Politician caught in sex scandal!

Anullments happen all the time in the Catholic church. Why do you think anyone would give a damn about the theological implications of an anullment?


Rather than making these baseless conjectures, why not take a look at the Sun-Times website and its editorial page? One hint as to its political orientation: Hollinger International, run by Conrad Black, owns the Sun-Times. Black (now implicated in a fraud scheme involving his media holdings), is like Rupert Murdoch-Lite.

We have two major dailies in Chicago that cover both ends of the political spectrum: the Tribune, which is respectable, old-line, Midwestern conservative; and the Sun-Times, which is loud, irresponsible, mentally unhinged conservative.


The Kerry divorce records are public. They've been subjected to scrutiny. If the media thought there was anything in there of any interest, it would have been revealed by now.


You're just a real piece of work, aren't you Foxfyre. How much evidence do you need before you stop trying to fashion some kind of "liberal media conspiracy" out of this?

It wasn't ABC News that worked to un-seal the Ryan divorce records: it was WLS-TV, the local ABC-owned affiliate in Chicago. ABC is, in turn, owned by Disney Corp., which recently refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. So we have a conservative newspaper (the Tribune, not the Sun-Times) and a conservative TV station "outing" Ryan. Doesn't sound like a "liberal media conspiracy" to me. Sounds more like a "conservative media conspiracy," actually.

To Joe, You and Nimh seem to want this to be a discussion of media bias. I have been commenting on the differing ways the media has dealt with two political candidates. It so happens in this issue the media has treated the Republican much differently than it has treated the Democrat. If you think the treatment has not been different, then by all means that is your prerogative to see it that way.

I stand corrected that I left the impression that it was the ABC network that initiated the proceedings when it was in fact their affiliate. I can accept that your local affiliate is less liberal than most ABC affiliates. I won't accept that any ABC affiliate is strongly conservative nor do I see the Sun Times as strongly conservative.

I've noticed lately that anybody who does not bash Bush/Cheney at every single opportunity is frequently labeled 'conservative' here. I like to think there are a few thinking liberals out there who call it honestly even when they don't disagree with the opposition. I like to think there are a few liberals who don't even feel the need to balance something positive about a conservative with something negative.

As far as newspaper endorsements in 2000 go, look here: http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/Political.htm

If you believe all those on the Bush side are conservative, I have some prime swampland I would like to discuss selling you.

AAHHHhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .


PLOP ! ! !


Damn, i think my ass just fell off . . .



Oh man, that just slayed me . . .

People take the Sun-Times seriously? Wow. It's the New York Post of the midwest.

And as for going after Illinois politicians -- that's a favorite pasttime of Chicago news outlets whatever the pols party may be. It borders on comical they way the Tribune's been going after Daley for years (with no apparent effectg on the electorate).

Perhaps conservitives would like to explain why Disney would approve and support one of its subsidiary's bed room window peeping but not back another attempting to foster political debate.

Err, no, I aint all too eager to start another discussion about media bias. You're the one who brought up that can of worms - I just posted to remind you that the whole 'liberal media vs. conservative politicians' thing hardly applied here, seeing how the paper in question was actually conservative.

But that wont stop you, I think, seeing how in the very sentence after the one you spend saying its us who want this to be a discussion of media bias, you continue your discussion of media bias - an issue which neither of us sees as being applicable at all, really. But by all means, if you have a problem with how, "in this issue", the conservative medium that treated the Republican Ryan that way is guilty of double standards or bad practice, go get 'em.


That was a really interesting link, thanks.

As for the con vs lib Q on that, well, so many papers I dont know! Among the ones who endorsed Bush, I only know the Boston Herald, the Washington Times, the NY Post and the Chicago Tribune. Thought those were all conservative, yeah. Among the ones who endorsed Gore I only knew the Boston Globe, Des Moines Register, Miami Herald, NYTimes, SF Chronicle and Washington Post.

Looks like a fair enough criterium to distinguish liberal and conservative papers ... (tho I dont think the WaPo is all that liberal, actually ...)

(It would be cool to find out about a coupla papers that didnt endorse either ... I'd be into looking those up more often for my news ...

I've been reading the (Minneapolis?) Star-Tribune online to get a perspective of how stuff is reported locally ... that one's not on either list, perhaps I should keep reading it.)

The only reason the media was an issue nimh is because it was the media who 'outed' the issue of Ryan's divorce and who has delicately avoided any attempt to make a similar issue of Kerry's divorce and therefore, at least in my mind, the media is relevant to this discussion.

And I haven't looked at the Star Trib in ages so have no opinion on whether the current slant is left, right, or middle of the road. Many newspapers choose not to endorse a candidate however, and apparently they were one who made that choice in 2000.

One other thought before I get back to work here. It is not unusual at all for the editorial division of a newspaper to tilt right while the newsroom tilts left. The Wall Street Journal is an excellent example of this.

It would be the news department that would most likely initiate investigative research. The owners usually get involved in content only to the extent that the content might get them suied.
Advertisers have little or no clout as they're going to put their dollars with the big circulation regardless of content.