Harry Reid Suggests Media Gives Republicans Favorable Coverage

That is what fox says he said, but that is not exactly what he said. You just read headline and went with that.

I hate to say fox mislead, but they cut out a quote to fit what they want it to be.

First off, I will say the media is overwhelmingly for Obama and anything he says.

Second, while they showed but a snippet of what Reid actually said, I think what he was trying to say in his opinion, the problems that congress has had has not been due to the democrats willing to make concessions, but due to the republicans not making any concessions. And he says that the media is blaming both sides when in fact it is only the republicans fault.

While some may say that amounts to the same thing, it actually is not.

I've finally figured it out. Rex is Harry Reid. Trolling America one post/soundbite at a time.

How does anyone take Reid seriously anymore.

Well...he's right. I can think of at least 10 times in the last year where the media did not call for the summary execution of a Republican.

This bias must be stopped.

he may be off base but y'all are equally as bad about this nonsense.

MSNBC and Fox are the only 2 networks that are that bad really.

quote:

---

MSNBC and Fox are the only 2 networks that are that bad really.

---

Hasn't MSNBC been able to make money with the FOX model?


I agree MSNBC sucks, btw. On the rare occasion I just want someone on TV to tell me I'm right and all the righties are wrong, I'll switch it on (though only during football season, when I have cable).

Though FOX has one thing MSNBC doesn't. Racism.

quote:

---

Post damn near any political story on here from CNN, AP, ABC, etc. and I will be glad to show you the political bias.

---

You sound almost as if you've drawn a conclusion before reviewing any evidence.

Given that, I think you may be biased about bias.

quote:

---

if you wanted to i bet you could also find Jesus' face in a piece of toast too.

---

Let me give you an example of how it is done. Ignore the subject because it really isn't important to this.

A few years ago an article was in a local paper regarding the changing of the Georgia state flag to eliminate the battle flag portion. Said article was roughly 10 paragraphs. Opponents of the old flag / battle flag were given 3 paragraphs to explain their opposition. Proponents of the battle flag were given 2 SENTENCES. The paper could then say it had presented both sides, when in actuality around 1/3 of the article was used to explain a particular view.

This is just one method. It happens all the time. Feel free to link an article if you want.

quote:

---

You sound almost as if you've drawn a conclusion before reviewing any evidence.

---

Do you think I just started following politics?