Once again, your definition of something is totally different then mine. And as usual, your definition is set to support your position.

When I refer to disgraceful, I'm refering to a situation where a reporter makes a statement that makes your stomach turn. That you can't believe someone actually said that. Such as O'Reilly's rants and raves. His comments directed towards the guy whose dad died in 9-11. The reporter who compared road deaths in CA to war deaths in Iraq.

Comparing these things to a reporter who was mislead and made some statements based on the misleading doesn't compare to me. Not even in the same ballpark.


>>>It was from a documentary last year or the year before entitled "outfoxed". It was painstakingly put together by have a hugh bank of VCRs recording Fox 24 hours a day for about a month. During that month they had a team of volunteers watching Fox and reporting back instances they found particularly bad.
>>
>>>Finally the editors went back to the tapes to catalog the clips that people had reported.
>>
>>Yeah, but what does this prove?
>>Can't you do this to any news agency and find something "bad" on it/them?
>
>Not since Dan Rather left CBS in disgrace. Maybe that should read a disgraced Dan Rather left CBS. Nah, it should be since a disgraced Dan Rather left a disgraced CBS.