Liberal media bias is so obvious, so pervasive and so entrenched that only those to the left of Al Franken have trouble detecting it. It is not always as obvious as a Dan Rather fawning over the Clintons or softball questions tossed up by Katie Couric to lib's or Bryant Gumbel's idiotic tirades. It also includes using the standard liberal template to decide what is newsworthy or not and casting liberal spokespeople as somehow more credible than conservatives. And why is it necessary on the networks for a single conservative commentator to be "balanced" by at least three liberals? It's also amazing that with the liberals controlling the universities, the public schools, virtually all public foundation resources, the major networks, all the cable channels except Fox News, virtually every newspaper in the country except for the Washington Times and the WSJ editorial page ( the news side is controlled by libs) and the publishing industry, they continue to whine that they are not allowed to get their story out and that they are unfairly excluded. Could it be that liberalism only survives when there are no dissenting voices, when no debate is allowed, when there is no choice at all?
It seems to me, that those who are biased in one direction, liberal or conservative, have an inherit need to label anything that is counter their perspective as the opposite of their perspective. The argument has to do with bias in general, and is there really any doubt that Fox is biased? If there are only liberal and conservative, and Fox is not liberal, then they must be conservative, hence biased. From your perspective, compared to you I may be a liberal, but compared to my concept of liberal and conservative, I am neither.
Are you a conservative? Do you consider yourself a conservative? Do you take in all data and then filter the data through your conservative bias? Then is it possible, that you are not objective on this point? That you are selectively filtering the data points, to support your pre-conceived notion of liberal bias and agenda in the media? Again, my opinion, but anyone who has a need to label themselves as a conservative or liberal, is not issue oriented, but rather party oriented, and easily influence by opinion versus fact as long as the opinion meets the party line. The argument is that the media has some liberal bias and is attempting to advance that agenda, and I have not seen sufficient data to support that as the only possible conclusion. It may be true, but many things may be true that are indeed false. Truly, I don't know what liberalism is. To me it is as meaningless a term as I can think of, and those who don't think issue by issue but simply respond from forgone conclusions are dangerous. If you put together a list of all possible issues, and I voted for some of those issues in a "conservative" way, and others in a "liberal" way, would that make me conservative, liberal, or just an independent thinker?
AAA Here is a real example of Dan Rathers liberal bias. When Ronald Regan was president, the Clean Water Act was being enforced in North Carolina. I know because I was working in the field at the time. When George Bush got elected he ran as "the environmental president". As soon as he got elected the Corps of Engineers started breaking this law and allowed the illegal development of lwetlands here on the Outer Banks and the rest of North Carolina. This activity is a felony that can result in large fines and jail time. In spite of this fact, no one in North Carolina had ever been prosecuted for this activity in spite of the fact that the law was 18 years old at the time. Because of expose's that CBS had done in the past, I sent numerous letters to Rather outlining a sting operation designed to catch these wetland criminals in the act and prosecuting them. Finally, I got a letter back from CBS telling me to stop sending these letters because Rather "wasn't interested in the Clean Water Act". So much for the liberal bias. Regards
Which means that the networks are just a bunch of whores that will do anything for ratings. They'd "rather" run a movie about Reagan, which is sure to draw the conservative crowd. Any news on that made for TV movie? Hannity says that it's "disgusting" and "distorted", but how can he say that if he hasn't seen it? For some reason he's not waiting to form an informed opinion. Wonder why?
I remember when I used to get fired up by bias debates like this... I'm glad I can laugh at them now. Advice to conservatives: stop getting your news from TV. It just ain't worth it. Go to print instead, or the internet. Putting the trolls on ignore makes ET a better place; the same goes for news. This goes for Fox too: they give the trolls regular air time, partly to provide a left wing view and partly because it's good showmanship, but the end result is still the same: higher blood pressure for conservatives. Who needs to listen to idiots? I don't care if it's only for ten minutes per show, why listen to idiots at all? I kicked the cable news habit in '99 when I realized I was finishing my dinner angry or irritated on a regular basis because of the nitwit crap I was subjecting myself to. And for what? The good news is that the left is fading- not because the right is stronger, but because on most issues the left is simply... wrong. The left favors government as a solution to people's problems. Free enterprise has shown market solutions to be far more efficient- and the more efficient free enterprise gets, the more ground is lost by government. Public schools- the last bastion of statism in America- are under assault, and you ain't seen nothin' yet. The left favors bureaucracy, central control and institutionalized mediocrity in the name of 'fairness'. Technology, however, is an incredibly decentralizing force: just as small firearms destroyed the feudal system by giving serfs access to cheap weaponry, technology is eating away at size advantages by making smaller entities more nimble and efficient. Technology is also an incredible force for disequilibrium and social upheaval: the internet can make smart people smarter (through education and access to resources) or dumb people dumber (think free porn and metallica websites). Technology is simultaneously giving a bigger edge to the haves (in the form of leverage and opportunity) and sedating the have-nots into a state of contented cowhood (by lowering the cost of mind numbing entertainment). We're not out of the woods yet, and there is still a long way to go- but in the long term, the left is washed up, because they are simply wrong about almost everything. And as the left continues to lose battle after battle- as privatization of schools takes hold, as more individuals see the folly of tax and spend, as genx'ers revolt against the coming boomer money grab- the left is just going to keep shouting louder, and louder, and louder. The more they bitch and moan, the more pain they are in. And yet most of them still won't let go of their delusions- look at how they refused to draw any lessons from the California recall. I hope the left gets all the jollies they can in the coming protectionism backlash, because once that's worked through it's back out in the cold, baby. One last thing: I'm not sure Rupert Murdoch had a political motive in starting Fox News as much as plain old common sense. I mean, when you see Rush Limbaugh getting 20 million listeners a week, what does that tell you? Murdoch saw an opportunity to tap into a huge market of viewers sick of the patronizing, arrogant left... and to do so with NO competition whatsoever in the TV space! Ted Turner was a dumbass not to see it coming.
Wonderful. Let's read only those news sources that have our particular political bent, that preach to the choir and create an US versus THEM mentality. Let's label those with differing perspectives trolls. Certainly a great formula for totality of thought.