It’s National Enquirer.
The Enquirer isn’t quite so horrid as is usually made out to be. Sometimes they are the first to get the real poop and publish it. The Weekly World News is the tabloid that prints the real trash.
You can see the difference between real journalists at CBS and the vermin at FOX. CBS goes with a report and discovers that the authenticity of the documents cannot be verified- they apologize and authorize an independent investigation. FOX may apologize, but are they going to take steps to see that it doesn’t happen again?
Yeah, and the Catholic Church moved swiftly in 1992 to correct its error of 1633 concerning that nasty Galileo business.
So they ran the story, then they ‘discovered’ (after what, 11 days of defending the documents as authentic?) that they documents couldn’t be verified. And that fits your notion of ‘real journalists’? Why am I not suprised?
(And that’s ignoring that they knew the documents were bogus, and the whole collusion with the Kerry campaign bit.)
Bah. Some of the experts CBS hired thought it was indeed authentic. And CBS has indeed apologized and authorized an independent review. What more do you want from them? Contrast that with FOX. At least CBS had a document and did not fabricate a story from whole cloth.
Liberal: *I suppose I do tend to try to balance the scales a bit, so that could account for your perception. On a board so bulging with leftists, there is seldom any need to accentuate problems with the conservative media — it would be tanatamount to “me too” posting, which in the Pit is, I believe, prohibited. *
Not that I like admitting it or anything, but that’s a good point. 
As I noted in the pit thread, the problem is not what happened, the problem is that the lead reporter covering Kerry apparently spends his free time calling Kerry a dandy queer. This certainly makes claims to provided even handed coverage a little hard to believe, especially in the face of the facts that their coverage of Kerry is overwhelmingly negative.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously compare a journalistic bias of the left to a carefully coregraphed dog-and-pony show of Fox news’ bias to the right. It’s like “balancing” a panel by setting a pundit vs. an ostensibly leftist journalist (a favorite balance trick of the modern media). One, even if biased, speaks in the restrained and moderated tone of analysis, while the other is free to simply pump out spin. But then, I suspect that few people who maintain that this is fair play really believe it.
Yes, such baseless conjecture should rightfully be ignored.
Y’know I’m more proud that ashamed of not knowing how to spell it.
For the record, Daniel’s perceptions of Lib’s posting tendencies here, and Lib’s comments in this quote, are both right on the money IMO. On a board with a plurality tending towards (21st Century American) liberal views, ** Lib** tends to emphasize the errors of liberalism; on a board largely slanted the other way, he does likewise with conservatism. (I remember fondly your dissection of one egregiously vile post by a guy whose self-chosen epithet was “Right of you,” Lib.)
Yes. This is because “Nazi” refers specifically to the German National Socialists, the political party, whereas communism is a philosophical theory
I wish I could believe this was just a one-time thing on Fox’ part . . . no cite or link, but just today on the radio I heard that Fox News posted two phony post-debate Kerry quotes on its website: “What a great debate! Didn’t my nails and cuticles look good?” and “He’s [Bush] a cowboy, I’m metrosexual.” When Fox was called on it they blamed haste and post-debate exhaustion, etc.
Your cite is the first link in the OP - those are the quotes Carl Cameron dreamed up.
You should see me on the classical liberal boards, like Free-Market. 
I believe I’m the toughest there than anywhere. I just stand on the hill of noncoercion and lob grenades at all passers-by who would champion the petty tyrannies of state’s rights [sic], local government, and majoritarian political gang rape. I was nearly banned for my relentless and blistering excoriations of that rather puffy statist, Harry Browne.
You misspelled “one”.
While the exchange to whose tail end you responded was between Lib and Kimstu, I agree in large part with the latter’s sentiments.
Lib’s explanation makes sense, but I still don’t like it. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think that Great Debates is best served by an honest exchange of ideas. Lobbing grenades at the majority seems more like self-serving entertainment to me than like an honest exchange of ideas.
And getting almost banned from multiple places isn’t really a sign of anything positive, IMO; it could equally mean that the almost-banned poster puts more energy into getting under people’s skin than into the honest exchange of ideas.
Daniel
I can certainly see your point. However, I like being open to the possibility that there can actually be honest ideas on all sides of a debate. There are two specific criteria that I impose upon myself before stepping into such matters: (1) the point being made by the minority is a valid one and the majority is doing nothing more than drowning out the minority by its sheer volume of posts and often hysterical tone — in other words, an unfair pile-on; or (2) the point being made by the majority is one with which I disagree. Thus, I would react predictably to the following scenarios:
(A) People are piling onto Mr. Conservative about the five minutes Bush waited in the Florida classroom. There are too many reasonable ways to interpret the events that day for a single declaration of “Bush was confused and ineffective” to hold.
(B) People are touting Harry Browne’s famous list of things he would do as President before lunch as though he were the resurrection of Lao Tzu, when nowhere in the list is declaring the Constitution invalid and disbanding the legislature.
I agree that being nearly banned is no badge of honor in and of itself, but of course, I never said that. If someone is banned here for dissing Hillary Clinton, or at the Pizza Parlor for dissing John Ashcroft, or at Free-Market for dissing Harry Browne — then it is certainly no badge of shame, so long as the convictions are honestly held.
ROFL. Brutus, I truly wish you could have been my high school history teacher. We’d have been done with world history in about a week and had time to watch Monty Python the rest of the semester.
Hey, kids - guess what?
George W. Bush is endorsed by Islamic Fundamentalists!
Does this mean W is going to declare a Jihad on all Infidels?
Oh, wait… that is pretty stupid, isn’t it…
Cheers,
C
To be fair, few if any of Nader’s former professional associates support his candidacy.