Really? I fail to see the proof of media bias from the Duke case that singularly makes an axiom of the adage “left wing media. All media covered the story in the same shades and those of with well calibrated tricorders saw the gianormous flaws in the case long before the courts concurred.
Long after it was solidly proven that the Duke Lacrosse case was a fraud, the mainstream papers were still clinging to their Atticus Finch (Nifong), convinced he was this somber hero fighting a racial injustice against a defenseless black woman.
The Duke case was "reminiscent of a black woman's vulnerability to a white man during the days of slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow."
Washington Post. The Duke Case's Cruel Truth. May 24, 2006; Page C01
The accuser's history of making false accusations of gang rape, the players' alibis and the prosecutor's lies were all known to The New York Times when it reported on Aug. 25, 2006, that there was "a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury...In several important areas, the full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense."
NY Times. Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers. August 25, 2006
Yes that is a problem with many humans gifted with an IQ above room temperature. They often notice that the story was a report about an actual investigation that was coming not through the National Enquirer as you have tried to erroneously claim before.
My claim was accurate. They not only reported the bs investigation, but then they posted emails trying to bolster the case...the case that went nowhere, even after three years of investigating. That makes the Enquirer a part of the accusation.
The reason for pointing out that the investigation went nowhere and was BS is that that clearly indicates that this investigation never had any substantive evidence, yet the media ran with it. Seriously, even a chattering monkey could've grasped this by now.
My challenge to you to explain how Limbaugh was set up on tape by his “dealer” after (as you claimed) she first went to the press went unanswered. For painfully obvious reasons, avoiding the tough facts does not make you a debate prodigal.
In English please...? For painfully obvious reasons, your illiterate sputtering of sentence fragments and impotent smears does not get you around the fact that this story was a farce from the beginning, yet the media coverage was like night and day to the National Enquirers reports about John Edwards' alleged affair.
Yes, it is well established that in addition to your selective dodging of “inconvenient facts” you will regurgitate the same material which left you already searching for something approaching a rationale reply. Repeats already debunked are really the sign of a true hack.
:bs More smears. It is
you who persistently refuses to address the facts.
To explain yet again, the NE only reported upon a situation already underway. Contrary to your prior assertion, which oddly you have chosen to not acknowledge or incorporate into your latest representation of specious claim. How utterly selective of you.
If I didn't include it in my latest post, that would be because it was already addressed. Repeating debunked claims is a sign of a true hack. I'll repeat it yet again. When a paper not only reports on a BS investigation, but then posts BS evidence to bolster the BS investigation, that makes them a part of the accusation.
Do you feel this serves your stance here in a positive way? Do wax eloquent if you have a theory that can explain it all away.
As opposed to sputtering out bipolar PMS rants at a 2nd grade reading level and repeatedly smearing people for only debunking your erroneous claims a handful of times? Sure. :lol:
Well there is much to be noted about your dogged hold upon the only smidgen of your original thesis. Sadly you for, even trying to reduce it all to the NE is just more losers limp. The situation has been explained numerous times to you, from posers across the political spectrum. The fallacy of your mantra utterly gutted but you still keep serving the same moldy mutton.
Translation: "Maybe if I smear him relentlessly, no one will notice that I haven't addressed his points."
I believe the “claims’ within this thread are emanating from your general direction. Maybe you can spare the time to actually reacquaint yourself with the subject matter?
Here, I will restate the facts and give you yet another opportunity to actually address them, this time
after you've had a chance to take your Midol and learn how to express your mindless hissy fits in coherent English:
1) If whether or not the allegation turns out to be true determines whether relentless media coverage is indicative of bias or warranted, then the Duke Lacrosse case alone proves the media is left-wing as hell. But Rush's "scandal" was BS anyway, as the outcome demonstrates.
2) After Limbaugh was investigated for three years over an alleged crime that virtually never gets prosecuted (illegally buying prescription painkillers for chronic back pain), persecutor, Barry E. Krischer, never produced a single crime. The case ended in a plea deal with no admission of any guilt. If this "evidence" was compelling and legitimate enough for the media to get past the fact that it was coming through a tabloid and report on as you claim, then why wasn't the prosecutor able to make anything stick?
3) The National Enquirer has zero credibility and has been sued repeatedly for making outrageously false claims on sham evidence. When the National Enquirer "harmlessly reports someone else's charges" and then produces "evidence" to support them, that in no way warrants serious media attention, any more than their reporting of allegations against John Edwards' marital fidelity. To pretend otherwise is completely intellectually dishonest.
4) This Edwards thing has all kinds of interesting twists for the media to get involved with-the now vanished documentary this woman allegedly made (supposedly the reason she was with him) that Edwards paid over $100,000 her for, the woman's web site that was shut down which mentioned nothing about any film being made, the drugs, the debt, etc. The media did not cover this because it was the National Enquirer...and because the accusation they were making was not against a Republican.
