Chris,

There is really only one way to respond here.

Are they telling the truth?

The fact of the matter Chris is that if they are not then everyone should know about it but when you dismiss them out-of-hand simply on the basis that they are conservative all you really are doing is demonstrating that you put ideology ahead of reason. Not a very compelling argument particularly since you are castigating the 'other guy' for doing the same. <g>

The funny part about all of this is that mostly what they do is quote liberals and use their own words.

The fact of the matter is that most of the media IS liberal - and therefore biased. Matt Drudge is more conservative than liberal but he's no Rush. <g>

Everyone has a bias. There's nothing intrinsically 'wrong' with that at all. Just the hypocrisy of pretending you do not have a bias when you obviously do.

I am conservatively biased. Big deal. AM I stating fact? If I am then accept them or, as many do, hide your head in the sand. *shrug* You're the only one (figuratively speaking) who suffers when you turn away from fact and truth.

The real problem here is that there's an obvious double standard being applied. Can't judge too fairly in cases like that can you?

And as far as Hillary goes.. She has lied. She has been dishonest and she has IMO done illegal activities. Like not 'fluffing' her billing records in the Castle Grande affair. Like *cough* 'earning' 100,000 from a 1,000 investment in the cattle futures - arguably the most bloody of investing forums. And so forth.



>>Well, for starters try http://search.mediaresearch.org andn please don't just dismiss them since they tend to be conservative. Look at their numbers.
>
>Jeez, talk about conservative bias, Doug. I loved this:
>
>http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/newscol/col20001219.html
>
>"The big winner for the Democrats was Hillary. Say what you will about her dishonesty, her unethical behavior, and her illegal activities – have I covered the bases?"
>
>Some wonderful, objective reporting there. Give me a break. They don't tend to be conservative... they are conservative, and totaly without any objectivity. I found two highly negative pieces on Democrats right off the bat. Care to point out some that are negative toward Republicans?
>
>>Here';s a direct link though I'm not sure it'll pass the parser test. <g>
>>
>>http://search.mediaresearch.org/search/search.asp?PageType=GetDoc&CurrentQuery=view1+All+4033+0++%28%28Drudge%29%20AND%2019871001%3C%3DDate%3C%3D20001231%29%20AND%20Search%3Dyes&OldQuery=simplesearch+view1+All+25+0++%28%28Drudge%29+AND+19871001<=Date<=20001231%29+AND+Search=yes&Original=SearchRoot&SiteName=MRC
>>
>>Just do a search on 'Drudge' and take the first story - dated January 8
>>
>>Look for:
>>
>>"From the January 1998 MediaWatch
>>
>>Page Eight
>>ABC Decries Reckless Internet News
>>
>>Casting the First Stone"
>
>What numbers? You said look at the numbers. There are no numbers. This is one story about Nightline refusing to apologize for a story done back in 1991.

Well, if you're not going to read what's in front of you I'm sure not going to go to the trouble of compiling something you're not going to read..