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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (407917)	5/22/2003 12:22:54 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

You make excellent points. I will say that of the major papers, The Washington Post comes closest to keeping bias out of its news pages, and even they put too many unattributed, thumb- sucking, "people in the know" pieces criticizing the war plans of the Administration on the front page, pieces that were essentially op- ed, not news. No one who has read The New York Times regularly could doubt that its news columns were biased. The Post is pretty good about columnists, too. The have not only Will, but Charles Krauthammer, John Leo, and several other conservatives fairly regularly. Still, if you count the total number of columnists, including those who appear in Metro, like Donna Britt, it is weighted somewhat left. Again, The New York Times, which I used to subscribe to, is obviously biased. Rather, of course, is notorious for doing things like having on someone to argue on behalf of Saddam Hussein's claim to Kuwait, in the aftermath of the invasion, not just someone to explain it. I believe it was Jennings who referred to the voters who voted in Newt and company in the mid- '90s as "angry white men", despite a lack of scientific data. I forget which anchor it was who identified so much with the Democrats that he referred to "our side" gaining or losing, whichever it was. The dominant media still skew left.