are facts "democratic" and lies "republican"?

More from angryfinger:

Facts are Not Partisan
I found this post over the Gadflyer(one of the coolest blog names around by the way) and Paul makes an excellent point.
He quotes this article from motherjones.com:
"At the moment, there's real sensitivity about the perceived political nature of every story coming out of Iraq," a Baghdad correspondent for a large US paper told me in mid-October. "Every story from Iraq is by definition an assessment as to whether things are going well or badly." In reality, he said, the situation in Iraq was a catastrophe, a view "almost unanimously" shared by his colleagues. But, he added, "Editors are hypersensitive about not wanting to appear to be coming down on one side or the other."
The Bush administration has somehow managed to convince people that reporting the facts is somehow "coming down on one side or the other". The Bush administration attacks any reporter who reports the truth as being a divider or a liberal spy or some other nonsense.
Everyone in their right mind knows that Iraq is a huge mess right now and no one is reporting the truth. Instead we keep getting these psuedo-optimistic whitewashed reports.
There really needs to be some kind of push to re-educate the public about what is and isn't partisan reporting. If an administration is fucking things up like there's no tomorrow, and there are virtually limitless facts proving that point, it is not a partisan attack, it's the truth.

This is a myth perpetrated by the conservative media - obviously, FoxTV is an expert at this! This was certainly evident during the campaign - the Dems would talk about facts, news stories and issues and the Repubs would simply make stuff up and claim that reporting news was bashing the president! If only journalists would simply report news and not try to put a spin on it! Wishful thinking, i'm afraid!