He istn’t the only one. One of the most respected UK journalists is also no working for them. Or perhaps you think he is a terrorist as well? Well, some people might disagree with you:

An al-Jazeera statement called Sir David “the only person to have interviewed the last seven presidents of the United States and the last six prime ministers of the United Kingdom”.

Respected UK journalist?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
That’s a good one. Respected UK journalist. *snickersnort*
That aside, padders, only someone of your massive stupidity would use the statement of the guys hiring him to puff him up.

Rann, is there a factual error in the statement that Al-Jazeera made regarding who he has interviewed? I think its clear who the idiot is, you are unable to differentiate the difference between a statement of fact (which can only be invalidated by contrary evidence) and an opinion/viewpoint. How can we possibly take anything you have to say seriously about the media if you can’t even understand such a simple concept?

Out of interest, is there a journalist from any country other than the US that you respect? Perhaps you can name a few.

Padders, once again, your intellectual dishonesty shines through.

Radical leftists without a sense of honor and decency will gladly work for...and pay attention to the words I chose here, padders… THE PROPAGANDA PARTNER OF A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.  Not once did I call Marash a terrorist, therefore your strawman fails to stand up.

Only someone without intellectual integrity would respect Al-Jazeera.  I can see why you do.  You prove it every time you go against common sense to further a radical liberal agenda.

My point was, and the tiny bit of fact your comment contained confirmed it, that these people are shucking the guise of fairness and neutrality and publically stating that the most corrupt, despicable international news organization on Earth is well-respected by “those who know as much as we do.” My question is, what have they been manipulating all these years?  How much of this radical bias has crept into the news they serve up?  How many have they influenced by simply choosing which facts on which to focus and which to ignore in a given story?

Oh, that liberal media.

Also, Rann has a point.  Using Al-Jazeera’s press release to prove your point was stupid.  Cite the man’s credentials...but get them on your own. Don’t rely on the very agency that is in dispute to prove your opinion valid or your statements true.  That’s like using a word in it’s own definition...you’re eating your own tail, logically speaking.

Of course, his credentials can’t refute my point...so I’m not sure why it even matters.  In fact, the more you tell me the man has done, the more my question stands: Anyone biased enough to consider Al-Jazeera a respected news organization has likely been manipulating the stories on which he has been reporting for years and years.

Intellectual honesty, padders.  Dig deep.  Try to find some.

Let me try to make this more simple:

It’s one thing to be a Democrat, or if you are outside the U.S., someone who identifies with what has come to be known as “the left” and still be a journalist.

It is quite a whole other animal to not only agree to work for, but to praise Al-Jazeera.

Radical leftists without a sense of honor and decency will gladly work for...and pay attention to the words I chose here, padders… THE PROPAGANDA PARTNER OF A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.  Not once did I call Marash a terrorist, therefore your strawman fails to stand up.

Are you saying that David Frost is a radical leftist?

Only someone without intellectual integrity would respect Al-Jazeera.  I can see why you do.  You prove it every time you go against common sense to further a radical liberal agenda.

Where did I say I respect Al-Jazeera. I have never even watched their channel, I don’t even know if we get it in the UK, I assume its on sky somewhere but never even looked. I have read a couple of articles on their website. The main times I have encountered them is when I was in the US and CNN would put a video on that Al-Jazeera had previously shown.

THE PROPAGANDA PARTNER OF A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Propaganda arm of Al Qaeda? What aspect of their reporting are you referring to? Their tone? The fact that they air Osama Bin Laden tapes or that they air terrorists demands and showed executions? I disagree certainly with some of these actions, but think you are pusing it a bit.

My point was, and the tiny bit of fact your comment contained confirmed it, that these people are shucking the guise of fairness and neutrality and publically stating that the most corrupt, despicable international news organization on Earth is well-respected by “those who know as much as we do.” My question is, what have they been manipulating all these years?  How much of this radical bias has crept into the news they serve up?  How many have they influenced by simply choosing which facts on which to focus and which to ignore in a given story?

