They are partisan hacks, and have no credibility with respect to truth or facts, and exist only to provide cover and a sense of legitimacy to the lies and distortions of the liberal press. Their attitude was basically, so what if the memo’s can’t be proven to be true, so what if they should never have been aired, that doesn’t alter the “fact” that Bush did yada yada yada. But seeing as how liberals like Bob continually run to them to learn what to think and believe, it appears that Soros’ cash is being well spent, it’s a Goebbels-like propaganda machine of the first order. They were just spinning the same lies and BS that Rather was only in a different format, they had no interest in truth or the dishonest and disgusting attempt to use forgeries to discredit a sitting President and throw an election to his opponent. Apparently that’s fine with Goebbels-Lite Media Matters if it supports the cause, end justifies the means and all that.

Besides coming from Arkansas, and having the last name Clinton, what qualifications did Hillary have for the Arkansas Senate seat?

Wait, she didn’t run for the Arkansas seat, she ran for the New York Senate seat.

Besides having the last name Clinton?

Item 1: Drudge, Ware. Drudge isn’t MSM. This isn’t even pertinent to the topic.

Item 2: Malveaux. What’s your point? That the question wasn’t hostile enough? Did you happen to go through the transcript? I thought not…

Item 3: Kurtz. Try learning something about the people you’re writing about. Kurtz is the media reporter for the WaPo. His job is to report on what the MEDIA are doing. In this case, he’s simply stating that the Clintons have made such a circus of their marriage, or lack of same, that it’s difficult for the mediots to see much else.

Item 4: Savage. Also not MSM, and therefore also not germane to the topic.

I repeat my challenge from before, although clearly you’ve no stomach for accepting any sort of challenge. Show me the article from any MSM outlet reporting on a Hillary speech on any topic – Iraq, for example – that goes off-topic to insert a slur on her based on her joke of a marriage. When you do, you might be able to make a case that the MSM is at least as hard on her as they are on Gingrich.

In other words, Bob, putting, let’s say, JC Watts on for three minutes followed by 15 minutes of non-stop liberal tirades is NOT balance, and it certainly isn’t proof of a conservative bias, no matter what MediaMatters says.

And at this point, I’m no longer going to try to get a response from you about the MSM denizens such as Thomas who acknowledge the liberal slant. You’ve swung and missed at that one three times, so I’ll just take it that you concede he’s correct.

Nice try. BTW, learn to use a caps key. Only e.e.cummings can get away with that without looking like a self obsessed twit.

Don’t give me Media Matters as a source, either. MM is a well-known leftists outfit. For every example you can give me from MM, I can more than match with examples from, for example, Media Research Center.

NYT vs. Fox isn’t a valid comparison either. You want to say CNN vs. Fox, that’s better….although I’ve yet to see CNN put a conservative on in prime time.

So there’s really nothing you can cite from the right as a counterbalance to NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Minneapolis Strib, Seattle PI, Philly Inquirer…and the list goes on and on.

You want to cite conservative talk radio as a counterweight? Actually, it’s a reaction to the liberal bias on all other media – conservatives gravitate there because everything else skews so far left – but if you persist, I’ll point you to Oprah, the View, Today, and the rest of the left-wing pabulum that runs through daytime TV. And that’s not even taking into account the Schieffer/Russert/Stephanopoulos liberal monopoly on the Sunday morning gabfests.

But enough of the scorecard. Let’s get down to actual specific cases. I notice that twice you’ve danced around the Evan Thomas quote. I take it you have no response to a candid admission by an MSM insider that the bias exists?

If you think there’s no leftist bias, explain why the Washington and NY press corps voted 90% for Clinton – about twice what the nation did.

If you think there’s no leftist bias, show me the example of a Rathergate from the right – a dishonest attempt by an MSM star to influence an election using falsified documents.

If you think there’s no leftist bias, show me the Photoshopped pictures produced to make Hezbollah look savage, as happened to Israel last year.

If there’s no leftist bias, stop avoiding questions like the one I posted above about the AP hit piece on Gingrich.

