University of Maryland did a study, which I'm still reading, that your level of misinformation is probably due to what channel you watch for your news.

PBS-NPR viewers were most likely to have all the facts while Fox News watchers were pretty badly mistaken about a number of things.

Interesting reading (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf)

Just a snippet from the report:


The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University
of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these
misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news.
Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have
misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly
less likely.

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

I have strong personal opinions against Fox news, but I don't want to offend any who enjoy that network.

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Chicken!

Seriously though, I know the McNeil/Leherer News hour is a little dry but its SOOOOO much more informative and much more balanced than anything else out there. I can actually listen to NPR and not yell at my radio asking questions that the stupid news reporters out there don't bother to answer. Sometimes I just want to reach into my radio and throttle someone, but not when I listen to NPR. I feel like when I watch PBS/NPR I actually come away a little smarter. Versus watching MSNBC and occassionally CNN I feel like I'm shedding IQ points.

Case in point, we've all heard the controversy over low carb diets? You go to PBS's web site and you can get about 12 different experts very detailed essays on why they believe it is either good or bad complete with references to studies (at least some of them provided). When would you ever see anything that comprehensive or so much critical thinking on any sort of commercial news source? You simply won't. Why?

I think its easy to sum up, thinking is hard. Reading is hard. Most people don't want to have to think hard so they are attracted to simple messages where they don't have to decide for themselves, based upon the weight of evidence, what is right or wrong -- or god forbid, its a gray area! We can't have gray areas! They're scary! Everything must be black and white, 100% right or 100% wrong. It is so much easier to have someone else tell you what is right or factual based upon some sort of belief system, like religion or belief in a political party or social organization or belief in a specific person. If you give over your thinking to them you can simplify your life a lot and the most difficult decisions you have to make is whether to buy 2% milk or nonfat.

Rupert Murdoch's "The Sun" newspaper in the UK famously had a headline "It was the Sun that won it" the day after an election victory. For me that's repellent on many levels, not least because the newspaper is effectively boasting to it's readership that it manipulated their votes, and also because it's readers wouldn't realise or care.

Murdoch trades in media reporting and political influence. He uses he media power to gain votes for politicians. He uses political influence to control media regulations. He also uses cross media owenership to attack his competitors, for example his newspapers regularly attack the BBC in program reviews and features. There are probably other media barons who do the same thing, but it's still distasteful.

*goes to hide under her bed*

I feel like when I watch PBS/NPR I actually come away a little smarter. Versus watching MSNBC and occassionally CNN I feel like I'm shedding IQ points.


I am not sure if you ever heard Mario Cumo talk. He is shameless in giving compliments on how smart someone is.

I enjoy Charlie Rose interview and other PBS shows. However, sometimes I feel as though these "know it alls" are telling me how to think and that I am dumb for disagreeing with their values. The snobbery and arrogance does insult me. Look, if you want to have an all veggie diet to lose weight, wait a few weeks and some doctor will *reveal* this revelation about how all veggie diets are better.

All citizens need news and information. Each person identifies with different values. I know that Lou Dobbs has beat the jobs drum for 8+ months. That resonates with some workers. However, 9/11 resonates with other people. The difference is values and what they see around them.

That is where these elitists like Teresa Heniz Kerry chooses words that smacks of snobbery and arrogance while confusing THAT with being an assertive woman and linking Laura Bush to what is best described as country bumkin. How dare she say that the sacrafice of a stay at home mom is less virtueous than her pampered life style.

I noticed that this study was funded by the Rockefeller Bothers Foundation. PETA or Green Peace might as well have funded this study. This is a politically motivated study veiled by layers of contributions and bias.

At the risk of sounding as if I am saying “Me too” (in essence) to Weoden’s post, I would simple suggest that the study was tainted by value bias. A university (read bastion of liberalism) funded by a liberal foundation reviewing the validity of a news organization and finding the most conservative channel is the least correct is exactly what you would expect. How would the other camps react if a right wing organization had done the study and found that PBS/NPR was sadly lacking. Would each of you believe the study was credible.

