We get emails and evidence be damned, we investigate!

Peter Jennings investigates some wacky claims about voting “irregularities” based on…

Well…

They got a whole lot of emails!

On November 9th, Jennings opened up World News Tonight with this brilliance:

We’ve been a little bit surprised by how many e-mails we’ve had suggesting that maybe once again the country got it wrong. Now, we’re not particularly disposed to conspiracy theories. As you know, Mr. Bush won by a comfortable margin of more than three million votes. We did think it might be a public service — and, quite frankly, cut back on the e-mails — if our ballot-watch correspondent Jake Tapper took another look.

So Peter Jennings investigated voter fraud based on…

Lots of emails.

Dan Rather based a nasty charge against the President based on…

Forged Documents.

But that’s not even the worst part. Go back and read the first line of his intro…

“once again the country got it wrong.”

Can you please explain to me, anyone how the country “got it wrong” in 2000? The President won Florida. The only people who got that right on election night were Fox. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all reported that the polls had already closed before the damned panhandle counties even closed their booths. By every single recount done the President won Florida. The New York Times did an independent recount. The President won.

No matter how many idiotic permutations of imagined voter fraud (not one case was ever filed in Florida by anyone who was supposedly “disenfranchised”) and intimidation (black people turned away at the door? Never heard any more about that, didja?) are flung about, nothing has ever come out of that big mess we called Florida, except that Al Gore wanted counters to give him the votes because, well hell, they meant to vote for him!

So if Peter Jennings wants to claim that america might have once again gotten it “wrong,” wouldn’t it be nice for him to provide some any proof that something was gotten wrong in the first place?

Libs just cannot let go of the 2000 election. America got it right, Mr. Jennings. America re-affirmed who they believed in in 2002 when they gave the Republicans the Senate and widened the spread in the House, and added almost 12 governorships, and then doubly re-affirmed it in 2004 when the President won, the leading Democrat in the Senate got kicked out, gave even more Senate seats to Republicans, and yet again more House seats to the Republicans.

In other words, it’s time to let go, Pete.

They lost in 2000. They’ve won nothing since 1998.

And if you think America “got it wrong,” you’re not doing the job you’re being paid to do, and that is to report news, not opine.

This entry was posted in Interesting. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://pam pam

    Well said!

  • Fred Dawes

    Why is bush so much about mexico? and why is that low life government having so much say it what is happening here? is it because Bush and family have so much money in that drug dealing low life non nation? hey where is Bin Laden? and why is Bush And Family backing Mecha one of the most evil race hate Al Qaeda loving pigs on the earth? but who knows who is controlling who in this old world.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Cue twilight zone music

  • http://pam pam

    what does Fred’s post mean?

  • mad heron

    Jennings is no different then rather they are two peas in a pod and they are as alike as ever they are the tweedledee and tweedledum of news:grin:

  • Patrick

    …Which is why we need the upstanding journalists like Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto to project their Fair and Balanced news converage!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Here’s your big chance Patrick! Back your rhetoric up!

    Let’s hear examples of Hume or Cavuto’s biases.

    Put them in context of the coverage of the 2004 Election, when Hume was just as hard on the President as everyone else.

    This is your big chance to bury Fox news right here! Don’t blow it!

  • Patrick

    The information is out there:

    Brit Hume-
    He is a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines.

    Let’s talk about his show.
    The panelists that appear at the end of his show to discuss the day’s events are Fred Barnes- an evangelical Christian who edits The Weekly Standard. Mort Kondrack, who recently proclaimed his disgust with the Democratic Party, is also a regular commentator. Finally, there is Mara Liasson. She is supposed to sit on the opposite end of the table from Fred Barnes. However, her liberal ideology can be discounted since she routinely makes comments such as; “one of the roots of the problem with education today is feminism” (Talk of the Nation, 5/3/01); she declares that “Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot of things that other people don’t” (Special Report, 6/21/00); she calls George W. Bush’s reversal on carbon dioxide emissions “a small thing” (3/14/01), campaign finance reform “an issue that . . . only 200 people in America care about” (3/19/01) and slavery reparations “pretty much of a non-issue” (3/19/01).- Sounds like a liberal to me!

