irateplatypus

Fox News is powerful. It's no secret they approach the news differently than any other major TV network. It's no secret that that approach is more conservative than the rest of the major media's. It's no secret they're the most popular, most watched, highest profile, most scrutinized cable news network. Other than perhaps the New York Times, I'm not sure there is a single more influential news source in the country.

Why do you think this is? Bashing Fox News is a matter of course for many posters and is accepted by many more. But, as evidenced by their popularity, their reporting and analysis has a HUGE following among the American public. If Fox News does in fact garner the biggest television audience for political commentary... does that discount it from being an extreme-right news organization as some love to proclaim? That is to say...

1. If we define mainstream as a general trend followed by a large segment of the population.

2. Realize that Fox News often has the biggest audience for it's type of news source (which is a dominant genre of news reporting)

can we conclude that Fox News is now mainstream? If so... then if a person's views are radically different than Fox News, does that make them the extremist (because they would radically differ from the mainstream.)?

No matter your thoughts or response to this, you must concede that Fox News is has brought about a dramatic shift in the way television news is covered. In it's decade or so of existence it has made quite a bit of headway into the public's consciousness.

__________________
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

phyzix525

people enjoy watching the truth for a change.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

filtherton

heh.

You know what else is really popular? Survivor. Millionaire. The Simple Life. Americans will take drama over substance any day. Hey look, i figured out the recipe for fox news: drama over substance. Wowsers.

phyzix525

the demographics are entirely different, but nice try.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Zeld2.0

The truth hmm.. oh.. wow.. or spin you agree with?

It would be the same for everyone.

Mephisto2

Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just trying to provoke debate?


Mr Mephisto

filtherton

You did little to counter my assertion that american's value drama, or maybe i should have said entertainment, over substance. Nice try yourself, especially your attempt to characterize any cable news channel, let alone fox, as the truth.

Zeld2.0

Actually, its more like - people enjoy watching what they believe is the truth, and what they agree with.

Because honestly, who enjoys watching news about stuff they don't agree with?

irateplatypus

EXACTLY. I think that has a lot of truth to it across the board.

So... If Fox News has the biggest viewing audience, then doesn't that indicate that a large swath of the population agrees with their analysis?

If so, can we please put to rest the notion that FoxNews is an extremist organization and recognize it as a mainstream news outlet?

__________________
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

Zeld2.0

Well on the fliipside, if you combined the outlets that are considered "liberal" they would be nearly 50/50 - a bit like the nation is where about half is split one way or the other

OpieCunningham

Yes. And as a previous poster pointed out - large swaths of the population find American Idol to be entertaining, and Britney Spears music to be good enough to purchase and eats at McDonalds regularly. Popularity does not infer quality, truth, accuracy, positivity, etc.

FoxNews is like Coke or Pepsi ... damn sure tastes good, but if you watch too much you'll rot your brain.

As soon as we put to rest the notion that Liberalism is an extremist viewpoint.

Though truthfully - I have never considered Fox News to be extremist, so to present that as the argument is a strawman. Fox News is Republican. A large portion of the country is Republican. There is nothing extremist about it.

However, simply by virtue of being Republican it is therefore not representative of anything objectively described as "The Center". If you mean to imply that "mainstream" means it is centric, I would assuredly disagree.

Locobot

I don't personally know anyone who watches Fox news for any other reason than to belittle it. There must be people who watch it for unironic reasons though. I guess that people who watch to disparage it are still contributing to the ratings and have their knowledge framed by what Fox decides to cover or ignore (e.g. the oil-for-food "scandal" with Chalabi as the primary source). Even if you disagree with a story you're still allowing Fox to decide what you're getting angry about.

