ABC Admits Media Is Bush's Opposition

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Here is more proof the liberal media is liberal. This gem slipped through the cracks and turned up on ABC's web page


    http://newsbusters.org/node/6522

    Media Fill in for Incompetent Left as Bush's 'Loyal Opposition'
    Posted by Greg Sheffield on July 21, 2006 - 15:16.

    With Howard Dean floundering as leader of the Democratic Party and as Daily Kos loses influence with its Blogola scandal (probably making room for the Next Big Thing, as Kos replaced MoveOn), the Left is proving once again that it cannot form a united front against Bush for more than several months.

    How could such meager opposition possibly survive? Columnist Peggy Noonan noticed something as she read ABC News' The Note: The political digest inadvertently noted who Bush's true opposition is, and it's not the Democratic Party. Said The Note, "[Mr. Bush] is going to need to be focused and impressive, not easy pickings for the Rich-Krugman-Dowd-Stewart axis."

    Said Noonan:

    As I read I nodded: That's exactly true. What was significant is that The Note did not designate as Mr. Bush's main and most effective foes Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, Biden, et al. Mr. Bush's mightiest competitors are columnists and a comedian with a fake-news show.
    This is one reason the media is important. (Not "are important." Language evolves; usage changes; people vote with their tongues. It's not the correct "return to normality"; it's the incorrect "return to normalcy." It's not "the media are" it's "the media is." People see the media as one big thing.)

    One big reason the media is important is that they change things. And they lead. On 9/11 itself it was the media--anchors, reporters, crews sent to the scene, analysts--that functioned, for roughly 10 hours, as the most visible leaders of the United States. The president was on a plane; the vice president was in the bunker and on the phone. It was on-air journalists who informed, created a seeming order, and reassured the public by their presence and personas and professionalism.

    So they're important. But very recently it seems to me they're important because it is from the media that Mr. Bush's most effective opposition--attacks on his nature and leadership, attacks on his policies--comes. Among the Democrats an op-ed columnist has more impact than a minority leader.

    It is common wisdom that newspapers are over. But when the most powerful voices against a powerful president at a crucial time are op-ed jockeys, newspapers are not over. Or perhaps one should say paper may be over, but news is not.
     
  2. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    Are you suggesting the media should be cheerleaders for the administration? Part of democracy is a free press which criticizes the government. Because I hate to break the news to you, but the government is always fucked up, whether they are Republican or Democrat and someone needs to spread the news.

    There are plenty of countries in the world where the media gives the government a free ride.......North Korea, Iran, Albania. Why don't you move to one of them? Then you'll have the press/government relationship you seek. :gs:
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Reports are to report WHAT happened.

    The liberal media now reports what they WANT to happen

    You listen to the "main stream media" reporters, and they say they want to "make a difference"

    What the hell happened to reporting simply what happened and leave their opinions on the opinion page?
     
  4. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    The problem is lines between conservative/liberal are so blurred that it's hard to tell where the bias is. For example I am watching CNN right now and they are running a lengthy (20 minutes and it's not over) puff piece in support of Israel, with Miles O'Brien brownnosing a bunch of locals. Is this liberal? Conservative? I can't tell. To me it's just "stupid".
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    You want bias?

    Try this on (I have alot more)
    http://newsbusters.org/node/6512
    David, Is That You?
    Posted by Mark Finkelstein on July 21, 2006 - 07:41.

    But judging from his comments this morning, just how surprised would we be to find it was NBC's David Gregory himself?

    Did David perhaps rev up for his appearance by reading this all-out assault on Bush foreign policy from in the LA Times? In any case, he came loaded for Bush bear with a totally bleak tour d'horizon that included these gems:

    "The president's foreign policy was designed to make the the Middle East safer. It's not."
    "Crisis after crisis has undermined the Bush doctrine."
    "A foreign policy that has yet to produce the promised results."
    To prove his point, Gregory rolled a clip of Joe Biden informing us that "the Bush foreign policy is in tatters. Judge the Bush foreign policy by its own standards. He said he was going to deal with the Axis of Evil and in every case those nations are more dangerous."
    The tag team continued with Gregory stepping back in to substantiate Biden's point: "Iraq on the brink of civil war, a rising Iran defying the world over nuclear weapons and flexing its muscles, and missile tests by North Korea, in violation of diplomatic demands."
    Things could always get worse for W, and sure enough they did, as Greogry went on to inform us that: "Even the president's conservative allies say the world has become more unstable. Where, they now ask, is the president's nerve?"
    Remind me never to get any 'allies' like that.



    or this one.........

    http://newsbusters.org/node/6508

    Nets Stress How Bush Rejected NAACP Invitations, But Skip Group's Vicious Attacks
    Posted by Brent Baker on July 20, 2006 - 21:59.

