First Honey Booboo. The dumb dumb programme for...dumb dumbs. That her parents are liberals who endorsed gay marriage does not make the program's content an intelligent one. And it's the programme and its viewers that are dumb, not Honey Booboo - she laughs all the way to the bank.Fox is the only conservative channel, liberal channels are like 5. Ok, let's take a look at that. There's CNN, MSNBC, and Current. At that, Current is hardly carried by anyone. Then if you combine all the liberal channels together: it's still maybe half of Fox. Try again, you ignoramus. Spouting off insults and made-up "facts" only work for idiots like you. By the way, Honey Boo Boo's parents are liberals who endorsed gay marriage. Notice NYT and Le Monde have both undergone multiple scandals related to not only quality of writing, but journalistic integrity. This isn't the case for WSJ, Barron's, National Review, etc. <quoted text>
The NYT had some problems with a writer's (whose name escapes me, too lazy to look) plagiarism. Did the brass know the writer was plagiarizing? Was he let go when it was found out? Hell, I think he won a pulitzer or some other prize, no? Why did the committees not know? Notwithstanding, the NYT is still one of the finest of the finest...
As to LeMonde, I'm not aware of any scandal, though surely there may have been some. Care to enlighten me?
WSJ was right wing pre-Murdoch and thanks to said Murdoch is to the right of the right. It is quality-written I grant you that, But I see Murdoch in almost every article. As to Barron's , National Review, they are not exactly newspapers now are they?