gotcha moment for Fox News anchor David Asman, who accidentally revealed his we-ness while interviewing Sen. Trent Lott about the filibuster deal:
So, Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate -- if you guys in the Republican Party did -- then why did you need a compromise?
It's funny to see the guy talking like a Republican homer, but anyone who knows Asman's biography doesn't need to be told where his politics lie. He's a former senior editor for the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Asman also shared his beliefs on Issues USA, a cable talk show he hosted from 1995-96. I was among the miniscule audience for the daily program, which aired on the not-long-for-this -world News Talk Television channel, because I worked as its webmaster.
The show's web site demonstrates why I wasn't able to find work in web design and began writing computer books. So much ugly crammed into so few pages -- shadowed graphics on a grotesque tile background inside completely unnecessary frames -- you'd think I was intentionally sabotaging the program.
The original title for Asman's show was Damn Right, but complaints by offended viewers scared them into a more wholesome title.
I have to laugh at this "we" stuff, Rogers. Some studies have indicated that the majority of the media are registered Democrats, but the public is supposed to ignore this inherent bias, unless or until they say "we" in an interview with a Democrat politician? Are you and "Media Matters" for real? Would we even "hear" about such a case where, say, Maureen used that personal pronoun in such an interview?
The real revelation is that you and "Media Matters" are so ever ready to pounce on any indication where someone with a right leaning bias indicates such! That you highlight it is a dead giveaway of your own bias' and prejudices against fellow media members who might not be in lock-step with the majority of those in-the-news. Too funny, that.
As for your efforts in regards to USA Today's web page -- Damn! It is obviously a case of purposeful sabotage, because if it weren't, you should get yourself over there and change the wallpaper, at the very least! The site is almost unreadable. If it were my work, I would, (1) never admit it, and (2) fix it! That you haven't done either, is more than just revealing...
Thomas A. Dowe
Fixing the Issues USA web site became a low priority when the show was cancelled in 1996 and they stopped paying me.
Of course, that is up to you. However, you can still reach that link, and the website (as you mentioned) is not a recommendation; however much in the way of sabotage you really intended.
Au revoir for now,
is more than just revealing...
How's that working out for you? Being clever?
I don't quite know what you mean, Scotty. Why do you think I am "clever?"
The clever one is Rogers, who gives the impression that he might have actually sabotaged a website for political reasons. Rogers can say whether the inference he leads is correct, or not. However, my principle is to do the best job I know how to do, whatever the political circumstances. I expect that ideal comes from my military training and experience.
For myself, I don't think Rogers purposefully did that -- what do you think?