    Without any mention of the vicious hostility the NAACP displayed toward President Bush since he spoke before the group in 2000, including a TV ad linking Bush's refusal to sign a hate crime bill to the dragging death of a black man in Texas, the Thursday broadcast network evening newscasts portrayed Bush as the one responsible for the estrangement. All stressed how Bush's Thursday appearance before the NAACP convention was his first and all three ran soundbites only from attendees critical of him.

    "It took five and a half years, but President Bush finally said yes to the NAACP,” ABC's Charles Gibson asserted, elaborating: “The President has ignored invitations throughout his presidency to speak to the civil rights group.” Martha Raddatz emphasized Bush's absences: "The White House saw this as an opportunity the President couldn't pass up. But it is an opportunity he had passed up every year since he was elected.” CBS anchor Bob Schieffer highlighted how Bush “spoke today to the NAACP for the first time in six years as President.” Jim Axelrod relayed how “prior to Katrina, he never spoke to the convention as President, but since September, he's reached out to the head of the NAACP three separate times." NBC's Brian Williams set up a story by noting how “President Bush spoke to the NAACP for the first time in his presidency.” David Gregory asserted that efforts to reach out to blacks “have failed” and “then came Katrina and charges that racism motivated the federal government's slow response.” (Transcripts follow.)

    Of course, none of the network anchors or reporters ever tagged the NAACP as “liberal.”

    Unlike the ABC, CBS and NBC reporters, on Special Report with Brit Hume, FNC's Carl Cameron pointed out: “Mr. Bush last spoke to the NAACP in 2000 as a presidential candidate. Afterward, the group ran an attack ad linking his opposition to parts of hates crimes bill, as the then Texas Governor, to the lynching of James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death behind a pickup by three white men.”

    Indeed, as recounted in a February NewsBusters item, a few months after he attended a NAACP convention in 2000, the NAACP Voter Fund produced a TV ad narrated by the daughter of James Byrd, the black man murdered by being dragged behind a pick-up truck, which charged that since "Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again." The late October of 2000 NAACP ad featured a semi-re-enactment of the brutal murder: Black and white video of a pick-up truck's door closing and the pick-up then dragging a long chain down a dirt road. In her own voice, Byrd's daughter recounted:


    "I'm Renee Mullins, James Byrd's daughter. On June 7, 1998, in Texas, my father was killed. He was beaten, chained and then dragged three miles to his death -- all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. Call George W. Bush and tell him to support hate crimes legislation. We won't be dragged away from our future."

    Video clip: At the time, the MRC posted a RealPlayer clip of FNC's showing of the ad (700 KB at a low-quality 34 kbps recording rate) as played on the October 24, 2000 Special Report with Brit Hume. The clip lasts 2:40 and starts with the 30-second ad in full followed by some comments on it by Morton Kondracke, Bill Sammon and Mara Liasson -- so if you want to see the ad, you only need to watch the start of the clip. RealPlayer clip of the ad shown in still shot to the right.

    And a few months after that ad blast at Bush, Julian Bond, then Chairman of the group's Governing Board, issued some nasty vitriol, the MRC's Clay Waters noted in a Thursday NewsBusters posting. At the NAACP's 2001 convention, Bond accused Bush of reaching into "the Taliban wing of American politics" to fill his administration and of appeasing "the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." In a July of 2001 USA Today column, DeWayne Wickham recited Bond's shot at Bush.

    The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the July 20 ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscast stories which delivered criticism of Bush but not of the NAACP.

    ABC's World News with Charles Gibson. Gibson, back in Manhattan from Cyprus:


    "It took five and a half years, but President Bush finally said yes to the NAACP. The President has ignored invitations throughout his presidency to speak to the civil rights group. But today, he did. How was he received? ABC's Martha Raddatz joins us now from Washington. Martha?"

    Martha Raddatz, at the White House: "Charlie, the White House saw this as an opportunity the President couldn't pass up. But it is an opportunity he had passed up every year since he was elected. The President did not pretend today that his relationship with the NAACP has been a close one. He joked about his lack of attendance after a brief introduction by the head of the civil rights organization."

