<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Tim et. al.<BR>
<BR>
This is really a hoot!<BR>
<BR>
I'll get up on any side of the bed you want if you will just read the dang nam Wall Street Journal article on Sandy Berger's "exoneration." Then we can discuss this issue reasonably. If you refuse to at least respond to my previous post exhorting you to "Do Your Home Work," which contains some detailed info from that article, I can only conclude you are not debating sincerely, and I am wasting my time.<BR>
<BR>
If you think the Wall Street Journal is full of it on this issue, fine, tell me why! But you have not made reference to the specific content of this article regarding the evidence it offers that contradicts your statements about the Berger investigation of document theft.<BR>
<BR>
As for you finding it amusing that I suggest that democratic government is supposed to represent the people, including government funded media, I gave an example in Canada's CBC of government funded media that I think is an excellent news source. No, I don't think the CBC represents Big Brother. I think FOX news is much closer to that, and it is "private sector." Why could totalitarian control not come from the corporate "private sector" agenda?<BR>
<BR>
Can you respond to this contrast I just made between FOX news and the CBC? Perhaps this will offer a clue as to what bias you have towards public funded news vs. private sector news, if you do have a bias one way or the other.<BR>
<BR>
I do not have an a priori bias one way or the other. Depending on the circumstances, I rely on both private and public funded news sources. And I think it healthy in any society to have a balanced mixture of public and private sector media.<BR>
<BR>
What do you think of this approach?<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>