You think Al Jazerra is worse that what is being taught in certain mosques? I think you must be kidding yourself if you think Al Jazerra shows stuff that is considered worse than what the middle east generally gets. Sure, things like the US prison abuse thing don’t help Western propaganda causes when they repeat them ad-nausuem but I would think that Al Jazerra in a lot of cases shows the US/West in a far better light than some in the Arab would consider it.

Having some Western reporters, including well respected figures like Frost, can only help moderate their views further.

Also, Rann has a point.  Using Al-Jazeera’s press release to prove your point was stupid.  Cite the man’s credentials...but get them on your own. Don’t rely on the very agency that is in dispute to prove your opinion valid or your statements true.  That’s like using a word in it’s own definition...you’re eating your own tail, logically speaking.

If Al Jazerra had said “Frost is a really well respected guy, we love his reporting and we are sure you are going to love it as well” then I would agree with you. He didn’t. They quote a statement of fact (actually one I had already heard before but I forgot the exact numbers) and I quoted it. There was no opinion, you can argue that the fact does not make him a respected reporter if you wnat, and thats fine - Al Jazerra wern’t even saying that. I simply used a quoted fact from a source and said that it makes a good point.

This is however the problem with you. If you get a fact from a source you don’t like you just ignore it. You judge the source and not the actual things they say. This is exactly what the extremists we are battling against are like, they will hear something the US says and just ignore it because the US says it. You are exactly the same.

Of course, his credentials can’t refute my point...so I’m not sure why it even matters.  In fact, the more you tell me the man has done, the more my question stands: Anyone biased enough to consider Al-Jazeera a respected news organization has likely been manipulating the stories on which he has been reporting for years and years.

So you are saying the last 7 Presidents of the United States and their team who decide whether to give interviews or not where so stupid as to not be able to determine this guy concots stories? Again, you have pre-made up your mind (you explicity say that here) and evidence that is given you will just say begs the question. This is the exact argument creationists use. Intellecutal honesty, you are having a laugh.

It’s one thing to be a Democrat, or if you are outside the U.S., someone who identifies with what has come to be known as “the left” and still be a journalist.

It is quite a whole other animal to not only agree to work for, but to praise Al-Jazeera.

Maybe, although I guess you can attempt to change opinion. Either way, Al Jazerra is respected in the Arab World more than any other channel. I don’t know if he means that or not - but what ever way you slice it its the source that a large number of Arabs trust. Given the almost complete failure of US news media to question WMDs before Iraq it’s probably not that surprising that CNN is not necessarily truested when it comes to reporting US news. That US news might now be compensating for that screw up (re prison abuse, gitmo etc) may eventually earn US news more trust in the Arab world, who knows.

So you are saying the last 7 Presidents of the United States and their team who decide whether to give interviews or not

puddles, Helen Thomas has “interviewed” the last eight Presidents (all the way back to JFK), but only someone as pig-ignorant as you would claim that she is “highly respected” and “unbiased”. Just being allowed to interview public figures does not alter the fact that there is a bias, which is clearly shown. Jim has asked how long he has hidden this boas, and wonders how much that bias has affected not only what he has chosen to report on for those years, but also how the topic is to be spun.

Given the almost complete failure of US news media to question WMDs before Iraq

Given that they had been reporting the same thing that was said for the previous decade (including all eight years of Bill Clinton, who used WMD as a reason to attack Iraq on numerous occasions), you might want to dig a liiiitttle deeper for that intellectual honesty.

Or give up and try another soul, since yours seems to lack it entirely.

If you get a fact from a source you don’t like you just ignore it.

If we were questioning the bias of the NYTimes, you don’t get to use a quote from the NYT to prove how fair and balanced they are. That’s called “circular reasoning” and both starts from, and leads to, nowhere at all. You have to provide someone outside the issue, who doesn’t have a vested interest in producing a favorable outcome. See?

