"Liberal" Media Exposed/the facts

[MalignD at aol.com]

<< National Public Radio and the New York Times arrived at the same

conclusion about the anti-war rally in Washington, DC this weekend: The

turnout was disappointing.  But neither report matched reality. ...   The Los

Angeles Times (10/27/02) reported that over 100,000 participated in the

march, while the Washington Post's page A1 story (10/27/02) was headlined

"100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq."  ...  While both the Times and 
NPR reported the apparent disappointment of the organizers, none were named 
or quoted directly.  Those who spoke to other news outlets expressed just the 
opposite; organizer Mara

Verheyden-Hilliard told the Washington Post the march was "just extremely,

extremely successful.">> 

--  http://www.fair.org/

One shouldn't rightly hope for something as bald as this. 

Putting aside the fact that estimates for such rallies have been, 
historically, inconsistent, JB Frame readily concludes that NPR and the Times 
are "exposed," whereas the LA and Wash. Posts are giving accurate a
ssessments, this conclusion drawn from the "reporting" of "www.fair.org," 
whomever he/she/they may be.  Further indictment drawn from the fact that the 
The Times and NPR didn't cite their sources, whereas "other [unnamed] news 
outlets" spoke to one of the rally's organizers, certainly an unbiased source.

Similarly, the on-line journalist says: 

<<Yeah, the San Francisco Police reported 40,000 in SF Saturday, the SF 
Comical published that number, but credible observers report twice that 
number.>>  

Unnamed "credible" observers being, one assumes from context, those who 
reported a larger turn-out.

<If it's in the Post, it's got to be true? >>  Certainly not.  if it's on the 
Internet, however ...