If you can demonstrate anything similar, I’ll agree you have a point. If you can’t – well, then, the ostrich analogy remains relevant.

Drudge, Ware

UPDATE: CNN’s Ware flatly denies report that he “heckled” McCain, but right-wing media flog it anyway
On April 1, Matt Drudge posted an “exclusive” alert, claiming that CNN’s Michael Ware, during a press conference in Baghdad, “heckled” Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Drudge’s only source for this “exclusive” was an anonymous “official at the press conference” who claimed that Ware was “laughing and mocking their comments.” Drudge and others have promoted the anonymous claim despite Ware’s flat denial: “I did not heckle the senator. Indeed, I didn’t say a word, I didn’t even ask a question.”

Drudge takes down the link and story with no comment after video of the press conference show Ware sitting quietly and not even asking a question.

liberal bias, ayup….

CNN’s Malveaux parroted White House criticism of Pelosi’s Syria visit, but ignored GOP-led trip
During an interview with former Ambassador John Bolton on CNN’s The Situation Room, Suzanne Malveaux noted the White House’s denunciations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her scheduled trip to Syria, but did not note that a GOP-led delegation met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on April 1. Nor did Malveaux point out the White House’s inconsistency in criticizing Pelosi for her trip while remaining silent on the GOP-led visit

That liberal biased Washingto post again….

Wash. Post’s Kurtz: “Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation”

Discussing coverage of the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in his April 2 Media Notes column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted, “Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation.” Kurtz gave no indication whether he thinks the public is well served by the media’s fixation on Clinton’s marriage to former President Bill Clinton.

Savage “agree[d] 100 percent” with caller who said that gay rabbis would likely “rap[e] teenage boys”

On the March 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage stated that he “agree[d] 100 percent” with a caller who said: “I’m very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests.” The caller added, “[T]hey were raping teenage boys, and if you allow them to come into your churches, I’m sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they’re not going to do the same thing.” Savage responded: “The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: ‘Rabbi’ means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew,” adding, “I’m not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They’re everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what’s right and what’s wrong. And that’s all there is to it.”

Just a few examples of the liberal bias spread across the msm.

I think that the msm has bias solely towards selling ads and making money. Painting it as liberal bias or conservative bias is simplistic and ignoring the complexities of how the news arrives to you. The main stream press’ publishers are solidly in the conservative camp. Though old style republican and not neocon with the exception Murdoch. I will agree that many line reporters are liberal but it is editors and the publishers who decide on how a story is played out and which ones make the cut.

I know you won’t like to do this, but spend a half an hour on http://mediamatters.org/ and see reports of how the mainstream press edits the truth by omission and obsfucation. these are facts, hard and true. If you do take the moments to look it over you will undoubtedly say, Why aren’t they showing any instances of msm media commentators biasing a story to aid the leftwing pov? Well because it’s not as common as the conventional wisdom and talking points says.

And yes I did read abougt DiFi in the nyt. It’s an important story but not as immediate a page turner as the ongoing Iraq war, walter reed, the AG fighting for his political life and anna nicole’s autopsy. heh.

We could sit here all month and compare writer/pundit against writer pundit and both be right.

NTY — Fox news

Washington post — wall street journal

savage/hannity/O’Reilly/beck/limbaugh/coulter/malkin/ — ed shultz/stephanie Miller/mike Maloy?? you guys win that one. Radio is a different can of worms. And one could convincingly argue that it is more important than print media these days.

A generation ago we had more left bias in the press — witness the Watergate investigation, wholly pushed by the Wash post. Something that required months of research and a paper dedicated to investing the time and resources. Not gonna happen in this era of a one to two week news cycle. now ti’s too often a shout-fest and attempts by both sides to blur the vision mesaging in their favor.

I have to go, commute time (yeah, a liberal with a job!!). I know you won’t agree with most of this, but I don’t believe I’m an ostrich simply because I have come to different conclusions than you have. I can tell you’ve though through your points and are using logic and critical thinking. We just will probably always end up differing.

