I suspect you will notice the same ratio at the GOP convention...unless CNN shows less. If not, I will stand corrected. FNC has always been about more intelligent discussion and less rehearsed lines from politicians, so it fits their mantra to show less of the scripted speeches and have more analysis and interviews. Much of the time you mention was filled with interviews with liberals...Michael Moore included!

Certainly Fox News is not fair and balanced, but neither is the New York Times.

I absolutley, positivley cannot wait to see how much of the Republican convention gets covered on the major news outlets. And what the talking heads have to say about it. David Brooks (of the New York Times, no less, and a featured talking head on PBS) called Kerry's speech "incoherent". It's in last Saturday's Op-Ed, if you'd like to read it. He also said watching Barack Obama was "like watching Tiger Woods". I still haven't figured out what that means.

The only thing approaching unbiased news coverage is C-Span, which just shows the conventions without commentary, god bless 'em.

Sometimes I enjoy C-span...for nuances and little things going on that you wouldn't see otherwise. But an evening of unchallenged rhetoric (from either party) is the not the most enjoyable way to watch a convention for me.

Interesting you should mention Kerry's speech, too. I personally, thought it was poor. I thought he struggled and rushed much of it, stuttered and talked over important, possibly inspirational applause points, and sweated profusely. I was trying to be as objective as possible, but by the end I really felt he had failed miserably to connect with the American people. However, afterwords all of the talking heads were praising the speech INCLUDING supposedly right wing FNC. I was SCREAMING at Brit Hume then desperately flipping around looking for someone who saw the same things I did...bet you guys would have paid to see that!

At one point, I think I might have even called Fred Barnes a "M-F'er"...

If I may use some strong language, I fucking hate news commentators. I think that they are all full of shit. I resent the extent to which news has become entertainment and news casters/talking heads make these empty, meaingless statements of opinion and expect to have them treated as fact.

Whoo! I'm getting a little worked up.

My point is that the lack of commentary is exactly what I like about C-Span. I don't like to have some windbag telling me what this meant or what was implied there. I don't feel that they offer anything of substance. They're just making shit up on the spot. I can do that myself.

I wasn't overly impressed with Kerry's speech either, actually, by which I mean I think he could have done better. It was good for what it was. I agreed with his points, though I suspect Dude did not :) Barack Obama, on the other hand, was amazing.

No need to get worked up...I understood your point. With which I partially agreed. I also agree with your assesment of most news analysis. When they are sitting around the roundtable bullshitting, I am only watching to see what viewers are being fed (the reason I was screaming at the Tv...). What I DO appreciate is GOOD INTERVIEWS by intelligent interviewers that challenge things that may may be questionable in fact. To me, this is journalism in it's purest form. I believe that is when the public is best served, rather than by speeches. I would actually prefer the public do the research on their own...but I suppose it would also be cool if pigs could fly. A good and challenging interview is the next best thing.

I agreed with alot of what Kerry said. For instance "God bless America" and "Good Evening". Other things like "the President should tell the truth to the American people" I also agreed with. Unfortunately, coming from him the statement is empty and political.

To continue my tradition today of two posts in a row...as an afterthought I was just thinking that there is sometimes value in analysis. For instance - and the qualifier of course is the journalist must not be a moron, tall order - after a speech, as someone who understands politics reasonably well, I always appreciate it when it is pointed out what this line or that line was likely inserted for. Every line of a convention speech is carefully orchestrated to walk a political tightrope, appealling to this segment of voters without offending that segment. I like it when astute commentators point those things out. Unfortunately, that is a bit rare...and they often, like you said, are making up shit.

Moveon, very centrist and unbiased. George Soros (billionaire) is very even handed.

I'm still pretty tired and bleary-eyed this morning, so I'm not sure if I am imagining this, but it appears someone here just indirectly defended FOx News. Hold on...let me rub my eyes...yup!

Speaking of George Soros, he is funding alot of the behind-the-scenes efforts to discredit the President. There is alot of money in institutional liberalism these days.

BTW...got a little trivia for everyone. Out of the four candidates (Presidential and Vice), which one has the LEAST net worth? Any guesses?

I'm going to go with Bush. After all, he has a knack for running companies into the ground. Oh, and lets not forget his check balancing skills. What is the deficit up to now? $400B?

If Bush has poor business skills, maybe he should have married into it like Kerry, though $12 Million is hardly chump change, it was mostly earned through investment in America. See top five sources of income for each candidate at bottom. Firstthough, according to IRS figures filed in 2000 here are the net worths:

George and Laura Bush: $12 million
Dick and Lynn Cheney: $53 million
John and whatever-her-name-is Edwards: $70 million
John Forbes and Theresa Heinz Kerry: $1.63 BILLION

Not that I hold that in of itself against any of them. However, I just find the largely succesful distortion that they are the ticket and the party for the "common man" very fascinating considering the facts. The 5 richest U.S. Senators are also Democrats.

The President is not solely responsible for the federal budget (though admittedly must approve it)...but there was this thing called 9/11. Ryan, of all people here, I didn't think you were a September 10th-er (that's what I call Kerry and the many like him who seem to be stuck in time on September 10th, 2001). The deficit will adjust as the economy continues to improve anyway...and all a surplus means is that the people have been OVER-TAXED.

Here are the top five income sources for each candidate as reported by the IRS:

George W. Bush
Top 5 Income Sources
U S TREASURY NOTE DUE 05-15-06 $25,003 - $80,000
U S TREASURY NOTE DUE 05-15-04 $20,002 - $65,000
U S TREASURY NOTE DUE 05-15-07 $20,002 - $65,000
U S TREASURY NOTE DUE 02-15-03 $15,001 - $50,000
U S TREASURY NOTE DUE 02-15-04 $15,001 - $50,000

$347,852 - $1,076,000

John Kerry

Top 5 Income Sources
HEINZ H J CO $5,200,007 - $22,000,000
UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS (1) $260,005 - $2,130,000
LEXINGTON CAPITAL PARTNERS II L P NEW YORK NEW YORK (6,7) (SEE ATTACHMENT 4 OF 2001 REPORT) $130,003 - $1,100,000
BECTON DICKINSON & CO $105,002 - $1,015,000
COMERICA INC $105,002 - $1,015,000

$15,550,935 - $77,540,000

John Edwards

Top 5 Income Sources
Buyout provision of Interest in Law Firm (see Part IX) $1,250,000 - $1,250,000
AMERICAN GROWTH FD OF AMER-A $15,001 - $50,000
CHARLOTTE NC 4.75% GO $5,202 - $16,000
Bldg, TS&H investor Ptrship, Raleigh, NC $5,001 - $15,000
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB $5,001 - $15,000

$1,429,330 - $1,763,304

Dick Cheney

Top 5 Income Sources
SHORT-TERM TAX-EXEMPT FUND ADMIRAL SHARES (VWSUX) $102,502 - $1,005,000
INTER-TERM TAX-EXEMPT FUND ADMIRAL SHARES (VWIUX) $100,001 - $1,000,000
INTER-TERM TREASURY FUND ADMIRAL SHARES (VFIUX) $100,001 - $1,000,000
LIMITED-TERM TAX-EXEMPT FUND ADMIRAL SHARES (VMLUX) $100,001 - $1,000,000
SIMON & SCHUSTER INC $100,001 - $1,000,000

$836,820 - $5,649,392

Booya, Dude strikes again.

By the way, if anyone wants to verify, or just look at alot of interesting stuff in general, I got this info from

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin

If you explore the site, you will see it's not always a friendly site for Republicans...but the financial assets clearly have the Bush/Cheney ticket in the comparative poorhouse.