do you not remember Bill Clinton's sexual practices
Sure, but what's your point? Was there some lack of coverage on Clinton? Did the media somehow fail to note that he was a Democrat?
My point is that a very good percentage of news articles about about a Republican doing something stupid are often more about embarrassing and discrediting the party than they are about a thorough depiction of of the events that spurred the story at hand to begin with.
I know but you offer no proof. Because you can't. It's just your perception.
Surveys show that there are substantially (on the scale of 2-5 times) more Democrats than Republicans in journalism.
Enough with this old chestnut, already. The people who REALLY matter, the guys who run the corporations and own the shares are overwhelmingly Republican. They set the agenda. The reporters may lean slightly Dem but if they act against the editorial policies they are unemployed Dem leaning reporters.
Look at all the stories coming out recently (because of the "military advisors" hired by the media but run out of the Pentagon) of reporters finally fessing up about how they were pressured from above to not print anti-war stories or to always have 2 or 3 pro-Administration guests for every anti-war person. Seriously, if the media was so "liberal" how could that possibly happen?
But they don't even ask the question of how douche bag-esque Democrats have been lately.
This very story about Dodd shows how flawed he is. Many scumbag Dems are going to vote for Telecom Immunity today. And I, among many other, will take note of each and every one of them. All I can say is: remember Joe Lieberman. I just wish the Repbulican party would start to hold their scumbags' feet to fire as well.
If a Republican is involved in anything that even might, maybe, sort-of, slightly, if-we-tweak-it-just-a-bit, appear improper, then thier name and party affiliation is shouted from the rooftops for weeks and weeks on end, even AFTER it is shown that the Republican in question was innocent, or that the issue in question was not illegal or unethical, maybe just slightly immoral.
What a load of rubbish. Is this new pathetic meme the Repugnants are trying to start? What, the laughable "liberal media" BS finally got shown for the crock it is so it is time to start waging a new campaign?
What a collection of nitwits. Fox News practically invented, but certainly perfected, the technique of not mentioning the Repugnant "brand" whenever things got so hot with one of their own that they couldn't avoid the story entirely.
but news stories also like to ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party.
Yeah. The fact that they held the congress for 12 years and WERE incredibly corrupt, got caught practicing wide stances in men's room stalls while preaching family values, faked intelligence data, progagandized the country into a war, illegally spied on Americans, and instituted a policy of torture - to name but a few of their top hits - had nothing to with that. My god, it would be INSANE to speculate if there were MORE shoes to drop!
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Obama turned down federal financing the other day.
(2) He is totally reliant on private contributions to carry the campaign to the White House.
(3) It is the internet fund raising that has brought in huge dollars for him.
(4) Stop being adoring fans and start thinking like empowered citizens
(5) Get on Reddit, Digg, twitter, Facebook, etc.: NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS until Obama proves leadership on Telecom Immunity
(6) Learn what it feels like to have real power.
do you not remember Bill Clinton's sexual practices
Sure, but what's your point? Was there some lack of coverage on Clinton? Did the media somehow fail to note that he was a Democrat?
My point is that a very good percentage of news articles about about a Republican doing something stupid are often more about embarrassing and discrediting the party than they are about a thorough depiction of of the events that spurred the story at hand to begin with.
I know but you offer no proof. Because you can't. It's just your perception.
Surveys show that there are substantially (on the scale of 2-5 times) more Democrats than Republicans in journalism.
Enough with this old chestnut, already. The people who REALLY matter, the guys who run the corporations and own the shares are overwhelmingly Republican. They set the agenda. The reporters may lean slightly Dem but if they act against the editorial policies they are unemployed Dem leaning reporters.
Look at all the stories coming out recently (because of the "military advisors" hired by the media but run out of the Pentagon) of reporters finally fessing up about how they were pressured from above to not print anti-war stories or to always have 2 or 3 pro-Administration guests for every anti-war person. Seriously, if the media was so "liberal" how could that possibly happen?
But they don't even ask the question of how douche bag-esque Democrats have been lately.
This very story about Dodd shows how flawed he is. Many scumbag Dems are going to vote for Telecom Immunity today. And I, among many other, will take note of each and every one of them. All I can say is: remember Joe Lieberman. I just wish the Repbulican party would start to hold their scumbags' feet to fire as well.
If a Republican is involved in anything that even might, maybe, sort-of, slightly, if-we-tweak-it-just-a-bit, appear improper, then thier name and party affiliation is shouted from the rooftops for weeks and weeks on end, even AFTER it is shown that the Republican in question was innocent, or that the issue in question was not illegal or unethical, maybe just slightly immoral.
What a load of rubbish. Is this new pathetic meme the Repugnants are trying to start? What, the laughable "liberal media" BS finally got shown for the crock it is so it is time to start waging a new campaign?
What a collection of nitwits. Fox News practically invented, but certainly perfected, the technique of not mentioning the Repugnant "brand" whenever things got so hot with one of their own that they couldn't avoid the story entirely.
but news stories also like to ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party.
Yeah. The fact that they held the congress for 12 years and WERE incredibly corrupt, got caught practicing wide stances in men's room stalls while preaching family values, faked intelligence data, progagandized the country into a war, illegally spied on Americans, and instituted a policy of torture - to name but a few of their top hits - had nothing to with that. My god, it would be INSANE to speculate if there were MORE shoes to drop!