There seem to be two issues here. On the DiFi point, I have no disagreement with you. Corrupt politicians should go, regardless of party or political alignment.
However, I don’t recall using any equivalence argument, and I’m curious about exactly what you’re referring to with “your own leader’s indiscretions”. If you’ve got some proof that Bush is involved in some kind of corruption (and by the way, he’s the country’s leader, not “ours”), by all means let’s hear it. But I’d be very surprised if you do, as if it were the MSM would be all over it day and night.

Which leads directly to the second issue – your unwillingness to see the MSM as hopelessly slanted to the left. So you say you saw the story all over the MSM. Before, or after, the blogosphere lit up with it? Was it on page 1 on the NYT or page B12? How many days will this be headlining? Did they identify her party or not? Did the papers follow up with editorials calling for her to resign? If it’s a Republican, especially a conservative, you can bet the answers will be before, page1, at least two weeks, yes, and yes. The mere presence of a report somewhere in the MSM doesn’t negate the overriding bias.

I notice you didn’t care to contradict Evan Thomas. Here’s a penultimate MSM insider confirming their bias. I’m curious why you think one hour of Glenn Beck, for example, balances out the cacophony from the left that goes on the rest of the day.

And by happy coincidence, the Associated Press just provided another sterling example. Last week Newt Gingrich delivered a speech on bilinguial education and certifying English as the official language. AP chose to close the story with this line:

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Leaving aside the fact that the last part of the statement is untrue, exactly why is it in this story? It has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the speech.

When al-Gore goes off on one of his global warming rants, do you think AP will close the story with a gratuitous comment about his shady Buddhist monk fund-raising activities and “no controlling legal authority”?

When Hillary talks about Iraq, do you think AP will add a few reminders about cattle futures and Rose Law billing records?

The next time Ted Kennedy goes on the Senate floor to advocate raising taxes, how do you think AP will manage to work Chappaquiddick into their report?

You know they won’t, nor should they. The addition to the story on Newt’s speech was there for one reason – it’s a hit piece and prima facie evidence of bias.

The evidence of MSM bias is all around you, Bob, if you give up the ostrich act. Looking forward to hearing your responses, especially to the second issue.

You people are a bit hasty to paint people into a corner. I dislike DiFI a lot and will be very happy when she’s gone. That hardly makes me an extremist, leftist troll. I merely pointed out that the story that was said to be ignored by the msm was actually all over the msm. Maybe not written exactly as you might write, but believe me the rightists have plenty of space in the media, mainstream and alt. I mean, for christ’s sake, you’ve got freaking Glen Beck, a certifiable moon howler on one of the network morning shows and on CNN. that’s pretty dang mainstream if you ask me.

Back on subject:
You’re right. I’ll say it again for emphasis, “you’re right.” DiFi is a corrupt politician who needs to be removed. Has for a long time, imo. But remember what your kindergarten teachers and parents tried to teach you. 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Using “the dems are just as bad” is NOT a valid argument in defense of your own leader’s indiscretions. go ahead and attack DiFi or anyone from the left for financial chicanery, I’ll be right there with you. It’s my money too, you know! But don’t use the dems do it too as a defense for your own guys. Invalid argument that wouldn’t pass 1st year law classes, let alone 1st grade.

The answer is E. It’s Evan Thomas, Associate Managing Editor of Newsweek and no conservative by any stretch of the imagination, discussing exactly how the MSM was working for Kerry. At least he was honest enough to admit it, unlike our troll friends.

LINK

“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

a. Sister Toldjah
b. Dick Cheney
c. Karl Rove
d. Rupert Murdoch
e. None of the above (if this is your choice, tell us who did say it)
Answer will be posted by 10pm tonight, if none of you can come up with it. So go put on the tinfoil hats and search Kos for guidance.

For years, she’s been repeating the mantra of endless terrorism and war without end in lock-step with the Heritage Foundation – the neoconservative den of warmongers who call for ever increasing military spending at the detriment of investment in domestic programs.

Also, although ST to often blames the “MSM” for all the trouble the Repubs have brought upon themselves, I think she’s correct on this in pointing out that this has not received much coverage.