IMHO this is not news-worthy as it is propaganda. As would the fictional study I suggested.

Deller

And a conservative organization would never fund a poll like this because it would reveal the dismal job that conservative news outlets, like Fox, are doing in actually reporting news or, perhaps more disturbingly, how conservatives refuse to accept information that contradicts their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. Kind of also being demonstrated by Deller's response. If it doesn't echo your beliefs it must be false. Faith-based reality strikes again.

I have NPR on every morning on the way to work. I bet more than a few people still think I'm ignorant, though.

Panamah said: “Kind of also being demonstrated by Deller's response. If it doesn't echo your beliefs it must be false. Faith-based reality strikes again.”

Please explain to me how my saying I would reject EITHER sides biased claims, led to you statement above.

I said: “How would the other camps react if a right wing organization had done the study and found that PBS/NPR was sadly lacking. ……. IMHO this is not news-worthy as it is propaganda. As would the fictional study I suggested. “ (emphasis added)

Clearly I would reject any biased study as tainted. What amazes me is people who are so clearly well spoken and critical thinkers seem to be so polarized and judgmental of others opinions when they differ from their own in the arena of politics.

Finally and most importantly Panamah – it does not matter if the information is valid or not. It IS clearly tainted by bias and therefore is nothing more than propaganda.

I would ask that you reread my post and note that I never made a single comment on the validity of the results just the source of the study.

In case anyone was confused, calling something propaganda does not necessarily make a judgment on its veracity.

prop•a•gan•da
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Deller

it does not matter if the information is valid or not. It IS clearly tainted by bias and therefore is nothing more than propaganda.

Of course it matters if it's true or not! If you reject everything you hear because you dislike the speaker then you become close minded. It's one thing to use scepticism, another to reject data out of hand.

What is wrong with people? Do they even try to understand a point before asserting someone is “close minded”.

How can I make this clear: Tainted and biased is bad – ALWAYS!

Yes even if it supports your personal opinion. By embracing a biased report you diminish your position and devalue an otherwise valid argument.

I was arguing we should reject ALL that is tainted and biased. We should instead look to reasoned, fair-minded analysis. If I am wrong, then are you saying we should accept biased reports because we like the results?

One other small note: I have never said I agreed or disagreed with the results, nor if I am liberal, conservative or libertarian. The only comment I made about the speaker (in this case universities in general) is that they are a bastion of liberalism (something many academics are quite proud of). How then do you assert that I (quote): “… reject everything you hear because you dislike the speaker”?

For those that skim and missed my point:

Tainted and biased is bad – ALWAYS!

Deller

I don't think that Fox news is any better or worse than any other broadcast network. They all seem to have a bias one way or the other. NPR seems to be the only source of news left who tries to report the facts with minimal spin.

I hope they conducted the actual study more carefully than the summary in the link would indicate. The "misperceptions" listed at the beginning are worded such as to make the study worthless.

I was arguing we should reject ALL that is tainted and biased. We should instead look to reasoned, fair-minded analysis. If I am wrong, then are you saying we should accept biased reports because we like the results?

Not at all. Exactly the opposite. News and information from sources we don't appreciate are the ones that we learn most from, often by challenging your own ideas and confirming your ideas or improving them. Agreeing with yourself all the time is the fast track to vain ignorance.

An unlikely project can still come up with the truth and proof of the truth. It needs to be looked at on its merits. If you reject it out of hand you never find out. This research in question might be absolutely correct. The student canvasers might have asked relevant questions without bias. This might be valuable social research into media and society when considered in context. You've looked at it and decided it is not reasonable or fair just because of its origins. That is ... closed mindedness.

The "misperceptions" listed at the beginning are worded such as to make the study worthless.

How?