    These are the most regular panelists on the show.

    And never mind the fact that Special Report with Brit Hume was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.

    Neil Cavuto-

    In a Washington Times interview Neil responded to questions about his bias in reporting.

    “So am I slanted and biased?” Cavuto said. “You…bet I am, professor. I’m more in favor of a system that lets me say what I’m saying here rather than one which would be killing me for doing the same thing over there [in Iraq]. You say I wear my biases on my sleeve? Better that than pretend you have none.”

    There you go folks.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    So Cavuto’s Bias is that he thinks it’s better to live in the US than Iraq?

    That’s a bad thing?

    And the other “biases…” Are you really serious? And what about Juan Williams? It’s a panel discussion where opinions are expressed. That part of the show is clearly defined.

    And you didn’t put that into context with the debate coverage or the election coverage. Try again, because what you have right now is nothing.

  • Patrick

    I never said their coverage of the debate and of the election was biased (although I have my suspicions)- read my post.

    And oh yes- let’s not forget about Juan Williams. The NPR host has recently said that Liberals have become monsters as he characterized the “so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women’s organizations.”

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Mr. Conservative Bias Williams, who works for NPR regularly slams the President. As does Mr. Conservative Kondracke, and Ms. Conservative Liasson.

    If they’re all so damn conservative, why aren’t they following the talking points?

  • Patrick

    heh…they certainly aren’t stealing any talking points from Liberal think tanks.

  • http://pam pam

    So Mara can’t make a statement of her beliefs? She must just go along with the party? Mort spoke his mind about being disgusted with the party and that makes him biased? I call it intelligent. Many dems are fed up. Listen to those that are speaking up. They may help solve the problem. Brit subscribes to the Weekly standard? Could it be to prepare for the panel he has on as guests? Or could it be a gesture of friendship to Bill Krstol?

  • Patrick

    Did I say subscriber to Weekly Standard?
    Wait, that can’t be right. Ah- that is because as I CLEARLY stated, he is a CONTRIBUTOR.

    I never mentioned that Mara should go along with what her party says. But how can someone claim she is a liberal when she goes against the major tenets of liberal ideology?

  • http://pam pam

    Could it be that maybe mara sees a problem with the major tenets of the liberal cause? Are you denying that Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot or do you think he matters? I think he did get away with a lot, but he has very little clout at this stage of the game, so in the scheme of things, he really doesn’t matter. Did you scream at all the 527′s or just the ones aimed at your candidate? Slavery reparations- I never owned one therefore I don’t think I should be billed for one.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    You know what the problem is, Patrick? You’ve so far proven nothing to indicate a conservative bias, just that a few people who give opinions in an opinion segment of a show are all over the road on certain issues.

    None of the people you mentioned could possibly be called conservatives. Williams, Liasson, and Kondracke, are at the very least moderates, but moderate liberals, not moderate conservatives. Krystol is hardly a hard line right winger in any fashion, and during the campaign was one of Bush’s biggest critics on that panel.

    Basically, you’ve demonstrated nothing, which is usually what happens when you ask for examples of bias at Fox, not just some colloquial “well, we know it’s true…” :roll:

  • Patrick

    Heh, it’s a lost cause trying to get some hard line conservatives to see the truth. Brit Hume is a conservative contributor to conservative news sources. (Conservative American Spectator, The Weekly Standard) And it is obvious that his political ideology also bleeds into his reporting at FoxNews.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Patrick can’t cite shit as usual.

    Blah blah blah.

    More MoveON.org talking points.

    Blah blah blah.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    It’s so obvious that you can’t provide an example of it. In fact, when asked to provide an example of it, you went to the panel that discusses the issues at the end of the show. Were it so obvious, you could cite example after example after example.

  • Patrick

    Here is one instance… there are more…go ahead and pick it apart so you can keep hearing what you want on FoxNews while believing in its objectiveness.