I see Fox news as having two main factors that appeal to their core audience.
1. the "whoosh" effect: the snazzy graphics, fast-paced programs, and in-your-face commentary. This has already been copied by Al Jazeera and, to some extent, CNN. I can see how this makes news appeal to a larger audience, but overall it detracts from the network's duty to provide information and news.
2. The politics of outrage. Fox's stories and commentaries are designed to invoke anger over perceived injustice or hypocrisy. Viewers get no other emotion from Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity besides anger. If the outrage infects, then it automatically endears the viewer to the commentator. Again this serves to build an audience, but it doesn't forward the cause of distributing the news.

irateplatypus: you misuse the words "mainstream" and "extremist" they aren't necessarily antonyms. Just because something is the most popular doesn't make it THE singular mainstream. NYTimes, USA Today, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox are all mainstream news sources, and yet any one of those could espouse an extremist view. Of course in a world where news sources were actually evaluated on their news content they wouldn't remain mainstream for long. We don't live in that world.

irateplatypus

if i were having this discussion with you alone opie i'm sure this would've taken a slightly different tack. because it doesn't apply to you perfectly doesn't make it a strawman.

i think it's unfair to draw so many parallels from pop culture to news organizations. they aren't completely distinct enterprises, but they are certainly held to different standards of accuracy and content. of course a large following doesn't necessitate truthful reality in pop culture, but i think it does have a more strict adherence among news outlets.

when talking about the merits of different news organizations, i think we lose sight of the fact that political neutrality doesn't guarantee truthful reporting. if we believe that one viewpoint has a more effective way of achieving a goal... then it stands to reason that one political party may have a majority of the most effective policies on its platform at a certain point in time. thus, editorial partiality could be given to one side of the debate while still remaing completely honest and effective in shedding light on current issues.

of course we all have different viewpoints on what the most effective course of action is and the most effective method is seldom proven empirically. i'm just pointing out that leaning right or left doesn't preclude an news outlet from promoting, in an editorial sense, what is best for our democratic system.

__________________
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

nanofever

For once I agree with phyzix 525, the demographics show an entirely different story about the truth which fox news is spinning to its views.

I wish I could comment more on fox news, but I try to get the majority of my news from either the WSJ/NYT, CNN or PBS; you know, groups which have a significant stockpile of credibility and a history of accurate reporting. I didn't say 'unbiased" because both the WSJ and NYT have a significant bias, but at least they have the journalistic intregrity to report an accurate story before adding the spin.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

hannukah harry

to watch it doesn't mean to agree with it. for the most part, they are the only "visibly" conservative news out there. the entire fox news channel caters to them. news and commentary that leans more towards nuetral and the left can be seen elsewhere, on many different stations... as i beleive zeld mentioned, if you add up the viewers on both sides, you'd probalby find it 50/50. it's also possible that fox has more viewers because a)the older you are, the more conservative you get and older people (as a generalization) watch tv for things other than just entertainment and b)younger more liberal people don't watch much that involves the news/politics outside of the daily show (as a generaliztion). looking at the demographics of the views could tell us a lot.

i don't know what fox's ratings are like, but lets say they average 25 million viewers a night. that's ~10% of the nations population. it's concievable that 95% of the people watching are older conservatives watching it to back up their beliefs and keep up with the evolving dogma of the right, while the other 5% watch it to ridicule it.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

irateplatypus

given the size of Fox's audience, perhaps that should tell you something about the circle of people you converse with?

i don't understand the connection between these two sentences. just because one outlet is popular enough to be called "mainstream" doesn't mean that it is the only outlet with that designation. did you think anyone was trying to convince you of that? i can't find where you interpret that from any of the posts in the thread. the debate isn't whether FoxNews is the sole occupant of the mainstream category, it is whether or not it is deserving of that label (and i believe that it is). furthermore, if it is deserving of that label, why do so many posters automatically discount FoxNews as an extreme right news organization when their audience clearly reaches far beyond that demographic?

__________________
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

OpieCunningham

I don't think it is unfair to draw parallels with pop culture. A more accurate description of cable news channels would be Infotainment. They are neither one nor the other but contain elements of both. The OJ trial and all the analysis of it is an excellent example - it is news, and it is entertainment.

As for a more strict adherence to truth - there are regulations concerning truth in advertising. I know of no such regulations concerning truth in news reporting. FoxNews may claim some connection to some type of journalistic integrity, but that certainly does not mean they actually have any journalistic integrity. I can claim I'm richer than Bill Gates ... but alas that does nothing to make it so.