At the risk of sounding as if I am saying “Me too” (in essence) to Weoden’s post, I would simple suggest that the study was tainted by value bias. A university (read bastion of liberalism) funded by a liberal foundation. . .

Deller, not knowing one way or the other as to whether the University of Maryland considers itself "liberal" or not, how does one find out (or determine) that said University or Foundation is infact a "bastion of liberalism"?

After reading the link Panamah provided, and checking the University of Maryland's website, I couldn't really tell one way or the other. Not that I expect them to plaster their website with the word "LIBERALISM" or "Conservatives BEWARE!" all over it, but I was just wondering if you consider all universities to be "bastions of liberalism" or just certain ones?

I don't think that Fox news is any better or worse than any other broadcast network. They all seem to have a bias one way or the other. NPR seems to be the only source of news left who tries to report the facts with minimal spin.

I would have to agree with jtoast.

People who think NPR is unbiased scare me.

How?

The major problem is with their first item they list as a misperception: evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. There is, in fact, plenty of such evidence. However, there is no evidence that this led to collaboration, and, in particular, there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Using the (mis)perception as worded is therefore problematic. Whether it is correct or not depends on the wording and context of the question, hence my statement that I hope they worded the actual study more carefully than the summary at the link.

Lesser problems lie with the other statements. The discovery that a sarin containing/contaminated shell was used in an IED confuses the issue of "discovery" of WMD. Although experts were pretty much unanimous in agreeing this should not be considered evidence of WMD stockpiles, the discovery of nerve agents in Iraq at all was, at least at the time, somewhat disturbing, and one can legitamitely that sarin was found in Iraq. Moreover, it should be remembered that banned weapons (not WMD, but other weapons banned by UN resolutions) were discovered by inspectors prior to the war. This leads to further confuse the issue, as the items in question were banned because of their potential use as WMD delivery vehicles.

Lastly, the concept of world opinion is dubious. How was this measured? By number of countries, population, or what? By government action or popular opinion? The world was hardly united in its opinion, and does one give equal weight to the opinion of every country? I could go on, but you get the point - world opinion is nebulous idea.

What I'm getting at here is that determining whether or not a person is misinformed is not as simple as asking true/false questions with propositions such as the misperceptions listed in the article. Rather, none of the statements listed is really completely true or completely false in the absence of a clarifying context. One simple way to get whatever survey results you want is to ask people to answer yes or no to questions that are not yes/no questions. Without seeing how the data was collected and what the raw numbers are, it's impossible to say if that is what happened here. Hence, my other statement that as the summary is worded, it is useless.

If you're writing a questionnaire you need straight forward questions that people can answer, and it's the researchers task to make them as simple as possible without losing clarty of meaning. You're looking at the tightest possible interpretations, such as saying that one forgotten canister of chemical agent constitutes a WMD threat. Spin doctors have talked up any meetings between Al Qaeda and Iraqi's but Al Qaeda were opposed to Saddam and tried to assassinate him, twice, so don't believe the spin. For the last statement "world opinion favoured the US going to war" it's a clear cut fact, that just was not the case, no matter how you want to count it.

I'm not sure what lawyer proof document you're looking for in this questionnaire, but I don't think there's enough in the description to dismiss it out of hand.

What is wrong with people? Do they even try to understand a point before asserting someone is “close minded”.

How can I make this clear: Tainted and biased is bad – ALWAYS!

Yes even if it supports your personal opinion. By embracing a biased report you diminish your position and devalue an otherwise valid argument.

I was arguing we should reject ALL that is tainted and biased. We should instead look to reasoned, fair-minded analysis. If I am wrong, then are you saying we should accept biased reports because we like the results?

One other small note: I have never said I agreed or disagreed with the results, nor if I am liberal, conservative or libertarian. The only comment I made about the speaker (in this case universities in general) is that they are a bastion of liberalism (something many academics are quite proud of). How then do you assert that I (quote): “… reject everything you hear because you dislike the speaker”?

