Here is an email I just got. It's a great idea, pretty clever. It is set up like a regular TV station\channel. It will constantly be added to and up dated with regular programming! You should check out the videos, they are great and hilarious!

Dear Don,

Today I'm inviting you to the exciting premiere of a new channel. It's called Obama's Chicago Network, and is the best place on the web for viewers to learn more about President Obama's Chicago-style politics. On Obama's Chicago Network, shady backroom deals, and strong-arm tactics are the name of the game.

This summer's lineup includes a gritty drama chronicling the White House's conflicting stories about a job offer to Rep. Joe Sestak, entitled "Job or No Job." If you like that, you'll love "The Colorado Hills," which examines a similar offer made to Andrew Romanoff. You can also watch Press Secretary Robert Gibbs perform the Potomac Two-Step around transparency questions in "Dancing with the Law," and get a peek of authentic Chicago-style politics in action in "I'm a Politician Get Me Out of Here!" starring indicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

It makes for compelling TV. Unfortunately, it's not TV, it's reality.

What Obama and his Chicago team are doing to this country is no joke. The President is ignoring the two biggest crises that America faces. Unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. Millions of gallons of oil are spilling in the Gulf. Americans are asking how these problems will be solved. Meanwhile, President Obama is searching for answers on the golf course.

To learn more, visit Obama's Chicago Network and enjoy our regularly scheduled programming.

Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

http://obamaschicagonetwork.com/

I will stick with a more balanced review site,, like politifact....just the mood of the letter makes it clear this sites 'information' will have an agenda to promote

It sure does have an agende, the truth.

one side of it,, yes

I prefer a balance of at least TWO sides so I can make out the balance for myself

Oh yeah ... POLITIFACT ... umm ... HA! Ha! Hahahahahahahahahaha ... Ha. HA! ... ha ... Yeah, that's a 'more balanced review' site - IF all y' want is the Lefty / Progressive 'revisionist history' version of truth 'n fact 'n objectivity ... might as well subscribe to Tass, Pravda, and Isvestia ... at least they're open about their agenda ...

hmm, interesting, because what I read on politifact contains the good AND the bad on the issues and the people,, as opposed to these other sites that rarely have ANYTHING good to say and are clearly ANTI something or someone

Well, let's take a li'l look at what others who AREN'T so enamored of 'politifact' have to say ... be sure to visit the site for the entire article ... Just out of curiosity, HOW OFTEN does 'politifact' review and rate, oh, let's say, people like KEITH OLBERMANN, RACHEL MADDOW, BILL MAHER, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CHARLIE ROSE, KATIE COURIC, BRIAN WILLIAMS, AL FRANKEN, BARNEY FRANK, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or any of the OTHER Leftist / Progressive Socialists ... ? Betcha 'NEVER' is the answer ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/28/polifacts-fixers

PolitiFact's Fixers

By Matthew Vadum on 5.28.09 @ 6:07AM

Journalistic bias is one thing, but journalistic arrogance is quite another.

When reporters claiming to be neutral political fact-checkers go beyond mere reporting to state with absolute certainty things they cannot possibly know, they run the risk of churning out political opinion masquerading as high-minded investigative journalism.

This is exactly what the reporters at the fact-checking operation PolitiFact.com sometimes do. A project of the St. Petersburg Times, the website's "Truth-O-Meter" purports to check and rate "the accuracy of statements by candidates, elected officials, political parties, interest groups, pundits, talk show hosts."

After PolitiFact writers research a statement, it then receives one of six ratings on a continuum of truthfulness: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire.

It sounds very Woodward and Bernstein with some hip Internet-savvy irreverence thrown in, doesn't it?

That's what I thought before I looked into the matter.

It turns out that those who serve the Truth-O-Meter often have strange ideas about what constitutes truth.

Let's look at how PolitiFact handled Rep. Michele Bachmann's recent claim that the much investigated activist group ACORN was eligible for up to $8.5 billion in federal funding this year.

Like everything having to do with ACORN, it's very complicated.

Reporter Robert Farley sets the tone for the piece in his first paragraph, writing that "Bachmann's latest outrage focuses on an old nemesis: ACORN." As blogger Bryan White points out at Sublime Bloviations:

The first sentence is an attack on Bachmann. The statement implies that she is guilty of serial outrage, though PolitiFact has only previously rated two of her statements. And regardless of how many were rated, the opening statement is an editorial judgment with no place in an objective news story.

