Conservative: Kate O’Beirne from National Review
Neutral: Judy Woodruff from PBS
Neutral: David Gregory from NBC
Neutral: Chuck Todd from NBC
It must be that the phone numbers for The Nation, The American Prospect or even The New Republic are unlisted. Or maybe Meet The Press is full of it, again.
speaking of fair and balanced…hows “teh warmening” going for you guys?
Coldest april in MN in 57 years…..
And the Goracle is strangely silent, ensconsed as he is in his amazingly warm enormous mansion.
Of course come August, he and Ollie will start back with the headlines
“FLASH: August is HOT! Snow Melting….we’re all DOOMED (unless you buy some more of my carbon offsets that is….)”
Now THAT’S fair and balanced!
Done dispensing with today’s talking points?
Neutral: Judy Woodruff from PBS
Neutral: David Gregory from NBC
Are you kidding?
No wonder you think Meet the Depressed is slanted to the right…
Woodruff and Gregory write for partisan political journals or are Democrats? No, no they aren’t.
David Gregory and Judith Woodruff aren’t Democrats? Want to bet?
David Gregory harasses the President at every press conference — I suppose that’s because he’s a conservative?
And the people at NPR are all notoriously conservative, right?
I guess that Media Matters survey isn’t fit to line a bird cage…
He “harrases” the White House by asking tough questions - that effing liberal!!! Frank, I know this is worthless arguing with you but neither Gregory or any NPR personality is paid to advocate for clearly liberal news organizations or advocacy groups nor do they work for the Democratic party. This is yet another case of neutral journalists put on a panel with a clearly partisan advocate with no liberal advocate in sight.
Neither Gregory or any NPR personality is paid to advocate for clearly liberal news organizations or advocacy groups nor do they work for the Democratic party.
That’s your standard…
Mine is: Do they eschew the conservative point of view for the liberal point of view, given a choice? Do they favor the things liberals favor? Do the oppose the things liberals oppose?
Do they ever express conservative points of view?
Who did they support for President in 2000? 2004?
That’s what counts for me…
Not some narrow definition that excludes everyone in the mass media, liberal and conservative alike.
That would be like saying (if he weren’t still writing for NR) that Wm F. Buckley is neutral because he only hosts Firing Line…
That’s absurd.
Except Buckley is an avowed conservative activist. Neither of the people listed are that, and as your questions show you have to essentially do a brain scan to see where they lie politically (Who did they vote for, do they support one cause or the other, etc. Regardless of what you think of them they certainly aren’t as forthrightly idealogical as O’Beirne and it’s not like they don’t repeat conservative talking points and frames regularly). I’m simply asking that if a panel has on a con, don’t have on journalists who answer to editors as their “balance” but have a progressive as the counterpoint. You guys would be upset if someone like a daytime Fox anchor were the conservative versus someone from The Nation, I’m just asking for reciprocity.
That guy David Corn is on Fox, all the time, but I guess he’s not a liberal, because of something or other.
As for doing a “brain scan”, simply listening to their comments and commentaries will do nicely.
BTW, what you call a “tough question” is what a liberal asks. Conservative questioners in your view, “lob softballs”.
Unfortunately oliver, everyone except for media matters and a few of the lesser denizens here understand that most of the mainstream media is liberal.
This is essentially a tacit agreement of that fact, that they don’t HAVE to get an “avowed” leftist on, it is assumed….
I like how Oliver just randomly picks one Sunday morning show on one week.
Let’s see here .. ABC’s “This Week” had on 2 liberals (Sens. Kerry, Levin) and only one conservative (Sen. Kyl). And that’s not even counting the Clintonist host! Three liberals to one conservative! OMG!!
Also, Ollie, if you’re angry over this .. I assume, no, I expect you to be throwing a fit every time you watch Countdown because 95% of his guests are liberals or Democrats or BOTH.
Unfortunately oliver, everyone except for media matters and a few of the lesser denizens here understand that most of the mainstream media is liberal.
That depends on your definition of the word “is” Pedro. The media should ask tough questions of whomever is in power, so perhaps the last 6 years or Republican dominance of government has just made you hypersensitive.
…or maybe the concept of the “liberal media” is just brilliant catchphrase marketing.
Shorter Pedro and Frank:
“Woodruff and Gregory are biased because…. I just know they are!
David Gregory asked the president questions! Judy Woodruff said things that are not on my RNC talking-points list!
What more proof do you need?
And Kate O’Beirne, I know she’s not biased because she’s always saying things I agree with.”
Wotta coupla dingbats!
It’s simple: anything that is not conservative is by definition liberal. They don’t need “evidence” or “reasons.” That’s why Pedro and Frank don’t really get America or even the Enlightenment, really. They’re just angry, frustrated monarchists in the end…
Dr. AGH :: Please don’t tell me we’re back to “Frank doesn’t understand what America is all about” again!
Give it up, already…
Tell us all what America is about, Doc — besides not torturing at Gitmo — and then we’ll all know.
