T1B

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:33 pm**

So, now that we know that the La. NG found only four dead at the Superdome when can we expect to see the NYT, WaPo, et al. articles indicating that their prior articles greatly inflating the number dead were wrong?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:49 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:So, now that we know that the La. NG found only four dead at the Superdome when can we expect to see the NYT, WaPo, et al. articles indicating that their prior articles greatly inflating the number dead were wrong?

What about Fox News and their alies at the NY Post?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:09 pm**

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:29 pm**

mvscal wrote:That's good news anyway. It does illustrate the utterly degraded, debased state of what passes for modern "journalism". It's nothing but morons passing on rumors as fact.

Needless to say, the media coverage of Iraq is similarly distorted.

except, of course, for the daily bombings and the body count.....

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:51 pm**

nice finger pointing sidestep.

point being you can't deny certain facts about iraq with baseless assumptions of the party not in power

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:42 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:nice finger pointing sidestep.

Sidestep what? That explosions and dead people are part of war? Did you need a diagram to figure that out?

Word. Sadly, I think a lot of American cubicle-dwellers thought that we'd just roll in like the A-team with our shiny machine guns, shoot all over the place, nobody gets killed and the bad guys come out from behind the bush with their hands up.

Funny thing about statistics... All of the anti-war dorks point out the 1900 number as if it's so horrible, but after two years of war, I'm impressed that it's that low.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:30 am**

mvscal wrote:That's good news anyway. It does illustrate the utterly degraded, debased state of what passes for modern "journalism". It's nothing but morons passing on rumors as fact.

Yea, passing on rumors as fact is like totaly a trend of modern journalisim.

sin

The Lusitania, The Maine, Sacco, Venzetti and the marijuana scare of the 1930s

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:05 am**

If you missed the changeover from factual reporting to tabloid journalism in the early 90's, with the success of Hard Copy and other National Enquirer-type entities, that's on you.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:47 pm**

Variable wrote:If you missed the changeover from factual reporting to tabloid journalism in the early 90's, with the success of Hard Copy and other National Enquirer-type entities, that's on you.

Its just a different form of tabloid journalisim. Hard Copy and the National Enquirer aren't anything more than the New York World and New York Journal American of our times. If you don't understand the history of this country and our media, then that's on you.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:01 pm**

Divert, much, B?

I think Variable's point is excellent. People like you, Bushice, Diego, Mikey, et al ignore the shift in mainstream journalism. I wouldn't go as far as variable in labeling it only as tabloid journalism, though most local and regional news is just that. However, the major national media, e.g., NYT, WaPo, LATimes, CBS, NBC, ABC don't dabble so much in tabloid journalism as they do conclusionary or advocacy journalism where they present what they feel are the sides of the issue and then determine who has the best argument.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:07 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Divert, much, B?

I think Variable's point is excellent. People like you, Bushice, Diego, Mikey, et al ignore the shift in mainstream journalism.

What shift? This is nothing new.

I wouldn't go as far as variable in labeling it only as tabloid journalism, though most local and regional news is just that.

Local news stations are nothing more than shills for the local power structure. Nothing new here. There's a reason why news trucks are given free parking by every local government around.

However, the major national media, e.g., NYT, WaPo, LATimes, CBS, NBC, ABC don't dabble so much in tabloid journalism as they do conclusionary or advocacy journalism where they present what they feel are the sides of the issue and then determine who has the best argument.

You mean like the Hearst paper's advocating the criminalization of pot? How about the advocacy journalism of the New Your World for the Spanish American war? Did you miss the red scares?

To say you are completely ignorant of your country's history is just scratching the surface.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:10 pm**

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, B, the shift has occurred. Not even the mainstream media execs are denying it.

You mean like the Hearst paper's advocating the criminalization of pot? How about the advocacy journalism of the New Your World for the Spanish American war? Did you miss the red scares?

