advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Fox News no more biased than all other media

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CST; updated 5:09 p.m. CST, Saturday, December 11, 2010

COLUMBIA — I doubt it will come as a shock to anyone to learn that I don't see eye to eye with George Kennedy (Missourian columnist and former managing editor), Sen. Jay Rockefeller, President Barack Obama or a host of others who line up on my left flank in their distaste for Fox News. It may or may not also surprise some of you that I am not a particular fan of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.

Fox News, the cable broadcast company owned by Rupert Murdoch, commands almost identical reactions from the left as do Halliburton, George W. Bush, tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot Act, talk radio and all things conservative, including those horrid "neocons," whoever they may be. The inescapable fact that Fox News, similar to all visual or voice media, can be shut off with a flip of a switch seems not to matter.

The White House has made no secret of its distaste for Fox, declaring it to be "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Former Communications Director Anita Dunn accused the cable network of operating "almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," while longtime presidential aide Valerie Jarrett said, "Of course they're biased."

Even the president chimed in to express opposition to the network by declaring in a Rolling Stone interview that Fox News is "destructive" for "long-term growth."

Recently, West Virginia's Sen. Rockefeller proposed that the Federal Communications Commission remove both Fox News and MSNBC from the airwaves for extremely biased and negative reporting.

To his credit, our own Mr. Kennedy merely stated his opinion of prevailing journalistic standards, traditional vs. ideological, in comparing Fox and MSNBC with NPR and the broadcast networks. Conversely, Sen. Rockefeller, with both tacit and overt support, advocates the sacrifice of MSNBC, cable news' traditional bottom feeder in viewer numbers, as a sop to shut down Fox, the nation's leading cable news outlet, which also led all cable and network outlets in 2010 election night coverage.

Where I am at odds with George Kennedy (with whom I often disagree but also respect) and most of the Fox News detractors is in their distortion of just what constitutes news, whether "fair and balanced" or "all that is fit to print." While it may be popular to attack Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, O'Reilly or even the sainted Tom Brokaw as ideologically biased, they are no more reporters of news than are Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, Ann Coulter, Katie Couric, David Gregory or Chris Wallace.

Instead, they are purveyors of political opinion — their own personal views of what is right or wrong in the news of the day. Other than in name recognition and, of course, remuneration, their contributions to news are not much different than those supplied by George Kennedy, David Rosman and yours truly. The principal difference in our opinion posting is that George, Dave and I are far more charitable and civil in our editorials, leaving the obnoxious and ad hominem vilification to the more highly compensated "professionals."

The constant attacks on the Fox News network are little more than an extension of the efforts to revive the Fairness Doctrine — the overt attempt to shut down talk radio. The Reagan administration deemed in 1987 that this doctrine was outdated and unnecessary because of the proliferation of visual and voice media outlets — a decision that remains even more viable today.

Whether visual, print or voice, the media divisions of reporting news or opinion journalism share a separate niche, one, however, that is often blurred by those who either fail or choose not to understand the difference. Fox, as do the other cable and network outlets, employs reporters who are as "fair and balanced" in their reporting as are their cable and network counterparts.

While Fox and MSNBC provide a wider range of pure controversy in commentary analysis (Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews), cable and network media also offer a variety of discussion panels wherein conservative, liberal, and pro- and anti-administration opinions are offered. As a frequent viewer of most political TV give-and-take, and, even admitting to a natural bias, I find Fox's mixture of conservative and liberal analysis more civil, erudite and objective than most.

Additionally, the notion that NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS are by their very nature less ideological and more straight than their cable alternatives is — well, truth, reality and fairness are in the eyes of the beholder. Reporting and analyzing the news have always been separate entities (except perhaps in the New York Times, which is known to editorialize on its front page) and must be guarded by serious journalists and hopefully understood by the public.

Finally, to voice dislike of Fox is as American as apple pie, but to call for its elimination as an opinion source, particularly because those opinions run counter to those in seats of power, is not only ignoble but also menaces the freedoms our founders and their successors in our armed forces have fought and died for. There will ever be a need for Hans Christian Andersen's child who notes correctly, "The emperor has no clothes!"

