Delivering the news with a poisoned rag?

Alexandra wryly uses Caravaggio’s David and Goliath to make a statement about bloggers, the MSM and the attention deficit disorder the international press displays regarding France, and toward all things not related to destroying George W. Bush.

Alexandra grew up in communism. She understands in a way many of us cannot, the enormous amount of freedom that is lost by a nation when the press misuses its own freedom to suppress a story (France), or to distort (Plamegate) or to lie (Katrina) or to shield (Kerry, Berger, Clintons…) or to beat-down (Bush) or to raise up (Hillary!).

If only we had a press which simply told the stories, nowadays. Most bloggers – I say most, there are some exceptions – have a bias, but they’re upfront about it, and not pretending to a noble neutrality that does not exist. And as the press will tell you, “bloggers are not journalists!”

Okay. So when will “journalists” start acting like journalists instead of political midwives, working with a poisoned rag at the ready, trying to determine which infant story will live or die at birth, how they are to be delivered and fed, and which are to be shunted aside and ignored?

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Evon

    In a way, the MSM used to be the glue that made us the community of America. Now that they apparently have anti-Americanism as the agenda behind all reporting and coverage decisions they have lost their relevance for those of us who love America.

    In the movie The Godfather, when Michael Corleone, who enlisted in the military to fight for his country, drops the newspaper [which carried the news of that his father has been shot] in the middle of the street to go to a phone booth and find out what happened first hand from his family, it marks the beginning of Michale’s transition from being an American to being a Corleone and part of the “family business.”

    Nowadays, to learn good news about America, one usually needs to look outside the MSM. To, figuratively, drop the newspaper, is to turn towards America.

  • Joseph

    the attention deficit disorder the international press displays regarding France, and toward all things not related to destroying George W. Bush
    -Now really, Anchoress. You should actually take a look at some news before you say things like this.
    -On Google News even as I write there are 1,220 recent articles worldwide about last night’s French rioting. In the top thirty of them, it is being covered by BBC News, CBC News, Reuters, Guardian Unlimited, ABC News, International Herald Tribune, Sify of India, the Melbourne Australia Herald Sun, the Sidney Australia Morning Herald, CTV Canada, Channel 4 UK, Bloomberg, CBS News, Scotland On Sunday, Zaman in Turkey, The Scotsman, Times of India, News 24 South Africa, London Canada Free Press, ABC Australia, Mail & Guardian South Africa, Xinhua China, and India.
    -Moreover, here are the following Top Stories on I Won News Reuters, the best international wire going:
    -Woman bomber makes confession, Reconstruction chief challenged by Iraqis, Talabani sees UK troop withdrawal in 2006, Rice: Palestinian state would boost Israel security,Bush to press Hu on currency, Indian police arrest man over Delhi blasts, Rice urges Saudis to do more to fight terrorism, Forces wary at news of Saddam aide death, Bush looks to lift image on Asian tour, Budget fight reveals Republican snarl, Rice: Arab-Israeli conflict top priority.
    -Finally, you can take a look at the Beeb, where the world gets its best and most comprehensive international radio news, here:
    -There are so many stories on the Beeb that have nothing to do whatever with Bush that they cannot even be listed.
    -All of these are hardly international ADD regarding France or an orgy of international press Bush Bashing.
    -This is why I get so annoyed with “MSM”, “International Press”, “American Media”. They are merely bogeymen to absolve my conservative friends from looking at the actual facts of the coverage.
    -Alexandra does a little better. She names a few outlets which a fair minded person could actually investigate for bias: The Associated Press, New York Times, and CNN. So what do we have? One American wire service, one newspaper among dozens and one of three cable news networks. And this is an international press conspiracy to ignore France and Bash Bush?
    -On another note Alexandra has this to say [or to quote, I'm not quite sure which]: It’s day 12 of the French riots but I still haven’t heard anyone say how it’s Bush’s fault yet. Is the left so apathetic about France they cannot cite a simple connection to the White House?.
    -”The Left” is still another straw-filled punching bag to subsitute for reading and confronting the real people, or their blogs, who happen to disagree, however stridently, with the President.
    -To answer Alexandra’s [or whoever's] question, most of us who disagree with the President are specific people who do so for reasons.
    -They may be bad reasons, it may be wrong to use those specific reasons for disagreeing with him. But the snide implication of the question is merely a means of evading talking about the people or their reasons at all.
    -Just like the “MSM”, the “international press” are a means of evading the confrontation with international news coverage as it actually exists.

