View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Harry Krause
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Real Reason Bush went to War

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:09:25 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm

suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back his

claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.


I'd be interested to know what you consider to be "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news". Please don't include any op-ed pieces
from the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times, either. Any story that Dan
Rather or Tom Brokaw has a hand in is also out of bounds.

What are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news"?



You've got me holding my breath waiting for this answer!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Me, too. As I said, the WSJ, a conservative paper, is a good source of
some sorts of news, but certainly not news that touches on politics or
policy. The problem with Fox, the WSJ, the Moonie Times, NewsMax, and
these other obviously right-wing outlets is that virtually EVERY article
they publish on politics or policy is colored by their political slant.
While the NY Times and Washington Post are moderate to liberal in their
editorials, their news stories for the most part are straight news...the
reporters report what they see and what they find. You may not like
that, but it is a news slant, not an editorial slant.

Hey, the one newspaper I worked for, the Kansas City Star, was a
moderate to conservative newspaper when I worked there, but its politics
was limited to its editorial pages. No one EVER said to me, "give that
piece a more conservative slant," or "don't cover that guy...he's a
liberal." And when I worked as the Assistant World News Editor, no one
ever said to me, "Your headlines and copy editing is too liberal..."

The political control of the Moonie church at the Washington Times was
documented in great and finite detail in the 1980s. Nothing has changed
there. The slant at Fox is too obvious to be ignored, and NewsMax
*advertises* its position on its opening pages.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002