Re: balance, I’ve found it interesting that the mainstream media tries to provide balance when there isn’t any. That is, it overdoes it.
For example, in some cases involving SOCAS, the religious viewpoint will go something like “this country was founded as a Christian nation under God”. In the name of balance, reporters let that sort of thing go unchallenged. Though, it can be argued that all they are doing is allowing the opposing parties to go at each other.
But, is that what the media ought to be? just a podium?
I have reread and still don’t get the argument that you say. But I think you may miss my point, liberal has changed, and it is the ‘new’ liberal that is now taken as liberal. I think libertarians are the ‘old’ liberals. But liberal means something far different.
I agree with this point - the cult of balance means the media seem to feel they can’t apply any critical thought. One particular place I’ve noticed it is during the occasional pushes by states to halt the teaching of evolution in their biology classes. The reporter will say something like, “Many scientists feel that this is not in the interests of students’ education” - or some other similarly weak statement. Thus leaving the impression that there is some doubt on the issue.
It seems like the days of the media as active organizations rooting out truth are long gone. You know, when they would investigate and bring to light government malfeasance.
What exactly is the hypocrisy you’re referring to?
To answer your question about timing, I also think it began around the time of Jimmy Carter. Stagflation and the humiliation at the hands of the Iranians probably had something to do with it. Then Reagan gets elected, lowers taxes, the economy takes off… Also, since this board is about polls I’ll mention that I converted during those years. In 1976 I voted for Carter. In 1980 I voted Libertarian.
I think that around that time a lot of people who believed in leftist ideas saw that they just weren’t working. Their values never changed, but their beliefs about how to accomplish them did.
I recently read that 19% of Americans identify themselves as liberals and 41% identify as conservatives. So you don’t even hear liberal politicians use the “L” word anymore. I saw one of the Democratic presidential candidates being challenged by a conservative journalist during the primaries, and the Dem just wouldn’t say he was a liberal. The interviewer kept asking him directly things like: “Are you a liberal?” and he would say things like “I reject labels” or “I’m a pragmatist.”
In conservative circles one of the lines you hear a lot is “They can’t debate us on the issues because they know they’ll lose, that’s why they always resort to personal attacks.”
Oh, I forgot to mention…I don’t consider it a slur. I was a liberal for many years. I think it just refers to one group of people who disagree with me.
That you have two ideological sides but one can insult the other merely by mentioning the other’s name. It doesn’t work the other way round. The hypocrisy is that the side doing the insulting is just like the other side, a side.
(how is that for an explanation?)
“They” = “liberals”? The OP provides an example of conservatives doing it. Self-avowed conservatives like Rush, Hannity, Ann Coulter do it all the time. It’s on both sides. It’s all about power, control and whoring.
Thanks for the information about media balance but my previous post about a balanced news organization making BOTH sides complain was more a joke than anything else.
I rarely watch televised news anymore. Using the nest I can get an enormous spread of reporting on any given incident. If I wish to take the time to inform myself the information is available. For MENA things I read Al-Jazeera as often as I do the New York Times.
I personally think it is almost imossible for a reporter to avoid “spinning” a story if he has any political convictions at all. Simple synonym choices will do the job.
I fondly remember a (late 80s?) Saturday Night Live skit called “Run, Liberal, Run” which had the title character on the run from the powers that be. He’s hiding out with some farm family who don’t know that he’s one of “them” and he’s chatting with the farmer’s daughter while his stuff is lying around.
“What’s this?” she asks as she picks up one of his belongings.
This is why “liberals” have passed laws, like campaign finance reform, that impinges on freedom of speech? And like the “assault weapons” ban that infringes upon second amendment rights? because "Liberalism champions the rights of individuals to be free from the tyanny of oppressive government. "?
Right.
Hey, I got a neat Edsel I can sell you, cheap, a real collector’s item…
And then I got some Florida land, great for development, Everglade Acres!
My experience is that “conservative” was a dirty word in the 70s. It conjured up images of fusty old men trying to preserve the status quo and their own wealth and power. And they were willing to draft you and send you off to war to do it.
“Liberal” was generally a compliment, implying a generosity of spirit and a love of freedom.
Back then, if you wanted to try to slur a liberal, you had to add modifiers. “Bleeding heart liberal” was the usual construction. (Still had the connotation of a generous spirit, but it implied a generosity of spirit that was excessive to the point of naivete.) “Commie pinko liberal” was used to try to tie your opponent to the pre-demonized Soviet Union.
On the other hand, if you wanted to slur a conservative back in the day, all you had to do was call him “conservative,” and your mission was accomplished. Everyone knew what you meant. Fustiness, stodginess and greed were implied by the word itself.
The turnaround began with Reagan, and accelerated with Newt Gingrich and his list of powerful words. Gingrich consciously set out to turn “liberal” into a slur, and you have to give him credit: he and his disciples did just that.
So now we have a complete turnaround from the 70s. If you want to slur a liberal, all you have to do is call him “liberal.” If you want to slur a conservative, you’ll have to add some qualifiers, say, “right-wing conservative” or “religious conservative.”
Anyway, that’s my perception of how things have gone. Maybe the Democrats need a Gingrich of their own.
In some contexts, such as referring to Kerry/Edwards, “liberal” may simply mean “far to the ideological left” and therefore out of the mainstream…like so
Still, the word “conservative” certainly was used as a pejorative before. It makes sense when you consider the context; many radio talk shows are preaching to the conservative (or liberal, on NPR ) choir, and for their audience, the word “liberal” is derogatory. Ditto for “conservative”
If you think Kerry is “far to the ideological left,” i have two questions for you:
What are you smoking? And where can i get some?
Just because one millionaire in the Senate is a little more liberal than all the other millionaires in the Senate does not make that person an ideological leftist.
Your own linked article says:
The key part here is “relative to each other.” The means that, if the Senate were composed of 100 Republicans, there would still be some Senator who ranked as the “most liberal member” of the Senate. Still wouldn’t make that Republican a leftist.
I should add that “conservative” was such a slur in the 70s that Republicans scrambled to get away from it. As noted by a previous poster, Republicans usually referred to themselves as “moderates” (as many Democrats do today).
We even had proud “liberal Republicans” like Rockefeller. Those were the days.
) choir, and for their audience, the word “liberal” is derogatory. Ditto for “conservative”