  • Alexandra


    Bully for you for knowing how to use Google.

    Did you open any U.S.newspapers on Friday yourself?

    Or are you simply Googling the news gathered from all over the world (including India and Australia) as of last night?

    Where were you when the media reported that the riots are subsiding and more or less over? If an American (not Indian, Australian or British) consumer read Friday’s newspapers in the US, he would assume that the riots in France have ended. None of the major newspapers that had covered the uprising have any specific updates Friday on the story (other than ONE, non-newspaper Reuters), despite the continued overnight violence and an increase in the oddball metric of burnt cars in Paris. Other than an a long-overdue address to the nation by Jacques Chirac and an analysis that repeats the same line the press has taken since the beginning of the crisis, nothing would inform readers that the streets of France remained ablaze last night.

    You are missing the point: reporting is not about repeated rhetoric of regurgitated stories, but a fully news covered factual UPDATE.
    The period of time for the virtual radio silence (that means in blogger language stale rhetoric) was Friday and early Saturday (my post was posted early hours of the morning), when the US media still thought they could drop the story and let it die despite the fact that it was far from dead. You should be reading the hundreds of blogs blogging about this real time, instead of Googling MSM stories after the fact, and quoting everything but the kitchen sink in the WORLD MSM.

    You are now quoting the renewed attempt of the US media since LATE LAST NIGHT and TODAY to cover the story that would not lie down, as the riots have revived in a too obvious a fashion. The story the US media dropped like a hot potato on Friday. They have steadfastly IGNORED the Islam connection, and continue to do so.

    The French media editor was quoted in my link in admitting to the fact that his station and newspapers have purposely ignored the severity of the riotsso as not to supposedly fuel the riots further. I assume you read that?

    It is impossible to spoon feed my readers ALL the examples, but you have to research better than simply Googling the MSM FROM LAST NIGHT, without reading any of it. We can all copy paste media names of the world.

    Now in relation to the quote I gave from a left blog called Wonkette, it was fully linked so you simply needed to activate the link. The site is very obviously left leaning and therefore I don’t understand the point of your comment. It was left satire delivered by the left and directed at the left. It was funny, that was all. If your sense of humor fails you perhaps you need to chill a little more.

    And Joseph, if you truly believe that the media has no agenda or is unbiased, then good luck my friend, but if I were you I would check on the truth from the odd blogger. I would have respected your argument more if you quoted the top bloggers instead of the MSM, but then we definitely did not attempt to drop the story even for a day. A day in the world of news is a lifetime, and especially if you are the MSM.

  • Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

    Not to worry- people like Marshall are necesdsary barometers.

    In fact, every single regime or political agenda endorsed or supported by the left has been an abysmal failure and has been rejected out of hand by those having to live under the regimes that left would have you believe are a ‘paradise.’

    Mr Marshall and his ilk would never concede that of course. His paradise includes forcing ideologies on others. If it didn’t he wouldn’t speak of kindly of regimes and agendas that do just that.

    The left cannoy bring themselves to condemn what have been and are human rights nightmares and abuses, all more egregious than anything any western government has done- they just cannot do that.

    It is democracy, real democracy that must be vilified and destroyed- and all the lying and justifications of the left’s agenda can’t change that- not even referring to Mr Clintons pardon of Marc Rich as ‘merciful.’

    I’ll say one thhing for you, Marshall- you got stones. No brains, no integrity, but you got stones.

  • Alexandra


    -Now really, Anchoress. You should actually take a look at some news before you say things like this.

    Actually, I took the trouble and checked the MSM hits you are referring to when searching “french rioting” – as you can see, most are really quite out of date and the final two NYT articles really speak for themselves when read with an unbiased eye:

    CNN: French rioting spreads to new cities
    Friday, November 4, 2005

    Associated Press: Rioting Begins to Slack Off in France
    Wed Nov 9

    WorldNetDaily: Radical Islam blamed for French rioting
    Posted: November 5, 2005

    BBC News (UK Edition): French violence hits fresh peak
    Last Updated: Monday, 7 November 2005

    LA Times: Chirac Vows to Restore Order as Riots Grow Across France
    November 7, 2005

