We don t walk around saying & .  disbarred, impeached ex-president Clinton , unless the story is related.

We don’t?

Haw. Are there two peedros posting here?

How about some temporally related facts?

We don’t walk around saying “intern-drowing liberal democrat Kennedy” either….or “disbarred, impeached ex-president Clinton”, unless the story is related. How about “Ex-Grand Kleagle democratic Senator Byrd?”

So it would be okay with you all if every report on something Bush did began this way:

“President and failed businessman George Bush…”

“President Bush, a perennial C student at Yale…..”

“President Bush, who claims to have put his drinking problem behind him…”

Just the facts, right? Who could object to that?

Kerry is no doubt unashamed of his presence in Davos& . why are you?

Who said anything about being ashamed? I’d like it a lot better if CNN reported that Kerry issued the call for a filibuster while taking time out from an international economic summit.

But no.

CNN, pandering hard to rubes like peedro, gives us “an exCLUsive Swiss resort…”

Oh, yawn x2. Go jerk off to photos of your King ‘clearing brush’.

Instead they got pictures of him windsurfer off Nantucket!

LOL

No, they are SO overwhelmingly jealous that he is rich, and they aren’t.

You poor stupid imbeciles.

Kerry is no doubt unashamed of his presence in Davos…. why are you?

Perhaps it doesn’t sync with the “We’re for the little guy” meme?

I suggest you quit making mountains out of…..not even molehills……just completely flat ground.

Since when are facts biased?

Sheesh.

Sorry, where did he fly in from?

Did he?

Isn t that called  reporting ?

Even CNN can t help it that Kerry is an East coast brahmin that married into a gazillion dollars and winters in Gstaad& ..

Thank you, doctor, for providing a perfect example of what’s wrong with CNN’s “reporting.” The spectacular headline leaves the viewer with exactly the impression you horked up for us.

In fact, Mr. Kerry was attending the Davos economic summit along with representatives from the major industrial economies of the West. Somehow, it must be his fault that they chose to hold the summit at this tony resort.

I forgot that you had connections with CNN who told you when and when not they were being fed talking points from Turner. My bad.

The fact is that if CNN does have right-wing reporters, which I see no sign of, then where is the outrage of left-wing reports? Wolf Blitzer? Jack Cafferty? Aaron Brown? Lou Dobbs? Anderson Cooper?

The second article presented evidence that privacy was not the legal basis on which google was challenging the subpoena (though google was worried about the precedent the subpoena would set for privacy issues). It also presented evidence from various sources that indicated that this particular subpoena would not jeopardize anyone’s privacy.

For this to be a 100% refutation, or even a 1% refuation, of the previous article, the previous article would have had to have claimed that the subpoena DID jeopardize privacy, or that privacy WAS the legal basis for google’s challenge. Read the article. It claims neither of those things.

The article does not take a position on wehther hworries about the google case are justified, it just records the FACT that those worries exist.

By your own standards, what’s wrong with reporting the facts?

To paraphrase one of your own posts above: “I can see how conesrvatives would be upset if people report actual facts about life in Bush’s America.”

As for al-qaeda videos: I sure hope that ABC looks at them, but critically. A good newsman can get a lot of solid information even from the rankest propaganda, whether it’s al-qaeda videos or Whitehouse press briefings. ABC never said it was using al-qaeda videos uncritically or without corroboration. You and the shrill, angry site you link to simply assumed that to be the case.

Now THAT’s conservative bias.

So thanks, SF, for giving a great illustration of what I’ve long said: 90% of “liberal media bias” is manufactured by conservatives.

THAT’S Liberal bias.

And if you can’t tell that treating al-qaida as a non-biased source of information is not a good idea, well, no wonder Dems are losing elections.

The conservatives on this thread are telling us we shouldn’t complain if what is being reported about Kerry is factual. What are the factual inaccuracies in the first article you link to? The article did not claim that the government subpoena of google records put user privacy at risk, the article simply stated that this subpoena -and other government moves- have made many users uneasy. Are you saying that is not true?

Your source’s crtique of the article is what is wildly biased, in that it misrepresents the nature of the article and takes no account of passages in it like the following:

The government and the cooperating companies say the search queries cannot be traced to their source, and therefore no personal information about users is being given up. But the government’s move is one of several recent episodes that have caused some people to think twice about the information they type into a search engine, or the opinions they express in an e-mail message.
The government has been more aggressive recently in its efforts to obtain data on Internet activity, invoking the fight against terrorism and the prosecution of online crime. A surveillance program in which the National Security Agency intercepted certain international phone calls and e-mail in the United States without court-approved warrants prompted an outcry among civil libertarians. And under the antiterrorism USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has demanded records on library patrons’ Internet use.

Those actions have put some Internet users on edge, as they confront the complications and contradictions of online life.

In other words, the information that your source claims that the times “hid” (until they published another article about it the next day), is right there in the article.

As for your second link, again, a wildly biased critique: ABC claimed to base its report on “local officials and al aaeda videos” The critique ignores the “local officials” part and rags on the report as if it were based on nothing but al qaeda videos.