints.
Once again, this is not synonymous with bias. You continue to make the false assumption that because Journalist A is a Democrat, then Journalist A cannot write/read/produce an unbiased story. This is not true.

Pakuni....again, you believe that these people are SuperHuman.  I do not.  It's no different than PRN coming on the MU boards when MU loses...why...because he wants to show he's right.  Journalists are the same.  If they are liberal they will push stories and report about stories to show they are right, it's inheritently HUMAN to do so.

Look at the polling of the media and see where the stories go.  Now tell me they haven't been pushing those very stories which helps back up their beliefs.  Of course they are.

Here was their polling and tell me that the news hasn't pushed these very stories...of course they have.

Nearly half of the public (46%) believe torture of terrorist suspects can be “often” or “sometimes” justified, while 78 percent of the news media elite contend it is “rarely” or “never” justified.


Just 17 percent of journalists said they thought “reducing illegal immigration” was a “top priority,” compared to 51 percent of the public who rate it as a “top priority.”

Nearly three in five journalists (59%) favored laws allowing “two men or two women to marry each other.” Among the general public, only 28 percent favored so-called same-sex marriage.

Only 10 percent of reporters thought a major reason for CBS’s use of forged memos in the infamous National Guard story was because “CBS News and Dan Rather are liberals who dislike President Bush,” with most (54%) saying that was “not a reason at all.”


These people can't even recognize their own bias because they beleive they set the agenda.  And their reporting backs up exactly their beliefs.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2007, 12:28:50 PM »
One follow-up, I know Pakuni and others think these superhuman reporters can keep this stuff out of their reporting...many in the field do not and I tend to agree with them.

At the end of the day, I'm going to take their word for it since they're in the industry.  That and the fact that over 70% of Americans believe the press is bias...I didn't even bring those studies into the equation, but I'm happy to do so.

Their positions DRIVE THE COVERAGE....right from the news reporters mouths below as well as the producers.  If you can't believe them, the very people you are saying aren't liberal, then who the hell can you believe?  They are NOT SUPERHUMAN....they're HUMAN. 


CBS News President Andrew Heyward once told him (Bernard Goldberg): "Look, Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in the news. All the networks tilt left. . . . If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it."
Bernard Goldberg, former CBS reporter for nearly 30 years in his book Bias.

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

“As much as we try to think otherwise, when you’re covering someone like yourself, and your position in life is insecure, she’s your mascot. Something in you roots for her. You’re rooting for your team. I try to get that bias out, but for many of us it’s there.”
Time Senior Writer Margaret Carlson quoted in The Washington Post, March 7, 1994.

“There is no such thing as objective reporting...I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That’s my subversive mission.”
Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.


“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Jack Cafferty: “Can you say liberal? And the liberal talk radio station Air America debuts today....The question is, does America need additional ‘liberal’ media outlets?...”
Bill Hemmer: “I think it’s a good question....Why hasn’t a liberal radio station or TV network never taken off before?”
Cafferty: “We have them. Are you, did you just get off a vegetable truck from the South Bronx? They’re everywhere....What do they call this joint? The Clinton News Network?”
— Exchange on CNN’s American Morning, March 31, 2004.


“The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.”
— Washington Post “Book World” editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post’s “daily in-house electronic critiques,” as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.

“There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous. That’s different from the media doing it’s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.”— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.


“I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.”
— Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.

“I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.

“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“I think most claims of liberal media bias are overblown. At the same time, I do think that reporters often let their cultural predilections drive their coverage of social issues, and the coverage of the gay marriage amendment offers a perfect example....Why do reporters assume that the amendment is a fringe concern? Perhaps because nearly all live in big cities, among educated, relatively affluent peers, who hold liberal views on social matters. In Washington and New York, gay marriage is an utterly mainstream proposition. Unfortunately, in most of the country, it’s not.”
— New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Chait, CBSNews.com, March 1, 2004.


“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.


“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.