For those that skim and missed my point:

Tainted and biased is bad – ALWAYS!

Deller

So you admit Fox is bad...

People who think NPR is unbiased scare me.
Well, compared to say....CBS I mean...lol.

I'll share one Foxy story...

Was visiting a friend of mine (who, coincidentally, became my ex-friend after this visit - but for other reasons) who had just moved back to Texas from California. She left Fox news on in the house as background noise (*cough* because that's what it is! noise!) and in the car, you guessed, RUSH! We went a semi-long road trip....and listened to RUSH - the - whole - way.

I wanted to scratch my eyeballs out.

Again, I respect people's opinion and if they like Fox news and Rush, know yourself out. But please, respect my right to NOT listen to those.

How can anyone respect Rush.

Years of going on about how drug offenses need stiffer punishements...

Years of going on about how drug offenses need stiffer punishements...

not to mention that whole 'defending the sanctity of marriage' crap as he's goign through his 4th divorce.

but he's LOUD, and as we all know, LOUD means HONEST and TRUTHFUL and if you SCREAMED your statement LONG ENOUGH, it must mean it's TRUE.

I don't think that Fox news is any better or worse than any other broadcast network. They all seem to have a bias one way or the other. NPR seems to be the only source of news left who tries to report the facts with minimal spin.

I disagree. If you poll fox viewers and they're coming up more ignorant on reality than non-fox viewers, doesn't that seem to imply that news that makes their conservative idealogues look bad does not get reported. What you don't report is as important as what you do report. I forget what it was... oh yeah, the Bill O'Reilly scandal where he is being sued by an employee for sexually harassing her. That got an average of 10 or so minutes coverage on all the networks, except on Fox it got 15 seconds of coverage. So how many Fox viewers out there who missed that 15 seconds think Bill O'Reilly is some sort of moral paragon of virtue, family values and so on?

Well, hold on now. As much as I hate O'Reilly and think his show is a farce where if his guest is holding his own, O'Reilly just starts badgering the guest until the guest simply is incapable of answering over O'Reilly's noise, that doesn't mean this alleged sexual harrassment has any truth to it.

Just because the accusation has been made, doesn't mean he isn't a paragon of virtue family values, etc. (I doubt he is...but that's immaterial, just because he's accused doesn't mean it isn't so).

I'd love to find out its true...just like I chortled mightily when Rush was busted for drugs...but I'll without judgement. Sexual Harrassment is almost never cut and dry.

Well, from what I've heard, the accusser actually tape recorded the conversations and O'Reilly has not said the accussations are false. Apparently she's really trying to bilk him though, I think the number was $60 mil. So he's suing her for extortion. :p

I disagree. If you poll fox viewers and they're coming up more ignorant on reality than non-fox viewers, doesn't that seem to imply that news that makes their conservative idealogues look bad does not get reported. What you don't report is as important as what you do report. I forget what it was... oh yeah, the Bill O'Reilly scandal where he is being sued by an employee for sexually harassing her. That got an average of 10 or so minutes coverage on all the networks, except on Fox it got 15 seconds of coverage. So how many Fox viewers out there who missed that 15 seconds think Bill O'Reilly is some sort of moral paragon of virtue, family values and so on?

The poll stated nothing of the sort. The poll was about the "misperceptions . . . related to support for the war with Iraq." Also, keep in mind that this poll was done in October of 2003, and I would think that we have come a long way since a year ago in our perceptions of the war and our understanding of it. I don't have cable so I don't watch fox news personally, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that viewers of Fox news are "more ignorant on reality" than non-fox news viewers. That statement only shows your bias against conservatives. Oh and as far as the Bill O'Reilly "scandal" is concerned, I read about it on the web and heard about it on talk radio. Personally, if it's true, then he's a big fat hypocrite if he preaches against phone sex but yet practices it. However, it's not beyond the realm of possiblity that this woman really is trying to extort money from Bill O'Reilly. I mean she could have just stayed at CNN after quitting from Fox the first time.

