On 16 Mar 2005 09:02:57 -0800, wrote:

If you don't watch a channel that shows both sides, how do you ever see
the
other side?

*************

I don't learn about comparable values by "watching a channel".

If I wanted to watch programming that showed both sides, I wouldn't
waste my time with Faux News.

So you waste your time with a channel (s) that make *no* attempt to present the
full picture. I'm not talking about pundits. I'm talking about the news.

If all the Democrats who've appeared on Fox have been only moderate to poor
(your words) speakers, then who are the good speakers? Hell, Byrd was on the
other night! McCauley (sp?) has been on dozens of times, and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al Sharpton
numerous times).

Is it just easier to complain and make up stories?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al
Sharpton
numerous times).

**********

Bingo!

Al Sharpton is an extremist. The fact that you sincerely believe he
accurately represents the "liberal side" shows how well the strategy
works.

On 16 Mar 2005 18:09:12 -0800, wrote:

and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al
Sharpton
numerous times).

**********

Bingo!

Al Sharpton is an extremist. The fact that you sincerely believe he
accurately represents the "liberal side" shows how well the strategy
works.

Where did I say I 'sincerely' believe *anything* about Al Sharpton? He is one of
many. Besides, what's wrong with having an extremist liberal on the show? Isn't
Kennedy an extremist? What about Reid?

Listen to what you're implying, "Fox news is biased to the right because those
representing the liberal point of view are extremists (or poor speakers)."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."