Liberal Media at their best...
"We heard from many people that the news is just too depressing, now obviously we can't sugarcoat what's going on in the world, But there are cases where I believe we can be a little more solution-oriented..."- Katie Couric talking to Television Critics Association's Press Tour.
I read this statement by Couric and the first thought that came to mind was...well, DUH! Too depressing, eh? It's not because of all that is going on such as the War in Iraq, Continous threats of Terrorism, the Price of Gasoline, the Price of Oil per barrels, etc. What makes it so depressing is that the majority of our major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times to name a few) are all LIBERAL outlets.
Couric says that they cannot "sugarcoat" what is happening in the world, but Dan Rather is proof that this so-called "sugarcoating" does happen. Case in point- his breaking story involving George "W" Bush and his time spent in the Texas National Guard.
Liberals have for a long time and will for many years on put a "Leftist" spin on the news.
*Flashback...Immediately following 9/11 the "Left" of our society supported our President and was extremely vocal in doing so. However, as time went by so did the support given to our Commander in Chief. This in my opinion is based on what they call, "Rallying around the Flag".
*Back to Reality...Now we have Liberals who are calling for the Impeachment of "W". These same Liberals are those who overlooked the actions of William Jefferson Clinton. Why you ask? Because he was one of them. I mean, Monica Lewinsky was earning her "Presidential Kneepads" while "Slick Willie" was on the phone concerning whether or not to go to War. Then to make it even worse, he not only lied under oath to God, but to his Wife, to his Nation, and to the World. Clinton will not be remembered for what he did, but for WHO he did.
Libs have what I call "selective memory". In case you are wondering, Selective Memory or "SM" occurs when an individual or individuals select what memories they want to possess. Case in point- the comparison of "W" and Slick Willie.
How these Liberal Media outlets are going to be more "solution-oriented", your guess is as good as mine. Who knows, John Kerry's plan may have had the solution, however, since he never told us what this plan was, we will never know.
posted by Diego @ 7:55 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
It's the media, what do you expect. They will change things for a little while, but then will revert back to their old ways and tactics. Besides, as long as a Republican is in office, there will always be distorted news from the major news outlets that you mentioned.
I agree with you, they (news outlets) gave us a biased opinion of Clinton. They do the same to Bush but only in a more negative aspect.
They are more right than the other 4 you mentioned, you agree? All give biased opinions yes, yet Fox is more reliable.
I personally like reading what Matt Drudge has on his website at www.drudgereport.com.
I agree with you Rodney, it is sad to say it but Fox News is starting to become that same way, too many people with the (as you said) "going to change the world" mentality.
Excellent post and I hope we can look forward to your consistency on this blogging site!
July 14th you write:
"We want facts, all truth...leave feelings and beliefs for other blogging sites."
Seems to me that the content of your site is not particularly grounded in facts. More reliant on sweeping generalizations and unsupported assertions. It is you who ought to feel humiliated.
cue the fireworks...
Greg,
You're exactly Right (I mean Left). The media outlets being mentioned in the main post are not that of the Liberal Media. I along with many other Great Conservatives dreamed that one up.
You're right, the "Left" of society never supported Bush. What about Kerry? First he was for the war and then against?
Once again, Clinton will be remembered not for what he did but for WHO he did.
You're right, Monica did not earn her presidential kneepads while he was on the phone debating on whether or not to go to war.
How are Liberal Media outlets going to be more "solution-oriented" when they have a biased towards the Conservative Nation?
What exactly was Kerry's Plan...he never got around to really telling us this...
Are these really "sweeping generalizations" or are you another one that overlooks the MANY faults of the Liberal/Democratic party?
I'd hold off on the fireworks, they can be dangerous when used around people like you.
Oh come now. You can't actually believe you've made any sort of argument here.
you write: "The media outlets being mentioned in the main post are not that of the Liberal Media. I along with many other Great Conservatives dreamed that one up."
Nowhere in anything you've written here, is there an argument that the newsmedia IS indeed liberal. If you are going to insist on facts then you should offer some yourself.
I considered going over the rest of your post and explaining why it's total rubbish, but the bare fact is that there is not argument to reply to.
Obfuscate, stick to the same old talking points and whatever you do, don't dare concede a point. These are the tactics the lowest levels of your side rely on, and it is clear you are no stranger to them.
Try harder next time. You might just get a free education in logic and rhetoric before too long.
Hello...McFly...
"What makes it so depressing is that the majority of our major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times to name a few) are all LIBERAL outlets."
This was taken off the first blog on this topic, paragraph 1 following Couric's dumbass quote.
There you have it my Liberal friend, there's the start of your argument that "did not take place".
I would like for you to explain to me how those Media Outlets are not Liberal, when even the outlets themself, will openly admit to leaning more towards the Left. Do a google search on it, I think you might be surprised. How often is Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean on Fox News...and how often are they on CNN, MSNBC? They go where they're wanted...and it's not on Conservative News Television.
