"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