Prev: Let us endeavor....
Next: I am Kenneth Gladney
From: MNMikeW on 30 Mar 2010 11:17 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4bb1327c$0$27202$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:4bb12852$0$4986$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4bae74f0$0$5115$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >>>>>> message >>>>>> news:clark-BFD3D6.12145423032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >>>>>>> In article <80s004FugaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" >>>>>>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>> news:clark-26F0AD.09151323032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>>>>>> state.edu... >>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>> <451e2116-4df3-4719- >>>>>>>>> b51f-66d4595a0304(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>> kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so quick to believe Lewis and Conyers and so quick >>>>>>>>>> to dismiss the story of Kenneth Gladney? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/i-am-kenneth- >>>>>>>>>> gladney/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because it is in the Moonies' Washington Times? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So because it appears in the Times it can't possibly be true >>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it will almost certainly carry their strong bias. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like the New York Times. >>>>> >>>>> Please tell me you're joking. >>>> >>>> The Wash. Times is no more biased than the NYT Times is. >>> >>> Are you insane? >> >> Do you actually believe the NYT is not biased? > > Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times, a > cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism. That would be your biased opinion of course.
From: MNMikeW on 30 Mar 2010 11:18 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dce8108f-afc8-4e5f-b0fd-990bc1970504(a)k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Mar 29, 6:35 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4bb12852$0$4986$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > >> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >>news:4bae74f0$0$5115$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > >>>> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > >>>> message > >>>>news:clark-BFD3D6.12145423032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >>>>> In article <80s004Fug...(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" > >>>>> <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > >>>>>> message > >>>>>>news:clark-26F0AD.09151323032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>> <451e2116-4df3-4719-b51f-66d4595a0...(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>> kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Why are you so quick to believe Lewis and Conyers and so quick to > >>>>>>>> dismiss the story of Kenneth Gladney? > > >>>>>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/i-am-kenneth- > >>>>>>>> gladney/ > > >>>>>>> Because it is in the Moonies' Washington Times? > > >>>>>> So because it appears in the Times it can't possibly be true > >>>>>> correct? > > >>>>> Well, it will almost certainly carry their strong bias. > > >>>> Just like the New York Times. > > >>> Please tell me you're joking. > > >> The Wash. Times is no more biased than the NYT Times is. > > > Are you insane? > > Do you actually believe the NYT is not biased?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The NYT is a liberal paper, but I don't often see its liberalism spilling onto its news pages. I have seen that with the Wahsington Post, especially when Bush was president. The Wash. Times is a conservative paper whose right-wing bias does spill over onto its news pages, and the Times editors even admit it. The whole reason the paper was founded was to provide a conservative alternative to the Wash. Post. The WT will be out of business in a few months. ======================================== As will most newspapers. Well, until Obama bails them out too.
From: bknight on 30 Mar 2010 11:34 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: >On Mar 29, 7:06�pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >> Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times, a >> cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism. > >I would have never thought a person like you would recognize that the >NYT is a cult rag that is an embarassment to journalism. He didn't. Although a semi-colon would've helped,does one have to point out that he was describing the Washington Times to you? Otherwise it was a poor reading by you, or a poor attempt at diversion. BK
From: John B. on 30 Mar 2010 11:44 On Mar 29, 10:20 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <5a2055c7-7dbc-4050-909f-3a218ef0bf30 > @z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > If not, that says something definitive about newspaper readers. The > > > > NYT has a circulation of 928,000 and is generally considered the most > > > > influential newspaper in the world. The Wash. Times has a circulation > > > > of 102,000 in a metro area of 5 million. > > > > The NYT is a joke. You cannot be the most influential newspaper in the > > > world and be on a downward revenue spiral. > > > Why not? All newspapers are on a downward spiral. > > I guess it is which ever newspaper is on the slowest downward spiral > gets the most credibility? No, that's not what it is, Bert.
From: Jack Hollis on 30 Mar 2010 11:45
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >So perceived bias has nothing to do with people's decisions to buy or >not buy a particular paper? Of course it does. People usually buy a newspaper that agrees with their political point of view. |