But I’m sure you’re not done wasting ours.

I can’t say for certain what the WaPo meant by calling Gregory the “new Sam Donaldson” (although they did say he was “serving as a symbol for … liberals who want reporters to crusade against the White House” — doesn’t count? Fine).

But it is true that Donaldson denied being a liberal until he was no longer in the TV News business; then he admitted it.

Finally, you haven’t told me “why my evidence is unconvincing”, you have simply denied that it is convincing.

That’s why I wrote, “If you think Gregory is not a liberal, I’m not going to change your mind. That is apparent. My “proving” it would be an exercise in futility.”

An “exercise in futility” is the way grown ups say, “Trying to talk to you is a waste of time”. (See, I can be condescending to you, when you are condescending to me — funny how liberals always end up there, isn’t it?)

So, I am done wasting my time.

Because I’ve seen no evidence that he is. If you’ve got some, post it.

Getting mad at the press secretary does not make him Bush-hating or Liberal. Lots of reporters got mad and frustrated at Joe Lockhart in the Monica years. Does that mean that the liberal media back then was actually conservative?

Having some third person call him a tough Sam-Donaldson type does not mean he is a liberal. Assuming the characterization is accurate (which I doubt), it may just mean that he wants to make a name for himself as a maverick, and would be equally hard on left and right. The MM list I posted earlier suggests that that may be the case.

See, Frank, this is the way it works. You post what you think is evidence, I’m either convinced by it or tell you why I think your evidence is unconvincing. The next step, if you really want to engage in dialogue, is for you to either post better evidence or tell my why I’m wrong in my interpretation of your original evidence. Instead of doing that, you’ve gone through a series of seven or eight posts whining and simpering about how nobody accepts what you say uncritically.

I just thought you should know what it feels like to know something, and have someone doubt you.

I think you’re confusing prejudice for knowledge. But I have lots of experience with people doubting things I think I know. When it happens I don’t ponce about wailing in wounded indignation the way you’re doing here, I try to communicate with that person my reasons for thinking the way I do and the evidence on which it is based.

Any time you’d like to start doing that, Frank, I’m all ears.

Thought not.

I only conceded that Woodruff might pass for neutral — although all those years at NPR make that hard to believe, I would never call Gregory neutral — ever.

No, I won’t argue over O’Beirne, even though you were wrong about he “anti – feminist” book. I just thought you should know what it feels like to know something, and have someone doubt you.

Believe me, you’re not the first, and you won’t be the last.

I specifically said that that list does NOT prove Gregory’s conservativeness. What it does prove is that he has a long history of saying things that one would probably not say if one had a marked liberal bias (which, if you remember, is what you were claiming). QED.

C’mon Frank, you’ve already admitted that you were wrong on Woodruff. Wouldn’t it be easier just to admit that you were wrong in general on this thread? Go ahead. It’s only the two of us paying attention to this thread anymore anyway.

Are you seriously going to argue with over whether Kate O’Beirne is conservative?

A 52-minute documentary film exploring the struggles of moderate American Muslims at the hands of their radical brethren has also become a showcase for the struggles between right and left in the news media.
The producers of “Islam vs. Islamists” say their taxpayer-funded film has been shelved by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in “an ideological vendetta,” and because the production team includes conservative columnist Frank Gaffney Jr., founder of the Center for Security Policy.
“This is a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have different agenda don’t get on the air,” Mr. Gaffney said yesterday. “The public ought to be allowed to see a film which PBS doesn’t want them to see.”

If you think Gregory is not a liberal, I’m not going to change your mind. That is apparent. My “proving” it would be an exercize in futility.

There is no liberal media bias, and pigs whistle.

Incidentally, on that list that you think indicates Gregory’s “conservativeness”, nearly all of the stories fall into the usual Media Matters’ “he should have been less fair, and more liberal” category.

You will note that I asked Oliver not to crank up the Media Matters search engine — for precisely that reason. He didn’t. He knew better.

You didn’t.

As I have said on many an occasion, those Media Matters articles prove the rule by the exception: If you can find only 15 instances of so – called “conservative” reporting (which they clearly are not) then by what name would you call the remaining 99.9% of his journalistic career?

