"Marty" wrote in message
...
Ken Marino wrote:
Watching Fox and CNN after the debate. Fox has 2 people of differing
opinions talking with people from both parties. CNN has 7 or 8 people
tearing McCain apart. But of course there is no bias in the mainstream
media. I'm sure there will be similar coverage from all the liberal print
media in the A.M.


Outside of your country, most view NPR/PBS as the most unbiased of your
electronic media, we consider all the rest to be basically right wing,
just to one degree or another. I know many of you think that they are just
left wing pinkoes who should recieve no Gov'mint funding, but those are
the facts.

Your print media is generally highly regarded, (tabloids excluded). In
Britain the print media is all over the map, not to mention subject to "D"
notices, something that I don't think ever happens, at least not legally
in the US.

If you can possible get electronic coverage from outside your borders I
would would strongly advise you to do so.

BBC World service has the debate as pretty much a draw....

Cheers
Marty


He's full of it or is damaged from hurricane side-effects. LOL

I wouldn't call Bill Bennett anything close to liberal. Neither was other
rightwing talking head. They all, however, seemed pretty impartial about who
did what and when. I thought Obama won but mainly because he didn't stoop to
McCain's falsehoods, he expressed better ideas on the economy, and he held
his own on foreign affairs issues.

What I didn't like was Jim Lehrer not pressing either of them enough. He
sounded (as one CNN talking head put it) like a school teacher.

I still don't understand McCain "suspending" his campaign to "take care of
the problem," because it's "more important than politics," then, after
mucking things up, restarting his campaign and going to the debate. Did he
think he solved something? Of course, all the while his campaign was
"suspended" (by what I'm not sure, his own petard?), his campaign went
merrily on.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com