    Taipei Times: French rioting loses some steam
    Thursday, Nov 10

    ABC News: Man Becomes First Killed in French Rioting
    PARIS Nov 7, 2005

    Reuters UK: First fatality as French rioting worsens
    Mon Nov 7, 2005

    HoustonChronicle: Chirac admits France has ‘undeniable problems’
    Nov. 10, 2005

    Breaking News Ireland: French rioting spreads to 300 towns

    Sunday Times (South Africa): French rioting recedes
    Thursday November 10

    The Washington Times: French rioting hits tenth night
    Nov. 5, 2005

    The New York Times:
    French Civil Unrest Subsides
    PARIS, Nov. 13 – The recent unrest roiling France continued to subside today without having touched the capital’s tourist districts, as had been feared.
    The unrest broke out on Oct. 27 after two teenage youths were electrocuted while hiding in a power substation, believing that the police were chasing them. Minority youths have accused the police of hounding them unfairly, and the initial protests quickly spread across the country.

    [Ahh, of course, that explains/justifies it all - don't you just love "the initial protests...."]

    The resulting violence, which destroyed millions of dollars worth of property, has started an intense debate in France on the conditions for its mostly Muslim, non-European minorities.

    ["..on the conditions..." - NO, not quite, rather, it sparked an intense debate about radical Islam demanding autonomy within their host nations...]

    Many people feel that the nationwide unrest has marked a turning point in the country’s evolution from its old-world identity to a more multicultural society.

    [Ohh, it's now "old-world identity" is it? " a more multicultural society"; come on, you can't miss the purpose of the nuance here...]

    They see a shift from the deference practiced by former colonial subjects and their children to a new generation who are French citizens and demand equal treatment as such.

    [That's the show-stopper!!!! This sentence is so outrageous, it ought to set off an army of angry bloggers voicing the repugnance of millions of citizens - I hope you don't need me to tell you why...]

    The New York Times:
    Police Brace for Violence in Paris
    PARIS, Nov. 11 – France celebrated Armistice Day on Friday with a parade, but also deployed 3,000 police officers in Paris to watch for trouble on the third weekend since the country’s recent unrest began.
    Echoing Mr. Chirac’s acknowledgment on Thursday that there were “problems” in France’s poor urban neighborhoods, Finance Minister Thierry Breton told The Financial Times in an interview published Friday that although France had spent heavily in improving the neighborhoods, “obviously it wasn’t enough.” He said the country would need to create more jobs and economic growth to benefit its children of immigrants.

    [AND, IF YOU DIDN'T GET IT EARLIER, let's drum it in one more time: it's only the economy, stupid... so pipe down and sit back while your tax-Francs are being redistributed in reward packages for the rioters. Sounds good to you?]

    Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy spoke in much firmer terms during a television interview broadcast late Thursday. He repeated the blunt language that he has used to describe the youths carrying out the violence, saying he had no regrets despite criticism of his remarks. “They are thugs, dregs,” he insisted.

    [Yes, tsk, tsk, it's all your fault anyway. Blunt language and poor conditions are at the heart of all these problems.... So, when do the underprivileged in New Orleans -- after all it was founded by the French in 1718 -- and everywhere else start rioting? Somebody ought to tell them that it pays off handsomely, right..]