    George W. Bush, at the NAACP convention held at the Washington Convention Center: "I thought what he was going to say, 'It's about time you showed up.'"

    Raddatz: "Republicans have historically received only about 10 percent of the black vote. Mr. Bush said today he wants to change the relationship between African-Americans and his party."

    Bush: "For too long, my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."

    Raddatz: "The applause that the President received today was lukewarm, at best. And at one point, he had to speak while being heckled. But some who watched the speech were at least pleased that the President showed up."

    Ishton Morton, NAACP convention attendee, in hardly a glowing comment about Bush: "I was still somewhat disappointed that he did not see fit to show up before. But we cannot lament on the past. We got to move forward."

    Raddatz: "That is what the President is trying to do, especially after Hurricane Katrina, which strained his relationships with the African-American community. Today, the President pointed out that he was now working with the head of the NAACP to help the people of the Gulf Coast, as well as promoting small businesses and education for African-Americans."

    Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD): "The question is, is whether he will now do what he says he's going to do. And I'll tell you, if we had to base it upon what we have seen over the last several years, I'm not that optimistic."

    Raddatz: "But the President did get one very healthy round of applause today, Charlie, when he said he would promptly sign the Voting Rights Act, which the Senate renewed today."

    CBS Evening News. Bob Schieffer, who never left Manhattan this week:


    "The Senate gave final approval today to extending the 1965 Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. That is a landmark law that gave millions of African-Americans across the South the right to vote. The extension will be signed by the President, who, by the way, spoke today to the NAACP for the first time in six years as President. Here's Jim Axelrod."

    Jim Axelrod: "The President tried to ease the tension right away, thanking NAACP President Bruce Gordon for his welcome."

    George W. Bush: "Thanks for your introduction. Bruce is a polite guy. I thought what he was going to say, 'It's about time you showed up.'"

    Axelrod: "The reception was cordial, polite, maybe even warmer than expected given the history. Even the hecklers weren't yelling about race, just the war. Most everyone stood up, but former NAACP board member Gail Anderson Holness stayed in her seat."

    E. Gail Anderson Holness, University of the District of Columbia: "We are always on someone else's agenda when they want to have a conversation with us. When we want to talk to them, they don't want to talk to us."

    Bush: "And I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party."

    Axelrod: "Mr. Bush's speech was part olive branch, part mea culpa for the Republican Party's past."

    Bush: "I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community. For too long, my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."

    Axelrod: "So how did the President do? With an audience still full of suspicion about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the job of winning over African-Americans is not done yet."

    Unidentified man: "Action is the only way to improve that point."

    Axelrod: "So talk's talk."

    Man: "And he has to walk the walk."

    Axelrod: "Hurricane Katrina marks a clear dividing line for President Bush when it comes to his efforts to reach out to African-American leaders. Take the NAACP: Prior to Katrina, he never spoke to the convention as President, but since September, he's reached out to the head of the NAACP three separate times."

    NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams, back in Manhattan from Israel:


    "NBC News 'In Depth' tonight, the Republican Party and race relations. On the very day President Bush spoke to the NAACP for the first time in his presidency, the Senate passed and sent the President a 25-year renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The timing here was no accident. Republicans are trying to shore up their standing with black voters before the November elections. But as our chief White House correspondent David Gregory tells us tonight, it's an uphill battle."

    David Gregory: "Making his first ever speech to the NAACP as President, Mr. Bush didn't dare hide from political reality, nor did his audience hide its feelings."

    George W. Bush: "And I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party." [applause]

    Gregory: "That reaction highlights the problem for this President and his party."

    Bush: "I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community."

    Gregory: "Mr. Bush never apologized for those broken ties, but today's visit appeared to be about making amends. Acknowledging a rocky relationship with the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the President asked for a new start."

    Bush: "You must understand, I understand that racism still lingers in America."

    Gregory: "Still, the Republican Party has a long way to go. Mr. Bush won just eight percent of the African-American vote in 2000, then 11 percent in 2004. But the White House continued to court African-American voters by promoting education reform, more money for faith-based groups, even a ban on gay marriage. Still, those efforts have failed. Then came Katrina and charges that racism motivated the federal government's slow response. Today the President spoke of the way forward in the hurricane zone."

    Bush: "But it's a commitment to the people of the Gulf Coast of the United States to see to it that their lives are better and brighter than before the storm."

