"Jim" wrote in message

Drudge, Newsmax, Fox, VVagainst Kerry all are quick to publish rumors or

CNN et al are not above that at all. I have been personally involved in a
newsworthy event wherein CNN blatantly maintained a biased position. HN
would run rumors of "allegations", (at the behest of one of the parties to
the struggle) for one or two cycles of HN, then pull the piece for lack of
"confirmation". Of course, by then the damage had been done.

Quote people like Rush, Coulter, et all as gods.

Well, of course, no serious person quotes these folks as serious news
sources, nor believes any such quotes. Conservative talk shows are well
peppered with bombast, as would be talk shows of the left, if they could
ever figure how to make it work! The problem with left-wing talk shows is
that it is very difficult to project or maintain a sense of outrage while
arguing that we don't have enough government, or we don't pay enough taxes,
or we don't have a wide enough array of social programs.


They have gone so far
as to manipulate photographs in an attempt to smear Kerry

It is clear that someone doctored photos, but I was unaware that any one
person or group had been confirmed as the manipulator. When did that occur?



I suppose you consider them "fair and Balanced"?

I have yet to see a news source available to the public that is fair and
balanced. Fox is right of center, but just seems to be out on the edge by
comparison with most others, who are so far left. Fox also (for some
ungodly reason) employs this hyper-excited delivery style, like TV stations
in LA or south Florida, seeming to target an emotional age of about 13 --
but that alone doesn't make them wrong. CNN and MSNBC, for example, employ
a more serious tone than Fox in news delivery, but alter their content by
careful writing and editing.


My first choice for president would be other than Kerry, and my vote
will be not FOR Kerry, but AGAINST Bush.

Voting *against* a candidate rarely yields satisfaction in either the short
or long term.