  • Joseph

    -Well, gee. I go off to do some grocery shopping and I come back to find more refutation of my poor little comment than 20 liberals could handle. I guess I’ll just have to condense and summarize.
    Joseph, if you truly believe that the media has no agenda or is unbiased, then good luck my friend
    -No, I don’t think this.
    -But what I do think, first, is that my conservative friends have a standard of “unbiased” that couldn’t be met by the Recording Angel writing on the Book of Eternity, let alone by fallible human beings contending with too short of deadlines, too sketchy of wire reports, too many uncheckable news sources willing to distort or lie, too small of airtime or newshole, and too many competing stories on their editor’s desk.
    -Bloggers like us live in the lap of luxury by conparison, except for the fact that we’re not where the news is. We are mere consumers of news reporting rather than producers.
    -Second, there is no such thing as “the media”, the “MSM”, or “the international press” as monolithic entities.
    -Let’s just take one of these vapid generalizations–the “Mainstream Media”. Is Fox News or Clear Channel Radio part of the “Mainstream Media”?
    -If not, why not? Fox News is the dominant cable news network in terms of viewership, and Clear Channel has virtually no serious competition in American news radio. As far as I can see that’s as mainstream as it gets.
    -If they are part of the “Mainstream Media” what happens to “Mainstream Media Liberal Bias”? I don’t think anyone in their right senses would assert that Fox & Clear Channel share the same point of view as that horrid CNN or New York Times.
    -More generally, where does “MSM” end? Is the Wall Street Journal part of it? Bloomberg?, The Arizona Republic? USA Today? Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau? Investor’s Business Daily? The Cincinati Inquirer? NPR? The Charlotte Observer?
    -”MSM” is a concept without genuine content used in this fatuous piece of circular reasoning: any media outlet with a liberal bias is part of the MSM, therefore every part of the MSM is a media outlet with a liberal bias. Well, gee, how convenient!
    -Does the New York Times have a liberal bias in its national and international hard news coverage? Quite probably. It’s not to my taste and I don’t read it much–the only thing I turn to it for are the stories from its field reporters which appear nowhere else.
    -Does any other outlet I might choose have a bias of one kind or another? Probably. Sometimes I turn to a source like Guardian Unlimited or Town Hallfor its bias, because I know I will get certain unusual news there because of that very bias.
    -In the end, the whole issue of bias in coverage doesn’t interest me very much. What I ask of news is depth, breadth, and relevance of information.
    -When I want depth, I go to Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (the last holdover of what really good newspaper work used to be like in this country).
    -When I want breadth I usually go to the Beeb or, as a distant second, the Reuters wire. When I want relevance, I root around until I find it. Where I generally find it most often is either in The Wall Street Journal or Guardian Unlimited.
    -My general criticism of most news sources is that they are not focused enough to have a coherent and consistent bias, whatever their biases may be. WSJ and GU have that very rare thing, a consistent and coherent attitude toward the news they cover.
    -All of you may have different standards, and that’s fine. But what freedom of the press really means is that we have the freedom to choose the flavor of the news we like.
    -So why does every news source have to be orange creamsickle? You can only read or listen to one at a time. Can’t you find one to your taste?

  • Joseph

    Now, let’s discuss something SC&A. I believe I have mentioned this before, but I will do so a little more pointedly.
    -If you really want to talk about what I think about State Socialism, various ideologies, human rights, freedom, democracy, religion, or anything else, I’d appreciate it if you would go read some the 250 essays on my blog and find out what actually I have to say about them.
    -I really don’t care two hoots what you think of my brains, my integrity, or my “stones”. But I am getting a little weary of being the blank white wall for your Power Point projective fantasies about my opinions.
    -If you want to talk about them, please have the courtesy to go read them. I would do nothing less if I wanted to talk about yours. Which I don’t.

  • gcotharn

    Its quite disingenious to throw out a huge number of charges/opinions/items, then complain when someone sincerely goes through them, and refutes them one by one.
    Liberals are frequently accused of taking positions based on faith instead of facts. I know you do not want to prove that to be true.

  • gcotharn


    I’ll respond to your “MSM: what is it?” comments.
    Blogs are not MSM. Yet. Town Hall is not MSM. Above that, at whatever level, or whatever size, or whatever amount of influence you wish to draw a line, the VAST majority of media above that line is liberal, ideologically blind, and often intentionally biased in their news choices.
    I would love to see your rebuttal. In fact, nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong – as that would mean my concerns about media are unfounded.

  • Joseph

    As to the “point by point” refutations, I am perfectly willing to let them stand, and to remain refuted by them.
    -The particular point I was trying to make (the essential contentlessness of abstractions such as MSM) is the only one of any real interest to me. If I lose the debating trophy in consequence, so be it.
    the VAST majority of media above that line is liberal, ideologically blind, and often intentionally biased in their news choices
    I cannot prove or disprove this. It is too broad and requires too much evidence to even address.
    -But I can suggest a rough and ready way for you to test it–examine about 5 separate stories of distinctly different content on Google News. Go systematicly down about 3 pages for each (that’s 90 stories). By then you should have a very good idea of the state of journalism, and its biases, worldwide.
    -You may not change your opinion in the least after you do this but you will have the facts of the ideological state of worldwide journalism at your disposal rather than abstractions such as “MSM” which are used as a substitute both for evidence and for thought.

