Two articles of interest in today's New York Times for those of you who are still on the liberal media kick. They are up Charlie Rangel's ass with a tweaser now and show no sign of letting up. If I were ol'Charlie I would....whine like a baby about how the media are biased. Oh no, wait...that's what the right does all the live long day. Anyhoo, if I were Charles I would find a new place to live and pay what the people he supposedly represents pay (aka his fair share).
Another article discusses Senator Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and presents several voices who (gasp!) disagree with him about troop withdrawal. In fact, the first person interviewed states unequivocally that the US should not leave. Could the Times be towing the Bush line?
Nah, can't be.
Oh, and by the way, why is it the voices on the left are much quieter in their whining about conservative media?
9 comments:
Who says the New York Times is liberal? They are an establishment newspaper that is crusty and old.
and what you do here in a daily basis isn't considered whining by you markadelphia? Thanks for the laugh.
Actually I find mark to be more of a ranter than a whiner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position
Mark, you apparently don't know the definitions of "liberal media" and "conservative media."
"Liberal media" attempt to enlighten the reader, presenting multiple views of an issue to help the reader reach a conclusion of their own. They present the history of the issue and any relevant facts.
"Conservative media" present their conclusion as the gospel, presenting other views only to ridicule them. They ignore embarrassing facts and mis-state history to bias the reader in their favor.
"Media traitors" behave the way the conservative media do, but espouse some other stance.
Since the Times is reporting the embarrassing facts, it is liberal. Yeah, even when it's printing embarrassing facts about liberals.
It's interesting how the term "liberal" is bad-mouthed by conservatives so frequently, save one context: "liberal democracy." It's what Bush wants so badly in Iraq. I wish we could have it here.
Oh. And it's "toe the line."
I couldn't agree more, blk!
I asked this question in another thread and got no response from anyone.
...genuinely curious to know why those conservatives have recently been hired by newspapers...any guesses from anyone on here? Does their recent hiring coincide at all with the slumping sales of newspapers over the past several years?
blk, did you read that above link? It's from the public editor himself. Multiple views? Not according to him.
Democracy here? We're a Constitutional Republic.
I think the reason why conservatives are being hired again proves my point: sales. Why appeal to one group when you can appeal to all? And sell more shit? The media is not liberal..why would they be and alienate millions of consumers?
"Why appeal to one group when you can appeal to all?"
So they "didn't" appeal to all before? Very telling.
Post a Comment