Farley conveniently offers a sinister motive to explain Bachmann's anti-ACORN activities. ACORN has a "complex corporate structure," but "[t]he ACORN that Republicans love to hate gets involved in political activity like voter registration."

Exactly

FOUR statements by Rachel Maddow, ONE statement by Bill Maher, ONE statement by Chris Matthews, ONE statement from Barney Frank, TEN statements from Nancy Pelosi and SIX statements from Harry Reid

sorry, they do not have EVERY 'OTHER Leftist / Progressive Socialists', but they do have a pretty fair share, who are all reviewed and ranked with the same balance ....'''


some judgmental adjectives do slip in here and there,but each piece has very clear references throughout as to just where the data is coming from and the site gives nearly EVERYONE both positive and negative rankings regardless of their affiliation. they still give a far more BALANCED presentation of information than any of those anti this or pro that websites out there.

Although I must admit Bachmann seems to be a rarity in that none of the statements chosen from her have even received a barely true rating,,,

Compared to HOW MANY REAMS of paper spent attacking conservatives or other NON-LEFTIST speakers ... ?

Sorry, that count you give is statistically insignificant ...

just as much as the anti politifact editorial you give,,,


but everyone is entitled to an opinion
mine is that I can go to politifact and read the positive AND negative about OBama and hundreds of others

as opposed to just hearing how someone is a scapegoat for everything bad,,,

Oh please ... that's not even a real answer ...

Why not attack them? Most of the conservative speakers are caught soliciting sex in bathroom stalls or soliciting gay call-boys or going out of the country to bang chicks while they are "hiking in the woods". Most conservative speakers that are political are jokes. If someone nails a call-boy and is a man, then what is there to be shocked about? He voiced that sodomy laws should be banned? Oh no, he lived by what he said...yup, sure does make sense. Look, theres always gonna be bias in reporting, so look at the facts yourself and go based on that, not their "explanations". If you dont want a bias, then dont watch the news, dont read the newspaper, dont look to any form of media, plain and simple.

There are two sides of truth? Really? Describe both sides of "thou shalt not murder". How many ways can 2+2 be correctly answered?

It would be more accurate to say "there are at least two sides to any matter subject to opinion".

Call boys? You must mean Barney frank running the gay brothel from his apartment in the 80 where he almost lost his seat because of it. The banking queen himself. Soliciting young boys? That would be Portland Democratic Mayor Sam Adams who is looking at prison time. Then there
s the former N.J. Democratic Governor James McGreevy who had to resign due to all the sex scandals with various ment sneaking away to seedy motels on the company time.

Sneaking away to see another woman? You must be thinking about former Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer who spent his DA xarr=eer and prosecuting prostitutes, then cheat on his wife with one for years and pays over $20,000. While on a state trip and all paid for by the state.

here you go again with your stupid list. i thought we established the fact that this pendulum swings both ways. yet each and every time you see fit post this sort of thing, you always leave out the guys with the (r)'s in front of their names.

why is that? oh wait you are the fellow who defended both Giuliani and Gingrich, saying that it was ok because they only had affairs after they were separated from their wives. which you and i know is a complete and utter lie. both of these gentlemen publicly admitted long before you came out in support of their sorted affairs. you know this and still you tossed it out there. truth huh? how can you come on here and talk about truth in the media when you don't even hold yourself to that same standard?

this is why nothing really gets done to further this country and make our society as great as it can be. this, our side is always right and their side is always wrong attitude does little to promote progress. the lets make them look bad so we can appear to be different is nothing short of a smokescreen.

ditto

for me the answer is BALANCE,,,why not just attack people or just revere them?,,,because everyone has made mistakes and had poor choices but everyone can grow and change and shouldnt be forever labeled or begrudged on isolated moments in their life but instead on a TOTALITY of the mistakes AND the growth and contributions in their life

I prefer a BALANCE of information from more than ONE side of the story, to make my own decsions,,,instead of just having someone elses opinion or slant,,, I already have one of my own

I learn by having ADDITIONAL information than what I already knew,,,something closer to the whole truth instead of just one side of it,,,

I thought most of us were on the same page ,


of course there is one side to a FACT, or an EQUATION, that definition of truth would not make sense in this context,,

but you are thorough in preferring things to be spelled out



so
for the sake of ultimate accuracy,,,"there are at least two sides to any matter subject to opinion".

and at least two different accounts of any event or occasion

Of course they admitted to it, they were seperated! BTW I call out Republican's who do it as well. I like how you fail to address the poster above me with the same comments.