> Scott wrote: >> >> "the media" as judged by the NYT has investigated and found no hard >> evidence of anything other than random work-related events. >> > > When tryign to prove a point, you may want to use less biased sources. I > mean, even the most staunch republicans won't use Fox News as 'proof' of > anything. >
My point was EXACTLY to use a media channel that is felt to be biased such as the NYT. Why? Because the charge is that "the media", of which the NYT would certainly be included, is not investigating Obama as they should. My point refuting that assertion is simple and 2 fold: (1.) It's called the "news" because it's things that are new; new things or news. The Ayers charge isn't new, it's old. There's nothing new and no reason to investigate. (2.) The assertion that there is reason is false since we can say with 100% certainty that multiple stakeholders have investigated this charge for 2 years and found nothing. Therefore the media is correct to leave any mention of Ayers as an "olds" rather than a "news". If we all agreed that, for example, Fox News or the McCain campaign *probably* hadn't investigated and therefore the, say, NYT has an imperitive to investigate, then I'd be wrong. But I think we'd all agree that Fox News has probably spent a considerable amount of $$$ investigating the Ayers thing and found nothing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:276913 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