The fact that they air Osama Bin Laden tapes or that they air terrorists demands and showed executions?

You mean how they show how terrorizing these terrorists can be?

Pay attention, puddles, and you might learn something.

Q: What does a terrorist need more than anything?
A: PUBLICITY. If he can’t get the horrific details of his horrific act out into the general populace, then only those whom he personally hurt and killed would have any reason to know his name. “Infamy isn’t as good as fame, but it’s heaps better than obscurity.”

So he sends details (including videotapes) to the people he knows will get that word out as wide as possible. They are “fellow travelers” if not actually allied with them, and the goal they seek is the same as everyone who works to hinder a war effort through aid and comfort to the enemy.

Meanwhile people like you whine and moan and bitch when the US government pays to run a favorable story (that wouldn’t be reported on its own, but is an integral part of the actual reality.

puddles, Helen Thomas has “interviewed” the last eight Presidents (all the way back to JFK), but only someone as pig-ignorant as you would claim that she is “highly respected” and “unbiased”. Just being allowed to interview public figures does not alter the fact that there is a bias, which is clearly shown. Jim has asked how long he has hidden this boas, and wonders how much that bias has affected not only what he has chosen to report on for those years, but also how the topic is to be spun.

It is certainly fair enough to suggest that interviewing X presidents does not show respect for a journalist and I can understand that argument. It is not however what Rann was saying and nor Jim when he defeneded it. Clearly, Frost istn’t only respected for these interviews and he is hardly considered left wing either. Which ever way you want to string it, in the UK he is very respected. And bias? well sure, every journalist is bias. That comes with being human so arguing that he, being a human, is not bias would be pointless. Its whether that bias influences their work that matters - from what I have seen of Frost I don’t believe that to be the case.

Given that they had been reporting the same thing that was said for the previous decade (including all eight years of Bill Clinton, who used WMD as a reason to attack Iraq on numerous occasions), you might want to dig a liiiitttle deeper for that intellectual honesty.

Or give up and try another soul, since yours seems to lack it entirely.

That is the point though istn’t it, they just reported what the US admins (not just Bush, but Clinton as well) told them. You have to remember what while you think all us Eurotards love Clinton (and that may be somewhat true) a lot of people in the Arab world see little difference between Bush & Clinton, both often seen as war mongering American presidents. The failure of US journalists to really investigate the pre-war intelligence (unlike, say the BBC which published some doubts after doing some actual investigative journalism) is not a fault of Bush, Republicans etc and it won’t be seen like that in the Arab world. It was a failure of Western media (including most of the media in the UK, Australia and even some countries opposed to the war). An all round fuck up wouldn’t you say?

If we were questioning the bias of the NYTimes, you don’t get to use a quote from the NYT to prove how fair and balanced they are. That’s called “circular reasoning” and both starts from, and leads to, nowhere at all. You have to provide someone outside the issue, who doesn’t have a vested interest in producing a favorable outcome. See?

Crikes you guys can be slow sometimes. The quote was a statement of fact and I used that statement of fact as evidence for his credibility. You can argue between the link between fact and credibility and that’s fine but you can’t argue with the statement of fact unless you are offering some evidence against it.

PUBLICITY. If he can’t get the horrific details of his horrific act out into the general populace, then only those whom he personally hurt and killed would have any reason to know his name. “Infamy isn’t as good as fame, but it’s heaps better than obscurity.”

A few points. A) I have seen more than a few right wing sites that post these videos because they think the exact opposite, that we need to show exactly how bad these people are. In fact, these executions where regularly condemmed in the Arab world and lost a lot of support (which is why they stopped, remember the letter explaning they are unpopular). The same is true for the bomb in Jordan. Should that have not been reported because it acts as propaganda? Seems to me the exact opposite is true.

b) Most US news stations also reported the situations. They may not have shown the executions but is that the really important bit? I think not. The important bit regarding propaganda is all the demands and pressure extered on goverments before the execution. The execution is gruesome and shows exactly whoese the terrorists we are fighting are. In fact, had terrorists not gone around killing middle aged female aid workers, and this been published, you might have found more support for the elements that are better described as “resistance”. The actions (widly shown) of these terrorists has made it easier for the Iraqi government to classify everything as terrorist actions, this is perhaps a good thing.