    “Hume selectively quoted media study, omitted figures unfavorable to FOX
    FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume selectively quoted the results of a media watchdog’s study, reporting a figure that made FOX News Channel appear fair and balanced, while ignoring a key statistic that indicates FOX’s overwhelming pro-Republican slant.

    On the “Grapevine” segment of the October 18 edition of FOX News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume reported on a new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) showing that assessments of Senator John Kerry were more positive than those of President George W. Bush on the three major network news broadcasts. Referring to the study’s analysis of “news segments” on Special Report, Hume added that “the same survey found that news coverage on this program was virtually even.” But the study actually distinguished between three separate kinds of segments on Special Report: “news segments,” “issue coverage,” and “panelists’ comments.” Hume referred only to the figure for “news segments,” which showed equal proportion of positive assessments for both candidates. He did not mention the study’s finding that the “FOX All-Star Panel,” which appears daily on Special Report, overwhelmingly favored Bush.

    From the October 18 edition of FOX News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume:

    HUME: A new survey by the Center of Media and Public Affairs shows the big three networks’s evening newscast all tilt in favor of Senator Kerry. The survey, conducted last month, shows that on ABC evening news, 38 percent of the Kerry coverage was positive, while only 20 percent of the Bush coverage was. NBC’s evening news had a pro-Kerry margin of 38 to 30 percent over Bush. And CBS’s newscast was the most balanced with Kerry favored only 38 percent to 35 percent.

    By the way, the same survey found that news coverage on this program was virtually even, 30 percent of Bush coverage being favorable and 28 percent of the Kerry coverage being favorable.

    While Hume accurately reported the study’s findings on ABC, CBS, and NBC, he left out a key statistic about his own show — namely, that comments by the “All-Star Panel” “favored Bush by 50 percent positive to only 13 percent positive toward Kerry.” Assuming one accepts the study’s criteria as a valid indicator of media bias, this means that the “All-Star Panel” is 285 percent more favorable to Bush than to Kerry. Given that this imbalance dwarfs even the most “biased” of the news programs on the “big three” networks, ABC’s World News Tonight — whose coverage, according to the study, is 90 percent more favorable to Kerry than Bush — Hume surely would have mentioned this finding if he was concerned about offering the study’s most striking findings concerning media bias in nightly news programs.

    Other recent CMPA studies found similar results regarding Special Report’s anti-Kerry tilt. A study released September 9 found that evaluations of Bush on the network news broadcasts and major newsweeklies — as well as FOX News Channel — were more negative than positive. But the study also found what it called “The FOX News Difference.” The study reported: “FOX News Channel was about as negative towards Bush as the broadcast networks ["more than 60 percent" negative for Bush], but Kerry’s evaluations were negative by a five-to-one [negative-to-positive] margin [around 84 percent negative for Kerry].” Special Report did not report on this study.”

    — G.W.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    And the source of that article would be?

  • Patrick

  • Patrick
  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    In fairness, Patrick, that demonstrates a bias toward his network more than anything else… I think every reporter is guilty of that. Hell, CNN advertises itself as the most trusted name in news, and yet it’s ratings pale in comparison to Fox’s.

    But seriously, that isn’t demonstrative of a bias toward anything but the guy signing his paycheck…

  • http://www.hauntedparsonage.us/blog/ Chuck

    Speaking of beign selective…

    Patrick seems to have, once again, missed the point. In the Media Matters article that he cites, it states that the Republican bias observed on Special Report is during the “All Star Panel segment, which is an opinion segment. Like the big three network news divisions, Patrick seems unable to distinguish between news reporting, which is ostensibly impartial, and opinion, which is by its very nature biased.

    The Media Matters report clearly states that the news portion of Special Report was more balanced than the Big Three networks.

    -cjb-

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    I believe the relevant passage is here:

    “Fair and Balanced”? — In “Special Report” news segments, the coverage was balanced — 27% positive for Bush and 24% for Kerry. Fox was also more balanced in its issue coverage (30% positive for Bush vs. 28% for Kerry) than the broadcast network (41% positive for Kerry vs. 23% positive for Bush).

    Wow… That biased ole Fox News…

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Patty finally cites something and he still gets it wrong! Comedy Gold!

