Gah. The phrases “far left” and “far right” were in my very first post in this thread.
**
As I recall, I did a simple word & phrase search in a database that included most American newspapers. But there’s no need to trust me – just do the searches yourself. If you don’t have access to LEXIS-NEXIS (I don’t anymore), perhaps a college student or two will volunteer to check.
Tars Tarkas
[Moderator Hat ON]
Why are YOU not obeying the rules of this forum? That’s quite enough in that vein.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Please do so.
I promise I won’t turn you in to the copyright police. 
(I think that sending it to one person is so de minimis that no one’s gonna care even if it is a technical copyright violation. If it was, the newspaper industry would be suing every office that puts up articles on the coffee room bulletin board.)
FWIW -
I did a Google news search on the term “ultraconservative”. 453 hits.
I then did the same search on the term “ultraliberal”. Five hits.
Regards,
Shodan
In other words, none of the examples cited in this or any other threads on this subject are worthy of your attention (other than a dismissal as “subjective”).
FAIR doesn’t reproduce or link to actual articles or provide substantive evidence for its claims, but we already knew that.
Thanks to DSeid in this thread for reminding us of another highly interesting finding in the Pew Research Center poll which was ignored or barely mentioned by major media:
“…underscore the difficulties ahead for Bush in the Middle East. He met with Arab leaders Tuesday and sits down with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas today to urge progress on the U.S.-backed “road map.” It envisions creation of a Palestinian state to exist side by side with Israel by 2005.
But 80% of those in the Palestinian Authority said co-existence isn’t possible. But in Israel, 68% of Jews and 62% of Arabs said it is possible.”
This is an embarassing piece of news for the many who lean toward the Palestinian side in daily news coverage. Best to ignore it, huh?.
Both, actually. Their news reporting is also biased, frex, little or no coverage of the protests against the outcome of Election 2000, slanted coverage of anti-war protests, slanted coverage of the war itself, and of the subsequent search for WMD.
I also think the occasional eidtorial slip or slant is hardly an equivalent to the attack-dog partisanship of Fox and Clear Channel. It’s like saying, yeah, the one guy attacked the other guy’s house with machine guns, rocket grenades and artillery, but the other guy, he was waving a stick in the air!
I think the use of “ultraconservative” may be used our of respect for non-ultra conservatives.
That is, when I refer to those feminists who wish to censor sexual imagery, I call them “anti-sex feminists” out of respect for all the feminists whom I know do not advocate censorship.
In the same way, I suspect many people use the term “ultra-conservative” to distance the people so identified from conservatives who aren’t big fans of racism and sexism and such. They’re trying to preserve the good name of conservatism, not attack conservatism.
Why no “ultra-liberals”? My suspicion is that it’s because the conservative attack dog media have made the term a pejorative already – “liberal” already carries as much contextual baggage for many people as “ultra-liberal” would, so there’s no point in making a distinction.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Tars Tarkas, so you don’t think that Thurman is an extreme conservative. You think that Lott is. What about Helms?
How about explaining who is an extreme liberal if Ted Kennedy isn’t?
As i explained to the other guy who is also not reading my posts, i’ve already said helms is an extreme conservative and an extreme liberal is a socialist. I’ve not only said it in the original posts, i’ve pointed them out repeatedly despite someone’s best efforts to not read anything i write and give no cites supporting his position despite cites given debunking it.
I read the thread twice and still didn’t see where you said Helms was an extreme conservative.
Oh, and who is an extreme liberal if Ted Kennedy isn’t?
This seems to be almost the standard liberal dodge in avoiding the issue of liberal bias. Simply redefine the spectrum to call moderate liberal as centrist, liberal as moderate liberal, moderate conservative as conservative etc. etc. Therefore there is no liberal bias - problem solved. (I am not saying that it is purely an argument adopted out of expedience, BTW. There is a natural tendency of everyone to view their own position as being as close to the “center” as is possible).
The only objective spectrum that makes sense is that of the American public at large, as expressed in public opinion polls and election results. So that if you take the 10% of the most right-wing congressmen and senators, they would be as extreme as the 10% most left-wing congressmen and senators. And so on. By this objective standard, lucwarm wins the day (IMHO).
