When I studied political science and journalism in college we were taught that liberal editorial staffs were necessary to counter-balance the conservative, pro-business leanings of publishers. Now most newspapers of large circulation are owned by corporations and not wealthy individuals or families. Corporations are controlled by stockholders and most large corporations are hyper-sensitive to any public outcry that will affect their stock value so they try to be as politically correct as possible. Last time I checked the journalism and poly-sci texts were still preaching the need for the liberal editorial slant even though the conservative, pro-business leanings of publishers doesn't really exist anymore (excepting Murdoch). Therefore, what we are left with is a corporate management structure that does not want to upset anyone because everyone is a potential customer and a pool of liberal biased jouralists who make the editoriual decisions regarding what to show and how to show it.
I think when most people are talking about bias in the media they are referring to television news. I would agree with you that Fox/Sky news is biased to the right, but I would also agree with the proposition that the three traditional major networks, PBS, and CNN are tilted the other way to varying degrees.
Oh and yes poll after poll after poll shows Bush slipping whether you want to believe it or not. And Rice getting the Gop nomination now I think we all know that is not realistic do you really think she is going to get gop votes in the south the same states that refuse to remove the confederate flag from their state flags. There is noway in hell she gets close to 15% of black vote much less 40%.
I've previously addressed the Bush poll number issue and not surpisingly Tim Russert and co. said pretty much the same thing I did on meet the press yesterday. Campaign money, distance from the president on issues of immigration, MediCare/Social Security, Dubai Ports, and the energy policy, and firing up the republican base with meaningless congressional votes on hot button social issues will probably keep the republicans in charge of the senate and the house when the dust settles this fall.
I think Colin Powell or Condelza Rice could get the republican nomination if they want it. Most republicans, like most democrats, want a candidate who will win. I think they will be looking for a centrist. I will agree that if the democrat primary voters are smart enough to nominate someone who republican voters could view as a centrist democrat like John Edwards, or maybe even Phil Bredesen, then racial attitudes might convince some people to vote for "the white guy", particualrly in southern states. However, IMO the democrat party is still under the control of their left wing and they will not be able to resist nominating Hillary. I know that it is hard for liberal idealouges to grasp this concept but most people, not just republicans but all people in this country, hate Hillary more than you hate Bush. If the democrats nominate Hillary then it is hard for me to think of a republican who could not defeat her, even Cheney!
You want to say Hillary has balls but not Anne( am I part horse) coulter c'mon the transvestite on the surreal life looks more fem than it(coulter) does.
k:
This is not really germane but typical of the left wing political stratgem. If you can't win an argument based on the facts then just hurl some insults and try to shout down your opponent.