  • Patrick

    Chuck-
    So you are saying that because a segment of the show that carries the banner- opinion panel- it is inherently biased and therefore acceptable?

    It shouldn’t be biased. The network should provide punditry from both sides fairly and accurately.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    It’s opinion. It should be opinion and nothing more.

    And Fox does provide punditry from both sides.

    And even according to the report you cite, opinion doesn’t mix with news, and is clearly differentiated as such. In fact, you’re awfully down on Fox…

    Why don’t you name some of the conservative voices on ABC, CBS, or NBC, since they’re just so balanced…

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Cricket… Cricket….

    Well Patty?

  • http://www.hauntedparsonage.us/blog/ Chuck

    AS a matter of fact, yes. If the segment is labeled as “Opinion”, then I expect that it will be biased, because bias is a reflection of one’s opinion.

    I have a problem with network newscasts (and local ones) that long ago did away with segments labeled as opinion, but still continue to offer their opinions as news.

    -cjb-

  • Fred Dawes

    THIS IS SO MUCH FUN, STOP PRISON RAPE PUT SADDAM IN US PRISONS WITH BUSH.

  • pam

    Well said!

  • Fred Dawes

    Why is bush so much about mexico? and why is that low life government having so much say it what is happening here? is it because Bush and family have so much money in that drug dealing low life non nation? hey where is Bin Laden? and why is Bush And Family backing Mecha one of the most evil race hate Al Qaeda loving pigs on the earth? but who knows who is controlling who in this old world.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Cue twilight zone music

  • pam

    what does Fred’s post mean?

  • mad heron

    Jennings is no different then rather they are two peas in a pod and they are as alike as ever they are the tweedledee and tweedledum of news:grin:

  • Patrick

    …Which is why we need the upstanding journalists like Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto to project their Fair and Balanced news converage!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Here’s your big chance Patrick! Back your rhetoric up!

    Let’s hear examples of Hume or Cavuto’s biases.

    Put them in context of the coverage of the 2004 Election, when Hume was just as hard on the President as everyone else.

    This is your big chance to bury Fox news right here! Don’t blow it!

  • Patrick

    The information is out there:

    Brit Hume-
    He is a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines.

    Let’s talk about his show.
    The panelists that appear at the end of his show to discuss the day’s events are Fred Barnes- an evangelical Christian who edits The Weekly Standard. Mort Kondrack, who recently proclaimed his disgust with the Democratic Party, is also a regular commentator. Finally, there is Mara Liasson. She is supposed to sit on the opposite end of the table from Fred Barnes. However, her liberal ideology can be discounted since she routinely makes comments such as; “one of the roots of the problem with education today is feminism” (Talk of the Nation, 5/3/01); she declares that “Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot of things that other people don’t” (Special Report, 6/21/00); she calls George W. Bush’s reversal on carbon dioxide emissions “a small thing” (3/14/01), campaign finance reform “an issue that . . . only 200 people in America care about” (3/19/01) and slavery reparations “pretty much of a non-issue” (3/19/01).- Sounds like a liberal to me!

    These are the most regular panelists on the show.

    And never mind the fact that Special Report with Brit Hume was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.

    Neil Cavuto-

    In a Washington Times interview Neil responded to questions about his bias in reporting.

    “So am I slanted and biased?” Cavuto said. “You…bet I am, professor. I’m more in favor of a system that lets me say what I’m saying here rather than one which would be killing me for doing the same thing over there [in Iraq]. You say I wear my biases on my sleeve? Better that than pretend you have none.”

    There you go folks.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    So Cavuto’s Bias is that he thinks it’s better to live in the US than Iraq?

    That’s a bad thing?

    And the other “biases…” Are you really serious? And what about Juan Williams? It’s a panel discussion where opinions are expressed. That part of the show is clearly defined.

    And you didn’t put that into context with the debate coverage or the election coverage. Try again, because what you have right now is nothing.

  • Patrick

    I never said their coverage of the debate and of the election was biased (although I have my suspicions)- read my post.