To say you are completely ignorant of your country's history is just scratching the surface.

Was the Hearst papers doing it through their regular reporting or on the op-ed pages?

New Your World? Link or further information, please.

Red scares? How does this relate at all?

To say that you're diverting from the central issue is only scratching the surface.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:14 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:So, now that we know that the La. NG found only four dead at the Superdome when can we expect to see the NYT, WaPo, et al. articles indicating that their prior articles greatly inflating the number dead were wrong?

What's relevant is not that the number of dead was greatly inflated,
but the accounts of lawlessness were.

Correct?

Why worry about the number of dead, when you should be worrying about the stories of how those folks became dead in the first place.

Where did the stories come from?

And how did things get so trashed?

There couldn't have been just 4 dead in the superdome, what with the actual corpses being shown on television. Were all the dead dumped outside?

and if the dead were dumped outside,

just what happened in new orleans; and why were there so many stories of n.egroes gone crazy?

Nagin was right. it was the crackheads.

We need more of the good stories.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:19 pm**

What's relevant is not that the number of dead was greatly inflated, but the accounts of lawlessness were.

Wha-wha-what??

That point was relevant in the thread I posted. Who the hell are you to shift the point of a thread?

Why worry about the number of dead, when you should be worrying about the stories of how those folks became dead in the first place.

Who didn't hear or read the allegations of people being raped, murdered, etc.? Hence, who wasn't worried about it?

The problem is that those suggestions of 10,000 dead and dozens of bodies at the Convention Center or Superdome were straight up fabrications that CNN, NYT, etc. all relied on to slam Bush.

Where did the stories come from?

Liars, obviously.

There couldn't have been just 4 dead in the superdome, what with the actual corpses being shown on television. Were all the dead dumped outside?

Huh?

Sorry, but the people there disagree with you.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:22 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, B, the shift has occurred. Not even the mainstream media execs are denying it.

You mean like the Hearst paper's advocating the criminalization of pot? How about the advocacy journalism of the New Your World for the Spanish American war? Did you miss the red scares?

To say you are completely ignorant of your country's history is just scratching the surface.
Was the Hearst papers doing it through their regular reporting or on the op-ed pages?

New Your World? Link or further information, please.

Red scares? How does this relate at all?

To say that you're diverting from the central issue is only scratching the surface.

You seriously don't know?

Here's a clue. Try googling "Hearst" "Spanish American War".

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:25 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
What's relevant is not that the number of dead was greatly inflated, but the accounts of lawlessness were.
Wha-wha-what??

That point was relevant in the thread I posted. Who the hell are you to shift the point of a thread?

What shift?

It's not the bodies that are important, it's the stories of how they got there that are important.

If the number of bodies is significantly less than the stories put out, that means that the stories of how those bodies got there should also be significantly less.

What are we really left with?

This isn't a story about bodies. This is a story about perception, and race.

There couldn't have been just 4 dead in the superdome, what with the actual corpses being shown on television. Were all the dead dumped outside?

Huh?

Sorry, but the people there disagree with you.

Which people?

There are so many stories coming out of New Orleans (the only one I didn't buy was the Duke students, with a maybe on a news article that sounded like it was cobbled together from other past atrocities, would be a trip if that's one of the only stories to be true)......

I kept getting Candyman flashbacks throughout the whole thing. But the tvs were there.

There were dead bodies afloat in the water.

Old people and babies did die.

So where are all the dead? There are questions no longer being asked. The Superdome was hell. People saw that. What's being done now is to try to erase what happened from the collective memory, so that 'oh it wasn't so bad'.

Except that's bullshit. There's something wrong with this country when 'oh it wasn't so bad' has to mean 'oh, n.iggers didn't go completely crazy after all'. People still had no food, no potable water, couldn't shit properly, babies died, old people died, they were herded in and not allowed to leave....

and now the good folks at ingsoc want to try to make it appear 'it wasn't so bad', without truly explaining WHAT really wasn't so bad.

hogwash.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:27 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, B, the shift has occurred. Not even the mainstream media execs are denying it.

