I know liberals, there is no media bias.
I'm sure that media workers everywhere were cheering as Bill Clinton's law license was revoked, or when he was held in contempt of court for lying under oath. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Why? Because just about everyone in the media is a liberal. I'm sorry you don't want to believe in facts, but here is another story of media workers showing their out-right hatred of conservatives.
It is impossible for them to keep it out of their writing, out of the stories they pick to be in the news, out of the labels they give for people.
Just admit it, the media has to have a liberal bias due to the fact that the media is full of liberals.
Do you think this is proper behavior for people who are supposed to be objective and give the citizens of the United States fair and balanced news?
Okay liberals, before you respond:
1. Take a deep breath
2. Try and stay focused on THIS story
3. No reason to bring up GWB
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Rove Incident Causes Editor to Declare: Keep Political Views to Yourself
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Here is something I would like to see liberal "answers" to.
Game,
Good Luck on getting answers. Libs hate to admit the truth about their bias in the media.
There is no "liberal media".
Your false premise excludes all further debate.
Perhaps an in-house debate amongst posters who identify with the right would be possible.
Also, the title of your post doesn't relate it any way to the varied points you make in the body of the post itself.
So the reporters were joking about Rove, and the editor got pissed off.
That indicates to me that the reporters are liberal and the editor is conservative.
In between the insults, perhaps you conservatives can address the fact that since editors (and managing editors and media executives and owners) really exercise more control over what goes out, that would indicate that the media leans conservative.
I'll leave hash's comment up here...but whenever he posts I get a headache then try and figure out how someone can think that way.
Writers cheered when they heard of Roves departure, showing a clear bias about news events. That directly relates to my points, and it is the actual title of the news story.
So realism...you don't see anything wrong, in this story and in hundreds of others, of a vast majority of writers clearly having one political view? Being intellectually honest, you think that having all liberals working for a newspaper or TV news show still allows them to report things straight down the middle. To me, no logic can defend that.
I don't really concern myself so much with what is right or wrong, so much as what IS. As I continually point out, even if journalists are liberally biased, they don't control what we read and see on the news. Editors, managing editors, executives and owners dictate what is news.
If liberal journalists controlled the news, would we be continually be seeing stories like the urban legend that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet?
If liberal journalists controlled the news, would we be reading more stories about John Edwards hair than about his populist ideology?
If liberal journalists controlled the news, would they allow Giuliani to constantly paint himself as the hero of 9/11 without noting all of the problems that were caused by his decision to place the disaster response headquarters in the number one terrorist target?
If liberal journalists controlled the news, would the supposed paragon of liberal bias, the NY Times, continually allow administration officals to spread administration propaganda under the guise of an "anonymous source" with no critical analysis?
That liberal media . . .
The political press is absolutely head over heels for Huckabee. (There were high-fives all around when it became clear he'd finish second.)
--
There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.
--
An edgy moment of own-expense laughter is the best that reporters and an about-to-drop-out presidential hopeful can hope for, as a campaign enters what everyone knows is its final hours.
Hence, candidate -- and media critic -- Howard Dean reacted with humor Tuesday in Milwaukee as journalists presented him with a long-sleeve white T-shirt. It carried the motto "Establishment Media" in front, and a slogan swiped from Dean in the back: "We Have the Power, Dean Press Corps 2004."
It was the fitting end to a roller-coaster relationship. Dean was decorating the covers of Time and Newsweek a month ago, only to become fodder for late-night comics after his I-Have-a-Scream Iowa concession speech.
--
Or, more to answer your question:
"[Clinton] came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place." [. . .]
Just as many men are angry that Clinton's actions inspire the reaction "All men are like that," Washingtonians can't abide it that the rest of the country might think everyone here cheats and lies and abuses his subordinates the way the president has. "This is a community in all kinds of ways," says ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts, whose parents both served in Congress. She is concerned that people outside Washington have a distorted view of those who live here. "The notion that we are some rarefied beings who breathe toxic air is ridiculous. . . . When something happens everybody gathers around. . . . It's a community of good people involved in a worthwhile pursuit. We think being a worthwhile public servant or journalist matters."
--
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, "NATIONAL REVIEW": Well, I think the press -- they're kind of decadent puritans. There's a sort of disapproval to a lot of this behavior, but then again, we revel in the details, and we want to hear every last bit of exactly what Clinton was doing in the Oval Office...
--
The prize for sanctimonious moralizing—as was the case throughout the impeachment crisis—goes to the New York Times editorial page. Its editorial, "A Deserved Fine for Mr. Clinton," gave a world-turned-upside-down picture of the lessons of the Lewinsky affair.
"The $90,000 penalty sends a clear message that even a President cannot get away with intentional falsehoods under oath," the Times declared. "It may also deter ordinary citizens from emulating Mr. Clinton's abuse of the judicial system."
You have to give info in small chunks for me or I wont read it...I read the first two. First one, who the hell is the guy who wrote this, and who is he talking about? All the media types around him all did high fives for Huckabee? Ya right.
Second link: When you do something over and over again, and your actions are extreme, then you people start looking for you to do it over again. Romney didn't fly a personal hair dresser across the country to give him a haircut...that is a bit different than wearing make-up.
My story is one of hundreds of SPECIFIC stories. Not large generalizations as your links seem to be.
I apologize for your short attention span. But if you read the whol thing, you'll find press covering Republicans cheering them on and press covering Democrats reveling in the power they have to bring them down.
You'll find press who hated Bill Clinton, and loved it that he was caught and punished.
Jay,
And you will find Clinton-bots like Joe Connason who couldn't see Clinton as a criminal even if he strangled Hillary in front of Connason.
And, pcd, you will find that Joe Conason spells his name with only two ns.
And that Sheriff Baca is a Republican.
And Jay you still are a dishonest person for saying to game that the Democrats did not want to raise taxes. Well Where aren't Democrats trying to raise taxes? Doyle? What isn't he taxing? The Democrat Congress? Again what aren't they raising taxes on? Chicago Aldermen? They want to tax bottles of water for christssake.
That is true Jay. Before the election you were outraged that I was wrongly putting Doyle in a liberal stereotype box...he has jumped out of that box and into one even more Left.
Post a Comment