Tim Blair

s.h.o.w.
m.e.
t.h.e.
w.m.d.

s.h.o.w.
t.h.e.
h.u.n.d.r.e.d.s.
o.f.
t.h.o.u.s.a.n.d.s.
o.f.
c.i.v.i.l.i.a.n.
c.a.s.u.a.l.t.i.e.s.

Tim,

Your report is interesting, informative, entertaining and well worth its price. I've been trying to get my lefty workmates to read it but they don't want to know about it. So, the very people who should read your report, won't. I wonder why that is?

Hmmm ... are we talking about the same television network that chose not to report David Kay's initial disclosure that he believed that Iraq sis not have WMD?

I heard it on FOX,mork. Have you seen a memo or can point to specific dates/times to prove it. Or are you once again attributing a view though you own perception.

Hey blogheads, is there some way we can make the report available to us on the left for free? After all, it's obviously too important to be left languishing only with those stupid enough to pay for it.

No. Pay up, you waste of space.

Ahh, Greg Sheridan I remember him, he is the bloke who said Allied forces would find WMDs in the first week after the war finished, he also said the war would lead to greater peace in the Middle East.

He is also the Foreign Affairs editor whose expertise is in Asia who could write a column about the word skanky ho without knowing where the term came from.

I can see why you would find him reliable Timbo.

Err who owns the Australian and Fox?

Homer's point about WMD was answered by this letter to The Oz this morning:

Aziz forgotten
27 February 2004
FULL credit to Greg Sheridan (Opinion 26/2) for revealing that Saddam insisted
on maintaining a WMD program despite counter-argument by his deputy Tariq Aziz.
It's been a supreme vindication of Paul Sheehan's "electronic whorehouse"
theory of journalism that reporters have shown virtually no interest in the
Aziz interviews since their existence was briefly mentioned last November.
Instead the wolf pack has had us all barking up the wrong tree demanding to
know, not the truth of what transpired in Baghdad, but when a "smoking gun"
will be found.
Lew Bretz
St Marys, Tas

You're kidding. You whinge - and rightfully so - about the ABC being biased to the left all the time and it's not blinding obvious how biased Fox is towards the right? Or is it conveniently ignored because it's in your favour?

Yeah, how dare FoxNews treat the President with respect. Biased bastards.

Adam-

Anyone who hears Fox's "Fair and Balanced" line hears it with a wink. Here's the difference - while Fox skews right, the other media are WILDLY biased to the left, and at the same time positively screetch about how "objective" they are. Fox is not neutral, it is a corrective.

Here in the States, you've got Fox, the WSJ, and AM talk radio on one side, and on the other side you've got NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the NYT, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, every single boringly predictable local alt-weekly, and Hollywood. So snarky asides at Fox's wink-and-a-nudge "balance" don't make a ripple with me.

Adam - you realise that the "ABC" we are talking about is the *Australian* Broadcasting Commission, right? We are not talking about the American network "ABC".

Fox can be as biased as it likes as long as it supports itself from its own advertising and investors. As can American "ABC", the New York Times or any other privately owned and funded media. It doesn't mean than their persistent biases should not be criticised and critiqued, but they should be free to be as biased as they like - if you don't like them, dont read/watch/support them.

The Australian ABC, however, is entirely funded by Australian taxpayers. It should serve all Australians. We have every right to expect it to abandon the continuing left-wing bias that it shows - to demand it, in fact! If it can't, it should be closed down or sold.

I forgot his best result a Novak like prescience that WMDs had been found!