"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility, but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

Again, check their statistical sample.


Matt
--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero