Washington Journal, I am really angry about that last call this AM.

[ScreamingMeemie]

Did anyone else see that? Paul Anger from the Des Moines Register was on. The last caller asked about the obvious lack of coverage by newspapers on no WMD's, and the CIA leak in exchange for Brittney Spears/Michael Jackson type stories. Before Mr. Anger could answer he is told he has only one minute to respond. And he didn't even answer the question!! Grrrrrrr Liberal media my tookus

[Marian]

1. You have just illustrated why

I try to avoid the call-in portions on C-SPAN. They will make you very grumpy. ;)

[buycitgo]

2. saw that

he used his time to pump/pimp his paper's coverage of the caucuses.

he said the media WERE doing their job, too, reporting all the things the caller said they weren't.

just like all the other whores who CSPAN parades onto their sets.

remember those creeps from the Post, NYT, WS Journal over the last month?

they said there, fat and happy, living in their dreamworld, in which they either were "misinformed" about nonexistent coverage, or considered one story about topics like AWOL, Harken, etc., to be in the same league with coverage of Love Canal, Monica, Alpha Male, etc.

totally disgusting

[LibDemAlways]

5. When the NY Times "reporters" (I use the term loosely)

were on, a caller asked why Greg Palast's work wasn't published in the
Times. The whore based in DC claimed he never heard of Palast or his
investigation into vote fraud in Florida.

These complacent bastards are apparently quite happy to collect a substantial paycheck in exchange
for being poster children for Rovian inspired "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil."

Beyond disgusting.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

3. "Liberal media my tookus".

Why do people feel the need to insert comments like these EVERY SINGLE TIME something regarding the media doesn't go precisely our way? One incident doesn't prove anything, and I wish people (both liberals and conservatives) would stop acting like it does.

In this particular case, one minute to respond is a lot of time (CNN seems to give everyone 15 seconds to speak), quite frankly, and on a list of media problems, this would rank quite low.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Really I don't normally say this, but this morning I do. I watch the

Journal all the time. The response times vary. It was extremely evident this morning. And no, I am a sound minded-not given to extremes-kind of girl. But that was too much. One minute and no answer, yet Mr Anger claimed he agreed with the caller. :shrug:

[Samantha]

6. I thought his remarks were pretty moderate until

he said Al Gore lost the election in 2000. Gore did not lose the popular vote. And of course the Electoral College vote was skewed by the corruption of the votes in Florida and Tennessee. In truth of fact, the Supreme Court won the 2000 election by seizing control of the election appartus, just as James Baker wanted them to do.

By the time the caller rang in criticising the lack of coverage on the issues, I was still irritated. Anger's failure to address the charge until literally the last second only inflamed my irritation.

I agree that Edwards has been running a much improved campaign. For a newspaper to endorse a candidate on the one hand while distorting facts on the other does not literally do a lot for that newspaper's credibility. Negatively impacting a newspaper's credibility with a distortion of facts known to many readers unfortunately diminishes the impact of that paper's endorsement. Edwards will not get a political leg up from this type of endorsement. Too bad -- he deserves credit for improving the tone and delivery of his message.