Top blogs often too one-sided [Free Republic and Drudge dwarf all others but are unfair]

The Oregonian ^ | October 23, 2005 | Regina Lawrence

[abb]

Tell ya what I think... I think the MSM newspapers ain't worth the trees dying for them anymore...

[dirtboy]

Guess we ought to give up the "power to set the agenda and frame the story" to others.

I dunno, I get too much enjoyment looking at Dan Rather's head above the fireplace to make such weighty decisions.

[meema]

I t took me a couple of years of lurking here before I was able to manage to get registered, then more years to feel free to express my feelings about articles and posters.
I love it here, just the way it is, as I told Jim Rob earlier on this thread.
I don't see anything extreme about your post, incidently.We are invited to express our selves here, and 'tis a wonderful thing!

I love LOL at some of the articles and the posters!

[GregoryFul]

Naw, using Ockham's razor - this "astute" author is just a scummy MSM liar extending the tradition.

[GregoryFul]

Dan Rather's head above the fireplace - what a concept, somebody should do a t-shirt, or maybe a 3-D plastic effigy to mount on the wall, so that we all could enjoy the moment.

[gondramB]

"The fallacy in that "logic" - central to the conceit that McCain-Feingold is constitutional - is the claim that "the press" is coextensive with "journalism."

That is patently absurd. Are we to believe that "the freedom of . . . the press" does not also refer to books, for example? Books aren't journalism either. Indeed the actual expression in the Constitution is "the freedom of speech, or of the press" - are we now to be spied upon by censors who arrest us like some Saudi Islamic police if we dare to tell our neighbors that in our opinion incumbent politicians should not be reelected? "

I'm with you completely on the journalism issue - freedom of the press clearly covers the new forms of press - why would anybody in government argue otherwise - I can't imagine how they could and be honest - they must be afraid of new media.

McCain-Feingold, however, is only unconstitutional if you think that spending is a form of speech since it only limits spending. I'm not convinced on that point.

[GretchenM]

Looks like Tom DeLay finagled some really fancy political stuff with all that cash he "sent" to DeeCee:

as last week's mishmash of news about Harriet Miers, Iraq's vote on its constitution, Hurricane Wilma's gathering force, and the arrest and booking of Sen. Tom DeLay ...

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping; Welcome Aboard!

[tubebender]

Marking...

[Arizona Carolyn]

That was my thought. If she/he read FR they would know we discuss the news, not make the news, and when we can we correct the multitude of inaccuracies in the news.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Guess we ought to give up the "power to set the agenda and frame the story" to others.

Looks like your invention is working as designed, sir. Thank you!

[Windsong]

Top blogs like FR are not fair and balanced.

Liberals get zotted here when they post articles. DU does the same to Conservatives.

About as biased and "unbalanced" as one can get.

[FormerACLUmember]

Free Republic is simply the humble 21st equivalent of this:

And this:

[FormerACLUmember]

Free Republic is simply the humble 21st Century equivalent of this:

And this:

[Texas Songwriter]

Free Republic is a conversation.

[The Shrew]

Congratulations Jim,

You run one of the nation's premier websites.

IT -

PING!

Regards,

TS

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

What do you think? “They're dead, Jim.” “Worse than that Spock, you long-eared inhuman hobgoblin, they have no brain!”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

McCain-Feingold, however, is only unconstitutional if you think that spending is a form of speech since it only limits spending. I'm not convinced on that point.

Well, I'll cede the point - if you can show me any press that runs for free. Newspapers have to buy paper and ink, and buy and maintain the presses, and operate the presses, and distribute the papers. That all costs money.

You will say, "but that money comes from the sale of the paper." And I will reply, "not really - the newspaper lives and dies by advertising revenue - and not only so, but a newspaper may be started up by an entrepreneur who got his money making sausage or something."

But all that aside, the money paid by the newspaper customer is different from the money I donate to the Republican Party exactly how? To prove that it is in any sense different, you must first prove that the newspaper is not a political party, nor in league with one. And that, my friend, you will find surprisingly difficult to prove. Because the truth is that journalism which calls itself "objective" systematically is aligned with the Democratic Party.

Or, to make my case clearer, the Democratic Party does not have any principles which require it to contest the idealogical field with "objective journalism." So far as print journalism is concerned, that is a scandal only in the sense that it is amazing that we have so many suckers in the country who are completely oblivious to that possibility. In the case of government-licensed broadcast journalism, OTOH, the fact that government licensees whom the government proclaims to be "broadcasting in the public interest" claim to be objective but actually broadcast de facto Democratic propaganda is a hair-on-fire scandal.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I think the federal gov't needs to regulate the alphabet in order to balance the playing field for illiterates.

Isn't that why they have cartoons on the Oregonian editorial pages?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I think the MSM newspapers ain't worth the trees dying for them anymore...

Hey, we ARE environmentally sensitive!