"too many to provide"

Then it should be easy. Its simply a red herring. Sadly people incorrectly equate valid criticisms of a distasterous Bush admin as "unfair"/"biased".

Todays editorial on Georgia, there was not a MENTION of the admin's terrible miscalculations, even with Russian "expert" Condi at State. They made promises to GA that they could not back up, & Putin rubbed Shrub's nose in it, using the Iraq "rational" for going into Georgia. Yet, not a MENTION.

Similary, "THE SURGE WORKED" articles never mention the Sunni awakening started pre-surge, that we pay former "insurgents", ethnic cleansing that caused Baghdad to go from 65% Sunni to 75% Shia, the 4 million refugees, nor the 25 miles of 12ft blastwalls.

is that Al and I agree that there is no real benefit to denying newspaper staff participation in politics.

This is one of the seven signs.

It placed me in the center, which is probably not quite true. But some of the choices were a bit misleading. Subsidies for distressed mature industries are not on my agenda, but tax incentives for emerging energy technology are. Nobody I know says government is too small, just misdirected. Pure percentage cuts are silly unless you have some specific direction you want the government to go. My opinion on health care and education puts me at odds with conservatives, but they want to spend money on "star wars". If we cut the space missile defense spending, we can afford more for health and education. The last choice on each topic is one tiny step from anarchy, where everyone does there own thing and cares not a bit for the American community. Might as well move to a desert island. I think the test is a huge oversimplification and tries to sell libertarian views.a

You found some faults with the test, but you didn't say if it fairly placed you in the grid.

Where did you fall?

EIC cost about $36 Billion in direct tax credits for working people, minus uncollected amounts by eligible people, plus whatever other gains that may occur as they get a boost from poverty.
Corporate welfare cost about $75 Billion.
There is a move to provide assistance to incentives to alternative energy companies that has been shot down because the GOP won't give up the subsidies to the oil companies. Not much compromise there.
Prescription drug bill: let Medicare negotiate drug prices like every other entity so we can save some money. GOP said no, period. Yet the drug bill is hugely expensive and it was a GOP idea.
You are right, it is hard to compromise.
Please tell us which "Our Views" are so liberal. thanks.

The liberal examples you want are located almost each and every day in the VP "Our Views" "Where we stand". There are just too many to provide you so start with todays paper and read these "views" as far back as your hearts desire. Liberal beyond liberal although I have seen 1 or 2 in favor of GOPers that crossed the line. It is amazing that democrats/liberals think that "compromise" only extends in their favor hence whatever they want (tax increase again), they should at least get some or most of it. If not then those GOPers are just bad people for not giving in. Change can work in both directions like lets "change" the entitlement mentality and stop EIC. Care to compromise?

Took the test. Some questions did not allow for much nuance and the questions were obviously quite editorially stated. (I mean, come on "Raise taxes as necessary when the baby boomers retire") I find it interesting that Russia, and possibly China, would be strict Conservative. very little personal freedom and great economic freedom.
I am positive you are a true believer in Libertarian philosophy. However, I still feel that in a global economy, the government has to play a larger role in regulating finance, worker safety, environmental protections, pension and health care plans. By the time marketplace forces play a role in some of these issues, tremendous social damage is done to those in the median income range. Most people are employees and have very little leverage unless they have laws to back them up. We can't really think it is a good idea to go back to the early 1900's when workers (

It would appear that in the community there are people with many different perspectives on some issues. Some people seem to take offense to anyone who disagrees with them on certain issues, even to the point of getting violent. Today, it is hard to get a consensus on many issues. Just look at the Federal and Virginia governments. The newspaper and TV are good outlets for our ideas and thinking and gives us an idea about how other people think. When we try to ram our ideas down someones throat we create resentment and resistance. The way we resolve these dilemmas marks how civilized we are.

