"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.


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

The NY Times and Washington Post editorial boards decide which stories make
front page news, and which get buried in a 5 sentence paragraph on the
bottom of A16. And just like news outlets which are conservative, those
papers sometimes rewrite, or reword, or rephrase headlines to create certain
ideas in the reader's minds. By changing one word in a headline, the entire
headline can take on a whole new meaing. Finally, most of the NY Times and
Washginton Post contributors are registered Democrats. So I hope that
you're not trying to claim that these are your "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news".

If the WSJ is acceptable to you, then I'll lift stories from there from now
on. I will also use left-leaning news outlets like the NY Times, Washington
Post, and LA Times. All AP and Reuters stories are fair game too. This
way, you can't bash the source every time that you don't have an intelligent
rebuttal.