you MORON

they INTENTIONALLY didn't airbrush her to make her look OLD

11/19/2009 2:28:53 PM

^^ and ^ First, it's an old media trick to show a close-up of a person--it tends to make the viewer not trust the person. Second, no middle-aged woman would want a close-up so close that you could count the nose hairs--it's stupid and has an obvious editorial intent.

11/19/2009 2:37:54 PM

OBVIOUSLY

who cares?

11/19/2009 2:38:50 PM

You do.

11/19/2009 2:40:13 PM

eh, she looks hot to me. OMG NOSE HAIRS GROSS

11/19/2009 2:45:09 PM

^ Why don't they put an image like that of, say, Hillary or Pelosi on the cover?

11/19/2009 2:46:08 PM

They don't want their readers becoming violently nauseated?

11/19/2009 3:03:41 PM

So, if they show a close-up, it's because they want people to think she's ugly and distrust her. If they show a picture of her that makes her look good, it's sexist.

They can't win.

11/19/2009 4:08:14 PM

I suppose a cover "photo" like this one is out of the question?

11/19/2009 7:10:08 PM

I didn't know the Rolling Stone was Newsweek.

Why do you care about cover photos so much? That is the most superficial bullshit you could care about in tems of exposing liberal bias in the media, and is completely subjective anyway.

11/19/2009 9:48:33 PM

hooksaw's rage is usually completely disingenuous. it's best to ignore it.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 9:55:48 PM

Mika on the Media: 'It's Got a Liberal World View;' Every Journalist Should Tell Us What their Political Affiliation Is'
By Chris Ariens on Jan 19, 2010

Quote :

"'I've worked in the mainstream media for all the networks and I will say what people aren't saying. It's got a liberal world view. There are great people working at the networks, and they're mostly democrats, ok?,' said Brzezinski, whose father was National Security Adviser to Pres. Carter."

http://tinyurl.com/yhbbol9

This should come as no surprise to rational people.

1/24/2010 6:35:44 AM

Quote :

"This should come as no surprise to rational people."

What was your reaction, then?

1/24/2010 11:42:17 AM

^ My reaction was that you and others would probably swoop in here and post something shitty rather than addressing the topic at hand. You know, the usual.

BTW, didn't you get the moonbats' memo? They're apparently ignoring me--aren't you on their mailing list?

1/25/2010 7:47:43 AM

bump

6/29/2010 2:22:09 PM

How The New York Times handles the obit when a controversial Republican senator dies. . .

Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100
June 27, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/us/strom-thurmond-foe-of-integration-dies-at-100.html

. . .and how The New York Times handles the obit when a controversial Democratic senator dies. . .

Robert C. Byrd, a Pillar of the Senate, Dies at 92
June 28, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html?scp=1

The point here is self-evident to any rational person.

6/29/2010 3:14:13 PM

Please provide me with a quote where Strom Thurmond denounces racial segregation or racism in general.

I don't know, something equivalent to:

Quote :

"Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear."

or

Quote :

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

Also, I don't think Robert Byrd raped his underage Black housemaid either.

6/29/2010 3:20:15 PM

As recently as 2001...

Quote :

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. "

of course he gets a pass because he's a democrat

6/29/2010 3:25:17 PM

^^ Did Byrd renounce his views from his days in the KKK before or after his "white niggers" comment on national TV?

[Edited on June 29, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ^ Same thought.]

6/29/2010 3:25:18 PM

Uh yeah, way to crop a quote out of context. Nice job.

For reference:

Quote :

"They're much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime ... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

And then a follow-up after realizing he may have misspoke:

Quote :

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program ... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society ... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people."

And you still have posted no evidence to show that Strom Thurmond in any way regretted his views, so I will assume there is none and the original headline is deserved.

6/29/2010 3:27:27 PM

Quote :

"^^ Did Byrd renounce his views from his days in the KKK before or after his "white niggers" comment on national TV?"

Before. The first quote I posted was from 1995.

6/29/2010 3:28:23 PM

compare/contrast coverage of the "maccaca" comment made by a candidate

vs.

coverage of the "white nigger" comment made by a senior senator


[Edited on June 29, 2010 at 3:30 PM. Reason : democrats are incapable of racism and republicans are incapable of non-racism]

6/29/2010 3:28:53 PM

Pretty much.

6/29/2010 3:29:09 PM

^ Thurmond supported extending the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a federal holiday. These are hardly the actions of a man who harbored racism in his heart.

And did you ever consider that there are racists who are more subtle about things? Just because one has not renounced racism to your satisfaction or to others' doesn't mean that one is a racist. And just because one is not suspected of racism does not mean that one is not a racist.


[Edited on June 29, 2010 at 3:39 PM. Reason : Right?]