  • http://none Darrell

    The term Mainstream Media was, in effect, coined by the media itself at the time Rush Limbaugh came along. They said he was “outside the mainstream” of American public opinion. Reminds me of what Jimmy Carter said last week about Bush. Sorry. Former President Jimmy Carter. Lots of language purists point out that “mainstream” is one word, so for them I would say the Mainstream Socialist Media or MSM. That more accurately describes the choices American had before Rush, Fox Cable, and the others came along. Whose fault is this? Ours. The Left controls education so the fine products from all university journalism programs are likely to be Leftist themselves. We’ve been bullied over the years to put news divisions under control of “experienced” professional journalists/news managers who, just coincedentally, happen to be Left-of-center. Fox’s owner finally overcame that hurdle and put together the most balanced news program on the air. That balance, by the way, was confirmed in that University of Chicago study just over a year ago. It still had an overall “Liberal” bias(by a surprising margin), but far less so than any other news network. There are more Liberal independent sources, “thinktanks”, and professional associations than Conservative so that explains why you can never achieve perfect balance. Most Americans don’t demand perfection, we just want our side represented as much as possible in a fair and transparent manner. Anyone who thinks they are getting that on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, et al, needs serious time on SCA’s couch.

  • Alexandra

    GCotharn & Darrell,

    How did I say all that without my lips even moving? LOL…

  • Lyle

    Joseph, it is good to see someone on this blog who sees MSM as a myth and nonexistence, and from a self proclaimed conservative no less. Near as I can tell MSM is a fairly new term that took the place of liberal media.
    Darrell, if FOX news was really fair and balanced they wouldn’t have to advertise it.

  • TheAnchoress

    Darrell, if FOX news was really fair and balanced they wouldn’t have to advertise it.

    If Haagan Das really sold tasty Ice Cream, they wouldn’t have to advertise it as tasty. :-)

    Lyle, that remark of yours sounds distressingly close to the passive-aggressive mindgames of the Mad Patriarch I wrote about in another post.

    I don’t watch Fox, or any TV news, but perhaps they say “fair and balanced” because it is such an “unusual” concept, these days, or in order to point out that on NBC, CBS or ABC you will not get both perspectives of a story. From what little I have seen, Brit Hume’s show has a fair balance of left and right opinion.

    I grow weary of reading the same damn argument in these threads. Do a nexis lexis and see how many stories the MSM did on Sandy Berger’s theft of Top Secret documents and how many they did over the NON-leak of NON-covert agent’s name, and figure out which one of those stories had REAL implications for anything to do with national security.

  • Joseph

    Sorry to tire you out, Anchoress. I really didn’t mean to. Really.
    and from a self proclaimed conservative no less
    -You don’t mean me, do you? I’m not quite as Liberal as Ted Kennedy, but I’m probably more so than Harry Reid. I merely comment here because I like the Anchoress a lot and think her a very good person, and I enjoy having my prejudices challenged rather than catered to.
    -That aside, however, I have pointed out where I go when I want real information. (I’m not sure there is such a thing as “fair and balanced” reporting–see my remarks on the Recoding Angel above.)
    -I would be curious to know where you folks do.

  • Pingback: Cam Edwards » Blog Archive » Riots Continue

  • Pingback: Conservative Blogs | Brad Miner | Conservative Blog by Brad Miner | Politics | Political Blog

  • Evon

    Speaking of the MSM, did anyone notice how Tim Russert equated Colin Powell’s statement that the intelligence given to the administration was misleading as endorsing the Democrats’ current charges that President Bush was deliberately misleading?

  • Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

    Joseph- you became irrelevant when you stated your support of the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich- despite the almost unanimous disdain of the left. Had you said that you didn’t give a rats ass, I’d have been more impressed. When you qualified that pardon as ‘merciful,’ as an excuse, well, the emperors clothes are there for all to see.

    You see, you are full of crap and intoxicated with your own navel.

    Still want to argue that Clinton did the right thing with the Rich pardon?

  • http://none Darrell

    Alexandra, I wouldn’t dare speak for you:You do that quite well yourself. I only added my humble opinions.

    I was laughing myself as I read the exchanges, wondering if any human being ever had ever gotten a Leftist to concede a point. Or put down the handbook.

    Remember, Lyle recently said that he doesn’t own a television set. Hard to make informed judgements if you can’t see and hear what we are talking about.

  • Alexandra

    I know Darrell, I am still a romantic fool….LOL

  • http://none Darrell

    Nice to know you are out there!