I agree. We're should not be looking for political neutrality within a news organization. We're looking for objectivity - that is, the distinction between what is real and what is not. That something is mainstream does absolutely nothing to increase objectivity. A good example of this political neutrality within news outlets is the Swift Boat Vets phenomenon. On one side you have a handful of Republicans making what turned out to be essentially baseless claims. On the other you have facts presented by people more familiar with the events and numerous official reports from the Navy. How did most cable news outlets handle it? They presented it as two equally valid viewpoints - political neutrality. It took over a week for the solid facts to come out that the SBVT opinions had nothing even close to the evidence of factual support. But at that point, hundreds of hours had already been spent giving atleast equal weight to the story, if not more in favor of the SBVT.

FoxNews was one of the primary purveyors of this non-fact as equal to fact blast of information.

That FoxNews has decided to market to Republicans is a disservice to the attempted objectivity of news outlets everywhere. Although the objectivity of the news theoretically may not suffer by purveying one side of the issues, the practicality is that it will. Republican policies are not always the "correct" policy - but FoxNews has placed themselves in a situation where regardless of what may or may not be the correct policy, they will present the Republican view as the correct policy. Pure objectivity is purely non-partisan. FoxNews cannot expect to be viewed as striving to obtain pure objectivity if it is unabashedly partisan.

irateplatypus

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

OpieCunningham

I'm sorry you feel I'm being unrealistic. I'd have to question how you have determined what is and what is not "realistic" to describe me as failing to achieve it. I suspect it is rather subjective - but you clearly don't hold that belief. Which may very well be why we will never agree in this discussion.

I can't say I'm suprised that you would take the SBVT aspect I brought up and run with it. But you missed the point.

The SBVT became a huge story everywhere without any factual credibility not because FoxNews is Republican (although that assuredly was one reason they ran so far with it) - rather, it is controversial. Controversy is what the media thrives on. All of it. They claim objectivity or the desire to attain it, but they pay the bills with controversy.

As for FoxNews always representing the Republicans - they have placed themself in the situation that _almost_ all of their perspective is indentical to that of the Republican position. Some of it may not be, but do you honestly believe someone sits down and watches FoxNews and categorizes what is and what is not a Republican position? As for the millions of people that watch it - I believe almost all of them specifically DO watch it because it reflects the Republican position. It is the perspective they WANT to hear. They WANT to hear that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. They WANT to hear that Partial Birth Abortions are never medically necessary. They WANT to hear that Bush's tax cuts helped the economy. They're no longer trying to determine if any of it is true - they are simply looking for validation of their preconceived notions of what is true. And FoxNews provides it while insisting it is the unquestionable truth.

Tophat665

This is a cogent argument, but it fails on the major flaw of democracy: 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. Of course they can. The person who is right constitutes a majority. The people who believe Fox do not.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

tecoyah

In my opinion....Fox and its contemporaries are more of a buisiness, than a news orginization, which is fine when taken in context. The problems arise when the need to run a story first, and make it dramatic enough to keep the audience enthralled, outweighs the traditional intent of news....accuracy. Personally I use the BBC and NPR simply because neither has a history of incorrect reporting, or left/right leaning to the extreme. I feel I am smart enough to "Add my own spin" to the news, as we all do. But I would hate to base my opinions on information that proves to be false.....simply because I wanted to be the first on my block to know it.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ubertuber

I think that anyone who believes that ANY news organization is something other than a business first is kidding themselves. One way you can tell: if your favorite news organization suddenly stopped making money, would they still be here? If the answer to that question is no, then you should realize that they are all tailoring their approaches to keep making money.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

maximusveritas

When you say Fox News is the most popular, most watched cable news network, you're only talking about around 2-3 million people watching on average on a given day. This is less than one percent of the total population of the United States.

Also, I believe the numbers show that while Fox News has more viewers at any given time, CNN draws more unique viewers over a given day. This is because Fox has more dedicated viewers who will watch the channel all day. CNN, on the other hand, brings in a number of people who will only watch for a few minutes to get caught up on the news before changing the channel.

Seaver

[/QUOTE]Also, I believe the numbers show that while Fox News has more viewers at any given time, CNN draws more unique viewers over a given day. This is because Fox has more dedicated viewers who will watch the channel all day. CNN, on the other hand, brings in a number of people who will only watch for a few minutes to get caught up on the news before changing the channel.[QUOTE]

There is absolutely no way to verify this.

roachboy

fox is a joke, a tabloid medium, a pseudo-news outlet. i am not surprised that conservatives like it--since they cannot make their arguments fit the world, it is easier to watch a version of the world that is twisted around their arguments. it is a kind of long-term circle jerk with pictures.

what differentiates fox from other outlets is the singleness of their viewpoint. of course, the right likes to whine about a range of opinion and try to categorize even that as "extremism"--which i find both funny logically and sad empirically, to the extent that the claim has any validity attribute to it at all.

fox news then is a symptom of the wraparound media space the right has made to shelter its demographic from any unpleasant traces of opposing opinions.

good job, mr. murdoch---first you help your neocon cause by trying to evacuate the space for reasonable discussion across political positions by a wholesale conflation of ideology and image, and then you compound it by playing off the self-reinforcing nature of conservative pseudo-argumentation. quite a service you provide.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

seretogis

The concept of a conservative media has been done to death. There has been no evidence put forth to convince me that Fox News is anything other than an extension of the Democratic Party's propaganda machine.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

wnker85

CNN is a joke, a tabloid medium, a pseudo-news outlet. i am not surprised that Liberals like it--since they cannot make their arguments fit the world, it is easier to watch a version of the world that is twisted around their arguments. it is a kind of long-term circle jerk with pictures.

what differentiates CNN from other outlets is the singleness of their viewpoint. of course, the left likes to whine about a range of opinion and try to categorize even that as "extremism"--which i find both funny logically and sad empirically, to the extent that the claim has any validity attribute to it at all.

CNN then is a symptom of the wraparound media space the left has made to shelter its demographic from any unpleasant traces of opposing opinions.

good job, mr. Turner---first you help your neocon cause by trying to evacuate the space for reasonable discussion across political positions by a wholesale conflation of ideology and image, and then you compound it by playing off the self-reinforcing nature of conservative pseudo-argumentation. quite a service you provide.


My point is that both sides have their outlets. And before you damn one or the other both have their leanings. FOX is more right, CNN and most of the others lean to the left. Thats the fact. And those of the left get mad about Fox, those on the Right have been getting mad at CNN cause of its leftist veiws. Only way to get the middle or close to it would be to watch both and way it out. Not to watch one just to see how "screwed up" their reporting is

OpieCunningham

If your point is that FoxNews informs their viewers of information that leads them to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that CNN (and most of the others) does not inform their viewers of this information, and therefore both stations should be given equality in potential accuracy - I would point out that the beliefs of the viewers of FoxNews is categorically wrong in this instence.

However, if you're describing a Right movement which views CNN (and most of the others) as Left-leaning ... please provide some evidence that this is an accurate analysis of the position of CNN (and most of the others) as opposed to evidence that the Right has drifted further from the center, thereby making the center itself appear to be to the Left. In effect, a nice means of pulling everyone to the right by shifting the supposed Center.

roachboy

seretogis: what possible political position do you work from? one of a partiot party of some type? or are they too far to the left for you? seriously..and what evidence are you looking for--i could post a mountain of it here if there was any chance that you would look at it....is there? or are you sure of your opinion wiuthout having to bother with data?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

wnker: clever but totally unconvincing. try a real argument. show some data--i'll reciprocate--back up your position with something, anything--reed irvine does not count as data, however.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irateplatypus

roachboy, i'm pretty sure seretogis was joking.

__________________
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

dy156

No, I don't think Fox is fair or balanced. However, I for one am glad Fox news is there, because it helps me to learn the news.

