Comments on: SHRINKING SCANDALS

By: Cam

Cam — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

At least I got "interesting" instead of "not so much". :)

By: dondo

dondo — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

If we have such a liberal media... why is this the case?

If you believe in Occam's Razor (and I do) the answer is simple: there's really nothing scandalous at all about the Bush administration.

As do I. So which is simpler -- that there's really nothing scandalous, or that the media really isn't liberal?

The data offered supports either conclusion equally.

Interesting.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Cam should have written "liberal news media" -- that way the data offered would support only one conclusion.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

The fact the media is liberal really is no longer up for debate. It has been well documented both anecdotally and numerically.

But that does not matter to this discussion.

The media is downright hostile to the Bush administration repeatedly. (don't make me make you a laundry list ;-) If they thought they had something on him they would go for the kill.

How many times have we heard some goofy pundit say "Oh- This is much bigger than Watergate" about a 3 day story?

The fact these scandals evaporate speaks volumes about their credibility in the first place.

By: RicK DeMent

RicK DeMent — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

The fact the media is liberal really is no longer up for debate. It has been well documented both anecdotally and numerically.

Well looks like they have you snowed. Don't read much do you?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

No Rick, that's the problem. I do.

By: Cam

Cam — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

You're right McGehee... liberal "news" media would have been much more accurate. Then again, I might not have 30 some odd comments in my original thread. :)

---