YOu show a gross error in logic when you accuse Fox of not being Fair and Balanced. Instead of showing statistics on negative vs positive on Kerry Vs Bush, you show negative vs Positive vs other media outlets. That only proves that one or the other is not fair and balanced, and it has already been demonstrated that many of the other media outlets were not fair and Balanced.

Fair and Balanced does not mean reporting one good story for each bad one. It means reporting news and not commentary. We know that ABC, CBS, CNN and the NYT all tried to smear Bush, as most would have expected. So comparing Fox to them seems to make Fox a lot more fair and balanced.

Next time, try an analysis of Fox that shows their negativity of Bush vs their negativity of Kerry. That is a greater indication of fair and balanced than comparing them to Dan Rather and CBS.

And the Swift Vets were a legitimate news story as Kerry never denied the allegations, and to this day refuses to do so. That one did not want his name on the list does not negate the story. He did not even deny the story, just that he did not want to be a part of the political campaign.

And the Swift Vets were a legitimate news story as Kerry never denied the allegations, and to this day refuses to do so. That one did not want his name on the list does not negate the story. He did not even deny the story, just that he did not want to be a part of the political campaign.

in anticipation of wesley clark's 2nd run for the whitehouse in 2008, ive had the good sense and forsight to invest in my future by reserving the domain name swiftunpeacekeepingforceinbosniacommandersfortruth.com. the money ill make from that wont make the bullshit about clark's 4th star any less palatable or more true but...

Kerry lost because more people voted for Bush.

Well, I'll file this under 'duh'. No, not really making fun of you, little whip, you've just taken everything and melted it down to brass tacks. I agree with you, although, either way the margin was close, but people voted for Bush more than Kerry. And as political pundits, we try to do autopsies on why. I'm just sick of the huge number of articles that say this side/that side went negative, and this side/that side died because of it.

And the Swift Vets were a legitimate news story as Kerry never denied the allegations, and to this day refuses to do so. That one did not want his name on the list does not negate the story. He did not even deny the story, just that he did not want to be a part of the political campaign.

Umm...mrrr? Maybe Kerry decided that it was such bunk not to waste his time on it. If every candidate denied everything every thing every small group said about them, they'd be on defense mode and not discussing the issues. As it is, I tend to think if you have to use dishonest tactics just form a political attack, it tends to say something negative about your credibilty. You know, I'd be more inclined to believe Fox was 'fair and balanced' if they weren't so 'neo-conservative'. If they were a little bit biased towards Bush vs. Kerry, that'd make sense.

Here's what I don't get: People blame Michael Moore, Hollywood liberals, and pretty much anyone who endorsed Kerry and/or talked about Bush negatively for his loss because of backlash against these people. But If Ohio went the other way, would it be Ann Coulter, country music stars, and Rush Limbaugh's fault that Bush lost?

They'd probably cite it that way. It doesn't matter, because going negative hardly ever causes anyone to lose in and of itself.