There's no question in my mind she's trying to get money from him, or else publically humiliate him. I remember when I was 17 years old, had one of my first jobs and the owner of the little sandwich shop did some very inappropriate things. This was long before awareness had been raised over sexual harrassment, but even so, at 17 years old, I had no idea what to do about it. I can imagine that I wouldn't really have handled such things well until probably my 30's really when I became more assertive and confident.

No one should feel like they have to perform or tolerate that sort of thing. I hope women are learning that they don't need to put up with it. And in fact, this women discussed his behavior with O'Reilly and he said that no one would believe her. So... smart girl, she taped it.

Odd isn't it, how O'Reilly isn't denying it happened. The thing I find rather funny is how in these cases, even in this day and age when people are supposedly a little more enlightened, everyone still blames the woman.

In my honest opinion, FoxNews <> CNN, CBS, ABC, NPR, PBS or any other news network you care to mention. Anyone that just draws from one source is not getting the whole picture. Some individuals in each organization may be unbiased, but as a whole all of them have a slant.

I also would place Rush in the same camp as Michael Moore. Both say smart things that really attract like minded people, but then say something so rediculous that makes the heads of moderates spin. (on both sides of the political fence)

News reporting is a veritable minefield. I regularly watch a number of news channels and there are large differences.

My comments are related to international news (not domestic news).

I personally find American international news quite shallow and narrow. It's the most slanted and nationalistic news I regularly watch. I've given up on the regular Fox/NBC etc coverage. CNN is usually quite interesting and often has the best film footage of international events. It tends to sensationalize events and tailors coverage to an audience with low attention span, and limited ability to appreciate complex issues.

Canadian news is fairly well-balanced, usually avoids bias, but must usually rely on footage from news services in other countries. It's no better than American TV in terms of news depth. The CBC is the best Canadian network for international coverage, although CTV and Global do a reasonable job.

In my opinion, Britain's BBC provides the best balanced, most comprehensive international news coverage. It avoids the sensationalism often seen on American media. It's usually very factual, and isn't tainted with the endless opinions, judgements and biases found in the countless interviews in American and Canadian media. It's easily the most professional news coverage I watch.

The Journal is news in German. It is similar to the BBC in terms of balance and being factual. It's not as complete or extensive as the BBC. It often provides a different take on international issues. One notable example is the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. The perspective is fairly balanced and less judgemental, without the strong pro-Israeli bias of American TV. Another example is the Chechnya coverage.

(Note: Anyone notice the huge swing in American news coverage on the Chechnya conflict since 9/11? Coverage was initially judgemental and critical of Russian involvement. Since 9/11, coverage is decidedly sympathetic to the Russians... and yes, there is much Chechnya news that never makes it to American TV.)

When I read boards like this, I'm often struck by how many opinions are formed by media coverage. Whether the media intends it or not, we are manipulated by their coverage. Don't trust single source, or single country media.

Thicket

Good points, Thicket. I used to read The Economist. I was always struck by, just as you said, how shallow the reporting is compared to "The Economist". In the US, you get about 15 seconds of news on anyone item. Listen to NPR news and you're likely to get 5-10 minutes of coverage on one topic, if its one they go into very deeply it is likely to be more. For instance, they'll dissect the points of the two candidates health care initiatives and cover the strengths and weaknesses of both. On commercial TV news you'll hear something that spotlights maybe one element of one guys healthcare plan that lasts 30 seconds tops. Then they'll segue to someone's opinion about it.

Maybe that's the real problem, American news focuses too much on opinion of news and not enough on the actual details. They're so ratings crazed that they're pandering to the lowest common denominator of viewers... the ones that'd probably be watching WWF instead except that news has become the noveau WWF.

That is leading to more polarization of news and segregating it into news based upon your political bias. People have forgotten how to separate between opinion and fact. You can see that in the proliferation of the types of news shows where someone representing the extreme right and someone representing the extreme left go at it. Jeez, do people actually like watching that crap?

Maybe that's the real problem, American news focuses too much on opinion of news and not enough on the actual details.

A while back in the UK I watched some live news footage at lunchtime of our police trying to get some illegal immigrants out of a mosque. The police talked to the local community elders, tried to negotiate, put sock like covers on their feet to respect the mosque, etc before forcing the door and removing the people.

I saw the same incident reported later with just a five second clip of the policemen breaking down the door. They then asked some oh so clever people in the studio for opinions and spent 5 minutes discussing how disgracefully violent the police were, based on the 5 second clip. It's just shoddy reporting. How do they get away with asking stupid pundits for stupid comments and pass it off as informative programming?

While I'm ranting, is there a bug for interactive news in the US? Many of our programs now ask for comments from the viewers by e-mail or text then read them out. That's bad enough but they always end up with something like "John from Carlisle says it's a national disgrace", "Mary from Dover says things were better in the fifties", "Archie from Belfast says you've got to give the man a chance", i.e. absolutely pointless soundbite chunks of froth and inanity you might as hear down the pub. Can't people decide anything for themselves any more? Who's daft enough to send these things in anyway? I always end up thinking I'm pretty daft for even listening to it.

Bah, ranting a bit more. The other thing they do is send a reporter out into the country for every story. So if there's going to be a change to exams they send the reporter into a school and gather some students around him. "We've got some children here who will be taking exams next week, how do you feel?". Nervous teenager says "Exams are hard, you know. Like, I work a lot". Next teenager says "Don't care really. Just have to do the work really, at the end of the day". Last teenager says "These changes are good because I don't like maths and, you know, numbers and things". Arrggh! Just what sort of 'news' is that?

Ah ha! So I see this isn't just in the US. UK likes their shoddy journalism too. :p neener

I don't think that Fox news is any better or worse than any other broadcast network. They all seem to have a bias one way or the other. NPR seems to be the only source of news left who tries to report the facts with minimal spin.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/first_ladies/

Below is a recent PBS show talking about first ladies. The piece seems to be more social than historical. In either case, Tersa Heinz Kerry is spoken of as though she is currently or formerly a First Lady.

This article links what past First Ladies have done and asserted that Tersa Heinz Kerry should get mentioned in the piece because she will be the next First Lady. The bias in that is sublte but exists.

If the discussion was framed differently, I would be unable to critize PBS in that fashion. However, both PBS and NPR has this type of bias in them and that bias occurs from the lack of critism from within.

Just because the accusation has been made, doesn't mean he isn't a paragon of virtue family values, etc. (I doubt he is...but that's immaterial, just because he's accused doesn't mean it isn't so).



I agree with you on that one.

There is a balance between freedom of speech and sexual harrasment. The snippet of tape I heard was recorded after working hours and she did not say "no". I think that is an important distinction and why this issue died quickly.

There are assertions that could be made from this event if O'Reilly is determined to have wronged this lady. First, Civil Liberties would apply differently for those that work together and those who do not work together. Second, various scandal combinations can be thought of where an employee and employeer are in circumstances removed from work where sexual interest is expressed. Third, employees can try to obtain a conversation of them and their boss talking which can permit extortion or faster promotion.

This article links what past First Ladies have done and asserted that Tersa Heinz Kerry should get mentioned in the piece because she will be the next First Lady. The bias in that is sublte but exists.

She is mentioned because she could be next First Lady. Your bias was subtle there ;). The show seems reasonable enough. There's no point having a topical special election program on First Ladies ignoring the prospective First Ladies in the election. It was probably only commisioned in the first place because Mrs Kerry is of media interest.

There's still enough stuff in the interview to make anyone like or dislike her as they feel fit.

I'll put the point out there cause no one seems to have so far.

Most people get their news from places like Fox/CBS/ABC cause they're more entertaining. Welcome to the land of 5 second attention spans. Do any of you remember when CNN used to be the be-all, end-all of news networks? CNN was like this mecca news standard that broadcast news stations could only hope of attaining. But CNN's rating started to slip, and what did they do? Moved to the same format that their "lowbrow" cousins used. Heck, even <a href="http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2653047">Jon Stewart</a> gave them an earful.

Plain'ol news stories won't get ratings anymore, not unless you hint at some strange seething underlying corruption or possible fallout. Whether you're giving your story unbiased or not, it won't matter because no one's watching.

I wish I could've seen that entire Jon Stewart thing. About all I saw was him responding to the guy in the dorky bow-tie when he said, "You're supposed to be funny!" was "I'm not your monkey!". *chortle*

Plain'ol news stories won't get ratings anymore, not unless you hint at some strange seething underlying corruption or possible fallout. Whether you're giving your story unbiased or not, it won't matter because no one's watching.

I guess that is maybe true if you're part of the 5 second attention span crowd. But I still enjoy reading or listening or viewing an indepth news report of something that has as little spin as possible. I guess that is why I like PBS. I also listen to Air America but I recognize that I'm listening to a lot of spinning to the left. However, its a refreshing change from the 6 or so radio stations that spin to the far right in my town.

BTW: Tonight on PBS there's going to be a documentary called "Rumsfield's War" which sounded interesting. It's going to be about the dynamic between Rumsfield, Cheney and Powell. Yes, there will be some criticism of Bush's cabinent but I hear it is balanced out with praise of the good things. I hope I can catch it.

Here's the transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html) of the Crossfire episode with Jon Stewart, totally hilarious. There's video of it out there too for those with real connections.

And nitpicking PBS for including the next possible First Lady... that's really reaching. If they *didnt* include her, the documentary would/could be out of date in 2 weeks, and they'd have been accused of anti-democrat bias. They've done the same thing in reverse you know... giving nod to republican contenders when they do a documentary about a democratic incumbent. And if you had actually watched the show, you'd have seen that it really wasnt about party politics at all.

Phew! Jon was ripping them pretty badly. I hate those shows though. Did you see the Daily Show where that one reporter was covering the debate? That one was hilarious.

And nitpicking PBS for including the next possible First Lady... that's really reaching. If they *didnt* include her, the documentary would/could be out of date in 2 weeks, and they'd have been accused of anti-democrat bias.

Actually, if the Reps win that show WILL be out of date and not just could be. I don't think pointing out an inconsistency between the title and the accompanying material is nitpicking. PBS should avoid taking sides, reworded the title to a more fitting one and left the bias out...

Actually, if the Reps win that show WILL be out of date and not just could be. I don't think pointing out an inconsistency between the title and the accompanying material is nitpicking. PBS should avoid taking sides, reworded the title to a more fitting one and left the bias out...

Out of date? Not all TV is meant to be rerun for 25 years. Its a timely show for the times right now.

Actually, if the Reps win that show WILL be out of date and not just could be.

It's a lot easier to splice out information that isn't needed than to create information if it is.

Should she not be a first lady at some point in time, splice out the parts about her and you still have a re-air-able (is too a word) story. Don't put her in at all, and if Kerry is elected, you have a historical documentary which will probably never see the light of day again until one of the living ex-first ladies is dead (then you'll only get the spliced out bits of that particular first lady)

Actually... I think it's looking more and more likely she's going to be our First Lady. Our First Lady of Ketchup. She'll also be our first employed First Lady too. I believe she's CEO of her own charitable foundation. I wonder if, when elected, she'll be able to finally settle the dispute: Is it Catsup or Ketchup?

Is it Catsup or Ketchup?

LOL

You say to-may-to and I say to-mah-to....