“[Journalists] have a certain worldview based on being in Manhattan...that isn’t per se liberal, but if you look at people there, they lean’ in that direction.”
— Columbia Journalism Review publisher David Laventhol, as reported in “Leaning on the Media” by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.

“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”
— Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.

“I think this is another reflection of the overwhelming journalistic tilt towards liberalism and those programs. Now, the question is whether that’s bad or not, and that’s another debate. But the idea that many of us, and my colleagues deny that there is this kind of bias is nuts, because there is in our world — I forget what the surveys show, but most of us are Democratic and probably most of us line up in the fairly liberal world.”
— Time Washington contributing editor Hugh Sidey responding to a caller who asked if journalists are in favor of affirmative action, July 21, 1995 C-SPAN Washington Journal.


“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.

We’re unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don’t think we can run away from that. And I think we’re unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people.”
— Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.



etc etc etc etc etc
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 04:49:41 PM by ChicosBailBonds »

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2007, 04:37:52 PM »
Pakuni....again, you believe that these people are SuperHuman.  I do not.  It's no different than PRN coming on the MU boards when MU loses...why...because he wants to show he's right.  Journalists are the same.  If they are liberal they will push stories and report about stories to show they are right, it's inheritently HUMAN to do so.


Well, perhaps in your mindset professionalism is a superhuman trait. In mind, it is not. Putting aside one's own personal beliefs for the sake of one's professional obligations is, as far as I'm concerned, not magical power. It is something good professionals - in many professions - do, and do regularly.

A good defense attorney who believes his client guilty believes he/she has an ethical obligation to put on the best defense possible.
A good sports official who had a favorite team growing up believes he/she has an ethical obligation to make tough calls against that team when officiating their games.
A good stockbroker believes he/she has an ethical obligation to enact a client's buy orders, even when he or she believes its an unwise investment.
A good police officer believes he or she has an ethical obligation not to conduct an illegal search, even when he or she knows the search could halt illegal activity.

Are all these people also "Superhuman"? Or are they simply good professionals? And if it's the latter, why is it possible for workers in these professions to set aside their personal beliefs to meet their professional obligations, yet it's an impossible task for those in the media?

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2007, 05:11:07 PM »
Are all these people also "Superhuman"? Or are they simply good professionals? And if it's the latter, why is it possible for workers in these professions to set aside their personal beliefs to meet their professional obligations, yet it's an impossible task for those in the media?

Not sure I want to jump into this one, but what the heck.

You make a good point, Pakuni, and I agree with you.  There are many, many good journalists who are very professional and manage to keep their biases in check.  But, there also are many bad journalists who don't do that nearly so well (just like there are many bad referees, police officers, lawyers, etc.).  So, when you have a profession where the individuals are unabashedly and overwhelmingly left leaning, the failures of those who struggle to control their bias will make that profession as a whole appear left leaning.

For example, say there are 100 journalists.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that 50% of them are consumate professionals (I'll let others offer opinions on whether that is a high or a low estimate).  Let's further assume that 60% identify as democrats; 15% identify as republicans and 25% are neutral (using the numbers Chico gave up-thread -- not vouching for them, but using them).  If that is the case, you will have 30 journalists who let their left-leaning bias creep in and 8 who let their right-leaning bias creep in.  Is it really a surprise, then, that there would be a perception of left-leaning bias?

So, my answer to your question posed to Chico is that these other professionals that exhibit professionalism are not superhuman.  No one is.  Every profession has good practitioners and bad practitioners.  If journalists were split 50/50 ideologically, the "bad practitioners" would not create the impression of liberal bias.  But, since journalists self-identify as heavily liberal, the bad apples in the profession create the impression (if not the reality) of liberal bias.

Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2007, 06:43:24 PM »

Not sure I want to jump into this one, but what the heck.

