[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So..... Olbermann is also a mouthpiece of the democrats, except when he's "turning on them like a rabid dog"? Okee-dokee then.

Your hockey analogy is poor--because it once again reflects that you misunderstand the basic issue here. Look again at what I said about George F. Will. He's a guy who is biased--but his words are always his own. In spite of what you say, THAT is the norm in media punditry. Pundits are strident, they have opinions, but they're only on the side of their own opinions.

According to your logic there's also nothing wrong with PRAVDA. In a democracy, governments don't get their own media mouthpiece that doesn't offer equal time to their opposition. If you don't understand why it's a problem that the White House had their own pet television station that would say whatever talking points they cooked up in their political offices, then I have to conclude that you have no idea what the role of media in a democracy is supposed to be.

And no--this isn't a "Fox is the root of all evil" argument. This is a "Fox shouldn't do that" argument, with a good measure of "Fox isn't a legitimate News organization" thrown in. I note with interest that this is the best defense anyone has mounted of these actions--that we all supposedly knew or should have known that this was happening. But millions of Americans don't know. And unless people speak out and demonstrate that this is not okay it will continue to happen, perhaps in other news stations as well if it isn't already. This IS important--and you should care about it regardless of your political stripe--because a government that controls the media is one step closer to a totalitarian government.

I am not the one with the misunderstanding of the issue.

You are now saying Pundit = New Organization (PRAVDA) which is simply not the case.

Pundits are there for their opinions on the news...not news reporting. New organizations are there for their News reporting not for their opinions. To compare what a couple of Fox pundits did to Pravda is asinine!

Do you not understand why Newspapers actually have OPINION SECTIONS vs NEWS HEADLINES? One is subjective the other is factual. Dowbiggin vs Boxscores.

What O'Reilly, Olbermann and the rest of the talking heads provide is subjective. Not factual. Try an NOT avoid this question twice.

And what if O'Reilly and Hannity agreed with what the Bush Administration was saying....doesn't it then make it THEIR opinion? Even if they are more strident than the administration?

Oh, just so you and Rouge don't get anymore misunderstandings.....

at 1:44 of that he made a very distinct difference between journalists reporting the news.

Just to add....

Rouges Pundit A vs Pundit B. I'd take Pundit B too, but it's OPINION. What is the saying about Opinions and ????? Everyone has one.....