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via e-mail at JKarlUSMC@aol.com.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Jamie Duong December 8, 2010 | 10:14 a.m.

Mr. Miller,

I just read your recent column "Fox News no more biased than all other media" and I have to say your over simplification of the "is Fox News actually news?" question was quite disappointing. While I should preface my comment by saying that I do not think Fox News or any media outlet should be forced from the airwaves, I think that calling what they do news quite insulting to actual reporters and journalists. If you don't believe me, take a look at any of Jon Stewart's many segments mocking Fox and Friends.

Time and time again people have taken a hard look at the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and found them to have not only disseminated very questionable material as if it were fact, but often they have straight up lied. No other news outlet went out hiring as many Clinton administration officials as Fox News did Bush administration officials. No other news outlet has had so many potential potential Democratic presidential candidates on their payroll as Fox News has Republicans.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 10:30 a.m.

Putrid Pundits:

You need to post under your real name. This isn't a Trib refugee forum where you can hide behind a pseudonym. Man (or woman) up.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 8, 2010 | 10:38 a.m.

Stating that the fox network provides any objectivity in it's news is like pretending that the christian broadcasting network provides an unbiased view of atheism and other religions. In fact, that "news" is the first thing that comes to my mind when I search for something that compares to that which is provided by the fox network.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 8, 2010 | 10:51 a.m.

No mikey, this IS a trib refugee forum. You remember me, don't you? I remember YOU. But thanks for having that one's opinion that you didn't like deleted. It shows that you favor a fair and balanced media.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 11:07 a.m.

Everyone has an agenda. Me, too. The question is whether the agenda is open....or hidden. Bias in the media is often obvious, and can be a surprise; for example, remember the yips of on-air joy by Dan Rather when Florida initially fell for Gore. The overall selection of pundits is a good clue, as are the various editorial comments if we're talking about a newspaper. Exposed, fabricated stories and bias in the choice, content, and tone of news are good warning signals. For the latter, bias can be evidenced by choices of words and phrases; after all, if a message is being sent...subtle or not..., why use words without a good clout?

All-in-all, it's a shame we've come to this point with our news. It's a trust issue, really. When I was young, if Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, or Ed R. Murrow said something, then it WAS the truth, by gawd. The news was simply stated, then I was left to make up my own mind. At least it seemed so in my younger opinion....ummmm.....perhaps I should go back to my first sentence in this missive.

And, of course, we have to worry about reporters, newspapers, internet webpages, pundits, talk-show hosts of all stripes, owners, and editors who personally and professionally benefit from a real good "Gotcha!". Now THERE'S an agenda!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 11:19 a.m.

Paul: The unknown poster broke the rules. This site does not belong to us. We are expected to follow the rules. There is no-such-thing as First Amendment Rights or fair-and-balanced when posting on someone else's forum. I'm sure the unknown poster is free to re-post his/her identical thoughts under their real name, and I encourage him/her to do so.

In cases such as this, I intend to help the Missourian monitor this place. I will not participate in a clone of the anonymous trash of the former Trib site.

Yes, I remember you and all your prior Trib handles. I'm sure the Missourian is aware, too, and will make proper decisions based upon your pending as-yet-posted...posts.

My preference, based upon past experiences, is that you scroll me.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 8, 2010 | 11:29 a.m.

"I will not participate in a clone of the anonymous trash of the former Trib site."

because they wanted you to pay money.

You participated for years.

"In cases such as this, I intend to help the Missourian monitor this place."

In cases when someone says that with which you disagree.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle December 8, 2010 | 11:32 a.m.

I think the amount of bias is the same on either side. I think the amount of bald-faced inaccuracy and distortion is greatest on Fox news.

On the face of it, it's so sadly ironic. Throughout history, a fox has been a common symbol of cunning trickery and deceitfulness. Now, half the nation is listening to the advice of a fox. So far, we've gotten ourselves into one heck of a mess, but... the fox knows just what to do to get us out!

Good luck with that, and buy more of those special gold coins. You'll be rich!

The h4x354x0r

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 11:36 a.m.

Paul:

Lol. I left out a word: Corrected, "I will not "again" participate in a clone of the anonymous trash of the former Trib site."

