|
BT
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
168 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2006 : 12:38:30 PM
|
I'm not going to respond point by point because frankly, this board has alway been one of the more balanced places I have seen politics argued, and I don't want to get into a typical Conservatives suck/Liberals suck argument. Many of your points seem to reflect your opinion on what Liberals think or stand for, and obviously I'm not going to change you mind on those. I do want to address a couple of points though.
quote:
I see where you think things stand, if that is what you mean. The very fact that you can name the exceptions to the rule rather than the norm only points out how glaringly one-sided the national media is in all of it's incarnations EXCEPT talk radio.
I think you are looking at this backwards. The exception to the rule is Keith Olbermann. Period. Can you name another show, on ANY of these networks, that is undeniably run by a liberal? Before Olberman you had Donohue. That's pretty much it. I could be forgetting someone, and I know Jack Cafferty gets a couple of minutes with Wolf Blitzer, but virtually every other show that has debuted has a conservative slant. There are the ones I mentioned, plus the bygone days of Dennis Miller and I think even the dregs of society like Michael Savage. And these are all non Fox shows. Furthermore it makes very little difference to my argument whether or not these guys are being hired for balance, for ratings, for populism or for whatever reason you can think of. My point is that they are being hired. Not liberals. Conservatives. Which would seem counterintuitive to arguments of liberal bias.
quote:
It's a war on Terror, not a war on the "9/11 Hijackers" or any one terrorist entity. That is a myopic and dangerous way to think about what is going on in the world.
Well, I'd certainly like to think my view of the world is neither myopic nor dangerous, but where has ANYONE ever said we are in a war on the 9/11 hijackers?
quote:
Calling this a war on al Qaeda is as ridiculous as FDR demanding Japan turn over the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor so they can face trial in the United States.
Again, when has anyone ever called this a "war on al-qaeda" or even hinted that it should be limited as such? My argument was that Bush and Co. SPECIFICALLY pointed out ties between AQ and Iraq in trying to justify the war. They also (one would assume purposefully) continued to mention Iraq and AQ and 9/11 in the same sentence over and over and over again, so while they may not have specifically said Iraq was involved in 9/11, they would be happy if people drew that conclusion themeselves. It appears, despite our supposedly liberal media's best intentions, to have worked on half the people in this country.
quote:
The links to terrorism was just icing.
That may be true. The Administration sold it as the cake though. And on a personal note, I think our invasion of Iraq had much more to do with the dreams and desires of PNAC, than Iraq's flauting of U.N. resolutions. I believe those too, were icing on the cake.
One last thing. I can see from your points about the homeless and the rain forest that you read Goldberg's "Bias", so my guess is that you are not a huge Dan Rather fan. But do you suppose it's possible that the story Rather ran, with bad sources, wasn't a sign of liberal bias coursing throughout the entire CBS network, but instead the overzealous actions of someone trying to scoop his counterparts? My guess is, and I can't prove this, that if Rather had stumbled on evidence showing Kerry actually didn't deserve his medals, he would have run with it just as quick. Not for partisan reasons, but for ratings, which trump just about everything else in his business. I can point to much of the media's actions during Whitewater as a pretty good yardstick. |
 |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