6/29/2010 3:38:05 PM

All I'm asking for is one quote. Can't you provide that? I mean, if he truly changed his ways and wasn't deserving of a news article labeling him as "foe of integration," then he must have said that he regretting his past actions at least once.

6/29/2010 3:41:46 PM

In God's mind, the only way for a republican to renounce his innate racism is to register as democrat

then he's not racist anymore

6/29/2010 3:43:26 PM

Quote :

"compare/contrast coverage of the "maccaca" comment made by a candidate"

George Allen wasn't just a candidate when he said that. He was a sitting senator at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician)#Macaca_controversy

[Edited on June 29, 2010 at 3:45 PM. Reason : cc link fail]

6/29/2010 3:44:37 PM

All I'm asking is for one time where he publicly condemned segregation and racism.

Hooksaw's post made it seem like these two men were exactly alike, and it was the liberal media that slandered one of them simply because he was a republican.

I pointed out that while they may have shared the same racist views earlier in their career, one of them made an effort to publicly condemn segregation and racism, while the other did not. And that is the difference. And the fact that you have failed to provide any such evidence for Thurmond and have just sputtered here proves this. There is no liberal media conspiracy here.

6/29/2010 3:46:10 PM

Hell, yesterday the first place I heard mention Byrd's colorful past was on NPR!! I missed Rush and Beck, but Hannity didn't even touch it. He was too fixated on the allegations against Al Gore.

6/29/2010 4:02:18 PM

^^ Did you read this?

Quote :

"Just because one has not renounced racism to your satisfaction or to others' doesn't mean that one is a racist. And just because one is not suspected of racism does not mean that one is not a racist."

hooksaw

God's skewed perspective:

Quote :

"Hooksaw's post made it seem like these two men were exactly alike, and it was the liberal media that slandered one of them simply because he was a republican."

Reality:

Quote :

". . .controversial Republican senator. . . ."

Quote :

". . .controversial Democratic senator. . . ."

hooksaw

The two late senators are obviously not exactly alike and I never indicated that they were--please stop the strawman. They did, however, share a similar history, hold equal offices, and were close in age.

6/29/2010 4:10:39 PM

In 1940, Thurmond called on the grand jury in Greenville to be ready to take action against the Ku Klux Klan, which, he said, represented 'the most abominable type of lawlessness.' "


but.... he was a republican so he probably actually supported the KKK right God?

6/29/2010 4:24:08 PM

Still not seeing that quote, sorry!

6/29/2010 4:27:35 PM

^^
actually, he was a Democrat at that time

6/29/2010 4:37:41 PM

^^ And you probably won't.

Quote :

"Just because one has not renounced racism to your satisfaction or to others' doesn't mean that one is a racist. And just because one is not suspected of racism does not mean that one is not a racist."

hooksaw

Do you dispute this?

6/29/2010 5:15:51 PM

One minuscule compensation for an awful economy is that, with a Democrat in the White House, it makes for some rather amusing journalism as putatively objective reporters try to put the best face on bad news. This Associated Press headline, previewing tomorrow's unemployment numbers, is a classic of the genre: "Layoffs of Census Workers Will Distort Jobs Data."

"The census began hiring more workers last year," the AP notes. "It added about 500,000 this spring." The census is wrapping up, leaving many of those workers back on the unemployment rolls. Take the headline literally, and the AP is promising that things will get back to normal in the spring of 2020, when the government hires hundreds of thousands of temps for the next census. Until then, the employment stats will look worse than they actually are.

It's all a matter of perspective, though. Who's to say that the 3 months out of 120 when the census is going on is "normal" and other 117 months are "distorted"? You could even make a case that the hiring of census workers distorted the job numbers, making them look better than they actually are.

The AP story begins as follows:

Quote :

"For the first time in six months, the federal unemployment report to be released Friday will likely show a net loss of jobs. But hold off on the panic button. It's true that employers are expected to have cut more than 100,000 jobs in June. But that figure, if accurate, will be deceptive. It will reflect the end of up to 250,000 temporary census jobs."

Don't panic, things haven't really gotten worse. They were actually just as awful last month! The dispatch continues:

Quote :

"Analysts predict private businesses added 112,000 jobs in June, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters. That would be a healthy rebound from May's 41,000 gain. But it's far from enough to signal a roaring recovery or rapidly reduce the unemployment rate, now at 9.7 percent. It would take a net gain of around 200,000 jobs a month to quickly reduce that rate."

The story closes with a quote from Credit Suisse economist Jay Feldman: "Slow growth may not be satisfying, but it is emphatically not--and emphatically better than--a new recession." Amen to that, but isn't this what they used to call a "jobless recovery" back when we had Republican presidents?

