Isn't it odd how the "liberal" media...

[Triana]

...ignores any story about Rove being indicted but IMMEDIATELY starts parroting stories that he's NOT been indicted within just a few hours (all the while sneering at stories that say otherwise)?

1. The media is NOT LIBERAL. The media is NOT "fair and balanced". If they WERE they'd be copiously reporting BOTH stories.

2. They MAY already know that he has or has not been indicted and have been given their marching orders by the WH or Rove himself. This might explain their marching in lockstep with each other either way.

Knowing who owns the media, is anyone surprised? Whether Rover goes down or not, the media's behavior is most interesting.

[rodeodance]

1. Has the media (TV and or radio) made comments? Thought it was only

the press (including web press) at this time.

[Triana]

3. I guess you could say the online media (MSNBC, etc)...

...the behavior of the lamestream web media is still interesting though.

[Ron Green]

2. But what about the alligators????

Aren't they more important?

[leftofthedial]

4. you mean the media isn't liberal?

:banghead:

[Triana]

5. We all know it's not however....

...this behavior is the type of thing I love to shove in the bu$h jockstrap's faces when they claim it is.

[hughee99]

6. IF they have already found out that he is not going to be indicted

should they be reporting the indictment anyway, even though they know it to be false? Frankly, I'd like to see them do a little more fact checking before they report some of these rumors. As much as the news would be good to hear, I'll enjoy it just as much if/when Fitz himself announces it. I can wait. Besides, if Rove were going to be indicted, and the media wanted to really help him out, they wouldn't be issuing a denial of the inevitable, they'd be talking about "political motivations" and "process crimes" to downplay the impact when it does become official. Just my 2 cents, anyway.

[Triana]

7. that's not my point...

...they should have been reporting that someone said he'd been indicted over the weekend - not reporting that he WAS indicted, but that one source said so.

However, they said nothing about that all weekend.

But then, when a story came out challenging the assertion that he'd been indicted, they were parrotting that within 10 hours or less.

They should either report BOTH assertions or STFU until they KNOW for certain what's up.

However, that they CHOSE to report only ONE assertion (the one saying he hadn't been indicted whilst sneering loudly about the one saying he had), is telling.