You mean like the Hearst paper's advocating the criminalization of pot? How about the advocacy journalism of the New Your World for the Spanish American war? Did you miss the red scares?

To say you are completely ignorant of your country's history is just scratching the surface.
Was the Hearst papers doing it through their regular reporting or on the op-ed pages?

New Your World? Link or further information, please.

Red scares? How does this relate at all?

To say that you're diverting from the central issue is only scratching the surface.
You seriously don't know?

Here's a clue. Try googling "Hearst" "Spanish American War".

How is Hearst, then, representative of the mainstream media back then?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:28 pm**

What shift?

You shifted the goal posts. I was criticizing the media for pushing pure speculation regarding the numbers of dead.

You're attempting to argue something else. Take it elsewhere.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:37 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
What shift?
You shifted the goal posts. I was criticizing the media for pushing pure speculation regarding the numbers of dead.

You're attempting to argue something else. Take it elsewhere.

The number of dead in the Superdome is directly related to how those dead ended up there in the first place. They cannot be removed from one another.

Where this is going is: there weren't so many deaths at the Superdome after all but DAMN HOW LAWLESS THOSE N.EGROS WERE. Yes, there is a point to the caps.

But perhaps you can explain how those two -- fact of death and cause of death -- are not connected.

You want to celebrate a lack of bodies, but you can't wrap your mind around the other lies surrounding why people were expecting so many bodies in the first place. Why?

For myself, I think there were more bodies than 4. It's just that those other bodies weren't homicides. There's a clean up going on that has nothing to do with truth.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:46 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:How is Hearst, then, representative of the mainstream media back then?

You mean aside from BEING the mainstream news media?

Seriously, go down to the basement and read some American history. The history of America as a country is a wonderful story that stretches back nearly 500 years. Do yourself a favor and learn some of it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:57 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:How is Hearst, then, representative of the mainstream media back then?
You mean aside from BEING the mainstream news media?

Seriously, go down to the basement and read some American history. The history of America as a country is a wonderful story that stretches back nearly 500 years. Do yourself a favor and learn some of it.

Sorry, but not knowing about the hearst papers is not indicative of being ignorant of American history.

Sorry, but I was a poli sci and history double major undergrad, dumbass.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:09 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:How is Hearst, then, representative of the mainstream media back then?
You mean aside from BEING the mainstream news media?

Seriously, go down to the basement and read some American history. The history of America as a country is a wonderful story that stretches back nearly 500 years. Do yourself a favor and learn some of it.
Sorry, but not knowing about the hearst papers is not indicative of being ignorant of American history.

Sorry, but I was a poli sci and history double major undergrad, dumbass.

How a double major in history and poli sci could make it through 4 years as an undergrad and never once read of discuss the impact of Hearst and Pulitzer's Yellow Journalism escapes me totally? What Community College did you get your degree from?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:11 pm**

Who said that it wasn't discussed? I mean, it's simply not possible, is it, that while it was discussed that I simply forgot about it? Nah, couldn't be that. No wonder you don't front as a reasonable person.

I'll look it up, but from what I have read there's been a shift in American journalism and while the Hearst papers might have engaged in similar advocacy journalism, I think it was unique to that time only.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:16 pm**

Just took your tip and looked something up...

I think Heasrt would be relevant if we were arguing that journalists influence was leading to actual policymaking. That's not the argument here.

Rather, the point here is that the media simply printed falsehoods relying on unverified accounts because it sensationalized the story and furthered their agenda to attack Bush.

As well, that follows on the larger points I have about journalists pushing specific opinions under the guise of objective reporting.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:19 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Who said that it wasn't discussed? I mean, it's simply not possible, is it, that while it was discussed that I simply forgot about it? Nah, couldn't be that. No wonder you don't front as a reasonable person.

