[JohnGalt]

Its tough for other networks to take it seriously when the magazine that printed the leaked 'memo' and the network that first reported the story are not only owned by the same person.

And when Fred Barnes works for both organizations, it just looks hackey.

[JohnnyZ]

Its tough for other networks to take it seriously when the magazine that printed the leaked 'memo' and the network that first reported the story are not only owned by the same person.

So if Time Magazine and CNN report something, the rest of the media usually ignores it?

[dead]

"Hackey" is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you dispute the substance of the report?

What evidence do you have to counter the facts listed in the report?

I've not seen anybody challenge the facts in the report. I've only seen official statements that refuse to agree (or disagree) with the conclusions drawn from those facts.

[lightning]

"Its tough for other networks to take it seriously when the magazine that printed the leaked 'memo' and the network that first reported the story are not only owned by the same person."

It's also tough for them to report on a story that so overwhelmingly contradicts the storyline and slant they have been touting for so many weeks.

In terms of veracity and reliability, I would go with FNC any day over the crap that is spewed over the other nets.

[JohnnyZ]

Its tough for other networks to take it seriously when the magazine that printed the leaked 'memo' and the network that first reported the story are not only owned by the same person.

So if Time Magazine and CNN report something, the rest of the media usually ignores it?