I'm not big on spending a lot of time talking to anonymous cowards who rely on innuendo and illegitimate accusers to do their dirty work. You're not going to be convinced by fact, anyway, so why should anyone bother? Good luck to you and yours.
As pointed out in another reply, that "hitler ad" wasn't a MoveOn.org ad -- it was an entry in a MoveOn.org contest, posted briefly on their site and removed quickly once they were aware of its existence.
As for the other MoveOn.org ads -- name one. Can You? I am a politics addict and I cannot name a single MoveOn.org ad that has received even minimal play or analysis on the news networks. Because they haven't done it.
What the news networks have done, in a nutshell, is given millions of dollars' worth of free airtime to the Swift Boat Liars and their piddling $500,000 ad buy. If the incredible irony and unfairness of that escapes your awareness, I have no answers for you.
Of course, it's difficult for a conservative to see the bias in what must be, for you, merely common sense. Consider the situation were the facts reversed, if you can. An anti-Bush 527 creates an ad accusing Bush of lying about his drunk driving arrest, being AWOL and doing cocaine. There is a grain of truth in the accusations, but the accusers themselves never knew Bush, never met him in some instances and are directly contradicting their own statements in previous years. The news networks proceeed to play the ad ad nauseum, the pundits spend hours analyzing the ad and the accusers -- and the ad's accusations becom headlines for weeks.
I'm a bit confused by the reaction to this post. While I agree that a full strike on the media by Democrats would be an appropriate reaction to media bias, I doubt it will happen. And yes, I know full well that the media will continue to apply their uneven coverage regardless of fairness or balance. I've asked others below and I'll ask you: Does that mean we should remain silent about it???
I've observed many instances where an accumulation of blog posts about the same issue resulted in a reaction from the SCLM. Perhaps if more of us were pointing out, en masse, the obvious areas of iniquity, they might -- might -- be forced to pick up the gauntlet. Probably not -- but it's worth a shot, at least.
My god, from the fatalistic tone of some of the comments here, you'd think I'd suggested fighting gravity in a lead suit. Hell, I wasn't even suggesting anything; merely pointing out a fact.
Of course I'm serious. I know the SCLM won't do it -- does that mean I ought to just keep my mouth shut? Pointing out the blatant bias in coverage in blogs and letters to the editor is my only recourse, so I do it.
Query where we would be right now if the SCLM had devoted as much time investigating Bush's campaign for war as much as they have devoted to the Swift Boat Veterans slander. Even after they have been revealed as liars, they still get on the air.
I thought I just did query that. The anti-Bush ads bring up many salient questions about Bush's war, Bush's policies and the heinous results of both; the SCLM hasn't covered the ads, let alone the facts. I'm pretty sure that's the point I was trying to make; perhaps I failed.
My father was killed in Vietnam. It is the central fact of my existence, and as such, I have spent more time than most people reading, thinking about and discussing the subject.
But your vague question seems designed to tell me to keep my opinions to myself unless I've got military experience. If that was your intent, Anonymous, I submit that your argument is specious. It is my right and my obligation as an American to speak out when I consider my country's military involvements to be ill-advised and/or badly designed.