What you are doing is defining as “extreme left” a position (socialist) that has almost no support in this country, while you are defining as “extreme right” a position that has quite a lot of support. Under this system you win of course, but it is a meaningless victory, based entirely on semantics.
In other words, your results are essentially meaningless since they just looked for the use of the word but did not try to distinguish the use of the word by a reporter, a quoted source, or an editorial piece. Thus it says nothing about bias in reporting. My guess is that a term like “ultraconservative” or “ultraliberal” is used extremely rarely in reporting and is hence basically irrelevant to a debate regarding bias in reporting. When “ultraconservative” is used in reporting, my guess is that it usually appears in such venues as alternative newspapers that pretty much wear their liberal viewpoint on their sleeves.
So, what you have proven is that the word “ultraconservative” is in the popular lexicon in the way that “ultraliberal” just isn’t (probably because, for example, those conservatives tempted to use it use “socialist” or something like that instead).
Of course, much of the above discussion would also apply to “far left” and “far right”.
i quote it like three times on this page alone. right below my hissy fit.
Off the top of my head Nader springs to mind. He does have his own party so he gets labeled green instead of ultra-liberal.
As shown in this thread, there seems to be no real consensious on what an extreme liberal/conservative is. You accuse me of redefining, while i can easily do the same to you. My arguement would hold more water, as Clinton, who is actually a centrist, gets labeled repeatedly as a liberal by Rush and other conservatives, and the rallying cry is heard over and over again, until it becomes dogma. So now Liberals are for Free Trade, for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, for World Bank IMF, for troops in Bosnia, for attacking Iraq, for leaving the economy alone, these don’t sound like liberal ideals to me. But if you get blasted that they are repeatedly based on Clinton not giving a giant tax cut to the rich, then suddenly the whole political spectrum is redefined. Moderate has been taken out of the equation and now everyone is either Liberal or conservative. Even when Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich opposed the large Bush tax cut and wanted a smaller one they were ridiculed by the ultra-conservatives in their own party and were featured in commericals infront of French flags! When McCain was running against Bush their camp tried to paint him as a liberal! He must be the only Pro-life, Pro-business, pro-military, anti-tax liberal in the world!
I see you mention Thurman and Lott there, not Helms. I’m not being snide, but I really don’t think you mentioned Helms and that’s why you keep being accused of not answering the question.
What IzzyR said. It’s safe to call the 10% fringe on both parties as extreme conservate, and extreme liberal. That’s fair.
Calling Republican senators “extreme conservatives” while refusing to admit Ted Kennedy is an “extreme liberal” is clearly redefining the roles to meet your definition.
If you have to be as far left as Nader to be an extreme liberal, then why don’t you have to be as far right as a libertarian like Carla Howell to be an extreme conservative?
this–
is Helms, he was the person mentioned right before i said that in the original post. And the fact i’ve mentioned dozens of times that it was referring to Helms should also be a big clue.
No it is not. Libewral Republicans get the shaft then. You can’t break down Conservative and liberal into Democrat and Republican. What would Teddy roosevelt be labeled? He was a Republican but went after big Business. Since he wasn’t in the extreme 10% then he is a normal conservative according to your definitions.
Libertairans i don’t count as extreme conservatives, just extreme. They are normally against drug laws, morality laws, instiutionalized religion, the military, the death penalty, and tough crime laws, all hallmarks of the conservatives. Libertairns have their own definiton off the chart.
Yes, that was my point. But I am providing an objective standard. You are not.
Clinton is liberal, in terms of the entire political spectrum. His record, prior to becoming president, was as someone who was a moderate liberal, on the right wing of the Democratic Party. As president, he moved somewhat to the left, both because of the need to appeal to a nationwide (as opposed to southern) audience, and because of the need to keep a coalition of Democrats (cabinet appointments in particular are generally designed to throw a bone for all elements of the constituency).
