Full Version: The Myth of the Liberal Media
Quark,
FAIR is a wonderful, balanced source, in my opinion.
I agree with you in that the content of news reporting on the topic of this war was bias towards "official" government views.
"Identifiable partisan affiliation" is the key here Quark. Republicans, conservatives are labeled more often than Democrats or liberals.
FAIR is a wonderful, balanced source, in my opinion.
I agree with you in that the content of news reporting on the topic of this war was bias towards "official" government views.
QUOTE
Of sources who had an identifiable partisan affiliation, 75 percent were Republican and only 24 percent Democrats. A mere 1 percent were third-party representatives or independents.
The three networks varied only slightly in their selection of partisan sources. CBS had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent); NBC (75 percent vs. 25 percent) and ABC (73 percent vs. 27 percent) were marginally less imbalanced. CBS had the most independents (1.2 percent), followed by ABC (0.7 percent) and NBC (an almost invisible 0.2 percent).
The three networks varied only slightly in their selection of partisan sources. CBS had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent); NBC (75 percent vs. 25 percent) and ABC (73 percent vs. 27 percent) were marginally less imbalanced. CBS had the most independents (1.2 percent), followed by ABC (0.7 percent) and NBC (an almost invisible 0.2 percent).
"Identifiable partisan affiliation" is the key here Quark. Republicans, conservatives are labeled more often than Democrats or liberals.
QUOTE
MRC researchers used the Nexis database to discover each use of the word “liberal” and “conservative” on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News for five years, from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001. Each reference was examined to weed out duplicate cases or instances when the word was used in another context (such as “conservative crowd estimates” or “liberal arts colleges”). In addition, labels were eliminated if they were attributed to a news source rather than the network reporter.
Eventually, the 2,020 records found by the Nexis search engine were pared down to 924 records containing 1,239 bona fide reporter labels. The breakdown shows: reporters at ABC, CBS and NBC reached for the “conservative” tag four times more often than the “liberal” label to define politicians, interest groups and policy positions.
Eventually, the 2,020 records found by the Nexis search engine were pared down to 924 records containing 1,239 bona fide reporter labels. The breakdown shows: reporters at ABC, CBS and NBC reached for the “conservative” tag four times more often than the “liberal” label to define politicians, interest groups and policy positions.
beladonna: I guess the al-Qaeda statement is just a matter of perception. If I had a national forum from which I made a swaggering statement like "We've got al-Qaeda on the run" (and I saw the footage - Bush was swaggering) and, a week later, my own spokespeople were attributing three more serious attacks to that group, I would be embarrassed. Maybe I just have a heightened sense of shame; maybe George W Bush has no shame at all. Calling someone on that kind of hubris may be biased. I didn't think so when it happened to Clinton and I don't think so when it happens to Bush - but I guess I'm too biased (or prejudiced) myself to make an objective call.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
AuthorMusician raises a good point in assessing his local papers. He cites the "liberally biased" Denver Post featuring both conservative and liberal viewpoints in its columnists. This is true of almost all media outlets seen as "liberal".
The op-ed pages of The New York Times, that bastion of American liberalism, regularly features editorials by William Safire and Bill Keller (as well as, for years, A.M. Rosenthal) and executive editor Howell Raines was one of Clinton's most relentless critics throughout his presidency; the Washington Post regularly includes opinion pieces by Michael Kelly, George Will, Robert Novak, and Charles Krauthammer; CNN also regularly features Novak as well as William Bennett, Kate O'Beirne, Jonah Goldberg, David Brooks, and Tucker Carlson - and both Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are regular guests; ABC News has George Will as their only resident commentator and John Stossel as their only overtly biased reporter; Time magazine has Krauthammer (again) and Newsweek has Will (yet again); the New Yorker's Washington correspondents are Michael Kelly and Joe Kline; editors of the New Republic have recently included Michael Kelly again and Andrew Sullivan; the Atlantic Monthly also chose Kelly as editor and he brought with him half the staff of the Weekly Standard, P.J. O'Rourke, and Christopher Hitchens; online, Salon features both Sullivan and David Horowitz and Slate has Sullivan, Christopher Caldwell, Charles Murray, and Elliott Abrams. So much for the hardcore "liberal" mouthpieces of the media.