You make a good point, Pakuni, and I agree with you.  There are many, many good journalists who are very professional and manage to keep their biases in check.  But, there also are many bad journalists who don't do that nearly so well (just like there are many bad referees, police officers, lawyers, etc.).  So, when you have a profession where the individuals are unabashedly and overwhelmingly left leaning, the failures of those who struggle to control their bias will make that profession as a whole appear left leaning.

For example, say there are 100 journalists.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that 50% of them are consumate professionals (I'll let others offer opinions on whether that is a high or a low estimate).  Let's further assume that 60% identify as democrats; 15% identify as republicans and 25% are neutral (using the numbers Chico gave up-thread -- not vouching for them, but using them).  If that is the case, you will have 30 journalists who let their left-leaning bias creep in and 8 who let their right-leaning bias creep in.  Is it really a surprise, then, that there would be a perception of left-leaning bias?

So, my answer to your question posed to Chico is that these other professionals that exhibit professionalism are not superhuman.  No one is.  Every profession has good practitioners and bad practitioners.  If journalists were split 50/50 ideologically, the "bad practitioners" would not create the impression of liberal bias.  But, since journalists self-identify as heavily liberal, the bad apples in the profession create the impression (if not the reality) of liberal bias.



Glad you jumped in, because that's an excellent post.
Of course there are bad journalists, and of course there are journalists who let their personal biases affect their work. However, I still believe these people are the exception, not the rule.
Also, while I agree there are some blatantly left-leaning media outlets (NY Times, NPR, etc.) there are also many, many blatantly right-leaning media outlets (Fox News, talk radio, Wall St. Journal). And because of that the cries of "THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL" don't have any merit to me. Some of the media is liberal. Some of the media is conservative. Many do an excellent job of playing it down the middle. And we, as consumers in a mostly free market, have hundreds of choices of where we can get our news. For the life of me I can't understand why some are obsessed with the New York Times, for example, when they are under no compulsion to read the New York Times and, in fact, the vast, vast majority of Americans don't read the New York Times. Hey ... if you don't like the Times' take on a story, go pick up the Journal or the Chicago Tribune or the Washington Times, where you're sure to get a different take.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2007, 12:24:04 AM »
Pakuni....again, you believe that these people are SuperHuman.  I do not.  It's no different than PRN coming on the MU boards when MU loses...why...because he wants to show he's right.  Journalists are the same.  If they are liberal they will push stories and report about stories to show they are right, it's inheritently HUMAN to do so.


Well, perhaps in your mindset professionalism is a superhuman trait. In mind, it is not. Putting aside one's own personal beliefs for the sake of one's professional obligations is, as far as I'm concerned, not magical power. It is something good professionals - in many professions - do, and do regularly.

A good defense attorney who believes his client guilty believes he/she has an ethical obligation to put on the best defense possible.
A good sports official who had a favorite team growing up believes he/she has an ethical obligation to make tough calls against that team when officiating their games.
A good stockbroker believes he/she has an ethical obligation to enact a client's buy orders, even when he or she believes its an unwise investment.
A good police officer believes he or she has an ethical obligation not to conduct an illegal search, even when he or she knows the search could halt illegal activity.

Are all these people also "Superhuman"? Or are they simply good professionals? And if it's the latter, why is it possible for workers in these professions to set aside their personal beliefs to meet their professional obligations, yet it's an impossible task for those in the media?


You continue to ignore the people in the business that call this bullfeathers.  I've dealt with too many reporters on the sports and technology side of the fence to know that agendas run far and wide.  These inside industry people (I have provided their quotes) have said time and time and time again that it gets in the way of their reporting.  Why should I not believe them?  I have no doubt there are many credible reporters, but it doesn't take many of the sullied ones to turn the tied now does it?  Plus the entire slew of them that don't even realize they are biased...and that's the real culprit.  They could be as professional as the most professional people out there and not even know that they are reporting only stories that prove a certain agenda or carry the water for a certain cause.  Transparent bias...alive and well.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 12:26:59 AM by ChicosBailBonds »

Murffieus

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2007, 07:23:32 AM »
Tim Russert is a big liberal----but to his credit he asks the tough questions of both liberals and conservatives (so he hides it there)-----however from time to time he's invited on the NBC evening news for some commentary and there his liberal credentials come out loud and clear.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2007, 03:49:23 PM »
Tim Russert is a big liberal----but to his credit he asks the tough questions of both liberals and conservatives (so he hides it there)-----however from time to time he's invited on the NBC evening news for some commentary and there his liberal credentials come out loud and clear.

