It's a rag founded by a cult leader who believes he's the second coming of christ.

So? Does he still own it? Is he involved in the editorial process?

By the way, the ACLU is founded by a Communist.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

So? A right-wing rag is run by a cultist, and your question is "so?"

that's priceless.

Yes: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newsworld


By the way, Roger Baldwin has been dead for nearly 30 years; and the ACLU champions libertarian ideals of individual rights...

It's not the media arm of a global cult.

What's priceless is your double standard. As demonstrated below. So apparently Washington Times writers are guilty by association. Funny, I read somewhere on this board where that is a fallacy. The Times offsets the numerous left wing rags like the NY Times, Newsweek, SF Chronicle, LA Times, etc.

They also own the UPI. Where is your complaint about them? This doesn't address whether he is involved in writing the news.

It was founded by a Commie. Just like your concern of the Times being founded by Moon.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I didn't say anything about the washington times writers, at all.

I didn't stumble upon a thread about UPI.

You don't understand how a cult leader's media arm addresses whether the minister is involved or not?

What if it's a media arm in a cult that wants to spread propaganda?

http://www.unification.net/news/news20001206.html

And, what if this is all part of his bizarre, (for-profit) quest for global domination?
http://www.unification.net/1984/840207.html


Who's dead.


Who is very much alive, and using the washington times, and their loyal patrons, to his cultish ends.

They're the ones who write the stories. If you're slandering the Times because of ownership then you are slandering the writers. Who apparently are guilty by association.

Feel free to demonstrate their bias as well.

No, unless of course you can prove that it's anything more than an investment. Ownership does not prove day to day involvement.

Convenient assumption, again...can you prove this?

What if it isn't. Can you prove this?

Based on your assumptions which lack any substantiation.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

You should look up the word "slander" and it's your argument that's trying to associate them with my critique of the content.


I'd prefer to focus, rather than engage this obsfucation.


Which is why I went on to prove that....


That's why I provided you with a quote from the cult leader.


It is: see the quotes.

Just because you ignore what's presented, doesn't mean it wasn't presented.

Look, if you're happy to read a rag that is operated as part of a cult's propoganda machine, that's fine.

To each their own...

But, you should at least understand that's what it is.

No it isn't, it's by default. You can't criticize the content of the Times without criticizing the authors. Since the articles do not write themselves.

In other words, you can not demonstrate that they are biased. Which is of course what is required for their works to be biased as you claimed. Unless you are making the obscure claim that they are unbiased writers who write biased articles.

If a quote from a cult leader proved anything, alas it does not.

What you presented proved nothing.

I don't read it actually, but if you read Newsweek or other left wing rags the difference is splitting hairs.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

This is an association you're building as part of a strawman.



I'm not talking about the writers, that's you and your strawman. Are you claiming that the stories are not biased?

That's pretty funny. I would think the bias would be obvious, even to those with the same bias.

This blog documents some of their most ridiculous examples of bias:
http://www.dailyhowler.com






How does it not? It proves that it's the media arm of his cult.

I proved that the cult leader uses the paper as part of a propaganda war.

You can say "Nuh-uh" but an argument that does not make.

I can provide more quotes, confirming the newspaper's status as Moon's propaganda weapon.

What cult leader uses Newsweek as part of his propaganda arm? There's a huge difference between a paper that has an ideological slant, and one that's a cult's propaganda arm, as it's founder and owner says that it is.

No it isn't, you have yet to explain how stories can be biased without the authors being biased themselves. But feel free to demonstrate this.

No, it's no strawman at all. You claimed the stories are biased. By definition that would mean the authors are biased or that the articles either wrote themselves or just appeared out of thin air.

So what? GE owns NBC, they aren't involved in their newsrooms and what stories they write. Unless you can prove that is the case here, then ownership does not = influence.

You proved ownership. You did not prove that their stories are propoganda based upon that ownership. Interesting to note, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Out of one side you say the articles are propoganda, but out of the other side you are saying you're not claiming the authors are biased. So non-biased authors are writing propoganda is what you just implied.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.