Anytime there is a major story breaking, I watch CNN or MSNBC, and then FoX news, and then switch back and forth. I' even used to check out the al-jazeera website during the war too, just for kicks. (Don't tell anyone) They all put their spin on it, and we all know it, or at least should. I think you need to see both sides in order to really become well informed. Those that just get their information from fox, or just get their information from the other news stations will have a markedly different view of the politics affecting global events than those that just get their information from the other side. Before FoxNews, there was no one reporting the news with a conservative spin on things to counterbalance the other major news networks' severe liberal spin, other than AM talk radio.
Maybe this is sort of a backhanded support of Fox, but like I said, everyone needs to hear both sides, and before Foxnews, many Americans were not.

wnker85

I’m sorry I was making a generalization. I grew up with parents that used to listen to Rush, and they didn’t like CNN cause of its views. I see that both sides have moved further towards the poles. That would be a better way to state my point. With both of these Networks out there the extremes get shown. IMHO Fox news seems to talk about the claims that the swifties are making while CNN seems to talk about why Bush won’t put an end to the commercials. Those on the rights like that to show Kerry lied and lefts like to show that bush dodged. That’s not what I care about so by watching both I can think for myself. Such as Kerry says he would have fought Iraq differently, but that’s all I’ve heard. I would like to hear how he would have liked to have done it; not to hear him mention it and then drop it. I want to know what he is going to do if he is in charge. We know what Bush is going to do he’s been doing it. Sorry I’ve gotten off my point. But this is the only thing that comes to mind right now. Clinton was a dodger, he didn’t serve anywhere. That wasn’t an issue eight years on CNN (while it was on AM radio) ago against Bush who served and four years ago against Dole who served. Now it’s an issue that W was in the National Guard and not in the rice patties. That’s what I see CNN talking about now. While, Fox seems to cover more of what is happening after Kerry got out of the war with the throwing of his medals and his voting record.

OpieCunningham

I wouldn't call that backhanded support - I would call it very strong support.

I hear it repeated often that FoxNews presents a side that was not heard before and therefore FoxNews is good for general political discourse. Assuredly FoxNews presents a side that was not heard before - but if there was a TV station which presented the almost exclusive view of Nazism or Wahhabism, the same could be said.

That FoxNews has a specific viewpoint does not make that viewpoint valuable, nor does it make that viewpoint the necessary obverse of most other media.

Ustwo

Don't make us invoke Goodwins law

While I've seen liberals malign fox news since its inception what I've never seen is an outline of how it was biased and or slanted in such a horrible way. Fox has a number of conservative commentators, we all know that, but no more so then CNN has liberal ones. When the gulf war II was going on, turning on CNN or the BBC gave the impression that we were losing, only Fox and Sky News (the Fox of the UK) seemed to be reporting it correctly.

Now I am not a fan of any cable news, and Fox gets REALLY annoying when they just focus on the latest story for hours with no new information, just report after report saying the same damn thing, but I've never caught them in a falsehood, unlike say CNN.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

OpieCunningham

Goodwins second law (also known as OpieCunningham's law) is that regardless of context, if someone mentions the term "Nazi" or "Hitler" the next poster will denounce the post which contained it, regardless of context.

The ideal method of distorting the truth and continuing to distort the truth is to not flat out lie, but to deceive. Leave out facts to present other facts in a different and deceptive light.

MSD

I suppose I should've expected to hear that.

Calm down, chill out, he just took something I said in another thread and threw it right back at me with the opinion switched. The winking smiley was a clue to that.



As for the reason there are so many viewers, it's the only station whose talking heads have personalities.

Ustwo

And this is EXACTLY what we conservatives have been calling to attention from the 'liberal press'. I don't think anyone who has really looked at how stories, head lines, and op-eds are written can call the NYT's or LA Times anything but liberal. The same goes for several on air personalities such as Dan Rather. If anyone has a problem with Fox news but not the others then it only shows their own bias.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

OpieCunningham

Keep drifting further away from the Center and it looks a lot like the Center is biased in the other direction, doesn't it?

Ustwo

Ideally the press shouldn't be right, left, or center. What you are really saying is 'I agree with the left leaning press, I think I'm the center, therefore they are the center.' EVEN if the country became a left wing majority, and the press echoed said majority it would not make it good reporting. It would be just as biased as it currently can be.

The only thing that has the left really upset is that for the last few decades they got away with having a constant friend in the a left wing press as there were no other outlets. Now they have been exposed (and the 2000 election REALLY showed the bias) and they are not getting away with the kind of crap they used to.

Again I'm sorry you don't LIKE it, but if you think a press core which in 2000 we surveyed and voted over 80% for Gore would not have some bias in it I have a organicly produced, non- sweatshop labor bridge to sell you.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.