Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (1336)	12/17/2000 10:29:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

Tim, as you know I tend to be as jaundiced about the alleged liberal media conspiracy as everything else. On question, which I've raised elsewhere. What's the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, or Drudge, or the WSJ editorial page? Anybody with anywhere near the distribution and venomous content? The sources you site can all legitimately be accused of a conservative bias, but not more then the New York Times editorial page, Mother Jones, or Jesse Jackson are liberally biased. I don't find the sources you list full of venomous content at least not more then some of the liberally biased sources. They are definitely less venomous then a poster on this message base who basically said that pro-life people are sexist and people who are against quotas are racist. You can never say for sure, but if rolls were reversed, and Bush had actually won the popular vote but lost electorally, they would have come up with a similar number saying how the only honest thing for Gore to do would be to concede then, too. Some one probably would say that but the majority of conservatives believe that the government should follow the constitution. I am just about certain that the National review would not print such a statement. I doubt Rush would. I don't read Drudge or WSJ enough to form a good guess about what their opinion would be. Tim