Don says:

"As far as I am concerned, NPR and PBS are about the only truly "fair and balanced" news sources this country has........... They at least try to be honest journalists, which is more than can be said for most of the "info-tainment" programs that pass for news these days."

Don, there has been a distinct turn to the Right on NPR and PBS. They no longer reflect
a balanced programming. It is true they offer Bill Moyers and Now but that's about it.
Who knows who is trying to be an honest journalist or trying to cover their ass to keep their job?

From: Ron Davies - PM
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:23 PM

" What arguments does anybody have, aside from the contention that Bush is mentally unstable, that he will attack?"

One is from his own admission that he wants presidential "capital" from Iraq. Iraq is not going well so Iran may be his next acquisition. Also, he doesn't answer or respond to the law at this point. He will be out of office soon so he may try to make his mark.

There are plenty of reasons that Halliburton, Blackwater, Carlysle and other military
corporations can make more money with a protracted Mid-East war. Bush has already ignored the protestations of the American public on Iraq. What makes you think he will consider them regarding Iran? He is beholden to his cronies.

You say:
"It seems to be a common phenomenon on Mudcat--either we're with you 100% or we're part of the enemy."

I think that this dismisses many members of Mudcat who see shades of gray in the issues.
I don't think that this statement is true.

Carol says:
"I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced."

NPR and PBS may have some decent journalists but they are in the minority at this point.
There is pressure on these stations politically to suppress all the facts about current issues that have unpopular views. These are not the best news sources today for information.
A cross-referencing of blogs, periodicals, books, etc. is the best approach. Faux-News
is a complete travesty and it has weakened the ability of the American public to make informed decisions, hence you have an apologetic NPR and PBS.

Don says: "You think NPR and/or PBS "lied" to you about the Camp David negotiations"

I think that it might be possible that journalists were pressured into accepting information that may not be true. Whether this is lying or not is a matter of opinion. Dan Rather was pressured by CBS and is now engaged in a lawsuit maintaining that his reportage on Bush's AWOL stance was correct. Why is it not possible that PBS and NPR are subject to the same
political pressures?

We don't have the necessary unbiased information about the politics of the Mid-East because there is a news blackout on such matters by the mainstream media. AIPAC
has their spin which gets regularly reported and has been given too much weight. We don't know the true facts about Arafat but there is information available out there that
is not so biased. Dar Jamahl has unembedded reportage. There are other sources as well.

Frank