  • karen

    I think Lyle OUGHT to take a gander at the things he dispises on TV. The thing is, he’d totally agree w/all those networks and see no bias.
    I have a confession to make- I watch a lot of PBS. On Friday nights I watch Gwen Eiffel(sp) and I really like her a lot. I can’t tell whose side she’s one although I can probably guess. Also, NOW stinks to high Heaven and they have FrontLine or some such that is so incredibly biased and Anti-American, I shake my fist through it(I don’t watch that one anymore):).
    I now know what Micheal Kissoff looks like(ooooppps-Iskoff): a beady-eyed rat. There’s a woman named Dana Priest-she creates damage esp to make the US look like hell. Nice Patriot there. I like seeing those reporters and hearing them, but I take everything w/a large, large grain of salt. It’s good to be able to identify the people i don’t trust.
    A, I trust you very much, which makes Spud laugh. I respect your mystery and hope you continue speaking the truth for as long as you can bear us.

  • Joseph

    Joseph- you became irrelevant when you stated your support of the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich- despite the almost unanimous disdain of the left.

    What on earth are you talking about? I can’t say that I have never made such a remark in passing sometime over the past couple of years on some blog’s comment page or other. I take too many medications to put that much trust in my memory. But I don’t remember ever discussing the matter with any degree of serious or sustained engagement.

    And even if I did say such a thing in passing somewhere, I can’t see in the least what relevance it has to this discussion.

  • Lyle

    Darrell said, “Remember, Lyle recently said that he doesn’t own a television set. Hard to make informed judgments if you can’t see and hear what we are talking about.” Obviously Anchoress disagrees seeing how she said herself, “I don’t watch Fox, or any TV news”. Besides Darrell, I go to FOX news online regularly and I haven’t yet seen any evidence they are any less biased then the rest of them. It is obvious the owner of FOX is an unabashed conservative so we would expect a conservative slant on news. But the owner’s of the three networks are no bleeding heart liberals, so why the liberal bent in your mind? Is General Electric a bastion of liberalism? I don’t think so.

    Karen, are you trying to get me in trouble? I didn’t laugh because you trust Anchoress, I laughed because you said you get your news from Anchoress. You don’t go to Anchoress for news, you go to Anchoress to get the spin of the news. That is a huge difference. Go to FOX news on line and read their headlines. They are the same headlines as any other news outlet. And oh yeah, I wouldn’t equate criticism of George Bush’s policies with anti-Americanism.

  • karen

    Lyle- no. Sorry, not trying to get you in trouble.

    I have a friend that always says *It’s not what you do, it’s how you do it*. I would respect the Left if they were seriously concerned for the welfare of our country in their critisms of W’s policies. I never, never see that as the case, though. i see leaking worse than a fresh cow- and I don’t have to tell you how that spilled milk stinks. I see cheap shots, temper tantrums and childish actions- on both sides at times.
    These people get paid to act like educated fools. By us, their constituients? How sweet a life can one get? Bunches of head-games and dishonesty.

    I’m just sick of it. That’s all.

  • http://none Darrell

    I thought I explained this a dozen times over the last few months, and above as well. While General Electric may be “conservative” as a company, they have been bullied into a “hands off” policy on their news division. If I had to guess, the reason they allow this is their concern for their entertainment division. And their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. If they wanted to implement a policy to bring more balance to their news division, such as hiring a few people who actually voted Republican once in the last twenty years, they would be greeted with hundreds of negative stories in the rest of the MSM. Groups would try to challenge their broadcast licenses during renewal periods. They would become a giant target for all the Lefists attempting to maintain their monopoly of the news. “Hands Off!” they’d cry! “Keep Politics Out Of The News!” “Keep Dirty Capitalist Hands Off Our News” If you want to see what else would be said, “Google” Fox News and see.

  • Lyle

    I see. Fox’s conservative owner has control but the big three network’s conservative owner’s don’t? That does not make sense to me.

  • Pingback: The Anchoress » “A curious and disappointing performance”

  • Pingback: The Anchoress » NY Times errs again, on the predictable side

  • Pingback: The Anchoress » Gore’s religious hyperbole threatens a free press

  • Pingback: The Anchoress » Blog Archive » There is nothing new about the news…

  • Pingback: The Anchoress » Blog Archive » 2007: The year of the “never mind” story…