The bit about Halperin passing information to the Clinton campaign struck me as familiar. Almost like Mapes passing information to the Kerry campaign.

Concerned about media integrity? I believe you'll appreciate this poem on the subject of a biggie. I call it

"Why Hos are sad All over"

A sad event for Sinclair Co. They caught their chiefest CEO
negotiating with a ho.

Now Sinclair seeks to stage a coup at the behest of W.
By fiddling with local air
Time prior to November Two.
Insidious nefarity! Another Faux News charity?

No, no, its ABC this time – but don’t forget the real crime
The Co. that brought us Dinosaurs is siphoning the precious funds
That hookers now rely upon—to help Rove’s undercover wars!

Is that a joke Matthew?

Did you write a poem for Dan Rather? And one for PBS's Frontline?

Here's my poem:

The damn MSM
And the Deomcrat party
No difference at all.

Or that his view that "Clinton was held to 'way too high a standard - coverage was way too tough'" was perhaps influenced by his family's high-level employment in the Clinton Administration?

Bill! How cynical of you! I'm sure Mark was being as totally objective as Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were in using the forged memos to attack Bush. You should be ashamed of yourself for impugning someone's integrity that way.

Matthew:

Forged memos used by Sinclair and Fox News: 0

Now guys i know we are all confused so let me explain how the logic work

Its ok for Donkeys to do whatever they want

its bad for elephants to do anything

simple huh

Despite his fathers extremist background, the fact that Mark Halperin's dad is a Senior Vice President of Center for American Progress(CAP), is disturbing. Since CAP is funded by Soros and is an anti-Bush group, Halperin and his "memo" may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Can you imagine the uproar if a major news organization had a Director of Political news who's father was a Vice President of the Swiftboats?

Considering how ABC reported Schwarzenneger's remarks, let's see how Mark Halperin's memo reads:

It goes without saying ... I want to stifle ...the current Bush. We have a responsibility ... to get away with as much as possible.

Is there any doubt that we must replace the MSM...that we must crush it...that we must wage an all out effort... a peaceful war... to replace the MSM?

Nothing would be better for our democracy...imagine how much better off we would be if we had had a fair and honest MSM for the last few decades, even...

We see the facts...now we must act...

Enjoy your blog! I'm sorry to be the bad gal in the punchbowl here, but I think Mark Halperin and his Googling team are getting a bad rap. I have been a Republican since before most of you were born, so my BiaS detector is a sensitive instrument. I have seen Halperin in discussions on Charlie Rose probably 10 times or more and have read both "The Note" and "Noted Now" online since early in the present campaign and will continue. I seldom find these sources anything but "fair and balanced" and they certainly are among the most informative and up-to-the minute round-ups.

An example: Yesterday on "The Note" an important part of a statement by Governor Schwarzenegger was omitted, entirely changing the meaning of what he had said. I had read the quote elsewhere, so I wrote "The Note" pointing out that it might be a serious error to misquote "The Governator." I'm sure others also wrote, but the point is that today, not only is the error corrected, but I had an e-mail in response!

Golden Republican my butt. Instead of encouraging a bias in the presidential election why doesn't he keep his left leaning mouth shut and let reporters be reporters. This guy is nothing but a partisan- a NY party going liberal whose MO is to create the path for a Kerry win. The public does not need his input to make political decisions. And you are no Republican!

This is old news, but it should be written from time to time, just as a refresher. Ann Coulter, in her book "Slander," provides a laundry list of MSM faces who worked for democratic politicians before inflicting their "objective news analysis" upon the nation.

Stephanopolous
Stahl
Russert
Matthews
Greenfield
Moyers
Brian Williams
Pauley
Salinger
Auletta
Gelb
Fallows
Talbott

etc etc

The fix is in. Americans are catching on, finally, and the internet provides an alternative. Hence, the MSM hysteria.

Let's face the facts...we live in a partial dictatorship of the liberal MSM...the liberal MSM literally has exercised undue influence on our country for decades now...

The MSM has way too much power in this country...it decides the focus and tone of our political debate far too often...for instance, Bush is held up to criticism far more than Kerry...

The MSM must be crushed...period.

We have allowed the MSM to do this to us. They really came out of the closet after 9/11. They told us they would not run pictures of that 'event' for fear of inflaming Americans into imprudent actions.
And we allowed this.
When pictures from Abu Graib (sp?) were splashed all over the news day after day, week after week, inflaming our enemies, we allowed it.
The MSM broadcasts a segment of every terrorist tape, every brutal murder by these animals, and we allow it.
Is it any wonder that they have come out of the closet, and told us that from now on, we will be told what to think.

I have a suggestion. Why not do what the dems do with the partial birth abortion epithet. Let's start referring to the MSM as the "so-called" mainstream media.

Was that Clinton letter forged? Hmmm.

Hehe, this is nothing guys. Here's an AP article on F911 that talks about "the discredited Swift Vet ads." Yet somehow, the word "discredited" is never applied to F911 in the article. No, F911 is described as "one of the year's biggest successes." Odd.

'Earlier this week, conservative broadcasting company Sinclair Broadcasting announced it was planning to air Stolen Honor, an anti-Kerry documentary created by the same team behind the discredited "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ads.'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=797&e=1&u=/eo/20041016/en_tv_eo/15157

GoldenRepublican -

Explain to me how the Dowdified quote from Schwarzenegger appeared on The Note in the first place. Reuters fully reported the quote, so they had to doctor it themselves in order to make it read the way it did. It was not a mistake. They got caught and knew they were already under scrutiny because of Halperin's memo. They feared the Rathergate response so they had to issue a "correction."

