So you’re admitting the only ones who DO see the liberal bias are conservatives or conservative-leaning.
Hooray for the media that understand their role as giving unflagging support to The State!
Its a bit confusing listening to you guys piss and moan about your oppression, like Roots with an all-white cast.
I didn’t think even you were stupid enough to swallow that one.
Well, only in the sense that I “admit” I had dinner tonight. As far as I can tell, most conservatives can recognize the conservative slant to shows that have a conservative slant. It seems to be a singular chacteristic of liberals not to percieve liberal bias in liberal-biased media. (And to me, this is only further evidence that media bias exists. You can bet that if the mainstream media weren’t biased, liberals would be howling about it all these years the way they do now over media which is clearly conservatively biased.)
So you equate conservatism with the “State,” do you? This must be the case, as I don’t recall a great hue and cry from the liberal wing beseeching the media to be unbiased and non-supportive of Democrat presidents, politicians and policies when they are in power.
And don’t forget, this “State” of which you speak was voted for by 51% of the population.
Contrary to what you may think, we are not in the grip of Mussolini here. A greater number of conservative votes does not equate to a fascist-like State anymore than a greater number of Democrat votes equates to a communist-like State. Would you not think I was being rather silly had Kerry won and I came in here alluding to the country as being a communist State?
Maybe that’s because the “liberal wing” understands its not the role of the media to support Democratic presidents, unlike the “conservative wing” (which is not that conservative anymore, but neocons seem not to mind big spendy governments so long as the money is spent on corporate overlords, citizen control, and globe-spanning killing sprees), which supposes the role of media is to provide government propoganda. It’s ironic that after the end of the cold war, it’s the Republicans who are rushing in an era of close alliance of government and media, government intrusion into private lives, quashed dissent, and military evangelism. (Wait a second – ironic means “unexpected,” doesn’t it? Never mind.)
51% of the voters, you mean. And so what? Does that make it the role of media to give unflagging support to the state?
Bush voters keep trying to reassure themselves that Bush isn’t that bad. He may not be as bad as Mussolini, but he is pretty bad.
Why do you people always think conservatives are swallowing something? I think it speaks to your own mentality, mhendo, that you make such an assumption. It has been said that people see in others a reflection of themselves, and clearly you don’t believe anyone could hold an opinon or belief different from yours without having been conned into it. To me, this says you believe the way to get people to believe as you do is to con them into it.
For your information, I’d been cognizant of liberal media bias long before it began to be spoken of out loud. I was cognizant and critical of liberal bias dating back almost to the time I became politically aware decades ago.
And you know what, chum? I recognized it all by myself! Yup, sure did. Nobody told me it was there. In fact, I often felt like a lonely voice crying in the night. No one else seemed to see it, and no one seemed to care when I pointed out instances of it happening.
(Of course, that all makes sense now, because almost everyone else my age was in their late teens or early twenties and were either caught up in the hippie revolution or just flowing along with it for the sex and drugs. Who cares about media bias when there’s Jimi Hendrix, marijuana and nookie all about?) 
But be that as it may, you guys on the left need to stop assuming that those of us on the right are just mindless swallowers of conservative claptrap. Oftentimes, the guys you think are conning us are really just doing what we wanted in the first place. The problem, you see, is that you think you have a lock on what’s right: there’s your point of view, and there’s the wrong point of view. At least most of us conservatives recognize that reasonable men of good will can differ as to method while still striving for noble ends, whereas a great many on the liberal side appear to assume theirs is the only way that’s “right” and anyone who believes otherwise must have been “conned” into it.
Not so, mon frere!
Newsweek isn’t liberal.
Newsweek isn’t “the media”
Newsweek does, however, have a bias. That much was made abundantly clear this last election cycle. To deny it is to admit you’re really not reading the articles.
Nevertheless, I still consider it a quality news magazine. It’s not as good as it was about a decade ago when it didn’t have to devote its cover stories to things completely removed from the realm of news just to sell itself. Oh well.
