Replies

By detailing only the violent, deadly consequences of the cartoons sans any reference to them being a gross overreaction ...

So, when the press reports something without editorializing, that's considered bias? I thought news was supposed to be objective. Besides, what idiot (other than the Muslim extremists) can't figure out that these violent outbursts are a "gross overreaction"?

You do realize that if there wasn't any reaction to the cartoons at all, then there wouldn't be anything to report. The reaction (or, in this case, overreaction) is the news.

I don't recall people complaining that the reports on the Columbine school shootings said nothing about Harris and Klebold overreacting to being bullied. But is that where we are now? You and MNJohnnie want to be told what to think when you read a news story?

Besides, what idiot (other than the Muslim extremists) can't figure out that these violent outbursts are a "gross overreaction"?

Better not let them in on that at Fox News. If they didn't hype this 'crisis' more than the Michael Jackson trial, they'd have to start factually reporting on the 1/2 of 1 percent budget 'cut' conservatives are straining to get through Congress..

Don't see bias here. Just a list of current events in this news story

"So, when the press reports something without editorializing, that's considered bias?"

Not at all, but that's a great point because the article did amount to editorialzing because it attempted to shape readers' opion by omitting important facts related to the story. The A/P reported only the islamic side of the story, and neglected to report credible evidence that their leaders assembled and instigated the rabble six months after the fact of the printing of the cartoons. This 'cartoon excuse' is just terrorist propaganda, drivel, and putrid food for the ravenous anti-American appetite of the leftist MSM. This A/P reprot may as well have been written by al Jazeera as a clarion call to the "freedom fighters" of islam.

If the liberal media aren't busy causing muslim outrage, (Newsweek false story), they are busy whitewashing same.

btw, if saving your life depended on finding an MSM piece about the Republican Party or Pres. Bush that didn't editorialize then your life expectancy would be very, very short.

So, when the press reports something without editorializing, that's considered bias?

How is referring to "The Prophet" (without quotes) in the headline NOT EDITORIALIZING and GROSS BIAS? Is it objective journalistic fact that Mohammed was a "prophet"? It is only Moslems who believe this. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and all other non-Moslems do not acknowledge that the subject of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons was a "prophet."