And, Wilbur, I notice you didn’t say Woodruff and Gregory weren’t liberals or Democrats — that lie wouldn’t even come out of your mouth.
And I didn’t say Kate O’Beirne wasn’t a conservative. I know she is.
By Oliver’s definition, most members of the media are “neutral”. The end result of that is that he fails to distinguish between liberal members of the Press, who are Legion, and the handful of conservatives involved in the MSM.
hell who did the “moderator” of meet the press work for?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Do we get to put him in the “liberal” pile?
I agree with your take, except for Woodruff. On CNN she played the same way all the rest now do: challenge and attack the Left, but have a nice discussion with the Right.
Russert, Tucker and Matthews have always given the Right an open microphone on MSNBC or NBC at least 90% of the time.
They have to.
You don’t seriously believe G.E. keeps winning lots of big government contracts because they give good ‘quotes’ do you?
Silly…
G.E. upper management circles don’t seem to have anything to do with the politics of Meet the Depressed, or with NBC News for that matter.
Yes, because Tim Russert never parrots conservative talking points does he? You guys want a media biased to the right, I want a fair press that asks our leaders tough ass questions no matter who they are. I want balanced panels where conservative advocates have a voice right alongside liberal advocates so the audience can make up their own minds without a tilted panel.
Also, why do Pedro and Frank keep pretending last year’s election never happened? This is not the 70% approval Bush administration, boys. You guys pretending its still back in the past would be as bad as me not accepting Kerry lost in ‘04.
no you are correct Ollie…now it is the congress at 30% approval rating….
But what does that have to do with Russert being a flack for the former Democratic Senator from New York?
And, Wilbur, I notice you didn’t say Woodruff and Gregory weren’t liberals or Democrats
I have no idea whether they are liberals or Democrats, and I don’t care. What I care about is the way they report the news and comment on it.
Speaking of which, I notice neither you nor any other wingnut here has actually provided any real evidence of bias on the part of the three supposedly “liberal” panel members. You know, like something one of them has actually said on the air. You just know, dammit! You just know!!
Meanwhile Kate O’Beirne is a paid shill. Everything she writes is biased, intentionally.
no you are correct Ollie…now it is the congress at 30% approval rating….
Which is still more than double the approval rating of the Republican congress they replaced.
In case you weren’t aware, Pedro, polls on congress are historically low. People tend to like their own congresscritters but get frustrated with the body as a whole.
Meanwhile, in the realm of presidential approval ratings (which are historically higher), Bush is gradually cementing his place in history as one of the most despised presidents ever.
Also, despite what they may think about congress as a whole (which still includes a distressingly high number of Republicans) the public still overwhelmingly agrees with the democrats on the major points of their agenda, including Iraq and the investigation of administration wrongdoings like Purgegate.
So keep polishing that shit-eating grin, Pedro, you’re gonna need it.
Oliver, please respond to this. Thanks:
“Also, Ollie, if you’re angry over this .. I assume, no, I expect you to be throwing a fit every time you watch Countdown because 95% of his guests are liberals or Democrats or BOTH.”
The 95% number is wrong. When Olbermann does have guests on they’re usually from neutral news orgs like Newsweek and WaPo. Furthermore, as much as I like Olbermann he has none of the audience nor news influence that the Sunday shows - especially Meet The Press - does. The “Look Over Here” strategy leaves you up a creek sans paddles once again.
Meanwhile Kate O’Beirne is a paid shill. Everything she writes is biased, intentionally.
Wait! Stop! Hold the presses!
A paid columnist for the nation’s premier conservative magazine writes conservative
commentary!
You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen!
What big scoop is next, Wilbur?
Dinesh D’Souza: Is He Conservative?
You make me want to LOL out loud…
Reacting to the storm of criticism leveled by the public at the Washington press corps for complaining that they were not told immediately about the incident, leaving the job of reporting it to a small-town Texas newspaper, Gregory apologized for his boorish behavior.
“I think I made a mistake,” he told host Tim Russert. “I think it was inappropriate for me to lose my cool with the press secretary representing the vice president. I don’t think it was professional of me. I was frustrated, I said what I said, but I think that you should never speak that way, as my wife reminded me, number one. And number two, I think it created a diversion from some of the serious questions in the story, so I regret that. I was wrong, and I apologize.”
CNN’s Judy Woodruff led Monday’s Inside Politics by trumpeting “striking new evidence that President Bush may be beatable in 2004.” Bill Schneider gleefully related: “Judy, President Bush is sinking! Last month the President’s job approval rating was at 60 percent. Now it’s dropped to 50, his lowest rating ever.”
Once again, NewsWeek and WaPo are declared “neutral”. Give it up, Oliver. Even you don’t believe they’re neutral.
Looking for fair and balanced?
Try this::
http://punditbuzz.com/
Late on this but its blatantly silly to pretend the other three aren’t left of center. In fact, the show is very similar to an alternate uinverse Fox (which I like) whre there is always seemingly a single, offsetting liberal voice.
