PeteEU

Stop trying to derail the thread.

I see you are impossible to debate anything with. All I stated that Dan Rather either was stupid in not checking the evidence, or was trying to beat the rest of the media to the story. I dont know which it was, but I suspect the beating the rest of the media bit is probably closer to the truth than it is some sort of bias. IF the evidence had been genuine then it was very relevant and very damaging to GWB. You can not deny that, and you can not deny that IF the evidence had been genuine that it would have been a huge news story.

And yes Bush's military records or lack there off have never been investigated by any media organisation in the US in any detail and after this fiasco by Dan Rather, it was pretty much put off limits.

You are again trying to derail the discussion by insults and Euro bashing. This thread has nothing to do with Euros, or the Mafia. The intent was to gather evidence of left wing bias that you and so many others claim there is in the big main stream media.

Okay..so you give up.

How can I make that distinction since you have not provided any examples. In fact you have gone out of your way to derail the thread.

Statistics? How can you use statistics to justify bias? Are there any statistics from independent monitors showing number of republicans vs democrats being interviewed over a long period of time? If so, they would sure prove a bias to one or the other side, depending on who is in power that is.

As for polls, they dont matter jack on this subject, as they dont prove a thing other the opinion of the people making and taking the polls.

And numbers.. what numbers.. is it the UCLA thing again, that has been debunked over and over again? For peak sake the UCLA paper said that the WSJ was the most liberal newspaper in the US... how can anyone take that seriously.

First off, Newsbusters.org is not exactly the most reliable organisation on the planet and the article is badly written and sourced. Newsbusters.org has highly right wing biased, and this you can not deny.

Secondly, the case it self. He quit over that NBC would not fire or punish another analyst for "dissing" the military, an organisation that he had been a member of for a very long time.

Now if NBC had fired or punished said analyst would it not be against the principles of free speech? Could the colonel have rebuked the critic? Was it not basicly one side against another? And is that not the principle of covering both sides of the issue?

Or is it just that you do not agree with giving people who are not pro military a voice on the main stream media and that anyone that dares question the military and the commander in chief should be shot on sight?

How does this guys resignation, prove any bias at NBC? They had him, a right winger most likely, and they had a left winger.. balance no?

And you end it with another insult and with no links to clear cut left wing bias.

Now how about coming up with some examples of liberal bias?

__________________
PeteEU