When they venture an opinion we should still challenge the premise of those opinions when we think that they're wrong. We also need to point out how holding biased opinions is likely to distort their straight reporting, or at least give a reasonable person the impression that their reporting is biased.
When they state a "fact" that is flat out wrong we need to call them on it. Every damn time.
When they ask a question that contains a prejudiced assumption (e.g. "warrant less domestic wiretaps") we need to call them on it.
As important, when "our own" guys and gals concede those types of points (usually because they've got another point they care more about) we need to call them on it, too. I love Newt Gingrich, but I want to pick him up and shake him almost every time he's on one of these shows because he does that consistently. He'll let Colmes or Russert or one of the clearly biased DBM questioners get away with some horrible slander in their question so that he can rush on to his "brilliant point." No more. We need to challenge all of them all the time.
One of the favorite techniques of the left is to continue to use false terms to define an issue their way. Our side has a bad habit of only challenging them on it the first hundred or thousand times they do it then getting tired of the effort. We need to cut them off mid-sentance if necessary and argue that point and nothing else each and every time. Don't let them finish their biased question without challenging the biased premise. If we let them establish something like "warrant less domestic wiretaps" as the premise of a question then we've already lost the argument. It's NOT domestic wiretaps. It's international communications with our enemy in time of war, which we've always had and still have the right, in fact the duty, to intercept, and no judge has any constitutional basis for interfering.
To accomplish that we have to get to our side and convince them that it's important to challenge them every time. Tony Snow, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been the only ones in this administration to consistently do this and now Rummy is on his way out. The media didn't like him specifically because he caught them and corrected them when they tried this on him and he was effective at it.
Of course, even if our folks do this, the DBM gets to edit the tape or selectively pull quotes and present only the things they wanted us to see. That's where web based clips and transcripts can come in handy. Often more complete versions of things like press conferences or congressional hearings will offer up a different version of events than what the DBM presents. Yet another area for us to develop skills and exercise our oversight responsibilities.
I'll start looking for contact information for the quests and adding it to my preview thread, as well. We should be in a position to comment on their work as well as the DBMs. As importantly we should be able to send them info before they do these shows to give them the ammunition they need to get it right.
When they state a fact that is flat out wrong we need to call them on it. Every damn time.
One of the favorite techniques of the left is to continue to use false terms to define an issue their way.
&&&&&
You are so good and gathering and presenting information, I suggest that we begin a glossary of dem speak, so that we have a ready reference.
They consistently invent and change definitions of words, and because they control the dissemination of the spoken/written word these changes become fact.
Trying to erase the use of "liberal" is just one example.
I have to leave the thread now. More later.