[Az Joe]

Some came to the debate looking for justification for going to war. Some came to the debate with a neutral outlook. Some came to the debate looking for a reason not to go to war.

Goyette was in the latter group.

He was not neutral in his assessments. I listened to him enough to know that. All evidence for going to war was subject to his most minuscule examination. If some evidence could justly be determined to be in the gray area, Goyette repeatedly saw it is falling on the antiwar side of the line.

He was, in a word, biased.

[Destro]

I might have to read the article again--but was he not hired to be biased???? Are not talk show hosts supposed to be biased? Even uber-biased?

[Nanodik]

He was, in a word, biased.

If that's a crime in the radio world, they'll have to can all the hosts at KFYI. Goyette had points. I was neither for going to war nor completely opposed. I think there were some reasons for going to war but whether they were enough of a reason is really what Goyette was examining. As for Giddy and Shrill, they two who replaced him, I have started listening to FM on the way home...

[Thumper1960]

Biased is what makes debate palatable. Wars are never sought as the first resort. It is true that the evidence to justify deposing the Ba'athist regime in Iraq was flimsy and ethereal. However, ya gotta start somewhere. Iraq was just unfortunate enough to be tops on the list. There are better candidates for "renewal". Saudi being one, Syria being another. Not to mention Iran, Yemen, "Palestinian" occupied Israel, Red China, Mexico, France and Pakistan. Just as Liberals and NeoCons are needed to remind Conservatives of why they hold to certain political, economic, cultural and social beliefs we need the Goyette's of the world to help define the parameters of debate.

[jedwardtremlett]

Bias... on talk radio????

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! : O

Run for the hills...!