> -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ZION] News sources > > > Well, the first one on your list already knocks your credibility down > quite a ways. the NYTimes group has been riddled with scandle over the > past year for fraudulent stories bent on making the left look good and > the right look evil. I don't mind a magazine/newspaper slanting a > certain direction, as long as they don't make up the facts as they go > along. Then there's one other major hit for them: Paul Krugman. Here's a > guy that should be in jail (a la Enron), trying to tell us that George W > Bush is evil? Come on! Give me a break!<<
*Riddled* with scandal? Please do tell. Surely you are not suggesting that the fraudulent work of one or two -- which the Times uncovered on its own -- is example of "riddled." Paul Krugman? If you'd read my post carefully -- should I not expect Zion subscribers to read carefully -- you'd have read my comments were of the reporters, not of the editorialists on the editorial page or the op-ed page. By the way, the NYTimes group includes several newspapers, including the Boston Globe, the NYTimes news service etc. > > The LA Times showed themselves to be rather one-sided in their > Thursday-last minute attack on Arnold Schwarzeneggar prior to the > election in California. Why didn't they do this weeks before, giving him > time to respond? And why didn't they also do the same on Gray Davis? Did > you know he had a relationship with a now-famous actress when she was 15 > and he was in his twenties? How come that didn't come out on the Thursday > before, as well? Where is the fair and balanced?< The question to me boils down to whether the claims against Arnold were accurate or not. So far as I could tell -- and I do know quite a bit about Arnold's history-- the charges seemed reasonably accurate. I will also point out that the campaign season there was quite short lived and, further, that the stories broke well before the final weekend of the campaign. No, I did not know about Davis affair with a 15-year-old actress when he was in his 20s. > The WSJ is an interesting lot. Their editorial page is extremely > conservative, while the news section is run by left-leaners, which is > kind of funny for a magazine based on capitalism, eh? But they still seem > to try and be balanced on the news section, regardless.<< Yeh, right. Lotsa left leaners at the WSJ. Sigh. You forget I do know more than a few who are definitedly not left leaners. > What I try to do is read some from both the right and left sides, hoping > to gain a balanced perspective from reading the two. < Well, Gary, why don't you give me your list? I think mine was pretty broad and balanced. But perhaps you can teach me a thing or two. > Ron: In my opinion, the "news"(this does not include editorialists or > editorialists) organizations that are the most reliable are: > > 1. The New York Times group > 2. The Washington Post/LA Times/Newsday/Newsweek group > 3. The Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > //////////// > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > /////////// > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
