I start with this:
If the U.S. military were targeting journalists for death, it would be the story of the decade (Abu Ghraib to the 100th power).I think if the "MSM" were really the scoundrels they're made to be here, they'd be publicizing the story and the facts that back it up. Why let their arch-nemesis, the blogsphere, attack one of their own (and let the military kill them) when they could be raising Hell about tanks firing on reporters? I'm trying to be an understanding American here, understanding that men with guns sometimes shoot the wrong people, but I'm starting to think we really ought to drag this whole affair through the muddy light of day and see what happens.
But even if I'm wrong about all of this, I don't think it can legitimately be disputed that if a conservative had made a statement of comparable significance (or insignificance, as Charla would have it) the MSM would have reported it immediately and would be discussing it ad nauseam.I have five words for you: Al Gore invented the Internet. Long story short, Gore chose some words poorly, which were then exaggerated and repeated (one might say, "ad nauseam") until all but a few think he's a liar.
Does this prove a conservative bias? I don't think so. However, I do think it shows that the mighty media are not always as one-sided as we think.
So in trying to push this story into the public's consciousness, conservative bloggers aren't being petty. They are merely applying MSM standards in quest, among other things, of a level playing field.Best for last!
Bloggers are "applying MSM standards" after talking about how bad the MSM standards are. It boggles the mind. Perhaps this is similar to saying, "I am getting so sick of people wanting us to be civilized in the face of barbarism." Or maybe it's just schoolyard "my victim hit me first." Either way, I disagree with it; my enemies are not responsible for my behavior.