# Time & Newsweek drop pretense; embrace liberalism as survival strategy! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421 "2009-01-22T07:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/121 "2009-01-24T07:47:53Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > And I certainly don’t see anywhere near the same type of snide, condescending, nose-in-the-air attitudes towards their opponents coming from the right as I do from the left. From the right I see mostly anger, contempt and disgust. […] > Like I said, when you’re talking about national exposure and what people experience as they go through their lives day-to-day, liberals exude smug superiority, and conservatives, in their limited way through Fox and Limbaugh and to whatever degree they can get mainstream media exposure, exude mainly anger, contempt and disgust. Hmmm. On the one hand, you seem to be acknowledging that conservatives go around spewing anger, contempt and disgust. On the other hand, you seem to resent liberals’ considering themselves superior to conservatives. Here’s the question: If somebody is spewing anger, contempt and disgust at me, why **shouldn’t** I feel superior to them? If someone’s using me as the target for vicious and hateful rhetoric, what claim do they have not to be looked down upon? I frankly admit I do despise gratuitous meanness, viciousness, and animosity being used to poison the public discourse. If that makes me an elitist, so be it, I guess. Conservatives who resent being looked down upon for gratuitous meanness, viciousness, and animosity have nobody to blame but themselves, AFAICT. In any case, the allegation of “elitism” on the part of liberals seems to be mostly a free-floating scare word used by conservatives to whip up that anger, contempt and disgust that you seem to feel is so intrinsic to their discourse. As [this article](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/alterman) notes: > [@](#): > > The contemporary conservative obsession with the “liberal elite” has its origin in the campaign of 1964, when Ronald Reagan crisscrossed the country in support of Barry Goldwater’s presidential aspirations, accusing liberals of believing that “an intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” Richard Nixon took up the cudgel in his second State of the Union speech, complaining that “a bureaucratic elite in Washington knows best what is best for people everywhere.” […] > > It’s hard to know exactly what conservatives mean by the accusation of elitism, as it appears to fit almost any occasion. […] Rush Limbaugh posited his success as an example of what he termed “middle America’s growing rejection of the elites,” which he defines as “professionals” and “experts,” including “the medical elites, the sociological elites, the education elites, the legal elites, the science elites…and the ideas this bunch promotes through the media.” […] > > [R]adio talk-show host and former conservative cable host Laura Ingraham has written an entire book about the dangers posed by liberal elites […] In it, this daughter of a Connecticut lawyer, a graduate of Dartmouth and the University of Virginia Law School who now lives in an expensive home in Washington, DC, distinguishes between liberal elitists and those she terms “true Americans.” She begins her treatise by explaining who these “elite Americans” are and what they think: “They think we’re stupid. They think our patriotism is stupid. They think our churchgoing is stupid. They think our flag-flying is stupid. They think having big families is stupid. They think where we live–anywhere but near or in a few major cities–is stupid.” [_Note that Ingraham herself lives in a major city._] […] > > A telling aspect of the conservatives’ attack on liberal elitism is their intense attachment to the very same elite liberal academic institutions they profess to detest. When George Bush tried to nominate his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, a graduate of Southern Methodist University Law School, to the Supreme Court, conservatives had a collective conniption fit over her meager credentials. […] “I’m beginning to think that this appointment was an expression of the president’s contempt for the conservative intelligentsia,” Andrew Sullivan complained. […] > > The simplest explanation is that “elitism” has come to be perceived as a legitimate attack word by the right, without anyone really being able to define why. Remember: it’s not about where you live, how much money you have, how many security guards you regularly employ, where you summer, what you drive […] Rather, “elitism” has simply become a contentless cudgel with which to beat back one’s opponents without the trouble of engaging their arguments. […] > > It’s quite a trick these right-wingers have pulled off, one that might even impress George Orwell. When they dislike a position, they deride it as “elitist,” irrespective of the fact that it is supported by a majority of Americans. Personally, they enjoy exactly the same advantages as liberal elitists, but they insist that this does not matter, because they think about those advantages differently. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/122 "2009-01-24T07:51:44Z")
If anything, for the longest time it’s been liberals who’ve mostly expressed contempt, disgust, and anger, while the conservatives sat in power just _dripping_ smug superiority. But then, leave it to the religious and/or right to manage to portray themselves as the persecuted minority while reality is completely different. ---
