|
opie,
you're clearly being unrealistic about what foxnews coverage actually is. without sounding snobbish, it's silly to continue the discussion with the premises your based your last post on because we'll never find common ground.
SBVT - true, FoxNews did provide more coverage of their cause than did competing channels. but, you dismiss this as right-wing pandering on the grounds that their cause is based solely on falsehoods. this has NOT been proven the case. the Kerry account of his service has been revised on several accounts because of their involvement. do you think that it has been such a big issue based completely on easily discredited lies? will you not give your fellow citizen enough credit to concede that it isn't as cut and dry as you'd like? it may not be enough to sway your vote, but to portray them (and those who cover the issue in a way that doesn't automatically dismiss them) as irrelevant to honest public discourse is to be in error. inconsistencies pointed out by swiftvets isn't my interpretation, that is public record. i hate to continue to discussing swiftvets in fears that it will take over the thread. hopefully it won't spiral out of control.
Secondly, the notion that FoxNews will always present the Republicans in the right is false also. that just isn't true. do you not think that the majority of the population could see through that if it were so? how can you assume that the millions of people who trust foxnews would be so oblivious to something that seems to obvious to you? Perhaps you were being hyperbolic, but it wasn't apparent enough to keep from damaging your argument in my estimation.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|