Where there's smoke, there's fire. Also a renewal in the Obama birth certificate story today.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/oba...mo_code=2A89-1
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Also a renewal in the Obama birth certificate story today.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/oba...mo_code=2A89-1
It wouldn't matter what the source was... he wouldn't believe anything negative about his good buddy Barry.
Maybe Simon and Yarfunkle can hook up with Salty -- then the two of them can hit the Pravda website for some good reporting.
Do you have any objective facts to back this assertion? The Huffington Post is an admittedly liberal publication. Are you suggesting that the liberal views are not, and have never been, discredited? Now, that's objective.
CBS and MSNBC?
You do know that mainstream does not = objective, although they may pretend to be. When the media is known to have donated in favor of democrats over republicans in the order of 100 to 1, any semblance of objective reporting is thrown out of the window.
Last edited by 9701Dawg; 09-08-2008 at 03:03 PM.
Yes, I do.
http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/200...uly-22nd-2007/
Huff Post has not been cited as discredited. But News Max has.
All of them so I could make my own descision, instead of reading a single right only, discredited news org and taking their word as scripture.CBS and MSNBC?
You do know that mainstream does not = objective, although they may pretend to be. When the media is known to have donated in favor of democrats over republicans in the order of 100 to 1, any semblance of objective reporting is thrown out of the window.
No. It was an objective article citing News Max and their shoddy journalism, now you do some legwork, find an objective article discrediting Huff Post.
And in the sense I'm using it, because you seem a bit confused
Discredited: Reporting a story that is proven false, and leaving it up after it was proven false.
Good luck!
Except the National Review is a web site for Republican/conservative news.. therefore NOT objective.