Whenever I see the far right and the far left bashing someone, I take notice, because I can imagine that that person is getting something right! But, the cable news media, no matter if it's Trump, Cruz, Bernie or Hillary try their best to define each candidate, or promotes opposing candidate definitions of a candidate. Saves them from having to do in-depth reporting.
And the rest of us are all wrong?
And she didn't lie about Benghazi?
And she didn't lie about being under a hail of bullets?
And she didn't lie and throw mud over all of Bill's accusers?
And she didn't steal the china and silver wear from the WH?
And she claimed she was "broke" after leaving the WH?
And she couldn't answer a simple question with a yes or no posed by CBS news when she was asked if she ever lied to the American public?
Thank you for busting the "myth", Matt, if only in your mind. LOL
should be defining a presidential candidate, or carrying water for one candidate, who is trying to do so against another candidate! 
P.S. Notice I included some of the other candidates, in that criticism, not just Hillary!
Newspapers have editorial boards and endorse candidates all the time going back hundred years and more.
Aren't they defining a candidate and carrying water for another?
Your link was about Hills so that is why I addressed her.
Which would not stop Fox from defining everything Hillary and the president do as bad but would at least require some air time for the opposing view
And if you would stop touching yourself every time Megyn Kelly is on air, you might actually hear all the pro-Hillary voices that are on Fox...every...single...day...on ...virtually...every ...single ...show.
Now, this path may allow you to venture down a road to find the "facts" but my guess is you will still take the detour. LO
Fox News Contributor who had defended Hillary in the email scandal. The best I’ve heard is Britt Hume who said it was 50/50 whether she would be indicted. Judge Nap is on almost every day saying how much trouble she is in. Fox even had a former atty general who wrongly claimed she could not be president if convicted.
When President Obama defended her on Fox, the Fox follow up was to say he should not comment on that, even though Fox had asked him LOL.
But just give us one Fox News Contributor who says she is innocent. Given all the “pro Hillary voices on Fox every single day on every single show,” this shouldn’t take you long. I do plead guilty to not watching Fox very often.
Nonetheless I don't recommend that anyone stand behind Jack's truck when he puts it in gear.
,
Do you really need me to remind you of what you said earlier in this thread? I guess so:
"Which would not stop Fox from defining everything Hillary and the president do as bad but would at least require some air time for the opposing view."
Fox OBVIOUSLY gives tons of air time for opposing views, as witnessed by Debbie Wasserman Schulz being a regular guest on Megyn Kelly's show among many, many others every night on OReilly, Hannity, etc.
So when you realized you lost THAT argument, of course, you had to switch it to "Fox News Contributors."
Oh, ok. Lol.
You didn't just back the truck up, you left it sideways in a ditch! Lo
who has defended Hillary on the emails scandal. Okay, that‘s a start. But I still want to
“hear all the pro-Hillary voices that are on Fox...every...single...day...on ...virtually...every ...single ...show.”
You can only think of poor Debbie Wasserman Schultz defending Hillary on emails?
Well, okay, so “all the pro Hillary voices every single day on every single show” are really just one. It would be different under the Fairness Doctrine, wouldn't it?
Am I right, or am I right
Because I stand behind everything I said in this thread.
I grow bored with your goal post moving and your dishonesty tonite.
You are normally above that nonsense, even when we disagree.
... was lobbied heavily by the likes of Clear Channel Radio and Rupert Murdoch, and led directly to the rise of Conservative Right wing talk radio spearheaded by the odious and malevolent Rush Limbaugh.
I've had this argument with others on this board in the past, notably ed2000.
And if that is what Matt is saying, i'm in agreement with him
Did you have a problem for decades when they didn't?
Really Doc, have you lost your mind? You really think we need an "Unfairness Doctrine" in this day and age of TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, Twitter feeds, Pinterest, Instagram, web sites, mailers, etc etc etc
You think big, massive, federalized, corrupt, Washington DC should place restrictions on freedom? How has that worked out with the patriot act, Obama spying on Fox, the associated press, etc?
Good grief...guess what? The peeps get it and you, Mari, Laffy and a few others don't.
There is virtually NO interest in congress, on either side, nor is there with the folks to have the Feds determine what is "fair" or not.
The answer to speech you don't like, like Limbaugh's, isn't to stifle speech, it's to create more speech!
Do I really need to tell you all this
I think it has more to do with allowing for those to express an opposing view. Cable news has become so horrible that you have one paid hack from the Republican party screaming at another paid hack from the Democratic party, and we call it "news". No room for truth or objectivity or facts. Things are so bad now that in order to watch in-depth news reporting on TV, Americans now have to watch the BBC or Al Jazeera or something like that. Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave.
At least in the written press, I can find in-depth articles about issues and candidates, and there's no interrupting and talking over the person communicating their point. I read the WSJ, NYT's and the Washington Post, along with Huffington Post, Politico, and Real Politic, daily. I've seldom watched cable news unless in was in a doctor's waiting room, or hole in the wall cafe. I find it a total waste of time. I did this once. Turned off the sound on my TV while watching a football game. I definitely did not feel the same level of interest and energy than when I had the sound on, and could hear the announcers. I tried the same experiment with a cable news program. I turned the sound off, and just read the captions. Same thing. Not the same level of interest and energy, plus reading the captions drove home the point of what little content there was being discussed.
I use to watch the Sunday morning news magazines, but got tired of getting little chance to hear the people speak uninterrupted. The worst for talking over the others, and trying to monopolized the discussion were the neo-cons and those on the far right, like Liz Cheney, Anne Coulter and Marlee Matlin, and Katrina vanden Heuvel and James Carville on the far left.
With out sounding too sexist... I think many will agree that men are, in general more honest than women.
Just saw H's pandering to women ad about equal pay in the work place...
Like that's a "REAL" political issue.