The Need for a Liberal Voice
Media Bias
| October 7, 2003
| Tim
Last night, I was watching Charlie Rose (a well-known liberal talk show host) interview George Clooney (a powerful, outspoken liberal who appears in television shows and movies, and many talk shows, and is active in politics).
Uninterested, I changed the channel, and saw Jay Leno (a liberal who controls an hour of television each night) interviewing Al Franken (a powerful outspoken liberal TV writer, TV star, movie star, frequent talk show guest, and best-selling author) and Katie Couric (one of the most powerful and best-paid women in television, a liberal who controls several hours of very-slanted prime network television each weekday morning, with her liberal associate, Matt Lauer) about the desparate need for a liberal voice on radio. Besides NPR and the BBC, and most the music-producing community, that is.
What planet are these people from?
(When Leno asked if the media wasn't already fairly liberally biased, Franken remarked that the most news outlets covered the Lewinsky scandal. So a liberal news organization is one which would bury all unflattering news? Guess that's so, on Planet Franken.)
Interesting that anyone, but especially this group, would lobby for a particular viewpoint to be promoted.
Shouldn't the "journalists" in that group be arguing for "balanced" reporting, rather than a liberal viewpoint (or any other viewpoint for that matter)?
And isn't it a little arrogant to tell the listening/viewing/reading public what they need to listen to/view/read? I thought the idea of democracy was to let "the people" decide for themselves.
Remember when Democrats were still democrats?
JAY LENO IS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN DOLT...I GUESS YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE GOVERNORS RACE...SO ARE TWO OTHERS YOU MENTIONED PIN HEAD!
David: It's certainly true that Leno will joke about, or be seen with people all over the political spectrum. But what gives you the impression he's a Republican? Show me and I'll gladly retract my assertion he's a liberal, which is my strong impression.
As far as the "two others" I mentioned -- what are you talking about? Naming names might help.
Instead of evidence, we get ALL CAPS and name-calling. Great way to make 'your side' look intelligent.
And remeber when Republicans actually believed in freedom? If the Republican party machine really believes that people can make up their own minds, then why the reliance on hate-filled, obfuscatory, misleading, loud-mouthed, pseudo-intellectual, reactionary punditry spewed by the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly in a vain effort to teach the TV-watching sheep what to think?
If the media really is liberal, why do these men even have jobs? One would think the mythical liberal stormtroopers would have rooted them out by now. The answer is simple, of course. The US media isn't remotely liberal. One merely had to watch a bit of news coverage from Europe during the so-called 'war' to realize that. I was in Italy at the time. The disparity between the information available there compared to here was astonishing.
TJ,
Let me get this straight: You reference two conservative voices, Limbaugh and O'Reilly, and claim because they even exist that ... I'm trying to follow you here, man ... that the "Republican Party" doesn't "believe in freedom"?
How does that prevent the "sheep" from making up their own minds? What, people can't change channels? Do Republican exude some sort of mind-control rays which force people to tune into these two commentators?
Or can we follow the logic and say that the "Democratic" party doesn't believe in freedom because of "hate-spewing" representatives like James Carville, Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc, etc.?
I think the argument is equally wrong both ways, but hey, it's your argument, not mine.
Further, you imply one could never argue media, as a whole, had a "liberal spin" as long as even one conservative commentator was employed somewhere?
Interesting that you allege liberals would never allow a conservative to remain employed. Fascinating case you're building for liberal intolerance... it's a good thing most my liberal friends are more broad-minded than you seem.
Last, you're quite right about the differences between Iraq reporting here and in Europe. I kept tabs on both sources during the war too.
I also know that BBC correspondants complained their reports were being distorted and misrepresented, and there's a huge scandal about Andrew Gilligan from the BBC lying about his sources. But I'm sure you're up to speed on all that already.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Exposing Secret Anglican Plans |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Dirty Tricks Thursday: More Election Bias as the L.A. Times »
|
Interesting that anyone, but especially this group, would lobby for a particular viewpoint to be promoted.
Shouldn't the "journalists" in that group be arguing for "balanced" reporting, rather than a liberal viewpoint (or any other viewpoint for that matter)?
And isn't it a little arrogant to tell the listening/viewing/reading public what they need to listen to/view/read? I thought the idea of democracy was to let "the people" decide for themselves.
Remember when Democrats were still democrats?
Posted by: Steve on October 7, 2003 01:34 PM