So it’s biased yes. But I can filter that out if I know to expect it. As long as the stories are accuate and factual that’s good enough for me.
Well, I have to retire for the night so you’re going to have to call each other idiots from here on.
(Keeding, keeding…you know I keed. I stole that line from Everybody Loves Raymond and it just seemed too good to pass up. Actually, many of the people I like best – and many of the people who are my best friends – happen to be liberals. Who’da thunk it?) :eek:
Starving Artist, you are right, and i apologize unreservedly for suggesting that you have been “conned into” your position by someone else.
Clearly, your stupidity is entirely of your own making.
Thank you.
But I consider you a mindless swaller of pseudo-conservative claptrap. Actual conservative claptrap would be way better.
Swallower. past my bedtime, not like I need to be tired to fuck up a post.
You shouldn’t have made the correction. At first, I thought you must be a country boy…now I just think you’re a dumbass!
Keeding, keed…ah, you know the drill.
Right, Starving, we find two paragraphs which are admittedly Bush bashing. This is clear proof that the entire media has been overrun by liberals for twenty years. I’m sure Rush will devote several episodes of his daily show to broadcasting this fact.
And you might want to stop with this “51% of the voters” line or somebody’s going to link back to some of the 2000 election posts.
Much of the media criticism about Bush has been in this vein:
What this ignores is that it takes a damned sight more than simply blind pledges to get money ready. Several dozen departments had to do an impromptu evaluation in midyear with no warning to try and decide what they can give, then actually get the cash together whle figuring out some way to rebudget the rest of the year. The $15 million was simply from one organization (USAID) who happened to be first. In addition, the scope of the tragedy wasn’t wholly apparent in the first hours. Yes, Bush didn’t personally run around Washington directing relief efforts and doing budget work. I don’t particularly think that’s relevant. If you want to criticise, why don’t you try rebudgeting a major government force on a day’s notice in mid-year.
More importantly, we can pledge any amount of money in five minutes and it will make no difference. We couldn’t spend the money fast enough - it just tkes time to actually mvoe the necessary men and materials to the area. It didn’t matter a bit whether we pledged 15 mil or 15 bil in the first three days.
I’m sorry if I seem overly hostile about this, but its a fine example of modern idiocy. Things don’t happen in f minutes in the real world, no matter how much we sitting at our PC’s (or macs or tandy’s or whatevers) want to happen in five minutes. The real world taks time.
Actually, it sort of reminds me of criticism that the US military was bogged down in a quagmire in the recent Afganistan and Iraq wars - written by reporters after mere days or weeks of fighting. There’s a modern preoccupation with time to a ridiculous degree, with the though that anything which doesn’t happen five minutes ago is obviously late Late LATE!!!11111
Apples and orangutans. Nobody was suggesting that the money and goods were going to be loaded onto choppers the next morning. What was involved was a public statement of committment, no more binding than when I phone in a pledge to PBS of a million dollars if they’ll only just STOP!!..
Since you are all clamoring for my conjecture…
First story to break, the Bushiviks just loved! Ooooh, those nasty UN wonks, dissing the finest, most noble nation on Earth. And Oil for Food! Lets not stop talking about the horrendously awful and terrible Oil for Food scandal! Then the second buzz was “Hmmmm. Maybe he has a point…” Not so good, but not so bad.
But when somebody first muttered “$25 million a day for Iraq” that’s when they discovered the core of humanity and generosity deep within their, ah, souls.
Of course Newsweek isn’t “the media”, but it is a part of it.
Kind of sums up my reaction as well. I would at least like to have seen: “In such-and-such natural disaster x yearrs ago, y amount of money was pledged by the US in z number of days.”
I would agree, but just as one home run doesn’t matter, 71 gets you the record. It’s part of a pattern.
Airman is right. There is a shameless and disconcerting “pattern” of media professionals who dare to criticize THE LEADER.