Yes, Wilbur, in your twisted world view you have bested me yet again.

P.S. Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce and Wendy McElroy have written tons of stuff “denouncing feminism” (which, of course, Ms. O’Beirne didn’t do). Not one of them is conservatives.

It’s been a long time since feminism was liberal. NOW is so 1970’s!

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Okay, Frank. Is Kate O’Beirne conservative? Let’s see, she is an editor for a proudly conservative publication, she has written a book denouncing modern feminism, she was a long-time fellow of the proudly conservative Heritage Foundation, she was on the conservative side of the set of Crossfire…

Not enough? Want some of her own words? Try this reverent interview in an online publication called “Right Wing News” in which she spells out her conservative viewpoint on a number of controversials issues.

One of my favorite quotes from the article. When asked if she reads any blogs, she replies:

Kate O’Beirne: I read a lot of blogs regularly — of course, The Corner, National Review, Lucianne Goldberg�s blog, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt.

There’s fair and balanced for you.

Okay Frank, ball’s in your court. Put up or shut up, and keep in mind that if you’re going to say that Gregory spatting with the press secretary, or being called the Sam Donaldson of his day proves his liberal bias, you’re going to have to explain why all this doesn’t mean he’s a conservative.

Mind you, for my part I don’t think that stuff means he’s a conservative, it just means he gets sloppy sometimes and parrots the right-wing noise machine uncritically (like the majority of MSM hairpieces). Still, it’s better evidence than what you’ve got to show the opposite.

How will Frank respond? By actually posting evidence or by more indignant farting and belching? I can hardly wait to find out.

So I’ll pass.

You don’t want to get proof that Kate O’Beirne is a conservative, because you anticipate that I would be as petty and hide – bound as you are.

Ditto the FOX evidence. Besides, you wouldn’t want to upset the liberal tradition of proving nothing, while you stand around with your virtual arms folded, tapping your foot and waiting on me.

I suspect that Woodruff might pass muster as neutral, leaving the count at two liberals, Grehory and Russert, one (possible, but as yet, unconfirmed) conservative, O’Beirne, and one “neutral”, Woodruff.

Scarcely a right – wing stacked deck.

I’m sure you’ll be quick to tell me when Gregory “outs” himself as a conservative, right, Wilbur?

Only if it is bogus evidence. I notice you have no response to the objections I raised to your previous evidence.

No one on this blog — I repeat, no on on this blog — has ever provided any evidence that FOX News is biased.

I doubt that statement, but I’m not going to let you change the subject. Fox’s bias is not the subject of this thread.

“Show me a link!” “Prove it!”: the moan of the wounded liberal goes.

I don’t think you would find this request so outrageous if you actually could prove any of your dim-witted statements.

Of course, Wilbur these two things don’t count, either.

Well, no, they don’t. You know who else is a fellow of the Shorenstein center, Frank? Mark “Drudge Rules my World” Halperin. Yep, nobody to the right of Trotsky stands a chance at that place.

And still, after much blustering and wheezing, you have not produced a single thing that Woodruff or Gregory has said or done that demonstrates their liberal bias.

Tell you what, Frank, if you can manage that, I’ll post some evidence on O’Beirne (I did ask first, after all). The Fox News crap we’ll leave for another thread.

This is truly a pointless argument. No one on this blog — I repeat, no on on this blog — has ever provided any evidence that FOX News is biased. Even Oliver’s much touted Media Matters can’t do more than complain that some people at FOX agree with the President from time to time.

Of course, anyone who finds any reason to say anything favorable about the President is a rabid conservative, and a liberal is someone who gets their jollies comparing him to the developmentally disabled, or viewing a narrow scrape with death or serious injury as troubling only because VP Cheney might be President.

While you’re rather nimble at turning my words against me, Wilbur, you are, like most of the intellectual lightweights who inhabit these threads, not even capable of original thought.

“Show me a link!” “Prove it!”: the moan of the wounded liberal goes.

“What, me prove anything? Surely you jest! I am a liberal — I speak only the truth!”

