But, then again, he's the guy who knocked up Mary behind Joseph's back.
Holy Spirit, my a*s.

__________________
You meet the same folks on the way up as you do on the way down.

About.com: http://www.fair.org/index.php

Altercation: McCain Suck-Up Watch (5/28/08) by Eric Alterman

In an article discussing statements Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain made on Memorial Day, the Washington Post asserted: "Neither candidate used the solemn day to launch political attacks."

But Alterman finds an Associated Press piece at—where else?—WashingtonPost.com, in which "McCain said of Obama during an interview on Memorial Day: 'He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time.'"

Yes, it doesn't get any more liberal than that. The proof is in the pudding and in case after case the bias is right wing....

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

"Bias" Isn't Supported—Because It's Not True

If, as Goldberg argues, there's a media tilt toward Democrats, then why have Republicans received a majority of newspaper endorsements in all but two presidential elections since 1932?

It's a simple question so how about a straight forward answer?

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

Wrong answer! "Fair" means getting what is due - the good, the bad and the ugly (as long as it's accurate and not some media idiot's interpretation or spin). And, no, it is not at all "childish" to expect the media idiots to provide both equal coverage and neutral coverage (neutral as in not having any particular spin or agenda).

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Except that they also measure who gets more negative reviews as well. Prior to the conventions in 2000, Bush got twice as many positive reviews and half as many negative reviews than Gore did. It's called poisoning the well...by the time the conventions rolled around the public had been soured to Gore and encouraged to Bush. The same thing just happened with Hillary and Obama. The media mangled Hillary and gave Obama a pass...

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

Many people are under the bizarre and false impression that something's not fair unless it's absolutely neutral, as in the media should just mindlessly parrot both sides and give them equal respect. This belief's nonsensical. My statement is congruent with both sides getting "due" coverage of good and bad if it really exists. It's not "unfair" if one candidate gets bad reviews and the other more good, which is why I said judging neutrality and fairness by the ratio of good to bad reviews is stupid. They shouldn't be expected to give both sides equal type reviews. The one with the bad reviews may genuinely deserve them, and thus...have them. If someone deserves bad press, that's far from "biased."

This isn't South Park where the writers mindlessly appeal to the middle and attack both sides as "just the same" in the end.

__________________

If by "absolutely neutral" you mean presenting the good and the bad (though not necessarily at the same time), then that is "fair." But if you mean presenting neither good nor bad then, no, that isn't "fair."

But the degree of "bad" is for the viewer/reader to determine and not the media idiots. The problem here is that the media idiots try to spin or interpret events in order to manipulate people's thinking. If I want some media idiot's opinion about an event, I'll give it to him.

Nor should the media idiots follow a policy of trying to spin or interpret events according to a particular agenda or political bent.

I didn't say that it was an example of media bias but the fact that there is more of one or the other raises a serious question of the media's motive in reporting. And just who the hell do you think you are to decide that anyone "deserves" bad press?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Simple. They didn't get ALL the endorsements, so that proves the media tilt towards Democrats.

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

Why did they go back to 1932? Why not back to 1962 or 1972? There is clearly an attempt to deceive here. Usually when people claim a media bias favoring the left it's based on the media over about the last 30-40 years, not the last 70 years.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Nice try but your spin doesn't cut it. A consistent pattern of the majority of endorsements for the republicans is a pattern of bias that cannot be denied.

But why take my word for it. Bush got the majority of favorable press both in 2000 and 2004. McCain, a person who claims military expertise because he spent five years as a prisoner of war, is also being given a pass. This is astounding because his history of a legislator is one of bad legislation after bad legislation while living in the pocket of lobbyists.

Get it? McCain is a joke and yet if you relied on the media to shape your opinion he looks like very qualified candidate. This is exactly what they did to Bush and I defy you to call him even a marginal president. Meanwhile look how the media attacked Hillary Clinton. And I'm not talking about one or two mainstream media outlets but across the board assault. They pounded her so hard she went from a sure victory to a sure loss.

Let's see how "aware" you are.

Over 90% of the mainstream media is owned by: 50 corporations? 25 corporations? 15 corporations? 9 corporations?

Go on, take a guess.

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT