I think I asked you last week what newspapers you considered not
biased. If you answered me I missed it.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: OReilly vs. Moore
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that the Washington Times is owned by Rev.
> Moon (of the Moonies
> fame) and has been caught more than a few times not
> only getting the
> story wrong, but fabricating elements of some of
> those stories, I put
> no credulance in the paper.
OK
> The story on Roy Moore in the TFP was incorrect in a
> number of
> different ways, first is that he substantially
> violated the law and
> the constitution, and was quite unrepentant. The
> article in question
> stated that it was persecution by the ACLU. Hello!
> Excuse Me but the
> issue was his violating the constitution.
I just read the article and there's no mention of the
ACLU. Maybe they changed it?
> As for reputable papers, Times of London, Manchester
> Guardian, the
> Washington Post, San Francisco Examiner are good
> examples as is the
> Ottawa Citizen, as for radio, the CBC, BBC and NPR
> are good, as is
> CSPAN. I don't watch cable or broadcast media.
WOW, those are all extremely liberal. Times of London
being the least biased but still biased. Can't speak
for CBC. Know wonder you're arguments are so lopsided.
-sm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