You mis-read one thing, tho. There is no link between whether I disagree with someone's post and whether I flag a comment. If you want proof, create a fictitious handle and post the following: "Michael Williams is the greatest chemist in the world!"

I'll flag it.

But I'll also hopefully ask that you re-post it under your real name.

If you would be so kind.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 11:41 a.m.

Derrick!!!!!!!!!

Ol' h4......good to see ya, bud!

honk, honk!!!!!!

;^)

(Report Comment)
Jamie Duong December 8, 2010 | 11:57 a.m.

I notice that while Michael Williams objected to my nameless post, he did not object to any of the content that I posted. Guess it's hard to deny the truth.

Jamie Duong aka Putrid Pundits
more of an Alter Ego than a Pseudonym

blog.putridpundits.com

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 8, 2010 | 12:05 p.m.

Mike, there is nothing that you could cook for me in your lab that would make me utter such a statement.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 12:06 p.m.

Jamie says, "I notice that while Michael Williams objected to my nameless post, he did not object to any of the content that I posted."
_______________________

You are correct, and thank you for the complement. I support the Missourian's rules in this matter and appreciate their efforts, and that's why I flagged the comment. If I had agreed or disagreed with your post, and if I had wanted to respond, I would have done so. Thank you for re-posting the same content under your real name, but I have no wish to respond.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 12:13 p.m.

dang fat fingers........

complement = compliment.

(Do I get points in the contest for pointing out my own spelling and grammatical errors? Hope not, 'cause this could get outa hand in a real hurry.)

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote December 8, 2010 | 1:48 p.m.

Lol,
Had to check to make sure this wasn't an April 1st column.

I am unaware of any news organization that would argue in open court that they have a first amendment right to lie to their audience:
http://www.rense.com/general35/MEDIA.HTM...

(Report Comment)
Jamie Duong December 8, 2010 | 3:09 p.m.

Well put Christopher.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 4:01 p.m.

Well, Christopher...the whole thing might be extraordinarily distasteful, but do you REALLY want someone making those kinds of decisions? This isn't black/white stuff. When is a "lie" a "lie"? Is not reporting on a truth (an event) a lie by omission? Is the careful use of prose and sentence structure to provoke an emotion a lie? If I say, "Keith Olbermann is an ass!", is that a lie? What about, "Rush Limbaugh is an ass!"? What should happen to the...NYT, for example...if it published a fabricated story on climate change?

Now if you wanna set up a program for holding the news media AND politicians feet to the "lie" fire, I just might get less principled, lol.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller December 8, 2010 | 4:42 p.m.

Mr Duong, I have no problem understanding that a number of people will disagree with the content of my columns--in fact, I expect that will be the case more often than not. Nevertheless, it appears in your haste to correct my wayward path, you neglected to read paragraphs 7 and 8. In doing so, you ignored my point that Hannity, Beck, et al,do not report news but rather offer their own analysis--an ofering people may accept or reject.

You may choose to like or dislike FOX News--that is your absolute, inalienable right. However, for your opinion to be relevant, you must be able to distinguish between that which is news and that which is opinion commentary. Neither Hannity, nor Beck, nor O'Reilly nor comic Jon Stewart pass muster as reporters.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 8, 2010 | 4:48 p.m.

J Karl Miller says, "Neither Hannity, nor Beck, nor O'Reilly nor comic Jon Stewart pass muster as reporters."
__________________________

Absolutely, positively, categorically.......true.

Lot's of others, too. On ALL sides of the fence.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 8, 2010 | 7:02 p.m.

What I thought we were discussing here is not the commentators. That every one of them has a bias is a given. I thought someone might have been discussing the "news" portion of their programming, scant as it is.

(Report Comment)
David Rosman December 8, 2010 | 11:26 p.m.

Karl - Thanks for the kind words. Yes, we may disagree, but we do respect the other's opinion. Unlike some the respondents to this column. Paul and Pundit are well known to me, though I never responded to their miscarriages of editorial privileged. I fear they are the very people I use as examples in my ethics class - those who do not use critical thinking or listening nor research their positions. Unlike George, Karl and me.

