When the numbers were even closer, but in Bush’s favor, they didn’t use the word apparently. So, does that make them conservative again? It’s hard to keep up when we’re going to have to fight every single tiny piece of “evidence of bias” that you dug up on some blog.
Come on, is that the best you can do? “Apparently.”
Well, if you’d like to demonstrate that the Today show displayed disproportionate scorn/praise on its guests based on political affiliation, that shouldn’t be hard to prove – it’s not as if videotapes or transcripts of the shows in question don’t exist.
It’s also a load of hooey, at least given what I’ve skimmed through at the bookstore. But it propagates the “liberal media” myth (and Goldberg makes good money playing it that way), so conservatives love to drag it up at every opportunity as if it’s some sort of infallable conclusion. :rolleyes:
Getting back to the OP…I don’t think the problem with CNN is with the balance of commentators. I’ve read a lot of the conservative blogs and magazines and I can’t remember anyone complaining about that. The problem has to do with the part of the programming that is supposed to be objective.
I gave a couple of examples from South Park Conservatives on the last thread but they were met with the usual dismissals, e.g. He’s a liar; Specific examples are just anecdotes; He’s a conservative, etc. But neither of my examples were refuted in any meaningful way. So I resent the wording of the title of the thread and the characterizations of conservatives in the OP. If you’re not going to read the answers why ask the questions? And why am I bothering to waste my time giving answers? I’ll have to think about that one again.
And getting back to the previous post, David Brock is no Bernard Goldberg. His hit piece on Anita Hill was a vicious piece of crap and he was never well respected by conservatives. And everything he’s written since then has been about as bad.
