The Media : If you know who they support, they are biased..

[kentuck]

and they should have no credibility when they criticize the opposing candidate. For example, we know who Tucker Carlson is for. Likewise, Peggy Noonan, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Rich Lowery, just about everybody on FOX TV, and just about everyone on talk radio. We do not need them to tell us who we should support and what is wrong with our candidates when we are trying to choose one to run against their favorite.

They can defend their own choice all they want. They have no business trying to influence the selection process of those that disagree with them, if they are in the mainstream media. I'll admit that there are some in the media that we may not know who they support. We cannot say they are "biased" in their comments. However, when we know and have been told by right-wingers who they support and then they attempt to character assassinate the ones they disagree with, that is not right. They should be called on it immediately. Just for the record...

[BOHICA06]

1. Sun Tzu ...

said much about deception in his Art of War. So beware if you don't know who someone supports for you cannot analyze their position.

[LizW]

2. Good point

I was thinking about this yesterday with regard to Robert Novak. It galls me that he considers himself a "reporter", even to the point of using the role to conceal sources who have broken laws. He's not a reporter. Neither is Tucker Carlson, or William Safire. But they wear the mantle of "the press" to bolster their so-called credibility. It's a sham. And we should call them on it. Once they go over the line and start advocating one candidate or idealogy over another, they aren't due any more credibility than the pundits who were former campaign or party operatives.

[Gin]

3. Knowing who they support helps...but when the media is owned by

the rethuglicans..and it is not going to change anytime soon....the message is dictated by talking head's focusing on job security.

Thank god for the internet offering a broader news option. When that changes...smoke signals may be the way to communicate with like minded people.

Money rules!

[kentuck]

6. We can only point out the unfairness....

in the process. The same would apply if the Repubs were choosing a candidate to run against a Democratic incumbent, it would not be fair to have someone like James Carville tearing down the possible nominee for the Republican Party. After that nominee is chosen, then we can get opinions from both sides as to what scumbags each of them may be...

[kentuck]

4. There's a role for them to play....

But not as a spokesman for such an important process as picking a candidate that is running for President. Once that candidate is chosen, then they have every right to defend their man against our man in a roundtable discussion - not a monologue of criticism from one side or the other. That seems like it would be a simple rule of fairness.

[Bluzmann57]

5. They do have freedom of choice

but they should openly say whom they support and why. And they should do it in an organized and reasonable way, not with shrieking and shouting down opponents. In fact, they can't seem to do it that way because, as my grandfather used to say, "They ain't got a pot to piss in". They also need to understand that others have freedom of choice too. As far as trying to influence people, at the recently concluded Iowa caucuses I was asked, "What did your Union tell you to do?", to which I replied, "The Union doesn't TELL me to do anything. They can suggest and reccomend". So it goes on with others besides the right wingers. It is just more obvious when they do it because they are all over the place.