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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (5042)	8/14/2003 10:32:44 AM
From: Elsewhere	Respond to of 793887

The New Stalinists Thanks, a useful article.

To: JohnM who wrote (5042)	8/14/2003 10:47:53 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

I don't know what this study is supposed to show other than the fact that the Bush administration is closer to the conservative papers' point of view than the Clinton administration was to the liberal papers' point of view. Something I observed at the time. There is no doubt that the WSJ editorial page positively frothed at the mouth against Clinton. But they kept it on the editorial page, so much so, that in the early days of the Clinton administration, it looked like two separate outfits were writing the news and editorial pages. The NYT's real sin was not keeping their editorial opinion off the news pages. BTW, this is the first time I've seen you post anything that refers to the NYT as a "liberal newspaper". Maybe there is hope for you, after all -g-

To: JohnM who wrote (5042)	8/14/2003 3:21:49 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793887

Paul Gigot. It's hard to beat Paul. He sure showed his class on PBS. I have never complained about the "Times" editorials. It's the slanting to the left in the News section that gets me. But at least we are getting a classy columnist added with Brooks.

To: JohnM who wrote (5042)	8/14/2003 4:19:46 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

John, I'm sure you realize Tomasky proved nothing. One problem I see right off the bat is in the choice of his selection. For example; Dick Cheney didn't try and take over 17% of the U.S. economy after forming an energy think tank. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton did try and take over the entire U.S. health care industry. Therefore, the nature of criticism is obviously going to be much stronger toward HIllaries power grab then Cheney's think tank. No doubt much of the rest of his analysis is as flawed with noise as that choice was. If Tomasky wanted to do a serious study, which came close to proving something. He should have enlisted the assistant of someone from Media Research Center, or the Heritage Foundation and collaberated on removing the noise.