> Bob, > > > I am really appalled at the fact the NYT rejected McCain's op ed > after > > printing Obama's. That's low even by their entirely > > compromised standards. > > But when you follow the money, you see the whole mainstream > > media *really > > is* in the tank for the Obamessiah. > > The NYT has published several other McCain editorials, and endorsed him > for > the Republican ticket.
One of many reasons why I don't support him. Besides, don't you find a 100-1 disparity in contributions among the media to Dems over Republicans even just a little bit disturbing? > > This is really a big fuss about nothing. No I respectfully disagree. Their ostensible reason was that McCain mentions Obama in a critical light and was short on specifics. Obama's article has several "unlike Sen. John McCain" segues, and is just as light on specifics as McCain's. But they published his and rejected McCain's. This is the general election, and for good or ill there are two candidates. And if Obama is elected with a filibuster proof Senate, an outcome the media seems determined to engineer, then this is but a taste of the "fairness doctrine" to come. - Bob > > Kristyne McDaniel > http://www.shamrocktrails.com/legal/ > http://www.mcstyles.com/ > > Whether you think you can, or you think you can't.... you are right. > -- Henry Ford > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
