« last word on this subject | Main | go forth and ping »

nope, no media bias here

nope, no media bias here

Found over at The Imperial Emperor's place:

MSNBC:The anti-administration, anti-war presence on the Web is overwhelming. Type in any term dealing with Saddam Hussein, Iraq or regime change, and hundreds of listings will pop up — on message boards and Web sites and in news stories.

There is a pro-invasion presence on the Net, but it is much smaller and exists mainly on message boards and in chat rooms.

I think I will send the author, Rachel Elbaum an email. Apparently she got sucked in by the left-wing vortex when she went to the Answer site and she returned with her research skills all but gone. Unless, of course, her goal in writing this piece was not to say "Where are pro-war sites?" but to say "Hey, look at these big giant anti-war sites, everyone! Hear our voice!" And then she would nervously cough and say "Oops, did I say our?. I meant their. I am completely unbiased." Of course you are, Rachel. Rachel manages, in a story called "Iraq debate plays out online" to link to three anti-war sites and not one site with an opposing point of view. Debate? Where?

I bet within five minutes any one of you could come up with at least one website that the author could have linked to in order to make the article not lean so far to the left that it's about tip over. So there's your challenge. Help me create a list of links I can send to her in the email I'm composing. Leave the links in the comments.

Posted by on November 4, 2002 09:02 AM |

Comments

Just send her the sites running for the bloodthirsty award.

Posted by: Mostly Wasted | November 4, 2002 09:29 AM

If you win... cough sorry, forgot myself... WHEN you win the bloodthirsty award, do you get to come over here and give Tom Coates a wedgie?

Posted by: D | November 4, 2002 09:36 AM

One Hand Clapping is a good site for political commentary.. He talks about a lot of different aspects of the war, and why we need to take out Saddam. It's also one of my favorite sites to read for that kind of commentary and analysis.

Posted by: Robert | November 4, 2002 10:37 AM

I believe that Steven DenBeste is clocking 8 or 10K uniques a day. Glenn and Andrew draw mad numbers. Tim Blair is back and oppressing up a storm.

Posted by: Michael Wagner | November 4, 2002 10:45 AM

Yeah, it might take 5 minutes to come up with a pro-war site, but only if you spent 4 minutes 45 secs getting a cup of coffee or something.

As an experiment I typed 'iraq war pro blog' into Google. Andrew Sullivan was hit #1. I rest my case.

As for the list of sites, how's about Bill Q.'s bloodthirsty blogs list? I seem to recall you're not doing too shabbily in that little effort...

Posted by: David Gillies | November 4, 2002 11:28 AM

Michael is right. Honest reporting would require that Rachel Elbaum include a listing of websites with hits to show that the anti-administration presense is "overwhelming". I would bet heavily that someone who ranked sites by hits would find just the opposite is true. Think of it.

Instapundit - pro invasion - high traffic
Clueless - pro invasion - high traffic
Sullivan - need I go on???

Can anyone do a hits comparison between Rachel's sites and pro invasion sites. This could lead to a new form of Fisking. A comparison of what people say in happening on the internet to what is really going on.

Posted by: Rick V. | November 4, 2002 01:08 PM