Obviously, sarcasm is lost on you. Get a grip (and a sense of humor), dude.

Do your comments mean you are a moral relativist? What Rather did was also disgraceful, a blatant attempt to affect the elections and went against all journalistic ethics.

>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.
>
>>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.