In hilarious Gotcha!, Kurtz shoves she said/she said into readers' faces

[Rose Siding]

Early in the chat he answered a couple of questions about the discrepancies between the Post's news and editorial pages yesterday. Those readers were, shall we say, "reality based" in that they seemed to favor opinions that are drawn after an examination of the facts.

Then came Columbia, Md. from The Other Side and Howie squealed with delight-

Columbia, Md.: I would take an opposite view from the others who ask the question. Doesn't it make the reporters look foolish when the editorial page is so dead on with their analysis while the reporters are basically carrying the water of those who are against President Bush?

Howard Kurtz: Okay, so now we have the opposite comment from a couple of earlier ones. The Bush critics say the reporters are right on and the editorial writers have no integrity, are mangling the facts, etc. As a Bush supporter, you believe the editorial was brave and bold and the reporters are a bunch of Bush-haters, or at least allies of Bush-haters. I couldn't ask for a better case study in how the ideology of some readers affects their perception of what is fair or accurate.

He said/he said lives: Ideological position A is based in the fact filled news report,
while B, resting upon wishes and ether, is given equal weight.

http://www.tauzero.com.nyud.net:8090/Brenda_Laurel/For_Kids/JustWhatIwanted/RubySlippers.jpg

[Canuckistanian]

1. It's a fine balance betwen truth

and truthiness. And the WaPo has mastered it.

[ClassWarrior]

2. This Modern World nailed it this week...

NGU.

[Rose Siding]

3. That is perfect

"It's not an opinion, up is up" :rofl: