Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I tuned in because I heard he had made a really interesting rant. I started watching the show because he has an interesting way of showing the news. I spend some time on the net, and I assure you he isn't reporting "liberal" news. If you question that, check out any liberal site and you'll see that there is little overlap between their version of events and Olbermann's. Every time he touches on a "liberal" story, the denizens of the left web flip out... but he doesn't do it often. He mostly reports on the news of the day, but without a conservative slant. He interviews interesting people who don't seem to be spouting talking points or pushing an agenda. What's so "liberal" about this? The only reason Olbermann looks liberal is that cable news has moved so far to the right that anybody who actually doesn't cater to republicans appears to be on the left. If democrats somehow take power, I suspect he will be just as hard on them as he is on this administration. Newsmen *should* be more than stenographers. They *should* try to help people sort out the truth from the lies. And they should tell us when we are being lied to. Truth is not a "liberal" concept, although you'll have a hard time believing that if you spend too much time watching Fox.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