But this - and the rest of your comments here - is all irrelevant. When people like Rush and other political partisans are talking about Clinton (or Snowe et al) as being liberal, they are using a different scale. Rush merely means that Clinton is a lot more liberal than Rush Limbaugh thinks he aught to be. Rush can use his terms like that because Rush is not supposed to be an impartial describer of the political scene - he is supposed to be a political haranguer. It’s not a exactly a big secret that Rush is biased against liberals. But if a newspaper writer or editor would define the two sides of the spectrum using different terminology, that would be evidence of bias at work.
Again, the only thing that makes objective sense is using the US public as a scale. Where a person stands in terms of this scale should define whether he is right, left or center, and to what extent. (A secondary measure might be the voting-record ratings put out by the various organizations. These are a bit more nebulous, but have the advantage of being a lot more quantifiable).
(BTW, it’s not just the right-wingers who are under the (mistaken) impression that McCain is some sort of liberal - this notion seems to me to come primarily from the left, including many on this very MB).
This is one of the lamer attempts at ad hominem in the debate so far.
Ultra-conservatives are racist and sexist, but out of respect, the media refers to them only as extreme examples of what everybody knows conservatives “really” think. [Dr. Evil voice]Riiiiiight.[/Dr. Evil voice]
This is another instance of what has been mentioned before - that liberals deny that the media is biased by claiming that they are right. Conservatives really are bigotted extremists, whereas liberals are really compassionate centrists. So when the media uses its accusatory shorthand, it can consider its opinions as established without all that messy business of proving what you say. So when you are presented with some conservative argument you don’t feel like refuting, simply label the presenter as “ultra-conservative” and he can be considered racist without further examination.
Good heavens, talk about begging the question - you haven’t demonstrated even slightly that the media is conservative.
At any rate, please provide evidence of some sort that what you claim is true as regards “liberal” vs. “ultra-liberal”.
Regards,
Shodan
IzzyR
How is this irrelavent? This is the same scale being used by people to claim a liberal media. I think that makes it relavent to the discussion.
And i still think that scale is narrow minded. The Libertarian Party has that political compass test and that isn’t limited to just a liberal/conservative line, it has a circle of ideas. people on the top right and bottom right would have many wildly different beleifs but with just lopping them in the same 10% group they are all suddenly ultraconservative. Plus regionalism also comes into play. A liberal democrat in texas (say in the 10% range) would still be considered a conservative democrat by many people outside of texas, particularly in the north (where he suddenly drops out of the ten percent range). Add that to the fickelness of the American public and you have an ever changing definition of who is ultraliberal or not (some people would have to conduct a survey each week to find out where they are ranked).
You’ve lost me here. I could have sworn that I addressed the distinction directly, pointing to a difference between straightforward partisans using the term in a relative manner, and ostensibly neutral sources. What have I missed? (And what do you mean “same scale”?)
Well yes, obviously there are going to be people that don’t fit in the box exactly. In fact most people won’t fit in too neatly, if you look at them closely enough. What this would imply is that there are few if any true liberals or conservatives, making the entire discussion - and any other discussion of related subjects - completely meaningless. But of course, the answer is that despite all the exceptions and overlap, there is a rough validity to the use of these labels. As you well know, I rather suspect. Here too, I am not sure what your point is.
The Libertarian Party occupies a niche between both parties, adopting some stances that appeal to the right and some that appeal to the left. If they were more successful, they might succeed in redefining the scale. But meanwhile they have been spectacularly unsuccessful in this country (with the notable exception of this message board).
Frankly, bringing up obscure groups like the Socialists and Libertarians in discussions of mainstream media bias seems to me like a diversionary tactic. As previous, there will always be people or groups that don’t fit in, and even the ones that do fit in might not fit in precisely, but the big picture is still true. (Hey, it’s a lot like the race issue 
). When you hear the media describe Candidate A as the conservative candidate in a race, you have a good idea of what position he is likely to have on a given issue, as compared to a candidate described as the liberal one.
The fickleness of the public is a valid point, but this merely means that you have to take a longer term view, and not just look at one single election. (Though you would not look as far back as Teddy Roosevelt - in contrast to a previous post of yours - over extended periods of time the political spectrum changes, along with the issues).