# The Right and its persecution complex. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864 "2005-10-25T19:38:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/41 "2005-10-27T01:22:32Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Nattering nabobs of negativism. > > Say what you like about Spiro, he had a good writer. Indeed. I still use that term to this day. Used it just last week as a matter of fact, upon a relative who was disparaging an ambition of mine. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/42 "2005-10-27T01:33:05Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > In addition to the rebuttal posted by **Harborwolf** , there is this:A reasonab;e observer would, IMHO, be very likely to conclude that an inference of the existence of a dissension-quashing cabal is being invited. > > Inviting an inference is pretty much the same as implying something. Perhaps, although I would quibble with your use of the word, “inviting.” It is impossible to predict any and every thing someone might infer from something one says. That is why I made a follow-up explanation, which should suffice unless someone is just wanting to argue semantics. Have you read _Bias_, by Bernard Goldberg? (To the other libsters here: I know, I know…spare me.) If so, you will find that Dan Rather reacts quite strongly to the suggestion that he might be biased, although to me and roughly 80 to 100 million other people he clearly is. The fact that he and others of his ilk don’t go public with the accusation doesn’t mean they are in a conspiracy not to do so. It just means they don’t see it, so they damn sure aren’t going to own up to it. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/43 "2005-10-27T02:06:28Z")
Oooooh. Your crappy opinion based argument plus Dan Rather and Bernard Goldberg :eek: That’s the triple threat. Of course it still doesn’t add up to proof of a friggin’ thing. Keep on swinging slugger. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/44 "2005-10-27T02:40:09Z")
How many of the networks broadcast that on the night that President Reagan was shot, one of the Bush brothers (Neil, I think) was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley’s brother? John Chancellor reported it and then did not refer to it again. If anything, the main stream media conspired to keep this bit of information out of the news. Source: Vanderbilt University Media Collection I’m not implying anything sinister. But I think that this serves as a good example of how the media can show restraint. > [@](#): > > **Starving Artist** : I’ve often contended that that the simple fact that the left isn’t up in arms over mainstream media’s reporting is evidence enough of its left-wing bias. But we _have been_ complaining!! We’ve been complaining on left-wing radio shows and within left wing organizations and with our left wing friends. For most of Bush’s administration, the press _almost_ seemed to give Bush a free pass. The criticism that I read about Bush was _here_ – not on news programs. They were busy covering runaway brides, disappearing college students, Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, child abductions, and what little there was to be seen of the war in Iraq. That didn’t begin to change until revelations about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and the lack of justice for detainees in Gitmo. Even that is overridden now by the focus on the alleged White House corruption. **Starving Artist** , it is so difficult for me to imagine that you personally stand for the same things that Bush represents. The side of you that I’ve gotten to know is such a contradiction to that. Please know that nothing that I’ve said is meant as criticism of you. You are still such a puzzle to me! ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/45 "2005-10-27T05:27:35Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > How many of the networks broadcast that on the night that President Reagan was shot, one of the Bush brothers (Neil, I think) was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley’s brother? John Chancellor reported it and then did not refer to it again. If anything, the main stream media conspired to keep this bit of information out of the news. > > Source: Vanderbilt University Media Collection > > I’m not implying anything sinister. But I think that this serves as a good example of how the media can show restraint. I’m sorry, but I’m a little confused. I don’t really see much meat here. Hinckley’s family in the main were upstanding citizens and Republican in their politics. Are you thinking that if the press really wanted to cause Republicans grief they would have been all over the place suggesting an assassination conspiracy on Bush’s part? If so, such a thing could be easily debunked…and besides, a press that is liberal in its politics not necessarily a press that is totally without restraint. As I’ve said, I have never thought there was some sort of cabal or organized attempt on the part of the press to cause grief to Republicans and/or conservatives; rather that it was just the natural result of their point of view. I know that I would have a hard time appearing on television as a reporter and trying to keep smiling agreement from showing when interviewing Republican politicians or reporting on conservative ideas, and I would have a hard time not showing skepticism, dislike and/or contempt for many Democrat and liberal politicians and positions. Most of this would be a moot point if