I'll look it up, but from what I have read there's been a shift in American journalism and while the Hearst papers might have engaged in similar advocacy journalism, I think it was unique to that time only.

Ah, so now you "think" it was "unique to that time only".

Just think about what you said. Think about the illogic that permeates your blather. If I were a history major at your college and you actually got a degree, I swear I would sue the college for devaluing my degree.

And yes, Hearst printed outright falsehoods, just as Fox News and others did after Katrina. So they are similar.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:24 pm**

Ah, so now you "think" it was "unique to that time only".

I wasn't clear. I think after that time American journalism became more objective, more about reporting than making the news as hearst did by staging kidnappings or using pictures to convey wrong information.

Just think about what you said. Think about the illogic that permeates your blather. If I were a history major at your college and you actually got a degree, I swear I would sue the college for devaluing my degree.

I'd say the same about your education. So what? We all can be wrong. We all can be ignorant. I'm relying on limited information and trying to use your interpretation of it to defend my position. That was my mistake. I should have rejected, as I have now, your premise that that event was the equivalent of contemporary journalism. It is not.

So, go ahead with your lame smack and make yourself feel good, but in the end, you make yourself look like the fool.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:32 pm**

Risa wrote: What's relevant is not that the number of dead was greatly inflated,
but the accounts of lawlessness were.

Correct?

Why worry about the number of dead, when you should be worrying about the stories of how those folks became dead in the first place.

Where did the stories come from?

Oh come on. We're talking about blacks from the ghetto here. Have you ever known a poor black to do anything with a fact other than distort it and embellish it to try to impress their audience?

How do you think you get on camera? Obviously saying that it stinks in there and there's no water won't cut it, so you make up some stories about babies getting raped and old people being stabbed.

And how did things get so trashed?

The place was full of poor people. When poor people start respecting the property of others, let me know because they sure as hell don't now.

There couldn't have been just 4 dead in the superdome, what with the actual corpses being shown on television. Were all the dead dumped outside?

Wait, you mean that blacks lied about how horrible an experience was so that they could pretend that they've got a tougher life than someone else?! I'm calling bullshit. :roll:

just what happened in new orleans; and why were there so many stories of n.egroes gone crazy?

Um...might have had something to do with the videotape that they had of all those crazy negr.oes too... Just sayin...

We need more of the good stories.

Good luck. The good people left.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:08 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:I wasn't clear. I think after that time American journalism became more objective, more about reporting than making the news as hearst did by staging kidnappings or using pictures to convey wrong information.

You must have missed the Walter Winchell story as well.

American media did become less sensationalistic. Why? Because competition for readership dried up. Also, in the medium of television, there was no real competition for ratings outside the Big 3.

Now you have a good 10 or so major cable news networks competing with the Big 3 networks as well as thousands of online bloggers. Ergo, what you are seeing is the same natural reaction to increased competitive pressure that you saw 100 years ago with Hearst and Pulitzer.

In other words, the beast is still the same. If you remove completive pressures, the sensationalism will recede. Increase the competition and managers will look to the lowest common denominator.

I'd say the same about your education. So what? We all can be wrong. We all can be ignorant. I'm relying on limited information and trying to use your interpretation of it to defend my position. That was my mistake. I should have rejected, as I have now, your premise that that event was the equivalent of contemporary journalism. It is not.

So, go ahead with your lame smack and make yourself feel good, but in the end, you make yourself look like the fool.

I'm not the history major who got schooled in my major subject.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:29 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:And yes, Hearst printed outright falsehoods, just as Fox News and others did after Katrina. So they are similar.
There is a very pronounced difference between the deliberate propaganda of yellow journalism and the simple incompetence of modern journalism.

So they aren't even remotely similar.

