Posted on 01/13/2005 3:23:58 PM PST by LdSentinal
MTV held inauguration balls for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
In 2001, they didn't hold one for George W. Bush. The reason they said was that Al Gore's 36-day crusade to steal the election "did not give them enough time" to organize one for Bush.
It's now 2005, and with one week till Bush's inauguration, I'm not seeing MTV holding a inauguration party.
Is this is the case or is MTV's bias showing again?
P.S. The question above is probably a 99.99% rhetorical question.
Who needs 'em.
MTV is owned by Viacom just like seeBS. No reason to expect bias.
Should be 100% rhetorical. When dealing with a media company, left-wing bias should be presumed unless proven otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt.
** Just more BS from C-BS ** Birds of a feather.
"Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions." -- Henry Camp
They'll probably hold a consolation party for sKerry.
A a morally depraved network owned by Viacom, which owns CBS, and Simon und Schuster (publishing a parade of anti-Bush books with interviews with the authors on 60 Minutes), also pushing such things as Vote Or Die and Rock The Vote. I seriously doubt MTV will be doing any pro-Bush coverage of anything in the forseeable future.
What is MTV?
The commies at MTV-Viacom loved holding Bill Clinton's balls.
I think I saw a statement saying during this time of tragedy and loss of life in Indonesia they will not have one.
How conveeeeeenient!
Yeah I thought the same thing.
Another pile of BS from Viacom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.