Does the same balance (or, perhaps, mere inclusiveness) apply to any of the unabashedly conservative media? The Wall Street Journal? the Washington Times? the New York Post? American Spectator? The Weekly Standard? Commentary? The National Review? Fox News?? Does it apply to Matt Drudge? Does it apply to Rush Limbaugh?
Apart from a single (recent) program on Fox, it does not. There are plenty of conservative outlets in this country. But very few, if any, undiluted liberal organs - even The Nation features regular liberal-bashing by Christopher Hitchens and Alexander Cockburn.
Are balance, inclusiveness, fairness only "liberal" virtues? And is this one of the things which many perceive as a clear and distinct conservative bias in our media? I would say - decidedly - yes. Then again, I read the news as a liberal - and I read exhaustively - and I very, very seldom see my point of view represented. What can this mean?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
This could also indicate that conservative politicians, interest groups, and policy positions were four times more likely to be cited by reporters - an overwhelming indication of a conservative bias.
Equally likely, journalists tend to be somewhat better travelled than many Americans and could be aware of the fact that American politicians and interest groups are about four times more conservative than the rest of the civilized world...
In any event, the bulk of the FAIR item was discussing actual Democrats and Republicans selected as sources, not those sources identified by journalists as liberal or conservative. The study itself refers to "sources who had an identifiable partisan affiliation" - not an affiliation which was identified during the course of the broadcast. The bias here was unquestionably toward Republicans, whether they were conservative, moderate, or oxymoronically liberal.
The study Quarkie cited had even more to say about this bias, though:
That, to me, is pretty staggering evidence of bias. And it ain't liberal.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
AuthorMusician raises a good point in assessing his local papers. He cites the "liberally biased" Denver Post featuring both conservative and liberal viewpoints in its columnists. This is true of almost all media outlets seen as "liberal".
The op-ed pages of The New York Times, that bastion of American liberalism, regularly features editorials by William Safire and Bill Keller (as well as, for years, A.M. Rosenthal) and executive editor Howell Raines was one of Clinton's most relentless critics throughout his presidency; the Washington Post regularly includes opinion pieces by Michael Kelly, George Will, Robert Novak, and Charles Krauthammer; CNN also regularly features Novak as well as William Bennett, Kate O'Beirne, Jonah Goldberg, David Brooks, and Tucker Carlson - and both Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are regular guests; ABC News has George Will as their only resident commentator and John Stossel as their only overtly biased reporter; Time magazine has Krauthammer (again) and Newsweek has Will (yet again); the New Yorker's Washington correspondents are Michael Kelly and Joe Kline; editors of the New Republic have recently included Michael Kelly again and Andrew Sullivan; the Atlantic Monthly also chose Kelly as editor and he brought with him half the staff of the Weekly Standard, P.J. O'Rourke, and Christopher Hitchens; online, Salon features both Sullivan and David Horowitz and Slate has Sullivan, Christopher Caldwell, Charles Murray, and Elliott Abrams. So much for the hardcore "liberal" mouthpieces of the media.
Does the same balance (or, perhaps, mere inclusiveness) apply to any of the unabashedly conservative media? The Wall Street Journal? the Washington Times? the New York Post? American Spectator? The Weekly Standard? Commentary? The National Review? Fox News?? Does it apply to Matt Drudge? Does it apply to Rush Limbaugh?
Apart from a single (recent) program on Fox, it does not. There are plenty of conservative outlets in this country. But very few, if any, undiluted liberal organs - even The Nation features regular liberal-bashing by Christopher Hitchens and Alexander Cockburn.
Are balance, inclusiveness, fairness only "liberal" virtues? And is this one of the things which many perceive as a clear and distinct conservative bias in our media? I would say - decidedly - yes. Then again, I read the news as a liberal - and I read exhaustively - and I very, very seldom see my point of view represented. What can this mean?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 29 2003, 03:12 PM)
reporters at ABC, CBS and NBC reached for the “conservative” tag four times more often than the “liberal” label to define politicians, interest groups and policy positions
This could also indicate that conservative politicians, interest groups, and policy positions were four times more likely to be cited by reporters - an overwhelming indication of a conservative bias.