    And oh yes- let’s not forget about Juan Williams. The NPR host has recently said that Liberals have become monsters as he characterized the “so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women’s organizations.”

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Mr. Conservative Bias Williams, who works for NPR regularly slams the President. As does Mr. Conservative Kondracke, and Ms. Conservative Liasson.

    If they’re all so damn conservative, why aren’t they following the talking points?

  • Patrick

    heh…they certainly aren’t stealing any talking points from Liberal think tanks.

  • pam

    So Mara can’t make a statement of her beliefs? She must just go along with the party? Mort spoke his mind about being disgusted with the party and that makes him biased? I call it intelligent. Many dems are fed up. Listen to those that are speaking up. They may help solve the problem. Brit subscribes to the Weekly standard? Could it be to prepare for the panel he has on as guests? Or could it be a gesture of friendship to Bill Krstol?

  • Patrick

    Did I say subscriber to Weekly Standard?
    Wait, that can’t be right. Ah- that is because as I CLEARLY stated, he is a CONTRIBUTOR.

    I never mentioned that Mara should go along with what her party says. But how can someone claim she is a liberal when she goes against the major tenets of liberal ideology?

  • pam

    Could it be that maybe mara sees a problem with the major tenets of the liberal cause? Are you denying that Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot or do you think he matters? I think he did get away with a lot, but he has very little clout at this stage of the game, so in the scheme of things, he really doesn’t matter. Did you scream at all the 527′s or just the ones aimed at your candidate? Slavery reparations- I never owned one therefore I don’t think I should be billed for one.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    You know what the problem is, Patrick? You’ve so far proven nothing to indicate a conservative bias, just that a few people who give opinions in an opinion segment of a show are all over the road on certain issues.

    None of the people you mentioned could possibly be called conservatives. Williams, Liasson, and Kondracke, are at the very least moderates, but moderate liberals, not moderate conservatives. Krystol is hardly a hard line right winger in any fashion, and during the campaign was one of Bush’s biggest critics on that panel.

    Basically, you’ve demonstrated nothing, which is usually what happens when you ask for examples of bias at Fox, not just some colloquial “well, we know it’s true…” :roll:

  • Patrick

    Heh, it’s a lost cause trying to get some hard line conservatives to see the truth. Brit Hume is a conservative contributor to conservative news sources. (Conservative American Spectator, The Weekly Standard) And it is obvious that his political ideology also bleeds into his reporting at FoxNews.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Patrick can’t cite shit as usual.

    Blah blah blah.

    More MoveON.org talking points.

    Blah blah blah.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    It’s so obvious that you can’t provide an example of it. In fact, when asked to provide an example of it, you went to the panel that discusses the issues at the end of the show. Were it so obvious, you could cite example after example after example.

  • Patrick

    Here is one instance… there are more…go ahead and pick it apart so you can keep hearing what you want on FoxNews while believing in its objectiveness.

    “Hume selectively quoted media study, omitted figures unfavorable to FOX
    FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume selectively quoted the results of a media watchdog’s study, reporting a figure that made FOX News Channel appear fair and balanced, while ignoring a key statistic that indicates FOX’s overwhelming pro-Republican slant.

    On the “Grapevine” segment of the October 18 edition of FOX News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume reported on a new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) showing that assessments of Senator John Kerry were more positive than those of President George W. Bush on the three major network news broadcasts. Referring to the study’s analysis of “news segments” on Special Report, Hume added that “the same survey found that news coverage on this program was virtually even.” But the study actually distinguished between three separate kinds of segments on Special Report: “news segments,” “issue coverage,” and “panelists’ comments.” Hume referred only to the figure for “news segments,” which showed equal proportion of positive assessments for both candidates. He did not mention the study’s finding that the “FOX All-Star Panel,” which appears daily on Special Report, overwhelmingly favored Bush.

    From the October 18 edition of FOX News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume:

    HUME: A new survey by the Center of Media and Public Affairs shows the big three networks’s evening newscast all tilt in favor of Senator Kerry. The survey, conducted last month, shows that on ABC evening news, 38 percent of the Kerry coverage was positive, while only 20 percent of the Bush coverage was. NBC’s evening news had a pro-Kerry margin of 38 to 30 percent over Bush. And CBS’s newscast was the most balanced with Kerry favored only 38 percent to 35 percent.

