No, that series of exchanges had not yet deteriorated in to a flame war. As for your contention that the use of the term strawman is a stretch, though, i assert that you've let a partisan point of view distort your analysis.
MM's questions are loaded--the first inherently posits that "the left" liked CNN for broadcasting negative stories about Bush. It's like the "have you stopped beating your wife" question. No matter how you answer, you accept the basic inherent proposition. So, no matter how one answers that question, one accepts the contention that CNN willfully broadcasts negative stories about Bush. The possibility does exist, Ash, that a story about Bush broadcast by CNN may only appear to be negative to one with a partisan point of view. It is equally possible that CNN has broadcast a story about Bush which appears negative because Bush has done, or is alleged by someone other than CNN to have done, something reprehensible. The strawm
en implicit in the question is that CNN willfully broadcasts stories about Bush which are negative (no support is provided by MM on this point) and that "the left" praises CNN for broadcasting such stories, simply because they are negative stories about Bush (no support is provided by MM on this point).
The next question starts out by stating that MM's interlocutor "opposes" CNN, Fox and all of the major papers, Reuters and every other major news source, and then finishes with a clause in the form of a question. Once again, this is a loaded question as MM has provided no evidence that any part of the opening clause is factually true. It constitutes a strawman because of the assumptions about what his interlocutor does or does not "oppose." A strawman does not necessarily have to be an analogy--it can take the form of
petitio principi statements for which no evidence has been provided. Attempting to answer such questions implicitly entails accepting the
a priori assumptions--the charges against MM's interlocutor--and therefore leaves the respondant fighting a strawman.
Finally, MM asserts that if someone trusts a particular source, one must necessarily trust all reports coming from that source. This is neither logically established, nor established on an evidentiary basis.
The Nizkor Project wrote:The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Wikipedia wrote:A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.
Skepdic-dot-com wrote:One of the characteristics of a cogent refutation of an argument is that the argument one is refuting be represented fairly and accurately. To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the misrepresentation or distortion is accidental and due to misunderstanding the argument or is intentional and aimed at making it easier to refute. Either way, one commits the straw man fallacy.
Cuyamaca-dot-net wrote:The argument misrepresents a position that it seeks to refute. By refuting the position as misrepresented, the argument creates the impression that it has refuted the position that is actually held by opponents.
Comments:
One version of the Straw Man fallacy is to impute a "hidden agenda" to an opponent.
None of the definitions at these sources (the first five appearing in a Google search) matches that which you have presented, which i submit was constructed to support your point. The last of these is of particular interest because it seems to me that MM has posited a hidden agenda for F4F of demonizing Bush. Now, in point of fact, i consider this to be true, based on my experience of F4F's "contributions" at this site. In fact, i have consistently posted that F4F's sources are often suspect, and have accused him of anti-semitism elsewhere. The member F4F is neither a friend of mine, nor anyone for whom i hold a brief to provide a defense. But i also do not entertain a high opinion of MM's rhetorical skills. This type of post on his part is common. None of the imputations which he has levelled against F4F are proven, and i consider them all to be strawmen, and in particular the last--which seeks to suggest that if we knew F4F's preferred source for news we could find examples of positions which a conservative would support, and with which F4F preforce must agree--is the most egregious example.
Your serve.
It's nice to feel wanted here. 