I would beg to differ. While Fox was reporting murder, looting and rapes at the Convention Center, MSNBC had a reporter IN the convention center reporting a very different story. These people knew damn well what the real story was and they chose to go with the story that would sell more copy, not the truth.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:35 pm**

Link, B?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:56 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Link, B?

You did watch the coverage of Katrina. Did you?

Fox News, a day before the major evacuation of the Superdome began, issued an "alert" as talk show host Alan Colmes reiterated reports of "robberies, rapes, carjackings, riots and murder. Violent gangs are roaming the streets at night, hidden by the cover of darkness."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

And, as Fox was spewing forth sensational copy, here's what was actualy going on.

ALISON STEWART: Tony, I know you've seen a lot of things in your career, but have you ever seen anything like that?

TONY ZUMBADO: I've gotta tell you, I thought I'd seen it all, but just when you think you've seen it all, you go into another situation and you see something horrific. I've never seen anything in my life like this. ... I can't put it into words the amount of destruction that is in this city and how these people are coping. They are just left behind. There is nothing offered to them. No water, no ice, no C-rations, nothing, for the last four days.

They were told to go to the convention center. They did, they've been behaving. It's unbelievable how organized they are, how supportive they are of each other. They have not started any mêlées, any riots ... they just want food and support. And what I saw there I've never seen in this country.

...
STEWART: Are you telling me there is no police in the area, no National Guard in the area?

ZUMBADO: I don't want to sound negative against anybody or any official, but according to them, and what they saw, they left and they're there on their own. There's no police there's no authority. ... You would never ever imagine what you saw in the convention center in New Orleans.

STEWART: Tell me about the sanitation.

ZUMBADO: The sanitation was unbelievable. The stench in there... was unbelievable. Dead people around the walls of the convention center, laying in the middle of the street in their dying chairs. ... They were just covered up ... Babies, two babies dehydrated and died. I'm telling you, I couldn't take it.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001788.htm

I watched that report. I'm sure the brass for more than a few media outlets watched that report. Yet they ignored the truth.

Would you like to go another round?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:05 pm**

I was asking for a link to the MSNBC piece that reported "a very different story" from Fox's coverage.

And, yes, i did watch the coverage, mostly on CNN, some on Fox. Both disgusted me as Cooper and Shep were mugging way more for their own careers than to simply report the facts as they were. I understand that the other mainstream outlets were virtually the same in their coverage.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:12 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:I was asking for a link to the MSNBC piece that reported "a very different story" from Fox's coverage.

Go to the link. You can download the Windows Media file of the report.

And, yes, i did watch the coverage, mostly on CNN, some on Fox. Both disgusted me as Cooper and Shep were mugging way more for their own careers than to simply report the facts as they were. I understand that the other mainstream outlets were virtually the same in their coverage.

Honestly, the only outlets that tempered the sensationalism at all were MSNBC and the Weather Channel. I've never agreed with your idea of "liberal bias" in the media. But that doesn't mean the media won't prostitute itself for a buck.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:47 pm**

Honestly, the only outlets that tempered the sensationalism at all were MSNBC and the Weather Channel. I've never agreed with your idea of "liberal bias" in the media. But that doesn't mean the media won't prostitute itself for a buck.

It's not any across the board type thing, obviously, but there are certain members of the media (Dan Rather, Matt Lauer, etc) past and present who have just been really transparent about it all. Really the two worst offenders in the US are the LA Times and NY Times. I don't think there's really much to dispute there. Both papers are essentially lefty op-ed pieces from cover to cover.

Posted: **Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:13 am**

Variable wrote:
Honestly, the only outlets that tempered the sensationalism at all were MSNBC and the Weather Channel. I've never agreed with your idea of "liberal bias" in the media. But that doesn't mean the media won't prostitute itself for a buck.
It's not any across the board type thing, obviously, but there are certain members of the media (Dan Rather, Matt Lauer, etc) past and present who have just been really transparent about it all. Really the two worst offenders in the US are the LA Times and NY Times. I don't think there's really much to dispute there. Both papers are essentially lefty op-ed pieces from cover to cover.