Equally likely, journalists tend to be somewhat better travelled than many Americans and could be aware of the fact that American politicians and interest groups are about four times more conservative than the rest of the civilized world...In any event, the bulk of the FAIR item was discussing actual Democrats and Republicans selected as sources, not those sources identified by journalists as liberal or conservative. The study itself refers to "sources who had an identifiable partisan affiliation" - not an affiliation which was identified during the course of the broadcast. The bias here was unquestionably toward Republicans, whether they were conservative, moderate, or oxymoronically liberal.
The study Quarkie cited had even more to say about this bias, though:
QUOTE
Partisan sources from both parties were most likely to appear in stories on domestic politicking, such as speeches or debates in Congress. After that area of coverage, however, their next most common appearances were qualitatively very different: Republicans appeared in reports on the widely supported war in Afghanistan, while 12 percent of the reports in which Democrats were quoted focused on corruption and scandals, with Democrats in most cases defending themselves or other party members. Republicans, by contrast, were presented in such reports in only 1 percent of their total appearances. By focusing so much on largely nonpolitical scandals (e.g., Chandra Levy, White House gifts) involving the party out of power, the networks bolstered the Republican image--not only by showcasing Democratic "character" questions, but by reserving the vast majority of Republican quotes for more dignified policy discussions, thereby disassociating the party from the "dirty politics" of scandal-mongering.
The top individual sources on the news reflect the emphasis given to the administration at the expense of the opposition. George W. Bush alone made up 9 percent of all sources and 33 percent of partisan sources, putting him far ahead of any other individual voice for the year. The next most common sources were Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (2 percent), former President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Palestinian Authority President Yassir Arafat, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani (with 1 percent each). Clinton faded from prominence shortly after the Bush inauguration (80 percent of his appearances occurred in the first four months of the year), leaving Daschle as the only other top 10 source from the domestic opposition party. The remaining top U.S. sources were all members of the Bush administration, with the exception of the Republican mayor of New York (89 percent of whose appearances occurred after September 11).
The top individual sources on the news reflect the emphasis given to the administration at the expense of the opposition. George W. Bush alone made up 9 percent of all sources and 33 percent of partisan sources, putting him far ahead of any other individual voice for the year. The next most common sources were Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (2 percent), former President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Palestinian Authority President Yassir Arafat, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani (with 1 percent each). Clinton faded from prominence shortly after the Bush inauguration (80 percent of his appearances occurred in the first four months of the year), leaving Daschle as the only other top 10 source from the domestic opposition party. The remaining top U.S. sources were all members of the Bush administration, with the exception of the Republican mayor of New York (89 percent of whose appearances occurred after September 11).
That, to me, is pretty staggering evidence of bias. And it ain't liberal.
Wonderful post, Wertz, but just one thing: Christopher Hitchens is no longer with The Nation and Alexander Cockburn is attacking liberals because he's a farther left than them, not farther right. He's a true progessive, unlike others such as Alterman and Hitchens.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ May 29 2003, 06:28 PM)
Wonderful post, Wertz, but just one thing: Christopher Hitchens is no longer with The Nation...
Thank God for that!
QUOTE
and Alexander Cockburn is attacking liberals because he's a farther left than them, not farther right...
Granted, but an attack is still an attack - especially when assessing partisan politics in the US (though I must admit that I tend to agree with Cockburn most of the time). Incredible as it may seem, it's impossible to get the print version of The Nation in central Florida - and the online version is, sadly, not complete. Thanks for keeping me up to date.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Oh, yeah - as Jaime was speaking of credible sources or references, Passion51, could you give us a few examples of this:
QUOTE(Passion51 @ May 28 2003, 07:51 PM)
I read once that the best way to get a liberal all flustered and riled up is to call them a... liberal. I used to laugh it off until I saw the evidence right here at AD.
