1/4     Full of crap?  http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009
        We report, you decide.
        \_ Well, he was right about the nativity thing, so that makes him
           about 50% full of crap.
           \_ "Right"...  He pulled a report from the echo chamber.  Note that
              the other stories in the wapo article took a similar route.
           \_ The unfortunate part is that 50% hit is probably pretty good
              for talking heads.
        \_ "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit,
           501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated
           to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting
           conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."  Just for the sake
           of full disclosure, of course.  Which by the raises an interesting
           question in my mind.  Would we be just as receptive to quotes from
           a conservative research and information center dedicated to
           comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting liberal
           misinformation in the U.S. media?  Moot question in this case,
           of course.
           \_ Um.. heard of http://factcheck.org?
              \_ http://Factcheck.org isn't conservative.  Now, Media Research Center
                 is.
                 \_ Media Research Center doesn't "analyze and correct".  It
                    just says "look at what they say! bias bias bias!".
                    MediaMatters does some of this, but is closer to factcheck
                    than mediaresearch is.
           \_ The spin and media control exhibited by the Dubya administration
              dwarfs that of any past presidential administration.</opinion>
              \_ I always wonder when people say stuff like this (not re
                 Bush specifically, but any statement of the form "the
                 mostest ever") what their qualifications are, and, if they
                 actually considered their qualifications, whether they
                 would still make the same unqualified comments.
                 \_ bush is the worst president ever
                 \_ I always wonder, when someone attacks an individual
                    making a statement, whether they personally think the
                    statement itself is accurate or not.
                    \_ I wouldn't know.  I haven't made a study of historical
                       presidential control of media.  I would have said
                       "an incredible amount of" or maybe qualified it with
                       "that I've known".  That's all highly defendable.  But
                       "dwarfs that of any past"?  That seems to require a
                       lot more study and thought.   So would you tell us
                       how you reached the "dwarfs that of any past"
                       conclusion?  That begs for a run down of each past
                       president's relation with the media.  Care to start
                       with Gorgeous George and work your way down?
                       \_ So, all in all, if we weren't talking on soda and
                          you were talking with a good friend of yours who
                          wanted your honest opinion, would you say the
                          original statement was accurate or not?
                          If not, how would you qualify it?
                          \_ "I wouldn't know.  I haven't made a study of
                             historical presidential control of media".   I
                             think also said how I would have qualified it.
                             If you can back up your claim facutally, I would
                             love for you to share your findings with us,
                             starting with Georgie Porgie.
                             \_ Let's say your good friend then asks you,
                                knowing what you know, or perhaps your gut
                                feeling, what's your impression or opinion
                                then?
                                \_ "I wouldn't know.  I haven't made a study
                                   of historical presidential control of media".
                                   I don't do ungrounded hyperbole.  I take it
                                   that you don't have any factual basis, and
                                   your claim is in fact ungrounded hyperbole?
                                   of historical presidential control of
                                   media". I don't do ungrounded hyperbole.
                                   I take it that you don't have any factual
                                   basis, and your claim is in fact ungrounded
                                   hyperbole?
                                   \_ Your friend says, "C'mon ... you don't
                                      have any opinion?  It's not like you're
                                      submitting an article to a scientific
                                      journal."
                                      \_ I'd tell him he's wasting my time.
                                         I'd also say that if we were more
                                         worried about the truthfulness of
                                         our statements and less about
                                         hyperbole, perhaps our civic discourse
                                         would be more productive and civil.
                                         \_ Fair enough.  I respect that
                                            viewpoint.
                       that I've looked at".  I certainly would never say
                       "dwarfs that of any past".
                                         would be more product and civil, which
                                         would be nice.
                \_ Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and countless others have been
                   screaming bloody murder about the "liberal media" for
                   decades now. Not to mention the numerous conservative
                   non-profits like the Hoover Institute, The Scaife
                   Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cons have been
                   playing the refs for years, it is past time liberals
                   started doing some of the same.
        \_ "Peabody, Pea Soup, Peanuts-- they're all prestigiou awards." -BO'R
        \_ "Peabody, Polk, what's the difference?" -BO'R