> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:03 AM
> 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!

Reply via email to