I've been reading The Note too. And I guess you forgot when it declared in August that it was Kerry's race to lose - at the time the polls were showing a tie and it was before the Republicans even had their convention. How was that an objective, as opposed to a wishful thinking (read "blatantly biased"), read of the election?

MD:

Your source is Ann Coulter? Are you kidding? Even Bill O'Reilly thinks she's unreasonably partisan. She's a joke. I thought even most right-wingers acknowledged her lunacy. Actually, it's not even real lunacy; it's calculated denial of all aspects of reality which don't conform to a specific conclusion in order to create the appearance of lunacy. I don't even think she believes what she's saying. I think she made a decision a long while back that the best way to ensure a steady income is to find the most outrageously ridiculous anti-liberal invective she can come up with and then multiply it by a factor of 10 to the crazieth. In fact, she's so ostentatious in her farcicality that I've often wondered whether she might not be some kind of Democratic Party agent provocateur planted with the express intent of discrediting the right wing. You offer me something from George Will, William F. Buckley, even (gasp!) Bill Kristol, and I'll consider the merits of the arguments, try to follow the logic, and either agree or disagree. You offer me something from a venomed, ill-breeding popinjay like Coulter and I dial straight the fuck out. I wouldn't even consider offering anything from Michael Moore as evidence in a discussion, and Coulter makes Moore seem open-minded by comparison. She literally believes everything liberals do is wrong. In her ridiculous book "Slander", she says "liberals take an insolent pleasure in saying absurd things". This is not reasoned argument, it's not even marginally fact-based distortion of reality; it's simple provocation for the sake of media exposure. If I were on your side, I'd be even more upset that this frothy dizzy-eyed horn-beast had such contempt for my intelligence that it gave her the audacity to carry out her little charade.

P.S. Shakespearean Insulter. Thou gang of qualling motley-minded vassals.

"It's ----'s race to lose" is a phrase tossed about frequently in professional political and punditry circles (been there, said that) whenever there is perceived "movement" in one campaign or the other. The Democrats had "played nice" for a change at their convention, totally suppressing both the rage over 2000 and the extreme anti-war contingent, Kerry had delivered his grandstanding "Reporting for duty" bit, and indeed they were posed to march as the true patriots behind a man who had really SERVED in Vietnam, knowing in their hearts and his that he was really "John Fonda", as opposed to military strength and action as the best (worst) of them. Democrats united, and a couple of points up, it was "Kerry's race to lose." Then came the Republican Convention--- 'nuf said.

Trust me, Halperin has also since said, on occasion, "It is Bush's race to lose." Yes, the Schwarzenegger quote was definitely "doctored" by a partisan, but did they do it or did it arrive that way, who knows? They DID correct it. (It was (and is) in "Noted Now" by the way, NOT "The Note" -- my error) And his e-mail was bad! I'm just saying it does NOT seem to be SOP with either The Note or Noted Now or with Halperin in his discussions on TV. And I believe we should reserve our wrath for chronic offenders like Rather--maybe a three strikes program--lest we become little boys/girls yelling "Wolf".

BTW, don't miss David Brooks' mock debate column in the NYT today. Hilarious!

Hey Sobchak, tell me which of the media people listed by Coulter in her book, as having worked for Democratic politicians, DID NOT work for a democratic politician. Russert? Greenfield? Matthews? Which ones?

Please demonstrate what you claim to be a factual error. Coulter names names in her book; if you want to refute her, then name some names. Specify an error.

Your attack is what is known as the genetic fallacy -- that the validity of an idea is dependent on its source. If you dispute the proposition, provide some evidence, don't engage in irrelevant ad hominem attack.

I'm not disputing the specific proposition; to be honest with you, I didn't even look at the list of names, I just saw that you said "Ann Coulter says" and pretty much stopped right there. Again, you might be willing to admit that even Michael Moore has some of his facts right, but if I started a comment by saying "Michael Moore says 'X' and that proves what a bunch of lying cheats all right-wingers are", you'd be all over me like white on rice. If you believe what Coulter says, why don't you come up with a credible source for the same information, and then maybe we can discuss whether it really matters. Mostly, it sounds to me like you, through Coulter, are drawing the same kinds of tenuous connections Moore draws and deciding that they conclusively prove your pre-existing beliefs about left-wing media bias. Thou mewling hedge-born dewberry.

Coulter is not a good reference. She's an entertainer.

The following comment by Kofi Annan is interesting in its complete lack of political correctness -> basically it insults many Latin countries. The following is a quote from (lost track of the source, unfortunately), where Kofi talks about how "inconceivable" it is to think that Saddam could have bribed countries:
"I don't think the Russian or the French or the Chinese government would allow itself to be bought..." Annan said.

"I think it's inconceivable. These are very serious and important governments. You are not dealing with banana republics." [the last is the "money" quote]

banana republic
n.
A small country that is economically dependent on a single export commodity, such as bananas, and is typically governed by a dictator or the armed forces.

-From the Amer. Heritage dictionary.

Dave, where in this definition does it say "latin America"?

I never believed there was an intiChrist until now.
Thanks for showing me who I should vote for.

Sincerely,

TJ "Gotta Vote for Kerry" Granack

4205 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker

8554 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem