I think it's you who needs to go back to grade school. First of all Using wiki as a source of info will get you tested to see if you belong on the short bus. You realize anyone can edit it and put in what they want. Rejecting something because of where it came from is not very fair and balanced. Were there too many big words for you? you can get help with that.
But worst of all ,the article about the liberal media bias being a myth was from US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, you dumb fuck!!!!!! and posted on the Fair website.Would they be more credible if I referenced it directly from the US NEWS site? You obviously didn't read the other article critiquing the 25 year old lichter study that's part of the foundation of the notion that the media is biased. Anyone with any knowledge of statistics and research could see the flaws easily.
BTW, US NEWS seems to be rated moderately cuntsevative by pace university, Wikapedia, your trusted source, said only that they were more cuntservative than Time or Newsweek.
Originally Posted by drluv1
You do create a target rich environment, I'll give you that.
The source of the quote from Wikipedia was NPR. It was only cited through Wiki you dolt. It was NPR that said Fair is biased left not me you fuckstick. Pay attention. And by the way we all know how Wiki works but it has no bearing here so that's why I cited thm.
Secondly, in one sentence you discount Wiki as a source out of hand and the very next thing you tell me that rejecting something because of where it came from is not very fair and balanced. Self awareness isn't your strong point is it sport?
The more recent article
was published in US News but that's not the issue. It was the democratic operative author who was the problem. As for US News, saying that they are more conservative than Time or Newsweek isn't saying much either. Neither one of those outlets is conservative at this point and even if they were, all reputable media has some degree of editorial balance. But again, you just want to discount those outlets as conservative so you can discount anything that comes out of them. In other words anything they publish is tainted because of "where it came from".
And finally, even if the old article actually destroyed Lichter's study (which I don't think it does) I assure you there is newer research out there to back up Lichter's claims without relying on his. I'd suggest you have someone read it to you. And ask them to do it slowly. 'Cause you're stupid.