As blogger Jim Hoft notes, with video, President Obama is a glass-is-half-full kind of guy too. "Unemployment is still at 9.6. Yes, but it's not 12 or 13--or 15."

Or, we might add, 25 or 50 or 80--or 100. And if that doesn't cheer you up, this surely will: It is logically impossible for unemployment to rise above 100%.

Wait, it gets even better. At this time in 1930, a lot of people were unemployed too, including laid-off temporary census workers. Almost none of those people remain unemployed today. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, in the long run we are all off the unemployment rolls.


-- James Taranto, Best of the Web
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703571704575340850142432686.html

7/1/2010 4:18:37 PM

CNN fires Octavia Nasr for Twitter post praising Hezbollah terrorist, says credibility 'compromised'
July 7, 2010

Quote :

"Less than 140 characters cost CNN's Octavia Nasr her job after she tweeted her 'respect' for a terror-loving Hezbollah sheikh who died over the weekend. Nasr, CNN's Senior Editor of Mideast Affairs, ran into hot water after she posted on Twitter that she was 'sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot.' Facing an immediate and harsh backlash, she backpedaled Tuesday in a blog post, saying she didn't endorse the life work of Fadlallah - who was labeled a terrorist by US officials. 'Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It's something I deeply regret,' she wrote. Still, she praised Fadlallah for being a pioneer on 'woman's rights,' and warning Muslim men against abusing their wives. It was not enough. On Wednesday, CNN fired her. Parisa Khosravi, senior vice president of CNN International Newsgathering, told the staff that Nasr accepts she shouldn't have made such a 'simplistic' comment without context. 'However,' Khorsravi wrote in a memo, 'at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward.' Nasr joined CNN in 1990 and was an on-air and off-air analyst on Mideast affairs for a variety of CNN platforms. Fadallah had often praised suicide bombings - including one in 2008 that left 8 students dead at an Israeli yeshiva. He was also fiercely anti-American."

http://tinyurl.com/2a85cup

Well, CNN fired the one out of their bunch who was dumb enough to admit that she's a Hezbollah supporter. I guess some of the others there will just have to continue on being crypto-anti-Semites.

7/11/2010 5:17:56 AM

EDITORIAL: Media blackout for Black Panthers
Explosive racist allegations ignored by poodles in the press
July 2, 2010

Quote :

"Where is the New York Times? Where is The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the justice system. A potential constitutional confrontation stemming from the scandal brews between the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A congressman highly respected for thoughtfulness and bipartisanship has all but accused the department of serious impropriety. By every standard of objective journalism, this adds up to real news. Or it would be real news if a Republican Justice Department stood accused. It would be real news if the liberal media weren't mostly in the tank for our celebrated but failing first black president."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/2/media-blackout-for-black-panthers/

7/12/2010 5:58:03 PM

Objective[/sarcasm] CNN anchor describes what an "honor" it is to speak with Black Panther founder Bobby Seale (at about 10:20):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VALtpXOKJ4w

Wow.

7/13/2010 4:20:10 AM

Unsatisfactory Answers on the New Black Panther Case
Monday, July 19, 2010

Quote :

"Both the Washington Times and National Review have been covering this story for the past year while the New York Times and the Washington Post ignored it. Bob Schieffer claimed he didn't know about the case. He was on vacation when the story exploded back into the headlines after J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and that's why he didn't ask Attorney General Holder any questions about it. I guess all of the producers, researchers, and writers who work for [Schieffer] must have been on vacation, too."

http://tinyurl.com/289a5dj

No matter which side you're on, the fact that Schieffer didn't even know about the case at issue is astonishing and it should be an embarrassment to CBS News.

7/19/2010 10:31:36 PM

Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
July 20, 2010

Quote :

"It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama's political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher's rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama's campaign. The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, 'Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?' Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. 'George [Stephanopoulos],' fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is 'being a disgusting little rat snake.' Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage. In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, 'Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.' Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: 'Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn't about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.' 'Richard Kim got this right above: "a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy." He's dead on,' Tomasky continued. 'We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.' (In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.) Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, 'why don't we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?' Schaller proposed coordinating a 'smart statement expressing disgust' at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama. 'It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,' Schaller wrote. Tomasky approved. 'YES. A thousand times yes,' he exclaimed. The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, 'I'd say too short. In my opinion, it doesn't go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos's] questions. And it doesn't point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.'"

http://tinyurl.com/39pgueh

Simply astonishing.

7/20/2010 11:04:00 AM

Maybe that's because it was a bullshit overblown story to begin with?

The "simply astonishing" part should be that the "GOD DAYUMN AMERICUH!" story got as much airtime as it did.

7/20/2010 11:15:18 AM

^^

That would be interesting if it didn't involve a bunch of overtly left-wing columnists. This would be like finding out that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham conspired to criticize Nancy Pelosi's eye makeup.

