<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Gary,<br><br>You are regularly dismissive and contemptuous of differing viewpoints. Are you therefore a progressive?<br><br>Still waiting for you to prove your ad hominem argument that KRFP debates or interviews have been unfair to conservative politicians. <br><br>Sunil<br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">From: jampot@roadrunner.com<br>To: kjajmix1@msn.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 00:59:20 -0700<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rosy future for rabid liberal at loose ends?<br><br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<style>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
</style>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri">"<font color="#ff0000"> I find Fox'
analysis and perspective to be much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable
than that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits.</font><font color="#000000">"</font></font></div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri">Really? Well there we have it then.
The unmistakable essence of the progressive mind set and perhaps one of
the the biggest barriers to productive conversation. The elitist (why
does that ring a bell?) notion that they just must be right
because they imagine that those with whom </font><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri">they disagree are ever so much less intelligent and
unreasonable then themselves. Is it any wonder that common ground is
so difficult to reach when the opening salvo from the left is so utterly
dismissive and contemptuous? When newly elected Republican members of congress
are seated and they feel precious little inclination to compromise with their
democrat counterparts it most assuredly won't be difficult to understand
the reason why.</font></div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div style="font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div><br></div>
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245, 245, 245);">
<div style=""><b>From:</b> <a title="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely emerinemix</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:30 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a> ; <a title="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid liberal at loose
ends?</div></div></div>
<div><br></div>Truthfully, I'd have to say that it's the "established" media,
print and broadcast, who bring the most bias-free coverage, specifically NBC (my
preferred network source), ABC, and CBS; and Time and Newsweek. Now, I
love Mother Jones and The Progressive, but I wouldn't presume to try to persuade
you that they're editorially even-handed. And they don't need to be, just
as Fox and MSNBC don't need to be perfectly unbiased -- they offer analysis and
commentary from differing perspectives, which is not only obvious but also by
design. Nonetheless, I read them, just as I read (courtesy of Roger) The
National Review and the Wall Street Journal. It's good to get all sides of
an argument, but it's also important to discern what's news and what's
discussion. They both have their place, but they're not at all the same
thing. <br><br>Sadly, it seems that fewer and fewer Americans understand
that. And I think that of the two, MSNBC and Fox, it's Fox that more
portrays itself as a "news" organization, and it isn't; putting it another way,
I think Fox viewers are far more likely to feel suspicious of the networks as
well as to believe -- sincerely but mistakenly -- that what they get from Fox is
news, as opposed to commentary. Further, I find Fox' analysis and
perspective to be much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of
even the most strident MSNBC pundits. I prefer MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to
Keith Olbermann, and Olbermann to virtually anyone ever featured on Fox, but not
even I would suggest that MSNBC is without bias. I just think it's much
less without fear-mongering and jingoist bigotry than Fox, and that's important
to me.<br><br><font color="#8064a2"><font style="font-size: 12pt;" size="3"><font face="Verdana">Keely<br>www.keely-prevailingwinds.com<br></font></font></font><br><br><br><br>
<hr id="ecxstopSpelling">
From: jampot@roadrunner.com<br>To: kjajmix1@msn.com;
vision2020@moscow.com<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid
liberal at loose ends?<br>Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:47:10 -0700<br><br>
<style>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
</style>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri">And I would suggest that you are in
error. While I don't for a second believe that what is broadcast on programs
such as The Factor, Glenn Beck's show, or Hannity qualifies as news, I don't
believe that the brass at FOX would try and have you buy it either. On the other
hand segments such as News Watch, Fox News Weekend, America's Newsroom, and Fox
Report with Shepard Smith are as objective as anything on broadcast television.
I also believe that On the Record with Greta Van Sustren (no conservative, her)
and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace does a good job of delivering objective
information with balanced analysis. Dismissing FOX because you disagree with a
few of their talking heads is as silly as a conservative rejecting everything
reported in the NYT because of its demonstrated editorial slant. If there is a
news source that brings absolutely no baggage to its reporting I'd love to hear
about it.</font></div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font size="3" color="#000000" face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div style="font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div><br></div>
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245, 245, 245);">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely emerinemix</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 06, 2010 6:47 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a> ; <a title="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid liberal at loose
ends?</div></div></div>
<div><br></div>Hey, if Olbermann knowingly violated his employers' policies, he
got what he ought to have gotten. No scandal there.<br><br>But the
question of Fox News being "fair and balanced" obscures the real point,
which is whether or not Fox News is really "news." I don't think we need
to have the lexicography battle that we've been having over "to bear," but no
one who's ever produced, studied, or benefited from real journalism -- real news
gathering and news reporting -- would seriously suggest that Fox is "news" in
any way, shape, or form. <br><br>Fox News is nothing more than "Open Mic
Night" in a room full of culturally insecure, frightened and naive Christian
conservatives trying to earn the respect of the swaggering rich, important guys
across the bar. The rich guys drink better beer and drive more expensive
cars, but the Religious Right has some really attractive sisters they bring to
the ball, and that makes everyone in the room fast friends -- to the enrichment
of the guys operating the microphone.<br><br><font color="#8064a2"><font style="font-size: 12pt;" size="3"><font face="Verdana">Keely<br>www.keely-prevailingwinds.com<br></font></font></font><br><br><br><br>
<hr id="ecxstopSpelling">
From: jampot@roadrunner.com<br>To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>Date: Sat, 6 Nov
2010 12:01:46 -0700<br>Subject: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid liberal at
loose ends?<br><br>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Anybody care to speculate on how
long it takes for unceremoniously sacked MSNBC hack, Keith
Olbermann to swallow what little pride he may have left and accept
a position along side Alan Colmes, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Bob
Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Susan Estrich, Tammy Bruce, Pat Caddell, etc. over
at what appears to be the only fair and balance news source, FOX? The idea
of watching him on Sean Hannity's show makes me laugh just thinking about
it.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">g</font></div><br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
=======================================================
<br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
======================================================= </body>
</html>