The Washington Post...

[vraiblonde]

I can't stand Bill O'Reilly because he has a self-righteous, condescending tone.

Interesting. The man highlights issues that no one else will, hits people hard right between the eyes instead of fawning - yet you don't like him because you feel he's self-righteous and condescending?

When he's interviewing some lawyer who's trying to get a pedophile out of jail, or some degenerate lobbying for live sex act entertainment venues, or a politican trying to put through some anti-gay bill - yes, his tone can be less than pleasant.

I have no problem with this because I get sick and tired of the games and wordplay and ass sucking other show hosts engage in. O'Reilly rocks and is the only one I watch/listen to consistently.

 

[vraiblonde]

Personally, I think bias is more obvious (and more irritating) when it's in the spoken word as opposed to the printed word.

See, and I see it just the opposite because the author has all the time in the world to re-write and re-word. They're saying exactly what they think with no misstatements, no arguments and no rebuttals.

 

[Tonio]

Interesting. The man highlights issues that no one else will, hits people hard right between the eyes instead of fawning - yet you don't like him because you feel he's self-righteous and condescending?

Not so much his words but in his inflections. A while ago, someone on the Forums, maybe you, pointed out that Katie Couric's voice has a negative tone when she talks about Republicans. Whoever said that has a very valid point. In my view, the printed word has little of the emotional spin that comes with the spoken word. In print, it's harder for a spinmeister to sell a flawed argument with emotional appeal.

See, and I see it just the opposite because the author has all the time in the world to re-write and re-word. They're saying exactly what they think with no misstatements, no arguments and no rebuttals.

That's not true in my case. In real life I'm always putting my foot in my mouth. I'm a hardcore uni-tasker, so I have problems with following what the other person is saying and formulating my own responses at the same time. So often the first thing that comes out of my mouth is not what I intended to say.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why is no one commenting or asking why I posted the editorial?

Okay, now that I've actually read that vapid editorial:

"Let's open up the HOV to hybrids to encourage people to be more granola in their choice of vehicles!"

"Oh no! It worked! Now hybrids are taking up too much room in the HOV!"

Typical liberalism: not really thinking ahead when they formulate a "solution" to a "problem". Just knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Larry Gude]

mrweb...

without crying about how left or right of center one news source may be.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

I wrote:

is not alone as an entertainment publication but

The only crying I get out of the Post is tears of laughter.


As far as the Times, please, feel free to post anything that strikes you as clearly biased or contradictory or simply amusing!

Sharing.

 

[FromTexas]

Its almost like you are speaking but no understandable words are coming out. You may want to give everyone a babblefish.

 

[vraiblonde]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

That's because he didn't read the editorial and has no idea what you're talking about.

 

[willie]

That's because he didn't read the editorial and has no idea what you're talking about.

That and I never did get a copy of Larry's codebook.

 

[vraiblonde]

That and I never did get a copy of Larry's codebook.

If you ever do get one, forward me a copy, willya?