Smart People
Can someone smart explain something to me. I have read in multiple blogs that "Liberal media is biased against the republicans". I may or may not agree with this. However the authors then go on to quote US magazine. Now I had to go to their website to make sure but is this not like the National Enquirer? I mean their hot story of the day is how fat some celebrity on the beach is. Do you really want to use that magazine as your example of how the media is treating Republican's? Why not just say the media believes in fucking UFO's and quote the National Enquirer. I mean give me a fucking break. At least make a valid point. Show me some NEWSPAPER that proves your point not some fucking flaming paparazzi rag. You might be right about your assumption but your examples suck ass.
posted by SirFWALGMan at
1:32 PM
12 Comments:
The New York Times ran a front page article claiming Sarah Palin was once a member for the Alaskan Independant Party. It was a complete fabrication.
The next day, they had to run a retraction.
But the liberal media isn't in the bag for Obama... nope... not at all...
I've seen dozens of people on CNN, MSNBC, etc. ask how Palin can campaign and also be a mother. No one is asking how Obama can campaign and also be a father.
But there is no sexism... nope... not at all...
1:59 PM
http://eatsleeppublish.com/
todays article.
Deals somewhat with the non-profession of journalism. Which deals with "real" news vs opinion.
2:17 PM
I totally could buy into the opinion that the Liberals control the media and hate Palin and worship Obama my main point is US is not a fucking good example. Do not get me started with the NY Times. At least thats a good example but I agree that a fucking rag and everyone associated with it should be shot.
2:40 PM
Check out the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times if you want liberal spew.
4:05 PM
A few things.
Most often, those who complain about the media being "liberal elite" are people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly who are...um...part of the media. "Liberal media" is simply smear language used to denigrate those who disagree with the right wing.
As for the claims about Sarah Palin being part of the Alaskan Independence Party, it is true and undisputed that Palin's husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from 1995 until 2002, and that Sarah Palin has spoken at the AIP's convention.
And the Times' claim wasn't a "complete fabrication", it was based on the statements of the AIP party chairman who claimed Palin and her husband were both party members. It was later determined to be not right, but it was hardly a "complete fabrication".
For every member of the media who leans to the left, there is certainly one who leans to the right. The difference is that the Democratic Party doesn't whine about those who lean to the right.
It's typical Rovian politics, when you can't win on the issue, blame the media for reporting the issue.
4:29 PM
Since you're probably addressing me at least semi-personally here (since you commented on my post about this), I'll tell you why I think "Us" is important.
Magazines like "Us" are what the vast majority of people read. I'd hazard a guess (yes, I have no proof) that more eyes will see the Us cover than some NYT article. You'll see the magazine in checkout aisles across the country for a week. A NYT article is on the stands one day and it's gone, then a retraction is printed on page A47 which nobody sees.
You can argue that "intelligent" people will know the difference, but c'mon, we're talking the average person here.
4:31 PM
Chris makes a very good point, though the corollary to that is that the Republican pundits leveling those charges continually try to lump the whole collection of tabloid trash mags into the same basket as broadsheet newspapers, when the two have very little in common at all.
Funny thing is, they never seem to complain about the "liberal media" when those same rags allege marital difficulties between the Clintons.
So they're not really complaining about the media being liberal; they're simply complaining about particular coverage of themselves, and that's the part that resonates the most.
If it were Obama's daughter that were pregnant, you wouldn't hear one peep of protest of media coverage by the right wing. Instead, they'd be trumpeting that as some perceived failing of Obama's family values.
4:59 PM
Invoking Godwin's Law here, sorry.
Although you have to admit, a picture of Palin in a Hitler-esqe pose where the lights look like an "S" from the SS logo is a little much. You're telling me that CNN couldn't have left that one out?
The Republicans aren't without fault here either, but Democrats tend to appeal to the masses more than Republicans, that's why magazines such as "Us" and "Rolling Stone" will have more sway over this than the NYT, at least media wise.
I admit, I've been a life long Republican, but Bush let me (us) down. He's been terrible. That doesn't mean, however, that Obama is automatically "better".
5:06 PM
The "liberal media" tag is the most brilliant thing the Republicans have come up with in decades.
It's a beautiful piece of mass-conditioning and pre-emptive defense.
Here's how it works. You endlessly hammer the "media" as "liberal" and biased against you. You cite specific examples. Let's face it, some papers are right-wing, some are left. Same with TV shows, networks, etc.. But the right ignores the right-wing press when they lob these attacks.
This does two things - first, it puts all media on the defensive. So they compensate by either pulling back on the attacks on the right, or finding something on the left to jump on (see: Terrorist fist-bump, secret muslim, crazy reverend associations).
Second - when the "liberal media" says something GOOD about the conservatives, it sounds even BETTER! I mean, if they're goal is to attack the right at every opportunity, and this time they actually compliment them? The right must have done something SO right and SO pure than not even the left-biased media can find fault!
Keep repeating the same mantra over, and eventually it has an effect.
8:39 AM
Whenever the Republicans cannot debate an issue on the merit of the issue itself, they like to resort to name calling, fear mongering, and other similar diversionary tactics. Sadly, the majority of the American electorate falls for these weak ploys time after time because they can't think for themselves. Which is exatly how the Repulicans want to keep things.
9:21 AM
At least people aren't generalizing much. *whew*
9:23 AM
Two Words. Fox News. Stop complaining about liberal media. It's goes both ways.
6:19 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home