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