MCCLELLAN: “Hold on. Cameras aren’t on right now. You can do this later.”
GREGORY: “Don’t accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras. Don’t be a jerk to me personally when I’m asking you a serious question.”
MCCLELLAN: “You don’t have to yell.”
GREGORY: “I will yell. If you want to use that podium and try to take shots at me personally, which I don’t appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that’s wrong.”
MCCLELLAN: “Calm down, David.”
On February 19, Gregory appeared on NBC News’ Meet the Press and apologized for his behavior which he referred to as “unprofessional”.
Yeah David Gregory is such an avowed conservative hating liberal that he found time to dance with Karl Rove at the National Correspondence Dinner last week…..
David Gregory - The Dancing Liberal.
For some reason I dont remember Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, or William F Buckley dancing with George Stephanopolous….do you???
oops…here ya go
David Gregory the Dancing Liberal
Lib4: Surely you are not judging a reporter’s ideological slant by his behavior at a dinner?
Oh, wait… You are!
The true litums test is how the neutral guests responded when O’Beirne made her right-wing comments. I don’t know if this time around she decieved or if she inflamed, but if it’s one of those two things, and the neutral guests didn’t call her out on it, they are indeed neutral and as far as appearing on the news goes they aren’t liberal.
So the bar is set that b/c Gregory called out the Republican Press Secretary Scott McClennan in a press conference, he is therefore a liberal ….
Um-kay…well David Greogory called out Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria as being “sloppy” so therefore (according to the wonderful world of Conservative logic) he is now a conservative!!!
Proof I tell ya that David Gregory is a conservative dammit!!!
na-na-na-nah-boo-boo….
Lib4: I’m sure that you’re having a lot of fun, but you might try adding some perception to your comment.
If Mr, Gregory were the conservative you say he is, then he might have gone to Speaker Pelosi’s post - Syria visit press conferences and harassed her the way he does the President at his Press conferences.
Calling someone a “little sloppy” is not equivalent.
You may now crank up the Lib4 joke machine again.
Gregory is in the White House Press corps, does he not? That means he works at the White House. If Speaker Pelosi held a news conference at the White House, then perhaps gregory could ask her some tough questions.
perhaps Gregory could ask her some tough questions.
“Perhaps” he “could”, but I doubt that he “would”.
o-tay.
From Frank and Dugger I have learned the following: If you get pissed at a Republican press secretary because you think he’s dissing you personally, you are “left of center”. If you have the gall to report that the president’s poll numbers are dropping, simply because they are, in fact, actually dropping, then you are a cackling maniacal commie ratfink.
So I guess that a truly neutral reporter would never lose his temper, and would never actually report the news, unless that news was favorable to republicans.
Thanks, guys, I learn so much by reading your posts.
“Learned” may be too strong a word, Wilbur, and presumes.
From Wilbur and Oliver I have learned the following: Approximately 30% or less of Americans approve of Pres. Bush; none of them work for the MSM.
What you should have learned, Frank, is that there is a fundamental difference between reporters who try to be fair and balanced regardless of their personal political convictions and propagandists who deliberately present only their own slant on every issue.
I’m sorry you don’t grasp the distinction, but the fault for that lies with neither me nor Oliver.
there is a fundamental difference between reporters who try to be fair and balanced regardless of their personal political convictions and propagandists who deliberately present only their own slant on every issue.
Now, Wilbur, correct me if I’m wrong: All the guys at FOX are the latter; every other “liberal” reporter is the former.
Have I got that right?
Heh.
Now, Wilbur, correct me if I’m wrong: All the guys at FOX are the latter;
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.
Fix?
Wilbur, I already did. Of course, it didn’t meet your usual standards, i.e., none.
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…
Wilbur, I already did. Of course, it didn’t meet your usual standards, i.e., none.
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.
As I said, I could provide evidence ’til the cows home, and you’d just disqualify it.
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)
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.
As I said, I could provide evidence ’til the cows home, and you’d just disqualify it.
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.
No thanks, Wilbur… The statement from WaPo wasn’t enough for you.
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?
Shorter Frank: I got nothing but piss and wind, but to divert attention from that fact I’m going to call on you to prove something obvious.
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.
you’re going to have to explain why all this doesn’t mean he’s a conservative.
I am?
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.
More on that “lack of left wing bias”:
PBS shelves film on moderate Muslims
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 11, 2007
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.”
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.
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?
Wilbur, why don’t you admit that David Gregory is a Bush- hatin’ liberal?
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.
Wilbur, why don’t you admit that David Gregory is a Bush- hatin’ liberal?
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.
Actually, Wilbur, I was done. But since you have failed to get that hint, and wish to hold forth against me personally, I will leave you with this:
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.
So, I am done wasting my time.
But I’m sure you’re not done wasting ours.
Et tu quoque
ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέτστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
-Socrates