So he sends details (including videotapes) to the people he knows will get that word out as wide as possible. They are “fellow travelers” if not actually allied with them, and the goal they seek is the same as everyone who works to hinder a war effort through aid and comfort to the enemy.

Is this aspect different to embedded reporters?

Meanwhile people like you whine and moan and bitch when the US government pays to run a favorable story (that wouldn’t be reported on its own, but is an integral part of the actual reality.

Are you saying you don’t have a problem with the federal government using your tax money to pay for federal government propaganda for their latest pet projec? I am surprised.

The quote was a statement of fact and I used that statement of fact as evidence for his credibility.

But you cannot use the “statement of fact” to prove that it is a “statement of fact”. You are trying to use a statement by Al-Jazeerah to show that Al-Jazeerah should be taken seriously. That won’t fly, no matter how many times you point at it.

Are you saying you don’t have a problem with the federal government using your tax money to pay for federal government propaganda for their latest pet projec?

Are you saying you don’t have a problem with the news media refusing to post positive stories unless they are paid by the government? Oh, right, you think that because it’s positive, it isn’t true.

Is this aspect different to embedded reporters?

How often do they speak against those terror groups whose messages they gladly broadcast? I can point to hundreds of anti-military stories by those allegedly “embedded” reporters for the Western MSM. (The only place they are “embedded” is in their well-protected Hilton suites, but that’s another story.)

It’s intellectual HONESTY you are digging for, not intellectualISM. Keep trying.

But you cannot use the “statement of fact” to prove that it is a “statement of fact”. You are trying to use a statement by Al-Jazeerah to show that Al-Jazeerah should be taken seriously. That won’t fly, no matter how many times you point at it.

When you are pushed into a corner it does surprise me the stupid things you will come up with to try and defend any less semblance of an argument you have.

Facts are facts. Who says them is irrelevant. It makes no difference if the quote came from Al Jazerra, Bush, Drugereport or my Granny. If its a fact, its a fact and that’s it. If John says I have an IQ of 150 and he does have an IQ of 150 you can’t discount him saying it because he is bias.

You can’t aruge against the fact without evidence. You can argue against my argument that used the fact. That’s fair enough.

Are you saying you don’t have a problem with the news media refusing to post positive stories unless they are paid by the government? Oh, right, you think that because it’s positive, it isn’t true.

We really are dregging the barrel now. What on earth are you even talking about? I assume you mean about Iraq? There are plenty of positive stories coming out of Iraq in the media I read (mainly economist, bbc, cnn and drudgereport). If you havn’t noticed them you need to pay better attention. But paying for it? Seriously, what are you on about?

How often do they speak against those terror groups whose messages they gladly broadcast? I can point to hundreds of anti-military stories by those allegedly “embedded” reporters for the Western MSM. (The only place they are “embedded” is in their well-protected Hilton suites, but that’s another story.)

Numerous. For specific references check the latest economist that has an article on this.

You are right re not many journalists getting out there, and that’s a shame. Perhaps you have some thoughts on why that is the case?

When you are pushed into a corner it does surprise me the stupid things you will come up with to try and defend any less semblance of an argument you have.

“I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.” - Bill Clinton

You cannot use anyone quoting him as evidence that he was being truthful. That is what you are trying to do - quote Al Jazeerah to prove how truthful/biased/friendly Al Jazeerah is. That’s bullshit, no matter how many times you try to pull it off.

If John says I have an IQ of 150 and he does have an IQ of 150 you can’t discount him saying it because he is bias.

But if the only one who says that John has a 150 IQ, you can’t use him saying so as evidence that it is true.

Perhaps you have some thoughts on why that is the case?

