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.

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

"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

Capt. JG wrote:
"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.



Indeed, from what I saw, it was the same old Carl Rove/Republican
tactics, truth doesn't matter, simply claim your opponent said something
and lambaste them for having said it, at the same time ignore your own
sordid record. "Swiftboating", the GOP can go to bed proud with the
knowledge that they have added a new verb to the English language. I
used to find it difficult to believe that the American electorate keeps
swallowing this crap; as I get older I am realizing that there are deep
seated prejudices still rife in your country that no amount of reasoning
will dispel.

Was Shaw, or Churchill who made the comment about the US being to only
country in moder history to pass straight from infancy to senility by
bypassing any form of adulthood and maturity?

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"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.



Indeed, from what I saw, it was the same old Carl Rove/Republican tactics,
truth doesn't matter, simply claim your opponent said something and
lambaste them for having said it, at the same time ignore your own sordid
record. "Swiftboating", the GOP can go to bed proud with the knowledge
that they have added a new verb to the English language. I used to find it
difficult to believe that the American electorate keeps swallowing this
crap; as I get older I am realizing that there are deep seated prejudices
still rife in your country that no amount of reasoning will dispel.

Was Shaw, or Churchill who made the comment about the US being to only
country in moder history to pass straight from infancy to senility by
bypassing any form of adulthood and maturity?

Cheers
Marty

Go out and meet Americans instead of relying on whatever appears in the
media. Take the Americans in this newsgroup for instance. It's only a very
few that are spewing silly bias, acting like children and getting all worked
up to the point of distraction. The rest are quiet, you don't hear anything.
If "none of the above" appeared on the ballot you would then hear the real
voice of America. What kind of people become politicians? What kind of
person believes politicians act for the common good? The media makes money
from sensational stories, they have been responsible for starting wars
(Yellow journalism). So if you examine only what is dripping from the rectum
of American society of course you'll conclude it stinks. But the ass is not
the whole.

Charles Momsen wrote:
What kind of people become politicians? What kind of
person believes politicians act for the common good? The media makes money
from sensational stories, they have been responsible for starting wars
(Yellow journalism). So if you examine only what is dripping from the rectum
of American society of course you'll conclude it stinks. But the ass is not
the whole.


Excellent point! Sometimes one looses perspective. Apologies to the sane
among us.

Cheers
Marty