**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:** [January 24, 2009, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/123 "2009-01-24T08:02:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. What you are really, really talking about is the sense of moral superiority to which every faction lays claim while trying to demonize their opponents–except that you attempt to pretend that your own expression of superiority is simply “true” while the same expressions by your opposition are “elitism.” No, I really and truly do not see anywhere near the same condemnation of liberals coming from the right (and when I talk about this kind of thing, I’m talking about the population as a whole and not TV and radio personalities and politicians) as I do coming from the left and aimed at the right. I’m not aware of any particular conservatives who deride liberals as being dumb, mouth-breathing knuckkle-draggers, backward and old-fashioned, etc., etc., etc. I’ve heard it said that while conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, liberals think conservatives are bad people. And what I see and hear coming from the left - whether it’s from the news and entertainment media, liberals I talk to face-to-face, or innumerable posts around here - bears that out. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Some of the haughtiest, most smug pronouncements heard in this country in the last thirty years have issued from the mouths of Gingrich, Falwell, Dobson, Hyde, Santorum, Lott, Lugar, and dozens of others. (Reagan was also prone to that sort of opinion.) Now, I would not claim that liberals were free of this particular taint, but I would not go out of my way to pretend that only one side or another was so afflicted. Again, I’m talking about the population in the main. When people gripe about conservatives around here, they gripe about all of them and not just TV personalities or politicians. So I don’t think it’s kosher to point to a handful of conservative pundits and personalities and extrapolate from their behavior that it represents conservative thinking in the main. > [@tomndebb](#): > > It is amusing, of course, to see someone who claims that every evil that occurs in this country is the result of the actions of one group also claims that that group is guilty of a feeling of superiority. Now see, this is the kind of thing I have to fight around here all the time. I NEVER SAID “EVERY EVIL” THAT OCCURS IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE RESULT OF LIBERAL ACTION! Mmkay, is that plain enough? I have said several times around here in the past that there are some areas in which liberalism has been correct. There have been other areas where I think liberals had good ideas but went off the rails in implementing them. And I have _never_ blamed all the evils in this country on liberals or liberalism. What I have done is point to areas where I think liberalism has caused a lot of damage (mostly in terms of societal quality of life) and I’ve criticised it for that. Now that isn’t to say I view liberalism all that benignly, either. I view it as a philosophy that is deeply flawed and based on wishes and idealism rather than pragmatism and realism. Still, some good comes from every ideology and I’d never claim that every evil that exists came about from one ideology, and one ideology only. And now, I’m all typed out. See you later. Dammit, **Ruby**! (Sorry if that’s not your real name.:)) Now you’re doing it, too! I’ve never said, \*“Liberals are rude, elitist snobs who dress poorly and their goal is to destroy American cultures and traditions.” \* For one thing, the elitist snobs of the type I’m talking about, and which _Time_ and _Newsweek_ covet, don’t dress poorly. They’re wine and cheese types. (As am I on occasion 🆒, but then I paint sometimes too and I love the way Elton John’s homes are decorated. :eek:) It’s society in the main, rather than the wine-and-cheese types, which has become rude, crass, vulgar, etc. And yes, in a sense I believe that liberalism has had as its goal the destruction of American cultures and traditions as they existed in the days when American culture was more civilized and polite and where adults dressed in such a way that they actually looked like sophisticated and mature men and women rather than going through life looking like they just left a little-league game. Still, I don’t think that rudeness, crassness, vulgarity (well, maybe vulgarity ;)) was ever a goal - I just think they were predictable results that lefties don’t care about, scoffed at at the time, and are indifferent to now that the damage is done. And now, I do have to be off. Chow! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/124 "2009-01-24T08:03:16Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > But having said that (and not to be agreeing with them in priniciple; I’ve been pretty clear around here that I generally favor gay rights), the way you and other gay rights proponents phrase this question is more than a little misleading. Now, I don’t expect what I’m about to say will get much traction with you, but I think it’s a valid point, and the thing is, most of these people don’t view themselves as wanting to “take anything away from anybody” or “impose their values” so much as they want to maintain the ways and values they’ve grown up with and always known. So from their point of view, they way things always have been and should remain is under attack. They want to keep you from imposing your values on them (or on the society they live in). So it’s not so cut-and-dried, and they are every bit as unhappy with what they view as aggression from you (not you specifically) as you are with what you regard as agression from them. The same could be said about the people who opposed black rights in the 50’s and 60’s. Or women’s rights at the turn of the century. Or immigrants rights the century before that. So what? No one wants to think of themselves as an asshole. That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as an asshole. It just means that there are a whole lot of people who are capable of going through all sorts of impressive mental gymnastics to justify their bigotries. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/125 "2009-01-24T08:58:24Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’ve heard it said that while conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, liberals think conservatives are bad people. And I’ve heard it said the other way around. And certainly, much of the rhetoric we’ve heard over the past several years from conservatives denouncing liberals as “treasonous”, “godless”, “cowardly”, “immoral”, “America-hating”, “anti-religion”, etc. etc. etc., seems to strongly bear out the idea that conservatives think liberals are bad people. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > It’s society in the main, rather than the wine-and-cheese types, which has become rude, crass, vulgar, etc. There’s an elitist remark if I ever heard one. Isn’t it the “ordinary people” who constitute “society in the main”? And isn’t it the “ordinary people” whom conservatives like to extol as being “real Americans” unfairly derided by those sneering, elitist liberals? In fact, the people who really seem to [disdain the “ordinary” conservatives of the Republican base](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rove-described-fundamentalist-christians-as-nuts-419991.html) are the elite conservatives in their own party: > [@](#): > > The book, by former White House insider David Kuo, suggested that Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political advisor, and his staff, routinely refer to fundamentalist Christians as “the nuts”. That is unlikely to be taken kindly by the evangelicals who voted in 2004 and made the crucial difference in securing President Bush’s re-election. > > Mr Kuo writes: “National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘out of control’.” […] > > Earlier this week, television host Tucker Carlson said “the elites” in the party had “pure contempt” for the evangelicals […] And of course, conservative discourse simply drips with disdain for those among the “little guys” who don’t happen to trend conservative, such as immigrants, the urban poor, and union members. From [Sarah Palin sneering at the work of urban community organizers](http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1766) to [Phil Gramm](http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/10/politics/horserace/entry4248237.shtml) dismissing concerns about economic hard times as the “complaining” of “a nation of whiners”, conservative elites periodically let slip their mask of patriotic adoration of the non-elite “real Americans” and allow their condescending snobbery to show through. In short, **SA** , you and the conservative leadership are the ones with your noses in the air sneering at the “ordinary Joes”, and then hypocritically blaming the liberals for their elitist disdain for the common people. ---
**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:** [January 24, 2009, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/126 "2009-01-24T09:03:33Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hmmm. On the one hand, you seem to be acknowledging that conservatives go around spewing anger, contempt and disgust. On the other hand, you seem to resent liberals’ considering themselves superior to conservatives. > > Here’s the question: If somebody is spewing anger, contempt and disgust at me, why **shouldn’t** I feel superior to them? If someone’s using me as the target for vicious and hateful rhetoric, what claim do they have not to be looked down upon? Okay, once more unto the breach, dear friends, and then I must conkify. I didn’t say conservatives go around “spewing” anger, contempt and disgust. I’m saying that they are the emotions that liberalism engenders in us, and largely as a result of the type of behavior I’ve been describing in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/127 "2009-01-24T09:14:03Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I didn’t say conservatives go around “spewing” anger, contempt and disgust. You said that they “exude” anger, contempt and disgust. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > […] liberals exude smug superiority, and conservatives, in their limited way through Fox and Limbaugh and to whatever degree they can get mainstream media exposure, exude mainly anger, contempt and disgust. What, in your opinion, is the significant difference between spewing and exuding? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’m saying that they are the emotions that liberalism engenders in us, and largely as a result of the type of behavior I’ve been describing in this thread. Now you’re trying to weasel out of what you said by claiming that you’re comparing liberals’ **behavior** to conservatives’ **feelings** : in other words, you’d now like to have us believe that you mean that liberals are behaving badly and conservatives aren’t. Nice try, but too bad your own words contradict you. Good night. ---
**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:** [January 24, 2009, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/128 "2009-01-24T09:27:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You said that they “exude” anger, contempt and disgust. Yeah, you’re right; I did. But I didn’t expect your interpretation. > [@Kimstu](#): > > What, in your opinion, is the significant difference between spewing and exuding? A person can go around puffed and disgusted because he doesn’t like the way things are going, but that’s a far cry from “spewing” hatred at the source of that enmity. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Good night. Good night. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/129 "2009-01-24T09:34:42Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > I was waiting for that. Then I submit that environmentalism would be a \*conservative \* philosophy. 😃 In the sense of conservation, certainly. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/130 "2009-01-24T12:11:14Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I didn’t say conservatives go around “spewing” anger, contempt and disgust. I’m saying that they are the emotions that liberalism engenders in us, and largely as a result of the type of behavior I’ve been describing in this thread. So conservatives wouldn’t be ignorant assholes if liberals didn’t make them do it? That’s some self-control you guys have. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/131 "2009-01-24T13:47:02Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > No, I really and truly do not see anywhere near the same condemnation of liberals coming from the right (and when I talk about this kind of thing, I’m talking about the population as a whole and not TV and radio personalities and politicians) as I do coming from the left and aimed at the right. I’m not aware of any particular conservatives who deride liberals as being dumb, mouth-breathing knuckkle-draggers, backward and old-fashioned, etc., etc., etc. Then I would have to say that you either hang around with a very tiny group of extraordinarily reticent conservatives or you are not listening to what conservatives across the country are actually saying. I hear all sorts of insults hurled at liberals from conservatives all the time. Even on this board, before Bush’s Iraq folly encouraged most of them to leave, I have seen conservatives accuse liberals (and centrists) of treason, of desiring the destruction of Western civilization, called stupid and hateful. I have worked with conservatives in jobs ranging from business executives to (literally) ditch diggers and I have heard every possible epithet hurled at “liberals”–and when I have stumbkled across conservative preachers on the radio, I have heard liberals described as the “spawn of Satan” and everything just short of that remark. My guess would be that your particular filters–like the ones that let you claim that 99.9% of the U.S. population of the 1950s had never witnessed or heard of a lynching in their lifetime–simply screen out any nastiness emanating from conservatives so that you can feel superior to liberals. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > [Quote=tomndebb] > It is amusing, of course, to see someone who claims that every evil that occurs in this country is the result of the actions of one group also claims that that group is guilty of a feeling of superiority. Now see, this is the kind of thing I have to fight around here all the time. I NEVER SAID “EVERY EVIL” THAT OCCURS IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE RESULT OF LIBERAL ACTION! Mmkay, is that plain enough? [/quote] Really? Seems like a distinction without a difference to me: > [@Posters you can't stand. Pit rules f\*\*\*ing apply!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posters-you-cant-stand-pit-rules-f-ing-apply/478003/226): > > > [@Posters you can't stand. Pit rules f\*\*\*ing apply!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posters-you-cant-stand-pit-rules-f-ing-apply/478003/224): > > > > Do you really think it’s polite to state, repeatedly, that everything that has gone wrong with America in the last 50 years is the fault of liberals? > > It’s neither rude nor impolite; it’s a simple statement of fact. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I have said several times around here in the past that there are some areas in which liberalism has been correct. There have been other areas where I think liberals had good ideas but went off the rails in implementing them. And I have _never_ blamed all the evils in this country on liberals or liberalism. What I have done is point to areas where I think liberalism has caused a lot of damage (mostly in terms of societal quality of life) and I’ve criticised it for that. I suspect that you should take a deep breath and remember what you have posted previously–or, better, stop making your broad brush claims that are historically inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Claptree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Claptree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claptree)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/132 "2009-01-24T16:15:07Z")
Now now, **tom** , you’re making his point for him, by resorting to just the sort of gotcha, actually researched, posting we’ve come to expect and loathe from the liberal elite of this board. You should be ashamed, sir. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/133 "2009-01-24T16:35:50Z")
OK.but can we keep the part about how the dirty fucking hippies destroyed the Ozzie 'n Harriet world of the 50’s? I know its not really true, but its so \*damn \*flattering! (You know, Ozzie was an atheist. That’s a true fact, you could look it up…) ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/134 "2009-01-24T16:42:46Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > If it makes you feel better to call newsweek liberal, then by all means be my guest. I know how it feels, since I’ve been screeching about conservatives on the radio since forever. Talk radio has always admitted they’re “biased” toward the right. It’s no surprise…you know what you’re getting ahead of time when you tune in. This has not been the case with most of the newspapers and magazine. Oh noes…they’re fair and balanced! :rolleyes: In 2005, the New York Times [chided Bush](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/01/16/nyts-inauguration-hypocrisy-bush-chided-2005-obama-free-party) for the $40 million price tag on the inauguration. Do we hear any such tsk-tsking because of the $120 million Obama spent? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/135 "2009-01-24T16:46:27Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > No, I really and truly do not see anywhere near the same condemnation of liberals coming from the right (and when I talk about this kind of thing, I’m talking about the population as a whole and not TV and radio personalities and politicians) as I do coming from the left and aimed at the right. I’m not aware of any particular conservatives who deride liberals as being dumb, mouth-breathing knuckkle-draggers, backward and old-fashioned, etc., etc., etc. You excluded talking head types, but it seems to me if you take a look at the talking heads’ rhetoric you get a good idea what kind of ideas their listeners and readers approve of. Look in the “current events” section of a bookstore and you have another good idea as to what kind of rhetoric conservative and liberal readers enjoy reading. And the over the top derision is definitely to be found more on the “conservative” side of the talking head/political writer divide than on the “liberal” side. Given the fact that you wanted to exclude these sources, it appears you are aware of this fact. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/136 "2009-01-24T17:09:17Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The same could be said about the people who opposed black rights in the 50’s and 60’s. Or women’s rights at the turn of the century. Or immigrants rights the century before that. So what? No one wants to think of themselves as an asshole. That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as an asshole. It just means that there are a whole lot of people who are capable of going through all sorts of impressive mental gymnastics to justify their bigotries. And conservatives always want these groups to just wait, not impose their desire for equal rights on society until society is “ready.” “Why do you have to be so strident about it? It’s _our_ society and we like it the way it is. You’re imposing yourself on us by wanting equal rights. Back off, you’re being so rude! We’ll give you your rights when we’re good and ready. In the meantime, too bad. And if you dare call us bigots, we’ll get the vapors and use that to justify continued denial of your rights.” And Starving Artist repeats this line to gays, not realizing that it shows him for what he is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/137 "2009-01-24T17:12:15Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > Talk radio has always admitted they’re “biased” toward the right. It’s no surprise…you know what you’re getting ahead of time when you tune in. > > This has not been the case with most of the newspapers and magazine. Oh noes…they’re fair and balanced! :rolleyes: > > In 2005, the New York Times [chided Bush](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/01/16/nyts-inauguration-hypocrisy-bush-chided-2005-obama-free-party) for the $40 million price tag on the inauguration. Do we hear any such tsk-tsking because of the $120 million Obama spent? Well, about that… The dirty fucking hippies over at [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) have a somewhat different take on that than the splendid fellows over at NewsBusters. [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did\_barack\_obamas\_inauguration\_really\_cost\_4.html](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html) > [@](#): > > …They’re wrong. They’ve misinterpreted mainstream news accounts from the Associated Press, ABC News and the New York Times, among others. The AP and ABC News both report that Obama’s inauguration could cost between $160 and $170 million, while Bush raised a net total of $42.3 million to cover the costs of his inauguration, according the New York Times and others, based on the report Bush’s committee filed with the Federal Election Commission a few months after the event. But those aren’t direct comparisons; the Obama estimates include the cost of security, while the figure for Bush’s inauguration does not… But, what the heck! Let’s give you that one! On the list of terrible, no good, awful things GeeDub has done, in order of importance, #1,235 Spent Too Much on His Inaugaration is hereby rescinded! (You’re all better now, so I can pick on you without feeling like I’m drop-kicking a puppy for a field goal.) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/138 "2009-01-24T17:16:34Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > In 2005, the New York Times [chided Bush](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/01/16/nyts-inauguration-hypocrisy-bush-chided-2005-obama-free-party) for the $40 million price tag on the inauguration. Do we hear any such tsk-tsking because of the $120 million Obama spent? 😕 Your link projects the price tag for the Obama inauguration as $45M, not $120M. Whence the discrepancy? NYT, ISTM was being silly in 2005. It’s not as though it was taxpayer dollars being spent. And AFAIAC, forty million dollars that was being spent on throwing the Chimp-in-Chief a party is forty million dollars that WASN’T being spent on carrying out his evil. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/139 "2009-01-24T17:31:25Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > This has not been the case with most of the newspapers and magazine. Oh noes…they’re **fair and balanced!** :rolleyes: Ha! That’s the slogan for the _right leaning_ news network Fox News! Hilarious. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/140 "2009-01-24T17:35:35Z")
Okay. Okay. I can’t believe I’m still repeating this after years and years of discussing these issues. But okay. Apparently it needs to be repeated again. There is a _difference_ between _the news_ on the one hand and _editorials_ on the other hand. No one has claimed–much less have the editors themselves claimed–that editorial articles are in some way “fair” or “balanced” or “unbiased.” They are “biased” _by definition_. This is something everyone knows. You _can not_ link to an editorial article as a citation for a claim that a newspaper’s _news reporting_ is biased or unfair or whatever. It would take an examination of the _news articles themselves_ to make such a judgment. If a newspaper’s editorial bias makes you _suspect_ that its news reporting might be biased, that’s fair enough. But that’s all that’s warranted–a _suspicion_. Anything more than that requires a lot more work. -FrL- [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421.md?page=8)