Because they are not interested in actually reporting the story that is, because they already have the story they want to tell, all written up, with specifically loaded verbiage.

Facts are facts. Who says them is irrelevant.

Using those facts to prove an OPINION...which is what you and Al-Jazeera are doing with them, is another animal entirely.

The fact that he HAS interviewed a certain list of people IN NO WAY DISPUTES MY OPINIONS ABOUT BIAS.

You raised a useless fact, offered by the very agency in dispute, as evidence of respectability.  It don’t work that way, kiddo.

“I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.” - Bill Clinton

You cannot use anyone quoting him as evidence that he was being truthful. That is what you are trying to do - quote Al Jazeerah to prove how truthful/biased/friendly Al Jazeerah is. That’s bullshit, no matter how many times you try to pull it off.

Oh my, please turn brain on before continuing. The above is not a fact. Its also a statement that would be hard to proove is a fact or not. What Al-Jazerra said is something that is a) a fact and b) incredibly easy to verify as a fact. Are you actually debating that its true ??? If so simply name one of the Presidents/Prime Ministers that was not interviewed by him/.

But if the only one who says that John has a 150 IQ, you can’t use him saying so as evidence that it is true.

My God you are an idiot. There are the interviews. There are reports on the interviews. Are you saying these interviews never took places?

Using those facts to prove an OPINION...which is what you and Al-Jazeera are doing with them, is another animal entirely.

I have no argument with you here Jim at all and it’s fine to not take my claim that someone who has interviewde these people is unlikely to be some crazy lefist, terrorist loving islamofascist. I think it is a valid argument that someone who interviewed the last X President’s and Prime Ministers is considered someone who is respected, but you are certainly well in your rights to make an argument contray to that.

You raised a useless fact, offered by the very agency in dispute, as evidence of respectability.  It don’t work that way, kiddo.

I mentioned a fact (which again, is irrelevant where a fact comes from - that is what’s so good about facts - the person who says them is irrelevant) to make an argument. You disagree with the argument, and that’s fine - but I still think it’s a good one.

What type of bias do you think this guy has and why have all those Presidents and Prime Ministers agreed to be interviewed by him?

P.s. I think its interesting how we are coming at this from seperate view points.

The way I see it is I don’t know a huge amount about Al Jazerra (see above) but I have seen lots about Frost. From my (and most people in the UK) he is a highly respected reporter, probably in the top 5 of house hold names. I thus think he is credible and will be interesting to see his reports.

You however come from the opposite end. You have a pre-conceived opinion about Al Jazerra and thus think anyone who might work for them is a terroist symphaizer or whatever anti-patriotic label is on this weeks talking points. This is about as dumb an argument as some ‘libtard’ saying, oh that reporter works for Fox News, he must hate poor people.

By the way, haven’t been following this, but I will say that the reason I find the idea of a “respected UK journalist” laughable is that in Britain and its associated countries, what they consider a typical newspaper would be more closely regarded as a tabloid in the United States. The lurid, specious, likely fictional stuff that only shows up in grocery store impulse buy aisles is, over there, sold as “legitimate news”.
And puddles (I like that… “puddles"), you’re just stupid.
Yes, it’s not a point-by-point refutation of what you’re saying. But there comes a point where there’s just really nowhere to start and nowhere to go. It’s like trying to give constructive criticism on a piece of art done in five minutes in MSPaint, and badly at that… there’s nothing to build off of. Your arguments are, simply, SO STUPID that there’s nothing there but to call you an idiot.

There are the interviews. There are reports on the interviews. Are you saying these interviews never took places?

No, what I’m saying is that you cannot use the reports as evidence that the reports are true. (Are you so fucking stupid that you don’t understand what “circular reasoning” is?) You are using a statement by Al Jazeerah to show how impartial Al Jazeerah is, and claiming that the proof is the press release by Al Jazeerah.