    By the way, the same survey found that news coverage on this program was virtually even, 30 percent of Bush coverage being favorable and 28 percent of the Kerry coverage being favorable.

    While Hume accurately reported the study’s findings on ABC, CBS, and NBC, he left out a key statistic about his own show — namely, that comments by the “All-Star Panel” “favored Bush by 50 percent positive to only 13 percent positive toward Kerry.” Assuming one accepts the study’s criteria as a valid indicator of media bias, this means that the “All-Star Panel” is 285 percent more favorable to Bush than to Kerry. Given that this imbalance dwarfs even the most “biased” of the news programs on the “big three” networks, ABC’s World News Tonight — whose coverage, according to the study, is 90 percent more favorable to Kerry than Bush — Hume surely would have mentioned this finding if he was concerned about offering the study’s most striking findings concerning media bias in nightly news programs.

    Other recent CMPA studies found similar results regarding Special Report’s anti-Kerry tilt. A study released September 9 found that evaluations of Bush on the network news broadcasts and major newsweeklies — as well as FOX News Channel — were more negative than positive. But the study also found what it called “The FOX News Difference.” The study reported: “FOX News Channel was about as negative towards Bush as the broadcast networks ["more than 60 percent" negative for Bush], but Kerry’s evaluations were negative by a five-to-one [negative-to-positive] margin [around 84 percent negative for Kerry].” Special Report did not report on this study.”

    — G.W.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    And the source of that article would be?

  • Patrick

  • Patrick
  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    In fairness, Patrick, that demonstrates a bias toward his network more than anything else… I think every reporter is guilty of that. Hell, CNN advertises itself as the most trusted name in news, and yet it’s ratings pale in comparison to Fox’s.

    But seriously, that isn’t demonstrative of a bias toward anything but the guy signing his paycheck…

  • http://www.hauntedparsonage.us/blog/ Chuck

    Speaking of beign selective…

    Patrick seems to have, once again, missed the point. In the Media Matters article that he cites, it states that the Republican bias observed on Special Report is during the “All Star Panel segment, which is an opinion segment. Like the big three network news divisions, Patrick seems unable to distinguish between news reporting, which is ostensibly impartial, and opinion, which is by its very nature biased.

    The Media Matters report clearly states that the news portion of Special Report was more balanced than the Big Three networks.

    -cjb-

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I believe the relevant passage is here:

    “Fair and Balanced”? — In “Special Report” news segments, the coverage was balanced — 27% positive for Bush and 24% for Kerry. Fox was also more balanced in its issue coverage (30% positive for Bush vs. 28% for Kerry) than the broadcast network (41% positive for Kerry vs. 23% positive for Bush).

    Wow… That biased ole Fox News…

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Patty finally cites something and he still gets it wrong! Comedy Gold!

  • Patrick

    Chuck-
    So you are saying that because a segment of the show that carries the banner- opinion panel- it is inherently biased and therefore acceptable?

    It shouldn’t be biased. The network should provide punditry from both sides fairly and accurately.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    It’s opinion. It should be opinion and nothing more.

    And Fox does provide punditry from both sides.

    And even according to the report you cite, opinion doesn’t mix with news, and is clearly differentiated as such. In fact, you’re awfully down on Fox…

    Why don’t you name some of the conservative voices on ABC, CBS, or NBC, since they’re just so balanced…

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Cricket… Cricket….

    Well Patty?

  • http://www.hauntedparsonage.us/blog/ Chuck

    AS a matter of fact, yes. If the segment is labeled as “Opinion”, then I expect that it will be biased, because bias is a reflection of one’s opinion.

    I have a problem with network newscasts (and local ones) that long ago did away with segments labeled as opinion, but still continue to offer their opinions as news.

    -cjb-

  • Fred Dawes

    THIS IS SO MUCH FUN, STOP PRISON RAPE PUT SADDAM IN US PRISONS WITH BUSH.