As if there are not members of the media with obvious Republican bias?

Give me a break, even Bill Kristol has given up that canard.

Bill Kristol wrote:"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

http://www.nationalreview.com/debates/debates020503.asp

Posted: **Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:47 am**

BSmack,

"has" given, implies something .... well something that isn't TEN fucking years ago.

He HAD given it up in an interview in

5 The New Yorker, May 22, 1995.
6 The author received this subscription mailing in June 2001.

WAR Reading the Footnotes in the links you provide.

Furthermore, the quote states that the "liberal media WERE NEVER THAT POWERFUL", it doesn't say it doesn't or didn't (in 1995 exist)

In 2001, from the same link you provided, Kristol is in fact, pointing out, that it exists.

"The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes."

The notion that the liberal media "were never that powerful", is like a Coach not admitting that the crowd noise got to his team in the big loss. Of course they did a little, a few false starts late in the game. But the bottom line is, the team didn't execute properly to win the game.

In 1995, it appears, Newt and the Gang, got the message.

Nice try.

Posted: **Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:34 am**

Tom,

Newt and the gang won their majority in 1994. So, when Kristol was making his comments in 95, it was not as a losing coach who's team did not execute, it was flush with victory.

Also, I read the footnotes. Kristol was admitting that he used the idea of the "liberal media" to reach base Republican voters even though the liberal media he was speaking of did not dominate coverage or exert much influence. The mailing in 2001 was cited to illustrate the point that Kristol was STILL USING THAT STRATEGY.

But hey, nice try.

Posted: **Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:54 pm**

See, you dont WANT to see it. So you don't.

I don't WANT to see it, but it's so unabashedly blatant, it's disgusting.

I wouldn't expect you to agree on this notion of the Liberal Media, and it's actually comforting. It shows you can exercise discretion and strategic mindedness when it comes to protecting the greatest asset and weapon you libs have. So I can understand, even if you did see it, you not wanting to acknowledge it. It would take whatever power it has, away, if it was acknowledged.

Now if only we can get that kind of shit when it comes to OUR mutual external enemies that seek to do both Lib, Con, and everything in between .... we'd be getting somewhere.

Posted: **Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:58 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:See, you dont WANT to see it. So you don't.

Bingo!

Nobody's saying that it's an across the board thing (FoxNews, duh), but 80/20 sounds about right.

Posted: **Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:24 am**

mvscal wrote:That's good news anyway. It does illustrate the utterly degraded, debased state of what passes for modern "journalism". It's nothing but morons passing on rumors as fact.

Needless to say, the media coverage of Iraq is similarly distorted.

I doubt the soldiers in charge there are as inept as the public "officials" or the Louisiana National Guard was in N.O.

Or are you saying that routine print stories of our guys killing of dozens of militants and stopping would-be suicide bombers is "distorted?"

Variable wrote:Both papers are essentially lefty op-ed pieces from cover to cover.

Feel free to quote articles from both when using it to illustrate a point that happens to agree with your stance in a particular argument in here. We do all the time,

Sincerely,

T1B media critics.

Btw, it was the same "liberal media" who broke the stories about the Lewinski affair, that administration's questionalble ties/to dealings with China, the "Republican Revolution" of the mid-90s and countless other stories conservatives can hold up high and proclaim, "See we're right and you're wrong!"

Not to metion the fact that most news organizations and staunch conservatives find themselves on the same side of the fence when it comes to issues such as open records and government intrusion.

Seriously, you guys and your fucking conspiracy theories about the liberal news media is pretty entertaining. Not quite as good as the guests on Coast to Coast AM, but it is a relentlessly outstanding, albeit predictable, effort nonetheless.

T1B

Media corrections

Media corrections

Re: Media corrections

Re: Media corrections

Re: Media corrections