We might be getting bogged down in semantics. The left/right, liberal/conservative axis is really inadequate in categorizing political point of view. Libertarians like to use a two axis chart, with economic liberty on one axis and personal liberty on the other. You might want to see where you fall in that classification at http://tinyurl.com/hcxu3

From the Libertarian POV, the Pilot editorial position would fall on the pro personal liberty side of the chart but on the anti economic liberty side of that axis. This is the quadrant of the chart where most Democrats fall, which in today's jargon is defined as Liberal.

We believe government exists to secure our rights. In general, the private sector provides for our needs and wants best if government serves as a neutral referee, preventing the use of force or fraud in the marketplace, but otherwise not interfering. (There's more, but 750 c

Your original comments were deleted because you violated two posting guidelines. You exceeded 750 characters and you attempted to post two separate messages consecutively.

You wouldn't have been "censored" if you had followed our guidelines.

If you are unfamiliar with the guidelines, they are available here:

http://hamptonroads.com/posting-guidelines

You can also read a recent blog post outlining our reasoning for guidelines here:

http://hamptonroads.com/blogs/pilot

Fred Schecker Senior Producer

I think you are correct in assessing the conservative being reluctant to change or change quickly. But that is what is so frustrating in today's political climate. The phrase "reaching across the aisle" is an anathema to many conservatives; they see capitulation, not compromise.
I am a liberal, to be sure, but I don't agree that we need to make wholesale changes on many items and should be able to rely on a conservative opposition to come up with a compromise. Similarly, conservatives should look at compromise as the way we get things done in a country of 300 million different opinions. When the GOP was in power, it was an immediate power grab and a "my way or the highway" mentality. Hence we rushed into an elective war, rushed a terrible prescription drug bill, rammed through tax cuts etc. Yes, the dems were sometimes less than accommodating during 40 years of power, but not to the extent of the

So much for liberal bias.

At what point should private employers be able to curtail the basic rights of citizens?
How much control over our lives away from work should our employers be able to exercise?
At what point does the power of those who hire override the constitutionally guaranteed rights of those employed?
Can corporations deny these rights to its workers but still endorse or contribute to political campaigns?
Should corporations become the only politically active entities, displacing actual citizens?
Might the interests of those displaced citizens be different than those of their employers?
Should we be a nation of slaves, in effect, forcefully depoliticized for the ability to survive economically?

Just thinking out loud here, so pls don't jump down my throat, but journalists exercising freedom of the press *would* tend to be liberal *if* we define "conservative" as "conserving the status quo." Those who want to move away from the status quo would then all be liberals.

Nowadays I think that "conservative" tends to mean "slow change" and "liberal" tends to be "faster change" (however one defines that). Sometimes, the difference might be between "evolution" and "revolution." Or at least it might be perceived that way. And that would be why many conservatives get really scared by platforms that promise to change everything overnight, like when Hillary Clinton said she would implement a national health plan that covered every person, no exceptions. I think people can understand the need to cover all children, no exceptions, and to *help* adults get coverage, but not hand it to them. Cheers, MGM

Libertarians on the newspaper!!! Run while you can!!!!

What would you like to see reported?
I remember PBS being accused of liberal bias, particularly on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, and that turned out to be a red herring.
I think, judging by the right wing editorial syndicated columnists (Sowell, Krauthammer, Brooks, Will, Parker, Fields and Thomas v. Dowd, Kristof, Krugman, Pitts-Friedman being pretty centrist) it is a pretty conservative paper.
Sure most reporters are liberal, but I think that is the nature of the beast.
Journalists are supposed to poke, prod, question every move and motive of the people in power. That is what the First Amendment guarantee was for…not just to report accurate sports scores and weather. Recall how virulent the press across the board went after Clinton, liberal bias or not. Bush got a free ride in his first term.

Identify examples of the liberal bias presented by the editorial board. Real examples.

Whether the Pilot staff puts Obama bumper stickers on their cars or not, the overwhelming liberal bias of the editorial board and the newsroom (as evidenced by their selection of items to report) is pretty clear.

What is the point of trying to APPEAR neutral? Is there really any benefit to concealing the bias?

Why not try a little REAL diversity and balance by employing some conservatives or (GASP) libertarians instead of a monolithic left wing staff hiding behind an appearance of neutrality.