7/20/2010 11:24:39 AM

^^ and ^ Should a group of "journalists" of a certain ideological mindset employed by various organizations be colluding to suppress what they believe is not news because it harms the presidential candidate they support?

And did you happen to catch this part?

Quote :

"Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, 'Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.'"

[Edited on July 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2010 11:25:02 AM

It's not harms, it's just stupid. It was a stupid gossip news story to begin with.

I mean, really, what was the 'dirt' on Obama that was run during the campaign?

-An out of context catch phrase said by his minister

-A loose relationship to a guy who was in the weather underground four fucking decades ago

Anyone who published those as worthwhile investigative journalism should have been fired out of a cannon into the sun.

7/20/2010 11:28:56 AM

^ Thanks for sharing. And is there anything with a left-wing slant that you won't poo-poo?

7/20/2010 11:31:32 AM

There were stories about Romney being mormon, but very little said about O going to black liberation theology. (outside of the conservative radio yellers)

7/20/2010 1:56:58 PM

That was stupid as well.

A person's religion should have little to no bearing on their ability to govern (unless they're a creationist nutcase).

7/20/2010 1:58:32 PM

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News
July 21, 2010

Quote :

"If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would. But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn't what you'd do at all. In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would 'Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out' as Limbaugh writhed in torment. In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. 'I never knew I had this much hate in me,' she wrote. 'But he deserves it.' Spitz's hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow."

Quote :

"The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down. 'I am genuinely scared' of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it 'shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.' Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws. 'I agree,' said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger 'Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can't hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.' Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. 'Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?' But Zasloff stuck to his position. 'I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,' he wrote. 'If this means that some White House reporters don't get a press pass for the press secretary's daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I'll take that risk.' Scherer seemed alarmed. 'So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?' John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff's side, the side of censorship. 'Pre-Fox,' he wrote, 'I'd say Scherer's questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.'"

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/

Typical. Leftists want to ban or silence what they don't like or don't agree with--just like here.

7/21/2010 4:41:28 AM

Quote :

"Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?"

They're all unrespectable hybrids of news and political advocacy... and lowest-common-denominator-oriented sensationalist entertainment. Every damn one of them.

I don't think any of them should be yanked off the air (unless ALL the 24-hour news networks are yanked off the air... I still disagree with that in principle, but it would at least be fair to all parties), but calling themselves news organizations is becoming more and more of a lie. If any of them get caught explicitly presenting opinions as objective fact (which, unfortunately, they're very careful to avoid doing through the use of disclaimers) or just presenting misinformation as fact, though, I'd love to see them fined as hard as possible by whatever regulation handles that sort of thing (false advertising, or something? I'm not a lawyer).


I just can't understand the pro-censorship jackasses that think that having the government shut down Fox is be a good idea... Yes, it's true that Fox News provides virtually nothing positive whatsoever and is generally an outlet for hate, ignorance, or misinformation, but how can seemingly well-educated and seemingly thoughtful people be so short-sighted as to think that it wouldn't set a dangerous precedent? As it stands, if the government were to shut down fox news, they'd have little justification for it beyond "we think they were lying too much" or "we disagreed with them because they're dumb." Do the people who want to shut down Fox not consider what could then happen to the networks they support when the other party gets back into power?

I'm all in favor of killing Fox and any other 24-hour bullshit pipeline as soon as possible, but it has to be done legitimately and as objectively as possible. They'd need to be caught in very blatant scandal and verifiable lies and whatever else it might take... and if that sort of thing doesn't happen, then the censorship nuts need to suck it up and deal with it being left on the air.


Also, before you ask, no comment on the crazy-ass bitch the article first mentions. She's a crazy-ass bitch and we needn't bother acknowledging her, as it just adds a bit of public legitimacy to the opinions of the stupid/crazy.

And I'm sure you know this already, but it's not really fair of you to generalize all "leftists" based on the views of the crazy, either, because it's not actually "typical." That would be like someone asserting that you, as a conservative (or "rightist"), are a racist secessionist, based on the views of a handful of random tea party conservatives. It's baseless and stupid.

7/21/2010 9:14:19 AM

Quote :

"If any of them get caught explicitly presenting opinions as objective fact (which, unfortunately, they're very careful to avoid doing through the use of disclaimers) or just presenting misinformation as fact, though, I'd love to see them fined as hard as possible by whatever regulation handles that sort of thing (false advertising, or something? I'm not a lawyer). "

Good idea - we can start with Dan Rather and CBS 60 Minutes.

Quote :

"They'd need to be caught in very blatant scandal and verifiable lies and whatever else it might take"

They were

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2010 9:39:49 AM