Did David Brock Dissemble on CNN s Crossfire...

Media Research Center ^ | 4/26/02 | Brent Baker and Rich Noyes

[ChicagoGuy]

I figured that was what you meant. But I still disagree. CNN has a smattering of conservatives (Novak, Carlson, folks on Capital Gang) just as Fox has its token libs (like that idiot Holmes, who I swear they must have put on just to make liberals look like bumbling idiots). Each has its own bias. As to either of them trying to call itself fair, balanced or unbiased, my dad always says "you can put a dress on a pig and call it Louise, but it's still a pig".

[Iowa Granny]

I saw a discussion along these lines here last night.

Excuse me for being so stupid,,, but just who in the he!! is David Brock? Never heard of him. Could you give me a pedigree on him?

[AceofSwrds]

This was bound to happen. Brock's previous works have been underscored by one recurring theme: hedging his bets.

Take "The Real Anita Hill," for example. The introduction clearly states the book was not a dissertation on whether Clarence Thomas was qualified. This gave him an "out" if any liberals decided to take him to task about it because he could say, "But I didn't say Thomas was qualified." Ditto "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham."

I plan to pick up Brock's book for no other reason than to see if he hits the two-faced trifecta.

[ChicagoGuy]

If you MUST read it, I hope you do so at a public library so that he doesn't make any money off of you! (Plus, if you 'pick it up', you better wear gloves. He's slimy.)

[AceofSwrds]

Thanks for the warning. LOL

Seriously, I've wanted to buy Brock's book for personal research about Brock and about the so-called vast right wing conspiracy. I have a theory about both, the former I've already shared. My theory about the VRWC is this: the modern liberals are convinced there is one, so they're weaving "facts" together to create what they "know" exists. Brock's book should be good for that at least.

[Croooow]

Update: Media Horse change the subject, ignore MRC

[Croooow]

Media Horse doctored photo

vs.

reality

[PJ-Comix]

Carville, starting this follow-up on top of Brock as Brock was saying “Fox prime time”: “But I mean they haven’t even invited you on?”

Brock: “No.”

Here is something that has been overlooked---Brock's denial of an invitation by Fox in Prime Time. That would mean no invite from either O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, or Greta Van Facelift. I highly doubt that these shows, especially O'Reilly, would "blacklist" Brock because they know that controversy means ratings. Is there any way to find out from FOX if invitations to appear on one or more of their PRIMETIME shows were extended to Brock and when?

[crazyj]

HERE IS A LITTLE SOMETHING i FOUND AND POSTED FEEL FREE TO ADD TO IT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/search?s=gerry%27s&m=any&o=time

[crazyj]

HERE IS A LITTLE SOMETHING i FOUND AND POSTED FEEL FREE TO ADD TO IT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/search?s=gerry%27s&m=any&o=time

[Tribune7]

Why doesn't everyone just admit that both networks have their own bias - CNN to the left and Fox to the right - whether or not they try to portray themselves "fair and balanced", "objective", etc.?

If Bush or a prominent Republican were credibly accused of a felony (forcible rape, perjury etc.) and Fox ignored the story, I would agree with you.

But they have yet to do this whereas CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS have all significantly covered up for Clinton. Even the Lisa Myers' report concerning Juanita Broddock was downplayed. I don't see O'Reilly doing this if it were a GOP rape scandal. O'Reilly, in fact, may be the most prominent critic of the Catholic Church -- a conservative institution -- concerning the pediastry matter.

Journalists, regardless of their political views, are supposed to look for scoops and provide the viewers or readers with information relevant to maintining their freedom -- which includes the character of one's leaders.

CNN et al are biased to the left to the point of dishonesty. Fox tries to play it straight and only appears biased since the leftists control the agenda.