By the way Karl - You're wrong, but I'll talk to about it over a beer.

(Report Comment)
Justin Ritter December 9, 2010 | 1:36 a.m.

I pitched the ol' boob tube overboard about a decade ago, but every now and then I still accidentally bump into some Fox or CNN moving picture "news". Certainly, there is some factual information presented to the viewing audience, but I find the prevalence of the opinionated talking heads sickening, and unbecoming of national news. It is similar to, as the Colonel mentioned in his article, the NYT editorializing on its front page. Except it's on every page. I believe there is plenty of room on TV for professional opinionators, but I don't want them to be on the same screen as the people I want to hear facts from. And I definitely don't want them to be the same person.

News is to be had from diverse sources, in print and on the interwebs. I like to shuffle it up - no sense in letting one group of people (agenda or not) define my local, national, and global realities. I like it best when I can't discern their political beliefs. Of course, it's a little more work to find my news from diverse (non-TV) sources, but, hey, with no TV shows to watch I've got some extra time on my hands.

(Report Comment)
John Bliss December 9, 2010 | 10:52 a.m.

First, Michael & Paul combined, 14 posts! Really? Get a room boys! Now, Colonel, thank you for this piece, I have been lucky enough to know a person with "street smarts", and just plain brillant, now working for FOX! Go figure! Colonel, years ago, to watch the news, it WAS Walter, hands down...then Rather took over and CBS went too down the tube.
For awhile, I enjoyed that Canadian, Peter Jennings, then I was looking for someone after his passing away. NBC, then Brokaw retired. That left, the internet, and the BBC when I could get it. Ah, Dish Network, Now I have FOX! thanks Colonel

(Report Comment)
Clara Allen December 9, 2010 | 12:01 p.m.

J Karl Miller says:

However, for your opinion to be relevant, you must be able to distinguish between that which is news and that which is opinion commentary.

*******

Um, good luck with that. The public's ability to distinguish between news/editorial, fact/opinion and objective/subjective is sorely lacking. Anything you might do to further public education along these lines would be greatly appreciated. Most people hear (see and read) what they want to hear. Rupert Murdoch banks on it.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm December 9, 2010 | 12:49 p.m.

I agree that Fox, MSNBC, NPR etc are all biased to certain degrees. I agree that Olberman/Maddow are to MSNBC as O’Reilly/Hannity are to Fox (Glenn Beck is a lunatic and if you can’t see that you need to set up an appointment with a psychiatrist or go back to elementary school because you are either crazy or unbelievably dumb). Do I think the degree to which Fox is biased is greater than the rest? Yes I do, however I do not believe that is the point that should be examined here.

I'm sure most of us recall the recent Fox News story about President Obama's $200 million per day trip to India? How about the edited video that led to Shirley Sherrod getting fired? Maybe you saw the new story of Fox News’s leaked memos that showed how Fox spun healthcare coverage to help the GOP? Maybe you read about Fox news allowing GOP candidates to solicit political campaign donations on air or how Fox News’s parent company News Corp donated millions to GOP candidates?

Stories like these are what separate Fox News from the other networks. Fox News consistently and blatantly lies and misrepresents facts to its viewers. There is no way that an organization as large as Fox and with all its resources could possible get so many stories so wrong and so often. Do the other networks show bias towards a party, policy, or candidate? Yes they do. Do other networks lie to their viewers, edit video and images, and allow political candidates to solicit donations on their airwaves? No they don’t. This is why Fox News is not an independent journalistic organization or even an entertainment organization. They are a political organization with political goals that they actively work towards and they should be treated as such.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 9, 2010 | 1:08 p.m.

David Rosman says....

"Unlike some the respondents to this column. Paul and Pundit are well known to me, though I never responded to their miscarriages of editorial privileged. I fear they are the very people I use as examples in my ethics class - those who do not use critical thinking or listening nor research their positions. Unlike George, Karl and me."