“Opinions are for conservatives”, right, Wilbur?

From WaPo (oh, I forgot, they have somehow slipped into the pro-Bush column, when nobody, including WaPo, was looking)

After six years on the beat, Gregory is emerging as the Sam Donaldson of the Bush years, the outspoken, aggressive, smart-aleck correspondent serving as a symbol for conservatives who detest the press and liberals who want reporters to crusade against the White House.

Broadcaster Woodruff named visiting fellow at Shorenstein Center

Of course, Harvard isn’t liberal, either, well, because they’re just not.

Of course, Wilbur these two things don’t count, either.

You know what, Wilbur, I think you should show me evidence that Kate O’Beirne is a conservative — right after you show me that FOX is biased towards the right.

Critical thinking — never stopped a liberal.

You posted..

a) a snippet of Gregory getting pissed at McClellan for what he perceived as a personal slight. This shows nothing about his political inclination. In your warped little world is it only liberals that get angry at conservatives and vice versa? I’m a liberal and I get angry at other liberals all the time. What’s your point?

b) A description of Judy Woodruff reporting on something which appears to have been factually correct. In that description the words “trumpeting” and “gleefully” are subjective terms which are obviously intended to discredit Woodruff. One suspects, therefore, that the source you are quoting from is itself biased. On what are these modifiers based? On their facial expressions? Tone of voice? Other things they said? Without such information your biased source’s characterization is worthless. For all we know, Woodruff could have been reporting facts accurately, and your source simply didn’t like the facts.

In short: the two examples you have offered are indicative of precisely nothing, as I have already said in fewer words.

Critical thinking: it’s for everyone.

You, of course, offered no evidence that Kate O’Beirne even writes for National Review.

I assumed that’s because you stipulated that it was true. If you’d like some evidence I can provide it.

You also have a lot of experience at making shit up.

Prove it, big guy.

You, of course, offered no evidence that Kate O’Beirne even writes for National Review. I didn’t bother asking you for any.

So, once again, I put the evidence out there (Apr 9, 2007 3:30:18 AM), and by the magic of liberal “thought control”, it either disappears, or simply isn’t evidence.

You also have a lot of experience at making shit up.

What FOX has done for news is twofold: First, it has put conservative commentators, writers and thinkers on television, where they never were before; and, second, pressured by the public to stop reporting news and commenting on Sundays from a liberal perspective — because FOX exists — the Sunday morning talk shows have started putting on neutral and conservative people, in an attempt to balance their discussions, lest people just turn them off, and put on FOX.

So, because FOX doesn’t call up the DNC each day to find out what to report, because FOX doesn’t bash Pres. Bush day in and day out, and pooh – pooh what precious good news there is, they are called “biased” by liberals.

Of course they are. When you have been looking at the world from a liberal perspective since the late Sixties, early Seventies (when the Vietnam war and Watergate turned journalism school grads into Woodward and Bernstein wannabes, and “anti (Republican) establishment” reporting became SOP, well then, of course, a station with Republicans and conservatives present and accounted for looks biased.

I notice that every one just takes FOX’s bias as a given — with NO evidence — while the conservatives and Republicans on this thread are browbeaten for evidence of liberal bias.

Which panel shows have more conservatives than liberals?

How often does Bill O’Reilly mention the fact that people representing both sides of an argument were invited to hid show, and “the liberal” didn’t show?

Where’s YOUR evidence that FOX is biased on the right?

And, please, Oliver, don’t go revving up the Media Matters search engine…

No, but Kate O’Beirne is, and that’s the issue.

“every other “liberal” reporter is the former.”

No, I’m sure there are many “liberal” reporters who are intentionally and systematically biased. You have simply failed to offer any evidence that that is true of the reporters in question, or even that the reporters in question are, in fact, “liberal”. That they sometimes report facts that you wish were not true does not qualify.

It’s never a problem to correct you when you’re wrong, Frank. I have a lot of experience at it.

Have I got that right?

Heh.

I’m sorry you don’t grasp the distinction, but the fault for that lies with neither me nor Oliver.