Try harder next time, you might just start to make sense.
You poor under-educated American. You wouldn't know 'news' and debate if it hit you in the face.
Fox news? Ha ha....News for idiots. ALL media in the US is dumbed down for this dumb nation of ours.
I hope you grow up some day and form some opinions that do not reek of under-educated, poorly-articulated right wing militia poo.
"I hope you grow up some day and form some opinions that do not reek of under-educated, poorly-articulated right wing militia poo." ...
LOL...your post about under-educated...read your post again...it epitomizes what "true under-educated, poorly articulated" people sound like.
Deep breath….and begin
“"What makes it so depressing is that the majority of our major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times to name a few) are all LIBERAL outlets."… There you have it my Liberal friend, there's the start of your argument that "did not take place".”
As promised, please enjoy this short lesson on introductory argumentative logic. Eyes to the front:
An argument, in its most basic style, can be expressed in the form ‘X because Y’. What you write amounts to nothing more than ‘X!’ or ‘All X are Y’. Do you see the difference? What you write are best described as statements or assertions, though I prefer ‘sweeping generalizations’ as a descriptor for you these rhetorical nightmares.
“I would like for you to explain to me how those Media Outlets are not Liberal, when even the outlets themself, will openly admit to leaning more towards the Left. Do a google search on it, I think you might be surprised.”
Again with the rhetorical nonsense. I don’t owe you an explanation on the nature of media outlets because you have yet to make an argument regarding them. This is just laziness on your part. So I refuse to do your research for you. In review: making a statement and challenging someone to disprove it, lest you declare victory, is not an argument. Not one that should be taken seriously, at least.
CrankyRight, first I’d like to say thank you for elevating this above the level of Diego’s “this is how it is”. That said, I don’t understand what you’re hoping to gain from digs like the newspaper comment, aside from animosity.
From the first Op.Ed piece (which is laughable, by the way) you cite:
“They [the New York Times] may well be disappointed if we don't reach the 3,000th American death, since the terrorists have shifted their attacks and now target primarily Iraqi civilians.”
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
As page 27 in the report shows, the vast majority of attacks by the insurgency are directed at coalition forces. The idea that the insurgency is responsible for the majority of the civilian deaths in Iraq, instead of the coalition forces, or the government backed militias that operate in the country, is in no way true. I find the inordinate amount of fretting by pro-war types about the civilian casualties caused by the insurgency versus the time spent on the much larger numbers caused by the people their fighting to be telling.
So you see, your ‘evidence’ is called into question, but I digress…
“But the same networks that lavished 3 1/2 hours of coverage on these unproven charges gave less than one hour of coverage to all the American troops who have won medals for bravery under fire.”
HA! And you think it follows from this that the media carries a liberal bias? Gosh man, did it never occur to you or your compatriot from Baltimore that a story on an investigation into USMC personnel massacring civilians is simply a more interesting story? Sure, cover medal ceremonies, vaunt the accomplishments of troops in the combat zone, but is not doing so in equal amounts somehow liberal in character? Seems to me that such a decision is more likely made with an eye to Neilson ratings and the bottom line.
Your second Op.Ed piece:
I don’t have a great deal to say about this, save that it’s a gross mischaracterization of the way things are. The economy has recovered somewhat, I don’t dispute that. What this guy conviently glosses over, and the reason many (sensible) economists worry for the future, is that recovery has been markedly slower than following past recessions. If you checked a more reliable publication, perhaps you would be familiar with the relevant economic indicators. For starters check out the economist: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5385434
Finally, and this is going on longer than I’d planned, regarding media personalities:
I worry that your depth perception is a little off. Do you really think there are only 2 positions on any important issue? liberal and conservative? Perhaps I shouldn’t be so hard on you…is there some condition I should know about that limits your ability to simultaneously grasp more than two absolutely contrary positions?
You are wrong, on every point addressed above and many others I don’t have the patience to get to. Worse than wrong though, you are boring…simply not good enough at this to maintain my interest. I think I’ll go off in search of someone in my own league.
Greg,
You must be mistaken about this blog. There has not been nor will there be any attempt at political correctness. My views are slanted but you know what, I do not have to worry about what I say, because this is how I feel.
You epitomize the true Liberal because your blogs are based on a firm foundation of pure emotion and feelings. From your writings, it seems you think the U.S. government made America great, however, my friend, it is our Freedom that makes America great.
As for your "argument" which is weak because guess what...WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. You are a whack, plain and simple.
I love how you think you've "won" the argument but in all reality you've just further iterated on what you "think" and how you "feel".
You say we're wrong on every point, but once again, this is based on HOW YOU FEEL. I don't think the blog is boring at all, reading your posts just proves Neil Boortz is RIGHT about "The Terible Truth about Liberals".
Post a Comment
<< Home