Hizbullah: "Shut up Bush and Rice"...

[frommd]

There is one problem I have with that; trying to equate Fox News (the editorial sides, not the straight reporting which is kind of decent) with CNN. Now, having lived in the DC area, I read the Washington Post, which I would categorize as "liberal," but with caveats in that the Post was no kinder to Clinton during his presidency. CNN does not push for gay marraige, or pro-choice issues, or pro-immigration issues, or anything else I would consider a liberal issue. People cite that CNN reports stories unfavorable to the President... guess what, it did the same thing with Clinton. So there are a few logical conclusions that can come from this;

Bush is the same quality of president as Clinton, and CNN simply did not like both

OR

Bush is a better president than Clinton, and CNN dislikes Bush more than it disliked Clinton

OR

Bush is a worse president than Clinton, and CNN dislikes Bush less than it disliked Clinton.

Notice that two of the options would indicate that CNN is not necessarily "liberal" in that it favors Clinton over Bush. Instead, the middle option would indicate that. To which I ask; if the news prefers bad news to good, and the current standing president is Bush, then what is the most likely outcome? The press will put out more bad news about the current president. That would also mean that the president has done things that are not necessarily worth praising (which does not mean bad things, just not great things), or else these stories would not come out. Every president after Washington was annoyed with the press. It comes with free speech.

Like I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a negative story about the Clintons on CNN nowadays. Not necessarily referring to 1992-2000.

Also, Fox draws huge numbers (more than CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined). It's not just because there is (admittedly) a conservative slant. It's also because conservatives see the liberal slant while watching the others. I know several conservatives who get angry watching CNN. While it may come across as truth to you, others feel differently.

[Winslowalrob]

Like I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a negative story about the Clintons on CNN nowadays. Not necessarily referring to 1992-2000.

Also, Fox draws huge numbers (more than CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined). It's not just because there is (admittedly) a conservative slant. It's also because conservatives see the liberal slant while watching the others. I know several conservatives who get angry watching CNN. While it may come across as truth to you, others feel differently.

Now we are getting into a very subjective debate. The Clintons are not in power. If you go back to Bill's presidency, looking at old CNN reports, you would find stark similarities in both quantity of bad stories. Of course that presumes we can find a working definition of a bad story. You and I both know that ratings do not dictate quality, because the Washington Post still gets tons of readers. I have to see what is so liberal about CNN, and if it is consistently liberal.

[frommd]

Now we are getting into a very subjective debate. The Clintons are not in power. If you go back to Bill's presidency, looking at old CNN reports, you would find stark similarities in both quantity of bad stories. Of course that presumes we can find a working definition of a bad story. You and I both know that ratings do not dictate quality, because the Washington Post still gets tons of readers. I have to see what is so liberal about CNN, and if it is consistently liberal.

I was pretty sure that Senator Clinton was preparing for a Presidential run. I wasn't saying that ratings equal quality. What I was saying is that ratings show that the conservative audience has congregated to Fox, because CNN shows viewpoints conservatives don't agree with.

Also, I would disagree slightly about the Post. Their readership is dropping.

[Winslowalrob]

I was pretty sure that Senator Clinton was preparing for a Presidential run. I wasn't saying that ratings equal quality. What I was saying is that ratings show that the conservative audience has congregated to Fox, because CNN shows viewpoints conservatives don't agree with.

Also, I would disagree slightly about the Post. Their readership is dropping.

I am trying to pinpoint exactly what viewpoints conservatives do not like and what Fox News has to offer them. And good thing the Post readership is dropping, although I hope the Times is not picking up the slack.

[frommd]

I am trying to pinpoint exactly what viewpoints conservatives do not like and what Fox News has to offer them. And good thing the Post readership is dropping, although I hope the Times is not picking up the slack.

But the Times is in color . No, they both kind of suck.

Back to the television debate, you will have to watch both and decide for yourself.

Winslow, I've had fun with this debate. But, my wife won't let me sit at the computer all night. So, I'll just close with saying, I respect your point of view and that you feel strongly about it. However, I don't agree with it. Later.

[Winslowalrob]

But the Times is in color . No, they both kind of suck.

Back to the television debate, you will have to watch both and decide for yourself.

Winslow, I've had fun with this debate. But, my wife won't let me sit at the computer all night. So, I'll just close with saying, I respect your point of view and that you feel strongly about it. However, I don't agree with it. Later.

Haha, ok cool. I was hoping for a convert, but it was a fun debate. Later.