Today, after clicking on hyperlink #1,424,329 from can't-remember-where, I found myself on an amusing little site called "Media Whores Online", which I was able to take seriously for about ten seconds.
I was still in "trusting" mode when I read this (emphasis mine):
Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the vast myriad of whores who call themselves "journalists."
Followed by this:
... while visiting Martin Luther King's grave for a photo op on the way to a $2000-a-plate fundraiser, the Unelected Fraud ...
Obviously we're dealing with a rather new and interesting definition of the word "unbiased"!
No wonder this blog sports a link to an essay on "The Myth of the Liberal Media"! Given that "Unelected Fraud" is the "unbiased" term we should currently use for the commander-in-chief, its easy to see how those "journalists" are selling out by referring to him as "President Bush" or some other similarly sychophantic monicker.
Whores indeed! :-)
I'm not sure if this is a case of amazing pretension, going off one's meds, or if it's actually an eleborate hoax by conservatives. Though I doubt the latter: The radical left has largely become self-parodying.
Speaking of self-parody, the linked essay proving the liberal media "myth" is a scream! Well worth a read!
BartCop's main arguments seem to be:
(A) Since a number of pundits attacked "Clinton and his cock" (for no reason, surely), none of them would ever criticize of President Bush -- and, indeed, each would devote their entire air tie to defend W. against any attack!
(B) Because some conservative pundits can be found on TV (mainly Fox News) talk radio, and some write books, there can be no bias in news reporting.
BartCop focuses on a few conservative pundits (a couple dozen, max, in all kinds of media he is able to name) and forgets that about 91% of big-media journalists themselves admit to being liberals. Which means less than 9% are conservatives or centrists. Naming "John Stossel" doesn't make this inconvenient elephant leave the room.
In addition, he counts obvious liberals like Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, George Stephanopoulus, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Mara Liason, and Chris Matthews as though they were conservative voices. (Presumbly, no "real" liberal would ever criticize Bill Clinton. Guess Al Gore must also be a conservative "whore" for the same reason.)
Yes, my friends, these are the "fevered swamps" of which Lileks often speaks.
BartCop asked why nobody protected Clinton when he was attacked. Well, my friend, "He didn't do it" wasn't exactly going to fly, and most people are a little skittish about defending serial sexual offenders.
He's got one point though: He alleges there aren't many "liberal voices" on TV -- by which I think he means people offering their direct, honest opinions as liberals pundits rather than by distorting news coverage.
Here's why, boy: Ratings
People realized a lot of the leftish stuff went out with the USSR, and you're not going to get a lot of respect if you go on the air and admit you believe, for example, that making the government bigger is the solution to all life's problems. Far more palatable to get your idea across through dishonest or distorted reporting.
Conservatives show media bias by documenting copius actual incidents of such and citing overwhelming liberal responses to polls among journalists; Liberals argue media bias by merely hypothesizing all "capitalist businesses" must have a "conservative" bias (ah, Marxism lives on), or by defining "a conservative bias" as "the existence of any conservative voices", or reporting any bad news, ever, about a liberal.
Other Tim,
Wow! What a clever and original idea, suggesting the right is self-parodying. Did you think of that all by yourself, or did you have to actually read the article above?
And a sad non-thanks for the non-parody of "librul" ignorance and closed-mindedness.
Oh, and about the "insane" "91%" figure:
A Freedom Forum poll conducted a survey of 139 Washington, D.C., reporters and bureau chiefs. In 1992, 89 percent of these journalists voted for Bill Clinton vs. 43 percent of the nation's voters. Only 7 percent voted for George Bush. Ninety-one percent call themselves either liberal or moderate, with only 2 percent as self-described "conservatives," and, only 4 percent are registered Republicans.
You're welcomed to introduce any evidence to the contrary, showing there isn't a liberal bias among news reporters.
Oh, wait, you don't really deal in that "evidence" stuff, do you? Oh well, hope mockery works out better as a guide to truth.
Hope you change someday, and open your mind a tad, friend.
"People realized a lot of the leftish stuff went out with the USSR, and you're not going to get a lot of respect if you go on the air and admit you believe, for example, that making the government bigger is the solution to all life's problems. Far more palatable to get your idea across through dishonest or distorted reporting."
well allmost. unfortunately there are still a lot of communists out there and they have wrapped themselves in the banner of the peace movement, (even though socialism in its various forms has been responsible for the extermination of more innocent lives from the planet then anything else you can name exept natural death by old age.)
and the environmental movement, again socialism being responsible for most of the polution on this planet.
so they have hidden thier real agendas under different banners
Posted by: rumcrook on January 17, 2004 10:37 PM