    Gregory: "Reaction in the hall today was mixed. Some who disagreed with the President were still glad he came, others were more cynical."

    Lawrence Guyot, NAACP convention attendee: "He is here to save the Republican Party. He has every right to do that. But he plays it as he's here to save the country."

    Gregory: "The group's President said today Republican outreach has to produce results."

    Bruce Gordon, NAACP President: "I don't see enough being done that causes the African-American community to say we think that the reach out is occurring."

    Gregory: "It's clear the President hopes that showing up today was a start. David Gregory, NBC News, the White House."
     
  6. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    Look, the media is a business, just like everything in this country including religions. There is bias going in both directions at all times. Radio obviously leans towards the right with people like Rush Limbaugh and the print media leans both ways. Television, it depends upon which channel you watch. It is just as easy to find examples of conservative bias.

    As I mentioned CNN is taking a strong stance in favor of Israel. The administration takes a strong stance in favor of Israel. Yet I would assume that you think CNN is a liberal mouthpiece. Does this mean the administration is liberal on the subject of Israel?
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    CNN has a strong pro Israel stance? You must be watching another CNN


    http://newsbusters.org/node/6487
    CNN's 'Exclusive:' Nic Robertson's Forum for Hezbollah Propagandist
    Posted by Rich Noyes on July 19, 2006 - 12:29.

    Last night (Tuesday) on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, senior international correspondent Nic Robertson touted his “exclusive” exchange with a Hezbollah propagandist who led Robertson on a tour of a bombed-out block of southern Beirut. Hezbollah claimed to show that Israeli bombs had struck civilian areas of the city, not the terrorist group’s headquarters.

    The Hezbollah “press officer,” Hussein Nabulsi, even directed CNN’s camera: “Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?” A few moments later, Nabulsi instructed CNN to videotape him as he ran up to a pile of rubble: “Shoot me. Shoot. This is here where they said Sheikh Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, is living. This is wrong!”


    Robertson seemed to endorse Hezbollah’s claims: “As we run past the rubble, we see much that points to civilian life, no evidence apparent of military equipment.” And, while an animated Nabulsi gesticulated at what he claimed was evidence of Israel’s errors and damage done to civilian sites, he quickly ended the tour after Robertson brought up how Hezbollah had killed civilians.

    “Now there is jet fighters. We have to move,” he instructed Robertson.

    After Robertson’s taped report, co-anchor John Roberts saluted his colleague: “Well, extraordinary tour that you took there today, Nic. And a lot of people here at CNN say you’re very, very brave for doing it, but we expect nothing less.”

    During the 1991 war with Iraq, CNN was given favored status in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as then-reporter Peter Arnett served as a willing conduit for the regime’s anti-American propaganda, a role Arnett briefly reprised for MSNBC during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Does Robertson aspire to become the Peter Arnett of this conflict?

    CNN went to Robertson’s taped piece at about 11:20pm EDT, after he alerted viewers to new bombing in the same area of southern Beirut:

    “Tyre, the port city in the south of Lebanon, took a pounding from Israeli bombs Tuesday. Civilians were caught up in the carnage."

    Robertson continued, over footage that included an injured Lebanese child: “Other Lebanese towns and villages in the south and east of the country were also targeted, and as it has every day since the bombing began last Thursday, Beirut's southern suburbs, the heartland of the Islamic guerrilla organization Hezbollah, part of which, until now, kept off-limits to outsiders.”

    Viewers saw Robertson in a blue shirt running amidst debris alongside the Hezbollah operative, who wore a red shirt. Robertson asked: “Where are we going now?”

    Hussein Nabulsi, labeled on-screen as a “Hezbollah Press Officer”: “Now we are moving to where Israeli jet fighters bombed what it called Hezbollah headquarters.”

    Robertson narrated: “In a reverse of recent policy, Hezbollah took CNN on an exclusive fast-paced tour of the most sensitive bomb sites.”

    To Nabulsi: “You are really worried about another strike here right now, yes?”

    Nabulsi: “Of course, of course.”

    Robertson: “How dangerous is it in this area at the moment?”

    Nabulsi: “It is very, very dangerous. It's — we are now the most dangerous place in the most dangerous moment.”

    Robertson: “In civilian housing.”

    Robertson narrated: “Israel says it targets Hezbollah's leadership and military structure. Hezbollah wanted to show us civilians are being hit.” At the base of a heavily-damaged multi-story concrete building, he asked Nabulsi: “What was here?”