the pool of journalists and editors were pretty much evenly divided between liberals and conservative, but the fact of the matter is that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics (I read once of a poll that determined that something like 97% of all the journalists polled voted Democrat, but it’s just a recollection…I don’t have a cite.) > [@Zoe](#): > > But we _have been_ complaining!! We’ve been complaining on left-wing radio shows and within left wing organizations and with our left wing friends. For most of Bush’s administration, the press _almost_ seemed to give Bush a free pass. The criticism that I read about Bush was _here_ – not on news programs. They were busy covering runaway brides, disappearing college students, Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, child abductions, and what little there was to be seen of the war in Iraq. Yes, your side has been complaining _lately_…but it’s a rather recent development. (I think part of the problem I have in talking to many of the people here is that my comments are usually based on decades of experience and observation, and it is in that context that I make my comments. People here, especially the younger ones, understandably tend to think in more recent terms of the last five, ten or fifteen years and view everything in that context. What seems always to have been the case to them may seem to be a fairly recent development to me.) But I digress. I’ve mainly seen the complaining you’re talking about arise just since the advent of effective conservative media such as Limbaugh’s program and the huge following and influence it gained, followed by Fox, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. and the following and influence they have gained. In my opinion, this has frightened the members of the “mainstream media” (or at least the executives of mainstream media outlets) and shown them that yes, a huge segment of the population – a segment they arrogantly ignored previously when they held all the cards – does indeed view them as biased and are turning away from them in droves now that suitable alternatives exist. Thus, CNN, NBC, ABC and even CBS have begun to attempt to appear more unbiased, and this of course has led to the complaints you mention from the left. > [@Zoe](#): > > **Starving Artist** , it is so difficult for me to imagine that you personally stand for the same things that Bush represents. The side of you that I’ve gotten to know is such a contradiction to that. > > Please know that nothing that I’ve said is meant as criticism of you. You are still such a puzzle to me! **Zoe** , there is nothing that you’ve written above that would cause me the slightest offense. And even if there were, I would filter it through the prism of my understanding of the kind of person you are, and the tremendous regard I have for you, and I likely would find no offense still. And regarding your comment just above, please know that your view as to what Bush represents is completely different than mine. You look at him and see bad things; I look at him and see good things (although frankly, there are some things I’d like to see him be even “gooder” at). Which of us is correct? Likely, neither of us. Some of the things you see as bad probably have some merit; some of the things I see as good probably have some merit. But in the final analysis, please know that it isn’t what Bush represents to you that I stand for, but for what Bush represents to me. Many, many regards to you, **Zoe** , **SA** 🙂 P.S.: Here is a little aside you might find interesting. I’ve posted it a couple of times before in other forums so you may already know about it…but my former wife is one of John Hinckley’s cousins. We were married at the time of the assassination attempt. I met his mom and sister the year before when they came to town to visit my wife’s family. They were sweet and gracious people. It’s a shame what they’ve had to go through as a result of his actions. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/46 "2005-10-27T06:16:08Z")
By the way, **Zoe** , I know you like art. Look what I discovered tonight: [http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/pave.htm](http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/pave.htm) Click on the sidewalk drawings. They are 3D and amazing…especially the Coke bottle. Enjoy, **SA** ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Rieux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Dr.Rieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Rieux)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/47 "2005-10-27T08:18:44Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Nattering nabobs of negativism. > > Say what you like about Spiro, he had a good writer. Actually, it seems Pat Buchanan came up with that line for Spiro. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/48 "2005-10-27T08:20:05Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > As I’ve said, I have never thought there was some sort of cabal or organized attempt on the part of the press to cause grief to Republicans and/or conservatives; rather that it was just the natural result of their point of view. Money in the end controls the media, and it would be worse for Republicans and conservatives if the \*whole truth \* was published, see below. > [@](#): > > I know that I would have a hard time appearing on television as a reporter and trying to keep smiling agreement from showing when interviewing Republican politicians or reporting on conservative ideas, and I would have a hard time not showing skepticism, dislike and/or contempt for many Democrat and liberal politicians and positions. I see why Fox is the network for you. > [@](#): > > Most of this would be a moot point if the pool of journalists and editors were pretty much evenly divided between liberals and conservative, but the fact of the matter is that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics (I read once of a poll that determined that something like 97% of all the journalists polled voted Democrat, but it’s just a recollection…I don’t have a cite.) > > Yes, your side has been complaining _lately_…but it’s a rather recent development. (I think part of the problem I have in talking to many of the people here is that my comments are usually based on decades of experience and observation, and it is in that context that I make my comments. People here, especially the younger ones, understandably tend to think in more recent terms of the last five, ten or fifteen years and view everything in that context. What seems always to have been the case to them may seem to be a fairly recent development to me.) Decades of experience? Recent development? You are an ignorant of historical dimensions: From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: in the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” Chapter: J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war the paper was publising. Stern replied: “What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?” That was in **1936** , and it looks like things have not changed much: In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron’s methods of accounting were bananas, and Enron was likely not a good investment. So why The Times economic reporters said very little about that? Because “Other things came up!” Charlie Rose did not bother to make any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer. > [@](#): > > But I digress. Please, where else could we find examples of portentous ideas like that? Ideas that a critter with a brain the size of a Kumquat could also spout are hard to find indeed. 🙂 > [@](#): > > I’ve mainly seen the complaining you’re talking about arise just since the advent of effective conservative media such as Limbaugh’s program and the huge following and influence it gained, followed by Fox, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. and the following and influence they have gained. > > In my opinion, this has frightened the members of the “mainstream media” (or at least the executives of mainstream media outlets) and shown them that yes, a huge segment of the population – a segment they arrogantly ignored previously when they held all the cards – does indeed view them as biased and are turning away from them in droves now that suitable alternatives exist. > > Thus, CNN, NBC, ABC and even CBS have begun to attempt to appear more unbiased, and this of course has led to the complaints you mention from the left. The effort to be “unbiased” actually shows how bankrupt the idea was to keep any sense of balance on the way to war: > **[Rupert Murdoch And Judith Miller](https://www.juancole.com/2005/10/rupert-murdoch-and-judith-miller.html)** > > Rupert Murdoch and Judith MillerThe extraordinary exchanges between New York Times editor Bill Keller and reporter Judith Miller over her role in the Plame scandal and reporting on non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have suggested to me... > [@](#): > > I spoke last year about the attack Andrew Sullivan launched in Murdoch’s London Times on NYT editor Howell Raines for not cheerleading Bush’s building Iraq War. Sullivan had been especially incensed that the NYT gave no credence to the Iraqi expatriates on the nuclear issue. > > So in this polluted information environment, in which Howell Raines’s view of reality, which was perfectly correct, was constantly pilloried by powerful rightwing media as nothing short of treason, there was every incentive to give Judith Miller her head. Remember that the NYT is a commercial publication. All major newspapers were seeing their subscription base shrink. After September 11, the country had moved substantially to the right on national security issues. The Times could easily go bankrupt if it loses touch with the sentiments of the American reading public. There is a lot at stake in the Murdoch et al. assault on the NYT. In its absence, the information environment in the US would be even more rightwing. I’ve even rethought my own rash response to its editorial on the Columbia Middle East studies issue last spring. > > The NYT had no sources to speak of inside the Bush administration, a real drawback in covering Washington, because it was a left of center newspaper in a political environment dominated by the Right. Miller had sources among the Neoconservatives, with whom she shared some key concerns (biological weapons, the threat of Muslim radicalism, etc.) So she could get the Washington “scoops.” And her perspective skewed Right in ways that could protect the NYT from charges that it was consistently biased against Bush. Of course, in retrospect, Bush’s world was a dangerous fantasy, and giving it space on the front page of the NYT just sullied the Grey Lady with malicious prevarications. > > … > > In essence, Murdoch, Scaife and other far rightwing super-rich propagandists succeeded in maligning the NYT and in pushing it off its liberal perch even further to the Right. In trying to defend themselves