I recall hugo being mildly outraged that he was identified as a conservative, but cannot call to mind any liberals here getting "all flustered and riled up" by being identified as... liberal. Links to the evidential posts without further commentary will more than suffice. Thanks.
QUOTE(Jaime @ May 29 2003, 07:34 AM)
Alright, Passion, enough already.
In reviewing this thread, I realize you have not come up with ONE credible source or reference. You have provided us with nothing but anectodes and distracting commentary. Please make your next post a constructive one.
In reviewing this thread, I realize you have not come up with ONE credible source or reference. You have provided us with nothing but anectodes and distracting commentary. Please make your next post a constructive one.
Sorry Jaime, I didn't know you wanted sources unless we were using direct quotes from them.
Just a few of the sources I'm familiar with and think all would enjoy reading on this topic are......Media Research Center, Goldberg's Bias which I'm pretty sure I mentioned, Ann Coulter's Slander and portions of Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring.
You can't suscribe? They won't deliver?
hugo,
Right, and I agree. But the Denver Post doesn't do this in its editorializing. Columnists might, but columnists are not editors. They do not represent the paper's positions. In addition, the Post's editors are careful to keep slanted straight news pieces out.
I'll give the Gazette credit for keeping enough liberal views in it to achieve a level of balance, but its editorializing is consistently--and annoyingly--conservative. One clown wrote in to ask what software they are using for the editorials, as if real people don't write them.
And oh boy, if a reporter writes a piece of news that reflects badly on the icons of conservatism in Colorado Springs, the heat turns up! How dare they report that, no matter how true the story is or how objectively written.
I guess it is immoral to criticize conservatives. Oh well, I'm an amoral liberal
QUOTE
Excuse me? I would say not criticizing a man viewed as a liberal President, while overly criticizing a man viewed as a conservative President would be showing a consistent liberal bias.
Right, and I agree. But the Denver Post doesn't do this in its editorializing. Columnists might, but columnists are not editors. They do not represent the paper's positions. In addition, the Post's editors are careful to keep slanted straight news pieces out.
I'll give the Gazette credit for keeping enough liberal views in it to achieve a level of balance, but its editorializing is consistently--and annoyingly--conservative. One clown wrote in to ask what software they are using for the editorials, as if real people don't write them.
And oh boy, if a reporter writes a piece of news that reflects badly on the icons of conservatism in Colorado Springs, the heat turns up! How dare they report that, no matter how true the story is or how objectively written.
I guess it is immoral to criticize conservatives. Oh well, I'm an amoral liberal
Isn't amoral liberal redundant? 
Perhaps it's gone unnoticed because it is laying in plain view, so to speak but there is one thing to consider when we drum up soundbites of people in journalism saying that their industry is liberal.
Liberal is a fairly subjective term. Take Keith Morrison. He hasn't done any news broadcasting recently but I have seen his name lumped together as a liberal journalist (most likely because he is Canadian) and I've met the man. He is not a liberal.
Perhaps it's gone unnoticed because it is laying in plain view, so to speak but there is one thing to consider when we drum up soundbites of people in journalism saying that their industry is liberal.
Liberal is a fairly subjective term. Take Keith Morrison. He hasn't done any news broadcasting recently but I have seen his name lumped together as a liberal journalist (most likely because he is Canadian) and I've met the man. He is not a liberal.
So much info, so little time.
I think that the press part of the media is mostly liberal.
As for the radio part of the media, people like Rush are there to appeal to the far, far, far right. Liberals love Rush because he is an embarassment to most conservatives, he makes the left look more intelligent.
For those who like Rush, here is a dare. Read Al Franken's book, "Rush L. is a big fat idiot". If you find it funny, you are probably somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. If you don't, you may be too far right.
BTW, don't miss out on reading the index.
I think that the press part of the media is mostly liberal.
As for the radio part of the media, people like Rush are there to appeal to the far, far, far right. Liberals love Rush because he is an embarassment to most conservatives, he makes the left look more intelligent.
For those who like Rush, here is a dare. Read Al Franken's book, "Rush L. is a big fat idiot". If you find it funny, you are probably somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. If you don't, you may be too far right.
BTW, don't miss out on reading the index.
