In article ,
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

I forgot that William Safire is considered a liberal by the neo
conservative right wing wackos.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 11:30:03 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

You claimed that Gore is the equivalent of a chimp.

Naw. It's easy to tell the difference. The chimp is the one that doesn't
look like he learned to gesture from a cigar store Indian.

I'm sure you're an expert, and it's easy to tell. All you have to do
is look in the mirror.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 11:29:14 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda. While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists. The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know.

Let's explore that a little. Do you think most viewers and readers tend to
watch a news station or read a newspaper that closely reflects their own
point of view?

Yes. Of course, most viewers don't read all that well, and they
certainly don't give a crap about politics, so they probably just
watch the WWF instead.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:29:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

Umm...I don't think so. As I indicated before, the Times is about as far to
the left as Fox is to the right. There are plenty of sources further to
either side.

Safire is to the left of center?? Really?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 13:13:31 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I forgot that William Safire is considered a liberal by the neo
conservative right wing wackos.

Safire and Brooks are the Times's two house conservatives, just as Al Hunt
is the Journal's house liberal. In none of these cases would any regular
reader mistake the positions in these columns for the positions of the
publications carrying them.

So, name some credible, left leaning Fox "reporters" or commentators?

I know, I know... O'Reilly! Right????? :-)




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message


Yes, it's called fair and balanced to hoodwink the unthinking or
uninformed.

Could be. Pretty much like those who are hoodwinked into believing the
networks are unbiased.

Alan Colms? Have you taken a look at that program? Hannity
has the last word, Colms barly holds his own. Also, look at the two
people. Hannity is a sharp dresser, young, and very articulate. Colms
is a squirrelly looking geekazoid. Also, he's pretty timid and rarely
contradics Hannity.

Don't sell Alan Colms short. He had his own liberal talk show for many
years. It was successful and he was probably the only real voice of the
left on radio during that period. Yes, it is Hannity's show, and Colms is
the voice of dissent, but he holds his own, IMO.


Well, give us some examples? Have they been that way thoughout their
publishing history or just during the last few years?

For many, many years. I recall NY TIMES editorials lambasting Reagan during
his terms of office. As I said, it's probably the most left-leaning media
outlet today. And I suspect their editors would acknowledge that as well.

I suppose you
think the Wash. Post was left-leaning because they broke the Watergate
story?

The WASHINGTON POST is probably closer to center than most mega papers
today. Woodward and Bernstein were two excellent reporters. They unearthed
a scandal, did the footwork, and exposed a corrupt political
organization--the Committee to Re-elect the President. That hardly makes
them leftists.


Which far left assessment is that? There are plenty of far left
publishing entities. The NY Times isn't one of them.

LOL again.

LOL. You're a right-wing wacko, so I guess you aren't interested in
any kind of intelligent discussion.

Actually I resent being called a right-wing wacko. I dispassionately
present my viewpoint, and you resort to name-calling. Yes, I'm
conservative, and I support conservative agendas IN MOST CASES, but not all.
That hardly makes me a wacko. Is anyone who is conservative and disagrees
with your viewpoint a wacko? If so, why?

If find it interesting that the right-wing wackos are only interested
in the politics of person destruction (a Clinton description), rather
than an objective examination of the issues. It's really easy to bash
Kerry and Bush, but to actually discuss the issues is beyond you.

I challenge you to do a Google search and re-read my posts. I've done less
Kerry-bashing than most others. And I've bashed him less than you've bashed
Bush, by far. I've presented reasons why I think Kerry would make a very
poor president. That's not bashing, but rather a viewpoint. But you've
bashed Bush with every post. In fact, I think this is the first time you've
not referred to him as "Bu****." Pot calling kettle black, Jon.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:29:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as
extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

Umm...I don't think so. As I indicated before, the Times is about as far
to
the left as Fox is to the right. There are plenty of sources further to
either side.

I'll probably have to take your word for that. I suspect you read the TIMES
far more than I do. But when I get an opportunity to read it--I pick it up
at Barnes & Noble about once a week--the editorials seem preponderantly to
the left. And the "news coverage" seems fraught with omissions of aspects
which might support conservative claims, while highlighting those supporting
the other side. Just an observation.

Max

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 16:54:35 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, name some credible, left leaning Fox "reporters" or commentators?

Dunno that they fit in the categories of reporter or commentators, but you
can pick virtually any of their several NPR or Washington Post panelists.
Colmes certainly qualifies. I gather even you find him irritating, but I
gather some eat up his regurgitation of the liberal line.

I think that's the problem! There's little or no distinction between
the two on Fox.

I don't find him as irritating as I do inconsequential and out
matched.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message


Yes, it's called fair and balanced to hoodwink the unthinking or
uninformed.

Could be. Pretty much like those who are hoodwinked into believing the
networks are unbiased.

I think they are biased, but more for money and ratings than promoting
a particular political agenda, unlike Fox which does both.

Don't sell Alan Colms short. He had his own liberal talk show for many
years. It was successful and he was probably the only real voice of the
left on radio during that period. Yes, it is Hannity's show, and Colms is
the voice of dissent, but he holds his own, IMO.

He doesn't hold his own... he's a wimp. Hannity has too big of an ego
to actually find someone to make it balanced.

For many, many years. I recall NY TIMES editorials lambasting Reagan during
his terms of office. As I said, it's probably the most left-leaning media
outlet today. And I suspect their editors would acknowledge that as well.

They also lambasted Clinton, so that argument doesn't wash.

The WASHINGTON POST is probably closer to center than most mega papers
today. Woodward and Bernstein were two excellent reporters. They unearthed
a scandal, did the footwork, and exposed a corrupt political
organization--the Committee to Re-elect the President. That hardly makes
them leftists.

Nah, if they went after a Republican, they must be left wing. Woodward
sure didn't have nice things to say about Bush in his latest book.

Actually I resent being called a right-wing wacko. I dispassionately
present my viewpoint, and you resort to name-calling. Yes, I'm
conservative, and I support conservative agendas IN MOST CASES, but not all.
That hardly makes me a wacko. Is anyone who is conservative and disagrees
with your viewpoint a wacko? If so, why?

BS. You're unwilling to even entertain the notion that Bush could
possibly be wrong about anything.

Not at all, to answer your question. I have lots of conservative
friends, even some who are anti-abortion advocates in all cases. We
just stay away from the topics we know will never lead to agreement.

I challenge you to do a Google search and re-read my posts. I've done less
Kerry-bashing than most others. And I've bashed him less than you've bashed
Bush, by far. I've presented reasons why I think Kerry would make a very
poor president. That's not bashing, but rather a viewpoint. But you've
bashed Bush with every post. In fact, I think this is the first time you've
not referred to him as "Bu****." Pot calling kettle black, Jon.

Nope... not up for spending my time that way. Should I just call you a
wacko from now on and not a right wing wacko? :-)

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

BS. You're unwilling to even entertain the notion that Bush could
possibly be wrong about anything.

Your decision NOT to Google my posts prevents you from seeing that you're
wrong. But that's nothing new. However, you're unwilling to even entertain
the notion that Bush could possibly be right about some things. Or that
Kerry might be a liar and a flip-flopper. But that's hardly a reason to
label you a left-wing wacko.


Nope... not up for spending my time that way. Should I just call you a
wacko from now on and not a right wing wacko? :-)

Apparently you've given up debating me, choosing instead to engage in ad
hominem charges. Have it your way.

Max