On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:37:16 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

When Reagan was selling arms to Iran---the news reported it. Their
"side" was outraged because it made reagan look bad. He "looked bad"
because he WAS being bad. He lied to Congress, he lied to America and
the entire Iran-contra crap was reported as such.

Rightiwngers simply cannot stand that. The Faux solution---slant the
coverage so that reagan "looked good" despite what the evidence was.
Reagan was Forced to take national time to "confess" he lied and
committed perjury

You think the real news stations should have made him look good?

Interesting how you state that Faux (sic) news pushed a slant toward
Reagan during Iran/Contra, since Fox News did not exist in November,
1986, during which the Iran/Contra affair came to light. In fact, it
didn't exist for a decade after that, having come online in October,
1996.

I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch, but facts are facts.

You missed the point Smorgas was making.
It being....
If Reagan is mentioned anytime on FAUX Snews, it's as a hero and not as a
criminal for his actions in the Iran/Contra scandal. FAUX would have gone
off their rocker if a Democrat did something like this.

Another example... How would FAUX have covered it if a Democratic
congress would have spent spend ($78m) to investigate a Bu$h president
who got caught getting a blowjob?

Ima wrote in :

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:37:16 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

When Reagan was selling arms to Iran---the news reported it.
Their
"side" was outraged because it made reagan look bad. He "looked
bad" because he WAS being bad. He lied to Congress, he lied to
America and the entire Iran-contra crap was reported as such.

Rightiwngers simply cannot stand that. The Faux solution---slant the
coverage so that reagan "looked good" despite what the evidence was.
Reagan was Forced to take national time to "confess" he lied and
committed perjury

You think the real news stations should have made him look good?

Interesting how you state that Faux (sic) news pushed a slant toward
Reagan during Iran/Contra, since Fox News did not exist in November,
1986, during which the Iran/Contra affair came to light. In fact, it
didn't exist for a decade after that, having come online in October,
1996.

I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch, but facts are facts.

You missed the point Smorgas was making.
It being....
If Reagan is mentioned anytime on FAUX Snews, it's as a hero and not
as a criminal for his actions in the Iran/Contra scandal. FAUX would
have gone off their rocker if a Democrat did something like this.

Three points:

1. Fox is a conservative viewpoint station through its political
commentators.

2. Fox is also a fair and balanced *news* station through its
newscasters.

3. Fox was started as a counterpoint to the liberal viewpoints expressed
by other stations.

Another example... How would FAUX have covered it if a Democratic
congress would have spent spend ($78m) to investigate a Bu$h president
who got caught getting a blowjob?

Depends on which section of Fox you are asking about.



--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?