Bill,
I agree with your thought that some of the media are liberal and some are conservative, as I've said in previous posts in this thread. However, I must take issue with your characterization of Limbaugh as far, far, far right. His radio style is deliberately bombastic and "in your face" but that isn't substance, that's schtick. On his actual positions on issues he is indistinguishable from the staff of National Review, which places him squarely in the mainstream of the conservative movement. And I might add, he's pretty intellectually substantive on conservative theory, a subject I've studied quite a bit. There's of course a lot I disagree with him on since I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, and I don't particularly care for his style, but I do appreciate his ability.
I agree with your thought that some of the media are liberal and some are conservative, as I've said in previous posts in this thread. However, I must take issue with your characterization of Limbaugh as far, far, far right. His radio style is deliberately bombastic and "in your face" but that isn't substance, that's schtick. On his actual positions on issues he is indistinguishable from the staff of National Review, which places him squarely in the mainstream of the conservative movement. And I might add, he's pretty intellectually substantive on conservative theory, a subject I've studied quite a bit. There's of course a lot I disagree with him on since I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, and I don't particularly care for his style, but I do appreciate his ability.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Jun 6 2003, 04:42 AM)
Bill,
I agree with your thought that some of the media are liberal and some are conservative, as I've said in previous posts in this thread. However, I must take issue with your characterization of Limbaugh as far, far, far right. His radio style is deliberately bombastic and "in your face" but that isn't substance, that's schtick. On his actual positions on issues he is indistinguishable from the staff of National Review, which places him squarely in the mainstream of the conservative movement. And I might add, he's pretty intellectually substantive on conservative theory, a subject I've studied quite a bit. There's of course a lot I disagree with him on since I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, and I don't particularly care for his style, but I do appreciate his ability.
I agree with your thought that some of the media are liberal and some are conservative, as I've said in previous posts in this thread. However, I must take issue with your characterization of Limbaugh as far, far, far right. His radio style is deliberately bombastic and "in your face" but that isn't substance, that's schtick. On his actual positions on issues he is indistinguishable from the staff of National Review, which places him squarely in the mainstream of the conservative movement. And I might add, he's pretty intellectually substantive on conservative theory, a subject I've studied quite a bit. There's of course a lot I disagree with him on since I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, and I don't particularly care for his style, but I do appreciate his ability.
If Rush is mainstream, why are his admirers so rabidly to the right? I worked with people who worship the man. If he appeals to their baser instincts for money, what does that say about him? If schtick, and bombastic style is his image, how can the listener determine his substance?
As to his intellect, there is a reason why he screens his calls and controls the mic time of the callers that do get in. It is the same reason that he is reluctant to do live debates with those who have real intellect; he comes off looking stupid.
A political commentator he isn't. He is an agitator, and agitation is a tool of propagandists, the one that uses slogans and half truths against the masses.
Rush (and others using the same methods) knows his audience, and he should be ashamed for pandering to them for money.
Agitation is where the money is. You end up getting a larger audience, those who agree with you AND those who disagree and tune in cuz they cant believe the crazy things you say.
QUOTE(santasdad @ Jun 7 2003, 10:23 AM)
Agitation is where the money is. You end up getting a larger audience, those who agree with you AND those who disagree and tune in cuz they cant believe the crazy things you say.
Yes, liberals find Rush as sophomoric and Moore as humorous, conservatives the reverse. These are the individuals that appeal to a large audience, not Rothbard or Chomsky. Reader's Digest is written at a 6th grade reading level for a good reason.
To me, corporate interests dominate the mainstream American media. Do any of you have any links/sources to which media groups own which newspapers/networks? It seems from the evidence that there WAS a liberal bias before 9/11, and a national culture, sponsored by the Eastern Liberal Establishment, through the liberal-left foundations, for liberal elitist political correctness. However, since 9/11 the national mood has become patriotic and conservative, and with the growing competition from Fox News (Rupert Murdock owns that network), the other networks have for ratings sake, joined the War Party’s bandwagon.
To me, its not the issue of liberal or conservative, but the narrow range of the present US media.