Chris Matthews:   Worked for four Democrat politicians including Jimmy Carter, Tip O'Neill, Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie.  Became a Democrat after hearing Eugene McCarthy's pro-civil rights and anti-Vietnam platforms.

Tim Russert:  Worked for two Democrat politicians.  Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo


I find that Russert is much more "professional" than Matthews and able to "usually" hide his agenda, though because he isn't superhuman he is not able to do so all of the time either.   :)

That is been precisely my point.  If Chris Matthews, a McCarthy Democrat is an anti-war guy, fine...but that means his content, his stories, his angles are going to follow his way of thinking.  Which, of course...they do!
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 03:55:51 PM by ChicosBailBonds »

SoCalwarrior

  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2007, 04:11:43 PM »
Chris Matthews is a commentator and host of his own show.  Just as Bill O'Reilly is.  Of course these guys are biased.  In fact,  they are paid for that bias.  They are paid to give their unique take on politics and current affairs.   

Hard news is another story.  This is where you want reporters to be objective.  While complete objectivity is impossible, a left or right leaning reporter can still present us the news.  Besides, every one of us is going to read or watch a story through our own biased filter anyway. 


ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2007, 07:39:37 PM »
Chris Matthews is a commentator and host of his own show.  Just as Bill O'Reilly is.  Of course these guys are biased.  In fact,  they are paid for that bias.  They are paid to give their unique take on politics and current affairs.   

Hard news is another story.  This is where you want reporters to be objective.  While complete objectivity is impossible, a left or right leaning reporter can still present us the news.  Besides, every one of us is going to read or watch a story through our own biased filter anyway. 



Chris Matthews is moderating debates for Christ sake.  Is Bill O'Reilly moderating debates?

SoCalwarrior

  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2007, 08:09:43 PM »
I can understand your concern, but a debate is mostly fluff and hypotheticals about Jack Bauer.  Is the outcome important?  Absolutely.  But it still isn't hard news.   I think most hard news journalists, broadcast and print, strive to follow the, "just the facts" mantra.  Yes, no person alive is a robot, but they do their jobs far better than you give them credit for.    The real problem is knowing when and where to see or read their work as most "news" is actually revenue driven entertainment.   

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2007, 11:44:34 AM »
I can understand your concern, but a debate is mostly fluff and hypotheticals about Jack Bauer.  Is the outcome important?  Absolutely.  But it still isn't hard news.   I think most hard news journalists, broadcast and print, strive to follow the, "just the facts" mantra.  Yes, no person alive is a robot, but they do their jobs far better than you give them credit for.    The real problem is knowing when and where to see or read their work as most "news" is actually revenue driven entertainment.   




And do you think since the moderator "Drives" the debate they may skew questions more one way then another?

I watched the Democratic debate and the softballs being thrown out and it was embarrassing....absolutely embarrassing.  No wonder they don't want Brit Hume or anyone from Fox on a panel.  And that's exactly the point, why are they ducking a Fox debate...because they know they will have to deal with tough questions...questions from a conservative angle because Fox is biased also. 
« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 11:50:29 AM by ChicosBailBonds »

Murffieus

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: And another...now the BBC...at least they finally admit it
« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2007, 07:52:04 AM »
Another reason why the mainstream media won't allow Hume on a panel------his one hour evening news show is taking market share away from CBS, ABC, & NBC----he's already almost caught up with the CBS/Katie Couric ratings!

 

feedback