One could argue that he has transfered his views and thus Fox News is less biased than other news sources...

Well DeltAlum is implying that the President is biased because he worked on a Nixon campaign several decades to go and, in the past, he has attempted to say that Fox is biased.

-Rudey

I hope he stays on til retirement. He needs to be on every night to remind viewers of what a POS stunt he tried to pull in the election.
And don't tell me he didn't know that Burkett was a nut job. :mad:

I just watched a part of Rather's apology on the local news. He is 74 years old. I suspect that retirement is around the corner for him.

Fox is biased. I haven't tried to say it -- I have said it. Even the survey you like so much says so.

And Roger Ailes didn't work on Nixon's campaign -- He RAN it. He was the brains behind it. He has also worked on Ford's and Bush I's and I would guess every other Republican presidential campaign until joining Fox.

He was what we would all call a "high ranking Republican official." One of the very top. That's even bigger than a "political insider."

The other really important distinction is that Carville is a commentator who is only responsible for his own commentary -- Ailes has final editorial approval for the network. That is a huge difference.

But the thing that makes my mind up more than anything is that the folks I know at the Fox News network level management group don't even pretend that the network isn't far right alligned.

Now, I don't reall care all that much, except that they hide behind this "ballanced" thing -- and some people who have already pre-judged what is right and wrong actually believe it.

You might even say that IF (and I'm not granting the point) the rest of the media is really so "liberal," that FOX ballances that out. But that certainly doesn't make Fox ballanced.

Now, I'm done playing Fox games.

Of course there isn't a single news source that isn't biased. You can't report without showing some bias - even in terms of what you cover. Of course they are the least biased. They are not as biased as CNN and CBS or other major news media companies. They are not trying to balance against the left. They are simply news and, as shown, the least biased.

And again, while this man is president and also ran a campaign several decades ago, evidently this hasn't correlated at all with strong bias from Fox. However, CNN is more biased and also employs current Kerry advisors like Carville.

-Rudey

Carville worked for CNN before he worked for Kerry,

And now he should resign or CNN should remove him.

-Rudey

He would be foolish to resign if it could help his boss. Now CNN removing him is an option if they are worried about being biased.

My biggest problem is this - was info leaked from CBS to Kerry's camp? If so, who knew about it. That to me would put this far beyond a simple mistake and into a whole new level of political play.

NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry (news - web sites) said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush (news - web sites)'s National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.


"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."


Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.


Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ry_1&printer=1

Bring back Cronkite!

(ETA: Whats he, like 108?)

Conkrite was the key note speaker at my brother's graduation from U of Mich and after hearing him speak, I wanted him to run for President. That's a man I would've voted for back then. (That was 1984)

Dee

LoveSpell, examine Lockharte's wording there.

He "Does not recall"...

Sounds strangely Clintonesque, doesn't it? "Does not recall" is Democrat code for "Yes, we did that, but I'm not going to tell you that we did".

Cronkite was pretty amazing. To have the intestinal fortitude to come out against the government and (Johnson) administration and report how it was deceiving the American Public on Vietnam was a remarkable thing -- the kind of thing that hadn't been done since Edward R. Murrow took on Joseph McCarthy.

Of course he was one of the last to remain on the air of the amazing cast of great newspaper writer/reporters Murrow recruited for CBS News during WWII. When on Fleet Street in London, I can't help think about those guys bar hopping after reporting from the roofs of buildings and the BBC studios during the blitz. Talk about drama. Alh, but I digress -- again.

He (Cronkite) was supposed to moderate an early, pre-convention, Democratic presidential debate (The Republicans had an encumbant and thus no competition that year) I directed years ago for the National Association of Television Program Executives, but there was some kind of contract problem, so Linda Elerby moderated and he just did a commentary -- off the cuff -- at the end. Absolutely remarkable ad-libs.

More to the point of the thread, I don't think Rather comes anywhere close to Cronkite in terms of journalism or on camera presence. Of the three majors, in fact, I think Brokaw is closest (he's damned impressive), then Jennings (whom I've never met or worked with) with Rather some distance behind.