That kind of thing pisses me off. To me, a professional journalist should model themselves much like a judge, without bias.

You wouldn't want a judge to yell out, "oh shit, they've got you there!" in the middle of a trial.

Wait a minute. Are you saying journalists are generally liberal? That just can't be. :)

The funny thing is...and I am going to surprise you here...I have no problem with their expressing themselves when they are not working, I think it's totally fine. The only point I wanted to make was (again) which way they lean. The only thing that pisses me off is agenda-driven news in the guise of "journalism" which happens every day on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and NPR.

As far as FNC (cause I know you are thinking it)The perception that FNC has a conservative slant comes form the fact that it's the only TV news outlet that allows the right to be heard! Furthermore, though more conservative sides are representated...they are almost always given equal time with the liberal side (they even bring the real leftists nuts on that never get time on the other networks). The level of debate is much more vigourous and inclusive than that of any competetor, and thus should make the product superior in the eyes of conservatives and liberals alike. I guess it doesn't cause it sucks to have the other side heard. :o)

When FNC has to tell the public over and over that their news is "fair and balanced" you know something is up. ; )

Yeah Ryan, that slogan has been around since the network's inception in 1996. The philosophy from the beginning was to offer an alternative to viewers tired of the leftist slant of the mainstream media. That has never been a secret.

Perhaps some of the snickering was well deserved.

My friend Laura attended the conference and heard both bush's and kerry's speaches. She said that neither of the candidates seemed to be well prepared to speak and perhaps had only received a small briefing on who the audience would be, namely, minority journalists. This of course includes asian, african, and native americans.

Bush's speach was about how nations and people ought to be soverign. When a native american asked him after his speach what he thought soverignty meant for the american indian he stood there with his mouth hanging open for about half a minute. He then said "Soverignty is being soverign." followed by more gaping and then launching into a defense of his administration's education policies or something.

She didnt tell me much about Kerry's speach except that she found it to be much more intelligent.

Perhaps in light of that snickering was deserved. Its kind of pathetic that a journalist cannot express his or her own opinion when merely attending a conference geared toward them specifically. Its not like this was an event they were to report on, it was a conference specifically for minority journalists.

I dont like bias in my news any more than the next person but i see no problem with a group of professionals expressing their opinion at a conference organized solely for their benefit.

I agree. The bias in your friend's account is dually noted (half a minute? That would be leading NBC news for the rest of the week).

As far as the question about soveigrnty, I know I wouldn't have been near as polite or engaging if asked such an obviously loaded and irrelevant question in relation to the topic I had just discussed.

My followup question would have been, "Mr. President, could you please define the word 'sovereign' without using the word 'sovereign'."

I bet he couldn't do it. I bet he can't define more than half the words he uses that have 8 or more letters.

That is interesting. I fail to see how the question posed by the journalist regarding the soverignty of native americans is "irrelevant" to the topic of soverignty of people and nations. Perhaps Bush should have picked a less "loaded" topic to speak to such an audience about.

I admit, my friend is no lover of Bush however I dont find her account unbelievable based on other talks ive heard Bush give.

I believe he was speaking about US soverignty in the context of foreign policy. After all, he is the President of the United States, not the President of Ojibwe (or Potawatomi, or Seminole or Hoe Chunk...etc.). If they want him to waste his time addressing their "soverignty" then they should stop benefitting from federal programs and completely cut themselves off from all other benefits enjoyed by citizens and taxpayers of the United States. Then, they could legitimately ask the President to address their "soverignty" from the perspective of a foreign power. Otherwise, the question is absolutely irrelevant and frankly, insulting. I think his answer was appropriate considering the audacity of the question.

Listen to the clip here. I have to agree with Gizmo that foreign policy and a nation's sovereignty are completely co-topical. The reason you and I aren't the president, Dude, is that we are not able to be as 'polite' or 'tactful' as the president. But that's a trait a leader ought to have.

Publicly hating injuns is only going to gain you popularity in some segments of America's population. Again, that's why you and I aren't the president. :)

"I have to agree with Gizmo that foreign policy and a nation's sovereignty are completely co-topical."

I agree with both of you, unfortunately that was never in question.

Just listened to the clip. Fucking horrible answer...lol...I stand corrected.

I also stand by my position that the question was ridiculous.