No one is questioning that he interviewed a lot of famous people. I saw several of those interviews, on those late night shows when all you get are infomercials and interviews by - and with - people who have been dead for years. The simple existence of those interviews doesn’t prove anything. (Didn’t you see school children interviewing some of those Presidents? Are you claiming that those school kids are also highly-respected journalists? If not, why not?)

(which again, is irrelevant where a fact comes from - that is what’s so good about facts - the person who says them is irrelevant)

That may well, be true, but you do NOT rely ONLY on that one person’s word on that “fact”, because they might have whjat seems to be a very good reason to lie, or they might very well be mistaken. Hell, look at YOUR “facts"…

What type of bias do you think this guy has and why have all those Presidents and Prime Ministers agreed to be interviewed by him?

What type of bias do you think Helen Thomas has and why have all those Presidents and Prime Ministers agreed to be interviewed by her?

Oh, wait…

The lurid, specious, likely fictional stuff that only shows up in grocery store impulse buy aisles is, over there, sold as “legitimate news”.

Which newspapers, out of interest, do you refer? Do you actually have much knowledge of the Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, Independant, Guardian to name but a few? If you are talking about the Sun, Mirror, Daily Star etc ... well then clever clogs - these are tabloids.

Thanks for the rest of your rant, typically void of any content bar attacks. You really must be a lonely person.

No, what I’m saying is that you cannot use the reports as evidence that the reports are true. (Are you so fucking stupid that you don’t understand what “circular reasoning” is?) You are using a statement by Al Jazeerah to show how impartial Al Jazeerah is, and claiming that the proof is the press release by Al Jazeerah.

Drum you would have a point if I was using them to try and proove a point. I am not, I simply quoted from them instead of re-writing it. What they said is not controversial. Its easy to validate it or proove it wrong. They are not making a complicated statement about something that people argue about. They made a statement of fact.

I never used a claim by them to proove they are impartial at all. I used a fact, they it happens I quoted from them, to show that one of their reporters is respected. My point is simply that working for Al Jazerra no longer means you are biased, in the same way working for Fox News does not mean you are one of the American Taliban.

Seriously, get over where I quoted the fact from (which you don’t appear to be actually arguing with, if so just show its not true) and argue the actual point I made.

(Didn’t you see school children interviewing some of those Presidents? Are you claiming that those school kids are also highly-respected journalists? If not, why not?)

I have yet to see 10+ Presidents/Prime Ministers interviewed by the same school child. There seems to be a rather clear difference between an interview by a child and a reporter who repeatdly interviews Presidents/Prime Minsters. I am guessing that you know that as well, but hey its only me that has to be intellecutally honest I guess.

What type of bias do you think Helen Thomas has and why have all those Presidents and Prime Ministers agreed to be interviewed by her?

I can’t say I know her well, but she seems to be pretty critical of both Clinton and Bush II and war generally. I can’t really comment beyond that but would assume she is pretty reasoned given that they let her do all these interviews.

The fact.  That someone in the professional media.  Has interviewed someone, or a list of someones.  In no way.  Discounts MY FUCKING GODDAMNED POINT.

Do you need it in another language or something for fuck’s sake?

Do you speak “Dipshit”, Jim? Or “Tard”? Maybe “Pissant”? He seems to be fluent in all of them.

Drum you would have a point if I was using them to try and proove a point.

You mean something like “One of the most respected UK journalists is also no working for them”? Doesn’t that count as a “point”? Or are you incapable of recognizing that your “proof” that he was well-respected comes from Al Jazeerah’s own statement?

And, as JimK says, just getting him to shill for AJ does nothing to alter his original point, that Dave Marash is strongly biased, and that his bias has affected his work so strongly that the propaganda arm of terror groups (Al Jazeerah) is willing to hire him.

Invoking the name of David Frost not only doesn’t touch that point, it actually enforces it, given Frost’s own bias (shown so over many years, by your own admissions).

I can’t say I know her well, but she seems to be pretty critical of both Clinton and Bush II

I would have taken your word that you don’t know her well. You didn’t have to prove it by saying that she was critical of Clinton.

Puddles, you don’t know the players, you don’t know how things work, you don’t even admit that there is such a thing as bias except when you use the word to criticize others for having one (while you, of course, are as scrupulously fair as Mr. Brady just after the second commercial break), and you are deliberately distorting reality to someone who knows better, expecting me to not slap you around in public.

I have spent the last decade watching the political stages at both the Federal and local levels, and she was second only to Monica for slobbing the Presidential knob during Clinton’s terms. Look it up.

And don’t EVER try this shit again, you weak-minded sycophant. Especially not with me.

The fact.  That someone in the professional media.  Has interviewed someone, or a list of someones.  In no way.  Discounts MY FUCKING GODDAMNED POINT.

Do you need it in another language or something for fuck’s sake?

Jim, saying something louder and getting angry about it dosen’t make it true.

You think that because someone chooses to go and work for Al Jazerra that all their past reporting was bias (you also offer no evidence to support this). I disagree by naming someone who is very respected (and give some evidence for this) who also works for Al Jazerra.

You may disagree, and that’s fine - but at least I have made the effort to put a coherent argument together. You offer nothing.

You mean something like “One of the most respected UK journalists is also no working for them”? Doesn’t that count as a “point”? Or are you incapable of recognizing that your “proof” that he was well-respected comes from Al Jazeerah’s own statement?

Clearly Al-Jazerra quote that fact (at least you are agreeing that’s a fact now, it took about 5 replies to you to even get that far) because they think it shows something good about their reporter. I also think it does. As I said earlier, its fine for you to disagree that the fact makes him a respected reporter - I never had any problem with anyone disagreeing with that and I have said that about half a dozen times. Trying to change your argument now to something I have already accepted does not get you out of being wrong on what we have been arguing about until now.

And, as JimK says, just getting him to shill for AJ does nothing to alter his original point, that Dave Marash is strongly biased, and that his bias has affected his work so strongly that the propaganda arm of terror groups (Al Jazeerah) is willing to hire him.

Well at least we have found what we actually disagree about, shame we had to waste so much time to get to this point - in future if instead of just disagreeing with everything someone you disagree with says, if you find the common ground and actally work out the point of difference you might understand an argument with someone better.

Anyway, this is what I disagreee with - you can see why in my response to Jim.

Invoking the name of David Frost not only doesn’t touch that point, it actually enforces it, given Frost’s own bias (shown so over many years, by your own admissions).

What bias did I admit to?

Puddles, you don’t know the players, you don’t know how things work, you don’t even admit that there is such a thing as bias except when you use the word to criticize others for having one (while you, of course, are as scrupulously fair as Mr. Brady just after the second commercial break), and you are deliberately distorting reality to someone who knows better, expecting me to not slap you around in public.

You must be incapable of reading what I say. We have had numerous discussions on this site about news reporting and I have repeatdly said that news media is bias - in fact being humans it is impossible for us not to be. My bigger concern about news is that its becoming entertainment rather than it being bias. Trying to have no bias news is rediculous - its just not possible so what is more important is having as many possible points of view on display (one of the reasons I don’t think Al Jazerra is all a bad thing). To argue I don’t think news is bias is rediculous. What is perhaps important is how individual reporters report certain things. There can be clear fabrications of news clearly and this should be challenged but lack of any bias is a pointless aim.

I have spent the last decade watching the political stages at both the Federal and local levels, and she was second only to Monica for slobbing the Presidential knob during Clinton’s terms. Look it up.

Point taken, I knew little about her and only read a report where she said good things about the previous presidents prior to clinton, said clinton disrespected the white house and then was equally pissed at Bush. Fair enough you know more about her, congratulations.

And don’t EVER try this shit again, you weak-minded sycophant. Especially not with me.

Whats up with you and Rann? Are you always this angry? You need to perhaps find a new passtime to take your anger out on if I am able to upset you quite so easily.

Are you always this angry?

Just when confronted by complete idiots. Which is why, to you, it looks like always.