Here's a link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271520/

I call attention to the following quote from the article: But Yale leaders were expected to serve, as the school song went, "for God, for Country, and for Yale." His closest friends in Skull and Bones, the Yale senior society for the best and the brightest, were signing up.

Now unless I'm mistaken in the 1988, 1992 & even in the 2000 General election for President of the U.S.A. When Geroge H. Bush and His son the current President of the U.S.A. were running for President. The Skull and Bones society was called everything but a "Senior society for the best and brightest". "Secret society of privilage", "Racist", "Bigotts","Self-rightious eleitist" (sp?) sring to mind. Amazing how a few years and a candidate that the writers like and want, can change their perspective on things.

Life is good, JDH wonders to himself, making notes for personal observation, how many who have sang from the mountain tops decrying bais of a certain News orginization, and dismiss all said News orginization says will do the same for Newsweek? :D

Overall, I don't think the article is biased. You've found a fine nit to pick, I think. For one, the article is discussing the attitude at Yale at two vastly different times (though only two years apart - 1968 and 1966), and the notion of "what a Yale man should do" changed during that time. The article portrays Kerry as answering the call to war despite his reservations because it was the thing to do; the article portrays Bush as joining the guard specifically to avoid Vietnam, but also notes that in 1968 the whole nation was very jaded and reluctant regarding Vietnam. I think the article gives both men credit where it's deserved.

<font color=deepskyblue>You're correct, <font color=tan>Timber</font>. It is a very "even and fair" article for both men. But what <font color=white>John D. Harris</font> is referring to are the connotations that other media sources have attached to the Skull & Bones Society when talking about George Bush being a member. When the media was talking about President Bush being a member of Skull & Bones, it used the deragatory adjectives mentioned by <font color=white>John D. Harris</font> in his opening post. But now that the media has learned that Kerry also belonged to the Skull & Bones, it is suddenly a club for Yales "best and brightest" instead of the "rich, social elite".

I liked the article and think it dramatically illustrated how rapidly our country changed during the 60's. I was also impressed with the acknowledgement that President Bush apparantly DID serve his time in the National Guard - "if somewhat sporadically".</font>

Like the other pair JD - I think the writer deals with the pair rather even handedly. Certainly with none of the "we at FOX conjecture" type slants, it simply sets out to give the reader an insight into the backgrounds of two people when considered among the events of the time. I don't see that it takes a side, makes a political decision for the reader, or pushes either political agenda to the detriment of the other.

I haven't been exposed to any historical attacks on the Bonesmen, so from what TL and Cerek say I concede that you may have an axe to grind on that score. I am more inclined to TL's view that it is a nitpick though, because your argument is that the writer is biased because he has not attacked in the manner that others did. He doesn't attack the Bonesmen and he doesn't attack either member of it - that is still even handed treatmnt JD.

My bringing of attention to the bais in the article is not that the article is not fair and even handed but rather there exists bias everywhere of some sort. There has been many occasions where bias for bias sake has been condemed, because it conflicts with the bias that one holds, yet the same type of bias is commended when it argees with the bias that one holds.
If a man can't admit his own biases how can he ever examine to find out if his bais is reasonable and logical. I understand a lot of people are not familar with what has gone on in the past press about the U.S. elections,and is strickly brought up for those that wish to think and examine what is said in the upcoming U.S. elections, and future U.S. elections. As the old saying goes believe 1/2 of what you are told and virtualy none of what you read. :D

True that bias is most everywhere JD, but in this case three people from very different backgrounds (American green, American family values, Australian right center) all looked at the article and pretty much assessed it as being unusually low in its bias and slant quotient.

I would have thought that the 3 of us were a pretty diverse group JD (certainly we have crossed swords on a number of points before [img]smile.gif[/img] ), so that leads me to the conclusion that you would have done better to have picked a different article that better displayed the points about bias you were making. I concede your point is valid, but think your example didn't really support it.

OMG, I'm a GREEEN?

<font color=deepskyblue>Well I think this article does an excellent job of pointing how much bias is present in the MAJORITY of other media stories.

As <font color=white>John D.</font> pointed out, this is the first article to refer to the Skull and Bones Society in a positive light. Why? The only difference is because Kerry was also a member. All those publications that have used the S&B Society as one more reason to slam Bush now either have to back off that assessment or admit that it applies to Kerry too. So my guess is that we've seen the last of the Skull and Bones Society being mentioned in the media regarding the Presidential race...and if we DO hear about it, you can rest assured it will be in a "positive light" as was done in this article.

But there is another good example of the bias of other media being highlighted by this article...and that is the reference to the documentation provided by President Bush staff to account for his supposed absence from the National Guard. The article admits the documentation is not as thorough as it could be, but concludes that it is sufficient to show that Bush probably did serve his time without being "AWOL". Unlike other articles that have discounted the documentation out-of-hand and claimed it didn't prove anything.

So - by actually presented the facts regarding BOTH candidates in an even-handed manner - the article actually highlights the amount of bias present in almost every other article or news story (on both sides) regarding either President Bush or John Kerry.</font>

Well you aren't a namby pamby liberal and you're not a raving radical conservative - so I pigeon-holed you mostly with the greens [img]smile.gif[/img] . You're more of a technicolour dreamcoat sort really - a foot in every camp and none ;) .

And I agree with Cerek - that was one of the least biased articles I have read and it reflects the true extent of the other biases that are present in media outlets that choose sides ahead of stories.

Well you are a diverse group, and of the 2 that were familar with the handling of "Skull & Bones" in the past by the press there is agreement of the bias, though TL, restricts it to a minor "nit pick". I've made my judgement on how and in what light to view Newsweek's articles 20+ years ago and constantly adjust that judgement based on what I see of Newsweek's actions, as I try to do for all.

We'll just have to disagree about the validity of the support, In fact I'm willing to bet that if I had said FOX news and shown 1 example of their bias, there would be damn near 2 pages of replies condemning FOX news, and nairly a post saying anything about where FOX news was fair in the report. Point being the whole picture must be looked at wherever possible, and acknowledge that the whole picture is not being looked at where it is not being looked at. After saying that on several occasions, and recieving nothing but "justifcations" for not looking at the whole picture I made the choice and call to show what not looking at the whole picture is like from the otherside. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

But as always you folks decide for yourselves, I don't give a rat's rear end, I call'em like I see'em, and take full resposibility for my call.