Wow Davey, I glad that you respect the opinions of others. Well, I'm glad that you respect the opinions of some others anyway. I'm not sure what is an editorial privileged. That's probably because I did not complete college. However, I did "research" fox news more than long enough to draw an accurate conclusion. I watched it every time it was on somewhere where I had to be. I marveled. I asked myself how it was possible. Kind of like me now asking myself how someone who calls himself a journalist could write so childishly. Oh wait, I know... you've been studying a master.
I'm pleased to know that I am, in your words, well known to you. I can testify that, before I logged on here a couple days ago, you were completely unknown to me. Smack yourself hard for that. Now as far as critical thinking is concerned, you have not engaged me on one point. What you chose to engage in instead is a somewhat rabid character assassination. I never was one for liking rules, but it seems to me that that sort of internet behavior flies in the face of the rules of the paper that you work for.
But hey, thanks for that. You bring back memories of the kind of conversations that I had occasionally with drunk fraternity folks. And we won't be discussing this over a cup of beer.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller December 9, 2010 | 3:47 p.m.

Dave...I would enjoy tilting with you over a beer or a cup of coffee--while we often disagree, we are grownups. I peruse the online commentary for an amusement factor of 80 percent, the remaining 20 percent often demonstrate original thought.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 10, 2010 | 2:39 p.m.

I used to use the tribune as my scratching post. I debated anyone worth debating and ventilated every time I found it necessary. While I often had harsh words for people, usually based directly on what they were saying or trying to, I was more disappointed when I couldn't get a decent retort. For someone to really annoy me they had to do more than just disagree. They had to have bad form.

But now I am here and I am going to compare J. Miller with D. Rosman. It appears that Rosman has had more formal education and writing experience than Miller. The central idea presented in most of his columns aligns with my opinions while Miller's are mainly the opposite. Both items are important and place Rosman on my "good guy" list. However, if I had to choose one of the two to keep and one to fire I would keep Miller without hesitation.

J. Miller presented his honest opinion, erroneous as it was, and when confronted with facts, he was willing to come on here and restate his points in the event that someone might have missed them the first time. He was willing to participate in substantive debate in a constructive and respectful manner. He took ownership of his words and stood behind them. He backed his opinion with a few facts.

This contrasts with the words from D. Rosman. The only thing that he said that remotely resembled debate was: "By the way Karl - You're wrong, but I'll talk to about it over a beer." That may be well for J. Karl Miller, but how about the rest of us? The place where the remainder of us find ourselves might be inferred from the haughty arrogant tone of the remainder of his comment which I quoted yesterday.

If Rosman was as familiar with my writing as he claims then he would have known that I generally dissect the writing of anyone I debate with and take them point for point when they lay themselves out. He would have known not to lay himself out.
Continued...

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 10, 2010 | 3:07 p.m.

Unfortunately for us, David Rosman HAS no points. He has strong words of condemnation for those who he dislikes and not because of their opinion but because of his perception of the tone of their words. He mixes that with a pat on the back and a reminder that he is an adult (senior citizen perhaps?).
He states that he teaches ETHICS and yet has none as evidenced by the fact that he was willing to come on here in a weak effort to run off those who agree with his opinion but fail to uphold his standards of petty snobbery. I fail to see how anyone with even the slightest amount of ethics could make a comment like this: "I fear they are the very people I use as examples in my ethics class - those who do not use critical thinking or listening nor research their positions."
I will state now that I did listen to that sentence. He thought it up. It was critical. But did he do his research? Anyone viewing this can go into the trib archives and find my comments. It should be self evident that I used "critical thinking" when making them. I don't often post links or leave footnotes when making a debate. I usually don't even remember where the first or last place was that I read something. But HEY, neither does the person who attacked me. It's not my style. It's not his style. But I'm not going to claim that he didn't research his position.

That would be bad form. It would be an unethical debate style. It offers nothing to the argument. It is something that I could neither prove nor disprove. It is something that I could only infer, mainly to the naive. And that is what he thinks of you the reader. He thinks about as much of you as he thought of the pundit and I who he attacked.

I speculate regarding whether he is still feeling as if he has "got one over" at this point. Why do the lowest order of scum always choose to go against me when they wish to initiate their demise? Mr. Rosman has decided that my point of view works to the detriment of his similar view. I contend that his brand of academic elitism works more to the detriment of anything he advocates. I express the deepest sympathy for those attending his classes.

