I think I must not be understanding this comment because it reads as though "criticize" means the same as "flame". That's not what you meant, is it?
Of course not. As I stated before, I'm responding to Terry's assertion that Labrat's Palin skepticism was equal to "flaming." I even quoted his exact words.
And like I said, I disagree with that assertion since I don't see Palin getting significantly different treatment on the boards than Obama.
That is all.
I also wanted to weigh in on the bias, because I initially did think there was a pro-left bias (as does a majority of people according to Gallup). But after digging around about bias quite a bit, I don't think that liberal bias is to the proportions that the right claims it is. For one, I've seen
both sides make complaints about the MSM and I've noticed a conservative presence even in so-called liberal newspapers (gasp!
). There was also that study I posted on in the Gibson interview thread, which went counter to what I thought, so I decided to be more skeptical.
Now, does that mean I think that there is no bias? That wouldn't be accurate either in my view. What seems reasonable to me is that it shifts up and down depending on what story garners the most interest at any given cycle. The most salacious story will be given the most interest regardless who is at the center. I think it's more about what pays the bills than ideology in the mainstream.
I just don't buy that just because media people vote democratic that they're all out to get republicans. That's too big a jump for me. I should make it clear that while I wouldn't deny that people's beliefs influence them, I don't think it's to the extent that the right makes it out to be with this liberal conspiracy theory.
alcyone
PS
Factcheck has a fact-filled article on one of the Swiftboat smear ads, most people link them to the right because more than half their funding according to the IRS was from prominent members of the Republican party.