See
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/letters/...30228175136.asp
Ecellant source:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/11/17799.html
To me, its not the issue of liberal or conservative, but the narrow range of the present US media.
See
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/letters/...30228175136.asp
Ecellant source:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/11/17799.html
QUOTE(Thomas @ Jun 9 2003, 10:13 AM)
To me, corporate interests dominate the mainstream American media. Do any of you have any links/sources to which media groups own which newspapers/networks?
You are quite right that corporate interests dominate American media - and they are not notoriously liberal. There's a good breakdown here. In short the major players in terms of control of the news are General Electric, AOL Time Warner, the Walt Disney Company, Viacom, the News Corporation, Sony, and AT&T.QUOTE
It seems from the evidence that there WAS a liberal bias before 9/11, and a national culture, sponsored by the Eastern Liberal Establishment, through the liberal-left foundations, for liberal elitist political correctness.
And what evidence would that be? And may we assume you are referring to Eastern Liberal Establishment types like the Morgans and the Rockefellers and the Scaifes and the Chases and the Kelloggs and the Bushes???QUOTE
To me, its not the issue of liberal or conservative, but the narrow range of the present US media.
I'd agree to a large extent: the range presented is extremely narrow - but it is distinctly right of center.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jun 9 2003, 10:46 PM)
QUOTE
To me, its not the issue of liberal or conservative, but the narrow range of the present US media.
I'd agree to a large extent: the range presented is extremely narrow - but it is distinctly right of center. If the political center you are speaking of is the world's political center I must agree. The US, however, is to the right of the world's political center.Corporations do not control the media, the consumer of media does. Mass media, by it's very title, is governed by the tastes of the masses. Keep it simple, keep it in a narrow range that has proven to be commercially successful. If you want something outside that range try reading a book. I can find Marx and Rand on the same bookshelf in Barnes & Noble, a typical corporation that sells any book that a significant number of consumers will buy.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jun 6 2003, 06:33 AM)
If Rush is mainstream, why are his admirers so rabidly to the right? I worked with people who worship the man. If he appeals to their baser instincts for money, what does that say about him? If schtick, and bombastic style is his image, how can the listener determine his substance?
As to his intellect, there is a reason why he screens his calls and controls the mic time of the callers that do get in. It is the same reason that he is reluctant to do live debates with those who have real intellect; he comes off looking stupid.
A political commentator he isn't. He is an agitator, and agitation is a tool of propagandists, the one that uses slogans and half truths against the masses.
Rush (and others using the same methods) knows his audience, and he should be ashamed for pandering to them for money.
As to his intellect, there is a reason why he screens his calls and controls the mic time of the callers that do get in. It is the same reason that he is reluctant to do live debates with those who have real intellect; he comes off looking stupid.
A political commentator he isn't. He is an agitator, and agitation is a tool of propagandists, the one that uses slogans and half truths against the masses.
Rush (and others using the same methods) knows his audience, and he should be ashamed for pandering to them for money.
I don't claim Limbaugh is mainstream per se but mainstream within the conservative movement. That of course is considerably right of center, but no more so than some of the conservative posters here. I can't address your co-workers since I don't know them, but I'd guess you know mainly the more lowbrow segment of the Limbaugh audience. He appeals to a higher range as well, myself for example.
He's an entertainer who has the luxury of a bully pulpit to promote his views, IMO a most enviable position. But the reason he screens his calls so tightly isn't because he's a weak debater. You wouldn't say that if you'd seen the Phil Donahue episode (the old show, not the more recent one on MSNBC) where Rush was the sole guest for the whole hour, and he and Phil were going it hardcore the whole time, and civilly and with respect for each other too. They were very evenly matched, and both very well informed and substantive. It was IMO the best Donahue episode ever.
As for Limbaugh's own show, if you actually listened to it for any length of time, he does a lot more than slogans and half-truths. He gets into nuances of conservative thought that would do William F. Buckley, Jr. proud, and is able to explain them in a way that most of his listeners can understand. I haven't yet read Franken's book though I will, but at this point I'm inclined to believe it's Franken who's the big fat idiot.
[red]CLOSED due to age. Thank you to all of you who participated [/mod]
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.