(Report Comment)
Charles Coleman December 10, 2010 | 3:48 p.m.

Hello all - first time on Missourian - refugee from Tribune.
My guess is that most of the respondents to this column have never worked in the news gathering business. I have, with NBC News in New York (TODAY, and two Presidential elections) during late '70's and early '80's. While no one every contradicted the thought that most of the staff and on-camera personnel were liberal in personal philosophy, there was a real effort to make sure that this was not evident on-screen. For the most part this was successful: thus the high esteem for Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, Chancellor, Brokaw, Severide, etc. Today, there is no way that this claim can be made, whether on the network side or with the cable "news" channels. Journalists are few and far between; most of those who claim that title are advocates of one view point or another. The fall from grace that the "news business" has experienced has been precipitous: talk about a slippery slope. I pine for the return of a Pat Weaver or Bill Small (former network news presidents who shaped the business in the early days) to turn this situation around. Instead the general public is left to its own devices to try and ferret out the truth from the myriad opinions delivered under the guise of newscasting. (B-T-W: this could just as well be said of newspapers.) Instead of making less than helpful remarks and personal attacks like many have made before me, we should be demanding honest news gathering and dissemination, both over the air, on the internet, and in print.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger December 10, 2010 | 4:41 p.m.

Begging your pardon, Mr. Allaire, but are you not the person who flippantly--and incessantly--dismissed substantive comment by saying, "Send them to Iraq!"? My apologies if I'm confusing you with someone else.

(Report Comment)
Ed Ricciotti December 10, 2010 | 5:06 p.m.

"""It appears that Rosman has had more formal education and writing experience than Miller."""

Being an officer, he would have at least a 4 year degree. Also he was a field grade officer and "usually" those who achieved that rank have higher degrees. Not sure if that's the case, but i wouldn't assume a lack of formal education.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 10, 2010 | 5:53 p.m.

Hank, on here I just sent Jim Morrison to Iraq, for the heinous crimes he was pardoned for recently. I send everyone to Iraq that did something really really serious, generally something so serious that I have to wonder why it even made the paper in the first place. Kind of my way of saying that I would like to see some actual news when I open the paper or the computer screen, whichever it is. I wouldn't necessarily expect you to understand, but I would expect someone with a small bit of intelligence to.

In no way did I interrupt any kind of meaningful discussion when I advocated for the sending of anyone to Iraq. No animals were hurt in my exclamations. This does not represent a legally binding contract. It is not available in all states. Your mileage may vary. Do not try this at home. Have a nice day. Or go straight the hell to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
Yves Montclear December 10, 2010 | 7:04 p.m.

Wow, is this actually a robust discussion of differing views on The Columbia Missourian web site? And without all the spelling errors?

From reading the previous posts, I'd have to type that the IQ of the average 'poster' here has risen about 20 points from the Tribune's web site.

Not that I agree or disagree with a lot of what has been written by anybody in the comments to this editorial, but at least they are readable.

If nothing else, you all are making J. Karl Miller happy.

It seems odd, that most of the politicians we elect these days end up 'middle of the road'. While the media 'stars' who discuss politics in any media form, the most popular ones, are either wildly to the right or left.

Something to think about...and welcome to America.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 10, 2010 | 10:31 p.m.

I've been gone all day.

What the hell happened? Why is Bill Clinton standing at the President's podium addressing the news media on the economy? Where is the guy I thought was the President of the United States? Did Obama resign and re-appoint Clinton to a 3rd term? Has such a thing ever happened before, a former president standing at the current president's podium addressing the news media?

All I did was go to the farm. Did I step into a worm hole or sumpin' and lose 15 years? Does this mean I'm only 46?

There's no place in this newspaper to tag these questions.....

Maybe tomorrow.

(Report Comment)
Yves Montclear December 10, 2010 | 11:59 p.m.

Yes, Michael, maybe you missed it. Even just being gone for a few hours. There will be no farm for you to go to soon.

WalMart money, and Chinese\Taiwan\Korean imports are still running this economy in the U.S. of A.

And backing the Bill and Hillary Clinton experience. Just Google...Bill and Hillary with WalMart.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements