Tuesday, November 20, 2007
|
|
So, Who Is Surprised?
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:55 AM
|
Carole Simpson moderated one of the 1992 presidential debates between George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.
She's retired from ABC now, but let the mask fall at a Clinton rally last month (HT: Howard Kurtz):
Simpson took her 14-student journalism class, "Road to the White House," to the rally to show students how to cover a political event, and possibly introduce them to the Democratic front-runner.
Instead, Simpson, who is best known as the first woman to moderate a presidential debate, found herself professing her preference for Clinton as the first female president.
As Clinton was fielding questions from the audience, Simpson tried several times to get her attention, shouting "Senator Clinton!" across the crowded room.
When she finally caught Clinton's eye, she offered an off-the-cuff endorsement that took both parties aback.
"I want to tell you tonight, because I happen to be here with my students, that I endorse you for president of the United States," she said. "It's very freeing now that I'm not a journalist and I can speak my mind, and I wanted you to know I think you are the woman, and I think this is the time."
Wow, what a shocker. An MSMer turns out to root for the lefty. Is anyone really surprised? This is the MSM, and 90% of its senior elites are Democrats masquerading as "objective" analysts. They all deny this while working, but in retirement it turns out they have been card-carrying lefties their whole lives. They tell us it didn't affect their work, but we laugh and move on. As Thomas Edsall told me in September of last year: "I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left."
Simpson offered to resign from her teaching post because of her outburst of honesty. What a "profession."
|
|
I've been in the media, either directly or indirectly, since 1979. Anyone who tries to deny a significant left-wing bias falls into one of two camps:
1. Media members who are afraid they'll somehow lose credibility if they admit their bias. This is absurd on its face, as the cat has long since been let out of the bag. Plus, look at Pro Wrestling: They admitted they were faking it, and they're as popular as ever. What are these people afraid of?
2. Left wing partisan sheep who have NEVER been in the media, have NO idea how it works, yet STILL have an ideological obligation to deny the obvious bias. Since partisan sheep (both sides) have zero credibility anyway, this is just laughable.
As an independent, I've always been labeled a righty by the other media folks. I guess, compared to them, I am. Those of us who choose to believe in balance and moderation are in the distinct minority in that industry.
Mac the Blogger
ColoradoMac.blogspot.com |
|
American reporters, like everybody else in America, are entitled to have political opinions. The question is whether you let your political opinions influence the job you do.
A conservative who opposes labor unions doesn't have to worry that if he calls 911, the unionized firemen and police won't try to save his life and property just because they don't agree with his politics. When they answer a call for help, they don't ask the victim what his politics are before they render assistance.
Likewise, a reporter should be able to tell the straight truth--even if that truth often conflicts with the reporter's own political opinions. A Democrat reporter should be able to honestly report on a scandal involving a Democrat without hushing it up.
The true test of integrity, and so few people try to meet it these days, is to tell the truth even if it hurts your political side in the short term.
|
|
Your moniker is accurate but incomplete..
It should read "Ignorant" neocon scum !
Apparently you misunderstand why Nixon was impeached and what Libby was found guilty of .. Its called a COVER-UP!
LYING and PERJURY have everything to do with it .. Armitage is a red herring that rightwing radio uses to distort the truth.. |
|
....Presidential debates, Bernard Shaw of CNN provided the most dramatic moment in the 1988 campaign when he asked Dukakis that confrontational question about whether he'd still oppose the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. His weak response sealed his doom with many Americans.
Yup, the turning point of the 1988 election in favor of the Republicans was quite possibly provided by a representative of the so-called "MSM".
Of course, that's never cited by righties who whine about "liberal bias". Doesn't fit the narrative. |
|
RICHARD Town Gossip ARMITAGE did the leaking, has confirmed that he did the leaking and there's NO STORY here. Now, shoo-shoo back to kosroidland. |
|
Good point..Scott McClellan has blown this story wide open.. I notice the deafening silence here on this site.. I doubt FAUX news will even mention it because its not what its deluded viewers want to hear..
Potentially the biggest story of the decade as it indicates the president lied and he covered up TREASONOUS acts by his immediate staff and Vice President.. THAT IS A BLATENTLY ILLEGAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!!
It now seems obvious that BUSH pardoned Libby to cover up his own crimes.
He should do the right thing and resign.. but he will probably do what he always does which is blame someone else for his crimes and screwups..and my guess is that in this case he will probably blame the "liberal" the media... (meaning anyone who has the temerity to report on this story)
Lets see how the rightwing media handles this hot potato.. My guess is they will be Whistling Dixie and hoping that these allegations will just fade away so they don't have to address them. The rightwing media loves to ignore any news that doesn't support their cause and if they can't ignore it then they spin it, so that the truth of the matter becomes divorced from reality. |
|
|
who always looked like an embarrassed bambi in the headlights at the podium. Very successfully--and thankfully--replaced by Tony Snow and the articulate-drop-dead-chickster doing the duties now. |
|
|
Nice rant, heckofajob....Time to take your meds |
|
You wrote, "Carole Simpson moderated one of the 1992 presidential debates between George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot."
My edit would have read, "Carole Simpson moderated one of the 1992 presidential debates among George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot."
You use among when there are MORE than two! |
|
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
"There was one problem. It was not true.
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the president himself."
- Scott McClellan |
|
you made very broad generalized statements and now you try to back them up by giving me townhall columinists?
i want to see statistics that back up your claims. |
|
...for Bush, it's just upward mobility.
Oh and I can't wait for the deafening silence of this incredible new media here on TH on Scott McClellan's accusations that Bush and Cheney did in fact LIE AND DECEIVE about outing Valerie Plame. Ouch!
Must be that damn BDS...
Oh but the left controls the media! That's why Kucinich is marginalized but Kristol, Prager, Coulter, Medved, Beck get to whine across the channels. |
|
...for Bush, it's just upward mobility.
Oh and I can't wait for the deafening silence of this incredible new media here on TH on Scott McClellan's accusations that Bush and Cheney did in fact LIE AND DECEIVE about outing Valerie Plame. Ouch!
Must be that damn BDS... |
|
|
I always get a chuckle how quickly the left cites Fox News in defense of NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNBC, CNN, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times etc. As for liberal bias, yes you can make an effort to put your leanings in check, however the reason for Fox News' success is because most newspapers and networks never tried. It is seen in the wording of their stories, the focus they take, the people they choose to interview, body language, questions based on a liberal world view, etc. Fox News validates the thinking and world view of Americans whose views were either ignored by the network news or when paid attention to, put down those as somehow backwards, ignorant nonsense. |
|
You are living in a BUSHWORLD fantasy if you think that the MSM is left leaning.. Talk Radio for instance is almost totally monopolized by Right wing Fascist hate speech.
The right wing even has its own TV network "FOX" ANYTHING Rupert Murdock controls has a right wing or should I say neo con fascist bias..
This is a totally bi-partisan issue IF you give a damm about how this country was set up.. The founders envisioned a forth branch of government per se.. An ever vigilent press..
Instead we have a fascist regime which is determined to control the MSM media AND the message they present..
I don't know if the neo-cons were fascists to start with.... or, with gaining power it was just a natural progression of their mania
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
|
|
|
check out Walter E Williams, Tho. Sowell, and David Horowitz --- and when is last time a leftist was shouted down at a University ? (Unless it was from the Radicals for not being pure enough ! ) |
|
|
If the NYT is the paper of record (LOL), what's the conservative offset? NYT meet WSJ. WSJ circulation 2.0 million. NYT 1.4 million and dropping like a rock. The market has spoken. |
|
|
|
|
is that so much in the MAISNTREAM (I mean on the sociatal level) has moved so far to the left that once what was considered center left is now considered center right. |
|
Worse than Simpson's "endorsement" is the mass apologies/justifications being given by various academics.
To Simpson's credit (and her co-instructor) once it was pointed out what, exactly she did, she immediately offered to resign. Its a resignation that should have been reluctantly accepted because she crossed a line while teaching upper-division students.
But suddenly there are all kinds of academics willing to let her slide. Gee, think those academics would have reacted the same way if she had endorsed Romney or Huckabee in the same way? I think we already know the answer to that. |
|
be teaching them to be objective - by openly endorsing HRC how can anyone that is right leaning expect her to value their opinion. If I were a conservative in that class, I would not expect a fair grade.
If the class were political science, it would be ok but Journalism is meant to document and record, not opine. The MSM "journalists" claim to not have bias - but it is dripping in left wing bias with every question and commentary. If you write opinion columns, that is fine, but the front page of the newspaper and the lead story on the nightly or hourly news should be even handed. It is not.
|
|
|
That people working in other fields can do their jobs and not be biased either. This is great. No more mean ol' prejudiced business owners etc. |
|
|
NPR outdraws Rush? Prove it. I have a hard time believing that NPR draws 20 million each day. Now, I could be wrong, but I'd love to see some proof. |
|
|
|
|
"we will destroy democracy if we simply listen"... got any historical,statistical proof or one iota of evidence of that claim? |
|
Let's let the 'Education' President answer that one."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lets see, didn't ARKIE-SAW go to 49 place during his time as Gov. |
|
|
She was fawning all over Bill Clinton while ignoring Ross Perot and treated Bush Senior with Sacastic vile. "Let's let the 'Education' President answer that one." Her bias has always showed. |
|
I believe the NYT wanted to not be the last to note the inprovement in Iraq. They've had enough embarrassment for a time and with their circulation falling like a rock, they are pretty desperate to say something true.
Thanks for defending freedom & the American way: Scot of Ant, NoDonkey, MattGZ and elpalaco! |
|
Because everyone is starting to notice.
Not that this hasn't been talked about.
You can only wear blinders for so long! |
|
If the MSM is so hopelessly biased to the left, why did I read this in the NY Times:
"The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad's streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.
As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city."
Conservatives always cherry-pick examples to bolster their charge of bias while ignoring examples of stories that demonstrate an ability to cover controversial subjects in an even-handed way.
|
|
"'I know I made a mistake. It was definitely the wrong venue for my first foray into free speech,' Simpson said. 'But-"
but??
"Simpson, 65, said she immediately regretted her actions and offered her resignation the next day, which university officials refused to accept."
Sooooo, that means she can never resign because the school refused her resignation... there's a feminist with a stiff backbone. How about if she just quits, like she should do? I mean, she tendered a resignation... maybe I'll just send all my parking tickets up to Emerson. |
|
Drive by postit note sez:
" Yet the left wing media gets taken more seriously. The NYT is consider a "newspaper of record". Does the right wing have any such thing?"
More seriously by whom? Considered a "paper of record" by whom?
"It's not about you. It's not about me."
Yes, it's about you making no sense whatsoever.
"Why does the country pay attention to liberals at all if the right wing has better arguments?"
Propaganda, baby- it's been working for socialists for a looooong time now.
"Answer: objectivity."
Your answer: inanity
"You listened to NPR for 10 years. How many liberals have watched Fox News for 10 years."
Yet another indictment of liberals only wanting to live in their echo chambers.
"And that is the point."
If the point is that liberals are dogmatic provincial dunces, yes that's true.
"You have to give respect if you want to get it."
Wrong- you have to EARN respect..if you give away respect, it is worthless- much like your meandering stream of conscious blathering.
" Right wing media doesn't respect liberals."
Correct. Finally, the blind squirrel finds a nut.
"Bias is not derision."
And a sousaphone is not an amphibian. Your point?
|
|
|
Everyone in the media has an agenda. Recognize it and take everything with a grain of salt. The supposed conservative media is trying to convince you that only a liberal New York mayor can beat the liberal New York Senator. |
|
You have to give respect if you want to get it. Right wing media doesn't respect liberals.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
O-my, and why in the heck should I even respect the left.
The group who plays the race card time after time (Jackson)
Who plays games with the poor and the un-born.
The group who follows Stalin (NYT)
No thanks.
|
|
is that the conservative media is just as biased as they claim the liberal media is.
the other point is that with cable and internet even hugh hewitt who always blames everything on the main stream media IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOW.
its simple-- all businesses want to make profit and to do that they find their market and cater to it.
whether it is left or right the media will not give their market facts and arguments that will drive them away.
to be a fully informed citizen in this country you must read and listen to both sides.
read the washington post and washington times
listen to hewitt and ed shultz
watch oreilly and olbermann.
we will destroy democracy in this country if we simply listen to only the media that already confirms are pre-concieved opinions.
|
|
|
please post the documentation for your statements. |
|
|
For pete's sake. Can't liberals even revel in their media being the top dogs since 1945? I know liberals don't remember history, can't get any applications from it or can contemplate that life did not begin with their birth! The early media from CBS had Murrow, Chronkite, Smith, Huntley was with NBC et al, papers like the NYTimes led all other papers in setting the tone of opeds , news facts, yes they believed that their interpretations were FACTS. They edited the news and one who was a conservative or Republican was thought to be an odd duck and so old world. The fact that National Review in '54 tried to explain a different idea than liberalism shocks one of the posters. What a dunce! The Nation, New Republic, even Life was a liberal happenstance and recognized by the elites as setting education, govt., economic and cultural values. It has only been really since the Reagan revolution that people realized that there were other ideas other than socialist pacifism. And now it is back with Hillary et al. And the Left still whines that there is opposition media to their hegemony! They are shameless, unpatriotic socialists and we will rue the day when they are really back in power! |
|
|
Hope she doesn't wear a BLUE dress around Billy boy. |
|
NPR get's less than 5% of its funding from the government. You need to catch up with the times.
Let's talk crazy.
The right wing mocks the left wing media for being objective. Yet the left wing media gets taken more seriously. The NYT is consider a "newspaper of record". Does the right wing have any such thing?
It's not about you. It's not about me.
Why does the country pay attention to liberals at all if the right wing has better arguments?
Answer: objectivity.
You listened to NPR for 10 years. How many liberals have watched Fox News for 10 years.
And that is the point.
You have to give respect if you want to get it. Right wing media doesn't respect liberals.
Bias is not derision.
|
|
Please don't give me the line about more 'education' means more likely to be a liberal and democrat ----
Consider this:
-teachers and journalists tend to have the lowest SAT scores.
- people without High School diplomas are the most likely to vote Democrat..
- at the unversitity level, the most leftist are in the 'social' sciences/ humanities not in engineering/hard sciences i.e. places where logic and reason are not necessary or even encouraged because it's not PC |
|
Drive by poster:
What the hell are you on about?
First- the term "objectivity" is not defined as "civility". Outside of the screeching nitwits found on the left to invalidate your moronic premise, you don't have the authority to redefine this word, and your repeated insistence on trying to do so is just sad and embarrassing.
And how do you know that 100% of right wing talk radio does consider itself entertainment? Have you listened to 100% of r.w. talk radio? Didn't think so.
Additionally, NPR is taxpayer funded- as such they don't have to make a profit, so they cannot be compared to commercial media, which does. Any attempt to compare the two are absurd and simpleminded.
Finally, whether they consider themselves respectable and objective (again, how do you know this?) is rather beside the point. They aren't, they're hopelessly and predictably leftist in outlook and ethos...which isn't surprising since they are at root a parasitic socialist construct.
Moving on- apparently the articles in the Economist are biased but anonymously so, which means you trust them....huh?
I suggest that you grow up and start writing with some semblance of logical thought somewhere or you will continue to be impotent and relegated to never being taken seriously.
|
|
No, and neither should the left.
NPR gets (and wastes) tax dollars.
NPR should not get a single penny from the taxpayers. NPR's audience consists of elitist leftists, who can well afford to pay for what they want and should not be subsidized by the rest of us.
If people enjoy the elitist trash on NPR, they should fund it themselves.
I listened to NPR for a decade until I got completely fed up with their tacit shilling for the Democrat Party. |
|
If mudslinging and senstationalism in politics has been around since 1776, how long has not addressing direct questions when asked been around?
Here, I'll even give you this as a gesture of good will - Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (heck, I'll even throw in Michael Savage) are, in fact entertainment. I don't care for them. They don't represent most of my views, and when they do, they present them in a way that I don't agre with.
So now, can you please retract your statement that the liberal media is polite? You have to remember that for every NPR and PBS, there is an Air America and NBC. |
|
Ok, mudslinging and senstationalism in politics has been around since 1776. It will never go away.
But so has civil: polite and objective discourse.
In the past, the civil and polite objective discourse people were trusted and respected more than the flame throwers.
The same is true today. Bill Maher and Ann Coulter are cut from the same cloth and thus they are friends.
Jim Leher has no right wing counter part.
NPR does not consider itself entertainment, like 100% of right wing talk radio, it considers itself
respectiable, objective, civil news.
NPR outdraws Rush Limbaugh every week. Bill Maher and all the mudslingers mention here do not.
Should the right wing have NPR? And the answer unanimously by all right wing media is NO. Which is the point. If you don't take yourself seriously, why should others? Right wing needs to learn to be objective.
The right wing media needs to grow up. You have to give respect to get it. We teach that to our children. We should practice it. Objective journalism as practiced by the liberals is nothing more than giving your enemies respect.
Ann Coulter doesn't give any respect and she deserves none. Same applies to Rush Limbaugh. Where is the respectable right wing media?
I read the Economist. The Economist doesn't even credit who wrote an article most of the time. Do I care? Nope. Is there bias in the artiles, oh yes. Do I trust the Economist, yes.
I can read the Economist. I can't read the National Review and I don't trust the National Review.
Either right wing media grows up and starts being respectable somewhere or it will continue to be impotent and relegated to never being taken seriously.
Here's how disconnected from reality you people are. If Ann Coulter were to run for President, she'd get 90% of the Town Hall vote and less than 1% of the country. |
|
MSM might be left leaning, but at least you can watch it with your kids in the room. Take a look at the following FOX "news" clips. This is what they show on their news programs for crying out loud!
http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/18867-fox-news- porn
They covered Anna Nicole twice as much as CNN, and have continually reduced the time devoted to the war in Iraq. FOX is also known for it's exellent car chase coverage, not to mention the shouting matches that pass for informed discourse. Why do they do this? Is it because they think the right-wing base is too stupid to appreciate anything less subtle? Or do they think that the right-wing base never had an interest in news to begin with, and is only there for the lurid stuff and the politics is just an afterthought? Why has the right wing been drawn to the gutter over and over again - Craig, Allen, Vitter, Rush (drug abuse), FOX (porn addiction), Haggerd, etc. |
|
"I don't understand why you cannot believe that a person could set those beliefs aside and perform their job with professional integrity."
Bingo! The right wing media doesn't get that point.
Imagine a presidential debate where all the questions were pre-approved by both sides of the debate.
Then imagine a liberal host does nothing more than read the questions.
The right wing would still focus on the fact that the host was liberal and use that as if it had any bearing whatsoever on anything. I mean when computers start asking the questions conservatives will still focus on the fact that computer programmers are liberals. It never ends. Right wing media will go down that rabbit hole until they find someone with a liberal bias and then use that bias to dismiss everything they want to dismiss.
I suspect Simpson was under some working rules that I just laid out. I'd be surprised if she got to pick the questions and was 100% in control of everything. The debates have rules.
Bingo with respect to judges too. The right wing media doesn't believe a judge can have professional integrity and hence always focus on a judge's politics.
I want judges with professional integrity and this puts me at odds with right wing media.
|
|
|
Had I waited another 2 minutes and read your post, I would have remembered Bill Maher! |
|
So, if I am reading your last post correctly:
Conservative media - biased and bad.
Liberal media - biased, but it's okay because they're polite.
Does that about cover it? Have you not read Huffington Post or DailyKos? Or listened to Randi Rhodes or Jeanine Garafalo (sp?)? How polite is Jon Stewart when he's lampooning Republicans? How polite is Al Franken? I'm sure that Kieth Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" is a polite criticism that is just meant to instruct. What about Joy Behar's POV that it's okay to personally attack President Bush because she doesn't like him, but it's not okay to call Hillary names?
Is that the kind of polite left wing media that you're talking about? |
|
This is just hilarious: "The right wing needs to learn civility"
Yes, from the likes of Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and other assorted pinkos who slander and lie about our President each and every day.
Civility - something the left wouldn't know if it hit them square in the nose. Take the entire Democrat clown Congress (please) - I've seen more civility and intelligence exhibited during a 7th grade lunchroom food fight.
On the topic, I have no earthly idea who Carole Simpson is (does she live with Homer and Marge?) and have no interest in her opinions on anything, up to and including the unaccomplished, unqualified, joke of a Democrat Presidential nominee.
Who gets their news from the networks? Besides nursing home, hospice and morgue residents, that is?
|
|
And what percentage of FOX newscasters are self-described conservatives or Bushies? It gets hard to draw the line between news and opinion on FOX with newscasters doubling as opinionators and talk show hosts, but give some credit to the majors for at least trying to maintain a modicum of objectivity. Even for FOX, the argument you're making would seem to critisize Tony Snow for becoming Bush's spokesperson.
If you're upset that most thinking people now prefer to distance themselves from the GOP, then change the GOP. Politely urge the newcomers to leave, or continue to placate them and then ignore them after the election - this has always worked since they're so hard up for friends. Always the uncool kids. If Romney and Giuliani can fool these people it shouldn't be hard to either string them along some more or dump them all together. |
|
Hugh's comment highlight exactly what is wrong with right wing media.
There is a difference between bias and prejudice.
What objectivity means in this day and age is "civility." In other words, a conservative can read the NYT willingly and the bias is not written offensively, deriding the opponent. The bias is written far more subliminal. Therefore, conservatives do read the NYT. Liberals do not watch Fox News and most definitely do not come to Town Hall. Ann Coulter would never make it on NPR. Ever. However, she is the Queen of right wing media. Right wing media is obnoxious, disgusting filth in my on most people's opinion. Ann Coulter is political pornography yet she is the apex of right wing media.
PBS and NPR are totally left wing *biased*. Jim Leher only questions but his questions are definitely of a liberal nature. But he is polite. I do respect that he gets people of all political stripes to come on his show. His bias doesn't offend me in the least. I can understand that everyone is biased, but I commend Leher for keeping his bias limited to such a degree he can host a presidential debate.
However, the prejudice on Town Hall is so palpable you could sell "conservative prejudice" on Ebay.
And that's the point of "objective journalism". Right wing media doesn't get it, obviously, or Hugh wouldn't be making these statements. Hugh should be syaing, "my hat is off to Simpson for doing what I cannot, communicate with people who disagree with me under the guise of objective (civil) discourse."
It doesn't matter that for all those years Walter Conkrite was liberal. The fact that you couldn't tell or had to guess does matter.
The right wing needs to learn civility or it will forever be relegated to the "entertainment" aspect of our culture. Rush Limbaugh knows he is an entertainer, do you Hugh?
Simpson's career was about being perceived as credible.
|
|
especially considering her openly swooning interview of Bill Clinton in 1999. Simpson: “I have to bask in this moment, for a moment, because I am here talking to the most powerful man on the planet, who was a poor boy from Arkansas....I am an African-American woman, grew up working class on the south side of Chicago, and this is a pretty special moment for me to be here talking to you."
I actually wouldn't have a big problem with reporters taking sides providing they were reasonably up-front about it and their employers adjusted their hiring practices in order to provide a reasonable balance of viewpoints. Instead, we have liberal journalists dominating the MSM under the guise of complete ideological neutrality. |
|
While I would assume pretty much every person in this country has personal political beliefs I don't understand why you cannot believe that a person could set those beliefs aside and perform their job with professional integrity.
Perhaps it's a reflection of your personal shortcomings. |
|
In total agreement. Most of the MSM is obviously "progressive" and definately identifies with the Democrats. So do the following groups:
- academics, university professors, writers and artists
- most people who have an advanced degree of some sort
- Jewish folks largely fall into this category as well
- The citezenry of most large cities sways to the left as well, rich and poor alike
- Most high-earners also identify with/endorse progressive issues (whether climate change or gay rights)
- Most of corporate America also apparently supports progressive causes (rights for gay employees, green initiatives)
In fact, a majority of Americans now supports "left" issues, which shouldn't really be the exclusive property of the left to begin with. But hey, at least the GOP has the following:
- Southern/Red State white men suffering from inferiority complexes and persecution paranoia
- Bible Beaters
- Gun nuts
- People who live every minute of their lives in fear of the Islamic Menace
- Xenophobes
How can we expect to beat the Dems when we continue to margianalize ourselves like this and pander to the base? Look at the flak being thrown towards Romney and Guiliani by the base right now, b/c they're either not Christian enough or their social con credentails aren't good enough. It's very sad. How can we win with this approach? |
|
|
|