    Nabulsi gestured to the cameraman: “Just look. Shoot. It is civilians, buildings. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?”

    Robertson: “Are you going to have — go for this cease-fire? Are you have going to hand back the soldiers that they ask for?”

    Nabulsi threatened: “We always teach Israel a lesson. We always teach it a lesson. Now we will teach Israel a lesson again. I tell Ehud Olmert we will not surrender. We will not surrender. We will not surrender. Dignity.”

    Robertson narrated: “Fearing renewed bombing, we move off again.”

    Nabulsi: “Okay. Hurry up. Hurry up....”

    Robertson narrated: “As we run past the rubble, we see much that points to civilian life, no evidence apparent of military equipment.”

    Nabulsi: “This — I will show you something.” He gestured to the cameraman: “Shoot me. Shoot. This is here where they said Sheikh Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, is living. This is wrong.”

    Robertson: “This looks like a bunker-busting bomb has been used here to go down below ground level.”

    Nabulsi: “This was destroyed by Israeli — the Israelis are coward. They don’t come to fight us face-to-face. They come with jet fighters from high above in the sky.”

    Robertson: “Is that what you want them to do, fight you face-by- face?”

    Nabulsi: “If they have — if they are brave enough, face us! You know, we want you, we want to fight you face- to-face.”

    Robertson: “How long is this going to-”

    Nabulsi, still speaking to the Israelis: “You don't dare to do it!”

    Robertson narrates — “I have more questions ” — and is shown posing his first tough question to Nabulsi: “But they say you’re killing civilians.”

    Nabulsi points to the sky: “Now there is jet fighters. We have to move.”

    Robertson, running, talks directly to the camera: “Now we have been told we have to get out of the area. They believe that more Israeli planes are coming and that we need to get out of this area right now for our safety.”

    Then narrating, he points out: “As we leave, my questions are still unanswered. Has Israeli bombing degraded Hezbollah's military, as Israel claims? We track down a senior Hezbollah politician.”

    He then runs a soundbite (translated) from Dr. Ali Fayyad, Hezbollah Central Committee, who insists that the Israeli attacks have been ineffective: “Hezbollah’s infrastructure remains completely sound. What will show this to be true in the resistance continued ability to launch rockets. I can say we’re still in the middle of this battle.”

    Robertson concludes: “A battle that in Beirut’s normally densely populated southern suburbs, at least, is turning the city into a war zone.”

    Back live, he tells co-anchor John Roberts: “I asked that politician as well if there was a possibility of a cease fire, the possibility of talks that are going on right now can bring about a comprehensive cease fire, to bring about an end to all the bloodshed and violence that's going on. He told me as it stands right now, he doesn’t see that happening at all, John.”

    Roberts asked about Robertson’s tour: “Military equipment in that area, that suburb of southern Beirut that you were going through today — has Israel ever claimed that there was a lot of military material in there? Or were they only targeting it because it was a basically Hezbollah offices, a real stronghold for the organization?”

    Robertson conceded: “You know, we don't know specifically what the Israelis were targeting when they were bombing that area. We know what their stated objectives are, which is to degrade Hezbollah's military and remove its leadership. From what we could see there, we didn't see any military type of equipment. We didn't go burrowing into all the houses. But of course, that's one of the problems. Hezbollah is an organization that grows out of the people in the community there. You know, you can have university professors going off to work during the day and coming home and being part of Hezbollah's military force. It's very difficult to find them and target them in an urban environment, John.”

    Roberts ended by congratulating Robertson: “Well, extraordinary tour that you took there today, Nic. And a lot of people here at CNN say you're very, very brave for doing it, but we expect nothing less. Nic Robertson in Beirut, thanks very much.”
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Notice that RedStatesRot doesn't mention the WaPo or Fox or Drudge or Coultergeist or Limbaugh or any of the other right-wing propagandists.

    The whole liberal media thing has been debunked repeatedly. And unless a comparison is done of EVERY media outlet as compared to every other media outlet, the assertions are just a bunch of garbage.
     
  9. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,235
    Thanks Received:
    7,841
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,801
    And I'll bet your eyes are brown honey... because you're full of shit.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    I'm just describing what they are showing now. Thankfully I don't watch it 24 hours a day.

    Is their support of Israel liberal or conservative? When they support Hezbollah is it liberal or conservative?

    I understand your point about how the media should try to be objective. Since they have few ethics and it is a big business that will not happen.
     

Share This Page