I knew all this already, but you seem to want some referencing: (from Wiki)
McCain has received a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82 percent
In the 2000 elections, many thought of Bush as the more conservative candidate and McCain as the more moderate candidate. In fact, according to Voteview.com, McCain’s voting record in the 109th Congress was the second most conservative among senators.
McCain has many traditionally Republican views. He has a strong conservative voting record on pro-life and **free trade ** issues, favors private social security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform. He is generally regarded as a hawk in foreign policy. When a questioner said, “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.” McCain responded, “Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.”
(me again) I agree strongly with the bolded items. I am pro-Surge and not willing to abandon Iraq. I am a war vet. Sure, McCain goes off on a tangent every once in a while (aside from McCain Feingold, I disagree with his position on ANWR and maybe a couple of others). He’s had my vote ever since he declared.
This is false. All the editors care about is if your story is vetted and accurate. Pollitical bias never plays into it. I’m not guessing. I know this. People who think newspaper editors are looking to put a liberal slant on the new are imagining things, and the suggestion that a reporter would not get a story printed because an editor didn’t like the political implications is laughable. The stuff of conservative fantasy.
The middle class looks at big business with suspicion? Cite? I think the middle class is reflexively pro-corporate, capitalistic, hawkish and religionistic. The lower class even more so. Dumbing things down would mean making things things more conservative, not liberal.
No there isn’t. I’m correct about his. The voting tendencies among news reporters are artifacts of being well informed. They don’t fall for bullshit. And there is no “current state of affairs.” There is no liberal bias in hard news. What does exist is a pro-corporate bias.
If the modern breed of conservative reporter, nurtured on Fox News, insists on putting his opinion into factual articles, that would indeed explain it.
I looked at the comments for an ABC News story about why Republicans weren’t thrilled by the candidates, and they certainly agreed with you. You’d think that McCain was the reincarnation of Lenin. There was a bit more support for Romney, but a lot for Paul. Can you convince Paul to run as a third party candidate? Pretty please?
It’s odd. Romney, running in MA and as governor of MA did and said far more liberal things than McCain ever said. McCain’s position on immigration is about the same as that of Bush. Yeah, he did have the nerve to be against the deficit. If McCain veers right to satisfy the conservatives, he’s dead meat. But the conservative movement is already in trouble, based on the lack of appeal for Thompson, and Romney’s meltdown. What new ideas are out there? The conservative principles that have been implemented have been a disaster, and it is politically impossible for pure conservative principles to actually pass. Perhaps McCain is unintentionally rubbing conservatives faces in this fact, and that’s why they hate him?
And where did I say that? Any increase in partiality in other news channels can be attributed to the success of Fox with its slanted coverage. I don’t read the WSJ all that often, but when I do I don’t see any right wing bias in its reporting.
Shouldn’t overlook the nativist streak in talk/hate radio, the ferocious anti-immigration emotion (which sure looks a lot like bigotry to this little black duck…) McCain’s sensible approach to the issue gave them the napalm diarrhea. Worse, what looked like a huge wedge issue piddled out right before their eyes, their ace in the hole was a blank.
Wow. You said something like this upthread and I guess I thought I misread. Didn’t you get the memo that said ridiculing mainstream conservative believers as stupid or ill-informed was to be limited to faculty lounge discussions and big city cocktail parties? Liberals aren’t usual this overtly arrogant in publicly positing a mathematical equivalance between their political preferences and “being well informed,” nor implying that all non-liberal beliefs correspond one-to-one with “bullshit.” You’ve said a lot more about yourself than you may have intended to with those comments.
I have read a book or two, taken a science class or three, and I don’t find either of the propositions that: (a) a fetus is a human being at some point, or something like a human being; or (b) a fetus is not really anything like a human being, to be foolish, false beyond dispute, elementary to anyone who is well informed. If I did reach a conclusion that (a) was more or less likely to be true than (b), then I would likewise have to give serious consideration to how the rights of this person-like entity should (or should not) be privileged over the rights of other actors involved.
So: a pro-life viewpoint is not (pace your breathtakingly self-contented equating of “being informed” with necessarily holding liberal policy preferences) inconsistent with “being informed.” Nor is a pro-choice viewpoint. Doctors, scientists, ethicists, can be found, all “well informed” and not “bullshit”-merchants, who hold each of these respective views.
Find me an editorial board of a major-market newspaper, though, who would ever champion the pro-life viewpoint. Find me the major print or television journalist who belongs to National Right to Life, or has volunteered in a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, or who doesn’t personally support Roe.
Not so easy. So maybe there’s something more at work than “being informed.”
Abortion had nothing to do with what I was talking about. What I meant by reporters being “better informed” was in reference to knowing the actual ins and outs of legislation and policies dealing with issues like health care, education, corporate lobbying, wars, corporate welfare, corporate pollution and a host of other issues completely unrelated to red meat social issues.
Having said that, there aren’t any editorial boards championing the Pro Choice cause out there either. I have no idea how they break down on the abortion issue. Do you have a cite that journalists and editorial boards break down any differently on the abortion issue than the population at large? It certainly doesn’t show up in the news coverage.
Incidentally, Huerta, would you care to offer a theory as to why you think journalists are so liberal? Is it just a coincidence? The ownership and upper management tends to be pretty right wing, so it’s not an environment which engenders left wing activism.
The glaring exception, but that’s a case where the media’s lust for a giant story caused them to shut down their own critical processing. The media craves a big story above all else and there’s no bigger story than a war unless Britney Spears goes to the 7-11.
The 1980s epidemic of “missing children” which turned out to be 95% runaways and custody disputes.
The “everyone’s getting rich with real estate and what could possibly go wrong?” story themes of the past five years (not unrelated to the “mean mortgage banks are engaged in discriminatory ‘redlining’ when they won’t make low-standards loans to dodgy buyers” theme of 10-15 years ago).
The “new ice age” of the mid-'70s.
Choosing to put Britney on the cover of any news publication (or, having so chosen, treating it as newsworthy when she engages in obviously non-newsworthy behavior such as going to 7-11, or obviously contrived and hence irrelevant behavior such as a staged “bisexual” smooch with Madonna).
That was driven by tablid shows not by the news media.
I don’t remember this one. Sounds like the news media did its job getting the facts out, though.
I haven’t seen this stuff in hard news reporting. Editorials maybe. Then again my eyes glaze over at economic news so maybe I missed something. In any case, I really don’t know enough about it to comment on it.
This never really happened. It’s the result of a few sensational magazine stories but there was never any serious reporting that we were getting an ice age. This idea that there was an ice age scare in the 70’s is a recent fabrication by global warming deniers designed to fool morons into thinking that scientists have been wrong before (the ice age crap was never alleged by scientists in the 70’s).
Admittedly stupid, but it’s neither dishonest nor political. I think the suffocation coverage of celebrities is a result of 24 hour cable and the internet feeding niche audiences and needing a constant influx of content.