from the charge of treason, Raines and Keller fell into the trap of using Miller’s shoddy reporting as a rampart. In the end, it was revealed to be not a rampart but a Trojan Horse for the Right. > [@](#): > > **Zoe** , there is nothing that you’ve written above that would cause me the slightest offense. And even if there were, I would filter it through the prism of my understanding of the kind of person you are, and the tremendous regard I have for you, and I likely would find no offense still. > > And regarding your comment just above, please know that your view as to what Bush represents is completely different than mine. You look at him and see bad things; I look at him and see good things (although frankly, there are some things I’d like to see him be even “gooder” at). > > Which of us is correct? Zoe is. > [@](#): > > Likely, neither of us. Some of the things you see as bad probably have some merit; some of the things I see as good probably have some merit. He can strum the guitar nicely (while New Orleans sinks) I grant you that. > [@](#): > > But in the final analysis, please know that it isn’t what Bush represents to you that I stand for, but for what Bush represents to me. To me he represents an unindicted co-conspirator. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/49 "2005-10-27T11:05:55Z")
> [@StarvingArtist](#): > > Yes, your side has been complaining lately…but it’s a rather recent development. (I think part of the problem I have in talking to many of the people here is that my comments are usually based on decades of experience and observation, and it is in that context that I make my comments. People here, especially the younger ones, understandably tend to think in more recent terms of the last five, ten or fifteen years and view everything in that context. What seems always to have been the case to them may seem to be a fairly recent development to me.) > > But I digress. > > I’ve mainly seen the complaining you’re talking about arise just since the advent of effective conservative media such as Limbaugh’s program and the huge following and influence it gained, followed by Fox, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. and the following and influence they have gained. > > In my opinion, this has frightened the members of the “mainstream media” (or at least the executives of mainstream media outlets) and shown them that yes, a huge segment of the population – a segment they arrogantly ignored previously when they held all the cards – does indeed view them as biased and are turning away from them in droves now that suitable alternatives exist. > > Thus, CNN, NBC, ABC and even CBS have begun to attempt to appear more unbiased, and this of course has led to the complaints you mention from the left. Oh now you can’t have it both ways. “The media is liberal because the left doesn’t complain but you can really tell that it is liberal because the left does complain.” :rolleyes: This is the absolute worst supposed proof of the “liberal media” that I have ever read. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/50 "2005-10-27T17:15:45Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Oh now you can’t have it both ways. Sure I can! The left hasn’t complained during most of the last sixty to eighty years that liberal bias has held sway. They have complained like hell the last ten to twelve years when finally the right has a media force to compete with it. It’s the old "You can dish it out but you can’t take it’ syndrome so typical of the liberal mindset. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/51 "2005-10-27T17:22:31Z")
Um, no. We’re complaining because it’s biased at all. It should be objective. You’re stating it _should_ be biased, which is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/52 "2005-10-27T20:28:34Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Sure I can! The left hasn’t complained during most of the last sixty to eighty years that liberal bias has held sway. They have complained like hell the last ten to twelve years when finally the right has a media force to compete with it. It’s the old "You can dish it out but you can’t take it’ syndrome so typical of the liberal mindset. > > 😃 [http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm](http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm) > [@](#): > > “The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive.” He further conceded: “I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.” > > - Pat Buchanan (when he was a Republican 10 years ago) There is a reason it is called the “news” not the “olds”. By its very nature, a truly fair and balanced outfit will report that new information that comes makes old points of view suspect; just take for example news from science, virtually every year new research (like from evolution for example) makes some conservative positions suffer, if slowly. But your silliness points to other big item that is rarely accepted by the right: the denial of what liberals consider what a liberal media outlet is: It works like this: A majority of Rightists, like you, acknowledge Fox news as their news. The left accepts this. A majority of Leftists do not see CNN, ABC, CBS, etc as their news. **The right does not accept this**. The reality is that most of the positions of the left are many times dismissed by the mainstream, looking at a very progressive site like [http://www.commondreams.org/](http://www.commondreams.org/) roughly only 25% of the articles and opinions can be found with some effort in mainstream newspapers. The thing is, if the mainstream media was truly liberal, we could see a constant barrage and repetition of headlines like we see in Commondreams. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/53 "2005-10-27T21:31:07Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Sure I can! The left hasn’t complained during most of the last sixty to eighty years that liberal bias has held sway. They have complained like hell the last ten to twelve years when finally the right has a media force to compete with it. It’s the old "You can dish it out but you can’t take it’ syndrome so typical of the liberal mindset. > > 😃 Are you saying that the media is biased or was biased? Pick one, then provide proof. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/54 "2005-10-28T06:47:35Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Are you saying that the media is biased or was biased? Pick one, then provide proof. I’m saying that the media is biased, but it is making an effort to be less so in light of the success of Limbaugh, Fox, O’Reilly, etc. and the fact they are now faced with clear evidence that a very large part of the American public views them as biased and has been turning away in droves. And I ain’t provin’ nothin’! I’m offering an observation, an opinion if you will. Whadda you want, some sort of proof that this is my opinion? Okay, my post is my cite. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/55 "2005-10-28T06:49:24Z")
Oh, I forgot. Yes, they were biased in the past just as they are now. They just take greater pains now to try not to show it. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/56 "2005-10-28T07:05:11Z")
Just popping in to wish you all a very good evening, especially my old friend **Starvers**. Please continue with your debate. I actually read it, as it stood, yesterday. I hate hacks, only second on my list behind litigation lawyers (excepting **Campers** , of course). So self-righteous and pontificatory it really makes me want to puke. And the way tele-hacks “Dan” and “Pete” each other. Like I care if they’re mates. Dickheads. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/57 "2005-10-28T07:07:21Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’m saying that the media is biased, but it is making an effort to be less so in light of the success of Limbaugh, Fox, O’Reilly, etc. and the fact they are now faced with clear evidence that a very large part of the American public views them as biased and has been turning away in droves. > > And I ain’t provin’ nothin’! > > I’m offering an observation, an opinion if you will. Whadda you want, some sort of proof that this is my opinion? > > Okay, my post is my cite. > > 😃 Argumentum ad populum And then an **Aldebaran** um argument. Yep, you ain’t proving nothing. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/58 "2005-10-28T07:11:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > an **Aldebaran** um argument. Someone should tell the Fallacy Files or the Nizkor Project (if it’s even still online, their site’s been down for me the last week.) I think we’ve got a new fallacy. Perhaps years from now someone will challenge someone else by saying “Oh come now, that’s the Fallacy of an Aldebaranum Argument” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/59 "2005-10-28T07:30:43Z")
Yes, I thought of **Aldeberan** even as I was posting that. But what’s right is right, and that comment summed things up nicely. And a hearty hello to my old friend,\*\* roger\*\*! I was thinking of you earlier this evening, as a matter of fact, while I was brewing a cup of french press Kona coffee followed by a delightful glass of Sandeman Port. (For some reason, I tend to equate you with thoughts of the good life.) 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/60 "2005-10-28T07:49:04Z")
I got’cher media bias [right here:](http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/43/deadline-finke.php) > [@](#): > > If big media look like they’re propping up W’s presidency, they are. Because doing so is good for corporate coffers — in the form of government contracts, billion-dollar tax breaks, regulatory relaxations and security favors. At least that wily old codger Sumner Redstone, head of Viacom, parent company of CBS, has admitted what everyone already knows is true: that, while he personally may be a Democrat, “It happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.” > > When it comes to NBC’s parent company, GE’s No. 1 and No. 2, Jeffrey Immelt and Bob Wright, are avowed Republicans, as are Time Warner’s Dick Parsons (CNN) and News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch (Fox News Channel). (Forget that Murdoch’s No. 2, Peter Chernin, and Redstone’s co–No. 2, Les Moonves, are avowed Democrats — it’s meaningless because Murdoch and Redstone are the owners.) > > Once upon a time, large corporations and their executives typically avoided any public discussion of their politics because partisan positions alienated customers and employees. But all of that changed after GE bought NBC in 1986. For seemingly eons, Immelt’s predecessor, the legendary Jack Welch, was a rabid right-winger who boasted openly about helping turn former liberals Chris Matthews and Tim Russert into neocons. …not that I expect **Starving Artist** to actually read the darn thing, since it’s got words with more than two syllables and all… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864.md?page=4)