An AP story about Sarah Palin's attacks on Obama's connections to J. Wright and Bill Ayers contains this little paragraph, see if you can spot the AP bias:
"Palin cited a New York Times story published Saturday that detailed Obama's relationship with Ayers. In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Palin didn't name any newspapers or magazines that had shaped her view of the world."
I ask you, my readers, what is the relevance of Palin's statement to Katie Couric last week in this story? Now, every time Sarah Palin refers to some published report (in a left-wing rag, no less, than the NYT), are we going to get the qualifiers from the left-wing, drive-by media, that "In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Palin didn't name any newspapers or magazines that had shaped her view of the world"?
There are people that don't believe bias exist. They either or stupid, or part of it.
2 comments:
Of course there is bias. It's everywhere. Your side gets the racists and rollers this time.
The media is fickle but not a liberal tool. They loved Reagan, even when he was the Governor of California. I know, I was there. They overwhelmingly supported the Bush Presidency through the 2000 campaign and well into the unilateral wars of foreign aggression. Chris Matthews fought back tears and went all homo about him, during the "Mission Accomplished" speech.
They aren't very high on the 'Pugs now but look who's on the ticket. You guys could have done better than that. Are they going to make that little six toed, banjo boy from Deliverance the Secretary of State? Will Uncle Sam be replaced by Joe Sixpack?
Barry will not beat McCain. McCain will beat himself. Palin will motivate the rollers but they were never in doubt. Did you guys think they would vote for the black, community organizing, medrassa boy?
Red - you never cease to amaze with the insightful and colorful analysis.
Oh, that's what we refer to as sarcasm.
Post a Comment